Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
if the price reflected quality. we'd enjoy games more. that person with 2000 games a year that can't play them all, maybe they wouldn't enjoy the game of collecting games as much. but playing games. that's be more fun for everyone.
$10 to me is far too low for a game that good.
Why aren't goty games able to ask for more than $60 on pc? Like $100? So far the last two goty games, elden ring, bg3. both seem to add something to their genre and be entertaining throughout. compared to some games that as said in the OP are created to provide the best experience to the most people. If you focus on the experience, you've forgotten about the game. Elden Ring never thought about the player's experience (video below is to prove that statement).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX1mvGa7I74
as of prices, i don't really care as much since i value how much i can care out of that price, rather than the price alone. except i lie and i would rather be patient and wait for sales or not buying it at all.
you can't please everyone.
perceived quality does vary from person to person. i guess the bigger question to really answer my original question would be this.
if elden ring and bg3 released without early access and released for a flat $100. would they still be goty and make the same amount of profits?
then as a followup. if they were successful at selling their higher quality games for $100. would other studios do the same and sell their bland games for $100 and make more money doing so?
like i said, price is decided so they can balance out their profit with risk. people would still buy the games anyway. but idk. people are varied to begin with so who knows?
the product isn't often a game, instead it's a good report for investors. sometimes when a big company talks, even via youtube videos, all I hear them talking to are investors cause it's not gamers that care how much profits they made or how many times they released games in a year. think about a bank or an insurance company, they get monthly payments for their loans and in turn those steady payments get them AAA bank loan ratings, allowing them to use more money to make money than most other industries. microtransactions are just that, breaking out of the seasonal industry mold that is the video game market. steam sales are a similar concept creating a stream of revenue for both the distributor and the pub/studio. and the profit margin, like who wouldn't at least think about doing it? the companies that pride themselves on quality is who. sure i'll pay $100 for those game of the year titles i mentioned, those games changed things in their genre, heck it's been a while since there was a big change featured in a popular game in the open world genre as introduced by elden ring. and then the next year we get a new way to experience a story-driven game via bg3.
live services are not too different than microtransactions, I'll mention an example using the company that publically stated they invented live services, EA Games with Battlefield 2042. Devs stated that the game was released early and their marketing budget isn't able to fund the post-release development, marketing as that's how supporting a game is classified in the accounting books, and they stated with half of the devs needed to get the game up to par, they can either work on fixing bugs or releasing the content that was promised to be released. Granted BF2042 was stated to not have any expansion pass in order to not split the player base, but something must've happened for them to release the game early, also the game sits at a 50% here on steam so it's not a taboo topic.
How does that example relate to the conversation? To demonstrate another way companies make money, via live services.
"it's done when it's done" is a licence to take 5 years on a game while gamers sit on their wallets, sure quality takes time, but it would take less time if the initial price at release was $100 instead of $60. yet then again, it could result in the biggest video game crash since atari in the mid 80's if it's abused by companies. gamer's want to reward games with their wallets that are good to say yes more please. but we're lucky if those games come once every 5 years. maybe it's because as I said, it feels like the investors that are their customers, not the gamers. i'd love to believe your words, but there just too few to change how I feel about companies.
The same way, you will find the same in cars as well. Form over function.
But the option that you can get good, lractical stuff for cheaper than the vanity degree? Yeah, that's there in games also.
https://youtu.be/IHZru-6M8BY?si=FhYPt_Q2OdU1EVUs
So objectives are very different when making these. The option is always there to do more with less instead of blundering about, to use sensibility and knowledge to not bloat up system rssource use unnecessarily, but that takes more effort and if you know humans enough, you know that most of us would rather prefer any other option. And the option of just demanding that users have a better processor, faster storage device to make up for bad development processes is very attractive. So most are going to prefer that.
On the plus side, those who choose to do things practically by understanding tech and doing the same thing with 10x less system use because they adjust to the tech, not make the tech put up with whatever they want to do, they're also more likely to use the medium to, say, do much better than the bloat, even when their stuff uses far less resources, a small fraction really. Because that takes real pain and effort, and there are many natural stoppages to that, the roadblocks… if you're not strong enough for something, your body literally stops. And if you still continue along that path(you become stronger as you do), you're really most likely to do it for something good or worthwhile because the pain is literally unbearable for whoever goes about it(even masochists wouldn't call it the 'good' pain) We'd really have tons of good stuff available cheaper if this didn't happen, but there is good reason for it happening in a natural sense and it is not to encourage bad things or for survival sense like my genius contemporary humans often say. But overall point being, this is generally not the preferred mode of operation, support to do your job (in the form of auxiliary jobs) is.
I prefer the ones made by those who do go through the pains- there is usually no 'old hardware' inaccessibility and the stuff is, much more often than not, good.
Modern tech is usually used less for pushing games to be bigger and deeper- that is not dependent on tech at all, the factor it is dependent on hasn't changed at all, the humans making them. And even something like AI wouldn't change it, AI is usually capable of providing generic slop. If AI does something better, it is no indication of the AI doing something ectraordinary but of the people involved making in the industry merely resigning to make generic stuff that even AI could easily reproduce. While tech has gotten exponentially more capable, humans have not. Which is why the focus is more on making better tech and then crippling it- making 1,00,000 hour games casually in one world run is not a stretch as far as tech goes. It just would take about 100 times the effort, and even back then makers would give their all like 5-6 days a week, 10-12 hours a day perhaps. Simply increasing the workforce doesn't magically solve this as well, unfortunately. After crippling it, it is masked by usual political things like 'it is a business they need to make money' etc. Weak. We're just too weak to admit what we are actively doing.