Poll: Worst gaming trend?
- Thread starter EmperorZinyak
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I went with Journo ethics because in the end, I feel like they have for a while now represented the consumer and made decisions in our name. In the end, I feel strongly that what is allowed in games is a result of what is (or in some cases, isn't) talked about within gaming news outlets.
Call it tinfoil, but-
Season Passes
Early Access
Microtransactions
Free to Play
Misleading trailers
Day One DLC
All of it has to do with how what sells and if it is deemed acceptable, both of which journalists covering and reviewing games have had almost sole control of for last many years. As consumers, we have trusted them to tell us the truth, but have seen a massive dissonance in the last generation of games. With that dissonance, we have things such as the above implemented into games while barely even being discussed, leading to the impression that it "isn't a big deal." However, we the consumers find it a MASSIVELY big deal. To the point where public outrage forced the Xbox One to undo most of its primary selling points (which, to be honest, was an improvement.)
I blame those who say they speak on my behalf yet have entirely lost sight as to what the consumer wants. I consider this the root of the issues at hand, and why the rest of the problems continue to become evermore prominent.
Just my 2 cents though.
Call it tinfoil, but-
Season Passes
Early Access
Microtransactions
Free to Play
Misleading trailers
Day One DLC
All of it has to do with how what sells and if it is deemed acceptable, both of which journalists covering and reviewing games have had almost sole control of for last many years. As consumers, we have trusted them to tell us the truth, but have seen a massive dissonance in the last generation of games. With that dissonance, we have things such as the above implemented into games while barely even being discussed, leading to the impression that it "isn't a big deal." However, we the consumers find it a MASSIVELY big deal. To the point where public outrage forced the Xbox One to undo most of its primary selling points (which, to be honest, was an improvement.)
I blame those who say they speak on my behalf yet have entirely lost sight as to what the consumer wants. I consider this the root of the issues at hand, and why the rest of the problems continue to become evermore prominent.
Just my 2 cents though.
I want to say DLC, but plenty of good has come out of that so i'll just point out the BAD side of it...
Unlockables are just gone now. I never feel like I buy a full game anymore (thanks Capcom, you're why I have trust issues), and frankly it's just shitty to stop and think about that.
Putting cinematics above gameplay. AAA gaming industry... for f**ks sake, do you need a daily reminder that you're making VIDEO GAMES. Stop experimenting with making cutscenes "engaging" and "deep" with your heavy reliance on graphics and unreal engine nonsense. For once put the money into playing around with original and polished GAMEPLAY in a video GAME. Christ.
That goes for fake trailers too: Stop it. Show me the real thing, and show me gameplay. Otherwise get off the stage, no one likes you.
Unlockables are just gone now. I never feel like I buy a full game anymore (thanks Capcom, you're why I have trust issues), and frankly it's just shitty to stop and think about that.
Putting cinematics above gameplay. AAA gaming industry... for f**ks sake, do you need a daily reminder that you're making VIDEO GAMES. Stop experimenting with making cutscenes "engaging" and "deep" with your heavy reliance on graphics and unreal engine nonsense. For once put the money into playing around with original and polished GAMEPLAY in a video GAME. Christ.
That goes for fake trailers too: Stop it. Show me the real thing, and show me gameplay. Otherwise get off the stage, no one likes you.
Season Passes
I honestly don't even know why this one is up there. If it was something that could only be gotten as a pre-purchase before we know if the game is going to be good, let-alone the DLC, then yeah I'd see how it gets fair consideration. As-is though, Season Passes are every DLC bundled into a single discounted purchase, and every Season Pass I've seen has been available even after all DLCs have been released. If every DLC is worth buying (or if the bundle is cheaper than the DLCs that are worth buying combined), then it's just plain a win.
Early Access
I feel that Early Access gets a bad rap. Are there people who take advantage of Early Access? Yes. Have some Early Access games flopped? Yes. Is it annoying putting-up with people defending Early Access titles with the go-to "it's still in beta" defense regardless of validity? Yes. These are all gripes that could be applied to non-Early Access titles though, and there-in lies the reason why I don't think Early Access is bad. Like Lucca says when Marle is worried that Robo will attack them if he gets switched on, "Robots aren't bad, people just make them that way." I think the same can be said of Early Access.
Micro-Transactions and Free to Play
I'm bundling these two together since they tend to go hand-in-hand. Neither of them do I consider to really be bad. Like with Early Access titles, I feel that the F2P model gets a bad rap because people want to focus on the titles that are exploitative (sometimes to the point of blowing things out of proportion to make some F2P titles seem more exploitative than they really are *COUGHDUNGEONKEEPERMOBILECOUGH*). Over-all, the success of these games falls on the consumers. If a F2P game is bad, then don't put money into the micro-transactions and play something else. A F2P game only being good if you spend money on it doesn't make F2P a bad model, it just makes those games poorly designed; and more often than not, they suffer for it and fade into obscurity.
Misleading Trailers
This is where I ultimately ended-up voting. As other people have pointed-out, and I agree completely, this is the only one that the consumer cannot control. Most of the other items on this list are things that fall under caveat emptor to some degree or another, but misleading trailers involves the developer/publisher flat-out lying to the consumer. I understand that the point of a trailer is to make a game look appealing, but as we've seen with cases like Colonial Marines, it can sometimes get to the point of false advertising when they feature supposed gameplay footage that is leaps and bounds better than what can be achieved in the final product. There comes a point when simply having the fine print of "may not be representative of the final product" during the trailer just doesn't cut it.
Online only DRM
This one I feel depends entirely on the game. In cases like Blizzard's games I'm willing to give a pass since their games (even when they have single-player modes) are generally very focused on multiplayer content. Then we have cases like Sim City needlessly requiring online connectivity to play with only vestigial features to "justify" its necessity. Then there's Ubisoft, who unwittingly became the poster child for why Always-On DRM is a terrible idea. Over-all, this would probably get my vote if the trailers option wasn't there.
Game journalism corruption
Just had to pander to the Gater community. I guess I'd give this one more lip service if I was aware of any legitimate case of "corruption" within games journalism. As-is, this "issue" seems to mostly be people throwing a fit over perceived "perks" that only seem special from the outside looking in, but that people within the industry just see as another day in the life.
Day One DLC
This would be a strong contender for the DRM option if, again, the trailers weren't there. It's hard to think of a really good reason for there to be D1DLC from a consumer standpoint. While I'm sure that industry execs have a fancy way to spin it to sound positive, D1D is nothing more than an attempt to minimize losses from used game sales. At worst, it's locking content that would normally have been free before behind an additional paygate.
I honestly don't even know why this one is up there. If it was something that could only be gotten as a pre-purchase before we know if the game is going to be good, let-alone the DLC, then yeah I'd see how it gets fair consideration. As-is though, Season Passes are every DLC bundled into a single discounted purchase, and every Season Pass I've seen has been available even after all DLCs have been released. If every DLC is worth buying (or if the bundle is cheaper than the DLCs that are worth buying combined), then it's just plain a win.
Early Access
I feel that Early Access gets a bad rap. Are there people who take advantage of Early Access? Yes. Have some Early Access games flopped? Yes. Is it annoying putting-up with people defending Early Access titles with the go-to "it's still in beta" defense regardless of validity? Yes. These are all gripes that could be applied to non-Early Access titles though, and there-in lies the reason why I don't think Early Access is bad. Like Lucca says when Marle is worried that Robo will attack them if he gets switched on, "Robots aren't bad, people just make them that way." I think the same can be said of Early Access.
Micro-Transactions and Free to Play
I'm bundling these two together since they tend to go hand-in-hand. Neither of them do I consider to really be bad. Like with Early Access titles, I feel that the F2P model gets a bad rap because people want to focus on the titles that are exploitative (sometimes to the point of blowing things out of proportion to make some F2P titles seem more exploitative than they really are *COUGHDUNGEONKEEPERMOBILECOUGH*). Over-all, the success of these games falls on the consumers. If a F2P game is bad, then don't put money into the micro-transactions and play something else. A F2P game only being good if you spend money on it doesn't make F2P a bad model, it just makes those games poorly designed; and more often than not, they suffer for it and fade into obscurity.
Misleading Trailers
This is where I ultimately ended-up voting. As other people have pointed-out, and I agree completely, this is the only one that the consumer cannot control. Most of the other items on this list are things that fall under caveat emptor to some degree or another, but misleading trailers involves the developer/publisher flat-out lying to the consumer. I understand that the point of a trailer is to make a game look appealing, but as we've seen with cases like Colonial Marines, it can sometimes get to the point of false advertising when they feature supposed gameplay footage that is leaps and bounds better than what can be achieved in the final product. There comes a point when simply having the fine print of "may not be representative of the final product" during the trailer just doesn't cut it.
Online only DRM
This one I feel depends entirely on the game. In cases like Blizzard's games I'm willing to give a pass since their games (even when they have single-player modes) are generally very focused on multiplayer content. Then we have cases like Sim City needlessly requiring online connectivity to play with only vestigial features to "justify" its necessity. Then there's Ubisoft, who unwittingly became the poster child for why Always-On DRM is a terrible idea. Over-all, this would probably get my vote if the trailers option wasn't there.
Game journalism corruption
Just had to pander to the Gater community. I guess I'd give this one more lip service if I was aware of any legitimate case of "corruption" within games journalism. As-is, this "issue" seems to mostly be people throwing a fit over perceived "perks" that only seem special from the outside looking in, but that people within the industry just see as another day in the life.
Day One DLC
This would be a strong contender for the DRM option if, again, the trailers weren't there. It's hard to think of a really good reason for there to be D1DLC from a consumer standpoint. While I'm sure that industry execs have a fancy way to spin it to sound positive, D1D is nothing more than an attempt to minimize losses from used game sales. At worst, it's locking content that would normally have been free before behind an additional paygate.
Quoted for motherfuckin truth.AngeloArcana said:
All of the other options. ALL of them, would be mitigated if not outright eliminated if we had a gaming press which actually went to bat for the consumer, instead of looking like they treat their readerbase like a necessary evil whilst fellating developers and publishers.
You think the best food critics are welcomed in restaurants? Hell no, the staff get positively TERRIFIED when one's coming to visit, because they know that they're going to get LAMBASTED if shit's not up to advertised standards. Why aren't publishers similarly terrified of the gaming press? Because it seems they know that all they have to do is throw a little swag at them, give them a bit of exclusive access, and they'll say whatever they're told.
I've used this analogy a lot, but it doesn't ring any less true. Gaming press should be the Ion Cannon out of Empire Strikes back, clearing a path for the consumer through the hype fleet to the truth. Right now it's not pointed at the empire, it's pointed at the goddamn rebel base.
Journalistic ethics.
I agree, all the other points are also incredibly bad things in the industry (which is why this poll was a hard call), however I can "handle" all the shitty business practises of the industry as long as the journalists covering it do so fairly, accurately, objectively and most importantly truthfully.
I have lost faith in most of the gaming media, and the one thing I have a zero-tolerance about is the very journalism that's supposed to keep the douche-bags and the corrupt arseholes of the industry in check.
I agree, all the other points are also incredibly bad things in the industry (which is why this poll was a hard call), however I can "handle" all the shitty business practises of the industry as long as the journalists covering it do so fairly, accurately, objectively and most importantly truthfully.
I have lost faith in most of the gaming media, and the one thing I have a zero-tolerance about is the very journalism that's supposed to keep the douche-bags and the corrupt arseholes of the industry in check.
Misleading Trailers are a thing that got me in the past when I first started purchasing games for myself. They claim to be Gameplay trailers and use bits and pieces of the most exciting pieces of Gameplay ignoring the intervals between the sections to show the game is "exciting and totally without boring bits". The other issues are the "Live Gameplay" trailers that are obviously prerendered, the early PS3 games had a major issue with this, where the games were wildly different looking from the trailer. It's gotten so bad that E3 Trailers aren't really taken seriously anymore, some of the worst offenders as of late are Watchdogs and Destiny. Watchdogs and Destiny completely took people for a ride with empty promises... It also goes without saying that Aliens Colonial Marines is the worst offender of all.
