Gamer Elitism

[Jaden]

I just don't get the need of some people to categorize everything....we get enough of that in life to where we don't need to add it to our hobbies.

Part of the enjoyment I get from my hobbies is categorizing things, actually As for Pink Floyd, well I really don't like the Dave period at all. Division Bell is ok, but I really hate Momentary Lapse Of Reason. But it doesn't make me any more or less of a real fan than you or anybody else. These are just things I like to think about - I'm a huge music nerd (I even have a music review blog) and gaming nerd, and pondering why I do or don't like something, or what makes this game/album good are things I like to think about. It usually gives me greater enjoyment of the thing in question.

[mikoyan29]

Part of the enjoyment I get from my hobbies is categorizing things, actually As for Pink Floyd, well I really don't like the Dave period at all. Division Bell is ok, but I really hate Momentary Lapse Of Reason. But it doesn't make me any more or less of a real fan than you or anybody else. These are just things I like to think about - I'm a huge music nerd (I even have a music review blog) and gaming nerd, and pondering why I do or don't like something, or what makes this game/album good are things I like to think about. It usually gives me greater enjoyment of the thing in question.

I often wonder why I like certain piece of music...

If I had to rank Floyd albums though....
1. Meddle - This seemed to be the last album before Waters took over. There is still quite a bit of whimsy.

[bex1218]

I get the whole, "You are not a true metal fan because you listen to other types of music" people.

Only video games I am good at is Need for Speed. The rest I cheat on. I am so bad at video games, its just horrible.

[mikoyan29]

I don't know, it seems that it is something that some people use to lord over others. For some reason, it brings meaning to their life or something.

[lordlundar]

Only video games I am good at is Need for Speed. The rest I cheat on. I am so bad at video games, its just horrible.

Meh, my attitude is if it's just me versus the computer, all bets are off and I don't play nice.

That said, the moment it's me against another human, I will play fair.

[HYHYBT]

It's probably mostly due to the fact that releasing one a year is an obvious cash grab. One every two - three years or so would be a bit more reasonable. That way, the ones that actually have important improvements would be the rule rather than the exception.

OK. Supposing for the moment it's true that most years don't include a change in the way the game is played. That's a good reason not to *buy* the game every year, if you already have it and you don't care about rosters and whatever. But what's wrong with their *offering* a version with those updated for people who want it, or whose copies are several years old, or who have a new system, etc? Why should those people *have* to get a slightly outdated version just because *you* don't want a newer one for yourself?

[mikoyan29]

They pretty much have to offer some sorts of improvements though. I mean you can make up roster changes if you want. Hell, you can probably even come up with the numbers for the new players. I like sports games but for me, one every so often is good enough but I'm not going to begrudge people that buy a new copy every year.

[Jaden]

OK. Supposing for the moment it's true that most years don't include a change in the way the game is played. That's a good reason not to *buy* the game every year, if you already have it and you don't care about rosters and whatever. But what's wrong with their *offering* a version with those updated for people who want it, or whose copies are several years old, or who have a new system, etc? Why should those people *have* to get a slightly outdated version just because *you* don't want a newer one for yourself?

Nobody "has" to do anything, but that doesn't mean I can't call it what it is and be annoyed by it - an obvious cash grab. And I don't really like it when companies do obvious cash grabs. At least disguise it a bit so it's not so blatant. You know how you can disguise obvious cash grabs? By putting worthwhile content in it.

[Nekojin]

There are a LOT of people who are frustrated with yearly releases on the sports titles, including some of the developers. What would be more rational would be a new title (with engine improvements, etc.) every 2 or 3 years, with "off" years having an optional roster update (for a price, of course) that players can buy for a smaller price than a full-priced game. $60 for the full game, $20 for a roster update next year, for example. Meanwhile, bugfixes should be ongoing, and the increased time between the full releases gives the lead programming crews more time to refine any engine improvements and make sure that they're actually ready for prime-time.

[Hyena Dandy]

Nobody "has" to do anything, but that doesn't mean I can't call it what it is and be annoyed by it - an obvious cash grab. And I don't really like it when companies do obvious cash grabs. At least disguise it a bit so it's not so blatant. You know how you can disguise obvious cash grabs? By putting worthwhile content in it.

Worthwhile content like... What I mentioned? There have been significant updates to the gameplay the last few years.

There are a LOT of people who are frustrated with yearly releases on the sports titles, including some of the developers. What would be more rational would be a new title (with engine improvements, etc.) every 2 or 3 years, with "off" years having an optional roster update (for a price, of course) that players can buy for a smaller price than a full-priced game. $60 for the full game, $20 for a roster update next year, for example. Meanwhile, bugfixes should be ongoing, and the increased time between the full releases gives the lead programming crews more time to refine any engine improvements and make sure that they're actually ready for prime-time.

See, that would be a workable idea, and things like "The developers are overtaxed leading to them not being able to implement what they want" are totally reasonable complaints. Personally, I like them yearly, but that's just me and I crave novelty. I don't have a great enmity towards non-yearly sports releases. I just don't like being told they're just roster updates when they've been improving by huge strides every year.

However, they haven't been 'just roster updates' and there have been significant advances to how the game is played the last several years.

[Jaden]

There are a LOT of people who are frustrated with yearly releases on the sports titles, including some of the developers. What would be more rational would be a new title (with engine improvements, etc.) every 2 or 3 years, with "off" years having an optional roster update (for a price, of course) that players can buy for a smaller price than a full-priced game. $60 for the full game, $20 for a roster update next year, for example. Meanwhile, bugfixes should be ongoing, and the increased time between the full releases gives the lead programming crews more time to refine any engine improvements and make sure that they're actually ready for prime-time.

This would be much more reasonable. Also, Hyena, I was merely responding to HYHYBT's hypothetical assertion, not any of the things you were talking about.

[Hyena Dandy]

Oh, okay. Long as we're clear.