Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[tootboot]

I never grow tired of this little rant about the culture of entitlement in the States these days. I think it applies to gaming equally as well as cell phones and flying.

I'm tired of the term entitled being thrown around every time someone has a complaint about something.

[LoSboccacc]

next up: horse raiders complaining cars are too easy and are spoiling their fun.

seriously, you have the power of choice, all this doesn't make any sense 

[itisnotlogical]

For one thing, I never said I was upset about paying more money. I'm upset that I'm getting less for the same amount of money as I've always been paying.

I have the feeling that when you say "Gamers only spend around $200 a year on video games", I think you're saying "I only spend this much on video games, so that must be how much everybody else spends". Believe it or not, not everybody subsists purely on indie titles and F2P games. Gasp, some soulless heretic might even suggest that you are not the typical gamer.

alway, I'm not talking about games completely throwing everything out the window or switching genres. I'm talking about them bringing something new to the table, i.e.:

Super Mario Bros. 2 was still a platform game, but it had selectable characters and a whole new item system. It was still a Mario game, but it was unique. A Link to the Past was still unmistakably a Zelda game, but it had a much larger overworld and experimented with having a deeper story than previous Zelda games had dared. It's Zelda, but it added something that previous games didn't have. Metroid II: The Return of Samus shifted the focus slightly and gave the player a definite objective in hunting down the Metroids. Rather than wandering aimlessly, you had a defined goal. Doom 3 toyed with survival horror elements. Diablo II was less deliberate and more fast-paced killy killy stab stab than the first Diablo. Resident Evil 4 changed the camera angle and made it more of an action-style game. Star Wars: Battlefront II added space combat and playable hero characters. Return to Castle Wolfenstein tried out objective-based gameplay. LoZ: Majora's Mask had a darker, more depressing tone than any Zelda game before or since. Metroid Prime rebuilt the series from the ground up. Star Fox: Command added strategy elements to a straightforward space shooter series.

All of these are mainstream titles in well-established series, several by Nintendo (arguably the most mainstream developer of them all). Mainstream games can change more dramatically than they have been recently. You can add things without upending the entire thing. I'm not suggesting that they change Call of Duty to a turn-based tactical JRPG with 4X elements, I'm just asking that they stop releasing the EXACT SAME GAME every year.

If you don't get what I'm saying now, then I would bet money that you're intentionally being thick.

[Tres_Huevos]

I agree. But it's not like complaining is going to change it. If people are buying, corporate whores will just keep pushing it. They only care about money and if they are getting money, everything is just peachy.

We should take a look at ourselves. We can't keep buying over-hyped same old bullshit and then complain about it or things will just get worse.

EA CEO John Riccitiello (while in shareholders meeting) - "When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip, and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you're really not very price sensitive at that point in time."

    "A consumer gets engaged in a property, they might spend 10,20,30,50 hours on the game and then when they're deep into the game they're well invested in in. We're not gouging, but we're charging and at that point in time the commitment can be pretty high."

    "But it is a great model and I think it represents a substantially better future for the industry.""

You can listen it from the mouth of John Riccitiello with a more comedic effect here. Remember the background music from somewhere?

Also, watch this to see what I'm talking about when I say we should take a look at ourselves as gamers.

Me? I hate EA for ruining Bioware. Future of gaming is not looking bright.

I think the worst part of what he said was when he claimed to have spent over $5,000 on his own company's microtransactions. He may have even said that was just in the past year, I couldn't make part of it out. So not only does he think they're good as a business man, but he apparently is quite fond of them as a consumer, as well.

I, on the other hand, having probably spent far less than that on gaming in my entire life, find the idea of having to pay thousands of dollars to get complete and unfettered experience out of a game abhorrent. Free to play and microtransaction based games are just too rich for my blood.

[hemmingjay]

Let me be unpopular for a minute(again) and speak for the other side.

The game companies are also not liking the direction the industry is going. Make no mistake about it, it is being driven by consumer habits. Gaming went from a fringe hobby in the early 80's to one of the largest entertainment expenses for the average person now. Consumers demand innovation and cinematic quality. Piracy is no longer just a problem in third world markets. Everyone is now a critic with an equal, public voice. The economic situation and increased competition for consumers.
All of these elements and more have raised the budgets while decreasing the potential pool for revenue. To combat this, companies have to spend big budgets on crowd pleasers(CoD, Gears of War, etc) and find creative ways to lower the price entry point for highly competitive markets like MMO games. And yet every 6-18 months there is a new major disruption to the business model and they have to rethink things again to stay afloat.

