Are "hardcore" gamers ruining the industry?

[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...

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