Gaming has done a lot right in the last few years, but it's time to look at what has gone absolutely, chronically wrong.
If I ever bought a physical game and opened it up and found that it was only a slip of paper to download the actual copy of the game from online, I would promptly return the game for a refund. That's not a physical copy. As for the other stuff, gamers like myself have warned consumers about micro transactions since the first horse armor, launch dlc, loot boxes, paying for free to play games, content locked on disc, ridiculously huge day one patches which pretty much are the full game because the game was rushed out broken, paying for single player games that can only be played with an internet connection, season passes, grinding, incomplete games that try to push you to pay for speedy access. The list goes on and on. These things came to pass because of lack of consumer research, lack of journalistic integrity and backbone to call out the publishers on it and lose those free bees, loyalty to a game that adds these things and that "don't care, it's my money" attitudes. I understand companies want to make money. Sometimes to finance that next product. But things have gotten ridiculous. I would never go to a restaurant and buy a hamburger, and the employees kept coming to my table and asking if they can add to my ONE burger with more toppings, more patties, more sauce and more bread before I bit into it. I bought that burger expecting it to be the best [email protected] burger I can eat for that restaurant. If I like it, then I might end up buying a second burger. That first burger should have already been complete. If you make it right the first time, you end up with a repeat customer. I didn't buy for random toppings(loot boxes). Don't want it super chewy just to swallow it(grinding). I don't want to buy a special box or wrapper for it to be in(collectors edition), I didn't ask to join the annual burger club(season pass). I just want one complete burger(God of War) for a good price. Is that too much to ask?(Wow. I've been commenting about food a lot lately. Lol. And I'm not even overweight)
While I do agree with you on a lot of points, I have been gaming since 1992, and I have never once seen game-prices rise. They have always been to what is the equivalent of 60 dollars/euros for console games, and 50 dollars/euros for pc games. So yeah, we were vigilant but may not have called out the BS practises enough, but we also didn't find a new system to pay for things. Whether it's necessary in the first place is something else entirely, but it is at least remarkable that a lot of other services and goods have become more expensive, but games have not. Just as a frame of reference. Almost all media content I buy, has at least doubled in price since the 90s. Boardgames, newspapers, magazines, physical music (CD, vinyl), books. If I take the current prices for those things, I would have to divide it twice to get to the 90s price. Games? I'd have to double the digits. PC game, used to be 100 credits, now is 50. Console, used to be 129 credits, now is 60. Board game, used to be 50, now is 50. CD, used to be about 12, now is 12. The list goes on. So yeah, it's a horrible practice, that I really don't like, but you used to shell out a lot of money and got a finished product. Finished doesn't equal good though. Half of the time these products sucked, and you lost your money, or you had to hope for a refund. At least that way companies went out of business, nowadays they can get away with patching them months or even years late. The one thing I would also add to your list is the lack of demos. I have seen a slight return recently, but mostly it's still impossible to get a demo. Why not? It's such a good system! We have trailers for films, why not gameplay for games? Again, I agree with what you said, and wrote what I wrote to add, or shed a different light. : )
I am not sure about the rest of the world, but prices have stealthily been rising here in the UK for ages. Used to be £40, then £45, then £50, and now Odyssey is on the PlayStation Store for £55.
Agree with melon on pricing. Been a gamer since late 79 and brought mega drive (first paid console with own money) and games back then we're £40 and we all said it was way to much but accepted it for new titles like desert strike etc. Now, £50 is around average price with places like GAME charging £5 more for standard editions
The PS1 and PS2 era brought a lot more popularity to gaming. Those games made more money than before. PS4 is easier to develop than previous platforms. A lot of games are breaking sales records and the console attach rate is very high. They're making more income than before. They may need more devs and skills than before but these are more commonplace now.
Ps1 launch games were ranges from $29.99 to $39.99 Ps2 launch games were $49.99 PS3 launch games were $59.99 and introduced dlc and micro transactions Ps4 launch games are $59.99 with dlc and micro transactions.
New games around here are 70...euros! They were 60 a while back. I still remember buying MGS4 day one in my country' s most expensive electronics shop for 49.99 euros. It sure as hell seems prices are going up, while MTs are spreading like a virus...
I remember games on Super Nintendo being $70 sometimes back in the 90's
I've been gaming since 85 and game prices have steadily risen since that time. I paid $55 for Super Mario Bros 3 in 1990! I saved my allowance to get it(I began saving after seeing it in The Wizard) Mario 64 set me back $59.99 in the mid 90's . 64 games typically cost more than PSX titles at the time and most PSX games were $49.99.
My biggest issue is games releasing with little to no content, well before they should, like Destiny, The Division, and Battlefront.
This is absurd games have gone up and even more with the services that come along with consoles. Here in Mexico games are fucking expensive and rarely ever go one sale. I went to game shop the other day and they were selling a used copy of God of War for 60 usd (approx.)
Games have been able to stay the initial price they have because of the economies of scale involved. The factor of inflation and increased production costs was offset by increased software sales. The notion that games required MT or DLC to keep game prices down was a myth perpetuated by publishers, because they wanted to have it accepted by the customers that they were a necessary evil. Even if game prices rose, those MT would still come, because they were proven money makers. Game prices will eventually rise, and those MT will stay. The publishers want to maximize revenue. There are parts of the world which have seen increases in prices. But those areas still get MT. It's false what the OP said about people not raising a fuss. There were plenty of people who raised a fuss. It's been a fuss for years now, leading up to some major disappointments for EA in recent years. The problem is that there are more people who don't care, aren't in tune with the topic, or are just happy to buy them because they see the easy route to get what they want. @SolidGear A lot of the cart prices was due to the fluctuation in prices in memory technology. This was outside the control of the publishers. This isn't a factor for optical formats, as they remain relatively constant, and go down the more copies of a game that get pressed.
I guess u don't remember super nes games costing 70 or more. It only got cheaper when they started making games on DVD an it was 40 dollars now games are 60 dollars so how games have not raised in price
Why the downvotes, he's right you know.
Haha I think you kept that food analogy going for a little too long but I get what you mean and mostly agree. And I think that most old school "core gamers" agree as well beacuse we remember a time: -when a game came out and there was no way to fix it later with patches. -when add-ons actually enhanced an already complete and polished game. -when ingame costumes and exp boosters were unlockables and cheatcodes instead of paid dlc. -and a time when a game was balanced towards the most rewarding player experience and not towards a grindfest to encourage the player to spend money to save some time. The problem is that a lot of people, mostly newer gamers don't see the problem because they are already conditioned to accept these kind of practices in other domains. Since the gaming industry is always growing the oldschool gamers make up a progressively shrinking percentage of the consumers and therefore the market shifts towards the new generation that is ok with this sort of bullshit.
"and a time when a game was balanced towards the most rewarding player experience and not towards a grindfest to encourage the player to spend money to save some time." You obviously never played arcade games haha
@Jinger: That's a good point. But arcades are a completely different monetization model to begin with. It's more comparable with renting games than buying games at full price for your personal home console.
I miss cheat codes. Left, Right, L1, L2, R1, R2, Up, Down, Left, Right.
@CJ I miss honest devs that really worked their ass off to please the gamer with ther love project as much as I miss giving them my money saying, there guys you deserved every last penny. Disclaimer: to be fair I felt that a couple times this gen. Shout out to From Soft, Naughty Dog, Santa Monica Studios and Insomniac.
Yeah. I think I'm old. I'm from the days when you bought a complete game after the company made it, had game testers play it, then I consumed it. Since I'm from a different era, I can see where the developers are trying to extend the life of that one game. But it's only extended because the game was built to be incomplete and you're spoon fed the rest. And they no longer test it. They look to the consumers to let them know what's wrong with it. I miss the old console days. I remember a glitch here or there. But never a game I couldn't start or finish because it was broken. Or having to pay for a costume or weapon that should already be there. As ultra said, I miss the days when developers worked hard to make a good game day one. I don't buy into this modern day monetization of a game. I don't need a service game. Just a complete game.
Exactly because lots of my kids friends see nothing wrong with these practices because it's the norm for them. Now when I tell and show them how it used to be they understand. The problem is most people are forward thinking and just go with the flow.
@apocalypse shadow...I'm also from that era and played through every generation but i think this "problem" is a bit 1 sided.... back then, games were full of bugs, none of which bothered many. in fact, some were used as an advantage for a hard game. From a developers standpoint, don't you think they would have liked to have fixed these "bugs" in their games? not to mention add or remove certain elements of their games.... I remember a time when gamers would say "i wish this game would let me do this or that, the camera would work this way or that way, this character didn't take so much health when fighting, they should have added this character instead." etc...now developers can fix all of that with a single patch instead of releasing and selling you different versions of the same game (ala' early street fighter games)....mind you that people had no problem rebuying a game a year or 2 later (at full price) for 1 or 2 added characters and different clothing... Now developers can sell you extra items (should you want them) from $2-15 bucks in an instant and people are complaining and demanding boycotts of a certain company. 🙄 i do agree that if a game simply cannot be completed UNLESS you buy certain items to progress then it is underhanded...or is it? isn't that what most MMOs are all about, yet people still play those?... just look at the biggest game in recent years, Fortnite. a FREE game that sells you everything it can and people BUY it. People can complain all they want but that game makes millions every month without a subscription to play. how many games do you know without microtransactions that can do that 5 months or years after release?...complain all you want people but this is the future of gaming, accept it, or stop playing games all together.
Optimus, as I said above, I remember a glitch here or there on games. And yes, I think some developers would have loved to go back and fix a glitch. But on console since pong, I've never bought a game that didn't function day one. Pong worked. Asteroids, Dig Dug, Defender and Space Invaders worked. Ninja Gaiden, Contra. Mega Man, Castlevania, Super Metroid, Super Mario,Zelda, Gunstar Heroes, Streets of Rage, Phantasy Star,blah blah blah blah blah....they just all worked. My Turbografx 16, Sega Saturn, Colecovision..... Only with the new era of PC like game patching that spread over into console gaming, that I knew would bring problems with it, was not good for games. Yes they can go back and fix it. But, It should never be broken in the first place. And, when they fix something, sometimes they end up breaking something else. Where are the testers? You're right in the fact that monetizing is the future for some games. But, just like the comic book crash years ago with people like me just wanted to read my favorite comics. companies tried to make you buy all the other comics in cross overs, holographic or special covers..and If you didn't pre-order, you couldn't get a copy.And the cost of one comic was high. But there's a stack of them behind the counter for one guy who's collecting them like bottle caps and stamps. And, there's stacks of them for others next to it. For one person. So, consumers like me stopped buying. The comic market crashed. And, It's not like the market hasn't crashed before. When they go too far, consumers can and will respond. The core who actually care about the market before the casuals jumped in.
@apocalypse....you seem to forget that all the games you mentioned delt with 30-40 colors on screen, lower frame rates, lower sprites (graphics) etc. which made them less prone to major glitches. as technology advanced so too did the games. you said it yourself, consoles today are more pc based and with that come the glitches in games....would you rather games keep looking and playing like those 8-16bit games to lessen the glitches? now, i agree that games that won't let you play unless you download a day 1 patch is wrong but i haven't encountered too many of those. more often than not i get the option to download the patch or bypass it but doing so prevents me from playing online, updated scores, rosters, etc...i could still play the game without it.... testers don't always get to play through an entire game. especially if they're given several games to play in 1 week...take a high profile and respected developer like Rockstar who puts a lot of attention to detail in their games and want gamers to have the best possible experience when they play, so much so that they already anounced a 3gb day 1 patch for red dead 2.... would you rather they release it as is so that people can complain about what doesn't work all month long?....in this digital world we live in everything requires updates or patches...we just have to deal with it or continue to live in the past.
I wouldn't want to give companies a free pass for fixing it later. I'd hate to buy a tv, it be broken, and the employees tell me "hold on, we'll patch it up before you take it to the car.""if it's still broken when you take it home, we'll patch it again." No matter what industry it is, it should never be standard that something is sold half @$$. And consumers expected to think that's normal. Although I have a great fondness for 2D...I like them more than most 3D games excluding VR...I still enjoy today's modern games that I wouldn't want to go back to the past. Games like Horizon and spiderman...basically, we'll made games, keep me entertained.
Well, what if you get a burger and want to add bacon? Or avacado? Typically that is extra. Also most restaurants have waiters who come around periodically to ask how you're doing, do you need anything else, would you like dessert? Bad analogy
The issue with your metaphor is that many games are treated as services whereas you describe a product(the already prepared burger). Games have been treated as services since before I can remember, it just didn't mean much until people started to realise that they weren't getting the full package- that MP servers don't last forever, that content can be expanded after release. It's not all negative, but it can't be practically compared with a burger.
See above. All the games I buy aren't services. I look for complete games from when I started gaming. I don't buy episodic games. I don't buy online only games. I don't buy the ridiculous micro transactions like DOA. They spent more time making costumes than making more actual game. So, I never bought it. But was a huge fight game fan and DOA fan. They went too far and ruined it. I won't be buying DOA 6. Just like a slot machine or poker machine. Companies may want to cash in on consumers. But I'm smart enough to cash out and look elsewhere for my entertainment.
Damn you man... Im always hungry after reading your posts. Oh and what you described in your opening statement, that actually happened with the game Cuphead. It totally blows when you buy the case and inside is a dl voucher. I have hopes that the rumor of a physical disc will come true as I'd love to add one to my steelbook case.
