Everything that is wrong with modern games
This is something that really made my blood boil. I came back from uni and I noticed my little bro wasn't really playing his Xbox 360 much, so I asked him why, didn't he get Destiny not long ago (a blockbuster game from Bungie who had a decent reputation in my mind)? Did he not like it?
He replied that now (barely 3 months from release) it's not fun anymore because you need to buy the DLC. I just could not believe that a game released 3 months ago would have compulsory DLC for you to enjoy the game. It's a complete joke and that seems to be the norm for games these days. Now he's back to playing Minecraft with his friends which is about the only decent game out there these days.
Re: Everything that is wrong with modern games
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zhaoman
He replied that now (barely 3 months from release) it's not fun anymore because you need to buy the DLC. I just could not believe that a game released 3 months ago would have compulsory DLC for you to enjoy the game. It's a complete joke and that seems to be the norm for games these days. Now he's back to playing Minecraft with his friends which is about the only decent game out there these days.
Hmmmm I'm not sure I agree with this. The problem is (in this example) that Destiny is basically an MMO and such as you are playing online with other people, if they have access to new content and you don't then of course you are going to feel like the DLC is a requirement, however if you were going fresh into the game there is still plenty to play.
You don't get that as much with single player games. Of course there have been times where companies have taken the p a bit by obviously holding back content just to release it a week or 2 later as DLC but most of the time DLC is not REQUIRED and can often just give you more of a game you enjoyed.
There is a fine line between releasing DLC to make the customer happy and releasing DLC to rip the customer off and some franchises do it better than others.
tl;dr - DLC isn't always bad and mmo style games stand apart on required/not required.
Everything that is wrong with mass generalisations
..is that people judge all of the thousands of games out there by just one or two.
Modern games can be and often are amazing without any DLC at all. I'm not au fait with x360 games, but I've been really enjoying lots of games that don't have any DLC or are completely enjoyable without buying any.
If in doubt buy him a 2nd hand PC and give him some real games.
Re: Everything that is wrong with modern games
I'd probably have to agree. The peak in gaming was about 2003-2005, ie the end of the purely disk based era.
Since then, it's been incremental but with better graphics.
Re: Everything that is wrong with modern games
I think Destiny is a game that will evolve over time. Their DLC is stupidly expensive. In a couple of years it won't be the same game. I feel it was unfinished when released with not enough content hence his boredom.
To say games have had their golden age is wrong imo. If anything there are more varied games than ever before and more indie games at least for PC and that will translate over to consoles.
DLC is nothing new back in the day you were charged for disc Addons (expansion packs). Although I'm not a fan of DLC sometimes I feel its a money making tool for games companies.
Re: Everything that is wrong with modern games
Quote:
Originally Posted by
abaxas
I'd probably have to agree. The peak in gaming was about 2003-2005, ie the end of the purely disk based era.
Since then, it's been incremental but with better graphics.
Agreed that 2005 marked the end of the "Golden Era" of gaming, but 2007 also brought some really awesome games / franchises as well, Bioshock was jaw dropping good when it first came out, so was Gears of War etc.
But yeah, most games are garbage these days, Alpha games are the cancer of PC gaming at the moment!
Re: Everything that is wrong with modern games
I think it depends on the game personally and largely it doesn't come down to this sort of "pay wall" scenario actually stopping the game being fun, it just stops you being part of the conversation around a game or hinders you playing with a party that have all shelled out for the DLC you don't have. Although I do have my own axes to grind when it comes to downloadable content and updates... On one hand, part of me would very much like to go on a tirade along the lines of "In my day you paid for the game you wanted, you took it home and you played it. You didn't have to register it, you didn't have to sit through a prolonged install procedure to play a console game, there was no expected add-on content to shell out again for six weeks down the line if you wanted to keep playing with your mates (or even sometimes on the day of release these days) and by god if there was add-on content it was because I'd bought a PC game, it came along a year or more down the line and was quite often reviewed as a seperate product and I could make an informed decision about purchasing it or not".
On the other hand and perhaps being a bit older and having gaming being less and less of an integral part of my free time helps I suppose. There are certain games where I expect that kind of "pay wall" scenario to take place now and I either buy in or I decide that I don't care and that I'm happy with the core gameplay on its own minus the downloadable bells and whistles. For instance, I've ended up playing A LOT of Battlefield 4. It's the game I play with my friends most often and I knew it was going to be a mainstay for me and quite a few others for at least eighteen months so it didn't bother me when the first DLC pack was out within a month because hey, that's fine I've already paid for a season pass because I know this is going to be my kind of thing.
Titanfall however I picked up cheap in a Christmas sale a while back, I knew I'd need add-ons to play with the majority of the online community but because my friends aren't really into it and I'm usually playing alone it doesn't bother me. I'm not bored of the maps or modes that were there on day one so I certainly don't feel as if I can't enjoy that game because there's content available that I don't have.
Now, with that said this is a scenario that simply did not exist when I was younger, felt more of a need to keep up with whatever that seasons big releases were and was jumping around between titles a great deal more than I am now. Back then I imagine it could have been more annoying if extra content kept appearing on Electronics Boutique store shelves every two or three months but I have to say I think if developers and publishers could have gotten away with it then they would have. More often than not the expansions for games we remember didn't come out a year after the initial release because that was the life cycle the developer intended for the original game, it was more because of the restrictions of the marketplace they operated in. Before the wonderful world of widespread broadband and home internet connections everything was disc based and it took so much longer to get a product to market than it does now to send it to Microsoft or Sony for certification and subsequent upload to their respective online storefronts.
That's where we are now and some developers are being better than others at spacing out the delivery of that extra content with the power they now posess. In Destiny's case it was what, a Spetember release? So for Bungie it makes perfect sense to throw out some big DLC and keep people playing Destiny around Christmas when it might otherwise be overshadowed by the likes of Call of Duty and they might lose half their audience. A company like Rockstar though can afford to keep us all waiting for more than a year for the hesit mode in Grand Theft Auto 5 because they own that space. They know that no matter what kind of business a Saints Row or Sleeping Dogs might do that everyone already has a copy of their game and that as soon as the teaser trailer for that new DLC goes up that game is coming right back down off the shelf. Unfortunately not every developer has that ability.
Of course there's more to it than that but I do understand why some companies shovel out content the way they do and when they do and it while it isn't always the best thing for the player what would have been better in Destiny's case from Bungie's point of view? To sit on the extra content they have for six months, lose a huge number of players to their rivals then release it at a point when hardcore fans will actually start NEEDING more, or to maintain as high a level of interest as possible from as many players as possible and keep the title in the publics mind as long as they can?
The big problem with modern games (at least in my mind) isn't the proliferation of DLC. Some of it has been unashamedly brilliant, Bioshock Infinite's Burial at Sea episodes for instance were fantastic, Bethesda's add-on packs for Fallout and Skyrim have all been pretty damn good as well as well timed and I've not regretted purchasing my Battlefield 4 season pass once. The problem with modern games in my opinion is the distinct lack of innovation and an ever increasing reliance upon annually released "tent pole" franchises like Assassins Creed, Call of Duty etc. etc. Combine that with lazy DLC from companies like Capcom who quite often charge you to unlock content that's already there on the disc, some terrible pricing structures and a marketplace full of content that is rarely ever reviewed (because much like the players, games media is all about the next big release) and you're getting closer to the root of the issue, for me anyway.
Re: Everything that is wrong with modern games
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rob4001
DLC is nothing new back in the day you were charged for disc Addons (expansion packs). Although I'm not a fan of DLC sometimes I feel its a money making tool for games companies.
The difference is that with Expansion Packs, you practically had a brand new game to play, whereas with DLC the majority are either cosmetics, map packs or an hour or 2's worth of content, pretty much all of it already in the game at launch but locked out till you pay the hefty pricetag for them (and there is hardly ever just one that you have to pay for)
{See: Diablo 2 LoD; Call of duty United offense; Starcraft Broodwars; etc
as apposed to: well... just look at just about any major release over the past years... Borderlands, Saints Row, Call of duty (the recent ones)}
Re: Everything that is wrong with modern games
It's a horrid situation, driven by greed and made worse because the larger franchises were able to get away with it and set a precedence. Even Blizzard seem to have jumped on the bandwagon if the first SC2 expansion was anything to go by.
They should just make the games 80-100ukp to start with....but then that would put people off, it's better business to bleed them slower so they aren't as aware.
Re: Everything that is wrong with modern games
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Deadbolt
{See: Diablo 2 LoD; Call of duty United offense; Starcraft Broodwars; etc
as apposed to: well... just look at just about any major release over the past years... Borderlands, Saints Row, Call of duty (the recent ones)}
Or other modern releases like Diablo 3, Starcraft.. oh wait - they are still full length expansions :p Moral: It's nothing to do with modern or not ;)
Re: Everything that is wrong with modern games
Indeed Diablo 3 expansion was prob one of the best example of the old school style, so much content added!
X-Com Enemy Within is another example of this but it is far and few in between.
Re: Everything that is wrong with modern games
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
Or other modern releases like Diablo 3, Starcraft.. oh wait - they are still full length expansions :p Moral: It's nothing to do with modern or not ;)
SC2 expansion full length? You must have played something different from me. It was a fraction of the size of the base game.
Re: Everything that is wrong with modern games
Quote:
Originally Posted by
shaithis
SC2 expansion full length? You must have played something different from me. It was a fraction of the size of the base game.
In what way? The campaign addition was huge (~27 missions vs 29? for the original) and the additional multiplayer/skirmish longevity means I've probably put more hours into the expansion than I did the original game.
Re: Everything that is wrong with modern games
Graphics over gameplay. Bugs over Delays. Profits over playability. Sequals over Innovation...That is what's wrong with modern games. Some of the best games are not triple A releases, but little studios producing amazing captivating and at times novel games. Kerbal, This war of mine, shovelknight, minecraft, Bastion, FTL are all games that offer something different for the player.
Re: Everything that is wrong with modern games
You do not need the DLC or expansions still to play most games, often the issue is the micro purchases - buy to win. I prefer DLC as an expansion or new campaign, but buying better equipment to overcome a lack of skill or investment of time is an issue I do not like - some games £40 but if you pay £80 - you get extra levels etc. - No - 1 price for base game, all fixes included - but extra campaigns etc based on the game engine should be a separate instance not overlapping current environment.
Re: Everything that is wrong with modern games
Quote:
Originally Posted by
big_hairy_rob
Graphics over gameplay. Bugs over Delays. Profits over playability. Sequals over Innovation...That is what's wrong with modern games. Some of the best games are not triple A releases, but little studios producing amazing captivating and at times novel games. Kerbal, This war of mine, shovelknight, minecraft, Bastion, FTL are all games that offer something different for the player.
You got it. Hell, currently my favorite game is path of exile; a free 2 play hack&slasher developed by an indie company. I got diablo 3 as well and yet I've somehow managed to play almost 1000 hours of path of exile compared to about ~8 hours on the triple A Blizzard game. Best part is that the microtransactions are almost exclusively cosmetics.