All I have to say about the state of the industry:

Furthering my suspicion that Russ Pitts hates practically every single thing about the game industry, including the members of this site.

GonzoGamer:

Russ Pitts:

The videogame industry is utterly screwed, and it's all your fault

That's funny because the game industry seems to be doing fine. Plenty of asshats making money hand over fist.
It seems to me that the gamers are the one's who are utterly screwed for basically all the same reasons you noted.
It just seems like gamers are paying more money for less content and/or quality. The big problem is, most gamers seem okay with it.

They got our number too: they're just going to keep asking for more and more money while providing even less quantity and/or quality.

What I find funny (or alarming) is how directly the video game industry's history mimics that of animation; albeit far more accelerated. It started out odd and original (obviously), grew up with some truly timeless classics, crashed hard once when cheap commercial exploitation took over, grew out of that with new talent and tech, and is now so big that it cannot grow any further *except* into other mediums.

The industry is so big now that it cannot sustain itself on anything that resembles niche' or quality productions (barring smaller/amateur developers who aren't yet part of the system), but rather shiny imitations of older productions.

The industry is terrified of commercial failure in any respect, so it's afraid to do *anything* new, or take any initiative on its own despite the incredible resources at its disposal. Its so obsessed with economic profit (not just accounting profit; there is a difference) that a game breaking a million copies sold and turning a profit post-production costs is now considered "barely-acceptable".

Gaming has become far too much of a business now to do much of anything meaningful (except to those too young to know any better). Even the remaining pioneers of yesterday have been reduced to bland, money-churning profit-engines (Bioware, Blizzard, id Software, many others); held by the leash of an even worse middleman (Activision, EA, Square-Enix).

So, considering that, I take back my prediction of a market crash. The industry is too big to collapse yet. Shrink and recede, sure, but not collapse. The business suits are too smart to let that happen now.

*double post*

I have no earthly clue how this happened. I had no errors when posting before.
Oh wells. Disregard this waste of space.

Atmos Duality:

GonzoGamer:

Russ Pitts:

The videogame industry is utterly screwed, and it's all your fault

That's funny because the game industry seems to be doing fine. Plenty of asshats making money hand over fist.
It seems to me that the gamers are the one's who are utterly screwed for basically all the same reasons you noted.
It just seems like gamers are paying more money for less content and/or quality. The big problem is, most gamers seem okay with it.

They got our number too: they're just going to keep asking for more and more money while providing even less quantity and/or quality.

What I find funny (or alarming) is how directly the video game industry's history mimics that of animation; albeit far more accelerated. It started out odd and original (obviously), grew up with some truly timeless classics, crashed hard once when cheap commercial exploitation took over, grew out of that with new talent and tech, and is now so big that it cannot grow any further *except* into other mediums.

The industry is so big now that it cannot sustain itself on anything that resembles niche' or quality productions (barring smaller/amateur developers who aren't yet part of the system), but rather shiny imitations of older productions.

The industry is terrified of commercial failure in any respect, so it's afraid to do *anything* new, or take any initiative on its own despite the incredible resources at its disposal. Its so obsessed with economic profit (not just accounting profit; there is a difference) that a game breaking a million copies sold and turning a profit post-production costs is now considered "barely-acceptable".

Gaming has become far too much of a business now to do much of anything meaningful (except to those too young to know any better). Even the remaining pioneers of yesterday have been reduced to bland, money-churning profit-engines (Bioware, Blizzard, id Software, many others); held by the leash of an even worse middleman (Activision, EA, Square-Enix).

So, considering that, I take back my prediction of a market crash. The industry is too big to collapse yet. Shrink and recede, sure, but not collapse. The business suits are too smart to let that happen now.

Never say too big to fail.
Actually, I'm of the feeling that they're getting too clever for their own good. Most of the ps2 owners I know haven't made the transition to the ps3 or 360. And some of these are people who have owned a console for each generation since the NES. They think the new machines are either overpriced, lack backwards compatibility, have regular fees for online functions, and have games that don't come with as much content... so you are compelled buy more later.
All these sly money making schemes might have gotten them to farm more money off of the loyal suckers like me but have scared more than half their customer base away. I have to admit, if I knew the ps3 would go downhill as much as it has since I bought it, I would've never bought it in the first place.
Will it kill the industry? Probably not, not yet at least, but (and I realize I'm contradicting myself a little) it will negate the expansion of the market that the wii brought along as regular people wont be willing to make that added commitment. So the market will become stagnant again and then collapse if they can't keep the remaining users happy.

GonzoGamer:
Never say too big to fail.

I will refine my point then: Too big to crash, but not too big to fail slowly.
It probably won't fail immediately (crash) so much as it will recede and shrink.
Markets do that. Mediums do that. Crashes are not nearly as common.

Another possibility: We could be looking forward to a group of consumers who grew up getting ripped off but not knowing how badly; so they will be perfectly fine with paying 60 bucks (equivalent today) for a game with half the content of today's, and another 50 for the content that was ripped out at the end. But I'm hoping, praying, that tomorrow's gamers won't be that stupid.

I was quite pleased when Kane and Lynch 2 tried that shit, and was lambasted for it.

Actually, I'm of the feeling that they're getting too clever for their own good. Most of the ps2 owners I know haven't made the transition to the ps3 or 360. And some of these are people who have owned a console for each generation since the NES.
They think the new machines are either overpriced, lack backwards compatibility, have regular fees for online functions, and have games that don't come with as much content... so you are compelled buy more later.

I agree there; many of my friends didn't move onto the PS3 despite Sony's success with their phenomenal PS2.
Sony, in their supreme arrogance, destroyed the early marketability of the PS3 by not including that emotion engine emulator standard (as a cost cutting measure on an already outrageously expensive console).
Several markets were being squeezed hard early on because the PS3 was so scarce. I bet a lot of those early adopters are furious now due to the massive hacking incident.

I do love how so much DLC comes with double-standards EULAs. If I bought the DLC for Borderlands on launch, I would have gotten 3 installs out of it total (on Steam). If I buy the GotY Edition (again on Steam), it comes bundled forever. So now it often doesn't pay to buy early or when the game first comes out. Of course, EA launched Project 10 Dollar as a means of encouraging the customer to buy early AND new.

It's worth mentioning that the whole DLC racket only works when the developer kills the potential modding community off (with legalese). It's a bitter irony that many games sold well because of how moddable they were. Now the games are being sold to sell overpriced mods instead.

All these sly money making schemes might have gotten them to farm more money off of the loyal suckers like me but have scared more than half their customer base away. I have to admit, if I knew the ps3 would go downhill as much as it has since I bought it, I would've never bought it in the first place.
Will it kill the industry? Probably not, not yet at least, but (and I realize I'm contradicting myself a little) it will negate the expansion of the market that the wii brought along as regular people wont be willing to make that added commitment. So the market will become stagnant again and then collapse if they can't keep the remaining users happy.

I've found it surprisingly easy to explain how they keep their core demographic so happy.
Sure, Gaming could become a medium for more grown-up entertainment (and has tried) or more deep and meaningful explorations into any given concept, but fact is that most of gaming sales result from impressionable teens to young adults. The industry knows this, and thus they know that trying harder will only result in higher development costs, and possibly less marketability. The industry in the last 10 years has tried as hard as it can to stomp out "Niche markets"; relying on remakes and clones of more successful games so that they could avoid having to try anything new or risky.

It's why Call of Duty 4.x and its clones will continue to set sales records despite not budging an inch from the formula. It's why Zynga will remain wildly profitable even if they haven't put an ounce of creative or original thought into anything they produce.

Popularity and hype keep these otherwise unremarkable titles afloat.

I wonder how many of today's younger gamers will be pissing and moaning as uselessly (as I do now), 10 years from now? I wonder if they will realize that back when they were trolling the forums that some of us actually gave a damn about "meaningless shit" like consumers rights or accountability?

