Jump to content
Uncrowned Gaming is Coming to an End - We Thank Everyone for Your Support! ×

Uncrowned Guard

Empire Staff
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,136

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    60

 Content Type 

Blog Entries posted by Uncrowned Guard

  1. Uncrowned Guard
    Attention, vault dwellers and Wasteland warriors! It’s time to gear up with a gadget that not only complements your gaming setup but also plunges you deeper into the lore of one of the most epic game worlds ever created. Today, I’m spotlighting an accessory that’s more than just a tool for dominating the post-apocalyptic landscape. Introducing the new Xbox Wireless Controller – Fallout Edition, crafted exclusively at the Xbox Design Lab. This isn’t just any controller; it’s your ticket to making your gaming S.P.E.C.I.A.L.
    A Tribute to Vault Boy and His S.P.E.C.I.A.L. Traits
    Straight out of the vault and into your hands, this controller is a masterpiece dedicated to the legendary Vault Boy. Adorned with a unique collage featuring the iconic perk icons from across the Fallout universe, it’s a piece of art. The meticulously designed white and grey background perfectly showcases Vault Boy’s perks, allowing you to immerse yourself in the Fallout experience before even turning on your console.
    Customize Your Path in the Wasteland
    What sets this controller apart is the unprecedented level of personalization offered through the Xbox Design Lab. You’re not just getting a Fallout-themed controller; you’re crafting your own piece of the Wasteland. Choose from a curated selection of button styles that embody the essence of Fallout, from the classic blue and yellow of the vault suits to the silver and grey of the Brotherhood of Steel. And with options for metallic triggers, D-pads, and rubberized grips, your controller will be as unique as your journey through the wasteland.
    Features That Matter in the Wasteland
    Survival in the post-apocalyptic world demands endurance, and this controller delivers with over 40 hours of battery life. Its versatility is unmatched, offering both Bluetooth and Xbox Wireless connectivity, making it the perfect companion whether you’re exploring Appalachia in Fallout 76 or managing your vault in Fallout Shelter on mobile devices. Plus, with a 3.5mm jack and the Xbox share button, you’re always ready to connect with fellow survivors and share your tales from the wasteland.

