Mm, I think you misunderstand. I don't mean to say gamers can't be anyone. I'm saying that there's too much appeal towards audiences that are grasping at gaming as a fad rather then what it truly is. My apologies if that was misconstrued.

No need to apologize. Is it a bad thing that video games are a fad? Won't that bring new resources and ideas to the industry? 

I think to some degree it's a good thing; supply and demand forces them to get more out there. However I think that's also a bad thing because lately quality has suffered in many instances. I'm pretty torn on it to be honest. I think there's pros and cons, but I'd rather see them focus on quality then the dollar gain. If that all makes sense. :)

Hopefully when the next console generation arrives, developers and publishers will take more creative risks. 

Yes, and I'm very excited to see what the Ouya has to offer.

Unfortunately the demographics are like that because you don't see 35 year old men prancing around in spandex screaming "I'm a gamer". The attention is on the people that do that but know nothing more than that "you shoot people in the cod game". The industry reps look at that and say oh, well the greater part of the gaming community says that what they like about video games is that "you shoot people in the cod game"... so they never work to improve it, keep releasing the same cookie cutter game, and the people who play at a hardcore pace are starting to be dissapointed. It really is sad the sway the industry has started taking.

I'm in my 40's and mainly as a public service, I do my best not to prance around in spandex screaming anything lol.

However, I do go out of my way to remind those who work in the AAA industry and in the media that it is people like myself who represent the majority of the core audience, not 16 to 23 year old male hardcore multiplayer fans. The majority responsible for practically all AAA game sales per year. The majority that has never been motivated to participate in any form of play by a desire for unrealistic levels of "challenge," abuse or failure. The majority that is sick to death of having toys designed for sadomasochistic man-boys forced down their throats under intentionally false and misleading pretenses. And the majority who the AAA industry must retain while also attracting new players into the market in order to survive in the coming years. Because no business or industry can survive in a free market by ignoring the preferences and needs of 99 percent of their audience so they can exclusively pander to a tiny, toxic sub-segment of the audience.

So the question is will AAA designers, developers and publishers be smart enough to proactively make the changes needed to realign themselves with their actual audience? Or will they continue to attempt to have their cake and eat it too, until it's too late? Based on their behavior over the past several years, there's a very high probability it will be the latter. And honestly, this is the best case scenario for casual, core, mid-core and hardcore players. Because the market and the medium simply cannot grow or evolve until people like John Riccitiello, Bobby Kotick, Yves Guillemot, Brian Farrell, Cliff Bleszinski, Jason West, Vince Zampella, David Vonderhaar, Christine Norman, etc... are no longer part of the equation. The sooner it happens, the better off we'll all be.

I have to agree. Though my friends and I are still avid gamers, all of us are cringing at the releases saying that Wii U/Xbox 720/PS4 games will be $100 a pop, knowing that they'll have half a dozen DLC packs following... just to complete the game.
It's one thing I have to say for Nintendo, and one of many reasons Nintendo is still one of my favorite companies; without DLC they're still releasing completed titles at a straightforward price. And more often then not, titles I have interest in. (Like Mario and Zelda)

That's also why I'm adamantly building my console collection with older systems; not only did my very sheltered childhood put me behind when it comes to older titles, but I never had the money to catch up. Now I have a great collection and let me tell you; I can buy a handful of PS2 or Gamecube games for the cost of an Xbox game and they're just as good. And complete! Maybe the graphics aren't today's standards, but that by no means equates to them being bad. If we could go back to those standards, I'd gladly shell out $100 a game.

I'm also slightly perturbed that they're trying to take out GameStop by potentially making games only useable on one gamertag/screen name. Used games sell, and some people can't afford them otherwise. Gaming companies forget that originally, gaming was simply a form of entertainment. I want that back, because it was so much more accesible to people then.

I've been doing the same for the past few years. I've been gaming for 25 years, and when you've been gaming that long you start to fall behind. I am all caught up with current systems. Every single game on the PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii that I want to play, I have (ALL OF THEM!!). However, there was still a huge hole in my library of PS1, N64, PS2 and Gamecube games.

So, a few years ago, I started going around to game stores or garage sales and even Ebay and started picking up everything that slipped between the cracks over the years. And I have found some of my favorite games of all time. I finally played Okami, and absolutely adored it. I also finally got to play Jet Force Gemeni, and MAN is that game hard! Ha.

On another note, I don't want to alarm you, but Nintendo has already announced both the 3DS and the Wii U has been set up to allow for DLC, free to play games and micro transaction. In other words, they are going to start doing what everyone else is doing. I guarantee that when New Super Mario Bros U comes out, we will see level packs, character packs, cheats, skins, you name it.

Things that used to come with a game will be sold to you and me as DLC. Nintendo can't resist anymore, hence their decision to allow it on their future consoles. This also means all 3rd party developers are going to jump on the bandwagon as well, so now we lost our last safe haven. Nintendo used to be the last place you could go to buy a game, and get a full experience.

After the Wii U launches, Nintendo will be just like Microsoft and Sony. Such a damn, damn shame.

Ouch, I hadn't heard that. That's unfortunate. Now mind, I hold out hope that it will be level packs and things of the like. Why? Because then I have some faith that Nintendo will still release full games and just keep adding levels. For a game like Mario, that would make sense and be kind of neat. For a game like Zelda, eh, not so much.

"After the Wii U launches, Nintendo will be just like Microsoft and Sony. Such a damn, damn shame."

It certainly seems like this will be the case and it's confusing because Nintendo's success in the console market over the past 10 to 15 years has been largely based on a Blue Ocean strategy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Ocean_Strategy

A BOS basically means you don't attempt to compete head to head with companies in an established market for the existing audience. You create a new market with distruptive technology that appeals to consumers not being served by the products or services in the existing market. But in the AAA market, the majority of the audience's needs are not currently being addressed or served by MS, Sony or AAA developers. So with the right library of games and services, the Wii U could potentially disrupt MS and Sony's market and audience. Which is why copying MS and Sony's business models makes no sense. 

I'd like to see how Nintendo will market and promote the Wii U as the release date nears before I pass judgement. I think you're right but I hope you're wrong.

I just don't understand how anyone in the AAA industry could honestly believe the business practices they currently engage in are sustainable. Because way the industry treats and interacts with consumers is kryptonite to brand loyalty and brand / artistic integrity. A first year business student understands this. So I can't wrap my head around how the CEO's, marketing execs, designers and producers behind the business practices rationalize that it will end any way for them but badly. 

My thoughts on that is that the dollar bill means more to them now. Which in a lot of ways is true. I work in a factory, as quality control, and find it interesting that the standards we have keep slowly dropping but the product cost keeps going up. I'm assuming it's the same concept. When we ask why things are like they are, they tell us money.

"Things are like they are" because there are too many high level people involved in game development who are only in it for the money. Also factor in epic mismanagement, unbridled greed, arrogance, narcissism, elitism, complacency based on a false sense of invulnerability and a massive disconnection from reality. Aside from this, it's all good lol.

But what really infuriates me is many of these people seriously believe they've "earned" the right to be embraced by the mainstream audience and treated with the same level of respect as reputable artists and businesses in other forms of commercial art and entertainment. This is like the cast of Jersey Shore demanding the audience show them the same respect they'd show the cast of an Oscar winning movie or Tony award winning play. Its time for the industry to learn the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do to you. If the industry wants mainstream respect... the industry must respect the mainstream audience. If the industry continues to mislead, deceive and cheat the mainstream audience, they'll continue to treat the industry like a sociopathic snake oil salesman. 

I completely understand what you're saying, especially about GameStop. I think a better solution would be to work with GameStop though, instead of against them. Maybe make a partnership that would help the gaming companies but also allow GameStop decent revenue. I know I buy used when I can because it allows me to buy more games and I get to play more. Variety and time wise. But that doesn't mean I didn't just shell out $150 for Borderlands 2. If they make the game really appealing, add new elements, etc. and they market it well, they're more likely to sell new copies; and if they worked with GameStop on that they'd probably make out pretty well. Now mind, that'll probably never happen. Just my thoughts on the matter.

I definitely understand pricing increase, to an extent. I think that if you're going to release a game it should be complete and you shouldn't have to wait and pay for DLC. Just add something new with the DLC! Again I refer to Borderlands; who managed to sell plenty of copies of their game new and most people bought at least one DLC because the game was brilliant. Personally I have the Game of the Year edition, but even that sold well. Bring something new, something creative, something awesome to the table and you'll get more sales. Recreate the same game with new colors 50 times and eh, eventually even the real fans get bored. As I'm slowly, and unfortunately, starting to do with CoD.

And a little off topic but I agree. Less-gimmicked would be a nice change too.

Don't fall for the ol' "Gamestop is stealing from us" bit that publishers love to throw at us and hope it sticks. Over 70% of used trade credit at Gamestop is put back into buying new games. Over 70%. This is a billion dollar company here. Imagine all of that money vanishing from the industry?

That's what will happen when everything goes digital. That money will vanish, and the publishers will be begging us to trade in our games again. I worked at a Gamestop, and I can say from experience that 90% of the brand new games I sold wouldn't have been sold if the customer couldn't trade in their old games towards the price of a new one.

When that customer trades in their old games, they aren't taking money away from a publisher. That game has already been purchased. Most of the time, the games being traded in were 6 or more months old, which means that sales for new, boxed copies were already dead. Someone who then buys that game used isn't going to affect the industry one way or another.

However, the person who traded that game in is going to put that credit right back in the the inudstries economy. If suddenly millions of gamers couldn't get rid of their old games to afford new ones, what's going to happen? People aren't going to buy as many games. Sales will suffer. The industry will be in a recession. And, unlike what the publihsers want you to believe, F2P games are not the answer.

As we have been seeing for the past few months, social games have been taking a serious beating. F2P is next. It is a fad, and fads die away. When that happens, all the publishers have left is us again, and we don't take kindly to being ripped off.

I hope nothing I said was misconstrued... I fully support GameStop and the concept of buying used titles as well as trade ins. I don't believe in any way shape or form that GameStop is taking money from publishing companies, however I do see how they tend to turn in a greater revenue. Thus where I suggested a partnership. If the gaming publishers feel that revenue is being taken from them by GameStop, they need to address the issue and maybe enter a partnership with GameStop instead of trying to take them down.

@Ed Grabowski

Thanks for confirming what I've been telling people for years about Game Stop's used game business. Do you know if GS has publicly stated these stats?

@Tyffany Davis

Regardless of what the AAA industry claims, the reality is the used game market is a symptom, it's not the disease. Even if resellers agreed to share a percentage of the profits, it wouldn't solve the root problem. Because it's the industry's own business practices and it's adversarial relationship with consumers that has fueled the growth of the used game market.

Why are so many consumers are unwilling to pay the full retail price for most AAA games? Because developers and publishers have repeatedly burned consumers in recent years by flooding the market with over priced, over hyped, low quality crap. When the industry sells games like Apache: Air Assault for the same price as games like Red Dead Redemption, it destroys consumer confidence in the products and market. Paying full price becomes a gamble instead of a reliable and predictable experience. Because as a consumer, you lose the ability to gauge the value of the games. So consumers either drop out of the AAA market, or they look for methods to reduce the price of the games. And for millions of consumers, that method has become Game Stop's resale business.

Unfortunately, instead of addressing the actual problem... themselves, developers and publishers want to scapegoat Game Stop and the resale market. So they've resorted to sabotaging the value of used games with DRM and or project ten dollar DLC lock outs. Which further erodes consumer confidence in the market and creates animosity towards the developers and publishers. This has become a cannibalistic cycle that will not end until the industry radically alters or abandons it's current business practices. But as they say, the first step toward recovery is admitting that you have a problem. Sadly, AAA developers and publishers are still in denial.