Username
Password
  
Hot Topic - Is the Triple-A Game Business Model on its Last Legs?

Hot Topic - Is the Triple-A Game Business Model on its Last Legs?

Written Sunday, January 30, 2011 By Dan Webb
View author's profile

There's no denying it, this current generation of HD consoles has made a lot of developers and publishers rethink their strategies. More so now than any other generation of consoles, games development is on a tightrope and has become a much riskier business. Thanks to the surge in consumer expectations and a demand for high-end HD visuals, developers are walking on eggshells. One step wrong and even the most renowned developers can see their years of hard work and graft go down the drain. Depending on who you ask though, the response to the future of triple A games is widely different from case to case.


"Crash was born in an era of profitability. Small risk, huge return."

“We're entertaining more people in more ways than we've ever done before, but from a profitability standpoint, the console triple-A stuff is, right now, not quite working,” said Naughty Dog co-founder, Jason Rubin, in a web series last year. Rubin, who left Naughty Dog in 2004, noted that the “Crash Bandicoot era” of $2 million games selling nine million units has been replaced by an era where games can cost $80 million to make, but still retail at the same price – “inflation adjusted” of course.

You've only got to look at the demise of some of the once established studios in the past 5 years and you can see some sense in Rubin’s words. Bizarre Creations, Pandemic Studios, Ensemble Studios and 3D Realms, all of which were once classed as world class developers, have been at the wrong end of this unfortunate position, revealing the tentative nature of the industry. Arguably though, these are studios that have failed to deliver this generation, for the most part. For instance: Bizarre struggled to make a mark with both Blur and Blood Stone; Pandemic never managed to reach the lofty heights they achieved with Mercenaries; 3D Realms spent the good part of 10 years on one game; and Ensemble, a once established PC developer, seemed to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, with the console currently dominating the headlines and Microsoft choosing to close them down. Whether those instances were a result of the increase of game development costs or a result of their failure to adhere to better quality levels and be cost efficient remains to be seen. Incidentally, 3D Realms are still in business, but their Duke Nukem Forever title has swapped hands to Gearbox.

Former Take Two CEO, Ben Feder, said that "any triple-A title needs aftermarket content to be competitive," which not only reveals the industry’s shift towards DLC, but indicates how publishers are trying to squeeze as much out of their engines and products as possible to make the triple-A titles more profitable. It’s also about keeping games relevant for much longer and extending their shelf life.

It’s not just DLC that developers and publishers are looking towards to make their products more cost effective and profitable, but both are experimenting more in the digital download space too, which are infinitely cheaper to make, but far from triple-A.


"Schafer shows off his latest game to the gaming press."

One developer who has bizarrely struggled to wow on a sales front, but still maintains a pretty high level of quality in their products, is none other than Tim Schafer's Double Fine. When Brutal Legend failed to make much of an impact on the sales front, the developer made the conscious choice to create smaller downloadable titles, which have a potential for a much larger profit margin. Simply put, despite EA's behemoth Brutal Legend marketing push, the rock-heavy title didn't really return on its investment. You could argue that this was down to Double Fine confusing its potential audience by not really pigeonholing itself in one genre, but one could surmise that releasing a new IP in the busy Christmas months is retail suicide, meaning that creating new triple-A games is not the only issue, but actually getting its marketing and pre-release promotion right is probably more important. I mean, in recent years the only original IP that really made an impact in that pre-Christmas period was Borderlands, but in truth, 2009 was a fairly tepid year for games, so that definitely helped. Quite why nobody takes advantage of the quiet June-August period is beyond me, and that assumption that no-one buys games in the summer is complete hogwash, but that's another story for another day.

Mirror's Edge is an example of an IP that was pushed out at the wrong time, and with EA releasing that and Dead Space within such a short time of one another, that's a decision that still puzzles me now. I imagine that in a much quieter release period, Mirror's Edge might have stood a much better chance on delivering on its investment - which is what it's all about these days.

In my honest and frank opinion, Square Enix's Deus Ex: Human Revolution is treading a dangerous path and it goes back to not only creating triple-A games being a risk, but not marketing or promoting them correctly is now a much more important part of the process. Now why am I using Deus Ex as an example? Simple, because from what we've seen of the title thus far, it's shaping up to be a fantastic game, but the "buzz" for it seems to be non-existent. The basis for this assumption is simple: we run a gaming website and looking at the page views and unique users for each game we can kind of predict what will sell and what is getting a head of steam behind it. It's a numbers game at the end of the day. Deus Ex's issue is not that what they've shown thus far isn't great, but it's far too sporadic. From releasing a fantastic CGI trailer to a large period of nothingness, Eidos Montreal and Square have their work cut out in the next few months to raise anticipation and "hype" for the title.


"Motivational posters make the world go round."

At the end of the day though, it all comes down to a risk vs. reward business model, and spending $50 million on the development of a game and taking 3 years to develop it not only puts an incredible amount of pressure on the development team to deliver, but not breaking even at the very least could have catastrophic results. I hear from a lot of developers that say as long as they create the games that they love, there will always be triple A games, but the truth of the matter is, that unless they get a return on their creations, it's never that simple.

BioWare’s Greg Zeschuk even went as far as to say that it’s pointless for most development houses to try creating triple-A titles, and says that only the top ten companies will be successful with them. "It's more competitive than it's ever been, it's more dangerous than it's ever been," said Zeschuk at last year’s Develop conference, noting that, "Right now it's precisely the wrong thing to chase."

Ubisoft’s European Managing Director, Alain Corre, seems to believe the exact opposite when it comes to triple-A games... but then again, I guess they come under the top 10 companies category that Zeschuk mentioned supra. “The games that are not triple-A are not profitable anymore. And that's changed in the last 18 months," he said last year.


"Assassin's Creed: stabbin' fools and selling games since '07"

"When you have a triple-A blockbuster it costs more money to develop, but at the end of the day there's also the chance of a good return on it because there's a concentration at the top of the charts. To a certain extent it becomes less risky to invest more in a single game or franchise than spreading your investment between three or four games, because if those three or four games are not at the right quality level, you are sure to lose money."

Interesting point and one that vastly differs from many other industry veterans, but this is coming from someone who’s seen their company churn out many franchises in recent years that have failed to bring home the bacon, while watching Assassin’s Creed turn profit and demonstrate growth since its introduction to the market.

It's hard to sit here and argue that we'll always be blessed with triple-A titles, because in such a volatile and unpredictable market, things can change in a heartbeat. What I can surmise is though that while there is a market and an audience for it, publishers and developers with the resources will always churn out triple-A games. I mean, it's not everyday that a smaller bite-size downloadable game will see returns in excess of a billion. In fact, it’s never happened, but Call of Duty can do it every year... or so it seems, so don’t write them off just yet, despite what many industry folk say.

