Multi-player gaming is a highly diverse activity in terms of the age, economic class, and ability. But most of this diversity is hidden from sight; at best, the tone of a person's voice, or the pattern of their language, may give an indication of the player's background; but this is only applicable in games with voice-chat enabled, and is not particularly accurate. In-game, players are often represented by clones of various 3D-models, or don't have any visual representation at all (as is the case of RTS games). This makes easy to forget that the soldier to the left of you could be a twelve year old boy on his parents computer, while the medic to the right is a forty-year old with two kids, a divorce, and a six-figure yearly income.
But it isn't economic differences or maturity differences that I'm interested in in this article. Its the differences in the time these players have to devote to a game. It is a fair assumption that the tween or teen who has no responsibilities will have more time to devote to gaming then even a college graduate with a low-paying job and a girl/boyfriend. It is also likely, though not absolutely true, that the college graduate with a low-paying job and girl/boyfriend will have less desire to spend time playing the game. This does not mean they enjoy it less, it just means that, to college-grad, there are other options open, possibility that take time to explore. Long-term relationships, concerts, road trips, artistic hobbies, over-time at work – all of these take time that otherwise might be left open for a game.
Becoming skilled at a game is like becoming skilled at most anything else. If you want to become good, you have to practice, and the more you practice, the more skilled you become. Obviously, practice takes time. All practice may not be created equal, but generally speaking, spending eighty hours on an activity will make you more skilled at it then the person who spent twenty hours. This implies an inherit disadvantage, and thus the problem of time in multi-player games. Those who spend more time playing a game will become better than those who spend less time.
Games are almost exclusively a goal-oriented form of entertainment. If you didn't lose a game of Tetris when the screen filled with blocks, what would be the point? The game would be nothing but a simulation of block-twirling, or in other words, boring. The objective is tied to enjoyment. It is the reason behind the game. Completion of the objective may not be necessary for the player to find the game enjoyable. A hard-fought loss can be a great deal of fun, but only because it was fought for a reasonable objective that could have been won.
But if one group of players has spent so much time 'training' for the game that the other side has no chance of victory, then the objective no longer seems concrete. It becomes a carrot on a stick, ostensibly providing reward; but most people will not follow a carrot if they see they never have a chance of acquiring it. The status of the objective as objective becomes lost, perhaps seen as a lie, perhaps seen as purposeless and arbitrary, no more meaningful then spinning blocks. And once the status of the objective is lost, and it becomes not something to strive for but something that is impossible to reach, the game loses a great deal of its fun. Some players may lose hope, while others may 'rebel' against the game by suiciding their characters or trying to exploit the game's rules. But eventually, most players will quit.
The problem of time is one that is crucial to the success of many games. Franchises are becoming more and more powerful. Once upon a time, a game was a one-off commercial venture. If the game was successful, it sold well and perhaps several years later a sequel is introduced. But now game companies are looking for steady flows of income; not just MMORPGs, which obviously have an interest in keeping their players, but also other genres. Take Dawn of War, for example; the constant introduction of expansion packs had provided a steady flow of revenue for a game now several years old, and its success as provided a model for others to follow. Or consider the many instances of episodic content, the most popular of which are probably the Half Life II Episodes or the Sam and Max series.
The goal of the franchise, with its expansions or episodes, is to keep the player hooked for as long as possible. Game companies need to keep the players interested enough in game that they continue playing over the course of many years. The problem of time is a critical obstacle to overcome for any company that wishes to accomplish this goal, because the problem of time becomes larger over time. The core group of hardcore players, who have played the game constantly since release, have a massive edge over new-comers and casual players. Not only do they become more skilled, as discussed above, but they also form more social connections. And both of these – the skills, and the connections – become more powerful over time. The hardcore players eventually become so entrenched that the more casual players feel constantly inferior, dissuading those players from paying for new expansions or another month of online play. Why bother, after all, if there is no hope of catching up to the more active players? Why not just wait for a brand-new game, where the casual player can at least hope to find a relatively level field for a few months?
Game companies have not been silent on the issue. The most notable response has been the match-making system debuted in Halo 2 and refined in Halo 3. This system automatically ranks players according to various statistics and then pits them against other players with similar skills. This provides players with a more level playing field. This response, however, has so far been surprisingly isolated. Few other on-line games have taken so drastic of an approach, but it is needed. Perhaps the biggest problem is simply convincing developers and players that these new ranked systems are better than more traditional, open-ended matchmaking systems.
Up until the last couple years, with the introduction of Xbox Live, the online landscape was ruled by the PC. If you wanted to play online, you played the PC, and that was it. The PC, with its keyboard and mouse interface, naturally lent itself to fairly complex and open ended matchmaking systems. Most interfaces allowed players to search games by their name, the game type, the number of players, and etc. Or, players could simply select the server with which they had the best connection, as represented by the definitive gage known as 'ping'. For some, the idea of a match-making system that lumps you with other players based on skill is a step backward. This is particularly true because even in the case of Halo 3, there is no way to search for servers based on map or specific game type. You get what you get.
But the ideas are not incompatible. If the Halo 3 system was adjusted to allow the creation of 'games' by the player, as in Gears of War, then the headache of playing a map or game type you hate like could be easily avoided.
Ultimately, the problem of time with necessitate these solutions. The lifespans of games are becoming longer, and at some points companies will have to deal with the fact that even the best game cannot last forever if the community which plays it falls into elitism. Conquering the problem of time is the first step in the engineering of game communities by the companies making the games, and it is one that ultimately will leave us better off, the fear of 'big-brother' corporate dictatorships aside.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Sins of a Solar Empire review
Have you ever wondered what would happen if you combined RTS, 4x, and Supreme-Commander style scalability into one game?
