I first want to state this: I love the updated Xcom: Enemy Uknown offering. It is a tremendous game, and if nothing else it conveys the spirit of the first game named Xcom that earned my respect and admiration. I really do like what Firaxis and 2K games did...
And then I bought XCom: Enemy Within.
I have now bought Enemy Unknown twice, and in spite of asking on their facebook page, and on their twitter feed, I was never able to get a clear answer about it before I made the purchase.
I don't NEED a second included copy of Enemy Uknown with Enemy Within. The only conclusion I can come to is this: 2K games saw the opportunity to charge more for what should have essentially been a DLC offering.
When I asked why it wasn't a DLC, the answer I got on Facebook, was that it was too large to just be a DLC... Wait, what? Well, I've downloaded ENTIRE GAMES on Xbox Live, and they weren't too large - so how exactly does that work? Well, if you chock all of the content that probably should have been included originally, yeah it probably makes for some large file sizes - when you also make the first offering a mandatory purchase.
To reiterate, I don't need two copies of Enemy Unknown.
I feel like you cheated me 2K. I would have gladly given you my money if you'd just been upfront and honest, but now I feel like you lied to me to get a bigger chunk of change. Now, you'll be lucky if I ever buy anything from you again.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Multiplayer done right. GTA Online
So, I purchased GTA V a couple of weeks ago, and since I didn't have internet at home, I was unable to partake of their online offering, though I'd heard many tales about how good it was, how bad it was, and how many problems there were with what probably amounted to server overload.
Yesterday, I got my home internet turned back on.
I cannot even properly express how incredible GTA Online is.
That was easily the most fun I've ever had in a multiplayer environment, with Left 4 Dead a distant second place.
The online Los Santos is amazing, and there is so much to do. For the first time in a very long time, I lost track of time, and I didn't get to bed until almost 2 am. I regret nothing.
I only knew it was as late as it was because my significant other came out of the bedroom (she'd been asleep for several hours) and told me she was hungry. One quick trip to Jack in the Box, and I was back in the sandbox - but realizing that I was only going to get about 4 hours of sleep, I relented and put the game away.
Let me see if I can try to lay it out, realizing of course that I can't give this the proper emphasis to get across how insanely fun it all was.
First up was the character creation screen. A couple of adjustments and there was my character on a plane flying into Los Santos, to be greeted by Lamar (one of the lesser characters in the story mode). I created a female character, because why the hell not? My gamertag makes it obvious that I'm male, so it probably looked a little weird to a few folks, but who cares? I was playing a female protagonist in a GTA game! I might've enjoyed that a little more than I should have. Oh well. Onward.
Lamar took me to a street race - obviously a thinly veiled tutorial, but I came in 3rd, so it was cool. I did notice a lot more wrecking in the online world than in the story mode, but I think that's to be expected from human players when compared to AI NPC's.
After the street, Lamar got a call, and asked me and the person standing next to me if we were interested in a job. We both accepted, and we were on our first heist, holding up a liquor store. My partner in crime got gunned down by the cops because we took too long (I intimidated the store clerk by shooting the bottles behind him and he moved a lot faster to empty the register). As I tried to leave the store and get into my getaway car, another player came running up to my crime scene, and began shooting at me with the cops! I made quick work of him, but the police then killed me. I still managed to get a screen that stated I'd completed the mission, because I did manage to rob the store, even though I got killed trying to escape.
I then respawned, and followed Lamar's directions over my phone and GPS to an NPC that had another job for us - stealing drugs from a rival crew. My cohort and I accepted again, and made our way to what was obviously a drug deal going down, where we killed everyone then stole their drugs, and drove back to our employer.
After that, things got interesting. I was alerted that I was now able to choose missions for myself, and encouraged to explore the world. Which I promptly did. I noticed no lag, no loading problems, and I really did press the issue, trying out every option that I could think of. The quick job function on my phone worked great, I was able to accept invitations to missions from others I'd been playing with. I turned on the passive function so I wouldn't be killed, because people will gun you down, as is only right in a GTA game. I banked my money in an ATM, used part of the tutorial to claim a default car, and put insurance and a tracker on it. I played a survival with someone named ActorKurtRussell, and we managed to survive all 10 waves, for which I got an achievement. Somehow, I doubt he was really Kurt Russell. If it was, that guy is one hell of a gamer.
After all of this, the real bottom line is this:
I had a BLAST playing this game. I can't wait to play it again. If you take nothing else from this post, take that. Because you can take it all the way to the bank, in Los Santos.
Yesterday, I got my home internet turned back on.
I cannot even properly express how incredible GTA Online is.
That was easily the most fun I've ever had in a multiplayer environment, with Left 4 Dead a distant second place.
The online Los Santos is amazing, and there is so much to do. For the first time in a very long time, I lost track of time, and I didn't get to bed until almost 2 am. I regret nothing.
I only knew it was as late as it was because my significant other came out of the bedroom (she'd been asleep for several hours) and told me she was hungry. One quick trip to Jack in the Box, and I was back in the sandbox - but realizing that I was only going to get about 4 hours of sleep, I relented and put the game away.
