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...

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!

iGaming, playDroid

Mobile phones and tablets are all the rage this generation, so it's no surprise that game publishers are putting more and more focus into making games that will reach the masses. EA, Square Enix and Capcom are just a few companies that have produced pretty decent games on the mobile platform. Because free-to-play is so popular on mobile, plus, you can pretty much get away with all sorts of horrible business practices there due to the large amount of horrible games which are pretty much cash-grabs already present, it's pretty attractive. Square Enix has some of the most expensive games on mobile, even if they are horrible ports; EA has free-to-play and one-off purchase games which are doing pretty well; Capcom already has some good games there, and recently, are investing profits from Monster Hunter into mobile gaming development.

Mobile devices are getting more powerful at an alarming rate, driven by competition between the major OS developers and mobile makers and there are increasingly more talented game developers taking more interest in the platform. It is undeniable that there is much money to be made from the large audience. Raising awareness for their games might be an issue for smaller, less well-known developers, but for already established companies, people will still support even if the are 'evil corporations'.

Is this good for gaming then? Well, more games is always good, or is it? The issue with mobile gaming is, well, that they are basically designed for mobile gaming, and not in the way that 3DS and Vita games are. They are meant for very shorts bursts of play, and tend to have 'energy' restrictions or paid boosts.

This is all well and good, because that's how gaming on the go is these days, but the tend to get ported, with all these restrictions carried over, and controls not optimized, plus chances are, suddenly, it's several times more costly. It's the same the other way round too. Games on PC or consoles are getting ported, and again, not optimized for touch controls. However, in this case, devices like controllers for phones and the Nvidia Shield are solving the problem. But do we really need to buy another device...?

Companies need to take more pride in their work and stop doing lazy ports just to make a quick buck. There are companies who do it pretty well within it's limitations like Capcom's Street Fighter. Ultimately, it's still difficult to find good stuff in the mobile space because too many 'non-gamers' will still pick up crap games, and it's practically impossible to review so many games out on the market. Worse, Apple and Google don't seem to mind people ripping off devs and creating clones or already popular games.

Will this ever change? I don't know, but the good thing is as a gaming community, gems do get found and the word is passed around. Also, more gamers is always a good thing, well probably, cause there'll be more pricks too...

Console Digital

XBone, how have thee changed over the months. Microsoft had tried, without much understanding from gamers, to curb down on used ga!es and shift focus onto its online store. Why has it failed while Steam has succeeded? Why didn't Microsoft, or any other online distributors for that matter, learn anything from Steam?

If Microsoft or Sony wants people to be invested in their online store, deep discounts for older games !might be the way to go. Once people start to buy their first game, they are more likely to commit. Of course, the store must be able to advertise such sales well. I have no idea if Microsoft does that, but Sony's Plus system with free games is actually getting people into their ecosystem. I started buying games on PSN because of that, and on GoG because of free games as well.

But an issue with Sony's store is the extremely slow download rate. If your infrastructure is poor, it's not going to be pleasant experience, and people are going to be turned off. And the consoles should be designed with that in mind. Considering we're in the 'next gen' now, I'm surprised the hard disk drives are only 500gb. If you're expecting people to buy and download games, especially now that games are expected to be a lot larger, did you think that would be enough?

If console makers are hoping that digital sales might be the answer to used games, this might be their chance to get people in. That already made a mistake with their launch consult hard drive size, but hopefully they can make good changes to their online stores and future editions to their consoles so by the time the next generation rolls out, gamers will be less resistant to the changes. But, always, always leave the choice for disk based used games for gamers.

Error 33

Blizzard Talks Diablo III’s New Path, Defends Online Req

Really? I'm kind of sick of developers treating legitimate customers like criminals by shoving DRM down our throat and now you want to treat us like idiots as well? Well, if it's meant to be played online, are you discriminating against your PlayStation players by not providing this awesome always-online experience? What makes them (as well as me because I do own a PlayStation) so undeserving of your full commitment to deliver to us the ultimate online gaming experience? Please male the PlayStation version of Diablo 3 always on as well. It's not fair that we don't get this feature.