Yea, neither have I. Not because the idea isn't interesting, but because it is kind of unfathomable. Like the old Battlezone games that combined fast-paced tank combat with RTS gameplay, Sins of a Solar Empire answers a question that isn't often asked; at least not seriously. While RTS games are often about fast-based tactical combat, 4x strategy games tend to be slower, more deliberate, and focused on the big picture. Splicing the two together seems like splicing a rabbit and a turtle. You don't expect much to result but a mildly amusing, and mostly grotesque, freak.
Ah, but have no fear - Sins of a Solar Empire is far from an abomination against nature. Strange? Yes, perhaps. Its doubtful you've ever played anything quite like this before, and so the learning curve can be on the steep side. The extremely basic and short tutorials don't help the matter. And perhaps even more alarming to the new player is the lack of any sort of campaign mode. In strategy games, campaigns tend to serve as a means of easing players into the gameplay. Missions typically start easy and slowly become harder, giving players access to new units and strategies as they become more familiar with the game.
Not in Sins. Sins throws you out there, sink or swim.
But the game is not entirely unforgiving. The interface is wonderfully easy to understand since the friday patch put in 'weak/strong against' and 'Requires Research of X' descriptions on units and structures. Your resources are listed clearly on at the top of the screen, and putting your mouse over them will bring up a tool-tip breaking down where your income is coming from. Queing ins unlimited and easy - just shift-click. There is also a side-bar available that is categorized by planet, and allows you to quickly view, in icon form, all the structures and ships around the world. It can become a little unwieldy once your empire becomes massive, but in most sitautions it adds an extra level of control - selecting unit in battle in the heat of battle, for example, is much easier.
The game's most impressive feature, however, is the highly scalable engine, which allows players to zoom in on a single squad of fights, or zoom out to view several stars and their surrounding planets. This, along with a relatively slow pace, is what allows the game to effectively combine the macro 4x game and the micro RTS game. One second you can be viewing the star system, planning your next colony - the next you can be commanding individual ships in real-time combat. Its hard to fully appreciate this feature until you actually see it in action, but if you've played Supreme Commander, then you have an idea of what you're in for.
The game's 4x elements are fairly in-depth, and focused primarily on the question of how to allocate relatively limited resources - not the credits, metal, and crystal you use to build ships and structures, but the limited space that is available around planets. Each planet you colonize has 'logistics' and 'tatical' slots, that allow for the placement of improvements and defenses respectively. Deciding what to build where is one of the primary social decisions you'll make. Developments of the planets themselves is less involved, as the improvements are fairly basic, and most of them either effect what you can build in or the survivability of your planet. You'll also have to decide where to place your fleets, because the lanes along which your ships can travel from planet to planet are limited, and even frigates can take five minutes to get from one side of a small 6-planet empire to another.
The research tree is the most impressive 4x feature. Ironclad did not slack here, and provides comprehensive research options that are easily superior to what can be found in the fantastic 4x game Galactic Civilizations II. Each of the games three sides has their own tree tech tree which, while sometimes similar, are also sometimes very different - for example, while everyone receives the same basic structures and similar units, different upgrades can be researched, and these differences are often important. The Advent, who have cultural bonuses, can research and acquire cultural structures easily, and have can research cultural bonuses that allow their culture to spread more quickly and give ships within their cultural influence a slight bonus in damage mitigation. The TEC, on the other hand, can quickly and easily acquire trade structures. These differences have a substantial impact on
both short and long-term strategies.
Once in combat, you'll find that the spice of the game's pew-pew is mostly in the mixture of your fleet in Capital ships, massive, expensive vessel that gain exp and effectively operate like the 'hero' units that have been in many RTS games. Although every side in the game has the same fundamental units, the devil is in the details; the Capital ships for each side have different abilities, and the the more common vessels have their own variations in cost, strength, and shielding vs. hull strength. The reviews comparing combat to Homeworld are full of shit. Those expecting tactical combat based off considerations like turret location and weapons layout will be disappointed - all you need to know about the 'tactics' of combat in Sins is that while it has a Z axis, it isn't mapped for use by default.
Which doesn't mean that any idiot can win a fight. Units have different ranges, armors, weapons, and special abilities. The Capital ship abilities are very powerful, and proper use can mean the difference between defeat and victory. But players who were planning to put their bombers into a claw formation and swoop down on enemy capital ships, a 'la the Homeworld series, will be disappointed.
Also disappointed will be players looking for a quick fix. The pace of Sins of a Solar Empire is ponderous at best. This game lumbers towards its conclusion like a giant - colonization, combat, and research all take much, much longer than in a RTS game, though perhaps not as long as a turn-based 4x game. I don't mind this at all, jumping into Sin after playing Dawn of War would be like jumping into a cold pool after bathing in a hot tub. The pace is perhaps to ponderous at time, as there are occasions in the early game when you more or less have to wait for resources to come in before you can proceed.
But for those who find Company of Heroes, Dawn of War, and similar RTS games to quick for their tastes, Sins of a Solar Empire is sure to hit a sweet spot. It is the kind of game that will make you sit down and think long and hard about your next action, because very movement is critical on a strategic scale. Sins is also sure to be a hit for people who have typically played 4x games, but have become feed up with the combat system such games employee, which tend to be extremely simplified.
