Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Why Bother With Episodic Games? 125

Gamasutra is running a piece today entitled Why Bother With Episodic Games? Author Rick Sanchez ponders the rationale behind this business model, and offers up a few reasons why 'the next big thing' is actually a good idea for both gamers and game developers. From the article: "Traditional game development does have a feedback loop, but with years between results. Betting the studio that the design decisions made for a sequel were the right ones can be disastrous if you were wrong. With short iteration cycles, gameplay mechanics that an audience responds to can be used to turn a moderate performer into a hit. This model still needs to be vetted out in the video game world, but it works in every other form of media that we consume, so there's no reason to think it won't work for games."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Bother With Episodic Games?

Comments Filter:
  • by Sciros ( 986030 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @03:59PM (#17450060) Journal
    We have "episodic nature of games" to thank for some of the most unfulfilling ending sequences ever. And to say it works everywhere so it should work in video games is rubbish, because it doesn't always work everywhere (I cite the ending of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, which IMO was reminiscent of Halo 2's ending in terms of closure and satisfaction).
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The ending of PotC: DMC wasn't supposed to provide any closure. It was a teaser, pure & simple, for the 3rd PotC movie.

      It's exactly like the season finale of episodic work - TV show, webcomic, movie series, etc...
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Sciros ( 986030 )
        I never said they did it by accident T_T

        I don't want to spoil anything for folks who haven't seen it but my whole point was I found it *highly disappointing* for a number of reasons as a result. For one, the movie isn't standalone at all, and there is merit in having something not make you feel like you paid for, literally, half of a product and are now committed to buying the other half in order to justify the first.
        • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          I don't want to spoil anything for folks who haven't seen it but my whole point was I found it *highly disappointing* for a number of reasons as a result. For one, the movie isn't standalone at all, and there is merit in having something not make you feel like you paid for, literally, half of a product and are now committed to buying the other half in order to justify the first.

          I really have to disagree in that I thought the movie was just as standalone as, say, The Two Towers. If anything, it reminded me
      • "It's exactly like the season finale of episodic work - TV show, webcomic, movie series, etc..."

        ... except people paid full price for half a movie.

    • by SanityInAnarchy ( 655584 ) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @05:03PM (#17451034) Journal
      Pirates of the Caribbean is a trilogy, and that's generally the way it works. You get one good movie, with a conclusion, and people like it enough that someone decides to make more, so they turn it into a trilogy. The second movie will expand on the first, opening up a larger universe, but leaves the story entirely unfinished -- in fact, it's often deliberately some sort of cliffhanger. Then you get the third movie, and a conclusion -- and if it's a good series, the conclusion is worth the wait.

      After all, the ending of Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back was pretty unsatisfying, and deliberately so. Then we get Return of the Jedi, and a real ending.

      Lord of the Rings. First movie was pretty good -- not much closure, but it was still pretty good. Second movie was lots of fighting, actually somewhat of a grind, but still some good elements. And the third movie made it all worthwhile.

      The Matrix: Reloaded. Ends with the main character passed out, possibly dead, and a couple of other things. I'm not saying Revolutions answered everything I wanted it to, but again, it did provide closure.

      I don't like episodes that run on forever, certainly not if I have to pay for them. But episodic doesn't mean never-ending. Consider: The first 50 episodes or so of Naruto were actually pretty decent, and closed some very good storylines. But, now they're up to some 220 episodes, and it's definitely getting old. Last I checked, they still really hadn't done much about Sasuke or Orochimaru.

      And, compare that to, say, Fullmetal Alchemist. Ended after 50 episodes. Or Trigun, or Cowboy Bebop, or Outlaw Star, or Noir -- many good animes end after a season of 25 episodes or so.

      By that token, I'm really appreciating the Half-Life 2 episodes, because I know there will be exactly three of them. It helps to know that there's an ending coming, but that we don't have to buy anymore episodes if the first one sucked. It also helps to be able to provide feedback -- and that, combined with the nature of game development, means subsequent episodes can keep getting better. Or Halo 2 -- we know Halo 3 will finish it.

      If you don't like it, wait till the conclusion is made, then buy the whole thing -- earlier episodes (or games) will be cheaper by then.
      • By that token, I'm really appreciating the Half-Life 2 episodes, because I know there will be exactly three of them.

