This week's bombshell dropped by Valve delaying Half-Life 2: Episode Two AGAIN has kicked off renewed discussion on episodic gaming. Is it working and is it a good idea to release games in this format? Eastenders would have been canned long ago if the BBC couldn't get its epidoes out on time.
It all hangs, of course, on the developer. When a major studio like Valve leaves us waiting 18 months between episodes, you'd be excused for reacting negatively to episodic gaming. But then take a look at Telltale Games with Sam & Max.
Telltale's revival of detective duo Sam & Max in episodic form has been a huge success in terms of the developer delivering new instalments on a regular basis.
While Valve's attempts to deliver episodic content could be looked on as a cautionary tale, Telltale is an example of 'when episodic gaming goes right'.
"When we started our company a few short years ago, we had a vision for creating a completely new kind of experience," Telltale CEO Dan Connor recently explained. "It's been exciting to reach this monthly episodic delivery milestone so quickly. People have been responding very positively to the idea of getting engaging, interactive stories delivered to them on a regular basis."
A tip o' the hat to Telltale then, but it remains the only real episodic gaming success story to date.
SiN Episodes, for example, the shooter for which Ritual Entertainment had grand episodic plans, came a cropper, and only ever saw episode one released. The developer's Richard 'Levelord' Gray recently revealed that the first instalment just didn't make enough profit to fully fund part two.
"The first episode did well, but not good enough to completely self-fund the second episode. It sold over 150,000 units, which is better than many shooters. It more than paid for itself, but not enough to entirely fund the next one", he told website Ritualistic.
Although Ritual has said it plans to return to SiN in the future, what's abundantly clear is that episodic content is by no means an easy thing to deliver. While the hope is there for developers, the reality can prove completely different. Like it or loath it though, episodic content's set to become more widespread as time continues.
Despite the problems it's encountered, Valve Software is sticking to its guns with Half-Life 2 episodes and, looking forward, the likes of Rockstar is embracing episodic content with Grand Theft Auto 4 on PS3 and Xbox 360. It was announced at E3 2006 that at least the Xbox 360 version of the sequel will receive exclusive episodic content post-release. Precisely what form this will take though remains to be seen.
BioWare is another developer diving into the episodic content scene.
"There have been a lot of innovations in the PC space in online games... digital distribution and episodic content (we have big plans afoot at BioWare for post-release and episodic content for upcoming cool BioWare games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Jade Empire: Special Edition and other upcoming BioWare titles, both on console and PC)," CEO Ray Muzyka told us last month.
While the idea of episodic content has been floating around for almost ten years - it's still early days for such delivery. This only makes gamers sceptical. If developers can release episodic game instalments on a regular basis like Telltale, we'll be happy and hail episodic content as the best thing since the KFC Family Mega Bucket. However, it's still to prove itself as a viable alternative to getting the full package in one go.
i think episodic content can only work for things that are already established like peoples favourite sci fi shows or an action movie franchise. this would encourage people to keep coming back to see what is added to the gaming universe such as locations and characters that they are already familiar with. it could also work with budding developers too. i can imagine a surprise hit creating a demand for the adventure to carry on. this may partly be why WOW has been such a success because the developers already had the long established world of warcraft lore with races and history and regions. they were coming to the table as outsiders and bringing many of their pre-existing fans with them.
I think getting the episodes to fans should be easier. For example if you download the first episode, you should be able to download the second one from within the game you've already bought. Steam is a good alternative, but telltale's site was awful when I used it for Bone, with me having to contact tech support twice. This has put me off Sam & Max, and instead I'm going to wait for the season box-set.
And don't get me started on HL2 Ep 2. I think I've forgotten what happened in ep1.
I support episodic content and it should be on sold on a well-made platform like Steam and the developers should do it the way telltales does it instead of valve (take too long) episodic content should be welcomed by everyone if they can get fast servers to download games from because we can see that it saved telltale who are creative developers in a industry that will soon be full of sandbox games
if you download the first episode, you should be able to download the second one from within the game you've already bought.
That wouldn't really be episodic gaming, as it would require you to download two episodes at once, and then unlock the additional content at a later date.
One of the attractive things about episodic games for a developer is the reduced development cycle, which means they can cut their losses more effectively if something bombs.
Episodic content is cheaper, faster, and makes more money for the developer. It reuses assets because they haven't had time to go out of date. The gamer seems to be paying more for per hour of gaming, and more of it goes to the dev, and with better cashflow. If you have a system like Steam, it's even cheaper to distribute, and your marketing goes further because the franchise is still in the recent memory of the gamers you are targeting. Whatever you think of it as a gamer, from the point of view of the developer, episodic content is a total win. I could care less about the game being episodic or not. If the game is really good, it'll sell. If it sucks, it won't. Look at movies - sequels, prequels all over the shop and then spin off - made for tv series or vice versa. Same is going to happen with games.
