I'm bashing it because of online-enabled/HDD consoles. They allow for expansoin packs a la PCs back in the day. As I mentioned before, previous generations couldn't do this, but now there is absolutely no excuse to pay full price of an expansion. Also, small developers never had problems on the PC, I don't see how consoles really brought them new tools, they've been around for decades.

expansion packs > dlc

Jesus, there are so many problems with your logic. First off, PCs don't have licensing fees and they largely dumped the retailer model long before consoles began dabbling in it. No retailer markup=more profit for the developer. Online download model=no need for large publishers. No physical disk=no need for thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of dollars in physical media, shipping, and warehouse space. Do you see where I'm going with this? You want consoles to emulate PCs but you only want them to emulate the "good stuff". It's a nonsensical stance.

It is inevitable that consoles were going to go through these kinds of growing pains. When even simple games cost millions of dollars to make once licensing fees for engines and whatnot are factored in, there was going to be a streamlining of the process and we were bound to be exposed to cloned games (though, as pointed out, this has ALWAYS been the case), shorter games, and more focus was going to be place on online multiplayer.

What you're failing to acknowledge is that this is just the beginning. XBLM keeps raising the size allotment for games. PSN doesn't really have one. As developers figure this out and as consoles reach a maximum saturation of online capability in homes, we're going to see a total rebirth of gaming. Instead of seeing only top-shelf developers pump out the latest and greatest, we're going to get simple $10 games (which we already have) and games that stretch from every price point from $20-$50. There will be no limits to how much technical prowess a developer wants to add to a game and there will be games at every price point, something we've never had in the console world before.

It seems to me that you just want to complain about the bad stuff that came along with this generation instead of looking at all the great stuff that's in the pipeline as the HDD/online console matures.

Well i think you should learn the definition of an expansion pack then kid.

An expansion pack just adds

extra modes.

options,

missions

Need base game to play expansions

A sequal is

Better graphics

A new full fledged story

Dont need to own the previous game to play it

If you can tell me a way you could tack on Uncharted 2 to Uncharted 1 then please tell me because i would love to know. You would see the difference in gameplay and graphics for a start. Not to mention the places you go. You is whats wrong with gaming today. Not us. If we dont mind supporting a dev for a good sequel.

to me sequels>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Expansion packs.

In many sequels the engine is "tweaked" that much that the engine becomes unrecognizable. So really by your defintion of an expansion pack is that going through one section of a game and the other "expansion pack" can look completly different graphically because of the magour improvements to the engine. Making the game in essence broken?

That is utterly false. An expansion pack brings in new graphics every time, go compare me the Ultra WoW settings from WOTLK to the highest people had in 2004, it's quite shocking. It often brings new story, sometimes full fledged, look at NWN and Shadows of Undrentide or Horde of the Underdark, full fledged 40 hours stories.  So it seems to me you have no idea what a sequel and an expansion is.

I'm talking about gaming as a whole here, PC and console. PC has had indie games for ages, so I don't see how "arrival of indie games" is a bonus to this generations because they have been around. You also don't have to tell me about these games since I'd place World of Goo above any, and I mean any, game released this year. That incliudes Empire Total War, Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, etc. etc. In fact I bought WoG twice as a present to my brother on his wii.

Also developers choose to spend millions on their games, no one is forcing them to spend millions and millions, as with my World of Goo example, it took 2 ex-EA employees. That's all it takes to make a game that last for a long long time, not 200 million and 150 guys + PR working on a game. I only look at the bad stuff for gaming, there hasn't been any good stuff. The PC has covered online just fine, the consoles plu-and-play, and this generation has only brought encroachment into the PC territory from the consoles, and offering none of the benefits of PC gaming. The consoles have brought nothing to this generation other than better graphics, and as the Wii shows people don't even give a damn about those all that much.

Now that developers have the means to release expansion packs on consoles, they aren't, when they should be. That's the real problem. The closest thing to an expansion pack was Halo 3 ODST, they even labeled it as such. How much did it cost? $60.

@serious_frusting

What Vlad said, except I will give you the fact you don't need original copies to play. Other than that expansion packs have bee including all of the following before:

- Better graphics

-New full storyline

- Additions to gameplay (options, missions, etc.)

- Requirement to have older game.

This is what "sequels" have

- Better graphics (not that significant as true sequels, FF, HL, etc.)

- New full storyline (sometimes it's even shorter than the original as with MW2)

- Additions to gameplay (cover, multiplayer, etc.)

-No requirement to have older game

Seems to me the only difference is the last point.

I really hope it goes that way.  Certainly that's my expectation.  If things go well I'd hope to see more titles releasing on PSN/Live at lower prices - stuff like Flower (or even titles like Portal) - coupled with of course the big titles.

My concern is that, so far, both PSN and Live seem to be lagging Steam in terms of really getting to grips with the model, getting good titles there in a steady stream and having solid pricing guidlines.  However, both services are pretty new really, and I hope to see things settle down with every passing year.

A bigger concern though is the current DLC model and rapid fire sequel model that's settling in on consoles.  I love L4D and I love L4D2, but I have no doubt that L4D2 is far less a sequel as I view it and more another iteration that should really have been available as an expansion rather than a full price title.  ODST I felt the same way about and MW2 also looks anemic in terms of building on CoD4.  DLC prices have also been high IMHO.  Still, this is perhaps inevitable when linked to the rapid expansion of console gaming and the ability to use these models - if the consumer seems fine with it then its hard to knock developers for making hay while the sun shines.

My other concern is that too many developers try (and no doubt fail) to land a big title instead of focusing on PSN/Live and the like.  I guess time will tell, as it is very early days in many ways.

You're completely ignoring that a boxed expansion of a PC game usually runs $30-40 as well. What makes up the difference between console and PC games? Platform licensing. That's why PC games generally clock in at $10-20 less than their console counterparts and aren't nearly as tied to the MSRP as a console title (hence seeing Fry's and other big box retailers often blow out a new PC game for $20 to attract customers).

You bring up World of Goo... which illustrates my point. When this type of delivery system is roughly two years old while its PC counterpart is roughly two years older than that, you still expect the console world to magically catch up overnight? Developers are still figuring out how this works. Give it time.

There are millions of gamers who never played on PC... only console. Yet, because you've experienced PC superiority, consoles should just avoid that market entirely? Again, your logic makes no sense. Consoles are bringing the best (and a few of the worst) parts of PC gaming to a plug-and-play environment and you're cursing them for it. Well, okay, that's great. You have to realize that to many people, this is an entirely new experience because they never bothered with PC gaming in the past. I, for one, even as a PC gamer, welcome the change. It's progress, though there will surely be bumps along the road as it's all figured out and consumers decide what is a good deal and what is a rip-off.

As for your "200 million and 150 guys" argument, did it ever occur to you that's one of the few ways to make money in the console environment? It has ALWAYS been that way, though the numbers weren't as high. As technology improves, budgets will rise, and over time, it will balance out as middleware devs ease some of the burden and developers learn to more accurately target their demographic, which XBLM and PSN will allow them to do.

You keep cursing consoles for adding online and storage without realizing that's the only way they're going to be able to get past this financial hurdle without completely tearing down their retailing structure and licensing programs, which will never happen. The only other option is for console gaming to completely ignore high definition and stick with PS2-era graphics until the end of time. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

On another note, Good God. I just realized that I've found someone who likes to out-complain me.