Extra Credits is blatantly shilling for the industry pretty hard there. It's understandable, given that like half their team is deeply involved in the games industry and they have a compelling interest in furthering the incredibly shitty practices of the game industry (and thereby their own business), but that doesn't make it any less bullshit. Games are costing less now than they have for years, with well-established engines and familiar tools that have drastically cut down on production times and required resources. If anything, games are due for a price reduction, probably to about the $50-55 mark if it's solely about just turning a profit.

The extra monetization shit is only "necessary" because big publishers are either colossally horrible at business and managing their budget vs projected returns (and/or keeping realistic projections, see: any non-COD military shooter produced in the last 5 years), or because they're desperate for every cent they can wring out of their customer base as quickly as possible, regardless of the sustainability or potential for long-term profits they throw away in the process.

 

Games have been sixty bucks for ages now, and they have most definitely not adjusted for inflation.

also pretty key difference between lootboxes and untested medications is that one of those two things can save or end someone's life.

The other is a fucking video game, get a goddamn grip. Yeah, the comparison farcially makes sense but it's just so disproportionate in terms of impact I almost can't take it seriously.

Anyways, the big thing that companies like Ubisoft are realizing is that it's actually long term support that maintains player investments, like For Honor and R6 Siege. Doing custom content, DLC, new characters, all that shit. I'll have to see if I can't find the paper somewhere.

At the end of the day, I don't really care about lootboxes beyond thinking it's kinda shitty if it's a pay to win sorta dealio, in which case I just won't buy the game. If it's just cosmetics, that's fine by me. Think Overwatch versus Battlefront 2.

More profits means more investments means more games means more profits. There's a balance to be struck there obviously, but big companies making a profit off the games they sell is a good thing.

 

What? Just...no.

Spend twenty minutes to look at the credits from a triple a game these days to one from the nineties.

Look how much games cost then compared to now.

You want to argue they're inefficient? Maybe. I haven't seen their books, but I often find people on the outside making judgement calls on the ease of work they probably know nothing about infuriating.

I don't know it either, but I'm doing simple math. Exponentially larger teams and scope equals exponentially more money.

Are the cash leeching practices shitty? Yes.

 

You also have to remember that the game buying audience is also exponentially larger, with orders of magnitude more disposable income than it was in the 90s. There are ludicrously more people buying more games now than ever before, and the sheer volume of increased sales leads to commensurate increase in revenue.

The games get all those extra people to work on them, because there's so many more people buying the end product. All you have to do is look at EA, Ubisoft, or Activision's investor reports to see that they're making money hand over fist, and that even some of their biggest failures (see: Battlefront 2, which sold about 2 million less copies than predicted if memory serves) still turn a profit.

Anyone claiming that games are too expensive to make is either lying or ignorant, period. The only company that's consistently had money issues is Square Eenix, and that's primarily because they have no idea how to make sales projections and so keep budgeting for Call of Duty sales and then getting surprised when Tomb Raider or whatever sells well but isn't the runaway smash hit of the decade.

 

You've just moved the goal posts. Games obviously aren't too expensive to make, otherwise no one would make them.

Making a profit also doesn't equate to making money hand over fist. Countless games are released, few hit it huge like GTAV.

I'm also looking over these investor reports like you suggested. A lot of talk of 'player recurring investment' being the reason for their success. Sport games, COD, ghost recon, mobile games I've never heard of etc.

It's not supporting your argument (provided your argument is they don't need micro transactions to make bank?)

And for Ubisoft, they've scaled down their estimates of units sold in fiscal 2018 of four triple a titles (three established franchisees and one new) to 28m, down from 40.

Also, here's what they consider as recent 'significant events': Partnership with Tencent to make a mobile Might & Magic game (lolwat), success of the mobile game Ballz (lolwatx2), 6.8m ppl trying out the Wildlands beta (no mention of AC or units actually sold of Wildlands. Apparently the beta numbers are what's 'significant') and the acquisition of Growtopia (?).



