The Triple-A Budget Conundrum - is it worth it?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
This topic contains spoilers - you can click, tap, or highlight to reveal them
  1. Boards
  2. Xbox One
  3. The Triple-A Budget Conundrum - is it worth it?

User Info: mike468

mike468
1 month ago#11
NuclearHendrix posted...
1. Quit spending so much of the budget on advertising the game.

2. Price your game correctly. If it's thin on content, it's not worth $60, and probably not even $40 or $30 either.


I agree on this. From a consumer standpoint, that $60 price point is justified on games that are getting 9.5-10 on meta critic. Games like MGS, Halo 2, GTA.

Anything less and consumers start to wait it out for deals.

A perfect example of a game that should be marked down is Marvel v Capcom: infinite. A lot of reviews say the game mechanics are good, but graphics and story are bad. It's also doing horrible from a sales perspective. Capcom would do best to lower that $60 launch price down to $40-45 ASAP to drive sales and grow the game's community before it does out.

Game developers should develop a price scale based on overall reviews, and base prices accordingly IMO. Because that's kind of the way the consumer's mentality seems to be when it comes to buying games in general. Unless the game is scoring 9+, it's not going to sell at $60 to the masses, only the hardcore fans.
Triggered fanboys,make the internet go round. In the most disgusting way

User Info: lunaticcore

lunaticcore
1 month ago#12
mike468 posted...
NuclearHendrix posted...
1. Quit spending so much of the budget on advertising the game.

2. Price your game correctly. If it's thin on content, it's not worth $60, and probably not even $40 or $30 either.


I agree on this. From a consumer standpoint, that $60 price point is justified on games that are getting 9.5-10 on meta critic. Games like MGS, Halo 2, GTA.

Anything less and consumers start to wait it out for deals.

A perfect example of a game that should be marked down is Marvel v Capcom: infinite. A lot of reviews say the game mechanics are good, but graphics and story are bad. It's also doing horrible from a sales perspective. Capcom would do best to lower that $60 launch price down to $40-45 ASAP to drive sales and grow the game's community before it does out.

Game developers should develop a price scale based on overall reviews, and base prices accordingly IMO. Because that's kind d of the way the consumer's mentality seems to be when it comes to buying games in general.


There is a problem with people expecting a cheaper game to be garbage that will drop in price fast.
You kinda have to be in one of three price areas right now... full priced, indie priced, or F2P.
Endless Metroid month.. Samus Returns HYPE... Come watch us playthrough Super Metroid, Zero Mission, AM2R and Metroid Fusion. http://bit.ly/2vlfYbS

User Info: SigmaLongshot

SigmaLongshot
1 month ago#13
I personally am a firm believer in the quote, "there's no such thing as a bad game - just a bad price point".

If more publishers simply took this into regard, there'd be far fewer consumers who were skeptical of games in general, cynically assuming every game to be a soulless "cash grab".

But with this in mind, we would also have to consider the overall price it costs to create the enormous AAA games we've come to know as the bombastic blockbusters and have those priced much higher than we're paying right now.

For example (just based on assumed inflation):

Games that cost 250million to make - £80 RRP
Games that cost 100million to make - £60 RRP
Games that cost 50million to make - £40 RRP
Games that cost 10million to make - £25 RRP
Games that cost >5million to make - £18 RRP


Ratings should not factor in here - ratings are irrelevant in how much the game cost to make, though the quality is implied as the cost increases. A game made by one guy can get a 10/10 from IGN and the latest 200 million blockbuster from Infinity Ward can get a 9/10 - but that doesn't mean the former should cost more than the latter. A pixel art indie gem doesn't cost nearly as much as the latest CoD to produce, the overheads aren't even in the same cosmos.
XB1/XB360/Wii U: TotoMimo PS4: Gooey_Toto/SigmaLongshot
A decade working in AAA game development? Time certainly flies.

User Info: quickl

quickl
1 month ago#14
@SigmaLongshot - sounds like you've never played some classics like Quest 64, Superman 64, Crackdown 2, Two Worlds (Kinect game) or similar quality games. Because all those are terrible at any price point.
"Bloodborne - The MUST play new IP of the generation" Phil Spencer
Horizon: Zero Dawn - 2017 Game of the Year

User Info: fan360

fan360
1 month ago#15
Mirage13 posted...
If publishers would stop dropping the prices of games a month after they release, a AAA game's high-budget would be a non-issue.


This.

Last Thanksgiving, I got FF15 for $30 on release date from newegg,

Except Activision and Nintendo games, it is common to get an AAA game for $40 after a month.
$20 6-monthes later.

High budget games sell more. It should not be more expensive.

Just like someone said, if the price is based on budget/rating, people will think it is a bad game if the price is $10.
It is unfair.

User Info: GhostPhoenix1

GhostPhoenix1
1 month ago#16
A few people from the development community have even suggested that the $60 price point actually leads to bad habits on their side of the fence such as filler quests and other unnecessary things to make the customer feel they got their moneys worth. Some have even suggested making shorter games or adopting a "pay for what you want" model. I.e. selling the single player and multiplayer sections of game independent of themselves. Mark them up to $35-40 a piece and sell the complete package for $60-80. As we progress further into the digital sales medium this could very well happen.

