What Is The Future Of Gaming?

[Seil]

Okay, I totally get that I used to make terrible yet enjoyable drunk posts every once in a while asking people to paint themselves in MSPaint, and that there was silly fun had by all except for Barrel who is determined to be a grumpy Gus. I get that I've gotten less drunk recently and I've since stopped making many enjoyable posts that promote silly fun. This must be rectified at some point, probably soon, where I will ass drunk off my the. However, in my recent days, I've stopped being a mopey, semi-suicidal alcoholioc (Yay!) and become a productive member of society. (Boo.)

But as a Citizen Of This Proud Earth (TM), I've ventured out of my cave and started doing stuff! Like playing the fiddle more, and reading great books, and checking out all the internet things. Okay, so I admit that's all stuff I do in my cave anyway. (Shut up.) But I exercise sometimes!

Anyway, I was watching Yahtz... Yhat... Zero Punctuation with that British twat, and he did a review of Kid Icarus. (Which reminds me, I need to do more HMRWS. Welp, I hope people might read the next one.) Anyway, in the beginning of the review, he remarked on his fascination with his comments fascinating on his relationship with Nintendo. (I spelled 'fascinating' without the spell checker, it must be wrong.)

It got me wondering... what's the future of gaming. (Whoo, topic starts four or five paragraphs in, a new record for me.) I mean, all of my favorite series have come to an end. With the promise of new games to come - Thief 4, ahem - but I remain doubtful. Here's the thing: everyone (game designers) seem to me, at least, to be concentrating on the hardware than the games. I might just be deaf to the new releases - Max Payne and Bioshock Infinite notwithstanding, but it seems like I'm less excited about the new releases line up every year.

What's up with that?

I mean that we're less excited about being fanboys in an inevitable upcoming console war (could just be that we're FUCK YEAH, NPF) but I remember the release of the Gamecube and the XBox. I remember it because it was during the 'Current Events' class that we were doing in middle school and we had to watch/talk about TV news stories. But I remember arguing with my friends and defending my games and console of choice. Whatever happened to the yesteryears? Where are the halcyon days that I sat my fat arse (I'm exercising now, mind you. It's less fat than it was. Ladies...) and played the MGS4 or Silent Hill Hom.... Orig... .... .... The Room?

All I'm saying is that it seems with motion capture in games, with motion controls, and all of the old series either wrapping up or being rebooted (God, I feel old. I'm 23, damn it! I shouldn't have to feel old until the hangover, when I'm stiff in the morning!) where is there left to go?

I'm not saying gaming is dying. I hope it's gonna stick around for another few hundred years, until we meet aliens and play Duke Nukem: Real Life, but it just seems as if we're at an apex now. We're, in the terms of fifth grade English, at the top of the Rising Events stair case and now we're due for a climax.

...Not the dirty kind (http://www.themanwhofellasleep.com/starfacts.html).

[Bells]

Depends... the future of gaming as the industry sees it, or how we want it?

I Guess the future right now is a even bigger push into Connectivity, a bigger trend on Multiplyer driven content... not necessarily multiplayer GAMES... but games affected by multiplayer interactions.

Something closer to what Dark Souls does, but in a larger scale... i think the focus on Simplicity and community will simply go on. The WiiU (god damn stupid name...) has pretty much tablets for controls and a focus on local multiplayer, that can easily translate to online multiplayer. The Motion control craze is fading fast... but i don't think it will go away quite yet though...

Some games are trying to "diversify" but letting you control aspects of the game via other things, like Mass Effect, WoW and even the new Rainbow six future soldier that have features that allow you to work the main game via cellphone.... so we'll see more of that, for sure.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

Depends... the future of gaming as the industry sees it, or how we want it?

I Guess the future right now is a even bigger push into Connectivity, a bigger trend on Multiplyer driven content... not necessarily multiplayer GAMES... but games affected by multiplayer interactions.

Something closer to what Dark Souls does, but in a larger scale... i think the focus on Simplicity and community will simply go on. The WiiU (god damn stupid name...) has pretty much tablets for controls and a focus on local multiplayer, that can easily translate to online multiplayer. The Motion control craze is fading fast... but i don't think it will go away quite yet though...

Some games are trying to "diversify" but letting you control aspects of the game via other things, like Mass Effect, WoW and even the new Rainbow six future soldier that have features that allow you to work the main game via cellphone.... so we'll see more of that, for sure.

This is something I want to see more of. I always thought it was a neat concept and it's something I'd love to see done a lot more often.

I'm looking at you Sony, don't let this cross play thing die out. keep it going strong into the PS4 and eventually Vita2 and Xpheria2 5G.

[Seil]

God, I hate Dark Souls.

THAT BEING SAID! I dislike the focus on multiplayer games. The focus, mind you, not (some) of the games themselves. I think that we should put more effort into the single player campaign, because while games like Team Fortress 2 are fun and awesome, some people dun have a good internet connection some people dislike multiplayer.

