LOGIN  .  SIGNUP   .  SUPPORT 
HOME / MESSAGE BOARDS / GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

General Discussions

Signup   Message Boards Home   Newest Posts   My Favorite Boards   My Threads
Page 2 of 3   •  First Page  •  Previous Page  •   Next Page  •   Last Page
Signup or Login to Post
games why are we paying more for less
 
Skyheart  posted on Sep 16, 2011 10:36:50 PM - Report post

Current rank: 2.5 Stars. Next Rank at 2000 Posts.
Send a message to Skyheart
ELDER
quote:
originally posted by benduhova

dhampy games are a hundred dollars or very close where i live and ps3 are 100+

That's because the NZD sucks .

But seriously. The old games you mentioned were built on old technology, when things didn't take so long to produce, or were so complicated. "Back in the day" it'd take only a year to produce a game with real substance, compared to up to 4 or 5 years now (or more in some cases). Gamers were also a select bunch back then too, whereas now there's a wide variety of people playing games, and developers have to cater to all of those audiences in order to make money, and yes that includes all of the different platforms.

And let's face it, as much as we may love the gaming industry, it's like any other industry: all about sales and profits. I mean, if a game doesn't sell, they don't have the money to produce more games.

What you'd probably call "hardcore gamers" are a dying breed. Most people don't get much time to play games these days, except those of us woefully unemployed or lazy in education. So they take that into account also, so a game which is only 20-30 hours long will take most average gamers longer than it used to to finish a 50+ hour game.

Catering to a small minority of gamers just doesn't make any sense these days, financially or otherwise. It's just the way things go in any inustry. For example, movies are the same way: they're becoming bigger, flashier, more and more expensive, but for the most part the substance just doesn't stand up to the movies of old because there's little demand for it.

 
RageaholicRick  posted on Sep 17, 2011 9:43:49 PM - Report post

Current rank: 3.5 Stars. Next Rank at 8000 Posts.
Send a message to RageaholicRick
ELITE
quote:
originally posted by Skyheart

quote:
originally posted by benduhova

dhampy games are a hundred dollars or very close where i live and ps3 are 100+

That's because the NZD sucks .

But seriously. The old games you mentioned were built on old technology, when things didn't take so long to produce, or were so complicated. "Back in the day" it'd take only a year to produce a game with real substance, compared to up to 4 or 5 years now (or more in some cases). Gamers were also a select bunch back then too, whereas now there's a wide variety of people playing games, and developers have to cater to all of those audiences in order to make money, and yes that includes all of the different platforms.

And let's face it, as much as we may love the gaming industry, it's like any other industry: all about sales and profits. I mean, if a game doesn't sell, they don't have the money to produce more games.

What you'd probably call "hardcore gamers" are a dying breed. Most people don't get much time to play games these days, except those of us woefully unemployed or lazy in education. So they take that into account also, so a game which is only 20-30 hours long will take most average gamers longer than it used to to finish a 50+ hour game.

Catering to a small minority of gamers just doesn't make any sense these days, financially or otherwise. It's just the way things go in any inustry. For example, movies are the same way: they're becoming bigger, flashier, more and more expensive, but for the most part the substance just doesn't stand up to the movies of old because there's little demand for it.

I gotta say, you put this into a perspective I never really thought about. It makes alot of sense to me.

 
benduhova  posted on Sep 17, 2011 10:05:27 PM - Report post

Current rank: 3 Stars. Next Rank at 4000 Posts.
Send a message to benduhova
HIM
skyheart what you say makes perfect sense and i know it but it still doesnt make it right as you say ai skirmish is old tech and we gamers that enjoy it are a minority but since it is old and been done then why cant they leave it in modern games we became a minority market by default not choice and if it was incorporated back into games they would increase total sales at little to no cost
 
Skyheart  posted on Sep 18, 2011 4:11:45 AM - Report post

Current rank: 2.5 Stars. Next Rank at 2000 Posts.
Send a message to Skyheart
ELDER
You're right, it doesn't make it right and you're also right in the way that it's been done before so why does it have to change?

