What do you like/hate with the Video Game Companies?

[BabyTyrant]

By Video game Companies I mean any company involved with "Video Game Related Things", by which I mean it can be Game Developers, Studios, the companies that make Systems, the companies making Accessories for the systems.

As for the companies involved with making games; I hate how there seems to be this move the last 2 or 3 years where it seems a lot of the big game studios felt like putting Micro-Transactions in games, i mean if it was strictly cosmetic things at a cheap cost, in a fantastic game - that I dont mind at all.

But when the game is Subpar at best, and sometimes absolutely terrible (I'm looking at you FallOut 76) I feel like they shouldn't put micro-transactions in the game at all; maybe if these companies stopped with all forms of Micro-transactions (Loot boxes, extra EXP items Etc Etc) these games would be that much better.

Now I'm saying this because most games come at a cost, which can be quite high, quite low, or anywhere in between, and quality varies; but if the game sells at a price (especially if retail is $60+ tax) there shouldn't be any kind of micro-transactions (except maybe cheap cosmetic items) ; if a game is free however they would have to make money somehow and I'm alright with Micro-transactions in that case.

For video game console makers, I feel exclusives matter as why should I limit the amount of games available if I can have Multi-Platform games, and great exclusives - this is where Xbox fails and may improve in the coming years with some game Studios they bought in 2018. I love Sony and Nintendo for a slew of excellent AAA quality exclusives.

I kinda hate not having backwards compatibility as they could have kept that feature but Sony decided to ditch the feature and Xbox has a kind of Backwards Compatibility, and a better video game streaming service.

Beyond that I hate the trend of the majority of people switching to buying Digital Copies; call me old fashioned, but I like being able to physically collect things, being able to resell them (at times) especially if it ends up being a game I'm not all to thrilled with, majority cost recouped is better than 100% lost if you end up hating a game and are unable to return in.

To which I think if you buy a game even digitally and change your mind before even playing it you should be able to return it, especially if it is a preorder.

Also I have given up on Assassins Creed, they ruined it by changing it into something else, they could of easily made a 2nd Game Series (perhaps something new) into what Assassins Creed became, but of course it is easier to sell people into a game series they know has been around and has history; I liked earlier Assassins Creed games for being different, creative, and fun; Turning it into basically any open world RPG has ruined all that for me.

I gave up after some time of playing Origins and feeling like it was boring, overcomplicated, and hard to progress in; if I wanted to Grind there are better suited games for that where it feels like you get a very worthwhile reward at the end of it and feel like continuing to play those game AC is not meant to be what it currently is.

To me the True "Assassins Creed" games were Syndicate and earlier (best was Black Flag/IV; hands down)

 

[trysexiea]

I think this category is more appropriate https://www.adisc.org/forum/forumdisplay.php/16-Computers-amp-Gaming

 

[BabyTyrant]

I think this category is more appropriate https://www.adisc.org/forum/forumdisplay.php/16-Computers-amp-Gaming

That's where I meant to post it lol.

 

[BrattyPrincessSophie]

I highly dislike the recent anti consumer and unethical business practices that are being rampantly employed by big AAA publishers whose name isn't Nintendo or CD Projekt Red. However, what I despise even more is the whales, fanboys, and influencers who buy into, propagate, and defend these practices. Companies wouldn't keep turning AAA games into glorified $60 free to play mobile games if they didn't make money and people didn't defend them. It also doesn't help that they have the shill mainstream media behind them.

 

[prizedcoffeecup]

To me it feels like the player isn't as one-on-one as they used to be with the game anymore. It's not as lonely of a road and that lowers the immersion for me.

That's more of a personal problem though...my REAL peeve is when they cut off chunks of the game to resell as DLC. DLC is meant to add to the game, not money-lock parts of the game that's already SUPPOSED to be there.

 

[Llayden]

I see a lot of complaints (here and elsewhere) that games aren't as good for $60 as they used to be, or that games cost $60 but are incomplete. To that I say "duh, of course." The issue is that people have been paying $60 for games for more than (or nearly) 20 years now. The technology has advanced but we still pay the same price. In fact, given inflation we are actually paying LESS for games now as opposed to 2000-ish.

