Hi Dallas: That is quite true. the majority of accessible games aren't on par with mainstream games, and those that are tend to be on par with mainstream games 20 to 30 years ago. Certainly not on par with anything more recent.
What you say about random levels etc is also true. What makes audio games so uninteresting, lacks replay value, is even a relatively good game like Shades of Doom or Tank Commander are too static. Once you know your way around the levels, have beaten the game once or twice, it looses its replay value. Where as if a game had random mazes, random levels, it would have unlimited replay value because in some sense it would be a new game each and every time for the player. Plus as you pointed out a number of mainstream game developers even indie developers make money off of selling game packs. Unfortunately, as happens all to often in the audio games community game x is released and besides minor updates like bug fixes there aren't any new levels, extra weapons, or anything else to really continue interest in said game. It is just what you see is what you get. The only developer that has tried something like this is Draconis. They had Pinball Extreme, and then the Pinball Extreme Party Pack. I think they could have done more with that idea, and maybe they will. However, we frankly need more games that can be expanded and have add-ons the way Pinball Extreme did. Many mainstream games such as Minecraft are in constant development and there is new content coming out all the time. I don't see why we can't do so with audio games too since it is easier to create an add-on than an entirely new game from scratch. Cheers! On 1/1/14, Dallas O'Brien <[email protected]> wrote: > ahh yes, but we are forgetting one thing here. I am sorry to the devs > out there, but most games we have, are no! where, near, main stream. > it's just a fact. so yes, we pay about what sighted people do. but the > replay ability of a game they buy, tends to be miles higher. how ever, > as has already been stated, the audio game creators, are making games > for a limited market. I think this is why audio games on iPhone have > taken off, partly because it's not just us that play them. so the > market is larger. so a 5 dollar purchase for their games, may seem > like a relatively low amount to us, but the amount of purchases they > get, makes that price quite effective. > > now, as for an example given earlier, lets take tank commander. you > say this is nearly main stream? I say, not even close. I mean, just 7 > or 8 levels? most tank games you get out there, even for free! have > like, thousands of levels. let alone the fact that the games are > fairly graphically intense, they have huge replay ability, because of > random map creation, random things happening, and so on. so in stead > of having level 1 being one map, and you know it all the time, you > might start the game, and yes, you'd be on level 1, but the map would > be different every time. small things like that, make things far more > interesting, and replayable. having the same map over and over, makes > it way too easy for people to know exactly how to get through that > level. makes it more interesting if there is some kind of randomness > to it. sure, make it so that you start on the south side, and you > have to make it to the north side somewhere to level up, ... but other > then that, the map in between is random, and you really don't know > what you will be coming up against. so in stead of full speed ahead, > you'd have to be more careful, and investigate the area you are > working through. > so on and so forth. there are many reasons why things like tank > commander and other such games, are not replayable past a certain > point. and of course, the other options for game devs, is to bring out > a game at a nice low price, and yes, you'd be able to play it, and > it's a full game in and of itself, but perhaps they could sell packs > that add functions to it, or adds new weapons / enemies, and so on. > and perhaps each pack would only cost maybe 5 bucks. lets say the game > also costs 5 bucks. if those packs add new functions, I'd be buying > the packs. now lets say I have had tank commander for a year. well? so > what. I've already beat it, and it's useless to me. now lets say that > David came out with a pack, an add-on, that would add another 50 > levels. or new weapons to my tank. new enemies I have to fight, random > effects happening to my tank to bring me to a standstill while I > repair it, ... so on. that would drastically increase the replay > ability of the game. right now, tank commander is useless to me, as I > have completed it. > and, mind you, it took me all of 3 days to complete. so, was the price > really worth it? not really. but that's what we have to deal with at > the moment. and it really doesn't have to be that way. even if we > don't quite work the same way as mainstream, games shouldn't have just > a few levels, and that's it. specially when the price is up over 30 > bucks. even TDV isn't outside my complaints. yes, it has a cool > mission mode. and don't get me wrong, they've done a fantastic job on > it. but, ... it's a single mission. once I've completed it, that will > be it. that function will be of less use to me. now, of course, they > are working on the online side of things, and that offers far greater > possibilities. and I think this will be the saving grace for TDV. the > online side. because, and I'm not joking here, sighted players have > been playing with, and against, their friends online, for over 15! > years! lol. it's time we caught up. playing against a computer is one > thing. it's mostly predictable. but playing against a human, is far > more interesting, and replayable. > I'm not saying that the devs out there aren't doing a good job with > what they are making. I'm simply saying, it's time to bring these > games up with the times, and at least provide online play. that solves > a lot of the problems when it comes to predictable maps, and computer > players. > and truthfully, online play is what I look for. not how many times can > I shoot x, y, z, computer player. that's, frankly, boring. > However, as Thomas has said, the biggest problem, is to make a really > good game, costs money. and most blind people will not pay such prices > for a game. and I'm afraid it has less to do with whether or not they > can afford it, it has more to do with, do they want to. I'd guess that > most players, could afford one or two games of such prices, if they > saved up for it. but they simply refuse to, and want the prices to be > lower, expecting devs to get along with a very low income from the > game that they have spent a huge amount of time on. and to those who > say they really can't, well, I'm sorry. but, sighted players have to > save up for a game too, you know. so get over it, and save up, and pay > a normal price for a good game. we aren't the only ones that have low > funds. yet sighted gamers manage to save up and buy one or two games > as well. > and to those who really can not afford it, I'm sorry. and I know how > it feels. however, sighted people, if they can't afford a game, ... > guess what? ... they don't buy it. they don't expect the game makers > to say, oh, I'm sorry, here, I'll lower the cost just for you. no, the > game makers simply can't. it costs to much to make the games. they > can't afford to lower it. > > Hope this all made some kind of sense. lol. it's just that I've seen > it way too often, and I'm guessing people like Thomas have seen the > hole I can't afford that, thing come up again and again. > as I have said. I am more then willing to throw a bit of money into a > good game. but unfortunately, I think I'm one of the few. > Dallas --- Gamers mailing list __ [email protected] If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [email protected]. You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org. All messages are archived and can be searched and read at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list, please send E-mail to [email protected].
