Shots in the Dark: Where Gaming's Going

Tom Mc Shea theorizes how this generation's trends will affect the next generation of consoles.

by

'

There has been a considerable shift in gaming the last seven years. The releases of the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and Wii brought with them much more than the expected graphical upgrades and redesigned controller inputs that herald a new generation. Fundamental aspects of the industry have radically changed from what we were used to, forever altering the types of games that we consume and the ways that we play them. As the next generation of consoles fast approaches, we explore how these recent trends may evolve in the future.

Games as platforms

Not long ago, games were static products that were incapable of being changed once the code had been printed on the disc or cartridge. That's no longer the case. Now, games are delivered piecemeal. Whether unlocking another fighter in BlazBlue, more maps in Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, or new horn sound effects for Dirt 3, there are a huge variety of features to throw your hard-earned money at. This flexibility keeps games feeling fresh long after they hit store shelves, but it has created animosity among people who would rather not be nickel-and-dimed to play complete versions of their favorite games. Downloadable content became into vogue this generation because an online delivery method (and adequate storage space) was previously unavailable. Now that developers have had years of experience with this business model, how will this approach to updating games change in the coming generation?

What the future holds:

Not long ago, games were static products that were incapable of being changed once the code had been printed on the disc or cartridge.
This trend will only become more prevalent in the future. But the challenge developers face is balancing their lust for financial rewards with their need to maintain a healthy relationship with consumers. Avoiding the negative backlash that comes with nefarious content upgrades is imperative going forward. Just ask Capcom about the reaction from people who found out the extra characters they were being charged for in Street Fighter X Tekken were already on the disc. Or the negative memes created when Bethesda tried to sell horse armor in Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Charging for more content is a delicate proposition, so expect the smartest companies to toe the line carefully in the coming years.

One game that serves as a model for how to deliver premium features is Mass Effect 3. Despite the unprecedented hatred BioWare received for the single-player campaign, the multiplayer aspect did a great job of making both sides of the economic coin very happy. New maps were added free of charge to the horde-slaying mode, and you could unlock additional gear by plugging away at enemies. But booster packs could also be purchased with real money, giving a shortcut for impatient players while limiting the impact of these items so the game didn't transform into another pay-to-win endeavor. Look for more games to use this approach in the future so no one feels like they're being ripped off.

Social connectivity

Video games are no longer a solitary experience. A need to provide an aura of limitless value has ensured that multiplayer has been crammed into any and every game imaginable. It doesn't matter that no one asked for deathmatch in BioShock 2 or Tomb Raider; you're going to gun down your friends, and you're going to like it. The rare solo offering still trickles through, but that doesn't mean you have to be completely separated from other people. Achievements and trophies let you compare your progress with your peers', and chat functionality means you have someone to talk to at all times. Throw in always-updated leaderboards, and gaming has never been more social. But what will this trend look like a few years down the line?

What the future holds:

You're going to gun down your friends, and you're going to like it.
We've only seen the tip of the iceberg in this regard. Right now, the majority of multiplayer experiences demand extreme dexterity and in-depth knowledge to compete so that all but the gaming elite are locked out. Have you ever seen a newbie try to play Call of Duty? It isn't pretty. That exclusionary mentality is fine if raw competition is what you crave, but for the millions of people the world over who just want to have fun, that barrier of entry is too high. Things need to change.

As development costs continue to rise in the console sphere, publishers will steer away from the jack-of-all-trades mentality that has been so prevalent this generation. There is no shame in making a primarily solitary experience, and there will be more games that embrace the lone gamer, albeit with a new slant. Connectivity is only going to become more important as the technology to reach others gets more sophisticated, so there will be elements of multiplayer injected in single-player adventures. Dark Souls is a great example of how such features can be implemented without causing harm to the journey. Adding in helpful messaging or a ready ally (or adversary) engenders a social approach without extinguishing the core appeal. The Miiverse has also made communication even easier, and that trend will only continue.

Death of the midsize game

High-end visuals are impressive to look at, but it costs a pretty penny to pump out cutting-edge graphics. Because of the expense associated with full-price games, there has been a serious decline in the last few years of a middle ground. Games either fall into the AAA classification or take an independent route, with only a few offerings that strike a balance between these two extremes. This has become a serious problem. Uber-expensive games rarely innovate because one false step could lead to financial ruin, and independent games often lag far behind from a technical standpoint. Are we forever doomed to bounce between these two very different types of games?