[Editor’s Note: Hot Topic is a monthly feature here on X360A, where we take one of the month’s talking points and discuss it until your eye-balls bleed through sheer delight. Now that's intense!]





 
 

User Comments

Forum Posts: 230
Comment #1 by Infomouse
Sunday, January 30, 2011 @ 09:10:11 PM
(13Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Well I have to agree that triple-A titles seem too few and far between the yearly installment of Call of Duty. Also, if no company pushes itself to develop new and creative games, then the gaming industry will never evolve, and fans will grow tired of the same games every single year, I hope.


Forum Posts: 4
Comment #2 by Nawara Ven
Sunday, January 30, 2011 @ 10:04:25 PM
(4Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Developers are falling all over themselves to make "competitive" games, but really they are only ever pushing the graphics envelope, it seems.

Look at the Wii and its sales of New Super Mario Bros. Wii. People are buying that by the bucketload.

Why can't developers just stop making everything super-beautiful, and use the processing technology in other ways, like more on-screen characters, etc? Cloning one character model has got to be cheaper than making high poly models of everything.

But there's more to it than that, I suppose; Brutal Legend is a great game; it's the consumers that keep buying the eye candy and ignoring quality.


Forum Posts: 2141
Comment #4 by litepink
Sunday, January 30, 2011 @ 11:28:58 PM
(3Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Immediately the success of games like Angry Birds or Facebook games comes to mind. Something so simple and casual has become such a phenomenon, and they are practically polar opposites of the AAA title.


Forum Posts: 1440
Comment #6 by Auburok
Monday, January 31, 2011 @ 01:35:59 AM
(4Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
In my stint during game development, one of the major issues on a tennis game sequel was that it took too long to develop and it was constantly having problems during even the beta phase. It costs a lot of money to pay fuck-up designers to keep going back over their mistakes, and fuck-ups wiggle their way in to every game. The game sold poorly, and it was a huge investment for the lack of sales (not that they did a market test in the first place for tennis game demand).

Triple A games need to crack down on a new model. Instead of pumping out a new fucking game every year that's more of the same like Call of Duty, they need to do more intense focus on legitimate DLC. I'm not talking about "DLC" included on the disc but requires a 108k sized key to function. Actual DLC that can expand not only the gameplay (map packs) but the story (episodes like Alan Wake). You can use the big money keeping a bunch of people on developing the main product, and go down to a skeleton crew to continue to support the product and make money off of it so long as the skeleton crew is competent. I don't really like Borderlands, but it made a ton of money off of DLC over two years. Not a perfect idea, but you'd be hard pressed for any rational decisions in most large game publisher companies.

Alas, the only way to print money is to make an MMORPG that everyone is addicted to.


Forum Posts: 16
Comment #7 by callmeclean
Monday, January 31, 2011 @ 03:37:08 AM
(3Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I agree with what has been said but I think something that is important in this whole topic and something which isn't being recognized by most developers and publishers is the services connected to the game. For console games these services are always there such as Live and PSN which I think are becoming a huge part of current gaming, its not just about the game these days but things like achievements are becoming hugely important. Say what you will, whether you think achievements should count towards how good a game is or not, the fact is that achievements in games are a big factor in the decision to buy games today and developers are not realizing this.

I mean right now your on a site created for people who love achievements, how many times have you seen on a games comments people saying weather they will get a game based on how good its achievement list is? I know I have seen that lots.
In DLC news I know I have seen so many comments of people saying they will not buy it since the DLC will not be coming with more achievements.
Developers say that PC sales are poor and some release the PC titles later on and some even don't release any DLC for the platform which they do for console, Its because they are not embracing things like steam works or GFWL. Sure EA has its games on steam but it doesn't support things like steam achievements and so the only way their games sell decently is through advertisement. MW2 and BLACK OPS have support for steam works and MW2's maps are probably some of the biggest selling DLC for PC not only because of its massive popularity but because it is showcased on something such as steam and not discretely hidden in game.

In the end things like this may not make a absolute huge difference in sales but to think how easy it would be to put in achievements with DLC and to use services like steam to sell your DLC. They are simple things to do and with what evidence has been shown I think they would greatly increse many sales of games. Developers should not see achievements for their games as annoying things they have to do but take pride in not only their presentation but make them ways for players to get many more hours out of their game in new and interesting ways.

I just think developers really need to open up to all these services that weather some people like it or not are becoming a big part of gaming.


Forum Posts: 2598
Comment #8 by jamie1000013
Monday, January 31, 2011 @ 03:49:08 AM
(2Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I think it's the publishers fault certain games fail to get sufficient revenue. Take Singularity and Alan Wake for example they got next to no advertising what so ever. And yet they were being published by giants Microsoft studios and Activision. Microsoft studios advertised the hell out of Halo: Reach so why didn't they do the same to Singurlarity, same with Activision and Call of Duty. Singurlarity and Alan Wake were AAA titles but they just went under the radar.

I think the Publishers are just scared if they give smaller titles backing it could cost them too much money. I also think gaming stores are to blame as well because when I go into Gamestation or Game they tailor the shop so smaller titles are hidden where big AAA titles are everywhere.


Forum Posts: 7
Comment #9 by Roadhog
Monday, January 31, 2011 @ 07:11:02 AM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
There needs to be more originality in triple AAA games. I love games like COD and Halo and GOW, but I don't want every other game copying that style. Developers should towards movies more, or even books. And instead of making a crap game to come out at release time of the movie, they should look towards older movies. there are a ton of old movies that with a bit of effort could be really good games.


Forum Posts: 5
Comment #10 by tazaf
Monday, January 31, 2011 @ 11:35:24 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
hum... what exactly is a Triple-A game ^^ ? I got the sense of most of the article, but since i don't know precisly what a triple-A game is, i can't understand the globality of the discussion.

Could someone explain it too me in two/three sentences ? ^^ Thanks in advance.


Forum Posts: 151
Comment #11 by darkboy1200
Monday, January 31, 2011 @ 01:40:56 PM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
@tazaf: AAA really just means high budget. Huge production value, big campaign complete with cinematics, and lots of voice acting talent.

If you ask me, devs can still make a good buck on retail, but they need to concentrate on less of a big budget. Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light is a good example. I'd love to see a big retail sequel to that. More levels, enemies, character skins, and detailed environments, but all in the iso view. It worked just fine in the end. Majesco announced success at around 600,000-700,000 units with Zumba Fitness. Another great example is Limbo. That games around 500,000 sales I believe, gotta check gamasutra's statistics, but it's another great example. Micecraft, indie darling of 2010, made Notch a millionaire. The devs behind Magicka, just released on steam and soon to be released on XBLA, announced success at 30,000 sales already.

