Today we have been introduced to four exclusive missions for Assassin?s Creed III that are only coming to the Playstation 3. The ?Benedict Arnold? missions. What seems like a neat way to get exclusive content (and notably, these exclusive missions and such are usually payed for by the console maker, to entice players to buy for their console and not someone elses), it has to beg the question on the consumer end. I bought a Xbox 360 Elite last week. I?ll be getting a Wii U next month. Assassin?s Creed III will be available for both platforms. Hell, I have a PC as well, so I have 3 of the 4 platforms you can play Assassin?s Creed III on.
I cannot play these missions no matter what platform I choose that I already own. I have to purchase a Playstation 3. Can you see where fans might be a little upset? It?s one thing to give Call of Duty Map Packs to say, Xbox players a month early (again, usually because the console maker paid for that to happen) - it?s another thing entirely to make it so consumers cannot actually attain all of the available content for a game without owning multiple copies, or pigeon holing people into a single system when you have the game available for more than that.
But wait, how can I complain? Isn?t the Wii U getting exclusive features? Sure, the GamePad features are pretty neat, and you simply can?t get that with other systems. However, that?s like talking about how PC controls are superior for Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 - it doesn?t effect the actual content of the game. This goes beyond Assassin?s Creed III naturally, as we look towards the future of the gaming industry.
I want to start off this whole discussion with one giant caveat: Do not get mad at the console makers for this. It?s true they likely pay for much of this to happen. It?s true they are the ones that want this exclusive content. But, as a consumer, we can?t get mad at them. They are watching out for themselves. Should Nintendo care what the Xbox, PS3, and PC Gamers get? No, of course not. Should Sony care what content Microsoft gets? No, what they concern themselves with is their console - their fanbase. So, while the console makers are major players, we can?t truly get mad at them. They are doing what they are supposed to do to stay afloat.
Rather, the blame falls upon the game Developers/Publishers, that is if this sort of thing irks you like it does me. In another example, one that is more forgivable, is Wii U?s version of Tekken Tag Tournament 2. Multiplatform? Of course. Exclusive Nintendo related content? Yes. For those unaware, there are several Nintendo themed costumes available to unlock and use in the game. This doesn?t bother me, and that?s regardless of my Nintendo love. Even if this happened for Sony, it wouldn?t bother me either. So, lets a draw a line on the real issue.
What Nintendo has done to help get exclusivity with a title in Tekken Tag Tournament doesn?t actually effect the entirety of the games content on a base level. What Ubisoft and Sony have done with Assassin?s Creed III is create extra content (or intentionally left out content if you prefer) that only Sony gamers can experience. Sure, you can?t get Nintendo costumes on other consoles either, but there is a big difference here. I refer to the costumes as ?cameo? appearances. Cameo appearances for Nintendo stuff likely doesn?t appeal to people who don?t play Nintendo games. It makes financial sense.
For Ubisoft, doing this with Assassin?s Creed III is either some version of selling out, or simply giving in for money. To be fair, we love Ubisoft here at ZI. Their work on ZombiU is fantastic and we recognize they are one of the Wii U?s top supporters. That still doesn?t mean, for consumers, this makes sense. I shouldn?t be paying the same $59.99 that the PS3 fans are paying only to get LESS content because of the console on which I choose to play it on.
I am fine with time based exclusivity. Like ?Sony gets these extra missions at launch, a month later the Xbox gets it, a month after that PC, and a month after that the Wii U?. That?s fine. At least everyone is getting the same value for their dollar as a consumer. Sure, maybe I have to wait longer, but its not like I don?t have other things I could be doing in the game until that content arrives. At least I would have the mind to know, as a consumer, that I?m still going to get that content.
This is sort of like the direction we all fear in the industry of something I like to call ?compartmentalized games?. That refers to not getting full and complete games at launch, and having to pay extra money every few weeks or so to get additional content. In theory, I have no problem with DLC, or as it use to be called? expansion packs. These have been around for ages. It?s just easier to distribute and more readily available for consumers. What I don?t like is receiving a game that is so obviously designed around the DLC. As in, I go to an area that it looks like I can access, but a pop up box or a NPC tells me I can?t unless I get x, x being the DLC I have to buy to access it. Games simply shouldn?t be built that way.
Own a Wii U, Xbox 360, or PC? Well, you wont get to play the missions involving America?s greatest traitor.
Assassin?s Creed III?s exclusive missions for the Playstation 3 aren?t exactly like that. No one is saying because we don?t have that content on other platforms that a hole will be in the game. I am not saying the initial game isn?t a full on experience that doesn?t need DLC. I am simply stating that if the content is going to exist, ALL fans of the game that can play the game should be able to, eventually have access to it. Heck, make me pay $5 for it. It may not be fair, but at least I can access it if I really want it that badly.
I just hope that compartmentalized games and ?forced exclusive content? isn?t the future of the gaming industry as we know it. The benefits for the console companies are clear: The benefit to the Developer (outside of behind the scenes monetary value) and the Consumer are not.
hanley ramirez Christian Bale visits victims Perez Hilton national weather service kristen stewart Christian Bale Sherman Hemsley
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.