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!