    Grab Your Gear and Prepare for Adventure
    The Xbox Wireless Controller – Fallout Edition isn’t just a piece of equipment; it’s a statement. It’s a testament to your dedication to the Fallout universe and your commitment to surviving and thriving in its challenging world. With its deep customization options and immersive design, this controller is a must-have for any serious gamer looking to enhance their Fallout experience.
    So, why wait? It’s time to make your gaming setup as S.P.E.C.I.A.L. as the adventures that await you. Head over to the Xbox Design Lab and secure your piece of the Fallout world today. And remember, in the Wasteland, it’s not just about surviving; it’s about thriving with the right gear by your side.
    Grab yours now and let the gaming begin
  2. Uncrowned Guard
    In recent years, the gaming industry has seen a recurrent pattern with major game releases: immense hype leading to blockbuster launches, followed by a wave of disappointment as these highly anticipated games fall short of expectations. This trend, marked by games feeling unfinished or lacking key features that defined their series, raises critical questions. Is this simply a case of subpar game development, or is there a more calculated strategy at play?
    The Hype and the Letdown: A Tale of Unfulfilled Expectations
    In the gaming world, the build-up to a major game release is often an exhilarating time for fans. This excitement, however, is increasingly being met with disappointment, marking a concerning trend in the industry's approach to blockbuster titles.
    Building the Hype
    The journey begins with a meticulously crafted hype, often years in the making. Game studios release cinematic trailers that promise revolutionary gameplay, breathtaking graphics, and immersive storylines. Social media buzz, influencer endorsements, and high-profile gaming events further amplify the anticipation. Special editions and pre-order bonuses are dangled before eager gamers, many of whom commit their money months in advance, banking on the promise of an epic gaming experience.
    Finally, the much-awaited launch day arrives. There's a flurry of activity as millions rush to download or pick up their copy. Gaming forums and social media are abuzz with initial reactions and reviews. The hype reaches its peak, with the game seemingly on the cusp of delivering everything it promised and more.
    The Inevitable Letdown
    However, it doesn't take long for the cracks to appear. As players dive deeper, issues start surfacing - bugs that disrupt gameplay, features that feel underdeveloped, and content that seems conspicuously absent. The revolutionary gameplay turns out to be rehashed mechanics, and the immersive storyline feels disjointed. Worse still, sometimes the game is plagued with performance issues, turning those breathtaking graphics into a stuttering mess on even the most advanced gaming rigs.
    The discrepancy between the marketed fantasy and the delivered reality hits hard. Fans feel deceived, having been sold on a vision that the game fails to deliver. The excitement turns to frustration, with community forums and social media platforms becoming hotbeds of criticism and disappointment. 
    The Impact on Trust
    This pattern of hyping a game to astronomical heights only to deliver a product that feels unfinished chips away at the trust between game developers and their audience. Each such instance contributes to a growing skepticism among gamers, who become wary of marketing promises for future titles. The initial excitement of a game announcement is tempered by the memory of past letdowns, breeding a culture of cynicism and lowered expectations in a community once driven by enthusiasm and passion.
    The cycle of overhyping and underdelivering is a troubling trend in the gaming industry. It reflects a disconnect between marketing narratives and development realities, leaving gamers disillusioned. As we delve deeper into this phenomenon, it's crucial to consider whether this is merely a series of miscalculations or a more deliberate strategy of managing fan expectations and development costs, as explored in the ensuing sections of this blog.
    A Possible Strategic Play: Calculated Efficiency in Game Development
    As we grapple with the recurring cycle of hype and disappointment in major game releases, a question emerges: Is this pattern merely a series of mishaps in game development, or is there a more deliberate, strategic play at work? This section delves into the possibility that what we witness may not just be accidental under-delivery but could be part of a calculated approach to game production and release.
    The gaming industry, particularly at the blockbuster level, involves substantial financial investments. One theory posits that by releasing a game that's 'good enough' rather than fully polished, companies can significantly cut down on initial development costs. This approach relies on capturing the market through intense hype, ensuring a strong initial sales period despite the game's unfinished state.
    Post-Launch Development Strategy
    Following the release, a smaller, possibly less costly development team is tasked with 'fixing' the game. This phase involves rolling out updates, patches, and additional content over time. Not only does this extend the game's relevance and lifespan, but it also gradually shapes the game into what was initially promised, or at least closer to it. This approach could be seen as a shift from the traditional large-scale development team working pre-launch to a more sustained, incremental post-launch development process.
    A critical aspect of this strategy is how it plays into the narrative of continuous improvement and engagement. As the game evolves and issues are addressed, players' perceptions begin to shift. The narrative often turns from disappointment to one of redemption and commitment, where the development team is seen as dedicated to improving the game. This shift can be particularly potent in rekindling the affection of the fanbase, with players often becoming more invested in the game as they witness its growth and evolution.
    Manipulating Fan Expectations
    This strategic approach might also be seen as manipulating fan expectations. By setting a precedent that games will eventually reach their promised potential, companies may be subtly conditioning the fanbase to tolerate and even expect underwhelming releases. This tactic ensures a steady flow of revenue and maintains player engagement, albeit through a cycle that initially frustrates and gradually appeases the player base.
    From an economic standpoint, this strategy could make sense for companies looking to balance financial risk with the need to stay competitive in a market that demands regular blockbuster releases. However, it raises ethical questions about consumer trust and the integrity of marketing in the gaming industry. Are fans being taken on a journey of genuine improvement, or are they being strung along by a cycle that capitalizes on their loyalty and hope?
    The possibility that the cycle of overhyping and underdelivering is a strategic play rather than just poor game development raises significant questions about industry practices. It's a tactic that may make economic sense but comes with the cost of eroding player trust and satisfaction. As we explore this theory, it's crucial to consider its long-term implications on the relationship between game developers and their community, and whether this approach is sustainable in an industry driven as much by passion as it is by profit.
    The Long Game: Sustained Engagement Through Incremental Development
    In examining the potential strategic play behind the cycle of hyping and underdelivering in game releases, it's important to consider the concept of the 'long game' that developers might be playing. This approach, while initially frustrating for gamers, could be part of a calculated effort to extend the life cycle and relevance of a game well beyond its launch.
    Traditionally, a game's launch was the climax of its development journey, with post-launch activities focusing mainly on bug fixes and minor updates. However, under the new paradigm possibly being adopted by some developers, the launch is merely the beginning. By releasing a game that is not fully polished and then incrementally delivering updates, expansions, and improvements, developers keep the players engaged over a longer period. This strategy keeps the game in the public eye and conversation, potentially turning a one-time purchase into an ongoing engagement.
    Narrative of Improvement and Recovery
    A key component of this strategy is the narrative that develops around the game post-launch. As developers release patches and new content, they create a story of improvement and recovery. This narrative can be compelling, as players who have experienced the initial disappointment may feel a sense of gratification and loyalty as they see their feedback being addressed. It's a redemption arc not just for the game but for the developers as well, who can be perceived as committed and responsive to their community.
    This long-term engagement strategy can lead to the cultivation of a deeply devoted fanbase. Players who stick with the game through its growing pains often develop a stronger emotional attachment to it. They feel like part of the game's journey and evolution, transforming from mere consumers to active participants in the game's development narrative. 
    Economic Viability and Consumer Fatigue
    While this approach can be economically viable, spreading the development cost over time and maintaining steady revenue through ongoing engagement, it poses the risk of consumer fatigue. The initial excitement of a game's release can be dampened if players feel that they are consistently receiving products that are not meeting their expectations at launch. This strategy can lead to a cynical view of game releases, where players may hold off on purchasing new games at launch, anticipating the need for future fixes and updates.
    The challenge for developers is to balance the need for immediate gratification that players expect at a game's release with the long-term commitment to a game's evolution. Striking this balance is crucial to maintaining player trust and enthusiasm. While the 'long game' approach can keep a game relevant for a more extended period, it requires a careful, player-centric approach to ensure that it does not backfire and alienate the very audience it seeks to engage.
    This strategy in game development presents both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, it offers a way to extend a game's life cycle and deepen player engagement; on the other, it risks undermining player trust and satisfaction at launch. Understanding and navigating this balance is crucial for developers who wish to employ this strategy effectively, ensuring that it serves both the economic interests of the developers and the experiential expectations of the players.
    Manipulating Fan Loyalty: A Calculated Risk in Game Development
    In the broader context of the gaming industry's current release cycle, a critical aspect emerges: the potential manipulation of fan loyalty. This tactic, though seemingly counterintuitive, might be a calculated risk undertaken by developers and publishers. It operates on the premise that fans, despite initial disappointments, will remain loyal to their beloved franchises. However, this strategy walks a fine line between maintaining a devoted fanbase and exploiting their loyalty.
    Exploiting Nostalgia and Commitment
    Many major game releases leverage deep-rooted nostalgia and emotional commitment from their fanbases. These feelings are often tied to long-standing franchises with rich histories. By capitalizing on this emotional connection, developers might feel confident in their ability to retain their player base, even if the initial release falls short. The hope is that fans, driven by their attachment to the franchise, will endure through subpar releases, awaiting the fulfillment of their expectations in future updates.
    The Cycle of Forgiveness and Redemption
    This approach can create a cycle where fans are repeatedly disappointed but are also quick to forgive when developers make amends through post-launch improvements. It's a delicate cycle of letdown and redemption, where the eventual improvements to the game are seen as developers 'listening to the community', thus reinforcing the fans' loyalty. However, this cycle can also be perceived as manipulative, leading fans to question the sincerity of the developers' commitment to quality.
    Relying on fan loyalty in this manner is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it speaks to the strong relationships developers have built with their audience. On the other, it risks alienating fans who may feel taken for granted. The gaming community is becoming increasingly aware of these tactics, and there's a growing sentiment of skepticism and wariness regarding new releases, particularly from established franchises.
    Potential Long-Term Repercussions
    The long-term repercussions of this strategy are significant. While it may ensure short-term engagement and sustained revenue, it could erode trust and goodwill in the long run. Fans might start approaching new releases with caution, dampening the initial excitement that traditionally accompanies game launches. Moreover, it could lead to a scenario where the most loyal fans, feeling the most exploited, may turn away from the franchise altogether.
    While manipulating fan loyalty through a cycle of hype, disappointment, and gradual redemption might seem like an ingenious strategy in the short term, it's fraught with risks. The gaming industry needs to recognize the value of its most loyal fans by delivering products that respect their commitment and meet their expectations right from the start. As we explore this complex landscape, it's clear that the path to sustained success involves not just clever marketing and strategic development but also a deep respect for the players who make these games a part of their lives.
    Conclusion: Reevaluating the Game Development and Release Paradigm
    The intricate dance between game developers, their marketing strategies, and the loyal fanbases that support them has reached a critical juncture. As we've explored, the current trend in the gaming industry of hyping up major releases only to deliver products that feel unfinished and lack the essence of their franchises, suggests a complex interplay of strategic planning and potential manipulation of fan loyalty. This cycle, while economically rational in the short term, raises profound questions about the long-term relationship between game creators and their communities.
