Readers Feature

[HandsomeDead]

If things were like what the were 20 years ago and everyone bought the "right" games (ones I like) then the industry would be cool and good.  Great insight.

 

I don't like these kinds of nagging arguments, they don't convince anyone.  Most just aren't as invested as us and they're gonna play the game they know and like.  And people feel better about a new game if they feel like they kind of discovered it themselves.  You just gotta be more tactful with your recommendations.

 

With digital games the big thing I don't like is the laws around licensing and ownership which makes games disappear into the digital abyss.  I don't care that much otherwise.  I'm more interested in changing that stuff than nagging about an individuals buying habits.

[Nag]

Maybe I'm part of the problem but apart from books I have no interest in physical media whatsoever... in terms of games this was probably made easier once places to trade them in dried up near me and I can't be bothered with the whole Ebay rigmarole. 

[Maryokutai]

These are two entirely different points or am I missing something? Any landscape is formed by what is succesful in the mainstream, like shiny said that's not a very videogame exclusive issue, and it's probably a stretch to call it an issue in the first place. Of course stuff like GOTY discussions and whatnot would be significantly more interesting if as many people had played excellent underdogs instead of just the hyped up blockbusters – which I think got quite nicely demonstrated this year by the huge amount of people raising their eyebrows at Balatro's nomination at the Keighly's – but that's an extremely unrealistic scenario to aspire to. You just gotta have to live with your casual gaming friends stumbling upon Watch Dogs and telling you it's the best game they've ever played. Which is fine, you can't be tuned into everything after all.

 

The digital-physical thing is a lost cause at this point and the way physical games have been handled recently almost gives me anxiety anyway. Xbox has barely any finished code on discs so the only advantage those give are re-sell opportunities. While Switch cartridges, from what I understand, are built in a way that they need a miniscule amount of electrical charge to work, so in 15-20 years all those games might be dead and unusable. Which will leave me with a truckload of plastic waste in my living room. On the other hand, pumping full price in a download I don't 'own' doesn't really feel like the right way either, so I'm just sticking with the physical stuff for the moment.

 

I agree about the point about how your perceive bought games. Having a copy to hold, unwrap, open and a media to put in your console is a very different feeling than pressing a button and waiting for a bar to fill. It's not quite as romantic, but for me it's comparable with the ritualistic nature of putting on a vinyl record vs. just clicking on a song on Spotify. There's something tangible getting lost, but whether that's just a nostalgic and subjective thing or something that'll eventually end up negatively affecting the whole media consumption aspect, I dunno. Probably the former though.

[mfnick]

2 hours ago, Nag said:

If it is not another EA Sports FC game or Call Of Duty, many don’t care to check them out.

It’s been like this forever. 
 

Id also argue without digital there’d be even less variety in games now. We know AAA has budgets where they can no longer create new IPs & smaller games just don’t seem worth it to them anymore. But the rise of digital has helped keep some variety as Independents can be self published now, games can sold at a cheaper price & they don’t have to sell millions to be a success. You also have smaller publishers like Devolver having good success in this space.

 

AAA wise though I do think there’s a huge problem & the ones made for more “traditional” gamers are dying off due to sales declining. But I’d squarely lay the blame on FTP, Live Service and Gacha games sucking up all the money and time as well as ballooning budgets I’ve explained before. These exist thanks to the digital marketplace but are detrimental for other reasons. The £70 price point is doing new releases no favours either. Inflation, yadda, yadda yadda. People are actually worse off now so it’s still prohibitively expensive. 
 

I still buy majority of games physical as it’s just too expensive on consoles to be digital IMO. Especially if you like to play a lot of games like myself. Games are significantly cheaper physically and I can sell them on. It helps loads. But I still don’t think that’s the main issue. 

[DANGERMAN]

I don't see the two parts of his argument are related, as @Maryokutaisaid. And as @one-armed dwarfsaid, Steam is evidence of that. It's an entirely digital and there's a ton of weird shit showcased. Everything from 1000xResist resist to Chinese malware and porn games sat alongside COD and Elden Ring 

 

I don't see digital stopping people trying new games. I can see something like Game Pass reducing patience but based on here, it means people will often try something new. I think it can suffer from that hard drive full of roms phenomenon, where you have so much choice you the slightest push back and you bounce 

 

It's not on the customer to try new things, it's on the marketing to convince them 

However, if said gamer moans about not having new things then they don't have a leg to stand on. Same in music or TV, when people say there's no good bands around that's bullshit, they've just not looked beyond what they're being served. Our Game of the Year thread showed that there's a quality and variety out there if you're willing to listen to other people's recommendations and gamble on a couple of things 

 

 

[Sly Reflex]

The whole people buying the only big games and sequels has been a thing for decades. I have no idea what the fuck they're on about there. That's exactly where the argument falls apart. Being physical or digital has nothing to do with it.

