Let's Talk Microtransactions.... Again

I know I've talked about this topic before... but it just keeps coming up.  Recently, there's been some discussion involving a couple of games and their microtransactions.  The games afflicted are Wolfenstein: Young Blood and Crash Team Racing Nitro Fueled. I'd like to talk about the two articles I just linked.  Let's talk about Young Blood first.

The central point of Kotaku's article is that Wolfenstein: Young Blood's microtransactions are so unobtrusive that it's not worth getting upset over and harass the developers of the game.  About the harassment, I agree.  Most times, developers have no say regarding microtransactions that get put in their game.  That's usually a publisher decision, and if the publisher says they go in, you put them in, unless you don't want a paycheck.  So, to hear developers being harassed online to the point that they have to lock down their social media accounts is frustrating. 

Yet, so is microtransaction apologism.  It may sound confusing to those who have no passive interest in them as to why people get upset about microtransactions existing in games, especially in full priced games.  "Don't like it, don't buy it."  That seems harmless enough, but microtransactions, like it or not, DO affect the way some games are designed.  In the case of Wolfenstein: Young Blood, the microtransactions do not enhance the way the game is played, as they're only there for cosmetic purposes, but other games, such as Dead Space 3 have been designed from the ground up to entice players to buy microtransactions to speed up resource collecting. We've already seen what happened with Battlefront II, how it took SO LONG to unlock any characters... because they wanted you to pay for them. When people complained about it, EA "fixed it" by lowering the cost of the currency, but doubling the time it took to collect it. 

"It's just cosmetic" is an excuse that needs to die out.  "It's just cosmetic" is an enabling phrase that dismisses the fact that what you used to be able to earn in game by just playing it is now removed from your ability to collect it unless you pay for it.  Many games, such as Street Fighter, are shipped with content ON THE DISC THAT YOU PAID FOR, but you can't access it unless you pay more money.  Games also have more content available online day one that they've purposefully withheld from you so that you've no choice but to pay for it a la carte if you really want it. 

Then there's the whole "but games cost so much more to make! If they don't put MTs in our games, they'll cost more" argument that Jim Sterling has shot down multiple times.  Seriously, go to his You Tube channel, hold a hand over your eyes and scroll down his page and blindly select a video.  You'll most likely hit on one that talks about the bloat of the AAA industry.  Games do cost a lot of money to make, yes, but executives are the ones that reap the rewards from microtransactions.  You are most likely lining the pockets of executive than you are the developers when you buy into these microtransactions.  How many CEOs do we hear get multi-million dollar bonuses, and how many stories do we hear about underpaid and overworked developers during crunch time?  There is a great financial disparity in the AAA industry, and it's not how much money it takes to make a game versus how much it earns...

Back to what I was saying with microtransactions affecting how a game's designed, just read a blurb from the Crash article I linked.

Crash Team Racing Nitro-Fueled is a racing game with a lot to do in it, including unlocking customization options for various cosmetic items like skins, items, and even characters. Since release, the game has kind of doled these coins out somewhat thriftily to players who might be looking to unlock everything or are trying to go for something in specific. It turns out there might be a reason why: Wumpa coins will soon act as a virtual currency that can be purchased with real money.

If that is actually the case, that's inexcusable.  Sure, a patient gamer will never spend a cent on microtransactions, but why should someone's grind be increased because the publisher wants to cater to impatient gamers?  If people don't have the time to play games, then honestly, the hobby is not for them.  That also isn't to say that I believe in "gamers should work for their achievements", because I don't believe that games should feel like work.  Games should be fun first and foremost.  Honestly, all games have a grind to them, but I just feel that no grind should be increased artificially just because a CEO needs a bigger yacht.

What makes the CTR situation that much more disheartening is that Nitro-Fueled released without them.  Activision waited until it sold well and then put them in with a patch.  This is straight out of EA's playbook.  "Our game won't launch with microtransactions."  *waits a month*  "Now that you all bought it, here are some microtransactions!"  To make matters EVEN worse, it's a remake of a beloved game!  Fond memories now sullied by microtransactions!  Is nothing sacred anymore?

But back to Kotaku.  They said Young Blood's microtransactions aren't worth getting upset over.  I disagree.  The very concept of microtransactions is worth being upset over.  They've wormed their way into every aspect of gaming. Some games aren't affected by them while others' entire framework is warped in order to encompass them. Classic franchises we knew and loved get resurrected as shallow and pitiful mobile versions of their former selves (I'm looking at you, Lemmings). Grinds become inflated. Content becomes locked. Games that were about skill are now about who has the deepest wallet.  Microtransactions have only become the problem they are now because of dismissive attitudes such as Kotaku's. It's time that microtransactions become a thing of the past, and it's time for everyone to get behind that.

Dr. Mario World Is Infected With Mobile Game Tripe

When I first heard that Dr. Mario World was coming to mobile phones, I was actually pretty excited for it.  I heard that it was also going to have an overworld, so I was thinking that Dr. Mario was going to travel from spot to spot battling viruses in the old Dr. Mario-style gameplay that I know and love.  But what did I get?  This:

And this:

First, the overworld.  It's nothing like I thought it was.  I thought it would have been something like an overworld from, say, Mario 3D World, where you could actually see your character traveling from place to place.  There would be bits of interaction that you'd have to do, like traveling in pipes or crossing bridges or something.  All this is is a generic road map that takes you from one stage to the next.  

The gameplay is also completely different, too.  It's recognizable only as Dr. Mario because of the pills and viruses, but gone is the Tetris-style piece falling gameplay.  Instead, it's a Match 3 style game, one of the most generic kinds of mobile games out there.  You also drag and drop your pieces and instead of falling down, they float up for some reason.  I don't know why that bugs me so much, but it does.  Hmm.. probably because your typical mobile user is used to those Bubble Pop style games. 

Gameplay is simple.  Match at least three block spaces with viruses and pills, then columns and rows will disappear.  Bricks next to cleared viruses will be destroyed opening up more of the play field.  There's also new elements they've introduced, such as shells that will bounce back and forth clearing out the row if triggered by a virus removal. Dr. Mario World has different characters that you can play as well, and each one will have a skill meter that will build up as you play and when full, you can clear out rows and columns at random depending on who you're using. So far, I've yet to actually be in a situation where I can use it, as I clear the stages well before the skill meter is full. 

It's not the gameplay that bothers me much.  I'd actually be fine with it if it were some completely different game.  It's the fact that the game I used to love has been reworked to appeal to mobile gamers that play those Match 3 style games.  That's NOT what Dr. Mario is!  Also, because it's now a Match 3 game, this means that every stage has arbitrary three star rankings, which I'm guessing there will be progress gates later on, and of course, the microtransaction power ups.  So far, I'm very early on and haven't had a need to use power ups, but just seeing the options before each stage to use them is irritating.  What's more is that most of them can only be used by spending diamonds, which I'm guessing can only be obtained with real money.  Why is it ALWAYS diamonds?!  Can we please keep that shit out of Nintendo games?

I'm not surprised that Dr. Mario World turned out the way it did.  Fire Emblem Heroes was rife with microtransactions.  Animal Crossing Pocket Camp had them, but never felt that you actually needed to buy them.  Same with Miitomo.  Super Mario Run was the only Nintendo mobile game that felt like an actual game due to the fact that it had a one-off price.  I was actually hoping that Dr. Mario World would have followed that model, but its puzzle nature unfortunately made it a perfect conduit to push more microtransactions.  There are going to be those Candy Crush gamers that can't wait to buy up a ton of power ups they don't even need just because they're there, and because of this stupid business model, they've ruined what could have been a really fun Dr. Mario game.  If only there was a pill for that kind of sickness.  

Switch Lite: Two-thirds the Cost, A Third of the Personality

Well, it finally happened.  For months, maybe even more than a year, there were rumors of a Switch "Pro" and a Switch "Mini" in the works, and although there's no official announcement for the "Pro", Nintendo has today announced the "Mini" as Switch Lite.

It's a smaller version of the Switch with a smaller screen of 5.5 inches as opposed to 6.2.  The controllers are permanently attached, feature no IR scanning or rumble, and also is unable to hook up to a TV, even if it's just via a cable and not a dock.  Since it's missing all these features, you'd expect it to be cheaper, right?  It is.  It'll be released on September 20th for an appealing 200 dollars.

There are lots of people who haven't jumped on the Switch bandwagon because of the 300 dollar price of entry.  For them, the Switch has no appeal as a console as it's considerably weaker than the Xbox One and PS4, so those people have clearly viewed Switch primarily as a handheld, and 300 dollars a bit much for a handheld.  200 dollars will definitely attract a lot of people, but at the same time, there's nothing Switch about the Switch Lite anymore.

The name Switch meant that the hybrid console could "switch" from being a console to a handheld, but that's no longer the case with the Lite.  Another one of Switch's biggest selling points was the Joy-Cons: removable controllers you could pass to people who didn't have their own Switches, and they could play with you wherever you are.  The Lite doesn't have the social aspect anymore.  The Lite won't even FEEL like the Switch, because it lacks the luxurious HD Rumble.  So what are you really getting for the 200 dollars?

Sure, you saved a hundred bucks, but in my opinion, the cost saving is not worth losing all the functions that the Switch has.  Just being able to take a game you play on the go and hooking it up the TV is worth the extra 100.  I guarantee Smash players dock their systems when they have friends over.  Considering you can't even pass off controllers to people with the Lite, I don't see anyone buying a Lite that will actually buy Smash.  It'll be perfect for indies, single-player games and RPGs, but again, everything would be better played on the larger Switch thanks to its opportunities.  Also, if you managed to scrounge up 200 bucks, you probably could wait a little longer and save up an extra 100 dollars by the time September 20th came along.  You'd be MUCH better off getting a full-featured Switch.

This is just the 2DS all over again. I mean, look at it.

Aside from it being ridiculously ugly, you can also see how the 3DS was not only stripped of its functionality, but also its personality. No longer a 3DS, the 2DS was missing not just the 3D ability, but also the very convenient clamshell design.  As an effort to make the 2DS a cheaper handheld, they also managed to compromise its portability due to it being harder to fit in a kid's pocket.  Granted, portability hasn't been compromised by the Lite's redesign, in fact improved, it still is suffering from its personality being stripped away.  It's also a rebranding issue, another line that Nintendo has to manage. 3DS. New 3DS. 2DS. New 2DS. All the XLs.  Wii. Wii U. Switch, and now Switch Lite. Let's just be honest... grandparents are going to be confused as fuck.

But saving a hundred dollars on the Switch means they could probably use that money to buy a couple more games.  So, the Switch Lite will end up selling Nintendo more games and more Nintendo Switch Online subscriptions.  From a business standpoint, it makes perfect sense.  Yet, another problem exists.  As the Lite will serve strictly has a handheld Switch, this all but cements the end of the 3DS's lifespan with no room for a successor.  The 3D function has been killed off by the 2DS line, and those were around 200 dollars.  Why on Earth would Nintendo make another handheld follow up for around that amount when the Lite already serves that?  Hell, the Switch itself served as the unofficial successor to the 3DS.  It was only a matter of time before Nintendo and its fans finally came to grips with it.  The 3DS/2DS is dead.  The Switch is it, both in the household and in the hands.

I'm not going to tell people that they shouldn't buy a Lite, but I will STRONGLY suggest that those who want a Lite save up a little more and get a full-blown Switch.  There are some games that benefit so much more being played on the TV, Smash and Mario Kart just being two off the top of my head, and people shouldn't limit themselves with possibilities just because they want to save a hundred facts.  But, if you know for certain that you'll be happy playing Switch games only on the go, with a smaller screen, with controllers that don't rumble which you can't share (by the way, did you know that rumbling controllers help you with finding Korok seeds in Zelda? Just something to think about...), then cool. Save yourself a hundred bucks... I guess.

People Are Buying Inferior Versions of Games Just to Play on the Go... And That's OK.

So apparently, the Switch version of the highly anticipated Kickstarter funded game Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night has quite a bit of problems.  Such problems include reduced fidelity, frame rate issues, and input lag.  These issues were severe enough that GameSpot gave it a 6, two points lower than the Xbox One and PS4 versions.  Yet, that didn't stop the Switch version from outselling them both, at least in the UK.  Switch owners really don't seem to care too much about their games being downgraded or broken.  They just want to play them on the go.

And why wouldn't they?  With my over two years of owning the Switch, I've wanted to play all the games on Switch.  I'd take it to work and being able to play Doom and Skyrim on my breaks was awesome.  At the same, though, I can't keep that up.  Wolfenstein II was the last game I played on the Switch that made feel sacrificing graphics for portability wasn't really worth it anymore.  More power to people who don't care as much, but the gimmick is starting to wear off for me.  Hearing of a game like Bloodstained performing so poorly on the Switch is quite disappointing.  Is it really worth it to play such a bad version of the game just so you can take it with you?

It doesn't really seem like that big of a deal, because the developers did say they were going to fix it in patches.  But that's a problematic way of handling games.  No game should ever be released broken with need of patches.  There are people, believe it or not, that still don't have access to the internet.  So, the games they buy are broken forever.  I've heard people complaining about reviewers docking the game for issues that will be fixed later, but that's also problematic.  No game should be forgiven for current issues that will be fixed later.  Games should be reviewed as is, unless they're always online games that are constantly changing. In doing so, we're promoting an attitude of acceptance that it's OK for publishers to rush their games out with the promise that "we'll fix it later."  Look at Batman: Arkham Knight.  Did that game ever get fixed?

But back to the title.  Even though I was talking about how buying an inferior version of Bloodstained was not worth it, that was just for me.  For someone else, it may be worth its weight in gold.  They may sacrifice visual fidelity and frame rates for portability, because maybe they play on the road more than they do at home.  If you're solely a Switch owner, then of course it makes sense to buy a Switch version of a multi-platform game, because well, default.  Never played the Witcher 3, but don't have time to play at home because of obligations?  Take it with you to work and play on your breaks and lunches.

I've heard the argument that sacrificing performance for portability is not worth it because games should be experienced in their best versions possible, but that is entirely a subjective opinion.  If people have more fun playing on the go, then even the Switch version of Bloodstained becomes the best version possible because it's the only one that's portable.  And there's that one meme I love that I can't seem to find, but it's the one that shows the graphical comparisons of the Xbox One, PS4 and Switch versions of The Witcher 3 during a power outage and the Switch was the clear winner!  Classic!

I know I touched on this topic before, but it's been a while.  The current debacle with the Switch version of Bloodstained just made me want to revisit.  I totally get people not wanting to buy inferior versions on the Switch, but they're also clearly forgetting what it was designed for.  It was never meant to play games in 4K at 60 FPS. It wasn't even meant to play 1080p versions of games.  It was meant to play versions of games on the go, which naturally meant they'd be weaker, that you could conveniently play on your TV when you were at home (a lot of these arguments stem from how Nintendo tried to market the Switch as a console first, handheld second. Disagree? Fight me).  People are finding value in that portability, and it just so happens that value for them is higher than playing on a 4K TV.  I shouldn't have to remind anyone that people have different values, and if you were upset at Switch games being downgraded, then why did you want a Switch for the best versions of games?  Didn't you buy a PS4 or Xbox One X for that purpose, or better yet a PC?  Well, let's just hope you never have a craving to play that game while away on business, or better yet during a power outage.