        There are four episodes planned [wikipedia.org]. ;-)
      • I suppose it's too late to not reveal myself as a complete dork, already being on Slashdot, so here goes: Granted the last hundred episodes of Naruto have been total crap, but the story is still continuing. Essentially, the manga started first and has been divided into two sections, one ending when Sasuke leaves, and a second that takes place a few years later dealing mainly with Akatsuki. There was also a short bit about how Kakashi got his sharingan as a kid. Each anime episode covers more than one chap
    • Halo 2's ending was far better than Pirates 2. Getting to the end of Pirates almost made me wish I went fishing instead of watching it on the opening day. Getting to the end of Halo 2 made me glad that they had stopped dragging out the second half of the game with endless identical hallways. Halo 2 was actually more satisfying, and I felt like the sequel might have good stuff in it. I expect the only good things in Pirates 3 to be the music.
    • by Fozzyuw ( 950608 )
      (I cite the ending of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, which IMO was reminiscent of Halo 2's ending in terms of closure and satisfaction)

      As long as it's nothing like Drag-on Ball Z in terms of 'content', then I'd be happy. It's like my mothers soap operas... Watch once every couple of weeks and you'll know all you need to know.

      Cheers,
      Fozzy

  • Not an excuse (Score:5, Insightful)

    by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @04:02PM (#17450128)
    The problem with the potential of episodic games is that they can all-too-easily become an excuse to:

    • Release buggy games--figuring that "We can just patch them with the next update"
    • Release half-assed or unfinished game--"We don't HAVE to have much content with this one, we'll just fix it in the future"

    This may be all well-and-good for a $5-$10 game. But if you're going to release a $50-$60 game, you'd better make DAMN sure it delivers more than just promises of FUTURE content and FUTURE fixes.

    -Eric

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      I think it's the opposite. If you want to sell the next episode, you'd better make something good. Traditional $60 games are more a fire and forget kind of thing (and they are more and more buggy).
    • by Anonymous Coward
      You know, people have been complaining about game developers releasing buggy games figuring that "We can just patch them with the next update" since online game updates have been available. It has nothing to do with episodic games, so I hardly see how that is an argument either for or against episodic games. It's completely irrelevant. It's a problem, but not one that is particularly pertinent to this discussion. Shoddy studios will release buggy games figuring they will patch them later, higher quality stu
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Thansal ( 999464 )
      If anyone tried to release an epesodic game for $50-60 they would be laughed at and fail.

      as for bugs? well, that is standard for most companies now (Release THEN patch)

      And for half assed games? If the episode sucks, the peisode sucks and people will not buy it or the next one.

      What holds true for full retail games almost always holds true for episodic games. You need to release a good game that works or people will be turned off from yuor future products (be it yourGame 2 or yourGame Ep2).

      the perfect exampl
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by GFree ( 853379 )
        Sin Episodes: Emergence didn't suck for me. I'm just pissed that Ritual have kept a media blackout regarding Episode 2. There's no way to tell if they're even bothering with the next ep; they probably are, but a total lack of information regarding it is worrying.

        As for HL2: Episode 2, Valve are bundling Team Fortress 2 and Portal with it, and I suspect this is because they're aware of the lack of content in an episodic game so they're gonna try to bump up the value this time round.

        You really thought the ori
        • by illeism ( 953119 ) *
          According to this [slashdot.org], sin episodes is finished... which is to bad because I enjoyed episode one as well...
        • by The-Bus ( 138060 )
          About three weeks ago it was reported that a lot of the developers left Ritual and SiN Episodes is no more [kotaku.com].

          I never played all of the original SiN but I did play the demo back then and I liked it. I liked Shogo more though.

          But... this raises a question. What if Episode 1 of SiN had never been released? The game would've been scrapped and the developers and publishers would not have been paid. Everyone loses. What we have now is that everyone still loses... we just lose less.
          • Disclaimer: I never played SiN. How do we lose less? If we paid for part of a game (one episode) and the developer closes the project, we will never get to see the end. This seems like a huge slap in the face.
            • by The-Bus ( 138060 )
              I guess it's in the eyes of the beholder, but if I was a huge SiN fan I'd rather have only Episode 1 than nothing to begin with. Sure, a completed story-arc would be best, but that doesn't seem to be a viable option now.
      • The interestign thing to me is that the 3 big name episodic games are folow up on previous franchises. my question on that is why?
        Is it simply that no one is willing to test the watters with a no name game?
        Are the developers figguring on cashign in in brand name recognition (stupid idea with SiN as the orig was rather bad)?


        That's just because the lesser-known titles aren't getting the same amount of press. I have the honor of being the recording engineer on all of Telltale's games (except their first title
        • by Thansal ( 999464 )
          Ha, I had seen refference to Bone becoming an episodic game, but I didn't know it was happening already. (I also figgured it was related to the refference I had seen of Bone becoming a movie...)

