GTPNewsWire
Contributing Writer
- 21,598
- GTPHQ
This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:
This article was published by Brendan Rorrison (@Brend) on January 13th, 2018 in the Gravel category.
I already was, had it pre-ordered for months.959 Rallye in Rothmans livery on a present-generation console? That's it, I'm sold.
Since I wait for any reason to plug Shox, here is said 959 on the cover of the game:
What do you mean? Gravel is developed by Milestone.How in the name of **** is this a good thing? The content is being cut from the finished product in order to make an extra buck. The worst kind of DLC.
Didn't expect this from former Evolution, but then again, they did come under Codemaster, a decidedly awful company. Guaranteed that I won't buy the game now.
Here's hoping the game flops horribly.
What do you mean? Gravel is developed by Milestone.
How in the name of **** is this a good thing? The content is being cut from the finished product in order to make an extra buck. The worst kind of DLC.
Guaranteed that I won't buy the game now.
Here's hoping the game flops horribly. Pre-order bonuses are ridiculous.
Edited due to mistaken the game and dev for another.
Wouldn't you rather the pre order sales flop than the game? We don't want the racing genre to become a risk for devs.How in the name of **** is this a good thing? The content is being cut from the finished product in order to make an extra buck. The worst kind of DLC.
Guaranteed that I won't buy the game now.
Here's hoping the game flops horribly. Pre-order bonuses are ridiculous.
Edited due to mistaken the game and dev for another.
Wouldn't you rather the pre order sales flop than the game? We don't want the racing genre to become a risk for devs.
Any studio that withholds content at release just to make an extra buck or as incentive to pre-order, thus punishing people who might want to see if the game is utter trash before buying it, deserves to fail and fold.
I can't say I agree with that logic for a number of reasons. First of all there is the economic aspect of it; Games cost a lot more to develop than they did 10 years ago but prices for a vanilla AAA game have stayed largely the same, so developers need to recoup the costs somehow. Moreover, the people in these studios are talented individuals who rely on the success of this project to make ends meet in their life - Wishing that to be taken away because you feel you are entitled to more content in a digital entertainment product makes it seem like you are playing God for a rather trivial reason.
From the racing fans perspective, it is also worth noting this segment is on thin ice. Racing games are far more of a niche and finding quality racing games from small studios is getting increasingly difficult. If I see an arcade racing game which I believe has good prospects for entertainment, I'd be happy to support the title and the future of the genre.
What makes you think games have suddenly become more expensive to make?
Plenty of sources will back that up, but here is one from a developer at Ghost Games.
Could it be that spending 1-200 percent of your dev budget on marketing is excessive?
So, I'm just curious...do you wear the morality hat for games you had no intention of buying or for all games, like the one in your avatar?How in the name of **** is this a good thing? The content is being cut from the finished product in order to make an extra buck. The worst kind of DLC.
Guaranteed that I won't buy the game now.
Here's hoping the game flops horribly. Pre-order bonuses are ridiculous.
Edited due to mistaken the game and dev for another.
I can't even blame developers for DLC, pre-order bonuses and miscrotransactions. That's not to say I like them, but at the end of the day they are companies and all 3 of those methods have proven successful.If you want to blame anyone, blame your fellow gamers.
It's like being mad at Apple for charging so much for their products when clearly the people actually buying the products have no problem with it.
Is it really all that excessive?
As you pointed out, games are easier to make than ever. Which means there are more people/companies making games which means more competition. That in turn means companies have to spend more in order to get noticed.
Just go on whatever system you have and scroll through the complete list of available games and take note of how many you've never even heard of.
but there's a fine line between fair and unfair business practice.
And yes, spending hundreds of millions on marketing is excessive. Especially when dealing with an already well established franchise that releases yearly.
it's also easier to reach out to a large audience than ever before.
And how do they accomplish that?
So, I'm just curious...do you wear the morality hat for games you had no intention of buying or for all games, like the one in your avatar?
I hate pre-order bonuses too but to wish ill on a title and its developer just seems wreckless.
With exceptions of some microtransactions I don't really see anything unfair about any of those practices though as they are all in plain view. If you get caught off guard by pre-order bonuses or DLC that's on you for not doing your research.
I'm going to answer this with a quiz question.
How much money does Coca-Cola spend annually on marketing?
Believe it or not they spent 3.3 Billion dollars in 2013 just on marketing.
And they are much more well-known than any video game company.
And how do they accomplish that?
By not spending money, apparently.
Ah, so those skins may have simply been 'early access' affairs, my mistake. 👍You're comparing a trivial skin with no actual gameplay ramifications to Gravel which uses two very iconic cars as bait to lure people in before reviewers have a chance to tear the game apart, as well as to make a quick extra buck. The comparison simply does not hold up to scrutiny. Even less so considering that, judging by the names of the two pre-order skins in Bloodborne, they are not actually exclusive to pre-ordering. I didn't pre-order the game, and I know where to find both those Messenger skins in-game, assuming of course that they are not somehow different skins sharing the same names as the ones I am referring to. But again, there's a difference between trivial visual additions, and actual gameplay ones.
I was originally very hyped for the first Project Cars, and planned to buy it, but reversed that decision when their pre-order BS surfaced. So I do certainly let it effect my purchasing choices.
What a time to be alive when you're not even entitled the content that you've paid for... Gaming sure has changed.
So Cola wastes a ton of money. It's not news to anyone that a lot of large companies waste money. You think people will suddenly stop drinking Coca Cola if they no longer saw the product on TV? Does anyone actually give a 🤬 if the person presenting a product is a celebrity, or can we save a lot of money there?
There are several massive game conferences throughout year where companies can show off their games. I doubt having a booth is free, but I reckon, without knowing for sure, that the price is advantageous. Then there's the plethora of free online sites where you can upload videos, and forums where you can spread the word. In any case, I am not knowledgeable enough about advertisement to properly argue against it, nor is it relevant to the thread. All I can say is that I don't believe the return investment offsets such high marketing costs.
No. But there is such a thing as spending more than what you get in return as a result of that spending.