PlayStation 5 - Next gen is expensive

[p1nseeker]

44 minutes ago, Spacehost said:

Smart Delivery is optional, NBA 2K21 won't use it.

 

I see, cheers

[HarryBizzle]

I have to say I’m really loving seeing everyone fall over themselves to mentally justify paying £65 for a video game. Especially when it’s been prompted by with a yearly sports game that revealed next gen sweat as its main draw.

 

[Dudley]

57 minutes ago, Peb Kacharach said:

 

Games have been £50-60 for the last 25 years. I think it's ok for them to charge a bit more. My backlog would appreciate it.

 

By sheer coincidence I was researching a new Yesterzine and came across this which I feel is at least slightly relevant. Look at DKC.

 

[gospvg]

I remember paying £69.99 for ISS Soccer on the SNES ( Lost a bet with my brother).

[Super Craig]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/idg-other-publishers-are-considering-raising-game-prices-for-ps5-and-xbox-series-x-development-costs-have-increased-by-200-300-compared-to-2005.240199/post-38721226

 

This is company that raised prices first
 

Net Revenues - $3.089 billion, up 16% YoY

Net bookings - $2.99 billion, up 2% YoY

Microtransactions - $1.39 billion, up 29% YoY

Net income - $404.5 million, up 21% YoY

"Nearly all of our titles outperformed in the fourth quarter including NBA 2K20, GTA V and GTA Online, Red Dead Redemption 2, Borderlands 3, and Social Point's mobile games."

NBA 2K20 in particular was the main driver for digital mTX growth, and saw huge engagement spikes in the year with DAUs up 15%. MyTeam users--the monetized mode--were also up nearly 50% YoY.

Microtransactions made up 45% of net revenues, or $1.39 billion. Putting this in perspective, EA earned $2.8 billion from live services last year, and Ubisoft raked in $636 million in the same period. Activision-Blizzard made $956 million from mTX in a single quarter.


To put that MTX money into perspective that is development budget of GTA V, RDR2, NBA2K20 and Borderlands 3 COMBINED with money to spare.

[Vemsie]

10 minutes ago, HarryBizzle said:

I have to say I’m really loving seeing everyone fall over themselves to mentally justify paying £65 for a video game. Especially when it’s been prompted by with a yearly sports game that revealed next gen sweat as its main draw.

 

I would never pay that for a yearly sports game or a game with MTX. I have zero problems justifiying it for good, lengthy videogames I can get dozens of hours of enjoyment out of though. If you look at it from that angle, it's much cheaper than most forms of entertainment (cinema, theme parks, restaurants) and games aren''t cheap to make.
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2020-07-02-idg-other-publishers-are-considering-raising-game-prices-for-ps5-and-xbox-series-x
 

Quote

"The last time that next-gen launch software pricing went up was in 2005 and 2006, when it went from $49.99 to $59.99 at the start of the Xbox 360 and PS3 generation," he says.

"During that time, the costs and prices in other affiliated verticals have gone up."

Osaki says that next-gen console game production costs have increased by 200% to 300%, depending on the IP, studio and genre, but the prices have remained at $59.99. Meanwhile, cinema ticket prices have risen 39%, Netflix subscription costs have gone up 100%, and Cable TV packages have risen by 105%.

I think we're gonna see more variable prizes this gen though. We had that this gen as well, with games like Ratchet & Clank, Dreams, Astro Bot and The Last Guardian for example, being cheaper than the likes of God of War and The Last of Us 2.

[Eighthours]

1 hour ago, Spacehost said:

It's only marginally higher in real terms than I paid for Metal Gear Solid 21 years ago. When I was literally a child and had to buy my own games with money I made after school.

 

Leaving aside that 'it was really expensive then so it's fine being really expensive now too' isn't an argument that I think is particularly valid, I dare say that manufacturing CDs was more expensive per unit than it is now, plus the more elaborate game boxes, plus the proper written manuals, plus the cost of inferior distribution channels of the time. Also I don't know how the licensing fee for publishers has changed since MGS was released.

 

Maybe I'm wrong but £65 for a game actually feels worse now than it did when I was a kid, maybe because the ubiquity of videogames is now so normalised.

[Stopharage]

I appreciate the concerns about digital prices but can’t understand why more people don’t gameshare. I’ve shelled out £50 for Cyberpunk and in return my friend paid for TLOU2. Get each game on release,  for £25 each. It’s an absolute doddle to set up too. 

[HarryBizzle]

It’s not digital prices, it’s prices. I understand that “no one pays RRP” but as the RRP goes up so does the amount you pay, regardless of whatever work arounds people have to mitigate these. 

 

The games market is clearly viable, especially when you’re making a licensed annual sports game notorious for minimal changes year to year and you’re one of the biggest publishers in the industry. This is ignoring the fact that much smaller games are offering you a free next gen copy of their game if you buy a copy at current prices. So are bigger and certainly more expensive games to make, so this whole “won’t somebody please think of the inflation?” does nothing for me.

[Eighthours]

Out of interest, does anyone know how much 'content' costs in a videogame compared to development of the tech behind the game (I assume that even something using Unreal requires some bespoke development)? Are we only seeing 50-60 hour epics because it's perceived that this is how customers see value? Would such a game be much cheaper to make if it was only 10 hours, or is developing the tech and initial assets so expensive that piling on extra content is comparatively cheap compared to getting the bones of the game together in the first place?

 

I think I may be answering my own question by recalling how I once read that creating art assets was a bloody expensive part of the process, and that's what you need when you add content unless you cheap out and recycle areas (and then of course you probably have extra voice acting,  mocap, writing, music etc). But I'd be interested if any devs here could comment on this 'length = value' question and how it relates to budget. Are developers spending needlessly when customers would be happy with 10 hour games (particularly in our digital future where games can't be traded in)?

[Spacehost]

1 minute ago, Eighthours said:

 

Leaving aside that 'it was really expensive then so it's fine being really expensive now too' isn't an argument that I think is particularly valid, I dare say that manufacturing CDs was more expensive per unit than it is now, plus the more elaborate game boxes, plus the proper written manuals, plus the cost of inferior distribution channels of the time. Also I don't know how the licensing fee for publishers has changed since MGS was released.

It really wasn't expensive then- I paid about £30 combined for the Staind and Alien Ant Farm albums a year or two later. I don't see how a game can be considered expensive when it costs the same as two albums.

 

Games weren't horribly expensive on PS1 back in the day, they're not horribly expensive now, and an extra £5 on top isn't going to change much of anything. Especially for the people posting on here.

[Spacehost]

6 minutes ago, Eighthours said:

Out of interest, does anyone know how much 'content' costs in a videogame compared to development of the tech behind the game (I assume that even something using Unreal requires some bespoke development)? Are we only seeing 50-60 hour epics because it's perceived that this is how customers see value? Would such a game be much cheaper to make if it was only 10 hours, or is developing the tech and initial assets so expensive that piling on extra content is comparatively cheap compared to getting the bones of the game together in the first place?

 

I think I may be answering my own question by recalling how I once read that creating art assets was a bloody expensive part of the process, and that's what you need when you add content unless you cheap out and recycle areas (and then of course you probably have extra voice acting,  mocap, writing, music etc). But I'd be interested if any devs here could comment on this 'length = value' question and how it relates to budget. Are developers spending needlessly when customers would be happy with 10 hour games (particularly in our digital future where games can't be traded in)?

Shorter games tend to be cheaper to make, but you've got an overhead regardless and it gets bigger and bigger as the content creation pipelines and expectations in terms of fidelity go up. For example, every big game will need an animation system that's at minimum as impressive as TLOU2 next gen, and that's years of engineering hours.

 

Bespoke content has always been the most expensive outlay. It's why Control can be made for a relatively modest amount due to its environment and character reuse, whereas TLOU probably cost a lot more since everything is one and done. But it's a technological arms race and using an engine doesn't save you from a lot of engineering work on the bits that make your game unique.

 

You're going to see a lot less big single player games full of bespoke content this generation due to the costs, and to make sure they sell, those games are going to be sprawling 50-200 hour epics or the appetiser for a multiplayer mode. The days of the 8-hour AAA SP campaign are over, it's just not economical to put the engineering work required in and not make a ton of content on top, unless all that engineering work goes into an online mode that can generate money.

[footle]

1 hour ago, The Mighty Ash said:

Are there going to be any Sony 1st party releases at launch? Im presuming just Spiderman spin off but not been keeping up.

 

 

 

Nothing confirmed outside of the Astrobot controller demo being preinstalled.

We assume that Spiderman will be launch - "holiday 2020" could slip to december, but you'd doubt it. Everything else was effectively undated, and may even be 2022 (Horizon) or, you know, 2027 (Gran Turismo 7). Quite a bit of that's probably COVID related.

[JoeK]

Honestly, if they allow me to play some of the PS4 exclusives at 60 FPS 'zippy' mode then that'll be good enough for me to start with. Since repurchasing the PS4 I've been busy mopping up loads of stuff that I missed and probably half of those I've yet to touch!

[simms]

I haven't spent anymore than £30 (if that) for a game in years, it just feels wrong spending that amount now.    And I used to by collectors editions at £70 plus.

[Alex W.]

All discussions about whether games need to cost more aside (they do, all other things being equal) I’m sure we can all agree, as we have at each generation switch, that this business model just isn’t sustainable and it’s going to keep every studio in this ridiculously precarious position where they have a good chance of going bankrupt if they do anything remotely ambitious.

[Spacehost]

9 minutes ago, Alex W. said:

All discussions about whether games need to cost more aside (they do, all other things being equal) I’m sure we can all agree, as we have at each generation switch, that this business model just isn’t sustainable and it’s going to keep every studio in this ridiculously precarious position where they have a good chance of going bankrupt if they do anything remotely ambitious.

I think the viable future for sub-AAA is probably a game like Control, where it's as much a platform for telling a bunch of stories in one universe as it is a single game.

[Alex W.]

As a quick aside, every time a developer releases a new COD that costs £60 and has microtransactions and they’ve got a Fortnite seasons system, the “gamer” reaction is like they’ve just changed the pricing and composition of their diabetes medication. “I can’t believe they’re making me spend more money for a worse game,” as they go ahead and buy it. Just don’t buy it! If people didn’t think that an online FPS was an identity and stopped showing up, the publishers would stop doing it pretty quickly.

[Vemsie]

3 minutes ago, Spacehost said:

I think the viable future for sub-AAA is probably a game like Control, where it's as much a platform for telling a bunch of stories in one universe as it is a single game.

And deals with Epic apparently.

[Darwock]

13 hours ago, GamesGamesGames said:

 

Is that so? Not doubting it, just astonished.

 

Edit: No, I am doubting it. Surely not?

I think I may be in that range on PS4. The only games I bought at launch/retail price were:

 

Gran Turismo Sport

The Last Guardian

Ace Combat 7

Tetris Effect

Astro Bot

No Man’s Sky

Wipeout Omega
 

...and I think I would be considered a gamer by most people. With the other games I bought on sale or as cheap digital releases (Polybius, HZD) it would still leave the total at less than 10 in the PS4’s lifespan so far.

 

edit - OK I forgot Rez Infinite and Lumines Remastered.

[metallicfrodo]

2 hours ago, Spacehost said:

You're going to see a lot less big single player games full of bespoke content this generation due to the costs, and to make sure they sell, those games are going to be sprawling 50-200 hour epics or the appetiser for a multiplayer mode. The days of the 8-hour AAA SP campaign are over, it's just not economical to put the engineering work required in and not make a ton of content on top, unless all that engineering work goes into an online mode that can generate money.

 

This just seems counter intuative. Surely the bigger/longer you make the game, the more the costs increase, however there is still only a set price range that you can sell within. Additionally I thought the general concensus was that outside of some really big tent pole releases SP games have been getting shorter and shorter over time. The biggest games of this gen have been nowhere near 50 hours long (at least for inital completion). Also all the data that I've seen bandied around suggests that most people don't get anywhere near completing most games they buy and that in reality a developer might as well have only pu 5-8 hours content in.

[SeanR]

the 8-hr campaign IS the appetiser for MP, though.

 

if people are only buying a few games, it makes sense to try to get them hooked to your title.

[PaB]

1 hour ago, metallicfrodo said:

 

. The biggest games of this gen have been nowhere near 50 hours long (at least for inital completion). Also all the data that I've seen bandied around suggests that most people don't get anywhere near completing most games they buy and that in reality a developer might as well have only pu 5-8 hours content in.

