The Nvidia Shield is really tempting. Having just one PC at home capable of gaming, and having it situated in my bedroom means that sometimes, I just can't play if my wife and child are sleeping. When Steam Home Streaming was announced, I was thrilled. The problem was, the only other laptops I have are a netbook, and a notebook more than 10 years old. Would it actually work on these devices?
The amazing thing (or perhaps not if you understand how streaming works...) is that it does work. While I've yet to try it on the netbook, I can play games on the old machine. Frame rate does become an issue on certain games, and I've yet to properly troubleshoot so I can't say if it can be improved, but, it does work quite well. Ideally, you want to stream Steam games, but you can actually add other 'non-Steam' games to Steam to make it work.
Simply clicking 'Add a Non-Steam Game to my Library' does not work with Blizzard games though, likely because of the laucher app. Here are some troubleshooting tips I got from forums:
1) Select 'browse' at the 'Add a Non-Steam Game to my Library' window and navigate to the folder with your game and select the .exe file.
2) If you can't find the .exe file, or it doesn't work with Steam, try the folder 'Support'. Sometimes, the file will come with a 'Switcher' in the file name. For example: "E:\Program Files\Heroes of the Storm\Support\HeroesSwitcher.exe"
3) Add a -launch after the file name. For example: "C:\Program Files\Diablo III\Diablo III.exe" -launch
Hope these tips help if you want to stream through Steam. I haven't been able to get Hearthstone to work though, but when Android tablets and smart phone support comes, we won't need to. For now, Splashtop streaming to tablet works for me if I don't manage to steal my wife's iPad 2 to play.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Saturday, October 11, 2014
FPS and Resolution
Next gen has become current gen, and gamers are expecting better graphics on their games. 1080p is the talk of the town, and the debate between 60 and 30 frames per second (fps) continue to rage on. Developers tout 30fps as the way to go for the 'cinematic' feel and that 1080p is not important if the game looks good.
Frankly, I don't really care how 'amazing' a game looks if it plays well and controls are responsive. And that's why 1080p or not, it doesn't really matter to me. And that is also the reason why 30 fps doesn't cut it for me. You see, 30 fps makes the game feel laggy - control input just doesn't reflect on screen fast enough. I never understand why people can't tell the difference, but I'll try to guess.
Perhaps these people just aren't experienced gamers. For example, fighting game experts can get the timing of combos down to the frame, while noobs like me struggle to even understand recovery frames. Perhaps the majority of people simply are not good enough at gaming yet to sense the lag in the control on a 30 fps game. Perhaps all they've been exposed to are console 30 fps games and thus are unable to realize how much smoother 60 and above is.
It is best then, that game developers keep these gamers ignorant, and can continue to get away with a lower frame rate. Then, they can continue to push intense graphics at the expense of game play. For people like me who have been exposed to higher frame rates though, it is too bad. It's a shame, but the games we get to enjoy will be much less.
Frankly, I don't really care how 'amazing' a game looks if it plays well and controls are responsive. And that's why 1080p or not, it doesn't really matter to me. And that is also the reason why 30 fps doesn't cut it for me. You see, 30 fps makes the game feel laggy - control input just doesn't reflect on screen fast enough. I never understand why people can't tell the difference, but I'll try to guess.
Perhaps these people just aren't experienced gamers. For example, fighting game experts can get the timing of combos down to the frame, while noobs like me struggle to even understand recovery frames. Perhaps the majority of people simply are not good enough at gaming yet to sense the lag in the control on a 30 fps game. Perhaps all they've been exposed to are console 30 fps games and thus are unable to realize how much smoother 60 and above is.
It is best then, that game developers keep these gamers ignorant, and can continue to get away with a lower frame rate. Then, they can continue to push intense graphics at the expense of game play. For people like me who have been exposed to higher frame rates though, it is too bad. It's a shame, but the games we get to enjoy will be much less.
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Why Cater to Casuals and 'Free' Players?
Nothing upsets a hardcore player more than to hear of his favorite series becoming more 'accessible' or 'casual friendly'. Certain games like the Souls series can be punishingly hard, and yet have a huge following. Yet in general, games are getting easier and easier, so much so that normal mode has become easy and easy is basically faceroll.
What we gamers sometimes fail to realize, is that it might not be the devs that make the call, but it is the publishers' attempt to get more sales. Hard and deep games might attract gamers looking for a challenge but a majority of gamers will not be able to get into it. It is no wonder then, that catering to casual gamers becomes very attractive.
That's not to say that devs don't have a reason to simplify their games too. No matter what, much effort have been put into making these games and it is natural that we want others to see the fruit of our labor. Blizzard's choice to include Raid Finder in World of Warcraft has allowed less hardcore players to experience their raids. Yes, it's more effort to create different difficulties, but the art assets, the encounter designs and the lore are not wasted. It also gives casual gamers something to do in the end game and keep them subscribed.
And when it comes to multiplayer games, having more players make for a vibrant community. Be it hardcore or casual, having a larger number of players is crucial at the very least, for the matchmaking to work. Even if they are non-paying players in a free-to-play game, devs have to keep them playing. Imagine having to queue for hours to get into a game. 'Casuals' do get better too, and with proper matchmaking, hard core players shouldn't run into the not so skilled (provided there are enough players playing; see where this is going?)
Ultimately, it boils down to good game design. A good casual and hard core friendly game should be easy to pick up, hard to master. And even then, the balancing between the hard core and casual will remain a delicate art.
What we gamers sometimes fail to realize, is that it might not be the devs that make the call, but it is the publishers' attempt to get more sales. Hard and deep games might attract gamers looking for a challenge but a majority of gamers will not be able to get into it. It is no wonder then, that catering to casual gamers becomes very attractive.
That's not to say that devs don't have a reason to simplify their games too. No matter what, much effort have been put into making these games and it is natural that we want others to see the fruit of our labor. Blizzard's choice to include Raid Finder in World of Warcraft has allowed less hardcore players to experience their raids. Yes, it's more effort to create different difficulties, but the art assets, the encounter designs and the lore are not wasted. It also gives casual gamers something to do in the end game and keep them subscribed.
And when it comes to multiplayer games, having more players make for a vibrant community. Be it hardcore or casual, having a larger number of players is crucial at the very least, for the matchmaking to work. Even if they are non-paying players in a free-to-play game, devs have to keep them playing. Imagine having to queue for hours to get into a game. 'Casuals' do get better too, and with proper matchmaking, hard core players shouldn't run into the not so skilled (provided there are enough players playing; see where this is going?)
Ultimately, it boils down to good game design. A good casual and hard core friendly game should be easy to pick up, hard to master. And even then, the balancing between the hard core and casual will remain a delicate art.
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Streaming at Home - Gadget Lust, Pointless Feature or Potential Multiplayer Experience
Nvidia Shield, Steam, PS Vita, Wii U and so on all gives gamers the option of playing games in a different location from their main gaming system. Is this a pointless feature or is there any other uses for this feature?
I suppose you've read the title and know what I intend to talk about. PC multiplayer games tend to be an impersonal experience, primarily being done over the internet. One thing that's so appealing about console gaming is couch multiplayer. Even though monitors are getting larger and larger, it is still difficult for multiple people to gather in front of a PC. Streaming gives players the option of playing PC games on a TV, though multiple controllers are needed (not so much an issue if you own an Xbox) and a game that supports it (much more an issue).
The Wii U though, has a unique feature not often seen in other streaming systems - that is, having the TV screen and controller screen display different scenes. PCs should make good use of this feature. Most people now have another device besides their gaming PCs, like a laptop or a tablet. Imagine if streaming can do what the Wii U is doing. An old laptop can be used for a LAN party, tablets can be used as well when a controller is plugged in. Instead of lugging gaming laptops or towers that weigh a ton around for LAN parties, even ultrabooks and tablet PCs like the Surface Pro will do as long as the host has a powerful PC capable of streaming
Of course, there are limits to what can be done, but there is potential in this. I've tried Steam Home Streaming and it works even on my old 10+ year old laptop, even though it is a little laggy and the screen leaves much to be desired. Hopefully the tech continues to improve and 'couch multiplayer' on PC will take off, bringing back the days of 'split screen' to PC players as well.
I suppose you've read the title and know what I intend to talk about. PC multiplayer games tend to be an impersonal experience, primarily being done over the internet. One thing that's so appealing about console gaming is couch multiplayer. Even though monitors are getting larger and larger, it is still difficult for multiple people to gather in front of a PC. Streaming gives players the option of playing PC games on a TV, though multiple controllers are needed (not so much an issue if you own an Xbox) and a game that supports it (much more an issue).
The Wii U though, has a unique feature not often seen in other streaming systems - that is, having the TV screen and controller screen display different scenes. PCs should make good use of this feature. Most people now have another device besides their gaming PCs, like a laptop or a tablet. Imagine if streaming can do what the Wii U is doing. An old laptop can be used for a LAN party, tablets can be used as well when a controller is plugged in. Instead of lugging gaming laptops or towers that weigh a ton around for LAN parties, even ultrabooks and tablet PCs like the Surface Pro will do as long as the host has a powerful PC capable of streaming
Of course, there are limits to what can be done, but there is potential in this. I've tried Steam Home Streaming and it works even on my old 10+ year old laptop, even though it is a little laggy and the screen leaves much to be desired. Hopefully the tech continues to improve and 'couch multiplayer' on PC will take off, bringing back the days of 'split screen' to PC players as well.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Blizzard Supports Their Games, Unless It's On Older Consoles
It is ironic that just when I write a post about Blizzard supporting their games that they come out and say they won't be supporting Diablo 3 for the PS3 and Xbox 360 with patches. This means that features like seasons and their associated items, greater rifts and probably skills and items balances might not come to these older consoles, even though I'd guess that more people will be playing on these than the new consoles
I understand it when they say that it takes more to code for older consoles, especially the PS3 which uses a totally different architecture. That, and the fact that patching on consoles is pretty costly and time consuming thanks to having go through a testing process set by Sony and Microsoft, means that it really isn't worth the effort for a game that will not continue to make money, unlike an MMO with sub fees.
