If BROADER AUDIENCE was a man, I woould have killed him.

  • 60 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for SultaN-s
#1 Posted by SultaN-s (85 posts) -

... or them. I have long since lost my love for TV shows, movies, music and anime. All I have left with now are video games and novels. Which will not last long, unfortunately. Game developers and publishers no longer view us as fans, but as mere consumers. And they will make their "product" good enough to buy not love.

I am sick of the "Hey! we know you like our game to be hard, dark and scary, but .... screw you! we want your grandparents to buy it too so we are going to change it ha ha!" developers.

Tomb Raider 2013 was the final straw.

Avatar image for JML897
#2 Posted by JML897 (33134 posts) -
I hate this trend of people saying "back in the day they made games out of love and didn't just make the games to make money. Now all developers care about is $$$" That's a load of bullsh!t
Avatar image for MLBknights58
#3 Posted by MLBknights58 (5016 posts) -

What the above poster said.  I smell a load of bull from the OP.

Avatar image for Archangel3371
#4 Posted by Archangel3371 (23888 posts) -
Well I'm still having a great time gaming so I'm good. :D
Avatar image for Minishdriveby
#5 Posted by Minishdriveby (10520 posts) -
At least you still have novels.
Avatar image for Lucky_Krystal
#6 Posted by Lucky_Krystal (1390 posts) -

LOL. And if you think that hasn't always been the case, then you are very naive.

It doesn't matter what kind of entertainment you indulge in: Books, video games, tv shows, anime/cartoons, etc, you're always going to find more crap and pandering to the lowest common denominator than beautiful works of art (Ever hear of Sturgeon's Law?). The minute you realize that and choose to keep on searching for hidden gems instead of whining endlessly about how much [insert form of entertainment here] all sucks, you can enjoy it much much more. Hasn't failed me once :)

Avatar image for Namgis
#7 Posted by Namgis (3592 posts) -

And if they gave you want you wanted, I'd be pissed off and making this exact topic to bash the crap you call entertainment. The trouble with the gaming medium, is the same as TV/Movies/etc, it's all been done before.

-

Can't please all the people all the time. They do what's required of them to make money from their fans. All the while figuring out just how little work/money they can put into something in order for it to make more money. If you hung the balance of your gaming hobby on TR being completely original and unique, you set yourself up for disaster. As Lucky_Krystal said, less mainstream hidden gems is the direction you seek.

-

What would you have done with TR had you been in charge?

Avatar image for CarnageHeart
#8 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

... or them. I have long since lost my love for TV shows, movies, music and anime. All I have left with now are video games and novels. Which will not last long, unfortunately. Game developers and publishers no longer view us as fans, but as mere consumers. And they will make their "product" good enough to buy not love.

I am sick of the "Hey! we know you like our game to be hard, dark and scary, but .... screw you! we want your grandparents to buy it too so we are going to change it ha ha!" developers.

Tomb Raider 2013 was the final straw.

SultaN-s

So your argument is that modern games aren't dark enough and to support your argument you mention Tomb Raider :lol:.

7322565430_b045362440_z.jpg

I can see why some fans of the old games would be unhappy with the reboot, but the dark, gorey reboot isn't made to appeal to the Wii crowd, its made to appeal to shooter fans.

Despite the fact you can't offer a coherent or convincing explanation for your murderous impulses, its clear gaming has ceased to be fun for you. Why not find a new hobby?

Avatar image for kaealy
#9 Posted by kaealy (2161 posts) -

What the above poster said.  I smell a load of bull from the OP.

MLBknights58
That is pretty funny because the best Castlevania games are by far the old school kind. It's an undeniable fact that there was a lot more love for making games in the early days of the PC and during the early 90s. There just wasn't enough money too attract the corporate pyranas, I fail to see how you guys can't see this.
Avatar image for MLBknights58
#10 Posted by MLBknights58 (5016 posts) -

[QUOTE="MLBknights58"]

What the above poster said.  I smell a load of bull from the OP.

kaealy

That is pretty funny because the best Castlevania games are by far the old school kind. It's an undeniable fact that there was a lot more love for making games in the early days of the PC and during the early 90s. There just wasn't enough money too attract the corporate pyranas, I fail to see how you guys can't see this.

I can't see it because it's a load of bullsh!t.  I enjoyed  Castlevania in the 80's and 90's and I definitely enjoyed the recent additions to the series (Order of Ecclesia, Lords of Shadow) as well.  More love for making games?  Prove it.  I'm pretty confident that people involved in making games are there because they love it and is what they are passionate about.  This is their job, their profession.  

There is money to attract "corporate pirhanas" now because gaming is more popular than it ever has been, arguably because the games coming out are in higher quality and/or have higher visual appeal. Gaming is still infantile in comparison to other entertainment industries, but its growing.  I fail to see how you can't see the difference between the gaming industry in the late 80's and 90's and now.

Avatar image for Black_Knight_00
#11 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (21095 posts) -
If "broader audience" was a big man, he would have killed you
Avatar image for kaealy
#12 Posted by kaealy (2161 posts) -

[QUOTE="kaealy"][QUOTE="MLBknights58"]

What the above poster said.  I smell a load of bull from the OP.

