-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mister Wolf
Member
Take Two out here looking like real assholes.
KingdomHeartsFan
Member
Its hilarious the game that basically reuses assets from year to year with roster changes and microtransactions and lootboxes up the ass is the one to increase the price of their game.
Sports gamers are used to taking it up the ass from 2K anyway so I guess it doesn't matter to them.
Sports gamers are used to taking it up the ass from 2K anyway so I guess it doesn't matter to them.
2k have made two different versions for NBA 2k21. The current gen is likely just seasonal updates, whereas the next gen is made from the ground up on nextgen consoles. Smart delivery won’t work.
There will be two versions. Current gen, which will still be current gen If you play via backwards compatibility mode. Or the next gen version for $70 which actually has both the current and next gen versions included.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Imagine believing this lmao
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
I don't think you fully understand what Smart Delivery is.
You think the PS5/XSX version will be the same as current gen, just in a higher resolution?
Please enlighten me.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
They'll have higher-quality assets, framerate, and resolution. That's it.
jonnyp
Member
Mercenary09
Member
Yep everyone is going to be looking at NBA 2K's sales and the sad thing is it will likely sell as well as it always has. I don't even mind so much if some games were to go up but when it's games that are already full of microtransactions they can go f themselves with that. Like they don't already make plenty of money off that shit.
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
Smart Delivery is Microsoft's program that allows you to buy the game once and you get access to both the current gen version of the game as well as the next gen version of the same game. So, for example, if you want to buy Far Cry 6 but you haven't bought an Xbox Series X yet, you can buy the game and play it on your Xbox One. Once you upgrade, you can download the next-gen version for free and continue playing.
The next gen versions of a lot of these games will be "built from the ground up" (as you say) and use new next-gen features like ray-tracing and taking advantage of the new SSDs. With your example of NBA 2k21, if the developer decided to utilize Smart Delivery then you would only have to buy the game once and you'd always have access to the best version of the game you were able to play. Not utilizing Smart Delivery is a business decision though and has nothing to do with any technical limitations.
Dolomite
Member
It will look bad if they start the gen with $60 games then increase in price for no reason later
Optimistic Gamer
Member
Those are very separate topics.
99.99% of ubisoft couldn't give less of a shit.
Ubisoft itself could run around and kick puppies in the dick; people would accept that over paying more. Especially right now.
The industry must be sooo angry that covid collided with their plans to "adapt" pricing to the next gen.
digital_ghost
Gold Member
Binary genders pay $40.Being Ubisoft, I bet it's 60$ if it is a female buying the game.
Men pay 70$.
Just kidding.
FloatingIslands
Member
Ok, I was going to wait for sales anyway
Sander Cohen
Member
Ubisoft doesn’t want more bad PR at the moment. Just wait for the next year and see what happens.
Great Hair
Banned
this only matters til 2021, past 2021 this feature won't anymore (no more xbone support).
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
I'm not sure how many Xbox One games you're hoping get released two years after the generation is over.
Any "Xbox One" game that's released before then with Smart Delivery (Far Cry 6, Yakuza, Cyberpunk 2077, Halo, etc.) will still work on Series X in the future. Smart Delivery has been confirmed to even work on disc-based games.
Bonfires Down
Member
Definitely. They probably don't want the bad PR of trying to justify $70 for cross-gen games, but as soon as their games are next-gen exclusive they will be on board that $70 train in a second.
I'd got so sick recently of Colin Moriarty banging on about the economic inevitability of an increase to $70.
It's not that it definitely won't happen, but that his level of analysis is pathetic. He basically just notes that general price inflation has occurred therefore this specific price must rise.
It's not even remotely as simple as that. Games have a very low cost of sale - it's all overhead - so you need to look at whether the market has grown so that reduced margins can be offset by higher sales volume. You need to look at whether companies are actually making money. How do their returns look compared to historic results? Do things look sustainable?
Have there been any major developments that might impact price? Just maybe, could the explosion of high margin digital sales help sustain returns and exert a downward pressure on prices?
Have there been any major initiatives from platform holders that could affect things? What about gamepass? Would it not be the case that Microsoft offering an extremely good value way of delivering a high volume of games to consumers could place downward pressure on prices?
