Jump to content

Gaming grudges


joemul
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, dumpster said:

In a £60 game why should you be paying to unlock these cars at all?), the cheek of the latest Guitar Hero having fewer songs than previous versions and extra DLC.  

I know they seem expensive (and they are) but they are also incredibly expensive to make.

 

In real terms, games are cheaper to buy than they used to be, but way more expensive to make. And because the marketplace is so crowded, games have to make the majority of their money very shortly after launch because the long tail isn't really there any more. £60 isn't actually enough for most big AAA titles to make a profit.

 

If you want games to be cheaper, either they'd have to be smaller, or look worse, or there would have to be fewer of them. Or they'd have to make money in other ways. Like loot boxes.

 

I know it's shitty, and I wish games were £30 like I remember from years ago, but it's the reality I see from working in the industry.

 

Take my current project - there are nine of us working on it. That basically costs £50k a month simply to have us employed. Then add in all the other costs of actually running a studio and you can double that. That's £1.2m a year for a really small team.

 

For big games, there are hundreds of people working for multiple years, and that's before you even start thinking about things like marketing, external QA, licensing costs, manufacturing, distributing, the platform holder's cut, the store's cut......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Street Fighter V paid full whack for an utterly barebones shambolic piss take at release.

 

After the glorious reinvention of the series with IV and all its guises I` just couldn't get with it and the only one I've never rinsed and loved.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a bit of a Nintendo grudge back when I was a kid. I'd gotten a MegaDrive a year before the SNES was released in the EU, and seeing UN Squadron in action upon its release made me realize I'd gotten the least powerful machine (as that mattered in the 16-bit era). Then came SF II and a lot of arcade ports which were superior on the SNES. I didn't like it, and I became a big blinkered Sega fanboy even skipping games like Contra: Hards Corps and Castlevania: Bloodlines, as I considered them to be Nintendo series. Ah, the folly of youth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, dumpster said:

I have a massive grudge about game pricing, which is escalated by the massive choice of other things you can be doing instead.   Last Gen, I'd eagerly await the release of the big new game and I'd be there on day one, £40 in hand, ready to be one of the first to play.  I'd devote hours of my time into the game and play it right through if I liked it.   Today, I think £60 is too much and most games have season passes, DLC, loot and other further expense, and I feel a genuine grievance about that - it's too much to pay and I resent that.  And there are so many games that I'll never end up buying and playing all of them.  So if it's no hardship to buy one game today and get the rest later when they fall in price, why not just get them all when they fall in price?  Do I really NEED to be playing it right now, when I have so many other games here already?  

 

Instead of the big new release I could be playing the big name game from last month, or last year, even last gen, and it's still going to look great and play well.  I don't wish to sound like I'm being mean and tight fisted, but I just don't think I'll play 99% of the current games enough to justify the outlay, and the majority of games drop in price massively in a very short space of time. 

 

I remember loving Bulletstorm (£2.98 on Xbox 360 in 2012) and seeing a remake was in the works, I was excited to play it.  But not excited enough to pay £35 for it, knowing full well that this is exactly the sort of thing that would drop in price quickly.  I picked it up for a tenner at Game about 3 months after release and it was every bit as good as I remembered.  

 

I also have a grudge against any game that you buy in store that also has in-app purchases that you just know would have previously had that content included last gen.  I'm thinking stuff like loot boxes in Battlefield 2 where it's a nightmare to unlock Leia, Luke, Darth Vader, Solo etc.  Or the cars in Forza that you can buy with in game currency instead of earning them  (leading to accusations of the game being artificially tedious and repetitive to encourage players to spend cash instead of earning the cars through play - in a £60 game why should you be paying to unlock these cars at all?), the cheek of the latest Guitar Hero having fewer songs than previous versions and extra DLC.  To hell with it all, there's so much choice, I can ignore these games and I don't feel like I'm missing out. 

 

I haven't paid full price for a game for a couple of years.  Also, Facebook Marketplace has loads of people who buy a game, play it to death for a couple of weeks then sell it on.  I got Resident Evil 2 Remake for £25 two weeks after it was released.  Tomorrow I am picking up Dangerous Driving from Game for £19.99.  I just really enjoyed Split Second for £2.98 on Xbox Store last month, Doom VFR for £12 at Argos.  The last thing I bought at remotely full price was Blood and Truth which I paid £30 for at Argos, played through to completion and then sold on Facebook 2 weeks later for £25.  

 

It is a grudge thing - I just don't think 99% of games are generally worth £50 to £60.  The collectors edition with season pass at £75 can fuck right off, it's ludicrous.   The last games I paid genuine full price for were Mario Odyssey and Zelda on Switch and they are the only games I can think of that I was interested in, and believe were genuinely worth that money. Also, you know they will hold their value, so when I didn't enjoy Zelda, I traded it in for almost what I paid, and I'd owned it for 6 months.

 

A lot of the time, my interest and excitement wears off before the price drops anyway.  I was hyped for Red Dead Redemption 2 last year and I nearly bought it.  8 months later it is piled high in every Cash Generator in the country, and I've seen it on sale for £14.99 in store and a tenner on Facebook.  But in the interim period, I followed the thread on here and saw everyone complaining about the controls, the bugs etc - I realised this wasn't my type of game and I don't fancy it at all now.   Last generation I'd have been there at the midnight store opening, ready to drop £40 on the big hyped game.  This time I saw it was £60, and there was another edition at £79 and a collectors pack at £99. To this day I don't know what the differences are in each version and I don't really care.  For the last 25 years I've gone into games shops and bought a full, complete product for the RRP and the idea of buying something at £60, knowing there's less in the box than if I'd paid £80 just seems crazy to me. 

 

(Just to add, products are always sold at the price the market will bear.  Games could be cheaper by default, but we've proven that we'll pay £60 and we've proven that we'll buy all the DLC on top, we've even proven we will pay £2 for a graphic of a hat or some sunglasses, so it's never going to change.

 

Who pays £60 for a game tho, I’ve not paid that this gen but did during SNES gen multiple times and I’m a get sucked in hype day one buyer idiot. I don’t think RRP has changed this gen, we don’t have supermarket wars driving prices down for sure but that’s because they killed the competition and then realised there is no money in selling games so half arse it. I think you could easily argue we underpay for games and that has brought on the crunch culture and necessity to rely on ongoing micro transactions to fund games

 

And all the dlc, pay to win etc was in full effect last gen esp EA and battlefield games - the only new way to get us to spend money this gen is loot boxes and they have been around for a lot longer than this gen esp on PC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Nick R said:

Still haven't forgiven Game for buying Gamestation, and doing such a terrible job of it that they ended up destroying all their retro stock (unforgivable!) :angry: and then closing all the Gamestation branches.

 

Yeah I remember the day the RM came round and had to smash it all up, iirc @Haribokart asked if we could donate our stock but was told it was a tax write-off if we destroyed it and he’d be fired if he tried :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I echo @joemul in that Tekken can fuck right off. Give me Virtua Fighter any day. Or Soul Calibur, or DOA. I even preferred Toshinden. I just can't get on with Tekken.

That said, for whatever reason (lack of launch games?) I bought Tekken Tag with my launch PS2. And Ridge Racer 5. But I love Ridge Racer – in no way a poor man's [insert Sega arcade racer] and IMO one of the best racing games ever. I also think Time Crisis stands proudly alongside Virtua Cop – the cover dynamic was a genius addition.

 

Certainly some of my Tekken-hate stems from the dark underdog Saturn days, and I did hang on to a bit of a general Saturn vs PS grudge for a while.

 

No further grudges. 

 

(Ahem.. Quake Team Fortress was the best by MILES.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Floshenbarnical said:

 

Yeah I remember the day the RM came round and had to smash it all up, iirc @Haribokart asked if we could donate our stock but was told it was a tax write-off if we destroyed it and he’d be fired if he tried :/

 

They did WHAT? Glad that I did not live in the UK by then to see that happen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pastry said:

No, that would be wrong.

Pretty sure I got Panzer Saga for about 40 quid from GameStation in Middlesbrough - they had no idea!

 

Got mine from Gamestation Coventry for £30 second hand in 1999, almost didn't buy it until my friend said I'd be mad not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Hylian said:

So the PlayStation designers have a very considered view of what the perfect pad should be like, but the Xbox team just wanted it to look a bit different...right.

 

Look, I own a PlayStation 4 and not an Xbox One. I use the PS4 pad all the time and it's fine. It's just clearly not as good a design and not as comfortable as the Xbox/Nintendo pad. Like @Nick R says, they probably consider themselves a bit stuck now. It is part of the brand. And yeah, they're probably too scared to change (it's hardly broken and most gamers don't care).

 

Jesus Christ, it’s like being on gamefaqs. I literally said that the only reason the PlayStation had two sticks was to try to look better than the N64. Then the Xbox had wonky sticks to look different than PlayStation. It means literally nothing, it’s just what you prefer.

 

“clearly not as good a design and not as comfortable as the Xbox/Nintendo pad” is just more fanboy garbage. You like the Xbox style. Well done. It’s still not better. It doesn’t matter what your preference is, there’s no real difference and certainly not one that applies widely enough to call a consensus. 

 

You’re not even trying to assert any reason why it is better designed. Just better. And because you like it better it is better. Wonky is better. That’s the message right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Broker said:

“clearly not as good a design and not as comfortable as the Xbox/Nintendo pad” is just more fanboy garbage. You like the Xbox style. Well done. It’s still not better. It doesn’t matter what your preference is, there’s no real difference and certainly not one that applies widely enough to call a consensus.

 

A little thing called ergonomics renders your post....bollocks. *Clearly* the PS stick placement is non-optimal. It's what they've decided to go with, it's their thing, but it's NOT in any way, shape, or form the best or most intuitive/comfortable layout is it. And that's not saying the other way is totally perfect - just a bit more towards optimal a bit more of the time.

 

GRUDGES: Denis Dyack for effectively killing any hope of a future Eternal Darkness game by being a bellend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Broker said:

 

Jesus Christ, it’s like being on gamefaqs. I literally said that the only reason the PlayStation had two sticks was to try to look better than the N64. Then the Xbox had wonky sticks to look different than PlayStation. It means literally nothing, it’s just what you prefer.

 

“clearly not as good a design and not as comfortable as the Xbox/Nintendo pad” is just more fanboy garbage. You like the Xbox style. Well done. It’s still not better. It doesn’t matter what your preference is, there’s no real difference and certainly not one that applies widely enough to call a consensus. 

 

You’re not even trying to assert any reason why it is better designed. Just better. And because you like it better it is better. Wonky is better. That’s the message right?

 

I was an Xbox fanboy all through the 360 years and couldn’t play on a PS pad, having made the switch from PS2. Then I got the PS4 because the GTA community on here was strong (or at least, it existed) and tried to play my gf’s brother’s Xbox One this year and was like what am I doing lol. 

 

I guess what im saying is you get used to what you get used to, and I’m a slut. All controllers are fucking shit anyway, I’m holding out for neural link or some Matrix contraption. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Scribblor said:

I know they seem expensive (and they are) but they are also incredibly expensive to make.

 

In real terms, games are cheaper to buy than they used to be, but way more expensive to make. And because the marketplace is so crowded, games have to make the majority of their money very shortly after launch because the long tail isn't really there any more. £60 isn't actually enough for most big AAA titles to make a profit.

 

If you want games to be cheaper, either they'd have to be smaller, or look worse, or there would have to be fewer of them. Or they'd have to make money in other ways. Like loot boxes.