Granted, Blizzard is primarily a PC developer, but this is still a slap in the face for console gamers itching to support a game company whose games they rarely get a chance to enjoy and a taint in Blizzard's stellar record of game support. If Blizzard would support Diablo 3, even if it's just for another year or 2, it would be likely that these gamers will still buy the new version when they eventually move on to the new consoles and they would made a bunch of new fans.
Gamers should be treated equally, whether console or PC gamers, and all developers should give their customers value for their purchase. I hope Blizzard can rethink their choice, even if the patches can only be deployed later than the other systems, building up brand loyalty, especially on a platform that's relatively new to their products, is a plus for them.
I understand it when they say that it takes more to code for older consoles, especially the PS3 which uses a totally different architecture. That, and the fact that patching on consoles is pretty costly and time consuming thanks to having go through a testing process set by Sony and Microsoft, means that it really isn't worth the effort for a game that will not continue to make money, unlike an MMO with sub fees.
Granted, Blizzard is primarily a PC developer, but this is still a slap in the face for console gamers itching to support a game company whose games they rarely get a chance to enjoy and a taint in Blizzard's stellar record of game support. If Blizzard would support Diablo 3, even if it's just for another year or 2, it would be likely that these gamers will still buy the new version when they eventually move on to the new consoles and they would made a bunch of new fans.
Gamers should be treated equally, whether console or PC gamers, and all developers should give their customers value for their purchase. I hope Blizzard can rethink their choice, even if the patches can only be deployed later than the other systems, building up brand loyalty, especially on a platform that's relatively new to their products, is a plus for them.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Gamers Pre-order Win
Well, there you go. Someone has come out to say that pre-orders are dropping. With the large numbers of crap games coming out and the anti consumer pre-order bonuses, it's no wonder that even the fan-boy-iest of fan boys have started to rethink pre-ordering.
Something that has been happening more and more is that developers are removing parts of the game and using them as pre-order incentives. Alien: Isolation is one example where they are clearly working on the dlc before the game is out but those who don't pre-order will be paying full price for part of the game.
Pre-orders have their place like for limited stocks of collector's editions or niche games which retailers do not want to stock up too many copies of. But if you continue to exploit people like these, especially when the games are sold digitally, you're going to lose your customers.
I am still not buying games with pre-order bonuses where you get an incomplete game if you don't. Sorry, but I'm not going to pay full price for part of the game. I may get it when the price drops out when a game of the year edition with all the dlcs is released. Or I may just play the newest game that is released then and skip yours altogether.
Something that has been happening more and more is that developers are removing parts of the game and using them as pre-order incentives. Alien: Isolation is one example where they are clearly working on the dlc before the game is out but those who don't pre-order will be paying full price for part of the game.
Pre-orders have their place like for limited stocks of collector's editions or niche games which retailers do not want to stock up too many copies of. But if you continue to exploit people like these, especially when the games are sold digitally, you're going to lose your customers.
I am still not buying games with pre-order bonuses where you get an incomplete game if you don't. Sorry, but I'm not going to pay full price for part of the game. I may get it when the price drops out when a game of the year edition with all the dlcs is released. Or I may just play the newest game that is released then and skip yours altogether.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
How to Win Fans and Influence Gamers
Which games get an established fan base? Recently I delved into the iTunes podcast section and for the first time, discovered the magic of podcasts outside of YouTube. Owning an iPod Classic means downloading and listening to podcasts on the go through iTunes is the most convenient option. iTunes updates and downloads the latest podcasts immediately, and it automatically deletes those you've listened to and transfers the new ones to your iPod when you connect it to the computer.
There are podcasts from popular gaming sites like IGN and YouTube networks like Polaris, but what is more surprising are those dedicated to a single game. One particular company with many podcasts dedicated to its games is Blizzard. While it might not be surprising to find podcasts for popular e-Sports titles like StarCraft 2 and even Hearthstone that's been slowly gaining popularity, you can even find some dedicated to World of Warcraft, Diablo 3 and the still in alpha Heroes of the Storm.
Why does Blizzard attract fans so much so that they not only get fan sites but even talk shows dedicated to their games? Is it because their games are of really good quality? There have been no lack of high quality games throughout the years, but what sets Blizzard apart is their commitment to quality and their support for their games. Diablo 2 still games updated when bugs are found and even now, ladder seasons still go on. Outside of free-to-play and subscription based games, it is hard to find games supported to this level. Most publishers shut down servers to their games after a few years but to this day, you can still play Diablo 1 over Battle.net. The StarCraft and Warcraft RTSes also have an amazing map editor that enthusiasts can make mods out of, and it is from these editors that we've first seen DotA and tower defense games. Diablo 2 also allowed modding, but it is sad that more recent Blizzard games no longer allow modding outside of built in editors. And of course, the competitive games continue to receive balance changes and bug fixes.
Publishers think that DLC will prevent gamers from reselling their games, but a good quality game with long term support should be able to achieve that. It's too bad though, that such support actually costs money in salary for the support staff and does not earn them any money and therefore many publishers do not see the need for it. Modding options is another possibility, especially for single player games, but that's also only limited to PC games.
Hopefully we'll see more devs willing to support their games and not come out and say they will no longer patch their games in favor of developing more DLC (and who's dumb enough to buy DLC for a broken game) and sequels. They should be prouder of their work and in this age of the internet, there is no excuse for broken games. And perhaps EA, if you take better care of your games and customers, people won't complain when you put in micro transactions and always online DRM like Diablo 3 and Capcom, when you re-release a new Street Fighter 4 without DLC upgrade option like Diablo 3 Ultimate Evil Edition on the consoles.
There are podcasts from popular gaming sites like IGN and YouTube networks like Polaris, but what is more surprising are those dedicated to a single game. One particular company with many podcasts dedicated to its games is Blizzard. While it might not be surprising to find podcasts for popular e-Sports titles like StarCraft 2 and even Hearthstone that's been slowly gaining popularity, you can even find some dedicated to World of Warcraft, Diablo 3 and the still in alpha Heroes of the Storm.
Why does Blizzard attract fans so much so that they not only get fan sites but even talk shows dedicated to their games? Is it because their games are of really good quality? There have been no lack of high quality games throughout the years, but what sets Blizzard apart is their commitment to quality and their support for their games. Diablo 2 still games updated when bugs are found and even now, ladder seasons still go on. Outside of free-to-play and subscription based games, it is hard to find games supported to this level. Most publishers shut down servers to their games after a few years but to this day, you can still play Diablo 1 over Battle.net. The StarCraft and Warcraft RTSes also have an amazing map editor that enthusiasts can make mods out of, and it is from these editors that we've first seen DotA and tower defense games. Diablo 2 also allowed modding, but it is sad that more recent Blizzard games no longer allow modding outside of built in editors. And of course, the competitive games continue to receive balance changes and bug fixes.
Publishers think that DLC will prevent gamers from reselling their games, but a good quality game with long term support should be able to achieve that. It's too bad though, that such support actually costs money in salary for the support staff and does not earn them any money and therefore many publishers do not see the need for it. Modding options is another possibility, especially for single player games, but that's also only limited to PC games.
Hopefully we'll see more devs willing to support their games and not come out and say they will no longer patch their games in favor of developing more DLC (and who's dumb enough to buy DLC for a broken game) and sequels. They should be prouder of their work and in this age of the internet, there is no excuse for broken games. And perhaps EA, if you take better care of your games and customers, people won't complain when you put in micro transactions and always online DRM like Diablo 3 and Capcom, when you re-release a new Street Fighter 4 without DLC upgrade option like Diablo 3 Ultimate Evil Edition on the consoles.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
GoG's Galaxy
When Steam was first released, and made even essential if you're running Valve games, gamers were all up in arms. Steam was DRM, and, similar to always-on DRM, it gave a lot of problems. Also, requiring a client meant having to have the system devote resource to running it, and given the technology then, perhaps that was a valid concern. As time passed, Valve brought about improvements to the client to address the stability issues, and, together with Steam sales, a larger game library and convenience of multiplayer through a friends list, Steam eventually became where a lot of PC gamers kept their library of games to the point where people won't buy digital games that weren't on Steam. Now, GoG is planning a Steam like client for its users and, according to their announcement, we can expect features like auto-patching, achievements and multiplayer features, to the point of playing with players from other clients like Steam.
One major difference between Galaxy and other clients like Steam, Origin and Uplay is that it is purely optional, and not required to run GoG games; games from GoG will remain DRM free. GoG is already running sales like Steam, and we are seeing an ever increasing number of games on GoG as well so a client to organize our games might be appealing, and at the very least, the multiplayer convenience will be welcome. GoG rarely has triple A titles on their catalogue, so it is not likely to go as big as Steam, but on the other hand, that also means games on GoG are better managed with better quality control. Achievements are just a bonus. Not all players are into them, but for those who are, this could be a major feature. At the very least, it's more things to do. Some of us might not be keen on installing another client though, but hey, did I mention, it is optional?