Let me see if I can try to lay it out, realizing of course that I can't give this the proper emphasis to get across how insanely fun it all was.
First up was the character creation screen. A couple of adjustments and there was my character on a plane flying into Los Santos, to be greeted by Lamar (one of the lesser characters in the story mode). I created a female character, because why the hell not? My gamertag makes it obvious that I'm male, so it probably looked a little weird to a few folks, but who cares? I was playing a female protagonist in a GTA game! I might've enjoyed that a little more than I should have. Oh well. Onward.
Lamar took me to a street race - obviously a thinly veiled tutorial, but I came in 3rd, so it was cool. I did notice a lot more wrecking in the online world than in the story mode, but I think that's to be expected from human players when compared to AI NPC's.
After the street, Lamar got a call, and asked me and the person standing next to me if we were interested in a job. We both accepted, and we were on our first heist, holding up a liquor store. My partner in crime got gunned down by the cops because we took too long (I intimidated the store clerk by shooting the bottles behind him and he moved a lot faster to empty the register). As I tried to leave the store and get into my getaway car, another player came running up to my crime scene, and began shooting at me with the cops! I made quick work of him, but the police then killed me. I still managed to get a screen that stated I'd completed the mission, because I did manage to rob the store, even though I got killed trying to escape.
I then respawned, and followed Lamar's directions over my phone and GPS to an NPC that had another job for us - stealing drugs from a rival crew. My cohort and I accepted again, and made our way to what was obviously a drug deal going down, where we killed everyone then stole their drugs, and drove back to our employer.
After that, things got interesting. I was alerted that I was now able to choose missions for myself, and encouraged to explore the world. Which I promptly did. I noticed no lag, no loading problems, and I really did press the issue, trying out every option that I could think of. The quick job function on my phone worked great, I was able to accept invitations to missions from others I'd been playing with. I turned on the passive function so I wouldn't be killed, because people will gun you down, as is only right in a GTA game. I banked my money in an ATM, used part of the tutorial to claim a default car, and put insurance and a tracker on it. I played a survival with someone named ActorKurtRussell, and we managed to survive all 10 waves, for which I got an achievement. Somehow, I doubt he was really Kurt Russell. If it was, that guy is one hell of a gamer.
After all of this, the real bottom line is this:
I had a BLAST playing this game. I can't wait to play it again. If you take nothing else from this post, take that. Because you can take it all the way to the bank, in Los Santos.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
What happens when you refuse to understand what you've done wrong?
Microsoft has a severe disconnect with not only their fan base, but also with reality.
They've changed a lot of the restrictions that were initially non-negotiable on their next gen console, the xbox one. They've reversed course, not only on things like the ridiculous always on internet requirement for their DRM and their used game policy, but they've also reversed course internally, with all of the major changes in not only who manages which departments, but in how those departments are approaching the future.
It all sounds good.
There is still, however, a problem with their approach to this next-gen of gaming. There is still a disconnect with the people that buy their products. They still aren't thinking of the fans.
Bear in mind that all of these changes only came about after ENORMOUS initial resistance on the part of the company. They were doing everything they could to force people to bend to this line of business, and by god, they weren't going to give up these profit margins, no matter what.
It's lead to more than a couple of bad decisions, not the least of which is the new Kinect camera. Yes, you can turn it off now, but why is it still required? Why are you still, as of this date, looking at a price tag that is a hundred dollars more than the competing console (Sony) for what is apparently the inclusion of a peripheral that no one is actually interested in? I have a lot of gaming friends. You know how many of them are excited about the new Kinect camera? 0. None. Nada.
Microsoft is STILL trying to hold to something that no one wants. It's almost as if they're saying, "well, we'll get rid of all of this other stuff, but damn it, you're going to take that fucking camera." I mean, when you look at it, WHY? Why is this damned thing so important to them?
Maybe, it has to do with what the camera is capable of. For anyone that doesn't want to read all of that article, it breaks down to this: "The creepiest part of the Kinect demo was when the system used a combination of the RGB and IR cameras to detect my pulse rate just by looking at my face. Not only that, but the system could tell when I was smiling and/or looking away from the screen and tell which of two controllers I was holding, even as I handed one off to the demonstrator (a process the PR rep said worked by "magic")"
Note, that the tech guy reviewing the hardware resorts to 'CREEPY' as the best description of the features. That should tell you something. Frankly, with the camera on and keeping track of your emotions, they would have a pretty large database pretty quickly about how people react to their games, and what they like more.
You know how internet cookies try to read your habits by which sites you visit? Imagine a company trying to read YOU by how you react to any given situation while you are playing your games.
Sleep tight.
They've changed a lot of the restrictions that were initially non-negotiable on their next gen console, the xbox one. They've reversed course, not only on things like the ridiculous always on internet requirement for their DRM and their used game policy, but they've also reversed course internally, with all of the major changes in not only who manages which departments, but in how those departments are approaching the future.
It all sounds good.
There is still, however, a problem with their approach to this next-gen of gaming. There is still a disconnect with the people that buy their products. They still aren't thinking of the fans.
