The steady corruption of the AAA gaming industry

[TrueAssassin86x]

I'm gonna throw my two cents in. If you dont like microtransactions and lootboxs in games then the simplest solution is dont buy the games see the Star Wars Battlefront 2 picture. If you buy said games then your apart of the problem and you cant whine or complain about it. Dont even buy used. Just ignore games completely and speak with your wallet. But as of November's NPD looks like lootboxs and microtransactions are here to stay and you have no one to blame but yourselfs.

[German_Atheist]

1 hour ago, TrueAssassin86x said:

Just ignore games completely and speak with your wallet.

That's what I'm talking about. And don't forget crap like GotY editions with DLC codes, e.g. Fallout 4 GotY.

[Rally-Vincent---]

14 hours ago, Piano Reeves said:

My solution for this mess: Buy shit used! By that I mean games from asshole publishers like EA or Activision.

 

To buy things used, you'll have to have someone buy it new. We can't all buy games used. And they have to sell their games, something I don't do.

 

15 hours ago, Spaz said:

 

It’s fine if you enjoy a lot of AAA games. I just don’t think they’re as grand and innovative as they used to be. These days the indie market is absolutely killing the AAA market when it comes to talent.

 

Let's be fair - Indie games can be really shitty, too. The real problem for Indie games is the coverage. I have to do much research to find Indie games that interest me, and many gaming sites won't cover or review those games. The impact of [enter your regular gaming site] covering Indie games with the same level of attention could move a significant portion of the market to Indie games, but if you never hear more than a title of game, it'll slip under the radar. With AAA, at least you can judge if the game is something you'll want to buy.

 

Buying the new Sports game or Shooter even if it is basically the same game than last year's edition  is a different problem. I don't understand this, but then again, those games are not my field of interest anyway.

 

Edited December 16, 2017 by Rally-Vincent---

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

3 hours ago, pinkrobot_pb said:

So let me get this straight.... we need to buy all the cookie cutter Maddens, FIFAs and Assassins Creeds as a kind of supportive action to make sure they don't axe the games I actually enjoy and am willing to pay for? The point is that they are axing those games and the devs behind them already, all the time. So what amount of cash would prevent that?

 

Hey... Assassin's Creed is just about the only mass port AAA franchise I still enjoy!

 

Ubisoft also feels less part of what we're talking about here these days. They're making an effort to change up their franchises (whether or not it's successful depends on who is talking), and they're trying new stuff like Mario+Rabbids and the upcoming Starlink.

 

3 hours ago, TrueAssassin86x said:

I'm gonna throw my two cents in. If you dont like microtransactions and lootboxs in games then the simplest solution is dont buy the games see the Star Wars Battlefront 2 picture. If you buy said games then your apart of the problem and you cant whine or complain about it. Dont even buy used. Just ignore games completely and speak with your wallet. But as of November's NPD looks like lootboxs and microtransactions are here to stay and you have no one to blame but yourselfs.

 

That means that the group that buys the game are the ones that pay for microtransactions, and that messes with the stats. If you want a game, buy it then don't pay for microtransactions, and if enough people don't pay for the microtransactions then the devs will calculate that it's not worth their effort.

 

1 hour ago, Rally-Vincent--- said:

 

To buy things used, you'll have to have someone buy it new. We can't all buy games used. And they have to sell their games, something I don't do.

 

I used to buy games used and sell them on again. This year, I've switched to mostly buying indie, digital, and at full price.

 

1 hour ago, Rally-Vincent--- said:

 

Let's be fair - Indie games can be really shitty, too. The real problem for Indie games is the coverage. I have to do much research to find Indie games that interest me, and many gaming sites won't cover or review those games. The impact of [enter your regular gaming site] covering Indie games with the same level of attention could move a significant portion of the market to Indie games, but if you never hear more than a title of game, it'll slip under the radar. With AAA, at least you can judge if the game is something you'll want to buy.

