DLC the Future of Gaming



Recently I have been playing Skyrim: Dawnguard and Civ V: Gods and Kings, both good DLCs in a world of mixed output.  With the advent of online consoles has come one addition to the hobby that is both a blessing and curse.  DLC (downloadable content) began on consoles with the Dreamcast and Xbox but, since the advent of large hard drives and broadband internet on the 360 and PS3 has become a completely necessary income stream for almost all developers.  Gamespot journalist Guy Cocker recently stated that DLC was his worst 'advance' of the current console generation and I have to agree in large.  Here are some of the good and the bad of the DLC history.

The Good

Some meaty DLC has released over the years for a variety of games.  Most of the good DLC is lengthy and adds a large amount of new content.  Adding content that hasn't been possible in the history of gaming is a good thing.

GTA IV's The Lost and the Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony both added lengthy, new stories and new weapons to the excellent 2009 game.  They came in 6 month intervals after the release (timed exclusively to 360, more on that later) and they weighed in at a fairly weighty 1600 MS Points (around £12).  In similar hefty story DLC, Bethesda released the Dawnguard expansion for Skyrim.  Adding a new story, game area and weapons amongst other things to Skyrim it is certainly on the good end of the spectrum but weighing in at 1600 MS Points, my first few hours have been slightly disappointing.  This could be because Skyrim is so incredibly generous with its content (that I doubt many have completely finished) that it's hard to be overly impressed by what is offered.  Also from Rockstar was Red Dead Redemption's Undead Nightmare.  A DLC that offered a whole new story, game areas and completely new play style to the Wild West epic.

Also something positive about the much-maligned EA (really)!  The recent Euro 2012 tournament would normally have brought a full game with a full price tag to UK and European stores.  In an interesting change EA released the Euro 2012 tournament as DLC for last year's Fifa 12.  At a pretty reasonable £15.99 (1800 MS points) added stadiums, kits, commentary, game modes and a Euro 2012 skin to the game.  I have to admit to not having played it but believe it is a reasonable addition that is certainly better than the full retail World Cup games of the past.

The Bad

Most of the bad for me can be summed up in one (long) word - microtransactions.  Games companies, and perhaps gamers, seem to be convinced that spending a small amount on something fairly useless or pointless is quick and impulsive.  It is a system that has worked to great effect on the App Store and iTunes where 69p games are bought in huge quantities.  I'm not writing about whether the business side of it makes sense, I'm wondering whether it is good for gaming. 

From the infamous horse armour to costumes for everything in many games microtransactions exist in most games in some form or another.  A recent piece of work by Gamesradar.com, showed that buying everything for PS3 hit Little Big Planet 2 weights in at an astonishing £304.65.  How much of this content could have (should have) been included in the original game or at a vastly cheaper cost?  Is this purely about monetising and exploiting hardened fans of any series.  The release of map packs has become regular big business for the likes of Call of Duty and Battlefield 3 and the recent influx of 'Elite' season pass systems means charging in excess £35 for an unspecified number of map packs and various other advantages.  Without the access to map packs it can create something of a haves and have nots society on line and for those who want to be included in clans and groups the pressure to buy is large.  The upcoming Fifa 13 is set to trial micro DLC by charging customers to download classic kits amongst other things.  Unnecessary but certainly something that taps in to a fans desires.

On disc 'DLC' is another controversial aspect currently hitting the gaming industry.  Capcom sparked controversy when admitting that 'downloadable' characters were actually included on the disc and unlocked on purchase of a download code.  Whilst the anger around this centred around paying for something that had already been bought, I think people missed the wider problem.  Capcom aren't going to start giving these characters away, they are simply going to not include them on the disc and then release them as genuine DLC in future.  The wider issue is the holding back of finished content to release it at a later date.  Where is the line with this?  Ridge Racer Vita released at a reduced price and you bought the content you wanted.  Buying all of this content meant that the game eventually weighed in at a regular Vita game price (£30.84) and I guess there is an argument for buying the game you want, tailored to your desires.  This is a confusing addition for more casual gamers however and perhaps serves to make gaming more hardcore in an age of more casual games.