"All of the Above" but I had to vote for journalistic corruption as we can more easily choose to not support individual examples of most of the others. Journalistic corruption also feeds directly into many of them. Fix the journalism, have them able to freely criticise and put pressure on the problems and many of the problems will improve. Fix the cause, don't treat the symptoms, basically.
It's worth noting that the escapist has been better than most recently in this regard, so kudos for that!
It's worth noting that the escapist has been better than most recently in this regard, so kudos for that!
Well, most of those things are just up to the individual to avoid. If you fall for "free to pay" or early access beta and feel betrayed, that's your own fault. Journalism, in fact, is supposed to warn us and steer us away from those bad practices, not get paid to rave about them. If the journalism wasn't corrupt, maybe people would be more informed about those other bad things and companies would reconsider something unpopular if they were sure to get a bad review because of it.
I never understood the hate on early access. If you do some research and such you can prevent getting burned. Space Engineer's is a great game that I'm glad I got.
I got minecraft back when it still hadn't sold even 5 copy in early alpha.
Most the sins you posted are easy to avoid. The only one that I really hate is misleading trailers and DRM bullshit.
Day 1 dlc it depends if it's like ME3 Ashes then that's bs. If it's a small cosmetic I don't really care.
I got minecraft back when it still hadn't sold even 5 copy in early alpha.
Most the sins you posted are easy to avoid. The only one that I really hate is misleading trailers and DRM bullshit.
Day 1 dlc it depends if it's like ME3 Ashes then that's bs. If it's a small cosmetic I don't really care.
I voted for Day One DLC, but I think the true scourge of modern gaming is modern military shooters. Oversaturation, too little content for too much money, yearly installments in order to maximize profit gain (and in Call of Duty's case, minimizing effort as they keep using the same resources, whereas Battlefield at least makes new resources every year), truly lazy level design (go through corridor, get cutscene, repeat) and the fact they started a trend of modern military shooters dominating the mainstream gaming scene for years. Oh and throw in Day One DLC and Season Passes too, depending on the game, for good measure.
Now true, we did get the excellent SpecOps: The Line, but was it worth it? For as much bad as we had to go through (Call of Duty 4 through Black Ops 2, numerous Battlefields and Tom Clancy games), shouldn't we have gotten more to show for it?
Now true, we did get the excellent SpecOps: The Line, but was it worth it? For as much bad as we had to go through (Call of Duty 4 through Black Ops 2, numerous Battlefields and Tom Clancy games), shouldn't we have gotten more to show for it?
I wish these choices were more general. I would say the biggest problem is how much money you have to spend to enjoy the "full content". Feeling like you're missing out on parts of a game, and getting nickeled and dimed, until you realize you spent over $100 on a game you barely play.
Side note "game journalism" has been a joke since the beginning. Nintendo's marketing department came up with Nintendo magazine. And don't get me started on G4.
Side note "game journalism" has been a joke since the beginning. Nintendo's marketing department came up with Nintendo magazine. And don't get me started on G4.
Its hard to choose between Microtransactions, Misleading trailers and Day One DLC.. but none of these can be addressed openly and fairly if we don't have sound journalism to show the facts. Yes there are some youtube personalities that are honest and discuss about embargoes and other practices, discussing the good and bad of each. But they are generally isolated.
Hah, I was going to post a very long winded thing about trends and such but the fact 180 votes on Game Journalism Corruption pretty much demonstrates the point I was going to make. Gamers themselves are the problem. Developers are doing just fine, if somewhat afraid to do 'new' things. The players of video games being terrible people (while nothing really 'new' either) is the worst trend of all.
Microtransactions are the only one that can effect the core gameplay drastically. Followed up by Day1 DLC and Online-Only DRM.
I don't really think that Season Passes, Free-To-Play, and Early Access are inherently bad, just that they have the potential to be abused. I don't care about misleading trailers since I never pre-order on principle, and I don't care about Games Journalism because I get most of my information from YouTube/Gaming Forums anyways.
I don't really think that Season Passes, Free-To-Play, and Early Access are inherently bad, just that they have the potential to be abused. I don't care about misleading trailers since I never pre-order on principle, and I don't care about Games Journalism because I get most of my information from YouTube/Gaming Forums anyways.
I think the worst trend in gaming is the recent influx of hipsters into the hobby who feel it is their god given fucking right to denigrate, insult, and paint with the widest and most terrible brush, the people who are passionate about the hobby. Sadly, most of these people now work in the journalism, so the cancer has metastasized and overtaken other organs.
Unlike most other people who can't seem to get it through their skulls that there's more to gaming than brown shooters if you'd just look, I think the biggest issue is gamers aren't angry enough. Companies care only for the bottom line, if you threaten that line, they will bend over backwards to fix that.
Another big contender are the constant patches and treating the customer as an unpaid beta tester.
Unlike most other people who can't seem to get it through their skulls that there's more to gaming than brown shooters if you'd just look, I think the biggest issue is gamers aren't angry enough. Companies care only for the bottom line, if you threaten that line, they will bend over backwards to fix that.
Another big contender are the constant patches and treating the customer as an unpaid beta tester.
Hence the issue with journalism? ^_^Phrozenflame500 said:
Sadly its not limited to game development. I'll copy paste something I wrote on facebook about security in electronic devices (like routers) but it applies here as well:Machine Man 1992 said:
MBA's push products out the door before they are ready to finance the last X% of development.. but once people already bought it do you really want to invest a lot of money and resources in fixing the flaws? Or would you rather concentrate on version 2.0 that promises more feature and fixes the flaws of version 1.0?
And so instead of pushing resources on the current project to make it right, they make it good enough and tolerable for the clients while working on version 2.0 And when version 2.0 is near the ship date things are rushed out the door for profits.. but that's okay because version 3.0 will fix it right? And the cycle continues.
So its not so much about corruption than it is greed. But the clients are also to blame.. we willingly accept to buy half finished products with the promise of future updates and patches. Our money encourages businesses to do this behaviour.. and the cycle continues.
I'd like to add the seemingly huge marketing and development budgets that seemingly cause much of the lack of risktaking and variety in the AAA game development industry, while also "justifying" a number of these terrible practises.
Aside from that my vote goes to anti-consumer DRM. Online only is kind of a tip of the iceberg, there was also i think SECUROM number something that broke dvd-drives on some occasions, mandatory accounts that often lessen the experience(for some people at least) And the fact that this has done very little to slow down piracy while also giving them a better experience on some occasions.
Now that is not to say all DRM is bad(at least to my knowledge). Game dev tycoon had programmed piracy ingame if you had pirated the game and it took the players sales down. Serious Sam 3 had that pink?/purple? unkillable death scorpion few levels in and Batman arkham asylum had a part where the cape refused to work on a mandatory gliding part halting the progress for pirated game. Also Fifa 2015 and lords of the fallen use a new drm that seems to work pretty well though there are suspicions that it might be causing some of the crashes, but that is unverified to my best knowledge.
I also have an issue with misleading trailers and demos to some extent. Back in time i could not wait to play castlevania: lords of shadow 2 after playing the demo that introduced a quite campy and fun experience that left an interesting cliffhanger, only to find out that the game changes tone like 160 degrees right after that.
Aside from that my vote goes to anti-consumer DRM. Online only is kind of a tip of the iceberg, there was also i think SECUROM number something that broke dvd-drives on some occasions, mandatory accounts that often lessen the experience(for some people at least) And the fact that this has done very little to slow down piracy while also giving them a better experience on some occasions.
Now that is not to say all DRM is bad(at least to my knowledge). Game dev tycoon had programmed piracy ingame if you had pirated the game and it took the players sales down. Serious Sam 3 had that pink?/purple? unkillable death scorpion few levels in and Batman arkham asylum had a part where the cape refused to work on a mandatory gliding part halting the progress for pirated game. Also Fifa 2015 and lords of the fallen use a new drm that seems to work pretty well though there are suspicions that it might be causing some of the crashes, but that is unverified to my best knowledge.
I also have an issue with misleading trailers and demos to some extent. Back in time i could not wait to play castlevania: lords of shadow 2 after playing the demo that introduced a quite campy and fun experience that left an interesting cliffhanger, only to find out that the game changes tone like 160 degrees right after that.