In our latest OXM community feature, forum veteran Grummy shares his thoughts on why games industry schemes like the Online Pass will run awry without proper supervision. Join the debate.
You are a bastard. Didn't you know? You have horrible curly bright ginger hair and are hated. In the eyes of the entertainment industry, the gaming community are the proverbial red-headed stepchild. Never taken seriously despite being one of the fastest growing international industries of the last 20 years, the games industry is beginning to find itself at odds with its economic foundation, us the players.
Despite my personal standpoint of defending the games industry when I find their decisions make sense from their perspective, and cause no real harm to the consumer, I am finding it more and more difficult to support certain decisions. Two recent examples spring to mind.
Firstly, Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine, a game I was thoroughly looking forward to as a lifelong fan of Games Workshop properties. As I'm sure we've all read, the co-op mode was held back from the retail release, ostensibly for further polish, to be released "around 30 days later" as DLC which you get for free by using the online pass - you'll have to buy it separately if you bought the game second-hand.
Secondly, Batman: Arkham City and the Catwoman content. It's the same principle - if you have the pass you get the DLC free, but without it you are locked out of single player content which, while not essential, does flesh out the story somewhat and offers nice variety.
I support the pass in theory - after all, developers and publishers receive no further income from second hand sales, while incurring ongoing costs so second-hand buyers can play online. What troubles me is that there is nothing stopping a company from withholding as much content as they like, and they are under no pressure to be honest with us, the consumer. Common decency is not a factor here. There is only one factor: the bottom line. Regardless of what one Miss Jessie J tells us, for the games industry, it IS all about the money.
This is why we need an industry-wide regulation. It's coming to a point now where we, the consumer, are being taken for mugs. Were Space Marine to be released polished and with all content on disc available from launch, then the only sticking point would be the online pass, which will always be a polarising subject. But this isn't the case.
19 comments so far...
Decent_Jam on 22 Jan '12 said:
Very valid points all round I'd say.
The trouble with it is that it's taken them long enough to agree on a rating an classification system (to the extent that at one point the numbers printed on the boxes didn't actually mean anything, because they weren't underwritten by anyone), so it's hard to imagine a state of affairs where something actually gets done.
The profile of this industry is still, sadly, very lacking compared to the likes of TV and film as well, which is a shame when it isn't as if there aren't celebrities who would stick up for games.
The biggest problem is the media, as per usual, in that it steers public opinion - even though it shouldn't - and sadly we have another decade or two to wait until newspapers become a thing of the past, if things keep declining they way they do at least.
I agree that particularly with single-player related content, this really isn't on. It's like buying monopoly and finding out there's no Dog or Top Hat - sacrilege.
makinmagic3 on 22 Jan '12 said:
Ever since the release of online pass I have reduced purchasing games with the online pass and moved onto second hand games which may require the pass but not needed.
In theory the online pass seems good however practical use something needs to happen (reduce in retail game price).
Over the years I have noticed a price increase in games along with poor development, an example is Test Drive Unlimited 2... first TDU was great (in my opinion) however when I got TDU2 the game was so broke that it was virtually un-playable for me.
One thing which I really hate about publishers/ developers is when they hype the game up then it's un-playable due to server issues then give the response "We didn't expect this amount of players." Some publishers/ developers are good at sorting out the issues (DICE with BF3 for example - had a few little server issues at the start and now they're fine for me).
Yes we have the option whether to purchase the game or not however I would expect not a broken game riddled with bugs/ glitches/ hacks/ server issues, yes there will always be some sort of issue but I wouldn't expect it to be actually obvious.
I do think that there should be some sort of quality control on games, such as if the game is not playable within a certain amount of time then we (gamers) should get something in-return (free DLC). There is also the certification process to go through (MS, Sony..etc) which could also take months to do.
I do think games should come with more content (development of the game..etc) to be worth the full retail price (£40-60) not just with a manual and a game.
I do also think games are too expensive when they start to add up, it can easily go over £120 just on one game.
Bezza89 on 22 Jan '12 said:
So is this like our version of inside xbox's monday musing? You should get Andy and Dan to post them on there in the same way, perhaps get more traffic for the site?
On topic - Join what debate? Is someone going to say we don't need regulation and are happy to let publishers and developers do whatever they like?
I think one of the problems with regulation is the subjective nature of a finished product, as in the case of Skyrim where a 100% bug free game wouldn't see release for years, but this is touched in the article.
Anyway, go Grummy, if only wishface was here to do a retort article next week 'Why every game is broken and I don't listen to reasoned arguments against it even though my own argument is based on nothing.' Or something.
Grummy on 22 Jan '12 said:
We could give him his very own little blog specificially for it. Call it 'special boy's corner' or something.
SidTheSloth on 22 Jan '12 said:
In a world where more and more legislation is passed to determine how we as individuals and companies themselves behave i find it difficult to support the introduction of yet more watchdogs, but as Bezza hints at, it's difficult to argue otherwise in this case . Along with the other thread which discusses the price rises across xbox live, there certainly does need to be some sort of regulation.
The other side to this of course is we as gamers need to start taking a look at ourselves and ask what exactly is it we want?
Our expectations for games and quality get higher and higher, always wanting developers to raise the bar, push the boat out, >insert cliché of choice<, etc. Yet very few are prepared to pay the extra to allow developers to facilitate our demands. I regularly see people complain that £40 is too much for a game, (yet as another poster recently stated, mega drive/snes games were just as expensive back in the day and had half the people working on them - even though development was just as difficult of course as they didn't have the tech available dev teams do now) but would they be so quick to say that if, like the article suggest, they understood more about just how expensive the games are to make - wages of the developers alone would probably make most peoples eyes water!
It's natural for consumers to want more for less, such is life, but when we shout out about the online pass we should all bear in mind that we've played our own part in its creation. From trading something so we can get a new game for cheap, buying a pre-owned title, to waiting till a game drops from £40 to £20, it seems like in the short term that we as a consumer have 'won' - but a look at the developer casualties last year paints a completely different story and suggests really that gamers are making their own bed.
Maybe it's linked to the modern culture of 'want, need & greed'... society today would have us believe that if we want something we should have it. The number of titles coming out this year is already quite staggering and we as gamers will already have picked the ones we'll be getting, but how many of us have worked out where the cash is coming from? Not many i'd wager, as surely closer to the time, stores like Game & sites like amazon will think up a promotion, meaning that regardless of whether we should, and regardless of the damage done to the developer, we will be able to afford it.
Are gamers the only guilty party though? What about the developers/publishers? It sounds crazy but should they maybe take a look at the situation as a whole and remember that less is more? There is a finite amount of money in the entertainment industry, so wit the sheer volume of games exploding over the last few years as everyone tries to grab a piece of the pie it's inevitable that they'll see diminishing returns - if ever there was a case for quality over quantity then surely this is it, and a time when a lot of these companies should take a look at an already saturated market and step back?
I'm sure this won't happen however, and come xmas there'll be 10 triple a titles competing for our attention, sure enough many won't be able to afford the £400 rrp that would entail so will invariably buy, play, trade, spending maybe £200 in total across all the games. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that if half the number of games came out however, the development costs between the companies would be significantly less, but the retail price would remain higher (lack of competition/high demand) and despite a lot of our protestations, gamers themselves would feel happier at not having to juggle so many games and financial considerations for what is essentially a hobby - how many before xmas started to feel that working out which games to buy and the order to play them in was becoming almost like work?
I'll end my ramble there as it was only meant to be brief, hopefully someone can pick up on some of my points and explain them (or indeed argue them) better than i did!
Clanger67 on 22 Jan '12 said:
Thing is we keep comparing the country were they are mostly developed the US to over here.They have twice the amount of consumers in one state than all of the UK.Maybe game developers don't get what they deserve,but they aren't poor.I know it was a few years ago but romero (i think it was) gave his ferrari away in quake deathmatch.If they release something and it is broken (skyrim) me and maybe most others will still get it because we know eventually they will fix it.Trouble is smaller developers can't mantain releases as well and aren't let off the same as a bigger developer.
SidTheSloth on 22 Jan '12 said:
I don't get your point/why this makes a difference? If anything, the UK is becoming more and more like a satellite state of the US...
Completely disagree. Rich companies don't close/go bankrupt? Don't mistake one guy for a company either. Some of the richest people in the world can have companies go bankrupt. I'm not saying that all developers are on their knees, many have been developing for a number of years and have built up reserves, some are now playing along the quality>quantity line and making money but this is a declining trend due to the astronomical costs of development. Look at the number of development companies who have joined together with massive publishers (bioware to EA, bungie to microsoft, Blizzard to Vivendi) - this is a similar model used in big budget movies - basically getting an underwriter to guarantee the project. There IS money to be made in the industry, but like any industry many have got their fingers burned thinking it would be easy
This is something i agree with more and is a big theme of the article - the grey area of what is acceptable in terms of bugs/glitches and what isn't. With no ruling/legislation on it it's very difficult...
Alaric14 on 22 Jan '12 said:
Wishface's...uh...interesting take on the games industry aside, I adhere to the principles that respect between parties is a two-way affair and the games industry as an entity - this sprawling leviathan we've created - is widely misunderstood by consumers and regulators, not to mention the academic community.
As far as the UK government is concerned, I wouldn't look to them for the changes that are required in order to bring a sense of balance back to our virtual entertainment medium. These are the bright sparks who are doing their utmost to drive away some of the best creative minds in the business with increased tax, remember?
If anything is going to happen, it should come from the industry itself; a mixture of the marketing and creative side of development and publishing divisions if at all possible. Once a few of the big industry players get onboard with a full and unrestricted comprehension of what their consumers and the collective sphere of gaming as a whole expects from them, the rest will eventually meld into the same vein of thinking.
I doubt it will happen like that, but I can hope. As it stands, the corporations and conglomerates who rule the world in a couple of hundred years' time will all have had a hand in virtual reality entertainment. So, one way or another, this 'abused pet' is going to become an important facet of our society at some point. What happens here and now will decide the nature of this leviathan, and if nobody stops to consider the implications of how the big industry players react with their consumer base we should all be concerned.
FeendReturns on 22 Jan '12 said:
Just have to point out that the Space Marine DLC was in fact free for everybody. The article has it wrong, without an online pass in Space Marine you couldnt progress past rank 5.
terry cheyne on 22 Jan '12 said:
i understand publishers wanting a bit off second hand sales but 800-1200 ms points is way too high .no one would bother so much if it was 400
msbhvn on 22 Jan '12 said:
If the publishers know they can get away with something, they'll do it. EA and its cohorts are nothing more than venture capitalists who couldn't give a s*** about games or gamers. Why should we give them our money when it's the developers who deserve it? I mentioned in passing in another thread a while ago that developers, who after all are the real creators of the content, should band together and cut the publishers out altogether.
In the meantime, it's Microsoft that should be standing up to the publishers and saying that Online Pass is spiralling out of control and it needs to stop before there's a loss of confidence in the industry as a whole. It's happened before, in the days of Atari, and it was only Nintendo that managed to resurrect it. The gaming industry isn't too big to fail.
But then Microsoft doesn't seem to be bothered much about games anymore, apart from Halo, they're too busy dreaming of taking over the TV industry with crappy limited streaming services to try and get more Live subscribers. It really makes me wonder if they know something the rest of us don't.
Johnbhoy69 on 23 Jan '12 said:
During the post xmas sales i picked up a copy of Fifa 11 for £3 pre owned,not a huge football/football game fan but its decent craic playing with friends with a few drinks. Then wanting to play online i was offered a 10 day free trial before i would then be expected to pay so i could continue playing online. I find this insulting considering how this annualy released game only goes through minor changes (mostly Aesthetic) with every 'new' iteration, isnt the fact that i pay for xbox live enough to grant me the ability to play this game online straight away with no added fees regardless of whether its preowned or not?
Also having worked for GAME when i was a student I know that all the stores push their preowned sales more than new sales, as it has been stated in this article it all about the money and its common knowledge that the retailer makes all the profits from preowned sales compared to only a percantage of new game sales.
I think having someone to watch over this process is needed more now than ever. I know some Games offer fresh content to keep players playing and keep interest in the games alive but have you ever downloaded some new content and think...it feels like they could of included this on the disc?
Grummy on 23 Jan '12 said:
I first wrote that part before the DLC was released, when it was reported that it would be charged for as normal, but that wasn't the point of using it in the article, I was using it as an example of a game being deliberately released without part of the game even being complete and ready for use.
CunningSmile on 23 Jan '12 said:
One of the biggest problems with regulation is that it is only as good as the companies willing to stick to it. Look at the Federal Drugs Administration in the US. It is widely regarded as one of the most corrupt organisations in the world, with panel members getting elected thanks to the HUGE campaign contributions made by the same drugs companies they are supposed to police. The result is a supposedly impartial government organisation that over the last ten years alone has driven several small companies out of business by refusing licenses for new drugs, only to then give the research notes to the larger companies and who has repeatedly adviced against releasing anti-cancer drugs until the next presidential election as it would result in better tax breaks!
Can you imagine Acti behaving any differently? Kotick has been quoted as saying he doesn't even like games, he just wants the money. With the strip mining attitude he has taken to Guitar Hero and CoD I can easily imagine Acti continuing to flaunt the regulations, and even basic morality, so long as the fines (or the cost of getting regulators on your side) are less than the profits made from CoD, or at least that the fines won't be in until after he has retired.
Cokney Charmer on 23 Jan '12 said:
Very good and valid points in the article.
Using the MP side of a game to recoup losses from the pre-owned and renting market is a smart business decision, and one which the normal gamer fully understands even if they dont agree with it
But, removing or locking away SP content is wrong, and always will be. The SP for me, is the game...anything MP related is an extra outside that. Big fan of Arkham City, was completely amazed to discover that the Catwoman side was an online pass of sorts for the game.....shocked is the word, just thought it was similar to the Robin content that I got with the game edition i pre-ordered..but now having finished the game with that content, not having it as part of the SP robs the player of the full gaming experience of Arkham City...which is a shame considering how much detail and care went into making it
Microsoft could really step in and set its own ground rules for how the "online pass" system works on games that carry the Xbox Logo. Preventing people from having the full SP experience of a game is wrong....the MP side i can understand even if I dont full agree with it in some cases
But it does need to be managed and have a set rulebook in place for its use, to make a game, then to remove portions of it just because they know it can be sold as DLC (Assassins Creed II and Brotherhood memory sections) is not a good precedent to have
delmariachi on 23 Jan '12 said:
Regulatory ideas are sort of already in place.
Did QA testing for EA's European Certification Group which was just a glorified QA testing post in all but name about 5 years ago, they are now based in Madrid, The clamour for release was rediculous, I saw on many occasions bug reports sent back saying unless it blue screens and kills the game don't worry, time is pressing etc.. As a gamer of 25 years back then, it really opened my eyes on how the companies see "us" the gamer, its a case of whack it out there asap and we'll fix it later...
Sadly its not just EA that do it. The other thing to note is that supposedly the actual console makers put the product through some form of testing to make sure it complies with all their wants, including standards of build. So the problem is two fold, the software developers rushing stuff out and the actual console companies letting games slip through the net so they can guarantee a release. Yes it does stink but unless people vote with their feet and wallets, nothing will change.
CunningSmile on 23 Jan '12 said:
My girlfriend is friends with several of the higher ups at Ruffian games and they complained of much the same pressure from MS when they made Crackdown 2. They weren't happy with the game in any way shape or form, but the pressure from MS was immense and the daily fines for missing their going gold date were so great they would have ended up working for nothing if they were even a few weeks late.
I think most of the developers across the industry are people like you were: gamers themselves who want to release a game they would play. Alas the money has become too great for them to function by themselves, and so we are left with an industry that relies on souless money machines like Acti and EA who care little for the end product so long as they can splice together a trailer.
Murphy1978 on 23 Jan '12 said:
My understanding, albeit probably wrong was that CD2 had a crazily short development cycle. At the end of the day, they would have signed and agreed to a contract to working within that time frame.
CunningSmile on 24 Jan '12 said:
From conversations in the pub they had an 8 month development cycle to make CD2. They were actually working on Crackdown 1.5 as a low cost expansion for about a year to be followed later by a proper CD2 before MS (mostly the marketing boys) changed their minds and sent them back to the drawing board to make a full retail sequel. I live in Southampton and could hear the swearing all the way from Dundee.
Shouldn't be surprised really as MS did the same to Child of Eden and Gunstringer.