          Time to do more research!
  • by Sigma 7 ( 266129 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @04:05PM (#17450162)
    "Episodic content" was already around for a long time in the form of expansion packs (and related tactics.) For example:

    - Doom was released - shortly later, there was Doom II and Final Doom.
    - Quake was released - it received two expansion packs. (As a side note, a bug involving firing the thunderbolt underwater regressed back into the expansions.)
    - Quake 2 was released, and it also received two expansions.
    - The Sims is known for a large set of expansion packs - while not technically episodic, it's the exact same system used in episodic development.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 0racle ( 667029 )
      Expansions are not episodes, Doom, Quake and the Sims were complete games that could be enjoyed as they were. A better example might be something like the Xenosaga series. They were never meant to be played as individual games, the storyline starts in Episode One and ends in Three. Episode Two is a middle and feels like it.

      Could you really enjoy The Empire Strikes back without seeing A New Hope before and Jedi after? Same idea.
      • by CaseM ( 746707 )
        Could you really enjoy The Empire Strikes back without seeing A New Hope before and Jedi after? Same idea.


        Well, you could be like my dad and take your son to Return of the Jedi without ever having seen the first two. All is knew is that the lightsaber thing was cool and that there were spaceships. I was lost beyond that. I suspect he was watching Leia on the barge more than anything.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      The problem is that you didn't *need* to play the quake, doom and sims expansion packs. You got a complete experience in each game and you got what you were paying for.

      With things like Halo 2 and Half Life 2 both games felt too short and didn't feel satisfying, they certainly didn't resolve anything. I bet the people who bought Sin episodes are glad it was episodic with it now stuck in development hell.

      • by eln ( 21727 )
        While the end of HL2 seemed a whole lot like a teaser for HL3 (aka what would become HL2:Ep1), it was still a complete game in its own right. I don't recall ever feeling cheating or like I had purchased half a game after playing HL2. The game was plenty long, and the plot unfolded as a complete story in its own right.

        HL2 made you want to play further games in the series because at the end of it you felt that the HL universe had more to offer, not because the story was incomplete. Freeman was awoken for a
    • ... was because there was a huge modding community that got to muck about and create their own content which was mostly shared for FREE!

      That is the sort of episodic content that I like. Okay, there maybe quality control issues but until you've tasted sour, you won't know how sweet the good stuff is.
      • Yep, I had my copy of Doom patched up with all Star Wars mods. It was largely patchwork. One mod replaced the chainsaw with the lightsaber. Another replaced all the sounds. Another put in storm troopers instead of those undead marines. Eventually I even recreated maps from "Dark Forces" (a real Star wars doom clone) and some of things like the Death Star, and I went through playing a game that was in every imaginable way a Star Wars game, just running Doom underneath.

        That kind of stuff as AWESOME. I do
    • ""Episodic content" was already around for a long time in the form of expansion packs (and related tactics.) For example:"

      Huge difference between then and now, the "Episodic content" was a FREE demo most of the time where as they encouraged you to purchase the FULL GAME.

      If they are going to release "episodes" the first episode should be FREE.
  • by Total_Wimp ( 564548 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @04:06PM (#17450180)
    I'm a busy guy who likes to game. Specifically, I like to game for a weekend or two, then I might not have time to game for anyware from a couple of weeks to maybe a month. Episodes help me to "finish" a game so I don't have to worry about where I left off when I finally have a chance to get back to it. I don't have to worry about my skills getting stale right at the time the game is hitting me with the really hard stuff because I'm able to "finish" it in one go.

    When I here about how long Final Fantasy 12 is or Zelda Twilight Princess, I involuntarily cringe. It's not that I don't think it would be fun, it's just that I don't have time for that much fun in my life.

    TW
    • by Nos. ( 179609 )

      This is one of the reasons I stick with FPS. I was into Guild Wars for a while, but with a new born at home (he's 14 months now), I didn't always have time to spend an hour or more running through a quest. With FPS, I can sit down, play for 15 minutes or a few hours without worrying about not being able to save where I am, or find a new party to quest with.

      I'm a big HL2 fan (well, DoD and CS:S) though I haven't bought episode 1. More than likely I will, probably about the same time episode 2 comes out.

    • by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @04:18PM (#17450346)
      When I here about how long Final Fantasy 12 is or Zelda Twilight Princess, I involuntarily cringe. It's not that I don't think it would be fun, it's just that I don't have time for that much fun in my life.

      Cringe? Really?

      No one is forcing you... and besides, you are thinking of this in a limited scope. Episodic content can be as simple as more songs for Guitar Hero.

