Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

10 Trends That Are Killing Video Games


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 129 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 11:57:44 PM PST
Nicos says:
Oh yeah.. Trespasser... I remember the trailer for it having really amazing graphics for the time... then the game. Haha. IIRC your health was represented by a heart tattoo on your chest that you had to look down at? Tt gave the impression that your character was just a set of boobs floating around a dino-infested island.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 11:58:40 AM PST
DVvM says:
Maybe this will fix itself with the increasing irrelevance of publishers when it comes to non-tentpole games. I mean, if you fund your game yourself somehow, then you can sell it for whatever you feel like. If your game is digital-only, then don't need the printing and distribution channels that publishers provide.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 11:55:02 AM PST
GUEST!! says:
I'm not convinced we can combat that. I think the hype machines that surround these games may very well cement it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 11:48:26 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 21, 2012 11:50:43 AM PST
DVvM says:
I do think that one of the trends that is actually killing video games is the insistence that one size fits all for the price point of games.

Absolutely those big tentpole games that people get excited about months in advance (CoD, Skyrim, Halo, Uncharted, Mass Effect, etc.) can support a $60 price point at launch, but things like Rayman Origins, Enslaved, Twisted Metal (and lots and lots of other games) just won't succeed at a $60 price point and would do much better if launched for $40 or even $50.

The problem is that publishers believe that if they sell their game for less it will be perceived as inferior to the games that sell for more. I'm not sure how we combat that.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 11:43:56 AM PST
What about men that post on internet sites with women's names?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 11:43:07 AM PST
Hey says:
I'd probably buy the sequel if it were full-priced, to tell the truth. The first one was one of my favorite games in ages. I played it before all of the media chaos around it happened too, so that probably helped my enjoyment a bit too. If a sequel comes out that looks just as zany, terrifying, and fun as the first one, I'll be first in line.

Posted on Nov 21, 2012 11:36:12 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 21, 2012 11:37:11 AM PST
"I'm not sure I would have bought it for $29.99, and I loved that game."

It's a value at twenty, that much is true
I doubt much more cost would appeal to you
Still, if the sequel is higher, than I demand
That you support this game, wallet in hand

So says Mr. Stewart

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 11:21:28 AM PST
Hey says:
Get off my lawn, you darn kids!

Posted on Nov 21, 2012 11:19:13 AM PST
Ann Perkins says:
Thanks for giving us something else to point the finger at Frumple....

Whats killing video games? Old people (as in 25 and older kind of old).

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 11:05:18 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 21, 2012 11:05:48 AM PST
Hey says:
Honestly? The older I get, the more I've been enjoying straight up linear games. I just don't have the time to search around random rooms for items, 100 million side quests and so on very often anymore. After a long day of work, a straight forward corridor shooter is the perfect fit. I still enjoy stuff like Fallout and Dark Souls, but it's just so time intensive. A level here and there in a linear game is often just as satisfying nowadays.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 10:59:49 AM PST
DVvM says:
No one would have bought Deadly Premonition for $59.99.

I'm not sure I would have bought it for $29.99, and I loved that game.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 10:58:33 AM PST
Hey says:
Case in point, Deadly Premonition. Does anyone think that game would've sold what it did had it not been released at the super-low $19.99 MSRP? I know that's why I bought it. I would've payed more for it once I'd played it but had it been priced $59.99, I wouldn't have purchased it.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 8:19:15 AM PST
Phranctoast says:
That's funny. The reading I do on my train commute is the exact reason I haven't picked up a Vita yet.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 8:18:33 AM PST
Phranctoast says:
There's no rule to this. I for one have not gotten to a back catalog game and chose to watch season 2 of the walking dead instead. The ease of the option with streaming makes it an easier decision.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 8:08:57 AM PST
There might be some competition, but I don't think it's that significant. I don't play or buy less games just because I also read a lot. I typically read my e-books during the same times mobile gamers would do their thing. On the crapper, during smoke breaks, on a plane, in a car. Places I wouldn't have access to my PC or consoles anyway.

Sure, it might make me less likely to buy/play a Vita, but even that seems marketed more towards a player with time to devote to mobile gaming without the option to just turn it off when you're moving on to something else and not worrying about managing your session time.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 8:03:29 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 21, 2012 8:06:16 AM PST
GUEST!! says:
I'm not sure if I buy that one. If we did not have access to streaming through our consoles in my own home, any time I was not gaming on it it would otherwise be turned off.

When I'm in the mood to game, I game. When I'm in the mood to watch a video I watch a video.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 8:01:51 AM PST
Phranctoast says:
They're competing for peoples time (just like the streaming video point I made). Sure, a popular franchise like Halo can be immune to this, but it still happens.

And btw. I agree, they barely can be compared for specific markets, but markets have a lot of carryover demographics.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 8:00:43 AM PST
I really like it when developers try something new when it comes to story telling. I've been thinking about picking up Asura's Wrath recently after taking a peek at a few reviews (Angry Joe on Youtube got me the most interested) simply because of how it takes an episodic approach and puts the story above everything else. Sure there is some gameplay but you're there for the story and the experience as a whole. If the developer wants to turn a game into a movie then by all means go right ahead, just understand the risk you're taking and make sure you've got a target audience in mind much like Asura's Wrath did. You look at that one and you know Capcom built that with anime fans in mind and that's the exact experience they are going for. I have to applaud them for stepping outside the box and trying something different like that.

