@Phil-teh-Pirate THANK YOU! It's what I keep saying and a lot of people keep ignoring. I just wish they'd be more willing to think this way when they commentate on another article talking about used games or developers defending their work. Sadly, it won't surprise me if I see some of the people on this comment page reverting back to their older demeanor when another article is published detailing why online codes are getting put into new games.

We, as gamers, are so spoiled and demanding (IMO) that more articles should be written like this just to drive home the point that we should be grateful for what we get. This article has covered the working conditions of three well-received games, but there are hundreds of games released every year, and even the ones that are considered "bad" don't necessarily feature good working conditions. The next time someone wants to scream about having to pay $60 for a game or the online codes that can only be obtained via new purchases, direct him/her to an article like this one. These people have done far more than they needed to to earn our money. I dare anyone to say otherwise.

I personally still enjoy having my game cases with their instruction booklets and the actual game discs, but I agree with this article, and the cost to manufacture the discs and instructions just keeps the cost of games higher than most consumers want them to be nowadays. Digital distribution is probably on its way in. What I'm really concerned about, though, is hard drive space. Great, I can buy my games off an online store, but what good does that do me if the console that plays them--assuming a console is necessary once this is the norm--won't give me enough space to store more than 5 games? If digital is the future of our games, then the next round of consoles better have some hefty hard drives for those of us that want to own everything. Otherwise, we'd be better off continuing down the road we're already on.

@AltoShadow13 That's a good point sir. Here's a similar one: Endless editorials get written about how the industry is loaded with developers that don't care about products and only care about money. The evidence? Well...the editor isn't enjoying games as much as he used to. No first hand knowledge watching the people develop the game and seeing there is genuinely no passion in it; the game is just boring to him so the developers obviously didn't care. Are you going to call those editors on THEIR lack of first-hand knowledge and presumptions that "boring" equals "no effort and passion"? This is not about what did or didn't happen at E3. At least, not entirely. In fact, it's not even really about his opinion of it. What it's about is his ATTITUDE. And it's not just this op-ed that demonstrates this cynicism; it's pretty much the last three or four he's written. Talking about how publishers should just find a better business model--when I'm guessing he has no actual experience working as a publisher or knowledge of business models at all--to justify the second-hand gaming market that is--arguably--bankrupting the industry. Talking about how he wants the next-gen consoles to be "Sexy Please" when that very attitude is part of what wrecks so many games today. Calling the new controllers being produced "gimmicks" when "innovation" and "gimmicks" are actually very synonymous. I respect his opinion, but I don't agree with it. So I'm going to poke holes in it.

@jimrhurst "IIf you weren't [entertained], then don't read the op-eds. To each his own." If you don't enjoy going to E3 then don't go to it! Oh wait...the rules have suddenly changed here? Okay, that's kind of a jerk thing to say. This guy is entitled to his opinion as is the rest of the gaming population. But complaining about an event being a market fiasco when it's BEEN a market fiasco since its inception is ridiculous. And his opinion is once again loaded with all kinds of presumptions that he can't prove and probably--if he's like most gamers--will not ever consider to be incorrect in the slightest. What I object to, sir, is the cynicism that pervades the gaming populace as a whole. When do we ever give the industry credit for doing something right? Has anyone said, "Thank you for moving away from platformers?" No, we're too busy complaining about the abundance of shooters. Have we given any credit to EA for reforming itself over the last few years? Except for Game Informer, not really. And now we've got people pissing and moaning about E3 being E3. 'Sigh' Maybe the reason he didn't enjoy it is because there's something wrong with HIM. Do gamers ever consider that when they play games, or do they blame all their woes on the industry? How long before we start blaming Capcom for the F's on our report cards?

