490°

$70 Games Too Expensive? Let Me Tell You About the 90s

DS: “How would you feel about paying $150 for Turok: Dinosaur Hunter for the N64?

Obviously, no one likes a price hike, but is this price hike really as drastic as some of us are making it out to be? Is this really such an expensive time to be a gamer? Well, as someone who was around during the glory days of cartridge-based consoles and physical-only distribution, let me tell you that the answer to both questions is a resounding ‘no,’ and I’ve done some inflation calculations to prove it.”

Read Full Story >>
dualshockers.com
anast369d ago (Edited 369d ago )

The complete versions of most games are around $120, which is comparable to the prices in this article.

EvertonFC369d ago

"The complete versions of most games are around $120"
Lay off the drugs 😂🤣

mandf369d ago

Neo geo games were 129.99 back in the day

dumahim369d ago

@mandf
They were more than that. I remember them being $250. Wiki says $200 and up.

anast369d ago

With those emojis, I'm not sure if you are being ironic or purposely slow.

mandf369d ago

Dumahim
Gamepro magazine had used ones in the back for 130 I never seen them In stores internet wasn't around so you could be right.

EvertonFC368d ago (Edited 368d ago )

I wasn't on about Neo Geo games, I took the comment as $120 for complete games today whoops.

Neonridr368d ago

I mean deluxe editions can be that high easily.

anast368d ago

It's called VAT just encase you need to know. Complete versions of games are $99. In my country there is a %16 VAT charge which comes out to about 114.84. I am not even including the first round of DLCs (not expansions) that have been cut out of the game and resold to us. This would obviously drive the price even higher than $120. In other countries complete games, not the base games are even more.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 368d ago
Ashunderfire86369d ago

I remember when Mission Impossible for N64 cost $80 bucks!!! And it had the worst rating on IGN at the time! 6.0 out of 10 dang!!!! $80 bucks for that??? Both my brother and I gave it a rental at Blockbuster and beat it in a weekend! Save us from paying $80 bucks 😁

Necr0philiac369d ago

I thought Mission Impossible was a lot of fun for its time era

mudakoshaka368d ago

@CorpseF*cker It was a great experience! :D

TallDarknWavy369d ago

For those who don't understand economics, which is most of you, the reason the prices were higher back then when adjusted for inflation is the gaming market was a niche market. Nowhere near as many games and systems were sold, so with expected fewer sales you needed to charge more money.
Now that the market has expanded exponentially, you can charge less money for each game and still make more because your target market is so much greater.
This is what happens when niche markets become mainstream.
Today, gaming is 2.5 times bigger in cashflow than the entire music and movie industry combined. This has been in large part due to massive market expansion but also microtransactions that suck people's money away.

potatoseal369d ago (Edited 369d ago )

But how many people worked on and developed a game back then compared to how many work on them now? And how long did it take to develop back then compared to now? What were the total development budgets when compared properly? There are other variables at play to decide whether $70 now is too much when compared to back then. Don't you think?

Imalwaysright369d ago (Edited 369d ago )

potatoseal

Not really. For example Sony's gaming division was more profitable in 2018 alone than it was with the entirety of the PS2 generation when games were supposedly far less expensive to make and this before Sony raising the price of their games. Last year MTs alone generated more revenue for Activision than the company generated in 2013. Seeing publishers crying about development costs when they are breaking revenue and profit records is one of the funniest things I ever came across in regards to this industry and I don't understand why gamers believe in what these companies have to say because these are the same exact companies that keep on throwing underhanded crapola in our direction the most recent case being Redfall wich was just another broken mess of a game to add to the ever increasing pile of broken games at launch.

Strange99369d ago

You realize when you start a comment off with a middle finger statement, not many people are going to care at all what you have to say because you are clearly an a-hole, and we are all ok with that. DR

Melankolis369d ago

Game developments are longer now and more people involved, more money needed. They used to release Final Fantasy and Ratchet every year and Tekken every two year at most.

nitus10368d ago

Back in the 1980's through to the early 2000's cartridges were the go-to media for games and basically they were much more expensive to produce than CD's, DVD's and Blue-ray's (yes there were other DVD ish media as well - example "GameCube") which actually replaced them.

