@jinzo9988: Unlockables use to typically be "This 12 polygon shirt is now green instead of red" or "here is a 4 Polygon triangle on your head that kinda looks like a dunce cap"
@kevo44: Then just don't buy them? to some people they will be worth it. Also Farcry isn't "just" singleplayer it has a multiplayer mode as well and co-op
@scrimmybingus: Be prepared to only play play indie games and smaller games then or be a year or two late to every party.
in all honesty I can see why you would want to do that but it doesn't really change their minds because they see data on their sales, not really data on their "not sales"
Publishers will see that 90% of their player base bought microtransactions at some point, because the rest of the player base thats against them didn't buy the game and give them data at all. Im not saying you have to buy the game and play ti without microtransactions to show them this, but I am saying just not buying games because they don't have microtransaction isn't going to change their minds and you are the only one losing out.
@Mogan: As video games live and die on the internet you are absolutely correct. They are an overblown issue. That is just how the internet is. Lots of people will be passionate and say stuff on the internet then never care about it in person or do anything about it. even half the people who say "Preordering is the worst don't do it" will preorder games THEY want or like. The Vocal minority and all that and the internet is a great echo chamber.
@jakesnakeel: Time savers can be separate but also not really affecting gameplay. Like if Fallout 4 had an option to buy Cap with RW money. Yes it gives you an advantage, but they are also everywhere in game and it wont really help you out after 2 hours into the game.
@legamurfacexd: To be fair, the Gamespot interviewer asked if it was playable offline and they answered the question. I don't really see them boasting "offline play" anywhere else as a feature
@genji_shimada: CDProjektRed was not an independent studio for a long time. They had a budget of 81 million dollars on the Witcher 3. They also had a team of 250 people working on it. They knew they were going to make majority of that back based of the Witcher 1 sales, which was published by Atari, and Witcher 2 sales. They were a runaway success which happens some times, but is not a guaranteed thing no matter how good the game is.
They aren't cutting content or quality to and charging you more, they are trying to add more contents thats demanded of them but its in trying to put more in that its start suffering. Maybe you would prefer a short game that higher quality but not everyone feels the same. Its easy to find comments and reviews saying "This game was shorter at only 12-24 hours" and put that as a negative or reason not to play something no matter how good the game play is or what other content is in it(MP or like the Farcade in here).
Games for the average person are easier and more affordable to make, but that doesn't hold when scaling up to AAA size games. Most use their own Engine because a lot of companies that make engines charge based on sales 5-15% of sales go to them. Plus often their is Licensing fees. Thats why BIG AAA Companies make their own engine as they can use it longer and on multiple projects and it end up being cheaper in the long run rather than pay an external company 5-15% of their sales. They also get more freedom and control with this.
The Quality of a game doesn't come from the engine along, it mostly comes from hours put in. AAA games get their size and quality from Team size where hundreds of people are working 8-12 hours days to make this product. That is not even counting support staff needed when teams get to that size. Its actually a very complicated thing and a lot of things are done with very calculated moves.
I agree somethings are just predatory and need to go, like lootboxes, MT where you can just pick what you want and get it and don't affect gameplay is something I am perfectly okay with as it gives me an option to keep supporting devs who's games I like.
@cappy: As well the ballooning cost is coming from the demand for better graphics/more content than before. Where a team of 200 15 years ago would have been incredibly massive and seem excessive, its on the low end of AAA development now. On top of these people being more skilled and being worth more for time. The Witcher 3 even had a budget of 81 million dollars, which I am sure they went over with the delays. Even they had a fair amount of marketing.
Its also unique case more of an exception rather than a rule. The first Witcher was published by Atari and did have a lot of marketing for it.The studio already had a reputation and despite a few PR hiccups on The Witcher 2, wanted the next game.
They weren't trying to reach out to new people, they were aiming for the same people as before. While most studios aim for a boarder audience and want to try and get new people in on their games. Watch for CDProjektRed's next game im sure it will have lots of marketing. As unless its a Witcher game people wont be as interested unless they are given a reason to be interested.
fierygrave's comments