      • Dude, I don't cringe because I feel forced, I cringe for the same reason you might cringe when you see the sticker price on that cool car you had your eye on. It's not that it's not desirable, it simply costs to much (timewise) for me.

        If you can afford it, more power to you. I hope you love it. But I'm going to have to keep looking for something less expensive.

        TW
    • If you're talking about Zelda:TP's claim of 70+ hours, that is totally inflated by the unnecessary side quests. I completed a few side quests, maybe a total of 3 hours worth, and still managed to finish the game under 35 hours. It was a fairly good experience overall. But believe me, if it really would have taken 70 hours, I would have given up before completion.
    • I empathize with you on this one. I have a stack of Japanese console RPGs that have gone unplayed for months to years because of the time investment required to finish them. I've been reverting to my early days in gaming - a few quick rounds of arcade action or puzzlers is all I can manage most days. If episodic content enables me to play smaller chunks of more involved games, I'm all for it (as long as they remain affordable).
    • by Tridus ( 79566 )
      Thats a matter of taste.

      I beat Gears of War's single player/coop game in 10 hours... and then was left wondering what in the world I had just paid for. It wasn't nearly long enough for how expensive the game is, and it just sort of ends without explaining anything, really.
      • Sounds like what I would consider the perfect episode in every way other than price. Slap a $20 price tag on that puppy and I'm guessing you'd feel pretty good about the purchase.

        TW
  • unlike movies, games have the unique ability to be expanded upon without creating an entirely new game/episode. Modding (even if commercially) is one of the greatest things to have ever happened to games. Just look at the successes of CounterStrike and Desert Combat. It seems the problem with episodic games is that their lifespan, or playability, shrinks down to that of movies. Modding can help keep the original game's work going for years, while at the same time introducing new material.
  • by SetupWeasel ( 54062 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @04:08PM (#17450204) Homepage
    telling us why episodic content is great and start showing us. Yes, I know about all the advantages, but maybe we should start talking about overcoming the hefty drawbacks rather than pretending they don't exist.

    I honestly do not see a future for episodic content. Like microtransactions, the thought of the idea becoming an industry standard makes me sick to my stomach. But hey, I'm waiting for someone to prove me wrong. That's the problem. For all the talk, no one has done it.
    • by ocbwilg ( 259828 )
      telling us why episodic content is great and start showing us. Yes, I know about all the advantages, but maybe we should start talking about overcoming the hefty drawbacks rather than pretending they don't exist.

      This isn't intended as a flame, but it seems apparent from your post that you think that there are some fairly large drawbacks to episodic gaming, though you didn't actually mention what they were (any more than the developers did). Having a discussion is more than saying "I don't see a future i
      • Episodic content has nothing to do with the needs of the gamer. If everything is equal, a fully-realized episodic game is the same to an end user as a well-made traditional game with possible sequels. So, for starters, people aren't exactly clamoring for this. It fills no need on the consumer side.

        Why does anyone want this then? Money.

        The seductive argument is that since the cost of making an episode would be smaller than a whole game, smaller development teams would get revenue streams earlier and allow mo
    • by ivan256 ( 17499 )
      You nailed it.

      The summary describes the benefits, but in reality they are potential benefits. There are also potential downsides (for players). It is plain to see which have been more likely to manifest themselves.
    • Like microtransactions, the thought of the idea becoming an industry standard makes me sick to my stomach. But hey, I'm waiting for someone to prove me wrong. That's the problem. For all the talk, no one has done it.

      Not only has no one done it, but they have in fact done the opposite. Bethesda and Sony I'm looking at you.

    • Half Life 2: Episode One. And coming soon, episodes Two and then Three.

      (Episode One is really good, btw).
      • I seem to remember the promise of a six month development window. Lower costs, shorter development, tighter story! All I've seen is that my cost is the same or higher, I'm still waiting for Ep2 and while Ep1 was tight, it was extremely limited. It didn't feel like it had the depth that Half Life 2 did. I should have waited until all of the episodes were out.
        • Of course it didn't have the depth that Half Life 2 did. It's a single episode. That's like saying that an episode of a TV show doesn't have the same depth as a movie.

          As for your costs, Episode One is $20. Half Life 2 was $60 when it was released, I believe.
  • It seems to be working out pretty well with the new Sam & Max [telltalegames.com] games. Aside from the terrible audio quality on the voice samples, the game is top-notch in every way, and does a great job of capturing the feel of the classic LucasArts adventure. Sure, not all games fit the episodic model, but it's just right for a hilarious adventure game.
    • by GFree ( 853379 )
      I've also got another reason why the Sam & Max games can work on an episodic level. Telltale games (the developers) are not working on major improvements to the engine behind each game, so all they need to do per episode is create the new content, story and puzzles. They already have a working foundation which is functional for their purposes, and they aren't getting delayed with adding fancy crap to make things more "next-gen".