Convenience comes at a price. A major concern will be whether the client will be a system hog, or if it installs malware or adware. So far, GoG has been reputable, but the notion of having to run another client might not be too appealing, even with the convenience of managing our GoG game library. Perhaps the ideal is a client that can manage all major online game retailers, a merging of Steam, Origin, Uplay etc into one client and having all our games there. The inter-client multiplayer feature seems to be a step in this direction, and perhaps we might even see a consolidated friends list. But realistically speaking, it is unlikely for a single client to do this, even if it were third party, and even more unlikely for developers like Blizzard, who also have their own client, to play ball. Maybe one day it might just happen, but it is, still, a big maybe.
One major difference between Galaxy and other clients like Steam, Origin and Uplay is that it is purely optional, and not required to run GoG games; games from GoG will remain DRM free. GoG is already running sales like Steam, and we are seeing an ever increasing number of games on GoG as well so a client to organize our games might be appealing, and at the very least, the multiplayer convenience will be welcome. GoG rarely has triple A titles on their catalogue, so it is not likely to go as big as Steam, but on the other hand, that also means games on GoG are better managed with better quality control. Achievements are just a bonus. Not all players are into them, but for those who are, this could be a major feature. At the very least, it's more things to do. Some of us might not be keen on installing another client though, but hey, did I mention, it is optional?
Convenience comes at a price. A major concern will be whether the client will be a system hog, or if it installs malware or adware. So far, GoG has been reputable, but the notion of having to run another client might not be too appealing, even with the convenience of managing our GoG game library. Perhaps the ideal is a client that can manage all major online game retailers, a merging of Steam, Origin, Uplay etc into one client and having all our games there. The inter-client multiplayer feature seems to be a step in this direction, and perhaps we might even see a consolidated friends list. But realistically speaking, it is unlikely for a single client to do this, even if it were third party, and even more unlikely for developers like Blizzard, who also have their own client, to play ball. Maybe one day it might just happen, but it is, still, a big maybe.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Heroes of the Storm Quests
After a search online for the quests available for Heroes of the Storm, I realized that most are outdated, particularly the requirement for quest completion was winning. Up till now, all the daily quests that I obtained were to "Play" instead of to "Win". I guess somewhere down the line, Blizzard decided that "winning" was too hard, and I supposed it is, for those like me who are queuing solo, that is. But guess what? You can now complete quests in coop.
Quests that I've obtained so far (for those who are unfamiliar, I'll list the heroes that fulfill the franchise criteria, and since roles are stated in the heroes selection screen, so I won't list them here):
Play 2 games with a Diablo Hero.
(Diablo, Nazeebo, Sonya, Tyrael, Valla, Azmodan)
Play 2 games with a StarCraft Hero.
(Kerrigan, Raynor, Nova, Tychus, Zagara, Abathur, Sgt. Hammer, Tassadar, Zeratul)
Play 2 games with a Warcraft Hero.
(Chen, Tyrande, Arthas, Gazlowe, Stitches, Brightwing, Falstad, Li Li, Muradin, Uther, E.T.C, Illidan, Malfurion, Murky, Rehgar, Anub'arak)
Play 3 games with an Assassin Hero.
Play 3 games with a Support Hero.
Play 3 games with a Warrior Hero.
Play 3 games with a Specialist Hero
Play 8 games.
Win 3 games.
More to come as I see get quests, or if you know of any I've missed, do let me know!
If you're a new visitor to my blog, feel free to look around and feel free to leave a comment!
Quests that I've obtained so far (for those who are unfamiliar, I'll list the heroes that fulfill the franchise criteria, and since roles are stated in the heroes selection screen, so I won't list them here):
Play 2 games with a Diablo Hero.
(Diablo, Nazeebo, Sonya, Tyrael, Valla, Azmodan)
Play 2 games with a StarCraft Hero.
(Kerrigan, Raynor, Nova, Tychus, Zagara, Abathur, Sgt. Hammer, Tassadar, Zeratul)
Play 2 games with a Warcraft Hero.
(Chen, Tyrande, Arthas, Gazlowe, Stitches, Brightwing, Falstad, Li Li, Muradin, Uther, E.T.C, Illidan, Malfurion, Murky, Rehgar, Anub'arak)
Play 3 games with an Assassin Hero.
Play 3 games with a Support Hero.
Play 3 games with a Warrior Hero.
Play 3 games with a Specialist Hero
Play 8 games.
Win 3 games.
More to come as I see get quests, or if you know of any I've missed, do let me know!
If you're a new visitor to my blog, feel free to look around and feel free to leave a comment!
Friday, July 11, 2014
e-Sports and Sports and Genderified Games
If you're in the least bit interested in the e-sports scene, you would have heard of the issue between the International e-Sports Federation and female gamers. In short, the federation, in attempting to bring e-Sports up to the level of conventional sporting events, separated its competitors by gender, and, because they did not have a Hearthstone league for women, banned female gamers from participating.
Needless to say, the Internet exploded in a rage akin to a million nuclear bombs dropped onto the organizers of the tournament. The organizers have since rescinded the ban, but it still leaves a sour taste on the gaming community and female gamers.
What is interesting, and not to mention, amusing, is the statement that in order to be like conventional sports, where male and female athletes are separated, the organizers have opted to take a similar approach. In a bizarre turn of events, the organizers have decided to pick the games that each gender should play. That means that, if you are a girl, you are not allowed to play Street Fighter, but can play Tekken, while guys are not allowed, according to the organizers. So sorry, Tekken Tag players, you are just not 'man' enough.
I'm sure everybody understands why guys and girls do not compete against each other in most sports and it's obvious why that does not apply to gaming. Does separating the sexes work though? There are statistics that show that the percentage of male and female gamers are nearly 50: 50, but how much of that are competitive games vs casual games, I do not know. But currently, it is a fact that fewer female gamers enter competitions. Would it be as exciting with less competitors? Perhaps that might encourage more female gamers to step forward, since fewer competitors means a better chance of winning, but that doesn't apply if you don't even give them a chance to compete. Hafu, a female Hearthstone streamer and competitor mentioned in a podcast her discussion with other female gamers and their idea that an all female league actually makes it less threatening for them so perhaps the idea of separating the leagues might really promote esports.
Games are becoming more mainstream though, and games like Hearthstone are particularly well received by all ages and genders. But at the end of the day, when it comes to gaming, it shouldn't really matter who is at the keyboard, but the level of the play. (Yes I understand when it comes to e-Sports, there's image and manner to take into account, but that's a discussion for another day.)
Needless to say, the Internet exploded in a rage akin to a million nuclear bombs dropped onto the organizers of the tournament. The organizers have since rescinded the ban, but it still leaves a sour taste on the gaming community and female gamers.
What is interesting, and not to mention, amusing, is the statement that in order to be like conventional sports, where male and female athletes are separated, the organizers have opted to take a similar approach. In a bizarre turn of events, the organizers have decided to pick the games that each gender should play. That means that, if you are a girl, you are not allowed to play Street Fighter, but can play Tekken, while guys are not allowed, according to the organizers. So sorry, Tekken Tag players, you are just not 'man' enough.
I'm sure everybody understands why guys and girls do not compete against each other in most sports and it's obvious why that does not apply to gaming. Does separating the sexes work though? There are statistics that show that the percentage of male and female gamers are nearly 50: 50, but how much of that are competitive games vs casual games, I do not know. But currently, it is a fact that fewer female gamers enter competitions. Would it be as exciting with less competitors? Perhaps that might encourage more female gamers to step forward, since fewer competitors means a better chance of winning, but that doesn't apply if you don't even give them a chance to compete. Hafu, a female Hearthstone streamer and competitor mentioned in a podcast her discussion with other female gamers and their idea that an all female league actually makes it less threatening for them so perhaps the idea of separating the leagues might really promote esports.
Games are becoming more mainstream though, and games like Hearthstone are particularly well received by all ages and genders. But at the end of the day, when it comes to gaming, it shouldn't really matter who is at the keyboard, but the level of the play. (Yes I understand when it comes to e-Sports, there's image and manner to take into account, but that's a discussion for another day.)
Saturday, June 28, 2014
The Free-to-play Fallacy
Mobile games... How many times have we read on the news of children 'accidentally' spending a fortune on a 'free' game to the shock of their parents? Considering that cases that come to light probably involve a significant the sum of money, how many cases of 'accidental' spending are there in reality?
Make no mistake, apps are designed to make money. Most free apps make money either through advertising, option to purchase for added features, or, as in this case, micro-transactions, and it is this monetization model that can be an issue.
Micro-transactions, or the option to buy perks, cheats, or speed boosts to get through the game faster, are becoming extremely popular, especially with Farmville-like games, for example, Smurf Village. These games, commonly referred to as cow clickers, tend to give the players very limited activities each game session and the player has to wait, possibly for hours as you get further into the game, before they get more activities to participate in. In order to speed things up, there are options to pay to instantly build stuff, or buy game currency so a player does not have to spend the time to earn it.
Patience is not a common trait among gamers, especially younger ones with more time on their hands. And if parents do not have the proper measures on place, they can spend a lot of money to get through to the next objective, not knowing the value nor the amount of money they are truly spending. Given how the app stores work and the safety measurements in place, these cases should be rare, but people somehow trust their children with the passwords to their accounts with their credit card details attached. And even if that's not the case, a child can be tempted to cry and whine to his parents to buy it for him. And who's to say that it's not actually the parent himself who spends, regrets and then blames it on his child to get a refund?
These games are designed and tweaked to a point where players are tempted to spend money to get ahead, yet are not put off by the slow pace of progression. And therein lies the problem. It's arguably exploitative, especially to certain vulnerable people. Considering the fact that free-to-play games tend to make the most from a very small percentage of its players, this could quite possibly be true.
And it's not just cow clickers. Any free-to-play game, or any game with micro-transactions built in, for that matter, can potentially be exploitative, locking content behind 'energy levels', whereby you need to wait or pay before the next level, or currency walls, i.e. you slowly save up in-game currency or, you guessed it, pay, to unlock the next level or upgrade your character. Game difficulty can even be tweaked such that it's impossible to complete without paying for upgrades. How often have I played a game with micro-transactions and have that nagging feeling that I'll never complete the game because I'm not going to pay.
As parents, it is our responsibility to police our children and educate them on their gaming and spending habits (duh). As gamers, we need to realize what and where we're spending on as well. Quite often, the amount spent on a free-to-play game in order to make decent progress can easily cost more than buying a retail game outright. Of course, it's hard to determine if a phone app is worth our time, but perhaps by not spending time and money in exploitative ones the moment we are sure, we can bring down it's popularity? Well, we can dream, can't we? Perhaps we can start by letting people know of such exploitative games and avoiding them.
If you know of any app with detestable business practices, especially the famous ones, feel free to post in the comments. And thanks for reading!
Make no mistake, apps are designed to make money. Most free apps make money either through advertising, option to purchase for added features, or, as in this case, micro-transactions, and it is this monetization model that can be an issue.
Micro-transactions, or the option to buy perks, cheats, or speed boosts to get through the game faster, are becoming extremely popular, especially with Farmville-like games, for example, Smurf Village. These games, commonly referred to as cow clickers, tend to give the players very limited activities each game session and the player has to wait, possibly for hours as you get further into the game, before they get more activities to participate in. In order to speed things up, there are options to pay to instantly build stuff, or buy game currency so a player does not have to spend the time to earn it.
Patience is not a common trait among gamers, especially younger ones with more time on their hands. And if parents do not have the proper measures on place, they can spend a lot of money to get through to the next objective, not knowing the value nor the amount of money they are truly spending. Given how the app stores work and the safety measurements in place, these cases should be rare, but people somehow trust their children with the passwords to their accounts with their credit card details attached. And even if that's not the case, a child can be tempted to cry and whine to his parents to buy it for him. And who's to say that it's not actually the parent himself who spends, regrets and then blames it on his child to get a refund?
These games are designed and tweaked to a point where players are tempted to spend money to get ahead, yet are not put off by the slow pace of progression. And therein lies the problem. It's arguably exploitative, especially to certain vulnerable people. Considering the fact that free-to-play games tend to make the most from a very small percentage of its players, this could quite possibly be true.
And it's not just cow clickers. Any free-to-play game, or any game with micro-transactions built in, for that matter, can potentially be exploitative, locking content behind 'energy levels', whereby you need to wait or pay before the next level, or currency walls, i.e. you slowly save up in-game currency or, you guessed it, pay, to unlock the next level or upgrade your character. Game difficulty can even be tweaked such that it's impossible to complete without paying for upgrades. How often have I played a game with micro-transactions and have that nagging feeling that I'll never complete the game because I'm not going to pay.
As parents, it is our responsibility to police our children and educate them on their gaming and spending habits (duh). As gamers, we need to realize what and where we're spending on as well. Quite often, the amount spent on a free-to-play game in order to make decent progress can easily cost more than buying a retail game outright. Of course, it's hard to determine if a phone app is worth our time, but perhaps by not spending time and money in exploitative ones the moment we are sure, we can bring down it's popularity? Well, we can dream, can't we? Perhaps we can start by letting people know of such exploitative games and avoiding them.
If you know of any app with detestable business practices, especially the famous ones, feel free to post in the comments. And thanks for reading!
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Linux - Ubuntu 14.04 and Gaming
I recently installed Ubuntu 14.04 LTS on my desktop alongside Windows 8.1 and was surprised how smooth the installation went and how the Linux OS was able to detect and provide drivers for my PC components. Perhaps the last time I installed a Linux distro was before Ubuntu tried to reach a wider audience or it was because my components were older, but it seems that Ubuntu is trying to provide proper drivers (whether official or open-source community developed ones) packed into the OS installation. This makes it really simple for someone like me who still don't understand how to 'compile the kernel' to get into Linux.
The 'app store' makes it easy to get software for Ubuntu. I still remember the hoops I had to jump through just to install an instant messenger on Ubuntu many years before, plus totally screwing up a display driver installation.
Things are so much simpler now. As for games, just a simple install of Steam from the Ubuntu One 'app store' and I have games ready to go. The selection is limited, and not all games that I buy on the Windows platform come with a Linux version, but at least I have some games, mainly Valve and Indie titles, but games nonetheless and I have more games from Humble Bundle as well.
It was pretty simple getting most games on Steam to run. Indies like Papers Please and FTL: Faster than Light ran without a hitch. I couldn't get Serious Sam 3: BFE to run at first, but switching my graphics card driver from the open source one to the proprietary one solved the problem. The Xbox 360 controller worked right out of the box, so to speak, for The Witcher 2, which is pretty impressive.
More online distributors are placing focus on Linux. Among them, perhaps one of the first ones would be Humble's bundles. With Steam development of the Steam OS and GoG's coming support for Ubuntu, the day when Linux users can stop relying on Wine for games might be approaching. That, and the fact that some Linux destros are striving to be more user friendly, we might see more people using the open source OS. We're still seeing a lack of games, especially that from the free-to-play department but that might change as SteamOS kicks off and the free-to-play titles already on Steam possibly taking an interest if there are enough people adopting Linux.
Anyway, thank you for taking an interest in my experience with Ubuntu 14.04. Are you using Linux? Will you ever consider playing on Linux with Ubuntu or SteamOS? Let me know in the comments!
The 'app store' makes it easy to get software for Ubuntu. I still remember the hoops I had to jump through just to install an instant messenger on Ubuntu many years before, plus totally screwing up a display driver installation.
Things are so much simpler now. As for games, just a simple install of Steam from the Ubuntu One 'app store' and I have games ready to go. The selection is limited, and not all games that I buy on the Windows platform come with a Linux version, but at least I have some games, mainly Valve and Indie titles, but games nonetheless and I have more games from Humble Bundle as well.
It was pretty simple getting most games on Steam to run. Indies like Papers Please and FTL: Faster than Light ran without a hitch. I couldn't get Serious Sam 3: BFE to run at first, but switching my graphics card driver from the open source one to the proprietary one solved the problem. The Xbox 360 controller worked right out of the box, so to speak, for The Witcher 2, which is pretty impressive.
More online distributors are placing focus on Linux. Among them, perhaps one of the first ones would be Humble's bundles. With Steam development of the Steam OS and GoG's coming support for Ubuntu, the day when Linux users can stop relying on Wine for games might be approaching. That, and the fact that some Linux destros are striving to be more user friendly, we might see more people using the open source OS. We're still seeing a lack of games, especially that from the free-to-play department but that might change as SteamOS kicks off and the free-to-play titles already on Steam possibly taking an interest if there are enough people adopting Linux.
Anyway, thank you for taking an interest in my experience with Ubuntu 14.04. Are you using Linux? Will you ever consider playing on Linux with Ubuntu or SteamOS? Let me know in the comments!
Saturday, May 31, 2014
Fireside Card Back Requirements
Blizzard introduced Fireside Gatherings for Hearthstone along with a card back reward. There are people who are keen on getting the card back, but are either unable, or unwilling to join a Fireside Gathering. According to Blizzard, there are 3 criteria to obtaining the card back:
1) 3 people on the same subnet
2) 3 matches played against another player on the same subnet
3) played against friends or players near me
Besides these criteria, some other requirements I've heard are having to unlock all heroes, having to win against the expert decks, having to play your free arena run and so on. So I decided to try and get my card back on own and test out these ideas even though some people probably already have the answers.
I set up 3 accounts:
1) my main on a desktop - all heroes unlocked, all expert decks beat, arena played, lvl 18
2) on a laptop - all heroes unlocked and that's all
3) on an ipad 2 - only tutorial completed and so only has the mage hero
3 games were played out fully between accounts 1 and 2, without conceding and both accounts got the card back. 3 more games were played out fully between accounts 2 and 3, again, not conceding and account 3 got the card back as well. Needless to say, all 3 accounts were logged on throughout (the ipad was set to not turn off the screen).
And so we conclude, only completing the tutorial is required to get the card back besides the criteria Blizzard announced, that is (I'm not sure if you can play against a friend without clearing the tutorial but if it's possible, maybe just starting an account is fine?).
There are still a lot of little things about this game that might confuse or amuse a new player. It does make for an interesting experience though so if you happen to have the tiniest interest in collectible card games in the vein of Magic: The Gathering, you might want to give it a go.
Just to share a fun game I had today.it I played a warlock against a paladin. He had a large minion out which I promptly played Corruption on, which basically marks a minion for destruction at the end of his turn. Knowing his minion will die when he ends his turn, he played a Faceless Manipulator and makes a copy of it (the Faceless transform into another copy of any minion you target) and proceeds to buff up the copy. I was about to tell him 'well played' when he hit end turn and both copies of the minion die after which he promptly left the game. Turns out the Faceless Manipulator copies everything, even buffs and enchantments. It was a funny experience and I'm glad I learnt it by seeing it happen to my opponent and not having it happen to me.
