Hard fact: DLC, microtransactions, loot boxes are the things keeping the console gaming industry alive. Otherwise...

I SEE CLEARLY

This 'fact' is a choice: companies are choosing to make games that are too expensive. No one is forcing them to.

>Well actually they are mostly listed companies with shareholders that expect a substantial ROI.
>The law requires them to deliver the best possible ROI for investors.

By choice; every company chooses which legal jurisdiction to be incorporated and therefore what legal environment to be subject to in regards company law. They do not have to choose to be incorporated in places like Delaware and Luxembourg which have this legal requirement; they choose them.

To defend this retardation, the industry invented the term 'triple A games'. No one was talking like this just a few years ago. The con is to pretend that there is a special category of games where the quality and expectations are set by how much it cost to make and they get everyone else pretending along with them. Rockstar and CD Project can do it because when they release a game, it's an event; they don't release many games and the ones they have released are substantial in terms of content. Few 'triple A games' are going to deliver anything like the content that the GTA, RDR or the Witcher series' have, but they all expect players to cough up the same amount of money because companies overspent on developing games.

This is why they have an autistic fit when games come along that show them up by being profitable without the trying to milk every penny out of us.

I would imagine marketing costs are what have caused this.
I suppose actual develolment costs have gone up, but only due to the amount of people employed. Wages are probably the same.

Companies work on turnover. They have to increase turnover by x% every year to the bosses can give themselves a salary bonus.
No one cares about profit.

Those things are the only reason mobile makes any money at all, take them away and console + pc will be the only moneymaking platforms.

AND I NEVER DREW A DIME

Hard fact: You think you know me

Maybe these companies should scale back on making games with bleeding edge graphics and insisting on unnecessary technological bloat in favor of making games that are affordable and, yknow, fun from an efficient design standpoint rather than simply hyper expensive cinematic experiences?

>DLC, microtransactions, loot boxes are the things keeping the console gaming industry alive
Objectively wrong because there are profitable games that don't have any microtransactions, loot boxes or DLC. For example Sekiro.

Or maybe you should stop buying those "cinematic experiences" and putting so much emphasis on graphics and framerate for that to happen. Stop blaming the greedy fucks (don't get me wrong, they are greedy fucks) and take a hard look at the retarded consumer base. Don't fucking buy the stuff. DLC, microtransactions, pay to win... that shit exists because people BUY IT.

Attached: 1516707949608.jpg (480x448, 31.46K)

>be me
>gaming in 2006
>DOWNLOADABLE CONTENT!!! HOLY SHIIIT THEY CAN ADD ALL SORT OF STUFF EVEN AFTER THE GAME RELEASED
>gaming in 2020
>wtf they announced a DLC before the game even came out? fuck how much did they take out from the game
man I still remember back then how excited I was hearing about "Downloadable content", I was young and naive, I actually believed the gaming industry will make most of it. they did but in the other way.

I take it you live somewhere where taxes on high-incomes are lower or equal to taxes on capital gains. Here in the UK, no boss wants to be paid a higher 'salary' if they can receive it as capital instead; the tax on capital gain is lower than the higher-rate of income tax.

The rules change depending on the legal environment and companies have a choice of legal environments.

If that's true, then it might as well just collapse and move to mobile. Quality of AAA games has degraded so much that its not worth buying into anymore.

Before 'DLC', games still got 'content updates' along with patches. Sometimes you could download them from the web, but most came on discs included in PC gaming mags.

The only innovation in DLC was in charging people for something that was already included in the price of the game, because developers understood they owed their players for their success.

>Or maybe you should stop buying those "cinematic experiences" and putting so much emphasis on graphics and framerate for that to happen.
I already don't. Most everything I play is years old and I pretty much never buy new games anyways. Most of what I play is either old or has indieshit graphics and good gameplay.

There is nothing I can do about retarded consumers with deep pockets rewarding these companies for shitty, risky business strategies that involve them stringing along these retards with loot crates and shit. If it's profitable, it is the consumers' fault, but let's not pretend the industry is powerless to take other routes.