 

This is simply not true any more. Many reviewers cover indie games these days, especially the ones that become high profile, like Yooka-Laylee or Axiom Verge.

 

There's often enough to find about a game online, if you want to find it. Only the tiniest of games occasionally get left behind and even those will often have something said about them on PSNP, MetaCritic, Reddit and other gathering sites. Just google the name of the game with "review".

 

As for indie games possibly being shitty - yeah, it's possible. What's important is finding out before you buy - watching gameplay vids on YouTube, checking MetaCritic, in case of a PlayStation game asking here on PSNP (you'll find I have created a lot of "Thoughts?" threads here on games). Personally, 2017 became the year I started taking a bit of a risk with indie games, and it paid off for me. And while I bought and pre-researched a lot of games, I don't think there's even a single game I couldn't find any opinions and vids on.

 

If I'm allowed to recommend one indie game, and one game only - well firstly I'd make sure the recommendation actually counts for something so I'd ignore well-known titles like Stardew Valley or Shovel Knight - I'd surely end up at Death Squared. It's a puzzle game which can be played in co-op or solo, the levels and gameplay work pretty well, the difficulty curve is good and there is a bit of humour added to the mix.

 

1 hour ago, Rally-Vincent--- said:

Buying the new Sports game or Shooter even if it is basically the same game than last year's edition  is a different problem. I don't understand this, but then again, those games are not my field of interest anyway.

 

 

There's a large group of people to which this is the only thing they play, I know a few people from work who are like that. It's the only game they buy so they'll keep with the newest version, together with their friends.

 

There's other groups like this, like the people who buy Nintendo handhelds and only play Pokémon on them.

[StrickenBiged]

On 12/15/2017 at 8:02 PM, jrdemr said:

What a great glimpse into the minds of the big AAA publishers these days. No heart, no soul, just "design-by-spreadsheet". Almost like taking a bunch of data, putting it into a machine and telling it to produce a game.

 

In fairness to them, a risk averse approach backed up with cutting edge graphics and a huge marketing push is probably the best approach for maximising revenue.

 

There might be a small inflection point happening right now though - I note that EA is publishing A Way Back, which seems to be in that "Independent AAA" business model, even if it isn't actually independent. EA also backed Unravel, which was a great game that I think paid off for them. Hopefully A Way Back will turn out to be a good game and will encourage the AAA publishers to back smaller projects. What Ubisoft is doing backing smaller projects like Grow Up also gives me hope. 

 

But Hellblade does prove a point I was trying to make on a different thread that AAA is not spending its money wisely. If Ninja Theory can build a game of that quality, with cutting edge graphics and mo-cap work that they basically figured out on the fly (go watch their dev diaries, it's really interesting) and with a team of 20 people, then why the fuck is AAA having to employ dev teams of 500+ to pump out a product that is not optimised, needs patches, and... well... we all saw the Andromeda gifs, right? Do I need to go on? Ok, ok, Hellblade is a 8 hour experience, but its one I have enjoyed a lot more than a lot of AAA recently, and that matters. 

[Zenpai]

22 minutes ago, StrickenBiged said:

 

In fairness to them, a risk averse approach backed up with cutting edge graphics and a huge marketing push is probably the best approach for maximising revenue.

 

It's still pretty sad that the big publishers can (mostly) only think of this risk-averse approach instead of just... trying to make a good game. Say what you want about Hollywood, but at least there there's still a lot of passion in the business, even in the big studios, where they still try to make a good film and can even do some bold moves in terms of storytelling.

 

Personally, I think that, if you're going to produce art with no heart and no soul, you may just as well find another business avenue, because game-making clearly isn't for you. Obviously, these major companies are businesses, and making money is their bottom line, but still.

 

30 minutes ago, StrickenBiged said:

There might be a small inflection point happening right now though - I note that EA is publishing A Way Back, which seems to be in that "Independent AAA" business model, even if it isn't actually independent. EA also backed Unravel, which was a great game that I think paid off for them. Hopefully A Way Back will turn out to be a good game and will encourage the AAA publishers to back smaller projects. What Ubisoft is doing backing smaller projects like Grow Up also gives me hope.

 

I do hope they see the value of "Independent AAA". There's probably some kind of smaller subsection of EA that's still invested in these kinds of experiences.

 

32 minutes ago, StrickenBiged said:

But Hellblade does prove a point I was trying to make on a different thread that AAA is not spending its money wisely. If Ninja Theory can build a game of that quality, with cutting edge graphics and mo-cap work that they basically figured out on the fly (go watch their dev diaries, it's really interesting) and with a team of 20 people, then why the fuck is AAA having to employ dev teams of 500+ to pump out a product that is not optimised, needs patches, and... well... we all saw the Andromeda gifs, right? Do I need to go on? Ok, ok, Hellblade is a 8 hour experience, but its one I have enjoyed a lot more than a lot of AAA recently, and that matters. 

 

Hellblade might not quite appeal to me enough for me to go and buy it (at least right now - my backlog has spiraled out of control), but I sure do hope it serves as a lesson to AAA publishers out there, that you can make a great game - a game that will sell - for very little money if only you reign in your expectations.

[Rick_Sanchez]

As far as I'm concerned, AAA is short for Always Awfully Atrocity. When most of the money goes into marketing vs actually making the game and ensuring it works well right out the gate, the AAA industry failed in making a good, flawless game. Think about it, we have your EA, Activision, Ubisoft all making games that almost always release with bugs, glitches, and other issues and fix it later (optional sometimes). That would never have been acceptable, or possible, over a decade and a half ago.

 

The sooner the AAA game industry fuck offs and dies  the better. I have started to avoid games that are obviously to the AAA standards as stated above.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Rick_Sanchez

[Gone Fishing]

.

 

 

Edited September 14, 2020 by Fragtaster

[Dav9834]

41 minutes ago, Fragtaster said:

I buy games I want to support new, however I don't buy the microtransactions if they are abusive or excessive. I'm guiltly of paying a extra $20 for season passes for things like Final Fantasy XV and Witcher 3 - but I'm always self conscious of who my money is going to, and what for.

 

For every other game I really do want to play but am not particularly passionate about, I buy during discount sales (which I wait for) and totally ignore the microtransactions if they are even remotely aggressive. I usually buy indies at full price, and preorder the games I am loyal to and want to see continue to be successful.

 

I reward and punish with my wallet, and have had this philosophy for a very long time. 

 

 

This is the most down to earth, well written post I've read so far. If I could like your post 100 times I would : ) 

We need more of this in this thread!

 

 

[Dreakon13]

3 hours ago, Rick_Sanchez said:

As far as I'm concerned, AAA is short for Always Awfully Atrocity. When most of the money goes into marketing vs actually making the game and ensuring it works well right out the gate, the AAA industry failed in making a good, flawless game. Think about it, we have your EA, Activision, Ubisoft all making games that almost always release with bugs, glitches, and other issues and fix it later (optional sometimes). That would never have been acceptable, or possible, over a decade and a half ago.

 

The sooner the AAA game industry fuck offs and dies  the better. I have started to avoid games that are obviously to the AAA standards as stated above.

 

Not that it's much of an excuse, but...

a. expecting a "flawless" game is unreasonable, every piece of software ever made has bugs

b. games are infinitely more complicated today than they were 15 years ago... when you consider open world mechanisms, multiplayer, etc

 

The reason for this IMO is certainly cost cutting in the AAA space, but also more proficiency in the wrong areas when it comes to the folks actually doing the developing.  Too many creative types, idea people, getting wedged into tight deadlines... too many people leaning on pre-built or outdated engines to save time/money or just biting off more than they can chew... not enough people with the time/knowledge to fine tune an engine or build one from scratch to efficiently make what they want to make, while looking good and running well.

