The love of money has ruined the gaming industry.

  • 51 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Benny_Blakk (910 posts) -

Just ask EA (Bioware) and Capcom with all their nickel and dime tactics. Online pass codes, the near death of offline multiplayer games......

Everything that has ever been fun was corrupted and when down the drain once it became corporatized (a money making machine) and the video game industry is no acception. What we've seen transpire this generation is gut wrenching and a disgrace.

PS3 will be my last console.

R.I.P. Gaming for fun.

#2 Posted by MondasM (1376 posts) -
gaming industry emerged because of profit, not because people wanted to show off their skills, which was more or less the beginning of public domain...
#3 Posted by Benny_Blakk (910 posts) -

gaming industry emerged because of profit, not because people wanted to show off their skills, which was more or less the beginning of public domain...MondasM
I can sympathize with the SEGA over the issue with losing money due to copyright infringement (pirating). But the stunts pulled this gen are ridiculous. The nickel and diming is disgusting. Software developers are trying to charge twice for one product. That's the whole pass-code thing. Not everyone buys games used as a means to get it second hand. Sometimes it may it may be borrowed or just given if the initial purchaser doesn't really like it. So they want someone to pay AGAIN to access online? That's greed.

If you buy a car used, does Dodge, Chevrolet, Toyota or whoever was the manufacturer do everything they can behind the scenes to get you to pay them again?

I've never heard of anything like this before.

#4 Posted by MondasM (1376 posts) -
i can see your argument, but in the good old days, aaa titles did not need this kind of investment, we used to have either quite repetitive titles with hellish difficulty, since the medium was not able to contain that much code because of hardware limitations (both for transfer and processing)... when you had bought a game that was it, no more patches, no more time and effort consuming labor was put into the games and pirating could only be done physically, when you had certain teams cracking the "games" and then you bought it on floppy disks at some store (yeah i live in a two and a half world country, we used to have those, not anymore though)... nowadays the budget of a game skyrocketed, respected game developers are closing down shop simply due to the fact that their flagship franchise or developers deliver below the end-users' expectations, btw most of the games people are calling as lame, scoring a 7 or 6,5 on various gaming sites are light years ahead of the games of previous generation, but they are not picked up by the general public... developers keep on ironing out the bugs in the game, and since online play has been incorporated into the games many people try to hack the games, servers, etc, just for fun, so developers need to have another party of cyber security team, etc etc... the online system is monitored and maintained as a service, which is one of the selling points of the game but as the second hand games are being put into circulation the rising amount of users create more problems, where the developers have to adjust their online code accordingly and maybe upgrade their server hardware continuously, etc etc... unfortunately for us the price of gaming skyrockets with each additional feature and as much as i see the offline game as a commodity you can easily borrow, sell or gift, the online play needs continuous maintenance, which can only be paid by either using an original game or subscription or by implementing additional one time fee for a person who has bought the game second hand... all it boils down to is that this industry, like any other industry, is based on profit and without it, we are all going to have to play farmville...
#5 Posted by Lucky_Krystal (1390 posts) -

Ok bye.

#6 Posted by Rattlesnake_8 (18430 posts) -
I dont like how every game has a season pass, dlc, online passes and certain games will have 5 editions of the same game re-releaesd.. nickle and dimeing should never be encouraged or supported. If a DLC pack is actually truly awesome, like an actual expansion pack then sure.. but when companies already have the content made and on the disc and you pay $15 for an unlock code then that shouldn't be legal.
#7 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="MondasM"]gaming industry emerged because of profit, not because people wanted to show off their skills, which was more or less the beginning of public domain...Benny_Blakk

I can sympathize with the SEGA over the issue with losing money due to copyright infringement (pirating). But the stunts pulled this gen are ridiculous. The nickel and diming is disgusting. Software developers are trying to charge twice for one product. That's the whole pass-code thing. Not everyone buys games used as a means to get it second hand. Sometimes it may it may be borrowed or just given if the initial purchaser doesn't really like it. So they want someone to pay AGAIN to access online? That's greed.

If you buy a car used, does Dodge, Chevrolet, Toyota or whoever was the manufacturer do everything they can behind the scenes to get you to pay them again?

I've never heard of anything like this before.

That "nickle and dime" stuff is optional. You don't have to buy it, it's there as an option if you want it. Go to a Chevy dealership, buy a new car and see how much optional stuff they give you for free. Go buy a Chevy used then take it to the Chevy dealership and see how much service they give you for free.

#9 Posted by Benny_Blakk (910 posts) -

i can see your argument, but in the good old days, aaa titles did not need this kind of investment, we used to have either quite repetitive titles with hellish difficulty, since the medium was not able to contain that much code because of hardware limitations (both for transfer and processing)... when you had bought a game that was it, no more patches, no more time and effort consuming labor was put into the games and pirating could only be done physically, when you had certain teams cracking the "games" and then you bought it on floppy disks at some store (yeah i live in a two and a half world country, we used to have those, not anymore though)... nowadays the budget of a game skyrocketed, respected game developers are closing down shop simply due to the fact that their flagship franchise or developers deliver below the end-users' expectations, btw most of the games people are calling as lame, scoring a 7 or 6,5 on various gaming sites are light years ahead of the games of previous generation, but they are not picked up by the general public... developers keep on ironing out the bugs in the game, and since online play has been incorporated into the games many people try to hack the games, servers, etc, just for fun, so developers need to have another party of cyber security team, etc etc... the online system is monitored and maintained as a service, which is one of the selling points of the game but as the second hand games are being put into circulation the rising amount of users create more problems, where the developers have to adjust their online code accordingly and maybe upgrade their server hardware continuously, etc etc... unfortunately for us the price of gaming skyrockets with each additional feature and as much as i see the offline game as a commodity you can easily borrow, sell or gift, the online play needs continuous maintenance, which can only be paid by either using an original game or subscription or by implementing additional one time fee for a person who has bought the game second hand... all it boils down to is that this industry, like any other industry, is based on profit and without it, we are all going to have to play farmville...MondasM
I have to tweak my statement. It isn't the industry that has been ruined by greed, but rather the gaming experience for gamers that is going down the drain.

There's something wrong with that you said in respect to online traffic. Used games don't increase the amount of users because the initial purchaser isn't online any longer.

And that still doesn't excuse some of the tactics like pre release, fragmenting the game with the intent of releasing portions as DLC 2-3 months down the line. The whole nickel and diming of some dev teams and publishers (EA/ Bioware, Capcom, Rocksteady have done all of the above). I recall when DLC was supposed to breath new life into a game that was beginning to lose it's steam, typically a year after its release. Now it's a scheme to earn more before the title is even released.

Again, I respect and understand that servers require maintenance and that isn't free. But it's a disgrace that you can purchase a game second hand (or be given one/give it away just because you feel inclined to do so) and buy some DLC online, and they would STILL lock you out asking for a pass-code purchase. That happened to me and several people I know.

Sidenote: Noone told these devs to shoot so high. They had millions of profits in mind which is why they made that investment. They figure the whole razzle-dazzle/shock and awe visuals are supposed to be a selling point, completely missing the point that it's about a cool experience and having fun with it.

#10 Posted by Benny_Blakk (910 posts) -

[QUOTE="Benny_Blakk"]

[QUOTE="MondasM"]gaming industry emerged because of profit, not because people wanted to show off their skills, which was more or less the beginning of public domain...worlock77

I can sympathize with the SEGA over the issue with losing money due to copyright infringement (pirating). But the stunts pulled this gen are ridiculous. The nickel and diming is disgusting. Software developers are trying to charge twice for one product. That's the whole pass-code thing. Not everyone buys games used as a means to get it second hand. Sometimes it may it may be borrowed or just given if the initial purchaser doesn't really like it. So they want someone to pay AGAIN to access online? That's greed.

If you buy a car used, does Dodge, Chevrolet, Toyota or whoever was the manufacturer do everything they can behind the scenes to get you to pay them again?

I've never heard of anything like this before.

That "nickle and dime" stuff is optional. You don't have to buy it, it's there as an option if you want it. Go to a Chevy dealership, buy a new car and see how much optional stuff they give you for free. Go buy a Chevy used then take it to the Chevy dealership and see how much service they give you for free.

Of course it's optional. But how much do you think people appreciated on launch day that Arkham City had extra DLC for purchase? $60 isn't enough? So I'm not respected as a customer to be sold a complete product? It was planned from the beginning.

I don't see where you're coming with auto dealership analogy. Once you purchase something, it should be your to do as you wish (outside of violations of copyright laws, of course). You dont' even have to go back to Chevy if you are a trained mechanic or prefer to go to one of your choice.

#11 Posted by MethodManFTW (26145 posts) -
Peace dude. I don't understand why companies prioritize making money on multi-million dollar ventures either, but then again, I'm a huge idiot.
#12 Posted by Benny_Blakk (910 posts) -

Peace dude. I don't understand why companies prioritize making money on multi-million dollar ventures either, but then again, I'm a huge idiot.MethodManFTW
Seriously?

Cmon.

Everyone knows making a profit is a no brainer. Double dipping and treating those who made you a success in the first place like crap is another story.

#13 Posted by idunnodude (2283 posts) -

its just the way of the world man. its not only the gaming industry that has been ruined by greed. and its not really ruined imo. yeah they are going overboard with the whole DLC season pass type of stuff, but there are still quality games out there. and even with the online pass stuff. that is for playing online. if you buy a used game you can still play the single player so atleast that is still intact.

quitting gaming is pretty stupid to do for that reason if you ask me. its not like quitting gaming is gonna change anything, ppl could care less if you quit gaming. and gaming is so varied that it really shouldnt effect your enjoyment that much, the core gaming experiences are still there.

