Slashdot Mirror


In the New Age of Game Development, Gamers Have More Power Than Ever

Velcroman1 writes: "In the olden times before high-speed Internet, the game you purchased on day one was what you were still playing months later. Now we live in an era of day-one patches, hotfixes, balance updates, and more. Diablo III, for example, is unrecognizable today compared to the state it was in when it launched back in 2012. Nowadays, savvy gamers go in expecting their experience to change over time — to improve over time. Today, 'Early Access' is both an acknowledgment of the dangers of early adoption (no one likes to be a guinea pig, after all) and an opportunity for enthusiastic consumers to have a say in how the product they've purchased will take shape. In this article, Adam Rosenberg talks with Michael McMain, CEO and founder of Xaviant, and creative director on the indie studio's first project — Lichdom: Battlemage, which embraces the concept like never before."

22 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. Bullshit by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We lost the ability to mod a lot of games because of stupid DRM controls and lock-down.

    We had power when we could come up with something like Desert Combat mod, or there were tens of thousands of downloadable mods to turn the base game into really incredible things. There are some games like that still, like Minecraft, but for the most part, that is no longer true.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    1. Re:Bullshit by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well steam is DRM, but you can and are able to mod many of the games there without a problem. The problem though isn't so much the DRM in cases, it's the publishers/parent company throwing a hissy fit.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Bullshit by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's that modding modern games is simply more difficult, because the games are more complex. Sure, a company can spend the time and effort to produce good mod tools, but that's not necessarily a good business decision.

      Really? Odd that modding in skyrim isn't really all that more difficult, or even complex. Or Dragon Age: Origins, how about xcom? New Vegas/FO3? Dark Souls, or NWN/2? The witcher games? Come on, it's not a franchise selling issue it's a laziness issue. And would have CoH2 sold better if it had modding support? Well...yes. Generally games that have open support for modding, have a longer shelf-life, and make more money in the long run especially games that milk the DLC train. A more recent example would be Saints Row 3/4 right? There's no steam workshop support, but there are tools, mods and no shortage of goodies. With developers answering questions on items, much like with the REDkit, and back before Bioware was bought by EA, you could find the developers doing the same. Notice that one? No mod support for their games since EA came along...

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Bullshit by mjwx · · Score: 2

      It's not really that, either. It's that modding modern games is simply more difficult, because the games are more complex.

      Yes and no. Mostly no unless the developer was shit.

      I've been dabbling in modding since Half Life 1. In a lot of old games you used to have to look through hex trying to find the right code, this took a metric crapload of guesswork. A lot of modern games can simply write a lot of it in XML, eliminating the guesswork about how to change things.

      However the biggest problem for any modder is to find out the developer decided (or was told to) do things the quick and nasty way. This normally means hardcoding something which is an utter PITA to change if it can even be changed at all.

      XML modding is really quite easy, This allows people to radically change the way games are played or add new art assets. Same with the old .ini files.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:Bullshit by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If a tool is for internal use only, it can have a messy UI. It can involve half a dozen different programs that must be used in a particular order. It can have crap documentation, relying on the developers' tribal knowledge. If you were to just "zip them up and putting them on an ftp", your community would turn on you in a heartbeat, declare that you don't care about supporting your game, and that this justifies pirating it. They'll spam every review site they can find with the worst scores that the site will accept. They'll spam your message boards with abuse, and drive away other customers.

      I've seen gamer communities fly into a rage over much less. If you're going to publish mod tools, you need to actually do it right.

    5. Re:Bullshit by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Oh look you're throwing a hissy fit. Well that's fine. Let's see, doing a quick search I can see 500+ mods for dark souls alone. And while that's not anything on say skyrim(50k+ mods), that's beside the point. As a useful tip: Those "mod tools" are the same "development tools" that were used to create the game. It's only in very rare cases such as ME/DA2/etc where people make their own tools. Or much like when I was younger and we had to make our own tools for 2da files.

      As for those tools being "free" well actually they are. And worked at a real job? How nice of you to go back to insults, and if a game doesn't have mod tools it's because of laziness, or because the publisher doesn't want them to do it. See DA2.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:Bullshit by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      By modding you are STEALING from them by offering DLC for Free and that is unamerican.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Bullshit by NickFortune · · Score: 2

      Every good example you gave had mod tools released by the developers. Those aren't free to make, ya know.

      True, but not always relevant.

      You have to take into account that some of these tools, Skyrim's Creation Kit for example, are used in house by the developers to create the game in the first place. So while they do have a development cost, that cost is part of the cost of developing the game. By the time the tools are released to modders, they don't owe the developers a penny, nor is there any particular saving in keeping them in-house.

      The cost of releasing the tools to modders is still non-zero, of course. In the case of Skyrim, Bethesda had to remove integration with Perforce and with the Havok SDK (the name of which escapes me) before they could legally release the CK. But that's just a fraction of any costs incurred in developing the tools.