1) 3 people on the same subnet
2) 3 matches played against another player on the same subnet
3) played against friends or players near me
Besides these criteria, some other requirements I've heard are having to unlock all heroes, having to win against the expert decks, having to play your free arena run and so on. So I decided to try and get my card back on own and test out these ideas even though some people probably already have the answers.
I set up 3 accounts:
1) my main on a desktop - all heroes unlocked, all expert decks beat, arena played, lvl 18
2) on a laptop - all heroes unlocked and that's all
3) on an ipad 2 - only tutorial completed and so only has the mage hero
3 games were played out fully between accounts 1 and 2, without conceding and both accounts got the card back. 3 more games were played out fully between accounts 2 and 3, again, not conceding and account 3 got the card back as well. Needless to say, all 3 accounts were logged on throughout (the ipad was set to not turn off the screen).
And so we conclude, only completing the tutorial is required to get the card back besides the criteria Blizzard announced, that is (I'm not sure if you can play against a friend without clearing the tutorial but if it's possible, maybe just starting an account is fine?).
There are still a lot of little things about this game that might confuse or amuse a new player. It does make for an interesting experience though so if you happen to have the tiniest interest in collectible card games in the vein of Magic: The Gathering, you might want to give it a go.
Just to share a fun game I had today.it I played a warlock against a paladin. He had a large minion out which I promptly played Corruption on, which basically marks a minion for destruction at the end of his turn. Knowing his minion will die when he ends his turn, he played a Faceless Manipulator and makes a copy of it (the Faceless transform into another copy of any minion you target) and proceeds to buff up the copy. I was about to tell him 'well played' when he hit end turn and both copies of the minion die after which he promptly left the game. Turns out the Faceless Manipulator copies everything, even buffs and enchantments. It was a funny experience and I'm glad I learnt it by seeing it happen to my opponent and not having it happen to me.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Game Reviews and ReReviews
I recently started playing Path of Exile again after receiving an email regarding their 2 week charity race event. Playing hard core with extra game mechanics in the form of Ambush (special loot boxes that spawn enemies you have to kill before unlocking) and Invasion (randon boss enemies that are normally not found in a given area spawning) makes it much more interesting. I also found 'corrupted' side areas with enemies having special modifiers (lighting attacks, totem filled areas that buff enemies and so on) to clear. All these modifications really change up the game play even without having to reach end game.
It makes me wonder how much games (free-to-play or otherwise) can change given time and how reviews can get outdated so very quickly. Can a gamer who wants to play an old game still rely on old reviews to judge whether he'll be interested? Updates are happening all the time, more so now that practically everyone has access to the internet, and if reviews to free to play games get updated, would it be fair to games that are buy-to-play? The new loot system, for example, improves Diablo 3 a lot, even without the expansion. (but it doesn't matter since D3 had great reviews?)(on the other hand, the consensus of players was that D3 was bad before the loot 2.0 patch.)
Free-to-play games though, are, well, free, so we can just play it and judge for ourselves, so does it really matter? Well, it can be argued that the time invested before knowing whether a game is bad could potentially cost more. Unfortunately, besides looking to hard core players of the game in question, it's hard to get a good review, and even then, the opinions of these gamers will definitely be biased. Perhaps one day, people will figure out what to do, but until then, the forums and patch notes will be an OK way to understand the quality of a game that's been out for a while.
It makes me wonder how much games (free-to-play or otherwise) can change given time and how reviews can get outdated so very quickly. Can a gamer who wants to play an old game still rely on old reviews to judge whether he'll be interested? Updates are happening all the time, more so now that practically everyone has access to the internet, and if reviews to free to play games get updated, would it be fair to games that are buy-to-play? The new loot system, for example, improves Diablo 3 a lot, even without the expansion. (but it doesn't matter since D3 had great reviews?)(on the other hand, the consensus of players was that D3 was bad before the loot 2.0 patch.)
Free-to-play games though, are, well, free, so we can just play it and judge for ourselves, so does it really matter? Well, it can be argued that the time invested before knowing whether a game is bad could potentially cost more. Unfortunately, besides looking to hard core players of the game in question, it's hard to get a good review, and even then, the opinions of these gamers will definitely be biased. Perhaps one day, people will figure out what to do, but until then, the forums and patch notes will be an OK way to understand the quality of a game that's been out for a while.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Nature of MMORPG and 'Addictions' - for non-gaming parents
MMORPG, or Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games, are a genre of games where large numbers of players can play together in a single game world. Players can see other players' characters, or avatars and can group together to complete game objectives. In fact, there are game objectives that only groups of players, of even up to 40 people, can complete. All these objectives normally have 'loot' or 'gear' rewards - weapons or clothing that enhance the abilities and looks of a character, and tend to be a testament of the skills of a player. Because of the fact that a lot of these gear can only be collected by defeating a 'boss', i.e. a powerful computer controlled character, and only by the efforts of a large group of people, players tend to gather together into 'guilds' or 'clans', basically an online team. As such, friendships are made and bonds are built.
This is a strong reason that players are 'addicted' to a game. In actual fact, he has to play at a certain time for a certain period only because his whole group is there and he cannot leave the team because they really do need him, especially if he is playing a major role that cannot be easily replaced. Quitting a game might be hard for them as well because gamers do feel a sense of responsibility towards his friends. Even though he might be sick of the game, he might just stick around to help his friends.
MMORPG makers sometimes add special events to the game during the year. For example, during Christmas and New Year, there might be special objectives to complete with special rewards that can only obtained during that time period. So you might sometimes find people unwilling to do anything else but stick to their computer during the holidays. To take it further, certain games have 'daily' objectives that have to be done everyday consistently in order that the player may be able to keep up with his friends so they can do the group objectives together.
All these reasons make people who play MMORPGs to seem like game addicts. It might be hard to let them know that time could be better spent elsewhere. While it might be difficult to understand, we can see their gaming schedules as a former of duty. If your loved one is not playing excessively, typically, they might have one or two days a week where they have to group up with their friends to tackle those group fights, which probably lasts hours. Work out with your loved ones to understand when are the days that they have to be online and work on having them spend their time on other things on the other days. We need to understand that they have a responsibility and truly have difficulty stopping during this 'group time' because it affects a large number of people.
With regards to 'daily' objectives, these might be time consuming, but generally, it might be not. Give them a little time each day to complete them and hopefully, they'll get sick of it and move on to a weekly schedule. Such 'obligations' tend to be concentrated at the start of an 'expansion' cycle, that is, when the next 'episode' of the game is released, somewhat like a new season of a drama series.
For parents, it is probably not a good idea to expose children to games like these that restricts and controls a gamers' time. Most gamers are in control, but for younger children and people with addiction tendencies, years could be wasted. There are many other great games that we can direct our children to, and we should be able to find one they can enjoy without having to invest too much time.
This is a strong reason that players are 'addicted' to a game. In actual fact, he has to play at a certain time for a certain period only because his whole group is there and he cannot leave the team because they really do need him, especially if he is playing a major role that cannot be easily replaced. Quitting a game might be hard for them as well because gamers do feel a sense of responsibility towards his friends. Even though he might be sick of the game, he might just stick around to help his friends.
MMORPG makers sometimes add special events to the game during the year. For example, during Christmas and New Year, there might be special objectives to complete with special rewards that can only obtained during that time period. So you might sometimes find people unwilling to do anything else but stick to their computer during the holidays. To take it further, certain games have 'daily' objectives that have to be done everyday consistently in order that the player may be able to keep up with his friends so they can do the group objectives together.
All these reasons make people who play MMORPGs to seem like game addicts. It might be hard to let them know that time could be better spent elsewhere. While it might be difficult to understand, we can see their gaming schedules as a former of duty. If your loved one is not playing excessively, typically, they might have one or two days a week where they have to group up with their friends to tackle those group fights, which probably lasts hours. Work out with your loved ones to understand when are the days that they have to be online and work on having them spend their time on other things on the other days. We need to understand that they have a responsibility and truly have difficulty stopping during this 'group time' because it affects a large number of people.
With regards to 'daily' objectives, these might be time consuming, but generally, it might be not. Give them a little time each day to complete them and hopefully, they'll get sick of it and move on to a weekly schedule. Such 'obligations' tend to be concentrated at the start of an 'expansion' cycle, that is, when the next 'episode' of the game is released, somewhat like a new season of a drama series.
For parents, it is probably not a good idea to expose children to games like these that restricts and controls a gamers' time. Most gamers are in control, but for younger children and people with addiction tendencies, years could be wasted. There are many other great games that we can direct our children to, and we should be able to find one they can enjoy without having to invest too much time.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Take Two Tablets and Call Me in the Morning
So I've been spending quite a bit of time on my iPad 2, gaming. Before I get called a casual gamer, let me say that, yes, I did play games like Candy Crush and some of the tower defense stuff on my mobile, but these few days were spent with XCOM: Enemy Unknown and Hearthstone. XCOM is pretty much the same game released on PC and the last gen consoles, minus some cinematic and without the expansions, but it works surprisingly well with touch controls. It was recently released on android, though it's a shame it's not compatible with my Nexus 7. As for Hearthstone, some might argue it's a casual CCG, and perhaps it is, but still, for a PC game to translate so well to a tablet is amazing. (Actually, not really. It was obvious right from the start Blizzard designed even the PC version to work with touch controls. Probably so it can be played on those Windows 8 PCs with touch screens.) Oh, and I'm excited to start on FTL for the iPad.
