102
V Rising has launched out of Early Access!
(steamcommunity.com)
I just want to play with a controller.
You can now.
I just want to be able to pause the game when playing solo.
I'm playing Baldur's Gate 3, and I wish the same thing.
Put the game into turn based mode before you walk away.
Really, it's more about how cutscenes and dialogue keep playing if you pause. Not a huge deal, but sometimes things come up. If the game auto-saved periodically, this would be less of one.
That freakish. What normal person wants that?
Not paying much attention to early access titles didn't pay off here. I was unaware of the game until today, and would like to play it, but the dealbreaker is the price; I would pay what they were charging during early access, but not the current price. Guess I'm waiting for a sale, though that means I'll very likely just forget it exists again.
$35 is a deal breaker? Your financial situation is your financial situation, but compared to the rest of the industry, this is cheap.
Without being able to try a demo, that price is more than I'm willing to pay for this, yes.
You might be able to try a "demo" of v rising 1.0.0.79266-b23 before you buy...
Appreciate it. I actually found that out earlier today, and I gave it a shot. Tried it for a bit and uninstalled it, but I now know for sure that I would pay $10-15 for it, and no more.
Ehh can't speak the for the parent comment but I don't like spending more than 15 quid on indies unless it's something I really like the look of. Like I bought stray and kena full price but I haven't bought this when I'm not a survival fan so not sure if I'll enjoy it despite it seeming like a good game.
This game and the two you mentioned require what I would consider to be a very liberal definition of "indie".
Lol no it's not, tons of great games are like $25. This game doesn't have enough to deserve a $35 price tag compared to the rest of the industry and I'm sure sales will reflect that.
It peaked today at just shy of 100k concurrent players following its successful early access period, with about 70k reviews, both of which are indicators that it's selling extremely well, as well as taking the #4 spot on the top sellers list on Steam.
"Compared to the rest of the industry" is damning with faint praise.
I'd say most games are maybe worth $20, more only for the ones filled with content that you can replay many times.
Fortunately there are enough people who value them more than you, because most games, even moderately budgeted ones, wouldn't be able to sustain themselves at that price.
"Moderately budgeted" compared to what? Modern AAA game budgets have absolutely exploded and are not sustainable, turning game dev cycles into 5+ year marathons and giving it Hollywood Syndrome where every game needs to be a blockbuster to be considered a success and no risks are able to be taken because of the massive investment each project requires. Do you think that's sustainable? Or do you think that perhaps things have gone out of control when a $90 price point is being floated, even in conjunction with money printing anti-consumer features like lootboxes?
Let's say that including benefits, a developer's salary is about $100k. Maybe a small team of 8 people worked on a game like The Thaumaturge for 3 years. Before you even factor in contract work like voice acting, that would put the development budget at $2.4M. If the game cost $20, they'd have to sell about 120k copies to break even on that investment, which is far from guaranteed. By pricing the game at $35, their break even point is nearly half of that. This is a moderately budgeted game, not a AAA game with microtransactions.
Even an experienced team like Mimimi games, who made smart development choices by iterating on what they built before to keep costs down, releasing critical successes several times in a row, ended up closing down because the money coming in was too tight. Their games ranged from $30-$50 and had every sale, bundle, giveaway, and promotional opportunity you could think of.
8 full time 100k salaried employees is quite a bit more than "small team." Doom was 6 people. That many people are simply not required to make the games that are being produced; they can choose to size down any time they want. If they want to go "all in" on making a "AAAA" game, then they need to deal with that reality and make a game that is actually worth $60.
Their games ranged from $30-$50 and had every sale, bundle, giveaway, and promotional opportunity you could think of.
Perhaps that's part of the problem? Maybe they should have priced their works more fairly from the start and not rely on bundles and givaways which surely aren't going to make them more money.
My point is, the "average" game is absolutely not worth $30. Most games should flop because they're overproduced trash, and we should return to smaller, more artistic-focused development with a smaller scale, more consumer friendly pricing, and where the (few) devs get more slices of their pie.
I'm sorry that you don't enjoy video games enough to pay $30 for most of the good ones, but I hope one day you can sit down with a calculator and realize why it must be that way.
I'd gladly pay $30 if they are worth it, most games are simply not worth it. Recently I've put over 75 hours into Atom RPG the last two weeks, and it's $15 full price, and the developers have released a spinoff and announced a new project, so they seem to be doing fine.
Hopefully you can sit down with a calculator and figure out that things can be better.
The value that I get out of games isn't measured only in hours, especially since it's easy to inflate a game's length.