Game companies can only put so much content into a package at that given price. In reality we should be paying more for a game ($80) these days but the population would fall over crying, kicking, and screaming if that were to happen. So instead companies get people to pay $80 or more for games by charging more for "special packages" on pre-releases and pre-sells; or by charging a piece at a time with DLC.

Both methods have their issues, but they do ensure that companies will see some return on their creations. The fact is that it is a difficult problem to overcome. As time and technology moves on, the customer base increasingly demands more and better content. To use that technology costs money, but that same customer base most likely wouldn't readily stomach $80-$90 price tags for games. So you can either provide that content in several paid for installments (DLC) or "special editions" and pre-sells.

To further illustrate the issue (roughly from memory, its been awhile since I bought this game):

Goldeneye N64 1997......$50

Today that $50 is roughly $80
or
In 1997 our $50 today would've been about $30 then.

I don't propose any solutions, nor do I make any contention that any is necessary. Simply looking at the data it is easy for me to see that we are paying LESS for games, and therefore content and quality will suffer. To purchase a game that maintains a high level of content and quality will necessarily require an equivalent outlay of cash as was required back in the day. Therefore I don't necessarily expect much from games at all these days, especially if they sell for only $50-$60 (total). That would be the equivalent of a $30-$35 dollar game in the late 90's, and I don't have many fond memories of titles sold at that price point.

 

[Calico]

I hate how I can't always skip videos.

I hate how you have to pay to play online now for Nintendo but it's only $3.99 a month or 20 bucks a year.


I like how games are cheaper now. Gaming prices have always been the same and while money inflation went up, the prices did not even though some games now cost 60 bucks now but some of them are still 50 or 40 or even 30 bucks.

I like how they can fix bugs now and glitches through updates but sometimes they fix the great glitches which suck.

 

[kratox]

I see a lot of complaints (here and elsewhere) that games aren't as good for $60 as they used to be, or that games cost $60 but are incomplete. To that I say "duh, of course." The issue is that people have been paying $60 for games for more than (or nearly) 20 years now. The technology has advanced but we still pay the same price. In fact, given inflation we are actually paying LESS for games now as opposed to 2000-ish.

Game companies can only put so much content into a package at that given price. In reality we should be paying more for a game ($80) these days but the population would fall over crying, kicking, and screaming if that were to happen. So instead companies get people to pay $80 or more for games by charging more for "special packages" on pre-releases and pre-sells; or by charging a piece at a time with DLC.

Both methods have their issues, but they do ensure that companies will see some return on their creations. The fact is that it is a difficult problem to overcome. As time and technology moves on, the customer base increasingly demands more and better content. To use that technology costs money, but that same customer base most likely wouldn't readily stomach $80-$90 price tags for games. So you can either provide that content in several paid for installments (DLC) or "special editions" and pre-sells.

To further illustrate the issue (roughly from memory, its been awhile since I bought this game):

Goldeneye N64 1997......$50

Today that $50 is roughly $80
or
In 1997 our $50 today would've been about $30 then.

I don't propose any solutions, nor do I make any contention that any is necessary. Simply looking at the data it is easy for me to see that we are paying LESS for games, and therefore content and quality will suffer. To purchase a game that maintains a high level of content and quality will necessarily require an equivalent outlay of cash as was required back in the day. Therefore I don't necessarily expect much from games at all these days, especially if they sell for only $50-$60 (total). That would be the equivalent of a $30-$35 dollar game in the late 90's, and I don't have many fond memories of titles sold at that price point.

You are missing some major analyzations.

Most sales are made digital today, not in stores, and we are seeing a trend towards lower royalties on those platforms.

In the past if you sold a game you had to take a loss on, production, shipping, middleman, and etc. Game developers did not get a lot of the money back.

Now a days most companies have their own platform meaning they get more in return from selling a game. They don't have to worry about producing cds, or shipping the items, and there is no middle man if they are selling on their own service. The only thing they have to worry about is three things: Producing the game, paying for servers, and royalty fees on some applications if they are not using thier own platform.

* Servers do not cost that much, and half of the time will be provided if they are selling on another companies service.


* Game sales service companies used to be default 30% of the sales but steam, epic, and discord all have lowered them in some cases.
Steam takes away less over time the more a game sells. Meaning if a game does well you make more money in return.


