Nvidia Shield, Steam, PS Vita, Wii U and so on all gives gamers the option of playing games in a different location from their main gaming system. Is this a pointless feature or is there any other uses for this feature?
I suppose you've read the title and know what I intend to talk about. PC multiplayer games tend to be an impersonal experience, primarily being done over the internet. One thing that's so appealing about console gaming is couch multiplayer. Even though monitors are getting larger and larger, it is still difficult for multiple people to gather in front of a PC. Streaming gives players the option of playing PC games on a TV, though multiple controllers are needed (not so much an issue if you own an Xbox) and a game that supports it (much more an issue).
The Wii U though, has a unique feature not often seen in other streaming systems - that is, having the TV screen and controller screen display different scenes. PCs should make good use of this feature. Most people now have another device besides their gaming PCs, like a laptop or a tablet. Imagine if streaming can do what the Wii U is doing. An old laptop can be used for a LAN party, tablets can be used as well when a controller is plugged in. Instead of lugging gaming laptops or towers that weigh a ton around for LAN parties, even ultrabooks and tablet PCs like the Surface Pro will do as long as the host has a powerful PC capable of streaming
Of course, there are limits to what can be done, but there is potential in this. I've tried Steam Home Streaming and it works even on my old 10+ year old laptop, even though it is a little laggy and the screen leaves much to be desired. Hopefully the tech continues to improve and 'couch multiplayer' on PC will take off, bringing back the days of 'split screen' to PC players as well.
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Blizzard Supports Their Games, Unless It's On Older Consoles
It is ironic that just when I write a post about Blizzard supporting their games that they come out and say they won't be supporting Diablo 3 for the PS3 and Xbox 360 with patches. This means that features like seasons and their associated items, greater rifts and probably skills and items balances might not come to these older consoles, even though I'd guess that more people will be playing on these than the new consoles
I understand it when they say that it takes more to code for older consoles, especially the PS3 which uses a totally different architecture. That, and the fact that patching on consoles is pretty costly and time consuming thanks to having go through a testing process set by Sony and Microsoft, means that it really isn't worth the effort for a game that will not continue to make money, unlike an MMO with sub fees.
Granted, Blizzard is primarily a PC developer, but this is still a slap in the face for console gamers itching to support a game company whose games they rarely get a chance to enjoy and a taint in Blizzard's stellar record of game support. If Blizzard would support Diablo 3, even if it's just for another year or 2, it would be likely that these gamers will still buy the new version when they eventually move on to the new consoles and they would made a bunch of new fans.
Gamers should be treated equally, whether console or PC gamers, and all developers should give their customers value for their purchase. I hope Blizzard can rethink their choice, even if the patches can only be deployed later than the other systems, building up brand loyalty, especially on a platform that's relatively new to their products, is a plus for them.
I understand it when they say that it takes more to code for older consoles, especially the PS3 which uses a totally different architecture. That, and the fact that patching on consoles is pretty costly and time consuming thanks to having go through a testing process set by Sony and Microsoft, means that it really isn't worth the effort for a game that will not continue to make money, unlike an MMO with sub fees.
Granted, Blizzard is primarily a PC developer, but this is still a slap in the face for console gamers itching to support a game company whose games they rarely get a chance to enjoy and a taint in Blizzard's stellar record of game support. If Blizzard would support Diablo 3, even if it's just for another year or 2, it would be likely that these gamers will still buy the new version when they eventually move on to the new consoles and they would made a bunch of new fans.
Gamers should be treated equally, whether console or PC gamers, and all developers should give their customers value for their purchase. I hope Blizzard can rethink their choice, even if the patches can only be deployed later than the other systems, building up brand loyalty, especially on a platform that's relatively new to their products, is a plus for them.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Gamers Pre-order Win
Well, there you go. Someone has come out to say that pre-orders are dropping. With the large numbers of crap games coming out and the anti consumer pre-order bonuses, it's no wonder that even the fan-boy-iest of fan boys have started to rethink pre-ordering.
Something that has been happening more and more is that developers are removing parts of the game and using them as pre-order incentives. Alien: Isolation is one example where they are clearly working on the dlc before the game is out but those who don't pre-order will be paying full price for part of the game.
Pre-orders have their place like for limited stocks of collector's editions or niche games which retailers do not want to stock up too many copies of. But if you continue to exploit people like these, especially when the games are sold digitally, you're going to lose your customers.
I am still not buying games with pre-order bonuses where you get an incomplete game if you don't. Sorry, but I'm not going to pay full price for part of the game. I may get it when the price drops out when a game of the year edition with all the dlcs is released. Or I may just play the newest game that is released then and skip yours altogether.
Something that has been happening more and more is that developers are removing parts of the game and using them as pre-order incentives. Alien: Isolation is one example where they are clearly working on the dlc before the game is out but those who don't pre-order will be paying full price for part of the game.
Pre-orders have their place like for limited stocks of collector's editions or niche games which retailers do not want to stock up too many copies of. But if you continue to exploit people like these, especially when the games are sold digitally, you're going to lose your customers.
I am still not buying games with pre-order bonuses where you get an incomplete game if you don't. Sorry, but I'm not going to pay full price for part of the game. I may get it when the price drops out when a game of the year edition with all the dlcs is released. Or I may just play the newest game that is released then and skip yours altogether.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
GoG's Galaxy
When Steam was first released, and made even essential if you're running Valve games, gamers were all up in arms. Steam was DRM, and, similar to always-on DRM, it gave a lot of problems. Also, requiring a client meant having to have the system devote resource to running it, and given the technology then, perhaps that was a valid concern. As time passed, Valve brought about improvements to the client to address the stability issues, and, together with Steam sales, a larger game library and convenience of multiplayer through a friends list, Steam eventually became where a lot of PC gamers kept their library of games to the point where people won't buy digital games that weren't on Steam. Now, GoG is planning a Steam like client for its users and, according to their announcement, we can expect features like auto-patching, achievements and multiplayer features, to the point of playing with players from other clients like Steam.
One major difference between Galaxy and other clients like Steam, Origin and Uplay is that it is purely optional, and not required to run GoG games; games from GoG will remain DRM free. GoG is already running sales like Steam, and we are seeing an ever increasing number of games on GoG as well so a client to organize our games might be appealing, and at the very least, the multiplayer convenience will be welcome. GoG rarely has triple A titles on their catalogue, so it is not likely to go as big as Steam, but on the other hand, that also means games on GoG are better managed with better quality control. Achievements are just a bonus. Not all players are into them, but for those who are, this could be a major feature. At the very least, it's more things to do. Some of us might not be keen on installing another client though, but hey, did I mention, it is optional?
Convenience comes at a price. A major concern will be whether the client will be a system hog, or if it installs malware or adware. So far, GoG has been reputable, but the notion of having to run another client might not be too appealing, even with the convenience of managing our GoG game library. Perhaps the ideal is a client that can manage all major online game retailers, a merging of Steam, Origin, Uplay etc into one client and having all our games there. The inter-client multiplayer feature seems to be a step in this direction, and perhaps we might even see a consolidated friends list. But realistically speaking, it is unlikely for a single client to do this, even if it were third party, and even more unlikely for developers like Blizzard, who also have their own client, to play ball. Maybe one day it might just happen, but it is, still, a big maybe.
One major difference between Galaxy and other clients like Steam, Origin and Uplay is that it is purely optional, and not required to run GoG games; games from GoG will remain DRM free. GoG is already running sales like Steam, and we are seeing an ever increasing number of games on GoG as well so a client to organize our games might be appealing, and at the very least, the multiplayer convenience will be welcome. GoG rarely has triple A titles on their catalogue, so it is not likely to go as big as Steam, but on the other hand, that also means games on GoG are better managed with better quality control. Achievements are just a bonus. Not all players are into them, but for those who are, this could be a major feature. At the very least, it's more things to do. Some of us might not be keen on installing another client though, but hey, did I mention, it is optional?
Convenience comes at a price. A major concern will be whether the client will be a system hog, or if it installs malware or adware. So far, GoG has been reputable, but the notion of having to run another client might not be too appealing, even with the convenience of managing our GoG game library. Perhaps the ideal is a client that can manage all major online game retailers, a merging of Steam, Origin, Uplay etc into one client and having all our games there. The inter-client multiplayer feature seems to be a step in this direction, and perhaps we might even see a consolidated friends list. But realistically speaking, it is unlikely for a single client to do this, even if it were third party, and even more unlikely for developers like Blizzard, who also have their own client, to play ball. Maybe one day it might just happen, but it is, still, a big maybe.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Heroes of the Storm Quests
After a search online for the quests available for Heroes of the Storm, I realized that most are outdated, particularly the requirement for quest completion was winning. Up till now, all the daily quests that I obtained were to "Play" instead of to "Win". I guess somewhere down the line, Blizzard decided that "winning" was too hard, and I supposed it is, for those like me who are queuing solo, that is. But guess what? You can now complete quests in coop.
Quests that I've obtained so far (for those who are unfamiliar, I'll list the heroes that fulfill the franchise criteria, and since roles are stated in the heroes selection screen, so I won't list them here):
Play 2 games with a Diablo Hero.
(Diablo, Nazeebo, Sonya, Tyrael, Valla, Azmodan)
Play 2 games with a StarCraft Hero.
(Kerrigan, Raynor, Nova, Tychus, Zagara, Abathur, Sgt. Hammer, Tassadar, Zeratul)
Play 2 games with a Warcraft Hero.
(Chen, Tyrande, Arthas, Gazlowe, Stitches, Brightwing, Falstad, Li Li, Muradin, Uther, E.T.C, Illidan, Malfurion, Murky, Rehgar, Anub'arak)
Play 3 games with an Assassin Hero.
Play 3 games with a Support Hero.
Play 3 games with a Warrior Hero.
