The Great Migration: Current Online Communities
Posted on Monday, March 4 2013 @ 13:49:29 Eastern


Late in February, it was announced by Sony that the PS4 would not support backwards compatibility. Well, what’s going to happen to my clan, elite status, the war on Tachanka, etc…? When we transitioned from the PS2 to the PS3, the emphasis was still on single player/local multiplayer. Backwards compatibility addressed the needs of the single individual to continue playing from their game libraries, some of which were two console generations in the making. Folks still huddled in a dorm, bedroom, or basement and hung out with their friends to play video games. There were several online offerings but these were insignificant in comparison to today’s market.

In the last few years there has been a significant push and realization of bringing console gamers into the realm of online gaming communities. It works well on the computer… let’s try to tweak that model a bit and emulate the experience for console gamers. Success!! It worked; initially, it seemed as though multiplayer modes were being tagged on to everything… specifically some of our most cherished single player experiences/franchises. Some implementations of the concept were successful… Mass Effect 3, Uncharted 2, Dead Space 3, to name a few. Others were not so successful… Mindjack, RE: Operation Raccoon City, etc… I would say that over time they have gotten much better as a whole at creating an online experience that not only engrosses the individual gamer, but fosters online communal relationships. These communities are still in relative infancy in comparison to pc communities, such as Eve Online, WoW, Guild Wars, etc. Although infantile, they are still strong and also far more significant now than when the PS3 arrived on the scene.

So, I hear you on the no backwards compatibility to *cough* keep cost down, but you gotta tell me what you are going to do with the communities you have spent time and money developing. As I pondered the different strategies which may be utilized to alleviate this issue I happened upon the article by Keri Honea titled, “Uncharted 3 Multiplayer Goes Freemium as of Today”. The article focused on Uncharted 3 Multiplayer being offered as a stand alone free-to-play title. It made me think of some of the positive implications of such a model. In the comments to the article there were a couple questions as to why Uncharted 3 multiplayer was going free to play rather than a game with a more robust online community. I thought to myself because this may be a way to migrate the current not-super-popular but still active online communities upon release of the PS4.


The idea would be that although no backwards compatibility would be implemented for the sake of cost containment, you could still create these self-funded stand-alone multiplayer experiences. An example would be dropping the single-player campaign from Call of Duty Black Ops 2 (I think certain franchises generate enough revenue to warrant a port…CoD being one of them, whih I will use simply for illustrative purposes), and then releasing the multiplayer stand-alone on PS4 at release or around the same time as the first iteration of next-gen CoD hits the market. Like Uncharted 3, the multiplayer would be free-to-play with micro-transactions funding the maintenance of the servers and support. It would be interesting to see these stand-alones on the PS4 at launch via the new network. Enhancing the list of games available at release, while also minimizing cost impact since the communities and technical foundations for the games are already there. They have information on the most active online communities, so wouldn’t it be more efficient to incentivize this pool of consumers whom you have been grooming the past few years at launch?

You are not selling a PS4 to the individual! You made it that way. You are selling a PS4 to 2, 3, or 4 individuals at once. If I have the cash for a PS4, but the majority of my friends are still playing online PS3 games because they can’t afford the console… it just delayed my purchase. Sony, based on your last launch I am guessing you want to secure as much of a market segment as possible in the first few quarters post release. This is one way to do that. Sony took steps in the right direction with cross-platform play and now with Diablo III coming to PS4, let's focus on these online communities, people!

In conclusion, please for the love of God, find a way to support, not abandon the communities you have created, developed, and fostered in the past few years, Microsoft and Sony. It would only be in your best interest.

The opinions expressed here does not necessarily reflect the views of Game Revolution, but we believe it's worthy of being featured on our site. This article has been lightly edited for grammar and image inclusion. It has been submitted for our monthly Vox Pop competition. You can find more Vox Pop articles here. ~Ed. Nick

[ 2 Comments ]        [ Post a Comment ]

Season Passes...for every season?
Posted on Tuesday, February 26 2013 @ 12:34:23 Eastern


When Rockstar Games introduced the first season pass via L.A. Noire, it seemed to be quite a novel and great idea. In essence I would get a discount on all future DLC for what was going to be another epic Rockstar title. Blinded by the light, the assumption that Rockstar would put out a trash game or even trash DLC was to some unfathomable. Reputable publisher + brand loyalty…this could work. What has now become somewhat of an industry norm for AAA titles holds little in common with the initial assumptions.

Season passes do not encompass all future DLC; for instance, look at Darksiders 2 where the season pass entitles you to 3 DLC but numerous others are only for individual purchase. I don’t think this was the original idea, but hey, things change based on market response to new gaming conventions. One of the best aspects of purchasing these season passes was the reduced cost associated with the advanced and bundled purchase. This concept, however, is more effective when the consumer believes the value of the DLC to be consistent with the pricing model established by the publisher. What happens when you have asshat Publisher A offer a season pass for future DLC that turns out to be trash…well, you have a problem! 
It diminishes consumer trust in the mechanism – I am paying in advance for something I know nothing about and may not like…is the discount worth it? Even if at the discount I believe it is still **** DLC for the price? Each time expectations are not met, the novelty and cost effectiveness of the idea is impacted by the reality of the offering and sales of season passes as a whole diminish, as consumers are more skeptical about paying for the unknown. Particularly from unvetted Publishers and more importantly publishers who have previously not met the expectations of the consumer.
  What happens next… well, the publishers still have to make cash. So let’s dilute the original premise by saying the Season Pass entitles you to this set number of DLC but let's also make additional DLC to be purchased by those skeptical to purchase a season pass (which typically has a significantly greater price point than its individual parts). So my season pass no longer entitles me to all future DLC? So in essence should we possibly call it DLC bundles so it isn’t such a misnomer? But then there are still folks who perceive season passes as a great value… which they can be… if done right. So as consumers, what do you do with this ever-changing busisness model.
 