????? I'm sorry Mr. Magrino. What exactly did you just say? That E3 sucked? That the game companies are condescending jerks? That virtually nobody attended? (Hence the big empty corridors) That you find it insulting that developers tell you what buttons do what on a controller? (Seriously, gamers nowadays give up after 5 seconds if they can't adjust to the controls. What's wrong with saying what buttons do what?) That you have a problem with big business refusing to embrace the "deliciously ugly creative process" that you apparently haven't? (Hence why you work for Gamespot instead of developing your OWN games) Mr. Magrino, if you find the way the industry operates is bothersome, either do something about it or find another job. When you do that, I'll be happy to have your ticket for E3 2012. It sounds like it'd be better than wasting it on someone who doesn't want to go in the first place.

@Ragnawind It's always a pleasant feeling to know you're not alone. Ragnawind, your attack upon other for trying to pass off their personal opinions of games as facts is striking a clear note with me. Seriously people, if you're not adding "in my opinion" to your statements of the "quality" of games, I think you're behaving like your opinions are facts, thereby proclaiming those who disagree with you need psychological help or something else ridiculous. I know most of you don't mean it that way, but you really SHOULD clarify it IMO. As for your comment on my earlier criticism of "classics," I should probably clarify that I don't think many of them suck a few years later, but the whole idea of "standing the test of time" is just something I find slippery and confusing. If a game truly "stood the test of time," then wouldn't it be JUST as much fun in EXACTLY the same ways when you picked it up again? And if it's not--if you're enjoying it for some other reasons--then isn't it really just your personal tastes at the time that make it "stand the test of time" rather than some sort of "timeless quality"? DKC for GBA scored low in EGM because the game from the SNES just didn't hold up well in their eyes, particularly the "collect-a-thon gameplay." But what happens if "collect-a-thons" come back in style and Nintendo re-releases the game again? Will the same critics say "This game REALLY stands the test of time" when it so obviously DIDN'T a few years ago? Think about it people :)

@CliffHicks It is SO refreshing to see someone on here that actually seems to understand the business that so many gamers--NOT ME--love to piss and moan about. You have effectively--and much more elegantly--explained what I've been saying to people for years now. The thing is, I don't even understand the business side of the industry, but I can acknowledge my own ignorance, and my understanding of economics is such that I think these conclusions of "They're all greedy bastards" and "We're being screwed" are shallow, cliched arguments that people wouldn't make if they actually understood how the market works. I think it's a shame developers are going to have to move to digital distribution of their content to save money and maximize profits. Not that I believe adaptation in the market is bad--competition is a good thing most of the time--but the fact it has to occur because of the EXACT SAME greed and selfishness on the part of consumers that they heap upon the developers and publishers is just depressing. I really wish consumers could be a little more grown up and mature about these things, but if your consumer base is a bunch of spoiled brats...well, you have to play to them whether you want to or not.

@Apathetic_Prick (NOTE: Not trying to be rude, though it probably sounds like it.) If you can enjoy those older games fairly often and just as much as you have before, then great. But if that's the case, why aren't you just continuing to play those instead of complaining about the "lack of quality" in games today? Why do you need them? Just go play the "classics" that you can still enjoy! It only makes sense...that is, unless you CAN'T enjoy them endlessly. Sure, you could argue that these are "predatory practises" in a court, but can you PROVE it? The market provides people with what they ask for. You don't like these "predatory practise"? Then don't support the companies that use them. Then they LOSE MONEY and have to change their ways. Does that fit into your "understanding of the industry" and/or economics? But gamers aren't willing to do that these days. They've just GOT to have their fix, don't they? Hence their endless pissing and moaning about everything from having to spend 5 minutes learning a control scheme to paying "too much" for games that cost $20 million dollars to make apiece because it COSTS that much to make a game look and play well enough to attract someone's attention.

(continued) "Constant technological leaps can make games from a few years or even a few MONTHS ago feel very dated." That's a paraphrased quote from a review of Gears of War for the PC in Game Informer. If someone has a better explanation for why a player feels that way other than "standards too high and rising too fast," I'd love to hear it. Until then, I maintain that WE are to blame.