Support NeoGAF

[Mooreberg]

How much longer can an industry continue homogenizing itself like this? I honestly can't even think of anything huge I'm looking forward to in the next year.

It is going to work great for a handful of large companies, and not so great for smaller companies. We have already seen this with games like Lawbreakers. A multiplayer shooter with loot boxes has a very high ceiling for revenue. Problem is, a lot of people stick with the loot box shooter they are already playing. Who is going to bail on a game they have already sunk money into? This is how you get outsold by Hellblade, Absolver, and Slime Rancher despite those games having smaller target audiences.

Publishers at least used to put out more games in more categories to insulate themselves from the sales bombs. Release timing continues to be dreadful as well. There is plenty that I am looking forward to this fall and next spring, but I am way past the point of buying more games than I have time to play in a given season. At least one really good game is going to suffer in October, because people only have so much time. The publisher will then interpret that as needing to sell more content for already existing games, which nobody is really asking for outside of the handful of games that already succeed with this. At this point, it seems like no amount of Manhattan project sales figures will get companies to wise up and give some of their better titles a chance to succeed. Sucks for them, I guess.

 

[Nirolak]

It's been really sad watching so many subgenres and then entire full fledged genres disappearing, now something as broad as "single player" self-contained experiences are fading away as well.

How much longer can an industry continue homogenizing itself like this? I honestly can't even think of anything huge I'm looking forward to in the next year.

The question is if you consider this homogenization.

Would you consider Hitman, Ghost Recon: Wildlands, Overwatch, Destiny, Final Fantasy XV, LEGO Dimensions, For Honor, Forza Horizon, Uncharted 4, and Skull & Bones to be a collection of similar games? They would all fall in the service game category in one form or another.

 

[charlequin]

Nintendo is obviously going to continue to produce SP content, as their most popular franchises fit that mold and the multiplayer spinoffs haven't performed nearly as well

Mario Kart is one of their absolute biggest franchises tho?

what do they call games with multiplayer that don't have microtransactions?

"Retro"?

If that's all it takes to be considered GaaS, sign me up. If I love my time with a game I'll be all over any DLC and updates that come afterwards.

GAF, broadly speaking, has some ideas about what GaaS entails that don't line up entirely with industry use of the term. The example I like to use Terraria -- this is a game I paid $3 for which got 3+ years of serious content updates, more than doubling the total scope of the game, which drove revenue by getting existing players to frequently revisit the title and convince their buddies to give it a shot (as indeed Nirolak did for me.) FFXV's running set of updates operates on a similar level -- while it does have paid DLC, the underlying title has also been updated extensively and the changes are designed both to bring back old players and to make it more appealing to people who skipped it before.

And those games didn't sell all that well. Or at least I didn't buy them.

I think we have very clearly established that you are talking about your own personal, individual preferences and not at all about the market as a whole, yes.

Wrong, we still have the same shitty games as last gen, only this time they're sold to us for $60 with half the content, a season pass and loot crates.

I invite you to pull together some stats on AAA releases over the last decade or so, because you will find in the process that this position is not supported by facts. (I also invite you to make a serious case about even one single-player franchise that has been impacted by "microtransactions" in a meaningful negative way.)

Note that I'm not interested at all in talking about whatever subjective complaints you have about Deus Ex 4 or Fallout 4 or whatever as an abstract "quality" judgment and won't continue this conversation if you make them. This is about an objective claim about content sold for a specific price.

Complete, fully-developed games upon release, with nothing held back as "future" DLC, with genuinely developed after the fact optional content provided as DLC as a service.

DLC made out of "held back" content is kind of an Easter Bunny. Early on we certainly saw some bumps in this area, but anything coming out in 2017 or beyond is designed from day one with primary game and DLC/post-launch support essentially designed as separate products. As a result you tend to see a lot less stuff that "feels" like it should be "part of the main game" in DLC, and a lot more that feels like logical expansions.

