4 Video Game Complaints We're Just Going to Have to Get Over

[Xylak]

A Cracked article that could also be titled "Stop Bitching, It's Not That Bad. Really."
While I don't agree with everything said, the article actually has some interesting points...

Clicky for reads

 

[thatbloke]

I agree with most of it, I still think the always online thing is a load of crap though.

 

[Zhar]

I guess I just have entitlement issues. Sorry.

 

[Ki!ler-Mk1]

See, currently, as far as used games go, those game stores are not regulated and required to kick back any of that money to the people who made it. So what that means is that, where the makers used to put out a title and then ride the wave of sales for several years, they're now having to pull all of their profits within the first three months of its release -- after that, hardly anyone will buy it new.

In a panic, the original game company jacks up the price to pull in as much money as they can in that short window, as well as throwing any risky content out the window in favor of tried-and-true formulas. It's why we have two dozen games where we look at gritty buildings through crosshairs. Because we've proven that we'll give them money for it.

Read more: 4 Video Game Complaints We're Just Going to Have to Get Over | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-video...just-going-to-have-to-get-over/#ixzz1wUImibIv

A compelling reason for the rip off prices of new game releases as observed by someone such as I not owning a console.

 

[Panda with issues...]

No car company gets a cut of second hand car sales, no builder or building conglomerate gets a cut when a house is sold on. No diamond miner gets a penny from a ring when it is sold in a jewelery store, no farmer gets royalties from his lettuce when it's sold at a supermarket.

The games industry should be no different.

If they don't want people reselling their games after a week, they should concentrate on making games that people want to keep, rather than throw away once playthrough tosh.

Or, they focus solely on digital distribution, which PC gamers at least have shown to be acceptable, as a mechanism of curbing use game sales.

Locking content to specific machines will just make people very very angry.

 

[BiG D]

Comparing digital products to actual things is a fallacy.

 

[Narly Bird]

Diablo III has a massive fan base and would have sold well even if it was a crap game. Therefore they were able to have the always connect tripe and still be able to sell it. But i wonder how many other games would sell if they forced you into such an option?

 

[Wol]

Comparing digital products to actual things is a fallacy.

YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR

 

[Ki!ler-Mk1]

Diablo III has a massive fan base and would have sold well even if it was a crap game. Therefore they were able to have the always connect tripe and still be able to sell it. But i wonder how many other games would sell if they forced you into such an option?

This is not related, as the "always on" is not DRM. Its actually to prevent the rampant cheating prevalent on diablo 1 and 2, which trashed ingame trade, and made the game much harder to play as intended. And ofc made lots of item farmers/sellers money outside the system.

Unless, world of warcraft is also "always on DRM". But as i understand it, world of warcraft wouldnt work if you didnt have a server to connect to, the same as diablo 3, from the ground up a client-server game.

EDIT: Cant find a way to soften this

Note i am not a blizzard fanboy I have played D3 for the last 2 weeks, and only concluded that it is crap when compared to D2 and the worsted blizzard game i have ever bought. I've not even made it to inferno before i was bored.

EDIT2: That said, hardcore is still fun.

 

[Xarlaxas]

I must admit that I only skimmed the article as it appears to be written by a crazed industry apologist. . . .

 

[Zhar]

The best known DRM is a shit game.

 

[Dragon]

Comparing digital products to actual things is a fallacy.

Take a book then. While the product itself may be physical (just like my old xBox or whatever disc) its the creativity behind it all that makes it worth something. So in the end its not that different to a car sale.

Of course a new car costs much more material and is therefor not that much of a "loss" to the industry if bought second hand (as they save the production costs, which will probably take up 60 - 70% of a single car, while the games industry looses more money as their physical production cost take only about 10% not having to produce a new copy).
But in the end its the same thing, they complain about someone using or enjoying their "idea" may it be a car or a game without paying for it.

And while I can totally understand this idea in general I think generalising it to a point where you see every second hand purchase as a lost revenue is utter stupidity.

But on the other hand I wonder why one produces games. Naturally some do it only to make money (most of those who support the idea) but from what I experienced around the interwebs most developers be they big or small companies (CD Projekt's "The Witcher" is one of my favourite examples for a big company not charging anything extra for game updates etc) don't to it primarily for the money but for the joy of creating something that makes other people happy. And I think most of the time we prefer playing games of the latter part which, hopefully, will not support the idea of preventing second hand purchases.

 

[Veshi]

omg, went to read the artical and just watched the video of han solo dancing, i will never be able to remove that image from my mind, thanx alot, im of to go and bleach my eye balls.

 

[Panda with issues...]

omg, went to read the artical and just watched the video of han solo dancing, i will never be able to remove that image from my mind, thanx alot, im of to go and bleach my eye balls.

I know mate, I know.

If the awful updated versions or the rumoured trilogy of prequels weren't enough to make you feel Star Wars had gone too far...

 

[Ki!ler-Mk1]

But on the other hand I wonder why one produces games. Naturally some do it only to make money (most of those who support the idea) but from what I experienced around the interwebs most developers be they big or small companies (CD Projekt's "The Witcher" is one of my favourite examples for a big company not charging anything extra for game updates etc) don't to it primarily for the money but for the joy of creating something that makes other people happy. And I think most of the time we prefer playing games of the latter part which, hopefully, will not support the idea of preventing second hand purchases.

This used to be the case all the time though that said as the market grew so did the size of the patches. I dont know why the game industry so readily accepted the whole DLC Purchase thing, but i suspect people were cornered into it on the internet capable consoles where due to lack of a proper OS they were unable circumvent paying or something like that.

I cannot believe that DLC originated and was accepted on PC. I Still resent the phrase, and i hope it crashes and burns, and we can go back to patches and expansions. (Its a weak generalisation i know, but imo expansions cost 1/2 - 1/3 the cost of the original and add content up to equal to the original, and sequels add engine updates etc.)

What have you guys seen, for me MOST DLC offer crap value outside sale time, when compared to expansions?

While i generally only purchase 2nd hand when a game cannot be obtained otherwise, eg DS2, Some people (most people) cannot afford to buy every new game every release, thankful valve knows this.

 

[Tempscire]

This used to be the case all the time though that said as the market grew so did the size of the patches. I dont know why the game industry so readily accepted the whole DLC Purchase thing, but i suspect people were cornered into it on the internet capable consoles where due to lack of a proper OS they were unable circumvent paying or something like that.

I cannot believe that DLC originated and was accepted on PC. I Still resent the phrase, and i hope it crashes and burns, and we can go back to patches and expansions. (Its a weak generalisation i know, but imo expansions cost 1/2 - 1/3 the cost of the original and add content up to equal to the original, and sequels add engine updates etc.)

What have you guys seen, for me MOST DLC offer crap value outside sale time, when compared to expansions?

While i generally only purchase 2nd hand when a game cannot be obtained otherwise, eg DS2, Some people (most people) cannot afford to buy every new game every release, thankful valve knows this.

I think DLC was pretty much invented by Microsoft who have an actual policy that no extra content can be free. Ever. Hence why the PC gets loads of free stuff, for example from with L4D, like new levels and a whole different mode, and you have to pay for it on the XBox.

UPDATE: I've just done a little digging and have found that there are some few cases of DLC being free, so the above statement is factually incorrect. But I don't believe in retconning my posts, so it will stay as-is.

 

[BiG D]

And while I can totally understand this idea in general I think generalising it to a point where you see every second hand purchase as a lost revenue is utter stupidity.

The difference being physical goods degrade over time. If I buy a used game, my game experience will be 100% the same as the guy who bought it new. There is no reason NOT to buy used, except for in cases where publishers are including one-time-use codes with the game.

 

[Panda with issues...]

The difference being physical goods degrade over time. If I buy a used game, my game experience will be 100% the same as the guy who bought it new. There is no reason NOT to buy used, except for in cases where publishers are including one-time-use codes with the game.

Apart from, you know, shitty scratched up discs, which was a major issue when I used to buy used games.

 

[BiG D]

The game either installs or it doesn't. Any reasonable retailer will let you return an item that doesn't work...

 

[Orobi]

The difference being physical goods degrade over time. If I buy a used game, my game experience will be 100% the same as the guy who bought it new. There is no reason NOT to buy used, except for in cases where publishers are including one-time-use codes with the game.

Thats kinda irrelevant. If i buy someones 1995 nokia, i'm gonna be able to make phone calls and do everything else they did with it back then, and i would imagine to the same level they did it, but it doesnt compare with the new fangled nokia 20889739377 that my friend has just brought. things lose value over time, most products do, and so do games. Or would you think guitar hero 1 should cost the same as guitar hero 17?

Or are we talking that "i brought this game a week ago and now ive completed it i want to sell it" shite. thats just the fact they make shit games and people have too much free time these days....