It’s not so far in the past that this kind of content just wasn’t available. When charges levied on electronic transactions was such that the charge was usually as much, if not more, than the cost of the content, then this kind of delivery mechanism simply wasn’t considered. There were the odd few games that bundled up many small pieces of content and provided them as one larger download periodically (either for free or as a pay-for expansion pack) but the thought of buying small amounts of content was just a pipe-dream.

Micro-transactions
However, this was all soon to change. As the cost of processing so called “micro-transactions” (typically high volume, always low-value transactions) all but disappeared there was suddenly an area of the market that games companies realised they could exploit. Suddenly there was a mechanism for a company to provide an alternative uniform or strip for your favourite team in your favourite sports game, without having to buy outfits for all of the teams in your game at a higher price. But do content micro-transactions make for richer games or richer game companies? Well that all depends on your point of view of course…

Electronic Arts “buy unlocks”
One company that seems to have taken the brunt of the outcry on the internet over micro-transactions, and the one company that seems to be labelled as “money-grabbing” when it comes to micro-transactions, is Electronic Arts. It has been seen on the XBox 360 that, in a number of EA titles, they have started to sell the ability to buy players/items that you could otherwise get for free by playing the game. Let’s take an example. In Tiger Woods 2007 on the XBox 360, as you play through the game you can unlock professional golfers and then play as them. However, you can also “unlock” these players by buying them from the XBox Live Marketplace. So effectively you’re paying for content that you already could get for free. But why? Well here I have some sympathy with what EA have tried to achieve. They have said that research they have carried out shows that 80% of the people who play their games would not normally see this content (as they will have given up before getting far enough to achieve the unlocks). As with so much content, there is a lot of development time and effort that goes into producing it, and therefore they want this content to be seen by as many players as possible. Therefore, for those players who don’t have the time, or the ability, to unlock this content in-game, they can now buy it and experience it. And I think the idea has merit. Was this much outcry heard when the first premium-rate telephone line for game hints opened? I think not…

Horse Armor
Of course there is some content that is pretty much seen as a rip-off by everyone. The classic example of this being the Horse Armour for Oblivion. This piece of downloadable content allowed you to buy some armour for your in-game horse. And what effect did this have on your gameplay? Well your horse looked different, if you count that? Apart from that the effect was zero, zilch, zip. Yet this was something that gamers in their thousands rushed out and paid for. And then complained about. But this brings me on to my next point…

You don’t have to buy it…
And I know that this will come as a shock to some people. You see there are some people that believe that every piece of content is needed to fully experience the game in all its glory. So when the Horse Armour 2 is released that is the same armour just in a different colour, they’ll rush out to buy that as well. And then complain. I think I’m starting to spot a trend forming here. But really people, you do have a choice. If you don’t like the look of something then don’t buy it. It’s no good buying every piece of downloadable content and then complaining about it. If 1 million people download something and 999,999 complain do you think the games companies will listen. Of course they won’t as they’ve already got 1,000,000 people’s money. Seriously, if you went into your nearest supermarket and the cheese that you wanted to buy was mouldy, would you buy it and then complain?

Free content
Of course to counter this there are some companies that are providing free downloadable content for their games. Take Epic for example, with Gears of War. Epic and Cliffy B have always said that they will “look after their existing customers” before they try and convert others. Hence the reason why no Gears of War demo has ever appeared. The developers are too busy working on new content for their existing customers. Not long after the launch of Gears, 2 new maps were released for multiplayer. At the time of writing, another 2 maps are due, along with a completely new game mode for multiplayer games, again all free content. This is another take on how to squeeze customers for their hard earned cash. And in the long run I think it’s a good tactic. Epic now have a reputation of providing free post-launch content, so that must increase the appeal of any game they release in the future. But that does raise one last question…

Is content new or “held-back” from the release?
And this is a tricky one. Do game companies purposely hold back content from their main release so that they can charge for it as a piece of downloadable content at a later date? And that’s a tricky one to answer unless you work for a games company. I’d like to think that they don’t, and certainly Microsoft are trying to push companies away from doing this (as they know how much discontent this would cause).

