Gota's Brief Blogs: PS4's Worrying Trends

[Gotakibono]

 

I should perhaps start by stating the following: this edition of Gota's Brief Blogs is as about as brief as Felix Baumgartner's fall from the outer boundaries of the earth's atmosphere last year. Now, with that little warning out of the way, let's get going.

 

Okay, it's fair to say that the initial hoopla about the "next-gen" has diminished somewhat in the time since the PS4's debut, and we're now just in the current generation - albeit we're still grasping tentatively onto the last generation and its massive user-base and back catalogue of cheaper,better games. We should shortly be entering the early stages of what should be the PS4s pomp years. You know, that beautiful period in which the console is new enough to be impressive, and not yet old enough for the threat of another "next-gen" console galloping towards it from over the horizon with the promise of being better than its current incarnation in every way shape or form. 

 

"Next-gen". 

 

In other words, this is the beginning of the PS4's legacy building years. There's already a nice customer-base in place given the PS4's great sales since launch - the figure of units sold fast approaching the ten million mark at the time of my fingers typing this - and there's even been enough time for developers to truly start getting to grips with the PS4's hardware and its intricate inner workings. You need only look at Uncharted 4's teaser trailer at E3 to understand that tears of graphical and technical joy will soon be shed by PS4'ers. So, with that logic in mind, the games should only continue to get more technically impressive and even more tear-inducing as the years go by. The world is at the PS4's non-existent feet, as they say.

 

However, there are a number of trends forming that may go some way to tarnishing PS4's fledgling legacy. Sure, the PS4 has made some great strides, but it seems to be picking up some bad habits at this early stage that I hope it drops sooner rather than later. Here are a few of those worrisome trends that are forming:

 

 

Assassin's Creed Syndrome:

 

The series that has spawned a multitude of games and a handful of fresh ideas. Before I say anymore, I have actually not played Black Flag, nor do I have any desire to. I'm acutely aware of praise it's received from critics and fans, but after playing Assassin's Creed III I simply have no interest in the series anymore: all this time Desmond could have actually been a cyborg testicle in disguise that somehow became sentient, and who is actually on a mission to get back to his home planet Testicle A.E., and I still wouldn't be curious about how the story will pan out.  

 

Assassin's Creed has became indicative of the worst parts of the industry: expecting people to shell out top dollar for a different variation of the same game every year. Scratch that, as of 2014 Ubisoft are doubling down and releasing two Assassin's Creed games this year, in the hope of going for the record of obtaining as much money as possible whilst putting in the least amount of effort as possible. In saying that, that profit margin of theirs must be immense, because people keep buying Assassin's Creed; a lot of people just love the shit out of that series, after all. Hence why Ubisoft have been getting away with it for the past few years. 

 

Why doesn't Santa decide to break into people's houses twice a year?

 

But, why do I care you ask? Ubisoft are a business, and the sole goal of a business is make a profit - yeah, I get it. Should I even care about a business doing good business? Well, it's simple really: this will inspire other developers to do the same. Why should people exert energy, creativity and time on crafting a new IP when they know full well that they'll make as much - if not more - money by simply rehashing a tried-and-tested winning formula? It is choking the life out of creative, artistic thinking at the biggest studios in the world; as a result such studios could become less willing to put money into a new style of game for the worry of loosing a shitload of money. After all, games are becoming ever-more expensive to make, and the development time alone is taxiing. Well, unless you're making an Assassin's Creed game, of course. 

 

It boils down to this: new hardware should bred new ideas, new IPs and new ways of making games.  What's the point in buying and owning more powerful consoles if the creative thinking behind the games is weak and uninspired? 

 

 

PSN prices compared to Steam:

 

You've got to hand it to Valve: Steam is an oasis of perpetual water in a hot, arid and unforgiving desert market. The amount of games I've bought on PSN only to find them up to 80% cheaper on Steam is borderline scandalous. Not only that, but the pricing for some decade-plus-old games is still far too expensive on Sony's Network. For example, I recently saw that Vice City Stories (the PSP version!) was still priced at a hefty €19.99. 

 

 

Another example would be Watch_Dogs (don't worry, I'm not picking on Ubisoft again). On the European PSN it is priced at €69.99, but on Steam the price stands at €59.99. What is that extra €10 going towards? Back in the PS2 and PS3-era the most common response was, "Oh, it's because it's a physical copy, so of course it'll be more expensive." That doesn't apply here - both are essentially the same digital product. Sony continues to venture through the murky waters of digital game retailing, but it hasn't changed its price plan in accordance with the market. 

 

Yes, PC games have historically always been cheaper than console-based games, but with consoles moving into the PC's territory of digital-based games, then where's the correlation in terms of pricing? The industry is inevitably moving away from the archaic set-up of shops such as Gamestop, and I understand this; it makes sense in the long-term and economically it cuts down production and shipping costs for everyone involved.

