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.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Saturday, November 16, 2013
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...
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...
Thursday, November 7, 2013
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!
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!
Saturday, November 2, 2013
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)