MLBknights58

That is pretty funny because the best Castlevania games are by far the old school kind. It's an undeniable fact that there was a lot more love for making games in the early days of the PC and during the early 90s. There just wasn't enough money too attract the corporate pyranas, I fail to see how you guys can't see this.

I can't see it because it's a load of bullsh!t.  I enjoyed  Castlevania in the 80's and 90's and I definitely enjoyed the recent additions to the series (Order of Ecclesia, Lords of Shadow) as well.  More love for making games?  Prove it.  I'm pretty confident that people involved in making games are there because they love it and is what they are passionate about.  This is their job, their profession.  

There is money to attract "corporate pirhanas" now because gaming is more popular than it ever has been, arguably because the games coming out are in higher quality and/or have higher visual appeal. Gaming is still infantile in comparison to other entertainment industries, but its growing.  I fail to see how you can't see the difference between the gaming industry in the late 80's and 90's and now.

The success of kickstarter projects from famous and old school devs that can't make the games they want because of corporate pirhanas is enough proof. The smoking industry isn't good just because Bob in their accounting department loves his job, that is your line of reasoning. But it's pretty obvious that further discussion with you won't bear any fruit, so I am out.
Avatar image for 1PMrFister
#14 Posted by 1PMrFister (3134 posts) -
If hyperbolic, uninspired rambling was a man... well, I wouldn't kill him, but the idea would be tempting.
Avatar image for Articuno76
#15 Posted by Articuno76 (19784 posts) -

I hate this trend of people saying "back in the day they made games out of love and didn't just make the games to make money. Now all developers care about is $$$" That's a load of bullsh!tJML897
No it really isn't. You have to understand it in context.

In the past game development wasn't influenced by the need to have a game turn a profit. Sure, games were sold as products and the developer intended to make a return, but the onus was on publishers and marketing to make the product profitable. Now that onus has shifted towards the developers who have to work to create games that are easier to play and sell (or flat out even avoid making certain types of games or implementing certain design decisions because the game might not make a return). That's a massive difference.

When people mention that games are made for money these days they aren't ignoring that games have always been made for that reason, they are pointing out that the drive to sell the game has influenced the design and approach to design of the games themselves in fundamental ways that didn't exist before.

Avatar image for wis3boi
#16 Posted by wis3boi (32507 posts) -

I hate this trend of people saying "back in the day they made games out of love and didn't just make the games to make money. Now all developers care about is $$$" That's a load of bullsh!tJML897

Avatar image for ZhugeL1ang
#17 Posted by ZhugeL1ang (115 posts) -

 

In the past game development wasn't influenced by the need to have a game turn a profit. Sure, games were sold as products and the developer intended to make a return, but the onus was on publishers and marketing to make the product profitable. Now that onus has shifted towards the developers who have to work to create games that are easier to play and sell (or flat out even avoid making certain types of games or implementing certain design decisions because the game might not make a return). That's a massive difference.

When people mention that games are made for money these days they aren't ignoring that games have always been made for that reason, they are pointing out that the drive to sell the game has influenced the design and approach to design of the games themselves in fundamental ways that didn't exist before.

Articuno76

Goodness, speaking of context, you're doing it wrong. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but if home entertainment back in the day had the same networking and distribution capability then as it does now, believe me, the publishers would have used it as another revenue stream and you're quite naive to believe otherwise. Not that DLC profiteering is inherently bad. If games back in the day weren't meant to turn a profit, then why were there so many sequels and spin offs? No profit motive you say? Pokemon anyone?

What is this tripe about, "wasn't influenced by the need to have a game turn a profit?" How else do you fund future projects? Any product produced needs to turn a profit, your idealism be damned. I know this mindset is popular with the pretnetious old school crowd who think they're too cool for current gaming trends, but a lot of your statements just don't add up. Games are easier now? To whom exactly? Gosh, you sure like to push opinions as facts don't you?

Avatar image for Articuno76
#18 Posted by Articuno76 (19784 posts) -

[QUOTE="Articuno76"]

 

In the past game development wasn't influenced by the need to have a game turn a profit. Sure, games were sold as products and the developer intended to make a return, but the onus was on publishers and marketing to make the product profitable. Now that onus has shifted towards the developers who have to work to create games that are easier to play and sell (or flat out even avoid making certain types of games or implementing certain design decisions because the game might not make a return). That's a massive difference.

When people mention that games are made for money these days they aren't ignoring that games have always been made for that reason, they are pointing out that the drive to sell the game has influenced the design and approach to design of the games themselves in fundamental ways that didn't exist before.

ZhugeL1ang

Goodness, speaking of context, you're doing it wrong. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but if home entertainment back in the day had the same networking and distribution capability then as it does now, believe me, the publishers would have used it as another revenue stream and you're quite naive to believe otherwise. Not that DLC profiteering is inherently bad. If games back in the day weren't meant to turn a profit, then why were there so many sequels and spin offs? No profit motive you say? Pokemon anyone?

What is this tripe about, "wasn't influenced by the need to have a game turn a profit?" How else do you fund future projects? Any product produced needs to turn a profit, your idealism be damned. I know this mindset is popular with the pretnetious old school crowd who think they're too cool for current gaming trends, but a lot of your statements just don't add up. Games are easier now? To whom exactly? Gosh, you sure like to push opinions as facts don't you?

Please read what I've written instead of taking the first line and running mad with it.