 

However, if we're soon going to be living in a world without physical copies of games, and the possibility of no more pre-owned games or trading games among your friends (remember Sony and Microsoft threatened this on PS4 and memorably on the Xbox One, but realised the console market was in no way ready for such a drastic change - but it's coming) then there simply must be a compromise on Sony's part. And that compromise has to be prices more in line with Steam down the line, otherwise Sony are giving a huge middle-finger to its customers everywhere. 

 

 

Indies Games got to Indie:

 

Let's get this straight: I love Indie games and everything they stand for. They give a platform for fledgling and unique developers to create something, even if they're broke as fuck. There's been a multitude of stellar games on the PS3: LIMBO, Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons, The Swapper, and Hotline: Miami to name but a few. However, for every gem there's about a dozen lumps of pretentious, monotonous camel shit. 

 

You see, there's now a successful formula for "Indie games", and artistic labours of love have been replaced with hollow copycats trying to get a slice of the tasty pie. Cue the inundation of  side-scrolling platformers with an onus on predictable puzzles. The PSN is aloof with numerous incarnations of what is essentially the same game. The beautiful resurrection of the side-scroller has now become something akin to the scientific resurrection of a prehistoric bred of locusts, and now they're eating everyone's crops. 

 

The winning formula.

 

Okay, things aren't quite that bad, but I am wary of the fact that repetitive, mundane and damn uninspired games are being given a free pass for their flaws due to the golden "Indie" label. No Man's Sky is hopefully stemming the tide and directing Indie games towards a more ambitious, inventive path, and hopefully the PS4 will soon be awash with the unique visions of artists who can see more than one genre and game-style as the key to making a good "Indie" game. 

Edited August 12, 2014 by Gotakibono

[xVolloxx]

Highly agree with the whole post 

but Not to mention : 

 

Remaster/Re Release/Complete Editions

 

I hope this trend dies out very quickly , while there are a few exceptions 

such as The Last Of Us & Metro , games such as Sleeping Dogs & Tomb Raider 

are just not needed at all , it's the developers re releasing the games and cashing in to reclaim 

money from the high development costs of making big games 

 

HD collections made sense because well HD , The last Of Us Remastered

has quite a decent and noticeable difference to it and i believe as it is such a big hit 

and massively acclaimed game then it's understandable , Metro Redux i believe is 

also an exception as for the price and whats included and well as 2033 which hasn't been 

released on Playstation then it's not so bad , but this trend needs to stop and developers 

and publishers need to focus on new , fresh , creative games for all of us to enjoy!

Edited August 12, 2014 by TheVolloxx-

[Gotakibono]

Highly agree with the whole post 

but Not to mention : 

 

Remaster/Re Release/Complete Editions

 

I hope this trend dies out very quickly , while there are a few exceptions 

such as The Last Of Us & Metro , games such as Sleeping Dogs & Tomb Raider 

are just not needed at all , it's the developers re releasing the games and cashing in to reclaim 

money from the high development costs of making big games 

 

HD collections made sense because well HD , The last Of Us Remastered

has quite a decent and noticeable difference to it and i believe as it is such a big hit 

and massively acclaimed game then it's understandable , Metro Redux i believe is 

also an exception as for the price and whats included and well as 2033 which hasn't been 

released on Playstation then it's not so bad , but this trend needs to stop and developers 

and publishers need to focus on new , fresh , creative games for all of us to enjoy 

 

Funny you should mention that as that was the fourth heading, but I cut out what I wrote as I thought it'd make the post so long that no-one would be arsed reading it. I completely agree with you, it is ridiculous to get a "remastered" version of anything not even a year after it was originally released. The time spent remastering a game that doesn't need remastering could be better spent elsewhere.

[Carville87]

Great read we need more of this on the site

[spacemonkey3k]

Tyrion+mushroom=House, classic. I agree with most of your post, I feel like they could (should) have more innovation at this point in the system's life but there's loads of interesting stuff coming up. Alien Isolation, The Order 1886, Witcher 3, the Dark Souls-ish game who's name I can't remember off hand, etc... The good stuff is coming man, no worries.

[DanielVT]

 

 

I should perhaps start by stating the following: this edition of Gota's Brief Blogs is as about as brief as Felix Baumgartner's fall from the outer boundaries of the earth's atmosphere last year. Now, with that little warning out of the way, let's get going.

 

Okay, it's fair to say that the initial hoopla about the "next-gen" has diminished somewhat in the time since the PS4's debut, and we're now just in the current generation - albeit we're still grasping tentatively onto the last generation and its massive user-base and back catalogue of cheaper,better games. We should shortly be entering the early stages of what should be the PS4s pomp years. You know, that beautiful period in which the console is new enough to be impressive, and not yet old enough for the threat of another "next-gen" console galloping towards it from over the horizon with the promise of being better than its current incarnation in every way shape or form. 

 

"Next-gen". 

 

In other words, this is the beginning of the PS4's legacy building years. There's already a nice customer-base in place given the PS4's great sales since launch - the figure of units sold fast approaching the ten million mark at the time of my fingers typing this - and there's even been enough time for developers to truly start getting to grips with the PS4's hardware and its intricate inner workings. You need only look at Uncharted 4's teaser trailer at E3 to understand that tears of graphical and technical joy will soon be shed by PS4'ers. So, with that logic in mind, the games should only continue to get more technically impressive and even more tear-inducing as the years go by. The world is at the PS4's non-existent feet, as they say.

 

However, there are a number of trends forming that may go some way to tarnishing PS4's fledgling legacy. Sure, the PS4 has made some great strides, but it seems to be picking up some bad habits at this early stage that I hope it drops sooner rather than later. Here are a few of those worrisome trends that are forming:

 

 

Assassin's Creed Syndrome:

 

The series that has spawned a multitude of games and a handful of fresh ideas. Before I say anymore, I have actually not played Black Flag, nor do I have any desire to. I'm acutely aware of praise it's received from critics and fans, but after playing Assassin's Creed III I simply have no interest in the series anymore: all this time Desmond could have actually been a cyborg testicle in disguise that somehow became sentient, and who is actually on a mission to get back to his home planet Testicle A.E., and I still wouldn't be curious about how the story will pan out.  

 

Assassin's Creed has became indicative of the worst parts of the industry: expecting people to shell out top dollar for a different variation of the same game every year. Scratch that, as of 2014 Ubisoft are doubling down and releasing two Assassin's Creed games this year, in the hope of going for the record of obtaining as much money as possible whilst putting in the least amount of effort as possible. In saying that, that profit margin of theirs must be immense, because people keep buying Assassin's Creed; a lot of people just love the shit out of that series, after all. Hence why Ubisoft have been getting away with it for the past few years. 

 

Why doesn't Santa decide to break into people's houses twice a year?

 

But, why do I care you ask? Ubisoft are a business, and the sole goal of a business is make a profit - yeah, I get it. Should I even care about a business going good business? Well, it's simple really: this will inspire other developers to do the same. Why should people exert energy, creativity and time on crafting a new IP when they know full well that they'll make as much - if not more - money by simply rehashing a tried-and-tested winning formula? It is choking the life out of creative, artistic thinking at the biggest studios in the world; as a result such studios could become less willing to put money into a new style of game for the worry of loosing a shitload of money. After all, games are becoming ever-more expensive to make, and the development time alone is taxiing. Well, unless you're making an Assassin's Creed game, of course. 

 

It boils down to this: new hardware should bred new ideas, new IPs and new ways of making games.  What's the point in buying and owning more powerful consoles if the creative thinking behind the games is weak and uninspired? 

 

 

PSN prices compared to Steam:

 

You've got to hand it to Valve: Steam is an oasis of perpetual water in a hot, arid and unforgiving desert market. The amount of games I've bought on PSN only to find them up to 80% cheaper on Steam is borderline scandalous. Not only that, but the pricing for some decade-plus-old games is still far too expensive on Sony's Network. For example, I recently saw that Vice City Stories (the PSP version!) was still priced at a hefty €19.99. 

 

 

Another example would be Watch_Dogs (don't worry, I'm not picking on Ubisoft again). On the European PSN it is priced at €69.99, but on Steam the price stands at €59.99. What is that extra €10 going towards? Back in the PS2 and PS3-era the most common response was, "Oh, it's because it's a physical copy, so of course it'll be more expensive." That doesn't apply here - both are essentially the same digital product. Sony continues to venture through the murky waters of digital game retailing, but it hasn't changed its price plan in accordance with the market. 

 

Yes, PC games have historically always been cheaper than console-based games, but with consoles moving into the PC's territory of digital-based games, then where's the correlation in terms of pricing? The industry is inevitably moving away from the archaic set-up of shops such as Gamestop, and I understand this; it makes sense in the long-term and economically it cuts down production and shipping costs for everyone involved.

 

However, if we're soon going to be living in a world without physical copies of games, and the possibility of no more pre-owned games or trading games among your friends (remember Sony and Microsoft threatened this on PS4 and memorably on the Xbox One, but realised the console market was in no way ready for such a drastic change - but it's coming) then there simply must be a compromise on Sony's part. And that compromise has to be prices more in line with Steam down the line, otherwise Sony are giving a huge middle-finger to its customers everywhere. 

 

 

Indies Games got to Indie:

 

Let's get this straight: I love Indie games and everything they stand for. They give a platform for fledgling and unique developers to create something, even if they're broke as fuck. There's been a multitude of stellar games on the PS3: LIMBO, Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons, The Swapper, and Hotline: Miami to name but a few. However, for every gem there's about a dozen lumps of pretentious, monotonous camel shit. 

 

You see, there's now a successful formula for "Indie games", and artistic labours of love have been replaced with hollow copycats trying to get a slice of the tasty pie. Cue the inundation of  side-scrolling platformers with an onus on predictable puzzles. The PSN is aloof with numerous incarnations of what is essentially the same game. The beautiful resurrection of the side-scroller has now become something akin to the scientific resurrection of a prehistoric bred of locusts, and now they're eating everyone's crops. 

