this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
75 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
30530 readers
78 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean personally I wouldn't want to game like that on my phone, as it will almost certainly kill the battery and I need my phone for.... well phone things.
But I don't really see why it being $60 is at all weird. It's a $60 AAA game everywhere else too. Same game as it is there.
Edit: and it also unlocks the game on m1 or newer iPads and macOS devices... really not seeing why this is so egregious. It's $60 on steam too
I understand your perspective, but the way I see it, it's like renting a movie at home versus seeing it in a theater. For some people, the extra money to go to a theater is worth it. I'm not paying $20+ to see a movie once at home though, and especially not to see it on my phone. Discounted price for a discounted experience. If they want to charge $20 for the mobile version, and $40 for MacOS, then I'd be way more likely to try a triple-A game on a phone.
But you get it with no compromises on MacOS, so why would they discount the price there? This is buy once, play "anywhere" (anywhere that's good for Apple). You don't pay less for a game you only play on a Steam Deck either.
Sure, then $20 for the mobile app, and $60 for MacOS (which should include a mobile copy). That would work for me too. I don't have a Steam Deck, but I for sure would not pay full price for a game just to play on the Steam Deck.
I think the Switch and the Steam Deck have shown that portable games are worth every bit as much as non-portable, but in both of these cases, they output easily to the larger experience at home. I think Apple is providing that too. $60 still makes sense to me, since you're always buying the MacOS version which includes a mobile copy, which you said was acceptable.
What if you don't have a Mac though, the MacOS copy is going to waste. I think Nintendo games are far too expensive as well. I own some, but I'm not happy with the price of the games (my kids love them though).
It's not a Mac OS copy and an iOS copy any more than I have a Steam Deck copy of a game and a desktop copy of a game. From what I can tell, it's the same thing. Obviously this is beneficial for Apple keeping you in their ecosystem, but this serves the same function. Quite frankly, I'm not sure why you'd have an iPhone if you don't have a Mac, but I know plenty of people do.
iPhones outsell MacBooks something like 10:1. The majority of people with iPhones, if they are playing games not on their phone, are using consoles and/or PC's.
Oh yeah, I'm aware. But the value proposition of an iPhone doesn't make sense to me if you don't also have a Mac.
I guess that depends. A lot of flagship phones are reaching $1k+ these days, and I rely on my phone for a TON of things. I need the support, battery life, and I enjoy the Apple ecosystem (not just my MacBook, but the watch and AirPods too). I've found it made sense for me. I guess the value of things really depends on the buyer's perspective.
Wait, so you do have a Macbook. Maybe it's not M1, but if you enjoy that part of the ecosystem, you'll probably upgrade to one at some point. At which point, that gives you a "Mac copy" of the game too.
Oh, yeah. Sorry if I didn't mention that. I have an M1 Pro. I still wouldn't play the game on my MacBook. I have an ultra wide screen and there's no way my Mac would run the game well. I have a gaming desktop that is much more suitable for desktop gaming.
Heh, honestly, this is the problem with Apple's value proposition when it comes to gaming. You'll see elsewhere in this thread that I don't think Apple has shown they know how to really make a solid gaming offering, and this is a large part of why.
Yeah honestly the idea that a port should cost less because it's a worse experience is stupid. As long as effort was put in and the game is still playable and as enjoyable an experience as other platforms whoever made it has any right to charge what they see fit for that platform.
Now should people buy it? Probably not and if it doesn't run as well you can absolutely raise the argument of it was a pointless cash grab anyways but...
Being upset that a developer wants to get paid for a game no matter what platform they put it on... not a big deal
you gotta take into account that the conceptual design phase has been completely eliminated from the process. And lots of the core logic would've been ported over wholesale. one example you can find is searching about the code in the katamari ports, where there's parts of the code left behind that don't do anything, and point to ps2 libraries that don't exist in Unity.
while there's nothing revealed here on how much is just copy/pasted over, I'm sure they'd be motivated to bring over as much as they can when they were initially estimating the work needed for the project, and then test the hell out of it. A majority of the graphics engine would probably have to be remade if they didn't aim to emulate it, and would be one of the major challenges in a mobile port of a higher-end console/pc game, but the assets/resources would be copied over and no work on that beyond ensuring it looks fine on the target resolution and framerate; maybe even with the use of automated AI upscaling/downscaling to reduce that workload even further. I find it safe to assume a straight port doesn't usually require the same or more amount of work as the original
Yup the switch mortal Kombat 1 port likely used a tool to just downgrade and straight port the game over and this it didn't actually run particularly well and was a stupid and low effort port.... but someone still made that game before that was done.
So if they want to shoot themselves in the foot and cripple their own launch and game with bad performance that's their own issue and one that is a separate conversation to them charging what they think is appropriate for their brand new game.
that's kinda the crux of my spiel though, what they charge communicates what they believe the work is worth, and they're either saying the previous work is worth less now, or this lesser amount of work is worth more
I agree, they have the right to charge what they want, but what they communicate with the price feels like spitting in the face of their playerbase, which, again, they have the right to do
and yeah, MK1 on switch is rough, and feels like they just ported over as much of the graphics engine as they could, and completely turned off all the fancier effects. Then they downscaled all the assets on top of that to make it super oof
Exactly, people have been buying worse switch ports for higher prices than the PS/XB versions for the portability for years now, phones shouldn't be different if it's a playable port optimised for them.
Yeah, the confusion by everyone around this pricing is really counterintuitive.
The product is exactly the same as its console / PC counterpart.
How well it runs on Apple products remains to be seen.
I for sure would not opt for it since I have a high end gaming PC.
Also, especially considering how Apple pulls products from their stores w/o refund…
I do hope that this sells somewhat well and opens the door for more developers to release their games on iOS / Mac.
I still think that Apple could build a proper gaming rig / console, but are in the chicken / egg situation still.
Apple is no doubt considering moving more heavily into the gaming space. They're looking for more revenue streams to keep feeding the corporate fantasy of perpetual growth, and there are only so many sweat shop laborers they can exploit. Wouldn't surprise me at all for them to buy a publisher like EA and create some steam competitor (or just leverage the Mac app store).
This is what MS are gearing up to fight with their acquisitions and infrastructure. If you can buy a game on iTunes and it works across your Mac, AppleTV, iPhone, etc, then they need to have the same in the Xbox brand across console, PC, cloud, etc. Sony are only now putting games on PC years late and that business model is looking tired already, multi device is the future.
It's a compelling proposition, and not one Microsoft can compete with. At least not in the mobile/tablet space. Cloud gaming is all well and good, but native hardware will always be superior. Microsoft is crazy not to be considering a 1st party handheld like the steam deck. Or at least a gaming-centric UI for small screen devices. Even just integrating something like the Xbox UI would be an improvement.
I think they're banking on the handheld PC market picking up for that. Obviously Steamdeck was a non-starter for native as it uses Linux, but they threw their weight behind the ROG Ally and packaged that with several months of Gamepass.
That's pretty good. Play anywhere across an ecosystem is always the right move. Sony expecting people to double dip on PS5/PC releases is going to look pretty old pretty soon.