Don't fall for corporate stuff like that. Half the time they word stuff in a way were they aren't lying but can still easily resolve the issues. Look at ISPs complaining about how lines are "congested" and then act like its an excuse to charge more and set limits, yet I don't see any major renovation being done to improve said "congestion".

Finally you can do DLC and micro-transactions in a way that doesn't hurt game-play, its just that the trend now is to not do that.
Example: Loot boxes in games changing game-play and not simply only changing skins.

This is one of the reasons why I dislike valve but like them at the same time. They are majorly part of the reason loot boxes even exist in games today, but valve has not made them harm gameplay. They even promoted skins that other users made and help provide a medium for content creation in a different way. The issue is IMO it took away from the idea of a modding community not centralized around monetary gain.

They still do true dedicated game servers but they hide them behind a wall that doesn't allow for it to thrive like it use too. Part of the reason is because people want to join a game and just hit quick-play and be right in a match.

 

[Slomo]

I treat game developers like I do singers and actors. They all have hits and misses, so I don't judge one piece of work based on their other ones. As such, I really don't give much though to developers, only the game they put out.

 

[ClandestineWing]

Also I have given up on Assassins Creed, they ruined it by changing it into something else, they could of easily made a 2nd Game Series (perhaps something new) into what Assassins Creed became, but of course it is easier to sell people into a game series they know has been around and has history; I liked earlier Assassins Creed games for being different, creative, and fun; Turning it into basically any open world RPG has ruined all that for me.

I gave up after some time of playing Origins and feeling like it was boring, overcomplicated, and hard to progress in; if I wanted to Grind there are better suited games for that where it feels like you get a very worthwhile reward at the end of it and feel like continuing to play those game AC is not meant to be what it currently is.

To me the True "Assassins Creed" games were Syndicate and earlier (best was Black Flag/IV; hands down)

Assassin's Creed. :wallbash: In my opinion, that franchise started to decline at AC3, and there's nothing that can top the Ezio games. I honestly didn't find the sailing mechanics enjoyable until Rogue.

I quit Origins because it's a watered down RPG; when stealth assassinations don't guarantee kills in Assassin's Creed (like how the entire franchise has taught its players so far), it's not an AC game. When I performed a stealth assassination and did zero damage to my target, I swore off purchasing AC games from that moment on.

I got Odyssey as a Christmas gift and I'm enjoying it so far, but I don't see myself playing it again after I complete the story. Even with the mindset of pretending it's not an AC game, it's still a watered down RPG with poorly designed skill trees and repetitive quests. Clearly, the developers intend for the player to just run into heavily protected fortresses and be a one man army; I have a legendary weapon engraved and upgraded for Assassin Damage, I have all my Assassin Damage skills maxed out, and I still can't stealth assassinate enemies that are three levels lower than me.

But hey, at least they all look nice together in the bookshelf.

 

[LittleManAlex]

The thing I hate most is how single player seems to be the add on now days. I'm not big on online play, I think GTA Online was my go to.... and then it just got stupid, flying motor bike with rocket launchers... ahhhh no, I think I'll stop playing now. Aside from the bethsda games I found most single player campaigns could be beat in an afternoon.

 

[BabyTyrant]

The thing I hate most is how single player seems to be the add on now days. I'm not big on online play, I think GTA Online was my go to.... and then it just got stupid, flying motor bike with rocket launchers... ahhhh no, I think I'll stop playing now. Aside from the bethsda games I found most single player campaigns could be beat in an afternoon.

I'm am with you there, a gaming generation or two ago games had great, lengthy Campaign/Story modes

They had to because early on there was no online play and it didn't become a major thing until this gaming generation with PS4 and Xbone.

now it feels like single player mode is an afterthought as most games single player modes last only a few hours.

I think its because it is far easier to recycle a bunch of stuff in the online mode, come up with a very simple short campaign mode; and then make major sales just based off of people that like to play their friends online.

Perfect case in point CoD, they add in a couple weapons/abilities, and couple new maps for online mode, a short campaign mode; and people buy the new CoD every year because people like to play the latest game.

 

[PaddedDeist]

A complaint I have with Nintendo is that they keep a good section of their classic library under wraps while agressively going after those outside places like China who make the ROMs

With the SNES mini, they have shown us that they can put out a good product that allows us to play the old games well.

