What the hell is happening with the video-game market?

[Aflakk47]

I think you mean Tomb Raider? As Rise of the Tomb Raider is from Feb 2016 and still cost 49,99 euro.

Anyway, I do the same.
With AAA games I wait til they are atleast 19,99 euro before I buy. Prefferably I would wait for it to get even lower than that, but depends if I have other games to play, and how bad I want it.. Like I recently bought Styx: Shard of Darkness full price, because I had nothing else I wanted to play currently.

None AAA games I wait for them to go below 9,99 euro.

No, I mean Rise of the Tomb Raider, bought the 20 Year Anniversary edition which had all DLC included for like, $30, think it was also with Christmas sale for even more savings

[Sencha]

Agree with OP's rant. Now it's considered ok to release buggy and unfinished games and then sell DLCs to add the missing parts.

AAA companies are the worst. They release uncreative games where it's impossible to fail because they are too scared casual players will not buy it.

[Scrysis]

Game devs usually aren't the ones who set prices or decide that there will be 4 dlcs of "x" amount of content. That's usually the publisher, or the company management.

I don't know what side to come down on this issue - I understand that games have gotten more complex than imaginable, games like Witcher 3, Fallout 4, GTA5, there's a HUGE amount of work there, year's worth. So yeah, you could make the argument that paid DLCs help fund the cost of making more content, but that flies in the face of how much money these games generate. Fallout 4 made 3/4 of a billion dollars, according to sources. How much did it actually cost to make? I'm betting a fraction of that. So is it an issue of the publisher taking all the profits, (Record industry model), or does a game like Fallout 4 actually cost 3/4 of a billion dollars to make? Where's that money going? Is it being put back into the game, in the form of dlcs? If so, then why charge for them? I've read GTA5 cost $270 million to make, so you could ballpark F4 around that mark. Is it developer greed? Or publisher greed? Hard to say without a look at actual numbers. Granted, you don't spend that much money unless you're pretty sure you'll make it back, and then some. But is it really so expensive that $25 for Far Harbor, or whatever it cost, is necessary? (I enjoyed it and don't mind the cost, for the record) I don't know.
As for loot boxes and stuff, I don't care. As long as it's cosmetic, more power to them. There will always be people with a couple of bucks to drop on skins and such. It's releasing a game incomplete that I think about. Are games getting so massive, they have to release them in segments, because they take so long and cost so much, or is the publisher taking the lion's share of the profit, so they have to sell more to finance dlcs? Or is it just a trend that has taken over the industry, for the bad for players? Or all of the above?

Edited to add - is it like the concert industry, where performers get a percentage of ticket sales, so companies like TicketMaster have tacked on charges like handling fees, that are almost as much as the ticket itself, so they make more money? (Traditionally, the band would get the larger share of ticket sales) Is the publishing deal with Zenimax that Bethesda makes less off the box sale initially, but get a bigger percentage of dlcs sales? I could see that being the case, easily. I don't know, I'm just thinking on screen here.

I'm going to say something here that might not be considered kosher, so bear with me. . . . profit is not always bad. Publishing companies handle things that a development studio can't or doesn't want to handle, such as advertising. Advertising, from what I've read, is HALF of the total development budget. So literally whatever it takes to make a game has to be put into advertising (which is kind of mind-blowing). Then you have the fact that publishing companies use that profit to sometimes fund games with a smaller audience, or sometimes, they wind up funding games that don't do well.

Now, I'll confess. . . I don't know what the profit margins are. I'm okay with a bunch of the profit models because they keep the price down. But I certainly don't condone games being broken into really small pieces (wat.) for the sake of profit, and while I was hopeful for the paid Bestheda mods, their current system really isn't what I would support (it seems to exploit modders too much now). Shadow of War micro transactions? Sure, why not. Everything the micro-transactions offer can be earned in game. Shadow of War "honorary" dlc? Seems like the developers wanted to make a tribute, and the publisher wanted to profit. Yeah, their shiftiness on the subject is not really fair, but I'll just treat it like any other dlc.

I'm in the same boat as you. I can see some of the cogs in the machine, so I know that they are there, and roughly what they're doing, but I can't see the whole picture either. I have no clue what overall net profit is, or how to judge it.

