Do Discounts Suck?

[KnightoftheWind]

I heard an interesting point regarding deep discounts of games and the effect it has had on the industry. With how prevalent Steam and GOG sales are, one has to wonder- is this really a good thing?. To devalue games to such an extent?. When every $60 or $30 or $10 game is being sold at half price just a few months after release, how do developers make their money?. They have to make it somehow right?. And that's where the microtransactions and all that crap come into play. They can get away with selling their games dirt cheap, because they know they'll make up the difference via selling you parts of the game piece-mail. Yeah, you may get that shiny new game for a low price down the line, but sacrifices had to have been made to alllow you to pay that low an entry fee.

It also cheapens the hobby significantly. It means more quantity over quality, with the market being absolutely flooded with shovelware at a rate never before seen. It's easier than ever to get a game published, but this has only resulted in an absolute deluge of mediocre, copy-cat titles. Sure we all love a good deal, some of us even pirate, but in days-past such sales and options were few and far between. This means that developers had to ensure their games were worth the asking price, otherwise nobody would buy them. They couldn't count on retailers slashing prices every 3 months like they do now with Steam, so they put effort into every release. But all of that has gone out the window. It also had the mental effect of making each game purchase count, after all a lot of games were more expensive back then than they are now on average, so you had to choose carefully and made extra sure you played whatever you bought to the fullest extent. No FOMO, no massive backlog of Steam games, what you had is what you had.

What do you guys think about this?.

[rusty_shackleford]

how do developers make their money?

By having billions of potential customers.
Don't let gamedevs gaslight you into thinking video games are too cheap, labor theory of value is commie ********.

[KnightoftheWind]

how do developers make their money?

By having billions of potential customers.
Don't let gamedevs gaslight you into thinking video games are too cheap, labor theory of value is commie ********.

But potential customers aren't actual customers. Despite the hundreds of millions of Steam users, the average number of copies sold hasn't increased ten fold. Some big-name Steam releases are lucky to sell 1-2 million copies on the platform. Good enough for most big developers, sure, but not what it really should be given the total number of Steam users. Supposedly the latest Ratchet & Clank release has sold surprisingly little, despite it being a popular PlayStation title.

[rusty_shackleford]

how do developers make their money?

By having billions of potential customers.
Don't let gamedevs gaslight you into thinking video games are too cheap, labor theory of value is commie ********.

But potential customers aren't actual customers. Despite the hundreds of millions of Steam users, the average number of copies sold hasn't increased ten fold. Some big-name Steam releases are lucky to sell 1-2 million copies on the platform. Good enough for most big developers, sure, but not what it really should be given the total number of Steam users. Supposedly the latest Ratchet & Clank release has sold surprisingly little, despite it being a popular PlayStation title.

They sell significantly more copies than games were selling in the 80s or 90s, far more than they'd have made at an inflation adjusted price with the same potential customers.
The cost of games is too high, not too low. It's why most copies are sold during sales. The issue isn't sales, it's that most games are just too expensive, especially when you get to the "true" cost of buying the entire game with all content which often adds up to $120-$200 for all DLC.

Video games, due to their infinite supply, are worth whatever customers will pay for them. No more, no less. Demand has zero impact on their pricing, neither does how much effort someone put into making it.

[rusty_shackleford]

As a counterexample, Rimworld has been $34.99 since its original release and never goes on a significant discount, the highest being -20%. The developer knows exactly what their game is worth, and it is one of the best-selling games on Steam.

[KnightoftheWind]

By having billions of potential customers.
Don't let gamedevs gaslight you into thinking video games are too cheap, labor theory of value is commie ********.

But potential customers aren't actual customers. Despite the hundreds of millions of Steam users, the average number of copies sold hasn't increased ten fold. Some big-name Steam releases are lucky to sell 1-2 million copies on the platform. Good enough for most big developers, sure, but not what it really should be given the total number of Steam users. Supposedly the latest Ratchet & Clank release has sold surprisingly little, despite it being a popular PlayStation title.