As we progress futher into the 2000's digital downloads are becoming more popular although disk (ie. DVD and Blu-ray) is still used (Yes I am aware of the "Switch"). We also have to take into account inflation (which you did) so that even though a game on a cartridge was say USD$150 and a modern game of similar genre today is also the say USD$150, overall games have actually got cheaper. Of course this is very subjective but a game produced back in the 1990's would not have the same quality (eg. graphics and possibly gameplay) as a modern game. Note: I did use the word "subjective".

I actually do agree that microtransactions do suck peoples money away but then again it is upto the buyer if they wish to purchase these. Unfortunately too many people get sucked in (I actually liken this to a form of gambling).

EvertonFC368d ago (Edited 368d ago )

PS1 and PS2 sold more than PS3 and PS4 so your section on consoles Not selling as many is void pmsl.
Also today's games cost 100m upwards with Dev teams 300 plus so YES £70 for a game is perfectly fine.
Back in the day a PS2 game took a year to make with 20 people ffs.
I'll let that sink in.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 368d ago
Strange99369d ago

Complete? Wtf are you talking about? The single player game is complete. What you mean is the complete game with all dlc and who gaf about dlc except those who have nothing else to play.

nitus10368d ago

Personally I don't really have an issue with DLC which "of course" depends on the game, but I definately don't like microtransactions.

seanpitt23368d ago

I can remember my mum was paying £50 for games back in 1989 to 1996 for Nintendo that was a lot of money back then..

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 368d ago
Gaming4Life1981369d ago

I have never payed that much for any of these games and I owned them all. $70 is too expensive but I GameShare on Xbox and Playstation so it doesn't really affect me.

It was no reason to raise the price of games to $70 except for greed.

EvertonFC369d ago

Clearly never read the article, gaming never been so cheap imo.
£70 for games i spend lots of time in, what's a pi** take is taking the wife and kids to the cinema and spending £100 on tickets, popcorn, drinks etc for a 2hr film.

andy85369d ago

I always use this argument. Even as a single person, once you've got a drink, some food you're spending £25 for 2 hours. You can buy a game for £70 (under 60 physical day one) get 30+ hours out of it then sell it for most of what you paid afterwards.

Gaming4Life1981369d ago

The movie argument is irrelevant to what I said. If you spend 100 bucks at the movies that's on you and your choice.

Gaming was cheaper back in the day and that's a fact. I get that in your opinion it wasn't but that's not true.

senorfartcushion369d ago (Edited 369d ago )

Mate, it was 25 quid for a ps2 game, 35 quid for a 360 game and now that’s doubled over two generations. The 90s argument doesn’t work because the writer hasn’t factored in stagnant wages and the economic heft of things like The Pandemic, 2008’s financial crash and our lack of migrant workers.

I get the film argument, but games are also cheaper to make than the films you see once. Nothing will ever justify the cost of a family day out to the pictures, but gaming CAN be cheaper - and should be. It’s just greed. Too many nobs from the top taking the workers’ rightfully-earned wage.

andy85369d ago

...no it wasn't £25 for a PS2 game. Nowhere near.

Tapani369d ago (Edited 369d ago )

I'd rather invest in a home-theater, cook some good food and bake something sweet using a sour dough base, drink home-made juice made from berries with some sodastreamed bubble water in it, chill back at a big sofa with a lot of space and quiet environment, and look at an amazing 4K picture quality at 85" Mini-led/OLED, and enjoy extremely crisp and balanced high-end audio at more reasonable volume, and watch a superb movie or two while having the ability to take breaks!

Imalwaysright369d ago

I remember paying €50 for brand new PS2 games.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 369d ago
CrimsonWing69369d ago (Edited 369d ago )

N64 games were $79.99 a pop, whereas PS1 were between $39 to $49 for the same game.

You're right though, the price hike is due to no clear regulation on standard game prices. The industry can dictate what they feel is an acceptable MSRP.

