The future of online gaming... more payment?

[Leo]

Fellow gamers, check this out :

http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/110/1106732p1.html

I understand companies produce games for money, I was always a defender of that fact against certain people who failed to understand it. But I believe this is unfair... They capitalized on online multiplayer function already, by making it as rich as possible in this kind of games (and thus increase the lasting appeal of the game significantly; which in turn made more people buy it). We even started getting games like Battlefield : Bad Company 2 which have a single player campaign that is there for the hell of it and focus heavily on multiplayer.

Now they realized they have defeated themselves by their own strategy. So we have to suffer for it by paying monthly fees to a game that repeats itself worse than an MMO does and does not have quarter the diversity and freedom an MMO has?

I think I'll quit playing games altogether if I will be charged for my 1-2 hours fun in the evenings, in a game that I already paid the amount all its features are worth.

[Nyarly]

I think I'll quit playing games altogether if I will be charged for my 1-2 hours fun in the evenings, in a game that I already paid the amount all its features are worth.

Do you only play online games?

[Leo]

Mostly, yes.

Single Player games that I care to play are scarce as it is, I doubt new ones will show up any time soon (except a few sequels). Most of the time I spend with games is spent online and if I have to pay for that, I'll just find myself a new hobby... however difficult that may be after 20 years of gaming *sighs*

[Inkidu]

I personally saw this coming.

[Heaven Sent Blossom]

Pachter? Really? for every one thing right he gets about five woefully wrong, and most of those are due to his obsession to be "right" about how Nintendo were going to fail this generation.
However if any company was going to pull this right now then it would be Activision--however if you buy Activision games? Then you deserve whatever you get.

[Leo]

however if you buy Activision games? Then you deserve whatever you get.

I'm pondering if I should take offense or not. I'll most likely go with not taking offense, but I think it was harsh to say that.

what's so bad about Activision anyway? They're not the best out there in some respects, but Modern Warfare & Modern Warfare 2 are good enough imo. At least it accomplishes what it set out to do.

[Heaven Sent Blossom]

The list of horrible things Activision have done in the last couple of years is pretty long, my personal favourite is probably when their managing director stated that they would prefer to concentrate on franchises that they could "exploit" (his word, not mine). Although I was a big fan of how they withheld royalties from the developers of Modern Warfare, that was a good one.

[Nyarly]

However if any company was going to pull this right now then it would be Activision--however if you buy Activision games? Then you deserve whatever you get.

So people who play Activision games are all idiots? Well, I think I keep my opinion of Fan Haters for myself.

[Leo]

So?

It's business, mate. Exploit is the right word, because they are making money off of our desires from gaming and they've been doing it in the dirtiest way possible since the dawn of 3D.

But monthly fees for games like Modern Warfare? Please... that's like a British spy wearing a shirt with UK flag on it next to Hitler and expecting him to be fooled.

[Paladin]

So people who play Activision games are all idiots? Well, I think I keep my opinion of Fan Haters for myself.

I happen to play activision games. Some of them are quite good.

[Heaven Sent Blossom]

But monthly fees for games like Modern Warfare? Please... that's like a British spy wearing a shirt with UK flag on it next to Hitler and expecting him to be fooled.

My original point about how often Pachter is wrong still stands, however if this comes to pass then people will just need to vote with their wallet I guess. Heck shouldn't prove too hard if they let Treyarch develop their future CoD games.
I wouldn't be surprised if Activision gave this some serious consideration as an option, I would be pretty surprised if they actually implemented it, and I would be flat out astounded if it proved worth doing twice.

[Leo]

Let's just hope we are never expected to pay on a regular basis for games like CoD.

[Heaven Sent Blossom]

PLANETSIDE!!!!

Sorry, couldn't help myself. It's like a sickness.

[Leo]

I said games like CoD  ;)  ;D

[Heaven Sent Blossom]

It was a shooter, it totally counts ;-p

It also had less balance issues than Modern Warfare 2---maybe.

On a more serious note I think we'll see Activision go the "multiplayer code on new copies, has to be purchased if you buy preowned" model before they hitch their wagon to this concept since that's pretty popular right now, especially with the sports titles.

[Leo]

In my country, there's a saying. "Has to eat forty bakehouses of bread" or something like that in a mot a mot translation.

That is valid for Planetside.

[Paladin]

Why does anyone care? People will always pay for shit like this because the truth is we want to be ditracted from how shitty our lives are.

[Leo]

Why does anyone care? People will always pay for shit like this because the truth is we want to be ditracted from how shitty our lives are.

Because we like to pretend we're rich and important people by debating about everything like it was international politics  ;)

[HairyHeretic]

PLANETSIDE!!!!

Sorry, couldn't help myself. It's like a sickness.

