Playstation Next-Gen -> Anti-used-game technology?

[Friendly]

http://kotaku.com/5896996/the-next-play ... he-details

Basically the same as the earlier rumor about the next Xbox.

If true, then this marks the end of me buying games. Just like I don't buy DLC as a matter of principle, I won't support consoles that feature this near-sighted anti-consumer nonsesne.

What those greedy companies don't get is that an economy operates in a circular fashion, and that if 0% of the original investment can be recouped, buyers will have less money to spend on new games and will therefore buy fewer games. =Less money for video game corporations.

[Estebang]

Not gonna happen. Remember the fiasco when everyone thought the PS3 would utilize LockWare (which Sony actually developed and patented)? It all came to nothing, and they dropped it along with the boomerang controller.

For all their stupidity, I think Sony realizes there's a limit to how far you can go with DRM before even your fanboys stop buying your stuff. They've approached it with the Vita, but they're not going to cross it. (Ubisoft is the only company I'd say has crossed it so far, though Blizzard is getting close.) Also, it would completely jeopardize their relationship with Gamestop.

[replayme]

I'm going to repeat what I wrote in the other thread about GAME closing down...
http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... 8&start=30

I think GAME/GS's "closure" has bigger ramifications for the industry than many seem to realise:

1. The lack of a high street retail presence where one can buy NEW games will seriously escalate games transitioning from being boxed copy products to digital only downloads.

2. Whilst the closure of GAME/GS is welcome news for indie game retail stores (which will probably start increasing in number so as to take advantage of GAME/GS's "closure"), the fact that the market is transitioning to digital, and the fact that the next gen consoles will probably implement "anti-second-hand" measures so as to prevent people from playing pre-owned products, means that all game stores will eventually go to the wall since they aren't able to earn revenue from second hand sales.

Don't get me wrong. GAME/GS going into administration represents a massive opportunity for the fledgling entrepreneur who wants to set up their own game store, but even this tactical advantage will (most likely) be short-lived once the industry really starts clamping down on second hand sales (through digital distribution etc). And then we'll be seeing game stores go the same way as Tower Records and all the other indie music shops.

[Friendly]

If anti-used becomes a reality, then people will only buy games with review scores of 10/10. Which means most games will get 10/10 review scores, because video game journalism is that awesome.

Also, video game crash 2.0 incoming.

[replayme]

Yeah... I mentioned the notion of a Videogame Crash 2.0 at last year's Developers Conference, but no-one believed me...

[Estebang]

There's a key distinction here.

The crash of 1983 affected everything until Nintendo came along.

A hypothetical Crash 2.0 would just remove the alternatives to casual smartphone games, free-to-play, "indie" PC fare, and Call of Duty. Furthermore, it would only affect consoles and boxed PC games.

[louisg]

There's a key distinction here.

The crash of 1983 affected everything until Nintendo came along.

A hypothetical Crash 2.0 would just remove the alternatives to casual smartphone games, free-to-play, "indie" PC fare, and Call of Duty.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

BTW I don't think the crash affected computer games much. I'm also not sure it put much of a dent into arcades.

[Estebang]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I hope this is sarcasm.

BTW I don't think the crash affected computer games much. I'm also not sure it put much of a dent into arcades.

Computer games in 1983 were already extremely niche (not to mention expensive), and Galaga 3's failure in arcades is directly attributed to the crash. I'm sure it wasn't the only victim.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

Didnt arcades (in the US anyway) have their own crash around that time?

The lack of a high street retail presence where one can buy NEW games will seriously escalate games transitioning from being boxed copy products to digital only downloads

EDIT Theres always Supermarkets like Tescos Kinda ironic that GAME and Gamestop are the saviours of boxed videogames when they were the ones to get us into this mess with their aggressive selling of used games. I cant see Play.com, Amazon, Shopto etc having the same clout as GAME in the long term when to most ppl who shop online would probably buy digital downloads if it was provided in a cheap and hasslefree way.

[louisg]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I hope this is sarcasm.

Nope! All those 4-trillion-dollar cinematic games like Bioshock can take a hike.

BTW I don't think the crash affected computer games much. I'm also not sure it put much of a dent into arcades.

Computer games in 1983 were already extremely niche (not to mention expensive), and Galaga 3's failure in arcades is directly attributed to the crash. I'm sure it wasn't the only victim.

Are you sure? G3 wasn't all that great. But on the other hand, if you check arcade-museum, there are a lot of pretty notable games that did well were released around 1983, 1984-- stuff like Pole Position II and 1942. Though, I'm unsure if arcades were down in profits. It's possible that those games caught on after the market rebounded.

[Estebang]

Nope! All those 4-trillion-dollar cinematic games like Bioshock can take a hike.

If they die, they're taking down shmups, JRPGs, fighting games, and pretty much every other niche game tied to consoles and dedicated handhelds with them.

Galaga 3 is my favorite game of the series. I don't even mind that it's extremely difficult.

[louisg]

Nope! All those 4-trillion-dollar cinematic games like Bioshock can take a hike.

If they die, they're taking down shmups, JRPGs, fighting games, and pretty much every other niche genre with them.

Eh, shmups are already pretty much dead anyway. If you contrast now with even 2001 or so, there's barely anything happening. That's also a genre that you can do well with a relatively small crew.

[Estebang]

They'll be even deader without any consoles or handhelds to support them. Cave and G.Rev aren't going to jump to Steam. They just aren't. They can't survive amongst the flood of casual crap that's free or $1 on smartphones either.

[burgerkingdiamond]

who cares about new games anyway?

[Estebang]

People who like playing new games.

[louisg]

They'll be even deader without any consoles or handhelds to support them. Cave and G.Rev aren't going to jump to Steam. They just aren't. They can't survive amongst the flood of casual crap that's free or $1 on smartphones either.

It's possible. But on the other hand, people aren't going to stop playing games just because there's not a new system that didn't tank. If larger entities struggle, that could have an effect of leveling the playing field. Some genres might become more viable since they're less of an investment-- you already see that a little with the casual games.

But seriously, there's nothing that wrong with a casual game if it's done well. For instance, Tetris is typically "casual"-- when that came out, it caught on in a big way with people who didn't really play games at all. You can play it a little, or a lot; take it seriously, or not seriously. I don't play modern casual games a whole lot, but there are definitely good examples of it out there like Bookworm.

[Estebang]

Modern "casual" is Angry Birds. Temple Run. Rolling Ranch. Games with no redeeming value whatsoever to anyone.

No one makes new games like Tetris anymore, only derivatives.

[louisg]

Modern "casual" is Angry Birds. Temple Run. Rolling Ranch. Games with no redeeming value whatsoever to anyone.

No one makes new games like Tetris anymore, only derivatives.

Games like Angry Birds, Plants vs. Zombies, and Cut the Rope seem like puzzle games to me. The quality seems OK at a glance, though I haven't played them much so I can't comment on their balance or anything. I do know people who get way into them. If they were released in 1996 on the PS1 I'm almost certain they'd be considered crazy quirky games you had to get (like Parappa or Vib Ribbon or something).

I can't help but think that some of the resentment towards casual games has to do more with the mass-market appeal than anything else. Territorial pissing.

Pac Man CE was really good-- dunno if that falls into the casual camp or not.

[burgerkingdiamond]

Pac man CE DX is definitely not casual. The funny thing is that as far as I'm concerned that game is way more worth of a full price release than whatever other shit happens to be on IGN's homepage at the moment.

and do we really need a next gen? what technical barriers are left to break?

[Estebang]

Pac-Man CE is just "retro." It demands too much of the player to be considered casual.

Games like Angry Birds, Plants vs. Zombies, and Cut the Rope seem like puzzle games to me. The quality seems OK at a glance, though I haven't played them much so I can't comment on their balance or anything. I do know people who get way into them. If they were released in 1996 on the PS1 I'm almost certain they'd be considered crazy quirky games you had to get (like Parappa or Vib Ribbon or something).

They're puzzle games, sure. Shitty ones. Boring ones. Soulless ones. Angry Birds has random physics, for crying out loud. It's that way so terrible players can eventually succeed by retrying enough times.

I can't help but think that some of the resentment towards casual games has to do more with the mass-market appeal than anything else. Territorial pissing.

It's not my fault that mass-market game development produces crap products for lowest common denominators.

A Parappa/Vib Ribbon comparison is ignorant and irrelevant. Here's some things those games have that modern casual games don't:

- Unique, imaginative, tasteful aesthetics
- Room for creativity and improvisation
- Characters and music that don't make you want to gag yourself
- Difficulty and the ability to fail

and do we really need a next gen? what technical barriers are left to break?

A valid point, but we could at least have games that look like this.

[louisg]

They're puzzle games, sure. Shitty ones. Boring ones. Soulless ones. Angry Birds has random physics, for crying out loud. It's that way so terrible players can eventually succeed by retrying enough times.

A Parappa/Vib Ribbon comparison is ignorant and irrelevant. Here's some things those games have that modern casual games don't:

- Unique, imaginative, tasteful aesthetics
- Room for creativity and improvisation
- Characters and music that don't make you want to gag yourself
- Difficulty and the ability to fail

I'm not sure about Angry Birds, though I will say that the aesthetic is what everyone seems to like about it. In Cut the Rope, I failed plenty, and it was from not solving the level correctly. It seemed like a fairly clever game, but I didn't play it much because it didn't grab me (much like Vib Ribbon didn't grab me). I still don't see anything that indicates that there's a huge difference outside of marketing here.

The irony here is that cinema-laden games that have a save point every few steps are somehow for more hardcore gamers. I don't really get it.

Half the points you made above are entirely subjective BTW.

[Estebang]

I'm not sure about Angry Birds, though I will say that the aesthetic is what everyone seems to like about it.

Doesn't mean they have good taste. Are you willing to say that Shrek is aesthetically pleasing?

In Cut the Rope, I failed plenty, and it was from not solving the level correctly.

But all the levels are clearable by a relatively minimal amount of brute force trial-and-error, and there's no penalty for failure other than being set back a few seconds. Compare it to a good "get the object to Point B" puzzler like Gussun Oyoyo, where you really have to know what you're doing the entire time, there's pressure, and failure has actual consequnces.

The irony here is that cinema-laden games that have a save point every few steps are somehow for more hardcore gamers. I don't really get it.

I've never said that I'm trying to defend these games in any regard besides as a method of preserving consoles and handhelds as viable platforms.

Half the points you made above are entirely subjective BTW.

Not to people with actual taste. Angry Birds has no artistic value whatsoever; it's neither good enough to be good nor bad enough to be kitsch. I shouldn't need to explain this.

[louisg]

I'm not sure about Angry Birds, though I will say that the aesthetic is what everyone seems to like about it.

Doesn't mean they have good taste. Are you willing to say that Shrek is aesthetically pleasing?

Not to me, no. I find a lot of the art really derivative and/or saccharine. But again-- it's subjective. I'm sure to some people it's really endearing. *I* don't like it, but I'm also not the target audience. Of course, Parappa is pretty damn tacky too.

In Cut the Rope, I failed plenty, and it was from not solving the level correctly.

But all the levels are clearable by a relatively minimal amount of brute force trial-and-error, and there's no penalty for failure other than being set back a few seconds. Compare it to a good "get the object to Point B" puzzler like Gussun Oyoyo, where you really have to know what you're doing the entire time, there's pressure, and failure has actual consequnces.

But at the end of the day, the goal in both of them is to learn how to solve the puzzle.

I agree with your high standards, but I'd point out that most puzzle games or point-and-click adventure games-- including beloved games like the original Sam and Max-- fall into the same category as these casual games in terms of murky solutions or failure to punish the player, and often don't apply any sort of pressure at all either.

My basic point is that the outrage I see over the flood of casual games seems selective. I really do think that the issue at hand is that the space of people who are more dedicated to games is being invaded by, as you put it, your grandma.

I've never said that I'm trying to defend these games in any regard besides as a method of preserving consoles and handhelds as viable platforms.

*nod*

[Marc]

Oh dear, here we go again. Estebang, read your last comment. Read it again. If you can't see from that how much of a fucking arse you are - or, alternatively, icy-light, there's no hope.

Angry Birds is what it is, to this player a mildly amusing diversion while I take a shit. Cut The Rope on the other hand gets pretty fiendish later on, but I'm guessing you didn't get that far before penning an essay telling people how wrong they are for playing it.

Who are you to judge worth? What makes you the arbiter of style, of what people do or don't find pleasing? Have you ANY comprehension of the fact that people have different taste, and that simply believing in yours so strongly doesn't make you right, doesn't make you better than anyone else?

By the way, Parappa was pretty much the definition of casual, it pretty much introduced the whole rhythm genre during the PS1 era, at least here in the UK. Vib Ribbon, that was the one that let you play your own CD's right? Some fucking top design going on there. And as for either allowing creativity or improv, erm.. nope for the most part. Oh, and the point & click's you seem to hold in such high regard? Most of them can be finished by 'brute force' - combine everything with everything and use everything on everything and you'll get there eventually. That's the 'challenge' you love so much? What's your idea of consequence by the way, being sent back ten/fifteen minutes every time you fail a level? If so, fuck off and play Super-R-Type and don't come back until you've beaten it, that should keep you busy.

You're the guy that linked to that piss-pathetic, juvenile mess of English that was the Dead Space 'review' right, or did you actually write it? Either way, it explains a lot. Every single thread ends up cluttered with your shit. I think that people slagging mainstream gaming, than discussing JRPG's in another thread is the most hilarious thing ever, because most are such a skill-free, emo-kid, vapid excuse for a piss-poor interactive cartoon that it makes me cry inside. But I didn't feel the need to invade the FF thread to tell them so.

[louisg]

Let's not make this a flamewar

[Marc]

In that case, someone needs to make a thread about how shit most 'mainstream' gaming is, how his opinion is always right, and anyone that agrees can chat there. It's clogging up every thread now - see Journey - and it's getting boring.

[Estebang]

Well, I had a long, scathing response typed out that burned each of Marc's strawmen to the ground. Such as, puzzle games aren't trying to tell a story like adventure games are, and good challenge in action games is based on a limited set of lives, not excessive checkpoints. But then I thought, really, what's the point? I've made enough of a stink pushing my opinions around here that I'm not welcome anymore, and I haven't made any headway at convincing a single one of you of anything. I'm just an old guy yelling at clouds. We'll reach the ends of our arguments and abandon the thread, just like last time.

Somehow I thought people who played shmups--a niche, hardcore genre that might have died ten years ago, if not for Capcom's good grace--would be more receptive to this kind of rhetoric, but I guess not.

So I'm logging out for good. You can feel smug about it if you want, and you can think that you've won. See ya.

[Marc]

Dude it isn't about winning or loosing. You're shouting at the world, and for what? I love video games, full stop. The shit you don't like, ignore. Spend more time talking about the stuff you do, rather than just running other stuff down. Easy.

[CMoon]

Ignoring all the noise above> I think the used marked is actually a much bigger deal to retailers than to consumers. Most new games are dropping to half price (or less) after 1 year. Of course, this may be to compete with the used market, but for the most part I can often get games cheaper new than used because of how quickly they drop in price.

The funny thing to me is how this battle was fought in the early 90's with used CDs. Didn't take long to shut that argument down, and it I don't think it will fare too well this time either.

[louisg]

The funny thing to me is how this battle was fought in the early 90's with used CDs. Didn't take long to shut that argument down, and it I don't think it will fare too well this time either.

Rentals, too. Nintendo threw a total shit-fit over renting out games. I think they ended up suing on the grounds that they were photocopying manuals because they couldn't do anything else about it.