I've found myself over the past few days watching a lot of "Sessler's Soapbox," which are video segments Adam Sessler does where he talk about whatever topic happens to pop into his head. Now I had first seen one of these a few months back when he talked about people's complaints about their Killzone 2 review, (which he defended quite brilliantly,) but I didn't realize until recently that these are a weekly thing which is what caused me to start watching them hoping to catch up some.

It's probably something you've noticed if you play a lot of PC games, or consider buying the PC version of a newly released multiplatform game. For some strange reason even though the cost of console games seems to keep going up, the price of PC games seems to be going down. Significantly so. 

In the past it's usually been about a $10 difference with PC games priced at around $50 and console games around $60, but there seems lately that this price difference is widening. Lately the PC versions tend to run for about $40, or in the case of the Ghostbusters game being released today, you can get the same $60 console version for a mere $30!

So what is going on here? I mean game publishers have been telling us for years that the cost of making games has gone up, which is why they've had to start charging more. But when  they go and release a game new for half price on PC compared to console it certainly seems like there is something rotten in the Kingdom of Mushroom.

Certainly at face value it does, but once you start to realize the factors involved the price gap can be mostly explained.

Licensing Fees

As most gamers know Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo make most of their console videogame money from other companies releasing games on their systems. They do this by charging a licensing fee to these companies that they have to pay so that they can release games for that console. Now for the PC such a licensing fee does not exist, as such they don't have to incorporate that cost to them into the price of the game as they do for the console games.

Development Tools

Much like the licensing fee factor, console makers sell development tool kits to game developers which they need in order to make the game for a specific console. These are usually quite expensive, but once they have them there is no limit to the number of games they can make with them. 

Distribution

There is something to be said about the middleman. Game publishers don't get to sell you their games directly in most cases, (especially console games,) they have to sell them to stores who in turn sell them to the consumer. As such they aren't selling the games to Best Buy and GameStop for $60, they are selling the games to them for less then that (I've heard $55, but I can't verify that.) That's a pretty slim margin in terms of the profit these stores make on these games, but that mark up is still a fairly large percentage of the cost. 

 

Digital Distribution 

Now with digital distribution through things like Steam allows a more direct sale from publisher/developer to consumer, which allows them to mark down the price somewhat since there isn't a middleman in most cases, acting as a go between. Also distributing the game over the net removes any manufacturing, and shipping costs related to getting the physical game into physical store, but this is probably off set somewhat with the cost of maintaining the bandwidth necessary for the online store.

Piracy

This is probably the leading motivator in the price discrepancy, since the PC is where game piracy is easiest and the most rampid. As such the lower cost could be seen as a concession of sorts saying, "we know you can get this for free out there illegally, but here is the same game fairly cheap and perfectly legal."

Even after accounting for all of this I still can't help, but feel that in a couple of cases the console gamers is getting punished for owning a console and wanting to play games on it. If you look at Left 4 Dead it was $40 on PC, and $60 on Xbox 360. Even if all the above accounts for that $20 difference, the 360 player didn't receive updates to the game as timely as the PC players did. In addition to the fact that it is an online multiplayer game, and in order to play online on the 360 you have to pay about $5 a month. While the PC player's get Steam for free (and Steam is arguable as good if not better than Xbox Live.)

I still can't help but feel like sometimes that the console player is really getting the short end of the stick by paying more for a game, and receiving an inferior product.

With E3 just wrapping up its hard to not be excited for all the games set to come out this year, especially in the fall. When you actually look at them all though you'll likely begin to realize that this fall may in fact be the best one for videogames ever. In terms of quality games that is. Here is just a partial list of what is going to be released this fall, between the end of August and the start of 2010:

Professor Layton: Diabolical Box

Batman: Arkham Asylum
Guitar Hero 5

Red Dead Redemption

Bayonetta

Borderlands

Champions Online
The Beatles Rock Band

Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2
Scribblenauts

Need for Speed: Shift

Halo ODST

Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days
Uncharted 2: Among Thieves

Gran Turismo PSP

Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story
BioShock 2

Silent Hill: Shattered Memories

Forza 3
Brutal Legend

Tony Hawk: Ride

Splinter Cell Conviction

Tekken 6

New Super Mario Bros. Wii

Lego Rock Band

Dragon Age: Origins
Heavy Rain

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
Assassin's Creed 2

Left 4 Dead 2

Band Hero
Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time

MAG

Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks
Little Big Planet PSP

Battlefield: Bad Company 2

Mass Effect 2
Saboteur

Army of Two: the 40th Day

And unfortunately that list is the problem, because although there are so many potentially great games coming out at one time its very likely that a number of them will not sell up to their potential, and in these economic times could mean either no sequel for great game or worse yet, the closing of a really talented studio.

Gamers and the enthusiast press have been for years complaining that too many games are released during the Christmas season, and this year is possibly the worst offender of that. The reason that publishers do this though is because games released in this season typically sell well enough to justify it. To them its sort of a safe bet that in this period games will sell about enough to cover their costs, just from the impulse sales of people buying presents for other people for the holidays. It is much riskier to sell your game in a down period (summer, spring) where if it isn't good, or doesn't get the buzz it needs, it won't sell nearly as well as during this holiday shopping period. 

But getting back to the real problem with this isn't that as gamers we aren't going to have enough time to play these games, but rather that considering the economy and if things stay as they are it's possible that some really good games this year could slip through the cracks and not sell very well at all. Games that had they been released in a more new game sparse period could have sold a whole lot more, and had a lot more buzz about it. 

If you look at what happened with the original BioShock that's what they did. It was a game that if it had been released in the fall would have sold well, and likely would have flown under the radars of many people, but because it was released in the summer when there weren't as many releases it sold really well. It also sparked a lot of talk amongst players and the press about it, which wouldn't have happened if it had been released later. Much the same could be said about Burnout Paradise which captured a lot of people's attention by holding off its release until after the holiday season.

My hope is that this is the last year we see it this bad, with so many games crammed together, but its also my fear that in order for publishers to stop doing this a lot of really good games and good development studios are going to have to suffer before it does. 

So I look forward to the fall in the hopes that I am terribly wrong.

This may seem like an odd thing to deduce considering that Sony has been somewhat struggling with PS3 sales, especially outside of Japan, but with the right moves (some of which they seem to be gearing towards doing,) they could end up the tortoise in this rabbit race.

Rather then jumping right into Sony, I think its best to first set the stage by looking at what Nintendo and Microsoft are doing, and how that is allowing for Sony to perhaps slip through.


Nintendo:

Now Nintendo is easily at the front of the console pack with the Wii, as well as leading in the portable market with the DS. The Wii has managed to break into the mainstream in a way that no console really has ever managed to do (at least not since the Atari 2600 perhaps.) Although the console is selling like crazy, they are having some problems with it, most glaringly its the low attachment rate of software. Although people are buying the system, they typically aren't buying other games with it, they are content with just Wii Sports. But if the console owner manages to buy a game it seems to be Wii Play, or Wii Fit, or one of the numerous mini-game packages.

In addition to that their move to digital distribution seems to generally be somewhat half hearted. Although the Virtual Console is great for getting to play old games that are hard to get a hold of, it seems as though its not really living up to its potential. Same goes with Wii Ware, which seems to generally be something of an afterthought. Although they are pushing the digital distribution with the DSi, it seems as though they are missing out on a great opportunity to link the Wii/DS/DSi together, and let you play games across the platforms (especially the Virtual Console ones which wouldn't have much difficulty running on the portable consoles.)

Now in Nintendo's current position they are going to continue to aim at that mainstream (as they have been,) and likely over time are going to produce fewer and fewer games for the core game audience. They'll likely try to get the mainstream audience to purchase these core games, but it seemsdisadvantageous for them to spend millions on a game that would sell only to the small core audience when they can spend less and sell more copies of games directed at the mainstream.


Microsoft:

They have the core gamer market pretty much locked up. Getting out first, and getting out so much cheaper then the PS3 really helped them get that group, but continued support from their third party developers helped them lock up that market in general. As such they are in a pretty good position going into the future since they just have to keep doing what they are doing in order to continue to be successful, and that seems to generally be what they are doing.

Even so they have started to try and expand out somewhat into the new market of console owners that the Nintendo has pulled into the market with the Wii (at least if the rumors of the motion controller, and other things are to be believed.) It is something of a low risk play for them since it doesn't take much investment or effort on their part to try and make a grab at these consumers. Even so it seems unlikely to be largely successful because, as I mentioned with Nintendo people are buying a Wii and not much else. It's a bit hard to expect that these consumers to spend more then $200 on a 360, as well as whatever the additional cost of the additional hardware and games they would need as well. With the Wii it all comes together, and at the $200 price tag its almost an impulse buy for people.

In essence the Wii is sort of a toy for adults, and if Microsoft wants to break into that market they are going to need to have a version of the 360 that can be a toy for adults as well.


Sony:

At this point you might be wondering what's left for Sony. Nintendo has the mainstream on console and the core on portable, while Microsoft has the core on console. What's left for Sony is the future.

Yes, that sounds a little odd but stick with me here, since Sony because of its position has the chance to be innovative and very forward thinking. Which may not pay dividends right away, but could be veryadvantageous going forward. If you look at what Microsoft did with Xbox Live on the original Xbox, the service was ahead of its time, but rolling it out when they did allowed them to work through a lot of the bugs and issues that Sony and Nintendo have been dealing with with their online services.

Where this is important is if the rumors of Sony's game rental service for the PSP Go are true. Now the Go in and of itself is interesting, especially since Sony has managed to make the PSP successful in spite of the UMD being neat, but not really practical. If they can really embrace the digital distribution model with the Go, and incorporate this rental service. I could potentially see the Go beating out the DS/DSi. But that really requires both support from the developers/publishers to get their new and old PSP games into a digital form, but also getting Playstation 1 games on the service.

They are somewhat in a better position in the handheld market however then the console one. Obviously they need to cut the price, but if the talk of the slim PS3 are true, it would let them potentially relaunch the console. At this point they have a very strong line up, and a lot of the titles that people were big fans of on the PS2 are making their way to the PS3 soon, or are already there. You can't forget that Sony has ruled this space for the previous two generations, so a relaunch aimed at people who used to own Playstation consoles could help them get back into this race.

In addition with this console generation likely to be a longer then originally expected, it could put the PS3 at an advantage since it was rather ambitiously powerful in the hardware department at launch (in order to give it a longer life.) So it's certainly possible that towards the end of the current cycle we'll start to see things on the PS3 that aren't possible on the other platforms due to hardware restrictions.


Of course all of this is really speculative, and I'm not trying to make the argument that they will make a great comeback and be top console again this generation. Rather I am trying to make the point that with their current position they are able to do, and experiment in ways that the other two are not likely to (possibly for the best, or the worst.) But in doing those real worldexperimenting , and doing the leg work on some of these things, they could potentially be lining themselves up to have a leg up on the others, especially when they next console releases come around. Because much like I said before with Microsoft and XBL, they can get a lot of the issues worked out now when most people are necessarily expecting or wanting some of these services, that way when they do expect and want them they already have something established and ready to go.

Valve, this is an intervention

Valve, first off I love your work. Half-Life, Counter-Strike, Left 4 Dead, and Team Fortress 2 (at launch,) all amazing games which I have spent more time then I want to think about playing, but every moment was great and I wouldn’t trade it for anything.

Which is what brings me here today, having this intervention for you, you need to realize Valve that you are hurting Team Fortress 2. I know you guys love it as much as I do, and you think you are doing the right thing, that’s it’s, “for its own good,” and that you “are just making it better.” But you guys need to take a step back an really think about what you are doing.

I’m speaking specifically about the new weapon procurement system you’ve added to the game, and I can understand why you would want to put in such a system. It prevents everyone on the night of new updates from playing that single class for the next few days, knocking the balance of the game off for those days. And perhaps more importantly it makes it easier for more casual TF2 players, and new players to pick up the game and get rewarded with these weapons just for spending time playing.

Which is all well and good for them, but what about people who have already played the game for over 100 hours, it doesn't feel like a reward for us when we are playing and randomly pick up a weapon that we already got during one of the previous class updates. I know you've said that you are working on an infrastructure to allow players to trade these extra weapons, but here is the thing. People don't want to trade weapons in a first person shooter.

What it really is is that with the old system, even though we complained about it a lot, it wasn't a bad system. At least it felt like when you got a new unlock that it was some sort of an accomplishment, it was a reward for playing. But with this new system you are turning the game into an MMORPG, with loot drops. Random loot drops at that, that will more often then not provide duplicates which players really can't do anything with. So getting these these random drops doesn't feel like a reward for playing, if anything it makes it bothersome to play.

A loot system doesn't work if there isn't some sort of accomplishment tied into the looting. It works in MMORPGs because for the high end stuff at the end of the game it takes a lot of time, and effort to defeat the big things that drop the good loot. Even in the lower levels of an MMORPG grinding for loot still requires some effort by the player in the game, where they feel that they are actually active participants in getting the loot. Here its only a matter of time, it doesn't matter how good or bad you are at playing the game, you are going to randomly be handed things just for playing.

TF2 needs to have a reward system, where players are rewarded for playing a class, learning a class, and becoming more skilled in it. That's why the Medic update was really a success, even though the unlocks were really hard to get, it got people to play Medic (which no one really was at the time,) and it showed them that it could actually be a really fun class to play.

You need to reward players for their time playing, but you need to reward them for trying new classes, or becoming more skillful at the game. The best solution for this seems to be to do something like Call of Duty's leveling system, where players receive experience for kills, completing map objectives, and whatnot. That experience then goes towards unlocking levels, and by leveling players are able to access new weapons, and abilities. 

For TF2 this could be done on a class by class basis, with levels and experience being tied to each class independent of the others. The achievements then could be used as personal objectives for teh player that give them more experience then just killing other players, and capturing things. This then gives skilled players a chance to quickly level by completing the achievements, while also giving more casual/unskilled players a chance to level just by getting experience from playing, even if they aren't able to unlock any of the achievements. Then as they level they are able to unlock the new weapons. 

So please Valve, you don't have to take my idea (I honestly don't expect you to,) but you at least need to realize that what you are trying to make the game into isn't what it is. Square peg does not fit into the round hole. Please just take a step back, take a breath, and realize that sometime you guys can be wrong.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go play some Left 4 Dead instead.

With Amazon and Toys R Us muscling in on GameStop’s almost monopoly of buying back videogames, and selling used copies, the discussion of used games has popped up in a lot of the podcasts I listen to again. Now I’m not going to say that it’s not fair that video game developers/publishers don’t get a cut from these sales, because it is fair. Which is to say this is not a industry vs. retailer issue, but rather a secondary market/right of first sale issue for consumers.

After listening to the first episode of the Mobcast, I couldn't help but find myself agreeing with Mark McDonald about the state of video game podcasts. That there needs to be more then just a couple of people sitting around and talking about video games they are playing and the latest news.