Roll on Planetside Next :)

*chambers a round in the bolt driver*

[GeekFury]

Well trust Activision to go for fee's on games that by all rights should be free to play online, any chance they got the idea from Activision-Blizzard? But really is it's only for FPS' then won't bother me, I rarely play online games on my 360 if ever, but as a former Unreal player I think it should just be the law that online FPS' should be free multiplayer, otherwise you're heading into MMO territory and no FPS, Call of Duty or otherwise is THAT addictive people will pay to play.

[Nyarly]

Quite a naive view. As much as people complain, they WILL pay for it.

The question is not, why Activision does that, but why they start with it only now. I would have expected that years earlier.

But if this prevails (and most likely it will), it won't stop with Activision, of course. All the other companies will want to have a piece of that cake too, after all.

[HairyHeretic]

Well trust Activision to go for fee's on games that by all rights should be free to play online, any chance they got the idea from Activision-Blizzard? But really is it's only for FPS' then won't bother me, I rarely play online games on my 360 if ever, but as a former Unreal player I think it should just be the law that online FPS' should be free multiplayer, otherwise you're heading into MMO territory and no FPS, Call of Duty or otherwise is THAT addictive people will pay to play.

Planetside. Pure FPS, though with vehicles and aircraft, and a monthly pay MMO.

[Brandon]

Ya know Ive been saying for awhile how companies are getting away with making awesome multiplayer but then not putting work into single player aspects yet still expecting us to pay the full price. When I can go into a single player side of a game and finish it in less time then it takes to make a cup of coffee something is seriously wrong and thats pretty much the way all FPS's are going. Awesome multiplayer with bland, predictable, and criminally short single player experiences

However Ive already been voting with my wallet because I consider not giving me worthwhile single player while still charging full price is pretty much trying to steal my money. I dont tend to buy many FPS games anyway, although I do rent them to see if theres anything special about them. In fact the last one I bought was Battlefield: Bad company 2 and I really do enjoy the multiplayer but the story is imaginative and more importantly funny enough to keep me playing it over and over again

If the games industry wants better games then they need to step it up a notch and make the single player side better. Besides charging too much more for multiplayer is just going to make people go to free 2 play multiplayer. Its already bad enough that for XBOX live you have to pay for your internet and the live account, how much more are they going to try and bleed out of us?

[Lithos]

Monthly fees at very least make us being far more selective in games we play, and that might actually lower the sales quite a bit. I have more or less accepted pay to play mmo:s and have played quite a few of them - enjoyed too so it has been money well spent.

Shooters i play only occasionally, and when I do it is for the most part at occasional lan party or such. If I play couple nights every other month, that is something I would rather not pay any fees for. Then again, gamer who enjoys the shooters the most might want to pay small monthly fee for their entertainment, specially if it keeps the kids out.

All in all a sad developement - it is never fun to lose money after all - but expected one with how much money companies have been making with MMO franchises. At least I would expect that if they expect you to pay monthly fees for a shooter with not much single player appeal - at least distribute it free. No matter how you look at it, first buying a game and then paying for playing it feels like a rip off.

[Leo]

Let's grab torches and march to Activision HQ if it happens.

[Brandon]

To be fair, we cant complain about activision letting the kids in. Objectively the industry has done everything it can to minimize under age gamers from getting ahold of more mature titles. Theres the ESRB, the clerks at games stores that tell parents that their kids are to young for the games, and the tools in the Xbox and playstation to set viewable content. Really what else can they do? At this point it falls strictly on the parents and I'm not in the business of telling people how to raise their kids. If a parent thinks their 10 year old child is mature enough to play a 17+ game then that's their choice

Anyway, as far as this pay even more for multiplayer idea. I think its an excellent way to loose business, not gain it.

[Jude]

Pachter's wrong yet again.  People don't put off buying new games because they're playing old ones--you're always going to have more fun with new experiences, they put off buying new games because they don't have the money to do so.  Add subscription fees and people will purchase even fewer games.  It'll just detract from multiplayer by making it a premium and add value to singleplayer, but I don't think that'd be a bad thing necessarily (except for Activision sales).

There was a point when we (gamers) expected every game to have at least 10 hours of gameplay.  Less than 20 was still not a good buy.  Now, there are AAA titles which only have about 5-8 hours worth of singleplayer content; for 60 dollars that's absolutely ridiculous.

[Mr Self Destruct]

I was absolutely pissed when I found out that the Aliens Vs. Predator game was purely online multiplayer only.  I don't play any MMO's.  I gave World of Warcraft a shot, and hated the entirely too linear gameplay.  The same was true with Guild Wars, and after my experimentation, I decided it was enough.  I pay $60 for a new game, and multiplayer online is the least important option for any game I'm looking to play. 

[Leo]

There was a point when we (gamers) expected every game to have at least 10 hours of gameplay.  Less than 20 was still not a good buy.  Now, there are AAA titles which only have about 5-8 hours worth of singleplayer content; for 60 dollars that's absolutely ridiculous.

The good old games. That's why Tomb Raider : The Last Revelation is the best of the series. It was a silver, or perhaps even a golden, age of gaming. Producers aimed for quality and players held the quality target high up. I don't know if it's game magazines and/or web pages like IGN, or if it is a newer generation of hyperactive kids... but somewhere along the line something caused the majority of gamers to want top-notch graphics, plenty of action, easy gameplay and nothing else.

I know I kinda blamed IGN there, but let me explain : IGN is the only place whose ratings I trust, but I am a gamer who gamed even before 3D was even pondered... I mean, I watched games evolve just like those guys at IGN did. So it means to me something that it doesn't mean to a newer generation of gamers when IGN rates a game 9.0 and I think it is this lack of connection between the reviewer and the reader that makes the newer generation have a misconception of what a good game is. I know it is not going to effect what a player likes or not, but it does have effects. Some people don't even read reviews, they just check ratings and buy the ones above a certain number.

I thought Bioware would be the knight in shining armor that saves the game industry from boring, short and repetitive games. But since the sequal to Dragon Age seems to be getting a downgrade instead of an upgrade to its content... I'm starting lose faith...

[Nyarly]

I thought Bioware would be the knight in shining armor that saves the game industry from boring, short and repetitive games. But since the sequal to Dragon Age seems to be getting a downgrade instead of an upgrade to its content... I'm starting lose faith...

I have to wonder why you were so naive in the first place. As much as I like Bioware games, the thought that they are the "knight in shining armor" is ludicrous.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I never got bit by the massively multiplayer bug.  All the games I own are single-player, and I would not pay a monthly fee for them.  Well, I'll put an asterisk next to that and say I could be persuaded to pay a monthly fee for access to a good library of past and present games.

My biggest pet peeve is the casual games on Facebook.  I played them for a time, but got tired of each game requiring the player to spend real money on magic jewels or horseshoes or whatnot to advance beyond the first week.  As a gamer and consumer, I'd rather they take the time to develop the game further and then charge a nominal, flat fee (say, $3.99 a month) to play.  Without the built-in limitations.  Or if the companies like Zynga sold a $9.99 a month pass good for several games.  It's not that I won't pay...just that I don't like being nickeled-and-dimed.

[HairyHeretic]

The way I look at it, a months subscription to an MMO is less than I'll pay for two to three hours at the cinema. That seems pretty decent value to me, considering just how many hours I can get for that fee.

[Leo]

I have to wonder why you were so naive in the first place. As much as I like Bioware games, the thought that they are the "knight in shining armor" is ludicrous.

They were effectively combining the features in demand by the majority of 3rd generation gamers while still maintaining a firm grasp of the old ways. That's something no other company had done...

Until my hopes were hammered into oblivion, I expected the old game genres that we all love to play to become even better with stunning advances in graphics tech. But of course that didn't happen, we just saw the good stuff getting dropped in favor of games that last 5-6 hours in the hands of gamers like me and then get tossed away. Sure, they have great graphs, but that's about it. I buy it, I play it all evening and night and it's beaten when I'm crashing into bed... There are things I can pay the same amount of money and would last longer... so basically my money was wasted.

Bioware, on the other hand, gave me games that I keep going back to... games that challenge me, games that leave their mark on my memory, games that I truly enjoy playing. You can't just buy their games, start playing and be done with everything they have to offer before you hit the 20 hour mark. Their games always have more to offer you, that's Bioware. Bioware's not the only company that did this, but they were the best at it. That is why I thought they'd save the gaming industry from its dark age -but I was wrong.

Now they are going for simplified games too and that already makes me second guess Mass Effect 3 and Star Wars : The Old Republic... makes me wonder if they'll be worth my time at all...

[Inkidu]

I thought Bioware would be the knight in shining armor that saves the game industry from boring, short and repetitive games. But since the sequal to Dragon Age seems to be getting a downgrade instead of an upgrade to its content... I'm starting lose faith...

All this golden age of gaming, excuse the term, crap is absurd. We're talking about a medium that is at best thirty to forty years old. People who complain about the golden ages, and back in the day, or way back when. Are stuck in their own opinions of what's good and what's not. They try to form a line between  crap, and not crap and rarely is it that simple I've played crappy old games and awesome new games. There are always people willing to exploit the market but video games is a business as much as it is anything else.

What is happening is a trade off. You get twenty to forty hours of awesome gameplay with crappy graphics or ten to twenty hours of awesome gameplay and awesome graphics. There are just physical limits to what people can put on disks. Personally I like to think video games have grown up with me. As I get older I can't sit there and play for six hours at a time. I'm more prone to do one hour at a time prolonging my gaming experience.

Now do I think they should half-ass single player in hopes of getting more multiplayer out of it because it's a cash cow? No, but I would rather play seven hours of Metro 2033 than 40 plus hours of Final Fantasy 13 going from one liner level to the next. I don't think Dragon Age is getting a downgrade. Bioware is anything but stupid. They know what made the first a hit and they're not getting rid of that. They're making it so up people on consoles where they've obviously tried to make the first more dynamic than the pause and play of the PC version don't have to wait forever to see a nice kill or see "Moving into range" all the time.

