Gamers Killing Video Game Industry, Gamers Don't Know What They Want!

I don't want to live on the same planet as you guys. No wonder I am so miserable. This is what messes up my whole life.

JKJK, but still check it out.

Gamers buying games killing the industry. Yep that makes sense.

What's really hurting the industry is people supporting bad business practices like overly iterative sequels and things like day-one DLC and always-on DRM.

Replace the narrator. That irritating voice really makes we want to close the tab.

Most of his examples are simply explained with that more people play video games today, and if you release games that are easy to play and well, dumbed down, you hit the largest demographic of players thus you get better sales in general.

Better than the bloody "Gaijin Goomba" sh*t. Or Extra Credits, which makes some good points on occassion but insists on using a dumb voice filter. This guy's issue is just trying to sound overly dramatic.

The reason publishers remake the same stuff is because people like EA, Activision, SqEnix etc... have so much money poured into development and marketing that they need to be as broad as possible to make it back, and it's easier to do that with an IP you know already sells instead of a new one. If people actually didn't want innovative new games, the indie scene wouldn't be the thing it is.

Yes, this. Now that you mention it, it's exactly what I don't like.

His evidence is a little flawed too, because it condenses the entirety of the industry and the economic situation at the time down to Did it innovate [Y/N]? and completely ignores the effect marketing and advertising has on sales.

I disagree with the narrator.

I'll give him props, he made a pretty elaborate slide show discussing trends and marketing, something that at an even higher level is used for hedge funds. I bet Nintendo and other gaming manufacturers have tried to hit that formula of getting high selling games to the masses and keep consistent sales marks.

The problem I see is that innovative games receive praise for being a change of pace and breath of fresh light They are not praised for allowing new players to ease into the game seamlessly. Its not the innovative game that sells the most. It's the easiest to play and difficult to master.

Its the simplicity of game play, not a simple game i say but let me explain. A game that is simple to understand, and immerse the user at all levels of game play (boring load screens/gameplay/singleplayer/ lore etc.) It gets the user engaged fully, and when looking at other successful games (GTA, super smash bros melee, Halo). THere is not much to learn other then shoot/ smash the A button or occasionally press the other controls. What I'm saying is that, there wasn't a huge barrier to playing the game effectively or understand what is going on. Some might say that GTA has a more complex control scheme then Smash Bros or halo, but the simplicity at how it introduces the player into the game is what is crucial to getting players to stay and welcome the new franchise.

The Wii sold millions due to its simple gameplay that an extended range of people can get immersed into the game. (65-5 years old) It wasn't difficult for the user to engage and have fun right away without learning the innovative part of the game.

I guess my TL;DR point is that. Simple games may look like the industry is getting dumber, but its getting confused with simple to play games.

Saw that vid before. Pretentious bs, author needs to learn the word 'circumstantial.'

I have no idea about the video, but the key point is there.

Gamers are killing video games.

Gamers buy the games at half price, and complain when a game costs full-price. Gamers demand post-release support, and complain when that support comes with paid DLC to fund the support. Gamers demand innovative, new titles, and complain when sequels aren't carbon-copies of the earlier games. Gamers abuse developers and consider their opinions far superior in every respect. The amount of "programmers" I've found online is hilarious, as well as the amount of "business majors".

That said, this forum is surprisingly balanced. I really quite like the environment Uber has fostered, even with some of the more outspoken community members - they've put their money where their mouths are (well, literally as well ) and contributed.

I have no problems with DLC in and of itself.

I do have problems with;

1. Content axed during development being re-sold later on.
2. Deliberately fragmenting multiplayer community by use of DLC.

Basically, if it was developed post-release, and makes everyone benefit from it, then I will be more than accepting of it and happy to throw a few more dollars towards the game.


I think I can understand why people get upset over the price differences. Sometimes publishers/retailers price gouge, trying to squeeze extra money out of gamers because it's new and shiny and you don't want to miss out on the rush.

However, sometimes a game just costs more to make and genuinely needs to be retailed at a higher price. I think it might be interesting to see games labelled with the number of man-hours put into development.

[PS] Business Degrees are the new Arts Degrees. This is something I've learnt during my stint as a university student. Don't be surprised by how many you find on the Internet, and don't be surprised by how hilariously dumb the bulk of them are!

There is a lack of understanding with regards to what is "axed before release" and what isn't. There are companies that do follow that practise, and I don't condone or support it at all.

However, there is often content that they simply ran out of time to complete before gold certification for the product (prior to shipping) that they often complete for release or around that time. The more unscrupulous companies will charge for this (which is fair, financially, as additional dev-hours were spent to complete the content), and others will distribute it for free (if they feel it is worth the financial trade-off).

Fragmenting a userbase with DLC is barely-ever good either, though bear in mind that similar arguments could be made for expansion packs (which have existed for, and been accepted by gamers for, years).

For reference, this is my own knowledge built on a lot of interest and research on games development, and knowing games developers throughout my time doing community work for some of them. I am not an industry professional, though that is my aim (currently a software programmer, so I'm not completely clueless ).

Isn't that what the mobile market is for?

no, and the reason why most of the big selling games actually sell well is because big developer studios put millions into marketing for each of their games.

>Easy to play
>Dumbed down

sounds like the mobile market to me.

There is a difference between being easier to play and being dumbed-down. A mobile interface has to be designed from the ground-up to be vastly different from a controller or mouse/keyboard setup.

Unfortunately, most people assume that "easier to play" means that the game's depth has been "dumbed down". Which is silly, because "easier to play" infers difficulty, not depth.

You seem to have misunderstood what the entire thread is about.

You seem to have missed my other post.

Quake:


Cod:


Yea dumbing down doesn't happen for the pc

I never said it doesn't happen on PC, but the programmers/designers/creative directors of tomorrow are currently in school, passing time with Flappy Bird and Candy Crush thinking "omg dis iz houw u mak a gud game". Now hopefully, it's not actually going to result in a generation or two of digital atrocity and everything I'm saying is a hyperbolic paranoid delusion but I'm still very concerned.

Be less concerned. There are a lot of good games out there

The programmers, designers and creative directors of tomorrow are, for the most part, still those of today. You can do games development til you die, unlike various other professions.

New professionals with a solid grasp of design and implementation are also up and coming. Simon Roth's Maia - http://maiagame.com/about.php - is a great example of this.

Just because a game is popular, doesn't mean that it's the stereotype for the industry. What you should be concerned with is is why those games are popular, and who buys most games. We cry out for brilliant, inspired games . . . but they don't necessarily sell well. Why? Because the work that goes into them is wasted on the vast majority (case in point: Bioshock Infinite didn't sell well/as well as it needed to).