Im hating the way the gaming industry is heading

Blazer

ghostchant wrote: »

Really? So it was more ridiculous than the rapture prediction the other week? Or are we over-exaggerating a little :P
They might (and I'm not sure) charge you to extend the original warranty to you though. Much like the online pass is effectively extending support (servers etc) to the new owner of the game.

If you buy 2nd hand you're buying a physical disk/cart, the dev/publisher has no obligation to give you access to their servers if you're not giving them any money. I'm not suggesting they should stop you playing offline (now that I do take issue with).

Sorry....but the publish has already been paid for the game by the original owner.
It's not as if they're gaining an extra player, the original player has retired and someone else has taken his place.
This is completely about the publisher wanting to be paid twice for the same game and sheer greediness.
I buy some second hand games that I'd be not too sure I'd like as I'm prepared to take a risk on only laying out €20 or so for them. There's not a chance in hell I'll splash out €50 or so unless it was a game I absolutely want.
I own a pc and xbox and regularly spend over €1000 a year at least on new games..

hooradiation

"moving the industry forward"?

It would probably help your argument if you could at least defined what you are talking about when you say vague shit like this.

Hercule

hooradiation wrote: »

"moving the industry forward"?

It would probably help your argument if you could at least defined what you are talking about when you say vague shit like this.

Its simple, the games industry must move forward, not backwards, upwards, not forwards, and always twirling, twirling, TWIRLING towards freedom!

ghostchant

Sc@recrow wrote: »

Sorry....but the publish has already been paid for the game by the original owner.
It's not as if they're gaining an extra player, the original player has retired and someone else has taken his place.
This is completely about the publisher wanting to be paid twice for the same game and sheer greediness.
I buy some second hand games that I'd be not too sure I'd like as I'm prepared to take a risk on only laying out €20 or so for them. There's not a chance in hell I'll splash out €50 or so unless it was a game I absolutely want.
I own a pc and xbox and regularly spend over €1000 a year at least on new games..

If you're taking a risk on a game for 20e instead of paying 50e then I do see your point. However if it turns out that you don't like the game at all, you're hardly going to need to pay for the online pass or whatever to use the servers, you're probably going to put it back it in the box and play one of the other games you bought in the same time-frame (of which there are many by the sounds of it). If, however, it turns out that you do really enjoy it and want to play online or have access to DLC or whatever, sure why not throw 10e to the developers, you still come out 20e better off than buying new (based on the 20e and 50e figures you mentioned above)

richymcdermott

ghostchant wrote: »

If you're taking a risk on a game for 20e instead of paying 50e then I do see your point. However if it turns out that you don't like the game at all, you're hardly going to need to pay for the online pass or whatever to use the servers, you're probably going to put it back it in the box and play one of the other games you bought in the same time-frame (of which there are many by the sounds of it). If, however, it turns out that you do really enjoy it and want to play online or have access to DLC or whatever, sure why not throw 10e to the developers, you still come out 20e better off than buying new (based on the 20e and 50e figures you mentioned above)

I agree to that on what your saying,but developers shouldnt worry about online passes, if there games are great people will buy them. I do buy my games 80 per cent of the time full price but i still do get my games 2nd hand aswell cause i dont want to take the risk like before with ff13 spend full price hate it then im stuck with the thing.

Overheal

richymcdermott wrote: »

I agree to that on what your saying,but developers shouldnt worry about online passes, if there games are great people will buy them. I do buy my games 80 per cent of the time full price but i still do get my games 2nd hand aswell cause i dont want to take the risk like before with ff13 spend full price hate it then im stuck with the thing.

No wonder you're bitter. Try turning that pie chart around: 20% of your games new, 80% of your games post-release. I probably own a Steam Library that would have cost a $2000 at launch prices, as opposed to the actual cost to me of $620, for 120 titles. At an average cost of just over five dollars each, over the last 3 and a half years. How much are you spending? I spend $200 a year on games (eep), but that would be what, 4 "New" titles a year? Dollars and Sense.

krudler

richymcdermott wrote: »

I agree to that on what your saying,but developers shouldnt worry about online passes, if there games are great people will buy them. I do buy my games 80 per cent of the time full price but i still do get my games 2nd hand aswell cause i dont want to take the risk like before with ff13 spend full price hate it then im stuck with the thing.

