Xbox - Series S/X: Thread 01

[Digfox]

And the content wasn't repetitive in many games in the classic days? I paid £50 for SOR III and that got repetitive and was a game one could finish in a matter of hours The story and scripts used in games today are near Hollywood levels, if anything games these days are just too big and vast and become less fun and loses a little focus

I don't get your issues over GTA V; the main story game took me over 24 hours to finish (and I still missed out loads) that's more content than a lot of classic 16 bit and 32bit games put together and all for much the same RRP (well 32bit CD games were a little cheaper granted)

One can find many faults with current gaming, I really don't think the RRP is one of them imo

At least you got more of the same. One of the recent trends has been the move to GaaS and cheaper to make multiplayer games. GTA IV had two sizeable PVE/single player expansions. GTA Online has meant GTA V never got any more content for those who don't like GTA Online. I've tried GTA Online and it's purely PVP, group focused mode which is light on content. It's also incredibly egregious and aggressive in microtransactions, forcing you either to grind longer and longer or stump up the money to actually buy stuff in-game. I personally loved GTA V (sank about 55 hrs into my full PC run - not 100%) and triple dipped on the game. I really wanted more story, more missions and more to do.

The criticism aren't just about the overall value proposition but the industry focusing less on single player content and doubling down on addictive and exploitative business models. Given the reactions of several bodies and governments around the world to 'lootboxes', that's a to me feels a valid concern.

[Team Andromeda]

Nothing is forced on you. It's up to you if you buy the game or any extra content. Think you were a little unfair to expect more than 55 hours of gameplay tbh. GTA V shows how it should be done with a brilliant and huge single player game and then a separate Online section;I only wished the likes of Halo, Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six Siege followed the same sort of structure.


But there are plenty of AAA games with a huge focus on the single player part and offer hours of gameplay for less than what Snes or N64 carts cost .

[QualityChimp]

Nothing is forced on you. It's up to you if you buy the game or any extra content. Think you were a little unfair to expect more than 55 hours of gameplay tbh. GTA V shows how it should be done with a brilliant and huge single player game and then a separate Online section;I only wished the likes of Halo, Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six Siege followed the same sort of structure.

But there are plenty of AAA games with a huge focus on the single player part and offer hours of gameplay for less than what Snes or N64 carts cost .

Yeah, but if you're a fan of GTA V, they're no longer releasing any SP content.
The days of The Lost and the Damned, The Ballad of Gay Tony or Undead Nightmare are gone.

Yes, there are other games, but a way to continue the games you love has come to an end.

[Lebowski]

One thing to take into account about prices now and prices from the super Nintendo era is games where more of a niche pastime with sales being a lot lower. Production of the actual physical game cartridge's where a lot higher compared to digital and optical delivery. just look at the Switch most games on their seem to carry the switch premium or you get ridiculous situational like all the game not being on the cart to save money on cheaper storage.

I feel the reason games are still in the £40-60 bracket now is that they need to be kept in the impulse purchase bracket and like music if they did rise with inflation to be £100 a game or £25 a cd i think sales would stagnate.

As for the dlc argument take a game like Skyrim or the Witcher 3 i never touch dlc in games like this as 9 times out of ten if you want more of the game then you can just go do one of the many sidequests that the game offers outside of their sprawling campaigns. DLC map packs have had their day mosltly star wars battlefronts extra maps where a ghost town and forced EA down the micro transaction debacle route. I feel traditional DLC is just not hitting the sales it used to have and is fracturing online community's so devs are having to adapt.

[Brad]

I think what we're saying here is that things got better for a while (quite a while in fact) and in real terms we got even better value for our money than we used to but that now they're getting a bit worse e.g. games as a service, lootboxes, day one editions at £80, massive day one patches just to get the thing work etc.

[Neon Ignition]

That's why I expect the number of high profile GAAS titles failures to increase in the coming years as another bubble trend bursts. Milking a small % of your userbase and leaving the majority to go to rival companies products over the following years isn't the best long term strategy.

I'd be curious if that's part of the reason hype for RDR2 is so muted. It may end up being GOTY but it's coming so immensely late thanks to a decade of Rockstar market milking

[Team Andromeda]

Yeah, but if you're a fan of GTA V, they're no longer releasing any SP content.