[Rick_Sanchez]

1 hour ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

Not that it's much of an excuse, but...

a. expecting a "flawless" game is unreasonable, every piece of software ever made has bugs

b. games are infinitely more complicated today than they were 15 years ago... when you consider open world mechanisms, multiplayer, etc

 

The reason for this IMO is certainly cost cutting in the AAA space, but also more proficiency in the wrong areas when it comes to the folks actually doing the developing.  Too many creative types, idea people, getting wedged into tight deadlines... too many people leaning on pre-built or outdated engines to save time/money or just biting off more than they can chew... not enough people with the time/knowledge to fine tune an engine or build one from scratch to efficiently make what they want to make, while looking good and running well.

a- it's actually not unreasonable at all. Games are made all the time by smaller developers on a tighter budget with less bugs or at least nothing huge to take note of - See persona series for example. Do they have bugs? I'm sure there's probably a bug somewhere in there in the series but nothing to take note of that poses a serious issue or you have to do something very specific to have it happen outside of doing things normally, something so abstract you'd have to be drunk to do.

 

On the flip side, there's Battlefield, Call of Duty, Fallout (Oh especially the fallout series), Skyrim (and especially the elder scrolls as well). I don't even have time to list all the glitches in one of those series but I'll bring my point to just Skyrim. Skyrim, released 6 years ago had many bugs and glitches that caused many players issues, the developers were aware of them and still released the port of the game to the Switch with those same bugs and glitches. This, after releasing it on PC, PS3, 360, PS4, and XBO. The exact same issues where present on the Switch that were in every other copy of the game. They could've fixed it but didn't, money wasn't the issue just pure lazyness. So excuse the goddamn fucking shit out of me when I call the AAA industry the Always Awful Atrocity that it presents itself, because frankly these AAA companies don't give two shits that a vast majority of their AAA games are pieces of broken shit that can be fixed, should be fixed, but aren't fixed sometimes and rather wants you to buy it and hope you just expect it to be a piece of shit sometimes but works other times and not complain because that's what allows them to continue releasing broken pieces of shit without issue.

 

b- they may have gotten more complicated than 15 years ago but we didn't ask them to make them complicated, they chose to be complicated, they chose this path of complications and when you choose the complicated path, issues come up that can either be tackled and fixed or ignored and hope it isn't a big issue later on.

[Dav9834]

56 minutes ago, Rick_Sanchez said:

 

What the heck happened to you today to say all that. No one was saying anything about you that you really needed to "excuse" yourself in such a way. 

 

Lets keep the tantrum to a minimum, we're all adults here.....I think 

[Dreakon13]

1 hour ago, Rick_Sanchez said:

a- it's actually not unreasonable at all. Games are made all the time by smaller developers on a tighter budget with less bugs or at least nothing huge to take note of - See persona series for example. Do they have bugs? I'm sure there's probably a bug somewhere in there in the series but nothing to take note of that poses a serious issue or you have to do something very specific to have it happen outside of doing things normally, something so abstract you'd have to be drunk to do.

 

On the flip side, there's Battlefield, Call of Duty, Fallout (Oh especially the fallout series), Skyrim (and especially the elder scrolls as well). I don't even have time to list all the glitches in one of those series but I'll bring my point to just Skyrim. Skyrim, released 6 years ago had many bugs and glitches that caused many players issues, the developers were aware of them and still released the port of the game to the Switch with those same bugs and glitches. This, after releasing it on PC, PS3, 360, PS4, and XBO. The exact same issues where present on the Switch that were in every other copy of the game. They could've fixed it but didn't, money wasn't the issue just pure lazyness. So excuse the goddamn fucking shit out of me when I call the AAA industry the Always Awful Atrocity that it presents itself, because frankly these AAA companies don't give two shits that a vast majority of their AAA games are pieces of broken shit that can be fixed, should be fixed, but aren't fixed sometimes and rather wants you to buy it and hope you just expect it to be a piece of shit sometimes but works other times and not complain because that's what allows them to continue releasing broken pieces of shit without issue.