#14 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Benny_Blakk"]I can sympathize with the SEGA over the issue with losing money due to copyright infringement (pirating). But the stunts pulled this gen are ridiculous. The nickel and diming is disgusting. Software developers are trying to charge twice for one product. That's the whole pass-code thing. Not everyone buys games used as a means to get it second hand. Sometimes it may it may be borrowed or just given if the initial purchaser doesn't really like it. So they want someone to pay AGAIN to access online? That's greed.

If you buy a car used, does Dodge, Chevrolet, Toyota or whoever was the manufacturer do everything they can behind the scenes to get you to pay them again?

I've never heard of anything like this before.

Benny_Blakk

That "nickle and dime" stuff is optional. You don't have to buy it, it's there as an option if you want it. Go to a Chevy dealership, buy a new car and see how much optional stuff they give you for free. Go buy a Chevy used then take it to the Chevy dealership and see how much service they give you for free.

Of course it's optional. But how much do you think people appreciated on launch day that Arkham City had extra DLC for purchase? $60 isn't enough? So I'm not respected as a customer to be sold a complete product? It was planned from the beginning.

I don't see where you're coming with auto dealership analogy. Once you purchase something, it should be your to do as you wish (outside of violations of copyright laws, of course). You dont' even have to go back to Chevy if you are a trained mechanic or prefer to go to one of your choice.

You're actually the one who brought up the car analogy remember? And it looks like my point sailed a mile over your head. Of course you can take your car to whomever you want. You cannot, however, buy a used Chevy and expect to get service from Chevy without paying for it.
#15 Posted by Benny_Blakk (910 posts) -

[QUOTE="Benny_Blakk"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

That "nickle and dime" stuff is optional. You don't have to buy it, it's there as an option if you want it. Go to a Chevy dealership, buy a new car and see how much optional stuff they give you for free. Go buy a Chevy used then take it to the Chevy dealership and see how much service they give you for free.

worlock77

Of course it's optional. But how much do you think people appreciated on launch day that Arkham City had extra DLC for purchase? $60 isn't enough? So I'm not respected as a customer to be sold a complete product? It was planned from the beginning.

I don't see where you're coming with auto dealership analogy. Once you purchase something, it should be your to do as you wish (outside of violations of copyright laws, of course). You dont' even have to go back to Chevy if you are a trained mechanic or prefer to go to one of your choice.

You're actually the one who brought up the car analogy remember? And it looks like my point sailed a mile over your head. Of course you can take your car to whomever you want. You cannot, however, buy a used Chevy and expect to get service from Chevy without paying for it.

No, your analogy wasn't that "complex" so the pomposity is unwarranted.

If you read my other posts, you would see where I actually stated that even in cases where I would buy or get something second hand, I still would make a purchase in the form of DLC/expansion but still faced with a lock. The funny thing is those purchases cost more than the passcode so what gives? Noone expects anything for free. That's not a realistic expectation. The question is how to charge.

Chevy is an American automotive company, and it is no secret that the American industry has been horrible for quite some time. Adopting an American business model does business bad (top rates for low end quality and service; nickel and diming) eventually leads to backlash from the consumers. It happened with auto and now in gaming. Just ask EA and Capcom.

#16 Posted by Benny_Blakk (910 posts) -

its just the way of the world man. its not only the gaming industry that has been ruined by greed. and its not really ruined imo. yeah they are going overboard with the whole DLC season pass type of stuff, but there are still quality games out there. and even with the online pass stuff. that is for playing online. if you buy a used game you can still play the single player so atleast that is still intact.

quitting gaming is pretty stupid to do for that reason if you ask me. its not like quitting gaming is gonna change anything, ppl could care less if you quit gaming. and gaming is so varied that it really shouldnt effect your enjoyment that much, the core gaming experiences are still there.

idunnodude

I beg to differ. If someone is doing something that you don't agree with, then why support their tactics? You're right in that it's the way of the world and money talks. Quarterly loss is a big statement!

#17 Posted by DaRq_MiNoS (569 posts) -

Yes, EA and Capcom are total jokes now, but just about everyone else is making quality games.

I'm 40, and I've been playing video games since my folks bought us Pong in the 70's. I've played Atari 2600 & 5200, Intellivision, Coleco, original Nintendo, Sega, 3DO, PS1 2 3, and computer games going back to the old Radioshack TRS80.

In my opinion, we are in the Golden Age of video games right now, bro. I can count probably 15-20 series of games that I love and can't wait for the next game in the series. Plus plenty of new games, ideas, and series are popping up all the time.

Don't stop playing games, just stop playing EA and Capcom games... I agree they suck now (but were once great).

#18 Posted by Mrmedia01 (1917 posts) -

I am not going to **** much about it. Everyone needs to get paid and costs are high to make games, package them, ship them, sell them.

I just cry about paying for Xbox Live Gold and Paying for DLC too often.

DLC should be almost free or at least much cheaper or more fuller for what you get.

