160 réponses à ce sujet

[Paul E Dangerously]

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.

 

I hear this argument all the time, but I don't think I've ever heard people bring perspective into play. The reason so many old games worked and didn't need voice acting is because the character was a blob of pixels with a static portrait, and sometimes not even the latter. Viewed from pretty far away, usually in an isometric perspective.

 

(You do have cases like Fallout where some of the more important characters are voiced, but those are always ones with the talking heads.)

 

The reason it doesn't work as well now is due to the shift from an overhead or 3/4ths isometric perspective to a closer-in view, and even more so during dialogue scenes. It just looks awkward to have a character that never speaks (and really never emotes), leading to them looking like a gaping fish about half the time.

 

I'd also blame a shift to online games (MMOs) and then to a free-to-play model leading to the downturn of (SP) RPGs as a whole rather than voice acting and graphics, but that's a whole other argument. And maybe all this Baldur's Gate talk makes me bitter we haven't had a real D&D game since 2006.

[AlanC9]

Ultima IV - bought it in Spokane, WA.

Hmm. I'm pretty sure you could have got that mail-order for substantially less.

[AlanC9]

Publishers raise the price of games through DLC. They seem to understand that 60$ is the breaking point for basic editions.
If DLC have an adoption rate of 25% and they make 4 DLC for 15$ the game suddenly became 75$ across the board. Ofc DLC don't get developed for free but nowadays they are usually already calculated into the budget from the start.

Meaning that in effect we've actually gone a little way towards that modular games idea? I can see it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The reason so many old games worked and didn't need voice acting is because the character was a blob of pixels with a static portrait, and sometimes not even the latter. Viewed from pretty far away, usually in an isometric perspective.

That's a strength of those games. The interface lends itself to the superior conversation ssystem.

[Rawgrim]

I hear this argument all the time, but I don't think I've ever heard people bring perspective into play. The reason so many old games worked and didn't need voice acting is because the character was a blob of pixels with a static portrait, and sometimes not even the latter. Viewed from pretty far away, usually in an isometric perspective.

 

(You do have cases like Fallout where some of the more important characters are voiced, but those are always ones with the talking heads.)

 

The reason it doesn't work as well now is due to the shift from an overhead or 3/4ths isometric perspective to a closer-in view, and even more so during dialogue scenes. It just looks awkward to have a character that never speaks (and really never emotes), leading to them looking like a gaping fish about half the time.

 

I'd also blame a shift to online games (MMOs) and then to a free-to-play model leading to the downturn of (SP) RPGs as a whole rather than voice acting and graphics, but that's a whole other argument. And maybe all this Baldur's Gate talk makes me bitter we haven't had a real D&D game since 2006.

 

 

You won't get one either. Wizards of the Coast have ruined d&d by making it into a WoW clone, with the new editions. And any d&d game has to use the current ruleset. D&D is dead, I am sorry to say.

[Schreckstoff]

You won't get one either. Wizards of the Coast have ruined d&d by making it into a WoW clone, with the new editions. And any d&d game has to use the current ruleset. D&D is dead, I am sorry to say.

But that'd would open up games to the Forgotten Realms instead.

Just imagine a tactical ARPG with the Companions of The Hall, a GoW style game with Erevis Cale,...

[Sidney]

The importance of cost for games varies a fair bit for peoples play styles and their disposable income.  I've gotten a lot of value out of almost every BioWare game mostly because the variety of companions they include lets me have multiple play thoroughs which I always include as entertainment value.  Cost is also less of an issue now for me than it was years ago when I was a poor college student.

 

 

 I agree they are instant buys for me because $60 turns into ~ 30-40 hours per game and I will do that 2-3 times and so will my wife, that is around 300 hours of game play or $0.20 per hour so that is a massive win for family. I would pay a lot more than that for entertainment - and in fact I do in many, many, many cases.

 

That said, I think Bioware has made very clear in their data that most people dont even finish the games let alone play more than one time through the game so their "ROI" is a lot different from the hardcore player's point of view.

[Paul E Dangerously]

You won't get one either. Wizards of the Coast have ruined d&d by making it into a WoW clone, with the new editions. And any d&d game has to use the current ruleset. D&D is dead, I am sorry to say.