So where does that leave us, the paying customer? Well I have to say that I’m quite cautious with what premium content I download. If I don’t like the look of it I steer well clear. If I do like the look of it I ask myself “will i actually play this?”. If the answer is yes, then the game companies have won and a little more of my hard-earned cash becomes theirs…

So before we look at the arguments and points being raised, let me just say one thing. We’re not talking about the release of new game mechanics or additional content here, we’re purely talking about fixing problems and removal of bugs. So essentially we’re looking at game developers discovering problems and applying fixes to them. So lets take a look at some of the arguments here:

Impact on non-online players?
As things stand at the moment, all of these new features are being rolled out via some form of online service. Which is all well and good if, like me, your games console (an XBox 360 in my case) is always connected to the internet. However, what happens if you can’t, or chose not to, connect your console to the internet? Then you’re stuck with a game that, potentially, has game-crippling bugs and problems. Imagine the frustration of having played for 20-30 hours in a game and then finding you can’t complete the game because of a bug. Very frustrating, and probably very costly for the developers (lets face it how many people would buy a sequel to a game if they had hit this problem in the original?). So the impact on non-online players needs to be considered here.

MMOs have always had patching
As I mentioned in my introduction, I have played Massively Multiplayer Online games for a number of years. When you buy an MMO, the developer knows that you have an online connection, and therefore knows that any updates that they want to apply can be easily distributed to you. For those not familiar with MMOs, you tend to have a “launchpad” application to start the game. Before you can enter the game world this launchpad will check the versions of the game files that are in use, and if there are any newer files you have to download them. Refuse to download them and you can’t enter the game world, simple as that. This is where things are different with the console world too. Sure, you can stop someone from playing in an online multiplayer game if they don’t download patches, but you can’t stop them playing through a “campaign” style game by themselves just because they won’t apply fixes. With MMOs, patching is a way of life. It’s easy to fix problems and easy to roll-out these fixes due to the nature of the customer base and the product itself. Not so with a console.

Would Windows users complain?
It’s odd as I can’t imagine any other group of users (Microsoft Windows users for example) complaining about having free fixes applied to the piece of software that they use. However, with gamers it seems that they feel differently (I’m not going to get into a discussion about the merits of the relevant License Agreements at this point and who actually “owns” the product). It seems that gamers feel like they have been “conned” if they have bought a particular game, and then the developer admits that there is a problem and supplies a fix to it. I’ve never bought into that mentality myself but I do know that it exists. For me, I’d rather have a game that functions as well as possible, even if this means downloading a small fix to a problem.

Is the game finished when it goes gold?
So this is what the crux of the discussion seems to be for some people. When a game goes gold, it is deemed to be ready for retail, and that the majority of the bugs have been worked out of the product. And there’s a key word in that sentence. The “majority” of bugs have been worked out. I can’t imagine any game developers (or software developer for that matter) ever putting their hands up and saying that their software is 100% bug-free. It just never happens. What some gamers seem to think though is that they have paid for a product and therefore it should be perfect. How could developers ever consider rolling something out that has bugs (some people even now have the opinion that the game isn’t finished if it has bugs in it – these could be the same people who say that development cycles are currently too long!)? And do they really believe that a lot of other consumer products are rolled out with absolutely zero problems?

So is it good or bad?
Well I guess it depends on your point of view. For me I’d say it’s absolutely a good thing. I’d much rather have a steady stream of games appearing, and allow the developers to apply fixes as they need to, than wait for months between game releases. And lets face it, it’s not every game that falls foul of this. For me it comes down to a matter of expectations. I expect a game that I buy to be at a certain quality level, and I accept that there may be some problems that need fixing. However, others want the utopia of having perfect games available, when they want them, at a price that they want to pay. Obviously these people have never worked in software development!

It appears that Gears really is the killer (no pun intended) app that Microsoft wanted it to be. I myself love the game, especially online (read my initial thoughts here) and can see why so many XBox 360 owners have bought into Epic’s title. Now if only Sony had such a following for any of their franchises!!

Well I can safely say that for me it does. From the single player campaign (which I have only played a couple of hours of so far) to the awe-inspiring multiplayer, I’d say this is a must-buy title as far as I’m concerned. Emergence Day here in Europe was last Friday (17th November) and my Collector’s Edition duly landed on my doormat. Appearing in a well crafted tin with embossed artwork the Collector’s Edition includes a bonus DVD and hardback art book. It’s a very nice package and stands out in terms of what Collector’s Editions actually offer. It wasn’t until Friday evening that I managed to load up the game and take a look. From the moment the game starts (even with the initial menus) it looks fantastic. The images which form the menus and backgrounds are crystal clear and look fantastic.

