Oooooh The new Call of Duty doesn't seem that bad
SHUT UP DUMBASS ! IT'S CALL OF DUTY SO IT'S BY DEFINITION SHITTY !
Ugh I am allowed to like it... no?
UGH, AND YOU CALL YOURSELF A GAMER?
ASSHOLE, YOU HAVE NO TASTE IN VIDEO GAME
STOP BUYING FROM ACTIVISION YOU TWAT
Ummm ok? Can you calm down?
POEPLE TODAY ARE SO STUPID
IT WAS BETTER BEFORE WHEN DEVELOPPERS WEREN'T THINKING ABOUT MONEY ONLY
Umm are you serious?
EA, UBISOFT, ACTIVISION AND KONAMI ONLY THINK ABOUT MONEY
AND SELL US UNFINISHED GAME
NO WONDER WHY WE GET SCAMMED EVERYTIME
DLCS ADD WHAT THE GAME SHOULD HAVE. GRAPHICS ARE REALISTIC
AND GAMES TAKE 15 YEARS TO BE DONE AND ARE FULL OF BUGS
GOD THAT'S PATHETIC
FORTUNATELY ON PC
-AND NOT ON CONSOLE LIKE 10 YEARS OLD CALL OF DUTY FANBOYS-
YOU CAN HACK GAME, SO THAT YOU WON'T GET FUCKED BY THE DEVS
*SIGH* oooookay
Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Battlefield are big gaming series that make profit
Activision, Ubisoft, EA, Konami are big brands that produce games.
If you actively play video games, you should know them.
They have been here for ages and dominate the video game's market, and break selling's records.
And, even if the record isn't beaten, they sell millions of copies.
Call of Duty started in 2003, and Activision lets us know it sold more than 175 millions of copies in the world (end 2014).
Despite selling well and have a strong fanbase, people are complaining about it.
Graphics, gameplay and scenario are said to be poor and neglected.
And the franchise slowly becomes considered as a money printer that injures gaming's reputation.
There also the DLCs and some other aspects that, when it comes to money, irritates.
And a lot of companies are being criticized for the same things.
Assassin's Creed is criticized for the lack of diversity in the gameplay due to the annual release of a new game.
EA is criticized about his DLCs.
Even though a lot of companies make it through, some of them, like EA, had their yearly benefits collapsing from 98$ millions to 8$ millions.
It's enough to make you think about it.
Gamers now consider people that like CoD or Assassin's Creed being taken for mugs
that waste money over a specific developer only because they don't have taste in video game.
Are indie game the video game's future then?
Can a gamer be considered an idiot for like AAA games?
Activision and other companies, greedy pricks or good guys?
Hello everyone, and welcome to the second episode of the show "The Case"
So like in the previous episode, we're going to use a "dialogic" method, with an "admittedly-but-so" plan, then we're going to do a conclusion and an overture.
So yes, it's annoying to see people making money by recycling games, selling too much DLCs and rushing a game's development.
Indeed, how many companies use this recycling method to make money easily and without taking to much risks.
We have some examples like CoD, which is basically the same game every year
or the HD remaster that are used to sell an already existing game at full price only because "it has 3 more pixels and an anti-aliasing"
Buuut gamers don't want to admit some of the examples.
Nintendo is one of the worst when talking about recycling games
They only do Mario and Zelda games with rare exceptions like Splatoon.
The left games on Nintendo's consoles are the Mario/Zelda games with the slight differences like Mario Kart, Mario Party, Mario Bros etc.
Same thing goes for the remasters.
What was THE LAUNCHING GAME for the New 3DS? Majora's Mask remastered
For the 3DS? Ocarina of Time remastered
For their next home console, what will it be? Twilight Princess remastered?
But there is also the big gaming industry's problem: the abusive use of DLCs.
Sure, DLCs aren't a probleme if they are complete, like some CoD's DLCs that add maps, weapons, skins and gamemodes for 20€. Or the Battlefield 3's DLCs
But when we see games like Killing Floor or Payday 2 where you have to pay 5€ for a community skin or else, it hurts.
Especially because it feels like the DLCs add what the game should have had.
But the WORST part is the day one DLCs, like Mortal Kombat X or Evolve
where the game comes tones of skins and features you should be able to unlock as you play
but no, you unlock it by paying and that, my friend, hurts.
The only thing left are the rushed games, where deadlines force developers to rush a game's development, failing to have a good game in the end.
The example here is AC Unity, basically made for ps3, had to be done for next-gen in the last minutes
which rushed his development and made it flop despite the 3 years of development, where 1+ year was for historical researches.
And, even though I respect Ubisoft, I have to admit they failed and that the game was unfinished, despite the patches made after the release.
So yeah it's true that developers aren't always intelligent.
And that's true that a development studio's goal is to make money, and that's why they take risks, like DLCs, rush and remasters, only to have a "solid" base for their games.
Which doesn't always make the gamers happy.
*recap of what I've said*
So, the video game industry is that bad? Are devs only greedy pricks?
Let's take a moment to recap the flaws I just said.
