GTA Publisher: Game Development Getting More Expensive and Risky

[VirtualNinja]

GTA publisher crying poor, that will do me.

[smpk]

Yeah but the second one is crap. 

They only publish the second one, not the first one.

Well at least they had a good link.

Mafia 2 was a great game if you have not played the first one.

[MageTank]

60$ is pretty low when you consider the costs. The price is 60$ because then it makes at least some sense for retailers to start selling the product. The price has been stuck around this mark for a long time, and people are more willing to accept a 60$ game with DLC rather than a 80$ game with everything included. Hell, a lot of the stuff that DLCs are wouldn't be included anyway, because it's meaningless fluff. Or then you'd access them through cheat codes, as it'd break the game anyway.

 

A lot of people shun on Gamestop for selling used games. The thing is that Gamestop wouldn't exist if it only sold new games. The margins on new games are laughable, though for used games, it's ridiculously high.

 

The HD re-remakes of Metro LL and the like are essentially GOTY-versions with some graphical improvements. The exist because new consoles exist. Tomb Raider (no PC though) was put up on PS4 / Xbox One, Deus Ex got a Wii U version, Sleeping Dogs had a definite edition launched for the new consoles. They often just launch the definite edition instead of a GOTY for PC, because it requires minimal effort (which in turn means minimal resources) to make that port. It's deemed profitable. You can't sell it for peanuts because then people would be overly sensitive about the price difference between consoles and PC. Metro at least offered discount on the redux editions for the owners of the original versions.

 

$60 for a finished game is not a problem. $60 for a game that has more bugs than Bear Grylls underwear is a problem. You cannot charge $60 for a product that is not finished, then finish it slowly with patches just because it would sell more during a specific time of year. The DLC issue is only annoying when you buy the DLC, and less than a few months later, the same game becomes available at the same base price, with the DLC included. 

 

I disagree with the PC games being re-released as HD versions because console hardware changes. PC's hardware has always been expandable for as long as i could remember. If you are going to release a game for a console that is limited to 900p, do not be so lazy to release a PC version with that limitation. We have already seen how easy it is to mod textures when it comes to games like Skyrim, and these games are using engines that are clearly capable of amazing graphics. Releasing the same product twice, because you intentionally cut the graphics down is not an OK thing to do in my eyes. Especially when it is as simple as modding textures. 

 

The only time i even see GOTY editions of games, is when the original game has already dropped by 50% of its original price. Sure, GOTY includes the DLC, but after the massive price cut the original game took, you could technically buy the original game and the DLC and still sit at the same price.

 

I do not have a problem giving publishers $60 of my hard earned money. Hell, if the game is great, i would gladly spend more than that. My only issue is the rushed games that i purchase, that require weeks of patching before i can actually enjoy the content in it. DLC is also OK if it is handled correctly. DLC should enhance a game, and not be a required aspect to get the full story of a game. This is where my love-hate relationship tends to spiral out of control when it comes to Dark Souls, but that would be an entirely different topic itself. 

 

I should note that the posts i make are only my opinions, so do not take my rants as gospel. 

[ThyFeared]

Yeah but the second one is crap. 

They only publish the second one, not the first one.

Well at least they had a good link.

The second one was amazing o-o

[Me1z]

It may be expensive, but in reality its not all that risky if you actually give us what we want. What do we want? GTAV! When do we want it? 17 FRACKING MONTHS AGO!

[Zulkkis]

$60 for a finished game is not a problem. $60 for a game that has more bugs than Bear Grylls underwear is a problem. You cannot charge $60 for a product that is not finished, then finish it slowly with patches just because it would sell more during a specific time of year. The DLC issue is only annoying when you buy the DLC, and less than a few months later, the same game becomes available at the same base price, with the DLC included.

 

Yes, and consumers should not condone the behaviour.

 

DLC issue is imho much more annoying because some of it is tied with pre-orders or extra versions, and the value of the original purchase is going down in more ways than just one. If you won't have all the monsters in Evolve, you're going to be at a disadvantage.

 

However, price decreases don't seem to be a problem for me. In this case, you wait out until it is at an acceptable level.

 

I disagree with the PC games being re-released as HD versions because console hardware changes. PC's hardware has always been expandable for as long as i could remember. If you are going to release a game for a console that is limited to 900p, do not be so lazy to release a PC version with that limitation. We have already seen how easy it is to mod textures when it comes to games like Skyrim, and these games are using engines that are clearly capable of amazing graphics. Releasing the same product twice, because you intentionally cut the graphics down is not an OK thing to do in my eyes. Especially when it is as simple as modding textures. 

 

Well, it is a GOTY-edition of sorts.

 

Most games are not limiting the resolution. Skyrim did release a HD-texture pack for PCs, probably the original files that the artists used while the console uses heavily compressed versions.

 

Modding textures is generally pretty easy if it is allowed. However, the thing is that they have created the art to fit a certain spec, and doing the kind of work that countless of modders do for free would cost an arm and a leg for the developer. Want to pay 120$ for Skyrim? For the publisher it might not make sense, since it might give extra 1.2% extra sales on PC according to their statistics, but increase development costs by 15%. That's an example of what kind of decision making process there's going on.

 

 

The only time i even see GOTY editions of games, is when the original game has already dropped by 50% of its original price. Sure, GOTY includes the DLC, but after the massive price cut the original game took, you could technically buy the original game and the DLC and still sit at the same price.

