If the future is 7/10 games with no conclusion, then it might be game over for some of the uncompromising tales we've held most dear.
Dan Dawkins writes, "Ubisoft has been talking about a desire to create games that do ‘not give finite experiences’ i.e. for the game to keep going after you’ve finished it, with unlimited gameplay. “We build a strong nemesis, and the goal of the game is to kill him or free the country, we've done that a few times in our games”, explains Ubisoft’s Executive Vice President of Creative, Lionel Raynaud, whose job title is an exercise in testing finite boundaries. “But when you succeed, you have to leave the game, because there is nothing else to do. So the goal was to break this, and say that you will be the hero of a region or population many times, not just once. And if you get rid of a dictator or an oppressor, something else is going to happen in the world, and you will have a new goal”. I appreciate that life isn’t about riding into the sunset like My Darling Clementine, but I’d rather bow out like Thelma and Louise than live in a world where the clifftop never ends."
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.
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.
Owlcat Games producer Anatoly Shestov reveals his dream project: an SCP game with Owlcat RPG flair and a proper budget.
TNS: Based on its most recent ESG data, Nintendo boasts a remarkably low staff turnover rate of just 1.9%, with virtually no reported layoffs.
It’s unreal that people are downvoting this when they consistently have the best scoring games on metacritic.
Well it doesn’t surprise me. As much money as they make and how they value their employees. It’s a great company in that regard.
Replies(1)Well, when your games remain full price many years after release.
And you make profit off of outdated hardware.
I would be shocked if they couldn't afford to retain their staff.
I didn't want to say anything but drivxr is right.
Nintendo always sells at a profit because they purposely use tech that's always 5 or more years behind. And it's also true their games hardly ever get price decreases.
Don't get me wrong, it's great they kept most of their workforce, but making a point to have your tech specs behind everyone else affords that luxury.
I don’t think it’s their purpose to use old tech. It’s their purpose to make value of software and know their value. Nobody makes games like them that’s for sure. I just don’t appreciate their customer unfriendly policy.
It’s not impossible to take their status. Companies need to have a selection of 8-bit and 16-bit. Now imagine a split screen for 8 player game for SNES Mario kart and selling at $9.99. The problem is that it doesn’t make profit. So many companies won’t invest in “old” technology. Everyone guns for triple AAA modern technology software but honestly we can enjoy modernized 16-bit creative ideas that allows 8-player mayhem. It’s a pipe dream, possible but impossible.
If they ended up kicking people out after all of that stated above, it would be truly shameful.
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Tesla and Meta are all trillion dollar companies yet they are laying people off in large numbers.
I believe the reason Nintendo layoffs off less workers may be a result of their culture. It seems Japanese companies believe in giving their workers long term or life long employment opportunities and will exhaust all options before laying off workers. This is something we don't see much of in the west unfortunately.
might be something to do with the fact all those companies hire more than 20x the employees than Nintendo
What the hell are you talking about? It has nothing to do with how profitable they are. Its completely cultural, MS and Sony make stacks of cash and still lay folks off. Nintendo chose not to lay off staff for the same reason their execs took pay cuts to increase staff pay instead; because they value their staff and view them as colleagues, and respect them as such.
If Sony weren't so US centric I fancy they'd fare better too, they should get shot of US and European leadership and go back to when Japanese execs were running the show if you ask me!
So in essence, a GaaS model. got it.
Is that what we're calling single player games now ? Finite experiences ? Wow and i thought gaas was bad
Give us another Rayman dammit
Oh so you want more GAAS?!?! No worries I have Sony, Nintendo and quite a few second and third party devs who deliver SP games so I won't miss ya!
Fuck GaaS. That is all.