Head of Xbox division Phil Spencer revealed that the Xbox Adaptive Controller is more than just social goodness as there's a business opportunity there and Microsoft plans to get it to as many people as possible.
PlayStation boss believes that $80 games are affordable due to the value they provide. Using Mario Kart as an example, he noted that it offers numerous hours of gameplay with just one purchase.
He never said anything about affordability at all. He only commented about the perceived value that a game can have to a player that gets many hours out of it.
Again, as with many other forms of we are disrespected and lied to.
Title says Yoshida said $80 games are amazingly affordable. This is a lie.
Perceived value is subjective, so how do you even argue for it? If one person says $500 was worth it because they played a game for six months, what does that mean to someone who didn’t share that experience or see that value?
This is exactly where corporate thinking falls apart. The value is defined by them, and then they twist the logic to defend it from a purely internal, out-of-touch perspective.
I’ve never based the price of a game on how long I’ve played it. There’s a standard price range that consumers feel is fair. If it were truly based on time or value, Resident Evil 2 Remake would cost $20, and Final Fantasy VII Rebirth would be $1,000.
@Crimson
"Perceived value is subjective, so how do you even argue for it?Perceived value is subjective, so how do you even argue for it?"
I think his point is that it is subjective.
Honestly, expedition 33 is a prime example of quality for the low. Expedition 33 launched at 50$, and that game gave me more fun than most 60-70$ games I’ve purchased within the last decade.
I get the concept.
People buy movies for $20-$30 dollars that offers only a couple of hours of enjoyment.
While games offers 3-10+ times the amount of hours and content.
So in theory yeah I get it.
But I will never accept it and would rather keep the price now or even better PS360 price lol
On the surface ye that makes sense, but when you realize the budgets are very comparable, you realize it's kinda stupid and overpriced especially when it common for it to be released unfinished
Not really, movies that have similar budgets have the box office where if they arent a flop- they typically make all their money back or a profit. Movies have a much wider audience. Games however just have that release and have a smaller market.
Are many people buying movies for $20-$30? Outside of the more dedicated movie goers who have a physical collection, I imagine most rather scoff at that and stick to things like Netflix instead.
You also have to take into consideration that most games are enjoyed by one or two people, while movies can be enjoyed by a group of people who are either friends or family.
Another thing is that the value of an entertainment product cannot be judged based on its length, but how it makes the user feel when it is all done.
An example of this is Ubisoft games. They can last close to or exceed 100 hours, yet many people hate on them for doing things to pad the length of the game, while Uncharted 4 and other Naughty Dog games average about 15 hours in length and are hailed as some of the best games of all time.
The value of an $80 all-you-can-eat buffet is undeniable, making it curious why some people choose a $20 restaurant for a single, standard meal.
In a similar vein, movies, despite their higher production costs for a two-hour experience, outperform video games in revenue while also being priced around $20. Suggesting that video games need 100 hours of diluted gameplay to compete seems like a misdirection. The real solution might lie in re-evaluating how their core offering is valued.
Individual movies yes, the movie industry as a whole? No, the movie industry is dwarfed by the behemoth in terms of revenue that gaming is.
Lol so rich people want to speak for my wallet now? I still haven’t adapted to 70$ yet, and not planing on to. I don’t mind waiting on sales.
Square Enix president Takashi Kiryu discusses the dropping player count of Final Fantasy XIV and the numerous projects of YoshiP.
Also who wants to keep paying a monthly fee every month, there are other options like Guild Wars 2 😁with no monthly fee and while not that many people overall compared to FF XIV, it did increase to about 21 mil now.
I prefer to pay since i do not like guild wars and it keep kids away, but FF14 decreased on quality since they started to make it "more accessible", tried throne and liberty and while it was okay it has so many issues, same for dune awakening... Its time to start making a new FF MMO
Looks like Square Enix is self-aware but still stuck in place, they see the player drop and apologize for the bugs, but nothing really changes. Shame, FFXIV used to be the gold standard
My entire free company has stopped playing. The writing has consistently gotten worse and the content is sparse and lacking; unless you are a hardcore player there's very little for you to do. They are over-catering to the people who will grind three+ times a week on a single fight for multiple months when the playerbase by large doesn't want that sort of content. Square needs to dedicate more resources to the game instead of wasting them on mobile and other live service slop.
The biggest factor for me is the way they butchered job design over the years , the casualization and over simplification really hurt a good chunk of enjoyment I used to have . Jobs lost any form of complexity and just became " press glowing button" DDR style for fighting where the gameplay loop is a about the 2 minute burst window . They removed most DoTS, timer mechanics , cast times, pets, RNG ect and all around homogenized everything . When you try and can cater to everyone ... you cater to no one .
Game Rant interviews Dune: Awakening composer Knut Avenstroup Haugen about his process for giving the harsh deserts of Arrakis a musical voice.
Of course it makes perfect sense both out of a 'goodness' aspect and a business aspect to get the adaptive controller out there. The 'goodness' side is plain as they are the first real console manufacturer to make a special controller for anybody with a disability that inhibits the use of a regular controller. Business wise, being the first means that those who will use it have a reason to pick the platform and, as such, games sales can increase as a result.
Everyone is a winner I say
So what happens to the small organisations like Special Effect who have been leading the way in this field?
I'm all for it, but what about the real heroes that aren't doing it for maximum profit?
Considering a normal controller goes for $60, pricing this thing at $100 really surprises me. I thought it would be a lot more.
Phil Spencer continues to make bone headed decisions. Sure it's nice that people with disabilities have a better option to play but as a business decision this is not smart. You won't be getting enough new Xbox users to justify the cost of development here. Again Xbox funnels money into stuff nobody has asked for.