Ahhh... I had to actually go into the store and say, "I'll buy it." before the price showed. Thanks for the links
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
cyberpunk CE comes at 250$, not 60. that is the base game.
We're not comparing collector editions.
We are comparing 1 company does not remove anything from the finished game and priced at $60, 1 company removes content from the finished game and priced at $120.
If you look at it this way then no they do not release a complete game otherwise paid DLC content would not be a thing.
And again there is a 60 version of the breakpoint game. Lets not blow this out of proportion. If we were talking huge sums of money it would be one thing but neither of those prices are huge sums of money.
The 60 version does not include the full game. If you want the full game you have to pay 120.
And you will pay the same once CDPR releases its DLC for Cyberpunk so its a wash.
The Witcher 3's expansion pass was 24.99 for 2 expansions. Their "bonus" content DLC were completely free.
cyberpunk CE comes at 250$, not 60. that is the base game.
We're not comparing collector editions.
We are comparing 1 company does not remove anything from the finished game and priced at $60, 1 company removes content from the finished game and priced at $120.
I get your point and I also detest the suspected practice of removing content only to sell it later as DLC but there is very little proof that anyone does that other than suspicious timing of DLC releases and anonymous chatter from alleged insiders.
If you're going to be a cynic like me and assume all year one DLC is just a company amputating chunks of the original to sell as extras, you need to apply that suspicion to anyone who releases year one paid DLC and that includes CDPR who has previously done it with the Witcher series.
Don't get me wrong: I like CDPR and their games and they do seem less mercenary / corporate compared to most other AAA publishers but they do extra fluffy collectors editions and year one paid DLC just like all the others.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
cyberpunk CE comes at 250$, not 60. that is the base game.
We're not comparing collector editions.
We are comparing 1 company does not remove anything from the finished game and priced at $60, 1 company removes content from the finished game and priced at $120.
If you look at it this way then no they do not release a complete game otherwise paid DLC content would not be a thing.
And again there is a 60 version of the breakpoint game. Lets not blow this out of proportion. If we were talking huge sums of money it would be one thing but neither of those prices are huge sums of money.
The 60 version does not include the full game. If you want the full game you have to pay 120.
And you will pay the same once CDPR releases its DLC for Cyberpunk so its a wash.
The Witcher 3's expansion pass was 24.99 for 2 expansions. Their "bonus" content DLC were completely free.
That's a pretty good track record.
120? Not even close.
Some would say $85 for a single player offline game is too high though. $120 for an online multiplayer game? 'eh' that is less than a year of a sub for an mmorpg generally so who cares if it brings joy and fun into someones life
Some idiots would say that $85 for a single player offline game is too high. Being an online multiplayer game does not increase a game's value; it often detracts from it.
The campaign length and quality of that game is worth several times that asking price. And each of those expansions were worth far more than their asking price.
Personally I want to see how this battle between CDPR and Epic will pan out. Epic seems to be on full on smear campaign by using the legacy "gaming press" to write hit pieces against both the company itself and Cyberpunk 2077. Epic seems to think that GOG Galaxy 2.0 will have a massive impact in the digital market. Remains to be seen.
cyberpunk CE comes at 250$, not 60. that is the base game.
We're not comparing collector editions.
We are comparing 1 company does not remove anything from the finished game and priced at $60, 1 company removes content from the finished game and priced at $120.
If you look at it this way then no they do not release a complete game otherwise paid DLC content would not be a thing.
And again there is a 60 version of the breakpoint game. Lets not blow this out of proportion. If we were talking huge sums of money it would be one thing but neither of those prices are huge sums of money.
The 60 version does not include the full game. If you want the full game you have to pay 120.
And you will pay the same once CDPR releases its DLC for Cyberpunk so its a wash.
The Witcher 3's expansion pass was 24.99 for 2 expansions. Their "bonus" content DLC were completely free.
That's a pretty good track record.
120? Not even close.
Some would say $85 for a single player offline game is too high though. $120 for an online multiplayer game? 'eh' that is less than a year of a sub for an mmorpg generally so who cares if it brings joy and fun into someones life
Some idiots would say that $85 for a single player offline game is too high. Being an online multiplayer game does not increase a game's value; it often detracts from it.
The campaign length and quality of that game is worth several times that asking price. And each of those expansions were worth far more than their asking price.
