Why do gamers fear change?

Digitally Downloaded writes: "I've been writing about games for many years, and if there is one thing that has been consistent across my time sitting here watching everything unfurl around me is this; gamers fear change."

[RememberThe357]

Because they're people and people and people can be ignorant and closed-minded. There I wrote your article for you. Haha jk, jk. (I'm sorry but "jk" has to be the stupidest ting ever)

But really, I think it has to do with the fact the being a gamer is pretty awesome right now. People don't want that to change because it could mean that quality falls. An, "it's all downhill from here," kind of mindset.

I don't think it's change that many fear, it's the degradation of the medium or exploitation of consumers. What we have now works, and it works really well. We don't want publishers trying to mine our pocketbooks. We don't want our favorite games completely changed then sold to us as the same. We don't like being lied to. And when we don't like something we're going to make sure people know about it.

Publishers and developed are not victims, if they can't figure us out then good riddance to them. We buy what we want and want what we like, if they can't figure that out someone else will.

Gamers embrace change as long as it's improvement any perception otherwise will be picked apart mercilessly.

[classic200]

True

there are also good changes, bad changes and unnecessary change.

Resident evil moving away from horror to action is a unnecessary change.

EA moving to make games micro-transaction is the definition of a bad change completely.

Bioshock moving from ocean to sky is a good change.

[Yi-Long]

.... but change has to be for the better, not for the worse.

DLC is mostly a change for the worse. Motion-gaming has MOSTLY been a change for the worse. Always Online and DRM have been a change for the worse.

And not being able to play used games or sell your own games, would also be a change for the worse.

Other than that, we have welcomed change. We have accepted the 2nd analogue trigger with open arms, just as we have accepted anologue triggers for racing games. We love those kinda improvements. We are happy with downloadable games on XBLA and PSN, we all love online competitive gaming, etc etc.

It's not that we fear change. We fear that gaming as we love it wil be made impossible or too expensive due to corporate greed, or forcing stuff in these games (like motion-controlled gaming) that will ruin the experience for many of us.

[knowyourstuff]

Humans are creatures of habit, and it takes a one of a kind to understand when change can be good, without having it necessarily shoved down their throat. Seeing the value in change without the sales presentation is a skill that very few have, and it separates the mice from the men, the unevolved from the evolved.

[rainslacker]

I was going to write a comment to say exactly what you said, but now I don't have to.

Anyhow, gamers don't fear change. If anything they welcome it. Innovation is always a good thing, and true innovation changes the entire landscape of our community and the way we play games.

The problem this gen has been the lack of MEANINGFUL innovation. Motion controls could have been huge for gamers, but they were poorly implemented. Dual screen has seen some good uses, and I think gamers will welcome it if it's more available.

Unfortunately though, most of the changes that come about are not meaningful in any way. They're tired retreads packaged up as new ideas. I've been playing games a long time, and the generational changes were huge to video games, and each generation changed the way games were made and played.

Unfortunately, this gen, the way they changed was in the interest of corporate profits and fleecing of the consumer, and not in how to make the games better or how to provide new experiences. I can think of no trend that's come about this gen that is actually beneficial to gaming except maybe online play, but even that has been hijacked in the interest of maintaining publisher revenue.

Sadly, as much as I'm looking forward to the next gen, I haven't seen anything so far that looks like it will buck this trend. When companies like EA already announce they will include micro-transactions in every game, it becomes kind of depressing, mostly because they are an industry leader and should be setting a better example. Smaller publishers and developers seem to be getting it, and it's a major reason indie games have seen such a big upswing in popularity this gen.

[s45gr32]

Well said

[Kamikaze135]

It's not just changes....it's bad changes.

[AznGaara]

People in general fear change.

[knifefight]

^ Came here to say this.

One dollar buys you a mere shadow of what it used to, in the United States, and the gov could save a TON of tax money by not printing the $1 bill anymore, but most people fight that idea sooooo hard. Meanwhile, other countries avoid this problem by swithcing to coins for amounts that small. Traditions, baby. They don't have to make sense.

[sithsylar]

Because "Normal" people don't like to be bent over and get it dry... fanboys on the other hand like it dry and want more!

[Wenis]

Actually fanboys like to lube up first

[I_LOVE_MYSELF]

I don't fear changing from PS3 to PS4, that's for sure.

[pr0t0typeknuckles]

for the last time we dont fear change we just hate stupid change like DMC to DmC, or turning something like uncharted into call of duty as an example,i really want to see oh gamers just fear change because they love to complain people say the same thing if zelda played like an fps.

[MadMax]

Like ive said before, its one thing to change and its another thing to constantly be changing everything too dang fast! Also, when change is for the better, which in most cases these days its for the worse, theres nothing wrong with it.

Just give people a chance to enjoy the product for awhile, before you go sweeping the rug out from underneath us all. With all these constant upgrades all the time, its hard to keep up sometimes and gets tiresome.

I think we should get a new console every 8 to 10 yrs. Seems like everything is far too rushed these days.

[MASTER_RAIDEN]

Because change is something that should be taken with caution, Generally. what gamers really desire is evolution, not change.
the problem between gamers and gaming companies is that instead of gradually evolving the way we play, these companies think its a good idea to try and completely change what it is were playing and how it is we're playing it.
most of the time, success comes from positive expansion on concepts that work. what doesnt work however, is building a solid foundation for 30+ years now, then trying to introduce a bunch of ideas from left field and get everybody on board.
Positive change such as online gaming, downloadable games, (VERY FEW examples of) motion gaming are all incredible ideas with the community has almost immediately taken a shine to.
changes for the worse like DLC, tacked on motion gaming, and not being able to play used games are a few examples of changes that gamers should never be asked to adopt.

[smashcrashbash]

I agree. Despite people who do fear change not all change is good.People seem to think that change automatically means something good. Just because you decide to change things for the worst doesn't mean I should just sit back and accept it especially if I am seeing the dark path you are going down.Example people wanting to oust single player in favor of multiplayer. That is change too but I don't like where that path is going. So many gamers don't necessarily fear change, but many times just has the perception to see what the change can lead to.

[s45gr32]

I am all for change don't fear it, but those changes have to improve the game industry not make it worse. I still do not see how gamers can benefit from contracts one a console. Sure it makes the console cheaper but in order for the gamer to enjoy his/her console they must pay $15-20 a month. That is not a good change at all. So with that in mind a good change is crowd funding us the gamers funding the games we want to play promote say games and have developers compete for our money as opposed to compete to get the green light from Sony, Valve, Nintendo or Microsoft. Meaning making games for the ideology and image of a corporation not of the gamer. Crowd funding is game developers making games for gamers.....

[MasterCornholio]

Depends on the change.

For example:

The fear that the Wii mote would destroy classic controller design.

The fear that the Wii Us tablet controller would destroy hardcore gaming.

Those types of things.

@XxDubstepxX

"Because change is something that should be taken with caution, Generally. what gamers really desire is evolution, not change. "

Which is why the gamers who embrace the evolution of the dual shock controller bash the radical design of the Wii U tablet controller. People claim that the only way to innovative is to completely change the controller design which is a complete myth. Its possible to play a title that uses a classic controller and delivers a very innovative gameplay experience. An example of this would be little big planet.

[mamotte]

I dont know what to say here -specially here, in N4G- but's true: Gamers fear change. What's worse, they hate change without even trying it. I'll put some facts here: Not personal opinion, not fanboyism, just google it. Everyone here say "motion controllers are trash". But we all know that, when motion gaming is done right, it can be a lot better than dual stick gaming. You just have to try RE4: Wii edition, or almost any FPS on Wii to notice it. Or try Infamous or RE5 in PS3 to see how motion gaming can really add great gameplay when done right. In a side note, the inventory system in ZombiU is really great, Dead Space with that system would raise the heart attack ratio in all the world.

I know there are a lot of shovelware and party games in all systems since the Wii appeared, but we cant hate good games just because there are bad games that other people buy and play (Hell, it's not like Ubisoft forces us to buy Just Dance). It's like hating the entire 3rd person genre just because Superman 64 is a bad 3rd person game. Maybe if gamers would even try new things before fearing it, then we all would have good games with new things. But, since they dont sell good, there's no motivation for developers to try new things.

And you just have to see how bad original ideas sell compared to Call of Duty.

[Roccetarius]

People fear change, because corporate suits turn games into anything that feeds them money. The fact that EA thinks all games should be Smartphone games, says something is wrong.

I've seen good franchises take turns for the worse, and i just ended up not buying them at all. There are very few i respect nowadays, such as CDPR.

[isarai]

Humans in general fear change, it's not just gamers