Hardcore Gamers: Would You Pay More?

It has been said many many times from publishers and developers; the hardcore market is too small for these large companies to invest an AAA game for it. Ubisoft has said it when casualizing the Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, and Splinter Cell series. Crytek has shown that the design of Crysis 1 might have been to complex for a broader market, the Elder Scrolls series has been becoming more and more streamlined with every new game.

Anyways, seeing as the hardcore market is becoming a niche market, are you willing to pay more for these types of games?

Would you pay more for games like Red Orchestra, ArmA, the older SOCOM games, older Rainbows, King's Field, Shadow Tower, Demon/Dark Souls, etc.?

---Think of it like this, the Ferrari and Porche brand don't try to broaden their market, they are a "luxury" brand unlike like the Honda, Ford, etc. brands. But due to them not trying to please the broader market, their cars are more expensive.

I personally wouldn't mind pay a little bit more for a hardcore-based tactical game. I love them so much!!! I just hate that its being forshadowed by the casual market. =(

------------

lavalantasks:I'm a longtime fan of the old Ghost Recon 1 games on Xbox 1 and PC, mainly becuase they were more realistic, with one-hit kills, no recharging health-bars and massive levels. The newer Ubisoft shooters seem geared towards a mass market. Are there any plans to release or re-release any of these old super-realistic shooters on next-gen consoles?

Phil Therien:I doubt we will ever go back to really hardcore only shooters. The market was too narrow for it to be a viable business choice. We would like to be able to please both sides but compromises have to be made. We have some ideas to improve on the situation though - keep in mind however that we want our games to be accessible to as many people as possible, otherwise we just couldn't keep making games.

Source:http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/no-place-for-really-hardcore-shooters-r6-vegas-2-developer

Fallout: New Vegas is a mainstream game, and it's also one of the deepest and best role playing games I've ever played.

There's no reason, just for example, that Rainbow Six couldn't go back to the more tactical gameplay of its early predecessors and still maintain a wide audience... hand-holding modes and features could be integrated for those that the need them, and everyone else could swim in the deep end of the pool.

I would be willing to pay more for big budget games if low-budget games were also cheaper (as far more games seem low budget than high budget).

The thing is, the standard launch price works right now. Game prices reach a market equilibrium if they don't sell well shortly after they launch.

Also, a game being "hardcore" has nothing to do with the budget, but its mechanics. And a game's mechanics have little to do with how much you spend, unless you are spending the money on talented developers and designers.

Fallout: New Vegas is a mainstream game, and it's also one of the deepest and best role playing games I've ever played.

There's no reason, just for example, that Rainbow Six couldn't go back to the more tactical gameplay of its early predecessors and still maintain a wide audience... hand-holding modes and features could be integrated for those that the need them, and everyone else could swim in the deep end of the pool.

jethrovegas

I would be willing to pay more for big budget games if low-budget games were also cheaper (as far more games seem low budget than high budget).

The thing is, the standard launch price works right now. Game prices reach a market equilibrium if they don't sell well shortly after they launch.

Also, a game being "hardcore" has nothing to do with the budget, but its mechanics. And a game's mechanics have little to do with how much you spend, unless you are spending the money on talented developers and designers.

Pug-Nasty

I doubt it. Hell, some of the most hardcore games are basically free.

Nethack. Well, tons of rougelikes and dungeon crawlers.

A plethora of Platform hell games.

And if you want shumps, the only good shumps cater to the fans of the genre/hardcore gamers and stuff.

I wouldn't pay more for a game to be "hardcore" when I should at least have an option to play a game in a more difficult/punishing/skill based manner.

I really don't understand this trivial and useless distinction between so called hardcore and casual games and gamers. If you love video games who really cares what you prefer playing? I love a lot of games that many consider hardcore titles and also one's that are considered casual. I love them all.

King's Field,

ShadowDeathX

Fallout: New Vegas is a mainstream game, and it's also one of the deepest and best role playing games I've ever played.

There's no reason, just for example, that Rainbow Six couldn't go back to the more tactical gameplay of its early predecessors and still maintain a wide audience... hand-holding modes and features could be integrated for those that the need them, and everyone else could swim in the deep end of the pool.

jethrovegas

I'm a Casual Gamer so I Don't Care.

HahahaHhahahahahahahaha did you just say fallout NV is deep? And did you say fallout NV is a good rpg? Bahahahaha you're funnythah-dude

Considering the standards this generation it certainly is.

I'm a Casual Gamer so I Don't Care.

antiredcap

Then what's the point in posting in this thread :| ?

[QUOTE="antiredcap"]

I'm a Casual Gamer so I Don't Care.

Mograine

Then what's the point in posting in this thread :| ?

Well..I would prefer them to stay at current prices, but if price increase is needed for a developer to survive I can go along with that. I mean..I bought Command Ops last year for 80$, getting boxed versions of Rise of Flight and A10 Warthog costed me even more than that.

[QUOTE="thah-dude"]HahahaHhahahahahahahaha did you just say fallout NV is deep? And did you say fallout NV is a good rpg? Bahahahaha you're funnyMograine

Considering the standards this generation it certainly is.