It increases the value being online if the person paying and playing feels it does. Value is a personal thing. Which is the entire point of debating the main idea of this thread. Most single player games have a certain amount of time (hours) to experience the content and then they are finished. For good. Live service games can run for years with fresh experiences. Some place a higher value on that ability over the other. I know players who only play games that allow for modding because they want to be able to experience new things in that games framework. I also know players of mmorpgs who never play any other type of game. They can not see the value in a one and done type game. Some here on these boards. It is all personal. What is considered a reasonable value for you and the type of digital journey you choose to take? Doesn't make them idiots for thinking that. It just makes them not you
The operative words were "if the person playing and paying feels it does. Value is a personal thing." You could have ended your reply right then and there.
There is nothing that objectively makes an online multiplayer game more valuable. Nothing. We see a lot of singleplayer games with massive 100+ hour campaigns and high replayability (ie: The Witcher 3 and the Persona series), and we see a lot of bargain basement multiplayer games that die off almost entirely in a few months (but that didn't stop Ubisoft from bundling For Honor with an expensive collector's edition and microtransactions, now, did it). Therein lies my point - not that multiplayer gamers are idiots, but that there is no reason whatsoever that an RPG could not justify a high price tag (because most do), and to say otherwise is inherently dumb.
Personally I want to see how this battle between CDPR and Epic will pan out. Epic seems to be on full on smear campaign by using the legacy "gaming press" to write hit pieces against both the company itself and Cyberpunk 2077.
Is there any proof of that whatsoever? It sounds like tinfoil hattery to me. You don't have to pay gaming media to be perpetually offended speech police; they already are.
Personally I want to see how this battle between CDPR and Epic will pan out. Epic seems to be on full on smear campaign by using the legacy "gaming press" to write hit pieces against both the company itself and Cyberpunk 2077.
Is there any proof of that whatsoever? It sounds like tinfoil hattery to me. You don't have to pay gaming media to be perpetually offended speech police; they already are.
I reckon the proof you imply will be impossible to find. However, here's some food for thought:
Personally I want to see how this battle between CDPR and Epic will pan out. Epic seems to be on full on smear campaign by using the legacy "gaming press" to write hit pieces against both the company itself and Cyberpunk 2077.
Is there any proof of that whatsoever? It sounds like tinfoil hattery to me. You don't have to pay gaming media to be perpetually offended speech police; they already are.
I reckon the proof you imply will be impossible to find. However, here's some food for thought:
The worst of the lot was the recent RPS article accusing them of racism and transphobia based on an ignorant (in the true sense of the word as in ignoring the context) spin of a couple of things seen in the latest playable demo.
“So the comment section under the Rock Paper Shotgun hit piece had some assholes (one very vocal one, in particular) repeatedly telling everyone that:
1. Mike Pondsmith was involved at some point, but he’s definitely not heavily involved anymore, because he’d never sign off on something as “racist” as a gang called “Animals”.
2. CDPR deviated from the 2020 canon horribly and inexcusably in their portrayal of the Voodoo Boys.
3. The whole thing just sets off “alarm bells” suggesting that the game is profoundly inauthentic and CDPR didn’t really get Cyberpunk.
I wish I could throw this [Author’s Note: ‘this’ refers to a video of an interviewbetween Pondsmith and Playstation Access’ Rob Pearson] in their faces (if only to see how they’d try to argue 2+2=3), but RPS closed the comments, because they got tired of deleting posts from people telling them how full of shit they were.
1. If I wasn’t heavily involved, I would be able to get more done. As it is, I barely have a life.
2. As for the Animals–the WHOLE FREAKING POINT is that they think of themselves as POWERFUL, DANGEROUS, WILD ANIMALS. You’d have thought the Lady named “Sasquatch” would have given them a clue.
3. The original Voodoo Boys were a scathing commentary on cultural appropriation. I LOVE the idea that real practicioners of Voudon moved in and took back their turf. And they even got the Creole right!
4. Who the (bleep) do YOU think you are to tell ME whether or not MY creation was done right or not?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
cyberpunk CE comes at 250$, not 60. that is the base game.
We're not comparing collector editions.
We are comparing 1 company does not remove anything from the finished game and priced at $60, 1 company removes content from the finished game and priced at $120.
I get your point and I also detest the suspected practice of removing content only to sell it later as DLC but there is very little proof that anyone does that other than suspicious timing of DLC releases and anonymous chatter from alleged insiders.
