Three Industry Trends That Should End in 2012

2012 is here and we have a lot to look forward to throughout the entire gaming industry. There are the rumors of the new Xbox and PlayStation being announced at E3 this year along with the PS Vita coming out in February. Diablo III is on schedule to be released this year (and on consoles, too!), along with Mass Effect 3 coming out in March. With all these things to look forward to would it be too much to ask to possibly get rid of some bad things that we are seeing more of?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
DBLDeathDealer2533d ago

Could not agree more with your comments. They need to fix the continuous server issues we have had for years now as well. Getting tired of buying games with server issues and no private match ability.

zeal0us2533d ago (Edited 2533d ago )

All that money put to Drms just to prevent piracy was/is a complete waste. List of games that drm help prevent from being pirated
Online passes just gaming companies jumping "loss of profit" bandwagon. Boohoo so what if 50,000 people brought your game used, stop thinking you need to get all the profits, grow up and move on. I'm all for supporting the developers but its not like they are getting reduced pay for every copy of their game brought 2nd hand/used. People will always get laid off or fire nothing prevent that.

Dlc, more like on-disk dlc needs to end or be offer free, why should I pay $X amount for something thats been on the disk the whole time?

Server issues...Multi billion dollar companies can't buy bigger servers before their game(s) comes out? Server issue is understandable if your company is very small but if you are about to release a game you are already expect a million+ or more ppl will be playing then buy the biggest server you can/available.

Sadly at the end of the day none of these things/trends will end. More than likely the will get worse as time goes on.

fei-hung2533d ago

Unless you know sales figures for pre-owned games, how can you say boohoo?

What about the likes of:

1) Enslaved
2) Bayonetta
3) Vanquish
4) Shadows of the Damned
5) Ico
6) Shadow of the Colossus

and other games which have not sold well although they were great games? Who will support these devs and their staff? What about the number of people who lost their jobs because the games didn't sell well?

Unlike the film industry, these games have one shot at making the money back and ensuring staff do not get the sack. The film industry will make money from the theatrical release, PPV release, rental release, satelite release, cable release, tv release, commercial use etc.

You speak as if video games only cost a pitance to make, when in reality games are becoming a lot harder to produce and more expensive to make and maintain.

A studio might go out there and make 4 games and only one game might make the money back whilst the other 3 flop. e.g.

EA made Fifa, Mirrors Edge, Dead Space Extraction, Alice Madness returns, Bulletstorm, Saboteur and Shift 2. Most these games didn't break the 500k barrier nevermind the 1 million barrier.

Those games which sold better not only broke even, but they helped offset loses made on other games which didn't do so well.

Saying all this, I am not saying I do not buy 2nd hand games. I do buy them as I cannot afford to buy new games every single time, however, I will not make excuses about what I do.

How can you say ""loss of profit" bandwagon" when the 2nd hand game stores sell the game full priced to one individual (and make profit), re buy it from him (at a significantly reduced price) and then sell it on again (at a raised price)? According to your principle of "loss of profits", these game stores should buy the games back much cheaper and sell them back much cheaper taking into consideration the cost of an online pass e.g.

brand new - £40
re purchase of customer - £10
re sale - £13 (if online pass is £7)

Atleast this way, no one is being ripped off and everyone gets a fair deal.

Da_Evil_Monkey2533d ago (Edited 2533d ago )

You make a good point, we should support game developers. However it isn't the aim (getting money from pre-owned sales) but the means that I don't like. I don't like being allowed to play the game on only one account, only having 4 more downloads before I have to re-buy the pass, and activation issues with the pass itself.

Pre-owned sales do not usually = new game sales. If people aren't sure how good the game will be, or only want to play part of the game, they will buy used: they wouldn't have bought it new. Personally I only buy games used if I stumble upon them really cheap and didn't actually plan to buy them in the first place. For example I bought Uncharted 1 pre-owned in a 2 for £10 deal, I ended up loving it and buying the other two. If it wasn't for pre-owned I probably wouldn't have bought them.

Diver2533d ago (Edited 2533d ago )

things that need to end:

1 top (insert number) lists

2 opinion pieces especially poorly researched ones that are disguised as real reporting

3 reviews where they only play 10% of the game

4 attacking hardware and calling it a failure before it launches even when the same people praised it months before

5 acting like a game that don't score a 9 or above is a failure

6 scoring games 9 or above because the reviewer liked them instead of cause they deserved it

7 doing a review with no published standards

8 giving a broken game a pass while a tight game gets scrutinized like model wearing nothing but a smile and a light coat of oil

9 blogs run by teenage twits who think they understand journalism

10 cod imitators

11 companies that think imitating cod is the best way to succeed

12 giving money to activision

13 acting like hackers are heroes

14 ignoring linux as a game

15 acting like brian crecente will act any different at his new website

sure I forgot some

SilentNegotiator2532d ago

Gamers should have been infinitely more resistant to passes than we were. They devalue greatly our purchases and make things less easy for legitimate buyers.

Once upon a time, the purchase of a $60 (or more in other countries) game meant ONE person had access to the servers at a time, because *gasp*...only one game disc could be used from that purchase. But today.....wait, that's still the same case. Yet, they act like secondhand copies are evil duplicates that disturb their servers and that $60 purchase never happened.

MaxXAttaxX2532d ago

Sorry, just had to point that out.

This is up to the game designers/publishers.

@ fei-hung,
I think that list of great games you made is upside down :P

admiralvic2532d ago

@ Fei Hung

I always thought small devs had worst things going for them. Most times people don't hear a lot of press about them or were turned off by something. THAT DOESNT MEAN they don't want to play it, but how many times have we seen games drop super low?

In the past year I've seen Mindjack drop to 10 usd (new) within a year. Q Theory drop to 5 within 1 year 2 months. Vanquish was 30 around 2 months later. El Shaddai is already 20 at gamestop. This is perhaps a bigger problem... people know these games won't sell so they in turn don't buy.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2532d ago
JLesinski2533d ago

The guys at EA need to read this

DBLDeathDealer2533d ago

Like that will happen anytime soon. Hold on, let me wait till 11:11 and make a wish.

2532d ago
GribbleGrunger2533d ago (Edited 2533d ago )

i agree with online passes. in the last 4 years i've watched my local game shop turn into nothing more than a second hand shop.

The Great Melon2533d ago (Edited 2533d ago )

As much as I hate to admit, online passes do have merit. When companies like BEST BUY have enormous used game sections - I am sickened. This isn't just an issue about the consumer buying the game used, rather it is the growing trend that large companies are killing smaller devs by selling used games.

I don't think of GameStop as the place to go for new games. Rather it is a used game store that happens to also sell new games. To go step further, in my mind it is the place where new sealed games are kept artificially expensive to facilitate the constant re-circulation used games.

dark-hollow2533d ago

Killing small developers?
I didnt knew EA, UBISOFT, SONY etc. Are small developers.

HenryFord2533d ago

Because EA, UBISOFT and SONY are the only developers on this planet?

And what exactly is your point? Killing/Ripping off of bigger developers is okay, because they are...well...bigger?

fei-hung2533d ago

Agreed. Most the gaming shops where I live only do 2nd hand games or they will have a small new games and a large 2nd hand section.

GribbleGrunger2533d ago

and it actually goes beyond the obvious too. the thing that people often overlook when talking about the second hand market is the loss of shelf space. without shelf space the new games don't get exposed so much. some shops don't even bother ordering the more niche games because they want that space for their second hand offerings (which of course makes them more money)

it's about to get worse because the Vita will require shelf space too. now they can go one of two ways: shrink the existing shelf space down with 360/3DS/PSP/PS3 or remove the second hand games. now what do people think they'll do?

the passes are the only option. it's a short term answer to a long term problem. hopefully (and i believe this is the ultimate goal) the retailers will get backlashes from people who return the second hand games and complain about not being able to go online. the retailers will then have to reduce the prices further which will lead to them paying less for second hand games. this will result in more people holding onto games or selling them via the internet. at some point the retailers may opt to sell the real thing again.

this could take between 3 to 5 years but it needs to start now

Hicken2532d ago

Be serious. There's more that goes into why this is happening than just the used market, itself.

People not having enough money to buy every game they think they want is a problem.

Companies not making games that are worth more than a week or so of playing time is a problem.

Yearly releases of big-selling franchises is a problem.

The used game market IS a little unfair to smaller developers, this is true. But the contract they sign with publishers is even more unfair. Besides, online passes DO NOT add much to the developer's pocket, if they add anything at all. That money invariably goes to the publisher first, if not ONLY, and you don't see many games (I can't think of ONE; can you?) by smaller developers that even have these passes within them.

It's a practice by the publishers to make more money.

Wanna know why game stores are full of secondhand copies? Look at all the stuff I said above, then add in the fact that game-only retailers make their profits off of used games- and the fact that there are more games coming out this generation a year than ever before- and you have your answer.

Online passes are not a solution in the slightest. They are a method by which developers and publisher dictate to you what you can and can't do with your property, and they dictate its value, as well.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2532d ago
birdykilla2533d ago

How long have there been used games? I remember trading in some N64 titles for Conker's Bad Fur Day and that was more than 10 years ago. Now ask yourself this have used games ever put a company out of business? Sure they might lose a little by not making a profit on all used titles, but even then that title was already paid for once, so now their making more over time with online passes then a regular full priced game. Almost how some think pirating games somehow effects game sales, not really cause more than likely the game wouldn't be bought anyways. What if someone uses pirating like a rental service, then if they like a game, they support said game and go out and purchase the title.

HenryFord2533d ago (Edited 2533d ago )

This is not a black or white discussion - there is a lot to consider before actually proceeding to judge the reactions of game developers to the used-games market.
You are talking about "putting a company out of buisiness" - is that really necessary to prove the point here? What about companies who had to let go staff in order to compensate the losses, what about companies who had to let the support for a game die because they couldn't afford it any longer, companies who had to put back on their developing costs leading to rushed/buggy/unfinished games... etc.
Now - take shops like GameStop for example - they have a HUGE department of used games. You will now have the phenomenon apparent, that a game comes in (new retail), goes out (to a buyer), comes back in (as a used game), will be sold again (to a buyer), comes back in (as a used game), etc., etc.
Now - Gamestop makes profit (with a huge margin) every single time they re-sell the same game they already sold once, the developer however will only see a small profit from the first sale. Every other sale is not bringing him anything. So - you do not lose "a little bit", but "a lot". The Online-Passes are a try to cover this - but that can only go so far. They will however - and never will - not make MORE money from online-passes than from full priced retail games.

Piracy still affects the sales. Of course you can counter-argue, everytime, that not every pirated product is a loss in sale which is quite correct. But you still will lose sales, and a lot of them, to piracy. It is not something we can do a whole lot about, because DRM is worthless, except for offering services which will raise the value of the game beyond it's gameplay and thus making a pirated copy undesirable. But please just stop bulls*****g yourself and others that piracy somehow, mgaically cannot affect the sales of the product and is, moral-wise, totally acceptable.

dinkeldinkse2533d ago

Online passes need to die.

Show all comments (32)
The story is too old to be commented.