Tag Archives: Dragon story

February 7, 2014 · 22:33

In-app purchase Armageddon

We all have these moments where we are confronted with certain choices that others make. The problem with these choices is that they always seem to spin around the greed of the developer.

It all started mid last year. Some games show gave the heads up for a mobile Dungeon Keeper. I loved that game! I actually still have Dungeon Keeper II. The game had the originality to keep me entertained again and again. Now a mobile was coming. The TV showed how everything went smooth, decently fast and graphically in the upper end. When I tried to install it, I got the issue that my iPad 1 did not support it, which is fair enough.

Now, I am spotting all over the internet an abundance of rants and anger reports on this new version of the game. What had EA done now? ‘Nerd 101’ had a decent overview (at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpdoBwezFVA&feature=player_embedded). This is worse than a joke. Basically to clear one piece of rock either takes 24 hour, or $1.50 per square, or $105 for 60 squares of rock. Clearing dirt takes 4 hours according to the screenshots (not the ones you see in the Apple store). Interesting is that this was never mentioned before in the media. They are not alone, but for the adult player they are one of the most visible ones.

Let me be clear, I am not against in-app purchases, yet on this scale, through the greed approach, it is killing the market and it will kill the future of gaming. The other part of this is that this game got 3200 times a 5 star rating. This is not even close to realistic considering the game play the game is not offering. They are however not alone!

Another game that has this nightmare scenario is Dragon Story by TeamLava. Here you get to play for free, yet some dragons can only be bought. I mentioned it before in blogs, whilst a block of land would cost you up to $10 per square, dragons can go up as much as $100 per dragon. Some of them can only be bought. Still, for the patient ones, the game can be played for free. They just play the frustrating slow card hoping that the kids, if given half a chance, will spend more and more. There is something enormously unacceptable about this approach to in-app approaches.

This is only one side of in-app purchased gaming. Another side is shown by the company Time-2-play who made ‘Elemental Kingdoms’. Now in this case, the group is different. First of all, if you have ever played any customisable card game (like Magic) and if you enjoyed it, you will likely love this one. You can play for free, the gems are decently priced and the return that $4 offers is really nice, especially when you buy gems for the 1st time (you get 50% more gems). So, this is really decent. Here we have another issue. The game remains unstable. It kept on crashing. I thought at first it was just me and my iPad 1. Alas, I see that the internet is filled with android complaints. As the developers focused on more graphics and cool looking effects, which do look nice, the game seems to become less and less stable. This is a shame, because the graphics even on older tablets is really good.

Still, Time 2 play does have a decent approach and if they fix up their app, it will be a coveted app for hundreds of thousands of players and I hope and wish for them many in-app purchases for a long time to come. When it comes to almost perfect approaches it does not get any better than a game called Blockheads, it is a 2-dimemsional approach to Minecraft. The game initially works at half speed. For a one-time $5 you get the double speed and you are playing really nicely. Basically, the game gives a great value for that price. This game also allows for buying gems, yet a few days of playing will get you more gems by mining then $10 will get you, so it is an option for the eager and less patient players amongst us. When a game works like this, I feel that games with micro transactions have a decent chance of making it in the mobile world.

It is a shame to see the market getting destroyed in such a way. Old games get corrupted, their names smudged. The ‘greed’ elements as they start rearing their ugly head in some games make it important for parents to learn really fast how dangerous these games can be. Especially in the case of Dragon story where a child could set you back $200-$500 within an hour (providing that in game purchases had not been switched off).

In case of Dragon Story I do not get it. This game, when added a few parts to could be the first game to grasp a massive chunk of the Pokémon playing population. Pokémon, a game, which after a dozen released versions, remains more of the same. The fans of this style of gaming want additional games. Dragon Story, when converted with additions to the Nintendo could make TeamLava very wealthy, the fact that they rely on absurd micro transactions is just weird and in my opinion really stupid.

It does not stop here though. The larger consoles are now getting into the same field, which is a serious worry for many. Games like Warframe, War thunder, Blacklight and DC Universe online are but a few of the games, now relying on micro transactions. Here the story is not the same, these games are massive, they rely on online multi player connections and for the most, you can just pay for free. Yet, at a certain point, you will need money to get better weapons. If not, the road will be tedious and at some point even unbearable. This is not a bad way to go. Personally I think that they should have a small option for new players, but the prices they charge for whatever currency they use is not outrageous. Because of the additional parts, I would call them a reasonable approach to try before you buy. However, it must be said that $20 will usually get you just one ‘stronger’ weapon, or one better plane. Warframe had an over the top option for $140, but that does give you heaps in money and a few extra items, so you do get bang for the buck (quite literally). They all have the same flaw, like the tablets when added up they are way too expensive and they could make it up by adding a $10-$15 package deal which includes several weapons , planes and armour (depending on the game, so that the ‘keep playing’ factor stays there. In the end, the cheap skates will never buy anything, and they will rely on weak equipment. There is in my mind however, a decent group who would like to get more, but $15 for one medium piece of equipment is just not hacking it. Consider that a full game at $100 gets you all the hardware the game has to offer (even though you have to play to get it).