#20 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="Benny_Blakk"]Of course it's optional. But how much do you think people appreciated on launch day that Arkham City had extra DLC for purchase? $60 isn't enough? So I'm not respected as a customer to be sold a complete product? It was planned from the beginning.

I don't see where you're coming with auto dealership analogy. Once you purchase something, it should be your to do as you wish (outside of violations of copyright laws, of course). You dont' even have to go back to Chevy if you are a trained mechanic or prefer to go to one of your choice.

Benny_Blakk

You're actually the one who brought up the car analogy remember? And it looks like my point sailed a mile over your head. Of course you can take your car to whomever you want. You cannot, however, buy a used Chevy and expect to get service from Chevy without paying for it.

No, your analogy wasn't that "complex" so the pomposity is unwarranted.

If you read my other posts, you would see where I actually stated that even in cases where I would buy or get something second hand, I still would make a purchase in the form of DLC/expansion but still faced with a lock. The funny thing is those purchases cost more than the passcode so what gives? Noone expects anything for free. That's not a realistic expectation. The question is how to charge.

Chevy is an American automotive company, and it is no secret that the American industry has been horrible for quite some time. Adopting an American business model does business bad (top rates for low end quality and service; nickel and diming) eventually leads to backlash from the consumers. It happened with auto and now in gaming. Just ask EA and Capcom.

Apparently it was that complex because you still miss the point. You said "If you buy a car used, does Dodge, Chevrolet, Toyota or whoever was the manufacturer do everything they can behind the scenes to get you to pay them again?", the answer is yes, basically. At least going by the argument you're using against video game publishers. If you buy a Chevy used then you can't expecy then to offer you service unless you pay for it. By the same token if you buy a used game you should expect the publisher to offer you service unless you pay them. Online passes are absolutely fair. When you play a game online you're using a service they're providing. One which is not without cost to them. If you want a service you gotta pay for it. Simple as that.

#21 Posted by rwallacefan (4886 posts) -

Just ask EA (Bioware) and Capcom with all their nickel and dime tactics. Online pass codes, the near death of offline multiplayer games......

Everything that has ever been fun was corrupted and when down the drain once it became corporatized (a money making machine) and the video game industry is no acception. What we've seen transpire this generation is gut wrenching and a disgrace.

PS3 will be my last console.

R.I.P. Gaming for fun.

Benny_Blakk

Opinion noted and seen.

Also, do you know how much it costs to even produce a video game today? and pay a team of developers, programmers, engineers, or anything else involved? There is a lot of steps that involve the process of a game today. Also, business has found audiences in other parts of the globe, then legal constraints have made gaming a bit tougher. Nothing is corrupted, the world has made it just harder to make money today, especially when you have rambuctious governments taxing the crap out of the companies and having the ESRB step in each time and say "This game is far too violent"


Things have changed for both good and bad.

#22 Posted by H_M_1 (1150 posts) -

Just ask EA (Bioware) and Capcom with all their nickel and dime tactics. Online pass codes, the near death of offline multiplayer games......

Everything that has ever been fun was corrupted and when down the drain once it became corporatized (a money making machine) and the video game industry is no acception. What we've seen transpire this generation is gut wrenching and a disgrace.

PS3 will be my last console.

R.I.P. Gaming for fun.

Benny_Blakk
A perfect example of money,money,money is Capcom messing up the resident evil series. I feel like getting 6 as I hear Leon's campaign is horror but the others are Gears of War type.
#23 Posted by Benny_Blakk (910 posts) -

[QUOTE="Benny_Blakk"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"] You're actually the one who brought up the car analogy remember? And it looks like my point sailed a mile over your head. Of course you can take your car to whomever you want. You cannot, however, buy a used Chevy and expect to get service from Chevy without paying for it.worlock77

No, your analogy wasn't that "complex" so the pomposity is unwarranted.

If you read my other posts, you would see where I actually stated that even in cases where I would buy or get something second hand, I still would make a purchase in the form of DLC/expansion but still faced with a lock. The funny thing is those purchases cost more than the passcode so what gives? Noone expects anything for free. That's not a realistic expectation. The question is how to charge.

Chevy is an American automotive company, and it is no secret that the American industry has been horrible for quite some time. Adopting an American business model does business bad (top rates for low end quality and service; nickel and diming) eventually leads to backlash from the consumers. It happened with auto and now in gaming. Just ask EA and Capcom.

Apparently it was that complex because you still miss the point. You said "If you buy a car used, does Dodge, Chevrolet, Toyota or whoever was the manufacturer do everything they can behind the scenes to get you to pay them again?", the answer is yes, basically. At least going by the argument you're using against video game publishers. If you buy a Chevy used then you can't expecy then to offer you service unless you pay for it. By the same token if you buy a used game you should expect the publisher to offer you service unless you pay them. Online passes are absolutely fair. When you play a game online you're using a service they're providing. One which is not without cost to them. If you want a service you gotta pay for it. Simple as that.