      For episodic games to work, there needs to be a greater focus on the GAMES r
      • by Kelbear ( 870538 )
        This is an interesting point to take in with regard to HL2:Episode One's developer commentary mode. They make the same comment about feeling comfortable with their engine early into the game. Throughout the rest of the developer commentary, the primary focus is in discussion of how they tested and revised, tested and revised, in going through each section of the game.

        A great deal of focus went into improving the NPC relationship (Alyx) with the player, and how they specifically crafted the experience to try
      • Exactly! I hope they do a Season 2 with minimal changes to the engine. It's already near-perfect. The people they need to continue the series probably looks more like the Futurama team: writers, artists, voice actors, musicians...plus a couple programmers to put all the pieces together.
    • by seebs ( 15766 )
      It'll be easier to say how well it works when more than one installment has come out.

      And, yes, I looked it up, and yes, I will download Episode 2 the day after tomorrow. Looking forward to it, in fact.
      • Episode 2 has been out on GameTap since December 22nd.
        • by seebs ( 15766 )
          Huh! I have no clue what gametap is, or how to use it. Maybe I have to boot Windows again and find out.
      • True enough, but if they screw it up, it will be because they ran out of good plot ideas/jokes, not because the format of short adventures was inappropriate.
  • Sam and Max (Score:2, Informative)

    by Nick Fury ( 624480 )
    Sam and Max is why I bother with episodic gaming. The last episode was a joyous romp through the psychotic universe that only a dog detective and his lagomorphic sidekick could inhabit. Speaking of, I believe a new episode is coming out this week.... I can't wait.
  • by WidescreenFreak ( 830043 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @04:11PM (#17450244) Homepage Journal
    This isn't the first time we've covered episodic gaming here, but I'll say what I've said before. Depending on what the game is, episodic gaming could be a really good move. Tell Tale Games seems to be taking the lead in episodic gaming with Bone and Sam and Max, and so far the feedback that I've read has been quite positive.

    Most of the costs for any episodic series would be for the first episode - 3D modeling, bitmapping, fine-tuning the graphics, developing the game engine, and so forth. After that, the rest if just using what tools have already been made available plus additional characters and graphics, possibly some engine tweaks as well. Plus is gives the company a bit of capital to work with to produce additional episodes.

    It also gives the gamers the ability to say, "Hey, this is where we think you got it wrong" and let the company make the changes for the next episode - if they feel that the changes are apporpriate, of course. And since episodes are almost always cheaper than a full-blown game, more people would be willing to plunk own the dollars to see if they're interested enough to continue the season.

    The only problem that I see with episodic games is the length of the game. It's a very delicate balance between providing enough material that the customer feels that he got his money's worth and not so much material that the release is not cost effective. It's a bit of a gamble, but the feedback for Bone, Sam and Max, and Half-Life 2: Episode One would seem to suggest that episodic gaming is being accepted as a viable alternative for certain genres. I'm sure that gamers would not appreciate an episodic Unreal Tournament 2007. :)

    In fact, the second episode of Sam and Max is out on Friday. I've got to buy the season -- and this is coming from someone who originally was not in favor of episodic gaming but now supports it as long as the game is one that can benefit from it.
    • Your argument for episodic gaming makes the consumer sound like a beta tester who pays for that privilege. And pays more in the long run. If an episode is $20, it only takes two more episodes before you're paying more than the game probably would have went for full version on the shelf at Best Buy.
      • That's a total, straw man argument.

        Do you excuse the other game vendors to push a product out before it really should be done and then tell us to wait for the next patch? That makes us nothing more than beta testers as well.

        At least with episodic gaming we're getting a subset of the game that might be affected by a bug instead of a complete game that could be affected by a bug. A smaller game also has fewer things that can go wrong. That by its very nature also can provide a more complete testing p
        • Sam and Max seems to be episodic gaming done right. It seems to be planned out well, and never released late when scheduled. Examples of episodic gaming gone wrong are Sin, which looks like it will never see an episode two, and Half Life, which has seen a few delays. Plans for Half Life are at least 3 episodes, which comes to $60 if bought individually, which is more than I paid for Half Life 2 wherever I bought it.
    • Most of the costs for any episodic series would be for the first episode - 3D modeling, bitmapping, fine-tuning the graphics, developing the game engine, and so forth. After that, the rest if just using what tools have already been made available plus additional characters and graphics, possibly some engine tweaks as well.

      For mainstream games the bulk of development costs are in the content, not the tech. It's been this way for years. Sure, you've got an engine, the models and textures for the protagoni

  • If (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lpangelrob ( 714473 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @04:12PM (#17450274)
    If Wii Sports is a great game (I'm assuming it is, I still don't have my Wii), and if Nintendo offered to have me download more sports as part of this nontraditional "episodic" collection, I might be interested.

    If it's more of the same with monotonous plot turns and poor storylines, I won't be.

    Wii Curling for $5, anyone?
    • Wii Curling for $5, anyone?

      Well, making it episodic is fairly easy. You just have to add a story line based on great curling events, like the Olympics, but start people off at the home games, work up to the regional tryoffs, and then the nationals.

      A friend of mine once did very well and got to the national tryoffs, but failed to get on the Olympic team. Back when I lived in Canada.
      • I think he means adding more and more sports, but yeah, I suppose you could expand within the sport itself.
        In theory I agree with episodic gaming - I like the idea of having exactly the same sort of power to "switch it off" if/when it turns rotten, just like I can with TV shows. But I can't help but shake the nagging feeling that, like TV shows, all the good games will be cancelled long before their times (Firefly, anyone?). There's enough frustration with COMPLETED but unpopular games with lacklustre s
        • I don't think people who like curling are that interested in other sports, frankly. Maybe Canadian Football League (CFL) football or Canadian Hockey League (CHL) hockey - and there are two games for the latter, one of which rocks. Doing an online team play and championship episodic play, with the ability to play specific historic players and teams as your opponents (or team) is more likely to do well. And a lot easier to add in dribs and drabs, based on consumer response. You can also use it to test out
  • Simple answer: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Spazntwich ( 208070 )
    Don't.

    Don't reward publishers for getting even lazier about creating games. Just sit on your cash while they realize there wasn't anything wrong with releasing a complete product in the first go around (Not that EA was doing this in the first place), and that paying $60 or more for the length of one $40 game you'll play through once before moving on the multiplayer aspects isn't going to fly.
    • by trdrstv ( 986999 )
      and that paying $60 or more for the length of one $40 game you'll play through once before moving on the multiplayer aspects isn't going to fly.

      Depends on the game. Some games (Mario Kart, Bomberman, Gears of War) I buy specifically for the multiplayer. The 'Narrative' is actually bonus material in my eyes, and if I can beat it in a week I'm not disapointed since I will still get my value out of it. What concerns me is paying $40 - $60 for a game that is short and has no multiplayer. Those are for Gamef

    • About the "$40 game for $60" remark...

      Sam and Max - Tall Tale Games
      - $8.95 per episode when bought individually, totalling $53.70
      - $5.83 per episode when bought as a 6-episode season with CD for cost of shipping after 6th episode is released, totalling $34.95

      Granted, that's only one example and it's up to each developer to price as they feel appropriate, but the ones who overprice will quickly lose customers.
      • Sam and Max - Tall Tale Games - $8.95 per episode when bought individually, totalling $53.70 - $5.83 per episode when bought as a 6-episode season

        If I bought the first one and liked it, could I buy the 'season pack' and have the $8.95 deducted from the $34.95? Just wondering.

        • Hmmm... Intersting idea. I don't know, but it's worth asking on TTG's forums. I'm sure you're not the first one to wonder about that.
  • I want my fix! I want it now! I can't wait two years for the next game!

    BTW, A six month wait is killing me.
  • First episode was great. Then, right as part 2 was to be released in the states on the DC, BAMM!!! It was delayed, and eventually released on the X-Box. The save file from part 1 was supposed to be used in part 2; but, alas, it was not to be. The franchise is now pretty much dead, although rumors persist that Shenmue 3 will be developed on yet another system.

    Never . . . Again.
  • If you can leverage the development cost over a couple of "episodes", it can help the bottom line and the game. If you do the engine right, most of the effort for the sequel is done by the content creators - modeling/animation guys, level design guys, music/sound guys, etc. Since you don't need to do as much development/debugging of the code, you can spend more time actually creating the game.

    I think of the GTA3 series as episodic. The engine is basically the same, but the story changes. Much remains the
  • Just look at two episodic game franchises with enormous potential: the Xenosaga and the .hack// games. Admittedly, Xenosaga had enough game to it to warrant the 50$ you had to pay, but once you were done you kind of were done, 'nahmean? Shell out another hundred bucks for the other parts? or branch out of a bit, perhaps? As far as .hack// went, it was the cheapest of tricks, overpriced and cliffhangered to sucker you into another full-priced game. After playing the first one and not realizing there were thr
  • by EasyT ( 749945 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @05:21PM (#17451254) Journal
    The author of the article, Rick Sanchez, is special. Like, short bus special. And by that I mean a simpering moron. This may sound like idle flamebait, so I'll try to back up this opinion. Here's an example from the article:

    In the world of television, my favorite example of this is a show like "Malcolm in the Middle." I loved the early episodes, but my wife hated them. As the show evolved, the writers and actors developed a better sense of what the show was about, what jokes made sense and what you could do with the characters. That evolution won my wife over. Episodic games have this same opportunity.

    This is a seriously bogus comparison. Apples and oranges. Broadcast TV shows are free to consumers. Maybe you pay a monthly fee for cable access, but at the end of the day nobody is paying $8.99 for an episode of Malcolm. If people don't like the first episode of a video game they had to pay for, are they really going to buy the next episode to "give it a chance"? Not for my dollar. Not the same thing, not the same opportunity.

    For another example, check out the third page of his article where the author provides numbers to show that there are nearly twice as many PCs as there are consoles in american homes. He then states that "the PC is, bar none, the most pervasive system on which to play games." Then he goes on to say how "odd" it is that console revenues are more than four times that of PC game revenues. Does it not occur to the author that maybe a lot of these PCs are ancient and most people don't feel like paying Pong or Zork anymore? Or that a more fair comparison might be to compare the number of PCs and consoles sold to families only in the past year or three?

    The author goes on to slam the Wii by claiming that "at the end of the day, Nintendo is still selling $40 dollar-plus software that requires a fairly expensive piece of consumer electronics to run it." Riiiight, like anyone is buying a Wii just to play Wii sports. The deeper implication being "why by an expensive Wii when you can already play games on your PC?" Like everyone already magically owns a PC at no cost. Yet if the author made even a little effort to be objective, he might notice that game consoles are a lot cheaper than most PCs. The Wii especially, retailing for only $250.

    I hope Gamasutra felt they got their $5 worth (or whatever they paid) for that article.

    • by BenjyD ( 316700 )
      Exactly, of course *game* consoles owners buy more games, most PCs are just email/web/word processing machines, probably with a crappy integrated graphics card and limited memory.
    • "why by an expensive Wii when you can already play games on your PC?"

      Has never played Wii. Or is one of the few who have and don't like it. I am a hardcore PC gamer but I will completely admit that the Wii offers a different style of play than is available on any other system. You can call it gimmicky if you like, but I think the Wii controller is way more intuitive than any other console controller and is perfect for multiplayer games in front of one TV set. This is an area that PCs do not excel at. I'll k
    • For another example, check out the third page of his article where the author provides numbers to show that there are nearly twice as many PCs as there are consoles in american homes. He then states that "the PC is, bar none, the most pervasive system on which to play games." Then he goes on to say how "odd" it is that console revenues are more than four times that of PC game revenues. Does it not occur to the author that maybe a lot of these PCs are ancient and most people don't feel like paying Pong or Zo
    • by lazyl ( 619939 )
      In the world of television, my favorite example of this is a show like "Malcolm in the Middle." I loved the early episodes, but my wife hated them. As the show evolved, the writers and actors developed a better sense of what the show was about, what jokes made sense and what you could do with the characters. That evolution won my wife over. Episodic games have this same opportunity.

      This is a seriously bogus comparison. Apples and oranges.


      Did you bother to read the whole article? Keep going. Several pa
  • The episodic release format has been around for over a century, and probably for as long as print media has been sufficiently inexpensive to produce. It's perhaps worth noting that many books we regard today as classics were originally published in an episodic style in the pulp rags of the time--Charles Dickens being one notable episodic author (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens#Epis o dic_writing [wikipedia.org]). So as for whether the release style has merit--I think that's long since been proven. More i
    • It's perhaps worth noting that many books we regard today as classics were originally published in an episodic style in the pulp rags of the time

