Why games like Destiny and Call of Duty are detrimental to gaming.

I jumped on the Destriny bandwagon just like far too many did. I also spent so many hours playing call of duty up until modern warfare 3 that I couldn't count them if I tried.

I'll touch on Destiny first.

Destiny promised so much pre-release. They hype surrounding it was ridiculous. Naively I bought into it. From the time it was released rumors were swirling around about it's story or lack there of, and how content on disc was originally meant to be included in the launch but was held back as DLC. This was all rumor and speculation until it was confirmed by multiple sources within Bungie, of course speaking with anonymity. While some might not care, they should, as should everyone. The dangerous precedent that this poses is one that affects every one of us that play games.

In essence what Destiny did was steal from us. They took what was going to be included in a game, and withheld it from us, charging us more for it in the end. Instead of spending $60 on a game, we were forced to spend $120 for it. The problem this posses is it tells other game developers that they ca.n get away with doing the same thing. Charging $60 for a game, then $20 for a season pass for content already on the disc, and then paying $40 for a further expansion which again was supposed to be included in the original game. Twice what a regular game costs with the same amount of content. That's very dangerous precedent. One which could end up seeing DLC in future games jumping in price, because of the success of Destiny.

The issue with CoD is the fact that they simply don't need to really improve the game. They just kept on using the same game engine over and over, while getting by on the bare minimum of improvements. This is also a dangerous precedent. By putting out a game which doesn't care tot keep up with competition, and the innovations that they introduce because they know they don't have to, is problematic. It tells other game developers that if they release a game that takes off, they don't have to improve upon it like their competition would, because people will still buy it. Instead of innovating to keep up with competition, and innovation, it promotes stagnation, and new titles that don't progress, but instead keep moving parallel.

The reason these games are detrimental to gaming and gamers, is because they aren't interested in what we want. They are interested in nothing more than their own interests. The least effort it takes to develop a game, and the maximum profit that they can make from it, completely at the expense of the customers. The best example is call of duty. A game which is released in one form or another pretty much every year. It's a money grab, nothing more. To squeeze as much money out of the consumer as they can get. The last time a call of duty game was a serious step up from other iterations in the series was call of duty 4, the original modern warfare. Since then it's simply coasted along on auto pilot. The goal is no longer trying to advance, and improve, that goal is to just get it out af fast as they can so they can cash in.

People need to start thinking.

Amen brother. Its like Ive found my clone on here its crazy how much we think alike.

And yes its a major problem, and what makes me sick are the people who would defend this kind of thing and just brush it off as "it doesn't really matter. You are just being overly critical" and just continue to blindly feed the machine.

Bloody morons.

I buy what I like and I like what I buy. I have no regrets and I make no apologies.

They can only make games are worth making. In other words they games that gamers wants. A large number of gamers want CoD so they are making CoD.

A problem that gamers have is they jump to some statements like "MP should be in all games" or "streamlining is good" as a way to justify the changes that is happening.

As for the dev not listening to the gamers. Have you read some of the forms out there like those for early access games. It filled with gamers wanting A and gamers not wants A. The few smart and reasonable comments are drown out by comments that have poor logic to them.

Look at how gamers reacted to the announcement of paid mods. Instead of take a breath and looking into it, many gamers threw a pebble into the air, run under it and when something hit them, they started to scream the sky is falling.

I agree, but how is Battlefield any different? They have a season pass as well. I think all console fps franchises are ruining gaming with their annual releases and nickle and diming.

I agree about Destiny. I got it in October (Legendary Edition) meaning I got the game and all 3 DLC for $50. I can't imagine having got the game just as Destiny and having paid full price for that! How were people playing that for so long? It took me two days to "beat" destiny as it is, before starting the DLC story lines. I will say for what I was expecting, I was satisfied with Destiny Legendary Edition, since I got a lot of play in and had fun playing through it with a friend. $50 for Destiny + 3 "expansions" [which basically amounts to one "full" game sadly] I'm fine with.

