219 réponses à ce sujet

[Brockololly]

Master Shiori wrote...

Online feature /= multiplayer

Every Bioware games from DA:O onward had some kind of online feature, ranging from simply uploading your achievements to BSN, to buying DLC directly from the game itself (ME2).

Saying they wouldn't have done Skyrim is beyond ridiculous. Skyrim already has online features in fom of achievements that are uploaded to Steam, same as any other game brought through that service. Had EA published it, it would have the same feature, only through Origin. Also, didn't Bethesda say something about adding multiplayer to Skyrim at some point?

All I can recall are interviews with Todd Howard where they've mentioned why don't they do multiplayer in Skyrim and he said it would compromise the single player game which is the game they wanted to make. I can't recall any interview with Bethesda saying they want to or intend to add multiplayer to Skyrim at any point.

I understand what you're saying, but look at EA's recent track record. The sort of limited online functionality you see with Origins or DA2 seems like the exception and not the rule. As far as I know, there aren't any EA games upcoming that won't have some sort of online gameplay mode, whether it be coop or competitive. All the EA sports games have MP; Dead Space 2 will have coop; Army of Two will have coop; Crysis 3 will have competitive MP; Medal of Honor will have competitive MP, SimCity will be always online with some sort of coop/online connectivity whether you want it or not; the Command and Conquer free to play game probably won't have any single player out of the gate despite C&C being a traditionally singleplayer franchise.

Now, its only my speculation, but I highly doubt EA would have greenlit something like Skyrim. They don't do mods for their games and have disowned Steam (no Steam Workshop or mod support which has greatly extended the life of Skyrim on PC) and judging by how they're treating things like Dead Space or SimCity, I could easily see EA tyring to toss in social connectivity or coop into their version of Skyrim. Whether that would be a good idea or not, nobody knows, but based on what Todd Howard has said in the past, its not something they would want to do with Skyrim.

[inappropriate quote removed]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 29 septembre 2012 - 06:59 .

[Master Shiori]

Brockololly wrote...


 All the EA sports games have MP

Sports games are made with the intention of having you play with your friends. Granted I've only ever really played FIFA and NBA games, but those had multiplayer as far back as I can remember.

Brockololly wrote...


 Dead Space 2 will have coop;Army of Two will have coop; Crysis 3 will have competitive MP; Medal of Honor will have competitive MP

All those are shooters or shooter like games. These games also have a tradition of offering multiplayer going as far back as the 90's. Nothing new here at all.

In fact, I'd be shocked if a shooter were to come out that didn't have multiplayer.

Brockololly wrote...


 SimCity will be always online with some sort of coop/online connectivity whether you want it or not

Never player SimCity, so I can't comment on this, since I'm not sure how well coop/online features would fit here.

Brockololly wrote...

the Command and Conquer free to play game probably won't have any single player out of the gate despite C&C being a traditionally singleplayer franchise.

Wrong again.

C&C games all had coop/multiplayer features going as far back as the original Red Alert, if not the original C&C. It's a regular feature for those games to offer both a single player campaign and multiplayer.

Brockololly wrote...


Now, its only my speculation, but I highly doubt EA would have greenlit something like Skyrim.

Yes, it's your speculation, except I've yet to see it based on any kind of hard fact. 

Brockololly wrote...


They don't do mods for their games and have disowned Steam (no Steam Workshop or mod support which has greatly extended the life of Skyrim on PC).

EA's decision to remove their games from Steam has nothing to do with single player content. It's purely a dispute between Steam and EA over how the DLC for EA's games on Steam should be sold. 

Brockololly wrote...

and judging by how they're treating things like Dead Space or SimCity, I could easily see EA tyring to toss in social connectivity or coop into their version of Skyrim. Whether that would be a good idea or not, nobody knows, but based on what Todd Howard has said in the past, its not something they would want to do with Skyrim.

Social connectivity in Skyrim already exists in form of sharing screenshots and achievements on Steam. Not to mention Steam workshop which acts as a social platform for sharing mods in the community.

As for forcing multiplayer or coop on Skyrim; sure, it could happen, but just because there's a possibility of that coming to pass doesn't mean it will. There have been plenty of rpgs from EA in the last few years that didn't have any kind of coop or multiplayer. 

But then, it really depends on what kind of coop/multiplayer you have. BG and NWN both had coop/multiplayer and it was generally well accepted.

Modifié par Master Shiori, 28 septembre 2012 - 02:37 .

[Brockololly]

Master Shiori wrote...
All those are shooters or shooter like games. These games also have a tradition of offering multiplayer going as far back as the 90's. Nothing new here at all.

That is true for many shooters but not Dead Space. In fact, Dead Space 2 has the very definition of a tacked on competitive multiplayer mode that was dead weeks after release while the original Dead Space didn't have any multiplayer to speak of. The coop mode for Dead Space 3 looks interesting but it remains to be seen how well it works.

Master Shiori wrote...
Wrong again.

C&C games all had coop/multiplayer features going as far back as the original Red Alert, if not the original C&C. It's a regular feature for those games to offer both a single player campaign and multiplayer.

No, you're right- the C&C games have always had MP- I never said they didn't. But the new C&C game was initially revealed as being Generals 2 and was supposed to have a rich single player BioWare storytelling experience. Until it disappeared and was re-unveiled as a free to play game with very little in the way of details as to whether they're even doing single player at all for it.

Master Shiori wrote...
Yes, it's your speculation, except I've yet to see it based on any kind of hard fact.

Speculation cuts both ways.  I just showed you the lineup of upcoming EA games, all of which have some kind of online mode, even in some franchises which have at one point been offline or single player predominant.

Master Shiori wrote...
EA's decision to remove their games from Steam has nothing to do with single player content. It's purely a dispute between Steam and EA over how the DLC for EA's games on Steam should be sold.

You're missing my point. What I'm saying is that I'd say the major part of Skyrim's online connectivity is from its modding capabilities on PC. Modding capabilities supplemented through Steam Workshop. And since EA is not having anything to do with Steam right now, they would never use Steam Workshop for their games. And Origin does not support anything similar to Steam Workshop for community generated content.  Nevermind the fact that EA seems to be distancing itself from supporting modding overall, with DICE not supporting mods for Battlefield 3 when mods were a huge part of Battlefield 2's success or BioWare stepping away from actively supporting modding with DA2.

Master Shiori wrote...
Social connectivity in Skyrim already exists in form of sharing screenshots and achievements on Steam. Not to mention Steam workshop which acts as a social platform for sharing mods in the community.

Right and at least for me, thats a good way of doing an online connectivity mode for a game like Skyrim. Except it does not seem like something EA is interested in supporting judging by their recent track record.

Master Shiori wrote...
There have been plenty of rpgs from EA in the last few years that didn't have any kind of coop or multiplayer.

What ones? I'm genuninely curious here.
Origins- yes.
DA2- yes.
ME1- yes.
ME2- yes.
ME3- no.
Kingdoms of Amalur- yes, but that was only published by EA.
TOR- MMO

What other RPGs has EA published in the last few years? ME will likely have MP going forward after ME3. That leaves DA as the odd man out lacking some sort of MP mode.

Master Shiori wrote...
But then, it really depends on what kind of coop/multiplayer you have. BG and NWN both had coop/multiplayer and it was generally well accepted.

Absolutely. Although with NWN, the MP was the foundation of that franchise. I think you'd find far fewer people that loved NWN's original campaign. BG's coop was fairly innocuous and done in an era when it was probably far easier to implement than a MPmode would be today.


I'm not saying any coop or MP would be destined to suck. But I do question the need for every game to have some online MP or coop mode, especially when you can look at something like Skyrim on PC as an example of an alternative method of maintaining some sort of online connectivity that fits in an innocuous way.

Modifié par Brockololly, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:49 .

[Addai]

Master Shiori wrote...
Online feature /= multiplayer

Every Bioware games from DA:O onward had some kind of online feature, ranging from simply uploading your achievements to BSN, to buying DLC directly from the game itself (ME2).

Saying they wouldn't have done Skyrim is beyond ridiculous. Skyrim already has online features in fom of achievements that are uploaded to Steam, same as any other game brought through that service. Had EA published it, it would have the same feature, only through Origin. Also, didn't Bethesda say something about adding multiplayer to Skyrim at some point?

No, they certainly did not.  edit- Although you could see Zenimax as capitulating to the lure of multiplayer by pouring millions into the TES Online boondoggle.

Again, how can anyone conclude from reading Gibeau's words that what he is talking about is uploading achievements?  How would that make him proud that he hasn't greenlighted any single-player-only game?

Modifié par Addai67, 28 septembre 2012 - 04:05 .

[Addai]

Master Shiori wrote...
Social connectivity in Skyrim already exists in form of sharing screenshots and achievements on Steam. Not to mention Steam workshop which acts as a social platform for sharing mods in the community.

Are you really suggesting that what EA means by these statements is that they want their fandoms to be fandoms?

[garf]

Addai67 wrote...

Druss99 wrote...

I'm very proud of the way I've evolved to not green light the purchase of anymore EA games.

+1

[TwylaFox]

Master Shiori wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
 SimCity will be always online with some sort of coop/online connectivity whether you want it or not

Never player SimCity, so I can't comment on this, since I'm not sure how well coop/online features would fit here.

Sim City is a sandbox time-waster.  The biggest reason Will Wright had to found Maxis in order to publish it is because there ARE no goals.  All the corporate big-wigs swore that no one sould buy (or even play) such a game, but he sold over 100,000 copies before finding workspace other than his own living room.

It has always been offline.  It has always been strictly single-player.  They actually did try a networked multi-player version with Sim City 2000: Network Edition - which flopped so badly that it was never developed beyond the initial Windows release (and few people have even heard of it).  In order to try to make an online multi-player version of the game, they had to eliminate 95% of what made Sim City the undisputed King of City-Builders.  Cities XL tried the same thing and it bankrupted an otherwise successful developer.  Why EA suddenly thinks they can succeed using a model which destroyed a number of other companies is beyond me.

Master Shiori wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
and judging by how they're treating things like Dead Space or SimCity, I could easily see EA tyring to toss in social connectivity or coop into their version of Skyrim. Whether that would be a good idea or not, nobody knows, but based on what Todd Howard has said in the past, its not something they would want to do with Skyrim.

Social connectivity in Skyrim already exists in form of sharing screenshots and achievements on Steam. Not to mention Steam workshop which acts as a social platform for sharing mods in the community.

Since we're getting into splitting hairs...

Achievements are a mixed blessing.  On one hand, they shout about other content or potential goals that you may have bypassed.  On the other hand, they're often little more than phallus-waving contests.  It's actually a good system but, like multi-player and "social gaming", executives get a buzzword stuck in their ears and they run with it - having absolutely no understanding of how it works and, by extension, where it belongs.  A bad achievement system (particularly when forced into a game where it doesn't belong) can kill a game as readily as bad mechanics or a crappy concept.

"Leaderboards" are much the same way.  Much like the old "high score" system of arcade games, they present even the most casual player a glimpse of what they could potentially accomplish if they played the game often enough.  But it remains a take-it-or-leave-it "feature" and nothing more - everything to some, nothing to others, and everything inbetween.

"Social gaming" is a contradiction in terms - there is actual social gaming and then there's the disposable knock-off microtransaction model of FaceBook games (which are more accurately called "cow clickers").  Their deplorable Skinner Box conditioning towards microtransactions far outways any merits such games might otherwise have.  There's nothing social about clicking on the same button others are clicking on - they might as well all just be reading the same Wikipedia entry.  MMOs are social gaming.  Online coop multi-player is social gaming.  Cards and Scrabble are social games.  Cow-clickers are NOT social games.

The worst culprits of all are games which try to blend diametric concepts by having a game spam everyone in your friends list whenever you gain a level, overcome a major obstacle, or sometimes so much as gather a 'resource' of some type.  If a game is worth playing, we'll eagerly tell our friends about it on our own - a game which does this on its own just tells me that the game simply isn't worth playing on its own merit.

Having the OPTION for multi-player, leaderboards, and so forth are usually a positive thing, but not always.  Imagine if they tried to remake the classic Super Mario Brothers as an MMO or turn Donkey Kong into a coop FPS. 

Just think back to all the arcade classics - some such as Gauntlet and TMNT were coop multi-player, and some such as Super Street Fighter were both single-player and PvP, but most were inherently single-player.  Even "two-player" games like PacMan, Galaga, and Strider were single-player games where you just took turns with each other.  Most pinball games allowed up to four players, but still only one at a time.

Gaming consoles and PC gaming are simply an evolution of the arcade industry.  Granted, modern consoles and home computers have capabilities light-years beyond what arcade developers ever dreamed of, but the fundamentals haven't changed since Galaxy Game/SpaceWar and Pong.

For those with an interest in the recurring market cycles in video games, just take a peek at the WikiPedia entry.  The current glut of crappy games has happened several times before and will happen again.

Modifié par TwylaFox, 28 septembre 2012 - 10:12 .

[ejoslin]

The latest *stupid* multiplayer addition to a game that I have played is in the Sims 3. This was a game that had zero need for multiplayer; it was extremely poorly implemented; and to top it off, the servers, while people were actually interested in trying this feature, were constantly going down. They added achievements, which often didn't register properly.

Upshot, modders ended up unlocking the exclusive content you got for "simporting" and everyone lost interest. The feedback seemed to be that people wished that that expansion had had more single player content added rather than the multiplayer content.

Not every game needs multiplayer, or even on-line parts. I'm not sure why EA thinks it will be a cash cow for every single game. It won't be.

Modifié par ejoslin, 28 septembre 2012 - 10:45 .

[Master Shiori]

Brockololly wrote...

You're missing my point. What I'm saying is that I'd say the major part of Skyrim's online connectivity is from its modding capabilities on PC. Modding capabilities supplemented through Steam Workshop. And since EA is not having anything to do with Steam right now, they would never use Steam Workshop for their games. And Origin does not support anything similar to Steam Workshop for community generated content.  Nevermind the fact that EA seems to be distancing itself from supporting modding overall, with DICE not supporting mods for Battlefield 3 when mods were a huge part of Battlefield 2's success or BioWare stepping away from actively supporting modding with DA2.

Skyrim's modding capabilities come purely from Bethesda making the creation kit available to general public. Nothing more. Even if Steam Workshop didn't exist people would still get mods from other sources like Nexus sites. 

Brockololly wrote...


What ones? I'm genuninely curious here.
Origins- yes.
DA2- yes.
ME1- yes.
ME2- yes.
ME3- no.
Kingdoms of Amalur- yes, but that was only published by EA.
TOR- MMO

What other RPGs has EA published in the last few years? ME will likely have MP going forward after ME3. That leaves DA as the odd man out lacking some sort of MP mode.

You got that list backwards  Brock.

We're talking about coop/multipalyer, not online features in general. Of all the games you listed (not counting TOR since, as an MMO, multiplayer content is what the game is all about), only ME3 had multiplayer. The rest had the ability to upload your achievements and allowed you to buy DLC straight from the game (DA2, ME2 and Kingdoms of Amalur), not the ability to let you play with other people.

Brockololly wrote...


Absolutely. Although with NWN, the MP was the foundation of that franchise. I think you'd find far fewer people that loved NWN's original campaign. BG's coop was fairly innocuous and done in an era when it was probably far easier to implement than a MPmode would be today.


I'm not saying any coop or MP would be destined to suck. But I do question the need for every game to have some online MP or coop mode, especially when you can look at something like Skyrim on PC as an example of an alternative method of maintaining some sort of online connectivity that fits in an innocuous way.

Most games can have some kind of multiplayer content, rpgs not being an exception here. Hipotheticaly, if DA3 were to have multiplayer/coop, I honestly doubt it would be something like Bioware letting you play the single player content with up to 3 friends, since that would require a complete redesign of how dialogue and choices work, not to mention makling it hard for companions to play larger roles in certain quests.


But adding something like, say, a few extra modules where you can explore smaller maps with several areas and play together with your friends wouldn't be a bad approach. Something akin to how smaller story modules worked in NWN. Heck, it would probably be the closest thing you can get to a tabletop rpg in a crpg.

[Chromie]

Master Shiori wrote...
We're talking about coop/multipalyer, not online features in general. Of all the games you listed (not counting TOR since, as an MMO, multiplayer content is what the game is all about),

Ha for a second I thought you were serious.

Master Shiori wrote...

Most games can have some kind of multiplayer content, rpgs not being an exception here. Hipotheticaly, if DA3 were to have multiplayer/coop, I honestly doubt it would be something like Bioware letting you play the single player content with up to 3 friends, since that would require a complete redesign of how dialogue and choices work, not to mention makling it hard for companions to play larger roles in certain quests.

They have said if they did co-op for DA3 they would want to make it like in BG. If you played online in Baldur's Gate you made your own companions. Some people prefer this and some don't but I don't see that as a problem.

Modifié par Skelter192, 29 septembre 2012 - 01:02 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I really don't think that we've ever seen a time like this in the history of gaming - where big developers are viewed as being with little confidence by consumers to not be viewed as anything other than cash sacks, while smaller developers as furnished by Kickstarer are being thrown insane amounts of money on little more than game concepts.

Not to say AAA developers aren't staffed by people passionate about games or that small developers on Kickstarer aren't trying to make money. But I do not think the industry has seen anything even remotely like what we are experiencing today, of such a deep divide of large developers pursuing practices so widely disliked, while small developers are so strong supported (in Botha. Figurative and literal sense) by fans.

I'm not sure how it will all pan out, or which side will emerge out the other end better, but it is very interesting to see. To get a little more on topic, an all-online experience may be the future of gaming, with everything linked into social networking and multi-player involvement, where I will be playing a version of the game on my phone when I'm away from my home, then back to the main game when I get back home.

It sounds ludicrous and a shameless ploy for money... and might result in more egg on the face of the industry than there already currently is... but who knows? Maybe the things we fear and ridicule may wind up being an experience that is vastly different and much more enjoyable than we anticipate.

[Gatt9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I really don't think that we've ever seen a time like this in the history of gaming - where big developers are viewed as being with little confidence by consumers to not be viewed as anything other than cash sacks, while smaller developers as furnished by Kickstarer are being thrown insane amounts of money on little more than game concepts.

Not to say AAA developers aren't staffed by people passionate about games or that small developers on Kickstarer aren't trying to make money. But I do not think the industry has seen anything even remotely like what we are experiencing today, of such a deep divide of large developers pursuing practices so widely disliked, while small developers are so strong supported (in Botha. Figurative and literal sense) by fans.

I'm not sure how it will all pan out, or which side will emerge out the other end better, but it is very interesting to see. To get a little more on topic, an all-online experience may be the future of gaming, with everything linked into social networking and multi-player involvement, where I will be playing a version of the game on my phone when I'm away from my home, then back to the main game when I get back home.

It sounds ludicrous and a shameless ploy for money... and might result in more egg on the face of the industry than there already currently is... but who knows? Maybe the things we fear and ridicule may wind up being an experience that is vastly different and much more enjoyable than we anticipate.

First,  I'd like to compliment you (And Greengorgon) on good posts!

We actually can see how this pans out.  Using your post and Greengorgons as the basis for my following arguement...

Consumers of a product crave some degree of variety.  A great example is the Reality Show craze.  Oversaturation of one type of entertainment product results in *extremely* rapid drops in consumers.  One season everyone's watching every reality show out there,  the next season most of them can't get anyone to watch.  It's because people don't want the same entertainment experience day after day.

Further,  overabundant sequels will drive consumers away.  Take the Friday the 13th series,  or the Nightmare on Elmstreet series,  they have a peak,  and then a drop off,  ending up at a point where no one is interested.

Those two events are where we're at.  We have very little variety,  and overabundant sequels.  We've hit the point where just being a Shooter isn't enough,  being a good shooter isn't even enough,  you have to be a really great shooter to sell.  Because people are getting tired of it.

Gamers are fatigued,  and Publishers can't sell their poorly designed titles anymore.  So Publishers are trying to hide their dropping revenues from Shareholders by implementing initiatives like Day 1 DLC and Online Passes,  because every time they sell one of those for $10,  they can pretend like they're not losing customers at rapid rates,  because that $10 is roughly what they would've made if the guy who didn't buy their game had purchased a copy.

So right now,  we're in this murky area where Publishers are alienating their customers through poorly designed titles,  little variety,  and endless sequels.  But,  since there's an enourmous installed base,  they can kind of hide it by milking the decreasing number of customers for more money.

In the next 12 - 18 months,  we'll see the next Gaming Crash,  and it'll happen incredibly fast.

What's going to happen is this...

First,  Games sell consoles.  A console without great games isn't something that can sell.

MS and Sony will release new consoles in the next 12-18 months.  The launch titles will largely be made up of the same sequels and limited variety as the current releases.  The fatigued gamers will take a wait-and-see approach,  as they're not willing to buy these games now,  they're definitely not paying $500 to buy the same games.

The core gamers are split,  with some significant number of them alienated by revenue initiatives that will be present in the next generation as well.  So the consoles will sell slowly,  only to the most dedicated console Gamers.

Publishers will have spent tens or hundreds of millions on these next generation titles,  and be unable to recover their expenses,  as the player base will be slow to grow.  They'll have next generation titles in development,  not existing generation titles,  and so be heavily invested in the platform's success.

Publishers will have no time to switch direction,  they'll try to retool the titles in their pipelines to PC games,  but quality and lack of creativity will keep them from selling,  especially in the face of innovative Kickstarted titles.

In ~2 years,  EA,  THQ, Bethesda(Zenimax) and Ubisoft will be bankrupt.  Capcom will be Japan focused and much smaller.  Activision will be much smaller.  Microsoft will refocus it's efforts on adapting the PC into a "Whole house" solution capable of accomidating Console-like experiences on the TV as well as desktop experiences,  with Windows 9.  Sony will abandon the hardware market and focus on delivering software.  Today's Kickstarters will be tomorrow's great developers.

There's really very little that can avoid this outcome now.  Because of development time restrictions,  the the Publishers ignoring what Gamers are trying to tell them about their business practices,  we're headed Titanic style into this outcome.

Modifié par Gatt9, 29 septembre 2012 - 01:59 .

[Zjarcal]

[inappropriate quote removed]

On topic, eh, for those who take such offense to Gibeau's statement, isn't the solution simply to not buy EA games and be done with it?

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 29 septembre 2012 - 06:57 .

[Dominus]

LOL, since when is the "off topic" corner of BSN actually friendly?

Friendlier, but not always entirely civil. It beats most of the topics flying around. ME/DA.

On topic, greengoron's above summary follows somewhat to my opinion. The only thing that's going to change EA's social gaming/online-based direction are the dollar bills coming in(or lack thereof). I'm not going to go into TL:DR mode for my preferences with social gaming, but I'll leave a few pieces.

If it requires constant(or daily) online connection for gameplay(outside of MMOs or the like), I probably won't be buying it.

Multiplayer can work sometimes but I can clearly see when its being shoved where it doesn't belong. Dead Space 2 is a good example. The Darkness' multiplayer was also in the same vein.

The lack of modding is dissapointing. That's going to drop quite a few fans.

What else is there to say? I don't see them changing direction with it. Not without a severe backlash from the fanbase. You may want to look elsewhere if a game company's business handling isn't tolerable to you.

And that's all I have to say about that. The End.

[Ninja Stan]

Inappropriate comment, continued off-topic quoting off inappropriate comment, commentary on inappropriate comment, and whinging about lack of Moderators instead of sending them a message to report potential trouble removed.

Keep it civil and on-topic, please.

[Naughty Bear]

DominusVita wrote...

LOL, since when is the "off topic" corner of BSN actually friendly?

Friendlier, but not always entirely civil. It beats most of the topics flying around. ME/DA.

On topic, greengoron's above summary follows somewhat to my opinion. The only thing that's going to change EA's social gaming/online-based direction are the dollar bills coming in(or lack thereof). I'm not going to go into TL:DR mode for my preferences with social gaming, but I'll leave a few pieces.

If it requires constant(or daily) online connection for gameplay(outside of MMOs or the like), I probably won't be buying it.

Multiplayer can work sometimes but I can clearly see when its being shoved where it doesn't belong. Dead Space 2 is a good example. The Darkness' multiplayer was also in the same vein.

The lack of modding is dissapointing. That's going to drop quite a few fans.

What else is there to say? I don't see them changing direction with it. Not without a severe backlash from the fanbase. You may want to look elsewhere if a game company's business handling isn't tolerable to you.

And that's all I have to say about that. The End.

I agree.

On a different subject but same topic, has anyone seen Resident Evil 6? There itself is an example of what is wrong with gaming.

[Naughty Bear]

Sion1138 wrote...

Naughty Bear wrote...

I agree.

On a different subject but same topic, has anyone seen Resident Evil 6? There itself is an example of what is wrong with gaming.

I don't know. This trend has been going on for years now, so maybe it works for them. Which leads me to conclude that there might be something wrong with the audience as well.

There is. The mainstream audience, who will buy Call of Duty non-stop despite it being the exact same game as it was when it started with Modern Warfare, explosions, shooting galore, cover system etc etc.

The producer of Resident Evil even said they will be looking towards the mainstream audience and surprise surprise, Resident Evil 6 now has cover shooting, even more shooting than Res 4 and 5 put together, a skin head character, hand to hand combat (really) and now Russian zombies with guns and i am not joking.