Bear in mind that all of these changes only came about after ENORMOUS initial resistance on the part of the company. They were doing everything they could to force people to bend to this line of business, and by god, they weren't going to give up these profit margins, no matter what.
It's lead to more than a couple of bad decisions, not the least of which is the new Kinect camera. Yes, you can turn it off now, but why is it still required? Why are you still, as of this date, looking at a price tag that is a hundred dollars more than the competing console (Sony) for what is apparently the inclusion of a peripheral that no one is actually interested in? I have a lot of gaming friends. You know how many of them are excited about the new Kinect camera? 0. None. Nada.
Microsoft is STILL trying to hold to something that no one wants. It's almost as if they're saying, "well, we'll get rid of all of this other stuff, but damn it, you're going to take that fucking camera." I mean, when you look at it, WHY? Why is this damned thing so important to them?
Maybe, it has to do with what the camera is capable of. For anyone that doesn't want to read all of that article, it breaks down to this: "The creepiest part of the Kinect demo was when the system used a combination of the RGB and IR cameras to detect my pulse rate just by looking at my face. Not only that, but the system could tell when I was smiling and/or looking away from the screen and tell which of two controllers I was holding, even as I handed one off to the demonstrator (a process the PR rep said worked by "magic")"
Note, that the tech guy reviewing the hardware resorts to 'CREEPY' as the best description of the features. That should tell you something. Frankly, with the camera on and keeping track of your emotions, they would have a pretty large database pretty quickly about how people react to their games, and what they like more.
You know how internet cookies try to read your habits by which sites you visit? Imagine a company trying to read YOU by how you react to any given situation while you are playing your games.
Sleep tight.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Going home again... sort of.
Gone Home is a game that recently launched, and while it doesn't have all of the fanfare of a triple-a title, this game deserves your attention. Especially if you are like me.
What I mean by that is, an older gamer, who remembers games being like wonderlands. I remember playing old point and click, first person games, before the FPS genre was created. Games were all about exploration, and discovery.
People created worlds for you to enter and explore, and experience as if you were there, and it was up to you to figure out what you were looking for. Curiosity drove these games. It was necessary.
So many games today have no need for curiosity, they shove their narrative down your throat as the player, and while some stories can be enjoyable despite a predominantly linear experience, the need to explore is mostly nothing more than an excuse to find more ammo/gear to move on to the next battle.
Gone home is different, as I suspect, the Fullbright Company is different from most developers.
I will offer no spoilers. To do so would be tantamount to telling everyone how Breaking Bad ends an hour before the last episode airs.
Gone Home is worth your money, and your time... provided you are curious enough.
Give them a look.
What I mean by that is, an older gamer, who remembers games being like wonderlands. I remember playing old point and click, first person games, before the FPS genre was created. Games were all about exploration, and discovery.
People created worlds for you to enter and explore, and experience as if you were there, and it was up to you to figure out what you were looking for. Curiosity drove these games. It was necessary.
So many games today have no need for curiosity, they shove their narrative down your throat as the player, and while some stories can be enjoyable despite a predominantly linear experience, the need to explore is mostly nothing more than an excuse to find more ammo/gear to move on to the next battle.
Gone home is different, as I suspect, the Fullbright Company is different from most developers.
I will offer no spoilers. To do so would be tantamount to telling everyone how Breaking Bad ends an hour before the last episode airs.
Gone Home is worth your money, and your time... provided you are curious enough.
Give them a look.
Friday, August 30, 2013
The (false pretenses) petition...
Microsoft would have you believe a lot of things.
The would have you believe that they only ever wanted what's best for gaming, and not to encompass too many kinds of entertainment at once. They would have you believe that they care about 'core gamers' and that their recent change of course on the xbox one is how they show this, by listening to what gamers want. They would also have you believe that THIS PIECE OF SHIT is real.
Take a good look at that petition. Do you see anything wrong there? Because I do. I mean, I've heard of people trying to pull this before, but frankly no one has ever been so blatantly obvious about it.
Let's look at a couple of excerpts:
1. The opening
The would have you believe that they only ever wanted what's best for gaming, and not to encompass too many kinds of entertainment at once. They would have you believe that they care about 'core gamers' and that their recent change of course on the xbox one is how they show this, by listening to what gamers want. They would also have you believe that THIS PIECE OF SHIT is real.
Take a good look at that petition. Do you see anything wrong there? Because I do. I mean, I've heard of people trying to pull this before, but frankly no one has ever been so blatantly obvious about it.
Let's look at a couple of excerpts:
1. The opening
- Petition byGA
This was to be the future of entertainment. A new wave of gaming where you could buy games digitally, then trade, share or sell those digital licenses. Essentially, it was Steam for Xbox. But consumers were uninformed, and railed against it, and it was taken away because Sony took advantage of consumers uncertainty.
We want this back. It can't be all or nothing, there must be a compromise.
So, when was the last time you heard a gamer talk/write something like this? Think about that. Your average Gears of War/Modern Warfare player doesn't even THINK along these lines. I know this because I know a lot of THEM. You know what they were complaining about? DRM (Unnecessary), Always on connections (Unrealistic), and used games (unpopular). The text in parenthesis is the actual reaction to the policies that Microsoft was trying to implement. And the fact is, it wasn't steam for xbox, it was more like big brother/EA origin for xbox, and frankly, no one wants that. At all.
