Please log in or register for the best forum experience.

    Pages:
  • 1
  • 2

Ashley Winchester Apr 10, 2012

avatar! wrote:

I was just thinking about the cost of games recently, and my conclusion is that these days the cost of games is by FAR the best it's ever been. The quality of games is also the best it's ever been.

I don't know if I'd brag about the quality of games being the highest it's ever been. While some will say it cuts down on taking chances I liked the days when gap between the diamonds and the crap was wider. It helped cut down on my decisions. I was told Batman Forever on the SNES was bad when it came out (of course Nintendo Power didn't flat out say that)... it WAS bad and I saved myself $60.

longhairmike Apr 10, 2012

if it was released now they'd try to charge you an extra $10 to download val kilmer's nipple-suit add-on pack

avatar! Apr 10, 2012

Ashley Winchester wrote:
avatar! wrote:

I was just thinking about the cost of games recently, and my conclusion is that these days the cost of games is by FAR the best it's ever been. The quality of games is also the best it's ever been.

I don't know if I'd brag about the quality of games being the highest it's ever been. While some will say it cuts down on taking chances I liked the days when gap between the diamonds and the crap was wider. It helped cut down on my decisions. I was told Batman Forever on the SNES was bad when it came out (of course Nintendo Power didn't flat out say that)... it WAS bad and I saved myself $60.

In my opinion, the quality is absolutely the best it has ever been, no doubt about it. In terms of diversity, it's also the best it has ever been. How many Western RPGs could you play on the SNES? Let's see, there was a horrible port of Ultima VII (the actual PC game was revolutionary), and there was Secret of Evermore... anything else? Yeah, that's just one example, but I think it's a fair example. Here's another example: Catherine. Even if the technology had been available back during the SNES days, I can't imagine such a game back then ever being ported. These days there is SO much to choose from that it almost becomes difficult to pick and choose. But it's far better to be in a land of plenty than a desert in my opinion. Of course, I say this with the notion that I really enjoy many of today's games. I do appreciate the classics of course, but I also appreciate today's technology. Sometimes, you get the best of both worlds where you have classic old-school like games with new world music and sound (Super Mario Galaxy in my opinion).

longhairmike Apr 10, 2012

avatar! wrote:

But it's far better to be in a land of plenty than a desert in my opinion.

you've never seen my back yard

GoldfishX Apr 11, 2012

My problem with factoring in cost is the time commitment a lot of today's games require. I don't have time for long quests and 10 hour tutorials. Back in the SNES era, a game might have cost $60-$70 and would only last 3-4 hours (let's assume it has no replay value, although all of my favorite 8 and 16 bit games are highly replayable). Might not be worth it to some people. Totally understandable. I have the Sega Genesis Collection and I can't say most of the games on it would have been worth the dough, considering I spent about 10 minutes tops on most of them.

I prefer fighters because you commit as much time as you want to them. Half hour of training? That works. All nighter with friends? Perfect. Same with Guitar Hero/Rock Band a few years ago. Very little time commitment and the time spent is nearly all satisfying gameplay. But most other games feel like chores to me.

Sure, a 100 hours quest for $20 sounds good, but how many of those 100 hours are actually worthwhile gameplay. These days, give me the 3-4 hour 8 and 16 bit games, and have the 3-4 hours be all gameplay.

avatar, I do think it is a good time for western games/genres right now. However, I think the Japanese faction hasn't really been pulling their weight this whole generation. I mean, there are SOME good games out there, but it feels like the developers/publishers are gun-shy or over-safe. Look at Capcom...They seem to lack direction and can't get their shit straight with downloadable stuff and their franchises (ahem, Megaman! and I question the idea of taking Tekken characters and putting them in a Street Fighter-style engine) Or how about Konami, slapping Castlevania on another game that is already in development. Or realizing they screwed up and joined the music game genre in the US too late with the craptastic Rock Revolution. I remember there were times when both companies couldn't do anything wrong. The less said of Square-Enix, the better...

I guess Nintendo's doing okay, if for nothing else, they remember 2D games exist. And SNK is kinda back with King of Fighters XIII, just kinda wish they would make some more stuff.

