Wait a second, wait a second. Did you just say the Metroid series is gone for good? Where did you get this? Or find this out? Link for us?SpartanBlackman said:
I think Gaming is slowly dying.
- Thread starter SpartanBlackman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You forgot games Like LA Noire ,Metal Gear Solid Guns of the Patriots and Heavy Rain that have more watching them actual game play.I'm all for a good story but god damn let me play more then watch.
"Pirates are going to ruin PC gaming. This is a fact"
No it isn't, silly. Sure I believe Pirates are screwing PC gaming up, but it isn't a fact that they're going to ruin the whole thing.
In fact it's not a fact to say ANYTHING is going to happen. You can have a fact-based conjecture about the future, but that is not the same thing as saying that it is a fact.
No it isn't, silly. Sure I believe Pirates are screwing PC gaming up, but it isn't a fact that they're going to ruin the whole thing.
In fact it's not a fact to say ANYTHING is going to happen. You can have a fact-based conjecture about the future, but that is not the same thing as saying that it is a fact.
Sorry dude. Games will be around forever, and we'll be gamers as long as that's true, and we're not going anywhere.
1. Pirates and Consolisation
Pirates are not killing gaming. People who pirate games do so because they cant pay for it. And if they couldnt pirate it, they would probably not play it at all. The people who would pay without being able to pirate are such a small market share it's almost ridiculous we are getting so worried about this.
2. Premium fees and DLC's.
I do see a divide here, and I think that divide will be between consoles and everything else. If you look at valve, a very traditional pc developer, they offer free dlc to their games 4 years after their release, and get their only income from that game at this point from people buying optional items. I can see many more pc game makers going this way, and even if they dont., I dont think this is a genuine threat to gaming. Charging too much money for something will only result in people not buying it, and companies like ea and activision are smarter then to let that happen.
3. Follow the Leader and lack of innovation.
In this instance I do see an issue, but I see light at the end of the tunnel when I look at new distribution software, for example the app store. On there there the content is so diverse and so original that I can see it going for many more years. And then there will be something to replace it, some new technology to take advantage of. When the app store was released, touch gaming was amazing, and everyone wanted to take advantage of it, and the iphone was the best at it. This isnt going to stop at the iphone, I know that. I cannot predict the future, how people will play games or what more technology will add to gaming, but I know that technology will keep gaming going.
4. Cash cows and not doing it for the art.
Of course they arent. And their work is for the most part devoid of any passion for gaming as a medium. So dont buy their games? In two words, fuck them.
Gaming IS evolving, and people always try to take advantage of artistic mediums. But the more innovative and creative people we have contributing to the medium the less overall control AAA devs will have over the medium in the first place.
Pirates are not killing gaming. People who pirate games do so because they cant pay for it. And if they couldnt pirate it, they would probably not play it at all. The people who would pay without being able to pirate are such a small market share it's almost ridiculous we are getting so worried about this.
2. Premium fees and DLC's.
I do see a divide here, and I think that divide will be between consoles and everything else. If you look at valve, a very traditional pc developer, they offer free dlc to their games 4 years after their release, and get their only income from that game at this point from people buying optional items. I can see many more pc game makers going this way, and even if they dont., I dont think this is a genuine threat to gaming. Charging too much money for something will only result in people not buying it, and companies like ea and activision are smarter then to let that happen.
3. Follow the Leader and lack of innovation.
In this instance I do see an issue, but I see light at the end of the tunnel when I look at new distribution software, for example the app store. On there there the content is so diverse and so original that I can see it going for many more years. And then there will be something to replace it, some new technology to take advantage of. When the app store was released, touch gaming was amazing, and everyone wanted to take advantage of it, and the iphone was the best at it. This isnt going to stop at the iphone, I know that. I cannot predict the future, how people will play games or what more technology will add to gaming, but I know that technology will keep gaming going.
4. Cash cows and not doing it for the art.
Of course they arent. And their work is for the most part devoid of any passion for gaming as a medium. So dont buy their games? In two words, fuck them.
Gaming IS evolving, and people always try to take advantage of artistic mediums. But the more innovative and creative people we have contributing to the medium the less overall control AAA devs will have over the medium in the first place.
I'd like to address numbers three and four.
The only way those would change is if artists and innovators had money. The problem is that artists and innovators typically DON'T have money, so they have to go to the people that DO have money. The people that have money (soulless, sub-human refuse we call "execs") want to make sure that they make a profit and generally lack the vision or fortitude for risk-taking*. If they've seen it done by someone else successfully, they'll be more likely to throw money at it than something that hasn't been done before.
* I once worked at a certain company (that shall remain nameless). The first day on the job, I read the corporate philosophy page on the wiki. One point on the list appalled me - and I know this because I still remember it over the rest of the useless drivel that comprises the company's corporate philosophy... That point (to paraphrase) was: "We take the right risks."
