Heh, what I find funny is that this is the sort of discussion that gaming used to avoid but that the music industry was caught up in all the time. "Record labels have sold out" "It's all about the money" etc.
But I think it's valid, too. It's a difficult line to draw because games were never really officially recognized as an art form, but there's still a sense that there are people who make games for the love of the craft, and there are people who make games for money.
And really, that's where the problem comes in. The more gaming becomes about the money, the worse games will become, because making a high-quality product often involves doing things that aren't all that financially sound (like, I dunno, taking risks).
Take the Sims, for an example. It seems like each new generation of the Sims is actually a step backwards because it is guaranteed to leave out the majority of features introduced by previous expansion packs. Why? So they can re-release those features in new expansion packs for the new generation!
It makes good business sense, sure, but you feel kind of cheated. Like those things had already been done, and they could have been added in to the original product without too much effort if the company had wanted, but they didn't want to. They figured it would bring them more cash to do it otherwise. It's a little exploitative.
Now, the Sims isn't necessarily the best example, since it's kind of the textbook definition of a cash cow. But day one DLCs trouble me for the same reason. Sure, it's done outside of the development cycle, but it's something the developers conceived and said "That's cool, but I don't think we should put it in the game itself, we should release it alongside the game and have people pay extra for it." Which if it were something controversial, would make sense. That way gamers who don't like it can freely enjoy the game without it. But it often isn't. In fact, it's often nothing major at all. It's often just an extra NPC or item or what have you. It's on the scope (and sometimes quality) of a player-made mod. And if it is something major, then it will likely end up being something that SHOULD have been in the original product.
A bigger issue than DLC, for me, and one that is purely reflective of greed, is the abolition of splitscreen multiplayer. Why? Because with splitscreen, multiple people can play with only one copy! It's a waste! You play online, everyone has to buy their own game! Splitscreen is a staple of console gaming and was, in many ways, the one true advantage consoles had over PCs. The ability to get three buddies together and you all sit in a room and play a game together was fantastic. In an equally unsettling move, LAN gaming for PC seems to be also going the way of the dodo. Blizzard used to be the company that would allow multiple people to play with one copy of the game. Now they're the company that won't let you even access a single kilobyte of game content unless you're connected to the internet.
I guess the issue is a conflict of priorities. We want to see gaming companies whose main thing is the games. The companies, however, have their main thing as the bottom line. It's understandable, but it's the same thing that happened to music. When business and art collide, it's the art that ends up being thrown to the side so that the business might thrive. In music, this caused a thriving underground scene to rise up, and today there are all sorts of self-promoted artists who do whatever they want. In gaming, it's a bit more difficult, since making a game is significantly more expensive and time-intensive than writing music.
Still, I've seen games like Braid and Bastion being touted as far better than anything AAA gaming companies have been putting out, so maybe there is hope. Maybe there is a future for "gamers' games." Who knows?
There is, at the very least, a past, and so long as projects like BG:EE and GOG.com exist, I'll have enough gaming goodness to last me a lifetime.
Here's the big question: What happens when the Blizzard/Activision policy of "You must be logged on to our servers to play any part of the game at all" collides with the EA policy of "People buying used games annoys us so we're going to shut down the servers of any non-flagship title after a year or so?" Because some company somewhere is going to do it sooner or later, and it's going to lead to you spending $60-$70 on a game that you will not be able to play in a year's time. And the problem is, a lot of gamers are going to go along with it, too, because to them, who plays a game for more than a year? And then the rest of us are left high and dry, stuck with all these games we can't play.
The issue is that video games have become a consumable. And that's antithetical to the production of good games.
@MilesBeyond: I agree. Games seem indeed have become consumables, some kind of fast food, even. The same rehashed product is being released every year, major game companies don't dare to take risks and strict deadlines are set, so that the whining crowd of consumers (quite literally) can keep on being fed...
If than 95% of the DLC was already in the game they should've given it for free. Better publishers and developers than EA/Bioware have done that before.
And that is a valid opinion and one I think you should be free to apply to any product you create, however other people who work on a project might just judge things a bit differently But everyone is different.
I'm also free to spread my opinion in hope that customer rage and/or boycotts would stop greedy companies from selling one product as several different products.