I do know that the pharmaceutical companies make more profit than the oil companies with people's lives in the balance, so I'm going to save my anger for them, unless the whole gaming industry goes belly-up. :-P

[Redwolf]

Because us.
We the consumers buy it. Nothing to do with the industry, they see if they make it, we will come.

People just aren't that smart with expenses these day. Not smart with the wallet good for the companies, not the consumers

I think we should try to help people understand these complete games we got decades ago. People having varying levels of experience with games, buying, playing, critiquing, take your pick. When some of us grew up with games and have matured with them, we can't expect everyone to be the the Babe Ruth of gaming here. How DLC was extra story, unfinished at release, that is later finished enhancing the original products experience and sold as an addon or expansion.

I remember that being the original deal for DLC, then day one DLC happened. The rest is history.

Edit:

I think the video game market is clearly doing fine, otherwise it wouldn't grow so much every year. First, DLC is not cut from games; additional content is built for the purposes of being DLC and that is obviously done in an economical manner, so at production time, not much later - you have to get all the artists and actors etc back in otherwise. Second, the OP essentially boils down to I want all the games, for free, complete, instantly, and they all have to be perfect. The fault is thus not in the logic of the video game market, but with the expectation that a market should help a consumer be smart - the burden of making decisions that fulfil the hopes you have for games (free, complete, available now, perfect) is on you. You don't have to buy all the games on the market - you don't have time to play them all anyway.

Mass Effect 3 Day 1 DLC says hi. Don't get me wrong I bought the shit out of that Prothean, but I digress...

[Swalload]

Greetings champions. This is a small rant that I'll be making, so #1 - don't take things too seriously, 'cause I'm pissed off, #2, feel free to disagree/agree with me, #3 - I'd be grateful if you contribute with the thread with your opinion.

So, okay. Here it goes:

What the actual fuck is happening with our video-game industry? We're slowly melting into some kind of monster, made of money and greedyness. "Welcome to the real world, kiddo" is something that I hear all the time, but really? Are you okay with these kinds of stuff?

Since the last generation, the gaming market has been suffering from a lot of topics, some that I present below:

• Full games are being torn apart to be released in small chunks; These are actually rare cases, but for things like the FF7 remake I agree it's fucking garbo.
• Expansion Packs became small DLC content that costs just as much; Small but expensive DLCs are indeed cancer.
• Paid skins in free games became gambling microtransactions in PAID GAMES; Yes that's bad but it doesn't prevent anyone from enjoying the game normally, cosmetic stuff can be a million dollars I couldn't care less, it's not content.
• Don't even get me started in Season Passes (Paying for the "promise" of future content, that sometimes takes a long, long time to be released); Usually the longer it takes the better it is (sure there are exceptions) but for a game I really like and I know I will play a lot I don't mind buying a season pass, in the end I save money on things that I would buy anyways. I don't really see a problem in season pass.
• Triple-A games and companies going to Early Access; You'll have to elaborate on why you hate early access so much, and if you're not sure you really understand what it does I would be happy to explain it in details.
• EARLY FUCKING ACCESS; See previous comment.
• Paying to participate in a Beta Game (Quake: Champions is an example of this); I don't know exactly how Quake Champions decided to market their game but if people have to pay for beta access then pay again for the game then yeah that's bullshit. If it's one time fee that gives access to beta as well, I don't see why it would get anyone mad.
• Lack of creativity in the triple-A department, leading to that "Deja vu"(I've already played this!) feeling in various games; Yeah, that happens, but nothing forces you to play that, you can always search for something else, we're living literally in a golden age of gaming I'm sure you can find something that makes you hard down there.
• Indie gaming suffering from a lot of problems as well (used to be a cool market, but greed is making it slowly degrade as well); Again I would need exemples, the indie games I've played recently are extremely good.
• Kickstarter leading to a lot of failures and bad games; Well kickstarter is pretty much a "pay in what you believe in", AKA gambling TBH. There are some project like Divinity Original Sin 2 that we all knew would be a safe bet but most projects are shady as fuck. Again, nothing forces you to invest in that,
  why does that make you so mad?
• Companies being shady as fuck (Warner Bros with the death of its employee; I missed that news.
• Charging for MODS. MODS, for fuck sake. Yup that's bullshit.
• Asset Flippers stealing games and assets to flood online stores with shitty games; I guess that's shitty but how does that affect your gaming experience? I don't get it.

