We’re tired of the excuse that micro-transactions are for the gamer

Timothy of Attack of the Fanboy digs a little deeper into the idea that micro-transactions that hasten character progression are for the gamer – that the promise that games like Assassin's Creed Syndicate aren't harmed by micro-transactions isn't necessarily true.

[GreetingsfromCanada]

Look at it this way, games have cost $60 US since the 1990s and in some cases cost even more. That doesn't even figure in inflation. Moreover, games cost infinitely less to develop. Crysis and Assassin's Creed 2 cost $20 million to produce, Crysis 3 cost $66 million and AC 4 cost $100 million after all the porting and remastering was finished. That happened in less than a decade. Crytek is in financial disarray and a few years ago Ubisoft swung to a loss. These are businesses, so what will it be people? Everyone will whine 100× more if they raise the prices. If anything all this article does is play on the ignorance of people who have only gamed since the 360 and PS3. Research financial realities for once. Development is inherently risky and AAA even more so.

[WilliamUsher]

Corporate apologism.

There is NO reason why games have to cost $100 million.

Why should gamers need to foot the bill (or pay the backend) for expenses they didn't ask for?

In the case of Star Citizen, gamers specifically asked for an AAA PC exclusive that cost $100 million so they literally are footing the bill for it from top to bottom.

In every other case was it necessary for games to cost $100 million with more than half of it going toward marketing? Why should gamers have to pay exorbitant microtransaction fees to cover said marketing costs?

Also, the inflation figure is just wrong. Cost of tools have gone down and not every game costs $100 million to make. There are also asset stores and modular design toolkits available to drastically cut costs.

The only reason it would cost $100 million to make a game these days is because the studio wants to compete with Hollywood.

How about instead of gouging consumers with microtransactions the publishers take a book out of the indie sector by cutting costs? How about they get creative with art (like Hello Games cutting down on art assets by having procedural math algorithms generate most of it)? How about they NOT hire Hollywood actors that bloat the budget? How about they not go for licensed material that can cost them anywhere between $20 to $100 million?

Indie devs are knocking it out of the ballpark without charging $60 and without tacking on needless microtransactions. If indies can do it multi-billion dollar corporations can do it.

[Becuzisaid]

Very few inside devs are knocking it out of the park.

[spicelicka]

This, I agree with this, although OP has a decent point.

[s45gr32]

Thank you

[GreetingsfromCanada]

Because all the games AAA games people buy demand the R&D. People complain about graphics but fact is to make games look that good and be that big you need big budgets. It's like movies, modern blockbusters literally cannot happen without the massive budgets.

[Becuzisaid]

Very well said. Finally an intelligent comment. Thank you Canada.

[jb227]

I'm fine with the state of mt's for now as I'm only an sp gamer, so I simply don't partake. If the few people willing to part with their dollars for cosmetics make up the difference in dev cost then that's cool because it doesn't affect me. The only thing is that it's a slippery slope & I feel like if we give an inch, some devs may take a mile and start gimping everything across the board and locking meaty portions behind a paywall. When that starts happening I feel like gamers have the right to stand up against it.

I also agree with some of WilliamUsher's points because at the end of the day, we shouldn't have to foot the bill when devs have poor resource management. Look at movie ticket prices, they rarely go up and in small towns you have been able to buy a ticket for under $10 bucks for decades now. Meaning that somehow that industry has found a way to combat inflation, so games should really be no different. No one said game development or any creative endeavor was easy, and managing resources is a big part of that. This is an issue worth keeping an eye on, even if mt's don't effect you today, they may very well sooner rather than later, so I personally applaud devs that are crafty enough to create worthwhile experiences inside that $60 package instead of pulling bits & pieces out to maximize profits. If we honestly want to offset some of the dev costs, maybe executives should be making shorter salaries, hard to justify cutting salaries for the actual developers & nickel and diming consumers while executives are pulling down 10s of millions of dollars in yearly salaries before benefits & bonuses.

[spicelicka]

Good point, but I highly doubt micro-transactions are covering the $40 million cost increase.

Firstly, base price has gone from $60 to $70 in many places, and development costs also gone down in conjunction with better technology.

As far as I can tell the games that already make the most money (Destiny, CoD, etc) are the ones with the most micro-transactions, which spells greed to me.

[JVIV]

I'm fuckin glad I was able to play video games during a time where I paid for a video game and that's it end of story now I have wait for the fuckin ultimate editions to get a complete game and not have to be ripped off by paying $60 for a game then another $15 for an expansion and then another $15 for an expansion o then another $5 if I want that cool looking skin for my gun or car. I'd rather wait a few months to get the ultimate edition for a flat fee of $60 then to end up paying over $100 for a game in 7 months then get suckered into doing it again because an incomplete sequel gets announced sucks for the new generation of gamers

[s45gr32]

Except during the PS One/PS2 era were games were cheaper on consoles and PC. Plus don't forget that games during that era came with free unlockables, mini-games, alternate endings, map editors, etc. Games like the 2k sports were $20.00 brand new, everquest around $40.00 for PS2 brand new. On PC games are cheaper, why due to no competition among retailers. So no its console gamers that willingly accept these anti-consumer practices.

[TFJWM]

@GreetingsfromCanada I agree if this is what keeps the base price of games at $60 I'm all for it.

[TheColbertinator]

In the old days we just unlocked everything in-game. Good times

[-Foxtrot]

I think Resident Evil 4 was the last good game to show this compared to what Capcom would do now

We had

Resident Evil Main Mode
Costumes
Mercenaries
Extra Cutscenes if we did something different.
Extra Modes
Unlockable weapons
Assignment: Ada
Separate Ways
Ada's Reports

[JoeReno]

Can you imagine buying some hyped games of this gen for 80 bucks. I mean 60 dollar Asscrud unity was a burn. But if I had paid anymore than that I would be full of nerd rage.

Until publishers and developers are doing all they can to push out the best possible games consistently, with less need for day one patches, I can't get behind a rate hike.

[s45gr32]

Early Access the GAMER INVESTS ON A VIDEOGAME PROYECT not buy a game. Meaning gamers publish the game not buy the game.