@Doom972 Yep you can sure try. Problem is, with the money being in the mainstream, "fans" and Fanatics generally don't wield enough economic influence in the overall scheme...which is EXACTLY why we are in the position we are currently in. In the end it all comes down to Money I guess.
@Kitteh_on_A_Cloud That is EXACTLY what has happened, because the broader the appeal the more revenue is generated. They don't take risks because risks are only rewarded by the hard core fan base, and the "real" money is in the casual gamer.... Which is why if you want the Old School approach you need to follow indie developers, but the Niche Market has to remember it is niche and not mainstream.....at least that is how I see it shaking out.
Sure they will, as they always have in those Niche markets, unfortunately the niches wont have the latest fancy graphics but there will be fun to be had. As for calling it greed....there is that aspect to it, but who among us doesn't strive to earn more, to sell our goods and services for the absolute best price we can get. It isn't often I run into someone who is offered a raise that says..."no thanks use it to keep the customers cost down".
What Im trying to say is don't be down....have faith that everything goes in cycles, it ebbs and flows, while I miss the fun I had with stuff I was into in the 70's and 80's Ive grown and moved on to other "Fun" stuff....Change is the only constant.
Suppose a company decides that instead of patches, they're going to start marketing them as "Game Upgrades" and charge money for them? And of course, if you want to play the game online, then this upgrade is mandatory. And since games are starting to require you to be logged in online to play them at all, then it's mandatory for everyone, or you stop playing.
The worst part is, people would go along with it. What's five bucks to get your game running a bit more smoothly? Forget that it's things that SHOULD have been fixed during development, if it makes the game run better, then I want it, damn it! Like your average casual gamer is a guy who has no issue forking over five-ten bucks for a novelty hat for his in-game character. If they like the game, they'll happily spend the money to get the game "upgraded." And we know they'll like the game, because it will be almost identical to the last game they liked.
Whew, am I cynical. But in all honesty, I think this is the natural progression of the way things are going right now. It's a gaming dystopia that I think could very shortly become a reality.
In that scenario some people would choose to give them money and others would not...I wouldn't but that is called the "Free Market" Successful strategies mean you stay in business, unsuccessful ones mean you disband and disperse. I see it as some people getting what they want, not a doom and gloomy scenario...the people who want it will pay for it...as long as I am not taxed by a government so someone else can get that I am ok with it.
Rather than disparage that game and company and the people who buy into it...I find those games I like and try to support them.....what does kind of suck is when a successful game has the rights bought by someone who wants to mess up a working winning formula.
Yes, and to paraphrase someone..."Homey don't play dat"
Edit....full disclosure My brother and his wife are true WoW addicts, they conviced me to play long enough to get 2 level 80 characters with their help...but then I said F* this and left.....but I do play *sigh* Diablo 3 which is decidedly MMO like
Hah, that's true, yes. I do play WoW, but only as a social thing to stay in touch with my friends over long distances. To be honest, I find the game boring as all get-out and don't enjoy playing it, but as $13 a month is cheaper than driving across half the country and having a night out, I go with it. Helps keep old relationships alive.
Hah, that's true, yes. I do play WoW, but only as a social thing to stay in touch with my friends over long distances. To be honest, I find the game boring as all get-out and don't enjoy playing it, but as $13 a month is cheaper than driving across half the country and having a night out, I go with it. Helps keep old relationships alive.
I don't think the phrase 'If you don't like it, don't buy/play it' is a valid argument. Let's take the comment from @MilesBeyond. If people would really want to start exploiting the gaming industry, this could very well be one of the things that gaming companies could start taking advantage of. The biggest factor is of course the passion from the gamers. DLC is mainly based on this passion, namely to give more content to customers. As I might've pointed out earlier, I don't mind DLC AS LONG as it 1) is stand-alone (so without ANY critical influence on the main story) and 2) offers content which is worth the price (evidently some re-coloured outfits and guns aren't worth 10 extra bucks). If even patches would start to be charged for...Just imagine: you're playing a game and are really enjoying it. Of course there are some bugs here and there and the facial movements of your character look very odd. Then the gaming company releases a patch that fixes all of these problems and charges you money for it. I think that's ridiculous, because they could've just as well included it into the main game when it was shipped. Patches usually are fixes for which the developers didn't have any time anymore to add to the main game, so they're distributed post-release. Should I, as a customer, then pay for an error on the developer's part, namely not making the deadline? It's like paying an employee for neededing more time for doing the same work another employee can handle just fine. It doesn't seem logical. The attitude of 'don't buy/play it' is also really irksome. It just represents indifference and sometimes also arrogance on the speaker's part.
