80°

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."

Read Full Story >>
digitallydownloaded.net
RememberThe3574092d ago

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.

classic2004092d ago

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-Long4092d ago (Edited 4092d ago )

.... 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.

knowyourstuff4091d ago (Edited 4091d ago )

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.

rainslacker4092d ago

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.

Kamikaze1354092d ago

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

AznGaara4092d ago

People in general fear change.

knifefight4092d ago

^ 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.

sithsylar4092d ago

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!

Wenis4092d ago

Actually fanboys like to lube up first

4092d ago Replies(1)
Show all comments (23)
100°

Former Dragon Age lead writer David Gaider pours scorn on EA's AI dreams.

"They want you to believe the devs under them are super stoked to work generative AI into their processes," continued Gaider, "but I assure you what they took as excitement was really a veiled wail of despair not unlike the time that team was informed of their new 'really cool' live service mandate.".

LordoftheCritics2d ago

Publishers see gaming as another stock market.

isarai2d ago

I think anyone with some common sense knew this, im glad i don't support their games anymore, what a sh!t company.

Psychonaut851d 9h ago

Friends don’t let friends buy EA or Ubisoft.

Chocoburger1d 8h ago

I said this yesterday. AI isn't what we want when it comes to crafting artistry. Alas, these soulless corporate morons don't care about their work, only about cutting corners as much as possible.

120°

Phil Spencer and the Battle for Xbox’s Soul

Has the rapid growth of Xbox made the ship too heavy? Following the closures of Tango Gameworks, Arkane Austin, and Roundhouse, we explore what the future of Xbox could look like.

LG_Fox_Brazil2d ago

This ship was never meant to sail, this ship was made from the get go to sink as fast as possible. It almost feels that they want to lower the standards of quality in the industry so that they can fit in

rlow11d 11h ago

I disagree, Xbox from the get go innovated and changed the industry. They did a lot of firsts and standardized a lot of others. It wasn’t till the beginning of the Xbox1 era that things started to go south.

Stevonidas1d 7h ago

Yep, although I’d argue it started going to shit when they tried to hock Kinect on their audience instead of continuing to invest in their studios and IPs. 2001-2010 Xbox was peak gaming, though.

rlow11d 6h ago

@Stevonidas
I agree they never should have focused on it after the 360 era. But you do have to remember they were faked out by the huge volumes of Kinects sold. To quote info on Wikipedia, “Project Natal, It was first released on November 4, 2010, and would go on to sell eight million units in its first 60 days of availability.” So if your Xbox and see these huge sales on a peripheral where are you going to put some money? Criticism in hindsight is worthless…..if only we could all see our future. In other wards they had no way of knowing. Plus they had engagement numbers and a lot of signs pointed to people wanting it.

Their biggest mistake wasn’t the Kinect, but unlike Sony after the PS3 debacle. They didn’t double on down on exclusive good games. The other huge mistake was letting Call of Duty go to Sony.

Hedstrom1d 14h ago

Phil wants Xbox to be as soulless as him!

Tacoboto1d 14h ago (Edited 1d 14h ago )

Xbox has no soul and Phil has no confidence, and it's impossible to say either do when they killed Tango and Arkane Austin.

Everything they've said since has only made them look worse to a point that they're actually less competent than Embracer.

Markdn1d 14h ago (Edited 1d 14h ago )

Whe you release something like the series S and expect it not to hurt your business model, and developers have to have parity with games. Then you know Microsoft don't care. Series s is the final nail that broke developers,

Show all comments (12)
360°

Sarah Bond dodges questions on Xbox studio closures

While on stage with Dina Bass at The Bloomberg Technology Summit the President of Xbox, Sarah Bond, was asked about the Xbox studio closures of Arkane Austin, Tango Gameworks, Alpha Dog, and Roundhouse Studios

2d ago
ApocalypseShadow2d ago

Of course she did. She's part of the problem and will just tow the company line.

VenomUK2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Bloomberg’s Dina Bass could barely read her scripted question without looking at her notes, whilst Sarah Bond who WAS expecting the question spoke without saying anything of substance or answering the question in any meaningful way. Clearly she’s had the same expert PR training as Phil, but this avoidance was disrespectful. In time the short-sighted decision to shut down Tango Gameworks will be seen as of the most notorious examples why Phil Spencer messed up his tenure in charge of Xbox. That’s a fully built out talented team that could’ve been put to work on any project.

Additionally, Phil Spencer should not be using Sarah Bond as a patsy for his mistakes- he should be answering that question.

gleepot2d ago

I think you are all really overselling Tangos value. Hi-Fi rush was a lot of fun. Ghostwire was incredibly dull. Evil within 1 and 2 were just okay.

lucasnooker2d ago

Evil within 2 was incredibly under rated. I thought that game was surprisingly good

NotoriousWhiz2d ago

Someone else said it best. I don't think it was a Phil decision. It was most likely a Satya decision. I think Microsoft is done giving out free money to Xbox.

Cacabunga2d ago

people please boycott Activision Bethesda next release and support Hellblade.
these people mus understand that they cannot treat their fans and employees that way.
scumbags.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2d ago
XiNatsuDragnel2d ago

Yikes you don't help Sarah 😬 making a problem worse

Christopher2d ago

She's playing her role. There's absolutely nothing any of them can say other than the truth, this is about profit margins and not quality, so they just don't answer anything and wait for gamers to forget.

shinoff21832d ago

I think news is coming of more ps5 release but they gotta be careful cause Xbox is still sitting on store shelves. They can't get left holding all that stock

Lightning772d ago

Come next month they'll flash nice looking games in our faces and expecting us to forget.

The only thing that'll be going through my mind at their showcase is how many of those studios will get shut down after release.

I'm not joking around either. MS probably expects every game to be like COD and do COD numbers. What a way to destroy gaming for the entire industry because they're dumb af at being realistic in what success means for each game.

-Foxtrot2d ago

Always feels she was brought in / promoted for this. Happened just before things started to be out in motion.

Phil and co have someone to throw under the bus and share the blame with

zaanan2d ago

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

darthv721d 23h ago

....won't get fooled again

Hofstaderman2d ago

Like a deer caught in the headlights.....

notachance2d ago

I always wondered why xbox had multiple leaders with similar titles like Phil Spencer, Matt Booty, and Sarah Bond, like, how many heads do you actually need?

Seems to me it would be more cost efficient to cut 2 of them instead of all those studios.

DarXyde2d ago

Frankly, I suspect she is the most competent of them. I don't mean that I like her more, I mean that she's the best at articulating herself and giving the talking points MS wants to give. The others are starting to sound more like her than her sounding like any of them.

Are any of these people "responsible" for what's happening? No. This reeks of Nadella. But that being said, I don't see any of the Xbox heads stepping down in protest.

"Don't shoot the messenger", sure, but at the same time, the messengers don't seem to take umbrage with the message. Not enough to remove themselves from it, anyway.

CS72d ago

I disagree. Nadella is looking for profit as a CEO should in my opinion.

The problem is Dr. Phil & Co. had 10 years to bring Xbox back on track and have been failing woefully.

Phil needs to sell to Nadella that if we are to make a profit, we need to make great games. And to do that we need employees here for the long haul and the freedom to work on creative projects.

But as Phil said himself he doesn’t believe great games sell consoles.

RpgSama2d ago

Dude, 100%, forgot Major Nelson and Aaron Greenberg, like what is the point for all these suits? They have more C-level executives than games released in a generation.

This is just so they can all pass along the hot potato one at a time and in between all of them can say a lot without actually saying anything, misinformation at its finest.

Show all comments (46)