Do online sales make sense?

 

Due to the paucity of Vita games at my local major supermarket and my incredible inpatience I took an unprecedented move in my gaming history and last week paid full price for a digital download of Gravity Rush.  The price was pretty reasonable clocking in at £29.99 when the boxed product of the game seen in HMV a few days later was £34.99 without the DLC that was included with the download product but I did immediately suffer a touch of buyers regret. 

The game itself is fantastic (I will post a review in a few days) and the purchase itself isn't what I regretted, it was the digital purchase. 

According to a recent BBC story digital downloads now account for 25% of gaming sales and gamers by their nature are surely one of the first demographics to get on board with this sort of purchase.  PC markets such as Steam are doing very well with convenience and reasonable pricing (particularly during regular sales) but there are several things that don't tally well for me with the way consoles are selling their products.

Firstly, the cost.  Boxed products must be physically created, shipped around the world and sold from stores that demand a cut of the profit.  Why then is the cost of a digital download usually very similar or often more expensive than boxed products, particularly when sold through online retailers.  Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo can obviously take a bigger cut through their own online stores but a quick comparison of best prices found online and Xbox Live or PSN is included here:

The difference is quite striking on this fairly random selection of recent releases and top sellers climbing as high as a ridculous £30 difference.  

Second problem (and the one that should make publishers want me to buy digitally) is the lack of ability to trade in.  For gamers whose income is limited the ability to trade in is surely a must and when digital downloads cost as much or more than boxed products why would people buy them.  My copy of Gravity Rush sits on my memory stick and can't be loaned to friends or traded in.  The money is spent and never to be seen again.  I don't trade in a lot of games these days and have a growing collection of boxed games on all of my home consoles but I know I could trade in any of them if I wanted to.  Pre-owned games is currently big business for high-st retailers, generating billions of pounds worth of revenue worldwide. Money that isn't making it to the games creators or publishers.

The third problem for me is the actual lack of a boxed product.  As a gamer I quite like having the product on my shelf, showing an impressive collection of games.  I also like having the instruction books and 'stuff' that go with buying a boxed product.  Where would I be without my lovely big map of Skyrim or Liberty City to help me find my ways through the early days?

Another issue is the worrying existing of who holds the digitial rights to downloaded games.  Amazon's Kindle faced ownership issues when it digitally deleted two George Orwell books over copyright issues.  Could Microsoft or Sony pull an Amazon and delete or remove a game if an issue becomes a problem?

Finally the actual cost falls to me for providing a storage medium.  This is less and less of an issue but with the cost of a PS Vita memory card costing £25 for an 8 GB card it only takes a couple of games to fill this.  My aging 360 that came with a once adequate 20 GB hard drive is struggling to have room for the DLC I want, let alone full games.

What benefits to digital download? 

It means that I can get the game I want, when I want with very short wait time and without getting off my couch.  Online stores demand a wait for delivery although this is negated slightly by the fact that preorders are often shipped and arrive before or on release date from major online retailers.

The only other benefit I can think of is being able to get difficult to find games.  Vita games are currently very poorly stocked at most stores near me and I live in central London and my 'local' stores are flagship Oxford St outlets of Game and HMV.

Now I understand that PSN or Xbox Live is simply selling at RRP but why are the games manufacturers shackling themselves to a price that other retailers simply do not.

At the moment console manufaturers are slightly beholden to games stores and undercutting them completely is probably not wise but at the moment they're not even competitive.  With the vast difference in boxed prices of games and downloadable games and the actual product that you buy, downloadable games on consoles are a tough sell.  I would doubtlessly be more tempted to make online purchases of big titles more regularly if they were more reasonably or competively priced (I'm as lazy as the next man). 

I do worry about a time when console manufacturers take the choice out of gamers hands.  With the ill-fated PSP Go, Sony ventured in to the digital download only market.  The iPhone and Android devices are proving that games can be sold en-masse to gamers in downloadable form.  What's certain is that games companies are trying to take more control of their own market with the increasing prevalence of extra codes to play games online and the rumours that just won't go away about one use games on next gen-consoles.

If games were noticablly cheaper through PSN or Xbox Live then I would buy more games from them as price is without doubt more important to me than the other issues I've mentioned here.  Let's hope that the future of our industry sees good changes to the way games are sold and pricing.

(*All prices taken on 18/6/12 from PSN, Xbox Live, Shopto.net, game.co.uk and amazon.co.uk)

Microsoft E3 Press Conference

'Games at the forefront of what we do,' was one of the key messages given by Microsoft's Xbox team throughout their hour and half press conference from E3 today and they weren't entirely lying although it was sadly a little underwhelming.  Halo 4, Call of Duty: Black Ops II, Fable: The Journey, Forza: Horizon, Tomb Raider, Resident Evil 6 and Gears of War: Judgement all made unsurprising appearances in some form or another during the show and it would be trite to say that they didn't get my gamer blood flowing.

Halo 4 is looking good and polished with an opening of a UNSC science ship crashing on to an unknown planet.  Master Chief turns up to investigate and soon comes across some covenant, using a redesigned battle rifle and assault rifle the chief makes short work of a few of these before they are destroyed by an unknown foe.  We're then introduced to an organic-looking AI enemy, one of whom drops a weapon which Cortana quickly explains is early Forerunner technology.  A few new Forerunner weapons and a new heat-sensitive visor are shown off but again nothing overwhelming.  Call of Duty went through its usual paces of scripted scenes and big explosions.  Some were certainly impressive, especially a building collapse near the end of the scene.  How much do people care about what Call of Duty does in its single player mode though?

The most interesting gaming addition of the show, for me, was the announcement of Splinter Cell: Blacklist.  It looks like the same engine as the very enjoyable Splinter Cell Conviction with Sam Fisher, now firmly back in the fold as the leader of a newly founded unit Fourth Echelon.  With Sam moving quickly through his environment killing on the way, the game looks polished and surprisingly close to ready considering its Spring 2013 release date.  Kinect support is integrated and Sam can distract guards and call in support from home base using voice commands.

Whilst we're on it, Kinect support looks to be highly pressed by Microsoft with the addition of Kinect features for Fifa 13 and Madden.  A slightly puzzled looking NFL legend Joe Montana was dragged out to make a few calls as a quarter-back and Kinect seemed to pick them up nicely and a short video and talk demonstrated Kinect being used to change formations, make substitutions and direct your players in 'Be a Pro' mode.  A quite nice touch was shouting at the referee and the commentary picking up on the anger at a bad decision; I was left wondering if you get booked for swearing though.  Fable Journey looks a little like a fancier Gunstringer, although I do love the universe Lionhead have created.

The biggest 'surprise' of the show was the announcement and demonstration of Xbox SmartGlass.  This had previously been leaked but some of the integration, particularly with games, could be very interesting.  We saw a return to Madden 13 with the use of a Windows 8 tablet being used to select and draw out plays and a return to Halo 4 with the integration of game and tablet by selecting a ship on screen and getting information on the tablet.  With the right developers this could be a brilliant addition to the Xbox but I worry the best uses will be limited to a few creative developers.  Rather brilliantly however is that this will work on existing tablets including iOS and Android devices.

Most disappointingly though were the apparent attempts at copying other games and console ideas.  Tomb Raider and Resident Evil 6 both look like they're trying to capture some of the pace of the Uncharted series with scripted moments through collapsing environments.  New Xbox Live game Wreckateer is a fairly shameless Angry Birds ripoff in 3D (and was described as rad!).  Forza Horizons has too much of Burnout or Need for Speed with more realistic vehicles look for me.  New game from Signal Studios, Ascend New Gods, looks like it has clear pretensions to Shadow of the Collosus.   And even Xbox SmartGlass, whilst quite interesting, is a clear attempt to pick up the Wii U market before the Wii U even comes out.

Asides from a handful of celebrity appearances, the aforementioned Joe Montana, South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone showing South Park RPG and a frankly peculiar 5 minute Usher interlude linked to Dance Central 3 near the end of the presentation, it was a pretty by the numbers press-conference.  The reveal of the previously leaked SmartGlass raises some interesting possibilities and I'm intrigued to see what innovative developers can do with it beyond inventory management and maps.

I'd be intrigued to know what others think so leave your comments in the box below.

This is a man's world!



"Female assassin in the lead role? big fail ! nooo thank you"

"Okay, I'll say it: I think having a female assassin is a bad idea!"

This weekend Games Informer let slip that the Playstation Vita was getting its own Assassin's Creed and, not without controversy would be staring a female assassin, Aveline.  From outright aggression to the attempts at humour with the mention of 'touch screen input', message boards I've looked at have been dotted with negative comments. Now whilst the two quotes I've shown above are in the minority, sadly the fact they exist raises a question about how accepting gamers are.  Female characters have existed in games for a number of years but have always been overtly sexualised creations with big chests, small waists and flawless looks.  Even supposedly 'strong' female leads such as Lara Croft have widely been characters flaunted for their looks whilst they jump, shoot and swing around the environment.  In the soon to be released Lollipop Chainsaw, there exists an Xbox achievement achieved by taking a peek up the lead characters incredibly short skirt.

Women are represented in games.  The much maligned publisher EA has included default female versions of the lead characters in Dragon's Age and Mass Effect (the latter of which raised it's own controversy).  Beyond Good and Evil had the strong female protagonist Jade who doesn't come across as an overly sexualised piece of eye-candy for male gamers.  And of course Metroid's Samus Aran is an almost completely positive role model even if she did appear in an 8-bit bikini at the end of the original Metroid.  Excluding the question mark over whether Lara Croft is a good role-model or not, the negative portrayals far outnumber the positive.  From Dead Or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball (which amazingly got a sequel and a PSP spin-off) to Bayonetta's high-heels wearing 'sexy' clothed witch, women have regularly been little more than sex objects in games.

How different is this from the way men are treated in games though?  In my experience they either lean towards the wise-cracking and handsome (Nathan Drake, Ezio Auditore) or brutish commando (Gears of War).  I don't personally mind these male stereotypes and accept that as most games are in someway attempting to be action movies I am likely to be either Bruce Willis or Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Whether or not I am supposed to relate to an American voiced, hulking super-soldier doesn't seem to be considered.  Do I relate to Marcus Fenix?  Not particularly.  He is just a vessel through which to play an enjoyable and well-crafted game.  Would it matter if the lead was female or out of shape?  I don't believe it would, although I accept that the muscles are vaguely in role for the game.

This doesn't mean that games shouldn't be more representative though.  Like no other medium games project us on to the world that we play in.  The drama that surrounds women, homosexuality and religion when they are represented in games is astounding in a supposedly enlightened 21st Century.  Studies seem to suggest that around 40% of gamers are women and 60% of The Sims 125 million players are female.  I don't believe that female gamers need more female protagonists though but perhaps more games designed with women in mind or even by female developers.

Back to the original idea of Assassin's Creed: Liberation though.  Regardless of the gender of the lead assassin, more high quality reasons to play on my Vita are warmly accepted.  I'm looking forward to spending time in 18th century New Orleans with Aveline and look forward to finding out more about the game at E3.

A Journey to be savoured

I can't hep but liken Journey to a story of a life. From the tentative ambling hops of your beginning, to the confident, swooping strides of adult life, to meeting a stranger to spend your time with, to your slow shambling loss of this physical freedom as you reach the end of your tale.  A little deep for a game that involves flying around a desert and making beeping noises but the best metaphor for this wordless masterpiece.

As I'm sure anyone who is reading this is already aware you begin in a nondescript desert with a shining mountain top in the distance.  The hand-holding so apparent in many modern games doesn't exist here and you're more or less left to decide where to go from there.  A few button presses and you're taking your first small hops and glides around the landscape and sliding down the odd dune.  Like a newborn fawn, you're beginning to find your feet and begin your journey in the only direction that seems to have a point (literally and figuratively).

Before long you've collected a few of the glowing symbols the dot the landscape and your flights and glides have increased.  It's enjoyable to soar around the landscape and all would be lovely as a single player experience.

What sets Journey apart however is the subtle yet affecting multiplayer.  The first fellow wanderer I came across filled me with a feeling of desire to share this desolate, lonely world with someone.  And whilst I adventured through Journey I met around 10 or so other souls to share my journey with.  Whilst I was with them the world became a slightly better place and after the brief but effective story sections, I found myself seeking out my nameless fellow wanderer in the new section of the game.  I was also reluctant to turn off the game whilst I was with someone and at times had to drag myself away from a playthrough so as not to just plough through the game in one sitting.

Multiplayer gaming is in quite a state if you ask me. I'll write in more detail about why I think this some time soon but the Journey  gets multiplayer, amongst many other things, right.

Some won't get it, will miss the point entirely and I can only imagine in years to come people will be amazed as this nears the top of best game ever lists.  The premise is simple.  The input minimal.  But the Journey is an experience not to be missed. 

No need to cry.

Quanitc Dream's David Cage said this week that we didn't need a new generation of consoles yet and set an ambitious 2017 date on the requirement of 'the next gen'.  Anyone who saw Kara, the remarkable video from the studio, will certainly agree that Cage is doing something that many don't.  However, is he correct that the current generation of consoles is too tilted towards violence and RPGs and that we don't need a new generation of consoles for another five years?

Firstly, are we oversupplied with violence?  To get an idea of this I took a look at the top selling games on Xbox 360, PS3 and PC.  Thirteen of the top fifteen 360 games could be construed as violent or RPGs and eleven of the top fifteen PS3 games fit in to to the same category.  This certainly does seem to back-up the idea that we are perhaps oversupplied with these games but is Cage taking too simplistic a view on things.  Perhaps the games being made are there because they sell.  Hardcore gamers complain about the likes of Call of Duty and its identikit clones but perhaps that is because we, the gamer, continue to buy them.  Quantic Dream's own Heavy Rain sold well at around 2 million copies (as of GDC 2011) but this doesn't begin to touch COD MW3's 6.5 million day one sales in the UK and US or MW2's 18 to 20 million total sales.  Perhaps game designers aren't lacking imagination as Cage said, perhaps they are simply caught by the unavoidable fact that our hobby is many people's business.

On the second suggestion of no new consoles until 2017, I'm torn.  The most interesting games I have played in the last few months have not needed more polygons or better hardware.  To The Moon, Journey or Lone Survivor have all been interesting, quirky, different and thrilling in their own ways.  The industry is full of people and teams pushing boundaries and finding new and exciting way to use the hardware they are given.  I believe that David Cage and his team are capable of doing remarkable things with the current generation of hardware and I can't say I'm too ready for more.  After seeing the Wii U and it's difficult to comprehend tablet controller, I worry that one day we will pine after this generation of controller based gaming.  Without some brave souls I worry the ever increasing expense of console manufacture and game design will drive developers to need to appeal to the chattering masses.

What do you think?  Do you want more David Cage and something from Kara or are you happy to see more COD and it's itterative sequels?  Do we need a new console generation or are those wanting it setting us up for an incremental decline to casual gaming?

And here is that video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-pF56-ZYkY

The Walking Dead - The adventure game I always wanted.

I write this first post whilst keenly awaiting the second episode of Telltale Games 'The Walking Dead'.  I have wanted to love adventure games all my life, having attempted to play a huge number over the years.  The only one I can remember completing from start to finish is Grim Fandango and, despite starting Sam and Max, several Monkey Islands, Full Throttle, Leisure Suit Larry (to my shame, but I was of an age) and the more recent Back To The Future and Puzzle Agent, they were never the game I wanted.

Where The Walking Dead gets it right and so many others failed is character.  From the stark opening dialogue with a cynical US cop through to the shocking finalé of this opening chapter I was living Lee Everett's life.  I didn't have to labour through obscure puzzles, linking up strange objects and jumping through far-fetched logical links.  I didn't have to spend a long time in the same three room setting.  I did get to make genuinely troubling moral decisions.  I did connect with an array of well written and scripted characters in a mature and well-paced storyline.

Of course, this is a zombie game and there is the chance to smash undead skull but I'm not coming back for the action.  I'm coming back to find out what happens to Lee, Clementine, Carley and company and to find out if Lenny is going to get his just desserts.

Sadly I've only been able to play through the short few hours once because I want my snap decisions and reactions to be the ones that I must live with without being tempted by other (possibly more attractive) outcomes.  I'm looking forward to coming back though when all five episodes are released and playing through the whole story with some different outcomes. 

Hopefully Telltale can manage to keep the pace, variety, tough choices and great cast entertaining me throughout the remaining four episodes.  I trust that they will.