 

The winning formula.

 

Okay, things aren't quite that bad, but I am wary of the fact that repetitive, mundane and damn uninspired games are being given a free pass for their flaws due to the golden "Indie" label. No Man's Sky is hopefully stemming the tide and directing Indie games towards a more ambitious, inventive path, and hopefully the PS4 will soon be awash with the unique visions of artists who can see more than one genre and game-style as the key to making a good game. 

 

Don't worry about the length of the article. It does not lose my interest. In fact I read everything in under two minutes. After reading it, there are a couple points I'd like to make.

 

- First of all you made many good points, but I'm not concerned at all. We are not even one year into the PS4's life cycle (which could last another 6 years i.e. the PS3). As such we have seen nothing yet. As for franchise fatigue I don't think it is something to get overly concerned about. I personally enjoyed the hell out of Black Flag (still have to get the plat). I think you would too. It's way more a fantastic pirate game than it is an Assassin's Creed. I personally want there to continue to be yearly iterations of the BIG 3 franchises (COD, BF, and AC). These titles have become the ones that I greatly look forward to and are a staple to my year of gaming. I love those series, and am not burned out yet (Ghosts was hugely mediocre, and a step backward, but I still enjoyed my time with it, and put a MASSIVE amount of time into it. (To be fair, BF only recently became a yearly release, and only since AC III did I start to buy them yearly).

 

As much as the big franchises are continuing to this nex-gen, there are also new IP's being released alongside it. Take for instance Activision. Obviously they are releasing another COD (which could be the best in the series), but also a huge new IP in Destiny. As for Ubisoft, they are releasing another AC, but already released a new IP this year in Watch Dogs. As for two AC games, I have no problem with it. In my mind it would cost way less to simply port Unity to the last-gen, but instead they are spending more money and making Unity a full-fledged and fully focused nex-gen game. Also they are developing an entirely separate and full AC experience for the last gen. I think that is fantastic......yes they are a business, but let's face it, they aren't cutting corners, and not ignoring fans from the last gen or current (nex) gen. As for EA they are releasing another BF game, but I'm pretty sure a brand new IP (that I can't think of). My point is the new generation is not even a year old and already has some older and established franchises on it, and some brand new ones. In my mind it's a good balance at the moment.

 

- You are correct, PSN prices seriously need to be dropped. PSP games are fucking stupidly priced. I've considered getting a PSPGO in order to replay some of the great games it had. (already have a much beloved VITA). However why the heck would I pay 20 dollars for a digital version of a game that came out years ago, and I can get physically for under three dollars at Gamestop? It's ludicrous. All games from last-gen should be significantly marked down. On a similar note, games that are coming out for the last-gen exclusively still should NOT be priced at the full $60.00 that the next-gen games cost. That as well is frickin' insane and dumb as hell.

 

-As for remastered games and remakes, I really don't see the issue. If you don't want it don't buy it. Your money votes. Personally, I missed out on a ton of games that I really wanted to play right before the PS4 came out, but never got around to them. I'm really looking forward to playing Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition, Metro: Redux, The Last of Us: Remastered, and Sleeping Dogs: Definitive Edition. I have never played any of those games, and while the PS4 library is still at a fledgling state I see no better time to play them. For me it's a win win. A bigger catalog, and better versions of games I've never played. TR, and Metro, and the Last of Us look truly next-gen graphically (ESPECIALLY METRO). I have no issue with these remastered games. I'm sure there are many people like me that missed out on these titles as they were finishing up their PS3 games, and saving for the PS4 console itself, why not get to experience a better and more complete version of these games? Also it gives the developers a chance to earn some of the money that they deserve that they may have missed out on. I really see no issue. The gaming industry is a business after all lol.

 

- I don't play a ton of indie games except the ones that are free on my VITA with PS Plus, so your point is not an issue with me, and not something I feel qualified to comment on.

 

Anyway, these are my thoughts and opinions. Please keep these blogs coming. They are quite thought-provoking and well-written!     

Edited August 12, 2014 by DanielVT

[oZcuDo]

I really hope they do not remove the phisical game. I want to touch what I own, I would pay what it's needed and I agree with the PSN digital prices. Weekly sales are cool but most of them are still expensive and not so interesting to be worth the price. I only played many indies because of PSN +. I like that because I can try something new. Eventough it says "purshased" I know I don't really own it, even if it's not trough PS+, it's just digital. I can buy all those digital games but where do I store them? Let's just say something ridiculous - PSN stops and my console is dead. Where are my games? Where did my money go?

[Gotakibono]

I really hope they do not remove the phisical game. I want to touch what I own, I would pay what it's needed and I agree with the PSN digital prices. Weekly sales are cool but most of them are still expensive and not so interesting to be worth the price. I only played many indies because of PSN +. I like that because I can try something new. Eventough it says "purshased" I know I don't really own it, even if it's not trough PS+, it's just digital. I can buy all those digital games but where do I store them? Let's just say something ridiculous - PSN stops and my console is dead. Where are my games? Where did my money go?

