Need for Speed's Executive Producer Marcus Nilsson explains that not releasing in 2014 was very important for the brand going forward.
Need for Speed Payback's Executive Producer chimed in on microtransactions, saying that games are more expensive than ever to make and it's hard to find a golden path liked by everyone, developers and customers.
Well that's odd because games without MT and get critical acclaim along with sales do well without them
A lot of times, it feels like shareholders claim that everything is on fire if games don't sell two million copies on the first day. Micro transactions at least show some additional income to pay those games that might not have as strong of a first launch (but still have sustained sales throughout the first year).
I think the whole business model of AAA games is pretty terrible, but nothing short of another crash is going to change the market in a positive direction.
Not to mention developers trying to play the sympathy card like they are starving, can't pay the bills or feed their families.
I mean Jeez...I know people in retail jobs, some with kids or single parents and despite being hard they manage to make ends meet so I can't believe doing something you love while working at a top studio you are struggling to make ends meet. I'm not saying it's easy and stress free but I feel as long as you are doing something you enjoy and went to University for to get a degree at least you'd feel a little better then struggling to make ends meet in a job you hate.
Its really shitty to think we're paying $60 for games with F2P models. How long till NFS starts charging real world money for fuel in order to drive? Devs will release a game with 8 multiplayer maps because they know you'll purchase the season pass. Congradulations you just spent $100 for a $60 game that should have had more maps in the 1st place.
@-Foxtrot
"Well that's odd because games without MT and get critical acclaim along with sales do well without them"
So you want to totally ignore games costs more to make, nice. Can I hire you and not give you a raise for 12 years? See, it's easy sitting in your comfy chair being critcal about everything with no real investment from your part.
"Not to mention developers trying to play the sympathy card like they are starving, can't pay the bills or feed their families."
And when game studios shut down you always seem to have a reason don't you. Instead you want to focus on the success stories like Witcher 3 and Horizon to suggest that's all you need to do. Like snap your finger and your game will sell amazingly because you know how the industry works and how to keep it afloat.
Here we go...making up shit and twisting peoples comments making out like they've said stuff
"So you want to totally ignore games costs more to make"
Didn't say or imply this at all
"Can I hire you and not give you a raise for 12 years?"
Making out some of these don't get raises and the like...how do you know? Some studios get bonuses just if their games get a certain number of metacritic.
"being critcal about everything"
That's rich coming from you
"And when game studios shut down you always seem to have a reason don't you"
Games are usually shit because they haven't got with the times or they are so arrogant they don't want to listen to feedback pretending like nothing is wrong...take Cliffy Bs attitude with Lawbreakers, luckily his studio is still standing (for now). Other times it's publishers who push shit onto the studio but if I was in charge of a studio and knew the backlash a decision would make I'd argue the hell out of higher ups to say "No...you want us to do this fair enough but you've obviously seen the backlash and shit storm against other studios who've done this in the past, some you've closed down yourself, do you really want to gamble with our jobs here". Maybe they do, maybe they don't...we don't know but it's not like the people who've had huge success without MTs or Loot boxes end up closing down because they refused to add them.
"success stories like Witcher 3 and Horizon to suggest that's all you need to do"
More then Witcher 3 or Horizon mate
Witcher 3, Horizon, Persona 5, Nier, Nioh, Evil Within 2, Resident Evil 7, Crash Bandicoot N Sane Trilogy, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Dishonored, Dark Souls, Bloodborne, Super Mario, Zelda, Alien Isolation, Bayonetta...I could go on.
Jeez...you'll argue at anything won't you. We all know you do this because you have a grudge against people who've called you out in the past.
Of course he does. Games have stayed the same price for $60 for the past 20 years Plus. No context is needed. 2017 is the same as 1997. Nothing has changed.
I’ll tell you what hasn’t happened. Wages have not gone up. Nobodies wages have gone up significantly in years. You think video game design is some super lucrative field - don’t kid yourself.
I would argue games cost more to make. Or more specifically, games don't need to cost more to make. Developers, like to release AAA games as regularly as possible so they employ huge numbers of staff that aren't really needed. The technology standardization, and other factors suggest it's actually easier to make games now. The massive companies don't care how much they spend on productions, they simply recoup from the punters. I wonder how much Divinity II cost to make? Probably one of the best titles released this gen. Yet it's being sold for £30.00 and no loot boxes!
