Jump to content
rllmuk
Eighthours

PlayStation 5. Sony event on 11 June showed console and games

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Alex W. said:

We just don’t need “real” games to be these Avatar-esque jackpot-or-bankruptcy monstrosities. There are so many games that would be far better if there was about one sixth as much stuff on them, and so many leaner, smaller games that deserve to be pushed in to the spotlight by platform holders and publishers. If Parasite can be a more important movie than Godzilla King of the Monsters why can’t Telling Lies be a tentpole game release?

 

only now do I understand why microsoft put so much emphasis on the indie title releases for their consoles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, rafaqat said:

It’s pretty easy to make sure these £65 digital games don’t become the norm. Don’t buy at launch. Companies will adjust price to a level that we’re happy with.  But already people saying they’re ready to pay that in this thread.  Suckers. 
 

we’ve got hardware and game engines that  shout about how much easier they’re making development and reducing the number of hours needing to be spent on games dev and then we have the shite hawks trying a price hike on us?  They can get fucked!

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sid said:

Pretty sure I spent £65 on turok 

 

 

 

I never spent £70 on Virtua Racing on the MegaDrive. It cost me a tenner, some time later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone help me understand. I thought with Microsoft's smart delivery thing you get the best version of the game depending where you play it. So an xbox one game played on a series x console would be the series x version. So I'm confused why there would be a difference in price. Why wouldn't I buy the xbone version?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, p1nseeker said:

Can someone help me understand. I thought with Microsoft's smart delivery thing you get the best version of the game depending where you play it. So an xbox one game played on a series x console would be the series x version. So I'm confused why there would be a difference in price. Why wouldn't I buy the xbone version?

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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, p1nseeker said:

Can someone help me understand. I thought with Microsoft's smart delivery thing you get the best version of the game depending where you play it. So an xbox one game played on a series x console would be the series x version. So I'm confused why there would be a difference in price. Why wouldn't I buy the xbone version?

You're in the PS5 thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This idea that companies have more costs now and so can pass it onto the consumer and there been no other cost savings over the years is pretty laughably naive.  If you think there won't be games being sold at £65 WITH micro transactions then I have some magic beans to sell to those guys.

  • Upvote 1
  • Empathy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rafaqat said:

This idea that companies have more costs now and so can pass it onto the consumer and there been no other cost savings over the years is pretty laughably naive.  If you think there won't be games being sold at £65 WITH micro transactions then I have some magic beans to sell to those guys.

You'll have to explain where the cost savings are coming from over the past 20 years. Last I checked it takes about 10 times the staff twice as long to make a relatively modest game and their salaries have inflated 80%, and since game sales haven't jumped 16x, it had better be significant.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rafaqat said:

This idea that companies have more costs now and so can pass it onto the consumer and there been no other cost savings over the years is pretty laughably naive.


The number of studio and publisher bankruptcies over the past generation despite one of the all time largest install bases and game prices would suggest otherwise.
 

The costs of these things are legally-mandated bits of accounting information for the big publishers; there’s no getting around the fact that AAA games are still getting more expensive to develop, either because of technical demands or because the expectation for “AAA” is being shifted higher.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Alex W. said:

there’s no getting around the fact that AAA games are still getting more expensive to develop, either because of technical demands or because the expectation for “AAA” is being shifted higher.

The arms-race factor is a big issue, in terms of both production values and sheer girth. Your game needs to be more appealing to a "window shopper" than anything else they've seen that's come out in the past three weeks. No-one is going to buy anything else around the release of TLOU2 or Cyberpunk 2077, even if that hypothetical game was £10 cheaper I reckon.

 

So next generation, expect even fewer, even bigger games, that need to sell to most of the install base. There will maybe be two games out of ND this generation I think, and those need to pay for 7-8 years of staff salaries.

 

TLOU2: Factions not withstanding, anyway. And that will be completely chock a block with microtransactions, season passes and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Spacehost said:

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

 

I see, cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

PUSEIfm.jpg

  • Upvote 2
  • Empathy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

image.thumb.png.67512c1fe5680d1305cfff05314a2d7b.png

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dudley said:

 

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

 

image.thumb.png.67512c1fe5680d1305cfff05314a2d7b.png

 

 

Super Street Fighter II for the SNES was crazy expensive and IIRC it was only available at Electronics Boutique in the UK. Maybe £59.99 or £69.99.

 

Additionally, that guy needed a dentist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

PUSEIfm.jpg


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • 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.