No? I don't see why it would. I've seen many games priced the same with only about 6 hours of gameplay and do fine commercially. MP games can add endless hours but I find I'll never put more than 50 hours into a competitive MP game personally. I find RPGs actually give you more bang for you buck than any other genre when it comes to content. That said, no game's price should be judged on the amount of content but rather the quality of the game.
I agree to some extent, however content does require labour. So the point I'm making is there needs to be an incentive for publishers to fund greater quality content as going from a great game to one of the best will not get many extra copies bought (as great games sell really really well)
Isn't that just EA being stupid about EU pricing or are there other RPGs doing this?
Typical next gen price for consoles in UK regardless of RPG, Sports, Simulator, etc you could take off £10-20 for a PC version though.
People have a really hard time evaluating return on investment when it isn't numerical. I'd imagine a 50% increase in content along with a 50% increase in cost would result in significantly reduced sales. Sadly, you really have to target the going AAA rate for games.
This I 100% agree with which is a shame as in order to make a long winded RPG a lot more staff are required to make all the content. I admire any company like BioWare who try to provide both story content and lore as well as gameplay and high graphics cutscenes etc. As they could easily sacrifice some of this and still sell well and make more profit. While the gaming industry is still growing i think? there may come a time when it gets hit or goes through a rough patch and these bonuses may be sacrificed. So i wish people would realise just how much value you get.
That is why I have no objection to paying for DLC. It is a way for the developers to make more on their games and still compete in the market. I thought about preordering the Inquisitor's edition of DAI just to throw more money at BIoware, but I really don't need more knickknacks to gather dust. Would like the map though, if they ever make it available in the Bioware store I will buy it. Have considered ordering a console edition as well as my PC edition - maybe hubby will play it. But not sure if we are going to spend the money on a PS4 yet so I am holding off on that decision. I am pathetic with a controller so I will stick to my PC games.
Anyway, to sum up a long post, I would pay more but I'm not sure all gamers would. Thus, we should support the companies that make excellent RPG's with our dollars (for both games and DLC) and by word of mouth advertising. That is how we help ensure the games have enough support to justify they expense of developing them.
I am the same, I've bought all the dlc for games i believe to provide more content (not just quests/missions etc but also solid graphics story etc) when i've only been interested in maybe one or two of the dlc because i believe the base game on it's own is worth a lot more.
The problem with RPGs are not the price, but the design.
Having cinematic scenes with fully voiced characters and flashy combat animations hikes the cost of development more than any other cost in gaming... except maybe marketing.
Either way, I think a simpler design focus could result in epically more content and divergent pathways to the story. But such things are not what the masses want, so no bigger developer will go this route. But smaller scale projects, with a hundred thousand sales being a success instead of millions, can create games that are truly masterpieces, even if they do not sell as well.
Ah see I find it much easier to immerse myself when the graphics are of high quality and the passion the developers/writers can put forward in cutscenes is overwhelming sometimes, Mass Effects leaving earth in ME3 begining was one of my favourite. So this is kind of my point. Current RPG Developers are producing up to 100 hours of unique content including cutscenes graphics story gameplay etc and charging the same price that the majority of games today only provide some of and lack others. I see a higher price tag of as a way of acknowledging how much effort goes into these games and how much they provide. Elderscrolls has always had a few but it really lacks the emotion or strong story which i'd assume is because it uses up a lot of development time and costs a lot of money.
I'm not sure I understand the point of this. This is a game wide issue, is it not? Why would it be limited to just RPGs?
There's a bit of EA gripe here that just seems to be bitter ranting. Yes, they're the Evil Alliance and we(generalized) hate them. Lets move past that now.
It is only really RPG that provide the overwhelming content. Most games focus on either gameplay, artwork, multiplayer, cinematics or try to compensate having a lot of it but then make a game half the length or lack of variety. I don't think EA is evil they are a business and will seek out profit obviously, but they've done right this time as the amount of time and resources that must of been put into to DA:I to get it looking that good with a lot more exploration and i'd assume as it is bioware with a really engaging story and being built from the ground up on a new engine is very impressive credit to BioWare too they must have worked their socks off on this! Should this effort not be rewarded when other companies don't put that much effort in? This is my point.
Hundreds of hours in a RPG is more worth that $60 price tag. The other games with their puny 20-30 hour play time need to drop their prices.
It isnt always about the hours i may have not explained that properly. A game full of quality content but only 20-30hours such as Watch Dogs is to me worth it's price tag, but if i compare that content to what i get in say a bethesda product it dwarfs it but costs the same, bethesda is then outdone by bioware in terms of how much original content is in the game. Both imo are high quality bethesda is just let down on emotional story content but that is not their focus.
@spirosz Pokémon certainly provides the hours of play time sure, but due to the low graphics and basic gameplay its costs and staff numbers would be considerably lower. Ergo its production costs would be considerably lower there should be a huge difference in prices to reflect this.
metatheurgist, on 14 Jul 2014 - 03:18 AM, said:
The thing that's holding back RPGs is the pressure to turn them into action games. I'd happily pay more for actual RPG mechanics. I'd even pay for turn based, anything would be better than more identical action mechanic clones.
I was a big fan of turn based too, or a merger of the two, i liked KOTOR approach best as it tried making out it wasn't turn based but it was 
however i would not say that is a core RPG mechanic.To me RPG means the ability to role play as someone else in a situation you may never face in real life. Which is why i rate BioWare so highly, the lore and story in their games is matched by very very few. No matter what gameplay they throw at me i always find it easy to accept it and role with it, though i am happy the combat is slowed down from DAII super fast arcade style. But even then it was no biggy. And it is that lore and story content, along with the graphics to make it more immersive that i believe justifies a higher price tag
Retour en haut