Games cost what studios and publishers think they can get away with. Do we need games with endless videos or near real effect animations that require huge manpower to create? Maybe the answer is to go back and look what makes a great fun popular GAME.
Maybe blocking user content in favor of these often bland studio map packs and season passes was the wrong direction, its stripped the gaming industry of real imagination and talent.
Its the same problem Hollywood is having right now. Perhaps developers should pick a decent budget & stick with it ?
Yeah, the entire argument that games cost more to make? That doesn't hold up.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
@Foxtrot
you forgot Hellblade, not only a AAA quality game, but self published and is starting to make money.
You dont see any of these AAA companies donating more than 100k to mental health awareness and research... or anything for that matter.
@moldy.
Games cost more to make, theres no denying that, but at the same time, it is a developers choice to use big name actors as either voice actors or for motion capture or for their likeness.
Developers like CD projekt red made a game hailed for its story, characters and world, and yet they didnt include MT and they are worth more now than before Witcher 3 came out. this has nothing to do with Wages but simple greed from the publishers and investors... because if wages didnt go up. wouldn';t that mean the cost of the game doesnt increase? meaning all that money from MT is going into the pocket of the publisher, not the devs. so your point is Moot.
try again moldy
If they want better wages then they need to take it up to their publishers instead of asking us to deal with predatory business practices. EA already had $4.85 billion revenue this year and this without Fifa, SWBF2 and the holidays season so they have plenty of money to share with their studios. Also this BS about games costing €60 for years needs to end. This industry is much more profitable today than it was years ago. In fact it has already surpassed hollywood which was unthinkable when I started gaming 25 or so years ago. People like you that support these predatory practices are just parrots repeating what publishers say. The same publishers that turned this industry into an anti-consumer joke and have no problems in deceiving us so instead of being a parrot I dare you show us the numbers and I mean all the numbers including the profits that these publishers have.
EA is making billions of dollars per year and you guys always brag about Microsoft's wealth yet when it's convenient for your argument of course they are poor as can be. How do you defend a company like EA making 4 billion in pure profits then shutting down Visceral?
If someone pulled up to you in a limousine and asked you for $9.99 to pay for their parking would you give it to them? Because that's what EA is basically doing with microtransactions.
How much profit is too much?
"Jeez...you'll argue at anything won't you"
Because you can't get it through your head games costs more to make and market. So that $60 you paid doesn't stretch as much as it did back in 2005. You think Nintendo makes just as much money off of Mario Odyssey as it did for Super Mario Brothers 3 back in 1988? Adjust for inflation of how much that game costs to the consumer and how much Nintendo paid to make it and how many copies it sold to Mario Odyssey.
Times have changed but you refuse to get on with the times. More money is needed for marketing, developer teams have expanded to the point its not unheard of to be in the hundreds. There is also a heck of a lot more games out now every year trying to compete for your dollar. I bet back in the NES days they had very few people working on games.
Run your own game company because all I ever hear from you is how bad this game is, how games like Hitman shouldn't have online and how this shouldn't have that and so on like you could do better. You're an armchair critic, that's all and ever will be.
And you pushing your freaking stubborn head for what it is. For example, Call of Duty World War 2 MP have daily contact called Loot Spectator. Do you know what is mean ? It's said you have to watch people open loot boxes 3 times. You can tell publishers will abuse the heck out of that microtransaction and loot boxes.
@UCForce
I think that's a cool feature actually socially and when you have a group of friends to see your buddy drop a loot box (not from paying though I'm against that).
It's still all optional to pay for them. CoD: WWII has multiple ways of earning boxes without spending a dime
"You're an armchair critic, that's all and ever will be."
and you are a padded room critic. justifying only your own opinions from your fantasy world.
the cost of games haven't increase, but the industry has expanded its player base exponentially. meaning even if they removed the MT form games, a game today will make more money than a game made 20 years ago simply due to player base and access.