Well, when I got tired of paying $60 for new games that turned out to be in my opinion only worth $15-$30 bucks, I delayed purchase… which I really should sit down one day and do a cost analysis of the savings, but that is for a separate post (has been working out very well!). I guess the same can be done for DLC. I noticed when I recently purchased Darksiders 2 that the season pass was still available. Since THQ has closed, I think it may have been one of the factors leading to the decreased price of $15 for the game only 6 months after release at $60. I was thinking $15 + $20 (season pass(all DLC?)) = $35 for a fun 6-month-old game with no multiplayer *WIN. What was weird was that there was a bunch of other DLC and it made me wonder what happened to the original idea behind the season pass and thus this entry.
 
I guess the end point of this entry is that video games are big business and the business models implemented to get your hard-earned cash are going to continue to change frequently and your purchasing thresholds will be tested more and more, particularly as we move into the next-generation of consoles where increased costs can be responded to with blanket statements of novelty of technology. As gamers and consumers, if you watch and are able to adapt your spending habits to these practices, you won’t be nearly as frustrated with the tactics being used. Plus, we are a community organized around access to information, regardless of generation. Gamers are on the net and as a byproduct, if we are able to recognize universally douchebag-like practices and respond accordingly en masse, you would be surprised how much impact you can have on the pricing of consoles, videogames, and their DLC.
 
Sidenote: I was also inspired to write this by the BioShock Infinite “early bird” season pass special which made me think that they may possibly be offering an early bird season pass as well as a season pass post release that will have less component offering though both may be called season passes. Yet another possible change to the business model.

The opinions expressed here does not necessarily reflect the views of Game Revolution, but we believe it's worthy of being featured on our site. This article has been lightly edited for grammar and image inclusion. It has been submitted for our monthly Vox Pop competition. You can find more Vox Pop articles here. ~Ed. Nick

[ 12 Comments ]        [ Post a Comment ]

Modern Warfare Games and Artistic Liberty: What side to portray?
Posted on Friday, October 26 2012 @ 13:29:59 Eastern



So I bashed Medal of Honor: Warfighter for the plethora of bugs needing to be addressed via a day one patch, but, the following day I read an article regarding a terrorist training sequence found in the early stages of the game. In the last edition of Medal of Honor, an uproar was had over the ability to take on the role of terrorist and actually go against US troops in multiplayer. Now this… it made me think of where the line between artistic liberty and social preference intersect.

In order for a war to occur, it tends to need a minimum of 2 distinct groups; in this case, the US military and the militant terrorist groups. Is it appropriate in this age of information to portray only one side of a conflict? What are the benefits? What is the downside? On the one hand, we seek transparency of our government and you have sources like WikiLeaks dumping confidential information onto the public via the internet. This seems to point to a demand by the current generation to utilize technology to provide and take in as much information as possible.

Historically, it was said that history is written by the victor, but with YouTube, the internet, and numerous other forms of technology, can this saying still be applied today? At a time when it is evident from “fact”-checking “fact” checkers that people are keying in on getting the full/”whole” picture, it leaves developers at a bit of an impasse. They know the public wants reality—see Honey Boo Boo, Tru Tv, etc… then burn your eyes out. But how do developers/creators of war games give the whole story if it is socially unacceptable to portray certain facts, regardless of the fact that it’s simply fact?

From the one perspective, I empathize with the stance of "hey, don’t put kids in the shoes of terrorist to shoot US troops in a game I have several family members who serve proudly", but on the other hand, other countries may view this differently. Do you provide country-appropriate content? It reminds me a bit of HomeFront being banned in Korea… and that was pure fiction. I guess it is difficult to understand the need by the current generation for the “whole” truth while, when presented, it is deemed inappropriate.

Make no mistake, I have no sympathy for some jackass terrorist, but I am hard pressed to believe that they don’t have their own “real” story. What happens when you humanize a term associated with such atrocious acts. As a creator of games, are you ever allowed to portray a human/personal side of a terrorist? It reminds me a bit of Breaking Bad and how someone so average can become such a damn monster. It’s a bit of a conundrum for creators as you know the dynamic is there and we all to some extent want to know what made the characters do such a jack assthing, but how do you present this side of the story appropriately... That’s the question.

The opinions expressed here does not necessarily reflect the views of Game Revolution, but we believe it's worthy of being featured on our site. This article has been lightly edited for grammar and image inclusion. It has been submitted for our monthly Vox Pop competition. ~Ed. Nick

[ 15 Comments ]        [ Post a Comment ]

Dumbed Down Games… Dumbed Down People…Or Simply A Matter Of Habit?
Posted on Friday, October 5 2012 @ 14:33:49 Eastern


[This blog was actually posted on Sept. 24, so it is referring to an article during that time. ~Ed. Nick]

Dear Jonathan,
 
       I took the opportunity to read your article...   read more...

[ Comments ]        [ Post a Comment ]

The Sleeper Game Phenomena And A Diabolical Way To Use It
Posted on Tuesday, September 4 2012 @ 11:12:01 Eastern



I was reading the article today about the season pass for Borderlands 2 and perused some of the comments which were as expected, with gamers somewhat frustrated at content being made, marketed, and sold separately yet in tandem with a...   read more...

[ Comments ]        [ Post a Comment ]