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It makes me wonder how much games (free-to-play or otherwise) can change given time and how reviews can get outdated so very quickly.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.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Saturday, May 10, 2014
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.
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.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
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...
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...
Monday, April 28, 2014
MMOs, MOBAs and Over Saturation of Genres
It seems that everyone wants a piece of the pie, when it's already stale and what's left are basically left overs. World of Warcraft was massively successful, and then came Rift, The Old Republic, DC Universe Online, and so on. League of Legends led the MOBA free to play market. The FPS boom, RTS era, indie platformers of recent times; games of the same genre tend to follow after a particularly successful game.
This method of jumping on their bandwagon might have worked in the past with the traditional purchase-once-and-play payment model. This is especially true with single player games with fans looking for similar experience on completing a game. Unfortunately, this doesn't work with free-to-play games and MMO due to their persistent nature. Gamers can't possibly carry their character or progress to a totally new game, can they? And if they have pumped money into their game, then it's even less likely for them to switch. Even competitive FPS titles of this generation have a levelling system so gamers are encouraged to stick to a single game, or risk losing all the progress they have made.
Why are companies willing to spend money developing something that is already on the market, and, more often than not, already holds most of the market share? What ends up being released, tends not to differ enough as not to be considered a clone of the first game, fighting for the very people who are invested in the first game. Try as I might, I can't think of a reason. What we've seen in the case of MOBAs is companies like Blizzard trying to differentiate themselves by catering to casual players; other games like Smite and Awesomenauts mixed things up by changing the perspective or even 3D to 2D. Considering the hype behind Blizzard's Heroes of the Storm, perhaps targeting a different audience is the key?
What we gamers get, though, is games with different twists, and possibly, merging of genres resulting in new and innovative game play while outright clones are most likely just going to die out. Competition is always good, as been said on this blog multiple times, so if companies are willing to throw their money away, I guess I'm not going to complain. Well, not too much.
This method of jumping on their bandwagon might have worked in the past with the traditional purchase-once-and-play payment model. This is especially true with single player games with fans looking for similar experience on completing a game. Unfortunately, this doesn't work with free-to-play games and MMO due to their persistent nature. Gamers can't possibly carry their character or progress to a totally new game, can they? And if they have pumped money into their game, then it's even less likely for them to switch. Even competitive FPS titles of this generation have a levelling system so gamers are encouraged to stick to a single game, or risk losing all the progress they have made.
Why are companies willing to spend money developing something that is already on the market, and, more often than not, already holds most of the market share? What ends up being released, tends not to differ enough as not to be considered a clone of the first game, fighting for the very people who are invested in the first game. Try as I might, I can't think of a reason. What we've seen in the case of MOBAs is companies like Blizzard trying to differentiate themselves by catering to casual players; other games like Smite and Awesomenauts mixed things up by changing the perspective or even 3D to 2D. Considering the hype behind Blizzard's Heroes of the Storm, perhaps targeting a different audience is the key?
What we gamers get, though, is games with different twists, and possibly, merging of genres resulting in new and innovative game play while outright clones are most likely just going to die out. Competition is always good, as been said on this blog multiple times, so if companies are willing to throw their money away, I guess I'm not going to complain. Well, not too much.
Monday, April 21, 2014
The Oculus Rage
The Oculus Rift was bought over by Facebook, and people are livid. What started as a Kickstarter gaming project grew in popularity and interest, eventually attracting even the social network giant. But people, whom I have to assume are mostly gamers, are upset with the turn of events. I wondered what the matter was, and why would people care who owns Oculus as long as the backers get their set at their end of their day? But this article at Gamespot helped me understand why this was so.
And the issue is with the nature of Kickstarter. I have no idea how the makers of the Oculus Rift made their pitch to their backers, but most people would feel a sense of ownership of the product, having been part of the startup project, even if all being a backer entitled you to was the game or item, plus any bonuses for giving more money. Many feel that using Kickstarter was an alternative to funding a project without having to submit to a larger corporation, and is the desire of the developers to keep the product 'untainted', and indeed, we do see some game developers pitching their Kickstarter that way, like Project Goddus. However, I was not involved in the Oculus Kickstarter project as a backer, so I'm not sure if this was their pitch and if it wasn't, then it is not reasonable for backers to be against the acquisition.
Not that it matters of course. Because being a backer does not make us a shareholder in spite of the sense of ownership. When we look at the backing tiers in a project, nowhere does it say we are purchasing shares, and usually, it's just the product with bonuses the higher we go.
And this might be an issue, considering how Kickstarter projects are pitched - 'help us make this', 'work with us to create this'. Perhaps just saying 'buy this' might be better, but since there's no product, they can't say that either. As backers, we should learn to accept the fact that we are just paying for the possibility of playing or owning and nothing else. If we get to give input in the design, great, but otherwise, it might just as well be a pre-order.
And the issue is with the nature of Kickstarter. I have no idea how the makers of the Oculus Rift made their pitch to their backers, but most people would feel a sense of ownership of the product, having been part of the startup project, even if all being a backer entitled you to was the game or item, plus any bonuses for giving more money. Many feel that using Kickstarter was an alternative to funding a project without having to submit to a larger corporation, and is the desire of the developers to keep the product 'untainted', and indeed, we do see some game developers pitching their Kickstarter that way, like Project Goddus. However, I was not involved in the Oculus Kickstarter project as a backer, so I'm not sure if this was their pitch and if it wasn't, then it is not reasonable for backers to be against the acquisition.
Not that it matters of course. Because being a backer does not make us a shareholder in spite of the sense of ownership. When we look at the backing tiers in a project, nowhere does it say we are purchasing shares, and usually, it's just the product with bonuses the higher we go.
And this might be an issue, considering how Kickstarter projects are pitched - 'help us make this', 'work with us to create this'. Perhaps just saying 'buy this' might be better, but since there's no product, they can't say that either. As backers, we should learn to accept the fact that we are just paying for the possibility of playing or owning and nothing else. If we get to give input in the design, great, but otherwise, it might just as well be a pre-order.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
Pay to Beta Test?
Once upon a time, the purpose of beta tests was to detect and iron out bugs before games were released. Betas were free and sometimes, testers were even paid specially to search for bugs that normally wouldn't be detected in a casual play through.
Now, a 'beta' is more like a demo for the masses to try out a game. Sometimes, they were an incentive to pre-order a title. But mostly, they are hype builders and advertisements, and as such, betas are open only if the developers know the game is any good, or is it?
Betas can get away with a lot of issues; after all, a game that is still a work in progress can be excused right? Well, currently, people can purchase games that are still incomplete in the form of early access games. Some of these games are like this because of kickstarter backer rewards in the form of alpha and beta access. However, there are games that have been in 'beta' for a long time, raking in sales while being excused of their brokenness. And what is the incentive of coming out of beta? Will people still be interested in a game that has been on the market for so long? Can a game get away with bugs and incompleteness by being perpetually in beta or alpha?
Free to play games have gotten in the 'beta' fever as well. In closed the alphas and betas of many games, we are given the option of buying into the game. These 'founder packs' are a way to make impatient people pay for an otherwise free title. Should the game be officially 'released' and open to everyone, will these people actually pay any amount of money? It's hard to tell, but certainly there will be some who won't. Is there an issue to this? Probably not, but it's important to note that for most of these games, you can buy stuff with real money even in alpha or beta, and there are cases where the game gets shut down, never to be 'released'. What happens to the money spent on buying in and on items in the cash shop?
I have a few games on early access because I helped kickstart the games, and in the initial phases, they were pretty unplayable, which, funnily enough, meant it was a real beta. However, I realized this would spoil the game for me on official release if I spent too much time, not story-wise, but in the sense that the game might start to bore me. Probably this won't be an issue for most people and most games, but for multi player games, losing people before official release is not a good thing.
Yes, I know you feel like a beta tester playing Battlefield 3, but at least they were brave enough to put it out for critique, so that might be another post. I am not too keen on paying to beta test, but if playing broken games is your thing, feel free. But beware of games that never get released, or you might just end up like a kickstarter backer who gave money for a game that ends up in the void, never to see the light of day.
Now, a 'beta' is more like a demo for the masses to try out a game. Sometimes, they were an incentive to pre-order a title. But mostly, they are hype builders and advertisements, and as such, betas are open only if the developers know the game is any good, or is it?
Betas can get away with a lot of issues; after all, a game that is still a work in progress can be excused right? Well, currently, people can purchase games that are still incomplete in the form of early access games. Some of these games are like this because of kickstarter backer rewards in the form of alpha and beta access. However, there are games that have been in 'beta' for a long time, raking in sales while being excused of their brokenness. And what is the incentive of coming out of beta? Will people still be interested in a game that has been on the market for so long? Can a game get away with bugs and incompleteness by being perpetually in beta or alpha?
Free to play games have gotten in the 'beta' fever as well. In closed the alphas and betas of many games, we are given the option of buying into the game. These 'founder packs' are a way to make impatient people pay for an otherwise free title. Should the game be officially 'released' and open to everyone, will these people actually pay any amount of money? It's hard to tell, but certainly there will be some who won't. Is there an issue to this? Probably not, but it's important to note that for most of these games, you can buy stuff with real money even in alpha or beta, and there are cases where the game gets shut down, never to be 'released'. What happens to the money spent on buying in and on items in the cash shop?
I have a few games on early access because I helped kickstart the games, and in the initial phases, they were pretty unplayable, which, funnily enough, meant it was a real beta. However, I realized this would spoil the game for me on official release if I spent too much time, not story-wise, but in the sense that the game might start to bore me. Probably this won't be an issue for most people and most games, but for multi player games, losing people before official release is not a good thing.
Yes, I know you feel like a beta tester playing Battlefield 3, but at least they were brave enough to put it out for critique, so that might be another post. I am not too keen on paying to beta test, but if playing broken games is your thing, feel free. But beware of games that never get released, or you might just end up like a kickstarter backer who gave money for a game that ends up in the void, never to see the light of day.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)