So back to these tablets where the funding abuse seems to be happening. It seems that Apple remains too quiet around it all considering the article (at http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57617270-37/apple-to-refund-at-least-$32.5m-for-kids-in-app-purchases/), it also seems ‘off’ that this event remains relatively quiet. I do not completely agree with the assessment of Chairwoman Edith Ramirez who stated “You cannot charge consumers for purchases they did not authorize.” The issue is slightly more loaded then that. She is correct in the statement, yet the issue of micro transactions and the parents had no idea what was going on is only barely covering it. Yes, Apple could have added blocks sooner, yet the streamlining of in-app purchases streamlining this in a much better way would have been preferable.

I think it is important for Microsoft and Sony to realise sooner rather than later that we are about to venture into a new age of gaming. There is still a massive part of this world who remain for now a minor and it becomes important that these two start guiding certain sentiments of greed into sentiments of packaged values. If not, parents might steer clear from an upcoming wave of ‘free’ downloadable games and decide on another platform for gaming altogether.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 20, 2013 · 15:58

Pricing a Sony game!

If you followed the changes, then it is clear that the console war is currently getting fought and they are now going for all kinds of niche based solutions to keep a handle on greed (as in, to make it more money in any way they can).

In these hard economic times we are all trying to find a solution to make ends meet. If we focus on the gamers, then we see a group of people that is massively represented by those still being tertiary students and many of them are younger than that. So, this is a group that is not overly wealthy. Even the working population that might be into gaming is trying to make ends meet and they too are not swimming in loads of cash. It was in this environment that places like EB-Games are making decent cash to sell pre-owned games. When you do not have a load of cash, getting a pre-owned game at $15-$50 is a lot more appealing than getting the newly packed unused version at $89-$119.

As per last week that commercial game is changing fast on two fronts. The first one is the TPP (Trans Pacific Pact), if this one gets pushed through (the Australian liberal government was trying to do this in secret, but several sources are now openly aware of it), that pact will be an option for Microsoft AND Sony to make even more money than before (as in charge us more for products, as discussed in my previous blog). So, the fact that we in Australia pay on average 35%-60% more on a game was perhaps not enough margin, which will mean that new games will find even less appeal.

But have no fear, Sony (Microsoft too) already has a solution to stop alternatives. In the updates last week, my PlayStation 3 was shown a new agreement and we either agree with this or we lose the online options, which is disastrous for ALL gamers owning a PlayStation.

In this new agreement it stated:

7. Resale
7.1 You must not resell either Disc-Based or Software downloads, unless expressly authorised by us and, if the publisher is another company, additionally by the publisher.

So, the end of pre-owned games has come. Basically, until they can check and enforce it, we are breaking the law, which might give Sony the option to cancel our PSN account and once they can check whether a game is new or not (perhaps they already can), they will just charge us an additional fee or shut the game(r) down. The agreement has many more needles involving unlocking regions, reverse engineering and so on. There are a few sides to that, but in that regard, personally, I think that any company would want to protect their own product, which is fair enough.

Did anyone realise this? So, not only are they greed driven on selling new games, they are destroying a commercial part that has not ever been illegal. Many expected this, but most did not see this coming from both sides at the same time.

No matter how we go next, whether we go to download games, which means Sony stops paying a lot more corporate tax in Australia (and other nations too), or we end up paying way too much for games. So, nextgen consoles will now start to show that it will cost us (more).

In regards to borrowing, Sony never stopped others borrowing a friend’s game. For Sony it is just good business, however, the console game has changed and will keep on changing a little longer at high cost to many of us. So, it is important to see that they never lied; they just did not mention other changes.

So our world is changing fast and it starts changing faster and more extreme as per the end of this year. It is interesting how America, who claims to have high morals, will sell others down the track to big business for simple greed; this is how I see the TPP.

Consider that this could be the end of gaming as we know it. If you think that this is exaggerated, consider that good games are original games (or come directly from them). EA and UBI-Soft are showing us less and less originality. (An 11th version of a sport game or a 4th sequel to Assassins Creed is not an original). Our hopes were with the Indie developers who come with that golden idea that will invigorate us with the passion of a new gaming era. As the TPP reads (for as far as I read parts of them), the pact is there to push IP powers to the US and its allies (where these big businesses are based). This is not what IP was about, it was always about protecting innovation, not for big business to exploit and to hammer down their interests to their extent.

In gaming, innovation has not come from big business for a long time!

Consider Minecraft and Catherine, some will not call them great games, the first one is massively addictive, both are originals. Even next year’s release of ‘the Evil Within’ which comes from a small player called Tango Gameworks should be seen as an original. Even though many of their staff come from Capcom, this new player has the creative mind that brought us Resident Evil. It is important to protect these small developers, even (or better especially) if they are not from Japan or USA. Forcing them under some IP umbrella designed by the TPP was never the goal (this is how I see this going in the future). When innovation goes, games (or art) will suffer first! That has been proven more than once. So how will you feel about a $500 console when big business decides what makes a good game? Consider that NONE of the big boys (in those days) wanted to publish the game Lemmings. I remember that it only got out because some people at Psygnosis were not too busy. It became one of the most successful games EVER to make it to the home computers and to my knowledge the only game EVER to be released on most 8-bit and 16 bit systems (it was a really addictive game).

If we look at 2013, then in my view, ‘The Last of Us’ (by naughty dog) and ‘Beyond Two Souls’ might be the actual original games of 2013, even though the latter one is based on the Heavy Rain engine, so originality is a little bit of an issue there. If you want to see another example of originality then ‘Dragon Story’ comes to mind. Even though I think that they made several greed driven mistakes via their IOS edition, this game could be on Nintendo, the game that will compete with Pokémon. If they grow the engine beyond what they have now, it could become a mega seller for the younger players on any console if they add more game play to what they have.

Yes, 2013 had great games, but they were all sequels beyond the ones I mentioned (I apologise for any titles I missed), so if we are to grow as gamers, then we need originality! The changes as we see them will drive us all to other systems and perhaps that might become the very expensive lesson that Sony and Microsoft will have to learn the hard way. Consider the option of getting that Google console for $99 and buy (and play) a ‘Minecraft like’ game on that! Over a hundred hours of fun for the price of a single Sony/Microsoft game.

Gamers do not like to get boxed in, both Sony and Microsoft better learn this fast!
If consumers who are into gaming would consider waiting no less than three months before they buy a next Gen console. They might end up getting a much better deal in both the short run and the long run. How much damage are Sony and Microsoft willing to suffer? Holding a 16 billion dollar industry at ransom is currently the only option I can think of, especially as governments (Australia included) are very willing to give the keys (and powers) of Intellectual Property unjustly to big business.

2 Comments

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 15, 2013 · 19:10

In Media, we distrust!

Is it not a lovely day when you wake up, you go downstairs and if it is warm enough, likely in nothing more than a simple bathrobe you sit down. At this point, whether it is inside, or outside, you get the first start of the day with coffee and the newspaper. For most people, that part had been for a long time a slice of heaven.

We would go through the news whilst sipping tea or coffee (in my case the latter). What if I told you that these times are now forever a thing of the past?

My reasoning? For this I will go over each case in three parts. First the point I make, then the reasoning for that point and lastly the motive I personally think is behind that. I would like to add sources, but at times there are little to none and it is all based on common sense.

First there is no need to rehash the entire Leveson history. That reports was made and filed and suddenly the press was all uppity uppity on ‘the freedom of speech’ and how their rights are now no more.

Let us take a look at this part.

1. How often does the press report on privacy violations by large companies like Microsoft?

Answer: almost never. I found one article by the guardian, and a few by what we would normally all less reliable sources. (at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/30/microsoft-privacy-chief-nsa)

Motive: The publications rely on big business (advertisements). It relies less on governments as their form of income and in addition, government is always seeking visibility, big business brings in money. In this situation I personally think that the press seems to be willing to ‘ignore‘ or whisper very softly certain events.

How about Microsoft HealthVault?

They state: “Privacy, It’s your HealthVault account. You decide who can see, use, add, and share info, and which health apps have access to it. HealthVault won’t provide your health information to any other app or service without your permission.”

Venturebeat had the following interesting quotes “For instance, Microsoft reserves the right to store your medical data offshore, in countries that may not have the same privacy protections as the U.S.”

“HealthVault appears to open the door to a potentially unlimited line of people, entities or programs that can obtain permission to read and alter your health information, since it’s possible to delegate the ability to grant those permissions to others.” If did find a few mentions by CBS and ZDNET, yet the papers (the big ones) did not show up in any search. Even though this issue is not that recent, it is still interesting that the big ones aren’t anywhere near this place.

If we consider that this means that if an insurer gets access to this, then the smallest visit to the hospital could result in an increase to your premium. This is all linked to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 1996. There we find that the HIPAA Privacy Rule regulates the disclosure of Protected Health Information held by what we would call “covered entities” (employer sponsored health plans, health insurers, and medical service providers that engage in certain health transactions.) By regulation, the Department of Health and Human Services extended the HIPAA privacy rule to independent contractors of covered entities who fit within the definition of “business partners”.

So, if these contractors are outside of the national borders, your health data goes into several other directions too.

Consider that we volunteer this and other personal data to Microsoft (your Skype, your software, your Microsoft devices and your browser). How long until you represent a Z-Value? Not before too long, you are diminished to several Z-Values, and as your value depletes to below the norm, what options will remain for you?

Yet, the press seems to banter again and again on NSA and GCHQ. The question becomes, whether the press is nothing more than a simple tool to make us look the wrong way, whilst big business has a free go at us and our personal details.

I do not claim to know what the actual truth is here, but I do know that the press has not been focusing on the wider truth and reality too much lately. That is something that becomes slightly more visible when we read Claire Fox in her smug article (at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/leveson-has-done-his-damnedest-to-encourage-press-regulation-despite-his-protestations-8874676.html)

When you hear the actual response by his Lordship in regards to WHY he felt it was inappropriate to answer, Claire just trivialises it in the air of “that he would not play ball“. Let us not forget that it is her right to see things in the way she did, I will not attack that, but this situation left me with question marks on how far ‘misrepresentation‘ goes at present.

So if big business is protected through non-visibility, then why don’t we just get rid of all journalists and rely on bloggers? The digital world is ready for it all, journalists no longer seem to be truly ‘story‘ driven, when the bulk hang on the usual GCHQ drab anyone can get from Reuters and the bulk of the big business transgressions remain on blogs, I wonder where the journalistic pride and ethics remained as they claim their part in their need for ‘freedom‘.

2. How will many protect their children and finances if visibility remains low on issues that have an impact? Many PC’s and tablets get linked to games that are ‘proclaimed’ to be free. Yet, when you want to move forward, you can pay for additional options.

The BBC covered this on September 25th (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24272010). The Guardian seemed to have covered the same story and that is pretty much it. So why is there not a lot more visibility?

I had a look at a program called ‘Dragon Story‘. It looks nice, it is a little non-adult, but it has a few original sides. You can breed two dragons together and they leave an egg. You can hatch that egg and get a new different dragon. You can buy many of them, or if you take the time breed your collection. This is all pretty original. The dragons in their habitats collect money and that money can be used to grow your area. Yet, the part not shown is that some dragons are rare, some habitats (larger ones) are expensive. Smaller habitats can be bought with coins, but the larger ones must be bought with gold. That costs actual money. A child can without realising it spend $20 per habitat, some dragons; the really rare ones cost $50. So in 30 seconds a child can spend more money than a full version of Grand Theft Auto costs. It is clear that actions can be taken to prevent some damage, but the visibility is not there. Why?

In reflection upon ‘Dragon Story’, an addictive game named ‘Blockheads’ (a 2-d version of Minecraft) can also be downloaded for free, and you can buy an upgrade so that all actions go twice as fast. The price, $5! Now an additional option can be bought for $3, so that the player can play in higher resolution, a total of $8 for something that need not be bought, the choice is up to the player. THAT is what I call an excellent approach!

So where is the press here?

It cannot be for the lack of ‘public’ interest, as the tablet market in the UK alone is soaring towards 190 million owners this year. That is more than the total global owner base of the PlayStation 2 used to be (which was 150 million). So, one could say that tablet issues should be at the top of every newspaper. The Google search seemed to contradict this (I had to start somewhere).

So when we look at these heated arguments on the freedom of the press, we should be asking ourselves what they are complaining about. Freedom is nice, but when they relate it to the limits of their cubicle we get to miss a lot of information, the press and especially their editors should realise that.

In my view, to the extent I had read the Leveson report, I saw it not as an attack on the freedom of the press, but on the ‘enforcement’ of ethics and accountability. Those two are elements in any form of Journalism. For I am never against the freedom of the press, I do think that some acts require accountability. The hollow phrase ‘the people have a right to know’ lost its value when some used it to tabloid away all levels of privacy. Crashing a funeral less than two weeks ago by the Daily Mail is an excellent example of that. I do wonder whether all this is just about the journalists, or was the Leveson escalation due to a failing by the editors to keep a proper pulse of the journo’s they are supposed to mentor. To that I have no honest answer; there are too many murky facts in the open.

The PRESS fallout has been a long one and we are not there yet!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, IT, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,