We see a lot of discussion about what we want from a developer or publisher but what is our responsibility as consumers?
Should we care about whether a game studio is taking a risk, or anything but the quality and value for money of their finished product?
Should we accept shady business practises and thereby tacitly support them with our purchase?
Should we accept the excuses of developers that their next game will be better, so buy that and forget about the one that you currently have paid for and found lacking, because they'll try and do better?
Should we pay more than the traditional £35-40 because games have become more expensive, or should we ask first that they at least match the content of the games that we were buying twenty years ago, with big boxes full of stuff, cloth maps, feelies, big manuals and storybooks in the standard edition as well as games that were much larger and more complex.
Should we forget utterly about Caveat Emptor and blindly, faithfully support a developer without any reciprocation?
If we see a product that costs less and gives more for a fraction of the budget, is it not in our own interest to support this rather than the more expensive one that gives less?
Should we support games that have a clear mandate to strip features and content, to the point where a supposed roleplaying game no longer allows you to choose your stats or what weapons you even weild?
Should we support streamlining in any manner when it seems obvious that games should be improved and built upon rather than stripped down to support the core content, because too far in that direction and we simply get a CONGRATULATIONS YOU WIN! screen with no gameplay whatsoever?
Should we support cinematic games, when the strength of games is interactivity not to be shown, told or explained to but doing rather than watching?
Interested to hear your thoughts.
Preamble: I realize you and I have disagreed vehemently in the past and, alas, this is not going to be that much hoped for high five moment. There’s no consensus on the horizon, I’m afraid, but I hope you’ll acknowledge my candour just as much as I do yours. Thanks Bloth for stirring up such an interesting discussion. Look forward to reading your rebuttal.
Here it goes.
There’s a moralistic, recriminatory undertone to your use of the verb
Should that I take issue with. To the extent they are not breaking the Law or infringing upon basic ethical tenets, people
should do whatever the fuck they want. Period. That is especially true when it comes to how they choose to spend their hard earned cash. Top down attempts to regulate lives beyond that strict sphere have left a catastrophic trail behind. I understand you’re calling for the opposite, for gamers out of their will to stop seeking after the games they have traditionally sought after. Yet you provide no logical foundation, no rationale for such drastic move. Forgive me, but from where I stand all I read is thinly veiled condescendence that systematically disregards or diminishes the very real reasons why gamers en masse have behaved the way they have. Namely, that these blockbuster franchises fulfill their gaming needs on their own terms.
It also seems to me your questions are all rhetorical. They are variations on the theme
Should we support Satan?! directed from the pulpit at a Southern Baptist congregation
. Every single one of them is framed in a very specific, very deliberate way so that the answer is implied and seemingly self-evident. But, of course, it is not.
I’ll take on three of them.
Should we support shady practices?
Day 1 DLC, microtransations, DRM, glitch-ridden premature games, etc., all could be argued to be examples of shady practices. Here’s the silver lining though: a game is a business proposition that the gamer accepts voluntarily. Each individual makes an a priori rational assessment, a cost benefit analysis to determine whether or not the title is worth the kind of money being asked. Some gamers are indeed prepared to pay extra to unlock content. I suppose this irks many. Nonetheless, there is nothing morally reproachable about the practice per se
provided, and it’s a big caveat, provided everything is crystal clear upfront. For example and to the point, it’s downright dishonest to release a title which cannot be finished unless you pay additional money later on and omit that fact from the buyer. It’s also highly questionable to promote microtansactions that award decisive advantages in multiplayer games.
What exactly does it mean to not support shady practices? If a gamer believes he’s about to fall victim of what he deems shady practises, he 'll likely not go ahead with the purchase. He will however realize the game is unplayable at launch all too late. So the question only makes sense in the context of the potential purchase of a future title from the same developer. What’s the appropriate course of action for the conscious consumer then? It depends. Depends on the track record of the developer. Depends on the magnitude of the offense. Depends on whether or not the publisher issued a tangible apology in the form of a refund, discount coupon or sizeable free content. Yes, it does depend.
Should we pay more than the traditional £35-40 because games have become more expensive, or should we ask first that they at least match the content of the games that we were buying twenty years ago, with big boxes full of stuff, cloth maps, feelies, big manuals and storybooks in the standard edition as well as games that were much larger and more complex.
Are you prepared to claim the cost structure of AAA titles such as TW3 has not changed over the years, that it has remained intact for the past two decades, so much that it is reasonable to demand both more physical content and more in-game content than what’s allegedly the norm now and for the exact same money? Did you take a look at TW3 budget? Did you notice the ratio between development costs and marketing costs? Can you name a company employing 300 full-time devs to ship a single title around the mid 90’s?
Let’s contrast two landmark titles: Might and Magic VII (1999), whose retail version I bought at the time, and Skyrim (2011), purchased full price on release and on Amazon. For all its copious and often crass shortcomings, the latter is several orders of magnitude bigger, both hours and map size wise. Gameplay, flawed as it is, is at the very least comparable. Furthermore, I got a faux cloth map with my regular copy of TES V, whereas nothing of the sort was to be found inside Mighty and Magic VII’s box.
There is simply no way you’d be able to ship a successful AAA game – the one and only kind that allows for successors - with production values from the 90’s. Nowadays these include, but are not limited to, professional voice acting and cutting edge 3D graphics, both of which are quite costly and impact the final price tag in an unprecedented manner.
CDProjekt will not be including big manuals or big storybooks in the standard TW3 edition and that is very telling. Personally, I have no interest in physical manuals as I find their electronic and in-game counterparts more convenient. And while I welcome artbooks and storybooks, my standards require a hardcover, decent paper, quality printing and sturdy binding. I understand these are a luxury and that luxuries come at a price.
Should we support cinematic games, when the strength of games is interactivity not to be shown, told or explained to but doing rather than watching?
Yes, definitely. Those of us – and I am
not one of them - keen on cinematic games should definitely support them. Otherwise companies that develop in the genre will eventually go out of business and our appetite for it will remain unsated. Note the disparity: buying the cinematic game you feel like buying has no impact whatsoever on the survival of all the other genres, whereas abstaining from buying the cinematic game you're inclined to buy amounts to casting a vote to reduce genre plurality.
Companies who develop such games have a legitimate artistic reason. These hybrid tittles fall somewhere in the middle of the interactivity spectrum. Not really a movie, not a traditional game either. Developers get to exercise much greater control over the end experience; they get to tailor it in its minute details, to a degree that is not possible in conventional games. And some creators do crave that kind of artistic sovereignty. Who here really believes developers of Heavy Rain or The Order 1886 have not poured their heart and soul onto these titles, that they do not reflect an indomitable creative vision and are just mere stunts? And some gamers do appreciate the tightly choreographed but still interactive experience these games provide. They enjoy the pristinely framed shots, the fine-tuned pacing and the uniqueness of each encounter, each scene, each adversary. That's what is called a meeting of supply and demand.
On what grounds exactly would you strike cinematic games out of the list of legitimate genres?
. Just gonna read all you and Red some of you too..