How about the huge increase in scope to upsell via microtransactions and DLC? Maybe the base game price is no longer so crucial?
There's a LOT of shit to consider. But this arrogant prick shows no sign that he even realises these questions exist.
It's not that it definitely won't happen, but that his level of analysis is pathetic. He basically just notes that general price inflation has occurred therefore this specific price must rise.
It's not even remotely as simple as that. Games have a very low cost of sale - it's all overhead - so you need to look at whether the market has grown so that reduced margins can be offset by higher sales volume. You need to look at whether companies are actually making money. How do their returns look compared to historic results? Do things look sustainable?
Have there been any major developments that might impact price? Just maybe, could the explosion of high margin digital sales help sustain returns and exert a downward pressure on prices?
Have there been any major initiatives from platform holders that could affect things? What about gamepass? Would it not be the case that Microsoft offering an extremely good value way of delivering a high volume of games to consumers could place downward pressure on prices?
How about the huge increase in scope to upsell via microtransactions and DLC? Maybe the base game price is no longer so crucial?
There's a LOT of shit to consider. But this arrogant prick shows no sign that he even realises these questions exist.
Great Hair
Banned
He gets paid $3,000 from patreon etc. to read them 3 to 5 days old news and to give his take on it. His co-host barely has anything to contribute. Same with some of these "experts" on youtube ... all they do is recycle 3day old information, claiming to have sources everywhere and people believe them.
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
All excellent points. It's like saying that the cost of SD cards (which released to consumers 20 years ago!) should continue to rise steadily in price over the past twenty years. Instead, we've seen huge adoption rates which have led to a larger consumer base and massively increased innovation and miniaturization. By the logic of general price inflation has occurred therefore this specific price must rise we should all be paying thousands of dollars for SD cards. Instead the reality is that the capacity on these cards continues to rise while the price continues to fall due to basic economic principles that seem completely ignored by the above arguments.
AAA games might cost more money and take more time than ever to create, but there is a much wider audience that it's being sold to generally and as you mentioned the cost of platform marketing has dropped pretty significantly. The rise of DLC and microtransactions means that a lot of games are completely viable with no up front cost at all. $70 per game just because "next-gen" is just greedy.
I’m playing Odyssey right now - it’s maybe the third time I’ve gotten back into it, having walked away earlier.
As far as value is concerned, I’m now approaching almost 100 hours, which is unheard of for me. On a dollar per hour basis, this game‘s value is through the roof.
Also of note: the size of the world is staggering, and the detail is incredible. But what’s really surprised me is how I’m actually feeling my character growing more and more powerful as I level up.
Indeed, for me... I’m just going to say it... I never actually felt that Geralt was really all that different at the end of the game. Sure, he grew a little more powerful. But killing level one drowners felt an awful lot like killing level 25 drowners.
That just is not the case in Odyssey. My level 38 character fights nothing like my level 1 character - the moves I’m pulling off at level 38 are magnificent, and honestly a joy to experience. One of the bosses at level 40 kicked my ass when I was level 30. Returning to that boss with a new skill set, and kicking HIS ass was super rewarding.
If Valhalla ends up being as good as Odyssey then $60 is a steal.
As far as value is concerned, I’m now approaching almost 100 hours, which is unheard of for me. On a dollar per hour basis, this game‘s value is through the roof.
Also of note: the size of the world is staggering, and the detail is incredible. But what’s really surprised me is how I’m actually feeling my character growing more and more powerful as I level up.
Indeed, for me... I’m just going to say it... I never actually felt that Geralt was really all that different at the end of the game. Sure, he grew a little more powerful. But killing level one drowners felt an awful lot like killing level 25 drowners.
That just is not the case in Odyssey. My level 38 character fights nothing like my level 1 character - the moves I’m pulling off at level 38 are magnificent, and honestly a joy to experience. One of the bosses at level 40 kicked my ass when I was level 30. Returning to that boss with a new skill set, and kicking HIS ass was super rewarding.
If Valhalla ends up being as good as Odyssey then $60 is a steal.
I guess if I was being paid hundreds of thousands of $ a year to play games and then talk shit about them, eventually I'd start to believe I was some kind of god too.