    At the heart of this issue is the risk of eroding the trust and goodwill that fans have toward their beloved gaming franchises. Each cycle of exaggerated hype followed by underwhelming delivery chips away at the credibility of the developers and publishers. While the strategy of releasing an unfinished product and improving it over time might seem ingenious from a cost-cutting and engagement standpoint, it overlooks the core principle of respecting the consumer. The gaming community, increasingly savvy about these tactics, may begin to view new releases with skepticism, potentially dampening the initial enthusiasm that game launches once inspired.
    The need for authenticity and a commitment to quality has never been more critical. Gamers are not just consumers; they are passionate enthusiasts who invest time, emotion, and resources into these virtual worlds. They deserve to have their expectations met with products that reflect the developers’ best efforts from the outset. This doesn't negate the necessity for post-launch updates and improvements – an inevitable part of the modern gaming landscape – but these should build upon a solid foundation, not attempt to compensate for a lackluster beginning.
    The gaming industry, like any other, faces economic pressures and realities. However, balancing these realities with creative integrity and respect for the player base is essential. The allure of cutting development costs and extending the lifecycle of a game through incremental improvements is understandable, but not at the expense of delivering an unfinished product. The industry needs to find a sustainable model that allows for financial viability without compromising on the quality and completeness of the gaming experience at launch.
    As we navigate this evolving landscape, the role of the gaming community remains crucial. Gamers must continue to hold developers accountable, demanding transparency and quality. Constructive feedback, critical discussions, and supporting developers who consistently deliver high-quality games will shape the industry's future. The power of the community in shaping gaming narratives and standards cannot be underestimated.
    In conclusion, while the current trend in game development and release strategies may seem like a clever manipulation of fan loyalty and expectations, it stands on shaky ground. The gaming industry thrives on innovation, creativity, and a passionate fanbase. For its long-term health and success, a reevaluation of these release strategies is imperative. A model that harmonizes economic pragmatism with a commitment to quality and respect for the gaming community is not just ideal but necessary. As the industry continues to evolve, one can only hope that it will take these lessons to heart, ensuring a future where the excitement of a game release is matched by the satisfaction of playing a well-crafted, complete game.
  3. Uncrowned Guard
    In the world of online gaming, there's nothing more exciting than the thrill of competition, the camaraderie among teammates, and the sheer unpredictability each game session offers. However, the introduction of Skill-Based Matchmaking (SBMM) has significantly altered this dynamic, creating a constant grind that can often drain the joy from online gaming. This in-depth look from Shattered Screens explores how SBMM, while well-intentioned in creating balanced matches, inadvertently impacts player enjoyment, social interaction, and even fuels the microtransaction industry.
    The Constant Grind: The Unrelenting Pressure of Skill-Based Matchmaking
    In the ever-evolving landscape of online gaming, the introduction of Skill-Based Matchmaking (SBMM) has redefined the way players engage with their favorite games. On the surface, SBMM promises a fair experience, matching players of equivalent skill levels against each other. However, this system also introduces an unforeseen side effect: an incessant, grinding pressure that dramatically alters the gaming experience. The very essence of SBMM negates the casual encounter, transforming every match into an intense competition. Players find themselves in a continuous loop of stress, where each game demands their utmost concentration and strategic play. The days of laid-back gaming, where players could relax and engage in matches with a mix of skill levels or even just spectate for fun, seem distant. The environment now requires constant focus, turning what was once a form of relaxation into an activity as tense as professional sport.
    This grind is not without consequences. The pressure to maintain or improve one's skill ranking leads to fatigue and, for some, an eventual disinterest in gaming. The mental toll is evident; the lack of variability in match intensity can lead to quicker burnout, as players don't experience the natural ebb and flow typically found in social games. What's more, this relentless pursuit of victory often means that the sheer joy of playing - experiencing new strategies, characters, or even just humorous moments - is overshadowed by the demand for constant, unyielding effort. Additionally, the constant grind creates an isolating experience. In traditional gaming, friends of varying skill levels could enjoy playing together, learning from one another, and naturally progressing. With SBMM, this is a rarity. Friends may be dissuaded from playing together if there's a significant disparity in their skill levels, fearing that their lower-skilled friends would struggle or higher-skilled friends would get frustrated. This segregation based on ability undermines the communal spirit that has long been a cornerstone of online gaming.
    No Room for Natural Growth: Stifling Progress in the SBMM Arena
    Skill-based matchmaking has reshaped the online gaming landscape, pitching players against opponents of similar skill levels in an effort to create balanced, competitive matchups. However, this approach has an unintended side effect: it significantly hampers natural growth and the organic learning process that gamers traditionally experience. In the pre-SBMM era, players were exposed to a wide range of skill levels. Beginners could find themselves facing off against seasoned veterans, and while these matchups could initially feel daunting or even one-sided, they provided invaluable learning opportunities. Observing the strategies, movements, and decision-making processes of more skilled opponents offered a real-time tutorial, encouraging less experienced players to emulate these techniques, innovate their gameplay, and ultimately improve their skills.
    Moreover, being part of a varied skill pool allowed for moments of triumph and leadership. Less experienced players weren't always on the losing end; they could find themselves as the most skilled player in a match, granting them the chance to lead, take risks, and even mentor other players. This dynamic created a rich, multifaceted environment that fostered growth not just in gameplay, but in confidence and social skills. SBMM disrupts this natural ecosystem. By pigeonholing players into brackets based on their current skill level, it restricts the diversity of experience. Gamers are stuck in an echo chamber of ability, often playing against others with similar styles and strategies. This homogeneity stunts growth; without exposure to advanced techniques or different play styles, players may find themselves at a plateau, with their progress capped by the limitations of their matchmaking tier.
    This system also robs players of the nuanced experiences that come from a mixed-skill environment. The thrill of occasionally dominating a game, the camaraderie developed by helping a less experienced player through a tough match, or the "eureka" moments sparked by witnessing a skilled player pull off a spectacular move — these are organic experiences that SBMM inadvertently sanitizes. Furthermore, the pressure to continuously win in one's skill bracket can foster a risk-averse mindset. Players might refrain from experimenting with new strategies, characters, or weapons because the stakes are perpetually high. This conservatism restricts growth as players stick to what's safe and familiar, rather than what might push their boundaries and expand their skill set.
    Disbanding Lobbies and Eroding Communities: The Social Fallout of SBMM
    The implementation of SBM doesn't only affect individual players; it also has profound implications for the social structures within online gaming communities. One of the most palpable effects is the tendency of SBMM to disband lobbies after matches, a mechanism that undermines the formation of spontaneous communities and erodes the social fabric that makes online gaming such a richly interactive experience. Before the widespread adoption of SBMM, gaming lobbies were more stable. Players could find themselves fighting alongside or against the same group of people for several matches in a row, creating a sense of continuity and camaraderie. These repeated interactions allowed players to get to know one another, fostering friendly rivalries, repeat collaborations, and the kind of banter and social interaction that's unique to the online gaming world. For many, these connections were the essence of their gaming experience, transforming solitary play into a communal activity.
    However, with the advent of SBMM, this social landscape has fundamentally changed. Now, players are frequently shuffled in and out of lobbies based on their performance in the last game. This relentless re-sorting means there's little opportunity to form connections with fellow gamers. Without the chance for interactions to build over consecutive games, the sense of being part of a community begins to erode. Players become transient participants in a system that prioritizes skill level over social interaction, reducing the rich social tapestry of gaming to mere transactional encounters. This not only impacts the sense of community but also the gaming experience itself. Learning from other players, developing strategies together over consecutive games, or even the simple pleasure of getting to know and recognize fellow enthusiasts are aspects that get lost in the churn of SBMM-driven lobbies. The game becomes less about community and more about an endless series of algorithmically calculated matchups designed to keep win-loss ratios balanced.
    Moreover, the dissolution of lobbies post-match disrupts the natural formation of friendships. Before, if you found someone you synergized with in-game, you could easily partner up for several matches, deepening that connection. With SBMM and the constant lobby reshuffling, this becomes significantly harder. The system's focus on keeping matches even in terms of skill often comes at the cost of severing these budding connections, leaving little room for socialization. The result is a gaming environment that can feel isolating, despite being populated by millions of players worldwide. The irony is that in an era of connectivity, where online gaming has the potential to bring people together like never before, SBMM systems can leave players feeling more alone.
    Microtransactions: Preying on the Need to Succeed
    SBMM has inadvertently given rise to a problematic element within the gaming industry: the aggressive push for microtransactions. As players grapple with the unyielding pressure to improve, game developers and publishers have seized the opportunity to monetize players' desires to advance through microtransactions. This trend not only exploits players' ambitions but also raises ethical questions about the modern gaming economy. The relentless nature of SBMM creates an environment where progress is often slow and arduous. Every match is a battle closely fought against players of similar skill, meaning easy victories are few and far between. This constant struggle can make players feel stuck in a never-ending grind, leading to frustration and a sense of stagnation.
    Enter microtransactions: the "solution" offered by gaming companies to give players a chance to break through the wall that SBMM presents. These can range from "loot boxes" that offer random items, to direct purchases of specific gear, advantages, or even cosmetic items that may confer status. While these purchases might not directly affect a player's skill level, they can provide various boosts, give access to better equipment sooner than players would get them through standard gameplay, or simply offer a psychological edge through owning "elite" cosmetic items. However, these transactions are not just a one-off purchase but are designed to encourage ongoing spending. It's not uncommon for games to employ psychological techniques borrowed from the gambling industry to entice players to make just one more purchase to perfect their loadout or achieve the perfect look. This can create a scenario where players, especially younger ones, may not fully grasp the long-term financial commitments they're undertaking.
    The presence of microtransactions can also lead to an imbalance in the gaming experience itself. While developers often assure that these transactions are "cosmetic" or don't affect gameplay, the reality can be quite different. Players who spend more can often have a noticeable edge over others who choose not to or who can't afford to, creating a "pay-to-win" environment that's antithetical to the purported "equal skill" ethos of SBMM. This emphasis on microtransactions can also skew game design itself. Developers, aware of where their revenue is coming from, may be incentivized to create games that support this kind of monetization, potentially at the expense of game balance, fairness, and overall enjoyment. For instance, they might implement systems that significantly increase the grind or difficulty of obtaining items that are easily available through microtransactions, thereby subtly coercing players into paying to skip the grind.
    The intersection of SBMM and microtransactions, therefore, represents a complex issue within the gaming industry. It's not just about fairness in gameplay but also about the ethical considerations of exploiting players' desires to succeed. Game developers and companies need to consider these implications carefully. Balancing profitability with a fair, enjoyable player experience is crucial for the long-term health of any game. The industry must work to find this balance, ensuring that all players, regardless of their spending capacity, can enjoy the world of gaming to its fullest.
    The Elephant in the Room: Ignoring Existing Competitive Frameworks
