The gaming world appears to be moving on to the 60fps standard and we aren't sure that's such a good move. Here's why in the 30fps vs 60fps debate, the "Magical Story-Telling" and "Cinematic Experience" will Always stay with 30fps and Not 60fps.
Deliver Us Mars developer Keoken Interactive has laid off the majority of its staff after struggling to secure funding …
The industry model and standards and who's in place to approve/disapprove have changed ^ what Keoken is feeling now is much like the Mobile burst 15 years ago. Expect more to come out of your own finances. Investors are treating games like movies and now (thank$ a lot for involving yourself hollywood) only the big (and money blind) investors get involved, effectively killing a lot of content that would come out with proper non-gate-kept and/or with incentivized funding.
Sorry but i couldn't care less, Deliver us Mars was as woke game as they come, climate change disaster, all female cast plus only a comic relief indian guy (it takes only 5 minutes into the game for the main female character to say how smart she is compared to the guy), evil white guys, ugly females, then add generic gameplay and puzzles (how many times do you have to cut things with a laser for gods sake), you can't change anything in how the events develop so 0 agency in the story, sub par graphics even while using UE4. So well, go woke go broke, that's how it works.
That stinks but with a 68 average critic rating on their games probably made it difficult for people to invest considering there is a bloat of games getting made these days.
Mat Piscatella of analyst firm Circana has revealed that the PS5 was the market leader in North America for both unit and dollar sales during not only March 2024, but the first quarter of the year as a whole.
Writing on Twitter, Piscatella revealed that spending for video game hardware in February 2024 dropped 32% in comparison to the same period last year, totalling $391 million. In addition, spending for PS5, Xbox Series X/S and Nintendo Switch each fell a minimum of 30% year-on-year.
What will happen when Sony announce a new Uncharted, Killzone, Tsushima or Horizon ..
Ah yes, Killzone that'll light the world on fire.
I'm joking but I do wish it were likely or more popular.
I'd rather an upgrade over some fps personally. Like a true rpg not some action game with a couple of rpg lite mechanics in it.
To be fair Sony usually know when to let a franchise go dormant, They gave Killzone over 6 different games and it never reached that summit. You end up in a situation like Microsoft if you just keep hammering out Halo and Gears and Forza etc. Microsoft should be smart enough to let them games go.
I thoroughly enjoy my open world games, but highest interest will always be the shooter genre lol it's just something about a good well crafted shooter with lore to it something like the Max payne series
But PS5 and Switch still outsells XBOX embarrassingly even with overall consoles sales decline.
Najam from eXputer: "The norm of $60 AAA games is no more as developers now charge more for their games. Here's why this might not be a bad thing for gamers."
*Elden Ring type games, yeah sure. (scoring 8+)
(AAA/quadruple A) slop can shove it up their discounted ass
In recent yrs my purchasing In Indies has increased and its decreased for major IP's because I cba with the lack of innovative gameplay.
Focusing on the topic, why not mention Take-Two CEO getting his pay increased while axing 500 staff? I'm getting annoyed that those practices get ignored by the "gaming" media because ya don't want to burn potential bridges but seriously, gtfo.
Im not contesting that triple a games are not innovative, but most indie games are 2D side scrollers with pixel art, fompletely lacking in innovation
That shows me you know don't anything about indies if that's the conclusion and generalization you managed.
"I'm getting annoyed that those practices get ignored by the "gaming" media because ya don't want to burn potential bridges but seriously, gtfo"
What exactly is gaming media going to do that it's not already doing?
Welcome to capitalism and corporatism - every industry has this problem, it's not a gaming one.
They can start by saying the price increases is not good especially with all the micro transactions publishers put on games we pay for; but instead they tell people that the price increase on games is actually a good thing 🤦🏻
It's a bad thing for gamers and for in the chair game devs. We just heard of massive layoffs across the industry.
I'd pay more if I read articles about how they were hiring. I'd pay more if I read articles about how the people who made the game scored record setting pay raises and CEOs were no longer given 1 year bonuses that could sustain a small studio for 10 years.
But that's not what happened.
Yeah there's only so much people are willing to pay for entertainment. Especially in the form of games at the same time that there are free to play games and cheaper in the titles that compete with triple A. You're not going to be able to keep increasing pricing and get the same amount of sales. I already don't buy games at the new price or even at $60. I wait for $40 or less. And I don't believe I'm alone in that department. If you don't have any other expenses you can probably continue to afford buying games at the top price but many people eventually have other things that take priority and you're just not going to spend it that much money on a video game.
Heck if I have to play one game for the rest of my life I'd probably end up playing Warframe or Counter-Strike. These are all either free games or were paid games and now are free.
