Attempt 2. A bit late, but I've reworked, reworded and reanalysed pretty much everything after the first paragraph. I decided to focus entirely on the fate of LANs. The future of competitive gaming didn't really seem to fit, but I did reference Starcraft :P
As the drill goes, hope you guys enjoy it and tell me what ya'll think:
Column Starts Here:
Being the mature near-adult that I am, I have decided to approach the topic of the dying nature of LAN support and the effect it will have upon our local PC gaming community in a manner different to that of previous drafts lesser columnists. To ranting, raging and general QQ, I say “Nay!” and opt instead for a far more objective, rant free analysis of what happens to us now that the evil corporate monkeys at Activision, Infinity Ward, Bobby Kotick and all affiliated companies and bureaucracies have ruined the upright and venerable pastime of PC LANning for gamers EVERYWHERE.
Rant free that is, starting now.
Now, naturally the first issue which springs to mind for us as South African gamers is the future of big LAN events like the NAG LAN at rAge, Organised Chaos (OC) and FRAG, to name but a few. Personally, I don't really think they're under threat at all (for the moment, at least).
But Duncan! You horse of a man, you! How could you possibly be so confident in the future of our cherished and beloved LAN events when the majority of the games we see being released today don't even have LAN support!
A fine question, my dear hypothetical reader. To answer it, we need to take a look at the reasons people attend such events and why in each case they would continue to attend LANs, regardless of whether games being released have LAN support.
First and foremost, we need to realise that people do not attend LANs to play games. If their objective was to wholly and soley play multiplayer games, they would simply stay at home and play online instead. Granted, there will be some who come because they don't have access to online, but the majority of people who do so attend LANs to enjoy the social experience and general vibe that accompanies such an event, and the playing of games acts as a catalyst in this matter. It is because of this social aspect that people enjoy going to LANs so damn much, as opposed to a night of Call of Duty online.
In addition to this, people who play games at LANs have never really been, and still aren't really phased, romanced or even really vaguely interested in newer releases. Rather than schizophrenically switching to favouring a new game every month as they are released, the LAN community plays a rather select number of well-established, wildly popular, successful games which have proven themselves over time. This is why you see people playing Call of Duty 4 and DotA this year, as they did last year, the year before that and the year before that. The year before that Call of Duty 4 hadn't been released yet, and I wasn't attending LANs. People continue to enjoy these games, regardless of their (the games', that is... but people too, I suppose) age.
Given the two above points, I don't see LANs losing any attendance in the next few years, as people will continue to go because they enjoy the social aspect of LANs, and they enjoy the older, yet well-established games which do support LAN, regardless of what newer games are released without LAN.
Even if people don't care for the social aspect of LANs, and will not be able to play newer games which don't include LAN support at LANs, they still have ample reason to go. This reason, expressed in a present participle, is 'leeching'. Leeching, simply put, is the art of acquiring completely non-copyright protected, totally legal reenactments, recreations and reproductions of a wide variety of media and games, in a completely legal and morally upstanding manner, via a Local Area Network.
Now, let's take a look at StarCraft 2. It is the first game to be released devoid of LAN support that LANners and competitive gamers care about (no one gives a flying fart about modern warfare 2. And if they do then they should stop). The reason we need to take a look at it is that even though LANs are going to be able to survive just fine off older games (Dota, CoD4) with LAN support for the next few years, a day will dawn when they are truly obsolete, and without games all the nerds in attendance will realise that they aren't as socially adept as they thought they were and the LAN will fail. Or something along those lines. Point is, people will most likely have tired of DotA and CoD4 in ten years time and unless developers suddenly have a change of heart, it doesn't look like we're going to have any LAN capable games to take their place.
So wait, where does StarCraft 2 come in, again?
Well, StarCraft 2 is, as I said, the first game that casual and competitive gamers alike really care about to come out without LAN support. And, in its nearly 2 years of shelf-time, it has a lesson or two to teach us about the future of gaming online.
It has shown us that LANs may well survive, even if they don't use a Local Area Network. OC has taken the initiative to allow its gamers access to battle.net via an internet connection they (OC) supply. Starcraft 2 competitions such as MLG in America and others in South Korea still happen in a LAN format, they too simply providing an internet connection to allow their gamers access to battle.net.
We need to remember the limitations at work here, specifically in South Africa, though. While the speed and bandwidth of internet available to South Koreans may be comparable to Usain Bolt launched out of a trebuchet with rockets strapped to his ass, South Africa's internet is more reminiscent of an obese old Afrikaans boer suffering from chronic asthma and a heart murmour. Somewhat disturbing metaphors aside, the only reasons events like OC are able to offer their gamers battle.net access is because not all of the attendees are going to use it at once, and StarCraft 2 is relatively light on bandwidth, and even then the connection can be less than optimal. If it were a more bandwidth heavy game, such as an FPS, there would be no hope in hell of giving gamers the same access. Our interwebz simply aren't fast enough. Not to mention that even if they were, if there are connection and/or lag issues (like there were at MLG Dallas, a recent StarCraft 2 tournament), there really isn't that much that the organisers would be able to do, which puts the whole thing on pretty thin ice. If that sounds tedious, chancy, overcomplicated and downright stupid... it is.
Hell, perhaps this whole 'No LAN' thing is just the pubescent phase of our much loved games developers' maturing process.
Somehow, I doubt it.
The best we can do is hope that our internet continues to improve like it has in recent years, for it is only with better, faster, stronger interwebz that we will ultimately be able to continue to uphold the venerable practice of LANning.
Here's hoping...
Column Ends Here
Duncan
Out (Just once, this time)
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Sunday, June 26, 2011
A more objective, less ranty attempt at a column... (Part 1!)
Rightyo then. Sorry this wasn't as timeous as I intended, my teachers are absolute slave drivers. And I fixed my computer. So the time that didn't go to homework went to StarCraft instead :P
But! Here is Part 1 of Attempt 2, complete with less rants and more relevant analysis! This is just regarding the future of LANs; I'm going to do the rest (the future of gaming online) tomorrow. Phoreals (lol) this time. It sure as hell beats the Reading Project (cue dramatic music!)
So, what I think about it:
I managed to say more stuff that mattered, while maintaining my writing personality - I was aiming for more personality in the last one, but overcompensated horribly.
So, in terms of personality:
- Was it enjoyable/lolable/fun to read?
- Do you, as my loyal friends and readers, think I was true to my writing style?
- Did it flow nicely?
And in terms of content:
- Did I make sense?
- Do you think I did the right amount of analysis?
- Is there anywhere my analysis was inadequate/should I have elaborated more in some places?
Overall, did any problems with the last one recur in this one?
Analysis I think I might edit in:
- Dealing with developers justifications of removing LAN support/looking at LANs from a developer's point of view
- More on games. Unfortuantely I have written a TON today (Reading Project is a bitch), and I'm a tad too burnt out to think about what I should have said where
Thanks a lot kids, much <3
Column starts here:
Being the mature near-adult that I am, I have decided to approach the topic of the dying nature of LAN support in a manner different to that ofprevious drafts lesser columnists. To ranting, raving (in a negative manner, of course) and general QQ, I say “Nay!” and opt instead for a far more objective, rant free analysis of what happens now that the evil corporate monkeys at Activision, Infinity Ward, Bobby Kotick and all affiliated companies and bureaucracies have ruined the upright and venerable pastime of PC LANning for gamers EVERYWHERE. Rant free that is, starting now.
Now, naturally the first issue which springs to mind is the future of big LAN events such as the NAG LAN at rAge, Organised Chaos (OC) and FRAG; or, more accurately, whether they have a future.
No doubt, on the surface their prospects look grim, but let’s dig a little deeper and establish whether or not LAN events are really in any danger at all.
Now, on the surface a person goes to a LAN for one of two broad reasons:
1) To play games
2) To ‘leech’ completely non-copyright protected, totally legal reenactments, recreations and reproductions of a wide variety of media and games, in a completely legal and morally upstanding manner, of course
So, let’s take a closer look at reason 1. People go to LANs to play games, right? So, if developers are removing LAN support from games, LANs are going to suffer, right? No! The thing is, people (the majority, at least), don’t go to LANs to play the latest game to be released. They go to play what other people are playing, and other people play what is established. Games such as Call of Duty 4 and DotA (to name what are probably the top 2) are still played the by the majority of people, regardless of newer releases. The only reason Counter-Strike isn’t on that list is because Call of Duty 4 usurped it. Point is, these are games that were released four or more years ago which people have been playing up until now, are enjoying and will continue both playing and enjoying for the foreseeable future. On those grounds, I would say that it is unlikely that we are going to see a drop in LAN attendance because of the disappearance of LAN support (if that still sounds contradictory, give the paragraph one more read).