Personally, i would rather they take MT out of all paid games and increase the cost of games by 20-30 dollars, include everything in it instead of nickel and dime for special weapsons or unique skins. keep MT to free to play games only.
but of course moldy, we all know you'll disagree becuase your lord and savior is building his company for GaaS and MT in every game. i wouldnt be suprised if features of the next xbox are locked behind MT.
@Jinger No, it doesn't look cool. Calling "optional" is an excuse. This video will explain to you : https://m.youtube.com/watch...
@Goldby
"the cost of games haven't increase, but the industry has expanded its player base exponentially. meaning even if they removed the MT form games, a game today will make more money than a game made 20 years ago simply due to player base and access."
Where are you getting your facts from? The PS2 sold over 150 million units and had games like GT3 sell like 15 million copies and that GT game costs a heck of a lot less to market and develop than GT Sport does. Super mario Bros. 3 sold way more than Mario Odyssey did and again that game back in 1988 cost a fraction what Mario Odyssey costs to make with marketing today.
"Personally, i would rather they take MT out of all paid games and increase the cost of games by 20-30 dollars, include everything in it instead of nickel and dime for special weapsons or unique skins. keep MT to free to play games only."
I'm sure they thought of it but the problem is people have the mindset that games even now costs too much. Look at how hard it is to sell a $500 game console. Instead they have seasons passes or DLC packs like in Destiny already planned out. They are always trying to test the market and bring in different concepts. Naughty Dog tried online passes. There is a constant battle with how to generate more revenue and how to keep gamers from trading their old games in. Did you know back in the day Blockbuster video had to pay like 1,000 for ONE game because they pay a rental fee? That's because the publisher gets revenue since they know that same game will be reused over and over again. Now Gamestop wants to bring in a $60 plan where you can return your game as many times. You don't think the publishers are going to get upset?
"but of course moldy, we all know you'll disagree becuase your lord and savior is building his company for GaaS and MT in every game. i wouldnt be suprised if features of the next xbox are locked behind MT."
Where did I say I like microtransactions? I have never bought one of them. However I understand why they are here unlike you millenials who thinks everything in life should be free.
UCForce,
This is far more informative and it's from someone who actually does his research,
http://www.gdcvault.com/pla...
Sales are a small part of the picture.
Devs and staff need to be paid
Marketing
Games sales have remained at $60 for the past 20+ year - that can’t be right
Don’t know the budgets of the games you speak of.
Example Blade Runner 2049 (excellent film btw) made several million dollars but it also made less than it cost to produce. It’s likely to get a sequel but that doesn’t discount that it lost money overalll.
It’s fine being a gamer but people should at least has some perspective.
Then what ? Publishers will abuse the heck out of it. For example, Horizon Zero Dawn and Hellblade are new IP. But they earned a lot of money for trusting their ability. GG and Sony have a long discussion about making new IP. About devs and staff do need to pay for their families, but it will question consumers trust and hurt staff morality. There must be a better way than this. About SP and multiplayer game, they both need to coexist. Otherwise, it will kill the half of it.
"Games sales have remained at $60 for the past 20+ year - that can’t be right"
It is...because the gaming audience got bigger and bigger as the years went by
Compare the gaming audience from the early 2000s to 2017...the industry is booming. The bigger the audience, the more games which are sold, that's why games have remained the same price.
I'm looking forward to 2049. Got it pre-ordered on 4K+Blu ray edition. Trouble is, financially, in the cinema, it's flopped. Hopefully, with disc sales etc it'll make a profit. As for games, we have reached a situation where the developers wish the gamers to subsidize their bad decisions. Rather like insurance companies only wan't to take policies out on people who won't claim. What I mean is, they want to ensure they can't loose money, even if, they produce a crap game. Hence the introduction of loot boxes, DLC etc etc. Making a big AAA games comes with risks, if you over budget and it flops, don't expect your customers to bail you out.
@UCForce
Sure those games did well, but they still made less than a game with MTs. Hence why Sony said they may be looking into adopting the model into more games besides UC and TLoU
@jinger.
but at the same time, have you heard of EA, or Ubisoft or any other big name publisher donate over 100k to research and awareness for mental health or anything.
you dont see any money leave activision's or EA's pocket from call of duty sales or battlefield sales go towards the vetrans.
those companies are greedy, they just want more and more money and will make weak excuses to justify it
What's funny is even if a SP game sells 3mil+ without MT's it will still make less profit than the game that only sold 1mil with MT's.
