Neither quality nor diversity are objective measures, and I’d certainly disagree with you that they didn’t improve.
Comment on Game prices should have increased with every new generation, former PlayStation US boss says
k1ck455kc@sh.itjust.works 17 hours ago
The quality of games did not improve, in fact game quality and diversity has deteriorated. The quantity of content has dropped off as well. Graphics fidelity and production costs have skyrocketed though.
Graphics are so superficial when it comes to games anyhow, why would anyone pay more for a pretty waste of time?
iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 16 hours ago
k1ck455kc@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
Yes both very subjective. Accessibility and streamlining gameplay has seemed to be the focus. Developing unique, novel but also enjoyable new gameplay experiences? (the reason i believe most people game) That ended with the Wii, Ps3 and 360
iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
I will, respectfully, still disagree with that assertion. Just because Assassin’s Creed, Call of Duty, and the like are on their umpteenth entry, does not mean that no more unique and novel games are being made.
k1ck455kc@sh.itjust.works 14 hours ago
I would argue that AAA full priced gaming space is not where that innovation has been happening in recent years, it has mostly been with lower priced indies.
Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Well, because purchasing power has also collapsed in that span of time, obvi
/s
Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 17 hours ago
All everyone shoveling money and then praising remasters incessantly.
ampersandrew@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
Diversity and quality are both going to be difficult to measure objectively, and I’d argue both are still in better supply today. Quantity is far easier to prove objectively. Not only are there just far more games out there, but try some like for like comparisons of some of your favorite long-running franchises on How Long to Beat. Assassin’s Creed II was 20-25 hours; Assassin’s Creed: Shadows is 35-64. Halo 2 was 9-12; Halo Infinite is 11-20. Baldur’s Gate 3 is close to as long as its two predecessors combined. Call of Duty is three games in one now.
k1ck455kc@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
Quantity is directly proportionate to quality though, starfield and its 1000s of repetitive planets are the perfect example of this. Would any halo fan rather play 20 hours of infinite or 20 hours of halo 2…?
Yes there have been outliers of increased quality and quantity over the last decade, but in the full priced AAA space nowadays, that is the exception not the rule.
ampersandrew@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Quantity is directly proportionate to quality though
I’d disagree with that premise. It’s not like they’re making just as much game in the same amount of time. Games are taking way longer to make these days than they used to. As I’m 70+ hours into Kingdom Come: Deliverance II and nowhere near done, they could have made about 2/3 as much game as they made, and it still would have been phenomenal and worth the price. The same goes for Baldur’s Gate 3, not to say that I’m unhappy about how much of it I have.
I don’t think the high quality games are outliers. We just have so many more games coming out these days that it becomes more and more likely that we get some bangers in that volume. EA or Ubisoft may be putting out fewer games because of how long they take to make, but they’ve got more competition than they did 20 years ago.
k1ck455kc@sh.itjust.works 12 hours ago
As the end user why should i pay sympathetically for the extended dev time of a product that hasnt tangibly improved for my uses?
Yes the price ceiling of $70 does not do justice to games like KCD 2, but all that matters for the end user is perceived value. If the perceived value of any game isnt going up, then it is difficult to charge consumers an increased amount.
KCD 2 and Elden Ring are great examples of RPGs with content that fans perceive as a great value, but only AFTER playing.
Maybe KCD 3 or Elden Ring 2 can push their perceived value beyond $70, but the simple fact is that the majority of AAA games DO NOT offer an amount or quality of content that gamers would consider to be worth $70, especially with the tiering off of content with various editions, passes and DLC.
It is just subjective that you and i disagree about the amount of games that cross the value threshold of $70, but the evidence of a $0 cost increase for full priced games over the past decade or so definitely seems like evidence towards my perspective.
I wish i could pay more money for higher quality games with more content, but the advertising for these products happens within a reciprocal market, and that market has a mean product value of $70.
KCD 2 and Elden Ring have essentially wasted dev time/cost creating bonus content, although the value towards their brands it has created, plus the positive IP mind share, will pay off for them down the road i am sure.
Fermion@feddit.nl 17 hours ago
“Fancy graphics” also doesn’t correlate well with how visually appealing a game is. I would take Ori graphics over CoD any day.