Designer by day. Uncommonly invested in movies, games, and books by the night.
Subscriptions: Game developers moving toward subscriptions
This article will analyze the growing trend of game developers and publishers moving towards subscription models instead of one-time purchases. Examples: Apple Arcade, Google Stadia, Microsoft’s Game Pass (old, but now more aggressive than ever push towards subscription-only titles and removing one-time purchase options swifter than ever), Ubisoft , EA Play, PlayStation Now. Studios with a single game or franchise are also going the subscription route. Is this good? Bad? Subscriptions of the Game Pass, for example, have increased by millions in the last year. And it’s true that indie games, when they come to Game Pass, earn more than they could ever make solo. Xbox Game Pass is a unique case which will need its own section here. Instead of subscribing to a service that gives free delivery (like Amazon) or TV shows (like Netflix) – a game can be anywhere from 20 hours of fun for hardcore games or 1,000 hours of play and replays – how is it fair that you pay less than I do for the same game in this case? A headline: "GDC has released its annual State of the Industry survey of 4,000 developers, over one-fourth of which were concerned such models would devalue games." Another topic to cover is games-as-a-service (or more broadly tech-as-a-service) models being adopted by videogame publishers and developers. Even gaming hardware seems to be moving in that direction, with Nvidia providing subscription to RTX 30-series gaming capabilities instead of actually owning a video card. Starting from newspapers and magazines; then moving to TV shows, movies, and software; and now to games – subscriptions seem to be the way forward. But is it really better to have a monthly subscription to play games than to own the games and judging by the current pace of things, even renting your hardware and not owning it?
When do we call them shows and not TV shows?
Let’s face it, the "TV" bit in "TV shows" is pretty pointless. The majority of the people you find talking about TV shows are watching them on computers, laptops and even phones. Sure, Netflix likes to say that they cater to the TV audience and that most of the viewing happens on TV apps, but there is hardly anyone who has a subscription to one of the many services such as Netflix and HBO Max but watches stuff only on their TV. We can also explore what we could call these shows now.
What makes a TV show intellectual or stimulating?
From Marvel’s superhero-based TV shows to shows such as Black Mirror – we have a very differing opinion of "good". For shows that fall into the intellectual or stimulating category, what makes them tick? A few shows to compare: Black Mirror, The Wire, Sherlock, Westworld, Peaky Blinders, The Vikings vs. Stranger Things, MCU shows, sitcoms, Game of Thrones. Also, where does it leave shows like Breaking Bad, The Boys? More specifically, is it the story, acting, direction, or the intended audience?
Is it time to let Marvel go?
The Marvel Cinematic Universe is known for its action-packed superhero blockbusters. The whole genre is single-handedly carried by Disney at this point, with WB’s DC being the honorable competitor even Marvel must pity. But with Phase 4, viewers are already reminiscing how good the initial movies were. This is point every franchise or medium reaches – "the old stuff was so much better." Derive comparisons between this phenomenon and other cinema franchises (might as well expand to other media, such as music or art) – and conclude whether the Marvel’s marvelous days are over? For once, with great powers come great responsibilities. As the sole arbiter of the "superhero" genre, is Marvel’s lack in handling its responsibilities* going to spell its doom? *When I say lack in handling responsibilities I mean churning out movies solely for ticket sales even when the story could use more work (latest MCU movies and TV shows) and trying to milk as much cash as possible (launching a barrage of TV shows).
The art of recycling in creating a game franchise
We can all name more than one game franchise that’s essentially a recycling of sorts. A lot of R&D goes into improving features and adding new ones, but they still "feel" the same once gameplay begins. Why does this happen? Are such games not receiving enough hard work? Or is it just us feeling that way while the truth is different?
Why some games create such an unforgettable impression
Witcher 3 – why was it more than just a game? It was the prerequisite for the Netflix show. Pokemon games – why did they spawn a whole franchise of merchandise, TV shows, and more? In this article, I will dissect what makes a game have that sacred "emotional connect" for most of the people who play them.
The importance of indie game development and why we should fight monopoly
Indie game developers have always been there. And the tools and platforms that allow them to reach more and more gamers have only improved over time. But monopoly of the big game studios is a serious concern, which grows day after day. Why should we actively fight against that and how is it even more important than gaming as a hobby itself?
The War of Colors
Watercolor, acrylics, poster color, and oil colors. Well, there are more. I think it’ll be a fun and interesting article to simple analyze the pros and cons of color types in a humorous sense. Something like the personification of colors. Amid our serious articles, we need something light to serve our audience.
|Time Travel in Fiction
|Is Mental Illness an Over-Explored topic in Indie Games?
|Social Commentary in The Office
|Why Do Some Games Create an Unforgettable Impression?
|Who Will Be The Next Face of The Marvel Cinematic Universe?
|How Trump Won: Heroes, Villains and Surviving the Apocalypse
|Indian Food: A Multicultural Enterprise
|Superhero Villains and their Struggle with Morality