Ashley Winchester Apr 11, 2012

GoldfishX wrote:

Sure, a 100 hours quest for $20 sounds good, but how many of those 100 hours are actually worthwhile gameplay. These days, give me the 3-4 hour 8 and 16 bit games, and have the 3-4 hours be all gameplay.

Personally I perfer short games these days. Unlike when I was a teenager I really don't want the play a 60 hour RPG. I once thought the longer a game was the more value I got out of it - that simply isn't true.

GoldfishX wrote:

I do think it is a good time for western games/genres right now. However, I think the Japanese faction hasn't really been pulling their weight this whole generation.

I think you're giving western developers way too much credit here. It's easy to make and sell a lot of games when all you do take a pre-established engine and pop out another first person shooter because the genre is hot. As for the Japanese, they had their moment in the sun when RPGs where the thing on the PS1 - they are still paying for that. It's the same deal; people will eventually get sick of shooting things because of over proliferation and then another genre will be the in-thing. The only question is if eastern or western developers will benefit. Everything comes and goes in cycles.

GoldfishX wrote:

(ahem, Megaman!

I'm probably the only Mega Man fan that is - dare I say - happy, glad, pleased that Mega Man has been shelved. Yeah, it's a shame there won't be any more games (and I wanted Mega Man Legends 3 as much as the next guy; well, until I heard a new character was going share the spotlight with Mr. Voulnut) but at least Capcom can't do anymore damage to the name sake. Most of the newer spin-off were terrible anyway - original, X and Legends - is all I'll EVER care about.

GoldfishX wrote:

Or how about Konami, slapping Castlevania on another game that is already in development.

Wait, I'm confused. I thought this was initally under the name "Lords of Shadow" just to keep it under wraps. Now your telling me Konami took "God of War Clone 99" and just make it a Castlevania?

Anyway, if Konami wants to do this, I say let them. When it comes to the game series I enjoy - or rather enjoyed - I welcome cutoff points created these kinds of things anymore. Makes my life easier in in the long run not having to follow another series of games.

GoldfishX wrote:

Or realizing they screwed up and joined the music game genre in the US too late with the craptastic Rock Revolution.

Okay, now that's just funny...

GoldfishX wrote:

I remember there were times when both companies couldn't do anything wrong.

True dat.

GoldfishX wrote:

The less said of Square-Enix, the better...

I could elaborate on this, but I won't. I'll just say I agree.

Dartannian Apr 11, 2012 (edited Apr 11, 2012)

GoldfishX wrote:

Look at Capcom [...] Or how about Konami [...] The less said of Square-Enix, the better... I guess Nintendo's doing okay

I'd also agree that *mainstream* Japanese developers have been dropping the ball lately, as well, while American and Western developers seem to be thriving. While the Japanese may have taken the auto market from us, it seems like we've taken the video game market from them.

GoldfishX wrote:

Sure, a 100 hours quest for $20 sounds good, but how many of those 100 hours are actually worthwhile gameplay. These days, give me the 3-4 hour 8 and 16 bit games, and have the 3-4 hours be all gameplay.

This.

Developers put a lot of padding in their games, just to make you feel like you're getting your money's worth.

I'm not a big fan of running around a wide open, expansive world, just trying to figure out what I'm supposed to do. I'm interested in playing a game, not substituting virtual life for real life. (On the other hand, if someone created a video game that was essentially walking around virtual constructs of real life locations, updated by the minute via internet, I could actually get behind that. Being able to walk around a virtual construct of, say, New York City, from my living room chair would be interesting, especially if I was planning a trip to go there. Something like that might actually prove useful. I'm banking on Google developing something like that).

Simple side-scrolling games, there's absolutely no down time, because you're just supposed to go from point A to point B. Your path is laid out before you, all you have to do is cover it.

There's plenty of instances in which, if they hadn't spent so much time on bonus rounds and the like, they could've done a better job fleshing out the main game.

No specific examples come to mind, but I have experienced such a scenario from time to time.

Aside from that, I probably will end up sinking 60 hours into Xenoblade after I start playing it, but that will be because it's the only game left that I'll have to play at the time. And I'm expecting it to be good, after all the press I've heard about it.

longhairmike Apr 11, 2012

as teens we relished the sheer lethargic state that plopping down in front of a lengthy rpg offered.
now it's like "f---, where did all the time go?"