 

There is nothing wrong with 4th ed. In fact, it's probably easier to adapt to a game format than 3/3.5 was.

 

The real reasoning is because the only licensing these days are to companies who want to make MMOs (DDO, Neverwinter) and not actual games.

[Scouse]

I don't know what this comment has to do with mine but RPGs already are expensive to develop yet have a comparably small customer base to other genres. Increasing the development cycle which would also drive up development costs and simultaneously raising the price thereby further reducing the customer base would make any game that tries this a total flop.

 

If you believe a long development cycle leads to flops does that mean DAII (about 18 months?) was better than DA:O (5+ years including concepts etc). Now don't get me wrong DA:O was on a new engine so needed a longer development time, i wouldn't expect a sequel to DA:I to need 5+ years to be good as the foundations of frostbite 3 have been set with inquisition. But i fully believe a 2-3 year development over 1-2 would lead to a better game overall. I'm also shocked at how inquisition is coming along considering it is on a new engine, im guessing it had a huge budget with a huge amounts of staff my hope is that it gets the same kinda returns that origins/da2 got. Even though DA2 returns would of come because lots of us bought it due to how good origins was.

Games cost enough as is. If the standard price for RPGs was set higher than other games I would be done with gaming. The only reason I am even willing to pay the standard price right now is because of the amount of hours you can play RPGs in comparison to other single player experiences. So no, OP maybe you have money to burn and that is why you have the option to pay more by buying CEs for RPGs. I think a different price point like you propose will only hurt sales.

If you compare the number of hours of unique entertainment (not replaying the same material) you get in these grand scope rpgs they are much much cheaper than any other entertainment out there. They are incredibly underpriced as are most games tbh. Gaming has become so cheap over the past 2 decades while other forms of entertainment (music movies etc) have not really got that much cheaper or have gotten much more expensive.

 

No. In my opinion RPG's, especially one with huge worlds, are one of the the few games worth the money out there. And one of the few types of games I actually buy these days rather than rent. Why then increase what isn't exactly cheap?

If anything making RPG's more expensive than other genres means reducing the amount of people who will buy it. It would only hurt the games we enjoy long term.

I would never pay full retail for a game with barely any single player and I'm done with in 6 hours because I don't believe it's worth it. If anything I'd be asking why other games charge so much for far less content or rather why customers would pay the same for less.

This i think is a valid point, it certainly seems plausible. If these massive games start struggling to make ends meet or enough profit to warrent the high budget how would you feel about maybe getting the main story in stages. Sort of like how halflife was doing episodes. Therefore they can make more money without just adding dlc like extra items. Which some people don't buy because they don't want them not realising that they are a way that games make profit when having the huge budget needed to make them.

 

The solution and best approach are the DLC. Yes, I am a strong defender of DLC if done right.

It is a way of purchasing a longer game, more content, after you have seen the original game where you spent just the initial cost. I will not buy Dragon's Dogma DLCs, but I bought all of Skyrim's DLC.

 

DLC must be the way for you to get a longer game for an extra price, without risking the developer's original game.

 

I agree perhaps a new take on DLC could allow RPG to get the time they need to develop by splitting it into smaller games but released more frequently so a smaller main game but with more expansions like awakening 

The problem is UK customer's like us get royally screwed on the price in the USA DAI and most new AAA are $60 which in the UK is £35 however we have to pay £60($102) so each and every time we are effectively being charged almost double anyway because of Dev companies refusal to base regional prices on currency values

 

*Note prices are current exchange rate values 

I don't think we are screwed over but rather it is way to cheap in america though.

 

Just buy more copies.   For truly epic quality games (DA:O, Xcom:Enemy Unknown) I generally buy copies for my friends that haven't tried it.   

 

I certainly feel I still owe Bioware more money for the amount of time I played the first Dragon Age.     Personally, I would love it if games would double up on content and then double their price.    I am more than willing to pay for quality.   However, I also understand free market principles and human behavior.    People come to expect to be given more and pay less.    Look at the whole Day-One DLC people that complain non-stop about it "should have been in the game already".   Doubling the price of a game just doesn't work unfortunately, hence content will also always be limited by the budget of "where" the game can retail at effectively.

This is also a good idea i hadn't really thought about. I usually buy a second copy of games i like Bethesda/Bioware etc for my pc/console once my PC is upgraded to a point to run it smoothly so i can mess around with mods and further increase the fun.

 

 I agree they are instant buys for me because $60 turns into ~ 30-40 hours per game and I will do that 2-3 times and so will my wife, that is around 300 hours of game play or $0.20 per hour so that is a massive win for family. I would pay a lot more than that for entertainment - and in fact I do in many, many, many cases.

 

That said, I think Bioware has made very clear in their data that most people dont even finish the games let alone play more than one time through the game so their "ROI" is a lot different from the hardcore player's point of view.

I didn't know people didn't finish their games, or atleast not that many. Would be interesting to see if this includes rentals though as that may explain it a bit, or if people who pirate dlc after buying the original product cease logging in by using cracks and therefore don't update the games progress. Only way to know would be to check if the completion rate on next gen consoles (which you can't rent games for in uk at least and can't pirate) have a higher completion rate. I'm sure bioware would know this but you make a valid point regardless. Something to ponder over that i wouldn't of otherwise.

[Schreckstoff]

If you believe a long development cycle leads to flops does that mean DAII (about 18 months?) was better than DA:O (5+ years including concepts etc). Now don't get me wrong DA:O was on a new engine so needed a longer development time, i wouldn't expect a sequel to DA:I to need 5+ years to be good as the foundations of frostbite 3 have been set with inquisition. But i fully believe a 2-3 year development over 1-2 would lead to a better game overall. I'm also shocked at how inquisition is coming along considering it is on a new engine, im guessing it had a huge budget with a huge amounts of staff my hope is that it gets the same kinda returns that origins/da2 got. Even though DA2 returns would of come because lots of us bought it due to how good origins was.

If you compare the number of hours of unique entertainment (not replaying the same material) you get in these grand scope rpgs they are much much cheaper than any other entertainment out there. They are incredibly underpriced as are most games tbh. Gaming has become so cheap over the past 2 decades while other forms of entertainment (music movies etc) have not really got that much cheaper or have gotten much more expensive.

 I wasn't saying any of that. I said a long development cycle paired with a price increase would. I doubt even GTAV would have been more profitable had it been 100$ and it is the single most expensive video game in history to have been developed. 

[Heimdall]

May chime in once I've gotten further into an old RPG (Playing Baldur's Gate for the first time) so far I find myself truly hating the D&D memorizing spells per day system.  May give up and restart with a non-spellcaster soon.

[In Exile]

May chime in once I've gotten further into an old RPG (Playing Baldur's Gate for the first time) so far I find myself truly hating the D&D memorizing spells per day system.  May give up and restart with a non-spellcaster soon.

You're basically DOA without casters in D&D. Just roll a sorcerer (that said, I can't recall if sorcerers were 3e additions or were in 2e).  

[Scouse]

 I wasn't saying any of that. I said a long development cycle paired with a price increase would. I doubt even GTAV would have been more profitable had it been 100$ and that has been the most expensive video game in history to develop. 

Ahh i see my mistake i apologise. GTAV story really impresses me (not the game story but the reality of the budget/profit) i'd be interested in knowing how with what was it around 200mil? they were able to make a profit. I don't own the game does it have things like buy to win? or lots of dlc? As after middle men take their cut a £50 game would need to sell A LOT of copies to make it as profitable as the previous games with the lower budget. Even if they kept every penny of the £50 they'd need to sell 4 million copies just to break even, which isn't the case im sure someone here mentioned its about 20ish that goes to the developers/publishers.

[Heimdall]

You're basically DOA without casters in D&D. Just roll a sorcerer (that said, I can't recall if sorcerers were 3e additions or were in 2e).  

I've played the tabletop before (Can't remember which edition) but never a caster.  I'll try that.

[In Exile]

I've played the tabletop before (Can't remember which edition) but never a caster.  I'll try that.

 

Basically you don't have to memorize, but you get (as I recall) a limited number of spell slots, can only cast spells a limited number of times/level before resting (but don't have to prepare spells), and can only switch out spells at level up (so you're locked-in when you hit the cap). 

[Amaror]

If you compare the number of hours of unique entertainment (not replaying the same material) you get in these grand scope rpgs they are much much cheaper than any other entertainment out there. They are incredibly underpriced as are most games tbh. Gaming has become so cheap over the past 2 decades while other forms of entertainment (music movies etc) have not really got that much cheaper or have gotten much more expensive.

 

Haha, what?

You're not  serious are you?

With the rise of services like netflix and spotify i can get hours upon hours of movie fun for a really small fee each month, while the service for music is completely free unless you want premium features.

Books are also cheaper than ever with fast and easy ebooks were i can get a whole trilogy of a fantastic book series for mere 3 Euros, which is nothing. I have hundreds of hours of reading material with that purchase. 

Games are in fact one of the only mediums which have gotten more and more expensive. Rpg may be somewhat of a exception, but many AAA games barely offer any content or playtime, with 8 hours of gametime for 60 Euro not being an exception.

And it's gotten worse and worse, with the rise of dlc at rediculous prices, which additionaly don't go down over time.

 

 

Ahh i see my mistake i apologise. GTAV story really impresses me (not the game story but the reality of the budget/profit) i'd be interested in knowing how with what was it around 200mil? they were able to make a profit. I don't own the game does it have things like buy to win? or lots of dlc? As after middle men take their cut a £50 game would need to sell A LOT of copies to make it as profitable as the previous games with the lower budget. Even if they kept every penny of the £50 they'd need to sell 4 million copies just to break even, which isn't the case im sure someone here mentioned its about 20ish that goes to the developers/publishers.

 

You don't seem to know that much about the games industry considering what kind of claims you make.

No, GTA V does not have lots of dlc and it also doesn't have microtransactions, what i think you mean with buy to win.

It's simply a really damn good game and it sold really really well.

Want numbers? 33 Million. Yes GTA V sold 33 million copies.

That's how game companies can make huge profits. Not by selling rediculous priced dlc, not by cramming microtransactions into every single game, but by simply making a freakin good game.

Too bad most game companies are too stupid to see that.

Just in case you want a source:

http://www.gamespot....t/1100-6419609/

[Sylvius the Mad]

You won't get one either. Wizards of the Coast have ruined d&d by making it into a WoW clone, with the new editions. And any d&d game has to use the current ruleset. D&D is dead, I am sorry to say.

Isn't there a new edition out soon?

I'll agree the 4E was a travesty.

[Scouse]

Haha, what?

You're not  serious are you?

With the rise of services like netflix and spotify i can get hours upon hours of movie fun for a really small fee each month, while the service for music is completely free unless you want premium features.

Books are also cheaper than ever with fast and easy ebooks were i can get a whole trilogy of a fantastic book series for mere 3 Euros, which is nothing. I have hundreds of hours of reading material with that purchase. 

Games are in fact one of the only mediums which have gotten more and more expensive. Rpg may be somewhat of a exception, but many AAA games barely offer any content or playtime, with 8 hours of gametime for 60 Euro not being an exception.

And it's gotten worse and worse, with the rise of dlc at rediculous prices, which additionaly don't go down over time.

Netflix is old movies and lacks a lot of the big ones, i know because i use it myself. If your willing to wait that long to watch a movie then waiting the same time for a game you'd get it easily for £20. You also have to remember that you own the game rather than only available while subscription is there. There was a game client similar to netflix, where you pay monthly and can play all the games they have so there is that way.

 

Books do not have the same production costs and essentially it is only words on a page, there are game books where you go to page whatever if you make this choice, they provide more entertainment usually for the same price as a normal book.

 

Games that have millions of pounds budget similar to movies think blockbusters on release. Game one off payment for 40ish hours were you get solid writing, amazing artwork, solid gameplay, etc £50 movie at the pictures at release £10 for 1.5-3hours or buy the BlueRay(for visual quality equal to a game) £10-20 1.5-5/6hours including bonuses.