Okay, another excerpt:
2. Supposed petition signers
Javier Marcano HARLOW, UNITED KINGDOM
I don't want to pay 400 - 500 for a console that essentially looks prettier but does the same exact things current gen does.(SHOT AT SONY) MS was just trying to pave the way towards the unavoidable digital future all consoles will follow, if not this gen, then next generation, being innovative just as they were last generation with Xbox Live. (PRAISE FOR MICROSOFT) Granted, I didn't agree with all the policies brought forward but at least I understood the end goal and it wasn't as such a big deal for me. They said their stuff straight forward and took the heat while Sony innovated nothing, changed nothing and helped feed peoples fear that change is bad and that it's good to pay again for what you already have and can do. Sony said what people wanted to hear and only later revealed the truth of their policies in small interviews after E3.(PRAISE FOR MICROSFT AND A SHOT AT SONY) Who is the better company? The one that says things upfront in front of the world or the one that lurks in the shadows about the reality of what it's bringing forward?(PRAISE FOR MICROSOFT) It's sad so many gamers are so short sighted.(YOU'RE ALL IDIOTS FOR NOT BUYING MICROSFT'S OBVIOUS BULLSHIT)
So, after reading this tripe, does anyone NOT believe these guys are getting regular paychecks signed by Microsoft?
Really - they were just being innovative, not greedy? They were just trying to drag us ignorant neanderthals into the inevitable next iteration of gaming? How condescending and utterly obvious can you be at the same time?
Yes, Microsoft, we totally believe that petition is real, and I've got ocean-front property right here in Arizona to sell you too.
Friday, August 16, 2013
...continued - because it needs to be.
I would like to continue with the rant I was on in the last update. Companies that claim to listen to their customers, when they do no such thing in reality.
Next up on the list: CAPCOM
I've been a member of the capcommunity forums for several years now. Now, to be fair, my time there is centered mostly around the Resident Evil forums, as that is (or at least WAS) the game series that I am most interested in from Capcom.
Many of us, like minded and quite vocal, have begged and pleaded with Capcom for literally years to stop turning Resident Evil into a third person shoot-em up, and get back to being survival horror. And every time they've countered what we've said, or just out and out lied to us.
Resident Evil 4 was scrapped at the last minute, and according to the powers that be, had to be completely overhauled, because sales would have been lackluster, and the series would likely have died. That's an opinion. I happen to have a different one, but that's not even the point of this post. The point is, a LARGE portion of your fanbase, and some obviously dedicated gamers (Most of the people I'm talking about have all of the RE games, because they do love the series, for the most part) have begged Capcom to stop treating these games like their a clone of Modern Warfare/Gears of War, and stick with the genre that they created in the first place.
It all falls on deaf ears. RE5, 6, Operation: Raccoon City, and even Revelations are all still stuck on being and action/horror hybrid.
Now - flash forward to now. Specifically to Dead Rising 3.
Several months ago, perhaps even as much as a year, someone on the Unity forums started a thread asking the question, "What would you like in a new Resident Evil game. I responded, stating that I wanted an open world Raccoon city (ala Skyrim, in an urban setting) with many of the same type of encounters that you get in an open world RPG, but set within the Resident Evil Universe, complete with the city, and the mansion (which would have been optional to visit) and ultimately the goal would be to get out of the city before the nukes fall.
You know, pretty much what they created in Dead Rising 3, minus the setting that I wanted. Here's the real problem; now that they've created this world in DR3 - you can bet your ass they will NEVER create in for Resident Evil. After all, they've already done it, and with zombies to boot. They don't need to recreate that. I mean, why can't you just pretend that DR3 is set in Raccoon City...?
It all falls back to not giving one hot damn about your customers. I'm just one person. I don't expect a major corporation to listen to just one man or woman about their upcoming products. But when you get enough people, that have been loyal to your brand for so long, and they constantly and consistently tell you what they want, and you just and constantly and consistently ignore them - that's when you no longer care about the people that have made you what you are. That's just disrespectful.
Shame on you Capcom.
Oh, and it seems I'm not the only one that feels that the xbox 1 is likely going to lose this console war.
Next up on the list: CAPCOM
I've been a member of the capcommunity forums for several years now. Now, to be fair, my time there is centered mostly around the Resident Evil forums, as that is (or at least WAS) the game series that I am most interested in from Capcom.
Many of us, like minded and quite vocal, have begged and pleaded with Capcom for literally years to stop turning Resident Evil into a third person shoot-em up, and get back to being survival horror. And every time they've countered what we've said, or just out and out lied to us.
Resident Evil 4 was scrapped at the last minute, and according to the powers that be, had to be completely overhauled, because sales would have been lackluster, and the series would likely have died. That's an opinion. I happen to have a different one, but that's not even the point of this post. The point is, a LARGE portion of your fanbase, and some obviously dedicated gamers (Most of the people I'm talking about have all of the RE games, because they do love the series, for the most part) have begged Capcom to stop treating these games like their a clone of Modern Warfare/Gears of War, and stick with the genre that they created in the first place.
It all falls on deaf ears. RE5, 6, Operation: Raccoon City, and even Revelations are all still stuck on being and action/horror hybrid.
Now - flash forward to now. Specifically to Dead Rising 3.
Several months ago, perhaps even as much as a year, someone on the Unity forums started a thread asking the question, "What would you like in a new Resident Evil game. I responded, stating that I wanted an open world Raccoon city (ala Skyrim, in an urban setting) with many of the same type of encounters that you get in an open world RPG, but set within the Resident Evil Universe, complete with the city, and the mansion (which would have been optional to visit) and ultimately the goal would be to get out of the city before the nukes fall.
You know, pretty much what they created in Dead Rising 3, minus the setting that I wanted. Here's the real problem; now that they've created this world in DR3 - you can bet your ass they will NEVER create in for Resident Evil. After all, they've already done it, and with zombies to boot. They don't need to recreate that. I mean, why can't you just pretend that DR3 is set in Raccoon City...?
It all falls back to not giving one hot damn about your customers. I'm just one person. I don't expect a major corporation to listen to just one man or woman about their upcoming products. But when you get enough people, that have been loyal to your brand for so long, and they constantly and consistently tell you what they want, and you just and constantly and consistently ignore them - that's when you no longer care about the people that have made you what you are. That's just disrespectful.
Shame on you Capcom.
Oh, and it seems I'm not the only one that feels that the xbox 1 is likely going to lose this console war.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
A memo to Microsoft: Backhanded compliments don't count...
Every day, I read about how game companies (console makers as well as game developers) are all making a concerted effort to listen to their fans. And every bit of it is a lie.
I'm sorry, but Microsoft isn't 'Listening to the Fans' because they've made changes. That's what it looks like on the surface, and boy would they love you to buy their attempt to spin it that way. But let's face facts, what really happened was this:
1. They announced a new set of protocols, and expectations that were not only patently ridiculous is what they wanted FROM their customers, but was not even realistic in terms of logistics (internet connections are simply not consistent enough for what they wanted).
2. They got more backlash than they ever have before, and people basically said, "okay, so I guess I'll buy a Sony this time around, because Microsoft has lost their damn minds.
3. They responded to this backlash like the spoiled businessmen they are. #dealwithit might have gotten one man fired, but let's face it, that's exactly what the rest of them were thinking. He just had the balls to tweet it to the world. Initially, Microsoft wanted to hear none of what the people that would be their customers had to say. There was this rigid, unyielding stance that they were loathe to stop taking.
4. Finally they relented, and realized that not only were their sales going to be abysmal if they stayed on this path, but that by trying to stay to it at all, they might have damaged their profit margin irreparably. ONLY upon this realization, did they finally 'Listen to the Fans'.
As some of my navy superiors used to say, "Don't blow smoke up my ass and call it sunshine."
If/when I eventually get a 'Next Gen' machine - it''l likely be a PS4.
I'm sorry, but Microsoft isn't 'Listening to the Fans' because they've made changes. That's what it looks like on the surface, and boy would they love you to buy their attempt to spin it that way. But let's face facts, what really happened was this:
1. They announced a new set of protocols, and expectations that were not only patently ridiculous is what they wanted FROM their customers, but was not even realistic in terms of logistics (internet connections are simply not consistent enough for what they wanted).
2. They got more backlash than they ever have before, and people basically said, "okay, so I guess I'll buy a Sony this time around, because Microsoft has lost their damn minds.
3. They responded to this backlash like the spoiled businessmen they are. #dealwithit might have gotten one man fired, but let's face it, that's exactly what the rest of them were thinking. He just had the balls to tweet it to the world. Initially, Microsoft wanted to hear none of what the people that would be their customers had to say. There was this rigid, unyielding stance that they were loathe to stop taking.
4. Finally they relented, and realized that not only were their sales going to be abysmal if they stayed on this path, but that by trying to stay to it at all, they might have damaged their profit margin irreparably. ONLY upon this realization, did they finally 'Listen to the Fans'.
As some of my navy superiors used to say, "Don't blow smoke up my ass and call it sunshine."
If/when I eventually get a 'Next Gen' machine - it''l likely be a PS4.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
(Not so) Free to play games...
Does anyone remember arcades? You know, those locker room smelling, dusty, grimy, sawdust floored dens of iniquity that our parents hated and loved at the same time?
Why the mixed feelings? Well, because they knew they were going to shill out some cash when we saw one, but at the same time, for a few quarters they could leave their kids unattended (yeah they did that in the 80's and 90's) and get some errands run, or some shopping done, or whatever.
The reason I bring up arcades is simple. Developers have figured out how to get back to the money making scheme that arcades represented. Bear with me.
You see, for 25¢ at a time, I could play a game, right up until it got hard enough that I couldn't, but alas, I could continue for another 25¢. And I did so readily, pumping in quarter after quarter.