*cough*
Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Beyond Good And Evil
*cough*

three genuine classics that hardly anyone bought because they weren't First Person Shooter 87: The Shootening, game quality and sales figures rarely go hand in hand, course there are major exceptions but look at any of the top selling games around Christmas and theres probably 2-3 actually great games in the top 10 chart, the rest is FIFA, Harry Potter spinoffs and whatever dance/rhythm thing people are into that year.

richymcdermott

krudler wrote: »

*cough*
Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Beyond Good And Evil
*cough*

three genuine classics that hardly anyone bought because they weren't First Person Shooter 87: The Shootening, game quality and sales figures rarely go hand in hand, course there are major exceptions but look at any of the top selling games around Christmas and theres probably 2-3 actually great games in the top 10 chart, the rest is FIFA, Harry Potter spinoffs and whatever dance/rhythm thing people are into that year.

Is beyond good and evil that good, heard good things bout it but never got a chance to play it. The market has changed for the worst i blame the frag heads just a safe bet to make easy money , football games as you said ,movie title spin offs for kids , i agree with you

landsleaving

krudler wrote: »

*cough*
Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Beyond Good And Evil
*cough*

three genuine classics that hardly anyone bought because they weren't First Person Shooter 87: The Shootening, game quality and sales figures rarely go hand in hand, course there are major exceptions but look at any of the top selling games around Christmas and theres probably 2-3 actually great games in the top 10 chart, the rest is FIFA, Harry Potter spinoffs and whatever dance/rhythm thing people are into that year.

Don't hate the games, hate the players.

johnny_ultimate

richymcdermott wrote: »

Is beyond good and evil that good

Yes, yes it is.

Here's a list of recent, readily available games off the top of my head that aren't generic FPS bollocks:

Ys Seven
Persona 3 / 4
Bayonetta
Sin and Punishment: Successor of the Stars
Super Mario Galaxy
Valkryia Chronicles 1-2
Stacking
Costume Quest
Okami / Okamiden
Death Smiles
Deadly Premonition
Disgaea series
Rock Band 1-3
Portal 1-2
Yakuza 1-4
Kirby's Epic Yarn
Rez HD / Child of Eden
Braid
Echochrome / Echoshift
Little King's Story
Beyond Good and Evil (HD)
Bangai-O Missile Fury
Red Dead Redemption
No More Heroes 1-2
Assassins Creed series (mainstream innovation)
Vanquish (generic but awesome)
Split / Second
Loco Roco / Patapon
LA Noire
Hell, even Bulletstorm!

I could continue on. Many of these games aren't for everyone, most aren't perfect, but they all do something new, unique and different and I'm pretty sure you'd get the vast majority of them in your local shop, download store or at the very least amazon. That isn't going into import friendly games either.

Originality is not dead in games, there are dozens and dozens of games out there that consistently do something new. I honestly think those who bemoan a lack of originality in games just aren't playing the right ones! Everyone is entitled to play what they want - the average exclusively obscure RPG player is as entitled to their opinion as someone who obsessively plays Modern Warfare. But complaining about a lack of diversity rings hollow IMO.

hooradiation

landsleaving wrote: »

Don't hate the games, hate the players.

yeah, what a bunch of jerks. With their having fun. What jackasses.

What are they even doing? Everyone knows this isn't about fun, it is serious business about protecting gaming from being ruined forever by these people and their tastes that our not like ours!

richymcdermott

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Yes, yes it is.

Here's a list of recent, readily available games off the top of my head that aren't generic FPS bollocks:

Ys Seven
Persona 3 / 4
Bayonetta
Sin and Punishment: Successor of the Stars
Super Mario Galaxy
Valkryia Chronicles 1-2
Stacking
Costume Quest
Okami / Okamiden
Death Smiles
Deadly Premonition
Disgaea series
Rock Band 1-3
Portal 1-2
Yakuza 1-4
Kirby's Epic Yarn
Rez HD / Child of Eden
Braid
Echochrome / Echoshift
Little King's Story
Beyond Good and Evil (HD)
Bangai-O Missile Fury
Red Dead Redemption
No More Heroes 1-2
Assassins Creed series (mainstream innovation)
Vanquish (generic but awesome)
Split / Second
Loco Roco / Patapon
LA Noire
Hell, even Bulletstorm!