 

b- they may have gotten more complicated than 15 years ago but we didn't ask them to make them complicated, they chose to be complicated, they chose this path of complications and when you choose the complicated path, issues come up that can either be tackled and fixed or ignored and hope it isn't a big issue later on.

 

a. There are ok bugs and bad bugs.  More noticeable and less noticeable.  You can find well made games and poorly made games in any era.  No software is 100% perfect and foolproof, and that's an unreasonable expectation.  "As good as humanly possible" might be a better way to word it.

 

b. We did ask them to make games more complicated.  We demanded virtually unlimited dynamic premium content, choices that "matter", bigger and bigger open worlds, NPC's that remember what we did, armor and weapons that change how we look and how the game plays.  Linear games "aren't worth $60".  Short games aren't worth the bandwidth spent downloading them.  Telltale games misrepresent the gravity of decisions because most of them "only" change dialog paths and don't derail the entire story.  As I've said, with the blandness/disappointment of the AAA scene and the inception of MT's and lootboxes, people are finally flocking to indie developers and learning to appreciate more concise, focused experiences again... but look at what it took to finally get there.

 

Again, it's not an excuse because "as good as humanly possible" should produce better than the buggy messes developers like Bethesda put out... and most of it is driven by cost cuts, lack of knowledge/understanding of what the fans expect or anticipating what players might try in playtesting, lack of technical expertise to make it better, and unfair deadlines.  To chalk it up to "pure laziness" and nothing else is undermining just how difficult and expensive it is to build a game.  No less one with high budgets and higher expectations.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Dreakon13

[Wavergray]

I just want to say that for most of you in this thread, AAA gaming is not catered to what you are looking for in gaming.

 

Most AAA gaming is made for the people who buy their 2-3 yearly releases and maybe 1-2 other games a year. In other words the COD/BF bro/gal and the sports bro/gal.

 

Microtransactions in AAA gaming is made specifically for these people. People who don't have to time to spend even 5 hours grinding for something. People who only want to play those games and don't mind dropping $20 a month on Microtransactions because they have the money and these 2-3 games are the only thing they play.

 

When people from EA and the rest say stuff like "Single-player games don't fit in today's market" what they are really saying is that Single-player games don't make a profit (Which is what is sold - that cost of making the game). I know most think that  gaming companies have that unrealistic vision of how much a game can make, but if I put $60 million over 4-6 years into the development of a game, I would want at least 2x that in profit  ($120 million which means the game must make at least $180 million).

 

If you go look at the majority of Single-player games made in the last 7 or so years can you say most of them made that 2x in profit? 

Now go look at the yearly MP focused games, would you say most of them made that 2x in profit?

 

There are other things you could look at like have most moba and mobile game players spend like $100+ a year on one game or how people still let nostalgia blind them about how games used to be back "then". However, this is enough for now.

 

 

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

6 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

We did ask them to make games more complicated.  We demanded virtually unlimited dynamic premium content, choices that "matter", bigger and bigger open worlds, NPC's that remember what we did, armor and weapons that change how we look.

 

Well, I know I didn't ask for all that, that's for sure.

 

[Dreakon13]

18 minutes ago, Pickle Rick said:

Well, I know I didn't ask for all that, that's for sure.

 

We all did... with every high-profile, repetitive open world RPG or multiplayer shooter with effectively unlimited replayability that broke more sales records than the last.  And every shorter, linear game (not from Naughty Dog) that people bought used or waited for sales because they heard it was "only" 8-15 hours with little reason to play through more than once or twice.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Dreakon13

[Dav9834]

4 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

We all did... with every high-profile, repetitive open world RPG or multiplayer shooter with effectively unlimited replay-ability that broke more sales records than the last.

