Since then, gaming consumed me. It became a pivotal point in my life, of which lots of friendships were formed from this mutual hobby. We would play games at every opportunity and discuss them among each other, share games, watch each other play games and pretend play we were the gaming characters.
Pre-internet, there were a lot of myths around games. Gaming rumors were spread via word of mouth, magazines and even on gaming-related shows like Cybernet. These rumors spanned from being able to jump over the flag in Super Mario Bros. to seeing boobies in Mortal Kombat's "Nudeality" finishers. However, no myth piqued our interest as much as the "Game Tester" myth.
Like a scene straight out of Inception, the idea of being paid to play games became us, it consumed us and it was all we could ever dream of doing. While all the other kids had great and noble aspirations for the future, we had our hearts and minds set on working for a big game developer like Electronic Arts, Apogee or id Software.
Since then, the gaming industry seems to have snuffed out the game-tester all together. Sure, large developers still have in-house game-testers, but the nature of the capitalist beast has evolved to the point that we now pay them to test the games, not the other way around as I pictured it when I was younger.
This comes in the form of paid early-access games, pre-alpha releases and Kickstarters.
It's understandable, though. People, by nature, are impatient. We want to be at the head of the queue, beat traffic to get home faster and in the gaming scene, it seems that we are willing to pay in order to play an unfinished product which is still in development.
Game developers are more than aware of this, which is why this trend is emerging more and more frequently. The supple teets of the cash-cow have an allure that is difficult to resist and we, the consumer, are dumb and/or impatient enough to give in to this temptation dangling before us like a delicious carrot on a stick.
The practice itself is not detrimental to the gaming industry, though. The games get additional funding while in development and at the same time, the game itself is being constantly scrutinized by the players, ensuring that a good quantity of bugs or gameplay changes will be fixed or changed for the benefit of the final product. Two birds, one cup. (I think that's how the saying goes).
Obviously, a system where you're paying for a product before it's completed is bound to be a gamble to the consumer. If the game is scrapped, put in developer limbo or comes short of what was originally advertised, then you're out of your hard-earned money and somebody else benefits from your gullibility.
However, I saw something recently which blew my mind and left a most bitter, sour taste in my mouth.
H1Z1, a zombie survival game being developed by Sony Online Entertainment just recently got an early-access release on Steam at the entry level price of $19.99. This is not an unusual price for an early-access game, as early-access prices are usually substantially lower than final release, full retail price.
No, what was unusual about the price was the fact that there was a price at all, since H1Z1 will be a free to play game.
If I could go back and show younger-me this, he would probably not be able to wrap his mind around the concept, and rightfully so. It feels like the greediest, most opportunistic thing that could be done and I'm surprised that not many people are up-in-arms about it.
Sony Online Entertainment has justified this price by including event tickets (a marketplace cash-item) in the early-access release, but it doesn't feel equatable to that sum of money. What is boils down to is basic human greed at the exploitation of willing others and because of this, that kid inside of me with a passion towards the development and testing of games is withering away.
It scares me to think what the future may hold for the gaming consumer. What other underhanded practices will emerge as things like this become more frequent and we keep giving in to them.
The problem doesn't lie with the game developers, project managers or publishers behind these decisions. It lies with us, the consumers. The reason that a company can get away with charging you for something that is free is because we are willing to pay for it. We are showing them that there is a market, no matter what they throw at us or what unethical practices are put in place and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Until that time comes, I'm committing myself to not purchase or support any early-access, kickstarter or Alpha game unless it's proven itself to be worth the money, time and manages to please the kid in me that is still dying to test out games.