 

Unfortunately, I think it's inevitable that physical copies of games will slowly fade out of the industry, and it'll start happening on consoles this generation. 

[Lil_Mermaid_Girl]

I really hope they do not remove the phisical game. I want to touch what I own, Ithld pay what it's needed and I agree with the PSN digital prices. Weekly sales are cool but most of them are still expensive and not so interesting to be worth the price. I only played many indies because of PSN +. I like that because I can try something new. Eventough it says "purshased" I know I don't really own it, even if it's not trough PS+, it's just digital. I can buy all those digital games but where do I store them? Let's just say something ridiculous - PSN stops and my console is dead. Where are my games? Where did my money go?

 

Honestly I like having physical copies of my games too, but digital is more environmentally friendly. Just think of all those plastic game cases *shudder* 

[oZcuDo]

Honestly I like having physical copies of my games too, but digital is more environmentally friendly. Just think of all those plastic game cases *shudder*

I know what you mean, but you are not forced to. I'm a collector so I will keep them in a special place away from natures harm

Unfortunately, I think it's inevitable that physical copies of games will slowly fade out of the industry, and it'll start happening on consoles this generation.

Man I know I'm in denial but I just can't accept this. I mean not even the music industry has stopped selling phisical copies. If it gets supported I believe it would stay in some other phisical form other than my own console. It doesn't feel right :/

[Kamillion3]

I agree on most of ur post and even the on guys comment about remasters stuff.

Psn vs steam comes down to gamers saying "do I really wanna pay only 5 extra bucks so I can have on my console instead of PC." And guess what, that could honestly be their plan. If all gamers had to make that choice, everybody that said yes would be lining psn pockets. A lil off topic but follow my logic. When Xbox one announced their kinect thingy or whatever its called, they wanted the the Xbox one to be pretty much the focus of the entertainment center/ room. That's a great idea, not saying their product is good but the idea of turning the console into the "star" of the room is freaking awesome. I have pretty much accidently done this in my room. My ps3 and ps4 are both for gaming and Netflix. If I'm at home, one of them is on. Most of the things I do at home involve them. So when its a choice between a game for 10 on the ps3 or ps4 vs 5 on PC, if they are like me, you what choice they pick. This is all theory and I really make that dumb decision just so I can play on PS.

Remaster trend is annoying and its out of hand to me. The "red flag" to me was The Last of Us. I can sorta understand replaying a ps1 game with slightly better graphics, because thats all remaster means, for good ol' memories purposes but taking a game that's not that old just to put on the next-gen is stupid. I might as well go grab the shirt I bought my gf last year for her bday and write her name on it for this tear and say "baby its been remastered"

The only I had a problem with in ur post was the assassin creed thing. I can understand the argument about how a new game comes out every year but I already knew that bc I'm a fan so I heard about their contract to make x amount of games for x amount of years. (I don't remember the article or the "x"). To ur argument about it being the same every year, there is nothing for me to change ur mind bc I know there are games ur playing that are sequels and I bet u dare people to say its the same game. Here is the main Motta for any sequel, " k guys we made an awesome game, but what can we do it continue the story and make it better without change the whole damn thing to where its nothing like the 1st game." Making a game better is what sequels do not CHANGE the whole damn thing. That's what spin off are for. Every sequel to a game is exactly the same game except now there is more to do and way more gadgets. Yes there are similarities and same things are exactly the same. I'm not mad or anything, it just sucks sometimes to be a fan of something then u got to defend it when u do the same thing. For example, I enjoy COD but they all the look the same to me and some other COD would be saying the same shit to me. I admit the new footage for advance warfare looks nice and different but I'm getting off topic. To be able to truly say its the same game for games with like 6 games in its series, u literally need to play number one then number six and I guarantee u won't say the same thing. Anybody that's played AC1 and AC black flag would tell you that its not the "same game." Similar but not the same.

Lastly, great post bc it made me think, not just about the topics but my love for some games a have

[soniq]

You need only look at Uncharted 4's teaser trailer at E3 to understand that tears of graphical and technical joy will soon be shed by PS4'ers. So, with that logic in mind, the games should only continue to get more technically impressive and even more tear-inducing as the years go by. The world is at the PS4's non-existent feet, as they say.

 

 

Assassin's Creed has became indicative of the worst parts of the industry: expecting people to shell out top dollar for a different variation of the same game every year. Scratch that, as of 2014 Ubisoft are doubling down and releasing two Assassin's Creed games this year, in the hope of going for the record of obtaining as much money as possible whilst putting in the least amount of effort as possible. In saying that, that profit margin of theirs must be immense, because people keep buying Assassin's Creed; a lot of people just love the shit out of that series, after all. Hence why Ubisoft have been getting away with it for the past few years. 

 

It boils down to this: new hardware should bred new ideas, new IPs and new ways of making games.  What's the point in buying and owning more powerful consoles if the creative thinking behind the games is weak and uninspired? 

 

 

Indies Games got to Indie:

 

Let's get this straight: I love Indie games and everything they stand for. They give a platform for fledgling and unique developers to create something, even if they're broke as fuck. There's been a multitude of stellar games on the PS3: LIMBO, Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons, The Swapper, and Hotline: Miami to name but a few. However, for every gem there's about a dozen lumps of pretentious, monotonous camel shit. 

 

You see, there's now a successful formula for "Indie games", and artistic labours of love have been replaced with hollow copycats trying to get a slice of the tasty pie. Cue the inundation of  side-scrolling platformers with an onus on predictable puzzles. The PSN is aloof with numerous incarnations of what is essentially the same game. The beautiful resurrection of the side-scroller has now become something akin to the scientific resurrection of a prehistoric bred of locusts, and now they're eating everyone's crops. 

 

 

@Next-Gen: That Uncharted 4 reveal says pretty much nothing. Yes, maybe it was realtime and they put everything they could in it, but in the end it was a non-interactive cutscene with fixed camera movement and animation.

We don't know if the final product will look exactly like it in gameplay, when lots of stuff happens on the screen. I'd love it to be true, but even if it does it will be over a year before we get to play it ourselves. The more time passes, the more games will improve. Personally, I'd love for developers to either drop 360 and PS3 completely or have different games for different generations coming out, which brings me to...

 

@Ubisoft: If Ubisoft decides to release 2 games in the franchise every year, good for them. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, it's your opinion, but personally I don't see a problem with it. People love Assassin's Creed. Every game sells millions of units every year and Ubisoft would be stupid not to take that money.

 

After all, don't forget that the money they earn goes back into other projects like The Division, Rainbow Six, The Crew, Rayman, etc.

Rainbow Six spent years in development hell before reemerging again this year. A company that doesn't have money couldn't afford this. Same with the delay of The Division from this year to the next.

Imagine them don't earning that money. They could hardly afford to announce as many franchises as they did in recent years. If only one of them flops it could mean the end or, even worse, a rushed release for another game to recoup losses quickly.

Instead of throwing Beyond Good & Evil 2 on the market, which everybody seems to want, they can afford to say just say no, that it's not at that point where they want it to be.

 

In the end, all the millions they earn will ensure that other games are of higher quality. Yes, there will be problems and bugs, but no game ever will be bug free if it consists of more than 20 lines of code.

 

And saying that they don't put any effort into is just wrong, sorry. The games wouldn't be received so well if they were crap. I know how you feel, I stopped at AC3 too because I didn't care anymore, but Ubisoft has still delivered a quality product every year.

In comparison think of the hundreds of broken 2D platformers and fighting games during the 8bit and 16bit era. And don't get me started on early 3D games on the first PlayStation. Most of them are just unplayable today.

 

If you haven't watched the gamescom pressconferences of MS and Sony please do so. They have announced a lot of new IP for both of their consoles. But what people got excited about most was the (temporary) exclusivity of TR, a 20 year old franchise with over 10 games released. Hardly a new franchise.

 

@Indie: I can't really say much to that. I love "indie games" games but I really hate that moniker. To me "Indie" means a cheap and crappy game that looks like it's been created by one guy in flash in a weekend but most of the games coming out from independent developers can easily rival those of big, risk avoiding publishers. You have imitation on both sides, but the games that come from smaller studios usually tend to be more creative and interesting. Or in another word, they can be pretty weird. But it goes both ways. Would P.T. be what it is if there weren't games like Amnesia or Outlast before it? Also, for example, Dark Souls is technically an indie game because FROM published it themselves in Japan.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is if you don't like some things then just don't spend your money on them. I know your just voicing your opinion, but there are always more sides to everything. In the end, more games (even if they are endless sequels and/or ripoffs) mean more choice and that's good for everyone who likes playing them.

Remaster/Re Release/Complete Editions

 

I hope this trend dies out very quickly , while there are a few exceptions 

such as The Last Of Us & Metro , games such as Sleeping Dogs & Tomb Raider 

are just not needed at all , it's the developers re releasing the games and cashing in to reclaim 

money from the high development costs of making big games 

 

HD collections made sense because well HD , The last Of Us Remastered

has quite a decent and noticeable difference to it and i believe as it is such a big hit 

and massively acclaimed game then it's understandable , Metro Redux i believe is 

also an exception as for the price and whats included and well as 2033 which hasn't been 

released on Playstation then it's not so bad , but this trend needs to stop and developers 

and publishers need to focus on new , fresh , creative games for all of us to enjoy!

 

I only can repeat what I have said on several other topics before: Remasters and HD Collections are a cool thing and I wished they'd do it for pretty much every game ever.

Imagine if movies from the 80s and early 90s ONLY came out on VHS and never on DVD on Bluray. Even worse, movies that are older than that are only viewable in their original form on film in some theater.

 

To you and many others it might look like a simple cash grab and yes, big companies like money. They also need money to keep in business. In the long run it will also keep old games alive you couldn't play anymore otherwise. With current consoles running on essentially standard PC hardware, there is a high probability that backwards compatibility won't be an issue anymore on future consoles if console manufacturers keep using the x86 architecture - the same way you can play old DOS and Win95 games on XP or Windows 8.