Anyone arguing that this is due to development cost increase is absolutely full of sh*t. The tools used to make games hasn't increased in price, in fact most devs are contractors that get fully paid to develop a game by the publisher. The sales of a game do not impact the devs, they impact the publisher.

Since the devs are already paid to do a job before the release of the game, this money is going straight to the publisher. I want to know the exact cost of producing a game now vs producing a game last-gen. I also want to know why PC games are $10 cheaper, hell sometimes $20.

I want to know why Alan Wake 2 is $10 cheaper being digital only when other digital games can be $70.

This is 100% testing the market. If people didn't buy games when the price hike happened, you can bet your balls they'd lower the price back down.

I also find it hypocritical people support the price hike, but don't support the other ways to "support development costs" like micro transactions, DLC, season passes, etc. Again, those aren't going to the developers at all, they already got paid to do a job.

shinoff2183369d ago

I'd rather pay 10 dollars extra for a physical release if it means a physical release happens. Alan wake 2 went from a early release buy to a wait till its 15 is bucks. I will not pay more then 20 dollars for a digital game.

CrimsonWing69369d ago (Edited 369d ago )

@shinoff2183

I’m glad I don’t have that stubbornness towards digital releases. I’d hate waiting even longer after a game releases to play it all because I just can’t stand not to have the physical game.

I mean at some point games are going all digital. Not sure what you’ll do then.

TiredGamer369d ago

So how big were the development teams back in the 80s? 90s? 2000s even? You do know that the cost of people (salaries, benefits, etc) is the largest expense by far in most industries, right? Game developers and publishers have been taking a much smaller cut of the profits every generation, made up in some part by volume (if the game sells well), or DLC/MTC (if applicable).

Why do you think Konami bowed out of Kojima Production titles after MGS V? Because they didn't like making money from guaranteed meghits from Kojima-san? Or maybe it's because the every-increasing cost of development left them with a shrinking profit margin every year, and they didn't see the value in that versus a higher margin Pachinko market. Maybe, just maybe.

TiredGamer369d ago (Edited 369d ago )

PC games don't have to pay the MS, Sony, and Nintendo licensing fees.

And of course they are testing that market. Any businessman worth their salt will test things before taking the full plunge. It doesn't mean that there won't come a day when prices need to rise to keep up with rising costs and falling dollar/currency values.

CrimsonWing69369d ago (Edited 369d ago )

@TiredGamer

Konami bowed out of Kojima Production because the guy continuously went over-budget and did not commit to a deadline.

https://www.gamezone.com/ne...

You ever seen the old MGS trailers that kept changing the release dates for a game? That costs money, when you build marketing around a release date and you change a release date that costs a lot.

Here's the quote:

"The main reason for the falling out, at least in her opinion, is that Kojima gets paid a salary, and doesn't make any profit share on the game. He gets paid a certain amount no matter what, and he was spending so much money and delaying the project, and adding all these features and making sure the game was the biggest and best thing it could be, and Konami was unhappy with that because [delaying] has no effect on him. He was spending the budget on this and that and upgrading the Fox Engine and then delaying further because the engine wasn't ready, and Konami wasn't happy with that because he gets his salary and he takes a more traditional "Japanese man" approach by not taking a profit share. So in doing that, he gets a little more than a game creator would but doesn't take bonuses from the game selling well."

He's paid a salary, doesn't make ANY money off the game. That's how this works...

They got fed up with him pulling a BioWare Anthem on MGS 5. They even forced him to push out something like that Grounds Zeroes game... which was essentially a demo to make up for costs. I love Kojima, but he went through resources and never respected a budget. As a business, having someone like that is a headache and not good.

All that aside and getting back on topic, please show me the development cost of games now and games when they're $60. Also, please show me how much the devs make off a game and how much the publisher does.

Then please show me how the profits stack to cost of development.

I'm sorry, but this is publishers making a decision in order to gain even more profits. Who was it that started this whole $70 price hike? 2K. And how funny was it that not the entire industry was onboard? It wasn't till they saw consumers are willing to pay $70 before they made the change and wowee whoowee it's still not consistent.

Hell, Sega said this:

https://comicbook.com/gamin...

"In the global marketplace, AAA game titles for console have been sold at $59.99 for many years, but titles sold at $69.99 have appeared in the last year. We would like to review the prices of titles that we believe are commensurate with price increases, while also keeping an eye on market conditions. Also, for titles that are planned to be offered via subscription services, revenue made via contract deals are also included in sales figures, so we would like you to be aware that when these figures are divided by the number of units, there is an apparent impact on the increase in unit price,"

Devs get paid to make the game regardless of sales. It's publishers benefiting from this and you can't tell me they don't make enough to profit without a $10 increase to games. Please link me to info that shows publishers and devs are making less. Don't take this as me being aggressive, I just want to see the info and learn.

TiredGamer369d ago

Reference Konami and Kojima - exactly... he kept going overbudget and the cost of AAA games continued to skyrocket. There was more nuance to the situation, but the cost and overbudget part was starting to squeeze Konami's financials.

It's not rocket science to understand that if you have more staff on your team, the cost will rise linearly. Salaries = the largest cost driver of development.

PS1 and earlier titles could have a dozen developers or fewer. PS2 era could be 10-30, depending on the caliber of title. PS3 and beyond, at least with AAA titles, pushed that number past 100 developers. PS4 and beyond are likely even more. So we're talking 5 to 10x higher development cost just in people alone over the course of two generations.

Halo Infinite's budget was somewhere around $500 million.... compare that to the budgets for early PS1 games like Twisted Metal that were somewhere around $1 million (quoted from a David Jaffe interview). And yet Twisted Metal sold for $50 back in 1995, which is equivalent to $99 in today's dollars. So let's analyze that for a second.... a game with a $1M budget sold for $99 in today's dollars.... and a game costing 500x more is selling for $70..... If anything, you could make the argument publishers were actually ripping you off back in the day and that the cost to the consumer has gradually decreased.

It's no wonder that publishers are shying away from experimental and innovative genres today. It's just too dang expensive to take a risk with a game that won't recoup its cost. A dissenting opinion could argue that we need higher prices for games to ensure a greater breadth and depth and that variety remains viable for developers/publishers.

I'm not that person shouting for increased pricing - I love a good game deal just like anyone else. But I'm not close-minded to think that it's just publishers being greedy. Sure, there's some greed... but the business model has to make sense if you want to have a healthy gaming industry. If it becomes too risky, you're only going to get sure-thing titles that will make everything look the same.

Strange99369d ago

I’m really not sure where you all shopped for games, because my N64 games were $59.99. The most expensive game I remember was getting Mega Man for $55, and that was a hard sell to my parents.

Gaming4Life1981369d ago

I agree with most of what you said but n64 games were not 80 bucks. I think alot of you are getting confused with companies upping the price of games due to limited availability. For example in the JC Penny Christmas catalog they were selling some games for 69.99 like sf2 hyper fighting.

I'm not saying I don't believe that some of you overpaid for some of these games but I didn't.

Gaming was cheaper back in the day and I don't know how this is an debate.

sadraiden369d ago

N64 games were $80 a pop. in 90s dollars. meaning they would be for sale at like $120 or more at today's prices. gaming has never been so cheap.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 369d ago
DigitallyAfflicted369d ago

You can buy games for half of the price or less if you are patient, it’s that simple. If you choose to pay full price on day one or preorder then that is your choice and you can’t blame anyone else. It's your money and you are the one in control...

Rebel_Scum369d ago

Games during the 8 & 16 bit era were more expensive. Anything from $120-240NZD. On average Megadrive games were $160-180.

Today new releases are no more than $110NZD. Thats a fact brother.

Gaming4Life1981369d ago

That is not true and if you were getting suckered like that then damn. Why would someone pay $130 for a Sega genesis system that comes with a game then turn around and pay $120 for one game?

Rebel_Scum369d ago

Note I put in the currency code in my price ranges as well. You mentioned Genesis so I guess you're a yank so if that's how much Genesis consoles were for you....cool.