On one extreme we have gamers with a socialist opinion and feel that they are entitled to high quality free or super cheap games.
On the other extreme are the evil game companies who have done market research and employ psychologists to prey upon gambling addictions in their pricing models.

Most people and companies fall squarely in the middle but are also represented by a small but noticeable cadre on the outskirts of the norm. Also, neither extreme is wrong and are entitled to do things their own way if sustainable.

[hemmingjay]

Also, monetizing and industry should always go together. "Rampant" reads as successful in this thread title.



(sorry for the double post, but it was a separate notion)

[Sappho]

For one thing, I never said I was upset about paying more money. I'm upset that I'm getting less for the same amount of money as I've always been paying.

I have the feeling that when you say "Gamers only spend around $200 a year on video games", I think you're saying "I only spend this much on video games, so that must be how much everybody else spends". Believe it or not, not everybody subsists purely on indie titles and F2P games. Gasp, some soulless heretic might even suggest that you are not the typical gamer.

alway, I'm not talking about games completely throwing everything out the window or switching genres. I'm talking about them bringing something new to the table, i.e.:

Super Mario Bros. 2 was still a platform game, but it had selectable characters and a whole new item system. It was still a Mario game, but it was unique. A Link to the Past was still unmistakably a Zelda game, but it had a much larger overworld and experimented with having a deeper story than previous Zelda games had dared. It's Zelda, but it added something that previous games didn't have. Metroid II: The Return of Samus shifted the focus slightly and gave the player a definite objective in hunting down the Metroids. Rather than wandering aimlessly, you had a defined goal. Doom 3 toyed with survival horror elements. Diablo II was less deliberate and more fast-paced killy killy stab stab than the first Diablo. Resident Evil 4 changed the camera angle and made it more of an action-style game. Star Wars: Battlefront II added space combat and playable hero characters. Return to Castle Wolfenstein tried out objective-based gameplay. LoZ: Majora's Mask had a darker, more depressing tone than any Zelda game before or since. Metroid Prime rebuilt the series from the ground up. Star Fox: Command added strategy elements to a straightforward space shooter series.

All of these are mainstream titles in well-established series, several by Nintendo (arguably the most mainstream developer of them all). Mainstream games can change more dramatically than they have been recently. You can add things without upending the entire thing. I'm not suggesting that they change Call of Duty to a turn-based tactical JRPG with 4X elements, I'm just asking that they stop releasing the EXACT SAME GAME every year.

If you don't get what I'm saying now, then I would bet money that you're intentionally being thick.

Trollish comment about anyone who disagrees with you being "thick" aside, I think you're missing the point I, and others, are trying to make. We're not saying that you should play cheaper games, or that the gaming industry is great the way it is. We're saying that if you don't like the way things are going, your options are:
A. Stop paying for them. Spend your money on the rare game that you think is really worth the price tag. The industry will respond to this over time.
B. Make your own.

Gaming companies are not obligated in any way to do what you want them to do. They're a business trying to make money. If they can make loads of money by releasing the same crap every year and possibly even making it worse in the process, they're going to do that because it's easy. Why wouldn't they? Because they want you to be happy?  Why would they care if you're happy with the games as long as you keep paying for them? The one thing guaranteed *not* to change anything is to complain that you don't like it and call anyone who disagrees with you stupid.

Also, I just want to call a little attention to this line here:

not everybody subsists purely on indie titles and F2P games

From dictionary.com:

1. to exist; continue in existence.
2. to remain alive; live, as on food, resources, etc.
3. to have existence in, or by reason of, something.

Really? You can't survive/exist without expensive games? Well if that's true, then I offer my sincere condolences on your medical condition and wish you the best of luck in scraping by until the gaming companies hear your plea and change their cold-hearted ways.

I'm tired of the term entitled being thrown around every time someone has a complaint about something.

If you believe you deserve something simply because you want it or got used to having it in the past, without having done anything to earn it, that's what entitlement is. Saying you deserve better games just because games used to be better demonstrates a false feeling of entitlement because there's no reason why you should have them other than that you want them, and no logical reason to be angry about not having them, even if you had them before.

I don't want to get into a flame war here. I get what people are saying, that the gaming industry seems to be going in an unpleasant direction and things aren't the same as they used to be. Know what I miss? I miss the Epic Center in Nintendo Power magazine. I miss Earthbound and Harvest Moon on the SNES. They don't make games like that anymore. Everything's 3d now. I miss the days when I could buy a good game in the store for $10 and play it for many, many hours, and I could play on a console without an internet connection or a credit card. Things are different these days. Games are faster-paced and impossible for me to process fast enough to keep up. Consoles cost a month's wages and you have to pay for extra stuff even after you've already bought the games. My favorite online game of all time, Glitch, just had to shut down because it wasn't making enough money, and I lost my only positive connection with my mother (we played together from opposite sides of the world even though we can't bear to actually speak to each other). Things will never go back to the way they were. I could rant and rave for hours and hours about how unfair it is, or I could just go play my old games, or support the rare indie game that I really like.

The thing that really confuses and frustrates me is this feeling of HOW DARE THEY DO THIS TO US. Everyone feels that they deserve lower prices and better games just because they're used to it. But they don't. We don't deserve anything we haven't earned. And unless you're a game developer, you haven't done jack to earn a better game. They don't owe you anything. We're all incredibly lucky to live in a world and a society where spending significant amounts of time playing games on a computer is even an option. Did you have to worry about where you next meal was going to come from today? No? Then what the hell are you complaining about? Our lives and our technology are amazing things and we'll all be a lot happier if we spend more time appreciating them and less time complaining about how much better we wish they were.

To quote Louis CK in the video I linked earlier: Why do we expect it to be fucking perfect every time? You're not contributing. You're not helping it be perfect. You don't like it? Well make your own then. See how that works out for you. ... Why would it be perfect? It's as good as it is.

[Sappho]

Oh, by the way, there are still loads of developers that are trying new things and releasing innovative games on a very regular basis. The games tend to be really cheap as well. They're called "indie" games. The developers really care about creating a good product and being honest and responsible towards their customers. Some of them even give games or expansions away for free! And they tend to be pretty consistently updated and bugfixed as well.

I guess I'm glad I'm not the "typical" gamer who needs to consume mainstream games to survive. That sure would suck. Dodged a bullet there, lucky me.

[hemmingjay]

I think we are mature enough to discuss this topic without insulting one another, even defensively, moving forward. We all have well reasoned and personally held beliefs on the subject and can discuss the merits of our own beliefs without needing to personally attack another.

[Criptfeind]

Trollish comment about anyone who disagrees with you being "thick" aside, I think you're missing the point I, and others, are trying to make. We're not saying that you should play cheaper games, or that the gaming industry is great the way it is. We're saying that if you don't like the way things are going, your options are:
A. Stop paying for them. Spend your money on the rare game that you think is really worth the price tag. The industry will respond to this over time.
B. Make your own.

Gaming companies are not obligated in any way to do what you want them to do. They're a business trying to make money. If they can make loads of money by releasing the same crap every year and possibly even making it worse in the process, they're going to do that because it's easy. Why wouldn't they? Because they want you to be happy?  Why would they care if you're happy with the games as long as you keep paying for them? The one thing guaranteed *not* to change anything is to complain that you don't like it and call anyone who disagrees with you stupid.

This is complete and utter BS. Complaining is a totally valid way of changing things. (And telling someone to make their own is completely invalid.)

Of course you don't buy the games you don't like, and if you do and then complain that makes you a hypocrite. (Unless the game lied about itself somehow) But do you really think that less communication is better?

Yeah! Lets just stop buying titles and leave the company with no idea why! That will show them how to fix their ways! It certainly won't drive them further away from what we view as 'right'.

 Complaints and ragey things just like this topic are valid parts of 'the market' that gives people the power to get the games they want, just like purchasing decisions.

Also, I just want to call a little attention to these lines here:

Also, I just want to call a little attention to this line here:

not everybody subsists purely on indie titles and F2P games

From dictionary.com:

1. to exist; continue in existence.
2. to remain alive; live, as on food, resources, etc.
3. to have existence in, or by reason of, something.

Really? You can't survive/exist without expensive games? Well if that's true, then I offer my sincere condolences on your medical condition and wish you the best of luck in scraping by until the gaming companies hear your plea and change their cold-hearted ways.

And you called his thick comment trollish? Unless you really are thick and don't understand him. In which case. Well. Sorry to hear about it. Good job on learning how to turn on your computer.

Things will never go back to the way they were. I could rant and rave for hours and hours about how unfair it is, or I could just go play my old games, or support the rare indie game that I really like.

You are right. Giving up is always the best way.

Or you could actually try. Games won't go back to what you said, but there are actual valid issues in the industry that talking about does actually help. Saying that one should give up on all issues because some issues are not solvable is completely ridiculous.

The thing that really confuses and frustrates me is this feeling of HOW DARE THEY DO THIS TO US. Everyone feels that they deserve lower prices and better games just because they're used to it. But they don't. We don't deserve anything we haven't earned. And unless you're a game developer, you haven't done jack to earn a better game. They don't owe you anything. We're all incredibly lucky to live in a world and a society where spending significant amounts of time playing games on a computer is even an option. Did you have to worry about where you next meal was going to come from today? No? Then what the hell are you complaining about? Our lives and our technology are amazing things and we'll all be a lot happier if we spend more time appreciating them and less time complaining about how much better we wish they were.

Oh yeah. I forgot. People are starving in Africa! How dare you be less then fully content with your life. Also something something just because you buy games does not mean you should have any input into it something something.

Players are not owed anything. Devs don't owe anything. But players want things. And Devs want things. How is it not reasonable for them to try to get the things they want. Your relationship with your mother is hardly a necessity to your life, why the hell do you talk about it all up and down this board? Could it be you actually want something? Because holy hell maybe other people want things as well.

Just because you don't make games does not make it unreasonable for you to want things from games. You are still the consumer. You are still part of the process. The fact is, companies want your money, and they should have to do what you want to get it. And complaints is one way to tell them what is going on.

Spending money is another, but that is only positive reinforcement and it is still fairly unclear compared to something that actually lays out the issues.

To quote Louis CK in the video I linked earlier: Why do we expect it to be fucking perfect every time? You're not contributing. You're not helping it be perfect. You don't like it? Well make your own then. See how that works out for you. ... Why would it be perfect? It's as good as it is.

As daunted as I am by the staggering intellectual powers and insight into the industry of a 45 year old comic who was not even talking about it, let me try to handle this.

If it's not perfect there is generally room for improvement. It is contributing. It is helping. Just because you don't have the actual skills and don't want to devote your life to something does not mean you don't have any idea how something should work and nor does it mean that you should just throw your money away for nothing. and finally. It is good. It could be better. Why not try?

[fenrif]

Gaming companies are not obligated in any way to do what you want them to do. They're a business trying to make money. If they can make loads of money by releasing the same crap every year and possibly even making it worse in the process, they're going to do that because it's easy. Why wouldn't they? Because they want you to be happy?  Why would they care if you're happy with the games as long as you keep paying for them? The one thing guaranteed *not* to change anything is to complain that you don't like it and call anyone who disagrees with you stupid.

To quote Louis CK in the video I linked earlier: Why do we expect it to be fucking perfect every time? You're not contributing. You're not helping it be perfect. You don't like it? Well make your own then. See how that works out for you. ... Why would it be perfect? It's as good as it is.

The whole point of our society is that people specialise so we can all accomplish greater things. You have people who specialise in medicine, science, teaching, food production, etc. Everyone does their own jobs to contribute to the society as a whole. The concept that if you don't like X then you should just go make your own X is often made in ignorance of this point. "If you don't like the Ford Fiesta you just bought, go make your own automobile" is a ludicrous statement. "If you don't like BP or Shell petrol then go make your own petrol" is equally ridiculous. Not everyone can make their own video games for a whole heap of reasons, it doesn't mean they aren't allowed to criticise them or expect certain things from them.

Also that Louis CK video that was posted is a well funny comedy routine, but he's exagerating a lot for comedic effect. He's a comedian that's what they do.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the problem with the modern video game industry is that many publishers, journalists, and developers are actively consumer-hostile. They make decisions that are directly contrary to their customers interests in the quest for short term profit growth.

The thing that really confuses and frustrates me is this feeling of HOW DARE THEY DO THIS TO US. Everyone feels that they deserve lower prices and better games just because they're used to it. But they don't. We don't deserve anything we haven't earned. And unless you're a game developer, you haven't done jack to earn a better game. They don't owe you anything. We're all incredibly lucky to live in a world and a society where spending significant amounts of time playing games on a computer is even an option. Did you have to worry about where you next meal was going to come from today? No? Then what the hell are you complaining about? Our lives and our technology are amazing things and we'll all be a lot happier if we spend more time appreciating them and less time complaining about how much better we wish they were.

Your argument that "well you couldve been shot once before so you aren't allowed to complain about entertainment or anything else" is extremely reductive and results in no one discussing anything of any worth because they instead spend every waking moment just thanking the heavens for not murdering them yet. Obviously the fact that we are in a situation to complain about video games is pretty cool, and I don't think anyone is saying "ME3 being shit is the emotional equivalent to me losing my limbs at age 10" but you can talk about one thing without explicitly adressing another unrelated subject. You can buy a sandwhich and say "this sandwhich is a little dry" even though there are starving kids in Africa, because those two things are so completely unconnected that you're not saying anything about the second by commenting on the first.

Hey remember when that multinational video game company worth billions of dollars lied about it's games and no one found out untill they'd bought them all because games journalists are generally hacks? Remember when they first introduced the limited-activation DRM stuff and you only found out about it if you bought the game (or waited a week or so after launch?). Remember the rootkit install that came bundled with some games? Remember that one game that was made with art assets lifted straight out of other successfull games? Remember the steady erosion of consumer rights with regards to this one specific form of digital entertainment perpetrated by the publishers of said form of entertainment? Remember every game you ever bought that said co-op on the back but actually required you to own two consoles, two copies of the game and two gaming service subscriptions?

Well I guess none of that really matters because the average life span of a caveman was like 25 years. Or something.

[Levi]

Here is an interesting article about the ethics of F2P games.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-10-12-designers-question-the-ethics-of-f2p-design-at-gdc-online

Its always interesting to see what the other side thinks of us consumers.

[Sappho]

Yup, this seems to have fully devolved into a flame war. From this point on I predict that no one is going to change anyone else's opinions because everyone has turned up their black-and-white-thinking mode, sometimes known as "either you agree with me or you're an idiot" mode. I've lived through winter in a storage facility with no light or heating and gone stretches of time without knowing where my next meal was coming from, and I don't even feel I can complain about that because many of my friends have spent years of their lives homeless, so I guess a discussion about why the luxury entertainment industry is unfair is just not something I can take seriously. I was trying to be lighthearted in my post but apparently that was lost and everyone here is eager to take offense, so enjoy your argument, guys.

[Man of Paper]

It's a shame that this thread devolved so fast. However, I'll try to get back on the civil path.

It is our right, as consumers, to voice our opinion on the products we spend our money on. Average U.S. income for 2011 was $42,979.61, which comes to $826.53 a week, or $20.66 an hour. Also keep in mind that $20.66 is nowhere near where most people get paid an hour nowadays, at least to my admittedly limited knowledge (I believe it falls closer to $12 or $15 an hour. Also, my math may be off on the totals). This means that, for mainstream games, which make up most of the market and therefore is a good indicator of the direction the market is headed, you're paying somewhere between three and five hours of your income per purchase. That doesn't include the console itself. Then you tack on this DLC (Content, it seems, is a word used very loosely), and you're throwing a large bit of money into someone else's pockets who are providing you with, in many cases nowadays, a flawed, unfinished product that will require many refinements. You don't buy a new car and expect pay for the muffler, windshield, and back seats separately, and have to wait for the dealer to fix the catalytic converter.

Using Indie developers as a base for an argument concerning the gaming industry as a whole is ridiculous. Using the minority as a reference point will not provide an accurate representation. That said, gamers of our level are the minority nowadays. Still, we are consumers and our opinions should be taken into account by the companies.

If fans got Firefly a movie, then we should be able to spark some change.

[hemmingjay]

...any company that makes a game that needs a paywall can go fuck themselves.

I am curious. Why?