Modern Gaming Sucks!!! Or Does It?

[Xprimentyl]

To me it's kind of like the argument that sports fans use when talking about their all-time besn'tt players. They argue that modern NBA players like Lebron would have gotten their asses kicked by people like Michael Jordan, because back in Jordan's day the players were allows to be more physical. So if I were to apply that metaphor to gaming businesses. IF the technology was possible back in the NES days, would we see lootbox-like practices then? It's rhetorical as we can't ever know, just like we can't know if Lebron is really better than Jordan because the conditions in which they played are drastically different.

Since we can't directly compare, then yes I have to admit that business practices today are shittier than ages past. But bad business does not equal gaming itself being bad.

But we CAN directly compare. The Internet wasn't invented in 2013. In the era of the PS3 and Xbox 360, we had the internet. We had downloadable content. We had the ability to purchase content via our consoles. We had basically everything we have today save for the horsepower. Yet few (if any) games from that era had the gross over-monetization we see used today in so many AAA efforts. So comparing James to Jordan in their respective eras doesn't work; circumstances between 2013 and 2022 have changed little.

Perhaps we're having a semantic disagreement. I'll cede that "modern gaming" is functional. Games are playable. If that's enough to sate your apparently literal take on things, no, modern gaming does not "create a partial vacuum."

Now, as for "bad business does not equal gaming itself being bad," I'd say that's the same as saying "sex trafficking does not equal sex with a trafficked individual being bad." Technically true. Blood diamonds CAN be beautiful.

Just means that this is a discussable topic. Which is great. Discussion on a discussion forum. Mission Accomplished!

Deflecting.

 

[MrCalavera]

From the bussiness standpoint: Yes, probably. Modern gaming sucks with all the push to monetize and make a service out of everything.
Arguably, it sucks even more for the industry insiders(devs), than outsiders(consumers). With all the crunch, and mobbing and harrasment cases being revealed in recent years - HOWEVER, those were likely always there, and only got light shone on them in the social media era.

But from the pure gaming experience standpoint? Not quite. There's more optons than ever now.
And yeah, i miss some of the stuff from my youth that was lost to time, but since it was my youth it's probable i'm looking through rose-tinted glasses here.
For me, the illusive "Golden Age" was the PS2-and-before-era, the 00s when i got my own PC and could play all the great stuff that came out in the 90s.
Then came the Dung Ages with Xbox360 and PS3. Not talking about consoles themselves(though i sure RROD mention still gives some PTSD), but the state of AAA gaming took a nosedive.
All those caveats started there, and due to being so fresh they were so janky to boot. The monetization crave, while it wasn't as ever-present as now, felt way more intrusive. The pursue to make every high budget game more *CINEMATIC*, to echo the obviously higher art, as late Roger Ebert intended. The QTEs, obnoxious on-screen prompts, general dumbing down(there's a difference between it and accesibility) to reach the widest audience possible - "We want CoD crowd" anyone? Remakes. The ugly bloom and filters... i believe those were due to the console architecture?

Anyway, most of these issues obviously carried on into PS4/XBONE era, but, monetization aside, that's where things started to be ironed out. And the explosion of indie gaming brought so much needed fresh blood and perspective. Yeah AAA gaming now steals ideas from them, GOOD. They should "steal" good ideas - you won't get much of a gameplay innovation in modern corpo enviroment.

What i miss most from the old times is probably that "AA" segment. Medium sized games, between small group projects, and AAA shlock that needs to made all the money in the world. But if you look into the, now very broadly defined "indie" segment, you'll find some stuff that fits.

I'm so tired of being told my disenchantment is illegitimate. Funny how they always care so much, like they have to defend the state of gaming or movies.

You're on the internet though. Unless you're in your favorite subreddit, the proportion of people complaining about things to people enjoying things is roughly 2 to 1.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

"A modern videogame exists as a superposition that is both simultaneously 'sucky' and 'non-sucky' until observed." - Einstein. Albert. (March 2021) 'Schrödinger's vidjagames'

 

[Worgen]

But we CAN directly compare. The Internet wasn't invented in 2013. In the era of the PS3 and Xbox 360, we had the internet. We had downloadable content. We had the ability to purchase content via our consoles. We had basically everything we have today save for the horsepower. Yet few (if any) games from that era had the gross over-monetization we see used today in so many AAA efforts. So comparing James to Jordan in their respective eras doesn't work; circumstances between 2013 and 2022 have changed little.

