Microsoft fires the first shot in the "NEXT" generation.... - Page 125

MMOs were supposed to be the future once everyone saw WoW's success....Didnt quite work out that way for anyone but blizzard. Now everyone is going nuts over social games, but the bubble is already bursting....zynga is actually going down in flames as we speak.

Just dance sold incredibly well - and homefront didnt. But thats not because people want dance games more than shooters. Its that just dance is apparently the best dance game - and homefront absolutely isnt the best shooter. The real AAA shooters are doing just fine. Its not like any other dance games are burning down the charts, there isnt even that much competition. The "smart" people putting their money into dance games are going to get burned - its just another fad with an expiration date. It wont be long before everyone starts to seek refuge with the traditional audience....until the next fad hits, and everyone chases that, and no one ever comes close to the originator.

Who should care about second best, when the very best game can suck up all your free time for weeks/months? Studios that are putting out industry leading games in any genre are not struggling - it's the ones that continually half-ass it. Hardcore gamers are definitely still worth investing in, because theyre less fad driven - their money is always ready to be spent on games, by definition. But theyre also the hardest crowd to win over, because they have discerning taste, and there are just so many games vying for their attention. The only way to succeed is to make a better game, that also offers lasting value.

You'd think after MMOs, music/rhythm Games, motion games, brain training games, pet games, fitness games (did I miss any fads?) - that people would know a fad when they see one, and stop trying to chase them. Here's the top ten for 2011:

1. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (X360, PS3, PC) - Activision
2. Just Dance 3 (Wii, X360) - Ubisoft
3. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (X360, PS3, PC) - Bethesda Softworks
4. Battlefield 3 (X360, PS3, PC) - EA
5. Madden NFL 12 (X360, PS3, Wii, PSP, PS2) - EA
6. Call of Duty: Black Ops (X360, PS3, Wii, DS, PC) - Activision Blizzard
7. Batman: Arkham City (X360, PS3, PC) - Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment
8. Gears of War 3 (X360) - Microsoft
9. Just Dance 2 (Wii) - Ubisoft
10. Assassin's Creed: Revelations (X360, PS3, PC) - Ubisoft

Other than Just dance, it doesnt look like anything has really changed - and just dance dropped off the top 10 in march, and hasnt been seen since.

Don't mistake a bubble for a paradigm shift.

Mobile games and ftp games are at their height, but they won't simply fade away like most fads. Depending on how it plays out it could cause a true industry shift and not just be a passing fad. Lets see how things progress with mobile games vs console games once the next gen hits and if phones and tablets can quickly catch up to next gen visuals.

I agree, probably not in those cases, because neither of those are styles of games, but platform/distribution models. That would be like saying that DLC is a passing fad. Mobile games have been around for the better part of 30 years, so thats hardly a paradigm shift. I dont think free to play is big a deal though. Its anathema to everything most games are about. When you mix the transaction with the gameplay, it can corrupt the entire game. Also, its incredibly risky - the competition is just as fierce, and not only do you need a hit, but your income relies on manipulating that 1% of your playerbase thats opening their wallet. If zynga can barely pull it off, its just not sustainable.

I don't mind ad supported f2p, it is micro transactions that are required to keep playing that irk me.
Edited by PENDRAG0ON - 8/5/12 at 8:17am

"FTP" is a different acronym. "F2P" is what the industry uses for Free To Play. Using FTP just serves to confuse your sentences.

So many acronyms. In 10 years I can only imagine how bad it will be...

why?? you get to play a game for free and decide if it is worth investing any more money into or not?? that seems logical to me, better than dropping 60 dollars on a game and then realizing you don't like it (which has happened to me more than once)...

Because then the game is designed to manipulate people into spending money first, and to be enjoyable second. When you spent the money up front, the game design is focused entirely on making a great game.

because games like that usually have a 45 minute or so time limit before you hit a pay wall. Pay $5 for another hour or two of gameplay. I don't like it one bit.

the only way to get people to spend money is to make a game they want to continue to play, so a great game, people who play a game that sucks aren't going to then spend money on it.. confused on how you say a game that you have to buy 1st before you play is not meant to make people spend money first?? the reality is people will only spend money on things they like, either way.. if i get basically a long "demo" before i have to spend money, that is fine by me...better than actually having to spend money first and then find out it sucks... guess i am just not surprised that companies try to make money, so i am not taking off guard when they ask for money...

No one has a problem with a try before you buy demo. Long demos are great. PS3 does 60 minute full demos of the full game. Id love it if everyone did that, shows faith in their product. But that's not what F2P really is.

It's when the game revolves around microtransactions that it gets ugly. It means game design revolves around addiction and not enjoyment. When you pay up front, the amount of time you play is irrelevant. There's no need to forcibly stop you from playing, or to create incentives for you to continue playing. Theres no need to exploit human psychology. Just make a great game that people will want to enjoy and come back to for its intrinsic value.

Free to play also doesn't mean free to win, and that can destroy the competitive spirit in games that use paid for unlockables or consumables.

Exactly. I think a lot of people have big misconceptions about F2P games. Well designed (and financially successful) F2P games are still fantastic without spending a dime. A bad F2P game is unbalanced and feels like it's forcing you to spend on microtransactions. But that's because it's a bad game, not because of the F2P format. For example, gamers flock to LoL because it's an excellent game. And it's financially successful because it implements F2P in a fair and savvy way.

Try-before-you-buy is totally different and is basically just the shareware model from the old PC days. Makes more sense for traditional games. In contrast, F2P makes more sense for multiplayer online games. Different genres are better suited to different "free" pricing models. An unfair or bad F2P model will lead to an unsuccessful game. Gamers may be idiots, but they're not stupid.

BFW (blocked from work... lol!)

Any chance for a copy / paste?

A Microsoft employee has referenced “the new Xbox” for the first time. In an interview regarding the new Outlook.com, Microsoft’s Brian Hall (general manager of Windows Live) referred to “the new Xbox” as one of many projects that could be integrated with Windows 8.
“We’ve had Hotmail and operated Hotmail for about 16 years. We obviously have Exchange, and Outlook, that people use at work,” Hall told The Verge. “We just decided it was time to do something new and bring the best from each of those and put them together and release it right in time for the new wave of products that we could have coming out with Windows 8, with the new version of Office, with the new Windows Phone and the new Xbox.”
While this is the first time a Microsoft employee has openly acknowledged the new console, it’s not exactly a secret considering that we’ve already seen the system’s development kit. We know the console is codenamed Durango (or, more casually, Xbox 720) and we’ve seen several Microsoft studios reference a next-gen console in job listings, including 343 Industries and Rare.
Microsoft still hasn’t officially announced the console, but we’re certainly getting closer, as developers tell us the next generation of consoles will begin in 2013. Until that happens, read about the few details we know so far in IGN’s analysis of a recent Microsoft patent filing.
We’ve reached out to Microsoft about Hall’s comment and will update this story with any information we receive.

Updated

Lol, such ********. This is the worst kept secret in the industry.

Lol. Who do they think they're fooling with this?

It's funny how they are trying to cover it up. Just admit that there is going to be another Xbox, and Sony, admit there will be a PS4 just so all this cover up BS can be put to rest.

My expierience with a F2P game,

Company of Heroes Online was launched in USA for few months during past year or two and I had a chance to play the US beta and also Chinese release In that game you get an unfair advantage by spending money, so you are forced to spend money if you want any chance of competing with other players who have beefed-up gear.

I have heard similar things about Diablo III where buying items from auction house is almost a requirement if you want to avoid a miserable experience. But then I have not played that game yet.

Exactly. Free to play doesn't mean free to win.

D3 isn't a competitive game, and the AH really isn't relevant to the 90% of players that aren't max level. You def dont need to spend money to have a good time. But still it's an uncomfortable mix....games and money are like oil and water. It kills the spirit.

You don't have to buy things from the AH on D3, but you'll certainly spend a lot more time in the game if you don't. And regarding that AH, you can choose to buy things with in-game or real currency. Having beaten the game on Inferno shortly after release, I disagree that you need to buy a ton to succeed. The more gear you have the easier the game is, but you hardly have to buy it. Many of the items I wore on my first diablo kill were dropped, but I could have gotten the rest by farming them. You get so much gear you have to do something with it, so most people sell it on the AH and then buy for the gear they actually need. Ignoring the real money auction house, this is nothing more than organized bartering. There are plenty of opportunities to trade gear outside the AH as well.

That's why I pointed it out that I have not played Diablo III.

Just another building block toward non invasive VR. The real technology of NexGen. Not the muscled up "ThisGen" stuff we are all eagerly awating within the next 18 months.

http://www.futureoftech.msnbc.msn.com/technology/futureoftech/new-screen-lets-users-go-glasses-free-933556#

I think a F2P bubble is expanding now but lots of companies have made money from F2P, and it's saved some MMOs from failure (DDO, AOC, LOTRO,DCUO, etc.). Some of the games that are F2P now or going F2P soon are spectacular and could easily be boxed up and sold for $60 (Planetside 2, Tribes Ascend, Team Fortress 2). Other games are well done and very geared towards a specific niche that may not be big enough to justify a full release (Path of Exile, AOE Online).

The games aren't really using cognitive tricks to addict people - that's Farmville/Tiny Tower stuff and the new round of F2P games go way beyond it. They are legit real games that happen to be free to play with optional buy-ins.

The next round of consoles (coming in 2013) will have to be flexible enough to offer F2P games. No way around it.
Edited by number1laing - 8/10/12 at 8:57am

It doesn't take any flexibility beyond the current DLC system to support F2P. It seems like some people here are building an issue around F2P when there really is none. If developers feel like they can increase revenue on new products or slow the decline in revenue on a F2P model then it'll happen. It is no more complex than that!

I'm talking more about the business flexibility. MS in particular has an aversion to free content on Live and charges a lot of money for updates. That needs to change. Both MS and Sony need to be open to more different models than the boxed game + smaller downloadable game. Putting boxed games up for download doesn't count.

Right now the only F2P game on either console is DCUO, and that's a first party game.

In doing so there is a very real risk of F2P, lowest common denominator titles crowding out the more ambitious titles. The race to the bottom is a very real threat, and I'm not sure what place it has on a console. Ultimately we're going to get what we pay for....do we really want Xbox to be the equivalent of a 99c store?

Dust 514 is in a paid beta right now. ($20 gets you early access and a bunch of ingame money and items) it should be availible soon as a true F2P game.