Why Hasn't Episodic Gaming Taken Off? 121
Thanks to GameSpot for its 'GameSpotting' editorial discussing the potential lure of the episodic videogame. The writer ruminates: "Imagine your favorite first-person shooter, role-playing game, or action adventure game. Now imagine that game broken up into one- to two-hour sequences. Now imagine that the first part was free and subsequent parts were delivered to you automatically for five bucks a pop, each month. Would you take the bait?" He suggests this approach could work particularly well for "...a lot of people out there who want to be gamers but don't want to make the commitment of living the 'gamer lifestyle' of having their entire existence revolve around their hobby." Could you see yourself buying into episodic gaming?
i thionk.... (Score:1)
no, I don't. (Score:1, Insightful)
Also this would just totally make the publishers rip us off by delaying the end until the game got its intended revenue.
Re:no, I don't. (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to be a slightly different slant on the classic (Wolf 3D, Commander Keen, Cosmos Cosmic Adventure) shareware model.
As Penny Arcade say, The first one is always free...
Shareware (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish we could see more shareware now, when broadband is becoming ubiquitous
Re:Shareware (Score:2, Insightful)
a 1 or 2 man team can't make games anymore
Re:Shareware (Score:1, Insightful)
A tale in the Desert: 3 devs, intern artists
Re:Shareware (Score:2)
It's pretty much just Jeff Vogel, with some beta testers and occasionally an artist.
The games are some of the most entertaining I've ever played.
Re:Shareware (Score:2)
or the dozens of new games that are coming out with playable demos, which essentially ARE the same thing(though, they might seem a bit short but that's just because the whole game has shortert depth than what the good crop of old shareware had in their shareware ep).
Really (Score:2, Insightful)
I want a game with a great storyline and good graphics.
I don't want to spend $5 a month (on top of the $50 to buy the game) just to get updates on a game that should come with a complete story line right out of the box.
What's next? When will they start charging us for patches?
Re:Really (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Really (Score:1)
You didn't even have to RTFA. It says right in the blurb that the first part of these hypothetical episodic games would be free. You would only be charged for subsequent parts.
Re:Really (Score:2)
Not the path I want my games to take. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not the path I want my games to take. (Score:2)
Personaly? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Personaly? (Score:2, Insightful)
20-40 hours? I haven't seen a game that's taken me more than 10 hours to beat in years.
I've become so upset at the time it takes to finish a game, I've had to switch over to playing the Final Fantasy series. FPS, RTS, and Strategy games are just too quick.
It's one of the core problems with games right now.. Everyone is taken in by the 'awesome graphics' of the new games coming out when it's really the least vital part to a good game. Give me a good plot line, replay value, and
Re:Personaly? (Score:2)
In the beginning it was good. (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyways, second, wouldn't this spawn "fulltime" gamers in the end? I see your point, but wouldn't it mean that there were too few non-gamers to keep t
Re:In the beginning it was good. (Score:1)
Step 1 -- Place free or extremely low-priced episode one near the register for impulse purchases. Anyone who sees a boxed game near the register for five bucks is going to take a look, including many non-gamers.
Step 2 -- Include in bold letters on the box "Part 1 of an exciting new series of games. Subsequent installments will be released each month for you're playing enjoyment."
Very little confusion there.
Of course, you still have to sell th
Episodic games? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, my favorite FPS games are online, so you can break that story up however you want, all I need is the part that puts me into multiplayer. My favorite role playing games would break up into 20-30 parts like this, and they can stick it up their asses if they expect me to pay $100-150 for what currently costs $50. The real problem is the writer's point of view here, as we can see further on in the article.
People like to complain that both Max Paynes are too short. I suppose they are, but only if you compare them to other games. [...]Meanwhile, I think the main reason Max Payne and its sequel seem so short is that they present captivating storylines and entertaining action, which collectively compel you to play through these games as quickly as you can.
Only if you compare them to other games? Welcome, Captain Obvious, what should we compare them to? Sit-Coms? They seem so short because they're 8 hours long, even if you have to replay several parts a couple of times. Even someone that can only play an average of 1 hour a day can beat an 8 hour game in slightly over a week.