What after 55 hours of gameplay. I think the team at Rockstar North did their job and would put to you that the reasons they aren't wasting their time with GTA V single player mode, is because they very busy on GTA 6 and having to make a brand new world with all new assets that have to stand up to 4k and 1080p displays . Its far easier to add multiplayer parts than it is for a full single player mode

The days of The Lost and the Damned, The Ballad of Gay Tony or Undead Nightmare are gone.

You mean extra content that one had to pay for and wasn't included in the main game ?. I like the irony

[QualityChimp]

What after 55 hours of gameplay. I think the team at Rockstar North did their job and would put to you that the reasons they aren't wasting their time with GTA V single player mode, is because they very busy on GTA 6 and having to make a brand new world with all new assets that have to stand up to 4k and 1080p displays . Its far easier to add multiplayer parts than it is for a full single player mode
You mean extra content that one had to pay for and wasn't included in the main game ?. I like the irony

I have no problem paying for good DLC content like the examples I cited and ones like the Fallout series.

However, Rockstar diverted the originally planned single-player DLC into the online section, which isn't to everybody's taste.
The problem I have with that, is that everybody now has to pay or grind to get any items.
The first release, The Beach Bum Pack, was a little underwhelming but it was free.

Was.

Now even some of the Beach Bum pack has to be paid for.

Not only that, but in-game prices are on the up.
The Turismo R (Mclaren clone) cost $500k in 2014, but in the 2017 update, the most expensive car is $2.25 MILLION.
A pretty basic Ford Escort clone is now $615k.
A full suit in 2014 was $6K, a single jacket in the 2017 update is $11K
There's a wrench weapon that costs $7k!

The common conspiracy is that Rockstar are no longer doing SP DLC because they're making too much money on Shark Cards.

I've bought all the SP DLC for GTAIV and RDR, but nothing on GTAV Online for these very reasons.

You say Rockstar are working hard on maximising GTAVI, making everything shiny in 4K.
I say Rockstar are busy working hard on maximising profit on GTAV and RDR2.

It'll be interesting if RDR still has a full campaign or if it's shorter now they know Online is the money spinner.

As I said in the other thread, I have a healthy wariness towards modern gaming and these kind of practices fuel that suspicion.
I'm definitely waiting for some RDR2 reviews before buying because I'm worried, that it's going to be a very different experience to RDR1 and almost alien to the days of getting all the in-game perks by, instead of paying real money, you typed in CIRCLE, CIRCLE, L1, CIRCLE, CIRCLE, CIRCLE, L1, L2, R1, TRIANGLE, CIRCLE, TRIANGLE.

[Lebowski]

That's why I expect the number of high profile GAAS titles failures to increase in the coming years as another bubble trend bursts. Milking a small % of your userbase and leaving the majority to go to rival companies products over the following years isn't the best long term strategy.

I'd be curious if that's part of the reason hype for RDR2 is so muted. It may end up being GOTY but it's coming so immensely late thanks to a decade of Rockstar market milking

I know a lot of people who aren't that bothered about it, for one i dont see how they can better the first game bar just giving it an overhaul graphically. I kind of wish they would do a game like this that was more relevant to more people, red dead is very focused on the americans love afair with the old west and cowboys. I kind of think they needed to go further back not forward and focus on another group of loose moralled individuals, how about a Sherwood based game called

Robin Forest horsey

A game where you ambush and rob people, in the woods, hunt badgers and stoats, and piss about in ye old pubs paying dominoes and picking up large brested wenches, oh and we could have castles in it too. The story arc is based around the sheriff of Nottingham tracking down and picking off your Merry men one by one untill your a loner tracking down those that wronged you. you get out of the robbing life style and hitch a ride over to France and open a small vinyard with Maid Marion and have a kid..... only to be tracked down and shot with a bow and arrow by an angry sheriff. Ten years pass and your son travels back to the UK to kill the corrupt sheriff and his cronies.

hold on that's the story of Red dead just with more heavily wooded areas and castles.

[Atticus]

Got to say, however it's packaged I don't mind paying for additional content as long as the basic package has justified its cost. More often than not the basic package is enough for me, but it's nice to have the choice.

The Division is a great example of a game that's been supported to the hilt, heavily invested in, provides for multi-player and single players equally, and is worth every penny as a stand alone purchase or with addition paid for content.