Let's eat. Lol! I just can't do collectors editions. For the money, I'd rather just have more game for the price.
Bravo. But no i want a good [email protected] burger too !
That's last gen. Remember horse armor?
I liken horse armor to cosmetics in other games. It has no real bearing on the outcome... its just there to look pretty.
the need to force everything into a generic multiplayer experience is the worst. the reason is copy protection, not to provide the gamer with something useful. always the same few online modes, every multiplayer title plays the exactly same. this is the industry at its lowest point.
I dont know what you are talking about? What games are being forced to be multiplayer? WE have multiplayer games and single player games coming out every week just like we always have...
I actually enjoyed some of the games that forced in MP. Some of the Assassins Creed for example, wasn't necessary but I enjoyed it for a time.
thats more tacked on multiplayer, nobody forced anybody to play assassins creed multiplayer. Im really confused still, what games have forced multiplayer? We have always had plenty of games to play for all audiences and we still do.
That was last gen
Do you have any examples? It sounds to me you’re more complaining about multiplayer games in general
i would throw pandering in there too
No matter what action is taken, it can be considered as pandering to one crowd or another. A real minefield, can't do anything without claims of SJWs or Bigots
EA, micro transactions, loot boxes, battle royale, endless open world rubbish, endless FPS games, games that you have to grind through, crafting, fetch quests completely pointless quests to bulk out the game. Most of modern gaming is shit.
So basically go back to 2d platformers?
Whilst I agree with most of your comment a lot of those things have been around for ages in gaming.
Let me prescribe a medicine for that itch: GOW & Spider-Man.
Battle Royale modes aren't bad. It's just that fortnite and PUBG have awful shooting mechanics
I agree with everything except no. 5. I think the sales of physical media is very much alive and kicking and will be for some time to come.
So-called "journalists" not having the backbone to call out greedy publishers is one of my gripes of the month.
Exactly they are a part of the leviathan.
Bagging on Sony for things like crossplay and BC, while not appreciating the good stuff the do (share play, VR) while ignoring Xbox having a paywall on f2p games and going 'oh Nintendo' when looking at their online short comings.
They do what they do because people buy into it. If gamers as a bloc would refuse microtransactions, or games with an artificially excessive grind to make pay-to-win MTs necessary for enjoyment, or single-player games with online requirements, then these practices would fail in the market, and would go away. Instead, these soulless corporations that control the gaming industry are raking in more money than ever with these shenanigans. They're not holding a gun to our heads. Many of us are just throwing money at them. I've seen the enemy, and it is us.
"They're not holding a gun to our heads." No but games are being designed for us to get out our wallets again to make the game bearable i.e. the latest Ass Greed. And some developers are too greedy for their own good, look at Street Fighter 5, that game could've been huge, it should be massive but hardly anyone cares about it due to the awful greedy release of half a game. Capcom's own greed has no doubt lost them millions in potential SFV sales.
Microtransactions are definitely the worst but holding a button to interact is just as bad gameplay and mechanic wise. There is absolutely no point for it.
- Microtransactions and loot boxes - Focus of always online, even if it's a single player game
Colour coded loot creeping into non-rpg games. Crafting in non-rpg or survival games, don't mind a bit like in the Last Of Us but loot and crafting mechanics are in a lot of modern games now so they can sell you the parts/items/junk needed to craft with microtransactions. Same with colour coded loot in a way, it's all designed to entice you to buy the "rarer" items with microtransactions.
1. Day One Editions 2. In-game preorder bonuses 3. Digital codes in console bundles
The first time I heard Season's Pass, I knew and visualized some greedy bastard behind the idea. I remember when DLCs were developers opportunity to extend the experience of a great game they created and requested/demanded by gamers.
A lot of these points can be summed up extremely easily. Instant Gratification Generation.
Pretty inclusive list. Well done. My only issue is with DLC announced before the game is released. To me, this is one of the only things keeping games at the price they are now. It also can allow for game developers to fully realize their vision without having such a strict development budget and forcing something to be cut. The only difference between a movie studio/publisher deciding to make a trilogy instead of one move is that with games, we generally get a complete game without the optional DLC. Just because it was announced early, doesn't always mean they "chopped" off something to sell later. I have zero problem with this practice.
1: GOTY edition having dlc codes 2: Huge day one patches 3: Prices of games have gone up Them are the 3 I hate
Melons forgot journalists that talk down to the public and defend MTs at the same time (cough a certain Kotaku guy cough), gamers that support MTs, and journalists being paid for good reviews by receiving free copies of games (conflict of interest, don't you think?).