I agree. The true benefit is to developers who want to avoid high overhead and dealing with video game publishers as gatekeeper. Maybe he should've just hooked up with the Ouya guys.
I agree. The true benefit is to developers who want to avoid high overhead and dealing with video game publishers as gatekeeper. Maybe he should've just hooked up with the Ouya guys.
I'm old school, too, and it is about controlling access to content so they can nickel-and-dime you for every little interaction with their games. New pricing and distribution models will not make a crappy game profitable. First and foremost, the game has to be good. It has to be something someone wants to play. They are doing the same thing over in comics. Moving towards giving it away for free digitally and claiming this is the "Future" instead of just admitting there are a lot of creators (newbies and old guard) putting expensive, inaccessible crap comics.
There's a ton of potential when it comes to cloud gaming, online gaming, etc. But not of it is being done in the service of enhancing the gameplay experience. All of the energy is being focused on how can we stroke people for money or get something to market that doesn't deserve to be there because no one will pay for it.
We've taken a BIG step backwards when we've convinced ourselves that you can pay money to create content, give it away for free, and then hope that people will pay you for it after the fact. Oh, wait-a-minit, I just described Facebook.
This comment is on point. Giving games away for free is not growth solution. Making games people want to play, and that we can afford, is a growth strategy. Amen, "free-to-play" is just another buzzword that will go the way of all "revolutionary" buzzwords before it.
GEVDARG's comments