Some pretty astonishing numbers. Not sure I'd write movies off quite yet.
http://www.nowthisnews.com/news/video-games-are-beating-movies/?autoplay=true
Wow, 93 billion??! Can that be right?
Quote from: Martok on November 08, 2013, 03:28:29 PM
Wow, 93 billion??! Can that be right?
Yes, Precious. It
can be.
:P
IIRC, the gaming industry has been out-selling Hollywood for years already and it's been steadily increasing the gap.
.
Quote from: eyebiter on November 08, 2013, 06:28:06 PM
How much impact do 'Hollywood Accounting' practices have on that figure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
For years Hollywood has gotten away with under reporting profits from films to avoid having to pay residuals or taxes. There have been several high profile lawsuits where a film makes 200+ million dollars yet the film studio claims the picture lost money.
+1. Hollywood Accounting Procedures are such "voodoo economics" that if the Government used the same formulas for the budget, there'd be no national debt, the rest of the world would owe us trillions in royalties, and even be able to cut taxes. (Gasp!)
So long as the gaming industry keeps churning out garbage like COD, it will continue to see profits in the billions...because that's just how stupid consumers are.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on November 10, 2013, 02:11:32 AM
So long as the gaming industry keeps churning out garbage like COD, it will continue to see profits in the billions...because that's just how stupid consumers are.
In theory (or in fantasy?) some of the people who play garbage will eventually (or accidently?) buy some good games. The BOS boards are sure that huge numbers of brand-new flight simmers will show up for Battle of Stalingrad. But see Rock, paper, shotgun reviews of the latest COD for an effort to read the cultural norms that drive COD.
For films there is no obvious better sim to go to (except maybe film school?). You can always look for good movies. they are out there. even if they lost money somehow.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on November 10, 2013, 02:11:32 AM
So long as the gaming industry keeps churning out garbage like COD, it will continue to see profits in the billions...because that's just how stupid consumers are.
Probably true. But it seems to me that the video game industry's garbage is almost high art compared the dreck Hollywood peddles these days, and has for some time.
I, for one, welcome our new Video Game Industry overlords!
I wish a studio like Battlefront had a budget in the billions so it could update Combat Mission's game engine out of the 1990s. Our how about if 2x2 (Unity of Command) had a budget in the billons, what those guys could do.
Still waiting on a PC Wargame that plays properly, looks smooth, and plays smooth. I'm just bitter.
I'm assuming that those total revenue numbers for gaming include 70% of the revenue that goes to online gaming (cards, etc.) and 20% of that revenue goes to those damn peek-a-boo softcore porn strip poker sites where the girls never actually let you win?
;D
Now what would *you* know about those places? ???
Quotegarbage like COD
CoD is not garbage, or otherwise millions of gamers wouldn't buy and play it. But it's hip these days to bash CoD to show one is not a 'mainstream gamer'... ::)
I love to bash tv and movies anyways these days because video games are just so much more entertaining. Some of the stories in video games are done better than the garbage you can watch on both the little and big screens.
I won't go into any further details. For me personally, I enjoy playing a good game than being forced to watch something in the theatre or on tv. The latter is just a waste of time. Why? I can get enjoyment out of a game over and over and over and over again. You can only watch a movie so many times before you get sick of it. Games go beyond the here and now as well because you can sit at the office and dream about how you're going to move your panzers or complete the next mass effect mission.
Conversely however, movies are a great source for quotes that you can't always get out of a video game. ;)
Quotebecause you can sit at the office and dream about how you're going to move your panzers or complete the next mass effect mission.
And that's what makes you a true gamer my friend and a like minded soul 8)
Quote from: Grimnirsson on November 11, 2013, 01:42:58 PM
Quotegarbage like COD
CoD is not garbage, or otherwise millions of gamers wouldn't buy and play it. But it's hip these days to bash CoD to show one is not a 'mainstream gamer'... ::)
Or he's basing it on the fact that he has played the game and thought it was garbage...which he did...
Ok, if he played it and says it's garbage...then of course it's garbage...how can millions of gamers think otherwise? We should go and tell them... ::)
Quote from: Grimnirsson on November 11, 2013, 04:42:43 PM
Ok, if he played it and says it's garbage...then of course it's garbage...how can millions of gamers think otherwise? We should go and tell them... ::)
Yes, it's garbage...in his opinion.
Or should we all just bow down to the logic of the mob, regardless of how we might feel about something?
No, the mainstream...the mob...millions having fun with the game...don't bow down! Stand up and fight! Don't play it!
Come on, this is what I mean...generalizing 'it's garbage' then slowly adding 'in my opinion only of course...YMMW...to each his own' etc..
To say 'well I don't like it' is different to 'meh, garbage for the mob' - the former is a valid opinion, the latter just snobbish judging others who have a different taste.
Quote from: Grimnirsson on November 11, 2013, 04:42:43 PM
Ok, if he played it and says it's garbage...then of course it's garbage...how can millions of gamers think otherwise? We should go and tell them... ::)
It may not play like garbage on an Xbox. On the PC?
Quote from: Grimnirsson on November 11, 2013, 06:08:32 PM
No, the mainstream...the mob...millions having fun with the game...don't bow down! Stand up and fight! Don't play it!
Come on, this is what I mean...generalizing 'it's garbage' then slowly adding 'in my opinion only of course...YMMW...to each his own' etc..
To say 'well I don't like it' is different to 'meh, garbage for the mob' - the former is a valid opinion, the latter just snobbish judging others who have a different taste.
In his opinion, it's garbage. He expressed that opinion. One doesn't need to attach pointless words like 'in my opinion' to something they say because of course it's their opinion. If I'm saying something, it stands to reason that what I'm saying is my opinion on it.
Both of your examples are valid opinions. My advice to you is to grow thicker skin, if someone's judgment of something you enjoy affects you so severely.
Im pretty much done with the CoD/BF type shooter. if I want a real life experience with guns Ill go to the range and at least improve a real world skill.
besides, all these kids keep fucking my mom and she just cant take it anymore. ::)
^Beer/Sinus Event. Owww...
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 11, 2013, 08:30:28 PM
Im pretty much done with the CoD/BF type shooter. if I want a real life experience with guns Ill go to the range and at least improve a real world skill.
besides, all these kids keep fucking my mom and she just cant take it anymore. ::)
Pfffftt! This made me spit my coffee onto the keyboard. Well played, sir. Well played.
The last COD I enjoyed playing was COD4, before they stopped allowing people to put up their own servers. For COD4, it was fairly easy to find a server that kicked the idiots and you could find a fun group to do multiplayer with.
For veteran gamers, it's pretty hard these days to create a game that makes FPS a unique experience. Like Hollywood, they'll keep churning out the same franchises until they stop making money. Considering that COD Ghosts had a sell in of a billion dollars on DAY ONE, that ain't a-happenin' any time soon.
Chris--
I don't think it's bad etiquette to state opinions as opinions, and facts as facts, rather than vice versa.
"You're an asshole" is a very different statement from "I think you're being an asshole".
Quote from: MuzzyDev on November 12, 2013, 09:05:24 AM
The last COD I enjoyed playing was COD4, before they stopped allowing people to put up their own servers. For COD4, it was fairly easy to find a server that kicked the idiots and you could find a fun group to do multiplayer with.
That's how I feel.
QuoteIt may not play like garbage on an Xbox. On the PC?
On the Xbox and I suppose on the PS3 either it's not 'garbage'. On the PC? Maybe, I don't play it on the PC. CoD is now pretty much a console franchise and he didn't say 'it's garbage on the PC' ;)
The video in the first post is about video games, and that's usually a term used for console games not for PC games. So if someone is talking about CoD I suppose it means CoD on a console :)
QuoteOne doesn't need to attach pointless words like 'in my opinion' to something they say because of course it's their opinion. If I'm saying something, it stands to reason that what I'm saying is my opinion on it.
If someone is not stating a fact or doesn't want to give the impression that his opinion is valid for the majority of people using such 'pointless words' is helpful to avoid that others get this impression of you judging others.
QuoteMy advice to you is to grow thicker skin, if someone's judgment of something you enjoy affects you so severely.
I don't need a thick skin because I'm not 'affected severely' by the opinion of others. That doesn't mean I don't write a reply in a forum that is about discussing things. Interesting that you first say he was just expressing his personal opinion and now you say he is in fact judging...:P
The point regarding CoD is just that first it was cool to play it and everyone was thrilled when the next game hit the stores and everyone was talking about it etc.. After a while some players started to realize that the only way to be not 'mainstream' is to bash CoD, although the game is delivering the same experience as before (with a new feature here and there, improvement here and there etc.) - which in fact is the reason for success because to alter the gameplay too much to actually create something 'new' would cut off the fan base that is expecting that the game is defined by a specific gameplay structure.
Quote from: MuzzyDev on November 12, 2013, 09:05:24 AM
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 11, 2013, 08:30:28 PM
Im pretty much done with the CoD/BF type shooter. if I want a real life experience with guns Ill go to the range and at least improve a real world skill.
besides, all these kids keep fucking my mom and she just cant take it anymore. ::)
Pfffftt! This made me spit my coffee onto the keyboard. Well played, sir. Well played.
The last COD I enjoyed playing was COD4, before they stopped allowing people to put up their own servers. For COD4, it was fairly easy to find a server that kicked the idiots and you could find a fun group to do multiplayer with.
For veteran gamers, it's pretty hard these days to create a game that makes FPS a unique experience. Like Hollywood, they'll keep churning out the same franchises until they stop making money. Considering that COD Ghosts had a sell in of a billion dollars on DAY ONE, that ain't a-happenin' any time soon.
Chris--
I think it is heartening that any game made that much money. On the other hand such things make it hard to explain to people what games I do play (since everyone knows I play games -- apparently a more mystifying form of deviance than the once-popular idea that I was a Trekkie just because of my heart-rending rendition of "They killed his brother, Pyotr." "But Captain, Chekov doesn't have a brother." "That's right, the Klingons got him." "No Captain, I mean he never ever really had a brother at all.").
So next year they will be saying: So do you play COD: the Monkey's Uncle?
And I'll say: nope, but I'm glad it made 10 billion dollars.
Them: What's it like playing COD: the Monkey's Uncle?
Me: I have only the vaguest idea -- I think I last played a COd-type game (maybe it was Medal of Honor or BAT42?) well over a decade ago.
Them: Do you run around shooting people?
Me: Not exactly.
Them: I mean do you run around shooting people in COD: the Monkey's Uncle?
Me: Probably
Them: What's it like playing COD: the Monkey's Uncle?
Me: I have no idea whatsoever. None.
Quote from: MengJiao on November 12, 2013, 01:30:46 PM
I think it is heartening that any game made that much money. On the other hand such things make it hard to explain to people what games I do play (since everyone knows I play games -- apparently a more mystifying form of deviance than the once-popular idea that I was a Trekkie just because of my heart-rending rendition of "They killed his brother, Pyotr." "But Captain, Chekov doesn't have a brother." "That's right, the Klingons got him." "No Captain, I mean he never ever really had a brother at all.").
So next year they will be saying: So do you play COD: the Monkey's Uncle?
And I'll say: nope, but I'm glad it made 10 billion dollars.
Them: What's it like playing COD: the Monkey's Uncle?
Me: I have only the vaguest idea -- I think I last played a COd-type game (maybe it was Medal of Honor or BAT42?) well over a decade ago.
Them: Do you run around shooting people?
Me: Not exactly.
Them: I mean do you run around shooting people in COD: the Monkey's Uncle?
Me: Probably
Them: What's it like playing COD: the Monkey's Uncle?
Me: I have no idea whatsoever. None.
Ha!
In my case it's about server control. If I host the server it's going to be for this community. And if it's this community I'm going to be sure I protect you guys from griefers. If I can't do that, I'm far less interested in the game.
Yeah, it's an FPS. I love playing FPS games. But I'd rather play them with you guys than a bunch of strangers. And when JH reports back that both CoD and BF4 are "meh" I'm inclined to hesitate. He's written a lot of reviews over the years and played a lot of games I have. We don't always agree, but I value his opinion as highly as anyone else's here.
YMMV
Quote from: Grimnirsson on November 12, 2013, 01:27:10 PM
The point regarding CoD is just that first it was cool to play it and everyone was thrilled when the next game hit the stores and everyone was talking about it etc.. After a while some players started to realize that the only way to be not 'mainstream' is to bash CoD, although the game is delivering the same experience as before (with a new feature here and there, improvement here and there etc.) - which in fact is the reason for success because to alter the gameplay too much to actually create something 'new' would cut off the fan base that is expecting that the game is defined by a specific gameplay structure.
If I might just intorject a point here, there is a certain expectation around the relative coolness of things in that things that were cool quite a while ago may no longer be so cool. Moreover, there's nothing cool about doing the same thing over and over even if you do make billions of dollars doing it. I take the Rock, Paper, shotgun line on this since I haven't played COD maybe ever, but COD has definitely lost whatever whiff of coolness it may have once had. On the other hand, I'm glad they're making lots of money.
Quote from: LongBlade on November 12, 2013, 01:35:32 PM
Yeah, it's an FPS. I love playing FPS games. But I'd rather play them with you guys than a bunch of strangers. And when JH reports back that both CoD and BF4 are "meh" I'm inclined to hesitate. He's written a lot of reviews over the years and played a lot of games I have. We don't always agree, but I value his opinion as highly as anyone else's here.
YMMV
I do like a good FPS. I was even insanely good at a few of them a few years ago. I'm going through a prolonged ARMAIII-only stage at the moment.
QuoteMoreover, there's nothing cool about doing the same thing over and over
Well, if you really like a certain gameplay and the series does not give it up but gives you more of the same (that you like so much) it's a seller and that's cool ;)
I have played all CoD games and still enjoy to play the newest incarnation of this 'game reborn every year' - there's simply no other game around like it. A fast smooth running (well, Blops 2 was disappointing here, micro stuttering and lag and all) FPS that I can play when I come home too tired for anything else, e.g. a story, a RPG, or too long sessions (BF matches are far longer). There's no other FPS that allows for such a relaxing couch coop experience via split screen. I can play a new CoD right out of the box because I know the game in and out and it stays the same control-wise and all. For me it's interesting to see how the game series can stay fresh and still be the same experience :)
I think its safe to assume that if its in the computer gaming section we're talking about pc games. There's a seperate forum for console games. just saying.
Perhaps then the thread should have been in the console section given that the link is about video games, just saying...
See GDS, I don't give up that easily ;)
I'm commenting on your remark not the original article.
Are you sure you want to play who quits first with me?
Keep in mind I've got a helicopter and a machine gun. 8)
Ok....you win ;D
Quote from: Grimnirsson on November 12, 2013, 02:16:34 PMPerhaps then the thread should have been in the console section given that the link is about video games, just saying...
there are plenty of people that don't look down the list far enough to see that there's a separate "console" section. And honestly, thishere boardgamer isn't convinced there's
that much difference ;)
Quote from: bayonetbrant on November 12, 2013, 03:24:10 PM
Quote from: Grimnirsson on November 12, 2013, 02:16:34 PMPerhaps then the thread should have been in the console section given that the link is about video games, just saying...
there are plenty of people that don't look down the list far enough to see that there's a separate "console" section. And honestly, thishere boardgamer isn't convinced there's that much difference ;)
It's a shame that more members don't visit the console section more often. As a bigtime PC guy who recently has become a console whore there is a lot of entertainment that should not be dismissed in console land. Just my opinion but I ask all to open their minds and hearts and understand that console gaming is far different that PC gaming. Both are equally entertaining but among adults consoles have been given a bad reputation as a hive of teenage young dumb and full of
bleep idiots. It is not the case however. Like anything in life you make it as fun as you want or as miserable as you want. Anyway enough of my console sales pitch.
The CoD and the BF franchises always deliver fun imho. There is something there to satisfy everyone every year. Opinions vary to be sure but for some these games that come out year after year offer some kind of entertainment. Sure some years are better than others but like movies, books, opinions, newspapers, cars, smartphones, etc. some iterations of these products won't do well but subsequent versions will. Then you have the human being whose opinions are purely subjective. What might be fun fun fun for some might be utter feldercarb to others.
The trick gentlemen, is not to find a better game but to encourage the forum members you trust to give their opinion on a game and match their personal tastes with yours. If you can do that you have found someone you can trust to judge a game for you in the absence of actually playing the game yourself.
oh, I think that there are lots of great games for consoles but I hate the controls for them. gimmi a mouse and keyboard any day. after spending all day with tools in my hands I have no desire to wrap my hands around a contorted plastic lump and mash buttons.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 12, 2013, 06:16:02 PM
after spending all day with tools in my hands I have no desire to wrap my hands around a contorted plastic lump and mash buttons.
Must...resist...making...crude...jokes...must...resist...much...we...must...resist...so...difficult...too....resist...joke...
I really tried writing that so one couldnt.
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on November 12, 2013, 11:14:02 AM
I don't think it's bad etiquette to state opinions as opinions, and facts as facts, rather than vice versa.
"You're an asshole" is a very different statement from "I think you're being an asshole".
Everyone is part asshole. :o
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 12, 2013, 06:58:53 PM
I really tried writing that so one couldnt.
No way can this be a true statement.
yet it is.
so heres my question. with all of that money poured into making the game how hard could it be to make a solid sp campaign?
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 12, 2013, 07:27:04 PM
yet it is.
so heres my question. with all of that money poured into making the game how hard could it be to make a solid sp campaign?
In the case of CoD or Battlefield, clearly they've proved over the last decade that no one should expect a single player campaign experience that lasts longer than 8 hours.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 12, 2013, 07:27:04 PM
yet it is.
so heres my question. with all of that money poured into making the game how hard could it be to make a solid sp campaign?
In the case of CoD, I'm wondering where ANY of that money goes. There is relatively no new content, the engine is the same, some weapons recycled...10 billion for 8 hours of sp gameplay and making a few mp maps?
Quote from: Grimnirsson on November 12, 2013, 01:27:10 PM
QuoteOne doesn't need to attach pointless words like 'in my opinion' to something they say because of course it's their opinion. If I'm saying something, it stands to reason that what I'm saying is my opinion on it.
If someone is not stating a fact or doesn't want to give the impression that his opinion is valid for the majority of people using such 'pointless words' is helpful to avoid that others get this impression of you judging others.
Most people understand that nobody is expecting their opinion to be taken as some greater statement to be taken as the opinion of the masses. It's merely their personal opinion.
Quote
I don't need a thick skin because I'm not 'affected severely' by the opinion of others. That doesn't mean I don't write a reply in a forum that is about discussing things. Interesting that you first say he was just expressing his personal opinion and now you say he is in fact judging...:P
A personal opinion and one's personal judgments of something are typically the same thing.
Quote
The point regarding CoD is just that first it was cool to play it and everyone was thrilled when the next game hit the stores and everyone was talking about it etc.. After a while some players started to realize that the only way to be not 'mainstream' is to bash CoD, although the game is delivering the same experience as before (with a new feature here and there, improvement here and there etc.) - which in fact is the reason for success because to alter the gameplay too much to actually create something 'new' would cut off the fan base that is expecting that the game is defined by a specific gameplay structure.
I think it's pretty safe to say that everyone here is an adult, and therefore not playing into some trend to slam something because it's supposedly 'cool' to do so. Everyone here is fully capable of forming and sharing their own opinions. If you choose to take those personal opinions as some greater statement from the world at large, that's your choice.
Quote from: Arctic Blast on November 13, 2013, 12:23:40 AM
I think it's pretty safe to say that everyone here is an adult
boobies!!!
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 13, 2013, 12:35:15 AM
Quote from: Arctic Blast on November 13, 2013, 12:23:40 AM
I think it's pretty safe to say that everyone here is an adult
boobies!!!
Note that I made no mention of said adults being mature... ;D
fair point.
Quote from: Bison on November 12, 2013, 07:30:31 PM
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 12, 2013, 07:27:04 PM
yet it is.
so heres my question. with all of that money poured into making the game how hard could it be to make a solid sp campaign?
In the case of CoD or Battlefield, clearly they've proved over the last decade that no one should expect a single player campaign experience that lasts longer than 8 hours.
Both the original CoD and Battlefield 1942 had quite a bit of game play. Have the sequels turned into cheap money grubbing formulas like sequel movies? Is anyone surprised? Glad I did not get any of the sequels.
Id prefer they remade the original CoD WW2 series with the technology today.
Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on November 12, 2013, 07:58:02 PM
In the case of CoD, I'm wondering where ANY of that money goes.
I would guess the stockholders, with a nice "bonus" paid to Kotick as well. ::)
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 13, 2013, 01:05:46 AM
Id prefer they remade the original CoD WW2 series with the technology today.
I second that. For as much as I'm not much of a shooter guy (because of the whole motion-sickness problem, if nothing else), I did enjoy the little time I spent playing the original CoD. Would love to see a "modern" remake.
I'm going on record as saying have nothing against anyone making a profit. Profit does not equate to evil. Period. End of story. Have a good day. Thank you. Come again. Et cetera...et cetera.
the COD releases rinse repeat formula works because every new year a 'new generation' of toddlers grow into their 'counter strike age', and badly want the verboten (PEGI) bad bad 'adults'-shooter for their console ... and of course they don't want to play 'their granddads-COD' - aka the last release- and get exited by the new uber-featurers in the upcoming new release... and those types plague the MP-servers and make MP unbearable for anybody ever fired a real weapon on a range or in anger once.... or from a chopper at a saw;)
it has similarities to Hollywood-biz, where also every year someone turning 14 or 16 or 18 and needs the movies made for his certain age-group ...so you get an endless stream of 'Scary movies' and 'Dumb and Dumber' / Dude, Where's My Car' while the true cineasts wait for the next Ridley Scott, Stanley Kubirc ...and maybe even a Woody Allan flick ... and those directors works are not exceptional on every releases also.
so it boils down to one good movie a year or two...
The true 21st century 2nd decade innovation of COD and other shooters would be a revolutionary augment reality COD game, where you attach your smartphone (landscape view, GPS and Cam- picture analysis) to a Blue Tooth plastics mock-up rifle (which has a powerpack for the phone for the extend use, and a trigger and a sensor for correct pressure against shoulder -or loose precision) as a sight, and also you may ware some augmentreality glasses too... and go multiplayer in the real world but with virtual bullets.
But that will not happen because the fat kiddie users must actually move ass! , go prone, get a sight picture, younameit...
i am a (war)game gourmet ...and don't drink cheap vine from a cardbox container, well that may produce a quick buzz but its not a real treat.
Good (war)games come to man who can wait
(...and 2013 with FC:RS and CMANO seems to become a good vintage :) )
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 12, 2013, 02:10:29 PM
I think its safe to assume that if its in the computer gaming section we're talking about pc games. There's a seperate forum for console games. just saying.
If I'm not mistaken, this article is referring to all revenue from PC, Mac and console, retail and digital download.
Chris--
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 12, 2013, 07:27:04 PM
yet it is.
so heres my question. with all of that money poured into making the game how hard could it be to make a solid sp campaign?
Great question. I think it's just that it would mean a longer development cycle. So we will wait far longer in between games and the publishers make less money.
It's also where you choose to spend the money. If the devs/pubs are crafting a game that's to be used primarily for MP, then the SP campaign exists to get them familiar with the world, introduce variations of the maps to be used in MP, and a chance to practice with all the weapons and equipment at their own pace.
Chris--
Quote from: Martok on November 13, 2013, 03:30:26 AM
Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on November 12, 2013, 07:58:02 PM
In the case of CoD, I'm wondering where ANY of that money goes.
I would guess the stockholders
This has a lot to do with a lack of innovation.
As Bison noted above, there is nothing inherently evil with the profit motive.
The problem, however, is that public companies are not just trying to make money, but they're attempting to make money on a reliable basis for their shareholders. Shareholders demand different rates of return based on their willingness to take risks, but generally speaking most of them are not interested in maximizing profit in exchange for a maximum risk of losing everything. Instead, they want something reasonably stable and reliable. they'll gladly accept, say, a 10% return on investment in exchange for a limited amount of risk.
Unfortunately, in the gaming industry, one or two bombed games will kill a company's cash flow and drive them out of business. So in order to provide a stable, reasonably risk-free return to investors they don't take big risks. If the last game sold a million copies, there is no way a company is going to change the formula and risk not delivering at least that many sales again.
Thus the "lack of innovation." When millions of gamers decide that playing modern era FPS games aren't any fun, then we'll see a return to WWII or sci-fi.
Lastly, the Call of Duty franchise was established on short, highly intense single-player campaigns backed up by robust multiplayer games. IIRC Call of Duty 2 was only eight or ten hours of gameplay, so they're not really far off the mark from their original roots.
Quote from: Bison on November 13, 2013, 04:19:25 AM
I'm going on record as saying have nothing against anyone making a profit. Profit does not equate to evil. Period. End of story. Have a good day. Thank you. Come again. Et cetera...et cetera.
There is nothing wrong with profit if you provide a legitimate product or service. If you take profit relying on marketing to provide an illusion of a real product or service it is called ... a variety of things.
Like bullshit.
Quote from: LongBlade on November 13, 2013, 09:58:08 AM
Quote from: Martok on November 13, 2013, 03:30:26 AM
Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on November 12, 2013, 07:58:02 PM
In the case of CoD, I'm wondering where ANY of that money goes.
I would guess the stockholders
This has a lot to do with a lack of innovation.
As Bison noted above, there is nothing inherently evil with the profit motive.
The problem, however, is that public companies are not just trying to make money, but they're attempting to make money on a reliable basis for their shareholders. Shareholders demand different rates of return based on their willingness to take risks, but generally speaking most of them are not interested in maximizing profit in exchange for a maximum risk of losing everything. Instead, they want something reasonably stable and reliable. they'll gladly accept, say, a 10% return on investment in exchange for a limited amount of risk.
Unfortunately, in the gaming industry, one or two bombed games will kill a company's cash flow and drive them out of business. So in order to provide a stable, reasonably risk-free return to investors they don't take big risks. If the last game sold a million copies, there is no way a company is going to change the formula and risk not delivering at least that many sales again.
Thus the "lack of innovation." When millions of gamers decide that playing modern era FPS games aren't any fun, then we'll see a return to WWII or sci-fi.
Lastly, the Call of Duty franchise was established on short, highly intense single-player campaigns backed up by robust multiplayer games. IIRC Call of Duty 2 was only eight or ten hours of gameplay, so they're not really far off the mark from their original roots.
The original COD came out after the movie Enemy at the Gates. You could get 8 hrs gameplay just from the Stalingrad missions recreation of the movie.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on November 13, 2013, 04:38:43 PM
Quote from: Bison on November 13, 2013, 04:19:25 AM
I'm going on record as saying have nothing against anyone making a profit. Profit does not equate to evil. Period. End of story. Have a good day. Thank you. Come again. Et cetera...et cetera.
There is nothing wrong with profit if you provide a legitimate product or service. If you take profit relying on marketing to provide an illusion of a real product or service it is called ... a variety of things.
What about CoD or BF4 is not a legitimate product? There is no illusion. If anything people who believe this time, unlike the last 5 releases or whatever it's been, is somehow going to have an extensive solo player content that differs from the past is suffering from delusion. I'd say that the majority of people who purchase the game purchase it for multiplayer and not solo player. I don't know, but it seems to me that mostly people aren't getting the same gaming "rush" from the game as when they first played it and that is really the drive behind dissatisfaction. Of course, I could be completely wrong.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on November 13, 2013, 04:46:30 PM
The original COD came out after the movie Enemy at the Gates. You could get 8 hrs gameplay just from the Stalingrad missions recreation of the movie.
we all loved shooting that pos commissar in the face!
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on November 13, 2013, 04:38:43 PM
Quote from: Bison on November 13, 2013, 04:19:25 AM
I'm going on record as saying have nothing against anyone making a profit. Profit does not equate to evil. Period. End of story. Have a good day. Thank you. Come again. Et cetera...et cetera.
There is nothing wrong with profit if you provide a legitimate product or service. If you take profit relying on marketing to provide an illusion of a real product or service it is called ... a variety of things.
Consumers have free choice.
I've gone to restaurants where my meal wasn't what I expected and I've chosen not to go back.
Hey, we may all agree with Jarhead that this latest crop of FPS games suck. But if they sell $100 million worth of games it really doesn't matter what our judgment is because there are a lot of other people who disagree.
I'll be blunt - I suspect that there is an entire generation of gamers who have never played a top shelf FPS game on a PC so they don't have a clue what good gaming is like.
Anecdotally I've met several twenty-something gamers who have managed to play an FPS on a high-end PC and they agree that consoles don't live up to the fun on a PC. However, consoles fill a "good enough" niche on a platform that costs $300 instead of $2000. Not everyone likes McDonalds, but they've served billions and billions of burgers despite the fact that their burgers don't match the quality of a Kobe beef burger. McDonalds is "good enough."
Quote from: Bison on November 13, 2013, 10:20:24 PM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on November 13, 2013, 04:38:43 PM
Quote from: Bison on November 13, 2013, 04:19:25 AM
I'm going on record as saying have nothing against anyone making a profit. Profit does not equate to evil. Period. End of story. Have a good day. Thank you. Come again. Et cetera...et cetera.
