> 2533274793122050;50:
> > 2533274793006817;46:
> > > 2533274793122050;45:
> > >
> >
> > Look at games back then compared to games out now. Games back then were a fraction of the content that games are now and exponentially harder to develop. So hard in fact that there are fewer and fewer games that come out at all today than there was 20 years ago and especially 30 years ago. Expectations for each game is to the best thing ever every single time with more content on day one than any the last game and without any reused content. The only games that get greenlit on a major scale are retreads because the investment is so huge it’s not worth the risk on new IP. AAA publishers are only releasing a handful of AAA titles in any given year. The only people pushing out a constant stream of low quality titles are the indie-titles, but I’d bet good money that’s not what you meant when you said that.
> >
> > Fact is old games had less unique content than “half-finished” games do today. Most of the “long” games of old just had artificially ramped up difficulty spikes to force you to replay it endlessly, palette swaps and repeated tilesets. Even Mario 64 only had 18 levels (including the 3 Bowser stages). It’s easy to say “New games are bad, my old favorites were better!” but it’s an entirely other thing to look at things objectively realize that if the industry does collapse, you’re still not gonna get what you want, because what you want never actually existed.
>
> quantity =/= quality
And yet, your argument has nothing to do with quality either. Your argument comes from personal preference and correlation/causation fallacies and you now make that abundantly clear.
> 2533274793122050;50:
> especially looking at todays live service games, where the quantity comes from repeating boring side quests and grinds.
This has always been the case; especially in RPGs where sidequests and grinds were pioneered for those types of games. The tasks in genres with grinding hasn’t really changed. What’s changed is the number of genres out there and the popularity of them.
> 2533274793122050;50:
> i take a well made 4-5 hours single player game with good story and good characters any time over a boring grind-fest live service game.
OK and those are two different genres and game preferences. I don’t like soccer; it’s extremely boring and the flopping is somehow worse than basketball and all the soccer players are pansies. Does that mean soccer should die just because I personally fundamentally don’t like a sport where everybody pretends they don’t have arms? No. So why do you get to decide that the industry needs to die, not so they make better quality games, but so that they make the games in the genres you want?
> 2533274793122050;50:
> i also take a “long” game bc of the difficulty any time over these live service games. at least that would be a challenge and not “work” by filling up some bars/numbers. not that i don’t think there could be a good live service game, but i haven’t seen one yet.
Because you don’t like online worlds. You fundamentally don’t like shared universe games.
> 2533274793122050;50:
> and that fewer AAA games get released isn’t be bc it’s harder to develop,
then you don’t understand anything and this conversation is pointless to even continue. MTXs, lootboxes, etc are created because they are the most efficient way of bringing in revenue because building the base game doesn’t take a year between a dozen developers or less, it now takes hundreds of developers several years and sometimes literally hundreds of millions of dollars just to produce one game and then it will be another several years before they can release anything else. Of course they are going to sell MTX if they can; that’s how they bring in revenue and support the coming long enough until the next huge game comes out.
> 2533274793122050;50:
> so why risk making a good game,
Again, you don’t even understand the concept of good and quality. Good games are really the only games that find huge success selling microtransactions. Just because you don’t like Fortnite doesn’t mean it is terrible as a game; I hate the game because it’s not competitively balanced, but that doesn’t mean it is a bad game in its entirety, it’s just not my preference.
> 2533274793122050;50:
> the collapse i was referring to came from a huge amount of bad games pushed out, bc every company wanted to make a quick buck with video games and didn’t care about the games itself (which reminds me a lot of todays live-service-game industry).
And that’s a bad comparison without merit for anything except for mobile/web games.
> 2533274793122050;50:
> what i meant with mentioning indie titles is, that they are more likely to try something new and/or deliver a quality experience
Except they’re not. They are more likely to offer a bad experience and be tossed away trash. A mildly novel idea, possibly, made pointless by a poorly constructed game around it. And that’s even the grand assumption they are novel and unique, because most of them absolutely are not. For every novel idea in a most likely bad indie game, there’s 10,000 by the numbers bland derivative indie game.
> 2533274793122050;50:
> i’m actually not sure what you mean with “unique”.
> to me todays AAA gaming industry seems pretty much more of the same in the design across most titles. but the same can be said about old games. or do you mean within a game?
in the game. You were talking about them lacking content when in reality the old games never had more content, they just reused it a ton and no one complained.
> 2533274793122050;50:
> to the things i want: the “wish” for the industry collapsing is more or less a “wish” born out of frustration with the path the industry is heading down. i actually don’t believe it will collapse anytime soon and i also see, that a lot of developers would be out of work and that’s not what i want. i just want games to be finished at launch and that the games are games and not just glorified storefronts.
Yeah, that’s juat a mad lib tangent. The idea of them being “storefronts” and the idea that they are “finished” are too entirely different things unless your argument entirely comes down to “developers should quit supporting their games with content and updates after launch.”
> 2533274796763552;16:
> And no, I’m not defending this business structure. Were it up to me, all intellectual properties would be under open source licenses and would be free for use and adaptation.
That would be an insane, literally unmitigated disaster you can’t even begin to understand to the point every industry is in shambles and would cause the greatest collapse in human history.
Even if you somehow relegated it only to video games, consumer protection laws would be in shambles in gaming and Sony and Nintendo especially would basically die off fairly quickly.