Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Time)   Video game sales are dropping like cement shoes because gamers have discovered a thing called "real life" which includes neat skill trees such as talking, going outside, and being nice to strangers   ( business.time.com) divider line
    More: Unlikely, technology tree, smart device, gamers, Wii U.  
•       •       •

4659 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Feb 2013 at 2:30 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



353 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-02-12 08:58:09 PM  
Either that or we are at the end of this console generation and everyone is waiting for the next console release.
 
2013-02-12 09:01:11 PM  
Clearly the being nice to strangers skill tree is underpowered, since no one ever specs that way.
 
2013-02-12 09:02:30 PM  

RexTalionis: Either that or we are at the end of this console generation and everyone is waiting for the next console release.


But that doesn't make a good story!
 
2013-02-12 09:07:53 PM  
Video game sales are dropping like cement shoes because gamers have discovered a thing called "real life" which includes neat skill trees such as talking, going outside, and being nice to strangers  roms
 
wee
2013-02-12 09:09:26 PM  

RexTalionis: Either that or we are at the end of this console generation and everyone is waiting for the next console release.


Or PC games, because PCs can have decent hardware and almost all of them have a non-shiatty input system (which also allows for typing).
 
2013-02-12 09:15:50 PM  
I don't know  subby, Fark's traffic rating is increasing. The nerds have not left the basement.
 
2013-02-12 09:25:43 PM  

RexTalionis: Either that or we are at the end of this console generation and everyone is waiting for the next console release.


Yes, because what's stopping people from paying sixty dollars for games is the looming four-hundred-dollar incremental hardware upgrade.

Console games done goofed. It's pretty much over.  And this is coming from someone who absolutely adores his Vita.
 
2013-02-12 09:28:07 PM  
Personally I'm busy finishing up my degree and waiting for Elder Scrolls Online. The current crop of MMORPGs kinda suck.
 
2013-02-12 09:33:02 PM  
At $60 they cost too much.  And if you buy a game used you don't get all the content unless you pay more $$$ to the company.

Fark that, at $60 new I expect to be able to resell my game and let the buyer get full value from it.
 
2013-02-12 09:41:43 PM  
Sales of consoles are down?  Haven't most consoles been out for a pretty long time?

/Doesn't have a new console.
 
2013-02-12 09:51:49 PM  

Snotnose: At $60 they cost too much.  And if you buy a game used you don't get all the content unless you pay more $$$ to the company.

Fark that, at $60 new I expect to be able to resell my game and let the buyer get full value from it.


At $60, games are actually  below what they should be if the costs had risen with inflation. 15 years ago, games were $50. If they'd kept up with inflation, they should be $71 now. And some games were priced at $50 back in 1990, where it would be $87 in modern money.

That you think video games are more expensive today reflects a lack of understanding of inflation.  Not only that, but thecostof production of video games has skyrocketed since the old days, so the video game companies would be justified in raising prices anyway. Which they haven't, because in inflation-adjusted dollars, video games are cheaper now than ever.
 
2013-02-12 10:02:19 PM  
For me, the problem is that there aren't any new games that I want to play.  I love nintendo, but how many more times can I play virtually the same mario game?  Even the last Zelda was supremely disappointing.

I've been thinking about buying a Wii U, but once again there doesn't seem to be anything out there I feel like playing.
 
2013-02-12 10:02:42 PM  

ihopOVERpancakes: I don't know  subby, Fark's traffic rating is increasing. The nerds have not left the basement.


'Satanists rally for governor' appears to be a key search term for Fark these days.
 
2013-02-12 10:16:04 PM  
I'll go ahead and address the talking points right now:

"Video games are more popular than ever!": Nobody has suggested "video games are dying".  Many of the models synonymous with video games (retail distribution, major game publishing) are in decline.  This is indisputable.

"Games are going digital, so the N.P.D.'s numbers are irrelevant!": They are, and it disproportionately impacts the console and dedicated portable (3DS, Vita) markets.  Not to mention that, even with digital, total game sales in the U.S. were down roughly ten percent for the year.

"Wait until the new consoles come out!": The audiences which were expected to help console video games continue to grow (the Wii boomers) are gone.  People don't want to pay sixty dollars for the software, let alone pay hundreds for new hardware when they can already play games on their existing phone or computer.

Basically, the new digital revolution (mobile gaming, Steam, free-to-play, etc.) has completely redefined what people are willing to pay for a video game, and it's going to disproportionately impact console and dedicated portable video games, the markets which require by-far the most disposable income.  You already own the computer, you already own the phone, and you can get games on both platforms for cheap or nothing.  Meanwhile, console video game developers need millions of people to pay sixty dollars (plus DLC) for their games, and the development of those games is only going to get more expensive next generation.  All the yelling and screaming that video game fans have done about the Wii and Call of Duty crowds, and they've now figured out that they needed those people to keep buying expensive software in order to subsidize the games that enthusiasts enjoy.  They're gone for good.

Or, you can convince yourselves that the disappointing sales of the 3DS, Vita, and Wii U, and the bankruptcy of a billion-dollar game publisher (THQ) are all just a fluke and that everything is going to be back to normal when Microsoft and Sony release their new game consoles.

hb0mb: For me, the problem is that there aren't any new games that I want to play. I love nintendo, but how many more times can I play virtually the same mario game? Even the last Zelda was supremely disappointing.


While I think "same mario game" is disingenuous, and that every Mario game takes on wildly different design choices that fundamentally impact their quality, David Wong pretty much got this right back in 2007: Most people play video games for the novelty and are generally oblivious to the actual quality of the games.  Once they get bored with the novelty, they move on.  The new novelty is "being able to play games on the shiatter" or "play games in your browser at work".  The only new novelty for the foreseeable future is the Oculus Rift, and that's likely going to be a cornerstone of PC gaming.  This novelty in this generation of consoles was "online multiplayer" and "media console functionality", and for the dominant Wii, "motion controls".  The new generation of consoles, so far as I can tell, offers zero new novelty.  So yeah.  There you go.
 
2013-02-12 10:23:09 PM  
God, I feel like crap for writing that all out.  I already know how this thread is going to go.
 
2013-02-12 10:23:31 PM  

Mike_LowELL: People don't want to pay sixty dollars for the software


I blame Steam sales and a weak economy for that. Video games are  cheaper than they've ever been, and as I discussed before, the $60 price point is actually lower than video games should be priced if they'd kept up with inflation.
 
2013-02-12 10:26:33 PM  
Blame Gamefly. I don't play multiplayer games because I'm not 13 any more and there are very few games with a long enough single player campaign or enough replay value to justify dropping $60 on a copy. I can't be the only person who does this - I think pretty much every guy with a live-in  mom girlfriend is in pretty much the same boat. The only games I bought with my PS3 were Madden and MLB The Show since sports games you can play forever. 5 hour long FPSs? Not so much. Even GTA is fun for about a month tops.
 
2013-02-12 10:35:47 PM  
A lot of games now have incredible depth, and/or games release regular expansions that keep people playing, and/or online modes that keep people interested using player vs player combat.

If games give me 20 hours of entertainment each, I need 30 or 40 a year. If they give me 200 hours of entertainment, I only need 3 or 4 a year.
 
2013-02-12 10:40:29 PM  

Rincewind53: I blame Steam sales and a weak economy for that. Video games are cheaper than they've ever been, and as I discussed before, the $60 price point is actually lower than video games should be priced if they'd kept up with inflation.


I don't disagree with you for a second.  I'll still spend sixty dollars on a game if I think it's going to be worth it.  (Last two full-price purchases were Dragon's Dogma and Dishonored, so I'm one-for-two.  Oh, and the Vita.)  Unfortunately, for most everyone else, there's too much free entertainment out there, and a change of perspective ("games actually being quite cheap") isn't going to correct their purchasing habits.
 
2013-02-12 10:41:43 PM  
This is a great time to mention my "Entertainment Value Calculator" when figuring out whether to buy a video game. Basically, figuring that these days, the average cost of a movie is $12, and provides around 2 hours of entertainment, then if a video game is $60, it should provide at a minimum 10 hours of entertainment. If a game only has a six hour single player, and I don't intend to use the multiplayer, I'd wait until the price dropped to at least $36.
 
2013-02-12 10:54:32 PM  
While there are valid points to be made (and already have upthread) I'm going to bring up a point that seems to always be overlooked in these sorts of falling profits analyses from industry insiders: the games aren't as good as they used to be. The only games that I can even remember off the top of my head from 2012 are Borderlands 2, The Walking Dead, XCOM, and Mass Effect 3, and I only remember the latter because it made me decide to never buy another Bioware game. While I think Borderlands 2 is one of the most amazing games of all time, and one that actually did DLC correctly, nothing else from 2012 really stands out.

I'm sure there were other games I bought. I'm looking at the Diablo III icon on my desktop that stopped seeing use a couple weeks after it was installed. Near it is Guild Wars 2, which met a similar fate. I'm not sure what specifically happened last year to gaming, but developers seemed to have forgotten how to make games fun, instead opting towards transparent Skinner boxes and slot-machine DLC mechanics. Nothing was all that memorable.
 
2013-02-12 10:55:17 PM  

Rincewind53: This is a great time to mention my "Entertainment Value Calculator" when figuring out whether to buy a video game. Basically, figuring that these days, the average cost of a movie is $12, and provides around 2 hours of entertainment, then if a video game is $60, it should provide at a minimum 10 hours of entertainment. If a game only has a six hour single player, and I don't intend to use the multiplayer, I'd wait until the price dropped to at least $36.


Hmm. By a $6/hour metric I should never pay more than a few pennies for sex
 
2013-02-12 11:03:09 PM  
Why don't the companies that are "losing" money from second-hand sales just open stores like Gamestop and get all that sweet resell cash for themselves?
 
2013-02-12 11:07:47 PM  

Shaggy_C: Rincewind53: This is a great time to mention my "Entertainment Value Calculator" when figuring out whether to buy a video game. Basically, figuring that these days, the average cost of a movie is $12, and provides around 2 hours of entertainment, then if a video game is $60, it should provide at a minimum 10 hours of entertainment. If a game only has a six hour single player, and I don't intend to use the multiplayer, I'd wait until the price dropped to at least $36.

Hmm. By a $6/hour metric I should never pay more than a few pennies for sex


I'll admit it's only a calculator for electronic entertainment.
 
2013-02-13 12:07:40 AM  

Mike_LowELL: Meanwhile, console video game developers need millions of people to pay sixty dollars (plus DLC) for their games,


Console developers seem convinced that every game will be Halo in terms of sales.

Hopefully they will stop dumbing-down controls and start making PC games again soon, instead of just ports.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: I'm sure there were other games I bought. I'm looking at the Diablo III icon on my desktop that stopped seeing use a couple weeks after it was installed. Near it is Guild Wars 2, which met a similar fate. I'm not sure what specifically happened last year to gaming, but developers seemed to have forgotten how to make games fun, instead opting towards transparent Skinner boxes and slot-machine DLC mechanics. Nothing was all that memorable.


I feel a little dirty admitting it, but I've been playing the hell out of Mass Effect multiplayer. But I sure as hell have not spent real money on equipment.

And I have my own private theory as to the plot of ME3:

Shepard, the Illusive Man, and Anderson are all the same person. The latter two are split personalities inside Shepard's skull. The game makes a lot more sense that way.
 
2013-02-13 12:13:18 AM  
I kinda wish I still played video games. My PS2 and Xbox both died a couple months apart and never got back into it. And nearly everything now seems to require internet connectivity at a speed greater than I have. So I just read these threads and wonder what happened after MGS III, Halo 2, and what the GTA after vice city was like. The Hitmans were fun.
 
2013-02-13 12:18:55 AM  
Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist:
I'm sure there were other games I bought. I'm looking at the Diablo III icon on my desktop that stopped seeing use a couple weeks after it was installed. Near it is Guild Wars 2, which met a similar fate. I'm not sure what specifically happened last year to gaming, but developers seemed to have forgotten how to make games fun, instead opting towards transparent Skinner boxes and slot-machine DLC mechanics. Nothing was all that memorable.

They're not console games, but I know a few people who are basically taking a break from gaming, after feeling they got burned on Diablo III and Knights of the Old Republic.  Which should have been two of the biggest releases of the decade.
 
2013-02-13 12:26:12 AM  

Sgt Otter: feeling they got burned on Diablo III and Knights of the Old Republic. Which should have been two of the biggest releases of the decade.


Blizzard couldn't release a decent game at this point if their lives depended on it. SC2 was so f*cking painful. Cliches and bad, dated graphics all around. I didn't even look at Diablo 3. It makes me very concerned for Bethesda getting into this MMORPG nonsense.

"Hey guys, we no longer have any incentive to make awesome, immersive single-player games due to this hoard of MMORPG-tards shelling out $20/month for our treasure-hoarding simulator!"
 
2013-02-13 01:34:13 AM  
I just got tired of gaming. I wasn't very hardcore to begin with, but I spent plenty of time on any sort of PC-based flying or space game. Exploration games like GTA and Fallout are fun, too, but it seems like too many developers are phoning it in or there's so much executive meddling that the product is just lackluster for the price. That and all of us are trying to be Superparents because our wives heard about such things on Pinterest.
 
2013-02-13 02:28:20 AM  
It's because the developers only make what sells - zombie games, sports games, and shooters for the 360 and Mario games/ported flash game packs for the Wii. And since those are the only things made, those are the only things that sell.

I get FAR more utility out of old games (I'm working on a custom retro build using an old Celeron 256 CPU I got at a yardsale) rather than the newest installment of a franchise series. Emulators, Steam, my soon-to-be-finished retro machine (not even connecting it to the net, so it should run indefinitely as long as I take care of it), and my N64 provide all the entertainment I really need for video games.
 
2013-02-13 02:32:02 AM  
It's the big pause between breaths before Fallout 4 hits.
 
2013-02-13 02:36:42 AM  

Mike_LowELL: God, I feel like crap for writing that all out.  I already know how this thread is going to go.


I hate it when you break character.  Takes me completely out of the moment.
 
2013-02-13 02:40:19 AM  

Rincewind53: Snotnose: At $60 they cost too much.  And if you buy a game used you don't get all the content unless you pay more $$$ to the company.

Fark that, at $60 new I expect to be able to resell my game and let the buyer get full value from it.

At $60, games are actually  below what they should be if the costs had risen with inflation. 15 years ago, games were $50. If they'd kept up with inflation, they should be $71 now. And some games were priced at $50 back in 1990, where it would be $87 in modern money.

That you think video games are more expensive today reflects a lack of understanding of inflation.  Not only that, but thecostof production of video games has skyrocketed since the old days, so the video game companies would be justified in raising prices anyway. Which they haven't, because in inflation-adjusted dollars, video games are cheaper now than ever.


img.godevice.comView Full Size


/true story
 
2013-02-13 02:42:32 AM  
This is the longest console generation ever. It takes immense resources to make a AAA title anymore, and because it is so expensive the games themselves aren't as expansive as they were last generation.

Every company is gearing up for their next generation, which means that this trend is only going to increase. Meanwhile, gamers are stuck waiting for worthwhile releases on the newest hardware. Somewhere along the way, companies have forgotten that people buy these things to play video games on.

And that's the cycle: Company releases new hardware without worthwhile games, developers work longer and harder to create less worthwhile games, nobody buys anything, companies and developers misinterpret that information and use it to make even more stupid business decisions going forward.
 
2013-02-13 02:49:20 AM  
Well, as a PC player, I generally don't buy titles at launch unless it's something I really want.  Otherwise, I wait a while for the price to drop, especially if the game is available on Steam and is likely to be discounted during the summer and winter sales.

Also, I'm not going to buy new games at launch if I'm still busy with other games.  My Skyrim campaign is over 200 hours, and I'm not even at the civil war quest line yet.

/got burned a few times on launch day buys, too.  I'm looking at you, Treyarch.
 
2013-02-13 02:51:51 AM  
Or maybe there's more people like me, who have no life but are unemployed and are playing free games like MUDs or Eve, where I can use money I make I game to pay for my subscription.
 
2013-02-13 02:52:45 AM  
My son's video game consoles started collecting dust when he got a cell phone he could surf the internet on.
 
2013-02-13 02:53:58 AM  

Rincewind53: This is a great time to mention my "Entertainment Value Calculator" when figuring out whether to buy a video game. Basically, figuring that these days, the average cost of a movie is $12, and provides around 2 hours of entertainment


I do that too, but honestly, theater movies have a lousy value per unit time. Libraries offer unlimited entertainment for free. Cable TV and Netflix offer unlimited entertainment after the initial monthly fee. With a lot of hobbies you actually wind up with something of greater value than you started with.
 
2013-02-13 02:54:05 AM  

State_College_Arsonist: Well, as a PC player, I generally don't buy titles at launch unless it's something I really want. Otherwise, I wait a while for the price to drop, especially if the game is available on Steam and is likely to be discounted during the summer and winter sales.


With the sheer amount of DLC that companies are developing at this point, it would be stupid for anyone to buy any game at launch nowadays. Why would you buy a game today when six months down the line, you'll be able to buy it and its hundred dollars worth of DLC for a $40 GOTY edition?
 
2013-02-13 02:57:32 AM  

Znuh: It's the big pause between breaths before Fallout 4 hits.


HURRY UP, BETHESDA!
 
2013-02-13 03:03:21 AM  

Krieghund: If games give me 20 hours of entertainment each, I need 30 or 40 a year. If they give me 200 hours of entertainment, I only need 3 or 4 a year.


This.  My problem is, thanks to Steam, I have 30 to 40 games a year that all give me 100+ hours of entertainment, and I don't have anywhere near enough time to play them all.
 
2013-02-13 03:04:58 AM  

State_College_Arsonist: Well, as a PC player, I generally don't buy titles at launch unless it's something I really want.  Otherwise, I wait a while for the price to drop, especially if the game is available on Steam and is likely to be discounted during the summer and winter sales.

Also, I'm not going to buy new games at launch if I'm still busy with other games.  My Skyrim campaign is over 200 hours, and I'm not even at the civil war quest line yet.

/got burned a few times on launch day buys, too.  I'm looking at you, Treyarch.


Dafuq!?  I'm at about 270 hours in Skyrim and I've played through fully with 2 characters and am about 75% through a 3rd character playthrough with some new mods and quests installed.

Even with mods, what did you find to do for 200 hours with just one character?
 
2013-02-13 03:06:50 AM  
If they're looking to boost sales for the old consoles before the next gen hits, perhaps they could bring over some of that Japan Only content. Translate and release a few 'Pachinko Parlor' games, a few Visual Novels (like Clannad or Kanon), and a good Mahjongg game (not the tile matching bullshiat that they call 'mahjongg', real riichi mahjongg). And doing things like making Minecraft an Xbox exclusive didn't help matters either.

Rincewind53:  At $60, games are actually  below what they should be if the costs had risen with inflation. 15 years ago, games were $50. If they'd kept up with inflation, they should be $71 now. And some games were priced at $50 back in 1990, where it would be $87 in modern money.

And if my paycheck had ALSO risen with inflation, instead of remaining pretty much flat...

/and any small increase that I did get was more than gobbled up by the rise in the cost of food and gas
 
2013-02-13 03:12:01 AM  

ihopOVERpancakes: I don't know  subby, Fark's traffic rating is increasing. The nerds have not left the basement.


It's nasty out there. There's sunlight and ..

GIRLS

// draws shades back over basement windows.
 
2013-02-13 03:16:19 AM  

Mike_LowELL: RexTalionis: Either that or we are at the end of this console generation and everyone is waiting for the next console release.

Yes, because what's stopping people from paying sixty dollars for games is the looming four-hundred-dollar incremental hardware upgrade.

Console games done goofed. It's pretty much over.  And this is coming from someone who absolutely adores his Vita



Really?

People have been predicting that longer than "this is the year of the Linux Desktop"! The last 3 decades of reality begs to differ.
 
2013-02-13 03:21:41 AM  
There's a lot of factors at play (many that have already been mentioned):

-We're at the end of the current generation of consoles so of course the 360 and ps3 sales are declining.  Most people that would buy them already own them.

-A lot of people felt burnt by the Wii.  It was gimmick that a lot of people got sick of real fast.  A lot of people are not willing to give Nintendo a second chance. (although I will say I like the WiiU better)

-Publishers don't want to take risks anymore.  They only want to stick with sure things, existing IP's.  They know Halo and CoD will garner them x dollars, but no named RPG is a crapshoot.

-The expectations of quality in games for AAA titles skyrocketed and now there are teams of hundreds working on projects with multiple year development cycles.  That is simply unsustainable for the long run for most games because they all won't be hits.

-Too many money guys have moved into the gaming industry and taken over.  They've always existed, but it's just gotten worse the more lucrative the industry has become.  There are too many people who don't play games and know nothing about the product who are making decisions about what to green light and how much money is spent on each project.  This is very similar to the film industry, in fact there's a ton of Hollywood people in the games business these days.  And everyone is trying to cross-promote!