Want to take a guess as to how much I spent on games like Donkey Kong, Street Fighter 2, Mortal Kombat and Tekken? I would put the estimation in the thousands. That's not exaggeration on my part. I'm being literal. Now, want to know how much I payed for Street Fighter X Tekken? $19.99
This is the problem facing developers today. They can charge you one price for the original and like so many gamers, I'm only interested in a select few DLC offerings. I certainly don't buy all of them, and I'm certain that I'm not the only one, so that $19.99 (that went into Gamestop's pocket not Capcom's since the game was purchased used) is all I will ever spend on that game. Let's say I go all out, and pay full price and even preorder (Tomb Raider was awesome, by the way), even then I won't necessarily buy the DLC, so that $59.99 is all they will ever get from me. EVER.
The money men (check any of the developers' CFO's out and see if they are actually gamers) know that this business model is limited, because you will usually only get a single purchase per customer. This is unacceptable to them. They want you paying again, and again, and again, for the same content.
It's just like being in the arcade again. Yeah, it only costs a quarter, but multiply those quarters by several years, and you start talking in terms of thousands of dollars. Multiply that by millions of customers...
Yes. THAT much money.
And make no mistake, companies like Zynga aren't charging you quarters. They're charging dollars upon dollars. EA got bit in the ass with their approach to Dead Space 3, and layoffs ensued because the customer s spoke out, and didn't even hesitate to let EA know that they thought this was a bullshit way to deal with loyal patrons. OF course all anyone wants to talk about is how outrageous it is that EA was voted worst company 2 years running. Maybe instead of making excuses, they should take a step back and realize that people aren't nearly as stupid as they thought, and that we DO know when we are getting screwed.
I know. That argument is WAY too logical. It has no place in the Game Business world.
The fact is, the gaming companies that are using this business model are no longer nickel and diming you, or even quartering you - no they're now 5 and ten dollaring you.
Let me know how that tastes, because I want none of it.
Why the mixed feelings? Well, because they knew they were going to shill out some cash when we saw one, but at the same time, for a few quarters they could leave their kids unattended (yeah they did that in the 80's and 90's) and get some errands run, or some shopping done, or whatever.
The reason I bring up arcades is simple. Developers have figured out how to get back to the money making scheme that arcades represented. Bear with me.
You see, for 25¢ at a time, I could play a game, right up until it got hard enough that I couldn't, but alas, I could continue for another 25¢. And I did so readily, pumping in quarter after quarter.
Want to take a guess as to how much I spent on games like Donkey Kong, Street Fighter 2, Mortal Kombat and Tekken? I would put the estimation in the thousands. That's not exaggeration on my part. I'm being literal. Now, want to know how much I payed for Street Fighter X Tekken? $19.99
This is the problem facing developers today. They can charge you one price for the original and like so many gamers, I'm only interested in a select few DLC offerings. I certainly don't buy all of them, and I'm certain that I'm not the only one, so that $19.99 (that went into Gamestop's pocket not Capcom's since the game was purchased used) is all I will ever spend on that game. Let's say I go all out, and pay full price and even preorder (Tomb Raider was awesome, by the way), even then I won't necessarily buy the DLC, so that $59.99 is all they will ever get from me. EVER.
The money men (check any of the developers' CFO's out and see if they are actually gamers) know that this business model is limited, because you will usually only get a single purchase per customer. This is unacceptable to them. They want you paying again, and again, and again, for the same content.
It's just like being in the arcade again. Yeah, it only costs a quarter, but multiply those quarters by several years, and you start talking in terms of thousands of dollars. Multiply that by millions of customers...
Yes. THAT much money.
And make no mistake, companies like Zynga aren't charging you quarters. They're charging dollars upon dollars. EA got bit in the ass with their approach to Dead Space 3, and layoffs ensued because the customer s spoke out, and didn't even hesitate to let EA know that they thought this was a bullshit way to deal with loyal patrons. OF course all anyone wants to talk about is how outrageous it is that EA was voted worst company 2 years running. Maybe instead of making excuses, they should take a step back and realize that people aren't nearly as stupid as they thought, and that we DO know when we are getting screwed.
I know. That argument is WAY too logical. It has no place in the Game Business world.
The fact is, the gaming companies that are using this business model are no longer nickel and diming you, or even quartering you - no they're now 5 and ten dollaring you.
Let me know how that tastes, because I want none of it.
Friday, May 31, 2013
If it's such a terrible business model...
Used games have been a pretty hot topic for a few years now. Game developers claim that places like Gamestop and Best Buy are costing them millions by offering games used and at a discounted price. But in the same breath, they will also claim that they can't make these offers themselves, because it's such a bad business model that they wouldn't make any money...
Wait, what?
If these companies are taking so much money out of your pockets, then why is it a bad business model? If it's a bad business model, how are they supposedly (perhaps allegedly?) making so much money? Is it just magic, or is there maybe something wrong with the big videogame developers' business models? No matter how you look at it, they want a bigger slice of the pie, and now they are seemingly trying to just take it.
See, they won't be bothered to open a business and give the existing used games franchises competition, they'd much rather just try to take it out on us. Their customers. Now, if you own a new system, and you want to still utilize used games, you're going to pay for it. Twice.
