Last week, in the midst of Anthem pre-release hubbub, EA shared a handy chart outlining the ways different people could play the multiplayer shooter before release. It was… confusing. I mean, not actually confusing. It’s five rows and four columns; understanding it is easier than understanding when you have gym class in high school. But it’s more confusing than just saying the game is out on February 22.
In a landscape where so many publishers needlessly complicate their game launches, offering private betas and early access to people who preorder this version or that, EA’s somewhat staggered Anthem release was bound to provoke a negative fan reaction. And right on cue, the angry comments and tweets followed the image around the Internet, with aggrieved gamers vowing to cancel their preorders and never play the game and light themselves on fire and move to the moon.
But is this fair? Is this a reasonable reaction? As with all things Internet, it’s probably an overreaction. It’s easy to poke fun at the chart, and there’s nothing gamers love more than bagging on EA, but what does the chart really tell us? It tells us there are ways to play Anthem before it releases.
The first column represents a public demo for the game. If the chart had been released a week earlier, it would have had another column for the VIP demo the previous week, available to EA/Origin Access subscribers and people with preorders. Another column represents the ten hours EA/Origin Access subscribers get to play the game without buying it. EA calls this a “trial.” That’s another word for a demo.
Demos. Demos are good, right? They let us try games before we buy them. This is good. Why are we criticizing EA for giving us demos? Because those demos make for a confusing chart? Would we rather have to wait until February 22 and pay for the game to find out if we like it? But not have to look at a chart? These are rhetorical questions?
If people want to nitpick and complain that Origin Access Premier members get the game a week early, that’s fine, I suppose, though it doesn’t seem worth getting upset about. But otherwise, this confusing chart is a good thing. It just means there are various ways to try the game without buying it. Every game should do this. Give me bigger charts. Give me more confusing charts. Make me download a spreadsheet to figure out how I can try a game. Just give me more demos.
When it releases later this year, the improbably titled Call of Duty: Black Ops IIII will test a long-held hypothesis: single-player campaigns don’t matter, at least not in games like Call of Duty. It will spawn yet another round of think pieces on the death of single-player games. And, if history is any indication, it will lead a lot of people to draw a lot of wrong-headed conclusions.
For years, this conversation has chugged along, with fork after rhetorical fork being stuck in the single-player campaign. The popularity of online multiplayer games, the growth of social platforms like Twitch that thrive off of these infinitely-replayable anecdote factories, and investors’ insatiable thirst for the games-as-service model’s revenue stream all seem to point to a simple conclusion: nobody plays single-player campaigns, nobody wants them, and developing them is a waste of money.
There’s certainly some truth to this. Obviously, some people are happy to spend all their time in multiplayer and have little-to-no interest in single-player. And when viewed from a spreadsheet, these pay once, play once games aren’t as lucrative as their play forever, pay forever brethren, and are therefore sub-optimal investments of capital. But this type of analysis seems to oversimplify and obfuscate the matter. Continue reading We Don’t Not Want Single-Player Games
Are loot chests gambling?
This is the question that’s been ricocheting around the Internet for months now, ever since EA announced (and then aborted) a rather pernicious microtransaction model for Star Wars Battlefront II. Gaming sites, comments sections, podcasts, and forums abound with think pieces and hot takes on the subject. Legislators have even jumped into the fray, with bills regulating randomized rewards being introduced in Hawaii and the Dutch gambling authority taking aim at the practice.
For as long as there have been microtransactions in games, there have been controversies about said transactions. But recent events – such as loot chests in the single-player Shadow of War and the aforementioned EA debacle – along with the general growth of the practice have brought the issue to the fore. In addition to predictable comments about canceled preorders and lamentations for The Way Games Used To Be, the conversation has centered on the question of whether or not loot chests constitute gambling. Everyone seems to agree that this is the key issue; the only debate is whether we should call them chests, crates, or boxes.
But debating whether or not loot chests are gambling misses the point. Ultimately, answering the question will tell us far more about gambling laws than it will about loot chests. Continue reading It Doesn’t Matter If Loot Chests Are Gambling
Just don’t buy them.
This has been the standard line on microtransactions for years now. Whenever a game announces that it’s employing some microtransaction scheme to nickel and dime its user base for some of that sweet, sweet secondary revenue, and whenever fans upset by such an announcement have worked themselves into a froth, cooler heads have always chimed in with the clearheaded advice that we should simply not buy the micro-priced digital doodads. Problem solved. Play your game, ignore the in-game marketplace, and get on with your day.
In fact, mitigating this reaction and encouraging players to not buy their product seems to be part of publishers’ marketing strategy in these situations. They’re always quick to point out that the digital gewgaws on offer are purely cosmetic and don’t affect gameplay; that buying them is, in other words, entirely unnecessary. And when this isn’t the case, when things like weapons, abilities, and XP boosts are available for purchase, the publisher will adamantly remind us that all of these items can be unlocked through “normal gameplay,” no purchase necessary.
If you don’t want to buy it, don’t buy it, in other words. Vote with your wallet. Stop buying these things and publishers will stop selling them. It all sounds so simple.
Continue reading Activision’s Patent is Our Worst Microtransaction Fears Coming True
When games give me a choice, I tend to behave morally. Sure, I’ll steal some precious currency now and then, and kill the odd NPC who gets on my nerves, but generally I try to be a good guy. I help people, I spare people, I give second chances and the benefit of the doubt. I played through BioShock twice and never harvested a Little Sister.
But Mafia III is different. In Mafia III, I’m killing everyone. Not innocent bystanders, at least not on purpose, but every enemy. Everyone who looks at me sideways. Even when the mission objective is fulfilled and I could just as easily hop back in my car and drive away, I kill everyone. Brutally, if possible. I’ll spend five minutes crisscrossing a shipyard to track down that one errant red dot on my minimap. When a phalanx of cops shows up and compels me to flee before I’ve killed every last enemy, I feel a tinge of regret: I didn’t get to kill everyone. Continue reading The Violent Catharsis of Mafia 3
The Nintendo Switch era is almost upon us. In just a week, the Switch will be released to the masses, or at least those of us lucky enough to have a preorder, and thanks to Nintendo’s January presentation, we finally know what we’ll be getting for our $300. Mostly. So while we wait for the new console’s release, let’s take a look at what we know and what we don’t. We’ll start with the questions we had going into the presentation. We were wondering about…
This one’s easy. It’s $299.99, at least in the U.S. This is a touch higher than I expected, and might be dangerously high from a consumer standpoint. Nintendo is selling their decidedly less powerful system for the same price as an Xbox One or PS4, and unlike those consoles, the Switch doesn’t come with a bundled game. Or a library of cheap used games to pad out the collection. This price point will really test the Switch’s core concept – its console-handheld hybridization – because that’s pretty much the only thing it has going for it when compared to its competitors.
Going into the big Switch reveal in January, I was expecting it to be around $250, but the price was always a double-edged sword: too high and no one will buy it, too low and it might not be very powerful. So when Nintendo announced a $300 price tag, I was briefly optimistic that the system might be more powerful than I anticipated. It would seem, though, that the “extra” $50 is going towards tech in the controllers rather than the GPU, so this optimism was short-lived.
Continue reading The Switch: What We Know, What We Don’t
A few months ago, Nintendo gave us our first look at the Switch – née NX – the company’s latest piece of gaming hardware. The reveal came in the form of a wordless three-and-a-half-minute video, showing people playing the console/handheld hybrid in a variety of improbable locations – basketball court, rooftop party – and with a variety of controller configurations. The video shows off the Switch’s ability to seamlessly transition from home to portable use, offers our first look at the detachable controllers, and confirms that the system will use cartridges, as has previously been rumored. Ostensible gameplay footage offers some hints as to what might be coming down the pike, but otherwise the video is light on specifics. Mostly it just puts a face to the name, confirming the rumors and the actual look of the hybrid console we’ve been imagining (and hilariously drawing) for months now.
When rumors that the NX was going to be a handheld-home console hybrid started swirling, I was unenthused, and a bit skeptical. But after watching the reveal trailer (a bunch of times), I’m sold on the concept. I don’t know what did the trick. Maybe it was the glorious return of asymmetrical analog sticks to a Nintendo controller; maybe it was thought of replaying Skyrim (which I’ll never do, because who has 800 hours to spare?) on a Nintendo platform; or maybe it’s just my heart catching up to the inevitability that I will buy whatever Nintendo puts out. But whatever the reason, I’m excited to get my hands on a Switch. Continue reading Switch Incoming
Gone Home is not a game you can be good or bad at. It’s not a game that will test your twitch reflexes or resource management strategizing or tactical adaptiveness or even really your puzzle-solving abilities. For a small subset of capital-G-gamers, it’s not even a game – not a “real” game, at least. (And if you’ve ever been to a comments section, you’ve met these people.) Gone Home and other games like it have been dubbed “walking simulators,” a term intended as a pejorative by those who think these aren’t “real” games and embraced by those who enjoy them. But the discussion (such as it is) of how to classify Gone Home misses the point of such games, which is ultimately the point of all games: the experience of playing them, whether or not you want to call it “play” or call them “games.”
