Question Of The Month Reader Responses: Issue #235

A few months ago we asked readers what business practice they would change in the video game industry. Many of the replies focused on the recent methods used by publishers to increase profits. Here are some of the responses.

The DLC Doldrums:

• Nowadays, I really dislike the use of DLC to finish a game. Some prime examples would be Prince of Persia (2008) and Asura's Wrath. They leave the game without a conclusion to squeeze $10 more dollars out of you after you've given $60 to them already. It's pretty disgusting. I know when I buy a game I expect to be able to finish it.
  
  Andrew Buckley
• If I could change one business practice in the video game industry, it would be on-disc dlc. This has become a scourge on the industry as a whole, and makes business sense, but not practical sense. I paid $60 for your video game, now you're going to tell me that I can't play the game in it's entirety because you wanted to make me cough up a few more dollars?
  
  Derek Nosbisch
• From a consumer standpoint, I think carving bits of a game out to be sold later as DLC needs to stop. To clarify, I have no problem with DLC as it can heavily extend or improve the experience for a number of games. But this practice of tearing out chunks of the game that would normally have been in the game is just horrid.
  
  Zack Schlipf

Cast Off The Online Shackles:

• The biggest issue for me is when game HAVE to be played online, even single-player games. Why shouldn't we be able to play games we pay for if the Internet goes down? 
  
  David Fairbanks
• I would get rid of online passes that have been coming with multiplayer games these past couple of years. It's a frustrating, money-grabbing ploy that makes used games less desirable to purchase. They've already been paid in full by the first customers. No one should be forced to buy an online pass to get the entire game experience if they buy a used copy.
  
  Joey Thurmond

Enough With The Ads:

• I would change in-game advertisements. In certain games this is acceptable, such as sports games that already have name brand endorsements, but games that have nothing to do with any particular endorser should just leave well enough alone. If the games of tomorrow are going to be heavily riddled with in-game advertisements then at least drop the price and let the advertising pay the difference to the developer.
  
  Caleb

Take Your Time:

• The one thing I would change about the gaming industry is the amount of time that goes into game development. If a game is to be art and not just a cash-grab, it can’t be rushed. To rush art is to ruin it.
  
  Ryan Balogh
• The biggest thing that needs to change in the gaming industry is deadlines. Look at a company like Valve. They have little to no deadlines and a very laid back approach to making games. They also have a fantastic list of top tier games that they have released. Going to the other end of the spectrum; how much better would Madden and NCAA be if they took the time to get them right instead of force feeding us a new one every year?
  
  Bob Topp
• I would change companies that produce sequels on an annual basis. It feels that quantity is more important than quality as far as game releases are concerned. The industry should follow a model where they release games when they are ready to be released – and by “ready” I mean that they are completed with a solid story and solid gameplay.
  
  Mark Derflinger

No More One-Price-Fits-All:

• I would make a change to the standard "$60 price or you get no release" practice. I honestly think that allowing the developer to set their own price point would result in a domino effect, eliminating a lot of irritating problems such as games being too short but touted as full-price experiences, or games being unnecessarily padded to meet an arbitrary hour quota.  I also think this would result in developers not being afraid to make a smaller or shorter game, and still be able to get a physical retail release.
  
  Jacqueline Cuevas

Spread It Out:

• The video game industry tends to release a slew of high-profile games all at once and then go through a huge dry spell. My friends and I would be willing to buy more new games if they didn’t all come out in November.
  
  Kristopher Keithley
• If I could change anything about the video game industry, I would start releasing more blockbuster titles in the summer months. Right now the industry focuses too much on the holiday market and not enough on the summer market. When I open issues of Game Informer from October through December, I see a multitude of high scoring games. In the summer I find myself looking for a good release, as opposed to taking the holiday market for granted, which I think many consumers do. 
  
  Garth Weaver

Seeing Red:

• I would get rid of using a red tinge and/or a black and white filter to indicate damage. Even in games where it’s handled well, it's annoying and makes them harder to play. Poor implementation can make a game unplayable. Health bars cannot return soon enough.
  
  Dan L.

Hire An Exterminator:

• There are so many things about the business aspect of video games that I don't agree with. I think that the one that bothers me the most is the long-standing practice of releasing games with tons of bugs and glitches in them. Maybe if they spent less time and money on marketing and hype and more on game development, we'd have less buggy games.  It's 2012 after all. Haven't we figured out how to debug game code any better than this yet?  
  
  John Enfield

Put Some Clothes On:

• I can't stand the practice of having half-naked women in so many games. It’s a creepy trend that started with Lara Croft's breasts getting bigger with every game, and now it's to the point that they might as well be naked. I have two young daughters and am not comfortable letting them play some games. Let the weirdos get a porn mag if they want, but leave it out of games.
  
  Brian Miller

What business practice would you change? Share your thoughts in the comments below.