It honestly bugged me that people think there’s like a ceiling price for 2d even though it require artist to animate frame by frame, but 3d it’s unlimited even though you could tweak everything far more easily.
2D is not even less work than 3D imo if you’re comparing “good looking” 3D and 2D work. Modern techniques have all but rendered them as merely separate art styles.
Yeah, It really depend on how detail you want it to be, both is hard, but somehow people will pay one more than the other.
So the smart thing to do here is have a 2d metroidvania with 3d artstyle, and suddenly the price ceiling is removed lol (bloodstained is $40 on release)
A lot of 2d games are done in 3d engines these days anyway, because it gives “free” parallax, depth buffering and masking, hardware accelerated compositing etc.
So it’s all the work of hand-drawing animation frames with all the complexity of rigging and mapping in 3d.
Enter the Gungeon and the Shovel Knight series are two examples that come to mind.
There is a price for every D. You go to the store and buy a D for like 15 bucks, so reselling it for more than 20 is criminal. You get one D for free with a game engine, then you buy another D, that’s why the top price for two D is 20 bucks. You would think a game with 3 D will be capped at 40, but then you need to add some A to it, so it’s OK if a game with 3 D and 3 A costs 80 bucks at retail, A aren’t free.
It’s not about hours. It’s the cost of those hours. Despite tons of helpers, performant 3d is hard as fuck. And with that comes expensive coders. In extreme cases you’re talking about 3.5:1.
That’s capitalism for you: first you say that the price doesn’t depend on the production expenses and can be as big as the seller wants, and now you try to explain the price with “production expenses”. No. It is a 2d platformer. 20 bucks is already a very high price.
first you say that the price doesn’t depend on the production expenses and can be as big as the seller wants
Huh? When did i even claim that?
Edit: also even if i said that, which i didn’t, let’s not pretend selling a 2d metroidvania at $30 or even $40 is as same as AAA studio justifying selling their game at $80. It’s like a different issue altogether because one is actively firing people and exploit cheap worker and giving their CEO a fat bonus while claiming inflation, the other is people pretend a dimension of their artwork is the limiting factor.
My beliefs are that all software, with no exceptions should be free and non economic, set this aside for a bit:
I still see absolutely no reason for why one art style would have more value then any other art style.
A game can be anything we can conceive. The best games i played where not about the gameplay but the stories they tell, the vibes they set, the feelings they make me feel.
Thomas was alone and limbo are technically speaking not very complex but the value those games hold is infinitely more then a modern urbisoft title.
One is expensive produced soulless junk i wouldn’t even want to install ending with an abstract value of 0 to me, the others are experiences i cherish that i cannot buy for 20 bucks anywhere else therefor far exceeding the abstract value that 20 bucks is. Its worth way more, its factually sold for way less.
But i repeat, all software should be free, art and experiences should be shared freely and the people who make them deserve the means to flourish by getting acces to the many natural resources that are being wasted on capitalism.
Nintendo: Yes, you can shove that Mario in your socialistic arses; now give us those “the means to flourish by getting acces to the many natural resources”! All of them! Now!
Nitendo already has access because they have money and connections, if they would want to build something new, lets say a themepark or just a big event on public property there is not much stopping them, they can just do that with faster signed permission then you would receive a rejection email.
Nitendo also isnt indie game at all, just because they happen to make 2d platforms doesn’t mean they represent the default
Businessmodel for all 2d platformers.
As a consequence of Nintendo already having more then a reasonable share, it also becomes morally correct to use their products and services without payment. The costs of All their games, hardware, regardless of 2d style should be 0 to consumers who almost all have less then they should have.
It honestly bugged me that people think there’s like a ceiling price for 2d even though it require artist to animate frame by frame, but 3d it’s unlimited even though you could tweak everything far more easily.
2D is not even less work than 3D imo if you’re comparing “good looking” 3D and 2D work. Modern techniques have all but rendered them as merely separate art styles.
Yeah, It really depend on how detail you want it to be, both is hard, but somehow people will pay one more than the other.
