Why Are Gamers Seemingly So Negative?

I was a game art major as well as a gamer.  I am not sure if it's negativity, or if it's the way gamers percieve their worlds.  I have found, that a good game spurs a good discussion.  For me?  Jack Thompson is horridly negative about games, but gamers are just so into that environment, characters, even to the point of cosplay, that sometimes their comments can seem negative, but in reality, may be intelligent observations.   Resident Evil 4 had not only a fantastic level design, but also amazing graphics and a fun story.  Even a game like that, some say the best of the series, can have players that will critique it.  It might not be negative, but instead an intelligent critique. 

I've restated some ideas already brought up.  But as a game major, I found myself among future game designers every day, and realized that most of that talk, was intelligent discourse.  Gamers are intuitive, intelligent and creative.  They notice things.  Sometimes that can seem negative.
 
A lot of the reason why gamers are negative is because we hate it when we lose. We are some of the most competitive people in the world, and losing is not fun. 

I have never really been able to play a game without the main goal being to win. 
 
Ridge said:
Gamers aren't being screwed over. Games are cheaper now than they have ever been, while production costs for studios have only gone up.

If you want a game you have to pay for it, if you want DLC you have to pay for it. If you don't want the evil companies product you don't have to buy it.

Also of course I'm for net neutrality and a degree of personal privacy. I don't know enough about the fuel/wood business to say anything either way. But regardless none of those things are related.....
Click to expand...
In the US and possibly other markets, the price of retail AAA games has stabilized and stayed the same for the last several years (or since the late 90's really). Production costs have increased, this is true. However a lot of those production costs are self-inflicted bloat. Consider Square-Enix and Crystal Dynamics... They didn't need to spend extra time (and money) to develop tressFX, a physics/graphics engine that makes makes Lara Croft's hair look/behave more realistic in Tomb Raider. The game would have looked and played just fine without it (and in fact it does). So it very much comes across a waste of time and money that they then try to pass off to the consumer as a cost and worthwhile use of money. And all this bloat adds up so that games which formerly might not have needed to sell like 5 million copies (like say... Deadspace 3) and instead could have been profitable on say 1-2 million if companies had exercised some restraint and caution in spending. 
And because of the increased costs they like to spend, they are also prone to taking fewer risks and producing less new IP. (Because new IP is risky and may not pan out. So they don't want to spend 40-50 million developing a game and losing most of it.) Instead they tend to stick to sequels (even to the point of over-saturating the market like what happened with Rockband/Guitar hero and those sorts of music/rhythm games) and trying to suck more cash out of people with DLC. 

And so you know... in Canada the price of games has increased. We used to pay $60 for a new release. But the cost has gone up to $70. But I never mentioned that in my post. What I had stated was ways that companies have cut corners to try to squeeze the extra bits of money out of gamers simply because they could. 

The problem with DLC is that it's very much being abused. Like in the case of Streetfighter x Tekken... Putting the finished DLC on the disc and then charging players extra cost to unlock it is little better than highway robbery. You've already bought it when you purchased the copy of that game. It was included on the disc. It's very much like buying a car and the second you go to reach for the radio (which you already bought) the salesman appears and demands an extra 50$ to access it. And then the attitude of what they did was necessary or even defensible is doubly insulting. This is but one example of why people are pissed. And no, it's very much not a case of entitlement at all. (There are certainly cases where gamers get too entitled and I'm not going to deny that. Like gamers petitioning to have Mass Effect 3's ending redone? Nope, you're not entitled to that. They don't owe you anything here. Similarly in cases where people petition companies to make some really obscure niche game. Nope, not entitled to that either.)

Don't get me wrong, I like DLC where they add a new parts to the game like Borderlands 2 or Dragon's Dogma which both add new places to explore, new loot and new enemies. And map packs aren't entirely bad (if they're decently priced).  So it's not like I'm 100% always against DLC. My main problem with DLC is that I do not like how much it's abused.
 
