Cash Shop Advantage

I used to be a frequent player of Gunbound 5 - 6 years ago. Before I quit, I toggled between a battle axe+ and silver battle axe.

Recently I decided to pick it up again. Now they are on season 2. I started a new account to just fool around and have some fun.

I was dismayed to find that Softnyx's cash shop has given huge advantages to their buyers. First of all, the international server does not have a rookie zone with avatar off. A whole lot of the players in there are fake noobs, and you can usually tell because they are decked out in the archangel garb. This outfit cannot be bought by gold, which is earned in game. Right off the bat, they then have +42 attack, +42 defense and a plethora of other stat bonuses. They're obviously not encouraging new players with this; who wants to keep playing when they always lose or get pounded down in 1 to 2 turns? Not too many of the spiffy avatars are willing to mix with the newbies. Ijji's American servers do have rookie zone avatar off, but they are discontinuing service soon.

Of course, they have also introduced a length of possession system. If you want limitless, it costs a hell of a lot more than when I used to play, which gave me limitless at the cost of a one-week holding. It is difficult to get a good avatar by buying only limitless right at the start, but I think it's better in the long run.

Another feature they've added is "item 2." Item 1 things are available to all users, but majority of the item 2 offerings are again cash only. The worst one in my opinion is defense, which essentially shields the user from damage. I saw one player use it three turns in a row while he continued to kill the other team. The three I see used most, defense, damage up, and special force, are cash only.

I understand that the Softnyx cash is really cheap, but I do not really play games that cost money. The only exception was probably Guild Wars, and that had no monthly fee. I'm just not willing to spend money on Gunbound, and I'll probably keep playing despite the state of things.

Despite Ijji's in-browser launching system, which I did not like, I'll give them credit for occasionally offering both cash and gold buying options on some items.

I'm not against using cash to buy things. Most free (and many non-free actually) online games go about generating revenue this way, and that's a good thing. I just think that Softnyx has given too much to cash users.

They have an item that prevents the recording of your losses into your stats? Wtf? I think that misses the point...

P.S. I just got hit on in game. So disturbing...

On Achievements

The latest bandwagon for game developers to hop on is achievements. It seems that every gamer wants them and it allows developers to push gamers into otherwise unvisited corners of the game. A game has even been made mocking the current achievement heavy culture called “Achievement Unlocked.” The entire purpose of the game is simply to unlock mundane and pointless achievements. Just by starting the game you get an achievement for starting the game, getting to the menu, starting the game, and lasting more than 5 seconds. Other than all the achievement hoarding, there is no other point to the game.

However, what truly makes achievements fun? When I play games, I don’t play just to get all of the achievements. In fact, I am usually bored by many achievements. The basic achievements like “beat the game” or “get to level x” are completely uninteresting to me. They provide nothing in game and don’t even have much in the way of bragging rights. The only achievements that I truly enjoy getting are those that are not part of the actual game and are more quirky or offbeat. Achievements that force you to figure out what you must do based on the name are also a plus.

For the most part, I find that Valve has done achievements right. In Team Fortress 2, every major update comes with new weapons for a character class and a slew of class specific achievements to unlock. These achievements help to strengthen the character back story. However in addition to the standard achievement aspects you would expect, simply reading through them is entertaining. The things that Valve makes its players do and the names it has for the achievements are absolutely hilarious. In what other game are you rewarded for killing another player by using a taunt? In fact, what other game even has that ability?

On 3D in Games

Sparked by a student presentation today, I wanted to write about some reasons why 3D is not prevalent in the consumer sector, and much less the gaming sector today. Although 3D technology has been around for many years, ever since the cheesy red and blue glasses took advantage of an ingenious trick played on the brain, such technology is still not prevalent.

First of all, the hardware limitation of being forced to wear goggles while experiencing a movie or game is huge. For those that must wear glasses, many 3D vision goggles are cumbersome and uncomfortable. Many others find that extensive 3D movie watching causes nausea. The disconnect between vision and actual motion is only increased in the brain by 3D experiences. Furthermore, games that require 3D vision are extremely difficult to play with more than one person. As the game world continues to move further into the internet age, I am increasingly disappointed by the lack of ability to simply play games with friends in the same room.

Furthermore, the advantages gained by 3D are minimal compared to the cost of the hardware for the consumer. Many games and movies do not support 3D at this point in time as developers do not see it as economically viable to spend money and time developing 3D effects. As far as the effects that do exist, many of them are simply gimmicks. Even when watching a 3D movie in theaters, I usually forget that it’s 3D after about 20 minutes. By that time, the initial gimmicks have already been used and the movie generally continues to play as usual.