 

Also, if publishers can earn more money by releasing an HD or remastered port of an older game, they can invest back into games and also broaden the fanbase for that game. Then there's also the chance that a game comes out during a crowded window with lots of releases. You might decide to skip one for now and wait for a complete edition. Now with TR, TLoU and Sleeping Dogs, these remasters are essiantly exactly that: A complete/GOTY edition of that game, but on a newer console. So you get an even better edition with nicer graphics on top of all the DLC.

 

But I might be weird that way. I also prefer watching my favorite movies on Bluray because it just looks and sounds so much better than my old DVDs.

[freddie1989]

Highly agree with the whole post 

but Not to mention : 

 

Remaster/Re Release/Complete Editions

 

I hope this trend dies out very quickly , while there are a few exceptions 

such as The Last Of Us & Metro , games such as Sleeping Dogs & Tomb Raider 

are just not needed at all , it's the developers re releasing the games and cashing in to reclaim 

money from the high development costs of making big games 

 

HD collections made sense because well HD , The last Of Us Remastered

has quite a decent and noticeable difference to it and i believe as it is such a big hit 

and massively acclaimed game then it's understandable , Metro Redux i believe is 

also an exception as for the price and whats included and well as 2033 which hasn't been 

released on Playstation then it's not so bad , but this trend needs to stop and developers 

and publishers need to focus on new , fresh , creative games for all of us to enjoy!

 

I understand your point but for me remastered games should just be stopped altogether no matter what it is, I gather The Last Of Us is good (haven't got round to it yet) but surely no matter the quality of the game we are still being forced into paying £50 for the same game we played previously, I mean Tomb Raider was brilliant but I have no desire to go through the whole thing again, for starters I know exactly what will happen at every step along the way so what is the point?! They are sucking all this stuff dry as opposed to making new games. It is ok criticising Ubisoft for releasing too many AC games but at least they are new ones.

 

I know what you mean, but you are not forced to. I'm a collector so I will keep them in a special place away from natures harm

Man I know I'm in denial but I just can't accept this. I mean not even the music industry has stopped selling phisical copies. If it gets supported I believe it would stay in some other phisical form other than my own console. It doesn't feel right :/

 

Totally agree, there is a certain element of value to actually having a physical copy whether it be games/CDs/vinyl that digital releases just do not have. You cannot collect digital copies as they are as you say effectively not really yours!!

[Gray-Fox47]

Highly agree with the whole post 

but Not to mention : 

 

Remaster/Re Release/Complete Editions

 

I hope this trend dies out very quickly , while there are a few exceptions 

such as The Last Of Us & Metro , games such as Sleeping Dogs & Tomb Raider 

are just not needed at all , it's the developers re releasing the games and cashing in to reclaim 

money from the high development costs of making big games 

 

HD collections made sense because well HD , The last Of Us Remastered

has quite a decent and noticeable difference to it and i believe as it is such a big hit 

and massively acclaimed game then it's understandable , Metro Redux i believe is 

also an exception as for the price and whats included and well as 2033 which hasn't been 

released on Playstation then it's not so bad , but this trend needs to stop and developers 

and publishers need to focus on new , fresh , creative games for all of us to enjoy!

 

I don't agree with this however, I kinda like waiting for the Game of the Year editions, these HD rereleases are basically that with upped graphics it also gives developers a way to get to grips with the new systems.

And if in the process Sleeping Dogs looks more like the best version it can be on PC the better.

It's makes owning all the dlc more affordable not to mention if they do it right you actually get it on the disc which is what I prefer.

It might be that the future is going to be all digital but I set myself a limit of 15 euro's I'm willing to pay for a digital game and I won't go above it.

The industry still seems to think we don't own the games and only buy licences while this is rediculous who died and made them ruler?

Edited August 14, 2014 by Gray-Fox47

[LordHoBagBeater]

Played AC3 a bit over at a friends house, didn't like it. AC4 is great though. I don't mind them making AC games long as they're good. If they start selling tons of remaster games for PS4/XB1. It better be on the cheap side. Don't want to pay 60 for older games.

[The_Dragon_Man]

An interesting evolution of indie development what I think we'll see (although its probably just wishful thinking) is a collaboration between big companies and indie developers to create new entries in old and long dead franchises.

It would give the indie guys a chance to prove their worth whilst working on a once popular franchise (medievil for example) which will in turn bring the franchises back with creative flair and possibly less development costs.

This is complete speculation but I think it would be awesome haha

Linking back to what was said:

I think HD remasters are fine because we are not forced to buy them and it gives others a chance to play them.

Assassins creed is fine as long as it keeps innovating like it has been but once they stop adding new ideas then it needs to stop or it will have a negative impact. Other series like cod and battlefield need to do the same.

And finally I agree we are moving towards digital gaming and the pricing needs to be restructured or at the minimum out in line with current shop prices.