Before I say anything else, try saying Reason 2 three times fast! The 'to 'leech' completely non-copyright protected' bit, not the words 'Reason 2'. Anyway, it doesn’t require much elaboration at all. Naturally, whether or not a game supports LAN play has no bearing on how much completely legal software one can or will ‘leech’.
Even if either of those were true, however, I believe LANs would continue to be blessed with enough attendance to prosper. Why? LANs aren’t events where you exclusively game or exclusively leech – in fact, those two are the sole focus for but a few attendees. Most people go to LANs (especially monthly LANs, such as OC, which build up communities) to gather with their fellow nerds and socialise in a significantly more awesome setting than normal. Sure, games are fun on their own, and getting free (though completely legal) stuff is nice, but how fun would LANs really be if you weren’t able to rant about about how developers hate PC gamers to people who actually listen, or teabag your buddy in an old-school game of Counter-Strike 1.6?
Conclusion? LANs, regardless of what developers do to the games they are releasing, are under no real threat.
Tell me what ya'll think. Based on your criticisms and my recovery, I shall hopefully have an edited version (and, with any luck, Part 2 as well) done by tomorrow evening!
Once again, thanks a lot for the help with the last one - I appreciate the honesty, sincerity, and bro solidarity. <3.
Duncan
Out
Out
But! Here is Part 1 of Attempt 2, complete with less rants and more relevant analysis! This is just regarding the future of LANs; I'm going to do the rest (the future of gaming online) tomorrow. Phoreals (lol) this time. It sure as hell beats the Reading Project (cue dramatic music!)
So, what I think about it:
I managed to say more stuff that mattered, while maintaining my writing personality - I was aiming for more personality in the last one, but overcompensated horribly.
So, in terms of personality:
- Was it enjoyable/lolable/fun to read?
- Do you, as my loyal friends and readers, think I was true to my writing style?
- Did it flow nicely?
And in terms of content:
- Did I make sense?
- Do you think I did the right amount of analysis?
- Is there anywhere my analysis was inadequate/should I have elaborated more in some places?
Overall, did any problems with the last one recur in this one?
Analysis I think I might edit in:
- Dealing with developers justifications of removing LAN support/looking at LANs from a developer's point of view
- More on games. Unfortuantely I have written a TON today (Reading Project is a bitch), and I'm a tad too burnt out to think about what I should have said where
Thanks a lot kids, much <3
Column starts here:
Being the mature near-adult that I am, I have decided to approach the topic of the dying nature of LAN support in a manner different to that of
Now, naturally the first issue which springs to mind is the future of big LAN events such as the NAG LAN at rAge, Organised Chaos (OC) and FRAG; or, more accurately, whether they have a future.
No doubt, on the surface their prospects look grim, but let’s dig a little deeper and establish whether or not LAN events are really in any danger at all.
Now, on the surface a person goes to a LAN for one of two broad reasons:
1) To play games
2) To ‘leech’ completely non-copyright protected, totally legal reenactments, recreations and reproductions of a wide variety of media and games, in a completely legal and morally upstanding manner, of course
So, let’s take a closer look at reason 1. People go to LANs to play games, right? So, if developers are removing LAN support from games, LANs are going to suffer, right? No! The thing is, people (the majority, at least), don’t go to LANs to play the latest game to be released. They go to play what other people are playing, and other people play what is established. Games such as Call of Duty 4 and DotA (to name what are probably the top 2) are still played the by the majority of people, regardless of newer releases. The only reason Counter-Strike isn’t on that list is because Call of Duty 4 usurped it. Point is, these are games that were released four or more years ago which people have been playing up until now, are enjoying and will continue both playing and enjoying for the foreseeable future. On those grounds, I would say that it is unlikely that we are going to see a drop in LAN attendance because of the disappearance of LAN support (if that still sounds contradictory, give the paragraph one more read).
Before I say anything else, try saying Reason 2 three times fast! The 'to 'leech' completely non-copyright protected' bit, not the words 'Reason 2'. Anyway, it doesn’t require much elaboration at all. Naturally, whether or not a game supports LAN play has no bearing on how much completely legal software one can or will ‘leech’.
Even if either of those were true, however, I believe LANs would continue to be blessed with enough attendance to prosper. Why? LANs aren’t events where you exclusively game or exclusively leech – in fact, those two are the sole focus for but a few attendees. Most people go to LANs (especially monthly LANs, such as OC, which build up communities) to gather with their fellow nerds and socialise in a significantly more awesome setting than normal. Sure, games are fun on their own, and getting free (though completely legal) stuff is nice, but how fun would LANs really be if you weren’t able to rant about about how developers hate PC gamers to people who actually listen, or teabag your buddy in an old-school game of Counter-Strike 1.6?
Conclusion? LANs, regardless of what developers do to the games they are releasing, are under no real threat.
Tell me what ya'll think. Based on your criticisms and my recovery, I shall hopefully have an edited version (and, with any luck, Part 2 as well) done by tomorrow evening!
Once again, thanks a lot for the help with the last one - I appreciate the honesty, sincerity, and bro solidarity. <3.
Duncan
Out
Out
Monday, June 20, 2011
Transformation, Internation (?) and Blognotdeadification! Or something...
With exams out of the way, and the dreaded reading project a distant worry, I post once again... with news! Truly epic news! I've managed to grab meself an internship at egamer.co.za, so I'm hopefully going to be writing for them in the near future, as a columnist to start off with but branching into some other pieces as well. The problem is, I'm still trying to get a piece good enough that I can publish it comfortably without alienating an entire potential audience because of a shoddy piece of nonsense that I did in the 20 minute break I allowed myself during my Physics studying. Nay, dear reader, nay! My first published must be a true reflection of my writing personality, ability and whatever dregs of talent I may possess. But more on that a tad later.
Just as a heads-up, this blog is going to be transforming somewhat. I'm still going to be posting the commentary type pieces I have been, but with other posts thrown in as well, related more to my tabletop gaming career - D&D and Warhammer 40k, specifically. They will only stay if you guys enjoy them, of course, so please do tell me what you think ^^ Though those posts will only come later in the week/on the weekend, when my homework schedule and the reading project permit.
For now, I require your aid! I've completed the first part of what I hope to be my first published column (yes, I did rant about cod6, it puts me in the right mood for writing :P).
So, here it is. Tell me you think, where I can improve, what I did right/wrong/etcetera. Much <3 TL;DR: Read this...
“A newer, brighter future – over the internet”
Or at least, that seems to be the freshest batch of nonsense that every games developer and their freaking cat are trying to sell us now.
It seems as if just the other day I was ranting about how Infinity Ward, Activision and anyone else even vaguely related to what I staunchly refer to as the disaster which was modern warfare 2 (may its name be forever cursed), had completely screwed over their most loyal market by removing dedicated servers and LAN support from their (then) latest addition to the Call of Duty series. Don’t get me wrong, from what I hear and from the little I’ve played it seems to be a good enough game, but I firmly believe that it was the first rung in an all too short ladder which has led PC gaming into the dark, decrepit cesspool we, as gamers deprived of their LAN support, are now forced to inhabit.
Before modern warfare 2 (may its name be forever cursed), other games developers would not have had nearly as much confidence as they did in bringing out games which didn’t feature LAN support... This changed, however, when modern warfare 2 (may its name be forever cursed) was released and it become the single greatest profit generating piece of entertainment media on the planet, without any hint of LAN support or dedicated servers (but mainly LAN support, the dedicated servers bit is more for personal QQ). Other games developers got the idea that consumers were okay with buying a game that didn’t feature LAN support (or dedicated servers, for that matter), and so no longer saw LAN support as necessary. The result is that in the space of what has been around two years, we have been taken from the metaphorical tropical beaches of a world where games developers had the decency to have LAN support as a feature of their games, and plunged into the aforementioned cesspool, tragically deprived of LAN support as it is.
What really irks me about what I view to be the turning point in this whole issue – the success of the game-that-shall-not-be-named (let its name continue to be forever cursed) is not even legitimately its own. What I mean by that is this: people did not randomly wake up in the morning and decide to make modern warfare 2 (may its name be forever cursed) the best selling game of all time… of all time! People went out and bought (well, pre-ordered and bought, but you know what I mean) the game because they wanted more of what they got from Call of Duty 4 (may its name be forever praised!). And fair enough at that, as CoD4 was (and still is) one of the greatest games of all time… of all time!
So, before I digress from my intended topic too heavily, let me give you a quick rundown of what’s been said so far: Obscure Fallout3 reference, rant, rant, QQ, QQ, modern warfare 2 (may its name be forever cursed) sucks because it piggybacked off the success of CoD4 to drag PC gaming into a cesspool of yet more QQ and lack of LAN support, Kanye West meme reference, CoD4 > all.
That is where it ends for now, I'll try and finish it tomorrow - no extra-murals for me! :D So, what der ya'll think?
Duncan
Out
Just as a heads-up, this blog is going to be transforming somewhat. I'm still going to be posting the commentary type pieces I have been, but with other posts thrown in as well, related more to my tabletop gaming career - D&D and Warhammer 40k, specifically. They will only stay if you guys enjoy them, of course, so please do tell me what you think ^^ Though those posts will only come later in the week/on the weekend, when my homework schedule and the reading project permit.
For now, I require your aid! I've completed the first part of what I hope to be my first published column (yes, I did rant about cod6, it puts me in the right mood for writing :P).
So, here it is. Tell me you think, where I can improve, what I did right/wrong/etcetera. Much <3 TL;DR: Read this...
“A newer, brighter future – over the internet”
Or at least, that seems to be the freshest batch of nonsense that every games developer and their freaking cat are trying to sell us now.
It seems as if just the other day I was ranting about how Infinity Ward, Activision and anyone else even vaguely related to what I staunchly refer to as the disaster which was modern warfare 2 (may its name be forever cursed), had completely screwed over their most loyal market by removing dedicated servers and LAN support from their (then) latest addition to the Call of Duty series. Don’t get me wrong, from what I hear and from the little I’ve played it seems to be a good enough game, but I firmly believe that it was the first rung in an all too short ladder which has led PC gaming into the dark, decrepit cesspool we, as gamers deprived of their LAN support, are now forced to inhabit.
Before modern warfare 2 (may its name be forever cursed), other games developers would not have had nearly as much confidence as they did in bringing out games which didn’t feature LAN support... This changed, however, when modern warfare 2 (may its name be forever cursed) was released and it become the single greatest profit generating piece of entertainment media on the planet, without any hint of LAN support or dedicated servers (but mainly LAN support, the dedicated servers bit is more for personal QQ). Other games developers got the idea that consumers were okay with buying a game that didn’t feature LAN support (or dedicated servers, for that matter), and so no longer saw LAN support as necessary. The result is that in the space of what has been around two years, we have been taken from the metaphorical tropical beaches of a world where games developers had the decency to have LAN support as a feature of their games, and plunged into the aforementioned cesspool, tragically deprived of LAN support as it is.
What really irks me about what I view to be the turning point in this whole issue – the success of the game-that-shall-not-be-named (let its name continue to be forever cursed) is not even legitimately its own. What I mean by that is this: people did not randomly wake up in the morning and decide to make modern warfare 2 (may its name be forever cursed) the best selling game of all time… of all time! People went out and bought (well, pre-ordered and bought, but you know what I mean) the game because they wanted more of what they got from Call of Duty 4 (may its name be forever praised!). And fair enough at that, as CoD4 was (and still is) one of the greatest games of all time… of all time!
So, before I digress from my intended topic too heavily, let me give you a quick rundown of what’s been said so far: Obscure Fallout3 reference, rant, rant, QQ, QQ, modern warfare 2 (may its name be forever cursed) sucks because it piggybacked off the success of CoD4 to drag PC gaming into a cesspool of yet more QQ and lack of LAN support, Kanye West meme reference, CoD4 > all.
That is where it ends for now, I'll try and finish it tomorrow - no extra-murals for me! :D So, what der ya'll think?
Duncan
Out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)