Here's the problem I have with such a statement: the rightness or wrongness of risks can only be determined in hindsight. To illustrate this: let's say you're in Vegas and you're down to your last bit of money. You go to the craps table, and there are really only three possible outcomes:
1. You walk away
2. You play and win
3. You play and lose
Walking away wouldn't be a risk. It's actually the safe thing to do. If you play and win, then you have taken a risk - and it turned out to be the right one. If you play and lose, then you've taken a risk - and it turned out to be the wrong one. But to know either, the dice must be thrown.
So, if you boil it down, there are really only two possible courses of action:
1. You walk away
2. You take a risk
There's probably a problem with the way that I've outlined this, but oh well...
The only way those would change is if artists and innovators had money. The problem is that artists and innovators typically DON'T have money, so they have to go to the people that DO have money. The people that have money (soulless, sub-human refuse we call "execs") want to make sure that they make a profit and generally lack the vision or fortitude for risk-taking*. If they've seen it done by someone else successfully, they'll be more likely to throw money at it than something that hasn't been done before.
* I once worked at a certain company (that shall remain nameless). The first day on the job, I read the corporate philosophy page on the wiki. One point on the list appalled me - and I know this because I still remember it over the rest of the useless drivel that comprises the company's corporate philosophy... That point (to paraphrase) was: "We take the right risks."
Here's the problem I have with such a statement: the rightness or wrongness of risks can only be determined in hindsight. To illustrate this: let's say you're in Vegas and you're down to your last bit of money. You go to the craps table, and there are really only three possible outcomes:
1. You walk away
2. You play and win
3. You play and lose
Walking away wouldn't be a risk. It's actually the safe thing to do. If you play and win, then you have taken a risk - and it turned out to be the right one. If you play and lose, then you've taken a risk - and it turned out to be the wrong one. But to know either, the dice must be thrown.
So, if you boil it down, there are really only two possible courses of action:
1. You walk away
2. You take a risk
There's probably a problem with the way that I've outlined this, but oh well...
All of it? :O Ye gods no, we don't need a second batch of "GAMES NEED TO BE ART NOW" people parading around, that was utterly terrible. Every episode except that one? Please?Tynermeister said:
OT:
Gamings not dying. Numbers are raising each year. Triple A games may eventually die out, I don't think indie games will.
In the nineties, before the mainstream popularity of the N64 and Gamecube, there was a similiar stagnation. The SNES was the critical niche in the market, but was dying out due to lack of inovation, something it had been experience problems with since the late 1980s. The era of 8-bit simply could not exist anymore. Thus, the console and handheld markets exploded with the new ideas. Pokemon, Super Smash Bros, Goldeneye, Zelda, Age of Empires, and Fallout. You all know them well, and these games saved the gaming industry on the whole. Through evolution we got into the debacle we are in today. The Xbox 360 dominates the console market, PS3 as well. Steam made 1 Billion dollars in 2010 and shows no sign of falling apart. But much the same, we are slipping into something like the North American Video Game Crash of 1983: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983
That being said, with the adaptation of new engines and ideas; Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, to name a few, along with a few new consoles, might just be what need to revive the market.
Remember this crucially; the current generation of ~13 and under did not grow up with Pokemon and this aforementioned titles, and subsequently have different tastes in video games. This causes the companies to design different games then we are used to to suit that part of the market.
That being said, with the adaptation of new engines and ideas; Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, to name a few, along with a few new consoles, might just be what need to revive the market.
Remember this crucially; the current generation of ~13 and under did not grow up with Pokemon and this aforementioned titles, and subsequently have different tastes in video games. This causes the companies to design different games then we are used to to suit that part of the market.
1. No it is not.
2. we heard all this crap back in the 80's.
3. Your rant against piracy fail to realize that piracy rarely actually takes a dollar out of a developers pocket. people who pirate are rarely ever going to buy games. therefor, how can a developer possibly loose a sale they never would have made in the first place.
3,4,5: You are not saying anything that Yahtzee has not been saying for three years. But has it really "hurt" the gaming industry? well not financially, no.
2. we heard all this crap back in the 80's.
3. Your rant against piracy fail to realize that piracy rarely actually takes a dollar out of a developers pocket. people who pirate are rarely ever going to buy games. therefor, how can a developer possibly loose a sale they never would have made in the first place.
3,4,5: You are not saying anything that Yahtzee has not been saying for three years. But has it really "hurt" the gaming industry? well not financially, no.
(1) What happened in July of 2008?SpartanBlackman said:
(2) Support these statements! You say that game quality is declining - how do you figure? What makes you think that only AAA developers will be around in a few years?