-The free to play model and mobile games temporarily artificially inflated the numbers.  Sure the shift in the industry towards these types of games has expanded the market, but now the money guys all want to gravitate towards catering towards this fickle non-loyal audience who only want to slide their finger across their phone while sitting on the toilet for 10 minutes a day.  The majority of this market isn't buying a console.

-Gamefly means people don't have to buy games.

-Gamestop means people can get used copies for cheaper devaluing the product completely.

-Steam means people can get cheaper games.

-The economy is poor and people simply can't justify spending as much on "luxury" items at this time.

-Financial "losses" based on projections based on the notion that you always have to do better than the previous year's same quarter by x percent is not necessarily a loss and the fact that businesses base their decisions on these factors is unsustainable because you can't always incrementally increase profit margins.  Basing things solely on the numbers to reach your projections is a financial science of sorts, but it doesn't take other factors into consideration.

-There's an over-saturation of the market.  There are so many companies and individuals making games these days that we're overloaded with them.  Not everyone is going to succeed and make money, there are going to be losers and it's going to eat into everyone's profit margins.

This happened in the 80's too when the industry crashed.  There were too many money guys, an over-saturation of the marketplace, a bunch of crappy games and gimmicks, and people all thought video games were dead.  Nintendo changed that when they brought the Famicon to the US and released it as the NES.  It was something new and innovative for its time.  Hopefully we'll see something similar happen here soon.
 
2013-02-13 03:23:43 AM  

Snotnose: At $60 they cost too much.  And if you buy a game used you don't get all the content unless you pay more $$$ to the company.

Fark that, at $60 new I expect to be able to resell my game and let the buyer get full value from it.


I remember NES games that cost $60 in the 80s.
 
2013-02-13 03:26:53 AM  
LoL
 
2013-02-13 03:39:05 AM  
THE PC SHALL RISE AGAIN!
 
2013-02-13 03:45:13 AM  
XBOX 360. Released  November 16, 2005. Still costs on average over 250 dollars.

/Games be too damned expensive.
 
2013-02-13 03:58:50 AM  
You are likely to be eaten by a grue...
 
2013-02-13 04:04:42 AM  

Rincewind53: This is a great time to mention my "Entertainment Value Calculator" when figuring out whether to buy a video game. Basically, figuring that these days, the average cost of a movie is $12, and provides around 2 hours of entertainment, then if a video game is $60, it should provide at a minimum 10 hours of entertainment. If a game only has a six hour single player, and I don't intend to use the multiplayer, I'd wait until the price dropped to at least $36.


It's a good thing Maxis didn't know about this or between SimCity 2000, SimCity 3000 and SimCity 4 I'd have probably owed them $20000 by the time I entered high school. Add in the Super Solvers series, Math Munchers, Math Rescue, Word Rescue, Operation Neptune, all the rest of 'em from MECC and TLC...

The best way to teach kids is when they don't even realize they're learning.

/Sandbox games FTW
//Best part? Replayable forever!
 
2013-02-13 04:36:18 AM  

sendtodave: Snotnose: At $60 they cost too much.  And if you buy a game used you don't get all the content unless you pay more $$$ to the company.

Fark that, at $60 new I expect to be able to resell my game and let the buyer get full value from it.

I remember NES games that cost $60 in the 80s.


And then there's the $200 pile of puke known as action 52.
 
2013-02-13 04:48:41 AM  

naughtyrev: Clearly the being nice to strangers skill tree is underpowered, since no one ever specs that way.


There goes my build.
 
2013-02-13 04:54:48 AM  

Rincewind53: Mike_LowELL: People don't want to pay sixty dollars for the software

I blame Steam sales and a weak economy for that. Video games are  cheaper than they've ever been, and as I discussed before, the $60 price point is actually lower than video games should be priced if they'd kept up with inflation.


For 99% of games I just wait until they are around $5 on steam before I buy them - I already have hundreds of games I haven't played, so there seems little point paying a premium for yet another variation of the same game with a slightly different gimmick (if even that).
 
2013-02-13 04:58:56 AM  

Lanadapter: sendtodave: Snotnose: At $60 they cost too much.  And if you buy a game used you don't get all the content unless you pay more $$$ to the company.

Fark that, at $60 new I expect to be able to resell my game and let the buyer get full value from it.

I remember NES games that cost $60 in the 80s.

And then there's the $200 pile of puke known as action 52.


I also remember games in the 80s that cost £1.99 new. Where are the new games at the bottom end that should cost £5 (with over 10 hours of gameplay)?

If we take inflation as the marker the price range for games should be £5-£50 ($7-$75) or thereabouts.
 
2013-02-13 04:59:33 AM  
Also console games have declining market share partly because PC gaming is undergoing a revival.
 
2013-02-13 05:00:08 AM  

RDixon: You are likely to be eaten by a grue...


Plugh
 
2013-02-13 05:02:58 AM  
PC gaming is doing well, thanks.


And hopefully a new generation of consoles means we have to put up with slightly less shiatty games.
 
2013-02-13 05:57:32 AM  
Everyone's got a list of must-have new games to buy and I'm just sitting here downloading a couple PS2 titles.  I'm good to go for quite a while & the only expenses were a few dollars power & internet to download 'em.
 
2013-02-13 06:14:00 AM  

Spaced Cowboy: Dafuq!? I'm at about 270 hours in Skyrim and I've played through fully with 2 characters and am about 75% through a 3rd character playthrough with some new mods and quests installed.


I've got a character who didn't do any of the Civil war stuff, and still hasn't done any Dawnguard or Companions quests, not to mention probably plenty of other random quests that may pop up here and there (she has completed the main story and the Dragonborn DLC, as well as the Mages Guild, Thieves Guild, and Dark Brotherhood quests, as well as all of the Daedric quests). That character has 145 hours. I don't know how many hours the Companions or Dawnguard quests would add, but I could easily imagine hitting 200 if I decided to continue with that character.

I've actually decided to roll a new one, though, because she's so powerful that nothing at all is a challenge any more, even set on Master and with Deadly Dragons installed.

It's kind of ridiculous (but AWESOME) how huge Skyrim is and how much there is possible to do in this game. :D
 
2013-02-13 06:18:12 AM  

Mike_LowELL: I'll go ahead and address the talking points right now:

Basically, the new digital revolution (mobile gaming, Steam, free-to-play, etc.) has completely redefined what people are willing to pay for a video game


True to some extent, but basically it's hijacked all the casual gamers who can now play for pennies on a mobile phone/tablet/facebook. The Facebook part is interesting as I think it's introduced a lot of female gamers to the scene (but they won't move to traditional console/pc)

Or, you can convince yourselves that the disappointing sales of the 3DS, Vita, and Wii U, and the bankruptcy of a billion-dollar game publisher (THQ) are all just a fluke and that everything is going to be back to normal ...

3DS and Wii U are just gimmicked variations on a theme and the Vita is far too expensive for a casual platform when you already have a phone.

Motion control is not such a gimmick any more, and the success of Kinect after the Wii shows that. Next gen motion control is expected to be better, and some of the stuff that XBox are looking at in particular is pretty cool (the immersive project-the-game-around-the-room stuff).

So there's some interesting things on the horizon, PC titles are looking more interesting partly in thanks to the various Kickstarter projects that are producing games that people have actively shown they want. Consoles are not dead yet, and media integration is helping them stay alive at this point. The new iteration should be interesting, as is the next set of PC titles that don't require a bleeding edge rig to run.
 
2013-02-13 06:25:19 AM  

RexTalionis: Either that or we are at the end of this console generation and everyone is waiting for the next console release.


Also, $60 for a 4 hour single player and all resources of the dev were poured into multiplayer.

And Free to play mmos.
 
2013-02-13 06:27:35 AM  
i.huffpost.comView Full Size


I'm sure it has nothing to do with crappy video games, or the fact that we're in the last phase of the current console generation.  Try doing this survey when Bioshock Infinite comes out.

/DRTFA
 
2013-02-13 06:33:10 AM  
Well, currently actually-essentially-free games like the "price of a sandwich" stuff on steam, league of legends, Tribes, etc are competing with "you have to pay 60$ for the game, and then you have to give us another 60$ over the course of a few months to still have a fully functional game then" on the console market.

This isn't really _that_ big a mystery, guys.  Microtransaction and on-disc DLC work for... well, basically games whose initial and continuing costs otherwise are "nothing whatsoever" or "like a couple bucks or something" at most.  If you sell us something priced as a full game, and then it isn't, we're going to stop buying 'em after the first couple of times.  If you charge us 70$ for a game, and the first content update is released a month later and is a couple extra levels with no mechanics changes that costs another 15$ and breaks compatibility for multiplayer, then you haven't just wasted 15$, you've wasted 85$.

Consumer tolerance for that shiat is, well, limited.  Look what happened with the music industry and DRM.  We put up with inconsistent attempts at varying monetization schemes and the really draconian stuff for about five years, then it became near-impossible to sell us the shiat on the more absurdly arbitrarily inconvenient models.  Coincidentally, experiments with alternate monetization in the video game industry?  Hitting about the five-year mark there.
 
2013-02-13 06:33:18 AM  
Declines in console and physical games.

Yup.  Most likely culprits?


lh3.ggpht.comView Full Size

lh3.ggpht.comView Full Size

 
lh3.ggpht.comView Full Size

i1167.photobucket.comView Full Size

lh3.ggpht.comView Full Size





Independent and casual games are booming.  I just looked up Call of Duty Black Ops II + Nuketown 2025 DLC on Amazon.

MSRP $119.99

Really?  Really really?  So I can pay 120 bucks for a game that's the same hoary old FPS that I played back with one of the Wolfenstein remakes?

OR I can buy six indie games for the same price, have the money go directly to the game makers, have a completely different gaming experience than I've ever had before, and know that my money will support them making more innovative games.

Why on earth would I pay money for a console these days?  Fark that noise.
 
2013-02-13 06:45:29 AM  

Rincewind53: Snotnose: At $60 they cost too much.  And if you buy a game used you don't get all the content unless you pay more $$$ to the company.

Fark that, at $60 new I expect to be able to resell my game and let the buyer get full value from it.

At $60, games are actually  below what they should be if the costs had risen with inflation. 15 years ago, games were $50. If they'd kept up with inflation, they should be $71 now. And some games were priced at $50 back in 1990, where it would be $87 in modern money.

That you think video games are more expensive today reflects a lack of understanding of inflation.  Not only that, but thecostof production of video games has skyrocketed since the old days, so the video game companies would be justified in raising prices anyway. Which they haven't, because in inflation-adjusted dollars, video games are cheaper now than ever.


The cost of some things should go down not up as they implement new technology and trend differently than inflation alone would indicate.  Like how I can buy a song now for 99 cents where as 20 years ago  I had to buy the  5.99 single CD (that probably included some other shiatty song I didn't want.)

And the cost of producing an actual video game has not skyrocketed.  The cost of the yearly cycle of advetising the same COD retread has.  Writing a good story or making clever puzzles to solve costs  relatively the same as before, as the number of decent cheaper indie games available would indicate.

My opinion anyway.
 
2013-02-13 06:47:50 AM  
Or maybe video games are a niche thing, and after a while you just won't sell anymore consoles because you couldn't possibly convince a 60 year old divorced waitress to buy an Xbox 360?
 
2013-02-13 06:48:08 AM  
Going Outside? Is that for iOS? It's not one of those Facebook Cow-Clickers is it?

Video games are dying...yeah, keep dreaming.
 
2013-02-13 06:51:18 AM  
I know I'm buying many fewer games than I used to, but it's not because of cost.

I'm just getting real tired of buying a game only to find DLC needed to make it "complete," increasing DRM hassles, and way too much similarity in single-player games. When you add in all the console features for the interface, flashing/annoying quest markers, and all the apparent hand-holding, games just aren't as much fun for me as they used to be.

For some reason, it's too easy for me to get bored after playing for more than an hour.

/Yeah, I'm old and out of the demographic, so my input can be discounted.
 
2013-02-13 06:52:27 AM  

Rincewind53: At $60, games are actually  below what they should be if the costs had risen with inflation.


Average income hasn't kept up with inflation, so while games are priced what they should be, people don't have the equivalent disposable income to spend on them. Ergo, to most people, $60 is too much to spend on games when they are used to $50.

manimal2878: And the cost of producing an actual video game has not skyrocketed.


Actually it has. Games are far more complex than they used to and take longer to develop triple-a titles.
 
2013-02-13 06:52:40 AM  

Mike_LowELL: This novelty in this generation of consoles was "online multiplayer" and "media console functionality", and for the dominant Wii, "motion controls".  The new generation of consoles, so far as I can tell, offers zero new novelty.  So yeah.  There you go.


The novelty of multiplayer?  I've been playing and enjoying multiplayer games for almost 15 years now, any day now the novelty should wear off.
 
2013-02-13 06:57:27 AM  

YodaBlues: Actually it has. Games are far more complex than they used to and take longer to develop triple-a titles.


Again, there are plenty of cheap games that are fun and cool, like all the indie games, that do not cost $60 and do not appear to be anywhere near as complex to code as a triple-A title.  Nor do they have a bloated advertising budget contributing to that cost.

I find it hard to believe a game like Limbo is exceptionally more complex to code than previous generation  side scrolling platformers.
 
2013-02-13 07:00:58 AM  
I just got Skyrim for Christmas and will be getting Dragonborn with the tax return. I'm not going to be buying anything else anytime soon. I've barely touched the southern half of.the map.

I can't believe some people want all of Tamriel for ES VI. It would take five years just to scratch the surface of the game.
 
2013-02-13 07:01:07 AM  
...or maybe sales are dropping because there haven't been any decent quality games out there.  Other than putting out the prettiest, most vapid FPSs, most game companies are mailing it in.  I remember the days when Witcher 2, Dark Souls, Skyrim, and Kingdom of Amalur all came out within a few months of one another.  Now?  When I look at the new releases, I see NOTHING I am interested in until NEXT JANUARY (excepting, possibly, Dark Moon for my son).
 
2013-02-13 07:02:52 AM  

King Keepo: 3DS and Wii U are just gimmicked variations on a theme and the Vita is far too expensive for a casual platform when you already have a phone.


The 3DS only exists because DS games are too easy to pirate, so Nintendo started from scratch.
 
2013-02-13 07:03:39 AM  

Spaced Cowboy: State_College_Arsonist: Well, as a PC player, I generally don't buy titles at launch unless it's something I really want.  Otherwise, I wait a while for the price to drop, especially if the game is available on Steam and is likely to be discounted during the summer and winter sales.

Also, I'm not going to buy new games at launch if I'm still busy with other games.  My Skyrim campaign is over 200 hours, and I'm not even at the civil war quest line yet.

/got burned a few times on launch day buys, too.  I'm looking at you, Treyarch.

Dafuq!?  I'm at about 270 hours in Skyrim and I've played through fully with 2 characters and am about 75% through a 3rd character playthrough with some new mods and quests installed.

Even with mods, what did you find to do for 200 hours with just one character?



I hit nearly 300 hours on the xbox before taking the plunge into PC gaming in order to have fun with mods. I had only just met the Blades before making the switch to PC.

You rack up the hours rather easily while out dawdling around and looking at stuff. Can I climb that mountain over there? I wonder where that river goes? Fer example, I climbed up the back of the Stormcloak camp near Whiterun to see if it went anywhere and ended up at Darkwater Pass. Do that enough times and there's your 300 hours right there. I'm at about 104 hours on the PC and haven't even been to all of the hold capitals yet.
 
2013-02-13 07:06:31 AM  
I'm making money and paying bills...
 
2013-02-13 07:07:00 AM  

Copperbelly watersnake: I just got Skyrim for Christmas and will be getting Dragonborn with the tax return. I'm not going to be buying anything else anytime soon. I've barely touched the southern half of.the map.

I can't believe some people want all of Tamriel for ES VI. It would take five years just to scratch the surface of the game.


Holy fark, I would need a massage chair and an IV line with a constant drip of coffee in order to even contemplate finishing a tenth of a game that big.
 
2013-02-13 07:09:03 AM  

YodaBlues: Actually it has. Games are far more complex than they used to and take longer to develop triple-a titles.


Except triple-A titles are mostly terrible, and while graphics have improved pretty dramatically since 1995, they haven't really since 2003/2005ish.  This generation of consoles has actually pretty much stayed par with PC gaming graphics-wise.  The inflated cost is forced stuff like segregated departments working multiple projects, design by committee, and using hollywood accounting (or actual hollywood people) and has nothing to do with the actual necessary work-hours to produce a given game.

It's a little hard to argue that the big budgets are necessary when other studios are doing it for 1/10 to 1/100th the cost and getting equal or even superior products out, or when two sequential CoD games are functionally indistinguishable and run on literally the same engine but the studio claims the development of the latter is 10% higher than the former or whatever.

The movie analogy's a pretty good one, the old saying is "no hollywood movie ever made a cent after expenses", that's what game studios big enough to get away with it are doing, that's all.
 
2013-02-13 07:14:03 AM  
erik-k:
It's a good thing Maxis didn't know about this or between SimCity 2000, SimCity 3000 and SimCity 4 I'd have probably owed them $20000 by the time I entered high school. Add in the Super Solvers series, Math Munchers, Math Rescue, Word Rescue, Operation Neptune, all the rest of 'em from MECC and TLC...

Then don't look at the new "SimCity" (aka SimsVillage).  It' s$60 base, you must be connected to the EA servers at all time with a very limited save space but already mentioned you can buy more save space.  Oh always-online = no in-depth mod but don't worry, the new SimCity Store will give you all the DLC you want for a price.  Now ou have to pay $60, can't run it without EA, can't mod, but can buy hundreds in extra DLC

They've lost my business forever.
 
2013-02-13 07:14:26 AM  

andrewagill: Declines in console and physical games.

Yup.  Most likely culprits?

[lh3.ggpht.com image 700x221]
[lh3.ggpht.com image 400x234]
 [lh3.ggpht.com image 288x267]
[i1167.photobucket.com image 480x480]
[lh3.ggpht.com image 320x240]

Independent and casual games are booming.  I just looked up Call of Duty Black Ops II + Nuketown 2025 DLC on Amazon.

MSRP $119.99

Really?  Really really?  So I can pay 120 bucks for a game that's the same hoary old FPS that I played back with one of the Wolfenstein remakes?

OR I can buy six indie games for the same price, have the money go directly to the game makers, have a completely different gaming experience than I've ever had before, and know that my money will support them making more innovative games.

Why on earth would I pay money for a console these days?  Fark that noise.


This, too.  I have a modded XBox, and I still buy quite a bit of XBLA games.  Braid, Fez, Mark of the Ninja,  Shadow Complex, Scott Pilgrim, Limbo, Plants vs. Zombies, Defense Grid, etc.  All of these are great games.  Even the Indie market has some nice offerings, and most of those are only a buck to buy.

manimal2878: The cost of some things should go down not up as they implement new technology and trend differently than inflation alone would indicate.  Like how I can buy a song now for 99 cents where as 20 years ago  I had to buy the  5.99 single CD (that probably included some other shiatty song I didn't want.)


Singles?  Really?  That's your argument?  The whole $15 CD model is essentially unchanged with 99 cents a song.  I don't know what artists you listen to, where you need to cherry pick, but I like to listen to the whole album.  In most cases, that's going to be $12, and that's without album art, lyrics, lossy compression, etc.

Fortunately, there's offerings like Spotify, but if I want to own a digital copy of my music, it's still fairly expensive.  There's too much music out there to be spending $12 a pop on it.
 
2013-02-13 07:24:53 AM  
I am actually playing and buying more games in the past couple of years then I have in a long time. The big change to me has been the crop of small indie studios that have been releasing games recently. The behemoths are collapsing under their own weight and smaller studios are now on the rise. One day these new studios will grow too large collapse and then new growth will take their place. It is how the forest works.

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/
http://www.artemis.eochu.com/
http://www.pathofexile.com/
 to name just a few of my current favs
 
2013-02-13 07:25:58 AM  

Sid_6.7: Sgt Otter: feeling they got burned on Diablo III and Knights of the Old Republic. Which should have been two of the biggest releases of the decade.

Blizzard couldn't release a decent game at this point if their lives depended on it. SC2 was so f*cking painful. Cliches and bad, dated graphics all around. I didn't even look at Diablo 3. It makes me very concerned for Bethesda getting into this MMORPG nonsense.

"Hey guys, we no longer have any incentive to make awesome, immersive single-player games due to this hoard of MMORPG-tards shelling out $20/month for our treasure-hoarding simulator!"


D3 isnt terrible anymore. I loathed it at launch and quit after getting my first toon to Inferno, but based on my friends' recommendations I gave it another try.
 