Regarding games, Nvidia has broken into the 3D market with the GeForce 3DVision. However, most of the games that “support” 3D vision don’t actually have 3D effects. Instead, these games simply have a 3D HUD. This is truly a gimmick, not something worth spending hundreds of dollars for a sufficient video card, monitor, and goggles. Ultimately, there is not much utility at this point for 3D beyond little gimmicks.

On the Potential Death of Blu-ray

With the announcement that Microsoft is reopening the Video Marketplace with streaming 1080i content, is this the final death knell for Blu-ray? Video content has been moving increasingly towards the cloud and this is the next logical step. Assuming one has the bandwidth necessary, this will add immense convenience to the consumer who will experience little to no delay between choosing a movie and viewing it and eliminates the need to leave the comfort of the living room to actually purchase the movie.

I find this to be a loss however. Blu-ray, DVD, and packages in general usually offer far more than simply the movie. For those who want a look into the labor and thought that went into the movie, commentary is invaluable. This provides a more personal understanding of the movie and is an invaluable asset for any movie buff. However if you are simply streaming a movie, all of these extras evaporate. There is no need for content providers to add value to a streaming movie, and viewing the extra features also becomes cumbersome. In a sense, this will destroy a view into the culture that created the movie you just viewed.

On the other hand, the lack of physical media makes DRM easier for developers once again. Physical media is static and can eventually be cracked. Digitally distributed content, however, can easily use new encoding schemes. All it takes to change is a quick firmware update and hackers are forced to start over from square one. From this perspective it makes sense for developers and publishers to move towards digital distribution.

On Microsoft's Project Natal

At first impression, Project Natal wowed me just like everyone else and I began to see visions of the future finally coming true. We are going to be able to use freaking hand gestures to maneuver through menus and control things in game. Augmented and virtual reality is infinitely closer and more attainable to the common consumer. However, I quickly realized this might not be the whole picture. Perhaps it is just the cynicism in a number of the industry speakers we have had in class talking, but I soon saw Natal as a beautiful and horrible form of DRM protection.

Tying content to accounts is simply the easiest way now to limit use of content by those who have not paid for it. However, this is still somewhat easy to get around. Our apartment has only one Xbox 360 and my account is the only one with Xbox Live Gold. Therefore, I make all of the purchases, namely for new Rock Band songs. If other people want to play, my account has to be signed in to ensure that the songs are playable. As far as Microsoft is concerned, this is simply a failsafe to ensure that the content is only able to be enjoyed by me as the one who paid.

On the other hand, if Project Natal has the advanced face tracking that Microsoft claims it does, and the automatic account sign in based only on facial recognition, then it is now increasingly difficult for my friends to “impersonate me” and play the content that we have all collectively purchased without my sitting within view of the all seeing Project Natal. Alternatively, this could lead to a future where we all wear masks of each other’s faces to “trick” the system, almost a form of identity theft.

So does Project Natal really benefit the consumer or the developer more?

On Non-Physical Software

The latest trend has been to eliminate the sale of physical software and to move everything to downloadable content. The recently announced PSP-4000 will no longer feature a UMD drive, with all games being solely downloaded off of the internet. This slightly disturbs me. Maybe I’m just old school, but a mere 8 GB or 16 GB for the hard drive will not hold all of the games and content that I like to carry on my system. In addition, there is always a concern that if my hard drive fails, an all too common occurrence, my games will be lost. Companies will need to ensure that purchases are tracked and allowed to be easily restored. However, will recent lawsuits regarding digital rights management, fair consumer treatment is not always the first priority of developers. In addition, backing up games to facilitate recovery as well as free up hard drive space would be necessary for me, another issue of digital rights management. Allowing this feature would, unfortunately, further facilitate file sharing for games.

On the other hand, consoles with large 80 GB hard drives are perfect for this setup. Not only do they have the space, and little other uses for this space, but digital distribution would severely cut down the time between purchase and play of a game. This setup also facilitates demos and other promotions with easy access to buying a full version of the game.

Between the two console giants, Microsoft and Sony, Sony seems well poised to make the jump into full digital distribution. With news of the PSP eliminating the UMD drive, a standard, large hard drive in the PS3, and free access to online content, moving to digitally distributed titles is incredibly easy. Microsoft, on the other hand, has the difficulty of their Live service. Although Live is well supported and maintained, the monthly membership system to gain access to Gold content and the ability to download from their servers could be a major barrier for some users. Charging a monthly fee for the ability to purchase games is not the best way to attract customers.

On Replayability

What makes a game worth a second, third, or fourth play through? I find myself asking myself this as I begin my seventh run through Castle Crashers. Despite the minimal story, repetitive gameplay, and short length, I have played this game more times, and spent more hours in it, than most games. The one aspect that keeps bringing me back for more, unlocking new characters and weapons upon completion of a playthrough, requires extremely little work from the developers. Every character fits a basic pattern, so it is easy to add new characters, and no new tactics are necessary to learn. In addition, the multiplayer aspect adds a new level of variation to the game.

Other games, however still draw me in for another play through without being as short as Castle Crashers. Mass Effect allows for a number of choices throughout the game, mainly whether you are good or evil which encourages multiple playthroughs of the game. On the other hand, classic epic RPGs like the Final Fantasy series still draw me in to replay them. However, these games are replayed differently. Unlike Castle Crashers, I don’t go straight back into another run of the game. Instead, I set the game aside after beating it and revive it for another run years later. These games are exactly the same, and instead of trying to get to new stuff, I treat these replays like rereading a good book. I look for subtle things that I would have missed the first time through, or just to refresh my memory and relive a great story.

On Video Game Authorship

With many games focused around user generated content, the role of the developer as an author is potentially diminished. One of the most satisfying aspects of playing console RPGs is being able to sit back and watch an epic cinematic after a boss battle and watch the story continue to unfold. These games all have a set story that immerses you for months, but is ultimately linear. So, to expand, developers are now moving one of two ways with their games. Either games take the “Choose your own path” format with set paths and choices, or developers take a backseat to users and market it as “user generated content.” These games have no set storyline and rely on the users to create stories for themselves. Although this is a more social take on game playing, it is a much more passive role for the developer. In this way, the game no longer serves as an escape from typical life, but rather another medium in which to act it out.

This ultimately leads to the question of whether developers should be in control of a game, writing a story for players to experience, or if developers should create a world which facilitates the creation of stories by the users. Personally, I am partial to the classic, story based game. I enjoy living through a well crafted story. Games like World of Warcraft don’t have the same sense of playing a hero as storyline games do. It’s not possible to create a world full of heroes, therefore the game must be filled with people who are all on the same level.

On the Lack of Incentive for Speed

So, I downloaded World of Warcraft on the free 10-day trial and found it to be a horrific experience. I quickly realized that Blizzard had no incentive whatsoever at this point to improve the experience. They have a huge population of players and it is far more profitable to instead improve their experience, not that of new players. Current World of Warcraft players can instead do the advertising and promoting for them. First off, after installing the basic World of Warcraft file, I was told that I needed a number of patches to be applied. Instead of downloading and installing a single patch, I needed to download over 25 patches. These were all of varying sizes and required user input at the beginning and end of every patch. This required me to sit at my computer waiting for downloads for the better part of an entire day. In addition, all of the patches ran through the Blizzard Downloader. The Blizzard Downloader uses torrents to run, further evidence that Blizzard only cares about the experience of current users. Torrent trackers require a large swarm of seeders and leechers to function well, and with the downloader automatically closing at the end of a download, there are few seeders on the network. In addition, for old patches, very few people will be available as leechers to help speed up the download. I found many of the patches requiring many hours to download. However, searching online found the patches available as direct downloads on another of sites and these downloads required a mere couple of minutes. Considering that this entire process required an entire day, possibly more for other people, of my 10 day trial, I was annoyed to find a large portion of my “free” time gone. For Blizzard, I imagine this is a further benefit as it will reduce players ability to complete anything during their trial period but still get enough of a taste to purchase the game for themselves. All in all, an incredibly frustrating experience.

First Thoughts

On the Difference Between Multiplayer Video and Board Games

Whatever happened to the good multiplayer video games? The short answer is that they have moved online. However, this means that those of us with friends in real life have increasingly diminishing choices. It almost feels as though game developers are telling us to forgo playing with our friends face to face and instead forcing us to use their games and systems as a conduit. Personally, I find this rather annoying and not just because I like to see the expression on my friend’s face when I get that perfect headshot, but it seems almost pointless to have purchased four controllers for a system in which most games only support one or two at a time. It seems that only Nintendo has embraced the party console idea and actually develops games that allow all four controllers to be used regularly. However, I find Nintendo’s game library rather lacking and wish the concept of the party game could expand to other platforms.

To make up for this, I have found myself playing more non-electronic games. Settlers of Catan has been making a major resurgence and I have been contemplating getting into Magic or Dungeons and Dragons. These are games that allow that close personal interaction that is not currently available from behind the anonymizing veil of the internet. Although gaming through the internet is great for meeting new people and staying connected with old friends, I feel there is too strong of a focus on the online gaming world as a separate world from the “real” one. The term IRL (in real life) even demonstrates that many people believe interactions on the internet to not be part of their “real life.” People and developers need to realize that the online world and the “real” one are the same and equal attention needs to be given to each.