RATING: 4 1/2 Stars
The Good:
Epic gameplay
Top-notch interface
Combination of 4x and RTS genres
Great 'Starcraft-style' tactical combat
The Bad:
Pace can be to slow
Steep learning curve
Yea, neither have I. Not because the idea isn't interesting, but because it is kind of unfathomable. Like the old Battlezone games that combined fast-paced tank combat with RTS gameplay, Sins of a Solar Empire answers a question that isn't often asked; at least not seriously. While RTS games are often about fast-based tactical combat, 4x strategy games tend to be slower, more deliberate, and focused on the big picture. Splicing the two together seems like splicing a rabbit and a turtle. You don't expect much to result but a mildly amusing, and mostly grotesque, freak.
Ah, but have no fear - Sins of a Solar Empire is far from an abomination against nature. Strange? Yes, perhaps. Its doubtful you've ever played anything quite like this before, and so the learning curve can be on the steep side. The extremely basic and short tutorials don't help the matter. And perhaps even more alarming to the new player is the lack of any sort of campaign mode. In strategy games, campaigns tend to serve as a means of easing players into the gameplay. Missions typically start easy and slowly become harder, giving players access to new units and strategies as they become more familiar with the game.
Not in Sins. Sins throws you out there, sink or swim.
But the game is not entirely unforgiving. The interface is wonderfully easy to understand since the friday patch put in 'weak/strong against' and 'Requires Research of X' descriptions on units and structures. Your resources are listed clearly on at the top of the screen, and putting your mouse over them will bring up a tool-tip breaking down where your income is coming from. Queing ins unlimited and easy - just shift-click. There is also a side-bar available that is categorized by planet, and allows you to quickly view, in icon form, all the structures and ships around the world. It can become a little unwieldy once your empire becomes massive, but in most sitautions it adds an extra level of control - selecting unit in battle in the heat of battle, for example, is much easier.
The game's most impressive feature, however, is the highly scalable engine, which allows players to zoom in on a single squad of fights, or zoom out to view several stars and their surrounding planets. This, along with a relatively slow pace, is what allows the game to effectively combine the macro 4x game and the micro RTS game. One second you can be viewing the star system, planning your next colony - the next you can be commanding individual ships in real-time combat. Its hard to fully appreciate this feature until you actually see it in action, but if you've played Supreme Commander, then you have an idea of what you're in for.
The game's 4x elements are fairly in-depth, and focused primarily on the question of how to allocate relatively limited resources - not the credits, metal, and crystal you use to build ships and structures, but the limited space that is available around planets. Each planet you colonize has 'logistics' and 'tatical' slots, that allow for the placement of improvements and defenses respectively. Deciding what to build where is one of the primary social decisions you'll make. Developments of the planets themselves is less involved, as the improvements are fairly basic, and most of them either effect what you can build in or the survivability of your planet. You'll also have to decide where to place your fleets, because the lanes along which your ships can travel from planet to planet are limited, and even frigates can take five minutes to get from one side of a small 6-planet empire to another.
The research tree is the most impressive 4x feature. Ironclad did not slack here, and provides comprehensive research options that are easily superior to what can be found in the fantastic 4x game Galactic Civilizations II. Each of the games three sides has their own tree tech tree which, while sometimes similar, are also sometimes very different - for example, while everyone receives the same basic structures and similar units, different upgrades can be researched, and these differences are often important. The Advent, who have cultural bonuses, can research and acquire cultural structures easily, and have can research cultural bonuses that allow their culture to spread more quickly and give ships within their cultural influence a slight bonus in damage mitigation. The TEC, on the other hand, can quickly and easily acquire trade structures. These differences have a substantial impact on
both short and long-term strategies.
Once in combat, you'll find that the spice of the game's pew-pew is mostly in the mixture of your fleet in Capital ships, massive, expensive vessel that gain exp and effectively operate like the 'hero' units that have been in many RTS games. Although every side in the game has the same fundamental units, the devil is in the details; the Capital ships for each side have different abilities, and the the more common vessels have their own variations in cost, strength, and shielding vs. hull strength. The reviews comparing combat to Homeworld are full of shit. Those expecting tactical combat based off considerations like turret location and weapons layout will be disappointed - all you need to know about the 'tactics' of combat in Sins is that while it has a Z axis, it isn't mapped for use by default.
Which doesn't mean that any idiot can win a fight. Units have different ranges, armors, weapons, and special abilities. The Capital ship abilities are very powerful, and proper use can mean the difference between defeat and victory. But players who were planning to put their bombers into a claw formation and swoop down on enemy capital ships, a 'la the Homeworld series, will be disappointed.
Also disappointed will be players looking for a quick fix. The pace of Sins of a Solar Empire is ponderous at best. This game lumbers towards its conclusion like a giant - colonization, combat, and research all take much, much longer than in a RTS game, though perhaps not as long as a turn-based 4x game. I don't mind this at all, jumping into Sin after playing Dawn of War would be like jumping into a cold pool after bathing in a hot tub. The pace is perhaps to ponderous at time, as there are occasions in the early game when you more or less have to wait for resources to come in before you can proceed.
But for those who find Company of Heroes, Dawn of War, and similar RTS games to quick for their tastes, Sins of a Solar Empire is sure to hit a sweet spot. It is the kind of game that will make you sit down and think long and hard about your next action, because very movement is critical on a strategic scale. Sins is also sure to be a hit for people who have typically played 4x games, but have become feed up with the combat system such games employee, which tend to be extremely simplified.
