popularwin have trouble understanding the term “tradeoff”, affirmed it’s easy enough to comprehend as exchange however in today’s corporate parlance it really is meant as exchange of 1 commodity as a price for another. I was playing Final Fantasy’s Dissidia on the nice old PSP yesterday when I marveled at the game’s replay value, yes I have spent over 50 hours onto it already, that is what this entire topic is all about.

Normally if you look at the oldest games like Mario and Dave, they had one thing unanimously common, dependence on it. Not that I’m propagating obsession towards anything, however this is what the current paradigm of gaming has drop to; a commodity. I have always been a gamer, I will not deny that which is exactly what my contention with gaming today is. The first games had a lot of things that hooked people up but most of all it was about the level of engagement that the player had with the game environment or the “world” of the overall game. Which engagement has little related to the 3D graphics or the extensive possibilities.

Let us have a look at the progression; first it was the advent of the easy arcade type games that have been phenomenal to a certain point. Kept players hooked and introduced a whole new boom of media in to the world. This is where literally every child was begging for the Atari systems as well as your Pentium II and III machines had Sega and NeoGeo emulators installed (mine still has both installed incidentally) and game play elements were about difficult commands mixed in with clever sequences. Take this forward a bit further and the same two systems incorporated decent mixed stories and continuity in the games improve the media capabilities being explored in both avenues. The fighting game series KOF is an ardent testament to that and from there came the further boom of turn based strategy and role playing games which became akin to “user controlled novels” on computers. This adaptability of both game-play and media can be called as the turning curve of the gaming industry.

Because this was in which a large amount of business heads realized that the games could possibly be used to simulate lots of things, pretty much everything therefore the potential as a business commodity was obvious even from then on. The progress after that was about enhancing the visual ramifications of the overall game, the additives were obvious the visuals needed more work so in came the influx of investment in gaming studios and the push for 3d graphics into gaming. popularwin could be called because the secondary curve because once that was established, the potential for business gain via games became second to almost none. Hollywood movies will let you know the story of boom and fall unfailingly but games have the replay factor mounted on them irrespective of their audience size that guarantees reward.

And this replay factor was cashed in next. We all can see the web capabilities being offered by games which as also paved way to players just purchasing the next powerup or update online. The concept of “buying all” is where we are able to point and say that gaming has devolved. So at a spot where gaming was fun with added complexity like Baldur’s Gate, Ys, Metal Gear Solid, the games went on to become more about commodity value.

The biggest element in all this is mobile gaming of course and here I point at the smartphone games which are purely centered on time killing. The problem occurs when the most the smartphone gamers aren’t regular gamers but more so there to just kill time. So when you give a game like Subway Surfers online buying advantages of the “normal” people, some degree of competition envelopes between the console/PC games and the phone games. The niches are different, the categories will vary, and the size differs. A game like Temple Run can’t be in comparison to Farcry 3 but ultimately when the games become about money then these exact things sidetrack and mix in.