Video game business practices that you think are hurting the industry.

[IceBrand]

What are some practices you wish would stop or at the very least change? Mines is DLC and how companies use it as an excuse to release an unfinsh game and charge you for the rest.

[Naughx]

Everything that Konami does lately counts?

[Water Mage]

It's hard to say, some acts may seem bad to the fandom but makes sense from business's point of view.

However one act that seems odd to me is how the Pokemon Company controls the brand.

It's very rare to see Pokemon in crossovers because the Pokemon Company does not allow it, for example the Pokemon amiibos hardly see any use because of this, or the fact that the Pokemon costumes in Super Mario Maker doesn't have any special sound effects.

Konami is...a special case.

Another case is Inafune going a bit out of control with his games these days.

He's seriously going overboard.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Water Mage

[OakTree]

These aren't really "Business Practices" as much as they are aspects of the medium as a whole:

-Remastering games that are not old enough to need a remaster, seriously.

-Obssession with making every single game have an enormous budget, the reason barely any triple A company tries anything new these days is because they seem to have a strange belief that every single one of their games needs to be something that takes one hundred million to make, which makes them think that trying to make games that have something new is too risky.

-Game journalism as a whole, especialy Reviews.

-Ideas that are simply misused being seen as "outdated" or "old-fashioned" by the industry.

-Marketing Teams that don't actually care about the medium.

[NinjaMonkey]

Making a full price retail game, and then adding in a load of micro-transactions.

[Avk]

These aren't really "Business Practices" as much as they are aspects of the medium as a whole:

-Remastering games that are not old enough to need a remaster, seriously.

-Obssession with making every single game have an enormous budget, the reason barely any triple A company tries anything new these days is because they seem to have a strange belief that every single one of their games needs to be something that takes one hundred million to make, which makes them think that trying to make games that have something new is too risky.

-Game journalism as a whole, especialy Reviews.

-Ideas that are simply misused being seen as "outdated" or "old-fashioned" by the industry.

-Marketing Teams that don't actually care about the medium.

These are some interesting points, but if I may do the devil's advocate :

- the remasters actually don't cost as much to do than making an entirely new game, and allows the developers to earn more money to make new games, while allowing people that did not play the game before to play it (I actually agree with you, but well).

- that point is explained pretty easily, players and potential buyers are more hyped by shiny graphics and presentations, shinier graphics cost more money, so the budgets get higher. Also, they don't try new things because keeping doing the old ones still sell, so why take a risk doing something new when doing something you've been doing forever still earn you a lot of money at no risk ? (still agree with you)

- hmm, can't particularly comment on this one.

- I think that's mostly because some genre or ideas sell better that the old ones got forgotten, or deemed "outdated".

- can't really disagree with this one, but they are actually doing a pretty good job apparently since games are selling more and more, at least for big AAA games. I'm more concerned about marketing teams telling what games the developers should make tbh, instead of trying to sell the games the developers want to make, but maybe that's just an impression I have as a simple player.

About the Pokémon Company, some of their actions are questionable, but I don't think that's a bad idea to be protective of your IP. Especially with something like Pokemon.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Avk

[Locke087]

These aren't really "Business Practices" as much as they are aspects of the medium as a whole:

-Remastering games that are not old enough to need a remaster, seriously.

-Obssession with making every single game have an enormous budget, the reason barely any triple A company tries anything new these days is because they seem to have a strange belief that every single one of their games needs to be something that takes one hundred million to make, which makes them think that trying to make games that have something new is too risky.

-Game journalism as a whole, especialy Reviews.

-Ideas that are simply misused being seen as "outdated" or "old-fashioned" by the industry.

-Marketing Teams that don't actually care about the medium.

I agree with all of that but...

Reviews are not the problem so much as scores, and the current scores system is check this out

Review can be great for seeing what a game is like as long as you look at a lots of different ones.