I recently played through Metroid: Zero Mission for the Game Boy Advance, casually in an afternoon. It's a cool game, but the depressing thought then occurred to me that it's going to be months or years until the next one is released. The game is quite short and recycles most of the same assets and gameplay as its predecessors--it uses a tried-and-true formula, that is.
I have two complaints about this comment:
1) He keeps talking as if he's a casual gamer, but in my area Metroid Zero Mission came out yesterday. Sure, that's within the realm of "recently", but how many casual gamers go down to the game store in the middle of the day on a Tuesday to pick up a new game?
2) He talks about the length of the game, and it's use of "the same assets and gameplay as its predecessors", using a "tried and true formula". Did he even know what he was buying (this actually makes me wonder, because MAYBE a casual gamer wouldn't know)? Zero Mission is a remake of the original NES Metroid, so of course it's going to be using the same gameplay and a "tried and true formula". It's also supposed to be longer than the original. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that will be trying to get some sort of speed record on Zero Mission, but for most people the first time through will take about as long as Max Payne, and most of us are probably aware of that. Interestingly, a short Metroid game is more acceptable to me, probably because I know I'll get some replay out of it, unlike Max Payne.
Gamers are growing older. We don't all have time to spend eight or 10 hours at a time playing Final Fantasy. We also don't all have time to play games every single day. Sometimes we go back to a game we were playing and don't even remember what the heck we were doing.
You know what, I fall into all of these cases, except that I can occasionally, on a weekend, find 8-10 hours to string together playing a video game, maybe twice a month. I've come back and not been able to figure out what I was doing, the most blatant offender being FFVIII, which I had already spent 25 hours on.
Sometimes we spend $50 on a game, never get all the way through it, and then wish we hadn't wasted our money. I think there are a lot of people out there who want to be gamers but don't want to make the commitment of living the "gamer lifestyle" of having their entire existence revolve around their hobby.
These are the parts I don't agree with. If I wish I hadn't wasted my money, it's because I don't like the game, not because I didn't finish it. I never worry about not finishing
Re:Episodic games? (Score:4, Interesting)
You're the exception, not the rule. 80% of players will not finish a given game. It makes loads of sense, therefore, to break a game up. If the difficulty structure (TM) of a game follows a series of buildups and peaks, it's going to be a hell of a lot more interesting than your standard start-off-easy-end-hard fare. Especially since, if you couldn't finish last month's episode, you can start this month's anyway (after a quick "previously on..." catch-up, if it's narrative led).
There's more. If you buy the first episode and decide you don't like the game, what have you lost? Ten quid? Rather than, say, fourty?
Obviously, episodic structure only works for certain game types. Coincidentally, however, these seem to be exactly the games that typically *don't* hold the player's interest up until the end.
Re:Episodic games? (Score:4, Insightful)
What makes me the exception, then? I probably haven't finished more than half the games I have.
It makes loads of sense, therefore, to break a game up. If the difficulty structure (TM) of a game follows a series of buildups and peaks, it's going to be a hell of a lot more interesting than your standard start-off-easy-end-hard fare.
A lot of games currently follow a series of peaks in difficulty. Most people (myself included) tend to stop playing a game because one particular peak ramps up too quickly, rather than because the game simply gets progressively harder and they eventually can't get any further. A good example from my personal experience would be Metroid Fusion. One particular part of the game has an encounter with SA-X (an enemy nearly equivalent to the player's character at full power), near the middle of the game, that requires you to run away to a particular area, then wait for the SA-X to leave. I stopped playing the game for 2 months because I was having a hard time with that particular sequence. When I came back to it, it still took roughly 6 times to get past it, but then most of the remainder of the game was closer to the original difficulty curve, with 2 or 3 more encounters that were significantly more difficult.
Especially since, if you couldn't finish last month's episode, you can start this month's anyway (after a quick "previously on..." catch-up, if it's narrative led).
That might be a nice way of doing things, but it'd be very hard for developers to handle the difficulty curve if you're assuming that players can skip whole episodes of the game, while still trying to appeal to those that will finish each episode.
There's more. If you buy the first episode and decide you don't like the game, what have you lost? Ten quid? Rather than, say, fourty?
We used to have demos for this. Unfortunately, demos have become less relevant as they release early code or portions that aren't relevant to the overall game. There's always the shareware model, as well, which is closer to what the article actually described (as many others have pointed out, Wolfenstein 3D and Doom were released much in this way). Rentals are another consideration for people that aren't sure about a game, and I'd have to say that rentals got me through most of my childhood. If you buy a game and don't like it, take it back, get something else. If it took you 2 months to figure out you don't like it you might end up losing a bit more money on it, but it's not much of a loss if you find out fairly quickly.
Obviously, episodic structure only works for certain game types. Coincidentally, however, these seem to be exactly the games that typically *don't* hold the player's interest up until the end.
Yet what no one's explained so far is how breaking a game up into episodes is going to hold someone's interest any better than getting the whole game at the start would have. Beyond that, you have to wonder how many developers are going to finish releasing episodes if a game doesn't do well in the first couple of episodes. With the front-heavy costs of building a game in the first place, the developers will take even fewer risks in that sort of structure and any game that isn't doing well in the first 2 episodes will probably be written off and left incomplete. Just as with sequels, subsequent episodes will draw a smaller audience, which only helps give publishers incentive to cut their losses after the first episode.
Re:Episodic games? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? Even now, some games offer to let you skip a mission if you fail it (e.g.) three times. It means that the primary, driving element behind playing the next episode is not to see how many enemies they're going to throw at you, but what interesting new things they're going to do with the game (not to men
Re:Episodic games? (Score:2, Interesting)
The games that are doing well currently either already have this element or can be played with absolutely no concern for this element. Breaking it up into episodes doesn
Re:Episodic games? (Score:2)
No. YOU are getting older. Sure the average gamer is getting slightly older but it's important to remember that you =\= world. 10 years ago older gamers were complaining about not having time to play games. Things have got MUCH better than th
Re:Episodic games? (Score:1)
Star chamber and Uru, for example (Score:5, Informative)
Episodic gaming is hard to get off the ground, I my opinion, because the first episode has to deliever a lot of promise, and the next part(s) have to maintain that promise without disrupting the cost vs. content and length balance. Myst: Uru will hopefully open the way for more installment type games, with free downloadable extra content.
Re:Star chamber and Uru, for example (Score:2)
Which pisses me off to no end, because it looks like a fantastic game - if it cost $50, included everything, and had a great SP campaign (hell, even decent bots!) I would have bought it in a second.
Re:Star chamber and Uru, for example (Score:1)
However, the would-be downloadable content will be released in the more traditional form of expansion packs.
I can (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't want to spend eight weeks with a game. I would probably play more different games for a shorter time, while coming back to favourites when new episodes are released.
Re:I can (Score:3, Informative)
Why do you need games to be episodic to do this? I usually have 3 or 4 games next to each of my systems and cycle through them, putting one back on the shelf every time I get a new game for that system (the new game going next to the system), or get sick of or finish that particular game. If I think I might have a problem coming back t
Re:I can (Score:3, Insightful)
it would behoove the publisher to milk gamers for as long as possible, to make up for the people who tried a few episodes and left. There'd be next to no finality in such games. Look at popular television series like the X-Files. Clearly that series has been perpetuated past the reasonable point of finality. The movie and final season essentially cleanly wrapped up the story - and yet they forced it. Why? because people were stil
Re:I can (Score:2)
(to keep the game fresh, to extend the advancement treadmill, etc)
Re:I can (Score:2)
Sure it depends on the genre but I don't think this is really the case anymore. I don't even think Knights of the Old Republic took me 40 hours to finish (spread out over about 2 months) and that was by far the longest game I've played in the past year or two. Max Payne 2, Panzer Dragoon Orta, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, Beyond Good and Evil, Freedom Fighters, Call of Duty were all nowhere near 40 hours...most were in the 6-12 hour range.
Right.... (Score:4, Interesting)
So why is it such an amazingly bad idea. Well quit apart from the administrative overhead (10x5 bucks costs more to transact then 1x50 bucks) and the tiny little problem that not everyone has credit cards or fast lines to download new episodes.
There is the problem that people hate waiting. Is it me or is there more then simply the wish to pirate behind people downloading tv episodes? It is not like you can't catch a repeat. No we want it now and we want it when we want it not when some executive somewhere decides we can have it.
Playing a game then having to wait god knows how long for the next part would suck. Especially when you got the nagging suspicion that the next episode never comes.
Also lets face it. Very few games have a really gripping story line. The few that do, RPG's, are best when they are open and this hardly allows you to divide it up in chapters. Adventures would work but they have a hard enough time selling as it is.
Perhaps sometime in the future. I think the first maybe the MMORPG when they finally get around to add a story that is.
Nice idea, file it with 3D glasses and interactive movies.
Re:Right.... (Score:2)
Here we go (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly the effort required to create a game doesn't decrease when you break the game up into small pieces. Let's say you wanted to make Half-Life 2 episodic. Well all the engine work and such remains just as hard and takes just as long. Also they'll have to spend time making just as many levels and maps. Making the game a serial will just give them a bit more time to do so. The thing is that nobody will pay 50$ for a single episode of a game. Likely each episode will have to be less money. But then you're giving people the whole game for too little and they might not buy future episodes. Well, what if you promise the first 5 episodes for 50$. People might not take because if they pay 50 and only get a part of what they paid for immediately they might not take.
Episodic video games aren't a very feasible idea. It seems cool in your head, but try to think of a profitable way to do it and you just wont come up with one. Video games are like movies not like tv shows. They have sequels and prequels not episodes. This is mainly due to high production times and costs. The closest you can get to a serial video game is an MMO with a special event based plot. I think the future really is in an MMO game with a persistent world, skill based gameplay, and plot directly affected by players.
Re:Here we go (Score:1)
This should show us that episodic gaming will be based (if it apears) on an already (then) existing engine. In this way first episode can be given for free and the rest for 10 (or 5) a piece.
Games could be make to mimic those old books like the "Lone Wolf" series and its equivalents. Or they could be make to try to milk a fad, like a Y
Good on paper, bad in reality (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Gameplay gets boring/too dragged out (.hack series notably)
2. Game would be WAY too short (imagine a game like Max Payne 2 cut up in chapters)
3. Some gamers don't buy games immediately when they are released and some are nearly impossible to find after a period of time.
4. Companies would go evil on us, by making insanely long, dragged out, overdone, just milking the series additions to a game *cough*TheSims*cough*.
5. Its easier to own just one DVD of a whole game than to freak out that you lost part X of Y.
Re:Good on paper, bad in reality (Score:2)
Re:Good on paper, bad in reality (Score:2)
User A may have to wait three months after completing part 1 for part 2 to come out, User B may hit the time right on, and User Z might take so long on part 1 that part 2 is already off the shelves when he's ready to play it.
Somewhat exists (Score:2)
This is especially true of them when they are first released.
Also, look at the Sims. About every 6 months they had a new expansion on the market.
You mean like asheron's call? (Score:1)
AC2 has done the same thing, tho a lot less successfully. Too dumbed down.
Episodic modding (Score:5, Interesting)
In the context of modding, episodic gaming is a fantastic idea. It prevents modmakers from losing focus halfway through, because they've only got a small amount of stuff to be working on at a time. Additionally, once the base coding is done, there's very little extra technical work to be done per episode, meaning nothing's holding the content team back from work.
I already did! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I enjoyed it, but apparently not enough other people did, as it is now "Does anybody remember?" instead of "Is anybody playing?". Whether this is due to the viability (or lack thereof) of episodic gaming's economic model or another factor (EA mismanagement, gigantic overhead, poor story, etc etc) is a question best left to history.
I played Majestic. (Score:2)
Rob
It may eventually work (Score:2)
As for the killer app, well if I knew that I'd have an even faster laptop by now, and a new house and car etc.
Knee Deep in the Dead (Score:2)
In retrospect, I preferred the episodic form to the straight-line 32 levels of Doom II. Only problem was that you lost all of you accumulated booty when you started the next episode.
My favorite game of that era was Hexen, and its hubs were an interesting compromise between episodes and straight-line levels.
Isn't this demoware? (Score:2)
I like it! (Score:2, Interesting)
While you're making the first game in the series, you plan ahead. Get good plots stretching over a few games, maybe even running themes and reoccuring secondary characters.
After the first game, you've got virtually all of the technology needed, save updates and fixes on the 'finished' engine. You've got a small library of content that can be used in the following games if any situation asks for it. This saves money already after the fi
Re:I like it! (Score:1)
You've almost touc
Re:I like it! (Score:1)
Re:I like it! (Score:1)
I like that idea, but remember that a revamp still takes significant time and effort, and the increase in visual quality will usually include an increased workload on the artists. I don't think a major revamp is needed for something released either every 6 months or every year, but certainly some work will have to go into it.
Halo is a few years old and doesn't look bad. A game a few months o
Re:I like it! (Score:1)
Just to make sure I got the point across, I do mean seasons of episodes. Say they do the first six episodes as one plot-line, and then have a second art team work on a 4-episode arc. While theoreticly it could be year-round with four or so teams, I think there's such a thing as overkill. There has to be a point where you have to build a new engine, have a major sta
Re:I like it! (Score:1)
The problem I see here is not that people want longer games, it's that people want games to be shorter, and want the price scaled accordingly. Why have a long game (there are plenty of long games out there, and they're getting better every year) broken down and sold to you in parts when they can sell
Re:I like it! (Score:1)
Re:I like it! (Score:1)
Personally, I think the only profits that rentals cut into are those of the developers that make bad games, or games that are so short that everyone that rents them finishes them, and which have so little replay value that those pe
the economics aren't there (Score:5, Insightful)
Second is distribution. what would a 2 hour episode take to download? 50 meg? 100? 200? Sure, for us hardcore gamers none of that seems unreasonable for a good game. Let steam/kpp/bittorrent/etc download that while i watch south park. no problem.
but what about the majority of game buyers with less-than-broadband? what about the game buyers with no internet access? these people are still out there, and the numbers show that there are many more of them than there are of us.
Barring digital distribution, one must press discs, package, ship, and stock a box every month to be sold for roughly $5. This just isn't going to happen, as any content not headed for the bargain bin costs at least $5 just to ship, stock, and get shelf-space.
So to do episodic content, you essentially limit your target market to broadband owners, and you put almost all your cash investment out up-front, with no guarantee or ability to forecast revenue.
Then there's the content problem. Most casual gamers don't finish most of the games they buy. They buy games based on (comparatively) little research and often find they don't care for a game's style, gameplay, story, etc and simply stop playing. To ask publishers to essentially allow these players to try before they buy, is to guarantee less revenue because most will lose interest and never pay for enough episodes to allow the publisher to cover their costs.
Let's not forget the lesson of Stephen King's 'Riding the Bullet'. That was top-rate content from one of America's most celebrated and popular authors, with a rabid, built-in fan-base.
And what happened? He stopped releasing chapters of his novel, because he wasn't getting enough online revenue to make it worth his while. But it wasn't his paythrough rate that was dropping. His downloads themselves dropped after each chapter he released.
Most people simply drifted off. They decided the story wasn't quite 'for them', or they forgot about it, or who knows what else. They simply stopped showing up.
So if Stephen King can't manage to make it worth his time to dish out episodic content, what chance does a game publisher have? They won't have his exposure, they won't have his fan base, they won't have his potential market, and they won't get the free publicity he got. His cost was merely time, imagination, and a word processor. Game developers have comparatively massive up-front costs.
and King failed.
I personally believe that games, like novels, are media that are desireable to consumers, as they are paced solely by the consumer. You can put it down, pause, pick it back up, or blast through it 6 hours at a time, wholly unlike tv or radio.
Consumers of book and game expect to be able to continue when they're engaged. They don't want to stop - and forcing them to stop essentially puts their excitement on hold, and may lose it entirely.
Episodic content has only ever worked in the broadcast media, because with them there was no other way to do it. Broadcast means people have to alter their schedule to consume the content, and most people aren't about to block off 3 hours of one night for a single story. So they cut up a story into several more reasonable parts.
People put up with 24, 1 hour at a time, not because they want to, but because they have no other choice. If 24 released on DVD at the same time as the first episode was released, what do you think would happen? Most people would buy it, and watch it on their own time, at their own pace.
So if episodic content was simply a business reality, and never about a desireable presentation of content - why do people keep trying to force it?
Re:the economics aren't there (Score:1)
While for the most part I agree with you, I think King's a bad example. For instance, if you look back a bit further in his work, there was a title called the Green Mile. Not a massively successful book, but it did well, and was originally released in 5 or 6 parts (I have them somewhere, but I didn't buy in until the 3rd or 4th was released, so I didn't have to wait much to finish
Re:the economics aren't there (Score:2)
The very fact that he had managed to sell 3 million copies of each $4 installment of The Green Mile seems to suggest that perhaps I was wrong, that the market doesn't mind episodic content if properly encapsulated. If you can put it on store shelves, you can s
Re:the economics aren't there (Score:2, Interesting)
*ahem* We've mentioned that many people do prefer to wait for collected works (DVDs of TV shows, for example), but many people still can't wait that long. They prefer to see episodes as soon as they're available. I can appriciate your comparison. It's a damned good one. But I think it's a little off.
His first eBook sold 400,000. I'm not positive, but I'd guess that's rather lo
Re:the economics aren't there (Score:2)
Unfortunately I fear I've already spent too much time discussing this. We being mere mortals not in control of development or publishing, it isn't worth spending too much time on.
Suffice to say that I feel there are all types of content and content consumers. However, it is clear that the market for certain types of content, and types of content distribution that are clearly smaller. Commercial publishers always follow the money, and independent publishers can't get shelf-space in consumer stores.
At this
Re:the economics aren't there (Score:2)
If he had, he would have set the overall target price for the entire work, and disclaimed all his rights to it once it had been met.
Instead he wanted $1 from each person, and wouldn't give up anything.
Perhaps if he had done a better job at this, and actually followed the SPP, it might have worked out better.
Re:the economics aren't there (Score:2)
The problem with Stephen King using strict SPP is that he has an alternative for the same content. A street-performer, or unknown, has only to ask enough money for it to be worth their time to publish. Stephen King has to make enough money for it to be worth his time not to publish traditionally.
Supposedly he targetted a 75% paythrough instead of a fixed sum, and gave up because his fourth installment only got 45% paythrough. Yet, I
"Tell Kendra to Get out Now!" (Score:5, Insightful)
But you know, after getting more distance from it, I actually miss it. It really only took a few hours a week, but it became something of a daily habit to get an email or fax or phone call from Majestic. I really do think they were on to something, and I think its failure - and the failure of episodic content in general (remember Wing Commander Prophecy?) is largely due to several factors. Since I didn't pay, I don't specifically remember how much Majestic cost but I want to say that it was $10. I'm not sure it was worth that. $5, maybe, but $10 is outrageous. There's the notion with episodic content that it ought to significantly cheaper than a full game.
I think the blame is often laid at the consumer's feet. But it's also an issue of pricing with the publisher. I don't think a publisher could justify charging any less than $10 a month. Why? Uf game designers can sell you a $50 game and %25-50 of those buyers will pay $30 for an expansion pack (essentially the next episode), why bother with a monthly subscription rate and risk someone dropping their account in the 8 months it takes to get the same amount of money?
Re:"Tell Kendra to Get out Now!" (Score:2)
Majestic was innovative, just poorly executed.
BTW, why in the hell did you beta testers lie to us normal players about how Episode 2 was "so much better" than Episode 1? Were you in the minority, or was EA putting words in your mouths, or what?
Rob
Re:"Tell Kendra to Get out Now!" (Score:1)
Chalk it up to groupthink, but we really did think it was better than Ep1. Another factor may have been that the episodes were not as close together for the beta testers as they were for players. I seem to clearly remember the longest gap between episode 1 and 2, almost a month if I recall, while they retoo
Slipped Release Dates (Score:3, Insightful)
At least when I go to pick up a game at EB, the game is finished and in my hands. It might not be a terrific game [deusex.com], but at least I've got it.
Well duh... (Score:2)
...it's called an MMORPG...
Some thoughts (Score:2)
The only difference I can think of is that perhaps the proposed system would be on a subscription system -- but that means that the onus is on players to cancel if they don't like the first. I don't think I'd want to have to do something to avoid buying the second.
Other probl
dot hack, anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is how I would have done it. Release the main game for a console with a HD (at this point XB, but I really hope the HD catches on in the next generation-- it's more useful than console developers currently realize) at the basic price point of $50. Then, release the expansions for $5 online or $15 in the store (if you want to include extra goodies in the package, go for it, but it'll raise the price point). In short, this is exactly what PC developers have done and done successfully for close to twenty years now. The paradigm can and should work on current consoles-- in fact, it does; three words: Final Fantasy XI.
Alias - The Game (Score:1)
http://abc.go.com/primetime/alias/underground/
If I remember, your first download contained the game engine, and the first 2 missions. Subsequent missions were released every other week or so.
Oh, and it was free (as in...). Of course, during the game, Sydney drives a Ford Focus®, and communicates with Marshall via her Nokia®, cell phone.
It's pretty much a Tomb Raider knockoff. Fun, nonetheless.
I'd go for it (Score:1)
I'm a wanna-be gamer (Score:1)
So its really hard for me to justify dropping $50 on a game that I know I'll only get to play for 5-10 hours in a month. And I know that about 50% of the time, I get bored or stuck in a game before finishing it.
My solution is to put the games in my amazon "save for later" queue and check back periodically as the games get cheaper a
So many problems.... (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, there is linearity of design. Generally, your character will acquire experience, gold, weapons, abilities, etc throughout a game. If a person jumps into the fifth month of a game, he will be at a severe disadvantage to continue if it is even possible at all. So in any game that contains character development, like the Metroid series, you will need to keep customers buying the packs in a linear fashion.
Which brings us to a position where you don't have an episodic presentation at all, you have a pay-as-you-go model combined with a content-in-patches model. People will start 8 months after the game is released and it starts to get some buzz, will play though the first available 9 hours, and will wait every month for the next level. And that, my friends, is a crappy way to experience a game. Even if you can only spare an hour a week, you will be left with nothing to play for 1/5th of the time, and a tight story experience that is spread out over two years. It would be jilted and terrible. Whatever coherent emergent experience the game may be presenting would be lost amidst the sea of time. Could you imagine watching LotR one hour at a time, spread out over 9 months?
And let's be honest, no monthly episode would ship on time. It should be in QA for the a month before it is ready for prime time. You have to create textures, unique characters, a map, a new musical track, and fresh voice recordings. You have to balance the difficulty, ensure compatibility, and test. You would have to develop the entire game before hand, and simply release it monthly. It would simply be a matter of withholding from your potential audience.
After a year, what then? If it took you two or three years to develop the first game, and you've been futzing about during the intervening year listening to player criticisms, altering gameplay balance, and adding areas, you now will have had maybe a solid 6 months to design and develop the next game. That's really not enough time, even using an existing engine. The reviewer complains that Metroid Zero is too short, and would like to see more content released monthly, but the reviewer doesn't say where this development time would come from. It's nice to say that a game is too short, but Metroid Zero isn't too short because they were waiting for the expansion pack. Game designers not "worrying about having to pad these episodes out"? These episodes would be all padding.
As for the first hour free... Has Greg Kasavin even tried demos? I know he's the executive editor for GameSpot, so he probably knows to avoid the slimeware that GameSpot's demo area tries to install on your system, but there are other sources. If you want the first hour free, go to a real demo site, like 3DGamers, and enjoy yourself.
It is true that games need to become shorter, more intense experiences... More Metal Gear Solid than Xenogears. But chopping up an otherwise perfectly fine game and making it monthly is not the answer. It may be a reasonable-sounding solution, which is why it is repeated all too often, but in reality this no-brainer really is a no-brainer.
Re:So many problems.... (Score:1)
Let's begin at the start. Tell me, what was your childhood like?
First of all, there is linearity of design.
Veeeery interesting.... Sorry. Back to our discussion.
Generally, your character will acquire experience, gold, weapons, abilities, etc throughout a game. If a person jumps into the fifth month of a game, he will be at a severe disadvantage to continue if it is even possible at all. So in any game that contains character develop
Open source games (Score:1)
Dark Forces: Jedi Knight (Score:2)
All the benchmarks and reviews in the world can't substitute for actually playing a demo of the game.
Not many Games lend themselves to Episodes (Score:2)
Any game with a multiplayer component is out too - If you release new content, presumably there will be some new models etc. If I don't have those models because I didn't buy Episode 3 or whatever, then the versions of our game will be out of sync and we won't be able to play together. Episodic games fragment the multiplayer community which is the oppo
Re:Not many Games lend themselves to Episodes (Score:1)
You're absolutely right about most multiplayer games, Western-style RPGs, puzzlers, and 'game' games not being able to really profit from this type of development and release. This is largely for content-driven games. But I d
Re:Not many Games lend themselves to Episodes (Score:1)
Sell players subscriptio
Another consideration (Score:2)
see arena.net (Score:3, Informative)
Sounds like this may get tested this year.
-chitlenz
Actually they are called "sequels" (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway in games this already has been done with some success: legacy of kain per example tells a "history" which can be only fully unraveled by playing all episodes (games), the baldurs gate D&D (supossedly) and of course the ".hack" series do pretty much the same.
In other case, small (1-2 levels) episode games can only be practical for shareware, demoware or internet based developers who are trying to make downloads easier on users. Other than that a company cant afford to invest in a full game project which will only have an asured sell of only 20% of their content at 30% of its price, I mean, who can asure if users will only get the first 2 episodes and then quit because they found is too dificult or something else new is out by then? is a known fact that only a small percenteage of gamers finish all the games they buy. What about the other epidodes developing packing and *shipping (*if they get shelf space) who is going to pay for that?
Is not practical for users either, you buy a $20 buck game and play it for 2-4 hours then you have to go and buy the next episode. if you have 5 extra episodes thats 6 visits to the software store. Even a less than brilliant person can realize is easier if you just pick all the episodes in 1 trip (unless you are considering quitting early or not playing all episodes). Besides who is going to buy a 2 hour game when they can get a full game for the same quantity at retail price? is a no brainer.
It would really depend on the pricing..... (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, Baldur
Like Xbox Live? (Score:1)
Rushed Games (Score:4, Interesting)
For example, I can imagine game publishers saying, "OK, now you only need to make 10% of the content by the time the game's released, so instead of getting twelve months, you only need three." Sure, it may be possible to make 10% of the content in 25% of the time, but it is not possible to do 100% of the programming in 25% of the time.
Anybody remember Halcyon Sun? (Score:2)
Rob
The future of the industry? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ultimately, this would change the industry to stop focusing on technical advancements (renderers, etc) and focus on gameplay and story enhancements instead. Some of us seem to be waiting for that.
Of course, you could also shoot for a subscription model instead of ad-support, but most people already pointed out the problem with that: current gamers are reluctant to move to a monthly-fee model when they can already buy 60-gameplay-hour games for $50.
If anybody's seriously interested in this, and brainstorming some ideas I'd be curious to talk to them.
Potentially a good thing.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Its the story that keeps you coming back to TV shows or book series or movie series and the same should be true for episodic gaming. Whether it would actually succeed is a whole different issue, but the chances are quite slim. The time required to produce each episode will be too long, sure once the core engine is written it will speed up as developers learn the system, but it will still be no small task to produce each episode. Maybe one day it will be a possibility but I don't think yet
Many cell phone games... (Score:1)
I am a lazy american game programmer! I have become my own worst enemy!
(Not really)
Apogee Model (Score:2, Interesting)
I would be interested in episodic gaming - I never get immersed in gaming and something that can be down in a night is personally better for me.
Besides, wasn't it tried before back in 1998 (the name elludes me, but it was a shoot 'em up)?
there have been some for ps2 also (Score:1)
Another detail about this. (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to bring it up because they are great games, but the shenmue games are supossed to be episodes 1,2 of 13, so the history is not complete at all, and theres no signs of shenmue 3 (or its other 11 parts) ever going to be released.
hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
FPSs Episodes (Score:1)
Asheron's Call already does this. (Score:3, Interesting)
This content is significant: three towns have been destroyed over the course of the 4 year storyline -- Arwic, which was the TRADING HUB of the game at the time, and has since been rebuilt in impressive fashion (over the course of 3 episodes about a year back); Tufa, which has been sorta-rebuilt on the edges of the water-filled crater; and Yanshi, the residents of which now live in a nearby tent city.
Epic storylines culminate in huge battles which are of course for the Fate Of Dereth (tm). Political intrigue abounds. That, and it's a fun game, too, with killing aplenty!
The developer, Turbine, has recently purchased the rights for the game back from Microsoft, and are going to release an expansion pack soon. The game is not currently available for download (MS had dropped it when AC2, a bad game :), tanked) but it will be in the next couple of weeks. Highly recommended.
What I would hate about it... (Score:1, Interesting)
One example of such a game is Shenmue. It hasn't got to its end yet, and from the looks of things it might not even get to finish. It also dosn't help
Pay per play model....no thanks. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:.Hack//Sales_Pitch (Score:1)