{"id":73009,"date":"2015-03-02T07:03:30","date_gmt":"2015-03-02T05:03:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mygaming.co.za\/news\/?p=73009"},"modified":"2015-03-02T07:04:53","modified_gmt":"2015-03-02T05:04:53","slug":"this-is-whats-actually-literally-killing-gaming","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mygaming.co.za\/news\/features\/73009-this-is-whats-actually-literally-killing-gaming","title":{"rendered":"This is what’s actually literally killing gaming"},"content":{"rendered":"

Wait. I\u2019m\u2019ma let you finish, but before you rush to tell me how misleading, hyperbolic, and downright trollish the headline is, hear me out.<\/p>\n

Back in 2013 a number of online dictionaries including Oxford<\/a>, Cambridge<\/a>, and Merriam-Webster<\/a> made the informal use of the word \u201cliterally\u201d official.<\/p>\n

Literally<\/em> may be used \u201cfor emphasis\u201d, the dictionaries now say.<\/p>\n

In other words, we can literally use literally<\/em> to indicate that something is not \u2014 in fact \u2014 literal.<\/p>\n

This leaves us with precious few options for a word that unambiguously means \u201ctake the literal meaning\u201d, unless we break out such clunkers as connotation<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\u201cHe was ‘connotatively’ going to kill me\u201d just doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it?<\/p>\n

Which brings me to \u201cactually\u201d.<\/p>\n

I was going to say that I\u2019m just preempting the inevitable change to the definition of the word to include its use as short-hand for \u201cnot actually, but in my differing opinion\u201d.<\/p>\n

Sadly, it would seem I’ve already been beaten there.<\/p>\n

Quoth Oxford Dictionaries<\/a> online:<\/p>\n

Used when expressing a contradictory or unexpected opinion or correcting someone.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Which now that I think about it, actually makes sense. Actually, using actually<\/em> in this way is nothing new, just like literally<\/em>\u2019s alternative meaning isn\u2019t actually new either.<\/p>\n

Now that we’ve literally got that out of the way, let\u2019s actually start the list, shall we?<\/p>\n

Pre-order hell<\/h3>\n
\"Watch<\/a>

If your game’s Wikipedia page has a table like this in it before launch, something has gone terribly, terribly wrong<\/p><\/div>\n

There once was a time, not that long ago, when you only had to decide between getting the normal or collector’s edition of a game.<\/p>\n

Getting a collector’s edition also didn\u2019t mean you get to unlock additional game content. You\u2019d get a map, a statuette, a Steelbook case, a T-shirt, a poster, and\/or other assorted swag.<\/p>\n

The game was the game, and when you bought it you got the whole thing.<\/p>\n

This doesn’t mean that all day\u20131 downloadable content and pre-order incentives are a bad thing, but the nonsense that is being peddled as \u201cgreater customer choice\u201d nowadays is just madness.<\/p>\n

We have got to a stage where it has become necessary to build spreadsheets to figure out which version of a game to buy. Where publishers try to dangle high-budget content in front of us like some sort of pre-order carrot.<\/p>\n

Then on the other end of the spectrum there are the pre-order pants.<\/p>\n

Quite the language metaphor for the current state of video game pre-orders. Because it is exactly that. Pants.<\/p>\n

Death by a thousand microtransactions<\/h3>\n
\"Pay<\/a>

Pay Once and Play banner on iTunes<\/p><\/div>\n

When Bethesda launched horse armour DLC for Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion at the low, low price of $2.50 in April 2006, we chuckled and poked a bit of fun at what seemed like a misstep that the industry would learn from.<\/p>\n

We\u2019re not laughing anymore.<\/p>\n

Although not all microtransactions are bad, and not all games that include wait times for activity progress are bad, there are a few \u201cfree-to-play\u201d \/ \u201cfreemium\u201d \/ \u201cfree-to-start\u201d games out there that take taking the piss to the next level.<\/p>\n

Some have even forged an unholy union with the worst aspects of microtransactions and waiting games, resulting in monstrosities that would happily devour anything between $250 and $12,500<\/strong><\/a> from your wallet, or make you wait years to unlock all the content or features available.<\/p>\n

You know it\u2019s gone too far when an app store operator like Apple decides to launch a \u201cPay Once and Play<\/strong><\/a>\u201d sub-category.<\/p>\n

My recommendation? When you feel like getting feedback from a game for watching a progress bar fill up, \u201cplay\u201d ProgressQuest<\/a> and Godville<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Milking a franchise until only pus comes out<\/h3>\n
\"Guitar<\/a>

Guitar Hero<\/p><\/div>\n

A toast for the fallen! To Guitar Hero! To Rockband! May your legacy long be remembered.<\/p>\n

They stand as a dire warning against releasing sequels for the sake of it, yet publishers such as Activision (which handled Guitar Hero back in the day), EA (Rockband), and Ubisoft continue to push annual releases.<\/p>\n

Franchises such as Assassin\u2019s Creed, Call of Duty, and a variety of sports games are all on annual release cycles, with the latest batch leaving gamers complaining about bugs and sometimes a lack of any improvements warranting a sequel.<\/p>\n

How long will consumers continue to stomach the declining relative quality of annualised game franchises? Maybe this time it\u2019ll be different. Maybe this time it\u2019ll be forever. Probably not, though.<\/p>\n

Flooding the market with rubbish<\/h3>\n