The specter of a GTA 6 delay haunts the games industry: 'Some companies are going to tank' if they guess wrong, says analyst
-
If your game can't even complete with a game nobody knows anything about and doesn't even have a set release date, maybe your game just fucking sucks?
I do wanna point out that one of the Horizon games (I believe the second) got pretty screwed by releasing within a week of Elden Ring and didn't suck. Publishers big and small do need to be careful to not release within a time frame of absolutely massive releases such as Elden Ring and, inevitably, GTA6.
Even if the game doesn't let you play on release day, I'm willing to bet my kidney that it'll sell millions of copies and nothing big will be released within a month of it
-
And yet, these days I am finding better games, made by smaller teams, for lower prices (usually between $30-40) from indie devs.
If you like bigger games, and plenty do, them charging a higher price for it up front makes it more likely that they're made sustainably. If a game costs $100M to make, the difference between breaking even on $70 versus $60 is hundreds of thousands of additional customers.
-
Was the $100 price ever confirmed? I thought it was just rumored?
Gaming industry pundits are gooning so hard for the prospect of $100.00 standard games they keep parroting this out
-
And yet, these days I am finding better games, made by smaller teams, for lower prices (usually between $30-40) from indie devs.
I simply chose two big, well known, and beloved titles for the same of expediency.
This problem is not unique to big budget games.
Indie devs are getting screwed too. You saying that you've found great games for $30-40 from indie devs isn't an argument against more sustainable pricing like you think it is.
If the dev budget for the indie game was 5% of the AAA game but the price was 50% then you've literally just helped prove my point
-
Cartridge manufacturing and distribution was hella expensive back then and that took a big bite on any sales.
Digital storefronts do take as well their lion share though, but that's on sales.
While that may be true, the costs and budgets we're dealing with today are orders of magnitude higher than they were back then. Physical product manufacturing doesn't even come close to making up the difference when you factor in digital storefront costs.
-
If your game can't even complete with a game nobody knows anything about and doesn't even have a set release date, maybe your game just fucking sucks?
Release timing is always a critical thing to think about, whether you're talking about games, movies, TV series, or toys.
-
Huh? For £70 I'm getting -
- Huge open world
- Very fun and emergent gameplay
- Likely a world with multiple competing systems and subsystems to play with
- Incredibly detailed world to get lost and immersed in
- Given the RDR2 writing, likely a really well written story
But you've decided to latch onto one aspect of the previous game (the Online mode) to try to be as contrarian as possible?
I sure as heck will pay £70 for the above. And so will many millions of others. Sorry if that does a poo on your hate-train.
Huh? For £70 I’m getting
Based on what? You don't actually know until it gets released. Sure, past history and reputation are certainly things to factor in, but we've seen plenty of major gaming companies shit the bed, despite their reputations.
Wait until it launches and the reviews come in.
-
Take your console exclusive bullshit and shove it up your ass. I'll play it when it's on PC. And only on PC.
And only on PC
That's going to be a long wait my friend.
-
Fun facts incoming!
Cost of "Mario 64" on release = $59.99
Development budget for Mario 64 = ~$1.56milInflation adjusted Mario 64 cost in 2022 = $111.91
Inflation adjusted Mario 64 budget in 2022 = ~$2.91milCost of "Elden Ring" on release = $59.99
Estimated dev. budget for Elder Ring = $100mil-200milMario 64 units sold = ~12mil
Elder Ring units sold = ~28milThese details are provided without comment. You do the math and decide whether the fact that prices haven't changed since 1996 might be the reason for some of the enshitification we continue to see.
And now for the comment:
Consumers are horrifyingly resistant to price increases for games. It is directly responsible for many of the shitty monetization models we've seen. Development budget continue to rise, even on indie games, while consumers pay less and less in "real money value" over time.
It's completely unsustainable and the very reason the "business types" get involved, forcing unpopular monetization schemes
Now throw in average incomes on the low, medium, and high ends and see if that makes any difference in your criticism of people not wanting to spend so much on a game they might get a hundred or so hours out of.
Hell, throw in the average housing costs and costs of consumables while we're at it.
-
And only on PC
That's going to be a long wait my friend.
It's been the same for... ~25 years, since at least GTA3.
-
Now throw in average incomes on the low, medium, and high ends and see if that makes any difference in your criticism of people not wanting to spend so much on a game they might get a hundred or so hours out of.
Hell, throw in the average housing costs and costs of consumables while we're at it.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the capital structure is fair by any means. I understand all the reasons why people - especially right now - are struggling to justify big purchases.