 

[Forward]

DLC made out of "held back" content is kind of an Easter Bunny. Early on we certainly saw some bumps in this area, but anything coming out in 2017 or beyond is designed from day one with primary game and DLC/post-launch support essentially designed as separate products. As a result you tend to see a lot less stuff that "feels" like it should be "part of the main game" in DLC, and a lot more that feels like logical expansions.

Capcom must be the Kris Kringle of Spring, then.

 

[Abinash117]

One thing I hoped is that the Switch would take off well and capable of handling graphic intensive games. I was thinking developers would now have another platform to sell their games thus allowing them to be more comfortable of releasing traditional SP games. I really hope Doom and Wolfenstein 2 does well on the switch.

The stakes are much higher, agreed. If you win, you win big. If you don't...



I hear you. Not all service types will appeal to all consumers. But, the bigger the consumer base gets, the more things will appeal.

The plus side of this is all the cool niche games that are making it to market now that never would have 10 years ago.



Perhaps longer term you're correct. At the moment, however, this doesn't seem to be the case.

Why is that?

 

[MatPiscatella]

Why is that?

More consumers = more niches that can succeed. Like CRPGs and Platformers and space sims and all these games that weren't happening much in 2005 or so.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Why is that?

If hes talking about games like nier, nioh, and persona, then its because theres alot less retail games now so these great games can stand out easier.

 

[LastGamer84]

Mario Kart is one of their absolute biggest franchises tho?



"Retro"?



GAF, broadly speaking, has some ideas about what GaaS entails that don't line up entirely with industry use of the term. The example I like to use Terraria -- this is a game I paid $3 for which got 3+ years of serious content updates, more than doubling the total scope of the game, which drove revenue by getting existing players to frequently revisit the title and convince their buddies to give it a shot (as indeed Nirolak did for me.) FFXV's running set of updates operates on a similar level -- while it does have paid DLC, the underlying title has also been updated extensively and the changes are designed both to bring back old players and to make it more appealing to people who skipped it before.



I think we have very clearly established that you are talking about your own personal, individual preferences and not at all about the market as a whole, yes.



I invite you to pull together some stats on AAA releases over the last decade or so, because you will find in the process that this position is not supported by facts. (I also invite you to make a serious case about even one single-player franchise that has been impacted by "microtransactions" in a meaningful negative way.)

Note that I'm not interested at all in talking about whatever subjective complaints you have about Deus Ex 4 or Fallout 4 or whatever as an abstract "quality" judgment and won't continue this conversation if you make them. This is about an objective claim about content sold for a specific price.



DLC made out of "held back" content is kind of an Easter Bunny. Early on we certainly saw some bumps in this area, but anything coming out in 2017 or beyond is designed from day one with primary game and DLC/post-launch support essentially designed as separate products. As a result you tend to see a lot less stuff that "feels" like it should be "part of the main game" in DLC, and a lot more that feels like logical expansions.

I gave examples, you ignored them. And yes, Deus Ex did suffer from these practices. Content was chopped up for dlc, the microtransactions did turn people off, reviews noted it, and the franchise was shelved. Not my opinion, all that happened.

Not going to argue with you, you have your opinions and I have mine.

 

[KooopaKid]

"Single-player, non-service based games have to be nearly perfect in execution not only with the game itself, but also in the marketing and promotion around the game"

That's where Nintendo shines (plus in the local multiplayer field), they are unmatched in single player content.

 

[charlequin]

Capcom must be the Kris Kringle of Spring, then.

There's an implicit "not counting Japanese hobo publishers who might not exist in 5 years" on these that I should maybe state explicitly, heh.

I gave examples, you ignored them.

Nah. I'm confident there's a different thread where you can more appropriately bitch about your subjective issues with DX and Fallout though.

That's where Nintendo shines (plus in the local multiplayer field), they are unmatched in single player content.

I wouldn't say unmatched exactly, but yes, something like Breath of the Wild is exactly the kind of title being referenced there.