 

I agree that some games are not worth their price tag no doubt about that they i usually skip or pick up on steam offers.

 

Albums cost about £7 for an hours worth of music. Spotify is also constantly interrupted with adverts and you do not own the music. Unlike a game.

 

Going paintballing £20-100 depending how much ammo you use for about 6 hours

 

Bowling £5-10 per game.

 

list goes on.

 

Taking out the amount of content and variety you get i will agree with you that a great book is incredible value but if a game was still just text based the price would be considerably lower. If you think of books that made it to the big screen (usually never as good if ever) the cost dramatically increases because they are providing visuals (extremely high costs) for the text as well as hiring actors (voice actors/graphics designers in games).

[Schreckstoff]

You don't seem to know that much about the games industry considering what kind of claims you make.

No, GTA V does not have lots of dlc and it also doesn't have microtransactions, what i think you mean with buy to win.

It's simply a really damn good game and it sold really really well.

Want numbers? 33 Million. Yes GTA V sold 33 million copies.

That's how game companies can make huge profits. Not by selling rediculous priced dlc, not by cramming microtransactions into every single game, but by simply making a freakin good game.

Too bad most game companies are too stupid to see that.

Just in case you want a source:

http://www.gamespot....t/1100-6419609/

GTAV has microtransactions for GTAO and no need to be so condescending.

[Amaror]

While I empathize with your point, I'm not sure renting movies and music should be compared with owning a book or game. it's not the same.

 

That might be the case, but you're not owning the games you buy. As publishers have pushed for years that games are a service, they should be compared to other services in terms of Cost/Value.

 

 

Games that have millions of pounds budget similar to movies think blockbusters on release. Game one off payment for 40ish hours were you get solid writing, amazing artwork, solid gameplay, etc £50 movie at the pictures at release £10 for 1.5-3hours or buy the BlueRay(for visual quality equal to a game) £10-20 1.5-5/6hours including bonuses.

Albums cost about £7 for an hours worth of music. Spotify is also constantly interrupted with adverts and you do not own the music. Unlike a game.

 

Let's take this movie:

http://www.amazon.de...ptain america 2

Not even released yet. 14 Euros. The movie itself has a bit more than 2 hours runtime. Including bonuses i would guess for maybe 4-6 hours, so let's say 5 hours.

14/5 = 2.8

Let's take this game:

http://www.amazon.de...Age inquisition

Also not released yet. 80 Euros for all the content and about 40 hours of content so we get 80/40 = 2.

It is a better ratio than the movie but let's look at other examples

http://www.amazon.de...=House of cards

647 minutes are 10,7 hours of entertainment for 20 Euro.

20/10,7 = 1,86 not looking so bad now.

Let's look at another game: Tomb Raider

60 Euro at release. I 100% the game in 14 hours, without guides or anything. 

60/14 = 4,28 a lot less money for that one. But then again there's multiplayer.

So Let's take Dragon Age 2. It's an RPG so it fits perfectly into the topic.

60 Euros at launch. 100% the game in 23 hours

60/23 = 2,6. Slightly better than the movie, but far less enjoyable than the movie or the series. 

The dlc was even worse. 15 Euros for about 2 hours of gameplay. Horrible value.

 

As for musik. Considering i heard every single album i ever bought 50 times along on my main computer, were i barely listen to musik i would say:

15 Euros/1*50 = 0,3 sounds like pretty damn good value to me.

 

So in short. No i don't think games cost too less money. 

[Paul E Dangerously]

Isn't there a new edition out soon?

I'll agree the 4E was a travesty.

 

Yes. It's basically a giant love letter to 3/3.5, including all of the warts. Casters have a ton of options, melee classes are down to next to nothing again.

[Vandicus]

Yes. It's basically a giant love letter to 3/3.5, including all of the warts. Casters have a ton of options, melee classes are down to next to nothing again.

 

 

Melee had more options in 3e than in 4e. Granted casters had absurdly more options than everyone, but lets not pretend 4e did anything but make classes more homogeneous. 

 

4e traded customization and detail for better game balance(and it still wasn't even "good" game balance).