Metacritic turned into rotten tomatoes

Meta Score

-Xenoblade X: 84

-Fast Racing Neo: 82

-Mario Tennis Ultra Smash: 59

-Rainbow Six Siege: 74

-Fallout 4: 87

-Call of Duty Black Ops 3: 81

-Fat Princess Adventures: 68

If positive was the same as rotten tomatoes 100-60

-Xenoblade X: 96%

-Fast Racing Neo: 100%

-Mario Tennis Ultra Smash: 61%

-Rainbow Six Siege: 97%

-Fallout 4: 100%

-Call of Duty Black Ops 3: 99%

-Fat Princess Adventures: 88%

If positive is 100-75 (what Metacritic considers mixed)

-Xenoblade X: 88%

-Fast Racing Neo: 88%

-Mario Tennis Ultra Smash: 4%

-Rainbow Six Siege: 64%

-Fallout 4: 90%

-Call of Duty Black Ops 3: 84%

-Fat Princess Adventures: 38%

If positive is 100-80

-Xenoblade X: 84%

-Fast Racing Neo: 79%

-Mario Tennis Ultra Smash: 2%

-Rainbow Six Siege: 41%

-Fallout 4: 88%

-Call of Duty Black Ops 3: 79%

-Fat Princess Adventures: 19%

[Zera]

@Locke, I have no idea what your post means. All numerical scores are completely arbitrary without reading the reviews anyway.

[OakTree]

I agree with all of that but...

Reviews are not the problem so much as scores, and the current scores system is check this out

Review can be great for seeing what a game is like as long as you look at a lots of different ones.

Metacritic turned into rotten tomatoes

Meta Score

-Xenoblade X: 84

-Fast Racing Neo: 82

-Mario Tennis Ultra Smash: 59

-Rainbow Six Siege: 74

-Fallout 4: 87

-Call of Duty Black Ops 3: 81

-Fat Princess Adventures: 68

If positive was the same as rotten tomatoes 100-60

-Xenoblade X: 96%

-Fast Racing Neo: 100%

-Mario Tennis Ultra Smash: 61%

-Rainbow Six Siege: 97%

-Fallout 4: 100%

-Call of Duty Black Ops 3: 99%

-Fat Princess Adventures: 88%

If positive is 100-75 (what Metacritic considers mixed)

-Xenoblade X: 88%

-Fast Racing Neo: 88%

-Mario Tennis Ultra Smash: 4%

-Rainbow Six Siege: 64%

-Fallout 4: 90%

-Call of Duty Black Ops 3: 84%

-Fat Princess Adventures: 38%

If positive is 100-80

-Xenoblade X: 84%

-Fast Racing Neo: 79%

-Mario Tennis Ultra Smash: 2%

-Rainbow Six Siege: 41%

-Fallout 4: 88%

-Call of Duty Black Ops 3: 79%

-Fat Princess Adventures: 19%

Scores are not the only problem, the problem is that a lot of influential and popular gaming sites still decide to base their reviews on opinions, if your reviews are meant to be professional, you should not only not give it a score, but also give a un-biased look at the game and aknowledge what kind of player would like the game and who wouldn't instead of just saying "this is good, go buy it".

[OakTree]

@Locke, I have no idea what your post means. All numerical scores are completely arbitrary without reading the reviews anyway.

The problem with scores is that they're completely subjective, and as i mentioned, if your reviews are meant to be seen as professional and as a reliable information source, you must let go of all biases.

[Locke087]

@Locke, I have no idea what your post means. All numerical scores are completely arbitrary without reading the reviews anyway.

Sorry about that I didn't explain myself very well.

Rotten Tomattoes is a movie scoring website the collects movie reviews and scores the movies them based on how the percentage of critics gave it a positive review it deems 60 and above as positive.

Metacritic is aggregate site that scores game among other things and uses a weight system with means to get its scores.

The point of the exercise to show that though a 60-100 range is a way great to judge movies it is not for games, why because game are scored in a scrit 7-10 scale by most sites it is rare for a game to ever get below a 7. This is because people judge anything below a 7 as a bad game (for some people an 8). That is not healthy I have liked many games that are below a 7, ie Gravity Rush, Kid Icarus: Uprising, Paper Mario: Sticker Star and most people will see a movie with a far lower score. It also make harder to distinguish between all classics and just a great game. Mostly I hate Metacritic as some company's will base bonuses on a 85 or above, I hardly have words for how stupid it is to have game maker say to themselves I wonder what would get me high scores, versus I wonder what would make a great game. This is a great cause of stagnation in the industry as developers try to tick the boxes that review seem to like, rather then just make a good game.

Edited January 3, 2016 by Locke087

[Ema Skye]

Only practice I'm actually against is microtransactions.

That said, I'm pretty much an exclusive Nintendo gamer and they generally handle DLC and most of the more questionable industry practices well.

Also wish people would stop caring about Metacritic so much. I find reviews to be totally arbitrary when numerical scores are attached to them, and I'd much rather have genuine opinions on a game without a numerical score (like the new system GameXplain uses).

[Hatsuoki]

It's hard to say, some acts may seem bad to the fandom but makes sense from business's point of view.

However one act that seems odd to me is how the Pokemon Company controls the brand.

It's very rare to see Pokemon in crossovers because the Pokemon Company does not allow it, for example the Pokemon amiibos hardly see any use because of this, or the fact that the Pokemon costumes in Super Mario Maker doesn't have any special sound effects.

Konami is...a special case.

Another case is Inafune going a bit out of control with his games these days.

He's seriously going overboard.

I think I'm confused. Isn't the mystery dungeon series, the conquest game, and maybe others I'm I don't play so I don't know about crossovers? I actually don't think it hurts them that much to not do crossovers because they must have a certain vision and they want their company to stick to it. It is a children's game after all. It can't be like FExSMT or anything. Edited January 3, 2016 by Hatsuoki

[Zera]

I have liked many games that are below a 7 (I.E. Gravity Rush, Kid Icarus: Uprising, Paper Mario: Sticker Star) and most people will see a movie with a far lower score.

Below a 7, you say? Not according to Metacritic.

Gravity Rush - 83

Kid Icarus: Uprising - 83

Paper Mario: Sticker Star - 75

Even I enjoyed Sticker Star. I just thought it was only worth half it's retail price and gave it a 6.5.

@Doofina, the only difference between GameXplain's new scoring system and numbers is that the expressively drawn smileys offer more clarity to the score's meaning. And the lack of numbers means you can't attempt to compare their reviews to IGN's, for example.

[Ema Skye]

@Doofina, the only difference between GameXplain's new scoring system and numbers is that the expressively drawn smileys offer more clarity to the score's meaning. And the lack of numbers means you can't attempt to compare their reviews to IGN's, for example.

Which I'm fine with, because I don't care about comparing it.

Telling me a game is worth a 8 doesn't tell me much. What tells me a lot more is saying that you liked the game, which tells me everything I need to know.

Trying to quantify your feelings on a game is totally arbitrary. Just tell me whether or not you liked it.

[carefreejules]

I think I'm confused. Isn't the mystery dungeon series, the conquest game, and maybe others I'm I don't play so I don't know about crossovers? I actually don't think it hurts them that much to not do that much crossovers because they must have a certain vision and they want their company to stick to it. It is a children's game after all. It can't be like FExSMT or anything.

Pokemon Mystery Dungeon is classified more as a spin-off game rather than a crossover. Spin-offs are as defined side-games/by products of the main franchise while crossovers are combining two or more franchises into one (ie. Professor Layton vs. Pheonix Wright, Project X Zone, etc).

Pokemon Conquest, however, is probably one of the few 'crossover games' in the franchise which features both Pokemon and Nobunaga's Ambition (Tecmo Koei).

Edited January 3, 2016 by carefreejules

[Erdall]

I could make a good number about this matter ... say thanks to this magnificent video made from a magnific man, known as Dayoscript. He's spanish as I am, unfortunately for most of you, but he makes some great points that I will briefly translate 100% free just for you.

Oh, believe what I said: he's just like my personal senpai when he talks about video gaming in general and, sometimes, even some (but rather few) interesting movies.

If you're interested in youtube channels talking about reflexions and proper criticism of the videogaming world, you can check for Errant Signal, Al Russell and MatthewMatosis.

- Previews through too much hype shows. Can create a partly fake sensation about the game, which could lead to disastrous consequences if not careful enough, you know what I mean though.

