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.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)