Hello everyone, figured I'd stoke the flames a bit on this blog thing to get used to writing again in preparation for essays, and dissertation research (or maybe I'm just procrastinating on doing actual work, time will tell.)
I thought a good thing to do would be to take a look at the various entertainment industries one at a time (let's see if I can actually keep this going longer than one post) and just basically offer an opinion on where things currently stand.
With that in mind, I'm going to start with Video Games, because there's a lot to be pissed off about there, but also some good stuff. Just to start us off, a quick continuation. In an earlier post I commented on microtransactions in games, particularly Metal Gear Solid V. I just want to take this opportunity to point out that I was right, the presence of microtransactions did indeed have an effect on the single player game, there was an inordinate amount of real-time waiting, which was only there to excuse the real-time waiting in the online mode that you could pay to get around. You don't, strictly speaking, need to use these transactions, there's enough content to keep you busy while waiting for most of the time, but that doesn't make it okay (and no, the fact that other games do similar things doesn't make it okay either.)
Enough about microtransactions, though, I think my opinion on them was made clear before, because there's another bone to pick, Konami's barefaced attempts to force you to stay online without actually forcing you, I'm talking about the "online inventory" function, 90% of your resources (that's not an exaggeration by the way that is the actual amount) are now automatically moved to your "online inventory" the only function of which is to make it unavailable to offline users and put an artificial cap on their resources, this is to say nothing of the blatant nickel & diming that is going on, with Konami actually selling horse armour (yes you read that right) as well as other costumes for your character.
This would be fine as, to be fair, they are of a much lower price than costumes have been in other games, until you remember we used to get them free, The biggest example of this, is that if you want to put Snake in a tuxedo (a staple bonus item always available in previous installments) you now have to pay for it. £0,79 isn't much, but it's still more than the previous price of "included with the game you spent upwards of £40 on already" (now normally £50 for current-gen games.) I haven't turned the game on for quite some time so it's possible things have got better in my absence, but I honestly doubt it.
I'm railing on Konami right now to serve as an example of how bad things can be, of course, the route of this problem is Downloadable Content let's be honest, ever since consoles could go online and the very concept was introduced, publishers have been abusing it.
for those unfamiliar, (who have literally never played a video game) Downloadable Content (DLC) is a system by which games can hypothetically be improved and built upon after release, in the purest form the system enables publishers to add extra content (new events, levels etc) to a game via a simple download like the expansion packs of old, except you don't have to buy the game again to get them (normally.)
In theory, I think this is a great concept, as little as 12 years ago, if a developer wanted to expand upon a game's lore or content, the only way to do that was to release an entire sequel, Gone are those days.
Nowadays it is entirely possible to add completely new stories to games via a paid download, at least, that was the original idea.
DLC has become something of a dirty word to me these days, as too often publishers have used it, not to enhance a game, by adding new content, but to further monetize a game after the point of sale by withholding content to sell later. Things like alternate costumes, secret characters, and levels, and sometimes even cheat codes. All of which came free with the game in the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox era, and could be unlocked with skill (or a cheat code,) now are kept from the game and unlocked instead with money after the fact. Capcom actually cut the ending from Asura's Wrath, an otherwise entertaining game, to sell as DLC, having the game end inconclusively unless you paid extra.
No other industry gets away with these underhanded practices, imagine if you bought a DVD, only to find that the special features and audio descriptions were each gated off behind a paywall, and you had to go online and pay to access each thing, (don't think this hasn't been talked about in boardrooms either.) This is essentially the equivalent of what DLC amounts to for most triple A games. DVDs would do it too if they thought they could get away with it, some Blu-Rays already have similar Digital Rights Management software implemented. (why else would a Blu Ray player need an update) but video games are a much more expensive, and comparatively less varied pass-time. This coupled with the fact that video games require a large investment in the console and games to begin with (more so if you're a fan of PC games) creates an audience that is already more invested in a product than most others, and as such will, to a point, suck it up and buy anything.
This is not to say DLC is never used in a good way, Bethesda has a good reputation for releasing worthwhile expansions (even if they did originate the "horse armour" thing) they average three expansions per game, all reasonably priced and well worth the money Nintendo are generally very good with DLC particularly for Hyrule Warriors. More recently CD Projekt has been acquitting themselves well with DLC for The Witcher 3, a lot of which has been completely free, which is more generous than I'd expect any company to be. and these are not the only good examples.
But in spite of these examples, and how well they do (deservedly so) the landscape is dominated by nakedly greedy companies openly bleeding their customers for every penny they can, Square Enix had the world eating out of the palm of their hands when they finally announced the much-requested Final Fantasy VII Remake. However they later went on to announce that the game would come in an episodic format, this does not bode well in my eyes, however, it is not automatically a deal breaker.
Episodic games as a format have been proven to work in the past, The principle is the customer pays in smaller installments for parts of a game's story as and when they are completed. Telltale Games have used this model to great success, both critically and commercially with their episodic Walking Dead and Game of Thrones game series' these are examples of this model done well, but then, of course, the bigger companies got a hold of the idea, and Square Enix don't exactly have my utmost faith in regards to their attunement to their fanbase.
Now, I'm not automatically doomsaying, I'm trying to maintain cautious optimism, Final Fantasy VII is a huge game, even by modern standards, which is remarkable when the technological limitations of 1997 are taken into account, (I actually miss those days sometimes, before visuals became so high-end they actually had to try to impress us with compelling gameplay, what happened to that?)
The reason Final Fantasy VII being such a huge game is relevant here is because it actually isn't entirely illogical to release it episodically, there is easily a long enough story there to release over several installments, they could even flesh it out a bit more, but the trade-off there, (and I acknowledge that all of this is just conjecture) is that an episodic format doesn't leave as much room for the free-roaming open world mechanics that made up a fundamental part of Final Fantasy's formula for so long. This is further supported by the fact that Final Fantasy games haven't been particularly open for a while now, (with the exception of FF14: A Realm Reborn, which is much more faithful to the formula most of us old-school fans grew to love, if I had time for MMOs to justify the subscription I'd be on that a lot more.)
This is the main worry I, and I'm sure many others have with Square Enix remaking Final Fantasy VII, the Square Enix of 2016 is not the Squaresoft of 1997, and it's also been confirmed that the turn-based active-time-battle system will not be returning, this is a thing I am in two minds about.
On the one hand, there's nothing wrong with the ATB system of old in my opinion, it worked wonders for the appropriately titled "Bravely Default" and "Lost Oddysey" from last-gen also serves as a shining example of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
With that said, I can't say I'm not intrigued by the thought of real-time combat in the Final Fantasy VII universe, possibly similar to Kingdom Hearts, which would work I think, but I'd like to see a more refined version that maybe isn't dependent on a menu in the corner of the screen. Essentially, if you're going to abandon the ATB system, then abandon it. Don't try to keep token elements of it around, because we'll just end up with a hideous hybrid possessing elements of two modes of combat but failing to be as good as either,
I have to be honest, Square Enix's recent track record is sketchy at best, and I worry that they might put the greedy business practices I've come to expect of large publishers into Final Fantasy VII: and since it's FF7, it will sell well regardless, which may just reinforce the idea that these practices are okay.
I shouldn't worry so much, in the long run, these problems have a habit of correcting themselves eventually, the mass-market is getting wiser to this crap, it won't work forever, or even for much longer, the cracks are already beginning to show. Also, if the last E3 showed the big companies anything, it was that actually giving customers what they want yields positive results. (on a side-note, SO hype for Shenmue III)
Hopefully, this is a lesson they will take to heart, I doubt it, but we can hope.
