There are times in which you wonder how people manage to line up an unparalleled chain of blunders on the same product or franchise. This is one of such times.
Today Sega managed to put the final icing on the cake of blunders, clumsy translations, excessively late release dates and silly excuses that characterized the Ryu Ga Gotoku (Yakuza) saga in the west.
They're going to release the game without english voice acting (that for many may be a blessing, mind you, but still it doesn't help giving the game any kind of mass appeal).
They're releasing the game with no marketing and promotion to speak of.
They are going to release the game more than a year after it's release in Japan, and only one week before the japanese release of it's sequel, managing, in the meanwhile, to nail exactly the same release date of Final Fantasy XIII, that will of course completely obliterate Yakuza 3 visibility-wise.
Could that be enough for the marketing geniuses that Sega happened to find in a random pack of potato chips? Not really.
In a recent interview with IGN (also reported by Kotaku), an unnamed "Sega Representative" said that certain elements that are peculiar of the Japanese culture wouldn't "resonate" (uh?!) with the western audience and as such they have been arbitrarily removed.
Two elements that were named were a quiz on Japanese history and the popular (in Japan) hostess clubs, in which businessmen and salarymen (and Yakuza) go to drink and socialize, while entertained by paid hostesses. Mind you, such hostessess in most cases aren't prostitutes, they just drink with the customers and chat with them.
So not only the game will be released in an absolutely reckless release window, with an half assed localization and no promotion at all. It'll also be cut and neutered, in order to appease to the (according to Sega, apparently) dumb westerner, that obviously would risk a seizure if faced with such outrageous elements of the Japanese culture.
After all, they're buying a game about Japan's underground, why would they want to experience the Japanese culture? Maybe they should rename the game Mafia 3, redesign Tokyo as New York and give Kazuma (pardon, Jack) a Tommy Gun and a pinstriped suit.
Sega of America isn't new to this kind of borderline idiotic statements.
Remember when their ex president Simon Jeffery drooled something like: "Much of the product that comes out of Japan isn't really suitable or appropriate culturally for the Western market," Jeffery notes, "and Sega has become the first of the Japanese gaming companies to recognize that the global market has various tastes and isn't necessarily just one great big Japanese market."
It was back in 2008, and I already talked about it in this article. In the meanwhile Jeffery has been (thank goodness) sacked, but looks like his omnious and damaging ideas still hold ground between Sega's marketing team.
The most funny part is that it's possible that the cuts have been done for timing reasons "in order to bring the game to the west in the time alloted for us to do so". Yes, I'm sure everyone at Sega is absolutely eager to publish the game exactly the the same day as Final Fantasy XIII. I can only imagine how disastrous it'd be for sega if such an absolutely convenient release date was missed.
To be honest, such an enormous amount of consecutive blunders definitely smells fishy. I'm almost led to believe that someone at Sega of America/Europe has an hidden agenda in order to persuade the higher-ups of Sega of Japan that strong Japanese-flavored games don't sell in the west.
If you think about it, every single marketing decision taken on Yakuza 3 and it's publishing in the west, seems to purposedly aimed to sink the game. No promotion? Check. Half assed localization? Check. Release in an overcrowded timeframe and simultaneous with one of the strongest titles of this generation? Check. Fanbase-alienating cuts? Check.
Coincidence?
At the very least, if they're so concerned about the "resonance" between hostess bars and japanese history and the western audience, they could offer such elements as DLC (free or very cheap, please, given that it'd be just giving gamers content that should already be included in the original game). After all it's not that such an action would require that much effort given that the game isn't even voiced in english.
Finally, it all boils down to a very simple concept. It's 2010, Sega sunshines. We live in a globalized world. It's not acceptable, nowadays, to see part of a culture cut out of a game because (according to an absolutely clueless publisher) it would not "resonate" with the local fanbase.
Yakuza 1 and 2 didn't sell much in the west for similar reasons, as I already explained long ago in this article. It's obvious that similar (or worse, at least Yakuza 1 and 2 weren't cut) conditions will bring to similar results.
My dear people at Sega of America/Europe: If Yakuza 3 won't sell well don't blame the Japanse culture of it's flavor. Don't blame the allegedly refractary western audience (so refractary to the Japanese culture that they absorbe Anime and Manga like hungry sponges).
Blame yourself and your borderline idiotic marketing theories, that hold absolutely no ground in reality. Your lack of contact with your customerbase is so dire, that i'd be surprised if you managed to sell a single toaster by visiting people door-to-door.
With all due respect, of course.
To conclude, I'd like to write an appeal to Atlus USA. Please, pretty please. Go knock on Sega's door and tell them that you'll take care of Yakuza 4 in the west for them. Pull another Demon's Souls out of your hat. With today's news I came to the dire realization that the Ryu Ga Gotoku series won't ever reach mainstream success in the west until it rids itself of Sega.
Sad but true.
Update: a new post on the Sega official blog "explains" why the cuts have been made. It says that "the choice that had to be made was either no Yakuza 3 in the west, or a version of the game that was almost exactly the same, but with a little less trivia."
They say they want to be "upfront", but they don't really explain why hostess clubs would be considered a deal breaker. It sure isn't a matter of ratings, considering that strip clubs and similar titillating environments have been kept into the game. The game is rated M for Mature after all. To get a worse rating than that, it'd require graphical sex and full frontal nudity, elements that are not included in the hostess club scenes. Mind you, the hostess club scenes do not include any sexual element.
So I'm sorry Sega, you haven't been upfront. You explained nothing, and honetsly, in 2010, I doubt there would be any logical explanation to cut from a game some elements just because they happen to portray a different and foreign culture.
A shame.
Update2: a Sega representative updated Kotaku, telling that the cuts have been done because of a "tight schedule". Excuse me? You release a game more than one year after the original Japanese, without even dubbing it, and you want us to believe you had a "tight schedule?".
Was releasing the game exactly the same day as another game that will completely overshadow it (Final Fantasy XIII) so important according to your schedule, Sega?
Paint me amused...
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
The Bonfire of the Vanities is lit
Today Ubisoft released the second DLC package for Assassin's Creed 2, Bonfire of the Vanities.
Some have been disappointed by the fact that the previous one, The Battle of Forlì, was actually quite short, and made more of endless brawls into the city streets (and a city that we already visited on top of that) than of what Assassin's Creed shines best at, assassinations.
Those that shared those disappointment will be happy to know that Bonfire of the Vanities suffers not of such flaws. Quite the contrary.
First of all, my playthrough lasted about three hours, that for a "bite-sized" piece of downloadable content, is quite a mouthful, and plenty given the price. For sure a pleasant surprise.
The second pleasant surprise is that the story is centered not only in the old Firenze we already visited, but also in a brand new district beyond the Bridges over the river Arno, the area that we couldn't visit during the original game.