If you're going to be a cynic like me and assume all year one DLC is just a company amputating chunks of the original to sell as extras, you need to apply that suspicion to anyone who releases year one paid DLC and that includes CDPR who has previously done it with the Witcher series.<snip>
What happens is basically this:
Finish the game and lay off all the team then to recoup their costs and make a profit they will "run some numbers" and decide they have to charge $100 say. (Numbers they run being price, expected sales, release date, marketing spend, projected sales etc).
Another option: release the game, keep the team intact and produce some DLC. The nature of the beast being that if you have created art work, setting, game UI etc. etc. then the cost of producing the DLC relative to creating the base game.
Now the numbers companies run to estimate how many they will sell at a given price. Basic theory is that a) an established IP will sell some copies even if its expensive b) the cheaper the game is priced the more copies it will sell - although there comes a point when price won't matter.
So one tactic is to come up with the lowest possible base price that allows them to recover costs and make a basic price then aim to sell DLC on which they will make a higher profit.
So is content being "amputated". Well the alternative would be to basically close down the game so - probably - not. They will have an eye on the SLC though when making the base game - as with TV shows say e.g. GoT during the early series when the rest were not greenlit.
cyberpunk CE comes at 250$, not 60. that is the base game.
We're not comparing collector editions.
We are comparing 1 company does not remove anything from the finished game and priced at $60, 1 company removes content from the finished game and priced at $120.
I get your point and I also detest the suspected practice of removing content only to sell it later as DLC but there is very little proof that anyone does that other than suspicious timing of DLC releases and anonymous chatter from alleged insiders.
If you're going to be a cynic like me and assume all year one DLC is just a company amputating chunks of the original to sell as extras, you need to apply that suspicion to anyone who releases year one paid DLC and that includes CDPR who has previously done it with the Witcher series.<snip>
What happens is basically this:
Finish the game and lay off all the team then to recoup their costs and make a profit they will "run some numbers" and decide they have to charge $100 say. (Numbers they run being price, expected sales, release date, marketing spend, projected sales etc).
Another option: release the game, keep the team intact and produce some DLC. The nature of the beast being that if you have created art work, setting, game UI etc. etc. then the cost of producing the DLC relative to creating the base game.
Now the numbers companies run to estimate how many they will sell at a given price. Basic theory is that a) an established IP will sell some copies even if its expensive b) the cheaper the game is priced the more copies it will sell - although there comes a point when price won't matter.
So one tactic is to come up with the lowest possible base price that allows them to recover costs and make a basic price then aim to sell DLC on which they will make a higher profit.
So is content being "amputated". Well the alternative would be to basically close down the game so - probably - not. They will have an eye on the SLC though when making the base game - as with TV shows say e.g. GoT during the early series when the rest were not greenlit.
I don't buy the DLC or close bit for many reasons including that there are studios thriving today still without DLC and before the mega publishers bought most of the successful studios those studios became profitable and attractive buy-out targets without needing to resort to day 1 DLC or any of the other routine sleaze.
What you're describing may very well be applicable to AAA games made with gigantic budgets and gigantic manpower but that style of development is IMO, all about unnecessary bloat. In the past couple of years I've found myself playing and enjoying the games made by small or mid-sized studios much more than any AAA polished turd put out by the top studios.
D:OS2 made by Larian is a good example of what I'm talking about. Mid sized studio putting out quality, not laying anyone off and all of that without any of the AAA studio sleaze.
So no, it's not milk the game via. DLC or lay off half the staff. That's just one way (the way preferred by accountant studio heads I'm sure) and a shitty one at that.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Personally I want to see how this battle between CDPR and Epic will pan out. Epic seems to be on full on smear campaign by using the legacy "gaming press" to write hit pieces against both the company itself and Cyberpunk 2077.
Is there any proof of that whatsoever? It sounds like tinfoil hattery to me. You don't have to pay gaming media to be perpetually offended speech police; they already are.
I reckon the proof you imply will be impossible to find. However, here's some food for thought:
I don't deny that such is a distinct possibility, but from an objective standpoint, gaming media has been like this for years, and Cyberpunk's themes make it an inherently offensive game to audiences who lack the intellectual capacity to understand its nuance. And let's face it. Gaming media lacks nuance.
Well, if your content does not generate profit, then you need to cave to your employer's influence (at the very minimum) and get paid for services rendered.
Comments
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
That's a pretty good track record.
120? Not even close.
