Gaming's Biggest Fallacies Page 2

  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

  • X201 9 Jun 2013 22:20:08 15,124 posts
    Seen 21 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    MrTomFTW wrote:
    I still think that long term PS+ is bad for the industry.
    Its the way the industry is going. Games as a service.

    I think that by the end of this gen you'll be able to buy a yearly subscription to a developer and get all of their sports games or all of their shooters and DLC released that year.
  • JinTypeNoir 9 Jun 2013 22:21:58 4,365 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The "it's got a low score on Metacritic so it's a bad game/nobody likes it," or "none of my friends or acquaintances knows what it is, so it's not popular/selling well." I see this one all the time, so it must be everywhere.



    :p
  • Zizoo 9 Jun 2013 22:53:22 8,105 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    It's just a fallacyyyyy
  • kinky_mong 9 Jun 2013 23:05:30 9,946 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    neilka wrote:
    Came in here to post that.

    I'll never get my Orc looking the same again.

  • Kami 9 Jun 2013 23:09:07 2,413 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Here's my personal favourite? "It would be best for everyone if Nintendo became a third-party developer..." (We got this recently from an Eidos bigwig too, so it's very prevalent in the industry)

    We get this every so often, and they think it sounds nice and chimes with the mood of the gaming crowd, but I suspect if it were ever to happen the market would immediately, suddenly and worryingly howl in a mixed cry of despair and anguish.

    I mean, most developers now don't want to compete with Nintendo games. Can you imagine if they had absolutely no other choice but to do so? If every year they came up against a big Nintendo IP like Mario, or Donkey Kong? People don't like Nintendo now, they won't like Nintendo this way either. People will still complain, "Oh, Nintendo games are too good, why didn't they just stick to their own consoles?"

    Sometimes, it's better the devil you know than the devil you don't. You don't have to like Nintendo, or buy their machines, but you have to accept that behind that façade is a raging monster, caged up in a Nintendo-branded box.

    If the industry is scared of it now, just think of how it'll feel when those bars holding it back are taken away.

    Be careful what you wish for...

    Master of Tekisuto No Kabe. *bows*
    And you're reading this why?!

  • Deleted user 9 June 2013 23:17:03
    Gaming is rightfully going the way of spotify, Netflix etc. So in that sense ps+ is brilliant for the industry and ahead of anything on other console/pc.

    On topic. Live has never, ever been value for money. You can convince yourself that it is worth it but in no shape or form is it value for money.
  • DrStrangelove 9 Jun 2013 23:19:14 3,365 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Kami wrote:
    Here's my personal favourite? "It would be best for everyone if Nintendo became a third-party developer..." (We got this recently from an Eidos bigwig too, so it's very prevalent in the industry)
    I think it's a little bit early, so short after the immense success of the Wii and the DS, and the ongoing success of the 3DS. It's not like they're hopeless.
  • Razz 9 Jun 2013 23:22:44 60,750 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    DrStrangelove wrote:
    Kami wrote:
    Here's my personal favourite? "It would be best for everyone if Nintendo became a third-party developer..." (We got this recently from an Eidos bigwig too, so it's very prevalent in the industry)
    I think it's a little bit early, so short after the immense success of the Wii and the DS, and the ongoing success of the 3DS. It's not like they're hopeless.
    That and they actually make a profits, http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-04-24-nintendo-makes-surprise-profit-despite-lower-than-expected-wii-u-sales

    Unlike Microsoft's Xbox:
    http://www.neowin.net/news/report-microsofts-xbox-division-has-lost-nearly-3-billion-in-10-years

    Edit: I know it's not this simple and that this is a poor comparison

    Edited by Razz at 23:24:31 09-06-2013

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Steam/PSN/XBOX: Razztafarai | 3DS: 1246-9674-8856
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

  • Kami 9 Jun 2013 23:40:01 2,413 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    @DrStrangelove ; I know, but the point is that it is a fallacy (defined as; a badly constructed argument, often using poor reasoning and skewed factual data).

