GameSpot Reports: Who 'Owns' A Game?
When it comes to creating a video game, who has more of a right to say what goes in it? Should developers listen to what the gamers want? Jessica McDonell investigates.
by Edmond Tran on
Did you enjoy this video?Sign In to Upvote
In terms of story and direction, I believe the designers should go where their creativity takes them, BUT in terms of gameplay they should definitely listen to what the gamers have to say and follow it a little more.
Just like screenwriterrs shouldn't listen too much to what an audience "wants" developers should keep on doing their own thing. That is, as long as they keep coming up with a good story -just like with the movies or TV-series- because a well developed story is the basis for any game with ambitions. Add to that the ability to turn visions into game-action and all should go well. i didn't agree with what BioWare did with Mass Efect 3 -both with where they took the story as of ME2 and ME3's inconsistencies/ending- as with the "explanatory" add-on. When developers run out of ideas, they should fire the writers and take on new ones. Not develop shaky games and then, after getting boo-ed, add some explanations/alternate ending. It doesn't set things right. On the contrary; it adds insult to injury, most of the time...
it's so nice from the developers to listen to the fans cause after all they the one whom will fill the developers' pockets with money ..for EA and Biware they did a very good job in the storyline and the multi-enddings of Dragon Age Origin BUT in Mass Effect 3 there's many wholes left in it's storyline and the enddings i can say it's hurts to see "your Commander Shepard" whom carried her/his data save through 3 Games goes down .not too bad ..look at lara's Croft games i played Lara since i was i a child and still her role continue until this day
I think the developers should do what they think is the best... and listen to the ideas.. But they have to got a good sense of what things would be good in the games and what wouldn't. They shouldn't close their minds in just one idea.. (that's what I'm trying saying)
Seems dev's can't get it right anyhow, dev's should be listening for ideas and well gamers play many types of games are many of a type of game. But most of the world is idiots and 1/2 of the is bigger idiots. What can dev's do? well i guess just listen for ideas for improvements and actualy BE CREATIVE WITH THEIR FKING GAME FFS.
So game developers know better than people what people actually want. Sure, the developers are not people, they are godlike, and thus omniscient and infallible. Like the Mass Effect 3 developers, right?
Well sure the developers should start off and then listen to the fans and what they would like to see in the next game etc. however that doesn't imply to the mass effect series because in mass effect, the game developers said that you can make your own choice of how you want the game to play out and end but it seems they really don' t keep their promises.
Game makers want ever more profits so they kind of have to listen to feedback. In the past there were weak means of communication between makers and gamers.
But is it good or bad? In that past we had tons of unique games and genres: Tomb Raider, Fallout, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, GTA not even talking about older games. Now games become more and more into a mishmash that gamers apparently want. They like COD or GTA so every game should turn more into like them. I prefer that a developer has their own vision and wants to deliver it instead of just thinking what kind of game is the safest to sell.
I guess this is all about Mass Effect 3. I don't believe gamers can demand anything, but Bioware's track record has gotten incredibly bad and how they handle that critisism is bad. If they have gotten new fans they survive, but if they haven't it won't and won't change their stance it won't be long before the studio is closed like so many others.
this is absolutely true, 'people don't know what they want until you give it to them' and then the feedback starts, & it's great that the developers are listening & incorporating these in the sequels or as dlc's
If we're talking about the intellectual property obviously the copyright owner owns it which is most likely the game company creating or publishing it. They are free to make decisions anyway they see fit. Would It be smart to ignore your fanbase? I don't think so. I had been a connoisseur of Bioware games up until Dragon Age 2 when my allegiance began to wane and has finally died with Mass Effect 3. Bioware has lost a customer because their inability to listen to their long time fans and instead made decisions they thought would bring in a broader audience. We'll see in the future if that decision pays off for them by looking at the bottom line which is all they care about these days.
If we're talking about who owns the game that you purchase be it on disc or download. That is clearly the consumers. They should be allowed to resell it just as any other purchase as long as ownership is transferred and not selling a copy of the original. I don't care what kind of bs game companies try to pull about us not owning the game, that is utter bs and I believe does not hold up in the court of law. Obviously Gamestop is still in business, despite the claims from game makers that what they are doing is illegal or wrong.
The Mass Effect ending scandal would not have happened if the first ending wasn't leak, and get this, EA is not the publisher for Bioware games. That's it.
I think the devs should not be afraid to experiment on creating new ideas, not just pleasing the masses.Having that said, in the debate between who "OWNS" the game is a very subjective IMO. All in all, devs and gamers should work in harmony.
In the end. the game that has the most impact to the masses wins.....
I for one believe that developers should listen to and consider feedback from fans regarding gameplay and presentation (audio, visuals, controls and mechanics). As far as design and plot goes they're in charge. If they start listening to fans about those aspects then the game becomes a work of fan fiction.