I never said that games didn't turn a profit. Nor did I say there were designed not to. Nor did I mention anything about difficulty but ease of play (which is not the same thing). And 'no motive to profit you say'...well no I don't, and I didn't...where are you getting all of this? How does DLC come into it?  

As for the whole thing about distribution...it's totally irrelevant. Yeah, sure maybe. But the reality was it wasn't that way and game design was approached differently (which is what I was saying to begin with...). I don't see how bringing in this alternative reality as a thought experiment matters here at all because I'm not making an argument or taking a side; I'm making on observation.

My observation is that in the past marketing and publishing were the ones responsible for selling whatever game the developer dropped in their lap.  Now the developers work closer with marketing/publishing to create a product based on market feedback (which influences the kinds of games they make and how they turn out).  That's all I said...

Avatar image for GeoffZak
#19 Posted by GeoffZak (3715 posts) -

I hate this trend of people saying "back in the day they made games out of love and didn't just make the games to make money. Now all developers care about is $$$" That's a load of bullsh!tJML897

Where's all the DLC, online passes and disc-locked content for the NES? Or the Genesis? Or the N64? Or the PS2?

Back in the day, you could place the game in the console, and then start playing. No such thing as pointless online singleplayer. AND, as an added bonus, you would pay, let's say $50 for a new game, and you would get ALL of the content that the developers intended to include. WITHOUT having to go online and purchase DLC that was available the same day as the game was released. What a concept. Getting what you pay for.

On another note, I'm also sick of the "broader audience." This broader audience is destroying the game industry. I'm so sick of hand-holding and overly linear games.

I think Uncharted was the last straw for me.

Avatar image for Ish_basic
#20 Posted by Ish_basic (4799 posts) -

My observation is that in the past marketing and publishing were the ones responsible for selling whatever game the developer dropped in their lap. Now the developers work closer with marketing/publishing to create a product based on market feedback (which influences the kinds of games they make and how they turn out). That's all I said...

Articuno76

Well, business hasn't really changed in the past 30 or so years. There were still market driven games back then. To give you an example, ET. The publishers reached out to the developer of Yar's Revenge (one of my favorite games of the time) and said, "this movie is really popular, I need a game in six months." Wasn't nearly enough time considering the dev team consisted of one man, and the game ended up being garbage. And even for those that made original titles for PC, they still had to first shop them around to a publisher where a marketing team would decide whether or not to publish. The only other option was to post your game in a ziploc bag on a bulletin board at a local hangout, and just maybe it would catch on.

I don't think there's ever been a "for the love of the game" era where business decisions were secondary to passion, like some would suggest (I'm not necessarily talking about you, here), but I think the majority of game devs out there are certainly passionate about their trade. I think the big change between then and now is how much risk is involved in game developlment. There's so much more money invested into any single project nowadays, that it would simply be irresponsible to not gauge the market before you jumped into any venture.

Avatar image for SirWander
#21 Posted by SirWander (5176 posts) -

I hate this trend of people saying "back in the day they made games out of love and didn't just make the games to make money. Now all developers care about is $$$" That's a load of bullsh!tJML897

I wholeheartedly agree.

Avatar image for Articuno76
#22 Posted by Articuno76 (19784 posts) -

[QUOTE="Articuno76"]

 

My observation is that in the past marketing and publishing were the ones responsible for selling whatever game the developer dropped in their lap. Now the developers work closer with marketing/publishing to create a product based on market feedback (which influences the kinds of games they make and how they turn out). That's all I said...

Ish_basic

Well, business hasn't really changed in the past 30 or so years. There were still market driven games back then. To give you an example, ET. The publishers reached out to the developer of Yar's Revenge (one of my favorite games of the time) and said, "this movie is really popular, I need a game in six months." Wasn't nearly enough time considering the dev team consisted of one man, and the game ended up being garbage. And even for those that made original titles for PC, they still had to first shop them around to a publisher where a marketing team would decide whether or not to publish. The only other option was to post your game in a ziploc bag on a bulletin board at a local hangout, and just maybe it would catch on.

I don't think there's ever been a "for the love of the game" era where business decisions were secondary to passion, like some would suggest (I'm not necessarily talking about you, here), but I think the majority of game devs out there are certainly passionate about their trade. I think the big change between then and now is how much risk is involved in game developlment. There's so much more money invested into any single project nowadays, that it would simply be irresponsible to not gauge the market before you jumped into any venture.

Business has always been important. But I do believe there was a time when business had a much lower level of significance in terms of game design decisions (though it is certainly true that it always has had some impact).

I'm pointing out that the marketing/selling of a game is so important now that it actually informs game design as a given (rather than an exception to the rule). What you are pointing out is one facet of the industry (licensed games under tough deadlines...though that sub-industry is beginning to dry up now) but I'm thinking of games more analogous to todays' AAA hits (Sonic. Mario and Street Fighter to todays CoD, GTA and Assasin's Creed's) I don't think back in the 90s videogames like Sonic or Mario had creative restraints placed on them because someone in marketing was like 'that won't work. How will we explain that to people?'.

Funnily enough, part of that might just be that games were much simpler back then and spoke for themselves. Whereas these days the marketing team has to work really hard to explain to people what these complex multi-mechanic worlds are all about (as well as conveying themes, story and other aspects of the game). The natural progression of that is that the publisher and marketing begins to step into game design itself so that they have a project they can actually sell competently waiting at the end of it.

