I've been taking a mini-break from the RPG action lately to get down and dirty with id's classic FPS title, Wolfenstein 3D, which was released earlier with week on XBLA for a mere 400 Microsoft Points, which is a heck of a deal. How often do we see 400 point games these days? Even cash-strapped, unemployed recent college graduates like me can afford the $5 to download this icon of gaming history.
I'm surprised to find that I've ben enjoying this title a lot more than DOOM, and I like DOOM. What bothered me about that game though was the fact that you could only aim left or right, yet you could be shooting at enemies at your level or above you. It didn't make sense to me, and made me really wish for Y-axis aiming. With Wolfenstein, everything I've encountered so far it at the same level as the player, which has spared me this confusion, and made it more fun for me. Wolfenstein 3D is a game I can enjoy in 30 minute increments, as a fun way to destress and enjoy a classic game I hadn't had the opportunity to play until now.
Of course, the release of Wolfenstein 3D in this fashion is also a brilliant marketing strategy. Gamers are getting a great game at a great price, which of course makes the fan base happy. Now build on that with the fact that playing through this game will unlock rewards in the upcoming Wolfenstein game, and players become more interested in checking out the new game. And, of course, why not seal the deal by including a trailor for the new Wolfenstein as a required part of the download? (Truthfully, the Wolfenstein trailor probably constitutes 50% or more of the game's total file size) It's a 1-2-3 combo to raise interest and awareness of an upcoming product, and I think more companies should try something like this, where that can. I mean, I got a fun game, and (eventually) 200 achievement points, and they got the word out about Wolfenstein in a way that didn't feel at all intrusive.
Who else could profit from this same marketing tactic? SEGA has already re-released the majority of their back-catalogue, so I don't think they could, but I'd be happy to download Road Rash as a promo for some new racing game. {EDIT: I'm not sure who actually own Road Rash these days, I think it might be EA, not Sega...} Square-Enix has been busy re-releasing their old games by every means but direct-download. How great would it be to see XBLA ports of the early Final Fantasy classics to stir the waters before FFXIII releases?
Of course, re-releasing games would cost money, as they'd have to be reworked for the arcade, but if you offer a known quality game at a reasonable price, people will surely download it, and depending on the game and development costs, companies could be making good money on these re-releases, while getting "free" advertising for their upcoming products, and the gaming public has little to no problem with it, since we're getting a pretty good deal.
Activision's release of Wolfenstein 3D is brilliant marketing, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if other companies try similar tactics in the future. If the results continue to work out this well, will any of us mind?
Showing posts with label editorial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label editorial. Show all posts
Friday, June 5, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The Seven Deadly Sins of Achievement Fanatics
I’ve been an achievement fanatic and a member of a community of like-minded individuals for a long time. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying chasing every points you can get, even from bad games, if you have a reason to do so. As I’ve gone my merry way scoring points, I’ve come across seven behaviors/habits frequently displayed by achievement fanatics that truly irritate me. These “bad habits” of the community are listed and explained below.
I don’t intend for this post to come across as me standing on a pedestal telling everyone what they’re doing wrong, while pretending I’m innocent. This post is as much self-critique as it is social commentary, as I will be rating myself on how guilty I am of each habit listed below. A rating of 1 means I don’t have that problem at all. A 10 means I’m guilty as hell. If I can think of any notable achievement whores out there who are a paragon of innocence of these sins, they shall be praised for it (shaming isn’t my thing, so I’m omitting the names of the big offenders).
1. Impatience
Many achievement junkies seem to be extremely impatient people. They expect any game they play to bend over and give them their points at practically GSL speed, with no difficulty whatsoever. We’ve all heard people whining about having trouble beating a game on hard, having to play online for a while, and a million other statements to the effect that they wish the game was over with already. While there is a line between being impatient and complaining about achievements that seem genuinely unreasonable (Overlord in Far Cry 2, numerous 1000 online match achievements), I feel too often people are in a hurry to rush from one game to the next, without taking any time to enjoy what they’re currently playing.
PARAGON OF PATIENCE: The Pants Party
HOW GUILTY AM I? It depends on the situation. During a GSL, I’m as impatient as one can possibly be, and get easily frustrated when things aren’t going my way. When not in the league, I’m more willing to work through games, and don’t need to rush from one to the next, though I do get irritated sometime with tough or time consuming achievements.
GSL GUILT: 10
NON-GSL: 4 to 5
2. Boosting-Only
If it’s possible to boost achievements, these people will boost them every single time. I’m not against boosting. I’ve done it numerous times if different games. However, I only boost achievements in games where the online play is dead and I could never get those points any other way, or the achievements involve too much luck or are almost impossible to get legit. (Or, I admit, if I've played the MP for a while but am too lazy to play all the way to the achievement criteria) If online achievements don’t meet those criteria, I actually earn them through play. It’s a crazy idea, I know. I earned most of the MP achievements in Condemned 2 and Vegas 2 legit, for example. The same can be said for everything I currently have in COD3. I'm not against boosting for the reasons listed above. However, developers put time and effort into those multiplayer modes, so while boosting isn't illegal, I think it's disrespectful to the game's creators to blow through the MP for the points without experiencing it at all, if it's actually possible to get a real game going. People who ONLY boost, and always take that easy way out, infuriate me. Boost selectively and responsible please, and not on everything.
For those guilty of this sin, if DLC doesn't come with points, they won't buy it. If a game has MP but no MP achievements, they won't play it. After a game has been 1ked, it never gets played again. Depending on the game, I'm either OK with this or infuriated by it. Let's use Mass Effect as an example. To get all the points in that, you have to play it several times. I played it almost 5x to get my 1050. I think, after all that play, it's OK to not want to play the game anymore, since I've invested so much in it already, and have all the points. For single-player content, I have no problem with people not looking back once they've finished everything.
The classic "It's all about ME." The size of a person's gamerscore is not a measure of how narcisstic they are. I've run across people in the 10-20k range who are far, far worse than anyone over 100k. These gamers are massively self-absorbed, assuming that everything they do is super-important and everyone should care. Don't even bother asking these people for help in a game. Unless they stand to gain as much or more than you do, they won't help. Their score, and what they want to play, are all that matter. They crave attention and will seek it any way they can, which in the case of achievement whores usually involves starting internet drama, going out of their way to refute/debunk someone, and e-shouting their latest achievement excapades. Yes, I'm aware everything I'm writing right now could be taken ironically. I'll get to me in a minute. Thankfully, this is not a pandemic among achievement whores, but more limited to a small percentage of the population.
This is similar enough to Narcissism, but with groups. These groups of people are exclusive cliques, often hanging out mostly with each other, often being very self-referential (though expecting others to know what they're talking about). The group as a whole displays the tendencies of a narcisstic individual, though the levels of narcissism from individual members may vary. There's nothing wrong with having a small group of friends you regularly play or boost with. But when this group begins to close the gates of admission, and the traits of narcissism show up, you've got an elitist clique. Again, I'm someone could read this ironically if they wanted to, though I think my fellow members of TSA and Hand of Thrawn would agree that we're not elitist at all.
I don’t intend for this post to come across as me standing on a pedestal telling everyone what they’re doing wrong, while pretending I’m innocent. This post is as much self-critique as it is social commentary, as I will be rating myself on how guilty I am of each habit listed below. A rating of 1 means I don’t have that problem at all. A 10 means I’m guilty as hell. If I can think of any notable achievement whores out there who are a paragon of innocence of these sins, they shall be praised for it (shaming isn’t my thing, so I’m omitting the names of the big offenders).
1. Impatience
Many achievement junkies seem to be extremely impatient people. They expect any game they play to bend over and give them their points at practically GSL speed, with no difficulty whatsoever. We’ve all heard people whining about having trouble beating a game on hard, having to play online for a while, and a million other statements to the effect that they wish the game was over with already. While there is a line between being impatient and complaining about achievements that seem genuinely unreasonable (Overlord in Far Cry 2, numerous 1000 online match achievements), I feel too often people are in a hurry to rush from one game to the next, without taking any time to enjoy what they’re currently playing.PARAGON OF PATIENCE: The Pants Party
His score is insane. If you look at it, you’ll also notice he has perfect scores in many RPGs, which are by nature time consuming affairs, and not games for the impatient. He’ll work with a game and see it to the end, and if he’s complained about wanting to move on, it has been a rare event.
HOW GUILTY AM I? It depends on the situation. During a GSL, I’m as impatient as one can possibly be, and get easily frustrated when things aren’t going my way. When not in the league, I’m more willing to work through games, and don’t need to rush from one to the next, though I do get irritated sometime with tough or time consuming achievements.
GSL GUILT: 10
NON-GSL: 4 to 5
2. Boosting-Only
If it’s possible to boost achievements, these people will boost them every single time. I’m not against boosting. I’ve done it numerous times if different games. However, I only boost achievements in games where the online play is dead and I could never get those points any other way, or the achievements involve too much luck or are almost impossible to get legit. (Or, I admit, if I've played the MP for a while but am too lazy to play all the way to the achievement criteria) If online achievements don’t meet those criteria, I actually earn them through play. It’s a crazy idea, I know. I earned most of the MP achievements in Condemned 2 and Vegas 2 legit, for example. The same can be said for everything I currently have in COD3. I'm not against boosting for the reasons listed above. However, developers put time and effort into those multiplayer modes, so while boosting isn't illegal, I think it's disrespectful to the game's creators to blow through the MP for the points without experiencing it at all, if it's actually possible to get a real game going. People who ONLY boost, and always take that easy way out, infuriate me. Boost selectively and responsible please, and not on everything.HOW GUILTY AM I? 4/10
3. Reducing Games to their Achievements
By this, I mean evaluating a game based on how easy the achievements are, how quickly they can be earned, and nothing else. You don't care if a game is actually fun, only the points matter. This is a matter of course and a basic gaming philosophy for some people which baffles me. I see points as an extension of my gaming hobby, not the be-all-end-all in themselves. The completionists in this group will never play some games with a few particularly tough/time consuming achievements, because they probably wouldn't complete them. If they don't like the achievements, these people won't play the game, even if it's a great game in every other way. Let's face it, almost all of us are guilty of this sin to some extent or another. I won't play Turok because it's list is too MP-centric, for example. I'm sure I could find other examples if I wanted to look around. I wish we could all focus on the games a little more than their achievement lists, but I guess it's par for the course with our hobby.
MY GUILT: 5 to 6
4. No Achievement Points = No Point in Playing
For those guilty of this sin, if DLC doesn't come with points, they won't buy it. If a game has MP but no MP achievements, they won't play it. After a game has been 1ked, it never gets played again. Depending on the game, I'm either OK with this or infuriated by it. Let's use Mass Effect as an example. To get all the points in that, you have to play it several times. I played it almost 5x to get my 1050. I think, after all that play, it's OK to not want to play the game anymore, since I've invested so much in it already, and have all the points. For single-player content, I have no problem with people not looking back once they've finished everything.The annoyance for me comes in MP and co-op play. There are people who won't play L4D any more because they 1ked it, or Vegas 2, and any other game like that. Too many people move on the instant there's no more point gain to be had from these games. I can't tell you how often I've tried to get social games of Vegas 2 (MP or T-Hunt), L4D, or Gears 2 going, and recieved no response. Sometimes I get messages like, "Thanks, but I already have all the points." I wasn't asking you if you wanted to boost, I was asking if you wanted to play. Lately, getting into Gears hasn't been a problem, since working toward 100 takes so long, but the problem remains the same for other games. I'm grateful to have friends like Sabre, Silva, and my brother, to name a few, who are always down for social play. I've found, however, that the vast majority of the point scoring community isn't, and that I need to start diversifying my list beyond x360a members if I want to have more social games.
MY GUILT
Single player: 10 (rarely ever replay SP only games)
MP and co-op: 4 to 5 (based on if I enjoy the MP or not)
5. Narcissim
The classic "It's all about ME." The size of a person's gamerscore is not a measure of how narcisstic they are. I've run across people in the 10-20k range who are far, far worse than anyone over 100k. These gamers are massively self-absorbed, assuming that everything they do is super-important and everyone should care. Don't even bother asking these people for help in a game. Unless they stand to gain as much or more than you do, they won't help. Their score, and what they want to play, are all that matter. They crave attention and will seek it any way they can, which in the case of achievement whores usually involves starting internet drama, going out of their way to refute/debunk someone, and e-shouting their latest achievement excapades. Yes, I'm aware everything I'm writing right now could be taken ironically. I'll get to me in a minute. Thankfully, this is not a pandemic among achievement whores, but more limited to a small percentage of the population.PARAGON FOR NOT BEING A NARCISSIST: Stallion83
I'm no psychologist, and I've never had the opportunity to speak or game with the guy, but let me explain why I think the world's #1 achievement whore isn't a narcissit.
Having such an incridibly high score is just a desperate cry for attention, right? WRONG. At least we achievement junkies know that scoring points can be a fun hobby. He simply does it better than anyone else. There's very clearly no "If I get more points people will love me" theme in his writing. He does it cause he wants to, whether people paid attention or not. As the #1, he's going to get a lot of attention, whether he wants it or not, and I believe he stated somewhere that he made to blog so people can follow what he's doing, and so he can show he's a real gamer, not some hacking tool. Nowhere in his blog will you find anything along the lines of "I'm Stallion83. I'm the best EVAR! You all wish you were as awesome as me." Those would be classically narcissistic lines, but you won't find them. He seems remarkably level-headed, and not out to be better than anyone. One could expect someone with such a high gamerscore to be full of their own self-importance be self-congratulatory, but that not true here at all. He's also been kind enough to respond to a few messages I've sent him with help, and could laugh about an achievement whoring poem I wrote a while ago, which included a reference to him in it. So, for these reasons, I give Stallion the award for being a model gamer, and not a narcissist.
HOW GUILTY AM I? I started this blog because I'm a writer, and I love games, so blogging about gaming is fun for me. I've tried to use my Review Team status and other things to draw an audience, but my intentions have been noble enough. I would continue this blog even if nobody read it, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy knowing I have some small readership. This is a really hard category to honestly judge oneself on. How much of what I do is attention motivated? I can make fun of myself, I don't start drama to feed my ego (April Fools joke aside), and I'm usually decent about helping others out, so I don't think I'm too horrible. I'm more of a narcissist than Stallion though... Almost positive on that front.
SCORE: 5 to 6. If I'm horrible, I'm sure you'll let me hear it.
6. Elitism
This is similar enough to Narcissism, but with groups. These groups of people are exclusive cliques, often hanging out mostly with each other, often being very self-referential (though expecting others to know what they're talking about). The group as a whole displays the tendencies of a narcisstic individual, though the levels of narcissism from individual members may vary. There's nothing wrong with having a small group of friends you regularly play or boost with. But when this group begins to close the gates of admission, and the traits of narcissism show up, you've got an elitist clique. Again, I'm someone could read this ironically if they wanted to, though I think my fellow members of TSA and Hand of Thrawn would agree that we're not elitist at all.MY GUILT: 1
7. Economic Excessiveness
The worst offenders have to buy new games all the time. They'll drop $59.99 like it's nothing for tons of new games, beat them, and sell them a week later. These people have to play everything as close to release date as they can, and seem to never have heard of bargin bins or waiting. Such a habit is not unique to achievement junkies, but with the quest for more points being essentially never-ending, I think we have a more acute form of it.
I know, I know... Who am I to tell people how to spend their money? If they worked for their cash, and they want to spend it in such a fashion, what's the big deal? Yes, it's their money, and I would never do anything to stop them from spending their money how they wish, but it's perfectly OK to disagree with their habits. Why pay so much for something you'll just get rid of in a week? Why not wait for a copy from Gamefly or Blockbuster? Perhaps wait until games have become cheaper and then purchase them.
I listed this one last, and it's really one of the smaller sins in my book. People who buy then sell games instantly, or have to buy up every game known to man, simply irritate me, and the level of my irritation can be correlated with the amount of money people say they spend. As a college student, I have to be thrifty, as I don't have a lot of cash. I generally only purchase the AAA games I know I want, and Gamefly or get from bargin bins everything else. I generally won't pay over $20 for a used game. I will wait for a game to drop below that price, then get it. Maybe I just have money envy I don't know. I won't make any strong condemnations on this one, but we all know some big offenders.
MY GUILT: 2
How I would rate the sins in terms of severity:
1. Elitism
2. Narcissism
3. No Achievements = No point in playing
4. Boosting-Only
5. Reduction of Game to Points
6. Economic Excessiveness
7. Impatience.
IMAGES:
Monday, February 2, 2009
Gamerscore Inflation: How More Points May Be Bad For Us All
Before writing this post, I did a Google search on "Gamerscore Inflation" to see what turned up. I wasn't too surprised to see that there wasn't much, and existing sources use the term differently than I'm about to.
"Gamerscore Inflation" has been discussed in two different ways that I found. The first usage refers to people who hack/gamesave/profile glitch their way to more points, thus artificially inflating their scores without really playing. People offering to boost other people's score for them, sometimes for money (and possibly using one of the methods earlier mentioned) fall into the second usage of the term. Both involve a single player's account, and what happens to that score.
My definition of Gamerscore Inflation has ramifications on the entire gaming industry, and every Xbox owner. I'm talking about Microsoft-sponsored Gamerscore Inflation, in the form of raising point caps on games, and rising uncertainty on where they'll draw the line on how many points a game can or should have. As gamers and consumers, we need to keep a critical eye on this trend, as its development over 2009 will define the future of the achievements system. More points isn't always a good thing.
Microsoft has changed is policy on achievements more than once. I believe the initial rules were that a game must have a minimum of 5 achievements, a maximum of 50, and could have up to 1000 points. Most games took all 1000 they could, but there were a few weird exceptions. To polish things up, and make for easier comparison, Microsoft changed the rules so every game must have 1000 points available on the disc. The Shivering Isles expansion of Oblivion marked the first time DLC was given achievements, and a new cap of 1250 was given to games, where developers could add up to 250 points through DLC, and could make that content free or for purchase, as they wished.
Now comparisons start to get sloppy again, though it isn't Microsoft's fault. Developers don't have to add all 250, so now that nice line of 1000s on your card has been replaced with 1050 for Mass Effect, 1100 in Bioshock and Lost Odyssey, 1220 in The Force Unleashed, and 1250 in Oblivion, as an example. At this point, perhaps you're thinking I'm a neat-freak of sorts who wants all games to look the same in points, that's not the issue here. I love getting points in DLC like most other achievement junkies (though I'm not part of the "No points = No purchase" crowd). While it's nice that every game now has 1000 original points, this DLC policy has undone the "ease of comparison" idea that was part of the original intent of the first policy revision.
So far, the system has worked well enough, as most of the DLC content that comes with new achievements is substantial content that deserves to have points attached to it. At this point, developers don't seem to be abusing achievements as a way to get people to purchase DLC, though I know some whine about Gears of War 2 or Fallout's 800msp cost for 100 points in Operation Anchorage. If you're only playing Fallout 3 for the points though, you really have issues. Certainly, some developers aren't as good as others about providing good DLC, but if asked the question, "Are developers ripping us off on DLC or exploiting achievement whores?" my answer for now would be, not YET, for the most part. 2009 will be a telling year for DLC though, and things could shift in that direction.
The change in the system that truly has me concerned is the rise of new "super games," or games that are allowed to ascend beyond the 1250 cap. First, Halo 3 got the obscene raise to 1750 points. Obscene is the only word to describe Halo being worth almost any 2 other games, especially since its DLC is only a series of map packs, but since Halo is one of Microsoft's biggest cash ponies, it's not too surprising. Next up is Fallout 3, which is reported to have 100 points in The Pitt, and 150 in Broken Steel, making for a total of 1350, with the possibility of more points if they make more content. Fallout raises an important question; how should episodic content be treated? Should all such releases of content get points? What will the standard be? Right now, there doesn't seem to be one, but Bethesda doesn't appear to be abusing their exception status.
You're not worth 1750 points, sorry.
Halo and Fallout will not be the last games cracking the 1250 cap. With Microsoft shelling out millions for the exclusive rights to GTA4 DLC, I promise you they'll push that title by offering up more points, so count on GTA4 getting to at least 1500 total. I'm also expecting Gears of War 2 to push beyond 1250 before Epic releases Gears 3. So far, it looks like things are being handled on a case-by-case basis, which is good, but this trend is only beginning. How far will it go? What happens if more and more developers want to break the 1250 cap?
GTA4: The next achievement super-game
If the number of games granted exceptions remains rather small, it's not too big a problem, but there are several possible outcomes to the system as a whole if more and more games were to be allowed to go beyond 1250. Enter the dark potential futures:
1. Gamerscore Inflation:
As games continue to have more and more points, the games released before the cap raise would mean less and less, compared to new games offering up hundreds of points in DLC. Suddenly, everyone has higher scores, and hitting milestones like 100k aren't nearly as hard or impressive as they once were.
2. Developer exploitation:
Some could argue we're already being over-charged for DLC, but further point allowances could make things worse. What's stopping developers from making "Get X kills with Y DLC-only weapon" achievements? We already have "On X map, do Y" achievements in Halo and Gears, among others. If you think developers are using achievements to push some people into purchasing content now, imagine how much more they could do it if they're given more points to work with. Remember Microsoft gets a cut on DLC sales, so if it helps their bottom line, they could be more generous in allowing games to have more points. And of course, the more points attached to a piece of DLC, the likely you are to buy it, if you care about points.