Im totally for DLC, no matter if it expands the game, or adds all new content... If people want to buy a product then they will buy it, if said product is not what they want and they buy it anyway...they are idiots.
Trying to force people that are working at their job to earn money not to do things the way they see fit is redonkulous, if they ask for input yeah sure but otherwise just dont buy things you dont like...period.
@kitteh_on_a_cloud there have already been lawsuits against gaming companies that the big companies have lost.
if they start to charge for a patch, then it will go to court and so long as they don't pay off a judge (which isn't as common as people like to think) then EA....umm, i mean the gaming company will be fined and be forced to give out all future patches for free. because they can't prove that it was on purpose and also, they are selling a finished product.
so long as once you buy a game, you have to open it and read the user agreement, and once it's opened it can't be returned, we do have legal rights. it's just a matter of how much they choose to abuse it and when we start to fight back with lawsuits, which is the only thing that will change the big companies.
Oh Im right there with ya, one does need to use common sense as to what DLC is and what a Fully functional product is. I will totally support taking a company to court for selling a broken incomplete product. On the other hand I do support the idea of modular construction and the consumer having the options of picking and choosing which optional content they buy.... But in the interest of full disclosure my profession sort of helps mold my thoughts on that....but I like to believe I've been able to strike a fair balance.
@immagikman not really, if you sell the pieces, it's more expensive then the whole
if you want balance, do it like beamdog is setting the example, you can buy the full game for 20, or the partial game for 10 and add what pieces you want/like. that would be fair and balanced, but if you buy the full game in pieces, it should wind up costing you 25~30 (discount on buying everything)
@kitteh_on_a_cloud there have already been lawsuits against gaming companies that the big companies have lost.
if they start to charge for a patch, then it will go to court and so long as they don't pay off a judge (which isn't as common as people like to think) then EA....umm, i mean the gaming company will be fined and be forced to give out all future patches for free. because they can't prove that it was on purpose and also, they are selling a finished product.
so long as once you buy a game, you have to open it and read the user agreement, and once it's opened it can't be returned, we do have legal rights. it's just a matter of how much they choose to abuse it and when we start to fight back with lawsuits, which is the only thing that will change the big companies.
Yeah but add a bit of additional content, like an item or two, in along with the patch and then what? Would they still lose?
I don't mean to be a smart ass, and am just reading the final entries of this topic; but regarding the subject of gamers being able to sue companies (specifically EA):
I don't mean to be a smart ass, and am just reading the final entries of this topic; but regarding the subject of gamers being able to sue companies (specifically EA):
Seems they're getting wise after that incident with the DRM in Spore.
Read that, and again, the problem is that the EULA isn't posted on the box, and nor are you allowed to a refund whenever you read the EULA. Imagine if the EULA says that you're not allowed to play the game as part of the EULA, and that since it's software, you can't return it while it's opened.
Also, i think anyone aware of this and still buying EA products is quite foolish. They will never see my money again.
I'm just glad that it hasn't gotten to the point where games are released just flat out broken yet. In the history of all the probably 100s of games I've bought, only 1 was actually so broken as to be honestly unplayable. That game is Sword of the Stars 2, and anyone who has tried to "play" it knows what I'm talking about. Even all this time after release, its still unplayable garbage with no end in sight. It's really the only game I've ever bought that I honestly believed I should have been refunded for.
As to EA, dead to me, no more of their crap will I be buying. It's sad that I am forced to give up Bioware because of EA's corporate decisions, but they've pretty much run them into the ground too quality wise. I can't wait to see what kind of money grubbing crap they pull with DA3, they basically milked ME3 for all it was worth with their various DLCs and iPad apps. Probably something along the lines of "Buy the save game feature for only $15!!! OR, purchase the best ending for the low low price of $20 !!!"
I must agree, I hate all this DLCs wave. Game, Ok, Expansion, Ok, DLC.. my wallet will stay closed.
Why can an expansion not be offered in DLC form? I get ALLLLLL my software by Downloadable content...if it is on line and you get it from the web, it is DLC.
Read that, and again, the problem is that the EULA isn't posted on the box, and nor are you allowed to a refund whenever you read the EULA. Imagine if the EULA says that you're not allowed to play the game as part of the EULA, and that since it's software, you can't return it while it's opened.
Also, i think anyone aware of this and still buying EA products is quite foolish. They will never see my money again.
I believe if you check with a legal expert you will find that just because it is in the EULA..that does not make it Law, especially when the EULA is not abailable pre-purchase and there are no refunds post purchase. People get all weirded out over stupid stuff, but the Wishful thinking of the SONY Law Department doesn't win cases, it just intimidates people. When it comes to trial (and it will) the no Class Action clause will most likely be struck down.
Now as for buying EA products... They dont really make a lot of stuff I like so I dont use them often, however I completely enjoyed Mass Effect 3 DLC and all, original ending and new endings so Im not a purist like some with the ME universe....but I got 200 hours of fun for 30 cents an hour.... I am satisfied.
You know...I cannot think of any other entertainment medium I can pay such a low cost per hour for...even reading is more expensive with the cost of books the way it is, I can finish a normal sized book in about a day...
I'm just glad that it hasn't gotten to the point where games are released just flat out broken yet.
If you look around a little on the internet, you will find several titles that have been sold in an unplayable state - usually because of copy protection gone crazy.
Comments
But I think it's valid, too. It's a difficult line to draw because games were never really officially recognized as an art form, but there's still a sense that there are people who make games for the love of the craft, and there are people who make games for money.
And really, that's where the problem comes in. The more gaming becomes about the money, the worse games will become, because making a high-quality product often involves doing things that aren't all that financially sound (like, I dunno, taking risks).
Take the Sims, for an example. It seems like each new generation of the Sims is actually a step backwards because it is guaranteed to leave out the majority of features introduced by previous expansion packs. Why? So they can re-release those features in new expansion packs for the new generation!
It makes good business sense, sure, but you feel kind of cheated. Like those things had already been done, and they could have been added in to the original product without too much effort if the company had wanted, but they didn't want to. They figured it would bring them more cash to do it otherwise. It's a little exploitative.
Now, the Sims isn't necessarily the best example, since it's kind of the textbook definition of a cash cow. But day one DLCs trouble me for the same reason. Sure, it's done outside of the development cycle, but it's something the developers conceived and said "That's cool, but I don't think we should put it in the game itself, we should release it alongside the game and have people pay extra for it." Which if it were something controversial, would make sense. That way gamers who don't like it can freely enjoy the game without it. But it often isn't. In fact, it's often nothing major at all. It's often just an extra NPC or item or what have you. It's on the scope (and sometimes quality) of a player-made mod. And if it is something major, then it will likely end up being something that SHOULD have been in the original product.
A bigger issue than DLC, for me, and one that is purely reflective of greed, is the abolition of splitscreen multiplayer. Why? Because with splitscreen, multiple people can play with only one copy! It's a waste! You play online, everyone has to buy their own game! Splitscreen is a staple of console gaming and was, in many ways, the one true advantage consoles had over PCs. The ability to get three buddies together and you all sit in a room and play a game together was fantastic. In an equally unsettling move, LAN gaming for PC seems to be also going the way of the dodo. Blizzard used to be the company that would allow multiple people to play with one copy of the game. Now they're the company that won't let you even access a single kilobyte of game content unless you're connected to the internet.
I guess the issue is a conflict of priorities. We want to see gaming companies whose main thing is the games. The companies, however, have their main thing as the bottom line. It's understandable, but it's the same thing that happened to music. When business and art collide, it's the art that ends up being thrown to the side so that the business might thrive. In music, this caused a thriving underground scene to rise up, and today there are all sorts of self-promoted artists who do whatever they want. In gaming, it's a bit more difficult, since making a game is significantly more expensive and time-intensive than writing music.
Still, I've seen games like Braid and Bastion being touted as far better than anything AAA gaming companies have been putting out, so maybe there is hope. Maybe there is a future for "gamers' games." Who knows?
