SpartanBlackman said:
Hmm, perhaps instead of saying that it was dying, I should have used the word stagnating. Or specified that the creativity is dying. And by dying I mean everything getting streamlined, AAA games being the only things that get anywhere, everyone following the leader and getting samey-samey games that have been oversimplified. 2011 seems to be one of the best years for unique games, but my point still stands
Oh, and Cliffy B said Gears 2 was not ported because of Pirates. http://kotaku.com/5056532/why-no-gears-of-war-2-for-pc-well-piracy-for-one
You do realize there's a MASSIVE difference between those two, right? Dying implies the industry is in a serious fix and is at risk of going completely bankrupt; Stagnating only implies moral/ethical bankruptcy.
Now I have no idea what you're talking about when you say everything's getting "streamlined." A large chunk of the reason games have become "simpler" is either because A. veteran gamers have been around their controllers of choice for so long that they could punch in a 1000-button sequence on cue while blindfolded, B. most find it alienating for a game of the same genre to have vastly different controls, or C. after roughly 2 generations of catering to the "hardcore" and "veteran" gamers - basically those who started on the generation past and are crossing over into the new generation - developers/publishers are FINALLY going back and trying to introduce gaming to the "new"/"casual" people out there, who typically never picked up a controller until now.
And as for making everything "samey-samey", uh, take a look at the SNES-Early PS1 era. Mario, Sonic, and Donkey Kong were all basically the same game with different aesthetics. Until the PS1/N64 era brought us 3D, 90% of all "popular" games followed the same side-scrolling formula; the only difference between THAT "samey-samey" era and this one is that the SNES era was allowed to create fantastically absurd scenarios to try to intrigue the young gamers out there.
And let's not talk about Cash Cows, shall we? Mario, Sonic, Donkey Kong, Megaman, Final Fantasy (Before X), Zelda, need I go on? Your beef seems to hang around the modern ideal of giving the first game an outstanding storyline that gets shat on with the sequel. Well, as valid of a point as that may be, it's not going to deter publishers from trying to get as much money as possible from a franchise.
Follow-The-Leader and Milking Cash Cows are such common business practices, not only in the gaming industry but in most modern media industries, that calling them out for adhering to them is like calling out a dog for licking its crotch every 30 minutes.
Now, onto your other points. Piracy is NOT just a problem with PC. Have you not been paying even a token amount of attention to all the crap Sony's been through lately? Before the whole hacking fiasco, they were suing a guy for millions of dollars
because he created a means to bypass the PS3's security and play pirated games. Before this generation, PS2s were constantly cracked open, either to remove the region locks or the security to play whatever (pirated) game they chose. I have a buddy who owns a Dreamcast and had a buddy of his burn roughly 30 games for it many years ago, since he couldn't find them anywhere else. Piracy has been apparent in consoles for a long time, it just hasn't been as mainstream until now.
DLC is certainly your most valid point, but it might be a moot point for what it's worth. Remember, way back when subscription fees first started popping around, there were people who opposed them vehemently, for many of the same reasons people now are opposing DLC. I'm not saying it's right to have day-one DLC - personally I think that much is just a disgusting way to withhold content from the mass hordes of "Used" players - but who knows what may happen a decade or so down the line, when DLC becomes accepted and the gaming industry decides to create YET ANOTHER means of charging us to play their games.
Now, as many have undoubtedly said, true innovation, regardless of its form and regardless of industry, is expensive and ultimately risky. It's the exact same thing as putting all your money on a single number in Roulette. If you win, you strike it big, and everyone around you is envious, to the point of wishing they had made the same bet you did. However, if you lose, you're out of everything, and if you weren't careful you will have lost all means of playing again. So, instead of putting everything on a single number, most publishers will force developers to put their money on Red or Black, or in the present case "Realistic" or "Shooter". Sure, they won't make enough money to retire at an early age, but they'll at least be able to keep playing.
