|
|
Post by pkt on Mar 15, 2009 18:29:52 GMT -5
Off-topic warn. Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, No More Heroes, Valkyria Chronicles and a whole slew of other titles all stand as proof that modern games can deliver the goods. I hope Assassin's Creed was a very weird typo. Saying that things were better "in the old days" really just makes people sound old. Things were good back then, and they're still good now. Let me flip that around, then: saying that things aren't any worse now really just shows how some people don't know any better. I think either case is really just oversimplifying things. What makes each game "good" has always been a matter of taste but as the industry grows, the audience should grow, as well. Why should the growth of the audience come at the expense of lesser variety in games, to the point that some feel no games that appeal to them are being made? That's not really subjective, nor really good. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2009 18:52:56 GMT -5
I hope Assassin's Creed was a very weird typo. No, I liked that game a lot. It isn't perfect, but I think it's a great example of what a next-gen game can be. Altair's character, in particular, is rather well-written. Let me flip that around, then: saying that things aren't any worse now really just shows how some people don't know any better. I think either case is really just oversimplifying things. Some things are worse, some things are better. Just because certain things have changed, does that instantly mean that no good games have been made post-1995, or whatever year you feel things went south? Why should the growth of the audience come at the expense of lesser variety in games, to the point that some feel no games that appeal to them are being made? That's not really subjective, nor really good. Not sure what you mean about being subjective. Just as people are saying that modern games suck, I'm expressing my opinion that there are plenty of good titles these days. This is my view on the topic, which is pretty much the definition of subjective. True, I believe my opinion to be the end-all authority on the matter, but I'm not foolish enough to believe that everyone is going to follow me down that road, simply out of the "correctness" of my belief. As an example, arcades are virtually non-existant these days. The arcade scene used to be a vitally important aspect of the video game industry, both for the companies involved and the people playing the games. Friendships were made, games were played in ways that could never be experienced in the home, and a lot of fond memories were created. Does the death of arcade gaming mean that all modern games suck? No. It just means that things have changed. As good as 6 player X-Men was, I have no trouble enjoying GTA IV. The same can be said for older console or PC games, or hell, even movies. Just because there are a million films out there along the lines of Fool's Gold, that doesn't keep me from enjoying The Dark Knight. I enjoy the good stuff and ignore the rest. If people can't seem to find something to fit their tastes with modern games, I feel bad for them. To be clear, I'm not telling everyone to "shut up and suck it up", I just don't get how so many are having a hard time finding quality titles in modern gaming. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord of Joshelplex on Mar 15, 2009 18:52:56 GMT -5
Because things that are popular and mainstream are popular and mainstream for a reason?
|
|
metazoa
Full Member
Vulgar Argot!
Posts: 222
|
Post by metazoa on Mar 15, 2009 18:53:42 GMT -5
I really don't care what any analyst says. They're all quacks. If a game has to sell 2,500,000 to make money then the companies because the COSTS for producing games are up HIGHER. Isolated examples that ignore the fact that if this business model worked then the companies following it would be turning a profit. As I've already stated, the reasons for the industry's current trouble are far more complex than you acknowledge. DLC is, at the core of it, an excellent way to increase revenue for little comparative cost. The strengths of various currencies, the costs for importing and exporting systems and games, the costs for manufacturing them, and the booming used games market are more to blame than companies 'losing touch with their audiences'. If they don't make a change then there's going to be a lot of companies that go bankrupt. And when that happens it will be no one's fault but their own. This is true. It's their own fault for stubbornly choosing to make their games for those systems. As opposed to what? The PC, with it's insane piracy rate? The Wii? Look up the sales data for 'hardcore' games on that system. They don't sell. Madworld is going to flop, and so will Overkill, because the demand for those games on those systems is negligible. Yet, VIDEO GAME SALES WENT UP. So, that's not an excuse. Profits have gone down because they ignore the customer in favor of doing things the way they want. Earlier in your response you stated that sales were unilaterally DOWN. Which is it? You're losing me, son. Whether or not it's successful is the only thing that matters. This is what I was just talking about. They're sticking with a losing strategy because they want to do things their way instead of the customers' way. Long tail economics. American companies, and companies that have adopted american style business culture, have a complete and utter lack of long term planning. Everything needs to be successful, RIGHT NOW, or it's a 'failure'. For contrast, see Mitsubishi, Toyota, Honda, and BMW. Just because companies are losing money doesn't mean that DLC is a failure. They'd be losing a lot MORE money if it weren't for DLC. While we're at it, what exactly IS 'what the customer wants'? You keep saying it, but you've never actually spelled it out. Of course there's a market for it. But that really doesn't matter when it's not getting your company back in the black. Concentrating your efforts on generating incremental profits like that when your company is losing tons of money basically amounts to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Come on, man. Reductive, yet again. Of course companies are trying to reduce costs and increase revenue across the board: DLC is just a single facet of it. It's not like the board of SCE is going, "DLC is single handedly going to revive our flagging fortunes!" That's ridiculous. I do agree with the market. Those companies mentioned above are losing lots and lots of money. Sony is losing 100's of millions of dollars, and Microsoft is losing billions. The business models that these companies have don't work, and that includes the practice of relying on DLC to recuperate expenses. Since I've already explained that DLC has nothing to do with the current economic situation, I'll refrain from repeating myself here. The market likes DLC. YOU might not, but that's entirely beside the point. Which they won't be able to do if they continue to lose money. Let me ask you something: Why the passionate defense of DLC and the companies that misuse it? Do you work in the industry or something? No. I just hate internet retard logic, and your dismissal of anything that doesn't immediately back up your cognitive dissonance really pisses me off. I can't tell if you're trying to be offensive, or if you just lack social graces, but either way... You have this problem with refusing to see the difference between YOUR point of view, and EVERYONE ELSES. You don't single handedly represent gamers at large. At all. I've seen the numbers for DLC sold. I've talked to people who, if the DLC in question is quality, love it and regularly buy it. I qualify as one of those people, by the by. I think the root of the problem lies with the typical, "it's black or white!!!" attitude that some idiots adopt. "Just because Namco is ripping people off with their Ace Combat DLC, ALL DLC IS EVIL!" That's stupid. STUPID. It's reductive(a word that seems to pop up a lot in this thread), and baseless. If you don't like DLC, don't buy it. If you think that any given piece of DLC will enhance a game you enjoy, buy it. Considering that I've never been in a position where I was FORCED to buy DLC to play a game I'd already invested in, I don't see the problem. So. SOME DLC is good. SOME of it is exploitative garbage and should be avoided. I can't put it any simpler. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2009 18:57:03 GMT -5
Because things that are popular and mainstream are popular and mainstream for a reason? Not sure if that was directed at me, but this sounds vaguely like the "SMT rulez, FF is for foolz" argument. Elitism makes baby Jesus cry. |
|
|
|
Post by zzz on Mar 15, 2009 19:22:16 GMT -5
Your entire post was based on assumptions about both the current economic situation and what's going on in the video game industry that are plainly false. The fact of the matter is, you simply don't understand either in the slightest. However, what's more important is that this topic was never meant to be about those things. If you wanna get back to discussing DLC and other related industry practices, then cool. But otherwise I'm not interested in discussing economics with someone who apparently gets their info on the subject from watching television. |
|
|
|
Post by vysethebold on Mar 15, 2009 19:39:58 GMT -5
Wow...can we not be snippy?
Seriously, did you guys come from the Glass Joe School of Debate? Play nicely (i.e. no personal attacks) or you won't get to play at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2009 19:44:17 GMT -5
I agree. If I see one more ad hominem argument in this thread, I'm shutting it down. Consider this an ultimatum.
|
|
metazoa
Full Member
Vulgar Argot!
Posts: 222
|
Post by metazoa on Mar 15, 2009 19:45:50 GMT -5
Your entire post was based on assumptions about both the current economic situation and what's going on in the video game industry that are plainly false. The fact of the matter is, you simply don't understand either in the slightest. However, what's more important is that this topic was never meant to be about those things. If you wanna get back to discussing DLC and other related industry practices, then cool. But otherwise I'm not interested in discussing economics with someone who apparently gets their info on the subject from watching television. Very clever. |
|
|
|
Post by pkt on Mar 15, 2009 19:46:41 GMT -5
No, I liked that game a lot. It isn't perfect, but I think it's a great example of what a next-gen game can be. A great example of what a current-gen game shouldn't be, rather. Pretty graphics, lots of stuff to do, but only a tiny fraction of that actually interesting. Some things are worse, some things are better. Yeah, but that's the thing. It shouldn't be a tradeoff if gaming as a whole is supposedly getting bigger. Just because certain things have changed, does that instantly mean that no good games have been made post-1995, or whatever year you feel things went south? Saying that no good games were made past a certain date is, again, oversimplifying things. There are still good titles, it's simply that their numbers and impact are decreasing. You named Valkyria Chronicles and No More Heroes as examples - but aren't those the exception, rather than the rule now, whereas previously that might not have been the case? Not sure what you mean about being subjective. Just as people are saying that modern games suck, I'm expressing my opinion that there are plenty of good titles these days. I'm simply saying that lesser diversity in terms of games is an objectively bad thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord of Joshelplex on Mar 15, 2009 20:02:33 GMT -5
Because things that are popular and mainstream are popular and mainstream for a reason? Not sure if that was directed at me, but this sounds vaguely like the "SMT rulez, FF is for foolz" argument. Elitism makes baby Jesus cry. Actually, it was more to counter the elitism. I dont give a shit how (un)popular a game is, if its good Imma play it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2009 20:04:14 GMT -5
A great example of what a current-gen game shouldn't be, rather. Pretty graphics, lots of stuff to do, but only a tiny fraction of that actually interesting. It was an attempt to make a sandbox-style game out of the Prince of Persia formula. On that level, is was pretty successful. As I said, it wasn't perfect, but I think it serves as a solid foundation for a new franchise. Yeah, but that's the thing. It shouldn't be a tradeoff if gaming as a whole is supposedly getting bigger. Genres come and go. Vertical shooters are pretty non existant, as are point-and-click adventure games. In contrast, titles like Rock Band, Katamari Damacy and Hotel Dusk are all recently developed and only possible because the industry has grown as a whole. These are not "exceptions", these are good games. Saying that no good games were made past a certain date is, again, oversimplifying things. There are still good titles, it's simply that their numbers and impact are decreasing. You named Valkyria Chronicles and No More Heroes as examples - but aren't those the exception, rather than the rule now, whereas previously that might not have been the case? Perhaps the issue isn't the fact that there are so few good games. Rather, the industry has become so large, simple numbers dictate an increasing number of shovelware titles and me-too rip offs. However, it also means that more good games are also being made. I'm simply saying that lesser diversity in terms of games is an objectively bad thing. I think nostalgia has made you closed-minded, and that we'll have to agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Mar 15, 2009 21:29:23 GMT -5
I don't hate DLC in principle, but a lot of things they're doing is pretty regrettable. The pros behind DLC are that it can give the developers an opportunity to add stuff on at later date. The problem is, it looks really shady when they have things out within a week of release, if not sooner. I would be more tolerant of them charging $8 for new costumes for SF4 if it seemed clear that they actually had some staff working after the game had gone gold in order to improve it. But otherwise it just looks like they're selling the game piecemeal, which is terrible PR. I'm not sure they even look at all of that bad PR that's happening, they probably just sit back and count the money, which is extremely shortsighted.
I mean, I can see them charging for the RE5 multiplayer, because they're right - it IS outside of the scope of most RE games. If they had charged for the Mercenaries mode - which was free in RE4 - then I could see getting pissed.
|
|
|
|
Post by conn on Mar 15, 2009 21:29:46 GMT -5
I agree. If I see one more ad hominem argument in this thread, I'm shutting it down. Consider this an ultimatum. Hey, at least we haven't seen any No true Scotsman arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by hashin on Mar 15, 2009 21:49:05 GMT -5
Can somebody tell me to where DLC goes? Is it the console's hard drive? Please tell me I really don't know  |
|