 

I know it's shitty, and I wish games were £30 like I remember from years ago, but it's the reality I see from working in the industry.

 

Take my current project - there are nine of us working on it. That basically costs £50k a month simply to have us employed. Then add in all the other costs of actually running a studio and you can double that. That's £1.2m a year for a really small team.

 

For big games, there are hundreds of people working for multiple years, and that's before you even start thinking about things like marketing, external QA, licensing costs, manufacturing, distributing, the platform holder's cut, the store's cut......

 

I have to disagree to an extent - there's no actual need for games to be £60, in that they could be £65, they could be £55, they could be £81.72p, but products are priced at what the market will bear and this is proven time and time again when new products try to disrupt the market.  For example, When VHS videos were around £10 - £13 each, DVD launched with movies at £20 - £25, but this quickly dropped back to VHS era pricing.  When Bluray came along they tried again with films around the £20 mark, but they quickly dropped to be within a couple of quid of the DVDs.  3D Bluray was more expensive again and failed.  The public has spoken - they think £10 is about right for a movie.  Hardback books are usually double the price of paperbacks, but there's no real reason for that, other than the market accepts that hardbacks cost more. 

 

With gaming it's been shown time and time again that £50 - £60 is the absolute maximum the regular customer will pay.  But the team that worked on Grand Theft Auto 4 (£40) is the same as the team that made GTA5 (£60).  Even the extra costs of the online side of the game are surely paid for many times by the online transactions.

 

It's important to keep in mind that the market for video games is now as big as any other competing market.  The number of Megadrives sold was a fraction of the number of PS4s that are out there, and the economies of scale mean that these lootbox-filled, massive sprawling epic games are making billions in profits.  They could give Battlefront away for free and still make a profit.  Games are £60 because people have shown that this is the amount they will pay.  The good news is that there are so many games now that you can ignore them all until they drop in price to £20 and then if you buy it, your bound to get your moneys worth.

 

Just to comment on the quote above, it might well cost 1.2m to run that team, but James Cameron spent over 100 million on Titanic and that was £5 to see at the cinema, £9.99 on DVD, £15 on Bluray, and still turned a massive profit.  The market for games is massive these days and the Triple A, £60 game on the shelf can sell millions worldwide.  Or a small team can release an indie game or an app and still potentially have access to the entire world of customers.  We've never had it so good. I make a nice income with self publishing on Amazon, and whilst I don't sell huge numbers of books, my 0.001% of the entire world is enough for me to make a sale or two every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rgraves said:

 

A little thing called ergonomics renders your post....bollocks. *Clearly* the PS stick placement is non-optimal. It's what they've decided to go with, it's their thing, but it's NOT in any way, shape, or form the best or most intuitive/comfortable layout is it. And that's not saying the other way is totally perfect - just a bit more towards optimal a bit more of the time.

 

I can’t believe I’m having a conversation where just saying “ergonomics” is the best argument I’ve heard so far. Offset ergonomics are better, because two people with no evidence say so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the evidence is surely the shape of your own hands. Grab a pad, or anything shaped like one, and where do you thumbs naturally sit - it's generally not in the same spot as the PS-layout sticks.

 

Now, in some instances the buttons being in those places does make most sense - so one stick and one set of buttons where you naturally might find your thumbs feels like as good a compromise as possible. It's not perfect for every title, and never will be unless we can get per-game customization, but it's generally going to suit most things in some way. For a FPS you'd probably change to have both sticks up top as that's what you'll be using most alongside the triggers etc

 

Not many (yes, there are some) modern games use the d-pad and buttons, but not either of the sticks - so the PS layout (which puts both the sticks in a non-natural location) clearly loses out there. Generally.

 

Of course it's usable, of course people get used to it, but also that's just what they are doing - getting used to it. Hand a PS controller to anyone who hasn't, and you can clearly see how oddly they are placed.

