At first, this sounds like it could have some excellent benefits.  The consumer gets an early sneak peak of the game, as well as the ability to provide feedback to developers.  This also benefits the publisher by allowing them to gauge popularity and how to go about developing the title.  However, I feel there are quite a few drawbacks that people are not realizing.

First and foremost, from my understanding, money applied to the “premium demo” will not be discounted from the final release. Really? Instead, if I hope to see a game I am interested in be fully developed, I should pay $10-$15 for the pre-release in addition to the full retail cost post-release.  This borders on extortion.  The company is essentially trying to wrestle more money out of me, or I risk getting a low quality game, or nothing at all.

Secondly, there is some concern with player fatigue.  While many will obviously buy the full product, other gamers can and likely will get their fill from the demo.  This has happened to me a few times, where I found the demo entertaining, but played it so much I had my fun and did not care to purchase the full game.  If Electronic Arts is looking to sell lengthy demos, this could result in the same reaction, leaving the company with slightly less overall sales than if they had followed a normal business model.

In my opinion, you cannot judge the popularity of a game by selling a small portion of it for $10-$15. I am a gamer on a budget, and not one who carelessly spends on whatever developers are shoving at me at the time. By EA’s logic, my reluctance to purchase a $10-$15 demo means I am not interested, and they should scale the game back accordingly. In reality, it is quite the opposite.  There are titles I am extremely interested in, but I would rather wait and pay for the full game than pay extra for a demo.

There are some more points I would like to touch on, but I believe this gives a good idea of the problems associated with this system and how I feel about it.  I wonder how many amazing games will be scaled down or dropped completely, because Electronic Arts based their decisions on a terrible marketing scheme.

SEGA is the latest publisher in the anti-PC gamer club. The company is bringing Sonic: All Stars Racing to the PC, but without one major feature, online support. Instead, the company is releasing local splitscreen multiplayer only. As fans became upset and the company was questioned about this, SEGA had some very interesting comments to add.

“Truth is we did look at online support, be it GFW or some other method,” Lycett said. “When we looked into the cost vs the projected sales, the two didn’t add up. So as a result the feature wasn’t added to the game. One of the main reasons is that on PC people will steal it rather than buy it.”

So clearly, SEGA has generalized the entire PC market and dubbed us as thieves. I am not ignorant to the fact a great deal of piracy does exist, but so do a great deal of legitimate consumers if you provide a quality product. Had I actually been interested in this title, I would have no incentive to buy it now. Why buy a substandard port with features missing? While I do not condone such acts, I imagine their ignorance will lead to a higher rate of piracy for their products.

As I was writing reviews for Bad Company 2 and Bioshock 2, I realized many of my complaints can be applied to a majority of releases over the past few years. My primary complaint is the increase of titles with watered down gameplay.  The PC has always excelled in the FPS genre, and has produced some very challenging titles over the years.  One example being Counter Strike, a game which requires a great deal of speed and dexterity to be successful.  It has provided a consistent challenge over the years for players, and is one of the top competitive FPS games in the world.

However, if you compare it to recent releases in the genre, you will recognize how simplified games have become.  What used to be considered normal is now limited to “hardcore” modes if the developer even bothers providing that as an option.  The normal mode for these games has become nothing more than a friendly, recoil free, Rambo-like experience. Two games contributing to the downfall of the FPS genre is Modern Warfare 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2.  On the other hand, and oddly enough, MAG on the PS3 contains more “old school” FPS features than any recent titles on the PC.

Another worrisome trend is the continual lack of mod support for games.  This is by far one of the largest benefits of PC gaming, and the mod community has produced some great titles over the years.  Yet, with the intense push to market and sell DLC,  many developers are no longer releasing the necessary tools to modify games.  DICE, creators of Bad Company 2, have stated they will not release mod tools because they are too “complex.”  After the success of mods like Project Reality, this is surprising.  The reasoning behind this decision became obvious a few weeks later, when it was announced a store would be built into the client to purchase DLC maps, class kits, and more.  Clearly, the company does not want modders interfering with their business.  The developers of Supreme Commander 2 and the Total War series have also denied any future releases of map or modding tools, and there are a variety of recently released titles that claim tools are too complex as well.  Considering the talent of many modders, I find this unlikely.

