You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 02, 2016, 08:33:56 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The future of online gaming... more payment?  (Read 3842 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brandon

Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #25 on: July 17, 2010, 10:53:17 PM »
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.

Offline Jude

Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #26 on: July 17, 2010, 11:46:16 PM »
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.

Offline Mr Self Destruct

  • If I had known things would turn out this way, I might have stayed up a little later, talked a little longer, and hugged you a little tighter. How foolish of me to think that we would last...to think that I wouldn't have regrets.
  • Knight
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Michigan
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #27 on: July 18, 2010, 12:35:50 AM »
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. 

Offline LeoTopic starter

Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #28 on: July 18, 2010, 07:36:09 AM »
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...

Offline Nyarly

Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #29 on: July 18, 2010, 11:16:06 AM »
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.

Offline OldSchoolGamer

Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #30 on: July 18, 2010, 01:24:41 PM »
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.

Offline HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #31 on: July 18, 2010, 01:39:34 PM »
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.

Offline LeoTopic starter

Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #32 on: July 18, 2010, 03:27:18 PM »
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...

Online Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #33 on: July 18, 2010, 03:37:25 PM »
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.

Offline Nyarly

Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #34 on: July 18, 2010, 03:56:58 PM »
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...

Offline LeoTopic starter

Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #35 on: July 18, 2010, 03:59:46 PM »
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?

Online Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #36 on: July 18, 2010, 04:05:56 PM »
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. 

Offline Hunter

Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #37 on: July 18, 2010, 04:07:55 PM »
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.

Online Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #38 on: July 18, 2010, 04:20:03 PM »
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.

Offline Hunter

Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #39 on: July 18, 2010, 04:26:54 PM »
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.

Online Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #40 on: July 18, 2010, 04:33:22 PM »
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."

Offline LeoTopic starter

Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #41 on: July 18, 2010, 04:36:39 PM »
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...

Online Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #42 on: July 18, 2010, 04:44:41 PM »
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.

Offline Will

Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #43 on: July 18, 2010, 04:55:25 PM »
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.

Online Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #44 on: July 18, 2010, 04:59:51 PM »
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.

Offline LeoTopic starter

Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #45 on: July 18, 2010, 05:11:55 PM »
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.

Offline Wolfy

Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #46 on: July 18, 2010, 10:18:18 PM »
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.)

Offline Mr Self Destruct

  • If I had known things would turn out this way, I might have stayed up a little later, talked a little longer, and hugged you a little tighter. How foolish of me to think that we would last...to think that I wouldn't have regrets.
  • Knight
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Michigan
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #47 on: July 18, 2010, 10:37:11 PM »
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).

Offline Jude

Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #48 on: July 18, 2010, 10:47:30 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2010, 10:50:00 PM by Jude »

Offline Nyarly

Re: The future of online gaming... more payment?
« Reply #49 on: July 18, 2010, 11:55:04 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2010, 12:00:39 AM by Nyarly »