“Rip-off. Why should I have to pay for Cranky levels? You have lost a customer,” reads Coolcoco’s one-star App Store review for Where’s My Water on January 30. “I love Swampy. But having to pay for an update is a bit greedy,” agreed Spence582 the same day, also awarding it just one star.
Disney’s smartphone puzzle game smash received an update last week that added the chance to purchase Cranky’s Story, a bundle of 50 new levels and four challenge packs (a total of 16 special levels), all for 69p/99c. That’s a significant chunk of new content; the game originally released at 69p/99c with 80 levels, with a further 60 being added with free updates, making for 140 levels in total until the advent of Cranky’s Story.
And yet players like Jal1233222 (“Love it, but paying 4 updates is rubbish!” Three stars) seem to think that the in-app purchase is unfair. In fact, the fear of one-star reviews making a dent in Where’s My Water’s five-star average has apparently become so great that Disney released an update yesterday that among its bug fixes includes the following capitulation: “Coming soon – more free updates to Swampy’s Story”.
Bowing to such public pressure is a PR necessity in the face of public expectation and the noise and turnover of the App Store. But it’s also another step to reinforcing a dangerous sense of entitlement in players who are increasingly used to the idea of playing for free, or for tiny amounts of money. It’s a situation that throws the immediacy of contact between game makers and players that the internet affords into sharp relief. In fact, it almost turns the relationship between consumer and producer on its head – the consumer selling time and attention to a hungry market of producers.
Where’s My Water illustrates the delicate line that exists between game makers being able to invite and use player comments to make a game incrementally better and bigger and hold its relevancy among its playerbase, and for players to demand that it's made entirely on their terms. In the best case everyone wins, but Disney's experience shows that player expectation can come back and bite poor Swampy on his scaly rump.
Protesting over Valve
Coincidentally, one of gaming’s biggest proponents of this two-way relationship between developers and players is experiencing similar pressures. This weekend, the more than 40,000-member strong A Call For Communication Steam group will play Half-Life 2 to protest Valve’s lack of transparency regarding Half-Life 3.
Arguably, Valve has to shoulder some of the responsibility, having dropped hints and references to Half-Life canon in Portal 2 and therefore whipped up a froth of speculation which culminated in assumptions that there were encoded H-L3 messages in its acceptance video for one of Portal 2’s VGA wins.
You could try to claim that Valve’s playful history of ARGs has produced expectation of added dimensions in everything it makes. But, as politely worded as the Steam group’s manifesto is, its line is that, as if it were a public body, Valve is entirely accountable to its games' fans. It’s hard to imagine Gabe Newell, given his player-centric doctrine, disagreeing with that argument per se, but in the cut-and-thrust of game marketing, factoring in E3 and release dates and having something substantial to show off, it’s also hard to imagine him abandoning everything to appease their desires.
Valve won’t have forgotten, of course, about the 2009 protest over the release of Left 4 Dead 2, which gained over 16,000 followers who feared the sequel would freeze development of the first game, insisting that Valve hold "to its promise of free, continual updates to Left 4 Dead in order to build and sustain the community.” It took careful public communication from such figures as one of its lead developers, Chet Failszek, to talk the protesters down, as well as inviting the protest’s leaders to the studio to discuss what could be done. It poured water on the flames of disgruntlement, but it also surely bit into the creative process of actually making games, which is what developers are primarily for.
But most game players don’t know – or fundamentally care – about the realities of game development. In a market awash with high quality cheap entertainment made by developers running over themselves to show their dedication to their audiences, it seems inconceivable to players that the realities of funding a studio might get in the way.
It also seems inconceivable that a studio that’s famous for its close relationship with its fans might be silent about its biggest and most celebrated property. And yet the Half-Life series is notorious for protracted development cycles, through which the games underwent sweeping changes, with Half-Life 2 costing an at the time unfathomable $40 million to make. Given the flack Valve came under for the delays to that game, surely it can be forgiven for being more careful with a new one.
What’s ownership anyway?
More than ever before, it’s easy for players to feel they own games, because they can engage with them on so many more levels. They can join communities focused on them, speak to their makers and influence their ongoing development.
But as much as all this helps to make games seem more alive, it’s disguising the simple fact that games, more than ever before, are technically the property of their makers, not their players. After all, games now operate in a tangle of digital rights and EULAs. Players merely own rights to play them – and even then, these rights are carefully curtailed beneath a pile of caveats.
In practice, the truth lies somewhere in between – players can’t play without game makers maintaining control over them, and games can’t exist without players taking a form of ownership over them. But while much attention is trained on the first point, with scrutiny on DRM and abuses of EULAs, we also need to think more about the second point.
Game makers need to make clearer the value of their games and what players are really getting for their money. Keeping up the illusion that they own more than they do breeds entitlement that brings with it the risk players might smother their favourite games with their love.
Comments
20Frankly, I've had enough of such rantings from developers.
Edge articles used to portray herds of nerdy programmers with their Ferraris, now those articles depict the lush interiors of corporate HQs. That's much removed from how the average player lives or works.
If I were a developer, I'd just shut my mouth.
Any iOS game selling at 69p can make the developer a multi-millionaire, thanks to the huge user base. So, basically, instead of adding "premium" content, developers should either sell FULL games (ie games that won't need additional DLC), or deploy free updates.
Development costs? For DLC? Come on, that's just an application of the original tools.
GT DLC? I paid the game already, I expect updates to be free, especially when the update consists of a few version of the same Skyline GTR.
Personally, I loathe DLC and in-app purchases, I'm making a point of getting Tiny Tower's 499 tower bux lift for FREE.
Bottom line: developers have money, they just can't get enough of it. DLC is an expression of such greed.
Your misinformed comment succinctly proves Alex's point.
Yes, how dare people expect to be paid for their hard work? Seriously take this BS and go hang with the occupy protesters and striking public sector union tw@ts, they all want something for nothing as well, you'll get on great.
jb1 can you please keep your moronic political opinions to yourself, this is a place for discussing videogames.
Yeah and you are adding so much to the discussion.
Yes I am I have a long post outlining my opinions on the article. I consider that to be more worthwhile than some half-arsed tabliod standard claptrap that isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. If you still feel the need to air similar opinions I'm fairly sure the Sun and the Daily Mail have comment sections.
ops double post =)
I draw a comparison between gamer entitlement and the sense of entitlement some unions have and you call me a moron and suggest I am a daily mail reader. Do you not see the complete hypocrisy you are displaying?
Yes such an intelligent and well thought out comparison, please explain to me in detail how unions and the occupy protesters are both trying to get something for nothing.
I'll tell you what you did, you sh!t posted and when you were called out on it you tried a naff comeback and when that was shown to be stupid you came back and tried to dress what you said up a bit, but its still stupid and so it still doesn't sound any better. Don't bother replying if all you can manage is 'ye but....no'.
ugh double post again.
jb1 your comment is ill informed- unions are one the whole standing up for the interests of their members against the reduction of their members working conditions, pay and pensions. Particularly at a time when board room pay is increasing by an average of 50% a year at a time when the rest of the population is being asked to demonstrate pay restraint.
To liken this to a supposed entitlement culture within a section of the gaming demographic just highlights the fact that on the whole you add nothing but poorly thought out, reactionary, second hand nonsense to these debates. What next? Sony is behind this entitlement culture and it is, as an organisation, like Fred and Rose West?
On to the gaming entitlement thing:
I think the problem lies with the iPhone market, these people aren't gamers like us, they're Joe public. They're used to super cheap apps that give them a basic level of gaming that they can play on the way to work or on their lunch breaks. Gamers like us lot have been paying for DLC for years, we're used to paying £35+ for games. I think this incident just highlights that mobile phones aren't the panacea where unicorns fart chocolate flavoured rainbows in meadows of candy floss that we've been led to believe.
As to the Value thing, it's actually a demonstration of the dedication of those fans towards the company. They are eager to hear more about Half Life 3, they're excited- it's a good thing! Even if you view it as something that's bad, it's just 40,000 people out of 12 million people who buy the series regularly. I think it a tad unfair to tar gamers as a group with the same brush on account of the actions of 0.33% of people who bought Half Life 2.
Now now, there are plenty of other examples that prove publishers can be greedy bastards too.
Honestly, what do people expect? There is a game which already costs only 69p and then they complain about an add-on, which costs another 69p?!
I mean, they've got a *full* game with 80 levels plus a first, free add-on with which they most probably got plenty of fun with and then they're complaining about another 69p?! They'll get an usually expensive smartphone but won't pay that less for a game? Come on!
In terms of games on consoles, which are coming with DLC already on the disc which have to be payed to get unlocked it's a completely different topic.
Regarding Half-Life:
Valve is doing great games, but this is getting already a much bigger joke than DNF!
I've played HL2 + Episode 1 + 2 already in 2007, it ends with a total cliffhanger and until now I've already forgotten almost all of the important things of the story. Why they're doing an unfinished story/product and then let the users wait several years (!) even without a notice if it will ever be finished? Hello, anybody yellin' Shenmue?!
Even if Portal 1+2 are gorgeous games, regarding Half-Life I'm more than disappointed from Valve's information politic.
I honestly don't understand what complaints anyone can have with the Half-Life protest, it's just fans playing and showing appreciation for a game and politely asking for an update on it's sequel.
With regards to LFD2 I think people had every right to complain, you can't release a game and make all sorts of promises about future updates and support and then just drop it and make a sequel and expect your customers not to be annoyed. The lesson there is, don't make promises if you're not sure you can keep them. Nobody forced Valve to promise content updates and support, and I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that they needed to make a new game for financial reasons.
I don't have a problem with downloadable content, in fact I encourage it as long as it adds something to the game and isn't something that obviously should have been included in the initial product. I think the Fallout 3 dlc is a good example of this and I happily bought the majority of them and will likely purchase the Skyrim ones if they are of the same quality.
While I sympathise with the article, developers (and publishers and console makers for that matter) can't have it both ways.
They're priding themselves on being down with their fans, and huge amouts of PR is based on inspiring this customer loyalty.
Yet video game players and internet commentators are largely one and the same whch makes for an unholy combination resulting in an internet crammed with bitchy hacks who think their comments on their past-time are worthy of note.
For every worthwhile protest against beta-quality games released requiring heavy patching (and often not recieveng any support), or against DLC level packs for premium gaes that the dev thinks they can charge any price for (4 new maps, recycled from the last game, £12) there are a bunch of spoilt brats whining that they're not getting their sequel quick enough, or don't understand the level of work that goes into producing genuine quality DLC.
Normally these comments pass unnoticed, but t'internet gives everyone their 15 minutes like cheap reality television. Regarding the case above, should Disney really be scared about their 5 star average, or should they really just accept the way the net works and act like the adults? Part of being a mature user of the web means taking user comments with a large pinch of salt.
Well said.
Frankly, nobody has *any* right to anything this article mentions, other than the decision whether to buy what the pubs/devs release. End of story.
Oh, and another thing, shouldn't the rating of paid-for DLC be separate to that for the original title? It would certainly allay Disney's fears over its average being affected.... hmmm... or would it? Your typical angry internet user would probably rate the original down based purely on their annoyance at the DLC. Okay, maybe wouldn't work.... or indeed maybe that's the way it works already... I dunno, not owning an iOS device, and feeling I should probably get on with my work, rather than spend time researching it :o
ok, so i agree that you can`t expect everything for free. If you want decent updates then it`s better to pay for them as, ultimately, it will increase their quality and developers bank funding and ultimately continued support.
The whole free game market is a different kettle of fish though, micro transactions grrr an account managers dream.
The games industry used to be build by gamers for gamers it used to be a community. Now it`s just another multi-million pound industry with too many people trying to cash in on it. Mega sequels and a swathe of sub-standard games charging top dollar in todays marketplace.
The dangers of gamer entitlement? We pay their wages.
As for the Valve HL3 campaign. Power to the people! I would happily build a new PC just to play one game. If only I could play that one game....theres alot of money and interest it could generate.
The Disney thing is crazy. Clearly the people leaving the negative reviews are idiots. For the 69p, they're getting on the way to the same amount of content they got in the first place.
The Valve thing though, I don't have an issue with. Valve made a rod for their own back by making the series episodic, saying it would conclude by Christmas 2007. Given that four years have passed since that time with no sign of a game, I think everyone is right to wonder whether or not anything is actually coming.
Bad comment.
Badder.
Worst.
Anyway this phenomenon (both the bad comments above and the complaints from gamers) is basically the problem with giving everyone in society a completely audible voice. In the past, publications had letters pages where the complete nut bags could be filtered through an editorial team. Or the feedback devs got from fans was just mail sent to the company.
Now everyone can publish whatever they want whenever they want. But that isn't the problem. That's probably quite a good development. Like with the idiocy displayed in the first comments, the trick is to pay attention to the good stuff and ignore the rest.
The Where's My Water fandango is a little bit different because that is people maliciously affecting the rating of the game. But anyone who doesn't buy Half-Life 3, solely on the basis of it taking a long time to develop, should really ask themselves who they are and what they think life is about. Then they should punch themselves in the face.
With regard to the whole HL2: EP3 thing I think it's important to understand that when Valve announced the episodes back in May of 2006: -
http://uk.gamespot.com/news/half-life-2-episode-one-gold-two-dated-three-announced-6151796
They did so with clear intent for the story arc to cover 3 episodes continuing the HL2 story line and for the trilogy to be all wrapped up by Christmas of 2007.
I think it's fair to say that the people who bought into episode 1 did so because not only were they fans of the HL storyline, but also because they were buying into the idea of this different approach to game releases.
Needless to say Valve did what Valve does best and failed to live upto their promises with regard to swift turnaround. With episode 2 turning up in October 2007 in The Orange box. However generally people were accepting of some degree of delay at the time as despite previous delays Valve had a good track record in delivering polished (if late) game experiences.
Still we're now a good 4 years on from the release of episode 2 and Act 3 of that trilogy is still largely MIA, and Valve have fallen all but silent on the subject.
I think it's understandable that having left the story unfinished for so long that people who are have invested their time and money into over the years are rightly curious to know what the state of play is (whether we'll ever see EP3 or whether we are heading straight into HL3 for instance?) and personally I don't see what the big issue is with the CFC group simply asking Valve for some clarification on where things stand, especially when Valve pull stunts like this: -
http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/12/02/valve-employee-wears-half-life-3-shirt-trolls-internet/
From what I can see they seem quite civil and sincere about their question. Certainly Valve don't owe them anything contractually, but a bit of goodwill wouldn't go amiss.