What they're doing is making it so the console version plays a little more fast paced. It's still tactical but on the fly rather than pause and decide. I personally like what they're trying to do with their story telling too. I think I would rather see a human go at a quest than just pick another protagonist to become gray warden and stop another blight. Besides all I've seen are some very basic graphical snapshots. It's too early to pass any real judgment.

[Nyarly]

So is this thread going from "evil corporations start to demand monthly fees for multiplayer shooters" to "modern games sucks"?

I wonder when the first one is going to mention how casual games kill video games...

[Leo]

People who complain about the golden ages, and back in the day, or way back when. Are stuck in their own opinions of what's good and what's not.

So we should stop being stuck in our own opinions and accept your views?

[Inkidu]

So we should stop being stuck in our own opinions and accept your views?

Well, I suppose it can't be helped people always strive to dominate others with their opinions myself included. It's just that its sounds so, "My games were better because they're older, my movies are better because they're older. Whatever is made today suck on general principle."

People want unrealistic things. They want games that last forty hours with mind-blowing engine rendered graphics, phenomenal voice acting, innovative gameplay, killer multiplayer, it has to Julianne fires, and conjugate verbs.

Reminds me of the military and guns. 

[Hunter]

Well, I suppose it can't be helped people always strive to dominate others with their opinions myself included. It's just that its sounds so, "My games were better because they're older, my movies are better because they're older. Whatever is made today suck on general principle."

People want unrealistic things. They want games that last forty hours with mind-blowing engine rendered graphics, phenomenal voice acting, innovative gameplay, killer multiplayer, it has to Julianne fires, and conjugate verbs.

Reminds me of the military and guns.

I disagree.  The game you describe is certainly both possible and permissible.  Grated, I'd expect an 80 USD price tag for it but that's another issue altogether.

[Inkidu]

I disagree.  The game you describe is certainly both possible and permissible.  Grated, I'd expect an 80 USD price tag for it but that's another issue altogether.

Well then you'll be able to give the military that gun that shoots a thousand rounds a second, doesn't jam, recoil or overheat. It can wound a man at a half a mile, weighs three pounds, and fires .22 caliber rounds (for ammo weight and capacity.)

It's unrealistic to expect a game developer to put everything like that in a single game. It would take upwards of a decade. Can you honestly say you've ever played a game that ideal? Because that's what it is an unrealistic ideal. Price tag or no price tag.

[Hunter]

It's unrealistic to expect a game developer to put everything like that in a single game. It would take upwards of a decade. Can you honestly say you've ever played a game that ideal? Because that's what it is an unrealistic ideal. Price tag or no price tag.

You're stating that it's impossible.  It's not impossible, it's a matter of someone willing to spend the resources to make it.

[Inkidu]

You're stating that it's impossible.  It's not impossible, it's a matter of someone willing to spend the resources to make it.

Who would do it? Video games have a business aspect they have to make money. In fact fifty to sixty bucks a game is still covering the cost of a console for the first three years or so. Who could afford to pour that much time and energy and effort into a game? It's unrealistic because there's still people out there who are going hate it.

It's that old adage, "You can make some of the people happy some of the time but you can't make everyone happy all of the time."

[Leo]

People want unrealistic things. They want games that last forty hours with mind-blowing engine rendered graphics, phenomenal voice acting, innovative gameplay, killer multiplayer, it has to Julianne fires, and conjugate verbs.   

I think most of us would be content with good story, good voice acting, half the graphics available or even less for that matter, no multiplayer and a good gameplay. That's about what games were like back then anyway, I mean the good ones. (Multiplayer is fun and I'm not entirely against it dominating a title's content... but we, the old fools, would be just as happy without it)

There were more crap games in the past, actually, but at least back then graphics and mindless action wasn't an excuse to get that shit sold by the millions and make even crappier sequels to them. But now developers have that option and they go for it because their bosses want quick money... and that's the magic word, money.

There should always be games that require no more than a tiny bit of your attention and is great for time killing. The problem is, they have gone from being a genre of games to the definition of gaming. The process is not complete, but it's past the 50% milestone. The only reason behind this is the fact that every kind of gamer will always spend money on the occasional good time killer (myself included) and companies decided to milk this. I don't care what they milk, it's all about money in the end, but I just don't like to see my hobby getting degenerated like this.

Gaming used to be about diversity, now I walk into a store and 8 out of 10 titles I see are the same crap. People made money off of the good old games back then, they can still make that money from them, they just go for the easier option. Throw something into the market that roughly everyone will buy, be the shit for three weeks and then be forgotten, leaving gamers waiting for the next big thing.

I think we all know where that road leads in any market...