They sell significantly more copies than games were selling in the 80s or 90s, far more than they'd have made at an inflation adjusted price with the same potential customers.
The cost of games is too high, not too low. It's why most copies are sold during sales. The issue isn't sales, it's that most games are just too expensive, especially when you get to the "true" cost of buying the entire game with all content which often adds up to $120-$200 for all DLC.

Video games, due to their infinite supply, are worth whatever customers will pay for them. No more, no less. Demand has zero impact on their pricing, neither does how much effort someone put into making it.

I see it as a feedback loop of sorts. Games are too cheap and plentiful nowadays, so developers have to go above and beyond with lavish visuals and produce as much content as possible, but because games are always put on sale by Steam every 3-4 months, corporate sees the need to make up the difference by tripling-down on draconian sales tactics. But gamers are hurt by this, so they wait for those sales or pirate. Paying full price for a game is inconceivable to many, because they are conditioned to expect DEEP discounts and expect them very frequently.

Think about it, a game like Starfield is competing not only with older Bethesda titles, but the inexhaustible library of games already on Steam, most selling for $5-$10 on discount. For many years, developers were competing with Minecraft. An incredible value that costed gamers only a few dollars but could last them a lifetime. This meant bigger budgets, bigger teams, and ultimately more managerialism. These new games aren't worth full price, but only because the damage caused by the Steam cycle is irreparable at this point.

[rusty_shackleford]

But potential customers aren't actual customers. Despite the hundreds of millions of Steam users, the average number of copies sold hasn't increased ten fold. Some big-name Steam releases are lucky to sell 1-2 million copies on the platform. Good enough for most big developers, sure, but not what it really should be given the total number of Steam users. Supposedly the latest Ratchet & Clank release has sold surprisingly little, despite it being a popular PlayStation title.

They sell significantly more copies than games were selling in the 80s or 90s, far more than they'd have made at an inflation adjusted price with the same potential customers.
The cost of games is too high, not too low. It's why most copies are sold during sales. The issue isn't sales, it's that most games are just too expensive, especially when you get to the "true" cost of buying the entire game with all content which often adds up to $120-$200 for all DLC.

Video games, due to their infinite supply, are worth whatever customers will pay for them. No more, no less. Demand has zero impact on their pricing, neither does how much effort someone put into making it.

I see it as a feedback loop of sorts. Games are too cheap and plentiful nowadays, so developers have to go above and beyond with lavish visuals and produce as much content as possible, but because games are always put on sale by Steam every 3-4 months, corporate sees the need to make up the difference by tripling-down on draconian sales tactics. But gamers are hurt by this, so they wait for those sales or pirate. Paying full price for a game is inconceivable to many, because they are conditioned to expect DEEP discounts and expect them very frequently.

Think about it, a game like Starfield is competing not only with older Bethesda titles, but the inexhaustible library of games already on Steam, most selling for $5-$10 on discount. For many years, developers were competing with Minecraft. An incredible value that costed gamers only a few dollars but could last them a lifetime. This meant bigger budgets, bigger teams, and ultimately more managerialism. These new games aren't worth full price, but only because the damage caused by the Steam cycle is irreparable at this point.

If they learned the wrong lesson then that's on them. They need smaller, more talented teams not more bloated teams.

[KnightoftheWind]

They sell significantly more copies than games were selling in the 80s or 90s, far more than they'd have made at an inflation adjusted price with the same potential customers.
The cost of games is too high, not too low. It's why most copies are sold during sales. The issue isn't sales, it's that most games are just too expensive, especially when you get to the "true" cost of buying the entire game with all content which often adds up to $120-$200 for all DLC.

Video games, due to their infinite supply, are worth whatever customers will pay for them. No more, no less. Demand has zero impact on their pricing, neither does how much effort someone put into making it.

I see it as a feedback loop of sorts. Games are too cheap and plentiful nowadays, so developers have to go above and beyond with lavish visuals and produce as much content as possible, but because games are always put on sale by Steam every 3-4 months, corporate sees the need to make up the difference by tripling-down on draconian sales tactics. But gamers are hurt by this, so they wait for those sales or pirate. Paying full price for a game is inconceivable to many, because they are conditioned to expect DEEP discounts and expect them very frequently.