RATING: 4 1/2 Stars
The Good:
Epic gameplay
Top-notch interface
Combination of 4x and RTS genres
Great 'Starcraft-style' tactical combat
The Bad:
Pace can be to slow
Steep learning curve
Saturday, February 9, 2008
The Transformation of PC Gaming
PC Gaming is dead.
It is a phrase as old as it is meaningless, and one that has been trotted out time and time again to be beat into a bloody pulp, re-stuffed, and re-cycled.
I have played PC games since I was about twelve years old. My first PC was a 200mhz Sony Viao with God-only-knows what video cards – it cost about three thousand dollars and was absolutely top of the line for the time. One of the first PC games I remember playing was Mechwarrior 2, and I for a time I was intensely into Interstate ‘76, which I played under the moniker Funkyspeed. I haven’t been playing PC games since their invention – I’m not quite old enough to have cut my teeth on DOS games – but I have been playing them for longer than most – about ten years, which is nearly half the time I’ve been alive (I am twenty-three right now).
During all that time, this phrase has been in existence. And before that, too – people were saying it when the SNES came out. Yet it has never come true.
But that does not mean that it could not come true. An aura of pessimism has come over PC gaming recently, and it has refused to lift. Instead, it has only become more potent. PC Gaming Sales for 2007 were down over the year before, continuing a slide (relative to consoles) that began to 2004. Meanwhile, Console gaming sales have soared. This is bad enough, but is made worse – for the ‘hardcore’ PC gamer – when you see exactly where those PC game sales were located. By far the highest seller was Blizzard’s World of Warcraft expansion, the Buring Crusade, which sold 2 and a quarter million. Behind that was World of Warcraft’s base software, which almost broke a million. Five of the top-ten spots are occupied by ‘Sims’ titles.
But the real punch in the teeth are the sales figures of Command and Conquer 3 and Call of Duty 4, both of which sold in the mid-300,000 range. By comparison, the console version of Call of Duty 4 sold over three million copies for console, and Command and Conquer 3’s Xbox debut appears to have sold slightly more than its PC variant.
Those are staggering figures. Equally staggering is the insane debut of Halo, which sold more copies than all but The Burning Crusade in [i] the first day of its release [/i].
This is not to say that PC games are unprofitable as a rule, but then, that hardly matters. It is clear that with those sort of sales figures, the days of PC-exclusive big-budget titles are probably over, at least temporarily. Games are a business, after all, and big companies with the big budgets need to pull off Halo 3, Call of Duty 4, or Mass Effect have stock-holders that expect returns. No, not just returns - they expect the most profit that is possible from their investment. It is clear that consoles are now the most profitable platforms to develop for, and they also take care of nagging issues like piracy.
How this came to pass is obvious enough. PC gaming has always been an industry where software companies lead the pack. The hardware has typically been built to catch up with the requirements of the software, as has been shown by top-of-the-line titles like Morrowwind and Crysis, which at the time of their debut could not be comfortably run on anything but the most expensive equipment available. This is in contrast to the console industry, where hardware has always dictated what games are capable of.
As a result, the console industry has been capable of a coordination that the PC gaming industry has never been able to compete with. The Xbox 360 only came out with the powerful hardware that it did because Microsoft was willing to eat a loss on every single console they sold. Obviously, the software developers for the PC cannot subsidize the hardware in this fashion. PC gamers have to pay full cost for what they purchase.
When faced with the choice of laying down 250 dollars for a decent 8800 GT, or laying down 250 dollars for a Wii, the decision is obvious. But the situation is worse than that, because most people do not feel comfortable installing their own video card, even if the process is relatively simple – therefor, the choice is not between a 250 dollar video card or a 250-500 dollar console, but rather between a 1,200 dollar + gaming PC or a 250-500 dollar console. Even assuming that the consumer does not already own a PC capable of common tasks like word processing or web surfing, the Gaming PC is still a poor choice, since a desktop capable of these basic tasks can easily be purchased for 400 dollars.
It is clear, then, that the PC is no longer the platform of choice for those seeking to play big-budget, graphically intense titles, and that it probably will not be the platform of choice for at least several more years. But does that mean PC gaming is dead?
Not exactly. The calls of “PC Gaming is dead” have always focused on ‘serious’ games – which, as I’ve already implied, are usually big-budget and graphically intense titles. The Sims is doing very well for itself. So is World of Warcraft. But the fact that these games are selling so well is seen as a sort of negative, because these are not the sort of games that serious main-stream game-players play (MMO players are serious, but serious MMO players are not ‘main-stream’ in that they tend to ONLY play their MMO of choice). The Sims is what your mother plays. It isn’t hip. It isn’t cool. Its for an entirely different demographic.
That is part the transformation.
Classically, PC gaming has been almost feudalistic, with players pledging allegiance to certain games, operating systems, and video card manufactures. The barrier of entry had always been very high, because playing games required a new player to first buy the appropriate hardware, then install the game, then download any patches (and figure out how the change the gameplay), then work out possible bugs, and then figure out if they want to play the regular version or hook on some mods. The lack of flexibility that many PC gamers consider to be the weakness of Consoles is in fact the Console’s greatest strength. Consoles are simple. They’re easy. You buy it, you put in the game, and you’re good-to-go. If there are patches, they’re added and and installed automatically. Game-crashing bugs and hardware conflicts are nearly non-existent. Everyone has the same game and the same maps.
