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 45
    More: Unlikely, technology tree, smart device, gamers, Wii U.  
•       •       •

4651 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Feb 2013 at 2:30 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-12 08:58:09 PM  
14 votes:
Either that or we are at the end of this console generation and everyone is waiting for the next console release.
2013-02-12 10:41:43 PM  
6 votes:
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 09:33:02 PM  
4 votes:
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 09:07:53 PM  
4 votes:
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
2013-02-13 03:21:41 AM  
3 votes:
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 02:42:32 AM  
3 votes:
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.
2013-02-12 10:54:32 PM  
3 votes:
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 10:16:04 PM  
3 votes:
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.
2013-02-13 08:21:38 AM  
2 votes:

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 06:52:27 AM  
2 votes:

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 02:53:58 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-02-12 11:03:09 PM  
2 votes:
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 10:35:47 PM  
2 votes:
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 09:51:49 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2013-02-13 01:47:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:19:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:18:32 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:26:28 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:16:46 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:55:22 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:47:31 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-02-13 07:57:50 AM  
1 votes:

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 07:14:03 AM  
1 votes:
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 07:09:03 AM  
1 votes:

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 07:01:07 AM  
1 votes:
...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 06:51:18 AM  
1 votes:
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 06:45:29 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:33:18 AM  
1 votes:

Declines in console and physical games.

Yup.  Most likely culprits?

lh3.ggpht.com
lh3.ggpht.com
 lh3.ggpht.com
i1167.photobucket.com
lh3.ggpht.com



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 06:33:10 AM  
1 votes:
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 06:25:19 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:06:50 AM  
1 votes:
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 02:54:05 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:52:45 AM  
1 votes:
My son's video game consoles started collecting dust when he got a cell phone he could surf the internet on.
2013-02-13 02:36:42 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:28:20 AM  
1 votes:
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 01:34:13 AM  
1 votes:
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 12:26:12 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:18:55 AM  
1 votes:
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.
2013-02-12 10:23:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:23:09 PM  
1 votes:
God, I feel like crap for writing that all out.  I already know how this thread is going to go.
2013-02-12 09:41:43 PM  
1 votes:
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 09:25:43 PM  
1 votes:

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.
wee
2013-02-12 09:09:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:02:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:01:11 PM  
1 votes:
Clearly the being nice to strangers skill tree is underpowered, since no one ever specs that way.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report