Think about it, a game like Starfield is competing not only with older Bethesda titles, but the inexhaustible library of games already on Steam, most selling for $5-$10 on discount. For many years, developers were competing with Minecraft. An incredible value that costed gamers only a few dollars but could last them a lifetime. This meant bigger budgets, bigger teams, and ultimately more managerialism. These new games aren't worth full price, but only because the damage caused by the Steam cycle is irreparable at this point.

If they learned the wrong lesson then that's on them. They need smaller, more talented teams not more bloated teams.

But smaller teams mean a reduced capacity to produce photorealistic titles, which is the only thing AAA developers have that differentiates them from the Mariana's Trench of other games available. Sure, Bethesda could make a Morrowind 2 or Oblivion 2, but unless they were developed with a high degree of visual polish, they probably wouldn't be very popular. You really couldn't do an Oblivion in 2023 without it being made by a 2000 man team spread across the world using Unreal Engine 5 and it being verified by ESG staff members. Because to do anything less wouldn't cut it. People wouldn't buy a 2023 Oblivion that looks like 2006 Oblivion., or what they perceive as an indie title with "bad graphics". And if they made it as such, they wouldn't pay more than $15 for it. AAA devs are stuck in a perpetual arms race.

[rusty_shackleford]

I see it as a feedback loop of sorts. Games are too cheap and plentiful nowadays, so developers have to go above and beyond with lavish visuals and produce as much content as possible, but because games are always put on sale by Steam every 3-4 months, corporate sees the need to make up the difference by tripling-down on draconian sales tactics. But gamers are hurt by this, so they wait for those sales or pirate. Paying full price for a game is inconceivable to many, because they are conditioned to expect DEEP discounts and expect them very frequently.

Think about it, a game like Starfield is competing not only with older Bethesda titles, but the inexhaustible library of games already on Steam, most selling for $5-$10 on discount. For many years, developers were competing with Minecraft. An incredible value that costed gamers only a few dollars but could last them a lifetime. This meant bigger budgets, bigger teams, and ultimately more managerialism. These new games aren't worth full price, but only because the damage caused by the Steam cycle is irreparable at this point.

If they learned the wrong lesson then that's on them. They need smaller, more talented teams not more bloated teams.

But smaller teams mean a reduced capacity to produce photorealistic titles, which is the only thing AAA developers have that differentiates them from the Mariana's Trench of other games available. Sure, Bethesda could make a Morrowind 2 or Oblivion 2, but unless they were developed with a high degree of visual polish, they probably wouldn't be very popular. You really couldn't do an Oblivion in 2023 without it being made by a 2000 man team spread across the world using Unreal Engine 5 and it being verified by ESG staff members. Because to do anything less wouldn't cut it. People wouldn't buy a 2023 Oblivion that looks like 2006 Oblivion., or what they perceive as an indie title with "bad graphics". And if they made it as such, they wouldn't pay more than $15 for it. AAA devs are stuck in a perpetual arms race.

Skyrim and Fallout 4 were made by teams of approximately 100 developers — smaller than the size of the team that worked on Kingdom Come: Deliverance.
People want another Skyrim, not another AAA slopfest.

[KnightoftheWind]

If they learned the wrong lesson then that's on them. They need smaller, more talented teams not more bloated teams.

But smaller teams mean a reduced capacity to produce photorealistic titles, which is the only thing AAA developers have that differentiates them from the Mariana's Trench of other games available. Sure, Bethesda could make a Morrowind 2 or Oblivion 2, but unless they were developed with a high degree of visual polish, they probably wouldn't be very popular. You really couldn't do an Oblivion in 2023 without it being made by a 2000 man team spread across the world using Unreal Engine 5 and it being verified by ESG staff members. Because to do anything less wouldn't cut it. People wouldn't buy a 2023 Oblivion that looks like 2006 Oblivion., or what they perceive as an indie title with "bad graphics". And if they made it as such, they wouldn't pay more than $15 for it. AAA devs are stuck in a perpetual arms race.

Skyrim and Fallout 4 were made by teams of approximately 100 developers — smaller than the size of the team that worked on Kingdom Come: Deliverance.
People want another Skyrim, not another AAA slopfest.

But they wouldn't pay $60-$70 for a game that is just another Skyrim, with a similar amount of visual fidelity and presentation. You could ask any gamer if he would be willing to pay full price for a brand new game that plays amazing but looks like it came from a Super Nintendo, for instance, and he would say No. Why?, because the visual bar has long-since passed the point where such a thing would be perceived as valuable or impressive. Skyrim was decent looking in 2011, from a raw visual perspective. But since then gamers have had The Last of Us, Uncharted 4, and other examples of graphical prowess that took greater and greater numbers of staff to make. Skyrim doesn't cut it anymore, and there have been AA games releases afterwards that surpass it graphically, which wouldn't have been possible back in 2011.

Todd Howard could have a strong desire to make another game just like it, but it wouldn't be justifiable in today's day and age. Every game a AAA developer releases has to tow a fine line, be just mediocre enough to placate normies, and just new enough to justify it's existence. The bar always has to be raised, or else they risk being swallowed whole.

[rusty_shackleford]

But they wouldn't pay $60-$70 for a game that is just another Skyrim

How many times has Todd repackaged Skyrim and sold it for $60 now?

[KnightoftheWind]

But they wouldn't pay $60-$70 for a game that is just another Skyrim

How many times has Todd repackaged Skyrim and sold it for $60 now?

That's different, because people identify The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim as a nostalgic product. To those that played it, it will always be a game from 2011 and exists in a vacuum all on it's own. But to expect an Elder Scrolls VI to look and play just like Skyrim, while still asking $60, is a tall order. Elder Scrolls VI will be judged by 2027 standards, not by 2011's. It has to compete with other AAA games of it's day, it has to raise that bar higher than ever before just to be relevant in the eyes of many.

Does Bethesda want people comparing Elder Scrolls VI to Kingdom Come?, to some indie no-name title released on Steam in 2026?. No, they want customers to perceive their next game as something incredible and boundary pushing. All AAA developers have to approach EVERY title they produce like this. Because games are dirt cheap, and more prevalent than ever.

[rusty_shackleford]

But they wouldn't pay $60-$70 for a game that is just another Skyrim

How many times has Todd repackaged Skyrim and sold it for $60 now?

That's different, because people identify The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim as a nostalgic product. To those that played it, it will always be a game from 2011 and exists in a vacuum all on it's own. But to expect an Elder Scrolls VI to look and play just like Skyrim, while still asking $60, is a tall order. Elder Scrolls VI will be judged by 2027 standards, not by 2011's. It has to compete with other AAA games of it's day, it has to raise that bar higher than ever before just to be relevant in the eyes of many.

Does Bethesda want people comparing Elder Scrolls VI to Kingdom Come?, to some indie no-name title released on Steam in 2026?. No, they want customers to perceive their next game as something incredible and boundary pushing. All AAA developers have to approach EVERY title they produce like this. Because games are dirt cheap, and more prevalent than ever.

They could make TES6 using the exact same assets as Skyrim and sell it for $60 guaranteed.
So-called "reviewers" would groan, a few snoys would cry, but it would be one of the top selling games of the decade.

Why?
Nobody except Bethesda makes Bethesda games. They have a unique style that no other dev is capable of copying let alone getting close to.

[KnightoftheWind]

How many times has Todd repackaged Skyrim and sold it for $60 now?

That's different, because people identify The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim as a nostalgic product. To those that played it, it will always be a game from 2011 and exists in a vacuum all on it's own. But to expect an Elder Scrolls VI to look and play just like Skyrim, while still asking $60, is a tall order. Elder Scrolls VI will be judged by 2027 standards, not by 2011's. It has to compete with other AAA games of it's day, it has to raise that bar higher than ever before just to be relevant in the eyes of many.

Does Bethesda want people comparing Elder Scrolls VI to Kingdom Come?, to some indie no-name title released on Steam in 2026?. No, they want customers to perceive their next game as something incredible and boundary pushing. All AAA developers have to approach EVERY title they produce like this. Because games are dirt cheap, and more prevalent than ever.

They could make TES6 using the exact same assets as Skyrim and sell it for $60 guaranteed.
So-called "reviewers" would groan, a few snoys would cry, but it would be one of the top selling games of the decade.

It would still sell, make no mistake. But people would DEFINITELY ask questions. "Ugh, why does it look so BAD". "OMG, this new indie RPG looks SO much better and it's only $30!. RIP in peace Bethesda". etc etc.

It would only serve to damage the Elder Scrolls brand, which is a global franchise that shareholders expect to sell 20 million copies. If it even manages to sell 10 million looking exactly like Skyrim, which would be a miracle, it wouldn't be enough. Todd would be out on the street and banned from Bethesda premises from that day forward. Because the minute the next Elder Scrolls doesn't look AAA with a AAA budget attached is the day it will be compared wholesale to every no-name RPG released on Steam. Bethesda doesn't want to compete with indies, they want to compete with the big boys and the big boys only. This is their niche, this is their fate.

[rusty_shackleford]

That's different, because people identify The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim as a nostalgic product. To those that played it, it will always be a game from 2011 and exists in a vacuum all on it's own. But to expect an Elder Scrolls VI to look and play just like Skyrim, while still asking $60, is a tall order. Elder Scrolls VI will be judged by 2027 standards, not by 2011's. It has to compete with other AAA games of it's day, it has to raise that bar higher than ever before just to be relevant in the eyes of many.

Does Bethesda want people comparing Elder Scrolls VI to Kingdom Come?, to some indie no-name title released on Steam in 2026?. No, they want customers to perceive their next game as something incredible and boundary pushing. All AAA developers have to approach EVERY title they produce like this. Because games are dirt cheap, and more prevalent than ever.

They could make TES6 using the exact same assets as Skyrim and sell it for $60 guaranteed.
So-called "reviewers" would groan, a few snoys would cry, but it would be one of the top selling games of the decade.

It would still sell, make no mistake. But people would DEFINITELY ask questions. "Ugh, why does it look so BAD". "OMG, this new indie RPG looks SO much better and it's only $30!. RIP in peace Bethesda". etc etc.

It would only serve to damage the Elder Scrolls brand, which is a global franchise that shareholders expect to sell 20 million copies. If it even manages to sell 10 million looking exactly like Skyrim, which would be a miracle, it wouldn't be enough. Todd would be out on the street and banned from Bethesda premises from that day forward. Because the minute the next Elder Scrolls doesn't look AAA with a AAA budget attached is the day it will be compared wholesale to every no-name RPG released on Steam. Bethesda doesn't want to compete with indies, they want to compete with the big boys and the big boys only. This is their niche, this is their fate.

Skyrim looked worse than most big budget titles on the market when it released tho.

[KnightoftheWind]

They could make TES6 using the exact same assets as Skyrim and sell it for $60 guaranteed.
So-called "reviewers" would groan, a few snoys would cry, but it would be one of the top selling games of the decade.

It would still sell, make no mistake. But people would DEFINITELY ask questions. "Ugh, why does it look so BAD". "OMG, this new indie RPG looks SO much better and it's only $30!. RIP in peace Bethesda". etc etc.

It would only serve to damage the Elder Scrolls brand, which is a global franchise that shareholders expect to sell 20 million copies. If it even manages to sell 10 million looking exactly like Skyrim, which would be a miracle, it wouldn't be enough. Todd would be out on the street and banned from Bethesda premises from that day forward. Because the minute the next Elder Scrolls doesn't look AAA with a AAA budget attached is the day it will be compared wholesale to every no-name RPG released on Steam. Bethesda doesn't want to compete with indies, they want to compete with the big boys and the big boys only. This is their niche, this is their fate.

Skyrim looked worse than most big budget titles on the market when it released tho.

But in 2011 it was adequate enough, more than adequate actually. The gorgeous music and landscapes combined with Bethesda's game design helped it soar in sales, and compensated for the somewhat lacking visuals. Skyrim back then was only competing with games like The Witcher II and Dark Souls. Now?, a "Skyrim 2" has to compete with The Witcher III, Kingdom Come, Elden Ring, God of Wars 1 and 2, and so much more. It's a completely different landscape.

It doesn't really matter to normies if a game plays very differently, what matters is the visual impression they get.

[Roguey]

Nintendo never discounts their games. Launch titles for the Switch are still $60 and will remain so.

[Tweed]

You people pay for games?

[Norfleet]

because games are always put on sale by Steam every 3-4 months

Point of order: Steam isn't what is putting those games on sale, the developers/publishers of those games are what's putting them on sale. If Steam were calling the shots on this, they'd still be paying the devs full price and eating the cost of the sale. It's the developers that CHOOSE to participate in the sale, because, remember: The marginal production cost of an additional unit of game is zero. It is impossible for the devs to actually lose any more money at this point.

[Luckmann]

You people pay for games?

Yeah, I honestly don't get it. Last game I bought was Solasta on a discount, and that was solely because I hope that they can produce another game with higher production value. Nobody gets my money just for being a time-waster anymore, and I want to actively harm people that support current industry practices.

[maidenhaver]

What's ******** are five year old games selling for over 30 usd.

[Nemesis]

A $50 game being sold for $10? I have no problem with this.

[J1M]

I see it as a feedback loop of sorts. Games are too cheap and plentiful nowadays, so developers have to go above and beyond with lavish visuals and produce as much content as possible, but because games are always put on sale by Steam every 3-4 months, corporate sees the need to make up the difference by tripling-down on draconian sales tactics. But gamers are hurt by this, so they wait for those sales or pirate. Paying full price for a game is inconceivable to many, because they are conditioned to expect DEEP discounts and expect them very frequently.

Think about it, a game like Starfield is competing not only with older Bethesda titles, but the inexhaustible library of games already on Steam, most selling for $5-$10 on discount. For many years, developers were competing with Minecraft. An incredible value that costed gamers only a few dollars but could last them a lifetime. This meant bigger budgets, bigger teams, and ultimately more managerialism. These new games aren't worth full price, but only because the damage caused by the Steam cycle is irreparable at this point.

If they learned the wrong lesson then that's on them. They need smaller, more talented teams not more bloated teams.

But smaller teams mean a reduced capacity to produce photorealistic titles, which is the only thing AAA developers have that differentiates them from the Mariana's Trench of other games available. Sure, Bethesda could make a Morrowind 2 or Oblivion 2, but unless they were developed with a high degree of visual polish, they probably wouldn't be very popular. You really couldn't do an Oblivion in 2023 without it being made by a 2000 man team spread across the world using Unreal Engine 5 and it being verified by ESG staff members. Because to do anything less wouldn't cut it. People wouldn't buy a 2023 Oblivion that looks like 2006 Oblivion., or what they perceive as an indie title with "bad graphics". And if they made it as such, they wouldn't pay more than $15 for it. AAA devs are stuck in a perpetual arms race.

You are repeating talking points from marketing which are routinely blown out of the water by the success of games like Zelda or Baldur's Gate 3. Tell me more about how games used to be turn based because we didn't have real-time technology and how the awesome button will improve sales.

For anyone with eyes these comments should hold no sway. Why did you get sucked into believing them?

PS: In terms of graphics, the mainstream market has no ability to discern quality. They are only sensitive to fidelity.

[KnightoftheWind]

If they learned the wrong lesson then that's on them. They need smaller, more talented teams not more bloated teams.

But smaller teams mean a reduced capacity to produce photorealistic titles, which is the only thing AAA developers have that differentiates them from the Mariana's Trench of other games available. Sure, Bethesda could make a Morrowind 2 or Oblivion 2, but unless they were developed with a high degree of visual polish, they probably wouldn't be very popular. You really couldn't do an Oblivion in 2023 without it being made by a 2000 man team spread across the world using Unreal Engine 5 and it being verified by ESG staff members. Because to do anything less wouldn't cut it. People wouldn't buy a 2023 Oblivion that looks like 2006 Oblivion., or what they perceive as an indie title with "bad graphics". And if they made it as such, they wouldn't pay more than $15 for it. AAA devs are stuck in a perpetual arms race.