GoldfishX Apr 11, 2012

Ashley Winchester wrote:

I think you're giving western developers way too much credit here. It's easy to make and sell a lot of games when all you do take a pre-established engine and pop out another first person shooter because the genre is hot. As for the Japanese, they had their moment in the sun when RPGs where the thing on the PS1 - they are still paying for that. It's the same deal; people will eventually get sick of shooting things because of over proliferation and then another genre will be the in-thing. The only question is if eastern or western developers will benefit. Everything comes and goes in cycles.

I just see a lot of high profile western/American games nowadays. Nearly all of them, I have zero interest in and have no plans on playing them, so I'll assume some of them are worth the hype. That's my form of giving credit (is better than just assuming everything is garbage, no?) Japanese developers owned the 8, 16 and 32 bit consoles, but they are nowhere near that type of domination this generation.

I think Capcom was on the right path with Megaman 9 and 10, as well as Legends 3. But to just basically scrap one of your most famous mascots out of spite makes no business sense, for the company making the games or for people willing to buy the games. X was actually the most requested character for Marvel vs Capcom 3 on Capcom Unity, but apparently he did not make the "developers" list, so he still is not in the game.

As far as Castlevania goes, I'm still waiting for a current-gen game that has more depth than CV3. It was painfully obvious Lords of Shadow was not that.

XLord007 Apr 13, 2012

First, thanks to Dartannian for the Foamy the Squirrel link. Good stuff.

As for the prices of games, I know that the $60 games cost today is less in real dollars than the $60 we spent on SNES carts in the 90s, but notice that those SNES games retained their value. If they were good games, they stayed at full price for years. There was no incentive to wait to buy them since waiting usually meant having difficulty finding them and still paying the same price if you could. Today, games usually go on sale for 40-50% off in a few months and optical media has made scarcity a thing of the past.

Let's also not forget the significantly increased competition. Back in the 90s, there were countless games released, but only maybe 10 games a year were actually any good. Today, most games are at least good, and many are great. Since there are so many great games competing for our time and we can only play a limited number of them, why should we buy every game at launch for $60, especially when we observe how fast they come down in price. It just doesn't make sense. The only games I buy at launch anymore are games that I want to play really badly or ones that are rare or restricted from an inventory perspective. The exception to this would be games that I buy for political reasons like Xenoblade which I bought at launch to support the idea of Nintendo localizing niche content for the North American market.

And how can I forget the impact of digital indie games? If I'm paying $10 for something like Fez which is far better than most $60 games out there, what's my incentive to spend $60 on an inferior product that I don't have time to play? I don't want to hear developers whining about how much HD games cost to develop. Don't develop games that are financially unsound. There are countless big budget games that have come out recently that any gamer could have looked at in alpha and told a publisher: don't do it, you will lose millions. For an upcoming example, look at Capcom's Dragon's Dogma. There's no reason for that to exist, and I will be shocked if Capcom doesn't lose it's shirt on that one. It brings nothing to the table, and I would have canceled it in pre-production.

TerraEpon Apr 14, 2012

Though there weren't comparatively 'countless' games released. When you consider gaming across all spectrums, there's lots more, and more so so many cheap ones that they expenses tend to build up for some people. Add on top of THAT far more choices for your entertainment dollar (they didn't even have DVDs back then, VHS in general wasn't much of an option the majority of the time, plus many other things).  Add on top of THAT the fact there's simply so much more that simply exists that you need to take greater care if you want it, in a sense.
All these things add up.

vert1 Apr 14, 2012 (edited Apr 14, 2012)

Looks like a lot of people didn't read that article On "Value" for "Money". Anyhow, the digital stuff is getting serious. No one mentioned this on stc, but Sega is going this way for sure:

Update: After the break, find Sega of America's full statement.
Statement from Sega of America regarding restructuring:
Due to the challenging economic climate and significant changes within the interactive gaming industry, SEGA has made the decision to consolidate its publishing business in order to focus on developing digital content and driving its existing IP such as Sonic the Hedgehog, Total War, Football Manager and the Aliens franchise. This realignment of the business around existing and digital IP is a necessity to ensure that SEGA continues to invest and enhance its digital business offering, whilst reducing its reliance on traditional packaged goods.
As a result of the SEGA Sammy Board decision to consolidate the business, many of our internal functions will be re-structured and this could result in a number of redundancies within the publishing business across the Western organisation. The company will be entering into a re-structure phase to reflect the unprecedented change in our industry and to move the company forward appropriately.
The changes will position SEGA as a content led organisation, maximising sales with a strong and balanced IP portfolio across both packaged and digital distribution. The management team are confident that the proposed restructure will benefit the company and make it fit for purpose within the changing nature of the industry over the coming years.

I really despise digital. Most of my thoughts were posted in the Hard Corps: Uprising thread on the subject.

Dartannian Apr 15, 2012 (edited Apr 15, 2012)

Wishful Thinking: If they could figure someway to distribute the stuff digitally without all the DRM (digital rights management) crap - and not have to worry about people distributing it for free - we wouldn't have any problem with digital only, because the only problem with digital is the DRM.

All I can say other than that, is that I feel like a complete and total tool (or fool) for buying World of Goo on the Wii, when I could've gotten it on my PC DRM free, and a few other games, as well, at that.

Also, I'm a poor person - though not as impoverished as some - it's tempting for me to take that stack of physical copy video games I have, and sell them, even if it'll only hold the rent bill at bay for another month. Also: Clutter. I'm not much of a pack rat. I only really stick with the stuff that I can stand to hold onto forevers and evers, and carry around with me the rest of my life - to every new place I move into - like a ball and chain. Plus, the misses will probably end up pawning them, if I don't find a good place to sell them, despite the safe behind the wall portrait (dot-dot-dot).

Dartannian Apr 23, 2012

There might actually be an advantage to this, though.

If, in the future, paying for a game will be more like paying to access the game off the internet, it would be easier for the developers to patch the game.

It certainly would be easier for everyone else, too, instead of the patch having to be distributed, downloaded, and installed. The game, instead, would be patched in real time, and everyone would be accessing the patched product, rather than having to do it themselves.

Of course, developers could always take greater care in looking for and repairing bugs in programming, but then again, games are so massive these days, it's practically impossible for just a few people to find them by combing through the programming, hasty deadline or no.

avatar! Apr 24, 2012

Dartannian wrote:

There might actually be an advantage to this, though.

If, in the future, paying for a game will be more like paying to access the game off the internet, it would be easier for the developers to patch the game.
...

I don't know if it would be easier for the developers to patch the game, I think that entirely depends on how the game is coded. Although, if you need to access the internet every time you play a game, then you can get real-time updates. On the other hand, if you download the game, and are not constantly online, I don't see the advantage of this. In fact, I think that if games became download-only, this would just lead to more and more bugs since game companies would be quick to sell their product with the notion that "we'll update it as needed" policy. I may be one of the few people that does NOT have internet access at home, and I'm not complaining. Games I purchase and play do not need updates (I always check this first). Companies should learn how to properly play-test and check their code. The excuse "well, this is a very large and complex game" is not acceptable in my opinion. Every now and then a bug will occur, but numerous bugs, and game-destroying bugs should have been discovered before the game was released. Anyway, that's my take...

James O Apr 24, 2012

in the rush to put out product and reap profits as soon and as much as possible we have all become beta testers.

avatar! May 6, 2012 (edited May 6, 2012)

Wow! I agree with the article, but I had NO IDEA there were people still making cartridges today! Super impressive! Sadly, it looks like all their cool games are sold out, and with a production limit of 600, it's not really a surprise. Still, awesome.

edit: and for those that still play their SNES etc (Zane, I'm thinking of you bro) you BETTER order this upcoming SNES game!

Ashley Winchester May 6, 2012

I've heard about this... but I kind of wish an actual gaming company (Capcom) would do this instead. Personally if I could buy Mega Man 9 and 10 on a cart and play them on my NES I would pay a few times over what the download costs. But then Mega Man 9 and 10 may be too big for a NES cart and I know this is merely a pipe dream...

    Pages:
  • 1
  • 2

Board footer

Forums powered by FluxBB