And I will readily agree that inefficient and improper use of resources is one of the contributing factors to ballooning development budgets
That said, video games are - and I challenge you to disprove this - easily one of the best investments for entertainment. Dollars-per-hour of fun on a 20hr, $60 game is $3. For a live service game where people spend hundreds of thousands of hours playing it can get below $0.10 per hour.
-
No, I'm honestly surprised. I've barely heard anything about GTA VI. Seriously. I don't care about it, none of my friends have talked about it despite being the kinda game that they'd be into, and I've only seen one or two articles on it.
You sure it's that highly anticipated? My observation is that people have gotten really sick and tired of AAA games, and this is a shift that's occurred since RDR2 came out. Very few of the people I know still regularly play AAA games, and those who do almost never buy them on launch. I haven't seen anywhere near the same amount of hype for GTA VI as I saw for GTA IV or GTA V.
You're accusing me of being disingenuous? Maybe you're the one who's buying into the hype and overestimating public interest. Or perhaps the true answer is somewhere in the middle. Who knows. I was not intentionally downplaying your favorite series though.
just a reminder that you live in a different culture than the average video game player. I haven't even completed GTA5 and aren't in the circle of GTA players. Hell, the funnest part for me is driving in a really big circle while listening to music, but as out of touch as I am, I know it's really REALLY hyped
-
Fun facts incoming!
Cost of "Mario 64" on release = $59.99
Development budget for Mario 64 = ~$1.56milInflation adjusted Mario 64 cost in 2022 = $111.91
Inflation adjusted Mario 64 budget in 2022 = ~$2.91milCost of "Elden Ring" on release = $59.99
Estimated dev. budget for Elder Ring = $100mil-200milMario 64 units sold = ~12mil
Elder Ring units sold = ~28milThese details are provided without comment. You do the math and decide whether the fact that prices haven't changed since 1996 might be the reason for some of the enshitification we continue to see.
And now for the comment:
Consumers are horrifyingly resistant to price increases for games. It is directly responsible for many of the shitty monetization models we've seen. Development budget continue to rise, even on indie games, while consumers pay less and less in "real money value" over time.
It's completely unsustainable and the very reason the "business types" get involved, forcing unpopular monetization schemes
meh, I don't think that the reason AAA games are bad is because they cost less. I think it's just greed and rushing the developers.
-
And only on PC
That's going to be a long wait my friend.
I'd rather wait than buy a console for a single game that will barely hit 720p/30.
-
If your game can't even complete with a game nobody knows anything about and doesn't even have a set release date, maybe your game just fucking sucks?
"Just make good games" doesn't really work in the age where we've got tens of thousands of game releases per year compared to the age of a few hundred games per year.
-
This post did not contain any content.
controversial take, but I hope they do delay it. Better a good game late than a bad game early. As big as this release is, it HAS to be good.
-
Fun facts incoming!
Cost of "Mario 64" on release = $59.99
Development budget for Mario 64 = ~$1.56milInflation adjusted Mario 64 cost in 2022 = $111.91
Inflation adjusted Mario 64 budget in 2022 = ~$2.91milCost of "Elden Ring" on release = $59.99
Estimated dev. budget for Elder Ring = $100mil-200milMario 64 units sold = ~12mil
Elder Ring units sold = ~28milThese details are provided without comment. You do the math and decide whether the fact that prices haven't changed since 1996 might be the reason for some of the enshitification we continue to see.
And now for the comment:
Consumers are horrifyingly resistant to price increases for games. It is directly responsible for many of the shitty monetization models we've seen. Development budget continue to rise, even on indie games, while consumers pay less and less in "real money value" over time.
It's completely unsustainable and the very reason the "business types" get involved, forcing unpopular monetization schemes
You're very conveniently and likely deliberately leaving out that more than 1/2 the cost for Mario 64 was manufacturing the cartridge...
-
And yet, these days I am finding better games, made by smaller teams, for lower prices (usually between $30-40) from indie devs.
This is where it's at now, 'smaller' teams that actually care about the thing they're making.
We don't need games made by teams of 19,000 people like AC:Shadows, it's bloat. Skyrim was made with a team of less than 300.
-
"Just make good games" doesn't really work in the age where we've got tens of thousands of game releases per year compared to the age of a few hundred games per year.
Well making bad games isn't working so well either is it...
-
Huh? For £70 I’m getting
Based on what? You don't actually know until it gets released. Sure, past history and reputation are certainly things to factor in, but we've seen plenty of major gaming companies shit the bed, despite their reputations.
Wait until it launches and the reviews come in.
I'm responding to a comment assuming it'll be nothing but a "pay to win" game, despite any real evidence of that - I'm pointing out the expectations of GTA VI.
This sub is like Reddit on steroids. Just a bunch of contrarian kids trying to start arguments on the internet. Bizarre.