I've been to the Demo section of the PSN - the only really good title is Warp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNroYXqPmEM&ob=av3e), which seems more like a puzzle than a game. I mean, what else is there? I Am Alive? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dNeB0WQkA8) That just takes elements from other games and turns it into this mish mash of mediocrity. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpZYD_COqXo) (Screw you, spell check.)

[Kyanbu The Legend]

I see what you mean Seil, though the focus on Multiplayer is a pretty good thing IMO.

[Kim]

God, I hate Dark Souls.

This has been Terrible Opinions, with your host, Seil McBarrelpants.

[Bells]

You guys think we're seeing the crumble of Triple A Gaming ? I mean, more and more Big titles flaunt and die short of their goals (even if the sales numbers are good) and we see small titles, unique non-brand or new-brand products coming about and a huge avalance of indie and social titles that sweep the playing field even with little to no PR or Marketing behind it.

[Satan's Onion]

The thought occurs to me that, this being a thread about gaming, it would be better suited to our subforum dedicated to gaming.

The further thought occurs that I should be the one to move it.

[Seil]

I seriously could go on and on about Dark Souls, but that'd be petty.

I think, Bells, when you say "you guys," you mean me. 'Cause I'm awesome, but I also have OP status. (Whoo!) So, please, know that these are the opinions of one (or two) man. (Men.)

It's not that I dislike indie titles - I'm actually totally in favor of smaller designers getting to strut their stuff and (hopefully) being picked up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHgOOUgTkNM&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLC91FE271F36B674D) - but it's - again - my personal opinion that there's not too many titles these days to be excited about.

What have we got? Assassin's Creed (3, or something? Ezio screwed the pooch on this one) Bioshock Steampunk and Max Payneful Noir. Oh, and that Metal Gear Raiden game. What is there to do but wait for a new, popular game series to rise up?

Well, nothing... Until it relies on crappy motion controls and becomes decidely stupid.

EDIT Thank you, Mr. Onion. I was drunk as a... PULMONARY TRUNK. and wasn't aware of thread organization.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

I'm loving the huge indi crowd. It gives me hope that my dreams of being a game designer, even an indi one might not just be a fantasy. :)

I love how open and big the field is getting and I hope it continues to grow.

[greed]

I seriously could go on and on about Dark Souls, but that'd be petty.

Go on. It's fun to tear apart indefensible stupidity like disliking Dark Souls.

Anyway I doubt we're seeing the end of triple A gaming, there are plenty o big games that sell well. What we might see is a trimming of the fat and getting budgets under control, and if we're lucky an increase in time allotted as a lot of the biggest failures recently have been high cost games that none the less were given too little time.

[Kim]

Fun Fact: Microsoft is actually working on a AAAA game.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

...is it Halo4?

Yeah it's totally Halo4.

[Kim]

...is it Halo4?

Yeah it's totally Halo4.

No, Halo 4 is an already announced game that's releasing later this year. The AAAA game is as of yet unannounced.

[Marc v4.0]

Go on. It's fun to tear apart indefensible stupidity like disliking Dark Souls.

Why would anyone ever bother having such a thing as varying tastes in entertainment, gawd

[Kim]

Why would anyone ever bother having such a thing as varying tastes in entertainment, gawd

I'm just saying, if you hate Dark Souls your opinions are bad and I will make fun of you for them.

[Marc v4.0]

I'm just saying that's pretty lame and petty

[Kim]

^_^

:dance:

[Marc v4.0]

:dance:

(horribly constructed metaphor that compares this insignificant issue to one much more serious and offensive)

[Kim]

^_^

:dance:

[mauve]

Sometimes I worry about the future of gaming. The fact that many new games and consoles seemed aimed largely at pulling in the non-traditional gamer market, the fact that the only current-gen system I have is a Nintendo Wii for which I haven't bought a new game since Super Mario Bros Wii came out, the fact that my PS2 has a bigger library of fun, playable games than I've seen for the PS3, Wii, or 360 (granted, I haven't paid too much attention, so that's a potential bias), and the fact that Devil May Cry is no longer badass.



But then I think of Batman: Arkham Asylum, Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective, Portal 2, Okami.... And I realize that everything is going to be okay. Sure, there may be a lot of crappy games. There may be a lot of stupid gimmicks and shiny new toys that are introduced, never fully explored for their full creative potential, and then dumped for the next new shiny toy. But there will always be the few truly amazing games that make everything worthwhile.

Those are the games that make me happy I'm a gamer.

[Krylo]

:dance:

Fenris, give Liz her account back.

[DarkDrgon]

I.. haven't been impressed this gen. at some point I've had every console of this gen, and I have more gamecube games I loved than games I consistently play on any of the new games.

I dunno, just seems less fun, more samey lately.

[rpgdemon]

The future of gaming is, people are still going to make games, and people will continue playing them.

Likely, more and more indie studios will be cropping up, that are able to take risks and make a more experimental game, or more accurately, studios will try to make "indie" development groups, where they have some low-budget experimental stuff they do in house, that gets the portal treatment if it's successful.

And more free stuff will happen too, either financed by microtransactions, or advertisements. I could actually see something like Diablo 3's cash auction house making a similar game free, with the only payments those that someone chooses to dole for upgrades, which the publisher takes a slice of.

The problem with these microtransaction based games is that they need to force you into paying, or else they're unprofitable. Which means the game has to either require something that's a paid option, meaning it's not free, or be INCREDIBLY sucky to get things from without paying. These don't lead to good gameplay.

[phil_]

My future of gaming: play the thirty years of games we already have. Enough amazing games that I've never played already exist that, if it became illegal to produce interactive video cassettes tomorrow, there would already be enough for me to play a new game, finish it, immediately plug in the next one, and continue playing until I die.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

I could write up a huge-ass post and explain, in fact I started to do so but found that I wouldn't want to read that so I'll just make a quick list of annoying trends in gaming I hope will stop getting bigger.

- Cinematic games
Worst known offender: God of War III, you just play yourself through boring waves of enemies using a few magic abilities and four samey weapons with ankle-deep move sets which don't matter anyway because just mashing the kill and the maim button will do the job
Solution: Make actual games instead, also, remove the fucking fixed camera. Openly admitting that you didn't add that feature because the game wouldn't look so nice otherwise isn't going to make it any better.
Good example of actual game: Dark Souls, going to fellate Dark souls here, it's a game first and foremost, the story is there, and it's good, but they don't shove it down your throat, you'll have to piece it together yourself if you're interested. It's the best example of a game that clearly put a lot of work in the backstory and lore but still doesn't make it its priority.

- Too fucking many Checkpoints, like before every single encounter.
Worst offenders: A lot of games, yesterday I noticed it in Castlevania Lords of Shadow because I'm dumb enough to play that game a second time, apparently. Checkpoints like this don't encourage you to get better, they encourage you to somehow get through there, because you'll be fine afterwards
Solution: Make checkpoints optional, I get that some people seek less challenge than people like me, who play and love Dark Souls and don't think it's hard.
Actually good use of checkpoints: Dark Souls, I said I was gonna fellate Dark Souls here. Checkpoints act more as Milestones within a level than save scumming enforced by the game itself.

- Stupid tutorials
Worst offenders: Too many to list, even otherwise good games
Solution: I remember times when I had to find out how to play the game and what I can do with abilities and the levels were built in a way that made it impossible not to do that as long as you possess the intelligence to hold a controller. Do that again.
Good "tutorials": Mega Man X. I bet you didn't even know these games had tutorials. Well okay, you probably did. By now the Mega Man X intro stage is a well known example of a good tutorial.

- Quick Time Events
Worst known offender: God of War series. Also happens to be the series that made them popular and according to some invented them (it didn't)
Solution: Don't fucking add stupid QTEs
Example of Cutscene interaction done right: I hate to mention a game that I've never played, and that doesn't interest me, but the Uncharted series seems to be on the right track.

- Regenerating Health
Worst known offenders: A bunch of FPS games. Let me get that clear, there are games that would benefit from regenerating health, but people just strap in on everything. A game that tries to be intense shouldn't make it possible to just stand behind cover for a few seconds to undo all your mistakes.
Solution: Don't do that please. Or do it like the following example I'm gonna name.
Good example of regenerating health: Perfect Dark Zero. Yeah, that game was shit, but it the health system was good even if it had regenerating health. I don't know if there are other games who handle it like that. There was temporary and permanent damage. You could always regenerate temporary damage if you waited long enough. Then you could take permanent damage too, which decreased the amount of health you could regenerate. Most weapons did both types, a bit of permanent damage and a bit more temporary damage.

I could write up a huge-ass post and explain, in fact I started to do so but found that I wouldn't want to read that...Every point was about as long as this post.


The problem with these microtransaction based games is that they need to force you into paying, or else they're unprofitable. Which means the game has to either require something that's a paid option, meaning it's not free, or be INCREDIBLY sucky to get things from without paying. These don't lead to good gameplay.
As far as I get it games like TF2 and DOTA2 have a microtransaction model that doesn't do that. I never played either of those games, though.

[Locke cole]

If you want an image of the future, imagine a plumber stomping on a turtle shell, forever.

In other words, we're going to get infinite lives.

[Loyal]

As far as I get it games like TF2 and DOTA2 have a microtransaction model that doesn't do that. I never played either of those games, though.

Yes, TF2 does a fine job of providing a paying model that doesn't shaft free players. The core game is fully available to all, the free players only miss trading and inventory space. There's no limitation on weapons, classes, or your abilities, and you can still craft. LoL also has a good system in place because the only gameplay elements that cannot be accounted for with actual player skill can't be bought with real money anyway.

The free-to-play market has come a long way since Gunbound, and it's preposterous to assume every f2p game is gonna be like that, even if some developers still don't get what works yet. We still have games like Age of Empires Online, where free players hit a brick wall in terms of what content they can enjoy after a short time, but overall developers are quickly getting the hint as to what works and keeps the customer happy at the same time.

[Sifright]

Yes, TF2 does a fine job of providing a paying model that doesn't shaft free players. The core game is fully available to all, the free players only miss trading and inventory space. There's no limitation on weapons, classes, or your abilities, and you can still craft. LoL also has a good system in place because the only gameplay elements that cannot be accounted for with actual player skill can't be bought with real money anyway.

