Shots in the Dark: Where Gaming's Going

Tom Mc Shea theorizes how this generation's trends will affect the next generation of consoles.

There has been a considerable shift in gaming the last seven years. The releases of the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and Wii brought with them much more than the expected graphical upgrades and redesigned controller inputs that herald a new generation. Fundamental aspects of the industry have radically changed from what we were used to, forever altering the types of games that we consume and the ways that we play them. As the next generation of consoles fast approaches, we explore how these recent trends may evolve in the future.

Games as platforms

Not long ago, games were static products that were incapable of being changed once the code had been printed on the disc or cartridge. That's no longer the case. Now, games are delivered piecemeal. Whether unlocking another fighter in BlazBlue, more maps in Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, or new horn sound effects for Dirt 3, there are a huge variety of features to throw your hard-earned money at. This flexibility keeps games feeling fresh long after they hit store shelves, but it has created animosity among people who would rather not be nickel-and-dimed to play complete versions of their favorite games. Downloadable content became into vogue this generation because an online delivery method (and adequate storage space) was previously unavailable. Now that developers have had years of experience with this business model, how will this approach to updating games change in the coming generation?

What the future holds:

Not long ago, games were static products that were incapable of being changed once the code had been printed on the disc or cartridge. This trend will only become more prevalent in the future. But the challenge developers face is balancing their lust for financial rewards with their need to maintain a healthy relationship with consumers. Avoiding the negative backlash that comes with nefarious content upgrades is imperative going forward. Just ask Capcom about the reaction from people who found out the extra characters they were being charged for in Street Fighter X Tekken were already on the disc. Or the negative memes created when Bethesda tried to sell horse armor in Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Charging for more content is a delicate proposition, so expect the smartest companies to toe the line carefully in the coming years.

One game that serves as a model for how to deliver premium features is Mass Effect 3. Despite the unprecedented hatred BioWare received for the single-player campaign, the multiplayer aspect did a great job of making both sides of the economic coin very happy. New maps were added free of charge to the horde-slaying mode, and you could unlock additional gear by plugging away at enemies. But booster packs could also be purchased with real money, giving a shortcut for impatient players while limiting the impact of these items so the game didn't transform into another pay-to-win endeavor. Look for more games to use this approach in the future so no one feels like they're being ripped off.

Social connectivity

Video games are no longer a solitary experience. A need to provide an aura of limitless value has ensured that multiplayer has been crammed into any and every game imaginable. It doesn't matter that no one asked for deathmatch in BioShock 2 or Tomb Raider; you're going to gun down your friends, and you're going to like it. The rare solo offering still trickles through, but that doesn't mean you have to be completely separated from other people. Achievements and trophies let you compare your progress with your peers', and chat functionality means you have someone to talk to at all times. Throw in always-updated leaderboards, and gaming has never been more social. But what will this trend look like a few years down the line?

What the future holds:

You're going to gun down your friends, and you're going to like it. We've only seen the tip of the iceberg in this regard. Right now, the majority of multiplayer experiences demand extreme dexterity and in-depth knowledge to compete so that all but the gaming elite are locked out. Have you ever seen a newbie try to play Call of Duty? It isn't pretty. That exclusionary mentality is fine if raw competition is what you crave, but for the millions of people the world over who just want to have fun, that barrier of entry is too high. Things need to change.

As development costs continue to rise in the console sphere, publishers will steer away from the jack-of-all-trades mentality that has been so prevalent this generation. There is no shame in making a primarily solitary experience, and there will be more games that embrace the lone gamer, albeit with a new slant. Connectivity is only going to become more important as the technology to reach others gets more sophisticated, so there will be elements of multiplayer injected in single-player adventures. Dark Souls is a great example of how such features can be implemented without causing harm to the journey. Adding in helpful messaging or a ready ally (or adversary) engenders a social approach without extinguishing the core appeal. The Miiverse has also made communication even easier, and that trend will only continue.

Invasions kept solo players on their toes in Dark Souls.

Death of the midsize game

High-end visuals are impressive to look at, but it costs a pretty penny to pump out cutting-edge graphics. Because of the expense associated with full-price games, there has been a serious decline in the last few years of a middle ground. Games either fall into the AAA classification or take an independent route, with only a few offerings that strike a balance between these two extremes. This has become a serious problem. Uber-expensive games rarely innovate because one false step could lead to financial ruin, and independent games often lag far behind from a technical standpoint. Are we forever doomed to bounce between these two very different types of games?

What the future holds:

Are we forever doomed to bounce between these two very different types of games? Midsize games could see a welcome resurgence in the coming years. The price of development is only going to rise as more detail is required to meet the growing graphical demands, but there's a flaw in the AAA industry's current pricing scheme: $60 is very expensive for a video game. Considering the abundance of low-priced, high-quality games already available on consoles (in their downloadable catalogs), personal computers, and mobile devices, asking people to shell out such an exorbitant fee is a risky prospect.

This opens the door for cheaper games that fall somewhere between the $60 you'd expect from the newest retail release and the $15 (or less) from a downloadable wonder. And the key is digital distribution. Look, for example, at Telltale's approach with its incredibly well-received Walking Dead series last year. By releasing each episode for just $5, the company was able to lure in people who may have been scared to part with their hard-earned cash for an untested property. But once The Walking Dead hooked people with its expertly told story and grisly visuals, paying for the whole season was a no brainer. All told, The Walking Dead was $25 and offered an experience that rivaled (if not surpassed) many AAA offerings. This model could work in a variety of genres and holds the key for middle-class games next generation.

Everything is digital

Broadband and 3G coverage have made gaming more accessible than ever before. You can now download a game whenever you want, instead of being forced to run to a store, and that ease makes it painless to satiate any craving you have, whenever you desire. It's a gigantic leap from what we were used to, but it does have a few noticeable caveats. Namely, we no longer have unregulated access to the games we've purchased. Always-on DRM limits when and how we can play games, and if our Internet connection is severed, we're plain out of luck. There have been serious growing pains as consumers and developers grasp the power of this new reality, and that divide is going to get bigger in the future.

What the future holds:

Broadband and 3G coverage have made gaming more accessible than ever before. Online delivery will only become more viable in the future (as hard drive space and broadband coverage grow), and that means we will no longer own our games. Sure, we'll pay money for them, and be able to play them almost anytime we want, but our relationship to them will end there. Remember when we used to lend games to our buddy? Or rent the newest release from the local video store? Savor those moments, because they will exist only in your hippocampus if publishers have their way.

But the future is not all doom and gloom. Trading in our rights as consumers isn't entirely a negative shift, even though it appears that way initially. A digital future could actually make it easier to access our library. Cloud gaming has been on the lips of the technological pioneers for years, but it has yet to take a serious hold in the console world aside from transferring saved game data. That won't hold true for long. Accessing our library wherever an Internet outlet resides will be standard in the coming years, and this feature will only become more important as mobile devices become more powerful. Imagine being able to stream the latest PlayStation 4 release directly to your Vita. It's an enticing prospect that's almost worth giving up our consumer rights for. Almost.

Tom Mc Shea
By Tom Mc Shea, Editor

Tom Mc Shea loves platformers and weighty moral decisions. Some call him a T-Rex with bigger arms, some call him a gorilla with smaller arms -- you can just call him the jerk who hates all the things you love and loves all the things you hate.

268 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Storyz
Storyz

 I hope to see devs approach more sensitive topics in their games in order to give more value to their work then just the all might FUN everyone seems to be dancing around these days. I'm personally bored of having fun all the time and sometimes I'd rather play something that feels constructive in the same way a good book delivers great ideas that shape our character.

I think games can be considered one of future's main medias since the people who will soon be adults are those who grew with those games we see around us and they are not so likely to throw them away, not even when they get older. That being said i think games will have an important impact and will shape our children's minds. This is serious, and this should be treated very carefully, unless the idea of our children becoming some empty shells that only like to have fun sounds like a good go.


Discussing what or how we want to achieve this is quite a different topic, but for the time being I think it was worth mentioning. 

Other then that, I hope for a method of balancing good graphics and great content, because sometimes you can't relay only on good gameplay to deliver your idea, and graphics have great importance as well, in order to create a certain atmosphere. The truth is people have 5 senses and the more we can stimulate them the better the idea in our game will be passed to them. Ofc that doesn't mean we can't also have games like the Indie sort. Those are important as well and can impress on someone in an equal amount sometimes.

Regarding the payment I think the idea of delivering 1-2 chapters/levels for a small price and the rest only after for a bigger amount of money is a great idea for many reasons that were stated already.

Last but not least I think users should be more united and speak loudly what they want. Even if it is obvious not all people think/feel the same regarding a game or a subject, there are issues that bother most of the people (DRM for example) and against those things we need to protest together, going as far as not buying games from a certain company unless our desire is not fulfilled. Again, it needs to be done by a large majority in order to have effect.