- Overload the cost of a game without proper thinking (say hello to the first Tomb Raider reboot, also Resident Evil 6, some triple AAA titles, THQ and Darksiders, etc., etc.).

- Hearing too much the public's opinions and let the game's designation be deflected because of a supposed 'majority' (rather, pretty much a simple minority), but hey, don't get me wrong: is all right to listen people's opinions, but YOU, specially as the f***ing game designer, YOU-MUST-DRAW-THE-LINE for your OWN-GOD-DAMN-SAKE!111! (We want MOAR ADULT CONTENT! RARGH! ... Yeah, Undertale sucks then for childish and retro looking, right?).

Check Overstrike from Insomniac Games and how the Focus Testing Team (typical streamers) criticized the game's looks were initially childish for example ... and well, many things were changed and ... the game ended just as another bakery product to consume (Dayum ... not).

- DLC. You know what I mean ... the somewhat called as a necessary evil for the industry. Do you still wanna to read my answer?

D*CK SENSE!

- Useless sequels and reboots. Many of them, to be honest. Activision, what a frigging yonkee of 'sequelitis'. Ah yes, too much CoD AND Assasins Creed. F*** YOU, SH**SOFT! Nintendo somewhat entered in this sad tendency too, but quite long ago to be honest ... what the hell, *sobs*. Guess there are too much believers. *Loads Heavy's gun*.

- Too much firing people from any developing team for ... *ka-sigh*, for just not keeping some maintenance costs of said previous teams. But guess what? YOU ALREADY HAVE A TRAINED DEVELOPMENT TEAM, JUST KEEP IT FOR GUARANTEED, BETTER FUTURE PRODUCTIONS! GOD, DAMN, AAAAAAARGH1!!!1! (The nerve of standing human stupidity, I know, I know ...). *Loads Bazooka with some grenades*

- Too blasted CoD tendencies copied / reproduced in so many productions that, overall, even miserably failed. A lot. Take life regeneration, massive amount of weapons, etc. as basic examples which the infamous shooter game basically established.

Personal Disclaimer: Welcome to the first Videogaming World War, where every damn shooter have to even include some online multiplayer for the sake of those little kids who sit 22/7 (at least two left hours for a fast fap and sleep) just to waste more time than he ever had to breathe air from the smoky streets (I don't know if it is better to smell your own fart, but to each his own)!

- Not relatively directed towards the gaming industry, BUT the PRESS has heavy influence on the matter. You see, a case like in Gamespot from the year 2007, there were so many banners and all those annoying adds appearing everywhere about a game which was Kane & Lynch, which was about to be released. The marketing team from that website led that decision. But the biggest deal happened when some reviewer neglected the already overrated quality of this game with a score of SIX OVER TEN POINTS! (Bravo for those big balls of yours, señor!)

Then there were some serious stuff with Eidos (developer company), stating that the review was that bad to the point they will retire any sort of publicity about the game AND EVEN GAMES OF SAID COMPANY WOULD PRODUCE IN THE FUTURE. The review itself was changed and the saddest part was when the reviewer had quite fragile discussions with the marketing team, following to his dismissal because he never wanted to agree with their greedy interests.

Morale of the story? If you don't get along with a publisher, you're gonna be put in their black list for noooo good. Basically, cutting the rights for making proper, free opinions from the press. Stupid, insane and dull publicity over some serious reports. Yep, I'm over the same boat it ... not!

- And lastly but not least (if not THE MOST IMPORTANT NEGATIVE FACTOR): the video consoles' wars and many of the obvious SO negative consequence you can already imagine. Oh, and the consecutive, future consoles which won't let us play older games, by the way ... way to go every damn company. Way to go.

P.S: WARNING! EDITED POST!

Edited January 4, 2016 by Edrall

[Loki Laufeyson]

Microtransactions are an issue. A very big issue. DLC doesnt bother me as much because its usually excess content thats tiny, or add-ons. (on disk DLC is pretty dodgy though) But microtransactions are basically "you must pay to even keep going. And you must keep paying to keep going."

Another is a different matter and i believe to be exclusive to the indie market. Oversaturation of particular styles. Pixel graphics is seeing an oversaturation, and its not really just because its more cost effective. Its usually to try to cash in on the retro look and be big successes like Cave Story, VVVVVV, Shovel Knight, etc. (same reason theres a saturation of walking simulator exploration games, but its a pretty minor case.) The retro look seems to sell and people just keep pumping out very mediocre games with this style.

Remastering games that are not old enough to need a remaster, seriously.

Fucking this right here. Im so sick of that. Its getting to the point of "didnt i just buy this game?"

[Lord Glenn]

My biggest gripe has to be developer/publisher executive idiocy. Stupid stuff like "If this doesn't sell 5 million copies, it's a failure!" The exectives "took over" the companies, often pushing past the developers that built the company up in the first place, and then have proceeded to think that they know better than the people that are actually the ones that people care about - look at all of the talent that have left their companies, have been fired, or simply have been relegated to nothingness!

Then there's stuff like how short-sighted the companies tend to be anymore, focusing on short-term profits only instead of a long-term picture, pkus how IGNORANT of other companies and their offerings they seem to be - "Let's release our mediocre title in the holiday season since we'll be able to get tons of people to buy it!" - and, yet, the game is bad and releases the same week as two huge name titles, and tgen they wonder why it sold like shit.

tl;dr Executives who have degrees in business and know nothing about the industry and game development think they know better than the developers that have been doing it for 20 years and are ruining the industry. Everything was better before corporate profit margins, back when developers were making their vision of what they wanted to make, often as a hobby in their garages and such. (So, basically, thr 80s/90s version of the indie scene.)

[Hatsuoki]

Pokemon Mystery Dungeon is classified more as a spin-off game rather than a crossover. Spin-offs are as defined side-games/by products of the main franchise while crossovers are combining two or more franchises into one (ie. Professor Layton vs. Pheonix Wright, Project X Zone, etc).

Pokemon Conquest, however, is probably one of the few 'crossover games' in the franchise which features both Pokemon and Nobunaga's Ambition (Tecmo Koei).

Oh I think I get it now. I thought it would because Mystery Dungeon is it's own thing and they've done like a Chocobo one and ?others??

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

micro transactions are the biggest issue in my opinion.

or something like star wars battlefront where the game is barebones unless you buy a season pass for "future" stuff.

[solrocknroll]

micro transactions are the biggest issue in my opinion.

or something like star wars battlefront where the game is barebones unless you buy a season pass for "future" stuff.

battlefront is like the most barebones thing I own

it came with my PS4, but it's really sad

[Locke087]

Below a 7, you say? Not according to Metacritic.

Gravity Rush - 83

Kid Icarus: Uprising - 83

Paper Mario: Sticker Star - 75

Even I enjoyed Sticker Star. I just thought it was only worth half it's retail price and gave it a 6.5.

@Doofina, the only difference between GameXplain's new scoring system and numbers is that the expressively drawn smileys offer more clarity to the score's meaning. And the lack of numbers means you can't attempt to compare their reviews to IGN's, for example.

Lol that is what I get for not looking up before hand their Metacritic scores, could of swore they where lower.....

Okay here a couple good games that are actually below a 7

Mega Man X: Command Mission: 69

Star War Bounty Hunter: 65 (I was shocked by its score such a good game a least for the time)

Mario Party 5: 69 (they where good tell at least 5 or 6 after that...)

[NinjaMonkey]

Oh, and the consecutive, future consoles which won't let us play older games, by the way ... way to go every damn company. Way to go.

I don't see why this is an issue, to be honest. You couldn't play NES games on a SNES, so it's already been a thing since the early '90s.

Fucking this right here. Im so sick of that. Its getting to the point of "didnt i just buy this game?"

The remastered editions are meant for those people who missed out on the game the first time it came out, so that they can experience them for the first time, not for the old fogeys like you who bought the original back in the day.

Edited January 4, 2016 by NinjaMonkey

[OakTree]

The remastered editions are meant for those people who missed out on the game the first time it came out, so that they can experience them for the first time, not for the old fogeys like you who bought the original back in the day.

I repeat: Remastering games that are not old enough to need a remaster.