 

[george_us]

I know GaaS is all the hype nowadays but I think we're in a good position now where there's still plenty of quality single player games being released. This year alone:

Horizon Zero Dawn
Breath of the Wild
Nier Automata
Persona 5
Prey
Dishonored Death of the Outsider
Mario & Rabbids
Mario Odyssey
Wolfenstein 2
Assassins Creed Origins (sure it'll feature Ubisoft online integration but its single player first and foremost)

I think this is why the success of Switch is so important to this industry. As a hybrid its not really suited to always online GaaS type games and we've seen a lot of traditional games achieve success on there.

More than half of those games you listed are GaaS.

 

[jrDev]

Don't make it $60 then.

.

 

[trikster40]

No, they fucked up more because everybody thought this was primarily a multiplayer game, lol.

I agree, I totally thought this game had full-blown coop but nope. Coop would make the game amazing. I played it hard but it's appeal has worn off.

 

[T Ghost]

At this pont of the thread Im not sure of what actually qualifies a game as GaaS.

Can a game have a solid single player campaign and still be GaaS?

Some people mentioned Forza Horizon 3 as an example of GaaS. FH3 has a full fledged SP campaign. I put well over 100hrs on FH3 without playing against or with a single human, also without buying a single piece of paid DLC. If this title is an example of GaaS, I am fine with the model. Is this right or FH3 is not GaaS?

 

[Some Nobody]

At this pont of the thread Im not sure of what actually qualifies a game as GaaS.

Can a game have a solid single player campaign and still be GaaS?

Some people mentioned Forza Horizon 3 as an example of GaaS. FH3 has a full fledged SP campaign. I put well over 100hrs on FH3 without playing against or with a single human, also without buying a single piece of paid DLC. If this title is an example of GaaS, I am fine with the model. Is this right or FH3 is not GaaS?

Near as we can tell, an SP campaign doesn't deter a title from being GaaS at all, actually. Refer below.

Actually, no. That's not what a GaaS is and Horizon certainly isn't one. Having patches and DLC doesn't consistute a service game because Horizon isn't made with the same kind of retention or monetisation goals as a game like Overwatch or Destiny.

There's a definition by Mat in this very thread. What you personally perceive to be a service game is irrelevant. Quoted for reference:

All "Service Game" means is that the game is supported with post-launch updates and content that extends the tail. If a game is worked on post-launch beyond just bug fixes and patching, it's a service game.

 

[HeroR]

Tell that to HeroR

It isn’t just me. That is how Square defined GAAS and Mat agreed with me.

 

[Poona]

Is Agents of Mayhem a single player game? I thought it was multiplayer only. Proves how good their marketing was.

Yeah I think I saw this title at the store and something about it looked interesting (hadn't heard of it until then) but then put it back down as I thought I couldn't play it (I don't pay for online multiplayer). The fact I supposedly can play it now has me interested.

 

[jdstorm]

I think the biggest issue is that the Wide Audience AAA single player game is dying.

To be successful single player games are going to need to be aimed at specific niches. Just look at the success games like Nier Automata, Yakuza Zero and Crash Bandicoot have found this year alone.

There is still lots of money to be made if you are willing to step outside of your comfort zone and not try and canabalize the same mega AAA space with derivitive scifi/fantasy inspired shooters

 

[SmoothRunningGun]

Just don't make your game sp only. SP and coop at least.

 

[Some Nobody]

Is Agents of Mayhem a single player game? I thought it was multiplayer only. Proves how good their marketing was.

I feel like the messaging was clear on that game from jump but then again I could be wrong. But in hindsight I do feel like it should have contained optional co-op, because it being single-player turned a ton of people off.

 

[SmoothRunningGun]

Also Gaas.. really? That's what we're going with?

 

[MeatGrinder]

So Phil Spencer was right all along when he said xbox as a platform would focus more on services than single player content, as the moment was clearly in online multiplayer games.

 

[Bronetta]

More than half of those games you listed are GaaS.