[Inkidu]

What you're talking about is inevitable in a sense. It has happened with books, movies, T.V. comic books, you name it. It's like Gregory Peck once said. There are four stages to stardom:

"Who's Gregory Peck?"
"Get me Gregory Peck!"
"Get me a Gregory Peck!"
"Who's Gregory Peck?"

There are still plenty of great games to play, some of them even spawned great sequels. I'll admit that the industry is changing as anything does and people don't like change but I don't think video games are going to disappear or become totally zombified. If you want to talk about money milking it's easy to point at EA or Activision but what about Square-Enix? They're notorious. There are always going to be crappy games, licensed games, movie, based games. There always have been, and there are going to be great games too.

[Will]

Gaming used to be about diversity, now I walk into a store and 8 out of 10 titles I see are the same crap. People made money off of the good old games back then, they can still make that money from them, they just go for the easier option. Throw something into the market that roughly everyone will buy, be the shit for three weeks and then be forgotten, leaving gamers waiting for the next big thing.

I can't help but feel like you're writing off all new video games because they aren't focused on what YOU like.  The single player content is short and shallow, so the whole thing is garbage?  Then why do they sell so well?  Obviously lots of people disagree with you.

I think, honestly, that your view on gaming is just outdated.  *shrugs*  So is mine.  I can't get into gaming nowadays for lots of reasons.  That doesn't mean that I shake my cane and talk about Super Mario Kart like it was a miracle in cartridge form.  If you are primarily a single-player type of person, I'm afraid things are just not going your way.  That's only "good" or "bad" on an individual basis, not industry-wide.  As I said before, lots of people think it's fantastic.

The monthly charge thing is a pain though, I think we can all agree on that.  Still, if enough people will pay it for the industry to remain profitable, then they'll do it.  And I can't blame them for it.  I can hate them, but I can't blame them.

[Inkidu]

I can't help but feel like you're writing off all new video games because they aren't focused on what YOU like.  The single player content is short and shallow, so the whole thing is garbage?  Then why do they sell so well?  Obviously lots of people disagree with you.

I think, honestly, that your view on gaming is just outdated.  *shrugs*  So is mine.  I can't get into gaming nowadays for lots of reasons.  That doesn't mean that I shake my cane and talk about Super Mario Kart like it was a miracle in cartridge form.  If you are primarily a single-player type of person, I'm afraid things are just not going your way.  That's only "good" or "bad" on an individual basis, not industry-wide.  As I said before, lots of people think it's fantastic.

The monthly charge thing is a pain though, I think we can all agree on that.  Still, if enough people will pay it for the industry to remain profitable, then they'll do it.  And I can't blame them for it.  I can hate them, but I can't blame them.

I'm going to plus one this.

[Leo]

I can't help but feel like you're writing off all new video games because they aren't focused on what YOU like.  The single player content is short and shallow, so the whole thing is garbage?  Then why do they sell so well?  Obviously lots of people disagree with you.

I think, honestly, that your view on gaming is just outdated.  *shrugs*  So is mine.  I can't get into gaming nowadays for lots of reasons.  That doesn't mean that I shake my cane and talk about Super Mario Kart like it was a miracle in cartridge form.  If you are primarily a single-player type of person, I'm afraid things are just not going your way.  That's only "good" or "bad" on an individual basis, not industry-wide.  As I said before, lots of people think it's fantastic.

The monthly charge thing is a pain though, I think we can all agree on that.  Still, if enough people will pay it for the industry to remain profitable, then they'll do it.  And I can't blame them for it.  I can hate them, but I can't blame them.

What my view is, does not change the fact that 8 out of 10 games I see are the same thing with different names and colors.

The fact that people like it, does not change the fact that most of those titles are devoid of creativity in most respects.

I play multiplayer as much as single player, because I am rather above the average in some and enjoy dominating scoreboards when I can, or the difficult competition with equally skilled/better players. But that doesn't change the fact that Bad Company 2 has a crappy single player that I think should never have been made, leaving space on the disc for more multiplayer content.

A lot of people dig sci-fic, but that doesn't change the fact that 90% of sci-fic doesn't make sense either.

If I got carried away and said something that would imply the facts that you stated are false, I apologize, because that was not my intention. But that too, doesn't change that fact that I speak the truth as much as you do.

[Wolfy]

http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/news/a245153/call-of-duty-charging-by-end-of-2010.html

o3o Rumor is they'll start charging for CoD's multiplayer...and if they do that, I'll give a personal F-U to them and just keep playing Halo: Reach..for free! :D (Well, besides what it cost to buy it, that is.)

[Mr Self Destruct]

It's unrealistic to expect a game developer to put everything like that in a single game. It would take upwards of a decade. Can you honestly say you've ever played a game that ideal? Because that's what it is an unrealistic ideal. Price tag or no price tag.