I'm for the classically acclaimed BETA TESTING in small groups, fans feedback is important but as I saw somewhere, this often kill the perspective of the devs.Ultimately, a hybrid method is cool but can be also expensive (Add-ons after feedback, and I say ADD-ONS NOT SELLING and crapping DLCs!) to get an even more big fans database.
There is a common theme missing here, the creators of these games are like the rest of us, they grew up in their basement playing space invaders, pac-man, mario bros, etc... so I am comfortable with the fate of our beloved games in their hands. I also believe that the gamers should have a small voice in games because we obviously know exactly what is wrong with games, and gamespot fans can certainly point out defects
I think the devs should be in charge of the developing, if the fans dictated how they make the games we would end up with the same games over and over with nothing new. If I had been asked what I like in a game, every game would just be a clone GTA or Oblivion because thats what I know so thats what I would ask for. But then I see something come out like Bioshock and I am like "that looks awesome" if I told devs what to do Bioshock wouldn't exist.
We can all use a little more empathy. Devs consider player input so the game include elements players want the most. Gamers recognize the devs have both their own visions and various practical constraints. It's a dynamic process where the prevailing atttitude should be one of understanding and cooperation.
Save the antagonism for the legal definition of ownership, which needs not be discussed here.
The game belongs to the one that buys hit. No more no less.
We need to realize one big reality...NO DEVELOPER, WRITER, PROGRAMER OR COMPANY LISTEN TO A GAMER OR A FAN, THE ONLY THING THEY WHANT IS MONEY FIRST AN GAME SUPLYED AFTER...this way they can rob some suckers before they realize they have been f----d big time. The best way are free games that have the donate button on their web page, at least I can tryout a game fully, and, if i truly like it, then i guess i wouldn't mind to donating the same as i would pay for a great company game.
As much as I have enjoyed it, I would say that Ace Combat: Assault Horizon is a prime example of a developer not listening to their core fanbase. While it did attract many new players, I believe that it alienated a lot of life long Ace Combat fans in the process.
Diablo 3 shitty inferno difficulty is enough said.
Blizzard listens to no one! I will never buy any future Diablo game.
and still, no answer on Who 'Owns' A Game? not important, as long as I can just play it and enjoy it... as for our influence on game developers, too many people has too many ideas, impossible to apply them all... or most... just fix the major issues most people bitch about...
Developers looking to fans for feedback doesn't equate to "ownership" in any way. It's just good business for a company to look to what it's consumers (especially it's repeat consumers) want to see from their products.
How can you lie on camera so shamelessly? Borderlands 2 is a copy of 1 with more guns. What that game needed though - was the inclusion of armor, equipment and bearable story.
ME3 wasn't a question of ownership, it was about the developer not delivering what they promised in their product marketing and gamers speaking out about being mislead as consumers and mistreated as fans by the publisher/developer. If someone promises you an amount of gold and delivers you an equal amount of silver instead then while you may still have precious metals the value just doesn't add up to the same. Same basic premise but replace gold with great game with satisfying conclusion and silver with great game with nonsensical poorly written canon breaking RGB ending.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
@linkman3 If we really knew what was wrong with games and all the devs just listened to what people want, we would have more CoD and WoW clones because they are the best selling titles therefore its obviously what the MOST people want. I do not want that to happen and would rather see devs take risks and create something they want to make instead of what the masses want.
@jessie82 adblock plus fyi
@stan_boyd Well said. I agree with Steve Jobs that most peopel don't know what they want until it is given to them. If devs make something to appeal to players, they typically end up trimming an existing IP, but new IPs aren't made until a dev studio goes its own way and makes what it wants.
@omega_vs_wolf omega i get the feeling you play too many EA games (cause you described almost every EA game that ive ever played ;-P ) , but dont crowd in every developer in with EA . a good solid game deserves money true , but with how EA generally treats their customers they dont deserve any of it. Bungie was good when they were making Halo (imo atleast) , Arenanet / NCSoft is doing a good job on Guild Wars 2 and still going to maintain a free to play model (not a P2W one) and theyve kept on going pretty good. there are still some good developers out there , whether established ones or just indies . but dont bunch them all up with EA ;-P
@omega_vs_wolf Because of the money-wish the devs are listening too much to the gamers!
@Coren_Larken Thank you! A thousand times: thank you! Although I must say I didn't enjoy Assault Horizon much at all. The only aspects that long-time AC fans could recognise were the title and some of the sound-effects. The series has survived so long essentially as the same game. It wasn't broken. Why did they have to 'fix' it?
@ulgk lets not forget all the other issues (online all the time just for single player? yea....).