What the future holds:

Are we forever doomed to bounce between these two very different types of games?
Midsize games could see a welcome resurgence in the coming years. The price of development is only going to rise as more detail is required to meet the growing graphical demands, but there's a flaw in the AAA industry's current pricing scheme: $60 is very expensive for a video game. Considering the abundance of low-priced, high-quality games already available on consoles (in their downloadable catalogs), personal computers, and mobile devices, asking people to shell out such an exorbitant fee is a risky prospect.

This opens the door for cheaper games that fall somewhere between the $60 you'd expect from the newest retail release and the $15 (or less) from a downloadable wonder. And the key is digital distribution. Look, for example, at Telltale's approach with its incredibly well-received Walking Dead series last year. By releasing each episode for just $5, the company was able to lure in people who may have been scared to part with their hard-earned cash for an untested property. But once The Walking Dead hooked people with its expertly told story and grisly visuals, paying for the whole season was a no brainer. All told, The Walking Dead was $25 and offered an experience that rivaled (if not surpassed) many AAA offerings. This model could work in a variety of genres and holds the key for middle-class games next generation.

Everything is digital

Broadband and 3G coverage have made gaming more accessible than ever before. You can now download a game whenever you want, instead of being forced to run to a store, and that ease makes it painless to satiate any craving you have, whenever you desire. It's a gigantic leap from what we were used to, but it does have a few noticeable caveats. Namely, we no longer have unregulated access to the games we've purchased. Always-on DRM limits when and how we can play games, and if our Internet connection is severed, we're plain out of luck. There have been serious growing pains as consumers and developers grasp the power of this new reality, and that divide is going to get bigger in the future.

What the future holds:

Broadband and 3G coverage have made gaming more accessible than ever before.
Online delivery will only become more viable in the future (as hard drive space and broadband coverage grow), and that means we will no longer own our games. Sure, we'll pay money for them, and be able to play them almost anytime we want, but our relationship to them will end there. Remember when we used to lend games to our buddy? Or rent the newest release from the local video store? Savor those moments, because they will exist only in your hippocampus if publishers have their way.

But the future is not all doom and gloom. Trading in our rights as consumers isn't entirely a negative shift, even though it appears that way initially. A digital future could actually make it easier to access our library. Cloud gaming has been on the lips of the technological pioneers for years, but it has yet to take a serious hold in the console world aside from transferring saved game data. That won't hold true for long. Accessing our library wherever an Internet outlet resides will be standard in the coming years, and this feature will only become more important as mobile devices become more powerful. Imagine being able to stream the latest PlayStation 4 release directly to your Vita. It's an enticing prospect that's almost worth giving up our consumer rights for. Almost.

'

Discussion

327 comments
dogpigfish
dogpigfish

I don't mind paying for extra stuff in a game, like skins for minecraft.  What I do mind is a game locking out features with the intent to shorthand the customer.  Sometimes its hard to tell the difference, because any business man is going to say 'leave these out and charge them as dlc".  I would like to pay and have my npc be different than others, alongside supporting ongoing development of a franchise.  The only company that does this effectively is Blizzard's WOW.  It would be really cool to download a new character in Mario Kart, or a new island in Mario Bros U.  It can be accomplished, but needs to be an obvious expansion of the current experience and not EA's nickel and dime model for content you already own.  Just a thought. 

hopefeared
hopefeared

Guys...I seriously don't know what's your issue with Digital download. The only reason I see us holding onto Physical media is the nostalgic factor of opening a box/present. I'm also not absent from the greedy money making game industry....

So basically I want to know your position on digital media (Assuming everyone has internet access) if it had the following:

- Ability to load the games into a proprietary locked flash memory/Hard disk so you can give it to a friend when needed.

- Prices must be at least 20% cheaper than physical media

- The life of the game file on the store (Availability) must be stated when buying the game.. Maybe I want the game to be available on the server forever and the gaming company is committed to this agreement.

If it is up to me we shouldn't even to DOWNLOAD digital media....we should each have like an electronic identification device so we can use on ANY console and it would have your all your game DATA and SAVE files on the cloud server and you can play it directly from there....

