Talk Show Host

On 12/12/2022 at 09:46, Broker said:

Oh shit guys, I’m the one who pointed out the poor sentence structure, the childish tribalism and I’ve bought 3 £70 games this year. It’s all my fault! 

 

Oh yeah I bet Sony are really freaking out about their current pricing strategy

 

https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/god-of-war-ragnarok-sales-break-franchise-launch-record-in-the-uk/

 

 

Why do you keep mentioning remakes? You’re developing the same amount of assets as a new game. 

 

Isn’t there a danger in the opposite direction as well? Netflix aren’t cutting into the profits they used to make from DVD sales to fund their subscription. And there’s surely a danger that the subscription model makes it easier to leave compared to the sink cost of full purchases? 

Sony is not freaking out but Game Pass is way more flexible as a main strategy imo. But of course it has to offer important first party games, something that Sony is unable to do from day one. Not that direct comparison matters anyway if both of them are successful, which is what we all want I guess.

As for why I am mentioning remakes, that is to show that their reason for raising the prices is not about development costs, because remakes do not cost the same to develop as new games. Which you clearly disagree because you are on those. 😅

4 minutes ago, Stanley said:

What do you mean? 

I mean that I confused myself due to drunkenness. 

15 minutes ago, Stanley said:

Yes.

Wow.

edited after drunken mistype.

14 minutes ago, mushashi said:

 

There wasn't a problem with the deal Bungie did because unlike the Microsoft takeover of Activision, Bungie are retaining their independence and remaining entirely multiplatform for their own games, so nothing changed, except the name on their legal ownership documents.

 

Publisher consolidation outside of platform holders if fine as nothing changes in terms of platform support usually as independent publishers don't have an incentive to stick everything on a single platform they happen to also control, unlike platform holders. The main casualties are games with middling financial viability in those cases, but they are arguably on borrowed time anyway.

 

EA have Borged multiple publishers and developers, but it didn't change things in any material way.

 

And Tencent, despite their massive size and prolific buying spree, haven't upset the general market.

Do you mean that the next games from Bungie will be multi platform?

3 minutes ago, K said:

 

Why would a hardware shortage make any difference to the percentage of revenue that comes from Game Pass? 

Maybe there are less consoles to buy, so less subscribers?

14 minutes ago, Flanders said:

Sorry but that just isn’t true. Game Pass was absolutely the main selling point for Xbox from 2017-2020, which let’s not forget is just under half the Xbox One’s lifespan and the entirety of the Xbox One X’s. 

Shit, I bought a One S secondhand for Game Pass in 2019. Forza Horizon 4 was released on it day one in September 2018. 

 

Yes, but it wasn’t the focus of the entire generation, which is what I am saying. That generation was lost. SX/S and GP are tied together for the success of this generation. They are codependent imo. 

10 minutes ago, Flanders said:

What? Game Pass isn’t a two year old service, it was launched in 2017! It’s had five years at dirt cheap prices to build a user base.  

I was talking in regards to SX, because that is when GP became the main selling point of the console. No one would buy an Xbox One for GP. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

13 minutes ago, MattyP said:

Well looking at the breadth of genres on GamePass and whats available in the store I think they cover just about everything? 

 

Of course they don't really have the big story/movie based type games like God Of War/Ghosts Of Tsushima etc but third parties can fill that gap up to a degree.

 

Yeah, but reaching a wider gaming audience has a lot to do with branding and generally repositioning themselves after three generations. Not easy and it will certainly take time. But GP is the way to do it, not AAAs. 

41 minutes ago, K said:

There’s no way Microsoft expected Game Pass to level out at 15% of their games revenue. That seems like quite a modest achievement given the sheer amount of money and attention they’ve poured into it. 

I think they expected more in the console space, but I don’t think by a lot. For a two year old service, during a hardware shortage and without a surplus of AAA it would be mad to expect a lot more. The service will expand as big games hit and Microsoft takes advantage of the AB buyout. Plus, there will be many more deals centered around GP to make it the “go to” place for gamers. They don’t even have to go after the same demographic as Sony to be a success (Nintendo hasn’t) and that gives them an advantage. If they can pull it off of course. 
 

Which is a big IF because we are talking about Microsoft here and their ability to appeal to a broader gaming audience. 

3 minutes ago, PaB said:

What do you think an increase in development costs can be described as? What are the drivers? 

Publishers have claimed the need for bigger games, extremely high quality assets, continuous support, 4K fidelity, to name but a few.

6 minutes ago, PaB said:

You do know that inflation existed before this year, right? 

Sony said the raise in software prices was due to development costs (as everyone else). You are saying that they raised the prices in games because of inflation?

10 minutes ago, Stanley said:

Yeah the problem with this strategy is that Game Pass is performing well below expectations and they have no AAA games, so I’m not sure why you think that makes Sony look like fools here, at least they actually have the games. 

Well below expectations? It has seen a huge boost on PC and the console subs have reached a limit, as Spencer said. That’s the main negative I’ve read. And that is mostly without first party AAA supply.

