Poll: Worst gaming trend?

[EmperorZinyak]

So, there are a lot of concerning trends in gaming today. Microtransactions have creeped into full price games, early access games are oversaturating Steam and suckering money out of gullible customers, and gaming journalism as we know it is collapsing. I think I've identified 8 of the most notorious ones, which one do you think is causing the most harm? If there's another trends that you hate the most, feel free to add it. Personally, early access pisses me off the most. How is it acceptable to pay full price for a game that's not even an alpha? There's nothing keeping the developer from even finishing the game. It's not really a bad concept, but developers these days are using Early Access as an excuse to cash in on their college game design projects.

 

[Username Redacted]

There are some tough choices on the list. I went with the choice that if handled improperly (which would also be how it's currently handled) can actually result in the game being unplayable in 'Online only DRM'. Whether it's server failure at launch or taking servers offline without patching the need for authentication out of the game the fact that a publisher can unilaterally make a game unplayable is bullshit.

 

[Spider RedNight]

Uuuugh, so many bad choices I didn't want to pick one, let alone not pick ALL of them.

Because I'm a rather smart individual and half of these don't apply to me, I'm gonna go with misleading trailers because I wanted Evil Within to be a SURVIVAL HORROR, dammit!

Even though Day 1 DLC really irks me, too. Hell, the rest of the stuff on this poll annoys me too but namely the two I mentioned specifically

 

[Grizzly_Bear_1]

I'm saying misleading trailers. Everything else are things the consumer can do something about.

We don't have to use microtransactions if we don't want to
We don't have to play free to play games
We don't have to buy games with DRM
We can switch to another website or youtuber if we feel one is being dishonest

When the publishers flat out lie, confuse, or omit details and we buy the game on day one based on that. everyone loses. We're ripped off, the press look like idiots, and those business practices shut down companies and put people out of work.

 

[Aurion]

Day One DLC, Season Pass, Microtransactions, and Online-Only DRM.

All four of those concepts are damn near unsalvageable at this point. There are F2P games that don't suck dicks unless you pay, game journalism corruption is only really an issue if you don't know it exists an adjust accordingly (or find alt sources). Misleading trailers are a fact of life be they games, movies, or TV. Early Access needs decent quality control.

 

[Jon4]

Day One DLC, Season Pass, Microtransactions, and Online-Only DRM are my picks as well. All of them are ruining games slowly but steadily. I don't understand how it is now acceptable to offer a game's content as a DLC on the day it launches. Basically companies are asking fans to pay extra for the whole game when they are already charging $60 for it. Thee same goes for the others, it is really disturbing especially as it is becoming so common.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Went for microtransactions, just because free-to-play is emerging rapidly as a major new force in gaming and a lot of the microtransaction schemes are predatory. There's nothing wrong with them in theory, but in practice their implementation is often deplorable.

 

[darkcalling]

I went with online only DRM cuz I don't really have huge problems with the others. My biggest trend I hate is multiplayer only games. And people who claim that a single player game NEEDS multiplayer. I was really interested in both Titanfall and Destiny but then I read that they would both be all multiplayer all the time. Titanfall could have told a good story intead it's call of duty with mechs. Destiny has the potential to be the next sci fi epic but I have to share the adventure with a bunch of other people with terrible misspelled gamertags and shrill obnoxious 12 year olds. I will never pay for a game that has no dedicated single player campaign. If a company does make a game like this then it should NOT be full price. It's half a game it should be half price.

 

[Rozalia1]

Season Passes - You mean those passes to buy DLC in "bulk" that you can use to make DLC cheaper even when its all out (and so you'll know what is inside them)? What is wrong with that?
I brought the Walking Dead Season 2 (which has all 5 episodes released) season pass lately to get the game a bit cheaper, what a nasty practice

Early Access - Clue is in the name, if you burn yourself on something clearly hot you're not exactly deserving of much sympathy.

Microtransactions - Nothing wrong with shortcuts, its a fine thing for any who do not have the time or the care to grind X of whatever items they require you to.