...


This is too much effort to debate a pointless argument. Those reports are pretty interesting though.

I also don't have the numbers on whether game sales revenue is up across the board. All i know is that ps2 is still the best selling console of all time.

 

Well yes, but the argument that "Games need microtransactions to make their money back" is predicated on the assumption that "games are too expensive to make". I happen to agree with you, they're not too expensive, as seen by the fact that game publishers have been seeing larger and larger profit margins over the last decade or so.

That's kind of the crux of my whole point. Publishers and developers don't need the various predatory monetization schemes they've come up with. They want them, mostly because it's more money, and for-profit companies aren't in the business of leaving money on the table. But that doesn't make the lootboxes, microtransactions, and carving up of games to further increase profits any less predatory or bullshit.

 

I haven't heard much about this game but it looks super fun. A skill tree for conversation, investigation and personality? Nice game trailer.

 

So thanks to all the beta-testers for FFXV I decided to pick up the full release on PC for $38. Pretty excited about that even though the story's been spoiled. I'm banking on the characters growing on me.

 

Videos down. What game?

 

It was for a Call of C'thulhu game. http://www.callofcthulhu-game.com/en if I'm not mistaken.

 

Here's a working link to the gameplay trailer

 

I've been playing "Dungeons 2" and it's great. Well, the gameplay is okay, but the narration is exactly my type of mild whimsical humor. It's free on gog up through a certain date, and free is the best price.

 

I'm definitely a fan of the Dungeon games, but yeah, the overworld RTS elements are not the greatest. I just like to screw around with the dungeon area and ignore the overworld. It's just unfortunate that the narrator is the best part of the game, and to get more of that you have to do the overworld nonsense .

Definitely a big recommendation for anyone who liked Dungeon Keeper before EA ruined it though.

 

https://www.vg247.com/2018/03/06/gta-6-vice-city-miami-female-character-release-date/

I was in the moment I read Vice City. Everything else is just icing on the cake.

 

The Council

"The Council begins in 1793, with players taking the role of secret society member Louis de Richet after his invitation to a private island off the shores of England by the enigmatic Lord Mortimer. Joining him are a number of high profile guests, including Napoleon Bonaparte and President of the newly-formed United States of America, George Washington. The strange nature of this private reception goes beyond just the prestigious guests –Richet’s own mother has recently gone missing on the island, while each and every one of the colorful cast seems to have their own hidden agendas.

In a new twist for the genre, the core of The Council’s gameplay comes from manipulating and maneuvering through character encounters using the unique Social Influence system. During confrontations, skills and limited resources can be used to gain the upper hand and achieve the desired outcome. Players will be rewarded for their knowledge of each character’s psychological vulnerabilities and immunities, as well as their preparations made during prior exploration and investigation. Failing an encounter does not mean ‘game over’, and no action can be taken back. The consequences are permanent, and may result in persistent physical disfigurements or mental traits that help or hinder the rest of the player’s adventure."

This looks like a niche game, but I'm intrigued.

 

So Battletech finally got a release month? (Steam store just lists April, but apparently steamdb is showing April 1st is the release date)

I'm in countdown mode at any rate. Haven't had a proper 'mech game ince MW4. Not a huge fan of MWO. So this should hopefully satisfy all the stompy 'n shooty cravings.

 

Iron Harvest Kickstarter released. Based on the artwork of Jakub Rozalski, this is a 1920s dieselpunk RTS, based on an AU Europe (Europa), and the struggling factions following The Great War - The Saxony Empire, The Polania Republic, and Rusviet. The Iron Harvest refers to the first harvest after The War, where farmers found copious amounts of munitions, barbed wire, and armour scattered through the cropfields.

If the setting sounds familiar, it's because this has already had a highly successful board game - Scythe (my initial review here). I first found out about this through Rozalski's artwork, but the game itself was good on top of that.

Cheapest version of the game (currently) is USD$45 for a digitial PC version, although you can get PS4,Xbox1, and physical copies.

Samples of Rozalski's artwork in the spoiler

Spoiler

There's also another game called "The Ancients" coming at some point, based on Rozalski's other artwork to VR.

 

I was looking for an RPG to play and couldn't really find one. I wanted something along the lines of a poor man's Witcher 3, though ideally a bit more linear (think back to the old Black Isle games like Champions of Norrath and Dark Alliance). Anyways, I didn't quite find that, but I was put onto a game called Grim Dawn, and it's pretty sweet. It's an isometric rpg, and after about 8 hours of playing, I must say that it reminds me a lot of Diablo 2, and that's a good thing (since that might be my favorite game of all time.) Of course, you must be asking yourself, "If you want a game like Diablo 2, why don't you play Path of Exile" and the answer is I have played Path of Exile. I did one campaign playthrough of it, and I was bored the entire time. I disliked the skill system, the augment system, and the item system, and everything just felt a bit lifeless.

Anyways, onto Grim Dawn. I had only vaguely seen it a few times in the Steam store, and passed it by because I hated the cover art a lot. The stupid fucking hat, the raven, the eye liner, the title, goddamn, it's way too edgy even for me. I decided to ignore that, and I'm glad I did. I made a female shaman, so none of that stupid hat bullshit, and it's pretty fun. It's a post apocalyptic Victorian world, and it actually feels like it. It's a great atmosphere.

The gameplay is pretty good. Not quite as crisp as Diablo 2, but I think perhaps that is because I'm still early in the game, and I don't know much about the classes. The loot system is pretty good too, but there's definitely room for improvement. I'm actually not sure how many different types of items there are. I've found magic, rare, epic, and set items. I think there's one more level of rarity (unique maybe?) since I've found some items with purple text but no actual gear yet. Only small issue I've come across is that there's a lot of different stats so it makes getting upgrades kind of hard, or maybe just infrequent, and once you start getting all decked out in rare gear, it almost never gets replaced by magic gear any more, and rare gear is exactly that - rare.

I'm actually not completely sure of the mechanics of the game yet. I think I just finished the first part of the game about 8 hours in. I still have a side quest to do before I turn everything in, but I ran out of time before work today. Anyways, I don't know if everything is procedurally generated every time I load the game or what. Like, I don't know if it's possible to actually farm bosses for gear or anything like that. If yes, then getting some good will be slightly easier, though some of the zones are looooong. That's perhaps my second complaint, is that there's slightly too many filler areas. There's plenty of quests and interesting lore so the world feels populated. It's just that it's hard to tell if you're making progress, since by the end of the first region, I only just earned enough reputation to make it to the first faction tier which unlocked a few underwhelming rewards.

Overall, it's a really solid game. It's fun, it looks good, and gameplay flows well. I'd give it a solid A. So far, I'm enjoying it more than Diablo 3 and Path of Exile.

 

I've been having a lot of fun with Slay the Spire. It's a semi-roguelike card game similar to Hearthstone's dungeon run mode. There are currently two classes (the game's still in Early Access), the Ironclad and the Silent. Each class has its own pool of cards with the ironclad tending to focus more on powerful hits, and the silent focusing more on complicated combos. What it mostly works out to is that the ironclad is easier, but if you manage something silly with Silent it's usually more fun. There are also relics, similar to dungeon run passives, that you collect over the course of the run. They can break the game depending on your relic combination and cards, which is not only something you need to do to win, it's also actively encouraged. The game wants you to assemble a dumb infinite and goes out of its way to give you the tools to do so, but it also has bosses who punish you for it. The game receives updates very frequently, usually once a week, and a third class is on its way.

 

If you enjoy Slay the Spire, check out Monster Slayers. It's a complete rogue-like that came out a year (?) ago and didn't catch the hype wave that Spire did. They're very similar.