Attention to detail clearly isn't your strong point. I repeat, I actually did pay in some form (DLC/expansion pack) and those purchases actually cost more than the pass code. So that's not "enough", right? I do also recall saying noone should expect anything for free.

Consider this: what if you had the game for a week or so and decide you'd rather give it to your nephew, niece, cousin or whomever. So you've actually done something wrong? Not everyone has intent on shafting the devs like the public has turnded into a bunch of hackers. They're not even attempting to identify or distinguish. It's just put a price tag on it, and "our problem solved". Turns out that is where their problems are beginning. And frankly, it's clearly a greed move (a stupid one at that) because they had intentions of running the server from the beginning. That is in the budget, you know. Now people who may be interested in buying a map pack (for instance) won't be tapped because they were turned off from the beginning. New content is far more attractive than simply playing online. Their pro's vs cons meeting on this matter must have been some considerably bad comedy.

(I can make "just ask EA or Capcom a catch-phrase"! lmao)

Would you rather sell 5 units at $5 or 1 unit at $10?

#24 Posted by Benny_Blakk (910 posts) -

[QUOTE="Benny_Blakk"]

Just ask EA (Bioware) and Capcom with all their nickel and dime tactics. Online pass codes, the near death of offline multiplayer games......

Everything that has ever been fun was corrupted and when down the drain once it became corporatized (a money making machine) and the video game industry is no acception. What we've seen transpire this generation is gut wrenching and a disgrace.

PS3 will be my last console.

R.I.P. Gaming for fun.

rwallacefan

Opinion noted and seen.

Also, do you know how much it costs to even produce a video game today? and pay a team of developers, programmers, engineers, or anything else involved? There is a lot of steps that involve the process of a game today. Also, business has found audiences in other parts of the globe, then legal constraints have made gaming a bit tougher. Nothing is corrupted, the world has made it just harder to make money today, especially when you have rambuctious governments taxing the crap out of the companies and having the ESRB step in each time and say "This game is far too violent"


Things have changed for both good and bad.

Yes, we can all agree and quickly recognize that games tend to have these crazy "big budgets". But in a sense, even that was a power play because the investment in theory was to culminate in huge rewards (profit). Not to say they should scale down, but rather be more strategic. Once upon a time, creativity and enjoying the experience sold the product and that was the key to success. Now they think they'll just "shock and awe" our money out of our pockets. Ok

A little off topic, I'll admit, but I think it's worth noting.

#25 Posted by Sokol4ever (6347 posts) -

[QUOTE="rwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="Benny_Blakk"]

Just ask EA (Bioware) and Capcom with all their nickel and dime tactics. Online pass codes, the near death of offline multiplayer games......

Everything that has ever been fun was corrupted and when down the drain once it became corporatized (a money making machine) and the video game industry is no acception. What we've seen transpire this generation is gut wrenching and a disgrace.

PS3 will be my last console.

R.I.P. Gaming for fun.

Benny_Blakk

Opinion noted and seen.

Also, do you know how much it costs to even produce a video game today? and pay a team of developers, programmers, engineers, or anything else involved? There is a lot of steps that involve the process of a game today. Also, business has found audiences in other parts of the globe, then legal constraints have made gaming a bit tougher. Nothing is corrupted, the world has made it just harder to make money today, especially when you have rambuctious governments taxing the crap out of the companies and having the ESRB step in each time and say "This game is far too violent"


Things have changed for both good and bad.

Yes, we can all agree and quickly recognize that games tend to have these crazy "big budgets". But in a sense, even that was a power play because the investment in theory was to culminate in huge rewards (profit). Not to say they should scale down, but rather be more strategic. Once upon a time, creativity and enjoying the experience sold the product and that was the key to success. Now they think they'll just "shock and awe" our money out of our pockets. Ok

A little off topic, I'll admit, but I think it's worth noting.

Those were the good times, unfortunately as you stated - money profit is all that matters nowadays. There use to be time where games where made with passion, innovation and fun (The profit was there hence the games were good). Clearly, majority of the shareholders are only interested in money profit. There should be a balance but I'm afraid that time had long passed.

DLC and used game online passes are only the beginning. In all honesty, this type of gaming future only gives me more incentive to purchase less games I would like to play and replace it with those I truly desire. It will backfire eventually, just the matter of time.

#26 Posted by MirkoS77 (8597 posts) -

I'd say the internet is doing far more harm to the industry than money ever could. Without money it would not exist. Without the internet, I believe it would flourish.

#27 Posted by Ernesto_basic (2123 posts) -

Just ask EA (Bioware) and Capcom with all their nickel and dime tactics. Online pass codes, the near death of offline multiplayer games......

Everything that has ever been fun was corrupted and when down the drain once it became corporatized (a money making machine) and the video game industry is no acception. What we've seen transpire this generation is gut wrenching and a disgrace.

PS3 will be my last console.

R.I.P. Gaming for fun.