Poor console ports are nothing new to the PC, but the amount of these ports is increasing at a rapid pace.   The most recent example is Bioshock 2.  While I had little trouble starting and playing the game, I was still forced to tweak quite a few settings to improve performance, functionality, and gameplay mechanics.  Additionally, the visual quality seems little improved, and the textures are very unimpressive.  There have been a variety of other recent games I have had to tweak a good deal due to poor or missing settings, with Borderlands being by far the worst culprit.

Additional symptoms of bad ports are the lack of multiplayer features.  Matchmaking services appear to be increasing, and access to server browsers is decreasing.  There is absolutely nothing good that can come with matchmaking, as decent results are rarely consistent.  Server browsers allow players to find games with the lowest ping, preferred custom settings, amount of players, and more.  I do not want a game trying to decide the best experience for me, as I am capable of doing this myself.

Then there is digital distribution, the supposed savior of PC gaming.  An increasing amount of developers are forcing consumers to attach their games to Steam whether they want to or not.  In turn, gamers lose all rights to the games they purchase and are required to use a very restrictive form of DRM.  Ubisoft is following suit by creating an even more restrictive service, forcing gamers to stay online at all times if they want to play anything.  It is depressing to see what these companies are doing to consumers, and I have no desire to use either of these services.

This may seem like a weird complaint, as consoles are also tied to a specific service (LIVE and PSN).  The difference lies in the fact that console gamers are not being forced to tie games to the service, and still own what they purchase.  They are able to freely trade games amongst friends or resell them.  PC gamers on the other hand deal with harsh DRM, little control over their games, and all their products tied to one account that can be disabled at any point with Steam.  As PC gaming moves more towards becoming a service, the more willing I become to leave it all together.

There are some exceptions to the above, but they are no longer the norm.  Instead, PC gaming is losing many of the characteristics that made it so unique and exceptional.  So now I am at a crossroad.  I was hoping to upgrade my three year old PC this year, but I have now put my plans on hold while I decide where to go next.  I am not abandoning the platform, but I am debating whether I should make the move to a Playstation 3 and make the PC my secondary choice.  The 360 is not an option.  I previously won one, and after a month of use, I dropped it off at a pawn shop.  I had no intention of paying extra fees to play with friends, it was very noisy, and I did not like the constant fear of system failure that is so common with the console.

To summarize my thoughts, I am simply very disappointed with the PC, recent releases, and how publishers are treating the platform. There is very little to look forward to, as many of the games coming out are either forcing Steam upon the consumer, removed community/mod support, or have been watered down with many features removed.

So, which of the two is the lesser evil, and provides the more quality overall experience? At this point in time, I feel as though it is the PS3, but we will see how this year plays out first.

It took me a few days to download it due to my low end DSL connection and having to pause it frequently, as I share my connection with others.  I was curious to try it out today, but I was taken back by the amount of DRM the game is plagued with.  Over the past few months, I have seen various articles covering SecuROM and Bioshock.  The last thing I remember reading is SecuROM was removed, and GFWL would be the only DRM for digital copies. So you can imagine my surprise when I was presented with a mysterious window asking for my product key outside of the game.

The window has no identification whatsoever, leaving me wondering who is authorizing my games.  Through some research, I discovered it is SecuROM after all, something that is not mentioned on the Steam store page.

So, as a result, I as a legitimate consumer must be authorized by three different methods of DRM.  Obviously, Steam is the first one, where I already ran into some trouble today.  It told me my account credentials had expired, and logged me out.  After a few restarts, I was able to load up Bioshock 2, where I had to enter my key and be authorized by SecuROM.  After doing some research to see that it indeed was SecuROM, I loaded the game and then GFWL wanted my cd key to authorize my game.

This is one of the most asinine ways to protect a game I can imagine.  Obviously, one of these methods is optional (Steam), but forcing consumers to go through this many hoops to play a legitimately purchased title is terrible.  It did not even solve a thing, as from what I am told, the game was already available through torrents before its official release.  I was already annoyed at having to go through two levels of activation with Dawn of War II, and now I have to deal with three.

I hope the game is worth the hassle, and I hope to write a review on it as I get time to play it.  I also hope I will be able to fully understand what is going on, having never played the first one.

Removal of Consumer Rights
In the United States, consumers have certain inalienable rights that companies are not allowed to infringe upon without risk of legal action. One of these rights is the First Sale Doctrine, which states that consumers are allowed to sell a copyrighted work in whole, so long as no additional copies are made.  This allows consumers to resell most forms of media they no longer wish to keep, without risk of companies suing them for redistributing a product.  When it comes to games, multiple courts have ruled in favor of the First Sale Doctrine over the EULA, and have allowed titles to be resold.

While I am not a big time video game trader, although I do find services like Goozex fun, I appreciate having these rights and the ability to control the products I buy.  Digital distribution completely eliminates this aspect, as they term their service a subscription service in their user agreements.  For example, Steam specifically states,

You become a subscriber of Steam (“Subscriber”) by installing the Steam client software and completing the Steam registration. Additionally, as a Subscriber you may obtain access to certain services, software and content (“Subscriptions”) available to Subscribers.

Many consumers seem wholly unaware they are not purchasing actual copies of video games, but merely access to play them.  When I try to explain this to some users, I hear the tiring argument that I do not own any software to start with, even if I purchase it retail.  This is not true, and is an argument that has been wildly twisted around.

When I purchase a video game through a retail store, I do not own the intellectual property that is on the disc, meaning I do not have the rights to copy and redistribute it.  I do, however, own the physical manifestation of it, and I am allowed to sell this product, in full, if I so please.  The simplest way to explain this is to relate it to a book.  When you purchase a book, you do not own the rights to the story, but you do own the book itself.  Video games are no different.

In regards to the licenses purchased through these services, these are all tied to a single, non-transferable account. This is where digital distributors lure consumers in.  Consumers become blinded by marketing terms (convenience) and enjoy having all their “games” tied to a single account.  They are able to manage and update their games easily, and they are able to avoid the use of actual discs.  What they fail to see is that by tying all our licenses to one account, we run the risk of losing all our games with the press of a button.

People tend to argue this will only happen if you abuse the service, or request a charge back via your credit card company.  While this is true, there have been a wealth of reports regarding accidental disabling of accounts.  I accept many of these are people leaving out key details, where in fact it is their fault, but I have also seen reports that sound legitimate by people who were once Steam supporters.  Others have lost their accounts to hackers in ways that Valve cannot even figure out.

Although the chances of this are slim, is it a risk we really want to take? Do we want to invest hundreds, if not thousands, in something that can simply be turned off with the press of a key? Why run this risk when there is a perfectly good alternative that has absolutely none of these risks?  As a consumer, I prefer to keep the rights to my games, and my risks minimal.

Publisher Are In Control
One thing I often see on various game forums are rage posts against publishers, and how we need to stand up to “The Man.”  While I do not exactly share this sentiment, it makes me wonder, why are gamers so quick to support digital distribution then?  While digital distribution is preventing us from owning copies of our games, it is also giving more power to publishers.

From various articles I have read over the years, I get the impression publishers want two things: higher prices and to eliminate the used games market.  Digital distribution solves both of these problems, so it is no wonder more publishers are taking advantage of it.  Since many digital distribution services are deemed as subscription services, as well as being account based, there is no product for consumers to resell.  Publishers also discovered they can control the retail market by implementing Steamworks into games, forcing consumers to commit to these services and forgo their rights.

Additionally, as any savvy shopper is aware, games are more expensive through these services than the retail market.  The only exception are weekend and holiday sales, many of which are also questionable.  The reason for this is publishers indirectly control the price of games.  Unlike the retail market, digital distribution works on a revenue sharing system.  Publishers demand a certain amount of money from each sale in their contracts.

As a result, services are forced to comply and price games high enough to satisfy these demands, as well as their own needs.  This has been confirmed by multiple, smaller developers who communicate with their players.  Additional information regarding prices may also be found here.

DRM
This is one of the few areas that baffle me the most regarding digital distribution, and often portray gamers as hypocrites.  For many years now, there has been an outcry against digital rights managements (drm), and rightly so.  DRM often tends to punish the legitimate user more than the pirate, who continues to play games unhindered.

Why then, are consumers so thrilled with these services? Some of these service impose the most invasive form of DRM possible at this time.  For example, let us look at the Steam service.  To play a Steam game, or one that is infused with Steamworks, the consumer must launch the Steam client. This program is used to authenticate the user every time a game is launched, and it must continue to run in the background until the game is shut down.

This may not sound terrible at first, but let us look at the previous outcries against DRM.  As Spore and Mass Effect 2 were nearing their release dates, Electronic Arts announced it would be imposing a new method of SecuROM.  This method required the game to go online every 10 days, and authenticate it was a legitimate copy not being played by anyone else but that user.  Gamers became so furious, it was enough to pressure Electronic Arts into removing this method and opting for the standard activation limit system.

Do you see where things get confusing, and make gamers look hypocritical?  Gamers fought against 10 day activation requirements. Yet, many embrace Steam with open arms, which requires authentication every time the game is launched, and the software must always be running in the background to monitor the user.  How is this better? Are we so blinded by a tidy interface, and illusions of game management, that we cannot see we just took a step backwards?

Still, people may prefer this method, and if that is their choice then more power to them.  However, I have often been denied access to my games because the server is to busy to allow me to play.  This typically happens during all major promotions or holiday sales.  Why should I not be allowed to play a game because they cannot manage their own servers?  Additionally, there have been times I do not want to update my game, but the service forces me to anyways.  A patch may make changes I do not want or cause more problems, but I have no say in the matter.  Even if I go offline before accepting the patch, the game will be unplayable.  Then again, maybe I should just be happy my game gets patched at all, unlike those in this list.

Ignorance & Inflation
In December 2008, Steam implemented regional pricing for all European consumers.  This sounds all well and good, until consumers realized the prices were greatly inflated.  This caused a wave of change in the digital distribution world, as publishers began forcing other services to do the same.  If they refused, they would not be allowed to sell the game.  Now, nearly all of these services used inflated regional pricing, making it the worst possible option for most European consumers.

Additionally, the problem is not only inflated prices, but charging consumers in the wrong currency.  For example, Norway is not a part of the European Union, but Steam insists on charging this demographic in Euros and forcing them to pay VAT on downloaded goods. It has been over a year since these changes took place, and these services have not remedied any of the problems they created with regional pricing.  In fact, they have not even taken the time to comment, and continue to ignore the pleas for help or answers.

No Live Support? Really?
Support is a difficult thing to fault these services on directly, as this is a hit or miss aspect for many consumers. Some have excellent experiences, while others wait days for any reply.  Personally, I have had terrible support from Steam, and waited days for most services to contact me.

In August of 2009, I emailed Steam support to inform them of a very serious security hole with the password recovery feature.  I wanted to let them know in case they were unaware of it, and I asked if they had plans to fix this any time soon. Instead of responding to my email, they simply reset my login information and told me to stop all communication with the phisher. They completely ignored the reason I wrote them, and then took action to reset my account without requesting proof of identification. Really Steam?

Over the holidays, I was also left wondering if I was charged for a game or not.  Steam told me I owned the game and the billing was being processed, while the website told me my payment was declined.  I could purchase the game again, but that would risk me being double charged for the same game.  I could contact support through the ticket system, but the sale will be over by the time I get a response. If only there were live phone support I could talk to for serious account and billing issues, I may be more forgiving.

Instead, all services opt for a ticket support system, leaving their consumers waiting days for any help.  Why do I want to invest in a company that cannot respond to me in a timely manner about important issues?  If it is a minor issue, it is no problem waiting a little while for a response, but if I am having actual billing issues or my account becomes hacked, I do not want to wait days to find out the result.

Summary
I guess in the end it comes down to user preference.  If you want another service to manage “purchased” games for you, and allow publishers to consistently price games over what they should be, then by all means I hope you find happiness with Steam or another service.  Personally, I chose my own rights, and not allowing a service or publisher to dictate how I choose to play my games, or what I do with them.

It never ceases to amaze me the arguments I see being made for Steam.  All too often I see people who believe they actually bought a game, when it was nothing more than access to a title they do not own.  I also see those who berate all forms of DRM, but embrace Steam as DRM-free.

I personally fear what it will mean to the future of PC gaming.  I imagine retail will still exist for many years to come, but as more publishers move to digital distribution, or adding Steamworks to their titles, we are allowing them to take our rights as consumers and control our games.  Is this what we really want? Are we ready to hand over full control to third parties and publishers?  Can we thoroughly trust in these services to have our best interests in mind at all times, or is their only concern lining their pockets?

Downloadable content has been around a few years, and is nothing new.  It is essentially the equivalent to the expansion packs of days gone by, where approximately six months to a year after release, developers would release a giant pack of content to keep a game fresh and attract newcomers.

My problem is, DLC has been sorely abused over the past few years, and I am now fearful of many game purchases.  More and more games are announcing or releasing content the same day the game comes out.  This concerns me, because I begin to wonder if this was content originally in the game, but removed so the developer could make an extra buck.  Downloadable content is also becoming invasive, as with Dragon Age: Origins, where NPCs are basically in-game billboards to purchase more content.

I cannot support any game that has downloadable content on release day or right after release.  It feels like a cheap grab for my money, and I begin to wonder how much care and thought was put into the base game.  Was their focus on a quality experience, or how much they can leave out now, and charge more for later?  One primary example of this behavior being Resident Evil 5, where much of the DLC content thus far was already on the disc.  It simply needed to be unlocked, for a fee.

Publishers have effectively scared me off from making any release day purchases from this point forward.  I am not against the idea of DLC itself, but I will not support those which abuse the concept.  After how Bioware handled Dragon Age, I am deeply concerned about the upcoming Mass Effect 2.  I will be waiting till after release to purchase this, and see if they improve their behavior first.

One game that caught my interest is Resident Evil 5.  When I briefly owned a 360 (eww!), I rented a copy of the game to play with one of my friends.  I was iffy on this title to start with, as I am not a huge fan of creepy games, nor did I want to play a shooter with a gamepad.  I gave it a try though, and found myself pleasantly surprised.  However, due to our LIVE subscriptions running out soon, we were forced to rush through and play on a lower difficulty (normal).  So when I found the PC version of Resident Evil 5 for $12, I snatched it up to give it a proper play through, and have another co-op shooter to add to the collection.

I must say, this is by far one of the better co-op shooters I have ever played.  It does have its quirks, no doubt, but many of them are minor in the grand scheme of things.

My primary appeal with this game is it actually feels like you have to work together.  Other titles tend to be basic FPS games with two people playing side by side, with little need to work together.  In Gears of War, we were simply shooting enemies together, and occasionally would split up when the game forced us too.  In Resident Evil 5, there is just a little more feel of togetherness and the need to work together to accomplish tasks.

One aspect of the game that I appreciate is the need to coordinate inventory and weapons.  You could just grab stuff and run off, but you will likely die in the long run.  Instead, it is better for players to work together and use different weapons, creating excellent synergies during enemy rushes.  For example, I primarily focused on using the shotgun for knockback and keeping the immediate area clear, while my friend focused on pistols and automatic weapons to finish them off.  Even at the highest difficulty, good teamwork will dominate enemies.

Additionally, the game itself is simply impressive.  Despite being on an aging PC that I hope to upgrade sometime this year, the game runs flawlessly at the highest settings and looks gorgeous.  The environments are very detailed, and you actually have a sense of being in a little village and not in some random map with a flat backdrop.  It is interesting to play through a world that flows together, and devs allowing gamers to see their progress and what is up next.

It may sound silly to appreciate such simple things, especially in today’s world of games, but as a long time gamer I have come to appreciate this type of stuff.  Too many games in the past have haphazardly put random maps together, and then stretched some random scenic picture to be the backdrop.

The game is not without its quirks though.  My biggest dislike for the game is quicktime events.  I prefer boss battles where I am reliant upon my own skills to survive, not simply whether I can hit a key combo fast enough.  Quicktime events became events of frustration, and I get annoyed somewhat every time they appear.  This is something that needs to stay in the world of consoles.

Additionally, the controls take some getting used to.  I am so accustomed to shooters where you can freely move any direction without hindrance, but RE5 relies on a slower movement scheme that seems more accustomed for gamepad users.  However, it does add some minor realism to the controls, and really is not terrible overall.  Once I became used to it, it feels pretty natural.  The only real frustration is trying to do quick turns, where I either move to slowly or to fast.  No matter how I move my mouse, there seems to be no middle ground.

All in all, this is an excellent cooperative shooter.  It is likely not something I would play alone and relax with, but with a buddy, it is fun and sometimes laugh out loud funny.  Mistakes are going to happen, and hilarious results will follow.

Check it out if you are in the mood for a solid cooperative experience with a friend.