MT's are 100% profit straight to the publisher, game sales get cut up between multiple parties
and that is exactly why its an issue.
devs put time in to make these assets, and aren't seeing any of it.
or devs put in the time to make it and dont charge and see more people buy their game, = more money for the devs who actually do the work.
Witcher 3 says hi. its worth more today than it was before Witcher 3 came out becuase of GoG and the fact they didnt charge for the DLC they released after launch
You and @Moldybread are just blind. One day, major publishers will force you to buy more their content. This is why I hate MT and this video explains well : https://youtu.be/6Fz6eUSdUL...
With the wealth of opinions posted, your comment condenses perfectly. I just hope people do this.
Voting with your wallet is very different from voting in in an election. It's not one person, one vote; it's one dollar, one vote. So you vote by withholding your $60, while some moron drops $600 on in-game gambling--loot boxes, crates, or whatever. He voted 10 times as much as you did, in the other direction.
Nobody in the big businesses cares about your votes. They care about how the whales are voting.
Replies(1)Why you guys lying? Just to EA sama happy jeez you guys made my choice easier not to buy your product.
"We see more people playing fewer games for longer. Engagement is important. But how do we deliver longer experiences?"
Fewer games for longer you say? Well, that's because most everything these days is an MMO or has online multiplayer tagged on. But, yes, engagement is important. In my opinion, they need to focus on the core single player experience and let multiplayer take a backseat. I'm not saying get rid of the online or multiplayer aspects, but it seems essential to focus on what's fun about the title/franchise and go from there; a developer reboot so to speak. They just need some quality practice by going back to the basics. Give someone something overwhelmingly fun and you better believe they're going to share it and replay it with no microtransactions required.
That's what we want, but not what they want--which is more money. They get more money from all the suckers who drop a chunk of change on never-ending MTs, mostly in connected MP games.
"Give someone something overwhelmingly fun "
man. those are god lines.
i have a parlor here and you know what people still play the most? i will not go for others but the article is about a racing game so i will go for that.
the most played racing game is blur. why? coz its fun, split screen 4 player and hell of a blast.
all the previous nfs came and gone. and i m still buying blur dvd's for xbox 360's and ps3's.
so no microtransactions and they are still getting sales from me.
it was not that successful back then but now its one of the best for me.
Payback dev discusses the value of open worlds, loot boxes and why online is sometimes better
As long as this is not MT or LB heavy in the Single Player, i'm fine.
I'm not missing out on good games just because of optional loot crates and MTs.
There will always be people out there that buy these things and companies like EA and Ubisoft know this.
@wenaldy
I don't buy EA games.
Did they confirm wheel support? coughG29cough support? cause uhhh GT Sport has me spoiled right now I kinda can't go back to the controller lOl.
Or the benefits of saving money from not having to buy shampoo when going through chemo...
The one bright side is it's not required for the game. "Payback doesn’t require a connection, but it will be better if you have one." / "more up-to-date data and can tweak stuff on the fly."
Neil writes "It's time to say goodbye to 2016 with the final Xbox Live Deals With Gold and Spotlight sale of the year. But what bargains will be seeing us out? Well, all Xbox One and Xbox 360 gamers will be able to take advantage of the following discounts, all available from the 27th Dec 2016 to 2nd Jan 2017."
Would like to assemble a bad ass cod infinite warfare team!!! add me XxPinkElefantsX also like to play gta5 and forza horizon 3
Hope it pays off :)
This is what big companies like Ubisoft and EÀ have to do with their big franchises like Call of duty and Assassin's Creed. I don't mind at all aiting an extra year to get a new game that is complete and neatly done and polished and has new elements to add to a franchise and that is not just copy paste from the last but in a different setting. I salute Need for Soeed devs for this
I'd love if they could relese a new game every two years all the time...
What you mean the annualization of a franchise isn't good for it who knew
Buy the $50 gas pack and receive a free set of semi worn tires!