So... what is the real deal with the next-gen games needing "cloud storage" and requiring a "hard drive save" and lacking 40 - 60% of the game which is conveniently available in DLCs??
I just want to have fun and get into some trouble in another world. I don't want to become some corporation's punk. Is that officially too much to ask? Is this a pipe dream? Must I accept my fate?!?
I don't want to become some corporation's punk. Is that officially too much to ask? Is this a pipe dream? Must I accept my fate?!?
Well, it's like this. The economist strategists have concluded that it's essential that the developers and publishers get paid for their games. And they're right. So they're trying to device means that guarantee their revenues. A large group of 'hard core' gamers want essentially 'all' games though, whether they have time to play them or not. And that is fundamentally impossible to finance. So they have deviced an array of tricks to avoid paying. Straight pirating, lend/borrow and secondhand. These are the targets for the strategists to circumvent.
Both sides will eventually become disappointed. You can't afford having 'all' games. And the games will not sell in the quantities that the strategists presumes, because that market never was so big, if they had to pay. It is not there. It is there for some individual games, but not for everybody who want to make a game like that. I've said this for years, speaking to deaf ears. There are no more buyers of the kind of games (console- Space Invader -paradigm) everybody only want to make. There are no other 14 millions gamers who also want to play a WoW kind of MMO, than those who already are doing it.
The only way to reach greater sales, is to diversify the entertainment software sector. Doing that and enlarging the market for entertainment software is going to be a difficult, long and drawn out process, however. Because the rest of the world, the non-gamers, have no interest in video-games whatsoever, and are not likely to try it anytime soon. They have seen the Space Invader -paradigm. They have seen that it's the only thing available. Is in fact video-gaming. And they know they couldn't be bothered to waste time and money on that.
The biggest mistake MS ever did, was to not let PC-gaming compete with the XBox. And that will be their eventual undoing. Is already. Who will need their Windows tomorrow? For sure nobody will need their XBox.
The only way is to embrace our lord and savior Gaben. He will show you the way.
No he won't.
All he has given me is A DRM system that actually prevents me from playing games I legally purchased.
Sucks to be you.
Yeah, game publishers are making it easier and easier to not bother with any of there games. And it wasn't that long ago that I was still a glass half full kinda person but apathy has finally starting to set in (for me) of late.
Well, it's like this. The economist strategists have concluded that it's essential that the developers and publishers get paid for their games. And they're right. So they're trying to device means that guarantee their revenues. A large group of 'hard core' gamers want essentially 'all' games though, whether they have time to play them or not. And that is fundamentally impossible to finance. So they have deviced an array of tricks to avoid paying. Straight pirating, lend/borrow and secondhand. These are the targets for the strategists to circumvent.
Both sides will eventually become disappointed. You can't afford having 'all' games. And the games will not sell in the quantities that the strategists presumes, because that market never was so big, if they had to pay. It is not there. It is there for some individual games, but not for everybody who want to make a game like that. I've said this for years, speaking to deaf ears. There are no more buyers of the kind of games (console- Space Invader -paradigm) everybody only want to make. There are no other 14 millions gamers who also want to play a WoW kind of MMO, than those who already are doing it.
The only way to reach greater sales, is to diversify the entertainment software sector. Doing that and enlarging the market for entertainment software is going to be a difficult, long and drawn out process, however. Because the rest of the world, the non-gamers, have no interest in video-games whatsoever, and are not likely to try it anytime soon. They have seen the Space Invader -paradigm. They have seen that it's the only thing available. Is in fact video-gaming. And they know they couldn't be bothered to waste time and money on that.
The biggest mistake MS ever did, was to not let PC-gaming compete with the XBox. And that will be their eventual undoing. Is already. Who will need their Windows tomorrow? For sure nobody will need their XBox.
A real problem is that there's absolutely no variation in price point for content. Just consider the difference in content between, say, FO:NV, DA2, DA:O and Tomb Raider. There's differences in content, in the type of content, in graphics, etc. But the price point is the same for all of these games - and that's a problem. We're just barely starting to see a difference in pricing for kickstarter/indie productions (on PC).
We also have a problem with the obsession in uptick in development costs. PE and other games of that type are a good development in that regard.
Yeah, game publishers are making it easier and easier to not bother with any of there games. And it wasn't that long ago that I was still a glass half full kinda person but apathy has finally starting to set in (for me) of late.
Precisely
Guest_Act of Velour_*
I don't mind higher prices for better games, but what I can't stand is how larger companies, most notably EA, are intentionally tearing out content and features from their recent AAA-priced games in order to sell them later as full-priced DLC. There was a time when DLC was new content that built onto a game, and now it's become content that was stripped out to begin with in order to make a little bit more cash. That's the sort of shady business practice that I don't believe should be tolerated. Ever.