If we stick the same formula and discourage trying to new things because it reminds us of other forms of entertainment we'd be looking at a very similar looking library on every console. Games like Guitar Hero and Rockband never would have been because that is too much like music and other titles like Indigo Prophecy and Heavy Rain would have been scrapped because they weren't interactive enough. No one single game out there is going to be for everyone and I wish people would realize that just because you don't enjoy a particular game doesn't mean that it is a bad game.

I've never hid the fact that I don't care for hack and slash titles, for some reason I just can't get into them and I find combat to be a little repetitive (even on the harder titles like Ninja Gaiden and the older Devil May Cry games). Does this make them bad games? Heck no it just means that I prefer a different style of gameplay and want to be engaged in a different way than that developer wanted to engage their audience.

God of War 3 is a great looking game and I can agree with you on that opener being one hell of a way to start a game. I haven't played through the whole thing but I've seen a buddy play through sections which had me fairly impressed with the overall scope and how well the developer brought it together on screen. I mean watching Kratos scale some titan monster (I'm not well versed in my ancient mythology lol) the size of a freaking mountain was nothing short of spectacular.

@ JBitties

There are some practices that can drag the industry down. I think Online Passes and the whole focus on "We're losing money to the used market because games are so expensive!" is ruining the industry. Why? Because developers are basically living beyond their means in terms of budget. Instead of scaling back development, working with smaller teams, and changing their business practices so they are making money companies keep giving bigger budgets and expecting a larger return. Sure those great looking graphics are nice on my big screen but gameplay is what is going to sell games, not some slightly more shiny graphics and a forced in multiplayer component.

@ Foge

Thanks dood! I hardly pay attention to the downvotes anymore since I typically have a downvote stalker lol. I enjoy writing stuff like this and I don't expect everyone to agree with me, like the author I'm just a guy expressing my opinion. If people agree with me that's pretty cool, get to puff out my chest and imagine my cat is quite impressed with my internet achievement, if not then the world just keeps on spinning.

You make a good point with Call of Duty since they have developers who switch off putting the game on a two year release cycle. I still mention it because the strict development schedule doesn't afford either developer (or all three, four, or however many are working on it now) much time to try new things and see if the series can go in a different direction beyond setting it in a different time. That's where the complaints come from with annualized franchises but for every annualized franchise there is a Half-Life 2: Episode 3, Last Guardian, Last of Us, the next Legend of Zelda, and so much more which will spend years in development as the developers work to bring their vision to our systems.

Also how much can some of these titles evolve from one year to the next? Sure I think Madden could simply go with a roster update but again I'm not the target audience there so I'm not going to appreciate the subtle tweaks and other changes made from one year to the next unlike the players who get the game at midnight release and then spend the next months mastering the game.

Thanks again dood, glad to know a few people out there enjoy what I post even if you don't always agree with me. =p

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 7:58:32 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 21, 2012 7:59:21 AM PST
That's a different market, though.
When someone gets a $2 game for a small wireless device, they know what they're getting. That's what they want to play, and it's something they expect to play as a diversion in small doses between doing other things. They aren't dedicated gamers on dedicated devices.

It doesn't affect mainstream core gaming. The Xbox 360 didn't sell less units, Halo 4 didn't sell less copies, just because a lot of people also play Angry Birds on their cell phones. The markets coexist, they don't really compete.

Posted on Nov 21, 2012 7:54:16 AM PST
Phranctoast says:
Also.
Video Streaming services on consoles also hurts the industry, It's popularity has increased exponentially recently, and game developers are competing for time spent on a console with video providers rather than other developers wares.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 7:52:23 AM PST
Phranctoast says:
Low price games as in games being made for iOS devices(etc) at $2 a pop that are taking a cut while trying to get by on the ridiculous install base of those devices. It's devaluing the market, and making people skeptical of paying more for games.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 7:37:31 AM PST
"-low price games hurt the core industry as too many people start expecting that everywhere making selling a game at $60 difficult (someone complained about XBLA and PSN games costing $10-$15 right here.!!!....)"
Are you kidding here?
Not ALL new games deserve $60. A variable pricing system makes a lot more sense than "it's a new X360 game, $60 is standard." Some games would sell a lot more copies if they released at a lower price point. Valve (with Steam) have figured out the pricing formula. That's why those guys make crazy amounts of money.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 7:37:23 AM PST
Hyperbole is doubleplus ungood.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 7:36:10 AM PST
FOGE says:
The complaint about $10-15 games was that many PSN/Live games aren't worth that much money. Some are worth more but others are a joke at $15. The point as at all levels, not all games are created equal. It's wrong for devs to expect every game to be worth $60 or $15

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 7:35:18 AM PST
pyroguy says:
true
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Video Games forum
Participants:  37
Total posts:  129
Initial post:  Nov 20, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 21, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions