Im hating the way the gaming industry is heading

CORaven

calex71 wrote: »

Sigh, what ever happened to the days when games got a well crafted and developed expansion pack to extend the life of the game.

I am afraid those days are coming to a close. The only games that I can think of that does it nowadays are the Witcher 2 and L4D2 on the PC. From a business perspective, it does not make much sense to paying people to create something and sell for free to people who already enjoy the game, and using servers that have costs. Yes it improves the experience, but who now will pay full retail price for a 6month old game?

For a 6 month old game the community defines if it is worth buying in my opinion. In a multiplayer game, why buy it if the masses have already moved on to the next big FPS? The quality of the games seems blander as you are left with people who have played the game more and are better than you, making the game less enjoyable if you always lose. Grand, it can be enjoyable to play if your team mates are helpful and give you tips, but instead you are a n00b.
For singleplayer games, any decent game has spoilers everywhere online after a certain time frame. It is best to buy it new and it can be something in conversation. Unfortunately when you do buy it, you can complete it in <10hours with little replay value. GTA4's flying rats and other God forsaken achievements are a desperate attempt to somehow extend the life of the game (it did not need it, it was a good game regardless; you get the idea).

This is what fuels the second hand market in my opinion, the rapid deprecation in the perceived value of games, a combination of an unsatisfactory community to a game, and a poor lifespan of said games.

I do disagree with people's opinions on online passes. Single player should have a price and so should multiplayer, as long as they are reasonable.

I like the idea of DLC. If I could, I would change the way games are sold. It may be a little bit out there, but if games such as Call of Duty which have both a single player campaign and multiplayer and is a yearly released game, is as follows.
That the main game retails at the standard price. Every year, the new campaign is released as DLC (think the way Halo ODST was meant to be) and then separately release the multiplayer as DLC. It is the same engine after all.
You can buy any other game disc of the series and still play the multiplyer and such and buy the same as any other person with the other disc. eg. Rock Band series and their songs in RB1 can be used in RB2.
This would lead to benefits on both sides of the markets: developers get a better segregation of the first-hand market and weakens the power of the second-hand market, where as the consumer/gamer has greater control over what they pay for (paying €60 for a game and not touching the singleplayer seems like a crime).

A cheaper alternative is release way to keep game fresh - L4D2's mutations. These are mods that alters the way that players have to approach the game released every few weeks and keeps the game fresh for the casual gamer. It is closer to traditional methods, but has little income in the long term.

Orim

Robert ninja wrote: »

1. Difficulty isn't directly related to the quality of the game.
2. I wasn't talking about the arcade times.
3. Games are more expensive to me even though my financial position hasn't changed.
4. I've never bought a game as expensive as some of you have priced them, ever, at any time. I can only assume that I've been very lucky or you've all been ripped off many times and are unlucky.
5. I know games were always a market. Don't be making it out as though I'm trying to say games are somehow detached from reality... the very point of this thread is saying how they're very much not.

1. I never said it was. I was pointing out that game developers have always been out to try and get as much as possible from the consumer.
2. Arcade times are relevent to this discussion as we are talking about games developers. A lot of them started in the arcade. You made the point that games developers were not always out for the money I have given an example of how they have been.
3. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/10/an-inconvenient-truth-game-prices-have-come-down-with-time.ars
First link I found on the topic. Also I really have to wonder how your financial position hasn't changed in 10 - 15 years?
4. The majority of us here have paid large prices. This was the standard. Maybe you were extremely lucky but for the SNES/Megadrive, N64/Playstation and PS2/Xbox new game releases were 50+
5. If you're not arguing that games developers weren't always out for money I wonder what you are arguing? Your argument seems to convey that you believe that games developers were out to make good games first and profits second? We're trying to point out that this was never the case.

richymcdermott

Overheal wrote: »

Your argument is tired and invalid. It has nothing to do with "Hurting" or slumping sales, it has to do with them seeing an opportunity to make more money. It's not like Piracy and 2nd Hand Games would ever kill or be allowed to kill the Gaming Industry. They use DRM because it has made them more money. They put protections/barriers on 2nd hand games to make more money. Halo didn't have 2nd hand protections. It didn't even have online multiplayer. But it still raked in a quarter billion dollars in sales. Black Ops, with all the DRM, Multiplayer, DLC and other bull****? A cool Billion plus.

Frankly your head is far up your ass if you think you are owed anything. I can be terribly upset that Vanquish is not coming to PC but they do not owe me a PC port just because I'd be willing to buy it. Nor does a developer owe you because they want to market their game with DLC/Micro-Expansions, or change the appearance of their Intellectual Property. You know what I do when I don't think I like what a game has to offer? I don't buy it. I don't run out and pre-order something that is probably going to suck. You can tell pretty early on which ones you will like and which you won't. And which you aren't willing to pay $60 for. Modern Warfare 2/3 would be one such example, something I'd grab for $30, but they know they have a winner, and have no incentive to introduce lower prices.

invalid you say but what i just said came from ea president own mouth . i really love to see a company survive without its consumer enjoy more game content going over the years to come

Overheal

richymcdermott wrote: »

invalid you say but what i just said came from ea president own mouth . i really love to see a company survive without its consumer enjoy more game content going over the years to come

Because Company presidents are never wrong.

You're playing the wrong games as I said, and paying far too much for them if you think you arent getting your worth out of them. I just preordered Space Marine and got a Copy of Darksiders for $45. Happy with my play through Darksiders, looking forward to Spacemarine, which really now only is costing me about $25. Mass Effect I picked up for $5. ME2 I picked up for $10. Oblivion and Fallout and Stalker SOC I picked up for about or less than $5 each, and have yet to play through any of them. And I struggle to think of very many games that have more content than those, that are much older, in keeping with your argument that we are getting less and less from games as time goes on.

hooradiation

The very idea that your purchase of a single copy of a game among thousands or even millions makes the developer beholden to your specific wants is so fucking stupid.

Monotype

IMO, the reason why the gaming is going downhill as described is because so many people will just buy into the game with the biggest advertising budget... e.g., MW2 looked pretty average to me - far below the average in some aspects with 10 year old games looking better, yet sold as one of the best games ever and an advertising budget of $150M, if I recall correctly.

Surely with all the information at the tips of our fingers with the internet, people should be able to make better choices...?

hardCopy

ghostchant wrote: »

You owe them the money they'd have gotten if you had bought it new instead of 2nd hand.

I'd disagree with that. If companies are going to churn out games that take 10 hours to complete then people will look to sell them when the next thing comes out.

If they can produce quality games that are replayable then people will want to keep them.

Should I have to pay Ford because I drive a second hand car?

Overheal

If someone comes out with a 10 hour game that isnt worth playing, Ill wait before I buy it. Simple as.

ghostchant

hardCopy wrote: »

I'd disagree with that. If companies are going to churn out games that take 10 hours to complete then people will look to sell them when the next thing comes out.

If they can produce quality games that are replayable then people will want to keep them.

Should I have to pay Ford because I drive a second hand car?

It's more the use of their servers etc I was referring to, especially with regards to 'online passes' and the like. Don't car manufacturers often make you pay a fee if you want their warranty on a used car? (I don't drive and am rather clueless when it comes to cars I'm afraid)

CORaven

Monotype wrote: »

IMO, the reason why the gaming is going downhill as described is because so many people will just buy into the game with the biggest advertising budget... e.g., MW2 looked pretty average to me - far below the average in some aspects with 10 year old games looking better, yet sold as one of the best games ever and an advertising budget of $150M, if I recall correctly.

Surely with all the information at the tips of our fingers with the internet, people should be able to make better choices...?

I would disagree. Advertising can improve sales, as sales generally do quite poorly without advertising, but is not the be all and end all. What really made MW2 sell was the fact that groups of people were going to buy it. People who bought Cod4:MW enjoyed the game and wanted to play more maps in multiplayer and others also wanted to see how the plot continued. People new to the franchise bought it as their friends were getting the game and wanted to play a highly popular FPS. The game probably could have sold well without advertising, they even considered dropping the CoD title they were that confident.

There are some games with studios that do have large advertising budgets, but how does this effect the game, or the industry as a whole according to you?
Secondly, name two of those superior games.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

You know what I do when I don't think I like what a game has to offer? I don't buy it. I don't run out and pre-order something that is probably going to suck. You can tell pretty early on which ones you will like and which you won't. And which you aren't willing to pay $60 for. Modern Warfare 2/3 would be one such example, something I'd grab for $30, but they know they have a winner, and have no incentive to introduce lower prices.

Well speak of the devil,

http://store.steampowered.com/sale/modernwarfare

Too bad I found out my next car service is going to cost $600.

Fnz

Exclusive DLC can be annoying. But I'd be more disappointed if whatever I'm looking to buy is not good enough to stand on its own merits, or if multiplayer DLC unbalances the game. Happily, no developer wants to provide a poor experience.

CORaven wrote: »

Advertising can improve sales, as sales generally do quite poorly without advertising

Yes. Case in point, Singularity.

Overheal wrote: »

If someone comes out with a 10 hour game that isnt worth playing, Ill wait before I buy it. Simple as.

"Argh! This wasn't worth playing! Who knew?"

Jerichoholic

The gaming industry are full of it though. For example in an interview today the president of EA, when comparing Battlefield to MW3 said that 'we don't charge for multiplayer, that's the advantage we have over them'.

deathrider

"There's money to be made there,"

The be all and end all of everything :mad: Personally, I think they are just money hungry pigs. Just in case the gaming industry ain't making enough cash already. I remember hearing at one stage (not sure how true this is, perhaps one of you guys could clarify) the video game industry was roping in a bigger yearly profit than Hollywood.

Cuddlesworth

I'm curious to see what will happen when Activision finally try to charge subscription for a mainstream fps. Which they will, its inevitable. WOW is a powerhouse in the gaming industry, pulling in sums of cash that boggle the mind in fixed monthly income over a large number of years. Everything now is geared towards this model since it makes the most financial sense. Modern Warfare will be the first to try it considering the rabid user base. Its the industry's Goldrush, everybody is going for it but its as elusive as gold.

But how exactly they will try to pull if off is what I want to see. Give subscription players a large advantage and it would simply drive away F2P users. Keep adding new weapons and maps could work, but I find myself bored of most fps regardless in a short space of time like most other plays(server stats back me up). A monthly or weekly subscription service would show no greater profit then simple games sales due to the huge drop off from players like me. As numbers drop the game will decline into the hardcore small set of constant players. Nothing like WOW, nothing like the money they want.

So the real question is, how do you get millions of people playing and paying for a fps for years at a time totaling hundreds of Euro? I can't see a realistic way.

Overheal

deathrider wrote: »

The be all and end all of everything :mad: Personally, I think they are just money hungry pigs. Just in case the gaming industry ain't making enough cash already. I remember hearing at one stage (not sure how true this is, perhaps one of you guys could clarify) the video game industry was roping in a bigger yearly profit than Hollywood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpS4fCF4tqo

Sisko

Liber8or wrote: »

I am sorry, but you are wrong. This has nothing to do with piracy on the PC, if anything, it has to do with the 2nd hand games market. People choosing to wait a week or two after a new release comes out and then buying it 2nd hand, is what is causing this need for Online Passes, or Day One DLC. As such, the problem lies with the console market, not the PC one.

Secondly, the problem also lies with how easy it is for "simpletons" to go and buy this DLC, thus perpetuating a cycle of reproducing crap as extra content. Any kid can buy Xbox Live Points, or buy a 20 Euro PSN top up card. Then they can spend it on what they want. Removing the need for a bank account or credit card has done this.

Your concerns lie with who the games are directed at. Take Fallout 3 for example, 5 pieces of DLC, that were relatively substantial and offered new content to move the storyline forward. How many 10 year olds or 13 year olds would play Fallout 3? Very few, because it is a tough game, it is drawn out and a child/teenager (in most cases) does not have the patience. The likes of Call of Duty will be ruined now because of this new Elite service - all the kids will want some extra logo/tag on their gamertag that makes them Elite - leave them to it. Next year, and mark my words, Call of Duty Multiplayer will go subscription based for online gaming - this Elite service is just a stepping stone.

As long as their is a voice against extortionist measures (see EA's/DICE's response to the COD Elite service), there will always be developers willing to offer gamers an alternative. Leave the morons/kids to their 'DLC' and you get on with the game you enjoyed, or alternatively, buy the week old 2nd hand copy to really stick it to the man!

Exactly.

Blazer

ghostchant wrote: »

But that's the point, you do owe them, in a way. You owe them the money they'd have gotten if you had bought it new instead of 2nd hand.

that has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard....:rolleyes:

Apparently Ford are going to be demanding the balance of the 2009 Mondeo I'm buying next month as it's second hand and not new..
Or will they cripple part of the engine so I can't use it fully?