Like bioware said, only a few can really survive as AAA games. If you can just make great games period and with less of a giant budget, then you can most definitely sell quite a few games. All the talent out there can still create great games. You can still have great plots, or voice actors, but you need less risk.




Forum Posts: 5088
Comment #12 by Capn Doug
Monday, January 31, 2011 @ 04:33:45 PM
(3Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
There are so many problems with having a huge investment in a game. The more advertising you have around the game, the more you need to deliver. If you have an ok game that you had an advertising blitz on, it will be seen by many as not meeting expectations. How often have you put in a game expecting nothing, either because it was cheap or a friend recommended it, and had it absolutely blow you away? If you expect Spielburg and get Michael Bay, you are going to be disappointed. Not because it is bad, but because it didn't live up to expectations. I played Mass Effect because I found it cheap and was looking for a new RPG and was blown away. I preordered 2 and didn't like it as much as the first (though not by much), which probably had something to do with expectations.

My brother now owns a 360, and one of the things he said probably has an effect on it as well. You can't sit down and play many games for only 30 minutes. The ones you can are the ones like Farmville or Angry Birds (I have a friend who pulls out his iPhone and plays Angry Birds whenever the conversation steers away from him for a few minutes). You can play Limbo or Raskulls for only a few minutes. You can play a lone round of Call of Duty in 10 minutes, a game of FIFA in 30, a game of Madden in 20, which probably has something to do with the success of those types of games. It takes hours to play through the campaign in games like Oblivion, Final Fantasy 13, Mass Effect and Lost Odyssey, and that isn't including all the side quests and grinding for 1000. People rag on casual games, but they are successful because they are accessible. Anyone can play them and not see it as a huge time commitment.


Forum Posts: 985
Comment #13 by Dr Popodopolus
Monday, January 31, 2011 @ 05:09:19 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
@10 Triple-A games usually hit the 90-99 average rating bracket (see Call of Duty, Halo and Gears of War) on top of what #11 said in his first sentence.

Double-A games usually hit 80-89 and Single-A games around the 70-79 mark on say an aggregate site like metacritic or gamerankings.


Forum Posts: 276
Comment #14 by Hero Of Acre
Monday, January 31, 2011 @ 10:42:01 PM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Accessibility is nice until it starts to hamper what could be done with the game. I mean I used to play a Source Mod called Dystopia all of the time, but it had a ridicilous learning curve, but I had more fun playing that than I did playing something like Halo. Sure I can pick up and play some games for 10 minutes and then do something else, but with those games I don't want to play them for more than 10 minutes. But that's what sells and over time games that you can actually get invested in the story, the characters, or the deep mechanics will disappear.

I want long games with great stories, characters, and gameplay, but I want it to be worth it. I don't want something that's stretched just to eek out another hour in an already short campagin. I want 50+ hours worth of gameplay in a 50+ hour game, not 10 minutes worth of game stretched out to 9 hours.

Also I find that most Triple-A games nowadays just lack in innovation, I will give Ubisoft-M credit for the multiplayer in Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood; it has it's faults, but there hasn't really been anything like it. Most 3-A games anymore seem to be Michael Bay movies as opposed to something that isn't about giant setpieces and lots of explosions...EXPLOSIONS!

The only thing that is attempted to be improved in games anymore are graphics. Personally I hate when people are like, 'Wow, the graphics sucks for (insert game)'. Graphics don't matter, I enjoy games just as much, if not more from 10 years ago as I do games just released.

Honestly I get more pesimistic for the state of gaming as time goes on. There is a saying I like that goes like this; "Nostalgia, things aren't as good as they used to be, but probally never were." However this is the one area that doesn't apply for me. I had so much more fun and enjoyed so many more games 5 years than I do now; everything just feels like the last game I played with a texture swap.


Forum Posts: 2137
Comment #15 by mjc0961
Monday, January 31, 2011 @ 11:38:11 PM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
"The games that are not triple-A are not profitable anymore. And that's changed in the last 18 months"

I think Ubisoft said that simply because of the piles of shovelware they release for Nintendo platforms. Their problem wasn't in making smaller titles for XBLA and PSN like other companies mentioned in the article such as Double Fine. Their problem is releasing mountains of shovelware. Just look at all this mess (links are to Amazon):
http://tinyurl.com/ubids
http://tinyurl.com/ubiwii

Those clearly aren't AAA titles, and it's not surprising that those titles wouldn't make piles of money either. I mean, damn Ubi, it's not surprising at all that Assassin's Creed sold more copies than Imagine Hair Stylist or My Coach SATs.


Forum Posts: 449
Comment #16 by a hippyslayer
Monday, January 31, 2011 @ 11:53:43 PM
(-6Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Everytime I read hogwash all I can think is Harry Potter. Silly Englishmen :>


Forum Posts: 0
Comment #17 by rayraytheman927
Tuesday, February 01, 2011 @ 03:08:40 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
ok i am just going to say this call duty keed to go away for a while becase it kill evreythink that come out around it as for now let the other game have a change becase if this dosent happen you will be playing call duty 625


Forum Posts: 17
Comment #18 by Valorous 7
Tuesday, February 01, 2011 @ 09:16:52 AM
(3Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I'm usually really hesitant and deliberate about which games I purchase. However, as time has gone on I found myself opening up to new genres and new titles and series I had never played before.

I like to think that when I look at my game collection that I've picked up more or less high caliber titles, but I don't really look for that. All I'm interested in before buying a game are if it's interesting to me in terms of gameplay, storyline, etc or if it's from a series/developer I have a good history with.

I played a lot of Square games in the past, and when Drakengard came out I picked up a copy. It wasn't a phenomenal game by any mean, but it was really enjoyable to me and a decent purchase.

I feel most Triple-A games sell so well because they're clearly a brand. Most people buy Halo games because they're Halo games. Same with Call of Duty. Same with Final Fantasy. Example: Some people who disliked Final Fantasy XIII are still looking forward to Final Fantasy XIII-2.

A lot of these single experience games will sell alright, but if they turn it into a series and get some marketing, they sell better.

Look at Assassin's Creed. The first one was mindblowing at e3 when they showed it off. Sales wee pretty good, but reception was lukewarm. I was upset because I loved the game and didn't think the then trilogy would be complete.

Enter Assassin's Creed 2. Live motion videos, back story, a charismatic lead, and good solid mechanics to back up the game all lead to a huge success and something rare - a sequel that surpasses the original.

Then they put time and effort into Brotherhood and it became a huge hit. I wasn't going to pick up the game and chalked it up to being a cash in title. It was only after my friend had picked it up and started telling me about it that I ended up doing the same. He told me that if Ubi keeps it up, this is a series he'd drop 60 dollars on every installment. That's the thing that makes these Triple-A titles sell.

You know what you're getting. You know you're getting quality. A lot of these other studios can have big splashes if the quality is there. Like Arkham Asylum. Medium buzz until release where it was then accepted as being one of the better games that were out there. Now it's turned into a series with Arkham City coming out later this year.

It's hard to strike gold and make a triple-A title, but if the effort is there it will not go unappreciated. That's how I see it anyway. I look at Dead Space, which wasn't that popular at launch from what I remember, and then I look at Dead Space 2. Everyone and their mothers are talking about it and playing it. You can argue that it's a triple-A game and that Isaac Clarke is on his way to becoming a household name.

I don't know. I try to play everything I can find that wasn't thrown together hoping to make money, but the problem does seem to be that the quality isn't there in a lot of games, which pushes the polished ones to the top, if that makes sense. It probably doesn't. /rambling.


Forum Posts: 3115
Comment #19 by laundryman
Tuesday, February 01, 2011 @ 03:10:54 PM
(6Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Oh how I miss good Crash Bandicoot games...


Forum Posts: 92
Comment #20 by PuK3
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 09:27:16 AM
(3Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
At least reviews on a site like this will help uncover sleeper hits like singularity and metro 2033. Some games just receive no marketing and people are scared to pay so much for games when they know nothing about them. I applaud you x360a for playing the AAA games and the trash - all so i know what is bad and what isn't. :)


Forum Posts: 23
Comment #21 by Ash2X
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 11:28:29 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Well,since developers can´t deliver the same gameplay-quality they did one or two Generations ago,it seems hard but sometimes quality does sell if you don´t screw up 20 games of an old francise like Sonic and then wonder why nobody buys the new expensive title.
And: The Game-Industry makes more money then the movies - which are sometimes around 10 times as expensive.


Forum Posts: 2
Comment #22 by General Gremlin
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 11:44:47 AM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
With the risk involved to create new IPs, im surprised there havent been more companies using psn and live to test new ideas. Up to this point the only one i can think of was capcom with case zero. Even in that case they were well on their way to releasing dead rising 2. It seems like it could be a cheap way to get a game out and if ppl really like maybe then put some real money into a retail sequel. Im not talking about every single game doing this cus that would suck, but games that could be risky like mirrors edge.


Forum Posts: 222
Comment #23 by xbfrittsox360
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 12:20:11 PM
(2Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Crash Team Racing was my favorite game as a kid on PS1. Even though it was a complete copy of Mario Kart, it was totally awesome.


Forum Posts: 627
Comment #24 by its delicious
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 12:24:26 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
When one considers the Call of Duty, Halo and Gears franchises and the record setting amounts of money they made, the AAA blockbuster title is a gamble only the rich can afford to take. But take the risk they will, because you might just have the next billion-dollar title on your hands. And if you nurture the game with DLC, you'll stand to make an even greater return on the investment.

The closed studios referenced in this article were shuttered because their games were poorly done and deserved to be closed. I'm looking at you Pandemic; Mercenaries 2 was shit and you never supported it.


Forum Posts: 276
Comment #25 by Hero Of Acre
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 06:30:20 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
@24 The studio's mentioned deserved to be closed because they messed up one time?

Also if Mercenaries 2 was shit why would it have mattered if they supported it? Personally I loved Mercenaries 2, although I wish some of the achievements weren't glitched, but glitched achievements aren't a reason to shut down a developer; well not a very good reason at least.


Forum Posts: 627
Comment #26 by its delicious
Wednesday, February 02, 2011 @ 11:53:30 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
@25 - In this particular case, Pandemic didn't mess up just one time. From the moment they split from LucasArts after Mercenaries:PoD, it was a comedy of errors. It would have mattered if Pandemic seriously supported Mercs 2, because it would have shown that they cared. Half-assed and good-enough does not a AAA title make!


Forum Posts: 27
Comment #27 by illusive man
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 03:38:23 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
It will be very interesting to see how much longer these current 'triple A' titles endure until the developers for these games have exhausted all possible ideas within their own genres, where's all the imagination and creativity gone to when developing new games? Mind you it was amazing reading how expensive it is to make games now, Halo, Call of Duty and Gears of War are all good games, however each new addition to each franchise is basically the same game with a new coat of paint,would be great to see in the future a developer having the guts to try an all out different approach like what 2k did with the first Bioshock, wether you love or hate the game there was nothing else like it! Rant over! :)


Forum Posts: 757
Comment #28 by l.maciver
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 10:03:06 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
#3, then why appear on a gaming site?

Triple A titles arnt as Epic as they once where, you always feel like the wait was too long (ALAN WAKE), didnt feel complete til DLC comes or just didnt live up to the hype(CoD and Halo). For the 360 i believe the only real Triple A games have been Oblivion, Fable 2, Mass Effect 1-2, Dragon age and Batman AA.



Forum Posts: 55
Comment #29 by dasheq
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 12:15:09 PM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
tl;dr, jk read most of it - and most of those games don't deserve to be triple A, #28 named the proper ones just forgot about Battlefield: Bad company [1&2]. I have to say tho, Crash Bandicoot FTW. Completed 1,2,3, team racing and crash bash numerous amount of times, always trying to 100%, only succeeded on Team Racing the others i got to about 90% Naughty Dog is the best developer EVER.


Forum Posts: 1167
Comment #30 by Zombiedrd
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 12:29:09 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
As long as Mass Effect 3 comes out, I don't care if all the AAA makers go bust. Only game I care about for next few years.


Forum Posts: 1416
Comment #31 by Vindicator51
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 06:32:51 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Crash Bandicoot, the sad tale of a lost era.


Forum Posts: 376
Comment #32 by gamerscorhunta
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 09:23:33 PM
(2Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
On the occasion that we run into a masterpiece much like Grand Theft Auto IV or Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, many "Triple A" titles turn from a marvel in society to the knife in the gaming industry. The largest example is most prominately the Call of Duty franchise. While I have enjoyed every single one of them, it just seems to be more of a weapon to all of the other developers than a savior to the industry. Basically, Activision could be using the money that their franchises make and create a completely different and ideal game, but because Kotick is the business man he is, he would rather watch all other game debvelopers die in a fire before he gives up his precious gem known as the Call of Duty franchise, and for that, we have developers struggling to compete against this madness, and now they will be releasing video games in the beginning part of the year, then it will get crowded, and we have ourselves a complete clusterf*** until the Call of Duty IP dies out, which will happen when our sun explodes into a supernova.

Did this make sense? Welcome to the gaming industry.


Forum Posts: 11
Comment #33 by whitewolf11761
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 09:54:09 PM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
My thing is this, no game today can be original. Everything has been done, even sequels of games are only remodeled versions of prior games, with a few additions of course. They release these games onto the market, and then they expect us to keep paying them to play the game that they released, we bought, and they keep developing content for. If something is released for a game, then it should have been in the opening package, or it should be free to download and play. I have yet to see any DLC that was worth buying on the xbox 360, and that will continue to remain that way. Back to my first rant, such as CoD, or F.E.A.R. or AC and other such games, they don't change anything about the games but the scenery and the story. A lot of people have already gotten tired of it, and a lot more will get tired of it in the future. I can remember pretty much all of the gaming era, and I can tell you that what they call one of the best, is one of the worst. Gaming was so much simpler and better when the arcades first came around, and it was an atari at home. Companies are to much about profit before quality these days. So if you ask me, gaming is going on a downhill slide, and if they don't fix it soon, the world will fall down around them, and they won't be able to hit the reset button.


Forum Posts: 199
Comment #34 by Night45Fox
Thursday, February 03, 2011 @ 11:25:36 PM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Poor Ensemble Studios.


Forum Posts: 627
Comment #35 by its delicious
Friday, February 04, 2011 @ 03:05:02 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
@33 - My thing is this, no comment today can be original. Everything has been written, even replies of comments are only rewritten versions of prior comments, with a few additions of course. They post these comments onto the page, and then they expect us to keep reading them to see the comment that they wrote, we read, and they keep writing replies for. If something is commented for an article, then it should have been in the opening paragraph, or it should be free to download and read. I have yet to see any comment that was worth reading on the xbox360achievements.org, and that will continue to remain that way.


Forum Posts: 3530
Comment #36 by MediumMelanin
Friday, February 04, 2011 @ 09:27:43 AM
(-1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
How do you go from $2,000,000 to $80,000,000!? Just all on graphics? Wow...anyway, CoD sucks.


Forum Posts: 14891
Comment #37 by Webb [STAFF]
Friday, February 04, 2011 @ 02:01:26 PM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
@#36 - Well, it's not just graphics... you have bigger dev teams (more wages), more marketing budget, more on voice actors, longer dev cycles and more importantly, more cups of tea. Of course, there are other factors to consider as well.


Forum Posts: 31
Comment #38 by RunDMC
Friday, February 04, 2011 @ 05:03:30 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
What about those sites that take money for good reviews? (Got my eyes on you GameSpot).


Forum Posts: 158
Comment #39 by enderflame
Friday, February 04, 2011 @ 11:05:15 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
The game industry needs to wake up and see what the consumers really want. First we don't want tacked on multiplayer, copy cat games, and a campaign with no story or a two sentence story. They also keep appealing to ten year old kids, whatever happened to the median age of 35. Also COD needs to take a break, COD 4 and black ops were the only two that should have come out, make a three year development cycle like everyone else and stop crushing the market during the holidays.


Forum Posts: 9
Comment #40 by Erwo the Elder
Saturday, February 05, 2011 @ 12:00:45 AM
(2Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
In the end, a quality unique game will always bring sales. Maybe not opening week sales but sales in the end. Look at something like Red Dead Redemption. I would never say that Rockstar games is a powerhouse but look at their game quality over the years. They always give you more game than their competition and they are always well written. The quality of their games, sells the games. And that goes for DLC as well. Games like Red Dead, Alan Wake and Fallout have quality DLC that is really worth buying and that's why they've done well.

I tire of the map pack DLC that gets me five new maps that cost me $15 while a new Mass Effect 2 DLC will only cost me $7. It's consumer gouging and hurts the industry as a whole. When companies steal from the industry in such a way they aren't hurting just their competition but their own other games that consumers might purchase. Maybe, we've missed out on some great possible franchises because they just didn't sell.

This goes doubly for EA's decision to start with their online passes. By charging to play online they are inevitably pushing players to their competition. Why buy Medal of Honor used when you can buy Call of Duty? At that point buying the Map pack for COD at least makes sense, because you get something for what you pay for, as opposed to the eventual shutdown of the EA servers that you bought an online pass for. They want to punish players for not buying new, but this is the same failed argument that music downloading faced. Finding a game for cheap and falling in love with it is going to make players buy the next game that comes out. It works for crack dealers, why can't they figure that out?


Forum Posts: 240
Comment #41 by SuperWoody64
Saturday, February 05, 2011 @ 04:13:47 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
@6, another way of making buckets of cash is to just be nintendo. They seem to be doing ok even though almost every analyst says/said they won't/wouldn't.


Forum Posts: 141
Comment #42 by Rastaman20
Saturday, February 05, 2011 @ 11:02:54 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
well the reason companies fail is as of late it seems there not properly testing the games and/or listening to the consumer so its there own fault


Forum Posts: 0
Comment #43 by DarkestHero
Sunday, February 06, 2011 @ 12:05:09 AM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
It's possible that Mirrors Edge will get a sequel now considering Dead Space did with it's poor sales. I wish I could say the same for dear old Mr.Wake.


Forum Posts: 7
Comment #44 by AGRawr is Bored
Sunday, February 06, 2011 @ 02:21:11 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
People aren't buying anything by "the bucketload" for wii. Look at the sales. The wii's sales are horrible as of the last year. Most people in the industry think that the Wii will be pretty much done this year, Everything is selling 3x-4x better. Xbox is doing great, sold 2x more then play station did in console sales alone over the past year, has alot of great games, and can have another Halo made at anytime since they own the IP now. Weather you like Halo or not, it's still one of the best titles of all time, in sales and player base, and even tho Reach was a let down, people will still buy a Halo game to see how it is.


Forum Posts: 240
Comment #45 by SuperWoody64
Sunday, February 06, 2011 @ 07:40:05 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
http://listphobia.com/2010/11/21/10-best-selling-video-games-of-2010
Hate the wii don't deny it's success 44. I pretty much play my 360 or ds and occasionally fire up the ps3 for some little big planet. Hang out on a game store for a little but and see what parents are buying their kids.


Forum Posts: 1807
Comment #46 by newbsicle
Sunday, February 06, 2011 @ 12:32:41 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
There are without a doubt more gamers this generation than last. You could get away with making a mediocre game years ago because a gamers options weren't that great. Now that more people are playing games the market has grown. It's as simple as that.


Forum Posts: 0
Comment #47 by G Machete
Monday, February 07, 2011 @ 06:20:33 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I completely agree with Erwo the Elder, and dont forget DLC already on the disc... c`mon, why dont you make new DLC lazy developers... end of rant...


Forum Posts: 659
Comment #48 by Blueprotoss
Monday, February 07, 2011 @ 08:50:26 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
@36. I see that you don't know how the Business World works.

@ 38. I would say that most Reviewers do that nowadays with games, music, and movies.

@ 42. Its that you can't be a successful Publisher and Developer because it takes a lot of money to make a game.

@ 43. That might be possible while Dead Space did make enough money with comics and animations to do Dead Space 2. Another reason was that Dead Space became a popular game through Used and Digital sales later on.


Forum Posts: 123
Comment #49 by [Ku-Ga] MasonCooper42
Tuesday, February 08, 2011 @ 03:51:00 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
i am going to look stupid, but what defines a Triple-A Game, obivously im going to guess that its something like Gears of War, but then again isnt every single game developer hoping that the game that they have developed, built from the ground up, turns into a aaa product,

also what does AAA stand for?


Forum Posts: 535
Comment #50 by Brutalsleeper
Tuesday, February 08, 2011 @ 06:49:02 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
@49 and others who don't know what a Triple A game is.
AAA games are games which have a huge investment from the developer/publisher... This usually leads to a better game. E.g. Halo, CoD, Gran Turismo etc etc.
There isn't a definitive way of classify them and so some people (Like my self) would consider Mass Effect 2 to be a AAA game while others wouldn't. But it isn't just a measure of how good a game is. E.g I don't think many of the Halo games were any good, but to me they are most definatley Triple A games...conversley While Clive Barkers Jericho was a brilliant game it wasn't marketed and supported to a full extent by those backing the game and so isn't Triple A.


Forum Posts: 45
Comment #51 by pinkfluff1
Tuesday, February 08, 2011 @ 08:03:01 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
The problem is just a few titles sucking up the entire market. This is especially the case for Nintendo, whilst the Wii sold amazingly well people who own it only own a few titles and thats all they'l buy. The same is to be said for the 360 and PS3, so many people will only really buy into one or two titles a year, due to cost and also that they cant see past COD and FIFA. So many of my friends only buy those basic titles. We have casual core gamers. So whilst theres clearly a large sale of consoles those who buy them will only really buy COD each year and maybe one or two other titles.

On another note the cost of premium titles is what stops me buying. I love my games but being a poor student I have to be selective in what I buy as I don't want to waste £30 - £40 on a brand new game and find its not that great or only lasts me a few week. I'd buy other franchises or 'lesser developer' titles if I could afford it.

I hope we don't get shoddy episodic games that would be depressing as I love to blitz the hell out of a new title when I get, theres all that excitement before a big launch to. I do however understand the fears of developers. perhaps finding ways to cut development costs should be prioritised even more?


Forum Posts: 314
Comment #52 by AngrySalad
Wednesday, February 09, 2011 @ 12:19:58 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
"I mean, in recent years the only original IP that really made an impact in that pre-Christmas period was Borderlands..."
Borderlands Release Date: October 20, 2009
Left 4 Dead Release Date: November 18, 2008.

Granted, according to Wikipedia, Borderlands hit 3Mil copies slightly faster than L4D did, but they were both widly accepted as a "hit"

People like to compete, complete and compare. That's one of the great things about Borderlands. Competing with your friends, or online, it great. Comparing all the different loot in the game, and trading with others is fun. Always looking for something better.

Left 4 Dead's (and L4D2's) hook (IMHO) is the ultra competitiveness of Versus, and the 4-player teamwork involved.

Games need to have a hook to keep folks interested. There has to be a good story and content, but there needs to be a hook. Also, decent DLC for years beyond date of first release helps too.


Forum Posts: 123
Comment #53 by [Ku-Ga] MasonCooper42
Thursday, February 10, 2011 @ 04:08:09 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
#50, thank you for the explanation.

problem with cod's and halo's is the expectations, halo and cod have been churning out good games, (not on sales, but these games are excellent) which have led to high anticipation towards these games, whereas as its hard for smaller games from smaller companies, (hope im right in saying bayonetta is one of these, which reviewed well in the uk, but it had terrible sales, several good games sold drastically poorly last year)


Forum Posts: 125
Comment #54 by BuckfastNI
Thursday, February 10, 2011 @ 10:29:08 PM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
SYPHON FILTER


Forum Posts: 71
Comment #55 by Purified N Fire
Sunday, February 13, 2011 @ 08:46:30 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
One thing I have not seen mentioned is the huge part of online codes that are now going out with games. Need for Speed:Hot Pursuit, Battlefield: Bad Company 2, Mass Effect 2.

I personally think that this will be more and more of what we see because the gaming industry does not make any money of re-sells. I am not opposed to it because I understand that they want a piece of the pie as well.

Whether right or wrong, the creative, whether it be in game development or new ways to charge you money, will continue to thrive.

THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY: DOING THE SAME THING THE SAME WAY AND EXPECTING TO GET DIFFERENT RESULTS


Forum Posts: 105
Comment #56 by challinko
Monday, February 14, 2011 @ 08:22:05 AM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
To say the least I've been playing games since they could be called that. At my mid 30's I'm now starting to get jaded by the current trend in video games. And its not like my support for them has waned, Its whats being developed thats having the impact on the genre as a whole.
Developers themselves are not doing themselves justice. Take for instance in the recent Aliens vs predator as an example. Both sega and rebellion had fans on par if not surpassing that of call of duty, everything was in place except their effort and lack of fortitude to complete a competent title that would have lined their pockets. But they dropped a fat turd and got what they deserved, only thinking of a quick buck, and like many others sega and rebellion can't sell me anything after that.(wheres the labor of love?)there is none and it shows.
Bringing me to another question, if your going to spend millions of dollars to develop a game, whats a few thousand more to to get it play tested to get those nuances ironed out so those game breaking problems don't get into the final product. Hell, most people would test it for free, play the hell out of it for a month and see what could be better, if it was made available, ''Hell use the leader boards to choose input for the sequels'', Its code we're talking about it can be tweaked, you know whats going on in that code because it didn't exist before it was made. And you'd think after 30 plus years of game development there would be some type of less money short cuts to get around some of these development cycles. like A moldable A.i., a standard bells and whistles interface, matchmaking for every game thats quick like COD.
And whats with the dummying down of games as if people are incapable of learning. Games need a deeper secondary mechanic going on so you can advance if you put your time in. Campaigns need to change up like enemies in different locations on different playthroughs to keep it fresh.
No ones making the industry stumble but that lazy minded business aesthetic thats become the norm...Full priced betas, poor advertisement, little to no community input but want the community to buy and invest in it. Or point and case maybe its just a misappropriation of funds that costing so much....too many or to big of bonuses.


Forum Posts: 7184
Comment #57 by Opiate42
Wednesday, February 16, 2011 @ 09:04:20 AM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Trouble is there's two numbers games on the horizon: risk/reward to develop and then there's available spending cash on the consumer end.

Games are $60 a shot brand new, and when you have about ... rough guess of about 20 or so coming out in 2011 that are all going to be incredible....that's $1200 I simply don't have. So as consumers we have to choose which few will get our dollars especially when we're likely still playing catchup to get our hands on stellar games from LAST year even....I know I am.

Some are simply not going to sell as many as they'd hoped by the time they take their "success or failure" statistics because many of us wait on them to go for a price drop or to be found used. There's only 4 games this year I'll be getting day one...and one of them I already have. Everything else has to wait.