Atmos Duality:

Another possibility: We could be looking forward to a group of consumers who grew up getting ripped off but not knowing how badly; so they will be perfectly fine with paying 60 bucks (equivalent today) for a game with half the content of today's, and another 50 for the content that was ripped out at the end. But I'm hoping, praying, that tomorrow's gamers won't be that stupid.
....

I wonder how many of today's younger gamers will be pissing and moaning as uselessly (as I do now), 10 years from now? I wonder if they will realize that back when they were trolling the forums that some of us actually gave a damn about "meaningless shit" like consumers rights or accountability?

That's essentially what's scaring me away from the console market. It seems that most of the gamers who have taken in a current gen machine are more than willing to pay for everything they're asked to pay for: they are willing to pay anything from $5 to the full $60 for a game that they're not going to actually be able to get for months just because gamestop has them convinced that if they don't, that they will be "left out in the cold" which is total BS to anyone who's walked into a real store on a Tuesday; and don't even get me started on the trade in/used game prices but anyone who falls for that is not a savvy consumer; gamers seem to be willing to pay for whatever fee is laid down in front of them... hell MS was even able to increase the fee for xbl within the same console cycle; I sometimes feel like the only ps3 owner who is disgruntled over the loss of functions and the lack of additional functions (it's the psp all over again where future firmware will only be constantly updated to fend off hackers and not add functionality), and all those other things you mentioned being put into regular practice with little protest is worrying.
At first I thought it was just me being paranoid (I grew up in borderline poverty so I can be very protective of the wealth I have accumulated) until I considered that this "paranoia" (which is closer to thriftiness) is the reason I don't worry about money anymore. Maybe it's just the cliche of the gnerd being a total pushover turning out to be mostly true.

I hate to be derogatory towards a group I am a part of but I'm afraid of the same thing: that the publishers, retailers, and platform developers will keep pushing the generosity and/or gullibility of gamers until we are paying $60 for a demo and an additional $60 (or more) for the rest of the game. I look at MvC3 which (if they continue to bump up the roster to the size of MvC2 at $5 a character, it) could cost another $100. While I'm just projecting there, $160 for a fighting game seems absurd.
I too hope that tomorrow's gamer is a more savvy consumer but I can't say I'm too optimistic.

Russ Pitts:
Editor's Note: State of the Industry

Nor is it a crime that you want what you want how you want it. After years of bitching about wanting the right to make copies of your game purchases, you've bent over and grabbed your ankles for Steam, paying good money for games you don't even get to hold to begin with, much less make copies of or even play the damn things without an internet connection.

Regarding this point, I'd say: Vote with your wallet.

I'm a very happy GOG.com costumer, and I hope to remain so for the foreseeable future.

Yes, I know - GOG.com is for classics, "The Witcher 2" being the exception (already pre-downloaded, BTW). There are games on Steam you won't find on GOG.com.

But that's not the point here. The point is how fair is the deal I'm getting when I buy a game? If I don't like the deal, I don't care how much I love the game.

One example - the Thief Series is my favorite, ever. I check the Thief 4 site almost daily, just to see what's new. However, when it comes out, I'll only buy it if I like the deal (esp. where DRM is concerned). As much as I love this series, as much as I am counting the days to a somewhat mytical date when Thief 4 will be released, my purchase is far from guaranteed. That will depend on the deal I'm offered.

There are a lot of good games out there, and there are developers/publishers willing to give gamers a fair deal. I'll look for them, and give them my money. In the case of GOG.com, I've even bought a few games I already own, a) to save me from the hassle of patching/configuring them to run in Win7; and b) because, since I'm buying these games, I prefer to reward a company that is playing fair with me.

I'd say this is the real power we have, notwithstanding internet pressure (blogs, facebook, twitter, etc).

I love you Russ, best read I had in a while. I totally have to agree with you, we're fucked but we have the power to change that!

Irridium:
CD Projekt Red seems to be doing that. At least according to this little message hidden in their first trailer:

Spoiler: Click to ViewPHA+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cucmF6emFtYXRhei5uZXQvd3AtY29udGVudC91cGxvYWRzLzIwMTAvMDMvMnIzam1rcC5qcGciIGFsdD0iaW1hZ2UiLz48L3A+

Seems they're using money as a means to make great games. While most of the other publishers are using games as a means to make money. Yes they need money to survive, but its not their main goal.

After all, humans need food to survive, but you don't live solely to eat, do you?

Nice sentiment. Hope it lasts!

Levethian:

Irridium:
CD Projekt Red seems to be doing that. At least according to this little message hidden in their first trailer:

Spoiler: Click to ViewPHA+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cucmF6emFtYXRhei5uZXQvd3AtY29udGVudC91cGxvYWRzLzIwMTAvMDMvMnIzam1rcC5qcGciIGFsdD0iaW1hZ2UiLz48L3A+

Seems they're using money as a means to make great games. While most of the other publishers are using games as a means to make money. Yes they need money to survive, but its not their main goal.

After all, humans need food to survive, but you don't live solely to eat, do you?

Nice sentiment. Hope it lasts!

Such sentiment, while rather true, is the antithesis of powerful business. It's entirely too easy to forget that the pursuit of wealth isn't the only valid motivation in life.

The trick to holding production hostage has always been the bank. It starts as a loan, then it becomes an investment contract with stipulations and deadlines, and before you know it that game your firm was looking forward to making only scarcely resembles your original vision.

Russ Pitts:
Editor's Note: State of the Industry

The videogame industry is utterly screwed, and it's all your fault - but don't feel too bad about that, because that's how it should be.

Read Full Article

So, um... Got a solution? Preferably one that involves something we as gamers can do to help?

Anyone who signs a contract where their pay is based on an uncontrollable factor like metascore deserves what they get. I have no sympathy for people who are willing to sell their souls to play in the "big leagues."

Oh and also the only reason Steam ever gets a dime from me is BECAUSE of gamecopyworld and piratebay. The fact that I have the power to prevent them from taking away the goods I paid for means I can purchase with confidence.

Aggieknight:
While I agree with most of your sentiments, Russ, I'm saddened to hear you knock on Gamestop and used games. I expect to read publishers whining about First Sale Doctrine, but am surprised coming from you guys.

The fact that I can turn around and sell my game (or loan it to a friend) should be incentive to publishers to make games with replayability. First Sale has been a fact of business in the US for more than 100 years now and a cornerstone of consumers' rights. What would be the results if customers could not resell, trade or loan their games? Think about it.

I like Steam, but I will never pay full price for a game there simply because I have no such rights.

The issue with Gamestop isn't the fact that they sell used games, it's their methods with how they go about it. When you're buying used, the idea is that you're buying something that's not mint and that may be in worse condition, but that you're getting a deal with how much elss you're paying. That's not the case at Gamestop. Speaking as an employee there, we sell our used games are usually 2 or 5$ cheaper on a 60$ purchase, and frequently sell brand new unopened copies of games that came straight from the companies as used. If the game comes with a one time use code to unlock it's online mode, we MIGHT knock 15$ off of it to make up for it, but frequently the difference is still only 2$. When you come to trade a game in to us, we will give you 7$ and then turn around and sell it back to you for 40$. Now, obviously, there's going to be mark-up, the business has to make money, but the amount of mark-up is so obscene that it is never a good deal for you to sell to us. Ever. We will give you less money than everyone else in the world. You will make considerably more money selling your games to your friends, online, or to a non-franchised game store than you will ever get selling them to us at Gamestop, and those people will actually give you cash instead of store credit, which is all the more reason why you'd think we'd give you a decent deal. The huge markup, and the fact that people will buy used to save as little as 5$ (while frequently never actually bothering to check the price of the new game, so they don't even realize how little they're saving), is such a huge amount of money for Gamestop, that they will go out of their way and do everything within their power to discourage sale of new games, up to and including lying and claiming we don't have new copies when we do, and trying to sell you a used game or accessory which actually costs MORE than a new one. I am not kidding, it's not out of the ordinary to actually find a new item for cheaper than the used due to promotions that the publishers put out.

It's not that Gamestop just sells used games that's the issue, it's that they go to such extreme measures to do so that they are actively at war with the companies that give them their product, and it's come to the point that the publishers and developers are finally fighting back, by doing everything they can to either discourage used sales, or by going digital and preventing them entirely.

Also, for the record, if Gamestop did just lie down and die, people wouldn't be nearly as hurt by it as you'd expect, because only one, maybe two employees per Gamestop (only the manager and sometimes the assistant manager) actually get enough hours to make a living. Other than those two, all stores have too many employees and not enough hours, ensuring that nobody else working there actually gets a decent wage. At my store alone we have two employees who get 3 hours a week each. If they were to lose their jobs, they probably wouldn't give a shit. Nobody would really suffer from the loss of Gamestop except for the management who are responsible for turning it into a the cesspit that it is.

If you want to buy and sell used, go for it, by all means, it's well within your right to do so, but for the love of God, don't do it at Gamestop. Buy from and sell to your friends, or from online stores, or smaller stores that aren't part of a big corporation, they'll give you considerably better deals, you'll be able to buy cheaper and get more from selling than you ever will by supporting Gamestop's sleazy tactics.

I'm part of this equation, too. We game reviewers had to go and get all honest about our work, telling it like it is and refusing to play the public relations game. Those who won't take money for review scores are jamming the system, making it harder for publishers to get their message out. Better we should all just take the payola and tell you what the publishers want you to know and give review scores based on how fat the checks are, like they used to. Why don't we do that again? Oh, that's right. You said you wanted reviews you could trust, so we gave them to you. How's that working out for everyone?

He's got to be sarcastic, because from where -I'm- sitting, we're a lot better off having reviews we can trust. Now, that may not be all that good for the Escapist staff getting to eat, but if you're really considering this pathway, the Escapist is inevitably going to wither and die, what with you becoming another IGN, and contributors like Shamus Young or Yahtzee would either be fired or walk away. The Escapist is as successful as it is because it has integrity and everyone knows it.

Owlslayer:
"Developers are now being forced into contracts stating they will not get paid if their "meta-average" does not hit a certain percentage point."
Aw, come on. This cannot be right. Or was this a joke? Cause if this is true, it's just plain retarded. And really depressing.

I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that it is. It's kinda similar to a deal that's made over concerts, if it makes past a certain point, everyone gets paid, but if it doesn't sell well enough, only the venue (I think) gets paid. It's a sucky deal if you ask me, but such is life.

OT- yeah it is fucked I suppose. I like the games that come out. Maybe I don't need such high class games, but I'm happy with my brown paste shooter games, but I really do enjoy those bright, fancy, amazing new games. And I like new IPs. But hey, if all they can make are brown shooters because those are all they can sell enough, I'll still buy 'em if they make 'em fun enough to play.

And with Steam....I dunno. I never wanted to make endless copies of my game, only to be able to play them on whichever computer I so choose, and steam does that for me, and it does it well (except for crysis. boo securom hahaha). If you want to play lan with a friend and you can't because steam won't let you use your own copy, boohoo. If the games so cheap, buy another copy. Think of it as supporting a dev that needs the world to see what they can make. IMO

Irridium:

meganmeave:
Many of these reasons are why it is now my life goal to become decadently wealthy and start up a not for profit gaming company that throws millions of dollars at video game production with the sole goal of making a fun game.

Screw the profits, no shareholders or greedy CEOs allowed. I'm going to be in it for the good of the game.

I can dream, can't I?

Well, CD Projekt Red seems to be doing that. At least according to this little message hidden in their first trailer:

Spoiler: Click to ViewPHA+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cucmF6emFtYXRhei5uZXQvd3AtY29udGVudC91cGxvYWRzLzIwMTAvMDMvMnIzam1rcC5qcGciIGFsdD0iaW1hZ2UiLz48L3A+

Seems they're using money as a means to make great games. While most of the other publishers are using games as a means to make money. Yes they need money to survive, but its not their main goal.

After all, humans need food to survive, but you don't live solely to eat, do you?

I use Valve as an example of it too.

They're rolling in money like a pig in shit, and they do it by the oh-so-simple trick of not being arse holes.

Also, new TW2 trailer: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/exclusive-hope-the-witcher/713860

So pissed I have an exam on launch day (and one two days after, and then two the Monday after that... sigh).

Russ Pitts:
If you would only want the same games you wanted last year and the year before and at the same time want new games that haven't come before then none of this would be happening.

But I'm CONSTANTLY BEGGING LucasArts to redux X-Wing and TIE Fighter. I'd give them MONEY.

Why do they hate my money so much? What's my money ever done to them?

Obviously I'm not smart enough to fully understand what he's trying to say.

Well regardless of whether he was serious or not, I don't think I'm hurting the game industry. That'd be like saying Walmart went out of business because I bought too much of their stuff. And I certainly don't think the industry is 'fucked', that's just cynical thinking to me.

Nimcha:

matrix3509:
I gotta agree with you there Russ. Gamers today (yes, all gamers) are a bunch of entitled twatdonkeys (this includes me).

Nah not everyone is like that. You can easily identify the entitled twatdonkeys though, they live off throwing around the phrase 'dumbed down'.

Yes, God forbid people wanting their games to be a little more complex.

On topic - yes, it is pretty much everyones fault, however I have trouble understanding what this article tries to achieve.

The games industry is an industry and that's the most important bit of the whole story.
As long as it makes profit and grows every year, even a few points, there is nothing to worry about for them, of course.
The people demand AAA titles like they are now, if it were not that way, the gaming companies would not make these games, it is a simple equation.
If a broad range of the customers of, let's say, a book would not want to read it at all, what is the point of writing it anyway? The industry is far away from producing games that have a legimitation of existing, even if they are not sold or played.
So I guess it is our fault then?
Well, it depends on how you think about it.
The people get what they demand and more importantly, what they as a customer are satisfied with.
If the customers start to get down-market over time, then why should the gaming industry deliver great games to their customers, which are satisfied with less quality.
It increases the profits a lot if you can make a average game every half a year or so, then making a huge leap in the gaming history every two years by releasing a very, very good game.
Same thing happens to cars, food or washing machines.
As for the rating system (metacritic): There is a rating system for literally everything.
Books, movies, cars, floor tiling, explosives, hair dryers there is nothing you can not rate on a 0 to 100 or 0 to 10 scale or of course with school grades (A-F,1-6). And there is nothing that does not get rated nowadays.
Why should the gaming industry be able or justified to demand a special spot on a throne of "No criticism allowed"?
All those systems are unfair, but that is the way it is, why not just deal with it?

The industry needs another video game collapse to take the monopoly away from the big 3 publishers that own all developers that could compete with them.

That'd give a chance for the dozens of developers to spring up to compete and take chances or make niche games without a massive risk or trying to water down every aspect of a game to make it more appealing to everyone so it'll make more money.

the golden age of gaming in the 90's and early 2000's probably won't happen again, but all one can do is hope... and not spend money on crap.

I am enjoying this article so much, keep up the good work, best laugh I had all week.

WHOA! Passive aggressive much?

That was just to much whining for me to handle. I get this image of a downbeat Hollywood director complaining about publishers, audience, producers, studios and most of all actors.

If that's how anyone truly feels about their work, I suggest finding a new career. More than one or two of the game devs I've met have a stick up their ass, deep, and think they know better than everyone else in their industry -- just like the Hollywood director that sprung to mind .... Blaming the consumer/gamer/audience is just childish and has no place in any art form. Nobody likes the whining pop-star that harps on about how his/her fans have betrayed him/her, and how they don't understand how the industry works and how nobody understands their new album -- you all get my drift.

But perhaps that editorial was an imitation of said directors/artists?

I'm sorry ... but how again? Most of my purchases dd are from startups/small firms, or games from 7+ years ago. But if you like Russ, I'll pay you to send me hard copies if you think that will help the industry?

And I don't touch steam for upcoming titles ... pack of rip-off merchants (Australia)...

Nature of gaming has changed, yeah okay. Consoles might not be feasible in the future. Yeah, okay. But how exactly is this a "gamer's" problem? By your inference are you trying to suggest that every person on the planet who plays games on their iPhone or decides to check out GOG/steam for a classic from a bygone era is somehow devastating the industry?

Gamners are no longer niche, they are universal ... If anything digital distribution could help in the long run to broaden demographics, re-define old stereotypes and create innovation in a market that you yourself say is starved of it.

Whether this article was written in jest or anger, I cannot agree with any of it. Especially when written in such a callous manner.

Would it be better if I could get the Battlefield 2 collection for 3 USD on Steam, or just complain when no store in Australia still stocks it? Don't know about you, but it would take a pretty impressive store to house every hard-copy produced game/expansion/etc in one inner-city locale.

Ouch...I actually feel guilty. (not sarcasm)

IM going to stick with my belefe that the industry is fucked because there are fue game that have more than 10hours of game play and the one that do get boring fast and that companeys are constantly trying to one up each other with graphics witch leave me and a fue of my frends going oooo and ahhh then walking away because we've played the dooms day type games befor and very fue thing are interesting these days so we end up going Back to the games we are fond of and dont bother with anything elce.(sorry for spelling sick of fighting with auto correct on iPad)

*Sips his tea" Well guess what life sucks for everyone. And it isn't going to get much better with us just sitting around. So if you want things changed raise your voice to be heard. Make them hear that we want. Abit in vain with the few with power ballsing things up but lets turn our guns on them.

Irridium:

Well, CD Projekt Red seems to be doing that. At least according to this little message hidden in their first trailer:

Spoiler: Click to ViewPHA+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cucmF6emFtYXRhei5uZXQvd3AtY29udGVudC91cGxvYWRzLzIwMTAvMDMvMnIzam1rcC5qcGciIGFsdD0iaW1hZ2UiLz48L3A+

Seems they're using money as a means to make great games. While most of the other publishers are using games as a means to make money. Yes they need money to survive, but its not their main goal.

After all, humans need food to survive, but you don't live solely to eat, do you?

Wow, that was the coolest sentiment that I've ever heard. Ya know, I was on the fence for a while as to whether or not I should buy The Witcher 2 but now I've made my decision. It doesn't even matter to me now if The Witcher 2 is a good game or not. These guys deserve my money just for having a philosophy that I can support so fully. CD Projekt is now alongside Ice-Pick Lodge, ACE Team, and (to a lesser extent) Double Fine.

Thanks so much for sharing that image, I totally missed it in their trailer.

Wow... that was enormously unpleasent to read and made the author sound unbelievably passive-aggressive and mean-spirited.... so.... good job ?
Maybe ?

Serious add:
I´m not kidding.
If there was any other point to this article than a person I REALLY don´t want to ever meet ranting about how the industry he works in is shit and everything connected to this industry is also shit and especially everybody who buys stuff made by the industry, reads articles about stuff made by the industry or is interested in the industry is also shit,
I certainly failed to notice it.

Sunder845:
This article is so angry I'm not sure if it's sattire or not. Great read either way.

No, actually its bollocks.

The gamer is not to blame in the slightest, the only party here that deserves blame is the publishers. They're the ones forcing though overt monetisation at the cost of artistic diversity, they're the ones in control, they decide what games get made, they decide what games to advertise heavily and how much funding projects get, they're the morons weighing us down with gears of war clones and MMO after MMO even though everyone is still playing WoW.

Every single flaw and fault in the industry can be traced back at some point in the chain to a publisher. And what is a publisher anyway? a bunch of jerk managers and accountants who couldn't give a shit about gaming and just view gamers as cash cows... well they can all fuck right off.

Requesting a video of this. Please make one.

Why do I get the feeling that if a regular user typed this kind of thing out as a thread topic they would get suspended for posting a rant...?