Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordBaal]

It would be the second time they gave it away. In comparison I think CoH 1 has been gifted only once.

[Radsoc]

Wouldn't pick it up even if it was free.

[Reelya]

That was weirdly convenient timing. I got a CoH bundle before, and when clearing out my old keys yesterday I noticed that it included some charity-related skins for CoH-2 which I couldn't redeem because I didn't have the CoH2 base game. Redeemed the DLC now.

[umiman]

I really enjoyed the challenge missions until I discovered all the goddamn microtransactions.

I don't care that "oh they're all balanced" or "oh you don't need the different commanders or skins or units or whatever" or "you don't need all the extra lootboxy skills and abilities you equip before a match". It's all nonsense. I've heard that spiel ten trillion times before with every single goddamn microtransaction infested game. The moment I saw them I completely uninstalled the game.

Fuck that shit.

Relic got so damn greedy I'm happy they're gone. Frigging paid DLC, microtransactions, and random loot drops. They even limited the amount of "grinding" you're allowed to do each day. Fucking grinding. In an RTS. What the fuck happened to the guys who brought us masterpieces like Homeworld and Dawn of War?

I spit on their grave.

[nenjin]

What the fuck happened to the guys who brought us masterpieces like Homeworld and Dawn of War?

THQ was probably pressuring them because they were trying to stay afloat. Then Sega bought them up and really doubled down on it. I won't say Relic is blameless, but ever since DoW 2 I've felt the publisher's shadow looming over all their games.

[Retropunch]

Frigging paid DLC, microtransactions, and random loot drops. They even limited the amount of "grinding" you're allowed to do each day. Fucking grinding. In an RTS. What the fuck happened to the guys who brought us masterpieces like Homeworld and Dawn of War?

I spit on their grave.

Absolutely agreed. It's one thing for a F2P game, a mobile game or some sort of MOBA style thing, but for an RTS it's absolutely, unforgivably ridiculous. It doesn't suit the genre in any way, and their attempt to put it in was pathetic.

If it had been purely cosmetic it would have been acceptable (if a bit annoying), but I read quite a few analyses of the different commander abilities and stuff at the time and it seemed like some were noticeably better than others for certain play styles - yes none gave you a 'destroy everything bomb' but maximising some sorts of playstyles was definitely locked away.

I'm sure it was the publisher, but it doesn't really make it any better.

[Teneb]

Frigging paid DLC, microtransactions, and random loot drops. They even limited the amount of "grinding" you're allowed to do each day. Fucking grinding. In an RTS. What the fuck happened to the guys who brought us masterpieces like Homeworld and Dawn of War?

I spit on their grave.

Absolutely agreed. It's one thing for a F2P game, a mobile game or some sort of MOBA style thing, but for an RTS it's absolutely, unforgivably ridiculous. It doesn't suit the genre in any way, and their attempt to put it in was pathetic.

If it had been purely cosmetic it would have been acceptable (if a bit annoying), but I read quite a few analyses of the different commander abilities and stuff at the time and it seemed like some were noticeably better than others for certain play styles - yes none gave you a 'destroy everything bomb' but maximising some sorts of playstyles was definitely locked away.

I'm sure it was the publisher, but it doesn't really make it any better.

"It's just cosmetic" is not a valid argument for a paid game. Cosmetics are important, looking good is important. It's why we are not dressed with repurposed potato bags and why the fashion industry is a thing.

If it was a free game, I'd grumble but accept it. But having to pay for the game and then being asked to pay more for skins? I am done with this.

[E. Albright]

If it was a free game, I'd grumble but accept it. But having to pay for the game and then being asked to pay more for skins? I am done with this.

Enh, it depends. Is the seller accruing an ongoing cost like free content updates or maintaining a significant number of servers? If so, I can see ongoing paid cosmetic releases (though only in a transactional manner; to hell with loot crates). If the game is purely stand-alone and should be done aside from technical support, then yeah, what's done should be done. Otherwise, they need to bake the ongoing server/dev fees into the front end, and as long as I'm not forced to choose between nothing but blue or russet potato skins, I'm okay with gating some new cosmetics after release. Is it ideal? No, but ideal is free games with unlimited endless dev. Gated cosmetics is better than "subscription" or "bloated retail price".

[Reelya]

I don't think paying for cosmetic skins is a bad thing.

This is what I've said before: current games are so expensive to produce that a standard $60 per box doesn't pay for development. They can increase the box price, however that would decrease sales, so that's a zero-sum game.

So ... having optional purchases means that the box price stays lower, but the game company has more revenue, which pays for both development and continuing after-market support, that would otherwise have to be covered in your box price. You're getting shit in the base game that's paid for on the expectation of how many additional skins they will sell after the game is launched.

It's easy to see that you're missing out on the skins as a result of not having the extra cash, but it's less easy to see the base content they would have cut if they hadn't been able to extrapolate how much revenue they could get from selling those skins to some players.

For example, if you engage with a customer support person for 2 hours for game you purchased, that costs the company $30 an hour, completely blowing the money they made selling you the game (in fact they probably only made $15 and the distribution+retailers made the rest). Modern gamers expect that their money entitles them to customer support, but ... it's clearly not within budget to provide that level of support unless there are additional revenue streams.

[Teneb]

I don't think paying for cosmetic skins is a bad thing.

This is what I've said before: current games are so expensive to produce that a standard $60 per box doesn't pay for development. They can increase the box price, however that would decrease sales, so that's a zero-sum game.

So ... having optional purchases means that the box price stays lower, but the game company has more revenue, which pays for both development and continuing after-market support, that would otherwise have to be covered in your box price. You're getting shit in the base game that's paid for on the expectation of how many additional skins they will sell after the game is launched.

It's easy to see that you're missing out on the skins as a result of not having the extra cash, but it's less easy to see the base content they would have cut if they hadn't been able to extrapolate how much revenue they could get from selling those skins to some players.

For example, if you engage with a customer support person for 2 hours for game you purchased, that costs the company $30 an hour, completely blowing the money they made selling you the game (in fact they probably only made $15 and the distribution+retailers made the rest). Modern gamers expect that their money entitles them to customer support, but ... it's clearly not within budget to provide that level of support unless there are additional revenue streams.

They are expensive because of the fuckhuge PR budgets and an unhealthy fixation with the best graphics when it's not exactly necessary. And if you are in a business whose point is making games and you are not making enough money with them... then you are in the wrong fucking business.

And game prices HAVE gone up. Not only has there been inflation, meaning that those 60 dollars cost way more than they did 10 years ago, but there are: collectors editions. super colectors editions. deluxe editions. complete editions. ultimate editions. olympian editions. dlc. day one dlc that was cut from the main fucking game. season passes. microtransactions. and so on and so forth.

They are not complaining that they aren't making enough money. They are complaining that they are not making ALL OF THE MONEY, thus enabling an unfeasable perpetual growth of their investors' shares.

[Reelya]

They are expensive because of the fuckhuge PR budgets

They have huge PR budgets because that's how people hear about your game, and thus buy it. The end result is that you get more game for your $60 rather than less.

If they spend $10 million on promotion it's so that they can count on $20 million extra revenue. So, they're only going to spend extra on promotion as long as it increases sales revenue faster than it increases costs. The end result, is that total cost per copy is reduced. And when they're initially budgeting the game, they take the increased revenue that marketing gives them into account. It's not an either-or situation. Development costs * marketing costs = profits. So, a big marketing budget gives them the leeway to make a big game. Take away the marketing, and then expect sales crash and they slash the development budget to compensate.

If you're not happy with that, buy indie games only, but don't complain about what they have to do to make games like GTA V viable.

And game prices HAVE gone up. Not only has there been inflation, meaning that those 60 dollars cost way more than they did 10 years ago

Uh, what? That's like the exact opposite of how inflation works. Hourly wages rise over time. Prices rise over time. If an item still costs $60 now and did 10 years ago, that's a price drop in inflation-adjusted terms.

collectors editions. super colectors editions. deluxe editions. complete editions. ultimate editions. olympian editions. dlc

Yeah, just buy the regular edition then. People who pitch in extra for those silly collectors versions are in fact subsidizing things so that the base price doesn't have to rise in line with inflation.

As for making money hand over fist: studios and publishers go broke all the time. THQ for example went broke in 2014. Telltale Games closing earlier this year, etc etc.

Even EA, their profit margin is only about 6% of their revenue. That's ... not actually very high in terms of different types of businesses. A slight reduction in profitability would be enough to send them into the red. If you knock off 3% of revenue on all their games then that would in fact halve their profits.

[Teneb]

And game prices HAVE gone up. Not only has there been inflation, meaning that those 60 dollars cost way more than they did 10 years ago

Uh, what? That's like the exact opposite of how inflation works.

Hourly wages rise over time. Prices rise over time. If an item still costs $60 now and did 10 years ago, that's a price drop in inflation-adjusted terms.

Haha, no. Wages stay the same, but are worth less so you have to spend more. Doubly so if you don't pay in dollars, since let me tell you prices? Totally gone up. Let me give you an example: four years ago, a AAA game was around R$100 in the steam store. Now? Anywhere from 150 to 250. Before such beauties like DLC, MTX, and so and so on.

collectors editions. super colectors editions. deluxe editions. complete editions. ultimate editions. olympian editions. dlc

Yeah, just buy the regular edition then. People who pitch in extra for those silly collectors versions are in fact subsidizing things so that the base price doesn't have to rise in line with inflation.

As for making money hand over fist: studios and publishers go broke all the time.

THQ for example went broke in 2014. Telltale Games closing earlier this year, etc etc.

Even EA, there profit margin is only about 6% of their revenue. That's ... not actually very high in terms of different types of businesses. A slight reduction in profitability would be enough to send them into the red.

They are going bankrupt because that money goes to pay executive bonuses, to butter up investors, to patent new and incredible ways to "turn players into payers" (from an actual ad for a monetization algorythm). Not to game development. They are not poor indies scrapping by.

[Reelya]

What games even cost $250?

I can see Just Cause IV on Steam for $90, but that's Australian dollars (so about $70 US), and the price of an AAA game here hasn't changed since the 1990s.

[hector13]

He means 250... presumably Brazilian currency.

The price of a AAA game hasn't changed, but the delivery of said game most assuredly has. You had to press CDs and instruction manuals and cases and such prior to digital means of delivery.

Edit: oh hey I didn't see he already responded, that was silly. Edit2: never mind I'm just going mad thanks

[Reelya]

They are going bankrupt because that money goes to pay executive bonuses, to butter up investors, to patent new and incredible ways to "turn players into payers" (from an actual ad for a monetization algorythm). Not to game development. They are not poor indies scrapping by.

No, they're not indies. However a 6% profit margin on all EAs titles is not like a huge margin or anything. If they switched to straight box-price packaging, then most current-gen games they make would not be viable. They could cut total revenue collection on every single game by at most 6% before they start to run into trouble.

As for the CEO of EA, he got $35 million, but that was almost all in stock value, not money from profits. Giving him shares in the company is a value-transfer from the existing stockholders to him, not from company profits to him. Shares and profits are completely different things. He got given all those shares because they recognize that he grew the value of the company so now he's a partner. It's not the same thing as plundering the company's cash reserves to pay bonuses whatsoever.