Worst thing that happpened in video game industry?

What are some bad things that have happened to video games industry in your opinion?

mine are:

  1 THQ got bankrupted

  2 Lucas arts got killed by Disney (Was hopping for a grim fandango remake)

  3 Many cancelled games

The anti-consumer mentality the industry has got into over the last several years.  Always online requirements, "free to play" games that are intentionally designed to be as frustrating as possible unless you spend a lot of money, abuse of the DLC model.  A general lack of ethical business practice towards us, the people who are actually paying money for the products.

What are some bad things that have happened to video games industry in your opinion?

mine are:

  1 THQ got bankrupted

  2 Lucas arts got killed by Disney (Was hopping for a grim fandango remake)

  3 Many cancelled games

 

alim298

I'd say online from this generation, because that brought a whole list of huge problems.

When EA discovered they could make a football game that would go on to be named FIFA.

quick time events

locked on disc content

DLC - ive liked some.. Fallout 3, Mass Effect 2 and Dark Souls.. i miss the days of 30-40 dollar expansion packs that was packed with almost as much content as the vanilla game

digital distribution - this give way too much power to the publishers.

indie games - showing you can just reskin older games and be praised for being innovative.

indie games - showing you can just reskin older games and be praised for being innovative.wiouds

PSN being hacked and going down for a long time was a dark time for Playstation fans.

[QUOTE="wiouds"]indie games - showing you can just reskin older games and be praised for being innovative.Treflis

I find most of the indie games that come out is just old ideal with nothing really new about them. I am just trying to look at them with a view that is clear of favoritism.

The internet and all it has brought to gaming.  There is only one positive: multiplayer.  Everything else so outweighs it:

• Paying for things that used to included for free (cheat codes, unlocakable characters, Day One DLC)
• "Patch it later" mentality for games.
• Endless firmware updates for consoles, that rarely make the console better.
• Stupid DRM like online passes (there is such a thing as good DRM, but internet related is not one of them).
• Delivery of advertising and other non-game product to our gaming consoles.

Most of the curren gaming community.

EA ad Capcom's recent practices.

Whatever sparked the shift to more actionised games being made, even when they don't fit the series.

DLC being abused.

Activision and EA.

DRM and DLC.

Oversized dev budgets.

Pay to play online multiplayer.

Annual rehashes.

Lack of originality.

Lack of imagination.

Big business.

[QUOTE="Treflis"][QUOTE="wiouds"]indie games - showing you can just reskin older games and be praised for being innovative.wiouds

I find most of the indie games that come out is just old ideal with nothing really new about them. I am just trying to look at them with a view that is clear of favoritism.

Wii. Before that system arrived it was generally accepted that the console with the best and most varied games would always be the one that leads the market. The Wii proved that wasn't actually necessary at all, and that was the biggest real innovation that system brought to gaming, and it wasn't one we needed. The overwhelming unexpected success of the system also gave Nintendo a big head, which gave us the rolling disaster called the Wii U. I'm convinced that Nintendo is two entirely different companies, it's the only way to explain how much better the 3DS is than Nintendo's current and previous console... combined.

Just a stronger focus on online capabilities. I enjoy multiplayer but many of the core issues I had with this generation existed because online became prevelant on consoles.

I'll defend DLC as a good thing as there has been some excellent DLC, but most of it is terrible and insulting. The PSN hack, shoehorning useless multiplayer into single player franchises, and several other problems almost always have to do with the first generation where online was a primary feature.

I also think that with this generation we've had more incomplete games as a result. Console games of previous years were much more complete and functional. While there has always been glitches, I can't rightly remember older games breaking, deleting saves, creating broken quest lines, and so on. It seems (and this is mostly paranoia) that they'll rush a game out the door only to patch it later on. There seems to be a lot less testing and quality assurance before the game is released to the public these days.

Well hopefully they'll not let the just ship it now and patch it later thing get too bad. Most devs who ship games genuinely broken pay for it because sites like GS review the game as it is at release, and do not "re-review" games if they have a major patch a day or two after release, which can put a big damn ding into their meta-critic average and sales.RandoIphF

I'm not 100% sure about that. While sound, there have been some broken games that didn't rightly suffer because of it. 

The PS3 version of Skyrim is a good example. IGN had several dozen articles about how bad it was and how Bethesda needed to fix it but they never changed their "9.5" score for the game. 

Gamespot awarded the game a 9 as well. However, I'm sure this was due to extensively playing the PC version and then just seeing how the 360/PS3 versions held up. I don't expect a single critic to play 100+ hours on each console for the same game to determine if one is better than the other. (Partly why I wish they would have multiple critics for the same game)

There are also some games that are shipped in poor condition, reviewed harshly, but sell just fine. Like Aliens: Colonial Marines.

Well hopefully they'll not let the just ship it now and patch it later thing get too bad. Most devs who ship games genuinely broken pay for it because sites like GS review the game as it is at release, and do not "re-review" games if they have a major patch a day or two after release, which can put a big damn ding into their meta-critic average and sales.RandoIphF

I'm of two minds on that one.  If only because they do the exact same thing with MMO titles.  Games that by their very nature expand and improve over time.  Especially within the first month or so, fixing any issues that would of been impossible to catch in beta.  I'm personally of the opinion that MMO games should not be given a final numbered score, but rather perhaps do an initial impression article on launch, and perhaps a 2 or 3 follow-up articles every couple of weeks.

However I totally agree when it comes to single player or multiplayer games that are typically "static" in nature.  By that I mean games like CoD or Halo that don't receive dramatic sweeping changes to the multiplayer.

[QUOTE="RandoIphF"]Well hopefully they'll not let the just ship it now and patch it later thing get too bad. Most devs who ship games genuinely broken pay for it because sites like GS review the game as it is at release, and do not "re-review" games if they have a major patch a day or two after release, which can put a big damn ding into their meta-critic average and sales.IndianaPwns39

I'm not 100% sure about that. While sound, there have been some broken games that didn't rightly suffer because of it. 

The PS3 version of Skyrim is a good example. IGN had several dozen articles about how bad it was and how Bethesda needed to fix it but they never changed their "9.5" score for the game. 

Gamespot awarded the game a 9 as well. However, I'm sure this was due to extensively playing the PC version and then just seeing how the 360/PS3 versions held up. I don't expect a single critic to play 100+ hours on each console for the same game to determine if one is better than the other. (Partly why I wish they would have multiple critics for the same game)

There are also some games that are shipped in poor condition, reviewed harshly, but sell just fine. Like Aliens: Colonial Marines.

I would have to look it up to confirm, but I'm fairly certain Aliens: CM didn't sell particularly well.  I'm sure the low review scores and the outcry from the gaming community had a pretty big impact on it.  I know I passed on the game due to the reviews.

The 1983 video game crash? It's kinda hard to top that. Even if a game has a myriad list of anti-consumer policies attached to it, you can still play it. You can't play a game if there's no one to make it.

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

[QUOTE="RandoIphF"]Well hopefully they'll not let the just ship it now and patch it later thing get too bad. Most devs who ship games genuinely broken pay for it because sites like GS review the game as it is at release, and do not "re-review" games if they have a major patch a day or two after release, which can put a big damn ding into their meta-critic average and sales.keech

I'm not 100% sure about that. While sound, there have been some broken games that didn't rightly suffer because of it. 

The PS3 version of Skyrim is a good example. IGN had several dozen articles about how bad it was and how Bethesda needed to fix it but they never changed their "9.5" score for the game. 

Gamespot awarded the game a 9 as well. However, I'm sure this was due to extensively playing the PC version and then just seeing how the 360/PS3 versions held up. I don't expect a single critic to play 100+ hours on each console for the same game to determine if one is better than the other. (Partly why I wish they would have multiple critics for the same game)

There are also some games that are shipped in poor condition, reviewed harshly, but sell just fine. Like Aliens: Colonial Marines.

I would have to look it up to confirm, but I'm fairly certain Aliens: CM didn't sell particularly well.  I'm sure the low review scores and the outcry from the gaming community had a pretty big impact on it.  I know I passed on the game due to the reviews.

