I think there has probably been a shift as most people come to view the physical media that the game comes on as being less significant than they used to, but it's one of those unpreventable things. I can't really identify with the feeling of being "proud" of my game collection because to me they are commercial entertainment products first and Works of Art maybe 7th or 8th so beyond that I don't have much to contribute.
I don't know about anybody else, but I absolutely will not trade a game in unless it's completely awful and I'm ashamed to have purchased it. One reason being because EBStop's trade-ins are such an incredible ripoff - I'd rather have a game that I'll never play again on display than sell it for $10. I'm not even that into the collection aspect, I just really would hate to want to play a game again years down the road and find out that I sold it.
This is one of the things I really like about digital ownership. With the release of the Wii I decided that I would leave my old consoles in storage indefinitely, and when I feel the urge to play a game I'll buy it on the virtual console, even if I already own it. I really like the notion of having a library of games all available right there with no risk of loss.
Tycho and I had a long talk about this yesterday and I’m really glad to see you guys discussing it in here. I’m not going to get into it too much but there is something I noticed that I thought was interesting.
I remember it used to be that a gamer took pride in their game collection. The way everyone takes pride in their DVD collection. When you buy a movie you “have†it now. It’s yours, it’s a part of your collection of movies. You can look at someone’s movies when you go over to their house and learn a lot about them. You may find some gems you never knew about and borrow them.
It used to be that way with games. I remember friends coming over and going through my stacks of games asking me about certain titles. I used to loan out games to people I thought would especially enjoy them but might otherwise slip past their radar. Now it seems like games are something you get, experience and then discard. I think that’s a mentality that’s been fostered by EB/Gamestop and their trade in policies.
I don’t know, maybe it’s all in my head. I just feel like there’s been a shift. Am I wrong?
I definitely feel like things used to be that way and are different now. Same with my DVD collection. I simply can't keep up with all the titles released anymore; it gets too expensive.
I don't think used game stores are a new thing, though. I think the problem is partially the vast amount of games available today, constantly competing for your attention. And also I think games today seem to be less well developed due to the amount of resources that 3d control and graphics require. Something like Gears of War I played through once with a friend and had a blast, but I have no need to do it again. It's just not worth $60 to have around unless you're going to be playing online multiplayer. I just rented Armored Core 4 and all of the missions are very, very limited in scope and gameplay. It's sad to see that go downhill when everything "looks" so good on these new consoles.
Basically I think there's too many watered-down titles for it to be economically feasible anymore. GameStop isn't really the cause, they're just banking off of it. I also wouldn't say Gamefly is the cause either, because video game rentals have always been around. The problem is that lots of games suck and offer little novelty.
I don't think it's that they offer little novelty; I think that it's that they ARE novelties, and once that wears off, they're not really that good. Again, Warcraft III. I've been playing for years. People are still playing Starcraft. I've replayed MGS, MGS2's VR Missions, and MGS3 many times, even without multiplayer, but for many games, it's fan-made levels and multiplayer that keeps it going for many years.
Most games now just aren't that well-made; they rely on gimmicks like flashy graphics or cheesy input devices, so that they're either just visually pretty but devoid of gameplay, or they're just a collection of easy minigames.
The last game I lent out to someone was Thief Gold to Callius, and that was a few years back. This might be influenced by the fact that I don't have many gamer friends in my immediate physical location anymore, now that college is over and most of my friends have kids.
Point being, that there is nothing really that bad about used game stores other than they are a rip at the sell/trade point but better than nothing. And they are great for buying shitty games at the price they should have been when they were first released.
Digital downloads would just be a rip off right from the start. Unless it's just a brilliant, life changing, years-of-game-playing experience.
I'm sorry the developers will not get all of my $60. But I don't have $60 to spend on a game. Especially if I ever spend $600, $400 or $250 for a new console.
My $10 used copy of Ghost Recon 2 has kept me entertained for a year or so. That's about the right deal.
Maybe in the future, what we buy in game stores won't be games but instruction manuals with codes in the back. So you take your nice, glossy, possibly hardcover manual home, fire up your machine, enter the code and download the game. Want to take it over to your friend's house, or lend it to your friend? Just open a menu and disable the code on your machine before you go over. Maybe you copy the game to a portable flash disk too, purely to save your friend from having to re-download it.
Or maybe you want to sell your game second hand? Same process, just bring in your manual and the game store checks that the code is disabled before they buy it from you, then re-enables it in their own account in case you get any smart ideas once you get home.
You still play games the same way. For all intents and purposes, you can still physically interact with them in the same way. There's simply no longer any need for physical copies of games to be sold with the permission to use said games, which is what you're really buying in the first place.
I don’t know, maybe it’s all in my head. I just feel like there’s been a shift. Am I wrong?
Gabe, In all absolute Honesty, you are right here. I'm not afraid to admit it either. I humbly call it "losing the faith." My co-workers and I each know exactly when this occured. For me, it was with the Xbox 360 launch of Tomb Raider:Legend. The very *last* game I payed full price for. Why? Because it was the 3rd straight 360 game release I had purchased at full price that took me less then 8 hours to complete. Thats *NOT* a game release, thats a damn rental, and a BAD rental at that. Call of Duty 3, hyped up to no end... THREE FUCKING HOURS to beat. THREE HOURS!?!?!? Are they KIDDING me?!?! I dont care HOW "pretty" it is, 3 hours is nothing but a joke Treyarch took all the way to the fucking bank.
It seems to be a trend with the 360 thus far, either the game is absolute garbage, (Full Auto, Bomberman etc) or is a decent/great game... that you can completely clear in 1 or 2 days. (Gears of War, Dead Rising)
In fact, off the top of my head, there is really only ONE game released for 360 thus far that takes more then a few days to clear, has MASSIVE replay value, and is incredible to play. Yup, you guessed it. Elder Scrolls 4 - Oblivion.
ONE game.. ONE. That saddens me to no end. Now, with the upcoming releases of Bio-Shock, Blue Dragon and Command and Conquer 3, Im hoping this trend of garbage is at it's end. We can only hope.
And with all honesty.. the PS3, despite its "zOmG! Blu-RAY" massive disc space... they still have nothing but crappy games you can clear in 1 day. Its fuckin depressing. Yeah, they just got a PORT of Oblivion.. yay.. a port. A copy of the 360 version. Thats *not* a PS3 release. And the way Im hearing it, Sony is losing all of its Exsclusive game titles, now the latest rumor is Metal Gear is going to be on 360. That was PS3's biggest selling point early on. If they lose that.. *shrug*
Oh, and allow me to close with this, I've *always* supported Penny Arcade. In fact, in almost every other mainstream issue, I'm right there with T. This one though, I just have to stand on the opposite side of the fence, but dont think for a second it means I think any less of PA! I'll just agree to Disagree! :P
I think there has probably been a shift as most people come to view the physical media that the game comes on as being less significant than they used to, but it's one of those unpreventable things. I can't really identify with the feeling of being "proud" of my game collection because to me they are commercial entertainment products first and Works of Art maybe 7th or 8th so beyond that I don't have much to contribute.
This is a point I largely agree with. I'm not saying games aren't art but I am saying that for the most part, it seems silly to me to enshrine a mass produced game that plenty of other people played even if I enjoyed it. Unless I'm going to play it again I don't see the point of holding onto it unless there are some really special memories associated with it. The DVD's I own are movies or shows that I want to watch again. I don't buy movies that I enjoyed but wouldn't want to watch repeatedly, that's asinine to me.
I don’t know, maybe it’s all in my head. I just feel like there’s been a shift. Am I wrong?
Gabe, In all absolute Honesty, you are right here. I'm not afraid to admit it either. I humbly call it "losing the faith." My co-workers and I each know exactly when this occured. For me, it was with the Xbox 360 launch of Tomb Raider:Legend. The very *last* game I payed full price for. Why? Because it was the 3rd straight 360 game release I had purchased at full price that took me less then 8 hours to complete. Thats *NOT* a game release, thats a damn rental, and a BAD rental at that. Call of Duty 3, hyped up to no end... THREE FUCKING HOURS to beat. THREE HOURS!?!?!? Are they KIDDING me?!?! I dont care HOW "pretty" it is, 3 hours is nothing but a joke Treyarch took all the way to the fucking bank.
It seems to be a trend with the 360 thus far, either the game is absolute garbage, (Full Auto, Bomberman etc) or is a decent/great game... that you can completely clear in 1 or 2 days. (Gears of War, Dead Rising)
In fact, off the top of my head, there is really only ONE game released for 360 thus far that takes more then a few days to clear, has MASSIVE replay value, and is incredible to play. Yup, you guessed it. Elder Scrolls 4 - Oblivion.
ONE game.. ONE. That saddens me to no end. Now, with the upcoming releases of Bio-Shock, Blue Dragon and Command and Conquer 3, Im hoping this trend of garbage is at it's end. We can only hope.
And with all honesty.. the PS3, despite its "zOmG! Blu-RAY" massive disc space... they still have nothing but crappy games you can clear in 1 day. Its fuckin depressing. Yeah, they just got a PORT of Oblivion.. yay.. a port. A copy of the 360 version. Thats *not* a PS3 release. And the way Im hearing it, Sony is losing all of its Exsclusive game titles, now the latest rumor is Metal Gear is going to be on 360. That was PS3's biggest selling point early on. If they lose that.. *shrug*
Oh, and allow me to close with this, I've *always* supported Penny Arcade. In fact, in almost every other mainstream issue, I'm right there with T. This one though, I just have to stand on the opposite side of the fence, but dont think for a second it means I think any less of PA! I'll just agree to Disagree! :P
Let's be realistic here. Nothing has particularly changed in this regard. Back in the old days a game could be finished in an hour or two, and they extended that by making them unforgivingly difficult so you'd have to play the same sections over and over again before you were good enough to win. These days excessive content repetition is looked down on so games have forgiving save systems, allowing you to cruise through a singleplayer campaign in relatively little time. The lasting appeal is extended with replayability like unlockables or multiplayer. You shouldn't expect a game to last you a long time if you speed through to the end and never play it again. If you don't want to blow money on short experiences then don't - save the cash for games with more lasting value. It's no worse than it ever was.
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
edited March 2007
I still maintain a game collection, and many, many people do too, so that dream isn't quite dead yet, even if it's something that doesn't exist in the mainstream(maybe it never has).
The ones that trade off the whole of their games are usually the casual ones, who far outnumber the devoted ones, hence, pile of cash for Gamestop. Before that, they probably just wound up stacking the discs away in a corner, trashing them, or yard selling them.
I'll only trade something in if I know I'll never play it again, and even then, only if it's actually worth something. I'd never trade in something for $1.
Back in the old days a game could be finished in an hour or two, and they extended that by making them unforgivingly difficult so you'd have to play the same sections over and over again before you were good enough to win.
Whaaaaat? Two hours?
Zelda
Zelda 2
Kid Icarus
Metroid
Metroid 2
Metroid 3 (OK, a really skilled player can do it in under three hours)
Metal Gear
Metal Gear 2
Final Fantasy
Final Fantasy 2
Now I will give you that some games, mainly action-y titles like Contra or Double Dragon, could be finished in that time IF you were an expert player. And the main challenge in those games was learning how to use your moves and then learning how to use them and which ones to use against specific enemies. So yeah, while you could blitz through Castlevania 1 in just a few hours, there's no fucking way that you'd be able to do that as a new player. Using "learning takes time" as a way to make the game longer is not bad. If anything, it's actually good, because it means that you're spending time actually being challenged and learning the game mechanics, instead of just being told "OK you win" every time you do anything.
Yes, some old games were abusively hard for no good reason. On the other hand, some new games are stupidly easy. Both are bad.
I think there has probably been a shift as most people come to view the physical media that the game comes on as being less significant than they used to, but it's one of those unpreventable things. I can't really identify with the feeling of being "proud" of my game collection because to me they are commercial entertainment products first and Works of Art maybe 7th or 8th so beyond that I don't have much to contribute.
This is a point I largely agree with. I'm not saying games aren't art but I am saying that for the most part, it seems silly to me to enshrine a mass produced game that plenty of other people played even if I enjoyed it. Unless I'm going to play it again I don't see the point of holding onto it unless there are some really special memories associated with it. The DVD's I own are movies or shows that I want to watch again. I don't buy movies that I enjoyed but wouldn't want to watch repeatedly, that's asinine to me.
Yeah, if something isn't worth replaying, then it's probably not something that you really liked or appreciated for whatever reason. If you watch a movie once and never want to see it again, owning it is wasteful. Everything I have in my collection has been used multiple times, except for maybe one or two things that I thought would be good but just turned out to be shit.
