Gaming interrupted by advertisement

[Justin]

No one's pretending anything. It's just been slowly building up to the bull crap we see today. On-disc DLC, release day DLC, intentionally held back content, among others. It's not even about making quality games anymore. Execs just don't give a flying pineapple anymore about anything but our wallets.

Yes, I'm aware that businesses exist to do just that - make a profit. But now it's just flat out greed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kotick <-- this jackass is a prime example of such.

[Viaje]

Like I said, it's always about building the bottom-line, and part of that is coming up with creative ways to better it.
You can pretend that trying to make a profit and greed are different things, but, fact is, they aren't. They're the same concept.
Again, nothing has changed.

Whether or not some of these tactics companies are using to increase their bottom line are respectable tends to be a subjective matter.
Using the list you gave for examples:
I definitely find on-disc content requiring a DLC unlock to be disgusting. I have no intentions of, in any way, supporting a game that employs these tactics.
Release day DLC is an entirely different matter, however. Unless it is truly a case of content being intentionally held back, it's okay by me. Because it could easily mean that the content was developed after the game was sent to print.

And, actually, Robert Kotick is pretty much the worst example you could have chosen. Is he guilty of helping turn certain series into annual releases?
Sure. But what's the problem with that? Madden has been doing that since 1990.
There's nothing shady about that.
Meanwhile, I can't think of a single Activision game that has on-disc DLC or exhibits holding-back of content. Unless I missed one, neither can this list.
If you wanted to give an example of an entity that is guilty of shoving forward all three of the issues you presented, you should have gone with EA or Capcom.
You probably just went with Kotick because he's popular to hate and he's the only one you've bothered to hear about.

Anyway, yes, the game industry (just like any other) continues to come up with "innovative" ways to take more of our money.
Yes, some of these methods are scummy.
But, at the end of the day, the only reason these executives get away with these things is because the consumers allow them to do so.
All the complaining in the world will make no difference as long as you and/or others continue to vote with your wallets.

[Seanny]

At the very least, I still feel its good to voice and let customers be aware of the alternatives and that their product could be better than what they're getting.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but providing information regarding the subject and that they're possibly being ripped off can only help the consumers make more educated votes. If they don't want to even at least hear the other side or even accepts the mentioned bad sides of a business for the service/product, that's fine. I don't believe companies deserve to profit from everyone else being in the dark though.

[ChaosCorpse]

Really the only alternatives I see now, are either to step back on purchasing games; or to support the developers directly. True games need cash in order to cover the bottom line; but if a developer is willing to drop the middle-man who financially backs him(ie publishers) in favor of holding all the risks themselves to gain back their virtues; we should support them.

Why gamers are so pissed at these shady strategies is because we perceive games as a form of art. And when you try to make a business out of something intended for creative purpose; it skews a number of things. Ultimately, yes, it is a business; but they don't have to make it so damn clear to both the investors and the consumers.


Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the PSN's HOME ... program thing? have in game advertisement in the form of bulletin boards and trailers? Or was that removed some time after alpha? If I'm remembering right, the timing could line up with that; leading me to reason that was it's purpose. (Note: I'm likely off on my memory) Either way, it still holds an annoying potential.

[Raul]

This reads to me as, "I've just faced evidence that business executives live for profits, but my mind is going to pretend it's a new thing."
The primary goal of any corporation is to see the the bottom-line improves every year.
This will remain a fact no matter how many times you burn down and rebuild any industry.

Not all companies do, even gaming companies. Riot is a great example of that.

[Viaje]

Not all companies do, even gaming companies. Riot is a great example of that.

Do excuse me while I remove the bullpomegranate you just threw at my face.

Riot Games has continually tried to expand its player base and move into new territories since League of Legend's release.
It doesn't do these things out of the kindness of its heart; it's doing it to make more money.

Really the only alternatives I see now, are either to step back on purchasing games; or to support the developers directly. True games need cash in order to cover the bottom line; but if a developer is willing to drop the middle-man who financially backs him(ie publishers) in favor of holding all the risks themselves to gain back their virtues; we should support them.

That's fine and dandy for low-budget titles, but it's not a financially viable method of distribution for most titles.
That's equivalent to asking Joe Public to personally fund summer movies.

Why I am so pissed at these shady strategies is because I perceive games as a form of art. And when you try to make a business out of something intended for creative purpose; it skews a number of things. Ultimately, yes, it is a business; but they don't have to make it so damn clear to both the investors and the consumers.

Fixed that for you. Please don't try to pluralize your opinion in order to validate it.
I'm a gamer, and I don't see games as being art by their very nature.

There are games that are truly works of art, but that's hardly the norm.
To state that video games were created "for creative purposes" is an outright lie, in fact.
Arcade video games were an extension of mechanical arcade games. In both cases, they were created specifically to get those coins out of the players' pockets.