The grumps have a large sounding board these days. Also, so do fanboys. The guys in the middle are much quieter and spend their time actually playing games instead of arguing about them.

So what we get left with is the extreme reactions and the guy stomping his feet moaning that a game has 14 seconds less content than they were expecting draws attention.

Factor in there's actually a lot more to moan about anyway and we have the situation we have.
 
VirusZero said:
 
In the US and possibly other markets, the price of retail AAA games has stabilized and stayed the same for the last several years (or since the late 90's really). Production costs have increased, this is true. However a lot of those production costs are self-inflicted bloat. Consider Square-Enix and Crystal Dynamics... They didn't need to spend extra time (and money) to develop tressFX, a physics/graphics engine that makes makes Lara Croft's hair look/behave more realistic in Tomb Raider. The game would have looked and played just fine without it (and in fact it does). So it very much comes across a waste of time and money that they then try to pass off to the consumer as a cost and worthwhile use of money. And all this bloat adds up so that games which formerly might not have needed to sell like 5 million copies (like say... Deadspace 3) and instead could have been profitable on say 1-2 million if companies had exercised some restraint and caution in spending. 
And because of the increased costs they like to spend, they are also prone to taking fewer risks and producing less new IP. (Because new IP is risky and may not pan out. So they don't want to spend 40-50 million developing a game and losing most of it.) Instead they tend to stick to sequels (even to the point of over-saturating the market like what happened with Rockband/Guitar hero and those sorts of music/rhythm games) and trying to suck more cash out of people with DLC. 
 
And so you know... in Canada the price of games has increased. We used to pay $60 for a new release. But the cost has gone up to $70. But I never mentioned that in my post. What I had stated was ways that companies have cut corners to try to squeeze the extra bits of money out of gamers simply because they could. 
 
The problem with DLC is that it's very much being abused. Like in the case of Streetfighter x Tekken... Putting the finished DLC on the disc and then charging players extra cost to unlock it is little better than highway robbery. You've already bought it when you purchased the copy of that game. It was included on the disc. It's very much like buying a car and the second you go to reach for the radio (which you already bought) the salesman appears and demands an extra 50$ to access it. And then the attitude of what they did was necessary or even defensible is doubly insulting. This is but one example of why people are pissed. And no, it's very much not a case of entitlement at all. (There are certainly cases where gamers get too entitled and I'm not going to deny that. Like gamers petitioning to have Mass Effect 3's ending redone? Nope, you're not entitled to that. They don't owe you anything here. Similarly in cases where people petition companies to make some really obscure niche game. Nope, not entitled to that either.)
 
Don't get me wrong, I like DLC where they add a new parts to the game like Borderlands 2 or Dragon's Dogma which both add new places to explore, new loot and new enemies. And map packs aren't entirely bad (if they're decently priced).  So it's not like I'm 100% always against DLC. My main problem with DLC is that I do not like how much it's abused.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you want from conpanies. You can't in the same paragraph complain about companies spending money developing something new like tressFX, but also hate publishers for wanting to take less risks by using tried and true IP.

Do you want companies to spend money making games better? Or just cheap out using things that already exist? You seem to hate both.

Also I'm from Canada too. The price went up because we are our dollar has been getting killed. Not so we can be further milked like you seem to believe.

As for DLC. I think we could go in laps forever. I thinks devs can make as much stuff DLC as they want. If people didn't buy it they'd eventually stop.
 
I believe the negative are just a more vocal group. There are many people who don't care, many who stay positive, but they keep to themselves or express their love for games elsewhere. It's not like happy people are going to spam articles about how much they like the game, while 'haters' would be more likely to.

And as others have said (though I haven't read every reply) there are negative people everywhere. It isn't exclusive to the gaming community.
 
I dont think that it is just gaming I just think that most people in life are negative on a whole it just a way of life for some people.
 
I agree a lot of people are negative for different reasons like having bad luck from being kicked out of their apartment, lost of job, and other problems which may make them more likely to be more negative online on Gaming blogs or forums.

I think people who are positive fans of a game don't really go on blogs to comment about their positive experience with the game because there are a lot of negative commenters who may leave a negative comment on their positive posts.
 
ciorex said:
The grumps have a large sounding board these days. Also, so do fanboys. The guys in the middle are much quieter and spend their time actually playing games instead of arguing about them.
Click to expand...
froggyboy604 said:
I think people who are positive fans of a game don't really go on blogs to comment about their positive experience with the game because there are a lot of negative commenters who may leave a negative comment on their positive posts.
Click to expand...
Both of those are good points. I mean, goodness knows there are games that I'm over-the-moon fangirling about and can't talk about anything but for weeks, and I take that to online forums. I guess I'm lucky that I'm not bothered by negative comments on positive posts. I can take into account somebody's opinion, unless their opinion is out of line and outside their bounds in negativity (as in, hostile at happiness), in which case most forums have some sort of post-filtering system to save space on the screen.

When I criticize or am negative about a single game or the industry of gaming, I try not to blow it out of proportion. Although, when I was younger, I thought out-of-proportion negativity was somehow part of the fun. Out-of-proportion positivity can't be helped...unless the response to it is hostile, which it can be.
 
Ridge said:
I'm not sure what you want from conpanies. You can't in the same paragraph complain about companies spending money developing something new like tressFX, but also hate publishers for wanting to take less risks by using tried and true IP.

Do you want companies to spend money making games better? Or just cheap out using things that already exist? You seem to hate both.

Also I'm from Canada too. The price went up because we are our dollar has been getting killed. Not so we can be further milked like you seem to believe.

As for DLC. I think we could go in laps forever. I thinks devs can make as much stuff DLC as they want. If people didn't buy it they'd eventually stop.
Click to expand...

What I'm getting at in that paragraph is how to spend money wisely. Don't waste tremendous amounts of money to make relatively minor graphical improvements. I mean in all seriousness, the fact that Lara's hair behaves slightly more realistically thanks to the TressFX engine does not improve the gameplay. Very few people would likely even notice it, let alone care. (Especially when they have other, more pressing things, like enemies shooting back that they have to deal with.) 

I mean suppose they spend 5 million dollars to develop this engine mod. (I have no idea how much they actually spent, I don't have access to that figure. But for sake of argument we'll say a "conservative" 5 million.) In order to make up the money they spend to develop that mod alone they would have to sell an additional 83,334 copies. (That's of course provided that they got the full $60 from each game... But they don't. If memory serves they only get like $20 from each game. So they'd really need to sell an extra 250,002 copies of the game to make up their cost.) Which might not sound like a lot, but it adds up. I mean they start having to spend millions of dollars here, a few million dollars there and suddenly it's not hard to see why they claim games need to sell 4 million or more copies in order to be sustainable. It's because they spend money like crazy on things that ultimately make little difference to the game. 

Developing a new engine (like Unreal 4) to run on new hardware though is somewhat of a different story. It's a necessary cost for developing on a new platform. But it's one that pays off because they'll use that engine for the next 6-10 years. (So likely another 4-5 games easily.) And in some cases, like Unreal 4, it gets rented out so that other companies can use it and they make money off that too. 
And this is quite a different scenario than spending time/money to build a new hair mod for the current gen and currently existing engines. (Making a small facet on an existing engine slightly prettier versus the ability to keep making games on a new platform... Quite a large difference on the scale of importance there wouldn't you agree?)

But that stated, I don't want companies to get hooked on a graphical "arms" race because to increase the quality of graphics it only ups the development time and cost. (Since to get more lifelike models you have to spend more time working on them and adding features.) And, at least for the present, graphics have hit a plateau where they aren't going to really get that much better looking. (This isn't a case of like jumping from SNES to N64 level of graphics...) And, like mentioned above, ultimately gamers don't need the most amazing graphics ever provided the game is good. 

Ultimately, what I want is companies that plan realistic budgets and curb wasteful spending. Don't misunderstand... I think there is a place for sequels. But there's also more than enough room for them to do other/new things too. I want things so that they can try their hand with new ideas without so much risk that it could backfire. So they aren't spending 200 million dollars to develop a game that might never sell enough. I mean games like Dark Souls, which sold only 2 million copies, can succeed... Because of the fact they budgeted accordingly. So there's really no reason that big companies also can't do the same. It'll be better for them (costing them less, earning them more and allowing them to try their hand at new or different things more often/with less risk.) and better for us (allowing us a greater variety of good games).


And I never said that our cost went up so that we "could be milked" as you put it. I mentioned the cost increase because you stated that it had not increased at all. (Which is a falsehood. And because you have now indicated live in Canada, you should be aware of. Even if the cost increase is due to our dollar changing value... it still means we pay more. Though I would hope you'd have noticed when suddenly you went to buy a game and it rings up as 70+tax instead of 60+tax like it used to. )
Though regardless of the reason, it's still something that can annoy gamers and make them angry. (Even if it's because of something due to the economic situation rather than something game industry has done.)
 
VirusZero said:
 
 
What I'm getting at in that paragraph is how to spend money wisely. Don't waste tremendous amounts of money to make relatively minor graphical improvements. I mean in all seriousness, the fact that Lara's hair behaves slightly more realistically thanks to the TressFX engine does not improve the gameplay. Very few people would likely even notice it, let alone care. (Especially when they have other, more pressing things, like enemies shooting back that they have to deal with.) 
 
I mean suppose they spend 5 million dollars to develop this engine mod. (I have no idea how much they actually spent, I don't have access to that figure. But for sake of argument we'll say a "conservative" 5 million.) In order to make up the money they spend to develop that mod alone they would have to sell an additional 83,334 copies. (That's of course provided that they got the full $60 from each game... But they don't. If memory serves they only get like $20 from each game. So they'd really need to sell an extra 250,002 copies of the game to make up their cost.) Which might not sound like a lot, but it adds up. I mean they start having to spend millions of dollars here, a few million dollars there and suddenly it's not hard to see why they claim games need to sell 4 million or more copies in order to be sustainable. It's because they spend money like crazy on things that ultimately make little difference to the game. 
 
Developing a new engine (like Unreal 4) to run on new hardware though is somewhat of a different story. It's a necessary cost for developing on a new platform. But it's one that pays off because they'll use that engine for the next 6-10 years. (So likely another 4-5 games easily.) And in some cases, like Unreal 4, it gets rented out so that other companies can use it and they make money off that too. 
And this is quite a different scenario than spending time/money to build a new hair mod for the current gen and currently existing engines. (Making a small facet on an existing engine slightly prettier versus the ability to keep making games on a new platform... Quite a large difference on the scale of importance there wouldn't you agree?)
 
But that stated, I don't want companies to get hooked on a graphical "arms" race because to increase the quality of graphics it only ups the development time and cost. (Since to get more lifelike models you have to spend more time working on them and adding features.) And, at least for the present, graphics have hit a plateau where they aren't going to really get that much better looking. (This isn't a case of like jumping from SNES to N64 level of graphics...) And, like mentioned above, ultimately gamers don't need the most amazing graphics ever provided the game is good. 
 
Ultimately, what I want is companies that plan realistic budgets and curb wasteful spending. Don't misunderstand... I think there is a place for sequels. But there's also more than enough room for them to do other/new things too. I want things so that they can try their hand with new ideas without so much risk that it could backfire. So they aren't spending 200 million dollars to develop a game that might never sell enough. I mean games like Dark Souls, which sold only 2 million copies, can succeed... Because of the fact they budgeted accordingly. So there's really no reason that big companies also can't do the same. It'll be better for them (costing them less, earning them more and allowing them to try their hand at new or different things more often/with less risk.) and better for us (allowing us a greater variety of good games).
 
 
And I never said that our cost went up so that we "could be milked" as you put it. I mentioned the cost increase because you stated that it had not increased at all. (Which is a falsehood. And because you have now indicated live in Canada, you should be aware of. Even if the cost increase is due to our dollar changing value... it still means we pay more. Though I would hope you'd have noticed when suddenly you went to buy a game and it rings up as 70+tax instead of 60+tax like it used to. )
Though regardless of the reason, it's still something that can annoy gamers and make them angry. (Even if it's because of something due to the economic situation rather than something game industry has done.)
Click to expand...
Boy you put a lot of thought into being angry at the people who make the products you enjoy.

I'm just going to go ahead and keep having fun with video games. Enjoy being angry about everything all the time.
 
I don't think it's exactly gamers that are the problem. It's the fact that we can pretty much anonymously talk with other people, due to the nature of the internet. The phrase "anonymity breeds hostility" applies here. If there are no repercussions, or if you don't know another person, it's very easy to be mean to them. You would think of them as just another person on the internet, not an actual human-being behind a computer like you. If anonymity was broken and there were actual rules on how one should behave online, you would see gamers being a lot nicer in general.

However, you mention gamers whining and complaining about little things. I would have to say that "gamers" in this context would have to be the vocal minority, or just children. Most gamers are mature, and are pretty content playing games just for the hell of it. They don't really care about DLC, or how a game looks, or things like that. However, when it comes to content getting cut from the game and being put out as DLC/Pre-order bonuses, or a developer trying to silence criticism, they have the right to complain. These practices undermine the gaming industry and makes us all look bad. In this case, I think negativity would be justified here. For example, the recent Watch Dogs scandal, where the graphics effect from E3 were purposely cut from PC. That is something to be angry about, no doubt.

Also, the growth of competitive gaming could be a huge factor of this negativity in the gaming community. If you play an MOBA game, especially League of Legends or Dota 2, you're going to have a bad time. When a game is based on a team, and it only takes one person to drag the entire team down, yeah, people will get angry. You may see this as negative, and it is, but it's not mutually exclusive to gamers. You can play a game of professional soccer and be terrible at it, and you will get the same reaction from your teammates. It'll just be implicit instead of explicit like playing an online game, because really, who will come up to you and insult you face to face? That would make them look bad. This is the reason why most people only vent their angry out online, because no one knows who they are, and they don't need to look you in the eyes. 

Gamers really aren't the problem here. It's human nature. 
 
Ridge said:
You don't have to cough up $60 for a game and then spend another $40 on the DLC. You choose to! You could wait for a sale, or the price to drop.

You are literally saying you need the game and all the DLC, but don't want to pay for it.
How is this not just an entitlement problem?
Click to expand...
Your right in a sense but the fact is today developers leave a lot out of the game to sell you at a later date. 1990's to 2000's when developers made games for the gamer, a 20 hour game was considered a short game. Fast forward to today and a 8 hour game is considered to be the average length of the game. And then they want to sell you another 6 hours of content for another $40+.. I highly doubt you would hear anyone complain if today's games were all 20+ hours minimum.

Greg
 
Stained Hero said:
Your right in a sense but the fact is today developers leave a lot out of the game to sell you at a later date. 1990's to 2000's when developers made games for the gamer, a 20 hour game was considered a short game. Fast forward to today and a 8 hour game is considered to be the average length of the game. And then they want to sell you another 6 hours of content for another $40+.. I highly doubt you would hear anyone complain if today's games were all 20+ hours minimum.
 
Greg
Click to expand...
I actually know people who would complain, myself included. It is already hard enough to play everything. If suddenly every game took twice as long to finish I don't know what I'd do..

And again production costs and times. As gamers we'd be largely upset if games took way longer to come out, even if a longer story was the direct result of that. Plus studios can't afford to take longer to make games just to make a story mode (that most players won't finish anyways) longer.
 
I wouldn't say I am a negative gamer. However I could agree with you a bit that their are a lot of negative gamers, but in my opinion I think those negative gamers are just the ones who completely forgot that its just a game its not real life and its not all that important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top