2013-02-13 07:27:25 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: ...or maybe sales are dropping because there haven't been any decent quality games out there.  Other than putting out the prettiest, most vapid FPSs, most game companies are mailing it in.  I remember the days when Witcher 2, Dark Souls, Skyrim, and Kingdom of Amalur all came out within a few months of one another.  Now?  When I look at the new releases, I see NOTHING I am interested in until NEXT JANUARY (excepting, possibly, Dark Moon for my son).


ni no kuni has just been released. Went right to being my favorite game on the PS3 (and I have a lot) and reminds me of the old RPGs from the SNES in terms of having fun while playing.

And fark to most of the revival of old games only to turn them into a shooter. And fark DRM. And fark the new easy version of Sim City with multiplayer.
 
2013-02-13 07:34:28 AM  

blue_2501: I like to listen to the whole album.


Wow, how old are you?  Not even my grandfather listens to the whole album anymore.

Besides that you are missing the point. My, apparently, bad example aside, not all things track directly with inflation, especially in technology related areas where production and means of distribution have the ability to dramatically alter the costs of delivering the final product.
 
2013-02-13 07:36:10 AM  

Cubicle Jockey: D3 isnt terrible anymore. I loathed it at launch and quit after getting my first toon to Inferno, but based on my friends' recommendations I gave it another try.


Too little, too late.  They made a game that was fun for 3-4 hours and then had solely artificial difficulty after that, and charged us a week's worth of deli sandwiches for the privilege.  They're not getting my money for anything again, pretty much ever.

Or if they do, it will be after I wait the six months it apparently takes them to turn an already-released game from a boring time-waster to "not terrible anymore".  So I'm not going to be contributing to release sales figures.
 
2013-02-13 07:49:17 AM  
I can see going outside but do we really need more talking? Plus that whole being nice to strangers is just to dangerous:

global3.memecdn.comView Full Size
 
2013-02-13 07:56:15 AM  

manimal2878: blue_2501: I like to listen to the whole album.

Wow, how old are you?  Not even my grandfather listens to the whole album anymore.

Besides that you are missing the point. My, apparently, bad example aside, not all things track directly with inflation, especially in technology related areas where production and means of distribution have the ability to dramatically alter the costs of delivering the final product.


Again, if you don't like most of the album, you're listening to the wrong music.  Also, some albums aren't really meant to be split up.
 
2013-02-13 07:57:50 AM  

Gwendolyn: Personally I'm busy finishing up my degree and waiting for Elder Scrolls Online. The current crop of MMORPGs kinda suck.


Hate to break it to you, but ESO will also suck. Bethesda games are kind of bad until modded by users, and that won't happen in an mmo.
 
2013-02-13 07:57:58 AM  

sendtodave: Snotnose: At $60 they cost too much.  And if you buy a game used you don't get all the content unless you pay more $$$ to the company.

Fark that, at $60 new I expect to be able to resell my game and let the buyer get full value from it.

I remember NES games that cost $60 in the 80s.


I beleve the original Phantasy Star was $70.
 
2013-02-13 08:00:20 AM  
DigitalCoffee: If they're looking to boost sales for the old consoles before the next gen hits, perhaps they could bring over some of that Japan Only content.

Oh, hell yes... now you're talkin'!

DigitalCoffee: Translate and release a few 'Pachinko Parlor' games, a few Visual Novels (like Clannad or Kanon), and a good Mahjongg game...

Oh. Umm... never mind.
 
2013-02-13 08:05:01 AM  

manimal2878: Again, there are plenty of cheap games that are fun and cool, like all the indie games, that do not cost $60 and do not appear to be anywhere near as complex to code as a triple-A title.  Nor do they have a bloated advertising budget contributing to that cost.

I find it hard to believe a game like Limbo is exceptionally more complex to code than previous generation  side scrolling platformers.


I think we're talking about 2 different animals here: indie games and triple-a games.

I specifically mentioned triple-a titles, not indie games, for a reason. And since the majority of money is spent on developing triple-a titles for most game studios, their production costs have gone up. Also, advertising doesn't factor into production costs, it factors into marketing costs. It's a separate budget and I'm not including it in production costs. Production costs have gone up because competition has gone up, so studios have to step up their game. Production costs are programming, art and asset creation, network programming, UI development, server programming, audio programming and development, cost of licenses for game engines, etc etc have risen. In order to produce a triple-a title, you need a team of tens or even hundreds, each one specialized to work in one specific area. 10 or 20 years ago, it was 5 or 6 guys. But the complexity of the systems has increased, so you need more and specially trained people to development.

Indie games are entirely different, they are usually made by small teams of people who truly love what they do and just want to make a little scratch. But you won't see an indie team putting out a triple-a game in the scope and scale of CoD or Halo, instead of you get great games like Limbo or Mark of the Ninja. But they aren't comparable.

Jim_Callahan: Except triple-A titles are mostly terrible, and while graphics have improved pretty dramatically since 1995, they haven't really since 2003/2005ish.  This generation of consoles has actually pretty much stayed par with PC gaming graphics-wise.  The inflated cost is forced stuff like segregated departments working multiple projects, design by committee, and using hollywood accounting (or actual hollywood people) and has nothing to do with the actual necessary work-hours to produce a given game.

It's a little hard to argue that the big budgets are necessary when other studios are doing it for 1/10 to 1/100th the cost and getting equal or even superior products out, or when two sequential CoD games are functionally indistinguishable and run on literally the same engine but the studio claims the development of the latter is 10% higher than the former or whatever.

The movie analogy's a pretty good one, the old saying is "no hollywood movie ever made a cent after expenses", that's what game studios big enough to get away with it are doing, that's all.


I don't disagree with you on many points, I'm pretty much done the CoD's and A LOT of triple-a titles sucks donkey balls. And I think most people would agree the only thing holding back graphics nowadays is 6 year-old console hardware (PC GAMER 4 LIFE!!).

But your statement about not being able to argue over big budgets is kind of off, since it depends on what you mean. Show me the indie dev who can produce a game with the graphical quality, programming, network, and audio complexity of Battlefield 2. Indie's don't make games like that cause it would take them forever. They don't have the resources to produce a game like Borderlands 1 or 2. Now, that's not to say they don't produce awesome games, they absolutely do. I love indie games, but they aren't really in the same league as the big studio stuff. There is a reason their games are generally simple side-scrollers and it's not just gaming nostalgia. To further your movie analogy, an indie studio couldn't do The Avengers the way Marvel did it.
 
2013-02-13 08:08:04 AM  
YodaBlues: <SNIP> ...and audio complexity of Battlefield 2 3...<SNIP>

Ack, meant BF3.
 
2013-02-13 08:11:26 AM  

Spaced Cowboy: Dafuq!? I'm at about 270 hours in Skyrim and I've played through fully with 2 characters and am about 75% through a 3rd character playthrough with some new mods and quests installed.

Even with mods, what did you find to do for 200 hours with just one character?


Well, I like to play a sneaky ranged character, so combat tends to take a bit longer than it does for more brutish builds.  I really just wandered around, took every quest that came my way, delved into every dungeon I came across and looted the crap out of the province.  There's so much to explore, why not stop and see the sights?

I'm almost done with the game, all I have left to do is finish the Companions quests and then deal with the civil war and smite Alduin.  Dawnguard is finished, and I'm waiting on Dragonborn to come down a bit before I buy it.

/love to watch the aurora, too
 
2013-02-13 08:11:44 AM  

blue_2501: Again, if you don't like most of the album, you're listening to the wrong music. Also, some albums aren't really meant to be split up.


Might be true, but is irrelevant to my point.
 
2013-02-13 08:15:56 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size


Nuff said. If you can't upgrade your hardware at least once a year, you don't get the shinies.
 
2013-02-13 08:16:38 AM  
Maybe focusing on shiny water and how many FPS games you can crank out isn't a good long term strategy. Just a thought.
 
2013-02-13 08:21:38 AM  

YodaBlues: But you won't see an indie team putting out a triple-a game in the scope and scale of CoD or Halo, instead of you get great games like Limbo or Mark of the Ninja. But they aren't comparable.


YodaBlues: Show me the indie dev who can produce a game with the graphical quality, programming, network, and audio complexity of Battlefield 2. Indie's don't make games like that cause it would take them forever.


I think the point some of us are trying to make is that, all that stuff that makes a game triple-A, like the graphics, sound, etc.  doesn't make the game $50 more fun that the $10 game I can download from the Xbox market place.

I think many of us are indeed comparing triple-a and indie, maybe not on factors like graphics, etc,  but on the amount of fun we get out of it vs the money we put in, and a lot of us don't see value in the triple-a titles by comparison.
 
2013-02-13 08:22:19 AM  
blue_2501:

Fortunately, there's offerings like Spotify, but if I want to own a digital copy of my music, it's still fairly expensive.  There's too much music out there to be spending $12 a pop on it.

You might already know this but with Amazon if you buy a CD you get the digital copy, and their cloud service, free.
 
2013-02-13 08:30:47 AM  

Tenebreux: Nuff said. If you can't upgrade your hardware at least once a year, you don't get the shinies.


Meh.

I got tired of having to dick around with a desktop system requiring a desk taking up a portion of a room, and now only have a laptop.  I got tired of having to research for  hours  whenever I got a new game to make it work with my hardware.  Sure a console might not have the latest graphics, but I don't think I'm missing much by not having that extra bit of lens flare effect or water reflection while I game and I"ve never had a game not work.

I do miss the ability to play modded games, but it seems like  DRM that is steadily stripping that away from the PC realm as an advantage.
 
2013-02-13 08:32:07 AM  

Carth: blue_2501:

Fortunately, there's offerings like Spotify, but if I want to own a digital copy of my music, it's still fairly expensive.  There's too much music out there to be spending $12 a pop on it.

You might already know this but with Amazon if you buy a CD you get the digital copy, and their cloud service, free.


Albums are still $13, so it's better, but not ideal.  On the plus side, it does look like some of the older offerings are in the $6.50 range (MP3 only, though), so the market prices are improving a bit.
 
2013-02-13 08:32:44 AM  

manimal2878: I think the point some of us are trying to make is that, all that stuff that makes a game triple-A, like the graphics, sound, etc.  doesn't make the game $50 more fun that the $10 game I can download from the Xbox market place.

I think many of us are indeed comparing triple-a and indie, maybe not on factors like graphics, etc,  but on the amount of fun we get out of it vs the money we put in, and a lot of us don't see value in the triple-a titles by comparison.


That's fair dude, I don't disagree with you. But you can certainly understand why the production cost of a game like Borderlands or Skyrim is waaay higher than an indie game, or even a major game release from years ago like the Fallout 1/2 or Neverwinter Nights, or even a previous Elder Scrolls game. That doesn't mean it's going to be more fun, I was never trying to make that point, but the increased effort in producing those bigger, more complex games translates into higher costs. And on average, dev studios rely on these types of games to turn a profit.

I've gotten a helluva lot of entertainment out of indie games, but I've also gotten helluva lot of entertainment out of major releases as well. I have at least 130 hours in Borderlands 2 and still playing, over 100 in Skyrim, too many hours to count in games like Left 4 Dead 1/2 and BF3. Those are all games I have no problem paying $60 for, I definitely got my money's worth.
 
2013-02-13 08:34:31 AM  

Gwendolyn: Personally I'm busy finishing up my degree and waiting for Elder Scrolls Online. The current crop of MMORPGs kinda suck.


I'm working on getting my CPA, and in order to remove the temptation of gaming I gave custody of my Steam account to one of my friends until I pass all the exams.  Can't believe how well it's worked so far, I don't even really miss it.
 
2013-02-13 08:37:34 AM  
Count me as one of those, "plays games on the sh*tter," types. I've had Angry Birds and some of the other popular ones, but the biggest replay value I've had are in card games, like Uno, spades, hearts and 31. I don't know if I'm part of a trend or just an outlier.
 
2013-02-13 08:40:12 AM  

Gwendolyn: Personally I'm busy finishing up my degree and waiting for Elder Scrolls Online. The current crop of MMORPGs kinda suck.


I'm trying so hard to resist anything related to Elder Scrolls Online.  One of my favorite settings, three way realm vs realm combat, and you'll probably be able to become a werewolf/vampire on top of all of it.
 
2013-02-13 08:46:07 AM  
I have a bajillion dollar console and all I play anymore is Pac-Man Championship Edition DX...a game I got essentially for free but would have only been $10 otherwise.
 
2013-02-13 08:47:31 AM  

YodaBlues: I have at least 130 hours in Borderlands 2 and still playing, over 100 in Skyrim, too many hours to count in games like Left 4 Dead 1/2 and BF3. Those are all games I have no problem paying $60 for, I definitely got my money's worth.


True, a game like Skyrim has huge value due to the open world, even at $60.

But to me a game like COD has little, the single player has turned into michael bay crap and is only about 5 or 6 hours long and the multiplayer crowd attracted to that game is repulsive.
 
kab
2013-02-13 08:49:50 AM  

DeathByGeekSquad: THE PC SHALL RISE AGAIN!


Implying that it ever fell?

DRTFA, but I'll wager that they don't touch on the common sense idea that everyone who WANTS a 360 or PS3 already has one?
 
2013-02-13 08:53:38 AM  

wee: RexTalionis: Either that or we are at the end of this console generation and everyone is waiting for the next console release.

Or PC games, because PCs can have decent hardware and almost all of them have a non-shiatty input system (which also allows for typing).



Looking some huge games from last year:

Skyrim - XBox 360 7.03 million, PS3 4.46 million, PC 2.74 million  http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=Skyrim
Mass Effect 3 - Xbox 360 2.66 million, PS3 1.04 million, PC 720,000http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=Mass+Effect+3&publisher=& platform =&genre=&minSales=0&results=200
Madden NFL 13 - XBox 360 2.38 million, PS3 1.96 million, Wii 390,000, Vita 240,00, Wii U 30,000, PC - 0http://www.vgchartz.com/game/70897/madden-nfl-13/
FIFA Soccer 13 - 4.29 million, PS3 5.93 million, PC 250,000
Call of Duty: Black Ops II - Xbox 360 11.42 million, PS3 9.43 million, PC 850,000  http://www.vgchartz.com/game/70717/call-of-duty-black-ops-ii/
Diablo 3 - PC 3.01 million, PS 3 0, Xbox 360 0

So, I guess you get one.
 
2013-02-13 08:54:46 AM  

Copperbelly watersnake: I just got Skyrim for Christmas and will be getting Dragonborn with the tax return. I'm not going to be buying anything else anytime soon. I've barely touched the southern half of.the map.

I can't believe some people want all of Tamriel for ES VI. It would take five years just to scratch the surface of the game.


TES VI should be Summerset Isles.  Continue the lore of V with the culmination of the Great War, the Thalmor putting into place their plan for the extermination of Man and the destruction of Mundus.  Only a lowly slave can rouse the Man and Mer against them and foil their schemes...
 
2013-02-13 08:55:22 AM  

Rincewind53: Snotnose: At $60 they cost too much.  And if you buy a game used you don't get all the content unless you pay more $$$ to the company.

Fark that, at $60 new I expect to be able to resell my game and let the buyer get full value from it.

At $60, games are actually  below what they should be if the costs had risen with inflation. 15 years ago, games were $50. If they'd kept up with inflation, they should be $71 now. And some games were priced at $50 back in 1990, where it would be $87 in modern money.

That you think video games are more expensive today reflects a lack of understanding of inflation.  Not only that, but thecostof production of video games has skyrocketed since the old days, so the video game companies would be justified in raising prices anyway. Which they haven't, because in inflation-adjusted dollars, video games are cheaper now than ever.


I think we would see the prices you're describing if we were still buying games on carts.  Disc media is far cheaper to make and source.
 
2013-02-13 08:57:26 AM  

kab: DeathByGeekSquad: THE PC SHALL RISE AGAIN!

Implying that it ever fell?

DRTFA, but I'll wager that they don't touch on the common sense idea that everyone who WANTS a 360 or PS3 already has one?


There is always some new demand just the smart ones are holding off. My nephew just turned old enough to want a xbox 360. I told his parents not to buy him one since the new console comes out in a year and just gave him mine.
 
2013-02-13 08:58:47 AM  

Krieghund: Libraries offer unlimited entertainment for free


It's cute that you think Libraries are free.  I pay about $200 a year for mine, not counting late fees.  I mean, we use the shiat out of it but it certainly isn't free.
 
kab
2013-02-13 09:02:09 AM  

manimal2878: Wow, how old are you? Not even my grandfather listens to the whole album anymore.


Listening to an entire album makes you old?  Jesus.

blue_2501: Fortunately, there's offerings like Spotify, but if I want to own a digital copy of my music, it's still fairly expensive. There's too much music out there to be spending $12 a pop on it.


12 bucks for something that will give you hours of entertainment (if you choose wisely) is a killer isn't it?    Lord knows that albums cost nothing to record, engineer, master, replicate, distribute, and advertise.
 
2013-02-13 09:05:02 AM  
I've converted from a "plays lots of games for the awesome single player" type to the "buys only a couple of games with awesome replayability" type.  That aspect of gaming has increased dramatically over the last ten years and not because of the explicable online multiplayer (although that plays a huge roll).  It seems to me that immersion has improved greatly in sports mgmt games, RTSs and RPGs and that has helped me to play games a lot longer than I normally would.  I'm almost able to reach a zen state because I have been able to play the same 4 games for the last year without stepping out into new territory.

/maybe I'm just easier to please now, but I thought the opposite was supposed to happen.
 
kab
2013-02-13 09:10:39 AM  

Copperbelly watersnake: I can't believe some people want all of Tamriel for ES VI. It would take five years just to scratch the surface of the game.


I think the Skyrim open world was a good size for the content, but could always be larger.  Folks who played the game using quick travel and horses probably thought it was too small, I can certainly see that.

I'd personally be happy if the next one environmentally CHANGED as you progress through it.   ie, people reacting to you differently depending on what part of the story you're in.... you'd think, as a quick example, that if you just saved a town from a dragon attack, that guards would be a bit more appreciative of your efforts, instead of snarkily assuming that someone just made off with your favorite baked delicacy.

/still not finished with the main storyline, though I haven't played in a while
 
2013-02-13 09:10:57 AM  

meanmutton: Krieghund: Libraries offer unlimited entertainment for free

It's cute that you think Libraries are free.  I pay about $200 a year for mine, not counting late fees.  I mean, we use the shiat out of it but it certainly isn't free.


You must have an amazing library system. Average per-capita spending for libraries is only $3-4 for most of the country. Washington and Oregon have some of the best libraries in the US and even they are well under $20 a person. Where do you live if you don't mind me asking?
 
2013-02-13 09:11:49 AM  

Kurohone: Copperbelly watersnake: I just got Skyrim for Christmas and will be getting Dragonborn with the tax return. I'm not going to be buying anything else anytime soon. I've barely touched the southern half of.the map.

I can't believe some people want all of Tamriel for ES VI. It would take five years just to scratch the surface of the game.

TES VI should be Summerset Isles.  Continue the lore of V with the culmination of the Great War, the Thalmor putting into place their plan for the extermination of Man and the destruction of Mundus.  Only a lowly slave can rouse the Man and Mer against them and foil their schemes...


I'm guessing that will be it with possibly Valenwood thrown in. A look at the Summerset Isles would be great.

Another big possibility is the Dwermer return and start kicking everyone's butts. The setting for that would possibly High Rock and Hammerfell.
 
2013-02-13 09:12:07 AM  

dready zim: I also remember games in the 80s that cost £1.99 new. Where are the new games at the bottom end that should cost £5 (with over 10 hours of gameplay)?

If we take inflation as the marker the price range for games should be £5-£50 ($7-$75) or thereabouts.


Games were never £1.99 new. I remember buying games like Jet Set Willy, and they cost £5-6 back in the early 1980s. You got older titles for £1.99.

The best place for cheap games now is Steam, especially when something is on sale. I think Portal 2 was recently about £4 in the sale. As long as you don't mind being a couple of years behind (and I really don't), you have cheap gaming. I'm this guy:

imgs.xkcd.comView Full Size
 
2013-02-13 09:16:46 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: ...or maybe sales are dropping because there haven't been any decent quality games out there.  Other than putting out the prettiest, most vapid FPSs, most game companies are mailing it in.  I remember the days when Witcher 2, Dark Souls, Skyrim, and Kingdom of Amalur all came out within a few months of one another.  Now?  When I look at the new releases, I see NOTHING I am interested in until NEXT JANUARY (excepting, possibly, Dark Moon for my son).


That about sums it up, yeah.  Looking at upcoming releases, there are a couple of PC games that intrigue me, but my laptop won't be able to run them, so I won't be getting them.  As for consoles, MAYBE Bioshock Infinite, but I'm feeling meh, so if I ever get it, I'll probably wait for a price drop.

The thing about new console releases isn't necessarily that the price for the new console is automatically a deal-breaker, it's that (1) game releases trickle down to practically nothing a year beforehand as devs gear up for the impending release, and (2) once it comes out, it takes about a year before the library gets big enough to justify the purchase.
 
