Now, put a dollah in the box!

 This whole $10 mess is starting to get a little out of hand. First EA "pioneers" a system that was technically already in place. Then Ubisoft and THQ spoke up about agreeing that it needs to happen while bashing second-hand economics along the way. Activision openly plots of ways to gouge money out of their customers. Now Sony is thinking of joining the bandwagon, and while they have historically relieved themselves on the fans who buy their gaming products, it may be time for the community to stop relaying reports and start to speak up about it all. Nintendo's probably going to be the last to agree to this for several obvious reasons, but out of every other company out there, Sony may the biggest and last company that could reverse this trend. 

 I call out Nintendo for a number of reasons, but mainly because they are a shining example of how to treat a fanbase. They certainly have a tainted history, and no company can be considered "perfect", but Nintendo has come the closest to meeting customer expectations and this stance has reflected well in their game sales. Sony put out a mammoth, overpriced machine that was low on fun and high on maintenance. By maintenance, I mean ego. They were the gold digging company that wanted to charge you a high price just for the privilege of having a ride, and sure it looked nice, but Sony wasn't able to perform when it needed to. On top of that, they started asking more and more from you until things just started to go missing as if you never actually owned them to begin with. Let's face it, Sony has already broken up with you, they just won't tell you yet. 

 Nintendo, by contrast, put out a comparatively cheap product that inspired fun, at least for a little while. Their online service is going to be free for the forseeable future, everything costs less, and they haven't treated their customers like criminals. They also have had a decent track record in giving customers opportunities to open their wallet for a decent reason instead of greed. Sure, the games on the Virtual Console are intangible and sometimes overpriced, but a few companies have had IP's revived do to retro interest, and the costs involved aren't all that much. Would we have received a sequel to Final Fantasy IV without the VC? Debatable, but at least I'm not being charged what amounts to a $10 toll that assumes I'm a pirate or need to pay for the developer wasting their money when developing products. 

 Which brings us back to the point. What is the purpose of the $10 charge? The companies will tell you, and have told you, that they are doing this to combat the GameStop's of the world that they neither do business with (they do) or care about (they should).

 Let's debunk that myth here and now. There is a basic economic principle that's called "supply and demand". The majority of people who have at least made it to high school have heard about it, and even the ones that don't understand this principle by practical application. If you print a million games, but no one wants them, then your demand is low while your supply is high. Instead, you print a lesser amount of games, much like Atlus does, charging only for games that you know will sell and reprinting when necessary. Those games move off the shelves, and maybe not all the way, but at least you know that you're meeting your demand and only spending the necessary amount of money to make that happen. 

 Now, what the companies are telling you is that used game sales enter into this problem. In a way, they could, but not as much as you would think. I'll side for the companies for one moment. Let's say that a million copies of Fallout: New Vegas were printed. A half a million fly off the shelves during the first week, but 200,000 of those people beat the game within a week, don't like it, or decide that they like the game enough but are more interested in making the switch to PlayStaion Move and need all the trade-in credit they can get. So, even though the expectation was that a million people were buying the game, only 800,000 copies were actually moved. Thus, sales are are culled by GameStop simply existing.

 So what if GameStop didn't exist? What if those 200,000 people simply couldn't trade in their games for an obscenely tiny amount? Hell, GameStop is making money off of this without programming one line of code...why not the company who made the damn game? Fair point It's feasible that companies could meet their expected demand, and what's more, maybe those 200,000 people who bought the game second-hand turn into retail buyers, boosting the million mark to 1,200,000. It makes sense...

...until you start to get into what's really going on behind the scenes. Call of Duty: MW2 didn't originally force people into extra charges for their game, nor did they punish the second-hand buyer. In fact, people who had outlived their use of the game were able to trade it back for credit towards something else, providing a market for people who weren't there on day one to get into the MW2 scene. By having that used game market, you effectively bolster your own online community while giving gamers the choice of liking your game or not. If they don't like it, sales across the board will plummet. Look at Bionic Commando. I don't hear Capcom bitching that we need to be charged an extra $10 for the "opportunity" to play that game. The game sucked, and the $9.95 price WITHIN A YEAR OF RELEASE reflected that. Nobody wanted the game. MW2, however, still costs nearly full price. Hell, the original MW demands some big money for an old game. People still talk about playing MW, so a thriving online community is created who have positive word of mouth about it. If MW wasn't so cult-popular, then MW2 would not have had the explosive release than it did. Would you rather have a $60 customer that hates your company and your game and is stuck with a copy of that game? Wouldn't it make sense to have a fan who appreciates your game owning that copy, even if it is used, buying your DLC and hyping up Black Ops? I, for one, take the latter. 