Forum Posts: 674
Comment #58 by TheUglyCasanova
Saturday, February 19, 2011 @ 06:09:21 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
It's definitely a weird time in gaming. I grew up being excited for the next big release and read every magazine I could before the internet days.

Now it's almost like you don't need to read a magazine to know that games that do well will have 2 or three sequels.

I've been playing my PSP more and more because of all the more unique games they offer, especially the mini's.

One can only prestige so many times in their life before it just sucks to bother with.

I have loved MW2 and Black Ops..but without even seeing a single screenshot I am pretty sure I will be passing on the next CoD game just because it's all the same shit year after year.


Forum Posts: 674
Comment #59 by TheUglyCasanova
Saturday, February 19, 2011 @ 06:14:00 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Sorry for double post but

@Opiate42: Exactly. Most serious gamers don't usually have jobs to spend over a grand a year playing every awesome title that comes out.

With that I have to lower expectations and desire just to not feel like I'm missing out. The only game this year I plan to get day 1 is Portal 2. The rest are just sequels (given portal is a sequel, but not really since the original Portal was more of a tester design to see if people liked it and Portal 2 is basically what the first should of been without the big buck guru's getting their panties in a bunch over how much they make).

There are tons of games coming out and even out for months that I want to play, but thats why I have friends. I get a new game, swap off when I'm done for another I haven't played yet.

When most games won't even last you a full week of entertainment...why spend $60 just because it's a big name title?


Forum Posts: 152
Comment #60 by Russman
Sunday, February 20, 2011 @ 07:18:42 AM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment

This is all my opinion but me personally I think it's the developers and higher ups pushing no name studios to create amazing games. They give them a year or maybe into two years to create something that will bend time and space and change the world. What they fail to realize is that these companies sometimes have programmers and artists that have maybe shipped one "good" title and can't handle the pressure and are told cut corners. Or they don't have enough time to test all the bugs . Not their fault entirely. Even arcade games have the probem, look at the newly released shooter Breach which to me feels like it suffered that problem.


Then you have one that were given a chance and actually did well. ( I'll use High Moon Studios as an example) They went from being no ones ( ok the Bourne game was fun), to creating an actually good Transformers game that sold well and had good reviews. Now they are making the next video game for the movie and a sequel is in the works.

The companies that actually listen to their fans, and also support the game post launch are the ones who will gain followers at the end of the day which seems like common sense but you'd be surprised what the all might $$ can do. Even posting on forums talking to the fans or having Q&A videos on youtube will get your game more attention I think than running an ad on a website promoting the game.

What stinks is that sometimes they aren't given a chance because they get bought out by big name publishers and if the game doesn't get good returns ( well up to their standards lol) in first two weeks they scrap any chance of dlc or even patches because it costs money and fire everyone, which might be what the game needed all along to sell.


Forum Posts: 88
Comment #61 by The Robxp
Tuesday, February 22, 2011 @ 03:47:10 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
well said


Forum Posts: 0
Comment #62 by zed
Friday, March 11, 2011 @ 10:22:33 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
sometimes you have to take a risk


Forum Posts: 479
Comment #63 by wright3034
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 @ 12:09:51 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
where are the b-games, like 30-40 dollar games?


Forum Posts: 40
Comment #64 by Stealthcake
Tuesday, April 05, 2011 @ 08:11:34 PM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
What i'd give to replay those childhood days of Crash Bandicoot, Croc and Spyro, without a care in the world!
Makes you wonder where your life has gone!


Forum Posts: 5
Comment #65 by fijigus
Tuesday, April 05, 2011 @ 11:24:19 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Big problem is that a lot of the big games are also aimed at us older gamers. While we have disposable income, we also have no time to play so many games. I have multiple un-played games in my drawer, numerous arcade games unfinished, and even more trials and demos I haven't even touched yet. More triple A games just means more games I have to miss because of lack of time.

And like an article in the new EGM, gamers are spread thinner between games and that connectivity with your fellow gamer over the newest greatest game is fewer and farther between. And then its quickly time to get to the next game so more used games available sooner after release.


Forum Posts: 153
Comment #66 by Blasphemy
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 @ 02:40:51 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
CoD should have to pay a tax for what they've done to the video game industry. Then we can use that money to support AAA titles. :)


Forum Posts: 25
Comment #67 by metabolicbatman
Thursday, April 21, 2011 @ 11:38:00 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
games are getting more and more rushed. evident in Fable 3 for the most part, especially in the DLC. the list of problems for some games can push ppl away from even buying it. if i wasn't a fable fan the list of bugs and game enders would have stopped me dead in my tracks before i even bought it. I mean who wants to buy a game and have to sit around for months for a patch to be released just so it is bearable.


Forum Posts: 78
Comment #68 by MKC
Thursday, April 28, 2011 @ 09:27:55 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Nice read. Thank you.


Forum Posts: 0
Comment #69 by mickyblue1988
Sunday, May 01, 2011 @ 09:38:00 PM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
ka meeeee, haaaaaa meeeeee HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!


Forum Posts: 12
Comment #70 by JPClyde
Saturday, May 14, 2011 @ 08:37:31 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
A problem they have now also is that people buy games on hearsay for example, if I don't like a game and I tell a friend and they take my word for it they will not buy the game or someone takes a reviewers point of view of the game. There isn't enough demos for upcoming games, if there was then I could say to a friend don't take my word for it, try out the free demo thats on the consoles store. Okay this will influence the buying of games but not in any other way than say reviews or hearsay, if I could only buy one game, I would rather try a game and buy it or buy another game I like than waste money something I try, hate and shelf or trade in.


Forum Posts: 0
Comment #71 by stuartalexcain
Saturday, May 14, 2011 @ 02:21:27 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I'd just like to see some more original IP's entering the market place. I don't need realistic graphics or sound, I do need an interesting story and great gameplay before I open my wallet though.


Forum Posts: 11
Comment #72 by xContritiox
Wednesday, May 18, 2011 @ 10:54:32 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Even though I always play this generation of games the most, I do believe the best games were on the PS1, PS2 and original Xbox, because they now spam a lot of the same game nowadays. Don't get me wrong games these days are still great, but they are running out of ideas.


Forum Posts: 29
Comment #73 by Domino
Monday, May 23, 2011 @ 10:23:50 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I would have to agree with #70 lack of demo's in recent years for games has been on the decline, I will even admit to downloading a game to try before buying it without the risk of losing money on a investment.


Forum Posts: 0
Comment #74 by Levi699
Wednesday, May 25, 2011 @ 08:40:23 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
strange


Forum Posts: 0
Comment #75 by PlayforGold
Thursday, May 26, 2011 @ 04:32:13 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
hmmm..difficult one.