That's true, I'm using hours per dollar as a shorthand for value, but on the flip side if video games are going to be a couple hours of one-time fun, they gotta expect to have a price point similar to movie theaters which have a similar experience, which is like $10-$15
Video games are often afraid to be only a couple of hours these days, often to their detriment, but if you multiplied a movie's runtime by 2-3x for some extra production value in your game, you end up at that $35 price point easily for a game that's 5-10 hours long. Even for a direct comparison to Atom RPG, I'd rather pay 2-3x as much for a Wasteland game to get what I'm looking for, and Wasteland games aren't exactly short. Neither is V Rising.
Video games are afraid to be only a couple hours because they are afraid of charging less than $10
If your game is short, doesn't offer replayability, and doesn't have any novel gameplay to truly set it apart, then youtube Lets Plays offer real competition of getting basically the whole package.
but if you multiplied a movie’s runtime by 2-3x for some extra production value in your game, you end up at that $35 price point easily for a game that’s 5-10 hours long
That's making a couple assumptions though, that price point is for large studio releases and non-matinee prices. If I go see a movie on a Tuesday afternoon, it's only $7, a perfect price for an average small game.
Even for a direct comparison to Atom RPG, I’d rather pay 2-3x as much for a Wasteland game to get what I’m looking for
Atom RPG isn't exactly a Wasteland game, it leans pretty heavy on classic Fallout, which while inspired by Wasteland, have diverged noticeably in the end product. So if you wanted to get what you're looking for in this case, Fallout 1 and 2 are $10 each, or you can get a bundle of 1/2 and Brotherhood of Steel for $20 (more like brotherhood of steal amirite).
Video games are afraid to be only a couple hours because they are afraid of charging less than $10
I would love to live in a world where we get FPS campaigns that are about 8 hours long, are fulfilling, and cost $60. That used to be the norm, and we were happy with that. A Let's Play is not a substitute.
So if you wanted to get what you're looking for in this case, Fallout 1 and 2 are $10 each, or you can get a bundle of 1/2 and Brotherhood of Steel for $20 (more like brotherhood of steal amirite).
That assumes I don't care about things like better resolutions and frame rates, voice acting, modern considerations for how people actually interact with games, etc. I've also played Fallout 1 already.
That used to be the norm, and we were happy with that
Then you should be supportive of deflation in the video game industry, instead of making excuses for why we should pay more for less
Again, "more" is often to the detriment to the value of the game, because adding hours is easy. I'm saying that, on a AAA level, games were worth more to me when they were shorter. We're currently paying less for more. But at below AAA levels, I'm often served extremely well for $35.
I'm not talking about about adding hours, I'm talking about adding quality.
But at below AAA levels, I’m often served extremely well for $35.
yes, good games exist at that price point, but the average game is not good, and is not worth that.
You mention things like better resolutions, better frame rates, better voice acting, more modern, more better, etc, but none of those things are what makes games good or worth more money. AAA games with cutting edge graphics and star-studded voice acting are not automatically good games, and in fact it frequently has an inverse effect where focusing so much time and money on stuff other than the game leaves a shitty game that will be forgotten about in months; that would absolutely not be worth $30, despite having all your superfluous qualities
No, they don't automatically make a game better, but if I'm choosing between two games that are similar in themes or mechanics, I'm leaning toward the one with voice acting and better presentation. That's worth extra money to me. It's far easier to retain story elements when they're acted out. Production value is still value. Not only did I get a killer RPG for $60 in Baldur's Gate 3, but I also got some killer performances to help sell it. That extra production value is worth extra money. I could play the previous two Baldur's Gates for pennies on the dollar, and I did, but I would certainly say I got more value out of the game that costs more. In V Rising's case, I know of no other action RPG/loot games that have been combined with survival games in this way, playing with independent movement and aiming instead of mouse pointers, so that's worth the money to see. I think we're done here, but your sense of value is just very strange.
Choosing presentation over game quality is what caused the games industry to be bloated beyond belief.
That is a very different idea than what we were talking about.
You mean you haven't seen it in the featured/recommended games on the store page literally every time you open steam?
Cause I have. That's the only reason I've heard of this game, but I've never looked into it.
I have not, no. I don't typically open the store page unless I have a specific goal in mind, in which case I do my business directly, and then leave the page.
Been waiting for the full launch, grabbing this asap! 🙌
It looks so good!
Can't wait until they add the v rising battle royale as and additional game you need to buy and drop all future improvements for v rising just like they did for Battlerite.
They're saving that for Battlerite 2.
this post was submitted on 08 May 2024
102 points (98.1% liked)
Games
29876 readers
357 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS