So, why is nobody calling for specific examples on the list of sins you're applying to the industry?Originally Posted by Tanooki
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.
"And the book says: 'We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us.'"
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?
"And the book says: 'We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us.'"
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.
Last edited by Frankie_Says_Relax; 04-01-2013 at 01:13 PM.
"And the book says: 'We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us.'"
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?"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?
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.
Time will be when the broadest river dries
And the great cities wane and last descend
Into the dust, for all things have an end
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.
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.
Last edited by Frankie_Says_Relax; 04-01-2013 at 02:17 PM.
"And the book says: 'We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us.'"
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.
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.
Last edited by Opti; 04-01-2013 at 05:15 PM.
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.
Last edited by Rob2600; 04-02-2013 at 05:46 AM.
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.
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...ampaign=twdsuk
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.
Last edited by Rob2600; 04-02-2013 at 08:23 PM.
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.
I haven't bought any new games in a while, F2P (casuals!) is filling the need for now.
Don't want Capcom to go under ("Revelaitons" on PC, for one, please!) but they need to figure out if they're sinking or swimming.
The problem with arguments like this is that really all you're doing is speculating, and speculating poorly IMO.
If it really wasn't possible for the bulk of the industry to be profitable, because they need to sell more games than people would buy, nobody would be making games anymore. No company with any business sense would operate in an industry such as that for very long - they'd move on. The days of Atari overproducing the installed based (or producing anything apparently) are behind us I would think.
From what I've seen (and I admit I don't pay that much attention to the sales side of things, as I really don't care how many PS3 vs Xbox360 vs Wii U's have been sold), big games sell big and make a tonne of money for the publisher, and smaller games sell well through digital distribution and do well on a relative scale for their publishers.
If/when things change because of the popularity of tablets and smart phones, that doesn't mean the industry is dying, it just means it's evolving: as it should and has to do. Really all that will do is create a second tier of retro gamer who loves the last of the consoles before mobile gaming took over
Time will be when the broadest river dries
And the great cities wane and last descend
Into the dust, for all things have an end
Well in all fairness since you brought it up. I don't see much of any reason if you're a Nintendo only gamer to give any respect to Capcom anymore really. Since the N64 era they've thrown Nintendo *console* owners time and again under the bus. N64 they ripped on, ignored, then very late life did a pair of releases (RE2 and MM64) with media about saying support us and we'll support you in the next system. The stuff sold alright and Capcom appeared pleased. We then get note of the Capcom5 (outside of the RE Dreamcast ports) and PN03 dropped, then RE4 was to be next as an exclusive. Two weeks prior with angry Sony fanboys shitting bricks they specifically write to Sony games NOT to buy a Gamecube, RE4 isn't exclusive, and come the following (Septemer I think it was) there would be the definitely FULL version on the PS2 with Ada Wong and some other crap. Also along with that, their other games, one named and partly developed were scrapped and they left the GC for dead. The Wii came along, similar promises, got Zac and Wiki, RE4Wii port w/waggle, and again left hung out to dry until Nintendo bribed up some Monster Hunter support and snagged that, yet otherwise it was junky franchise spinoffs with minimal efforts and heaps of problems. And don't get the still angry fanboys up on Mega Man Legends 3 in all the work and effort they even put gamers through for that to pull the rug out entirely.
As far as Activision and EA goes, that's more of a general thing easily found online with their Online Passes, 'Origin' from EA, cannibalizing studio locations and talent to then fire most, close shop, and rape and pillage franchises. It just kind of depends what you're ok with and not. Snotty comments, selective releases, dumbed down frachise releases as rail shooters on Wii, etc.
I'm soured on the three that I don't buy their games anymore except in rare cases they publish but don't develop. If I buy a game though it won't be digital, and if it's a real copy if I need it that bad, it's most likely used as I don't like to cash reward companies like that gaming or otherwise. I've got a small list of companies I refuse to buy product from so it's not just a gaming thing and it's not some political garbage or environmental thing, just anything from dirty pool, slimy tactics, or so mentally offensive ad campaigns I want nothing to do with the product/company. As others in here have said, you vote with your wallet and I do.
Then don't be a Nintendo only gamer. Just because you're not fond of a certain company doesn't mean you have to miss out on the games because they're not coming to your preferred console. I think Nintendo is a piece of shit but I'll still buy their portables and consoles for the support that they do get.
Yes. The Gamecube didn't sell because of Sony fanboys. Resident Evil 4 didn't sell as well as Capcom liked, so it was ported. But Capcom released a lot of good games for the for both the Gamecube and GBA. Did Capcom support Nintendo as much as they supported Sony? No. Then again, neither GBA nor Gamecube were selling as good as the PS2 was. Capcom released Resident Evil, ports of 2, 3, Code Veronica, Resident Evil 4, Viewtiful Joe 2, Killer7, a ton of Mega Man games with two exclusives series for the GBA, and the Legend of Zelda Minish Cap was also Capcom developed. Other games were released as well, but the list I've made clearly shows Capcom's support for the Gamecube and GBA.We then get note of the Capcom5 (outside of the RE Dreamcast ports) and PN03 dropped, then RE4 was to be next as an exclusive. Two weeks prior with angry Sony fanboys shitting bricks they specifically write to Sony games NOT to buy a Gamecube, RE4 isn't exclusive, and come the following (Septemer I think it was) there would be the definitely FULL version on the PS2 with Ada Wong and some other crap.
Other than ports, remakes, and very few new releases, Capcom didn't support the PSP. There were a lot of games announced games for the PSP that never made it to fruition either. And then look at the Vita. Look at the massive amount of Capcom support there. A whole two games. Capcom even snubbed the Vita when making the announcement of porting Resident Evil Revelations. It didn't sell well on the 3DS and they list every other console aside from the Vita. The point I'm making is, they're not screwing over Nintendo fans. They go where they can get the most money. Like I said above. Buy a secondary console if you want a larger variety of games.
Online passes. They're only penalizing those that purchase used. If you purchase the game new then there's no issue. What are you really losing in 20 years by not having the online pass? Do you really think Battlefield 3 is going to be playable on the PS360 in 20 years when the online is no longer running? The only issue with the online pass is if you get Alice Madness Returns. In 20 years if you haven't already activated the pass and still have it on a hard drive, the first game isn't going to be playable.As far as Activision and EA goes, that's more of a general thing easily found online with their Online Passes, 'Origin' from EA, cannibalizing studio locations and talent to then fire most, close shop, and rape and pillage franchises. It just kind of depends what you're ok with and not. Snotty comments, selective releases, dumbed down frachise releases as rail shooters on Wii, etc.
Origin. EA wants to get into the digital business and sell their own games. EA makes a lot of games so why not capitalize by having people play EA games and possibly purchase other games on their Origin service? When Origin started and maybe they might still do this, but any EA game you've purchased with another digital carrier like Steam would be added to your Origin account when verified. There's only reason to bitch about Origin is if you're part of the EA hate train. You have to have Origin running in the background much like you do with Steam, and what's wrong with that? Oh. It's EA. Right.
But wait, there's more(EA hate.) Choo choo!! EA buys up developers and devours their very existence! Every company closes down developers. If the developer keeps making games that sell less than expected, you can expect them to be closed down. Sony shut down a lot of first party studios this year and last, Capcom has shut down multiple studios, even your precious Nintendo has shut down studios and fired people after their work was done. If you're going to blame anyone for the studio to go down in five or ten years because it's sold to another publisher, then blame owners of that development studio that sold it. There are reasons they're selling, and while there's always an amount of money that changes hands, it all depends on how large that amount of money is. THQ was losing money left and right so they had to sell all their studios. If the games that are developed by former THQ developers keep going in the red and the new publisher closes the studio, are you going to blame the publisher? Why should you? There's no sense in paying people to continuously lose money.
I'm surprised that first sentence is even there for reasons to not support EA and Activision. You're just riding the hate train with everyone else. Bitching about two developers for no reason. Atleast people who hate on Call of Duty have an actual reason(same game every year.) I don't like most of the games Activision develops, but I'll support them if they develop a game I'm interested in. On the other hand, EA has developed a lot of games this gen that I like and have mostly turned their company around. I'll support them as well. As long as they develop good games, doesn't matter who I support. I own quite a few first party 3DS, DS, and Wii games as well as Nintendo consoles and you already know my opinion of the company. I'll support them as long as they release good games. My opinion on the company doesn't matter. What I don't support are their sales tactics but that's nothing more than ideas put into use, not a game itself.
So all that crying and you finally have one legitimate reason, or atleast partially legitimate. Dumbed down rail shooter games? Eh. Close enough. If I was to purchase Black Ops, then I'd purchase it on the PS360 over the Wii. It's dumbed down, but again, have a secondary console if there are games that you might be interested to play that aren't on your console of choice, or if the version on your console of choice is graphically inferior(which would be obvious) to the HD console version. On the other hand, you mentioned "rail shooter" and by that I'm guessing you're talking about Dead Space Extraction. It might be a rail shooter, but this is a great game so you lose all credibility of your one legitimate reasoning behind hating on EA and Activision.
Woah, woah, woah! You said all this and Nintendo isn't on your list?I've got a small list of companies I refuse to buy product from so it's not just a gaming thing and it's not some political garbage or environmental thing, just anything from dirty pool, slimy tactics, or so mentally offensive ad campaigns I want nothing to do with the product/company. As others in here have said, you vote with your wallet and I do.
Last edited by kupomogli; 04-05-2013 at 11:57 PM.
Everything in the above post is opinion unless stated otherwise.
Obviously a belated April Fool's prank. Good one!
Last edited by Rob2600; 04-06-2013 at 11:30 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