Admittely, remakes and overused sagas are annoying.
because it feels like the development studios prefer to microwave yesterday's leftover instead of cooking a brand new dish.
But is that the case? Because if a studio does it, maybe it's because it has its reasons.
Let's look at CoD. The problem here is: if they change the gameplay, the fans will be angry, and if they don't cchange anything, the haters will be angry.
So is it better to make the people who won't buy the game angry, or make the targeted audience angry?
As you can see the answer is obvious.
And that's the problem (which also occures by Nintendo): games are more expensive to make and they don't want to take too much risks.
That's why Hideo Kojima has been kicked off from Konami.
And yes, Kojima is amazing, and YES, his games are the best of the best in current video game industry.
But his games takes years and millions to produce!
So it's a huge risk that to invest such money and time in such a big project.
And yes, Kojima's games, because it's Kojima's games, won't flop.
But here is the problem: if the game flops, it's a huge waste of money for the devs, and not all studios can handle such a loss.
And if we look at the remasters, it's a good thing, because it allows players to play a game (usually considered as the best of previous gen) they maybe hadn't played.
It's also taking few risks, because those are games that have been successful and already have a fanbas.
Now for the DLCs, it's kinda the same thing.
Nowaday with gamers that want better graphics, open world games, bigger content, it takes more and more time to produce a game.
But I mean, if there were only that, no problem, just wait 2-3 years for each games to be produced.
But gamers want everything and want it now.
Many people said it was lame that the next Mass Effect game is going to be out in end 2016, and didn't think a second about why it was like that.
So many devs prefer to make an "ok" game, and then make DLCs to complete it and to have more time to make great content.
Yes, it doesn't excuse things like day one DLCs, but in general, DLCs are 100% justified.
Or at least 80%...
No?
Payday 2's DLCs are made in this way, and it surely takes fewer time to create 1 mission and some masks once every 2 months than creating a brand new game.
And finally, the rushed games' problem is still the biggest stuggle I'm having.
Here both time and money are involved.
Time because of the deadlines, and money because rushed games are usually those made as a transition from a gen to another (developping tools cost more)
The example is again ACU.
So yeah, some habits in the industry may be cringe worthy, but if you take time to think about, maybe you'll be able to see why they do that.
*recap of what I've said*
So finally... Are rushed games, remasters and DLCs an unbearable trend?
And indie games in all of this?
As said previously, the rushed games, remasters and DLCs are due to the distributors, like Activision and EA.
The worst is when the hype is taking over a game, like Watch_Dogs, which was said to be the Messiah of modern video games.
But hey, as right the lifetime of the urge to play a game is 6 months BEFORE the game's release and 2 after...
But I'm getting out of context.
So it's the deadlines' fault... So maybe being and indie developer is he solution?
And it's right too that sometimes with DLCs, we can wonder if people are taking us seriously, with the famous "press X to purchase Goro" even though it only was the launching day.
But in a huge majority of the games, DLCs are a way of saving money by creating additionnal content that are cheaper and less timeconsuming than creating a new game.
So can we really blame them, when you see a game development's price?
The remasters are "the old game did well so putting an antialiasing and some little content will be enough".
It has the advantage of being usually in pack that contain several games, like the "Jak and Daxter collection" or the "MGS collection". And all this for the same price that a regular game.
So it's cheaper and it's good for people who haven't played it (like TLOU), who can now enjoy it with slightly better graphics
What about indie games? Usually considered as art more than games, they also use some tricks to sell better (which is what we blame on AAA games)
Like doing vintage-like game, usually in 2D and with pixel graphics.
They also use difficulty to hide the lifetime of their games, or use art to make a game more like an interactive film.
But they are usually cheaper than AAA games.
But are indie game's selling methods really bad?
They provide us with content the AAA don't usually give us...
And that for the joy of hipsters that say:
*dumbass voice*"It was better before when games weren't made to make money"
*laughing*
So funny !
*recap of what I've said*
Let's get to the conclusion and overture !
Indie and AAA games are the same: both are done to be sold, even though one is more blatant about it.
AAA games, because of their budget, are more likely to produce DLCs, which makes us think that they want money more than indie games.
And despite rushed games, remasters and DLCs, the video game industry isn't that bad.
Yes, it's expensive, and like every other business, it's sometime cringy.
But through all the examples you experienced and the one I showed, we can say that not everything is only black or white.
It's more like shades of Grey
*laughs*
Finally, the video game business has advantages and disadvantages. But as I said in my first episode:
IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING, IGNORE IT, GOD DAMMIT.
It's for example EA's DLCs, that everyone complain about but everyone buy anyway because:
*douche voice* "Otherwise we are the only ones that don't have it"
But whatever, we all know how gamers are toward this business:
*annoying voice* "It's for stupid people LOL
and all those douches on console are so sad to see their games uglier and more expensive than us on PC LOL xDDDDDDDDD..."
Ok, understood, SHUT UP.
Thanks
And thanks for watching, see you next time, bye !
*list of the tracks used*
REMINDER: next episode on the subject YOU want ! Vote in the comments :D