Poll: What's really hurting the Game industry?

Magicman10893

New member
Aug 3, 2009
455
0
0
I voted Micro-Transactions because I dislike the DLC model. While micro transactions themselves aren't bad (buy the little shit for nickel and dime prices isn't inherently bad as long as they don't give an actual gameplay advantage, and by actual I mean a prevalent one), but when developers cut content and then release it as DLC for an inflated price it just boils my blood.

Even if the content is new, freshly made expansions, or at least content that was cut for time/money and was decided to be expanded upon (like how modders have recreated sections of KOTOR that was cut due to time constraints) it is still way too expensive. $10 for a few missions that take 2 hours to complete compared to a 20 hour game that was $60 new? Two hours is 10% of the time it takes to beat the whole game, but they charge you like 15% of the cost of the new game. It's even worse when it is like a half an hour mission pack for $7 compared to a game that I already spent 100 hours in (Saints Row 2).
 

Sectan

Senior Member
Aug 7, 2011
591
0
21
I hear a lot of Pre-Owned sales hurting the market. If a developer makes a game that isn't worth keeping, and someone wants to get rid of it for some money, its the developer's fault. I don't want a crap game on my shelf when I can get a few bucks for it at a store and I'm sure other people will think the same way. If a game is good, I'll keep it and replay it every few months.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Horny Ico said:
canadamus_prime said:
You know what I think is really hurting the industry?? People wasting time pointing fingers at each other trying to figure out whose to blame for hurting the industry instead of coming up with solutions on how to fix it!

[sub]Yes, I'm fully aware of what I just did there, I'm trying to make a point here.[/sub]
Not just hypocrisy, but contradiction as well. How's a solution going to do any good if you haven't properly identified the problem? Blaming the innocent is just barely worse than casting no blame at all.
What do you mean we haven't properly identified the problem? The problem is that the industry is apparently hurting. Seems crystal clear to me.
 

Slayer_2

New member
Jul 28, 2008
2,475
0
0
Stagnation of ideas and methods used by the industry. We have more power that EVER before in our hardware. Computer power now versus 80 years ago is insane. The ideas now are less imaginative and more "copy CoD!", trying to make gaming into a successful business takes away from that creativity, and makes developers pursue what they think will make a quick buck.
 
Dec 16, 2009
1,774
0
0
Other: the industry acting like its a delicate little flower that whines about piracy and 2nd hand sales, then using these as excuses for over priced day one DLC and dodgy DRM that only hurt the people paying for the games.

add to that the fact a lot of releases feel very generic (to me) the lack of innovation is hurting the industry

as for the price or DLC and AAA titles, thats down to the fans, and until they decide to act en mass and vote with their wallets, nothing can be done.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
Simply said? The cost of making a professional, current generation, HD, triple-AAA game. Everything else on that list is a symptom of that cause. Piracy would be less of a serious danger to the bottom line, rendering DRM less necessary. Prices could be lowered and half-cocked schemes like micro-transactions wouldn't be the darlings of the marketing department. Used game sales wouldn't be such a large portion of the market, driven by all those people trying to avoid the risks and moral qualms of piracy and the frustrations of paying high prices for games before they're even properly reviewed. And perhaps most importantly, there might be room for more originality and risk-taking someplace other than small-dev-downloadable scene, rather than game after game that hedges its bets.
 

Jaime_Wolf

New member
Jul 17, 2009
1,194
0
0
The gaming industry isn't waning or hurting. People have been talking about how it's waning or hurting for decades. This is just the result of the latest generation getting in on the doomsdaying. In a few years, everyone complaining will realise that this sort of complaining happens constantly and it isn't a sign that the game industry is going to shrivel up and disappear.

Developers are always unhappy about something in the industry. This isn't the sign of the industry's collapse or decline, it's a constant factor that cannot be avoided. And it's true in every industry. Sure some people are happy, but there will always be parts of the business that people don't like or that they think are holding them back.

It seems pointless to say it again since it's said so often everywhere now, but piracy is not the same as lost sales and it isn't stopping anything that would be profitable from being profitable. In fact, it's turned several games that would not have been profitable into profitable games.

Pre-owned sales have been around forever. And we're starting to do a much better job of regulating them, allowing developers to get some of the money involved while still keeping them significantly cheaper than new copies. Despite all of the whining about it, things like Project Ten Dollar are a great solution to this problem.

Fewer and fewer games are coming out with DRM at this point and those that have it are tending to use systems that are more reasonable for the average person. Things like always-online systems are a problem for some people, but they're not at all a problem for a huge segment of the market and are certainly preferable to install limits and some of the more draconian schemes that have come before.

Micro transactions are, if anything, going to save a lot of genres. There are ways to do this fairly and even do it in-game. It's still a pretty new idea though, so everyone has a sour taste in their mouth from some of the first, terrible implementations. Look to games like League of Legends though and you see some very nice microtransaction models.

AAA prices are inflated. Unfortunately, game development costs are inflated. Lower prices would be nice and probably will happen, but that's going to come after we find ways to streamline development. And removing some of those costs will also help immensely with the fact that most AAA games have to make a killing before they become profitable at this point. Just asking for lower prices at this point means asking for less development.

Also, regarding all of the people speaking condescendingly about how more mature gamers are dissatisfied with shallow current generation games: do not let them fool you, not all of us are assholes. I've been playing games for an awfully long time and while there are some great gems from the past, the average quality of games has not in any way gone down. It's gone up tremendously. What's also gone up is the sheer volume of high-profile games produced. Only a small percentage of old games were good (and it's worth noting that the percentage that were truly reprehensible has gone down significantly) and that's still true. It's just that the number of games as a whole has gone up quite a bit, so it feels like there's more crap, even though there's also more quality. And again, the crap of the present has nothing on the crap of the past. They really do not make games like E.T. anymore.

If there's any problem with the gaming industry of today, it is, unfortunately, us. We bug developers, we declare "boycotts" over perceived slights from people who owe us nothing, we act as if we're entitled to features, games, hell even developers' attention. And the fact that developers are out there in public and capable of being reached on the internet only amplifies these problems.
 

Ninjafire72

New member
Feb 27, 2011
158
0
0
Slayer_2 said:
Stagnation of ideas and methods used by the industry. We have more power that EVER before in our hardware. Computer power now versus 80 years ago is insane. The ideas now are less imaginative and more "copy CoD!", trying to make gaming into a successful business takes away from that creativity, and makes developers pursue what they think will make a quick buck.
Problem with the massive computer power we have nowadays is that they leave very little room for creativity. Back in the 70's when graphics meant 16 bit pixels, games like space invaders were freaking awesome because the developers had to be creative with the poor technology they had. The limited graphics meant that games had more stylish and interesting aesthetics, and the lack of processing power meant devs had to come up with creative, simplistic gameplay that wouldn't blow up the computer.

Now that computer power is so much more than it used to be, developers are just using every little bit of it they can to try and give us the most detailed, deepest gameplay possible. The ironic thing is that the more detailed it is, the less creative it is. Developers now have all the tools and resources needed to do what they want, why should they even try to innovate and be creative? They don't need to be imaginative so they don't try to be, which ends with us seeing an endless parade of stagnant COD clones.
 

sinterklaas

New member
Dec 6, 2010
210
0
0
Publishers who only care about money (Activision-Blizzard major culprit).
Games that I buy a 'license' for, I bought the fucking game now it should be my property.
Shallow games that have no content while the publisher points out the 'fantastic' achievement system.
Myriad of FPS clones.
Single player games that you have to be online for.
Everything 'needing' to have multiplayer or another form of online interaction. What is wrong with a real singleplayer game? Those are often the best.
 

viranimus

Thread killer
Nov 20, 2009
4,952
0
0
What is hurting the gaming industry? More than anything its the ignorance of the consumers.

Everything else as well as the listed poll options stem from it or is a byproduct of that ignorance.
 

Jaime_Wolf

New member
Jul 17, 2009
1,194
0
0
Ninjafire72 said:
Back in the 70's when graphics meant 16 bit pixels, games like space invaders were freaking awesome because the developers had to be creative with the poor technology they had.
Space Invaders was a cover-based shooter. It never ceases to amaze me how many people talk about the originality of older games, and then bring up examples where the primary gameplay mechanism is "Look: a thing. Shoot it.".

There are unique games from the past, there are unique games in the present. There's some truth that the requirements of abstraction offered more variety, but I'm not sure this was really creativity. You can only do two-dimensional movement: is the fact that you chose X and Y while other games chose to use Y and Z actually creative?

In terms of art, I agree absolutely that this forced more variety, but it's worth noting that there are still plenty of games today with more interesting art styles and a ton of old games that used the same extremely generic art style too. And when developers are willing to use more interesting art styles (which are not necessary or appropriate for every game by any means), they have far more room to play around now.

The problem in all of these discussions is that they almost universally mistake "old games" for "a handful of my favourite old games" and "new games" for "the most well-advertised new games". There are a handful of great new games too - far more in fact than there ever were in the past simply because more games are being made.

As much as people whine about how all games are just "copy CoD!" now, games in the past were just as derivative if not more so. We just don't include the derivative games in our discussions of "old games". And it's pretty sad to suggest that all games are just CoD clones (hell, the fact that the term "clone" in this context is so old should give you an idea about all of this) anyway - we also have our Portal, our gravity guns, our Okami, and our Minecraft. None of these would have been possible in the past. Abstraction forces variety, but having the option rather than the requirement for abstraction and the ability to decide at what points abstraction should take place offers more room for creativity beyond forced variety. Abstraction isn't going anywhere. There will always be abstraction in games. The only question is whether the designers can choose where they want the abstraction to appear or whether the hardware forces them to put abstraction in certain places. Even if it leads many developers toward the same mechanics and design models, I'd much rather be in the first situation than the second.
 

ogrebushi

New member
Jun 7, 2010
28
0
0
sivlin said:
Your poll options all(most) work together in a cyclical effect which I like to call "The stupidity of DRM tactics".

It goes like this:

The entire issue starts with the consumer not wanting to spend 60 dollars for a game. There are many reason for this ranging from not having enough money to do so or not being confident the game is worth being at that price range.

Regardless, from this initial refusal to pay 60 dollars for a title, three options come about for the consumer...

Pirate the game.
Buy the game Used for less.
Don't purchase the game.

In all three of these scenarios the developer makes no money which is bad for the developer.

To combat Piracy the developers decided to initiate DRM on all of their products to make it "hard" to steal by putting in all sorts of safeguards that their paying customers have to go through just so those nasty pirates don't get a taste of the product.

Piracy, however, doesn't really care about the carefully implemented DRM and within hours (sometimes even before it hits the shelves) the carefully constructed obtrusive DRM is broken and the game is available without the hassle that paying customers have to through. Oh yeah, and it's free.

Meanwhile, paying customers do not have the luxury of playing DRM free and as such they become annoyed at the game industry for treating them like criminals. End result here is that more and more people convert to piracy since the developer is already treating them like criminals.

On a slightly grayer side of the spectrum, Used Games, the developers are STILL not making any money.

To combat this, an entirely different form of terrorism, I mean DRM, is put in place to lock certain content from being played by the secondary owner of the game thus forcing the player to pay extra for a game that they have already legally purchased. (In some cases making the customer pay more for a used game than they would have for a new version of the same game).

End Result: Used Game buyers convert to Piracy since they are not only being treated like criminals but are actually getting fined for it. Keep in mind that Piracy is still free and is still without all of the DRM hassle that a regular paying customer has to go through.




Essentially, what I am saying is this:

High prices caused the problem.
Piracy was our answer to the problem.
DRM was their answer to our solution which only made the problem worse.


Lower the prices. Get rid of DRM. Make quality games that people WANT to buy. THESE are the solutions to piracy.

Just have to second this. What i was thinking when voting for inflated AAA prices, Deus ex HR was only 50$cad brand new the other day for PC which stunned me im used to seeing it upto 70 for something new. Cut first day prices and you get more first day sales and it will cut into the eb/gametop profit margins if they need to sell it for <20 for something new. Hell ive gone into an EB and seen new releases around 3/4 the price of something new near release days, if someones going to spend 35 for something used they might have bought it brand new for 45-50 (for example futureshop (canada best buy branch) is selling LA noir used for 49.99!) Most of us are "waiting for it to drop in price" it inevitably does why not get us asap since you're going to try and stuff some dlc down our throats anyways get us hooked sooner
 

Ruwrak

New member
Sep 15, 2009
845
0
0
The things above are a bit related in a way. They influence eachother.

My main idea that is ruining the games industry, is the lack of moving forward. It's a mishmash of sequels of sequels of sequels. Rather then having a fresh new idea (Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, etc.) Dev's are looking to make a quick buck out of good titles (Sonic for example.).

It's the lack of new things that slow it down. By slowing it down, the feeling of 'bland generic chesthigh wallshooter #43" arises. Piracy is a possible result of this. People don't feel like paying the full price for the same thing they did a while ago in chesthighwall shooter #42.( Some people buy pre-owned games for the exact same reason. THis leads to the moaning about gamestop, loss of sales, content you need an online pass for and the infamous EA 10dollar project. Sidenote of the sidenote is that the triple A industry keeps the prices high because of noone buying their games like they used to back in the earlier times where copying was a bit more tricky to do, as with the N64 and SNES I suppose.)

Microtransactions are allright with me. AT least they give me a CHOICE wether or not I want to. My game experience will still be the same, but I'll have 2dps less, or not another color option. It's nothing really gamebreaking as far as I have experienced it.


As a result to the piracy, companies go for the DRM protection, which pisses off.. well just about anyone with not a stable net (My provider just sucks..) and this also encourages people to see if they can outmanouver the DRM. Possibly this leads people to look for the less Triple A gameworks. Like (as cliche as it sounds, it is.) Minecraft, which lets you mod, share, experience it just the way -you- want to. For the price of less then any Triple A game ever was.


I think I might got carried away, contradicted myself somewhere. Feel free to point that out and I'll clarify (or not, if I really bucked up somewhere)
 

JoesshittyOs

New member
Aug 10, 2011
1,965
0
0
Inadequacy in bed with a mix of male pattern baldness.

Think about it really hard. Inadequacy in Bed is Peter Molyneaux, and Male Pattern Baldness is Call of Duty