    The point I was making is that it's a huge fallacy that both gamers and the industry have been pedalling for years. A poorly-constructed argument based on untruths and the foolish blind egotism that Nintendo isn't "cool" enough for the hardware market.

    The reality is that people just don't like admitting Nintendo games are usually great, they just don't want to be seen buying the hardware. The industry doesn't like to compete on Nintendo hardware because of Nintendo games, but the problem is they have that choice right now. Nintendo as third-party means they would have no choice but to compete with Nintendo.

    I mentioned it because Ian Livingstone, president at Eidos Interactive, said it not a few days ago. I'll quote his exact words;

    "Nintendo should have their IP on every platform, otherwise a whole generation of young people will miss out on their games."
    I'd punch a hole in the "young people will miss out on their games" by suggesting that more people would likely be able to afford the 3DS and a Wii U compared to the new machines incoming, but that's so obvious it doesn't need to be attacked. It's already drowning in bullshit...

    I will admit there's a question mark there though I didn't realise I threw in...

    Master of Tekisuto No Kabe. *bows*
    And you're reading this why?!

  • DrStrangelove 10 Jun 2013 00:14:48 3,365 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    @Kami

    I didn't think that statement was your opinion, as this is the fallacy thread.

    Just funny that people say Nintendo should finally give up on making consoles directly after(?) many years of utter dominance on the market.
  • Dizzy 10 Jun 2013 00:18:58 2,570 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Syrette wrote:
    I'll start with something I hear and read all too often:

    "PS+ is great value, all these free games, for only £39.99".

    Yes, it's good value for money (albeit perhaps less so if you rent), but Sony aren't some lovable charitable company giving you something for nothing.

    Just sayin'.
    Drm... But it is awesome because it is Sony.

    /sarcasm
  • FuzzyDuck 10 Jun 2013 01:42:56 3,892 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Syrette wrote:
    I'll start with something I hear and read all too often:

    "PS+ is great value, all these free games, for only £39.99".

    Yes, it's good value for money (albeit perhaps less so if you rent), but Sony aren't some lovable charitable company giving you something for nothing.

    Just sayin'.
    You bring this without fail whenever someone says it. I was almost going about to reply to one such case last week.

    Does it really get on your tits that much?
  • JinTypeNoir 10 Jun 2013 02:06:41 4,365 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The Nintendo one is particularly aggravating because if they did go 3rd party, you could probably a kiss a lot of their quality control goodbye. It's because they have revenue from the peripherals, hardware, licensing fees and so on they get as a hardware manufacturer that they can afford to finance development of a game for 3 years, cancel it and then resurrect it 10 years later with a new budget to turn into some high-selling, well-regarded game.

    The Nintendo we have right now already feels like it has to brand Mario onto a lot of its games in order to make them sell more, and this already tweaks people quite a bit, can you imagine how much they'd do it if they didn't have a steady income to fall back on?

    And for all those people who say, "But Pokemon!" Everything non-game related on that franchise is handled by a separate, but linked company called the Pokemon co. that is responsible for its own finances, so that's not going to help much.

    We have four examples of software companies that hit dire straits and/or disappeared once they stopped producing hardware: Atari, Hudson, SNK and Sega, in order. Do we need another one to get it through people's thick skulls?

    Edited by JinTypeNoir at 02:07:13 10-06-2013
  • bobdebob 10 Jun 2013 03:07:43 546 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Hudson?
  • Mola_Ram 10 Jun 2013 03:23:24 6,952 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    They were involved with the pc engine, iirc.
  • JinTypeNoir 10 Jun 2013 03:57:08 4,365 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Hudson worked with NEC to make the PC Engine/TurboGrafx. There used to be a saying, "Kawanakya, Hudson!" or "If Hudson makes it, I gotta buy it!" A lot of people aren't aware of the reputation they used to have and the influence they used to exert on the industry.
  • UncleLou Moderator 10 Jun 2013 08:39:27 35,423 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    FuzzyDuck wrote:
    Syrette wrote:
    I'll start with something I hear and read all too often:

    "PS+ is great value, all these free games, for only £39.99".