 

So you buy the edition that makes the most sense to you and your wallet. I don't really see the problem.

 

I do not have a problem giving publishers $60 of my hard earned money. Hell, if the game is great, i would gladly spend more than that. My only issue is the rushed games that i purchase, that require weeks of patching before i can actually enjoy the content in it. DLC is also OK if it is handled correctly. DLC should enhance a game, and not be a required aspect to get the full story of a game. This is where my love-hate relationship tends to spiral out of control when it comes to Dark Souls, but that would be an entirely different topic itself. 

 

I should note that the posts i make are only my opinions, so do not take my rants as gospel.

 

The issue with DLC is that it is used in the wrong manner for wrong games. For some games, an expansion pack where you can make meaningful changes to game mechanics and enough wiggle room rather than trying to sell a single boss battle for 5$. But people pay, and that's a problem. It sends the wrong signal.

 

DLC is very fine in games like Rockband or Train Simulator because there it can really work out in á la carte -fashion. You won't buy every piece of content; Rocksmith has hundreds of dollars worth of DLC and Train Simulator was pretty ridiculous, too. But when you're playing the game, if all you want are metal songs or the diesel train, it seems much, much more reasonable.

 

Releasing multiple tidbits of content for a story-heavy game cheapens the whole experience by a large margin.

[ACatWithThumbs]

Of course it's getting more risky game budgets are 10-20x higher now.
Back in the day a team of 30 people was enough for a AAA game now days you need 200-400 people to make a game.
Most of the budget goes on the salary of employees alone and that even though the gaming industry doesn't pay well.

[Clyne]

Mafia 2 was awesome. Fans and critics both loved.

Not for me, I still believe that mafia 1 is better.

Mafia 1 had a unique health system, storyline is much better imo.

[Derangel]

Not for me, I still believe that mafia 1 is better.

Mafia 1 had a unique health system, storyline is much better imo.

 

I have to agree. Mafia 2 had a bunch of good ideas and some good characters but the story felt incredibly incomplete. The jumps in years didn't work well and nothing seemed to really fit together as well as the first game. I think gameplay wise Mafia 2 is better, but beyond that it just didn't hit the same high target as the first game.

[Opcode]

Not for me, I still believe that mafia 1 is better.

Mafia 1 had a unique health system, storyline is much better imo.

With playing Mafia II first I honestly could never play the original Mafia. The graphics and physics are far worse than even San Andreas. Which is a big selling point to me because the one thing I enjoyed about Mafia II is how the vehicles handled. Watching an original Mafia gameplay video on YouTube makes me feel like I'm watching a gangster movie recorded on a potato.

 

I have to agree. Mafia 2 had a bunch of good ideas and some good characters but the story felt incredibly incomplete. The jumps in years didn't work well and nothing seemed to really fit together as well as the first game. I think gameplay wise Mafia 2 is better, but beyond that it just didn't hit the same high target as the first game.

Mafia II to me really only seemed too short. The story wasn't long enough making the game too quick to complete. Tho I still have to go around finding my playboy pages.

[Linusinium]

Duh, the more you invest the harder it is to recover the cost and AAA budgets easily skyrocket into 100mil+ range. Though it's funny Take Two would say this mere weeks after announcing record financial numbers for the past year.  Ubisoft spent 100mil on Unity, shipped 10 mil copies, lets assume they actually sold 8, they spent 70mil on Watch Dogs and sold 8 mil. The problem is that every AAA title needs to sell 4 mil copies+ to compensate for the skyrocketing marketing budgets just to break even. On the other hand, there is the GTA franchise, the 5th game cost 260mil to develop and market, destined to sell 50 mil+ copies for ~$3bil revenue...

 

And yes, Mafia I was a tighter knit game than the sequel. It was great at the time but the 1st has aged horribly, while the sequel looks and runs exceptionally well. And the sequel is still a better open world game than quite a few that came out since.

[Guest]

Mafia 2 was awesome. Fans and critics both loved.

yeah only issue I had with mafia 2 was that it was too short!

[That Norwegian Guy]

IMO, the more money they stuff into game development, the less soul comes out the other end.

 

The best games recently were all larger-scale indie games like The Wolf Among Us, The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, Outlast and Divinity: Original Sin. These games need a much smaller budget, and somehow end up better than your AssCreed, Max Payne, Call of Duty sequels.

 

Consider that most of these indie games ar $20 - $30, it's a no brainer.

 

Sequelitis is one thing that the AAA industry needs to get away from. Trying to replicate Hollywood is another. Fix those two poisons in the industry, and you fix AAA games.

 

I enjoyed Dying Light, it was very fun, but if they start pumping out sequels I won't be buying them.

[BloodySinner]

Is it really getting more expensive? Or is the publisher just getting more greedy?

[Thony]

There only truly sucessful series was GTA.

May I correct you ?

"Is GTA" people still play one of he versions and mod it.

[Thony]

You forgot evolve.

That game is just hype. We are yet to see what happens to it.

But there is a very nice article here on the forum describing the biggest scam in gaming (evolve). Go and have a read if u care

[Wildosvt]

Marketing dollars should be cut if they are worried about cash flow. If the game is good, Marketing will not trump the word of mouth. They need to get with the times...