2009-11-05 20:37:24 Current state of gaming

I decided to start a new thread on the forum dedicated to talking about the current state of gaming. It's swamping the "what's up?" box, plus there isnt enough room to put across a clear and consise reason without seeming somehwat childish and abrupt.

MW2 is just the latest issue in a long line of concessions put upon gamers, it is perhaps being held as THE title that proves what is going wrong, by no means is it alone in deceiving consumers, but it is taking things to a whole new level.

Before this console generation PC gaming was largely the place to be for online gaming, it has a long history of defining conventions that had become industry standard. Dedicated servers, mod support, server browsers, all things pioneered by PC gaming. This has all been changing since the start of this generation, server browsers have been largely dropped in place of matchmaking. Reducing the choice the user has from selecting best servers based on ping or number of players or even just the current map / map rotation. Instead players are forced into playing specific maps with specific rules.

No longer can players just drop in and out of games as they please, instead they are forced into playing with / against players who cannot be judged on appearance. UC2 is the latest example of a horrific system, ive been on teams so lopsided that the "level" (doesnt really relate to skill, but certainly indicates commitment to the game) of the entire of one team didnt match up to the lowest level player on the opposing team. This coupled with huge penalties for quitting (possibility of dropping a level, essentially 3 or 4 games worth of exp) makes the whole thing painful and does more to drive people off than keep them committed.



In the past it was also possible for games to receive additional content, what was referred to then as expansions. Utilising the same engine a content pack was released with large chunks of play, often rivaling the original retail game at a fraction of the cost. Afterall they could charge less, they were reusing most of the same assets, same engine, similar sounds, some of the same models even.

Today, we have DLC, extra content added to the game thatmay or may not extend the game. It can range from horse armour to the luxurious GTA4 expansions. For the most part however, it has become clear that the market can be exploited, the end consumer will eat up simple repaints of planes for several pounds each, heck they will buy content that is already on the disk for extra money. Extra content is no longer something to extend a successful game, it is planned early in development, stuff is purposefully held back to exploit more cash from the consumer.
Then there is the other side of the evil DLC argument where what would originally be classified as expansions are instead shipped as full retail games that command full retail prices. L4D2 is the biggest culprit here, the original game was sparse in content, 4 scenarios, easily completed in a few hours. Sure theres the argument that you can replay it, but it is the same game every time, just with some randomly placed items / enemies. After playing the demo for 2 it just confirmed what I initially believed, its just an expansion, a few reskinned weapons and a couple of new enemies, but it plays exactly the same.

I must doff my cap to rockstar though, they are the only company this generation that has got DLC right, each of their expansions offer huge amounts of additional content at the right price point. Bethesda maybe with their larger expansions, however the horse armour is still a shining example of how they can get it wrong.


Perhaps in the past those of us who played on the PC were spoiled, but thats the way it was for well over a decade, seeing our money pay for less and less each time is a painful thing. Thats why we're so annoyed with all these "small" changes, it's the shear amount of them and the huge impact they collectively have.

2009-11-05 21:23:49

It's the gamers fault for taking it laying down. Consumer whores.

2009-11-05 21:36:26

I don't play online anymore, my only multiplayer game is Company of Heroes with my real life friends (they also play Warcraft 3, but I don't like it), so I can't comment on that.

I love traditional expansion packs because they usually add a lot of gameplay hours for their price ($30 usually), often more polished than the original campaign. They are usually done for "modular" games (various strategies etc.) though, where clearly level creation is simple once the underlying tech is finished. As far as DLC goes, I simply don't buy it. However, splitting online communities with pricey map packs is just a terrible thing to do and in my opinion it hurts online games in the long run rather than helps publishers creating more revenue. Thankfully we still have companies like Relic that are providing maps for free.

Overall though, I spend 95% of my gaming time on PC and I have to say that the platform is in a really great shape. Most big 3rd party developers support consoles and PC and then you have a lot of PC exclusive companies, even if there aren't many powerhouses among them, they still create a lot of wonderful stuff.