2013-02-13 09:17:29 AM  

kab: Copperbelly watersnake: I can't believe some people want all of Tamriel for ES VI. It would take five years just to scratch the surface of the game.

I think the Skyrim open world was a good size for the content, but could always be larger.  Folks who played the game using quick travel and horses probably thought it was too small, I can certainly see that.

I'd personally be happy if the next one environmentally CHANGED as you progress through it.   ie, people reacting to you differently depending on what part of the story you're in.... you'd think, as a quick example, that if you just saved a town from a dragon attack, that guards would be a bit more appreciative of your efforts, instead of snarkily assuming that someone just made off with your favorite baked delicacy.

/still not finished with the main storyline, though I haven't played in a while


With THQ going bankrupt they need to grab some of the Red Faction developers, and make the landscape a bit more interactive. You had dragons attacking towns and not even leaving a scorch mark on the cobblestones.
 
2013-02-13 09:19:52 AM  

manimal2878: Wow, how old are you? Not even my grandfather listens to the whole album anymore.


Well, if you don't like shiatty music, it's actually more fun to listen to the entire album.

/doesn't fark have an above 13 rule or something? if not, this post is begging for such a rule to be made...
 
2013-02-13 09:26:28 AM  
Well lets see. Every generation of console has basically been Sony and Microsoft attempting to be a PC. They:
-added online connectivity with the XBox and PS2 for online play
-added hard drives with the express purpose of increasing the size of games and the complexity as well as on the fly saving and future expansion potential
-Added browsers and multimedia functionality to allow for more diverse use for the console.

Now that we are entering yet ANOTHER console generation, the question is, should i drop 600+ bucks on a console that adequately does what my budget PC did back in 2003, or should i just spend that 600 bucks on a mid grade gaming rig available NOW that wont throw a biatch fit at me if i decide to play a game made 4 years ago on it. In trying to become more like PC's, consoles basically killed themselves. PC's will ALWAYS have greater functionality, better performance for the price, and best of all, the game catalogue never refreshes itself! Barring some ridiculous examples like trying to run an early 90's DOS based game on Windows 8, what games you already have in your library will STILL work with you upgraded PC.

When the Playstation4 or whatever comes out, will it be backwards compatible with PS3 and PS2 games? and if so will it STAY backwards compatible or will it be like Xbox and bait n switch you with decreasing console capability after a year or 2 of updates?
 
2013-02-13 09:26:55 AM  

manimal2878: Rincewind53: Snotnose: At $60 they cost too much.  And if you buy a game used you don't get all the content unless you pay more $$$ to the company.

Fark that, at $60 new I expect to be able to resell my game and let the buyer get full value from it.

At $60, games are actually  below what they should be if the costs had risen with inflation. 15 years ago, games were $50. If they'd kept up with inflation, they should be $71 now. And some games were priced at $50 back in 1990, where it would be $87 in modern money.

That you think video games are more expensive today reflects a lack of understanding of inflation.  Not only that, but thecostof production of video games has skyrocketed since the old days, so the video game companies would be justified in raising prices anyway. Which they haven't, because in inflation-adjusted dollars, video games are cheaper now than ever.

The cost of some things should go down not up as they implement new technology and trend differently than inflation alone would indicate.  Like how I can buy a song now for 99 cents where as 20 years ago  I had to buy the  5.99 single CD (that probably included some other shiatty song I didn't want.)

And the cost of producing an actual video game has not skyrocketed.  The cost of the yearly cycle of advetising the same COD retread has.  Writing a good story or making clever puzzles to solve costs  relatively the same as before, as the number of decent cheaper indie games available would indicate.

My opinion anyway.


No, general game production costs have gone up.  20 years ago a game could be cranked out by a small team for a small budget.  Now it takes dozens to hundreds of people, years of time, and some very expensive assets.  Some games go into the tens of millions budget wise.

Small indie games are cheap, but often far less in scope then most mainstream games are.  It's what is leading to the copy pasted sequels you see a lot of:  reusing assets saves a ton of money in dev costs.
 
2013-02-13 09:30:21 AM  
That's funny, I just spent 40 bucks on Fire Emblem: Awakening. And I am desperately anticipating Bioshock: Infinite. I even pre-ordered it.

Sony and Microsoft will be putting out new consoles probably by the end of the year, so why would I buy anything I am not super excited about? I think most gamers, like me, are taking a wait and see approach. We don't even know details and specs yet, so I am holding off on spending a lot of money.
 
2013-02-13 09:31:23 AM  

proteus_b: Well, if you don't like shiatty music, it's actually more fun to listen to the entire album.


That's the problem, there is not much new music that is not shiatty and warrents the purchase of a whole album, (or any song from that album).  The last few albums I have bought and are worth listening to all of were sound tracks by Clint Mansell.
 
2013-02-13 09:31:34 AM  
Or maybe sales are dropping because everyone has realized that EA can choke on a bag of dicks.
 
2013-02-13 09:33:29 AM  
i18.photobucket.comView Full Size

Oh, look. It's that article some guy writes whenever we get to the end of a console cycle.
Cool.
Familiar things comfort me.
 
2013-02-13 09:37:14 AM  

Subtle_Canary: Well lets see. Every generation of console has basically been Sony and Microsoft attempting to be a PC. They:
-added online connectivity with the XBox and PS2 for online play
-added hard drives with the express purpose of increasing the size of games and the complexity as well as on the fly saving and future expansion potential
-Added browsers and multimedia functionality to allow for more diverse use for the console.

Now that we are entering yet ANOTHER console generation, the question is, should i drop 600+ bucks on a console that adequately does what my budget PC did back in 2003, or should i just spend that 600 bucks on a mid grade gaming rig available NOW that wont throw a biatch fit at me if i decide to play a game made 4 years ago on it. In trying to become more like PC's, consoles basically killed themselves. PC's will ALWAYS have greater functionality, better performance for the price, and best of all, the game catalogue never refreshes itself! Barring some ridiculous examples like trying to run an early 90's DOS based game on Windows 8, what games you already have in your library will STILL work with you upgraded PC.

When the Playstation4 or whatever comes out, will it be backwards compatible with PS3 and PS2 games? and if so will it STAY backwards compatible or will it be like Xbox and bait n switch you with decreasing console capability after a year or 2 of updates?


Why is gaining functionality a bad thing?  It's not like PCs have the exclusive right to do more then just play games.  Adding additional, non game functionality moved game consoles more into the entertainment hubs they always sold themselves as.  Dollar for dollar, they are becoming a better overall value each generation.

As for ps4 BC?  ps1 definitely, ps2 possibly, ps3 pretty much SOL.  No cell means they woudl have a hell of a time with the emulation of ps3 games i'd think.

I'm not sure BC is all that important to most ether.  Outside the first year game drought, BC rarely gets any use for most people.
 
2013-02-13 09:37:42 AM  

manimal2878: That's the problem, there is not much new music that is not shiatty and warrents the purchase of a whole album, (or any song from that album). The last few albums I have bought and are worth listening to all of were sound tracks by Clint Mansell.


there is more original music being made now than any time before. you should try diversifying your tastes; you might be surprised by what you like...
 
2013-02-13 09:39:42 AM  

Mike_LowELL: Or, you can convince yourselves that the disappointing sales of the 3DS, Vita, and Wii U


Hang on.  The 3DS has been out for less than two years, and it's already outsold the original Xbox, at 30 million units.  Maybe it's disappointing by Nintendo's ridiculous standards of having 9 of the top 20 best-selling consoles of all time, but that's otherwise a very weird standard for "disappointing".

As for the Wii-U?  It's a new console and it's like three months old.  How do its sales figures stack up against the 360 and PS3, for example, when those consoles were three months old?

King Keepo: Wii U are just gimmicked variations on a theme


Yeah, that whole touch-screen-for-gaming stuff will never take off.
 
2013-02-13 09:39:51 AM  

Subtle_Canary: should i just spend that 600 bucks on a mid grade gaming rig available NOW that wont throw a biatch fit at me if i decide to play a game made 4 years ago on it. In trying to become more like PC's, consoles basically killed themselves


I only spent $300 on my PS3 four years ago (came with infamous and Arkham Asylum).  The last graphics card I purchase 9600 GTS and it was about $150 at the time.  I don't know your price source.

Also being able to watch MLBTV and NFL Sunday ticket on my tv in hd without needing cable is farking awesome.  You see those things as problems, but they are certainly not that.
 
2013-02-13 09:40:44 AM  

farkeruk: Games were never £1.99 new. I remember buying games like Jet Set Willy, and they cost £5-6 back in the early 1980s. You got older titles for £1.99.


Codemasters rocked my Spectrum 48k world by releasing their titles at £1.99. I'm not sure it changed the face of gaming, but they were good games released on the cheap.
 
2013-02-13 09:42:27 AM  

Carth: meanmutton: Krieghund: Libraries offer unlimited entertainment for free

It's cute that you think Libraries are free.  I pay about $200 a year for mine, not counting late fees.  I mean, we use the shiat out of it but it certainly isn't free.

You must have an amazing library system. Average per-capita spending for libraries is only $3-4 for most of the country. Washington and Oregon have some of the best libraries in the US and even they are well under $20 a person. Where do you live if you don't mind me asking?


Ypsilanti Township, Michigan.  It is nice, new, has a nice range of books and computers, free WiFi, and gets a ton of new books in all the time -- so, well, what I think a library should be.  That said, it's not amazing.   http://www.ypsilibrary.org/locations/ydl-whittaker

If those are the averages, we must be subsidizing the area pretty heavily.  Before I posted, I checked my tax records for the last year -- I have a reasonably sized house, valued by the Township at $136,000 and we have a winter Library millage of 1.507 mills and a summer Library millage of 1.2771 mills.  In Michigan, tax calculations are a little wonky (the taxable value of your home is half the assessed value) but I spent $105.81 on winter library taxes and $86.85 on summer library taxes.  That totals to $192.66 for the year, or about $200.

You can look up our township's taxes here:  https://is.bsasoftware.com/bsa.is/TaxServices/ServiceTaxSearch.aspx?i= 3&appid=1&unit=182

Just toss in a random, common name and dig away.
 
2013-02-13 09:43:00 AM  

Antimatter: Subtle_Canary: Well lets see. Every generation of console has basically been Sony and Microsoft attempting to be a PC. They:
-added online connectivity with the XBox and PS2 for online play
-added hard drives with the express purpose of increasing the size of games and the complexity as well as on the fly saving and future expansion potential
-Added browsers and multimedia functionality to allow for more diverse use for the console.

Now that we are entering yet ANOTHER console generation, the question is, should i drop 600+ bucks on a console that adequately does what my budget PC did back in 2003, or should i just spend that 600 bucks on a mid grade gaming rig available NOW that wont throw a biatch fit at me if i decide to play a game made 4 years ago on it. In trying to become more like PC's, consoles basically killed themselves. PC's will ALWAYS have greater functionality, better performance for the price, and best of all, the game catalogue never refreshes itself! Barring some ridiculous examples like trying to run an early 90's DOS based game on Windows 8, what games you already have in your library will STILL work with you upgraded PC.

When the Playstation4 or whatever comes out, will it be backwards compatible with PS3 and PS2 games? and if so will it STAY backwards compatible or will it be like Xbox and bait n switch you with decreasing console capability after a year or 2 of updates?

Why is gaining functionality a bad thing?  It's not like PCs have the exclusive right to do more then just play games.  Adding additional, non game functionality moved game consoles more into the entertainment hubs they always sold themselves as.  Dollar for dollar, they are becoming a better overall value each generation.

As for ps4 BC?  ps1 definitely, ps2 possibly, ps3 pretty much SOL.  No cell means they woudl have a hell of a time with the emulation of ps3 games i'd think.

I'm not sure BC is all that important to most ether.  Outside the first year game drought, BC ra ...


Thats the point. Why buy a 600 dollar console with bare bones multimedia functionality and a library of games that for the most part will be cross platform anyway when you can spend that same 600 bucks on a mid grade gaming PC that will play 99% of the same games and do all the OTHER media functions better anway? Consoles are trying to distinguish themselves from each other by their non-gaming related functionality and all its doing is making it glaringly obvious that they completely suck at that compared to a laptop anyway...
 
2013-02-13 09:49:48 AM  
Subtle_Canary:  Barring some ridiculous examples like trying to run an early 90's DOS based game on Windows 8, what games you already have in your library will STILL work with you upgraded PC.

Nothing ridiculous about that either, all you need is DOSBox.
 
2013-02-13 09:49:57 AM  
Maybe because they keep making owning games more and more of a goddamn hassle.
 
2013-02-13 09:50:15 AM  

Subtle_Canary: Thats the point. Why buy a 600 dollar console with bare bones multimedia functionality and a library of games that for the most part will be cross platform anyway when you can spend that same 600 bucks on a mid grade gaming PC that will play 99% of the same games and do all the OTHER media functions better anway? Consoles are trying to distinguish themselves from each other by their non-gaming related functionality and all its doing is making it glaringly obvious that they completely suck at that compared to a laptop anyway...


I don't find it at all even remotely comparable to watch Netflix (for instance), VuDu, HuluPlus, etc., on my laptop than on my TV.  The laptop is a horrible, horrible substitute.
 
2013-02-13 09:51:03 AM  
I dont buy that many games anymore because of a few reasons but the main one is that the games being produced mainly just suck.  I only have 3 games this year that I want.  Wasteland 2, Walking Dead Season 2 (I hope it gets released this year, havent checked) and Stalker 2 MMOFPS (though it looks to be pushed back until next year).... that is it.  Might drop money on BI and GTA when the price drops and I know for sure the port to PC is actually well done or there is enough mods to make them work.
 
2013-02-13 09:51:23 AM  

thecpt: Subtle_Canary: should i just spend that 600 bucks on a mid grade gaming rig available NOW that wont throw a biatch fit at me if i decide to play a game made 4 years ago on it. In trying to become more like PC's, consoles basically killed themselves

I only spent $300 on my PS3 four years ago (came with infamous and Arkham Asylum).  The last graphics card I purchase 9600 GTS and it was about $150 at the time.  I don't know your price source.

Also being able to watch MLBTV and NFL Sunday ticket on my tv in hd without needing cable is farking awesome.  You see those things as problems, but they are certainly not that.


You should look up NFL Sunday Ticket To Go. They stream that shiat online for PC users, MLBTV too.
I bought a 350 dollar gaming PC for my wife back in 2009 that has a 8800GTX in it. It runs Black Ops II at maximum settings at 1920x1080. You just need to find better places to buy your hardware.

There is literally, NOTHING a game console is allowing you today that a similarly priced PC will not do better and with more options.

except play the latest sequel of Halo or god of war or whatever 'exclusive' title has you forking over 600 bucks on release to play. If Steambox becomes a reality it will be the final nail in the console coffin.
 
2013-02-13 09:55:23 AM  

jso2897: Oh, look. It's that article some guy writes whenever we get to the end of a console cycle.
Cool.
Familiar things comfort me.


Not only the end of the life cycle but also the first quarter of every year. Don't worry guys, just keep saying it. Just like the End Of The World people. One day you will be right.

It's really farking hard for me to believe consoles are dying when Steam and Android are also getting ready to release one.
 
2013-02-13 09:56:51 AM  

Sid_6.7: Console developers seem convinced that every game will be Halo in terms of sales.


If they want the games to break even, they're going to have to.  On one hand, it's absolutely awesome that the average console video game costs thirty-plus million dollars to develop and market.  On the other hand, if it's constraining the creative process to the point where companies can't even adopt established design theory that was once commercially successful (Doom-styled shooters, RTS games), then forget it.

unyon: I hate it when you break character. Takes me completely out of the moment.


Sorry about that.  I gotta do it every once in a while, just to make sure people are paying attention to the important issues like vidya gaemz.

OriginalGamer: People have been predicting that longer than "this is the year of the Linux Desktop"! The last 3 decades of reality begs to differ.


The last three decades never featured a development process where one financial failure can ruin or deal significant damage to a billion-dollar video game company, a development process where you need to sell two million units simply to break even, and companies expect people to buy a four-hundred-dollar hardware upgrade at a time when phones are the hot-ticket item.  And yes, those phones play games for cheap.

King Keepo: True to some extent, but basically it's hijacked all the casual gamers who can now play for pennies on a mobile phone/tablet/facebook. The Facebook part is interesting as I think it's introduced a lot of female gamers to the scene (but they won't move to traditional console/pc)


Pretty much.  That's the entire problem.  You can't keep making games more and more expensive if the fastest-growing segment of video game players thinks "zero dollars" is the acceptable price point.

King Keepo: Motion control is not such a gimmick any more, and the success of Kinect after the Wii shows that. Next gen motion control is expected to be better, and some of the stuff that XBox are looking at in particular is pretty cool (the immersive project-the-game-around-the-room stuff).


Motion controls, on the whole, aren't a gimmick.  Anything which leads to true, functional virtual reality is not a gimmick.  But until there's a good motion-controlled game that is fundamentally disconnected from real-world concepts (sports motions, etc.), I'm hard-pressed to believe it isn't a gimmick, in its current implementation.  That, and the Oculus Rift is going to have the "immersive virtual reality experience" thing covered.  Seems like a much easier solution than "room built for vidya gaems".

manimal2878: The novelty of multiplayer? I've been playing and enjoying multiplayer games for almost 15 years now, any day now the novelty should wear off.


I'm not saying it's a gimmick.  I'm arguing that it's the large leap and upgrade that keeps the casual video game player interested in video games for X period of time.  For a lot of people, Xbox Live was that novelty.
 
2013-02-13 09:58:08 AM  

Subtle_Canary: thecpt: Subtle_Canary: should i just spend that 600 bucks on a mid grade gaming rig available NOW that wont throw a biatch fit at me if i decide to play a game made 4 years ago on it. In trying to become more like PC's, consoles basically killed themselves

I only spent $300 on my PS3 four years ago (came with infamous and Arkham Asylum).  The last graphics card I purchase 9600 GTS and it was about $150 at the time.  I don't know your price source.

Also being able to watch MLBTV and NFL Sunday ticket on my tv in hd without needing cable is farking awesome.  You see those things as problems, but they are certainly not that.

You should look up NFL Sunday Ticket To Go. They stream that shiat online for PC users, MLBTV too.
I bought a 350 dollar gaming PC for my wife back in 2009 that has a 8800GTX in it. It runs Black Ops II at maximum settings at 1920x1080. You just need to find better places to buy your hardware.

There is literally, NOTHING a game console is allowing you today that a similarly priced PC will not do better and with more options.

except play the latest sequel of Halo or god of war or whatever 'exclusive' title has you forking over 600 bucks on release to play. If Steambox becomes a reality it will be the final nail in the console coffin.


A console you just buy, plug in, and it works.  You want a game?  You buy the game, take it home, and it works.  There's no hassle, no mess, and it plugs directly into your TV quickly and easily.  There's a reason that when they release the same game on consoles and PCs that the console sales dominate PC ones -- the vast majority of people prefer them.

Yeah, you might like them better, sure, but you're in the very distinct minority.  Upthread I posted sales figures -- there's absolutely no reason to think that consoles are going anywhere when they absolutely dominated game sales.
 
2013-02-13 10:01:14 AM  

Subtle_Canary: You should look up NFL Sunday Ticket To Go. They stream that shiat online for PC users, MLBTV too.
I bought a 350 dollar gaming PC for my wife back in 2009 that has a 8800GTX in it. It runs Black Ops II at maximum settings at 1920x1080. You just need to find better places to buy your hardware.

There is literally, NOTHING a game console is allowing you today that a similarly priced PC will not do better and with more options.

except play the latest sequel of Halo or god of war or whatever 'exclusive' title has you forking over 600 bucks on release to play. If Steambox becomes a reality it will be the final nail in the console coffin.


Where do you buy your parts from?  I usually shop new egg.

Listen, I know I can hook up my pc to my HDTV when I have people over but it's a pain in the ass to do it every time and I like to keep my computer in an office room.  For socially watching movies (blue rays and Netflix), sports, and playing the occasional Madden, TheShow, or SSB Brawl with people the console is out performing the PC.

Some of us actually like those games and we're not exactly bad people and shouldn't feel bad.

Anyways, next console cycle could change my opinions.  I'll believe the steambox when I see it in action, and hopefully its cranking out industrial techno while I'm wailing away with a crowbar.
 
2013-02-13 10:02:39 AM  

Mike_LowELL: Motion controls, on the whole, aren't a gimmick. Anything which leads to true, functional virtual reality is not a gimmick. But until there's a good motion-controlled game that is fundamentally disconnected from real-world concepts (sports motions, etc.), I'm hard-pressed to believe it isn't a gimmick, in its current implementation. That, and the Oculus Rift is going to have the "immersive virtual reality experience" thing covered. Seems like a much easier solution than "room built for vidya gaems".


The 720 supposedly does a poor man's virtual reality by projecting the entire game world around the TV onto the walls of your room, if rumors are to be believed.
 
2013-02-13 10:02:54 AM  

Subtle_Canary: If Steambox becomes a reality it will be the final nail in the console coffin.


Isn't steambox a console?
 
2013-02-13 10:06:22 AM  

meanmutton: Subtle_Canary: thecpt: Subtle_Canary: should i just spend that 600 bucks on a mid grade gaming rig available NOW that wont throw a biatch fit at me if i decide to play a game made 4 years ago on it. In trying to become more like PC's, consoles basically killed themselves

I only spent $300 on my PS3 four years ago (came with infamous and Arkham Asylum).  The last graphics card I purchase 9600 GTS and it was about $150 at the time.  I don't know your price source.

Also being able to watch MLBTV and NFL Sunday ticket on my tv in hd without needing cable is farking awesome.  You see those things as problems, but they are certainly not that.

You should look up NFL Sunday Ticket To Go. They stream that shiat online for PC users, MLBTV too.
I bought a 350 dollar gaming PC for my wife back in 2009 that has a 8800GTX in it. It runs Black Ops II at maximum settings at 1920x1080. You just need to find better places to buy your hardware.

There is literally, NOTHING a game console is allowing you today that a similarly priced PC will not do better and with more options.

except play the latest sequel of Halo or god of war or whatever 'exclusive' title has you forking over 600 bucks on release to play. If Steambox becomes a reality it will be the final nail in the console coffin.

A console you just buy, plug in, and it works.  You want a game?  You buy the game, take it home, and it works.  There's no hassle, no mess, and it plugs directly into your TV quickly and easily.  There's a reason that when they release the same game on consoles and PCs that the console sales dominate PC ones -- the vast majority of people prefer them.

Yeah, you might like them better, sure, but you're in the very distinct minority.  Upthread I posted sales figures -- there's absolutely no reason to think that consoles are going anywhere when they absolutely dominated game sales.


im sure that number has nothing to do with the fact that your average 10 year old has an Xbox 360 (and a mom buying games for it) while PC users tend to be adults. So you're comparing in essence a device with a broader audience (adults plus children) to a device that used primarily by adults. Thats why when you see youtube vidoes of online gamer rage with some whiny punk ass adolescent, its always an xbox live account. As far as 'just works'. Okay, how many times does the joke about RROD get tossed around in a discussion about xbox? or how the joke that Sony only sold 44 million PS2's to 22 milion people, its just that they had to buy it twice?

In homes that have adults AND children, if both a PC and a console are present? yes, the console will generally get the game if for no other reason than mommy and daddy dont wont junior dicking around on their computer. But for folks like me? i use my Xbox as a child pacification device. the only games on it are games I'm not going to play. My steam account is FULL of cross platform games that i prefer on PC.

Arkham city needing to use my Xbox live account to play on my PC is a big PITA though. thanks MS....
 
2013-02-13 10:10:16 AM  

farkeruk: Games were never £1.99 new. I remember buying games like Jet Set Willy, and they cost £5-6 back in the early 1980s. You got older titles for £1.99.


That was a full-price release. Those generally ran between £5.99 and £9.99. Mastertronic started the budget market by releasing new games for £1.99, followed by Codemasters and others. Firebird might have priced theirs at £2.99, I'm not entirely sure. They were usually smaller and less ambitious than the full price games but there were some absolute classics that could easily have sold well for much more.

The majority of games were still full price but those budget games remained for the whole of the 8-bit era. On the ST and Amiga prices went up for everything, £7.99 or so for budget games and about £24.99 for full price, but they were still much, much cheaper than console games.

It's strange to me to hear about the video game crash in 1983-1984, because that's the time I remember gaming being massive. Everyone had a Commodore or a Spectrum or something, there were loads of games out and they kept getting better and better, not to mention cheaper at the bottom end thanks to Mastertronic.
 
2013-02-13 10:10:45 AM  

Mike_LowELL: I'm not saying it's a gimmick. I'm arguing that it's the large leap and upgrade that keeps the casual video game player interested in video games for X period of time. For a lot of people, Xbox Live was that novelty.


I disagree.

Motion control is a novelty that attracted a bunch of casual gamers who are pretty much already gone.  But multiplayer and Xbox live are not one of those novelties, xbox live like functionality is now a standard requirement of almost anything electronic.  My TV, blueray player, game consoles, and phone all also offer similar functionality.
 
2013-02-13 10:11:28 AM  

GavinTheAlmighty: Hang on. The 3DS has been out for less than two years, and it's already outsold the original Xbox, at 30 million units. Maybe it's disappointing by Nintendo's ridiculous standards of having 9 of the top 20 best-selling consoles of all time, but that's otherwise a very weird standard for "disappointing".


I actually didn't realize the 3DS was doing so well.  Either way, the Vita is basically ruined, so yes, the portable market has declined.

GavinTheAlmighty: As for the Wii-U? It's a new console and it's like three months old. How do its sales figures stack up against the 360 and PS3, for example, when those consoles were three months old?


The difference is that companies weren't looking for ways to ditch support for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 within the months after their launch.  Ninja Gaiden 3: Razor's Edge already got its 360/PS3 release announcement and Ubisoft just pushed back Rayman Legends so they could release it on all three devices.  There's no patience anymore.  A device like that needs exclusives, and companies aren't going to make exclusives for a device which has a three-million install base and sold roughly 125,000 units last month.

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: The 720 supposedly does a poor man's virtual reality by projecting the entire game world around the TV onto the walls of your room, if rumors are to be believed.


I've seen the patent paperwork that was passed around for the concept, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe anything which admirably creates the illusion is on the horizon.  Then again, who knows?  Maybe they have something genuinely creative lined up.
 
2013-02-13 10:14:05 AM  
It turns out when you release the same game every year with a new label slapped onto it,  people stop buying it.

Also, gaming isn't that expensive right now. All things considered, it's the cheapest it's ever been.
 
2013-02-13 10:16:19 AM  

Subtle_Canary: im sure that number has nothing to do with the fact that your average 10 year old has an Xbox 360 (and a mom buying games for it) while PC users tend to be adults. So you're comparing in essence a device with a broader audience (adults plus children) to a device that used primarily by adults. Thats why when you see youtube vidoes of online gamer rage with some whiny punk ass adolescent, its always an xbox live account. As far as 'just works'. Okay, how many times does the joke about RROD get tossed around in a discussion about xbox? or how the joke that Sony only sold 44 million PS2's to 22 milion people, its just that they had to buy it twice?

In homes that have adults AND children, if both a PC and a console are present? yes, the console will generally get the game if for no other reason than mommy and daddy dont wont junior dicking around on their computer. But for folks like me? i use my Xbox as a child pacification device. the only games on it are games I'm not going to play. My steam account is FULL of cross platform games that i prefer on PC.

Arkham city needing to use my Xbox live account to play on my PC is a big PITA though. thanks MS....


We seem to have devolved into a different discussion -- why you, specifically, prefer PC gaming over console gaming.  You've given some anecdotes and jokes but none of it really addresses the core issue: console gaming is alive, doing well, and isn't going anywhere.  Sales figures of games show that the market as a whole vastly prefers console gaming to PC gaming for the same games.
 
2013-02-13 10:17:45 AM  
As an alternative train of thought, how many people had their system(s) stolen over the holidays? How many of these people might have bought games this holiday season (and the month afterward) if this hadn't happened?
 
2013-02-13 10:17:46 AM  
How old is subby?

Headline: Video game sales

TFA:Sales of consoles in the U.S. dropped 21% in 2012

Consoles ≠  video games

Does subby also call all consoles/games "Intendo?" Or does he think each console plays one game, i.e. "Pong?"
 
2013-02-13 10:18:40 AM  

thecpt: I've converted from a "plays lots of games for the awesome single player" type to the "buys only a couple of games with awesome replayability" type.  That aspect of gaming has increased dramatically over the last ten years and not because of the explicable online multiplayer (although that plays a huge roll).  It seems to me that immersion has improved greatly in sports mgmt games, RTSs and RPGs and that has helped me to play games a lot longer than I normally would.  I'm almost able to reach a zen state because I have been able to play the same 4 games for the last year without stepping out into new territory.

/maybe I'm just easier to please now, but I thought the opposite was supposed to happen.


I'm exactly this way, too.  I've been playing some combination of NCAA 13 and Counterstrike: Global Offensive since they came out July/August.  I've got a half-played Goldeneye Reloaded and an unopened Zelda: Skyward Sword sitting on the shelf that I just haven't felt like touching since I keep coming back to those other games.

I'm wondering if a lot of the decline has to do with the original gaming generation growing up and just having less time to game.  Even a couple of years ago (before I was married), I would spend at least an hour or two each day on video games and would regularly have 10-12 hour weekend binges.  Nowadays, my gaming time is down to probably 5-10 hours per week and, even then, I'm usually doing other things while playing, like laundry or dishes or other domestic stuff.  Combine that with the fact that kids are more likely to be playing Angry Birds or Temple Run than Skyrim or Mass Effect 3, and it's easy to see why sales are declining.
 
2013-02-13 10:20:49 AM  

RexTalionis: Either that or we are at the end of this console generation and everyone is waiting for the next console release.

 
2013-02-13 10:24:28 AM  

YodaBlues: manimal2878: Again, there are plenty of cheap games that are fun and cool, like all the indie games, that do not cost $60 and do not appear to be anywhere near as complex to code as a triple-A title.  Nor do they have a bloated advertising budget contributing to that cost.

I find it hard to believe a game like Limbo is exceptionally more complex to code than previous generation  side scrolling platformers.

I think we're talking about 2 different animals here: indie games and triple-a games.

I specifically mentioned triple-a titles, not indie games, for a reason. And since the majority of money is spent on developing triple-a titles for most game studios, their production costs have gone up. Also, advertising doesn't factor into production costs, it factors into marketing costs. It's a separate budget and I'm not including it in production costs. Production costs have gone up because competition has gone up, so studios have to step up their game. Production costs are programming, art and asset creation, network programming, UI development, server programming, audio programming and development, cost of licenses for game engines, etc etc have risen. In order to produce a triple-a title, you need a team of tens or even hundreds, each one specialized to work in one specific area. 10 or 20 years ago, it was 5 or 6 guys. But the complexity of the systems has increased, so you need more and specially trained people to development.

Indie games are entirely different, they are usually made by small teams of people who truly love what they do and just want to make a little scratch. But you won't see an indie team putting out a triple-a game in the scope and scale of CoD or Halo, instead of you get great games like Limbo or Mark of the Ninja. But they aren't comparable.

Jim_Callahan: Except triple-A titles are mostly terrible, and while graphics have improved pretty dramatically since 1995, they haven't really since 2003/2005ish.  This generation of consoles has actually p ...


There was the Desert Combat mod for 1942 that was amazing, oh and   A.D.
 
2013-02-13 10:32:07 AM  

rugman11: I'm wondering if a lot of the decline has to do with the original gaming generation growing up and just having less time to game.  Even a couple of years ago (before I was married), I would spend at least an hour or two each day on video games and would regularly have 10-12 hour weekend binges.  Nowadays, my gaming time is down to probably 5-10 hours per week and, even then, I'm usually doing other things while playing, like laundry or dishes or other domestic stuff.  Combine that with the fact that kids are more likely to be playing Angry Birds or Temple Run than Skyrim or Mass Effect 3, and it's easy to see why sales are declining.


Well, remember that the guys who are two years younger than you are doing what you did two years ago.

The "original gaming generation" are the people who bought Pong or Atari in the 70s and are in their 60s.  They long passed the "just had a kid" stage.
 
2013-02-13 10:32:34 AM  

Mike_LowELL: Yes, because what's stopping people from paying sixty dollars for games is the looming four-hundred-dollar incremental hardware upgrade.


It's not that bad of a point honestly.  The majority of video game consumers do not purchase multiple titles for their consoles, the attach rate has been high for this last generation but it's also been the longest console generation.  I know you were being sarcastic, but the lack of new hardware to push as the next big thing on consumers is a contributing factor that shouldn't be brushed off.
 
2013-02-13 10:37:39 AM  

andrewagill: Independent and casual games are booming. I just looked up Call of Duty Black Ops II + Nuketown 2025 DLC on Amazon.

MSRP $119.99

Really? Really really? So I can pay 120 bucks for a game that's the same hoary old FPS that I played back with one of the Wolfenstein remakes?


You either need to learn how to use amazon, or to not just cherry pick a price to try and prove your point.  Either way makes you look stupid.
 
2013-02-13 10:39:00 AM  
I don't have the time and dedication I could put in VGs at the age of 16 (I'm 35 now).
A cold beer and a good book, that's what I look forward to, now.

Also, the industry evolved in a direction I can't stand no more. Back then I could put 100 hours or so in FF7 but now, most games are cheating, bypassing any story development or competitive AI requirements by relying on multiplayer. Yes, I hate having my ass handed to me by a 10 year old Japanese kid and getting called names by a 12 year old American boy isn't much better but it's also because when I play, I don't want anyone else with me.

Other point: the laziness. Now that even console games can be patched, we get unfinished products at best (exception made for Japanese VG which rarely need to, congrats, Japan). I think I really put down the pad after the Fallout: NV debacle. God I loved the game but the amount of frustration it generated decided me to stop playing games for a while.

I don't give a crap about gimmicks such as the Move or Kinect. Casual bores me, I dislike FPS in general (BulletStorm was an exception to this), any game requiring me to learn and study techniques gets the proverbial bullet, sports games are of no interest to me and never have been, racing games, meh, depends (Wip3out forever!).

I'm trying to complete Farcry 3 at the moment but after a really good impression, I realize most of the game relies on repetitive sub-missions, artificially inflating the campaign's duration. Classic meh (that and collectible items in sandbox games are a plague I can't wait to see disappear). Last game I had any real fun with was Saints Row the Third (even if it had this farking collectible system too).

I didn't change much, I don't need shiny graphics, I can afford even 80$ for a game. It's just that the industry doesn't give a crap and the sole fact that a downloadable game about gliding towards a pillar of light was generally considered as Game of the Year 2012 is clearly an indication that fun has left the building a long time ago and that my only choice in games is between becoming a 24/24 connected hipster or a retarded OCD-riddled teen with Tourettes.

/a good friend of mind went ballistic two weeks ago, going to a Starcraft 2 tournament as a spectator, spending hours listening to a couple of dorks commenting matches and cheering while others played. I thought this was the saddest thing I'd ever heard but this is what the "gaming" industry has come down to.
 
2013-02-13 10:44:50 AM  

tdyak: There was the Desert Combat mod for 1942 that was amazing, oh and   A.D.


Loved Desert Combat, but mods aren't the same thing:

1.) They're building off existing code and assets. While I know those guys added new weapon models and sounds, they used A LOT of existing textures and character models/animations. They also re-used maps and other assets.

2.) They weren't reliant on revenue from the mod for continued operations. It was a hobby, something they did in their spare time.

Never played A.D., might have to check it out.
 
2013-02-13 10:49:34 AM  
I want RPGs. I looked at a few websites, and of the handful, most console RPGs are years old.

I don't mean a crapped out FF rehash either. 3-4 years ago there was a steady stream of ok console RPGs released. What have we seen in the last year or two?

And I'm in the 'got burned by crap 'Aaa' releases group' as well. I don't preorder anything, and wait for release day metrics and reviews, and usually wait 2-3 weeks to pick up something new.
 
2013-02-13 10:52:31 AM  

meanmutton: rugman11: I'm wondering if a lot of the decline has to do with the original gaming generation growing up and just having less time to game.  Even a couple of years ago (before I was married), I would spend at least an hour or two each day on video games and would regularly have 10-12 hour weekend binges.  Nowadays, my gaming time is down to probably 5-10 hours per week and, even then, I'm usually doing other things while playing, like laundry or dishes or other domestic stuff.  Combine that with the fact that kids are more likely to be playing Angry Birds or Temple Run than Skyrim or Mass Effect 3, and it's easy to see why sales are declining.

Well, remember that the guys who are two years younger than you are doing what you did two years ago.

The "original gaming generation" are the people who bought Pong or Atari in the 70s and are in their 60s.  They long passed the "just had a kid" stage.


I guess my point was more about the kids angle.  There's a sweet spot of gamers born in the late-1970s and early-1980s (and yes I'm in this generation so I may be over-generalizing) who grew up with consoles bought by their parents but who were old enough (14-24) to purchase a sixth generation console (GameCube, PS2, XBox) within the first couple of years of release AND were still in their late-twenties/early-thirties when the seventh generation (Wii/PS3/360) were released.  That group has spent the last decade or so getting married and having kids and watching their own playing time decrease and (and this is the important part) watching their kids not picking up the consoles, but instead occupying themselves with free online flash games and iPod/iPhone games.  Those people aren't buying consoles anymore (or at least not as many).
 
2013-02-13 10:54:42 AM  

Dancis_Frake: . Casual bores me, I dislike FPS in general (BulletStorm was an exception to this), any game requiring me to learn and study techniques gets the proverbial bullet, sports games are of no interest to me and never have been, racing games, meh, depends (Wip3out forever!).


You just wiped out at least 90% of any games from any time period.

You might be remembering things with rose tinted glasses, most JRPGs have artificial repetitive padding to their single player, not to mention the flood of knock offs and garbage licensed products.  The industry has only ever cared to get that money.
 
2013-02-13 10:59:04 AM  

kroonermanblack: I want RPGs. I looked at a few websites, and of the handful, most console RPGs are years old.

I don't mean a crapped out FF rehash either. 3-4 years ago there was a steady stream of ok console RPGs released. What have we seen in the last year or two?

And I'm in the 'got burned by crap 'Aaa' releases group' as well. I don't preorder anything, and wait for release day metrics and reviews, and usually wait 2-3 weeks to pick up something new.


Mass Effect 3, Final Fantasy XIII-2, Paper Mario Sticker Star, Fable: The Journey, Elder Scrolls: Skyrim were all quite good.
 
2013-02-13 10:59:35 AM  

rugman11: here's a sweet spot of gamers born in the late-1970s and early-1980s (and yes I'm in this generation so I may be over-generalizing


you can extend it to my generation (late 80s, early 90s).  We started with the Sega Genesis and Nintendo when we were about 4, 64 and PS one when we weren't even teens, and the next two generations while we were in highschool/middle school, Effectively growing up during the reign of the big 3, and gaming became more social as we grew older and became more social.
 
2013-02-13 11:00:31 AM  

meanmutton: kroonermanblack: I want RPGs. I looked at a few websites, and of the handful, most console RPGs are years old.

I don't mean a crapped out FF rehash either. 3-4 years ago there was a steady stream of ok console RPGs released. What have we seen in the last year or two?

And I'm in the 'got burned by crap 'Aaa' releases group' as well. I don't preorder anything, and wait for release day metrics and reviews, and usually wait 2-3 weeks to pick up something new.

Mass Effect 3, Final Fantasy XIII-2, Paper Mario Sticker Star, Fable: The Journey, Elder Scrolls: Skyrim were all quite good.


Yes, I know that lots of people HATED the end of ME3.  It was still a great game up to that point and it's a great one to pick up NOW, after they've fixed it.
 
2013-02-13 11:01:06 AM  

GavinTheAlmighty: Mike_LowELL: Or, you can convince yourselves that the disappointing sales of the 3DS, Vita, and Wii U

Hang on.  The 3DS has been out for less than two years, and it's already outsold the original Xbox, at 30 million units.  Maybe it's disappointing by Nintendo's ridiculous standards of having 9 of the top 20 best-selling consoles of all time, but that's otherwise a very weird standard for "disappointing".

As for the Wii-U?  It's a new console and it's like three months old.  How do its sales figures stack up against the 360 and PS3, for example, when those consoles were three months old?

King Keepo: Wii U are just gimmicked variations on a theme

Yeah, that whole touch-screen-for-gaming stuff will never take off.


Is there a good game for it that isn't ocarina of time?
 
2013-02-13 11:02:05 AM  

YodaBlues: Show me the indie dev who can produce a game with the graphical quality, programming, network, and audio complexity of Battlefield 2. Indie's don't make games like that cause it would take them forever. They don't have the resources to produce a game like Borderlands 1 or 2. Now, that's not to say they don't produce awesome games, they absolutely do. I love indie games, but they aren't really in the same league as the big studio stuff.


Tribes: Ascend.  Independent developer, Hi-Rez studios, based in Georgia.

Doesn't just draw par with Battlefield, it squarely one-ups it in its own court, and has easily monetized off of free-to-play with free content upgrades to boot.  Graphics are as good or better, physics and weapon variation is  massively better, removes most of the useless bullshiat that BF uses to pad its costs for tax purposes like boring single-player campaigns with retard bots on your squad and level-up bullshiat that no one has wanted in their multiplayer FPS either.

Hell, prettier scenery too, even when you're scooting past it at a billion miles per hour on your frictionless doom-boots.

Network doesn't apply to battlefield, it uses an MS network.  But even looking at the PC version... Hi-Rez's net is significantly nicer, both functionally (shorter wait times) and by virtue of being significantly less full of thirteen year old assholes.

"Indy" is also kind of a weird term to use in this context.  I'm assuming you're meaning the non-AAA releases that aren't sold at full price on release.  Though I guess Eve online qualifies by that standard, so possibly I'm not capturing it fully.  Anyhow, my point was that development budget doesn't correspond to game quality in any noticeable way, or at least no way relevant to competition.  Your implied equation of good graphics with "more pixels" is actually one of the big lies that some of the studios use to pad their costs, many of the more large-budget titles gave not one single fark about dense artwork and were absurdly popular, too.  See: Borderlands, which is farking cel-shaded, of all things.
 
2013-02-13 11:04:44 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Hate to break it to you, but ESO will also suck. Bethesda games are kind of bad until modded by users, and that won't happen in an mmo.


hate to break it to you, but bethesda isn't making ESO
 
2013-02-13 11:05:00 AM  

Subtle_Canary: Thats the point. Why buy a 600 dollar console with bare bones multimedia functionality and a library of games that for the most part will be cross platform anyway when you can spend that same 600 bucks on a mid grade gaming PC that will play 99% of the same games and do all the OTHER media functions better anway? Consoles are trying to distinguish themselves from each other by their non-gaming related functionality and all its doing is making it glaringly obvious that they completely suck at that compared to a laptop anyway...


Why buy a $600 PC for the living room when a $300 gives you equal entertainment options in most cases, and is easier to set up and jump into?   When it's optimized for the living room?  when it's got a wide variety of exclusive games, and often boats larger userbases for multiplayer on games it shares with the PC?

For many, the choice is an easy one.  I have both, and honestly, I've never considered putting the TV in the living room because the consoles do what what they do well enough for me to leave the PC if the office.  For most of my entertainment needs, the console does things fine.

Next gen, this should be yet more improved.
 
2013-02-13 11:10:01 AM  

meanmutton: Mass Effect 3, Final Fantasy XIII-2, Paper Mario Sticker Star, Fable: The Journey, Elder Scrolls: Skyrim were all quite good.

Yes, I know that lots of people HATED the end of ME3.  It was still a great game up to that point and it's a great one to pick up NOW, after they've fixed it.


Didn't care about the haters for that one.  I've argued on here that it was and is a great game.  I like how people thought the ending was the last 5 minutes of content.  I thought the entire last hour was, and it was glorious.
 
2013-02-13 11:13:36 AM  

thecpt: meanmutton: Mass Effect 3, Final Fantasy XIII-2, Paper Mario Sticker Star, Fable: The Journey, Elder Scrolls: Skyrim were all quite good.

Yes, I know that lots of people HATED the end of ME3.  It was still a great game up to that point and it's a great one to pick up NOW, after they've fixed it.

Didn't care about the haters for that one.  I've argued on here that it was and is a great game.  I like how people thought the ending was the last 5 minutes of content.  I thought the entire last hour was, and it was glorious.


Except that last five minutes made the rest of it utterly pointless.
 
2013-02-13 11:15:33 AM  

Lumbar Puncture: Dancis_Frake: . Casual bores me, I dislike FPS in general (BulletStorm was an exception to this), any game requiring me to learn and study techniques gets the proverbial bullet, sports games are of no interest to me and never have been, racing games, meh, depends (Wip3out forever!).

You just wiped out at least 90% of any games from any time period.


I was thinking about games such as Tekken. At the time it took me weeks to master all of King's moves. I don't have the time to do that anymore. I liked the X-com remake, it does require a lot of technique but you can have fun while learning those.

You might be remembering things with rose tinted glasses, most JRPGs have artificial repetitive padding to their single player, not to mention the flood of knock offs and garbage licensed products.  The industry has only ever cared to get that money.

Every period had its champions. The fist Prince of Persia, Cinemaware games,... After that, I have fond memories of simpler productions like Rock'n'Roll Racing or The Immortal. Besides that, there were also a crapload of failures like D on the Psx - worst PoS I've ever played. I'm not criticizing the industry for going after the money and being lazy, really, but for not understanding that this behaviour has become the source of their problem and thinking that throwing in new gimmicks and online "services" will solve it instead.
 
2013-02-13 11:18:32 AM  

Antimatter: Except that last five minutes made the rest of it utterly pointless.


Not really.  Its a tragedy that they can get over.
 
2013-02-13 11:26:32 AM  

meanmutton: meanmutton: kroonermanblack: I want RPGs. I looked at a few websites, and of the handful, most console RPGs are years old.

I don't mean a crapped out FF rehash either. 3-4 years ago there was a steady stream of ok console RPGs released. What have we seen in the last year or two?

And I'm in the 'got burned by crap 'Aaa' releases group' as well. I don't preorder anything, and wait for release day metrics and reviews, and usually wait 2-3 weeks to pick up something new.

Mass Effect 3, Final Fantasy XIII-2, Paper Mario Sticker Star, Fable: The Journey, Elder Scrolls: Skyrim were all quite good.

Yes, I know that lots of people HATED the end of ME3.  It was still a great game up to that point and it's a great one to pick up NOW, after they've fixed it.


Ignoring the ME3 hate (because I do), and ignoring paper Mario because its not on the regular consoles (and I refuse to buy two) that's....a crappy list.

ME3 was reviled and earned the company the golden turd award. FFX-2 I heard was also reviled because the end was basically 'now we have no clue how to end this buy dlc to find out!', you got me with fable, hasn't heard of that, and honestly skyrim (and all TES games) bore the piss out of me.

I should have been more clear on 'traditional or JRPG styled RPGs'. But even if I say all of those were mind blowing, (and I still won't count paper Mario) that's FOUR games. All of which I'd finish in a month tops (again, I'm not going to put 300 hours into skyrim).

There were years when so many RPGs got released I couldn't find time to play them all. Now it's shooters and the occasional action game, and a lot of action game with level mechanics masking as RPGs.
 
2013-02-13 11:35:02 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Tribes: Ascend.  Independent developer, Hi-Rez studios, based in Georgia.


Awesome game, been playing for awhile. Really captures the feel of the original Tribes. It's actually the first free-to-play game I've spent money on. I felt the devs deserved it, so I bought about $20 worth of credits. However, no one in their right mind would classify Hi-Rez Studios as an indie developer. They have multiple major releases under their belt and an employee count of over 100 personnel. They have also been distributor and are currently private equity/investor backed.

Network doesn't apply to battlefield, it uses an MS network.  But even looking at the PC version... Hi-Rez's net is significantly nicer, both functionally (shorter wait times) and by virtue of being significantly less full of thirteen year old assholes.

Not sure what you are referring to here, but when I say network programming, I literally mean writing the application code that sends packets to and from the client. This type of programming requires a huge understanding of network latency and internet protocols  I did some tweaking with the Unreal Dev Kit and working in the network layer can be a real biatch. Most game engines use predictive programming to try to predict where the user will be by the time a network packet goes from client-to-server-to-client. If your algorithm is off, you get really bad rubber-banding and warping.

"Indy" is also kind of a weird term to use in this context.  I'm assuming you're meaning the non-AAA releases that aren't sold at full price on release.  Though I guess Eve
online qualifies by that standard, so possibly I'm not capturing it fully.


Independent means not backed by investors or distributions deals, it is self-funded. And Eve was sold for full price when it released in 2003.

Anyhow, my point was that development budget doesn't correspond to game quality in any noticeable way, or at least no way relevant to competition.  Your implied equation of good graphics with "more pixels" is actually one of the big lies that some of the studios use to pad their costs, many of the more large-budget titles gave not one single fark about dense artwork and were absurdly popular, too.  See: Borderlands, which is farking cel-shaded, of all things.

I never meant to imply that good graphics or production values == more game enjoyment. I only meant that on average, production costs for major video game releases have gone up over the years due to increased complexity and demand from consumers. There are always outliers and edge cases, but on average this is very true. Now this have nothing to do with whether or not these increased costs = better games, that's a different argument. Like I said previously, you can make great games for far less than BF3, but it would be EXTREMELY difficult to make a game that matches BF3's scope, scale, and polish without a significant investment in developers, audio guys, engineers, etc etc.
 
2013-02-13 11:36:47 AM  

Fano: Is there a good game for it that isn't ocarina of time?


Off the top of my head:

Super Mario 3D Land
Super Street Fighter IV
Star Fox 3D
Mario Kart 7
Fire Emblem: Awakening
Cave Story 3D

All over 80 on Metacritic, a few over 90.
 
2013-02-13 11:37:57 AM  

kroonermanblack: ME3 was reviled and earned the company the golden turd award. FFX-2 I heard was also reviled because the end was basically 'now we have no clue how to end this buy dlc to find out!', you got me with fable, hasn't heard of that, and honestly skyrim (and all TES games) bore the piss out of me.

I should have been more clear on 'traditional or JRPG styled RPGs'. But even if I say all of those were mind blowing, (and I still won't count paper Mario) that's FOUR games. All of which I'd finish in a month tops (again, I'm not going to put 300 hours into skyrim).

There were years when so many RPGs got released I couldn't find time to play them all. Now it's shooters and the occasional action game, and a lot of action game with level mechanics masking as RPGs.


There was a very vocal minority that biatched and whined and complained loudly about ME3.  It actually got very good ratings: IGN gave it 9.5/10 (users 9.2/10) Gamespot 9.0 (8.6 users) Metacritic 93/100.

As far as released RPGs go, PS3 had ME3, Mugen Souls, Of Orcs and Men, Legasista, Risen 2, Rainbow Moon, Atelier Meruru, Dragon's Dogma, Sorcery, Game of Thrones, Tales of Graces, Hyperdimension Neptunia, Kingdoms of Amalur, and Final Fantasy XIII-2 in 2012.  You said last two years, so let's toos in Skyrim, Lord of the Rings, Dungeon Defenders, Dragon Age 2, Rune Factory, Dark Souls, Ateleiri Totori, Fallout: New Vegas, White Knight Chronicles II, Dungeon Seige III to take us back to June of 2011.

So, that's 24 RPGs released for PS3 in the last year and a half.
 
2013-02-13 11:40:23 AM  
I think a lot of us started spending a lot of time here instead.

I know I play more cardboard now than I ever did PC or console gaming, even back in "the day".
 
2013-02-13 11:40:30 AM  

Mike_LowELL: I'll go ahead and address the talking points right now:

"Video games are more popular than ever!": Nobody has suggested "video games are dying".  Many of the models synonymous with video games (retail distribution, major game publishing) are in decline.  This is indisputable.

"Games are going digital, so the N.P.D.'s numbers are irrelevant!": They are, and it disproportionately impacts the console and dedicated portable (3DS, Vita) markets.  Not to mention that, even with digital, total game sales in the U.S. were down roughly ten percent for the year.

"Wait until the new consoles come out!": The audiences which were expected to help console video games continue to grow (the Wii boomers) are gone.  People don't want to pay sixty dollars for the software, let alone pay hundreds for new hardware when they can already play games on their existing phone or computer.

Basically, the new digital revolution (mobile gaming, Steam, free-to-play, etc.) has completely redefined what people are willing to pay for a video game, and it's going to disproportionately impact console and dedicated portable video games, the markets which require by-far the most disposable income.  You already own the computer, you already own the phone, and you can get games on both platforms for cheap or nothing.  Meanwhile, console video game developers need millions of people to pay sixty dollars (plus DLC) for their games, and the development of those games is only going to get more expensive next generation.  All the yelling and screaming that video game fans have done about the Wii and Call of Duty crowds, and they've now figured out that they needed those people to keep buying expensive software in order to subsidize the games that enthusiasts enjoy.  They're gone for good.

Or, you can convince yourselves that the disappointing sales of the 3DS, Vita, and Wii U, and the bankruptcy of a billion-dollar game publisher (THQ) are all just a fluke and that everything is going to be back to normal ...


Very interesting article you linked.  I agree with every word of it.  The industry has become a repetitive mess.   I have the answer though as to what will make gaming sell and rise once again.

As stupid as this sounds, WE NEED 3D GAMES!! That's the next novelty and the next step.  People need to just stop saying it's such a gimmick and just give it a chance and get used to it.  The technology needs to be improved more and more also.  And gamers just need to let their eyes work out and get past the headache phase.

3 Dimensional gaming is the next leap.  It is the next generation.
 
2013-02-13 11:42:13 AM  

Gwendolyn: Personally I'm busy finishing up my degree and waiting for Elder Scrolls Online. The current crop of MMORPGs kinda suck.


Going by their single player releases, it will be bugged as hell, and they won't bother to fix much.
 
2013-02-13 11:42:31 AM  
If you want to know what is killing gaming, you don't have to look any further than EA games.
For me, I bought Dragon Age the second week it was released and Paid the full $50 for the game. When I installed it I noticed that it came pre-loaded with $25 of DLC that I still haven't played. However, I enjoyed the game and recommended it to several friends who purchased it 6 months later at $30 with all the DLC unlocked.

The game only became successful because of people like me who recommend it by word of mouth. The way EA thanks their early adopters is by charging them full price for an incomplete game.

From that moment forward I totally swore off all games from EA and their subsidiaries. And refuse to pay anything more than 25% of any games initial price. If I can't get it used or on sale at that price, I can do without it.

The only studios exempt from that rule are Bethesda and Riot Games. I'd also trust the guys from New World Computing if I knew where they went.
 
2013-02-13 11:42:41 AM  

Mike_LowELL: Yes, because what's stopping people from paying sixty dollars for games is the looming four-hundred-dollar incremental hardware upgrade.


Super Meat Boy
I wanna be the Boshy
VVVVVV
Splunky
Binding of Issac
Tera Online

You don't have to pay 60$ for a good game.
 
2013-02-13 11:46:22 AM  

Antimatter: Why buy a $600 PC for the living room when a $300 gives you equal entertainment options in most cases, and is easier to set up and jump into?


Because a PC will, entertainment-wise, do absolutely farking everything. For ever. Find a streaming movie service or a movie format, and I guarantee that Windows will play it, where a PS3, XBox, Wii, Roku or Apple TV will choke on something. It will also allow you to play almost every game ever, from old arcade games via MAME, through to DOS games from gog.com, through to Steam and whatever else. OK, it won't play a couple of exclusives like Little Big Planet, but that's about it.
 
2013-02-13 11:47:29 AM  

thecpt: Didn't care about the haters for that one. I've argued on here that it was and is a great game. I like how people thought the ending was the last 5 minutes of content. I thought the entire last hour was, and it was glorious


Hell the entire game was a series of endings.  I didn't mind the ending initially, it felt sloppy to the rest of the experience but I was satisfied with what I got out of it.

And then they released DLC that explains the Reapers, their motives, the Crucible, etc.  That should've been in the game in the first place, and charging for something that's a pretty essential part of the overall story is bullshiat.  I'm retroactively pissed off.

Still loved Mordin's scenes though.

Dancis_Frake: Every period had its champions. The fist Prince of Persia, Cinemaware games,... After that, I have fond memories of simpler productions like Rock'n'Roll Racing or The Immortal. Besides that, there were also a crapload of failures like D on the Psx - worst PoS I've ever played. I'm not criticizing the industry for going after the money and being lazy, really, but for not understanding that this behaviour has become the source of their problem and thinking that throwing in new gimmicks and online "services" will solve it


I don't know that they'll ever figure that out, the balance between people trying to develop a fun game and the management trying to cut costs and make profit is always going to be a tricky one and it sure has moved more in the direction of management.
 
2013-02-13 11:51:54 AM  
Personally I'm burnt out on the current gen games. It seems like lots of games these days are pretty much use the same formula. I'll still play some RPGs because I like nerdy fantasy worlds but that's pretty much it. I blame the huge amount of money it takes to make a good quality game these days. They lack vision, I haven't even played the last Resident Evil and I've played pretty much every other release in the franchise. Maybe I'm getting older, but games don't have the imagination they once had
 
2013-02-13 11:52:27 AM  

Lumbar Puncture: thecpt: Didn't care about the haters for that one. I've argued on here that it was and is a great game. I like how people thought the ending was the last 5 minutes of content. I thought the entire last hour was, and it was glorious

Hell the entire game was a series of endings.  I didn't mind the ending initially, it felt sloppy to the rest of the experience but I was satisfied with what I got out of it.

And then they released DLC that explains the Reapers, their motives, the Crucible, etc.  That should've been in the game in the first place, and charging for something that's a pretty essential part of the overall story is bullshiat.  I'm retroactively pissed off.


They didn't charge for that.  It's a free download.
 
2013-02-13 11:53:13 AM  

Shaggy_C: Blame Gamefly. I don't play multiplayer games because I'm not 13 any more and there are very few games with a long enough single player campaign or enough replay value to justify dropping $60 on a copy. I can't be the only person who does this - I think pretty much every guy with a live-in  mom girlfriend is in pretty much the same boat. The only games I bought with my PS3 were Madden and MLB The Show since sports games you can play forever. 5 hour long FPSs? Not so much. Even GTA is fun for about a month tops.


This is sort of the boat I'm in.    When the phone rings, someone knocks at the door,the dog has to shiat, or the wife wants me to help her do something, I'm not really going to blow it off because I'm playing a game that you really can't just pause.  For that reason, I tend not to play online and I tend to get annoyed when I get a game with really bad single player action.  Battlefield 2 and 2142 had a great single player mode that was just like the online play, except with less challenging opponents and a little bit more predictability.  But, it was still fun to play single player.   Now the trend seems to be towards a pretty standard campaign mode where you gotta do some stuff and then move on to the next segment - gets old fast.  Making it harder to proceed between saves doesn't actually improve anything - the game play is just kind of dull.
 
2013-02-13 11:53:34 AM  

taxandspend: /Currently playing Fire Emblem Awakening.


I just beat that game last night and it was worth every penny. farking Owain is the most OP mother farker in the series, and that includes Lackhe from FE4.
 
2013-02-13 11:54:16 AM  

degenerate-afro: Mike_LowELL: Yes, because what's stopping people from paying sixty dollars for games is the looming four-hundred-dollar incremental hardware upgrade.

Super Meat Boy
I wanna be the Boshy
VVVVVV
Splunky
Binding of Issac
Tera Online

You don't have to pay 60$ for a good game.


FTL. Five bucks, infinite fun.
 
2013-02-13 11:54:39 AM  

ModernPrimitive01: Personally I'm burnt out on the current gen games. It seems like lots of games these days are pretty much use the same formula. I'll still play some RPGs because I like nerdy fantasy worlds but that's pretty much it. I blame the huge amount of money it takes to make a good quality game these days. They lack vision, I haven't even played the last Resident Evil and I've played pretty much every other release in the franchise. Maybe I'm getting older, but games don't have the imagination they once had


In recent years, we got some super awesome games in the Mass Effect series, Bioshock series, Elder Scrolls Oblivion and Skyrim, Fallout series, etc., that were hugely imaginative, well constructed, fun games with great stories.
 
2013-02-13 11:55:14 AM  

meanmutton: kroonermanblack: ME3 was reviled and earned the company the golden turd award. FFX-2 I heard was also reviled because the end was basically 'now we have no clue how to end this buy dlc to find out!', you got me with fable, hasn't heard of that, and honestly skyrim (and all TES games) bore the piss out of me.

I should have been more clear on 'traditional or JRPG styled RPGs'. But even if I say all of those were mind blowing, (and I still won't count paper Mario) that's FOUR games. All of which I'd finish in a month tops (again, I'm not going to put 300 hours into skyrim).

There were years when so many RPGs got released I couldn't find time to play them all. Now it's shooters and the occasional action game, and a lot of action game with level mechanics masking as RPGs.

There was a very vocal minority that biatched and whined and complained loudly about ME3.  It actually got very good ratings: IGN gave it 9.5/10 (users 9.2/10) Gamespot 9.0 (8.6 users) Metacritic 93/100.


Hype and a tight deadlines results in good ratings from major sites. Developers have learned they're better off putting the money in advertising than programing if they want to make a profit.
 
2013-02-13 11:57:04 AM  

Carth: meanmutton: kroonermanblack: ME3 was reviled and earned the company the golden turd award. FFX-2 I heard was also reviled because the end was basically 'now we have no clue how to end this buy dlc to find out!', you got me with fable, hasn't heard of that, and honestly skyrim (and all TES games) bore the piss out of me.

I should have been more clear on 'traditional or JRPG styled RPGs'. But even if I say all of those were mind blowing, (and I still won't count paper Mario) that's FOUR games. All of which I'd finish in a month tops (again, I'm not going to put 300 hours into skyrim).

There were years when so many RPGs got released I couldn't find time to play them all. Now it's shooters and the occasional action game, and a lot of action game with level mechanics masking as RPGs.

There was a very vocal minority that biatched and whined and complained loudly about ME3.  It actually got very good ratings: IGN gave it 9.5/10 (users 9.2/10) Gamespot 9.0 (8.6 users) Metacritic 93/100.

