Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Decades, you mean.

 Seaward wrote:

 Reckoner wrote:
An interesting article was published today on Cracked: http://www.cracked.com/article_20727_5-reasons-video-game-industry-about-to-crash.html

Sounds a lot like the been-dying-for-years movie industry.

Activision's Call of Duty is like the Movie industry, You pump out the same gak 7 times in a row and people are still lining up to buy it.


The days of making video games that are cutting edge and push the current tech to the limit are over. (see Crysis/Crysis warhead).

you can't make a profit for a game if less than half of your target audience are the only ones who can play the game, you can pump out gak that has a similar name but is still complete gak and linear (Crysis 2 + 3)

 Ninjacommando wrote:
Activision's Call of Duty is like the Movie industry, You pump out the same gak 7 times in a row and people are still lining up to buy it.


The days of making video games that are cutting edge and push the current tech to the limit are over. (see Crysis/Crysis warhead).

you can't make a profit for a game if less than half of your target audience are the only ones who can play the game, you can pump out gak that has a similar name but is still complete gak and linear (Crysis 2 + 3)

Perhaps so, but aren't many Best Picture winners smaller films that forego mass market appeal in favor of artistic integrity (or even basic merit)?

I think the analogy's pretty apt, but it doesn't spell the doom of video games. It signifies the further mainstreaming of them.

I think the big companies are just going to continue doing what they're doing for as long as the gamer public will allow it.. so forever. We'll get a new Call of doodie every year, a new madden, etc. As long as they are making money, they will never change.

I really hate DLCs... well, paid ones. If I shell out $70 for your game, I want your game, and not half of it. I shouldn't have to pay another $80 over the next 2 years to get everything. That, also, will never change, because it makes money.

I think I read something about how the next gen consoles discs are just to install the game and you can just download the same exact thing? If that's the case I'm thinking eventually that could hurt the GameStops and similar stores out there. I would never set foot in one if I knew I could just download whatever I want. I think those shops are more in trouble than the game companies...

I think we're going to see more and more smaller developers making great games, but relying on Kickstarter to make them work.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Reckoner wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You are aware that it was two entirely separate teams doing the story and MP on ME3, right?

EA might have insisted on the multiplayer but the multiplayer actually was a saving grace of the game. It kept people playing in between the DLCs rather than trading/selling the game and then picking it back up with DLCs.

Not to mention EA footed the bill for founding a second team to do the multiplayer component.

Then they should have dedicated the resources put into the multiplayer component into finishing the story. My point was, why should multiplayer and DLC have to save a game? The franchise did fine in 1 and 2 without it. In fact, 2 did amazingly well. So the third game in a single-player RPG franchise just happened to "need" multiplayer? That's what its "saving grace" was? I don't agree.

You do understand that designers for a multiplayer component of a game are not necessarily going to be experienced in designing for the single player element, right?

The multiplayer may have bolstered revenue for the continuation of DLC purchases, or maybe it helped the dedicated players of the franchise feel like they were not totally cheated by the resolution of the series. That entire conundrum could have been avoided if they had put everything they had into finishing it off right, but that wouldn't be lucrative enough now would it?

This suggests to me that you did not play the multiplayer component of ME3. You did not have to spend anything to play the multiplayer component, provided you bought the game new. The only thing you had to pay for is the Online Pass if you bought the game used.

The "saving grace" of the multiplayer is that it was fun and encouraged cooperative shenanigans. It was not a multiplayer where you "competed" against another team of people. It was you and your friends (or three strangers), playing as a group of "unknown soldiers" in the midst of the Reaper War fighting against waves of AI enemies until you extracted.

Yes, I played the multiplayer. I did it for the achievements at the time. It was alright, but still unnecessary. If I remember it correctly it wanted players to pay money to unlock better weapons and playable characters or something. I also don't think it matters that it was cooperative over competitive. The inclusion of the multiplayer rather than a sole focus on the single player game still means that they were pulling the game in two different directions. It also means that if multiplayer is going to be a factor, especially one with micro-transactions and DLC promotion, there is more pressure to have it hit the market at a decided deadline. So if the executives hear from the multiplayer team that things are good to go, but the team working on the campaign wants more time to polish, it's another reason to say no to extended development time (which I think that game needed). And I get it. If you told a shareholder or businessman from one of the publishing companies that the capital gains from their investment were going to be delayed because of a quality issue, they would probably ignore you. Every month that goes by they are not making profit off of that game, and if it gets released people are going to be spending money right away on not only the game itself but all the microtransactions that are worked into it. It's a cash grab and it degrades quality.

 Reckoner wrote:
we would all have a much different opinion on how that trilogy ended.

Modders to the rescue

 Necros wrote:
I think the big companies are just going to continue doing what they're doing for as long as the gamer public will allow it.. so forever. We'll get a new Call of doodie every year, a new madden, etc. As long as they are making money, they will never change.

I really hate DLCs... well, paid ones. If I shell out $70 for your game, I want your game, and not half of it. I shouldn't have to pay another $80 over the next 2 years to get everything. That, also, will never change, because it makes money.

.

Ahh DLC