|
 On 11/15/2013 at 10:41 PM by gigantor21 See More From This User » |
Over the course of this generation, network functionality has radically changed the landscape of console gaming as we know it. No longer are games a one-and-done deal; the industry is pushing hard to present their games as longer term investments, with a slew of DLC and network features implemented to extend the life of a title for weeks, if not months, after launch. For me, though, this approach has had the opposite effect.
I'm not nearly as willing to buy games new as I was in generations past, specifically BECAUSE of the online functionality that's supposed to make them more attractive early purchases. There are several reasons for this:
- The vaunted online features almost never function properly in the early goings. GTA Online was a mess, SimCity was a disaster, and Diablo III was rendered unplayable. The incentive to simply wait it out while the bugs are fixed is much higher. Games that depend on netplay, meanwhile, are crippled if it doesn't work well. As much as I love King of Fighters XIII, for instance, the terrible netcode has severly hobbled it. That's true of fighting games in general nowadays.
- Games are being shipped out with far more bugs and glitches, under the notion that they can be patched in after the fact. As such, I see little reason to be the first kid on the block to get a new title when I'm not sure it's working properly. This is something that extends even into the offline play; Arkham Origins, for instance, has had any number of serious bugs that Warner is swearing up and down they'll be patching to fix. And speaking of the Arkham games...
- The proliferation of DLC has led to the rise of GOTY editions--enhanced versions of the same game with most of the DLC included for free, released several months to a year after the fact. I find that the rather piecemeal pre-order bonuses and Day 1 content used to counteract this pales in comparison to the shit-ton of money you save by simply waiting for the GOTY bundle. And in some cases they aren't even waiting a few months to do it; Warner Bros. just announced a 3 game Arkham series bundle with the GOTY versions of Asylum and City included with Origins, just a few weeks after Origins was released.
- One counterargument to this idea is the issue of community shrinkage. "If the game revolves around playing online, then waiting it out means less people to play with! And you run the risk of falling behind!"
But the thing is...I'm not interested in riding the initial wave of players who want to try out their shiny new disc, only to lose interest in a few weeks and drop the game entirely. My interest is in games good enough to support sustained communities over time--which may not be as big as they were on Day 1, but are more committed and passionate. A good game will have no problem ensuring there are plenty of those people around.
- But the biggest factor, for me, is simply pricing.
One of the central arguments for the Xone's initial used game policies was that devs were being undercut by a used market they didn't see a dime out of. Defenders of the always-online functionality were quick to point to Steam as proof that a connected future wasn't so bad--and that gamers were hypocrites for embracing Valve while shunning Microsoft. Putting that argument aside for a second...I really don't think the industry would want a Steam-like future across the board if I'm a typical case.
As much as I like Steam, my relationship with it is ultimately a marriage of convenience. I've never spent more than $20 on a Steam game, and the vast majority of titles on my Library are games I got for $10 or less--usually impluse purchases of games I would never have touched outside of sales and special promotions. Going back to Arkham Origins again, the reason the collection isn't a big incentive for me is that I got the GOTY versions of AA and AC for $5-10 a pop. That's pricing they've had several times on Steam and Amazon over the past year or so.
Without the prospect of simply trading in or selling the games on my own terms, or being able to rent or borrow them in advance, the amount I'm willing to spend on games in the PC space is FAR lower than it is on consoles. It has to be at a price point in which not having those options doesn't matter. And I'm hardly alone in that regard.
Playstation Plus, with it's game rentals and extra discounts, has allowed that same approach to bleed into my Vita and PS3 purchases. Sure, it incentivizes me to buy more digital copy, but it makes paying anything near full price look like an expensive gamble. Why not wait for the digital version to go on sale instead, where I can get a more functional copy for pennies on the dollar? Does the industry really have a good answer to that question in their constant "digital is the future" push? Because I can tell you right now that if we continue to see the same $60 pricing nonsense on digital stores after discs go extinct, I'm not going to be buying nearly as many games.
So how about you? How have stuff like patches, GOTY versions and digital sales impacted your spending habits this generation?
I like new games and having it in physical form, but I am also a steam junkie. Low price beats physical copy. Most console games don't go as low though, and it's often cheaper to wait until Amazon discounts a game a couple months later. That's what I've been doing lately.
But Steam does have me hooked. I just bought Bioshock Infinite the other day for $12
I got Bioshock 1 and 2 for even less than that. Infinite and Tomb Raider, meanwhile, came free with my new video card. Deals like that are hard to come by at Gamestop. :p
Between Steam and the PS+ sales, I almost never buy anything at retail any more. If it's not something I have to have right away, I have no problem lurking for a few months and getting it cheap.
I've become more careful. Some games I will not buy right away because I know the better GOTY version in forthcoming. I know some people would say "Buy the original to support the developers!" but I don't want to buy the same game twice nor do I have the deep pockets to make that convenient.
I do most of my online shopping on amazon where I get games "brand new" but usually wait for a price drop or sale first.
I have no problem buying new to support developers I like or games that I really want. Anyone who wants the same treatment beyond that should go to the Red Cross for charity.
I simply see the futility in buying a product in which the follow up upgraded version will be better. However, I only apply this principle to "really popular games" that I know made bank and will get a GOTY counterpart even without my participation. I still try to be more supportive of "good games" that get less hype. However,when money is tight money is tight! Games are a nice diversion but I have bills to pay!
Most of these things you discuss here are reasons why I'm not going next gen. It makes me sick how developers continually release buggy products, day one patches and dlc, feel like everything has to have multiplayer, etc. Dead Space didn't need multiplayer. Fallout New Vegas was the buggiest piece of crap I ever played. Even after all the patches it still crashed so much that I was seriously worried about my PS3. I don't really mind digital games, but the only ones I buy off Steam are dirt cheap, and usually retro in nature. I'll probably buy a new PC if anything. I'm sorry if this is a bit off topic lol. I miss the days where you bought a game and that was the end of it.
We're hearing about all types of software and hardware issues from those who paid to be first in line for a PS4. I expect the Xone to have it's own share of horror stories for early adopters next week. Unlike with games, buying consoles early has ALWAYS been a gamble.
But yeah. It's a bit hard to make buying new a habit when you so often see games that require several rounds of patching to work properly. I'd rather just wait and buy a more functional game on the cheap in most cases.
The publishers are pushing hard to make everything online. Why? Just follow the money. It makes them more of it. It scares me a little, because what if your internet goes down or you just don't want to fork out the money for it anymore? That may brick your system in the coming generations. I'll have to go back to pre-internet dominated systems like PS2 or earlier. That's not a bad thing now that I think of it. I better keep those things around just in case.
The push for a more networked gaming experience makes the games themselves feel more transient.
With games before this generation, the only issue was keeping the discs/carts clean and having a working system. Now, even if you have both of those things, we're set to lose more and more of the experience once servers get shut down. And once streaming becomes the main focus, there will be nothing tangible about the experience at all.
I, for one, am not looking forward to that.
In thinking about environmental issues lately, I've begun to think maybe it's a good thing since it will mean less waste packaging and manufacture of dics and plastic cases. However, "nothing tangible" is a phrase that makes me wince a little bit. I like my tangible things.
I rarely play online. I can count the number of times I played online with the fingers on one hand. So, online functionality means absolutely nothing to me.
I agree with pretty much everything you stated. I don't buy many digital games unless I have no choice and it will be a cold day in hell before I spend more than $20 on any digital game. So far, the most I ever spent is $15 and I usually wait for sales.
I simply can't bring myself to pay $60 for digital copy. I just can't.
I agree I spent $20 on State of Decay on xbox live but I wont pay more then that. F1 2013 was released but do to logistics problems its only available for digital games on demand and I just cant justify cramming my HD with $60 digital games that will take up all my HD storage.
I'm right there with you. It's even worse when you see digital copies priced $10 to $20 or more higher than the physical copies I just saw on the shelf at the store. That happens all the time.
It just amazes me how brazenly greedy they can be with digital pricing outside of sales. It's like they DON'T want me to pay full price for them.
Im with you on new games I mean when GTA5 released its online component it was 2 weeks before it was playable of course I bought it for the game not the online component, but I do see your point on online games nowadays which are best to wait on a couple of weeks before purchasing.
Game of the Year editions do not do anything for me. I rarely spend any time with DLC and therefore do not really feel the need to wait for the game to come out with "all" of its content.
thank you! finally someone sees it! I've mostly harped on the "Online Pass" issue but this also comes into play in how it just seems like a wiser choice to just wait it out till the game either get's a GOTY edition at a reduced priced to ensure you get all the game has to offer, or just wait till it's dirt cheap and get the DLC if you feel like it thus still making out like a bandit in the long run.
You also make a good point on for some odd reason we are able to tolerate getting games on DAy one that require a Day One patch to fix bugs or the game having bugs from the get go (I'm looking at you Fallout: New Vegas), that alone cost that game a possible GOTY edition and instead we got a "Ultimate Edition" for $40 instead of the possible $30 it should've sold for!
Put on the flip side it could be a good game. I'm considering getting PS+ since you get a good number of games for free in the service. If I ever dicide I want to own a physical copy I can wait it out and buy it used while I enjoy the game digitally. Sure tehre is the tempation to buy it digitally but so far I've been able to hold out in buying such unless it's offered in a bundle pack.
Online has it's ups and downs but for me it's mostly been downs. I'm willing to tolerate so much but if it get's too crazy I'll decide with my wallet. Thus why no Online Pass title has ever gotten a dime from me!
Comments