I'm excited Sony is already talking to developers about this. But I'm not sure about the:
Sony is also insisting that it 'does not want exactly the same game' on NGP and PS3 -- there 'has to be a reason for the NGP title.' 'They want at least some kind of interactivity between the two versions with NGP-only extras.'"
Like I figured they wouldn't be the same because the NGP's hardware would not support the same level of detail and complexity as the PS3 version. But removing things from the PS3 version and having them only exist on the NGP version of the game is not somewhere I want to see them go with it. Feels like a cheap way to promote the NGP. What would make more sense to me, is having the NGP version allow you to make progress in your game when you're away from the PS3. Or also allow you to access game features and controls on the NGP WHILE playing the game. Like imagine using the NGP like a pip-boy while playing Fallout? They could even sell an option wrist holder and everything. That would be all kinds of crazy awesome.
You know would would be tits though? If NGP gamers could play multiplayer with PS3 gamers in the same game.
I had been doing some thinking lately about how the price of video games has remained relatively unchanged over the last couple of decades. Here's a great article about some of that:
And it's gotten me thinking a lot about how the average NES game cost $50 in 1985. With inflation to todays prices that'd be over $100!! Yet had the same time video game budgets and production times have skyrocketed, many AAA games costing millions of dollars to produce, and years of production. So how is this possible? Massive expenses, and decreased unit prices?? Yet the gaming industry is more successful than ever??
I think one answer might be: Demand. The gaming industry has boomed. It's audience has increased massively, originally just a thing for young kids, now small kids, teens, adults, parents, and even grandparents are all into video games. So there are a lot more American's buying video games. And of those Americans buying games, I think the average gamer is buying a lot more games per year than they used to be. And the sales.....seems like half the time as soon as a game has been out for a year, or a sequel is released, the original hits the $20 bargain bin. So company's make their money, and then through the game at the bargain customers and see what extra gravy they can get.
But I think there are costs, and the shift for AAA games to go from $50 to $60 is a telling one. And there is another way developers combat cost: DLC. Many gamers perceive DLC as the developer leaving out a part of the game, and then forcing the gamer to buy the full game in pieces. I think sometimes there's a good argument for this, but often not so much. And here's the thing - even if it is true 100% of the time, would you rather buy a $60 and then spend another say $30 on DLC content over time....or have to pay $100 for your full game by 1985 prices? At least with the DLC option, you have the CHOICE of wanting to invest more in the game. IF the game is crap, then you don't buy the DLC.
Which brings me to the next thing. Downloadable games. They are the future. The entire PC game market is basically downloadable games, and MMOs/Blizzard. But this future is something retailers will fight tooth and nail. Many will point to the PSP Go as evidence that gamers demand hard media. I think it does not. The raging success of Steam and iPhone games are proof of that. Sony just had horrific support/investment in their downloadable games library, and non-support for people with existing hard media libraries. They sabotaged their own platform. Unfortunately there is a "Catch 22" where the major consoles don't want to invest in downloadable games until there is established proof of consumer demand, but there will be no demand until a massive downloadable game library is established. A good analogy is the electric car. There's a huge demand, but no support. Virtually no electric cars on the market, and car makers claim there is no demand, because people aren't buying electric cars - but they're not buying them because there are hardly any on the market. (And no support - not really any recharging stations to speak of)
But when you look at the overhead saved by going straight to download, no retailer, no media costs, no shipping costs, etc etc. It decreases the cost to produce the game, which mean developers can put that money into development, instead of overhead. Retailers will HATE this, they will be taken out of the loop. I think to offset this, there will need to be a transitional time where when you need to have both a disc and a download version released at the same time. And you are seeing this start to happen like with PSN getting some AAA downloadable titles like Mass Effect 2. The thing is with Sony, is they seem to want to charge people a premium to be able to download games, charging them full retail, while retail games get all sorts of sales, effectively discouraging consumers from buying the downloadable version. But I'll go ahead and say that the next coming generation consoles will not have disc drives. Or maybe, it will come in two versions: disc drive and no disc drive, with a $75 price difference and let consumers decide.
However I think the key in the mean time will be to have every disc based game available for download on the game library, and allow for a straight trade to let people trade in disc games for download codes. This costs the console developer nothing, and still keeps the retailer in the loop.
It's been interesting the last couple of years, they've been adding in "RPG Elements" into multiplayer component of FPS and various competitive online games. It's basically a required thing now. You earn gear and skills to benefit your player. Unfortunately, unlike Diablo and similar games, instead of using these cooperatively or single player, you're using these benefits directly against other players, in an environment where newbies and maxed out player are running around fighting on another. The veteran already has a massive advantage with the maps memorized, knowing where to hide and camp, he's got the game modes mastered, knows that the best combination of weapons are, and how to use them effectively.
So its a double edge sword, pretending not to punish new players, while giving veterans something to work for, and developers have to somehow convince people on both sides of the fence that they're doing right by them.
Kinda like pre-order bonuses for games. With a pre-order you have to convince the person getting the pre-order that they've gotten something really valuable and special that will give you a benefit no one else will have, and at the same time then, they have to convince people who didn't get in on the pre-order bonus, that they didn't really missing anything. In the end, one of the two groups got tricked.
So in the same vein the multiplayer bonuses the developer has to convince veteran players that their hour and hours of gaming is earning them perks that are actually gonna make a difference. But then they have to also convince newbies that they're not being punished with crap gear, making their learning curve more difficult, and their game experience even less competitive and miserable. It's obviously impossible. Either these perks are making a difference or they're not. And if they're making a difference than that is punishing new players, and benefiting veteran players who already have a big advantage. If they're not making a significant difference, than they're a waste, and veteran players are getting "horse armor".
See I think perks and gear upgrades do make FPS games a lot more fun, to feel like you're earning something that will help you. But I have also had some really horrifically miserable online game experiences where veteran players are just harvesting newbs for points, using their upgrades to dominate even more than they would be otherwise, creating a horrendous experience for any new player, or anyone unlucky enough to get on a team with several new players. Black Ops seems to be the embodiment of this. Where on top of experienced players having all their natural advantages, they also have advanced gear, and perk advantages, and on top of that, they get air strikes and gun turrets and attack choppers to make the game an even bigger devastation. 90% of the games I've been in were a totally non-competitive slaughter, where one side uttterly dominates the other (and I've been on both sides of this), with no remote chance of a close game.
I think the solution is to create an effective matchmaking system and adjust how EXP is earned. I think depending on your skills, you should get a skill rating, and that will determine what kind of matches you get placed in. So if you have a new character, but you've played the game before, your "skill level" will increase quickly and you'll get matched with higher level people. But if you've played the game a lot, and you're just not that good at it, you'll get matched with lower level people. Also, if you kill an enemy of higher skill level, you'll get more EXP so you level up faster and get access to better gear sooner. But if you're a high level person, hunting newbs, you'll hardly get any EXP.
What do you guys think of gear and skill upgrades in FPS games?
Log in to comment