I don't remember how much Megadrive's were exactly but I think they were close to $300-450NZD. Most expensive game I bought for the system was Sonic & Knuckles, that was $240NZD. Master System games were $80-120NZD.

None of what I've said is made up here. That's how much games cost back in the 90's in New Zealand & Australia. Much cheaper now.

In the US Genesis games were what $50-$60? So a 2D Sonic in the 90's was around that. Sonic Mania was released at $20 no? Pretty big difference there mate.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 369d ago
TheEnigma313369d ago

Well in the 90's, not many people bought new games like they do now. I stayed at funcoland buying cheap games.

EvertonFC369d ago

Lots of gamers bought games in the 90s as well as going to blockbusters.

TheEnigma313369d ago

Not new where I grew up. Blockbuster and lesser places, for sure.

FIELDMARSHALL_P369d ago

The local video store took all my allowance as a kid. It was a five min walk.

FinalFantasyFanatic368d ago

I remember my parents would hire out a few movies and I'd often get a game to play over the weekend, good times.

dumahim369d ago

True, but a factor in that was there just wasn't as many games made compared to today either.

MIDGETonSTILTS17369d ago

Once the prices got fixed to $60 for xbox360/ps3 era, the DLC era began…

This isn’t a coincidence.

EvertonFC368d ago

£40 in the UK, you sure 360/ps3 games in the US not $50?
Either way games have never been so cheap.

Father__Merrin369d ago

I bought street fighter 2 on Megadrive £69.99 also with 6 button pad £29.99

Chevalier369d ago

Yeah. I remember NES games being more expensive than they are now. Add on inflation and its even higher than now.

Knushwood Butt368d ago (Edited 368d ago )

Back in the day, in the UK, I had a US SNES that was 60Hz and I connected it to my Trinitron with a scart cable. I got my buddy to drive me out to an industrial estate at Trafford Park (this is before the Trafford Centre shopping mall existed), and I bought a copy of SFII SNES direct from an importer. They didn't normally deal direct with customers and didn't even have a till. I handed over cash. Pretty sure it was 50 quid. Certainly no less. I HAD to get that game, and played it to bits!

EvertonFC368d ago (Edited 368d ago )

Cool story bro, many memories myself of going down the dodgy "arcade shambles" in Coventry to buy my Amiga games 😄 £24.99 for Amiga games back in the 80s so fast FWD 40 years and it's definitely cheaper today than it was back then.
Games have basically gone up £10 every decade which is about right at the end of the day.

My mum had to get 2 jobs around Xmas just to get me the games I wanted for xmas day in the 80s definitely harder times back then imo.

Knushwood Butt368d ago

Thanks!
Wow, I hope you expressed your gratitude to your Mum for that.
My brother had an Amiga. Seem to remember most of his games were copied.

Father__Merrin367d ago

I always maintained the Megadrive version was better but secretly knew the snes version was better lol the audio and size of sprites on Megadrive was awful

Show all comments (127)
90°

15 Great Games Where Every Minute of the Experience Feels Earned

GB: "We take a look at 15 amazing games that had the perfect length."

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
8d ago
coolbeans8d ago

Pretty good list. Botany Manor would be the newest addition that encapsulates that title.

400°

Anyone else not blown away with graphics these days? Me neither

Talal writes: "I'm talking about having that rush of excitement - that feeling you get when you know you've just made a memory for a lifetime."

Read Full Story >>
videogamer.com
OptimusDK11d ago

There are different games. Some have gamplay at it highest priority, some have the story, some have the replay value and choices... There are a lot of different game experiences.

It is laughable that just now graphics does not have anything to do with that experiene. We have had many games of that type over time. This is just the one that have come closest to feel like playing an actual movie. Just look the the Digital foundry walkthrough it is a masterpiece in that perspective and hence wrth trying. But yes do not do it for the gameplay - but that was never the goal of this experience.

GamerRN11d ago

It's because it's on Xbox. When Xbox has amazing graphics, they don't matter. When PlayStation does, it's a game changer!

Lightning7711d ago

Pretty much my thoughts. They were technical marvel's on PS and still are. The moment Xbox puts out a graphically intense game is doesn't matter suddenly.

4 years ago this month would the UE5 tech demo debut with the girl flying (tech demo said it was only possible on PS5 because of the SSD. Glad to finally see it in its glory.

fr0sty11d ago

FFS, gaming journalism has really gone downhill. At least hire people with a basic grasp of grammar... "Me neither" means the exact opposite of what the "author" is trying to say. That's like saying "I could care less"... lol.

S2Killinit11d ago

Maybe because the gameplay being dull allowed it to have the amazing graphics and people are not as impressed by graphics alone anymore? I mean there is a lot of sites saying the story and the gameplay are lackluster. So what are we supposed to enjoy then? Cgi graphics are beautiful but since they arent interactive, they dont impress me as much as they used to. Thats an extreme example, but you get my drift.

Terry_B10d ago

When Playstation (Sony) does it..its usually a great game and not a cinematic experience..or at least something new at the time..like Until Dawn back in 2015.

1Victor10d ago

@gamer:” It's because it's on Xbox. When Xbox has amazing graphics, they don't matter. When PlayStation does, it's a game changer!”

The game looks as good as any other PlayStation game in my eyes why can’t you and the other hardcore Xbox be happy about it and drag PlayStation into every conversation and force PlayStation hardcore to look into the game and find flaw that most games have in one way or another.
@light: “ 4 years ago this month would the UE5 tech demo debut with the girl flying (tech demo said it was only possible on PS5 because of the SSD. ”
Yes at that time it was only possible on PlayStation SSD how ignorant of you to think that after 4 years the technology wouldn’t evolved and move to a industry standard 🤦🏿I wish your mentality wasn’t so naive and narrow to post stuff like that 😩 in a year or 2 a new game will come out that might look better, it’s the nature of the industry.

Now that the distraction is gone I feel that is a good thing that the graphics in games are starting to hit the rooftop and hopefully the developers will put more thoughts into story and gameplay mechanics than just the next shiny oily skin of old.

Reaper22_10d ago

So true. Not surprised by all the negativity. It's a really good game and looks better than any game I've ever seen. GOTY nominee for sure. Like I said before, sony screwed up big time by not purchasing Ninja Theory.

Asplundh10d ago

Pretty much. It's like how the Switch and Steam controller using haptic feedback in their controllers wasn't a big deal but then Sony did it and it was then a "game changer".

fr0sty10d ago

The game runs at as low as 21fps... That isn't much to brag about no matter how good it looks.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 10d ago
MajorLazer10d ago (Edited 10d ago )

We've had graphical gamechangers before, such as Crysis but those games still had gameplay to compliment it. Hellblade pretty much has none, and only achieved such graphics through being incredibly linear and having very small, closed off environments where very little is happening.

Vx_10d ago (Edited 10d ago )

GFX does not mean anything if the game is boring. It is simple like that and these major companies need to understand this simple concept.

Games are like your lady, she may be beautiful to look at for a while but then it gets boring if her character isn't interesting and fun to be with.

11d ago Replies(7)
Kneetos11d ago

Mario kart 8 ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Sonic188111d ago

Horizon forbidden West has great graphics and great gameplay

GamerRN11d ago

Yeah but graphics don't matter, remember?

anast10d ago

@RN

I've been pretty consistent in saying that we need both.

GamerRN9d ago

So until dawn, too human, or whatever those series of games were... Graphic masterpieces it garbage with no gameplay?

VincentVanBro11d ago

I agree and I actually think Forbidden West looks better than Hellblade 2. I easily prefer looking at it at least.

Sonic188110d ago

It does look better in my opinion as well. I don't know why it looks better but there's something about the Decima engine or that guerrilla games is using tricks that we don't know of

Abear2110d ago

Can you fly a mount under water in Hellblade 2? I think not! One of the best moments this Gen

Show all comments (111)
90°

Two Decades Later, the Original Splinter Cell is Still a Masterpiece

They don't make games like this anymore.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
vgvill19d ago

Too dated in my book. The AI is way too unpredictable to be acceptable today. It's definitely a game of its time.

Jingsing19d ago (Edited 19d ago )

Agreed with those sentiments. The quality of the CPU controlled characters make or break a stealth game and they are pretty poor in all the Splinter Cell games by today's standard. This is what led me to playing Spies vs Mercs all the time in later games just to get a better stealth experience from a real person. Arguably Sony are making better stealth games albeit not Tom Clancy stuff.

TheProfessional19d ago (Edited 19d ago )

You should stick with fortnite or one of the countless bloodborne style games then. What a joke.

rlow119d ago

I had a good time with the game. It is a product of its time. But when it came out it was a must have game for a lot of people. I wish Ubisoft would make another game in the series or at least a reboot.

vgvill19d ago

They are making a remake, I think. I loved the original game when it was released, but I tried to play it again in recent years and just couldn't get on with it. The same with the older Hitman games.

PrecursorOrb19d ago

Yeah chaos theory still holds up though I gotta say. If you’re a fan of the series I highly suggest you go back to that one. Ubi has said they are remaking sc for “modern audiences”. I don’t have a lot of faith for the future of that company

Chocoburger19d ago (Edited 19d ago )

Due to the lack of modern stealth games, and me constantly playing the MGS series, I've been looking for alternative stealth games to play, and went back and re-played the SC series recently. I wouldn't call SC1 or SC:PT masterpieces, there are AI issues, they're very much trial-and-error games, and that can lead to a lot of frustration. I also found the stories in this series to be boring, uninteresting, and just sloppily told. Cinematics are also of poor quality for both in-game scenes and CG cut-scenes, the soundtrack didn't leave any impression on me either.

Chaos Theory is better, but there was still a lot of room for improvement, and Double Agent (old gen ver.) was a sloppy mess that ended up a regression from CT. But still, at least they tried back then, these days Ubi-junk doesn't even try to make good games!

HvNzSoul10d ago

Everyone needs to quit with all of the unnessacery Ubi-hate. SC Conviction and Blacklist are both still good games.

HvNzSoul10d ago

Everyone needs to quit with all of the unnecessary Ubi-hate. SC Conviction and Blacklist are both still good games, they just weren't 100% focused on stealth with Conviction and they remedied that in Blacklist. The only thing they have released recently that I was disappointed with was Watch Dogs Legion, and Skull & Bones. Everyone seems to be salty about the misleading trailer for the original Watch Dogs and The Division. Which are also, both good games, and actually Watch Dogs seems like it was ahead of its time even with all the trailer drama (having gone back and played recently, can say the game didnt deserve all the flak). Yeah the misleading E3 trailer that had better graphics than release is understandable to a very small degree, when most Teaser Trailers, or Game Demo's only have that portion of the game developed so they use the highest quality assets of w/e they have being showed, or what they are showing was made purely for the showing, allowing for extra polish . As to the gripes about minor game design changes, or cut features upon a games release just goes to show how unknowledgeable most gamers are in terms of how game development works or to even understand what what the hell a WIP, let alone titles still in early development.

Good games from Ubi since 2014 (Year that SC Blacklist Released) include:

Watch Dogs 1 & 2
The Division 1 & 2 (Although I had a hard time getting into The Division 2 at first)
R6 Siege
Ghost Recon Wildlands & Breakpoint
Immortals Fenyx Rising
AC Origins, Odyssey, MIrage (Haven't finished Valhalla games too damn long)
Far Cry Primal, and 5 (6 also has a length issue)
Avatar Frontiers of Pandora
Prince Of Persia The Lost Crown

Haven't played a couple of titles those being For Honor (played at launch but didn't honestly give it an actual go), The Crew, R6 Extraction and at the time of writing this xDefiant.

Even if you absolutely hated any of the above titles, they aren't inherently bad games, they're just good, but not always top quality either.

I say give Ubi credit where credit is due, they at least fix games post launch if they start out rough, Breakpoint is an excellent example this and is such an enjoyable experience now compared to it's launch.