It's a real shame. For a while, I really thought that EA finally got it. That they finally realised how to properly combat piracy (non-invasive DRM) and second hand sales (offer incentives for new buyers). Unfortunately, their approach to the new Tiger Woods game shows that I was wrong and that EA are still very much experimenting. Unfortunately, their efforts are going in a very bad direction.
In brief, in order to encourage new sales, you will only be able to play Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11 online if you have an Online Pass. New copies of the game will include a one time code for the Online Pass and if you buy used, then you will need to buy the Online Pass separately if you want to play online. Which is bollocks.
I don't mind EA including extra DLC for those who purchased new. The key distinction is that the extra DLC should be just that - extra. For example, new buyers of ME2 would get the Cerberus Network which would get you some free downloadable content. Naturally, people will argue that all this means is that content was kept out of the game for inclusion as day one DLC. I can't comment on whether this is the case. All I can do is look at the game without the DLC and decide if that game is worth it.
However, what EA have done with the new Tiger Woods game is to remove a core element of the game and make it available only to people who buy the game new or pay extra for the privilege. Granted, opinions will differ on this but it seems to me that multiplayer in a sports game is not a value added extra. In the modern era of console gaming, multiplayer is not the exception - it is the norm.
Also, factor in the fact that people are already paying money to Microsoft for an Xbox live gold subscription in order to play online in the first place. The net result of this is that it feels like a double dip from EA.
Hopefully, this is just a one-off experiment from EA and doesn't expand to other games. Unfortunately, the cynic in me knows that EA won't see any backlash in sales as a result of this decision as most of the buying public just don't care enough about these issues.
I also can't help but wonder if this is a more general move in the market. I know that publishers have long looked at how they can monetize the multiplayer crowd (particularly those who buy a game and then play for 200+ hours online) and the idea of charging for singleplayer and multiplayer separately has been raised before. I just hope this doesn't happen.
Speaking for myself, I enjoy multiplayer games as well but do find that most of my time is spent on singleplayer. If the multiplayer portion of a game is charged separately, what will likely happen is that I cut multiplayer out altogether and stick to singleplayer. Which would be a shame.
Showing posts with label News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label News. Show all posts
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2
Other than the fact that both of these games are RPGs being developed by BioWare, you would think there isn't much in common between these games. However, in a recent marketing move, BioWare have created a link by giving people who buy the Collectors Edition of DA:O a bonus item to use in Mass Effect 2.
And as a result, a bunch of people on the forums are up in arms over what they perceive as a bad marketing decisions.
My own view? Pro-consumer as I am, I find it hard to get upset by this.
In all likelihood, the bonus item offered in DA:O is probably a relatively weak item which will only be of use in the early part of the game. As such, I seriously doubt that not having that bonus item will "ruin" the fun of ME2 for me.
Looking at the arguments of the posters, it looks like a lot of people have fallen for the ol' slippery slope fallacy. In other words, "Oh noes, if BioWare (or EA depending on your view) gets away with this then, before we know it, we will only get a complete game in future if we buy 100 different completely unrelated games!!!!!!!!"
This is an obvious slippery slope fallacy. Just because the buying public accept what BioWare are doing now, it doesn't mean that they will accept any and all future decisions. If BioWare do something in future which the buying public don't like, then you will see that reflected in sales accordingly. Ultimately, the market will decide what is and is not acceptable business practice (but then, I've always believed in strong or semi-strong markets).
And as a result, a bunch of people on the forums are up in arms over what they perceive as a bad marketing decisions.
My own view? Pro-consumer as I am, I find it hard to get upset by this.
In all likelihood, the bonus item offered in DA:O is probably a relatively weak item which will only be of use in the early part of the game. As such, I seriously doubt that not having that bonus item will "ruin" the fun of ME2 for me.
Looking at the arguments of the posters, it looks like a lot of people have fallen for the ol' slippery slope fallacy. In other words, "Oh noes, if BioWare (or EA depending on your view) gets away with this then, before we know it, we will only get a complete game in future if we buy 100 different completely unrelated games!!!!!!!!"
This is an obvious slippery slope fallacy. Just because the buying public accept what BioWare are doing now, it doesn't mean that they will accept any and all future decisions. If BioWare do something in future which the buying public don't like, then you will see that reflected in sales accordingly. Ultimately, the market will decide what is and is not acceptable business practice (but then, I've always believed in strong or semi-strong markets).
Sunday, May 10, 2009
EA back on the menu
Huzzah!
Although I've been skipping all news relating to BioWare's games since I started my boycott on EA, this headline was big enough that I couldn't miss it. Dragon Age Origins (the upcoming RPG from BioWare) will not come with any form of Securom - it will just use a simple disk check for copy protection.
You have no idea how happy this makes me.
Together with The Sims 3, it really looks like EA is abandoning intrusive DRM measures. I'm now formally taking EA off my boycott list. More importantly, time to read up on all the news and rumors I missed regarding Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect 2 and Star Wars: The Old Republic!
Although I've been skipping all news relating to BioWare's games since I started my boycott on EA, this headline was big enough that I couldn't miss it. Dragon Age Origins (the upcoming RPG from BioWare) will not come with any form of Securom - it will just use a simple disk check for copy protection.
You have no idea how happy this makes me.
Together with The Sims 3, it really looks like EA is abandoning intrusive DRM measures. I'm now formally taking EA off my boycott list. More importantly, time to read up on all the news and rumors I missed regarding Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect 2 and Star Wars: The Old Republic!
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Have EA repented?
Back in September, I mentioned that I was adding EA to my boycott list because of their stance on intrusive DRM.
The latest development on this is the recent announcement that The Sims 3 will only have basic DRM. Despite the title of the article and the way that all the gaming sites are reporting this, the reality is that The Sims 3 does have DRM (it will require a disc check and the input of a serial code upon installation). However, my position all along has been that I will accept DRM provided that it isn't intrusive. In my opinion, a serial code and disc check is acceptable.
Having said that, I'm not removing EA from my boycott list yet. I intend to keep an eye out on their future releases to see if The Sims 3 is an exception or if it is a general trend.
If it is a general trend from EA, then this is great news for anti-DRM proponents and I would definitely take EA off my boycott list.
Update: EA have released a de-authorisation tool. This allows you to manage the number of installations yourself so that, at least, you no longer have to contact EA in order to play your games. Although this is a step in the right direction, it will be even better if (when?) EA drop Securom and installation limits completely.
The latest development on this is the recent announcement that The Sims 3 will only have basic DRM. Despite the title of the article and the way that all the gaming sites are reporting this, the reality is that The Sims 3 does have DRM (it will require a disc check and the input of a serial code upon installation). However, my position all along has been that I will accept DRM provided that it isn't intrusive. In my opinion, a serial code and disc check is acceptable.
Having said that, I'm not removing EA from my boycott list yet. I intend to keep an eye out on their future releases to see if The Sims 3 is an exception or if it is a general trend.
If it is a general trend from EA, then this is great news for anti-DRM proponents and I would definitely take EA off my boycott list.
Update: EA have released a de-authorisation tool. This allows you to manage the number of installations yourself so that, at least, you no longer have to contact EA in order to play your games. Although this is a step in the right direction, it will be even better if (when?) EA drop Securom and installation limits completely.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
gamerDNA
I recently created a profile on gamerDNA.
Its an interesting site which, in addition to other things, allows you to keep a list of games you play and why you like playing those games. This then offers you suggestions on other games you might enjoy based on the descriptions given by people with similar tastes (based on why they liked those games). For example, I said that I liked Rainbow Six:Vegas because it was tactical, an FPS, intense, had a cover system and was squad based. The site suggested I try playing CoD4 (intense and FPS) and R6:V2 (for obvious reasons)
What games do I play?
The real benefit for me though (lets face it, considering how much time I spend reading about games, ideas for my next game to play aren't exactly lacking!) is that it really lets me see the exact types of games I play and why I like playing them. I have input the games which I have played over the last 3 years and it really gave me an interesting look at the type of games I enjoy.
Looking at the lower right hand side of my profile page, you can see some numbers about the types of games I like to play. Not surprisingly, fantasy and sci-fi are by far the most popular settings for me. I also love games where I am the hero (makes sense, in all RPGs, I always play the good character and only play evil characters so that I can see how this influences the game).
Did I like those games?
In the middle column of the screen is a list of the games that I have played over the last 3 years together with my quick review of them. A quick note on my rating scale:
5 stars - Brilliant game and a must play for all gamers
4 stars - Great game and a must play if you are a fan of the genre
3 stars - Good game and recommended if you are a fan of the genre
2 stars - An okay game - only play if you absolutely love the genre and have nothing else to play
1 star - Can't Recommend A Purchase - this is reserved for games which I didn't like
I'll also try to upload quick text reviews of the games there.
My game activity
The site also lets you record your game activity so you can talk about what you have been doing. I won't be updating this religiously (I'd prefer to spend my time playing games) but will use it to post quick notes on stuff related to games I'm playing for which I don't want to expand into a full blog post.
My gamer psychology
The site also has various quizzes that you can take to better understand your play style. On the gamerDNA site is an overall summary (right hand side of the screen) from which you can see that I'm very much a social gamer. You can see the results of the individual quizzes at the bottom of my blog.
The Bartle Gamer Psychology test is based on the Bartle Test but updated for MMOs instead of MUDs. I don't actually play MMOs but I play enough multiplayer games that I figured I would take the test anyway. You can see my main play style is socialiser which is also why I don't play MMOs - I would much prefer playing co-op games with friends than random strangers.
The FPS quiz shows that I am 92% support focused. Again - spot on. In multiplayer games, I generally follow the lead of others and am very much focused on the team winning regardless of my own stats. In fact, you may recall an earlier blog post where I mentioned my kill/death ratio in Halo 3 had gone up after I stopped playing objective based games and focused on team deathmatch.
The RTS quiz shows that I am a strategist. All this really means is that I try to come up with the best strategy to achieve the objective rather than having a preferences for turtling etc.
The last quiz shows that my gaming has been influenced primarily by the 80's and 90's. No real surprise there considering my age. :)
Update
Squueeeeee!!
Check out the comments! Someone from GamerDNA actually read this post and responded - On a side note, I think I just managed to double the number of people who read this blog! I can't believe they not only took the time to read this but post a comment as well (granted, his job title is Community Manager, but still - squueeeee!!).
That, my friends, is how you build an online community!
Its an interesting site which, in addition to other things, allows you to keep a list of games you play and why you like playing those games. This then offers you suggestions on other games you might enjoy based on the descriptions given by people with similar tastes (based on why they liked those games). For example, I said that I liked Rainbow Six:Vegas because it was tactical, an FPS, intense, had a cover system and was squad based. The site suggested I try playing CoD4 (intense and FPS) and R6:V2 (for obvious reasons)
What games do I play?
The real benefit for me though (lets face it, considering how much time I spend reading about games, ideas for my next game to play aren't exactly lacking!) is that it really lets me see the exact types of games I play and why I like playing them. I have input the games which I have played over the last 3 years and it really gave me an interesting look at the type of games I enjoy.
Looking at the lower right hand side of my profile page, you can see some numbers about the types of games I like to play. Not surprisingly, fantasy and sci-fi are by far the most popular settings for me. I also love games where I am the hero (makes sense, in all RPGs, I always play the good character and only play evil characters so that I can see how this influences the game).
Did I like those games?
In the middle column of the screen is a list of the games that I have played over the last 3 years together with my quick review of them. A quick note on my rating scale:
5 stars - Brilliant game and a must play for all gamers
4 stars - Great game and a must play if you are a fan of the genre
3 stars - Good game and recommended if you are a fan of the genre
2 stars - An okay game - only play if you absolutely love the genre and have nothing else to play
1 star - Can't Recommend A Purchase - this is reserved for games which I didn't like
I'll also try to upload quick text reviews of the games there.
My game activity
The site also lets you record your game activity so you can talk about what you have been doing. I won't be updating this religiously (I'd prefer to spend my time playing games) but will use it to post quick notes on stuff related to games I'm playing for which I don't want to expand into a full blog post.
My gamer psychology
The site also has various quizzes that you can take to better understand your play style. On the gamerDNA site is an overall summary (right hand side of the screen) from which you can see that I'm very much a social gamer. You can see the results of the individual quizzes at the bottom of my blog.
The Bartle Gamer Psychology test is based on the Bartle Test but updated for MMOs instead of MUDs. I don't actually play MMOs but I play enough multiplayer games that I figured I would take the test anyway. You can see my main play style is socialiser which is also why I don't play MMOs - I would much prefer playing co-op games with friends than random strangers.
The FPS quiz shows that I am 92% support focused. Again - spot on. In multiplayer games, I generally follow the lead of others and am very much focused on the team winning regardless of my own stats. In fact, you may recall an earlier blog post where I mentioned my kill/death ratio in Halo 3 had gone up after I stopped playing objective based games and focused on team deathmatch.
The RTS quiz shows that I am a strategist. All this really means is that I try to come up with the best strategy to achieve the objective rather than having a preferences for turtling etc.
The last quiz shows that my gaming has been influenced primarily by the 80's and 90's. No real surprise there considering my age. :)
Update
Squueeeeee!!
Check out the comments! Someone from GamerDNA actually read this post and responded - On a side note, I think I just managed to double the number of people who read this blog! I can't believe they not only took the time to read this but post a comment as well (granted, his job title is Community Manager, but still - squueeeee!!).
That, my friends, is how you build an online community!
Saturday, January 3, 2009
EA screws over consumers (again)
Another post bashing EA. I guess I shouldn't constantly bash them considering that they are already on my boycott list. However, considering all the stupid shit they do, its hard to resist as they are such an easy target.
Anyway, the latest issue can be found here. To be fair to EA, this issue doesn't just apply to them as several other big companies (like Microsoft) are doing the same thing.
The Big Issue
Basically, the issue is that if you download a game from EA's online store, you better backup those files (bear in mind that EA says that you aren't allowed to backup those files to a CD/DVD). If for any reason you need to reinstall the game after 6 months and you no longer have the original files you downloaded (say in the event of a hard drive crash, virus or even a new PC), then basically, tough shit as you will not be allowed to redownload the game from EA.
On the bright side, for the paltry sum of $6.99, you can buy the Extended Download Service which allows you to redownload the game at any time for the next two years! Wow - they are soooo nice and considerate....
This is just so fucked up that I really am at a loss for words. On the bright side, at least I now know to look out for this whenever I download software in future.
Whose fault is it anyway?
The arstechnica columnist says that it isn't EA's fault but rather the fault of the digital distributor, Digital River. Digital River are a big company that have some major clients so this problem actually applies to a lot of products.
Bullshit.
As the consumer, why should I care who put the policy in place? Bear in mind we are talking about EA's official online store here. EA chose Digital River to be their digital distributor and as such, have to take responsiblity for the policies on their online store even if they were put in place by Digital River.
The fact is that this is another shaft up consumers already tender rear ends.
Why should I put up with this?
Good question - and one which I have no answer for. On the blurb for the Extended Download Service, it says:
"A little extra protection on your order to keep your products safe? Why not!"
Just off the top of my head, I can think of several reasons:
1) If I wanted to rent games, I could do it for cheaper elsewhere (eg via sites like GameTap).
