E3 2014: The Fallout

 

After watching all the presentations at E3 2014 I thought it best to let a few days go by before I gave my thoughts. I hold some small regrets from last year’s E3 over my excitement at Sony managing to win fans over with the PlayStation 4 announcement. I reflected on that one and made a post about it but, in short, it was that Sony was being praised for doing things that should be standard. This is the reason I decided to wait it out for a few days and let myself really sink in this year’s E3. I didn’t want to let my excitement for some company announcing games I like to influence my opinion. Instead I wanted to view the presentations on how they promoted exclusives, the way they used trailers, gameplay demos, etc. and judge them based on the presentations rather than siding with a company that presented games that I like.

E3 2014 was not as exciting as I felt it could have been. I feel that, for an event that is essentially a hype train, it could have done a lot more to impress. Now I’m sure there are fans who were excited about their favorite console or seeing their favorite franchises and such but that’s not what I mean. Those fans will always be pleased when they see their favorite games announced. I was that way when I saw the Mortal Kombat X trailer because I’m a Mortal Kombat fan. That’s not the point I’m trying to make. I won’t go into full detail of their presentations and only touch up on how I felt about each one. Keep in mind these are my personal views and I don’t expect everyone to agree with me.

As a disclaimer I’m focusing on exclusives when I mention games revealed and I won’t mention all. I am aware of many games presented but the problem is the vast majority are multiplatform titles and none of those serve to promote a console. You see a trailer for Destiny or Arkham Knight and it doesn’t matter the console you own you’ll still be able to get it. Also, HD Remasters, which were shown, I find problematic. Remastering has become a nickel-and-dime tactic but that’s going to be expected. So I’m avoiding bring those up when I can. So with that here are my opinions of each press release.

MICROSOFT

I found their presentation to be very lackluster and there were no real exclusives that completely amazed me. Sunset Overdrive was a decent exclusive as well though I didn’t find it to be as intriguing as others may have. Open World seems to be a new trend and, though this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it may end up becoming oversaturated. Platinum also announced an exclusive Scalebound which looks to be an interesting concept but since it was a CGI trailer it really didn’t tell what the game was like. It only showed the concept of there always being a bigger enemy.

I will give Microsoft credit, though. They did manage to focus on games and that’s definitely a step forward from last year when they were adamant about pushing the Kinect, hand gesture and talking to your machine, sports and television. Microsoft stepped up from last year but they still had nothing that showed why the Xbox One is the go to system. Forza and Halo are great selling games but they could have pushed something extraordinary and they failed to do that.

SONY

I admit I was expecting a little more with them but they seemed to fall into the same camp as Microsoft; A very dull presentation. This was made even worse by the fact they actually took a page from Microsoft’s E3 2013 presentation and spent a lot of time focusing on television. Sony had a presentation that was almost two hours long and with the television announcements it really made it feel like that. As for exclusives, they did present Uncharted 4 which served for some hype for the PlayStation 4.

My theory on the issue is that Sony walked into E3 2014 a little too confident. The fast sales of the PlayStation 4, I think, really gave them a confidence that is still too early to claim victory. This showed in their presentation and they had very little of interest to talk about. Overall, Sony’s presentation would be just as boring as Microsoft’s but I have to say they were the worst of the two mainly because of their lull in the middle to talk about television.

NINTENDO

Nintendo was smart choosing to go on the day after Sony and Microsoft. This allowed them to have the entire day focused on them. They did not, however, have a full stage press conference like the other two. Instead they focused on a digital event which was a pre-recorded video not unlike Nintendo Direct. Nintendo has been hurting a lot lately with the pathetic sale of the Wii U and how they pretty much ignored it for almost all of 2013. Though, in hindsight, 2013 did help kick up the 3DS sales which, at the time, were hurting drastically as well.

This year they chose to focus almost entirely on the Wii U and it was a wise decision. Nintendo managed a better show than the other two companies by showcasing a ton of exclusives including some new IPs as well as staples including Kirby, Yoshi and The Legend of Zelda. Was it an amazing event? No, it had its lulls too but it did show that Nintendo was actively listening to what fans wanted and willing to give them even a taste of things to come. Having Adult Swim’s Robot Chicken come in and do animations as well didn’t hurt any.

SUMMARY

The three console manufactures had some good things showing but I’ll have to say that this year was the year Nintendo outshone Sony and Microsoft. It wasn’t so much in what games were shown because that’s always going to be up for debate. It was how it was presented and Nintendo managed to bring a show to the audience without requiring the main stage to do it with the exception of the Smash Bros. tournament.

Nintendo went into E3 understanding they weren’t the top dog and so they brought the best of what they could offer even announcing some games in early development which is something Nintendo is not known for. Sony and Microsoft should have done this as well. Microsoft is still struggling to fix its image with the Xbox One and, though they did focus on games, they did not treat their press conference as if their console’s life depended on it. Sony felt a little too proud and they really should have went in swinging hard instead of assuming the would be victorious.

EA & UBISOFT

I should note that it wasn’t just console presentations but some publishers as well. Ubisoft showcased a lot of their upcoming titles including a very depressing trailer for Tom Clancy’s The Division. Their showcase was decent but nothing super special. I’ve not much to say about Ubisoft otherwise. I’m not entirely sure why we even needed an Ubisoft presentation.

One of the worst presentations, in my opinion, was EA. Sure they had the Dragon Age trailer but they showcased three trailers: Mirror’s Edge, Mass Effect, and Star Wars: Battlefront. The problem with these three trailers is that they didn’t show anything of the games. They claimed it was behind the scenes footage. I don’t buy that and find it to be lazy. Behind the scenes footage could have been used as extras for the games themselves rather than trailers. Seeing these trailers did nothing for me and it felt as if EA was showcasing hubris and going on the belief that people will buy these games no matter what they show.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Ultimately, Nintendo had the better showcase and Sony and Microsoft were rather uninteresting. Sony and Microsoft had a lot of titles scheduled for 2015 leaving Holiday 2014 rather empty and this is not a good thing. Nintendo had 2015 titles too but they showed a lot of games that are scheduled for Holiday 2014. It’s ok to showcase future titles but have enough to keep customer interest especially during the holiday shopping season.

That’s my opinion on the matter. Take it for what it is.

My Hatred for Story DLC

 

I have developed a massive hatred for paid story DLC. It’s just a practice that seems really shady to me.

Before the Seventh Generation of consoles you would buy a game. That purchase was the entire game. Complete multiplayer, complete story, complete everything. The internet was just not what it is today so the only real way to continue a story was to release expansion packs. Often, those were complete games too that just required the base game to get up and running.

Such is not the case anymore. There are still a few titles that still toy with expansion packs, largely MMOs, but the majority of titles that exists today deal with DLC. Initially I had no issues with DLC but now it has begun to bother me.

Before the Seventh Generation studios made money off the initial purchase of a game. PC Games didn’t have that restriction so much even with the way the internet was but even they released expansions rather than DLC. It worked well for them and the customer. Video games were required to be complete upon release and this would make money. Even the beginning of Generation Seven started that way but as broadband became more widespread it changed.

Now you have a situation where games are released incomplete in one way or another. Final Fantasy XIII-2 was released with much story content restricted to DLC. That DLC was used to explain situations in the main game that were otherwise confusing or seemed to go nowhere. Mass Effect 2 released story DLC that, though wasn’t directly involved the main story, carried on canonical situations that are part of the entire trilogy’s story. DmC did a similar thing with Vergil’s Downfall DLC.

I could continue on but the point I’m making is that there are many games now that release story DLC and are essentially leaving the main purchase unfinished. Then most of these games are charged a full $60 or more for their purchases. So you pay for the game plus the DLC per release. Some offer a Season Pass or something similarly named that allow you to get the DLC as it comes out without paying separately but even this is still a problem for me. If you want a complete game you end up paying around $80 or more. This is even exacerbated in PAL regions where the price of games are already in the hundreds.

I do not believe you should have to pay $60 for a game with an incomplete story only to be told to get the rest of the story as DLC for $5-$20 a pop. The entire game should be finished. If you do mess up as the case was for Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 3 that story fix should be free as it was for those games.