If we're going with post-launch support as GaaS, then every game released in the past 10 years with DLC is GaaS.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Simply false. Utterly and totally false.

I cant think of any highly rated games that are bombing though?

 

[The Hamburglar]

Bullshit excuse to nickel and dime thr consumer.

Horizon did fine and that was on one platform.

 

[Bronetta]

I cant think of any highly rated games that are bombing though?

Prey and Dishonored 2 comes to mind

 

[MatPiscatella]

If we're going with post-launch support as GaaS, then every game released in the past 10 years with DLC is GaaS.

Yeah. It shouldn't be a scary thing. A lot of people are talking about it like it's a boogey man. Been around a while.

Also Gaas.. really? That's what we're going with?

GaaS? The capitalization really gives it that extra zing.

I dunno, I'm open to ideas, would be happy to start calling it something different to confuse people.

I cant think of any highly rated games that are bombing though?

A good score is a prerequisite for a non-service game to hit the top-selling chart, but it's certainly no guarantee. Hence my comment: ”Single-player, non-service based games have to be nearly perfect in execution not only with the game itself, but also in the marketing and promotion around the game, to get to the top of the charts."

 

[Birgitte2004]

Calling a service game anything with post-launch updates seems like it's using a definition of "GAAS" that isn't particularly useful, nor even a really useful distinction, since the biggest games even 20+ years ago are GAAS by that definition, and it's hard to even name AAA games which don't qualify these days.

In fact I would totally believe that the only reason Agents of Mayhem isn't a service game is because it bombed too hard to bother, which kind of makes the topic a circular argument.

 

[Bronetta]

Yeah. It shouldn't be a scary thing. A lot of people are talking about it like its a boogey man. Been around a while.

Oh then Im not worried at all. I thought GaaS meant those online only MAU focused games which want players to keep coming back daily to grind online challenges towards loot boxes.

If any of you work in IT or business you'll know that SaaS (Software as a Service) is all the hype there nowadays and that has serious drawbacks (like renting software/servers for a set period of time instead of owning them).

Thats why I had such a negative perception of GaaS. If its any game with DLC then thats not so bad, thats just what this industry's evolved into.

Those online focused games with grinding and skinner boxes are the real devil.

 

[MatPiscatella]

Oh then Im not worried at all. I thought GaaS meant those online only MAU focused games which want players to keep coming back daily to grind online challenges towards loot boxes.

If any of you work in IT or business you'll know that SaaS (Software as a Service) is all the hype there nowadays and that has serious drawbacks (like renting software/servers for a set period of time instead of owning them).

Thats why I had such a negative perception of GaaS. If its any game with DLC then thats not so bad, thats just what this industry's evolved into.

Those online focused games with grinding and skinner boxes are the real devil.

Nirolak made a great post about it being time to perhaps break out GaaS into some subsegments.

It's a good idea, and something we probably need to do. Because the games you mention are service games, but they certainly take a different approach than something like The Witcher 3.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

A good score is a prerequisite for a non-service game to hit the top-selling chart, but it's certainly no guarantee. Hence my comment: “Single-player, non-service based games have to be nearly perfect in execution not only with the game itself, but also in the marketing and promotion around the game, to get to the top of the charts."

Yeah, you're probably right. I just saw stuff like Persona, Nier, and Nioh doing well and was like "Oh, metacritic saved these games".

 

[gundamkyoukai]

Calling a service game anything with post-launch updates seems like it's using a definition of "GAAS" that isn't particularly useful, nor even a really useful distinction, since the biggest games even 20+ years ago are GAAS by that definition, and it's hard to even name AAA games which don't qualify these days.

In fact I would totally believe that the only reason Agents of Mayhem isn't a service game is because it bombed too hard to bother, which kind of makes the topic a circular argument.

Well GaaS has been around for a good while it just that it is now becoming the industry normal for AAA games .
While being done in different ways to see which work best for the pubs .
Just like how online and MP are now normal compare to 15 years ago .

