episodes

I think honest to goodness expression in business are much needed and should be welcomed. Somehow, business turned into politicians and politicians turned into businessmen. If you own a company like epic and you say you dont like episodic content, good, maybe he is saying that developers need to build complete games that entertain longer. I say episodic content will be the next step. Just sell each episode for a decent price, like 5 bucks. Maybe plan to do two years worth of new stuff. 24 episodes (levels) X 5 bucks means the consumer just spend $ 108 instead of 59.99.

meh

dude, mr. Rein seems to be a wise man, episodic content sucks. I want full games. Look at the difference of Half-Life 1 and Half-Life 2, and then look at the difference of HL2 and the new episodes (wich are supposed to replace HL3): Right, not a big step, huh?

mark rein is an idiot

24 episodes would be ridiculous. whats the 20 minutes of content?! I think HL2 has it perfect. I enjoyed HL:EP1 and I can't wait for EP2. It was long enough. I'd like to see maybe a 2-3 month wait instead of 6months though. And Mark Rein is a moron who is pissed because he didn't think of it first. ***** you Mark Rein.

#2

The new episodes for HL2 are not a replacement for HL3 (which has yet to be announced BTW). Besides, HL1 was released in November 1998, HL2 was released in November 2004 (hence a 'big step'). So tell me, are you really prepared to wait until November 2010 for HL3? ;) Games tend to get old and boring very quickly, especially after you've completed them. Episodic content is a great way to keep a great game fresh and interesting for years by offering new challenges for gamers. So I'm all for episodic content. :)

^

But it's not right when we're charged $60 for a portion of a game, and then charged $2-$10 for new content that seems like it could've been included at launch, or which is simply half-assed. Oblivion used to be the best example of this, but the new mods are awesome and well worth the price (a friend told me he played Mehrune's Razor for over 5 hours! That's a lot of time for a $2.50 mod), and also seem like they have been created after launch of the game. If they're going to release episodes which cost in excess of $13 (Ghost Recon), the original game should cost less.

episodic content sucks period

They should just release a full game. Episodic content should ONLY come if it has a huge fan base for a multiplayer game or the public is screaming for more single player missions. Otherwise it does suck to pay $60 and another 10 or 15..that fill your damn harddrive.

Mark Rein FTW

Mark Rein FTW. Down with Episodic content, it's a pile of crap.

Hmmm

"But it's not right when we're charged $60 for a portion of a game, and then charged $2-$10 for new content that seems like it could've been included at launch, or which is simply half-assed." But if that happens, then we can blame the developer, just as we can blame the developer if the game sucks, however, it still doesn't mean episodic content is wrong or bad for gamers and the games industry. Good and bad practices for episodic content will be determined by gamers like us in the end, with our cash. :)

its one thing to have an opinion

But when you go on a rant about intel being evil and your need to kick it's "ass" then you're just a drunken loser who can't keep his mouth shut around the press. Oh and also, I can think of a bunch of other companies more evil then intel (cough: dell, microsoft, electronic arts)

$60 bucks an episode?

Must be console gamers.... It's $20 an episode. Three episodes make one game. That is how Valve and Ritual are doing it and it's working so far. I see no reason why episodic content can't work. At most it just needs to be tweaked. HL2: Ep1 is said to be the best HL game yet. It is short but after the next two episodes it will be 12-18 hours and at most $60 for everything. Then there is other free content that might come with it. Also this is a big boost for MOD teams because they get new content faster. I already can't wait for Hammer to support Ep1. I would get to work on a new map ASAP! It looks like Valve will define episodic content like they have FPS gaming and digital content delivery...

Open source games are the future.

Open source games are the future. Meanwhile pampered game reps squabble over recycled content for the kiddies.

what the ***** ever

Ok that dude is right because, episodic gaming sucks ass... i don't want to pay $20.00 to play 5 extra missions for *****EN GRAW..... Games should be long and worth my $60, not 5 hours long and shotty online play. You also have to realize that this mark guy knows what he is talking about because he obviously has alot of experience in the gaming world. So end this sad sad excuse of "extending a game"!!! DOWN WITH EPISODIC GAMING!!!!

another point...

I didnt' see this point mentioned... but what if someone has decided that they don't want to hook their system up to the internet, ala live? Then they wouldn't be able to download the extra episodes, and thus are paying $60 for part of a game. Sounds like BS to me... As said before Mark Rein FTW!

#14

Any gamer can simply read reviews to determine whether or not a game with episodic content is worth buying. If they are only getting 'part of a game' due to episodic content, then I'm sure the reviews will point this out. Anyway, if the game costs $60, then there's every reason to assume it's a complete game in it's own right, with episodic content adding to the existing game, providing new challenges for gamers over time. If it's far less than $60, then it's possible the game has been split, meaning you'll need to download epidodes to complete the game. Again, game reviews will highlight this, so no-one is being cheated. Hence I think episodic content is a great developement for games.

A different strategy is needed

I agree that they way episodic content is being offered now is not very attractive. I like the way SquareEnix is thinking about this. Offer the first chapter for free or even 5 dollars and have other customers pay for lengthier content as it arrives. Customers who play for free could even be your beta testers though you don't want to piss them off too much else they wont buy anymore content. $10-20 payments for 5 more chapters would be great especially if we can get our hands on the content earlier. Option to buy all chapters for a cheaper price can become available after. Example: New episodic RPG 01/2007 Initial Game (1st 5 hour chapter with a cliffhanger of course): free 01/2007 new chapter (~20 hours): $10 04/2007 new chapter (~20 hours): $10 06/2007 new chapter (~20 hours): $10 07/2007 Bonus chapter and content ((~5-10 hours)): $5-10 07/2007 Whole game after it's been developed completely: $30 (this includes bonus content) future: Patches for bugs/balance and more bonus content continue No middle man needed, no written manual and easy distribution should drop the cost of production considerably. Not to mention you get free testers and you can fix problems on the fly. This will lower your development cost and more people get to experience your game because is freely available. Add advertisement into the mix and you have the ability to drop the price of your game considerably. That is the true future of gaming IMHO.

junk

Episodic content is pretty lame usually. He's on the money about rehashing the same thing you saw before. Usually ideas like this are cash-ins. A game needs to stand on its own and any add-ons or updates are extras.