The free-to-play market has come a long way since Gunbound, and it's preposterous to assume every f2p game is gonna be like that, even if some developers still don't get what works yet. We still have games like Age of Empires Online, where free players hit a brick wall in terms of what content they can enjoy after a short time, but overall developers are quickly getting the hint as to what works and keeps the customer happy at the same time.

basically this, F2P games that have good gameplay and GOOD non-free customization is what racks in the cash because the good gameplay keeps people around and the good customization is how people like to differentiate them selves and works as an effective snare for people

[rpgdemon]

Yes, TF2 does a fine job of providing a paying model that doesn't shaft free players. The core game is fully available to all, the free players only miss trading and inventory space. There's no limitation on weapons, classes, or your abilities, and you can still craft. LoL also has a good system in place because the only gameplay elements that cannot be accounted for with actual player skill can't be bought with real money anyway.

The free-to-play market has come a long way since Gunbound, and it's preposterous to assume every f2p game is gonna be like that, even if some developers still don't get what works yet. We still have games like Age of Empires Online, where free players hit a brick wall in terms of what content they can enjoy after a short time, but overall developers are quickly getting the hint as to what works and keeps the customer happy at the same time.

I bought TF2 when it was new, so I can't talk about how well it does or doesn't handle free to play-ness. I can say, however, the weapon drop system is essentially Valve saying, "Pay us money or wait indefinitely in a skinner box until maybe you get what you want.", which is an example of what I'm talking about. Either they encourage a long tedious grindey activity, or you won't have anyone who wants to pay them for it.

Now, you can say that the weapons in TF2 are completely optional. That's true! But, say you want to play with the new weapon everyone's talking about! You have to grind yourself enough metal to craft it, or manage to find someone who's trading it away, or hope that you get lucky enough to get it as a random drop. It's a very unpleasant and poor system of obtaining specific items, which I think was intentional.

They want to make it as hard as possible to obtain what you can pay for in game, and as annoying as possible, but not make it so that you can't get into the game. Valve has struck the line well enough that they're praised for it. Their system is REALLY annoying if you want to get a specific thing, but they give out random (possible junk) items at a reasonably slow trickle. The new players don't care what they get, because it's all new, so they're coerced and enticed into playing, and don't feel like they're getting ripped off or NEED to pay. Long term players, however, do care which items they get, and it is at that point that you hit a miserable grind in game to get your items. TF2 falls pray to this syndrome just like any other micro-transaction based game does, you just have to look a bit harder to see it.

That is where the incentive to poorly construct games comes in. Valve has done an okay job with it, but you can see that if you extend out just a bit past what they're doing, it's absolute hell. Games designed to keep you slaving away for hours to grind out one piece of gear, with an obsolescence cycle less than the time it takes to grind it out.

The long and the short of it is, when a game is wholly subsidized on microtransactions, the developers do not want you to obtain anything in game. That gives them no money, and games with microtransactions in mind will avoid letting you do things easily in games, for this reason. This IS bad design, and it is encouraged by microtransactions.

This is also why I think those same games that are financed by microtransactions will start financing via advertising. If you have to sit through an advertisement, whenever you start a dungeon, it's an annoyance, but now playing the game is subsidizing the development. It means that the developers want you to do things in game, because whatever you do there nets them real money. They don't have to put up a huge time-sink in your way of obtaining that piece of loot that you want, if whenever you're going to use it, they get 30 cents off of an advertisement. Suddenly the focus shifts to making the game engaging and keeping a player returning to it.

[Arcanum]

The problem with these microtransaction based games is that they need to force you into paying, or else they're unprofitable. Which means the game has to either require something that's a paid option, meaning it's not free, or be INCREDIBLY sucky to get things from without paying. These don't lead to good gameplay.

There's always an exception, and in this case it's Super Monday Night Combat.

The microtransactions in the game are for purely cosmetic items (character or weapon skins). You can also buy a "boost" which increases the rate you earn Combat Credits (which is the in-game currency). You can unlock new pros (characters) with either CC or with cash, and every week there are six new pros that anyone can play without unlocking them (like LoL's champion rotation, except there are only like 15 pros in SMNC right now so you can actually play all of them). Products (think perks) and Endorsements (stat modifying items with minimal, but still noticeable, impact on the game) are only purchasable with CC, so there is no "Pay to win" aspect of the game. And on top of all of that, there's a prize system (similar to TF2's item drops, except you get a prize every 90 minutes of gameplay) and everything, including the cosmetic items that you can only get with real cash, can be won from it.

So basically, microtransactions can be done right, but it involves putting faith in both the public and your game. You can't force someone to pay for your "free" game, you have to convince them that your free (notice the lack of quotes this time) game is worth paying for after they're already playing it. Meaning your game needs to be top notch.

[Loyal]

I bought TF2 when it was new, so I can't talk about how well it does or doesn't handle free to play-ness. I can say, however, the weapon drop system is essentially Valve saying, "Pay us money or wait indefinitely in a skinner box until maybe you get what you want.", which is an example of what I'm talking about. Either they encourage a long tedious grindey activity, or you won't have anyone who wants to pay them for it.

