Square Enix talks in-game ads, patching.

Now we know why the hard-drives will be included on the PS3...hope people didn't want to do anything with that space themselves.

So basically, SE is looking at trends that have been successful in the PC market and apply them to consoles. Sounds like a solid plan to me.

As Joystiq likes to point out again and again, most gamers are fine with in-game ads. (Personally, I think it's just because ads are so prevelant in society, we've learned to ignore them.)

As for patches, console games already have bugs. Adding a system to fix those bugs will be appreciated.

@2.

But that's not how it works. Yes, they can fix the bugs. But as we all know, when people CAN do something later.....they do - even when they CAN fix it now.

I feel filled with the spirit of prophecy.... Companies WILL use this to justify releasing software that isn't ready. Congrats...now you get to be their beta tester and PAY THEM to be one.

Shouldn't it be the other way around?

"So basically, SE is looking at trends that have been successful in the PC market and apply them to consoles."

Yeah, these trends have been so successful that the PC game market has declined by 44% since 1999! (57% when adjusted for inflation.) I just can't wait to see those same trends applied to game consoles!

http://www.philsteinmeyer.com/40/retail-pc-game-sales-off-57/

Seriously, what part of "turning off gamers so badly that they stop buying games" do these guys not understand?

What people say in surveys and what they actually DO in real life are often two different things. But it's the latter that actually matters. And we've got plenty of data to tell us what gamers actually do when faced with modern conveniences such as endless patching and in-game ads.

Advertisements? Bugs? In-game ads? Multiple chapters of multiple games? Final Fantasy XIII Part II Chapter Six Verse One Nike Edition v1.03b? Nooooooo.....

Ahh, I can remember a time when game developers did their best to fix the bugs in their games before they ever released it. The only way that these companies would be able to actually save money from this is if they dont actually release a patch. (The phantom 1.3 patch for Star Wars Battlefront comes to mind...)

Nintendo seems to be the sole voice of reason this generation. =/ If they start releasing beta versions and patching their games later, Im going to lose all hope in the gaming industry...

"Yeah, these trends have been so successful that the PC game market has declined by 44% since 1999! (57% when adjusted for inflation.) I just can't wait to see those same trends applied to game consoles!"

Careful there. That's like saying Global warming is being CAUSED by the decline of the number of pirates in the worlds since the 1800s. Sure their numbers coincide...but it's an obvious coincidence. (look....coincide is even in the word. ;))

I would venture that downloads and patching aren't the reason for the PCs decline so much as complexity and price. People view consoles as cheaper and simpler. People view PCs and their cards and chips as work machines more and more with only enthusiasts gaming on them.

Secondly, it is much harder to make a game run well on a PC when you have to support so many configurations.

I believe it is these two factors (not patching and the others you mentioned) that are driving developers and good games to consoles.

My point? Patching is a real bite, but I think it's rising prices that will see console sales go the way of PCs. Nothing else.

Bethesda is earning money by releasing plugins, not patches. They don't earn money from patches, just bugfixes :). Any gameplay changes in plugins, never in patches. It's Bethesda's politics

#3

No one is going to release an unplayable game because the consequences of that would be too great. It could any franchise from any developer. If they released a game that wasn't functional, they won't last long enough to release anymore games.

Oblivion has bugs because it's a huge game, published on new hardware.

Developers aren't not getting lazier. Games are getting bigger and more complex, so there is greater chance of bugs.

Why should companies delay a game for several months just to run through the million of unlikely scenarios just to catch a few non-fatal bugs, when they can get the game functional from beginning to end and worry about the unimportant side stuff later?

#4, Check your figures again. That gamestop article referenced in that post is out of date. The NPD put out updated numbers that include online subscriptions and casual game sites, where a lot of PC game money comes from now (WoW in particular).

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/05/25/games-sales-figures-show-online-is-key/

In short, PC sales went from $1.1 billion in 2004 to $1.4 billion in 2005. (Although, you can't compare the two since NPD tallied the numbers different, adding the aforementioned sales to the 2005 numbers, but not the 2004 numbers.)

