Supply and demand. The stuff sells, so developers make it. Consumers (unfortunately) go nuts over collector's editions and Day 1 DLC (even if it is happy meal quality stuff), leading to developers doing more of this. I'd love to say boycott Collector's Editions, but most people don't really give a you know what.
Interesting article. Yet, it must be noted that not every piece of art made is worthy to be preserved. The fingerpainting I did in preschool may take the form of art, but it is not. Simply because a game is created doesn't mean it should be preserved. Shovelware with 0 importance on the gaming industry should be treated as such, and fade into obscurity. True games, those with substance that change how we define what a game is and how we understand what games can do, those are what should be preserved.
It's unfortunate, but in order to be recognized as a legitimate form of entertainment, gaming had to start self-policing just like movies, television and even books to some extent. In order for gaming to gain as much popular support, there had to be a certain amount of "moral" reassurance to the faceless, ignorant masses that video games weren't going to complete corrupt the leaders of tomorrow. Does the ESRB restrict expression? Sure it does. But at the same time, in order for gaming to get to the point that its at now, it was almost a necessary evil. There was a day when the majority of gamers were still living in their parents' house, and the rating system gave the 'rents a much better sense of what they were actually buying. Some games this hurt, some games it helped, but the rating system was necessary to bring gaming closer to mainstream entertainment.
@Krelian-co: This is a REVIEW. It's based on opinion. Of course it's going to be biased because opinions are naturally biased. Do you even know what biased means? You're treating reviews like they're some type of hard-hitting journalism that can't be biased by personal opinion, when it's not at all, bias is completely acceptable here. There's no such thing as "wrong" reviews, just reviews you don't agree with.
Yeah, I don't really care about trailers. They can be cool, but in most instances they're just tools to hype a game up, they don't really DO anything at all when I actually sit down and play the game. MW3 LOOKS like it might be a re-hash of MW2 and 1, but I'll wait until I actually play it before I draw any conclusions. Besides the Gears 1 trailer, most trailers are pretty forgettable.
Morality in video games is completely shallow simply because its moral decisions based on what the game designer has outlined for you. In Fallout 3 you had either the option of blowing up the town or saving it. Bioshock you had the choice of harvesting or rescuing the little sisters. As Donnie Darko says, "It completely ignores the whole spectrum of human emotion". What developers should do is add a nearly limitless number of ways to approach a moral situation instead of just a singlular way, and have the game world and story develop because of that. For instance, in MW2, the option of killing the terrorists could've been added, but then the entire story is derailed (well more so then it is anyways). My point is, is that morality for video games now is just a way to increase replayability, but is not a way yet to actually postively or negatively effect your path or the story. Dialogue may change, and the appearence of your character may be different, but the ending will usually be the same. You'll defeat the darkspawn. You'll destroy the Enclave. Although Bioshock does provide two different endings, thats just it, there are only two endings. Nothing truly changes. When you make moral choices in a developer's game world, you aren't making moral choices at all; you are simple adhereing to specific paths that are predetermined for you. You don't really change anything.
Lincvattic's comments