[ad_1]
A reader argues that many of the problems in the games industry are caused by gamers not being willing to try new games and insisting on digital over physical purchases.
The potential decline in gaming is in big part due to (casual) gamers, in my opinion. I know, I know not a controversial statement at all, but hear me out.
A lot of people who play games just play the same game, or newest iteration of it, each year. That means that other newer or more interesting and innovative games lose out on sales and the cash, therefore studios are much less likely to invest in them in the future.
If it is not another EA Sports FC game or Call Of Duty, many don’t care to check them out. To be fair, studios making money on those games means that they can invest in different games, but most just seem to put out the same thing, albeit slightly updated and then rinse and repeat the following year.
Whilst successful in their own right, imagine if some of the more innovative games of this year, i.e. Unicorn Overlord or Metaphor: ReFantazio got the attention of those annual update release games. Yes, other games do break through the haze sometimes, like Black Myth: Wukong, but many do not.
However, the bigger issue, I believe, is that gamers have readily embraced digital gaming, even though it provides much more benefit to the games publishers than to the gamer. The whole instant gratification thing has led to a lot of people having no patience. Why are people so desperate to play that new, single-player game the instant it releases, or even now pre-downloading it so that you don’t miss out on those vital few minutes to play it as soon as possible.
Besides that, what benefit does it provide? Don’t have to get up off the couch to change discs? Finding storage space for the games? I see digital gaming’s place for older games from previous console generations, that are hard to pick up, or for Indie games, but for AAA or even AA games I don’t get it. I know that I am likely to be in the minority with this thinking.
Another benefit of physical games is that most of the time, at release, I can get newer games $20-$30 (AUD) cheaper on physical disc than on digital store fronts. Shouldn’t it be the other way around since the digital version is cheaper for the publisher?
Even with recent Black Friday sales I saw way better discounts on physical versions of recent games than digital. If all physical games stopped being released, publishers would have less incentive to discount their digital games due to lack of competition and so all gamers would end up losing out.
Excluding those always online single-player games, or those that require a connection the first time you play/install them games (I am looking at you Ubisoft) physical games also mean that you always have access to the game and are able to play it, which we have discovered recently is not always the case with digital games.
So, this embrace of digital gaming, even though seemingly convenient for many right now is likely to lead to players having much less control over their gaming in the future.
And the less said about how the game subscription services may affect the long term variety of games in the future, the better. But many people also embrace this, because for them, in the here and now, it is a good deal for them. I do get that for some people on a budget it might be their only way to play a variety of games over the course of a year.
To finish up, I guess the gist of what I am trying to say is that, in my opinion, if gamers do not wish the video game industry to be worse off in the future, some of the choices currently being made might need to be reconsidered.
By reader Sigmar
The reader’s features do not necessarily represent the views of GameCentral or Metro.
You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. Just contact us at [email protected] or use our Submit Stuff page and you won’t need to send an email.
[ad_2]
Source link