Today a game designer's job isn't just designing a good game, but designing one that is marketable as well (unreasonable deadlines as you noted were probably more common back then and a lot of bad games were made as a result. Today's brand/IP-building concious publishers wouldn't put stuff of that quality out because they've wisened up to the long term damage it could do them).

I suppose you could think of it as the difference between bottom-up (designer > publisher > marketing) design being prominent in the past and top(ish)-down design becoming more prevalent now (marketing/publisher <> designer).

A lot of people that say that "games are all about money these days" are probably ineloquently conveying that game design has changed in order to take into account the reality you noted (that game design is far more expensive/riskier than before so returns need to be as guaranteed as possible) and that they don't agree with those design changes.

Let me put it this way.  The game designer of the past was probably not thinking 'I can't put this in a game, it won't sell' but rather looking to make the best game they could because they felt that was what would sell.  They didn't have the dilemma modern game designers do which is having to make the distinction between good game design choices and marketable ones (which are sometimes, though not always and maybe not even often, at odds with one another).  

Avatar image for Michael0134567
#23 Posted by Michael0134567 (28651 posts) -

I hate this trend of people saying "back in the day they made games out of love and didn't just make the games to make money. Now all developers care about is $$$" That's a load of bullsh!tJML897

Exactly.

Avatar image for Justforvisit
#24 Posted by Justforvisit (2660 posts) -

[QUOTE="kaealy"][QUOTE="MLBknights58"]

What the above poster said. I smell a load of bull from the OP.

MLBknights58

That is pretty funny because the best Castlevania games are by far the old school kind. It's an undeniable fact that there was a lot more love for making games in the early days of the PC and during the early 90s. There just wasn't enough money too attract the corporate pyranas, I fail to see how you guys can't see this.

I can't see it because it's a load of bullsh!t. I enjoyed Castlevania in the 80's and 90's and I definitely enjoyed the recent additions to the series (Order of Ecclesia, Lords of Shadow) as well. More love for making games? Prove it. I'm pretty confident that people involved in making games are there because they love it and is what they are passionate about. This is their job, their profession.

There is money to attract "corporate pirhanas" now because gaming is more popular than it ever has been, arguably because the games coming out are in higher quality and/or have higher visual appeal. Gaming is still infantile in comparison to other entertainment industries, but its growing. I fail to see how you can't see the difference between the gaming industry in the late 80's and 90's and now.



Online passes, DRM, preventing of selling used games, bonus costumes / stages / unlocks / items / etc. where once a reward for finishing a game on a certain difficulty level and are now only given away as DLC, IF at all, cheats for singleplayer games to add some extra fun.........

Back in th day, making a video game was PRIMARY about artistic expression, it WAS art and only SECONDARY it was making money. This HAS turned, undoubtly. Modern games STILL can be fun and are, but don't deny the hard facts.

Avatar image for JustPlainLucas
#25 Posted by JustPlainLucas (78133 posts) -
Can we have a separate thread for the jaded, rose-colored glasses wearing, stuck in the past gamers please?
Avatar image for JML897
#26 Posted by JML897 (33134 posts) -

[QUOTE="JML897"]I hate this trend of people saying "back in the day they made games out of love and didn't just make the games to make money. Now all developers care about is $$$" That's a load of bullsh!tGeoffZak

Where's all the DLC, online passes and disc-locked content for the NES? Or the Genesis? Or the N64? Or the PS2?

Do I even need to point out how stupid this question is?

Avatar image for Lucky_Krystal
#27 Posted by Lucky_Krystal (1390 posts) -

Where's all the DLC, online passes and disc-locked content for the NES? Or the Genesis? Or the N64? Or the PS2?

Back in the day, you could place the game in the console, and then start playing. No such thing as pointless online singleplayer. AND, as an added bonus, you would pay, let's say $50 for a new game, and you would get ALL of the content that the developers intended to include. WITHOUT having to go online and purchase DLC that was available the same day as the game was released. What a concept. Getting what you pay for.

On another note, I'm also sick of the "broader audience." This broader audience is destroying the game industry. I'm so sick of hand-holding and overly linear games.

I think Uncharted was the last straw for me.

GeoffZak

But don't you think these concepts are just updated concepts of old?

Remember expansion packs? A famous one was The sims. Long before the days of DLC, DRM, and all that jazz, the sims was sucking loads of money out of fans. For all three iterations you bought the base game first. Then you spent more money ($20-40) on an expansion or stuff pack. It ranged from adding weather, to new clothes and items, to adding new locations, pets, and the ability to go to college. One could argue that we should have gotten this content from the get go. Before the Sims 2, they had clubs, dates, and pets in the sims 1. But instead of adding it in the base game in the second game, they gave you bare bones content then made you repurchase the ability to have pets, go to nightclubs and such. They did the SAME thing with the Sims 3. Stuff packs are also just that: stuff. You are spending money just for some new virtual furniture and clothes. Guess who the publisher of the Sims is? EA! They've been doing this for a long time. The Sims is still a brilliant game, but you can't ignore the fact that they charge all that money just so you could get the best experience in it. EA has just graduated to DLC and DRM.

Over a decade before skylanders, pokemon already had its paws in parent's wallets. You needed to buy two different versions of the same game just to "catch 'em all!" Aside from some missing pokemon and some insignificant changes, they were the same game. Oh but it doesn't end there! Then comes a third game that again made minor changes. But who knew that? Some little kid would probably buy all 3, either because he wanted that extra content and wanted to catch 'em all, or he didn't know that it was essentially the same game with three different names. And parents bought it for them without a second thought. They probably bought them all the toys, anime, and trading cards too...

You like JRPGs don't you? You have to remember .hack? There was NO reason CyberConnect couldn't put that series of games all on one disc. The first .hack had four games that were each a pathetic 10-20 hours depending on how fast you were. GU was the same, but it had 3 games. Had they been put together on one game, they could have been 60-100 hours or 30-60 for GU. But instead they forced you to pay $160 the first time and $120 the first time for a complete game.

Our always connected consoles developers and publishers the ability to add quality DLC to extend the duration and longevity of game. But unfortunately, some of them use it to exploit customers. Its just easier now. Had it been possible before this gen, companies probably would have still done it. The same kind of companies that do the things I've listed above.

Avatar image for Lucky_Krystal
#29 Posted by Lucky_Krystal (1390 posts) -

Online passes, DRM, preventing of selling used games, bonus costumes / stages / unlocks / items / etc. where once a reward for finishing a game on a certain difficulty level and are now only given away as DLC, IF at all, cheats for singleplayer games to add some extra fun.........

Back in th day, making a video game was PRIMARY about artistic expression, it WAS art and only SECONDARY it was making money. This HAS turned, undoubtly. Modern games STILL can be fun and are, but don't deny the hard facts.

Justforvisit

Hard facts? Then cite your sources. Back your claims up. Direct me to some likeminded people who know more about the state of the industry over the pass 30 years BETTER than some random guy on a net forum toting his opinion as facts.

Avatar image for Lulekani
#30 Posted by Lulekani (2318 posts) -

[QUOTE="MLBknights58"]

[QUOTE="kaealy"] That is pretty funny because the best Castlevania games are by far the old school kind. It's an undeniable fact that there was a lot more love for making games in the early days of the PC and during the early 90s. There just wasn't enough money too attract the corporate pyranas, I fail to see how you guys can't see this. Justforvisit

I can't see it because it's a load of bullsh!t. I enjoyed Castlevania in the 80's and 90's and I definitely enjoyed the recent additions to the series (Order of Ecclesia, Lords of Shadow) as well. More love for making games? Prove it. I'm pretty confident that people involved in making games are there because they love it and is what they are passionate about. This is their job, their profession.

There is money to attract "corporate pirhanas" now because gaming is more popular than it ever has been, arguably because the games coming out are in higher quality and/or have higher visual appeal. Gaming is still infantile in comparison to other entertainment industries, but its growing. I fail to see how you can't see the difference between the gaming industry in the late 80's and 90's and now.



Online passes, DRM, preventing of selling used games, bonus costumes / stages / unlocks / items / etc. where once a reward for finishing a game on a certain difficulty level and are now only given away as DLC, IF at all, cheats for singleplayer games to add some extra fun.........

Back in th day, making a video game was PRIMARY about artistic expression, it WAS art and only SECONDARY it was making money. This HAS turned, undoubtly. Modern games STILL can be fun and are, but don't deny the hard facts.

So whatya gona do about it tough guy ?
Avatar image for GeoffZak
#31 Posted by GeoffZak (3715 posts) -

[QUOTE="GeoffZak"]

Where's all the DLC, online passes and disc-locked content for the NES? Or the Genesis? Or the N64? Or the PS2?

Back in the day, you could place the game in the console, and then start playing. No such thing as pointless online singleplayer. AND, as an added bonus, you would pay, let's say $50 for a new game, and you would get ALL of the content that the developers intended to include. WITHOUT having to go online and purchase DLC that was available the same day as the game was released. What a concept. Getting what you pay for.

On another note, I'm also sick of the "broader audience." This broader audience is destroying the game industry. I'm so sick of hand-holding and overly linear games.

I think Uncharted was the last straw for me.

Lucky_Krystal

But don't you think these concepts are just updated concepts of old?

Remember expansion packs? A famous one was The sims. Long before the days of DLC, DRM, and all that jazz, the sims was sucking loads of money out of fans. For all three iterations you bought the base game first. Then you spent more money ($20-40) on an expansion or stuff pack. It ranged from adding weather, to new clothes and items, to adding new locations, pets, and the ability to go to college. One could argue that we should have gotten this content from the get go. Before the Sims 2, they had clubs, dates, and pets in the sims 1. But instead of adding it in the base game in the second game, they gave you bare bones content then made you repurchase the ability to have pets, go to nightclubs and such. They did the SAME thing with the Sims 3. Stuff packs are also just that: stuff. You are spending money just for some new virtual furniture and clothes. Guess who the publisher of the Sims is? EA! They've been doing this for a long time. The Sims is still a brilliant game, but you can't ignore the fact that they charge all that money just so you could get the best experience in it. EA has just graduated to DLC and DRM.