Hype and a tight deadlines results in good ratings from major sites. Developers have learned they're better off putting the money in advertising than programing if they want to make a profit.


I could see how that might apply to professional reviewers (although there have been some serious duds when it comes to much hyped games) but how does that apply to user ratings?
 
2013-02-13 11:59:16 AM  

meanmutton: ModernPrimitive01: Personally I'm burnt out on the current gen games. It seems like lots of games these days are pretty much use the same formula. I'll still play some RPGs because I like nerdy fantasy worlds but that's pretty much it. I blame the huge amount of money it takes to make a good quality game these days. They lack vision, I haven't even played the last Resident Evil and I've played pretty much every other release in the franchise. Maybe I'm getting older, but games don't have the imagination they once had

In recent years, we got some super awesome games in the Mass Effect series, Bioshock series, Elder Scrolls Oblivion and Skyrim, Fallout series, etc., that were hugely imaginative, well constructed, fun games with great stories.


yeah, you pretty much described every game I've bought in the last few years. I also bought the new Zelda (kinda meh) and The Witcher 2 (really good). Since beating the Witcher 2 last summer, the only thing I purchased was the new Ghost Recon which is pretty disappointing.
 
2013-02-13 11:59:21 AM  

Tenebreux: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 550x391]

Nuff said. If you can't upgrade your hardware at least once a year, you don't get the shinies.


THIS. I returned to PC gaming about a year ago and haven't turned on my Xbox or PS3 since. It's a superior experience in every way.
 
2013-02-13 12:01:00 PM  

Mike_LowELL: Or, you can convince yourselves that the disappointing sales of the 3DS, Vita, and Wii U, and the bankruptcy of a billion-dollar game publisher (THQ) are all just a fluke and that everything is going to be back to normal when Microsoft and Sony release their new game consoles.


Vita, Wii U and THQ aren't flukes, they're the result of massive mismanagement or poor marketing, which would be a problem no matter what the sales of the industry look like.  Anyone who made the ongoing series of mistakes and bad decisions that THQ did would be out of business.  3DS is selling fine.  You'd be better with using an example like Rockstar closing the Max Payne 3 developer right after releasing the game, or Activision with Bizarre Studios, or any number of other studio closures.
 
2013-02-13 12:02:35 PM  

meanmutton: Carth: meanmutton: kroonermanblack: ME3 was reviled and earned the company the golden turd award. FFX-2 I heard was also reviled because the end was basically 'now we have no clue how to end this buy dlc to find out!', you got me with fable, hasn't heard of that, and honestly skyrim (and all TES games) bore the piss out of me.

I should have been more clear on 'traditional or JRPG styled RPGs'. But even if I say all of those were mind blowing, (and I still won't count paper Mario) that's FOUR games. All of which I'd finish in a month tops (again, I'm not going to put 300 hours into skyrim).

There were years when so many RPGs got released I couldn't find time to play them all. Now it's shooters and the occasional action game, and a lot of action game with level mechanics masking as RPGs.

There was a very vocal minority that biatched and whined and complained loudly about ME3.  It actually got very good ratings: IGN gave it 9.5/10 (users 9.2/10) Gamespot 9.0 (8.6 users) Metacritic 93/100.

Hype and a tight deadlines results in good ratings from major sites. Developers have learned they're better off putting the money in advertising than programing if they want to make a profit.

I could see how that might apply to professional reviewers (although there have been some serious duds when it comes to much hyped games) but how does that apply to user ratings?


fanboy effect and people who rated the game before playing it based on hype. The reviews for ME3 on amazon are between 2.5 and 3 stars which seems fair.
 
2013-02-13 12:03:49 PM  

meanmutton: They didn't charge for that. It's a free download


I was talking about the Leviathan DLC that explains the things I mentioned, not the extended ending DLC, which does not.
 
2013-02-13 12:12:55 PM  
Meh.

sharetv.orgView Full Size
 
2013-02-13 12:13:13 PM  

manimal2878: Tenebreux: Nuff said. If you can't upgrade your hardware at least once a year, you don't get the shinies.

Meh.

I got tired of having to dick around with a desktop system requiring a desk taking up a portion of a room, and now only have a laptop.  I got tired of having to research for  hours  whenever I got a new game to make it work with my hardware.  Sure a console might not have the latest graphics, but I don't think I'm missing much by not having that extra bit of lens flare effect or water reflection while I game and I"ve never had a game not work.

I do miss the ability to play modded games, but it seems like  DRM that is steadily stripping that away from the PC realm as an advantage.


A laptop sucks for most games I'll grant you that, but my desk top takes up no more room than my Xbox and PS3 (and most gamers I know have at least two current systems plus a bunch of old ones), so space really isn't that much of an issue.

In terms of software compatibility I use Steam and have had no problems. The only drawback is I don't get a physical copy of the game, which is mitigated by the fact that when I upgrade my machine I can just download my games again (since they are registered under my account), and by waiting for games to go on sale or for package deals I never pay full retail price. Plus they have tonnes of old games that you rarely see anymore in retail outlets, which are usually cheaper than even secondhand copies (usually $5), and you run no risks of defects that sometimes come with secondhand games.
 
2013-02-13 12:18:00 PM  

Tyrosine: Tenebreux: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 550x391]

Nuff said. If you can't upgrade your hardware at least once a year, you don't get the shinies.

THIS. I returned to PC gaming about a year ago and haven't turned on my Xbox or PS3 since. It's a superior experience in every way.


Plus the modding. It is truly a glorious gaming experience. Don't like your character's hat? Give him a different one. Want to fundamentally alter the entire game from the ground up? Knock yourself out.
 
2013-02-13 12:19:16 PM  

Gordon Bennett: It's strange to me to hear about the video game crash in 1983-1984, because that's the time I remember gaming being massive. Everyone had a Commodore or a Spectrum or something, there were loads of games out and they kept getting better and better, not to mention cheaper at the bottom end thanks to Mastertronic.


The video game crash wasn't so much about consumers as it was retailers. Consumers kept playing games of course, but they weren't buying as many. Video games were still new at the time and many thought they might just be a fad. When sales dropped retailers thought the fad was over and went into panic mode. They stopped ordering games and console, putting a lot of companies out of business.

/RIP Coleco
 
2013-02-13 12:19:21 PM  

PonceAlyosha: FTL. Five bucks, infinite fun.


That game is farking brutal if you're unlucky. I got frustrated and went back to Dwarf Fortress to relax.
 
2013-02-13 12:19:36 PM  

Tyrosine: manimal2878: Tenebreux: Nuff said. If you can't upgrade your hardware at least once a year, you don't get the shinies.

Meh.

I got tired of having to dick around with a desktop system requiring a desk taking up a portion of a room, and now only have a laptop.  I got tired of having to research for  hours  whenever I got a new game to make it work with my hardware.  Sure a console might not have the latest graphics, but I don't think I'm missing much by not having that extra bit of lens flare effect or water reflection while I game and I"ve never had a game not work.

I do miss the ability to play modded games, but it seems like  DRM that is steadily stripping that away from the PC realm as an advantage.

A laptop sucks for most games I'll grant you that, but my desk top takes up no more room than my Xbox and PS3 (and most gamers I know have at least two current systems plus a bunch of old ones), so space really isn't that much of an issue.

In terms of software compatibility I use Steam and have had no problems. The only drawback is I don't get a physical copy of the game, which is mitigated by the fact that when I upgrade my machine I can just download my games again (since they are registered under my account), and by waiting for games to go on sale or for package deals I never pay full retail price. Plus they have tonnes of old games that you rarely see anymore in retail outlets, which are usually cheaper than even secondhand copies (usually $5), and you run no risks of defects that sometimes come with secondhand games.


Plus, they link the metacritic reviews right there on the games. So when you go to look at any game, there's a composite of all the reviews. Plus, auto-patching. Built in social aspect that's not intrusive. It's ideal.
 
2013-02-13 12:21:31 PM  

Mentalpatient87: PonceAlyosha: FTL. Five bucks, infinite fun.

That game is farking brutal if you're unlucky. I got frustrated and went back to Dwarf Fortress to relax.


Plus some of the ship strategies simply don't work or are too dangerous to attempt to run through a whole game. I was really excited to get the ship that was dedicated to beaming an away team aboard the enemy ship... until mid-combat the enemy ship just jumped to light speed and disappeared along with the crew.

Whoops. There goes that game.
 
2013-02-13 12:22:47 PM  
Most new games suck. They are either nothing new, a regression in gameplay and features, REALLY easy, too short, or too repetitive. All good games are pretty much franchise games from the past and continuations of the series. You get a good game maybe twice a year. The only thing really moving games now is coming out with flashier and flashier graphics to lure people in. The gaming industry has gotten too big and mainstream where it is controlled by massive companies who are really good at business, but terrible at making games. One could say the same thing is happening in the gaming industry that has been happening with film or the music industry. With the cost of production, it is almost impossible to compete with the big guys. It is more financially savvy to "sell out" to the big guys rather than fight them. Indie companies don't remain indie for too long. They release something that goes viral and is a success and it gets bought out. Slowly then you see the decay of the company before it finally is dissolved. Rinse, Repeat.
 
2013-02-13 12:26:34 PM  

Treygreen13: Mentalpatient87: PonceAlyosha: FTL. Five bucks, infinite fun.

That game is farking brutal if you're unlucky. I got frustrated and went back to Dwarf Fortress to relax.

Plus some of the ship strategies simply don't work or are too dangerous to attempt to run through a whole game. I was really excited to get the ship that was dedicated to beaming an away team aboard the enemy ship... until mid-combat the enemy ship just jumped to light speed and disappeared along with the crew.

Whoops. There goes that game.


Hah, once you learn when to beam your guys back aboard, it becomes the easiest method of playing the game. This includes the boss. Beam a boarder into the weapons rooms, and laugh as you have free reign over the flagship. What really sucks is when you accidentally blow the ship up with your boarding party on board. Can't blame anyone buy yourself then.
 
2013-02-13 12:27:51 PM  
Sid_6.7:
I feel a little dirty admitting it, but I've been playing the hell out of Mass Effect multiplayer. But I sure as hell have not spent real money on equipment.

Don't be, I logged 10x more hours on MP than SP. According to the BW boards, the record most time in MP is sitting at around 2,100 hours

I've also spent money on equipment packs, but since the MP DLC has been free so far, I consider it a good trade off
 
2013-02-13 12:30:29 PM  

Need a Dispenser Here: Treygreen13: Mentalpatient87: PonceAlyosha: FTL. Five bucks, infinite fun.

That game is farking brutal if you're unlucky. I got frustrated and went back to Dwarf Fortress to relax.

Plus some of the ship strategies simply don't work or are too dangerous to attempt to run through a whole game. I was really excited to get the ship that was dedicated to beaming an away team aboard the enemy ship... until mid-combat the enemy ship just jumped to light speed and disappeared along with the crew.

Whoops. There goes that game.

Hah, once you learn when to beam your guys back aboard, it becomes the easiest method of playing the game. This includes the boss. Beam a boarder into the weapons rooms, and laugh as you have free reign over the flagship. What really sucks is when you accidentally blow the ship up with your boarding party on board. Can't blame anyone buy yourself then.


I went back and tried it a few times. Some just tremendously bad luck, and one was a scripted thing where the ship gets away. Seemed like I could never get the hang of it. I just went back to my usual method of timing the lasers to do max damage. If you can get lucky with a few good burst laser purchases you can just melt pretty much anything.
 
2013-02-13 12:42:47 PM  
I could never get far enough to get a boarding party. I had a boarding drone once that messed shiat up, but I lost for some other reason. I only have the first two ships unlocked, and neither of them seem to be worth a damn until I get lucky enough to stumble across some upgrade.
 
2013-02-13 12:53:47 PM  

RexTalionis: Either that or we are at the end of this console generation and everyone is waiting for the next console release.


Yeah, that would be my interpretation.

That and the way that Nintendo is in the midst of making the same mistake they made with the Gamecube and having way too much dead time in the release schedule after the initial launch.

END COMMUNICATION
 
2013-02-13 12:55:09 PM  

Treygreen13: Need a Dispenser Here: Treygreen13: Mentalpatient87: PonceAlyosha: FTL. Five bucks, infinite fun.

That game is farking brutal if you're unlucky. I got frustrated and went back to Dwarf Fortress to relax.

Plus some of the ship strategies simply don't work or are too dangerous to attempt to run through a whole game. I was really excited to get the ship that was dedicated to beaming an away team aboard the enemy ship... until mid-combat the enemy ship just jumped to light speed and disappeared along with the crew.

Whoops. There goes that game.

Hah, once you learn when to beam your guys back aboard, it becomes the easiest method of playing the game. This includes the boss. Beam a boarder into the weapons rooms, and laugh as you have free reign over the flagship. What really sucks is when you accidentally blow the ship up with your boarding party on board. Can't blame anyone buy yourself then.

I went back and tried it a few times. Some just tremendously bad luck, and one was a scripted thing where the ship gets away. Seemed like I could never get the hang of it. I just went back to my usual method of timing the lasers to do max damage. If you can get lucky with a few good burst laser purchases you can just melt pretty much anything.


Take out the engines or piloting first, then board. They can't jump if they don't have engines or piloting. Piloting is a better place to aim because there should always be a crew member. If they can't jump, you can't lose your team.
 
2013-02-13 01:03:56 PM  
PC games that my family and I can play online togetherare where we are sinking most of our time (Guild Wars 2, League of Legends, looking forward to Heart of the Swarm).  Next would be casual games for PC or mobile. The occasionally really good console game can us back (Mr. Quizzical enjoyed the hell out of Skyrim, and I had fun with Darksiders), but we use the 360 more for streaming movies then playing games.   We aren't sure how many - if any - of the next gen consoles we're going to pick up.
 
2013-02-13 01:05:10 PM  

Rincewind53: Shaggy_C: Rincewind53: This is a great time to mention my "Entertainment Value Calculator" when figuring out whether to buy a video game. Basically, figuring that these days, the average cost of a movie is $12, and provides around 2 hours of entertainment, then if a video game is $60, it should provide at a minimum 10 hours of entertainment. If a game only has a six hour single player, and I don't intend to use the multiplayer, I'd wait until the price dropped to at least $36.

Hmm. By a $6/hour metric I should never pay more than a few pennies for sex

I'll admit it's only a calculator for electronic entertainment.


http://www.ufunk.net/en/gadgets/custom-maid-3d/
 
2013-02-13 01:06:51 PM  
The gaming industry basically has to baby step towards virtual reality to ever stay relevant and fresh.  Eventually gaming's novelty has to be to satisfy all your senses.

Also eventually consoles and pcs will meld into one machine.
 
2013-02-13 01:07:07 PM  

Mentalpatient87: I could never get far enough to get a boarding party. I had a boarding drone once that messed shiat up, but I lost for some other reason. I only have the first two ships unlocked, and neither of them seem to be worth a damn until I get lucky enough to stumble across some upgrade.


The two secrets that turned the game around for me was starving fires with oxygen.  Build two shields, then pump the rest into the engine so you dodge everything.  I also rush buying the teleporter since you get more scrap when you don't blow up the ship
 
2013-02-13 01:10:30 PM  
Again, I ask the hardcore fanboys here:

WHY MUST I CHOOSE BETWEEN STEAM AND A CONSOLE?!?!

I have both. They do different things. My gaming rig is great for some games, but the console is great for other games. The console is more portable (my rig is huge and heavy). The gaming rig is more powerful.

You act as if picking PC gaming means you have to sign a contract saying you'll never game on a console, and vice-versa. I just don't get that.

And get this: I have a Dingoo, and a PSP Go, and a 10" Android tablet, too!!!! OH MY GOSH! I'M GAMING ON MORE THAN ONE DEVICE! I MUST BE SOME SORT OF DEVIANT!

Seriously... Stop with take sides. I say: Whatever works for you at the time you need it.
 
2013-02-13 01:11:28 PM  

kalor: erik-k:
It's a good thing Maxis didn't know about this or between SimCity 2000, SimCity 3000 and SimCity 4 I'd have probably owed them $20000 by the time I entered high school. Add in the Super Solvers series, Math Munchers, Math Rescue, Word Rescue, Operation Neptune, all the rest of 'em from MECC and TLC...

Then don't look at the new "SimCity" (aka SimsVillage).  It' s$60 base, you must be connected to the EA servers at all time with a very limited save space but already mentioned you can buy more save space.  Oh always-online = no in-depth mod but don't worry, the new SimCity Store will give you all the DLC you want for a price.  Now ou have to pay $60, can't run it without EA, can't mod, but can buy hundreds in extra DLC

They've lost my business forever.


As they did mine.

Don't they realize that a crack for that comes out within days of release, they don't stop piracy, just piss everyone off.
 
2013-02-13 01:12:14 PM  
As far as console gaming is concerned, the entry price of the hardware is its biggest fail. I remember when systems sold $250 to $300 new, not at the end of their lifecycles! The PS3 and 360 should be $100, including full hard drives right now. Factor this in with PC system requirements leveling off tremendously with the rise of laptops, and you would have to be crazy to buy in right now.

Another major factor is the entire shift in the business model. Web games are now providing high quality experiences right in your browser with virtually no download required. Hell, even Facebook is getting in on this. Check out Offensive Combat if you don't believe me, and it is only going to get better from here. And of course, the rise of mobile gaming is a driving factor too, especially since most people upgrade their hardware every few years, dirt cheap on contracts.

On that note, how is League of Legends? I'm not normally a fan of RTS games, but do enjoy online action and RPGs.
 
2013-02-13 01:12:58 PM  

ZeroCorpse: HY MUST I CHOOSE BETWEEN STEAM AND A CONSOLE?!?!


Forget it Jake...it's Console Wars.

/PC is my primary, but have gotten many hours of enjoyment from my 360 and PS3.
 
2013-02-13 01:13:47 PM  

vastcat: Mentalpatient87: I could never get far enough to get a boarding party. I had a boarding drone once that messed shiat up, but I lost for some other reason. I only have the first two ships unlocked, and neither of them seem to be worth a damn until I get lucky enough to stumble across some upgrade.

The two secrets that turned the game around for me was starving fires with oxygen.  Build two shields, then pump the rest into the engine so you dodge everything.  I also rush buying the teleporter since you get more scrap when you don't blow up the ship


Yup. Another good one is that your medbay does not need to be powered when it isn't healing anyone, so I usually don't dedicate a power slot for one. Of course, if you get boarded things may get interesting when you don't have enough to power everything.

Another one is the fact that rockmen don't take fire damage. An underhanded yet utterly satisfying combination is a fire bomb along with a rockman boarding party. I like to be a jerk and bomb the medbay, beam the rockmen to it, and enjoy watching the enemy crew scramble.

I really wish the game had a pvp mode. It would get extremely frantic as you wouldn't be able to pause, but pausing every second is kind of lame anyways.
 
2013-02-13 01:19:45 PM  
Last year I discovered the joys of the Humble Indie Bundle, Steam, and GOG. I recently got back into PC gaming after getting a new computer. It's not the greatest setup in the world, but it will play just about any game I want to play, and since there are tons of older titles I missed over the past 10 years, I've got more than I need.

I picked up Knights of the Old Republic thanks to a Steam sale, and even ten years later it's a fantastic game. I don't care if the graphics aren't as shiny as games today, it's still a fun experience. I have so many other older games in my queue, again thanks to Steam or Gog, that I'll never run out of games to play again. If I tire of PC games, I still have a couple of games on my consoles that I haven't picked up in a while, including a few PS2 games that I keep meaning to get back to. These games are still fun, and right now it means I have no shortage of options.

People like me are one of the reasons new console sales are flagging. I'm older, which limits my time. I also can't justify spending a huge amount of money on a new console when I have plenty of games. I don't need anything new and shiny, and while these new games are fun, for the price of one new game I can get 10-20 from Steam, HB, or GOG.

So it does make me sad to see the industry flagging. I hope to be a lifelong gamer, as my earliest memories are bugging my cousins to play their 2600. But I'm in my thirties now and I'm not the target demographic. I hope the industry figures things out, but they just might have to do it without me. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to see if System Shock 2 is out on GOG yet. (GOG's motto: we'll gladly shut up and take your money.)
 
2013-02-13 01:22:59 PM  
Life long gamer, but my gaming time and enthusiasm has been in steady decline this generation.  It's more my own evolution as opposed to what the game industry is doing.  My responsibilities afford me less and less time.  That time competes with other interests that I've been finding more rewarding like cycling, snowshoeing, and hiking.  Even more passive activities, such as tv watching (if you filter out the reality, there is a wealth of great content), and reading have become dominant evening activities.

