2014 Recap: The Trends That Need to End in Gaming

This article first appeared on USgamer, a partner publication of VG247. Some content, such as this article, has been migrated to VG247 for posterity after USgamer's closure - but it has not been edited or further vetted by the VG247 team.

With a rough year in gaming finally drawing to a close, the USgamer staff has decided to highlight some of the worst trends in the industry in the hopes that they will improve in 2015. Here's what we chose.

Jeremy Parish, Editor-in-Chief

Definitely, without a doubt, the worst thing to happen to games in 2014 has the utter toxicity of conversations surrounding the industry this year. So much hatred, so many threats, so many slurs and epithets from behind a veil of corrupt anonymity, so many attempts to ruin lives. Over video games, of all damn things.

Not that this is necessarily something new; games, like anything online, have always inspired flame wars. And the unfortunate tendency toward sexist and violent rhetoric directed toward women, queer, and minority creators and fans alike has always been present in certain corners of the Internet, too. The difference is that in 2014, these things emerged from the dark and foul regions of the Internet to hog the spotlight. The cruelty, racism, and gynophobia of gaming's worst advocates became national headlines this year.

A common response I've seen to all of this from the overwhelming majority (which doesn't support or endorse that way of thinking) has been to chastise the offenders for making others feel unsafe, to scold them for painting gamers as brutish little cavemen in the mind of the general public. But that's been the entire point: To drive away everyone who Isn't Like Us (for a certain wretched value of "Us"). To maintain jealous "possession" of video games at any cost. To serve as gatekeepers of games by driving away anyone who doesn't cling to the medium to out of a desperate sense of emptiness in every other area of their lives.

In the end, though, I think it will prove for the best. All of this awfulness has raised awareness of the harassment and hatred that many developers and fans face daily. It's created a sympathetic groundswell of support for the mistreated, and it's opened the door for better, brighter conversations about games. All these efforts to quash cultural criticism of games — something that plays an essential part of the maturation process for any medium — only turned that criticism into a mainstream concern. Attempts to silence important voices only managed to give them the stage of national broadcast media. This is known as "backfiring spectacularly." Despite their best efforts, the anonymous trolls and would-be terrorists are making games better for everyone. It's just a shame that the process has to be so ugly.

It's also a shame that the offenders hid themselves behind the honest intentions of people who legitimately want to sort out of the sometimes muddled ethics of the gaming press. It's a conversation that needs to happen, but for the moment it's been poisoned by association with a vicious and hateful movement. Hopefully we can revisit the question, in better faith, in 2015.

Mike Williams, Associate Editor

Jeremy tackled one of the big elephants in the room and I'm going to tackle the other. Probably the worst trend this year was the launch of unfinished games to the public. Last year's release of Battlefield 4 was only the beginning in the trend. This year we had issues with the releases of Assassin's Creed Unity, Driveclub, Far Cry 4, Grand Theft Auto V, Halo: The Master Chief Collection, and Little Big Planet 3. Players are willing to grit their way through the occasional buggy release, but when multiple major titles have issues, it's not hard for consumers to cry foul.

This isn't just a problem for gamers, The industry like pre-orders and day-one sales, but these broken releases erode consumer confidence. They make potential buyers take up a "wait-and-see" position, make them less likely to buy Season Pass, DLC, or microtransactions. When consumers trust you, they'll spend more money.

The issues with these releases seem to be related to major publishers trying to hit specific release dates. Driveclub took two months to approach a playable product. Assassin's Creed Unity, Far Cry 4 both took a month and a half. Halo: The Master Chief Collection is still a work-in-progress. These games could've launch in working order if publishers were willing to give it a few months. Publishers are starting to understand this: Dragon Age Inquisition was delayed a month, Batman: Arkham Knight, Battlefield: Hardline, and The Witcher 3 were all pushed back into 2015. Giving those developers time to iron out all the issues is a good thing, especially when you communicate to fans why you're waiting.

If 2014 taught publishers anything it's hopefully "we can't keep doing this." EA seems to realize that it can burn fans out with bad product and it's taking steps to correct course. Activision kept itself safe from the fire by releasing unsurprising games that work as advertised. That leaves Ubisoft, who probably won't make the same mistake with next year's Assassin's Creed Victory; if I had to guess, I'd say production will prioritize a stable frame rate for AC 2015. And other publishers like Warner Bros interactive are looking at Ubisoft and saying "we don't want none of that." Yeah, neither do consumers.

Kat Bailey, Senior Editor

This is not a new trend, but it's one worth highlighting as it continues to worsen year after year. I'm referring to the steady devaluation of games, where even $14.99 for an ostensibly AAA-quality game is considered too much.

The driving force behind this disturbing paradigm continues to be mobile, where customers have become accustomed to their games being free. In July, The Banner Saga developer John Watson told Polygon that Apple is just as frustrated as everyone else about the devaluation of games.

"[Customers] want to pay as little as possible. They think that four dollars is an exorbitant amount to pay for a game, which is very illogical considering most people's lifestyles," he said. "They'll spend $600 on an iPad, and $4 on a coffee, drop $20 on lunch, but when it comes to spending four or five dollars on a game, it's this life-altering decision. I'm frustrated with that too."

This mentality has impacted every level of the industry, but indie developers in particular have felt the squeeze as they've watched their games get discounted into oblivion. And it's not just iOS and Android, either. As reader Neifirst pointed out in the comments for our new podcast, Sony is just as guilty of fostering an environment in which prices are cut by 75 percent or more within months of release. Valve is another culprit; their regular Steam sales has done much to foster awareness of games that might not otherwise have gotten much attention, but they've also contributed greatly to the devaluation of games.

Unfortunately, in this case, there's no quick fix. Developers and publishers will have to either adapt or die, using tools at their disposal such as crowdfunding to get the money they need to keep making games. I honestly have no idea where this is going. I do know, however, that it's apt to get worse before it gets better.

Bob Mackey, Senior Writer

Jeremy already covered my Most-Hated Video Game Thing from 2014, saving me the depressing act of having to mull over the details once again. While I recognize the privilege of being able to deviate from the GamerGate debacle, I'm still grateful he got that out of the way. Let's hope 2015 is a little happier in this respect.

So what else has been bugging me about 2014? Here goes: The continued march of plastic crap. And, by this, I mean the wave of Amiibo-mania that's recently swept the game buying public. Just so I don't come off as an out-of-touch crank, I'll tell you this much: I totally understand the appeal. Sometimes it's nice to own a thing—if said thing looks like a video game dude, all the better. And hey, if you want all the things and can't get them, yes, that can a be frustrating experience. But I can't seem to wrap my head around why Amiibos are so in-demand in the first place.

At the risk of being called a hypocrite, I own several blobs of plastic molded and painted to look like video game people—in fact, being a nerd for so long means I've had to be very selective with the figurines, stuffed animals, and Halo-brand cat helmets I let into my apartment. That said, Amiibos don't make the cut. They're well-made, yes, but maybe a little expensive for their essential function. And if I really wanted a Nintendo character staring at me from my shelf or entertainment center, there's no shortage of amazing figures from other suppliers—check out Nendroid's Luigi figure and tell me you haven't already ordered three. Yes, they're more expensive, but in the world of plastics, you get what you pay for.

I guess I wouldn't have so big of a problem with Amiibos if their in-game interactions actually had some value, but what I've seen so far feels inessential at best. Smash Bros. turns your figure into a virtual pet of sorts, which you can then train for reasons I'm still not entirely sure of. And what did I unlock for Mario Kart 8? A costume for a character I don't even use in the first place. Plus, the technology powering the Amiibo line isn't that advanced, so I doubt Nintendo will be able to do anything too inventive with these little figures in the future. And the fad-chasing, cynical nature of these things leaves a bad taste in my mouth, especially because we're dealing with a corporation who typically injects their products with whimsy so we forget they come from a corporation.

I won't judge you if you've come down with Amiibo Fever, but consider me inoculated to this current strain of consumerism. Whenever I see that line of figures, all I can envision is their future home in landfills, several strata above Beanie Babies and Guitar Hero accessories.

Jaz Rignall, Editor-at-Large

One of the trends I've noticed this year - and indeed it seems to have started in earnest last year - is that the major publishing companies are releasing fewer, but bigger games. In other words, they're putting all their eggs in a limited number of baskets.

While this can sometimes work out just fine, what concerns me is the kind of behaviors it can cause. Bigger games have more money riding on them, and decisions start to be made solely in regards to money. So, for example, a big game that's financially critical to a company might end up being released too early, because it needs to hit the pre-Holiday games buying period so that the publisher can recoup its investment. The smart move - for consumers at least - would be to delay the game until it's ready for release, but that could well result in it slipping too far back into the year and missing the vital sales the company needs to keep itself in the black.

What we end up with is game that's an extremely poor experience. The company eats the bad publicity, because at least it's earning coin from its broken game, but players get the shaft and have to wait months until the game is properly fixed.

I think this fewer game release scenario also results in more conservative decisions, and games that are less "risky." Rather than seeing an interesting artistic vision, and perhaps something we've never played before, we instead see market-researched-to-death, "safe" games that the publisher knows will sell. That game might be good, but it's not really pushing any boundaries, and players end up getting more of the same, rather than something new and different.

What I'd like to see is a return to the 90's, where major publishers had both internal and external studios. Big games are made, but their portfolio is diversified by partnership agreements with smaller, or mid-level developers: the big publisher uses its marketing clout to push these games, and their developers stand a chance of making good money. It used to work well for the industry, but has since gone out of fashion.

I think a return to this kind of publishing model would help create a mid-tier of games that sit between smaller, indie-style games and the behemoth publishers' products. Games that developers probably can't self-fund because they're too big in scope, but games that are too small for a big publishing company to want to bother with themselves.

We saw a little of that kind of thing with Ubisoft's Child of Light and Valiant Hearts this year, and I'd love to see the likes of EA and Activision producing more of that kind of game. Surely that would be a healthy thing for gaming.