Are "hardcore" gamers ruining the industry?

[Ed Oscuro]

I haven't bought any new games in a while, F2P (casuals!) is filling the need for now.

http://hardcoregaming101.net/dynamitedeka/diehardarcade-2.png

Don't want Capcom to go under ("Revelaitons" on PC, for one, please!) but they need to figure out if they're sinking or swimming.

[Nature Boy]

Still plenty of games sell very well, selling more copies than most games sold in the past to be successful. Now it's not enough to still be profitable, they need to sell many more games than people are willing to buy. It's getting to the same point as Atari Pac-Man, soon they'll need to sell more copies of the games than there are console owners to still be profitable.

The problem with arguments like this is that really all you're doing is speculating, and speculating poorly IMO.

If it really wasn't possible for the bulk of the industry to be profitable, because they need to sell more games than people would buy, nobody would be making games anymore. No company with any business sense would operate in an industry such as that for very long - they'd move on. The days of Atari overproducing the installed based (or producing anything apparently) are behind us I would think.

From what I've seen (and I admit I don't pay that much attention to the sales side of things, as I really don't care how many PS3 vs Xbox360 vs Wii U's have been sold), big games sell big and make a tonne of money for the publisher, and smaller games sell well through digital distribution and do well on a relative scale for their publishers.

If/when things change because of the popularity of tablets and smart phones, that doesn't mean the industry is dying, it just means it's evolving: as it should and has to do. Really all that will do is create a second tier of retro gamer who loves the last of the consoles before mobile gaming took over :)

[Tanooki]

So, why is nobody calling for specific examples on the list of sins you're applying to the industry?

Not that you're obligated to dredge any up Tanooki, I'm just taking a moment to illustrate that this argument can be made entirely from the position of generalities and still be pretty effective.

Well in all fairness since you brought it up. I don't see much of any reason if you're a Nintendo only gamer to give any respect to Capcom anymore really. Since the N64 era they've thrown Nintendo *console* owners time and again under the bus. N64 they ripped on, ignored, then very late life did a pair of releases (RE2 and MM64) with media about saying support us and we'll support you in the next system. The stuff sold alright and Capcom appeared pleased. We then get note of the Capcom5 (outside of the RE Dreamcast ports) and PN03 dropped, then RE4 was to be next as an exclusive. Two weeks prior with angry Sony fanboys shitting bricks they specifically write to Sony games NOT to buy a Gamecube, RE4 isn't exclusive, and come the following (Septemer I think it was) there would be the definitely FULL version on the PS2 with Ada Wong and some other crap. Also along with that, their other games, one named and partly developed were scrapped and they left the GC for dead. The Wii came along, similar promises, got Zac and Wiki, RE4Wii port w/waggle, and again left hung out to dry until Nintendo bribed up some Monster Hunter support and snagged that, yet otherwise it was junky franchise spinoffs with minimal efforts and heaps of problems. And don't get the still angry fanboys up on Mega Man Legends 3 in all the work and effort they even put gamers through for that to pull the rug out entirely.

As far as Activision and EA goes, that's more of a general thing easily found online with their Online Passes, 'Origin' from EA, cannibalizing studio locations and talent to then fire most, close shop, and rape and pillage franchises. It just kind of depends what you're ok with and not. Snotty comments, selective releases, dumbed down frachise releases as rail shooters on Wii, etc.

I'm soured on the three that I don't buy their games anymore except in rare cases they publish but don't develop. If I buy a game though it won't be digital, and if it's a real copy if I need it that bad, it's most likely used as I don't like to cash reward companies like that gaming or otherwise. I've got a small list of companies I refuse to buy product from so it's not just a gaming thing and it's not some political garbage or environmental thing, just anything from dirty pool, slimy tactics, or so mentally offensive ad campaigns I want nothing to do with the product/company. As others in here have said, you vote with your wallet and I do.

[kupomogli]

Well in all fairness since you brought it up. I don't see much of any reason if you're a Nintendo only gamer to give any respect to Capcom anymore really.

Then don't be a Nintendo only gamer. Just because you're not fond of a certain company doesn't mean you have to miss out on the games because they're not coming to your preferred console. I think Nintendo is a piece of shit but I'll still buy their portables and consoles for the support that they do get.


We then get note of the Capcom5 (outside of the RE Dreamcast ports) and PN03 dropped, then RE4 was to be next as an exclusive. Two weeks prior with angry Sony fanboys shitting bricks they specifically write to Sony games NOT to buy a Gamecube, RE4 isn't exclusive, and come the following (Septemer I think it was) there would be the definitely FULL version on the PS2 with Ada Wong and some other crap.

Yes. The Gamecube didn't sell because of Sony fanboys. Resident Evil 4 didn't sell as well as Capcom liked, so it was ported. But Capcom released a lot of good games for the for both the Gamecube and GBA. Did Capcom support Nintendo as much as they supported Sony? No. Then again, neither GBA nor Gamecube were selling as good as the PS2 was. Capcom released Resident Evil, ports of 2, 3, Code Veronica, Resident Evil 4, Viewtiful Joe 2, Killer7, a ton of Mega Man games with two exclusives series for the GBA, and the Legend of Zelda Minish Cap was also Capcom developed. Other games were released as well, but the list I've made clearly shows Capcom's support for the Gamecube and GBA.

Other than ports, remakes, and very few new releases, Capcom didn't support the PSP. There were a lot of games announced games for the PSP that never made it to fruition either. And then look at the Vita. Look at the massive amount of Capcom support there. A whole two games. Capcom even snubbed the Vita when making the announcement of porting Resident Evil Revelations. It didn't sell well on the 3DS and they list every other console aside from the Vita. The point I'm making is, they're not screwing over Nintendo fans. They go where they can get the most money. Like I said above. Buy a secondary console if you want a larger variety of games.


As far as Activision and EA goes, that's more of a general thing easily found online with their Online Passes, 'Origin' from EA, cannibalizing studio locations and talent to then fire most, close shop, and rape and pillage franchises. It just kind of depends what you're ok with and not. Snotty comments, selective releases, dumbed down frachise releases as rail shooters on Wii, etc.

Online passes. They're only penalizing those that purchase used. If you purchase the game new then there's no issue. What are you really losing in 20 years by not having the online pass? Do you really think Battlefield 3 is going to be playable on the PS360 in 20 years when the online is no longer running? The only issue with the online pass is if you get Alice Madness Returns. In 20 years if you haven't already activated the pass and still have it on a hard drive, the first game isn't going to be playable.

Origin. EA wants to get into the digital business and sell their own games. EA makes a lot of games so why not capitalize by having people play EA games and possibly purchase other games on their Origin service? When Origin started and maybe they might still do this, but any EA game you've purchased with another digital carrier like Steam would be added to your Origin account when verified. There's only reason to bitch about Origin is if you're part of the EA hate train. You have to have Origin running in the background much like you do with Steam, and what's wrong with that? Oh. It's EA. Right.

But wait, there's more(EA hate.) Choo choo!! EA buys up developers and devours their very existence! Every company closes down developers. If the developer keeps making games that sell less than expected, you can expect them to be closed down. Sony shut down a lot of first party studios this year and last, Capcom has shut down multiple studios, even your precious Nintendo has shut down studios and fired people after their work was done. If you're going to blame anyone for the studio to go down in five or ten years because it's sold to another publisher, then blame owners of that development studio that sold it. There are reasons they're selling, and while there's always an amount of money that changes hands, it all depends on how large that amount of money is. THQ was losing money left and right so they had to sell all their studios. If the games that are developed by former THQ developers keep going in the red and the new publisher closes the studio, are you going to blame the publisher? Why should you? There's no sense in paying people to continuously lose money.

I'm surprised that first sentence is even there for reasons to not support EA and Activision. You're just riding the hate train with everyone else. Bitching about two developers for no reason. Atleast people who hate on Call of Duty have an actual reason(same game every year.) I don't like most of the games Activision develops, but I'll support them if they develop a game I'm interested in. On the other hand, EA has developed a lot of games this gen that I like and have mostly turned their company around. I'll support them as well. As long as they develop good games, doesn't matter who I support. I own quite a few first party 3DS, DS, and Wii games as well as Nintendo consoles and you already know my opinion of the company. I'll support them as long as they release good games. My opinion on the company doesn't matter. What I don't support are their sales tactics but that's nothing more than ideas put into use, not a game itself.

So all that crying and you finally have one legitimate reason, or atleast partially legitimate. Dumbed down rail shooter games? Eh. Close enough. If I was to purchase Black Ops, then I'd purchase it on the PS360 over the Wii. It's dumbed down, but again, have a secondary console if there are games that you might be interested to play that aren't on your console of choice, or if the version on your console of choice is graphically inferior(which would be obvious) to the HD console version. On the other hand, you mentioned "rail shooter" and by that I'm guessing you're talking about Dead Space Extraction. It might be a rail shooter, but this is a great game so you lose all credibility of your one legitimate reasoning behind hating on EA and Activision.


I've got a small list of companies I refuse to buy product from so it's not just a gaming thing and it's not some political garbage or environmental thing, just anything from dirty pool, slimy tactics, or so mentally offensive ad campaigns I want nothing to do with the product/company. As others in here have said, you vote with your wallet and I do.

Woah, woah, woah! You said all this and Nintendo isn't on your list?

[Rob2600]

I think Nintendo is a piece of shit

On the other hand, EA has developed a lot of games this gen that I like

Obviously a belated April Fool's prank. Good one!

[ProjectCamaro]

I've got a small list of companies I refuse to buy product from so it's not just a gaming thing and it's not some political garbage or environmental thing, just anything from dirty pool, slimy tactics, or so mentally offensive ad campaigns I want nothing to do with the product/company. As others in here have said, you vote with your wallet and I do.

I'm not looking to get into this debate but I do agree with this statement completely.

[FayeC86]

It seems odd to blame the more hardcore gamers for the way things age going, they are such a small part of the market.

If anything, Its the people dropping 60 dollars a title that enable companies to maintain the status quo. If I complain about brown and grey shooters or waggle games, but reward the people making them I should not be alarmed when they continue to be made.

On the other hand, If I spend that 60 dollars on 4 older games, then I'm getting more game for my money, but less ability to signal the market in my preferred direction. So I still really shouldn't be surprised when buying habits like mine aren't considered by companies like Activision or Nintendo.