GRANDIZER

@fustacluck:

I am not saying that "people don't have a mind of their own," I am saying that people are not using their minds. They are simply parroting what media tells them.

The Microsoft X1 conference DID in fact use Kinect / Voice controls to switch from TV to a game and vice versa. You are not remembering the event correctly.

I am NOT defending Microsoft. I admit, their messaging about Used Games and Always Online Media were not clear. What I AM saying however is that everyone who wants Microsoft employees to be burned at the stake for doing so needs to just "calm down." Seriously! How many other game companies etc... have presented mixed messages in the past? Has there EVER been anywhere NEAR this level of Universal HATRED for them?!?! I think since this instance happens to be Microsoft specifically people just use the opportunity to shit all over them. . . simply because it is socially expectable to do so. That is pretty idiotic and sad. (and Why is it that shitting on Microsoft is "socially exceptable" anyways?)

Also, for those of you who think that Sony (or anyone else) will NOT implement "Always Online Digital Only Media," think again. ALL game manufacturers, developers, etc... are going to do this in the future. It is ONLY a matter of time. The reason why this is happening is because of a lot of reasons. (Software Piracy, Used Game Sales at Gamestop, Media Journalists stating that they want it repeatedly, etc...)

So, Good Job guys!! Now the rest of us will have this forced upon us as the result of all your bullshit. To all of you that say, "Well, Microsoft / Sony / everyone else, has to 'make this right!'" No they don't. And guess what, they WON'T! They will make as much money as they possibly can. The End. Also, it is NOT their "fault" for trying to make money! If you don't like their policy - don't buy their products ! (I am of course making the point about ALL game manufacturers. NOT just Microsoft. They ALL have this policy. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise.)

Here's a news flash for y'all. Making games is hard work. It takes effort and when some little punk decides to just copy someone else's hard work (AKA - Steal it) instead of paying for it, I find it very hard to argue with a company that wants to take steps to prevent that kind of obscenity from taking place.

There is also the issue of used game sales. Used Game Sales are a great thing! It is really too bad that business wants to stop it altogether, but again - Making games is hard work. It requires a LOT of manpower, time, and money. Every used game sale is money being "lost" from the developer that made the game. That means (ultimately) that people lose their jobs. Both sides of that argument have good points. Always Online Content / Digital Only Media is the natural result of all this. It is too bad for us (the consumers) but what can you do other than make your own games and game consoles?

As for the "tin-foil hat" remark. I deserve that.

At the same time however, there IS universal hatred of Microsoft (for some odd reason) When you said that "you won't have to go far to find a journalist that is supportive of Microsoft," I have to disagree. G4 TV may be the ONLY ones that are really saying ANYTHING that is even REMOTELY positive.

So I have to ask myself, "Why is that?"

I just can’t believe the level of Xbox / Microsoft hatred on this website and on game critic sites in general. I guess it is just the “cool thing to do,” so people just universally accept that “Microsoft is wrong” just in general, about ALL things, simply because Microsoft is Microsoft. Well, that and the fact that people DO NOT want to actually THINK for themselves.

That being said:

Microsoft has given mixed messages to its audience as a result of its X1 press conference. So (Alex & everyone who agrees with him), because Microsoft has apparently not determined what its message about these certain topics is (as of yet) regarding hardware that has YET TO BE RELEASED – we should all be indignant?

Wow! I can’t believe what would happen if I made the mistake of cutting one of you off in traffic, or perhaps gave you the wrong change for a $20 bill. You would probably be advocating for Nuclear War at that point.

And there is this other crap on this forum that the X1 is “not made for gamers” ??? Seriously?

No yeah, you are totally right. A game console that is NOT made to play games. I totally get your point. ( ß sarcasm) Please ! Do I even have to point out why that statement is ridiculous?

I also wanted to state that while “hard-core gamers” (whatever the hell THAT means) may not be interested in using a “game console” to also watch TV/browse the Internet on their TV/multi-task media, a significant portion of the population of the planet is. . . . . sorry. This will probably translate to many more people deciding to buy the X1 rather than the PS4 simply because when they look at the two systems they see one that is a game system/blueray player and the other which is a game system/blueray player/voice activated universal remote control. It literally IS that simple of a decision for them.

A much more interesting discussion is this one regarding what platform developers develop for first. I tend to agree with the argument that states “developers develop for the lowest-common-denominator” first, and then port their games to the other consoles. I believe we all witnessed this during this “last” generation of 360 vs PS3. Developers tended to favor the 360 and then port to the PS3. This seems to the be the case again with the X1 and PS4. That is what I bet will happen again this time around.

What I really think is that game critics around the internet actually believe that Microsoft is on the verge of total console dominance and so therefore are trying (very hard as of late) to discredit Microsoft using their websites. They are ALL doing this. (Seriously, I have not seen/read one article that is even remotely positive regarding the X1. Why is that? No one has even really used the thing at all yet!)

So, why are they doing this? Because (I believe) game critics are fearful of (yet another) a market that is totally dominated by Microsoft. Since the market is already pretty barren that means that people need a lot LESS journalists to cover games. Therefore, game journalists are trying to get you consumers out there to buy the PS4 (or whatever other systems there are) in order to maintain employment. Let’s face it – game websites benefit from a diverse marketplace. Developers will develop for whatever systems are on the market. It doesn’t really matter to them if there was only one. In fact, they would probably LOVE the idea of ONLY having to develop for one console. That decreases the amount of nonsense that they have to go through in order to publish a game.

Ok – I’ve ranted enough I think.

Thank you to those who read this.

Hello Ravenlight.

Thank you for the feedback.

I don't have the same issue with the line breaks. That must be because I copied from Word into the Blog Post. Sorry about tha. .. er, I mean. . . . dat's da way GRANDZ do hiz pizz-ziz-zosts y'all. Deal !!

EDIT: Thank you again for the feedback.

Yes, you bring up a good point. I am sure that Joe Of Duty will simply just want more of the same. (in general) But, I do not think that developers should be relying on consumers to give them the next best idea. I mean, Developers play their own games and everyone else's games as well. I think that they ultimately come to the same conclusions that the rest of us do. (Just, y'know speaking really generally here.) I think the reason why developers iterate to death is based on profit and not because it is the game that they want to make. (I believe this is what you were saying as well.)

So I guess my point is that Developers only innovate as a result of the fact that people become bored with a franchise eventually. In other words, when sales of Call of Duty fall below a "X" (whatever X is) then a new product is produced. No amount of consumers telling the Developers that they should focus on producing a new game will make that developer produce a new game. The developer will produce a new game only once their current title ceases to be profitable.

So is it the comsumer's fault for lack of innovation? No, I don't believe so, because ultimately Call of Duty: Modern Warfare N will be a really good game. People will still buy it and the developer will want to develop the sequel because it continues to make them money. I guess in my mind, good games sell regardless even if they are sequels. Innovation happens (in my opinion) as a result of Developers taking risk, because they themselves want to innovate. Consumers want new games but we can't expect people to not play good games in order to force the industry to re-invent the wheel.

My comment on what Manveer wrote was basically to this effect. I believe that consumers do know what they want and more than that; I believe that Developers know what consumers want too. It is just that people always follow the path of least resistance. I can't really fault a company for making money off a franchise that many people enjoy. I do understand your point though. I am not saying that you are wrong either.

I guess I am just writting down my thoughts. WOw! This whole "Blogging" thing is really theraputic. I just feel bad that I have nothing of real value to contribute. Oh wait! Here's something. . . . . Never drink Milk mixed with Mustard. There we go. Problem Solved!

Hello to anyone

(if anyone) that is actually reading this. Thank you for reading it.

WARNING!!! The contents of said Blog Post DO NOT contain any information that could in ANY WAY be useful . . . . . to anyone.

Anyways, I really wanted to comment on Patrick's article/email conversation with Manveer concerning the state of game reviews, review scores and criticism of games. After wrting this whole thing I realized that it can be all summarized by saying that "I believe Developers/Publishers need to stop blaming critics for bad reviews. Also, above all else, Reviewers must be open and honest about the game that they review and the process that they use in order to review it." At least, they have to maintain their honesty if they intend to keep thier subscribers.

So anyways, if you want to kill some time please read the poorly formulated thought diarea below.

I think the main thing(s) that I wanted to say is that publishers/developers have to own up to and be honest about the fact that the reason why they dislike game reviews is because poor game reviews result in games that do not sell well, and therefore a loss of profits for the publisher/developer. That is the reason, plain and simple. All this talk and dancing around that issue is just insincere rhetoric and/or propaganda. Developers do not like it when their livelihood is

threatened by poor reviews of their product. I do not fault them for wanting to at least try to figure out some way to coax reviewers into giving their

particular product good press. The fact is however that bad games receive bad reviews and good games receive good reviews. (generally speaking that is) If

your game stinks then the reviews of your game will most likely reflect that. I would go as far to say that Developers know that their game is bad WAY in

advance of the game's actual release, and either cannot improve upon it for some reason or choose not to. The same thing can be said for individual pieces

of any game. There are a lot of really good games that still have that one thing about them that is poorly executed.

My point with all this nonsense is that developers should stop blaming reviewers/critics for their game not selling well. It is not the reviewers' fault that your game is not well received. (that is, if in fact a game did not sell well) I do not know of any games that were so incredibly good, to the point of being a religious experience, that ended up not selling well. Ultimately consumers dictate what they want. What do they want? They want games that are fun and engaging. Which leads me to a beef that I had with something that Manveer wrote.

Manveer wrote that (I am paraphrasing here) consumers don't even know what they want. That statement sort of got under my skin. Maybe it is just the way he wrote it. Maybe what he meant to write was something like, "Most consumers do not understand what is possible to accomplish in a game given the hardware/software that developers are forced to work with. They do not understand that when we simply inerate on a sequel to a game that we are therefore sacraficing innovation on a new and different game feature." I don't think that is what he intended though. So, if I take his statement at face value it seems to imply that all gamers are just mindless drones that lap up whatever developers put in front of them. Sort of making the point, "If we just TELL consumers what

to like they will like it." That kind of mentality just rubs me wrong man. He also went on to wrote something like consumers are not forward thinkers and

that they are not considering ways games can innovate, or something. That is just plain wrong. I can only speak for myself and those that I discuss games

with, but I have never come across anyone that plays games that does not have some kind of idea as to how games or a particular game can be improved upon.

There is no way that anyone can know that I am telling the truth about this, but I can honestly say that I predicted certain industry trends that are just

now today coming into existence. I predicted these recent "game innovations" like 10 years ago, as I am certain that a number of other consumers have as

well. I'm not saying that I am some kind of genius or anything. I am sure that millions of people came to the same conclusions that I did 10 years ago as

well. I am just saying that consumers are not merely thoughtless piles of money to be harvested. Any number of gamers probably have countless ideas about games in general.

I think Game Review Sites have to at least acknowledge the tremendous power they have over the market, and exercise caution in the use of that power. The internet is glorious and abhorrent all at once. This idiotic blog post is evidence of this. I mean, the fact that I can write this post and share it with anyone who wants to waste their time reading it is amazing and terrible at the same time. (By the way - My apologies to anyone who is reading this.) Game reviewers (I think) know that their reviews ultimately promote or dissuade at least some portion of sales. I believe that a reviewer takes the necessary time to prove their point if they conclude that a game is "bad". I think most reviews go on at length about a games faults more often than they do about a games good points simply because the reviewer is pressured to prove their opinion/statement about a game being "bad" rather than when their opinion of a game is favorable. But anyways, point being that any one review does not make or break any game. Consumers frequent game reviews because games are freakin' expensive and also because there is no way that most consumers can actually play a game to make their own determination about it without actually purchasing it in the first place.

If developers (in general) are genuinely upset with the way that their games are being represented by game critics then they should all make a concerted effort to

release Demos of their games to the public before releasing their games at retail so people can make up their own minds, rather than relying on review sites. We, as consuymers, know that this is not the case based upon our observations. We all know that if a review of a game comes out BEFORE the games retail release then it is most likely a good game, or at least a game that the developers believe is good. If a game's review is not published before its release then we can most likely assume that the developer in question did not send a completed copy of a game to reviewers purposefully because they believe that the reviewer will give the game a poor review, because they have been developing the game for years and they know that it is not good.

@artofwar420:
Yep, I realized that the hard way.

 
Still trying to figure out how this site works. .  . . . um. . . yo.