|
|
Okay, let's look at something like Halo.
Many fans complained about the style shift in Halo 4.
It went from an almost "cartoon" style(basically not overly realistic) to a more photo realistic style.
I'm pretty sure a game like Halo would not suffer if it wasn't up to the standard it's currently attempting.
If it had kept the style of Halo 3(or even Reach as it was a step up from 3) but put more detail and resolution in there, no one would have complained.
And look at Gears of War.
Again, a game which isn't relying on photo realism, but is still a successful franchise.
Gears 4 isn't a huge leap from Gears 3, although you can see the differences, but it isn't trying to look like Battlefield 1 or CoD WW2.
Even GTA V hasn't gone all out for photo realism.
What I'm getting at is, life like games aren't what gamers are expecting.
Personally I'd take better immersion and more interactivity over photo realistic graphics.
In a game like GTA for example, I'd rather have decent physics, more missions, detailed interiors, more interiors, better randomisation for NPCs and their vehicles and a more immersive world, and sacrifice graphics back to a more GTA IV level.
As long as a game doesn't look like it was built for the PS1, graphics aren't the be all and end all.
There are games out there which were made 9-10 years ago(the first Dead Space is a good example) which still look great, even compared to todays games.
In a way you're kind of invalidating something you're trying to say here.
Yes, if we don't like something we can choose not to buy it. And this is the message so many outlets are trying to hammer home to gamers.
Vote with your wallet!
This too could negatively impact gaming.
Sure it's going to have positives, like showing publishers(because it's the publishers who push for MTXs, not the developers) we're not going to put up with their shady practices.
The negative is poor sales of a game meaning less revenue for more games to be made.
I guess that's the point though.
By gamers choosing to boycott games with MTXs and loot crates, this will negatively impact publishers, meaning they'll have to rethink their practices.
And as I've said above, I'm not against proper DLC.
Map packs and extra story content, e.g. the likes of Oblivions Shivering Isles are great. They actually add something to a game.
Loot boxes in general aren't adding anything. Unless they contain content linked to MP progression, as was the case with SWBF2.
MTX are pretty much just single use items which once used cannot used again.
This is usually in-game currency, which is used to buy in-game content, usually consumables.
These items, which can also be obtained in-game through other means, once used are gone and if you want more you're either going to have to grind to get the currency to obtain said items, or pay real world money for the in-game currency to buy more items.
There's really no grey area to these two types of monetising games.
Now, I'm also not against a kind of "games as a service" model. But a pretty specific type.
Take the latest Hitman as an example.
We were able to buy either just the base, first level at a cheap price, or pay for the full game which was drip fed over a number of months.
From what I understand(as I STILL haven't got around to starting it yet), that first level was still pretty big and had plenty of content for it's price.
By the time all other levels had been released it's supposed to be a pretty large game for what you paid for.
IO Interactive can't be doing too badly off the back of it because they've recently gone independent, buying out the rights to some of their games, including Hitman, from SquareEnix.
Now, take that model and apply it to a game like The Elder Scrolls.
Maybe start with a huge map like ESO has(the entire continent of Tamriel).
The base game is centred around one region and has the usual amount of content you'd expect from an Elder Scrolls single player game(maybe a little more as areas in other regions would still be accessible from the start).
Now, instead of Bethesda making a whole new game, they just release quest packs for different regions in the game, thus adding to and continually expanding upon the base game.
Development wouldn't be as intense as the bulk of the game is already out in gamers hands.
They could even release these packs more frequently(yearly?).
I know this is just one game type(open world/RPG), but a similar model could be used for other game types.
I mean, developers have been doing something like this for years already with map packs.
EA over compensated with SWBF2 by offering all future map packs for free as a goodwill gesture following the lacklustre content of the previous game and charging pretty much the cost of the game again for it's map packs.
It was a nice gesture, but as they were already offering 3 times the content of the previous game in SWBF2 base game, I'm pretty sure gamers would have accepted paying for map packs over the current situation.
There are ways to monetise games post release without pissing off gamers. |
|
Author: King Tones
26-11-2019 22:47:25