The new district, built around Palazzo Pitti, has the same level of visual quality of the other ones (even if it doesn't have monumental landmarks like the Duomo), and is definitely enjoyable to explore. It even features a new kind of stunt Ezio can perform, by running on some springboards that allow him to jump farther to previously unreachable roofs.
Content-wise, the DLC will be pretty familiar to the fans of the original game. There is very little brawling, as most of the nine old-style assassinations included actually require you not to be spotted by the guards. The variety of environments and situations make for a quite interesting spread in gameplay. One interesting tidbit. If you have problems getting the "No hitter" achievement/trophy, given that guards tend to run before you kill the required ten, during one of the assassinations (the captain of the guard), you'll have plenty light guards coming at you, and they will not run. If you manage to avoid getting hit, you'll get the achievement easily. Just make sure to immediately run between the pillars, so that the archers won't hit you from above.
The story is compact, but well fleshed out, it also brings a very nice closure to Ezio's personal troubles at the end (of course I won't spoil it). All in all it's definitely another strong point of this DLC.
All things summed up, I'd say that Ubisoft really nailed what a "bite-sized downloadable content" should always be. Unfortunately, many of the DLC we get for most games are either too short or simply too small to truly justify their prices, but this isn't definitely the case of Bonfire of the Vanities.
The DLC is either offered by itself, or in a bundle with three Templar tombs that originally were in the Black collector's edition. While it's nice of Ubisoft to offer the content to the ones that missed the limited edition, I would not advise getting them unless you're a fan of extreme platforming (similar to what you find in the Assassins' tombs). They don't offer any story at all, the fighting is very limited, and the rewards sadly insufficient (just about 3000 florins each). Given that money is what you need the least in Assassin's Creed, especially if you're quite deep into the game, it's definitely not worth it.
If you like jumping from platform to platform for about 15 minutes a pop, probably getting through a couple pretty frustrating jumps, and doing some sightseeing, then this content is for you, otherwise don't bother and just get the stand alone Bonfire DLC.
A little word of warning: if you get to the DLC on the PSN from the "What's new" menu, you'll be directed to the stand alone Bonfire. Since there's no way to get the Templar locations described above by themselves, if you get the standalone Bonfire of the Vanities DLC, you won't be able to get the Templar locations without buying Bonfire a second time (like I had to do, meh, after playing through it, I wish i didn't), wasting a few dollars/euros.
Some have been disappointed by the fact that the previous one, The Battle of Forlì, was actually quite short, and made more of endless brawls into the city streets (and a city that we already visited on top of that) than of what Assassin's Creed shines best at, assassinations.
Those that shared those disappointment will be happy to know that Bonfire of the Vanities suffers not of such flaws. Quite the contrary.
First of all, my playthrough lasted about three hours, that for a "bite-sized" piece of downloadable content, is quite a mouthful, and plenty given the price. For sure a pleasant surprise.
The second pleasant surprise is that the story is centered not only in the old Firenze we already visited, but also in a brand new district beyond the Bridges over the river Arno, the area that we couldn't visit during the original game.
The new district, built around Palazzo Pitti, has the same level of visual quality of the other ones (even if it doesn't have monumental landmarks like the Duomo), and is definitely enjoyable to explore. It even features a new kind of stunt Ezio can perform, by running on some springboards that allow him to jump farther to previously unreachable roofs.
Content-wise, the DLC will be pretty familiar to the fans of the original game. There is very little brawling, as most of the nine old-style assassinations included actually require you not to be spotted by the guards. The variety of environments and situations make for a quite interesting spread in gameplay. One interesting tidbit. If you have problems getting the "No hitter" achievement/trophy, given that guards tend to run before you kill the required ten, during one of the assassinations (the captain of the guard), you'll have plenty light guards coming at you, and they will not run. If you manage to avoid getting hit, you'll get the achievement easily. Just make sure to immediately run between the pillars, so that the archers won't hit you from above.
The story is compact, but well fleshed out, it also brings a very nice closure to Ezio's personal troubles at the end (of course I won't spoil it). All in all it's definitely another strong point of this DLC.
All things summed up, I'd say that Ubisoft really nailed what a "bite-sized downloadable content" should always be. Unfortunately, many of the DLC we get for most games are either too short or simply too small to truly justify their prices, but this isn't definitely the case of Bonfire of the Vanities.
The DLC is either offered by itself, or in a bundle with three Templar tombs that originally were in the Black collector's edition. While it's nice of Ubisoft to offer the content to the ones that missed the limited edition, I would not advise getting them unless you're a fan of extreme platforming (similar to what you find in the Assassins' tombs). They don't offer any story at all, the fighting is very limited, and the rewards sadly insufficient (just about 3000 florins each). Given that money is what you need the least in Assassin's Creed, especially if you're quite deep into the game, it's definitely not worth it.
If you like jumping from platform to platform for about 15 minutes a pop, probably getting through a couple pretty frustrating jumps, and doing some sightseeing, then this content is for you, otherwise don't bother and just get the stand alone Bonfire DLC.
A little word of warning: if you get to the DLC on the PSN from the "What's new" menu, you'll be directed to the stand alone Bonfire. Since there's no way to get the Templar locations described above by themselves, if you get the standalone Bonfire of the Vanities DLC, you won't be able to get the Templar locations without buying Bonfire a second time (like I had to do, meh, after playing through it, I wish i didn't), wasting a few dollars/euros.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Forza Motorsport 3: What went wrong
When it was released a few months ago, Forza Motorsport 3 gathered a bounty of enthusiastic reviews and over-90 high scores that seemed to seal the success of the third installment of the Microsoft-powered franchise. The recent announcement of two millions copies sold seems to confirm such success, but reality is a little less shiny.
The online community of the game is rapidly dwindling and more and more tuning and painting garages (the true heart of such community) are closing down shop, admitting defeat.
Last Friday evening at 9 PM EST (one of the busiest times in the week for online gaming), public lobbies for Forza 3 had a total of 1463 players. Sunday afternoon, at the time of this article's writing, the number is only slightly higher, with 1752 players online. Even considering a sizable amount of gamers "hidden" in private lobbies, with two millions copies in the gamers' homes, one would expect such numbers to be much, much higher.
Less than the 0.1% of the game's player base online during the most busy parts of the week is indeed a pretty discouraging percentage. The numbers are pretty much comparable to the players of Forza Motorsport 2 during the last, quite dead, days of it's lifespan, more than two years after the release of the game. And Forza Motorsport 3 has been released less than four months ago.
How to explain such saddening data when the game sold a solid two millions copies and got so many high scores (Metacritic average 92, with a long list of 100's)?