3. Stringing along gamers:
While Bethesda's releases for Fallout should all be quality, odds are not everyone will be so good. Episodic content doesn't really exist on the 360 yet, but the idea of monthly content packs, each with a fee and a few more points, is certainly possible, if Fallout 3 turns out to be an example of the future. Could developers keep using points to sell strings of mediocre DLC? Add an achievement or two to a bunch of DLC pieces, so people have to purchase all of them if they want all the points? What about games like Rock Band or Guitar Hero? Would they take advantage of higher point allowances, and the 99 achievement limit introduced by the Orange Box, to keep attaching an achievement to whatever track pack they want? I'm a little surprised they haven't tried that already...
Ultimately, who has control over how points for DLC are utilized going into the future? Microsoft, for starters. They'll be the ones to decide just how many points a game is allowed to have, and whether games with more than 1250 become common or not remains their decision. However, it's up to us, who buy that DLC, to decide how far we'll let developers go. If we live up to the moniker of 'whores' and buy anything for points, could you blame developers for wanting to exploit that? If we're smart, and don't succumb to the temptation to buy any crap for a few more points, perhaps developers will be responsible in their usage. We can only hope.
In the February issue of OXM, Achievement Whores are listed as #35 in a "Top 100 for 2009" article. They write, "They're Microsoft's most valuable resource: The gamers who will do, buy, or play anything for another 1000 points of Gamerscore. Mediocre budget software of 2009, you have found your new target audience. Please milk it with care." We'll have to decide on our own how badly we let them milk us...
Images:
http://www.xbox360achievements.org/images/screenshots/274/med_014Halo3new14.jpg
http://www.xbox360achievements.org/images/screenshots/324/med_Street_sweeper_2_tif_jpgcopy.jpg
Achievement Generator: http://achievements.schrankmonster.de/Achievement.aspx
"Gamerscore Inflation" has been discussed in two different ways that I found. The first usage refers to people who hack/gamesave/profile glitch their way to more points, thus artificially inflating their scores without really playing. People offering to boost other people's score for them, sometimes for money (and possibly using one of the methods earlier mentioned) fall into the second usage of the term. Both involve a single player's account, and what happens to that score.
My definition of Gamerscore Inflation has ramifications on the entire gaming industry, and every Xbox owner. I'm talking about Microsoft-sponsored Gamerscore Inflation, in the form of raising point caps on games, and rising uncertainty on where they'll draw the line on how many points a game can or should have. As gamers and consumers, we need to keep a critical eye on this trend, as its development over 2009 will define the future of the achievements system. More points isn't always a good thing.
Microsoft has changed is policy on achievements more than once. I believe the initial rules were that a game must have a minimum of 5 achievements, a maximum of 50, and could have up to 1000 points. Most games took all 1000 they could, but there were a few weird exceptions. To polish things up, and make for easier comparison, Microsoft changed the rules so every game must have 1000 points available on the disc. The Shivering Isles expansion of Oblivion marked the first time DLC was given achievements, and a new cap of 1250 was given to games, where developers could add up to 250 points through DLC, and could make that content free or for purchase, as they wished.
Now comparisons start to get sloppy again, though it isn't Microsoft's fault. Developers don't have to add all 250, so now that nice line of 1000s on your card has been replaced with 1050 for Mass Effect, 1100 in Bioshock and Lost Odyssey, 1220 in The Force Unleashed, and 1250 in Oblivion, as an example. At this point, perhaps you're thinking I'm a neat-freak of sorts who wants all games to look the same in points, that's not the issue here. I love getting points in DLC like most other achievement junkies (though I'm not part of the "No points = No purchase" crowd). While it's nice that every game now has 1000 original points, this DLC policy has undone the "ease of comparison" idea that was part of the original intent of the first policy revision.
So far, the system has worked well enough, as most of the DLC content that comes with new achievements is substantial content that deserves to have points attached to it. At this point, developers don't seem to be abusing achievements as a way to get people to purchase DLC, though I know some whine about Gears of War 2 or Fallout's 800msp cost for 100 points in Operation Anchorage. If you're only playing Fallout 3 for the points though, you really have issues. Certainly, some developers aren't as good as others about providing good DLC, but if asked the question, "Are developers ripping us off on DLC or exploiting achievement whores?" my answer for now would be, not YET, for the most part. 2009 will be a telling year for DLC though, and things could shift in that direction.