    In the heated debate surrounding Skill-based matchmaking, there's a glaring oversight that many critics are quick to point out: the existing presence of competitive and ranked modes in many of these games. These modes, designed to cater to players seeking a serious, skill-appropriate challenge, already serve the purpose that SBMM seems determined to impose on the entire gaming experience, raising the question — why insist on universal SBMM when a viable alternative already exists? Competitive and ranked modes are staples in the gaming world, providing a space where players can test their skills against others who are on the same rung of the competitive ladder. Here, the ethos of SBMM is not just applicable; it's expected. Players enter these modes ready for a challenge, prepared for the intensity and the corresponding highs and lows of victory and defeat. The rankings, visible and often coveted, are badges of honor, symbols of prowess and dedication.
    However, the imposition of SBMM across all modes, including casual play, ignores the fundamental reason these distinct environments exist. Casual or unranked modes have traditionally been spaces of relaxation, experimentation, and unrestrained fun. They are the virtual playgrounds where friends team up regardless of skill disparity, where wacky weapon combinations are tested, and where off-meta strategies are born. They're where new players can dip their toes without immediately being thrown into the deep end, and experienced players can try new things without the fear of tanking their hard-earned ranks. By enforcing SBMM everywhere, developers blur the lines between competitive and casual play. The result? A gaming ecosystem where the pressure is omnipresent and the safe havens for uncompetitive fun are eroded. For seasoned players, the challenge is constant, with no room to breathe or simply 'mess around.' For novices, the climb becomes steeper, as they're less likely to encounter a broad mix of skill levels from which to learn and draw inspiration.
    The gaming community has long recognized and appreciated the dichotomy between competitive and casual play. Ignoring this established norm by imposing SBMM universally suggests a disconnect between game developers and the community. While the intentions behind SBMM — to create a fair and balanced environment for all players — are understandable, the disregard for existing competitive frameworks is a misstep.
    Conclusion: Reimagining Skill-Based Matchmaking for a Healthier Gaming Ecosystem
    As we've delved into the complexities surrounding SBMM, it's evident that its implementation, while well-intentioned, comes with significant drawbacks. It disrupts the natural rhythm of gaming, erodes the social constructs that have been a cornerstone of online multiplayer experiences, and, perhaps most critically, it undermines the very essence of what makes gaming enjoyable for many: the freedom to experience, explore, and evolve at one's own pace. However, recognizing the pitfalls of SBMM shouldn't entail its complete abolition. Instead, it calls for a reimagined approach, one that respects the diverse desires of the gaming community. There's an inherent value in having matches where players compete against others of equivalent skill levels, especially for newcomers who might otherwise be dissuaded by repeated, crushing defeats. Yet, this need for balance must be tempered with spaces that allow for unbridled experimentation, growth, and social interaction.
    Firstly, developers should consider the nuanced implementation of SBMM, perhaps limiting its strictest application to competitive modes explicitly designed for ranked play. This approach honors the spirit of competition for those who seek it, without imposing it on the entirety of the player base.
    Secondly, the gaming industry needs to reassess the weight it places on microtransactions and recognize how these can distort gameplay. When the drive for profit overshadows the user experience, not only is the game's integrity compromised, but the community can also become fractured, leading to a loss of player trust and engagement.
    Additionally, developers must acknowledge and respect the organic social interactions that arise within gaming lobbies. Preserving communal spaces where players can connect, strategize, and simply enjoy the game together should be a priority. The decision to disband lobbies in favor of SBMM undermines these community-building aspects, leading to a more isolated gaming experience.
    Finally, there's an urgent need for transparency from game developers regarding the mechanics of SBMM and other matchmaking processes. Players deserve clarity on how their opponents are chosen, how their in-game performance affects future matchups, and the criteria determining their gaming experience. This level of openness would not only foster a greater sense of fairness but also empower players to make informed decisions about how they engage with the game.
    In closing, while SBMM arises from a place of wanting to make online gaming more equitable, its current execution leaves much to be desired. By adopting a more balanced, transparent, and player-centric approach, there's an opportunity to restore the joy, camaraderie, and spontaneity that have long defined the world of online gaming. It's time for the industry to listen closely to its community, reassess its strategies, and collectively forge a path forward that celebrates every aspect of the gaming sphere.
  4. Uncrowned Guard
    Once upon a time, the open-world concept was a luxury that only a handful of games could afford to explore. Fast-forward to today, and it's almost a rite of passage for a AAA title to boast an expansive, explorable world. This boom has brought some exceptional titles to the table, including the likes of "Witcher 3," "Skyrim," and "Breath of the Wild," but it has also diluted the unique value of truly immersive open-world experiences.
    Open-world games often advertise a buffet of options: multiple storylines, side quests galore, and an environment that changes based on your choices. While it sounds impressive on a feature list or in a marketing campaign, the execution often lacks depth. The term "open world" has almost become a band-aid solution for covering up a lack of substance, particularly in narrative-focused titles where the story could be told more effectively in a linear setting.
    What Makes a True Open-World Game: Elements Often Missing in Forced Adaptations
    One hallmark of a truly well-designed open-world game is its post-game content and continuity. Games like "Skyrim" or "Breath of the Wild" don't simply conclude when the main storyline is over; they offer a living, breathing world that continues to evolve. This could mean anything from new quests becoming available, NPC dialogues changing to reflect your heroic (or villainous) actions, or even the world state altering in significant ways.
    In contrast, linear games that have been stretched to fit the open-world mold often struggle with this concept. After the climax of the story, the world frequently becomes a static playground with little to no ongoing activities or development, making it feel artificial and devoid of the life that defines true open-world titles.
    In a bona fide open-world game, character development is often non-linear and expansive, designed to suit a variety of playstyles and approaches to the game world. This could be a skill tree that encourages exploration and experimentation or a crafting system that benefits from scouring every nook and cranny of the world. These systems reward the player's curiosity and offer multiple avenues for engagement.
    When a traditionally linear game is expanded into an open world, the character development system usually isn't designed to support this new, expansive environment. Skill trees may be limited and tailored for a straightforward playthrough, and crafting or other subsystems may feel tacked-on or underdeveloped. The result is an open world that feels disconnected from the game's core mechanics, diluting the overall experience.
    Trading Narrative Depth for World Size: A Losing Proposition
    Contrary to the game developer's belief, merely adding an expansive map and some side quests doesn't transform a linear game into an open-world marvel. Features like post-game content, non-linear character development, and a living, evolving game world are integral to a truly satisfying open-world experience. These are not mere extensions or add-ons but are built into the core game design from the ground up.
    Imagine reading a gripping novel where, after every chapter, you're forced to read ten pages of unrelated short stories. It would completely kill the momentum. That's what happens when a traditionally linear, story-driven game is forced into an open-world mold. Side quests and optional objectives can ruin the pacing, making key moments feel less impactful than they should.
    Titles like "God of War" or "The Last of Us" have shown how linear storytelling can be extraordinarily effective when done right. These games draw you into a well-scripted narrative where each set piece, each dialogue, and each locale is part of a greater, more cohesive whole. Conversely, games like "Minecraft" show that open-world games have their own unique appeal—when they're designed to be open-world from the ground up.
    Certain genres are intrinsically ill-suited to the open-world format. Take puzzle games, for instance. These are built around carefully designed challenges, with each level acting as a test of particular skills or concepts. Throwing in open-world elements would only serve to dilute the core gameplay mechanics and puzzle-solving satisfaction.
    Conclusion: Reevaluating the Open-World Obsession
    While the freedom and exploration offered by open-world games can be incredibly satisfying, it's crucial to remember that not every gaming experience benefits from this vastness. Gamers don't always want to spend hundreds of hours on a single title; sometimes, they seek a tightly-paced, well-written story that can be completed in a reasonable time frame.
    What we're advocating for isn't the elimination of open-world games but rather a more thoughtful approach to when and how this model is employed. Both developers and consumers need to consider what makes a game truly engaging and memorable. The answer isn't always a sprawling map filled with fetch quests and collectibles; often, it's a compelling story, complex characters, and gameplay mechanics that serve the narrative, rather than detract from it.
    By re-evaluating the industry's increasing dependency on open-world elements, we can pave the way for more diverse, more fulfilling gaming experiences. It's high time we celebrate games for their depth, their artistry, and their ability to evoke emotion—qualities that can be achieved in a wide range of settings, both open and linear.
  5. Uncrowned Guard
    As smartphones have become increasingly ubiquitous, mobile gaming has witnessed explosive growth. From simple games like "Snake" on the early Nokia phones to the current graphics-intensive multiplayer games, mobile gaming has evolved dramatically. But as the industry has grown, so has its reliance on aggressive monetization tactics – many of which have been identified as predatory.
    The Evolution of In-game Purchases
    In the nascent stages of the gaming industry, the formula was straightforward: buy the game, own the entirety of its content. There were no strings attached, no hidden costs. However, with the advent of the internet and digital marketplaces, gaming companies began to explore a myriad of monetization strategies to further boost their profits.
    One of the earliest forms of in-game purchases was the introduction of "expansion packs." These were large additions to the core game, often adding a significant amount of content like new storylines, characters, or mechanics. While this was generally accepted by the gaming community as a fair proposition, things took a turn when smaller, less substantive purchases, often referred to as "DLC" (Downloadable Content), began to emerge.
    These DLCs, often cosmetic in nature like new outfits or weapon skins, became a source of contention. While some defended them as optional and non-intrusive, others criticized them as a way to nickel-and-dime players. But even as this debate raged on, a new form of in-game purchase was brewing on the horizon: microtransactions.
    Mobile games, with their vast accessibility and appeal to casual gamers, were fertile ground for this new model. Many of these games were offered for free but contained in-app purchases that allowed players to progress faster, customize their avatars, or access exclusive content. These microtransactions were often designed to tap into the player's impulsive buying behaviors, employing psychological tactics like time-limited offers and flashing sale notifications.
    Over time, these strategies became more sophisticated and aggressive. Some games introduced mechanics that closely resembled gambling, like "loot boxes" or "gacha" systems, where players would spend real money for a randomized in-game item. The thrill of the unknown result and the tantalizing promise of rare items kept players spending, often more than they realized or intended.
    As these mechanisms proved wildly successful in the mobile arena, they inevitably found their way into console and PC games. What was once a sideline source of revenue for developers quickly became a central pillar of their monetization strategies. And as they've become more entrenched, the backlash and concern over their ethical implications have grown in parallel.
    Targeting Vulnerabilities: The Gambling Connection
    It's no coincidence that the mechanisms employed in many in-game purchase systems bear a striking resemblance to those found in casinos. The parallels between the "spin-to-win" mechanics of slot machines and the opening of a virtual loot box are hard to ignore. Both capitalize on the human brain's response to uncertainty and the thrill of potential reward. This is where the lines between innocent gaming and harmful gambling begin to blur.
    The science behind this is rooted in our brain's reward pathways. When faced with uncertain outcomes with potential rewards, our brains release dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with pleasure, reward, and compulsion. Casinos have leveraged this for years, designing games that produce frequent 'near-misses' and unpredictable rewards, keeping gamblers hooked. In a similar vein, game developers have created systems where players experience near victories, nudging them to make just "one more purchase" to achieve their desired outcome.
    Such practices become particularly concerning when considering the demographics. Many of these games are accessible to and popular among younger audiences, who might not yet have the cognitive tools to recognize or resist these manipulative tactics. This has led to numerous stories of children racking up hefty bills on their parents' accounts, driven by the compulsion to keep playing and unlocking.
    Individuals with a predisposition to addictive behaviors or those who already suffer from gambling problems find these mechanisms especially dangerous. The virtual environment can desensitize players to the real-world implications of their spending, as digital currencies and flashy animations mask the reality of hard cash leaving their accounts. For gambling addicts, this environment can serve as a powerful trigger, pushing them deeper into their compulsions, often with devastating financial and personal consequences.
    As the lines between gaming and gambling continue to merge, the gaming community and regulators need to recognize and address the potential harms. Ignoring the psychological impacts and ethical considerations of these monetization strategies risks not only alienating a portion of the gaming community but also exposing vulnerable individuals to further harm.
    From Mobile to Console: The Creeping Influence
    When mobile gaming began its meteoric rise, it brought along a paradigm shift in-game monetization. The formula was simple: offer the game for free and then introduce various in-app purchases, ranging from cosmetic items to boosters and more. This freemium model was a resounding success in the mobile sphere, earning developers billions. However, as its profitability became apparent, this monetization strategy began to creep into realms traditionally resistant to such practices: console and PC gaming.
    Historically, the console and PC gaming industries prided themselves on delivering complete experiences. Gamers would purchase a game and enjoy its entirety without additional transactions. However, as the influence of mobile gaming's monetization strategies grew, even major game studios began to incorporate similar tactics into their console and PC releases. The initial insertion was subtle, often limited to cosmetic items that didn't affect gameplay. Yet, as time went on, the push became bolder.
    Now, it's not uncommon to see AAA games – those with the highest development budgets and levels of promotion – including mechanics reminiscent of their mobile counterparts. These can range from loot boxes filled with random items to "time-savers" that allow players to skip ahead or gain advantages, often blurring the line between skill and spending. Such practices have been particularly controversial, especially when implemented in games already priced at a premium.
    Another major concern is the introduction of "live service" games. These titles are designed to be ever evolving, encouraging players to continue spending on new content and features long after the initial purchase. While this can offer extended playability, it can also create a never-ending cycle of spending, with players constantly enticed by the latest and greatest additions.
    The shift from one-time purchase games to ongoing revenue models isn't inherently bad. It can provide developers with sustained funding for continued content creation and game improvements. However, it's crucial to strike a balance. As monetization tactics from the mobile world become more ingrained in console and PC gaming, developers and publishers need to ensure they're not sacrificing player trust and the essence of fair gameplay for short-term financial gains.
    Children: The Unwitting Victims
    In the vast landscape of gaming, children emerge as a demographic that's particularly susceptible to the aggressive monetization tactics of mobile, and now, console and PC gaming. With their limited understanding of money's real-world implications and a natural propensity for curiosity, children often find themselves drawn into the web of in-game purchases, sometimes with dire consequences for their guardians' bank accounts.
    Games targeted at younger audiences often employ vibrant visuals, compelling characters, and narratives that captivate young minds. Within these alluring virtual environments, microtransactions are frequently presented as tantalizing gateways to enhanced experiences. New character skins, powerful weapons, additional levels—these offerings are strategically showcased as must-haves, prompting children to want, and sometimes, impulsively buy.
    It's not just the aesthetics of these in-game items that trap children. Many games employ strategic pressure points: timed exclusives that generate a fear of missing out, leaderboards that reward top spenders, or challenges that are near-impossible to complete without particular power-ups. When children encounter these obstacles, their immediate solution, especially in the absence of a clear understanding of financial consequences, is often to purchase their way forward.
    This situation is further exacerbated by the fact that many platforms store payment information, allowing for one-click purchases. Without clear safeguards in place, children can easily rack up significant bills without even realizing the financial implications of their actions. Tales of shocked parents receiving hefty bills due to their child's uninhibited spending have become all too common in the news.
    While many game developers argue that parental controls can restrict such spending, the onus shouldn't solely be on parents. Game developers and platforms have a shared responsibility. They must create and market their products in an ethical manner, ensuring they're not exploiting the naivety of younger players. As gaming's monetization culture continues its aggressive trajectory, it's crucial to consider its impact on the most vulnerable and impressionable audience members and take steps to protect them.
    The Regulatory Challenge
    The intricate web of gaming monetization doesn't just involve game developers and players; it inevitably brings in the broader regulatory landscape. These are uncharted waters for many national and international regulatory bodies, making the task of addressing the issue both crucial and complex. However, one fact remains clear: the intersection of gaming and gambling, especially where children are involved, demands urgent oversight.
    Regulatory lag is a significant concern. The fast-paced evolution of gaming monetization strategies often outpaces the speed at which regulations can be conceived, debated, and implemented. By the time a particular exploitative mechanism is identified and countered, developers may have already moved on to the next lucrative strategy. This constant game of catch-up dilutes the effectiveness of regulatory measures.
    Furthermore, there's a recurring debate about categorizing certain gaming monetization tactics as gambling. Many games deploy mechanics akin to slot machines, where players pay for a chance to win a desirable item. Yet, these mechanics are often labeled as "loot boxes" or "gacha systems" to avoid direct association with gambling. The semantic distinction provides a legal gray area for developers but, in essence, they tap into the same psychological triggers as gambling.
    Another challenge is the global nature of the gaming industry. A game developed in one country can easily be played across the world. This global reach necessitates international cooperation to create and enforce regulations. However, cultural, legal, and economic differences can make this cooperation challenging. For instance, while Belgium and the Netherlands have classified certain loot box systems as gambling and therefore illegal, other countries remain on the fence.
    In light of these challenges, a proactive approach from the industry itself could be a way forward. Self-regulation, ethical game design practices, and transparent communication with players might pave the way for a more sustainable and player-friendly gaming environment. Still, the onus is on both regulators and the industry to ensure that the world of gaming remains fun, engaging, and, above all, safe for its vast player base.
    Conclusion: The Need for Change
    The gaming industry's meteoric rise has captivated millions worldwide, intertwining with our culture, our pastime preferences, and our digital habits. Yet, as with any rapidly expanding domain, the challenges it faces are growing equally formidable. The aggressive monetization tactics seen in today's gaming world isn't merely a topic of debate amongst gamers; it's a societal concern that warrants broader attention.
    Monetization, in itself, isn't inherently bad. Game developers and studios deserve compensation for their creative outputs, and there's a rightful place for ethical, player-friendly monetization strategies that offer genuine value. However, the line between ethical monetization and predatory practices seems to be thinning. Such practices, which were once largely contained within mobile gaming, have begun to creep into the more traditional gaming platforms, heralding potential challenges for the broader gaming community.
    What’s more alarming is the normalization of these tactics, with many players, especially the younger demographic, growing up in an ecosystem where such practices are standard. They may never know the era when games were sold as complete packages, free of in-game financial pitfalls. This evolving gaming culture risks not only alienating a segment of players but also sowing long-term distrust between players and developers.
    Given the substantial evidence highlighting the psychological impacts of these monetization methods, particularly their likeness to gambling mechanisms, it becomes imperative for change. Whether it's the industry that takes a proactive stance or regulatory bodies stepping up their vigilance, the onus of action is undeniable.
    In an era where games can be both an art form and a means of social connection, their potential shouldn't be overshadowed by avarice. The industry stands at a crossroads: it can either embrace its responsibility, fostering trust and ensuring a vibrant, inclusive future for gaming, or continue down a path that might yield immediate profits but risks long-term sustainability and the goodwill of its community. For the love of gaming and its vast potential, one can only hope that the industry chooses the former.
  6. Uncrowned Guard
    As the digital age has progressed, the gaming industry has continuously adapted to new business models and revenue streams. One such adaptation is the introduction of the Battle Pass, a monetization method that has swept across the gaming landscape. From Fortnite to Call of Duty, Battle Passes have quickly become a norm. But, despite their widespread adoption, they've stirred up a significant amount of frustration among players.
    The Mechanics of a Battle Pass: Reward or Chore?
    For those unfamiliar, Battle Passes are structured systems that offer players rewards as they earn experience and progress through different tiers. These rewards can include a vast array of items, from aesthetic character skins to unique in-game weapons. In theory, this model encourages active play and rewards dedication, but the reality of this system has morphed into something more akin to a grinding nightmare.
    The Grind: Gaming or Working?
    When purchasing a Battle Pass, players are initially met with enthusiasm, eager to embark on the journey to earn exciting rewards. However, as the game progresses, the realization sets in that the higher-tier rewards – often the most coveted – require significant time investment. This can be particularly punishing for casual players who cannot afford to commit several hours each day to a single game. Consequently, the game transforms from an enjoyable hobby into a demanding task that feels eerily similar to work. The Battle Pass system, rather than promoting enjoyable gameplay, often fosters a grind culture that sucks the joy out of the experience.
    Limited-Time Frustrations: Racing Against the Clock
    Adding fuel to the fire is the limited-time nature of most Battle Passes. Players who can't log in every day or miss a few days due to other commitments may find themselves unable to complete the Battle Pass within the given season. This 'fear of missing out' (FOMO) can lead to unhealthy pressure to play, even when it's not enjoyable.
    The Impact on Gaming Diversity: Monogamy Over Variety
    This system's constraints go beyond individual games. They also impact players' ability to explore gaming's vast landscape. When a player feels pressured to grind in one game to make the most of their Battle Pass, they inevitably have less time to spend on other games. This enforced gaming monogamy restricts players' exposure to the diverse world of gaming, thereby diluting the richness of the gaming experience.
    The Call for Change: Refocusing on Fun
    While Battle Passes undeniably generate a steady revenue stream for developers, they should not be implemented at the cost of player enjoyment. Progression through a Battle Pass should feel rewarding rather than grueling, and the time commitment required to complete these passes needs to be reasonable rather than punishing. Game developers must strike a balance between monetizing their games and preserving the fun and excitement that draw players in the first place.
    Conclusion
    As we navigate the evolution of gaming, it's crucial to remember what games are fundamentally about – fun. As the industry continues to explore monetization models like Battle Passes, developers must ensure they are enhancing the gaming experience, not detracting from it. After all, at the end of the day, games should be about enjoyment, exploration, and adventure, not stress, pressure, and endless grinding. The future of Battle Passes needs a player-centric approach, one that considers the broader implications of the gaming experience and promotes a healthy and enjoyable gaming culture.
  7. Uncrowned Guard
    Xbox controllers are a gold standard for both console and PC gamers but why settle for a basic black or white controller? Grab a special edition controller for yourself or that special gamer in your life and change things up a bit.  Not sure what is all available out there?  Well here is a basic list to help get you started!
    Special Edition Color Schemes
    Xbox Wireless Controller - Lunar Shift Special Edition
    Get surreal with the Xbox Wireless Controller – Lunar Shift Special Edition, featuring a color-shifting, silver-gold shimmer and rubberized gray and black swirl grips. Stay on target with textured grip on the triggers, bumpers, and back-case. Seamlessly capture and share content with a dedicated Share button. Quickly pair with, play on, and switch between devices including Xbox Series X|S, Windows PC, Android, and iOS*
    Buy on: Amazon

    Xbox Wireless Controller – Mineral Camo Special Edition
    Experience the Xbox Wireless Controller – Mineral Camo Special Edition, featuring a bold mineral blue, bright purple, aqua, and dark purple camouflage pattern.  Stay on target with textured grip on the triggers, bumpers, and back-case. Seamlessly capture and share content with a dedicated Share button. Quickly pair with, play on, and switch between devices including Xbox Series X|S, Windows PC, Android, and iOS*
    Buy on: Amazon

    The core controllers are also available in Carbon Black | Deep Pink | Electric Volt | Pulse Red | Robot White | and Shock Blue
    Anniversary Color Schemes
    Xbox Wireless Controller – 20th Anniversary Special Edition
    Celebrate 20 years of Xbox with the Xbox Wireless Controller – 20th Anniversary Special Edition in classic black with green touches that go back to the beginning, and so much more. Travel through time with the green and translucent black controller colors to the moment the original, translucent green Xbox console launched. Look through the translucent black top to see interior silver details representing 20 years of Xbox technology carried forward.
    Buy on: Amazon

     
    Collaboration Color Schemes
    Razer Limited Edition Sonic The Hedgehog Wireless Controller & Quick Charging Stand
    Inspired by Sonic the Hedgehog: Protect humanity with cool blue attitude alongside the world’s most powerful hedgehog with a must-have collectible that celebrates one of the most beloved and iconic heroes of the gaming universe.
    Buy on: Amazon

