Dades wrote on Jul 11, 2012, 18:26:
That's just splitting hairs over the terminology. You brought up some examples of modern franchises that seem like there is no downside, your exact phrasing was "if that were true then Call of Duty 3 or Black Ops wouldn't have sold half as well". I brought up some previous examples to show that nothing short of the Mario franchise is etched in stone in the videogame industry.
My point with bringing those up was that a large customer base for video games are willing to have the same non-innovative crap shoved down their throats similar to generic, special-effect filled, action movies. Not to suggest that those specific IPs would sell forever, but what they currently represented would always be present in some form or another in the industry as a counter to ASeven's post saying the customers are going to suddenly revolt and crash the industry unless only a certain quality of video games were developed and the industry stopped with DLC and iterative IPs.
Dades wrote on Jul 11, 2012, 18:26:
I think F2P is a lot more promising but it begs the question of what investors will finance the upfront costs if there are no box sales.
I don't think the F2P model works well for all genres/styles though. Skyrim, Bioshock & Fallout 3 would of been horrible experiences in the F2P model, in my opinion. A solid base game with a ~$60 amount of initial content with episodic/extra additional content at a reasonable fee is the only way to tell a decent story through a video game. Maybe they could of released the first 3 hours of the game for free and then make you pay $10 for each additional 3-5 hours, in an episodic-ish model... but that is pretty much just like offering a free demo.
If you are saying that maybe there will no longer be a place for games like Bioshock, Skyrim and Fallout 3 and the experiences they delivered in the industry's future, then that possibility makes me a sad panda. :C
This comment was edited on Jul 11, 2012, 19:08.