hot  /  reviews  /  videos  /  cblogs  /  qposts


Manistine's blog

8:14 PM on 10.21.2011

Online Passes: Side Effects

It has become clear that online passes in one form or another will continue in the industry until something significant changes. Several of the companies that are pushing so hard for these passes are also some of the most profitable in the industry. I believe at some point something will have to give, whether it is the passes disappearing, changing into another form or something entirely new I do not know. However it turns out, it seems certain it won't happen tomorrow. As such, it is likely they will leave a few marks on the industry before they are gone.

The majority of consumers that care about online passes are also probably aware of the online multiplayer that often feels like it is just there as an excuse to add the pass. This is certainly true in many cases but the idea of adding multiplayer to every game, regardless of it is a good idea, is something that came along before online passes became prevalent. Companies have got the idea that any game needs multiplayer so they'll tack it on and now are using that tactic to try to fight used sales. The result of this business plan may not be at all what they expect.

Games like BioShock prove you don't need multiplayer and show how little it will help a game to add it in when it is not needed. I bought Bioshock used 3 years after it launched and loved it, fun game, interesting story, cool hints at the motivations of the characters. Once I beat it I picked up BioShock 2 new from Amazon. While it wasn't terrible it didn't just was not compelling in the same manner as the first. Once I played through that I tried the multiplayer. I say tried because in several days of trying I got into one game, nobody was playing it. This is far from the only time this has happened and people know that, so they see a tacked on multiplayer and know they aren't going to use it. There is a large community of people who play a lot of online games, however it is nowhere near large enough to support multiplayer for every game. There are games that put a ton of effort into their multiplayer and those will continue to be the games people play online.

The online passes are going to force used game sellers to cheapen their used games and reduce trade in values to compensate. This combined with games that have tacked on multiplayer has a good chance of making the used copies of those games even more attractive. A game with only single player a consumer can at least be assured that the company spent all their effort in that area. Unless a game can really prove in advertising that it has something great to add to the multiplayer scene or people already know it is good it won't seem like an attractive addition to the game. With any luck this will stop this practice of just throwing in multiplayer. The most important part would be that this would show up in a monetary way to companies, which is the most likely way for it to have an effect. Of course, we have no way of knowing for sure how it will all happen, but I truly hope that this is the end result. It will allow games that have no need of multiplayer to focus on what they are best at and it will stop companies from over saturating the multiplayer market.   read

6:00 PM on 07.25.2011

Motion Control: Motion Control as Peripherals

The debut of the Wii was an interesting time the gaming industry. Nintendo was taking a step in a direction that hadn't even been thought of before and nobody knew how it was going to turn out. Gaming journalism argued about it again and again but it was such a different idea most consumers were unsure of what to expect from this new system. The Wii sold at first primarily to gamers but quickly expanded into markets that game companies had not touched before. This led to group of consumers who would not classify themselves as gamers but used gaming consoles.

This distinction is important because the while the Wii was able to add a large market for the gaming industry Nintendo has had trouble in converting this market to additional software sales. Many people who were not gamers purchased the Wii as more of a toy and less of a gaming console. The difference being that they buy the console and an occasional game but it does not make a big deal of their is little new software for the system and they don't really care about the next generation of systems.

As Microsoft tried to access this new market motion control accessed a new group of people in a way Nintendo had not. I know a lot of people who own a 360 but weren't interested in the Kinect, however another member of the household purchased it and used it profusely. The Kinect has sold incredibly well and I would say it is largely due to situations similar to this. Motion controlling is often a turn off to gamers but it is such large market it absolutely going to be a continued part of the game industry.

This brings us to the question of the future of gaming and motion control. There have been rumors of the next PS and Xbox including motion control. While they are tied together in many ways they don't have to be forced into a single entity. I personally do not want to have all games use motion control, when I buy Wii games I will normally play with the classic controller if possible.

The best answer for this is to keep motion control as and addition to a system and not a primary component. With more and more household having consoles it is easier to market just the peripheral to a consumer interested in that aspect of gaming then having to sell a full system to them. However a consumer that doesn't want motion control doesn't need to buy it for his/her games. Most importantly, by keeping this separation developers will feel less pressure to make use of motion control in a game that may not benefit from it.   read

Back to Top

We follow moms on   Facebook  and   Twitter
  Light Theme      Dark Theme
Pssst. Konami Code + Enter!
You may remix stuff our site under creative commons w/@
- Destructoid means family. Living the dream, since 2006 -