I also wish more classic games would hit the Virtual Console on the 3DS and the Switch's retro game service--I forget the name.

 

[CutePrincess]

EA lootboxes
EA
Lootboxes
overpriced DLC
illegal business practices of selling DLC (like what fallout 76 pulled)
Saying some game is for (some low age rating) like 12+ but has extreme predatory practices in the game, like needing to pay 1000+ USD for one character because it is being blocked by lootboxes.
subception (paying for a sub, that has another subscription in that, with another different "optional" sub, who also blocks a consumable based micro transaction, meaning you can dump unlimited amounts of money into it)
defending predatory practices because "it is optional"
free to play games in general, because to truly get a good experience out of them, costs too much.
the above should be regulated to some degree, in my eyes it is no different then how we have food regulation and other things.

 

[Azie]

Honestly, the thing I hate the most is the fact that they have quit producing JRPGs for the American market. I also enjoyed them the most, as it felt like playing an interactive book. But yeah, games now feel like that are 90% gameplay with a dash of story line thrown in. Not my cup of tea.

Other than that, I do like how some actually use DLC to extend and clear up side stories, often listening to fans about what they like. Sure, its a tad bit more money, and some argue that if they are planning more content, then its really a half complete, but I see it more like an expansion if its well done.

The other micro transactions, buying loot boxes, ect, should go away in my opinion though. They are toxic, but I can see why some companies would pick that money scheme when their game is 'free to play'. I honestly think blizzard did it right with HoTs when they make some characters playable every week, and you can always save up free currency to buy characters as well. Others, not so much.

 

[BrattyPrincessSophie]

People who defend mtx in full priced games because "it's just cosmetic." "How about Anti aliasing for 3$, ansi filtering for 5, motion blur for 10, or how about 25$ for the Ultra Settings Package? Wait, why are you mad? I though you were fine with this. It's just cosmetic."

 

[ScriptedGamer]

"How about Anti aliasing for 3$, ansi filtering for 5, motion blur for 10, or how about 25$ for the Ultra Settings Package? Wait, why are you mad? I though you were fine with this. It's just cosmetic."

Exactly the point. I bet companies will end up doing this thing in the future. That will suck.

 

[CutePrincess]

Exactly the point. I bet companies will end up doing this thing in the future. That will suck.

don't buy the game or hope there is regulation at that point to prevent that.

 

[Sgdlboy]

EA lootboxes
EA
Lootboxes
overpriced DLC
illegal business practices of selling DLC (like what fallout 76 pulled)
Saying some game is for (some low age rating) like 12+ but has extreme predatory practices in the game, like needing to pay 1000+ USD for one character because it is being blocked by lootboxes.
subception (paying for a sub, that has another subscription in that, with another different "optional" sub, who also blocks a consumable based micro transaction, meaning you can dump unlimited amounts of money into it)
defending predatory practices because "it is optional"
free to play games in general, because to truly get a good experience out of them, costs too much.
the above should be regulated to some degree, in my eyes it is no different then how we have food regulation and other things.

Totally agree , game company are now using a lot of cheap tactics just to get customers to spend money on their products even though illegal business practices. DLCs used to be optional and wouldn't affect the game now its like mandatory.

 

[CutePrincess]

Totally agree , game company are now using a lot of cheap tactics just to get customers to spend money on their products even though illegal business practices. DLCs used to be optional and wouldn't affect the game now its like mandatory.

well i do not think i seen a dlc that is hectically mandatory but a LOT make you feel tha way, esp predatory p2w tactics, more so putting that in there AFTER the player feels invested in the game. (oh and FFXV was VERY bad with the dlc, breaking up the story, having dlc to try to make it feel complete and even on that, still a mess and you still have to view a movie before hand, this isn't a game.....) a COMPLETE game can tell its story on its own, not try hard in adding complexity for the sake of trying to add complexity.

When i said illegal, i was not hyperboling or anything, I really meant literally illegal. What fallout 76 did was put some emotes and other dlc crap, limited time ofc, and right off the bat they had it like 10 dollars, but its 50% off to get to 10 dollars off the bat (I forget the exact pricing/ conversions) this is literally illegal to do, you can't post sale prices like that, it is deception and there is laws against it. YOU HAVE to have an intended price first then have a sale to make it less then that.