Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'F1 2019' started by GTPNewsWire, Jun 30, 2019.
The words "lazy console port" did definitely cross my mind.
Oh well, it's not the end of the world.
I disagree with this 100%.
- We support the developers when we buy the game for 70€.
- F1 comes out every single year, so people give them 70€ every year to develop a game that has no relevant story, motion capture, voice acting, art assets etc. The tracks are always the same, with a couple new ones, some new cars and a few changes to graphics, sound, etc. Assassins Creed used to come out every year without MTX and it was a completely new game, new world, new story, new voice actors, new art assets, etc. Now Ubisoft decided to release it every 2 years and make the games even better.
- Other racing games offer livery editors for free that attract a lot of people and are one of the best features in any racing game. GT came late to the party but any game without it feels a bit empty to me now, as someone who loves to create liveries.
- If you add up the liveries you can only get with MTX, you'll probably spend another 20 or 30€ for stuff that will be useless and outdated next year, when the next game comes out and people move on to that game. Unless Codemasters makes this game a "live service" instead of realeasing a new game every year, I doubt that in 2020 everything you get will be transfered to the new game.
- People give a pass to first steps like these and then companies abuse them more and more, leading to broken player bases down the line.
- GT could sell liveries, I wouldn't oppose to that decision. And I would be OK with it because we can create whatever we want ourselves. So if PD would sell some really nice liveries (very complex, with higher res logos and a special color or something like that) I wouldn't mind.
I'm ok with some types skins, but usually in live service games where you buy the items and use them for years and years. I was eager to get this game and I was looking forward for a nice livery editor, even if not with decal uploads and what not, but we can do a lot of cool liveries with simple shapes. But because of this decision I'm not posponing by purshase. I might get the game on sale for half the price or something like that.
And I don't buy the idea that, because it's the official F1 game, they can't allow people to create whatever liveries they want. I mean, that doesn't imply liveries have to be sold. They could have those liveries for cars, helmets, suits and gloves in the game already for free.
It also makes me roll my eyes with some people excuse microtransations because "it's only cosmetic". I mean, cosmetic items are a great part of what makes games appealing and are a great way for people to get more into the story, gameplay, etc. All cosmetics should be available through gameplay, even if though "hard work" and some grind. Putting it behind a money barrier is more often than not, something poorly implemented.
This, you don't get any type of advantage buying one. They aren't randomised loot boxes so you know what you're paying for, and it's not like they're outrageously priced. This is fine as long as they don't start pushing it further
If it's OK because it's not pay to win, I guess you guys would mind if GTSport sold all the different rims, colors, decals, poses, scapes, helmets, suits, etc.
I mean, they're "only cosmetic" and no one would be "forcing us to buy them".
I would be more than happy to purchase new Scapes and paint colours for GT Sport
Why not, if it was reasonably priced I’d definitely buy some of the rims and paints that aren’t in the mileage exchange.
WALL OF TEXT INCOMING!
You do, yes. You also support the platform holders and, if applicable, publishers. If the game is released on disc there are also costs for disc manufacturing to add in. Modern games have to sell a whole lot of copies to make a profit, and without a profit you’re stuck making one game and then closing the studio because you have to cover wages, rent, licensing etc. for the entire development cycle of your next title.
Unfortunately Codemasters seem to keep their sales figures quite close to their chest so I haven't been able to find any solid information on how many people are buying each iteration.
There are lots of things that get updated and/or added each year. How do you think they add in features like the post-race interviews? What about the fact that the cars change between seasons? What about the liveries that change between seasons? The entirely new UI? AI and gameplay code improvements? Any new audio?
That's before you even get to the lighting overhaul they did with 2019 which likely required multiple engine changes and improvements, and the fact they added F2 which is a whole new game mode complete with new cars. Oh, and they added driver transfers. Then there is the licensing for each year, something which is a minefield for even the smallest of brands let alone one as big as Formula 1.
There are multiple teams and multiple studios around the world behind the Assassin's Creed games.
F1 is made by a single studio with some outsource support. You only have to compare the size of the credits between F1 2017 and Assassin's Creed: Origins to see the difference.
Regarding the tracks being the same do we know for certain that they don’t re-work them for each iteration? I imagine the real life tracks change so it would make sense to keep them up to date.
I'd love to see a livery editor in an F1 game, even if it's just on generic cars that aren't tied to a specific team. It could be something as simple as a licensing issue though, and there’s very little you can do to get around that.
I don't think it's fair to make a judgement on this when we're nowhere near to knowing what they will do for 2020.
Some companies abuse them, yes, but that doesn't mean we should immediately assume that all games studios are going to do the same. I can certainly see why people are cautious, and tt would be a shame if that happened with the F1 games, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt for now.
I'd be interested in seeing how this worked out for them from a business perspective; the game offers a livery editor but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they would sell fewer items. I don’t think they’ll ever do it but it’s an interesting idea.
For all we know the Formula 1 license doesn’t allow it at all, and I can realistically see this being the case. They wouldn’t want F1 cars, even generic ones, being associated with “bad” logos (tobacco and alcohol companies, for example) as it damages the Formula 1 brand. The entire game is covered by the F1 license, not just the cars.
I disagree, I think that developers should be rewarded for the hard work they put in to a title and microtransactions like these are a great way of providing the studio with a little bit more income to be able to invest in new talent and new titles. If this were some huge studio where the CEO was making billions each year then I could understand the concerns (there have certainly been some greedy developers out there when it comes to earnings from microtransactions) but I don’t believe that Codemasters are that sort of studio.
EDIT: I should add, however, that if they do start becoming one of those studios I'll happily stop buying their products
I am baffled by your audacity, and the developers', to suggest that microtransactions are even ok in a full $70 game. I don't care if they're 10 cents, 1 dollar or 10 dollars. It's not ok in a paid game. You can make every microtransaction that you want in a free game. Not in a paid $70 game. If you give them a finger they will take your entire arm.
I know that this answer is really aggressive towards you. It's just that companies like EA and Ubisoft make me so angry about this.
So the alternative is to risen up the game prices altogether.
Microtransactions is okay as long as its not blatantly predatory.....or a lootbox......or ala Dirt Rally 2.0.
EA and Ubisoft are not representative of the majority of games studios though. Codemasters have around 400 employees, EA has over 9,000 and Ubisoft has over 13,000 (and has a net worth of around $3.7 billion, which is pretty crazy). I can certainly see why, when EA or Ubisoft add microtransactions to a title, it is seen as greedy when they're making so much money but Codemasters are not in the same league as they are.
GT Sport has microtransactions that cost more than the liveries in F1, and that’s a developer (and game series) with a lot more success than Codies and F1
F1 comes out every year and every other game of its size have to pay for the same stuff. And most of them are not yearly releases.
If they were amazing or over their expectations they would probably release them.
You can't have it both ways. Either the studio is small or the content of the game is huge to make it every year. It's a fact that F1 games (or any other sports or motorsports games for that matter) released every year are not as development heavy as an Assassins Creed that needs ~1500 people to make it happen. And they charge 70€ for it too, to pay 3x the people. It doesn't add up. Either AC (and other games of that level) should cost 200€ or yearly sports and motorsports games should cost 30€. I even think these types of games could and should be live service games. But studios charge 70€ every year for the same game with tweaks and some gimmicky added features.
F1 2019 has how many different cars now? 34 from what I know (10 being completely new for the F1 2019 grid). And 21 tracks which are not laser scanned yet and a lot of them are old builds from previous games. Just for reference, GT has brought over 131 cars and 42 tracks / layouts for free since launch. And the game cost 70€ too.
You can release the liveries for free instead of charging for them.
I think it is based on what Codemasters have been doing every year. I believe they will release another title in a year, charge 70€ and you you'll lose the items you bought for F1 2019. I hope I'm wrong, but I really doubt it.
Sure, not all do the same. But IMO there's no reason why this game that costs 70€ already and it's an yearly release (lets not forget this point) should charge for liveries and other cosmetic items.
I'd prefer that, but I guess no one would buy them, unless they were exceptionally well made or in higher resolution, cooler / special paints, etc.
I agree. That's why I think they shouldn't charge for the liveries/helmets/etc. It's not a good move for the community imo. They have the option to take a nice, player-friendly stance with giving out this liveries but they go for the MTXs. Always more money, and I doubt that goes to the devs, artists, designers that make the game to be honest.
A 500 size studio is big enough so the profits don't get shared with the empoyees. For sure not the ones that get paid less. Some companies share the profits but usually only with senior devs / heads of studio or departments / art directors and a few others. I've worked in the gaming industry and most of my friends still work in companies like Ubi, CDPR, Activision-King, Milestone, etc, and I have an idea of how the monetization systems work.
I guess that's a wise decision.
Yeah, to buy cars up to 1 or 2 millions that you can get in an 1/2 hours or just leave the game take care of it by rubber banding your controller. I have no problem with GT's micro transactions because you can buy the cars pretty easily. I'm more annoyed by the grind needed for the 20.000.000 cars if you want to play the game and not rubber band the controller. Also, you've been getting free monthly updates on GT since laungh pretty much.
But how many of them have an F1 license?
Why? This equation is ignoring an important aspect: expected sales figures.
I agree that something like F1 would very much suit a live service approach, as would all sports games. But I'm guessing the beancounters are against it, as it looks like a far less lucrative approach over, say, a five year period. Whether or not they're making it look that way is another matter entirely, I suppose...
I mean, I'm sure Codies could re-polish primarily last-gen content, package it up, and re-introduce it for free too.
It's an apples-to-oranges comparison though. PD is a bigger, first-party studio. GT is also not a franchise dedicated to a single (er, now two) real-world racing championship. Sport in particular was a sea-change release in a franchise long known for its huge car lists too, and got dinged in most reviews at launch for its lack of content.
True. You could sell the game at half price too. Or maybe go free entirely, and try to make all your money the Fortnite way. *shrug*
I'm not necessarily on board with the current approach, but I'm guessing there was some sort of on-paper reason for the decision. As ever with these things, the market will hopefully dictate whether it's acceptable or not.
I'd say I've got a fairly good understanding of it too, having just spent 3 years as a Producer on a multi-platform title with optional micro-transactions in a similarly sized studio (No it's not Codemasters before anyone gets any ideas!)
You're right in that some studios do keep profits for themselves (or their heads of department) and the bigger developers are certainly guilty of this with their CEOs receiving huge bonuses while the rest of the staff get nothing or even get made redundant once a project is over, but many decide to re-invest it into the company and use profits to help develop future titles and/or reward staff accordingly. Generally the smaller ones are the ones that re-invest or reward staff as they have less of a "buffer zone" where they can afford the lose money, especially if they're publicly traded.
With the cost of the F1 licensing and the size of the studio I can see Codemasters being a studio that re-invests. However, as I said, the moment it's proven that this isn't what they're doing I will stop purchasing their products outright.
This is a big factor in determining how money is made back. While sales figures for the more recent F1 games are hard to come by, lets not forget that for a while the F1 series were selling fewer and fewer copies each year. F1 2014 and 2015 didn't even break a million. Meanwhile Assassin’s Creed Origins sold 100% more copies in its first 10 days than its predecessor and is going from strength to strength.
This is a good watch:
Not the same thing. Jim talks mainly about loot boxes (or “surprise mechanics”) and purchasable currency in that video. This is just mictransactions for optional extra liveries.
The Fortnite skins aren't lootboxes though, for example. It's all about peer pressure and how much companies charge for things that could be free, like the liveries in question. It's related IMO.
I also liked the part where he said if one day EA said they didn't have the money to make a new FIFA game do you think FIFA would say ok that's fine, don't bother this year. They'd ask less for the license to get the game out. I don't know Codies' agreement with Liberty Media but I'm sure F1 wants a game out every year without fail.
But this is the state of the industry and only consumers can make a difference by not paying for overpriced cosmetics etc, which is unlikely to happen, and I've even done it myself on occasion.
I still think that offering the majority of cosmetics for free and charge for some of them is a fair middle ground.
I normally agree with Jim on a lot of points but his argument that "Microtransactions support the developers is ********" is a very general statement that doesn't apply to all studios, and the fact he's only referencing big studios to attempt to prove this point could really harm smaller studios who often DO rely on extra income to fund future titles.
I really think that some of these large YouTube voices need to take a step back and examine the wider industry as opposed to just the big names, or at least show some balance in their videos. Without that balance the audience will immediately jump on the outrage bandwagon and won't think twice about assuming that all developers are like these "AAA" developers who give talks about how to get people hooked and how to rinse them for cash.
If Fortnite made their skins free how would they keep the game updated? It's a free to play title for the most part and the dev team is huge.
Or they'd go to another developer who were willing to do it for a much lower price. I've seen this happen before to titles I've actively worked on. Again, this isn't likely to apply to larger studios as they have a lot of clout but the smaller ones could definitely suffer. I've seen my friends made redundant because of this exact scenario occurring.
It's the state of the "AAA" industry. As I mentioned above, without a balanced argument in these videos that people spread it's very easy to follow the outrage around monetised content without considering that not all studios are like the big hitters.
You spend $80 and the game still tries to upsell you!
It’s still a different situation. The Fortnite skins (from the shop at least) is similar to GT Sports mileage shop but that game also has a “battle pass” you basically have to renew every game update if you want to keep getting all the games content.
I feel like this is similar to early DLC like GT5 or DiRT 3. You get a good amount of liveries for the Spec Car with the game and if you don’t like any of them you can buy a premium livery.
You aren’t pressured to buying them. If you try and customise the Spec Car in game you get shown a few that are free and in a separate tab are the paid liveries, they’re not shoved in your face like in some other games
Of course it would be nice if it was all free but every game these days has some way to spend money after the initial £50, this is one of the better ways it’s been done IMO when compared to other similar games
I haven't had a chance to play F1 2019 yet, does it try and upsell the paid liveries? If so that's really disappointing.
same as in Dirt Rally 2.0 special livery for money. It will be standard in they games
You have to look for them. You aren’t told about them at all and are only visible in the deluxe liveries tab of the customisation section of the Spec F1 car
The only thing I question is the presentation. Had they waited a month and packaged it as traditional DLC they could have saved themselves some bad press.
Of all things you could object, you choose that?
There's literally an elephant in the room. You know, those cars and stages that deliberately pulled from previous DIRT and then put back again for a fee?
Imagine GTSport updates, only this time the only way to acquire the new cars and tracks is to pay.
This is a tread regarding paid Livery, that´s why I mentioned the livery...
Fair enough. Though I regard my statement as even worse condition than "just" some liveries.
Unfortunately F1 2019 is billed as a AAA game and charged accordingly which is a bit of an ask considering there is almost no new content exept for a slightly updated lighting engine. 3 races in F2 is a bit of a joke and apart from a few animated scenes here and there it really is dissapointing. As for charging for a limited liveries it really is just another loot box scenario on a repacked game from 2017/2018. The bottom line is, 2019 is not worth AAA rates, content is limited and Codemasters have brought nothing new to the table.
Because a new licenced racing series with new AI drivers, updated physics, revamped career mode and a custom spec F1 car for multiplayer racing (alongside other MP inprovements) isn’t considered new content. And the loot box comparison makes no sense at all.