Maybe I'm just jumping waaaaay into the future from now...Pls don't laugh at me...You know it's possible now with today's technology.


paxis85
paxis85

Digital distribution in the EU is a joke. 45 dollars is not equal to 45 euros. I never buy a AAA from steam for that reason. You'd have to be rich or stupid.

osirisx3
osirisx3

60$ is to much for games they need to be cheaper.

d12dotcom
d12dotcom

 I feel the same as pretty much everyone else here about digital distribution. I'm a massive fan of Steam with hundreds of games in my library, but none on my consoles, all because of ridiculous pricing. Go on the PS Store and a game is £50 to buy. That is at least 25% more expensive than it is to buy in a shop, when it has no need to be more expensive

macca366
macca366

Only positive to digital distribution is that it should be cheaper, seeing as it cuts the cost of packaging and shipping etc. If they want to move to digital and sell it to me at the same price, they can shove it. Like most people here I prefer to 'own' my physical copy. Still, I only buy one or two games a year now anyway

CrazyOldCracker
CrazyOldCracker

Digital downloads woulden't bother me if they lowered the price they charge for games.  I don't really want to buy a Digital Game and pay $60.00 when i can buy a physical copy of the game play it enjoy it and then sell it and put that money towards my next game. 

If it worked like Steam i wouldn't care they have great sales, I don't know why PS/Xbox/Wii charge so much for Digital Games when no one is being payed to put the game on a disk make a booklet package it ship it.  Usually buying things Factory Direct is cheeper but not in the Console world.

darkscape
darkscape

Digital is definitely the way to go. Nobody wants to look for CD-2 of a game and not be able to continue the installation =)

Sweendrix
Sweendrix

This article has one thing wrong.  It will actually be about 30 percent less expensive to develop the average game than in this generation.  This is because of the fact that the tools to create games have become far more advanced in the last few years than they have ever been in the history of gaming.   It is also no longer an issue to develop for multiple processors like it was when the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 came out. 

ch35dlgl
ch35dlgl

yes next generation will be awesome

jbgarbuz
jbgarbuz

I rent games from Gamefly, and have been for nearly 8 years now, and very rarely buy a game unless (a) I am certain I will replay it many times in the future, and/or (b) it is on sale for dirt cheap! I also download games from Steam to my old PC when they are on sale cheap or from the Gamefly PC client. I even own a few games on Onlive. But mostly, I'm a lone gamer who does not play multiplayer online, and most of the games I enjoy tend to be shooters or RPGs in the AAA category. But if games only become available via digital downloading, I would be very unhappy. I don't  have an Xbox Live account, and don't want one. Maybe when I finally get a PS3 I might think about online play. Don't dismiss the single campaign player. Some of  us just enjoy popping a game disk into our consoles, leaning back and playing by our lonesome selves to relax and enjoy. But then, I'm 66 years old, so what I say may not apply to many others. But I don't think I'm alone on this.

bick420
bick420

So....... they are willing to go all digital and completely alienate any of their rural customers who may have terrible internet connectivity or none at all. Where I grew up, there is still very bad internet service, but everyone has a game console. Take it all digital and you'll lose that entire customer base.... and there are more people in that category who are buyers of games than you might imagine... 

Kabbalistica
Kabbalistica

I haven't used the cloud feature on my 360 ever and I never will. If games go purely digital (no more going to the store to buy them) then I'm done.

I hope the game industry realizes that most of us don't rely on gaming as the only hobby in our lives. If they try this New World Order sh*t with our games, I'll stop playing and buying them, or worst case, I'll become a mad collector and start buying up all the old consoles and their games... GC, DC, PS1, PS2, etc, etc, etc... There's enough old, hard copy games out there to last a lifetime. :)

Wolflink001
Wolflink001

Yawn... the great wall of text has spoken...

MelodicMizery
MelodicMizery

i currently own last time i checked 201 games and am around 210-215 now on ps3 so ive had alot of time to evaluate alot of games from big budget to small budget and the gaming industry is going down the drain bigtime. the ps3 generation is great but whatever is coming next i think gamers are going to be so fed up with bullshit these companies are pulling that they will simply just stop gaming or limit themselves to one or 2 games. most of my friends play one game and thats it now. 

with things like online passes you have to pay for there milking the customers and making there own games dead. for example need for speed high stakes you buy a online pass for that game and no one is playing it. the walking dead said if you buy the season pass youll get a new episode each month but instead they took our money and we had to wait a entire year to get them all because what they didnt tell us was the game wasnt even finished yet they released it in mid production. dead island had a save file glitch that effected thousands of people form losing 100s of hours into there game, they knew the glitch was there yet they still released the game. bioshock 2 had a map pack that was coded so horrible that its impossible to select it after you buy it which makes it a completely useless dlc pack that is unplayable. also if games dont make enough money they dont fix there broke game like twisted metal you cant even connect to a game on there and there trophys are broke and the game was abandoned. 