Now, you can say that the weapons in TF2 are completely optional. That's true! But, say you want to play with the new weapon everyone's talking about! You have to grind yourself enough metal to craft it, or manage to find someone who's trading it away, or hope that you get lucky enough to get it as a random drop. It's a very unpleasant and poor system of obtaining specific items, which I think was intentional.

They want to make it as hard as possible to obtain what you can pay for in game, and as annoying as possible, but not make it so that you can't get into the game. Valve has struck the line well enough that they're praised for it. Their system is REALLY annoying if you want to get a specific thing, but they give out random (possible junk) items at a reasonably slow trickle. The new players don't care what they get, because it's all new, so they're coerced and enticed into playing, and don't feel like they're getting ripped off or NEED to pay. Long term players, however, do care which items they get, and it is at that point that you hit a miserable grind in game to get your items. TF2 falls pray to this syndrome just like any other micro-transaction based game does, you just have to look a bit harder to see it.This makes no sense at all. What you're suggesting here, or what I'm reading in what you're suggesting here, is that any game in which the content should be unlocked gradually is terrible.

Kinda like how your characters in an RPG should all be level 99 and have the sweetest equipment from the get-go. Kinda like how you should immediately have access to all levels in a given platform game the moment you turn on the system.

A game in which you need to play the game to unlock content is nothing new, and any criticism concerning it has nothing whatsoever to do with f2p models. The notion that the implementation of such a system is some nefarious plot to steal away our precious time and money is also pretty much paranoid horseshit. The suggestion that, when we didn't all get a fresh Pomson, Spycicle, and Phlog the moment the update rolled out, Valve was somehow doing us a disservice that can only be corrected with FILTHAY MONAYZ, is basically unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

Yes, they put hats and new weapons in the store for people to buy for money. But this isn't some insidious scheme by Valve. They can be acquired the same as any other element that actually involves gameplay. The only advantage a buyer enjoys is that he has access to it slightly sooner, and that advantage disappears forever when other players get it themselves. Hats and new weapons can be bought in the store because this is what the customer base has asked for. The Mann Co store exists because the fanbase was asking Valve for it.

This microtransaction model exists because it's proven to work and leaves the customer happy. A far cry from this miserable cesspit of deceit and manipulation you seem to have imagined for yourself.
That is where the incentive to poorly construct games comes in. Valve has done an okay job with it, but you can see that if you extend out just a bit past what they're doing, it's absolute hell. Games designed to keep you slaving away for hours to grind out one piece of gear, with an obsolescence cycle less than the time it takes to grind it out.Please elaborate on this, because it makes even less sense. How is it "Absolute hell"? And what's this about an obsolescence cycle?

The long and the short of it is, when a game is wholly subsidized on microtransactions, the developers do not want you to obtain anything in game. That gives them no money, and games with microtransactions in mind will avoid letting you do things easily in games, for this reason. This IS bad design, and it is encouraged by microtransactions.Team Fortress 2 is remarkably easy to get into whether you've paid or not. You can even receive gifts from friends. The worst you've got is a limited backpack space, which may require you to choose to discard or craft some items, and the inability to trade for specific items. If you pay any money at all - as little as $.49 for a Sticky Jumper - you have access to everything that any other paying player gets, which is to say everything not in a crate. This status never diminishes and never disappears.

This is also why I think those same games that are financed by microtransactions will start financing via advertising. If you have to sit through an advertisement, whenever you start a dungeon, it's an annoyance, but now playing the game is subsidizing the development. It means that the developers want you to do things in game, because whatever you do there nets them real money. They don't have to put up a huge time-sink in your way of obtaining that piece of loot that you want, if whenever you're going to use it, they get 30 cents off of an advertisement. Suddenly the focus shifts to making the game engaging and keeping a player returning to it.This is nothing but baseless speculation and not worthy of a serious response.

[rpgdemon]

There's a difference between a game in which you gradually unlock content, and skinner box meant to waste your time, and if you can't see the difference between those two things, then it's not worth continuing the argument.

An obsolescence cycle is the cycle an item goes through as it gradually becomes out dated and obsolete, as new items are added.

World of Warcraft is an example of a skinner box meant to waste your time, too. The only way that Blizzard can get your money is by wasting a month of your life. As such, they will not let you accomplish anything in less than a month of work. They limit you to only being able to raid once a week, among other things.

Likewise, with TF2, Valve only gets paid if you are unsatisfied with their in-game item distribution system. Thus, they must make a system which is at it's core unsatisfactory. It doesn't matter how well it does OTHER things, it entices new players, yes, but it is a bad distribution system. You aren't even working towards anything with TF2, you just get drops randomly, at arbitrary times. I have talked to people who say, "The only way to play TF2 is to idle on an idling server to get drops, then play."