    Razer Limited Edition Boba Fett Wireless Controller & Quick Charging Stand
    Inspired by Boba Fett’s Helmet: Passed down from father to son, strike fear into the hearts of the competition with a look that needs no introduction—a must-have collectible for any Star Wars fan. Officially licensed by Xbox, Disney and Lucasfilm Ltd.
    Buy on: Amazon

    Razer Limited Edition Stormtrooper Wireless Controller & Quick Charging Stand
    Inspired by the Stormtrooper: Add a much-needed dose of galactic order to your gaming setup with this must-have collectible for Imperial loyalists and Star Wars fans alike.
    Buy on: Amazon

     
    Elite Options
    Xbox Elite Wireless Controller Series 2
    Designed to meet the needs of today’s competitive gamers, the Xbox Elite Wireless Controller Series 2 features over 30 new ways to play like a pro. Enhance your aiming with new adjustable-tension thumbsticks, fire even faster with shorter hair trigger locks, and stay on target with a wrap-around rubberized grip.
    Buy on: Amazon

    Xbox Elite Wireless Controller Series 2 – Core
    Experience the Xbox Elite Wireless Controller Series 2 featuring adjustable-tension thumbsticks, wrap-around rubberized grip, and shorter hair trigger locks.
    Buy on: Amazon