I’m not sure that’s true . The biggest sellers this gen , certainly on ps , have all been Between the 30-70 hour mark . In fact the top 15 are all that sort of length . 

 

 

[Parappa]

4 hours ago, Peb Kacharach said:

 

 

Additionally, that guy needed a dentist.

 

Edit - Oh - he has them 

[metallicfrodo]

24 minutes ago, PeteBrant said:

I’m not sure that’s true . The biggest sellers this gen , certainly on ps , have all been Between the 30-70 hour mark . In fact the top 15 are all that sort of length . 

 

 

 

So from wikipedia The top 15 are with cross references of time from Time to Beat for the main story.

 

1) GTA5 - 31 hours

2) Uncharted 4 - 15 hours 

3) Marvel's Spider-man - 16 hours

4) The Witcher 3 - 51 hours

5) God of War - 20.5 hours.

6) The Last of Us Remastered - 14.5 hours

7) Horizon Zero Dawn - 22.5 hours

8) Gran Turismo Sport - 11 hours **

9) Monster Hunter World - 49 hours

10) The Last of Us Part 2 - 22 hours

11) Final Fantasy VII remake 33.5 hours

12) Persona 5 - 97 hours

13) Detroit Become Human - 12 hours

14) Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy - 14.5 hours

15) Final Fantasy XV - 28 hours

 

So from looking at that the majority are less than 30 hours, with 50+ hours being real outliers. To be fair I'm surprised some of those games are actually that long.

 

Something that's obviously pretty difficult to get hold of is how long the majority of players actually played those games for.

 

[Majora]

I've completed about ten of those games and they all took me waaaay longer to beat than those times listed there. Are those times just to mainline the story and do absolutely nothing else?

[Uncle Mike]

I don't know Time to Beat as a source? Is that someone with predetermined knowledge ploughing through only the essential quests in order to see the final story cutscene? I'd be surprised if many people beat UC4 in 15 hours on their first go, for example.

[Spacehost]

2 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

I don't know Time to Beat as a source? Is that someone with predetermined knowledge ploughing through only the essential quests in order to see the final story cutscene? I'd be surprised if many people beat UC4 in 15 hours on their first go, for example.

It's user-reported and averaged out. It's probably on the lower side- the sort of people who report to game completion time sites are probably pretty game-savvy.

[metallicfrodo]

8 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

I don't know Time to Beat as a source? Is that someone with predetermined knowledge ploughing through only the essential quests in order to see the final story cutscene? I'd be surprised if many people beat UC4 in 15 hours on their first go, for example.

 

We had a topic on it recently. It Lists all kinds of data with regards to timings, so it has a median and shortest - longest times across, campaign, campaign +extras. completioninst.

 

Example here is God of Wars entry https://howlongtobeat.com/game?id=38050

 

Admittedly it's all self report from a number of people but it's the best resource I can find. 

 

Conversly to @Majora the three games I've completed on that list (HZD, God of War an Spider-man) I took less time than I've quoted from Time to Beat, and yes they are just the main storyline. 

 

EDIT: Just remembered that I've also completed TLOU:Remastered, no idea how long that took me but I did just try and get it over with so probably less time than that again.

[PaB]

41 minutes ago, metallicfrodo said:

 

So from wikipedia The top 15 are with cross references of time from Time to Beat for the main story.

 

1) GTA5 - 31 hours

2) Uncharted 4 - 15 hours 

3) Marvel's Spider-man - 16 hours

4) The Witcher 3 - 51 hours

5) God of War - 20.5 hours.

6) The Last of Us Remastered - 14.5 hours

7) Horizon Zero Dawn - 22.5 hours

8) Gran Turismo Sport - 11 hours **

9) Monster Hunter World - 49 hours

10) The Last of Us Part 2 - 22 hours

11) Final Fantasy VII remake 33.5 hours

12) Persona 5 - 97 hours

13) Detroit Become Human - 12 hours

14) Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy - 14.5 hours

15) Final Fantasy XV - 28 hours

 

So from looking at that the majority are less than 30 hours, with 50+ hours being real outliers. To be fair I'm surprised some of those games are actually that long.

 

Something that's obviously pretty difficult to get hold of is how long the majority of players actually played those games for.

 

I think most, of not all of those time to beat hours are somewhat inaccurate .. having played all of them except crash , I can comfortably add at least 50% to every estimate.