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?
Showing posts with label Blizzard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blizzard. Show all posts
Monday, January 19, 2015
Friday, October 31, 2014
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.
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.
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.
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, 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 29, 2013
Always-On, DRM or Game Feature?
EA has come out and said DRM is a "failed, dead-end strategy" and that always-online for Sim City isn't DRM at all. That's pretty convenient. But I guess piracy is a failed, dead-end strategy for gamers who want more games because companies that don't earn money can't keep making games, however, torrenting isn't piracy either, it's just file sharing so that is fine, right?
Is having always-online in a game really beneficial for gamers and the company? Most gamers would scream out "NO", so why do companies still do it? Some reasons have been brought up, like the integrity of the game, especially if money is involved, like Diablo 3, or having a game where people can be interconnected, like SimCity. But why can't this be, say, OPTIONAL? Because if people can choose, companies will make less money? For Diablo, they want you to always consider the auction house, and so keep you online, and in the case of SimCity, because there are people visiting your cities, it would make it desirable for you to own premium buildings just to show it off?
And what if it were DRM? Does it benefit the company in anyway? I guess the pirates might have a harder time getting a free copy, or in the case of Diablo 3, probably not at all, but still, do you really expect the pirates to buy the game, and even if by some miracle, some do, will the money you earn from the 5 of them makeup for the maybe thousands that don't buy the game because they can't play it?
Will so many online distribution platforms, games can sell so much longer after they have been released. Sites like GoG are even fixing old games go help them run better on modern systems. But for games with an always online requirement, their lifespan is limited by the servers. These games can't keep selling simply because games cost less the longer it gets. After some time, the amount of money made cannot offset the costs of maintaining the servers, and because EA is famous for shutting down servers, I'm not sure if it's worth getting SimCity later at a discount as you never know when the servers are going down. So by limiting the lifespan of their games, they are doing themselves a disservice. (On that note, have you ever thought of what would happen if Steam were to shut down?)
And what of the consumers? Servers cost money to run, maintenance costs money as well, and the servers themselves are an investment, and this is why there are always launch problems. Did you think they really have no idea how it'll sell? There are pre-orders that give them a pretty good idea of how many servers are needed, but in order to save money, they would rather underestimate because launch day or launch week is probably the only time they'll get so many concurrent users. Over time, people stop playing, and the investment on the servers will be wasted. If that's the case, it would be wiser to let the consumers suffer during the launch, and hopefully, the company can get past the rough period with minimal additional costs, and when less people play, the available servers will sort themselves out.
Consumers hate DRM, and will bash a game to the ground, and EA has wisely agreed with consumers in order to get into their good books. Yet, in order to justify what they did with SimCity, they are forced to try and say that it is not DRM. I guess that is like claiming pirating games for demo purposes and not buying it even if one likes the games...
Oh, and just when I finished my draft, this:
How to solve this? I don't know... maybe start another separate server just for people who want to play without the auction house? And maybe add in single-player local play while you're at it?
Friday, February 8, 2013
When Using Cheats Became Stealing
When Diablo 3 was released, it blurred the line between single-player games and MMOs. Here was a game that is a single-player game with multiplayer options of up to 4 people, yet had elements of MMOs that meant things that were OK in single player and even multiplayer games of the past were no longer acceptable. Let me explain...
MMOs have a large player base, numbering up to millions, though technically, the most you might meet or play with number in the hundreds. Because of that, there is a complicated social interaction at play that developers have to pay special attention to when developing g and patching their game. Bugs that can be exploited for better gear or currency had to be fixed and in-game benefits gained from said exploit removed, even disciplinary actions against the offending player, all because of the perception of the other players who will deem it unfair that the offending player could brain an edge over them.
Such issues should only be a concern in multiplayer games, or more specifically, competitive games, but recently, and especially because of Diablo 3, we are seeing that even single player games that blatantly have micro-transactions that give the player an advantage. We already had those in the past - cheats and bugs. But now, because of the monetization of cheats, exploiting bugs in even single player games are seen as wrong and even illegal? This is pretty ridiculous if you're like me and have played games before the current generation of consoles.
Blizzard took a gamble with Diablo 3 and it paid off. Now EA is following suit and other companies to. Will there come a day when finding and making use of bugs in games is illegal because you are techically by-passing paid dlc cheats to gain an advantage in the game? I shudder to even think of such a possibility...
Edit: Apparently EA says it's ok. So kind of an over-reaction on my part.
Edit: Apparently EA says it's ok. So kind of an over-reaction on my part.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Lessons that should have been learnt by Blizzard?
Most gamers have gotten their hands on Diablo 3 (D3) are and are spending a lot of time fighting the minions of hell. The release has been troubling, but nevertheless, the great gameplay of Blizzard games still hold up to the flaws of the DRM.
The server crashes on the first day was surprising, considering Blizzard held a stress test that worked (i.e. stressed the server enough to crash it), and that, with the number of pre-orders they received, should have given them enough information to determine how much server resources they would require. The only unknown is that of online purchases made on release day, or shortly before that.
There have been cases of hacking, and that is hardly surprising with the Real Money Auction House and character data saves been made on the Blizzard server instead of the client's machine. But interestingly, unlike World of Warcraft (WoW), when Blizzard restores your items after you report a hacking, your character is rolled back to a much earlier state, potentially losing levels and the latest acquired gear.
The last I checked, Blizzard made WoW, and like WoW, D3 has persistent online DRM, characters stored on Blizzard servers, and has gameplay that's heavily gear dependent. Also, WoW faced all the problems currently plaguing D3, like poor server stability launch-day and hacking, so why isn't Blizzard doing what WoW did?
(The later part of this post is going to devolve into a Real Money Auction House [RMAH] rant.)
The fact that we have to be always online to play is not purely for fighting piracy, but also because Blizzard needs to have the characters on their servers to prevent people from hacking to get better items. Items equals money with the RMAH, and having a surplus of items in the market will push costs down, making items not worth selling, dropping sales and thus Blizzard will earn less money from it. Players who prefer to play single player are thus forced to be online all the time.
The restoration system likely works for the same reason. You don't get back your most recent gear because they are not going to make another copy of it. The hacker has it, and giving returning to gear to the player increases the number of copies of the item. Granted, the player might not sell it immediately, but in future he may, and if Blizzard rolls back the items on the character so easily, players can easily fake a hack, passing expensive items to another account and then reporting to get more items to sell.
A lot of problems of D3 are there simply because of the RMAH, which aggravatingly, isn't even ready yet. I am against the RMAH, but very keen to see how it will affect the economy. Will gold be rendered useless? Will the gold auction house still have high quality items? It would make sense to sell it for real money if I'm honest. Of course, you could sell gold for money and then use the money to get items from the RMAH, and Blizzard will happily take a cut from both sales.
The server crashes on the first day was surprising, considering Blizzard held a stress test that worked (i.e. stressed the server enough to crash it), and that, with the number of pre-orders they received, should have given them enough information to determine how much server resources they would require. The only unknown is that of online purchases made on release day, or shortly before that.
There have been cases of hacking, and that is hardly surprising with the Real Money Auction House and character data saves been made on the Blizzard server instead of the client's machine. But interestingly, unlike World of Warcraft (WoW), when Blizzard restores your items after you report a hacking, your character is rolled back to a much earlier state, potentially losing levels and the latest acquired gear.
The last I checked, Blizzard made WoW, and like WoW, D3 has persistent online DRM, characters stored on Blizzard servers, and has gameplay that's heavily gear dependent. Also, WoW faced all the problems currently plaguing D3, like poor server stability launch-day and hacking, so why isn't Blizzard doing what WoW did?
(The later part of this post is going to devolve into a Real Money Auction House [RMAH] rant.)
The fact that we have to be always online to play is not purely for fighting piracy, but also because Blizzard needs to have the characters on their servers to prevent people from hacking to get better items. Items equals money with the RMAH, and having a surplus of items in the market will push costs down, making items not worth selling, dropping sales and thus Blizzard will earn less money from it. Players who prefer to play single player are thus forced to be online all the time.
The restoration system likely works for the same reason. You don't get back your most recent gear because they are not going to make another copy of it. The hacker has it, and giving returning to gear to the player increases the number of copies of the item. Granted, the player might not sell it immediately, but in future he may, and if Blizzard rolls back the items on the character so easily, players can easily fake a hack, passing expensive items to another account and then reporting to get more items to sell.
A lot of problems of D3 are there simply because of the RMAH, which aggravatingly, isn't even ready yet. I am against the RMAH, but very keen to see how it will affect the economy. Will gold be rendered useless? Will the gold auction house still have high quality items? It would make sense to sell it for real money if I'm honest. Of course, you could sell gold for money and then use the money to get items from the RMAH, and Blizzard will happily take a cut from both sales.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Release day from Hell
I have Diablo 3, and I have the time, but I'm choosing not to play it, but to observe the forums and facebook and 'listen' to the complains. This is the reason why I don't support always-on DRM, and this is why I don't play games with such requirements on release day, esp those that have millions of people waiting to play. This was the case when this form of DRM first came out for Assassin's Creed 2 (http://www.geek.com/articles/games/assassins-creed-2-unplayable-as-ubisoft-drm-servers-go-down-2010037/), and then later for the various MMORPGs (which have to be always-on, but day 1 issues still isn't acceptable). But I guess it doesn't affect me as much since I don't play them on release day.
Perhaps it's the skeptic in me, but I've the feeling that Blizzard has been slowly testing the gamers and 'socializing' them to accept always-on DRM. When I look back at Starcraft II, it is obvious that always-on DRM had been subtly at work in the title. You might say 'you can play offline!' but did you really try to do that? At launch, you could only play one offline account, and your progress on the offline account could not be linked to your online account, no achievements, no saves, and I do not think you can play custom games on that. In Diablo 3, they added a way to monetize their game in addition to having players pay to access the game. I wonder what they'll do next with their next game?
At least we know Blizzard is one company that responds fast and well, so have fun guys, I'm sure the issues will be resolved soon more or less.
P.S. For those who think that people who cry about this are just making a fuss out of nothing, I hope this does not happen to you:
http://www.vg247.com/2011/09/08/the-day-i-realised-always-on-drm-moaners-have-a-point/
Perhaps it's the skeptic in me, but I've the feeling that Blizzard has been slowly testing the gamers and 'socializing' them to accept always-on DRM. When I look back at Starcraft II, it is obvious that always-on DRM had been subtly at work in the title. You might say 'you can play offline!' but did you really try to do that? At launch, you could only play one offline account, and your progress on the offline account could not be linked to your online account, no achievements, no saves, and I do not think you can play custom games on that. In Diablo 3, they added a way to monetize their game in addition to having players pay to access the game. I wonder what they'll do next with their next game?
At least we know Blizzard is one company that responds fast and well, so have fun guys, I'm sure the issues will be resolved soon more or less.
P.S. For those who think that people who cry about this are just making a fuss out of nothing, I hope this does not happen to you:
http://www.vg247.com/2011/09/08/the-day-i-realised-always-on-drm-moaners-have-a-point/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)