The AAA industry is a threat to the gaming industry. They're trying to continue to ride the way and keep increasing prices. They're trying to get all of the money as long as they're able to.
Good point. I usually wait unless it's a favorite, but there are only 3 publ./dev. teams I can say that about, and 1 out of 3 gets day 1 treatment.
As for F2P, I'm a Path of Exile fan myself. I would just start hitting that hard and wait until prices drop.
Path of exile would be an also pretty good alternative. I probably choose path of exile 2 since it'll be fresher and will receive more content most likely. I don't know
I did grow tired of path of exile after a while
It's bad. People just want good games at decent prices. Not everything has to be super realistic with 200 voice actors. Look at Palworld.
The industry will and is already imploding due to double standards relative to prices everywhere else in society. Just as with food, housing, transportation, and other forms of entertainment, costs will increase even if only due to the constant rise in inflation.
Inflation is a fact of our modern world, and is a consequence of normal (usually healthy) economic activity. It is a result of a slow and continuous growth due to increasing money supply, and the complex relationship between consumer supply and demand. Inflation leads to the eventual increase in wages, whether through cost of living increases, yearly increases, minimum wage increases, or a higher demand of workers than there is supply.
The fact that the game industry has managed to keep game prices at or near the $60/70 range for DECADES is amazing in its own right. The buying power of a dollar has dropped in half in the last twenty years, so each year that prices don’t increase, it is essentially a price decrease for the previous year. Think about that.
Part of the problem is that games have been arbitrarily held at such a low price for so long that it has created a psychological ceiling in peoples’ heads that can’t be exceeded. MTs and other schemes have been created to try and mitigate this discrepancy, but those don’t work with every game/genre and have also received their own significant consumer blowback.
If games can’t exceed the $60-70 barrier even though that $70 is economically a lower “true” price than the cost of games even a decade ago, publishers will do what they can to make up the difference before eventually running out of options and exiting the industry.
I don’t like to pay more than I have to just like everyone else, but you have to be fair in comparing price increases (or lack thereof) in the game industry with the price increases across the rest of society.
..."$60/70 range for DECADES"
This is false. Incomplete games have been this price for decades. For at least a decade or two, complete games have been $100 or more. They sell games as standard version and complete version, but now is some kind of version of deluxe, gold, complete, and ultimate. The tiers tell you that the standard version is not complete. It's explicitly stated. If the 60 game is sold for 70 and doesn't have tiers, micros and live service elements, I understand, but we most publishers aren't doing that.
"Part of the problem is that games have been arbitrarily held at such a low price for so long"
The have been held at a relatively low price, but gaming has never been cheap.
"If games can’t exceed the $60-70 barrier even though that $70 is economically a lower “true” price than the cost of games even a decade ago, publishers will do what they can to make up the difference before eventually running out of options and exiting the industry."
Most publishers need to leave the industry. This would actually be a good thing, but they won't because games complete games haven't been $60 for decades. It's usually $100 or more for the complete games and extra for the live-service elements, which rounds it out to a $50 game in the 80s, plus all of the micros and live-service fees and on top off this games are gravitating to being for rent in perpetuality via digital only releases. I would say they have more than already made up for it.
U should work with government mt nobody will pay 100 or even 80 for a game I do t how amazing u think it is that they kept prices down it not sustainable and only thing they kept down is the state they release have these games have
microtranscations this industry is going to hot Brickwall ppl already sick of prices then they release half finished games
Everyone should have to study macro and microeconomics in HS so that they understand how a market economy works. I don't really hold college degrees with any reverence, as I feel that many degrees are outright scams, but I have studied economics for many years and at the graduate level. It's fascinating stuff and helps explain so much of the world we live in even since ancient times.
Not sure what you're going on about with complete vs. incomplete games. DLC and expansions are not a requirement for most (all?) games. I rarely buy expansions outright (unless part of a GOY edition) and never feel like I'm missing anything significant. Core games are still "complete" experiences for what they are. The digital landscape has just made extra content more viable. In older generations, when games were not massive development projects taking years to make, a successful game would be followed up with an "expansion" sequel a year or two later. Microtransactions are certainly a way that publishers are trying to pay their bills, and I understand that not everyone needs/wants them. Developers are more apt to make a DLC expansion today because the act of creating a true sequel to a game is just a monumental task. When a sequel is made, it's a whole new multi-year investment and a higher level of expectations.
I've been buying games since the 16-bit era. I remember when R-Type for the TurboGrafx was $69.99 at Toys R Us... in 1991. Most new games were in the $50-60 range. The N64 era commonly had titles ranging in the $70 range. So yes... prices haven't budged in decades, but the dollar has dropped by at least half in as much time. So that N64 Turok game was more like $140 in today dollars.
I don't disagree that some publishers should leave the industry. But the economics of the industry aren't and won't just affect some publishers... it will affect all of them, and it will lead to less risk-taking and a retraction from the blockbuster AAA games we are seeing today.
@Tired Gamer
If people need an advanced degree to understand the difference between complete version and standard version, we are all in more trouble than I thought.
Example, AC Valhalla has a standard version, a complete version , and so on. Other companies hide this via other names. It's an actuality. There is not an amount of appealing to authority that can change this.
The fact that you have been doing something for a long time doesn't make your argument sound. This would be a fallacy of which we don't need an advanced degree to know either. If the games have tiers where the complete version is sold at a separate cost, then the standard version is not the complete game. Of course you can play an incomplete game, people have been doing it for decades.
Iron Mike
Your words do not mean what I say is not an actuality. You are not offering any evidence.
An advanced degree is absolute not necessary to understand basic tenants of a market economy that have been practiced since ancient times. A basic HS course or even a competent YouTube video would likely suffice.
It's clear that we are now dealing with stoic perspectives and a general anger with the industry trends that are largely out of our/your control. We can argue semantics all day about complete and incomplete games, and we can probably make valid arguments both ways. I will submit that GOY, "Premium", or "Battle Pass" editions of titles do not invalidate that the standard editions are not whole experiences on their own. I won't accept that every bit of DLC, paid or unpaid, is required for me to feel like I have been cheated out of my game experience. If I look at the PSN storefront now and look at God of War Ragnarok, for instance, the standard edition has everything I would expect from a complete game. The Digital Deluxe Edition for $10 more gives me a couple of cosmetic items, a digital art book, the soundtrack, and an avatar set.... this sounds like a "limited edition" set with a few extras to sweeten the deal for true fans, which is a practice that has existed for decades in all sorts of industries. Nothing there is essential in any way to the core/complete game experience.
As far as game prices being far higher (in current dollars) than today, there is no argument. Games of all types have been priced at the $50-70 mark since the early 1990s, and any AAA game today is made on a budget at least 100x higher than those early 90s titles. That's a pretty dramatic statement that needs no explanation. When expectations exceed the capability of the industry to deliver at certain price point, you can either increase prices, reduce quality, or go out of business. You can't go into a grocery store/restaurant and buy a Prime Steak Dinner and expect to pay 1990 prices for it.
@Tired Gamer
I agree that people have knee jerk reactions, but we can't let such paint a picture that is not actual. Companies are in the business of exploiting as much as humanly possible, if not then they aren't a successful business. Therefore, it is also understandable that people are going to cry foul when they quote "the economy," something they know that hardly anyone understands, as the main reason why they are asking for more money.
It's always going to be suspicious when billionaires ask for more. I was curious myself after returning to gaming after a long break that spanned generations and I noticed a lot of shady practices and I was actually shocked how all of this stuff is unregulated, such as gambling in the form of loot boxes, cut content sold as "DLC", live-services and list goes on.
Yeah well 60Fps will always be better for gameplay. If devs really want, drop to 30FPS for cutscenes, but please try for 60FPS if it's a FPS or racing game
Could it be that we are not used to it. Using the movie example (the hobbit is a bad example anyway as it already looks weird with the intensive CGI moments) we are not used to the more frame per seconds. That doesn't mean the lower frame rate is better because of what you said (weak link in my opinion). I assume 60fps looked weird to start with when we played games but it looks normal now.
edit: to me 30 fps and 60 fps are more suited to different genres and game modes. Not because it affects story telling but because it can be a waste on limited resources (i.e. could be used to do other stuff without really sacrificing quality)
No, just no.
You are saying that a slower rate allows your brain to fill in the gap and that this is somehow better. Well how about 20 fps so your brain can make it even better? Or even 10 fps, or how about a hold up some pictures for you?
If the lower frame rate gives YOU the magical feeling then that is simply down to the associations YOUR brain makes.
If you had grown up watching movies at 60fps and someone showed you one at 30fps your reaction would be "What the hell is this crap". People always resist change.
I want to feel immersed in my games/movies and I don't want to be distracted by 30fps.
You sound like the people 10 years ago who said HD wasn't needed. Or the people who say that the imperfections and crackles of vinyl records is what makes them better.
These people are/were wrong.
With higher resolution you need higher frame rates.
30fps was ok with a CRT SD but its very noticeable at 1080p.
I expect to hear your argument more and more as PS4 games are released at 60fps and XB1 games are 30fps but that will just be the usual fanboys.
60fps is the future.
Game and film production and how motion is conveyed are 2 completely different entities stop comparing the two.
24 frames of film, is 24 frames of real time motion captured within 1 second, which correlates to anything above 40 frames in relation to 3D animation.
It doesn't matter whether it's 60 or 30 as long as the FPS is stable and steady.