If you think EA's a fucking PITA, wait until their newest idea goes through.

[Simond]

When COD dies, it's going to be sudden because it's going to kill the annual-map-pack-disguised-as-new-game market stone cold dead for a generation and take a whole bunch of publishers with it so naturally said publishers are going to prop it up way past the point of no return.

I suspect the next gen consoles might just do it, assuming the cost to develop does the typical sort of jump expected with each iteration of shiny new console. It's all well and good selling X million copies of "Call of Duty: Surely We've Killed Everyone Foreign By Now 3" but if it's costing you more to make than the money you're pulling it, that doesn't matter.

[UnSub]

People aren't entertained by predictibility. They are entertained by the unknown, the drama, the risk, the comedy, and the dynamicism.

Only somewhat. People generally buy the safe and familiar. Occasionally people venture out and buy something that is really new new (and there's a sub-group in every culture who lead the way) but the majority don't trailblaze, they go where is comfortable. See the abundance of sequels in movies, or adaptions of other sources (which has always been the way going back to serials of Buck Rogers) or writers who stick to one genre or even Kickstarters that fund remakes / updates of previously enjoyed titles or genres. Fifty Shades of Grey and Harry Potter were 'new' for only a short period of time before they became acceptable for <insert group here> to buy.

On top of this in game terms players appear to be increasingly less likely to pay $60 for anything less than a great game - good but flawed is no longer enough (unless they are a sequel e.g. Skyrim). Plus there are plenty of channels for buying such titles at less than full price, which is damaging to publishers (and the studios they have relationships with) because the bulk of titles at retail - still the bigger sales channel at this point - have only 10 weeks to make the bulk of their revenue before the game is forgotten / start to be sold used.

Some believe that killing the publishers will make things all better, and that studios will be free to truly do things differently... and some will. But a lot of studios may end up finding that publishers took over a lot of the risks they'll end up facing as indies, and that instead of relying on a publisher's credit to get a game developed, they'll now have to start self-funding. And / or move to low cost development options, like apps / mobile games.

So yeah, publishers suck. However, I'm not sure that getting rid of them is going to lead to a better outcome by default. The new boss doesn't have to be better than the old boss.

[lamaros]

50 shades of grey was just twilight fan fic, and romance novels have sold really well for a long time, so the novelty there is not as great as it seems.

There is rarely something that genuinely comes out of nowhere, that's not how humans work: either in creating or consuming.

[Ingmar]

On top of this in game terms players appear to be increasingly less likely to pay $60 for anything less than a great game - good but flawed is no longer enough (unless they are a sequel e.g. Skyrim).

If Skyrim isn't considered a great game, but just a good-but-flawed sequel, I just give up even trying to have discussions about this stuff anymore.

[lamaros]

On top of this in game terms players appear to be increasingly less likely to pay $60 for anything less than a great game - good but flawed is no longer enough (unless they are a sequel e.g. Skyrim).

If Skyrim isn't considered a great game, but just a good-but-flawed sequel, I just give up even trying to have discussions about this stuff anymore.

The older you get the better games have to be to be good - because they don't compete with what is around now, or recently, but every single gaming memory the reviewer has ever had. And if they don't meet the best of them - they're crap!

[Margalis]

Except it wasn't called crap, it was called "good but flawed" - which is pretty accurate. (Unless you are talking about the PS3 version, which apparently is crap)

[Musashi]

So yeah, publishers suck. However, I'm not sure that getting rid of them is going to lead to a better outcome by default. The new boss doesn't have to be better than the old boss.

It's totally fair to say that Publishers assume most of, if not all the risk involved in making larger games.  But that's no reason to be so pessimistic.  After all, the demand for good games is still the same.  We just have to make them differently now that we can't hide behind the weight of giant publishers.  That's not automatically bad either.  They just won't have all the bells and whistles.  And I think we may be too hung up on that crap anyway.  They don't by themselves facilitate a better experience.

[Ingmar]

On top of this in game terms players appear to be increasingly less likely to pay $60 for anything less than a great game - good but flawed is no longer enough (unless they are a sequel e.g. Skyrim).

If Skyrim isn't considered a great game, but just a good-but-flawed sequel, I just give up even trying to have discussions about this stuff anymore.

The older you get the better games have to be to be good - because they don't compete with what is around now, or recently, but every single gaming memory the reviewer has ever had. And if they don't meet the best of them - they're crap!

I'm 38!  Sometimes I wonder, though, if the fact that I regularly go back and replay the 'classics' gives me a different perspective on these games than people who are working off of their 10 year old memories - maybe explains why I always seem to be gentler on the newer RPGs, because the flaws of the old ones are fresher and haven't faded to just happy warm feelings or something.

[ajax34i]

How about "Skyrim with the mods that fix the UI, improve the textures a bit, and pretty up the faces" is a great game, but because the mods are fan-made, Bethesda only gets credit for a "good but flawed" game?  Would that work?  Cause, every time they patch I have to wait a week or so for SkyUI to work again, and I can't play the game without it (I tried), so I'm never going to give Bethesda a "great" rating.

[Amaron]

How about "Skyrim with the mods that fix the UI, improve the textures a bit, and pretty up the faces" is a great game, but because the mods are fan-made, Bethesda only gets credit for a "good but flawed" game? 

Skyrim gets some credit for those mods though because their whole system for handling mods is just far superior to other games.  It's a lot more than simply releasing the creation kit.

[lamaros]

On top of this in game terms players appear to be increasingly less likely to pay $60 for anything less than a great game - good but flawed is no longer enough (unless they are a sequel e.g. Skyrim).

If Skyrim isn't considered a great game, but just a good-but-flawed sequel, I just give up even trying to have discussions about this stuff anymore.

The older you get the better games have to be to be good - because they don't compete with what is around now, or recently, but every single gaming memory the reviewer has ever had. And if they don't meet the best of them - they're crap!

I'm 38!  Sometimes I wonder, though, if the fact that I regularly go back and replay the 'classics' gives me a different perspective on these games than people who are working off of their 10 year old memories - maybe explains why I always seem to be gentler on the newer RPGs, because the flaws of the old ones are fresher and haven't faded to just happy warm feelings or something.

Aye, same here. We're mid-gamelife-crisis resistant as a result I would say. Much easier to recognise why you do and don't like something when you have recent experience rather than memories of feelings or moments.