DLC kills FPSs in the sense that they can change $20-40 for a few new maps and modes and you pretty much have to get if you want to move on in the game or be in the busier lobbies. The multiplayer maps on Black Ops 3 SUCK, maybe two of them I like, and now they have a "DLC" pack coming out in a few weeks which is 4-5 new maps. So basically you have to pay $15 for what should have been released on the original disk. The thing is I don't think these games are the only problems. They're just part of the bigger problem, which is so many new online games having tons of microtransactions to actually keep it relevant; or games using the term "DLC" or "expansion pack" when really it's content that should absolutely not cost money and should have been in the original game. Hence why I don't feel as angry over Destiny, though I would have had I bought it day 1. Season passes for online games are garbage. If it's for something like The Witcher 3, Fallout, etc I would get it. A "season pass" is essentially buying a single game for $110 after disk+pass. And for a game like CoD or Destiny, this I agree is absolute bullshit. It's a scam

Agreed. Too many shit games that exist solely for cashing in. I do think that Destiny had potential, but had way too many problems and was eventually corrupted by Activision. COD on the other hand is pure evil. It exists purely to generate revenue. These yearly releases are not passion projects that push boundaries or innovate. They are redundant. They are made so that Activision can hit its fiscal year targets.

The real problem lies with the gamers. If they keep buying this trash, companies will keep making it. Let's be honest here... most people are dumb, simple minded, and uninformed. Companies like Activision, EA, Ubisoft have fine tuned their marketing and game mechanics to exploit these people. They do not have to offer deep experiences or focus on overall quality. All they have to do is cater to the lowest common denominator and they will be successful. These publishers are expert turd polishers.

Shiny graphics + instant gratification gameplay (depth not required) + marketing machine = fools flock to it.

P.S. Your beard is awesome! :)

@Bigboi500: Battlefield is different because at the very least they innovate. BF3 didn't have destructible environments, bad company on did, they didn't just stop there, they continued to improve the engine creating better versions as they went on. While CoD sat on the same engine from CoD4, in the decade they did that, Dice, the maker of BF continued to create new engines. Frostbite, Frostbite 2, frostbite 3 etc... At least when you buy a dice product you know it's not going to be something that just phoned in, it's going to be something they actually put a lot of time, effort, and work into. Not just in terms of graphical improvements, but all around.

1) I agree completely with your take on destiny, but as long as people buy into this stupidity developers will continue these trends, people should smarten up, vote with their wallets, and not buy incomplete trash, but as long as they do, devleopers will continue to exploit them. I do think that these kinds of things will eventually reach a tipping point as more and more people get fed up with these kinds of business practices, but that is probably the optimist in me talking.

2) I completely disagree with your take on call of duty. First off, it is important to note that call of duty is not the first franchise to follow the pattern you outlined. Successful games have been engaging in this pattern for the entire history of modern games(see mega man 1-6 as one of many examples). If a formula works and players want it, than what is wrong with giving them what they want? Eventually players will get bored and the franchise will have to either innovate or die(again see mega man as an example). I think call of duty is the recipient of a lot of unnecessary hate for doing something that popular games have been doing forever.

@amyh7292: That's the thing, these two games aren't the only problem, but they are the epitome of what's wrong, and the dangers of supporting them for basically robbing the customer. As for I personally put out the $150 for the Destiny collector's edition. I got the DLC pass for free as part of it, which covered two expansions. What infuriated me was learning that those two expansions should have been included in the original game. Instead I paid $150 for what amounted to 3/4 of a game, and would have to spend $40 more, bringing the overall total up to $190... for a $60 game. Ridiculous, it's just inexcusable. As for CoD it's just over hyped, and under performing. As I stated, it just doesn't innovate, it's not even interested in trying. It's completely satisfied with just doing the bare minimum. Now think about that for a minute, if every other developer acted in the same manner, then we'd still be playing games that looked like the original super mario.... We aren't though, because developers did innovate, and try to create something new.

call of duty is catering to an audience that is happy with the product they are putting out, and there is nothing wrong with that. You have to remember that for every game like Super Mario Bros, which completely innovates/creates a genre, there are hundreds of clones that are made to try and ride their success, this is how it has always been and how it will always be, I don't see how the call of duty franchise is any different than "random animal platformer" released on the nes/snes. Nor do I see how it is detrimental in any way to the gaming industry as a whole.

