Console Digital

XBone, how have thee changed over the months. Microsoft had tried, without much understanding from gamers, to curb down on used ga!es and shift focus onto its online store. Why has it failed while Steam has succeeded? Why didn't Microsoft, or any other online distributors for that matter, learn anything from Steam?

If Microsoft or Sony wants people to be invested in their online store, deep discounts for older games !might be the way to go. Once people start to buy their first game, they are more likely to commit. Of course, the store must be able to advertise such sales well. I have no idea if Microsoft does that, but Sony's Plus system with free games is actually getting people into their ecosystem. I started buying games on PSN because of that, and on GoG because of free games as well.

But an issue with Sony's store is the extremely slow download rate. If your infrastructure is poor, it's not going to be pleasant experience, and people are going to be turned off. And the consoles should be designed with that in mind. Considering we're in the 'next gen' now, I'm surprised the hard disk drives are only 500gb. If you're expecting people to buy and download games, especially now that games are expected to be a lot larger, did you think that would be enough?

If console makers are hoping that digital sales might be the answer to used games, this might be their chance to get people in. That already made a mistake with their launch consult hard drive size, but hopefully they can make good changes to their online stores and future editions to their consoles so by the time the next generation rolls out, gamers will be less resistant to the changes. But, always, always leave the choice for disk based used games for gamers.

Error 33

Blizzard Talks Diablo III’s New Path, Defends Online Req

Really? I'm kind of sick of developers treating legitimate customers like criminals by shoving DRM down our throat and now you want to treat us like idiots as well? Well, if it's meant to be played online, are you discriminating against your PlayStation players by not providing this awesome always-online experience? What makes them (as well as me because I do own a PlayStation) so undeserving of your full commitment to deliver to us the ultimate online gaming experience? Please male the PlayStation version of Diablo 3 always on as well. It's not fair that we don't get this feature.

It's starting to become obvious that the always-on feature in Diablo 3 is as a DRM. Now that the auction house is removed, their excuse for the persistent internet requirement is gone, and now they are looking for an excuse (and in fact have an excellent one as you can read from the interview) that they can fool their fans with. Even Heart of the Swarm (which I foolishly bought assuming it had the same system as Wings of Liberty) removed offline play.

Developers know that always-on doesn't sit well with gamers, so in order to still have it, they design the game with systems so as to justify it, and we saw how well that worked with the new SimCity as well as Diablo 3 hardcore mode. This was one of the reasons I only finished normal mode in hardcore for Diablo 3. I didn't play softcore because of the real money auction house, and it wasn't exciting nor fun. Yet hardcore was frustrating thanks to deaths due to lag, and my country's internet connection is considered pretty good compared to most of the world so I can't imaging how others play.

Always-on had another side effect - friends. I wanted to challenge myself, yet I get people dropping into my game and loading me with good gear or rushing me through the game, and it became increasingly rude to keep rejecting them. You know, some of us want to play offline, some of us want be play games to be alone, and no, being on social media and playing games with people over the internet is NOT being sociable. People are rude and dumb over the net, and if I want to play with friends, I do NOT need to be always on because I CAN contact them, because they are, well BY FRIENDS.

Quit being an idiot and assuming everyone's at your level because we can tell. The idiocy you see on your forums and YouTube comments represent the vocal minority, so just because most of them are not too bright, doesn't mean that all your consumers are.

Phew, got it out and oh well, back to boycotting your always-on DRM. (We generally accept always-on for free-to-play games, but even DotA 2 is adding LAN mode. So what's your excuse for not having LAN for SC2 tournaments? I know, monopoly and control.) (Yes, I know DotA 2 LAN still requires an internet connection, but I'm sick of seeing d/c at tournaments. At least the PCs are connected over LAN while the connection is merely to verify the copy of the game so d/c's or lag won't affect the game.) Wonder when it is when we can really combat piracy without punishing legitimate consumers, or is it even possible? Perhaps when we get fed up and totally stop purchasing games with such restrictions, and perhaps only then, will we know.

Free Lunch? Really?

Free-to-play is getting really popular with publishers, especially with MOBAs (and really, who isn't making a MOBA these days?).  Gamers are getting more choices for nothing, and that's great! Gone are the days when 'free' means 'it sucks' and developers are wise to move (or, as we'll see, try to move) away from buying power. Even consoles are getting into the free-to-play market. But no, mobile free-to-play doesn't count - it's still pretty much exploitative of gamers over there.

One issue with free-to-play, however, is that some companies just don't get it. Though some of the examples I'm giving might be from iOS and Android, (and we know how clueless developers are on that platform) and might be games from companies like EA, things are just slightly better on PC and consoles. Unlocking weapons are not done very well for the most part for FPS (paying to unlock more powerful weapons), and the one real strategy game, Age Of Empires Online, locks up so much content and items that you can get but not use without paying, that it might as well be a long demo.

Worse, games may be designed with the payment model in mind and are made to be as grindy as possible so people are tempted to pay to skip. The new Plants Vs Zombies 2 is so lacking in content when compared to the first game, and reuses maps by locking levels behind 'stars' that you have to collect by replaying levels. Some levels are extremely hard, making you wonder if it's to make you pay for the power ups to get through them. And speaking of power ups, these are so insanely broken that the game becomes extremely easy if you do use them. Talk about greed damaging the integrity of the game. Even the Injustice game on iOS by NetherRealms, a company that is pretty respectable in it's monetization models, is designed to be almost impossible to complete unless you spend money, or lots and lots of time.

And money, oh how they love thee. Free-to-play games, even if they almost do not require that you spend money on them, can cost a ton for the simplest of items. Path of Exile, a game whom the dev have made it so well that you can experience the game to its fullest without spending a dime, has a pet that actually costs $55 worth of points (though I can understand since they won't probably make any money at all since the game is so fair to its customers). And you'll be surprised how much these games can add up to just by paying for a bit of these extras - it could easily cost multiple full priced games. Understandably, the studio has to make a lot of money from the few that pay so others can play for free. It would be nice if we can pay for, let's say the price of a boxed game and get everything, just like buying a normal retail game. Then again, if you pay to unlock everything, is the game still worth playing, since you just took the progression out of it?

Publishers also have to worry about committing too much into free-to-play games. These games, by nature, have to be addictive with a lot of content, much like MMOs, and gamers can't afford to sink too much time into too many of them. This means competition is high and with so many games already in the market from the various genres, it'll be tough to capture an audience for new free-to-play games since gamers can't 'complete' the existing ones and move on to new ones, especially if they have sank money into them. There are still genres that do not have successful free-to-play modeled games though, like RTS and Turn-based-Strategy, so there's money to be made for the studio who makes a good game with a successful payment model. I personally can't see how it can be done effectively, but then again, I didn't expect and action RPG like Path of Exile to do it, but Grinding Gear Games pulled it off pretty well.

At the end of the day, whether it's a free-to-play, a subscription based, or a buy once plus DLC model, each model has its merits, and it is good that as gamers, we get games from these different models along with the pros and cons from each. Be warned though, that there are a lot of us who aren't happy when you combine all these payment models into a game to milk consumers and compromise your game as a result of your greed...

Kicking Pains

Kickstarter, how mistaken I was to not have seen the negatives of this particular form of supporting game creation. Or rather, I had missed out some crucial elements when I last posted about this, elements which have now become much more visible as more projects move on to their final phase of completion.

Kickstarter is still A powerful way for people to vote for the games they want created with their wallets, and indeed we have seen how big some of these wallets are, but we are now seeing how some small and new developers (and even some established ones) are unable to properly handle and manage the funds offered to them. There are games that fail to live up to their expectations and promises, and worse, some that are not even completed due to the studio running out of funds.

Understandably, some of these developers lack the experience to plan how much they need, and so set unrealistic goals at the start or as their stretch goals. But even experienced ones like Double Fine have fallen into the trap. Some have resorted to early access or even second a second kicking of Kickstarter campaigns (though most supporters wouldn't be too happy and would really love to give them a kicking). Let's hope they don't promise too much for the second campaign!

This is a risk that people have to take when kick starting games. Some studios are reputable, but as we've seen, that doesn't guarantee anything, though it helps. And what happens when the game is out and it sucks? While some might argue against this point of view, to the consumer, it is much like a pre-purchase, with a risk of not getting anything back. And if we really think this is worth it, it's a risk we should be willing to take before dropping money in. It's helpful to the developer who can see how much people want this, and also for us to get a game which we might otherwise not even get to see.

Hopefully, people can learn to consider such risks, and also do a bit more research before dropping their money in. Also, developers need to be more responsible and hopefully learn from these failed projects. It'll be a shame to see good quality projects failing the funding because people are too weary, and yet, they do need to be aware of where their money is going and who they are supporting.

I'm still looking forward to a completed Planetary Annihilation, War for the Overworld, Worlds of Magic, Godus, Asylum, Star Citizen and other games that I may or may not have supported. Mighty No. 9, I'm waiting!

Exciting Times

Phew, it's been a while since this page has been updated. Is anybody still around? It's an exciting time for gaming with the PS4 and the Xbox One coming, not to mention more powerful phones, tablets and devices like the Nvdia Shield and Ouya promoting Android and iOS gaming. Then there's the Oculus Rift 3D immersion to enhance gaming, increase in power and games of the Vita and 3DS, streaming through the Shield and Steam Machine.

Speaking of the Steam Machine, gaming might possibly move on to Linux and PC gaming into the living room. There is so much to keep track of, and we haven't even touched on the new games which probably will be better graphically due to next gen, and best thing is, innovation will not be stifled because of the shift in focus towards indie.

Are you having fun yet? It'll probably cost a bomb to keep up with all these; already, I'm wishing I were much richer. I'm feeling like a kid at a toy store ogling at the toys. What are you excited for? Are you getting any of the new consoles at launch? Me? I'm first going to need to rob a bank...

The Real Cost of Next Gen

Finally, we've enough information on the next generation consoles, the PS4 and the next Xbox (I know it's the Xbox One, but that's what the first Xbox is being referred to as). There was a lot of rumours and backlash with regards to used games for both systems, but now the companies have come out and assured us that there will be no restrictions with regards to that (for now). The rate at which policies and decisions are made and change makes it uncertain whether this stand will be taken throughout the console lifespan, or just for launch to get people into the market. But whatever it is, gamers have won (again, for now).

The issue of used games is a tricky one, because for one, devolopers don't get money from sales of these games, and the profit goes to the retailers. There are arguments for developers, and there are arguments for us, the consumers and we definitely know the savings we can get, but is it fair for retailers to make all the money?

Well, we're hearing of GameStop getting into a bit of a pinch, and brick and mortar stores seem to be struggling more and more, so is selling new games really profitable for them? If it isn't, then is it fair for them then that they have to work with such a small profit margin? And if it isn't, then shouldn't they get to profit from used games? Perhaps then, to make it fair, publishers should drop the price for retailers so they make more money, and retailers should share the profit from used games. But then, development studios are closing down as well, which makes me wonder if the games industry is really sustainable, and will it be even worse with higher graphical fidelity expected of them in the new generation of consoles?

Have we reached a stage where only the popular games will survive and new IP that don't perform to the standard of the Call Of Duty's will be axed and their studios closed? Will new IP be such a major risk that we'll only see creativity from Indies? Such a scenario is a scary thought, and might spell the death of even major publishers when the franchise they've been milking finally dies.

Could us gamers then stop picking on graphics and instead give more focus on gameplay and game mechanics, as well as creativity and storytelling? Perhaps then, game development costs can come down and retailers, publishes, developers can survive, and probably bring the savings to consumers as well. We are already getting less and less from our game boxes - no more thick manuals and little collectibles, and games are getting shorter in favour of better graphics. Perhaps it is time to look at new methods of game development...

Metro Last Light Pre-order Bonus

Watching Angry Joe's rant on Metro Last Light brought this title onto my radar, and not in a good way. Actually I totally overlooked Metro 2033 even though I really like horror games, especially survival ones. I guess it was during the period where I was getting sick of first person shooters. If I had found out what kind of series the Metro games were in another circumstance, I might have purchased Metro 2033, and bought Metro Last Light once it's out. As it stands, removing a hard difficulty that's "the way it was meant to be played" and forcing players to either pre-purchase or buy it, is like selling the endings to games as DLC.

Is the publisher forcing players to pre-purchase because the game sucks, like Aliens: Colonial Marines did, or is this just a cash-grab? Should pre-order bonuses include essential content so that gamers can't play "the way it was meant to be played" so people will have to pre-order, without the chance to wait for reviews before deciding on the purchase? Would there be ridiculous pre-order bonuses in future, like mouse support for RTS and controller support for action games in future? Either way, things don't seem to bode well for gamers.

PC Gamer asked the publishers "If Metro: Last Light Ranger Mode is “the way it was meant to be played” why isn’t it included for all players? We ask Koch" Read it and see if you agree with them. At least they can now push the blame to retailers for whatever crap day-one, pre-purchase DLC they want to do from now on. Too bad gamers, deal with it.

Well, that's more money saved on a couple of games I would have bought. Thanks!

And here is AngryJoe's rant.

What bonuses do you think is ok and what's not? Is this pre-order trend good or bad, or is it just getting out of hand? Let us know in the comments.

Era 486 - Master of Magic

All the talk about Worlds of Magic has made me hungry for some 4x Turn-based Fantasy action. If you're wondering what Master of Magic is about, here's quick look of it. It is on GoG.com, and it works pretty well even on Windows 8, and it's cheap. If you can get by the graphics, and you like turn-base strategy and 4x, you'll find lots of enjoyment from this. Visit Youtube for a better view: http://youtu.be/FX-i49XIU_g

If you're interested in playing a spiritual sequel to this game, you might want to pick up the Age of Wonders series, also on GoG, or support this game, Worlds of Magic, through Paypal on their site: http://myworldsofmagic.com/

Kickstarter - Worlds of Magic

Kickstarter has become a very popular platform for old games to get remakes or spiritual successors. From Baldur's Gate styled Project Eternity to Dungeon Keeper remake, War for the Overworld to Space Sims like Star Citizen, old-school games of different genres are getting funded left and right. If you've been looking for a successor to Masters of Magic like me and Age of Wonders just wasn't enough, it might pay for you to look at Worlds of Magic. The Kickstarter campaign is ending in 3 hours, but if it's like most other games, likely there will be a Paypal version going on for a while longer so do check it out.

And if you still missed the link, it's
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/304725524/worlds-of-magic-a-new-classic-4x-fantasy-game

Dead Space Story Analysis (SPOILERS APLENTY!)

I thought I'd write something a little different this time. I'm a fan of survival horror and really enjoyed the first game, though not so much the second and I've not bought the third, but thanks to YouTube, I didn't miss out much.

What really interests me in games are the story, and because a source of fear is the unknown, the story in horror tends to be more intriguing. This is also a problem, as later games in the series tends to get less frightening (not shocking) as the player knows more and more of what's going on.

- SPOILERS BEGIN -

Dead Space 1 ended with a lot of questions left unanswered. Where is the original marker from? Why is the Red Marker both a source and a curse of the necromorph infection? Why did it help Isaac stop the infection while asking him to 'make us whole'?

Some questions I was left asking before and after reading the novel was if the man-made marker faulty and what of the original Black Marker? Was the original Marker also damaged by the recovery team that discovered it? Is the Marker a source of life or does it have a different purpose?

If you've been following the story, you know that the Markers are meant to spread the necromorph infection, creating a large pool of necromorphic tissue which then triggers a convergence event, combining all the dead tissue to form a Brethren Moon, the true form of the organism which will then locate the Markers within its influence and use them to search for prey.

Why then did the Nicole hallucination help Isaac, and why did the convergence event not trigger on Aegis 7? It could very well just be a ret-con, but if I were to try to make sense of it, the reason could be a lack of biological material to trigger the convergence. As logs in the various games have proven, the Marker seem to be sentient to a certain extent, able to manipulate its own creation and controlling the hallucinations on certain subjects. If so, it could have realized that there are not enough living organisms on Aegis VII and also that Isaac is a viable candidate to receive (a log states that smart people see codes and blueprints from the Marker signal, while others get noise that drives them mad) the Marker blueprints, and used the hallucinations to help Isaac escape to create more Markers to spread the infection to other, more suitable planets. It could also be that Isaac has yet to properly understand the signal fed to him (unlike in Dead Space 2 where the instructions from Nicole are clearly in favor of the Marker) and so is understanding it in reverse.

But whichever it is, the Marker is built to create a necromorph infection (whether it is by sending DNA codes in it's signal to biologists to create or its mere presence eventually generates the virus) and spread it. To aid the spread, the signal it transmit has a side effect of driving people mad, making them suicidal, as well as homocidal, creating for bodies for the virus.

What is the ultimate purpose of the Brethren Moon? If the Moon consumes all life, it eventually kills itself by depleting all food source. And why does it signal the other Moons to share in its prey? It would make more sense to keep everything for itself. Considering the facts, it is likely that there's another stage, a convergence of Moons to form something bigger, which will explain the Moons converging on a single food source. With regards to food sources, perhaps ironically, the Unitologists have gotten it right, that the Marker is indeed a source of life, but life that's to be ultimately consumed by the Moons, and if so, they are right to say that dying and forming the Moon is part of the cycle. Isaac's fighting against the necromorphs could indeed be defience of the ultimate fate of man. If so, it would likely be that the moons would awake and then sleep for millions of years until intelligent life inevitably awakens a marker which will wake them up to feed.

To answer the question on whether the Moon or the Marker came first would be impossible without further details, but considering the necromorph virus, it is quite possible that the original life-form was a virus infecting and combining dead tissue. The virus possibly gained the ability to infect its host's brain and retain intellegience, or form a hive mind that can think. Eventually, the first large organism was formed. Realizing that its home planet would eventually run out of its source of food, the creature created the Markers to either create life, or direct it and consume available organisms. Eventually, the Markers were also made to help reproduce Brethren Moons and become part of the Moons' life-cycle.

If the original organism was a virus, it would explain the need to consume all life - a quote from Agent Smith from the first Matrix film, 'I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus.'

Always-On, DRM or Game Feature?

EA has come out and said DRM is a "failed, dead-end strategy" and that always-online for Sim City isn't DRM at all. That's pretty convenient. But I guess piracy is a failed, dead-end strategy for gamers who want more games because companies that don't earn money can't keep making games, however, torrenting isn't piracy either, it's just file sharing so that is fine, right?

 

Is having always-online in a game really beneficial for gamers and the company? Most gamers would scream out "NO", so why do companies still do it? Some reasons have been brought up, like the integrity of the game, especially if money is involved, like Diablo 3, or having a game where people can be interconnected, like SimCity. But why can't this be, say, OPTIONAL? Because if people can choose, companies will make less money? For Diablo, they want you to always consider the auction house, and so keep you online, and in the case of SimCity, because there are people visiting your cities, it would make it desirable for you to own premium buildings just to show it off?

And what if it were DRM? Does it benefit the company in anyway? I guess the pirates might have a harder time getting a free copy, or in the case of Diablo 3, probably not at all, but still, do you really expect the pirates to buy the game, and even if by some miracle, some do, will the money you earn from the 5 of them makeup for the maybe thousands that don't buy the game because they can't play it?

 

Will so many online distribution platforms, games can sell so much longer after they have been released. Sites like GoG are even fixing old games go help them run better on modern systems. But for games with an always online requirement, their lifespan is limited by the servers. These games can't keep selling simply because games cost less the longer it gets. After some time, the amount of money made cannot offset the costs of maintaining the servers, and because EA is famous for shutting down servers, I'm not sure if it's worth getting SimCity later at a discount as you never know when the servers are going down. So by limiting the lifespan of their games, they are doing themselves a disservice. (On that note, have you ever thought of what would happen if Steam were to shut down?)

 

And what of the consumers? Servers cost money to run, maintenance costs money as well, and the servers themselves are an investment, and this is why there are always launch problems. Did you think they really have no idea how it'll sell? There are pre-orders that give them a pretty good idea of how many servers are needed, but in order to save money, they would rather underestimate because launch day or launch week is probably the only time they'll get so many concurrent users. Over time, people stop playing, and the investment on the servers will be wasted. If that's the case, it would be wiser to let the consumers suffer during the launch, and hopefully, the company can get past the rough period with minimal additional costs, and when less people play, the available servers will sort themselves out.

 

Consumers hate DRM, and will bash a game to the ground, and EA has wisely agreed with consumers in order to get into their good books. Yet, in order to justify what they did with SimCity, they are forced to try and say that it is not DRM. I guess that is like claiming pirating games for demo purposes and not buying it even if one likes the games...

 

Oh, and just when I finished my draft, this:

 

 

How to solve this? I don't know... maybe start another separate server just for people who want to play without the auction house? And maybe add in single-player local play while you're at it?

New Consoles

The PS4 has been announced, and we're awaiting Microsoft to give more details. Having already gotten our hands on the Wii U and also hearing about the Steam box and PS4, the new age of consoles is upon us.

 

However, will the consoles be able to rid through the tough initial period where the lack of games will hinder the adoption rate of consumers? That and the lack of backwards compatibility of the PS4 (streaming PS3 games is not ideal) and most likely the next Xbox will definitely be a factor as well. The wise console maker will actually embrace this if they want to draw gamers from the other camp into their family because gamers who do not own a PS3 and missed out on the PS3 exclusives will be glad too pick up a PS4 early to play those games if there was backwards compatibility. As it stands, there's little to no reason to pick up a PS3 now and if the next Xbox were released at approximately the same time as the PS4, they might still stick to Microsoft.

 

There is no news as of yet if Sony will charge a mandatory subscription fee for online access, but if they do, it will not sit well with the gamers. Seeing how gaming companies like money (who doesn't?) over consumer goodwill, it is not impossible that they will go this route. I don't know if brains are needed to run a company, but I guess not since companies tend to cancel out all the good that they do pretty quickly, apologize, try to fix it, and then going back to screwing themselves and their consumers over.

 

We're moving into the next generation and actually do have more of a choice in our consoles this time (including a PC console-wannabe) so we probably should see what the console makers are up to before settling for one. Take into consideration the online sub and also whether they are punishing you, their consumers by banning used games and such. Vote with your wallet and perhaps, they will take notice.

 

On a side note, here's an abridged version of the PS4 conference that everyone should watch.

 

 

New Humble Bundle is Up!

You know what? Aliens...

By now, many of us have had the chance to read about or play Aliens: Colonial Marines, and to put it simply, it wasn't good.

 

Many had hopes for this game, not only because of the license but also because of Gearbox, developers of the Borderlands franchise. The advertisements and interviews with Gearbox declaring their love for the franchise, and the long development time was encouraging as well, and the demo that they showed to the press dripped with atmosphere.

 

It's no surprise that, people, after all the hype surrounding the game, pre-ordered, and were horribly disappointed by the game at release. The gaming sites exploded with negative reviews and rumours on how the game could go so disastrously wrong after the awesome demo. People took to forums and social networks to express their displeasure, and accusations of Gearbox's dishonest behavior surfaced.

 

Did Gearbox lie to Sega and the gaming press? Why was the end product so different from the demo and trailers? There is talk that Gearbox outsourced the project, preferring to focus on their own title, Borderlands 2 instead.

And so, (some) people realized that pre-ordering games wasn't such a good idea after all, especially if the pre-order bonus was just skins or something pointless. And even if the bonus was good, you're really risking a lot buying a game that you know nothing of, besides a press demo, and as Gearbox has shown, press demos can be fake, and even consumer demos can be faked, seeing they just need to put together say, 30 mins worth of gameplay (whether or not it's taken from the full game doesn't really matter to them) and send it out to the gamers, and we won't know the difference until the game is released.

So that's our little lesson to learn from this saga, and if you still want to pre-order instead of wait for reviews, that's your choice, and if the bonus depends on the number of pre-orders, have fun with your gamble!

Enjoying Sim City?

Always been a fan of Sim City since the first game. I was kind of sad that I'd be missing this due boycotting games with always online DRM, but not anymore!

When Using Cheats Became Stealing

Dead Space cheat undermines in-game micro-transactions

 

When Diablo 3 was released, it blurred the line between single-player games and MMOs. Here was a game that is a single-player game with multiplayer options of up to 4 people, yet had elements of MMOs that meant things that were OK in single player and even multiplayer games of the past were no longer acceptable. Let me explain...

 

MMOs have a large player base, numbering up to millions, though technically, the most you might meet or play with number in the hundreds. Because of that, there is a complicated social interaction at play that developers have to pay special attention to when developing g and patching their game. Bugs that can be exploited for better gear or currency had to be fixed and in-game benefits gained from said exploit removed, even disciplinary actions against the offending player, all because of the perception of the other players who will deem it unfair that the offending player could brain an edge over them.

 

Such issues should only be a concern in multiplayer games, or more specifically, competitive games, but recently, and especially because of Diablo 3, we are seeing that even single player games that blatantly have micro-transactions that give the player an advantage. We already had those in the past - cheats and bugs. But now, because of the monetization of cheats, exploiting bugs in even single player games are seen as wrong and even illegal? This is pretty ridiculous if you're like me and have played games before the current generation of consoles.

 

Blizzard took a gamble with Diablo 3 and it paid off. Now EA is following suit and other companies to. Will there come a day when finding and making use of bugs in games is illegal because you are techically by-passing paid dlc cheats to gain an advantage in the game? I shudder to even think of such a possibility...

Edit: Apparently EA says it's ok. So kind of an over-reaction on my part.

Game Developers, Used Games and the Fans

There are rumours popping up that the next Xbox will be blocking used games. While this isn't the first time that rumours like this have surfaced, it is gaining more attention as we await the upcoming announcements regarding these new consoles.

Most people think this is a stupid idea because if only one of the consoles does go ahead with this, its rival will definitely gain the upper hand, or will it?

One thing to note is that if a console does block used games, it will most likely be more attractive for developers to release games on that console. Used games make up a large part in sales in brick and mortar stores, and it is said that certain stores will actively promote the sale of used games because of the higher profits. Publishers and developers gain no revenue from these sales, and it is understandable why they would go through lengths to deny this. Current measures include the online pass, promised DLCs, and locking achievements to a single account. If a console does block used games, it will be a huge draw for developers.

So then, will the console with more owners win out, or will the one with more games gain popularity? It will come down to whether gamers stick to their guns and support used games as an option, or sell-out and buy the less desirable console just so they can play the next big game. And looking at the trend of the gaming industry now, it is likely the gamers will give in. Already we are seeing gamers ignoring poor business practices and buying games with offensive DRM and supporting publishers that exploit their customers, and this is also because publishers cleverly do such things only on games that are highly anticipated. Take Capcom for example and it's on-disk DLC on Street Fighter x Tekken but not doing so on the new IP, Dragon's Dogma, or EA realizing the popularity and gamers' need to play the newest game in the series of Dead Space 3 and Mass Effect 3 and adding micro-transactions, essential story day-one DLC and the like. So will gamers take it line, hook and sinker?

I don't personally think it's true because the rumours came with the Xbox having an always-online requirement. But then again, Microsoft came up with Games for Windows Live, so they aren't really that smart after all...

More 'disturbing' DLC for Dead Space 3

Though I have resolved to no longer buy games published by EA, being a fan of survival horror, I'm still pretty interested in Dead Space 3.

 

However, it was announced today that there will be 11 day-one DLC for the game and this has caused a major uproar among the gaming community.

 

Though I'm not really happy with this news, I have to sit down and properly consider the nature of this news. Don't get me wrong, I'm still not buying this game because of the micro-transactions but some of the announced DLC doesn't actually seem that bad. There are things like personality for helper bots and capacity. These are for single player and are not crucial to the story and in fact, can make the game easier so people who buy them are actually kind of stupid.

 

We'll have to wait and see what the rest of the DLCs are before deciding, but one thing is for sure, if gamers let it slide, or worse, support this DLC practice, we will see this crap in almost every game published.

 

(Dead Space 3 is a survival horror game so what smart gamer would buy DLC and pay money for micro-transactions to make it easier? And why make a horror game co-op? I'm sure Capcom is proud of its decision to make Resident Evil co-op and not turning back and saying that they will return to its roots. Good luck EA, you'll NEED it.)

Path of Exile Open Beta Live

Path of Exile open beta started on 23rd Jan. There were a few hiccups in the server and patching but otherwise was alright. If you've been meaning to try out a more gritty and dark aRPG, here is one.

Path of Exile Initial Impressions

Path of Exile is coming into open beta, and the action RPG has garnered quite a following even during the release of Diablo 3 and Torchlight 2. While I have not spent a lot of time with the title, here are some of my thoughts about the game.

First off, the game is free to play, and that means there will be micro-transactions. Things you can buy are more character slots, stash, vanity pets, a personal server, or leagues as they call it, and dyes. Most of these, we can do without, and the devs even say that if players need more stash or character slots, they can just get another account since it's free, so the business model is pretty fair.

Graphics wise, the devs have decided to take a more gloomy, dark tone. This is in contrast to the cartoony look of recent action RPGs. In fact, the art style reminds me very much of Diablo 2, right down to the map overlay. Character animation and the environments are pretty good, but with the little time I spent with the game, I feel that my characters don't feel powerful enough. Perhaps it's the way they swing their weapons, or perhaps it's the stun reaction of the enemies that make it seem like your hits are pretty weak, but it may change as you level up and get more powerful skills.

The skill system is pretty interesting, combining Final Fantasy VII's Material system and Final Fantasy X's Sphere Grid. Weapons and armor have gem slots for slotting active skill gems and gems that modify your skills, like adding elemental effects, increasing area of effect, and so on. Passive skills and character stats are handled mainly by the sphere grid and like FFX, you can learn the skills meant for other classes by equipping the gems or working your way over to their area on the sphere grid. This is an interesting choice that sets it apart from the skill trees and stat allocation of other aRPGs.

Path of Exile uses items like scrolls and orbs as a currency. Basically, scrolls that identify your stuff and orbs that improve your equipment are the things you get when you sell items you don't want. This is an effort to curb inflation that plagues games of this genre. As long as the 'currency' is useful in some sense, it is always being removed from the economy through identification or upgrading, and hopefully minimize the effects of inflation. Gold selling might end up as less of an issue, or it might not since it'll become scroll selling, but we shall see.

Free to play games want to keep you interested, and so devs will generally add content, or have some sort of end game content. Besides the different difficulty levels, Path of Exile's end game consists of 'maps' that modify the enemies, making them resistant to elements, having extra stats or powerful unique monsters in exchange for extra loot drops. This reminds me of Disgaea's Item World random map generating system which can add a lot of replayability.

Path of Exile is worth checking out, especially when it's free. Open beta starts on 23rd Jan 2013.