And like Derbeste, there's no way you can correlate in-game ads and episodic content (or even patches) to the decline in PC game sales. I suspect the reason is more because of lack of variety in games. The same reason the Japanese game industry has been declining.

In a few years, we'll fondly look back at the days when we could actually buy a game, put it into our favorite console, and actually play without fearing bugs. That's how it used to work, because developers had no choice; there was no patching option even available. Now that there is, you can almost hear the developers: "Why waste so much money on beta testing? As long as it's playable, we'll fix the little bugs later."

"I would venture that downloads and patching aren't the reason for the PCs decline so much as complexity and price."

Patching is part of what makes PC games complex. The idea of a game console is you put the game in and play. Now suddenly you have to worry about downloading stuff just to make your game work? That's an extra layer of complexity.

The point is this:

Probot made an argument that these trends have been successful on PC. Based on what?

I then pointed to real sales data that shows a massive decline in PC game sales over the past 7 or 8 years. That is the only REAL data we have to go on. To therefore suggest that these trends have been "successful" on PC is pretty disingenuous. Successful at doing what??

"Probot made an argument that these trends have been successful on PC. Based on what?"

Successful was the wrong word. I'll admit that. A better word would be popular (to developers). And like I said, gamers like the idea of episodes (I don't) and they don't care about ads. And patches, used correctly, will benefit gaming.

I've got no problem with in-game ads. As long as the advertising isn't distracting (i.e. Taco Bell in a WWII game) then great.

In fact, seeing as how this generation of games is said to be more expensive to develop for then this could be a great avenue to alleviate the rising costs of final retail software. The more advertisers pay, the less I do.

The only issue I have is the idea of the console being constantly on. Call me paranoid, but this seems to open up a Pandora's Box of issues from the aforementioned "buggy" games to potential viruses to micro transactions, and so on and so on.

What this really signals to me is the beginning of the end regarding the war between PCs and consoles. Yes - there are definite differences. However, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are doing their best to blur those lines.

As a console gamer I don't want to deal with bugs, required downloads, upgrades, frozen games or lagging (and no, I don't go online with my console so it's not an issue). It's why I plunk down $300 every three years - because I can play the newest games on the same system without spending a penny more. It's that simple.

So am I going to skip this generation consoles? Probably not. But the more that I'm required to do (i.e. going online, membership fees, micro transactions) the less I'll be willing to shell out in the future.

"he did discuss how developers can now cut back on time spent debugging and just patch a game later."

This is completely and unabashedly disgusting. It's not a case of, as Probot in #2 suggests, them having an additional venue to fix bugs. It's an actual guy saying, "Well, all that QA work we do? We can cut back on it. Why bother? We'll just fix it later."

That's laziness, and it essentially lumps early adopters in as debuggers. Hope you're all getting paychecks.

Actually, I think 6.5 million subscribers for WoW alone IS pretty successfull.

And when I said complexity, I didn't mean in the software. Games are getting more and more complex and that is one of the things Nintendo is trying to combat.

Rather what I was referring to is complexity in the hardware and OS. Video cards, sound cards, RAM, CPUs, specs, specs, and more specs. They turn people away. There is nothing more frustrating than buying a game, taking it home, OPENING IT (making it unreturnable), only to find out your system is too old to play it. The almost constant upgrading you need to do to PCs is a real turn off I think. (ironically....WoW and DS are about all I play)

You don't have to worry about that with consoles. Just by the game that has the name of your console on it.

Anyway...hope that clears up what I meant by "complexity".

Though, Probot hit the nail on the head with online games. They account for a HUGE amount of dollars unaccounted for in your stats.

Another nasty side about these ingame ads is that one company Double-Fusion uses the ingame ads to determine where you are in the world what ads you watch, for how long as well as what times of the day you log in.

This spyware cannot be detected or removed. Double-Fusion has an agreement with Midway on which several PS3 games will have this spyware on them. It's also in the Left Behind game.

Apparently the ads will look far better then the game itself so people will be drawn to look at the ads nor can the ads be destroyed. So you aren't paying for games but ads.

PC game sales have rising due to rising prices. So in reality the actual sales numbers have declined.

I'd buy a Toyota Chocobo, but it has to be a black Chocobo. And I have to be able to get it only through a laborious side quest.

Honestly, I think declining PC sales have far, far more to do with the fact that there are three genres that "work better" on a PC: Strategy, Shooters, and PC[MMO]RPGs.

Regardless of what some would try to have you believe, it sucks to play games that are designed for sitting on a couch, relaxed in front of a large screen on a PC Monitor, hunched over a desk. Psychonauts, for example. The PC port seemed basically just made for the whiny/those who want to easily pirate.

Similar, a laptop might be fine as a portable DVD solution, but it's a VERY tiny sliver of people that would actually want to use their desktop computer as a home theatre.

Hardware complexity and cost is certainly another huge factor. Especially given that most bugs and crashes are wanky driver related.

I think this buggy game garbage is being exaggerated. If a game comes out buggy it won't sell as much because that'll get around. No one seems to remember how buggy GTAIII, VC and SA were and they just didn't get a patch. Oblivion has one really serious bug and it's great that they were able to fix it. More complexity equals more bugs. Nobody is slacking off, it's just that the workload has increased exponentially.

It's like everbody is worried that they're trying to screw the consumer, and in some ways they are, but they can only do as much as you let them get away with

Remember that FFXII also has the FF potion,from the folks at Suntory.

Heard that it tastes like honey.

Wonder if we will have a FF Bud?

I'd prefer a Nissan Cetra.

;-)

the cellphone in the ff movie was so blantant.

it was like "RINGTONE" then "EVERYONE LOOK AT THE PHONE FOR A GOOD 10 SECONDS"

"the cellphone in the ff movie was so blantant."

First of all, it had to be since SE was paid to get the phone in there.

But, most importantly, if you didn't know about the product placement BEFORE you saw the movie, then you just saw it as a regular cell phone.

Cell phones were in FFVII. Adding a realistic one in Advent Children is an example of well-done product placement.

That cellphone placement in the movie was well done, because it was also a great gag. I laughed hard when I realised that victory fanfare was actually a ringtone. I'd love to have it myself, heh.

In-game ads and product placements are going to be difficult for a company like SE to do well. The majority of their titles are RPG fantasies, which don't exactly have many opportunities for modern day products to appear. If they were trying to push the latest MK II Fireblaster Sword, now with +12 STR, then there'd be no worries!

The episodic content sounds interesting but I still haven't had a chance to even play an episodic game, at least, not the way the SE have planned. The Sam and Max game will come out soon. That should be a good indication of how sucessful episodic games are.

How long until console games force you to be online, even for offline play, so they can stream their ads to you? At your expense of course.

Next will be the rollover ads, where if your crosshairs go over the ad it will expand to fill the whole screen. Of course the ads are everywhere so you can't avoid them and you die because you can't see.

Or they are so distracting, like the sites where they are blinking on both sides, that you can't concentrate.

Some sites crash because of bad coding on the ads, how long until we have problems with games.

Don't even get me started on the sound crap, where the ads blare at volumes far greater than anything else.

Review copies won't have problems of course. The consumers would find out the hard way.

They have released games before that were so buggy they couldn't be played.

@darkbhudda,

Yeah, all that is definitly going to happen because game developers are incredibly stupid. All they do is sit around all day and think of ways to make games less enjoyable to play.

And gamers are equally stupid because after they play a game with an obscene amount of ads, they're just going to say "Well, the sequel will probably be better."

The above was sarcasm. I don't think it was very subtle, but from reading your post, you seem like the kind of person that needs things like that spelled out for you. (If you are under 15, I apologize. At that age, it could still be considered naivate, rather than just outright stupidity.)

An advertising company will not consider a video game a sound investment unless the game sells. A game will not sell if it isn't enjoyable to play. It won't be enjoyable to play if it allows the kind of ads you mentioned. The same thing goes for unplayable builds of a game released early, which is why I'm not too worried about the patching thing.

Developers are not stupid and neither are advertisers. They want their games to sell. That is always the number one priority.