    Yes, it's good value for money (albeit perhaps less so if you rent), but Sony aren't some lovable charitable company giving you something for nothing.

    Just sayin'.
    You bring this without fail whenever someone says it. I was almost going about to reply to one such case last week.

    Does it really get on your tits that much?
    Pre-console-launch, some people get very excited.

    I wonder what Syrette imagines people should say instead of "free" though, because it is much less a fallacy than a linguistic abbreviation.
  • MrTomFTW Moderator 10 Jun 2013 08:50:46 37,307 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    X201 wrote:
    MrTomFTW wrote:
    I still think that long term PS+ is bad for the industry.
    Its the way the industry is going. Games as a service.

    I think that by the end of this gen you'll be able to buy a yearly subscription to a developer and get all of their sports games or all of their shooters and DLC released that year.
    I think I'd be all for that, but at the moment PS+is a little too good if you know what I mean. With such a large, constantly updating list of good games on that service I've seen enough comments along the lines of "I'll wait for this to be on PS+" that it makes me think it could potentially damage the mid-tier of games which is already hurting in terms of sales as is.

    Fantastic for us short term, but I'm not convinced about the long term.

    Follow me on Twitter: @MrTom
    Voted by the community "Best mod" 2011, 2012 and 2013.

  • LeoliansBro 10 Jun 2013 08:58:53 43,220 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Fallacy: that there was some kind of 'good old days' or a golden age of gaming, and that things now are ruined by changes to the industry and different sales models. Topical, hey?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • dominalien 10 Jun 2013 09:03:41 6,829 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It's true, PS+ is too good.

    Reminds me of a pre-paid data SIM I got with my Vita. I had to pay the equivalent of £5 a month to keep the service going (it's more than you Brits might think for people over here, but still fairly little) and after some months I had accumulated some £60 on it plus 15 gigs of promotional data transfer. There was no way I was going to use it and all that money was just sitting there, annoying the crap out of me, so in the end I put it in a phone, used the money on calls and threw the sim out. I'm now using a service that's less attractive on paper, but one where I can actually use the money I put in.

    I'm not sure how Sony are doing on PS+ by way of profitability, but I have a feeling this and some other initiatives they've been putting together recently are less about short term income and more about getting as much goodwill as they can. If they're not making money off +, they'll sooner or later need to make it less attractive. Luckily for everyone involved, even if it is gimped at some point, it still has a chance of being very compelling.

    PSN: DonOsito

  • Kami 10 Jun 2013 09:10:36 2,413 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    @JinTypeNoir ; Indeed. The whole Nintendo fallacy is a complex weave of threads that people love to toss about, but ultimately there's nothing holding them together in a ball. The slightest tug and the fun kind of stops dead.

    The thing that did Hudson in though was the collapse of its financial banking institution in 2000 through toxic investments and inflated valuations in the real estate market (oh, what's that little niggling voice in the back? You thought we were special in 2008/2009? You thought that America and the UK got this all wrong on its own accord and it was a surprise to everyone. How positively CUTE!). It lost pretty much everything and had no alternative but to turn to the stock market, where Konami stepped in and began pretty much assimilating it over the next decade.

    Atari - there's a funny story. I remember reading a book about the dumb things Atari did over the years and one of the dumbest moves was that it refused to market or sell a games console to the market in the mid-80's, leaving the company behind it to go it alone and crush the Atari home console into the dirt. This machine was the Famicom, i.e. the Nintendo Entertainment System. Nintendo didn't particularly WANT to do it alone in the American market. They offered Atari the chance to sell it in every market except its home nation of Japan, and rebrand the machine if they so wished. Atari didn't, Nintendo went it alone, and I think we all know what happened next.

    Sega effectively doomed themselves with financial mismanagement, we know this by now, and SNK - well, they pushed a machine on the market that was super-advanced and had all the shiniest stuff, even came with two CPU's and specially-designed graphics and sound (the AES), but it cost them. And us, frankly, because it was $599.99 on release. Not to mention their strange idea to port games to the weaker systems (usually Sega as I recall, the two had a "special relationship" of sorts), often demonstrating on their own accord that all that power was, frankly, a bit of a waste of time and money. Hard to ask people to buy the hardware when you're actively putting the games on other machines, really... that's just basic business logic. Keep a Unique Selling Point, be it technical or, in the case of most hardware companies, a series of unique IPs and franchises.

    Say what you like about Nintendo, they've certainly weathered a lot of shit in their time. It's almost something to admire really, they've pulled through when many of the more popular/shiny ones didn't.

    Anyway, that's those guys taken care off. Nice to see you again by the way Jin, s'up? :p

    Edited by Kami at 09:15:10 10-06-2013

    Master of Tekisuto No Kabe. *bows*
    And you're reading this why?!

  • kalel 10 Jun 2013 09:14:17 86,315 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I'd say every argument about why Nintendo shouldn't go 3rd party is potentially as fallacious as those that say they should.

    Particularly the argument that quality control would go out the window, and they'd somehow be pressured to bang out games by the likes of Sony and MS.

    If Nintendo were to go 3rd party they would wield incredible power as a dev/publisher. They'd be in a similar league to Valve, in fact probably held in even higher regard. When was the last time you saw them rushing out a game or sacrificing quality?

    The comparisons with Sega are particularly fallacious. It's an obvious comparison but totally flawed when you actually compare the companies, and in particular the types and the popularity of the franchises they have.
  • Chopsen 10 Jun 2013 09:23:24 15,709 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Ah, but Valve have a nice little earner in Steam. So the same argument applies: an additional source of income means you don't have to rush games out. Or actually make them at all any more, apparently, in Valve's case.
  • dominalien 10 Jun 2013 09:25:17 6,829 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Shhh, don't be putting ideas into their heads, now. Besides, Portal 2 wasn't that very long ago, was it? I'm still waiting for the Linux version.

    PSN: DonOsito

  • Chopsen 10 Jun 2013 09:25:21 15,709 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Kami wrote:
    people love to toss ... The slightest tug and the fun kind of stops dead.
    /raises eyebrow
  • Deckard1 10 Jun 2013 09:28:20 27,111 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Biggest fallacy in gaming is probably Cole Train off Gears of war.
  • Deckard1 10 Jun 2013 09:28:32 27,111 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Wait whats a fallacy?
  • DFawkes 10 Jun 2013 09:28:39 22,585 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Nintendo is a business, so if it did make significant financial sense to go third party, I'm sure they would. It's just not going to happen within the next couple of years, because they're still making money, even given the poor ongoing sales of the Wii U. I think they'd really have to have their portable consoles suffer the same poor sales as the Wii U at the same time to start making big losses.

    So whilst I certainly don't see them making Mario for the One or PS4, who knows how things will go after that?

    I'd kick the living daylights out of the producers of Tipping Point - Ghandi

  • nickthegun 10 Jun 2013 09:28:46 58,782 posts
    Seen 32 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    The comparisons with Sega are particularly fallacious. It's an obvious comparison but totally flawed when you actually compare the companies, and in particular the types and the popularity of the franchises they have.
    For me, the biggest difference, as I keep saying, is that Nintendo could actually engineer a smooth transition and develop business strategies well before any announcement.

    Sega, on the other hand, went down like the titanic and had no money to finance any kind of change implementation, which is why they suddenly stopped producing games.

    You absolutely cant compare them. Its like comparing Tesco pulling out of the US grocery market and Ratners pulling out of the UK jewellery market.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • nickthegun 10 Jun 2013 09:29:24 58,782 posts
    Seen 32 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Deckard1 wrote:
    Biggest fallacy in gaming is probably Cole Train off Gears of war.
    Thanks fuck for that. I have been waiting nearly a week for someone to make that joke.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

Log in or register to reply