No it ain't DAO is way better thah-dude

That doesn't mean anything :|

It was a option in the poll and I chose it. As good a point as any.antiredcap

Not really a good point, seems more like a fallacy to me, considering the first two words of the thread title.

Hardcore? These companies could start with tracking down and taking back the souls they sold. If anything, the AAA devs suffer from lacking inspiration and passion.

Hardcore? These companies could start with tracking down and taking back the souls they sold. If anything, the AAA devs suffer from lacking inspiration and passion.

Filthybastrd

Indeed. It's a good thing DD is helping indie developers so much.

[QUOTE="thah-dude"]No it ain't DAO is way better Mograine

That doesn't mean anything :|

It has been said many many times from publishers and developers; the hardcore market is too small for these large companies to invest an AAA game for it. Ubisoft has said it when casualizing the Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, and Splinter Cell series. Crytek has shown that the design of Crysis 1 might have been to complex for a broader market, the Elder Scrolls series has been becoming more and more streamlined with every new game.

Anyways, seeing as the hardcore market is becoming a niche market, are you willing to pay more for these types of games?

Would you pay more for games like Red Orchestra, ArmA, the older SOCOM games, older Rainbows, King's Field, Shadow Tower, Demon/Dark Souls, etc.?

---Think of it like this, the Ferrari and Porche brand don't try to broaden their market, they are a "luxury" brand unlike like the Honda, Ford, etc. brands. But due to them not trying to please the broader market, their cars are more expensive.

I personally wouldn't mind pay a little bit more for a hardcore-based tactical game. I love them so much!!! I just hate that its being forshadowed by the casual market. =(

------------

lavalantasks:I'm a longtime fan of the old Ghost Recon 1 games on Xbox 1 and PC, mainly becuase they were more realistic, with one-hit kills, no recharging health-bars and massive levels. The newer Ubisoft shooters seem geared towards a mass market. Are there any plans to release or re-release any of these old super-realistic shooters on next-gen consoles?

Phil Therien:I doubt we will ever go back to really hardcore only shooters. The market was too narrow for it to be a viable business choice. We would like to be able to please both sides but compromises have to be made. We have some ideas to improve on the situation though - keep in mind however that we want our games to be accessible to as many people as possible, otherwise we just couldn't keep making games.

Source:http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/no-place-for-really-hardcore-shooters-r6-vegas-2-developer

ShadowDeathX

It doesn't matter what these guys want to charge, so theorizing about it is kind of irrelevant. Video games, as a market, is highly competitive. The price of the games is set by the market, because there are plenty of substitutes if any publisher raises the price.

There are exceptions, but, generally, the publishers are charging what the market tells them to, and not a penny more or less.

What do you mean that doesn't mean anything? I know DAO isn't a really amazing rpg like the ones from long ago but it's way better then the newer fallout gamesthah-dude

That doesn't mean F:NV isn't a good RPG.

[QUOTE="thah-dude"]What do you mean that doesn't mean anything? I know DAO isn't a really amazing rpg like the ones from long ago but it's way better then the newer fallout gamesMograine

That doesn't mean F:NV isn't a good RPG.

Would someone please define hardcore?

HahahaHhahahahahahahaha did you just say fallout NV is deep? And did you say fallout NV is a good rpg? Bahahahaha you're funnythah-dude

New Vegas has incredibly intricate, layered quest design, and the best faction system I've ever seen, in any genre.

Its character system is very well designed. It makes a wide variety of builds viable, enjoyable to play, and absolutely essential in order to experience all of the game's content.

The number of different options the game gives you, even in seemingly minor quests, is staggering. I'm currently on my 4th playthrough of the game, and I get the sense that I am nowhere near exhausting its content, or seeing all the different possibilities it offers.

The fact that you pose Dragon Age: Origins as its better is ****ing hilarious.

DA:O is a massivly boring, super-restrictive bunch of combat filler, with a weak, generic story, and a tiny gameworld that probaly couldn't have been less interesting if it had been BioWare's express intent to make it so.

It's a pathetic game, in general, and a terrible RPG; New Vegas mops the floor with it.

[QUOTE="thah-dude"] HahahaHhahahahahahahaha did you just say fallout NV is deep? And did you say fallout NV is a good rpg? Bahahahaha you're funnyjethrovegas

New Vegas has incredibly intricate, layered quest design, and the best faction system I've ever seen, in any genre.

Its character system is very well designed. It makes a wide variety of builds viable, enjoyable to play, and absolutely essential in order to experience all of the game's content.

The number of different options the game gives you, even in seemingly minor quests, is staggering. I'm currently on my 4th playthrough of the game, and I get the sense that I am nowhere near exhausting its content, or seeing all the different possibilities it offers.

The fact that you pose Dragon Age: Origins as its better is ****ing hilarious.

DA:O is a massivly boring, super-restrictive bunch of combat filler, with a weak, generic story, and a tiny gameworld that probaly couldn't have been less interesting if it had been BioWare's express intent to make it so.

It's a pathetic game, in general, and a terrible RPG; New Vegas mops the floor with it.

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

[QUOTE="thah-dude"] HahahaHhahahahahahahaha did you just say fallout NV is deep? And did you say fallout NV is a good rpg? Bahahahaha you're funnythah-dude

New Vegas has incredibly intricate, layered quest design, and the best faction system I've ever seen, in any genre.

Its character system is very well designed. It makes a wide variety of builds viable, enjoyable to play, and absolutely essential in order to experience all of the game's content.

The number of different options the game gives you, even in seemingly minor quests, is staggering. I'm currently on my 4th playthrough of the game, and I get the sense that I am nowhere near exhausting its content, or seeing all the different possibilities it offers.

The fact that you pose Dragon Age: Origins as its better is ****ing hilarious.

DA:O is a massivly boring, super-restrictive bunch of combat filler, with a weak, generic story, and a tiny gameworld that probaly couldn't have been less interesting if it had been BioWare's express intent to make it so.

It's a pathetic game, in general, and a terrible RPG; New Vegas mops the floor with it.

Two things:

1. Arguably the worst part about New Vegas is the combat; fortunately, there is a lot more to the game besides just killing ****, something I can't say for DA:O, which takes it worst aspects and forces them down your throat like a dead gopher on a pike.

2. I beat DA:O.

I realise that you're only resorting to these weak-kneed tactics because you don't have anything up your sleeve, but I still feel the need to address this, as I don't want the hours of mental anguish I experienced in the course of beating DA to go unacknowledged.

So yes, my doubtful accuser, I played through that bit in the fade, where you literally have to run through holes as a ****ing rat, and kill same-ish mini-bosses in order to escape a scenario foisted upon you by an unavoidable cutscene, and yes, I played through the deep roads, one of the derpiest, most boring bits of dungeon slogging I've ever encountered, and yes, I mucked through the idiotic final level and lost more brain cells than I care to consider upon seeing the room lined with archers standing in a perfect L pattern, as though hastily strewn there by a drunken designer's cursor at the very last moment prior to the discs being printed, and yes, I listened to the moron cast's endless prattling, and yes, I tried to give a **** about the fate of the kingdom, and no, I never managed to.

[QUOTE="thah-dude"][QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

New Vegas has incredibly intricate, layered quest design, and the best faction system I've ever seen, in any genre.

Its character system is very well designed. It makes a wide variety of builds viable, enjoyable to play, and absolutely essential in order to experience all of the game's content.

The number of different options the game gives you, even in seemingly minor quests, is staggering. I'm currently on my 4th playthrough of the game, and I get the sense that I am nowhere near exhausting its content, or seeing all the different possibilities it offers.

The fact that you pose Dragon Age: Origins as its better is ****ing hilarious.

DA:O is a massivly boring, super-restrictive bunch of combat filler, with a weak, generic story, and a tiny gameworld that probaly couldn't have been less interesting if it had been BioWare's express intent to make it so.

It's a pathetic game, in general, and a terrible RPG; New Vegas mops the floor with it.

jethrovegas

Two things:

1. Arguably the worst part about New Vegas is the combat; fortunately, there is a lot more to the game besides just killing ****, something I can't say for DA:O, which takes it worst aspects and forces them down your throat like a dead gopher on a pike.

2. I beat DA:O.

I realise that you're only resorting to these weak-kneed tactics because you don't have anything up your sleeve, but I still feel the need to address this, as I don't want the hours of mental anguish I experienced in the course of beating DA to go unacknowledged.

So yes, my doubtful accuser, I played through that bit in the fade, where you literally have to run through holes as a ****ing rat, and kill same-ish mini-bosses in order to escape a scenario foisted upon you by an unavoidable cutscene, and yes, I played through the deep roads, one of the derpiest, most boring bits of dungeon slogging I've ever encountered, and yes, I mucked through the idiotic final level and lost more brain cells than I care to consider upon seeing the room lined with archers standing in a perfect L pattern, as though hastily strewn there by a drunken designer's cursor at the very last moment prior to the discs being printed, and yes, I listened to the moron cast's endless prattling, and yes, I tried to give a **** about the fate of the kingdom, and no, I never managed to.

I own a DS so I can play games like Etrian Odyssey, Hoshigami, Mega Man Zero Collection and Knights in the Nightmare. These games are tougher than your avergae console fare, and they're cheaper new, so I guess my answer would be no. There are plenty of hardcoregames out there, they're just not where they used to be.

BTW this thread wins just for mentioning Shadow Tower.

Now go track down a copy of Deadly Towers and punish yourself.

Fallout: New Vegas is a mainstream game, and it's also one of the deepest and best role playing games I've ever played.

There's no reason, just for example, that Rainbow Six couldn't go back to the more tactical gameplay of its early predecessors and still maintain a wide audience... hand-holding modes and features could be integrated for those that the need them, and everyone else could swim in the deep end of the pool.

jethrovegas

Would someone please define hardcore?

starwarsgeek112

For this thread I think hardcore means a game that's difficult: no easier modes, no plethora of checkpoints, no autosaves, replaying entire areas because you sucked at trying to get through them without dying over and over. That sort of thing.

Just thought someone should answer you.