 

I would argue that digital allows smaller more arthouse games to flourish as well because they will give them equal footing on front pages. On the front pages of steamright now they are cycling through 16 games. Only 8 of them are big hitters like Final Fantasy and Fifa (or whatever the fuck it's called now), 1 is an older game (SW:KotOR) and the rest are games I've never heard of that are indie. Can you imagine going to GAME when it was a thing and them advertising Braid or Kingdom of Keftlings? Fuck no. Outside of something like Rocket League or Stardew I don't think I've seen anything small in one of those places. Feel free to step in and correct me if you have.

 

This article is a load o shite.

[Nag]

 

Quote

A reader suspects that Microsoft will be trying to ingratiate itself with Nintendo, in an attempt to make the Switch 2 more successful than the PS5.

I’m glad to see that 2025 is starting at a fair sprint, for video games, after what seems like years stuck in slow motion, with nothing happening. So far, we’ve had the Nintendo Switch 2 reveal and the Xbox Developer Direct, both of which say a lot about the future.

 

The Nintendo Switch 2 reveal confirmed everything we’d heard about the console so far and showed off a new Mario Kart, although I can understand those upset that Nintendo didn’t show more. For me though the most interesting part was just how popular the video was, with millions watching it and far more positive upvotes than I would’ve guessed seeing how much some fans have been grousing about it.

 

The Xbox Direct was interesting too, with four good looking games and release dates that imply there’s a lot more coming in the second half of the year. PlatinumGames on Ninja Gaiden 4 was a nice surprise, and it all seems the most positive things have looked since Xbox went multiformat.

 

To me, it seems obvious that the Nintendo Switch 2 is going to be a huge success and that Xbox has given up any hope of having console exclusives anymore. I know South Of Midnight isn’t on PlayStation 5 but I’m sure that’s just because they didn’t know about the change of policy when they started the game.

 

So, Microsoft is now essentially a third party publisher. They say they have a next gen console coming up but until that appears the Xbox Series X/S is dead in the water and any money they make from software sales is going to primarily come from PlayStation 5 and PC.

 

That means they’re want to get as pally as possible with Sony. Except Sony aren’t the friendly type and they’re always going to be suspicious of Microsoft, because they’ll always know that the Xbox was meant to oppose them and even if it didn’t work out Microsoft isn’t to be trusted.

 

There’s a couple of Xbox games on Nintendo Switch at the moment, but not many. But considering Microsoft wants to see ‘growth’ and it already gets on much better with Nintendo than it ever has with Sony, I think we can assume that they are going to go all out in their support for the Switch 2 – Halo, Gears Of War, Fable… whatever they can get working they’ll release.

 

We’ve already had exactly that rumour but I’m not sure the source on that didn’t make it up, because it’s so easy to guess anyone could’ve done it.

Nintendo consoles regularly outsell PlayStation and Xbox – the Switch certainly has, this generation and last – and I think that Microsoft’s interest in Switch 2 will be two-fold. They’ll want to open up a new format to their games and greatly increase their audience and… they’ll want to get revenge on Sony.

 

The more successful the Switch 2 is the less room there is for the PlayStation 5 (or PlayStation 6), especially if Sony’s first party line-up keeps being as bad as it is and the third party support for the Switch 2 is much better than the first console, and more in line with Xbox and PlayStation.

 

If Xbox can help to draw customers away from the PlayStation then Microsoft will love that, if not for revenge then as a future opportunity to gain back ground as a console manufacturer again. The games industry might not need three consoles at once, but I think it will always need two.

 

By reader Taylor Moon

 

Tbh I can see this being partially true but the fact terms like "can't be trusted" and "revenge" are being used in regards these huge global companies seems incredibly fucking stupid to me.

[Maryokutai]

That is quite the fanboy console wars fable. 

 

I suppose you could make the point that they own enough IPs to potentially make Playstation a less interesting ecosystem in the long run by not supporting it, but at the same time I also think they're not big enough even for that, especially as the casual market is driven by sports games, GTA and f2p titles from China, and they own neither of them. But in addition to all that, what would be the point? Take significant amounts of revenue cuts and maybe even losses for a decade or more just for a gamble to see prior competition fail? Sounds more like an anime plot than real life.

