Pay to Play, Pay more to Evolve

*This blog will be re-released undergoing some changes. We will have the blog featured on different sites with different bonuses on each site. Gamawarenesstwit will feature daily twitter feed with the blog while gamawarenessface will grant you exclusive access to our Facebook fan page! If you pre-order by sending me your hard earned money before this post is published, you can get everything! Oh oh and skins too. I can change the blog to any color you want with the pre-order package! (Do note that I will no longer conclude my posts. Please purchase the season pass for proper conclusions.)*

So Evolve, is trying to evolve the way we pay for games. Sorry though, a few other games have been doing what you did. (how did you decide on which version of Watchdogs to buy anyway?) If you were thinking of buying Evolve, you would have feasted your eyes upon the number of options/add ons that the game can come in. Options are good right? Sure! Unless you are chopping up your game into individual little pieces and selling them off one bit at a time.

All these are available for pre-purchase and will be available on day one, meaning they are already spending time developing it before the game is out. To most of us, this means it should belong in the game. When we think about it, it's true that the developers should have the option authority to decide what to include in the package. But games these days are getting lighter and lighter on content, and truth be told, if we give developers and publishers free reign on this, we'll soon be paying for each individual level and character or even weapon and map. There is no historical proof that they will put their customers first and every evidence that they will screw gamers over and exploit them at every opportunity, down to the very last cent.

This Is how the market works I guess. Sellers will make their products as least value as possible while consumers will pay until it becomes too ridiculous. Gamers however, are willing to pay for the most ridiculous things and will even defend their purchase. I would like to see if there are enough idiots falling for their marketing for more companies to follow suit in this format. As for me, even though I was looking forward to Evolve, I will have to give it a pass. I guess I am not ready yet for this evolution.

Has Early Access Made It OK to Publish Buggy Games?

Another post about buggy games, haha. But I will try to focus this on a different area - Early Access (or, what it really is, Paid Alpha/Beta Access).

Arguably, Early Access is a good way for developers who are facing financial difficulties to receive funding to complete their games. Let's look at it this way, if you've spent years developing your game to a playable state and still need a year or a few months to finish it, then it would be a real shame if your studio closed down just short of completing your hard work. There's where Early Access, and also Kickstarter can help. Also, support for your yet completed game can be a good indicator of how the game will do and possibly attract investors.

Gamers who decide to buy into Early Access, though, must remember that these games are not completed. Well, I'm sure most of us are intelligent enough to figure out as much. Yet, seeing the complains we sometimes get, I do wonder if that is the case. Not to say all feedback is bad though, since it could very much help improve the game. But if you're screaming for the developers to go kill themselves, I really wonder if you like to see the game get completed. (Even zombie games cannot be developed by dead people you know? )

Like it or not, this idea of releasing first, fixing later, has permeated into every facet of the games industry, affecting even those who have the budget and resources to finish development before publishing. (Have you been playing any of Ubisoft's games recently? Ever feel like you're playing some no name indie free to play game?[Oops I lied. Talking about Ubisoft again...]) More indie developers actually take more pride in their work then some of these better known studios these days. A SHAMEFUL DISPLAY!

Do we blame Early Access then? Possibly. The fact is, no matter what new practice of taking advanvtage of thier customers or monetizing format it is, Activision, EA, and Ubisoft will want a slice of it. Free-to-play? Check. "Indie"? Check. Micro-transactions? Check, check, double, triple, quadruple, milliono,  billiono-luple check. Ultimately, players decide whether this is "good" practice by our purchases; we pay, they exploit.

Is gaming going to crash again? I hope not and I doubt so. But if publishers continue to find ways to screw gamers over, we might eventually push back, hard. And the increasing reliance on the internet is worrying.  If internet providers continue to limit the bandwidth and speed of their customers in exchange for higher subscription prices, always online and huge monstrous patches might really cause a video game crash.

Can It or Use It?

Most of us have heard of Blizzard's cancelling of Titan as well as the reveal of Overwatch by now. It's also no secret that Overwatch is most likely what Titan evolved into. Take the Overwatch trailer for example. The ending scene that "the world could use more heroes" just seem like an MMO recruitment speech.

When Titan was cancelled, many were surprised that Blizzard was willing to do so after the time and money spent into making the game, even more so when we learnt that no employees were fired after the announcement. If we just look at other companies in the industry, we'd see that most news of game cancellation would be followed by a studio closing down, even if it were no fault of the developers. But I suspect that more of these 'bad' games would still be published anyway just so they can minimise the losses. But from the looks of things, the developed assets aren't actually wasted, but put to use in 'another' game.