 Also, take any EA sports franchise. EA truly treats their games like crap. The only way to justify $60 every year is if it is a truly different game each year. I understand that they have the license, and they do insane amounts of research in developing and maintaining their games. However, that's not the point. Imagine what they could do if Madden or FIFA was released every two years with a $25 update in the off years. Suddenly, you see that retail sales are huge. Second hand sales, and values, rise. That $25 update? It's now mandatory for any fan of the game to update their rosters and maintain themselves on the newest updates. Sure, a million people sold the game back because they didn't like it, but a million others take their place, you still sold the original copies, and the second-hand buyers will buy the DLC at a rate comparable or even HIGHER than the retail counterparts. 

 The supply and demand argument also helps when it comes to the quality of games. Sure, Bionic Commando retailed at $60. So did Uncharted 2. Which company spent it's money better? Do you ever hear Nintendo complaining about development costs? Yet, when Final Fantasy XIII came out, we were expected to pay $10 more for a game that literally wasted millions upon millions to end up with a sub-par attempt at a Final Fantasy game. They aren't even a company asking for the $10 "toll", either. 

 This is a topic I could write a thesis about. The "toll" doesn't work, and only serves to insult the customer and treat the best fans of a game like dirt. Some people just want to save a buck here and there, and if the developer can't be bothered to make their game that worth it, then why should good customers pay more? If Modern Warfare 2 costs $55 used and the game is that damned good, I'll just buy the retail game for $5 more. but I've bought FIFA a year late before. If it wasn't for EA telling me that they are going to punish people like me for discovering that their series is worth buying, then I won't buy FIFA 11 no matter how worth it the game may be. I've been shafted, I've been insulted, and the game's value will rest in EA's hands instead of my own. It's no different from owning a cartridge of Super Mario 3 or Super Tecmo Bowl. Imagine if you were told that, "Oh yeah, the game costs $15, but if you want to play the last level, you gotta call Nintendo and spoon out $10."

 Sure, it would make money, but I don't think many people would view those series as having any future value ever again. Sony, you have to put a stop to this. Why are you always the one I'm preaching customer service to? Why are you the last one to listen to the fans? Why are you the first in line to steal things from people? How the hell are you still in business? Save face, and bail out of this NOW. Otherwise, you're just one more formerly valuable brand that we can simply forget about. 

Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

No no no, you've got it all wrong.

http://kotaku.com/5604223/the-game-that-wasnt-there

 Click it, read it. I've got nothing but....OK, he's missing the point.

 Why would I stand up and criticize someone who wants the exact same thing that I want? I dare to do so because the logic isn't there. There is a here and there argument that isn't made with him.

 When you look back to the days of the vintage RPG, you can't help but recognize that there were a select few that stood out above the others. I grew up in the day when Wizardy was getting its start, but I will never be the person to tell you that there was ever a glory day, because there wasn't. First person RPG's were a difficult mess to get into, and WRPG's as a whole suffered from the same shortcomings. Playing Ultimate, no matter what Spoony may have said, was a chore.

 I've delved into some pretty good first person dungeons, and I've been impressed when it's done right. I've also been lucky enough to experience when a good RPG shows up to change the game a bit, giving the player more options. This is where I can agree with Joel Haddock. The customization, the personal attachment, the building from absolute scratch, and the consequences of action...they just aren't present anymore, and that is something that we should all pine for. Just as my last article showed, it's quite possible to throw new life into a genre that has become so hung up on graphics and formula by going back to remember how a true classic was made when neither element existed. A good concept is a good concept, and it always pains me to see developers throwing too much into expanding a current staple rather than going back to something that actually worked 10-20 years ago.

 Take Dragon Age. There is nothing that this game offers that hasn't been available for, in the experience of some gamers, their entire lives. I didn't buy Dragon Age because it just wasn't innovative enough, despite the fact that critics heralded it as something different. It was nothing but the same thing we've all come to know about WRPG's done in a more fashionable style.

 So how does Haddock miss the point? Cause and effect. The WRPG market buried itself when games like Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest arrived on shelves. WRPG's wouldn't change. There was little innovation, and what the JRPG was telling gamers was that games could be done in a more intuitive fashion. People tend to cling to something they can wrap their heads and hands around. Fallout 3 was a terrific success, but only because it was a genuinely great game, but because everything clunky about Fallout was removed. I agree that there is a certain functionality to turn based RPG's that should never leave the genre, but WRPG's used to be archaic pieces of crap with a terrible learning curve for a newcomer. How can a player get inspired over a screen of pixeled dust while being able to control a party only with intimate knowledge of an entire keyboard's command bindings? The games were never paced well enough to attract gamers, and to be honest, the stories sucked.

 Go out and kill the evil wizard, you are told. If that's ALL the game is about, then shouldn't JRPG's be proud of what they are? JRPG's tend to be 40 hour marathons, but at least there's a hint of substance in them. No matter how awesome your lvl 20 ninja is, there is no substituting that feeling of purpose and belonging within a game world. Final Fantasy VI allowed me to customize every single party member to my liking, and with the exception of a select few skills, everything was up for grabs no matter the character I chose. Now, it's not the perfect freedom that a seasoned RPG vet may want. In fact, the linear storyline may turn off some. However, it's the ease of use and engaging world that kept me, and most fans, in the game.

 A title like Final Fantasy XIII throws all of that out the window, but it is the clear product of gamers wanting the "so easy I don't even have to play" setting. The truth is, gamers do want the experience of an old, freedom loving WRPG, but we're relearning our desire for it. The question isn't "if", it's when. When the original Final Fantasy came out, even WRPG fans heralded it for pretty much everything it was, despite the bare bones storyline and limited choice of character development. Once the basic formula was in place, Final Fantasy V and VI expanded on what you were able to do with the party while still maintaining the linear story. Later on, the series began to add in side-quests and random events that would make a linear world seem more eventful. It's simply a product of the rapid switch to a more gratifying storyline with an easier system of play. Gamers loved it, and the formula started to expand back to RPG roots no matter what series.

 Even Fallout 3 can be used as a shining example of effort being put into this expansion of method. While not perfect and unlimited, the title re-introduced certain aspects of the WRPG without getting too complicated. On top of that, is boasted a FPS engine that would make the regular gamer feel right at home without the threat of being turned away by ungodly menus and button combinations. It played like a simple shooter, but carried quite a bit of RPG depth. When New Vegas comes, I wouldn't be surprised if the formula was expanded on in some way to encompass more choice in the player's quest.

 It's simple....we made the move to intuitive...then we made the move to graphics. Many series are at least trying to get back the old charm by expanding a game's scope beyond just a pretty looking story. It'll happen eventually, and I'll admit, it's not happening fast enough...but it's around the corner. You'll get to recruit a mouse one day, Joel. Trust me. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

Attn: Rockstar...a decade of failure

 It's high time we call out the sandbox genre for what it is. Don't get me wrong, sandbox games have put out some true gems, and it's history is starting to become lasting rather than some brief fling stumbled upon when developers figured out that rendering an entire city was possible. The genre is here to stay, but unfortunately for the players, it is one without direction or substance.

 Just click on any Yahtzee review of a game with sandbox elements, and you get mostly the same complaints each round of bashing. The story has no immediate impact. Shop elements give you everything you need once you've reached a certain point. Story is sprinkled around freedom, and that freedom is so great that the rewards for lashing out within the sandbox don't make a player feel as mighty as they should feel when given that much to do with the world around them. Come on, you can fly attack choppers through a crowded downtown street destroying whatever you want. How did they manage to make this anything less than rewarding?

 You can pick any game you want, and the same things are wrong with it. Grand Theft Auto has this problem in any game. Red Dead Redemption has the same problem. It's not even Rockstar that does it, it's everyone.