@pook99: AGREED. Yes it is so easy to hate on CoD. And no, myself and probably most respectable members of the gaming community don't view it as an example of a great game (god I hope not). But jesus... give it a rest with thinking this game is DESTROYING GAMING!! Like come on. Stop taking it so seriously. Pook99 is absolutely right in saying that they aren't changing because no one who buys this game really cares. This effects other games how? Obviously if they can keep putting out the same shit with a new paint job and people buy it, why not? If you personally don't buy into it, that's fine. But there is always going to be a market for popular arcade-esque FPS with easy playability and gimmicky kill streaks. I don't personally like where the franchise has gone, but detrimental? No. I mean your argument makes no sense. Obviously if a company can make a game with limited changes, little competition, etc. why would they change anything? If people are buying it regardless, they are the ones at a loss. The company is simply being smart and taking advantage of their easily entertained fan base. If you don't like the way they do things, don't buy the games. This literally effects the gaming world 0%. No one exactly respects these games to begin with nor thinks they are great games. They're simply "simple" and addicting. No one said they're good. There will still be amazing games that come out every year, regardless of whatever CoD shits out. Relax.

This. It's like Adam Sandler movies. I freaking HATE every Adam Sandler movie I've seen (I hear tha Punch Drunk Love is good, but I haven't seen it). But I'm not gonna say that Adam Sandler movies are dangerous to cinema. I can't blame them for getting made, because they wouldn't keep getting made if SOMEONE wasn't continually watching them and liking them. And I can't get mad at people for liking them, because people like what they like and it's not their job to support what I like by boycotting movies that I hate.

So...the hell with "dangerous precedents". The only reason it potentially sets a "dangerous precedent" in the first place is because people happily eat it up. And if they're happy with it, who the **** am I to tell them that they feel otherwise?

I will start out by saying that I really enjoyed Destiny. However, with that said I do agree with you. I didn't start playing the game until much later, August of 2015, so I had more content available to me by that point, which made the game seem bigger than if I had started playing when it initially launched. I think if I had started playing from the start, I wouldn't have lasted long before moving on to a different game. I can understand the need to grind for gear, other wanted items, and achievements, but if I only get a couple days max after a game or expansion is released before I beat the story line and all I have to look forward to is grinding, I'd rather just stick with MMOs.

Their game practice of withholding content in order to "release" more down the road -for a price- won't stop unless we, the consumers, make it clear that it is not acceptable by taking our business elsewhere.

Are you working for EA bro? What is next? Why in reality Dragon Age is way better than Witcher or why SWTOR is a better MMO than WOW?

It is detrimental because of how popular it is and the lack of quality that it offers. It has gotten out of control. COD has become a pop culture phenomenon. It gets marketed to death and casuals who don't know any better will walk into a store and buy it because they have seen the commercial or heard about it because it comes out every fucking year! These people may only buy a few games a year and it is shame that their money is being wasted on COD and not something more deserving.

If the game was actually good, most people wouldn't have a problem with its popularity. Due to its crazy success, it sets the bar low for other developers. Why focus on depth, quality, and innovation when you can just release a turd and market it to death and be successful? This holds back the industry and does not reward the games that deserve the success. They are overshadowed by the juggernaut that is COD. As a result, these games don't generate the huge sales and don't get sequels or similar games won't get green-lit. So, COD is indeed a poison to the industry. It stifles creativity, innovation, diversity, and overall game quality.

While I don't like neither Destiny nor Call of Duty myself, It's quite clear many do and so who am I to say they shouldn't enjoy something they find entertaining?

Oh "It stifles creativity, innovation, diversity, and overall game quality.", What a load. You might aswell say the exact same thing about the Mario Brothers games, or any other game franchise that has more then two sequels.

Yes there are those that stick to a formula cause it works, That's why we still have First Person Shooters because Wolfenstein 3D and Doom made it popular, It's also why we have Deathmatch modes in Multiplayer. It's why we had a whole heap of Plattforming games in the NES/SNES/Sega Genisis era cause Mario Brothers and Sonic the Hedgehog made it popular. It's why we to this day still have different versions of Tetris coming out.

Sticking to what consumers seem to like tend to make sure the developers get revenue so they can create another game and possibly later on try something new and different when the financial hit of it possibly not being well recieved won't end the studio. I don't mind innovation, I welcome it, But I'm not dumb enough to sit and expect them to take a risk like that and gamble the entire studio on games that might be utterly ignored by the consumers.

I mean, How many of you bought and played "This war of mine", "Monument Valley" , "Gunpoint", "Endless Legend", "The Secret World", "Mushroom 11", "Her story" and a good amount of other games made by either indie developers or larger studio's that took a chance on something new, these past couple of years?

There has always been both games that are innovative and games that follow the same formula that proved successful being released, infact with the ease Indie developers can release their games I'd be willing to say there's never been such a large amount of innovation being tested out and released to us the consumers. There's room for both. So enjoy what you enjoy and if you really get worked up over that others enjoy something you dislike, get over yourself.