More proof (Aside from basic logic) that Valve has a vested interest in keeping you from obtaining the items you want in game: Before rolling out their cash shop, they stopped letting you get items in any way but the random drops. You could say it's a coincidence, but I don't think Valve is stupid. They know that their old system let players work towards obtaining something, and it let them do it fairly and satisfactorily. They also know, the new system of only random drops is far worse at letting players work towards something that they want, and is a much bigger enticement to just saying, "Screw it", and dropping cash on an item.

You're purposedly exagerating and ignoring arguments to make yourself sound better. As for the "pointless conjecture not worth mentioning", that is the ENTIRE POINT of this thread. Conjecture about the future of gaming. The reason we're even discussing this is, if you read my post, because I believe microtransactions will lead to unfulfilling games, and developers will start looking towards other free methods of putting out free games, with better focus on making an enjoyable game, rather than monetizing it.

Advertising in game, if done right, can be an unobtrusive way to monetize a free game. If the game is fun enough that people keep coming back to it, then they will be getting money from the advertisements. If it's not fun, they won't be. You can make the argument that they could still make it a miserably grindy experience, but at least they have the option of just making a fun game, rather than making a game that people keep coming back to in order to grind.

For example, if there was an advertisement shown while you were dead in TF2, or while you were waiting for the match to begin, it has zero detriment to how the game plays. And, Valve would be getting a lot of money, from ads being constantly shown. And Valve could let players work towards their goals MUCH more enjoyably.


If you want to tell me that you think that the random item drop is a much better and much more fun system than random item drop AND the ability to unlock items through achievements, then that's your own choice, but the truth of the matter is, the manner in which one obtains items was made worse, in order to push more profits.

[Ecks]

Well, see the thing about games is, they cost money to make.

And no one is buying a free game rpg. Derp.

[rpgdemon]

Yes, that's the point.

It costs a significant amount of money to make a "free" game, and you can't recoup your costs by making the game good to the player. You NEED the player to be giving you money, which means the player can't just use the game for everything they need.

[Ecks]

You know you could just... buy or pay for a game? That would go a long way toward encouraging developers to, y'know, make a game worth buying.

[rpgdemon]

I don't know why you're making this issue about me.

I do buy all the games I play. If I don't buy it, I don't play it.

The problem is that game companies are trying to move forward with free games, and still make money off of them with microtransactions. This is the wrong angle to go.

[Loyal]

An obsolescence cycle is the cycle an item goes through as it gradually becomes out dated and obsolete, as new items are added.The reason why I asked what was up with the obsolescence cycle was because you were making it out like all games included that, which simply isn't the case. The Sandman and Bonk! remain about as viable now as when the Scout update came out, and most Stock weapons, with a few exceptions that were never very useful in the first place, remain viable and even recommended today.

World of Warcraft is an example of a skinner box meant to waste your time, too. The only way that Blizzard can get your money is by wasting a month of your life. As such, they will not let you accomplish anything in less than a month of work. They limit you to only being able to raid once a week, among other things.I don't think anyone's arguing against WoW, at any point in its history, being a time/money sink. My problem is with saying that all f2p games are some dishonest, manipulative money-grubbing tool, exceptionally and specifically designed to make the customer fork over more cash than what they should feel is worth it.

Likewise, with TF2, Valve only gets paid if you are unsatisfied with their in-game item distribution system. Thus, they must make a system which is at it's core unsatisfactory. It doesn't matter how well it does OTHER things, it entices new players, yes, but it is a bad distribution system. You aren't even working towards anything with TF2, you just get drops randomly, at arbitrary times. I have talked to people who say, "The only way to play TF2 is to idle on an idling server to get drops, then play."I'm not seeing the part where TF2's system is any less fair than any other game where you had to pay a monthly subscription or just drop $60 up front. What are you suggesting as an alternative?

More proof (Aside from basic logic) that Valve has a vested interest in keeping you from obtaining the items you want in game: Before rolling out their cash shop, they stopped letting you get items in any way but the random drops. You could say it's a coincidence, but I don't think Valve is stupid. They know that their old system let players work towards obtaining something, and it let them do it fairly and satisfactorily. They also know, the new system of only random drops is far worse at letting players work towards something that they want, and is a much bigger enticement to just saying, "Screw it", and dropping cash on an item.Ahah. Aha. No.

The old system was achievement milestones. The very same achievement milestones which included achievements that ranged between reasonable expectations of the class functions, to grindy, to ridiculously specific and a little arbitrary, to nearly or completely impossible under regular play conditions. Can you think of a reason, other than money, that Valve might have wanted to move away from that, when the rewards for these milestones were supposed to be equally viable alternatives to the stock weapons?

Also: I wouldn't say it's a coincidence, because I would say they're entirely unrelated. Achievement milestones were temporarily discontinued (for they are back now, you see) in May of 2009. The Mann Co Store was established, over a year later, in September of 2010. Suggesting that they are related is preposterous.

You're purposedly exagerating and ignoring arguments to make yourself sound better.I'm exaggerating because it's cathartic and I believe your argument is too ridiculous and paranoid to be worth taking seriously.