I'm just going to warn you, you might be disappointed when you find out how well it sold :P

[QUOTE="keech"]

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

I'm not 100% sure about that. While sound, there have been some broken games that didn't rightly suffer because of it. 

The PS3 version of Skyrim is a good example. IGN had several dozen articles about how bad it was and how Bethesda needed to fix it but they never changed their "9.5" score for the game. 

Gamespot awarded the game a 9 as well. However, I'm sure this was due to extensively playing the PC version and then just seeing how the 360/PS3 versions held up. I don't expect a single critic to play 100+ hours on each console for the same game to determine if one is better than the other. (Partly why I wish they would have multiple critics for the same game)

There are also some games that are shipped in poor condition, reviewed harshly, but sell just fine. Like Aliens: Colonial Marines.

IndianaPwns39

I would have to look it up to confirm, but I'm fairly certain Aliens: CM didn't sell particularly well.  I'm sure the low review scores and the outcry from the gaming community had a pretty big impact on it.  I know I passed on the game due to the reviews.

I'm just going to warn you, you might be disappointed when you find out how well it sold :P

I'm glad it actually sold well because the Alien franchise is definitely one of my favourites so anything that sells well increases the chance of a good Aliens related game being made. 

Although hilariously i think Sega proclaimed Alien to be one of the four pillars of their company. Which is insane when you think about it.

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

[QUOTE="Treflis"]Clearly you don't understand what a Indie game or developer is.Treflis

I find most of the indie games that come out is just old ideal with nothing really new about them. I am just trying to look at them with a view that is clear of favoritism.

That does not mean that indie games should be praised for things they are not. They are no more innovative that the AAA games. Worse is that many show gimmick is all they need to get sales.

 

I'm glad it actually sold well because the Alien franchise is definitely one of my favourites so anything that sells well increases the chance of a good Aliens related game being made. 

Although hilariously i think Sega proclaimed Alien to be one of the four pillars of their company. Which is insane when you think about it.

Ilovegames1992

I'd like to agree with you since I too love the Alien franchise but we've had way too much crap for me to continue supporting it. AvP2 was a phenomenal game, everything else has been awful.

Popularity of games.

Nothing else hurts that much... Gaming is a multi-billion dollar industry now... Its all about the money.  It is for that reason DRM has emerged... hundreds of thousands of pirated copies are now "potentially" millions lost... Back in the day... Low sales, low internet speeds, proprietary formats (cartridges) made it impossible to pirate so no one gave a sh-t... But now everything is on the same medium, internet speeds reach gigabits, etc... It is now extremely simple to pirate and thousands do it... And big business is doing everything it can to get every ounce of money out of every game...

That's how it is now.

[QUOTE="keech"]

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

I'm not 100% sure about that. While sound, there have been some broken games that didn't rightly suffer because of it. 

The PS3 version of Skyrim is a good example. IGN had several dozen articles about how bad it was and how Bethesda needed to fix it but they never changed their "9.5" score for the game. 

Gamespot awarded the game a 9 as well. However, I'm sure this was due to extensively playing the PC version and then just seeing how the 360/PS3 versions held up. I don't expect a single critic to play 100+ hours on each console for the same game to determine if one is better than the other. (Partly why I wish they would have multiple critics for the same game)

There are also some games that are shipped in poor condition, reviewed harshly, but sell just fine. Like Aliens: Colonial Marines.

IndianaPwns39

I would have to look it up to confirm, but I'm fairly certain Aliens: CM didn't sell particularly well.  I'm sure the low review scores and the outcry from the gaming community had a pretty big impact on it.  I know I passed on the game due to the reviews.

I'm just going to warn you, you might be disappointed when you find out how well it sold :P

According ot VGChartz (not the most reliable source I know), the game didn't sell well at all.  The site says as of May 11th It's only sold about 770 thousand units globally.  That's combining PS3, Xbox360, and PC sales.  I couldn't find the numbers for the Wii U.

Lets give them the benefit of the doubt and round the sales numbers up to an even million.  That's still pretty terrible for what was supposed to be an AAA title and a "major pillar franchise" for Sega.

At a time where companies like Capcom, EA, and Square-Enix are saying their games that sold 3.5 million+ in a matter of weeks were under-performing, 770 thousand is downright abysmal.

The rise of DLC and QTE's are up there for worst things that I can't stand. Yearly sequels are not far behind.

What if I say I hater how many are acting as if moral and dialog picks are trhe mosrt important thing needed in a RPG. They been reducing the amount of role playing I been able to do in those games.

t VGChartz (not the most reliable source I know), the game didn't sell well at all.  The site says as of May 11th It's only sold about 770 thousand units globally.  That's combining PS3, Xbox360, and PC sales.  I couldn't find the numbers for the Wii U.

 

Lets give them the benefit of the doubt and round the sales numbers up to an even million.  That's still pretty terrible for what was supposed to be an AAA title and a "major pillar franchise" for Sega.

 

At a time where companies like Capcom, EA, and Square-Enix are saying their games that sold 3.5 million+ in a matter of weeks were under-performing, 770 thousand is downright abysmal.

keech

The game sold 1.31 million and this is according to Sega. This was reported when they laid out results for their fiscal year and, in fact, it was one of their highest selling games with Sonic & All Stars Racing Transformed being their best seller at 1.36 million (it also had a longer shelf life). 

These numbers are successful to Sega because they don't dump an obscence amount of nothing into their products. I'm a broken record when I discuss Tomb Raider but I stand by it: there's no reason a game should sell 3.7 million in under a month, break franchise records, and then be declared a financial failure for the publisher. That was bad management. 

Oh, and here's a link for the numbers: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-05-10-aliens-colonial-marines-managed-1-31-million-sales

When developers decided that because most people have internet and can download patches, they don't need to fix bugs before they release their games.INF1DEL

EA

Otacon.

This guy!

This guy!

 

MonoSilver

The 1983 video game crash? It's kinda hard to top that. Even if a game has a myriad list of anti-consumer policies attached to it, you can still play it. You can't play a game if there's no one to make it.

1PMrFister

[QUOTE="1PMrFister"]

The 1983 video game crash? It's kinda hard to top that. Even if a game has a myriad list of anti-consumer policies attached to it, you can still play it. You can't play a game if there's no one to make it.

CecilChups

What makes you think another crash is going to happen?

I cant see another video game crash for a long time, if ever, myself.

DLC. For some games it's worth getting but most of the time it's just an excuse to release an unfinished game at full price and then release DLC to get more cash from us.MonoSilver

this, it has become more and more common developers cut parts of the games deliberately to sell them as dlcs, wepons, levels, characters, its disgusting. By the end of next gen we will be getting stripped games and if you want the cool stuff pay more!

It seems to me that this overkill of DLC is trying to test out or transition the consumers into a purely digital gaming world. 

If or when it does become purely digital, i guess in hindsight we may look back on all this DLC for easing us into it.

I cant see another video game crash for a long time, if ever, myself.

Ilovegames1992

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

I cant see another video game crash for a long time, if ever, myself.

CecilChups

The crash in 1983 was a result of a huge saturation of low quality video games which lead to lower confidence in the consumer. Plus the video game crash wasn't truly felt until a couple years after so we still got a way to go yet. 

I put the struggles down to just a poor economy at the moment. 

But i seriously don't think the industry is doing that bad. 

[QUOTE="CecilChups"]

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

I cant see another video game crash for a long time, if ever, myself.

Ilovegames1992

The crash in 1983 was a result of a huge saturation of low quality video games which lead to lower confidence in the consumer. Plus the video game crash wasn't truly felt until a couple years after so we still got a way to go yet. 

I put the struggles down to just a poor economy at the moment. 

But i seriously don't think the industry is doing that bad. 

companies closing left and right, people getting tired of the same formulas and copy pastes, also oversaturation of bad games and excess of dlc bs. It's comming id say, we are just not there yet.