I think pickle was being sarcastic based on the calvin and hobbs tantrum lol

But what you said was all very true. 

Edited December 18, 2017 by Dav9834

[Dreakon13]

1 minute ago, Dav9834 said:

I think he was being sarcastic based on the calvin and hobbs tantrum lol

But what you said was all very true. 

 

I'm not familar with Calvin and Hobbs so...   My bad, if true.

[Dav9834]

Just now, Dreakon13 said:

 

I'm not familar with Calvin and Hobbs so...   My bad, if true.

I'm not positive either lol but it seemed to make sense X D

 

 

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

2 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

We all did... with every high-profile, repetitive open world RPG or multiplayer shooter with effectively unlimited replay-ability that broke more sales records than the last.  And every shorter, linear game (not from Naughty Dog) that people bought used or waited for sales because they heard it was only 8-15 hours with limited replayability.

 

I agree that "we" as the general audience do so, and while I buy the occasional open world game day one (Assassin's Creed and Rockstar mostly), I don't mind a great linear game that's over in 8-15 hours.

 

I think a great example here is Alien Isolation. About 15-18 hours to get through, completely linear, managed to turn a profit but it's not a priority game for the publishers to order a sequel for because it didn't make Call Of Duty money. I know I bought Isolation day one and didn't regret it.

 

I know I'm a minority here in how I choose my gaming money. Doesn't mean I have to be happy about it. I wouldn't mind getting more games like Rayman Legends, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Alien Isolation, The Last Guardian... Unfortunately, that's not what "we" want. 

 

Well, the bright side is that the new Nintendo console is something I can stand (contrast Wii U) and the developers on the Switch seem to understand what I want. I wouldn't be surprised if a year from now, I'm only using my PS4 for the new Assassin's Creed game and for VR.

 

15 minutes ago, Dav9834 said:

I think pickle was being sarcastic based on the calvin and hobbs tantrum lol

But what you said was all very true. 

 

Well, my point was sincere - I never asked for all this complexity - but I realised it would be very hard to write that down without sounding immature so I figured I'd better steer into the skid

[Rick_Sanchez]

45 minutes ago, Dav9834 said:

What the heck happened to you today to say all that. No one was saying anything about you that you really needed to "excuse" yourself in such a way. 

 

Lets keep the tantrum to a minimum, we're all adults here.....I think 

I've been reading some of the walking dead comics recently and I'm at the part with Negan and stuff and his mannerisms of talking came out in part of that post. (I find Negan fucking hilarious) Sorry if I came off as throwing a tantrum which was no way my intention.

[B1rvine]

I remember back in the day, during the age of the Atari 2600, when Activision actually stood for something noble, such as:

 

Recognizing programmers for their work.

Actually making quality games.

And the big one... Standing up against corporate greed.

[Wavergray]

7 minutes ago, B1rvine said:

I remember back in the day, during the age of the Atari 2600, when Activision actually stood for something noble, such as:

 

Recognizing programmers for their work.

Actually making quality games.

And the big one... Standing up against corporate greed.

You can most likely blame Robert Kotick for that when he bought out Activision in 1990. Or Vivendi for merger with Blizzard.

Edited December 18, 2017 by soultaker655
More info

[Rally-Vincent---]

2 hours ago, Pickle Rick said:

I think a great example here is Alien Isolation. About 15-18 hours to get through, completely linear, managed to turn a profit but it's not a priority game for the publishers to order a sequel for because it didn't make Call Of Duty money. I know I bought Isolation day one and didn't regret it.

 

I play Alien: Isolation at the moment (on the no-death-run), and it is a fantastic (and terrifying) game. I didn't buy it back then even though I am a fan of the Alien franchise because I don't like stealth games and was put of by the fear of repeating parts over and over. I changed my mind now. What did they sell overall? 3 Million copies or so? I wonder if the profit wasn't 'high' enough due to licence fees. It can't be cheap to get a licence to make an Alien game. But I also wonder - how would a sequel have to be so that it doesn't become the same game in a different surrounding?