Nirolak made a great post about it being time to perhaps break out GaaS into some subsegments.

It's a good idea, and something we probably need to do. Because the games you mention are service games, but they certainly take a different approach than something like The Witcher 3.

Well i guess for AAA you can break down to SP , MP or Co op focus GaaS games and work from there .
Still so many games and game types bleed into each other along with different modes .

 

[charlequin]

At this pont of the thread Im not sure of what actually qualifies a game as GaaS.

Can a game have a solid single player campaign and still be GaaS?

A game is a GaaS if it has ongoing updates after release (whether free or paid) that are designed to expand and alter the experience of playing the game, keep current players playing, get lapsed players to come back, and entice new people to look at picking it up. People often think of stuff like MP shooters because these games all adopted a version of this model a decade ago, but the term actually covers a much broader set of games than that.

Having a single player campaign has nothing to do with being GaaS either way.

If any of you work in IT or business you'll know that SaaS (Software as a Service) is all the hype there nowadays and that has serious drawbacks (like renting software/servers for a set period of time instead of owning them).

I feel like this is actually a similar case where there are certain obscene examples people immediately go to mentally but most of the time nobody blinks at all about a business paying for security software or Dropbox or Gmail for Business, all of which are Software as a Service.

 

[Necron]

A horrible trend, to be honest.

I think single player games will always find their niche, however. But yeah... the time of a Deus Ex and Mass Effect are (most likely) done and that's just incredibly depressing to see.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

There's a definition by Mat in this very thread. What you personally perceive to be a service game is irrelevant. Quoted for reference:

I disagree with his definition of what a service game is. There's a distinct difference between a game like Horizon and a game like Overwatch, for example. Horizon is a single player game that, outside of the DLC that is being released for it in November, has only received bug fixes and a new difficulty mode.

Overwatch has been continuously and aggressively monetised from the start, with the soul purpose of sustained player retention and engagement over multiple years through frequent content updates. THAT, is what a service game is. Games that also come under this bracket would be Hitman, Final Fantasy XV, Destiny, Rainbow 6 Siege etc. You won't see this kind of support for a game like Horizon because it is not being positioned as a service.

Saying that a game is a service because it has even one DLC expansion kind of simplifies what service driven games actually are. There is some crossover, but there's a distinct difference that I feel should be highlighted.

Nirolak made a great post about it being time to perhaps break out GaaS into some subsegments.

It's a good idea, and something we probably need to do. Because the games you mention are service games, but they certainly take a different approach than something like The Witcher 3.

This I agree with, as I don't necessarily feel like monetising a game beyond the initial release necessarily makes that product a service. At least in it's most common definition. Otherwise 99% of games released today would be considered services, and I think that kind of glosses over the semantics of what actually goes into literally running a game as a service.

 

[Forward]

Oh then Im not worried at all. I thought GaaS meant those online only MAU focused games which want players to keep coming back daily to grind online challenges towards loot boxes.

If any of you work in IT or business you'll know that SaaS (Software as a Service) is all the hype there nowadays and that has serious drawbacks (like renting software/servers for a set period of time instead of owning them).

Thats why I had such a negative perception of GaaS. If its any game with DLC then thats not so bad, thats just what this industry's evolved into.

Those online focused games with grinding and skinner boxes are the real devil.

Yup.

It is also within the digital art world.

Adobe is the Live of that field. Arseholes. Fortunately it is bringing out the very best in their competitors via backlash.

SaaS is as anticonsumer as anything in existence. It is rank bullshit. And a huge red flag for gaming going that route.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

When SP games become a thing of the past that's when I'll be done with gaming, I have't had interest in MP in about 10 years, don't even open up the MP option once for games I buy

 

[Alebelly]

Doom also launched under this policy.

