I think this video brings up a lot of good point. I've been into gaming for a very long time, and I've observed the negative trends in contemporary gaming since their inception. As for price, the base purchase price for a game is a relative bargain when inflation is taken into account. AAA games were around $40 in the early 1980s. Buying a game back then was a significant event, as few people could afford more than a handful. Naturally, piracy was rampant. Production costs are a lot higher now, but production and distribution are far easier. Furthermore, the potential audience nowadays is a lot larger. Due to efficiencies and economies of scale, it makes sense that games should be significantly less expensive (when adjusted for inflation) than they were in the 1980s, but maybe modest price increases for some games could be justified, especially for high quality, big budget games that haven't jumped on the microtransaction bandwagon. Games that are impressive failures may seem to get more notice than they deserve. On UA-cam, there certainly is a negativity bias. There are reasons for this. People have always been fascinated by colossal failures. When I was in college, I used to get together with friends to watch movies on occasion. We would go to the video store and look for the worst-looking movie we could find. There is a particular sort of enjoyment that comes from something that is so bad that it is funny. Game failures are fascinating to watch from the outside. A game like Gollum might not be fun to play, but it is fun to watch the train wreck. I have never played Fallout 76, but it sure was fun to watch as disaster after disaster happened in the weeks and months after it launched. There is nothing new about impressive game failures. One of the most infamous of all time is E.T., which is the symbol of the Crash of 1983. When it comes to games like Starfield, where a reasonable person can find both failures and successes, people seem to get angrier than they do with games like Gollum. Few people who had even heard of Gollum or Rise of Kong prior to release had any expectations for these games, so when they turned out to be failed messes, they didn't fail to meet expectations. Starfield, on the other hand, came from a developer that had previously released games now widely regarded as classics. Despite the troubles with Fallout 76, which should have been seen as a warning sign, the hype train got built up and expectations went through the roof. After release, the game failed to meet expectations that were unreasonably high given Bethesda's current state, and the hype train gave way to the rage train after a month or so. I haven't played Starfield yet, so I can't make a final judgment, but it looks like the game has acquired the taint of mediocrity. This can feel worse than a thoroughly failed game. If it had been a total disaster, the rage would have built quickly and burned out quickly, and then people would have been laughing at it, much like the trajectory of responses to Fallout 76 in the time shortly after release. With reactions to Starfield, I see a lot of disappointment, and the game isn't enough of a failure to be funny, so the rage never gives way to catharsis. This isn't the first time I've seen a once loved game developer go into a perceived state of decline and disappoint fans. Unfortunately, this trajectory tends to lead to catastrophic failure, as happened with Electronic Arts subsidiaries Origin Systems (Ultima IX), and Maxis (SimCity 2013). Hopefully, Bethesda can pull out of this before a studio-ending fiasco happens. Starfield has sold well and has made money for the company, so Bethesda still has a future. Hopefully, they will listen to criticism. If the next game is tainted with the stench of mediocrity, or if it fails catastrophically, gamers might finally start withholding their money.
Like any industry it's bound to grow to the point the giants of the industry sooner or later get too caught up in financial gain. Which leads to worse products/services. But in the end there will always be more than just those handful of big companies/brands. There's thousands of indie games releasing every week, and at least a few of them are actually pretty great. People just get too invested in hating and forget to have fun. If you're not happy with the quality and experience of playing the latest ubisoft games, play quite literally anything outside of your comfort zone.
Yep, the problem is many people get stunlocked when they hear that 80% of those games are bad (even them indie games you mention) which is natural and nothing to doom over. At the end of the day the number of good games that come out is what matters, and there are more good games coming out then they were back in the day, even if its just because of the huge numbers of games that are released
We make gaming a much bigger deal than it has to be. I fall to impressions of others when it comes to games but I manage to keep it in check to enjoy what I like.