Play 3 games with a Specialist Hero
Play 8 games.
Win 3 games.
More to come as I see get quests, or if you know of any I've missed, do let me know!
If you're a new visitor to my blog, feel free to look around and feel free to leave a comment!
Quests that I've obtained so far (for those who are unfamiliar, I'll list the heroes that fulfill the franchise criteria, and since roles are stated in the heroes selection screen, so I won't list them here):
Play 2 games with a Diablo Hero.
(Diablo, Nazeebo, Sonya, Tyrael, Valla, Azmodan)
Play 2 games with a StarCraft Hero.
(Kerrigan, Raynor, Nova, Tychus, Zagara, Abathur, Sgt. Hammer, Tassadar, Zeratul)
Play 2 games with a Warcraft Hero.
(Chen, Tyrande, Arthas, Gazlowe, Stitches, Brightwing, Falstad, Li Li, Muradin, Uther, E.T.C, Illidan, Malfurion, Murky, Rehgar, Anub'arak)
Play 3 games with an Assassin Hero.
Play 3 games with a Support Hero.
Play 3 games with a Warrior Hero.
Play 3 games with a Specialist Hero
Play 8 games.
Win 3 games.
More to come as I see get quests, or if you know of any I've missed, do let me know!
If you're a new visitor to my blog, feel free to look around and feel free to leave a comment!
Friday, July 11, 2014
e-Sports and Sports and Genderified Games
If you're in the least bit interested in the e-sports scene, you would have heard of the issue between the International e-Sports Federation and female gamers. In short, the federation, in attempting to bring e-Sports up to the level of conventional sporting events, separated its competitors by gender, and, because they did not have a Hearthstone league for women, banned female gamers from participating.
Needless to say, the Internet exploded in a rage akin to a million nuclear bombs dropped onto the organizers of the tournament. The organizers have since rescinded the ban, but it still leaves a sour taste on the gaming community and female gamers.
What is interesting, and not to mention, amusing, is the statement that in order to be like conventional sports, where male and female athletes are separated, the organizers have opted to take a similar approach. In a bizarre turn of events, the organizers have decided to pick the games that each gender should play. That means that, if you are a girl, you are not allowed to play Street Fighter, but can play Tekken, while guys are not allowed, according to the organizers. So sorry, Tekken Tag players, you are just not 'man' enough.
I'm sure everybody understands why guys and girls do not compete against each other in most sports and it's obvious why that does not apply to gaming. Does separating the sexes work though? There are statistics that show that the percentage of male and female gamers are nearly 50: 50, but how much of that are competitive games vs casual games, I do not know. But currently, it is a fact that fewer female gamers enter competitions. Would it be as exciting with less competitors? Perhaps that might encourage more female gamers to step forward, since fewer competitors means a better chance of winning, but that doesn't apply if you don't even give them a chance to compete. Hafu, a female Hearthstone streamer and competitor mentioned in a podcast her discussion with other female gamers and their idea that an all female league actually makes it less threatening for them so perhaps the idea of separating the leagues might really promote esports.
Games are becoming more mainstream though, and games like Hearthstone are particularly well received by all ages and genders. But at the end of the day, when it comes to gaming, it shouldn't really matter who is at the keyboard, but the level of the play. (Yes I understand when it comes to e-Sports, there's image and manner to take into account, but that's a discussion for another day.)
Needless to say, the Internet exploded in a rage akin to a million nuclear bombs dropped onto the organizers of the tournament. The organizers have since rescinded the ban, but it still leaves a sour taste on the gaming community and female gamers.
What is interesting, and not to mention, amusing, is the statement that in order to be like conventional sports, where male and female athletes are separated, the organizers have opted to take a similar approach. In a bizarre turn of events, the organizers have decided to pick the games that each gender should play. That means that, if you are a girl, you are not allowed to play Street Fighter, but can play Tekken, while guys are not allowed, according to the organizers. So sorry, Tekken Tag players, you are just not 'man' enough.
I'm sure everybody understands why guys and girls do not compete against each other in most sports and it's obvious why that does not apply to gaming. Does separating the sexes work though? There are statistics that show that the percentage of male and female gamers are nearly 50: 50, but how much of that are competitive games vs casual games, I do not know. But currently, it is a fact that fewer female gamers enter competitions. Would it be as exciting with less competitors? Perhaps that might encourage more female gamers to step forward, since fewer competitors means a better chance of winning, but that doesn't apply if you don't even give them a chance to compete. Hafu, a female Hearthstone streamer and competitor mentioned in a podcast her discussion with other female gamers and their idea that an all female league actually makes it less threatening for them so perhaps the idea of separating the leagues might really promote esports.
Games are becoming more mainstream though, and games like Hearthstone are particularly well received by all ages and genders. But at the end of the day, when it comes to gaming, it shouldn't really matter who is at the keyboard, but the level of the play. (Yes I understand when it comes to e-Sports, there's image and manner to take into account, but that's a discussion for another day.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)