Arbitrary Assessments: 5 Ways Video Games are Getting Worse

A minor note from the author: One of my superiors recently called my attention to a very similar article on N4G. I showed him the finished version of this one on the 21st of May, so naturally he assumed that someone had been stealing my ideas, brilliant as they are. Fortunately, I managed to stop him before he released our specially trained Velociraptor death squads to call to his attention that both the articles had stolen the idea from Cracked.com. He suggested that I did the same for our readers. Also, since I don’t have a patents section in this one, I’d like to call out the other article for not mentioning that Sega owns the patent for having an arrow over your character’s head show the direction you need to go in. I hope that this little piece of bonus trivia will make up for the shocking reveal that my genius sometimes needs assistance from elsewhere. If you feel cheated because of this, please send your name and address to writerwhelp@gmail.com and I will ensure that the raptors arrive within 3-4 working days. Thank you for your time.

…Wait, WTF. I forgot that there’s an article too. Uh, I’d like it if you read that too. Enjoy!

RelatedStories

From Gamers to Punters: How UX Turns a Bet into an Experience

1 month ago

Why Gamers Are Flocking To Online Casino Apps

2 months ago

Recently, I wrote a rant against the piss-poor PC port of the excellent XBLA game Toy Soldiers. I gave it a low score simply because I felt that the game did not deserve a good one when it was so terribly ported. If the devs didn’t even bother to do a good job, why should I pretend like they did? You reap what you sow and all that. So after my anger had subsided, I realized that Microsoft already had my money. They didn’t care whether I liked the game or not. They still don’t.  I’m just some freebie writer on a small website, why the hell would they care what I have to say? This got me to thinking even further. Nah, I’m just bragging. But seriously, the games industry is infamous for screwing over its consumers. EA was recently crowned the worst company in America. And knowing American companies, that’s quite the accomplishment. Still, it seems that despite that little thing, gamers still take a surprising amount of shit from developers and publishers. Below, I have written down what in my opinion are five of the worst ways in which video game consumers let companies screw them over more and more all the time.

DRM: DRM stands for Digital Rights Management. Not sure what it is? Well, you all know the CD keys that come with a game for online activation, correct? If you haven’t, then please report to the nearest neurological research centre, because your ability to function without a brain is clearly a miracle of medical science. But yes, those things. They are obviously meant to protect you. And by protect, I mean buttscrew. The basis of it all is that software developers noticed how a CD could be used to install their game/program/virtual Mexican workers several times on different computers without anyone beyond the first person having to pay for the product. Worse, some computer wizards actually found out how to put the game’s data online for free. Motherducking miracles. So companies started going to greater and greater lengths in order to ensure that everyone pays for their games. Having you register the game online, etc. Still people kept finding ways to crack this.

So eventually, game publishers decided that it would be a splendid idea to force you to log into an account each time you wanted to play your game. Spore is the first example that springs to mind for me (Not that it was worth stealing). Diablo 3 is another. In other words, to make more money, the games industry decided to screw over the people that actually paid for the game. Because, let’s face it, people will always be able to pirate your game. So you’re basically just inconveniencing and bothering the people that didn’t. Which seems counter-productive. Game publishers have also started going to great lengths to ensure that games are only usable once by doing such things as including a one-time online pass that you need to tie to an account with a lot of games. Why? Well, they noticed that physical stores like Gamestop were making a lot of money from buying and selling used games and decided that this would not do. So they decided to screw with that. Because game stores are doing so well these days. Right?

Then again, maybe they deserve it for forcing me to get up.

DLC:  The idea of downloadable content for a game is actually a pretty great one in and of itself. With the rise of the Internet, distribution of patches and minor tweaks to the game like the addition of more levels, etcetera, is just fine. However, this also leads to some things that are just bad. For one thing, there’s the much-loathed launch day DLC. Basically, this is DLC that is made available for purchase on the same day that the game is released, leading many people to ask an obvious question: Why wasn’t this in the game to begin with? A recent example is the new party member for Mass Effect 3.  He actually plays a key role for people that wish to get invested in the game, elaborating greatly on the history of the Protheans and the Reapers (For the uninitiated, this is just a bunch of incredibly nerdy and boring stuff that those of us who forgot how to have fun use for passing time). The official explanation is that they simply didn’t have time to include it in the game. I am sure that they didn’t even consider charging 10 $ extra for it when they decided to leave it out. It must have been heartbreaking for them to have to leave out such an important part of-haha no, it’s already on the game disc when you buy it. You just pay to unlock it for the most part. Yes, really.

Also, EA considers this to be piracy. And gamers seem remarkably accepting of this, considering how many decide to yell out that people who do get upset at this are “entitled” and should be happy for what they get. And it’s true, Mass Effect 3 was such a great ga-haha no again. It was a massive piece of shit in more ways than just the ending. If we didn’t already have a review up for ME3, I would gladly rip it a new one. But I digress. There is another problem with this online distribution which I really don’t think I see enough people complaining about: Buggy releases. It has become commonplace for a game to have some problems on release. Wait a second. Why is this acceptable? Okay, I accept that every single piece of software will have some glitches upon release. But many games feel like beta versions in that regard. Incomplete. Minecraft is the only game in my memory which was being sold while still in Beta (And even Alpha), but those were both cheaper than the final version and even each other. A full, 60 $ game should not be filled with bugs and glitches when you buy it with a “Will fix later” sign on them. That’s part of the development, for crying out loud. Testing for bugs. That’s not the job of the players, that’s something you pay people to do. Just get a few hobos in there and give a slice of bread to whoever finds the most bugs every day. Game companies, you’re supposed to spend the money we give you on making better game and feeding your employees. Which brings me to my next point:

PASTEL EQUINES IN PRETTY DRESSES!

Digital copies costing 60 $: Step back for a second. Think. When you buy a digital copy of a game through, say, Steam… What exactly are you paying for? Let me quote a part of the Steam Subscriber Agreement pertaining to game licences in particular: Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a limited, terminable, non-exclusive license and right to use the Software for your personal use in accordance with this Agreement and the Subscription Terms. The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software. In case you are wondering what this means, it basically means that you do not own the game. You just borrow it indefinitely. It’s not like buying a physical copy where you can always install the game and will only lose it if the physical disc is lost or damaged. You are already just paying for data instead of actually getting something physical, but this basically means that you don’t even own the data. Yet you are still charged a full 60 $ for this. Why? To keep the brick and mortar stores alive? We already established that the game companies kind of hate those too. So what exactly are you paying all that money for? Your guess is as good as mine.

Shitty sequels with nothing new: This should really be a no-brainer. If a sequel doesn’t contain much new material, why would you want to pay full price for it? It’s so obvious that I feel stupid saying it. Obviously you will only pay full price if the game you’re playing is not the same one as the one you bought last year with the same name, but a lower number on the box. So tell me: Why in the name of buttered bran bagelly duck is it that compels people to keep buying stuff like Call of Duty sequels, EA’s annual sports games and so forth? I am sure that these games all started out well, but at this point they’re all just stagnating. CoD 1, 2 and 4? All decent. So why has every single CoD game since Modern Warfare been the same game with a new paint job? Simple: Because people buy it. You want new and innovative games? Stop encouraging developers to release the same shit over and over by paying it. There’s countless examples of this. Most are decent to good games if you happen to pick one up and play it, but not really that different from the earlier or later versions of it. If you truly want to eat the same pastries every single day, then fine with me, but don’t bother complaining when the baker stops making the beef ones because people will only ever eat those with chicken in them.

I am far too classy and fond of my facial features to make a racist joke here.

Letting multiplayer take over everything:  This one is really inspired by a brief exchange I had in N4G’s comment section on my multiplayer article. Here’s the problem: Multiplayer used to be a feature that would make a game better for those weird types who enjoyed real human contact and having fun with their “friends” (Still not sure what these are, but presumably some sort of pet rat). It was never a bad thing, because it was just an optional feature. You could play your games just fine while you were alone, in the dark, crying to yourself while eating yesterday’s blueberry muffins. But in recent years, the focus of many games has shifted a lot towards multiplayer. For some reason that is utterly incomprehensible to my feeble mind, some people enjoy shooting faceless human opponents a lot more than they enjoy shooting faceless computer opponents. Because… I dunno, gamers are all sociopaths, I guess. It doesn’t matter. Multiplayer is still a nice feature. The problem is that it’s a feature which often makes more money than the rest of the game. Last year, Valve was able to make Team Fortress 2 free to play, simply because it already makes enough money through the virtual item store. They don’t need to charge money for the game, they can literally just release new cosmetic items every now and then and watch the money roll in. As much as I like Valve, this seems like it would be disheartening to anyone wishing to make a new game.

I put on my virtual robe and wizard hat for just 15 $.

As such, we are arriving at a point where games are moving away from both singleplayer and offline multiplayer. Neither is very profitable – singleplayer takes a lot longer and is only played for as long as it takes the player to finish it, and offline multiplayer brings in less money since being able to have two people playing on the same console only requires one game to be bought, whereas online multiplayer requires two games and two online subscriptions. Unless the consumers decide to actually do something about this instead of just grumbling and buying the games anyways, it’s gonna continue. And will expand to other things as well. One of the features boasted by the upcoming Windows 8 is, according to Wikipedia: Ability to sign in using a Microsoft account. This will allow for the user’s profile and settings to be synchronized over the internet and accessible from other computers running Windows 8, as well as integration with SkyDrive. SkyDrive is an online file-hosting service. In essence, this means that part of your PC will be locked out unless you sign in using the Internet. Does this mean that we’ll eventually see operating systems that won’t let you use your computer unless you log in? Perhaps. That probably depends entirely on whether people are willing to accept this sort of thing or not. From what I can tell, they’re more than happy to.