JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

#Gaming

Edited by SquirrellyOtter: 6/7/2013 4:57:52 PM
22

In Defense of Everything You Hate

This post addresses everything from used game fees, to DRM, to always online, pretty much everything that people are currently hating on about the direction of the electronic entertainment industry. Trigger warning: It's a long read, and I agree with everything the industry is doing. When you buy a game, you’re not buying a physical object, you’re not buying an item with a measurable depreciation value. When you buy a game, you’re buying an interactive experience. Many aspects of that interactive experience will be unchanged over the course of years, such as the physics sandbox and the singleplayer modes. Unlike physical objects that experience a deterioration in quality over time, the quality of a game remains the same so long as the medium in which it is stored remains in good condition. The cost of bringing a video game experience to Consumer A is identical to the cost of bringing that identical experience to Consumer B. So why should Consumer B pay less because he bought it “used” from Consumer A? In what measurable way did Consumer B have a lesser experience playing his game used compared to Consumer A buying it new? What degradation in quality of experience did Consumer B have that would justify a price drop, that would justify denying proper financial restitution to the creators of the experience? Sure you can get tired of games; sure you can abandon old games for newer, shinier, sexier games. But does that make the old game lose actual (not subjective/emotional) value? All games will experience the point when they are no longer the cutting edge in technology, when they are no longer mainstream, and the playerbase dwindles into tiny cult followings. But does the passage of time make the experience of the game measurably lower in quality compared to its quality on release? I say no. You say no every time you fire up an old game instead of a new one. And now for the first time, the industry is saying no. And we're right to say no. We have to treat the gaming industry differently than other industries because it is inherently different. The top of the industry, the console makers and developers, are realizing this, and shifting their strategies accordingly. And they are right. Developers who own their IP, their interactive experience, have a right to make money selling access to that experience. People who don’t pay, shouldn’t have access to that experience. So why are you complaining about DRM? If you buy your games legally, it's not a problem. If you don't get your games legally, get your priorities straight because you paid a few hundred dollars for a console, and you pay for internet, and you probably pay for a lot of other things, so pony up like the rest of us or you don't get to enjoy, boo freaking hoo, cry me a river, build me a bridge and get the hell over it. Again, developers have the right to make money creating and sharing their experiences. People who don't pay, shouldn't play. Why are you complaining about "used game fees"? The game isn't really "used" like you buy a car used, or a house used. Why are you complaining about "always-online"? You're online playing with friends all the time anyway. It's not going to inconvenience or affect your life in any way that it isn't already. So suck it up. All the industry is doing is making sure everyone plays by the same rules. If you've got a problem with that, you're part of the problem as to why the industry has to do this in the first place.

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

View Entire Topic
  • To your first point about the game being less of a physical product and more of an experience, I have to disagree. You could make that argument for [i]any[/i] product or service. For example, next to me is a Nerf blaster I paid full retail for. One could argue that the $40 I spent for that Nerf blaster wasn't so I could own the physical blaster and darts that came in the box I got a Fred Meyer, but instead that $40 went toward the [i]experience[/i] of being able to better play in a game of Humans Vs. Zombies on my university campus. And so long as I take good care of it and keep it in good condition, it should be able to deliver that experience... right? But obviously it won't. As time goes on, even if I do keep it in new condition, better blasters and darts will come out, which reduces the value of the experience my particular blaster can offer, because no product has a fixed value that never changes. [quote]But does the passage of time make the experience of the game measurably lower in quality compared to its quality on release?[/quote]Yes, I believe it does become lower in quality compared to its quality on release. You can't tell me that the experience Halo: Combat Evolved offered is exactly the same today as it was when it first came out. Because a lot of the value of Halo: Combat Evolved when it first came out was in how fresh it was. It was the latest thing back then, not just fresh for people that played it for the first time, it was also graphically advanced for its time and one of the few decent First Person Shooters on a console. But today, the market of console FPS titles is over-saturated with options, and many of them have better graphics, better features, and provide better experiences than Halo: Combat Evolved. [quote]You're online playing with friends all the time anyway. It's not going to inconvenience or affect your life in any way that it isn't already.[/quote]Nope. Just last night, I had the ability to play PlanetSide 2 with friends online. Instead, I opted to play Half-Life 2... because I [i]wanted[/i] to. I was connected to the internet while I played Half-Life 2, but I certainly did not [i]need[/i] to be. I've played Half-Life 2 on my laptop while riding public transit before... there was no way for me to connect to the internet there, but I was still able to play the game I'd paid for. Requiring an online connection in order to play a game is for many games an arbitrary requirement. It's like requiring we sit while playing a game. A huge number of us are sitting down while playing a game, the same way many of us are connected to the internet while we're playing a game. But why would you require someone to sit while they play a game? Why would you design a console to shut off the moment the player decides to stand? To me, it doesn't make sense, and it is for these exact reasons that I will not be buying Microsoft's Xbox One console.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

    3 Replies
    You are not allowed to view this content.
    ;
    preload icon
    preload icon
    preload icon