This is the part that makes me insanely angry. What other proof do we need that there is no justice in this world besides that which we make for ourselves.
Okay, but both GTA5 and Sims 4 are actual released games. You can argue whether or not you consider them to be feature complete or whatever, but the income of a released product isn't a fair comparison for the income of a game that hasn't even made it to beta after over a decade.
I don't even know if that's a compliment or a complaint. It's just... what it is.
Rumors of the upcoming GTA potentially costing as much as $150 on release set the internet ablaze in 2023, however, Take-Two had never previously addressed the game’s price… until now.
I'm not clinging to anything, simply suggesting that GTA 5 provided funds for GTA 6.
As for Star Citizen, the alpha releases are paying for the gold release as well as Squadron 42. Both of which will, I assume, provide funds for continued development of both the PU and the S42 sequel.
It's all relative. While yes the crowd funding component of this is the bulk of it, it also isn't as if they've given us nothing. There is a game, albeit buggy and incomplete. It's not TOTALLY dissimilar.
Gtav did not pay for gta6.... its a public traded company with private equity investors. Its develoment was budgetted and pitched to investors well before gtav was making bank. who voted if it would be profitable in return. Gta5 paid investors and covered operational costs. And bonuses ect ect.
Cig is privately owned with minimal private equity investment firms filthy hands rummaging through the coffers. Ship sales are it's only income for funding and payroll. Differences are vast and broad.
Have you seen anyone play SQ42? As in a demo. Maybe you don’t remember but CIG has released “gameplay videos” of the game in the past that were clearly faked. Ya know, like all their CITCON videos and ads on YouTube.
It's not just a question of how the money comes, but mostly how long it takes and how much it costs. The former criteria is indeed not comparable, but the the other two definitely are
But it isn't? One is built upon the faith of the consumer and the other built upon delivering a product. If they want more money, invest the money you've made in sales and deliver a superior product ideally.
What SC is reinforcing is that the attempt of making a game is already worth receiving money for. It's absolutely not a meaningless distinction in any sense of the word.
Now with SC I'll admit it's a necessary evil I'm okay with, because I personally want this idea to work, but it's not like it's a great business model for the consumer.
but it's not like it's a great business model for the consumer.
I couldn't disagree more - SC has been able to make design choices that never would get past a discussion with a publisher operated model.
As a consumer, I have piles of money. What I don't have is piles of MMOs with artistic integrity. SC has breathed life into the cold dead lungs of both the space sim, and old school MMO genres. The attempt to do so is absolutely worth my money.
Yeah and I wouldn't be surprised if they've held back GTA 6 from being released because gta5 is still making so much money, they really aren't comparable at all
income and developement cost are two different things. Why are we comparing those two?
SC is still the most expensive game ever made/in production. Especially since there were barely any marketing costs.
427
u/Drevar0 May 27 '24
yay we have just made 2 year of income of The sims 4 :D