I don't mind higher prices for better games, but what I can't stand is how larger companies, most notably EA, are intentionally tearing out content and features from their recent AAA-priced games in order to sell them later as full-priced DLC. There was a time when DLC was new content that built onto a game, and now it's become content that was stripped out to begin with in order to make a little bit more cash. That's the sort of shady business practice that I don't believe should be tolerated. Ever.
How can you prove what was unfinished content that needed more time to be worked on, finished content that was never going to be in the game until the dlc, and game content that was completed in game and then gated since removing it would essentially break the games code?
It's easy to say "this content was cut for profit" and "this content was cut to be worked on" but without empirical ways to prove this, its all just speculation.
I know Capcom was notoriously bad with the practice of gating content in game to make you buy dlc, and ubisoft as well to some degree, but I am unfamiliar with EA actually doing this in any of the bioware games, which are the only ones I actually bother paying attention to. Who knows? Maybe madden fans, fifa fans, and battlefield fans getting screwed for story content this whole time and I just never knew about it.
So... what is the real deal with the next-gen games needing "cloud storage" and requiring a "hard drive save" and lacking 40 - 60% of the game which is conveniently available in DLCs??
I just want to have fun and get into some trouble in another world. I don't want to become some corporation's punk. Is that officially too much to ask? Is this a pipe dream? Must I accept my fate?!?
My favorite DLC practice is the season passes. When you buy a season pass for a TV show, you can reasonably expect you're going to get the same number of episodes as their were in the previous season. If you buy the season pass for a video game, they could give you 2 reskinned, unbalanced weapon packs and call it even. The problem with calling it a season pass is that when you buy the season pass for a TV show, all the content that you're going to get has already been made. When you buy the season pass for a video game, they can tell you what content they *want* to make for it, but they're still free to stop producing if the main game or the early DLC doesn't sell.
I don't mind higher prices for better games, but what I can't stand is how larger companies, most notably EA, are intentionally tearing out content and features from their recent AAA-priced games in order to sell them later as full-priced DLC. There was a time when DLC was new content that built onto a game, and now it's become content that was stripped out to begin with in order to make a little bit more cash. That's the sort of shady business practice that I don't believe should be tolerated. Ever.
How can you prove what was unfinished content that needed more time to be worked on, finished content that was never going to be in the game until the dlc, and game content that was completed in game and then gated since removing it would essentially break the games code?
It's easy to say "this content was cut for profit" and "this content was cut to be worked on" but without empirical ways to prove this, its all just speculation.
I know Capcom was notoriously bad with the practice of gating content in game to make you buy dlc, and ubisoft as well to some degree, but I am unfamiliar with EA actually doing this in any of the bioware games, which are the only ones I actually bother paying attention to. Who knows? Maybe madden fans, fifa fans, and battlefield fans getting screwed for story content this whole time and I just never knew about it.
full game content was made then they rip a parts of stories out of a game, an example A I present: Mass Effect II which EA is well known for rushing the game and skipping out important parts of the game. that's all I remember about what happened.
That didn't answer his question though. How can you prove that content was cut vs unfinished?
And I don't recall ever hearing about ME2 being rushed, although there were some files regarding Lair of the Shadowbroker and Kasumi on the disc.
these were originally part of ME2 but were cut out so ME2 could be released soon as possible. when ME2 first came out, here were mixed reviews and some sources here on this forums confirmed it was rushed out by EA.That didn't answer his question though. How can you prove that content was cut vs unfinished?
And I don't recall ever hearing about ME2 being rushed, although there were some files regarding Lair of the Shadowbroker and Kasumi on the disc.
On the subject of EA cutting out content to sell as DLC, I do remember there were queries about Dead Space 3 content being cut from the main game for the purposes of selling it as a DLC. Can't say whether it was true or not, though.
Then again, we're talking about a game that literally has microtransactions for a single player campaign.
-snip-
I don't recall ever hearing about ME2 being rushed
-snip-
these were originally part of ME2 but were cut out so ME2 could be released soon as possible. when ME2 first came out, here were mixed reviews and some sources here on this forums confirmed it was rushed out by EA.
gog.com > steam.
On the subject of EA cutting out content to sell as DLC, I do remember there were queries about Dead Space 3 content being cut from the main game for the purposes of selling it as a DLC. Can't say whether it was true or not, though.
Then again, we're talking about a game that literally has microtransactions for a single player campaign.
If only they had cut more content out for DLC, that game was at least 5 hours too long as it was.
Retour en haut