There always has and always will be a second hand market....EA/Activision don't have a problem with this...they have a problem in that companies like Gamestop are making a fortune from it and they're not getting their slice of cake

Spunge

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I'm curious to see what will happen when Activision finally try to charge subscription for a mainstream fps. Which they will, its inevitable. WOW is a powerhouse in the gaming industry, pulling in sums of cash that boggle the mind in fixed monthly income over a large number of years. Everything now is geared towards this model since it makes the most financial sense. Modern Warfare will be the first to try it considering the rabid user base. Its the industry's Goldrush, everybody is going for it but its as elusive as gold.

But how exactly they will try to pull if off is what I want to see. Give subscription players a large advantage and it would simply drive away F2P users. Keep adding new weapons and maps could work, but I find myself bored of most fps regardless in a short space of time like most other plays(server stats back me up). A monthly or weekly subscription service would show no greater profit then simple games sales due to the huge drop off from players like me. As numbers drop the game will decline into the hardcore small set of constant players. Nothing like WOW, nothing like the money they want.

So the real question is, how do you get millions of people playing and paying for a fps for years at a time totaling hundreds of Euro? I can't see a realistic way.

Isn't BF3 offering the same service, but for free?

Orim

Sc@recrow wrote: »

that has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard....:rolleyes:

Apparently Ford are going to be demanding the balance of the 2009 Mondeo I'm buying next month as it's second hand and not new..
Or will they cripple part of the engine so I can't use it fully?

There always has and always will be a second hand market....EA/Activision don't have a problem with this...they have a problem in that companies like Gamestop are making a fortune from it and they're not getting their slice of cake

Is this the Mondeo that's been on sale since 1992? I'm sure EA wouldn't have an issue if you wanted to sell a second hand copy of Theme Park.

God I hate this comparsion. They are completely different markets.

stevenmu

Sc@recrow wrote: »

Apparently Ford are going to be demanding the balance of the 2009 Mondeo I'm buying next month as it's second hand and not new..
Or will they cripple part of the engine so I can't use it fully?

+1.

Online pass isn't about thanking the developers for all their hard work, or supporting a failing industry or donating money to the arts. It's simply about taking more money out of your pockets. The publishers have seen how much money the game shops are able to rip off from customers, and decided that they want to be the ones ripping you off instead. It's not about being nice or decent or honourable, it's simply publishers wanting to rip you off instead of shops.

ghostchant

Sc@recrow wrote: »

that has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard....:rolleyes:

Apparently Ford are going to be demanding the balance of the 2009 Mondeo I'm buying next month as it's second hand and not new..
Or will they cripple part of the engine so I can't use it fully?

Really? So it was more ridiculous than the rapture prediction the other week? Or are we over-exaggerating a little :P
They might (and I'm not sure) charge you to extend the original warranty to you though. Much like the online pass is effectively extending support (servers etc) to the new owner of the game.

If you buy 2nd hand you're buying a physical disk/cart, the dev/publisher has no obligation to give you access to their servers if you're not giving them any money. I'm not suggesting they should stop you playing offline (now that I do take issue with).

johnny_ultimate

The concept that second hand sales and illegal downloads are victimless is absurd. They do a hell of a lot of damage to the industry.

Industry is important - ideally all good art should be free from commercialism and the capitalist system. But our world doesn't work that way, and hence we have to pay for games. And as consumers - who in many ways are the real enemy in this whole mix as they keep buying frickin' Call of Duty :P - demand higher production values, 'bigger' games and all manner of other things costs increase. Games are expensive, and when it comes to big budget titles only a handful of the most conservative succeed. Luckily there are exceptions to this - like Portal 2 - but the reality is there is no safe bet in gaming, bar MW3 or FIFA 2012. Hence, publishers have to try and protect their increasingly heavy investment. It leads to a glut of 'safe' games and sequels and online passes / DLC to prevent second hand sales. If one person buys a second hand game, that's one lost sale. If one hundred thousand do, that's one hundred thousand lost sales. That, in the scheme of economics, is not small change.

While many successful games deserve to succeed, many great games are left to dwell in obscurity and underperform. Dead Space, for example, was a commercial failure. But EA took the risk of making a sequel and it paid significant commercial dividends - at the cost, I'd argue, of a 'safer' and inferior game. Dead Space is an exception. Look at Bizarre Creations - took the risk of creating something new, and the (genuinely cutthroat) Activision promptly broke them up (you can kind of blame the games, but Blur at least was innovative and fun). Same with Grin.

It goes someway to explaining the laziness and 'safe' side of mainstream gaming these days - if your military shooter is going to sell millions, why try and 'fix' it? But originality is far from absent in gaming if you're willing to look. Check out Atlus, a publisher who genuinely seems to be making and selling games for a much smaller market, and truly rewarding those who return to their games time and time again with wonderful games and generous extras. Or Rising Star Games, publishing obscurities like Deadly Premonition or Death Smiles (the latter being far and away my most played game of this year).

Mainstream 'art' is a dangerous place - for every good game, we have many bad ones. It's the same in Hollywood, same with books. The most visible games are often the safest bets. But it's foolish to abandon all hope. There are still great mainstream games (did you see the Uncharted 3 stuff at E3?). There's still innovation (whatever you say about Nintendo, they constantly surprise). There are still hidden gems. And yet if consumers keep buying the games they buy, publishers are going to give them what they want. Can you blame them?

There's only one way to respond if you think gaming is going the wrong direction, and that's with your wallet. It's an unfortunate situation, but in our capitalist world, it's the only way. When Child of Eden comes out in two weeks, buy that, and support games that do something different. We're fooling ourselves if we think it's going to change anything, but hey at least we can try.

richymcdermott

I didnt want to get back into this again and said what i wanted to say ,but when a company comes out like codemasters and say selling unfinished games is the future of the industry makes me so sick, then someone would say sure dont buy it then , that doesnt mean 100s of thousand of people will still buy their product , they then make a income , other companies will follow then boom we arent getting our moneys worth. Maybe im not just seeing the picture and someone needs to explain to me when i give a company full price for example neatherworld studios for mortal kombat i miss out on scorpion, sub zero,kitana,mileena and reptile classic costume thats already on the disk that should be giving to me 2 of the costumes are pre order bonuses and you get the other if you buy the mortal kombat on blu ray, that right their as i addressed is bull**** and that whats annoys me , mk game was no good to me cause i could reddem the online pass for a month so i was done with the game when the store was fixed , cause of an online pass ,im done on the subject

stevenmu

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The concept that second hand sales and illegal downloads are victimless is absurd. They do a hell of a lot of damage to the industry.

Second hand sales and illegal downloads are two entirely different things.

johnny_ultimate

stevenmu wrote: »

Second hand sales and illegal downloads are two entirely different things.

Most definitely, but alas in many ways have the same impact Obviously second hand sales have the benefit of keeping game stores in business.

hooradiation

richymcdermott wrote: »

I didnt want to get back into this again and said what i wanted to say ,but when a company comes out like codemasters and say selling unfinished games is the future of the industry makes me so sick, then someone would say sure dont buy it then , that doesnt mean 100s of thousand of people will still buy their product , they then make a income , other companies will follow then boom we arent getting our moneys worth. Maybe im not just seeing the picture and someone needs to explain to me when i give a company full price for example neatherworld studios for mortal kombat i miss out on scorpion, sub zero,kitana,mileena and reptile classic costume thats already on the disk that should be giving to me 2 of the costumes are pre order bonuses and you get the other if you buy the mortal kombat on blu ray, that right their as i addressed is bull**** and that whats annoys me , mk game was no good to me cause i could reddem the online pass for a month so i was done with the game when the store was fixed , cause of an online pass ,im done on the subject

So, basically, this boils down to "how dare people buy stuff i don't like".
Typical.

richymcdermott

hooradiation wrote: »

So, basically, this boils down to "how dare people buy stuff i don't like".
Typical.

What ?

hooradiation

richymcdermott wrote: »

What ?

but when a company comes out like codemasters and say selling unfinished games is the future of the industry makes me so sick, then someone would say sure dont buy it then , that doesnt mean 100s of thousand of people will still buy their product

People buying stuff you don't like. How dare they!
Cry me a river.

richymcdermott

hooradiation wrote: »

People buying stuff you don't like. How dare they!
Cry me a river.

Ya so when comapnies do the same how is that moving the gaming industry forward ,