Doom launched prior, they used DOOM as an example for why they made the change

Edit: it was do to the negative feedback DOOM MP beta got, policy change followed shortly after, so yes you're right

 

[Forward]

When SP games become a thing of the past that's when I'll be done with gaming, I have't had interest in MP in about 10 years, don't even open up the MP option once for games I buy

Yup.

This is me. And was me last gen as well, barring fighting games.

And the lack of an arcade mode, much less other single player modes, in recent fighting games, which seems to be manifest of the entire unappealing systemic perversion of the genre caused precisely by the topic at hand i.e. GaaS, has caused me to ditch the genre in its entirety.

 

[Lindsay]

I thought we learned last gen that every game having multi-player was sunk development time/money? Loads of multi-player modes were dead right from the start if not very shortly after. Theres only ever so many players wanting ta be into multi-player and only so many of those games they can be invested in at the same time. If single player games are ever on their way out then the industrys prolly doomed no?

 

[Compsiox]

When SP games become a thing of the past that's when I'll be done with gaming, I have't had interest in MP in about 10 years, don't even open up the MP option once for games I buy

Maybe give the MP modes a try? It usually makes up a lot content provided in a game. Might as well try to get the best value out of it.

Also, when they first started showing trailers for the first Titanfall, I had no urge to play it. But then when I had the controller in my hands it turned out to be an incredible experience. You might be missing out on moments life this.

 

[charlequin]

SaaS is as anticonsumer as anything in existence. It is rank bullshit. And a huge red flag for gaming going that route.

SaaS and gaming in general are united in people getting really super hella mad about pricing on products that they have very, very little conception of the production economics of.

 

[IndoAssassin]

So there's actually been an interesting trend here with more $40 singleplayer games.

The top 20 NPD games from last month:

1. Madden NFL 18
2. Grand Theft Auto V
3. Uncharted: The Lost Legacy - SP, $40 (Though it does give you access to UC4's MP.)
4. Splatoon 2*
5. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild* - SP, $60, 97 MC
6. Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Siege
7. Mario Kart 8*
8. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered
9. Crash Bandicoot: N. Sane Trilogy - SP, $40
10. Overwatch**
11. Injustice 2
12. Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Wildlands
13. Minecraft
14. For Honor
15. Call of Duty: Black Ops III
16. Agents Of Mayhem - SP, $60, 63 MC
17. Forza Horizon 3
18. Battlefield 1
19. NBA 2K17
20. UFC 2

We actually do see $40 singleplayer games doing well.

Of course, the issue is that retailer margins and licensing fees are way less favorable/profitable at $40 than $60.

The question remains though of how much less would Uncharted have sold if it was $60.

If it sold 1 million copies at $40, that is $40,000,000 revenue.

To equal that amount in revenue at $60 it would just have to sell 667,000 copies. That is 33% less copies sold.

So the question remains if it was $60, would it have sold 33% less copies. Obviously this is a Sony 1st party game, so for them it shouldn't matter as the game is more geared towards selling consoles than pure profits.

But asking this of 3rd party, I just don't see it ever happening for AAA games. How do they sell this idea to shareholders and investors especially when they have to pay licensing fees and there is no secondary benefit like the first party studios give.

 

[RedSwirl]

In regards to Prey in particular, as great as it is I was always worried that it didn't have an immediate selling point for people who weren't already aware of its links to BioShock and System Shock. What's the elevator pitch you give to someone who hasn't heard of Prey? The best thing the gaming press came up with was "BioShock in space."

As for singleplayer and service games in general, I do wish more of the big publishers would try to figure out singleplayer service games. They need to find new ways of doing compelling singleplayer beyond the linear story campaign. Right now the best method has been to simply cram an open-world with 400 hours of content.

In my mind a "service game" is simply a game designed for indefinite player retention that is supported long after launch with monetized elements. I don't think games like Horizon or Witcher 3 count because they are generally linear stories that aren't designed to be indefinitely replayable. You can play them for a very long time, but each one is really just more akin to a really thick book rather than a service you use. Even the DLC and expansions for those games are just extra chapters.