Blizzard has known that making a game difficult to play is a very bad thing, and its why they’re consistently so successful. Their games, while not exactly low-budget, are made to be run on hardware several years old, and are relatively free of game-ending bugs. Blizzard's games are easy to learn, yet have complexity that more serious players can appreciate. Their patchers don’t require much thought and those games that allow customization (I’m thinking Starcraft custom maps) are structured in such a way that customizations can be shared quickly and easily. They do not promote elitism; Blizzard wants EVERYONE to play.
Blizzard used to be unique in that approach. But I doubt they’ll be alone much longer. The Sims have been successful because it copied the gameplay part of that approach – its a very easy game to get into, and can run on older systems without problem. Valve has been trying a different approach by using Steam, which has been built in such a way that modding and add-ons by players are still common, but are controlled and distributed in one easy format (no more README.txt).
So part of the transformation is a popular one, in which the 9-to-5er with three kids can now sit down and play a PC game without feeling like they’re wasting time.
But that isn’t the only element; the transformation is also an underground one. Beyond the realm of the slick, easy-to-learn main-stream games like Starcraft, World of Warcraft, and The Sims, there are countless underground relics. Many of these are not particularly successful, but some are: take Stardock, for example, which earned fame for creating the Galactic Civilizations series. Jump into their latest version, entitled Galactic Civilizations 2: Dark Avatar, and its clear that there was a budget to be met. The graphics won’t knock your socks off, the interface is useful but particularly pretty, and the sounds are strictly budget-bin. But the gameplay kicks ass. And its very, very complex.
Galactic Civilizations 2 was created on a budget of just over one million dollars, in only 18 months. No one knows exactly how many units it has sold so far, but we do know that Stardock was proudly able to cite as being on the top-seller lists at Walmart and Amazon for several weeks after its release, and that Stardock developers commented several times that sales had well exceed expectations (I would expect so – the only firm figure I could find was 50,000 in the first two weeks, which means it sold better during its debut than the latest Unreal game).
Stardock also offers its own digital download program, where players can download various games, including the newely released Sins of a Solar Empire, which was developed by Ironclad Games and published by Stardock. Another low-budget title (though this one took quite a bit of time to put togather), Sins of a Solar Empire is currently listed as the third-highest PC game for sales. That puts it above Crysis, Bioshock, and The Orange Box.
So no, PC Gaming isn’t dead. But it is transforming. It is transforming because it the PC gaming industry has to deal with the basic fact that it is not economical to build a PC gaming machine. PC gaming of the next few years will have to forget about the strength of the hardware and instead play up the PC’s other strength – the fact that millions and millions of households have one, just waiting to be loaded up with some fun software.
PC Gaming is no longer the platform of choice for Call of Duty 5 or Unreal Tournament 2009 – but it is also becoming easier for games with mass appeal, and games with low-budget, brilliant gameplay, to take the spotlight. Thats not a bad trade. The only death to be found here is the death of the PC gaming elitist – the kind of player who likes the fact most people cannot or will not spend as much money on a gaming PC, who enjoys restricting gameplay to only a select group, and who believes games are only truly complete with their mod of choice.
And to that player, I say, farewell.
It is a phrase as old as it is meaningless, and one that has been trotted out time and time again to be beat into a bloody pulp, re-stuffed, and re-cycled.
I have played PC games since I was about twelve years old. My first PC was a 200mhz Sony Viao with God-only-knows what video cards – it cost about three thousand dollars and was absolutely top of the line for the time. One of the first PC games I remember playing was Mechwarrior 2, and I for a time I was intensely into Interstate ‘76, which I played under the moniker Funkyspeed. I haven’t been playing PC games since their invention – I’m not quite old enough to have cut my teeth on DOS games – but I have been playing them for longer than most – about ten years, which is nearly half the time I’ve been alive (I am twenty-three right now).
During all that time, this phrase has been in existence. And before that, too – people were saying it when the SNES came out. Yet it has never come true.
But that does not mean that it could not come true. An aura of pessimism has come over PC gaming recently, and it has refused to lift. Instead, it has only become more potent. PC Gaming Sales for 2007 were down over the year before, continuing a slide (relative to consoles) that began to 2004. Meanwhile, Console gaming sales have soared. This is bad enough, but is made worse – for the ‘hardcore’ PC gamer – when you see exactly where those PC game sales were located. By far the highest seller was Blizzard’s World of Warcraft expansion, the Buring Crusade, which sold 2 and a quarter million. Behind that was World of Warcraft’s base software, which almost broke a million. Five of the top-ten spots are occupied by ‘Sims’ titles.
But the real punch in the teeth are the sales figures of Command and Conquer 3 and Call of Duty 4, both of which sold in the mid-300,000 range. By comparison, the console version of Call of Duty 4 sold over three million copies for console, and Command and Conquer 3’s Xbox debut appears to have sold slightly more than its PC variant.
Those are staggering figures. Equally staggering is the insane debut of Halo, which sold more copies than all but The Burning Crusade in [i] the first day of its release [/i].
This is not to say that PC games are unprofitable as a rule, but then, that hardly matters. It is clear that with those sort of sales figures, the days of PC-exclusive big-budget titles are probably over, at least temporarily. Games are a business, after all, and big companies with the big budgets need to pull off Halo 3, Call of Duty 4, or Mass Effect have stock-holders that expect returns. No, not just returns - they expect the most profit that is possible from their investment. It is clear that consoles are now the most profitable platforms to develop for, and they also take care of nagging issues like piracy.
How this came to pass is obvious enough. PC gaming has always been an industry where software companies lead the pack. The hardware has typically been built to catch up with the requirements of the software, as has been shown by top-of-the-line titles like Morrowwind and Crysis, which at the time of their debut could not be comfortably run on anything but the most expensive equipment available. This is in contrast to the console industry, where hardware has always dictated what games are capable of.