I was talking with my brother earlier this week, about the value modern games can give (I told him I was playing The Division again) ... and we both referenced the time we picked up Marble Madness for the Megadrive for £40 and we'd seen everything after 20 minutes and felt pretty deflated. That's an extreme example, and there was some naivety involved, but it's unlikely a gaming investment of that value these days would yield so little.

[Digfox]

Nothing is forced on you. It's up to you if you buy the game or any extra content. Think you were a little unfair to expect more than 55 hours of gameplay tbh. GTA V shows how it should be done with a brilliant and huge single player game and then a separate Online section;I only wished the likes of Halo, Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six Siege followed the same sort of structure.

The irony is the very same market forces that ensure Rockstar prioritises their mobile, freemium online game are the exact same reasons why Microsoft added loot boxes to all Halo's MP modes, why Ubisoft added Lootboxes to Ghost Recon Wildlands and why Rainbow Six Siege is a pure PVP game rammed with expensive to buy operators, yearly passes and cosmetics.

But there are plenty of AAA games with a huge focus on the single player part and offer hours of gameplay for less than what Snes or N64 carts cost .

Yes, but imagine Rockstar couldn't just rely on Shark Card sales. We might have had further adventures of the great trio. Wouldn't that have been awesome to go to a new island or experience more? It's the 'what might have been'.

You say Rockstar are working hard on maximising GTAVI, making everything shiny in 4K.
I say Rockstar are busy working hard on maximising profit on GTAV and RDR2.

Bingo! It is extremely unlikely they are prioritising GTA 6 as much as they claim. I do think it will take significant resources, but are either working on the underlying tech or spreading those resources rather than crunching everything as other western studios have done. They are not going to turn around and admit to prioritising making content for Online, and balancing the games to ensure they continue bringing in their $1b+ a year in mtx revenues, whilst attempting to do the same with RDR2. It's one of the reasons we have seen so little of it to date.

That's an extreme example, and there was some naivety involved, but it's unlikely a gaming investment of that value these days would yield so little.

Don't know about that. I felt the same after buying Destiny 2...

[Atticus]

Don't know about that. I felt the same after buying Destiny 2...

Guess I left myself wide open for that

[Neon Ignition]

That's just it, they could have easily gone the Vice City/San Andreas/Liberty City Stories/Vice City Stories route and released a side entry which was fundamentally similar to GTAV but with a new city. One that contained the existing GTA Online with additional content such as the new city. Their Online earnings would receive quite a boost and they'd likely have another 50m seller on their hands. Instead it's a ghost town and it's psychologically quite poor as a consumer as you're A-Wary of getting that into the game as you know you'll turn 50 before they release another and B-You know you're less valued

Given the amount of sarcasm the games carry it's somewhat cheeky they're that blatant. Then again this is a company that's also withholding RDR2 on PC for cheap $ from double dippers.

Ah well, it's probably good it winds my expectations ahead of RDR2 and GTA6, I mean... Rockstars even numbered entries are the weaker ones.

[Team Andromeda]

You say Rockstar are working hard on maximising GTAVI, making everything shiny in 4K.
I say Rockstar are busy working hard on maximising profit on GTAV and RDR2.

Oh the 'shiny' dig. that's so last gen. I would guess that given GTA V world was so incredible and vast, The team are really having to work hard to try and top it with todays current gen visuals . I don't think its an easy task. But still in another thread people have a dig at Ubisoft for making too many Assassins Creed games, So can developers ever win ?


And I don't have any issues with Rockstar doing very well off GTA V, they deserve it. The game is a masterpiece and incredible to think its work of a UK studio too

[Team Andromeda]

The irony is the very same market forces that ensure Rockstar prioritises their mobile, freemium online game are the exact same reasons why Microsoft added loot boxes to all Halo's MP modes, why Ubisoft added Lootboxes to Ghost Recon Wildlands and why Rainbow Six Siege is a pure PVP game rammed with expensive to buy operators, yearly passes and cosmetics.

You aren't really forced, you have a choice. Halo V, Rainbow Six Siege the multiplayer content in base games is packed enough and the free content given out in Rainbow Six Siege is to be commended

Bingo! It is extremely unlikely they are prioritising GTA 6 as much as they claim

What next, Nintendo are milking Zelda because they can only one Zelda game each gen? Making Huge vast games takes a lot of work and some teams take their time. I'll expect GTA 6 to impresse when its show off and for the base RD II to be huge, vast and a increabile game .


But we'll have to see