I'm done with big main-stream games

[Gambit37]

I was looking forward to Dying Light 2, having sunk many hours into the original. But I learned that it includes Denuvo anti-tamper, and as I don't buy games that include that tech, the decison not to buy DL2 was made for me. Few other main stream games appeal to me these days, plus I have little time to invest in big games anway. I'm pretty sure I'm done with all that now.

It sounds weird, but It feels like a relief. My PC is old now, just an i5 processor from 7 years ago, with a GTX-970 card (that probably wouldn't have played Dying Light 2 anyway). I wanted to upgrade, but the current situation with overpriced GPUs made that impossible too. So I just added a NVME SSD boot drive and boosted the RAM, which has helped with my hobby projects overall.

Now I'm kinda looking forward to deleting all my heavyweight Steam games, and only leaving the smaller, simpler indie games on there. I recently put together a small, low powered server for hosting our Sonos music, and as a master store for the family photos. Maybe I'll put Steam on there too, and just play the indie stuff on the TV rather than my main PC. I've not owned a modern console for over 20 years, doubt I will ever -- although as my little boy grows up, perhaps I'll have to relent on that...

Overall I've realised I'm pretty tired trying to keep up with modern gaming: I just can't be bothered anymore.

Oh well, just some out-loud musing there! Interesting to hear if any of the rest of you have gone through this as you've got older?

[Prince of Elves]

I never bothered about getting into that upgrade war in the first place. Started gaming (well: again, after my Atari ST days) with the GameCube when it was already clear that it won't be the current one for much longer - and I got a PS2 when PS3 was almost making way for PS4...

Started PC gaming only recently because I never had the nerve to dig through all the hardwares (and to pay for them, too). Only got into it because someone put a gaming engine together -initially for himself, but sold it to me soon after. Now I'm playing a few of those heavyweight titles, but to be honest, I don't get it.

I think it started with the late Cube era games (at least I noticed it back then) that developers thought they could throw out insane graphics and not bother anymore with actual gaming mechanics. I understand that high level graphics (and even more: cutscenes) use loads of resources in the development, both in time and money, but if that's the case, I feel like they should cut the graphics short and rather do a proper game first. If anything's left over after that, I'll take nice views on top, but not the other way round.

Also, with the highspeed internet and TB discs being pretty much standard these days, some developers don't even bother to put any effort in keeping the games small. An insane example is Ark (though I'm guilty of excessively playing that one ). With that one, it's not unusual to get patches of 10GB.

So, to sum it up: it's fun for a while to play high end games, but most aren't worth it... And I prefer a good game even if the graphics aren't as polished as in AAA titles.

[Ameena]

I've had my current computer since 2014, I think. It's rather slow these days but still does the job - I can still play the games I want even if some of them take a minute or two to load...like Ark, which I've been "excessively playing" too, by some strange coincidence, with some random Internet weirdo whom I managed to persuade to get it so I would have someone to play with and therefore be able to do more with it (over 1000 hours later we're still going...) .

Anyway, yeah, mostly I don't go for the really high-spec games. I still replay stuff from previous decades, and plenty of newer stuff that's really low-spec - Caveblazers, for example, which is my third-most-played game on Steam at over 600 hours, cost about £6.99 and is a pixelly-graphic'd, mostly "Rogue-like" platformer. I'm partway through Assassin's Creed Odyssey and ened to get back to that at some point but lately have been back into Path of Exile for perhaps the fourth or fifth time (I go through it again every couple of years or thereabouts and piles of new stuff has always been added/changed). It's also been too many years since I replayed Morrowind again so I should have another run-through of that at some point. In fact I don't even think I've installed it on this computer, which indicates at least how long it's been since I last played it.

Generally I find too many more modern game focus too much on looking pretty, to the detriment of stuff like the controls, gameplay, UI, etc. I don't care how photo-realistic the graphics are supposed to be, I just want to have fun. If it looks nice, that's just a bonus (which Ark certainly does - I've spent the last few years slowly working through screenshots I've taken in it as my desktop wallpaper) .

[Prince of Elves]

Lol, never considered myself as... random.

[cowsmanaut]

I had to upgrade to work for Mohawk Games.. my CPU at that point was over 10 years old and the GPU was about 5 or so years old. Some of you already know that the Dev tools are often slower than the game will run on it's own so I needed the extra beef to make it go. I figured it a good chance to get some of the newer titles and play them with the settings on max but really, aside from having nearly zero free time anyway, I didn't find that the most tech thrown at a title meant the game itself was worth while. More often lately I notice most games are trying that game delivery model where you get it portioned out to you for a price.. it's not pizza.. it's a game. Don't sell me one slice at a time.. I pay for the game.. I get the whole game. Or, they say.. ok.. you have to pay for as long as you use it. This is also not a long distance call.. I paid for a game.. I get the game.. forever. Sheesh.

I got Halo infinite recently and while I enjoyed it for the most part, it felt not terribly full. Like there was missing content. Playing only occasionally for an hour or so, I got through it all in a week. There were side missions far apart from each other with mostly empty terrain between them. I spent a lot of time hunting down collectable items just to have something to do.

They took 4 years to make the game. Then, 5 months later they have another full collection of missions. They want the same I paid for the intial game, AND... you have to have the original game installed to play it. So clearly, this was made during those 4 years, the game was split up and they made a chunk as DLC.. Now I get.. 4 years is a long time to go without a paycheque.. and they claim it was budgeted at around $500 milllion. However with over 20million units sold at $60 a pop (this is all US) that's still more than double their budget in return.. and considering we all know they made the DLC around the same time and most of the time after has been patching and fixing issues.. they could have (minimum) offered the second season at half the price.. Especially when everyone is complaining that the game has barely anything to it. So, to me this is an example of why I may be spending a lot more time with indie titles, or just playing old games I missed (or replaying those I loved) .

I just Purchased Tunic and I'm hopeful that it will feel much more like money well spent.. we'll see though

[Ameena]

Yeah, little indy games you can get for a tenner or whatever can be sooo much better and more playable than some fancy-looking big-company thing that costs some stupid amount like fifty quid or whatever. I mean, I have about 750 hours in Caveblazers and that's only £6.99 when it's full price (there was a recent sale where it was 90% off, meaning it was reduced to just 69p, but I think it's gone back up again now) . And som games don't even cost that much - Path of Exile is completely free to play and while you can spend money on extra stuff, it's pretty much all cosmetics (skins to make your armour look fancy or whatever) with the exception of stuff to make your stash bigger. Which isn't exactly game-breaking, it just means you don't need to make a bunch of spare characters to hold stuff .

[cowsmanaut]

yeah, I opened Tunic today and played for an hour. Wow.. so far, very good. I also enjoy translating the text. (Nerd.. ) I always loved the runes in DM.. If anyone here is a lover of early zelda.. Tunic so far is making me feel the way I felt when I first played "Link to the past".. little indie games. Sigh.. they know what real games are

[Gambit37]

I've not played any games in over 6 months, indie, main-stream, or otherwise! And that doesn't bother me at all. I'm using my spare time now to get back into creative writing, and I love it

[Bit]

I lost the fun, when the resolution got higher and higher - but the monitor not bigger and so the icons vanished more and more. While aging, eyes don't become better.... I won't spam here, but I love the lovely artwork and the good software of the five-bn games (smart phone and table). Those are hidden object/escape room games with lots of more or less challeging mini-games inside. After all you don't need to buy coins in the f2p-versions, one rarely really needs hints, if you once get the idea. pen and paper for some notes are useful. No adverts inside and offline playable. It's more than fair. Also, walkthroughs are available, in text and video. Then - take a look where those little jewels come from. If you want to try, begin with 'Tricky Doors', 10 stories with 3 or 4 'rooms'. Their big stories usually got around 30 scenes and over 100 popups...

[Gambit37]

I recently watched this on Youtube and I thought it was a great summary of why modern gaming has got so bad. All the morre reason to stick to classic retro gaming and just indie games that channel the spirit of the golden age of video games:

What Went Wrong with Gaming?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g16heGLKlTA

[Prince of Elves]

Didn't watch the video yet, but I suppose it's what always happens when a niche thing hits the mass market. Or to quote my lady (talking about music - as consumer not producer): she "refuse[s] to bend to the dictatorship of the masses' bad taste"

[ChristopheF]

Very interesting video, it clearly identifies many of the reasons that made me stop playing most video games nowadays.
This triggered one question: do you think all these annoying ways of making money are here only to increase profit from games that are already profitable from their initial buying price, or are they necessary to actually pay for the creation of these games?
In other words, should all these manipulative tricks be removed from games, would the initial price of games increase so much that nobody would buy them anymore?

[Ameena]

So many game developers seem to think you can only get money by constantly charging people for extra stuff, rather than just buying the game once and that's it. Making the game moddable certainly helps. I mean, it's not like there have been any ridiculously popular games like that which have remained so after over a decade, like Minecraft or Skyrim...oh no, wait...

[jayrshaw]

I generally agree that the quality of new games has declined substantially during recent years, but I think the YouTube video focused too much on games which rely on microtransactions [to my knowledge, the inclusion of microtransactions in a game is still a dealbreaker for many gamers even today].

The used game market is at least as big a factor as microtransactions [particularly for non multiplayer games], so developers end up making games for more impulsive types of gamers who feel compelled to buy games when they are brand new, which usually results in developers focusing on flashy graphics which will look good in an advertisement and result in more impulsive purchases. The part of the market which is being excluded is more patient gamers who are willing to wait for games to sell at low prices in the used games market a couple of years after their initial release. The fact that there is already a huge number of excellent existing older games a person can play at any time makes it far easier for a person to be one of those patient gamers unless he/she is of the mentality that he/she absolutely must have the "next big thing" at or around the exact moment it is released....


--Jay

[Gambit37]

Do you think all these annoying ways of making money are here only to increase profit from games that are already profitable from their initial buying price, or are they necessary to actually pay for the creation of these games?
In other words, should all these manipulative tricks be removed from games, would the initial price of games increase so much that nobody would buy them anymore?

Interesting question! I don't know for certain, but my gut feeling is that most AAA games don't need extra or continual monetization, and even at their current selling price would still make a handsome profit for the studios. I think at this point it's pure greed.

In fact, comparatively, games are cheaper than ever when bought 12+ months after release. Dungeon Master was £29.99 when it came out in 1987, and I've not bought many games at that price in that last ten years! I usually wait until there's an early sale and get "new" games at 25%-50% off, or even years later you can get games for pennies on Steam and GOG. Of course, I'm a (cheap) old dinosaur, so for younger gamers who want the latest games as soon as they come out, the discussion would be quite different.

[Ameena]

Oh yeah, I don't like buying a game for more than about £20-25, so I'll happily wait a few years for the price to come down if it starts out at something stupid like £40 ot £50. Sod that.I also get a bunch of Steam vouchers for my birthday/Christmas every year so even when I do buy stuff there, I'm not even spending my own money (but I still usually wait for a sale or something) .

I know one example of "microtransactions done right" is Path of Exile - game is completely free to play and there's new stuff being added regularly - every three months...or is it six...they start a new league with new content added, but you can always play "Standard" which doesn't have the new stuff unless they add it there at a later date. You can spend real money but only on cosmetic things like skins for your gear/skills to change the graphics/make it all glowy and stuff. Also little pets that do nothing but follow you around (they have no abilities, can't fight/grab loot or anything). About the only thing you can spend money on that has any mechanical effect on your character is stash space, including specialised tabs for specific item types (since there's so much extra content now, each with their own unique currency items or whatever that can drop), bigger non-specialised tabs, the means to colour-code your stash tabs, stuff like that. And people will download the game, play it, enjoy it, and then be willing to spend money on that kind of stuff because they want to support the developer, or at least because they don't mind splashing out a bit to get some more space for their masses of loot or just want to reskin their gear to look like a flaming demon or a dude made of stars or whatever.

[Gambit37]

That sounds pretty weird to be honest. I've never played a game with micro-transactions and likely never will. To me, that's not what gaming is about at all. If all games end up going down that route, I'd never buy a new game again... but that suits me fine. I'm not very good at most games these days anyway

That said, I'm having a ton of fun in some of the new wave of "boomer shooters" - new first-person shooters made with current tech that look and play as if they're from the 90s heyday of games like Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem, etc. There's no depth to them at all, it's just mindless running and shooting, but sometimes that's all I want out of a game. And not a single micro-transaction in sight!

[jayrshaw]

A part of me is seriously disheartened by the decline in the average quality of games in recent years, but another part of me realizes that the library of existing high-quality games which exists is truly huge at this point - to be honest, I have much more difficulty finding free time to play games these days than I do finding interesting games to play, provided that I'm not specifically looking for interesting games which are also brand new....


--Jay

[Ameena]

My point with PoE was that the entire game is totally free and you only spend money if you feel like you want to, to support the company and stuff. You can fully play the entire thing and get all the cool loot and stuff without spending a penny. Most other game are not so nice about the extra costs and keep desired content behind some kind of paywall - I recall a few years ago there was some kind of PvP Star Wars game and you had to pay extra money to unlock certain characters, such as Darth Vader...you know, the main iconic guy of the series a whole lot of people probably want to play. Think that was EA (surprise), and there was massive kerfuffle over it. I'd rather just pay, like, a tenner or so for a game and then I have the game and that's it. I still replay older games, including ones that I still have the disks for - been back on Heroes of Might and Magic III these past few weeks, having not played it for far too many years. Even introduced a friend to it and now we've been playing it together thanks to Parsec, and she's even gone and bought it herself so she can play it solo .

[Seriously Unserious]

I've pretty much checked out of most mainstream games at this point. Too many of the AAA studios make games designed to squeeze as much money out of gamers as possible. From the overpriced shovelware annual titles, to EA's lock everything in DLC content and sell a stripped down game that maybe qualifies as a Beta game, at best, for full price, then charge the price of a full game to get the stuff that moves it eventually to a post Beta game.

Been supporting Indie game devs every way I can, and am working on more ways to support them.