Inspired by Game Theory.
What are your opinions? Are gamers ruining video games? Is this what made the Wii-U? Is this what made the over-rated PS4? Is this what made the horrible Xbo- you get my point.
- 16 Replies
First, could you please include some links on the rest of the theory..
As for the rest of this.
N-no... How could the general audience of a product ruin it. Gamers have nothing to do with the wiiu and its development. Most gamers don't own a wiiu, it's aimed towards the more casual gamers out there. Gamers don't have much to do with the ps4 or x1 either. I'd like to see the link to which you are referring, because so far as I can tell there is no evidence here suggesting gamers are doing anything bad...
pick... It's called marketing...
How could the general audience of a product ruin it. Gamers have nothing to do with the wiiu and its development. Most gamers don't own a wiiu, it's aimed towards the more casual gamers out there.
There are really two ways: bad feedback and general audience preference. Bad feedback is pretty obvious. If, like in the Wii U's case, the general audience is made up of casual gamers, then game companies will create casual gaming systems to meet that demand, thus making them money.
Gamers don't have much to do with the ps4 or x1 either.
Really? Because the surge in Smart TV interest is what created the X1. Microsoft saw that it was a good industry and jumped for it. As for the PS4, that's basically an updated version of the PS3 with some cool new features.
In product development, assuming that the developer is perfect, the product is entirely dependent on what the audience desires, or what it's interested in. So yes, gamers may be ruining video games.
Yes, games would be 100% better if there were no players for them :P
Okay, enough sarcasm. This might be true to some extent. To me, some serious gamer pros may "ruin" my game by saying that my strategy is bad and I should follow their Ultimate-strategy-of-beating-everything-under-5- seconds.But usually I just ignore it and play the game how I want to even if it is objectivly bad. I often dont even think that I am good in certain games only that I am merely average.
Are gamers ruining video games?
I can 100% confirm that they don't always help. For instance, there's the recent release of the BF4 DLC, Naval Strike, they (stupidly) announced that it was going to be released a couple of days from the announcement, but it was far from ready. Trying to avoid doing what they had previously done, releasing a broken game/DLC they opted to delay it on some platforms, the fans were upset and angry over it and demanded it now. Sure enough I go online and see that it's been released near the end of March when they said it wouldn't be out until (hopefully) early April (pretty safe to assume they gave into the masses and released it) and guess what? It was broken! The fans, of course, were enraged that DICE once again released broken content, not considering for a moment that if they had just let them release it in their own time that it would have been fine.
The moral of the story is, that if you make a mistake in a game there's absolutely nothing you can do to fix it because the fans will be angry at you for whatever you do to fix it.
DICE: We got a new DLC coming out March 25!
fans: YAY new DLC I sure hope they don't release it broken like everything else!
DICE: We're delaying the release on PC and X1 to fix some bugs so as to avoid releasing broken content.
fans: How could you do that?! I want my DLC NOW!
DICE: Alright fine, but we warned you.
fans: HOW COULD YOU RELEASE BROKEN CONTENT AGAIN! YOU GUYS ARE THE WORST COMPANY EVER FOR DOING THAT!
And there's the Battlefield fanbase in a nutshell.
Gamers don't care about smart tvs. That's Microsoft being Microsoft. And I don't think you understand what I'm talking about with the wiiu. It sucks, and that is not the gamer's fault. It was made for casual gamers and is bad so I don't see why gamers are to blame. Of corse I understand marketing and such, but it is not the consumer's fault that the products suck. What I got from the op is that it is gamer's fault that the products suck, which doesn't make much sense to me.
I don't see why gamers are to blame.
They constantly scream for innovation, but don't really want innovation.
Watched the video this time
They constantly scream for innovation, but don't really want innovation.
They do want innovation. The game companies are a bit shy when it comes to this is all and when they do innovate, there is always that chance of failure. It is a general thing, people don't try new things. They don't want to go out of their comfort zone. I see where you are coming from now, the sequels and stuff do sell a lot better which does encourage companies to make more. But this can be applied to a lot of things really. Movies, books, ex. I don't really think this applies directly to gamers, more so to all consumers in general.
Gamers aren't to blame for bad consoles. When it comes to consoles, people most definitely do want innovation, it is just a question of how good/bad the innovation is. I don't blame the wiiu on gamers, I blame it on Nintendo for trying to make lightning strike twice. The balance for consoles is delicate, and companies should learn when, what, and how much to innovate.
Something rather interesting whilst checking the CoD:Ghosties forums (to see how they felt about that awful game) and some people had figured out that IW had been balancing based on the MLG players were saying, not everyone else. They noticed that there was a gun that nobody used anyway, but one (or more?) of the competitive players said that it was OP so IW nerfed it. CoD now listens to only the competitive players now and everyone hates that because now people can only really have fun on them if they're playing with friends.
If you innovate and get it right, you have a license to print money. If you innovate and get it wrong, you have wasted all your budget and effort. If you don't bother to innovate in an established franchise, chances are you will have a license to print money. Thus, mostly only indie developers innovate because the losses in the event of failure are lower.
Something rather interesting whilst checking the CoD:Ghosties forums (to see how they felt about that awful game) and some people had figured out that IW had been balancing based on the MLG players were saying, not everyone else. They noticed that there was a gun that nobody used anyway, but one (or more?) of the competitive players said that it was OP so IW nerfed it. CoD now listens to only the competitive players now and everyone hates that because now people can only really have fun on them if they're playing with friends.If they're selling it as a competitive game, then yes, they should balance around the top. Why? Because the top actually knows the game well and doesn't make stupid mistakes like noobs do.
This is what I like about Blizz, while they do sometimes listen to QQ, they usually do so only after collecting a lot of data from pro player matches.
p.s. I am not saying pros wouldn't have bias, but they're matches are more likely to prove imbalance than low level ffa.
i think gamers are ruining video games in some cases like the naval strike dlc, ya kno wat the guy earlier in this post said. but some games couldnt improve without our input as well
id say its both player in game maker who are ruining games, do we need a new game as often as we get them? I do not think we do... but that's not what the companies or the player base think.
They need to take a break from games longer before making a new one, because correct me if im wrong but most people are getting sick of innovation and if they do not innovate? Would you like to eat the same thing year round for year's?
You must be logged in to post a reply!