Perhaps we're having a semantic disagreement. I'll cede that "modern gaming" is functional. Games are playable. If that's enough to sate your apparently literal take on things, no, modern gaming does not "create a partial vacuum."

Now, as for "bad business does not equal gaming itself being bad," I'd say that's the same as saying "sex trafficking does not equal sex with a trafficked individual being bad." Technically true. Blood diamonds CAN be beautiful.

Actually we did see things that were equivalent. Look at the old DRM they had in games and before that, look at the copywrite protection. Like the old red paper that simcity came with or having to find the right word on a page of a manual or these weird glass cube things that you were supposed to put against a monitor to decode a message and that didn't work. I think its rather obvious that if they could, include modern monetization they would. They just didn't think they could.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Actually we did see things that were equivalent. Look at the old DRM they had in games and before that, look at the copywrite protection. Like the old red paper that simcity came with or having to find the right word on a page of a manual or these weird glass cube things that you were supposed to put against a monitor to decode a message and that didn't work. I think its rather obvious that if they could, include modern monetization they would. They just didn't think they could.

Remember when DLC was on the disc you bought for 60 bucks from the store and you had to pay extra for shit that was already on the disc you bought? That was a thing that happened.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Actually we did see things that were equivalent. Look at the old DRM they had in games and before that, look at the copywrite protection. Like the old red paper that simcity came with or having to find the right word on a page of a manual or these weird glass cube things that you were supposed to put against a monitor to decode a message and that didn't work. I think its rather obvious that if they could, include modern monetization they would. They just didn't think they could.

What does that have to do with paying $60 for a game that then asks you to perpetually pay additional money for its content? Or games that are designed from the ground up to make their experience a grind for those unwilling to pay?

Again, I'm not saying the practices are new; I'm saying they're worse than ever. If someone wants to cite every example from the past, I'd ask them to cite ever example from the present and let me know which is the longer list.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Remember when DLC was on the disc you bought for 60 bucks from the store and you had to pay extra for shit that was already on the disc you bought? That was a thing that happened.

Now imagine if you had to "pay extra for that shit" every time you played the game. Same-same, right?

 

[Worgen]

What does that have to do with paying $60 for a game that then asks you to perpetually pay additional money for its content? Or games that are designed from the ground up to make their experience a grind for those unwilling to pay?

Well, with that last sentence you just described most arcade games.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Well, with that last sentence you just described most arcade games.

It describes ALL arcades games, difference being you typically don't buy the cabinets first.

 

[Worgen]

It describes ALL arcades games, difference being you typically don't buy the cabinets first.

Most arcade games. There is some variation in how quarter hungry they are and how much player skill can factor. A lot of them can be beaten in a single quarter by someone who is skilled enough, but that isn't interesting, some will let your average player get further on a single quarter then others. I would say it depends on how much you would be expected to put into an arcade machine before winning it. I remember stumbling on an arcade shooter that had its lives set to infinite and I was able to just play through the whole thing on one coin.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Actually, I've changed my mind. Ever since PRINTED manuals thick enough to choke a goat with disappeared gaming has sucked beyond the point of recovery.

That sounds appropriate, but at the same time many of the best games of those days didn’t need any manual, and a lot of the games that had those kinds of manuals were buggy as shit, where people often had to finish the programmers’ jobs just to get the damn things to boot up. I remember you, Crusader: No Remorse on Win 95.

At least now with services like Steam it’s easier than ever to install and run games, plus more often than not there’s a lot of mods for the stuff that falls through the cracks, or as an added bonus on top of an already smooth experience.

 

[Brokencontroller]

I think there is a lot of emphasis on business over the games. Last time i checked i had nothing to do with the business of games, i only play them and what i currently play is objectively better then what i played 15 years ago.

You can not like the extra monetization in a game doesnt need to be engaged with and it is really disingenuous to make statements like "i but a game then have to keep paying into it for the content" because very few of the microtransaction systems are required for play. And the systems that really annoying are usually in free to play games.