Forum Posts: 31
Comment #76 by crunchb3rry
Saturday, May 28, 2011 @ 11:27:49 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Some games just promote themselves as AAA, but have D+ work go into them. I got Fight Night Champion a few weeks ago, and 90% of the game is identical to last year. They didn't even bother to change the menus. Every ring entrance and celebration is the exact same animation. They basically tweaked the controls, added a "story mode" that was really just Tutorial 2.0 and shit out the same game. Whereas prior to that, there was enough of a gap between FNR3 and FNR4 to show some real change. Publishers need to stop pushing out the same minorly improved game every year and they'd probably sell twice as many copies. Pretty much goes for every publisher. ESPECIALLY EA Sports.


Forum Posts: 58
Comment #77 by CHiLLiONS
Saturday, June 04, 2011 @ 02:08:25 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Why doesn't M$ poll it's users on XBL and take the guesswork out of publishing/developing good games? What is the point of having countless demos on the marketplace when I can only decide to either buy or not? Sometimes a little user input is all that a game may need to separate itself from the garbage.

I also think that AAA games should be released as "Games on Demand" from day 1 on the marketplace or PSN. If these big $ corporations want to hi-jack the gaming industry, then take the steps needed to evolve it instead of destroying it. I know that I buy M$ points online with a credit card because there is no tax on them, unlike the stores in my area, which all suck by the way. If I wanted to go buy a game that is brand new at retail price, but that game is older or less popular, then that game might not be for sale at all. How much money does it cost to press up millions of disks? Eliminate some of that cost and improve availability by letting me download my games.


Forum Posts: 4637
Comment #78 by hydrosugar
Monday, June 06, 2011 @ 04:31:50 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
@76 the sad thing is for the amount of effort needed to actually improve on a game properly, the increase in sales EA would make would be minimal at best. how should i put this delicately...PEOPLE ARE MORONS :D


Forum Posts: 154
Comment #79 by a fat turkey
Monday, June 06, 2011 @ 01:33:32 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I still hook up and play my systems before Xbox 360 and PS3 and play them instead because games now are so lame. Since these current consoles came out, games just haven't been the same.


Forum Posts: 5
Comment #80 by inkyspot
Friday, June 10, 2011 @ 01:04:36 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Sad News but I aggree, that making a competive Triple A title is the eviquivelent of putting stock in a risky investment, you can win big if it succeeds, or you can lose it all if it fails.

The industry is suffering by serveral things IMO: Such as current economy, Developers who can't step up the quality, Timing of release, Marketing, and what consumers are currently buy. I brought Brutal Legend, love that game, saw so much potential, too bad it failed to get the support of comsumer, now they are making a Seseme Streat Game. As sad as that is that move is less risker, the child market is untapped, there is potential fro profit there, I also believe this is the connect demographic; Parents don't want their kids sitting there like zombies, so a game that is kid friendly and emplores movement sounds like it could be successful for them; you can't blame them, they need to survive and we are consumers ultimately determines what will fail or succeed.


Forum Posts: 5
Comment #81 by inkyspot
Friday, June 10, 2011 @ 01:07:25 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Damn, Sorry for all the typo (lol). Next time I will pay more attention to what I write.


Forum Posts: 322
Comment #82 by 1morey
Sunday, June 26, 2011 @ 10:32:25 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
@ 57 agreed.

I only get 80 bucks a month for my summer job, and 60 of it is spending money, and I am juggling catch-up and buying newer games. Heck I have games on my wishlist that are from 2005 to 2009, and many games I now have to find on Amazon or Gamestop since I can't get them at Wal*Mart.

I just wish stores didn't get flooded with new games and then kick out the older games instantly, my Wal*Mart doesn't even have a bargain Bin anymore (The closest thing they have is the "20 dollar games" Aisle, and there is nothing on there I don't already have or want). I see Halo 3 all the fricking time, but no Assassin's Creed II, or Dead Space, or Far Cry 2.

ON TOPIC: Darkest of Days (another game I want), made a breakthrough where you could have 300+ npcs on screen at one time. Yet no other company used it and made it better, or implemented it. No FPS so far uses Euphoria, and it could help influence the genre. Chrome Engine is probably the best engine out there (I am in no way a graphics whore), but Techland right now imo, is the best company out there, they do very good in what they do, they make really good games, but why aren't more people taking game engines and doing a mix and match? This only improves a game by making it more life-like without out it becoming a Life Simulator (If I want to kill a ball around I go outside). What has gotten people into thinking that Pretty Graphics = GOTY? I mean real-life has the best graphics but it doesn't make watching paint dry anymore exciting.

If there is one thing that should be required is Co-Op/splitscreen or some other 2 player mode I want to have a friend over and hang out for an hour or so instead of taking turns playing levels.

Also, lower the price for DLC and I am a happy camper, or at least sell new copies with the DLC already included. And for people here in the states, lower the price of 60 bucks for a new copy to about 40 bucks and I am happier than a clam.


Forum Posts: 614
Comment #83 by theNomad
Tuesday, July 05, 2011 @ 10:29:08 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
The budgets with films are the same these days, so many are bombing as well Sucker Punch & Scott Pilgrim spring to mind (both meant to have cost £80million each and not even managed to make half that back at the box office). Its why most company's don't want to risk anything on originality and we are getting endless sequels.

As for games I'll be honest I rarely risk buying day one now, purely due to knowing if its not one of the COD or EA sports games of choice, it'll get discount priced within a month LA Noire and Dungeon Siege III are already much cheaper in my local game shop.


Forum Posts: 0
Comment #84 by irishsnow79
Monday, July 25, 2011 @ 09:24:46 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
A big thing these days as well is the rental side of the business. For example you have the likes of lovefilm and £15 a month gets you unlimited rentals and have 2 at a time at home. Now considering a lot of games today can be played and completed within 3-4 days of solid gaming and for slightly older titles the rental turnover can be 3-4 days (from personal experience I found this to be true) and newer titles can take longer due to high demand, then you can have played at least one new release and several older games for a third the cost of a new game. With the state of world economies these days many gamers are looking at cheaper ways to play current gen games


Forum Posts: 0
Comment #85 by carook
Thursday, July 28, 2011 @ 08:04:05 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I don't really think so


Forum Posts: 0
Comment #86 by Jleek1992
Monday, August 08, 2011 @ 10:50:47 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I think us gaming dev's have become to lazy these days to make a proper lenghty game and legnthy game's are an accasion now...


Forum Posts: 219
Comment #87 by nicky6314
Tuesday, August 09, 2011 @ 10:48:38 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
What happened to these? I used to love reading them each month.


You need to register before being able to post comments.

 


 
Latest News
 
 
Most Viewed Achievement Lists
 
 
Most Viewed Achievement Guides