Most recent blog

Along the Mirror's Edge

Wednesday 28 August 2019

FOMO

You gonna miss out...

Whilst watching game reviews at 2:00 AM in the morning, as I am often wont to do, YouTube's 'impeccable' recommendation algorithm figured me out enough to feed me an advertisement of a game. Tickled, I decided this would be the first one, in a long while, that I didn't immediately skip. Plus, it was a new 'Ghost Recon: Breakpoint' trailer, so I'm always down to see what's happening in Tom Clancy's military-obsessive world. The Ghost War trailer looked interesting enough, although they seemed to tease some Battle Royale elements in there which was typically eye-rolling, but that isn't the focus of this blog. You see, tucked in there right at the end of the trailer was a little notification I hadn't noticed before, "Play 3 days early with the Ultimate Edition". Oh Ubisoft, not you too...

It instantly got me thinking about all of the ways in which the AAA market have sold consumers on their transparent 'play-first initatives'. And no, I'm talking about Early access games or those that release in pitiful pre-alpha states, that's the topic of a different blog. I am referring to those times in which game developers and publishers have sought to capitalize on the innate consumer desire to be the forebearer, by teasing such players into a deal. It seems like part of the marketing machine nowadays and it's an interesting phenomenon that I want to take a look at.

The first time I fully noticed this was years ago when I had saved up the money to get my first seventh generation console. All the way up to the store I was torn between what console I should buy, going back and forth over the benefits of each (which simply meant looking at what games each had to offer.) Once I got there, however, I saw an absolute must have for any gamer; 'Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City' affixed with a sign that read 'Only on Xbox'. "Well my decision is made for me" Naive me, thought "Xbox will have to be the choice". Of course, the truth of the matter is that the game was merely a timed exclusive and would be branching out in time, but I didn't know that, I was just a foolish consumer who fell for the Microsoft-pushed marketing ploy.

Console timed exclusivity have been pushing this sort of 'buy my console' agenda forever. Although, I will come to their defence and say, it's a better practise than outright exclusivity which sullies potential opportunities for the consumer. (Although I imagine the respective developers get a lot more money for it.) This was an effective strategy in the fact that, most consumers who are desperate to play a game will balk at the idea of waiting a year to play how they want, a new console just seems easier for all parties to swallow. Heck, I even considered buying 'the Outer Worlds' on the abominable Epic store before reason swooped in to remind me that it was also releasing on the Microsoft store. (Thank god)

Another fun way that developers coerce players into dishing out early is through the ever exclusive 'founder pack'. You usually find these with kickstarter projects or passion lead MMOs. They are the opportunity in which you have the chance to solidify your belief in the project through the only medium that counts, cold hard cash. As a result of your money, players are rewarded with an exclusive selection of DLC to forever signify that they were on the first ones to be here. This could be a nice emblem, shiny exclusive gear or, most notably, a glittering effect forever embossed around your name for all to see whenever they play with you.

There are some other ways that AAA companies have stepped into the 'founder Pack' meta. Blizzard Entertainment's; Overwatch, boasted an 'Origin Edition' for those who counted among the game's early adopters. This doesn't just provide value to the consumer in the realm of digital content either, as there were boxes printed with the proud 'Origin Edition' title on them, which hold significant value amongst the fields of collectors. Or rather it would, if Overwatch wasn't easily one of the biggest games of it's generation. Pretty much everyone picked it up in that first year, and right now it's probably more of an anomaly to not have the Origin Edition copy of the game. Too bad for rare collectors, I guess.

A method that hits particularly close to home for me is the concept of the Beta. For those that don't know, 'Beta' is a term used to describe a certain milestone that has met in the development of software. In video game development, there is no set-in-stone requirements that a product must meet to be considered 'Beta'; but most would usually see it as the time that the game is starting to take a form resembling the final product, a period that should be immune from wild shifts in the development direction. Public Betas, on the other hand, is the idea of stress-testing the online servers of your product by inviting the audience to jump ontop of them. It should all be very clinical and analytical, afterall, the sole purpose is for ensuring the released product is up to par, right? In recent years however, Beta has taken on on entire new, marketing driven, meaning.

I have mentioned it before, but I was one of those saps that was drawn into the promise of Destiny. A brand new IP crafted by the visionaries behind Halo that promised to be the next bold leap in video game franchises. Every thing about the game seemed epic; from the advertising (Become legend) to the future plans (10-year plan) and even the incredible budget that surpassed any game before. (Although now it is clear that an inflated budget just means that a lot money is getting wasted.) Everyone was so eager to get their hands on the game that we all jumped at the chance to join in on the Beta. Bungie spared no effort in marketing this Beta, either. They didn't propose the Beta as a 'testing phase' but rather a chance to play the game early and be taken in by the world. There was only one caveat; you had to pre-order the game to play the Beta.

The response was incredible, communities were built overnight as people flooded to streams featuring those lucky enough to play the exciting new product. Several YouTube video's also made their quota by selling Beta codes to their audience. It must have been a dizzying time to be at Bungie. When the Beta finally shut down, after an extension, several thousand players, and new friends, all came together to bid each other goodbye as though it were the end of an era (Although the game would release in less than a month.) Since then, Beta's have almost exclusively served as vertical slices of the game offered up in order to hook consumers and drive home a fraction of the pre-orders that Bungie secured with their Beta. Good job Bungie, you started a slightly dishonest marketing revolution.

I was much too familiar with the machinations of greedy companies when I first saw the advent of the  'Play early' model, so I didn't fall for it. It didn't help things that the first time I witnessed it, the deal was attached to 'Mass Effect: Andromeda', a game that was announced far earlier than anyone had expected and positively reeked of EA. This was, of course, back with the EA Early access system, which required players to sign up to their paid-subscription in return for discounts and early access to new releases. They had some success when they pulled it with 'Dragon Age: Inquisition', although that time they merely offered a demo of a few early hours in the game. 'Mass Effect: Andromeda' pushed that limit to ten hours and several years later, Anthem would straight up allow players to play the full game some days before everyone else.

The particularly gross element to this scheme is that the early access is usually tied to the purchase of some vastly inflated 'ultimate editon'. In this way game developers seek to punish those that don't dish out an extra £40 by delaying the world wide release. And make no mistake, that is exactly what this practise represents: a manufactured delay. If the game company thinks that the game is complete enough to charge for early access, it's probably also clear for wide release. (Unless it would never be good enough to justify either, a la Anthem.)

I know I'm not alone in groaning every time I see another dishonest practise like this enter the spectrum of gaming. Even though, in full honesty, none of these practises are too bad, at least not compared to some of the things that could be happening. My problem stems from the fact these companies are so desperate to secure that first week funding (which is all important to the performance charts) that they subtly strain the respect between consumer and developer. Don't get me wrong, the strain is subtle, but make no mistake, it is there. When companies balk at the fact that their later games were not as big as the others despite them utilizing the same tactics, it is often because they push just a little too hard with this methods and annoy the consumers. 'Early play' incentives are mostly harmless; a small nick, rather a full-blown slash, to consumer trust. But they should never discount the inevitability of 'death by a thousand cuts'.

No comments:

Post a Comment