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

 
1. Petition by
   David Fontenot
   GA

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.

(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.