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.

All YouR Videos Are Belong to Us!

YouTube, the place that made 'viewing' games popular. Just not too long ago, people checked out games before buying by reading a review or previews on magazines or online sites, or by looking for an ultra-accurate, totally unbiased and completely and utterly agreed upon game rating to determine if a game is any good. (No it isn't, stop getting mad just because someone rated a game you like lower than what you expected.) Just these few years, we get to watch how the game is in ever increasing resolution on YouTube through video reviews and Let's Plays. And YouTube personalities have made a name for themselves through playing games.

The recent YouTube claims debacle causes us to ask this question that has undoubtedly been on the minds of many a publisher and developer - is allowing Let's Plays helping or hurting game sales? Like piracy, this is difficult to answer because, for those who don't buy the games but choose to watch instead, will they actually buy if they don't get to view it online? Personally, I'd only watch games I don't intend to buy, and even then, I'd only watch certain players, like Jesse Cox if it's a game that I'm really interested in the lore. So an argument can be made that it's the person making the video as well. Obviously it's not the case for me since I only watch very few games, but it's most likely these people can get views no matter what they play. And if by any chance, you're wrong in saying that it hurts sales, then wouldn't these people be advertising your competitors' games instead? It might be just a coincidence, but Nintendo is doing very poorly now since it took monetization away from YouTubers in 2013, Blizzard didn't but in fact, encouraged YouTubers to showcase their games, and even though it used oppressive DRM like always online, it got away with it. There are many other factors like general view of the company in question of course, so this might not be indicative of the influence of YouTubers.

This is not the only issue. Is giving publishers and developers the power to take monetization rights from video creators and shutting down videos at any time good for us since they can easily take down negative reviews? (Don't get me wrong, it actually hurts the devs since word will get out, especially if it's a large channel and that can actually backfire in the form of a mass boycott. In fact, it's actually VERY stupid.) YouTube's pro-developer and publishers policies are not helping either. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that the original copyright holder should get a greater benefit of the doubt, but giving the copy right holder an automatic claim and full monetization rights for just a small fraction of the video is too much. At most, the system should send an alert to ask if they wish to claim it, and even then, they only get a fraction of the revenue based on how much content is used. Any money earned from the video during the dispute should also go to the rightful party after the dispute is settled, and not lost to the video creator.

Why would YouTube do this? It is an effective way to cover their asses; it puts the power in the hands of the copyright holders. In other words, it's sucking up to big corporations with little to no effort for them once the system is in place. But well, it's a good chance for other platforms like Twitch to shine, since the PS4 and Xbox One is no doubt strengthening their influence. Hopefully, YouTubers can find other more stable sources of income, and just like anything else, competition is always good!

Game Developers, Used Games and the Fans

There are rumours popping up that the next Xbox will be blocking used games. While this isn't the first time that rumours like this have surfaced, it is gaining more attention as we await the upcoming announcements regarding these new consoles.

Most people think this is a stupid idea because if only one of the consoles does go ahead with this, its rival will definitely gain the upper hand, or will it?

One thing to note is that if a console does block used games, it will most likely be more attractive for developers to release games on that console. Used games make up a large part in sales in brick and mortar stores, and it is said that certain stores will actively promote the sale of used games because of the higher profits. Publishers and developers gain no revenue from these sales, and it is understandable why they would go through lengths to deny this. Current measures include the online pass, promised DLCs, and locking achievements to a single account. If a console does block used games, it will be a huge draw for developers.

So then, will the console with more owners win out, or will the one with more games gain popularity? It will come down to whether gamers stick to their guns and support used games as an option, or sell-out and buy the less desirable console just so they can play the next big game. And looking at the trend of the gaming industry now, it is likely the gamers will give in. Already we are seeing gamers ignoring poor business practices and buying games with offensive DRM and supporting publishers that exploit their customers, and this is also because publishers cleverly do such things only on games that are highly anticipated. Take Capcom for example and it's on-disk DLC on Street Fighter x Tekken but not doing so on the new IP, Dragon's Dogma, or EA realizing the popularity and gamers' need to play the newest game in the series of Dead Space 3 and Mass Effect 3 and adding micro-transactions, essential story day-one DLC and the like. So will gamers take it line, hook and sinker?

I don't personally think it's true because the rumours came with the Xbox having an always-online requirement. But then again, Microsoft came up with Games for Windows Live, so they aren't really that smart after all...

Is Advancement In Gaming Sustainable?

Games are rapidly becoming more and more impressive graphically, musically and in terms of scope. As the next generation of consoles appear starting with the WiiU and followed by Sony's and Microsoft's next gen consoles, games will require more money and manpower to churn out. Costs of making games will increase and so will the profit that investors expect from developers.

What concerns me is that now games need to sell much better than before to be considered a success. Kingdoms of Amalur did pretty well in my opinion, selling 330, 000 copies, yet the studio closed down. There are many other studios shut down, or faced layoffs by EA and Activision.

If this is going to be the pattern of things, we may well see a drastic drop in creative titles from big name publishers, instead just getting remakes, sequels and established IPs. Creative titles will come from Indie devs, usually without the high production values from publisher funded games. The 'middle' budget games will slowly disappear and it's sad because this is normally where new franchises appear.

Support for companies

Do people buy games because they are good or because they love the developer? I hardly have time to play my games - competitive ones require time to be skilled at them, RPGs tend to be more engaging and immersing if played for longer stretches each gaming session, and co-op play with friends or strangers simply do not allow the flexibility in gaming time. As such, I do end up buying games to support the developers, especially those whose publishers have good business practices.

Recently, especially, with less time and even less money due to having a kid, I am getting even more religious and selective in my support for companies. I still am keen in gaming, even if it's for small stretches at a time. I still want to pay for good games to good companies (though 'good' is a pretty subjective word).

There's always this difference between publishers and developers. We often hear of EA or Activision, and generally put the blame on publishers yet buy games because they are made by certain developers. But is the truth really because of the publishers? Or is the blame just being pushed to them so they can still sell the games because of the developers, and yet still get to exploit their customers, having their cake and eating it? How can we tell the difference and who are we actually 'supporting'?

If you have limited amount of cash and time, would you buy popular games with questionable business practices, or not so popular games that are good but not great? Does business practices alone indicate a good company or does quality games dictate that? Or more likely, both?