 The trouble is that no one knows how to add weight to a sandboxed world. If you level a city block, you get nothing. If you die, nothing really happens except that you restart from a save point or a hospital. If you fail a mission, you can easily try it again. Once you get enough money in your wallet, you can do pretty much anything. There's no restriction to what you can do, so whipping out a rocket launcher and going to town isn't going to be fun when there's nothing to make you question your moral code. Of course, the whole point is that there is no moral code in these games.

 There's one simple way to fix it all, but no developer seems to remember what it was. A while back, I reviewed Star Control II, which was a gimme A+ game that required no talent at all to evaluate. A race against time to save the galaxy from oppressive aliens, Star Control II offered quite a bit of freedom to meet the ultimate goal. In fact, the game had so much basic freedom that you could consider it a sandbox. It has all the qualities of a sandbox game. From the get-go, you could set a course for any star out of the hundreds available. If you met an alien, you didn't even have to talk with them; you could immediately choose to start a fight while skipping the chit-chat. The entire draw of SC2 was that you had SO much freedom, you had to be extremely careful of what you did. Your ship had extreme limitations, and going too far away from Earth could kill you unless you were prepared for everything the galaxy had to offer. You needed to learn your limitations, tread lightly, and spend 90% of your time playing the defensive side of things.

 There is another huge difference, however, that ultimately shows off how badly the sandbox games have handled themselves. Star Control II ran on a time-clock. You only had a few years to achieve success, otherwise the enemy would steamroll through the galaxy with impunity. Events in the game were just plain going to happen unless you altered the course of time. It was a simple trick, but it changed the sandbox entirely. You couldn't spend a year of your game time screwing around and choosing when to approach every mission in the game, or the game would leave you behind.

 A sandbox could benefit from this simple innovation that time forgot. What would happen if events in Liberty City happened with or without you being there?

 The game begins. You go through your tutorial, break out of jail, and now you're a free man. You take your time to meet your associate who has agreed to house you until you get on your feet. He gives you the keys to a beat up car, and then the clock starts. Miles away, someone is making plans to murder your new friend. Just a block down from that, a millionaire is planning on bombing his rival's safehouse. In 2 months, a boat will land, stay for a month, and then leave...and that boat happens to be the only access you'll ever have to a high-class gang that could change the entire course of the game if you chose to join it. A serial killer roams the city, and each month, he kills someone, and who he is ties directly into the main story line in a way you would never know if you ignored him. A shootout will go wrong in month 5, and if you can be there before the cops arrive, you will find a suitcase filled with $5 million that is free for the taking.

 Suddenly, the game really changes. Stories become more important, and your choice on which plots to follow can dramatically affect not only the way you play the game, but the way you perceive the story. That's just in a Rockstar game. Imagine if Resident Evil or Alone in the Dark gave you loads more freedom, but also paired up with a time clock.

 This is something that could change games for good. Having a hundred different subplots, a hundred different NPC's that can be a part of your experience, several endings depending on your choices and when you made them....it's unreal the type of game that could happen, and it gives much more weight to what a player chooses to do in their playtime. Sure, you could grab a car and run zombies over for an hour. You may even get a tank to play with. Yet, it's much more satisfying to know that everything you do, every action you take, and every friend you make will have a profound influence on the way the story plays out. Your ultimate goal may be to unleash an airborne retro-virus to kill an undead horde, but any game offers this. What they don't offer is a way to uncover the truths or events that happen on your way to do it. If events go on in the background, with or without you, the player would have to pick and choose their approach. Maybe you end up rescuing a competent engineer that can jump start any car, break any security, and easily create the circumstances that beat the game. Yet, in doing so, you forgot to pick up the phone in someone's house that led you to the origin of the virus. Maybe the love of your life (game) dies at a certain point unless you are there to stop it from happening. Maybe a different danger is going on in the background that dwarfs the fight you're in, making you wonder why your ending is always depressing even when you kill the undead. Suddenly, just like in Star Control II, you're exploring and playing it safe, or taking a risk to make an ally that changes everything.

 Learn from this, Rockstar. I've never been impressed with the open world, but if you can pull off a narrative that plays to the strengths of the sandbox, then I'm on that bandwagon. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit