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...
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)