On DLCs and Hats

DownLoadable Content packs, from here on DLCs, are a new concept to many. They are add-on packs for existing games that you can - as the name implies - download  to complement a game that you already own. Even though expansion packs have existed for a while now, and they were somewhat similar in nature to DLCs in the way that they added new content to the main game, the digital distribution channels and high speed internet connections have made this model a lot more popular in today's games.

In the beginning, there were expansions

Before the advent of digital distribution, if you wanted to publish additional content for an already existing game, you had to go through the same path that the original game went through, that is: Retail.

Retail means that you have to print out physical copies of your game content, along with manuals, boxes, etc. Once you have your product all packed and neat, you need to get it to the consumer, and that means a distribution chain, which involves shipping, distributing, stocking and shelving. All of this printing and boxing and shipping and shelving costs money, and the audience for this product is limited to those people who already own the original game, so in order for this investment to make sense to the publisher (who are the people than normally cough up the money), the original game better be a huge hit, and the new content you're offering better be appealing enough to guarantee a return on the investment.

All of this means that you didn't see expansion packs for many games, and when you did, this were normally pretty big chunks of game, we're talking quasi sequels here.

But Why make new content for an old game?

So what are the reasons behind this need to make more of the same game? why not make a sequel? or a different game altogether? the reasons as I see it are these:

• Creative motivation: Game developers often work on a single game for several years, they put a lot of time and effort into creating these worlds, characters and plots, and often they are forced by time or budget constraints to leave out parts of the game that they would still like to tell, but these parts may not be enough to form a fully fledged sequel. Another advantage of creating added content for an existing game is that you can use all of the existing code instead of creating a new engine from scratch.
• Gamer demand: successful games often motivate users to create a connection to them, but since games have limited content, the consumers can be left asking for more. Maybe a few extra levels that focus on a particular game dynamic, or take the story a little further, or maybe a new game mode to bring some variety.
• Profit: and the most obvious reason of all, money. Games are a very commercial form of art. Since game development can be pretty expensive, the money normally comes from sources other than the developers themselves, and this sources are interested in having their money back, and then some, how much you ask? well, as much as possible of course. So if you have a game that sold well, a team that can make more of the same for a fraction of the cost of a new game, and an audience that is willing to pay, then it's a no-brainer: pay for some more development, distribute, and enjoy. And please, don't think that this is a bad thing, making games cost money, thousands of people enjoy them, the creators deserve to get paid well for their efforts.

So, in a perfect scenario, you have a bit of all three motivations, preferably more of the first two, and everybody wins.

And then came DLC

With the popularization of digital content distribution came a new way to get game content to the consumers. Digital distribution means that the user can directly buy and download the content that he wants directly onto his gaming platform, be it a gaming console or a PC. It also means goodbye to having to go through retail to get to the consumer, which in time means much lower production costs, and much larger profits. Now instead of printing and distributing thousands of copies with the risk of losing a large investment on those that don't sell, you can just put your content on a server where users can download it directly.

Now, the lower costs and higher profits mean an increase in the profit part of the motivation, and the lower barriers mean that investors are more willing to take risks on less popular titles, and on not so big content packs that can sell for much lower prices. And that brings us to: Hats.

Since developers can now easily create and distribute basically any add on that they can think of, they take the liberty and run with it, they are creating anything and everything from old fashioned game expansions, going through extra maps, skins, vehicles and weapons, to simpler sillier things like t-shirts, hats, and fancy dance moves for your characters or avatars.

I had originally planned on this being a discussion on whether DLCs are just a thinly veiled plot to separate gamers from their money, or one of the greatest things to happen to gaming in a while, but this entry has gone on long enough, so I guess I'll have to postpone that discussion for a later entry, so, stayed tuned for the exciting conclusion.

On Video Games as an Art Form

A couple of weeks ago I received the news that Video Games where now officially accepted as an Art Form by the National Endowment for the Arts project. In practical terms this means that Video Game projects can now apply for endorsement from this institution; in more philosophical terms it makes a strong statement in the long and tired argument of whether or not Video Games are, or will ever be, an Art Form. So, for my first blog entry I thought I'd drop my two cents on the subject.

So, what is Art anyway?

Now, in order for this discussion to make any sense at all, I believe I should start by sharing my personal rough definition of art. For me, Art is a form of expression deliberately designed by the author (or authors) to communicate or evoke an emotional reaction. The fact that the expression is deliberate does not mean that the message it carries is fully consciously known or determined by the author; some unconscious manifestations can, and often do, appear in artistic creations. The fact that the audience for the piece receives the message that the creator intended is not guaranteed either; as all forms of human communication, the interpretation of a work of art is completely subjective and depends entirely on the cultural context of the audience. In much the same way, the success of a piece of art in evoking the expected response depends greatly on it's artistic quality. Inversely, one of the measures for the quality of a piece of art could be it's ability or inability to evoke in it's audience the expected emotional response.

So, long story short, Art is an expression, an attempt to transmit a message, in it's purest form, an emotion or a feeling.

One thing I'd like to make very clear is that, to me, the classification of something as a Form of Art, is not by any means related to the quality of the thing itself, it's the same as saying whether or not something is a pineapple: an object either is a pineapple or it is not, but that does not mean it's good or bad. In the same way, if we say that music is an Art Form, then Rebecca Black's Friday is as much a piece of art as Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody. Stating that something is a "work of art" is not a qualitative statement, merely a classification.

About the "language" of a Form of Art

So now that we got the definition part out of the way, I'd like to talk about the "language", to me this is the means trough which a piece of art transmits it's message to the audience. In music the language is a rhythmical pattern of different sounds that the creator can arrange in order to evoke a certain emotion, in drawing and paint, the language is a static visual representation using materials on a media. Now, when we get to the Cinema, things get a little more complicated, Cinema is a composite art form, since it includes photography, music, acting, writing, and in many cases, several forms of either digital or traditional illustration and animation, but the artistry in cinema does not reside in any of this elements in themselves, but rather in the combination of this elements to create an entire ensemble that when complete, transmits the message that the creators intended.

So what would be the language of video games? video games have often been compared to movies when discussing whether or not they should be considered a form of art, because just as movies, video games are a composite art; they too combine music, imagery, animation, and they often borrow much from the tried and true language of cinema. But the language of games is very different from that of movies, in a video game you are not told a story, you live the story, therefore the language of games is that of gameplay, the creators of a video game communicate their message through the use of gameplay mechanics, of playable surroundings, of environmental music that reacts to your actions, it is through the combination of this elements that a game should evoke the desired emotions in the player.

The use of cinematic sequences in video games is the equivalent of written text in early silent movies, it is a piece of a completely different form of communication being used as a means to go around a shortcoming. Early movies also borrowed much from theater, since it was the closest form of art that was already established at the time. Over the years however, Movies have come to find and develop their very own language, form which now games borrow so much. In the case of video games, cutscenes and cinematic sequences are an example of the lack of experience in this new form of communication, a game's story should not be told to you through texts and cutscenes, it should be told in the media's own language, and that is gameplay; excellent examples of this are games like Portal, Call of Duty (only the real ones, those by Infinity Ward) and Left 4 Dead, in these games you live through the story, it happens to you and around you, I believe that the success of these games is due to the recognition, even if unconsciously, of the fact that they are early examples of what this emerging form of art could eventually become, they are the Casablanca and Citizen Kane of the Art of this century.