Question:
Why don't you guys understand this simple concept...

PC games are buggy as all hell.
Console games are, 95% of the time, not. They can completely and fully complete the game they buy without any major problems. Half the time you buy a PC game it's a big freaking risk.

That is why the PC market fails, because of all the bugs and the patches and the "why won't it work on my (insert crazy system specs here)???."

You know why I don't need a PS3?
Because I already have a buggy PC gaming system, I don't need another one with a controller that came out of Batman's butt.

#26 Jecrell,

"PC games are buggy as all hell. Console games are, 95% of the time, not."

First, I don't think the majority of PC games have bugs that make the game unplayable on release. And conversly, I think a lot console games have small bugs that people gloss over. But I agree, on average PC games have more bugs than console games. Buy you don't seem to understand why that is.

All consoles are the same. When a developer is making a game, he knows that all 100 million PS2s work exactly the same. (Only a small group have HDD, so he ignores those ones.)

With PCs though, there are different operating systems, different display drivers, different sound capabilities, different graphics cards, etc.

"Half the time you buy a PC game it's a big freaking risk."

You're exaggerating and that never helps a point. Unless you're running Windows 3.1 or have 12MB of RAM or something, I seriously doubt that half of every PC game is unplayable on release.

If that were the case, the PC games industry wouldn't have lasted passed the 1980s. Like someone above said, they only get away with what you let them. It's like going into McDonald's one day and seeing someone spit in your burger. If you go back the next day, you deserve to have your burger spat in.

#27 Probot

"All consoles are the same. When a developer is making a game, he knows that all 100 million PS2s work exactly the same. (Only a small group have HDD, so he ignores those ones.)"

No I understood that, but let it stand as a reference for whoever else is reading this comments thread and doesn't understand it. It's the fundamental reason why PC games are buggier to begin with. Maybe not entirely even the developer's fault, perhaps even the drivers and hardware itself may be causing the problems with a game.

The reason why I was so upset when I came to this thread is simple. Recently, to get a PC game installed and working, I had to copy 3 CDs to my hard drive, download the Windows Installer SDK to use the Orca Windows Installer editor to remove some DirectX and DX references that made the game's installer refuse to continue, despite the fact that I already had DirectX and everything was already in order. After that the game worked for a few hours and then reached a point where, despite what I did, the game refused to continue and stalled my entire system. Unsurprisingly, the game's patch wouldn't install, much like the game didn't want to install, but the patch itself wasn't editable with Orca.

I'm sure you, as a fellow PC gamer, can see the frustration in such events that a console gamer would never have to deal with. Thankfully there are some workarounds and various ways of trouble shooting these issues thanks to the internet, but fundamentally these issues, as computers continue to gain more variety, may only worsen as time goes on. Maybe it'll even reach that point for console gamers.

Exactly. Great example of the complexities inherent in PC gaming. I'm just reiterating that those complexities don't exist in console games, and they probably won't exist for at least a couple more generations. Even the difference between different Xbox 360 packages isn't enough to create the problems you've described.

My comments are geared towards the people that think consoles games are now going to run for an hour before crashing. I don't understand why they expect developers to simply shrug and respond with "Meh, we'll patch it later."

That scenario will never happen, unless the market lets it happen. Hence my crude McDonald's analogy.

I cannot believe it hasn't been said yet- not everybody has an internet connection at home (some people are not even able to connect to the internet at all). How do these people get their broken games fixed? I do not like how the future of games seems to be tied to the online environment.
It is starting to bug me with the 360 and I would imagine PS3 will be just as annoying.
Cheers!

#31 Deth,

It'll work the same way as with Xbox 360 updates. If you don't have Xbox Live, you can download the upgrades on your PC and burn them to a CD. Or you can order them from MS, if you don't have access to a PC with an internet connection. That's the same way it works with Windows updates as well; if you don't have the internet, you can order a CD for free.

Its kinda funny but part of the reason for some of the bugs have little to do with the developer. A more open enviorment * thousands of players and someones bound to do something that was never intended. Afterall howmany HL2 developers expected you to be able to jump across the lvl using an exploit in the physics engine.