I already knew that Microsoft was greedy. I was unaware of the level of their avarice. I'm beginning to get a good idea now.
Wait, what?
If these companies are taking so much money out of your pockets, then why is it a bad business model? If it's a bad business model, how are they supposedly (perhaps allegedly?) making so much money? Is it just magic, or is there maybe something wrong with the big videogame developers' business models? No matter how you look at it, they want a bigger slice of the pie, and now they are seemingly trying to just take it.
See, they won't be bothered to open a business and give the existing used games franchises competition, they'd much rather just try to take it out on us. Their customers. Now, if you own a new system, and you want to still utilize used games, you're going to pay for it. Twice.
I already knew that Microsoft was greedy. I was unaware of the level of their avarice. I'm beginning to get a good idea now.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Arkham Origins needs only one thing...
Batman: Arkham Origins is coming in October. I'm excited. The villains that have been announced to date are Black Mask, and Deathstroke (AKA Slade Wilson).
I'm only here to talk aboutDeathstr... No, you know what, I only think of him as Slade. The reason I think of him in this way, is because of the characterization done on the animated series, Teen Titans. It makes more of an impression than the comic books, because you get to see and hear Slade. His character MAKES the series as far as I'm concerned. When you find out that Slade is involved, you raised your expectations for the level of villainy that was about to commence. His impact was visceral, and even death couldn't stop him from tormenting the Titans, Robin specifically.
What made him so memorable? What gave you the impression that he was a real and believable villain?
One thing: Ron Perlman's voice.
He doesn't just voice Slade, he IS Slade. Any other voice would not only sound wrong to my ears, it would sound false. It matters that much.
Do yourself a favor developers. Cast this character correctly. Get Ron Perlman, or don't bother getting anyone. There is no reason NOT to pay this man whatever his fee is for voicing Slade. There are millions of reasons (can be taken as the money you will make, or the customers you will piss off) why you should. Don't fuck this up. You will regret it if you do, and in the worst place possible for a developer; on your bottom line. Casting anyone else for the voice of Slade will cost you in the end. Money, and fans.
Believe it.
I'm only here to talk about
What made him so memorable? What gave you the impression that he was a real and believable villain?
One thing: Ron Perlman's voice.
He doesn't just voice Slade, he IS Slade. Any other voice would not only sound wrong to my ears, it would sound false. It matters that much.
Do yourself a favor developers. Cast this character correctly. Get Ron Perlman, or don't bother getting anyone. There is no reason NOT to pay this man whatever his fee is for voicing Slade. There are millions of reasons (can be taken as the money you will make, or the customers you will piss off) why you should. Don't fuck this up. You will regret it if you do, and in the worst place possible for a developer; on your bottom line. Casting anyone else for the voice of Slade will cost you in the end. Money, and fans.
Believe it.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
DRM, as in customers Don't Really Matter?
Let me start with a question, and please know that it is rhetorical.
Do game developers have the right to protect their intellectual property with whatever security measures they want?
The simple answer is, yes. Yes they do.
The problem is, when your security infringes on what gamers want/expect from their games. It's a lot like the Patriot act - is it really worth your privacy as an individual to be 'secure'? I personally don't think so. I also don't think that the DRM measures that gaming companies are preparing to use (and in some cases, already are using), are even remotely necessary. And I won't pay for them.
Both of the upcoming next gen consoles are touting their DRM as being a feature (you have to be online to play games), and not what it truly is, an unwanted hinderance. It's almost as if they aren't listening to their customers, and have a severe disconnect with reality.
Requiring people to always be online to play your games (not to be read 'their own' games), is not the answer here. You accomplished your goal. You tested the waters and got the feedback. Guess what, it was all negative. The only people that want this is the developers. The only customers not responding negatively aren't responding at all, because they don't care. The people that care, are voicing their concerns. Are you listening?
Logistically speaking, it's not even realistic. Internet connections drop all the time, and don't even get me started on wifi connections. I'm talking hardline here. And I'm telling you, it is simply not worth my time to have to start over because you CAN'T properly support the fact that connections drop, and internet is not a perfect delivery method. CAN'T. Not even won't. CAN NOT. It isn't feasible. But we as gamers are just supposed to accept that things are going that way, and it's going to happen no matter what.
I know why the game developers are doing it. I understand. Piracy is rampant. Understand, I have no idea if the steps on that site work, because I wouldn't use them even if I had a PS3 - but that site exists, because people want to know how to do these things. They want to know how to do these things, because they want games that they can't/won't pay for. They can't/won't pay for said games, because games are too damned expensive. I know - anyone in the industry doesn't like to hear that. Games are too expensive. That's why I shop at gamestop. That's why I rarely buy a game for full price, and almost never buy a game on launch day. There are exceptions, and I'm very selective in who I choose to support. But I will NEVER support the necessity of an always on internet connection as DRM. Period.
Electronic Arts no longer gets my money. After I purchased Command and Conquer 4, and then realized I couldn't play the game I just paid for, I resolved to never pay them for anything else. By the way, I knew about the always on connection, and I even tried to play by their rules. But even with my connection, THEIR PRODUCT DIDN'T WORK! I checked for fixes, tried to patch the game, to no avail. It wouldn't work... and I was out $20 for no reason other than they wanted to do it that way for security.