I've no problem with paid DLC for map packs, costumes, items, etc. Call of Duty releases map packs mostly. None of that bugs me although the prices for the Call of Duty maps is a bit much. A lot of fighting games release costume packs and that's fine too. Though there are issues with fighting game DLC as well which usually involve paid DLC characters.

I do not tolerate nickel & diming tactics and that's all Paid Story DLC is. If it's a game I really want that bad I'll seek it used if that's the case. If you can't be bothered to release a complete product then I can't be bothered to hand over my money to the developer/publisher. I do not sympathize with the "Developers need money to keep making games" ideal when they don’t care too about the customer to give them their money’s worth. I do understand that, in many cases, this is also the publishers fault. In that case it’s just collateral damage then. I apologize to the developer but if the publisher wants to swindle me out of story content then I either will buy it used or not buy it at all. Either way the company doesn’t get money from me.

I am more than willing to let a developer or publisher lose money if they can't bother to release quality, fully finished products. This is not counting for bugs of course unless it's like the issue Skyrim had on the PS3 or Assassin's Creed Liberation on the Vita. If the game is released so unplayable that it requires a patch upon release then it should be pushed back for that system to fix the problem. Not released with a Day One patch to fix it, left broken for months, or just deciding to not fix bugs in favor of DLC. (I’m looking at you Warner Bros.)

So, in conclusion, if I'm going to pay $60 for an unfinished story then I do expect the story DLC to be free to complete my purchase. I don’t buy into the attitude of “It’s such a small price to pay” or “If you can’t afford it rethink your priorities.” You know what? I can afford a $3 gallon of milk but I’ll buy the $2.50 one instead. I can afford the more expensive item but there’s need to waste money like that. It’s not about being able to afford anything. It’s about getting what you pay for. Gamers really need to rethink their position and realize that they are consumers and consumers are the ones who make the decisions not companies and game developers and publishers are no exception.

Parents and the M Rating

 

(Note: ESRB and MPAA ratings are used but there are equivalents in other countries.)

As the Christmas season ends another group of kids will get their hands on multiple games and some will be exposed to M rated games, maybe for the first time. With that, there seems to be an issue that, despite how often it’s brought up, still seems to be a problem. The issue is the M Rating for video games. M means for mature audiences and comes with a major age warning which is age 17 and older. This means that the game may be inappropriate for anyone under the age of 17. This is equivalent to the R rating for movies.

I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir here and anyone who has a big interest in gaming will know the argument that M rated games are not for children. However, often times, parents still buy their kids these games. Often with the concept that games are still just kids toys and couldn’t possibly be bad. Then they get surprised and shocked when they find the game has intense violence or nudity.

Grand Theft Auto V is a good example. The game has hardcore depictions of graphic violence, nudity and non-appropriate scenes in it. The game is, naturally, rated M for Mature but parents still purchase this game for their children and some go on to complain about the content.

I don’t know why this idea that M rated games would be considered OK for children. They’re not and never will be. That’s what the rating system is for. It’s there to allow parents to make responsible decisions as to what their children are exposed to. It really should be utilized and the tools are there just for that.

The front of the box will always show the rating. If you flip the box over then there will also be a short description of why the game got that rating which includes important information as to what level of violence, is there any substance abuse, nudity, etc. The tools are there at the box, on the shelf, at the store.

This isn’t the only toll at hand however. There is also the ESRB website which allows you to search any game title. This will allow you to see the rating, a short description and an in-depth description. This can be done from any mobile device or computer and should also be utilized. The website is there so you can make informative decisions as to what children are exposed to.

Now, keep in mind, that I am not saying what a parent should allow their child to watch or play. That’s not, at all, my intention. I’m merely saying that parents should be aware of what their children are exposed to. If you don’t have a problem with them seeing graphic violence or nudity in a  video game that’s your choice. If you do, however, then you really need to research what kind of game your child wants.

The link to the ESRB website can provide valuable information as to what kind of content is in a game and don’t forget that you can view rating and rating information on the box of any game you buy so keep that in mind when purchasing more video games for children.

Link to ESRB’s website http://www.esrb.org