This has actually made me excited to see more games, especially turn-based ones on tablets. Heroes of Might and Magic, Civilisation, Age of Wonders, all these games have the potential to work on mobile or tablets if effort is put in to make it work. The lack of a 'hover over' and 'right click' might take some work, but XCOM could make a good reference, and FTL as well. But you better not take it the way of Dungeon Keeper, and do not make it free-to-play. Keep the games as they are.
Most of the games mentioned require at least an iPad 2 to function, but that's already pretty good. It's a bit harder to develop for Android because of the large number of configurations for Android devices, but hopefully, more of these games and be ported over with more compatible devices. As the specs of these devices get better with each coming year, more already released games will be playable with proper porting.
Despite the possibilities, I'm still conflicted and a bit fearful sometimes. Will all the porting take time away from developing new games, and will devs choose to just throw out a lazy port to make a quick buck, or choose a free-to-play model that totally pisses off the fans? Unfortunately, the possibilities of screwing it up are just as endless...
This has actually made me excited to see more games, especially turn-based ones on tablets. Heroes of Might and Magic, Civilisation, Age of Wonders, all these games have the potential to work on mobile or tablets if effort is put in to make it work. The lack of a 'hover over' and 'right click' might take some work, but XCOM could make a good reference, and FTL as well. But you better not take it the way of Dungeon Keeper, and do not make it free-to-play. Keep the games as they are.
Most of the games mentioned require at least an iPad 2 to function, but that's already pretty good. It's a bit harder to develop for Android because of the large number of configurations for Android devices, but hopefully, more of these games and be ported over with more compatible devices. As the specs of these devices get better with each coming year, more already released games will be playable with proper porting.
Despite the possibilities, I'm still conflicted and a bit fearful sometimes. Will all the porting take time away from developing new games, and will devs choose to just throw out a lazy port to make a quick buck, or choose a free-to-play model that totally pisses off the fans? Unfortunately, the possibilities of screwing it up are just as endless...
Monday, April 28, 2014
MMOs, MOBAs and Over Saturation of Genres
It seems that everyone wants a piece of the pie, when it's already stale and what's left are basically left overs. World of Warcraft was massively successful, and then came Rift, The Old Republic, DC Universe Online, and so on. League of Legends led the MOBA free to play market. The FPS boom, RTS era, indie platformers of recent times; games of the same genre tend to follow after a particularly successful game.
This method of jumping on their bandwagon might have worked in the past with the traditional purchase-once-and-play payment model. This is especially true with single player games with fans looking for similar experience on completing a game. Unfortunately, this doesn't work with free-to-play games and MMO due to their persistent nature. Gamers can't possibly carry their character or progress to a totally new game, can they? And if they have pumped money into their game, then it's even less likely for them to switch. Even competitive FPS titles of this generation have a levelling system so gamers are encouraged to stick to a single game, or risk losing all the progress they have made.
Why are companies willing to spend money developing something that is already on the market, and, more often than not, already holds most of the market share? What ends up being released, tends not to differ enough as not to be considered a clone of the first game, fighting for the very people who are invested in the first game. Try as I might, I can't think of a reason. What we've seen in the case of MOBAs is companies like Blizzard trying to differentiate themselves by catering to casual players; other games like Smite and Awesomenauts mixed things up by changing the perspective or even 3D to 2D. Considering the hype behind Blizzard's Heroes of the Storm, perhaps targeting a different audience is the key?
What we gamers get, though, is games with different twists, and possibly, merging of genres resulting in new and innovative game play while outright clones are most likely just going to die out. Competition is always good, as been said on this blog multiple times, so if companies are willing to throw their money away, I guess I'm not going to complain. Well, not too much.
This method of jumping on their bandwagon might have worked in the past with the traditional purchase-once-and-play payment model. This is especially true with single player games with fans looking for similar experience on completing a game. Unfortunately, this doesn't work with free-to-play games and MMO due to their persistent nature. Gamers can't possibly carry their character or progress to a totally new game, can they? And if they have pumped money into their game, then it's even less likely for them to switch. Even competitive FPS titles of this generation have a levelling system so gamers are encouraged to stick to a single game, or risk losing all the progress they have made.
Why are companies willing to spend money developing something that is already on the market, and, more often than not, already holds most of the market share? What ends up being released, tends not to differ enough as not to be considered a clone of the first game, fighting for the very people who are invested in the first game. Try as I might, I can't think of a reason. What we've seen in the case of MOBAs is companies like Blizzard trying to differentiate themselves by catering to casual players; other games like Smite and Awesomenauts mixed things up by changing the perspective or even 3D to 2D. Considering the hype behind Blizzard's Heroes of the Storm, perhaps targeting a different audience is the key?
What we gamers get, though, is games with different twists, and possibly, merging of genres resulting in new and innovative game play while outright clones are most likely just going to die out. Competition is always good, as been said on this blog multiple times, so if companies are willing to throw their money away, I guess I'm not going to complain. Well, not too much.
Monday, April 21, 2014
The Oculus Rage
The Oculus Rift was bought over by Facebook, and people are livid. What started as a Kickstarter gaming project grew in popularity and interest, eventually attracting even the social network giant. But people, whom I have to assume are mostly gamers, are upset with the turn of events. I wondered what the matter was, and why would people care who owns Oculus as long as the backers get their set at their end of their day? But this article at Gamespot helped me understand why this was so.
And the issue is with the nature of Kickstarter. I have no idea how the makers of the Oculus Rift made their pitch to their backers, but most people would feel a sense of ownership of the product, having been part of the startup project, even if all being a backer entitled you to was the game or item, plus any bonuses for giving more money. Many feel that using Kickstarter was an alternative to funding a project without having to submit to a larger corporation, and is the desire of the developers to keep the product 'untainted', and indeed, we do see some game developers pitching their Kickstarter that way, like Project Goddus. However, I was not involved in the Oculus Kickstarter project as a backer, so I'm not sure if this was their pitch and if it wasn't, then it is not reasonable for backers to be against the acquisition.
Not that it matters of course. Because being a backer does not make us a shareholder in spite of the sense of ownership. When we look at the backing tiers in a project, nowhere does it say we are purchasing shares, and usually, it's just the product with bonuses the higher we go.
And this might be an issue, considering how Kickstarter projects are pitched - 'help us make this', 'work with us to create this'. Perhaps just saying 'buy this' might be better, but since there's no product, they can't say that either. As backers, we should learn to accept the fact that we are just paying for the possibility of playing or owning and nothing else. If we get to give input in the design, great, but otherwise, it might just as well be a pre-order.
And the issue is with the nature of Kickstarter. I have no idea how the makers of the Oculus Rift made their pitch to their backers, but most people would feel a sense of ownership of the product, having been part of the startup project, even if all being a backer entitled you to was the game or item, plus any bonuses for giving more money. Many feel that using Kickstarter was an alternative to funding a project without having to submit to a larger corporation, and is the desire of the developers to keep the product 'untainted', and indeed, we do see some game developers pitching their Kickstarter that way, like Project Goddus. However, I was not involved in the Oculus Kickstarter project as a backer, so I'm not sure if this was their pitch and if it wasn't, then it is not reasonable for backers to be against the acquisition.
Not that it matters of course. Because being a backer does not make us a shareholder in spite of the sense of ownership. When we look at the backing tiers in a project, nowhere does it say we are purchasing shares, and usually, it's just the product with bonuses the higher we go.
And this might be an issue, considering how Kickstarter projects are pitched - 'help us make this', 'work with us to create this'. Perhaps just saying 'buy this' might be better, but since there's no product, they can't say that either. As backers, we should learn to accept the fact that we are just paying for the possibility of playing or owning and nothing else. If we get to give input in the design, great, but otherwise, it might just as well be a pre-order.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Pay to Beta Test?
Once upon a time, the purpose of beta tests was to detect and iron out bugs before games were released. Betas were free and sometimes, testers were even paid specially to search for bugs that normally wouldn't be detected in a casual play through.
Now, a 'beta' is more like a demo for the masses to try out a game. Sometimes, they were an incentive to pre-order a title. But mostly, they are hype builders and advertisements, and as such, betas are open only if the developers know the game is any good, or is it?
Betas can get away with a lot of issues; after all, a game that is still a work in progress can be excused right? Well, currently, people can purchase games that are still incomplete in the form of early access games. Some of these games are like this because of kickstarter backer rewards in the form of alpha and beta access. However, there are games that have been in 'beta' for a long time, raking in sales while being excused of their brokenness. And what is the incentive of coming out of beta? Will people still be interested in a game that has been on the market for so long? Can a game get away with bugs and incompleteness by being perpetually in beta or alpha?
Free to play games have gotten in the 'beta' fever as well. In closed the alphas and betas of many games, we are given the option of buying into the game. These 'founder packs' are a way to make impatient people pay for an otherwise free title. Should the game be officially 'released' and open to everyone, will these people actually pay any amount of money? It's hard to tell, but certainly there will be some who won't. Is there an issue to this? Probably not, but it's important to note that for most of these games, you can buy stuff with real money even in alpha or beta, and there are cases where the game gets shut down, never to be 'released'. What happens to the money spent on buying in and on items in the cash shop?
I have a few games on early access because I helped kickstart the games, and in the initial phases, they were pretty unplayable, which, funnily enough, meant it was a real beta. However, I realized this would spoil the game for me on official release if I spent too much time, not story-wise, but in the sense that the game might start to bore me. Probably this won't be an issue for most people and most games, but for multi player games, losing people before official release is not a good thing.