Want to know another form of DRM that developers have been tossing around for a bit now? It's called licensing, and what it means is that you no longer OWN the product you pay for. That link is about Microsoft Office, but they have their own GAMES for PC team. How long until that business model is in place for their games as well? My prediction: Not very.
One of the things that has ALWAYS bothered me about this conversation is that the developers blame a lack of sales on people buying used games. Not only is this inaccurate, it's coming from a position of entitlement. They feel entitled to the money that second-hand games shops are making, because they made the product in the first place... You know, the one that someone BOUGHT and then SOLD or TRADED IN to the shop. So tell me, why do the developers deserve to get paid TWICE for the same game? Is the assumption that the person buying a used game would buy a new one instead for the price YOU are charging? Because that is an incorrect assumption. I can't begin to tell you how incorrect that assumption is. I wouldn't pay your price, unless it was the same as I could get it for used at the second-hand shop. Your games cost too much. That's a repeating theme, by the way, in case you missed it.
So, can game companies secure their games in whatever way they want? Yep. Does that mean that I'll buy them? Nope. Not ever. I refuse to support something that not only doesn't let me play my game my way, but doesn't even allow it to be 'My Game'. You will not get my money ever again if you do this.
Period. (Quoting EA about SIMcity)
Do game developers have the right to protect their intellectual property with whatever security measures they want?
The simple answer is, yes. Yes they do.
The problem is, when your security infringes on what gamers want/expect from their games. It's a lot like the Patriot act - is it really worth your privacy as an individual to be 'secure'? I personally don't think so. I also don't think that the DRM measures that gaming companies are preparing to use (and in some cases, already are using), are even remotely necessary. And I won't pay for them.
Both of the upcoming next gen consoles are touting their DRM as being a feature (you have to be online to play games), and not what it truly is, an unwanted hinderance. It's almost as if they aren't listening to their customers, and have a severe disconnect with reality.
Requiring people to always be online to play your games (not to be read 'their own' games), is not the answer here. You accomplished your goal. You tested the waters and got the feedback. Guess what, it was all negative. The only people that want this is the developers. The only customers not responding negatively aren't responding at all, because they don't care. The people that care, are voicing their concerns. Are you listening?
Logistically speaking, it's not even realistic. Internet connections drop all the time, and don't even get me started on wifi connections. I'm talking hardline here. And I'm telling you, it is simply not worth my time to have to start over because you CAN'T properly support the fact that connections drop, and internet is not a perfect delivery method. CAN'T. Not even won't. CAN NOT. It isn't feasible. But we as gamers are just supposed to accept that things are going that way, and it's going to happen no matter what.
I know why the game developers are doing it. I understand. Piracy is rampant. Understand, I have no idea if the steps on that site work, because I wouldn't use them even if I had a PS3 - but that site exists, because people want to know how to do these things. They want to know how to do these things, because they want games that they can't/won't pay for. They can't/won't pay for said games, because games are too damned expensive. I know - anyone in the industry doesn't like to hear that. Games are too expensive. That's why I shop at gamestop. That's why I rarely buy a game for full price, and almost never buy a game on launch day. There are exceptions, and I'm very selective in who I choose to support. But I will NEVER support the necessity of an always on internet connection as DRM. Period.
Electronic Arts no longer gets my money. After I purchased Command and Conquer 4, and then realized I couldn't play the game I just paid for, I resolved to never pay them for anything else. By the way, I knew about the always on connection, and I even tried to play by their rules. But even with my connection, THEIR PRODUCT DIDN'T WORK! I checked for fixes, tried to patch the game, to no avail. It wouldn't work... and I was out $20 for no reason other than they wanted to do it that way for security.
Want to know another form of DRM that developers have been tossing around for a bit now? It's called licensing, and what it means is that you no longer OWN the product you pay for. That link is about Microsoft Office, but they have their own GAMES for PC team. How long until that business model is in place for their games as well? My prediction: Not very.
One of the things that has ALWAYS bothered me about this conversation is that the developers blame a lack of sales on people buying used games. Not only is this inaccurate, it's coming from a position of entitlement. They feel entitled to the money that second-hand games shops are making, because they made the product in the first place... You know, the one that someone BOUGHT and then SOLD or TRADED IN to the shop. So tell me, why do the developers deserve to get paid TWICE for the same game? Is the assumption that the person buying a used game would buy a new one instead for the price YOU are charging? Because that is an incorrect assumption. I can't begin to tell you how incorrect that assumption is. I wouldn't pay your price, unless it was the same as I could get it for used at the second-hand shop. Your games cost too much. That's a repeating theme, by the way, in case you missed it.
So, can game companies secure their games in whatever way they want? Yep. Does that mean that I'll buy them? Nope. Not ever. I refuse to support something that not only doesn't let me play my game my way, but doesn't even allow it to be 'My Game'. You will not get my money ever again if you do this.
Period. (Quoting EA about SIMcity)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)