Blips: Let's Talk Later

Source: Poor Community Spirit
Author: Stephen Beirne
Site: re/Action

I'm really digging the latest piece over on re/Action by Stephen Beirne on the classist nature of gaming's critical discourse and the concept of avoiding spoilers. Even though the prices of games have come down in indie categories, popular, big-budget games are still $50-$60. What is cheap and expensive is all a matter of perspective, but there are a great number of people who love to play games who can't afford these games at their initial launch prices and rely on used copies or sale prices to bring games into an affordable range. Yet, the discussions around games are most fervent initially after a game's release, and if a game is lucky it will spur discussion for a few weeks after. For example Bioshock Infinite held critics' attentions for about three weeks past its release, but most games are lucky to get that level of focus for a day or two.

This leads to folks who can't afford games at launch having to wade through minefields of spoilers, minor or otherwise, in order to be involved in critical discussion in any way. What ends up happening is that if these people end up purchasing and playing a game a few months later, their experience is colored by critics and commenters, not of their own making as those very critics and commenters had the privilege of experiencing. It may just be the way business happens, but it's worth understanding the consequences and who does and does not have a voice in critical discourse.

If there's one thing I'd have liked to see more of in Beirne's piece, it's ideas for solutions or improvements. He does acknowledge that indie games are now offered at more affordable prices than their big-budget cousins, so that lowers the barrier to entry for certain games. What about those blockbuster titles though? The zeitgeist moves so quickly, it can be difficult to keep up. After all, the reason there's so much discussion about games at release is because so many people are engaging with the same material at the same time. Think of it like a book club, but one where the market determines which book you're reading next instead of group vote. To tell the truth, I don't really have any ideas for solving this problem. Perhaps something like the Vintage Game Club could be of use for this purpose. I'd love to hear other people's suggestions too. Until then, I'm going to start playing Uncharted 2.

Blips: Free-to-Play and the New Harpoon

Source: Chasing the Whale: Examining the ethics of free-to-play games
Author: Mike Rose
Site: Gamasutra

In an expansive report for Gamasutra, Mike Rose researches the ethical implications of free-to-play financing models for games, and how they thrive off of whales: individuals who spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on these games. While the majority of F2P players never pay a penny for their time in those games, a very small percentage of players pick up the slack by spending what from the outside appears to be an unhealthy amount of money. Do these types of games exploit individuals most susceptible to these kind of addictions? How closely are F2P models tied to gambling? What are developers doing to acknowledge this issue?

Rose's piece doesn't have firm answers for all of these questions because it is an area that has received little research and not all F2P games use the same approach. The most unethical business models seem to be the ones derisively referred to as pay-to-win. These games are free upfront, but delevopers have carefully constructed walls that push players to pay for virtual items that will increase their performance and get them past the blockade. In competitive games, pay-to-win strategies are often seen as unfair in that players who spend more money will trump players who might exhibit more skill, but haven't made certain performance-enhancing purchases. Other F2P games like the super popular League of Legends and DOTA 2, strive for a level playing field where virtual goods are only purchased for aesthetics and have no direct impact on performance.

Still the question remains, how ethical is it to make the majority of your company's money through the addiction of a select few players, some of which play and spend to the detriment of their quality of life? No one seems to want the government to get involved, so hopefully the industry can refine their practices on their own. As pointed out in Rose's article, players are already shifting in droves to more balanced playfields that eschew pay-to-win models, but until developers put a cap on how much their willing to let players spend on virtual goods, or intervene when players exhibit signs of addiction, there's still a lot of work to do.