Heh, this is all a biproduct of consumers being incredibly intolerant to rising prices of video games, despite the sky-rocketing development costs
this is an uninformed and illogical view. For one, game prices have been artificially high compared to development costs for decades due to the business model pioneered by nintendo in the 1980s to prevent market busts like the crash in 1981.
For two, and more importantly, a game has next to no production costs once developed. each copy you sell is pretty much pure profit- a boxed game costs between 2 and 5 dollars to produce, between 5 and 10 to get on shelves if you're not spending extra getting promo spots (don't get me started on how games retail works >.>) If you're putting your game up on a DD service, cuts range between 2% and 5% at the worst. Pure profit.
This means that the best way of getting more profit is not to raise prices but to increase your player base. Sure modern games cost a shitload more to develop and market, but they also reach an audience 20 or 30 times the size they used to. The industry gets buyers, has more money to spend, and spends it making games capable of reaching even more people. The more they spend, the more people will buy, unless they fail super hard.
Thus profits stay proportionally the same, but as the audience increases net profits rise. That is the business model the major publishers work off, at least in general. Of course, games like call of duty MW would have made regular profits, MW2 would have made INSANE profits because half the models, the engine, the brand building, tools, distribution model etc were already paid for and done. If you gave developers the same amount of money you do to make an original to make a sequel, you'd see something four or five times the length and quality you do. Dirty little secret, eh?
Yes, that's true; entertainment products follow a very elastic demand curve (the higher the price goes, the more the demand drops). While you only make 'pure profit' once you've recouped the cost of the ~$6M it took to develop the game over the last 1.5-2 years, at $50 profit per box, you're looking at only needing to sell 120,000 copies before you're making profit. Plus, like you say, with sequels you've already got the brand awareness, platform and some reusable content to leverage. So, ultimately, who's to blame for Call of Duty 4 being no more innovative than its predecessors when the last installment sold 5.6 million copies in North America alone in a single day? The consumers. We lap this stuff up. The people crying about lack of innovation are the same ones slathering over games like Skyrim, which is going to be little to no different than its predecessors, while continuing to ignore the true pieces of art coming out of the indie game scene.
People want innovation and great games, but aren't willing to do the workload to just look around. It's everywhere, but people are such complete hypocrits that they won't look at them unless they come in full 3D and put their blazing-fast, over-the-top desktop rig to the test.
Heh, this is all a biproduct of consumers being incredibly intolerant to rising prices of video games, despite the sky-rocketing development costs
this is an uninformed and illogical view. For one, game prices have been artificially high compared to development costs for decades due to the business model pioneered by nintendo in the 1980s to prevent market busts like the crash in 1981.
For two, and more importantly, a game has next to no production costs once developed. each copy you sell is pretty much pure profit- a boxed game costs between 2 and 5 dollars to produce, between 5 and 10 to get on shelves if you're not spending extra getting promo spots (don't get me started on how games retail works >.>) If you're putting your game up on a DD service, cuts range between 2% and 5% at the worst. Pure profit.
This means that the best way of getting more profit is not to raise prices but to increase your player base. Sure modern games cost a shitload more to develop and market, but they also reach an audience 20 or 30 times the size they used to. The industry gets buyers, has more money to spend, and spends it making games capable of reaching even more people. The more they spend, the more people will buy, unless they fail super hard.
Thus profits stay proportionally the same, but as the audience increases net profits rise. That is the business model the major publishers work off, at least in general. Of course, games like call of duty MW would have made regular profits, MW2 would have made INSANE profits because half the models, the engine, the brand building, tools, distribution model etc were already paid for and done. If you gave developers the same amount of money you do to make an original to make a sequel, you'd see something four or five times the length and quality you do. Dirty little secret, eh?
Yes, that's true; entertainment products follow a very elastic demand curve (the higher the price goes, the more the demand drops). While you only make 'pure profit' once you've recouped the cost of the ~$6M it took to develop the game over the last 1.5-2 years, at $50 profit per box, you're looking at only needing to sell 120,000 copies before you're making profit. Plus, like you say, with sequels you've already got the brand awareness, platform and some reusable content to leverage. So, ultimately, who's to blame for Call of Duty 4 being no more innovative than its predecessors when the last installment sold 5.6 million copies in North America alone in a single day? The consumers. We lap this stuff up. The people crying about lack of innovation are the same ones slathering over games like Skyrim, which is going to be little to no different than its predecessors, while continuing to ignore the true pieces of art coming out of the indie game scene.
People want innovation and great games, but aren't willing to do the workload to just look around. It's everywhere, but people are such complete hypocrites that they won't look at them unless they come in full 3D and put their blazing-fast, over-the-top desktop rig to the test.
You can buy indie games and still support "unimaginative" games like Skyrim. In fact the thing I hate most in games is when they put gimmicks in the games in the name of being innovative and completely break the core gameplay. Not everyone wants every new game to be innovative, I don't. There are plenty of things that were done by past games that are long forgotten that can resurrected or done better. The things I want most out of a game are depth, polish, balance and replay value. Also out of the last 4 games I bought the one that tried to be innovative failed hard and has no online community anymore just look at games that offer something different than what the public is use to like Brink, Homefront, Bulletstorm or any other shooter that isn't a clone of COD or Halo.
I'll Also post this video just so this thread doesn't derail. BF3 has a 4 year development cycle which is the one thing that most sets it apart from more recent shooters in my book. I expect some polish and some well designed gameplayed that isn't completely ruined by gimmicks like npc aim bots and rewards for camping.
On June 15 2011 04:41 Parsistamon wrote: Awesome vid swizzy. Hyped me even more :D
I know this has probably been in the thread, but is there a beta, and if so when? is it open?
Yes, there is a beta, I believe it will open (not positive though) and it hasn't started yet. I've read it'll be out pretty close to the games release, about a month or so ahead, similar to BC2.
Edit: And for the record, this is another reason I like Battlefield games much more than CoD. A simple beta could have saved MW2 tons of embarrassment, but these guys seem to think 10 guys in a room are better at finding bugs than a couple hundred thousand people.
On June 15 2011 04:41 Parsistamon wrote: Awesome vid swizzy. Hyped me even more :D
I know this has probably been in the thread, but is there a beta, and if so when? is it open?
Yes, there is a beta, I believe it will open (not positive though) and it hasn't started yet. I've read it'll be out pretty close to the games release, about a month or so ahead, similar to BC2.
Edit: And for the record, this is another reason I like Battlefield games much more than CoD. A simple beta could have saved MW2 tons of embarrassment, but these guys seem to think 10 guys in a room are better at finding bugs than a couple hundred thousand people.
Beta testers are good at finding bugs, but very poor at transmitting information about them. The signal to noise ratio in the bug reports coming out of a beta is absolutely horrific. Blizzard did the smart thing with their WoW patch betas by incorporating a very simple, easy-to-use and self-explanatory system for filing bugs that all companies hoping to do Betas should take the time to implement.
Q: Is the Physical Warfare Pack available in all regions, or just in the UK? A: It will be available worldwide at select retailers. It was first announced in the UK. Exact details for other countries and retailers will be announced at a later date.
Q: Will Physical Warfare Pack imbalance the game? A: The three exclusive items in the Physical Warfare Pack were specifically chosen not to be overpowered or imbalance or break the game in any way.
Q: Why do I want the Physical Warfare Pack? A: Owning these items will give you a more varied arsenal, but it will not give you a significant advantage on the battlefield.
Q: Is the Back to Karkand expansion pack exclusive to pre-orders? A: No. You can also buy it separately if you do not pre-order Battlefield 3. Back to Karkand will be available the exact same date after the launch of Battlefield 3 no matter if you pre-ordered or buy it separately.
Q: When will the Back to Karkand expansion pack be released? A: We have not yet announced the Back to Karkand expansion pack release date.
Q: How much does the Back to Karkand Expansion pack cost? A: We have not yet announced a price. However, it will be included in the Limited Edition at no extra charge.
Q: Do I have to choose between Back to Karkand and the Physical Warfare Pack as my pre-order bonus? A: No. There is no way you can pre-order Battlefield 3: Limited Edition and not end up with the Back to Karkand expansion pack at no extra charge. On top of this, select retailers all over the world will carry the Physical Warfare Pack. Exact details for other countries and retailers will be announced at a later date.
Q: Why do you offer pre-order bonus items? A: Because we believe in rewarding our core fanbase with special offers — such as giving them the Back to Karkand expansion pack at no extra charge.
I'll Also post this video just so this thread doesn't derail. BF3 has a 4 year development cycle which is the one thing that most sets it apart from more recent shooters in my book. I expect some polish and some well designed gameplayed that isn't completely ruined by gimmicks like npc aim bots and rewards for camping.
I'll be contrary again I'm afraid . Most games, particularly FPS and RPG titles, have 4-5 year dev cycles (3ish if no engine or tools are required), often beginning development before the previous game from their developer is finished. MW2 was started before MW1 was finished for example. BF3 was probably going through some full on testing when BFBC2 came out, in fact I feel that game was probably something of a massively multiplayer expensive public beta test in some regards (MMEPBT ). The complexity of modern games projects requires that asset bases are built years in advance to allow for the production heavy elements of design (level design, aesthetic design) to go ahead with a decent timeframe. I know for certain that the guys behind the unreal 3 engine got to work on unreal 4 about a week after they wrapped up the former- somewhere around mid 2006.
I think the most crucial aspect of BF3 is whether they make a good system for a variety of gametypes. I think having a cod style team deathmatch or assault between small teams sans vehicles is essential, and armoured combat maps where everyone is mounted would also be valuable. If they just stick to the traditional BF ticketfight and point assault formats, they'll have trouble sucking in the more freeform shooter players. I have to admit this is the first shooter that I'm genuinely getting pumped for for a while. Remember that all paradigms such as regenning health, a melee key, class customization and so forth were once gimmicks. It's not so much how gimmicky a shooter is, but how those gimmicks contribute to the game. BF3 seems to have some genuinely interesting ideas, the suppressive fire particularly caught my eye. I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays.
We should get a poll going for the whole BF3 vs MW3 debate. Seams like every other site has one. I wouldn't mind seeing what the TL com think. Any chance of adding one to the OP.
My Thoughts: There have only been 2 games in my life that a repeatedly install again and again. Those 2 games are starcraft broodwar and BF2. Although I played COD 1 and 2 extensively (was in a pretty alright clan). Nothing for me beats the fun I have had in BF2 (and of-course starcraft <3). The new cods don't bring anything new to the table. My vote goes to Battlefield 3. Here's a toast to the countless hours I am yet to lose playing it. HERE HERE.
On January 07 2011 07:31 Hawk wrote: Fuck BC3, I'd rather see them go back to 2142 and do it right. Talk about wasted potential. That was basically BC2 + sci-fi textures and Star Wars AT-STs. Could have been a lot cooler.
Without a major engine overhaul, I don't know what they can actually improve on.
The UI will probably be completely different by the time beta hits in september, just look at BC2's UI in alpha
Also I'm pretty sure the AK74 is for the assault and/or engineer class, there were no SMGs in the live demo - I'm guessing the recon class gets the option of SMGs
Probably giving carbines to engineers, while the assault class retain full battle/assault rifles.
SMGs would be pretty ideal alternative primary loadout for engineers and recon.
edit: And I really hope they fix the hit detection and registry issues that always plagued the BF series. In BC2, there were some issues that were noticeable; especially with knifing.
On June 15 2011 13:37 Kelberot wrote: sigh, so apparently I can't use paypal to pre-order this? not to mention being forced to install their new platform for just this single game...
way to make things annoying, EA.
Really? is their new origin crap going to be a requirement to play the game? If so that annoys me. Already have enough accounts for random things.
On June 15 2011 13:37 Kelberot wrote: sigh, so apparently I can't use paypal to pre-order this? not to mention being forced to install their new platform for just this single game...
way to make things annoying, EA.
Really? is their new origin crap going to be a requirement to play the game? If so that annoys me. Already have enough accounts for random things.
yes you do, I'm glad this doesn't bother me at all lol.
Q: Is the Physical Warfare Pack available in all regions, or just in the UK? A: It will be available worldwide at select retailers. It was first announced in the UK. Exact details for other countries and retailers will be announced at a later date.
Q: Will Physical Warfare Pack imbalance the game? A: The three exclusive items in the Physical Warfare Pack were specifically chosen not to be overpowered or imbalance or break the game in any way.
Q: Why do I want the Physical Warfare Pack? A: Owning these items will give you a more varied arsenal, but it will not give you a significant advantage on the battlefield.
Q: Is the Back to Karkand expansion pack exclusive to pre-orders? A: No. You can also buy it separately if you do not pre-order Battlefield 3. Back to Karkand will be available the exact same date after the launch of Battlefield 3 no matter if you pre-ordered or buy it separately.
Q: When will the Back to Karkand expansion pack be released? A: We have not yet announced the Back to Karkand expansion pack release date.
Q: How much does the Back to Karkand Expansion pack cost? A: We have not yet announced a price. However, it will be included in the Limited Edition at no extra charge.
Q: Do I have to choose between Back to Karkand and the Physical Warfare Pack as my pre-order bonus? A: No. There is no way you can pre-order Battlefield 3: Limited Edition and not end up with the Back to Karkand expansion pack at no extra charge. On top of this, select retailers all over the world will carry the Physical Warfare Pack. Exact details for other countries and retailers will be announced at a later date.
Q: Why do you offer pre-order bonus items? A: Because we believe in rewarding our core fanbase with special offers — such as giving them the Back to Karkand expansion pack at no extra charge.
Speaks for itself really
The issue that the boycott is taking is that EA's marketing department removed content from the game to make it available to pre order exclusively. You can't honestly say that making the only flash suppressor for a sniper rifle doesn't effect an entire play style. I really don't care about the pre order items enough join in the boycott but even I still think EA is shotting themselves in the foot with this marketing gimmick.
Rofl @ DLC content on release. Ignore the fact that they are excluding the most popular maps from previous versions, but the fact that actual GAMEPLAY and a competitive advantage is available for a price is utter and complete bullshit.
EPT
. Most games, particularly FPS and RPG titles, have 4-5 year dev cycles (3ish if no engine or tools are required), often beginning development before the previous game from their developer is finished. MW2 was started before MW1 was finished for example. BF3 was probably going through some full on testing when BFBC2 came out, in fact I feel that game was probably something of a massively multiplayer expensive public beta test in some regards (MMEPBT 