It's starting to become obvious that the always-on feature in Diablo 3 is as a DRM. Now that the auction house is removed, their excuse for the persistent internet requirement is gone, and now they are looking for an excuse (and in fact have an excellent one as you can read from the interview) that they can fool their fans with. Even Heart of the Swarm (which I foolishly bought assuming it had the same system as Wings of Liberty) removed offline play.

Developers know that always-on doesn't sit well with gamers, so in order to still have it, they design the game with systems so as to justify it, and we saw how well that worked with the new SimCity as well as Diablo 3 hardcore mode. This was one of the reasons I only finished normal mode in hardcore for Diablo 3. I didn't play softcore because of the real money auction house, and it wasn't exciting nor fun. Yet hardcore was frustrating thanks to deaths due to lag, and my country's internet connection is considered pretty good compared to most of the world so I can't imaging how others play.

Always-on had another side effect - friends. I wanted to challenge myself, yet I get people dropping into my game and loading me with good gear or rushing me through the game, and it became increasingly rude to keep rejecting them. You know, some of us want to play offline, some of us want be play games to be alone, and no, being on social media and playing games with people over the internet is NOT being sociable. People are rude and dumb over the net, and if I want to play with friends, I do NOT need to be always on because I CAN contact them, because they are, well BY FRIENDS.

Quit being an idiot and assuming everyone's at your level because we can tell. The idiocy you see on your forums and YouTube comments represent the vocal minority, so just because most of them are not too bright, doesn't mean that all your consumers are.

Phew, got it out and oh well, back to boycotting your always-on DRM. (We generally accept always-on for free-to-play games, but even DotA 2 is adding LAN mode. So what's your excuse for not having LAN for SC2 tournaments? I know, monopoly and control.) (Yes, I know DotA 2 LAN still requires an internet connection, but I'm sick of seeing d/c at tournaments. At least the PCs are connected over LAN while the connection is merely to verify the copy of the game so d/c's or lag won't affect the game.) Wonder when it is when we can really combat piracy without punishing legitimate consumers, or is it even possible? Perhaps when we get fed up and totally stop purchasing games with such restrictions, and perhaps only then, will we know.

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...

Kicking Pains

Kickstarter, how mistaken I was to not have seen the negatives of this particular form of supporting game creation. Or rather, I had missed out some crucial elements when I last posted about this, elements which have now become much more visible as more projects move on to their final phase of completion.

Kickstarter is still A powerful way for people to vote for the games they want created with their wallets, and indeed we have seen how big some of these wallets are, but we are now seeing how some small and new developers (and even some established ones) are unable to properly handle and manage the funds offered to them. There are games that fail to live up to their expectations and promises, and worse, some that are not even completed due to the studio running out of funds.

Understandably, some of these developers lack the experience to plan how much they need, and so set unrealistic goals at the start or as their stretch goals. But even experienced ones like Double Fine have fallen into the trap. Some have resorted to early access or even second a second kicking of Kickstarter campaigns (though most supporters wouldn't be too happy and would really love to give them a kicking). Let's hope they don't promise too much for the second campaign!

This is a risk that people have to take when kick starting games. Some studios are reputable, but as we've seen, that doesn't guarantee anything, though it helps. And what happens when the game is out and it sucks? While some might argue against this point of view, to the consumer, it is much like a pre-purchase, with a risk of not getting anything back. And if we really think this is worth it, it's a risk we should be willing to take before dropping money in. It's helpful to the developer who can see how much people want this, and also for us to get a game which we might otherwise not even get to see.

Hopefully, people can learn to consider such risks, and also do a bit more research before dropping their money in. Also, developers need to be more responsible and hopefully learn from these failed projects. It'll be a shame to see good quality projects failing the funding because people are too weary, and yet, they do need to be aware of where their money is going and who they are supporting.

I'm still looking forward to a completed Planetary Annihilation, War for the Overworld, Worlds of Magic, Godus, Asylum, Star Citizen and other games that I may or may not have supported. Mighty No. 9, I'm waiting!