Gross.
It's sad we live in an age where we're not excited for new things, but being burned will do that to you.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why are gamers generally pessimistic about new tech?
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
Gross.
It's sad we live in an age where we're not excited for new things, but being burned will do that to you.
A large number of "gamers" within the AAA/enthusiast umbrella have a narrow definition of what is a valid videogame, and it generally falls within what they experienced during their formative years. As such, they are supportive of anything that is a natural extension of those experiences (AKA "being pandered to") but hostile towards anything that breaks from those experiences. This isn't just a tech thing, too many gamers are hostile towards even social change or criticism in videogames as we've seen recently.
KatamariOnTheRocks
Member
A lot of people on GAF tend to be pessimistic because they were dumb enough to fall for real gimmicks and now treat every innovation as a gimmick.
Many times people off handedly dismiss VR because "They preordered a kinect" or "got 3d when it was popular" so they're bitter for falling for dumb shit that they're unwilling to accept legitimate innovations.
I've never tried VR but I have enough common sense to understand how revolutionary and awesome it's gonna be.
Some people that dislike VR will explain their reasoning and have a discussion but alot of people on GAF hate it so much they feel the need to go into every VR thread and make sure everyone knows how much they hate it.
Many times people off handedly dismiss VR because "They preordered a kinect" or "got 3d when it was popular" so they're bitter for falling for dumb shit that they're unwilling to accept legitimate innovations.
I've never tried VR but I have enough common sense to understand how revolutionary and awesome it's gonna be.
Some people that dislike VR will explain their reasoning and have a discussion but alot of people on GAF hate it so much they feel the need to go into every VR thread and make sure everyone knows how much they hate it.
travisbickle
Member
I hate when people call gameplay mechanics "gimmicks", it's like some people are so reductionist that even the way you play the game is only made as a gimmick for you to buy the game.
entremet
Member
Well the tech in mentioned weren't inherently gaming technologies. I should've clarified with specifically gaming tech.
That's where the interesting dichotomy exist. Gamers aren't totally afraid of new tech in other arenas, but within gaming itself, more apprehensive.
Motion controls started out as divisive but gyro is pretty much implemented across the board now. I think we'll see the same with VR, with aspects of it that work well for gaming adopted easily, and others argued against until the day they die. The first wave will make big promises, require huge investment and underdeliver, and the second wave will focus in on what actually works at a reasonable price (to the mainstream, I'm sure plenty of gaffers think £1,000+ for VR is a bargain) and become part of the accepted norm.
Gaming is, at heart, toys. I don't blame modern gamers for being cautious when people have been advertising shiny, expensive new toys with big promises and short life spans to them their entire lives.
To be honest, the sheer cost of consumer VR at launch makes a 'wait and see which ones take off' mindset a perfectly reasonable one to me. That's not cynicism, just common sense. I don't remember people waiting a couple of years to see which format would win out of HDTV and Blu-Ray being told they were cynical.
Gaming is, at heart, toys. I don't blame modern gamers for being cautious when people have been advertising shiny, expensive new toys with big promises and short life spans to them their entire lives.
To be honest, the sheer cost of consumer VR at launch makes a 'wait and see which ones take off' mindset a perfectly reasonable one to me. That's not cynicism, just common sense. I don't remember people waiting a couple of years to see which format would win out of HDTV and Blu-Ray being told they were cynical.
Ah, I see what you mean now. Yes, perhaps we are conservative in the way we play games. I can't speak for others but in my case cost is a big part of the reason why I initially don't like new tech (ways to play), it's expensive and I don't really see it worth it.
Not a hivemind.
Excited about most things, not all things.
I'm reminded of the kinect hype and all the "ideas" that didn't come. Actually using it or motion controls didn't feel natural and was super goofy (Dance Central was fun though).
HMD is cool though. Headphones for my eyeballs.
Excited about most things, not all things.
I'm reminded of the kinect hype and all the "ideas" that didn't come. Actually using it or motion controls didn't feel natural and was super goofy (Dance Central was fun though).
HMD is cool though. Headphones for my eyeballs.
Pretty much this.
New "tech" has been introduced to the hobby many times usually ending up in bargin bins and not accepted by the community at large. Just because some developers say X is the future doesn't mean it is.
Touch screens, Stylus, Gyro, Rumble, Analogue sticks, Light guns, etc.
Not every new idea in controls is a total failure.
Hyperzephyrian
Banned
Because there have really only been two technologies that "revolutionized" gaming: polygonal 3D and the Internet (for multiplayer, and later digital distribution).
Mobile gaming created a separate market, it didn't revolutionize the existing one. Motion controls were cool, but quickly proven to be an inferior input method (in most cases). 3D TVs were a brief fad. All of these things were promised to be paradigm shifts that would bring us the future. None of them delivered on those lofty ambitions.
Technology companies are always quick to claim that they're "revolutionizing" the industry. Why would they claim otherwise? They have a financial interest in people believing that.
I think a lot of people are just sick in general of how hype-prone the industry is. It's caused many gamers to develop a "put up or shut up" attitude, which I think is healthy. Constant credulity is an easy way to be parted from your money.
I hope virtual reality takes off and changes everything. But the more that people talk about what a surefire game-changing thing it will be, the more I want to see results, not promises.
Mobile gaming created a separate market, it didn't revolutionize the existing one. Motion controls were cool, but quickly proven to be an inferior input method (in most cases). 3D TVs were a brief fad. All of these things were promised to be paradigm shifts that would bring us the future. None of them delivered on those lofty ambitions.
Technology companies are always quick to claim that they're "revolutionizing" the industry. Why would they claim otherwise? They have a financial interest in people believing that.
I think a lot of people are just sick in general of how hype-prone the industry is. It's caused many gamers to develop a "put up or shut up" attitude, which I think is healthy. Constant credulity is an easy way to be parted from your money.
I hope virtual reality takes off and changes everything. But the more that people talk about what a surefire game-changing thing it will be, the more I want to see results, not promises.
It's really about liking what we have and fearing what happens. Take the motion controls on the Wii - some would argue there were some benefits. They lead to the dance generation of games (which are enjoyable if you are into that stuff), and yes, they are the most accurate way to date of playing console shooters (it's crazy how good you can get compared to twin sticks).
Still, it also lead to Motion Controls getting shoehorned into experiences that it didn't benefit. Some gamers really hated that, but the hate was a bit "mellow" since it wasn't the only thing out there. People feared it would become that as Kinect and PS Move came out. It never fully came to fruition.
People fear the same with VR. There are games and experiences that will absolutely be better because of it. But not everyone is going to like it and the fear is - if it takes off - it will be forced upon people.
People don't necessarily fear change, they fear being forced to change. There are some people who HATE Smart phones. They have valid reasons too - cell phones existed to enable you to call people from almost anywhere. Smart Phones tend to have some pit falls for calling people where the quality of the call is better on old style flip phones. So some prefer to stick with those since folks can hear them more clearly over Smart Phones. That and if you lose it or break it, it's not a big deal. $50 later and you're good to go.
They weren't forced to change. People feel they may be forced. Nintendo forced motionc ontrollers. Wanted to play Mario galaxy? You had to use a Wiimote. People don't like being forced into new things - they would rather new things exist, but only take off if people actually want them to. The hard part is this: How do you get people to try it without forcing it on them? It's a problem hardware makers constantly deal with. How do you make people upgrade to 4k when not a lot of cable/plug and play devices support it? It's tough to convey.
Still, it also lead to Motion Controls getting shoehorned into experiences that it didn't benefit. Some gamers really hated that, but the hate was a bit "mellow" since it wasn't the only thing out there. People feared it would become that as Kinect and PS Move came out. It never fully came to fruition.
People fear the same with VR. There are games and experiences that will absolutely be better because of it. But not everyone is going to like it and the fear is - if it takes off - it will be forced upon people.
People don't necessarily fear change, they fear being forced to change. There are some people who HATE Smart phones. They have valid reasons too - cell phones existed to enable you to call people from almost anywhere. Smart Phones tend to have some pit falls for calling people where the quality of the call is better on old style flip phones. So some prefer to stick with those since folks can hear them more clearly over Smart Phones. That and if you lose it or break it, it's not a big deal. $50 later and you're good to go.
They weren't forced to change. People feel they may be forced. Nintendo forced motionc ontrollers. Wanted to play Mario galaxy? You had to use a Wiimote. People don't like being forced into new things - they would rather new things exist, but only take off if people actually want them to. The hard part is this: How do you get people to try it without forcing it on them? It's a problem hardware makers constantly deal with. How do you make people upgrade to 4k when not a lot of cable/plug and play devices support it? It's tough to convey.
Everyone loves to believe they're super critical rational thinkers who aren't fooled by anyone but how likely is it that gamers as a whole (a group that's composed traditionally of very young people) are so sophisticated?
More likely gamers in general are just more conservative, resistant to change and gripped by nostalgia than they're likely to admit. Just look at this year's E3. Everyone was most hopped about old games coming back. Yeah! Old stuff is good!
It's not bad thing to be skeptical, though. Hardware manufacturers and publishers aren't our friends.
Seeing as a new IP was hailed as the game of the show, and not the remake of FFVII, I don't think that's true. Who is this 'everyone' you speak of, it's the variety of big hitters that made the show. Something brand new caused more excitement than a game people have been talking about for a decade.
There's a big difference between being resistant to change, and asking that the proposed change actually prove it's worth in the consumer market rather than in carefully controlled demos first. Just because I don't want to spend £1,000+ without seeing something in action, waiting for the bugs to be ironed out and waiting to see if it's still got support two years later doesn't make my tendency to wait and see irrationally conservative. Especially considering that I have a cupboard full of thirty years of gaming 'innovation' that was a flash in the pan. Shouting 'new stuff is good!' while throwing their money at Betamax, HDTV and Kinect hasn't really worked out for people over the years, hence caution.
Speaking of format wars, on top of the 'will VR succeed' debate there is also an aspect of which devices will end up as the front runners. There's a lot of products racing to hit the market, investing in a loser based on a hunch could be an expensive mistake, hence, caution.
Just looking at this post in isolation, another conclusion would be that gamers like to adopt technologies that are ubiquitous, digital, free to experiment with and are tertiary to actual gaming. They seem increasingly more resistant to adopting large pieces of plastic that cost hundreds of pounds and change the control methods.
I'd argue that mobile gaming has been adopted fine by a decent enough amount of gamers (and plenty of those tricksy customers who don't lurk on sites like this) to make it perfectly viable, mainly because the initial expense is a gadget that's pretty much standard for young westerners and outside of that it's free to experiment with, digital, ubiquitous etc.
Motion controls have settled down as part of gaming with gyro. It doesn't change the core controls, adds a few options, comes 'free' in the box and is largely optional.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
Growing up in the 80s and 90s, I have developed a rule with gaming tech:
If it's not a standard controller with buttons, it can go to hell until proven otherwise.
It's served me well, thus far, but I've seen too many gimmicks and useless peripherals for me to even feel that this tech is better than a controller that works. Better tech for the hardware is one thing, but anything that is non-standard is bothersome.
If it's not a standard controller with buttons, it can go to hell until proven otherwise.
It's served me well, thus far, but I've seen too many gimmicks and useless peripherals for me to even feel that this tech is better than a controller that works. Better tech for the hardware is one thing, but anything that is non-standard is bothersome.
Mr. Nice_Guy
Member
I was cynical towards motions controls at the start, it was when the kinect ended up being a worthless piece of garbage that I did towards it. Phone games are generally lackluster and it's sad when we see IP's we love get turned into them instead of new full fledged games.
I'm cautious about VR for a few reasons. 1, usability outside of first person games. I've used oculus and it was fun, nothing mind blowing, certainly not something I would spend $200- $300 dollars on if current estimates are right.
2. This is regarding the holo thing that Microsoft debuted, mostly because of the kinect being a critical, (not commercial), failure and again, just not seeing the obvious uses.
Seems like a very expensive piece of tech with limited usages.
Also it's hard for people to judge without using it themselves so I can see that being another area where initial criticisms come from.
I'm cautious about VR for a few reasons. 1, usability outside of first person games. I've used oculus and it was fun, nothing mind blowing, certainly not something I would spend $200- $300 dollars on if current estimates are right.
2. This is regarding the holo thing that Microsoft debuted, mostly because of the kinect being a critical, (not commercial), failure and again, just not seeing the obvious uses.
Seems like a very expensive piece of tech with limited usages.
Also it's hard for people to judge without using it themselves so I can see that being another area where initial criticisms come from.
michaelius
Banned
You answered your own question in this sentence.
Gtagentleman
Member
Air Zombie Meat
Member
System wars definitely play a part in it.
Fbh
Member
Because they (we?) are, as you said OP, a "cutting edge demographic" and we know better.
Where a "regular" person sees the future when they see a hololens demonstration, I think a lot of gamers just think "I bet the final product will be nothing like that". At least that's the vibe I get when talking to my gamer friends.
Where a "regular" person sees the future when they see a hololens demonstration, I think a lot of gamers just think "I bet the final product will be nothing like that". At least that's the vibe I get when talking to my gamer friends.
visiblemode
Member
Experience tells us that most of this stuff will be shoved down our throats, expensive, not worth it and are fads that pass super quickly. Meanwhile we have useless junk in our closets and another gimmick coming down the road.
abstract alien
Member
Gamers aren't designers, so they tend to think of shoehorned experiences instead of genuine ones, generally.
#notallgamers etc.
#notallgamers etc.
Because unlike other people, our cupboards are bursting at the seams with plastic peripherals that were used a few times and then got dumped. We're not generally pessimistic about new tech, we bought everything and now feel a tinge of remorse and apprehensiveness.
Most people don't even care. We're just hoping we don't get suckered into buying even more novel shit.
Most people don't even care. We're just hoping we don't get suckered into buying even more novel shit.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
I do think the feverish excitement over VR from many in gaming is a live lesson in progress of how technology-focused fans build their own tower of hype from which to fall off if things go wrong.
It seems VR has overridden cynicism for a lot of people because it represents what, for some, is the dream: goodbye real world, at last I can live in my games. I don't mean to sound sarcastic there; there's an almost childlike wonder in it. But there are still a lot of problems in the way.
It seems VR has overridden cynicism for a lot of people because it represents what, for some, is the dream: goodbye real world, at last I can live in my games. I don't mean to sound sarcastic there; there's an almost childlike wonder in it. But there are still a lot of problems in the way.
Great post.
ChronotriggerJM
Member
Depends on what's being pushed I suppose. I embrace change that I can see a future in and understand its potential impact. Novelty changes that don't add much substance are generally shallow, and are pretty obvious to spot in most cases.
But I wouldn't be so worried about VR OP, it's been the dream for so long that it'll never fade. Even if somehow it doesn't stick this time, it will keep coming around until it does.
It's an obvious point on the technology horizon. Replacing reality with virtual space is inevitable.
But I wouldn't be so worried about VR OP, it's been the dream for so long that it'll never fade. Even if somehow it doesn't stick this time, it will keep coming around until it does.
It's an obvious point on the technology horizon. Replacing reality with virtual space is inevitable.