79 réponses à ce sujet

[Dermain]

If this happens I'm gonna laugh if consumers start whining about it since it's partially their fault this is happening in the first place. Consumers demand increasingly technical games which need to be met with new hardware advancement. And game development costs rise.

 

Exactly.

 

Then the complain, and come up with ways to "punish" the "evil" corporate executives for doing exactly what corporate executives in capitalistic countries do. Sure, it's possible (if unlikely) that the executives will realize that they should "fix up" the games before sending them to release (which is a bad business strategy), or they could do what they did before and raise the overall price. 
 

The problem with taking games in the "golden" or "silver" age of video games and holding them to a certain standard of not being "broken" is that it lacks the overall perspective of the social era that they were developed in. We're starting to see such a "return" to that with indy games, but it's not really the answer.

 

I'll bring up Star Citizen as an example for it. It's an "indy" game being funded on kick-starter with more and more money constantly pouring in. As a response to this additional income the developers keep "adding" features, but I doubt they're actually going in and fully debugging these features. It's entirely possible that this "indy darling" is going to release as a buggy incomplete mess. 

 

 

If? Honestly, I already see it happen all the time when day 1 (or any) dlc is brought up. "I'm already paying $60 for this game, it should be complete!" or "It's less value for your money!". But the possibility that dlc is being used as an alternative to simply increasing the price of games across the board isn't considered valid. 

 

Really, dlc offers an opportunity for modular game design, if done correctly, where gamers can pay for content they find enjoyable/interesting and ignore content they dislike. 

 

Exactly.

 

Edit:

 

I'm just going to take this portion of your post:

 

When you combine all of the above with digital distribution and modern ease and convenience in making an impulse purchase, it leads to a situation where Hype is a huge, dominant monster that completely overshadows every other aspect of  and around the game. First hand user experience, reviews, if the game is actually good or finishes..Publisher can stop worrying about this stuff. They can focus on worrying about quality and quantity of hype instead.

 

So, you're telling me that video games are a business just like every other business? That they try to hype their product up to increase sales of said product? That companies try to exploit the impulse purchase?

 

Why should this really be a surprise?

 

 

 

[Il Divo]

 

Exactly.

 

Edit:

 

I'm just going to take this portion of your post:

 

 

So, you're telling me that video games are a business just like every other business? That they try to hype their product up to increase sales of said product? That companies try to exploit the impulse purchase?

 

Why should this really be a surprise?

 

 

This is where a lot of my issues crop up as well: gaming is often treated differently from most other commercial consumer products by those complaining. Or at least, it creates a fan base passionate enough to complain about the system. 

 

The whole notion of exclusive bonuses, sales, extra features, etc, is something that is capitalistic by design. Issues such as a game being broken on release are valid (in my eyes), but issues related to consumers complaining from a moral perspective because the company doesn't offer them exactly what they want baffle me. The company's role is to decide terms of sale. The consumer's role is to decide whether those terms merit the investment of their money. 

[Dermain]

This is where a lot of my issues crop up as well: gaming is often treated differently from most other commercial consumer products by those complaining. Or at least, it creates a fan base passionate enough to complain about the system. 

 

The whole notion of exclusive bonuses, sales, extra features, etc, is something that is capitalistic by design. Issues such as a game being broken on release are valid (in my eyes), but issues related to consumers complaining from a moral perspective because the company doesn't offer them exactly what they want baffle me. The company's role is to decide terms of sale. The consumer's role is to decide whether those terms merit the investment of their money. 

 

The fan base does have a valid complaint, the state some video games are released in is deplorable. AC:Unity stands out the most currently because it is recent, but it's issues are technical in nature. On it's own, I don't think it would be a bad game (as I have not played it), but how does it compare to Aliens: Colonial Marines (A:CM)?

 

A:CM should be the game that everyone is decrying. That was a game that deserved the hatred it received. They showed entirely fake footage (as well as a number of other false things) that was entirely NOT what the game actually was.

 

In comparison, Unity really isn't that bad. The state in which it was released in is questionable, but for the most part it is entirely playable and has features that they showed off. So what if the faces disappear? You can still play the game, unless the graphics not being "pretty" are a deal breaker for you. 

 

If anything this insistence on "good graphics" and full voice overs are the cause of the ills of the video game industry. Those two together drastically increase the budget of the game (although I believe voice actors are the real issue).