You are repeating talking points from marketing which are routinely blown out of the water by the success of games like Zelda or Baldur's Gate 3. Tell me more about how games used to be turn based because we didn't have real-time technology and how the awesome button will improve sales.

For anyone with eyes these comments should hold no sway. Why did you get sucked into believing them?

PS: In terms of graphics, the mainstream market has no ability to discern quality. They are only sensitive to fidelity.

Zelda is a Nintendo property, which should speak for itself, and Baldur's Gate 3 looks "AAA" enough for the vast majority of people and scratches that Dragon Age, Tumblr-esque RPG itch. It's the kind of game that college girls and bugmen play. But if either game looked like it came from an older generation, neither would have done well. Baldur's Gate 3 wouldn't have succeeded if it looked like Baldur's Gate II, or Gothic. It succeeds because it separates itself from the pack via it's production values. It needed to look AAA, or AA+ at the very least. Otherwise people would settle for the thousands of indie RPGs already available on Steam.

[J1M]

But smaller teams mean a reduced capacity to produce photorealistic titles, which is the only thing AAA developers have that differentiates them from the Mariana's Trench of other games available. Sure, Bethesda could make a Morrowind 2 or Oblivion 2, but unless they were developed with a high degree of visual polish, they probably wouldn't be very popular. You really couldn't do an Oblivion in 2023 without it being made by a 2000 man team spread across the world using Unreal Engine 5 and it being verified by ESG staff members. Because to do anything less wouldn't cut it. People wouldn't buy a 2023 Oblivion that looks like 2006 Oblivion., or what they perceive as an indie title with "bad graphics". And if they made it as such, they wouldn't pay more than $15 for it. AAA devs are stuck in a perpetual arms race.

You are repeating talking points from marketing which are routinely blown out of the water by the success of games like Zelda or Baldur's Gate 3. Tell me more about how games used to be turn based because we didn't have real-time technology and how the awesome button will improve sales.

For anyone with eyes these comments should hold no sway. Why did you get sucked into believing them?

PS: In terms of graphics, the mainstream market has no ability to discern quality. They are only sensitive to fidelity.

Zelda is a Nintendo property, which should speak for itself, and Baldur's Gate 3 looks "AAA" enough for the vast majority of people and scratches that Dragon Age, Tumblr-esque RPG itch. It's the kind of game that college girls and bugmen play. But if either game looked like it came from an older generation, neither would have done well. Baldur's Gate 3 wouldn't have succeeded if it looked like Baldur's Gate II, or Gothic. It succeeds because it separates itself from the pack via it's production values. It needed to look AAA, or AA+ at the very least. Otherwise people would settle for the thousands of indie RPGs already available on Steam.

Ahh yes, the "marketing actually meant the opposite of what it said in retrospect" argument. Nice try.

Explain how Zelda rendering 648p @ 20 fps selling millions of copies fits your paradigm of mainstream AAA graphics requirements.

Walk me through how it was obvious to marketing that some high fidelity companions would catapult a turn-based game above Cyberpunk 2077 into the 7th highest concurrently played game of all time.

[H-H-Holmes]

Do discounts suck? Who knows. A better question is why do people even use the Steam store or eagerly await LE SALES while the grey market exists?

[KnightoftheWind]

You are repeating talking points from marketing which are routinely blown out of the water by the success of games like Zelda or Baldur's Gate 3. Tell me more about how games used to be turn based because we didn't have real-time technology and how the awesome button will improve sales.

For anyone with eyes these comments should hold no sway. Why did you get sucked into believing them?

PS: In terms of graphics, the mainstream market has no ability to discern quality. They are only sensitive to fidelity.

Zelda is a Nintendo property, which should speak for itself, and Baldur's Gate 3 looks "AAA" enough for the vast majority of people and scratches that Dragon Age, Tumblr-esque RPG itch. It's the kind of game that college girls and bugmen play. But if either game looked like it came from an older generation, neither would have done well. Baldur's Gate 3 wouldn't have succeeded if it looked like Baldur's Gate II, or Gothic. It succeeds because it separates itself from the pack via it's production values. It needed to look AAA, or AA+ at the very least. Otherwise people would settle for the thousands of indie RPGs already available on Steam.