@endorbr It's a misleading title alright. I thought it was going to be a video about Blizzard's promoted policy of games like services, where you as a consumer OWN nothing.
@endorbr This entire line is divided between those looking at the
full half of the glass, and those looking at the empty; you still have a great game, you still have a touching, moving narrative across what game is in the package you buy, and it is also high above a lot of shooters our there. There are also much larger, more grieving issues with the game including much too short development cycle resulting in a recut and remade story that's nowhere as lofty as it was intended to be,
or not, but we'll never know. I, for one, am a firm believer that creators are the ultimate arbiter on their creation, and this is a case where that decision was made by someone looking to cashing what chips were left, in their opinion, from the franchise. This is happening in different forms all across the "industry", and i'm genuinely concerned we're facing the removal of innovation from AAA titles- either because some exec is
too scared or too greedy to take risks.. or because some some self-entitled spoiled "end-user" thinks he can "fix" overnight with the of his tiny mind and narrow vision (as his response will show) what
a team of skilled professionals and visionaries spend years crafting.
And while keeping promises is important, we really should remember no one is perfect, and they're doing their best (in Mass Effect's case, at least) to deliver something unforgettable. which they had, for better, and for worst.
@stan_boyd actualy COD is just another fps game like anny other ive played so far, as for WOW you only had one choice with that game. don't buy the game and have a normal life with games an real world friends or, buy the game continuously and leave society and play a game that removes anny social traces from a normal human.
@stan_boyd There are mad CoD and WoW clones out there.
you can add block?
@amdreallyfast The most interesting demos at E3 this year were things I didn't know were in the works, Dishonored really caught my interest as did The Last of Us, neither of which I sent the devs my input on, and as good as Assassins Creed 3 looks, it still looks like alot of the same ol thing we been playing for 4 games already with a few tweaks.
@Enundr i whas hiting more like Blizard, and Bioware but i gess EA allso has it's big share of the blame in the mather
@Enundr Well said.
@sidewinder_na No they did not! EA's touch and heavy pressure are the perfect answers for that.Keeping promises is what BioWare has been famous for ...BioWare Community Network was, so far, above other forums because it established a stable and direct communication with the devs resulting in numerous masterpieces which i am sure i don't need to name here.When BioWare stopped listening to the fans and gave in to EA's Multiplayer-azation , MMO-azation and FPS-azation of everything , look what we got: DA 2 and ME 3...Spare us the "we got a top quality game no matter the ending" or the "It's about the journey not the destination" NO it's about pay and receive! IT"S about promise and delivery (in exchange of money mind you) and NONE of these were established with this particular game...Don't look at GS and other Critics score...Go to metacritic where everything is summed up..See what USERS have to say about your Top QUality game...Mass Effect 3 was the MOST critical part of the whole trilogy and they messed it up due to arrogance and greediness rendering the whole title a forgettable experience.I for one have totally forgotten everything else that didn't have to do with my LI....But please...By all means enjoy!
@sidewinder_na I won't deny that I thought Mass Effect 3 was a great game overall. But that last hour, particularly the last 20 minutes or so just felt like a kick in the teeth after playing through the game and the earlier installments in the series. It's one of those rare moments where I was just left going: "Really, that's it?" The epilogue after the credits just made me angry at EA and made their interference in the direction of the games ending obvious.
@stan_boyd true about AC3 , but its still nice for ppl who appreciate a game that has a good story , give or take ppls opinions of course. and yes i think devs should be in charge of what goes in a game (disregarding my immense hate on ME3 of course). from what i understand GR Future Soldier got changed cause of listening to ppl say the initial thoughts of things shown was too futuristic? i guess ppl dont grasp that 1 its a video game who gives a Flying f**k? and 2 theres that word in it called "future" , so a game is too futuristic thought its supposed to be about something in the future? all things of why devs should say what goes in the game and not pay that much attention to what the players say. i mean heck i love halo and other such games but its nice to get something thats actually different and not just a "wow clone" kind of deal cause of fans saying they should do it.
@omega_vs_wolf well Bioware is EA now as well ;-P
@rhymesmatter No such thing, "perfect answer".
if something's too good to be true, it usually is.
EA is out to make money and everyone knows that.
that doesn't make them evil, it makes them callous.
THAT is the part they need to fix. well... that and origin.
@rhymesmatter ive already sworn off EA / Bioware games , in most parts with how they just kept insulting the fans with BS responses the whole time , like the one with the ASA in it? EA tried saying the ending ACTUALLY happened at a specific time frame , when thats the worst thing you can say since ppl play games at significantly different paces. i mean FFS a mmo could launch day 1 and someone will hit lvl cap before day 2 goes up (obviously person really needs to get out more most likely but still a good example).
@endorbr same here. all the more reason to believe that they should have pushed the game back.