R600 for AAA games is insane

[admin]

R600 for AAA games is insane

Bulletstorm’s creative director talks about working with big publishers on AAA titles, and what gamers want from a game

[HavocXphere]

He's got a point. Sure gaming going mainstream brought lots of benefits (bigger budgets mainly) but its also had a lot of negative effects on the "pureness" of gaming.

DLCs, Microtransactions, Pay to win, pre-order exclusives etc.

[Glordit]

He's got a point. Sure gaming going mainstream brought lots of benefits (bigger budgets mainly) but its also had a lot of negative effects on the "pureness" of gaming.

DLCs, Microtransactions, Pay to win, pre-order exclusives etc.

Thankfully so far, Pre-order exclusives have just been day one MP unlocks, different camo or a gun with okay specs.

[phoenix]

One would like to see most gamers voting with their pockets with this one, irrespective of critical acclaim.

Wait a few years.....

[AlphaJohn]

One would like to see most gamers voting with their pockets with this one, irrespective of critical acclaim.

Wait a few years.....

Well I for one vote with mine, only picking up games once they hit GOTY editions.

With the number of games in my backlog I don't mind waiting either.

[DieGrootHammer]

Time for my unpopular opinion:

Game companies is a business. Their sole purpose is to make money. They make their money by providing their target market with a product, aka games. They need to keep selling as much games as they can to stay afloat and to remain relevant in an industry controlled by giant corporations.

At the same time, the USA economy (where most of these gaming companies reside in) is still struggling, with national debt at 107% of GDP, growth slowing down each quarter and investor confidence dwindling. BRIC's countries are starting to get much more investor interest than places like the USA and UK. That means that companies has to cut their margins more and more just to make the end of the month.

This financial downturn, coupled with the fact that gaming companies are money making machines, are the reason why we see so many "creative" ways of income generation, and why we see game prices ballooning over the years. Some game companies needs the income generated from micro-transaction and DLC's just to break even. So many games have been reported have not even reached their break-even mark many months after their release.

With all this going on, I can understand why CEO's will let bookkeepers and shareholders have such a big input into the creation of games and their prices. They just can't afford to have a bad release. how many game companies have gone under due to bad commercial games. They may not have been the worst games, but because they didn't do well commercially, the company went bust.

Is this a right thing to do though? From a business perspective, yes it is. From a gamers perspective, absolutely not. We are the ones that has to pay for this at the end of the day, and we are the ones that have to be happy with mediocre game quality. We are the ones that have to invest more money, money we don't have due to the economic downturn as mentioned earlier.

[Ike_009]

Time for my unpopular opinion:

Game companies is a business. Their sole purpose is to make money. They make their money by providing their target market with a product, aka games. They need to keep selling as much games as they can to stay afloat and to remain relevant in an industry controlled by giant corporations.

At the same time, the USA economy (where most of these gaming companies reside in) is still struggling, with national debt at 107% of GDP, growth slowing down each quarter and investor confidence dwindling. BRIC's countries are starting to get much more investor interest than places like the USA and UK. That means that companies has to cut their margins more and more just to make the end of the month.

This financial downturn, coupled with the fact that gaming companies are money making machines, are the reason why we see so many "creative" ways of income generation, and why we see game prices ballooning over the years. Some game companies needs the income generated from micro-transaction and DLC's just to break even. So many games have been reported have not even reached their break-even mark many months after their release.

With all this going on, I can understand why CEO's will let bookkeepers and shareholders have such a big input into the creation of games and their prices. They just can't afford to have a bad release. how many game companies have gone under due to bad commercial games. They may not have been the worst games, but because they didn't do well commercially, the company went bust.

Is this a right thing to do though? From a business perspective, yes it is. From a gamers perspective, absolutely not. We are the ones that has to pay for this at the end of the day, and we are the ones that have to be happy with mediocre game quality. We are the ones that have to invest more money, money we don't have due to the economic downturn as mentioned earlier.

I kinda agree with you there. End of the day it's a business and so the owners have to run it as such.