I don't think it's wrong to see gaming as a big deal. It's a huge market, immense part of the entertainment industry, it provides hundreds of thousands if not millions with jobs and a source of income. A way to cope with things in life. A way to meet and interact with people. It's super important and being invested enough is a fair thing to do. But i do agree that too many people are too invested in being..... super negative and focusing on hatred rather than having fun, which in the end is, in my view, the goal to life.
Everyone out here playing some new released overhyped game on steam meanwhile I'm out here enjoying my indie games and Japanese visual novels People such narrow mindset :b
Honestly switching to pc was one of the best decisions I've made. One of my discord friends has recommended so many Playstation games and I never got to play any until I got to pc
@ivanthespacebiker5390 I love my xboxes but there are only so many games I can play. And honestly their "exclusives" are getting worse. Man I miss Bungie
I think gamings biggest problem is copium...lemme explain...a lot of genre defining studios lost creativity over time and releases mediocre stuff like starfield while bethesda used to be rpg gods....look at ubisoft they made far cry 3 which was an awesome game and they never even tried to change anything about farcry games( 5 far cry games came out since) or also assassin's creed...everyone used to love assassin's creed and now its the most boring uncreative piece of trash...and that is why some people were saying that spiderman2 got robbed over the goty award against baldurs gate 3 (i bet spiderman 2 is a decent game but i played spiderman 1 and the dlc and it looks the same with extra abilities) And as you can see...all these mediocre games still sell and people still buy them cuz they are on hard copium..also need for speed is the same lmao
Yea, as I said, many people get stuck on one video game at worse and most times a few video game series. If people would really try new stuff they would see much easily that farcry 4,5,primal,6 are just far cry 3 basically, but they get stuck on the same stuff over and over again. Im sure that more than 50% of people who say Spiderman should have got GOTY never played Baldur's Gate 3
This is a very insightful video. I'm a middle aged gamer at 46. I've been gaming since I was very young and I am amazed at how good the games are now, compared to "Frogger" on the Acorn Electron 😂 I fall into a niche category of gamers. I only buy a Call of Duty title to play Zombies 🧟♂️
PS Battle Passes are the same except, I'm compelled to play one single game so I can unlock the free points so I don't have to pay for the next Battle Pass. Sometimes I just want to play Lego Fortnite, but I haven't unlocked all my free COD points so I have to keep grinding Zombies so I don't have to cough up another 25 quid next month 😢
@@ivanthespacebiker5390 There is no good reason to support that microtransactions infested, shovelware trash. Or anything from Activision Blizzard, for that matter. It's not like Diablo 4 is doing any better.
@@HynotamaI mean games gotta make money somehow, purely cosmetic microtransactions can SOMETIMES work, and to be honest, I would prefer a few skins/cosmetics rather than 100+ dollars games. The production cost of games aint gonna go down any time soon, so we should hope for the lesser evil.
@@ivanthespacebiker5390 I’m not expecting games to be free. I’m expecting them to provide quality for my money. Nobody expects complete games to be just given away for free. But investing in a complete, high quality game is the better and healthier option, than paying a lot more through microtransactions and having the game constantly bothering and trying to manipulate you to do so. Also paying an upfront price for the game has a higher likelihood of making you appreciate and be more invested in your game. Furthermore, these live service games are always online, so once the service is over, you lose your game. They’re just utter crap, polluting the industry.
The price increase is a dumb argument. Gaming companies push out 60 dollar games that aren't finished anymore, then they patch on the back end hopefully, and they throw micro transaction, DLC, and content locked behind a key thats already on the disc. Companies are posting record profits while letting more and more workers go, so no screw the higher price point.
Yep, as I said, at this point the low price of games is maybe the only thing that keeps games from being outrageous when it comes to monetisation, in the video I was talking about the beginings, not where we are now
How isnt this video more popular. really good takes
I think this video brings up a lot of good point. I've been into gaming for a very long time, and I've observed the negative trends in contemporary gaming since their inception. As for price, the base purchase price for a game is a relative bargain when inflation is taken into account. AAA games were around $40 in the early 1980s. Buying a game back then was a significant event, as few people could afford more than a handful. Naturally, piracy was rampant. Production costs are a lot higher now, but production and distribution are far easier. Furthermore, the potential audience nowadays is a lot larger. Due to efficiencies and economies of scale, it makes sense that games should be significantly less expensive (when adjusted for inflation) than they were in the 1980s, but maybe modest price increases for some games could be justified, especially for high quality, big budget games that haven't jumped on the microtransaction bandwagon.