Ahh yes, the "marketing actually meant the opposite of what it said in retrospect" argument. Nice try.

Explain how Zelda rendering 648p @ 20 fps selling millions of copies fits your paradigm of mainstream AAA graphics requirements.

Walk me through how it was obvious to marketing that some high fidelity companions would catapult a turn-based game above Cyberpunk 2077 into the 7th highest concurrently played game of all time.

It's NINTENDO. Nintendo games always sell, regardless of how "behind the times" they are. Characters like Mario and Zelda are synonymous with gaming, they are ingrained in people's memory and they will always sell millions. Other AAA developers don't have that mindshare. People forgive Nintendo for many things, but then other less favorable companies like EA do the same they are quick to call them out on it. Companies wish they were Nintendo.

[J1M]

Zelda is a Nintendo property, which should speak for itself, and Baldur's Gate 3 looks "AAA" enough for the vast majority of people and scratches that Dragon Age, Tumblr-esque RPG itch. It's the kind of game that college girls and bugmen play. But if either game looked like it came from an older generation, neither would have done well. Baldur's Gate 3 wouldn't have succeeded if it looked like Baldur's Gate II, or Gothic. It succeeds because it separates itself from the pack via it's production values. It needed to look AAA, or AA+ at the very least. Otherwise people would settle for the thousands of indie RPGs already available on Steam.

Ahh yes, the "marketing actually meant the opposite of what it said in retrospect" argument. Nice try.

Explain how Zelda rendering 648p @ 20 fps selling millions of copies fits your paradigm of mainstream AAA graphics requirements.

Walk me through how it was obvious to marketing that some high fidelity companions would catapult a turn-based game above Cyberpunk 2077 into the 7th highest concurrently played game of all time.

It's NINTENDO. Nintendo games always sell, regardless of how "behind the times" they are. Characters like Mario and Zelda are synonymous with gaming, they are ingrained in people's memory and they will always sell millions. Other AAA developers don't have that mindshare. People forgive Nintendo for many things, but then other less favorable companies like EA do the same they are quick to call them out on it. Companies wish they were Nintendo.

Of course, guaranteed success like the WiiU. Or Star Fox Zero.

Weird that you marketing executives never consider how fun a game is when making these predictions.

[KnightoftheWind]

Ahh yes, the "marketing actually meant the opposite of what it said in retrospect" argument. Nice try.

Explain how Zelda rendering 648p @ 20 fps selling millions of copies fits your paradigm of mainstream AAA graphics requirements.

Walk me through how it was obvious to marketing that some high fidelity companions would catapult a turn-based game above Cyberpunk 2077 into the 7th highest concurrently played game of all time.

It's NINTENDO. Nintendo games always sell, regardless of how "behind the times" they are. Characters like Mario and Zelda are synonymous with gaming, they are ingrained in people's memory and they will always sell millions. Other AAA developers don't have that mindshare. People forgive Nintendo for many things, but then other less favorable companies like EA do the same they are quick to call them out on it. Companies wish they were Nintendo.

Of course, guaranteed success like the WiiU. Or Star Fox Zero.

Weird that you marketing executives never consider how fun a game is when making these predictions.

The Wii U "failed" because Nintendo dropped the ball on marketing. Many people to this day think it's just an add-on for the original Wii. And even despite the Wii U's failure, the Nintendo exclusives still sold very, very well and the console is looked back on with relative fondness by Nintendo fans. The company also got away with throwing Wii U customers under the bus early, yet got very minimal flak for it. Marketing and setting oneself apart from the pack makes a big difference. Which again is why AAA devs compete by pushing graphics and budgets, they have to otherwise they'd be irrelevant.

[GhostCow]

Wii U failed because it had a dumb gimmick and **** library. As someone who isn't a Nintendo fan, I see it as a console with only a single good game on it and the western version of that game is censored beyond belief so i don't know if it should even count.