Prof.

20 hours for 10$? most games today(FPS) aren't even that long.... I don't think 30$ a game is going to go well with devs.... I think if the episode was 20hours...I think it'd be worth 20 bucks...compared to other games that are 40,50,60 for less or just a little more.

That was an example RPG.

FPS is another story. The fact is we need to expand and know that different strategies are needed in order for episodic content to become popular. Example: New episodic FPS 01/2007 Initial Game (1st level, 30 minutes or so with limited multiplayer): free 01/2007 new chapter (5 hours of new levels that come to a conclusion): $10 04/2007 new chapter (5 hours of new levels that come to a final conclusion): $10 06/2007 new chapter (Full Multiplayer action): $10 07/2007 Bonus levels and content ((~5-10 hours)): $5-10 07/2007 Whole game after it's been developed completely: $30 (this includes bonus content) future: Patches for bugs/balance and more bonus content continue The game Prey is 5 hours long =O. A game like this would have to release 2 hours worth for 10 dollars which might not go well with the buying public. Thankfully however with this new strategy they can take their time to have more content. as for your 30 dollar a game comment, any game distributed online should cost much less than the price of retail, just look at ebooks or music. Plus as I mentioned earlier development cost would be considerably lower as you can get customers to test your product and you release fixes on the fly. Testing and fixing bugs in a game take as much or more than it does to build one. I should know I build software for large financial companies.

*****ing valve

i like this guys already. for one i hate Intel, i think they should die. and episodic games suck ass to, i am not going to spend 20 bucks for every hl2 epesode that comes out ***** that *****.

Intel ^ = AMD v

This man is right about episodic content. It is just another ploy to make us believe we are getting a good deal by paying less for a download, but we wind up paying more (possibly for less content) in the long run. However, saying Intel is "evil" and we need to "kick its ass" is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard... and I hate Intel. However, anyone who has taken a Freshman economics class, obviously not this guy, knows that product competition only supports the consumer. Everyone will see AMD processor prices drop when Conroe hits the market. So when Mark Rein says "kick (Intel's) ass" he's really saying "rape me (the consumer) in the ass."...... idiot

Intel story

Rein's words are take out of context, he was reffering to Intel integrated graphics on the mainboard, which prevents users from upgrading their computers with new graphic cards, thus making such computers unable to play modern games.

#23

Desktop motherboards with integrated graphics, sound, ethernet etc, all have options in the BIOS which allow you to disable such features in favour of add-on cards (PCI-express, PCI, AGP etc). Hence having Intel graphics on the motherboard does not stop you using a PC graphics card if you prefer. :| There are always going to be exceptions however, but such machines are a rare minority, and certainly are not the kind of machines which will interest PC gamers. So Mark is being an idiot if he believes the PC gaming business has been ruined and it's all because of Intel. Mark just likes the sound of his own voice. He like's to rant. Remember his comments about the Revolution/Wii controller? http://gamesindustry.biz/news.php?aid=12577 You can watch it here; http://uk.media.cube.ign.com/articles/661/661405/vids_1.html

.

This article really pissed me off after I read the full story elsewhere. QJ, you're failing me. I'm off to write an e-mail.

Episodic Content sucks.

You will never know when the next episode will come out. The episodes might be like PSP firmware updates, totally random and useless. They will have an excuse (with enough episodes) to charge you $200 for a game that would be maybe $60 if it was all on a disk. Those are only two arguments. Talk about a gimmick 24. It probably took some thrashing from the computer and game industry to get Intel to allow the user to disable those features. That is probably what Mark is talking about or how Intel's motherboard design policy effects dedicated graphics processing to the point that consoles almost always out perform PC's and PC gamers are being lost because of it.

#26

"It probably took some thrashing from the computer and game industry to get Intel to allow the user to disable those features." No, this has always been the standard on motherboards, and intel MBs are no different. Mark is talking about cheap PCs where the cost is kept down by providing more and more on the MB. However such PCs are NOT targetted towards gamers, but towards those who want a powerful yet cheap PC for email, internet, word processing etc. These users do not care about 3D PC games, solitaire or mine sweeper is about as adventurous as they get for gaming. Think about it, when have you ever seen gamers on forums and newgroups complaining that they cannot upgrade their gaming PCs because of Intel? When have you ever read a report in a magazine or website discussing how Intel are making things difficult for PC gamers? In fact, why hasn't anyone noticed this before. Why haven't gamers, editors, developers and others in the games industry noticed that Intel is ruining the PC gaming business? Are we ALL blind? I don't think so! Mark is making a mountain out of a mole hill, and a mole didn't even make the hill! ;) "That is probably what Mark is talking about or how Intel's motherboard design policy effects dedicated graphics processing to the point that consoles almost always out perform PC's and PC gamers are being lost because of it." Again, that's not the case. Consoles outperform PC's in certain areas upon launch because they're using new technology dedicated to games. Within a year, PC's catch up and then surpass next-gen consoles. It has always been like this, it's not the fault of Intel anymore than it is the fault of AMD. Like I said, Mark just like's to rant. :)