Earlier someone mentioned Forza Horizon 3 and I guess that's a good example of an actual service game you can thoroughly enjoy without ever encountering an actual human. Maybe sports and simulation games in general are a good fit for single player service games. Outside of those I feel like mobile games are the ones that have really figured out singleplayer service-based design. Tons of games there supported by in-app purchases and loot boxes have no multiplayer to speak of. Many of them basically go all the way back to arcade game design to accomplish this.

In general, I think service-based games are just another factor of how console gaming is becoming more like PC. Expansions, long-tail developer support, and indefinite replayability have been key parts of PC gaming for decades. It's just that back then they weren't monetized as aggressively. Developers released expansions and there have always been MMOs, but other than that developers just kept patching and letting people play their games. Their games like simulations or strategy games were always replayed endlessly because of their inherently systemic and emergent gameplay. People still play Civilization II 20 years later because a campaign in it never plays out the same way twice. This is what big console publishers haven't really figured out yet without resorting to multiplayer.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Denial:

In order for games as a service to be tenable, companies first need to do proper service to the original games, as original games; not as frameworks for trickle-up economics.

Anger:

GaaS can kiss my ass

Bargaining:

You know what would be a nice middle ground?

Complete, fully-developed games upon release, with nothing held back as "future" DLC, with genuinely developed after the fact optional content provided as DLC as a service. Or, as old school PC players used to call them - expansion packs.

Depression:

I see myself going full retro in the very near future. If it weren't for Steam and the 3DS, I probably would have already done so.

Acceptance:

 

[Bronetta]

In regards to Prey in particular, as great as it is I was always worried that it didn't have an immediate selling point for people who weren't already aware of its links to BioShock and System Shock. What's the elevator pitch you give to someone who hasn't heard of Prey? The best thing the gaming press came up with was "BioShock in space."

"Bioshock x Dead Space" is how Ive been pitching it to friends. If you want an unrivalled sense of discovery and exploration, mystery, and attention to detail then you want Prey.

 

[GLAMr]

"Bioshock x Dead Space" is how Ive been pitching it to friends. If you want an unrivalled sense of discovery and exploration, mystery, and attention to detail then you want Prey.

Prey made it onto my To Do list after a friend called it "System Shock 3". I don't know how accurate that though. I'm just waiting for a deep cut because I'm taking a moral stand against paying full price for Bethesda products at the moment due to some of their shitty practices.

I don't mind a shift to GaaS so long as the core SP doesn't suffer. GTAV is a game I play as a purely SP experience, but I feel that SP experience has improved over the past few years due to Online features trickling down, while the GaaS revenue seems to be reinvested into adding content.

 

[RedSwirl]

Prey made it onto my To Do list after a friend called it "System Shock 3". I don't know how accurate that though. I'm just waiting for a deep cut because I'm taking a moral stand against paying full price for Bethesda products at the moment due to some of their shitty practices.

It ain't System Shock 3, but it consolizes the System Shock experience in the way BioShock probably should have.

 

[Lunaray]

Denial:


Anger:


Bargaining:


Depression:


Acceptance:

Amazing post.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

The question remains though of how much less would Uncharted have sold if it was $60.

If it sold 1 million copies at $40, that is $40,000,000 revenue.

To equal that amount in revenue at $60 it would just have to sell 667,000 copies. That is 33% less copies sold.

So the question remains if it was $60, would it have sold 33% less copies. Obviously this is a Sony 1st party game, so for them it shouldn't matter as the game is more geared towards selling consoles than pure profits.

But asking this of 3rd party, I just don't see it ever happening for AAA games. How do they sell this idea to shareholders and investors especially when they have to pay licensing fees and there is no secondary benefit like the first party studios give.

Well UC was only $40 because it was a spin off and was done in a shorter time.
People that had the season pass get it even cheaper .
ND do that spin off in a year so it was more like a expansion\ big DLC that you see other companies do.
Just that it got a disk version .