Gaming "journalists" normally only scratch the surface of a game, playing for a few hours before writing their articles. It happens quite often that such few hours aren't nearly sufficient to truly understand the solidity of a title, and that, partly, what happened with Forza Mortorsport 3.
One has to wonder how much Dale North of Destructoid or Tom Orry of Videogamer.com actually played Forza 3 before writing their review, or how much they know about cars, driving and racing in order to judge a racing simulation with extremely enthusiastic terms like "best", "flawless" or "masterpiece".
Those "journalist" very probably opened their nice review copy, loaded it on their Xbox 360, played it for a short while, saw a lot of extremely shiny car porn and happily awarded a full score.
Hard not to understand them, to be honest. As a "car porn" game Forza 3 is actually great, if not exceptional, and welcomes the gamer (and especially the gaming journalist in a rush) with a lot of shiny pimped rides and chrome wheels, factor further enhanced by the endless possibility of the honestly masterful car painter (that should really be a feature in ANY racing game, hands down).
It's when you start to analyze the game as a racing simulator, and especially an online one, that the shiny surface starts to fall apart.
Let's start with two of the aspects Turn 10 boasted the most about. The ultra-realistic physics and handling and the damage system.
Dan Greenwalt and company really puffed their collective chest in praising their physics engine and the realistic handling of their cars. The problem is that such realism often falls short. A clear example is the behavior of rear-wheel drive cars.
In reality and in most racing simulators, driving high-end RWD cars at top speed is very difficult to master, especially because of sudden over steer when giving throttle harshly during a corner as well as in the opposite case, when releasing the throttle too suddenly (lift-off over steer).
Even in un-tuned (and as such unbalanced) cars the latter is totally non-existent, while the first basically happens in racing rated cars, and even then it's easily controllable. Even without driving assists.
Either the physics engine completely forgets about the traction of the car and the position of the engine, and as such it sucks, or Turn 10 took the arbitrary decision to make RWD cars much easier to drive than in reality, hence throwing realism to the bushes in order to make the game more "accessible".
The worst part is that RWD cars are normally hard to master rides, but once mastered, they pay dividends (tighter turning, better braking and so forth, making them solid choices or even mandatory in real racing conditions). In Forza Motorsport 3 not only RWD's disadvantages (that can be overcome with driving skill) are flattened, but their advantages are removed from the picture as well. The effect, paired with the evident advantages of AWD (all wheel drive) cars simply results in AWD dominating the racing scene completely and without question. The gap in performance is simply enormous and absolutely against any notion of realism. It's so evident that that Turn 10 has been forced (instead of correcting the problem) to create separate online lobbies for RWD fans to let them compete between themselves without being completely humiliated.
Of course that's not the only evident flaw of the physics engine: another evident examples are collisions. The behavior of cars when hitting other cars of any obstacle gets more weird as the impact speed grows. It's very easy to notice when you drive against a barrier at full force head on, hit it straight like a bullet without any side deviation and your car suddenly decides to flip over to the side, without any slightest force applied in that direction.
The damage engine itself is just as flawed. Turn 10's very generic pre-release promises of absolute realism built incredible expectations. In the end we have exactly the same pre-calculated damage system we got with Forza 2, with the aforementioned flawed flip-overs added on top of it. There's no deformation of the car's chassis like in even the slightest real-life crash. The engine simply applies a "generic" damage to a very generic area (or multiple generic areas) of the car, that might or might have not been involved in the crash. Someone hits you slightly on your right door? The whole right side of your car will be covered in bumps and scratches like someone had too much fun with an hammer. You are involved in a gruesome multi-car crash that had you flip over several time and end against a barrier with a force that would have turned a real ride in a pile of junk metal? You'll lose your bumpers and spoiler, and the rest of the car will be covered in bumps and scratches very similar to those of the case described above.
This, of course, when the engine even manage to register hits in the right area of the car. I can't count the times in which I've been hit head on in the rear of my car, and the engine actually damaged only the sides. So realistic...
While quite serious, especially given how much Greenwalt and company boasted before the release, those flaws are just the tip of the iceberg. The worst problems are found in the online gameplay, which is arguably one of the most important areas of the game to ensure brand loyalty and longevity, especially in an online-oriented community like the Xbox 360 one.
In order to make the online community more accessible to the casual gamer, Turn 10 scratched the system they had in place with Forza 2 and implemented an automatic hoppers system similar to that of FPS games. The problem is that racing games are an entirely different beast from FPSs, and their community has much different needs to be satisfied.
One of the most important needs is customization of racing conditions. Dedicated online racers feel the need to decide things like the number of laps, the class of the cars, possible restrictions to keep the playing field even, the amount of damage... all things that make racing online easier on the nerves and more balanced.
The automatic hoppers prevent any kind of control of the sort. Everything is predetermined, and even if there are a few different hoppers to provide variety, they don't cover even a tenth of the actual possibilities. Not even of the most popular ones.
An example are the street races like Fujimi Kaido (one of my personal favourites, and one of the things that I really like in Forza 3). They are available only as restriction-less (an absolutely useless mode given the abysmal balance) or for A class. Too bad that such windy and bumpy roads are the most fun and challenging when tackled with low-class cars like E to B.
This cuts the fun and the flexibility of racing online basically in half, and even private races (that offer a better degree of customization) don't cut it, because most people don't have enough friends online playing the same game at the same time to fill a race completely.
On top of it, moreover, the "easy in, easy out" aspect of the hoppers doesn't really encourage proper behavior and respect between racers (the player kick function is very hit & miss, and will more often result in a good racer kicked to remove competition than in a griefer expelled from the room). The result is that insults and profanity are not an exception anymore, and the level has lowered to one similar to the simplest FPS, but even worse, people don't care about crashes anymore. From my personal experience of public races, maybe the 5% of races manages to start cleanly without someone just forgetting to brake at the first corner, and ass-jamming multiple people in front of him, basically ruining the game for everyone. Of that 5%, maybe the 1% gets to the end without crashes.
As a side-result, the general lack of respect and politeness that were required in Forza 2 brought people to simply drop the social aspect of racing online. This is grimly symbolized by the number of games actually using a microphone, that has taken a steep dive.
The worst flaw, though, has yet to come, and is truly game breaking. The PI system (the system that ranks the cars in different classes according to their potential, in order to put racers in different cars on a semi-even playing field) works well on paper, but to work well in reality it requires a nearly flawless implementation. The cars with exactly the same PI values need to be equally competitive to guarantee a level playing field, especially given that the hoppers don't allow the player to restrict the make/model of the cars on the circuit.
Unfortunately the PI system is radically flawed. Some cars are so radically more powerful and simply better than the others in their own class that they have become the perfect choice for the cheesy gamer in order to dominate. They are the infamous "leaderboard cars", because no other car with the same PI (which means theoretically the same abilities in a race) can compete with them.
The problem is quite evident when you go and look at the actual leaderboards. Let's take the Maple Valley track as an example:
At the moment of the writing of this article, in class F I scrolled down to 2500th place in the list before I got bored and until then the cars used were all VolksWagen Golf GTi Mk2. Depressing to say the least. Mind you, I don't know how much longer the ling of VWs went, I couldn't be bothered searching further.
Moving to class E, the VW Golf is still dominating solidly with a few sparse Celica and Eclipse. But still, it's a complete domination of 3 cars between a lot.
Class D is completely dominated by '03 Celica, with a few sparse Civic and WRX. Again, three cars dominating, with one being the almost absolute dominant.
Class C is just a no more mixed. Celica and Subaru WRX dominate pretty evenly, with some sparse Audi S5. Three cars.
Class B is back to disastrous (not that E, D and C were much better) with the WRX dominating squarely, with a few very lonely S5 mixed in. Two cars.
Class A is the best so far, with WRX, Ferrari F50, Murcielago LP640, S5 and Porsche 997 RS splitting the cake pretty evenly. It's still 5 cars between a couple hundred eligible ones though.
Class S is complete disaster again, the list is completely and exclusively filled by Dodge Viper '08, with a dominance comparable to the Golf in class F
Class R3 is just as depressing, with the Mazda B09/86 destroying everything else like they didn't exist. the same happens in Class R2, where the Mazda is the sole survivor... two whole classes dominated by the same car...
Class R1 completes the picture with the RS Spyder dominating basically uncontested, with very few Audi R15 TDI that can be spotted crying for help in the middle.
If we count that the game has 400 cars, and that with tuning and parts all of them can be brought to the same PI, means that less than the 4% of the whole car porn catalog of the game has any actual utility in a race if one wants to win.
Given that speed is speed whether you're hot lapping or in a race, those cars face absolutely no competition during online racing with the result that, unless their pilot is a complete newbie and you're a genius of the wheel, if one or (or more) such cars appears in your lobby before the race, you might as well give up any hope of victory.
The worst problem is that their dominance is so radical that we're talking about a difference in lap times of 20-30 or more seconds if put in the hands of equally skilled drivers. Given the average race length of 3-5 laps, the challenge for the ones that happen to like other, less advantageous rides is not trying to win, but actually trying to reach the goal at most 30 seconds after the winner, deadline beyond which you get disqualified from the race, and your standing doesn't count, whether you're second or eight, you lose, and your score gets maimed (this penalty is made more serious by the hoppers, that default to 30 seconds, while it was customizable to higher deadlines in Forza 2).
Seeing your whole race in which you struggled to earn a good position (and avoid to the 1st corner idiots), totally voided by some dude in a leaderboard car that smoked everyone else by 1 minute regardless of skill, is not fun nor fair, and completely jeopardizes the very core of racing online.
Of course there always are fair racers around that will completely disregard the leaderboard cars to race whatever they want (you'll never see me in a Leaderboard car, whatever happens, I'd never use one even if I had to constantly end in last position), but all it takes is someone that doesn't care about fairness to join a lobby to completely ruin it for everyone else. And it happens 90% of the times.
Add to what already listed a quite sizable number of semi-game-breaking bugs and glitches, and you have a desolating scenario in which only the most dedicated and hardcore can survive, fully explaining the abysmal numbers of people left in the community, and the many, many people that are simply giving up hope and leaving to games that they can finally enjoy.
The shameful boasting by Dan Greenwalt and some of his subordinates got us to grow incredible expectations for the game, and not even half of those expectations have been fulfilled.
Of course many people went to the official forums to complain, show their disappointment, and encourage Turn 10 to take steps to solve the problems, but instead of humbly doing so, Microsoft instructed the moderators to lock or delete every complaint, trying to clumsily hide them in two quite hidden "official problems and suggestions" thread, dropping an almost insulting post that recites "Over the last few months, general discussion has become an unfriendly place for new users, this is not something we want, nor should you. We know you are as passionate about the Forza franchise as we are and you wish to tell us how to improve your experience. Creating thread after thread discussing issues that have been covered or responded to has created a negative vibe on these forums".
Let me paraphrase that: "Since so many of you guys dare to criticize the obvious flaws of the game, instead of bending over and thanking us for magnanimously delivering our obviously flawed game, we're shutting you up. We don't want people to read what you write, because if they did they'd notice that the high-scoring reviews are completely skewed and would think twice before buying the game. Thank you for your patronage and money, now shut the hell up. Maybe we'll fix some of the problems at our best convenience. Maybe."
This, of course, created further malcontent between even the most dedicated fans, that felt that their legitimate complaints not only went unanswered, but were silenced as well in the name of tricking more people into thinking that the game actually reflected the high scores it got from the press.
The final blow comes from Turn 10's DLC policy. They already released multiple DLCs to increase their revenue, while very little of the game's initial flaws have even been looked into. The latest DLC pack, the Nurburgring F1 circuit has been especially criticized due to a poor quality, not to mention the fact that it hasn't been inserted in the hoppers and doesn't have any offline events. It's basically a quite costly (400 MS points) dead track in the hard disk of most people that can be used mostly for hot lapping.
The situation is made worse by the announcement that Turn 10 will release a DLC pack every month. With such a close release schedule, people definitely wonder how and when they'll even find the time to work on some extremely needed fixes.
Unfortunately the whole scenario is very very dire. Most of the reviews proved to be at least partly rushed, as the "journalists" were blinded by the shiny car porn, ignoring the problems that were laying in hiding under the thin surface.
Don't get me wrong, Forza 3 is a good game, and hopefully will keep me and others at least partly busy until something better hits the market, but despite the pre-release boastful declarations of superiority, it's by no means "definitive". Quite a few lessons are there to be learned, by the developer, by the press and by the gamers.
The online community of the game is rapidly dwindling and more and more tuning and painting garages (the true heart of such community) are closing down shop, admitting defeat.
Last Friday evening at 9 PM EST (one of the busiest times in the week for online gaming), public lobbies for Forza 3 had a total of 1463 players. Sunday afternoon, at the time of this article's writing, the number is only slightly higher, with 1752 players online. Even considering a sizable amount of gamers "hidden" in private lobbies, with two millions copies in the gamers' homes, one would expect such numbers to be much, much higher.
Less than the 0.1% of the game's player base online during the most busy parts of the week is indeed a pretty discouraging percentage. The numbers are pretty much comparable to the players of Forza Motorsport 2 during the last, quite dead, days of it's lifespan, more than two years after the release of the game. And Forza Motorsport 3 has been released less than four months ago.
How to explain such saddening data when the game sold a solid two millions copies and got so many high scores (Metacritic average 92, with a long list of 100's)?
Gaming "journalists" normally only scratch the surface of a game, playing for a few hours before writing their articles. It happens quite often that such few hours aren't nearly sufficient to truly understand the solidity of a title, and that, partly, what happened with Forza Mortorsport 3.
One has to wonder how much Dale North of Destructoid or Tom Orry of Videogamer.com actually played Forza 3 before writing their review, or how much they know about cars, driving and racing in order to judge a racing simulation with extremely enthusiastic terms like "best", "flawless" or "masterpiece".
Those "journalist" very probably opened their nice review copy, loaded it on their Xbox 360, played it for a short while, saw a lot of extremely shiny car porn and happily awarded a full score.
Hard not to understand them, to be honest. As a "car porn" game Forza 3 is actually great, if not exceptional, and welcomes the gamer (and especially the gaming journalist in a rush) with a lot of shiny pimped rides and chrome wheels, factor further enhanced by the endless possibility of the honestly masterful car painter (that should really be a feature in ANY racing game, hands down).
It's when you start to analyze the game as a racing simulator, and especially an online one, that the shiny surface starts to fall apart.
Let's start with two of the aspects Turn 10 boasted the most about. The ultra-realistic physics and handling and the damage system.
Dan Greenwalt and company really puffed their collective chest in praising their physics engine and the realistic handling of their cars. The problem is that such realism often falls short. A clear example is the behavior of rear-wheel drive cars.
In reality and in most racing simulators, driving high-end RWD cars at top speed is very difficult to master, especially because of sudden over steer when giving throttle harshly during a corner as well as in the opposite case, when releasing the throttle too suddenly (lift-off over steer).
Even in un-tuned (and as such unbalanced) cars the latter is totally non-existent, while the first basically happens in racing rated cars, and even then it's easily controllable. Even without driving assists.
Either the physics engine completely forgets about the traction of the car and the position of the engine, and as such it sucks, or Turn 10 took the arbitrary decision to make RWD cars much easier to drive than in reality, hence throwing realism to the bushes in order to make the game more "accessible".
The worst part is that RWD cars are normally hard to master rides, but once mastered, they pay dividends (tighter turning, better braking and so forth, making them solid choices or even mandatory in real racing conditions). In Forza Motorsport 3 not only RWD's disadvantages (that can be overcome with driving skill) are flattened, but their advantages are removed from the picture as well. The effect, paired with the evident advantages of AWD (all wheel drive) cars simply results in AWD dominating the racing scene completely and without question. The gap in performance is simply enormous and absolutely against any notion of realism. It's so evident that that Turn 10 has been forced (instead of correcting the problem) to create separate online lobbies for RWD fans to let them compete between themselves without being completely humiliated.
Of course that's not the only evident flaw of the physics engine: another evident examples are collisions. The behavior of cars when hitting other cars of any obstacle gets more weird as the impact speed grows. It's very easy to notice when you drive against a barrier at full force head on, hit it straight like a bullet without any side deviation and your car suddenly decides to flip over to the side, without any slightest force applied in that direction.
The damage engine itself is just as flawed. Turn 10's very generic pre-release promises of absolute realism built incredible expectations. In the end we have exactly the same pre-calculated damage system we got with Forza 2, with the aforementioned flawed flip-overs added on top of it. There's no deformation of the car's chassis like in even the slightest real-life crash. The engine simply applies a "generic" damage to a very generic area (or multiple generic areas) of the car, that might or might have not been involved in the crash. Someone hits you slightly on your right door? The whole right side of your car will be covered in bumps and scratches like someone had too much fun with an hammer. You are involved in a gruesome multi-car crash that had you flip over several time and end against a barrier with a force that would have turned a real ride in a pile of junk metal? You'll lose your bumpers and spoiler, and the rest of the car will be covered in bumps and scratches very similar to those of the case described above.
This, of course, when the engine even manage to register hits in the right area of the car. I can't count the times in which I've been hit head on in the rear of my car, and the engine actually damaged only the sides. So realistic...
While quite serious, especially given how much Greenwalt and company boasted before the release, those flaws are just the tip of the iceberg. The worst problems are found in the online gameplay, which is arguably one of the most important areas of the game to ensure brand loyalty and longevity, especially in an online-oriented community like the Xbox 360 one.
In order to make the online community more accessible to the casual gamer, Turn 10 scratched the system they had in place with Forza 2 and implemented an automatic hoppers system similar to that of FPS games. The problem is that racing games are an entirely different beast from FPSs, and their community has much different needs to be satisfied.
One of the most important needs is customization of racing conditions. Dedicated online racers feel the need to decide things like the number of laps, the class of the cars, possible restrictions to keep the playing field even, the amount of damage... all things that make racing online easier on the nerves and more balanced.
The automatic hoppers prevent any kind of control of the sort. Everything is predetermined, and even if there are a few different hoppers to provide variety, they don't cover even a tenth of the actual possibilities. Not even of the most popular ones.
An example are the street races like Fujimi Kaido (one of my personal favourites, and one of the things that I really like in Forza 3). They are available only as restriction-less (an absolutely useless mode given the abysmal balance) or for A class. Too bad that such windy and bumpy roads are the most fun and challenging when tackled with low-class cars like E to B.
This cuts the fun and the flexibility of racing online basically in half, and even private races (that offer a better degree of customization) don't cut it, because most people don't have enough friends online playing the same game at the same time to fill a race completely.
On top of it, moreover, the "easy in, easy out" aspect of the hoppers doesn't really encourage proper behavior and respect between racers (the player kick function is very hit & miss, and will more often result in a good racer kicked to remove competition than in a griefer expelled from the room). The result is that insults and profanity are not an exception anymore, and the level has lowered to one similar to the simplest FPS, but even worse, people don't care about crashes anymore. From my personal experience of public races, maybe the 5% of races manages to start cleanly without someone just forgetting to brake at the first corner, and ass-jamming multiple people in front of him, basically ruining the game for everyone. Of that 5%, maybe the 1% gets to the end without crashes.
As a side-result, the general lack of respect and politeness that were required in Forza 2 brought people to simply drop the social aspect of racing online. This is grimly symbolized by the number of games actually using a microphone, that has taken a steep dive.
The worst flaw, though, has yet to come, and is truly game breaking. The PI system (the system that ranks the cars in different classes according to their potential, in order to put racers in different cars on a semi-even playing field) works well on paper, but to work well in reality it requires a nearly flawless implementation. The cars with exactly the same PI values need to be equally competitive to guarantee a level playing field, especially given that the hoppers don't allow the player to restrict the make/model of the cars on the circuit.
Unfortunately the PI system is radically flawed. Some cars are so radically more powerful and simply better than the others in their own class that they have become the perfect choice for the cheesy gamer in order to dominate. They are the infamous "leaderboard cars", because no other car with the same PI (which means theoretically the same abilities in a race) can compete with them.
The problem is quite evident when you go and look at the actual leaderboards. Let's take the Maple Valley track as an example:
At the moment of the writing of this article, in class F I scrolled down to 2500th place in the list before I got bored and until then the cars used were all VolksWagen Golf GTi Mk2. Depressing to say the least. Mind you, I don't know how much longer the ling of VWs went, I couldn't be bothered searching further.
Moving to class E, the VW Golf is still dominating solidly with a few sparse Celica and Eclipse. But still, it's a complete domination of 3 cars between a lot.
Class D is completely dominated by '03 Celica, with a few sparse Civic and WRX. Again, three cars dominating, with one being the almost absolute dominant.
Class C is just a no more mixed. Celica and Subaru WRX dominate pretty evenly, with some sparse Audi S5. Three cars.
Class B is back to disastrous (not that E, D and C were much better) with the WRX dominating squarely, with a few very lonely S5 mixed in. Two cars.
Class A is the best so far, with WRX, Ferrari F50, Murcielago LP640, S5 and Porsche 997 RS splitting the cake pretty evenly. It's still 5 cars between a couple hundred eligible ones though.
Class S is complete disaster again, the list is completely and exclusively filled by Dodge Viper '08, with a dominance comparable to the Golf in class F
Class R3 is just as depressing, with the Mazda B09/86 destroying everything else like they didn't exist. the same happens in Class R2, where the Mazda is the sole survivor... two whole classes dominated by the same car...
Class R1 completes the picture with the RS Spyder dominating basically uncontested, with very few Audi R15 TDI that can be spotted crying for help in the middle.
If we count that the game has 400 cars, and that with tuning and parts all of them can be brought to the same PI, means that less than the 4% of the whole car porn catalog of the game has any actual utility in a race if one wants to win.
Given that speed is speed whether you're hot lapping or in a race, those cars face absolutely no competition during online racing with the result that, unless their pilot is a complete newbie and you're a genius of the wheel, if one or (or more) such cars appears in your lobby before the race, you might as well give up any hope of victory.
The worst problem is that their dominance is so radical that we're talking about a difference in lap times of 20-30 or more seconds if put in the hands of equally skilled drivers. Given the average race length of 3-5 laps, the challenge for the ones that happen to like other, less advantageous rides is not trying to win, but actually trying to reach the goal at most 30 seconds after the winner, deadline beyond which you get disqualified from the race, and your standing doesn't count, whether you're second or eight, you lose, and your score gets maimed (this penalty is made more serious by the hoppers, that default to 30 seconds, while it was customizable to higher deadlines in Forza 2).
Seeing your whole race in which you struggled to earn a good position (and avoid to the 1st corner idiots), totally voided by some dude in a leaderboard car that smoked everyone else by 1 minute regardless of skill, is not fun nor fair, and completely jeopardizes the very core of racing online.
Of course there always are fair racers around that will completely disregard the leaderboard cars to race whatever they want (you'll never see me in a Leaderboard car, whatever happens, I'd never use one even if I had to constantly end in last position), but all it takes is someone that doesn't care about fairness to join a lobby to completely ruin it for everyone else. And it happens 90% of the times.
Add to what already listed a quite sizable number of semi-game-breaking bugs and glitches, and you have a desolating scenario in which only the most dedicated and hardcore can survive, fully explaining the abysmal numbers of people left in the community, and the many, many people that are simply giving up hope and leaving to games that they can finally enjoy.
The shameful boasting by Dan Greenwalt and some of his subordinates got us to grow incredible expectations for the game, and not even half of those expectations have been fulfilled.
Of course many people went to the official forums to complain, show their disappointment, and encourage Turn 10 to take steps to solve the problems, but instead of humbly doing so, Microsoft instructed the moderators to lock or delete every complaint, trying to clumsily hide them in two quite hidden "official problems and suggestions" thread, dropping an almost insulting post that recites "Over the last few months, general discussion has become an unfriendly place for new users, this is not something we want, nor should you. We know you are as passionate about the Forza franchise as we are and you wish to tell us how to improve your experience. Creating thread after thread discussing issues that have been covered or responded to has created a negative vibe on these forums".
Let me paraphrase that: "Since so many of you guys dare to criticize the obvious flaws of the game, instead of bending over and thanking us for magnanimously delivering our obviously flawed game, we're shutting you up. We don't want people to read what you write, because if they did they'd notice that the high-scoring reviews are completely skewed and would think twice before buying the game. Thank you for your patronage and money, now shut the hell up. Maybe we'll fix some of the problems at our best convenience. Maybe."
This, of course, created further malcontent between even the most dedicated fans, that felt that their legitimate complaints not only went unanswered, but were silenced as well in the name of tricking more people into thinking that the game actually reflected the high scores it got from the press.
The final blow comes from Turn 10's DLC policy. They already released multiple DLCs to increase their revenue, while very little of the game's initial flaws have even been looked into. The latest DLC pack, the Nurburgring F1 circuit has been especially criticized due to a poor quality, not to mention the fact that it hasn't been inserted in the hoppers and doesn't have any offline events. It's basically a quite costly (400 MS points) dead track in the hard disk of most people that can be used mostly for hot lapping.
The situation is made worse by the announcement that Turn 10 will release a DLC pack every month. With such a close release schedule, people definitely wonder how and when they'll even find the time to work on some extremely needed fixes.
Unfortunately the whole scenario is very very dire. Most of the reviews proved to be at least partly rushed, as the "journalists" were blinded by the shiny car porn, ignoring the problems that were laying in hiding under the thin surface.
Don't get me wrong, Forza 3 is a good game, and hopefully will keep me and others at least partly busy until something better hits the market, but despite the pre-release boastful declarations of superiority, it's by no means "definitive". Quite a few lessons are there to be learned, by the developer, by the press and by the gamers.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Dragon Age Awakening: Bioware cutting corners?
I always had a profound respect for Bioware, they've brought us some awesome games and I can say that Dragon Age: Origins has probably been one of my favourite games ever. They're one of the few western software houses that can shake my preference for Japanese games, especially due to their maniacal attention for the story in their games and the sizable presence of romance in such stories.
That said, I got the strong impression, while playing Mass Effect 2, that they cut some corners in order to meet the deadlines.
While, don't get me wrong, I definitely enjoyed the game, many of the roleplaying elements (expecially visual customization of the crew of the Normandy) seemed to be arbitrarily cut instead of reviewed to make them more streamlined and functional (many used the word "dumbed down" and I can't say I completely disagree). The same goes with planet exploration, replaced with an equally boring time-sink-ish minigame that, very conveniently, took much less time and resources to develop.
Today Bioware opened a new web page for Dragon Age's expansion, Awakening.
The expansion already felt somehow lacking, possibly due to the two already introduced characters that seem a bit lackluster, especially Velanna: basically an elven version of Wynne with more angst and blonde hair recycled from Morrigan.
She makes me wonder about Bioware's recently discovered infatuation with grannies... But let's not digress too much.
In the FAQ section I found some quite disappointing news that confirmed the feelings "awakened" by Mass Effect 2.
The inability to import DLC armor like Warden Commander's and Calian's is absolutely inexcusable, especially given that people paid a pretty penny for them.
There's simply no reason to prevent importing the equipment from DLC if not just wanting to cut the corner of having to program that particular items into the Awakening importing database.
While disappointing (and somehow chuckle-worthy), though, that's not even the most displeasing issue.
I can deal with the inability to continue romances from Origins, sometimes developers feel that a fresh start is necessary for a character, and I can accept that, but again, the complete absence of any romance in the expansion really reeks of corner cutting and is something that will reduce my enjoyment of it by about the 50%.
Romance is a very important factor in Bioware games, and one of the very reasons that sets them apart from the rest of western RPGs and games that normally don't place so much attention on the story.
The lack of love interests simply cuts off a quite sizable part of the Bioware's target, that include many gamers (and a whole lot of lady-gamers) that enjoy romance as part of a good story.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid it's too late to change this before the release of the expansion, but I hope that Bioware will learn their lesson from the general reaction to this news (looking at the Bioware Social Network, the reaction has been massively negative): "Cutting corners is... bad".
And cutting corners on some of the most prominent elements that your fans appreciate is worse, especially when one is selling a relatively short expansion that includes several assets from the original game and doesn't change the engine in any way, for a price that's very comparable to that of a full game.
I'm sorry Bioware, again, with all due respect, this is a major screw up.
That said, I got the strong impression, while playing Mass Effect 2, that they cut some corners in order to meet the deadlines.
While, don't get me wrong, I definitely enjoyed the game, many of the roleplaying elements (expecially visual customization of the crew of the Normandy) seemed to be arbitrarily cut instead of reviewed to make them more streamlined and functional (many used the word "dumbed down" and I can't say I completely disagree). The same goes with planet exploration, replaced with an equally boring time-sink-ish minigame that, very conveniently, took much less time and resources to develop.
Today Bioware opened a new web page for Dragon Age's expansion, Awakening.
The expansion already felt somehow lacking, possibly due to the two already introduced characters that seem a bit lackluster, especially Velanna: basically an elven version of Wynne with more angst and blonde hair recycled from Morrigan.
She makes me wonder about Bioware's recently discovered infatuation with grannies... But let's not digress too much.
In the FAQ section I found some quite disappointing news that confirmed the feelings "awakened" by Mass Effect 2.
The inability to import DLC armor like Warden Commander's and Calian's is absolutely inexcusable, especially given that people paid a pretty penny for them.
There's simply no reason to prevent importing the equipment from DLC if not just wanting to cut the corner of having to program that particular items into the Awakening importing database.
While disappointing (and somehow chuckle-worthy), though, that's not even the most displeasing issue.
I can deal with the inability to continue romances from Origins, sometimes developers feel that a fresh start is necessary for a character, and I can accept that, but again, the complete absence of any romance in the expansion really reeks of corner cutting and is something that will reduce my enjoyment of it by about the 50%.
Romance is a very important factor in Bioware games, and one of the very reasons that sets them apart from the rest of western RPGs and games that normally don't place so much attention on the story.
The lack of love interests simply cuts off a quite sizable part of the Bioware's target, that include many gamers (and a whole lot of lady-gamers) that enjoy romance as part of a good story.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid it's too late to change this before the release of the expansion, but I hope that Bioware will learn their lesson from the general reaction to this news (looking at the Bioware Social Network, the reaction has been massively negative): "Cutting corners is... bad".
And cutting corners on some of the most prominent elements that your fans appreciate is worse, especially when one is selling a relatively short expansion that includes several assets from the original game and doesn't change the engine in any way, for a price that's very comparable to that of a full game.
I'm sorry Bioware, again, with all due respect, this is a major screw up.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Stop Whining about Project Ten Dollar. Seriously.
After a couple months of hiatus, my job is giving me some more breathing space, allowing me to get back to gaming (not as much as I'd like) and to blogging. Aren't you happy?
2010 is a promising year for the gaming market, with many AAA titles incoming for all platforms (most of them stuffed in the next two months, what an amazingly smart collective move...).
This will result in a nice spike in revenues for the industry, that seems to need it quite badly, given the bleak numbers coming from most recent earning calls.
It's not surprising that many software houses are looking into ways to prevent those revenues to be excessively diverted into the coffers of your local gamestop (or equivalent retailer dealing in the preowned games market).
That's how EA's "Project Ten Dollar" was born, as reported by many sites like Kotaku. We saw it's first effects with Mass Effect 2 and the Cerberus Network.
Nowadays, though, many gamers live immersed in a weird but very intense sense of entitlement, so, like the local doctor ordered them to play all the games that are released at a lower price and with every little piece of content and DLC ever released. Some threads on the Bioware Social Network are absolutely hilarious in the way they show how strong that sense of entitlement has become. You don't find many places in the civil world (but are gaming forums really part of the civil world?) in which people vehemently protest against one hour of very replayable enjoyment costing less than a meal at McDonalds... But I'm digressing.
The aforementioned sense of entitlement caused many to, as usual, try and crucify Electronic Arts for being at the forefront of the "Incentives for the purchase of new games. But is the infamous "Project Ten Dollar" really that bad?
To put it down simply no. It isn't.
It's actually a quite interesting idea. I purchase some preowned games myself (like 20% of the games i get, and normally older games that I didn't care to get at launch), and I can still see the potential of such an initiative.
EA is taking a quite positive (and relatively mild) approach to the problem.
They're not forcing gamers to buy new titles (and we all know that if they really wanted they could). Instead they're encouraging them to do so, while still providing people that buy preowned games with a 100% complete and enjoyable game.
Is Mass Effect 2 less of a great game without Zaeed and the Normandy crash site? It's not.
On the other hand, they give people that actually support the developers of a game more content to enjoy.
Finally, if you do buy the game preowned, you're not banned from the content forever. You can still pay a fee to the developer in order to get the content you want.
Everyone has options (Yay, options!) and no one gets "screwed", besides maybe Gamestop, but I personally doubt that many gamers should be concerned with the financial health of Gamestop, especially given the enormous profit margins (bordering on the scam) they have on each preowned game they sell.
Not many really think about the impact the preowned games market has on the industry.
When you buy a preowned game none of your money goes to the developer. It means that you're enjoying the game without your cash going back into the development cycle to fund the developments of new games, DLCs, sequels, etc. All of that money simply goes to lay dead in the coffers of Gamestop & Co.