MrMan2000
MrMan2000 like.author.displayName 1 Like

 I think episodic games is the future.  I can imagine "levels" now being "chapters" sold at $5 a piece or whatever.  This serves several functions:

1.  Consumers can sample games for small price; no need to shell out $60 for a game you end up playing for 3 hours.

2.  Developers can protect themselves against failures.  For instance, if after developing two or three chapters and it's proving unpopular the plug can be pulled thus limiting total exposure.  Won't mean you won't lose money, just less. 

3.  On-the-fly improvement.  Imagine a develop releases two "beta" versions of a new IP each with a slightly different version of the protagonist.  They can live market research which is proving more popular and adjust future chapters to leverage the more popular.  

4.  Game-play improvements.  Using opening chapters to test new ideas the popular ones can be leveraged and the unpopular ones improved or disposed.  This should increase innovation.  

5.  "Serial" type games abound.  I can see games with no end-point in sight, just new chapters every month / quarter.  Without the physical limitations of a disc there's no limit to the scope of a game or it story.  

I could keep going but it seems very obvious that serial gaming will be a core part of gaming's future.  Then we'll be bitching about having to pay $5 for every chapter (and paying a total of $90 for the game) instead of $60 for the whole thing at once


oflow
oflow like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Nice article.  I'd also like the MMO genre move away from the WoW model towards huge worlds with more user created content.  Neverwinter's Foundry looks impressive I hope it can deliver.   In stead of MMOs being themeparks, it would be awesome if the developers spent their time making developer tools and allowed the players to actually design the content sorta like how Little Big Planet does it.  That way they could spend their time designing more tools to use and world events and the players can fill in the story themselves.  Sorta like old PnP D&D; had worlds and manuals but allowed the players to design dungeons and campaigns.

Would love to see this happen.

Snaptrap
Snaptrap like.author.displayName 1 Like

Games are tied with movies in that they've become repetitive and gamers have become like gnats. They keep flying to the next window and the next whenever there's a new color of glass, with the hopes of something new to look at instead of trying to escape the box. My faith was once with indie developers to bring fresh ideas to the market but even their games are becoming repetitive platform maze games. Take your character and navigate through this maze filled with traps etc. Just give them more many and their games will be in 3D. Yipee!

Redd1994
Redd1994 like.author.displayName 1 Like

The industry is simply becoming more about money and less about good design it seems :( I hope to see more attention given to indie developers, since they seem to be more focused on exploring the medium and creating creative, thoughtful, and artfully-designed games.

Poodlejumper
Poodlejumper like.author.displayName 1 Like

I play games to get away from humanity and not to deal with them.  Multiplayer as a prime selling point?  Meh...

Probably the same reason why I see no mention of PC Gaming, Valve's new Box, the Ouya (not expecting much but still), or iOS gaming in "the future of Gaming".

Just the usual 3 venues..double meh...

TomMcShea
TomMcShea

@Poodlejumper I was just focusing on the console space for this feature. I'd like to explore the other spaces at some point, though they are much more volatile than what the big three offer (in a good way).

Egotte
Egotte

Why do writers and the community still insist on calling the third XBOX the "720"?

A global community twice around the world, eh?  That's what "720" would technically mean.  Doesn't make much sense now, does it?

Frostyballoon
Frostyballoon

@Egotte You just blew my mind, Is that was the 360 mean?! Im not an xbox owner but i always thought the 360 was an edgier way of saying 2 since they didnt want to be like Sony. My world is forever changed.

samleoner
samleoner

But, what's happen when digital games costs the same the retail disk??? that happen with nintendo games. It will be easier for more developers deliver titles, but maybe those who control the market has other intentions :s

anyway, I like in general this article and I am agree with the most of content.

oldschoolvandal
oldschoolvandal like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 5 Like

Hell...I'm growing old. It all sounded crap to me...

norabbitnofun
norabbitnofun

@oldschoolvandal +1

I mean - I like Tom's thoughts and discussions in general. But the part about broadband needed and hard drives needing to grow... or streaming a PS4 game to Vita... It feels to me like we live in a fractal world: the more technology progresses on desktops, the more it progresses on mobiles, the richer the video content, and the gap between them remains significant enough that I don't believe in playing the same games on a mobile and a desktop (or laptop or convertible or thingy).

