Console gaming has a lot of problems associated with it nowadays. "Cinematic experiences." "Mainstream gaming." "DLC," "Online Passes," "appeal to newcomers," and more. A lot of problems exist because of the DS and Wii, and the notion that there was a large portion of people out there that want to play games, but didn't because nothing appealed to them. Their success led Microsoft and Sony to adopt their own method of motion control gaming, Kinect and Move respectively. While Move is now nowhere to be seen, Kinect seems like it's about to get a new pair of glasses with Microsoft's next generation console. But don't worry, Sony might be coming along for the ride too.
A lot of the dangers that I described can really be bundled into one core problem with game design. Games nowadays are designed for one playthrough. You buy it, you enjoy it, you sell it back to Gamestop for the next game. Essentially, it's a beverage. You get one, open it, take a few minutes to enjoy and then you're done. A few hours later you get another one. There's very little staying power with games nowadays and publishers see that as a problem. So they like to add things like downloadable content to games so you'll keep it a little while longer in the hopes that you won't sell it until the price of it becomes negligible or you buy the DLC and keep it. Another thing is online passes, which is something EA created and others adopted in 2009 or so to prevent people who bought games used from playing games online without paying a $10 fee. If you bought the game new you got a code. This was done to entice people who look at used game prices compared to new ones and go with the latter. Until then, used games were sold at $5 cheaper than normal, but with a $10 online pass that'd make it more expensive. But used game retailers just lowered the price of these games an additional $10-$15 so the fight over $5 came back to square one. While retailers were offering less money to people for used games after that, margins stayed consistent for these retailers.
But why am I describing to you a basic business scenario that occurs multiple times a day? Because it appears that this business practice is being threatened with the upcoming generation of consoles, outside of the Wii U mind you. While games today have no staying power, publishers have constantly wanted gamers to keep their games forever, even though the problem is simple: Their games may not be worth keeping. I'm not saying all developers are bad, but some developers have problems understanding what's wrong with their games and thus blame others for poor sales results. Right now, sales of the Wii U hardware and software are poor. Why? There's no key software driving Nintendo fans and hardcore gamers to buy the system and the third party software that is there are mostly late ports that run on par or worse than what other versions offer, in addition to being more expense on Wii U. That's not really a recipe for success. But why customers for these results? Why punish them by discontinuing support when the effort put forth was not good enough to begin with? This isn't just a Wii U problem, but an industry-wide epidemic that has gone on for too long.
Unfortunately, it looks like this will lead to the industry's downfall. Rumors are circulating that next generation consoles will prevent used games from being played on them. Additionally, games on them may always require an online connection to play games on them. And finally, these systems will not be backwards compatible with current generation hardware and games. These changes to the landscape of gaming look only to limit an already shrinking marketplace. This generation has seen a tremendous growth in the number of people who play games. But at the same time it has seen a growth in anti-consumer behavior by both developers and publishers that have driven these consumers away. If any or all of what is listed above come true, the hardcore gamers of today will leave and thus the industry will fail once again.
Used games are big part of the economy in the games industry. They drive people to trade in games they no longer desire to play towards the purchase of newer games. Publishers are not too keen on used games sales. By implementing policies like Day 1/on-disc DLC and online passes, it inconveniences the consumer, as well angers them that content was potentially cut from the game's initial release. Gamestop was recently quoted as saying as many as 60% of consumers would refuse to buy a game console that didn't allow for used games to be played on them. It may not happen, and while I don't like used games, a game preventing used games to be played on it means that console will not come into my place of residence. Even though used games is a huge discussion openly, it's not the most pressing issue, always online connectivity most certainly is.
While we live in an ever-connected society, the internet is ever fickle. It's not consistent or commonplace as water or electricity. It will be over time, but now is not the time. What's being proposed with an always-online connection is simple, in order to keep playing the game you want to play, your internet must always be up. If it wobbles, lags or falters, your game becomes instantly unplayable. This is a policy that Ubisoft adopted for PC games for roughly 18 months before dropping it due to complaints and the fact that hackers got around it very easily. This is a huge problem and it's ultimately not something that will be discussed when someone goes to buy one of these machines in the future. The idea that a game can instantly become worthless because your internet doesn't work or because their servers are taken down is insulting. EA takes down their sports games' servers every 3-4 years, depending on popularity. This basically makes every EA game going forward potentially worthless and its' worrysome. Another example: What if Original Xbox games required you to be online in order to play them? Right now, if that were true, those games would be 100% unplayable in any capacity since Microsoft pulled the plug on the original Xbox Live service. Who's to say it won't happen again?
Considering that these systems won't be compatible with current generation games, it makes it even more likely that this will happen. Considering that Nintendo offers backwards compatibility with Wii games, their Virtual Console games, their DS and DSiWare games, a company that isn't quite up to par in terms of online standards believes in such a practice when Sony and Microsoft don't is maddening. Why? Because iOS allows for backwards compatibility. So does Android. If you bought a game or App on an earlier version of that software, it works on newer devices. How can Microsoft and Sony take such a step back when it's becoming commonplace and not a rarity? Digital Goods are being tied to the consumer, not the hardware. If Microsoft and Sony try to take away these goods from consumers going forward it will only put them in more of a hole. And it will leave everyone in the industry wondering 'how did this happen?'
The answer is simple: You bit the hand that fed you. They don't feed you anymore. They saw your petulant attitude and let you starve. "It was for their own good" they said, and they were right. The console market is shrinking, and the games industry is in danger of collapsing. Big budget games are dying and for the past 3 years software sales have plummeted. So why do industry big wigs think this is going to continue? It's not. And ultimately, that's when gaming dies once again. Because like most dinosaurs, the answer is simple: Adapt or Die. No one is truly adapting to the marketplace. They're only dying.
No comments:
Post a Comment