The Gaming Industry is going in the wrong direction, but it isn’t too late
I’ve been playing whatever the gaming industry has put out since Asteroid and Galaga and the Atari console came out. I bloody love games.
In some respects, games are better than ever. We are arguably in a golden age thanks to improvements in technology, which allow us to experience games that are ever more realistic and huge in scope.
Unfortunately, that same technology—or at least slightly different technology, if we are being pedantic bastards about it—has also made it tempting for the gaming industry to be lazy and take a path I am not happy with.
What am I banging on about?
I like a variety of games. When I was young, in the 80s, I enjoyed anything that came out. There wasn’t a lot of choice, it was a simple and carefree age. But in the 90s, better consoles came out, like the PlayStation, and there were games like Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, Halo, and Final Fantasy 7. It was glorious. I wasn’t just a console gamer either – I just played different games on my PC. I adored Command & Conquer, Civilization, Warcraft and so on. (Some of those are affiliates but you can see the old and new versions there.)
Then, the internet became a thing and changed the gaming industry. Before that, there were multi-player games, but they were mostly played on the same screen with your mates in the room. Suddenly, I was shooting people from around the world in games like Quake 3 Arena. Well, at least I was trying to. I was in my late 20s by then, and it turns out my reflexes had already peaked. It was my first taste of the savage bitterness of ageing.
Games like Modern Warfare had awesome story-driven games that I loved and, frankly, was superb at. I loved doing the first-person campaign and then doing the multiplayer. At least… for a bit… until I got bored of losing because I was a low rank. Then Modern Warfare started to cut back on the story bits in favour of multiplayer and I went off the franchise.
Fortunately, Warcraft and other MMORPGs were coming out and getting big. I gave them a go, but again – too much grind. “Go kill 20 chickens.” Piss off. I had heard the game was amazing when you hit the maximum level, but the appeal of getting nice stuff and repeatedly fighting against other players bored me. Others loved it so much that they neglected their families or nearly starved to death. I was almost jealous they could get so into it.
Eventually, I realised that any multiplayer shenanigans were not for me. I was not particularly good, I won’t pay to get better, and I am not going to pay for an attractive virtual pair of glasses, no matter how snazzy.
You have probably guessed where I am going with this but bollocks, it needs to be said. Microtransactions that are more than aesthetic suck. If they give you any advantage toward winning, it alters the entire game. Sure, the point of gaming is to have fun, but if the choice is to grind and have a shit time or pay for an advantage, I fail to see where I am enjoying the experience.
I’m not particularly against expansions and added content or campaigns if they are simply adding to the fun. But generally speaking, anything that you pay for on top of the original price that alters gameplay is annoying. This trend tends to affect multiplayer games more, but it is spreading like an unpleasant smell.
I love single-player games, and that has been my main focus for a while now. Game series like Tomb Raider, Horizon Zero Dawn, Grand Theft Auto, The Witcher, Cyberpunk 2077, and Uncharted are my go-to style of games. I am currently playing Hogwarts Legacy and loving it. No microtransactions, good stories, and no interaction with others. Bliss.
What sparked this rant about the gaming industry, then?
It was actually a statement from CD Projekt, responding to the furore surrounding Dragon’s Dogma 2 and the latter’s decision to include microtransactions. It is also a response to similar angry flare-ups about loot boxes in games like Star Wars Battlefront 2. I also hate season passes and subscriptions.
I read the following on IGN.com:
In an interview with Stockwatch.pl (spotted by PCGamer), CD Projekt Red Chief Financial Officer Piotr Nielubowicz responded to a question about whether the studio would implement microtransactions in future projects.
“We do not see a place for microtransactions in the case of single-player games,” Nielubowicz explained (via Google Translate). “[B]ut we do not rule out that we will use this solution in the future in the case of multiplayer projects.”
From IGN
I find it utterly depressing that someone has to specify that they won’t be doing microtransactions. Everyone hates them, apart from gaming studios. Again, I don’t care if it is purely aesthetic, but if it affects gaming dynamics, then bugger off. The same goes for shite like loot boxes.
As established, I love games. But I would rather pay more for an amazing single-player game – plus expansions – than have studios try and coin it via other means. Or do something like GTA 5. It is one of my favourite games of all time, and I barely touched the multiplayer. Lots of people did though, and still do.
My final point is this
When I try out new multiplayer games, it increasingly sucks and is growing ever more confusing. What balls is a season pass? I refuse to Google it. Lootboxes? Stick them up your orifice.
As long as people craft fun single-player games with good characters, story, action, and high levels of fun, then I will remain an avid gamer. The type of games I don’t like are increasingly worse. But when gaming studies like CD Projekt Red have to make statements that they won’t be including micro-transactions, it means the temptation is already there.
Please don’t! It is not too late to fight back.
