What a weird example to use… You don’t understand the economic difference between paying a small indie studio vs paying 500-1000+ devs making complex 3d games where the work of setting up one character dwarves the work of one sprite based 2d character?
Silksong is a beautiful game worthy of all the praise in the world, but this comparison makes no sense.
I absolutely agree, compare the amount of skill and effort that goes into a 2d platformer versus something like red dead redemption 2.
It’s like comparing a school play versus an opera, the amount of passion they put in might be the same or often way more but the opera is aiming higher and with a bigger budget.
That’s not to say that an opera is necessarily more enjoyable, just that the tickets are justifiably more expensive
The argument implied here is that because more money was poured into development, the value of the game is higher.
It’s putting the cart before the horse. The business logic on display by the studios is that they deserve a profit for the investment of making the game, and they have a right to charge more because they paid more to have the game made. That’s just … not true, or at least shouldn’t be the logic of the consumer. A game is only worth the value it brings to the player (which is of course subjective).
The argument being made here is that the $1M fancy character creator and it’s dev team CAN be compared to the work of a handful of sprites by an artist - and the fact that the value is either on par or in the small artists’ favor ought to be seen as damning to the larger studios.
To you specifically, @FreddyNO and regarding complex character creators specifically: do you really see value in them? My experience is that they’re something I do once at the beginning of the game, but usually within a couple hours I’m wearing enough new equipment to all but fully conceal every choice I made … save perhaps overall skin-tone; plus in most 3rd person games i spend most of the game looking at the characters backside whereas the c.creator focuses on mostly the face. I get that a good character creator adds cost and complexity - but are you sure it really adds value?
I’m not confusing your point about a bad comparison. I’m confused on your point about it being a bad comparison because I disagree. I believe they’re comparable. If there’s a reason they can’t be compared, perhaps you haven’t explained it as well as you think you have?
I asked about your values because I believe you are trying to to make a point about the economics of large vs small studios, and I want to understand. So rather than imply I was insinuating something (language that suggests I understand you, but am being willfully subversive), could you actually answer what was outright an attempt to understand your point?
Why do the back-end costs matter to the consumer? I do understand the difference between the two and that’s what makes the original meme funny.
Ah, yes, because the take away is that we need 1000+ dev studios churning out yearly slop franchises after 18+ months of crunch to justify their price tag, yeah?
no, it’s not. unless there are people protesting outside so-called AAA company offices to only make games with more crunch, bigger empty maps with pointless busywork, more detailed “realistic” looting animations that take so long it becomes a chore playing the game, it’s their choice and waste to do so. no one asks games to cost millions to make, and no one demands them to make billions to count as successful. they pretend this is a demand. it’s not.
No one is arguing with you about the bad practices here friend, it is simply a bad comparison. They’re two different conversations. Just because something is related doesn’t change that
Funnily, that’s a terrible comparison too.
Few people fit into a taxi, but many can buy a bus ticket.
Obviously it’s not that simple anyway, I just had a chuckle.
Those devs have already been paid. You’re not actually paying the devs by buying a AAA game.
This is about returns on investment.
How many more copies would be sold of, lets say, GTA6, if the sales price were to be in the 20-40 dollar range instead of 70 dollar? Would that amount be able to offset the lower price point to satisfy the investors?
What a weird example to use… You don’t understand the economic difference between paying a small indie studio vs paying 500-1000+ devs making complex 3d games where the work of setting up one character dwarves the work of one sprite based 2d character?
Silksong is a beautiful game worthy of all the praise in the world, but this comparison makes no sense.
I absolutely agree, compare the amount of skill and effort that goes into a 2d platformer versus something like red dead redemption 2.
It’s like comparing a school play versus an opera, the amount of passion they put in might be the same or often way more but the opera is aiming higher and with a bigger budget.
That’s not to say that an opera is necessarily more enjoyable, just that the tickets are justifiably more expensive
Big development team ≠ valuable game
The argument implied here is that because more money was poured into development, the value of the game is higher.
It’s putting the cart before the horse. The business logic on display by the studios is that they deserve a profit for the investment of making the game, and they have a right to charge more because they paid more to have the game made. That’s just … not true, or at least shouldn’t be the logic of the consumer. A game is only worth the value it brings to the player (which is of course subjective).
The argument being made here is that the $1M fancy character creator and it’s dev team CAN be compared to the work of a handful of sprites by an artist - and the fact that the value is either on par or in the small artists’ favor ought to be seen as damning to the larger studios.
To you specifically, @FreddyNO and regarding complex character creators specifically: do you really see value in them? My experience is that they’re something I do once at the beginning of the game, but usually within a couple hours I’m wearing enough new equipment to all but fully conceal every choice I made … save perhaps overall skin-tone; plus in most 3rd person games i spend most of the game looking at the characters backside whereas the c.creator focuses on mostly the face. I get that a good character creator adds cost and complexity - but are you sure it really adds value?
You’re confusing my point about a bad comparison with implication of what I value. I get it, easy connection to make, but they’re two different things
I’m not confusing your point about a bad comparison. I’m confused on your point about it being a bad comparison because I disagree. I believe they’re comparable. If there’s a reason they can’t be compared, perhaps you haven’t explained it as well as you think you have?
I asked about your values because I believe you are trying to to make a point about the economics of large vs small studios, and I want to understand. So rather than imply I was insinuating something (language that suggests I understand you, but am being willfully subversive), could you actually answer what was outright an attempt to understand your point?
Why do the back-end costs matter to the consumer? I do understand the difference between the two and that’s what makes the original meme funny.
Ah, yes, because the take away is that we need 1000+ dev studios churning out yearly slop franchises after 18+ months of crunch to justify their price tag, yeah?
No the takaway is that its a bad comparison.
it’s not. one being infinitely more wasteful for a lesser product that costs more doesn’t make it a bad comparison.
It’s a bad comparison, and also what youre saying about it is correct on that it’s wasteful etc. that’s simply a different conversation
no, it’s not. unless there are people protesting outside so-called AAA company offices to only make games with more crunch, bigger empty maps with pointless busywork, more detailed “realistic” looting animations that take so long it becomes a chore playing the game, it’s their choice and waste to do so. no one asks games to cost millions to make, and no one demands them to make billions to count as successful. they pretend this is a demand. it’s not.
No one is arguing with you about the bad practices here friend, it is simply a bad comparison. They’re two different conversations. Just because something is related doesn’t change that
it’s not though. the point is games don’t need to be that costly or pricey to be good.
The point I agree with, the comparison is still bad.
Why does a taxi ride cost more than a bus ticket? Isn’t that unfair!
Funnily, that’s a terrible comparison too.
Few people fit into a taxi, but many can buy a bus ticket.
Obviously it’s not that simple anyway, I just had a chuckle.
Funnily I tried to be ridiculous.
No, but you need different size teams to make 2D jumping game and Skyrim.
Those devs have already been paid. You’re not actually paying the devs by buying a AAA game.
This is about returns on investment.
How many more copies would be sold of, lets say, GTA6, if the sales price were to be in the 20-40 dollar range instead of 70 dollar? Would that amount be able to offset the lower price point to satisfy the investors?