[mfnick]

Yea I think this is utter bollocks. Xbox are 3rd party now and the Switch 2 is going to be very successful so of course they’re releasing there. But that’s not stopping them coming to PS5 - some will be better there too if you count the PS5 Pro as some have confirmed they’re Pro enhanced.  

[HandsomeDead]

Yeah, the PS5 may even be more of a focus since more of the audience is there and because the systems are similar.  No doubt a lot of their games will be on the Switch 2, because surely PC versions of their games will need to be optimised in a way that brings them inline with the power of the Switch 2.  There may be a few that are too much but I think it'll manage most.

 

But the idea they'll leave the Playstation out for revenge via Nintendo is laughable.  They have all those millions to make back and they aren't leaving cash on the table to get revenge.

[DANGERMAN]

yeah, same as everyone else has said. While you can see the logic of the Switch 2 selling stupidly well it will mean fewer sales for Sony (potentially, I'm not sure they're necessarily the same market), but they've completely missed the step that Microsoft might want to make some money in the meantime. Even then, is the Switch the platform for Gears, Halo, Starfield, COD, etc

[Nag]

 

Quote

A reader argues that rumours of GTA 6 costing up to £100 could be good for gaming, if it ends the need for live service games and microtransactions.

 

There’s a lot of rumours that go around in the video game world and a lot of them seem to come true… just ask Nintendo. One that’s been around for a while now is the idea that Rockstar Games is going to charge $100 (so likely £100) for GTA 6. It was just a rumour and not from one of the better sources, so a lot of people dismissed it – even though you can totally imagine it as something they’d want to do.

 

Now, this week, I read that analysts have ‘hope’ that not only is GTA 6 going to cost that much but that other games will be able to charge that much as well and the ones that can’t justify it can at least increase their price by $10/£10. So £80 would probably become the new norm, with £100 reserved for the very biggest games (I’d imagine Call Of Duty and EA Sports FC, for example).

 

I honestly think this would be a good thing. I know what you’re thinking but hear me out, because I know I’m not the first to say that games need a price rise, and that they’ve become completely disconnected from the amount of time and money need to make them. Which is why we have so few new ideas and too many microtransactions.

 

The most obvious argument in favour of a price rise is that games have barely increased in price since they were invented. Back in the day, new SNES games were either £50 or £60, so prices actually went down at the start of the PlayStation era. I don’t remember how much Starwing (aka Star Fox) was at the time, but I do know it was more expensive than even that.

 

£60 in 1992 is £130 when adjusted for inflation, so not only are games today still cheaper than they were back in the 90s but even increasing them to £100 would be a lot less than even just a standard game back in the cartridge days.

 

I don’t know why publishers don’t constantly try to increase the price. You’d think doing it by just a few pounds every couple of years would get people used to the idea and mean no sudden leaps. But they haven’t done that and so whenever there is a price increase people get very angry.

 

I’m not in favour of this because I’m rich or anything but we’re constantly told that most people only buy a few games each year, so in that sense a modest increase doesn’t seem so bad. It’s not like I’m advocating increasing your grocery bill by double every week.

 

But I believe that many of the problems we have with games at the moment is because publishers are struggling to make enough money from them and have to constantly invent things like DLC and microtransactions to get more money out of people. No game is ever complete nowadays, without buying extra content and the idea of having unlockables that are free just doesn’t happen anymore.

 

They’re always looking to nickel and dime us and, to be honest, I can kind of see why. Before you think I’ve gone crazy I’m not saying everything should be £100 but if something like GTA 6 has taken $2 billion and a decade to make I’m fairly confident it’s going to be worth it.

 

Not every game is going to be in that situation though and I think one of the main benefits of the price increase is that it could pay for the other games. A lot of people don’t realise that most games make little or no profit, most publishers only have one or two big games that make the money and that’s why publishers are so desperate to have a hit live service game, despite it being so unlikely.

 

A price rise would mean they no longer need to chase that rainbow, plus they can make smaller and more experimental games a lot easier. They wouldn’t do being this out of a love of gaming but simply because they know they need new blood and it’s getting harder and harder to afford taking that chance.

 

I for one would be very happy if a £100 EA Sports FC, for example, ended up paying for EA to make some new games and try and stop fleecing everyone. If we know how much a game is going to be upfront and there’s absolutely no hidden extras, I think that’s a lot better situation to what we’ve got today.

 

By reader Grackle

 

As beautiful a sentiment as it is they could hump the price up to £200 a game and microtransactions still wouldn't magically disappear...

[HandsomeDead]

 

Capitalism really has broken brains.

 

Games are already on the high end of being in range of impulsive purchases and they need to be in that range.  If they're £100 they're gonna sell a lot less.  And that inflation take again 😮‍💨

[mfnick]

3 minutes ago, HandsomeDead said:

Capitalism really has broken brains.

This! I’m constantly left speechless by this type of shit. People just want to be taken advantage of…

[shinymcshine]

Rockstar are also one of the few publishers (along with Nintendo) who continue selling their games at full price for a good few years after their release too.

[Craymen Edge]

So naive it's almost cute.

 

But. People need to stop with this game prices have barely risen rubbish. They've gone up every console generation.

They go on about SNES games being expensive, but you were buying hardware. In that same timeframe I was buying games for various home computers at prices between £2.99 - £12.99.

[Maryokutai]

Increasing prices is just an inefficient short term band aid. I think it was one of Sony's ex-CEOs (Yoshida? Laydon?) who mentioned that their budgets more or less double per generation. You can't transfer that cost over to the consumer, nobody's going to buy games that cost 100 bucks or more in their standard edition.

 

The real solution is making games that are sustainable and profitable with the margins allowed by a 60/70 price tag.

[Metroid66]

I think companies should charge what people are willing to pay, in financial terms and in terms of customer good will.

 

Thing about GTA is that it's a luxury good with virtually no competition. Even in the real luxury car market you can have the Jag salesman considering his options because of that Merc pamphlet sticking out of your top pocket.

 

Personally I don't pay that much for games, not even a third of that.

 

On the bleak side that means GTA six will have to wait.

 

On the bright side I've recently bought the definitive trilogy on sale, and have never played GTA 3! 

 

Suck on that R*

[Nag]

 

Quote

A reader suggests that the existing PC set-up in his living room already does everything the next gen Xbox is aiming for.

 

As the gaming industry and fans eagerly anticipate the arrival of the next generation of consoles, I find myself ahead of the curve with a bespoke PC set-up in my lounge. This advanced configuration not only rivals but often surpasses the capabilities that upcoming consoles aim to offer, based on current rumours.

 

My journey begins with a uniquely customised PC that loads without a password, ensuring quick access, allowing me to dive straight into the action. Coupled with a high quality gaming chair, I primarily use a controller, reserving the mouse for launching games and navigating Windows.

 

Although options like Steam Big Picture mode facilitate controller-based operations, my gaming libraries, including Game Pass, Steam, Epic Games, GOG, and EA necessitates a more flexible approach. I use the mouse either on my lap or on a small side table – a solution desk gamers wouldn’t need to consider, though using the arm of a sofa is also an option.

 

One of the primary challenges I face is the need for a keyboard to input login information. While the mouse and on-screen keyboard provide a workaround, it’s far from ideal. The necessity for Windows to be fully controllable by a controller, or the development of a dedicated gaming OS akin to Steam’s endeavours, is long overdue. Reports suggest that Microsoft is working on it, but progress is frustratingly slow – they needed it a couple of years ago.

 

My small form factor PC, inconspicuous in the living room, is connected to a large OLED TV with a 120Hz refresh rate. This setup delivers high-refresh gaming when needed, enabling features like path-tracing and full ray-tracing at a lower frame rate between 80-90fps. With an RTX 4080 graphics card, my system dramatically outperforms the Xbox Series X and the new PS5 Pro.

 

The investment in superior hardware pays off as I witness tangible differences that certain consoles struggle to showcase. Features like DLSS and frame generation particularly excel, enhancing gameplay beyond console capabilities. Opting for a lower resolution like 1440p or even 1080p can push those frame rates even higher, or you could choose cheaper hardware for similar improvements. I get access to basically free remasters of games and tons of mods, something I’ve done a ton of so far this year.

 

Modern cross-play functionality allows me to connect with friends on consoles within supported games. The versatility of my PC enables the use of an extensive range of peripherals, such as a VR headset for Flight Simulator 2024 or a Stream Deck for autopilot controls. Consoles often dictate peripheral compatibility, whereas my setup embraces a broader, almost unlimited spectrum.

 

Reflecting on my current setup, it’s clear that the next generation of consoles will strive to achieve similar advancements. The pursuit of higher performance at comparable costs, enhanced compatibility with other services like Steam, and user-friendly interfaces will define the next console – moving beyond just another closed system that plays boxed games.

 

While the forthcoming Xbox promises exciting developments, my meticulously crafted PC configuration already embodies what the future of gaming could look like. If the setup is made far easier for the general gamer, it could be truly exciting – offering a vision of gaming that is accessible to everyone, not just those who want to sit back and enjoy a few hours of fun.

 

By reader McSherlock

 

😬

[one-armed dwarf]

Sort of reads like an AI generated comment for some reason