25 minutes ago, PaB said:

price increases having nothing to do with inflation is certainly a take . 

 

 

Did it in this case? Two years ago? And for remakes as well? It looks more like a strategy than a forced choice by inflation.

3 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

 

It's a fucking listed company. There's never con, short or long. You know they are in it for the money at every single turn. Being nice is just a strategy to attract gamers. We see it continually in gaming, the underdog is better for consumers. The market leader is a cunt. They're both the same. Slightly different strategies (Sony probably couldn't afford to do what Game Pass does - or did to get started).

 

Take what you can get and enjoy from these organisations but give them none of your loyalty. Ever.

Exactly. I was just doing a bit of prose. 😜

Just now, RubberJohnny said:

It’s weird and predictable that everyone immediately went to weird fanboy lines about how this proves company-I-dislike-were-a-baddy-all-along rather than just acknowledging that we’ve had 10% inflation this year and probably next year too and it was entirely predictable that the battle for £60 was lost a while ago.

I agree. Sony’s raising of game prices had nothing to do with inflation though. They started it two years ago, remakes including. It’s clearly part of their strategy. The console raise, that was partly due to inflation. Partly.

12 minutes ago, MattyP said:

Either that or have a clear and consistent strategy for moving first party titles to the PS Premium sub. It does seem a very seemingly random approach to things at the moment. Returnal popped up and Ghosts Of Tsushima for example. Ratchet and Clank, Sackboy's Adventure not etc etc. It will be interesting to see how Sony respond.

Yeah, I really think Microsoft is playing a long con. Spencer may appear to be all friendly and modern but it looks more and more likely that he may be an evil genius. He is literally going after Sony’s AAA output with the most unconventional methods imaginable. He is making them a really heavy burden to bear. And Sony has no answer except to shift s big portion of their strategy asap.

13 minutes ago, MattyP said:

Yes I do think the move by MS is to drive gamers to GamePass nothing else. To have parity with Sony's pricing is a pretty good strategy really kind of saying "Our AAA full price games appear on GamePass day one" so further highlighting to value proposition of GamePass. Arguable whether the games are the same quality or not (that is on the gamer) however the messaging here is clear. You get our latest releases day and date on our service if you want to use it. 

 

Think the key thing here is MS are offering choice - play on sub or buy outright. Sony are not. Would I want to play the latest Sony game on a Sony sub? Of course I would because I largely just play through the story and I'm done. In the end its Sony's strategy which is fine but its the main reason why I eventually dropped Sony's platform. It doesn't align with how I want to consume games these days - barrier to entry is too high - I really don't want to pay £70 to try something I might not enjoy and then have the hassle of selling it on (at a loss) or unable to get a refund etc. 

 

This is also the main reason why they are worried about the MS Blizzard take over. Even if MS offer a great deal on keeping CoD on PS for 10+ years - MS will pop it on GamePass. Again gamers will have a choice of where and what price point they want to play. Essentially GP lowers the barrier to entry for people to enjoy their content.

 

Suppose in the end its great to have choice on how you want to play the games. Luckily there is enough between the Xbox and PC/Steam to keep me busy and serve my gaming needs. Shame the barrier to entry on Sony's platform is too high for me personally but well you know things get cheaper and if anything comes up worthwhile playing at least it will be there in future... you never know it may even end up on a Sony sub service at some point. 

 

Yes, I agree. That is why I’m saying that Sony is ill equipped. Their cross media strategy is actually funded from their AAAs success in a big way. They are the company which generates the most software sales revenue by far (the first GoW alone generated over 500m!) and their whole expansion strategy is based on that. The problem is that Game Pass has made that strategy even more cumbersome than it already is, because it gives Microsoft so many weapons that Sony simply doesn’t possess. Hence why they hastily launched PS Plus, raised their console prices and continued fully with cross gen. They simply couldn’t wait for their initial planning to bear fruit, since they over loaded it with more expansion buyouts in e-sports and Bungie - moves that will not beat fruit for at least a couple of years.

That is why they are also panicking about CoD, which remains their biggest 3rd party revenue source. They need cash flow and they need it now because the game which they have planned their whole strategy on, is changing before their eyes and they have no answer for it. If you factor in hardware supply problems and inflation, then you get a proper time bomb. I’m fully convinced that internal studios are on fire right now because Sony needs to show everyone very, very soon when they can expect their next gen games. I will not be surprised at all if they actually announce some first party games coming day one on PS Plus (which would create a whole host of financial headaches because their business -as opposed to Microsoft- is not built like that).

There’s no definitive proof that games should cost 70. The idea that they now “cost more” and THAT is the reason they should be more expensive is totally arbitrary because we do not know development costs and because market forces are so difficult to predict.  Apart from a couple of games, all games which have cost millions and millions to make have the sales to back up their investment/development cost at 60. And then some.
 

Sony is charging 70 for remakes and their output until now is cross gen. They raised their prices since day one.   More expensive development costs have little to do with this raise. 
 