If you want to remain ignorant of how the world works, then that's your choice, but it's very disturbing that you'd rather have everyone be in the dark.
It's also kind of sadlarious that you think "investors" wouldn't be very clear that what they're investing in exists to make money.

[Raul]

Do excuse me while I remove the bullpomegranate you just threw at my face.

Riot Games has continually tried to expand its player base and move into new territories since League of Legend's release.
It doesn't do these things out of the kindness of its heart; it's doing it to make more money.

It does but it does not do everything it does for profit. It actually does some things just because they're morally correct or because they're nice. Here's an example: If you're a couple RP short of a skin or a champ, you can email Riot. Usually they'll ask you to draw something related to the game, scan it, and send it to them. It doesn't have to be good at all. Then they give you the RP you need. That's decidedly not for profit.

[みもと]

B> Ad-block software/app for my future Sony products

[Piggy 2.0]

Terrible Idea, but not too worried about its implementation in the near future. Seems like a suicidal move.

[Viaje]

It does but it does not do everything it does for profit. It actually does some things just because they're morally correct or because they're nice. Here's an example: If you're a couple RP short of a skin or a champ, you can email Riot. Usually they'll ask you to draw something related to the game, scan it, and send it to them. It doesn't have to be good at all. Then they give you the RP you need. That's decidedly not for profit.

Okay. That's dandy.
Granted, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said, but I suppose it's a nice bit of trivia.

Not once have I said nor implied that everything a company does, it does for profit.
It looks quite silly for you to try to disprove an argument I never made.

[Shidoshi]

All companies do things for profit, but there's a difference between treating your customers well so they stay loyal and happy with your projects, and trying to squeeze the most abuse/minor inconveniences into your product while still keeping profits high.

[KhainiWest]

lolnvm cracked article @Viaje; really?!

:(

[Justin]

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Top...try-40569.html

I'll just leave this here.

It's...slightly? relevant.

[ChaosCorpse]

That's fine and dandy for low-budget titles, but it's not a financially viable method of distribution for most titles.
That's equivalent to asking Joe Public to personally fund summer movies.


Fixed that for you. Please don't try to pluralize your opinion in order to validate it.
I'm a gamer, and I don't see games as being art by their very nature.

There are games that are truly works of art, but that's hardly the norm.
To state that video games were created "for creative purposes" is an outright lie, in fact.
Arcade video games were an extension of mechanical arcade games. In both cases, they were created specifically to get those coins out of the players' pockets.

If you want to remain ignorant of how the world works, then that's your choice, but it's very disturbing that you'd rather have everyone be in the dark.
It's also kind of sadlarious that you think "investors" wouldn't be very clear that what they're investing in exists to make money.

First off; who says "AAA" games even need to exist now? Realism is great and all, but use of individual style can makeup for the lack of time spend on graphics. As MY personal opinion; I think all entertainment media should lower their budgets to make up for it in sales at lower costs.

Sorry about that pluralization; it is MY opinion that is shared with few others, not everyone and I can accept that. I've had the opinion you have now of games in the past. For the short time I worked in the industry, I did see things through a cause-effect basis; and lost what enjoyment I was able to get out of them. I suppose in that respect, I am just trying to restore the enjoyment I once had through an illusion of idealism.

Even still; games at their origin were activities to pass the time, create a challenge, or simply foster an enjoyable environment. But everything can and eventually does turn into a business. Cooking good food for loved ones can be something that brings people together; but it doesn't stop someone from taking that intention and making a buck off it. I understand that everything in this world is a business; even so called charities and non-profit groups. My father having been on the board of directors of 3 tells me that much.

What I idealize isn't to abolish aiming for profit; but that the few people who still seek to entertain others getting the chance to create their ideas without having to be swayed to whatever profit targets the investors lay before them. I know the end result of success would lead back to corporate extortion as time goes on; but allowing it to cycle on without squashing any newcomers in their innocent years would be nice. That and ceasing aggressive changes in profit hunting in exchange for subtle, gradual changes. To my understanding, there hasn't been a drastic change to cause it recently; it has been more of an ongoing problem for sometime. As such; making drastic changes to counter it suddenly is only going to annoy consumers. But I cannot really speak for the situation in piracy; I haven't done anything related since middle school, and even then I only gathered SNES games which I was too late to play/find in stores as a middle school student. If it has gotten worse suddenly due to some major revelation in that community; I would entirely understand these responses.

As for the topic at hand, others have already shared my opinion. We have to accept some changes to keep the market going; but this would only be acceptable in a select few number of scenarios. People will just get used to it over time, as we have with other things, but certain things shouldn't be allowed to pass that threshold.

I'm in no mood nor stance to begin an argument with you; so as you have kindly pointed out; I will reiterate that this is MY OPINION as distorted as it may be. All I have to balance my opinion is my personal opinion along with what I glean from the media presented to me. I personally do find such media to either be extreme one way or the other, and would love the fear mongering to stop and a middle ground ideal to move forward. But media itself loves getting attention, so such a solution is far off.