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.

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.)

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.

When Using Cheats Became Stealing

Dead Space cheat undermines in-game micro-transactions

 

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.