Free to Play - Got to make money somehow if you're offering it free. The games that are free to play are what they are, if you don't want to spend money on them than don't. Simple.
If they "force" you to pay than just drop it as a bad game...there, done.

Misleading trailers - A promotional package should be taken...as a promotional package. It is no different for gaming as it is for everything else.

Online only DRM - Well learn to tolerate it because everyone tells me that is the road we're on. Don't like it than don't buy it.

Game journalism corruption - Plenty of reviewers, and types of reviews out there. If I go look up a reviewer of an Atelier game on a major gaming site I know it'll be rated poorly, and mocked. That is why I check other places which are more credible for that particular review as they more align with myself.


Day One DLC- Shouldn't this be pre order bonuses? Or is this straight up first day DLC like a couple of games have had?
You brought the game knowing full well that X DLC content would not be included in the purchase. If you feel that devalues the value of the product you've bought than don't buy it. Wait for a price drop if you still want to get it.

So... where is the option to put this down as a whole of crying over nothing?

Because I'm a rather smart individual and half of these don't apply to me, I'm gonna go with misleading trailers because I wanted Evil Within to be a SURVIVAL HORROR, dammit!

Is it irony you're going for?

 

[Elfgore]

Online Only-DRM and misleading trailers. Everything else, I'm completely fine with existing.[footnote]I don't think corruption is an issue[/footnote] Online only really restricts those that live in areas that do not have high speed internet. As someone who lived that life, I grew to hate it. Not everyone has fast internet, there is nothing I can do to fix that. I pretty much get stuck with a useless game. Trailers because they build hype for a certain product, only for that hype to be non-existent.

 

[Asita]

Going to have to go with Online-Only DRM. It's the kiss of death for long term playability, as anyone who has played a now defunct MMO could tell you. I can't play Star Wars Galaxies because as soon as Sony pulled the plug on the servers the game effectively ceased to exist. That is the eventual fate of any game that requires access to the supplier's servers to function, multiplayer or otherwise. The question there is not "if" the servers go down, but "when". And when that happens I must pity both the players who loved the game and can no longer play it, and those who got screwed over by buying it shortly before it happened.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Going to have to go with Online-Only DRM. It's the kiss of death for long term playability, as anyone who has played a now defunct MMO could tell you. I can't play Star Wars Galaxies because as soon as Sony pulled the plug on the servers the game effectively ceased to exist. That is the eventual fate of any game that requires access to the supplier's servers to function, multiplayer or otherwise. The question there is not "if" the servers go down, but "when". And when that happens I must pity both the players who loved the game and can no longer play it, and those who got screwed over by buying it shortly before it happened.

I could be wrong here, but can't the dev(or publisher more than likely) release the server data as downloadable once they want to pull the plug, therefore allowing the game to keep existing (a.k.a. drum up some last sales for it knowing the product is now available to use as you please.) and keeping everyone happy who bought the game, while getting what they want which is to shut the servers down to cut down costs?

Sure, probably not a small download by any means, but people have been making offline/hacked WoW servers for years, I don't see why once a game has gotten its plug pulled that the same can't be done for them but with the publisher releasing that data and letting people torrent/seed/do with it as they please.


OT: probably online only drm, because it's being used more and more to justify multiplayer centric games when the market for those are getting way oversaturated, look at how many games are failing because they can't keep a strong multiplayer base (I haven't heard a damn thing about titanfall in months, and I think it's normal retail price is like 20 bucks now...) or scare purchases off because if someone wants to play the campaign/single player, they have to worry about constantly keeping a connection (ala Diablo III) and aren't technically allowed to toy with the product as they wish (no mods/tweaking to how you want to play)

 

[Andy Shandy]

Microtransactions, mainly because, like BloatedGuppy said, some of the ways companies use them is damn near predatory.

Gaming journalism corruption, if it was as widespread as people thought it was, would be the worst, but it's nowhere near that kind of level.

Season Passes are just ways to get all the DLC for something at a cheaper price. If all the DLC reviews well, it can actually be quite good.