As a result, the console industry has been capable of a coordination that the PC gaming industry has never been able to compete with. The Xbox 360 only came out with the powerful hardware that it did because Microsoft was willing to eat a loss on every single console they sold. Obviously, the software developers for the PC cannot subsidize the hardware in this fashion. PC gamers have to pay full cost for what they purchase.
When faced with the choice of laying down 250 dollars for a decent 8800 GT, or laying down 250 dollars for a Wii, the decision is obvious. But the situation is worse than that, because most people do not feel comfortable installing their own video card, even if the process is relatively simple – therefor, the choice is not between a 250 dollar video card or a 250-500 dollar console, but rather between a 1,200 dollar + gaming PC or a 250-500 dollar console. Even assuming that the consumer does not already own a PC capable of common tasks like word processing or web surfing, the Gaming PC is still a poor choice, since a desktop capable of these basic tasks can easily be purchased for 400 dollars.
It is clear, then, that the PC is no longer the platform of choice for those seeking to play big-budget, graphically intense titles, and that it probably will not be the platform of choice for at least several more years. But does that mean PC gaming is dead?
Not exactly. The calls of “PC Gaming is dead” have always focused on ‘serious’ games – which, as I’ve already implied, are usually big-budget and graphically intense titles. The Sims is doing very well for itself. So is World of Warcraft. But the fact that these games are selling so well is seen as a sort of negative, because these are not the sort of games that serious main-stream game-players play (MMO players are serious, but serious MMO players are not ‘main-stream’ in that they tend to ONLY play their MMO of choice). The Sims is what your mother plays. It isn’t hip. It isn’t cool. Its for an entirely different demographic.
That is part the transformation.
Classically, PC gaming has been almost feudalistic, with players pledging allegiance to certain games, operating systems, and video card manufactures. The barrier of entry had always been very high, because playing games required a new player to first buy the appropriate hardware, then install the game, then download any patches (and figure out how the change the gameplay), then work out possible bugs, and then figure out if they want to play the regular version or hook on some mods. The lack of flexibility that many PC gamers consider to be the weakness of Consoles is in fact the Console’s greatest strength. Consoles are simple. They’re easy. You buy it, you put in the game, and you’re good-to-go. If there are patches, they’re added and and installed automatically. Game-crashing bugs and hardware conflicts are nearly non-existent. Everyone has the same game and the same maps.
Blizzard has known that making a game difficult to play is a very bad thing, and its why they’re consistently so successful. Their games, while not exactly low-budget, are made to be run on hardware several years old, and are relatively free of game-ending bugs. Blizzard's games are easy to learn, yet have complexity that more serious players can appreciate. Their patchers don’t require much thought and those games that allow customization (I’m thinking Starcraft custom maps) are structured in such a way that customizations can be shared quickly and easily. They do not promote elitism; Blizzard wants EVERYONE to play.
Blizzard used to be unique in that approach. But I doubt they’ll be alone much longer. The Sims have been successful because it copied the gameplay part of that approach – its a very easy game to get into, and can run on older systems without problem. Valve has been trying a different approach by using Steam, which has been built in such a way that modding and add-ons by players are still common, but are controlled and distributed in one easy format (no more README.txt).
So part of the transformation is a popular one, in which the 9-to-5er with three kids can now sit down and play a PC game without feeling like they’re wasting time.
But that isn’t the only element; the transformation is also an underground one. Beyond the realm of the slick, easy-to-learn main-stream games like Starcraft, World of Warcraft, and The Sims, there are countless underground relics. Many of these are not particularly successful, but some are: take Stardock, for example, which earned fame for creating the Galactic Civilizations series. Jump into their latest version, entitled Galactic Civilizations 2: Dark Avatar, and its clear that there was a budget to be met. The graphics won’t knock your socks off, the interface is useful but particularly pretty, and the sounds are strictly budget-bin. But the gameplay kicks ass. And its very, very complex.
Galactic Civilizations 2 was created on a budget of just over one million dollars, in only 18 months. No one knows exactly how many units it has sold so far, but we do know that Stardock was proudly able to cite as being on the top-seller lists at Walmart and Amazon for several weeks after its release, and that Stardock developers commented several times that sales had well exceed expectations (I would expect so – the only firm figure I could find was 50,000 in the first two weeks, which means it sold better during its debut than the latest Unreal game).
Stardock also offers its own digital download program, where players can download various games, including the newely released Sins of a Solar Empire, which was developed by Ironclad Games and published by Stardock. Another low-budget title (though this one took quite a bit of time to put togather), Sins of a Solar Empire is currently listed as the third-highest PC game for sales. That puts it above Crysis, Bioshock, and The Orange Box.
So no, PC Gaming isn’t dead. But it is transforming. It is transforming because it the PC gaming industry has to deal with the basic fact that it is not economical to build a PC gaming machine. PC gaming of the next few years will have to forget about the strength of the hardware and instead play up the PC’s other strength – the fact that millions and millions of households have one, just waiting to be loaded up with some fun software.
PC Gaming is no longer the platform of choice for Call of Duty 5 or Unreal Tournament 2009 – but it is also becoming easier for games with mass appeal, and games with low-budget, brilliant gameplay, to take the spotlight. Thats not a bad trade. The only death to be found here is the death of the PC gaming elitist – the kind of player who likes the fact most people cannot or will not spend as much money on a gaming PC, who enjoys restricting gameplay to only a select group, and who believes games are only truly complete with their mod of choice.
And to that player, I say, farewell.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Sin of a Solar Empire first impressions
Playing this game for the first time is like learning how to drive a stick by participating in a rally race across Asia.
This game also has one of the best titles I've ever seen.
And it is a hell of a lot of fun.
I'll post a review in a week.
This game also has one of the best titles I've ever seen.
And it is a hell of a lot of fun.
I'll post a review in a week.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Is Grinding the Nicotine of World of Warcraft?
You've reached level 70. You've killed thousands of
monsters. You have a well-designed and balance
character that follows a well-regarded build and makes
a few personal tweaks. So now what do you do?
You 'grind'.
Level 70 may be the end of your character's
development, skill-wise, but the sense of satisfaction
you receive upon reaching that vaunted level quickly
vanishes as you realize that the vast majority of
people playing World of Warcraft are, in fact, level 70
(go to wowcensus.com, and you'll find that the number
of level 70 players on most servers is more than the
number of players at all other levels combined). In
truth, level 70 is when the game really begins, and you
gain access to the most engaging and challenging
content.
Level 70 is when grinding really begins, because gear
matters, bigtime - WoW is a materialists dream, because
in WoW you are only as good as the things you
own. Skill matters, sure, but the fact is that if a
level 70 in high-tier PvP gear meets a level 70 fresh
off the boat, the newer player will absolutely get
rolled. In addition, a level 70 fresh off the boat will
be far inferior to a well-geared player in a raid
You grind because the reward is a better and better
character capable of doing more things in the game
world. But grinding takes a long time. Many hours can
be spent just to have the chance for a rare drop, which
may not occur, forcing you to play all over again.
Normally, you'd quit, because it’s frustrating - but
this is WoW. This isn't like getting to the boss in
Gears of War, getting slaughtered ten times, and saying
'Oh, fuck it!' You've spent hundreds of hours playing
the game and sunk in not only the purchase price of the
game but also five months at 14.95 per. You also are
part of a guild and you probably are friends with
several members.
But more importantly, you grind because in life you're
probably a person between the ages of 14 and 34 who is
single or in an unhappy relationship and who works a
mundane nine-to-five job that seems to draw all sense
of passion from your soul. Or perhaps not, exactly -
but in any case, you grind because your character's
advancement seems more tangible and important than
advancement in other 'real life' hobbies. WoW makes you
a hero, which in turn makes you feel good.
There is no question that this can result in a sort of
addiction. If you played MMOs for long, you've probably
heard the term 'poopsocker' - a name for a weirdo who
plays a game so often that no one can figure out how
they have time to take a shit. As gross as it sounds,
those things happen. I've personally heard stories of
friends who roomed with MMO players in college who
never went to class and pissed in bottles. And every
now and then, one of these stories turn up on CNN
during a slow news day.
But could Blizzard be considered responsible for the
addiction of its players?
At its face, the idea seems completely fucking
ridiculous. No one FORCES these players to play. There
is no physical element to the addiction; Blizzard puts
nothing in the player's body, introduces no chemicals
into their system. It is a game, and resisting the
temptation to play it seems to involve nothing more
challenging then choosing to sit in front of a
television or in a bar rather than in a computer chair.
But maybe the idea is not so absurd. Certainly, obese
people don't have it any harder - all they have to do
to not be obese is stop eating so much. A body must
obey thermodynamics, and the number of people with a
genetic problem that actually makes it impossible for
them to lose weight is a tiny fraction of the number of
obese people currently in the United States (and other
countries with obesity epidemics). Yet the idea that
McDonalds is just as responsible as Big Bob for his
weight problem is one that is gaining traction.
Legislation has been passed in certain cities - such as
New York - that forces companies to comply with more
stringent (but still rather loose) health standards.
Parents are becoming increasingly incensed about the
way fast food is advertised to their kids. Schools are
starting to bar fast food and soda from their lunch
rooms.
The point being: people could just stop eating so much.
But that hasn't stopped our lawmakers from taking
action to stop our habits, and it also hasn't stopped
individuals from taking out their anger on the
companies they believed were enablers for their bad
habits.
Could the same thing happen to WoW?
Currently, I think the answer is a big 'No Fucking WAY,
man' because although MMOs are becoming more popular
daily, they are still a niche, and one with a
relatively geeky imagine that. It tells you something
when gamers, a group which is generally nerdy and
socially awkward.
But it also tells you something when you realize that
over 80% of Blizzard/Vinvedi's revenues came from World
of Warcraft, and that Blizzard is beginning to market
WoW more aggressively to non-gamers by using commercials
featuring all kinds of cultural icons, from Mr T. to
Mini-me. MMOs are not exactly a household item - yet -
but they could easily become one.
What happens if enough people become addicted to MMOs
that the government starts to consider it a national
health concern? After all, MMO addiction can lead to
all kinds of problems; divorce, obesity, malnutrition,
unsanitary living conditions, loss of job - it is, in
this sense, a problem that actually has an even larger
potential effect on national health, since it can lead
to so many other problems.
The world where the questions is not 'Do you play an
MMO?' but rather 'What MMO do you play?' is not an
impossibility. And in that world, I could certainly see
addicted MMO players attempting to sue MMO companies
under the allegation that MMOs are partly responsible for their addiction.
And are they? No one (at least in America) is keen on saying that
we may not be responsible for our actions. But isn't in the
best interest of Blizzard if its players become addicted? What is
the point of the grind? Is it to be fun, or to balance accomplishment
and timed play in such a way that players are likely to play without
regards to their other responsiblites? Fundamentally, is the purpose of
putting a constant grind in a MMO different from putting nicotine in cigarettes?