Oblivion...Fallout 3.  Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater.  Morrowind.  Mass Effect 1 & 2.  Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 1 & 2!  Yes, I've played those games, and it is possible to make them.  The current market trend, however, is for video game companies to make games that make them money based on your average gaming consumer; ie: average being males between 18-25 who want nothing more than a casual gaming experience rather than an in depth, immersive game with high replayability (like those listed above).  And those who crave a great storyline, well rounded characters, and (God forbid!) good game play are the ones left scratching our heads at the crap that lines the store shelves of Best Buy and Walmart.

The problem could be fixed.  But it won't.  Instead, we'll come out with games that take four hours to beat or their replayability is entirely in an online basis (and thus was born the dreaded MMO).

[Jude]

It's actually easier than ever to make video games.  Back in the day most of the coding for everything was done in-house and engines were created from the bottom-up for every single title.  Now most games are made with a pre-existing engine which is leased for the game's creation, and a lot of the work is very similar to mod-creating that amateurs do all the time for established PC games.  As the tools of creation evolved, really every aspect has gotten easier, even the creation of art and music since artists and musicians can basically use the same tools they would for every medium now without worrying about making something sound good within the limitations of low-bit counts.  Space on the disc is a problem with very few games, and absolutely no problem whatsoever with any PS3 games thanks to the massive space that bluray discs have.  Even programming has gotten easier as computer architecture transitioned from RISC to CISC.

Games have dropped in quality for certain, but there are a lot of complicated reasons as to why:

- There was a mini-death of the video game industry in the 1980s caused by a glut of poor-quality titles released on Atari and other systems.  Nintendo revived the industry by bringing about strict licensing that demanded titles be of a certain caliber to even be playable on the NES.  For a long time if you wanted your game to be released you had to have both publisher backing and first-party acceptance, licensing restrictions have eased quite a bit, and although I doubt we're headed towards another 1980s style catastrophe, it's taken its toll.

- With additional expressiveness and capability you have extra rope with which to hang yourself.  Screen tearing, low res textures, etc. wasn't really a problem back in the 16 bit era (and there was no measurable FPS lag).  Voice acting especially amongst the components of presentation has the capability to be an extreme detraction from the expression of a storyline if it's done poorly.  I think the spectrum has widened with greater artistic fidelity so there's a much larger capability to massively screw things up.

- Gamers expect more.  I remember 10 years ago the only games that had real progression systems were RPGs, now every decent game has something like it, to the point that we often call them RPG mechanics (which makes no real sense if you think about it).  Last generation online multiplayer was rare, achievements were unheard of, and downloadable content was mostly nonexistent.  There's a lot more to focus on now.

- Casual gamers have changed things.  They're more likely to buy based on brands, box-art, reviews, marketing, and instant-gratification than depth, longevity, and quality.  Whereas hardcore gamers do a lot of research (such as reading amateur reviews on Gamefaqs) and shop around for deals (on sites like CAG); the gaming population is becoming a lot more diverse.

- Some genres have evolved, others have stagnated, others still refuse to die when they probably should.  WRPGs have really taken off; King's Quest was cult classic at best, now you've got Mass Effect blockbusters and Bethesda awesomeness.  JRPGs really have stalled, FFXIII is a good game and the undisputed king of the genre (sales and reviews certainly support that no matter how any one individual feels about it) but the plot is still disturbingly cookie-cutter Japanimation stock.  And I think it's safe to say that the hack and slash genre is dead on consoles (go play Borderlands and say a prayer for the last of the greats:  Diablo II--but who knows, maybe Diablo III will be better).

- Not enough willingness to take risks, think outside of the box, and enjoy different experiences on behalf of gamers and developers.  Deadly Premonition for example, amazing game with a creative, unique spirit--torn apart by some critics, praised by others.  Freakin' amazing game, the kind that would've been a classic 5 years ago, now it's a cult classic because it's controls aren't the best and the graphics are sub-par.

[Nyarly]

Oblivion...Fallout 3.  Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater.  Morrowind.  Mass Effect 1 & 2.  Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 1 & 2!  Yes, I've played those games, and it is possible to make them.  The current market trend, however, is for video game companies to make games that make them money based on your average gaming consumer; ie: average being males between 18-25 who want nothing more than a casual gaming experience rather than an in depth, immersive game with high replayability (like those listed above).  And those who crave a great storyline, well rounded characters, and (God forbid!) good game play are the ones left scratching our heads at the crap that lines the store shelves of Best Buy and Walmart.

The problem could be fixed.  But it won't.  Instead, we'll come out with games that take four hours to beat or their replayability is entirely in an online basis (and thus was born the dreaded MMO).

Ah, there is it!

- Some genres have evolved, others have stagnated, others still refuse to die when they probably should.  WRPGs have really taken off; King's Quest was cult classic at best, now you've got Mass Effect blockbusters and Bethesda awesomeness.

Since when is King's Quest a RPG? I hope you are not talking about the horrible eight game.

[Will]

Oblivion...Fallout 3.  Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater.  Morrowind.  Mass Effect 1 & 2.  Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 1 & 2!  Yes, I've played those games, and it is possible to make them.  The current market trend, however, is for video game companies to make games that make them money based on your average gaming consumer; ie: average being males between 18-25 who want nothing more than a casual gaming experience rather than an in depth, immersive game with high replayability (like those listed above).  And those who crave a great storyline, well rounded characters, and (God forbid!) good game play are the ones left scratching our heads at the crap that lines the store shelves of Best Buy and Walmart.

The problem could be fixed.  But it won't.  Instead, we'll come out with games that take four hours to beat or their replayability is entirely in an online basis (and thus was born the dreaded MMO).

That's, like, your opinion, man.  /Dude

Seriously though, "the crap that lines the store shelves" must be appealing to someone, or it wouldn't be selling like hotcakes.  The industry is going downhill from your point of view, while from the point of view of those casual gamers you talked about, it's getting better all the time.  It isn't a "problem" for everyone.  I guess time will tell if it's a problem for enough people to cut into the developers' profits.

[Jude]

I think I probably got the title wrong--it's been a long time since I played any of the old WRPGs, but there were a lot of them that are basically the ancestors of the Elder Scrolls and other modern WRPGs.  Quest for Glory and Ultima are probably better examples (they even had character importing).

[Jude]

That's, like, your opinion, man.  /Dude

Seriously though, "the crap that lines the store shelves" must be appealing to someone, or it wouldn't be selling like hotcakes.  The industry is going downhill from your point of view, while from the point of view of those casual gamers you talked about, it's getting better all the time.  It isn't a "problem" for everyone.  I guess time will tell if it's a problem for enough people to cut into the developers' profits.

Actually, video game sales are in decline, especially by casual gamers.  It's starting to look like the casual gaming market is about as reliable as the housing market.  Bubble burst.

EDIT:  I guess we'll see for sure in 2 months when Kinect and Move come out, but I'm predicting they'll be massive failures.  Why would someone pay nearly the price of a Wii just for accessories that make the Xbox and Playstation act like a Wii?

[Inkidu]

I'll agree that they're totally over-saturating the market. Guitar Hero is like the Starbucks of the video game world. There's probably going to be a small bubble bursting of some franchises but that's the great thing about video games. When one franchise goes it's rarely going to crash the whole market. Id, Bioware, EA, 2K, Faraxis, hell even Lionhead are probably going to live. Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are going to come out smelling like roses.

What I think is happening (despite market spamming) is that the gamer generation is growing up, like I said earlier, we're not kids anymore we can't devote the kind of obsession we used to (the average person mind you) so I think the market is just reacting to how much time the (average person) player wants to spend playing a game.

[Wolfy]

All that I know is this Shovelware crap needs to stop.

And I'll tell you why.

Look at this.

http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=77932&loc=dsslider3

Yes. you are seeing that right. It's a Chuck E. Cheese game.

Gentlemen...I do believe the gaming industry has hit Rock Bottom...and went further down.

[Inkidu]

But Chuck E. Cheese was started by Noland Bushnell the founder of Atari. So more like it has come full circle... creepy.

[Wolfy]

O_o...That is some Zen stuff right there, man..o-o

[Nyarly]

Yes. you are seeing that right. It's a Chuck E. Cheese game.

Gentlemen...I do believe the gaming industry has hit Rock Bottom...and went further down.

Gentleman...I think you are talking bullshit.

I mean what is this? Some random licensed (Apparently. I have no idea what this Chuck E. Cheese stuff is.) party game consisting of some mini games, which is probably bad.

[SarcasmMode]Wow. Something like this never existed before. It just has to be the death of video games.[/SarcasmMode]

[Hemingway]

Paying for online play?

Ha-ha.

I'd probably pay to play Call of Duty: Black Ops - for about a month or two. I mean, it's an insult. You're selling a product, and because you're not selling enough, you're going to increase the price to make up for it?

I'm glad I prefer single player games to begin with.

[Wolfy]

It's not the fact that it's a bunch of branded mini games...it's the fact that the branding comes from a 'restaurant' of all places...

I mean really..that is an all time low. o-o

The only thing that I can remember that was similar was the old NES Mcdonalds game.

[Wolfy]

Paying for online play?

Ha-ha.

I'd probably pay to play Call of Duty: Black Ops - for about a month or two. I mean, it's an insult. You're selling a product, and because you're not selling enough, you're going to increase the price to make up for it?

I'm glad I prefer single player games to begin with.

Tis why I'm sticking with Halo: Reach for my Online Shooter. That or Medal of Honor...if EA can get their damn "Dedidicated" servers working right. >_>

[Will]

Chuck E. Cheese is an American thing Nyarly, and yeah, it's actually pretty odd that they made a game for it. O.o  Though, the old 7-up Spot game was similar in oddness.

[Inkidu]

O_o...That is some Zen stuff right there, man..o-o

Karma's a bitch and then you die. (Not the Karma, just karma.)

[Nyarly]

It's not the fact that it's a bunch of branded mini games...it's the fact that the branding comes from a 'restaurant' of all places...

I mean really..that is an all time low. o-o

The only thing that I can remember that was similar was the old NES Mcdonalds game.

Believe it or not: That wasn't the only one.

I can remember a time, where you had to pay for most such advertising games. Granted they were mostly much better...

Like a platformer based on Kellogs, a German adventure game trilogy (which actually promoted acceptance to foreigners), an action-adventure based on... Tobacco or something like that or a Froggers-clone from a bank.

Ah, the nostalgia...

[Lady Annabelle]

Though, the old 7-up Spot game was similar in oddness.

If I remember correctly, that was actually a pretty good game.  It had some good music on it.

Yeah, licensed games have been around since Kool-Aid Man and probably before...

[Will]

If I remember correctly, that was actually a pretty good game.  It had some good music on it.

Yeah, licensed games have been around since Kool-Aid Man and probably before...

*nodnods* I enjoyed it.

* Will thinks about finding the rom.

[Inkidu]

Then there was the Checks Cereal game that used the Doom engine. From what I heard it was fun. My family never bought Checks so I never got to play. Games have been selling out since the Atari.

[Nyarly]

I played that one. Is quite good, but sadly very short.

[Inkidu]

I played that one. Is quite good, but sadly very short.

Well what do you expect. It came in a cereal box. :D

[Nyarly]

I downloaded it from a site. This brand of cereals doesn't even exist in Germany.

[Jude]

Restaurant gaming doesn't get any better than Yo Noid, though to be fair Yo Noid was something else entirely in Japan and when they ported it they changed it to the Domino's mascot theme for some inconceivable reason.  That was on the NES, so it's not like older generations haven't seen partially-commercialized piles of crap.  Still, the same thing happened on the Atari and was a sign of things going to crap (then again last-gen and early this-gen there were Burger King games).

[Inkidu]

Restaurant gaming doesn't get any better than Yo Noid, though to be fair Yo Noid was something else entirely in Japan and when they ported it they changed it to the Domino's mascot theme for some inconceivable reason.  That was on the NES, so it's not like older generations haven't seen partially-commercialized piles of crap.  Still, the same thing happened on the Atari and was a sign of things going to crap (then again last-gen and early this-gen there were Burger King games).

Thanks Jude, I had almost wiped those creepy B.K. games from my mind. Thanks a lot...

[Nyarly]

Well, there were a lot of other crappy games, which contributed to Atari's demise and the American video game crash. While the E.T. game is the most famous of them, there were, for example, many horrible "porn games" (if you even can call it such with graphics like that). Like a certain game called "Custer's Revenge"...

[Inkidu]

I know that marketers are pushing the limits of what a person is going to spend on games and gaming paraphernalia and I wouldn't be surprised if there was another micro-crash. Just look at Star Craft 2. They're making people pay sixty bucks for each campaign as they release them (we all know how sketchy Blizzard can be). They're not going to get any real new blood in the franchise and the hardcore can only take so much strain. 

[Jude]

Unless each contains different online offerings, everyone will only buy 1 of the 3, then pirate the other two.  I guess it's understandable though, why they're going for that, PC gaming just isn't that profitable because of piracy.

[Leo]

Well at least online FPS will still be free... unless this is just a marketing strategy, like the one SOE did with Trials of Obi-Wan.

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/110/1107019p1.html

[Nyarly]

Now that's a surprise, if there ever was one.

[Hunter]

Given the sheer volume of capital that can be made from MMOs, I'm not surprised.  Besides, it's a good marketing strategy (i.e. not everything costs).

[Leo]

Given the sheer volume of capital that can be made from MMOs, I'm not surprised.

Agreed, that's why MMOs are spamming the market lately. At first it was mostly rather big titles that tried to do what WoW did, but having failed to compete with WoW, producers decided to do what they should have done in the first place : Taking the source ideas that make WoW a cash cow and applying them to a game that is not a direct copy&paste of it.

So now we've got big and small MMOs all over the place being played by large numbers of players. Mostly these are free to download and free to play, but the good stuff can only be attained with real money, that way it is easier to trick the player into thinking they are not spending as much money... but the truth is you spend more money to those games than you would have spent on a game like WoW  ;D

I've spent enough time with MMOs that I'm completely bored of them, but regardless, I'm still waiting for Star Wars : The Old Republic because I'm too much a Star Wars fanboy  :P

[Wolfy]

FFXIV will be my next MMO...This september. :D

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand I'll be playing WoW: CataClysm ontop of that..so I'll be busy. o-o..Along with Some Halo: Reach In between play sessions, of course. :D

[Heaven Sent Blossom]

The micro-payment MMO system is really nothing new, it's been all the rage in Korean MMO's for a really long time. In fact out there it's the monthly subscription model that is the break from the norm if I recall correctly.

As a random aside the Burger King games were great. Sneak King = better than Metal Gear Solid.

[Will]

Sneak King rocks. >.>