If you're going to be a cynic like me and assume all year one DLC is just a company amputating chunks of the original to sell as extras, you need to apply that suspicion to anyone who releases year one paid DLC and that includes CDPR who has previously done it with the Witcher series.
Don't get me wrong: I like CDPR and their games and they do seem less mercenary / corporate compared to most other AAA publishers but they do extra fluffy collectors editions and year one paid DLC just like all the others.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
The campaign length and quality of that game is worth several times that asking price. And each of those expansions were worth far more than their asking price.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
There is nothing that objectively makes an online multiplayer game more valuable. Nothing. We see a lot of singleplayer games with massive 100+ hour campaigns and high replayability (ie: The Witcher 3 and the Persona series), and we see a lot of bargain basement multiplayer games that die off almost entirely in a few months (but that didn't stop Ubisoft from bundling For Honor with an expensive collector's edition and microtransactions, now, did it). Therein lies my point - not that multiplayer gamers are idiots, but that there is no reason whatsoever that an RPG could not justify a high price tag (because most do), and to say otherwise is inherently dumb.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
had the info from gamespot, not gog.
and since gog is usualy selling digital "copies", i see why, most of those goodies are quite physical
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
This is a pretty good blow by blow that includes Mike Pondsmith's response: https://boundingintocomics.com/2019/06/20/rockpapershotgun-founder-claimed-cyberpunk-2020-creator-mike-pondsmith-made-a-bad-argument-regarding-racist-tropes/
From a reddit thread:
1. Mike Pondsmith was involved at some point, but he’s definitely not heavily involved anymore, because he’d never sign off on something as “racist” as a gang called “Animals”.
2. CDPR deviated from the 2020 canon horribly and inexcusably in their portrayal of the Voodoo Boys.
3. The whole thing just sets off “alarm bells” suggesting that the game is profoundly inauthentic and CDPR didn’t really get Cyberpunk.
I wish I could throw this [Author’s Note: ‘this’ refers to a video of an interviewbetween Pondsmith and Playstation Access’ Rob Pearson] in their faces (if only to see how they’d try to argue 2+2=3), but RPS closed the comments, because they got tired of deleting posts from people telling them how full of shit they were.
– /u/Y-27632, June 13, 2019
Pondsmith responded to the user.
1. If I wasn’t heavily involved, I would be able to get more done. As it is, I barely have a life.
2. As for the Animals–the WHOLE FREAKING POINT is that they think of themselves as POWERFUL, DANGEROUS, WILD ANIMALS. You’d have thought the Lady named “Sasquatch” would have given them a clue.
3. The original Voodoo Boys were a scathing commentary on cultural appropriation. I LOVE the idea that real practicioners of Voudon moved in and took back their turf. And they even got the Creole right!
4. Who the (bleep) do YOU think you are to tell ME whether or not MY creation was done right or not?
– /u/therealmaxmike, June 15, 2019
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
What happens is basically this:
Finish the game and lay off all the team then to recoup their costs and make a profit they will "run some numbers" and decide they have to charge $100 say. (Numbers they run being price, expected sales, release date, marketing spend, projected sales etc).
Another option: release the game, keep the team intact and produce some DLC. The nature of the beast being that if you have created art work, setting, game UI etc. etc. then the cost of producing the DLC relative to creating the base game.
Now the numbers companies run to estimate how many they will sell at a given price. Basic theory is that a) an established IP will sell some copies even if its expensive b) the cheaper the game is priced the more copies it will sell - although there comes a point when price won't matter.
So one tactic is to come up with the lowest possible base price that allows them to recover costs and make a basic price then aim to sell DLC on which they will make a higher profit.
So is content being "amputated". Well the alternative would be to basically close down the game so - probably - not. They will have an eye on the SLC though when making the base game - as with TV shows say e.g. GoT during the early series when the rest were not greenlit.
What you're describing may very well be applicable to AAA games made with gigantic budgets and gigantic manpower but that style of development is IMO, all about unnecessary bloat. In the past couple of years I've found myself playing and enjoying the games made by small or mid-sized studios much more than any AAA polished turd put out by the top studios.
D:OS2 made by Larian is a good example of what I'm talking about. Mid sized studio putting out quality, not laying anyone off and all of that without any of the AAA studio sleaze.
So no, it's not milk the game via. DLC or lay off half the staff. That's just one way (the way preferred by accountant studio heads I'm sure) and a shitty one at that.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다