By now, two-and-a-half years since the game first appeared on PCs, many people are familiar with the essentials of Gone Home: you play as Katie, a 21-year-old just returning home from a year in Europe to the unfamiliar house her family moved to in her absence, only to discover that, though it’s the middle of the night, everyone – Mom, Dad, and sister Sam – is gone. To figure out what has happened, you wander through the house, picking up objects and reading documents, trying to piece together a year’s worth of family drama. And that’s it.
To some, the “that’s it” is a criticism: what the game is missing is the need to defend yourself from hordes of attacking werewolves using the increasingly sophisticated arsenal of weapons you find around the house, an adventure for which the family drama is context and backdrop. To others, the “that’s it” is grand praise, as in: that’s all developer Fullbright needed to make an engrossing game. I find myself squarely in the latter camp.
Continue reading Backlog Adventures: Gone Home
Recently, EA announced some of the first specific information about what’s planned for the Star Wars Battlefront DLC campaign. After a few free updates (including two new maps), the first paid expansion will roll out in March, with maps in Tatooine and Sullust, followed by three more expansions over the course of the year that will take the action to Cloud City, the Death Star, and other, as-yet-unknown locations. There’s not much information, but it’s enough to get excited for. And, more importantly, it’s enough to speculate about, which is where the real fun is. So let’s head over to Speculation Corner and see what ideas we can stir up.
We’ve known since the game’s launch that the season pass would give us sixteen maps, four heroes, four new game modes, and “over twenty” weapons, vehicles, and star cards spread over its four expansions. The easiest bit of speculation is to assume that this content stuff will be distributed evenly among the expansions: four maps, one hero, and one mode in each pack, plus, say, one vehicle, two guns, and two or three star cards. Because there’s so much variation in how many maps support each game mode, I could see a scenario where one expansion has three maps and another has five, but for simplicity’s sake let’s assume this isn’t the case. With these safe assumptions and the few clues we have, we can imagine some plausible scenarios for what exactly this DLC is going to look like.
Continue reading Speculation Corner: Star Wars Battlefront DLC
Star Wars Battlefront is not the best first-person shooter out there. Let’s get that out of the way right up front. It’s a relatively stripped-down game that doesn’t do enough to make up for its shortcomings. From a purely mechanical standpoint, any number of other shooters on the market will provide a more satisfying experience. Battlefront’s biggest asset, and one major advantage over other shooters, is its ability to transport you to the Star Wars universe.
And I cannot be objective about anything set in the Star Wars universe. We should get that out of the way up front, too. The Star Wars movies are so ingrained in my psyche, so elemental to my artistic sensibilities, that any book, movie, game, TV show, interpretive dance, etc., set in that universe gets a handful of bonus points and get-out-of-jail-free cards. Just being in the Star Wars universe for a while is an experience I enjoy, regardless of the quality of the work that’s brought me there. I saw The Phantom Menace six times in theaters, for example. So my opinion of Battlefront won’t necessarily be objective, inasmuch as such a thing could actually exist. But mine will be the opinion of a pretty passionate Star Wars fan.
The first thing you notice about Star Wars Battlefront is how beautiful it is. Heading into the third year of this new console generation, with developers starting to leave the last generation of hardware behind, we’re getting used to seeing breathtaking graphics in new releases, but Battlefront seems to vastly exceed our still-nascent expectations of what a current (née “next”) generation game should look like. Not only is the game as close to photorealistic as anything we’ve ever seen on a console, but it captures the specific look of the original films. It doesn’t feel like real life; it feels like a movie. This effect is somewhat owing to the photogrammetry process developer DICE used to capture original props from the movies. Those Stormtroopers look just like their cinematic counterparts because they essentially are wearing the exact same costumes.
This attention to detail extends beyond the graphics to the sound design, animations, music, and visual effects. Ewoks scatter when you run through the Endor treetops; Tusken Raiders shout from atop Tatooine ridges; Stormtroopers are animated to move not like hyper-athletic videogame characters, but actors wearing plastic costumes; the Wilhelm Scream is everywhere. Every effort has been made to create as authentic and immersive a Star Wars experience as possible. And those efforts have largely succeeded. It is still a videogame, of course. You will still get shot in the head by a Stormtrooper named something like DeezNutz69xxx69, which kind of breaks the illusion a bit, and you will eventually settle into a familiar headspace of worrying about spawn points, power-ups, K/D ratios, and everything else that comes with playing an online shooter. But it will also feel more like Star Wars than just about any game you’ve ever played. Continue reading Star Wars Battlefront Review