I guess my gaming tastes have evolved as well, at the onset of this generation I abandoned PC for consoles exclusively (favor laptops for my PC needs now).  I owned them all at one point... sold off the wii early on (so early I made money on it - borrowed one to play the Zelda's), sold off the ps3 last year... solid exclusives but seemed like a redundant device... moved 8 months ago and Xbox is still boxed.  I learned to loathe online this generation and cancelled live after I realized the Xbox was still in its box recently (I admit I'm awful at twitch games).  Can honestly say, for me, only games I truly enjoyed this generation have been bioshock, portals, first little big planet, and the Zelda's.  I've also grown tired of shooters (not just because I'm bad at them), but looking at it from the outside, they seem kind of twisted (not sure why to me, since I consume other violent content in the form of tv and books).

Next generation may be the first I outright skip... added media functionality in these devices are nice, but I feel like the roku with its always on and fast menus superior to the console offerings.  I have a dedicated BluRay player so that functionality isn't nessesary for me.  I have zero interest in casual cellphone gaming as well.   Who knows, maybe one of them will win me over... I admit the steam box sounds promising. Even though I no longer game on a PC rig, I see steam as a valuable service.  The only things that keeps me intrigued is my casual interest in technology.  I'm fascinated by what developers can do with the hardware (even if most of the games and gameplay offer little interest to me).
 
2013-02-13 01:23:47 PM  

Need a Dispenser Here: vastcat: Mentalpatient87: I could never get far enough to get a boarding party. I had a boarding drone once that messed shiat up, but I lost for some other reason. I only have the first two ships unlocked, and neither of them seem to be worth a damn until I get lucky enough to stumble across some upgrade.

The two secrets that turned the game around for me was starving fires with oxygen.  Build two shields, then pump the rest into the engine so you dodge everything.  I also rush buying the teleporter since you get more scrap when you don't blow up the ship

Yup. Another good one is that your medbay does not need to be powered when it isn't healing anyone, so I usually don't dedicate a power slot for one. Of course, if you get boarded things may get interesting when you don't have enough to power everything.

Another one is the fact that rockmen don't take fire damage. An underhanded yet utterly satisfying combination is a fire bomb along with a rockman boarding party. I like to be a jerk and bomb the medbay, beam the rockmen to it, and enjoy watching the enemy crew scramble.

I really wish the game had a pvp mode. It would get extremely frantic as you wouldn't be able to pause, but pausing every second is kind of lame anyways.


Must not get FTL, must not get FTL, must not get FTL....  I would lose way tooo much time on this.
 
2013-02-13 01:24:10 PM  

Electrify: As far as console gaming is concerned, the entry price of the hardware is its biggest fail. I remember when systems sold $250 to $300 new, not at the end of their lifecycles! The PS3 and 360 should be $100, including full hard drives right now. Factor this in with PC system requirements leveling off tremendously with the rise of laptops, and you would have to be crazy to buy in right now.

Another major factor is the entire shift in the business model. Web games are now providing high quality experiences right in your browser with virtually no download required. Hell, even Facebook is getting in on this. Check out Offensive Combat if you don't believe me, and it is only going to get better from here. And of course, the rise of mobile gaming is a driving factor too, especially since most people upgrade their hardware every few years, dirt cheap on contracts.

On that note, how is League of Legends? I'm not normally a fan of RTS games, but do enjoy online action and RPGs.


Factoring in inflation, console prices haven't risen much at all, despite far more advanced tech.  Games, likewise.

This gens have taken a long time to come down in price though, because it took a long time to hit profitability.  From the leaked specs of next gen consoles, i'm thinking the economy of scale will factor in much quicker next time around.
 
2013-02-13 01:26:01 PM  

YodaBlues: ZeroCorpse: HY MUST I CHOOSE BETWEEN STEAM AND A CONSOLE?!?!

Forget it Jake...it's Console Wars.

/PC is my primary, but have gotten many hours of enjoyment from my 360 and PS3.


Ditto.  I own and play both without issue.  But you see a lot of 'pc gamer master race' who love to rag on consoles, console players, and claim they are useless, unneeded, etc.

It's annoying as hell to deal with those folks.
 
2013-02-13 01:29:36 PM  

Need a Dispenser Here: vastcat: Mentalpatient87: I could never get far enough to get a boarding party. I had a boarding drone once that messed shiat up, but I lost for some other reason. I only have the first two ships unlocked, and neither of them seem to be worth a damn until I get lucky enough to stumble across some upgrade.

The two secrets that turned the game around for me was starving fires with oxygen.  Build two shields, then pump the rest into the engine so you dodge everything.  I also rush buying the teleporter since you get more scrap when you don't blow up the ship

Yup. Another good one is that your medbay does not need to be powered when it isn't healing anyone, so I usually don't dedicate a power slot for one. Of course, if you get boarded things may get interesting when you don't have enough to power everything.

Another one is the fact that rockmen don't take fire damage. An underhanded yet utterly satisfying combination is a fire bomb along with a rockman boarding party. I like to be a jerk and bomb the medbay, beam the rockmen to it, and enjoy watching the enemy crew scramble.

I really wish the game had a pvp mode. It would get extremely frantic as you wouldn't be able to pause, but pausing every second is kind of lame anyways.


That would be awesome, They could turn it into a resource based game.  You have a home planet that produces resources/technology/crew members for exploration and defense.
 
2013-02-13 01:30:29 PM  

Antimatter: YodaBlues: ZeroCorpse: HY MUST I CHOOSE BETWEEN STEAM AND A CONSOLE?!?!

Forget it Jake...it's Console Wars.

/PC is my primary, but have gotten many hours of enjoyment from my 360 and PS3.

Ditto.  I own and play both without issue.  But you see a lot of 'pc gamer master race' who love to rag on consoles, console players, and claim they are useless, unneeded, etc.

It's annoying as hell to deal with those folks.


*WHISTLES AND WALKS AWAY SLOWLY*

I do say that, haha. I favor the PC over consoles though, but only cause I prefer mouse/keyboard, especially for shooters. Plus Steam Sales are awesome. But like I said, I have a 360 and a PS3 and enjoy the heck out of them. If you see me saying that, know that I'm just busting balls or trolling.
 
2013-02-13 01:31:11 PM  
seems like the thread to ask.
Got a $10 off coupon from Origin  to use, plus a 30% Ubisoft title code this Monday.
Any suggestions on what to use them against?
 
2013-02-13 01:32:00 PM  
I already have more games than I could ever play in a lifetime, buying more is the last thing I need. I haven't even finished a lot of my old DOS games yet and they are just as fun if not more than most of the crap that gets released these days. Slapping pretty graphics on a game doesn't make it fun to play. As for consoles I'll take my SNES over anything that comes out on the CallOfDutyBox 360.
 
2013-02-13 01:32:32 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Again, I ask the hardcore fanboys here:

WHY MUST I CHOOSE BETWEEN STEAM AND A CONSOLE?!?!

I have both. They do different things. My gaming rig is great for some games, but the console is great for other games. The console is more portable (my rig is huge and heavy). The gaming rig is more powerful.

You act as if picking PC gaming means you have to sign a contract saying you'll never game on a console, and vice-versa. I just don't get that.

And get this: I have a Dingoo, and a PSP Go, and a 10" Android tablet, too!!!! OH MY GOSH! I'M GAMING ON MORE THAN ONE DEVICE! I MUST BE SOME SORT OF DEVIANT!

Seriously... Stop with take sides. I say: Whatever works for you at the time you need it.


I run PC, Xbox360, PS2, and PS3 and I can't think of a single game that is better on a console. This could be a result of the games I play (primarily strategy, RPG, and FPS), and the fact that I loath split screen (common with console multiplayer games). I do prefer console controllers, but that was easily solved with the purchase of a game pad.

I'm curious: What types of games do you find better on the console?
 
2013-02-13 01:37:46 PM  

meanmutton: ModernPrimitive01: Personally I'm burnt out on the current gen games. It seems like lots of games these days are pretty much use the same formula. I'll still play some RPGs because I like nerdy fantasy worlds but that's pretty much it. I blame the huge amount of money it takes to make a good quality game these days. They lack vision, I haven't even played the last Resident Evil and I've played pretty much every other release in the franchise. Maybe I'm getting older, but games don't have the imagination they once had

In recent years, we got some super awesome games in the Mass Effect series, Bioshock series, Elder Scrolls Oblivion and Skyrim, Fallout series, etc., that were hugely imaginative, well constructed, fun games with great stories.


A lot of developers don't seem to want to take too much risk due to high budgets and such.  so a lot of it is pretty formulatic.  They do seem to be highlighting more and more PSN/XBLA/etc games, which come from smaller devs with less budgets.
 
2013-02-13 01:38:48 PM  

Antimatter: YodaBlues: ZeroCorpse: HY MUST I CHOOSE BETWEEN STEAM AND A CONSOLE?!?!

Forget it Jake...it's Console Wars.

/PC is my primary, but have gotten many hours of enjoyment from my 360 and PS3.

Ditto.  I own and play both without issue.  But you see a lot of 'pc gamer master race' who love to rag on consoles, console players, and claim they are useless, unneeded, etc.

It's annoying as hell to deal with those folks.


I think it stems from a time when playing games on a computer was even more uncool than a console. There's a chip on the shoulder that dates back to the 80's. Even if you could get a deeper experience, it often involved a set of twelve floppy disks that had to be paintakingly replaced every time you went to a new screen. (Looking at you King's Quest IV) Meanwhile, a console game was much simpler and more accesible, and the most complicated thing you had to do was whatever dark magic was required to get the NES to work. PC gamers insisted their games were awesome, but they were either too slow (thanks to loading) or they didn't have the graphical muscle of the consoles (because computers were REALLY expensive back then) or they were too awkward to be enjoyable. So while you might have caught some flak for liking console games, you were king of the dorks if you liked PC games.

Now things are different, but that attitude persists. Some PC gamers, those who play exclusively, either still have that resentment or it was passed down from older gamers who remember those times. That's why they can't feel kinship with their console brethren, why they must point out how limited console games are when compared to PC games, in scope, depth, customization, and modding. They must tell the world that the PC has prevailed over the console, that the True Gamer plays on PC. They take great joy in console failure and gnash their teeth when a PC game is just a console port. They long for the halycon days of the mid to late 90's, which is pretty much why GOG is in business today, because that was truly a time when the PC could be lorded over the console.

So yes, they are annoying. Me, right now I'm more a PC gamer than console, but I shift back and forth and don't believe in this exclusivity nonsense. I have fun and enjoy myself.
 
2013-02-13 01:38:54 PM  

Rincewind53: Snotnose: At $60 they cost too much.  And if you buy a game used you don't get all the content unless you pay more $$$ to the company.

Fark that, at $60 new I expect to be able to resell my game and let the buyer get full value from it.

At $60, games are actually  below what they should be if the costs had risen with inflation. 15 years ago, games were $50. If they'd kept up with inflation, they should be $71 now. And some games were priced at $50 back in 1990, where it would be $87 in modern money.

That you think video games are more expensive today reflects a lack of understanding of inflation.  Not only that, but thecostof production of video games has skyrocketed since the old days, so the video game companies would be justified in raising prices anyway. Which they haven't, because in inflation-adjusted dollars, video games are cheaper now than ever.


Yeah exactly.  They used to charge $50 for NES games for god's sake.  Considering games today give you 20x the content of NES games and the industry spends millions making these games for us $60 seems pretty reasonable.  I think that the lower tier games should probably have lower starting prices and prices should depreciate a bit more quickly, but $60 is definitely reasonable for a Gears of War or Uncharted.

I think I agree that Nintendo might have relegated itself back to third position with the Wii U and casual gamers probably don't care anymore, but I guarantee  you when PS4 and Xbox 720 come out we will see that the console industry is definitely not dead.
 
2013-02-13 01:44:05 PM  

Electrify: As far as console gaming is concerned, the entry price of the hardware is its biggest fail. I remember when systems sold $250 to $300 new, not at the end of their lifecycles!


Inflation, how the fark does it work?

That $200 you spent on the NES in 1983 is worth over $450 today.

Yeah, the SNES was only $200 at release in 1990, which is over $350 today, but that was in the middle of the console wars.

PS1 was $300 in 1994, which is $465 today.
 
2013-02-13 01:44:26 PM  

YodaBlues: Independent means not backed by investors or distributions deals, it is self-funded. And Eve was sold for full price when it released in 2003.


That's... pretty inclusive.  By that logic Braid and Cave Story aren't independent either.  Usually there's a specific something to be independent from, e.g. independent movies are not made by one of the large hollywood firms or Disney, independent music isn't funded by RIAA-affiliated labels.

Albeit now I think we're talking about something I accidentally brought up, so I'm going to stop.

Tyrosine: I'm curious: What types of games do you find better on the console?


I know I'm not him, but I've always found FPS games and pure platformers significantly better on the console.  The former because a mouse makes aiming far too easy, the latter because I find a keyboard and mouse kind of awkward for a game that only calls for six buttons and no cursor.

Now, strategy games and most RPGs, I'm right there with you.  But I think I'm with a lot of people in preferring to play a game that calls for a fairly small number of commands on a controller with a similarly limited number of inputs, that can be easily handled while moving about on a couch.  Hard to turn lazily upside-down and hang off the front edge of the couch while sniping a skag in borderlands if you're using a keyboard.
 
2013-02-13 01:47:49 PM  

Tyrosine: I'm curious: What types of games do you find better on the console?


Sports games, hands down, but honestly I prefer shooters and RPGs on consoles.  That's a matter of choice, though.  I just find the controller easier for an action-RPG than a mouse-and-keyboard, particularly a game like Skyrim that was designed for the console and ported to the PC.
 
2013-02-13 01:50:21 PM  

kab: Copperbelly watersnake: I can't believe some people want all of Tamriel for ES VI. It would take five years just to scratch the surface of the game.

I think the Skyrim open world was a good size for the content, but could always be larger.  Folks who played the game using quick travel and horses probably thought it was too small, I can certainly see that.

I'd personally be happy if the next one environmentally CHANGED as you progress through it.   ie, people reacting to you differently depending on what part of the story you're in.... you'd think, as a quick example, that if you just saved a town from a dragon attack, that guards would be a bit more appreciative of your efforts, instead of snarkily assuming that someone just made off with your favorite baked delicacy.

/still not finished with the main storyline, though I haven't played in a while


Are you suggesting perhaps that guards may initially react to the player character by stating that "We're watching you.... scum..." but that they may eventually, as the player's reputation grows through in-game quest completion, greet the player by stating "Greetings! I am at your service!"?
 
2013-02-13 01:50:37 PM  

Mike_LowELL: God, I feel like crap for writing that all out.  I already know how this thread is going to go.


FWIW, I thought it was well reasoned.
 
2013-02-13 01:50:54 PM  
Games like DOTA and  Planetside are changing the game market for the better.   Free, well done, and fun.
 
2013-02-13 01:51:58 PM  

Jim_Callahan: I know I'm not him, but I've always found FPS games and pure platformers significantly better on the console. The former because a mouse makes aiming far too easy, the latter because I find a keyboard and mouse kind of awkward for a game that only calls for six buttons and no cursor.


Try a gamepad: same layout as console game controllers, but works on your PC.
3.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2013-02-13 01:53:16 PM  

meanmutton: Tyrosine: I'm curious: What types of games do you find better on the console?

Sports games, hands down, but honestly I prefer shooters and RPGs on consoles.  That's a matter of choice, though.  I just find the controller easier for an action-RPG than a mouse-and-keyboard, particularly a game like Skyrim that was designed for the console and ported to the PC.

 That made my PC Gaming self so terribly sad. At least it's still moddable like crazy on the PC.
Article's disingenuous at best but the conversations here have been a fun read.

ZeroCorpse: Again, I ask the hardcore fanboys here:

WHY MUST I CHOOSE BETWEEN STEAM AND A CONSOLE?!?!

I have both. They do different things. My gaming rig is great for some games, but the console is great for other games. The console is more portable (my rig is huge and heavy). The gaming rig is more powerful.

You act as if picking PC gaming means you have to sign a contract saying you'll never game on a console, and vice-versa. I just don't get that.

And get this: I have a Dingoo, and a PSP Go, and a 10" Android tablet, too!!!! OH MY GOSH! I'M GAMING ON MORE THAN ONE DEVICE! I MUST BE SOME SORT OF DEVIANT!

Seriously... Stop with take sides. I say: Whatever works for you at the time you need it.


You sound like you have more money than most of the uh, fanboys you're referring to, which may be part of the issue towards your lack of understanding.
 
2013-02-13 01:54:10 PM  

Tyrosine: Jim_Callahan: I know I'm not him, but I've always found FPS games and pure platformers significantly better on the console. The former because a mouse makes aiming far too easy, the latter because I find a keyboard and mouse kind of awkward for a game that only calls for six buttons and no cursor.

Try a gamepad: same layout as console game controllers, but works on your PC.[3.bp.blogspot.com image 850x850]


Or just buy a wired xbox controller and plug it in, if you're used to that one.
 
2013-02-13 01:55:31 PM  

Antimatter: Electrify: As far as console gaming is concerned, the entry price of the hardware is its biggest fail. I remember when systems sold $250 to $300 new, not at the end of their lifecycles! The PS3 and 360 should be $100, including full hard drives right now. Factor this in with PC system requirements leveling off tremendously with the rise of laptops, and you would have to be crazy to buy in right now.

Another major factor is the entire shift in the business model. Web games are now providing high quality experiences right in your browser with virtually no download required. Hell, even Facebook is getting in on this. Check out Offensive Combat if you don't believe me, and it is only going to get better from here. And of course, the rise of mobile gaming is a driving factor too, especially since most people upgrade their hardware every few years, dirt cheap on contracts.

On that note, how is League of Legends? I'm not normally a fan of RTS games, but do enjoy online action and RPGs.

Factoring in inflation, console prices haven't risen much at all, despite far more advanced tech.  Games, likewise.

This gens have taken a long time to come down in price though, because it took a long time to hit profitability.  From the leaked specs of next gen consoles, i'm thinking the economy of scale will factor in much quicker next time around.


Console prices have risen a bit over inflation.  In 2012 dollars the NES would have run ~$200 at launch, the SNES ~$350, the N64 and Playstation ~$300, and the XBOX and PS2 ~$400.  But it's still a stupid comparison because you can just look at what all today's systems can do.  The SNES was $350 in real dollars for a system that did nothing but play games.  My PS3 can play games, view pictures, download and stream music, download and stream movies and television shows, access Netflix, Hulu, MLBtv, and Amazon Prime, play Blu-rays, DVDs, and CDs and even stream media directly from my computer.  And that's only the stuff I've actually done with it.  Oh, and it came with a hard drive too, all for only $100-200 more than its predecessors in inflation-adjusted dollars.  And they've progressively upgraded the memory over the years, which keeps the prices higher.
 
2013-02-13 01:55:51 PM  

Saiga410: Need a Dispenser Here: vastcat: Mentalpatient87: I could never get far enough to get a boarding party. I had a boarding drone once that messed shiat up, but I lost for some other reason. I only have the first two ships unlocked, and neither of them seem to be worth a damn until I get lucky enough to stumble across some upgrade.

The two secrets that turned the game around for me was starving fires with oxygen.  Build two shields, then pump the rest into the engine so you dodge everything.  I also rush buying the teleporter since you get more scrap when you don't blow up the ship

Yup. Another good one is that your medbay does not need to be powered when it isn't healing anyone, so I usually don't dedicate a power slot for one. Of course, if you get boarded things may get interesting when you don't have enough to power everything.

Another one is the fact that rockmen don't take fire damage. An underhanded yet utterly satisfying combination is a fire bomb along with a rockman boarding party. I like to be a jerk and bomb the medbay, beam the rockmen to it, and enjoy watching the enemy crew scramble.

I really wish the game had a pvp mode. It would get extremely frantic as you wouldn't be able to pause, but pausing every second is kind of lame anyways.

Must not get FTL, must not get FTL, must not get FTL....  I would lose way tooo much time on this.


It's not that addictive. Looking at my steam account, I've only played it for... 110 hours!? Jeez...

/FTL+netbook+boring lecture=insane amount of time sunk in the game
 
2013-02-13 01:56:03 PM  

Jim_Callahan: That's... pretty inclusive.  By that logic Braid and Cave Story aren't independent either.  Usually there's a specific something to be independent from, e.g. independent movies are not made by one of the large hollywood firms or Disney, independent music isn't funded by RIAA-affiliated labels.


Maybe so, but that is the industry definition of an independent production. Braid was developed by Jonathon Blow with his own money and Cave Story was done over 5 years in Daisuke Amaya's spare time, so I'm not sure how you wouldn't define them as independent. Like I said, in the game industry, indie just means you don't or otherwise limit outside financing, either via investors or publishers. Lots of people forget, it's the video game publishers that primarily finance development, not the studios. It's also how EA and Ubisoft got so big, they would finance the games and take a majority of the profits.

Thankfully, digital distribution is removing alot of a publishers' clout from the market, so we can get great indie games and some really original video games, instead of stupid re-hashes.</