Do you think too many videogames out there will put themselves out of the Market

Comixbooks

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
22,023
It was easier in the Arcade Quarter sucking days and the NES days the sheer amount of games and quality will "MUTE" each other out thus leaving profitability down to minimum or in time there will be a good game for everything the masses will disperse and the Market will be flooded with shovelware of everything.

I'm talking like hyped up games like Titanfall and maybe Evolve games with a big budget but due to the sheer amount of games being offered.
But games like CSGO will remain popular for the next 10 years =) just because it's valve...
 
Last edited:
Yes, I think it's already happened. Not only with so many games in the market but with the old favorites pumping out new editions yearly.

Remember when you could get 2+ years out of a call of duty or even more out of a BF game? Now for $60 you get a couple months then you have to start buying expansions. Then next year you have to buy the next edition. We are at the point where each AAA title is costing $120+ annually to play. The bigger problem is that it's the same damn game it was last year. At least with a few years between sequels we used to see major improvements.

Massive games like star citizen or small games like DOTA and CS are the future. If I'm going to shell out major cash I want to get several years of use out of it.

I have no idea how much they spent on Evovle but I do know from playing beta it's a $20 game. No way in hell would I pay $60 for it let alone the already large cost of DLC.
 
Last edited:
The Quality of the games just seems to be dropping just shallow games for the masses. Except for games like Wasteland 2 games like that kick some major butt.
 
Crap games have always been made. Just like very interesting games that were just too different to be widely embraced. There are also some great ones out and on the horizon. The industry is a lot bigger now, but I think the ratios are somewhat similar. These days though, it's so much easier to communicate when someone doesn't like something. (or when they do like something) Someone can just hop on a forum now, and be very "vocal" about something, and amass a bit of a mob of like-minded people. Before, you'd read about games in magazines, read "professional" reviews, and that was pretty much it. If you didn't like something, you could tell your friends, but that's about as far as it would go.

Also, with the indie scene, we're kind of in a similar (in my view) situation as in the C64, Amiga, and early PC days where you had home-brew, shareware, games up on BBSes, mixed in with bigger budget things. When I browse Steam now, I'm reminded of looking through my boxes of disks with multiple games on each one, weird one-man-developer games, and games from EA or Broderbund on the same disc. :D

I had to hunt through just as many things I didn't want to play back then as I do now to find something I did/do want to play. It's just a lot more visible I think, and it's much less of a niche hobby.

Nintendo is releasing very high quality games, (yes mainly from familiar franchises I'll grant) but they are top quality games that can stand independently of their predecessors. This is just one example. There are still nice games being made for the PC and other consoles too. Wolfenstein was great last year, Dishonored was great before that, and Skyrim, to name a few of the larger-studio games. I've very optimistic about things like No Man's Sky, and have enjoyed the living hell out of things like Terraria, FEZ, Monaco, Shovel Knight, and Nidhogg on the Indie-dev side of things.

Good games are out there. I also think that DLC practices is a separate argument. That's publisher practices. Some DLC is expansive for a reasonable price, and is more akin to the expansion packs of yore. Some is nickel and dime bullshit. Also, just because many of us are sick of CoD games, they're still enjoyed by many, and in and of themselves are still decent games. They may have too aggressive of release schedules, but let's say you didn't play the previous 6-7 games in the series. If you picked up the current one, you'd probably think it was pretty decent without the context of those previous iterations. It's a bit more to do with burnout for people who are susceptible to that. I still play Quake 3. I've been playing it since it came out. It's not my sole game by any means, but some people combined with some games have a lot of longevity.

Anyway... Just a few thoughts.
 
Comixbooks said:
The Quality of the games just seems to be dropping just shallow games for the masses. Except for games like Wasteland 2 games like that kick some major butt.
Click to expand...

Shallow games for the masses can still be enjoyed at some level by people who are deeper thinkers. I love a truly great example of cinema, I also like old campy tripe. I can also enjoy a largely empty action flick now and then. It just depends on my mood. I imagine others would feel similar.

Another analogy, would be sometimes I feel like playing a nice game of chess with someone. Other times, I'll play a simple game of connect four with one of my kids.

It doesn't all have to be black and white. If a game is a decent example of its genre, is fairly bug free, and not lacking in any truly critical or major way, then I think there's room for it in the market.
 
Rather than spending 2-3 years working on a good sequel (or new franchise) we're seeing too many instances of companies swapping to a yearly schedule.
Even when they're based on a good game and aren't bad themselves (Far Cry 4), it's still just more of the same thing...usually with additional headaches because it was rushed to meet that yearly deadline.
I don't see it ending, but companies need to drop this yearly stuff.
 
I get a little annoyed that games nowadays require internet connection to the game servers to even play single player...what about when the servers close and people still want to enjoy the SP portion of the game? Hate to piss $60 down the drain to find out 5-10 years down the road they shut down the servers.
 
I agree, yearly is too aggressive. Especially for multiplayer games. Bringing a large expansion to an existing game out after a year would be fine with me though. That way the base-game is still relevant for longer.
 
I agree. It seems that if you casually play MP on CoD or BF, if you drop out for a few months or, like me, pop in and out occasionally, BOOM! the community has moved on.
 
Which also kills the community in itself, lowering the enjoyment of the game overall. Harder to be an asshat (or cheater) when your username persists. Every new title is a reset on the banned list.
 
Not really you have to understand that there is ALWAYS new ignorant or virgin gamers. Ask yourself why WOW was such a big hit? Everquest and many MMORPG games came before so why WOW? What WOW did was attract a new group of people to MMORPG largely based on an aging blizzard gamer population that was becoming softcore.

you can say the same thing about movies, music, many other art forms that have existed for much longer than video games. No matter how many times they rehash the same basic recipe there are always new people who will go crazy over it. What we see here is just people who have lived through it all saying its just all the same. But what you are not experiencing is how your kids or the kids of others are perceiving this. Why doesn't a 13 year old girl just go back and listen to back street boys, why does she want to hear Justin bieber? Her demographic was already played out thoroughly 20 years ago and even before that?

Just like apple keeps convincing people that old ideas are new, we will see video game companies doing the same over and over. It will never end. It is actually really funny how perfectly the video game industry mirrors the music industry on so many levels. If you asked me would their be an underground video game movement 10 years ago, I would be like why would you need that? lol but now we have it, we call it indie but its all the same shit. Indie when main stream lol.

Also gamers will eventually have to consider different models if they don't like what we have. I have been saying for over 10 years now that a subscription model would solve a lot of our problems. But we as gamers keep fighting against any such model. We dig our own grave. If they cant make money off yearly releases they will want a subscription or something else.
 
Last edited:
As I get older, I seem to gravitate only towards the AAA games, with appearance to be long term, like Destiny, Halo Series, Uncharted, Tomb Raider, etc.. I know I have a better chance to pick the titles up when they are a little older, as I seem to struggle to find time to play them all. When I pick them up, the community is at least somewhat still a presence. Of course I play some of those purely from a SP side.

I will play the occasional short indie game that grabs my attention.
 
For a while now I have been gravitating towards games that are more about immersion than reaction time. I get very little enjoyment out of multiplayer these days, you watch these kids screaming into their microphones and I just cant help but think that's not what gaming is about.

So, yes, I do agree that there is far more content than ever to choose from. Now more than ever one must understand his or her tastes and what it is they hope to get out of a gaming session.

Vote with your wallet, that's what I do, just as I get older my preferred gaming niche seems to get smaller and smaller.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top