RolStoppable said:
More revenue doesn't mean much or anything when it doesn't lead to more profits. I don't have much to rebute when you already do it yourself. "Everything is better now, except this and that which is much worse than in the past", yeah... Plus it's pretty easy to make the case that all the things that made gaming more respected have to be credited to Nintendo and, to a lesser extent, companies that make smartphone games. Because the image of gaming that PlayStation populated is one of going through a city and mowing down hookers; this didn't really change on the PS and Xbox side of gaming since then, because developers (first and third parties alike) doubled down on that kind of software output; it's an image of immaturity. By the way, what is your overall argument anyway? Is it about what is better for gamers or what is better for the industry? Because it should be pretty obvious that these two things are very different. |
Today's industry is a more open place and it's easier for more people to make and earn money from making games. Just take a look at the indie scene. That scene wasn't of Nintendo's making, and considering how harsh they treated 3rd parties for a long time, it probably wouldn't have been a scene at all if Nintendo had been left to dominate the industry.
I did say CERTAIN DLC practices. DLC in and of itself is not a bad thing. It means that people can enjoy their games for a bit longer than what would have been possible before. Nintendo is doing DLC so right, right now. But so has Ubisoft with the release Blood Dragon for Far Cry 3, or Sony with the DLC for The Last of Us. Let's not pretend that every piece of DLC is shit. And glitch-fests wouldn't be a thing if we as costumers didn't buy those shitty products. If people didn't buy Ass Creed EVERY year, they wouldn't put them out every year, unfinished.
What did Nintendo do to make gaming more respectful? I'm genuinly curious now. I agree that games have gotten more bloody and immature since the end of Nintendo's dominance. BUT, let's not kid ourselves that Nintendo stood for any sort of mature image. Their games are called kiddie, and not unfairly so. Doesn't mean they're immature, but they do promote games as something fun. What has happened, especially the last few years, is that games have started to take themselves seriously, they've started to ask serious questions. Spec Ops the Line is one great example. Or the Walking Dead. Those games are asking questions about ourselves. And there are other games that's very different from Nintendo's design philosophy, like Journey. Nintendo is all anout game play, and that's great. That's why I play those games. But they don't ask any questions at all. What does it mean to follow orders? What would you do to survive a catastrophe?
Games are JUST becoming mature, contrary to popular belief that "M for Mature" stand for adult and mature games. And Nintendo have had NOTHING to do with that development withing the gaming industry.
My argument is that being a gamer now is better than it was 20 years ago. You have more options. More choices. And that's always good. When Nintendo dominated you had ONE console (later you had TWO consoles), and Nintendo had ABSOLUTE control of what was put on that console. It is HIGHLY doubtful that gaming would have gotten as big as it is today if Nintendo had continued to dominate.
You seem to think that 3rd parties are dominating nowadays, but you're wrong. You wanna know who's the boss? We are. We tell developers what we want by buying certain products. Why do you think Madden and Ass Creed and Cod are annual frnachises? Because WE said so.
I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!
Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.
