Enough With the Online Dependency of Games!

As I have done in my past posts, let me briefly state where I stand. I do love to play online. I like to be able to play co-op with friends around the world. I also like to get online and frag-n-bag opposing players in a good FPS. But, I do not feel every game demands this component. So many developers have come out and said that they are only going to focus on online play. I can speak for not only myself, but also for a great deal of my gaming friends, in that we like our single-player campaigns and other solo modes. Many times, after dealing with the real world and the general public all day at work, we want to be able to escape into our virtual realms and not deal with people.

Why is there this huge push for online play? Shouldn’t the focus be on creating a good game with a good story or in the case of platformers, puzzle games, and arcade games, games with innovative play? Before the push for online games we used to have RPGs that you could clock over 100 hours playing. Action and adventure games had storylines that were typically over 40 hours. We had serious content in these games, but that has been sacrificed while more attention is being paid to tacking on an online component. (Currently many action and adventure games typically have campaigns that can be finished in 10-15 hours.) It is analogous to making a movie that is all special effects and no story to hold it together.

Even in single player games, many gamers are forced to go online to activate and/or play them – games by Valve and any game purchased through Steam, for example. A growing number of games require you to be connected online just to play them. One of the latest to do this was the hugely anticipated Diablo III, which not only requires you to be online, but you must have a Blizzard account just to play a solo game. Let’s be realistic, not everyone wants to be online. Not everyone has reliable internet access. Not everyone wants their gaming activity monitored.

I don’t want in any way to be construed as being against the online; I encourage and am a part of its evolution. However, we can’t let that displace quality game content and solo play, and we should not force people to have to get online to enjoy their leisure entertainment.

Downloadable Games vs Boxed Copies, and WTF is up with the price of downloads?

Let the record show: I prefer box editions of games over downloads. Why? Well, I like the box art. I like the extras that come with some games. I like something that I can show off on my bookshelves. If it is title near and dear to my heart, or I want something of extra collector’s value, I will get a collector’s edition, eager for the figurines, statues, art books, or other game swag. What I fail to understand is how they can rationalize charging the same price for a digital copy of a game as they do for the disk copy. Logic would dictate that without a physical disk or any packaging the cost of the game would be cheaper. Right?

Most every time I get on one of my consoles I check their online store for new downloads, etc., and I am always taken aback that they would charge the same for the downloadable version of a game has they do for the retail box copy. You’d think without the cost of packaging you would get some kind of price break. Before I go further, I should remind people that it is not the companies behind the consoles that set these prices (although they have some influence), but it is the game publishers themselves. One argument that I heard, and it makes total sense to me, that the reason for the basically equal pricing between digital vs disk copies is so that they don’t hurt the demand for disk copies. I can respect that; I want to see continued production of my disc games in their artful packaging to display on my shelves. But, seriously, if you want me to buy a digital download version, make it worth my while. Include digital copies of the things that the physical copies have: game manuals, box art, etc. Yes, some have online manuals; but, seriously, have you ever tried to reference one while playing the game? Come on, people, put it in a PDF form so we can open it on an eReader or be able to print it. Give us JPEGs or PDFs of the box art. For that matter, if they are going to charge the same price as the box copies, why not include at least the game soundtrack to make purchase of the download more economically worthwhile. That brings up the argument that if they did include these perks, the added downloads would just be taking up space on the console hard drive. That doesn’t have to be. When you make the purchase, they could send you links for the additional content with the purchase confirmation that gets emailed to you so you save it to your PC.

What logically follows with any discussion on a focus on downloadable titles is having the hard drive space to download them to. Both Sony and Microsoft have been pushing gamers to build their digital games library. At least the consoles now have much larger hard drives than they did a few years ago, but the current 320Gb drives that the top end models have right now are barely enough to hold games and DLC for the serious gamer. (Gaming PCs usually come with at least a terabyte of hard drive.) Most triple-A games released today take 10 to 15 Gb of drive space, and that doesn’t include any map packs or expansions. But I digress… back to the subject at hand.

Now let’s talk about the hidden costs of playing online games that affect both box copies and downloads. No, I am not talking about online fees or anything like that. What I am referring to are the costs of map packs and other DLC that you have to purchase to continue playing online. For gamers that want to continue playing the online component of games in the Halo franchise, Call of Duty, Gears of War, etc., just to name a few off the top of my head, you must keep current with the map packs, or else you are faced with either being booted from the game lobby or not being able to enter a game lobby. The costs of these adds up quickly. In many cases the online gamer will end up spending two to three times the purchase price of the base game in map packs alone just to be able to continue playing online. One may counter that you do not have to get the DLC, but if you don’t you will find yourself not being able to get into most game lobbies. I, myself, spent approximately $100 in map packs for Call of Duty Modern Warfare and Halo 3 each. That was just so I could continue playing online. Some publishers have gotten wise to this and have wisely offered a type of subscription for future map packs and DLC, but we are still faced with doubling the cost of our games just to continue playing online, especially for ranked online play.

In this economy it just doesn’t make sense to have to pay these kind of prices for downloads. I understand and support production costs of creating games having been involved with film and television production, and I have no problem paying for the talent and skills that go into creation of this media. When you eliminate the cost of physical packaging and physical distribution, you should pass some savings onto the consumer. That’s only good business.