The change in the system that truly has me concerned is the rise of new "super games," or games that are allowed to ascend beyond the 1250 cap. First, Halo 3 got the obscene raise to 1750 points. Obscene is the only word to describe Halo being worth almost any 2 other games, especially since its DLC is only a series of map packs, but since Halo is one of Microsoft's biggest cash ponies, it's not too surprising. Next up is Fallout 3, which is reported to have 100 points in The Pitt, and 150 in Broken Steel, making for a total of 1350, with the possibility of more points if they make more content. Fallout raises an important question; how should episodic content be treated? Should all such releases of content get points? What will the standard be? Right now, there doesn't seem to be one, but Bethesda doesn't appear to be abusing their exception status.
You're not worth 1750 points, sorry.Halo and Fallout will not be the last games cracking the 1250 cap. With Microsoft shelling out millions for the exclusive rights to GTA4 DLC, I promise you they'll push that title by offering up more points, so count on GTA4 getting to at least 1500 total. I'm also expecting Gears of War 2 to push beyond 1250 before Epic releases Gears 3. So far, it looks like things are being handled on a case-by-case basis, which is good, but this trend is only beginning. How far will it go? What happens if more and more developers want to break the 1250 cap?
GTA4: The next achievement super-gameIf the number of games granted exceptions remains rather small, it's not too big a problem, but there are several possible outcomes to the system as a whole if more and more games were to be allowed to go beyond 1250. Enter the dark potential futures:
1. Gamerscore Inflation:
As games continue to have more and more points, the games released before the cap raise would mean less and less, compared to new games offering up hundreds of points in DLC. Suddenly, everyone has higher scores, and hitting milestones like 100k aren't nearly as hard or impressive as they once were.2. Developer exploitation:
Some could argue we're already being over-charged for DLC, but further point allowances could make things worse. What's stopping developers from making "Get X kills with Y DLC-only weapon" achievements? We already have "On X map, do Y" achievements in Halo and Gears, among others. If you think developers are using achievements to push some people into purchasing content now, imagine how much more they could do it if they're given more points to work with. Remember Microsoft gets a cut on DLC sales, so if it helps their bottom line, they could be more generous in allowing games to have more points. And of course, the more points attached to a piece of DLC, the likely you are to buy it, if you care about points.3. Stringing along gamers:
While Bethesda's releases for Fallout should all be quality, odds are not everyone will be so good. Episodic content doesn't really exist on the 360 yet, but the idea of monthly content packs, each with a fee and a few more points, is certainly possible, if Fallout 3 turns out to be an example of the future. Could developers keep using points to sell strings of mediocre DLC? Add an achievement or two to a bunch of DLC pieces, so people have to purchase all of them if they want all the points? What about games like Rock Band or Guitar Hero? Would they take advantage of higher point allowances, and the 99 achievement limit introduced by the Orange Box, to keep attaching an achievement to whatever track pack they want? I'm a little surprised they haven't tried that already...Ultimately, who has control over how points for DLC are utilized going into the future? Microsoft, for starters. They'll be the ones to decide just how many points a game is allowed to have, and whether games with more than 1250 become common or not remains their decision. However, it's up to us, who buy that DLC, to decide how far we'll let developers go. If we live up to the moniker of 'whores' and buy anything for points, could you blame developers for wanting to exploit that? If we're smart, and don't succumb to the temptation to buy any crap for a few more points, perhaps developers will be responsible in their usage. We can only hope.
In the February issue of OXM, Achievement Whores are listed as #35 in a "Top 100 for 2009" article. They write, "They're Microsoft's most valuable resource: The gamers who will do, buy, or play anything for another 1000 points of Gamerscore. Mediocre budget software of 2009, you have found your new target audience. Please milk it with care." We'll have to decide on our own how badly we let them milk us...
Images:
http://www.xbox360achievements.org/images/screenshots/274/med_014Halo3new14.jpg
http://www.xbox360achievements.org/images/screenshots/324/med_Street_sweeper_2_tif_jpgcopy.jpg
Achievement Generator: http://achievements.schrankmonster.de/Achievement.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)