Comments 679

Re: Soapbox: Why the Industry Is Getting Greedy (And How to Stop It)

Anchorsam_9

@Spirit_Psalm91 Like I say, vote with your money. Money talks, after all

@WARDIE I do that too - if a DLC is priced the same as a game, I never buy it. Just goes to show how good value Hearts of Stone is

@SonyInfinity That's why I hope that refund policies start getting introduced in online stores. Steam did it and developers weren't hurt from that, so they should introduce in the PS store too

@seanobi Pretty sure that the new Tomb Raider is selling Big Head Mode as a DLC, which is so heartbreaking considering it used to be a cheat in every game.

@Ps4all And it looks to be getting worse with Activision buying King. It's a shame that these practices are put in place, but there's always a chance that we can stop this!

@Grawlog You're pretty right - it's our job as consumers to find out what's worth our money, but console players are at a distinct advantage because the PS Store's games selection is entirely controlled by Sony - no Steam Greenlight or Early Access broken promises

@BAMozzy Games are selling better than ever, and it's all about the quality of the games that makes people buy them - I have a feeling that yearly franchises such as Assassin's Creed could benefit in quality and sales if they stopped making them regularly - just look at GTA V, it made $1 billion in 3 days! Also, about your Dark Below value comment - value is subjective, and if you felt like it was worth your money, then fair enough. I just felt that, on paper, the content that was added made that £20 seem a little steep.

@NomNom There are some F2P games like Warframe that are excellent in terms of value - I sunk about £10 into Loadout and hugely enjoyed my time in it.

@SavoirFaire Despite loving GTA V, I hate its Online model, it's hugely grindy and reliant on players repeating missions and races over and over again. The only DLC I'm really a fan of is good quality stuff - the kind that's made for Fallout, Mass Effect or The Witcher

@JoeBlogs not necessarily - most publishers have plenty of IPs, so they could take a risk on one and not harm their income too much. I honestly doubt that many publishers need all of this money, otherwise we'd be hearing huge losses in their quarterly reports

@mrobinson 91 1) I think that pre-ordering is a little risky, knowing that you never might know if the game is bad or not, but it's fine as long as you've researched it - I've pre-ordered Just Cause 3 after all! 2) I would sat yes, but then again more people are buying games than ever, so it's a yin-yang scenario really. 3) That's true, I don't think that developers have figured out the best way to monetize yet, but for now I think it's paid expansions that offer a lot AKA Hearts of Stone. 4) They almost always do!

@JLPick But don't you think that implementing microtransactions that turn the game into a grind would make you feel cheated out of your money? Because many games do that.

@MikLSP Exactly, and that's what I'm trying to get everyone to do with this article.

@LieutenantFatman Dead Space 3 is the one that did it for me. Mass Effect 3 annoyed me a little with its whole "earn multiplayer stuff in singleplayer" malarkey, but Dead Space 3 finally made me think that microtransactions were becoming a problem.

@Rudy_Manchego This is why I thought it was a good idea for Ubisoft to release smaller games like Valiant Hearts, Child of Light and Grow Home - if publishers keep the costs down on some games, they can blow the costs up on others, and we all know how well those 3 little games did!

@Frank90 I'm all up for DLC if it's good quality and good value - I've mentioned Hearts of Stone countless times, but plenty of other games have done it well too!

@CD456 Thanks!

Thanks to everybody who commented on this article and shared their views, it's nice to discuss things with the community

Re: Soapbox: Why the Industry Is Getting Greedy (And How to Stop It)

Anchorsam_9

HUGE COMMENT REPLY COMMENT

These are all the comments I can reply to today, so i'll check back tomorrow for more:

@DerMeister I agree here, there are cases in which microtransactions can be used too, but mostly they're for the worse, and can ruin games with them

@Johnnycide Like you, I'd rather pay more for a good quality game with more gameplay than have to keep paying little amounts that add up just to play the game properly.

@get2sammyb I disagree a little your COD example - the Call of Duty series is almost always guaranteed money, however bad or unchanged it is. It's a brand name that will always be popular - the FIFA of shooters, if you will - and with its huge deals with Sony, Doritos and other such companies, as well as its eSports prominence, I doubt it struggles to make money. You make a good point with Destiny having servers to run, but don't you feel that, if a player has paid for the DLCs and spent quite a bit on the game, they should get some emotes as a little thank you? Treating fans well will make them come back, after all.

Also, about your point about the "Golden age" of games not being now - think about the huge variety of games on offer. Go back 10 or so years and you wouldn't have as many bedroom developers making games, you wouldn't find AAA publishers working on smaller-scale projects (Ubisoft and Sony are good examples) and the huge variety of tech on offer means that developers can innovate to their hearts desire. Sure, the PS2 era was excellent, but I have a feeling that this generation has some excellent surprises to come.

@Bad-MuthaAdebisi Hugely agree here - there are so many games that have open worlds, collectibles and other such things that really, really shouldn't - case in point, Assassin's Creed. I'd prefer it if they scaled things back a bit.

@DrClayman But what if developers and publishers spent less time on monetizing and more money on improving the quality of their games - surely if a game is good, more people will buy it?

@Cron_13 There is no definite answer to this problem, rather a load of smaller answers. Season passes and microtransactions don't feel like the way to go.