I'm not yet sure. But I wouldn't be surprised if we see someone try and
sue a large game company for their MMO addiction at some point in the near future.
monsters. You have a well-designed and balance
character that follows a well-regarded build and makes
a few personal tweaks. So now what do you do?
You 'grind'.
Level 70 may be the end of your character's
development, skill-wise, but the sense of satisfaction
you receive upon reaching that vaunted level quickly
vanishes as you realize that the vast majority of
people playing World of Warcraft are, in fact, level 70
(go to wowcensus.com, and you'll find that the number
of level 70 players on most servers is more than the
number of players at all other levels combined). In
truth, level 70 is when the game really begins, and you
gain access to the most engaging and challenging
content.
Level 70 is when grinding really begins, because gear
matters, bigtime - WoW is a materialists dream, because
in WoW you are only as good as the things you
own. Skill matters, sure, but the fact is that if a
level 70 in high-tier PvP gear meets a level 70 fresh
off the boat, the newer player will absolutely get
rolled. In addition, a level 70 fresh off the boat will
be far inferior to a well-geared player in a raid
You grind because the reward is a better and better
character capable of doing more things in the game
world. But grinding takes a long time. Many hours can
be spent just to have the chance for a rare drop, which
may not occur, forcing you to play all over again.
Normally, you'd quit, because it’s frustrating - but
this is WoW. This isn't like getting to the boss in
Gears of War, getting slaughtered ten times, and saying
'Oh, fuck it!' You've spent hundreds of hours playing
the game and sunk in not only the purchase price of the
game but also five months at 14.95 per. You also are
part of a guild and you probably are friends with
several members.
But more importantly, you grind because in life you're
probably a person between the ages of 14 and 34 who is
single or in an unhappy relationship and who works a
mundane nine-to-five job that seems to draw all sense
of passion from your soul. Or perhaps not, exactly -
but in any case, you grind because your character's
advancement seems more tangible and important than
advancement in other 'real life' hobbies. WoW makes you
a hero, which in turn makes you feel good.
There is no question that this can result in a sort of
addiction. If you played MMOs for long, you've probably
heard the term 'poopsocker' - a name for a weirdo who
plays a game so often that no one can figure out how
they have time to take a shit. As gross as it sounds,
those things happen. I've personally heard stories of
friends who roomed with MMO players in college who
never went to class and pissed in bottles. And every
now and then, one of these stories turn up on CNN
during a slow news day.
But could Blizzard be considered responsible for the
addiction of its players?
At its face, the idea seems completely fucking
ridiculous. No one FORCES these players to play. There
is no physical element to the addiction; Blizzard puts
nothing in the player's body, introduces no chemicals
into their system. It is a game, and resisting the
temptation to play it seems to involve nothing more
challenging then choosing to sit in front of a
television or in a bar rather than in a computer chair.
But maybe the idea is not so absurd. Certainly, obese
people don't have it any harder - all they have to do
to not be obese is stop eating so much. A body must
obey thermodynamics, and the number of people with a
genetic problem that actually makes it impossible for
them to lose weight is a tiny fraction of the number of
obese people currently in the United States (and other
countries with obesity epidemics). Yet the idea that
McDonalds is just as responsible as Big Bob for his
weight problem is one that is gaining traction.
Legislation has been passed in certain cities - such as
New York - that forces companies to comply with more
stringent (but still rather loose) health standards.
Parents are becoming increasingly incensed about the
way fast food is advertised to their kids. Schools are
starting to bar fast food and soda from their lunch
rooms.
The point being: people could just stop eating so much.
But that hasn't stopped our lawmakers from taking
action to stop our habits, and it also hasn't stopped
individuals from taking out their anger on the
companies they believed were enablers for their bad
habits.
Could the same thing happen to WoW?
Currently, I think the answer is a big 'No Fucking WAY,
man' because although MMOs are becoming more popular
daily, they are still a niche, and one with a
relatively geeky imagine that. It tells you something
when gamers, a group which is generally nerdy and
socially awkward.
But it also tells you something when you realize that
over 80% of Blizzard/Vinvedi's revenues came from World
of Warcraft, and that Blizzard is beginning to market
WoW more aggressively to non-gamers by using commercials
featuring all kinds of cultural icons, from Mr T. to
Mini-me. MMOs are not exactly a household item - yet -
but they could easily become one.
What happens if enough people become addicted to MMOs
that the government starts to consider it a national
health concern? After all, MMO addiction can lead to
all kinds of problems; divorce, obesity, malnutrition,
unsanitary living conditions, loss of job - it is, in
this sense, a problem that actually has an even larger
potential effect on national health, since it can lead
to so many other problems.
The world where the questions is not 'Do you play an
MMO?' but rather 'What MMO do you play?' is not an
impossibility. And in that world, I could certainly see
addicted MMO players attempting to sue MMO companies
under the allegation that MMOs are partly responsible for their addiction.
And are they? No one (at least in America) is keen on saying that
we may not be responsible for our actions. But isn't in the
best interest of Blizzard if its players become addicted? What is
the point of the grind? Is it to be fun, or to balance accomplishment
and timed play in such a way that players are likely to play without
regards to their other responsiblites? Fundamentally, is the purpose of
putting a constant grind in a MMO different from putting nicotine in cigarettes?
I'm not yet sure. But I wouldn't be surprised if we see someone try and
sue a large game company for their MMO addiction at some point in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)