DreamHack Summer 2013 Finnish Qual.
HLTV Ip's
-
(66)
(3)
(0)
(2)
(10)
(69)
(55)
(2)
(14)
(71)
(17)
(1)
(104)
(24)
(9)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(81)
(21)
(2)
(81)
(53)
(16)
(6)
-
-
-
deStrO
pRopaaNS
FACEIT
moxierawr
eSportEurope
Umeroff
-
-
(6155)(2098)(546)(371)(358)(232)(217)(162)(105)(61)(37)(8)(0)
-
BX316 plan-B6
myDGB.net2 f2^1
/10/16
ELTZ12
fnatic16
Natus Vincere4 plan-B16 Lions1 BX316 Lions14
ESC Gaming7 Western Wolves16 n!faculty11 Western Wolves16
Absolute Legends5 Natus Vincere16 myDGB.net11 ESC Gaming16 -
-
-
Fraglider
F2P - A foothold
2012-07-03 20:08
I've written numerous blogs on this subject and with each new game that comes out, the circus just gets bigger. I'm no self-professed expert on the subject but being in the Games QA industry, I often get to come across ideas that devs and publishers consider "good". Spotted a rather interesting drift, so I'll just share it here.
The Quake Example
The idea was for you and me to play a Standard version of Quake which would irritate us with a 15 second wait before we could launch our game via the browser. The solution was a premium and pro account. These paid accounts would give you access to new maps (most of which were actually redone versions of old Quake 3 Arena maps). What this meant was money for the map-makers whose maps got ported to QL. This is exactly where the rift began. Two factions formed within the community:
1) There were those who bought the game and tried to sell the idea to their peers about why they should pay up too. Anyone who resisted was labeled a freeloader.
2) There were the rebels who expected basic content-complete game that id software failed to deliver.
Even basic features like a demo viewing tool and a detailed scoreboard came from the community instead of the developers. Due to its steep learning curve, the game was never newbie friendly (despite the inclusion of a training mode) and collapsed under its own weight.
The F2P Myth
Tore Blystad, the game director behind Hitman:Absolution recently stated:
“20 per cent of the players will see the last level of the game. It’s horrible to know. It makes the people working on it really really sad. I guess people can’t commit to taking all those hours to finish one product; they get tired of it," he said. "It’s not just for this game, it’s for any game.”
It may sound as if he's only talking about the campaign mode but he's actually addressing the longevity of any game due to the free-to-play model that has invaded the norm. The truth is, most of the publishers don't want to delve into F2P at all. In fact, they want to bypass the F2P model totally and focus on streaming content/cloud gaming as the next best thing. Reason is, consoles have hit the same cost-of- development ceiling that PC gaming was once attacked with to sell consoles! There has to be new tech to keep things going.
A game like CS 1.6 or Quake actually never needed the F2P model. They were ripe, kings in their own right and deserved better sequels than what they currently have. If the community refuses to give in, and I don't mean being blindly adamant, there are chances 1.6 will slap CS:GO and the model it's based on right in the face. The F2P model thrives on divide and rule because the word 'Free' invites a lot of unnecessary and uneducated attention.
The Quake Example
The idea was for you and me to play a Standard version of Quake which would irritate us with a 15 second wait before we could launch our game via the browser. The solution was a premium and pro account. These paid accounts would give you access to new maps (most of which were actually redone versions of old Quake 3 Arena maps). What this meant was money for the map-makers whose maps got ported to QL. This is exactly where the rift began. Two factions formed within the community:
1) There were those who bought the game and tried to sell the idea to their peers about why they should pay up too. Anyone who resisted was labeled a freeloader.
2) There were the rebels who expected basic content-complete game that id software failed to deliver.
Even basic features like a demo viewing tool and a detailed scoreboard came from the community instead of the developers. Due to its steep learning curve, the game was never newbie friendly (despite the inclusion of a training mode) and collapsed under its own weight.
The F2P Myth
Tore Blystad, the game director behind Hitman:Absolution recently stated:
“20 per cent of the players will see the last level of the game. It’s horrible to know. It makes the people working on it really really sad. I guess people can’t commit to taking all those hours to finish one product; they get tired of it," he said. "It’s not just for this game, it’s for any game.”
It may sound as if he's only talking about the campaign mode but he's actually addressing the longevity of any game due to the free-to-play model that has invaded the norm. The truth is, most of the publishers don't want to delve into F2P at all. In fact, they want to bypass the F2P model totally and focus on streaming content/cloud gaming as the next best thing. Reason is, consoles have hit the same cost-of- development ceiling that PC gaming was once attacked with to sell consoles! There has to be new tech to keep things going.
A game like CS 1.6 or Quake actually never needed the F2P model. They were ripe, kings in their own right and deserved better sequels than what they currently have. If the community refuses to give in, and I don't mean being blindly adamant, there are chances 1.6 will slap CS:GO and the model it's based on right in the face. The F2P model thrives on divide and rule because the word 'Free' invites a lot of unnecessary and uneducated attention.
If only 20% of the players can be bothered to finish a game then maybe the issue is the game and not the players?
That's his prediction, not an established fact.
A game like Hitman has missions with more than one way to finish a single mission, like an assassination for example. He doubts that anyone would deviate from the critical/scripted path and do something innovative to fully explore the game simply because the former is the easy way out. Has little to do with the game itself.
A game like Hitman has missions with more than one way to finish a single mission, like an assassination for example. He doubts that anyone would deviate from the critical/scripted path and do something innovative to fully explore the game simply because the former is the easy way out. Has little to do with the game itself.
I never said that it was an established fact. I mean, it's not like he went up to every single player and personally asked him or her how far they got. Now if he used some kind of tracking software (i.e. online account) then this would be a relevant statistic.
In any case, what he said is very clear. 20% of the players will see the last level of the game. Unless you quoted him completely out of context then this has nothing to do with exploration and everything to do with people getting bored of the games in question.
In any case, what he said is very clear. 20% of the players will see the last level of the game. Unless you quoted him completely out of context then this has nothing to do with exploration and everything to do with people getting bored of the games in question.
He did mention that it's the case for "every" game and not just Hitman Absolution. Not every game can have issues! Should've quoted the complete thing from his interview as it explains what he believes is the reason. Here's the rest:
“It’s very difficult when something is constructed to fit into a larger story to move things too much around. I think in some of the previous Hitman games that that might have been the case – that some levels were moved earlier, because they were more catchy or interesting. For us it hasn’t really been that easy, because the story is really tying all the levels together, so they’re still coming in the same order, more or less, that they were designed.”
“A battle we have is that we want to put all this stuff in, but we also know that because the game is up to the player there’s a lot of people that will never ever see it. The only thing we can do is incentivise replayability in different ways”.
“In the user tests we have they actually tell us that the replayability factor in itself, it’s the situation or the humour that’s the reason people actually go back through the levels, they want to see more, they want to find these things, which makes us very happy, because it takes a lot of time and effort to get these things in.”
“It’s very difficult when something is constructed to fit into a larger story to move things too much around. I think in some of the previous Hitman games that that might have been the case – that some levels were moved earlier, because they were more catchy or interesting. For us it hasn’t really been that easy, because the story is really tying all the levels together, so they’re still coming in the same order, more or less, that they were designed.”
“A battle we have is that we want to put all this stuff in, but we also know that because the game is up to the player there’s a lot of people that will never ever see it. The only thing we can do is incentivise replayability in different ways”.
“In the user tests we have they actually tell us that the replayability factor in itself, it’s the situation or the humour that’s the reason people actually go back through the levels, they want to see more, they want to find these things, which makes us very happy, because it takes a lot of time and effort to get these things in.”
That being the case for every game - now is that a 'fact'? ;)
"It’s very difficult when something is constructed to fit into a larger story to move things too much around. I think in some of the previous Hitman games that that might have been the case – that some levels were moved earlier, because they were more catchy or interesting."
You see that's your issue when design comes first, implementation second. They write their story and all of a sudden they have an issue with fitting everything in in order for their story to make sense. The question whether these obligatory segments are fun or not is not as important. It's called lousy design and it makes for a mediocre game.
Take the first Hitman game for example. It was a great concept and the idea was very novel, but fuck me some of those levels were absolute shite. That's exactly why we don't consider it a legendary game - the craps brings the overall picture down.
The difference is that in 2012 we have way more choice so we cannot be bothered to waste our time on a mediocre gaming experience. If I'm not having fun I probably won't finish the game.
Is that my fault or the game's fault?
"It’s very difficult when something is constructed to fit into a larger story to move things too much around. I think in some of the previous Hitman games that that might have been the case – that some levels were moved earlier, because they were more catchy or interesting."
You see that's your issue when design comes first, implementation second. They write their story and all of a sudden they have an issue with fitting everything in in order for their story to make sense. The question whether these obligatory segments are fun or not is not as important. It's called lousy design and it makes for a mediocre game.
Take the first Hitman game for example. It was a great concept and the idea was very novel, but fuck me some of those levels were absolute shite. That's exactly why we don't consider it a legendary game - the craps brings the overall picture down.
The difference is that in 2012 we have way more choice so we cannot be bothered to waste our time on a mediocre gaming experience. If I'm not having fun I probably won't finish the game.
Is that my fault or the game's fault?
You will see the end of a COD game not because you can, but because you have no other choice :) Now that's a fact! To me the entire MW3 experience is like being among a herd of sheep because they make you play a scripted mission from start to end and do not let the player create anything new on the way. The reason why COD4 was such a big hit was it was one of its kind at its time. The Sniper mission, the C-130 mission are what made people come back to the game. As a complete package, it's nothing more than run and gun. Very linear and hence, boring. But it still made its mark with those 2 missions. Being an assassin is an experience exclusive to the Hitman series because that's the very concept the whole franchise rests upon.
Lousy design is a subjective matter. One guy's bad game might be another guy's heaven. It hits hard yes but it matters more to the community behind a franchise, not the average casual gamer out there. Dawn of war series, COD series, Hitman series all have dedicated communities not because of the graphics alone! Yep, a lousy design in general will ruin the experience for anyone and it's not the player's fault but that's not the point here mate. :)
Heavy Rain's got 18 endings. How many people do you think actually tried them all just out of curiosity? That's the same question he's asking! This is actually one of the checks we do while hiring a new game tester. An average casual gamer will never look past the usual. Want a classic example? Read the one and only comment on this article:
http://g4menation.com/call-of-duty-black-ops-2-wha..
The article itself and the comment have such contrasting thought processes. See what I mean?
I do agree that form should follow function but it's neither a convention, nor a rule in the gaming industry.
Lousy design is a subjective matter. One guy's bad game might be another guy's heaven. It hits hard yes but it matters more to the community behind a franchise, not the average casual gamer out there. Dawn of war series, COD series, Hitman series all have dedicated communities not because of the graphics alone! Yep, a lousy design in general will ruin the experience for anyone and it's not the player's fault but that's not the point here mate. :)
Heavy Rain's got 18 endings. How many people do you think actually tried them all just out of curiosity? That's the same question he's asking! This is actually one of the checks we do while hiring a new game tester. An average casual gamer will never look past the usual. Want a classic example? Read the one and only comment on this article:
http://g4menation.com/call-of-duty-black-ops-2-wha..
The article itself and the comment have such contrasting thought processes. See what I mean?
I do agree that form should follow function but it's neither a convention, nor a rule in the gaming industry.
game's fault
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.