So the smart thing to do here is have a 2d metroidvania with 3d artstyle, and suddenly the price ceiling is removed lol (bloodstained is $40 on release)
You want 3D vibes in a 2D platformer, just for laughs? They call that parallax.
You can also do the 2.5D style of like Trine or Mandragora.
Or 3d pretending to be 2d like Deadcells
A lot of 2d games are done in 3d engines these days anyway, because it gives “free” parallax, depth buffering and masking, hardware accelerated compositing etc.
So it’s all the work of hand-drawing animation frames with all the complexity of rigging and mapping in 3d.
Enter the Gungeon and the Shovel Knight series are two examples that come to mind.
There is a price for every D. You go to the store and buy a D for like 15 bucks, so reselling it for more than 20 is criminal. You get one D for free with a game engine, then you buy another D, that’s why the top price for two D is 20 bucks. You would think a game with 3 D will be capped at 40, but then you need to add some A to it, so it’s OK if a game with 3 D and 3 A costs 80 bucks at retail, A aren’t free.
When I take D I usually get paid for it.
Have any openings?
How else would they be taking D?
A couple
It’s not about hours. It’s the cost of those hours. Despite tons of helpers, performant 3d is hard as fuck. And with that comes expensive coders. In extreme cases you’re talking about 3.5:1.
And the median case?
It’s going to depend on lots of factors and the type of game you’re making. They are just two different damn tools.
That’s capitalism for you: first you say that the price doesn’t depend on the production expenses and can be as big as the seller wants, and now you try to explain the price with “production expenses”. No. It is a 2d platformer. 20 bucks is already a very high price.
Twenty bucks gets you a good sandwich and a soda these days. The same money twenty years ago would get you a second sandwich.
20 years ago we were still in the era of $5 footlongs
I’m spoiled though. When I said good I meant something special. Like Paseo back when, or Un Bien nowadays.
A second sandwich, yes, but what about a second breakfast?
You could make it a week of brunches and I’d still have gotten more pleasure from the video game.
deleted by creator
$20 is cheap AF for a game the length and quality of Silksong.
The only real argument you are making here is that “capitalism sucks”. So, I guess we unintentionally agree.
Huh? When did i even claim that?
Edit: also even if i said that, which i didn’t, let’s not pretend selling a 2d metroidvania at $30 or even $40 is as same as AAA studio justifying selling their game at $80. It’s like a different issue altogether because one is actively firing people and exploit cheap worker and giving their CEO a fat bonus while claiming inflation, the other is people pretend a dimension of their artwork is the limiting factor.
My beliefs are that all software, with no exceptions should be free and non economic, set this aside for a bit:
I still see absolutely no reason for why one art style would have more value then any other art style.
A game can be anything we can conceive. The best games i played where not about the gameplay but the stories they tell, the vibes they set, the feelings they make me feel.
Thomas was alone and limbo are technically speaking not very complex but the value those games hold is infinitely more then a modern urbisoft title.
One is expensive produced soulless junk i wouldn’t even want to install ending with an abstract value of 0 to me, the others are experiences i cherish that i cannot buy for 20 bucks anywhere else therefor far exceeding the abstract value that 20 bucks is. Its worth way more, its factually sold for way less.
But i repeat, all software should be free, art and experiences should be shared freely and the people who make them deserve the means to flourish by getting acces to the many natural resources that are being wasted on capitalism.
Nintendo: Yes, you can shove that Mario in your socialistic arses; now give us those “the means to flourish by getting acces to the many natural resources”! All of them! Now!
Nitendo already has access because they have money and connections, if they would want to build something new, lets say a themepark or just a big event on public property there is not much stopping them, they can just do that with faster signed permission then you would receive a rejection email.
Nitendo also isnt indie game at all, just because they happen to make 2d platforms doesn’t mean they represent the default Businessmodel for all 2d platformers.
As a consequence of Nintendo already having more then a reasonable share, it also becomes morally correct to use their products and services without payment. The costs of All their games, hardware, regardless of 2d style should be 0 to consumers who almost all have less then they should have.
Than*