Yes, I know you feel like a beta tester playing Battlefield 3, but at least they were brave enough to put it out for critique, so that might be another post. I am not too keen on paying to beta test, but if playing broken games is your thing, feel free. But beware of games that never get released, or you might just end up like a kickstarter backer who gave money for a game that ends up in the void, never to see the light of day.
Now, a 'beta' is more like a demo for the masses to try out a game. Sometimes, they were an incentive to pre-order a title. But mostly, they are hype builders and advertisements, and as such, betas are open only if the developers know the game is any good, or is it?
Betas can get away with a lot of issues; after all, a game that is still a work in progress can be excused right? Well, currently, people can purchase games that are still incomplete in the form of early access games. Some of these games are like this because of kickstarter backer rewards in the form of alpha and beta access. However, there are games that have been in 'beta' for a long time, raking in sales while being excused of their brokenness. And what is the incentive of coming out of beta? Will people still be interested in a game that has been on the market for so long? Can a game get away with bugs and incompleteness by being perpetually in beta or alpha?
Free to play games have gotten in the 'beta' fever as well. In closed the alphas and betas of many games, we are given the option of buying into the game. These 'founder packs' are a way to make impatient people pay for an otherwise free title. Should the game be officially 'released' and open to everyone, will these people actually pay any amount of money? It's hard to tell, but certainly there will be some who won't. Is there an issue to this? Probably not, but it's important to note that for most of these games, you can buy stuff with real money even in alpha or beta, and there are cases where the game gets shut down, never to be 'released'. What happens to the money spent on buying in and on items in the cash shop?
I have a few games on early access because I helped kickstart the games, and in the initial phases, they were pretty unplayable, which, funnily enough, meant it was a real beta. However, I realized this would spoil the game for me on official release if I spent too much time, not story-wise, but in the sense that the game might start to bore me. Probably this won't be an issue for most people and most games, but for multi player games, losing people before official release is not a good thing.
Yes, I know you feel like a beta tester playing Battlefield 3, but at least they were brave enough to put it out for critique, so that might be another post. I am not too keen on paying to beta test, but if playing broken games is your thing, feel free. But beware of games that never get released, or you might just end up like a kickstarter backer who gave money for a game that ends up in the void, never to see the light of day.
Friday, April 4, 2014
Why Can't I Buy the Game I Want to Play?
I spoke up a lot on this blog with regards to why I don't want to support certain games. It could be a certain form of DRM, or some monetization issue, or a piece of pre-order bonus. Why is this an issue to us gamers? Shouldn't we be thankful to the developers for making such great games for us? Shouldn't we cut them some slack and give them the money they deserve?
Actually, it is understandable when companies choose to use DRM like always-online requirements to fight piracy. Piracy is a problem, and it does eat into sales, and in truth, having a game connect to a server and having parts of the game run server side is a very powerful form of DRM that can be almost impossible to crack, unless the pirates manage to duplicate the server's role somehow. Whether or not having DRM will get people, who would otherwise download the game to actually pay for the game is another matter (there's no reason to believe they would still want the game if it's not free), but we can understand where game developers are coming from. The problem with always-online is obvious, server issues, internet provider issues, companies closing down, or shutting down servers; the fact is, technology is just not good enough yet, whether it's the game company or internet providers. And in many countries, internet is limited by data caps, and subscription is not cheap. Perhaps one day, when speeds can finally be fast and internet, reliable, and accessible anywhere and anytime without latency issues and wiring requirement, perhaps then, can we accept always-online. Now, however, it is just not acceptable, though we tend to be more forgiving if it's free-to-play.
Other issues like pre-order bonus and DLCs are just there to encourage sales, which technically isn't wrong. But it opens up abuse. Pre-order bonuses are content created before the game is released, meaning potentially, it could be something originally in the game, something purposely removed from the game just before release to, 1) encourage people to buy before reviews are out, i.e. trick people into buying a bad game, and 2) get people who didn't order the game to fork out more money for content that should be in there originally, effectively increase the price of the game by $5 to $15. Not a bad deal for the company at all.
These are things gamers don't want, and yet, we still buy games that have all these issues. The message we are sending to companies is that we don't mind their exploitation, as long as we get good games. They can inconvenience us however they want with DRM; they can sell us five minutes of content at a time for $15 dollars each; they can make crappy games full of bugs, log in issues and with server issues and we'll pay for them without waiting for reviews. They can do all these, and we won't mind. If we keep sending out these signals, companies will keep testing the waters, keep exploiting us more and more, trying to see how far they can go before we react, and they will do it with games that people really want to play.
I'm not sure if it's worth fighting anymore. Perhaps gamers don't really care, and people who are complaining are just the vocal minority. Or people are really just stupid fan boys, complaining about every little misstep EA makes but worshipping at the feet of Blizzard that does no wrong. You know, both Sim City and Diablo 3 use server processing always-online DRM but only one of the companies finally made their game playable offline.
Actually, it is understandable when companies choose to use DRM like always-online requirements to fight piracy. Piracy is a problem, and it does eat into sales, and in truth, having a game connect to a server and having parts of the game run server side is a very powerful form of DRM that can be almost impossible to crack, unless the pirates manage to duplicate the server's role somehow. Whether or not having DRM will get people, who would otherwise download the game to actually pay for the game is another matter (there's no reason to believe they would still want the game if it's not free), but we can understand where game developers are coming from. The problem with always-online is obvious, server issues, internet provider issues, companies closing down, or shutting down servers; the fact is, technology is just not good enough yet, whether it's the game company or internet providers. And in many countries, internet is limited by data caps, and subscription is not cheap. Perhaps one day, when speeds can finally be fast and internet, reliable, and accessible anywhere and anytime without latency issues and wiring requirement, perhaps then, can we accept always-online. Now, however, it is just not acceptable, though we tend to be more forgiving if it's free-to-play.
Other issues like pre-order bonus and DLCs are just there to encourage sales, which technically isn't wrong. But it opens up abuse. Pre-order bonuses are content created before the game is released, meaning potentially, it could be something originally in the game, something purposely removed from the game just before release to, 1) encourage people to buy before reviews are out, i.e. trick people into buying a bad game, and 2) get people who didn't order the game to fork out more money for content that should be in there originally, effectively increase the price of the game by $5 to $15. Not a bad deal for the company at all.
These are things gamers don't want, and yet, we still buy games that have all these issues. The message we are sending to companies is that we don't mind their exploitation, as long as we get good games. They can inconvenience us however they want with DRM; they can sell us five minutes of content at a time for $15 dollars each; they can make crappy games full of bugs, log in issues and with server issues and we'll pay for them without waiting for reviews. They can do all these, and we won't mind. If we keep sending out these signals, companies will keep testing the waters, keep exploiting us more and more, trying to see how far they can go before we react, and they will do it with games that people really want to play.
I'm not sure if it's worth fighting anymore. Perhaps gamers don't really care, and people who are complaining are just the vocal minority. Or people are really just stupid fan boys, complaining about every little misstep EA makes but worshipping at the feet of Blizzard that does no wrong. You know, both Sim City and Diablo 3 use server processing always-online DRM but only one of the companies finally made their game playable offline.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Blizzard's Shift into Anti-Consumer Policies
Reaper of Souls has pre-order bonuses. And always-online DRM. And it almost has micro-transactions and pay-to-win elements. Almost.
How long will it be before we get into expensive, overpriced DLCs? And in-game content purposely removed from the finished product as pre-order bonuses or DLC? Or pay-to-enter betas?
I ranted about pre-order bonuses before. They encourage people to buy games before knowing if it will be any good. Granted, Blizzard is only giving out cosmetic items as pre-order incentives, but with regards to the Demon Hunter, not enough is known about Heroes of the Storm so it leaves to be seen if it will be an issue.
I guess I'm just sore because I've made it a point not to pre-order, and to not buy anything that has always-online at full price, and because I'm a collector, since I won't be getting the full package when I don't pre-order, it means I won't buy it in future even if there is a sale. (Yes, there are sales on the Blizzard store - Christmas and Black Friday.) AND because it crosses over to other Blizzard games, and I won't be able to complete my 'collection', I'll be giving up on collector's editions, digital deluxe editions or what not. Yes, I know I'm dumb for collecting games, but thanks to Blizzard, I won't have any IP that I'm devoted to anymore, so I can save my money.
The Aliens: Colonial Marines incident should have been a wake up call against pre-ordering games, and really, since it's on the online store, there is no need for Blizzard to get the numbers so they can stock up on copies. What reason is there but to bait people into making rash purchases? What annoys me is that because it is Blizzard, they can get away with absolute anything. If it were EA, the internet would have exploded in a rage equivalent to the detonation of a million nuclear warheads.
Edit: My bad. Turns out Blizzard actually announced that the 'pre-order loot' will be available till 31st March, i.e. after the launch so people can actually wait for reviews before purchasing, instead of buying blind. But then again, people thought Diablo 3 was good for the first few hours...
How long will it be before we get into expensive, overpriced DLCs? And in-game content purposely removed from the finished product as pre-order bonuses or DLC? Or pay-to-enter betas?
I ranted about pre-order bonuses before. They encourage people to buy games before knowing if it will be any good. Granted, Blizzard is only giving out cosmetic items as pre-order incentives, but with regards to the Demon Hunter, not enough is known about Heroes of the Storm so it leaves to be seen if it will be an issue.
