Looking back on it, you were told to imply that, or to call people, dictators is "out of line".
http://www.computerforum.com/191657-console-vs-computer-3.html
I am telling you now to not post labelling any other member as such just for having a different opinion.
To try and blame the recession for awful games when companies such as Valve, Mojang and Blizzard are putting out some excellent games and still making a tidy profit is clearly not true, because, as I say, a lot of games companies are making money by not grinding out shoddy games at a rate of knots, and instead taking their time and having quality over quantity.
And yes, it is the casual gamer that don't realise this because they don't play a large amount of games so they don't see that what they are playing has been done before, however now that they have had CoD4, WaW, MW2 and BLOPs, which are exact copies of each other, the realisation that they are getting stitched up will begin to be obvious and coD will fall flat on it's backside, crawl into a corner and die a sad, lonely life, hated by all but the modders that continue to make the good games (2, 4 and WaW) half decent by keeping it original
Ah, yes! Thank you for pointing that out! I do contradict myself sometimes, and again did so in my previous post. And I have been a little pig-headed in my previous posts, as well.
Anyways, I found a paragraph basically (kind of?) agreeing with what I stated earlier:
"The video gaming industry has grown rapidly in the last two decades, with striking similarities to the movie business. Large publishing houses (production studios) support development studios (writers, directors, artists, etc.) through a long development cycle (filming and editing), during which a game (movie) makes no money. At the end of development, the publisher (production studio) licenses the game for distribution, promoting it in magazines, and reaping most of the revenue. However, if a game fails to sell well, the publisher will not recoup its initial investment. Mindful of this fact, dominant publishers such as Activision Blizzardand Electronic Arts (ERTS) have largely stayed to a simple formula - develop successful concepts for game franchises, and then launch a series of sequels."
-WIKI ANALYSIS
Now I have the utmost respect for Blizzard. In the quality of qualites, Blizzard IS the quality, the Rolls Royce, or porcelain, if you will, of the gaming industry. Blizzard painstakingly spends years creating a game by hand, it seems, changing the interface, the story, even the gameplay, in the best interest of the game, and, in probably the majority of eyes, is perfection once competed. However, there is a reason Activision purchased Blizzard. That article tends to agree with that I stated earlier about how in a recession, game companies are less willing to take risks with new and edgy games, because often, they just don't make money. Now that is one article, of course, but it is a completely possible, and a more in depth answer than, "blame casual gamers", or "companies are just over-corporated" or "commercialized". It just isn't that simple. As of now, it's more of a race to keep from losing money, not to keep making it, if you see what I mean.
Also, I believe our opinions on "casual" gamers are quite different. From what I gather, you believe a casual gamer is a person whom plays one game or few games, consistantly. Am I correct? I believe a casual gamer is more someone who probably rents a game, beats it, returns the game, and repeats. I myself am a hardcore gamer in the sense that I was in a clan in CoD, played some MLG games, my k/d spread was and still is rediculous, and played at least 8 hours a day. I played the hell out of SoF back in the day, and even made it into the AMW clan. Now here is where I believe the line gets vague with "casual". By defintion, "A casual game is a video game targeted at or used by a mass audience of casual gamers. Casual games can have any type of gameplay, and fit in any genre.
They are typically distinguished by their simple rules and lack of commitment required in contrast to more complex hardcore games." That doesn't sound like CoD, definitely not say, Fallout, to me. That maybe sounds like a Facebook game, such as Farmville, an Xbox Live Arcade game, Xbox Kinect game, or an iPod app, Andriod app, etc.
The person I see as a casual gamer is a buddy of mine on my friends list who has over 50,000 Gamerpoints on Xbox Live, and I'm at 10,000, I think? He rents every game, beats it, rents another game,and sometimes buys a used copy that he deems is good enough for replay. How is someone, such as myself, a casual gamer when I consistantly play and strive to win and gain skill in a few select games, such as CoD, or Starcraft 2, for example. There are HUGE leagues for both of these games, that do require quite a bit of skill. Not that I don't play many games. I do rent from time to time, however, many games do not peak my interest as a good FPS or RTS, can. Do you understand where I'm coming from?
Possibly one of two things will happen. Console games will decline, because, sure, after a while, these overproduced games will get old, and, PC gaming could quite possibly claim king again, rinse and repeat. Or, with the new technologies available, there will soon be a huge breakthrough in console gaming, even PC gaming. Why continue to bash gaming groups, when there is no evidence to prove that one group of gamers caused a stagnation in games? Gaming itself is a very young industry. There is no telling where it will go. It's been almost 15 years since Goldeneye was produced. We've made a hell of a leap in gaming with that short amount of time.
"Casual" gamers don't go out and buy games thinking, "I can't wait to help finance this overproduced game". The majority of gamers buy a sequel to a game, because, well, the previous version was great. Innovative? Debatable at best. Do they know their $60 their about to spend will be well spent with a game variant they know and love? Yes. If you're going to accuse the CoD franchise for being overproduced, you should probably look back into the so called "golden days" of games, when Mario was (and still is) most definitely overproduced. Mario is so famous because the creator stuck to the same old side scrolling, 2D animation that he knew would never fail for years. Using the same concept, just each new game had a new story line, new characters, etc. Even with Mario going 3D, Mario games are still produced side scrolling style, just with new graphics. Metroid is a similar example. This is why I believe sticking with the tried and true method for a little while doesn't do harm, and probably helps Activision and similar companies develop new technology or game engines with their huge profits.
