Progessive Gaming Doesn't Progress Gaming

People play games for multiple reasons. Some see gaming as just a hobby to help pass a little free time while others see it was a more serious, competitive "sport". Some use it to relieve stress while others use it to escape a harsh reality. Some prefer easy, pick-up-and-play games while others prefer games with depth and complexity. Despite what one might play or might enjoy, one thing that many people might have in common is the fact that they honestly own more games than they've beaten.

This generation has offered plenty of great games with some amazing experiences. With better visuals and developers dipping deeper into wanting to continue creating memorable games, the question that floats around is "why?". Why is it becoming so difficult for gamers to actually finish their games?

An an article from January on 1up mentioned a couple common "excuses". For some people, things such as work, school, or family takes away from their time. This is both believable and understandable. After all, with the way things are now you have to work your fingers to the bone in order to just get by. For some people- such as the man in the article- games have become more like baseball cards; people buy them for the sake of showing them off and saying they own a certain hard-to-find title but leave it sitting on the shelf instead of enjoying it. Not only that, but most people say that the variety of side missions or side quests games might offer helps them lose track of what they were doing. Thus adding on to taking away the bit of time one might have to play.

However, one thing we cannot deny about this generation of gaming is the increasing amount of shorter games. Perhaps this is the developers' ways to helping busy gamers manage the bit of time they have, but needless to say, games honestly don't require much time to complete anymore. Sure, there are games that might have quite a bit of content to them but the average game nowadays can be completely within ten to twelve hours. Even with someone who has a busy life, if they played just an hour a day- or even every other day- they could finish a game within a month. So time honestly isn't as big of a factor as people make it out to be.

Some other excuses might include not being able to remember what you were doing when you turned the game off two months ago...But even this problem has a fairly easily solution. Most action games or shooters are fairly linear and straight forward. Most of these games offer markers on the maps or objective lists that help gamers keep track of where they might have left off. More games offer the ability to restart levels, in order to give people a chance to "replay" a certain part without having to restart the whole game if they truly cannot remember what they were doing.

So then why is is hard for gamers to finish a game? My theory is that it's the lack of satisfaction that is filled through online gaming. Does this mean that single player games are dull or boring? No, of course not but single player doesn't have something that multiplayer games do have- interaction and constant progression.

At times single player games might feel as if they go on for ages. Progression comes in the form of seeing the story unfold or seeing a "mission complete" screen. The frequency of obtaining Achievements or Trophies begins to die after a few hours into the game as they become harder to grasp. Multiplayer games, however, offer constant interaction with others.

This interaction brings a feeling of satisfaction as people comment on your progress. When you do good and people either send you messages or say to you that you're excelling at the game- maybe it be a round of Call of Duty, helping a party in WoW, or even just helping a friend through a co-op game - your self-esteem rises; you develop a feeling of pride and satisfaction that you do not always receive from a single player game since no one is there to pat you on the back.

You are able to show off your skills in online games by not only allowing people to see you in action, but also see your past accomplishments. More and more multiplayer modes in games are leaning towards having some sort of leveling system. These systems allow you to unlock better gear or weapons as well as give you a rank that always appears by your name. Being able to display your ranking and unlocked weapons only allows you gloat about being good enough to get them.

Perhaps this is why so many people are finding themselves letting their single player games sit around as they find themselves spending all their free time continuing to rank up points online. Maybe this is why some people say they can never since a simple eight hour game; but are able to reach high levels in MMOs and are able to dedicate enough time to them to receive hard to get items. In a way, you could almost say that for some people, the need to play online games becomes an addiction....Maybe because that little boost is what they feel they need in order to get through the day or a sucky life.

Now, naturally I am not claiming this as a fact; this is simply a food for thought based on some observations I've made not only of myself, but of people I know and reading things on forums and sites. I'd like to look into a bit farther which is why I wrote this. For those of you who claim that you hardly ever finish most of the games you buy, ask yourself this: Do you spend a lot of time playing multiple player modes or MMOs instead? And if you do, then why? I know that I tend to get a bit more entertainment from playing with others over playing alone because sometimes I get bored playing alone and other times I do enjoy hearing people say things about me doing well.

Anyway...Let's see what some thoughts are about this. Please share them.

The Economy Sucks- But Games are Amazing

At the risk of sounding like I'm ripping off Sessler's Soapbox, I decided to post this anyway. It's a topic that I had been thinking about myself recently and after watching his soapbox, I was inspired a bit. (Plus I feel he left some good tips out.) Anyway...It shouldn't be a shocker to anyone that the economy is crappy right now. Company after company is talking about lay offs or closing down. The price of everyday products seems to keep rising and the dollar still isn't getting us much. So here's a couple tips that I think will help gamers out during a time in their lives where maybe there's other more important things to put money towards other than games.

Be Picky

There's plenty of games to look forward to this year. (Killzone 2, Street Fighter IV, Resident Evil 5, No More Heroes 2, Mad World, Halo Wars, F.E.A.R 2, Guitar Hero: Metallica, the possibility of Heavy Rain, etc...) Some of these games do come out fairly close together, possibly without a pay check between them. As badly as you might want them all, if you cannot afford them, don't get them! Instead, be picky about your choices.

Begin with making a list of all the games you want this year and their estimated times for release. Then, take sometime to think about how many games you can afford during a certain amount of time. (Maybe one a week? Two weeks? A month? Two months? Whatever.) Once you know what your limit is, decide what games from the list you absolutely must have. If you're having trouble deciding, answer the following questions to help you make your decision:

* How much will I be playing this game?
* What about it, other than what it is, makes me feel the need to have it?
* What's its replay value like?
* If it has online multiplayer, how much will I use it? Will friends have this game?

Eventually you should be able to narrow down your choices so you end up spending money on the games you need to have compared to spending money on a mixture of need to have and "just wanted" games. If you have two or more need to have games coming out close together, think about whether you can afford to get them both without setting you back on money for something you truly need to have. (For example, if you have two games you really want coming out in a span of two weeks but have no games coming out for months after that, you'll probably be ok buying both.)

For the games you'd just like to have, either rent them to satisfy yourself, wait until you can afford them, or just wait for the price to drop. After all, if you wanted this long for it to come out, surely you can wait another month or two to keep a few extra bucks in your wallet.

Collector's Editions...Really?

For some of us, we're fascinated by bonus things. May it be a special DVD with "behind the scenes" footage, an art book, maybe a figure, or who knows what else...But we always manage to drop another $10, $20, and sometimes even $30 more to have the "Collector's Edition" just for the goodies or for the sake of saying, "Yeah, look at what I have and you don't." But maybe not it isn't the wisest choice to spend the extra money on every Collector's Edition for every game we buy.

If a Collector's edition is offered, take a serious look at its price and what extra bonuses it has to offer. Chances are you're probably going to want to pass on a Collector's Edition if its $20 more but only offers one thing (like part of the soundtrack or a DVD) compared to one that might offer a few things or one really cool thing (like an art book or nice figure). If the edition doesn't really offer anything spectacular, then you might want to pass it all together.

Investments

If you haven't already, now might be a good time to look into a rental service such as GameFly or maybe something a bit local. You might need to pay a month fee but the fees are low compared to the price of games these days. (A $10 or $15 fee to rent however many games you want in a month is a much better deal than spending $60 on one game a month, especially if you might not even like the game.) Also, some of these services do tend to let you buy games from them at lower prices than a new game costs.

Something like GameTap or Steam might be another thing to look into if you have a fairly good computer. While they might not always have the most recent released games, but they might help to keep your gaming needs satisfied at reasonable costs.

Another option would be to look into a MMO to help eat up sometime. You don't necessarily need to play WoW but looking into an already existing, possibly free MMO, might not be a very bad idea. Some free MMOs do offer premium packages for subscribers which allow more options, items, or areas to people willing to pay a couple bucks. While others have special armor, weapons, or other in-game items via small microtransactions to help spice up the game after awhile.

Then, of course, pick games that you'll know you'll get plenty of game time from. Perhaps it comes in the form of solid multiplayer or a nice, long single player.

Where is the line drawn between the developer's right and the player's?

When it comes to video game controversy, we typically hear about how Little Jimmy shot someone by acting out a scene he saw in a game. Though once in awhile something comes up that really makes you scratch your head because you're not sure if the person's arguement is legitimate or if they're just closed minded.

Today I stumbled upon an article where MUD creator, Richard Bartle, had shown his disliking for a quest (The Art of Persuasion) in Wrath of the Lich King. I did a bit of research on the quest since I'm too low of a level to do it myself, but apparently the quest is a level 71 chain quest that basically has you abducting someone, holding them prisoner, and then torturing them to gain information.

Bartle states that his issue with the quest is the fact that you have to torture the prisoner. If you want to progress through the chain, you have to do this quest and there were no alternatives to gain information; there wasn't a way to compromise with the prisoner or reach an agreement.

"I'm not at all happy with this," he had stated in his blog. "I thought that surely the quest-giver would step in and stop it at some point? It didn't happen, though. Unless there's some kind of awful consequence further down the line, it would seem that Blizzard's designers are OK with breaking the Geneva convention."

He goes on to explain that he doesn't necessarily mind that a torture quest is in the game, but it is the fact that the designer did not give the player the option to choose between 'good' or 'evil'. He feels that if the designer has pressured a belief on him- that the designer has no problem with torture.

Knowing that this is WoW, I'm assuming that the quest isn't very graphic. Bartle does explain that you're given a 'cow poke-like' item and use it to zap the prisoner until he speaks. While being poked, he might say things like, "Aahhhh! Release me! I am of no use to you. I swear it!", "Stop! I beg you, please stop. Please...", and "Enough! I've told you all that I know. Your continued abuse is senseless". He continues to say that he knows that it is just a game and that you're not really hurting anyone, but it still strikes a nerve. (Which makes me wonder what his views are about the Death Knights since the first hour of gameplay is basically slaughtering a whole village with people running around screaming and begging for mercy.)

But this brings me to the purpose of my post: Where is the line drawn between what might be a logical arguement and what is thinking too deeply into a situation regarding a game?

The concept of being given a choose in a game- especially one where you are the main character - sounds like a relevant arguement. If you do not wish to be so hostile, then shouldn't you be allowed to pick a less aggressive option? Yet, it is just a game. You are truly not harming anything and if you already feel like torture is wrong,chances are you aren't going to do it in real life which makes you question why hitting a button in a game can be seen as being so cruel.

Many games, especially these days, are full of senseless killing yet we're not all cold, blood-thirsty murders from playing them. Games before have also featured torture scenes- like The Darkness where Jackie is tied to a chair and then has a drilled used on him or the Metal Gear Solid series which features multiple torture scenes throughout its life or recently the opening to World at War or the Locus camps in Gears of War 2. Perhaps these scenes aren't seen as being quite as horrible since you're often portrayed as the victim whether than the master mind.

Which brings us back to the idea of what is the developer's right when it comes to creativity with their work and what is crossing a moral line. Many novels and films have featured tortured scenes that were put there by their creator. Regardless if the novel or story is based on a true story or is just the creator trying to express brutality, torture is still a disturbing thing either way. While people might complain about how graphic the scenes might be in a book or in a movie, they typically let them slide; maybe because you are passive during the event by just reading or watching it. Yet with games, you are the one performing the act, which is what the arguement is currently about.

So let me ask you: Where is the line drawn between the developer's right and the player's? What does the developer- or writer - have the right to do since the game is basically their creation? And what right does the player feels he/she should be given if the developer is telling them to portray themselves within the game?

Used Game Sales = Money Flies out Windows for the Developer?

Yesterday I came across a fairly interesting thread asking: Do used games hurt developers? I wrote a nice, long answer in it but I figured I would share it with those who might not have seen it.

I feel that saying that developers are hurt by used games is like saying the agricultural market is being hurt by you growing your own tomatoes in your backyard.

Is it true that developer lose money if you buy a used game? Yes, they do lose a bit because instead of gaining a profit percentage from someone buying a new copy but yet they still gained money from the original copy bought.

Is it enough to harm them? No and here's why:

Used games only exist if people buy new copies. The developers gain money from those new copies and a vast majority of the time, the developer gains enough money from the first round of new copies to cover the costs of the game's development, printing, shipping, etc...and still walk away with enough of a profit to expand their company.

While it is true that some people do buy newly released games, from experience I've mainly see people buy used games that are older titles with a lot of them being games that are no longer in print new. You mean to tell me that a developer is going to constantly printing new copies of a five year old game so I can buy it new? The answer is simply no because the developer would lose more money from reprinting than they do from me buying their five year old game (which by that time is probably worth 75% less than when it was first released).

Occasionally they will release reprints of games via 'Greatest Hits' releases. While the value of the game has dropped, the developer still earns some money from these sales and in a way, we can interrupt 'Greatest Hits' titles as the developer saying, "Here's your last chance to buy it now, other wise we don't care." After all, by this time the developer has often moved onto other, larger projects that will probably bring in a bigger profit than their 'Greatest Hits' titles- even if consumers buy them all.

Used games have been around for over a decade and we have yet to see any company go bankrupt because of used game sales. So far, the main reason why we've seen a company fold was due to law suits, mergers, or their games just losing quality or not holding gamers' interests to even make them by them in the first place. (I miss you so much, Clover...)

Hell, used game sales can even help increase new sales for a developer. Say you buy a used copy of 'This Game'. You played it, loved it, and then shortly after beating it you found out that the developer is going to be releasing a sequel or a game with similar gameplay. Chances are your interest in the game is going to be so great that you're going to rush out and buy a new copy of the new game.

If you don't believe me, let me give you an example: The Grand Theft Auto games are a popular series for people to buy used, yet, the Grand Theft Auto IV walked away with selling 3.6 million copies on their first day gaining (roughly $216 million on its first day); they had sold 10 million copies a few months after the game's release. All those copies were new. Since then, people have bought used copies of Grand Theft Auto IV and will continue to buy them, yet there is no news anywhere about RockStar going bankrupt due to low game sales.

But of course sales don't end with used copies. There is no law preventing you from buying a thousand new games and then reselling them even though you never opened them. Just look at eBay auctions will people will sell 'brand new, in mint condition, never been played!' copies of rare games and makes more of a profit than the developer does from its sale since the consumer who is reselling it doesn't have to pay a development team or printing costs or even the shipping costs since they charge whatever they want for 'shipping and handling'. You mean to tell me that reselling new games is different than selling used games? The only difference is one copy is still in the original packaging while the other as been played. It's still the same thing: a game being sold by someone other than the developer who gains a profit from it while the developer doesn't.

The fact of the matter is: people will always buy new games. The desire to have a brand copy the day of its release is too great for most people to pass up. Why it isn't uncommon for people to just buy new copies over used copies because they feel that saving $5 isn't worth having a copy that might not have a manual with it. People will always buy used games because not everyone can afford a new game or because the game might not even exist in new copies. And people will always sell games they buy regardless if they played it or not just to earn a couple bucks.

Yet, developers will continue to make money and will be able to continue to support themselves. Especially with the growing market of microtransactions. So what if someone buys a used copy of Halo 3? Bungie still makes money off of the buyer buying the maps. And the income doesn't stop with game content. Every t-shirt, hat, wallet or item you buy that is tied to a game, the company still gets a small profit from it due to them owning the rights.