And so onto the game itself. I opted to play through the campaign on the Casual setting and am very glad I have. Even at this “beginner” level, the game can prove to be quite a challenge. I’m not even to the end of Act 1 yet (the game is split into 5 acts, each of which contain a number of chapters) and already I’ve done my fair share of dying. However, with checkpoints after each major set-piece, you don’t tend to lose a lot of game time when you die at this level. The story has been criticised for being weak, however I’ve not seen any evidence of that and I can feel myself being drawn in. The advantage of the casual level is that it allows to me to progress through the game at a reasonable pace, and this helps keep the game feeling fresh as you move from one set-piece to the next. The suspense is very well handled and the ambient sounds are all a part of this. The change in music as you move into an area of conflict also help to get the heart racing and there are several times when my heart has been pounding as I move from room to room trying to clear a building.

However, for heart-pounding moments you really need to play the online multiplayer. Saturday evening saw my first foray in the world of Gears of War multiplayer games along with some friends (including Dan, Ashleigh and Tony). And what an experience it was. From the team based Execution (where you can keep yourself alive by rhythmically pressing the A button when you get shot), through Warzone (where once you’re dead you’re dead), to protect the leader in Assassination (where the goal is to kill the opposite team’s leader) there is plenty of variety. The multiplayer maps themselves are just sublime. Most of the maps start the two teams at opposite ends of the map with a natural bottleneck in the centre. This leads to some quite intense battles taking place.

Each round starts with a 5 minute time limit. Whilst I was concerned that this might be far too short to even complete a round, you often come face-to-face with the enemy within 20 seconds and the battles can then be over very quickly. All players start with the same weapons which allows for quite even gameplay. What makes the difference with these battles is the use of tactics. By working as a team (and 2 vs. 2 really highlights this) you are far more likely to be able to successfully beat your opposition. The other very attractive feature of the multiplayer is that there are no respawns within any of the game modes. At first this seemed like quite an omission. However, when you consider that Epic wanted to encourage the use of cover throughout the game, and to deter the run-and-gun strategy, this now makes perfect sense. Someone who wants to run and gun through a level will soon find that they are cut down, and are out of the game. This now leave their team one man down, and with a maximum of 4 players on a team this can be all it takes to swing a game one way or the other. In 2 vs. 2 this is even more apparent as suddenly you are an Army of One. The multiplayer maps are also quite compact (the biggest I’ve seen being the Mausoleum) which means that you’re never far away from the action, and this helps to move the action along at a frantic pace.

In terms of suspense, I can assure you that there is no worse sound than hearing a chainsaw revving up right next to you and suddenyl finding yourself on the wrong end of a grisly death. Needless to say that chainsaw can be periodically revved to scare the opposition. As can fire blindly into areas. I heard machine gun fire on a number of occasions and frantically looked around, expecting to be shot at any moment. It all builds the suspense.

I think the best thing about the multiplayer for me is the balance. No one side is given preference over weapons (any pick-up weapons are placed in the middle of the map and it becomes a race to get them). This then of course opens up the possibility of being killed right at the start of the round as you rush for the best weapons. So your tactics have to be spot on.

So to sum up, if you own a 360 and don’t have Gears then buy it. If you don’t own a 360 then buy one and buy Gears. If you own a PS3 then sell it on eBay and buy Gears and a 360. And if you do have Gears, then savour the fun as it may be another whole generation before there is a title to top it…

Well I have to admit that I think it’s a master stroke from Microsoft. I also think that they are perfectly justified in doing it. After all Gold members do pay £40 a year for the service (an amount I don’t mind paying at all) and for this it’s great to think that Microsoft are going to give me some perks. As mentioned in the BGB article, Sony will be offering a single-tier online service that includes game demos for free. However, how many customers would Sony get for a premium online service if they charged £40 a year on top of the cost of the console? Very few I would guess. Lets face it, at £40 a year there’s a lot of year’s of subscription on XBox Live compared to a free service on the PS3 before you’ve spent the same amount.

So what should these disgruntled Silver members do? Well I guess there are a few options. They can always go and buy a PS3 and get the free service there (although then missing out on a Gears of War trailer won’t affect them will it???!!). They could upgrade to Gold and fork out £40 a year for the privilige, or they can remain on Silver, wait the extra week for stuff and become more frustrated everytime a new piece of content is released to the Gold members first. Me personally? I’d not be without my Gold membership, and I’ll enjoy the perks that come with it…