Eirinn :

I don't want change being confused with neccessairly completely changing up a game's formula which would only work if the developers know what they're doing. A game can stick with one style of gameplay and do that really well and have an audience for it, an example of that working really well is Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, which enhanced previous aspects in the series and made them even more enjoyable. I'm more bothered by the fact that many other games don't really progress the series in any way at all or even just feeling like plain downgrades of their previous installments like with Assassins Creed.

In regards to the supply and demand point, I definietly do think consumers are part of the problem here, of course it wouldn't exist if some people didn't buy into to these things, I'm more referring to the way developers try to directly take advantage of consumers again Ubisoft a prime example of this... With how some employ microtransactions knowing people playing a popular PVP oriented game may be easily influenced to buy into it just to gain an advantage over other people because they want to feel superior in similar way to how more or less most of the mobile gaming market is based on it though not as severe. These companies do still take advantage of consumers knowing that they're doing so and while of course they do need to make money, this is often the time things they don't really need to implement as these companies are usually already hugely succesful but do it anyway to squeeze every last bit of cash they can out of something. I feel like reviewing sites are also a big part here, with many of them being bribed/pressured by big game companies to give their games high scores against an effect of greed among these big companies and many of the sites do indeed have a huge impact on sales.

I'm definietly not against the whole notion of DLC I stated that as well. DLC in the way it is meant to work, adding extra bits of content to an already finished product can be a great thing especially when you really enjoy a game. I'm more bothered by other things like you said, launch day DLC, in particular when this DLC often feels like something that should've been part of the original game, preorder or collector's edition exclusive DLC (which kinds of works along side trying to force preorders by players) or things like skins or even micro transactions, that take little to no actual effort to make but you're still charged outrageous prices for.

Either way I know this is something that has always existed since movies and video games became a widespread thing. The reason it bothers me aside from the obvious things, is that it seems like in particular to the later things I stated that this greed is increasing, and I feel it hurts the industry as a whole not just the games. Like with how supposedly former Ubisoft, Konami employees etc. have come out and said they treat their employees essentially as slaves to keep the one year release cycles up making them work outrageous hours not because it's key to their success but because they want to earn as much as possible and while this bahavior may not be emulated by every single major video game company it does seem like it's something that's increasing.

But, although so many gamers state "they want change" I think this isn't too true. Imagine shelling out high dollar for the newest Pokemon adventure, only to find out this version isn't battling, but about being Nurse Joy. Yeah. You ALL just shuddered. Could one think of popping in their favorite Call of Duty and, to their dismay, instead of a FPS, it's a game mostly themed like an RPG, or they took out guns and give you only your fists? A big fat NO! So please, I beg of you folks. Cashing in? Oh of course, any corporation would. But we all know we want what's safe and cozy and familiar, because anything else would be uncomfortable.

manicman66 : I adressed the point about change not being what people want in my last post again, though I'm thinking since so many people have posted about it, I should reformulate my initial post too.

Eirinn : I agree with that as well. They may as well delay the release date if they are wanting to add extra content 3 weeks later. Also Merry Christmas. I won't be able to say that tomorrow.

Don't buy into the AAA movies and games then! There's plenty of indie game/movies and games/movies that aren't indie but are from lesser known companies that don't do the carbon copy thing.

As I get older, I find myself liking games and movies that are good and not just popular.

Zlinqx : I can agree with that. There are reasons which we can see at this point. Things are different now. I can adapt to it. But I still think there are some areas that they need to cover to make it look better. I am sure that you can understand that. :/

Well that is true. And the only real issue we seem to disagree on much here is that the corporations are being dirty or underhanded to put these deals out there because it takes advantage of people's willingness to throw their money away on dumb stuff that they don't need to enjoy their gaming. But the fact is it's not really any different than the fact that I can buy (odd comparison from a vegetarian) enough shrimp to make a few meals for a few dollars at the store or go to Red Lobster and dish out ten bucks or more for a single serving of them.

Or better yet, the entire entertainment industry. None of us NEED games, but most of us are all too happy to throw $20-$60 at a developer when a new game that we really want is released. It's the same with these cheap deals devs throw out there: they put out something because some people want it. It isn't dirty because the customer doesn't have any need to pay them for it, they just know they can if they want to.

Perhaps a good example would be how my nephew got Disney Infinity for Christmas and I actually enjoy it a lot. Now I fully plan to buy a few more figurines for it, but I don't have to just because they make them. This exploitative DLC and franchise milking is all a matter of choice.

One more example because I am long winded. Lol
If you're injured in a car crash with a drunk driver, can you blame the maker of the alcohol he/she drank? They didn't make him/her drink it, nor did they make him/her drive after becoming intoxicated. They simply made a product and he/she failed to use it responsibly.


Now my issue with it is when companies blatantly TRY to force you into buying into micro transactions or, forgive me Vizzed, things like Nintendo's hardware procedure of "3ds. 3dsXL. New3ds. New 3dsXL. New3dsLL". They release a product knowing full well it isn't what they want it to end up being and then alter it later so you'll buy it. And adding new buttons? That's FORCING you to buy a new one if you want to be able to play all of the games that are made to run on the hardware that you've already played. Now that kind of stuff bothers me, but optional content? Nah. I figure it's up to us to spend responsibly. Besides, if I'm willing to throw $1,000 out for skins, weapon boosts, etc. I'll probably just blow the money on some other stupid stuff if that isn't available. Bad with money is bad with money.

Again, not saying I'm right. Just saying that's how I see it.

Eirinn : I suppose so. I can see your point since I still do think the consumers are to blame for a big part of it. But I still feel the tactics the developers use here to get you to buy a lot of the games, DLC packs etc can be really dirty, and in particular when it comes pressuring review sites. Yes just because those reviewers gives the game a good review doesn't mean you're forced to buy the games but they mislead you into thinking you're getting something better than you actually are, that is where my problem stem from, and I don't feel that it's fair to the consumer. 

Sure wanting companies to completely stop taking advantage of how easy it is to manipulate people into buying these kinds of things is probably being naive but I at least don't think blatant examples of it happening which is something that there are many of in the gaming industry is something that should be defended and not actively criticized and spoken out against. I suppose this is still a clash of ideals, but the fact of the matter is if these companies didn't go out of their way to try and make as much money as possible and stepping on their fans if they have to, there wouldn't be a problem either, that's the way I view it.

I can respect that.

Also I agree that game companies shouldn't be allowed to pay reviewers (and they do) to review their games. That pressures the reviewer into giving a better review than the game deserves and so gives the consumers the wrong idea. And honestly I think all this hype is why every single major GoTY winner in recent history (excluding Shadow of Mordor) has won the awards. I mean seriously, SoM is the only one that looks like a good game, let alone the best game of the whole year. GoTY is a joke.

The only pay a reviewer should get is from the company whose publications they write for. Anything else leads to deceit.

Strange place for such a discussion...

Anyway, if gaming companies keep "cashing in" it is because they are supplying a demand, simple as that. It might not supply YOUR demand but they seem to be for a majority of their audience. If you want things to change, you either need to patronize a company that catters to YOUR needs or create your own game and sell it.