My condolences to the victims of this and previous shootings. Praying that the families will be comforted and cases like these won't happen again. And for individuals who might even consider doing something like this find help and care from the people around them...
Sunday, December 23, 2012
A Video About the Recent Shooting and Games
My condolences to the victims of this and previous shootings. Praying that the families will be comforted and cases like these won't happen again. And for individuals who might even consider doing something like this find help and care from the people around them...
Monday, November 19, 2012
Is Advancement In Gaming Sustainable?
Games are rapidly becoming more and more impressive graphically, musically and in terms of scope. As the next generation of consoles appear starting with the WiiU and followed by Sony's and Microsoft's next gen consoles, games will require more money and manpower to churn out. Costs of making games will increase and so will the profit that investors expect from developers.
What concerns me is that now games need to sell much better than before to be considered a success. Kingdoms of Amalur did pretty well in my opinion, selling 330, 000 copies, yet the studio closed down. There are many other studios shut down, or faced layoffs by EA and Activision.
If this is going to be the pattern of things, we may well see a drastic drop in creative titles from big name publishers, instead just getting remakes, sequels and established IPs. Creative titles will come from Indie devs, usually without the high production values from publisher funded games. The 'middle' budget games will slowly disappear and it's sad because this is normally where new franchises appear.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Mechwarrior Online Open Beta
Mechwarrior fans rejoice. MWO is finally in open beta. Interest players can sign up at their website here: http://mwomercs.com/signup?utm_source=mainMENU With Hawken also on the horizon, mech fans have a lot to look forward to. These games are also free to play.
Beta's have started to become a sort of demo for testers, as well as for YouTubers to get the word out. This is different from the days when beta was held to test the game before launch. Such testing is now reserved for closed beta. This is especially so for free-to-play games, where it is not uncommon for a player's progress to be carried from beta into the complete game, giving them a head start. But then again, anyone who is interested in the game would have joined in the open beta anyway. I guess free-to-play games can take this route because they are going to get into the hands of gamers free anyway, so there's no worry of letting players play too much and as a result, they don't buy the game.
There generally shouldn't be an issue in this shift of focus of the beta test, except when a game developer decide to use the beta as it was originally meant to be - as a test for bugs in the game. What is also often seen among gamers is whining and crying about not being able to get into beta. Gamers now see beta as a chance to play the game before anybody else, often overlooking the true purpose. As a result, when things don't work as they should in such cases, there are actually some who will go out of their way to bash the game and paint it in a negative light. So while it is true that most developers have now polished up their game, do note that there will be bugs. So have fun, but don't let the presence of bugs affect your impression of the game.
Beta's have started to become a sort of demo for testers, as well as for YouTubers to get the word out. This is different from the days when beta was held to test the game before launch. Such testing is now reserved for closed beta. This is especially so for free-to-play games, where it is not uncommon for a player's progress to be carried from beta into the complete game, giving them a head start. But then again, anyone who is interested in the game would have joined in the open beta anyway. I guess free-to-play games can take this route because they are going to get into the hands of gamers free anyway, so there's no worry of letting players play too much and as a result, they don't buy the game.
There generally shouldn't be an issue in this shift of focus of the beta test, except when a game developer decide to use the beta as it was originally meant to be - as a test for bugs in the game. What is also often seen among gamers is whining and crying about not being able to get into beta. Gamers now see beta as a chance to play the game before anybody else, often overlooking the true purpose. As a result, when things don't work as they should in such cases, there are actually some who will go out of their way to bash the game and paint it in a negative light. So while it is true that most developers have now polished up their game, do note that there will be bugs. So have fun, but don't let the presence of bugs affect your impression of the game.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Wii U making things hard for Nintendo fans?
Following its announcement that the Wii U will be region locked, Nintendo has revealed that the system's voice chat will be limited to certain games, and will only work through the use of third party microphone plugged into the GamePad. With the basic set having only 8gb of hard disk space and the buzz regarding the system's lack of improvement over the current generation's consoles, it makes one wonder if even catering to hardcore gamers will help market the system to people other than Nintendo fans.
I was this close to making this the first console that I get on launch, partially due to the interesting launch line-up but mainly because it's backwards compatible (which is extremely important in the first few months of a console's life when games are few), but the region locking turned me away.
Perhaps I'm spoilt because I own a PS3, and the ability to play games from different regions allowed me to freely import and play games that are not ported over to the US system. That plus the sour taste the Wii left me when Fatal Frame 4 did not reach the US, and Fatal Frame, or Project Zero 2 was only released in Europe. The last few great games for the Wii, The Last Story and Xenoblade Chronicles took so long to be ported I lost interest in the system and games.
I've been reading on the reasons for region locking. Apparently it prevents people from purchasing games from 'cheaper' regions and also from importing a new release before it's been ported to their region. The benefits to this are purely for the local publishers responsible for the porting. The first reason can't be solved otherwise, but if the local version is readily available, most people would buy that instead, considering the language issues. As for the second reason, if developers can control the sale of their games and have world-wide releases, can't they also ensure the ports of different regions are already done before the release of the games?
It's curious that during this age of digital distribution, blue-ray and online connectivity that Nintendo would still stick to these 2 generations-old practices. Is this company really the innovative company that brought us the touchscreen and motion control?
I was this close to making this the first console that I get on launch, partially due to the interesting launch line-up but mainly because it's backwards compatible (which is extremely important in the first few months of a console's life when games are few), but the region locking turned me away.
Perhaps I'm spoilt because I own a PS3, and the ability to play games from different regions allowed me to freely import and play games that are not ported over to the US system. That plus the sour taste the Wii left me when Fatal Frame 4 did not reach the US, and Fatal Frame, or Project Zero 2 was only released in Europe. The last few great games for the Wii, The Last Story and Xenoblade Chronicles took so long to be ported I lost interest in the system and games.
I've been reading on the reasons for region locking. Apparently it prevents people from purchasing games from 'cheaper' regions and also from importing a new release before it's been ported to their region. The benefits to this are purely for the local publishers responsible for the porting. The first reason can't be solved otherwise, but if the local version is readily available, most people would buy that instead, considering the language issues. As for the second reason, if developers can control the sale of their games and have world-wide releases, can't they also ensure the ports of different regions are already done before the release of the games?
It's curious that during this age of digital distribution, blue-ray and online connectivity that Nintendo would still stick to these 2 generations-old practices. Is this company really the innovative company that brought us the touchscreen and motion control?
Sunday, October 7, 2012
XCOM: Enemy Unknown Remake Seems like a Worthy Successor
The new XCOM might be worth checking out, if you haven't pre-ordered it that is.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Linux for the Game, Steam takes on Consoles
Steam is really going all out to increase it's market share. A statement was made by Gabe Newell, boss of Valve, that Windows 8 is bad for gaming (Windows 8 is a catastrophe), and later came the announcement that Steam plans to sell software other than games, will be on Linux and has a 'console mode' in big picture and the rumoured Steam Hardware.
But people are suspecting that the main reason that they said Windows 8 is bad for gaming is probably because of the App Store set-up that will be used in the upcoming operating system which will interfere with Steam's business as well as compete for sales of software. Interestingly, Linux, or more specifically, Ubuntu has a store like in the form of Ubuntu Software Centre. And frankly, even if Microsoft decide to move into sell software, which it already does, we all know how that will probably turn out (check out the disaster which is Games for Windows Live if you want to see how successful they are).
So is the statement made by Gabe Newell valid? I guess it's up to consumers to decide after testing out the OS. But I've always believed competition is good for the consumers, so Linux coming up as a gaming OS is a good thing, but then again, Steam being everywhere now makes it a kind of monopoly; and having too many games on the client means it's a huge risk should something happen to the account. I'm glad there are distributors for Linux and Mac games like Desura, but most games aren't made for those Operating Systems, yet. Making games for Linux is understandingly difficult because of the different distros, however, for Mac, it should be rather straight forward since not only is the OS more or less the same on all machines, but configurations for hardware is much less diverse than that of the PC, so optimizing should actually be simpler, which makes it strange why there aren't more games on that.
Like it or not, Steam is one of the major distributors in gaming, so bringing that over to Linux is a great thing. Hopefully, more developers will move into supporting more Operating Systems so Windows won't be the only one gamers have to work with.
For further reading in support or against Windows 8 gaming:
You're being lied to, Windows 8 isn't bad for gaming
The Windows 8 gaming defense
Windows 8 is not good for gamers
But people are suspecting that the main reason that they said Windows 8 is bad for gaming is probably because of the App Store set-up that will be used in the upcoming operating system which will interfere with Steam's business as well as compete for sales of software. Interestingly, Linux, or more specifically, Ubuntu has a store like in the form of Ubuntu Software Centre. And frankly, even if Microsoft decide to move into sell software, which it already does, we all know how that will probably turn out (check out the disaster which is Games for Windows Live if you want to see how successful they are).
So is the statement made by Gabe Newell valid? I guess it's up to consumers to decide after testing out the OS. But I've always believed competition is good for the consumers, so Linux coming up as a gaming OS is a good thing, but then again, Steam being everywhere now makes it a kind of monopoly; and having too many games on the client means it's a huge risk should something happen to the account. I'm glad there are distributors for Linux and Mac games like Desura, but most games aren't made for those Operating Systems, yet. Making games for Linux is understandingly difficult because of the different distros, however, for Mac, it should be rather straight forward since not only is the OS more or less the same on all machines, but configurations for hardware is much less diverse than that of the PC, so optimizing should actually be simpler, which makes it strange why there aren't more games on that.
Like it or not, Steam is one of the major distributors in gaming, so bringing that over to Linux is a great thing. Hopefully, more developers will move into supporting more Operating Systems so Windows won't be the only one gamers have to work with.
For further reading in support or against Windows 8 gaming:
You're being lied to, Windows 8 isn't bad for gaming
The Windows 8 gaming defense
Windows 8 is not good for gamers
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Kickstarter - Pangenic (a new horror, XCom like game)
Fans of XCOM rejoice! Besides the upcoming remake of our beloved strategy series, we can look forward to a new game along the same vein in Pangenic. Instead of aliens, the enemy is a virus that mutates wildlife, turning them into killer mutants. While this plot device isn't exactly original, combining it with XCOM style research and map planning makes it seem pretty interesting. The game still needs more support so do check it out if it's the kind of game you're interested in.
Friday, September 14, 2012
D&D RPGs on sale at GOG
If you're into classic D&D system based RPGs of the past like Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights and Icewind Dale, GOG.com is having a sale for the whole collection for US $30.01 until Friday, September 21 at AM 9:59 GMT. The fewer games you get from the collection, the lower the discount you'll get.
Weeklong Promo: Diamonds of D&D
Weeklong Promo: Diamonds of D&D
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Support for companies
Do people buy games because they are good or because they love the developer? I hardly have time to play my games - competitive ones require time to be skilled at them, RPGs tend to be more engaging and immersing if played for longer stretches each gaming session, and co-op play with friends or strangers simply do not allow the flexibility in gaming time. As such, I do end up buying games to support the developers, especially those whose publishers have good business practices.
Recently, especially, with less time and even less money due to having a kid, I am getting even more religious and selective in my support for companies. I still am keen in gaming, even if it's for small stretches at a time. I still want to pay for good games to good companies (though 'good' is a pretty subjective word).
There's always this difference between publishers and developers. We often hear of EA or Activision, and generally put the blame on publishers yet buy games because they are made by certain developers. But is the truth really because of the publishers? Or is the blame just being pushed to them so they can still sell the games because of the developers, and yet still get to exploit their customers, having their cake and eating it? How can we tell the difference and who are we actually 'supporting'?
If you have limited amount of cash and time, would you buy popular games with questionable business practices, or not so popular games that are good but not great? Does business practices alone indicate a good company or does quality games dictate that? Or more likely, both?
Recently, especially, with less time and even less money due to having a kid, I am getting even more religious and selective in my support for companies. I still am keen in gaming, even if it's for small stretches at a time. I still want to pay for good games to good companies (though 'good' is a pretty subjective word).
There's always this difference between publishers and developers. We often hear of EA or Activision, and generally put the blame on publishers yet buy games because they are made by certain developers. But is the truth really because of the publishers? Or is the blame just being pushed to them so they can still sell the games because of the developers, and yet still get to exploit their customers, having their cake and eating it? How can we tell the difference and who are we actually 'supporting'?
If you have limited amount of cash and time, would you buy popular games with questionable business practices, or not so popular games that are good but not great? Does business practices alone indicate a good company or does quality games dictate that? Or more likely, both?
Free to Play, or Just a Demo?
I wonder how many people have actually heard of Age of Empires Online before they started out on Steam. The latest addition to the Age of Empires series takes a turn towards the MMO genre, adding quests, crafting, experience points and levels to the mix, and it is "free to play".
I tried the game initially when it just came out. But the lack of units at the start, plus the fact that you could never have access to major content until you paid for it turned me off. It didn't help that these content were expensive.
Recently however, The devs have started to listen to their players and have made major changes to the game. (Report from PC Gamer and official site; and a summary and review of the changes) Empire points can be earned and used to unlock content previously only accessible by paying. The leveling curve has also been adjusted, plus a few other changes. I have started trying it out again because of these and the game's actually pretty enjoyable.
Is it actually ok when free to play is just a demo? Personally, I feel it is alright, as long as it is stated upfront that there are content that you will never get for free. Of course, the devs might change their mind later like for AOE Online. But if you make your game an MMO, meaning you want many players involved in the game, making it a demo might turn some people off. Plus in a game like AOE Oline, a proper pvp ladder would require a substantial number of people. In the case of AOE Online, in order not to let paying players have an advantage, ranked ladder is only for paying players, so this further shrinks the player base.
The issue here is the price. Each faction here was $20 if I don't remember wrongly. Granted, the devs need to make money, but lower costs for important parts of the game should be a given. Paid content should be non-essentials, so people can skip those and people who want to support the company can pay for them. The most common thing would be vanity items to show off, or experience boosts.
That said, the case of Gas Powered Games showed how the free to play model could close the gap between consumer and push game development in the right direction. Gamers are hoping for great support for the games they play, and they actually care enough to give feedback instead of leaving to play another game. If devs can sieve out the real issues from the loads of complains, they can truly create a masterpiece even if the game didn't kick off well. But then again, if you've been to any forums for games, especially Blizzard's, you would know there is really a lot of crap to sieve through...
I tried the game initially when it just came out. But the lack of units at the start, plus the fact that you could never have access to major content until you paid for it turned me off. It didn't help that these content were expensive.
Recently however, The devs have started to listen to their players and have made major changes to the game. (Report from PC Gamer and official site; and a summary and review of the changes) Empire points can be earned and used to unlock content previously only accessible by paying. The leveling curve has also been adjusted, plus a few other changes. I have started trying it out again because of these and the game's actually pretty enjoyable.
Is it actually ok when free to play is just a demo? Personally, I feel it is alright, as long as it is stated upfront that there are content that you will never get for free. Of course, the devs might change their mind later like for AOE Online. But if you make your game an MMO, meaning you want many players involved in the game, making it a demo might turn some people off. Plus in a game like AOE Oline, a proper pvp ladder would require a substantial number of people. In the case of AOE Online, in order not to let paying players have an advantage, ranked ladder is only for paying players, so this further shrinks the player base.
The issue here is the price. Each faction here was $20 if I don't remember wrongly. Granted, the devs need to make money, but lower costs for important parts of the game should be a given. Paid content should be non-essentials, so people can skip those and people who want to support the company can pay for them. The most common thing would be vanity items to show off, or experience boosts.
That said, the case of Gas Powered Games showed how the free to play model could close the gap between consumer and push game development in the right direction. Gamers are hoping for great support for the games they play, and they actually care enough to give feedback instead of leaving to play another game. If devs can sieve out the real issues from the loads of complains, they can truly create a masterpiece even if the game didn't kick off well. But then again, if you've been to any forums for games, especially Blizzard's, you would know there is really a lot of crap to sieve through...
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
PC = Pirate Cove but a Win For Gamers?
Ubisoft's CEO Yves Guillemot stated that the percentage of people pirating on the PC is 93 to 95%,(Guillemot: As many PC players pay for F2P as boxed product) the same as the number of people who do not pay when playing a free-to-play game. I'm not sure where they get their stats from, but with their always-online-DRM, I'm not surprised if people do end up pirating their games just so they can play it without issues, and even those who bought the games might end up pirating or cracking them, so the number of pirates gets inflated. Perhaps they realized this themselves, because an article surfaced today with they stating their DRM have been scrapped since June 2011 and replaced with a one-time online activation (Ubisoft Scrapping Always-On DRM For PC Games). Are they eating their words and crawling back to PC gamers?
Is this a win for gamers? Without the online DRM, I just might start buying their games again. But if publishers continue to blame poor PC sales on piracy instead of acknowledging that they have been bringing really poor and unplayable ports over to PCs, they are just going to turn away the PC crowd. For too many times have great games on consoles been poorly ported over to the PC, so much so that PC gamers may just start to thinking that developers have no interest in the PC market, and if that is so, there will be less and less people willing to pay for PC games. Perhaps things aren't that grim, but I would hate to see things go into that vicious cycle...
Is this a win for gamers? Without the online DRM, I just might start buying their games again. But if publishers continue to blame poor PC sales on piracy instead of acknowledging that they have been bringing really poor and unplayable ports over to PCs, they are just going to turn away the PC crowd. For too many times have great games on consoles been poorly ported over to the PC, so much so that PC gamers may just start to thinking that developers have no interest in the PC market, and if that is so, there will be less and less people willing to pay for PC games. Perhaps things aren't that grim, but I would hate to see things go into that vicious cycle...
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Gotham City Imposters now free to play!
Gotham City Imposters, a first person shooter where you get to play as an imposter Batman or Joker, is now free to play on Steam!
http://store.steampowered.com/app/206210/
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
eSportsmanship and 'clever' fanboys
The top two teams of League of Legends competing in Major League Gaming were disqualified after both teams were found to have colluded and agreed to share the price money (links below). After news of this came out, people started bashing on MLG claiming they banned the teams because they played an unorthodox match by going All Random, All Middle.
Though I'm not into DotA style games, I'd guess that it would be pretty exciting and quite a hype to see teams going random, and then going to play a style that's not generally seen, especially in a genre that can normally take a long time for a match to play out. Even so, it puzzles me that people would actually assume this is why the teams were disqualified after MLG has official statements posted about the decision and some even say that the money belongs to the teams, so they can share it if they want to. (I don't want to use such strong words, but do games really make people stupid?) The hate here for MLG is clear, and it's so strong that gamers would rather be blind to what has happened so that they can find an excuse to hate on them even more.
Is it ok then to agree to share the money? I'm sure it won't be an issue if one team wins, feels sorry for the other team and decides to share part of the winnings with them AFTER the competition is over; the money would be theirs, and the outcome of the match would not be affected. However, knowing that you'll get the same amount of money whether you win or lose, will you put in as much effort as you would have? I understand there's some scoring system going on here that would still make winning an incentive, but what if one team does not need the points? I don't know, but I just feel that if this is allowed, why don't all the teams that join the games just walk away with the same amount of money whether they win or lose? And if that's the case, do you think you'll get to enjoy a competitive game? I think it would be ideal to be the weakest team then, because you would earn money in the shortest time possible. Go in, lose, travel to next competition and repeat...
http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/news/an-important-message-regarding-mlg-summer-championship-league-of-legends/
https://twitter.com/MrMLGAdam/status/239878409382133760
http://asia.gamespot.com/news/top-two-league-of-legends-teams-disqualified-in-mlg-summer-championship-6393270
Though I'm not into DotA style games, I'd guess that it would be pretty exciting and quite a hype to see teams going random, and then going to play a style that's not generally seen, especially in a genre that can normally take a long time for a match to play out. Even so, it puzzles me that people would actually assume this is why the teams were disqualified after MLG has official statements posted about the decision and some even say that the money belongs to the teams, so they can share it if they want to. (I don't want to use such strong words, but do games really make people stupid?) The hate here for MLG is clear, and it's so strong that gamers would rather be blind to what has happened so that they can find an excuse to hate on them even more.
Is it ok then to agree to share the money? I'm sure it won't be an issue if one team wins, feels sorry for the other team and decides to share part of the winnings with them AFTER the competition is over; the money would be theirs, and the outcome of the match would not be affected. However, knowing that you'll get the same amount of money whether you win or lose, will you put in as much effort as you would have? I understand there's some scoring system going on here that would still make winning an incentive, but what if one team does not need the points? I don't know, but I just feel that if this is allowed, why don't all the teams that join the games just walk away with the same amount of money whether they win or lose? And if that's the case, do you think you'll get to enjoy a competitive game? I think it would be ideal to be the weakest team then, because you would earn money in the shortest time possible. Go in, lose, travel to next competition and repeat...
http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/news/an-important-message-regarding-mlg-summer-championship-league-of-legends/
https://twitter.com/MrMLGAdam/status/239878409382133760
http://asia.gamespot.com/news/top-two-league-of-legends-teams-disqualified-in-mlg-summer-championship-6393270
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Kickstarter - Planetary Annihilation
Planetary Annihilation looks to be a very interesting project, though the graphics seem to be lacking now, the game has premise. The way it handles inter-planetary battles seems like a combination of the Turn-based Strategy Genre with Real-time Strategy. Textures look like they need some work, but the interface looks slick and if they can pull off Supreme Commander-type large-scale battles, this could turn out to be a pretty cool RTS.
Considering the company already has a game out (Monday Night Combat) and the devs have experience with RTS games, this looks to be worthy of a support.
Considering the company already has a game out (Monday Night Combat) and the devs have experience with RTS games, this looks to be worthy of a support.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Kick it, start it.
www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/08/21/when-kickstarting-fails/
This particular article reminded me of this post that I have been meaning to write.
Games have moved into Kickstarter territory. For independent developers, Kickstarter gives them a chance at creating and publishing their games without having to submit to the whims of publishers like EA or Activision, and yet still be able to get the funds for game development.
It does come with it's flaws of course. Kickstarter isn't exactly built for advertising games development. For starters, other projects tend to take precedence on the main page; and even when you go into the games sub-category, it doesn't differentiate well between computer games, mobile phones, board and card games and so on. There's also a noticeable lack of differentiation into genres, making hard to look for the kind of games you might be interested in inside the haystack.
Funding in itself is a risk. There's no guarantee you'll get the product eventually. Like the article I posted stated, sometimes it's not because of the person who started the project, but many other things can and will affect the success though the project in question wasn't a game development and that In facts shows how much uncertainty there is as game development is a much more complicated process.
There are projects though, where the games are pretty much in the alpha stage and where the makers actually have something to show people who are willing to help out. The money basically is for the final stages of the project and a form of support to let the developers know that people are willing to buy their game and that encouragement can sometimes be worth more than monetary support.
All in all, it is a good platform for the development of games and also a good way for gamers to show support for indie devs. Kickstarter needs to work on the games section though, and indie devs should try to make sure the influence of big name publishers doesn't contaminate their projects (EA is eyeing crowd funded games). Devs need to have more to show before setting up their project on Kickstarter and supporters need to remember their donations will not necessarily give a return. As long as these risks are taken into account, crowd-funded games have a potential to compete in the gaming market.
Edit: Kickstarter actually allows you to seperate board and card games from video games, but that's about it.
This particular article reminded me of this post that I have been meaning to write.
Games have moved into Kickstarter territory. For independent developers, Kickstarter gives them a chance at creating and publishing their games without having to submit to the whims of publishers like EA or Activision, and yet still be able to get the funds for game development.
It does come with it's flaws of course. Kickstarter isn't exactly built for advertising games development. For starters, other projects tend to take precedence on the main page; and even when you go into the games sub-category, it doesn't differentiate well between computer games, mobile phones, board and card games and so on. There's also a noticeable lack of differentiation into genres, making hard to look for the kind of games you might be interested in inside the haystack.
Funding in itself is a risk. There's no guarantee you'll get the product eventually. Like the article I posted stated, sometimes it's not because of the person who started the project, but many other things can and will affect the success though the project in question wasn't a game development and that In facts shows how much uncertainty there is as game development is a much more complicated process.
There are projects though, where the games are pretty much in the alpha stage and where the makers actually have something to show people who are willing to help out. The money basically is for the final stages of the project and a form of support to let the developers know that people are willing to buy their game and that encouragement can sometimes be worth more than monetary support.
All in all, it is a good platform for the development of games and also a good way for gamers to show support for indie devs. Kickstarter needs to work on the games section though, and indie devs should try to make sure the influence of big name publishers doesn't contaminate their projects (EA is eyeing crowd funded games). Devs need to have more to show before setting up their project on Kickstarter and supporters need to remember their donations will not necessarily give a return. As long as these risks are taken into account, crowd-funded games have a potential to compete in the gaming market.
Edit: Kickstarter actually allows you to seperate board and card games from video games, but that's about it.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Playing Sports in front of a TV/Computer Screen
Been watching Evo 2012 highlights and got really stoked about fighting games. Watching Street Fighter IV and Marvel Vs Capcom 3 and even King of Fighters was a blast, but Soul Calibur V was confusing. I realized it was because I understood the mechanics of 2D fighters better so I could better tell what was going on and with a good commentator, the match was way more exciting. Watching other games like Starcraft 2 and Warcraft 3 The Frozen Throne was great because they were games I played. I found FPS boring and DotA styled games too slow for my liking.
This could be why it's hard for eSorts to kick off in most places other than Korea. Non-gamers probably won't be interested in watching eSports while gamers will only be interested in games that they play and understand.
How then did Starcraft take off in Korea? My guess is Blizzard made a game that's not just fun, but very watchable as well. Two armies killing off one another isn't hard to differentiate. And while build orders might not be immediately intuitive, a good commentator will be able to draw people in.
Watching fighters is a different story even though 2 people beating each other up should be understandable. Fighters have deep mechanics and most commentators do not readily focus on the action and on what's going on, or they use too much jargon in their commenting. Games like these are difficult for the general population to watch unless the commentators make it easier to understand.
Check out the first 3 minutes for an exciting match.
Do you watch eSports? What games hype you up and why do you watch the games you do? Are there ways to make more games enjoyable by the general masses so pro-gamers can get more recognition for their abilities?
This could be why it's hard for eSorts to kick off in most places other than Korea. Non-gamers probably won't be interested in watching eSports while gamers will only be interested in games that they play and understand.
How then did Starcraft take off in Korea? My guess is Blizzard made a game that's not just fun, but very watchable as well. Two armies killing off one another isn't hard to differentiate. And while build orders might not be immediately intuitive, a good commentator will be able to draw people in.
Watching fighters is a different story even though 2 people beating each other up should be understandable. Fighters have deep mechanics and most commentators do not readily focus on the action and on what's going on, or they use too much jargon in their commenting. Games like these are difficult for the general population to watch unless the commentators make it easier to understand.
Check out the first 3 minutes for an exciting match.
Do you watch eSports? What games hype you up and why do you watch the games you do? Are there ways to make more games enjoyable by the general masses so pro-gamers can get more recognition for their abilities?
Friday, August 3, 2012
Why I'm going to actively boycott publishers/developers
This more of a personal rant than anything objective.
I've been careful to not buy games that have always-on DRM as a form of protest against this particular form of 'punishment to legitimate gamers'. Ever since I learnt of the DRM for Assasin's Creed 2 (I think), I've stopped buying Ubisoft games at full price for PC, but probably only got 1 for the Wii. I bought Command and Conquer 4 from EA, not realizing that it had the same DRM and have since been weary of buying their games. I gave Blizzard a chance because I have always liked their games even though I was upset with Diablo 3's required online access and also the Real Money Auction House. I bought Capcom's fighting games for the PS3 even though I know they had a habit of making new versions and selling them as a new game instead of providing it as DLC for the older version. Even for some of the games I boycotted, I still ended up buying it at a Steam sale or when they finally removed the offending portions of the game.
What I'm starting to realize is that you can't have your cake and eat it (duh). Partial boycott doesn't help matters. Publishers will keep putting out such crap until gamers put their foot down and hit them in their wallets. I understand that what one person does is not going to do much, but I believe more and more gamers and fighting back against publishers. Bioware changing their ending and Capcom saying they'll change their stand on on-disk-dlc shows that gamers do have the power if they stand together (though I think Capcom will still make content and then not put it on the disk, but rather make people pay for it later so I don't believe them at all).
So I'm going to totally boycott games made by EA, Ubisoft, Blizzard and Capcom, and mind you, I have games from EA, Activision, Blizzard and Capcom that I really love. I would really love to continue following the story and playing the games (Starcraft, Warcraft and Diablo series) made by Blizzard, the various great games published by EA like Dead Space, and Capcom's fighting games and Resident Evil series (I love my survival horror if you haven't noticed, but those games are dying, being replaced by 'action-horror'), so this is really a painful choice for me. But it has to be done, and anyway, there will be people streaming if I'm really interested in the story. I am still interested in gaming though, and will look towards independent developers and other publishers like Paradox, THQ, CD Projekt and the like.
I've been careful to not buy games that have always-on DRM as a form of protest against this particular form of 'punishment to legitimate gamers'. Ever since I learnt of the DRM for Assasin's Creed 2 (I think), I've stopped buying Ubisoft games at full price for PC, but probably only got 1 for the Wii. I bought Command and Conquer 4 from EA, not realizing that it had the same DRM and have since been weary of buying their games. I gave Blizzard a chance because I have always liked their games even though I was upset with Diablo 3's required online access and also the Real Money Auction House. I bought Capcom's fighting games for the PS3 even though I know they had a habit of making new versions and selling them as a new game instead of providing it as DLC for the older version. Even for some of the games I boycotted, I still ended up buying it at a Steam sale or when they finally removed the offending portions of the game.
What I'm starting to realize is that you can't have your cake and eat it (duh). Partial boycott doesn't help matters. Publishers will keep putting out such crap until gamers put their foot down and hit them in their wallets. I understand that what one person does is not going to do much, but I believe more and more gamers and fighting back against publishers. Bioware changing their ending and Capcom saying they'll change their stand on on-disk-dlc shows that gamers do have the power if they stand together (though I think Capcom will still make content and then not put it on the disk, but rather make people pay for it later so I don't believe them at all).
So I'm going to totally boycott games made by EA, Ubisoft, Blizzard and Capcom, and mind you, I have games from EA, Activision, Blizzard and Capcom that I really love. I would really love to continue following the story and playing the games (Starcraft, Warcraft and Diablo series) made by Blizzard, the various great games published by EA like Dead Space, and Capcom's fighting games and Resident Evil series (I love my survival horror if you haven't noticed, but those games are dying, being replaced by 'action-horror'), so this is really a painful choice for me. But it has to be done, and anyway, there will be people streaming if I'm really interested in the story. I am still interested in gaming though, and will look towards independent developers and other publishers like Paradox, THQ, CD Projekt and the like.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Big Name Distributors the death of Gaming?
"Indies are saving gaming. EA is methodically destroying it."
Minecraft creator apparently thinks so.
I've always been impressed with the creativity that independent developers are able to come up with, as compared to games published by EA, Activision and Ubisoft. Most of the big budget games from the later consists of games that are updated versions year after year after year. How many Fifa's and Call of Duty's have we seen? Granted, we do see some new intellectual properties (IPs) once in a while, meaning totally universes and back story, but those that sell well are continually milked while those who do ok, but not well enough get thrown out. Rarely do we see an IP get a second chance, and rarely do we see games that break out of the mould.
Game developers under these companies rarely get to get creative with their games as publishers are fearful that the game will not sell. In comes the indie developers. Without the restrictions set by publishers, indie developers can exercise more creativity over their games. This comes with the cost of not having monetary support, so indie games tend to be developed for handphones, or with lower graphical capabilities. Creativity comes with a risk as well, as some games turn out to be a hit, while others are so weird they are not able to find their audiences. Publishing is a problem as well, but with more and more online publishers, indie games are starting to get popular. The low cost of indie games helps them as well.
There are so many game studios that have been shut down by publishers because of poor sales. Why then do these publishers still exist? Because people like block buster games with amazing graphics and cookie cutter gameplay. People do not want to try new IP, or games with strange ideas. Year after year, people repeated buy the next 'update' for full price. In that sense, EA isn't destroying gaming; after all, they are catering to what gamers want, and they deduce what gamers want from what gamers buy. So who's destroying gaming? Us gamers.
Minecraft creator apparently thinks so.
I've always been impressed with the creativity that independent developers are able to come up with, as compared to games published by EA, Activision and Ubisoft. Most of the big budget games from the later consists of games that are updated versions year after year after year. How many Fifa's and Call of Duty's have we seen? Granted, we do see some new intellectual properties (IPs) once in a while, meaning totally universes and back story, but those that sell well are continually milked while those who do ok, but not well enough get thrown out. Rarely do we see an IP get a second chance, and rarely do we see games that break out of the mould.
Game developers under these companies rarely get to get creative with their games as publishers are fearful that the game will not sell. In comes the indie developers. Without the restrictions set by publishers, indie developers can exercise more creativity over their games. This comes with the cost of not having monetary support, so indie games tend to be developed for handphones, or with lower graphical capabilities. Creativity comes with a risk as well, as some games turn out to be a hit, while others are so weird they are not able to find their audiences. Publishing is a problem as well, but with more and more online publishers, indie games are starting to get popular. The low cost of indie games helps them as well.
There are so many game studios that have been shut down by publishers because of poor sales. Why then do these publishers still exist? Because people like block buster games with amazing graphics and cookie cutter gameplay. People do not want to try new IP, or games with strange ideas. Year after year, people repeated buy the next 'update' for full price. In that sense, EA isn't destroying gaming; after all, they are catering to what gamers want, and they deduce what gamers want from what gamers buy. So who's destroying gaming? Us gamers.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Lessons that should have been learnt by Blizzard?
Most gamers have gotten their hands on Diablo 3 (D3) are and are spending a lot of time fighting the minions of hell. The release has been troubling, but nevertheless, the great gameplay of Blizzard games still hold up to the flaws of the DRM.
The server crashes on the first day was surprising, considering Blizzard held a stress test that worked (i.e. stressed the server enough to crash it), and that, with the number of pre-orders they received, should have given them enough information to determine how much server resources they would require. The only unknown is that of online purchases made on release day, or shortly before that.
There have been cases of hacking, and that is hardly surprising with the Real Money Auction House and character data saves been made on the Blizzard server instead of the client's machine. But interestingly, unlike World of Warcraft (WoW), when Blizzard restores your items after you report a hacking, your character is rolled back to a much earlier state, potentially losing levels and the latest acquired gear.
The last I checked, Blizzard made WoW, and like WoW, D3 has persistent online DRM, characters stored on Blizzard servers, and has gameplay that's heavily gear dependent. Also, WoW faced all the problems currently plaguing D3, like poor server stability launch-day and hacking, so why isn't Blizzard doing what WoW did?
(The later part of this post is going to devolve into a Real Money Auction House [RMAH] rant.)
The fact that we have to be always online to play is not purely for fighting piracy, but also because Blizzard needs to have the characters on their servers to prevent people from hacking to get better items. Items equals money with the RMAH, and having a surplus of items in the market will push costs down, making items not worth selling, dropping sales and thus Blizzard will earn less money from it. Players who prefer to play single player are thus forced to be online all the time.
The restoration system likely works for the same reason. You don't get back your most recent gear because they are not going to make another copy of it. The hacker has it, and giving returning to gear to the player increases the number of copies of the item. Granted, the player might not sell it immediately, but in future he may, and if Blizzard rolls back the items on the character so easily, players can easily fake a hack, passing expensive items to another account and then reporting to get more items to sell.
A lot of problems of D3 are there simply because of the RMAH, which aggravatingly, isn't even ready yet. I am against the RMAH, but very keen to see how it will affect the economy. Will gold be rendered useless? Will the gold auction house still have high quality items? It would make sense to sell it for real money if I'm honest. Of course, you could sell gold for money and then use the money to get items from the RMAH, and Blizzard will happily take a cut from both sales.
The server crashes on the first day was surprising, considering Blizzard held a stress test that worked (i.e. stressed the server enough to crash it), and that, with the number of pre-orders they received, should have given them enough information to determine how much server resources they would require. The only unknown is that of online purchases made on release day, or shortly before that.
There have been cases of hacking, and that is hardly surprising with the Real Money Auction House and character data saves been made on the Blizzard server instead of the client's machine. But interestingly, unlike World of Warcraft (WoW), when Blizzard restores your items after you report a hacking, your character is rolled back to a much earlier state, potentially losing levels and the latest acquired gear.
The last I checked, Blizzard made WoW, and like WoW, D3 has persistent online DRM, characters stored on Blizzard servers, and has gameplay that's heavily gear dependent. Also, WoW faced all the problems currently plaguing D3, like poor server stability launch-day and hacking, so why isn't Blizzard doing what WoW did?
(The later part of this post is going to devolve into a Real Money Auction House [RMAH] rant.)
The fact that we have to be always online to play is not purely for fighting piracy, but also because Blizzard needs to have the characters on their servers to prevent people from hacking to get better items. Items equals money with the RMAH, and having a surplus of items in the market will push costs down, making items not worth selling, dropping sales and thus Blizzard will earn less money from it. Players who prefer to play single player are thus forced to be online all the time.
The restoration system likely works for the same reason. You don't get back your most recent gear because they are not going to make another copy of it. The hacker has it, and giving returning to gear to the player increases the number of copies of the item. Granted, the player might not sell it immediately, but in future he may, and if Blizzard rolls back the items on the character so easily, players can easily fake a hack, passing expensive items to another account and then reporting to get more items to sell.
A lot of problems of D3 are there simply because of the RMAH, which aggravatingly, isn't even ready yet. I am against the RMAH, but very keen to see how it will affect the economy. Will gold be rendered useless? Will the gold auction house still have high quality items? It would make sense to sell it for real money if I'm honest. Of course, you could sell gold for money and then use the money to get items from the RMAH, and Blizzard will happily take a cut from both sales.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Tekken Tag 2 DLC
A couple of articles on Gamespot discusses the issues with DLCs (among others) on fighting games. In an interview with Katsuhiro Harada, producer of the Tekken series, he revealed that he thinks that dlc is fine, but "stages, characters, and moves shouldn't be added as paid DLC" because "these are necessary elements to a fighting game. Much like chess pieces to a game of chess, they shouldn't be charged for separately."
Brendan Sinclair, in an article Tekken Tag 2 a model of how to handle DLC, talked about how dlc is employed by publishers for two different reasons, 1. to discourage players from selling their games after they're done with it because there will be new content, and 2. to earn money. He notes that the problem comes when publishers try to do both and that turns players off. DLC done right, he argues, is if you want money, then make the content worthwhile and give us a "complete" product at the start. And if you want to lock up content that's already completed, it implies that your goal is to stop people from selling the game when they are done, so the content should be free. Tekken Tag 2 will give players more characters free of charge, and that shows the DLC's for reason number 2.
How do we actually tell what other motivations are behind the DLC if there's a price tag on it? As a consumer, what gamers are unhappy with is being short-changed, and if a game has DLC, cost, time of release, and whether it is already available on day-one will be a huge indicator on whether they are being exploited. It's nice to see that publishers are beginning to take note of this and taking steps to keep the consumers happy, but skeptical me says that most companies will just find ways to mask their money making schemes, while continuing to exploit and milk their fan-base.
And if you like fighting games, do support Namco Bandai with the release of Tekken Tag 2. Good business practices should be rewarded. Unless of course, they decide to pull a Capcom on us.
Brendan Sinclair, in an article Tekken Tag 2 a model of how to handle DLC, talked about how dlc is employed by publishers for two different reasons, 1. to discourage players from selling their games after they're done with it because there will be new content, and 2. to earn money. He notes that the problem comes when publishers try to do both and that turns players off. DLC done right, he argues, is if you want money, then make the content worthwhile and give us a "complete" product at the start. And if you want to lock up content that's already completed, it implies that your goal is to stop people from selling the game when they are done, so the content should be free. Tekken Tag 2 will give players more characters free of charge, and that shows the DLC's for reason number 2.
How do we actually tell what other motivations are behind the DLC if there's a price tag on it? As a consumer, what gamers are unhappy with is being short-changed, and if a game has DLC, cost, time of release, and whether it is already available on day-one will be a huge indicator on whether they are being exploited. It's nice to see that publishers are beginning to take note of this and taking steps to keep the consumers happy, but skeptical me says that most companies will just find ways to mask their money making schemes, while continuing to exploit and milk their fan-base.
And if you like fighting games, do support Namco Bandai with the release of Tekken Tag 2. Good business practices should be rewarded. Unless of course, they decide to pull a Capcom on us.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
"Capcom revising on-disc DLC stance"
http://asia.gamespot.com/news/capcom-revising-on-disc-dlc-stance-6376788
Is this Capcom listening, or simply instead of putting the dlc on the disk, they'll still rip out content from their game and make it a day-one download?
Guess the best way to buy games now is to wait till all the dlcs are out and them but they 'game-of-the-year' or 'complete' edition. And it's fine that people buy the games when they come out immediately, cause this is the only way that the companies will continue to make dlcs or 'enhanced' editions, so those who wait can benefit.
Is this Capcom listening, or simply instead of putting the dlc on the disk, they'll still rip out content from their game and make it a day-one download?
Guess the best way to buy games now is to wait till all the dlcs are out and them but they 'game-of-the-year' or 'complete' edition. And it's fine that people buy the games when they come out immediately, cause this is the only way that the companies will continue to make dlcs or 'enhanced' editions, so those who wait can benefit.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Release day from Hell
I have Diablo 3, and I have the time, but I'm choosing not to play it, but to observe the forums and facebook and 'listen' to the complains. This is the reason why I don't support always-on DRM, and this is why I don't play games with such requirements on release day, esp those that have millions of people waiting to play. This was the case when this form of DRM first came out for Assassin's Creed 2 (http://www.geek.com/articles/games/assassins-creed-2-unplayable-as-ubisoft-drm-servers-go-down-2010037/), and then later for the various MMORPGs (which have to be always-on, but day 1 issues still isn't acceptable). But I guess it doesn't affect me as much since I don't play them on release day.
Perhaps it's the skeptic in me, but I've the feeling that Blizzard has been slowly testing the gamers and 'socializing' them to accept always-on DRM. When I look back at Starcraft II, it is obvious that always-on DRM had been subtly at work in the title. You might say 'you can play offline!' but did you really try to do that? At launch, you could only play one offline account, and your progress on the offline account could not be linked to your online account, no achievements, no saves, and I do not think you can play custom games on that. In Diablo 3, they added a way to monetize their game in addition to having players pay to access the game. I wonder what they'll do next with their next game?
At least we know Blizzard is one company that responds fast and well, so have fun guys, I'm sure the issues will be resolved soon more or less.
P.S. For those who think that people who cry about this are just making a fuss out of nothing, I hope this does not happen to you:
http://www.vg247.com/2011/09/08/the-day-i-realised-always-on-drm-moaners-have-a-point/
Perhaps it's the skeptic in me, but I've the feeling that Blizzard has been slowly testing the gamers and 'socializing' them to accept always-on DRM. When I look back at Starcraft II, it is obvious that always-on DRM had been subtly at work in the title. You might say 'you can play offline!' but did you really try to do that? At launch, you could only play one offline account, and your progress on the offline account could not be linked to your online account, no achievements, no saves, and I do not think you can play custom games on that. In Diablo 3, they added a way to monetize their game in addition to having players pay to access the game. I wonder what they'll do next with their next game?
At least we know Blizzard is one company that responds fast and well, so have fun guys, I'm sure the issues will be resolved soon more or less.
P.S. For those who think that people who cry about this are just making a fuss out of nothing, I hope this does not happen to you:
http://www.vg247.com/2011/09/08/the-day-i-realised-always-on-drm-moaners-have-a-point/
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Achievement for those who got in the Diablo 3 closed beta
"In celebration of a successful beta test, all players who were invited to participate in the Diablo III closed beta will receive the commemorative Feat of Strength, "One of the Chosen." For eligible players, this feat will appear automatically in the Feat of Strength list after logging in for the first time as well as unlock a unique sigil that can be used on character banners.
In order to be eligible for "One of the Chosen," you must have had a Diablo III closed beta license attached to your Battle.net account (it isn't necessary to have downloaded or logged into the beta itself). Please note that players who participated only in the Open Beta Weekend, but were not invited to the closed beta, will not receive this Feat of Strength. Thank you once again to all of our beta participants. We look forward to seeing you in Sanctuary!"
Sometimes I wonder where companies hire these "geniuses" who come out with different ways to piss their fans off.
|
Payment Models - Free-to-play
What do you think of when I mention 'free-to-play'? Games that were free to play used to mean that they were generally bad. My main experience in the past with free games were flash games, and Maple Story. There was something about Maple Story that made it such a grind. That, coupled with the ability to buy powerful stuff with power meant that in-game currency was practically worthless. Since then, I've avoided free-to-play games like a plague.
Recently though, free-to-play games are ramping up in quality. This may be because some of these games were originally MMOs with subscription fees that eventually lost so many players they switched to a different model. Games like Age of Conan, DC Universe Online, Warhammer Online and many other MMORPGs all switched to free to play, and even reported greater earnings than before. Free-to-plays are not just limited to MMOs though, FPS like Team Fortress 2 and Tribes Ascend, Diablo-like action RPG like the upcoming Path of Exile, DOTA-styled League of Legends, Heroes of Newerth and even DOTA 2 itself are free. These games make money by allowing players to pay for cosmetic upgrades, or in the case of certain MMOs, access to more character slots or storage stash. In contrast, MMORPGs generally start out with a monthly subscription fee in addition to the initial cost of the game, and almost every game has a one-time purchase fee.
Developers are gradually realizing that people are very willing to pay if they get to play the game free and enjoy the game enough, sometimes to the extent if paying even more than one would if they just bought the game outright. This means that free-to-play is a viable business model and games using this model are very much worth the effort and time and some (not all - Blizz) know the problem of being able to get power with cash. More developers that are dedicated to the games they make means more great games, and more great free games means more choices in the industry for gamers of different spending power.
The free-to-play model is good for consumers because the model itself encourages developers to continue to support the game in different forms in order to attract more players as well as to come out with content for gamers to purchase. Developers are careful not to come across as abusing their consumers since they can just stop playing if they have not invested in the game and the developers will lose potential income, and in the case I'd multiplayer games, make the effort to ensure the environment stays friendly and comfortable for an online community. One could argue that they might be too afraid to offend players and so might not take the necessary steps to moderate the community and that is indeed true. It is up to the developers then, to balance between losing a few to losing the majority.
I will continue to monitor to free-play-games. It is inevitable that these will be the games that will shape the expectations and culture of gamers of the future - the young who quite possibly are the major consumers of free games. Will they come to expect quality from the games they buy because of quality free games? Or will they continue to be at the whim of publishers who care more about money than their customers?
Recently though, free-to-play games are ramping up in quality. This may be because some of these games were originally MMOs with subscription fees that eventually lost so many players they switched to a different model. Games like Age of Conan, DC Universe Online, Warhammer Online and many other MMORPGs all switched to free to play, and even reported greater earnings than before. Free-to-plays are not just limited to MMOs though, FPS like Team Fortress 2 and Tribes Ascend, Diablo-like action RPG like the upcoming Path of Exile, DOTA-styled League of Legends, Heroes of Newerth and even DOTA 2 itself are free. These games make money by allowing players to pay for cosmetic upgrades, or in the case of certain MMOs, access to more character slots or storage stash. In contrast, MMORPGs generally start out with a monthly subscription fee in addition to the initial cost of the game, and almost every game has a one-time purchase fee.
Developers are gradually realizing that people are very willing to pay if they get to play the game free and enjoy the game enough, sometimes to the extent if paying even more than one would if they just bought the game outright. This means that free-to-play is a viable business model and games using this model are very much worth the effort and time and some (not all - Blizz) know the problem of being able to get power with cash. More developers that are dedicated to the games they make means more great games, and more great free games means more choices in the industry for gamers of different spending power.
The free-to-play model is good for consumers because the model itself encourages developers to continue to support the game in different forms in order to attract more players as well as to come out with content for gamers to purchase. Developers are careful not to come across as abusing their consumers since they can just stop playing if they have not invested in the game and the developers will lose potential income, and in the case I'd multiplayer games, make the effort to ensure the environment stays friendly and comfortable for an online community. One could argue that they might be too afraid to offend players and so might not take the necessary steps to moderate the community and that is indeed true. It is up to the developers then, to balance between losing a few to losing the majority.
I will continue to monitor to free-play-games. It is inevitable that these will be the games that will shape the expectations and culture of gamers of the future - the young who quite possibly are the major consumers of free games. Will they come to expect quality from the games they buy because of quality free games? Or will they continue to be at the whim of publishers who care more about money than their customers?
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Used Games
Have you ever bought or sold a game that's second hand? Have you borrowed traded games with friends before? Have you copied a friend's game so you can keep a copy of it? Well, apparently, the 'used game market' is as bad as piracy to game developers and publishers.
And they are probably right. While most of the examples I stated aren't exactly a market, it is quite common to find a used game section in a local game store. This is where they sell games that people have played and sold back to them at a low price. The games are then sold, cheaper than new games, but otherwise almost no different. (That is, unless the game have one of these new 'anti-used-game-sale-protection' in place, like requiring an online pass to activate certain portions of the game.) Needless to say, it is generally the single-player games that get this treatment, or bad games, or those with multi-player components that no one cares about.
Why are the publishers so concerned? Well, for one, they don't get anything out of games sold this way. And two, people won't but the new game, so they lose out on a sale as well. The only ones making money are the store owners, and of course, that's not ok with that, and that's perfectly understandable. So, like DRM, measures were taken to get a cut out of these sales. Parts of games were locked, requiring a one-use activation key that came with the game, but people could still unlock them by buying the key online, thus giving the publishers a cut. Per-orders came with bonuses to encourage people to pre-order (that caused problems as well when different stores get different bonuses and so, no matter where you buy, you're getting an incomplete product.) planning DLC release schedules to encourage people to keep the game (good, but DLCs cost more money.) And recently, there's news that the new Playstation and Xbox will not support used games and the PS Vita makes it so that only the first player of the game get achievements, though there seems to be a workaround.
While I understand why they need to do this, and feel that having the online pass and DLC is acceptable, totally blocking the ability to play used games is going too far. There are people, students especially, that can't afford to buy too many new games considering how expensive games can be. Used games lets them have a chance to play more games, even if some parts of them are locked out. People who sell the games they finished can now also have the extra cash to buy more games, though publishers probably won't buy this argument because they can't be sure if the new game will be one of theirs. Blocking out used games can be a stupid move, because it means now people who can't afford games will resort to piracy if they are desperate enough. It would be hilarious if either one of Sony or Microsoft went ahead with this move but not the other. Gamers would then all flock to the one which didn't, and game publishers would still be forced to make games for that because that's where all the people who would buy games are.
Instead of something so drastic, developers should work to make it worthwhile,for gamers to keep their games. Blizzard provides good support for their games, even Diablo and Starcraft 1 are still playable online, and Starcraft 2 is constantly patched and receiving new maps. The Witcher and The Witcher 2 (hate to have to keep praising this company, but they seem to be doing everything right) pack their game with a lot of extras - maps, music, even a short novel, and all their updates and added content are free. Perhaps if the game is good enough, and there are reasons to buy it new or keep the game, used game sales will not be such a big issue? Just like piracy, it'll be difficult to control used game sales, but unlike piracy, it is really not clear here who is wrong or right, or whether it should or should not be allowed.
I believe an online pass, plus making games worth keeping could be an effective way to manage it, and if people are unable to afford new games all the time, give them a chance to play some games.
Why are the publishers so concerned? Well, for one, they don't get anything out of games sold this way. And two, people won't but the new game, so they lose out on a sale as well. The only ones making money are the store owners, and of course, that's not ok with that, and that's perfectly understandable. So, like DRM, measures were taken to get a cut out of these sales. Parts of games were locked, requiring a one-use activation key that came with the game, but people could still unlock them by buying the key online, thus giving the publishers a cut. Per-orders came with bonuses to encourage people to pre-order (that caused problems as well when different stores get different bonuses and so, no matter where you buy, you're getting an incomplete product.) planning DLC release schedules to encourage people to keep the game (good, but DLCs cost more money.) And recently, there's news that the new Playstation and Xbox will not support used games and the PS Vita makes it so that only the first player of the game get achievements, though there seems to be a workaround.
While I understand why they need to do this, and feel that having the online pass and DLC is acceptable, totally blocking the ability to play used games is going too far. There are people, students especially, that can't afford to buy too many new games considering how expensive games can be. Used games lets them have a chance to play more games, even if some parts of them are locked out. People who sell the games they finished can now also have the extra cash to buy more games, though publishers probably won't buy this argument because they can't be sure if the new game will be one of theirs. Blocking out used games can be a stupid move, because it means now people who can't afford games will resort to piracy if they are desperate enough. It would be hilarious if either one of Sony or Microsoft went ahead with this move but not the other. Gamers would then all flock to the one which didn't, and game publishers would still be forced to make games for that because that's where all the people who would buy games are.
Instead of something so drastic, developers should work to make it worthwhile,for gamers to keep their games. Blizzard provides good support for their games, even Diablo and Starcraft 1 are still playable online, and Starcraft 2 is constantly patched and receiving new maps. The Witcher and The Witcher 2 (hate to have to keep praising this company, but they seem to be doing everything right) pack their game with a lot of extras - maps, music, even a short novel, and all their updates and added content are free. Perhaps if the game is good enough, and there are reasons to buy it new or keep the game, used game sales will not be such a big issue? Just like piracy, it'll be difficult to control used game sales, but unlike piracy, it is really not clear here who is wrong or right, or whether it should or should not be allowed.
I believe an online pass, plus making games worth keeping could be an effective way to manage it, and if people are unable to afford new games all the time, give them a chance to play some games.
I (don't) Wanna be the Boshy
This game is really screwed... It has a million and 1 ways to kill you...
Sales for the weekend of 4th to 7th May
Sales for the weekend of 4th to 7th May
"Great titles from Rebellion, including Sniper Elite: Berlin 1945, the Empire Earth series, Evil Genius and two Ground Control games, are available this weekend with a 50% discount."
Sniper Elite
Empire Earth
Empire Earth 2
Empire Earth III
Ground Control
Ground Control 2: Operation Exodus
Evil Genius
from http://www.gog.com/
And from Steam (only discounts of 50% or more will be listed here)
Batman Arkham Bundle (58% discount) http://store.steampowered.com/sub/14530/
(Batman Arkham Asylum or Arkham City and dlcs can be purchased individually at a 50% discount except Arkham Asylum Game of the Year edition which is at a 66% discount)
EA Indie Bundle (70% discount) http://store.steampowered.com/sub/14499/
Games include: DeathSpank, DeathSpank: Thongs of Virture, Gatling Gears, Shank, Shank 2, Wrap
Can be purchased individually at a 50% discount
Sanctum Collection (75% discount) http://store.steampowered.com/sub/12184/
Sanctum and dlcs, all also at 75% discount individually, but apparently the collection saves you $1.41 USD...
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Game of the Year Edition Deluxe and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Game of the Year Edition (50% discount) http://store.steampowered.com/app/900883/?snr=1_4_4__106_1
The former includes Fighter's Stronghold Expansion, Spell Tome Treasures, Vile Lair, Mehrune's Razor and much more. This edition is playable only in English language.
Enjoy!
"Great titles from Rebellion, including Sniper Elite: Berlin 1945, the Empire Earth series, Evil Genius and two Ground Control games, are available this weekend with a 50% discount."
Sniper Elite
Empire Earth
Empire Earth 2
Empire Earth III
Ground Control
Ground Control 2: Operation Exodus
Evil Genius
from http://www.gog.com/
And from Steam (only discounts of 50% or more will be listed here)
Batman Arkham Bundle (58% discount) http://store.steampowered.com/sub/14530/
(Batman Arkham Asylum or Arkham City and dlcs can be purchased individually at a 50% discount except Arkham Asylum Game of the Year edition which is at a 66% discount)
EA Indie Bundle (70% discount) http://store.steampowered.com/sub/14499/
Games include: DeathSpank, DeathSpank: Thongs of Virture, Gatling Gears, Shank, Shank 2, Wrap
Can be purchased individually at a 50% discount
Sanctum Collection (75% discount) http://store.steampowered.com/sub/12184/
Sanctum and dlcs, all also at 75% discount individually, but apparently the collection saves you $1.41 USD...
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Game of the Year Edition Deluxe and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Game of the Year Edition (50% discount) http://store.steampowered.com/app/900883/?snr=1_4_4__106_1
The former includes Fighter's Stronghold Expansion, Spell Tome Treasures, Vile Lair, Mehrune's Razor and much more. This edition is playable only in English language.
Enjoy!
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Monday, April 30, 2012
DRM
Digital Rights Media is kind of a touchy subject to gamers. Many of us have been inconvenienced by DRM that makes it difficult, or downright impossible to play the games we legitimately purchased. There are systems that have been used that installed programs that compromise our system, online authentication that affected our ability to play the game when it was down or when we are travelling, or having to download another program to run games from. Personally, I have bought The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Game of the Year Edition which refused to run on my PC, stating that I had a pirated copy. I had tried multiple ways to get it to work but to no avail. A search on the internet revealed the culprit: this is due to Securom DRM and I have tried not to purchase another game from Bethesda for the PC and have been more aware and weary of the types of DRM used in games.
Being a gamer, the natural inclination is to stand against DRM. However, piracy is a problem and has always been a threat to intellectual property, and games are definitely not the only victims. Pirated VCDs and DVDs used to be a problem for the movie industry, but now online streaming has become more rampant. I'm not sure about books, but they can probably be downloaded if we search hard enough. Companies do indeed need to be concerned. Games cost a ton of money and lots of time to produce and the efforts of the developers should be rewarded. Piracy eat into sales (so they claim, because who knows if they'll still play the game if they have to pay for it?), and publishers like EA and Activision have been known to close down developing teams, or fire people for games that don't sell well (but which could very well be because the game was BAD).
Each industry have tried different ways of combating piracy, to varying successes. For a while, music lovers had to face hard hitting measures that hurt those who bought their music legally - CDs that refused to play on computers, MP3's that were limited to play on certain devices. Gamers too faced inconveniences starting from passwords in game manuals, requiring CDs/DVDs to be in the drive to run games, and slowly, measures that make use of the internet have come into play.
DRM has brought about a few issues. Does it really stop piracy? I have yet to see an anti-piracy measure that works. Games get cracked shortly after release, no matter which method companies use to secure it. Curiously, some people who crack games are the ones who probably bought the game to crack them, and new DRM measures are things they look forward to as a challenge. I'm sure the hacker community is always looking for challenges and companies provide these on a regular basis. There's a pro-argument for DRM, and that's that people who bought the game legitimately will get to enjoy the game first. Total Biscuit from http://www.cynicalbrit.com/ (his youtube channel was listed in a previous post on dlc) mentioned that, if that's the case, DRM could be patched out after a pirated copy came out. This argument has it's flaws too, as the Ubisoft case mentioned below.
Who then suffers from DRM? Ubisoft's always online DRM upset gamers when servers went down shortly after Assassin's Creed was released resulted in pirates getting a better gaming experience than those who bought the game. My experience with Securom made me more cautious and also more critical of companies which use intrusive DRM. I 100% support their need to protect their intellectual property, but what blows my mind is that they can't see the problems these methods are causing to their consumers. It's hard to brush it aside when we see a gaming company like CD Projekt flat out refuse to use DRM because "the DRM itself is a pain for your legal gamers – this group of honest people, who decided that your game was worth the 50 USD or Euro and went and bought it. Why would you want to make their lives more difficult?" (Read their interview on pcgamerhttp://www.pcgamer.com/2011/11/29/interview-cd-projekts-ceo-on-witcher-2-piracy-why-drms-still-not-worth-it/) Yet, the sad truth is piracy will always exist.
Being in Singapore, we have a relatively good and affordable internet infrastructure, so always-on DRM doesn't hurt us as much, and I have seen many comments in forums stating that they don't mind DRM because it doesn't hurt them. It's sad to see people only caring about themselves and not think about people who do not have access to proper internet connection. And they are missing the fact that one day, DRM is going to evolve into something that will affect them. Perhaps companies will require you to key in private information like your social security number (or IC number for us in Sg), or having you to report your address and full name to log in. Perhaps you have to pay to play every single game. Things will get worse, and by then, most players lose even the right to complain because they would have played a major role in letting things get out of hand. And the worse thing is, people will still buy those games.
Standing up against such practices isn't about doing so for our own sakes, nor is it about being greedy (I could very well go and pirate the game if that were the case), it's about protecting the future of gamers. And if you're pirating, please don't - developers and honest gamers are suffering cause of piracy.
Being a gamer, the natural inclination is to stand against DRM. However, piracy is a problem and has always been a threat to intellectual property, and games are definitely not the only victims. Pirated VCDs and DVDs used to be a problem for the movie industry, but now online streaming has become more rampant. I'm not sure about books, but they can probably be downloaded if we search hard enough. Companies do indeed need to be concerned. Games cost a ton of money and lots of time to produce and the efforts of the developers should be rewarded. Piracy eat into sales (so they claim, because who knows if they'll still play the game if they have to pay for it?), and publishers like EA and Activision have been known to close down developing teams, or fire people for games that don't sell well (but which could very well be because the game was BAD).
Each industry have tried different ways of combating piracy, to varying successes. For a while, music lovers had to face hard hitting measures that hurt those who bought their music legally - CDs that refused to play on computers, MP3's that were limited to play on certain devices. Gamers too faced inconveniences starting from passwords in game manuals, requiring CDs/DVDs to be in the drive to run games, and slowly, measures that make use of the internet have come into play.
DRM has brought about a few issues. Does it really stop piracy? I have yet to see an anti-piracy measure that works. Games get cracked shortly after release, no matter which method companies use to secure it. Curiously, some people who crack games are the ones who probably bought the game to crack them, and new DRM measures are things they look forward to as a challenge. I'm sure the hacker community is always looking for challenges and companies provide these on a regular basis. There's a pro-argument for DRM, and that's that people who bought the game legitimately will get to enjoy the game first. Total Biscuit from http://www.cynicalbrit.com/ (his youtube channel was listed in a previous post on dlc) mentioned that, if that's the case, DRM could be patched out after a pirated copy came out. This argument has it's flaws too, as the Ubisoft case mentioned below.
Who then suffers from DRM? Ubisoft's always online DRM upset gamers when servers went down shortly after Assassin's Creed was released resulted in pirates getting a better gaming experience than those who bought the game. My experience with Securom made me more cautious and also more critical of companies which use intrusive DRM. I 100% support their need to protect their intellectual property, but what blows my mind is that they can't see the problems these methods are causing to their consumers. It's hard to brush it aside when we see a gaming company like CD Projekt flat out refuse to use DRM because "the DRM itself is a pain for your legal gamers – this group of honest people, who decided that your game was worth the 50 USD or Euro and went and bought it. Why would you want to make their lives more difficult?" (Read their interview on pcgamerhttp://www.pcgamer.com/2011/11/29/interview-cd-projekts-ceo-on-witcher-2-piracy-why-drms-still-not-worth-it/) Yet, the sad truth is piracy will always exist.
Being in Singapore, we have a relatively good and affordable internet infrastructure, so always-on DRM doesn't hurt us as much, and I have seen many comments in forums stating that they don't mind DRM because it doesn't hurt them. It's sad to see people only caring about themselves and not think about people who do not have access to proper internet connection. And they are missing the fact that one day, DRM is going to evolve into something that will affect them. Perhaps companies will require you to key in private information like your social security number (or IC number for us in Sg), or having you to report your address and full name to log in. Perhaps you have to pay to play every single game. Things will get worse, and by then, most players lose even the right to complain because they would have played a major role in letting things get out of hand. And the worse thing is, people will still buy those games.
Standing up against such practices isn't about doing so for our own sakes, nor is it about being greedy (I could very well go and pirate the game if that were the case), it's about protecting the future of gamers. And if you're pirating, please don't - developers and honest gamers are suffering cause of piracy.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Sales this weekend
Some sales this weekend:
"What’s in store for you? Just some of the best gun-totin’, spell-slingin’ action that you can get from EA. Syndicate, Crusader: No Remorse, Crusader: No Regret, Nox, Lands of Lore: The Throne of Chaos and Lands of Lore 2: Guardians of Destiny, and Magic Carpet are all on sale in this promo, so if you’ve been thinking about picking any of these games up, now’s the time to hop in and see some of the best classics in our catalog!"
http://www.gog.com/
And from Steam (only discounts of 50% or more will be listed here)
Serious Sam 3: BFE (66% discount)
http://store.steampowered.com/app/41070/
Sniper Elite (75% discount)
http://store.steampowered.com/app/3700/?snr=1_4_4__106_1
"What’s in store for you? Just some of the best gun-totin’, spell-slingin’ action that you can get from EA. Syndicate, Crusader: No Remorse, Crusader: No Regret, Nox, Lands of Lore: The Throne of Chaos and Lands of Lore 2: Guardians of Destiny, and Magic Carpet are all on sale in this promo, so if you’ve been thinking about picking any of these games up, now’s the time to hop in and see some of the best classics in our catalog!"
http://www.gog.com/
And from Steam (only discounts of 50% or more will be listed here)
Serious Sam 3: BFE (66% discount)
http://store.steampowered.com/app/41070/
Sniper Elite (75% discount)
http://store.steampowered.com/app/3700/?snr=1_4_4__106_1
Friday, April 27, 2012
Good Old Games
If you're like me and wish to play those games of old, get them here remastered for the modern windows operating systems. http://www.gog.com/
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
DLC
The advent of accessible internet and online purchasing power brought about a new way for gaming companies to add content to games and has gradually replaced the expansion packs of yesteryears. I remember awaiting expansion packs to my favourite games so I could get more levels, new units, and great story, basically, an excuse for me to spend more time with those games. Expansion packs cost less than the original games, and of course, depending on the company, could be a great add-on or a total waste of money made just to milk their customers of their hard-earned cash. When 56k internet came along, games could now be patched. Companies like Blizzard provided constant updating to their RTS titles to keep the balance, and add downloadable maps for their supporters. Other companies provided patches to keep their games stable.
With reliable systems to make purchases online set in place, now content that would previously be in expansion packs can now reach consumers without the need for a disk purchase. Gamers can pick which part of the 'expansion pack' they want and buy those only, as well as possibly getting the content they want earlier (assuming what they want is the first piece of DLC distributed) as compared to buying an expansion pack.
But, as with expansion packs, companies tried to use this new system to abuse fans of their more popular franchises. Issues like day-one dlc, 'disk-locked-content', over-priced content like colours for fighting game characters, endings that have to be purchased started to pop up. Capcom took it to the extreme, first releasing full new versions of games (super street fighter iv and ultimate marvel vs capcom 3) and dropping support for the older ones and breaking promises of fixing issues in those games (expansion pack abuse) and then locking up a large number of characters in their game that could only be unlocked with a future purchase (dlc abuse). Mass Effect 3 from Bioware had the same issue and together with its ending fiasco, caused a major uproar in the gaming community. These were things I was afraid of ever since dlc became rampant.
Brendan Sinclair hit the nail on the head in his article "On-Disc DLC Outrage Is Off the Mark" (http://asia.gamespot.com/features/on-disc-dlc-outrage-is-off-the-mark-6366340/). Whether they package it as on-disk dlc or dlc that comes out day 1, it seems to me that, being developed and completed in the time before the game is released, it should be included in the purchase when consumers pay for the game; being on the disk makes it more obvious that it was ready when the disk was produced. Gamers are paying full-price for an 'incomplete' package. Total Biscuit (http://www.youtube.com/user/TotalHalibut) put his foot down and completely boycotted Mass Effect 3 even though he loved the first two games (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri0vrJ-y2zM [a bit of a rant, but here's his take on the issue]). Not only this, but game publishers (those who package and sell the games, not those who developed them) are using dlc to lure people to pre-purchase a game before they have a chance to read reviews.
Is this wrong? Well, companies have to make money, and they will do whatever they away with to make more money. If gamers will still buy games that they deliberately removed stuff out to sell it back to you later, then they will do it. The thing about companies is that they will keep trying until gamers give in, and they will deliberately do such things with games that people desperately want to play. Look at the costs of dlc for Street Fighter IV and Asura's Wrath, both Capcom games. US$3.99 for costumes while it's US$2 for more episodes. Why? Because more people will pay for Street Fighter stuff than Asura's Wrath. Ubisoft puts their always-on DRM where players had to be always online on popular games like Assassin's Creed 2 and not Rayman Origins. See the pattern here? And once gamers are used to it, they will accept it on other games. When people complained about Diablo 3 requiring always-on internet connection, Force and Sixen (http://www.youtube.com/user/ForceSC2strategy) said in one of their Diablo 3 podcast it's ok, because every game's doing that. And that's the scaring thing, people like them START TO ACCEPT IT AS NORMAL.
The best way to stand up against such practices is to boycott the game. It has worked in the past (like Battlefield 3) and will work again. But that is if only gamers will stand together and make it a point to do it. Unfortunately, a lot of people do not read up thoroughly on a game before making a purchase, and issues like these slip their knowledge. Still, I not buy games like these and will instead support indie developers, many of which truly deserve our support.
With reliable systems to make purchases online set in place, now content that would previously be in expansion packs can now reach consumers without the need for a disk purchase. Gamers can pick which part of the 'expansion pack' they want and buy those only, as well as possibly getting the content they want earlier (assuming what they want is the first piece of DLC distributed) as compared to buying an expansion pack.
But, as with expansion packs, companies tried to use this new system to abuse fans of their more popular franchises. Issues like day-one dlc, 'disk-locked-content', over-priced content like colours for fighting game characters, endings that have to be purchased started to pop up. Capcom took it to the extreme, first releasing full new versions of games (super street fighter iv and ultimate marvel vs capcom 3) and dropping support for the older ones and breaking promises of fixing issues in those games (expansion pack abuse) and then locking up a large number of characters in their game that could only be unlocked with a future purchase (dlc abuse). Mass Effect 3 from Bioware had the same issue and together with its ending fiasco, caused a major uproar in the gaming community. These were things I was afraid of ever since dlc became rampant.
Brendan Sinclair hit the nail on the head in his article "On-Disc DLC Outrage Is Off the Mark" (http://asia.gamespot.com/features/on-disc-dlc-outrage-is-off-the-mark-6366340/). Whether they package it as on-disk dlc or dlc that comes out day 1, it seems to me that, being developed and completed in the time before the game is released, it should be included in the purchase when consumers pay for the game; being on the disk makes it more obvious that it was ready when the disk was produced. Gamers are paying full-price for an 'incomplete' package. Total Biscuit (http://www.youtube.com/user/TotalHalibut) put his foot down and completely boycotted Mass Effect 3 even though he loved the first two games (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri0vrJ-y2zM [a bit of a rant, but here's his take on the issue]). Not only this, but game publishers (those who package and sell the games, not those who developed them) are using dlc to lure people to pre-purchase a game before they have a chance to read reviews.
Is this wrong? Well, companies have to make money, and they will do whatever they away with to make more money. If gamers will still buy games that they deliberately removed stuff out to sell it back to you later, then they will do it. The thing about companies is that they will keep trying until gamers give in, and they will deliberately do such things with games that people desperately want to play. Look at the costs of dlc for Street Fighter IV and Asura's Wrath, both Capcom games. US$3.99 for costumes while it's US$2 for more episodes. Why? Because more people will pay for Street Fighter stuff than Asura's Wrath. Ubisoft puts their always-on DRM where players had to be always online on popular games like Assassin's Creed 2 and not Rayman Origins. See the pattern here? And once gamers are used to it, they will accept it on other games. When people complained about Diablo 3 requiring always-on internet connection, Force and Sixen (http://www.youtube.com/user/ForceSC2strategy) said in one of their Diablo 3 podcast it's ok, because every game's doing that. And that's the scaring thing, people like them START TO ACCEPT IT AS NORMAL.
The best way to stand up against such practices is to boycott the game. It has worked in the past (like Battlefield 3) and will work again. But that is if only gamers will stand together and make it a point to do it. Unfortunately, a lot of people do not read up thoroughly on a game before making a purchase, and issues like these slip their knowledge. Still, I not buy games like these and will instead support indie developers, many of which truly deserve our support.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Hi Gamers
Hi all!
I'm a gamer who recently became more aware of the happenings in the gaming industry. I started this blog to post about my thoughts about how things are going for us gamers. Gaming time has become a limited commodity since I got married, and even though I've started earning my keep, increased my spending power and bought a lot more games than I was able to, I'm gradually realising that blindly buying games just because they are 'good' (as rated on review sites) actually hurts us gamers in the long run. This is a shame because I really love games and would like to reward developers for their hard work in producing quality games. Note that I'm not a cheap-skate. I've supported companies with good business practices; I bought 2 copies of The Witcher [normal and digital Director's Cut edition] and plan to obtain a collector's edition of The Witcher 2 though I already have a copy because of the normal one just because of their stand against DRM and the fact that a normal copy of their game has more stuff in it than a collector's edition of other games, priced at that of a normal game. Just look at where DRM and DLC is going and you'll see why I say it'll hurt us gamers.
That's it for now. Will post more about the issues mentioned. Meantime, support CD Projekt (Witcher 1 and 2) and Humble Bundle (pay-what-you-want to play indie games and support charity, so don't be an idiot and pay 1 cent cause you're costing them money in bank fees http://www.humblebundle.com/).
I'm a gamer who recently became more aware of the happenings in the gaming industry. I started this blog to post about my thoughts about how things are going for us gamers. Gaming time has become a limited commodity since I got married, and even though I've started earning my keep, increased my spending power and bought a lot more games than I was able to, I'm gradually realising that blindly buying games just because they are 'good' (as rated on review sites) actually hurts us gamers in the long run. This is a shame because I really love games and would like to reward developers for their hard work in producing quality games. Note that I'm not a cheap-skate. I've supported companies with good business practices; I bought 2 copies of The Witcher [normal and digital Director's Cut edition] and plan to obtain a collector's edition of The Witcher 2 though I already have a copy because of the normal one just because of their stand against DRM and the fact that a normal copy of their game has more stuff in it than a collector's edition of other games, priced at that of a normal game. Just look at where DRM and DLC is going and you'll see why I say it'll hurt us gamers.
That's it for now. Will post more about the issues mentioned. Meantime, support CD Projekt (Witcher 1 and 2) and Humble Bundle (pay-what-you-want to play indie games and support charity, so don't be an idiot and pay 1 cent cause you're costing them money in bank fees http://www.humblebundle.com/).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)