      Now if you're talking about a company that uses one toolset in-house and develops a separate tool for the modders, in that case you'd have a much stronger point. But but it doesn't apply to Skyrim, Fallout 3 or the other Bethesda/Obsidian games.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    8. Re:Bullshit by BilI_the_Engineer · · Score: 2

      Between not having any tools and having sloppy tools, I'd much rather have the latter. In fact, I've scarcely seen official modding tools for games that weren't sloppy in a number of ways.

      What a dumb reason to not release tools.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    9. Re:Bullshit by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      If you spent $200 million to develop a game, would YOU want to release all your development tools to the public so that they could give away the kind of content that you wanted to sell as DLC for free?

      Increasing development costs, kids. It's what's really driving the industry today. Ever wonder why your favorite franchise decided to drop single-player for an MMO monthly-charge model? Development costs. Why are they nickel-and-diming us on everything from horse armour to day-one DLC? Development costs. Why are they suddenly cracking down so hard on piracy? Development costs. Why are they dumbing our favorite game down to appeal to the mass market? Development costs.

      Developing a triple-A title these days is a whole other ballgame than it was just 15 years ago. Just look at the end credits of a typical big title these days. What used to be a team of maybe a dozen people has become an army of HUNDREDS of people. Shit, a triple-A title today will spend more on voice actors alone than the entire budget of a game like Duke Nuke'em 3D back in the day. Add in marketing, porting costs, continuing patches, etc. and you can easily get into the hundreds of millions of $ for even a relatively small title.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  2. Working Games by wisnoskij · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ya, and far more of those games that we never patched did not need patches because they got enough QA to produce a stable playable product before launch.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Working Games by Desler · · Score: 2

      -+5 funny. Would laugh again.

    2. Re:Working Games by billy3 · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't be surprised if making games that require online patching is just a form of DRM.

  3. EA, Ubisoft, others, shit on respect for gamers by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the "good" old days, there was mods, maps, map editors.

    Now a days good luck being able to do any of that. The big publishers only care about pushing out the "next big" title, year after year.

    There is a player created 16 player coop patch for Rainbow Six: Las Vegas 2. Lots of fun.

    Ubisoft shits on its PC gamers -- who supported and _allowed_ the company_ to grow before Ubisoft sold out to console gamers because those "PC Gamers" are all "dirty pirates".

    How about respecting us gamer and giving us tools so you have free marketing like Valve does with Portal 2 Workshop !?!?

    1. Re:EA, Ubisoft, others, shit on respect for gamers by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 2

      Standing Ovation.

      Modding creates the ability for every player to create the game the way they see fit. What I like may not be what you like, hey, is there a mod for that? NO? Then it had better be the most kick ass game ever written.

      In addition, Quit dumbing down the games! I don't care if some of your potential audience isn't smart enough to play. 13 year old foul mouthed griefers shouldn't be your target audience. I like games that require a bit of thinking on my part, not twitching.

      Oops, didn't mean to go on a rant.....

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  4. Re: I never asked for this by tysonedwards · · Score: 2

    Actually, they did... Maybe not you, but there are plenty of people who clamoured for "easier" titles, and simultaneously for replay-ability. Easier was accomplished through hand holding (ala "Press Y now or you will die", whoops, you died, let's rewind 15 seconds to the cutscene. And news was, the first of those games sold AMAZINGLY well. And when you are stuck with a fully scripted game, the only way to make replay ability without feeling stale is through adding content. And who wants to write that content test it, and distribute it freely?

    --
    Thirty four characters live here.
  5. LOLWUT? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've yet to see any DRM that prevents content mods. There are some games that aren't very moddable, their files are all binary and they don't release any tools and such, but I've yet to see one with DRM that stopped mods. The ones that are moddable, well they are more so than ever. Have a look at the Skyrim mods sometime. Even the ones that aren't moddable per se can usually be modded. The new Xcom is a good example. It has no mod tools, and wasn't designed with modding in mind, much like the original Xcom. However enterprising modders have figured out how to bust in to various files and mod the game. Not nearly to the extent as a game with tools, but there was nothing stopping them. The game doesn't have some DRM locking them out.

    Moddability has been increasing. For one, there's more interest in it, what with the internet to distribute mods. Also there's the fact that increased CPU power allows for more user accessible files. The original Civ was hard to mod, since everything was binary. You needed to do that for efficiency. Civ 4 and 5 use scripting languages, XML, and SQL for most of their stuff, with only the engine and AI core being in C++, since it takes so little time for a modern computer to parse all that. Finally there's channels to integrate modding in to your game like Steam Workshop, that make it much easier for developers to integrate, and easier for modders to distribute.

    1. Re:LOLWUT? by medv4380 · · Score: 2

      SimCity 2014. Early Modding and get banned. All possible due to Always Online DRM.

  6. Re: I never asked for this by epyT-R · · Score: 2

    1. Dumbing things down just breeds better idiots who will then require even more dumbing down. Offering challenge above and beyond the players current ability is what grants the opportunity for improvement. You don't learn how to play by sticking with "I'm too young to die" mode.
    2. we won't know who might want to as long as they refuse to release the tools required.

    Maybe gaming has become a victim of the race to the bottom. It's too bad, because I remember a vibrant modding community across many titles: mapping competitions, whole communities surrounding specific mods, LAN events and the like. Now it's all feed-it-to-me-through-a-needle.

  7. Re: I never asked for this by artor3 · · Score: 2

    1. Dumbing things down just breeds better idiots who will then require even more dumbing down. Offering challenge above and beyond the players current ability is what grants the opportunity for improvement. You don't learn how to play by sticking with "I'm too young to die" mode.

    How dare those people enjoy different things!?

    Did you ever think, maybe some people don't care about honing a useless skill, and are just looking for some light entertainment?

    It's not like hard games no longer exist. New ones are being made all the time. The casual market has been booming, so as a percentage, hardcore gaming is down, but why get upset over that?

    Hollywood pushes out mindless crap like the Avengers, but that doesn't mean quality films no longer exist. The TV is full of reality shit, but there are still good programs to be found. Trashy romance novels make up a sizeable portion of book sales, but you can still find fantastic literature being written every year.

    Stop dwelling on the fact that things you like aren't the most popular things. Unless the thing you like best is being angry, in which case, don't let me stop you.

  8. -OR- You could just pay for what you want to get. by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

    Early Access is a scam, where they expect "the community" to do free testing for them.

    Well, I agree that Early Access is free testing, sometimes it's also "startup money". That's why I set the price very low initially, and grant a free copy and full DLC to those that do the testing work, raise the price and taper off benefits towards completion as it gets closer to being the full game and there's less testing work to be done overall. Some folk don't think it's worth it, other folks do. Some folks just want to see the game development as it progresses and enjoy being early adopters; They like giving feedback and having some influence on the way development progresses. Lots of the latter type of folks learn from the experience and go into gamedev themselves. I do try to provide benefits to compensate for the "free" testing, but some studios really do abuse their fans, fortunately that can have disastrous results.

    Day-1 DLC...

    I dislike gratuitous Day-1 DLC; Where devs who would have made the original release even better get pulled off head the DLC team, or when stuff is removed from the game expressly to turn it into DLC. However, sometimes it's not all bad. Sometimes that DLC is made by folks who are sitting around twiddling their thumbs after the release goes gold and no more changes can be made, but the release isn't scheduled for weeks or months (and they're not involved in pre-production of the next product -- better to not lay off the folks who just made the game you like, eh?). Lots of games' Day 1 DLC gets made and tested during that "down" time between gold and release. No game is ever "done". There is always something someone wanted to put in, but couldn't. Sometimes things that got cut to make the deadline become the Day-1 DLC. On disk DLC is pretty shitty though. If they had the time to make it, test it, put it on the disk, then it should be part of the game, or just leave it online as Day-1 DLC. The Day-1 DLC also "helps" to kill used game sales (or at least devalue them), which is stupid because most folks trade in used games to buy new releases, and 1st week sales are key. Protip: Rather than boycott a product it's just as effective to wait a few weeks after release before purchasing; Seriously, statistically its indistinguishable from not buying the game at all.

    "free" to play, micro transactions, always-online,

    "Free to play" (pay to win) is bullshit, but folks rarely will buy a mobile or PC game for a few bucks anymore. I've tried to go with the old school shareware "demo" + full version method, but that's shooting myself in the foot. It's a conflict of interest: I have to show you how cool the game is going to be... but that leaves the player satisfied with just the demo (they go play another demo, and another demo, and forget to ever buy the game... OUYA!) -- Or, I have to make the demo really crappy so you're left "wanting more", so then players have a bad experience and they don't buy the game. What used to work is just videos, screen-shots, maybe an article or two, some word of mouth from closed beta-testers, and a full version of the game to buy with a falling price gradient over time to hit each impulse buying price point. That gets interests piqued and curiosity drives sales. However, since the competition is now $0.99 or "free" to play, no one will just buy a $9.99 game anymore. They'll D/L the "free" game and spend $20 to $100 in "upgrades" and shit though, ugh. Pisses me off, and I don't do that on principal (monetization is not a game mechanic), but I suffer for the stance immensely (probably won't ever be able to quit my day-job), and can fully understand why "Pay To Win" is happening: It works.

    Here's the thing: It's stupid to sell copies in the first place! That's artificial scarcity. Copies are in infinite supply and econ101 says they should be $0. What's scarce is the ability to create new works. What I'd love to do is just ge

  9. Re:Private multiplayer modding ethics by geirlk · · Score: 2

    I've downloaded 33,6GB with extra campaigns and maps for Left 4 Dead 2. It has expanded the replayability of L4D2 tremendously. Fairly recently (considering the game is over 4 years old) it also got Steam workshop support now. So modded weapons, sounds, models, textures etc. is available quick and easy. Now I've reached some 240 hours in it, and still going strong.

    It support online play through official servers, best available unofficial, local server and LAN.

    Running your own server also means being able to tweak other variables (gravity, firendly fire etc.), and server side mods.

    And even in vs. matches, there are seldom cheating. And should you experience it anyway, the voting system makes it easy to get rid of d-bags.

    This is the kind of modding support I've come to expect from a good game. Some developers get this.