@Matroska Great point! I know it's not really a fighting game, but WWE 2K16 has the largest ever roster in series history - that's value that people look for.

@ChoZanWan Witcher 3: Hearts of Stone sales say it all - good quality expansions always sell well and make the developer seem more trustworthy.

@BAMozzy This is my main point - huge publishers don't really need to worry about money that much, they really shouldn't. Make a better game and spend less money cutting bits out, and more people on the whole will buy it.

@LieutenantFatman I disagree but thanks a lot! I just felt quite angry at the amount of games getting microtransactions in the past couple weeks and got all this stuff off my chest.

@Tasuki To be fair I said it was "a" golden age of gaming - there have been many. Like you said, the 16-bit era was excellent, as well as the N64 era, the PS2 era and all that kinda stuff. Sorry to put you off. And for the record, I'm a PS2 man

@JaxonH Good good - the best way to convince publishers to change is to vote with your money. I dismiss most games with always-online DRM and microtransactions, but of course I'll check them out if they have good reviews or I like the gameplay
@Mega-Gazz @slampog In the first half of 2015, CD Projekt Red made $62.5 million profit - and that's before Hearts of Stone released. Just goes to show.

@FaultyDroid I hate this too - most notably when Battlefront was announced as having no microtransactions before being given a really expensive season pass

Re: Soapbox: Why the Industry Is Getting Greedy (And How to Stop It)

Anchorsam_9

@Flaming_Kaiser I never usually pre order games, but Just Cause 3 was a definite buy for me. If a DLC is high quality, buy it - it encourages devs to put more effort into things like that.

@themcnoisy I was going to include Pro Clubs in the article but completely forgot about it. But yeah, it's a great example - our Pro Club knows this better than anyone!

Re: Soapbox: Why the Industry Is Getting Greedy (And How to Stop It)

Anchorsam_9

@ShogunRok Exactly - treat the fans right and they'll pay you back eventually - whether it's donating, buying merch, buying DLC or buying your next game.

@Nomnom @xmeadx This is my attitude as well - microtransactions deserve no place in a game that price. Some F2P games like Loadout use them especially well so that they're not pay to win, though, but I seldom use them too.

@BrianC Good point, but the thing is that there are plenty of ways for publishers to make money without affecting gameplay, and we as consumers need to guide them towards that by voicing our opinions through how we spend our cash

Re: Soapbox: Why the Industry Is Getting Greedy (And How to Stop It)

Anchorsam_9

@kyleforrester87 @ztpayne7 I suppose, but let's take Destiny for example: Activision spent $300 million on advertising alone. Even in the unlikely event that Destiny would make a loss, it doesn't matter: Activision wouldn't care because they always get plenty of money from properties. In the AAA industry, commercial flops are rare, and even if a game flops, a publisher usually has plenty of other properties to fall back on. In the case of indie developers, they may need to make more of a profit in order to stay afloat, but they find other means: donations, merchandise and the like, which doesn't interrupt or affect gameplay.

Also Kyle - it's fine that you buy games with microtransactions in, and many games do use them sparingly, but all I suggest is that, if a game uses them in a way that harms the quality or fun factor of a game, don't succumb to them - it's money wasted. Still, your views are your views!

Re: Review: Just Dance 2016 (PS4)

Anchorsam_9

@xcalibersa Sorry if you thought this way, it's been a long time since I've played last year's edition. Also, to clarify, I did say that JD Unlimited had a steep price, I never said it was worth it, I only said the trial was worth it. Also, we weren't paid by Ubisoft at all, we're never paid for any of our reviews otherwise we would disclose it.

Re: Review: Guitar Hero Live (PS4)

Anchorsam_9

@Wesker It's policy at the moment, it might change in the future but it'll stay for now. I think that I'll write an opinion piece of microtransactions though, seeing as it's on my mind at the moment

Re: Review: Guitar Hero Live (PS4)

Anchorsam_9

@thedevilsjester No, that's a music video I'm afraid. It's not actually too distracting, but you could always contact the developers to let them know how you feel so they can patch it in, I'd support that

Re: Review: Guitar Hero Live (PS4)

Anchorsam_9

@get2sammyb I can see where you're coming from, and this certainly wasn't the worst route Activision could've taken, but don't you agree that if you pay for a song, you should own it, at least for a short while? I know that artists need to get paid for this, but I feel that the fans should at least be able to own their favourite songs. Also, previous Guitar Heroes came with plenty more songs than GH: Live's - the last one came with over 90 - so I feel that a least a few of these songs could've been included with the base game

@Melistrius I agree that Guitar Hero Live is a good game, and that GH TV is an excellent mode - in the review I said about how it was good that it got you to play and like new songs. I just feel that they should at least have the option to fully own a song, so fans can either buy or rent a song depending on how much they think they'll play it - it just seems more consumer-friendly, and the more consumer-friendly a game is, the better reputation it'll get

@thedevilsjester The new guitar is a lot better than the old ones, but, like you say, it's pretty disappointing that they at least couldn't add a bass mode like in previous GH games. You can't turn the FMV off either, as that's the whole USP on GH Live, and you can't turn off music videos either, I'm afraid. Rock Band 4 definitely trumps Guitar Hero Live in terms of multiplayer.