@PaulJanson Uh...that smart pre-order content you're referring to with Arkham City has caused as much pissing and moaning as anything else. Many gamers have claimed--without evidence, mind you--that they intentionally locked it on the disc, meaning it was actually part of the original content but was removed just to "force" people to buy the game new. Had to listen to friends talking about the incredible evils of corporations firsthand on that particular example.
And I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure you're completely wrong about how much "cheaper" games were in prior eras. Most new games during the SNES/Genesis era went for $50-$60. And if you account for inflation, that number is probably at least $10 higher. There was no era where games were "cheap." There WAS an era where we could say, "eh" if we didn't like something, but that was only cause we were more tolerant and hadn't turned into the spoiled, demanding brats (hyperbole) that now constitute a substantial portion of our subculture.
And not only are games today not more expensive than they were in the 90's, but the system is actually much more fair than most whiners wanna bother admitting. How is the system unfair when you can go watch how a game plays on YouTube before you buy it? Or download a demo to TRY it first? Or if that's not good enough, rent it from Blockbuster or Gamefly for a FRACTION of the cost of the full retail product? There is more than enough "fairness" in the gaming marketplace; there are only reckless fools and lazy gamers unwilling to shop smarter.
This doesn't mean I agree with disbanding the entire used gaming industry, or with this guy from Ready at Dawn. Nor does it mean I think developers and publishers haven't shown greedy streaks on multiple occasions. But if consumers were actually smart with their money, the developers/publishers would PAY for that attitude. Why do you think EA is now eliminating online passes for its games? Because consumers weren't happy about it and their sales were suffering as a result. Did it take them a while to end the practice? Sure. But that's just because they wanted to see if maybe consumers WOULD eventually accept the idea, and everyone cries out "greed and evil" immediately because they want solutions NOW NOW NOW. Whatever happened to patience? That's how markets work: you see how much consumers are willing to pay for a product or service, and so long as they are shopping smart, if they value the product more than the money, they will buy it. And if they AREN'T shopping smart, that's their own fault.
@MooseChops Developers live in the real world more than most who post comments on this site do. I don't disagree with some of your points, but it's also really presumptuous and opinionated to say the games all developers make aren't worth $60. Are you telling me NONE of them are worth that much? How about Bioshock? Half-Life? Zelda? And if they aren't worth that much, how much ARE they worth?
How about you think of it this way: if people are still going out and spending the money on those games, they value having the games more than they value having the $60 for each of them. If a company chooses to put limitations on their products--like EA's now defunct online passes--and they STILL sell well, the consumers STILL value the games more than the money. It's only when things don't sell well that we can say with some sort of certainty that it isn't WORTH the money being asked for it, and often markets reflect this. Just look how quickly Duke Nukem Forever went down to less than $20. Took MAYBE two months at the most.
Don't presume to say what something is worth unless you wanna qualify it with "in my opinion."
@CrushedGear @Cloud_imperium @cachinscythe What are YOU talking about? All of the companies I mentioned are publishers AND developers. EA publishes games. Activision publishes games. All the companies I listed PUBLISH GAMES. So what's your point?
@PlusFour @cachinscythe If you can name for me one field that hasn't been bulldozed to death already, I'll retract my statement, but to me it's like criticizing explorers for not finding new land on earth. Earth is FINITE. There ARE no new lands to discover. A farmer doesn't get to move his fence a mile into another territory and cultivate the land there. Generally that land is owned by ANOTHER farmer. He has to resort to farming the same land in rotations. The best he can hope for is to fertilize the soil before it tires out, but eventually he'll have to come back to that same land. Once in a while a farmer might find a new technique to mix nutrients from various fields, (i.e. Cross-genre) but he's still limited by that fence, and it's not his fault. It's just reality. I SUPPOSE he could plunk down what would amount to an ASSLOAD of cash to buy the farm next door, but that land has already been farmed too. By the competition.
Call me cynical, but that's how I feel about gaming, and it's how I've felt for a long time. And as contradictory as it may sound, I actually enjoy my hobby more than most people. I own and enjoy more games, partially because I choose to LOOK for my fun instead of giving up on something after 5 minutes. I've grown to accept this, and having let go of this incessant desire for things to be "as they used to be" or "better" or "different," I'm much happier as a gamer.
Like I said though, if you can find some new fields that haven't been plowed yet, I'll admit I'm wrong. Thanks for the reply. :)
@Cloud_imperium @cachinscythe Very well. I shall admit that most of those companies don't make yearly sequels. I will also point out that most of them don't make new IPs either. Blizzard hasn't made a new IP since Starcraft and doesn't seem to have any plans for that in the future. Valve is so averse to risk taking that it had to package a new IP with an EXISTING IP. (See The Orange Box.) Rockstar has released a grand total of...ONE new IPs that don't look to continue. (That would be LA Noire.) Meanwhile they've released Red Dead Redemption, two GTA games, a third Midnight Club...ALL SEQUELS. Naughty Dog...yeah, I'll give them credit, but only insofar as the idea of IP is concerned. Cause to me, Uncharted is overrated and unoriginal. It's good, but to me it's not risky in the slightest. As for the others, I'll take your word for it as I know little about them. Thanks for the reply. :)
The industry is faltering? According to what? The subjective opinions of a bunch of gamers on a web page? The financial results for companies? This generations hasn't "faltered" anymore than the last one did. Gamers are just changing and blaming those changes on the industry. Demand that Resident Evil change and get Resident Evil 4. "YAY!" they shout. Then Resident Evil 5 comes out and suddenly its "What? Wait...this isn't even Resident Evil! GIVE ME BACK THE OLD STYLE!!" (Note: the old style was reiterated for around 8 games and had shitty camera angles and controls. THAT'S what they're asking to have back.)