True innovation there would consist in effectively having NVidia find a way to scale processor-hungry parts of a program, and issue only the scaled part to a low-energy processor as the ones we have on mobiles. That would be just great.

As for the part about things becoming digital and editors playing with our rights to share with friends... I guess it will happen essentially, but then we will exchange devices, before we exchange identities (welcome to gattaca ;).

Pie_FOREVER
Pie_FOREVER like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 5 Like

Welp, considering this is where anaylsts think gaming is headed, I think I'm done. Adios vidya gaems, I still have my collection of old titles from generations past to enjoy, as well as one day maybe show my future kids them while shielding them from the horrors that gaming will have befallen to by then.


Like seriously, I'm done. I don't have a fiber in me anymore to give a damn about games. I don't know what happened to my interest but it's gone completely now. I don't care about the social media side of this that everyone is ramming down our throats. "WHOA HE GOT A MEANINGLESS TROPHY BEFORE ME! God I'm such a loser!". Is this what people are really clamoring for?


I want physical copies of everything I own, not a digital download that I cannot hold in my hands in case anything happens to my console, or that needs to be redownloaded and reinstalled every time I might have to make room on a harddrive for something else when it's at max capacity. All this next generation seems poised to do is benefit these shady conglomerate companies like EA or Activision to nickel and dime the consumer in new, innovative ways and screwing over the gamer. GG industry. I lost interest. I'll just stick with the past.

Morokoo
Morokoo like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Shooting games, Fanboys and reasons why Video Games are ruining our youth is what I see in the next Generation.


I will say this once, I will not own a Gaming system where everything is a download.

DaFrop
DaFrop like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

I am def not gonna support cloud gaming anytime soon. Especially when we got a bandwidth cap...

Master_Vexov
Master_Vexov like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

A good question would be: will we see REAL QUALITY games?.

It seems with many games released there is a large amt of gamers left unhappy, but its just simply chalked up as "Hey, you can't make everyone happy", i don't remember games getting so much hate before. Players excuse Dev's of costs, bugs, deceit, just about anything now is simply excused and the mass doesn't give a damn because they're content with the current games that are being released that seem to have no purpose other then milking money of the players, that being the game itself, dlc's, and micro-$. But hey, we ain't entiled to anything and that included QUALITY entertainment, so everyone should just enjoy the $60 games that will have some players quiting.

Its like going to watch any of the new Dark Knight movies, and seeing 10-30% of the audience leave, but nobody pays it any mind to its meaning, the majority is the content.. so its ok.

There really isn't anything that can be done, games will continue to be dumbed down because of w/e the excuse dev's use or players give for dev's to use.

If "costs" are what is having my purchases turn to waste then i rather having graphics toned down, a balance really needs to be striked with graphics and gameplay. Im just tired of setting games aside when they could have easily been soooooooooo much more instead of less(which was highly likely done to gain more for the dev).

crosby655321
crosby655321 like.author.displayName 1 Like

huh..I though ME3's booster packs with real money was pretty disgraceful actually. 

Zevvion
Zevvion like.author.displayName 1 Like

The conclusions of this article seem straight forward. Haven't seen anything that didn't already happen or is happening. There will be allot more and bigger changes coming with the next generation. Not just this.

shanethewolf
shanethewolf like.author.displayName 1 Like

Personally I'm sick to death of quicktime events and games taking away the playability in exchange for long cinematic sequences and that's where things seem to be heading. Far Cry 3 and Max Payne 3 were prime examples of that. The point of a game is to play, otherwise we can go and watch a movie.

I thought my loss of interest in games was because I'm getting older, but the fact that I have so much fun when I eventually get a good game (Limbo, Book of Unwritten Tales, Dishonored, Arkham City) proves otherwise. 

There are some indie saviours out there who still focus on playability above all else, but even the indie scene is getting very pretentious and putting artistic merit above fun.


Master_Vexov
Master_Vexov like.author.displayName 1 Like

@shanethewolf 
I find i just quit a game mid way because its clear i already won, there isn't enough challenge of things that can go wrong. I was scared to play indie games cause they were cheap, but most i've played are greater fun then the AAA's: FTL is one of my fav's.

Morokoo
Morokoo like.author.displayName 1 Like

@Master_Vexov @shanethewolf 

I wish games had the difficulty that the game Prinny has(maybe not as hard.. I would never finish another game), and the unique world/characters/story that games like Banjo, Conker and many other games had. Not just some trigger happy, press a button to watch a cutscene to do damage montage of a short game.

Most popular game series now seem to just be riding on the fame of the franchise's name.

Zevvion
Zevvion like.author.displayName 1 Like

@shanethewolf That's all fine, but that's just you though. I liked Far Cry 3 allot with it's intro scene and whatnot. I love watching the cutscenes in MGS games. Asura's Wrath, a game completely centered around quick time events, was cool as all hell and a blast to play. It received it props for being the game it was.

Besides, I find it odd you'd give Far Cry 3 as an example of how not to do it and go on to list Dishonered. Dishonered has allot more sequences where there is all talking and no/barely any playing than Far Cry 3 does. Nothing wrong with you liking one more than the other, but it couldn't be that.

shanethewolf
shanethewolf

@Zevvion @shanethewolf It's not so much about having cutscenes to further the plot (as in Dishonored), but it's when the highlights of the game (such as fighting Buck, Vaas etc in Far Cry 3) are reduced to pressing buttons to advance through a movie. Or with Max Payne 3 and Black Ops where you only play for short periods before the cutscene snatches the controls from you when you're just getting into it.

clr84651
clr84651

It's simple! Make all games digital distributable, sell them for $40 and under. Then no one can buy used cheap games and the game devs make that money from everyone who plays the game. There would be no loss from people buying used games and renting them, yet games would cost $20+ less to buy. So people could afford them more easily than the $64 disc games that are out this gen. 

2611mp
2611mp like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

I just find the whole industry pretty depressing these days. I'm well past my gaming prime but to be honest, I'm glad I had some good gaming years before it all got a bit impersonal. Playing splitscreen Timesplitters on my old Xbox whilst getting high with college friends was, for me, as good as gaming ever needed to get, but meh, online does it for some and fair enough if you enjoy it. 

bandit7319
bandit7319 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Interesting article.  I already had a feeling that this generation would be my last gaming generation though.  This kinda stuff makes me further feel that way.  I think the most telling statement in this article was: "Games either fall into the AAA classification or take an independent route".  That's why there are hardly any original games anymore.  Back in the SNES days games hardly made it past 1 sequel, but there was no lack of games available.  Companies are too afraid to take the risk or a failed game so they keep working with a tried and true formula.  I miss those days.  And PS4 having an LCD touch screen, next XBOX having Kinect built in, WiiU having a tablet controller..... it seems like it's more about the hardware than the software and that's no way to be.

OllieBrown
OllieBrown

"The price of development is only going to rise as more detail is required to meet the growing graphical demands ..."

Mmmmmm, maybe.  I think when we initially push into new graphics territory (weather it's higher resolution or new shader technologies and pipeline structures) there is an initial bloat while the developers figure out how to efficiently use the technology.  New tools have to be produced to support the next tech in the development pipeline and artists have to learn just how detailed is detailed enough.  But once that initial work gets done the cost of development for newer graphics technology should equalize!  There is where a really great game engine can set itself apart from the pack.  If you can support the latest tech with clever tools that do not require an artist's fine hand and patience then then you free the developers from this tedium and the budget becomes slimmer in the long run.  It's all about balancing the skill of the artist with the time saving of automated or user assisted tools.

XspidervenomX
XspidervenomX like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 11 Like

I feel hated by game companies...Restrictions, pay to play or lose, weak hardware, shovelware...With the notion from companies,,"Gamers will get used to it"because were sheep....Ill tell you where its going...Im buying maybe 2 games this year..

blitzinD
blitzinD like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

"we will no longer own our games. "

BINGO! That is the end game for the big game companies. They will continue squeezing us like cash sponges.

DBZ19
DBZ19 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@blitzinD  I agree, I love going into my room and seeing my collection. Knowing that the only way I'll lose them if 1. I traded them or 2. I was burgled. 

jeff_d5
jeff_d5

And yet there is no mention of the Oculus Rift and how VR will change the gaming industry as we know it.

jenovaschilld
jenovaschilld

@jeff_d5 There was already an article out that stated VR will not take hold in many households due to latency. It states that latency would have to be 25ms or less constantly to allow the technology to work with multiplayer or online gaming. At this point the USA broadband infrastructure is far behind that of others and with increasing demands and less money spent on interior change looks less promising.  Most developers and publishers will probably not take the expensive risk of VR due to the above latency and potential vomit comet. 

But I hope and pray that single player games will take advantage of the tech and can imagine some great offline games that it would do wonders with.  


skunkpants
skunkpants like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

If games are to go digital on the consoles, they really need to start dropping the prices by 20%+.

I can understand why the games in stores are high on release, because of the packaging, logistics and store profit have to be met. Online however, it's digital, there is no hard copy. Only a server running on power connected to the XBLA or PSN networks. 

There are games on said networks which cost twice as much as a second hand copy in store. These are games that came out over two years ago!

If they are to get our attention and confidence in digital media being the main distribution method, they will need to start dropping the price. Steam does it, so it can't be hurting them.

AdrianJNYC
AdrianJNYC

I'm not sure where this supposedly next-gen gaming is heading with both the PlayStation 4 and the upcoming Xbox console. However, I hope it doesn't fall into the same category as the Wii U and the gimmicky GamePad idea. Nintendo has some nice ideas, but I just doesn't see the Wii U competing with the next uber consoles and will be greatly criticized.

HardbodyDraper
HardbodyDraper

Good article Tom. I find it odd people constantly complain about digital games, and their lack of physicality. This is a purely electronic industry, and it seems very anachronistic to have such a neo-luddite attitude towards games. And boorish PC elitism isn't helping anyone

flyersfan87
flyersfan87 like.author.displayName 1 Like

Digital games subjects users to digital right limitations. People are opposed to a wholly digital future because of the latter. I have no problem with digital titles if your rights and access to that medium was not limited as with physical media. For all the good that XBLA, PSN, and Steam have done...that is one glaring flaw that prevents intelligent consumers (especially in this economy) from embracing, and Nintendo Network's architecture is a representation of the worst a completely digital future could be for the common gamer.

Atermi
Atermi

Facebook is a garbage. I own a Facebook page just because I am literally forced by games to use it. I don't want to use my Facebook in games. I don't need friends, neighbours in my games. I am totally fine as I am. I don't want to be someone's free ad-delivering slave.  

silviu_1784
silviu_1784

@Atermi USE ADBLOCK and you wont see another ad od the interenet FOREVER !!

Atermi
Atermi

@silviu_1784 I do, but most iOs games require your Facebook to go; hell even most forums nowadays use Disguis which requires your facebook or twitter. 
I don't use Facebook, it is an abominable network, our Russian one is so much better and more functional; and twitter is abominable at its very idea (lol come on, who needs to post a 140-char garbage everyday?). So I need dat shyt just for games and forums. 

MustSeeMelons
MustSeeMelons like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 3 Like

Social is being forced on us, ant that is not a good thing. Facebook is being integreted everywhere and even forced to use it. Id love if the industry would take a step backwards from social gaming.

CivilizedPsycho
CivilizedPsycho like.author.displayName 1 Like

Sony is making a mistake by not allowing consumers to sell their games.  I feel that if I purchase something, I should be able to sell it too.  It's the American way.

skunkpants
skunkpants

@CivilizedPsycho You mean Open Market? It's been around before the States was founded so I wouldn't go as far to call it the American way. Bottom point is, we agree on the trade of games. 

fourclawrider
fourclawrider like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 6 Like

"... and gaming has never been more social..."

 Is it? According to the current standard, by which things like facebook and twitter are seen as "social", yes.  But in my book it's not social if you're alone in the room. Gaming (and life in general) has never been more asocial. And it's not so much the gamers fault, but more the fault of the games themselves.

Many multi-player focused games don't even allow offline splitscreen MP. I can't even play my expensive 60 bucks game with my own goddamn brother! How is that social? Same goes for all those single-player focused games with a MP slapped on and the ability to co-op the story: online only.


I've got nothing against online MP (personally I find it boring after a couple of hours, its too repetitive). It's a great addition for many people and gives you endless replay value. But it should not be pushed forwards as the replacement of all other MP types: LAN's, Bots, wave/horde-modes, splitscreen up to 4 players per console...Not everybody has or cares for online access. 

But yeah, the gaming industry has gotten big ... and commercial, online sells and money dictates...

joe_chebs
joe_chebs like.author.displayName 1 Like

@fourclawrider Again, good point, less and less split screen these days and it sucks!

Morokoo
Morokoo

@joe_chebs @fourclawrider 

I would take split-screen any day over internet, nothing beats playing with a sibling/friend/family-member in one room, sure internet is fine but in most games they have completely removed the ability to play a game in the same room with someone.

Conversation powered by Livefyre

Top GameSpot Recommendations