Are "hardcore" gamers ruining the industry?

[Rob2600]

In the Duck Tales thread (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?166895-Duck-Tales-REMAKE-coming-to-XBLA-PS3-Wii-U), a couple of "hardcore" gamers said $15 is too expensive for a new video game. I can't believe we've gotten to the point where "hardcore" gamers feel like $15 is too expensive.

There's also this thread (How will a cheap bastard (me) pay full price for PS4 and Xbox Infinity games ? It's against my nature (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?166874-How-will-a-cheap-bastard-(me)-pay-full-price-for-PS4-and-Xbox-Infinity-games-It-s-against-my-nature)).

And people say "casual" gamers are ruining the industry? At least they support developers and pay full price for games (Madden, COD, Halo, etc.).

"Hardcore" gamers demand more and more, nitpick everything to death, and wait until games hit the $5 bargain bin before buying them. I've realized many "hardcore" gamers today are very cheap people with entitlement issues. Is this good for the industry??

[Tupin]

The only thing "ruining" the industry are people who insist on categorizing people into neat little groups based on what games they play the most.

As a consumer, I'm going to be smart. I'm not going to spend $60 on a game when I know it will be $40 next month. If this causes some companies to go under or sequels not to be made, well then, I guess the industry learned its lesson. Despite what some people believe, the games industry revolves around us. As a responsible consumer, supporting companies that have good business practices and refusing to buy from ones that have bad is very important. It's the only thing we can do against companies that look for every possible way to screw us over.

Saying that "hardcore gamers" are the death of the industry is absolutely silly to me. If it weren't for people like that, who actually stand up against companies, the games industry would have degenerated into nothing but freemium games and realistic FPSes. There's nothing wrong with wanting quality.

As for not spending $15, I suppose I could see the logic behind it. Capcom hasn't exactly been very friendly to consumers, cancelling several franchise titles and releasing sub-par games. They bring out this game that is obviously trying to appeal based on nostalgia, and rather than scoop it up, some people question their ulterior motives. Some may disagree with paying so much for a digital game. I don't think there's anything wrong with either of those thoughts. However, I will still be buying the game because I like DuckTales.

[Rob2600]

As a consumer, I'm going to be smart. I'm not going to spend $60 on a game when I know it will be $40 next month. If this causes some companies to go under or sequels not to be made, well then, I guess the industry learned its lesson.

What lesson is that?


Despite what some people believe, the games industry revolves around us. As a responsible consumer, supporting companies that have good business practices and refusing to buy from ones that have bad is very important. It's the only thing we can do against companies that look for every possible way to screw us over.

Saying that "hardcore gamers" are the death of the industry is absolutely silly to me. If it weren't for people like that, who actually stand up against companies, the games industry would have degenerated into nothing but freemium games and realistic FPSes. There's nothing wrong with wanting quality.

There's a difference between standing up to bad companies, and making good companies suffer because hardcore gamers are too cheap to buy games at full price. I'm all for "voting with your wallet" but when hardcore gamers wait for cool new releases to hit the bargain bin, what vote are they casting in that situation??

[vrikkgwj]

The terms "hardcore" and "casual" for gamers is subjective as can be, and therefore the whole argument about which camp is ruining or saving gaming is completely insane. How can someone yell at the other side of the fence if they don't even know the boundaries?

I've been gaming for years. I like games. I read about them, post on forums, and listen to podcasts. But I don't play games often (maybe once or twice a week for an hour maximum), and have no idea the new games coming out. Where does this put me? A hardcore onlooker? A casual gamer but who likes to read?

It's nonsense.

[Tupin]

What lesson is that?



There's a difference between standing up to bad companies, and making good companies suffer because hardcore gamers are too cheap to buy games at full price. I'm all for "voting with your wallet" but when hardcore gamers wait for cool new releases to hit the bargain bin, what vote are they casting in that situation??
If a company does nothing to convince me that their game is worth buying at full price, they deserve to "suffer" by me waiting to buy until its cheaper. I don't care how good the company is. I'm not going to buy a game at full price for their health. I'll buy it if they've convinced me it's worth the asking price.

[Xander]

The terms "hardcore" and "casual" for gamers is subjective as can be, and therefore the whole argument about which camp is ruining or saving gaming is completely insane. How can someone yell at the other side of the fence if they don't even know the boundaries?

Well said. It's so much easier to understand an issue when you put people into well defined categories, it's a human trait. In this case it's not possible as the categories are not well defined at all and the issue is and will remain a huge mess to sort out.

I don't have an explanation and much less of a solution to offer either. But when you know you have a lot of gamers not willing to pay 15$ bucks for a game and when you have gamers sitting on a game until it hits the bargain bin before buying it, you get to understand a little bit why some companies want to kill the used game market.

[Bojay1997]

In the Duck Tales thread (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?166895-Duck-Tales-REMAKE-coming-to-XBLA-PS3-Wii-U), a couple of "hardcore" gamers said $15 is too expensive for a new video game. I can't believe we've gotten to the point where "hardcore" gamers feel like $15 is too expensive.

And people say "casual" gamers are ruining the industry? At least they support developers and pay full price for games (Madden, COD, Halo, etc.).

"Hardcore" gamers demand more and more, nitpick everything to death, and wait until games hit the $5 bargain bin before buying them. I've realized many "hardcore" gamers today are very cheap people with entitlement issues. Is this good for the industry??

I think you're overreacting and frankly, if the game is good, it will probably sell well at $15. Having said that, I'm one of those people that waits for games to fall in price before I buy them on modern consoles and with digital stuff especially, I tend to be very cheap. I don't think gamers who share my practices are hurting the industry. The industry is well aware of us and does things like create expensive collector's editions and launch copy DLC or other upgrades. Sometimes that stuff works in getting me to pay full price and sometimes it doesn't. Steam, Microsoft and Sony all do regular digital sales on their respective stores to capture revenue from gamers who share my practices and they seem to be doing pretty well, as do most of the publishers that participate in those sales.

In any event, $15 might be too much for a new video game depending on how extensive the remake is and how good the game is. None of us really know until it's finished. There are lots of great games that launch for $5 or $10 out of the gate, so it's not like price and quality are mutually exclusive.

[Rob2600]

First of all, I put "hardcore" in quotes because I know it's a vague term. But I'm using it in this thread to represent gamers who read all the magazines, web sites, and blogs, who also participate on forums, and have large game collections...who are also the type of gamer who complains that the Wii is catering to "casual" gamers and Nintendo can go F itself...etc.

Those things are fine...but then these same "hardcore" gamers refuse to pay full price for anything and look for any way possible to screw over developers.

I'm really tired of the "you better release an AAA game that blows my mind, but I'm going to wait for it to hit the bargain bin before buying it...but hey, I'm a 'core' gamer and I'm the one really supporting this industry, not those part-time 'casual' gamers" entitled mentality.


I think you're overreacting and frankly, if the game is good, it will probably sell well at $15. Having said that, I'm one of those people that waits for games to fall in price before I buy them on modern consoles and with digital stuff especially, I tend to be very cheap. I don't think gamers who share my practices are hurting the industry. The industry is well aware of us and does things like create expensive collector's editions and launch copy DLC or other upgrades. Sometimes that stuff works in getting me to pay full price and sometimes it doesn't. Steam, Microsoft and Sony all do regular digital sales on their respective stores to capture revenue from gamers who share my practices and they seem to be doing pretty well, as do most of the publishers that participate in those sales.

In any event, $15 might be too much for a new video game depending on how extensive the remake is and how good the game is. None of us really know until it's finished. There are lots of great games that launch for $5 or $10 out of the gate, so it's not like price and quality are mutually exclusive.

If people want to wait for games to go on sale, that's fine. The thing I have a problem with is people posturing all over the internet claiming to be "core" gamers or "hardcore" gamers and that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft better cater to them or else they'll go bankrupt...but then those same gamers who call themselves so important to the industry refuse to buy new releases at launch or pay full price for them. They wait for games to go on clearance and then snatch them up for pennies on the dollar.

From a value perspective that's great! And if people want to be cheap and wait for games to hit the clearance rack before buying them, that's fine. But then don't blab all over the internet about how gamers like you are so vital to the industry and if companies stop catering to you, they'll be sorry. Don't blab all over the internet about how "casual" gamers are ruining the industry and if big companies cater to "casuals" they're making a huge financial mistake because the "core" gamers will turn their backs on them.

Guess what? "Core"/"hardcore" gamers have already turned their backs on them years ago by refusing to pay for anything.

And on top of that, "core" gamers keep demanding better and better games. Bigger levels, more detailed graphics, better physics, more varied music, more options, etc. Those gamers want and want and want, but they don't want to pay. So they wait for the AAA title to hit the bargain bin...and then after they finally buy it, they nitpick it to death and badmouth it all over the internet. "The controls are horrible because I have to press A to shoot instead of B." "Some of the textures are blurry." "I saw some clipping on this one part." "The voice acting should've been better." "The single player missions should've been longer."

They think they automatically deserve technologically and artistically advanced games for pennies just because they've been gaming for a couple of decades. They have a false sense of entitlement and are overly cheap and overly negative/nitpicky/snarky.

I think it's ruining the industry. I also think companies are wising up and are catering to that type of gamer less and less. Companies can never win by catering to that type of gamer because that type of gamer is never satisfied. It's a very selfish, immature attitude that is prevalent in gaming.

[Tupin]

You call it being selfish and immature, I call it what you have a right to as a consumer who spends your money on a product. I have no qualms with buying a "AAA" game day one. They had better just impress me a lot otherwise I'm waiting, though.

If you hype your game up to be the best thing since sliced bread and can't deliver (Peter Molyneux, Notch, Phil Fish, Team Meat, et cetera) then you deserve to be mocked and your game deserves to languish in bargain bins.

Again: if a company can't make a game look realistically good enough for me to buy it at full price, they don't deserve my $60.

[The 1 2 P]

First of all, I put "hardcore" in quotes because I know it's a vague term. But I'm using it in this thread to represent gamers who read all the magazines, web sites, and blogs, who also participate on forums, and have large game collections...who are also the type of gamer who complains that the Wii is catering to "casual" gamers and Nintendo can go F itself...etc.

Those things are fine...but then these same "hardcore" gamers refuse to pay full price for anything and look for any way possible to screw over developers.

I'm really tired of the "you better release an AAA game that blows my mind, but I'm going to wait for it to hit the bargain bin before buying it...but hey, I'm a 'core' gamer and I'm the one really supporting this industry, not those part-time 'casual' gamers" entitled mentality.



If people want to wait for games to go on sale, that's fine. The thing I have a problem with is people posturing all over the internet claiming to be "core" gamers or "hardcore" gamers and that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft better cater to them or else they'll go bankrupt...but then those same gamers who call themselves so important to the industry refuse to buy new releases at launch or pay full price for them. They wait for games to go on clearance and then snatch them up for pennies on the dollar.

From a value perspective that's great! And if people want to be cheap and wait for games to hit the clearance rack before buying them, that's fine. But then don't blab all over the internet about how gamers like you are so vital to the industry and if companies stop catering to you, they'll be sorry. Don't blab all over the internet about how "casual" gamers are ruining the industry and if big companies cater to "casuals" they're making a huge financial mistake because the "core" gamers will turn their backs on them.

Guess what? "Core"/"hardcore" gamers have already turned their backs on them years ago by refusing to pay for anything.

And on top of that, "core" gamers keep demanding better and better games. Bigger levels, more detailed graphics, better physics, more varied music, more options, etc. Those gamers want and want and want, but they don't want to pay. So they wait for the AAA title to hit the bargain bin...and then after they finally buy it, they nitpick it to death and badmouth it all over the internet. "The controls are horrible because I have to press A to shoot instead of B." "Some of the textures are blurry." "I saw some clipping on this one part." "The voice acting should've been better." "The single player missions should've been longer."

They think they automatically deserve technologically and artistically advanced games for pennies just because they've been gaming for a couple of decades. They have a false sense of entitlement and are overly cheap and overly negative/nitpicky/snarky.

I think it's ruining the industry. I also think companies are wising up and are catering to that type of gamer less and less. Companies can never win by catering to that type of gamer because that type of gamer is never satisfied. It's a very selfish, immature attitude that is prevalent in gaming.

So if I'm reading this correctly you don't actually have a problem with gamers being cheap and waiting for price cuts, sales or titles to hit bargain bins.....as long as they don't talk about it or complain about the companies. Or something like that. But the thing is, as long as people are spending money on a product they are entitled to have an opinion on that product, rather they bought it for $60 or $6. And as you already know, the majority of them enjoy sharing that opinion.

I don't think any one segment of the industry is ruining gaming. I think it's a combination of many things thats causes people to have a negative attitude towards the future of the industry. As for $15 games being too expensive, sometimes they are. Even $10 games could be considered too much. I really liked the X-Men Arcade dlc game but it lasted around 30 minutes or less to beat the whole thing and that is not worth $10-$15 to me(which is why I waited for it to go on sale). I did buy Alan Wake: American Nightmare for the full $15 because that title was worth that price to me and I also wanted to support Remedy. But every game for me(and probably most people) will be a case by case basis for what I feel is worth $5, $10, $15 or $60. It's my money so me and only me will decide rather it's worth it to spend it on any given game/product.

[Rob2600]

So if I'm reading this correctly you don't actually have a problem with gamers being cheap and waiting for price cuts, sales or titles to hit bargain bins.....as long as they don't talk about it or complain about the companies. Or something like that. But the thing is, as long as people are spending money on a product they are entitled to have an opinion on that product, rather they bought it for $60 or $6. And as you already know, the majority of them enjoy sharing that opinion.

I'm fine with gamers who are cheap. I'm not fine with gamers who are cheap, but label themselves "hardcore" and claim they're the backbone of the industry and that companies will be in financial ruin if they don't cater to them.

When I worked at EB in the late 90s and early 2000s, the "hardcore" gamers were the ones who'd constantly ask to exchange games every week for new ones because "the graphics weren't good enough" or "I thought it'd be better." "Casual" gamers spent plenty of money in my store and were usually very easy to deal with, whereas "hardcore" gamers wanted infinite exchanges and were a huge pain to deal with.

Contrary to what they think, they aren't the lifeblood of the industry. Instead, they're the bloodsucking leeches of the industry.

[Bojay1997]

I'm fine with gamers who are cheap. I'm not fine with gamers who are cheap, but label themselves "hardcore" and claim they're the backbone of the industry and that companies will be in financial ruin if they don't cater to them.

When I worked at EB in the late 90s and early 2000s, the "hardcore" gamers were the ones who'd constantly ask to exchange games every week for new ones because "the graphics weren't good enough" or "I thought it'd be better." "Casual" gamers spent plenty of money in my store and were usually very easy to deal with, whereas "hardcore" gamers wanted infinite exchanges and were a huge pain to deal with.

Contrary to what they think, they aren't the lifeblood of the industry. Instead, they're the bloodsucking leeches of the industry.

What does it matter what they or anyone thinks or how they label themselves? The publishers and developers don't sit around reading forums and talking to random gamers who refuse to pay full price. The games industry is just as sophisticated as the movie and television industry and it's a mature enough industry to ignore the noise and pursue a direction they know will be profitable. They know their audience far better than you or anyone else complaining on a web forum does.

Frankly, I don't understand how you're making this giant leap that if people won't pay $15 for a remake of a NES game that they are going to ruin the industry. The thing that's "ruining" the industry is massive competition from an ever growing wave of other forms of low cost entertainment and cannabalization of video games sales by that media. To stop that, you would have to go back in time and destroy the Internet before it became a viable consumer and digital media platform.

[needler420]

Problem with TC and many people posting is that they associate hardcore gamers with a monetary value and quantity of games. Being a hardcore gamer is based on the amount of time you play video games and your skill level to progress in that game. Example who gets the highest score in a game or gets to the last board of an arcade or can set record times in a game etc.


TC is delusional to think that any kind of standard toward being a hardcore gamer is accociated with the amount of money you spend to purchase your games. Supproting the developes of games you like is always a good thing. Hardcore with COD, Madden, Halo etc shouldn't even be mentioned.

My friend that works at a bank plays COD and madden daily. He is as casual as casual gamers can be.

[Leo_A]

In the Duck Tales thread (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?166895-Duck-Tales-REMAKE-coming-to-XBLA-PS3-Wii-U), a couple of "hardcore" gamers said $15 is too expensive for a new video game. I can't believe we've gotten to the point where "hardcore" gamers feel like $15 is too expensive.

Since anyone that has paid that thread attention recently knows I'm one of the people you're clearly referencing, I should point out that first of all, I never said that I wasn't going to buy it or that $15 was too expensive here. I would think my interest and several postings in the thread show that I'm very interested in the project even at $15.

And as I said, I never stated that I wouldn't buy this game or that $15 was too much for it. I merely showed an understanding when someone else mentioned being uncomfortable with buying a $15 download, stated that I think long and hard about $15 purchases myself, showed a preference for XBLA compilation disc for the more pricey downloads when possible, and clearly showed my opinion about digital purchases. I'm fine with things like $5 downloads and as my Xbox Live account shows, such games account for the bulk of my activity since buying an Xbox 360 at its 1 year anniversary.

But $15 is in a territory that I'm not entirely comfortable with where I haven't made many purchases and I give careful consideration on those that I have. And I'm playing a waiting game on several in the hope they will appear on future XBLA compilation disc. It just means that this game won't be an impulse buy.

[needler420]

Since anyone that has paid that thread attention recently knows I'm one of the people you're clearly referencing, I should point out that first of all, I never said that I wasn't going to buy it or that $15 was too expensive here. I would think my interest and several postings in the thread show that I'm very interested in the project even at $15.

Secondly, I don't identify myself as a hardcore gamer. In fact I despise that term. It typically equates, at least the image I visualize when I see that term, people that only play the latest Madden, Halo, and Call of Duty. I'm not one of those people. I consider myself a classic gamer that's more than willing to jump into modern gaming when something appeals to me before heading back into classic gaming until the next exception appears (And much of the time when I am on a current generation console is spent playing classic games). On Xbox Live, the likely platform if I were to purchase this, I classify myself in the "Recreation" group. It's the group that most closely fits the category I think I fall into on the Xbox 360 (Where most of my digital purchases are made and where I'd likely download this instead of on my PS3).

And I do buy downloads and retail games at full price from time to time, although I'm much more careful in the retail world after being stung several times when I bought last generation games at $50 and when finally getting to playing them, could've bought them new for about $10. Sales or discounts, while I watch out for them and take advantage of them, won't be the primary factor that detirmines if I eventually purchase this. Opinions at communities like this, my demo experience with it, and so on will decide that. If I think a better deal is imminent when I decide I want to buy this, I'll wait and be patient. But if I don't, I'm willing to pull the trigger at $15.

And as I said, I never stated that I wouldn't buy this game or that $15 was too much for it. I merely showed an understanding when someone else mentioned being uncomfortable with buying a $15 download, stated that I think long and hard about $15 purchases myself, showed a preference for XBLA compilation disc for the more pricey downloads when possible, and clearly showed my opinion about digital purchases. I'm fine with things like $5 downloads and as my Xbox Live account shows, such games account for the bulk of my activity since buying an Xbox 360 at its 1 year anniversary.

But $15 is in a territory that I'm not entirely comfortable with where I haven't made many purchases and I give careful consideration on those that I have. And I'm playing a waiting game on several in the hope they will appear on future XBLA compilation disc. It just means that this game won't be an impulse buy.

When you hear hardcore you think of Madden,COD and halo? You must not use gamefaqs much. I think that is literally 100% opposite ends of the hardcore gamers.

Those games are meant for people who work 40 plus hous a week and want something to casually play when they get home. That is the majority of the people playing those games.

The people who play those games hardcore for like MLG and tournaments are few and far between compared to the amount of casuals. Those games are like I said meant for casual people with work schedules and kids who need replay value because they can't afford new games and the luxury of collecting.

The only sense of hardcore I get from that is they are playing that particular game so much it would be considered hardcore. Hardcore is more so based on skill level. Then amount of time spent on a game.

If someone can play a game and always set 1 million points compared to 100,000 that average people do that is hardcore.

[Leo_A]

Most gamers from my experience that refer to themselves as "hardcore" gamers are male teens or 20 somethings that don't blink an eye at spending three or four hours a night playing Call of Duty most nights of the week online. They barely touch more than two or three mainstream series and spend hundreds of hours playing the same games online during the course of the year until the next round of annual updates appear.

When you go to a place like here where people love a wide variety of genres, have interests spanning many generations of gaming, and appreciate niches like import gaming and modern vertical and horizontal shooters, those are the truly dedicated fans of this industry as I see it. And almost as a rule, we all shy away from that term since we don't like what it equates to. And I also suspect that many of us think it has a bit of an immature ring to it.

And GameFaqs is a vast wasteland where their forums are concerned. Go look at something like many of the Atari 2600 forums. Thousands upon thousands of postings yet none have anything to do with the topic at hand. I require at least a basic level of proper moderation in order to participate at a forum. That simply isn't present there and the results of it show.

If I'm using that site, it's to look up things like cheats, release dates, and rely on their database of software released for each platform. GameFaqs has its place but it sure as heck isn't to participate in their strange collection of forum communities.

[needler420]

GameFaqs is a vast wasteland where the forums are concerned. Go look at something like many of the Atari 2600 forums. Thousands upons thousands of postings yet none have anything to do with the topic at hand. I require at least a basic level of proper moderation to participate at a forum.

If I'm a user, it's to look up things like cheats, release dates, and rely on their database of software released for each platform.

Everything you say does not deter what I said or the sites credibility. It's well known that on gamefaqs the kids run the site rabid.

You have to realize though its the biddgest video game site with an all purpose discussion about video games. So with that you get all ages. Ask yourself what gaming forum you're on and what it's fundamentals are and you can get a sense of what the demograph will be.

Like this particular gaming site is focused on classic gaming and collectors. Any day of the week more people are in the classic section then the modern. So given that it's pretty obvious you're not going to hear a snarky 13 year old tell us about his nostaglia playing SNES as a kid.

[8-Bit Archeology]

Once upon a time "Hardcore" gamers where looked at as the players of RPGs and more "Complex" games. Reviews and polls agreed. Now when I hear "Hardcore Gamer" I think of MLG Pros. I think the main problem is there has never been a true definition of a hardcore gamer.

[Leo_A]

Everything you say does not deter what I said or the sites credibility.

I'm not out to change anyone's opinion. I simply provided my own. I require at least a basic semblance of forum moderation if I'm to participate. And when situations exist like this one, clearly that isn't the case.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/584743-football

[PreZZ]

Are Hardcore gamers ruining the industry? No. The industry is ruining the industry. DLC, micro transactions, season pass, online pass, no manuals, dirt cheap prices 3 months after release (*cough*ubisoft*cough*), releasing the same game on 2 or 3 different skus with added content (street fighter 4, borderlands come to mind). When you know borderlands 2 will be available GOTY with all DLC a year after release for 39.99, why bother with the original 59.99 game? Companies are wasting too much time making DLC instead of making new quality games. And also whats up with every single game getting special edition packages with figurines and whatnot at 79.99 to 99.99? I can understand for a couple of franchises to have something special, but generic games like Duke Nukem forever and ghost recon? I prefer a company like Atlus making limited early editions for the same price with bonus stuff or Xseed with the Last Story (the awesome package made me buy the game!!!). Games have never been as affordable as they are this generation, I own so many ps3 and 360 games its crazy, they are tons of great software at 9.99 to 19.99. I have games still shrinkwrapped from 3 and 4 years ago, I dont have time to try them all, my nephew went nuts when he came over and unwrapped many games and tried them one after another! Also companies like EA for making dick moves on every game they release. When you know hardcore gamers are expecting games to be 19.99 or less, something the industry created themselves, you know that something went wrong. Back in the 80's if you had more than 8 cartridges for your nes you were either a spoiled kid or a rich kid! Games like final fantasy 3 cost 119.99 BEFORE taxes in canada in 1995 and they still sold a lot of copies.Im sure a lot off you here have tons of games you have never played and never will and are still buying them when you see bargain bin prices on cool games.

[needler420]

Once upon a time "Hardcore" gamers where looked at as the players of RPGs and more "Complex" games. Reviews and polls agreed. Now when I hear "Hardcore Gamer" I think of MLG Pros. I think the main problem is there has never been a true definition of a hardcore gamer.



That's because there is no true standard. The premise you're on is a very good one though as to what the standard is. You even said "once upon a time" and " i think"
those are both illusions to what the standard is because to a degree there is.

It reminds me of when people say that stereotying is bad even though stereotypes are based on truth. It's that political incorrectness. You can't go ahead and label the person because you'll be the bad guy but in a sense that stereptype does exist.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Semantics about "hardcore" aside, I've said it before - I think that the default negativity and entitlement that are the standard reactions to practically any and all things announced/reported have become so common and frequent in this extended console generation that modern game hobbyists/enthusiasts are likely the biggest enemy of the industry.

We're never happy, we're never satisfied, on a slow news day we're prone to create controversy over silly shit and regardless of whatever genuine problems that still exist with the industry we're so jaded about all the great things that we have going for us - we've completely lost all perspective of how terrible things have been at points in the past.

Things are never going to be perfect, but things now are pretty fucking good, some people just need to put on their big boy pants and not treat every single thing that occurs in the industry as a reason to publish an anti-industry rant and/or call for a boycott.

[PreZZ]

Once upon a time "Hardcore" gamers where looked at as the players of RPGs and more "Complex" games. Reviews and polls agreed. Now when I hear "Hardcore Gamer" I think of MLG Pros. I think the main problem is there has never been a true definition of a hardcore gamer.
I guess I would call myself an 'old school gamer' then! I still enjoy stuff like etrian odyssey a lot more than all the Halos in the world! I feel like the term 'hardcore gamer' is something I would call 'mainstream gamer' for all the halo and COD kids who are self proclaimed 'hardcore gamers'. I do enjoy them though but everybody is trying to make FPS copycats of these games.

[needler420]

I'm not out to change anyone's opinion. I simply provided my own. I require at least a basic semblance of forum moderation if I'm to participate. And when situations exist like this one, clearly that isn't the case.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/584743-football

I don't agree with you about the moderation. All your point would prove is the site had bad moderation if true.
That itself means nothing regarding the subject of trying to determine a standard for labeling gamers.


Nintendoage allows pirated transactions and illegal transactions of copyrighted material. They have even worse moderation then gamefaqs. Instead of letting a younger audience have more control of their free speech they condone illegal activity.

My point is the moderation of a site is very irelevant to the topic.

[Rob2600]

Semantics about "hardcore" aside, I've said it before - I think that the default negativity and entitlement that are the standard reactions to practically any and all things announced/reported have become so common and frequent in this extended console generation that modern game hobbyists/enthusiasts are likely the biggest enemy of the industry.

We're never happy, we're never satisfied, on a slow news day we're prone to create controversy over silly shit and regardless of whatever genuine problems that still exist with the industry we're so jaded about all the great things that we have going for us - we've completely lost all perspective of how terrible things have been at points in the past.

Things are never going to be perfect, but things now are pretty fucking good, some people just need to put on their big boy pants and not treat every single thing that occurs in the industry as a reason to publish an anti-industry rant and/or call for a boycott.

Yes, thanks for summarizing my thoughts. And I agree, gamers today have more variety, more (and easier) ways to purchase games, lower prices, and far superior technology than ever before.

I'm just using the upcoming Duck Tales game as one example, but the reaction so far has been that it's a polished, well-produced game and most classic gamers love the original NES version. But to some gamers, $15 for a nicely made game is protested as too expensive. WTF?

I wish new games had cost $15 in the 80s! $15 in today's money is hardly anything. I'll gladly give a developer $15 for a game I know I'll enjoy for many hours.

[Bojay1997]

Semantics about "hardcore" aside, I've said it before - I think that the default negativity and entitlement that are the standard reactions to practically any and all things announced/reported have become so common and frequent in this extended console generation that modern game hobbyists/enthusiasts are likely the biggest enemy of the industry.

We're never happy, we're never satisfied, on a slow news day we're prone to create controversy over silly shit and regardless of whatever genuine problems that still exist with the industry we're so jaded about all the great things that we have going for us - we've completely lost all perspective of how terrible things have been at points in the past.

Things are never going to be perfect, but things now are pretty fucking good, some people just need to put on their big boy pants and not treat every single thing that occurs in the industry as a reason to publish an anti-industry rant and/or call for a boycott.

You've made this point in other threads before, but I have yet to see you present any evidence that skepticism or negativity has done any actual damage to the industry or impacted the way decisions are made by developers or publishers in any way. If anything, I think consumers have become too complacent and simply accept the status quo including games that ship not fully working and require massive day one patches, DLC that is often developed along with the game and simply taken out to generate additional revenue and the increasing likelihood that this coming console generation might be the last to allow ownership of physical media. Like I said earlier, the industry is not run by morons. Part of the measure of success today is figuring out what to listen to and what is simply background noise. Any company that is harmed by not understanding the difference between a few discontented gamers and real public anger or outcry likely has deeper problems that go far beyond the damage caused by paying attention to Internet discussion forums.

[Leo_A]

My point is the moderation of a site is very irelevant to the topic.

I never claimed it was. I simply pointed out why I'm not familiar with what the average GameFaqs idiot thinks a hardcore gamer is after you laughed that I must not visit there when I provided my impression of what those that label themselves as such tend to be like.

[needler420]

I never claimed it was. I simply pointed out why I'm not familiar with what the average GameFaqs idiot thinks a hardcore gamer is after you laughed that I must not visit there when I provided my impression of what those that label themselves as such tend to be like.

The point you we're making is the lack of moderation on gamefaqs is associated to how that user base labels as hardcore.

You were trying to come across as if their lack of moderation on gamefaqs is credible to their ideology and how they portray "hardcore" gamers to be.

Which is irrelevant. To a degree I can see how it can play a role but for the most part the lack of moderations means monthing more then that.


Aside from the kids that run the site rabid as I previously said the polls on that site are very accurate and credible imo. Gamefaqs is the biggest place to hang out and talk about video games.

Gamefaqs is diverse with a lot of different demographs of gamers on there. Compared to the demographs of other gaming sites like this. As much as I agree about the lack of moderations done on gamefaqs I do like having leewway with free speech and the diveristy of gamers on there is fresh. To me it's a place with the most different types of gamer so there is the littlest bias.

Compared to this site where a bias would be mainly from a collector or retro gamer perspective.

[kupomogli]

I'm getting Duck Tales at $5 because I'm not a fan of digital content. If they want to sell me on a game, make it a $30 3DS or Vita release and there's the possibility that I'll get it day one or close to the release date.

There are a lot of non collector types that purchase a few $60 games here and there, but those of us who collect games might purchase around 10 or more games in the same time frame for anywhere between $20-60. Regardless that I either want to finish off games in my backlog and wait on certain games to drop in price or whether I buy games I'm really interested on day one, I'm spending a lot more towards this industry than your average gamer is. I might be getting more than the average gamer is since I'm not only buying a few games at full price, but I'm spending much more in comparison.

I also agree with Prezz statement. With all the DLC, lack of content, price drops very shortly after release regardless if the game sells well or not, etc, etc, etc, there's no reason to buy games day one anymore. A Duck Tales remake as digital only for $15, even if I was a fan of digital content just wouldn't be worth it considering that there are games like Torchlight and Torchlight 2 offering a ton of content for only $5 more when they first released. Those games like Duck Tales and the HD rereleases of Final Fantasy 10 and 10-2 are leeching off the success of old games I already own. Why pay full price for a game I've played many times over and still already own? Is the experience going to be that different just because it's got higher quality graphics?

But when it comes to price drops, it's almost guaranteed games are going to drop in price within the first couple months of release. Ni No Kuni was $50 just last month at both Gamestop and Amazon. Dead Space 3 and Crysis 3 haven't been out two months yet you could find them at Gamestop last week for $40. Lords of Shadow Mirror of Fate came out this month, a game I got day one, and it's already able to be found for $30. Unless I'm going to play the games the day I get them, which most likely doesn't happen, why am I going to be purchasing the titles earlier when they're dropping this quick?

Then content, quality, etc, is also a big factor as well. Not only games like Twisted Metal where you literally couldn't guarantee that you'd get online within a reasonable period of time until six months after release, long after the community was dead. Playstation All Stars where patch 1.05 has made online literally unplayable. Call of Duty where you're once again getting the exact same experience as last years version. Street Fighter x Tekken where not only does the game suck, but half the roster was already completed prior to the release of the game, only to be held back and sold as $20 DLC. DmC Devil May Cry where most costumes are DLC, playable Vergil is DLC, etc.

I had no problem paying $50 for most of my games last gen because last gen was full of high quality games that were full of content. Maybe certain projects were a bit too ambitious and the quality did suffer because of that, Shadow of the Colossus as an example, but there are certain times where that aspect is overlooked because of how much is put everywhere else. This gen with most games we're paying for we're really paying $60 for day one DLC, day one patches, a lot more patches, and for a very heavy lack of quality, content, or both. I don't think any of that is worth my money. I'm not getting a complete game. I'm spending money for an unfinished product that several community members bitching at a forum is the only reason the developers get off their asses and fix the problems the games have. If I'm really interested in the game then the developer will get my money. Unless they catch that interest, they're going to wait until the inevitable $20-$40 varying price that I buy the game at when I'm actually interested in playing it or whatever price I see qualifies for that as digital.

With all of that being said. Games I am currently getting day one. Dragon's Crown, The Last of Us, and Grand Theft Auto 5.

*edit*

One final thing just to prove how cheap and greedy these developers are. Back when developers didn't realize people would pay ridiculous prices for an old release, Sega, Capcom, Taito, SNK, Atari etc, all released their arcade collections at budget prices. $20 for each of these games was a steal. Now the same developers are getting away releasing these games at $5 a piece or more.

While not a collection, Capcom released Mega Man 9 at an extremely overpriced rate for a game with NES quality graphics and absolute shit level design. Shortly after they released additional modes like time trials, Protoman as an additional character, etc, extra. Stuff that usually comes free with a game we instead have to pay out the ass. That's what happened to this industry and why you'll find many gamers far cheaper. When paying $50 back then, we actually got our money's worth with most games, so when we're getting less of a game this gen, we're only paying what we feel is our money's worth.

[Leo_A]

The point you we're making is the lack of moderation on gamefaqs is associated to how that user base labels as hardcore.

The point I was making was that in general I could care less what the GameFaqs forum populace thinks about anything.

I stand by my impression of what the average gamer that labels themselves as "hardcore" plays even though I'm quite sure I don't have all of GameFaqs behind my opinion.

[Ed Oscuro]

Are cheap shots by community members against other community members ruining the civil discourse of retro gaming? REAL TALK

I'm including the very thread as a cheap shot by the way. People these days have many more choices than they used to; you don't need to pay $60 to have a good experience with a game. Simple supply and demand.

[SOL BADGUY]

The thing thats ruining the gaming industry is the internet. People going after each other in flame wars, and then others see it and think all video game players have "problems", I blame COD for making this a big thing.

Maybe we should all just learn to get along?

[Gameguy]

Are Hardcore gamers ruining the industry? No. The industry is ruining the industry. DLC, micro transactions, season pass, online pass, no manuals, dirt cheap prices 3 months after release (*cough*ubisoft*cough*), releasing the same game on 2 or 3 different skus with added content (street fighter 4, borderlands come to mind).
I basically agree with you, I blame the industry more than the customers. Not just with all the points you mentioned, but I feel they're targeting the wrong audience. They should be targeting younger players instead of older ones, kids get expensive stuff bought for them all the time but adults tend to spend less on themselves. How many parents buy video games as gifts for their kids? Usually they'll be buying them new as giving used items as gifts usually comes across poorly, excluding antiques or out of production items if people are looking for those. For people who now collect NES or SNES games, how many were created specifically aimed at an older audience? Not many that I can think of, yet plenty of adults like playing these games as much as kids do. Targeting games at kids isn't a problem.

Plus people are buying more games than ever before. When people owned a collection of games for a console in the 80's or early 90's, how many games would that be? It would easily be less than 20, finding someone with a larger collection of games from that time period would be rare. Today finding people with less than 20 games is difficult, of course people choose to spend less on games so they're able to buy more of them. The exception are adults who are either rich or just manage their finaces poorly so they keep buying new games at full price all the time.

In the past plenty of games were aimed at adults, but these were mostly available on the PC or other personal computers. It makes sense as PCs were more complex compared to consoles, you could choose your hardware and operating systems, plus change settings for how the hardware ran and you'd be maintaining it more often compared to consoles. Adults would have computers for various purposes anyway so it made sense to target them, they'd have the platform to play the games already. Just about every person has a PC now so going back to PC games would make more sense. The problem is that people are good with computers, why buy an expensive game if you can get it for free for just a little extra work? Having extremely large hard drives and fast internet connections haven't helped, all that did was kill off the retail industry. Making PCs compatible with DVDs and BluRays makes little sense to me, why buy movies at a store when you can watch them in the same quality for free? It doesn't even take a lot of work to copy them so there's little deterent to lazy people from uploading movies. It's great for consumers but bad for the studios selling movies. The same thing happened with music as everything is digital now and easy to distribute.

By now I'd rather be playing older games to newer ones and I can find old games for under $5, I wouldn't spend $60 on a new game. Not unless it's something really special and comes in a nice physical version, and without any type of online activation. Something that would come across as a future collectible, even if I won't plan to sell it. I don't like buying things for entertainment when I know it will be next to worthless later on.

[LimitedEditionMuseum]

If a company does nothing to convince me that their game is worth buying at full price, they deserve to "suffer" by me waiting to buy until its cheaper. I don't care how good the company is. I'm not going to buy a game at full price for their health. I'll buy it if they've convinced me it's worth the asking price.
How are they suppose to "convince" you?!, you either want it or not.

[Bojay1997]

How are they suppose to "convince" you?!, you either want it or not.

You're kidding, right? What do you think marketing and advertising are for? Why do you think demos are released? Why do you think publishers make games available for reviews and do everything they can to get good reviews? It's all in an effort to convince consumers that a game is great and that it's worth buying at launch for full price. Consumers don't automatically know what to buy and yes, most of us have to be convinced to buy something, full price or not.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

You've made this point in other threads before, but I have yet to see you present any evidence that skepticism or negativity has done any actual damage to the industry or impacted the way decisions are made by developers or publishers in any way. If anything, I think consumers have become too complacent and simply accept the status quo including games that ship not fully working and require massive day one patches, DLC that is often developed along with the game and simply taken out to generate additional revenue and the increasing likelihood that this coming console generation might be the last to allow ownership of physical media. Like I said earlier, the industry is not run by morons. Part of the measure of success today is figuring out what to listen to and what is simply background noise. Any company that is harmed by not understanding the difference between a few discontented gamers and real public anger or outcry likely has deeper problems that go far beyond the damage caused by paying attention to Internet discussion forums.

You know that people who don't share my opinion wouldn't accept any evidence that I'd be able or willing to present, so that's not even a road worth going down.

People who see the industry in 2013 as some type of evil empire out to get us/that we need to constantly rebel against - there's no way I'm going to sway them with "evidence".

Also, I'm not talking about legitimate reasons to be angry.

There are absolutely legitimate reasons to be angry.

I strongly believe in consumer advocacy, but so much of what other people see as anti-consumer I just see as "business".

Sorry if I'm not outraged by so much that makes our community pound their fists on their keyboards and grunt at their monitors.

A game that ships in a legitimately broken state where the end-user is unable to play it is an absolute reason for public outcry. Thankfully in this modern era - we're fortunate to have patching on all platforms. Even a 3DS game can be patched.

Demanding that "physical media" always be available for all software on all platforms so that those of us inclined to collect, horde, buy/sell used or flip-for-profit can continue to be satiated, violent outrage over the ending of a game, a company deciding to not continue to support a "beloved" franchise on a regular/annualized basis because recent entries have not proved to generate a tremendous amount of income vs. cost to develop, or resistance to DLC/micro-transactions .... to me, calling for a rally against companies with an intent to punitively hurt their business for the reasons mentioned (or any other silly thing) is fucking ridiculous, entitled bullshit.

Often times I find myself to be embarrassed to be lumped in with so called gaming enthusiasts who can't open their mouths without spewing something caustic and disparaging about the industry that we all supposedly love.

Again, it's imperfect. It always has been and it always will be, but I'll take the good with the bad ... because, frankly it's been MUCH worse than it is now.

I'm not saying people should lie down and get bulldozed by bad business practices, but I also don't really see a LOT of bad business practices where others seem to in their minds see cartoon villains in charge of game companies cackling over how they're going to make us suffer.

In fact, I've seen no great injustices done to us in this generation. I think that the disruptions that have occurred are going to shake out with positive results. If that means no more physical games, no boxes, no manuals and no used games - so fucking be it. As long as I get to continue to play great games in the future, that's the only experience I want.

[Bojay1997]

You know that people who don't share my opinion wouldn't accept any evidence that I'd be able or willing to present, so that's not even a road worth going down.

People who see the industry in 2013 as some type of evil empire out to get us/that we need to constantly rebel against - there's no way I'm going to sway them with "evidence".

Also, I'm not talking about legitimate reasons to be angry.

There are absolutely legitimate reasons to be angry.

I strongly believe in consumer advocacy, but so much of what other people see as anti-consumer I just see as "business".

Sorry if I'm not outraged by so much that makes our community pound their fists on their keyboards and grunt at their monitors.

A game that ships in a legitimately broken state where the end-user is unable to play it is an absolute reason for public outcry. Thankfully in this modern era - we're fortunate to have patching on all platforms. Even a 3DS game can be patched.

Demanding that "physical media" always be available for all software on all platforms so that those of us inclined to collect, horde, buy/sell used or flip-for-profit can continue to be satiated, violent outrage over the ending of a game, a company deciding to not continue to support a "beloved" franchise on a regular/annualized basis because recent entries have not proved to generate a tremendous amount of income vs. cost to develop, or resistance to DLC/micro-transactions .... to me, calling for a rally against companies with an intent to punitively hurt their business for the reasons mentioned (or any other silly thing) is fucking ridiculous, entitled bullshit.

Often times I find myself to be embarrassed to be lumped in with so called gaming enthusiasts who can't open their mouths without spewing something caustic and disparaging about the industry that we all supposedly love.

Again, it's imperfect. It always has been and it always will be, but I'll take the good with the bad ... because, frankly it's been MUCH worse than it is now.

I'm not saying people should lie down and get bulldozed by bad business practices, but I also don't really see a LOT of bad business practices where others seem to in their minds see cartoon villains in charge of game companies cackling over how they're going to make us suffer.

In fact, I've seen no great injustices done to us in this generation. I think that the disruptions that have occurred are going to shake out with positive results. If that means no more physical games, no boxes, no manuals and no used games - so fucking be it. As long as I get to continue to play great games in the future, that's the only experience I want.

Wow, I feel like someone just channeled Troy McClure and he would be happy to explain to me why we need a monorail, but won't because only the two of us would understand. I'm sorry, but that's a total cop-out and a strong indication that this is all about you complaining because you don't agree with the opinions being expressed by others rather than a genuine concern for how those opinions might impact the industry in a negative way. How about just providing a few examples of specific boycotts or reactions that have hurt a company financially or in a way that makes it difficult or impossible for them to continue to produce games? I submit that you have no such examples because they just don't exist.

Railing against the fundamental way that social media and forums allow consumers and gamers to express opinions is like complaining about e-mail killing written correspondence. You can complain about it forever, but it doesn't change the fact that the world has moved on and any company that doesn't know how to effectively deal with the modern means of communication is going to fail.

Just because someone is a gamer or a collector doesn't mean they have to love the industry or the way that companies within that industry operate. Ultimately, many publishers are part of large corporations and their only goal is to maximize profit. They only consider gamer feedback to the extent it will further that goal. They also employ large legal and marketing departments to help them decide what feedback is important and how to guide that feedback through media and marketing efforts. As such, I don't think they need someone like yourself or anyone for that matter standing up to defend them against people posting on the web.

Ultimately, I don't think anything you listed as "ridiculous, entitled bullshit" has one iota of impact on the industry. Companies can choose to care about it or not, but they ultimately are in a much better position than yourself or myself to know what they need to pay attention to and what they don't.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Wow, I feel like someone just channeled Troy McClure and he would be happy to explain to me why we need a monorail, but won't because only the two of us would understand. I'm sorry, but that's a total cop-out and a strong indication that this is all about you complaining because you don't agree with the opinions being expressed by others rather than a genuine concern for how those opinions might impact the industry in a negative way. How about just providing a few examples of specific boycotts or reactions that have hurt a company financially or in a way that makes it difficult or impossible for them to continue to produce games? I submit that you have no such examples because they just don't exist.

Railing against the fundamental way that social media and forums allow consumers and gamers to express opinions is like complaining about e-mail killing written correspondence. You can complain about it forever, but it doesn't change the fact that the world has moved on and any company that doesn't know how to effectively deal with the modern means of communication is going to fail.

Just because someone is a gamer or a collector doesn't mean they have to love the industry or the way that companies within that industry operate. Ultimately, many publishers are part of large corporations and their only goal is to maximize profit. They only consider gamer feedback to the extent it will further that goal. They also employ large legal and marketing departments to help them decide what feedback is important and how to guide that feedback through media and marketing efforts. As such, I don't think they need someone like yourself or anyone for that matter standing up to defend them against people posting on the web.

Ultimately, I don't think anything you listed as "ridiculous, entitled bullshit" has one iota of impact on the industry. Companies can choose to care about it or not, but they ultimately are in a much better position than yourself or myself to know what they need to pay attention to and what they don't.

Not interested in debating with you or anybody.

Feel free to pick apart my position any way you like. Label me a conspiracy theorist, a liar, a snake-oil salesman or whatever comes across best.

I won't fight it, because, again, it's not going to serve to color the opinion of anybody who believes that the interests of the whole of the games industry are nefarious. I'm not convincing anybody of anything and frankly, I don't want to even try.

No matter what I say or what examples I could provide, it doesn't change the fact that every single day, here and elsewhere, I struggle to find optimistic or positive positions about the industry. Everything is aggressive, everything is abrasive, everything is "this company sucks" and "this game sucks" over what I consider to be petty minutia. I find so little expression of joy from the core of our community that I have to question what the industry could possibly do to satisfy us in the long-term.

I'll leave you and everybody with this simply stated position which I think best sums up my feelings.

If you believe that the collective voice of the gaming public both on the internet and through word-of-mouth has had the power to influence consumers en masse to buy a game that they otherwise might not have, then you should also believe that they have the power on both the internet and through word-of-mouth to influence consumers en masse to NOT buy a game.

If you believe that 100% of the casualties of game studios in this generation are due entirely to poor business decisions by the companies themselves and have never, at all been the victim of controversy generated by the "voice of the gaming public" that boils down to over-reacting, then I don't know what to tell you.

I believe we are a sweepingly powerful force that influence each other organically by sharing opinions more strongly than any marketing that any company could possibly create. I truly believe that the propaganda of our negativity is stronger than you're giving it credit for.

But, you don't have to agree with any of that and I'm totally fine with it.

I know I'm in the minority in my thinking, the massive amount of industry hate that I see on a daily basis confirms that.

[The 1 2 P]

The thing thats ruining the gaming industry is the internet. People going after each other in flame wars, and then others see it and think all video game players have "problems", I blame COD for making this a big thing.

There were flame wars long before Call of Duty was ever released and fanboys have been fighting each other over their favorite systems before the internet even existed.

[Ed Oscuro]

I'm sure there were huge flamewars over Tennis for Two versus Spacewar, but don't forget the Internet existed since 1969... :D

p.s. Bojay, Frankie gave you a whole bunch of reasons there and you chose to just ignore them. Super awesome debating tacticalness!

[Bojay1997]

I'm sure there were huge flamewars over Tennis for Two versus Spacewar, but don't forget the Internet existed since 1969... :D

p.s. Bojay, Frankie gave you a whole bunch of reasons there and you chose to just ignore them. Super awesome debating tacticalness!

Incorrect. He simply provided a laundry list of complaints he has seen people make around the Internet in regard to the game industry. My challenge to him was to offer even one solid example of a company that has been negatively impacted financially or unable to continue producing games as a result of people posting negative things on the Internet. He wasn't able to provide even one. My conclusion is that's because his premise is fundamentally flawed. I also believe, on the contrary, that there is plenty of positive stuff written about games and the industry but that he is simply focused on the negative because it sticks out more prominently because it's the exception and not the rule.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Incorrect. He simply provided a laundry list of complaints he has seen people make around the Internet in regard to the game industry. My challenge to him was to offer even one solid example of a company that has been negatively impacted financially or unable to continue producing games as a result of people posting negative things on the Internet. He wasn't able to provide even one. My conclusion is that's because his premise is fundamentally flawed. I also believe, on the contrary, that there is plenty of positive stuff written about games and the industry but that he is simply focused on the negative because it sticks out more prominently because it's the exception and not the rule.

There's a difference between not being able to produce an example and not being interested in a point/counterpoint debate.

I could produce a list examples of software that has been negatively impacted by what I perceive to be negative press/negative popular opinion of what amounts to minutia but it's going to come down to - I think it's the negativity of the gaming public and gaming press and you think it's the companies making bad decisions that are anti consumer.

So, clearly, the "challenge" isn't worth what is inevitably going to be a stalemate of opinions at best.

I think that the industry treats us pretty good and that people generally over-react. You think inversely. Let's agree to disagree and move on.

[JSoup]

The thing thats ruining the gaming industry is the internet. People going after each other in flame wars, and then others see it and think all video game players have "problems", I blame COD for making this a big thing.

Maybe we should all just learn to get along?

Pretty much this. It's gone from the occasional heated nerd fight to out-right hostility across the internet, with a dash of brainless masses mixed in. It's made me realize that I really dislike referring to myself as a gamer, I'm simply a guy who plays video games now and then.

[LaughingMAN.S9]

You know that people who don't share my opinion wouldn't accept any evidence that I'd be able or willing to present, so that's not even a road worth going down.

People who see the industry in 2013 as some type of evil empire out to get us/that we need to constantly rebel against - there's no way I'm going to sway them with "evidence".

Also, I'm not talking about legitimate reasons to be angry.

There are absolutely legitimate reasons to be angry.

I strongly believe in consumer advocacy, but so much of what other people see as anti-consumer I just see as "business".

Sorry if I'm not outraged by so much that makes our community pound their fists on their keyboards and grunt at their monitors.

A game that ships in a legitimately broken state where the end-user is unable to play it is an absolute reason for public outcry. Thankfully in this modern era - we're fortunate to have patching on all platforms. Even a 3DS game can be patched.

Demanding that "physical media" always be available for all software on all platforms so that those of us inclined to collect, horde, buy/sell used or flip-for-profit can continue to be satiated, violent outrage over the ending of a game, a company deciding to not continue to support a "beloved" franchise on a regular/annualized basis because recent entries have not proved to generate a tremendous amount of income vs. cost to develop, or resistance to DLC/micro-transactions .... to me, calling for a rally against companies with an intent to punitively hurt their business for the reasons mentioned (or any other silly thing) is fucking ridiculous, entitled bullshit.

Often times I find myself to be embarrassed to be lumped in with so called gaming enthusiasts who can't open their mouths without spewing something caustic and disparaging about the industry that we all supposedly love.

Again, it's imperfect. It always has been and it always will be, but I'll take the good with the bad ... because, frankly it's been MUCH worse than it is now.

I'm not saying people should lie down and get bulldozed by bad business practices, but I also don't really see a LOT of bad business practices where others seem to in their minds see cartoon villains in charge of game companies cackling over how they're going to make us suffer.

In fact, I've seen no great injustices done to us in this generation. I think that the disruptions that have occurred are going to shake out with positive results. If that means no more physical games, no boxes, no manuals and no used games - so fucking be it. As long as I get to continue to play great games in the future, that's the only experience I want.


I don't generally agree to pretty much anything you say (lol) but in this case, this....a thousand times this!


You nailed it. I feel the same way, a lot of what this generation of gamers have been crying about, online passes and season passes in particular i see mostly as bitching from spoiled entitled children who didnt support the game new in the first place


Dlc that was originally in the game and was taken out like mass effect 3 protean dlc is bullshit tho

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I don't generally agree to pretty much anything you say (lol) but in this case, this....a thousand times this!


You nailed it. I feel the same way, a lot of what this generation of gamers have been crying about, online passes and season passes in particular i see mostly as bitching from spoiled entitled children who didnt support the game new in the first place


Dlc that was originally in the game and was taken out like mass effect 3 protean dlc is bullshit tho

Thanks.

Also, for the record, I'm not out to try to convince anybody that my position is the "right" one.

It's only my opinion and food for thought.

If you happen to agree with it, great, if not, you're certainly entitled to your own and I'm not going to try to pick it apart and shout it down.

[PreZZ]

I wonder what retro gaming will look like in 15 years. No patches available for your 360 or ps3, good luck playing broken games, its gonna suck!

[Tupin]

I wonder what retro gaming will look like in 15 years. No patches available for your 360 or ps3, good luck playing broken games, its gonna suck!
Piracy will ensure that games are playable decades down the line.

[JSoup]

No patches available for your 360 or ps3, good luck playing broken games, its gonna suck!

You'd think that since so many current games have/require patches, Sony/Microsoft would think far enough ahead to make sure a patch server is always up. But I'm sure that's not what's going to happen.

[FayeC86]

You'd think that since so many current games have/require patches, Sony/Microsoft would think far enough ahead to make sure a patch server is always up. But I'm sure that's not what's going to happen.

There is no money to be made in that. The issue with most modern games is they are hard coded to reach out to networks that probably wont be there some day.

[Opti]

quit crying. As price goes up demand goes down. The game companies know this and when they price at 60 its not aimed at the people who wont pay that, they are trying to take advantage of the people that will pay the 60 dollars. Almost every industry does this. Look at cars. New model comes out and many times it sells for over sticker (think of every anticipated new model recently (ZR1, Camaro, ZL1, Mustang, FR-s, BRZ) and by the end of their life cycle they have rebates or are discounted, unless they are still selling like crazy, then the price stays high (games do the same thing, thats why blockbusters take so long to come down in price).

Tons of industries operate like this, thrifty/frugal/financially responsible/smart/hardcore/casual people are not killing the industry, at most the can change it a little, if there is a change in what people want, then firms have to change also, which can easily be seen by looking at the past trends in what type of game was popular at the time and the amount of said genre prduced and how it has changed over time (FPS today). The only time the industry will die is when there is no demand. Otherwise someone will see a profit opportunity and make games for us.

If as an audience we decide we want cheaper they will make cheaper, but they are selling plenty of the good stuff at the high cost so I dont expect it to change any time soon.

If a producer/developer/whatever complains about their audience is causing them to go out of business, I just chuckle and hope they do go out of business, their job is to earn my money, they arent entitled to it. Whoever best serves us will prosper and whoever cant will go out of business.

Capcom for example, They were once my favorite game company, right now I'm halfway hoping they go under, they have been so dissapointing lately, with so many good dormant franhcises and others that have become a tiny shadow of their former selves. If they go out of business, someone will pick up the Breath of Fire franchise and hopefully finally make a good game for it. Hell, it was rated as the franchise most needing installment or something like that, and they dont care.

You should all want some turnover in the industry, it brings innovation. Without it the industry would stagnate and we'd still be playing NES games.

Tell me im wrong

[PreZZ]

You'd think that since so many current games have/require patches, Sony/Microsoft would think far enough ahead to make sure a patch server is always up. But I'm sure that's not what's going to happen.

Definitely wont happen! So what we will need is someone dumping patches for EVERY game and find a way to update through usb key or something. At least my good old consoles are just plug n play, this will be a pain in the ass for sure.

[Orion Pimpdaddy]

The terms "hardcore" and "casual" for gamers is subjective as can be, and therefore the whole argument about which camp is ruining or saving gaming is completely insane.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Lothars]

Capcom for example, They were once my favorite game company, right now I'm halfway hoping they go under, they have been so dissapointing lately, with so many good dormant franhcises and others that have become a tiny shadow of their former selves. If they go out of business, someone will pick up the Breath of Fire franchise and hopefully finally make a good game for it. Hell, it was rated as the franchise most needing installment or something like that, and they dont care.

You should all want some turnover in the industry, it brings innovation. Without it the industry would stagnate and we'd still be playing NES games.

Tell me im wrongYour wrong, Capcom is guilty of some shitty things they have done but they have done just as much good as they have ever done plus they are still releasing amazing games all the time, Now hoping they go under makes you exactly what Rob was referring to.

I don't understand that though process and actually I think it's pretty insane.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Your wrong, Capcom is guilty of some shitty things they have done but they have done just as much good as they have ever done plus they are still releasing amazing games all the time, Now hoping they go under makes you exactly what Rob was referring to.

I don't understand that though process and actually I think it's pretty insane.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

The veritable blood-lust to watch companies burn baffles and saddens me.

I mean, for anybody who calls Capcom (or any other developer/producer/publisher) one of their favorites, but now wants to see them "go under" instead of rallying or hoping for them to instead LISTEN to their fans and correct or stop repeating mistakes/failings is just downright senseless negativity.

Yet, in 2013, thanks to this sentiment being published and parroted over and over it has become the default for a lot of gamers - "Game X sucks, I hope Company X goes out of business."

It's just sad.

[Tupin]

Companies that mess up too much and that alienate fans deserve to go out of business. I don't see how that's bad for the consumer.

[SOL BADGUY]

Ill bring up another type of industry that I see some parallels with video gaming in a lot of ways: pro wrestling.

Theres not a "hardcore" vs "casual" dynamic in the fandom , because pro wrestling fans wither they only watch Raw or have seen every 5 star rated match there is, lusts for the day that their friends and girls on the street will accept wrestling as a normal pass time. Fans on message boards talk about why this thing in wrestling sucks or why things were better back in the day too. Almost everyone you ran into on a pro wrestling message board wanted TNA to go out of business because they only did harm to the industry. Theres some fans who only think guys in WWE could be worth their time to care about and stuff in Japan wasnt for them. But as I said, it doesnt matter what level of pro wrestling fan you are, everyone just wants everyone to like wrestling and no one would go after others because they hadnt watched as many matches this week as they had. Theres no internal division made.

So just stop it, realize that you guys like the same medium of entertainment. If someone who plays a ton of FB games tells you youre wasting your time playing video games, just say you spend as much time playing the games as they do on FB so it doesnt matter what games people play, were all gamers.

Heres something to end this with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn44bfdaHtc

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Companies that mess up too much and that alienate fans deserve to go out of business. I don't see how that's bad for the consumer.

"mess up too much" is far too often a myopic viewpoint.

Companies like Capcom, EA and Activision have many contracted designers and studios working for them.

To "wish" for the complete and total collapse of a publisher based on what is potentially isolated/unique failings is pretty unfair if you ask me.

As far as "alienated" fans go ... while in some cases publishers may suffer for not listening to their core demographic, I'm sure there are a lot of things that they absolutely have statistics on projected profit vs. time, money and effort to be expended and they see that whatever it is that the "fans" are crying for just is. not. worth. it.

In those cases, patience pays off. Just because Capcom isn't making a Mega Man game this year doesn't mean that they're NEVER going to make one again. If you wind up rallying the fans to destroy the company through consumer boycott, well, that's a fair chance that you'll REALLY never see a property get picked up and utilized again.

[bb_hood]

Capcom for example, They were once my favorite game company, right now I'm halfway hoping they go under, they have been so dissapointing lately, with so many good dormant franhcises and others that have become a tiny shadow of their former selves. If they go out of business, someone will pick up the Breath of Fire franchise and hopefully finally make a good game for it. Hell, it was rated as the franchise most needing installment or something like that, and they dont care.

You should all want some turnover in the industry, it brings innovation. Without it the industry would stagnate and we'd still be playing NES games.

Tell me im wrong

You are wrong, Capcom is releasing stuff on the PSN (and probably xbox wiiu) all the time. Really good stuff too, I tend to buy everything they release on the PSN.
Plus Capcom's fighting games, MvC3 and Street FIghter are still really popular. There are always people playing them online. The current popular Capcom games do not need a new installment yet, alot of people are still playing them. They do need to bring back the Breath of Fire franchise and Im sure they will. They brought back Bionic Commando, twice.

[PreZZ]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

The veritable blood-lust to watch companies burn baffles and saddens me.

I mean, for anybody who calls Capcom (or any other developer/producer/publisher) one of their favorites, but now wants to see them "go under" instead of rallying or hoping for them to instead LISTEN to their fans and correct or stop repeating mistakes/failings is just downright senseless negativity.

Yet, in 2013, thanks to this sentiment being published and parroted over and over it has become the default for a lot of gamers - "Game X sucks, I hope Company X goes out of business."

It's just sad.
Not if its EA!!

[Tanooki]

Sure it's not good to wish death to a developer and it is part of the problem that's confusing some here loving but wanting stuff to die or be gobbled up, but I think in the case of Capcom, EA and Activision if you look long term over say 10+ years of history you'll see this repeated pattern that happens. Those three companies kind of fall into a history teachers favorite saying on 'why bother' to the kids who think it's junk -- if you don't learn from history you're doomed to repeat the failures of the past. Fans don't seem to learn that lesson at all. The three tend to do some atrocious things to their games and in turn the fans who buy the stuff, they'll lie about things, manipulate people into buying stuff in hopes of getting more, dangling carrots that really aren't on the stick, and when they push it too far and enough bitching arises they'll do something 'nice' as fan service and it's like every pissed off person gets amnesia and the company gets another free pass. Those big three do take that history lesson to heart as they know they can royally screw the consumer, fake an apology, do some little fan service thing or project, then go back to twisting the knife. Keep in mind I'm not talking isolated behaviors but long term accumulated stuff that shows a history. Wishing some developer would fail over one or two bad choices is pretty foolish.

If all three of them dropped dead and their franchises got auctioned off like what happened to THQ so more competent and non-deaf developers and publishers can get some of these IPs to make great games I don't think it's such a bad thing to wish some of these 'favorites' would just drop dead. Stagnation and knife twisting behaviors are doing no one into the industry who buy good games any favors either.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Sure it's not good to wish death to a developer and it is part of the problem that's confusing some here loving but wanting stuff to die or be gobbled up, but I think in the case of Capcom, EA and Activision if you look long term over say 10+ years of history you'll see this repeated pattern that happens. Those three companies kind of fall into a history teachers favorite saying on 'why bother' to the kids who think it's junk -- if you don't learn from history you're doomed to repeat the failures of the past. Fans don't seem to learn that lesson at all. The three tend to do some atrocious things to their games and in turn the fans who buy the stuff, they'll lie about things, manipulate people into buying stuff in hopes of getting more, dangling carrots that really aren't on the stick, and when they push it too far and enough bitching arises they'll do something 'nice' as fan service and it's like every pissed off person gets amnesia and the company gets another free pass. Those big three do take that history lesson to heart as they know they can royally screw the consumer, fake an apology, do some little fan service thing or project, then go back to twisting the knife. Keep in mind I'm not talking isolated behaviors but long term accumulated stuff that shows a history. Wishing some developer would fail over one or two bad choices is pretty foolish.

If all three of them dropped dead and their franchises got auctioned off like what happened to THQ so more competent and non-deaf developers and publishers can get some of these IPs to make great games I don't think it's such a bad thing to wish some of these 'favorites' would just drop dead. Stagnation and knife twisting behaviors are doing no one into the industry who buy good games any favors either.

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.

[Bojay1997]

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.

I disagree strongly. I think neither your argument nor Tanooki's argument carry any weight. The entire premise of this thread is that "hardcore" gamers are "ruining" the industry. I have yet to see a single example of a fact supporting that contention. Just as I think it's foolish and laughable to call for the failure of a company, I think it's equally foolish and laughable to think the very fact that such a call has been made will have any impact or do any damage. People and gamers and companies are all much smarter and savvy than you are willing to give them credit for. It's just sad that you are so obsessed with restraining communication on the Internet that you can't recognize that intelligence.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I disagree strongly. I think neither your argument nor Tanooki's argument carry any weight. The entire premise of this thread is that "hardcore" gamers are "ruining" the industry. I have yet to see a single example of a fact supporting that contention. Just as I think it's foolish and laughable to call for the failure of a company, I think it's equally foolish and laughable to think the very fact that such a call has been made will have any impact or do any damage. People and gamers and companies are all much smarter and savvy than you are willing to give them credit for. It's just sad that you are so obsessed with restraining communication on the Internet that you can't recognize that intelligence.

So then, why no call for examples on his list?

[Bojay1997]

So then, why no call for examples on his list?

Because I can't even understand what it is he is arguing between the run on sentences, sentence fragments and bad punctuation. As a result, I dismissed his entire post as totally irrelevant to this thread or this discussion.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Because I can't even understand what it is he is arguing between the run on sentences, sentence fragments and bad punctuation. As a result, I dismissed his entire post as totally irrelevant to this thread or this discussion.

Really?

Even with the run-on sentences I can understand his position, and the core of it reflects what I'm trying to get across - that a lot of core gamers feel that major companies deserve some type of punishment/retribution for the mistakes/sins/what-have-you that they've levied on us over the past several console generations.

That instead of diagnosing the symptoms of the problem and fixing the cause, clear-cutting the forest and burning the stumps will be a more effective way for gamers to get what they want (in this case through the dissolving of rights/ownership of IP's apparently, but honestly most times I think it's just to watch them burn and feel some sense of hate-filled personal vengeance satisfied.)

I know you don't think it's a good idea to call for a boycott and I know that you don't think that it will do any legitimate damage, but are we at least somewhere in the same universe in acknowledging that this kind of sentiment has grown amongst "core" gamers over the past 10 years?

I mean, as a point of fact in this thread alone several people in this very community have thrown in those exact two cents.

[Nature Boy]

"Hardcore" gamers demand more and more, nitpick everything to death, and wait until games hit the $5 bargain bin before buying them. I've realized many "hardcore" gamers today are very cheap people with entitlement issues. Is this good for the industry?

Does what you describe have to be 'good' or 'bad' - isn't it really just you complaining about behaviour you don't agree with/find annoying in some way?

No industry is perfect, but I don't see this one going anywhere anytime soon, so I'd disagree that anything like what you're proposing is 'bad' for it by any means.

[Bojay1997]

Really?

Even with the run-on sentences I can understand his position, and the core of it reflects what I'm trying to get across - that a lot of core gamers feel that major companies deserve some type of punishment/retribution for the mistakes/sins/what-have-you that they've levied on us over the past several console generations.

That instead of diagnosing the symptoms of the problem and fixing the cause, clear-cutting the forest and burning the stumps will be a more effective way for gamers to get what they want (in this case through the dissolving of rights/ownership of IP's apparently, but honestly most times I think it's just to watch them burn and feel some sense of hate-filled personal vengeance satisfied.)

I know you don't think it's a good idea to call for a boycott and I know that you don't think that it will do any legitimate damage, but are we at least somewhere in the same universe in acknowledging that this kind of sentiment has grown amongst "core" gamers over the past 10 years?

I mean, as a point of fact in this thread alone several people in this very community have thrown in those exact two cents.

I think people post all sorts of things I disagree with all over the Internet everyday. I have never disputed that people have made the very posts you have complained about in this thread and will continue to post those and similar things until the day the Internet is shut down and replaced with some other form of mass communication. The argument made by the OP in this thread is about whether or not "hardcore" gamers are ruining the industry and by extension, although primarily through your contributions to the thread, whether the negative things some of them post are harming or damaging to the industry. I have taken the position that they are not ruining the industry because there is no evidence that the industry pays attention to them or that a single company or game has been harmed simply because someone posted on a forum or news site somewhere that a company should be boycotted or destroyed.

Since you seem unable to present any evidence to support your point, let me present some to support mine. I have seen many, many calls to boycott Capcom over the past five years from people complaining about the company releasing too many sequels and minor updates to its fighting games, as well as doing things such as having the DLC already on disc and charging for it. Despite that fact, Capcom had it's best year ever financially in FY 2011. Their numbers were off slightly in FY 2012, but they are again on track for a record FY 2013. Wouldn't you agree that if all this puffery had any impact that their sales and profits would have fallen each year rather than going up and down?

EA itself has followed a similar revenue pattern to Capcom wherein it had positive net revenue in Q4 FY2012 and Q1 FY2013, but losses prior to that and after that period. Don't you think sales and revenue would have continued to fall over time if the negative things being posted by some people on the Internet had any impact?

Ultimately, your position is just one of speculation and opinion which lacks any evidence to back it up. As such, I stand by my position that you are more concerned about wanting to restrain speech you don't agree with rather than acting out of concern for any actual damage said speech could be causing.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Ultimately, your position is just one of speculation and opinion.

I think that I've done a great deal of qualifying that everything I say is absolutely speculative.

I have no illusions that I'm going to win any debates around these parts or elsewhere if I had sales numbers, profit numbers, a powerpoint slide presentation and a detailed report from Michael Pachter. And like I said, frankly, I'm just not interested in doing the legwork where it can all be picked apart.

I am however compelled to respond to the senseless negativity that I see when people increasingly call for the blood of the big publishers with my own editorial, opinion-based sentiments.

I mean, look, I could come back at your Capcom's total profits UP in 2013 with Capcom's total units sold DOWN in 2013 and then you could come back with the age of the console cycle and statistical trends of consumers leveling off and then I would argue that the market has never technically had a cycle this long so we have to adjust for time, etc. so on and so forth ... I've done debate club and I've been BBS'ing since 1988. I've been there, done that, and really none of that is particularly AS enjoyable as tossing out the germ of an idea and watching it make people think (either about what other people are saying or what THEY just said).

That's it.

Sometimes a person just wants to throw an opinion out there and see what it does.

Facts and figures are great and we could probably do 10 pages on this thread, but you're right I'm really into restricting myself these days, mostly for the sake of my own sanity. Debating on the internet ... *shudder*, nothankyou.jpg.

[Gameguy]

That instead of diagnosing the symptoms of the problem and fixing the cause, clear-cutting the forest and burning the stumps will be a more effective way for gamers to get what they want (in this case through the dissolving of rights/ownership of IP's apparently, but honestly most times I think it's just to watch them burn and feel some sense of hate-filled personal vengeance satisfied.)
I would make a different comparison. It's more like formatting a hard drive and reinstalling an OS rather than spending weeks trying to patch files and registry entries on a corrupted virus damaged system that stopped running smoothly ages ago.

I get the idea behind that mindset, ending large monopolies so new companies with new ideas can take hold of a stagnated industry. I'm not sure if I really agree with that fully, though I'm not really interested in current console releases either so I wouldn't mind a new direction. I'm starting to get more interested in a few portable titles for current handhelds, maybe I might get one at some point. A few of those titles are coming from Capcom so I'll be seeing how those turn out.

[Opti]

I get the idea behind that mindset, ending large monopolies so new companies with new ideas can take hold of a stagnated industry. I'm not sure if I really agree with that fully, though I'm not really interested in current console releases either so I wouldn't mind a new direction. I'm starting to get more interested in a few portable titles for current handhelds, maybe I might get one at some point. A few of those titles are coming from Capcom so I'll be seeing how those turn out.

This was exactly what Im referring to, a stagnant industry and monopolies who believe they are entitled to be in business. These companies forget about their audience and then when people dont buy their games, they talk about how its the used game industry/piracy causing their problems, actually what they need to understand if you make a good game that people will want they will sell it. Its not our fault that their game isnt very good and we dont want to pay 60 dollars for it.

People need to understand turnover in an industry is good, it fights stagnation.

I dont hate all the big companies some of them like activision give people want they want even if it is the same call of duty game over and over again. haha

But since my SNES days they only thing I have seen consistently good from capcom is their fighters, and its frustrating because they have good IPs and people but dont do anything with them.

Note: I am a cheap bastard, but If a good BOF game comes out I will gladly buy a new system and the game at full price (As I did with the PSP when the BOF 3 port was done). People will pay, you just have to give them what they want.

Oh and something that may clear stuff up for people. I , as we all are, am motivated by self interest and since I have no stock in capcom, the reason I wouldnt mind capcom going under is because I want a BOF game, and they wont give it to me (pending that isnt what they are going to reveal on the 26th) so I am all for the IP being picked up by someone else. Maybe they can give me what I want. The only difference is some of you believe it is in your best interest for capcom to continue. That is actually the only arguement here, by who we think we will be best served.

[Rob2600]

The argument made by the OP in this thread is about whether or not "hardcore" gamers are ruining the industry and by extension, although primarily through your contributions to the thread, whether the negative things some of them post are harming or damaging to the industry. I have taken the position that they are not ruining the industry because there is no evidence that the industry pays attention to them or that a single company or game has been harmed simply because someone posted on a forum or news site somewhere that a company should be boycotted or destroyed.

I should've clarified- by "industry", I meant video gaming as a whole, including the community.

I still think all the negativity, overreacting, and cheapness is bad for the industry itself, and for the gaming community.

And just because something is bad for the industry, that doesn't automatically mean it's bad *financially*. Call of Duty is a hugely popular, successful game, yet I consider it bad for the industry for multiple reasons- none of them financial.


P.S. BioShock Infinite came out a week ago and has received excellent reviews. How many self-proclaimed "hardcore" gamers already bought it vs. waiting for it to hit the bargain bin in six months? The more "hardcore" gamers are cheap and wait for beautifully crafted titles to hit the bargain bin, the more incentive publishers have to release rehashed cookie cutter sequels instead. Cheap "hardcore" gamers are causing the very thing they love to complain about.

[Bojay1997]

I should've clarified- by "industry", I meant video gaming as a whole, including the community.

I still think all the negativity, overreacting, and cheapness is bad for the industry itself, and for the gaming community.

And just because something is bad for the industry, that doesn't automatically mean it's bad *financially*. Call of Duty is a hugely popular, successful game, yet I consider it bad for the industry for multiple reasons- none of them financial.


P.S. BioShock Infinite came out a week ago and has received excellent reviews. How many self-proclaimed "hardcore" gamers already bought it vs. waiting for it to hit the bargain bin in six months? The more "hardcore" gamers are cheap and wait for beautifully crafted titles to hit the bargain bin, the more incentive publishers have to release rehashed cookie cutter sequels instead. Cheap "hardcore" gamers are causing the very thing they love to complain about.

You have an extremely elitist view of what gamers should be doing. There are many, many games that are great that aren't $60. Similarly, just because someone doesn't have $60 or more to spend on a great game day one doesn't mean that they love games any less than you do or that there is something wrong with their behavior. The reality is that some of us are fortunate and make a good living and some of us don't for whatever reason. I don't think I'm better or superior to people who don't have significant disposable income, nor do I blame those people for waiting until games drop in price. The publishers and retailers already have a financial model to capture that income and blaming gamers who want to save a little money is completely unproductive and ridiculous.

[Gameguy]

P.S. BioShock Infinite came out a week ago and has received excellent reviews. How many self-proclaimed "hardcore" gamers already bought it vs. waiting for it to hit the bargain bin in six months? The more "hardcore" gamers are cheap and wait for beautifully crafted titles to hit the bargain bin, the more incentive publishers have to release rehashed cookie cutter sequels instead. Cheap "hardcore" gamers are causing the very thing they love to complain about.
I'll gladly buy all the games you want me to like at full price, just send me the cash first.


You're complaining about Bioshock Infinite sales? That title had the biggest launch of the series, selling more copies during launch week than any of the preceding titles in the franchise.

http://www.digitalspy.ca/gaming/news/a469845/bioshock-infinite-is-all-format-number-one-biggest-launch-of-series.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=dsuk&utm_campaign=twdsuk

[Rob2600]

You're complaining about Bioshock Infinite sales? That title had the biggest launch of the series, selling more copies during launch week than any of the preceding titles in the franchise.

I didn't complain about BioShock Infinite sales. My problem is with gamers who claim to be the lifeblood of the community and industry, yet consistently wait for well-deserving titles to hit the bargain bin before buying them.

These are the people who always declare stuff like, "Nintendo needs to forget about 'casual' gamers and target 'core' gamers like me if they want to be successful" or "If Microsoft focuses on 'casual' gamers instead of 'core' gamers like me, they'll be sorry!" Why would any company focus on the type of gamer who is ridiculously cheap and waits for everything to go on sale?

And as I posted before, waiting for every AAA new release to go on sale is fine, but then don't expect companies to cater to your every demand. People vote with their wallets, so by always waiting for clearance sales, you're excluding yourself from voting/helping shape the industry.

[Gameguy]

I'm not entirely sure how people define games as casual compared to hardcore, to me casual games are things like free flash games or computer solitaire type games. Are there games like this on Nintendo systems? Or are people confusing casual games with kids games?

I have no problem with Nintendo sticking to kids games, that's where the money is. Parents are more likely to buy stuff for their kids over their own wants, and pay more for these items.

Really there are several problems with games making money now. There are really too many games coming out on too many different platforms. In the past while there were three consoles out at any time, only two would be successful with one struggling. And people would choose just one console, or they would be PC gamers and ignore console games. Several people would miss out on certain titles on other platforms forcing them to buy exclusives on their own console even if they were mediocre compared to the competition. Now it seems all three current consoles are doing well, and people tend to own more than one console while also playing PC games. Plus people are also owning portable consoles. There's too many games available to everyone so really it's easy to see why some games get overlooked or forgotten about.

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.

That and peoples' wages haven't increased as much as inflation over the years yet there's plenty more to spend what disposable income they have. In the 90's you could still find people who never owned a computer or cell phone, and plenty of computer users didn't bother with the internet. Now just about everyone has a cell phone or more commonly a smart phone, as well as a tablet, and a computer/laptop, or multiple for several family members, plus upgrading them every few years while paying monthly access fees as well as upgrading televisions which people never used to do until they wore out, upgrading to BluRay or 3D equipment, etc. It should be obvious why people aren't spending as much on video games with what little free money they have.

There's a lot of factors together that's hurting this industry. It's not just one thing.