Yes there were a "**** ton" of one-time games, and most of those one-time games either DIDN'T flourish or were really just cookie-cutter copies of other popular games, and surprise surprise, the next gen doesn't have that many. Gee. Wonder why? Maybe that's cause this "flourish" also caused financial problems?
All these complaints about sequels and other stuff? EXACT same complaints and demeanor of "industry is dying" last gen. Very little difference. Capcom was given crap for it, Ubisoft was given crap for it, EA was given crap for it, Activision was given crap for it...it's the SAME THING they were doing before, only better received because gamers were having fun with those annual sequels. And now most sequels outside of COD, Assassin's Creed, and sports games aren't even coming out every year, which has a lot to do with our economy sucking, and probably some to do with gamer demand.
And if Cliffy B wanted Gears to end with the first game, that's great. Funny that he stuck around for two more games anyway. Guess he wasn't THAT against sequels then. As for Shiny, you're just showing why sequels get made at all. It's not to MILK things; it's to appease GAMER DEMAND. If gamers want Balloon Pop 10 for the Atari 1264000, the companies will make it. If they don't, they won't. Sitting around acting like the industry isn't working cause YOU aren't getting what YOU want is to elevate yourself above all the masses that still play and enjoy games like COD and Assassin's Creed. THEY count just as much as you. The industry is giving people what they want, and if what they want is crap, we just have to take that. And it's not like we don't have other options. Nobody MAKES us play games, and there's a massive indie market too.
Believe me. I think PLENTY about these things. But I'll cop to not doing research. Cause A) I'm a bit lazy in that department, and B) history has taught me that it doesn't end up being nearly as useful as people think it is.
@PlusFour LOL Forgive me for saying something kind of rude, but that metaphorical box? It's called the human mind. And gamers are trapped there too. What you're experiencing there is drug-induced hallucinations INSIDE that box. :)
Okay, seriously though. If gamers actually knew what that field looked like, THEY'D be the ones making the games instead of complaining that others can't find the field. That's not how creativity works, and most of the complainers don't actually have any useful solutions. Doesn't mean they shouldn't complain; only that they should get a little perspective.
@edviges @green_scorpion Ubisoft sucks because of frequent sequels, eh? Let's see here:
-Activision does annual sequels
-EA does annual sequels
-Capcom does updates to their fighters quite often
-SEGA does a lot of sequels
-Natsume does many annual sequels
-Square Enix does almost nothing BUT sequels
-Nintendo reiterates Mario too often
-Microsoft reiterates Halo too often
How many companies are even left? And if they're all engaging in this and it makes them all suck by default, why not find a new hobby? Because essentially what you're saying is, "Gaming sucks."
I'm sorry if that's stretching things a bit, but it really feels like you could just replace "Ubisoft" with ANY other gaming company and most gamers' statements wouldn't change. They just hate the industry by default and will never think of business as anything more than an unnecessary evil. Nobody MAKES them play these games. There's an indie market. Nobody MAKES them pay full prices for these things. That's why there's rentals, demos, and YouTube.
If you're not happy with the industry, fine. Go find something else to do. But these are just the realities we have to deal with now, and until enough people don't value gaming enough to allow practices like those, they'll continue to happen. And frankly, I don't really care, cause apparently I'm a smarter gamer than most on these forums, and I'm still getting what I want from my hobby.
@Altazen Okay. Let's just outlaw sequels then, as releasing ANY kind of sequel in and of itself constitutes "milking." We'll start with Zelda games, move over to Uncharted games, cancel the next Infamous, the next Halo, the next Gears of War, the next....wait...that would actually kind of suck.
Here's a lesson on IPs: they are created with the intent of making future games. Nobody sits down to create a game and thinks, "I hope this does so badly that there's no desire to continue what we've started." At least, not any company with common sense or a desire to succeed. When I hear gamers talking about how our industry will flourish so much more if new IPs are created, I find myself wanting to ask them, "Okay. So how much is enough? One sequel? Two sequels? Four? Where's the cutoff point?" Would our industry be better if no sequels were ever made? Nope. The most we could hope for is a new coat of paint on the same old stuff, which is what we're getting right now anyway.
I really wish gamers bothered to THINK about these things instead of doing knee-jerk reactions to the so-called evils of corporations all the damn time.
@SultaN-s @Warful But you're making Ubisoft's case for them! When people are judging games after only casual glances and deciding whether to buy on those aspects alone, they'll just gravitate to what they know and understand. Deciding that a new franchise is "shallow" before its even out is just giving the industry another excuse to do what it's been doing for years.
This is something that gamers need to realize: when you demand companies take risks on new IPs, you can't then act like they're utterly incompetent for the results not being fun. The very NATURE of risk taking is that you'll fail many times before you succeed. For all the talk gamers do about wanting new stuff, THEY won't bother taking the risks with the companies, and the result is our industry doesn't change.
This is a two way process. Ubisoft has to be willing to risk money on a new IP, and gamers need to be willing to give it a shot in spite of what their guts tell them. And no, I'm not accepting the argument that gamers have limited money flow to decide with, because A) that's true of publishers too, and B) that's why God created rentals. And YouTube. And demos. Ya know, those things that are supposed to help consumers that they cynically refuse to bother consulting before plunking down $60 on a brand new game.
cachinscythe's comments