As for the "pointless conjecture not worth mentioning", that is the ENTIRE POINT of this thread. Conjecture about the future of gaming. The reason we're even discussing this is, if you read my post, because I believe microtransactions will lead to unfulfilling games, and developers will start looking towards other free methods of putting out free games, with better focus on making an enjoyable game, rather than monetizing it.

Advertising in game, if done right, can be an unobtrusive way to monetize a free game. If the game is fun enough that people keep coming back to it, then they will be getting money from the advertisements. If it's not fun, they won't be. You can make the argument that they could still make it a miserably grindy experience, but at least they have the option of just making a fun game, rather than making a game that people keep coming back to in order to grind.Fair enough.

The problem is that game companies are trying to move forward with free games, and still make money off of them with microtransactions. This is the wrong angle to go. ...And why is this a problem again?

[rpgdemon]

The achievements-thing is a stretch, I will give you. But the problem is that games have to be designed specifically to fit the microtransaction model. You can't take a typical, well designed, game, and then just throw in the ability to but stuff in it, because you would make no money. You need to make deliberate concessions to the method of distribution, which is what I don't like. You shouldn't have to water down a game in order to make it profitable.

[Ramary]

You shouldn't have to water down a game in order to make it profitable.

That is like the golden rule to selling any game to a wide audience though.

Water/dumb it down to make it more accessible to more people. Mo' people, mo' profits.

F2P games (in some cases) follow that as well, but also try and give you the skinner box grind, then in some way give you a cash-based alternative way around it. There is not really any other way you could make money from a F2P without flat out making it pay to win.

Not every game in the world is gonna be F2P, although what really bugs me are games that have a price tag to get in AND THEN is loaded with micro transactions.

[Sifright]

plenty of f2p games make assloads ridiculous assloads of money based on the customization aspect and dont touch the gameplay at all

[Loyal]

But the problem is that games have to be designed specifically to fit the microtransaction model.The problem is that your argument is that, in this case, Valve swapped out one item-acquisition system for a "less-satisfactory" one, before microtransactions were a thing in TF2, and didn't introduce microtransactions to fill the gap till over a year later, after customers had asked for it, and that, implicitly, this was their intention all along.

Your argument is that Valve has been playing some sort of long con all this time, that they had little reason to believe would work, but has nonetheless borne very profitable fruit.

Which is ridiculous.

[Ramary]

The problem is that your argument is that, in this case, Valve swapped out one item-acquisition system for a "less-satisfactory" one, before microtransactions were a thing in TF2, and didn't introduce microtransactions to fill the gap till over a year later, after customers had asked for it, and that, implicitly, this was their intention all along.

Your argument is that Valve has been playing some sort of long con all this time, that they had little reason to believe would work, but has nonetheless borne very profitable fruit.

Which is ridiculous.

I agree with you, but if anyone is gonna do a long con, it would be the company who invented Valve Time.

[rpgdemon]

If we step away from TF2 and Valve, my point still stands. Free to play games are worth being wary of, for game developers.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Except that across the board games that convert from a paid system to a F2P one see increases in profit.

DCUO got like seven times its income after the swap.
But wait wasn't the thing that F2P games are skinner box money holes? Why would a Developer have to be wary of that?

[Mr.Bookworm]

The reason why I asked what was up with the obsolescence cycle was because you were making it out like all games included that, which simply isn't the case. The Sandman and Bonk! remain about as viable now as when the Scout update came out,

While I agree with your point, this is a terrible example. The Sandman's update log is like a dozen pages long, and it's currently settled somewhere around the dreaded "eh" sector of weaponry, down from "broken as a sapped sentry".

with a few exceptions that were never very useful in the first place,

Every time I randomly get Mantreads, I die a little inside.

Also, TF2 is a pretty terrible example, because it has a healthy, thriving in-game economy. If you get, say, ten Mantreads, you can craft that into five scrap, which will buy you pretty much any normal weapon you want. The only thing that actually costs more in-game are hats, stranges, and other such cosmetic items.

ANYWAY ON THE ACTUAL TOPIC OF THE THING:

I imagine that it will look pretty much like today, which is a pretty boring answer.

The big publishing houses will continue to chug along, outputting mostly safe bets like Halo: Back to Reach, Final Fantasy XVII: The Quartz Bearers of Gazdo'kan: Part 2, and Madden 2022. They will continue to assimilate more independent developers into themselves, just as new ones arise to take their place. The occasional new series will pop up.

Indie developers will keep on scrabbling. Minecraft has proven that an indie project can hit the fucking sky, and I can't help but imagine that another Minecraft-type indie success will appear at some point. Kickstarter will continue to grow; Double Fine, inXile, and other smaller projects have proven that you can get a ton of money out of the crowd just by showing them your vision and promising them cool stuff.

Gaming will keep on growing as a mass market thing. Mobile games will continue to grow, as more people pick up smartphones and the like. The next Tetris/Bejewled/Angry Birds will inevitably show up at some point.

Dwarf Fortress will finally be finished, mechanically representing the world down to the quantum level.

Episode 3 will have still not come out.

[rpgdemon]

Except that across the board games that convert from a paid system to a F2P one see increases in profit.

