Anyone that knows me very well at all, knows that I refuse to give certain game companies my money anymore. As a consumer, I feel it's not only my right, but a responsibility to speak to these companies in the only language they seem to understand - money. I don't part my wallet for several companies, and one of them is EA.
I was a little interested in Titanfall, so I did what I usually do and waited until I could purchase it used at Gamestop, and so I finally got to play what EA would have you believe is the game of the fucking century. It's fun. Period. Full stop.
The first thing that happened was an expected one - server glitches. Seems every new game that comes out kills the ever loving shit out of servers in the first few weeks - and this was no exception. After a few hours of playing Enemy Within, I checked the servers again, and hey, look at that, back online.
Anyway, the campaign (if you can accurately call it that) is basically playing as both sides of whatever space conflict we are a part of (I honestly have no idea what most of the story is, because they literally do all of the plot points as recorded voices over your headset as you play) and they have 10 missions each - which will give you a feel for the game itself pretty well. So, the campaign is the tutorial albeit an extended one.
Once the campaign is over, Titanfall is just deathmatch with mechs. Now to some, that is game nirvana, and hey, if you like it, this is probably the game for you. There are some truly exciting moments and some pretty cool gameplay to be had. Me, not so much. I'm not a team deathmatch kind of guy. I kind of want to do it every now and then - and I usually get my fix in GTA online, where I can also do a shit ton of other things in between that occasional desire to team deathmatch.
If your ultimate online gaming experience is killing the other humans online with you in a virtual capacity, Titanfall is your huckleberry. If you're too young to get that reference, fuck you. If you want more plot or story, I'd skip this one. It's truly a case of whatever floats your boat.
Showing posts with label electronic arts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label electronic arts. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
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.
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)