Benny_Blakk

Benny, I hate to break it to you, bud, but this (and pretty much any industry) is premised on the idea of generating revenue - NOT art, public service or some other quixotic idea that sounds antithetical to capitalism's impact on gaming.

#28 Posted by OB-47 (10909 posts) -

Just like how the suits nearly destroyed hip hop.

#29 Posted by wiouds (5616 posts) -

All companies have a responsibility to pay the employees and make a profit. Add to that most games prices drop quickly and that gamers refuse to pay higher prices. It is understandable that they will try to find another way to increase their profits. After all two or more years of development can not be cheap.

All game companies are about profits. Look at the indie games developers. They acts as if they are the true artist and innovative of the gaming world in hope that gamers will support their games by buying them.

#30 Posted by Ernesto_basic (2123 posts) -

All companies have a responsibility to pay the employees and make a profit. Add to that most games prices drop quickly and that gamers refuse to pay higher prices. It is understandable that they will try to find another way to increase their profits. After all two or more years of development can not be cheap.

All game companies are about profits. Look at the indie games developers. They acts as if they are the true artist and innovative of the gaming world in hope that gamers will support their games by buying them.

wiouds

Yes, and unlike their bigger counterparts, they're typically more lucrative endeavours due to their low costs of development (oh, no - more capitalism!).

#31 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

Of course it's optional. But how much do you think people appreciated on launch day that Arkham City had extra DLC for purchase? $60 isn't enough? So I'm not respected as a customer to be sold a complete product? It was planned from the beginning.

Benny_Blakk

The only DLC available on launch day in regards to Arkham City was the Catwoman missions which were included in all new copies of the game.

The other DLC was retailer-specific characters and skins, all of which were made available later for a modest price.

Despite your churlish assertion to the contrary, Arkham City was a complete game.

#32 Posted by wiouds (5616 posts) -

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

All companies have a responsibility to pay the employees and make a profit. Add to that most games prices drop quickly and that gamers refuse to pay higher prices. It is understandable that they will try to find another way to increase their profits. After all two or more years of development can not be cheap.

All game companies are about profits. Look at the indie games developers. They acts as if they are the true artist and innovative of the gaming world in hope that gamers will support their games by buying them.

Ernesto_basic

Yes, and unlike their bigger counterparts, they're typically more lucrative endeavours due to their low costs of development (oh, no - more capitalism!).

Too bad their overall quality is not as good.

I am happy that the game publishers are trying to keep the price of games down by giving extra you can get instead of raising the cost of the whole game.

#33 Posted by V3rciS (2206 posts) -

Well man the industry is not ruined... it's just got more expensive. You pay way more than you used like 10-15-20 years ago. Nowadays you buy the console, the accessories, HDD's, cables-batteries, games, all kind of gimmicks, then games also include hell a lot of extra charges with dlcs and subscriptions... that's for sure.. no one would argue I believe. However we still got AWESOME games, back in the days (i dunno how old are you) most of the games were not as good as today. It's just we value them more and we think they used to be better because of childhood memories.

So in the end the industry is doing well with high quality games around all the time but being a gamer todays is just much more expensive.

#34 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -

Game companies obviously need to be profitable or they can't continue to survive and produce games. I've made my share of comments in various discussions bemoaning the trend toward shorter campaigns in favor of multi-player, which is cheaper to code for, and DLC, which essentially has you buying the game in pieces. With game sales in general in a state of decline, the real question is, are sales down because of the cost-cutting or have the game companies resorted to cost-cutting because sales are down? One thing seems certain, game sales wouldn't be down if a majority of gamers liked most of what is being offered.

#35 Posted by jdc6305 (4086 posts) -

I'd say the internet is doing far more harm to the industry than money ever could. Without money it would not exist. Without the internet, I believe it would flourish.

MirkoS77

I totally agree with this statement. I'm 36 years old and been gaming a long time since the Atari. The internet is the worst thing to ever happen to gaming. Online multiplayer is nothing but a gimmic. Some idiots actually think its a olympic sport.

#36 Posted by jsmoke03 (13349 posts) -

Just ask EA (Bioware) and Capcom with all their nickel and dime tactics. Online pass codes, the near death of offline multiplayer games......

Everything that has ever been fun was corrupted and when down the drain once it became corporatized (a money making machine) and the video game industry is no acception. What we've seen transpire this generation is gut wrenching and a disgrace.

PS3 will be my last console.

R.I.P. Gaming for fun.

Benny_Blakk

what games? me3 had most of its mp dlc for free.

buy the game new and you won't have any issue with pass codes

video game industry has always had profits in mind since the beginning. do you remember when snes games were $70-100 sometimes? i don't know what you are talking about.


#37 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

Game companies obviously need to be profitable or they can't continue to survive and produce games. I've made my share of comments in various discussions bemoaning the trend toward shorter campaigns in favor of multi-player, which is cheaper to code for, and DLC, which essentially has you buying the game in pieces. With game sales in general in a state of decline, the real question is, are sales down because of the cost-cutting or have the game companies resorted to cost-cutting because sales are down? One thing seems certain, game sales wouldn't be down if a majority of gamers liked most of what is being offered.

capaho

Its the middle that is falling out. Top tier games sell better than ever and indies are thriving. The problem is that many AAA games stay in people's systems for a loooong time. In the old days, you could make a solid buttbouncer and maybe catch the interest of the market between Marios and Sonics. Nowadays multiplayer and DLC can keep a person on a game up until the game's sequel hits, so guys who want to get some of that sweet shooter (currently the dominant genre) money inbetween the CoDs and the Gears and the Halos don't really have much of an opportunity. And depending on the genre a lot of money has to be spent to even have the hope of meeting minimal consumer expectations (shooter fans don't just want campaigns, they want competitive and cooperative multiplayer, and each is like building a seperate game).

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/182954/The_5_trends_that_defined_the_game_industry_in_2012.php

Mid-tier fallout

At about the mid-point of the current console generation, prognosticators warned the game industry: Going toe-to-toe with studios in the top-tier, high-budget "triple-A" video game sector is going to become an increasingly harrowing task.

We saw this happening last year as well, but the trend continued in 2012 -- mid-level developers and their games are falling out of the picture. Slow sales of Square Enix's Sleeping Dogs hurt the publisher's earnings this year -- a disappointing shortfall, as the publisher made a special effort to scoop the game up from Activision, where it was called True Crime: Hong Kong.

Lightbox Interactive's Starhawk released to some solid reviews in May, but by October the studio was hit with layoffs, and transitioned to mobile games. Activision-owned Prototype 2 developer Radical Entertainment also suffered layoffs; 007 Legends developer Eurocom cut staff and began focusing on mobile.

THQ's Vigil Games didn't see restructuring, and released a well-reviewed game in Darksiders II over the summer. That game sold 1.4 million units, but THQ said it still didn't meet expectations. THQ president Jason Rubin conceded in November: "In the current marketplace only the absolute top tier of releases is making an impact on game consumers."

If you want to survive and thrive in triple-A, and fight against the Call of Dutys, the Gears of Wars, the Assassin's Creeds and the Halos, you're going to need a whole lot of money and a whole lot of talent. And even if you have those ingredients, nothing is certain.

http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/2012/11/the-disappearing-mid-tier-of-game.html

In an interview quoted at Gaming Vogue, Moore said If you think about the industry today, I dont know what they exact numbers are, but the top 20 games globally probably deliver 80 per cent of the revenue. Anything that doesnt hit that top 20 or 25 finds it very difficult to justify itself, its existence, and you kind of wonder why you did it. Now, its likely there is some exaggeration in there, but the reality is that outside of a few AAA-franchises, there are very few franchises in the games industry that could be considered healthy.

Thats why the B-grade games and game developers are disappearing, and smaller, indie teams are forming instead. The games industry seems to be heading in two directions the mobile/ download space where teams of 1-10 developers are putting together experimental titles, and the really big developers churning out the AAA-grade hits.

#38 Posted by Ilovegames1992 (14221 posts) -

Video game companies are just that, companies.

They exist to provide a service and make money.

A third sector video game company would be cool ha.

#39 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

I'd say the internet is doing far more harm to the industry than money ever could. Without money it would not exist. Without the internet, I believe it would flourish.

jdc6305

I totally agree with this statement. I'm 36 years old and been gaming a long time since the Atari. The internet is the worst thing to ever happen to gaming. Online multiplayer is nothing but a gimmic. Some idiots actually think its a olympic sport.

I'm 38 and have been gaming since I was 3 (my dad was a gamer who had a Magnavox Odyssey). Multiplayer gaming isn't some new fad, people have always loved to play against friends and strangers (remember arcades?).

When I was a kid parents permitting my brother and I always had friends over to play games with us (my daughters do the same thing nowadays). In college I kept my door open and my room (and that of another guy on the hall) kind of served as arcades for the dorm. Karate Champ, RC Racers, Ikari Warriors, Street Fighter, Madden, FIFA (I had a lot of African friends who considered soccer entertaining, God help them), Coach K, Lakers vs Celtics, NHL, Streets of Rage, Halo and a bunch of games I am probably forgetting are all multiplayer games I had a lot of fun with. And of course, single player games can be tackled by groups (you died, pass the controller!).

Don't get me wrong, single player games are wonderful, but multiplayer games are awesome too and there has always been a huge market for them.

#40 Posted by Ballroompirate (23864 posts) -

The industry is not ruined for wanting to make money, there is no "you must buy this DLC or other content to even play the game", it's all optional. Some DLC is stupid and over priced but there are some good DLC out there that are worth the price tag.

#41 Posted by Ballroompirate (23864 posts) -

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

I'd say the internet is doing far more harm to the industry than money ever could. Without money it would not exist. Without the internet, I believe it would flourish.

jdc6305

I totally agree with this statement. I'm 36 years old and been gaming a long time since the Atari. The internet is the worst thing to ever happen to gaming. Online multiplayer is nothing but a gimmic. Some idiots actually think its a olympic sport.

I agree as well and I'm only 26 (been gaming since I was 10), I even know the internet is just fracking up the industry more than anything else can. People judge games without even playing them or hell even renting them, they think if they see a game score below a 8.5 it automatically sucks, then you got the hypocrites who don't even know what they want in a video game cause they ***** and complain about games staying the same or if they do change they STILL complain.

Majority of the time I'm ashamed of being a gamer....it just baffles my mind the crap people say over the internet now and days over video games.

#43 Posted by Archangel3371 (16455 posts) -
Having been an avid gamer for about 35 years now I been through most all of what this industry has offered up until now and I think it is better now then it's ever been. The inclusion of internet and HDD's have been two of the best features recently added to console gaming. I fully expect companies to want to try and be profitable especially in the entertainment field. I don't care how things like dlc are distributed whether it be day one dlc or on-disc dlc I'm just concern if whatever it is they're offering is of any value to me. Sure not everything may be worth it whether it's the games themselves or the dlc but that's nothing new but as far as I'm concerned the good stuff has always outweighed the bad and continues to do so. These days I have neither the time or the money to keep up with all the good stuff because there is simply too much of it now but that's a very good problem to have.
#44 Posted by MirkoS77 (8597 posts) -

[QUOTE="jdc6305"]

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

I'd say the internet is doing far more harm to the industry than money ever could. Without money it would not exist. Without the internet, I believe it would flourish.

Ballroompirate

I totally agree with this statement. I'm 36 years old and been gaming a long time since the Atari. The internet is the worst thing to ever happen to gaming. Online multiplayer is nothing but a gimmic. Some idiots actually think its a olympic sport.

I agree as well and I'm only 26 (been gaming since I was 10), I even know the internet is just fracking up the industry more than anything else can. People judge games without even playing them or hell even renting them, they think if they see a game score below a 8.5 it automatically sucks, then you got the hypocrites who don't even know what they want in a video game cause they ***** and complain about games staying the same or if they do change they STILL complain.

Majority of the time I'm ashamed of being a gamer....it just baffles my mind the crap people say over the internet now and days over video games.

I don't mean to say that the Internet is all bad, but I think it's doing more harm than good.

  • DRM (Net always required)
  • Day one/on-disk DLC.
  • Great franchises being gutted for shallow, cash-cow MMOs.
  • Developers putting out unfinished games because they know they can just patch it later on.
  • Large system updates.
  • Loss of rights (look at Diablo III-unable to play when/where you want). The new SimCity will be always online also.
  • Consoles tied to single accounts.
  • Possibly no used game sales in the future, or at least not being able to take a game to another's house to play it.
  • Piracy.
  • DD (I miss physical media of old, the manuals and beautifully put together packages). DD is nice convenience wise, but now it's like we don't even own the game. In Steam's ToU we are basically "renting" their games and they can take them away at their discretion. Not possible if it were physical.

What else am I missing? I do like that the net allows the indie scene to grow and online multiplayer is fun even if it is filled mostly with rude, juvenile pricks, but I'd give that up to get rid of (or lessen) the above.

#45 Posted by whiskeystrike (12096 posts) -

Ironic sig

#46 Posted by SulIy (113 posts) -
Most everyone outside of some indie debs that has ever produced a video game has done so exclusively to make money. Nintendo, Sega, Atari, the OG companies... they never made games just to put a smile on your face. They made games to make money. It's just become more obvious to you as you've gotten older and companies have discovered new ways of making revenue. The golden age of gaming innocence never actually happened, you realize that when you remove the rose tinted glasses of your youth.
#47 Posted by wiouds (5616 posts) -

Most everyone outside of some indie debs that has ever produced a video game has done so exclusively to make money. Nintendo, Sega, Atari, the OG companies... they never made games just to put a smile on your face. They made games to make money. It's just become more obvious to you as you've gotten older and companies have discovered new ways of making revenue. The golden age of gaming innocence never actually happened, you realize that when you remove the rose tinted glasses of your youth.SulIy

Even the indie developers are there to make money. They just like to put on a show that they are not in hopes some would want to support them because they have a "true passion" for games. The big name companies just are honestly blunt about it.

#48 Posted by Blueresident87 (5345 posts) -

The love of money has ruined much more than just the gaming industry.

#49 Posted by BARRICADE_28 (148 posts) -

For AAA games there are way too many sequels and clones.  High dev costs mean no risk anymore as publishers fear the uncertainty of new IP's and genres.  Console gaming has gotten pretty stale at this point this gen.  I can only imagine it getting worse with the skyrocketing dev costs for next gen.

#50 Posted by getyeryayasout (8683 posts) -
Aye, She's become a bloated, predictable, greedy, b!tch. *sniffle* Reminds me of me dear ol' mum. *single tear*