It makes sense for the big boys to do this carrot on a stick bullshit, but there's plenty of room for studios to take more middle ground options and they simply choose not to.

I dont need all that fancy shit

Attached: hedon.png (1366x768, 1.25M)

actual development is just one part of equation.
problem lies in marketing budgets inflated into oblivion, often times costing multiples of development itself.
so... yeah, i can imagine all that cancer being necesary to fund hiring holywood superstars shilling games.

Attached: 548.jpg (250x354, 33.3K)

I was never excited about DLC as a concept. I always hated it. But I'm probably older than you so I was older when it was announced. I already got 'dlc" unlockables and extras for free when I was a kid. The only thing that changed is they started charging for it and game rarely ever have free extras anymore. Alternate costumes used to just be free(see: Resident Evil) and the same with additional game modes and other shit.

This is false. The videogame industry is is the richest industry in the entire world and the loss of DLC, microtransactions and lootboxes etc would not keep them from the top.
And even if you were to make the argument that it wouldn't be profitable enough to warrant making regular games over mobile games, while a much more sensible argument than claiming that it's simply not profitable at all, is still inaccurate because not even the mobile market would be able to handle all the developers jumping on it.

The videogames industry would survive. They would remain the most profitable form of entertainment ever.

Consider the following: PC gamers destroyed the videogame industry
>Focus on graphics and framerate over gameplay and mechanics.
>Made the expansion model for games a thing
>joined games as a subscription model long before anyone else had a chance
>joined STEAM and its draconian -you don't own your games anymore- concept in droves.
>Made on-line only games like Battlefield a thing. Made Blizzard millions of dollars with WoW.
I mean, let's take a long, hard fucking look at ourselves before we start casting the blame here.

Attached: 1523431195488.jpg (467x700, 45.26K)

Attached: rimworld.jpg (1280x720, 125.55K)

>let's not pretend the industry is powerless to take other routes
I don't think anyone here is trying to pretend that they can't do anything about it, but why would I make LESS money when I can make MORE? Investors want money, and sadly, this triple A bullshit does seem to work in that regard.

Attached: 1515384171859.png (640x480, 247.59K)

this guy gets it. They don't have to dump so much money into development and marketing but they do. So fuck em.

>Made Blizzard millions of dollars with WoW.
I still remember when WC3 got content updates like all the tavern heroes and the additional campaign missions, complete with new items and stuff.
For free. For fucking free.

I hate WoW. And I hate what Blizzard has become.

WoW helped kill vidya no doubt but the rest of that shit you posted is retarded.

Then surely you can refute it, right?

Read OP's post. He's insisting that the only thing "keeping gaming alive" for these companies is DLC, lootbox, and other methods of penny pinching bullshit. It is not. They do, in fact, have plenty of other options to be successful WITHOUT those options, they just choose not to take those routes. They don't NEED them, they're deliberately relying on them because they're exploitative and profitable if they're a bigger studio. It is not necessary or even ideal to use that model in all cases. Gaming studios have the option of cutting back on ridiculous development costs.

K, Still not buying a game that has them

Attached: 235354523.jpg (500x500, 42.78K)

Let them die

Attached: tometaping.jpg (500x324, 28.75K)

>To defend this retardation, the industry invented the term 'triple A games'. No one was talking like this just a few years ago.
>just a few years ago
Triple A has been in common use since Playstation two, dumbshit.

You are answering yourself here. Yes, they don't NEED them, but it does make them a fuck-ton of money because there are a lot of retards who will give them the dough. Again, why would I make LESS money and be somewhat successful when I can make MORE and be more successful? Investors and suits only think about money. They don't care about exploitation or cutting costs if it doesn't translate to straight profit.

Only devs and publishers have themselves to blame for pushing MUH GRAPHICS to the point where 95% of a game's 100+ million dollar budget is for that alone. Plenty of games come out with modest budgets and passable graphics that still make a good profit because people are there for the game, not just to stare at landscapes.

It's just that modern movies, their budgets are so bloated from having to use so many special effects to placate their nu-audience that are only there to see explosions. An audience they would have never obtained if they didn't make movies into fucking amusement park rides

>Back in the day, people were fine with barebones games that had tight and nuance gameplay and that was the standard.
That's a bold claim to make considering back in the day games tended to have far more content than games do today.

You're being dense. Let me simplify it.

OP's assertion: These companies NEED to use loot boxes, crates, DLC whoring, etc in order to survive

My response: No, they don't. They just choose to because they can profit off of retards, so they forcefully use risky business practices and make their money through these gutting means

You: Why wouldn't they if they can make more money that way?

Your argument isn't wrong necessarily, but it's completely irrelevant to the topic.

In the words of James T Kirk "let them die" if this is cost triple A gaming can fuck right off

Tone graphics, advertising, and team size way back. Move towards mid budget games away from AAA monstrosity, stop trying to bait people into buying your shitty, barely interactive set piece simulator with shiny graphics and big name voice actors.

There, just brought your costs down 40~60%

Nobody:
Not a soul:
Not even baby sneed:
Yas Forums: REDDIT SPACING!!!!

He is struck by a sudden realization that he is a grown-ass man dedicating his life to fucking stupid American fake fighting.

>Framerate effects gameplay
>there's nothing wrong with the expansion model
>was necessary when server costs were too much for a mid level publisher without them unfortunately they stuck around
>Steam caught on because it became more convenient

People in the Arena being silent during his big comeback

Not him, but yes I can.
With hands tied and covered eyes in fact.
>muh graphics
It's called progress, not PCs fault it got turned into a factory
>muh on-line
Sorry you were no part of the revolution, before soulless corporates sold their chains to console-plebs
>muh digital
Physical retailers were cancerous as digital ones. If you live outside the west, the availability is a god-send.

All Pc gave the world, was the light of progress.
Corporations proceed to steal this flame and make console mud-people exchange their souls for scraps, giving corps power to enslave this industry.

>Hard lie

>Framerate effects gameplay
To a point, and depending on the game.
>there's nothing wrong with the expansion model
There is if it becomes a way to sell less of a game to audiences for the same asking price. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
>was necessary when server costs were too much for a mid level publisher without them unfortunately they stuck around
Again, good intentions don't make up for the shit that it has brought up.
>Steam caught on because it became more convenient
As opposed to GoG that let you own your fucking games without the bullshit and it was equally convenient. STEAM caught on because of PC Gamer's hard-on for Valve and they supported it without seeing what it would bring.

Attached: 1533521818309.jpg (944x712, 99.03K)

these companies just need to lower development costs (mostly for graphic fidelity and advertising) and actually makes some good original fucking games

This.

They are prioritising short term profit over long term growth. CDPR is in the position it is in due to not being greedy at first and providing substantial games from day 1. Now they're the daddy big bollocks of Poland. They make more money as an indie then a lot of major publishers do. There are always better ways than "I WANT ALL THE MONEY NOW!"

It's the only thing keeping shit games alive.

Gamers are literally the most gullible sheep in the western market. Like what incentive to publishers have to actually finish a game if they already have everyone’s money from the preorders? They can charge for the promise of finishing a game up front, then charge a subscription fee for whatever they don’t feel like.
So it’s no surprise that anyone saying this about microtransactions isn’t immediately lynched.

This user gets it.
Companies like EA and Activision live off of this bullshit.
>hahahaha, sorry guise, it was a joke. We promise to behave next time
An every time the retards will buy whatever comes out next, no questions asked.

I disagree OP. If those things never existed, the market would've evolved differently, and if those things disappeared overnight, the market would have to evolve. Giving them the easy out of "THEY HAFTA DO IT" is giving them another mile

Attached: 1577186097736.png (1024x545, 587.31K)