Edited December 18, 2017 by Rally-Vincent---

[Zenpai]

3 hours ago, Dreakon13 said:

We did ask them to make games more complicated.  We demanded virtually unlimited dynamic premium content, choices that "matter", bigger and bigger open worlds, NPC's that remember what we did, armor and weapons that change how we look and how the game plays.  Linear games "aren't worth $60".  Short games aren't worth the bandwidth spent downloading them.  Telltale games misrepresent the gravity of decisions because most of them "only" change dialog paths and don't derail the entire story.  As I've said, with the blandness/disappointment of the AAA scene and the inception of MT's and lootboxes, people are finally flocking to indie developers and learning to appreciate more concise, focused experiences again... but look at what it took to finally get there

 

3 hours ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

We all did... with every high-profile, repetitive open world RPG or multiplayer shooter with effectively unlimited replayability that broke more sales records than the last.  And every shorter, linear game (not from Naughty Dog) that people bought used or waited for sales because they heard it was "only" 8-15 hours with little reason to play through more than once or twice.

 

 

Like @Pickle Rick said, I most certainly did not. I would much rather have a more concise, linear game if the alternative is to have mobile gaming's predatory systems in premium games. And back in the sixth generation, we already had games that were plenty large and diversified (see: Okami, Zelda, etc.) without the need for game developers to mortgage an entire country.

 

Though I do agree with one point you made, @Dreakon13: the silver lining in all of this is that the disappointment in the AAA scene is making us value the truly great games all the more.

 

 

3 hours ago, soultaker655 said:

There are other things you could look at like (...) how people still let nostalgia blind them about how games used to be back "then".

 

 

I'm going to quote something I said back in another thread:

 

 

On 04/12/2017 at 11:20 AM, jrdemr said:

 

Tell me which of the following were present in gaming before the 7th generation came along:

 

• DLC cut from the main game to be sold separately later (even cosmetics and additional weapons used to be given to you for completing an in-game achievement back then)
• Season passes present in nearly every game like it's mandatory for them to be present (and frequently not even covering all of the DLC that end up coming later down the line)
• Microtransactions
• Loot boxes
• Games so fundamentally broken at launch they were ultimately unplayable just because the developers chose to prioritize the launch date over the game's actual quality
• The sheer amount of shovelware and asset flips you can see today, mainly on mobile and Steam

 

Look, I know it wasn't perfect. No era is. They all come with their own sets of challenges.

 

• Did we have buggy games? Sure, but it wasn't nowhere near as bad as what you see today.
• Were the graphics worse? Sure... But since when do good graphics equal a good game? Hell, even the Playstation 2, the weakest of the 6th generation, could deliver amazing visuals without all that much horsepower. Just look at Ookami or any Final Fantasy or Kingdom Hearts game. Graphics ≠ visuals.
• Did we have less storage on disc? Sure, but so did the X360 and its games still had a lot of content. Hell, a lot of multi-platform PS3 games were held back merely because the X360 still stuck with DVD. I would even say that, with the sheer amount of free, in-game unlockables we had back then, we had more content despite not having as much space.

 

I'm also not saying the current era is some kind of gaming hell or something. I have plenty of great, modern games myself. Hell, just this year, we had a A TON of great experiences. But in terms of the ethics and philosophies behind gaming corporations... it's not even a contest. Whether they used to be better by choice or by force is another thing and we'll never be entirely sure, but I'll take forced ethics over the current lawless landscape any day of the week.

 

 

--------------------------------------              ----------------------------------------------             ---------------------------------------------

 

Anyway, Jim Sterling uploaded another fantastic Jimquisition today which is highly relevant for the topic at hand. I will leave here for your consideration and also update the main post.

 

 

Edited December 18, 2017 by jrdemr