VideoGame_Discussion

That idea has come and gone. Younger folks, this style of broken games is how its done so as they get older they wont bat an eyelash at busted on release games. The time to stop it was when it started, but most folks just didnt care. For every person who talked with their wallet and didnt buy there were 10,000 who did buy.

Tiredman wrote:

This is a good point. I've even seen where younger generations really seem to enjoy all of the bugs that are in games at first, enjoy messing around with them, and then are sad once they're patched.

Most of the money a game makes is at launch check it up online. Bad reviews can cripple it but most of the times mention of bugs don't deter people.

For the most part I've stopped buying games at release and having been playing through games on my backlog from when I will still buying games, borrowing games from my local library system, or playing cheap indie games that were on sale on my Switch.

Exceptions are for some big releases this summer: Tears of the Kingdom and Final Fantasy XVI.

F2P is the current state of gaming, whether we like it or not. We are in minority...we being people that buy full priced games and expect a high quality experience. The overwhelming majority play F2P games and usually move from one game to the next very quickly. Games are constantly being updated, improved, balanced, etc., until the game is no longer profitable, and then they just stop supporting it. Kids today are not playing AAA games like they used to. They are playing Fortnite (still), Roblox, Rocket League, and other F2P games. Micro-transactions and subscription based models are where it is at. My oldest son has wasted SO MUCH FRICKIN MONEY on FIFA 23. $70 for the game and then at least $150-$200 on player packs, and that's all he plays. In a few months, FIFA 24 will come out, and I'm sure he'll start all over again. EA might be the enemy for us, but they are making money hand over fist with this model.

It's not a coincidence that the F2P games are making the most money these days. Epic is probably the most profitable company out there. It's only a matter of time when other companies give up on the AAA titles and stick with the F2P model.

Scott wrote:


I see much of the younger crowd complaining about EVERYTHING in games. Not 60 fps, not 4k, they changed too much, they changed too little, games are too pricey, games are too cheap, there aren't enough games, there are too many games, the game is unplayable, there are too many patches, gripe gripe gripe.

I grew up in the 80's. If you can control the game well enough and have fun, good enough for me.

KCPenguins wrote:

Think about all the games we paid full price for that were absolute garbage and mostly unplayable. I'm looking at you Ultraman on the SNES and Bill Lambier's Combat Basketball. Back then we got a few new games a year (if we were lucky), and if they sucked we were stuck with them. And many of the challenges were impossible to figure out without a guide, so we would get stuck on some obscure "go to this pixel and crouch backwards for 10 seconds" puzzle.

KCPenguins wrote:


For me, i see them complain and then they are playing it 5 minutes later. As an 80s gamer myself, i find the way games development has gone in the quality testing of games to be atrocious. I wish many of the games I buy were able to be bought easily later, but too many of them sell out and go up in price.

Ultimately, first world problems, but a really annoying one.

Tiredman wrote:


Like physical only LRG (or equivalent) games? I can't think of many games that can't be had in some form for some time after release.

bonham2 wrote:


I remember getting Bart vs the Space Mutants. I was a huge Simpsons fan and it was the first Simpsons game I was aware of. I knew nothing about it, but I was stoked. I could quickly tell it wasn't a good game, but as you said it was one of my few new games that year.

What did I do? I didn't dog, piss and moan about it. I didn't throw a tantrum. I thanked my parents and played it. Got pretty far (never beat it), and had what little fun there was to have with it. If anyone asked about it I told them the fun bits I had with it, that I wouldn't recommend it and that they could borrow it if they wanted to play it. It was a far different and MUCH BETTER era imo.

Now your average players get 5, 10, 20+ games a year and drone on and on about how terrible small aspects of the best games are. We've literally become a (social media) society where the more you crap on things the more "status" you have. Pretty fudgeed up.

I loved Bart Vs the Space mutants... but I think it was because looking back my brother had rented it and man did we have a good time playing it. Blades of Steel was another... got that for Christmas (so did every kid it seemed) and if I develop arthritis in my thumb I can thank that game!

I used to be against the Games as a service bit, but as long as pay to win does not show it self I am totally fine. At least with F2P if the game is not released in a playable state it will quickly die off, so there is at least some pressure to get it right from the start.

Finn wrote:


The first level of BvtSM was decent, you had the Moe's tavern jokes and a variety of things to tag. Second level was lame. Really enjoyed most aspects of the third level, that's where it shined imo. That 4th level... ugh. I don't recall if I ever got past that.

Blades of Steel was ok, but I was more into Ice Hockey. Those were my only exposure to hockey until NHL '95 came out on SNES. That game single handedly made me a fan of the sport. It was literally how I learned the rules of the game. Sadly nobody in my area knew anything about hockey.

KCPenguins wrote:

I can agree with this however, most games are incomplete at release whether that be content or performance. How does a game like Dead Island 2 release nearly a decade after intended, with so many limitations. Last gen players can’t host a session, you can’t play with your friends unless at the same exact point in the campaign, only three players in one lobby. I feel like it’s hard to spend $70 on a new video game and the game actually be worth it. Also, with social media giving companies and developers a direct line of communication with their respective communities, it’s weird that games release so incomplete and unfinished. Of course it’s up to the consumer ultimately, but it seems the quick & easy dollar through F2P and micro transactions are the way to go. Also, it sounds like you were a child in the 80’s so of course you wouldn’t really be upset if a game wasn’t good as you probably didn’t have to come out of pocket yourself, but once you got older and began paying for them yourself, I’m sure you’ve played a game that you felt like just wasn’t worth the purchase. Up until recently, even the “bad” games were fully developed and full of content, now all games are released full of bugs that are blatantly obvious if the game was tested or just not ready yet. Bugs aren’t that big of a deal depending how big they are. Fallout bugs>>>>Cyberpunk bugs

KCPenguins wrote:


Good example, but for me, im an rpg fanatic. Many Atelier games, recent NISA publisher releases like the Prinny Presents games, and other funky niche games all release, are around for a short window, then start climbing in price.

The games I wait on buying have a roughly 50/50 chance of being one of those games that will go rare. Demon Gaze 1, a first person dungeon crawler remaster of a vita game, comes out this month and im betting it will disappear fast since there is almost no advertising for it.

Tiredman wrote:


Interesting. I know nothing of these. Do they sell out immediately, or is it you don't have the funds to buy them in the first few weeks and then some of them start appreciating quickly due to scarcity?

KCPenguins wrote:


I do buy them. Thankfully most rpg's are so simplistic that few are broken enough to hurt the experience so i dont have to talk with my wallet. As for buying, i buy most as they come out because Im not willing to spend $100 + on 99% of games. Only a few series are wait till later or not buy at all and all 3 are based on how low their quality has gotten. Final Fantasy, Tales of, and Star Ocean. Havent picked up the latest Star Ocean yet because that last two sucked.

As for the games I dont buy because the price is too high, many Atelier games fall into that category. I missed out on a bunch over the years and when i decided to collect them, many were past my cut off line. Thankfully I discovered a canadian store that reprints ESRB games and ships most of them to the US. They reprint many Atelier titles, and older games like ps3's Asura's Wrath and sell them for the original price or cheaper.

These games are priced at $100+ at launch with no significantly cheaper digital option? (I'm truly ignorant here)

KCPenguins wrote:

I had NHL ‘93 I think it was the first year with NHL licensing. I wanted NHL ‘92 but I got Stanley Cup Hockey instead…. Not as good lol. The NHL series was a game changer, I have had an EA hockey game ever since, well except the really bad years… 2001-2007 and NHL 2k was were it was at.

I would love a Simpsons game collection… would love to play it again for nostalgia. Your probably right on the game though.

Finn wrote:


I don't think there was an NHL '92, not for consoles anyways. I have every SNES NHL game including '98. I've played at least 1 full season in each one. Probably played 4 or 5 full seasons of '96 (my personal favorite).

The NHL & Madden series (as well as FIFA) are perfect examples of how horrible EA is for the games market. Back when there was competition, they had to innovate and really work to improve their games. Now, they just keep releasing the same crap every year with minor upgrades (and then downgrades in other areas). The last few years of Madden are practically unplayable. Maybe that's a slight exaggeration, but the AI and difficulty is so uneven that I can't play more than a few games before I delete them out of disgust.

Sorry, NHL 93 was the first one I ever had, NHL 92 was just called NHL Hockey. I got NHL 93 rather late in the season because of the previously mentioned a Stanley Cup hockey. I think I sold it…. Maybe traded it to a friend.

I think it was either 95 or 96, but I played the hell out of that game. My friend and I could score at will. Final scores were usually somewhere around 105-103.

Scott wrote:

There is some truth to this for online games... early exploits/imbalances are often fun as hell.

Tiredman wrote:
For every person

I think this is ultimately the best way to get the point across. If a game releases broken, don't buy the game. Don't give the developers money for an unfinished product.

KCPenguins wrote:

Not games only until about 6 to 12 months later. As for digital, im all about collecting and dont consider digital collecting. I can imagine how mad i would be if I spent $60 to $70 on a digital game and it was an utter mess. Also, when i talk high prices, its all physical.

I have only heard of one digital only game on steam that actually raised it's price because..... inflation..... Wish i could remember the name, read about it about 4 months ago or so. The cut off on digital for me is $15 for most games and $20 on certain games i am really hyped about, the only one being Shovel Knight. I have bought two other games over $20, but still on sale, because I owned all three games on prior systems, Grandia HD Collection on switch, which I also bought the physical for, and Resonance of Fate on ps4.

Finn wrote:

I played it day one on PC and finished it without issue. CDPR's mistake was releasing it on the last gen consoles in the first place, though I understand the alure.

KCPenguins wrote:

NHL Hockey on the Genesis was essentially 92. The sequel was NHLPA Hockey 93. The Sega CD version of NHL 94 was the best sports game of that generation. The SNES ports were terrible relatively.