2) If I wanted to buy games online, there are better options where I can redownload at any time (eg via sites like Steam, Greenhouse and Impulse).
Lastly, can anyone tell me why legitimate buyers have to put up with this shit when pirates don't (again, I have to stress that I have no intention of playing any pirated games on my PC)?
One last point
This was just too funny to pass up:
Source: userfriendly.org
Anyway, the latest issue can be found here. To be fair to EA, this issue doesn't just apply to them as several other big companies (like Microsoft) are doing the same thing.
The Big Issue
Basically, the issue is that if you download a game from EA's online store, you better backup those files (bear in mind that EA says that you aren't allowed to backup those files to a CD/DVD). If for any reason you need to reinstall the game after 6 months and you no longer have the original files you downloaded (say in the event of a hard drive crash, virus or even a new PC), then basically, tough shit as you will not be allowed to redownload the game from EA.
On the bright side, for the paltry sum of $6.99, you can buy the Extended Download Service which allows you to redownload the game at any time for the next two years! Wow - they are soooo nice and considerate....
This is just so fucked up that I really am at a loss for words. On the bright side, at least I now know to look out for this whenever I download software in future.
Whose fault is it anyway?
The arstechnica columnist says that it isn't EA's fault but rather the fault of the digital distributor, Digital River. Digital River are a big company that have some major clients so this problem actually applies to a lot of products.
Bullshit.
As the consumer, why should I care who put the policy in place? Bear in mind we are talking about EA's official online store here. EA chose Digital River to be their digital distributor and as such, have to take responsiblity for the policies on their online store even if they were put in place by Digital River.
The fact is that this is another shaft up consumers already tender rear ends.
Why should I put up with this?
Good question - and one which I have no answer for. On the blurb for the Extended Download Service, it says:
"A little extra protection on your order to keep your products safe? Why not!"
Just off the top of my head, I can think of several reasons:
1) If I wanted to rent games, I could do it for cheaper elsewhere (eg via sites like GameTap).
2) If I wanted to buy games online, there are better options where I can redownload at any time (eg via sites like Steam, Greenhouse and Impulse).
Lastly, can anyone tell me why legitimate buyers have to put up with this shit when pirates don't (again, I have to stress that I have no intention of playing any pirated games on my PC)?
One last point
This was just too funny to pass up:
Source: userfriendly.org
Monday, December 22, 2008
IGN re-reviews Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009
A couple of weeks ago, I ragged on IGN because they had an astonishingly bad review of Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009. It looks like this viewpoint was not only shared by fans of the game, but by the wider IGN editorial staff as well.
The link to the original review has been replaced by an apology from the IGN staff and a new review has been posted.
Although the new review only gave a score of 7.9 - the review itself is much fairer (at least they are no longer comparing it to Fifa...). The criticisms levelled against the game are all valid criticisms and you can easily understand why the game was docked review points for those issues.
Unfortunately, as the original review was removed, the astonishingly bad review can no longer be viewed there. Luckily for us, Yahoo Games hasn't purged its review coffer yet! For posterity (and a good laugh), full text of the IGN review is copied here:
*********************************************
This game gets a red card, and possibly a lifetime ban.
By: Avi Burk
What sports fan doesn't want to take control of his favorite team and guide it to a championship, or, better yet, a long string of championships? Well, if it means playing Worldwide Soccer Manager, you can count me in that number.
Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009 gives gamers the chance to manage and coach 5,000 soccer teams from 50 countries around the globe, giving them the chance to manage every aspect of their team's roster, field questions from reporters at their team's press conferences, and coach their teams in real time as each simulated game unfolds. What it doesn't do, more importantly, is provide any compelling reason to keep "playing."
Although the game's database of more than 350,000 real-life soccer players is certainly impressive, only the most diehard fans of the sport would be able to appreciate having such a massive pool of talent to sift through, and the casual fan would almost certainly find the task overwhelming – I did.
The game's incredibly complex menu system is very difficult to navigate, even with the on-screen help box directing you through the process. In short, this game is extremely difficult to simply pick up and play. If you're unfamiliar with the franchise expect to spend a significant amount of time simply trying to figure out how to navigate the menus.
Worldwide Soccer Manager's presentation problems don't end there though, once you finally make it to your team's first game you'll find that the player renderings and animations are awful, and the stadiums you play in lack any kind of personality or detail. Each field is bordered by fences and what appear to be unfinished stands, which don't have any fans in them. And, when the ball is kicked off of the pitch, it passes smoothly through the surrounding fences, right through the stands, and disappears from view only to return to the field in the same fashion, appearing magically from the stands and passing through the fences (and goals) on its way back into play.
Then there's the sound, or lack thereof. There is no soundtrack that plays while you work in the game's menus, which you'll spend the vast majority of your time in this game doing. There is no audio narration to accompany your participation in press conferences, even though your options for how to respond to each question is incredibly limited. There is no audio commentary to accompany the action in the simulated game's you watch/coach. In fact, the only sound we found in the entire game was the tones of fans cheering as each simulated game played out – which only detracts from the game's feel of authenticity seeing as there are no fans rendered in the stands.
As far as traditional gameplay goes, there really isn't any in Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009. Apart from managing your roster and coaching your team, there really isn't anything to do at all. So, unless you really enjoy clicking on menu buttons, you'll find your interaction with this game extremely disappointing.
However, if you're a big footie fan and big fan of sports simulation, you'll be extremely impressed with the depth of Worldwide Soccer Manager, which allows you to control just about every facet of your team and draw from a player pool that is simply mindboggling.
Closing Comments
This game obviously aims to provide the deepest soccer simulation experience possible for the sport’s most passionate and informed fans, but it offers little to nothing that would appeal to a casual fan of the sport or to the average videogame enthusiast. The menus are complex and difficult to navigate, graphics are terrible, the sound is non-existent and there is no traditional gameplay to speak of. I couldn’t imagine why anybody would prefer Worldwide Soccer Manager to FIFA 09 or Pro Evolution Soccer 2009.
The link to the original review has been replaced by an apology from the IGN staff and a new review has been posted.
Although the new review only gave a score of 7.9 - the review itself is much fairer (at least they are no longer comparing it to Fifa...). The criticisms levelled against the game are all valid criticisms and you can easily understand why the game was docked review points for those issues.
Unfortunately, as the original review was removed, the astonishingly bad review can no longer be viewed there. Luckily for us, Yahoo Games hasn't purged its review coffer yet! For posterity (and a good laugh), full text of the IGN review is copied here:
*********************************************
This game gets a red card, and possibly a lifetime ban.
By: Avi Burk
What sports fan doesn't want to take control of his favorite team and guide it to a championship, or, better yet, a long string of championships? Well, if it means playing Worldwide Soccer Manager, you can count me in that number.
Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009 gives gamers the chance to manage and coach 5,000 soccer teams from 50 countries around the globe, giving them the chance to manage every aspect of their team's roster, field questions from reporters at their team's press conferences, and coach their teams in real time as each simulated game unfolds. What it doesn't do, more importantly, is provide any compelling reason to keep "playing."
Although the game's database of more than 350,000 real-life soccer players is certainly impressive, only the most diehard fans of the sport would be able to appreciate having such a massive pool of talent to sift through, and the casual fan would almost certainly find the task overwhelming – I did.
The game's incredibly complex menu system is very difficult to navigate, even with the on-screen help box directing you through the process. In short, this game is extremely difficult to simply pick up and play. If you're unfamiliar with the franchise expect to spend a significant amount of time simply trying to figure out how to navigate the menus.
Worldwide Soccer Manager's presentation problems don't end there though, once you finally make it to your team's first game you'll find that the player renderings and animations are awful, and the stadiums you play in lack any kind of personality or detail. Each field is bordered by fences and what appear to be unfinished stands, which don't have any fans in them. And, when the ball is kicked off of the pitch, it passes smoothly through the surrounding fences, right through the stands, and disappears from view only to return to the field in the same fashion, appearing magically from the stands and passing through the fences (and goals) on its way back into play.
Then there's the sound, or lack thereof. There is no soundtrack that plays while you work in the game's menus, which you'll spend the vast majority of your time in this game doing. There is no audio narration to accompany your participation in press conferences, even though your options for how to respond to each question is incredibly limited. There is no audio commentary to accompany the action in the simulated game's you watch/coach. In fact, the only sound we found in the entire game was the tones of fans cheering as each simulated game played out – which only detracts from the game's feel of authenticity seeing as there are no fans rendered in the stands.
As far as traditional gameplay goes, there really isn't any in Worldwide Soccer Manager 2009. Apart from managing your roster and coaching your team, there really isn't anything to do at all. So, unless you really enjoy clicking on menu buttons, you'll find your interaction with this game extremely disappointing.
However, if you're a big footie fan and big fan of sports simulation, you'll be extremely impressed with the depth of Worldwide Soccer Manager, which allows you to control just about every facet of your team and draw from a player pool that is simply mindboggling.
Closing Comments
This game obviously aims to provide the deepest soccer simulation experience possible for the sport’s most passionate and informed fans, but it offers little to nothing that would appeal to a casual fan of the sport or to the average videogame enthusiast. The menus are complex and difficult to navigate, graphics are terrible, the sound is non-existent and there is no traditional gameplay to speak of. I couldn’t imagine why anybody would prefer Worldwide Soccer Manager to FIFA 09 or Pro Evolution Soccer 2009.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Everton Manager 2009
Instead of thinking about what to write on my gaming blog, I spent the entire weekend playing Gears of War 2 (or at least, all of my personal spare time!). Unfortunately, this leaves me with a quandary as to what to do on this blog (having said that - spending too much time playing video games isn't exactly a bad way to go!).
Hence this morning, a quick trawl of news sites to see if there was anything interesting I could talk about. Luckily for me - this showed up. Everton has struck a deal for access to the full database used by Football Manager 2009. Apparently, they intend to use the database to help them scout for new young talent.
On the face of it, this sounds ridiculous. However, if you give it some thought, it isn't as outrageous as it initially appears.
As a long term player of Football Manager, one thing which I have consistently noticed is how good the scouting in Football Manager is. There has been loads of times where I signed a hot prospect in the game for my Liverpool squad who then turned out to be a good player in real life (several years down the line of course). The other common situation is buying a good player after several in-game years and then, after several years have passed in real life, seeing that same player become a household name.
Obviously not every good player identified by the game will turn out to be good in real life - there are too many variables affecting a players performance for that to be possible. However, it happens often enough that you have to think that you may be able to find some "hidden" gems by reviewing the FM database. Admittedly, real life factors will limit who Everton could sign (for example, some 15 year old from Argentina may not be willing or able to relocate to the UK) and I suspect that the bulk of any identified players will be young players from the Championship. Still, if they can get some cheap young potential prospects who will become useful squad players in a couple of years - why not?
And this is what it comes down to. In conjunction with their normal scouts (who I'm sure would scout out the player before actually buying), this may allow Everton to identify and buy future squad players on the cheap.
Hence this morning, a quick trawl of news sites to see if there was anything interesting I could talk about. Luckily for me - this showed up. Everton has struck a deal for access to the full database used by Football Manager 2009. Apparently, they intend to use the database to help them scout for new young talent.
On the face of it, this sounds ridiculous. However, if you give it some thought, it isn't as outrageous as it initially appears.
As a long term player of Football Manager, one thing which I have consistently noticed is how good the scouting in Football Manager is. There has been loads of times where I signed a hot prospect in the game for my Liverpool squad who then turned out to be a good player in real life (several years down the line of course). The other common situation is buying a good player after several in-game years and then, after several years have passed in real life, seeing that same player become a household name.
Obviously not every good player identified by the game will turn out to be good in real life - there are too many variables affecting a players performance for that to be possible. However, it happens often enough that you have to think that you may be able to find some "hidden" gems by reviewing the FM database. Admittedly, real life factors will limit who Everton could sign (for example, some 15 year old from Argentina may not be willing or able to relocate to the UK) and I suspect that the bulk of any identified players will be young players from the Championship. Still, if they can get some cheap young potential prospects who will become useful squad players in a couple of years - why not?
And this is what it comes down to. In conjunction with their normal scouts (who I'm sure would scout out the player before actually buying), this may allow Everton to identify and buy future squad players on the cheap.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
The industry vs used games
Wow - 2 gaming posts in 1 weekend! To be fair though, I need to make up for the fact that I didn't post anything last weekend.
Anyway, if you follow the gaming industry, you will know that the industry really hates second hand sales of used games. The problem being that the publisher doesn't get any cut of the profits when people buy and sell second hand games. Over the last several years, publishers have tried various methods to kill off the used games market and so far all have failed.
The latest attempt is to put in extras for the first time buyer of the game. For example, Gears of War 2 will ship with a unique one-time use code which allows you to download additional multiplayer maps. Subsequent owners of that copy of the game will not get these additional maps and the maps will not be available any other way. The idea is that this will encourage people to buy the game new rather than used.
To be honest, I'm not sure what my position is on this.
On one hand, I can understand why the publishers are doing this. From the publishers (and developer's) point of view, they really only get any money if the game is sold new. There are several obvious counter-arguments but I think a big one that the publisher may have forgotten is that second hand games are a good way to build goodwill. The buyer may not have any experience with your game or franchise. Second hand games allow people to spend a small amount of money and play the game. This could well get you a fan who will then buy your next game new.
Another argument for the publisher is that they aren't doing anything wrong. They are simply giving people who give them money an additional bonus - nothing wrong with that right? Again, the obvious danger is the slippery slope argument where developers purposefully leave out key content. However, in my opinion, this is the kind of decision that has to be made on a case by case basis. In other words, if I think your company is taking the piss, then I won't buy the game. The key is whether the game is worth the full price you are paying regardless of the additional content and as I said above, this can only be made on a case by case basis.
However, my biggest concern is what happens when my X360 dies. This isn't exactly unknown (I'm already on my second X360 as my first one died with the RROD). If my console dies, will I be able to redownload all the additional content that I am entitled to from buying the game new? Logically, you would think I would be able to get that content back. However, looking at the history of shit which some game companies pull off, I really can't be certain of this.
Anyway, if you follow the gaming industry, you will know that the industry really hates second hand sales of used games. The problem being that the publisher doesn't get any cut of the profits when people buy and sell second hand games. Over the last several years, publishers have tried various methods to kill off the used games market and so far all have failed.
The latest attempt is to put in extras for the first time buyer of the game. For example, Gears of War 2 will ship with a unique one-time use code which allows you to download additional multiplayer maps. Subsequent owners of that copy of the game will not get these additional maps and the maps will not be available any other way. The idea is that this will encourage people to buy the game new rather than used.
To be honest, I'm not sure what my position is on this.
On one hand, I can understand why the publishers are doing this. From the publishers (and developer's) point of view, they really only get any money if the game is sold new. There are several obvious counter-arguments but I think a big one that the publisher may have forgotten is that second hand games are a good way to build goodwill. The buyer may not have any experience with your game or franchise. Second hand games allow people to spend a small amount of money and play the game. This could well get you a fan who will then buy your next game new.
Another argument for the publisher is that they aren't doing anything wrong. They are simply giving people who give them money an additional bonus - nothing wrong with that right? Again, the obvious danger is the slippery slope argument where developers purposefully leave out key content. However, in my opinion, this is the kind of decision that has to be made on a case by case basis. In other words, if I think your company is taking the piss, then I won't buy the game. The key is whether the game is worth the full price you are paying regardless of the additional content and as I said above, this can only be made on a case by case basis.
However, my biggest concern is what happens when my X360 dies. This isn't exactly unknown (I'm already on my second X360 as my first one died with the RROD). If my console dies, will I be able to redownload all the additional content that I am entitled to from buying the game new? Logically, you would think I would be able to get that content back. However, looking at the history of shit which some game companies pull off, I really can't be certain of this.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
EA responds to Spore DRM
EA has given an official response to the Spore DRM controversy. Unfortunately, given the response, it really doesn't give any hope for future EA PC games. Which is a real bitch considering that BioWare are now owned by EA (my precious Dragon Age!!!).
I'll dissect the areas of the response that I have issue with below. Meanwhile, I just want to say again that this is a real bitch considering that BioWare are now owned by EA (I was really really really looking forward to Dragon Age).
"We felt that limiting the number of machine authorizations to three wouldn’t be a problem."
WTF?!?! How can you not think that this would be a problem? Don't the fucking morons at EA keep an eye on the gaming industry? I mean, considering that EA s in the gaming industry to begin with, you would think they would have noticed all the negative reactions to DRM. For example, Ubisoft getting slapped with a lawsuit re DRM and the whole brouhaha regarding BioShock.
But then, maybe I'm being unfair. After all, the above happened to other companies and maybe EA really don't pay any attention to other companies in the industry. Oh wait, never mind - I just remembered the whole DRM controversy surrounding the PC release of Mass Effect. I guess EA are morons after all.
We assumed that consumers understand piracy is a huge problem – and that if games that take 1-4 years to develop are effectively stolen the day they launch, developers and publishers will simply stop investing in PC games.
I guess this sounds reasonable. After all, with the official release date on 5 September (7 September in the US), EA will be looking to get as many sales as possible post launch, when hype for the game is at its highest, before the game gets cracked and posted on bittorrents.
Oh look - the game was cracked during the weekend of 30 August and by 3 September, there were already over 10,000 downloads. In other words, even before the game was launched in the US, it had already been cracked and downloaded over 10,000 times. So much for EA trying to prevent the game being stolen on the day they launch.
In case its not clear - I just want to add that in this case, pirates not only get the better product (no DRM) but they also get the game sooner than people who buy the game. The truth is that if you look at the history of piracy, cracked versions of games generally appear within a couple of days of the games release. DRM has NEVER been effective in stopping piracy - it has only ever been effective at punishing honest game buyers.
We have found that 75 percent of our consumers install and play any particular game on only one machine and less than 1 percent every try to play on more than three different machines.
And again, EA shows that they just aren't listening to their consumers (despite any claims from themselves to the contrary). The problem with this isn't that consumers install on more than 3 machines.
The problem (as has been fully explained in numerous forum posts) is that the game counts the below situations as an extra install:
We assured consumers that if special circumstances warranted more than three machines, they could contact our customer service team and request additional authorizations.
This would have actually meant something to me if it wasn't for the fact that a lot of forum posters are complaining about how EA gives shitty customer service. Granted, not everyone (dare I say most?) is going to have a problem contacting EA support - and I'm sure this will be a great consolation to you when you happen to be the unlucky bastard who has to call them and can't get hold of a CSR with half a brain.
The thing is, considering that DRM doesn't work at all, this is just a useless extra hoop that gamers have to jump through (which pirates don't). Can you blame people for being upset?
Wrapup
EA say they are "disappointed by the misunderstanding surrounding the use of DRM software". Well, I'm disappointed by the misunderstanding shown by EA with regard to gamers concerns (and I'm being kind by saying misunderstanding).
They then go on to say "Without the ability to protect our work from piracy, developers across the entire game industry will eventually stop investing time and money in PC titles". Bullshit. Stardock have shown that you can still be successful without using DRM. Gamers have also shown that they will accept DRM if it is unobtrusive - Steam is highly acclaimed by gamers precisely because the DRM on it is unobtrusive.
Frankly, this sounds like EA threatening gamers with "deal with it or we stop developing PC games".
This response from EA is entirely unacceptable and I, for one, have had enough. Until EA changes its policies, I will no longer be buying any EA game. Luckily for me, I didn't buy Madden 09 and that Fifa 09 hadn't been released yet (Fifa 09 for the X360 was the next game I was looking to buy). As I said above, the real bitch is that this means I will also be missing out on Dragon Age (and all future games by BioWare).
EA - Fuck you.
I'll dissect the areas of the response that I have issue with below. Meanwhile, I just want to say again that this is a real bitch considering that BioWare are now owned by EA (I was really really really looking forward to Dragon Age).
"We felt that limiting the number of machine authorizations to three wouldn’t be a problem."
WTF?!?! How can you not think that this would be a problem? Don't the fucking morons at EA keep an eye on the gaming industry? I mean, considering that EA s in the gaming industry to begin with, you would think they would have noticed all the negative reactions to DRM. For example, Ubisoft getting slapped with a lawsuit re DRM and the whole brouhaha regarding BioShock.
But then, maybe I'm being unfair. After all, the above happened to other companies and maybe EA really don't pay any attention to other companies in the industry. Oh wait, never mind - I just remembered the whole DRM controversy surrounding the PC release of Mass Effect. I guess EA are morons after all.
We assumed that consumers understand piracy is a huge problem – and that if games that take 1-4 years to develop are effectively stolen the day they launch, developers and publishers will simply stop investing in PC games.
I guess this sounds reasonable. After all, with the official release date on 5 September (7 September in the US), EA will be looking to get as many sales as possible post launch, when hype for the game is at its highest, before the game gets cracked and posted on bittorrents.
Oh look - the game was cracked during the weekend of 30 August and by 3 September, there were already over 10,000 downloads. In other words, even before the game was launched in the US, it had already been cracked and downloaded over 10,000 times. So much for EA trying to prevent the game being stolen on the day they launch.
In case its not clear - I just want to add that in this case, pirates not only get the better product (no DRM) but they also get the game sooner than people who buy the game. The truth is that if you look at the history of piracy, cracked versions of games generally appear within a couple of days of the games release. DRM has NEVER been effective in stopping piracy - it has only ever been effective at punishing honest game buyers.
We have found that 75 percent of our consumers install and play any particular game on only one machine and less than 1 percent every try to play on more than three different machines.
And again, EA shows that they just aren't listening to their consumers (despite any claims from themselves to the contrary). The problem with this isn't that consumers install on more than 3 machines.
The problem (as has been fully explained in numerous forum posts) is that the game counts the below situations as an extra install:
- Reinstalling the game - I have lost track of the number of times I have installed my PC games. There is this little thing called nostalgia which, believe it or not, means that people will come back to their favourite games again and again. Christ, I'm in the middle of replaying Baldur's Gate at the moment and that was released in 1998!
- Upgrading hardware - Even upgrading hardware, not exactly an unknown occurrence for PC users, will be treated as a separate install. I'm guessing the reason for this is that the game just assumes you reinstalled it on a new PC.
We assured consumers that if special circumstances warranted more than three machines, they could contact our customer service team and request additional authorizations.
This would have actually meant something to me if it wasn't for the fact that a lot of forum posters are complaining about how EA gives shitty customer service. Granted, not everyone (dare I say most?) is going to have a problem contacting EA support - and I'm sure this will be a great consolation to you when you happen to be the unlucky bastard who has to call them and can't get hold of a CSR with half a brain.
The thing is, considering that DRM doesn't work at all, this is just a useless extra hoop that gamers have to jump through (which pirates don't). Can you blame people for being upset?
Wrapup
EA say they are "disappointed by the misunderstanding surrounding the use of DRM software". Well, I'm disappointed by the misunderstanding shown by EA with regard to gamers concerns (and I'm being kind by saying misunderstanding).
They then go on to say "Without the ability to protect our work from piracy, developers across the entire game industry will eventually stop investing time and money in PC titles". Bullshit. Stardock have shown that you can still be successful without using DRM. Gamers have also shown that they will accept DRM if it is unobtrusive - Steam is highly acclaimed by gamers precisely because the DRM on it is unobtrusive.
Frankly, this sounds like EA threatening gamers with "deal with it or we stop developing PC games".
This response from EA is entirely unacceptable and I, for one, have had enough. Until EA changes its policies, I will no longer be buying any EA game. Luckily for me, I didn't buy Madden 09 and that Fifa 09 hadn't been released yet (Fifa 09 for the X360 was the next game I was looking to buy). As I said above, the real bitch is that this means I will also be missing out on Dragon Age (and all future games by BioWare).
EA - Fuck you.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Walmart finally enters the 20th century
Haven't made any game related posts in a while - primarily cos I don't have any new games and not much has been happening in the game market that I can add to. However, one of the things I have done is to update the links section on the right with some of the gaming sites that I keep track of.
In particular, Kotaku is a good source for gaming news and rumors. And every once in a while, their humor knocks one out of the ballpark.
In particular, Kotaku is a good source for gaming news and rumors. And every once in a while, their humor knocks one out of the ballpark.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Mass Effect PC
I've posted before how much I enjoyed Mass Effect for the Xbox 360. This meant that I was very excited when it was announced that it would be released for the PC in May 2008 - finally, a chance for my non-console gamer friends to play this great action RPG.
And then this happens (more specifically, the second post in the forum).
I blogged several times in the past about how I hate DRM and think that it doesn't work. As I have said before, I realise that many companies won't agree and that they will implement some form of copy protection. I'm okay with this provided the DRM does not become intrusive. Unfortunately, the SecuRom system being implemented for Mass Effect PC just stepped over the line into being too obtrusive for me. Admittedly, it is a small step - but unfortunately, it was just enough to marginally push this title over the DRM line (for me, anyway).
For ME, the game will require you to register the CD key with EA's SecuRom servers in order to play. Thereafter, you will need to reauthorise the game every 10 days otherwise the game will not work (although the game will do this automatically if you have an internet connection). In other words, if you want to play Mass Effect, a single player action RPG with NO multiplayer component whatsoever, you will need an internet connection. WTF?!?!?
Considering the recent awareness and anti-DRM bias in the community, I'm sure it will come as no surprise when I tell you that the forums are in an uproar with loads of people posting that they will not buy the game. Loads of people are understandably pissed off that they need to check back with EA if it is okay for them to play their legally purchased game every 10 days.
I've been a fan of BioWare for many years (since the original Baldur's Gate a decade ago!). I love their RPGs and I love the fact that BioWare, as a company, seem to really listen to their fans. For example, their forums are a great place to go to because the developers also spend a lot of time there and you can interact with them (not many companies can make such a claim).
Because of this history, I'm not ready to renounce BioWare and all its future games yet (I already have Mass Effect on my X360 so I wouldn't have purchased the PC version in any event). As I said, this particular step over the DRM line is relatively small and I'm willing to wait and see how the end results play out before I condemn them. However, I really hope this works out well and that the DRM doesn't get any worse.
I guess what really disappoints me is that BioWare is one of the extremely rare examples of a company that produces games that I would be willing to buy at launch without first checking reviews - that is a measure of how much goodwill they had built up with me. However, any future purchases will only be after a period of waiting to see if there are any DRM problems.
UPDATE: woot woot! The 10 day re-authentication has now been scrapped. Obviously, I would prefer no DRM whatsoever - however, this is definitely a step in the right direction.
And then this happens (more specifically, the second post in the forum).
I blogged several times in the past about how I hate DRM and think that it doesn't work. As I have said before, I realise that many companies won't agree and that they will implement some form of copy protection. I'm okay with this provided the DRM does not become intrusive. Unfortunately, the SecuRom system being implemented for Mass Effect PC just stepped over the line into being too obtrusive for me. Admittedly, it is a small step - but unfortunately, it was just enough to marginally push this title over the DRM line (for me, anyway).
For ME, the game will require you to register the CD key with EA's SecuRom servers in order to play. Thereafter, you will need to reauthorise the game every 10 days otherwise the game will not work (although the game will do this automatically if you have an internet connection). In other words, if you want to play Mass Effect, a single player action RPG with NO multiplayer component whatsoever, you will need an internet connection. WTF?!?!?
Considering the recent awareness and anti-DRM bias in the community, I'm sure it will come as no surprise when I tell you that the forums are in an uproar with loads of people posting that they will not buy the game. Loads of people are understandably pissed off that they need to check back with EA if it is okay for them to play their legally purchased game every 10 days.
I've been a fan of BioWare for many years (since the original Baldur's Gate a decade ago!). I love their RPGs and I love the fact that BioWare, as a company, seem to really listen to their fans. For example, their forums are a great place to go to because the developers also spend a lot of time there and you can interact with them (not many companies can make such a claim).
Because of this history, I'm not ready to renounce BioWare and all its future games yet (I already have Mass Effect on my X360 so I wouldn't have purchased the PC version in any event). As I said, this particular step over the DRM line is relatively small and I'm willing to wait and see how the end results play out before I condemn them. However, I really hope this works out well and that the DRM doesn't get any worse.
I guess what really disappoints me is that BioWare is one of the extremely rare examples of a company that produces games that I would be willing to buy at launch without first checking reviews - that is a measure of how much goodwill they had built up with me. However, any future purchases will only be after a period of waiting to see if there are any DRM problems.
UPDATE: woot woot! The 10 day re-authentication has now been scrapped. Obviously, I would prefer no DRM whatsoever - however, this is definitely a step in the right direction.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Stardock is full of smart people
Wow - two gaming posts in one weekend. What is happening!!
Basically, I saw this post and it resonated with me so much that I had to talk about it.
By way of background, I used to be a heavy PC gamer. I used to have flight sticks and steering wheels etc for my PC. And the majority of my games were played on the PC. In fact, I have too many memories of PC gaming to recount here. But somewhere along the way, I changed and became primarily a console gamer. So what happened?
If you read the link and some of the comments in that post above, you will know exactly what happened. The cost and hassle of keeping my PC in a gaming state together with the hassles of DRM just made me stop and think "why am I putting up with this crap?". Yes, I know how to update my drivers (or restore old drivers). I know how to take apart my PC and upgrade individual components. I know how to check forums to see whether there is a known fix for whatever issue I'm having. What I don't have is the time or inclination to do so.
Despite this, there are still games on the PC which consoles just can't or don't do well. As a result of this, I do still buy and play PC games. However, I tend to be extremely picky when it comes to PC games. And as I have mentioned before, DRM is one of the factors I take into consideration (to be clear, I understand why most games have DRM and I am willing to put up with it as long as it remains unobtrusive).
Most publishers talk about piracy being the death of PC gaming and use this to justify DRM. Stardock (publisher of Galactic Civilizations II and the new PC hit strategy game Sins of a Solar Empire) is one of the few developers/publishers who understands that piracy isn't the problem. In fact, they put their money where their mouth is and don't put any DRM (none whatsoever!) in the software they sell.
Considering that Sins of a Solar Empire was the number 2 best selling PC game for February in the US (bear in mind the NPD only tracks retail sales hence the online sales of this game are ignored - which is a shame as Stardock make a lot of sales online), Stardock seem to have the right approach.
Basically, I saw this post and it resonated with me so much that I had to talk about it.
By way of background, I used to be a heavy PC gamer. I used to have flight sticks and steering wheels etc for my PC. And the majority of my games were played on the PC. In fact, I have too many memories of PC gaming to recount here. But somewhere along the way, I changed and became primarily a console gamer. So what happened?
If you read the link and some of the comments in that post above, you will know exactly what happened. The cost and hassle of keeping my PC in a gaming state together with the hassles of DRM just made me stop and think "why am I putting up with this crap?". Yes, I know how to update my drivers (or restore old drivers). I know how to take apart my PC and upgrade individual components. I know how to check forums to see whether there is a known fix for whatever issue I'm having. What I don't have is the time or inclination to do so.
Despite this, there are still games on the PC which consoles just can't or don't do well. As a result of this, I do still buy and play PC games. However, I tend to be extremely picky when it comes to PC games. And as I have mentioned before, DRM is one of the factors I take into consideration (to be clear, I understand why most games have DRM and I am willing to put up with it as long as it remains unobtrusive).
Most publishers talk about piracy being the death of PC gaming and use this to justify DRM. Stardock (publisher of Galactic Civilizations II and the new PC hit strategy game Sins of a Solar Empire) is one of the few developers/publishers who understands that piracy isn't the problem. In fact, they put their money where their mouth is and don't put any DRM (none whatsoever!) in the software they sell.
Considering that Sins of a Solar Empire was the number 2 best selling PC game for February in the US (bear in mind the NPD only tracks retail sales hence the online sales of this game are ignored - which is a shame as Stardock make a lot of sales online), Stardock seem to have the right approach.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Game journalism integrity
I was really hoping to spend this weeks post talking about Mass Effect. Unfortunately, other events have intervened which I feel I have to comment on.
In brief, Jeff Gerstmann has been fired from Gamespot (a game review website). In itself, this doesn't sound like a huge deal. However, the problem rests with the circumstances in which he was fired. You can find out more about the controversy from these links (here and here).
Now, before I get any further, bear in mind that I don't actually know what happened. Although I have read a few news articles and blog posts, all I know can be summarised in the above couple of posts that I linked to. All of my following comments are going to be based on the gut feel and impression I get when looking at what happened.
However, looking at the arguments both for and against the idea that Jeff was fired for a negative review, it seems to me that the truth (as always) is somewhere inbetween.
I highly doubt that Jeff was fired for 1 negative review. In this regard, I believe that Gamespot have indeed given him several warning about the tone of his negative reviews. To me, it seems likely that the Kane & Lynch review was simply the straw that broke the camels back.
Does this mean that Gamespot did the right thing? In my opinion - No. I read the Kane & Lynch review (and also saw the video review). Although Jeff panned the game, it seemed like he justified the reason that he thought the game was a piece of crap with examples. In a situation like this, it seems to me to be a fair review of his opinion on that game and he should be allowed to call out Eidos as having published a shitty game.
Based on this belief (and again, I have to stress that I don't actually know what happened), by taking the action to fire him (and by all accounts, it was done in a horrible manner - ie he came into the office and found his door locked), Gamespot have sent the clear message that their advertising revenue is more important than their journalists integrity. Granted, the review score for Kane & Lynch was never modified - however, other game reviewers at Gamespot now know very clearly the potential consequences for pissing off a big advertiser on their site. And you have to ask the question - will this affect futusre review scores?
Most likely yes (in my opinion). Which is a shame because Gamespot used to be game review site which I trusted highly.
Update - interesting article here.
In brief, Jeff Gerstmann has been fired from Gamespot (a game review website). In itself, this doesn't sound like a huge deal. However, the problem rests with the circumstances in which he was fired. You can find out more about the controversy from these links (here and here).
Now, before I get any further, bear in mind that I don't actually know what happened. Although I have read a few news articles and blog posts, all I know can be summarised in the above couple of posts that I linked to. All of my following comments are going to be based on the gut feel and impression I get when looking at what happened.
Anyway, the key issue in the departure of Jeff Gerstmann is the reason that he was fired. Currently, the hot rumor is that Jeff was fired for a negative review of Kane & Lynch. Eidos, the publisher of Kane & Lynch had spent a ton of money on advertising this game on Gamespot. Apparently, the negative review was leading Eidos to push future advertising money away from Gamespot which would have made a huge dent in their pocket. As such, Jeff Gerstmann lost his job.
I believe the official position is that Jeff was fired due to negative tone in his reviews and that he had been warned about this before. This sounds like Gamespot are saying that he was fired because he wasn't objective enough when reviewing a game.
As I said above, I have no idea if this is true or not. In one sense, the general public will never know for sure simply because Gamespot can't divulge the exact reasons for Jeffs firing and Jeff has already stated that for legal reasons he can't disclose the reason for his firing either. In other words, all we will ever have is rumours and heresay from 3rd parties.However, looking at the arguments both for and against the idea that Jeff was fired for a negative review, it seems to me that the truth (as always) is somewhere inbetween.
I highly doubt that Jeff was fired for 1 negative review. In this regard, I believe that Gamespot have indeed given him several warning about the tone of his negative reviews. To me, it seems likely that the Kane & Lynch review was simply the straw that broke the camels back.
Does this mean that Gamespot did the right thing? In my opinion - No. I read the Kane & Lynch review (and also saw the video review). Although Jeff panned the game, it seemed like he justified the reason that he thought the game was a piece of crap with examples. In a situation like this, it seems to me to be a fair review of his opinion on that game and he should be allowed to call out Eidos as having published a shitty game.
Based on this belief (and again, I have to stress that I don't actually know what happened), by taking the action to fire him (and by all accounts, it was done in a horrible manner - ie he came into the office and found his door locked), Gamespot have sent the clear message that their advertising revenue is more important than their journalists integrity. Granted, the review score for Kane & Lynch was never modified - however, other game reviewers at Gamespot now know very clearly the potential consequences for pissing off a big advertiser on their site. And you have to ask the question - will this affect futusre review scores?
Most likely yes (in my opinion). Which is a shame because Gamespot used to be game review site which I trusted highly.
Update - interesting article here.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
The EA Strikes Back!
As you may (or may not) know, BioWare is my favourite RPG developer. Starting with their original Baldurs Gate, which rejuvenated the RPG genre on the PC, all the way through their console RPGs, they have always released quality games. In fact, their next release (Mass Effect) is probably my most anticipated game this year.
All of which makes me extremely worried to hear that BioWare are now a part of EA. Yup - thats right - EA are now the owners of BioWare.
As you can imagine, the forums are ablaze with hate mail directed at EA - check out this forum thread (on the 4th thread and rising rapidly!). Now granted, I don't hate EA with the passion that others seem to. In my opinion, EA have some good games and they have some poor games - just like any other publisher.
However, I am extremely concerned about the history of EA. Put simply, BioWare aren't the first popular RPG developer acquired by EA. If you are wondering why you haven't heard of any good EA RPGs before, its because those popular RPG developers no longer exist. Worryingly often, after acquisition by EA, the quality of games dropped and those studios then get closed down (granted, I have no idea of how much EA was involved in the development of those games - all I know is that those developers were able to develop good games before they were acquired by EA but not after).
The best case scenario is that EA will give funding to BioWare but leave them alone to create the kind of games which BioWare is famous for. I am desperately hoping that this will be the case. Unfortunately, the reality will likely be that EA will try to exert some influence. In any event, here's hoping that BioWare are still around in 5 years.
At least Mass Effect is so far along the development cycle that it won't be affected by any of this.
All of which makes me extremely worried to hear that BioWare are now a part of EA. Yup - thats right - EA are now the owners of BioWare.
As you can imagine, the forums are ablaze with hate mail directed at EA - check out this forum thread (on the 4th thread and rising rapidly!). Now granted, I don't hate EA with the passion that others seem to. In my opinion, EA have some good games and they have some poor games - just like any other publisher.
However, I am extremely concerned about the history of EA. Put simply, BioWare aren't the first popular RPG developer acquired by EA. If you are wondering why you haven't heard of any good EA RPGs before, its because those popular RPG developers no longer exist. Worryingly often, after acquisition by EA, the quality of games dropped and those studios then get closed down (granted, I have no idea of how much EA was involved in the development of those games - all I know is that those developers were able to develop good games before they were acquired by EA but not after).
The best case scenario is that EA will give funding to BioWare but leave them alone to create the kind of games which BioWare is famous for. I am desperately hoping that this will be the case. Unfortunately, the reality will likely be that EA will try to exert some influence. In any event, here's hoping that BioWare are still around in 5 years.
At least Mass Effect is so far along the development cycle that it won't be affected by any of this.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Manhunt 2
For those who keep abreast of gaming news, you will be aware that Manhunt 2 has been banned in the UK by the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) - which gives me some very mixed feelings.
Bear in mind that I never played the original Manhunt nor have I ever played any part of Manhunt 2 (and probably never will now). However, considering the brutality of films like Hostel (both 1 and 2) and Saw, it makes me wonder what kind of content Manhunt 2 could have for the BBFC to ban it. Is the content really that much worse than Hostel? Or is the interactive nature of games the reason that Manhunt 2 got banned?
I've been thinking about this for a while now and although I probably don't know enough about the Manhunt games to give a definitive comment, it seems to me that Manhunt 2 is just being made a scapegoat. Although the BBFC has a history of "supporting" games in the face of criticism, it seems that there is more political pressure on games now more than ever (especially since the "Hot Coffee" incident). And I believe that the BBFC caved into that pressure (and I say this knowing full well the history of the BBFC in terms of how it has "stood up" for the industry in the past by rating games which were highly controversial - this being another reason why I took so long to think about this).
Having said this, were they right to ban the game? In my opinion - they were absolutely wrong to ban it (and I say this knowing full well that I have never seen or played the game).
The game is designed for the same kind of audience as those who enjoy films like Hostel and Saw. By banning this game, instead of just giving it an 18+ rating (or whatever they call it), the BBFC are effectively controlling what kind of entertainment adults are allowed. Even though I have no interest in the Manhunt games, I cannot accept the consequences of such a ruling. In the final analysis, it doesn't matter what kind of game Manhunt is - the fact is that the BBFC are curtailing my freedom of choice as an adult by way of their ruling.
And this is just plain wrong.
Bear in mind that I never played the original Manhunt nor have I ever played any part of Manhunt 2 (and probably never will now). However, considering the brutality of films like Hostel (both 1 and 2) and Saw, it makes me wonder what kind of content Manhunt 2 could have for the BBFC to ban it. Is the content really that much worse than Hostel? Or is the interactive nature of games the reason that Manhunt 2 got banned?
I've been thinking about this for a while now and although I probably don't know enough about the Manhunt games to give a definitive comment, it seems to me that Manhunt 2 is just being made a scapegoat. Although the BBFC has a history of "supporting" games in the face of criticism, it seems that there is more political pressure on games now more than ever (especially since the "Hot Coffee" incident). And I believe that the BBFC caved into that pressure (and I say this knowing full well the history of the BBFC in terms of how it has "stood up" for the industry in the past by rating games which were highly controversial - this being another reason why I took so long to think about this).
Having said this, were they right to ban the game? In my opinion - they were absolutely wrong to ban it (and I say this knowing full well that I have never seen or played the game).
The game is designed for the same kind of audience as those who enjoy films like Hostel and Saw. By banning this game, instead of just giving it an 18+ rating (or whatever they call it), the BBFC are effectively controlling what kind of entertainment adults are allowed. Even though I have no interest in the Manhunt games, I cannot accept the consequences of such a ruling. In the final analysis, it doesn't matter what kind of game Manhunt is - the fact is that the BBFC are curtailing my freedom of choice as an adult by way of their ruling.
And this is just plain wrong.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Ethics
I meant to post this last week - even had it drafted. But for some reason, I forgot. Dunno why. Anyway, here it is - a week late. :p
You are probably wondering what ethics has to do with games. Well recently, there was a storm on Kotaku. You can read more about it here.
Basically, Kotaku had a rumor about the new Playstation Home function (which has now been confirmed as true). They went to Sony to see if Sony had any comment. Sony asked them not to run the rumor. In fact, Sony even went so far as to say that if Kotaku posted the rumor, Kotaku would be blackballed ie no longer welcome at Sony events, would have to return their debug PS3 etc.
Kotaku went ahead with the story and clearly labelled it as a rumor. And true to their word, Sony blackballed Kotaku. When the masses found out, there was a (another) huge uproar of negative press for Sony. Enough such that Sony got back into contact with Kotaku and resolved their differences ie, Kotaku are no longer blackballed.
Now, I am aware that this kind of stuff happens all the time ie big corporations trying to force the press to say what the corporations want. After all, this is the job of the PR guy - trying to manage press about their company. In this regard, I understand why Sony tried to do what they did (don't agree with it but I do understand - personally, I think they should just have said no comment). However, it is the comments following this incident which really depresses me.
First off - imo Kotaku absolutely 100% did the right thing. Journalistic integrity is critical and if I ever find out that one of the news sources I read caved in to such demands from corporations - I would stop reading that news site - permanently. If I can't rely on the journalist, I can't rely on his news either.
However, if you read some of the comments - there seems to be a lot of people who believe that Kotaku did the wrong thing - that Kotaku should have caved into Sony and not printed the rumor. I just don't understand this. It seems to me that to not stand up for journalistic integrity in this case, is to basically say that news should be a form of advertising.
I don't know where these people are - but this utter lack of ethics and integrity is a very damning evidence of the state of society. As I said above - depressing.
You are probably wondering what ethics has to do with games. Well recently, there was a storm on Kotaku. You can read more about it here.
Basically, Kotaku had a rumor about the new Playstation Home function (which has now been confirmed as true). They went to Sony to see if Sony had any comment. Sony asked them not to run the rumor. In fact, Sony even went so far as to say that if Kotaku posted the rumor, Kotaku would be blackballed ie no longer welcome at Sony events, would have to return their debug PS3 etc.
Kotaku went ahead with the story and clearly labelled it as a rumor. And true to their word, Sony blackballed Kotaku. When the masses found out, there was a (another) huge uproar of negative press for Sony. Enough such that Sony got back into contact with Kotaku and resolved their differences ie, Kotaku are no longer blackballed.
Now, I am aware that this kind of stuff happens all the time ie big corporations trying to force the press to say what the corporations want. After all, this is the job of the PR guy - trying to manage press about their company. In this regard, I understand why Sony tried to do what they did (don't agree with it but I do understand - personally, I think they should just have said no comment). However, it is the comments following this incident which really depresses me.
First off - imo Kotaku absolutely 100% did the right thing. Journalistic integrity is critical and if I ever find out that one of the news sources I read caved in to such demands from corporations - I would stop reading that news site - permanently. If I can't rely on the journalist, I can't rely on his news either.
However, if you read some of the comments - there seems to be a lot of people who believe that Kotaku did the wrong thing - that Kotaku should have caved into Sony and not printed the rumor. I just don't understand this. It seems to me that to not stand up for journalistic integrity in this case, is to basically say that news should be a form of advertising.
I don't know where these people are - but this utter lack of ethics and integrity is a very damning evidence of the state of society. As I said above - depressing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)