Originally Posted by
Akaimizu
It does. Right now, the issue is that the Triple A market can't really sustain itself well, and it knows it. The hardware, as companies like Nintendo warned, is advancing faster than companies can afford to utilize expensive engines, and the hollywood-level presentation workforce, to drive them. Technically, consoles like the Wii U have hardware which is more in line with what those companies can really afford to make while appeasing shareholder stock, as opposed to what they could make by spending more dollars than they can afford to manage shareholder stock.
It's this level of complication which is actually above the heads of the average gamer. And those trying to balance a clear profitability of the industry without stretching themselves too far, are actually getting gamers ANGRY at them for not falling in line. (We want our ultra realistic-looking games, and if we aren't seeing a major step up we're not interested. Even if the gameplay is stale or horrible, we want them spending all that extra money.) And when their *better* industry tanks, because of their *infinite knowledge*, I'm going to be around for the ultra "Told ya so", after all that time of them telling folks like me, I don't know what I'm talking about. Even though the obvious evidence is mounting.
Basically, the gimmicks sold by the likes of EA, or Ubisoft, have controlled the market kind of hook, line, and sinker. Thus the growth of the controlling casual market seduced by graphics and very little importance on gameplay depth to reward them with more graphics. Thus a more-involved game could be treated the same, to them, as a simplistic arcade game. They want less up-front costs, but like the short-sighted shareholders, don't really care if the title actually costs them way more in the long run. They figure if less is coming out of me, at once, I'm saving money. This works as long as they really don't play games. Those who are core gamers tricked into this method are actually spending money out the butt. More than they have before, for less content, or (as many have committed to) content that is consumable and gone forever once you used it. Thus, they can pay hundreds of dollars on a game they will never ever be able to come back to. Sometimes with a total life of less than 2 years.
This is what many of us, who actually observed this practice, have been saying for years. Though, often to deaf ears. It does some, in recent days, more and more people are starting to figure out what is happening and why it sucks. However, some still don't see why certain companies, selling games more towards the old methods, are still giving them good value. They are turning their nose up at it, and avoiding it, to even find out that it is better than the *new way* they've been suckered into.
And all of this, is why certain parts of the Indie market has kind of grown. They're clearly working within better cost limitations while being able to afford to put in some real worthy and eye-opening gameplay in there. (Of course, they're being attacked a bit by some open markets like Steam, being saturated by terrible cash grab "developers" flooding their market which more and more tarnishes the Indie space). The same stuff which killed the old video game market, which prompted the idea of why you needed curation (which spawned it for the original NES) in order to redeem it.
Even worse, the one thing I keep saying about the Mobile Market. You can't take it with you. Unlike consoles, the mobile OS upgrades and pretty much nearly every piece of current software running on them, eventually can't run anymore. Mobile Upgrades don't give a hoot about the software it is running on. They expect every developer, for every upgrade, to retool their software so that it still runs. Developers aren't going to support their finished software like that, and many don't feel they can afford to or feel it is worth the effort. It's much harder to hold onto a title you already bought on mobile. There's a lack of legacy potential. It does justify the cheaper costs on mobile, to a degree, but many gamers compare that cost to the cost on a non-mobile hardware, thinking it is the same. It isn't. On a console or dedicated game machine, that same piece of software, as long as you have it to install, or stored on a memory card, or transferred to a drive or PC, unless Online-only, will be playable 20 years from now. On mobile, if you're doing the typical upgrade path, you pray that you'd be able to come back to it 2, 3, or 4 years from now. All of this, I experienced myself, and you wonder why people can be wary about buying anything on mobile. For me, it's kind of killed my interest not only on buying much on mobile, but especially paying any IAP.
I don't know. Maybe it takes an old gamer, who witnessed this industry first hand, from the beginning, to see this. But alas. Young whippersnappers always know MORE than you do. That's always their mantra.
Reply With Quote
i love that bone thugs in harmey did a remix to crossroads with EC music
Connect With Us