also as the article has said theres a line between having fun and the game being to real. lets take battlefield for example, the past bf games had dedicated players who played the game 5 years after it was made. now the game has become over realistic and people trade the game in within the first month they got it. its great for a few gamers who love hardcore modes and challenges. but the game was to realistic and with the weapon lag you die before you get shot, and the guns have so much recoil you cant kill someone across the street from you with 400 rounds yet you die with one bullet. now this might be fun for some, but the average gamer doesnt want to play a game and be pissed off there going to simply sell the game. as you can tell with bf3 premium not many people bought it seeing how empty the maps are sometimes. you gotta realise kids still play the games, there not as good as someone who is older. some of us have school, some of us have work.

gaming is trying to go digital, yet they cap our speeds as it is, the ps store is slow as heck. its all a way for them to milk more money out of us. if they become to greedy like they already are becoming they may just end up with a completely dead gaming industry. i cant see anyone dealing with the next generation of consoles that is digital downloads only. the economy is way to poor right now to afford anymore milking in the gaming industry


blackfire
blackfire

"Trading in our rights as consumers isn't entirely a negative shift" wtf if I pay 60$ for a game, and it's not mine then I don't want it .digital distribution is the worst thing to happen to gaming, a Trojan horse if will. Here buy our game you can't physically hold or trade with your buddy or if you lose Internet access you can't use. When gaming becomes fully digital and I can't own what I buy and use it as I please, I'll be done with gaming. It amazes me how gamers are so easy to give up their rights for convenience.

amdreallyfast
amdreallyfast

You make an interesting point about the episode format of The Walking Dead.  Monkey Island did something similar and it worked out well (I thought).  Unfortunately for Valve, they are having trouble counting past 2.  I suspect the primary delay for HL2 Episode 3 is a high-level Valve conversation that goes something like: "Episode 1, episode 2, episode 5!"  "Three, sir."  "Wut?"  "Three, sir.  Three is after two."  "No it isn't."  "Yes it is"  "No it isn't."  "Yes it is!"

amdreallyfast
amdreallyfast

A good read, Tom, although you neglected any mention of the rapid increase in pirated games and how publishers struggle to adapt.  I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

zpluffy
zpluffy

The next future games will utilize facebook capability at it's full power. You can like your weapon, and you can see people that liked it. You can even poke your friends that are playing online. Then you can post what you did in Xbox center using voice chat capability in kinect. On top of that you can even follow your friends so you see them onlin live. Then you can show your photo from facebook in ala Mass effect games. Or on sims you can link your photo from face book to one of the ingame picture frames.Zuckerberg will be very happy

Scarshi
Scarshi

I think I'll just go and find my copy of Final Fantasy VII and play it for 30 hours. I can escape all this for 30 hours ...

It'll all be better when I'm done, right?

WolfyBrandon
WolfyBrandon

Middle ground games should offer us something AAA games don't. If AAA games have the graphics, then middle ground games should go for extra content and depth that a lot of AAA games lack.

The idea of streaming game content is very dangerous. I am someone who has a dated PC and it "might" sound nice to just stream the content so I can play games out of my PC specs, but I'm against it. I feel we have lost enough rights already as it is. I hate being required to run a service such as Steam/Origin/UPlay just to play my games. I find the most enjoyable games I play are ones that have modding capability, which would be impossible if games were streamed to you. I also like playing old classics I have bought years ago... what happens if such a service goes down? The idea of streaming might have it's time and place in some situations, but I don't support it as a replacement.

WolfyBrandon

Derugs
Derugs

Why is Mario shown on the editorial cover image? Obviously, he's going to the wii.  

CountZurich
CountZurich

I agree with abandoning the shoehorning of multiplayer for many games. It worked with the two best games of last year (The Walking Dead and Journey, which was quasi-multiplayer, just not how one would expect). Games like Far Cry 3 and Spec Ops: The Line, which both had amazing single player experiences, had unnecessary multiplayer which detracted from the resources and quality of the games. Other games like Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Dishonored did more than just fine offering a straight up solo experience.

Incubus420
Incubus420

This industry is doomed.  Give me my PS2 and the way developers used to think back then. It wasn't always about the money back then, it was about making sick A$$ games.  

StammBladecastr
StammBladecastr

I am apprehensive about the move to more social connectivity in games.  For whatever reason, I don't see the draw of competitive shooters.  Like many gamers, I want to be engaged, one-on-one, with a well crafted challenge.  

But if more social connectivity is inevitable, then I think there is a shining example of how it can be done right for us introverted gamers: Dragon's Dogma.  The ability to recruit other player's pawns, and to have your pawn gain knowledge of the world be being recruited by others, was well done and made the integration of a social aspect into a solo campaign actually fun.  

Contrast this with Mass Effect 3, which basically coerced it's campaign players into playing several hours of it's multiplayer mode.  To top it off, it allowed players to reject noobs from matches, when all I wanted to do was bear through it so I could get back to the solo campaign.  When a series is built on two great solo experiences, then all of a sudden forces a multiplayer mode (well, not really, but forces it for completionists), that's not cool.

jpnelson82
jpnelson82

the ultimate goal of gaming is to build the holodeck from Star Trek: The Next Generation and later series. Different companies are making strides in different directions, but that's the goal, a holodeck. In the holodeck, the player is the character, literally, you wander around a 3D tactile world, no conversation wheels, just players speaking directly to NPC's, who then react naturally, within the framework of their scripting, of course. The Microsoft Illumiroom, Holodeck version 0.000001?

Storyz
Storyz

 I hope to see devs approach more sensitive topics in their games in order to give more value to their work then just the all might FUN everyone seems to be dancing around these days. I'm personally bored of having fun all the time and sometimes I'd rather play something that feels constructive in the same way a good book delivers great ideas that shape our character.

I think games can be considered one of future's main medias since the people who will soon be adults are those who grew with those games we see around us and they are not so likely to throw them away, not even when they get older. That being said i think games will have an important impact and will shape our children's minds. This is serious, and this should be treated very carefully, unless the idea of our children becoming some empty shells that only like to have fun sounds like a good go.


Discussing what or how we want to achieve this is quite a different topic, but for the time being I think it was worth mentioning. 

Other then that, I hope for a method of balancing good graphics and great content, because sometimes you can't relay only on good gameplay to deliver your idea, and graphics have great importance as well, in order to create a certain atmosphere. The truth is people have 5 senses and the more we can stimulate them the better the idea in our game will be passed to them. Ofc that doesn't mean we can't also have games like the Indie sort. Those are important as well and can impress on someone in an equal amount sometimes.

Regarding the payment I think the idea of delivering 1-2 chapters/levels for a small price and the rest only after for a bigger amount of money is a great idea for many reasons that were stated already.

Last but not least I think users should be more united and speak loudly what they want. Even if it is obvious not all people think/feel the same regarding a game or a subject, there are issues that bother most of the people (DRM for example) and against those things we need to protest together, going as far as not buying games from a certain company unless our desire is not fulfilled. Again, it needs to be done by a large majority in order to have effect.

MrMan2000
MrMan2000

 I think episodic games is the future.  I can imagine "levels" now being "chapters" sold at $5 a piece or whatever.  This serves several functions:

1.  Consumers can sample games for small price; no need to shell out $60 for a game you end up playing for 3 hours.

2.  Developers can protect themselves against failures.  For instance, if after developing two or three chapters and it's proving unpopular the plug can be pulled thus limiting total exposure.  Won't mean you won't lose money, just less. 

3.  On-the-fly improvement.  Imagine a develop releases two "beta" versions of a new IP each with a slightly different version of the protagonist.  They can live market research which is proving more popular and adjust future chapters to leverage the more popular.  

4.  Game-play improvements.  Using opening chapters to test new ideas the popular ones can be leveraged and the unpopular ones improved or disposed.  This should increase innovation.  

5.  "Serial" type games abound.  I can see games with no end-point in sight, just new chapters every month / quarter.  Without the physical limitations of a disc there's no limit to the scope of a game or it story.  

I could keep going but it seems very obvious that serial gaming will be a core part of gaming's future.  Then we'll be bitching about having to pay $5 for every chapter (and paying a total of $90 for the game) instead of $60 for the whole thing at once


thenephariouson
thenephariouson

@d12dotcom 

With you all the way, Games on XBL are equally as expensive, given that theres no 'Distribution costs (Retailers, etc), i really dont see how they can justofy the same retail price

wushdishmeen
wushdishmeen

@CrazyOldCracker In all fairness there are certainly equal costs involved with providing a game via digital download as opposed to physical media.  While I agree it should cost maybe 5-10% less, you are making it sound like all their costs are removed with digital media.   The cost of running and maintaining the servers that host the files, as well as the cost of the bandwidth to deliver 2GB, 5GB, and even some 15GB games to millions of users is extremely costly.


For instance a game like Dead Space 3 is a 16.2GB game with 2 DVDs.  Not only would this take a few hours to download even on a high speed bandwidth connection but it would cost them a tremendous amount in bandwidth to upload to millions of people.  Some people may want to play that game on release day right away instead of sitting and waiting for a 3 hour+ download to finish and then another 10 minutes to install it.

Plus storage space is always limited no matter what so the idea of a library of games is always limited by the storage space you have.   Even if they put something crazy like a 1TB drive in a next gen console, you can assume that next gen games will be even bigger than current gen games.  So even if we average the size at 15GB you would only be able to fit around 60 games.  While that may be enough for most people it still only includes the next gen games.   Lots of people like the backwards compatibility and would add classic games,  movies, pictures, music, and the OS of the system also would take up a good 15GB or more.


Physical media allows gamers to have an endless library of games not limited by storage space which can also be sold or traded towards new games or lent to friends so they can borrow it.  It also leaves you all that internal storage for games from the online store and demos.

HOW THE USED GAME INDUSTRY WILL CHANGE

The ONLY thing I can see them doing is forcing you to register your games to your online gamertag with a registration code.  That way even physical media will only work if you're signed in to your gamertag.  To play on another console you simply sign in to your gamertag on that console.  When you sell the game the registration code etched inside the box goes with it, and once that new owner registers the game it disables the game on your console.  Which you won't care about because you won't have it anymore,  since you SOLD it..  They are already talking about the next gen systems allowing for multiple gamertags to be logged in on one console.   So you could still bring your games over to a friends house and use them on their console.

Kabbalistica
Kabbalistica

@MelodicMizery Yup. If it goes pure digital I'm out, for sure. I don't think Nintendo has any plans to do that with Wii-U (or at least not as bad as Sony and Microsoft) so I'll switch to that if I have to (I play 360 now).

I like going to the store and buying a hard copy of a game. I like that "new game smell" when I crack open the brand-new plastic case. That has been a joy for me since I was a kid. Especially with big releases...

MelodicMizery
MelodicMizery

@blackfire i agree with u, as i said above i have 200+ games. once gaming becomes digital i will stop gaming and move on to something else or ill just play my old games. the way i, and most people look at it is like this. when i buy a used game im only buying it because its cheap and usually for trophys. i really aint buying it because i must have it im only buying it because it doesnt cost much. therefore if it was a digital game that i had to pay for full price i simply just would not even buy it at all because its not important to me. i think everyone feels that way as well. so the gaming companys may say well were losing money on used game sales, but they arent because the games people buy used they most likely wouldnt of bought if they were full price. if someone wants a game they buy it new. and if the game is still recently released people usually buy the game new instead of used anyways because they only save 5 dollars buying it used.  also gaming companys arent losing money at all like they say they are, as well as car companys and etc i learned a long time ago when they say they have a loss in sales, its not a loss in sales, in the business world it means that they did not make as much profit as last year, or they did not make as much profit as they estimated. they always always always make profit on almost everything they do and make. so there trying to make us feel bad by wording it in a way that it seems like there losing money when in fact there still gaining millions. capcom was one of the people who said they were losing money yet still had something like 300 million in profits the one year, but they said they didnt make money because the year before they made 600 million, get what i mean. there lying straight up they are just becoming over greedy like everyone else in this world

MelodicMizery
MelodicMizery

@blackfire i agree with u, as i said above i have 200+ games. once gaming becomes digital i will stop gaming and move on to something else or ill just play my old games. the way i, and most people look at it is like this. when i buy a used game im only buying it because its cheap and usually for trophys. i really aint buying it because i must have it im only buying it because it doesnt cost much. therefore if it was a digital game that i had to pay for full price i simply just would not even buy it at all because its not important to me. i think everyone feels that way as well. so the gaming companys may say well were losing money on used game sales, but they arent because the games people buy used they most likely wouldnt of bought if they were full price. if someone wants a game they buy it new. and if the game is still recently released people usually buy the game new instead of used anyways because they only save 5 dollars buying it used.  also gaming companys arent losing money at all like they say they are, as well as car companys and etc i learned a long time ago when they say they have a loss in sales, its not a loss in sales, in the business world it means that they did not make as much profit as last year, or they did not make as much profit as they estimated. they always always always make profit on almost everything they do and make. so there trying to make us feel bad by wording it in a way that it seems like there losing money when in fact there still gaining millions. capcom was one of the people who said they were losing money yet still had something like 300 million in profits the one year, but they said they didnt make money because the year before they made 600 million, get what i mean. there lying straight up they are just becoming over greedy like everyone else in this world

MelodicMizery
MelodicMizery

@blackfire  i agree with u, as i said above i have 200+ games. once gaming becomes digital i will stop gaming and move on to something else or ill just play my old games. the way i, and most people look at it is like this. when i buy a used game im only buying it because its cheap and usually for trophys. i really aint buying it because i must have it im only buying it because it doesnt cost much. therefore if it was a digital game that i had to pay for full price i simply just would not even buy it at all because its not important to me. i think everyone feels that way as well. so the gaming companys may say well were losing money on used game sales, but they arent because the games people buy used they most likely wouldnt of bought if they were full price. if someone wants a game they buy it new. and if the game is still recently released people usually buy the game new instead of used anyways because they only save 5 dollars buying it used.  also gaming companys arent losing money at all like they say they are, as well as car companys and etc i learned a long time ago when they say they have a loss in sales, its not a loss in sales, in the business world it means that they did not make as much profit as last year, or they did not make as much profit as they estimated. they always always always make profit on almost everything they do and make. so there trying to make us feel bad by wording it in a way that it seems like there losing money when in fact there still gaining millions. capcom was one of the people who said they were losing money yet still had something like 300 million in profits the one year, but they said they didnt make money because the year before they made 600 million, get what i mean. there lying straight up they are just becoming over greedy like everyone else in this world

MelodicMizery
MelodicMizery

@amdreallyfast what pissed me off about walking dead is they sold a season pass for a game that was unfinished yet they lied to us and said it was and we would get a episode each month. by the time the 3rd episode untilt he last episode came out each time i played a new one i had no fkn clue what i did in the last episode. and with it a game being based on decisions that really pissed me off. it kind of seemed like they didnt have enough money to finish the game so they sold it early unfinished to fund themselves. so i say to myself what if that game would of flopped hardcore, what kind of product would we of got if they already were half assing it as it is. for that alone ill prob never buy another game from there company. it also seemed towards about epsidoe 3 and 4 the game cut back on alot of searching for stuff and became more of a movie i was watching instead of a game i was playing. it seemed like they were starting to cut corners in game interaction to get the game done faster. the first episode had alot more to do then the rest. it still all worked out because the storyline was great, but its a game that could of turned awfull very quick. if it wasnt for the zombies and it being related to the tv show i prob wouldnt of even bothered with it at all

MelodicMizery
MelodicMizery

@amdreallyfast they arent losing money like they say they are, when a company says there losing money they actually mean they didnt make as much profit as they wanted to but they still made alot of profit, or they did not make as much profit as the year before. dont let them fool you or trick you into feeling bad for them. if you do some research on it youll find gaming companys are still clearing a good 300million+ a year. even small games in a ps store clear at the very very minimum 75k profit and thats for games that barely took any work at all. not to mention dlc is the biggest profit there is, they clear thousands upon thousands of dollars on dlc for something that barely took anytime at all to make or on something that was already made for the game but taken out to sell as dlc to get more profit. trust me there isnt a hole in there pockets at all.

Kabbalistica
Kabbalistica

@zpluffy Facebook + My Xbox/Sony/Nintendo games? No thanks... You're probably right, but I won't use that feature, EVER.

"Hey, my machine gun or sword in <insert game title> got 100 Likes...?" LMAO, WTF? Now they're just treating us like cattle.

Kabbalistica
Kabbalistica

@Scarshi I hope so... but I doubt it. We're in for it with this psycho-digital era. I don't mind buying the odd game over the internet as a digital copy, but if the end of the physical medium is here, then I'm done with games.

MelodicMizery
MelodicMizery

@WolfyBrandon i agree with you, when battlefield 3 beta came out and was forcing me to use origin i stopped playing pc when i saw they were forcing me to use origin and when i saw how many errors it had (like for example the beta didnt work on windows xp and had problems on the others windows platform and only worked good on one windows platform) i just gave up and saved myself the headache. i havent touched a pc game since then. ive even started having numerous problems on console for example bf3 again when playstation went offline for a few days i could not play the regular battlefield campaign it gave me a error saying i needed to be connected online to play the game that was only single player that needed no online which was fkn ridiculous.

blackfire
blackfire

@WolfyBrandon I couldn't agree more.when physical media leaves gaming so will I.

CountZurich
CountZurich

Of course, on the other side, there are franchises known for their SP experience that added great multiplayer. Games like Max Payne 3 and 2011's Uncharted 3 (2 had MP as well) and Crysis 2 had some of the best competitive shooting experiences I've ever played.

MelodicMizery
MelodicMizery

@MrMan2000 1. we can already sample games its called demos and full game trials

2. gaming companys really dont lose money on anything they make, they sometimes just dont make as much profit as they estimated which they word as a loss in sales, but its really not a loss its just not as much as expected

3. unfortunately alot of companys dont care what consumers think, the lead guy in charge does what he likes and what he thinks is a cool idea instead of what the community asks for. like for example battlefield use to have a perfect button layout, and then the exec changes it to something retarded because thats what he wanted to do. every person has complained about it yet we never got a custom layout. they do dumb things all the time that one person in the office likes instead of what the community wants. another exmaple would be something like the new ps store layout or windows 8.


4.  they simply dont care enough really. kinda like #3. 


5. skyrim has no end quests and personally to me i dont like it, i like knowing i did everything and then moving on to the next game. i didnt like in skyrim that i was doing quests that never ended and i didnt know. after 200 hours into the game i read online the game never ended so i did a bunch of useless quests and didnt know. im sure other prob like it though so its a pretty good idea i agree with yah. but it would prob also make someone stay to one game, and i think they would want people to go out and pay a extra 60$ on a whole new game instead of just 5$ on the same one.


all your points were good though i give yah credit. i jus tthink the gaming industry dont care about us at all and want to milk us for as much as they can with do as little work as possible

vannacut
vannacut

@MrMan2000 how do you make an elder scrolls game in episodes? it s either gonna be too short to bother with, or too long to cover up the cost of making it.... 

MXVIII
MXVIII

@MrMan2000  So like a TV show? That might be nice, but they better be HUGE chapters or gamers are just going to be pissed off. Its one thing to wait for the next episode of the walking dead, but nobody is going to want to have to wait for the next level of their game. These levels better come out pretty fucking quick, I mean look at SWTOR, Biggest complaint next to no SGR was the lack of content.

I mean its already happening with the walking dead game, but each chapter of that game is almost a full game experience on its own, and the development costs are low, because its more of an interactive comic book, type deal. If you want to do this with a AAA title, you would still lose an exorbitant amount of money if the first chapter fails.

clutchshooter
clutchshooter

@Kabbalistica lol new game smell? i know exactly what you mean though...hopefully the transition isn't to quickly !

MelodicMizery
MelodicMizery

@WolfyBrandon ALSO i just bought resistence 3 the other day and it came with a online pass code to play online, yet the ps store was down for maintence for 2 days so i could not access the ps store to use the redeem code to play multiplayer. also i could not register on the resistence website to unlock a few game inlocks because the ps login was down due to the ps store being down. so i played the game and beat it within 2 days and by the time the store came back up i had no need for the redeem code or any of the bonuses. so i just completely missed out on everything i paid for because of there dumb online features they forced on us

MelodicMizery
MelodicMizery

@CountZurich i agree with you i actually hate multiplayer, i love it for a few shooting games but im a trophy hunter and i dont like the way others play and i hate interacting with others and telling them to do things a certain way just to get multiplayer trophys its annoying as fuck. if im telling someone how to play just to get a multiplayer trophy and im doing all the work then whats the sense of it even being a multiplayer. they should of just made it all single player to begin with. not to mention that awfull games have almost completely dead multiplayers. like riddick has a trophy you have to kill 10k people, yet the game is completely dead. same with rouge warrior. i have about 30 games stuck at 80% because i cant get the multiplayer trophys on them without cheating. i recently bought resistence 3 which was all single player trophys except 2 co op trophys, it was the most fun i had in a while being able to play carefree and get all the trophys alone.