[DrBloodmoney]

I personally think No Mans Sky looks fucking boring, I dont want my indie games vast and sprawling, I want them tight and laser-focussed. Thats what makes them better than most big retail games - they do what they should do, in how long it takes to do it, and charge according to the fun, not the length.

Assassins Creed is still good. The phrase you were looking for is 'Call of Duty Syndrome'. AC has innovated a lot with each new addition to the series. There are much worse offenders, like CoD.

[Xxleonardo97xX]

How could you forget the fee we have to pay to play online 1 year (50 $/€)!!

 

When you buy a game (especially this expensive, nowadays) you expect to get a single-player mode and online features, why the hell would anybody have to pay extra money to play a feature that he already payed for!!!!!!!

[HaSoOoN-MHD]

Massive disagreements on the idea that Assassin's Creed is all the same. The only games that were same-y were Brotherhood and Revelations, the jump from AC2 and its children to AC3 was staggering, and ACIV had very noticeable difference from its predecessors, too. Unity is obviously a huge jump but yeah, Rogue seems samey to ACIV.

And the indie scene is so blightedly large its hard to judge, at all. Copy cats exist yeah, but just as AAA copy cats exist. Definitely hoping for more ambitious projects with consoles and people opening up to indie.

 

 

How could you forget the fee we have to pay to play online 1 year (50 $/€)!!

 

When you buy a game (especially this expensive, nowadays) you expect to get a single-player mode and online features, why the hell would anybody have to pay extra money to play a feature that he already payed for!!!!!!!

For a better service, a much, MUCH better service with free games every month.

Edited August 14, 2014 by HaSoOoN-MHD

[allenbird]

Well unlike most people, I do not have a PC so steam has never really been an option for me. I was annoyed when I first bought CIV 5 back when I did have a PC and had to access it through steam before I could even play the game. Aside from that, I agree with your posts. Unfortunately, it is the way of the world. As I am reminded eveyday at my job, there are no morals in business, it is always about the bottom line at the end of the day no matter how many bonuses or "deals" you are given.

In a thriving business where there is a demand, they will raise prices to get more money because they know you will buy it. Well maybe not you or me, but throw enough flashy graphics and bare breasted beauties out there and you can charge whatever the hell you want. Now as far as indies go, I have always seen that as a crapshoot anyways.

Developers sometimes are like children.

[Xxleonardo97xX]

 

 

For a better service, a much, MUCH better service with free games every month.

 

Online features of a game (paying with others) is already included in the game price ffs why did they had to make us have ps plus to play online!? It's nonsense, it's just to fill (even more) their pockets

 

If they make us pay to play online lower the price of the games by 50% because we can't play online just by buying the game

[HaSoOoN-MHD]

Online features of a game (paying with others) is already included in the game price ffs why did they had to make us have ps plus to play online!? It's nonsense, it's just to fill (even more) their pockets

 

If they make us pay to play online lower the price of the games by 50% because we can't play online just by buying the game

Online is not included with the game's price, no. Its why single player only games cost 60$ just like multiplayer and single player games prices. The system your suggesting means there is a direct relation between game price and online components, when there isn't. They made us pay because the service is significantly better. PSN on PS3 was just kind of...bad, to put it bluntly. The service would have stayed stagnant if they kept it free.

By the way i'm a person who never paid for PS Plus, but I can understand where its coming from and why its not that bad afterall.

[Lil_Mermaid_Girl]

The Last of Us Remaster isn't that bad. Just think of all the people who only owned a 360 and switched to PS4 this gen. They now get to play one of the highest rated games. 

[damon8r351]

For people complaining about remasters and remakes, too bad, they're here to stay. After game developers found out with the PS3 that people will buy the same game again with a graphics upgrade and some other tweaks, and that they can make money off of it with less effort than you would have to spend just making a new game, of course they're going to do it. You as gamers set the precedent for them by buying the remakes already. So while they're (hopefully) busy making new games for the PS4 and rolling the dice on new products, they're going to make some easy cash with little effort by throwing known sellers like The Last of Us, Tomb Raider, and GTAV at you again because it's a sure thing. Game companies are businessmen in the industry to make money.

[Gotakibono]

Massive disagreements on the idea that Assassin's Creed is all the same. The only games that were same-y were Brotherhood and Revelations, the jump from AC2 and its children to AC3 was staggering, and ACIV had very noticeable difference from its predecessors, too. Unity is obviously a huge jump but yeah, Rogue seems samey to ACIV.

 

That's fair enough, but I personally had enough of the series after Revelations and Assassin's Creed III. 

 

How could you forget the fee we have to pay to play online 1 year (50 $/€)!!

 

When you buy a game (especially this expensive, nowadays) you expect to get a single-player mode and online features, why the hell would anybody have to pay extra money to play a feature that he already payed for!!!!!!!

 

Well, I didn't want to take too many liberties with the length of the article, especially considering the fact I call it 'Brief Blogs'. Also, I don't have a problem with the €50 fee if it means free games and an overall better service down the line.