It is a sad state of affairs.Owyn_Merrilin said:Games with long tails, like good JRPGs, died out some time in the early 2000's. It's not totally surprising WeepingAngels isn't getting your pointremnant_phoenix said:My point is is that FF7 continued, and continues to this day, to have a tail, which in business-speak is sales that continue after the new release hype has worn-off.WeepingAngels said:Yes, let's compare re-releases of FF7 to FF13. Isn't it forseeable that in 10 years FF13 could be rereleased on newer platforms and sell for $9.99 or $11.99?
FF13's tail all but disappeared very quickly after release and if you look at the overall fan reaction to FF13, basic inference tells us that when FF13 is well over a decade old, legions of fans are NOT going to be calling it a "classic" and re-buying it for a modern console or PC to play all over again.
THAT was my point of comparison.
Naw, but seriously. The modern AAA industry seems to have totally forgotten the value of a game that still sells months, weeks, years after the initial release. It used to be that games got constant support and patches (at least on PC, where that was possible) for anywhere from months to years, with 1-2 years being about average. They'd stay on the shelves for a couple of years after that, unless they totally bombed. We now call those patches DLC and it costs at least as much as the initial game did to get it all, often more. Console games didn't usually get updates due to the technical realities of the time, but people continued to talk about and buy the successful ones for ages after release, it wasn't "buy day one or don't bother" like the publishers want us to think it is now. The really successful ones would get multiple print runs, and sometimes later printings of console games actually /did/ have updated game content, though it was more often to fix bugs and remove dummied out code left over from beta versions than to add new content.
Of course I understand why the publishers switched the model. Why put resources into making and supporting a decent product when you have an industry that won't give refunds? Just sell to as many rubes on day 1 as you can and laugh all the way to the bank, making millions on broken but cheaply made crap, and then not caring once the reviews start coming. Doesn't matter if you don't make another sale, you've already made your money and nobody's getting a refund, nor will they remember this the next time you pull it because your target audience has the attention span of a goldfish and the spine of an earthworm. I have less sympathy or understanding for gamers who fall for the tricks, and none at all who actually defend the industry for its business practices, of which what I just described is one of the least objectionable, as bad as it is. At least the industry is acting in its own best interests[footnote]Short term, anyway. Long term this isn't sustainable, or at least it wouldn't be in an industry with customers who had memories and spines.[/footnote]. The people who defend it are working against theirs.
When people look back to the late 1990's/early 2000's, they'll name games like Starcraft, Final Fantasy VII, and Half-Life as the "classics" that maintained a devoted following years and years after release.
When people look back to the late 2000's/early 2010's, what will they name? Minecraft is the only one that immeadiately comes to mind, and wouldn't you know it, Mojang has been doing exactly the sort of thing that you're talking about, continuously adding to the value of the game (without charging for it as DLC).