Quantcast
Double Standards In The Gaming Industry. Which Ones Do You Hate/Find Suitable?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Double Standards In The Gaming Industry. Which Ones Do You Hate/Find Suitable?

We know that there are a lot of double standards in the gaming industry. This often leads to some games/companies getting more praise than other games/companies even though what they're doing is not really that different.

 

So what I want to know from you guys is what double standards in the gaming industry you hate and which ones you actually find suitable even though it may be unfair to the other game/company receiving less praise.



We all know Sony domination is a real thing and there is nothing Microsoft or Nintendo can do about it....

Send a Friend Request On PSN :P

Around the Network

I don't get the outrage over tiered Preorder bonuses.
It's a reward publishers give you all in exchange for granting them working capital for marketing and development of the title. They're really just the same as Kickstarter rewards, except cheaper and with greater promise for a real game by the end.



I predict NX launches in 2017 - not 2016

The hate on EA, i don't think they are muh worse/better than the oher big publishers.

The other is 1st party games >>>> 3rd party. This attitude seems especially common among the nintendo crowd.



fleischr said:
I don't get the outrage over tiered Preorder bonuses.
It's a reward publishers give you all in exchange for granting them working capital for marketing and development of the title. They're really just the same as Kickstarter rewards, except cheaper and with greater promise for a real game by the end.


Its not the same at all. With Kickstarter, your money means the game can actually exist at all. Preorders just mean publishers can put a number on their financials. So taking out content for a fully funded game is worlds different from rewarding the people who gave your game a chance to exist at all.



Well, this is new.

Read.

Probably that Bethesda can release an unfinished product that has no respect for the consumer, and very few people call them out on it. However, if it's a company like EA then it's the end of the world.



Around the Network

I don't get why DLC is evil, but used games are okay. DLC apparently screws the consumer, but its necessary to offset the costs of used games (since used game sales are lost revenue to the publisher and developer).



sabvre42 said:
I don't get why DLC is evil, but used games are okay. DLC apparently screws the consumer, but its necessary to offset the costs of used games (since used game sales are lost revenue to the publisher and developer).

People are fine with DLC, the problem is DLC used to be called 'Expansion Packs' and were worth your dollar. Now they are a gun camo on CoD for $2 each. Completely superficial and mostly pointless.

Used games is a left over market thing in reality. If a game went out of print you couldn't get it at all unless it was used. The market has just stay around more in the games industry than say the music CD industry.



Hmm, pie.

I don't get the almost pavlovian outrage about micro transactions and DLC even if it may be purely cosmetic and easily avoidable.



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

Any sequel stays roughly the same and the reviewer goes

"it's getting stale and didn't innovate enough"

Then another will come out (mostly the Nintendo games in their big franchises) and they stay pretty much the same and the reviewer goes

"it's more of what we love" or in Nintendo's case "it's the Nintendo magic and reminds me of being a kid!" because they grew up with those franchises which isn't fair in the slightest as they're bringing their own nostalgia into it.



I am Iron Man

The hate for EA and Ubisoft. EA really publishes many great games, and so does Ubisoft. Especially the hate on Ubisoft for not supporting Wii U, which they did more than any other third-party publisher.

Also that first-party games released during Q1-Q3 don't matter, they matter only when they release in Q4. First-party games are also all that matters during holiday season, doesn't matter how many awesome third-party games are coming out.

Thirdly, that a game has to be 50 hours long to be worth buying for $60. No matter if a 12 hour long game may be a masterpiece, or the 50 hour game may be repetitive as fuck, its the hours you spend that matter. Also, for some multiplayer is essential for a game to be worth buying, no matter how poorly its made, it should be there.