 

But whatever, it's not really all that important - and we're not going to change anything but arguing the toss on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/07/2019 at 07:33, Hylian said:

It's bizarre that Sony continue to design their pads with that stick alignment. It must be a pride thing. Even Nintendo have now accepted that the Xbox configuration is optimal.

I cannot stand the Xbox stick alignment, although the One pad is superb. I just find the sideways movement of that pad uncomfortable. 

 

Anyway, I don't have any grudges because it's ridiculous to hate something based on a childhood rivalry, which is what it normally is. 

It's ok when companies have shitty business practices to stop buying their products though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooh, another poll is in order!

 

I for one vote off set, it is clearly the best. I can still use DS4 fine but the Xbox One pad is far superior because of stick placement (and build quality to a degree).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, rgraves said:

Well the evidence is surely the shape of your own hands. Grab a pad, or anything shaped like one, and where do you thumbs naturally sit - it's generally not in the same spot as the PS-layout sticks.

 

 

This is true, I just tried it. But where my thumbs naturally rest is not the best place for the sticks on my controller to be, because that made it quite uncomfortable to move left with my left thumb (the thumb was too close to my hand so I had to contort to move).

 

The DS4 stick position required me to extend my thumb out a little bit, which made it much easier to move the sticks towards my hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You’ve got to wonder, if the DualShock’s stick positioning relative to the palm of your hand is so good, why Sony - faced with a blank slate at the launch of the original PlayStation - didn’t put the dpad there.

 

also - while I’m clearly going to get negged anyway - the “nothing should get more expensive even it gets more expensive to make just due to inflation, let alone team sizes, taxes, overheads” crowd can just get lost.

People have to eat. No ones forcing you to buy before a sale, and it’s not as though the prices have actually risen with inflation over the last two decades.

Movie tickets have also gone up in price significantly since 1999 (unless it’s one of those Vue places in the middle of nowhere off peak): it’s not that more people have gone to see avengers than titanic, it’s that the price per ticket has gone up: lots.

 

(an entry level developer at my place of work is paid 50% more than I was when I started. The market hasn’t increased in size. The prices have, and if we tried to pay them my starting salary then: 1. It’d be illegal (or at least getting close to minimum wage after twenty years of inflation). 2. They’d not have money for food, let alone rent..)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, sir stiff_one said:

There's a certain type of person who does this, and that person is Broker.

 

I am really, genuinely not upset about this. I even tried quite hard to be polite in my post, so as not to attract the endless comments I get from people that seem to think I’m genuinely invested in stick position. I even took the time to point out in my post that it didn’t really matter because it was subjective.

 

Someone posted something silly that I’ve seen posted on here hundreds of times, so I disagreed, then we had a bit of a discussion about it, which is one of the things I literally come here to do. I know that your primary interaction is rolling by, making a smug comment or two then shipping out to grace another thread with your presence, but some of us are here to have conversations that last more that three posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2 July 2019 at 21:24, Scribblor said:

I know they seem expensive (and they are) but they are also incredibly expensive to make.

 

In real terms, games are cheaper to buy than they used to be, but way more expensive to make. And because the marketplace is so crowded, games have to make the majority of their money very shortly after launch because the long tail isn't really there any more. £60 isn't actually enough for most big AAA titles to make a profit.

 

If you want games to be cheaper, either they'd have to be smaller, or look worse, or there would have to be fewer of them. Or they'd have to make money in other ways. Like loot boxes.

 

I know it's shitty, and I wish games were £30 like I remember from years ago, but it's the reality I see from working in the industry.

 

Take my current project - there are nine of us working on it. That basically costs £50k a month simply to have us employed. Then add in all the other costs of actually running a studio and you can double that. That's £1.2m a year for a really small team.

 

For big games, there are hundreds of people working for multiple years, and that's before you even start thinking about things like marketing, external QA, licensing costs, manufacturing, distributing, the platform holder's cut, the store's cut......

WHY are games more expensive to make this gen? IMHO games this gen are nowhere near as good as last  gen, so I'm not sure why they cost more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.