The statement also falls flat when you look at subscription based mmos. Where you buy the game and have to pay a monthly fee to continue to play it. But we all know that the sub goes into making patch content and fuel server costs.

Additionally if you bought a cod you typically get a full campaign, zombie modes, and multiplayer that has optional shit you can buy that is usually cosemetic. Which i would ask, how are microtransaction cosemetics any different from dlc?

Are there any games that FORCE you to pay extra for things after paying full price for the game in the first place?

There are certainly things that suck about modern games, absolutely. But i do not think that they make modern gaming worst than any other generation. And shit next generation there will probably be other problems.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Most arcade games. There is some variation in how quarter hungry they are and how much player skill can factor. A lot of them can be beaten in a single quarter by someone who is skilled enough, but that isn't interesting, some will let your average player get further on a single quarter then others. I would say it depends on how much you would be expected to put into an arcade machine before winning it. I remember stumbling on an arcade shooter that had its lives set to infinite and I was able to just play through the whole thing on one coin.

Fine, MOST arcade games. Still doesn't justify the arcade mechanics built into games purchased and owned on consoles/PCs purchased and owned. Or am I missing your point?

If I kill one person, and you kill two, does that make you a "better" murderer or a "worse" murderer? People want to excuse bad business that has gotten worse by orders of magnitude by pointing to instances where said practices make sense, make sense in a different context, or is/was done to lesser extents. The fact that I have to vet any gaming purchases by how much enjoyment I can get out of them before spending money atop my full retail purchase is damning of the industry, so yeah, I dislike modern gaming.

I think there is a lot of emphasis on business over the games. Last time i checked i had nothing to do with the business of games, i only play them and what i currently play is objectively better then what i played 15 years ago.

You can not like the extra monetization in a game doesnt need to be engaged with and it is really disingenuous to make statements like "i but a game then have to keep paying into it for the content" because very few of the microtransaction systems are required for play. And the systems that really annoying are usually in free to play games.

The statement also falls flat when you look at subscription based mmos. Where you buy the game and have to pay a monthly fee to continue to play it. But we all know that the sub goes into making patch content and fuel server costs.

Additionally if you bought a cod you typically get a full campaign, zombie modes, and multiplayer that has optional shit you can buy that is usually cosemetic. Which i would ask, how are microtransaction cosemetics any different from dlc?

Are there any games that FORCE you to pay extra for things after paying full price for the game in the first place?

There are certainly things that suck about modern games, absolutely. But i do not think that they make modern gaming worst than any other generation. And shit next generation there will probably be other problems.

I appreciate those sentiments as they are largely true. Where I will clarify [my thoughts] is that the distinction between the "business" and the "games" isn't a line in the sand. Yes, games are objectively better today than they were 15 years ago, however, 15 years ago, it was rare that ANY content of my purchase was gated behind additional (and in some cases perpetual) fees. I used the analogy a few posts up, "blood diamonds CAN be beautiful," meaning settling for a finished product you're satisfied with excuses the malicious behaviors that brought it to you. I dislike modern gaming on principle. There was a time they didn't need to monetize at all, yet now, it's somehow the standard.

I'd much rather they raise the price of complete games rather them keep it at $60 to sell me 70% of it and ask me to buy the other 30% without the promise that I'll actually GET the full 30%.

 

[Brokencontroller]

I'd much rather they raise the price of complete games rather them keep it at $60 to sell me 70% of it and ask me to buy the other 30% without the promise that I'll actually GET the full 30% since.

I feel like you say this as an all or nothing. Because there are plenty of games that release with zero extra monetization within them. But when you say things like this it sounds like if ANY game has microtransactions then ALL games are invalidated by default.

And lets be real. 99% of the microtransaction games are live service garbage. But real games come out and are plenty great and dont have any of that nonsense you hate.

And it is hard to really see your side of the argument when you phrase it like that. Because while yes there are games with MT's in them, there are also shitloads that come out without any of that. So if the few are going to blanket your feeling over all the rest, then i dont really know what to tell you other than i think the sentiment is really unfair to the great games that come out every year.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I feel like you say this as an all or nothing. Because there are plenty of games that release with zero extra monetization within them. But when you say things like this it sounds like if ANY game has microtransactions then ALL games are invalidated by default.

And lets be real. 99% of the microtransaction games are live service garbage. But real games come out and are plenty great and dont have any of that nonsense you hate.

And it is hard to really see your side of the argument when you phrase it like that. Because while yes there are games with MT's in them, there are also shitloads that come out without any of that. So if the few are going to blanket your feeling over all the rest, then i dont really know what to tell you other than i think the sentiment is really unfair to the great games that come out every year.

Agreed, I am blanketing my sentiments on the industry on the whole because it exhausted me years ago, and I've not the patience anymore. I won't say it's "all or nothing;" I say there's a way to do it better with less predatory behaviors.

 

[Brokencontroller]

Agreed, I am blanketing my sentiments on the industry on the whole because it exhausted me years ago, and I've not the patience anymore. I won't say it's "all or nothing;" I say there's a way to do it better with less predatory behaviors.

Sure there is, so why dont you just support and enjoy the games that dont do that? The whole hobby doesnt have to ruined over the trash.

 

[Worgen]

Fine, MOST arcade games. Still doesn't justify the arcade mechanics built into games purchased and owned on consoles/PCs purchased and owned. Or am I missing your point?

You're kind of missing my point. Ultimately almost all games are designed to make money, there are exceptions, but for the most part this stands true. But players only have so much money and so much time so devs/publishers do what they can to either justify the time/money or demand it. Like making a short game really hard so the player gets more time out of it, or so they can't easily beat it in a single rental and either have to buy it or rent it again. The DLC/microtransation paradigm we currently live in (which I guess used to be worse) is a means of at least giving the impression of added value... Ugh, I feel like I am doing a really shit job of explaining my point here. Screw it, I'll post it anyway, maybe you can decipher it since I am drawing a blank on making it easier to understand.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Its the same thing with all media, "everything old is good, everything new is bad." But, its because we remember the best of the past or the bad things we remember, we don't remember their flaws as much as their good points or the enjoyment. We aren't comparing the average aaa game of today to the average of yesteryear, we are comparing it to the best of yesteryear.

Not always. For example, TV is in a golden age and it definitely wasn't better back whenever. Video games, at least AAA, are so homogeneous that they're all basically the same game most of the time. Sure, you had like every game being a platformer in the 2D days so you can make that argument but not after 3D consoles/games became a thing until somewhat recently.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Sure there is, so why dont you just support and enjoy the games that dont do that? The whole hobby doesnt have to ruined over the trash.

That's the thing, I can't be bother to try, and in trying I feel like I'd be condoning behaviors that have permeated the industry that I am diametrically opposed to. It's not worth it to me. If I miss out, I miss out.

You're kind of missing my point. Ultimately almost all games are designed to make money, there are exceptions, but for the most part this stands true. But players only have so much money and so much time so devs/publishers do what they can to either justify the time/money or demand it. Like making a short game really hard so the player gets more time out of it, or so they can't easily beat it in a single rental and either have to buy it or rent it again. The DLC/microtransation paradigm we currently live in (which I guess used to be worse) is a means of at least giving the impression of added value... Ugh, I feel like I am doing a really shit job of explaining my point here. Screw it, I'll post it anyway, maybe you can decipher it since I am drawing a blank on making it easier to understand.

I understand games exist to make money; I'm not a charity case, but neither am I an ATM, and history has showed us the industry survived and thrived prior to these crass cash-grabby behaviors, so why can't I expect better or at least the standards they'd established set before mobile gaming introduced them to "hey, these idiots will pay you MOAR if you gate content off"? My boycott does little; this I know, but as I've said, it's on principle.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

That sounds appropriate, but at the same time many of the best games of those days didn’t need any manual, and a lot of the games that had those kinds of manuals were buggy as shit, where people often had to finish the programmers’ jobs just to get the damn things to boot up.

And the reverse is also true. Plenty of good games with chonky manuals and broken ones without.

At least now with services like Steam it’s easier than ever to install and run games

Being a quasi-extra layer of QA (insofar as getting a game to launch) is one of the very few things I like about Steam.

plus more often than not there’s a lot of mods for the stuff that falls through the cracks, or as an added bonus on top of an already smooth experience.

Mods and fan patches/fixes go wayyy back. What's changed is that the internet has made it a lot easier to find the bloody things instead of hoping a 'zine would print the code or someone on a BBS would have it.