Still, Blizzard's willingness to can games is respectable. Developers get attached to their games, whether it be good or bad. After all, the time and effort that one puts into a game is not to be underestimated, especially 1 of Blizzard's scale and quality. Blizzard has the advantage of being able to reuse their assets in other games, however, a privilege that not all studios have. Most studios work on only a game at a time, and publishers tend not to be so forgiving of a 'bad' project. And does the publisher actually have the right to take the assets and give it to another studio working on another game?

I guess we really can't blame a developer for not being willing to cancel a game that's not going to be too good. At times, developers may be so attached to their baby that they can't see that it is bad. Publishers will also pressurise the developers to publish something that they can at least recoup their losses from. But given time and resources, perhaps change can be made to make it more serviceable? Buggy games though, are less forgivable. All in all, much as I like to say so, but we can't really expect bad games to be cancelled altogether. We just have to exercise better judgement and not jump into games based on hype and marketing. Another repeat of the same lesson... Re you getting sick of it yet?

Triple A, Triple Trash?

I hate to start the year with such a negative post, but what in the world is wrong with publishers these days? It was Activision, then EA and now Ubisoft. For EA though, who has been trying to get their act together and failing, having Ubisoft take over gamer ire is a good thing.

It is no longer news that Ubisoft publishes buggy, and unfortunately, outright broken games. I had stopped boycotting them for their always-online DRM. But before they could publish anything worth my time, they start with their nonsense yet again. Granted, other companies like Blizzard has also been punishing gamers with always-online DRM, and also games that don't work on launch (yes, if your game requires an online connection and the problem is not with the game but the server, it is still NOT working) but at least they keep their products up to date with constant patches and fixes. Ubisoft, however, takes too long to patch their games, instead, focusing their efforts on the next game in the series. With them constantly eroding their customer's trust, I wonder how long it will be before we totally lose faith in them?

I have talked about this before, and I feel that I'm beating on a dead horse, but publishers are taking the internet for granted. Instead of it being a tool to help keep their games updated and providing quality content post launch, they are using it as an excuse to publish games without proper testing, the assumption being that they'll get around to fixing it. Gamers, expecting them to actually take pride in their work, purchase these games on day 1, often times ending up downloading a patch nearly as large as the game itself on installation, only to find game breaking bugs preventing progress. And what makes it worse is that the fixes either take too long or don't happen at all. Have we been too naive to think that the devs will patch their games? After all, they did not actually promise they'll do so, and nowhere on the box does it state that they will. Recently, there are cases where developers have come out and outright say they will no longer patch their games. So, the internet is only for DRM as well as for us to buy DLC, right? And if the sequel is coming right up, do you seriously think that fixes are coming? Which is going to make them money, a fix to a published game, or developing a new title? There have been talks on whether reviews should be updated as games are patched. Granted, this probably applies more to MMOs and free to play, where games can change a lot over time, but it seems more important now that bugs be mentioned in reviews and updates are really necessary since patches aren't necessary.

Perhaps I'm a bit too harsh because I'm not really interested in most Ubisoft games. They tend to follow the same style, borrow mechanics from each of their games and more or less play the same. These days, I tend to wait for game of the year or complete editions since they have all the DLCs and bug fixes, but recently, even complete editions don't have all DLCs (cough, Gearbox, Borderlands 2, cough) and even come with bugs the developers never got around to fixing. Its disappointing, but I do think if games aren't working, they are not complete and do not deserve full price. It sucks that we can't support developers for the games they make, but if this goes on, perhaps more people will stop buying games at full price and wait for discounts. Perhaps more people will choose to wait for fixes and, at that time, pick up used copies that would have inevitably be available by then, denying the publishers and developers the money for those sales. A shame for sure, but I can't really bring myself to say they don't deserve the lost in sales.

The lesson to learn here is the same as the lesson from every other post I've made. Don't but games on day-one, wait for reviews. And if it is a sequel of a sequel of a sequel of a sequel that comes out every year, why in the world are you still paying for the same game!? (OK not really the same game, I'm exaggerating. Go ahead and buy the sequel if you really like the series but don't keep complaining that it's the same thing year after year if you're willing to pay for the same thing year after year.)

Streaming Blizzard Games through Steam

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.)

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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...