Games that are impressive failures may seem to get more notice than they deserve. On UA-cam, there certainly is a negativity bias. There are reasons for this. People have always been fascinated by colossal failures. When I was in college, I used to get together with friends to watch movies on occasion. We would go to the video store and look for the worst-looking movie we could find. There is a particular sort of enjoyment that comes from something that is so bad that it is funny. Game failures are fascinating to watch from the outside. A game like Gollum might not be fun to play, but it is fun to watch the train wreck. I have never played Fallout 76, but it sure was fun to watch as disaster after disaster happened in the weeks and months after it launched. There is nothing new about impressive game failures. One of the most infamous of all time is E.T., which is the symbol of the Crash of 1983.
When it comes to games like Starfield, where a reasonable person can find both failures and successes, people seem to get angrier than they do with games like Gollum. Few people who had even heard of Gollum or Rise of Kong prior to release had any expectations for these games, so when they turned out to be failed messes, they didn't fail to meet expectations. Starfield, on the other hand, came from a developer that had previously released games now widely regarded as classics. Despite the troubles with Fallout 76, which should have been seen as a warning sign, the hype train got built up and expectations went through the roof. After release, the game failed to meet expectations that were unreasonably high given Bethesda's current state, and the hype train gave way to the rage train after a month or so. I haven't played Starfield yet, so I can't make a final judgment, but it looks like the game has acquired the taint of mediocrity. This can feel worse than a thoroughly failed game. If it had been a total disaster, the rage would have built quickly and burned out quickly, and then people would have been laughing at it, much like the trajectory of responses to Fallout 76 in the time shortly after release. With reactions to Starfield, I see a lot of disappointment, and the game isn't enough of a failure to be funny, so the rage never gives way to catharsis. This isn't the first time I've seen a once loved game developer go into a perceived state of decline and disappoint fans. Unfortunately, this trajectory tends to lead to catastrophic failure, as happened with Electronic Arts subsidiaries Origin Systems (Ultima IX), and Maxis (SimCity 2013). Hopefully, Bethesda can pull out of this before a studio-ending fiasco happens. Starfield has sold well and has made money for the company, so Bethesda still has a future. Hopefully, they will listen to criticism. If the next game is tainted with the stench of mediocrity, or if it fails catastrophically, gamers might finally start withholding their money.
Like any industry it's bound to grow to the point the giants of the industry sooner or later get too caught up in financial gain.
Which leads to worse products/services.
But in the end there will always be more than just those handful of big companies/brands.
There's thousands of indie games releasing every week, and at least a few of them are actually pretty great.
People just get too invested in hating and forget to have fun.
If you're not happy with the quality and experience of playing the latest ubisoft games, play quite literally anything outside of your comfort zone.
Yep, the problem is many people get stunlocked when they hear that 80% of those games are bad (even them indie games you mention) which is natural and nothing to doom over. At the end of the day the number of good games that come out is what matters, and there are more good games coming out then they were back in the day, even if its just because of the huge numbers of games that are released
people don't play good games and complain how gaming is dead
Or play the same games for 5 years non stop and say it's not as good as it was back in the day
We make gaming a much bigger deal than it has to be. I fall to impressions of others when it comes to games but I manage to keep it in check to enjoy what I like.
Big true my man, just have fun man, stop being so negative about whats bad.
I don't think it's wrong to see gaming as a big deal.
It's a huge market, immense part of the entertainment industry, it provides hundreds of thousands if not millions with jobs and a source of income. A way to cope with things in life. A way to meet and interact with people.
It's super important and being invested enough is a fair thing to do.
But i do agree that too many people are too invested in being..... super negative and focusing on hatred rather than having fun, which in the end is, in my view, the goal to life.
Everyone out here playing some new released overhyped game on steam meanwhile I'm out here enjoying my indie games and Japanese visual novels
People such narrow mindset :b
You over there enjoying someone's hones work and passion, indie game for the win
Honestly switching to pc was one of the best decisions I've made. One of my discord friends has recommended so many Playstation games and I never got to play any until I got to pc
It definitely has a ton of advantages, an insane ammount if you also use it regularly for something other than gaming
@ivanthespacebiker5390 I love my xboxes but there are only so many games I can play. And honestly their "exclusives" are getting worse.
Man I miss Bungie
I think gamings biggest problem is copium...lemme explain...a lot of genre defining studios lost creativity over time and releases mediocre stuff like starfield while bethesda used to be rpg gods....look at ubisoft they made far cry 3 which was an awesome game and they never even tried to change anything about farcry games( 5 far cry games came out since) or also assassin's creed...everyone used to love assassin's creed and now its the most boring uncreative piece of trash...and that is why some people were saying that spiderman2 got robbed over the goty award against baldurs gate 3 (i bet spiderman 2 is a decent game but i played spiderman 1 and the dlc and it looks the same with extra abilities)
And as you can see...all these mediocre games still sell and people still buy them cuz they are on hard copium..also need for speed is the same lmao
Yea, as I said, many people get stuck on one video game at worse and most times a few video game series. If people would really try new stuff they would see much easily that farcry 4,5,primal,6 are just far cry 3 basically, but they get stuck on the same stuff over and over again. Im sure that more than 50% of people who say Spiderman should have got GOTY never played Baldur's Gate 3
This is a very insightful video. I'm a middle aged gamer at 46. I've been gaming since I was very young and I am amazed at how good the games are now, compared to "Frogger" on the Acorn Electron 😂
I fall into a niche category of gamers. I only buy a Call of Duty title to play Zombies 🧟♂️
PS Battle Passes are the same except, I'm compelled to play one single game so I can unlock the free points so I don't have to pay for the next Battle Pass. Sometimes I just want to play Lego Fortnite, but I haven't unlocked all my free COD points so I have to keep grinding Zombies so I don't have to cough up another 25 quid next month 😢
Man, buying Call Of Duty titles to play Zombies might be the best reason to buy Call of Duty titles
@@ivanthespacebiker5390 There is no good reason to support that microtransactions infested, shovelware trash. Or anything from Activision Blizzard, for that matter. It's not like Diablo 4 is doing any better.
@@HynotamaI mean games gotta make money somehow, purely cosmetic microtransactions can SOMETIMES work, and to be honest, I would prefer a few skins/cosmetics rather than 100+ dollars games. The production cost of games aint gonna go down any time soon, so we should hope for the lesser evil.
@@ivanthespacebiker5390 I’m not expecting games to be free. I’m expecting them to provide quality for my money. Nobody expects complete games to be just given away for free. But investing in a complete, high quality game is the better and healthier option, than paying a lot more through microtransactions and having the game constantly bothering and trying to manipulate you to do so. Also paying an upfront price for the game has a higher likelihood of making you appreciate and be more invested in your game. Furthermore, these live service games are always online, so once the service is over, you lose your game. They’re just utter crap, polluting the industry.
indie games with incredible value may honestly be doing a lot of the heavy lifting keeping AAA pricing somewhat in check
gee mentioning practically everything but XVI
Yea, I did not get to play it and I completely forgot about it :/
The price increase is a dumb argument. Gaming companies push out 60 dollar games that aren't finished anymore, then they patch on the back end hopefully, and they throw micro transaction, DLC, and content locked behind a key thats already on the disc. Companies are posting record profits while letting more and more workers go, so no screw the higher price point.
Yep, as I said, at this point the low price of games is maybe the only thing that keeps games from being outrageous when it comes to monetisation, in the video I was talking about the beginings, not where we are now