So long as we don't have to pay more, it's a good thing, we get to play the game earlier, rather than have to wait for the whole thing. Also, if you buy part of the game and you don't like it, then you don't have to pay the whole price for a whole game.
I'd say no as with the half life 2 episodes the 3rd one will be released the same time as if they had a full game. It's a good idea but Valve for one have definitely showed how not to do it.
I would rather play one whole game through and then start another than having to start and stop playing multiple games in the same time frame.
For what its worth i think steam works well and is cheap, i got hl2 ep 1 for £12 i think which isnt bad, certainly a lot less than a console game is if you take the 3 episodes into account.
This has put me off Sam & Max, and instead I'm going to wait for the season box-set.
I had problems with Bone too, but I stuck with Telltale. Now I can happily say that all problems have been sorted out (at least as far as I can tell). Give Sam & Max a whirl, you won't be disappointed. Waiting for the whole season rather takes the point away from the whole 'episodic gaming' thing don't you think?
Episodic content is nothing but a bad thing for the most important cog in the machine - the consumer.
I bought and played through Half-Life 2 in a few days and loved it. I loved it because it ran pretty well on my aging machine. Half-Life: Episode One was a different story. It took less than a day to finish and played in scratch-disk-o-vision. Episode One cost me £20 retail a few weeks after it's release...and the full game cost me £15 retail a few weeks after it's release (PC World special). I payed £5 more of a shorter, crappier gaming experience.
Developers will, naturally, try to pour as much eye candy in to their releases as possible, and if these releases come every few months it will be totally out of sync with hardware releases. Amongst gamers, these major releases, such as Half-Life 2, have been a reason to upgrade thier hardware...but only about 2% of gamers can afford to spend £3000 on the bleeding edge, "future-proof" technology.
I, myself could only afford to buy a rig that just exceeded the reccommended specs for Half-Life 2, and now I can't play the expansion packs without another investment in hardware. Given that Valve are now weaving HL's storyline in to their release strategy this is very frustrating (I know I'm not the only one who felt short-changed by HL2's ending).
The reason that Valve loves its steam platform so much is money. By releasing games through Steam they not only get developer royalties, but also the retail markup - Sure, the Steam versions may cost less than the retail versions, but Valve don't have to worry about packaging, shipping and distribution, and retail overheads.
The reason they are vanguarding episodic content also comes down to money. By reducing the download size of their releases they are expanding their potential customer base - the smaller the download; the more likely a consumer with a slower internet connection is to invest in a new valve game.
If anything is to cause the demise of PC gaming its episodic content where the PC consumer just can't keep up with gradually rising curve in minimum system specs vs. hardware purchases (which rise in steps). However, this strategy would make perfect sense for consoles, where the hardware is consistent...
It can only work if the developers release each game within a couple months of each other. Otherwise, the wait is just sometimes too long for say, 5 - 7 hours of gaming.
I would agree...I mean none of us have got anything against the developers making any money..but the thing that kept (as an example) half-life going for so many years were the mods...some good..some not so good..but the good ones were great to play multiplayer..and of course were written by a bunch of commited people who enjoyed making them. I remember emailing the Day of defeat guys to say how much fun it was playing it and getting an email back from one of the lead team members saying thanks and that it was nice to know their work was being appreciated. And at the end of it all why shouldn't they make money on something they slogged their guts out to get working? The thing that put me off with the episodic model is you buy the game..and play it..but whats to stop the makers trimming it a bit if they know 5 months down the line they can charge more for a few more hours here..and then a few more some months later..potentially spinning it on indefinately to keep the moola rolling in? Personally I will keep my money where it does me the best good (in my pocket) and will avoid that type of game in the future and concentrate more on the games I know have the content to keep me coming back (without spending more), along with the mods (for free of course)..
Episodic content is nothing but a bad thing for the most important cog in the machine - the consumer.
That's part of the problem right there: people are willing to be a consumer and just consume. Sure, they'll complain, but that'll only last until something new and shiny comes along to distract them. In a lot of ways, fleecing the consumer is exactly like sending cattle off to market and and probable slaughter.
Why judge episodic gaming from a single bad example like some of you guys have done? Was HL2: Episode One not worth it? Then you simply should not have purchased it. I mean, I can name hundreds of full games that are not worth it, does that put you all off from buying the next full game you think you will enjoy? I hope not. Just do your research, read reviews, and if you can try before you buy. Simple.
And humorguy, maybe the original Sam & Max sold more, but if it wasn't for episodic content you would simply never see the sequel. The vastly smaller sales don't mean it was a bad choice as it was their only chance of making that game a reality, it simply shows how much that genre's appeal has degraded through the years. You want them to see things like that are worth developing? Then instead of devaluing the developers' decisions about it, try to spread the word, and maybe they'll make enough cash to spend a few years developing and then publishing a full title.
As for not wanting sub-15 hour games for 40 bucks or whatever, well, please consider quality over quantity, you can't judge every game just from how many hours it takes to finish. Some of the greatest games I've ever played have also been some of the shortest, for their genre.
The difference is in the execution and the satisfaction you get from playing them. Consider the console RPGs. Most of them drag on for 20-40 plus hours but when it comes down to it you spend most of that time doing random encounters one after the other or moving around on a vast "overworld" map with nothing much interesting on it, other than said random encounters. Then eventually after some hours of the above, you'll reach an interesting bit, then repeat the cycle.
Then there was Panzer Dragoon Saga. It lasted about 10-15 hours for most people but the game flow was simply right from start to finish. The right amount of story events, boss battles, and of course its own share of random encounters (but nowhere near the amount you see in other games). The usual "overworld" exploration bits were skipped altogether. Read reviews of that game all over the internet and you will find most regard it as one of the finest titles of the 32 bit era, right up there with the most popular/known titles.
Now, given your credentials humorguy, you could describe it as a "short RPG that lasts 10 hours @ worst case and yet costs just as much as titles that last up to 40-50 hours and it even comes in 4 discs". I hope you see where I'm going with this as I'll end it here because I've already written too much, and it's sort of off topic.
As for not wanting sub-15 hour games for 40 bucks or whatever, well, please consider quality over quantity, you can't judge every game just from how many hours it takes to finish.
That's called bifurcation. There's no choice where you can have quantity or quality but not both, hence it's not necessary to consider one over the other, when you can have both. A short, expensive game is poor value for money regardless of how good it is. If a game is only a couple of hours long, then the chances of it being good enough to justify full price is pretty low.
I like the idea in theory, even if i do want a proper Half Life 3 after episode 3, but imho it just isn't working. With SiN, the studio's kinda been screwed over, so it's very possible we'll only be left with this first episode.
As for half life, they're not quick enough. That's just the truth. I know it will be good, but the wait for these episodes is getting ridiculous
That's called bifurcation. There's no choice where you can have quantity or quality but not both, hence it's not necessary to consider one over the other, when you can have both. A short, expensive game is poor value for money regardless of how good it is. If a game is only a couple of hours long, then the chances of it being good enough to justify full price is pretty low.
My point was that not every game has to be over 15 hours long or whatever one's limit may be. Obviously if a game is TOO short, then it degrades its overall quality by leaving you unsatisfied, costing more than it's worth, etc. However, that should be judged on a per game basis, looking at exactly what the specific title has to offer (there is the amount of content and replayability among other factors to make a note of), rather than expect every single game to last a pre-specified amount of hours, regardless of what it tries to offer, as humorguy's post did. Presenting a specific extreme that certainly is not wanted does not make his point any more valid.
I've always been against it in it's current guise. If you want real epsiodic gaming, just take a look at the Guild Wars series. Guild Wars is exactly what episodic gaming should be yet they don't even purport to calling it episodic gaming because there's no need.
Episodic gaming was just a w@nk word for lazyness, poor content and the attempt to cut out the shipping and retailing costs of gaming. However, due to the fact that games are huge(usually several Gb) downloading a full game isn't worth the time or effort and in most cases the reduction in cost isn't passed onto the punter
Episodic gaming would be great, IF the developers weren't trying to wring every last bit of cash out of us with cliffhangers and unsubstantial new episodes that leave you feeling ripped off.
I would buy episodic content for good games like Half life 2 if they were available for download on xbox live i dont think i could be bothered to walk down the shops to buy it on disc. Lol to much hassel.
i would rather just have full games that follow the same story/plot but are games in their right like the gta series as they all follow a similar route and interlink in small ways and the characters change and grow and you don't have to replay the old games 2 or so years later just to remember whats going on
Im personally hungry for Half-Life 3, have they even started it yet?
And since I got bored with TFC a few year back I turned to BF2 when it was launched. But BF2 has been releasing episodes. I bought the first three expansion packs, but no more. Since the release of BF2 EA/Dice have released a total of 2 (YES 2) new maps for BF2. "Wake Island 2007" and "Road to Jalalabad". 2 maps! I got so bored with BF2 after like a thousand million times playing BF2 vanilla maps I turned to the mod scene.
But EA/Dice doesn't support mods with stats and the mod scene is non existent. Great mods for BF2 sit empty, like "Allied Intent" and "Operation Peacekeeper". And others like Mod Database's Mod of the Year "Point of Existence" sit near empty.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