1) the games are actually good, people buy them and people enjoy them. If the audience that is purchasing a game is enjoying that game than it is a good game as far as they are concerned, which is all that really matters.

2) your point about stifling anything is completely false. Look at the gaming industry since its birth. Every generation has a popular game which is copied and milked for all of its worth, however that has never stopped the game industry as a whole from evolving. Call of duty is no different than the loads of animal mascots we saw in the late 80's, the trillion street fighter clones we saw in the mid 90's, or the glut of games trying to copy the success of mario 64.

Not every game is going to be innovative, in fact(and yes, this is a fact) the vast majority of games are not innovative, the vast majority of games are seeking to capitalize off of the innovation of a very small few, this is how it has always been and how it will always be. However, the lack of innovation by 98% of games released into this world have never stopped the 2% from taking a chance and revolutionizing some area of gaming.

I agree with a large amount of this but the innovation part. It depend on what you call innovation. For me innovation is new ideal and more important refining older ideals. CoD game are always refining what came before so their innovation is small and hard to nothing. Look at what they have done with staging of the shootout in those game. They and other current FPS have push the staging of the shootouts so far than I can never go back to Doom because of how improve their current staging of shootout is.

@amyh7292: My point isn't that CoD nor Destiny are the four horsemen of the apocalypse of the gaming world. I said games LIKE them are detrimental to gaming. They are but two examples. They aren't the only two, but they are the most visible two. EA, Activision, Ubisoft, I could find examples from most major publishers.

The point in citing CoD is that when a company doesn't have to innovate, or keep up with it's competition, something CoD has no interest in doing. You can't even argue this as BF has the best sound effects, a far superior game engine, and destructible environments for example, all things CoD would greatly benefit from if they simply put the effort to add them as BF has. It is dangerous for us as gamers because it fosters complacency. It shows other developers that they don't really have to try as hard to innovate in order to sell... which is the real issue in terms of my argument in this thread. If this type of attitude or mentality was present post CoD 3, CoD 4 wouldn't have been modern warfare, it would have been another WWII title.

The point of citing Destiny is that by cutting out content from the original game, to hold back for later expansions, while charging the consumer, and literally doubling the price of the initial game as a result sets another alarming and horrible precedent for us gamers. If other companies choose to follow this path, the games we see won't get bigger, or have more content, instead they'll remain the same, the only difference it the more capacity made available by using bluray over dvd will be filled with future dlc which we'll be asked to pay even higher prices for.

@tanerb: Why in reality? As opposed to stating that in fiction?

@cavethug: Because most people accepts Dragon age and SWTOR are inferior. You keep giving examples of non EA games. Why aren't you talking about Star Warts Battlefront when it is a prime example of what you have been arguing all around even more than CoD or Destiny?

I understand this. How many who have made statements that they are upset purchased the game knowing what they were getting? I would bet most. I purchased COD knowing there would be maps that were probably withheld, and that was my choice. I knew ahead of time that I would purchase the season pass if I am still playing when the first map pack is released (or I might just get the map pack). If I was upset enough I would have left the game on the self. It is my fault if I purchase, and if enough people are unhappy and stop buying then the companies will stop doing it. They run on money, and if it isn't coming in then they will change. We are as much to blame as the companies are.

But the question is, did you or others (including myself) buy these games knowing this? I know I did, so we are just as much to blame. We are a capitalist country, if we don't like what a company is doing we don't buy, and they change or go out of business.

I almost never buy those big releases. Just stick with Steam indie and early access games, look around enough till you find a budding gem, and have the time of your life for free-$20.

I agree with you, they are very profit oriented and that's bad, BUT COD Black Ops 3 is still my favorite Call of Duty to date.

And no, I'm not one of those people who buy every COD. I played World at War, Black Ops 1, MW2, and AW (which I sold again because I didn't like it).

I feel like BO3 is the smoothest running Call of Duty out there, the specialist classes are fun, the 3-lane layouts are great and the maps are really cool.

Just because I feel like a developer is greedy doesn't mean I'll stop playing his game if it's fun.

I also enjoyed Destiny until TTK, which is when I felt they weren't adding any new content

This.

DLC isn't going anywhere. If you look at what a lot of these games cost to make compared to 10 years ago, people should be happy that the standalone releases are still $60 at launch and haven't gone up to 80 or 100. If you want AAA games you're going to pay for them. If not, there are midbuget games and indies.