I guess I'm just sore because I've made it a point not to pre-order, and to not buy anything that has always-online at full price, and because I'm a collector, since I won't be getting the full package when I don't pre-order, it means I won't buy it in future even if there is a sale. (Yes, there are sales on the Blizzard store - Christmas and Black Friday.) AND because it crosses over to other Blizzard games, and I won't be able to complete my 'collection', I'll be giving up on collector's editions, digital deluxe editions or what not. Yes, I know I'm dumb for collecting games, but thanks to Blizzard, I won't have any IP that I'm devoted to anymore, so I can save my money.
The Aliens: Colonial Marines incident should have been a wake up call against pre-ordering games, and really, since it's on the online store, there is no need for Blizzard to get the numbers so they can stock up on copies. What reason is there but to bait people into making rash purchases? What annoys me is that because it is Blizzard, they can get away with absolute anything. If it were EA, the internet would have exploded in a rage equivalent to the detonation of a million nuclear warheads.
Edit: My bad. Turns out Blizzard actually announced that the 'pre-order loot' will be available till 31st March, i.e. after the launch so people can actually wait for reviews before purchasing, instead of buying blind. But then again, people thought Diablo 3 was good for the first few hours...
Friday, March 21, 2014
All YouR Videos Are Belong to Us!
YouTube, the place that made 'viewing' games popular. Just not too long ago, people checked out games before buying by reading a review or previews on magazines or online sites, or by looking for an ultra-accurate, totally unbiased and completely and utterly agreed upon game rating to determine if a game is any good. (No it isn't, stop getting mad just because someone rated a game you like lower than what you expected.) Just these few years, we get to watch how the game is in ever increasing resolution on YouTube through video reviews and Let's Plays. And YouTube personalities have made a name for themselves through playing games.
The recent YouTube claims debacle causes us to ask this question that has undoubtedly been on the minds of many a publisher and developer - is allowing Let's Plays helping or hurting game sales? Like piracy, this is difficult to answer because, for those who don't buy the games but choose to watch instead, will they actually buy if they don't get to view it online? Personally, I'd only watch games I don't intend to buy, and even then, I'd only watch certain players, like Jesse Cox if it's a game that I'm really interested in the lore. So an argument can be made that it's the person making the video as well. Obviously it's not the case for me since I only watch very few games, but it's most likely these people can get views no matter what they play. And if by any chance, you're wrong in saying that it hurts sales, then wouldn't these people be advertising your competitors' games instead? It might be just a coincidence, but Nintendo is doing very poorly now since it took monetization away from YouTubers in 2013, Blizzard didn't but in fact, encouraged YouTubers to showcase their games, and even though it used oppressive DRM like always online, it got away with it. There are many other factors like general view of the company in question of course, so this might not be indicative of the influence of YouTubers.
This is not the only issue. Is giving publishers and developers the power to take monetization rights from video creators and shutting down videos at any time good for us since they can easily take down negative reviews? (Don't get me wrong, it actually hurts the devs since word will get out, especially if it's a large channel and that can actually backfire in the form of a mass boycott. In fact, it's actually VERY stupid.) YouTube's pro-developer and publishers policies are not helping either. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that the original copyright holder should get a greater benefit of the doubt, but giving the copy right holder an automatic claim and full monetization rights for just a small fraction of the video is too much. At most, the system should send an alert to ask if they wish to claim it, and even then, they only get a fraction of the revenue based on how much content is used. Any money earned from the video during the dispute should also go to the rightful party after the dispute is settled, and not lost to the video creator.
Why would YouTube do this? It is an effective way to cover their asses; it puts the power in the hands of the copyright holders. In other words, it's sucking up to big corporations with little to no effort for them once the system is in place. But well, it's a good chance for other platforms like Twitch to shine, since the PS4 and Xbox One is no doubt strengthening their influence. Hopefully, YouTubers can find other more stable sources of income, and just like anything else, competition is always good!
The recent YouTube claims debacle causes us to ask this question that has undoubtedly been on the minds of many a publisher and developer - is allowing Let's Plays helping or hurting game sales? Like piracy, this is difficult to answer because, for those who don't buy the games but choose to watch instead, will they actually buy if they don't get to view it online? Personally, I'd only watch games I don't intend to buy, and even then, I'd only watch certain players, like Jesse Cox if it's a game that I'm really interested in the lore. So an argument can be made that it's the person making the video as well. Obviously it's not the case for me since I only watch very few games, but it's most likely these people can get views no matter what they play. And if by any chance, you're wrong in saying that it hurts sales, then wouldn't these people be advertising your competitors' games instead? It might be just a coincidence, but Nintendo is doing very poorly now since it took monetization away from YouTubers in 2013, Blizzard didn't but in fact, encouraged YouTubers to showcase their games, and even though it used oppressive DRM like always online, it got away with it. There are many other factors like general view of the company in question of course, so this might not be indicative of the influence of YouTubers.
This is not the only issue. Is giving publishers and developers the power to take monetization rights from video creators and shutting down videos at any time good for us since they can easily take down negative reviews? (Don't get me wrong, it actually hurts the devs since word will get out, especially if it's a large channel and that can actually backfire in the form of a mass boycott. In fact, it's actually VERY stupid.) YouTube's pro-developer and publishers policies are not helping either. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that the original copyright holder should get a greater benefit of the doubt, but giving the copy right holder an automatic claim and full monetization rights for just a small fraction of the video is too much. At most, the system should send an alert to ask if they wish to claim it, and even then, they only get a fraction of the revenue based on how much content is used. Any money earned from the video during the dispute should also go to the rightful party after the dispute is settled, and not lost to the video creator.
Why would YouTube do this? It is an effective way to cover their asses; it puts the power in the hands of the copyright holders. In other words, it's sucking up to big corporations with little to no effort for them once the system is in place. But well, it's a good chance for other platforms like Twitch to shine, since the PS4 and Xbox One is no doubt strengthening their influence. Hopefully, YouTubers can find other more stable sources of income, and just like anything else, competition is always good!
Monday, January 27, 2014
iGaming, playDroid
Mobile phones and tablets are all the rage this generation, so it's no surprise that game publishers are putting more and more focus into making games that will reach the masses. EA, Square Enix and Capcom are just a few companies that have produced pretty decent games on the mobile platform. Because free-to-play is so popular on mobile, plus, you can pretty much get away with all sorts of horrible business practices there due to the large amount of horrible games which are pretty much cash-grabs already present, it's pretty attractive. Square Enix has some of the most expensive games on mobile, even if they are horrible ports; EA has free-to-play and one-off purchase games which are doing pretty well; Capcom already has some good games there, and recently, are investing profits from Monster Hunter into mobile gaming development.
Mobile devices are getting more powerful at an alarming rate, driven by competition between the major OS developers and mobile makers and there are increasingly more talented game developers taking more interest in the platform. It is undeniable that there is much money to be made from the large audience. Raising awareness for their games might be an issue for smaller, less well-known developers, but for already established companies, people will still support even if the are 'evil corporations'.
Is this good for gaming then? Well, more games is always good, or is it? The issue with mobile gaming is, well, that they are basically designed for mobile gaming, and not in the way that 3DS and Vita games are. They are meant for very shorts bursts of play, and tend to have 'energy' restrictions or paid boosts.
This is all well and good, because that's how gaming on the go is these days, but the tend to get ported, with all these restrictions carried over, and controls not optimized, plus chances are, suddenly, it's several times more costly. It's the same the other way round too. Games on PC or consoles are getting ported, and again, not optimized for touch controls. However, in this case, devices like controllers for phones and the Nvidia Shield are solving the problem. But do we really need to buy another device...?
Companies need to take more pride in their work and stop doing lazy ports just to make a quick buck. There are companies who do it pretty well within it's limitations like Capcom's Street Fighter. Ultimately, it's still difficult to find good stuff in the mobile space because too many 'non-gamers' will still pick up crap games, and it's practically impossible to review so many games out on the market. Worse, Apple and Google don't seem to mind people ripping off devs and creating clones or already popular games.
Will this ever change? I don't know, but the good thing is as a gaming community, gems do get found and the word is passed around. Also, more gamers is always a good thing, well probably, cause there'll be more pricks too...
Mobile devices are getting more powerful at an alarming rate, driven by competition between the major OS developers and mobile makers and there are increasingly more talented game developers taking more interest in the platform. It is undeniable that there is much money to be made from the large audience. Raising awareness for their games might be an issue for smaller, less well-known developers, but for already established companies, people will still support even if the are 'evil corporations'.
Is this good for gaming then? Well, more games is always good, or is it? The issue with mobile gaming is, well, that they are basically designed for mobile gaming, and not in the way that 3DS and Vita games are. They are meant for very shorts bursts of play, and tend to have 'energy' restrictions or paid boosts.
This is all well and good, because that's how gaming on the go is these days, but the tend to get ported, with all these restrictions carried over, and controls not optimized, plus chances are, suddenly, it's several times more costly. It's the same the other way round too. Games on PC or consoles are getting ported, and again, not optimized for touch controls. However, in this case, devices like controllers for phones and the Nvidia Shield are solving the problem. But do we really need to buy another device...?
Companies need to take more pride in their work and stop doing lazy ports just to make a quick buck. There are companies who do it pretty well within it's limitations like Capcom's Street Fighter. Ultimately, it's still difficult to find good stuff in the mobile space because too many 'non-gamers' will still pick up crap games, and it's practically impossible to review so many games out on the market. Worse, Apple and Google don't seem to mind people ripping off devs and creating clones or already popular games.
Will this ever change? I don't know, but the good thing is as a gaming community, gems do get found and the word is passed around. Also, more gamers is always a good thing, well probably, cause there'll be more pricks too...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)