Complaining about Early Access I have no sympathy for. You know it's not going to be the full game, and it might well be buggy as shit. If you're not sure about a game, there's a simple solution. Wait.

Free-to-play is harmless on its' own, it's the aforementioned microtransaction schemes that are the problem.

Misleading trailers are shitty, but again, you could just wait for reviews to avoid that problem.

Online-only DRM (particularly on single-player games) was shitty, but as far as I'm aware, that's becoming less of a problem than it once was.

Day One DLC just tends to be some free DLC anyway which, while an annoyance to put in a code, isn't that big a deal.

 

[Spider RedNight]

Because I'm a rather smart individual and half of these don't apply to me, I'm gonna go with misleading trailers because I wanted Evil Within to be a SURVIVAL HORROR, dammit!

Is it irony you're going for?

In a cosmic sort of way, yes

I'd also accuse the PT of Silent Hills to be misleading too if only because I hope the entire game isn't first person. Buuuuut I'll save my Silent Hill tirade for another day

 

[Lilani]

Microtransactions in games that already come at full retail price. That's just bullshit. I can see the legitimacy of microtransactions in games that are either free or cost very little (Plants VS Zombies 2, Angry Birds, etc), but they have absolutely no place in a game that was sold at full retail price. Either make all of the features available from the start, or charge a LOT less upfront.

Gaming journalism corruption, if it was as widespread as people thought it was, would be the worst, but it's nowhere near that kind of level.

I agree with this. It's there for sure, but unlike corruption in the mainstream media it's pretty easy to spot and there are lots of alternatives to the "big names" in games journalism.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Modern gaming has a lot of problems but I think the general atmosphere of secrecy and dishonesty. It seems like Nintendo and the devs working for them are the only ones who sell the games they show off during press events, conventions, etc. Even after the failure that was Colonial Marines, how many other games were shown off as something but later sold as something completely different? Even if the game being shown off is altered in a slight way, like back when it was revealed Catwoman would only be playable if you bought a new copy of the game or, if a handful of items are locked behind a pay-or-pre-order wall it's still dishonest. Everything listed in the poll is pretty horrible too...and really needs to go the Hell away.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

I would say that the Free to Play/Micro-transactions are destroying Mobile Gaming. Generally the more optimistic side of me would argue that mobile games are just as much a game as the likes of PC and Console, but the cynic and pessimist sees the same models being used across the board that essentially turn your phone into a miniature slot machine, confined in the Skinner Box.

Whenever I hear news about how well the mobile side does compared to the others I can only liken their success to a Casino's. Casinos are technically arcades but we don't think of them in the same light.

TL;DR: Mobile Games are babies first gambling addiction.

 

[Asita]

I could be wrong here, but can't the dev(or publisher more than likely) release the server data as downloadable once they want to pull the plug, therefore allowing the game to keep existing (a.k.a. drum up some last sales for it knowing the product is now available to use as you please.) and keeping everyone happy who bought the game, while getting what they want which is to shut the servers down to cut down costs?

I can't say with any degree of certainty, to be honest. The fact that they didn't do so at opening however would seem to suggest it's more likely than not that they wouldn't do so at closing. I'd rank the possibility as roughly as high as Blizzard releasing WoW's source code when they finally decide to shut it down.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I could be wrong here, but can't the dev(or publisher more than likely) release the server data as downloadable once they want to pull the plug, therefore allowing the game to keep existing (a.k.a. drum up some last sales for it knowing the product is now available to use as you please.) and keeping everyone happy who bought the game, while getting what they want which is to shut the servers down to cut down costs?

I can't say with any degree of certainty, to be honest. The fact that they didn't do so at opening however would seem to suggest it's more likely than not that they wouldn't do so at closing. I'd rank the possibility as roughly as high as Blizzard releasing WoW's source code when they finally decide to shut it down.

while I also highly doubt blizzard would ever do that, the greedy sods, as I mentioned there are already tons of private/hacked WoW servers around (not up to date obviously, but close enough in most cases) so they wouldn't even need the source code to have a fully functioning server, I would just be curious as to how relentless they would be in shutting those down AFTER the game has been shut down.