I could continue on. Many of these games aren't for everyone, most aren't perfect, but they all do something new, unique and different and I'm pretty sure you'd get the vast majority of them in your local shop, download store or at the very least amazon. That isn't going into import friendly games either.

Originality is not dead in games, there are dozens and dozens of games out there that consistently do something new. I honestly think those who bemoan a lack of originality in games just aren't playing the right ones!

I own bout 95 per cent of those titles, i dont like mario got smg2 after retr0 said to get it , put an hour into it and havent touched it in weeks, lot those titles will be overlooked though , all about fps makes me really sad

johnny_ultimate

richymcdermott wrote: »

I own bout 95 per cent of those titles, i dont like mario got smg2 after retr0 said to get it , put an hour into it and havent touched it in weeks, lot those titles will be overlooked though , all about fps makes me really sad

Well then you'll be glad the vast majority of them lack online passes, DLC and other bloated publisher rubbish! Rock Band is the one game IMO that actually benefits from DLC. And most of titles mentioned (ones I've played anyway) are spectacular games.

Yes, DLC is a bit ludicrous at times - I don't mind when something totally useless like costumes are left out, but when the game is actually incomplete as a result (Assassins Creed 2) then yes we can cry and complain. But not every game falls into the pratfall - mostly just the ones that are guaranteed to make their money back.

Remember, DLC wouldn't be still going if people weren't willing to pay it. Publishers and developers smell cash and are going after it. They're a business after all. If you don't like it, don't buy it - again, the only way you're going to make a difference.

richymcdermott

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Well then you'll be glad the vast majority of them lack online passes, DLC and other bloated publisher rubbish! And most of them are spectacular games.

Yes, DLC is a bit ludicrous at times - I don't mind when something totally useless like costumes are left out, but when the game is actually incomplete as a result (Assassins Creed 2) then yes we can cry and complain. But not every game falls into the pratfall - mostly just the ones that are guaranteed to make their money back.

Remember, DLC wouldn't be still going if people weren't willing to pay it. Publishers and developers smell cash and are going after it. They're a business after all. If you don't like it, don't buy it - again, the only way you're going to make a difference.

Online pass only effected me once and thats with mk when the ps store was down i couldnt redeem my code until a month later but by that time i was done with the game so 50 euros down the drain couldnt be arsed going back, i dont understand likes of fifa , mk with the online pass they already have a fan base whos gonna buy the copies day 1 for what reason do they need a code for. What if a person never liked mk game and was waiting to get it cheap so they can try it out , they might like it and go ok i buy the next one so . I suppose then its so bad to lend a game to a friend so or what about renting games in xtravision. I know there a business and they are there to get as much money off the consumer as possible , as i said at the start of the thread all i ask for is 1 full game , no pre order bonus no lock on disk, no drm no day 1 dlc

deathrider

krudler wrote: »

*cough*
Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Beyond Good And Evil
*cough*

three genuine classics that hardly anyone bought because they weren't First Person Shooter 87: The Shootening, game quality and sales figures rarely go hand in hand

In all fairness, I think this is a simple case of being unlucky. Great games that didn't sell- Unfortunately these things happen, and would happen every once in a while regardless of what else was on the market. There are also some fantastic movies and records out there that are simply flawless, yet never sold well and/or made it big in the eyes of the general public. It's just the way of things.

johnboysligo

richymcdermott wrote: »

as i said at the start of the thread all i ask for is 1 full game , no pre order bonus no lock on disk, no drm no day 1 dlc

I blame Microsoft, why you ask? well its simple really Xbox live is like paying for features that are already on the disc.
online multiplayer which is peer hosted i.e. one player is hosting the match on his/her xbox is not something you should have to pay for imo.

Blazer

johnboysligo wrote: »

I blame Microsoft, why you ask? well its simple really Xbox live is like paying for features that are already on the disc.
online multiplayer which is peer hosted i.e. one player is hosting the match on his/her xbox is not something you should have to pay for imo.

Xbox live is a hell of a lot more than that...Facebook/Twitter integration/Netflix if you're in the states, I watch sky multiroom on it etc and a whole pile more.
For me the €30-40 for a yearly sub is definitely worth it for the xbox...unless you're a ps3 fan in which case you'll bitch about having to pay for playing multiplayer....how's that been going for the past month for ye?

richymcdermott

Sc@recrow wrote: »

Xbox live is a hell of a lot more than that...Facebook/Twitter integration/Netflix if you're in the states, I watch sky multiroom on it etc and a whole pile more.
For me the €30-40 for a yearly sub is definitely worth it for the xbox...unless you're a ps3 fan in which case you'll bitch about having to pay for playing multiplayer....how's that been going for the past month for ye?

The ps3 has the facebook ,twitter , netflix thing aswell and thats a free service, as my friend whos a xbox consumer said to we are paying for things we never ask for, ign interviews facebook twitter ya can all get that on your pc so they are all pointless.instead of xbox and ps3 trying to be what it should be is a gaming console its trying to be a entertainment system. I had a xbox and i played mw2 on both ps3 and 360 and the online was the same same lag issues,same modes .you shouldnt have to pay to play online , should be mandatory for the people who just wanna play online and not care for all the other stuff

Blazer

richymcdermott wrote: »

The ps3 has the facebook ,twitter , netflix thing aswell and thats a free service, as my friend whos a xbox consumer said to we are paying for things we never ask for, ign interviews facebook twitter ya can all get that on your pc so they are all pointless.instead of xbox and ps3 trying to be what it should be is a gaming console its trying to be a entertainment system. I had a xbox and i played mw2 on both ps3 and 360 and the online was the same same lag issues,same modes .you shouldnt have to pay to play online , should be mandatory for the people who just wanna play online and not care for all the other stuff

but you can get all that for free on the xbox...apart from multiplayer.
€30 is nothing to pay for the subs (€60 or so if you buy direct from MS) and for that you get a stable and more importantly secure service..
People might slate MS for charging for xbox live but it's evolving constantly and improving.
Multiplayer gaming on the xbox tends to be a lot better than the PS3..a lot more stable and a helluva less lag.
I actually own both and I barely use the ps3 now...it's basically my 3d blu-ray player..

Korvanica

And the wii has motion controls and dildo attachments and BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

Shaddap with your bickering... this thread is the games industry not what the better console is....

Online pass doesn't bother me, as I buy my games new and support developers. One thing that a lot of devs are doing now is day 1 dlc. This i do not like. as It could have been part of the game initially.

Mr E

__________

^^

See that line? Anyone who posts an xbox vs. ps3 vs. wii comment after that line will get a yellow card.

Back on topic please.

Fnz

OT but wanted to respond:

Sc@recrow wrote: »

Xbox live is a hell of a lot more than that...Facebook/Twitter integration/Netflix if you're in the states, I watch sky multiroom on it etc and a whole pile more.
For me the €30-40 for a yearly sub is definitely worth it for the xbox

Whoop-de-do! The point was, if you want to play online multiplayer, you have to pay the yearly subscription fee. All that "value-add" crap doesn't matter if what you care about is having an audience to play against in some niche title, 6-months after release.

Blazer

BAN HIM ^^

Lucutus

Good thread, enjoyable to read other gamers opinions on the direction our beloved hobby's industry is headed.

I'm finding that more and more developers are taking a 'safe' approach to churning out games, thus releasing buggy, incomplete code; essentially beta testing their software on release. The reasons for this are many, I'm sure it has a lot to do with publishers pressuring development studios for software in much the same way authors are pressured to get their next book out by deadline.

Any software development is going to suffer from bugs and will evolve over time as these get ironed out, however it appears more and more that games are suffering from this more than they did in years past; an attitude of "Sure, we can patch it on or after release day!" seems to be becoming more prevalent and the industry norm.

This wasn't really an option for games which were released in yesteryear on physical media and a certain level of quality was expected and delivered, likely due in part to the logistics of upgrading software without the convenience of an internet connected market.

Overheal wrote: »

I probably own a Steam Library...

I know you're making a different point in your post and you know better yourself, but none of us actually 'own' our Steam library of games.

We are subscribers to the platform, which enables us to buy licenses for games and the platform provides digital delivery of the software. Under the end user licenses (practically all software licenses, be they digital downloads or physical media), we are entitled to use the software, not to own it. If we uninstall Steam, we lose our games.

This was highlighted to me when I purchased F12010 from Codemasters over Steam, the game is fun, but suffers from an infuriating corrupt save game bug. When Codemasters patched it 6 months (!) after release it was still not fixed. Like a dog with a bone, I went looking for a refund.

32 emails later, I eventually got a once-off 'customer service pity refund' from Steam, but in the process, I posed the question, "If I decide to uninstall Steam, how can I get access to my games library?", the answer is "You can't, here's a refund this one time, next time, fuck off".

As Steam is not based in Ireland, I think we have limited comeback when we get bent over a barrel with substandard software, for instance, If I buy my games in bricks and mortar store HMV, I can bring them back and be entitled under Irish and EU consumer law to a replacement product or full refund at their discretion, provided I can show the product is unfit for purpose.

So, um, yea, where was I going with this? Aye, Better quality software at release and more international protection for our consumer rights please.

Someone important somewhere is reading this forum, right?

Overheal

Steam is a License Management Platform basically. The first real step toward cloud based computing in that you don't need to keep and lovingly maintain physical DVDs. There are trade-offs to that sure. But we've had this conversation before, if Steam ever closes shop (unlikely) they already launched with the MO that you would be able to create Live Disc Backups. How that will work with other vendors is unclear but I wager they had to agree to something when they signed on to make their games available on the platform.

Either way thats more of a moot concern, when as we are now seeing with console discs you are getting a License to access online/DLC and if you lose your account you lose that access. It's already been about 10, 15 years or more since you've been able to resell a PC game properly. It was only a matter of time before it happened to consoles.

pablomakaveli

I was in GAME today and noticed a sticker on the used copies of Bulletstorm and Dead Space 2 that said something to the effect of "Check at the counter for availability of download codes".

Have the shops found a way to give the online codes from brand new copies of games to customers buying used copies of the game?

mrm

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I was in GAME today and noticed a sticker on the used copies of Bulletstorm and Dead Space 2 that said something to the effect of "Check at the counter for availability of download codes".

Have the shops found a way to give the online codes from brand new copies of games to customers buying used copies of the game?

Not too sure but when I traded in LA Noire I left the DLC code unused in the case, so the next purchaser could get some 'enjoyment' from it. I had no use for it. I presume that they pass these on. Also when picking the game up initially the shop manager offered me an additional code for my brother in law (also getting the game - elsewhere). I assume that they receive additional copies at release.

johnboysligo

Sc@recrow wrote: »

Xbox live is a hell of a lot more than that...Facebook/Twitter integration/Netflix if you're in the states, I watch sky multiroom on it etc and a whole pile more.
For me the €30-40 for a yearly sub is definitely worth it for the xbox...unless you're a ps3 fan in which case you'll bitch about having to pay for playing multiplayer....how's that been going for the past month for ye?

free services you can get for your phone and your pc ( who has ever heard of using getting broadband just for your xbox???) oh and netflix isnt a bonus tbh you already pay a monthly sub for that on top of your live sub same goes for sky and then you got your broadband sub. Trace down your euro and youll find your paying quite a lot of money anyway a long time before your xbox comes into the picture. There is zero value in it imo.

I do own a ps3 its got a custom firmware installed so no psn anyway, Ive owned an 360 though for far longer.

AndywK

Folks I see nothing wrong with DLC or the online pass. At the end of the day you have to look past the gamer in yourself and realise it is a business. Always has been, always will be.

Besides look at Borderlands, hours upon hours of play plus 4 big DLC add ons.

One thing that really gripes me is that people find DLC way too expensive. Because when they look at the price they don't euro they think MS points. Are those MS points are so valuble to you that you wont want to give it to a developer but rather by that stupid crown picture that all the MW2 players use or maybe an awesome hat for your avatar.

Also in relation to the person going on about the "They would expect you to come back for the second half of the film the next day" Would movies that end on a cliffhanger or come up with a to be continued not be the same thing. Giving you something but then saving a bit for later.

ShadowHearth

Hmmm I was wondering lads. Remember that yoke named la noire. I got a prebooking dlc: a slip of a Tongue or something like that. Ussually I leave dlc for after, but funny thing is: I got that case in the middle of the game... So I guess it was just cut out fro main game and slapped as extra? Now people who bought from ather retailer are missing that case...

Respect to witcher developers FFs...