MY BRAIN HAD A THINK ABOUT A GAM3

I was wondering what game it was from Muss' post, and thinking, 'If it's an enormous quest of high quality with no microtransactions then I'd kind of rather that, so fair enough.'

But apparently it's NBA2K21.

Yeah it's NBA 2K1, which is £65 on next gen, has microtransactions, and "free" upgrade from current gen to next gen is locked behind a £85 version which is also only way to get the Kobe stuff.

I say to that what Father Jack says to a cup.

I worry that all triple A games are going to want to price themselves higher; in all fairness this was always going to happen, as, technical virtue-spouting aside, it takes more people longer to make high quality content for the newer consoles. But I also remember when everything was the same price in the pre-internet days - no indie digital downloads for £5. I wonder if we're just going to end up like Japan, where people no longer expect a standard price for a game, and can charge anywhere between £20-£100?

I know Shawn Layden was recently interviewed and along with bringing up game length, mentioned that costs of making games have gone up in some cases by 200%.

Where costs of buying game haven't but then you'd think more games are sold though.

Yes, but hidden costs like microtransactions have - so when Shawn Layden (who he?) says that costs haven't gone up, is he talking about the up-front cost or the total cost?

I think that's what grinds my gears about this argument - or rather, it's one of two things. I'm fine with paying a bit more for a massive game if it's going to be worth my time and not going to try and nickel and dime me. What I'm not fine with is the game that breaches the barrier being a sodding sports franchise that makes bank already out of hidden costs. (The other thing is that most of the increases in costs above inflation seem to go into graphics, certainly in sports titles, when that is pretty much the thing I care about least in games (please do not provide examples of things I might care less about, this is hyperbole to make a point).)

Shawn Layden was the boss of PlayStation till very recently, and was interviewed about the game industry in general.

I would sooner keep games at the Switch's level of fidelity, pay the marked-up price, and allow developers to see their families.

Or games go up in price, they then can higher more colleagues or something then workload shared out

masofdas wrote:

Or games go up in price, they then can higher more colleagues or something then workload shared out

The games will go up in price, the CEOs bonuses will expand, the staff will still be overworked.

Well you bring up a big issue CEO bonuses, an article I saw

Buskalilly wrote:

I would sooner keep games at the Switch's level of fidelity, pay the marked-up price, and allow developers to see their families.

You think big companies would let reduced fidelity allow developers to see their families?

Anyway the big company story's got even grimmer in recent times because of course it has. Fuck Ubisoft.

In other news people are arseholes.

Big time.

Speaking of arseholes, I watched my first Pewdiepie video this weekend. Was hanging out with the boys and Matty was giving it a big one that this one video was so good and funny.

We watched it.

Pewdiepie is not funny and also is a cunt.

Next you'll be telling me the sky is blue

Balladeer wrote:

Yes, but hidden costs like microtransactions have - so when Shawn Layden (who he?) says that costs haven't gone up, is he talking about the up-front cost or the total cost?

I think that's what grinds my gears about this argument - or rather, it's one of two things.  I'm fine with paying a bit more for a massive game if it's going to be worth my time and not going to try and nickel and dime me.  What I'm not fine with is the game that breaches the barrier being a sodding sports franchise that makes bank already out of hidden costs.  (The other thing is that most of the increases in costs above inflation seem to go into graphics, certainly in sports titles, when that is pretty much the thing I care about least in games (please do not provide examples of things I might care less about, this is hyperbole to make a point).)

Yes, exactly this. I've paid a premium for board games, many of which are innovative or which neatly marry theme and mechanics into a satisfying game. There are big games that I'm excited for, or would pay more for. But most of the big titles aren't innovative in either theme or design. There's nothing wrong with iterative improvements, until a vast portion of the industry isn't pushing any boundary apart from looks. And of course, Balla hits it out of the park in terms of costs. Not to mention pre-order bonuses, review embargos, cosmetic dlc's, which have been normalised to varying degrees since the ps3/360 days.

If the industry was unionised and workers were treated fairly, that would be one thing. But like Buskalilly says, there isn't equitable distribution and the higher the costs get, the more likely we are to see crunch and shit.

Buskalilly wrote:

Speaking of arseholes, I watched my first Pewdiepie video this weekend. Was hanging out with the boys and Matty was giving it a big one that this one video was so good and funny.

We watched it.

Pewdiepie is not funny and also is a cunt.

There was a time where I gave him a pass, but that was out of ignorance. I used to think he was a harmless douche, but nope. Mr heated gaming moment

Buskalilly wrote:

Big time.

Speaking of arseholes, I watched my first Pewdiepie video this weekend. Was hanging out with the boys and Matty was giving it a big one that this one video was so good and funny.

We watched it.

Pewdiepie is not funny and also is a cunt.

I fail to understand why the popular YouTube personalities are so, well, popular. Pewdiepie, KSI, all the grown men opening toys and playing with them that little children watch... It sometimes makes me wonder if I'm the odd one, or if millions of their views and subscribers might be artificial. I guess it's easy to forget how many dicks there are in the world, and YouTube (like all social media) gives them an audience they wouldn't have in the real world.

I do like a good unboxing though and toys

masofdas wrote:

I do like a good unboxing though and toys

Lol I mean Peppa Pig and Paw Patrol, unless you're into them too...

Nah I am not

masofdas wrote:

Next you'll be telling me the sky is blue

Legit Good Masofdas Joke of the Month

Muss wrote:

There was a time where I gave him a pass, but that was out of ignorance. I used to think he was a harmless douche, but nope. Mr heated gaming moment

It's just a joke maaaaaate
Jk maaaaaaate
Just bantz maaaaaaattee
Can't you take a joke maaaaaaate?
We've all accidentally signal boosted Nazis once or twice several times maaaaaaate

gjones wrote:

I fail to understand why the popular YouTube personalities are so, well, popular. Pewdiepie, KSI, all the grown men opening toys and playing with them that little children watch... It sometimes makes me wonder if I'm the odd one, or if millions of their views and subscribers might be artificial. I guess it's easy to forget how many dicks there are in the world, and YouTube (like all social media) gives them an audience they wouldn't have in the real world.

I can see how these people get an audience at the start, they're usually charming and easy-going and handsome with a genuine banter. But men in power are 99% awful, and internet celebrities get these big audiences and all this money with nobody to tell them what not to do, so of course there are so many baddies . . .

While we are still on this subject Ninja is another rotten "online personality" yet nobody seems to care about that even though the majority of his audience are young impressionable kids.

I think it's parents don't know sort of thing

If I were to describe Pewdiepie from what I've seen, it's basically an "aaa" sound lots and lots of times. Is he still like that? I daren't look.

Kind of Muss; obvious of Buska. What has Ninja done apart from got into bed with big companies?