*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.
Showing posts with label exploit gamers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label exploit gamers. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Saturday, June 28, 2014
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!
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!
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Free Lunch? Really?
Free-to-play is getting really popular with publishers, especially with MOBAs (and really, who isn't making a MOBA these days?). Gamers are getting more choices for nothing, and that's great! Gone are the days when 'free' means 'it sucks' and developers are wise to move (or, as we'll see, try to move) away from buying power. Even consoles are getting into the free-to-play market. But no, mobile free-to-play doesn't count - it's still pretty much exploitative of gamers over there.
One issue with free-to-play, however, is that some companies just don't get it. Though some of the examples I'm giving might be from iOS and Android, (and we know how clueless developers are on that platform) and might be games from companies like EA, things are just slightly better on PC and consoles. Unlocking weapons are not done very well for the most part for FPS (paying to unlock more powerful weapons), and the one real strategy game, Age Of Empires Online, locks up so much content and items that you can get but not use without paying, that it might as well be a long demo.
Worse, games may be designed with the payment model in mind and are made to be as grindy as possible so people are tempted to pay to skip. The new Plants Vs Zombies 2 is so lacking in content when compared to the first game, and reuses maps by locking levels behind 'stars' that you have to collect by replaying levels. Some levels are extremely hard, making you wonder if it's to make you pay for the power ups to get through them. And speaking of power ups, these are so insanely broken that the game becomes extremely easy if you do use them. Talk about greed damaging the integrity of the game. Even the Injustice game on iOS by NetherRealms, a company that is pretty respectable in it's monetization models, is designed to be almost impossible to complete unless you spend money, or lots and lots of time.
And money, oh how they love thee. Free-to-play games, even if they almost do not require that you spend money on them, can cost a ton for the simplest of items. Path of Exile, a game whom the dev have made it so well that you can experience the game to its fullest without spending a dime, has a pet that actually costs $55 worth of points (though I can understand since they won't probably make any money at all since the game is so fair to its customers). And you'll be surprised how much these games can add up to just by paying for a bit of these extras - it could easily cost multiple full priced games. Understandably, the studio has to make a lot of money from the few that pay so others can play for free. It would be nice if we can pay for, let's say the price of a boxed game and get everything, just like buying a normal retail game. Then again, if you pay to unlock everything, is the game still worth playing, since you just took the progression out of it?
Publishers also have to worry about committing too much into free-to-play games. These games, by nature, have to be addictive with a lot of content, much like MMOs, and gamers can't afford to sink too much time into too many of them. This means competition is high and with so many games already in the market from the various genres, it'll be tough to capture an audience for new free-to-play games since gamers can't 'complete' the existing ones and move on to new ones, especially if they have sank money into them. There are still genres that do not have successful free-to-play modeled games though, like RTS and Turn-based-Strategy, so there's money to be made for the studio who makes a good game with a successful payment model. I personally can't see how it can be done effectively, but then again, I didn't expect and action RPG like Path of Exile to do it, but Grinding Gear Games pulled it off pretty well.
At the end of the day, whether it's a free-to-play, a subscription based, or a buy once plus DLC model, each model has its merits, and it is good that as gamers, we get games from these different models along with the pros and cons from each. Be warned though, that there are a lot of us who aren't happy when you combine all these payment models into a game to milk consumers and compromise your game as a result of your greed...
One issue with free-to-play, however, is that some companies just don't get it. Though some of the examples I'm giving might be from iOS and Android, (and we know how clueless developers are on that platform) and might be games from companies like EA, things are just slightly better on PC and consoles. Unlocking weapons are not done very well for the most part for FPS (paying to unlock more powerful weapons), and the one real strategy game, Age Of Empires Online, locks up so much content and items that you can get but not use without paying, that it might as well be a long demo.
Worse, games may be designed with the payment model in mind and are made to be as grindy as possible so people are tempted to pay to skip. The new Plants Vs Zombies 2 is so lacking in content when compared to the first game, and reuses maps by locking levels behind 'stars' that you have to collect by replaying levels. Some levels are extremely hard, making you wonder if it's to make you pay for the power ups to get through them. And speaking of power ups, these are so insanely broken that the game becomes extremely easy if you do use them. Talk about greed damaging the integrity of the game. Even the Injustice game on iOS by NetherRealms, a company that is pretty respectable in it's monetization models, is designed to be almost impossible to complete unless you spend money, or lots and lots of time.
And money, oh how they love thee. Free-to-play games, even if they almost do not require that you spend money on them, can cost a ton for the simplest of items. Path of Exile, a game whom the dev have made it so well that you can experience the game to its fullest without spending a dime, has a pet that actually costs $55 worth of points (though I can understand since they won't probably make any money at all since the game is so fair to its customers). And you'll be surprised how much these games can add up to just by paying for a bit of these extras - it could easily cost multiple full priced games. Understandably, the studio has to make a lot of money from the few that pay so others can play for free. It would be nice if we can pay for, let's say the price of a boxed game and get everything, just like buying a normal retail game. Then again, if you pay to unlock everything, is the game still worth playing, since you just took the progression out of it?
Publishers also have to worry about committing too much into free-to-play games. These games, by nature, have to be addictive with a lot of content, much like MMOs, and gamers can't afford to sink too much time into too many of them. This means competition is high and with so many games already in the market from the various genres, it'll be tough to capture an audience for new free-to-play games since gamers can't 'complete' the existing ones and move on to new ones, especially if they have sank money into them. There are still genres that do not have successful free-to-play modeled games though, like RTS and Turn-based-Strategy, so there's money to be made for the studio who makes a good game with a successful payment model. I personally can't see how it can be done effectively, but then again, I didn't expect and action RPG like Path of Exile to do it, but Grinding Gear Games pulled it off pretty well.
At the end of the day, whether it's a free-to-play, a subscription based, or a buy once plus DLC model, each model has its merits, and it is good that as gamers, we get games from these different models along with the pros and cons from each. Be warned though, that there are a lot of us who aren't happy when you combine all these payment models into a game to milk consumers and compromise your game as a result of your greed...
Thursday, February 7, 2013
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)