Well, it's like I said, they have to cater to the biggest part of the market. Unfortunately the biggest part of the minority would probably get bored of and stop playing a game which would take 80-100 hours to finish.

To dirgress a little: I introduced a friend to Oblivion when it first came out, and at first he seemed to really like it ("CoD with swords and magic"... that should have been my first clue ), but then the first thing I heard him complain about was how long it was taking to finish. I thought he was joking at first, but lo and behold - I kid you not - he got fed up of the length, uninstalled it and went straight back to playing CoD.

I'm not bashing CoD, by the way, it's not my cup of tea personally but obviously it's popular with a lot of people or there wouldn't be more and more being released. At the same time, it's the perfect example of what the problem is - it's short (though admittedly most FPS's are shorter than other games), gives a "quick fix" in terms of action, and lets the player finish it around a job or school hours.

On the other hand, doubling the gameplay length of modern games would most likely prolong development time too. Luckily, most games use modified versions of existing graphics engines, which cuts down on time.

 
RageaholicRick  posted on Sep 19, 2011 4:23:22 PM - Report post

Current rank: 3.5 Stars. Next Rank at 8000 Posts.
Send a message to RageaholicRick
ELITE
The shorter times it takes to complete also helps people, like me, who have short attention spans. Currently, I am playing GTA IV, LA Noire, and Red Dead Redemption, which are all pretty long games, and I still haven't beaten them after playing them for a couple weeks each. My short attention span stops me from playing them for more than a couple hours or so before I get bored. The shorter times kind of helps me get through the game in a reasonable amount of time.
 
Dhampy  posted on Sep 20, 2011 10:00:42 AM - Report post

Current rank: 2.5 Stars. Next Rank at 2000 Posts.
Send a message to Dhampy
ELITE
quote:
originally posted by benduhova

dhampy games are a hundred dollars or very close where i live and ps3 are 100+

And if you look back, they were close to the same price 20 years ago.

You're paying proportionally less for absolutely less.

 
Dhampy  posted on Sep 20, 2011 10:01:42 AM - Report post

Current rank: 2.5 Stars. Next Rank at 2000 Posts.
Send a message to Dhampy
ELITE
quote:
originally posted by Cr4zyMonk3yz

The shorter times it takes to complete also helps people, like me, who have short attention spans. Currently, I am playing GTA IV, LA Noire, and Red Dead Redemption, which are all pretty long games, and I still haven't beaten them after playing them for a couple weeks each. My short attention span stops me from playing them for more than a couple hours or so before I get bored. The shorter times kind of helps me get through the game in a reasonable amount of time.

Games used to draw you in. Your attention span didn't matter, because you wanted to finish the game.

I stopped playing Dead Island last week, because there was no point. The game doesn't give you any reason to continue on.

 
RageaholicRick  posted on Sep 20, 2011 11:15:34 AM - Report post

Current rank: 3.5 Stars. Next Rank at 8000 Posts.
Send a message to RageaholicRick
ELITE
quote:
originally posted by Dhampy

quote:
originally posted by Cr4zyMonk3yz

The shorter times it takes to complete also helps people, like me, who have short attention spans. Currently, I am playing GTA IV, LA Noire, and Red Dead Redemption, which are all pretty long games, and I still haven't beaten them after playing them for a couple weeks each. My short attention span stops me from playing them for more than a couple hours or so before I get bored. The shorter times kind of helps me get through the game in a reasonable amount of time.

Games used to draw you in. Your attention span didn't matter, because you wanted to finish the game.

I stopped playing Dead Island last week, because there was no point. The game doesn't give you any reason to continue on.

While that is true, it is still an attention span issue with me. I can't focus on really anything for more than a few hours to a few days. (depending on what it is)

Page 2 of 3   •  First Page  •  Previous Page  •   Next Page  •   Last Page
  Post Reply
Go to page: 1  2  3 
All times are (GMT -06:00) Central Time (US & Canada). Current time is 2:20:49 AM