There is, at the very least, a past, and so long as projects like BG:EE and GOG.com exist, I'll have enough gaming goodness to last me a lifetime.
The issue is that video games have become a consumable. And that's antithetical to the production of good games.
@Kitteh_on_A_Cloud
That is EXACTLY what has happened, because the broader the appeal the more revenue is generated. They don't take risks because risks are only rewarded by the hard core fan base, and the "real" money is in the casual gamer.... Which is why if you want the Old School approach you need to follow indie developers, but the Niche Market has to remember it is niche and not mainstream.....at least that is how I see it shaking out.
What Im trying to say is don't be down....have faith that everything goes in cycles, it ebbs and flows, while I miss the fun I had with stuff I was into in the 70's and 80's Ive grown and moved on to other "Fun" stuff....Change is the only constant.
Suppose a company decides that instead of patches, they're going to start marketing them as "Game Upgrades" and charge money for them? And of course, if you want to play the game online, then this upgrade is mandatory. And since games are starting to require you to be logged in online to play them at all, then it's mandatory for everyone, or you stop playing.
The worst part is, people would go along with it. What's five bucks to get your game running a bit more smoothly? Forget that it's things that SHOULD have been fixed during development, if it makes the game run better, then I want it, damn it! Like your average casual gamer is a guy who has no issue forking over five-ten bucks for a novelty hat for his in-game character. If they like the game, they'll happily spend the money to get the game "upgraded." And we know they'll like the game, because it will be almost identical to the last game they liked.
Whew, am I cynical. But in all honesty, I think this is the natural progression of the way things are going right now. It's a gaming dystopia that I think could very shortly become a reality.
that is called the "Free Market" Successful strategies mean you stay in business, unsuccessful ones mean you disband and disperse. I see it as some people getting what they want, not a doom and gloomy scenario...the people who want it will pay for it...as long as I am not taxed by a government so someone else can get that I am ok with it.
Rather than disparage that game and company and the people who buy into it...I find those games I like and try to support them.....what does kind of suck is when a successful game has the rights bought by someone who wants to mess up a working winning formula.
Edit....full disclosure My brother and his wife are true WoW addicts, they conviced me to play long enough to get 2 level 80 characters with their help...but then I said F* this and left.....but I do play *sigh* Diablo 3 which is decidedly MMO like
Trying to force people that are working at their job to earn money not to do things the way they see fit is redonkulous, if they ask for input yeah sure but otherwise just dont buy things you dont like...period.
there have already been lawsuits against gaming companies that the big companies have lost.
if they start to charge for a patch, then it will go to court and so long as they don't pay off a judge (which isn't as common as people like to think) then EA....umm, i mean the gaming company will be fined and be forced to give out all future patches for free. because they can't prove that it was on purpose and also, they are selling a finished product.
so long as once you buy a game, you have to open it and read the user agreement, and once it's opened it can't be returned, we do have legal rights. it's just a matter of how much they choose to abuse it and when we start to fight back with lawsuits, which is the only thing that will change the big companies.
if you want balance, do it like beamdog is setting the example, you can buy the full game for 20, or the partial game for 10 and add what pieces you want/like. that would be fair and balanced, but if you buy the full game in pieces, it should wind up costing you 25~30 (discount on buying everything)
http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/14642/ea-adopts-can-not-sue-us-terms-of-service
Seems they're getting wise after that incident with the DRM in Spore.
Also, i think anyone aware of this and still buying EA products is quite foolish. They will never see my money again.
As to EA, dead to me, no more of their crap will I be buying. It's sad that I am forced to give up Bioware because of EA's corporate decisions, but they've pretty much run them into the ground too quality wise. I can't wait to see what kind of money grubbing crap they pull with DA3, they basically milked ME3 for all it was worth with their various DLCs and iPad apps. Probably something along the lines of "Buy the save game feature for only $15!!! OR, purchase the best ending for the low low price of $20 !!!"
Now as for buying EA products... They dont really make a lot of stuff I like so I dont use them often, however I completely enjoyed Mass Effect 3 DLC and all, original ending and new endings so Im not a purist like some with the ME universe....but I got 200 hours of fun for 30 cents an hour.... I am satisfied.