The final bad for me is exclusivity of releases.  Again I'm sure that this makes great business sense for Microsoft and Sony but can leave consumers left out.  Many consumers can only afford one console and the idea of timed exclusive content for a game that is out for multiple consoles it does cause me some concern and widen the console divide. 

Overview

DLC is here to stay.  It makes too much money for publishers for it to go anwhere and sadly microtransactions and 'freemium' gaming (free game and paid microtransactions) might become an increasingly regular business model. Freemium is already regular on mobile games and Cevat Yerli CEO of Farcry and Crysis developer Crytek, believes that free to play games are the future.  Microtransactions will be necessary to compete in most games.  Will this lead to a total cost that out weighs the current off the shelf cost of games?  If it does, will it be a development that kills the industry as people feel that they can't compete unless they're willing or able to pay lots of money? 

I'm already concerned by the direction single-player, story based gaming is going as online multiplayer becomes a more important business model to combat trade-in.  If companies are able to make huge amounts of money by releasing identikit, microtransaction based games then what will the future hold for single player or offline experiences? 

As always, your thoughts about free to play games would be appreciated and replied to.

Holy Lego Batman 2 Review

With a distinct lack of Vita specific reviews around for this newest release from Traveller's Tales in the Lego series.  The game is obviously a follow up to the first Lego Batman game and let's start by saying it plays exactly like other Lego games I've played.  If you've played Lego Star Wars, Harry Potter or Batman before then you'll know what to expect.

Despite some of the misleading write ups on sales websites (including Amazon), the game does not include an open world Gotham City as the full console versions do. The game is instead based on the PSP and DS build of the game.  This heritage shows itself particularly in the cut scenes that play out in a startlingly low resolution that look truly horrendous on the Vita's beautiful OLED screen.  This is a great shame as the comic story telling is truly a joy in the modern, hyper violent game world.  The dynamic between Batman and Superman is consistently amusing with Robin's idolisation for The Man of Steel only adding to Batman's irritation.  Whilst the resolution is incredibly poor they are still watchable and fun.  One slightly jarring sign that the game is shoehorned together from other ideas is the fact that characters in these cut-scenes will at times be wearing costumes that not only were you not wearing at the end of the stage but that don't even exist in the Vita version of the game.  It's this sort of shoddy work that makes the game seem a little like an insult to Vita gamers.

Instead of the open world the game is played out in continuous stages with a Bat Cave hub accessible at the end of each stage to create characters and enter game modes such as Justice League and Freeplay.  Whilst it is a shame that the game lacks this mode, there is a feeling of, 'If it's not broke, why fix it.' and the level to level gameplay is fun. Without having played the full console version it's impossible for me to say how much of a loss the open world and vehicles etcetera are.

The graphics in the actual game are good and look very close to the console version of the game.  Things have the usual Lego charm all around and the stages are nicely designed with enough density to keep you collecting for some time.

The talking minifigures actually added to the story sections for me and didn't make the game lack charm as many have complained.  Much of the humour is still apparent and the nice dialogue is added to the clever physical comedy that Traveller's Tales Lego games are so famous for.  Sound in general is a little tinny but this is largely a problem with the Vita itself and is cleared up a lot with a good set of headphones plugged in instead of relying on the onboard speakers.  Traveller's Tales have certainly put some effort in to the voice actors including big game voice actor Nolan North and Hollywood 'star' Clancy Brown.

One of the game's strongest points is the fan service that it pays.  I'm broadly a superhero fan and dozens of DC Heroes and Villains show up at some point.  From the expected arrival of the likes of Superman and The Penguin to the slightly more obscure Captain Boomerang and Hawkman the game is littered with heroes and villains.  The opening chapter alone has The Caped Crusader plouging through a large number of villains in quick succession.  The first time Superman arrived gave me a little buzz of joy with the familiar John Williams score and flapping red cape.

Overall this is a lazy port for the Vita.  As it's not Traveller's Tales first Vita release (Harry Potter Years 5-7 is already out), I would have expected a little more effort from the company.  From the low resolution cut-scenes to the lack of any open world it is a great shame that more effort wasn't put in.  The Lego game magic is still here in spades.  It's a fun addition to the Lego series and as a superhero fan it was an enjoyable way to spend some portable time.  I hope that future Lego games (I'm looking at you Lego Lord of the Rings), port the big console version to the extremely powerful Vita and not leave portable gamers with a watered down version.

The Good

• Great fun gameplay (and replayability) that's good for the whole family.
• Enjoyable cut scenes.
• Stacks of great DC Universe characters.
• Any game worth playing on the Vita is a good thing.

The Bad

• Lack of the Gotham City open world from the full console version.
• Terrible resolution on the cut-scenes.
• Lazy port of PSP/DS version that lacks love and attention.

Overall

Must try harder

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)

Take play seriously!

Is the mainstream media's view of gaming range from the short-sighted to laughable?  This week CNN, one of the world's biggest news outlets, published a peculiar report from E3 asking whether the Wii's new controller (the Wii U) would breathe new life in to the ailing console.  There was no mention that this was a completely new console or new hardware for the Wii and will doubtlessly lead many millions of Wii owners down a distinctly misinformed area.  Would similarly poor reporting be accepted with regards to other areas such as sport, news or even movies?  This terribly misinformed article made me think about other views of gaming in mainstream media.

Ranging from the horribly misinformed, and infamous Alan Titchmarsh video games conversation (I couldn't find one without captions) through to an array of horribly negative reports in a wide number of mainstream publications, is enough positivity or even balance given to our increasingly popular hobby?

The Times UK has separate film, music, books, TV and stage sections on its website.  The BBC makes some effort with it's Click section available under the 'technology' heading, not in the 'entertainment and arts' area of the website.  The BBC does devote a regular BBC one TV show to a mature look at movies but nothing specific for games.  CNN reports on films, music and TV under its 'entertainment' section and again any scant gaming news is placed in 'technology'.  The Daily Mail includes film, music and theatre reviews without a look at games at all; if you search for the word game on the site one of the top stories to appear is a negative story about Carmageddon's kickstarter project.  There is some effort made by some national newspapers online sections with The Sun, The Guardian and the Daily Mirror containing reasonable sections on gaming although from my experience the amount of space given to gaming within the newspaper is minimal.

Is it fair to compare gaming to other areas with regards to the amount of coverage it deserves?  The statistics seem to suggest that yes it is.  Global video games revenue is certainly comparable to that of the movie and music industry and, from a business stand point, is significantly more profitable than movies.  Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 beat Avatar to a billion dollars worth of sales by a day and through ongoing sales, map packs, and Call of Duty: Elite continues to be a cash cow for the publishers.  Finally the average gamer is reported to be in their 30s and close to 50% of US homes own a dedicated gaming console.

Why then, is gaming viewed so negatively in the mainstream?  Obviously a number of violent video games are made and sold although reports suggest that only 5% of game ratings in Europe are given 'Mature' ratings and only 4 of the top selling computer games in 2012 were rated at the highest age rating.  How different is this to movies with such films as the Saw films, Hostel and The Human Centipede gracing the UK recently.  Although it shouldn't really matter what the rating of the game is.  With an average gamer age of 30, isn't it up to the parents of gamers to manage what children are playing not up to games to be pilloried for violence.  In a strange twist, violent movies such as Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds get nominated for numerous Oscars and the Daily Mail review calls for more scalpings but the same newspaper contains dozens of stories about the effect of gaming.

I personally want gaming to be treated with more balance in the mainstream media.  The games industry is still in it's infancy in comparison to music and movies and there is plenty of room for growth.  I hope that as the current generations grow up, it will be viewed in closer terms to other entertainment and artistic businesses.  As an adult working in a professional job, colleagues and friends are still somewhat surprised by the fact that I still choose gaming as a primary hobby and the idea that perhaps I should have moved on is noticeable (no such prejudice exists when I say I'm going to watch a movie however).

(Zom)Believe in giving little games a go.

For the last few days I've been satisfying my wait for The Walking Dead Episode 2 by playing a little indie game called Project Zomboid by Indie Stone.  The version I have been playing is the current 'full release' of version 0.15d which is several months old and is soon to be replaced by version 0.2r which addresses some of the issues I faced (if this is the case then I have not included any gripes about it here).  I can't claim to be an expert on this game having played for a length of time in low double digit hours but have tried to get a taste of much of what is available at present and some of what is to come.

The game itself is about survival; plain and simple.  It challenges you to tell the story of your own death in the game world.  There is no pretence that you can 'win', you simply last as long as you can.  I guess a little like Tetris in that respect, you'll never finish it, simply increase the delaying of your inevitable flesh chompy death.  In order to help you survive you have a deceptively detailed crafting mechanic to help you.  You can use planks and nails to board up windows and doors, you can chop down doors to get planks, you can use sheets to make bandages and to cover windows and so on.  There is plenty of food to eat although some of this spoils and goes off if you don't do anything with it and can be combined with other things to be cooked.  The player has some simple 'moodlets' that let you know if your character is tired, hungry, scared, sick, wet etc. This allows you to carry out actions accordingly.

There is a basic introductory story mode that includes a nicely tense lead in to the game and some good character introduction with a shotgun toting psychopath.  The true heart of the game however lies in its sandbox mode.  The opportunity to choose from a small set of similar player characters, choosing some skills from a skill tree and surviving for as long as you can is thrillling for a number of play throughs.  Do you want to sacrifice being overweight to have the bonus of strength or hard of hearing to have the bonus of great sight but remember, when you're dead, you're dead!  No save points!  No chance to try again so you better not make a mistake or it's game over for good. 

My personal longest survival was a fraught affair, holed up in a house with as much food as I could muster early on.  All the windows sheeted over and spiked baseball bat in hand I even managed to hold out through a few days with a sickness and fever.  The problems came as food (and Whiskey) began to run low after a dozen days and I needed to venture in to nearby houses for supplies.  On reaching a warehouse the goods were too good to turn down and I overstocked.  Weighed down by a shotgun, stacks of food and gas canisters progress home was slow and I was caught out in the open at night.  Even an expertly crafted Molotov Cocktail in their midst wasn't enough to hold off the drooling hoards of flesh-eaters and I was destined to be starting again.

The crafting system is still limited in what you can create.  There are bugs and crashes early on.  The graphics and moodlets are reminiscent of The Sims from 12 years ago.  But it's unfair to judge Project Zomboid for its flaws as it is clearly in its early stages with big plans for growth.  Playing like The Sims meets Left 4 Dead, if Indie Stone can apply some polish there is clearly a diamond here waiting to be discovered.

The Project Zomboid community looks as if it's thriving with tens of thousands of views of posts in the company's own forums and an impressive 11,000+ likes of the company's Facebook page.  Even celebrity gamer Graham Linehan is a fan.  It's certainly a community and a game that I will be keeping a close eye on in the coming months and years to see what they can do with this with more and more input.  Is it possible that this could become the next Minecraft and go big?  I say, why not?  This is doing something that I haven't seen anywhere else and clearly there is a desire for what Indie Stone are doing.  Whether the core of the game will be able to be kept as the game becomes more popular and there is more call for casual features to be added will be interesting to see.  Whilst some sort of ability to save and return is a necessity, I for one hope that we don't see too many more casual friendly features added as the fear of death is the mechanic that keeps tension in each playthrough.

If you want to know more you can find the game at http://projectzomboid.com/

Save our Vita!

Don't touch the Sad Face.

The Vita was launched earlier this year to a mild and underwhelming fanfare.  At a high-end price point, Vita was targeting the core gaming market with it's dual analogue sticks, top quality graphics, true online multiplayer and the ability to touch every screen possible.  A few months and one E3 later the Vita is limping along with sales of 1.8 million to the end of May.  The sales figures aren't what worry me most as a Vita fan but the lack of support from Sony is terrifying.  Sony have targeted sales of 10 million in this financial year but who is going to buy one at its current price with the games lined up?

I have to admit upfront to being a Vita fan.  I bought one on day one and have loved Uncharted, Rayman Origins, Everybody's Golf and I can't wait for Gravity Rush next week (the demo is great).  With enough good games I could easily see the handheld become my primary game console with high quality games without the requirement to take over the lounge; something that is more and more important with a grown-up life.

We're in the early days of Vita's life but what worries me is the distinct lack of big name exclusive titles.  Assassin's Creed Liberation and Call of Duty Declassified both look like big name potential system sellers and Playstation All Stars might sell consoles in the US where Super Smash Brothers is immensely popular.  As a quick aside, it takes some skill to ignore Jack Tretton's gaff of describing COD as the first dual stick, online multiplayer game on a portable system which must have made Resistance Burning Skies developers, Nihilistic, cry in to their collective dinners.

Where though were the big name internal announcements for the handheld?  Where was Gran Turismo, God of War or Killzone?  We're left looking forward to spin-offs and remakes this year like Metal Gear Solid HD (a game released on other consoles months ago), a remake of Jet Set Radio, portable versions of Lego games and no doubt stripped down versions of a collection of EA sports games.  Until Sony can build some confidence in the console by releasing games that sell what would make a Rockstar or Capcom release a decent, exclusive Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil or Monster Hunter, a guaranteed system seller in Japan. 

PS One Classics and PSP games, whilst a nice addition to current Vita owners, are simply not going to sell systems.  I will download my already purchased Final Fantasy games and recently picked up the Persona games from PSP but this isn't going to get people buying the console in their masses.  The fact that PS One Classics was a 'reveal' in the Sony conference is remarkable and I hope that Jack Tretton was embarrassed to announce it as a big deal.

What future for the Vita then?  The sales, whilst slow, aren't significantly behind the sales of the DS and 3DS in their early days and both of those managed to catch up.  With the Vita's links with the PS3 coming, it will be interesting if there is anything that can increase sales over the next year and in to the Wii U's life where the Vita has the potential to rival the tablet controller on Nintendo's next gen system and SmartGlass on the 360. 

Despite a 50 euro price cut in France, Sony insist that they have no intention of cutting the  price elsewhere.  I can't help but feel the 10 million proposed sales is somewhat ambitious for a system that was outsold in weekly sales by the Wii  at the end of May (and by the PSP in Europe and Japan).  Unless Sony act now to save the Vita then it could be too late before they get off their behinds and do something about it.

Game design by numbers.

Having seen both the Sony and Microsoft conferences over the last 24 hours, I can't help but feel a worrying convergence in the games market.  Only a few of the games weren't big number sequels or copies of other, already popular games.  Playstation All Stars: Battle Royale looked like PS3 Super Smash Brothers (with less lovable characters), as I said yesterday Forza Horizons looks like Need For Speed or Burnout and the similarities between COD, Battlefield, MOH Warfighters and Ghost Recon Future Soldier are startling.

Some of the stand out games of E3 (Beyond, Watch Dogs and The Last of Us to name the top three from Sony's conference) were new IPs and both doing something different to the rest.  With many of the games sticking to accepted formulae how do we expect to find the next big thing?

I worry we're stuck in something of an 80s action movie era.  The films came thick and fast with various muscle-bound, wise cracking heroes and sure, there were some hits, but the majority were forgettable movies with a by the numbers plot that could practically be interchanged.  Save the world... blah blah... kills the bad guys... yeah yeah... get the girl... and so on.  This could be said of many of the current set of hits.  Take a heroic protagonist/group of soldiers, put them in a world ending conflict and blow stuff up.

Why does this problem exist though?  I can only suggest that it's our fault.  Probably not yours if you're reading this as it's a pretty obscure gaming blog and only likely to be read by hardcore gamers.  But is it the masses of gaming that cause this.  Call of Duty sells like the proverbial hot cakes every year no matter how bad it's considered by the majority of players and why wouldn't EA, Ubisoft and co all want a part of that action?  Forza 3 (Metacritic 92) sold less than 4 million copies but Need for Speed The Run (Metacritic 68) sold around 4.6 million, it must be noted that NFS, whilst much worse, is on all formats.  Why wouldn't the excellent Forza try to become more like the mediocre Need for Speed if it can boost sales?

How do we change this problem then?  I implore everyone who reads this to try something different in gaming.  Go and download Journey on your PS3, The Walking Dead on everything, To the Moon or Frozen Synapse on PC.  Support smaller developers and let them give us games that take risks.  This has happened in movies with smaller indie film makers rising up to give us such film beauties as The Royal Tenenbaums, Lost in Translation and Up In The Air.  I'm not saying that I don't want to play the next Splinter Cell, (I really, really do want to play it) but I am saying get out there and try something little and give it a chance. it may surprise you.