Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Decline Retold, Remade, Reforged, Resurrected, Remastered - Where are new IPs?

Hellraiser

Arcane
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
11,684
Location
Danzig, Potato-Hitman Commonwealth
People aren't so cleanly divided into enthusiasts that seek new stuff and people content to do the same shit forever.

This is a clear cut binary situation, there is no middle state between the two, it's either one or the other so the claim they can't be cleanly divided is illogical.

The other thing was I never said people are content to do the same shit forever. I said they would not put in the effort into searching, they would be passive and go with the flow according to the trends that reach them, play to avoid fear of missing out and other "external" (as in coming from other people/media etc. they have contact with) reasons. They take in new things, but only because those things are served to them on a platter and thus take none of their effort to discover in the first place. Passive reception of information rather than active collection by themselves.

You need to be exposed to something better than what you've gotten used to to spark curiosity and start looking for better. It applies to video game just as much as any other entertainment, or food or a bunch of other shit. People don't even know what they don't know. Once they realize they've been missing out people jump ship from Monopoly to something actually suited to their tastes pretty quickly, and those tastes vary wildly.

An extremely optimistic take that assumes it's all nurture rather than nature, it is not. Please try what you preach on your nephew and come back with a report how well it went. Per your own words he's only playing crap because that's what the streamers show him, he merely has to discover something else he likes that gets drowned out by the marketing storm and he'll become enlightened and start looking for new stuff himself, just like that. You know he likes games, why isn't he playing something better in the same genres with such an uncle around?

Also maybe ask him why he is watching those streamers. Is it to get news about games or because all the kids in school think those streamers are cool?

Likewise your friends who played a hockey game only. You ever talked to them about the games you liked or other games, showed them those games? Did they change their habits and seek out more of the stuff they liked? Maybe they didn't like games as such but rather they liked hockey and playing it IRL wasn't always an option (which is also rather expensive to practice), same really as all the annual EA ballsports game buyers that don't play other games.

I'm not saying it can't happen, it obviously has to, you can't be enthusiastic about something if you do not know it exists. What I am saying, in line with what I previously wrote, is that most people won't make the effort after exposure even if they do realize they do like. It is not in their nature and never will be, and such is the case for most of the population.

Arguing CoD is what most people want because it has market share is the same as making that argument for Monopoly and Risk and Sorry 30 years ago instead of recognizing that Hasbro owned 90% of the shelf space and Walmart wasn't going to put anything not made for 6 year olds anywhere someone could actually find it, and commercials were too expensive for a game like Wingspan or Agricola to get discovered.

For one CoD isn't the bulk of the market and neither is even one publisher the bulk of the market. The argument I was making was always about the AAA segment as a whole with multiple dominant companies (but less than in the past). You still have Sony, Nintendo, MS, EA, Take Turd and Ubishit putting their titles out. In the top 20 there's also WB, Square, Capcom, Bandai Namco and Embracer presence. So this comparison to Hasbro's dominance isn't valid, you have a lot more variety.

1. Hogwarts Legacy
2. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare III (2023)
3. Madden NFL 24 [EA Sports]
4. Marvel’s Spider-Man 2
5. The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom (No digital sales)
6. Diablo IV (no Battle.net sales)
7. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (2022)
8. Mortal Kombat 1
9. Star Wars: Jedi Survivor
10. EA Sports FC 24
11. Starfield
12. Super Mario Bros. Wonder (No digital sales)
13. Resident Evil 4 (2023)
14. MLB: The Show 23 (No Xbox or Switch digital sales)
15. Dead Island 2
16. Final Fantasy XVI
17. Street Fighter 6
18. Elden Ring
19. Mario Kart 8 (No digital sales)
20. Minecraft

from:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/news...ways-from-the-bestselling-video-games-of-2023

That's actually quite broad considering the featured genres and style.

By revenue it looks a bit different because the data is not purely what could be called AAA but there's also mobile revenue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_video_game_companies_by_revenue

I have no clue how come sony is getting that much revenue, maybe money laundering.

While I can't talk about Walmart or a local equivalent (which I guess would be Auchan, I barely go there and honestly never really paid attention to the games section), the dominant retail electronics/appliances store chain (Media Markt, a europe-spanning kraut behemoth) and media store chain (Empik, potato only IIRC) carried more or less the same stuff as the list, at least for consoles. PCs have barely any shelf space, the decline in that area has been long going.

Finally the difference is shelf space available is rather meaningless nowadays. How many physical copies did minecraft sell vs digital ones?

I'm not going to argue about the advertising, it obviously works to the benefit of the big players, otherwise the budgets would have been slashed a long time ago as I mentioned in another post ITT.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
34,147
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Are we not going to talk about remasters being worse than the originals?

Diablo II Resurrected - worse than the original
Warcraft III Reforged - worse than the original
Heroes 3 HD - worse than the original
Age of Mythology Retold - worse than the original

Starcraft Remastered and Red Alert 1 remaster were the only good ones
Command & Conquer remaster - very good, the graphics are a faithful upscaled version of the originals, includes both the original C&C and Red Alert, alongside their official expansions, you can seamlessly switch from remastered HD graphics to original graphics with the push of a single button

Tomb Raider 1-3 remaster - the new graphics have some questionable elements and the visual style of some levels have changed, but as in C&C remastered you can seamlessly switch to original graphics by hitting F1 on your keyboard, and to my surprise I found that the Tomb Raider 1 original graphics even include the low draw distance that made the game's larger locations feel so grand; likewise the modern control scheme is weird but the game allows you to play with the original keyboard only controls, and it plays perfectly that way; it also includes all official expansions which have not been included in any other digital release of the TR games before; so while there are some questionable design choices in the updated graphics and controls, the fact that it allows you to play the games with original graphics and controls, and delivers the full package of the first three TR games with all expansions, makes this an excellent remaster

Quake and Doom - those aren't really remasters, but modern engine ports that were added to the games' digital releases for free, so if you own either of these games on Steam or GOG you will get it as a free update; while these new engine ports are inferior to some community-made ones, they allow newbies to experience these classics without having to fiddle around with engine ports or emulators, just download the game on Steam and hit play, which is precisely the purpose of remasters: allowing new players to play legendary old classics without the hassle of setting them up for a modern system; the only controversial thing about the Quake remaster is that it changes the way Nightmare difficulty works, other than that it's true to the original, and it comes with all expansion packs, and even two new campaigns that are of high quality; similarly, the recently released Doom remaster contains every official Doom campaign ever released, as well as one completely new campaign that is also of high quality; basically you get the original games with more content, which is the perfect way to do a remaster

These four games are what I consider perfect remasters. Some of the Tomb Raider remaster's design decisions are questionable, but you can seamlessly switch to original graphics and experience the games as originally intended, which is what every remaster should do.
 

911 Jumper

Learned
Joined
Jun 12, 2023
Messages
1,442
It's all a sign that gaming has hit some kind of wall. As a console-only gamer, I don't have a problem with remasters and collections of older games. It's great to be able to play older games on a current gen system. But the remakes of hits from the early to mid-2000s suggest that not only is there no confidence in creating something new but also there's no desire for the new. It is now common to see variations of “this game needs a remake!” under clips for games from the previous 3D eras.

With this in mind, why would game companies bother doing something new? Attitudes on both the game dev side and consumer side have contributed to the current situation. There'd have to be changes on both sides for things to improve. I can't see that happening especially with the attitudes that are rife across Gen Z.

I don't see things getting better. Next gen will have the same problems on more powerful hardware. Game devs and consumers will be more zoomerfied. As I've said before, I think the best has passed, which is why I plan to drop out after this gen and just get by on the games I already have.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2020
Messages
1,401
It's all a sign that gaming has hit some kind of wall. As a console-only gamer (...)

oXGcSmW.gif
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom