Do you own your favorite video games and do you have control over them? Today, developers are the ones dictating the future of those experiences, even the ones you’ve already paid for. It’s a terrifying reality that is becoming increasingly common in the gaming industry. As a gamer and consumer who spends money and time on those products, you should care.
It doesn’t matter if you buy a title in physical or digital format, if you try it through a service like Xbox Game Pass or if you download it for free thanks to the free-to-play model. There is always the possibility that it mutates over the months or from one day to the next. It is naive to think that changes are always for the better. Undoubtedly, we are facing a worrying prospect.
It is an issue that you should keep in mind every time you spend money on skins and DLC. But let’s go in parts.
The dark side of patches
At a time when many games debut with problems, the updates became a beacon of hope; a way to save disastrous releases. infamous projects like No Man’s Sky, Fallout 76 and many more have resurfaced thanks to patches that removed technical hiccups and added new content.
Most of the updates offer improvements, fix bugs and introduce changes that seek to enrich the title, but there are others that have the opposite effect and diminish the overall experience.
Although that idea is hard to believe, history has already shown that patches have the potential to make a game worse and lead to ruin. It is a problem present in the medium for many years, but it is becoming more common due to the normalization of periodic updates.
One year after its release, Ghostwire: Tokyo received via an update the Denuvo anti-piracy system, which is infamous for affecting performance on PC. This caused many fans who had already purchased it to experience technical problems. This example is just the tip of the iceberg.
Related Video: The End of Games as a Service
Surprise! Microtransactions have arrived
Of course, a title can get worse in several ways after the implementation of one or more patches, but the most annoying are those that directly affect your pocket.
Surely you remember cases like Star Wars: Battlefront II either Middle-Earth Shadow of War, where the developers removed and modified microtransactions due to backlash from players. It also happens the other way around; that is, studies that add new monetization options via patches.
It is normal for plans and goals to change, even when the game is already on the market. What I’m saying is that modifying the monetization system through updates will always be perceived as a cheap shot, especially when you also alter the core of the experience to leverage the new business model. The implementation of micropayments after the premiere seems like a malicious move to avoid the negative comments in the initial reviews by the press and fans.
One of the most controversial cases in recent years is that of Gran Turismo 7, the latest iteration of the popular PlayStation simulator. Until launch day, Polyphony Digital enabled micropayments, which meant that the press could not talk about that system in their reviews.
Players felt betrayed by the sudden inclusion of microtransactions, and the situation was made worse by the release of patches that increased the price of cars and reduced the amount of credits awarded by races. The community was outraged and Gran Turismo 7 it went on to be the lowest-rated Sony game on Metacritic.
This is a practice that has been in the industry for a long time. For example, Forza Motorsport 6 debuted in September 2015 with good reception. At that time, micropayments were conspicuous by their absence. What happened? In November, the developers added Tokens, a currency earned with real money. Following criticism from fans, the project manager defended the microtransactions, stating that they were optional.
Undoubtedly, the most serious cases are those in which the developers go back on their word and insult the trust of the fans. Here are a couple of examples.
In 2015, the developers made it clear that payday 2 it would not have microtransactions. Soon after, lead designer David Goldfarb reaffirmed that promise. What happened? In 2017, the crime-themed multiplayer game got an update and got micropayments. Something similar happened with Crash Team Racing Nitro-Fueledwhich received in-game purchases despite Activision’s promises.
There are more cases like these, but listing them all is impossible and repetitive. The important thing is to highlight how corporate decisions and bad ideas can affect games that are already on the market and the players who bought them. This is common due to patches that make it easier to implement fixes.
With this in mind, will you trust the developers at their word again?
The most infamous patch in video game history
It is time to briefly analyze one of the most controversial cases that demonstrate how developers can throw away the philosophy and structure that make their projects special.
Star Wars Galaxies was an MMORPG developed by Sony Online Entertainment and published by LucasArts. It debuted in 2003 and gained a lot of popularity among fans of the franchise and gamers in general. However, an infamous patch changed everything, and it was the beginning of the end.
Players could awaken the Force and become a Jedi, but first they had to perform special activities and meet a series of criteria. Which is it? It was impossible to tell! In this way, people began to play as other characters and took on mundane roles such as a doctor, a merchant, and more. For a section of the community, that was the charm of the MMO.
That all changed in 2005. Through an update, the developers removed the original profession system, introduced a guide that told players how to unlock Force powers, and tweaked the combat. These tweaks angered fans, and subscriptions began to drop from then on.
On December 15, 2011, Star Wars Galaxies shut down their servers. 6 months later, the president of Sony Online Entertainment acknowledged that he made “stupid decisions” regarding the update. In 2021, creative director Raph Koster and executive producer Richard Vogel called the 2005 patch “the most infamous in video game history” and claimed that marketers were the ones who pushed the idea of adding more Force elements. and the Jedi.
Experiences of the moment and money in the air
Now, you may find parallels between what happened with Star Wars Galaxies and what currently happens with many titles on the market. That’s normal, as the ever-changing nature of games as a service forces developers to release constant updates to keep the experience fresh.
An interesting case is that of Call of Duty: Warzonea free title that debuted at the beginning of 2020. During the first months on the market, it received praise from players and quickly became one of the pillars of the battle royale genre.
The problems started with the release of Black Ops Cold War. Although Battle Royale was a separate entity, Activision made the decision to change the map and introduce weapons from the new IP title. The adjustments made the community feel bad.
After the release of Call of Duty: Vanguard in 2021, the Battle Royale mutated again and became CoD: Warzone Pacific, a new version that introduced a new map and more new features. The new setting, technical problems, terrible balance of weapons, and more inconveniences caused the title to collapse and the community to abandon it.
A series of patches and bad decisions caused a popular title to lose its appeal and its community. Given this, the developers threw everything overboard and started from 0 with Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0. Even Infinity Ward and Raven Software confessed that they made a serious mistake.
Following the release of the sequel, the original Battle Royale was renamed CoD: Warzone Cauldron and it’s still available. However, on September 21, it will say goodbye and close its servers permanently. From that moment on, it will be impossible to play it… it will turn into digital dust.
Activision confirmed that it will be impossible to move the skins of CoD: Warzone Cauldron to the sequel. This means that thousands of free-to-play fans threw money away on costumes and other cosmetic items that they will never be able to get back. Are you one of them?
Now, with what face will the company sell you the expensive skin packs in its new games? What happens to the money you invested? Will you trust again, even if you know that everything you buy may be gone in a few years when the developers decide? Uncertainty is one of the most serious and prominent drawbacks of games as a service. And yes, updates are part of the problem.
An ever-changing future
Cases like these abound and show how flimsy games are today, especially those with a great emphasis on online modalities. Overwatch, Fall Guys, Rocket League and destiny 2 They were born as premium titles, but they mutated and are now free-to-play proposals. Of course, the transition from one model to another involved all sorts of design and monetization changes. For better or worse, these experiences will never be the same again.
For years, preservation has been talked about in the gaming industry. But what about those titles that are constantly changing? Now, it is impossible to play the original versions of Fortnite either Apex Legends, For example. How is it possible to protect his legacy? At the end of the day, they are proposals that live in the moment, and in a handful of months or years they will be very different.
At the end of the day, this discussion sheds light on a problem that goes beyond updates that add invasive microtransactions or slightly performance-sapping tools. It demonstrates how little control the user has over the games they buy and consume, regardless of the physical or digital format.
A patch, season transition, or monetization model change can completely alter the overall core of a game. And not to mention the server shutdown, which means that all the digital items you bought in those games disappear. As a consumer who invests money and time in these experiences, the only thing you can do is share and express your discontent in networks and forums. It is a reality that you accept from the moment you sign the terms and conditions.
At the end of the day, your favorite video games are at the mercy of developer decisions, which is a serious problem. Is uncertainty the future of gaming?
Enjoy your favorite games while you can… maybe in a couple of years they will be very different or, in the worst case, they will be gone forever.
Related video: Making your video games is a nightmare
Editorial: Gaming / Facebook / Twitter / Youtube / instagram / News / discord /Telegram / Google news
