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
Thursday, September 27, 2012
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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)