I think there has probably been a shift as most people come to view the physical media that the game comes on as being less significant than they used to, but it's one of those unpreventable things. I can't really identify with the feeling of being "proud" of my game collection because to me they are commercial entertainment products first and Works of Art maybe 7th or 8th so beyond that I don't have much to contribute.
This is a point I largely agree with. I'm not saying games aren't art but I am saying that for the most part, it seems silly to me to enshrine a mass produced game that plenty of other people played even if I enjoyed it. Unless I'm going to play it again I don't see the point of holding onto it unless there are some really special memories associated with it. The DVD's I own are movies or shows that I want to watch again. I don't buy movies that I enjoyed but wouldn't want to watch repeatedly, that's asinine to me.
Yeah, if something isn't worth replaying, then it's probably not something that you really liked or appreciated for whatever reason. If you watch a movie once and never want to see it again, owning it is wasteful. Everything I have in my collection has been used multiple times, except for maybe one or two things that I thought would be good but just turned out to be shit.
I hardly ever replay games, but I like keeping them just so that I have them.
I keep them around because... Wait, why do I keep them again?
Actually when I moved about 3 years ago I went thru all my game boxes, took the discs and manuals out, and threw out all the boxes - mostly PC games, those old big boxes too. The CDs don't take up much room, but no way was I moving a huge pile of carboard boxes...
I keep them around because... Wait, why do I keep them again?
Actually when I moved about 3 years ago I went thru all my game boxes, took the discs and manuals out, and threw out all the boxes - mostly PC games, those old big boxes too. The CDs don't take up much room, but no way was I moving a huge pile of carboard boxes...
Yeah, I've got a bunch of old PC games I never play anymore but the cd's take up little room so I haven't bothered to throw them out yet. Perhaps I'll sell some of them on Ebay for a few bucks some day.
I think the only reason some people have gigantic DVD libraries is because there are no retail chains where you can trade in movies for a decent price. I don't know why everyone seems to think there is something inherently wrong with buying a game, playing it for as long as it interests you, then getting some monetary return on it.
And yeah, you could definitely finish a bunch of old school Nintendo games in a few hours. Maybe not RPGs, because RPGs have always been paced kind of slow, but most Zelda games, Metroid games, Mega Man games, and Mario games could be finished in 1-3 hours.
I think the only reason some people have gigantic DVD libraries is because there are no retail chains where you can trade in movies for a decent price. I don't know why everyone seems to think there is something inherently wrong with buying a game, playing it for as long as it interests you, then getting some monetary return on it.
That is basically a long-term rental.
I prefer to buy only games that are really good; games I'd play YEARS later when the graphics and sound are complete ass by current standards. In fact, there are some games that I look at and there's this bittersweet feeling, like "oh man that game is so cool but I don't even have a 3.5 drive with which to install it, or a proper DOS machine (or emulator) on which I could run it."
I would have played the Quest For Glory series last year if I had had such a setup.
And yeah, you could definitely finish a bunch of old school Nintendo games in a few hours. Maybe not RPGs, because RPGs have always been paced kind of slow, but most Zelda games, Metroid games, Mega Man games, and Mario games could be finished in 1-3 hours.
No no no. Hold on.
I'm talking from the time you take it home, unwrap it, and put it in the Nintendo to the time you beat the game. That's NOT a couple of hours. I'm not the best game-player in the whole wide world, but I didn't Super Mario Brothers in three hours! Not even close! Now, once I got good at it and had beaten it a few times and knew where the warp pipes were, yeah. I could go back and beat it in a short period of time. But you're ignoring the amount of time that it took you to get that good in the first place.
I think the only reason some people have gigantic DVD libraries is because there are no retail chains where you can trade in movies for a decent price. I don't know why everyone seems to think there is something inherently wrong with buying a game, playing it for as long as it interests you, then getting some monetary return on it.
That is basically a long-term rental.
I prefer to buy only games that are really good; games I'd play YEARS later when the graphics and sound are complete ass by current standards. In fact, there are some games that I look at and there's this bittersweet feeling, like "oh man that game is so cool but I don't even have a 3.5 drive with which to install it, or a proper DOS machine (or emulator) on which I could run it."
I would have played the Quest For Glory series last year if I had had such a setup.
So you're saying you can tell just by looking at a game that you'll be playing it years down the road? Because that's a pretty lofty claim.
Posts
this is more feasible, as he is actually involved in games
This is one of the things I really like about digital ownership. With the release of the Wii I decided that I would leave my old consoles in storage indefinitely, and when I feel the urge to play a game I'll buy it on the virtual console, even if I already own it. I really like the notion of having a library of games all available right there with no risk of loss.
I don't think it's that they offer little novelty; I think that it's that they ARE novelties, and once that wears off, they're not really that good. Again, Warcraft III. I've been playing for years. People are still playing Starcraft. I've replayed MGS, MGS2's VR Missions, and MGS3 many times, even without multiplayer, but for many games, it's fan-made levels and multiplayer that keeps it going for many years.
Most games now just aren't that well-made; they rely on gimmicks like flashy graphics or cheesy input devices, so that they're either just visually pretty but devoid of gameplay, or they're just a collection of easy minigames.
The last game I lent out to someone was Thief Gold to Callius, and that was a few years back. This might be influenced by the fact that I don't have many gamer friends in my immediate physical location anymore, now that college is over and most of my friends have kids.
Digital downloads would just be a rip off right from the start. Unless it's just a brilliant, life changing, years-of-game-playing experience.
I'm sorry the developers will not get all of my $60. But I don't have $60 to spend on a game. Especially if I ever spend $600, $400 or $250 for a new console.
My $10 used copy of Ghost Recon 2 has kept me entertained for a year or so. That's about the right deal.
Or maybe you want to sell your game second hand? Same process, just bring in your manual and the game store checks that the code is disabled before they buy it from you, then re-enables it in their own account in case you get any smart ideas once you get home.
You still play games the same way. For all intents and purposes, you can still physically interact with them in the same way. There's simply no longer any need for physical copies of games to be sold with the permission to use said games, which is what you're really buying in the first place.
SEARCH YOUR FEELINGS
YOU KNOW IT TO BE TRUE
I mean, PA is getting big, but they ain't got Shatner or Stewart kind of clout.
But oh god I'd love to be wrong on this.
Gabe, In all absolute Honesty, you are right here. I'm not afraid to admit it either. I humbly call it "losing the faith." My co-workers and I each know exactly when this occured. For me, it was with the Xbox 360 launch of Tomb Raider:Legend. The very *last* game I payed full price for. Why? Because it was the 3rd straight 360 game release I had purchased at full price that took me less then 8 hours to complete. Thats *NOT* a game release, thats a damn rental, and a BAD rental at that. Call of Duty 3, hyped up to no end... THREE FUCKING HOURS to beat. THREE HOURS!?!?!? Are they KIDDING me?!?! I dont care HOW "pretty" it is, 3 hours is nothing but a joke Treyarch took all the way to the fucking bank.
It seems to be a trend with the 360 thus far, either the game is absolute garbage, (Full Auto, Bomberman etc) or is a decent/great game... that you can completely clear in 1 or 2 days. (Gears of War, Dead Rising)
In fact, off the top of my head, there is really only ONE game released for 360 thus far that takes more then a few days to clear, has MASSIVE replay value, and is incredible to play. Yup, you guessed it. Elder Scrolls 4 - Oblivion.
ONE game.. ONE. That saddens me to no end. Now, with the upcoming releases of Bio-Shock, Blue Dragon and Command and Conquer 3, Im hoping this trend of garbage is at it's end. We can only hope.
And with all honesty.. the PS3, despite its "zOmG! Blu-RAY" massive disc space... they still have nothing but crappy games you can clear in 1 day. Its fuckin depressing. Yeah, they just got a PORT of Oblivion.. yay.. a port. A copy of the 360 version. Thats *not* a PS3 release. And the way Im hearing it, Sony is losing all of its Exsclusive game titles, now the latest rumor is Metal Gear is going to be on 360. That was PS3's biggest selling point early on. If they lose that.. *shrug*
Oh, and allow me to close with this, I've *always* supported Penny Arcade. In fact, in almost every other mainstream issue, I'm right there with T. This one though, I just have to stand on the opposite side of the fence, but dont think for a second it means I think any less of PA! I'll just agree to Disagree! :P
Any. Thing.
This is a point I largely agree with. I'm not saying games aren't art but I am saying that for the most part, it seems silly to me to enshrine a mass produced game that plenty of other people played even if I enjoyed it. Unless I'm going to play it again I don't see the point of holding onto it unless there are some really special memories associated with it. The DVD's I own are movies or shows that I want to watch again. I don't buy movies that I enjoyed but wouldn't want to watch repeatedly, that's asinine to me.
Let's be realistic here. Nothing has particularly changed in this regard. Back in the old days a game could be finished in an hour or two, and they extended that by making them unforgivingly difficult so you'd have to play the same sections over and over again before you were good enough to win. These days excessive content repetition is looked down on so games have forgiving save systems, allowing you to cruise through a singleplayer campaign in relatively little time. The lasting appeal is extended with replayability like unlockables or multiplayer. You shouldn't expect a game to last you a long time if you speed through to the end and never play it again. If you don't want to blow money on short experiences then don't - save the cash for games with more lasting value. It's no worse than it ever was.
The ones that trade off the whole of their games are usually the casual ones, who far outnumber the devoted ones, hence, pile of cash for Gamestop. Before that, they probably just wound up stacking the discs away in a corner, trashing them, or yard selling them.
I'll only trade something in if I know I'll never play it again, and even then, only if it's actually worth something. I'd never trade in something for $1.
Whaaaaat? Two hours?
Zelda
Zelda 2
Kid Icarus
Metroid
Metroid 2
Metroid 3 (OK, a really skilled player can do it in under three hours)
Metal Gear
Metal Gear 2
Final Fantasy
Final Fantasy 2
Now I will give you that some games, mainly action-y titles like Contra or Double Dragon, could be finished in that time IF you were an expert player. And the main challenge in those games was learning how to use your moves and then learning how to use them and which ones to use against specific enemies. So yeah, while you could blitz through Castlevania 1 in just a few hours, there's no fucking way that you'd be able to do that as a new player. Using "learning takes time" as a way to make the game longer is not bad. If anything, it's actually good, because it means that you're spending time actually being challenged and learning the game mechanics, instead of just being told "OK you win" every time you do anything.
Yes, some old games were abusively hard for no good reason. On the other hand, some new games are stupidly easy. Both are bad.
I think volas is saying that most people don't enjoy having to do a lot of "learning" in order to succeed at a game.
Yeah, if something isn't worth replaying, then it's probably not something that you really liked or appreciated for whatever reason. If you watch a movie once and never want to see it again, owning it is wasteful. Everything I have in my collection has been used multiple times, except for maybe one or two things that I thought would be good but just turned out to be shit.
I hardly ever replay games, but I like keeping them just so that I have them.
And also just in case I ever do.
Actually when I moved about 3 years ago I went thru all my game boxes, took the discs and manuals out, and threw out all the boxes - mostly PC games, those old big boxes too. The CDs don't take up much room, but no way was I moving a huge pile of carboard boxes...
like when my dad gave me his old atari
Yeah, I've got a bunch of old PC games I never play anymore but the cd's take up little room so I haven't bothered to throw them out yet. Perhaps I'll sell some of them on Ebay for a few bucks some day.
That is basically a long-term rental.
I prefer to buy only games that are really good; games I'd play YEARS later when the graphics and sound are complete ass by current standards. In fact, there are some games that I look at and there's this bittersweet feeling, like "oh man that game is so cool but I don't even have a 3.5 drive with which to install it, or a proper DOS machine (or emulator) on which I could run it."
I would have played the Quest For Glory series last year if I had had such a setup.
No no no. Hold on.
I'm talking from the time you take it home, unwrap it, and put it in the Nintendo to the time you beat the game. That's NOT a couple of hours. I'm not the best game-player in the whole wide world, but I didn't Super Mario Brothers in three hours! Not even close! Now, once I got good at it and had beaten it a few times and knew where the warp pipes were, yeah. I could go back and beat it in a short period of time. But you're ignoring the amount of time that it took you to get that good in the first place.
That's the point of his argument Defender.
Games back then were a lot shorter, so they made up for it by being a lot harder so it would take you longer to reach the end.
So you're saying you can tell just by looking at a game that you'll be playing it years down the road? Because that's a pretty lofty claim.