On The Go: Mobile Gaming

Right now, I'm waiting for my chest to unlock in a game called "Clash Royale," which involves you creating a "deck" to battle opponents and protect your castles from invasion in a span of 2-4 minutes. It's a mobile game (for smart phones/devices only) that goes with the "Free to Play" platform; meaning, you can completely and totally play this game for free, but they offer in game purchases to help speed up progress.  These purchases can range from $1 to $100, depending on how fast you want to progress.

So, for the chest I'm currently waiting on, which takes a total of 3 hours to unlock by the way, I could instead spend the in game currency of gems to unlock it instantly, which starts at 18 gems.  A bundle of 80 gems is only a buck, but you'll find that you can blow through gems rapidly since chests drop after each of your wins against other players.

Now, I'm not a fan of the "Free to Play" platform based on the words used to describe it.  "Free to Play" should mean exactly that; no costs, no fees, no penalties for not spending money, etc.  I would much rather a game be forthcoming on how much it'd like for me to spend and ask outright.  I understand that this is a tactic used to gain more money over the course of time, but still, I feel that a company should either put a price tag on their game up front or relabel it as "Free to Start."

Unfortunately, there are a slew of games for Android and iOS devices that follow this format.  Some are incredibly frustrating and unwelcoming to newcomers, in my opinion, such as the big brother the Clash Royale, Clash of Clans.  If you're just starting out, you can easily find yourself getting ransacked by bigger and tougher players...the in game ranking works in such a way that a player that has made a lot of upgrades to his characters/weapons can drop down to lower levels, making his potential attackers & defenders more easy to handle.  That's just one I'm very familiar with; looking through the main page and top pics sections on either market you'll find that every other game is that way.

I'm sure that this is not a big issue for most casual gamers, which is the intended market for these games.  They're made with little more in mind that to occupy a few minutes of your time and to try and grab a couple bucks here and there.  Sadly, there are few games that cater to someone like me; I want to play games on the go and take up an hour or more (especially when I'm waiting in a line somewhere...double especially at the DMV.) There are several that fit the bill, such as Five Nights at Freddy's, Final Fantasy (pick a number,), and Shadowrun Returns, but options are, for the most part, limited.

What I would like to see is an app market on both Android and iOS that embrace gamers such as myself.  I currently own a Nintendo 3DS and play a horde of games that require more than 5 minutes of your time (Pokemon is an obsession of mine, as well as Monster Hunter, Zelda, and Super Mario Bros 3.)  These types of games are challenging, offer tons of replay-ability, and, in some cases, are very enjoyable to play with a group of friends.

I propose that the mobile gaming market take some time and learn the successes of mobile game systems such as the 3DS and PS Vita.  There's obviously a market for it, otherwise people like me wouldn't be sold on buying a $200 console to carry around in addition to the cellular device I can't function without.  To continue to grow, and to stay competitive, the mobile game market needs to cater to core gamers and offer up new and in depth experiences.  Now, I know that's dependent on the developers and not Google (Android) or Apple (iOS,) but I think they could nudge things in the right direction (maybe drop a few subtle hints at the next conference, Apple?)

I'd personally would like to see not just games that appeal to core gamers, but some hardware and accessories to go with it.  Right now, I have an off brand controller that works via Bluetooth to play mobile shooters (Shadow Gun is pretty sweet...if you have the time, I suggest you give it a try!)  but it doesn't quite feel right...it's not as comfortable as, say, a PS4 or Xbox One controller, and I can definitely tell that the device is made from cheap parts; at times, I think that I'm going to break a button from normal operation.   My dream would be for Google to make a Nexus 7 that comes with a great controller...imagine if Asus or Motorola were to handle that!  From my experience, they have the chops to make that a reality.

I would ditch my 3DS altogether if I could have a rich experience on my Android device as I do on my 3DS.  With the current treads in gaming, though, it seems that my 3DS is getting games that are similar in appeal as mobile games, which I don't want to see at all.  If anything, Nintendo should stick to its old strategy and just make solid, quality games that are exclusive to their platforms and continue to drive their sales.  If, however, Nintendo wants to get away from making mobile hardware and go straight to mobile gaming for Android and iOS, I know a guy that has a few good ideas that could set them apart from the competition!

Why DLC is Good For Gamers

In recent years, we've found ourselves piled under an ever growing pile of DLC (downloadable content) that begs for you to spend money beyond the initial $60 investment.  There are many mixed feelings on this front, but I would argue that most are upset having to spend anywhere between $20-$50 for a "season pass" or $1-$20 for vanity options...I particularly love the vanity options, FYI, because I enjoy seeing people with paid emotes in Destiny and saying, "Hey, I noticed you once had $7!"

Despite this being aggravating and an obvious grab for more of your money, I would argue that this is good for both gamers and the gaming industry at large.  Chiefly, this has kept the cost of software down for consumers in general.  Yeah, I know the math may not seem to add up, but consider the alternative, which is having to purchase a game at $100$-$120 at launch.  Currently, the DLC structure helps keep everyone happy.  

If, for example, you're up for playing the basic package that comes with Call of Duty (which includes maps, story, and zombie modes,) you'll pay the initial $60 and be done with it.  That's an appealing option to me, because normally after 2 months I'm done playing Call of Duty and am on to the next big thing.  On the other hand, if you know you're going to be investing in the game for a while, like some of my friends, then you have no issue ponying up the extra $50 to gain access to the entire experience.  I did this with Destiny right off the bat because I knew I was going to obsess over it, and, 1.5 years later, I've finally put it down.  

I think this is a very appealing option because I'm given a choice.  Based on my time working at a certain big box game store, I've heard people complain when the only option available is an expensive version of a game (this didn't happen too often, but sometimes we would run out of copies of the "standard" version of a game and had to sell the "premium" copies instead, which usually were $20 more.)  I like that I had a choice, in particular, with The Division: I wasn't confident that I would enjoy it starting off, so why would I want to invest more than I'm used to paying?  

My one, and only, complaint is the idea of paid game progression.  This is most rampant in mobile games...Clash of Clans, a favorite of mine, being a terrible offender.  I do enjoy playing it for free, but the game seemingly punishes players like myself that aren't OK with spending anywhere between $1-$100 to speed things up.  Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag also lets you pay to completely level up your character and the ship you sail.  

I'm also against indirectly paying for it as well.  For example, look back to the last 3 Call of Duty releases.  There was a "free" double XP code either inside of Doritos bags or in soda cans...so you're rewarded if you buy in to the product they're selling.  At that point, why not just have the "Double XP" weekends only, and have them sponsored by (insert company here)?

My point being, if you're wanting me to pay for it, why not give me a price upfront?  I'd gladly pay $5 to have a decent copy of Clash of Clans, or Plants vs Zombies 2.

Ultimately, giving me the option to choose how much game content I want is the best way to go because it gives a company a chance to let me see their product and for them to say, "OK, now that you've done everything that you can, here's some more things we've been working on for $XX."  Which, by the way, is something else I enjoy about DLC; most of it is being worked on post launch date, so there's a chance for the developers to make some really interesting content after the game's release.  Fallout 4 is about to drop a package that lets you custom build robots, and that's going to be nifty (I plan on making a Futurama Kill-bot...pics will be posted as soon as it happens!)

There are those that aren't for DLC, but, given that there are far worse option, I'm content with having a choice.  Yeah, I'll sometimes spend more that way than, say, spending $100 upfront.  For most casual gamers, though, I'd say that it's going to be a more cost effective way to enjoy multiple titles and get the most bang for your buck, as well as avoid massive buyers remorse when a dud of a game drops (imagine paying $100 upfront for Duke Nukem: Forever *shudders*.)  So, I say, quit your belly aching and be thankful that you are given a choice!