Millennium said:
Onyxmeth said:
Millennium said:
Onyxmeth said:
Bitmap Frogs said:
Millennium said:
The major reason the 360's attach rate is so awesome is the Achievements gimmick, and this is by design. Get people to overplay their games to death as fast as possible, then provide them with an illusion that there is nothing left for them to do. This gets them bored more quickly, so they run out and buy more games to get MOAR POINTZ.
It's a brilliant move, I'll give them that much. It gets to the heart of one of the biggest problems developers face: as long as people are replaying their older games, they're not buying new games. Replay isn't profitable, and Achievements are the replay-killer. |
You don't own a 360, right?
|
It's that obvious huh? This has got to be the first time someone has used the argument that Achievements are a hindrance to replay value as opposed to a boon.
Yup that Gears 2 has no replay value, because once you get your 100,000 kills for that final achievement, you've got nothing left to do.
|
How about it then? Name four games that you've gotten all the achievements for and, having done that, seriously intend to play again soon (with "soon" being defined as near enough in the future that, barring some sort of catastrophe, you can be absolutely certain you will play again). Online modes don't count for this, as they represent a different gameplay experience. If you can even name two games where you'd do this I'll be shocked; that would put you well ahead of most. More so if neither game has the word Fable in the title. If you can honestly name four, I'd be astounded.
|
Wow, those are an awful lot of conditions there. Here's your answer:
1. I don't have a single game that I've finished achievements on.
2. The whole point of achievements being a good thing for replay value is that if they weren't there, you would have probably spent even less time on a game. Achievements are an extra incentive to come back to a single player game. What's the incentive to come back to let's say Devil May Cry 4 on PS3 as opposed to the 360 version? Is the PS3 version more attractive as a keepsake to continue playing because it lacks trophy support?
|
What "conditions"? All I said was to name four; the rest was just describing some likely possibilities.
1) So apparently the Achievements gimmick hasn't been helping the replay value of your games after all.
2) Hardly. Achievements are there only to get you to blaze through the game, then abruptly provide you with the illusion that there is nothing left to do, so you should stop playing and go buy another game like a good little consumer. You ask what the incentive is to come back to, for example, DMC4. Only one incentive is needed: because it's fun (note that I cannot speak for DMC4 in particular, but this applies to all games). If it's a good game, not just fun to play but fun to play again, that's what replay value is. The rest is just gimmickry, smoke, and mirrors.
|
If that is all the incentive needed, then Achievements are not affecting it in any way. If the game is still good and fun, people will keep it regardless of Achievements. That is what you are basically saying. Achievements help those of us, like myself, that play single player games once, beat it, then trade it in or sell it so I can buy a new game. I have done this with every single player game I ever owned. Achievements offer me further incentive to keep the game and play through on multiple difficulty levels, go for hidden items, etc.
Even before achievements, I would always try to play through a game as fast as I could without missing anything. That way I could enjoy all the other great games that were all out around the same time. I don't see why you hate Achievements so much, as you don't even own a 360 and therefore know nothing from first hand experience, and merely speak out of pure hate for any good idea the 360 had and the PS3 attempts to copy with Trophies.