     
    Image Credit: nexusby - stock.adobe.com Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.
  8. Uncrowned Guard
    Welcome to Uncrowned Gaming’s first-ever game review! We will be looking at the hit release Call of Duty Modern Warfare II, although that is the Roman numeral II not the number two as that would be an entirely different game. Yay for modern naming schemes. Overall I enjoy pretty much all the changes that they added to this game and most of the new systems are actually quite positive. However, due to a few key features, this review would actually be more of a thumbs down than a thumbs up.
    But first, let's go through the good, the gameplay itself is extremely solid and in fact, it might actually be my favorite Call of Duty game as the gunplay is extremely crisp the modes are all enjoyable. Even the new unlock system is actually something I really enjoy, but I can understand why some may not. The maps are solid and while some of them aren't the best there is actually none that I truly dislike. Although the ones that are simply cut-down versions of the larger invasion maps tend to be my least favorable maps and seemed to be a cheap way out of map development.
    The weapons are all nice and include a very nice variety for players to enjoy. The balance is definitely not perfect but overall it is very well done and every weapon is usable in some manner. The gunsmith system allows for massive customization across all of the weapons and players can really fine-tune the weapons into the weapons of war that they truly prefer. The new frame system is a nice way to unlock weapons however being able to swap out the frames within the gunsmith system seems like a feature that very few people will actually use as it is generally easier to just swap out the weapon as a whole.  Forcing me to use other guns and items to unlock weapons and attachments (and camos) is something that I might complain about, but is helping me enjoy more of the game more.  So yes, I put it down as a pro.
    The new perk system is different and while I can't say that I dislike it, I mostly feel like it was an unneeded change. The perks unlocking partially through each match don't really change the gameplay much in my opinion although it does make me much less involved with the perks that I no longer have for the entirety of the match. None of the perks that unlock are truly groundbreaking or game-changing that would turn the tide of a game, so the system as a whole seems to be just a new system to just be a new system. They did move cold-blooded and ghost to be delayed perks and while I was not a fan of this move at first, their changes to the mini-map and what I will call "nerfs" to suppressors pretty much killed the stealth gameplay right from the start.
    However, the perk system does add one feature that I don't necessarily like or dislike but I mostly don't understand. Perks are no longer selected per class and are actually set up in "perk packs" that the players can then add to their classes. Again this seems like a mostly unnecessary system change that doesn't seem to have benefited or hurt any particular feature of the game itself. However, it does create a fundamental problem as you can only have 5 custom perk packs while they allow you to have 10 custom classes. I understand you will very likely use the same perk packs across multiple of your classes, but this artificial limitation seems poorly thought out as there does not appear to be a need to even have it at all.
    Of course, I had a feeling this game would be mostly pros as they basically took all of the favorite maps and features from the previous games and shipped them into this one while fine-tuning the gameplay. Sure that sounds very uninspiring, but it absolutely does work. However, there are definitely cons to this game and the last one is enough to ruin the experience for many players.
    First, it does have to be mentioned that the game's launch was very not great and players are continuing to face crashes and server issues along the way. A handful of features and entire modes are currently not in the game along with the battle pass and other significant items that would be expected for a full release. Granted, comparing it to a game like Halo Infinite this release was a masterpiece. Although at the end of the day the features in the game are more than enough to keep the average player content and hopefully the crashes will be fixed in the coming days.
    However, there are some cons that I do not believe will be fixed in the coming days and first of all, is the UI system. I'm not sure if they were trying to simulate a mobile UI as it would also be a terrible mobile UI in my opinion, but the UI for the game is simply not good. While the menus and game mode selection are adequate for the game, the items that you will use frequently such as class selection and even setting up your perk packs is mostly a nightmare that feels like it should be on some sort of arcade machine and not a modern AAA game. I don't recall older Call of Duty games having huge complaints about their UI, so I'm not exactly sure why the drastic changes were implemented.
    There is of course the elephant in the room of skill-based matchmaking and while it would be simple to dump on skill-based matchmaking for its ability to make every game sweaty and remove the casual fun that many players are looking for in a first-person shooter, the overwhelming problem is how it correlates with the new features they added into the game. The first problem with having the matchmaking in social matches being based on skill-based matchmaking is that the majority of the new gun unlocks, camo unlocks, and attachment unlocks are based around using weapons that may not fit your playstyle well and, of course, many will not be the meta weapons of the game. This is double downed by many of the daily challenges that also focus on pushing the player to use other weapons and equipment that they normally would not.
    While I would be ecstatic about these changes as I was in the pros of the game, the problem becomes when every game is based upon your best performance and the people you are against are all of the adequate skill levels and utilizing the meta weapons in the game. It is not hard to see the problem and lack of enjoyment that happens when you come walking in with a gun that you are simply not good with trying to unlock an attachment for something else. There is really no way around this as all the game modes are based on skill-based matchmaking and the player simply has to suffer through unlocking pieces of the game in a manner that should be unbelievably enjoyable but it's actually a nightmare due to the matchmaking.
    And of course, to top off the skill-based matchmaking problems, it simply does not work well. Every game I have been in since the release of this game has been full of players doing exceptionally well while other players on the same team do exceptionally poorly. It is extremely rare to be put into a game where all of the players are of remotely equal skill and the competition is tight between the best and the worst. The worst case scenario is if you have any friends, you better hope that they're all of the equal skill of you as if you bring in a friend who is significantly lower skilled at the game than you are, they are going to be introduced to your skill based matchmaking and I have never seen a person quit a game faster.
    So would I recommend the game? Probably, but with a strong notion that nearly all of the awesome features and changes they implemented into this new Call of Duty have been crippled by the ongoing skill-based matchmaking system that no player seems to enjoy. Overall we have the same sweaty Call of Duty matches that we always have and the devs added tons of features. Although they do not seem to understand what it means to enjoy a game.
  9. Uncrowned Guard
    In the vast and varied universe of video games, mobile gaming stands out as both a revolutionary force and a contentious player. This segment of the gaming industry has been increasingly criticized for its reliance on in-game energy tokens – a monetization strategy that fundamentally changes how players interact with their favorite games. This blog explores the implications of this system on player engagement and the broader dynamics of the mobile gaming industry.
    The Fundamentals of Energy Tokens
    Definition and Role in Gameplay
    Energy tokens in mobile gaming are essentially a form of in-game currency that dictates how much a player can engage with the game over a certain period. Unlike traditional in-game currency used for purchasing items or upgrades, energy tokens are specifically designed to control access to gameplay. Each action or level in the game consumes a set amount of these tokens, and once depleted, the player must either wait for them to regenerate over time or purchase more with real money. The concept of energy tokens isn't new but has evolved significantly in mobile gaming. Initially, these systems were introduced as a way to balance gameplay and prevent player burnout. However, over time, they have become a central monetization strategy for many mobile games. This shift reflects a broader trend in the industry towards free-to-play models that rely on microtransactions for revenue.
    The Mechanics of Energy Tokens
    Upon starting a game, players are typically allocated a certain number of energy tokens. Each in-game activity – be it a battle, a puzzle, or a quest – requires a specific number of tokens to participate. This creates a strategic layer where players must decide how to best use their limited resources. Once these tokens are used up, the player can no longer participate in these activities until their energy is replenished. Energy tokens usually replenish over time, with each token taking a predetermined amount of real-time to regenerate. Alternatively, players can immediately replenish their energy through in-app purchases. These purchases often present a tempting shortcut for players who are eager to continue their progress in the game.
    The Psychological Impact of Energy Token Systems
    The energy token system plays on psychological principles such as urgency and scarcity. By limiting how much players can play, these games create a sense of urgency to use the energy tokens before they're wasted. Additionally, the scarcity of tokens can increase their perceived value, making the option to purchase more appealing. On the flip side, this system can lead to player frustration. Being forced to stop playing at a critical moment can be disappointing, especially when the alternative is to pay. This frustration can lead to game abandonment, as players may seek out other games that don't employ such restrictive mechanics.
    The Economics of Energy Tokens
    From an economic standpoint, energy tokens are a clever monetization tool. They capitalize on the player's desire to continue playing, potentially leading to impulse purchases. Understanding player spending habits is crucial for game developers, as it helps in pricing energy tokens and designing the rate of energy depletion and replenishment. The challenge for game developers is balancing profitability with player satisfaction. If players feel too restricted or exploited by the energy token system, they may leave the game, negating any potential revenue. Therefore, developers must carefully design these systems to be fair and engaging, offering enough playtime to keep players satisfied while still providing monetization opportunities.
    The Impact on Player Engagement
    The Disruption of Gaming Flow
    One of the most immediate impacts of energy tokens is the disruption of the gaming flow. Players are often absorbed in their game, only to be abruptly stopped when their energy tokens run out. This interruption can be jarring and frustrating, particularly when it occurs during a high-stakes or particularly engaging part of the game. It breaks the immersion and can leave players feeling unsatisfied and annoyed. Energy tokens force players to be more strategic with their playtime. Instead of playing spontaneously or immersively, players must plan their game sessions around the availability of energy tokens. While this can add a layer of strategic planning, it also detracts from the casual and relaxing nature of gaming, turning what should be leisure time into a scheduled activity.
    The Frustration-Avoidance Dilemma
    Players often face a dilemma when their energy tokens run out: wait for a natural replenishment, which could take hours, or make an in-app purchase to continue immediately. This creates a frustration-avoidance situation where players must weigh their desire to continue against the annoyance of feeling forced to pay. Over time, this can lead to a negative association with the game, where players remember the frustration more than the enjoyment. Repeated experiences of frustration can have a significant impact on player loyalty and retention. Players who feel constantly hampered by energy limits may start looking for other games that offer a more unrestricted experience. This is particularly true for players who are used to the more open-ended play offered by PC and console games, where such restrictions are less common.
    Short-Term Gains vs. Long-Term Engagement
    While energy tokens can generate immediate revenue through in-app purchases, they can also undermine long-term player engagement. Players who leave a game due to frustration are not only lost customers but can also negatively influence potential new players through word-of-mouth or online reviews.  The key challenge for developers is finding the right balance between monetization and player engagement. Too much emphasis on monetization can alienate players, but too little can make the game economically unviable. Finding a middle ground where players feel their time and money are well-spent is crucial for sustained success.
    The Impact on Social Gaming
    Many mobile games have social components, like leaderboards or cooperative challenges. Energy tokens can impact these aspects by limiting how often players can participate in these activities. This not only affects individual players but can also diminish the game's overall sense of community and shared experience. Player communities are vocal and influential. Negative feedback regarding energy tokens, especially if it's a common sentiment within the community, can significantly impact a game's reputation. Developers must be mindful of community feedback and be willing to adjust their energy token systems accordingly.
    Fortnite: A Case Study in Player Freedom
    The Monetization Strategy
    Fortnite's approach to monetization on mobile platforms is centered around the sale of cosmetic items, battle passes, and occasional special offers. These purchases are entirely optional and do not impact a player's ability to play or progress in the game. This model respects player autonomy, offering an environment where spending money is a matter of personal choice and not a requirement for continued gameplay. This strategy has a positive impact on player engagement. Players can enjoy long, uninterrupted sessions, fostering a deeper connection to the game and its community. The freedom to play without constraints encourages players to invest more time in the game, often leading to higher willingness to make purchases, as they feel these transactions are fair and add value to their gaming experience.
    Community and Social Interaction
    Fortnite's model also enhances its social aspects. Without energy restrictions, players can engage in longer play sessions with friends, participate in events, and be part of the game’s vibrant community. This unrestricted access contributes to a more active and engaged player base, which is crucial for the longevity of any online game.
    Call of Duty Mobile: Balancing Tradition and Innovation
    Adaptation of a Classic Model
    Call of Duty Mobile successfully brings the classic Call of Duty formula to mobile devices, focusing on skill-based gameplay and player progression. Like Fortnite, it monetizes primarily through cosmetic items, battle passes, and special events. This approach allows players to experience the full depth of the game without any pay-to-play barriers. By offering a full gaming experience without the need for energy tokens, Call of Duty Mobile keeps players engaged and invested in their progression. The game rewards skill and dedication, and any purchases made are to enhance the experience, not gatekeep it. This respect for player time and effort helps in building a loyal player base.
    An essential aspect of Call of Duty Mobile is its focus on competitive fairness. The absence of energy tokens means that all players, regardless of their spending capacity, have equal access to the game’s content. This fairness is crucial in maintaining the competitive integrity of the game and ensuring that the player base remains active and diverse.
    Embracing New Monetization Models
    Beyond Traditional Microtransactions
    The industry is poised to explore new monetization strategies that extend beyond the conventional microtransactions and energy tokens. These could include more dynamic models like season passes, which offer players a series of rewards over a set period, or loyalty programs that reward consistent play without hindering progress. Another avenue is the strategic use of advertisements. Instead of intrusive ads that disrupt gameplay, developers might adopt opt-in advertising, where players choose to watch ads in exchange for in-game rewards. This model respects player agency and can be a significant revenue source when implemented thoughtfully.
    Balancing Engagement and Revenue
    The key challenge for future mobile games will be balancing engagement with revenue generation. Developers must craft experiences that keep players returning for the gameplay itself, not just for routine check-ins or because they feel obligated by sunk costs. Fostering a sense of community and enhancing social elements in games can also drive engagement. Features that encourage collaboration, competition, and sharing experiences can create a more vibrant game ecosystem and deepen player investment in the game.
    Innovation in Game Design
    Advancements in technology, such as augmented reality (AR) and artificial intelligence (AI), offer exciting opportunities for game design. These technologies can create more immersive and interactive gaming experiences, attracting a wider audience and offering new avenues for monetization. Mobile gaming must play to its strengths – accessibility and convenience. This means designing games that are enjoyable in short bursts but also have depth for longer play sessions. Games that can be seamlessly integrated into a player's daily routine will have an edge in the increasingly competitive market.
    Ethical Considerations and Player Welfare
    As mobile games become more engaging, developers also have a responsibility to consider player welfare. This includes addressing issues related to gaming addiction and irresponsible spending, possibly through features that encourage healthy gaming habits and spending limits. Ensuring transparency in how games operate, particularly in how they monetize, is crucial. Players should always feel that they are making informed decisions, and games should be designed to be fair and ethical in their approach to player engagement and monetization.
    The Role of Player Feedback
    Successful future mobile games will likely be those that listen to and integrate player feedback. A responsive development process, where player input shapes updates and changes, can build trust and loyalty among the player base. Data analytics can play a crucial role in understanding player preferences and behavior. By leveraging this data, developers can create more personalized and engaging gaming experiences, driving both player satisfaction and revenue.
    Conclusion: Reimagining Mobile Gaming
    The mobile gaming industry stands at a crossroads. The current overreliance on energy tokens as a monetization strategy is increasingly being questioned. By reimagining these strategies and prioritizing player satisfaction and engagement, mobile gaming can evolve into a platform that is both profitable and player-friendly. This evolution is not just a business necessity; it's a response to the changing dynamics of gaming culture and the evolving expectations of gamers. At the core of this evolution must be a fundamental respect for the player's experience and a commitment to enriching the joy of gaming.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.