I have lost a lot of respect for 3rd party AAA developers

[Eve Charm]

Well the consumer effect is never right away, Consumers complaining is, but taking there money elsewhere isn't. I will say that this isn't just 3rd party's fault. Even Nintendo is jumping on the DLC bandwagon/Expansions with it's first party games and I'm sure someone is kicking around the idea for a season pass for smash brothers.

It's why we can keep whispering of a crash coming on, peoples buying habits are changing, and it's not because DLC is becoming a cheap scam or a ripoff, it's the thought of DLC becoming NEEDED. When Season pass is being shoved in everyone's face like guides at time of pre-order or pick up, ads all over the marketplace and in-game for the DLC which may or may not be playable yet it's hard not to feel like it's needed with the game.

I bought the $80 day one forza 5 LE and still have been reminded no less then 10 times I need to buy a $10 pack for this or $50 for the discounted 6 pack. And also that extra $20 dollars went mostly towards a vip membership they'd be asking me about if I didn't buy that version. It's made so it's as hard as possible to say no.

Dead rising a Series I love, $90 dollars for the game and season pass was a must, Ryse and Killzone 4, both games I was kinda of meh about at $60, both never looked at again when they would cost $80. Battlefield 4 and COD Ghost, wanting $110 for the game and pass, and that still wouldn't include all the DLC so I passed over. AC4 was a real maybe, but I didn't have $80 to spare at the time.

And that's what I have to think about when buying each and every game now, and I know why me and I'm sure others aren't buying as many games.

 

[Jiffex]

There is only one party at fault in this: the consumer. People need to learn to vote with their wallets. Companies do this stuff because they are always trying to expand their revenue, it's our responsibility to tell them when they've gone to far. If you just keep buying into it they'll see no reason to back down from it.

Case in point:

People don't pre-order the X-bone; Microsoft changes policies.

Pc Gamers complain but still buy stuff with DRM; Steam/Origin/Uplay continue to ruin PC gaming

Ok, can someone please explain to me how Steam's DRM is so awful that it is ruining PC gaming? I really don't see it. People are constantly claiming that the Steam DRM is so terrible. Can someone please explain why? What does the Steam DRM prevent you from doing that is destroying PC gaming? I really don't understand.

They have huge sales that make you spend all your money, the bastards.

 

[Jiffex]

There is only one party at fault in this: the consumer. People need to learn to vote with their wallets. Companies do this stuff because they are always trying to expand their revenue, it's our responsibility to tell them when they've gone to far. If you just keep buying into it they'll see no reason to back down from it.

Case in point:

People don't pre-order the X-bone; Microsoft changes policies.

Pc Gamers complain but still buy stuff with DRM; Steam/Origin/Uplay continue to ruin PC gaming

Ok, can someone please explain to me how Steam's DRM is so awful that it is ruining PC gaming? I really don't see it. People are constantly claiming that the Steam DRM is so terrible. Can someone please explain why? What does the Steam DRM prevent you from doing that is destroying PC gaming? I really don't understand.

It keeps me from playing games, do I need another reason? If you never had issues, good for you. I'm not that lucky.

When did it do this? What were the circumstances? I see claims like this all the time but no one ever actually explains. What happened? Are you sure it was the Steam DRM? Were you locked out of a specific game or all your games? Was it for a 10 minutes or a week? Give me details. Tell me exactly what the problem was. Because the vague assertion that "It stops me from playing my games" is essentially meaningless.

How is it meaningless? Is it impossible to conceive that Steam is not perfect and has issues?

Sometimes I'm playing a game and it kicks me out because I lost connection (not only in always on DRM like AssCreed, but also in games like Skyrim that don't have extra DRM). Other times it kicks me out of Steam and won't let me log in at all without internet, and my internet goes down daily. It won't play DMC4, I only get a black screen when the cracked version runs fine. On several occasions with Skyrim and VtmB it would screw up the game with updates when I told it not to. It's not one problem, it's several. I don't use it much anymore.

It should just go into offline mode if you lose internet in games with out always on DRM. It does with mine.

 

[TehCookie]

It should just go into offline mode if you lose internet in games with out always on DRM. It does with mine.

It should, but it doesn't. The worst part of it is when others think the problem doesn't exist because it works for them -.-

 

[Madman123456]

i vote with my wallet. Last game i bought was "Skyrim"

 

[Something Amyss]

You mean publishers, most AAA devs are owned or controlled by them now. Apart from a few stragglers and ones with alternate revenue streams I don't think there are vary many independent AAA devs left.

Devs are often trotted out to say the bad decisions were their idea, though. It's not hard to see why people get confused.

 

[DrOswald]

There is only one party at fault in this: the consumer. People need to learn to vote with their wallets. Companies do this stuff because they are always trying to expand their revenue, it's our responsibility to tell them when they've gone to far. If you just keep buying into it they'll see no reason to back down from it.

Case in point:

People don't pre-order the X-bone; Microsoft changes policies.

Pc Gamers complain but still buy stuff with DRM; Steam/Origin/Uplay continue to ruin PC gaming

Ok, can someone please explain to me how Steam's DRM is so awful that it is ruining PC gaming? I really don't see it. People are constantly claiming that the Steam DRM is so terrible. Can someone please explain why? What does the Steam DRM prevent you from doing that is destroying PC gaming? I really don't understand.

It keeps me from playing games, do I need another reason? If you never had issues, good for you. I'm not that lucky.

When did it do this? What were the circumstances? I see claims like this all the time but no one ever actually explains. What happened? Are you sure it was the Steam DRM? Were you locked out of a specific game or all your games? Was it for a 10 minutes or a week? Give me details. Tell me exactly what the problem was. Because the vague assertion that "It stops me from playing my games" is essentially meaningless.

How is it meaningless? Is it impossible to conceive that Steam is not perfect and has issues?

Sometimes I'm playing a game and it kicks me out because I lost connection (not only in always on DRM like AssCreed, but also in games like Skyrim that don't have extra DRM). Other times it kicks me out of Steam and won't let me log in at all without internet, and my internet goes down daily. It won't play DMC4, I only get a black screen when the cracked version runs fine. On several occasions with Skyrim and VtmB it would screw up the game with updates when I told it not to. It's not one problem, it's several. I don't use it much anymore.

It is meaningless because I have 6 years of IT experience and I know that 95% of the time problems are not actually problems with the software but with the user. And the absolute worst are gamers, because they think they know so much about computers when most are really just a few steps above computer illiteracy.

They know how to pirate games, but they don't know how to avoid viruses while doing it. They perform high risk activities but run shitty antivirus, if they run antivirus at all. They disable firewalls, open ports, run random .exe's and visit shady websites. They install all sorts of experimental software. They overclock and then run high stress programs for hours on end. They destroy computers.

And they never perform maintenance. They never take a few hours to re install windows, or even run a chkdsk or defrag. They don't dust out their case, they don't check their running temp. They don't check for driver updates. They rarely run malware scans and they do not educate themselves about the latest security risks. They don't bother with system backups or cloning their machine when it is in optimal condition for easy restore. And then they get mad when things don't work right.

The worst users are those who think they know what they are doing.

So no, it is not impossible there are problems with Steam. In fact, there are well documented problems with Steam. It is just that when a random person on the internet is having problems this extensive it is far, far more likely that user error is to blame. Especially when it comes to gamers.

So I do need to know the details. So I can better evaluate if there are actual problems. So thank you for providing actual information, now I can at least attempt to verify these problems with Steam.

 

[Objectable]

Hangon. I hear that nanomachines have built their first violin. Let me play it for you.

 

[SomeGuyOnHisComputer]

Not only is consumer apathy to blame, it's also the developers/publishers who consider any outcry as a "vocal minority", and ignore it until it visibly affects their wallets.

Yes, if DRM'd consoles do catch on, I will blame every individual who purchased an XBone and knew exactly what they "voted" for, but MS would also be at fault for not caring and taking advantage of the people who are uniformed/has their mind on more important things. I have no doubt in my mind that they plan to bring back their original policy after "everyone" already bought one, in fact, they pretty much outright stated this, and people still don't care. That's the problem, people are too optimistic about things taking care of themselves.

Luxury or not, if games are to be an art form, it should be protected as such. No more of this fucking petty childish console war bullshit, no more DRM, no more fighting preservation.

 

[TehCookie]

-snip-

That's another reason I hate Steam. I'm not good with computers but at least before if a game didn't work it was either hardware or my fault, so I could at least try to solve the problem from there. I have no idea where to even begin with Steam since the games and my PC work fine together so I feel like it's just there to frustrate me.

 

[Negatempest]

You mean publishers, most AAA devs are owned or controlled by them now. Apart from a few stragglers and ones with alternate revenue streams I don't think there are vary many independent AAA devs left.

The reason I say developers is because said developers made a concious decision to be absorbed by the publishers.

 

[Negatempest]

So, you've decided to base your opinion of a group on an arbitrary distinction between AAA first party/AAA second party and AAA third party developers? An extremely varied group of businesses that fund large games, all of which differ in quality and scope?

That then means you only respect Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and anyone that they directly fund or control in some way.

It's always a little bit odd to throw such a wide group when making comments like this. Decisions on companies need to be made on a case by case basis. Valve is not responsible for things EA does anymore than Bethesda is responsible for things Nintendo does. These wild blanket complaints aren't far removed from stereotyping. It's just not offensive because these are large corporations and not defenseless masses.

If I remember correctly Valve hardly makes games anymore. For that reason I really do not see them as a game developer. Possibly a publisher at best.

 

[Roxas1359]

The reason I say developers is because said developers made a concious decision to be absorbed by the publishers.

Thing is, that's not always the case. Sometimes a holdings company will merge with another company and those studios have no choice but to go with. Then there is the fact that contracts and legal bindings can often times force developers to have to go along with it, despite at times not wanting too.
Saying that developers made a conscientious decision to be absorbed by publishers. I mean the different studios of Vivendi had no choice but to be merged with Activision when that deal went through. What were they supposed to do, quit their jobs?

There are times in which a first party company doesn't want to take in a developer. Look at Atlus and how Nintendo didn't really even offer that much for them to get merged together, so now SEGA Sammy owns them since SEGA Sammy bought the entirety of Index Holdings (although that's a way better choice in the long run).

Blaming AAA Developers for the shit that the main AAA Publishers (Capcom, EA, UbiSoft, etc.) do isn't exactly fair.

 

[savageoblivi0n]

Considering the cyclical nature of the gaming industry it really isn't surprising. According to Wikipedia about 600 video game companies have gone out of business, though I suspect that it is more then that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoryefunct_video_game_companies

Yeah, what I would find interesting is a side-by-side comparison of how many studios closed/opened during the time period OP's link covers, would give a better idea on the state of things than the hyperbole that seems to cloud most people's perception on the matter.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I feel like I'm the only person sometimes who remembers the old days. Most DLC is unnecessary fluff but if you want it to make your game prettier that's on you and I won't pretend I've never bought something just because I wanted to make it look different. I have LOTS of suits on League of Legends for example.

That said who else remembers buying Street Fighter, Street Fighter Turbo and Super Street Fighter? Today those changes are $20 DLC not $60 new purchases. When all is said and done Street Fighter fanatics who actually bought each update (I skipped Arcade Edition but will probably pick up Ultra) will have spent $120 dollars on three updates instead of $180 on three. It looks an awful lot like the consumer is coming out ahead here.

As far as 3rd Party vs 1st (not that Microsoft or Sony makes much in house even their signature franchises are 3rd party) I wish like hell Nintendo would update Mario Kart via DLC once every other year instead of waiting for a new system to drop or just giving me a new quest on Pokemon instead of releasing a special edition of the same frikken game.

As for DLC behind paywalls there is actually a reason for that with the rating system. We can either wait longer (which many of us might be okay with) or not complain about it. All in all though there are much worse things than this.

 

[Negatempest]

The reason I say developers is because said developers made a concious decision to be absorbed by the publishers.

Thing is, that's not always the case. Sometimes a holdings company will merge with another company and those studios have no choice but to go with. Then there is the fact that contracts and legal bindings can often times force developers to have to go along with it, despite at times not wanting too.
Saying that developers made a conscientious decision to be absorbed by publishers. I mean the different studios of Vivendi had no choice but to be merged with Activision when that deal went through. What were they supposed to do, quit their jobs?

There are times in which a first party company doesn't want to take in a developer. Look at Atlus and how Nintendo didn't really even offer that much for them to get merged together, so now SEGA Sammy owns them since SEGA Sammy bought the entirety of Index Holdings (although that's a way better choice in the long run).

Blaming AAA Developers for the shit that the main AAA Publishers (Capcom, EA, UbiSoft, etc.) do isn't exactly fair.

Let me specify. I blame the Executives from the developers. Not the programmers. Executives are responsible and unfortunately the ones below have to follow. Thus when choices are made, the Exec are to be held responsible. So the BS choices are their responsibility. Whether I like it or not the bad choices are theirs and the way things are going it is still the AAA fault.

 

[Roxas1359]

Let me specify. I blame the Executives from the developers. Not the programmers. Executives are responsible and unfortunately the ones below have to follow. Thus when choices are made, the Exec are to be held responsible. So the BS choices are their responsibility. Whether I like it or not the bad choices are theirs and the way things are going it is still the AAA fault.

Bad choices executives make isn't exclusive to AAA third party executives though. All industries and all parties, first, second and third, have had executives make extremely stupid decisions when it comes down to everything. So if you're gonna blame 3rd party for stupid shit then you'd better blame 1st parties as well for letting some of these things happen in the first place as well as making some bad decisions themselves. Hell the whole reason DLC didn't exist until last gen was more because there was no way to do it in the past. Nowadays it's become easier, and even Nintendo has started doing DLC, or does the DLC for New Super Mario Bros 2 on the 3DS not ring a bell? They've even talked about DLC for Zelda games as well.

DLC itself is actually not bad, it's how it's handled that can make it bad.

 

[Negatempest]

Let me specify. I blame the Executives from the developers. Not the programmers. Executives are responsible and unfortunately the ones below have to follow. Thus when choices are made, the Exec are to be held responsible. So the BS choices are their responsibility. Whether I like it or not the bad choices are theirs and the way things are going it is still the AAA fault.

Bad choices executives make isn't exclusive to AAA third party executives though. All industries and all parties, first, second and third, have had executives make extremely stupid decisions when it comes down to everything. So if you're gonna blame 3rd party for stupid shit then you'd better blame 1st parties as well for letting some of these things happen in the first place as well as making some bad decisions themselves. Hell the whole reason DLC didn't exist until last gen was more because there was no way to do it in the past. Nowadays it's become easier, and even Nintendo has started doing DLC, or does the DLC for New Super Mario Bros 2 on the 3DS not ring a bell? They've even talked about DLC for Zelda games as well.

DLC itself is actually not bad, it's how it's handled that can make it bad.

You still miss the overall direction I was making about 3rd party. It is not just about the 3rd party bad decision. What I said at the end of post is that 3rd party do not deserve the pedestal of Gaming Saviors that fans and media boast about. The OP was to point out the many flaws of 3rd party developers. As well as point out that the potential of variety is nearly impossible with many developers being absorbed or shutdown. They do not have the numbers they used to to create new games of a variety in nature because of the absorption and shutdowns.