Over a decade before skylanders, pokemon already had its paws in parent's wallets. You needed to buy two different versions of the same game just to "catch 'em all!" Aside from some missing pokemon and some insignificant changes, they were the same game. Oh but it doesn't end there! Then comes a third game that again made minor changes. But who knew that? Some little kid would probably buy all 3, either because he wanted that extra content and wanted to catch 'em all, or he didn't know that it was essentially the same game with three different names. And parents bought it for them without a second thought. They probably bought them all the toys, anime, and trading cards too...

You like JRPGs don't you? You have to remember .hack? There was NO reason CyberConnect couldn't put that series of games all on one disc. The first .hack had four games that were each a pathetic 10-20 hours depending on how fast you were. GU was the same, but it had 3 games. Had they been put together on one game, they could have been 60-100 hours or 30-60 for GU. But instead they forced you to pay $160 the first time and $120 the first time for a complete game.

Our always connected consoles developers and publishers the ability to add quality DLC to extend the duration and longevity of game. But unfortunately, some of them use it to exploit customers. Its just easier now. Had it been possible before this gen, companies probably would have still done it. The same kind of companies that do the things I've listed above.

Don't try to defend them by saying "It's just updated concepts." That doesn't give them an excuse to over-charge and extort the consumer for money.

It continues to escalate, and escalate. More and more content is being taken away from the actual game and sold seperately.

It's worse today than it ever was in the past. Things weren't this bad in the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation. Game companies didn't have online gaming to rely on as much because it wasn't that popular on consoles yet.

Avatar image for Lucky_Krystal
#32 Posted by Lucky_Krystal (1390 posts) -

Don't try to defend them by saying "It's just updated concepts." That doesn't give them an excuse to over-charge and extort the consumer for money.

It continues to escalate, and escalate. More and more content is being taken away from the actual game and sold seperately.

It's worse today than it ever was in the past. Things weren't this bad in the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation. Game companies didn't have online gaming to rely on as much because it wasn't that popular on consoles yet.

GeoffZak

I'm not excusing or defending them. I don't even support companies like EA and Activision anymore. I'm saying, exploitative practice aren't something new in the gaming industry. The internet is a double edged sword that brought it to light.

And what games are you playing? I've found many games this gen that I've sunk 20-100 hours into. You seem hellbent on focusing on mainstream AAA games like COD which are the epitome of milking, rehashing, and selling content that should have been in the game. I swear people aren't LOOKING. People are so caught up in reminiscing about a time when they were children, easy to please and completely ignorant about the industry. The fact of the matter is, we have more variety than we've ever had. Things like Kickstarter and Steam make it even easier for Indie publishers who actually WANT to create a compelling and creative game to get their stuff out there.

And it always makes me laugh when people are like "Bu bu but, back then THEY CARED ABOUT MUH FEELZ!" Yeah right. Many publishers don't give a damn about the customers or creativity now and they didn't then. We are money to them; numbers. This gen is hardly the first time publishers have started doing what they do. Series like Street Fighter, Final Fantasy, Metroid, Mario, Zelda, Pokemon...(the list goes on) have been milked for decades, because they're profitable. And how many creative new IPs got swept under the rug, bombed, then not given sequels by publishers who refused to advertise them ("because its not profitable!") over the past few decades? I wonder how many publishers refused creative new IPs and left them to die before digital distribution, kickstarter, and the internet were the alternative.

Publishers were and always will be looking to make a quick buck, especially given the high stakes of game design nowadays. They're a bussiness. They didn't magically become greedy overnight. They've been finding new and creative ways to rip us off for the past 30 years. FYI, I'm not saying every publisher is like this though. You CAN choose to not give your money to the greedy publishers who you think aren't worth your money. Support the companies you like.

Avatar image for Lulekani
#33 Posted by Lulekani (2318 posts) -
^^^ Well put ! However I don't think he appreciates the shear effort you put into that post. Nor will he grasp the point you're making. Basicly, its just not worth the fuss, drop him like you dropped Activision.
Avatar image for whiskeystrike
#34 Posted by whiskeystrike (12172 posts) -

Then don't play the games made for the broader audience.

It's like complaining about mainstream music or movies. It takes a miniscule bit effort to find it but there's plenty of stuff to play.

Avatar image for Lucky_Krystal
#35 Posted by Lucky_Krystal (1390 posts) -

Then don't play the games made for the broader audience.

It's like complaining about mainstream music or movies. It takes a miniscule bit effort to find it but there's plenty of stuff to play.

whiskeystrike

You speak the truth.

But I guess for some people, its easier and more "logical" to whine on a net forum where no publisher or developer will ever hear their cries. :lol:

Avatar image for capaho
#36 Posted by capaho (1253 posts) -
I think there are a lot more mediocre games on the market now than good ones, but I don't worry that good games will disappear. I worry that everything is going to move to DLC and online gaming where we will lose control of the game media we pay for and good, long single-player campaigns will become even harder to find than they are now. The day is coming when all games will have to be purchased through the console and then the content providers will have complete control over what we can play and when and where we can play it.
Avatar image for LazySloth718
#37 Posted by LazySloth718 (2345 posts) -

This reminds me of high school snobbery.

"Everybody listens to Brittney Spears but I prefer Metallica"

Great, then go listen to Metallica.

Jesus Christ, it is that complicated?

Movies music games and books are all just "media" pick what you like and stfu about it.

Avatar image for JML897
#38 Posted by JML897 (33134 posts) -

This reminds me of high school snobbery.

"Everybody listens to Brittney Spears but I prefer Metallica"

Great, then go listen to Metallica.

Jesus Christ, it is that complicated?

Movies music games and books are all just "media" pick what you like and stfu about it.

LazySloth718
Yeah, this reminds me a lot of similar arguments people make about music. They compare the best stuff from the past with the worst stuff from today and come to the conclusion that stuff today sucks and everything from the past was better.
Avatar image for wis3boi
#39 Posted by wis3boi (32507 posts) -

[QUOTE="LazySloth718"]

This reminds me of high school snobbery.

"Everybody listens to Brittney Spears but I prefer Metallica"

Great, then go listen to Metallica.

Jesus Christ, it is that complicated?

Movies music games and books are all just "media" pick what you like and stfu about it.

JML897

Yeah, this reminds me a lot of similar arguments people make about music. They compare the best stuff from the past with the worst stuff from today and come to the conclusion that stuff today sucks and everything from the past was better.

porbably because they don't want to put forth the tiny effort it takes to go and find the great stuff

Avatar image for 1PMrFister
#40 Posted by 1PMrFister (3134 posts) -

Can we have a separate thread for the jaded, rose-colored glasses wearing, stuck in the past gamers please?JustPlainLucas
I support this notion, but what should we call the thread? My suggestion is "The Official 'Modern Gaming Sucks' Thread of Nostalgia-Vision", but I'm open to ideas.

Avatar image for GeoffZak
#41 Posted by GeoffZak (3715 posts) -

[QUOTE="GeoffZak"]

Don't try to defend them by saying "It's just updated concepts." That doesn't give them an excuse to over-charge and extort the consumer for money.

It continues to escalate, and escalate. More and more content is being taken away from the actual game and sold seperately.

It's worse today than it ever was in the past. Things weren't this bad in the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation. Game companies didn't have online gaming to rely on as much because it wasn't that popular on consoles yet.

Lucky_Krystal

I'm not excusing or defending them. I don't even support companies like EA and Activision anymore. I'm saying, exploitative practice aren't something new in the gaming industry. The internet is a double edged sword that brought it to light.

And what games are you playing? I've found many games this gen that I've sunk 20-100 hours into. You seem hellbent on focusing on mainstream AAA games like COD which are the epitome of milking, rehashing, and selling content that should have been in the game. I swear people aren't LOOKING. People are so caught up in reminiscing about a time when they were children, easy to please and completely ignorant about the industry. The fact of the matter is, we have more variety than we've ever had. Things like Kickstarter and Steam make it even easier for Indie publishers who actually WANT to create a compelling and creative game to get their stuff out there.

And it always makes me laugh when people are like "Bu bu but, back then THEY CARED ABOUT MUH FEELZ!" Yeah right. Many publishers don't give a damn about the customers or creativity now and they didn't then. We are money to them; numbers. This gen is hardly the first time publishers have started doing what they do. Series like Street Fighter, Final Fantasy, Metroid, Mario, Zelda, Pokemon...(the list goes on) have been milked for decades, because they're profitable. And how many creative new IPs got swept under the rug, bombed, then not given sequels by publishers who refused to advertise them ("because its not profitable!") over the past few decades? I wonder how many publishers refused creative new IPs and left them to die before digital distribution, kickstarter, and the internet were the alternative.

Publishers were and always will be looking to make a quick buck, especially given the high stakes of game design nowadays. They're a bussiness. They didn't magically become greedy overnight. They've been finding new and creative ways to rip us off for the past 30 years. FYI, I'm not saying every publisher is like this though. You CAN choose to not give your money to the greedy publishers who you think aren't worth your money. Support the companies you like.

PLOT TWIST!

Today I have more fun playing retro games that I NEVER PLAYED AS A KID than modern games. I'm playing these games for the first time ever.

Chrono Trigger, a game I only started playing a few weeks ago for the first time, puts most of today's games to shame.

That was back when developers had class.

Nostalgia has nothing to do with this. Games were actually better back then.

Avatar image for ZhugeL1ang
#42 Posted by ZhugeL1ang (115 posts) -

 

Please read what I've written instead of taking the first line and running mad with it.

 

Articuno76

If you had taken the time to carefully read my reply, you would have seen that I clearly made references throughout your post. The DLC part was merely an example of modern methods of profiteering, the methods have changed over time, not the concept. I wasn't the slightest bit cryptic or obscure on that account.

 

 

 

 

PLOT TWIST!

Today I have more fun playing retro games that I NEVER PLAYED AS A KID than modern games. I'm playing these games for the first time ever.

Chrono Trigger, a game I only started playing a few weeks ago for the first time, puts most of today's games to shame.

That was back when developers had class.

Nostalgia has nothing to do with this. Games were actually better back then.

GeoffZak

Oh man, pull that bus over to the side of the pretentiousness turnpike. I don't honesly believe that you mean a word of that. But hey, if archaic game design and shallow gameplay are your thing, carry on. Look, I happen to like a lot of retro games as well, but I recognize their limitations. It helps me appreciate modernized game design and the convenience that comes with it.

That was back when developers had class.

What on earth does this even mean? What defines "class" exactly and by what standard? Again with the old school crowd and their cramming of opinions as facts down people's throats. Are you trying to convince others or yourself? I don't mean to troll on you, but your claims here are pretty outlandish.

As for the OP and anyone else in agreement with them, I get that it's popular to talk about how games today pale in comparison to the good 'ol days, but could someone please explain in detail how gaming has allegedly become dumbed down and thereby catering to the masses?

Avatar image for JML897
#43 Posted by JML897 (33134 posts) -

How do the "all developers these days care about is a profit and nothing else" people explain the rise of indie and xbla/psn games? Are you telling me a niche game like Journey was all about the profit and nothing else?

Avatar image for Articuno76
#44 Posted by Articuno76 (19784 posts) -

How do the "all developers these days care about is a profit and nothing else" people explain the rise of indie and xbla/psn games? Are you telling me a niche game like Journey was all about the profit and nothing else?

JML897
You have to actually be willing to lend credibility to an opinion and assume the best (which means working out all the minutiae of what is being said) of the person saying it. If you want to make sense of that opinion, think for yourself 'how could this make sense? In what way?'. People could convey their opinions much more clearly, that's for sure. But some people simply don't possess that ability and are going on gut feeling. It's more productive to make sense of their position and attempt to understand it. What gets me is that judging from what you've said and the question you've posed I'm pretty sure you already know the answer and just want someone to point it out to you. You are clearly well-informed enough to take that popular opinion and make sense of it. So why not actually do it for yourself. Your welcome to disagree with that opinion, but don't pretend that you can't find the angle from which it makes sense. You are more than capable of doing that.
Avatar image for Articuno76
#46 Posted by Articuno76 (19784 posts) -

[QUOTE="Articuno76"]

Please read what I've written instead of taking the first line and running mad with it.

ZhugeL1ang

If you had taken the time to carefully read my reply, you would have seen that I clearly made references throughout your post. The DLC part was merely an example of modern methods of profiteering, the methods have changed over time, not the concept. I wasn't the slightest bit cryptic or obscure on that account.

Your reply really seems like it is talking about something different from my topic. It might seem consistent to you, but it wasn't the subject of what I was talking about at all.

I brought up context in terms of game design choices, the context you brought up distribution and profiteering (the market). These are two different things.

You also then go on to assume that when I was talking about 'the lesser influence of profits' that I was talking about developer motivation to push out a product...which again, I wasn't. Actually this might be my fault because I (incorrectly) used the blanket term 'game development' when 'game design' would have been more precise. I'm talking very precisely about how a keen awareness of falling off the profit margin is making developers inclined to change the way the approach the design of their games.

You also appear to have misunderstood what I was saying to mean 'games are easier' and (in a roundabout way) lumped me in with a group clearly shows that you assumed my position, my opinion and my points.

You might have read what I wrote but you didn't respond to them correctly. I think you have some good points and have made some very interesting distinctions on the way the market worked back then (which are likely very true), but they aren't really related to the angle I'm approaching this topic from.

As for the OP and anyone else in agreement with them, I get that it's popular to talk about how games today pale in comparison to the good 'ol days, but could someone please explain in detail how gaming has allegedly become dumbed down and thereby catering to the masses?ZhugeL1ang

Ah, you see...actually wait, contrary to what you believe I'm not of that opinion.  There are many ways that game design has changed, that is for sure.  But in many ways I'd argue that modern game design is actually less mass friendly that many people may think.  This is going onto a different topic (my latest blog post details what happens when watching a newbie play modern games).

Avatar image for c_rakestraw
#47 Posted by c_rakestraw (14870 posts) -

[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"]Can we have a separate thread for the jaded, rose-colored glasses wearing, stuck in the past gamers please?1PMrFister

I support this notion, but what should we call the thread? My suggestion is "The Official 'Modern Gaming Sucks' Thread of Nostalgia-Vision", but I'm open to ideas.

Sounds good. All in favor?

Avatar image for wis3boi
#48 Posted by wis3boi (32507 posts) -

[QUOTE="1PMrFister"]

[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"]Can we have a separate thread for the jaded, rose-colored glasses wearing, stuck in the past gamers please?c_rake

I support this notion, but what should we call the thread? My suggestion is "The Official 'Modern Gaming Sucks' Thread of Nostalgia-Vision", but I'm open to ideas.

Sounds good. All in favor?

Aye.

Avatar image for c_rakestraw
#49 Posted by c_rakestraw (14870 posts) -

It is done.

Avatar image for Lucky_Krystal
#50 Posted by Lucky_Krystal (1390 posts) -

PLOT TWIST!

Today I have more fun playing retro games that I NEVER PLAYED AS A KID than modern games. I'm playing these games for the first time ever.

Chrono Trigger, a game I only started playing a few weeks ago for the first time, puts most of today's games to shame.

That was back when developers had class.

Nostalgia has nothing to do with this. Games were actually better back then.

GeoffZak

Nice job ignoring everything in my post. Also, your experiences do not equal fact. That's all I'm gonna say. I was prepared to say far more but decided against it. Instead, I suggest you and anyone else who thinks like you should go to the thread c_rake has kindly made. Find some like-minded brethren and chat away about the good ol' days. And let us who enjoy modern games do our thing. Hopefully now we won't get 6 of these damn thread every week anymore.

Good day sirs! :P