Rage 2 suffers from Bethesda's greed

Glad I didn’t upgrade to a ryzen/GTX 1080 build to play this :slight_smile:

I don’t know if anyone really remembers, or is even that old, but a long time ago when games came on diskettes, they did sell cheat codes in books or magazines. But a lot of people just got them for free once someone paid and then leaked it on some forum…

1 Like

This! So much.


The statement needs to be more precise at least. I mean, WoW is still going and these days it is AAA trash for sure. But 15 years ago two content patches were equivalent to an expansion pack for other games. And you got like three or four per expansion.


I bought Doom 2016. It’s fun. Looking at all the other id games lately… I’m probably not gonna buy any of those.

Fear of losing out. When ES VI comes out going to wait a bit to make sure there is no fuckery because Bethesda’s track record has been so bad. Game will probably need a crack.

Mkay, here’s nice and simple:
When WoW first came out there was nothing (even close to being as large and popular) as it was, and nothing that was constantly draining money from gamers.
Then WoW came out. It asked small fee every month for server support and extra development.
What followed was a poop ton of MMORG games, all of them failed miserably to shake the WOW dominance in player base and what not. But the door was open - everyone tried to make a game, that constantly drained small amount of money from the players. And that shit evolved through microtransactions and season passes and now lootboxes and ingame gambling.
What was lizzard doing before WoW?
Warcraft 3, Diablo 2…
What was Blizzard doing after WoW?
Overwatch - microtransactions, lootboxes
WoW - monthly fee
StarCraft 2-1
StarCraft 2-2
StarCraft 2-3
Each sold separately…

Soooo… Yeah. What made this shit happening - World Of Warcraft…

1 Like

EverQuest

You forget that SC2 in the beginning also had a monthly fee, and Diablo3 had that planned (which was than abandoned after publich backlash).

Each of which was a complete singleplayer campaign, complete with soundtrack, cinematics and maps (and a 8/10 story).

A bunch of greedy suit wearers in glas buildings without any better ideas except for copying what exists on the market.

2 Likes

SC1 also had 3 separate single player campaigns, with story and everything, but you paid for it once. Not 3 times.

SC1 also had one expansion.

My point is the extra content in SC2 is worth the price compared to what little you got in DLCs from other companies.

I find this discussion interesting. I watched a great talk by a dev on that subject that i might be able to dig up later. But that isn’t too important.

The fact is, most studios feel like they can’t make a profit on big AAA games by “just” selling a copy per User at 60 bucks. One option would be to increase the initial Price (which they do with special editions and such), but this prooves hard. The 60$ mark has been there for a long time and consumers aren’t willing to go much higher.

So, additional content it is. And really, i’m fine with that. I just don’t get how so many studios can fck this so royaly up. It has been shown, that Many people are willing to pay for a great game in many ways that are NOT pay to win. Either a monthly fee (like WoW and others) or through cosmetics. Especially the second is a valid option for additional income that don’t influence your wins in a meaningfull way, but still allow you to show that you are a baller through some horrific skin for 10 bucks.

Let’s face it. Those things are here to stay. Day one DLC is really bad, but it’s mostly to increase the base price of the game without going beyond 60$. I don’t like that, but there’s worse. Same for Additional purchases. They are here and it can be fine.

We as consumers should make sure to support the “right” way to do this. Support games that focus on non p2w tactics, don’t encourage gambling and reselling of items and deliver a great value.
Making the argument that all additional content is bad and every game should come complete without DLC is moot. It won’t happen. Let’s instead focus on making all of this as fair and non-exploitative as possible.

I don’t see anything inherently wrong in selling a cosmetics pack with a Single-Player only “cheat” at a price for those that want it. As long as the base game offers a complete experience, i’m fine with it. But that’s the point. Even the smallest, cheapest option should be a complete game without paywalls and such. I haven’t played Rage 2 and don’t plan to. So i can’t directly comment on that game. But whining because you don’t get a weapon for free that might not have existet anyways and isn’t planned in the single player experience is just dumb.
If you don’t want to spend the money, don’t and be happy with the experience you got.

1 Like

Every ÄÄÄ game is more of the same, I don’t want the same empty sandbox with millions of the same fetch/escort/inspect quests.

What happened to linear story telling?
What happened to singleplayer?

Sure I will buy the Soundtrack on CD/LP, sure I will buy a DLC that gives me more on top of a complete game.
But when 60 does not make a company profit on their product, then they should reconsider their scope.

3 Likes

I think this is a symptom of game budgets being massively bloated and they’ve lost the plot with regards to what actually makes a decent game.

They’re trying to “out-hollywood” hollywood, and expenses are through the fucking roof. They’re more focused on style than substance.

One of the most profitable games in history (outside of WoW, that shit is nuts) was ANGRY BIRDS.

Something a teenager could have written in their bedroom in a couple of months.

Don’t get me wrong, i like games to look good, but lately gameplay seems to be going BACKWARDS.

e.g., Elite Dangerous. Back in 1995 i was playing Frontier which had a comparable and in some ways superior (planetary landings from day one) feature-set.

2 Likes

Re above…

i’ve been on a bit of a retro gaming binge lately and have pretty much almost decided to abandon the gaming PC because

  • it runs linux now and i spend more time screwing about making shit run than playing it :smiley:
  • after playing a few retro games / switch games lately i’m actually enjoying the games a lot more. simpler, easier to play in small bites, more interesting gameplay, etc.

Both of you argue for a change in how games are made, which is ok. I can see that.

But that’s not the reality. Yes, IF the studios made cheaper games, then they COULD turn a profit at 60 bucks a game.
But that’s not what it is. And, as much as i agree with you, big studios will do their homework. They aren’t pouring millions into a product no one will buy. The fact is, that Really nice visuals sell. When you are on Steam or any other store it’s really, really hard to sell gameplay and story without spoilering. Incredible graphics are easy to sell. A few pictures and a video and everyone knows how freakin’ realistic the hair is in that game.

The simple fact is, and i’m guilty of it too, that we want nicer looking games with every release. Yes there are indy titles and the retro resurgance, but when a new AAA Action title comes out, we want to have the best graphics we’ve ever seen on a game. If we don’t get that, we just go back to older titles, because, as you stated, they are often plain better in terms of story and gameplay.

I really, really don’t want ever studio out there to start making angry birds style games that are nice but ultimately low effort. Both from a production and consumption standpoint.
I want great games that also Pull me in with the most realistic graphics possible. Like an intereactive movie. And i acknowledge that those are expensive to make.

Seriously, the only other option we have is PC Gaming becoming, what mobile gaming is now. An endless stream of idle Games and Farming stuff to sell you Gold or such to Boost what ever. And i really don’t want this on PC.

That is true.
As much as Bioshock infinite was a massive success, it kinda totaled Irrational Games and Ken Levine said it himself - in the current hyperinflated dev budgets, just selling a game is not all that profitable.

Bioshock Infinite happened.

1 Like

Don’t get me wrong, i agree.

But eventually they’re going to cater to an ever shrinking market due to the development costs that need to be re-couped (which will further increase RRP due to the smaller market willing to pay the larger amounts), or they will actually start focusing on making decent games again.

Hopefully as the industry starts producing more Fallout 76s and Rage 2s, they’ll get the hint.

1 Like

I don’t want change, I want return to how games are made.

Again, when your product sold for your asking price does not make you profit, your product and your business strategy suck and deserve to die.

That has been the narrative all the time, meanwhile most reviewers are like “looks shiny, is boring trash with gambling”.

Right now, we get fast and cheap every year, tons of it.
I want good again! Not looks good, but is good!

…That is what PC gaming is though. EA, Ubi, Activision. Bethesda and WB looked at the most profitable gaming sector (mobile) and made PC gaming into the same.

When you want a game that gets the game part right and is only 7/10 in graphics, go for Indie.
When you want the same shit as the last five years but with new graphics, go AAA.


Also:

Scope! Don’t shoot for the moon and miss!

Noone asked for games where you roam arround a vast (mostly empty) sandbox for 100 hours, but that is what AAA is now.
And of course no studio with sane budget can pull that off! While a studio can not make a 100 hour game, I do not have the patience to sit through a 100 hour game of “go place kill the lads”.

Correct, that’s what i initially meant. We as customers need to make sure we buy the games that acutally do those things properly.
Pointlessly whining about DLC and Lootboxes doesn’t get us anywhere. Let’s just try to vote for the games doing it well.

1 Like

Yeah don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying i want zero effort either.

But say… half the typical AAA budget is still an absolute fuckload of money. And should be sufficient to make it possible to put out amazing stuff WITH good gameplay…

You just might not get the A-list hollywood voice acting, or whatever.

Some numbers for reference:

Watchdogs did cost 68 Million. Sounds like much. But when you develop a game for, let’s say 3 years, maybe more, and try to pay rent, people, electricity and so forth, that money is gone FAST. At 50k Annual salary, that’s 300 devs for 3 years. Just in salary. No Rent, no electricity, no IP no nothing. Just people to code and do artwork and stuff.

Those numbers sound big, but in a business sense they really aren’t. And to make this up you have to sell a million copies, often within the first year to make the money back. And only after that are you earning money… And the typical full-prize cycle for such a AAA game is maybe 3 months or half a year. After that, you maybe get half price.