Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 18 Dec 2017.
Obsidian definitely picked up the mantle after Bioware defected to the dark side. They don't have a 100% record by any means, but I would put them in the ever decreasing list of developers in the "support" column.
Yeah, looking forward to what Obsidian have up their sleeve. Loved FONV, and Pillars of Eternity, and have just bought Tyranny in GOG's winter sale so am looking forward to getting stuck into that next.
I take it this forthcoming game isn't the Pillars sequel? Think that's supposed to be being published by someone else (can't be bothered to Google it just now).
Can't include microtransactions, can't push up game prices, but the cost of making even AA games keeps going up, up, up.
Something's gotta give soon!
Maybe, but the potential market for games has grown. A lot.
Also the real price for games has gone up, due to microtransactions, season passes and other industry bollocks.
Obsidian isn't anti expansions, they just are not going to sell some overpriced outift or weapon skin for a few bucks.
Yeah, Obsidian have produced a fair few expansions, both for NWN2 and Pillars, so I'd expect to see that continue. If that means no microtransactions then I'm a happy camper.
Pillars sequel is crowdfunded and published by some random indie publisher.
But given that Obisidian is working on that it probably means this new yet to be announced game is years away.
Using my traditional comparative, Street Fighter II: Special Champion Edition for the Sega Mega Drive cost £59.99 at launch in 1991 and was the work of a tiny team porting an existing game. Corrected for inflation that's £118 in modern money. Horizon: Zero Dawn, which launched almost exactly 26 years later, hit the streets at £44.99 - less than half that price. If you bought it at launch, rather than now when it's sub-£30, and added the £15.99 Frozen Wilds expansion which launched in November, you'd be in to it for £60.98 - call it £61.
So, Street Fighter II cost almost exactly twice as much as Horizon: Zero Dawn and its expansion, for a far smaller game made by a far smaller team at a far lower cost. Yes, there are games that take the proverbial - looking at you, Star Wars Battlefront II - and could cost you a hojillon pounds if you bought absolutely everything, but they're still (thankfully) the exception rather than the rule. For most gamers, taking the cost of services like PSN or Xbox Live out of the equation, it's unlikely you'll hit triple-figures on a single game unless you're buying collector's editions or a pay-to-win title has its hooks deep into you - yet, correcting for inflation, that was the norm back in the 90s.
I think there are very few 'new' games that I feel genuinely ripped off by.
But then, I've gone from buying a new game on release date as early as possible, to waiting a few weeks, seeing what the general consensus is before taking the time to buy it.
The only game I've felted ripped off by recently is that pile of dog shit Space Hulk game. It had so much 'right' other than performance and stability, which is wildly disappointing. It felt like a Terminator version of Space Marine, which would have been top notch.
Except that the cost of making games isn't going up and up and up, the cost of marketing games is what's inflating at an unsustainable rate.
EA proudly announced to investors a couple of years back that they spend as much as 75% of a game's given budget on marketing, not making the game. Activision are likely the same, they don't brag so much about their spending but the $140million Destiny reportedly cost includes songs and public appearances from Paul McCartney, celebrity voice actors, tie in novels and comics, hours and hours of video documentaries, live action TV adverts and shorts with Hollywood level effects (at $10k-$50k per second), live public events and all kinds of other useless ephemera (want to buy a Cayde-6 action figure?).
Taking EA's statements at face value that means they spent $10 million of Mass Effect: Andromeda's rumoured $40million budget actually making the game, which explains a lot of things about Mass Effect: Andromeda.
When movie studios can spends $200million and up making films then make it all back just from Box Office at $10-$15 per person it's hard to believe that games companies spend fractions of that and then fail to make back their money selling millions of games at $40-$60 a go. Even if that was somehow true it's only EA, Activision, Ubisoft and Square Enix that push this lavish spending.
TL: DR I am fully confident that companies that choose to make 'Triple A' types games without resorting to predatory financial practices can continue to do so whilst making a good profit.
I think the most I've ever paid for a single game is International Superstar Soccer 64 on the N64. £65 in mid-1997, which would work out at £114 in today's money (using RPI). At least that was a cartridge
Separate names with a comma.