And much, much more. I understand that gaming isn't all bad nowadays, but we should not be having to thank developers if they choose to include "free content after launch" or if their PC port of game X runs well, as these kinds of thing should be expected to be there from the start! ***** Again, I understand the old saying "Welcome to the real world, kid", but I disagree. We still have ways to vote against these kinds of bullshit - with our wallets.

Anyway. Thanks for reading, and sorry for the outrage. I hope you agree with me in some topics, and if you disagree, feel free to express your opinion. I'm all ears.

Added my comments in bold in the quote of your post.

***** I want you to explain why you believe that extra content after launch and PC ports should be expected to be there from the start?

EDIT: some bold comments were in quotes by mistakes.

[Krastyn]

I remember that being the original deal for DLC, then day one DLC happened. The rest is history.

How does day one DLC change the deal?

[Swiftshadow]

Yep. Basically this.

Only ever early access game I bought was The Division. I am never making that mistake again. I honestly think the only decent companies are Rockstar, CD Projekt and Larian Studios.

EA obviously not.
Even Bethesda seems like they are turning slightly scummy.
Activision Blizzard I too have lost faith. Just a matter of time IMO.
Almost any of the countless P2W mobile games. I would glady pay the price of a full PC game for a mobile game, IF it's good and NOT the usual P2W or gacha.

I understand the motive to make money as companies. But false promises on a product is borderline scamming imo.

[Hey There Guys its Metro]

Same thing that is happening in every market.

[Redwolf]

How does day one DLC change the deal?

This was in the far off time of 2013 where we bought physical disks and there were no day one patches (there probably still were). So the game was burned onto a cd, marketed, and shipped. Seemed like a finished product right there no? Nope, day one, on the disk DLC for more than the $60 you already shelled out.

The best was how PC players were miffed and just unlocked the character anyway free of charge.

[Deleted]

2016 and 2017 had a lot of titles I really enjoyed playing. Strangely none of them are from a Western Publishers, kinda odd.

Tales of Berseria, A Rose in the Twilight, Akiba's Beat, Atelier Firis, Disgaea 5, Dragon Quest Builders, Exist Archive, Gravity Rush Remaster and Gravity Rush 2, Megadimension Neptunia VII, Yakuza 0 and Kiwami, Nier Automata, Shantae: Half-Genie Hero, Final Fantasy XV, Story of Seasons, Trio of Towns, Ever Oasis, Persona 5, Yonder - The Cloud Catcher, Fire Emblem - Shadows of Valentia, Zelda - Breath of the Wild, Oceanhorn, Etrian Odyssey - Tha Farnir Knight, and a lot I don't remember right now without looking them up .

Really enjoyed playing those, there were no stupid forced microtransactions or bad gameplay. All have been worth their money and time for me. So dunno, maybe you just look at the wrong games?

[Krastyn]

This was in the far off time of 2013 where we bought physical disks and there were no day one patches (there probably still were). So the game was burned onto a cd, marketed, and shipped. Seemed like a finished product right there no? Nope, day one, on the disk DLC for more than the $60 you already shelled out.

The best was how PC players were miffed and just unlocked the character anyway free of charge.

Funny, I was at Best Buy yesterday, and there were tons of physical copies of games. Was there even a single AAA game in 2017 that was digital only?

You mentioned the day on DLC of Mass Effect 3. Did you feel the game was incomplete without it? I sure didn't. I never bought it, and got way more value out of my $60 on the game compared to other sources.

[stellvia]

Offering a Steam-like marketplace where modders could sell mod content with the parent company taking a cut is one thing. But the current implementation by Bethesda for example, is to contract people to make content they ask for and give them a small one-time fee. Then they keep 100% of the sales of said content. Its not a mod, its DLC at a fraction of the cost to them for a real developer.

[Redwolf]

You mentioned the day on DLC of Mass Effect 3. Did you feel the game was incomplete without it? I sure didn't. I never bought it, and got way more value out of my $60 on the game compared to other sources.

I only mention the physical game thing because it was literally the last game I physically bought. Except for FFX's remake, that one I bought physically, because the ps4 has a limited hard drive.

The game was terrific! Don't take my diatribe about day one dlc as anything but appricieation for ME3 or the entire trilogy for that matter (even... gasp Andromeda was great!), I only point to that as an example of potentially snipped content repackaged and sold back to us. Whatever internal struggles or marketing or development that went into that decision I don't know or care. People just lost their shit when DLC no longer met the standard it started as. To that point people have mentioned how the price of games has been static, that right there, is a price increase masqueraded as DLC.

Again, I do appreciate bioware and the countless hours of enjoyment the ME and Kotor series has given me.

[Krastyn]

The game was terrific! Don't take my diatribe about day one dlc as anything but appricieation for ME3 or the entire trilogy for that matter (even... gasp Andromeda was great!), I only point to that as an example of potentially snipped content repackaged and sold back to us. Whatever internal struggles or marketing or development that went into that decision I don't know or care. People just lost their shit when DLC no longer met the standard it started as. To that point people have mentioned how the price of games has been static, that right there, is a price increase masqueraded as DLC.

Unfortunately people on the whole, tend to be stupid sheep.

Whether a DLC is released day 1, or day 749 should have absolutely 0 bearing on whether the original game had value, or the DLC has value. People simply have a sense of greed and entitlement when something is released earlier.

[Kazgrel]

Please elaborate on how Atari 2600, NES, SNES, Sega Genesis, Sega Saturn, Sega CD, Playstation, and Playstation 2 contributed to this phenomena that only occurred when consoles became more closer to resembling PCs in architecture and digital marketplace. I'm sure it's a fascinating history.



Is No Man's Sky really the worst example at this point? Disappointing launch, but a developer that's continued to work diligently to get patches out and bring the game towards the original intent without charging for it. Within the first months of release, people were assuming Hello Games would take their money and disappear, but they absolutely haven't. While there's a lesson to be learned from that whole situation, it's certainly not the more egregious example. I'd still put Mighty No. 9 above No Man's Sky by miles as an example of being suckered.

Heck, at this point, No Man's Sky is out, hasn't been charging money, and is further on the path to their vision than Star Citizen is. Which one is really bleeding its customers dry?

Lol, I might have to borrow that last sentence for a friend of mine, who owns NMS and has already sunk several hundred dollars into SC...

Sometimes people take great offense when you point out that they are an example of the "problem" with gaming.

- - - Updated - - -

Regarding the OP:

Consumer expecations and desires took a weird shift towards stupid, it seems. I've always thought that if a game is developed that's fun, people enjoy it and provide genuine hype for it on their own, the money part of it will more than handle itself. Worked that way for a good 15-20 years, in my experience (starting circa 1990), but I'll also attribute that to levels of nostalgia, too. I miss things like unlockable cheat codes and/or characters; part of that's due to having mostly played MMOs for the past decade, though, so that's partially my own damn fault. But how many games have such things now? Instead, elements like that get flubbed into another form of DLC that folks have to pay extra for.

I've spent money on stupid shit in games, too; recently paid for a few emotes for my FF14 character since they were/are on sale. I've gotten my entertainment out of those, but do I still think I was a bit of a dumbass? Yes, there's a small nagging voice in my head telling me I should know better...yet at the same time, I've had enough fun out of those emotes to justify the cost. Weird how I can view it that way. That's probably the only legit "stupid" purchase I've made since I spent a small fortune transferring characters to a new home server on WoW several years ago...but that was stupid for a number of other reasons, and Blizzard, which put that service on sale at a discount literally 2 days after my transfer, threw me a rope in the form of converting the difference in $ spent into subscription time, which was 3-4 months worth of sub time.

I can't sit here and regret what I spent, though; simply learn from it and not do it again. Hard to impart that sort of wisdom on some people, though, such as the person I mentioned who 1. preordered No Man's Sky amidst all it's mega-hype and 2. has already sunk several hundred dollars into Star Citizen. I dunno if it's the sci-fi sim crowd or what, but it seems that's a genre that attracts some serious whales. Not to say MMOs don't have their share of such people...otherwise we wouldn't have all these cash shops cropping up for every MMO ever made at this point.

Very vexing and frustrating subject to think on, that's for sure.

[Kissintel]

Lol, I might have to borrow that last sentence for a friend of mine, who owns NMS and has already sunk several hundred dollars into SC...

Sometimes people take great offense when you point out that they are an example of the "problem" with gaming.

What's strange too is that (while I have put money into SC) fans of the game get super upset when you point out that has elements of Pay to Win.

[Kazgrel]

What's strange too is that (while I have put money into SC) fans of the game get super upset when you point out that has elements of Pay to Win.

Yeah, when you have to "preorder" certain ships for nearly the price of new games (I can't remember specifics as to the ship's name or the exact price)...needless to say, I gave my friend that tilted-head "dafuq?" expression.

[Krastyn]

I've gotten my entertainment out of those, but do I still think I was a bit of a dumbass? Yes, there's a small nagging voice in my head telling me I should know better...yet at the same time, I've had enough fun out of those emotes to justify the cost. Weird how I can view it that way.

This to me is the key part. It's not weird. You got time value for your money. That is what people should be comparing to in order to determine "value". Do you feel you got enjoyment out of what you paid. It shouldn't matter what game X did, or that other flashy thing.

I'll often compare things to movies. The price of a movie here is $15-$20, depending on the theatre you go to. Movies clock under 3 hours, so I'm spending $4-$5 per hour for enjoyment. If I buy a $60 game, if it gives me 12-15 hours playtime, that's value.

Hell, I like doing escape rooms, having done over 30. They're $25 for 45 minutes.

People just seem to have really high expectations for what they should get out of a $60 game.

[Kazgrel]

This to me is the key part. It's not weird. You got time value for your money. That is what people should be comparing to in order to determine "value". Do you feel you got enjoyment out of what you paid. It shouldn't matter what game X did, or that other flashy thing.

I'll often compare things to movies. The price of a movie here is $15-$20, depending on the theatre you go to. Movies clock under 3 hours, so I'm spending $4-$5 per hour for enjoyment. If I buy a $60 game, if it gives me 12-15 hours playtime, that's value.

Hell, I like doing escape rooms, having done over 30. They're $25 for 45 minutes.

People just seem to have really high expectations for what they should get out of a $60 game.

Reminds me of all the years I've had to defend the idea of spending $15 per month to play a game, whether it was WoW back then, or as I do now with FF14. As you noted, that's less than the price of a ticket + drink/popcorn at a movie theater nowadays, so it's no different than going to a movie once a month; once I relate it to people that way, they tend to bug off.

Those emotes were almost the same price as 2 months of sub time, though. I don't get that feeling of buyer's remorse about them now, though. Wrote them off in my mind as a birthday gift.

Escape rooms are fun; did one a year or two ago as part of a "team building exercise", where groups of us were split up into different parts of the building for the various puzzles or whatever. That one didn't cost me, though...company covered it.

[rosebull]

Yep. Basically this.

Only ever early access game I bought was The Division. I am never making that mistake again. I honestly think the only decent companies are Rockstar, CD Projekt and Larian Studios.

EA obviously not.
Even Bethesda seems like they are turning slightly scummy.
Activision Blizzard I too have lost faith. Just a matter of time IMO.
Almost any of the countless P2W mobile games. I would glady pay the price of a full PC game for a mobile game, IF it's good and NOT the usual P2W or gacha.

I understand the motive to make money as companies. But false promises on a product is borderline scamming imo.

Sorry you feel this way, but imo Blizzard is one of if not the only company that still provides new content updates for games nearing 20 years old. Even before SC Remastered they were balancing/adding patches. On top of that, OW which is a one-time purchase constantly has new content, maps, heroes, game modes even. And you aren't charged for *any of this* when all of the companies you listed would clearly charge for all of these features. Blizzard has its issues, but its more on the listening side, and even then the forums make it out to be way worse than it is.

D3 before RoS and after still gets new content. I'm just saying, when it comes to bang for your buck Blizzard is leagues ahead. Activision however, we could agree on.