I also don't see micro transactions as a problem. It's a business and people feed their families by making these games. Having worked as an owner/producer/artist on my own record label in my twenties and early thirties I understand that while yes they are doing what they love it is a LOT of time and hard work to make these products see the light of day. The digital marketplace revolutionized the independent music scene and has done the same for indie game developers. The big boys just need to learn how to utilize it that finds a happy medium
Gt: Ghostknobone
PSN: Calelomus77

User Info: MRL3G3ND

MRL3G3ND
1 month ago#17
AAA games set a level of quality and polish that has set a standard I am used to.
I don't really care about micro-transactions as long as they are cosmetic
BF2 has me worried: I hear the loot crates give you progression, and the if you dump cash into them you will be the most powerful guy starting at launch
The Beauty of Fallout 4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXWI8jil6mg

User Info: Net Shark

Net Shark
1 month ago#18
I have nothing to contribute useful to this topic. Just wanted to point out topic title sounds like it could be the title of a BIg Bang episode! :)
Money can buy happiness don't kid yourself! GT: Net Sh4rk

User Info: SigmaLongshot

SigmaLongshot
1 month ago#19
GhostPhoenix1 posted...
A few people from the development community have even suggested that the $60 price point actually leads to bad habits on their side of the fence such as filler quests and other unnecessary things to make the customer feel they got their moneys worth. Some have even suggested making shorter games or adopting a "pay for what you want" model. I.e. selling the single player and multiplayer sections of game independent of themselves. Mark them up to $35-40 a piece and sell the complete package for $60-80. As we progress further into the digital sales medium this could very well happen.

I also don't see micro transactions as a problem. It's a business and people feed their families by making these games. Having worked as an owner/producer/artist on my own record label in my twenties and early thirties I understand that while yes they are doing what they love it is a LOT of time and hard work to make these products see the light of day. The digital marketplace revolutionized the independent music scene and has done the same for indie game developers. The big boys just need to learn how to utilize it that finds a happy medium


You know, the modular method is something I've always considered as a possibility. Some games such as Dead Alliance offered both the multiplayer and single-player packs up separately (with a discounted "full version" also available).

However, with the most prevalent argument always being "but I'm not paying for a full game, there's other content out there for that game that's not included!" - I doubt very much it'd sway that camp.

But yes, I'm also a fan of the piecemeal-purchase setup.

Hell, I might even go so far as to say maybe a huge-budget game like Call of Duty could sell each of the single-player chapters of its campaign for £3.99 apiece, and the multiplayer at £20 - the people that only buy for the multiplayer get what they want for cheaper, the single-player fans get what they want, and the people that aren't sure if they want either can just play the first level to see if it's for them.

Seems like an elegant solution to me.

Once again, we'd get people whinging though, because "I don't want to spend a single penny on a game that's incomplete", even if it is in fact a more tailored solution for each individual.

I mean, if you went to a restaurant and they offer a £30 surf and turf with lobster, steak, mussels, sausages, clams and an entire octopus, and you hate tentacles and phalluses - why wouldn't you choose the £15 version which comes sans 'pus and saw-sage?
XB1/XB360/Wii U: TotoMimo PS4: Gooey_Toto/SigmaLongshot
A decade working in AAA game development? Time certainly flies.

User Info: GhostPhoenix1

GhostPhoenix1
1 month ago#20
SigmaLongshot posted...
GhostPhoenix1 posted...
A few people from the development community have even suggested that the $60 price point actually leads to bad habits on their side of the fence such as filler quests and other unnecessary things to make the customer feel they got their moneys worth. Some have even suggested making shorter games or adopting a "pay for what you want" model. I.e. selling the single player and multiplayer sections of game independent of themselves. Mark them up to $35-40 a piece and sell the complete package for $60-80. As we progress further into the digital sales medium this could very well happen.

I also don't see micro transactions as a problem. It's a business and people feed their families by making these games. Having worked as an owner/producer/artist on my own record label in my twenties and early thirties I understand that while yes they are doing what they love it is a LOT of time and hard work to make these products see the light of day. The digital marketplace revolutionized the independent music scene and has done the same for indie game developers. The big boys just need to learn how to utilize it that finds a happy medium


You know, the modular method is something I've always considered as a possibility. Some games such as Dead Alliance offered both the multiplayer and single-player packs up separately (with a discounted "full version" also available).

However, with the most prevalent argument always being "but I'm not paying for a full game, there's other content out there for that game that's not included!" - I doubt very much it'd sway that camp.

But yes, I'm also a fan of the piecemeal-purchase setup.

Hell, I might even go so far as to say maybe a huge-budget game like Call of Duty could sell each of the single-player chapters of its campaign for £3.99 apiece, and the multiplayer at £20 - the people that only buy for the multiplayer get what they want for cheaper, the single-player fans get what they want, and the people that aren't sure if they want either can just play the first level to see if it's for them.

Seems like an elegant solution to me.

Once again, we'd get people whinging though, because "I don't want to spend a single penny on a game that's incomplete", even if it is in fact a more tailored solution for each individual.

I mean, if you went to a restaurant and they offer a £30 surf and turf with lobster, steak, mussels, sausages, clams and an entire octopus, and you hate tentacles and phalluses - why wouldn't you choose the £15 version which comes sans 'pus and saw-sage?


lol at that analogy. Hilarious. I agree there will be pissing and moaning regardless.
Gt: Ghostknobone
PSN: Calelomus77
  1. Boards
  2. Xbox One
  3. The Triple-A Budget Conundrum - is it worth it?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived