Don't feed the professional trolls

A face of disappointment

You'll be disappointed if you think I'm talking about internet trolls. So microtransactions are still causing some controversy lately in the media, as MGS5, and Uncharted 4 both circulate the area with news that they would indeed have special points tying themselves to real worlds credit. Actually I started this they were, but this article is pretty late at this point, but still holds a message I believe needs to be said because of the events. People are up in arms about it, but more and more I'm starting to hear this response that its a necessary evil made to avoid hiking the prices up. In other words, they're forming this made-up assumption that you can either magically get a bigger more complete game with less outer-deals for about $80 (rather than $60 as per USA prices. I wont go into details with how the expenses are higher elsewhere). That's not some strawman argument, that's something I've seen polled by press, and within comments. It also feels really similar to what Cliff B. said some time ago when insisting that games are cheaper than ever, and possibly even too cheap. I wouldn't normally discuss this issue very much (aside from leaving it as a quick quip against AAA), but like always, its always a good number of people or the wrong message being sent that ends up stirring me into topical rants. Still I'm really shocked and a bit disappointed in the amount of people flagging for this terrible logic. They've also fallen for assumptions even developers themselves have abandoned, when they failed to attack the used market time and time again (to quote one comment posted today, "its to fight the problem where most people are buying used", which is an unbacked statistic which is nearly impossible since you'd have to essentially have most copies of all new releases circulate 3 gamers in order for that to even be true). It is all essentially a false dichotomy.

For starters, lets look at just how phony this false dichotomy is, possibly with a glance back in time. Remember Uncharted 3? It had pre-order bonuses, sponsored dealings with subway, collector's edition, game of the year edition, some DLC came along, later enlisted microtransactions and a very light F2P model which included statistic alterations in the main game (In other words, subtle pay to win-like stylings); how did they explain away the scummy online pass that harasses all players with a code to validate the very product they just paid for? "and so at some point, you know, games have to make money. " as if that $10 extra somebody buying used just might give them at some point sure seems to keep them afloat. Also minus the two editions, none of that includes the main game itself, which is of course the core purchase of the experience at a big $60 per person. This was also all on top of Uncharted 3, a core game and formula already made, so its not like they were making a revolutionary engine, or just struggling to crank out their first PS3 game. That's not to discredit a lot of work that did go on behind it, but don't think they were pulling out full force here, they were clearly making a smaller recycled product compared to their last two installments that got them their fame. Yet they still had the nerve to pass off DRM as just a way to barely survive. "So at some point, games have to make money" and I suppose it only starts after all those other ways to make money. Then we have games, who in addition to committing to most of all these crazy things, also work under multiple teams of bloated staff to rush a game out early on a yearly basis raking in as much as they can from one brand.

How'd all this consumer exploiting go for you Evolve?

Where am I going with all this? Well its an example of how broken the "Feel sorry for them" mentality is. Somehow, you want to tell me that this whole situation is so black and white that its either pay for scummy DLC practices or raise the base game price in order for these guys to make the game they made? Um, no. They get my support from making a good game and me paying for it. If they need anything more, then they should learn from their experience and decide to do a more modest experience somewhere in the process next time instead of overstepping their boundaries. How about that for a choice? How about AAA stops creating its own bubble ready to bust? How about they learn from efficient games and think that maybe people don't have to have cutting edge stuff rushed out by a staff of over 300 people and over-priced mo-cap animations? The funny thing is that back in that vote where the false dichotomy was set to be $80 + DLC, or current model, people chose the current. It wasn't because they agreed with what was being done, but out of what I saw it was more that people were looking around and noticing how many open world games were doing it and said there was already too much content than they really needed anyways, and that they like that feeling of choosing what they bought rather than having it all stuffed in one expensive package. I think that kind of speaks for itself about what AAA is doing wrong. It isn't just the fact that people are missing out on extras in games, or the industry is hostile to its very own consumer, but its also just ran by confused people that think cramming more chore work content in is a good use of their resources (which they'll then claim we need to help them make up for). I'm sure some of the same people responsible are the same idiots that have to run focus test groups to see whether or not people will accept a post-apocalyptic open world game.

We've got plenty of potential and already existing games out there proving you can in fact be more cost efficient, fun, and survive without cheating your fans. Its not just small games either, but things like The Witcher 3 (which is shocking, considering it was half-published by WB), Metro, Dishonored, Bloodborne (and Dark Souls for that matter), Skyrim, and heck I'll even personally put up Wolfenstein: The New Order. So far Fallout 4 seems to be following a similar path. We can also go back and even look at games like the first two Uncharteds, or Killzone 2, all of which were certainly not on a low budget yet still made their studios happy. Its actutally quite funny that practically all of those games did well for themselves, and later the same exact console cycle many formerly successful ones started exploiting sour practices. Meanwhile a minority (though still quite a good bit of them) of games still felt content with just leaving that stuff out. The only real consistent theme with who ended up doing good or bad was pretty much just a matter of looking at the publisher. Its almost like they just wanted to exploit new ways to get money with newer tech, and just so happened to be attached to purely the business end... oh hey, that's what publishers do and they bottleneck the distribution of games. Funny how that works. Oh and another thing? Some of these guys have abandoned a lot of their old ways, noting it got them more flak than money. You didn't see online passes anymore. You don't get exploitive microtransactions making a debute with Killzone shadow fall (the ones that came later are cosmetic, and updates have even made it possible to win free DLC). You don't need to type in online pass codes for Titanfall. When these unproven, unsure came around the launch of new consoles they needed to be sure people would buy them and look on from a nice standpoint. People also backed away from and mocked the xbox one's exclusives doing it out of the gate, and between that and its DRM reputation they had to seriously play catch-up to win people back. However its been more than a year now and MGS5 and Uncharted 4 have microtransactions in them. Coincidentally those are massive games coming later after high system sales, and Uncharted has been proven to sell on microtransactions. I'll repeat myself: its not a necessary evil that keeps these guys barely alive, its blatant exploitation to use whatever means necessary to grab money from us by dangling a part of the game we paid for in front of us.

The weird thing to is that at the end of the day, I'm not even sure I'm really angry about this stuff because of the developers and publishers who have raised it. Well of course I am upset with them, but I don't often show it anymore. I've moved passed it, and I've accepted that as long as I stick to my principles and just have fun with what I can get, I'm happy. Besides, I tend to love the games that stray from these practices anyways. Still what really bothers me is when it hits the community like some kind of weed. Suddenly principles mean less, ignorance takes hold, and then fans turn against each other to defend... oh how nice, self-destructive industry practices that wreck what we aim to enjoy. Thanks for that guys. I'm really not sure I like the fact that we've reached a stage where discussing immersive-breaking money grabs is somehow a gray area. I'd like to have hope that we'd just instead see more cases like Evolve, where the practices just kill themselves as Witcher 3 parades around thanking its loyal fans. I'd like to just think the worst it gets is pre-ordering R&C for a gun. Instead we're at this point where people really are just bending to the will of greed and saying "its not so bad if you tell yourself it was necessary". Its like watching a bunch of youtube comments lash out against an obvious troll; people are just buying one big joke of an exploit that was aimed right at their emotions. Of course that's not to say its doom & gloom, as admittedly the opposite end of this has been getting louder while stupid things like Deus Ex's tiered pre-order occur. I worry for the outcome though, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we get more Witcher 3's with a loving community, and less of Evolve with people raging and defending shady business.

A true monster slayer