DCUO got like seven times its income after the swap.
But wait wasn't the thing that F2P games are skinner box money holes? Why would a Developer have to be wary of that?

Developers who actually care about their games, and not just churning out a thing to make a quick buck, should be wary. And eventually, people will get burned out on the skinner box money hole, and then what?

[Azisien]

All developers care about the games they create.

Publishers, and their producers, on the other hand....

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Developers who actually care about their games, and not just churning out a thing to make a quick buck, should be wary. And eventually, people will get burned out on the skinner box money hole, and then what?

The same thing that happens to all games?
You just hope by that point you've made more money than it cost to make the game and then move on to the next one.

[Doc ock rokc]

All developers care about the games they create.

Publishers, and their producers, on the other hand....

Well if we take into effect the power of crowd funding. Then publishers are going to be in bit of a bind soon. As developers are gaining a option to build games away from publishers. Meaning that The publishers are going to have to give up some of the cutthroat tactics and general dickery they have been trying to get away with as of late.

[Azisien]

Well if we take into effect the power of crowd funding. Then publishers are going to be in bit of a bind soon. As developers are gaining a option to build games away from publishers. Meaning that The publishers are going to have to give up some of the cutthroat tactics and general dickery they have been trying to get away with as of late.

And that's why I love it.

[Ramary]

Crowd funding's impact is a too soon to tell sort of thing, to me right now it is looking like a bubble that will burst once the games come out, and don't meet with the fan's insanely high, unreasonable expectations.

[Ryong]

As a general argument on how F2P, Pay to Win games work:

Nexon makes fucktons of money, their games are very repetitive and, while there are good ideas thrown in, they're like an oasis in an incredibly bland desert.

The future? The future is crazy good niche games that unfortunately sell just enough to keep making them and big series which will be riddled with references and recurring themes, but otherwise be new games.

[Bells]

Allow me to make a sudden turn so hard you'll slam on a wall from sheer momentun (sorry, been playing a bit of Ridge Racer Unbound lately... brakes are for pussies)

No overly strange to the world of "alternative gaming" i've seen my fiar share of repacks, compreensed and etc etc etc... and it comes to my attention how overly blown up some games get due to 3 main things: Music, CGI Movies and Voice acting.

The First usually Acceptable, the second a bit occasional (and in the age of Full HD i guess certain things you can't really convey with just the game's engine... so ok. The Final one, on the other hand, actually bloats some games the most... specially the more "wordy" ones, it is not hard at all to fill a DVD with just voice clips, specially if a game has multiple language options...

But recording those lines actually cost quite a bit of money and poor execution may actually hurt a game severely (depending on genre i guess) and it takes quite a bit of time to put it together

So here is what i pose as a question.... you guys thnk would be acecptable for larger games, like RPG's... like Dragon Age or Mass Effect, or Neverwinter and the such... to go the Sims route and cut out on fully fleshed out voice acting in favor of a bit more "padding" with generic voiced mumbled that doesn't have to fill up a whole disc and maybe keeping actual dialog reserved just for the major cutscenes?

I ask, cause it makes me wonder if maybe a producer has to cut on content or reduce the paths a player can take because actually recording, placing and paying for that audio content becomes too much for a game to bear, instead of just some writen dialog, with some In-Sync mumbling on screen...

[Sifright]

Allow me to make a sudden turn so hard you'll slam on a wall from sheer momentun (sorry, been playing a bit of Ridge Racer Unbound lately... brakes are for pussies)

No overly strange to the world of "alternative gaming" i've seen my fiar share of repacks, compreensed and etc etc etc... and it comes to my attention how overly blown up some games get due to 3 main things: Music, CGI Movies and Voice acting.

The First usually Acceptable, the second a bit occasional (and in the age of Full HD i guess certain things you can't really convey with just the game's engine... so ok. The Final one, on the other hand, actually bloats some games the most... specially the more "wordy" ones, it is not hard at all to fill a DVD with just voice clips, specially if a game has multiple language options...

But recording those lines actually cost quite a bit of money and poor execution may actually hurt a game severely (depending on genre i guess) and it takes quite a bit of time to put it together

So here is what i pose as a question.... you guys thnk would be acecptable for larger games, like RPG's... like Dragon Age or Mass Effect, or Neverwinter and the such... to go the Sims route and cut out on fully fleshed out voice acting in favor of a bit more "padding" with generic voiced mumbled that doesn't have to fill up a whole disc and maybe keeping actual dialog reserved just for the major cutscenes?

I ask, cause it makes me wonder if maybe a producer has to cut on content or reduce the paths a player can take because actually recording, placing and paying for that audio content becomes too much for a game to bear, instead of just some writen dialog, with some In-Sync mumbling on screen...


I'd rather they went full text only or kept all the dialougue voiced as well. A halfway hodge podge wouldn't be great to be honest.

[Loyal]

It seems to me like gibberish works well for silly or light-toned games, like Animal Crossing and Magicka, but serious games need to have proper acting.

[DarkDrgon]

I'd like to keep voices only to the cutscenes and heavy story parts. I think FFX found a pretty good balance of Voiced to Text only scenes.