To put it down simply, given that the more money the gaming industry receives from our purchases, the more money they'll have to bring us more enjoyable content, every time we buy a preowned game we kill a future kitten in the next Catz game.
It's obvious that most Software houses are looking into solutions to counter this. You can expect the vast majority of publishers to follow EA's example one way or another, and no bitching will stop them, nor, for sure, the false sense of entitlement of those cheapos that don't support the industry at all.
There are, of course, some trite and flawed arguments against this initiative:
"Buuuut! They could make cheaper games!"
Could they? Game developers receive quite a small part of the revenue from each purchase of a game. The Lion's share goes to retailers and first parties. If publishers one-sidedly decided to lower the prices, they would have to cut further into their share of revenue, that isn't already that big. Many of them already lose money, and the gaming industry, being business, needs to be profitable to survive.
"Buuuut! Movies are cheaper and they cost the same to make!"
The comparison with the movie market is entirely off base. Movies make a big revenue with theatrical releases, then they make another revenue with DVD and Blu Ray releases, and finally with licensing for TV and Pay TV airing. Movie studios can afford keeping the prices lower because they have multiple revenue systems. Boxed retail is just a portion of the money they make.
"Buuuut! People that sell their games use that money to buy more games!"
This is the most idiotic argument of them all (and of course it comes straight from Gamestop, go figure...).
First of all, the amount of money one receives from a game sale is minimal, with the result that not much money is pumped back into the system. Secondly, and even more important, most people that sell games use the cash they get back to buy more preowned games.
The preowned market only feeds itself. It's that simple.
So yeah, if you rely heavily on the preowned market to fuel your gaming hobby, you still can. You just will have to put your sense of entitlement aside and play the games without the "incentives" that software houses will reserve for the ones that... you know... actually give them some money. Otherwise you can decide to finally contribute a little to keep the market alive by buying the DLCs you want the most. Mind you, you even have the solution of buying less games, but getting them new.
Playing all the games that see the shelves with all the available DLCs is not doctor's orders after all, and for sure shouldn't be included in social welfare.
You enjoy a service, you pay for it. It's really that simple.
2010 is a promising year for the gaming market, with many AAA titles incoming for all platforms (most of them stuffed in the next two months, what an amazingly smart collective move...).
This will result in a nice spike in revenues for the industry, that seems to need it quite badly, given the bleak numbers coming from most recent earning calls.
It's not surprising that many software houses are looking into ways to prevent those revenues to be excessively diverted into the coffers of your local gamestop (or equivalent retailer dealing in the preowned games market).
That's how EA's "Project Ten Dollar" was born, as reported by many sites like Kotaku. We saw it's first effects with Mass Effect 2 and the Cerberus Network.
Nowadays, though, many gamers live immersed in a weird but very intense sense of entitlement, so, like the local doctor ordered them to play all the games that are released at a lower price and with every little piece of content and DLC ever released. Some threads on the Bioware Social Network are absolutely hilarious in the way they show how strong that sense of entitlement has become. You don't find many places in the civil world (but are gaming forums really part of the civil world?) in which people vehemently protest against one hour of very replayable enjoyment costing less than a meal at McDonalds... But I'm digressing.
The aforementioned sense of entitlement caused many to, as usual, try and crucify Electronic Arts for being at the forefront of the "Incentives for the purchase of new games. But is the infamous "Project Ten Dollar" really that bad?
To put it down simply no. It isn't.
It's actually a quite interesting idea. I purchase some preowned games myself (like 20% of the games i get, and normally older games that I didn't care to get at launch), and I can still see the potential of such an initiative.
EA is taking a quite positive (and relatively mild) approach to the problem.
They're not forcing gamers to buy new titles (and we all know that if they really wanted they could). Instead they're encouraging them to do so, while still providing people that buy preowned games with a 100% complete and enjoyable game.
Is Mass Effect 2 less of a great game without Zaeed and the Normandy crash site? It's not.
On the other hand, they give people that actually support the developers of a game more content to enjoy.
Finally, if you do buy the game preowned, you're not banned from the content forever. You can still pay a fee to the developer in order to get the content you want.
Everyone has options (Yay, options!) and no one gets "screwed", besides maybe Gamestop, but I personally doubt that many gamers should be concerned with the financial health of Gamestop, especially given the enormous profit margins (bordering on the scam) they have on each preowned game they sell.
Not many really think about the impact the preowned games market has on the industry.
When you buy a preowned game none of your money goes to the developer. It means that you're enjoying the game without your cash going back into the development cycle to fund the developments of new games, DLCs, sequels, etc. All of that money simply goes to lay dead in the coffers of Gamestop & Co.
To put it down simply, given that the more money the gaming industry receives from our purchases, the more money they'll have to bring us more enjoyable content, every time we buy a preowned game we kill a future kitten in the next Catz game.
It's obvious that most Software houses are looking into solutions to counter this. You can expect the vast majority of publishers to follow EA's example one way or another, and no bitching will stop them, nor, for sure, the false sense of entitlement of those cheapos that don't support the industry at all.
There are, of course, some trite and flawed arguments against this initiative:
"Buuuut! They could make cheaper games!"
Could they? Game developers receive quite a small part of the revenue from each purchase of a game. The Lion's share goes to retailers and first parties. If publishers one-sidedly decided to lower the prices, they would have to cut further into their share of revenue, that isn't already that big. Many of them already lose money, and the gaming industry, being business, needs to be profitable to survive.
"Buuuut! Movies are cheaper and they cost the same to make!"
The comparison with the movie market is entirely off base. Movies make a big revenue with theatrical releases, then they make another revenue with DVD and Blu Ray releases, and finally with licensing for TV and Pay TV airing. Movie studios can afford keeping the prices lower because they have multiple revenue systems. Boxed retail is just a portion of the money they make.
"Buuuut! People that sell their games use that money to buy more games!"
This is the most idiotic argument of them all (and of course it comes straight from Gamestop, go figure...).
First of all, the amount of money one receives from a game sale is minimal, with the result that not much money is pumped back into the system. Secondly, and even more important, most people that sell games use the cash they get back to buy more preowned games.
The preowned market only feeds itself. It's that simple.
So yeah, if you rely heavily on the preowned market to fuel your gaming hobby, you still can. You just will have to put your sense of entitlement aside and play the games without the "incentives" that software houses will reserve for the ones that... you know... actually give them some money. Otherwise you can decide to finally contribute a little to keep the market alive by buying the DLCs you want the most. Mind you, you even have the solution of buying less games, but getting them new.
Playing all the games that see the shelves with all the available DLCs is not doctor's orders after all, and for sure shouldn't be included in social welfare.
You enjoy a service, you pay for it. It's really that simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
