The author remembers a time when the video game industry was very different, and wonders why gamers today still find a way to complain incessantly.
Good read, a lot of gamers nowadays really are spoiled and feel entitled to everything. Game prices have always been around the same there and there were no patches to fix broken games either. I understand some companies releasing broken games on purpose but that's another subject.
most games were released as a complete and finished product. that was the difference. Today we get works in progress that we pay full retail price. Add that to the fact gaming is for everyone now and not just little kids anymore and now you have people that expect a good product for the money they worked to get and have actual standards for their purchases. There are developers that are so bad I refuse to buy games with their names on the box.
I think this would have been the same THEN as it is NOW if most of us had the INTERNET back in the days to complain. These days there are plenty of ways to get your concerns across, unlike back then with mainly snail mail.
Games years ago were the in the MB file sizes. Now they contain 1000000x more coding and there are a lot more gamers so bugs are discovered and patches released. Plus the additional features like physics, shading, lighting, freedom of movement, middleware, etc can create more problems that a couple hundred beta testers may not discover but a couple of million gamers will.
IMO there is a fair amount of "spoiled/entitled gamers". I also feel that there's a generation gap, I think older gamers, people who grew up gaming are less " spoiled/entitled" than younger gamers... Really back in the day there was no real advanced notice of games releasing, you basically found out about games that were already released, or on commercials. So now you hear about a game when someone trademarks a name, and a screenshot gets leaked on the net, not really knowing how far into development the game is. Another thing games haven't gone up in price... Cartridges games were pricy... The original MortalKombat was like 70-80$(today that be like 160-190$) Spider-Man Maximum Carnage was like 80-85$. I mean we'd all like cheaper games, but hey I want cheaper gas, cars, food, houses, and pretty much everything to be cheaper. The Internet has just brought a lot of stuff out there... Back in the Nintendo vs Sega days we had those arguments on the play ground or in the neighborhood, that is if you knew any other gamers, cause back then it was no where close to mainstream like it is today.
At one point during the HD/PS3/360 gaming era, less is more somehow became a thing. Then horse armor and on disc DLC. On disc *PAID* DLC. Game publishers egotistically announcing that their industry was recession proof shortly before the recession nailed it right in the berries. Now they're trying to both retain right to what use to be a retail product, and continue to be paid for it in the form of subscriptions and microtransactions. And despite all of that mess we're the ones suffering from a sense of entitlement.
It's not GAMERS, it's PEOPLE. PEOPLE have become worse people.
i pay 65 for a disc, i think im entitled to how a game is bought and made quality wise
No, you're really not. They produce a game and you can choose to buy it or not. You aren't entitled to anything else.
true, but the then don't be surprised when they go put your company on blast and yell from the rooftops about how trash the game is and don't waste your money to fellow gamers. If you wanna act mature for a second you should CARE about the people that buy your games and keep your company going and you having a job and make a good product. One of these days more people are going to stop buying from trash devs and it will good for all gamers.
If they advertise their game, you are entitled to the game that was advertised. It's that simple. So when I'm lied to, I'm going to raise hell.
Starchild. That is a very negative way of thinking about it. First I agree that you do have the choice of buying which game you would like, but to the same token it's very different when the people making the game lie to you and false advertise. Second I think if people go out and spend 400$ on a console and then 60$ on your game it should at the very least not be broken. How can you tell if a game is good or not off of a trailer? Sure you see things that you might like about it and grabs your attention. Same goes for games you might not like. The main point is, if a game is broken or false advertized you should be able within a acceptable time line to get a refund, other countries other then the U.S have this. Last if everybody had your mind set people would be getting ripped off all the time. Imagine going and seeing a movie and the hole movie is out of focus? Or you buy a CD/MP3 and you are missing parts of the songs, or the last half of the CD/mp3 simply is made at 48khz 16bit sample rate. While the first half it was at 128khz and 24 sample rate. At least in other art forms they finish the product even if you think it sucks, they still keep the quality. As a person you are entailed to more than just to buy or not. You shouldn't be played for a fool and lied to. You want a good product and they want money. If people never demanded things we would still be using land lines. Knowledge is power, not your black and white mind of thinking.
Give me examples of games that weren't what they were advertised to be. Don't say Watch Dogs because we've known exactly what that game would look like for over a year and a half. We've also had plenty of time to see the gameplay and read previews to decide whether it is something we will like or not. I literally never feel ripped off about games. I always know pretty much what I am getting because I pay attention and research things that I am going to buy.
It's not just gamers who complain now tho. It's the way the internet and social media have exploded over the last 5 to 10 years. Everyone can easily complain about everything, so they do.
I agree about the delays, but at the time I understand why people don't are miffed about them. The general consensus seems to be that people don't want to hear about something until they're ready (think Super Mario 3D World, which was announced at E3 and released like 5 months later)), which is a fair and understandable concern. Especially when you look at games like The Last Guardian and Final Fantasy XV (formerly Versus XIII), which were announced a number of years ago, yet they're still not ready to release. I disagree with the amount of games out there part. Lets face it, sometimes we want something that there isn't exactly a lot of (third person shooter like Vanquish) or nothing seems to scratch your itch the same way a certain game did (like classic Zelda, which is really to only 3D Dot Game Heroes on the PS3). Sure, if you have unlimited resources, every console and don't care where / how you play, then it certainly isn't an issue, but at that point you might as well say every complaint is invalid because there is a theoretical solution. I would certainly say you're one to talk on the last one Fathom. I've seen a number of articles you've either written or submitted to N4G that come off demanding or disgustingly entitled. Heck, this article itself comes off this way, but I digress.
You've never seen me write anything that's even remotely entitled. It's the one trait that's essentially killing mankind as far as I'm concerned; I would never practice it. As for you, every word you write on here is loaded with egocentric lecturing, and I can't figure out who you think you are, or why you think you can talk down to everyone. As for the second part, it makes no sense at all. Hundreds more games are released today than before. We had to wait years for a new Zelda, and many months before anything of even the remotest quality released. Maybe you're not old enough to remember or maybe your memory is fuzzy; either way, the multitude of games and genres today is ten times that what it once was. If you want to somehow argue that this is a bad thing, by all means. It'd certainly fit in with the rest of your wildly inaccurate rants.
Maybe it's because we have higher standards? If a studio like Naughty Dog can create something as great as The Last of Us, isn't it normal for us to expect an even bigger studio with a bigger budget to at least come close to matching The Last of Us' overall quality? And it's not only Naughty Dog, there are plenty of great studios. Bungie is amazing, Blizzard has created plenty of awesome games, Nintendo has some incredible development teams, including Retro. So if these guys can create games with a decent camera, high-res textures, balanced multiplayer, engaging single-player campaign and responsive controls, shouldn't I expect other so-called AAA games to match them? We complain because we've seen better. And honestly, if we didn't and simple accepted whatever the publishers are willing to put in the stores, we'd still be paying 60$ for some 50 minutes long beat 'em up.
Well i am very happy !! Try paying 40 dollars in quarters for around 45 minutes of gameplay! That is what i did in the arcade, back in 1980!!!! The arcade game DEFENDER was so hard to play at first ! But i was able to play for 45minutes on just 1 quarter, but it took around 50 dollars in quarters to get good at DEFENDER ! Me and MARK CERNY(creator of MARBLE MADNESS) both think DEFENDER is the best video game ever created! So i have no complaints about the video game industry today!!!!