Microsoft has found the best way to add more value to game pass and make Sony look like a complete fool by adding their AAA day one, which cost 70, practically free with a subscription.  
 

Both of these decisions have little to do with development costs. These are just strategies and Sony is really ill equipped in dealing with what Microsoft is doing. Especially since their main strategy is so top heavy and their new investments will take some time to give a roi.

4 hours ago, JoeK said:

 

I don't think CP is anywhere near the level of world-building that Witcher 3 was. The city itself is most definitely a thing of wonder. It's just a huge pity it's populated by hundreds and hundred of morons wandering around doing absolutely nothing of note. It feels utterly fake to me. Sure the characters you meet up with and deal with from a gameplay point of view are great, but I think the atmosphere of Night City is significantly destroyed by the systems they've used for crowds. 

 

Novigrad remains the greatest city in a game for me by a huge margin. 

 

Plus...why the FUCK am I STILL the only bastard in the city who owns a bike? These things upset me in a completely irrational way, but...ARGH! Fucking bastard details. The whole game is absolutely riddled with these little atmosphere-destroying things for me. 

 

I wish I was not so anally retentive .

I never said that CP's world building is better than W3. W3 remains the most accomplished open world ever along with RDR2. And Novigrad is the best city ever, as a whole. Bit NC is more convincing as a real place because of the architecture. 

Also, I don't get the issue with the NPCs. Bugs aside, they are as stupid as the general NPC in GTAs. RDR2 only wins in this department because of its incredible wildlife simulation.

On 07/09/2022 at 18:06, df0 said:

Oh 100%.

I'd recommend Horizon 2 over Cyberpunk 2, Horizon 2 is Ubi-bloat bland but man if you're on the market for that it's absolutely perfect. Cyberpunk is never perfect for anything really, there's so much wrong with it and I like sometimes even love it.

 

Gonna rinse the hell out of my first play through, highly doubt I'll do a second and third.

CP's world building is on another level. H2 is just a game world in my eyes, like the Ubisoft worlds. CP feels like a real place and the writing -especially compared to H2- is also on another level. Everyone feels like a real person, same style more or less like the W3. 

11 hours ago, Hawklord said:

Oh, we will 😎

Lucky bastard.

The whole "empty planet" thing seems a bit weird. I get the point but its also weird. 

First of all, we don't have to have every planet to be a quest hub with interesting civilizations, etc. That would actually make little sense from a design perspective. Secondly, planets can be "empty" in the same way No Man's Sky's planets are "empty", but full of resources to mine, wild life to record, etc. Thirdly, we are forgetting about the procedural generation systems that can provide quests, buildings for exploration, etc. If they are just a small improvement over Skyrim I will be happy. 

Last but not least, very few of us will actually visit all the planets. The number of planets is so high in order to provide a different experience and exploration for as many players as possible, share info and notes about discoveries etc.

And we will have crews to send to their deaths when we are bored as well. Give me more planets, I say. 🥳

On 12/06/2022 at 23:06, Keyboard Koala said:

Now Kojima's gone MS exclusive as well?

 

 

Wasn't he exclusive last gen as well?

22 hours ago, Flanders said:

1 - Defensive move, stops Microsoft from buying them and making all their games exclusive to Game Pass.

 

2 - GAAS expansion with ownership of FF14. Sony would go from virtually no presence in the space to owning two of the most popular and long-running IPs between this and Destiny. 
 

3 - Restrengthens Japan position. Square would essentially become the new Sony Japan software division, replacing the cuts they’ve made there with a group that makes successful games every now and again.

 

And probably some extra benefits for mobile stuff as well. 

I highly doubt Sony is in a position to spend 3-5 billion just as a defensive move. On the other hand, they already own 18,6% of the company, don’t they? 

10 minutes ago, Broker said:

Yeah that was probably unfair. I guess it’s in comparison to the big hitters. 12m is what Elden Ring sold in the first month, it’s about average for an AC game as well. I get that it’s fine for lifetime sales if you’re a medium sized developer, but for the amount that AAA games cost it’s not enough to be a big hit. And I’m pretty sure there was also a decline over the new TR series, not sure how Mankind Divided did compared to Human Revolution. 
 

I’d say personally though, these studios create games which live in a weird middle ground. They’re not unusual or interesting enough to be cult hits with passionate fanbases, but they’re not slick enough to be mainstream megahits. The TR games are weird, obsessed with delivering their painfully mediocre and generic stories, with cookie cutter gameplay. DE is much more to my taste, but I never quite feel like they’ve committed to being an immersive sim or an action game. They’re developers who make 6 or 7 out of 10 games that are fine. 

Yeah, can't say I disagree, especially on what you say about TR. It just seems that they have done quite good and I really think a western developer wouldn't just get rid of them because they are not... perfoming well.

It just seems that the price is low for the portfolio and the inclusion of studios like Crystal Dynamics. In a way it seems like they thought these series should be selling tens of millions per title, which is way too unrealistic. 

I think they have simply decided to stop competing in the western AAA market, which frankly I don't find it crazy at all.