A few days ago I read an article in PC Gamer which got me in full ranting mode. You'll find the article in question here.
For anyone not in the loop. There has been a bit of a covert and at times open warfare between EA and Valve concerning Valve's digital distribution platform Steam.
It started with EA taking Crysis 2 off of Steam, and then later Dragon Age 2 as well. The latest precedent was the announcement that Battlefield 3 would be available on multiple digital retailers except for, yep, you got it, Steam.
Now I'm not here to shed any light on the whole matter. Franky, there's not anyone around apart from the concerned parties because this battle is fought through ... press releases.
I wish gaming journalists would stop with regurgitating the PR-bullshit that they are being fed by the publishers. It's even worse than a Japanese Fetishist gone wild. Because that's what press releases about conflicts usually are: nice but essentially empty words, .... aka perfumed bullshit.
And just like million dollar companies like EA and others play the safe card with many rushed (console-ported) games, so have many gaming magazines retreated to "safe" reviews and reporting.
For example, how was Dragon Age 2 lauded with 80/100 in PC gamer? Or how was a crap game like Duke Nukem Forever punched down the gutter? (And yes, the game was bad, but I still enjoyed it enough)
The answer is simple: money. There's too much at stake nowadays and for that reason not many risks are taken.
Still I would love to hear some opinions from insiders, or otherwise more thorough and intelligent cross-fire questions. If EA says games from steam are removed because Valve has a restricted contract regarding DLC, then why has nobody mentioned or referred to This?
Going from EA's recent trackrecord though, they really do need to start getting their testosteron level back in check. Someone seriously needs to calm them down and explain the point of publicity through one's own merits, instead of beating the dead horse that is Call of Duty.
So why the rant? Because like always in life, there's only going to be losers if this issue is not resolved. Both companies will likely hemorrhage money because of this. But the biggest loser of them all is bound to be the average gamer.
Showing posts with label Editorial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Editorial. Show all posts
Friday, 19 August 2011
Monday, 15 August 2011
Games are too expensive?
Recently came upon this interesting CVG article
I'm not sure whether it's pure arrogance or some sort of twisted irony that a developer here complains about other games being too expensive except for his own (hah).
And on a sidenote here mr. Howard, how are your thoughts on 130£ collector's editions exactly? *cough*
Still, there's a deeper issue behind that and that's the fact if maybe the game market isn't becoming a bit too saturated with the current price system. There is a cartload of AAA titles to be expected this autumn and I can easily imagine gamers making a tough decision on which ones to buy, and which ones to forego. Especially seeing as how new games are easily between 30-60£, depending on platform and retailer.
Is this a developer anticipating lower sales? Perhaps a bit although I can't see Skyrim's sales anywhere except sky-high.
In essence Tod Howard is right, some triple A titles are demanding the same money, but for a lot less content than in the past. I'd like to present to you exhibit number A: Dragon Age 2, which has already become the red-headed stepchild of the franchise. Clairvoyantly even before DA3 has to come out.
And as we have seen, those AAA-games are not necessarily a product that is slick and span and QA-assured. Exhibit number B your honour: Brink A game that managed to have more bugs on release than the usual infested restaurant from Gordon Ramsey's show. Oh, and gameplay that turned us in the vocal replica of aformentioned chef.
And as stated in the article, this is where some new indie titles have crept into our heart by offering us almost unlimited play from a sandbox-type gameplay for as little as often 5-15£.
And if you don't mind, I think I'll send the rest of my evening playing Terraria now :)
Written by Brecht Debels
I'm not sure whether it's pure arrogance or some sort of twisted irony that a developer here complains about other games being too expensive except for his own (hah).
And on a sidenote here mr. Howard, how are your thoughts on 130£ collector's editions exactly? *cough*
Still, there's a deeper issue behind that and that's the fact if maybe the game market isn't becoming a bit too saturated with the current price system. There is a cartload of AAA titles to be expected this autumn and I can easily imagine gamers making a tough decision on which ones to buy, and which ones to forego. Especially seeing as how new games are easily between 30-60£, depending on platform and retailer.
Is this a developer anticipating lower sales? Perhaps a bit although I can't see Skyrim's sales anywhere except sky-high.
In essence Tod Howard is right, some triple A titles are demanding the same money, but for a lot less content than in the past. I'd like to present to you exhibit number A: Dragon Age 2, which has already become the red-headed stepchild of the franchise. Clairvoyantly even before DA3 has to come out.
And as we have seen, those AAA-games are not necessarily a product that is slick and span and QA-assured. Exhibit number B your honour: Brink A game that managed to have more bugs on release than the usual infested restaurant from Gordon Ramsey's show. Oh, and gameplay that turned us in the vocal replica of aformentioned chef.
And as stated in the article, this is where some new indie titles have crept into our heart by offering us almost unlimited play from a sandbox-type gameplay for as little as often 5-15£.
And if you don't mind, I think I'll send the rest of my evening playing Terraria now :)
Written by Brecht Debels
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)