      Don't forget Dune was originally serialized in Analog.
  • by phorm ( 591458 ) on Wednesday January 03, 2007 @05:30PM (#17451376) Journal
    I think a lot of this depends on the genre, how much "base" is required to make the game possible, and how much "new" (and different) environment is possible.
    For example, with Half-Life 2, you needed the awesome base of HL1 (graphics/physics engine etc) to make it work. You couldn't have sold HL2 itself as an episode for $15, because the revenue needed to meet the initial cost of development. Also, I'm still in the middle of "Episode 1" (HL2ep1) but thus far it's not really anything new. Some new enemies (zombine soldiers) and a little more plot, but nothing substantial. For $15 it's not bad, but no new weapons (so far at least) and nothing really differentiates it from the base HL2. However, HL2 itself is a great improvement in terms of graphics/sound/physics from HL1, although the plot from HL1 was supposed to be better.
    Next, take - for example - something that is entirely plot-based such as Sam and Max. This is more reminiscient of the old Sierra games. In particular, the concept reminds me of "Space Quest" series, wherein the same style of plot and base character(s) prevailed between games. There were definately some jumps in graphics between various time periods, but overall the best part was the plot/humour, which made the games more episode in the Roger Wilco universe. Others such as King's Quest varied in plot greatly, but Police Quest and some others were similarly episodic (new story, same general universe).

    I think this is what makes games such as Sam 'n' Max such as treat for us long-time gamers, and what may lead to the episodic model being quite nice within them. There's no need to spend tons of money on new game engines, bigass meshes for alien baddies, or weird and wonderful weaponry... just keep cranking out quality, engaging plotlines.
  • What I think most companies are overlooking here when they ask if episodic content is going to work is that the episodes have to be released in intervals on time every time. Instead of relating episodic gaming to Malcom in the middle, you have to relate it to shows like Lost, and Prison Break. Prison Break lost me completely when they took a 3 month break because American Idol took over it's time slot.

    Episodic gaming is no different. If you release a new episode on time every time you build anticipation
  • If you think about it, it's World of Warcraft is episodic. But instead of the episodes coming to you, you have to go to them (and find them and hunt them down). Also think of the expansions that come out for MMOs, the new quests, the new items and so on - like episodes you can choose to watch if you decide you're interested in something new.

    Actually the whole way WoW unveils new quests to you as you level up is almost episodic from the players point of view. They play, they experience content, then with
  • If you can buy into these three tenants as defining rules for an episodic game series, it begs the question: why bother making episodic games at all?
    Ouch ouch ouch. That's "tenets", and "raises the question".
  • Additional small game "episodes" would not be such a bad idea IF they did not charge such a significant amount of cash. I'm not paying $20 a pop each time an addon comes out that will occupy me for maybe 6 hours of gameplay. Make it more attractive on the pricing end and I might not be so zealously opposed to the idea.

    Until then I'll hold onto my cash.
  • I think I'll appreciate episodic games more after they've been around for a while and I can either pick up an episode that was originally $20 for $5 or I can buy an entire 'season' with an entire story arc in one bundle for a reasonable price (e.g. less than it would have been to buy them each individually when they were brand new).

    I'd also look forward to initial episodes being released for free or bundled with magazines or other kinds of promotions. Longer, semi-self-contained demos in other words, like
  • Episodic gaming is just not the sort of thing I want in a game. What I really like is to have a game that is one complete experience. I want the whole enchilada, so that I can savor it from start to finish. Then I want to put the game away and move on to something different, not play reiterations of it over and over again.

    Granted, my description of the way I feel seems pretty lame, so I'll throw in an analogy about literature. Episodic gaming is like reading a magazine. I don't subscribe to any magazi

  • Well, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't...

    My guess is that there are plenty of Just-Sometimes-Players who will appreciate paying quite a bit less for a game, and who don't mind receiving less play-time in the process.
    Personally, I don't think I'll be interested in episodic gaming; but I bet that it'll create a niche of its own.

    I also bet that there are going to be some very massive failures :)
  • Besides all the technical/content details discussed already, my main concern about episodic games would be that the publisher or studio goes out of business "in the middle" of the story, leaving me with an unfinished game.

    Take Neverwinter Nights 1 for example. You could have split it up in three parts. Let's say the first part ends after you accumulated all incredients for the curing potion, Desther steal the potion and disappears...(to be continued)

    Now you eagerly wait for part two to chase down Desthe

  • He complains about the cover charge for current generation console gaming (and targets the cheapest solution!) and praises episodic PC content partly for the fact that around 80% of US homes have PCs. I think this is remarkably myopic considering the heterogeneity of home PCs. What percentage of all those PCs are capable of playing the shiniest new episode of [insert game here]? What percentage of those PC owners with PCs NOT capable of playing the shiniest new episodes are willing to buy new hardware to
  • I think one of the core problem with episodic content today is that many games simply don't work for it. In many games it takes around an hour to get familiar with the controls and get the initial tutorials done. If the whole episode however is just three hours long that however will leave a rather disappointed feeling, I mean who wants to walk around a third of the game in a tutorial? And even worse, repeat that process with each and every episode? If I haven't played a game for a few month I have pretty m

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Working...