Opinion: At War with the Industry
A look at disappointing practices with a bit of hope.
The last 20 years have been the golden age of quality gaming. There has been no better time not only for improved technologies, but also for how storytelling has completely changed. Video games today are arguably in tight competition, year after year, with traditional forms of media for being the most artistically creative. Not only in their look and design, but also because we use A-list actors to help create these stories. Video games have become a legitimized form of media and artistic expression. What a time to be alive. However, looking at the industry as a whole, it’s not only about content quality but also how gamers are treated.
This year has not been our year.
It has become the norm for major AAA developers and indie designers alike to flood the market with new games at least a few times a year. While we have been swimming in new content over the last several years, our community has felt a common sense of dread and dissatisfaction. We built the empire that the industry stands on today, and instead of joy, we feel left behind.
Let’s take on the biggest controversy in gaming this year. PlayStation is announcing that it will stop making physical copies of games by January of 2028. I have seen zero public comments, statements, or articles from any media outlet or individual in favor of this decision. While I haven’t purchased a physical copy of a game since the original release of Batman: Arkham Knight on PS4 in 2015, I can still understand the outrage. I get that, with new technology, everything in our lives has moved to a digital platform. Everything from video games, movies, television, and music to work documents and photographs has moved to cloud infrastructure. Today, children don’t look at photographs; they scroll through Instagram. People don’t read books; they listen to audio. Money isn’t kept in your wallet as cash; it’s transferred online. All things, I think, on the surface, have improved our quality of living, but at what cost?
The PlayStation disc controversy woke people up to a very serious question. Will we own anything? Since its online inception, PlayStation has made this very clear in its terms of service. When “purchasing” a digital version of a game, you purchase a license to play the game as opposed to owning it. Over the years, not only PlayStation but also Microsoft and Steam have made the same legal choices in their terms of service. Since it’s pretty clear that ownership is going away, it’s also become apparent that things like service subscriptions and internet connections are going to become necessary for all games, even exclusively single-player titles. Your “license” will need refreshing via an internet connection, and games accessed through PlayStation Plus or Xbox Game Pass will need internet even if they are single-player only. Steam, at least at this point, says that an internet connection should not be needed to play “most” single-player games. The question is, for how long? (Editor’s Note: Gabe, if you’re listening, start taking more vitamins.)
With ownership being taken away, we still see increased costs across the board. PC parts are being priced out because of demand for AI facilities, games cost more to produce in general, and console developers have teased that the next generation of platforms will have an over-$1,000 price tag. Have we, as gamers, forfeited our rights as consumers for the sake of ease? We at least own the PC’s and consoles that we purchased, but what good are they if everything within them cannot be touched without a corporation’s constant say-so? Beyond that, in my hunt for PC parts, I spent a lot of time investigating the cost difference between parts alone and prebuilt towers. I found the cost difference negligible, but the prebuilt PCs themselves may not actually be ownable. They are leased. Platforms such as Katapult and Acima partner with major prebuilt companies, such as CyberPowerPC, IBuyPower, and Skytech Gaming. The very idea of not only games, but also the systems we use to play them on, may not actually be owned by a consumer, is a symptom of the immediate gratification culture we have built. All these problems I have mentioned are not just exclusive but the overall market place.
Per the recommendation of one of our podcast hosts, I should close this article with a bright side. I am naturally pessimistic, but I will do my best.
Where do we go from here?
Emulators and DRM (digital rights management)-Free games have their pros with respect to the ownership issue. Emulators are free; the barrier to entry is that you need a PC or compatible handheld, and there is the time it takes to download the software and games to run them. DRM-free games are a great concept, but the reality is that next to zero AAA properties choose to sacrifice their own digital rights.
By happenstance, there was a video dropped by BULKHEAD Games on their YouTube channel the night before finishing this article. The video is about the upcoming release of their FPS called WARDOGS. BULKHEAD has a lot of hype behind this game. They are attempting to make a competitor to the large-scale FPS games like Battlefield, Armored Warfare, Hell Let Loose, etc. The concept is 100 players, divided into three teams, fighting for control of a designated zone. At the same time, there is a monetary bank account that is based on the players’ performance, which dictates the gear and tools a player can purchase at the start of each spawn. The video is titled “WARDOGS: 10 Reasons NOT to Buy.” I encourage everyone reading to watch the video for yourself, but I will summarize.
This is the first time I’ve ever seen a developer make a clickbait title and actually deliver on it. They produced ten legitimate reasons not to buy their game. The 10 reasons fall into 3 categories: the studio’s past problems, monetization, and gameplay performance.
Starting with BULKHEAD’s past, they produced Battalion 1944, a competitive WWII FPS similar to Counter-Strike. This game was a failure, to say the least, but they noted that, despite its failure within the studio, it made enough money to pay back original supporters. The gist is that BULKHEAD is aware of its past failures and has done all it can to make amends; if that is an issue for you, don’t buy WARDOGS.
Next is monetization. The game is being sold at a discount at launch. The reason is that the game is launching as an Early Access game; they know it won’t be 100% finished until their initial 1.0 launch. Depending on which phase you buy the game in, the price will differ. The early access launch will have limited content and can only be played on PC. They want a dedicated player base to be part of the quality assurance process. The game will change during this stage, but regular content additions won’t start until the official 1.0 launch, at full price. They have also made it clear there will be no performance- or cosmetic-based microtransactions, except for a “Supporters Starter Pack” available for purchase in early access for a few cosmetic exclusives. This starter pack is advertised as a way individuals can directly support the finances needed for the game’s development.
When it comes to gameplay, BULKHEAD has made one thing abundantly clear: consistent performance is their priority. A big reason for this early access phase, which is exclusively on PC, is not only to fix issues but also to get a realistic expectation of server player counts at launch. They even say they don’t expect a groundbreaking player base to be maintained during early access. They want people to be part of the development process—not influencers looking for the next content click, but players who play and stay because they like the game. PC players are also the clear priority. In reality, PCs offer better support for high frame rates and performance, which is why graphics aren’t their top concern. The game will also offer controller support for PC players and consoles alike at launch 1.0, but the developers stress that this game is made for PC. Lastly, they are making a game that has consequences. They specifically say, if you are expecting to play the game jumping around like it’s Call of Duty, you are going to have a hard time building a bank account at respawn. They have a vision for this game, and it’s a vision to make something genuinely new.
I think BULKHEAD is saying all the right things, and they are being transparent about it. They are not trying to make the most money or please every conceivable audience. They are trying to make a great game that will earn consistent and loyal fans. So unorthodox, but it’s what the gaming community has been screaming for from AAA developers. Quit with microtransactions, the remasters, and skill-based matchmaking to make certain players feel better; make a new game. For all the negativity I see in the community right now, the fix is to collectively support developers and games willing to take the risk. Does this fix the ownership crisis? No, but a game like this becoming a major success shows big companies they don’t hold all the cards, and that the power is in our hands.