(3) No, it's not. Piracy is bad for any industry (overall), but piracy never has and never will kill an industry, particularly one build around art/entertainment. You might as well make the same claim for music and movies and television, none of which are going anywhere.
(4) Don't play DLC if you don't want to play for it, and don't play MMORPGs if you don't want to play subscription fees. Neither of these really does anything to harm the industry. The former could do some damage if large companies minimized what came on the disc and put most of the content into the DLC, but this wouldn't last very long, because people would stop buying their games. All it takes is a competitor who's happy to exploit one of their peers dicking over their customers by saying, "Um, excuse me guys, but we don't do this."
(5) I agree with some of this, but I wouldn't say it's killing the industry, though it does occasionally put a genre or two into a decade-long coma. As with any other art form, though, this is cyclical: the few create works of genius, the many ape the shit out of said works, the genre stagnates until another genius comes along with the next big push forward.
(6) Cash cows are not killing anything, not in video games, anyway. As long as there is Minecraft, there will also be Angry Birds. Angry Birds may be super-dumb, but it's not hurting anyone by its existence. As for sequels and spinoffs, many of them are produced far too often, but I'll let go of Zelda when everyone agrees to let go of Batman.
(7) Somebody hasn't played Sonic Colors, and though the Metroid game that came out last year sucked, I'll wager you that the next console will see a Metroid game. I'm hoping for a first/third person hybrid (with dual analogues, dammit!) made by Retro.
Seriously, don't be so cynical and emo. I'll bet you still spend at least $200 on games this year. It can't be all bad.
That's not elitist at all!! Because everyone can afford the requisite PC to play these kinds of games while having them run smoothly and not look like MS Paint.(sarcasm)SpartanBlackman said:
Anyway, on topic, I don't agree with what you're saying. Yes, there are more sequels and reboots than there were last generation, and yes, brown and grey are popular colors in games now, but I think that'll change over time. The fact that Steam, PSN, XBLA, and iOS games are sources for new indie games means that there will always be new ideas, its just up to the publisher and developer to use them in a away that brings them to a larger audience.
No, it's not dying. You just think it's dying because you are of the age where you're fully aware of pretty much every new game being released (or at least the mainstream ones) - this is also why you (probably) think that mainstream music is terrible and music in the past was so much better; same goes for film.
When a few decades pass, you will reflect on this period in gaming and say "Hey! Look at all those great games that were released back then. That sure was a pretty great time for gaming!" - as history has shown us again and again, the overwhelming majority of material released in a given medium is forgotten within 2 or 3 years simply because it's not that good. It's only the truly great games that we remember, and therefore games in the past tend to look better than games today because we're only focusing on the quality titles that were released in the past.
At least, that's my opinion with regards to one of your points. As for the money being charged for DLC and the like, I think that people really need to stop being so brutally cheap. If it were up to most people, games would cost $20 dollars or less and they'd receive free updates until the end of time. Gaming is a business, and it is a pricey business at that - games have gotten more and more expensive to make as time has gone on, and this is a reality that people need to accept. Nothing is free. Get over it.
And let's face it - the only way gaming could possibly "die" is if people stopped buying games. If for some reason that did start to happen, game developers would be forced to take a long, hard look at themselves and the work they've been turning out, and subsequently reassess and rework the way they approached making games, inevitably leading to the churning out of quality titles that people would actually want to buy again.
Seriously, with the social gaming revolution that has taken place and the growing acceptance of gaming in mainstream society, the suggestion that gaming is "dying" seems absolutely preposterous.
When a few decades pass, you will reflect on this period in gaming and say "Hey! Look at all those great games that were released back then. That sure was a pretty great time for gaming!" - as history has shown us again and again, the overwhelming majority of material released in a given medium is forgotten within 2 or 3 years simply because it's not that good. It's only the truly great games that we remember, and therefore games in the past tend to look better than games today because we're only focusing on the quality titles that were released in the past.
At least, that's my opinion with regards to one of your points. As for the money being charged for DLC and the like, I think that people really need to stop being so brutally cheap. If it were up to most people, games would cost $20 dollars or less and they'd receive free updates until the end of time. Gaming is a business, and it is a pricey business at that - games have gotten more and more expensive to make as time has gone on, and this is a reality that people need to accept. Nothing is free. Get over it.
And let's face it - the only way gaming could possibly "die" is if people stopped buying games. If for some reason that did start to happen, game developers would be forced to take a long, hard look at themselves and the work they've been turning out, and subsequently reassess and rework the way they approached making games, inevitably leading to the churning out of quality titles that people would actually want to buy again.
Seriously, with the social gaming revolution that has taken place and the growing acceptance of gaming in mainstream society, the suggestion that gaming is "dying" seems absolutely preposterous.