---
"That just happened 'cause that was awesome" - Randy Pitchford, Gearbox

2009-11-05 22:32:23

DLC will become the ruination of gaming as we know it, and if you think it's bad now? It's gonna get a whole lot worse.

Within the next few years when they they start charging for better Cars, Weapons, everything and gaming becomes all about
what your disposable income is rather than your skill level (and it is coming), I'm out.

Be scared be very scared.

---
DLC is the work of the Devil

2009-11-06 00:24:59 In reply to szaromir (2009-11-05 21:36:26)

I forgot about commenting on that, by bringing out multiplayer DLC is fractures the community into haves and have nots. I refuse to spend money on a couple of maps and often end up being unable to play multiplayer on console games. The point of releasing additional content in the past was to breath life and longevity into the multiplayer, keep people interrested and they will get their friends into it. I guess they do that with the initial hook of the inclusive multiplayer then shaft everyone by forcing paid for maps down their throat.

I expect DLC to get worse aswell, its a viable source of income now, its accepted and generating a good income in addition to the initial box sales, like any other viable revenue stream, it will be further exploited.

2009-11-06 11:35:49

I could moan till the mountains topple and the rivers run with blood about "premiem" DLC, but i wont

I will just say, its wrong.
I bought the LittleBigPlanet MGS pack, thats about it and thats as far as i will go
Fallout 3 i will trade my version in for the GotY version when i see it second hand for cheap (not buying it brand new twice) because PDLC is bullshit price compared to what you can get it for in the shops on a disk with the FULL game.
I will feel bad for having to fork out money for these and i know i should not buy them, but F3 was fucking awesome, and yes the ending was shit and i do belive that was so you bought the PDLC to finish the game.

Day light robbery.

---
I think i have stood in poo

2009-11-06 12:58:46

There's nothing wrong with paying for new content when it's reasonable. The only thing that's wrong is the consumers complacency in everything.

More and more, publishers are pushing the limits of just how much they can milk the masses in this industry, and instead of fighting it, it's openly embraced. In fact, opposition is labeled as "entitlement," and these same people usually argue against the consumers influence and rights. It's pathetic.

2009-11-06 13:17:15

I had actually been fairly open to DLC at the beginning of this generation, I had thought that publishers would show some sort of restraint and price their goods faily, a few pence here and there for a model, maybe a pound or 2 for a couple of maps at the most, but wholly expecting DLC to be the new word for actual expansions. It quickly dawned that it was merely a method to wring out every last penny from the consumer, to hook the consumer and then all but force the user to fork out to continue playing.
As you say though, for the most part it is the consumers fault that this has occurred, they have been open to be exploited and often do so with a smile on their face. They are also usually the ones fighting the corner for DLC, they argue that it is only a fraction of the cost of a game, or about getting a job or whatever else without really putting any thought into what is actually happening around them and the less value for money they are actually getting. It is complacency as you point out, which is kind of why I started this thread, i hope we can get some other people from the other side of the argument to comment, not to troll, but to actually put a constructive point across.

Unfortunately i do forsee it becoming more like the MMO market (its not far off with map packs anyway), either buying the client and then having to pay regularly to receive actual story packs, or even subscription multiplayer models whereby you get new maps trickled out every month or 2 but have to fork out each month to keep playing. Especially now IW are paving the way with their IWNet, central control for all players as it were.

2009-11-06 14:29:16

I dont sell my games so it is nice to blow the dust off now and again and boot old stuff back up, specially when its for the sequal, surly would make more sence for them to release the DLC for fallout closer to the launch of 4 so it perks people back up and hype them for the sequal ? kinda like free advertising...ish
Does that make sence.. i am very tired, hardly any sleep for about 2 weeks now, i got tablets but there shit.

---
I think i have stood in poo

2009-11-06 17:29:38

Costumes for "your favorite game" at a reasonable price I dont find it wrong at all,like a Bayonetta costume for 150 mp or a pack of 5/6 costumes at 250mp but entire game modes that should be in the game already and they took it out to sell it after I find ofensive and insulting as hell,specually if it is at 1200 mp or more hell even at 800 mp I find it kinda of expensive,I for one would never buy something like that and I love some online games like CoD2,4 but I dont buy map packs.

---
HUNTED BY HEAVEN....HATED BY HELL....DRIVEN BY VENGEANCE!

2009-11-06 17:47:17

So wait... costumes are cool but actual playable content sucks? WTF?

Personally I think R*'s DLC is among the most admirable all generation.

2009-11-06 17:57:11

No Im sayig that for example a game has 5 diferent costumes already in the game but there is other costumes in the marketplace or PSN that you like and those are for a 100 points,I dont think thats wrong they already give you some costumes and they are selling you more thats all,also thats why I said for your favorite game like you are a fan of that game and the costume doesnt interfere in the gameplay or game modes at all for other players if they dont want the costumes.

I agree that game modes are more nice as a DLC but what Im refering in my post was like for example in NG black there was Mission Mode in the game and in NG2 they sold it,at this pace in the next CoD multiplayer would be sold for some points,that type of game modes Im talking about.

---
HUNTED BY HEAVEN....HATED BY HELL....DRIVEN BY VENGEANCE!

2009-11-06 18:58:03

I get what you're saying, prime example is the versus mode in RE5 being nothing more than a few kb unlock code.

As for the costumes being sold for 100msp, or 86p, i quite frankly think that is extortionate, especially as they are usually no more than a simple texture rather than a new model. A pack of several for 100msp maybe, but not individually sold for that. I can see people enjoying that sort of content, but for the most part it is these small items that are driving up the cost of the more extravagent expansions, if a single costume is worth 100msp, then a single map must be worth several times that...
Rockstar are definately the only company to really get DLC, gay tony is gonna be my next purchase (damn you only havin 1500 msp in my account), it adds so much additional content, that if sold separately by other devs would far outstrip the cost of a retail game (new models, new textures, new licensed music, new voice artists, hundreds or thousands of lines of dialogue) yet rockstar can sell it for 1600 points. Gotta wonder, if they can make a profit with ALL that content goin into one package, just how much profit is other DLC making off single texture reskins etc.

Another thing I want to comment on is avatars / PS home, both of which act as a great source of advertising and yet both want to charge through the nose for virtual content. Both implementations are potentially a cool way to add bonus content to games, however it has become the norm to exploit these as additional revenue streams, my question though, is how many virtual homes or virtual pieces of clothing each person actually needs?

2009-11-07 12:55:36

The current state of gaming is bigger than AAA console games or even their PC ports. Overall, there are much bigger trends which in the medium to long term will force prices downwards. Despite the fact we're in this awkward transitional phase, gamers have an exponentially larger choice of games they can play and the prices they pay to do so.

But of course, gaming is over. It had a good run.

You can tell it's Friday.

---
XBL/PSN: deftangel. Views are my own and not representative of my employers. Boulets aren't the end of the world, you will get over them! Reading and constructive discussion classes are available, enquire via PM

2009-11-07 14:03:10

I totally agree with the TS.. My resent 2 dissapointments with the state of gaming are CoD:MW2 on PC which is not gonna support private dedicated servers anymore and will force you into a developer/publiser run server matchmaking system (I fear the pings etc), and Forza Motorsport 3 on the Xbox 360 in which they removed public custom games (only private custom games are allowed which are useless if you don't have a friendlist full of people playing the game aswell) and again force you into using a matchmaking system, which to add pain to misery isnt even nearly finished (no F to A cars etc).. The consoles are indeed the main problem, because all these restricting setups are born there, and the big mainstream casual consolecrowd swallows it all, some even defend the policies of the industry (like the ignorant fanboys they are)..


Szaromir, I also play a lot of CoH (online with friends, mainly compstomping).. Especially the Blitzkrieg mod.. That game rules, and is a prime example how gaming was, is, and should stay (on PC).. Luckily RTS as a genre hasn't been raped that much yet by the consolemarket, but I fear the future.. Lets hope games like CoH stay PC-exclusive..

---
http://www.cyberwarriors.nl
http://home.xmsnet.nl/bigbear/mycar.jpg

2009-11-07 15:58:43

There will always be games created for all spectrums of the gaming audience no matter how you look at it. The only thing changing is it's getting more broad and not every game is aimed at people like us on this forum. We're like the old people who don't want to see change in our country, are scared of it, but at the same time we have to have acceptance for the upcoming audience. The people here won't be playing games forever.

2009-11-07 18:25:25 In reply to Tinks (2009-11-07 15:58:43)

I don't agree, sure games are made for all spectrums, but that isnt the reason why this is occurring, it is an excuse used to deflect away from what is happening. These games are aimed at the people on this forum, they are AAA games, often sequels to franchises built off the people on this forum. The simple fact is that the changes are giving more control to the dev allowing them to shovel out any quality and quantity of content they see fit to.
They are essentially conditioning everyone to accept less value for money, shorter games, simpler multiplayer, fewer online maps, less online players....

2009-11-07 18:36:18

Ok then, here's a question for the experts on "the current state of gaming". List me the publishers who are making insane profits out of everybody this generation. That's from 2005 onwards. I'll give you a day.

---
XBL/PSN: deftangel. Views are my own and not representative of my employers. Boulets aren't the end of the world, you will get over them! Reading and constructive discussion classes are available, enquire via PM

2009-11-07 18:49:46

When DLC is already on the disc, that's dishonesty. But DLC in general is not the biggest problem. The last generation we weren't even getting bonus content outside of totally new versions of games and a few bonus discs. A lot of the DLC on the market is completely unwanted or unnecessary, but that's just a method of leveraging their costs and some are willing to pay it. This entire generation screwed a lot of people initially. Development costs were doubled/tripled and publishers were jumping at the chance to meet their ridiculously large budgets with profits. I remember reading an article about how games with a Metacritic of 70-89 break sales of only $20 million versus 90-100 making $60m. Sure the games you're most likely to complain about are the ones which are in that 90-100 range, and a game like MW2 definitely doesn't need to charge as much as it does for DLC, but that system could be helping some of your favorite mid range games and developers. And as far as I'm aware the content shipped with most games is plenty already, so it's not exactly ruining the existing game. Everything else should really be treated as an optional bonus, and for the most part it is.

---
Don't you know who I am? I'm the goddamned Banman.

http://couchcampus.com

2009-11-07 19:25:44 In reply to Phaethon360 (2009-11-07 18:49:46)

That statement is becoming less and less true though, COD:MW had a single player campaign lasting 8 - 10 hrs, Ive yet to see anyone say MW2 has taken more than 6 to complete, even on veteran, and thats just one example. RE5 had a campaign that lasted about 1/3 of the time of RE4. POP released without an ending and charged for it as DLC.
As for budgets, a lot of the time the cost of developing the DLC is factored into those initial budgets, thats why the likes of DA:O has launched with several content packs, one of which is 1200msp. On the face of things those huge budgets look rediculous, but someone has to be making money somewhere, just as like hollywood keeps making movies that fail to break even. I think the game industry has fallen into the same hollywood accounting scheme tbh, hiding profits in other products, inflating budgets to seem hard done by etc, I hardly believe the sob stories the big publishers keep coming out with but thats a discussion for another time.

Publishers making insane profits, EA, MSGS, Activision, Ubisoft. It's usually the big boys of the publishing world, they know how to milk money, and milk it they do.

I accept that its unfair to tar everyone with the same brush, most smaller games manufacturers cant afford to exploit these markets and for the most part stay away, or as I keep referring to theres the type like rockstar who value their customers and dont try to nickle and dime them. Problem is, the games industry is defined largely by the big boys and their AAA games, its just the way the market works.

2009-11-07 19:42:25

I think judging the strongest online multiplayer shooter on its SP elements is an uphill battle. It provides hundreds of hours of play value for some, and the multiplayer maps prolong/respark interest. I'm not a fan of pay maps as they tend to break apart the community on consoles (especially Halo) but the alternative is to not receive any new maps. In the past the PC was the only platform that got bonuses of any kind, user generated or otherwise. I don't think those maps are meant for anyone who isn't already devoted to the game, so the exclusion is a double edged sword. Good for sales, maybe not so good for interaction.

SP DLC is a different beast altogether. Oblivion, Mass Effect handled it well in the middle ground, and GTA IV knocked it out of the park. I'd rather have a system that encourages strides like these than discourages new content altogether. Although RE5 may have been short, it had more replay value for me through co-op and the Mercenaries mode than RE4 would have had alone. With the industry trying to make a push for Direct 2 Drive like services (something that I'll hate for sure) as well as Episodic gaming, we could be potentially looking at a completely DLC industry. I think if anything we're only in the transition period. We haven't even reached HD gaming yet. I think this entire generation just caught everyone off guard and now it's just beginning to get its bearings.

---
Don't you know who I am? I'm the goddamned Banman.

http://couchcampus.com

2009-11-08 13:33:57 In reply to deftangel (2009-11-07 18:36:18)

Maybe if they started chucking out good games then they would make more money

Also Halo 3 GTA4 i assume them devs/pubs made a fair wack of cash.

---
I think i have stood in poo

2009-11-08 18:02:50 In reply to deftangel (2009-11-07 18:36:18)

How about Nintendo? They've made more profit than anyone has seen in a very long time

2009-11-08 18:24:42 In reply to deftangel (2009-11-07 18:36:18)

Majesco! They made $5 FY08.

---
Don't you know who I am? I'm the goddamned Banman.

http://couchcampus.com

2009-11-09 13:37:36 In reply to ManThatYouFear (2009-11-08 13:33:57)

Sometimes the DLC on disc that is unlocked by tokens (108KB file) is produced under a different budget and a different team from that of the main game. I still think it's pretty shady and not handled well by most publishers. You'll start to see less of it going forward, I'll wager.

As for your second post, completely agree.Newsflash for you. The average age of gamers who play these games is around 30+ . These people don't always have 40 hours to stick in to a campaign so they are demanding shorter games. That's what the publishers focus testing/market research will be telling them.

Is this bad? Bioshock was a good 15 hours but a good 3-4 of that was just padding and added no value to the game.

PoP had a very good ending I thought and the Epilogue was decent value.Activision make the majority of their profits on the back of WoW. EA? When did EA last make tons of money? Have a look at their financials and that's the publisher trying to do the right things and change their company to adapt to how the industry is changing. The Rock Band franchise hasn't even broken even.

Microsoft have made small profits in some quarters to go with losses of around $5-6bn getting into the console market.What so there have been no good games this generation? Please.

GTA:IV cost $100m to develop, probably another 25% on top of that for marketing. I'm sure Rockstar have done well out of it but so they should. It's a great game, massive production values and cost them a lot of money to make.

GTA:Chinatown Wars on the other hand is in the top 3 handheld games for the DS and sold zip. That'll do well to break even with the PC, PSP and iPhone ports.Nintendo are indeed rolling in money, largely because they make it on hardware and adopt a very conservative outlook in their business. Even so, their profits have seen a massive decline over the last year.

---
XBL/PSN: deftangel. Views are my own and not representative of my employers. Boulets aren't the end of the world, you will get over them! Reading and constructive discussion classes are available, enquire via PM