I think people might have a gold old day syndrome. Games back then were 40 dollars adjusting with today's inflation that would be around 50 dollars. We had a 10 dollar increase since the ps3/xbox360 generation, and why was that? Because games then(ps3/xbox360 generation) and even more now, can do a lot more, it has more pixels, more physics, more calculations etc. That requires more time to be implemented into the and since we all know time is money, publishers can't afford to take risk. It is more expensive to make a games than to buy houses. Publishers needed to evolve in order to survive. Of course there are lots of other variables like media game reviews that influences publisher and developers but that is not related to gamers much. While patches did make some people hush their products like EA, most of companies do not make unplayable games. Both Sony and Microsoft have QA team that needs to pass in order to sell a product in their platform. As far as bugs and glitches goes, they always were around and many times a heck a lot of fun, now in days they get a bad rap but i had lots of fun with Halo superjump, pokemon missing number, and mario minus world.
People don't mind funny bugs, but they do mind bugs that make their game unplayable, like Battlefield 4's savegame bug.
While I do agree that some gamers act like entitled children, I think that some complaints are warranted. To some extent that is. Delaying a game isn't (in my eyes) that big of a deal. It just usually means that the developer will be adding more to the game or working out the kinks so it's playable day one. Plus, there are always other games being released. The one point I disagree with is how reviewers and gamers criticize or laugh at a bad camera angle or bad voice acting. While it is true that sixty dollars way back when was a lot, it still is today, too. If I'm paying that much for a game, I expect that it works. Even though we did get some laughs with buggy games and bad voice acting in the 90s, video games weren't treated with the kind of influence it has now. A game being released in unplayable condition is practically unacceptable. This is especially considering that digital copies of games cannot be refunded nor can physical copies of games. People shelve out sixty dollars for a game like Steel Battalion: Heavy Armor or Sim City (both of which had problems) and they couldn't get full refunds because the products were literally unplayable or broken. One could get lucky if they just had a bad disc and could return it for a new one, but a game that is blatantly not finished or completely unplayable? Inexcusable.
Spoiled isn't even the word. I can't believe what this community has become.
This guy's memory of the 80's and 90's is a little off. Back then, most gamers played games for years as there were a lot less consoles being sold and developers developing games for said consoles. There was always a drought here and there but never months in between releases. While there wasn't the huge QA teams we have now, the quote he ripped that line from was actually a good game. The problem was a simple matter of translation and not game ending bugs. Games back then were also much more original and creative. How else can a controller with 3 buttons produce some of the best gameplays in gaming. Today, it's a different story. Gamers are much more willing to settle for mediocrity so we start labeling responsible gamers as spoiled. A developer flat out says they ran out of money and we cheer them on when they release half a game for full price. We all ran out and bought a $30 demo. We eat up dlc that is made along side the main game and are expected to just be happy it's not the old days? Gaming after Atari was pure back then. We are currently stuck in the same shovelware hell as the days of Atari were copies, clones, and half ideas are being pumped out on a regular basis but we are just supposed to eat that sh$& and be happy? Yes there are fools (kids ) that send death threats when devs screw with their precious quick scope rifles or nerf some spell or something, but that is not a fair representation of gaming in general. Those are the extreme cases. And let's not pretend there's nothing to complain about. If the author was actually around in the 80's, he'd be bitching about the poor state of games today.
That's really the problem. It isn't that gamers complain too much or are entitled. It's that there's actually a good deal to complain about, and there's a way to make your complaints known. To be sure, some gamers complain about dumb things, like a "shortage" of games at the launch of a new console. But MOST complaints, I think, are valid. There's just this unfathomable decision to make gamers shut up and accept whatever's given to them, largely from gaming media. I guess it's good for business or something.
Back in my day we didn't suck the c*ck of gaming corporations, nor were we parrots for them. If they f*cked up we told them, if they screwed us we let them know, and if necessary we crucified them. But these days the younger generation likes to tow the corporate line, screw themselves over for their "masters," and call everyone else with half of a brain that stands up for themselves spoiled. If gaming truly ends it will be due to the younger generation like this asshat that wrote this piece because, to be quite frank, the younger generation is a disappointment that cannot be relied upon for anything. Author, I truly hope from the bottom of my heart that you ***.
Quite the dilema goign on around here i only know that games used to be more refreshing and fun before the whole call of duty phenomenon.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.