There is nothing wrong with profit if you provide a legitimate product or service. If you take profit relying on marketing to provide an illusion of a real product or service it is called ... a variety of things.
What about CoD or BF4 is not a legitimate product? There is no illusion. If anything people who believe this time, unlike the last 5 releases or whatever it's been, is somehow going to have an extensive solo player content that differs from the past is suffering from delusion. I'd say that the majority of people who purchase the game purchase it for multiplayer and not solo player. I don't know, but it seems to me that mostly people aren't getting the same gaming "rush" from the game as when they first played it and that is really the drive behind dissatisfaction. Of course, I could be completely wrong.
What I see in the entertainment industry is a marketing driven hype that the next version is way better that the original that made the name brand. In a few cases, be it game or movie, that is true, such as Starcraft or The Empire Strikes Back. In most cases the sequel is a hollow shell of a product with little besides the bling it is wearing.
QuoteI'll be blunt - I suspect that there is an entire generation of gamers who have never played a top shelf FPS game on a PC so they don't have a clue what good gaming is like.
Anecdotally I've met several twenty-something gamers who have managed to play an FPS on a high-end PC and they agree that consoles don't live up to the fun on a PC.
Well, that sounds like the typical PC elitist statement...PC games are certainly not better in general if you take into account the player who might not want to play a shooter on a PC. He might not like using keyboard/ mouse, he might not like sitting in front of a monitor, he might not want to cash out money beyond a certain limit, he might not want to sit in fron of a PC in his free time because he's doing that all day long in the office. Of course a high end PC might have better gfx and all, but all this doesn't matter if someone does not like playing on a PC. The PC is a platform for games, no more no less and a platform is not making games better per se. Person 1 perhaps prefers platform A for certain reasons, person 2 prefers platform B for other reasons. A shooter experience can be as good on a console as on a PC but certain folks might not be able to feel comfortable with controller or keyboard/mouse so the 'better game' is the one fitting your preferences. And a FPS on a console has the advantage that it feels more according to the real thing, talk about immersion - a controller gives you more the feel of pulling the trigger, a mouse and a keyboard couldn't be farther away from a gun. And the high speed reaction with a mouse is unrealistic imho, the speed of a controller feels more natural (to me).
pc gaming will always be better then consoles. the graphics are better, the sound is better and I can forget the monitor as I can play anything I want in my flatscreen. you might want to read this:
http://www.gamesradar.com/pc-gamers-destroyed-console-gamers-in-tests-says-voodoo-pc-founder/
across the board pc's are more versatile.
Typical PC elitist BS. Of course it doesn't make sense to have gamers with a controller in a vs match with kb/m gamers. Of course the mouse is faster and more accurate (unrealistically faster, you can't make a 180 turn as fast in real life as you can do with a mouse twitch), so what? Does this make for a 'better' game? I can kill you with a sword, I can kill you with a rifle. I can be a master swordsman showing you tricks with the sword that make you go 'WOW!' - I can be a marksman with a rifle and shoot out the eye of a fly so everyone goes 'Incredible what is possible if you really have the talent'. And then I start a fight between the the swordsman and the marksman and the marksman kills the swordmaster before he is able to come close...your 'PC gamers destroyed console players' article would write 'see? Swords suck and a swordmaster is no match even for a rifle noob'.
Beyond absurd to actually link such nonsense to the quality of a game or platform.
Quote from: Grimnirsson on November 14, 2013, 02:08:29 PM
Beyond absurd to actually link such nonsense to the quality of a game or platform.
not at all. the quality of pc games is usually far better then their console counterparts.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on November 14, 2013, 12:46:59 PM
Quote from: Bison on November 13, 2013, 10:20:24 PM
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on November 13, 2013, 04:38:43 PM
Quote from: Bison on November 13, 2013, 04:19:25 AM
I'm going on record as saying have nothing against anyone making a profit. Profit does not equate to evil. Period. End of story. Have a good day. Thank you. Come again. Et cetera...et cetera.
There is nothing wrong with profit if you provide a legitimate product or service. If you take profit relying on marketing to provide an illusion of a real product or service it is called ... a variety of things.
What about CoD or BF4 is not a legitimate product? There is no illusion. If anything people who believe this time, unlike the last 5 releases or whatever it's been, is somehow going to have an extensive solo player content that differs from the past is suffering from delusion. I'd say that the majority of people who purchase the game purchase it for multiplayer and not solo player. I don't know, but it seems to me that mostly people aren't getting the same gaming "rush" from the game as when they first played it and that is really the drive behind dissatisfaction. Of course, I could be completely wrong.
What I see in the entertainment industry is a marketing driven hype that the next version is way better that the original that made the name brand. In a few cases, be it game or movie, that is true, such as Starcraft or The Empire Strikes Back. In most cases the sequel is a hollow shell of a product with little besides the bling it is wearing.
That doesn't make it by any stretch of the imagination fraudulent or deceptive.
Quote from: Grimnirsson on November 14, 2013, 02:08:29 PM
Typical PC elitist BS.
T ypical console-defense bullshit.
I was a console-only gamer for a few years, at one point. While it was somewhat enjoyable, it was ultimately very disappointing in comparison and I couldn't wait to get a capable PC after my short stretch of being force-fed the same few brainless games & genres repeatedly. The software variety, and versatility in general, is still unmatched when compared to that available on consoles.
There is no "death of the PC". The day that consoles can match every advantage that a PC has is the day that consoles
become a full-fledged computer.
Quote from: Nefaro on November 14, 2013, 06:59:24 PM
There is no "death of the PC". The day that consoles can match every advantage that a PC has is the day that consoles become a full-fledged computer.
I think I hear the sound of a steam engine in the distance...
Quote from: Staggerwing on November 14, 2013, 07:53:46 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on November 14, 2013, 06:59:24 PM
There is no "death of the PC". The day that consoles can match every advantage that a PC has is the day that consoles become a full-fledged computer.
I think I hear the sound of a steam engine in the distance...
To say nothing of the new consoles. The Xbox One and PS4 are pretty much PC's in console clothing. Previous generation consoles had unique system architecture, but this generation really is just offering PC components installed in a similar way to what you'd find in a typical PC case.
I'll still hate console controllers.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on November 14, 2013, 11:57:11 PM
I'll still hate console controllers.
I like them for certain types of games...they blow keyboard and mouse away for platformers, arcade racing games and third person action games. Of course, that's largely because I played those games on consoles for a long time and got used to that control scheme for those games.
I would agree with racing games unless you get the wheel/pedal controllers for the pc.
Quote from: Nefaro on November 14, 2013, 06:59:24 PM
I was a console-only gamer for a few years, at one point. While it was somewhat enjoyable, it was ultimately very disappointing in comparison and I couldn't wait to get a capable PC after my short stretch of being force-fed the same few brainless games & genres repeatedly. The software variety, and versatility in general, is still unmatched when compared to that available on consoles.
Well, what we ought to recognize is the difference between consoles and PCs.
At their heart, both are computers. The major differences between them is what you can do with them.
Consoles have an operating system, but it is nowhere near as robust as that of a Windows, Apple, or Linux OS. They can do many things, but their hardware and software is designed to do one thing primarily: gaming. They do it well enough. Their interface is a controller and a motion sensitive device.
PC's on the other hand can accept pretty much any hardware you want to plug into them. Mice and keyboards are standard, but if you want a console controller it's easy to plug in. Joysticks, HOTAS, Track IRs, Occulus Rift, your cellphone....the list is almost endless as to what you can plug into your PC and interact with.
So both are computers but the console is deliberately handicapped in what it's designed to do. That doesn't make them "bad" but it does mean that PCs are capable of vastly higher levels of of software crunching as well as a much greater variety of hardware inputs and outputs.
Does that make them "better" than consoles? Yes and no.
Consoles provide a "good enough" gaming experience (I've said that above in a previous post). For ~ $300 you can get a lot of love for your console. However, for three to ten times that cost you can get a PC which will play the same games - and better - and even be able to run a spreadsheet or two at the same time. The difference between the two is cost and quality. Some people drive VWs. Some drive Mercedes.
I won't get into the question of which platform is better; console or PC? What I will say on the matter is for those of us that can afford it both platforms offer gaming goodness on different levels. A well rounded gamer will enjoy both platforms. An elite gamer will also enjoy console and pc gaming in addition of cardboard board wargaming.
So I'll add to LB's comment on VW and Mercedes drivers. You also have jack of all trade gamers master of none and you have specialists. Some jack of all trades are masters of any form of gaming while others are gaming gods of their chosen platform.
The bottom line is this: In the twilight of 2013 it is truly great to be a gamer!
QuoteConsoles provide a "good enough" gaming experience (I've said that above in a previous post). For ~ $300 you can get a lot of love for your console. However, for three to ten times that cost you can get a PC which will play the same games - and better - and even be able to run a spreadsheet or two at the same time. The difference between the two is cost and quality.
The difference is 'focus' - as you said consoles are built as gaming machines (ok, with the XO that is not true 100% anymore ;) ), while a PC is an all-rounder that can also play games. Of course a PC can do more things but on the other hand all the processes that run in the background of a PC makes it necessary to have more powerful hardware to achieve a good gaming experience. To achieve that you must, as you said, cash out 10 times more. Console gamers usually also focus on games only so we don't need to run a spreadsheet or two at the same time. This 'focus' aspect is what made the new Xbox such a weird thing in the eyes of the console crowd. Especially the MS PR events that endlessly talked about TV, Sports, Kinect, Skype, movies etc.. and even stressing the fact that you can do all this at the same time (who wants to do that???)...left the impression it is a multimedia machine that can also play games - like a PC. Sony realized that such talking and losing focus is alienating the console gamers who want a game machine and so they concentrated on that aspect with the PS4. And the gamers liked what they saw and heard. This focus of the machines and the gamers also seems to evoke a certain feeling, an emotion connected with the console of your choice, a PC is just a machine to run programs. I still can remember and actually feel my excitement when I played games on the Dreamcast, my first game on the Xbox was Halo and it's still there, this feeling I link with certain games and a certain console. Even the N64 had that, e.g. Turok. Consoles feel different to me, I have an emotional attachment to my PC (Nb actually) like I have with my toaster, nothing, it's a machine. And such 'emotions' count when you define for yourself (!) what is the 'better' game experience. I look forward to many cool games on my big HDTV with ambilight and a good surround system while sitting in a comfortable chair, enjoying a glass of good wine and I simply disagree that this is an inferior gaming style :)
Consoles have become very powerful and begun to equal the graphical quality of PC's (and I think the current consoles do come pretty close, and likely surpass the quality of gamers on lower end PC's). The new consoles are also keenly aware of enhancing the multiplayer experience, which has been so much better on PC--the exception being the type of game where two people can play together, like a fighting game.
For many gamers, it's not a competition at all, as they have both a PC and one--or more--consoles. It's more a matter of what type of game and the experience. It's great to be able to sit in a comfy chair playing on a big screen. It's also great to be able download a game instantly to play on your computer, then use tools to mod the game you like. PC's also offer a great chance for small, indie developers to create games and distribute them in a way they just can't for consoles. Consoles, OTOH, offer excellent games that are proprietary. You won't be playing Red Dead Redemption on your PC.
The majority of people in my office have gaming PC's and at least two consoles, plus mobile platforms like iPads. All have their uses if you like to play games.
Chris--
Quote from: MuzzyDev on November 18, 2013, 11:13:09 AM
For many gamers, it's not a competition at all, as they have both a PC and one--or more--consoles. It's more a matter of what type of game and the experience. It's great to be able to sit in a comfy chair playing on a big screen. It's also great to be able download a game instantly to play on your computer, then use tools to mod the game you like. PC's also offer a great chance for small, indie developers to create games and distribute them in a way they just can't for consoles. Consoles, OTOH, offer excellent games that are proprietary. You won't be playing Red Dead Redemption on your PC.
This is why I use a Lazy Boy for my computer desk chair. It's all apart of the Bison Command Center (BCC) concept that I've been pushing here for the last few months. Better gaming with Lazy Boy. The motto's not catchy but it gets the point across. :D
Chris,
QuoteThe new consoles are also keenly aware of enhancing the multiplayer experience, which has been so much better on PC--the exception being the type of game where two people can play together, like a fighting game.
Why do you think so? What's better with MP on PC? Otherwise I agree with your post 8)
The controls. You get far more precision with a pc and those controls are more comfortable to use.
This is just a matter of personal preference and being used to one or the other. I suck with k/m, but I don't even realize anymore that I have a controller in hand, I just move in character so to say...I suppose someone used to k/m will say the same and suck with a controller...so this has nothing to do with 'better'.
Btw you seriously say that the Multiplayer experience is better on the PC because of the tool you use in a game? Huh???
thats exactly what Im saying. you may be stuck in an office with nothing more difficult then a pen or phone to hold all day long. I play with power tools, brushes, screwdrivers and things that wear out your hands. the last thing I feel like doing after that is holding a console controller with silly button placement.
you didnt agree with the pc vs console fps article but thats hardly the first time that tests been conducted. players are more accurate with a keyboard and mouse.
Quote from: Bison on November 18, 2013, 11:22:57 AM
Quote from: MuzzyDev on November 18, 2013, 11:13:09 AM
For many gamers, it's not a competition at all, as they have both a PC and one--or more--consoles. It's more a matter of what type of game and the experience. It's great to be able to sit in a comfy chair playing on a big screen. It's also great to be able download a game instantly to play on your computer, then use tools to mod the game you like. PC's also offer a great chance for small, indie developers to create games and distribute them in a way they just can't for consoles. Consoles, OTOH, offer excellent games that are proprietary. You won't be playing Red Dead Redemption on your PC.
This is why I use a Lazy Boy for my computer desk chair. It's all apart of the Bison Command Center (BCC) concept that I've been pushing here for the last few months. Better gaming with Lazy Boy. The motto's not catchy but it gets the point across. :D
Gaming laptops are lovely for this purpose, too!
Quotethats exactly what Im saying. you may be stuck in an office with nothing more difficult then a pen or phone to hold all day long.
Yes, indeed :)
QuoteI play with power tools, brushes, screwdrivers and things that wear out your hands. the last thing I feel like doing after that is holding a console controller with silly button placement.
Pretty much supports my view that you use what you are used to, what feels right for you...you k/m, I the controller...preferences, taste, style, whatever...not 'better' ...
Quoteyou didnt agree with the pc vs console fps article but thats hardly the first time that tests been conducted. players are more accurate with a keyboard and mouse.
It doesn't matter how many times a silly 'test' is done, if it is silly it doesn't say anything...Players who are used to keyboard and mouse and have no experience with a controller are more accurate with k/m...than a player who is not used to k/m and who is used to a controller...and vice versa.
Quote from: Grimnirsson on November 18, 2013, 12:48:05 PM
Chris,
QuoteThe new consoles are also keenly aware of enhancing the multiplayer experience, which has been so much better on PC--the exception being the type of game where two people can play together, like a fighting game.
Why do you think so? What's better with MP on PC? Otherwise I agree with your post 8)
The ability for individuals to create and moderate their own servers, which is finally available with XBox One. Cross-platform MP: PC and mac users in the same game. Plus just general widespread use. If one of your friends has an Xbox and you have a PS4 you can't play together. Ability to find players. Steam has 65 million users now, chances are whatever game you play there's an MP community. Performance -wise the consoles should be comparable to PCs. The 360 had fine MP but Sony not so much. They definitely want to show they've improved it.
Quote from: Grimnirsson on November 18, 2013, 02:17:56 PM
It doesn't matter how many times a silly 'test' is done, if it is silly it doesn't say anything...Players who are used to keyboard and mouse and have no experience with a controller are more accurate with k/m...than a player who is not used to k/m and who is used to a controller...and vice versa.
um... no. no matter how good the controller user is they arent as accurate as a similarly skilled keyboard/mouse player. you simply cant get the refinement of a 6000+ dpi mouse in a console controller.
This may be a trivial detail in the Console v. PC/Mac/Linux debate but with Steam and Gamers' Gate (as well as Greenmangaming et al) I can pay through the nose at release day for The Big Hit Game on either the PC or my PS3 or I can wait a few months (or sometimes weeks) and for the PC version I'll pay less than half or even a quarter of what the console version of The Big Hit Game is still selling for.
very good point. and since this is Grogheads and we supposedly play wargames once in a while I'll mention that I got W:ALB and W:EE for a total of $25 through Steam. this shows 2 failing of the console.
1. theres shit for wargames on consoles.
2. ya aint buying that much fun for $25 with a console.
strangely the company that makes W:ALB is the same that made Ruse. one of the very fery rts games I had fun playing on a console.
One comment I'll make on the keyboard vs. controller scheme. For me I find using a controller to move my character and perform coarse aiming in an FPS is much easier to do than with a keyboard. When it comes time for sniping or pinpoint accurate shots however, I prefer to use a mouse.
Moving the character using the WASD is technically challenging for me but the sticks on the controller make this easy for me.
I have to agree though that for deep war type games or consims you are not going to find much on a console. Curiously though, I can play a wargame very skillfully using a keyboard and mouse combo than I can with a controller. I'm being serious here too because I wanted to test to see if it was possible to port wargames to consoles using controllers only. It was a dismal failure.
.
QuoteI'm being serious here too because I wanted to test to see if it was possible to port wargames to consoles using controllers only. It was a dismal failure.
Try EndWar on the 360, great voice control via commands to your troops 8)