Alone in the Dark goes Episodic

[bapenguin]

GamesIndustry.biz (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=16501) brings word that Atari's next Alone in the Dark title will be episodic based.

The developer is anticipating that each distinctive chapter will contain approximately 30-40 minutes of gameplay, ending with a cinematic sequence and a "what's next" teaser. By loading a saved game, players will be treated to a brief cinematic summary of the events of the previous chapter, in a similar fashion to the current popular television shows that air on a weekly episodic basis.
30-40 minutes seems kinda short. Almost too short. Unless they can really stick to a weekly schedule with this, there may be too much downtime and not enough content to get you through.

[SuperMonkeyFighter2]

30 mins? Holy cow ... this better be dirt cheap. Heck, even if it's $5 bucks, I can rent a game and get far more gameplay out of it.

[sflufan]

I've been trying to figure out what exactly their very vaguely worded press release is telling me.

Are they saying that I will be downloading episodes from Xbox Live or the internet or will I be purchasing a gaming disk that will be actually divided into episodes. If it is the second case, how is this different than playing the "chapters" of a game anyway?

Let's just say that the press release actually confused me more than it clarified things.

[Deadend]

26 episodes, released weekly on Live/Steam for $2-3 an episode, still way too expensive. A subscription for $40-50? Eventually selling a season box set in retail?

[MrPoo]

Alone in the Dark was--well, still is--one of my all-time favorite PC games. I can still remember the crazy polygons of dogs and zombies attacking you, the camera switching angles on you wildly...

Ah, the fun days of my overclocked 486 DX2/66... (~80 MHz with Radioshack-provided oscillator w00t)

Resident Evil tried to copy it. I tried RE on the PSX, but it was sorely lacking.

30-40 minutes of gameplay per episode...? Wow, that's MICROpayments territory!!!

[Klade]

This has the potential to cost more then a normal game and have around 13 hours of gameplay in it. I can't see a lot of people jumping on this and paying for them once a week. Perhaps people will buy them if they sell em in groups of 10 or some such.

[MaiXu]

So how much are they going to charge for that 30-40 minutes of gameplay? $1? $2? I can't see paying beyond $5, seeing as houw you could almost rent a game for that much.

[JazGalaxy]

I really hope gamers revolt against this stupid episodic gaming crap. I mean, from what they're proposing, they intend to completely do away with gameplay. There's just no way that anything you do in the game could affect anything else when it's being done in 30 minute gameplay increments. So, what happens? You pick up a bazooka in your game only to go into the next episode with a pistol because that's what the "story" says happened? Yeugh...

And 30 minutes of playtime? Is that even worth turning on your console for?

[Borys]

Microtransactions, episodic content, STEAM (kinda) etc.

The biggest screwing of gamers in the history of gaming - LESS FOR MORE - has begun.

[Krom]

That's interesting. When I read an article on it, I thought it meant you buy a 50-60 dollar game and that's how the game itself is segmented.

[Krom]

26 episodes, released weekly on Live/Steam for $2-3 an episode, still way too expensive.

Where did you get that info?

[bapenguin]

Microtransactions, episodic content, STEAM (kinda) etc.

The biggest screwing of gamers in the history of gaming - LESS FOR MORE - has begun.

While I completely agree this totally sucks ass, I wonder if it was done out of necessity. Perhaps the old model simply wasn't making enough money to warrant further game titles and publishers and developers are trying new ways to see how it works out.

[Krom]

Um, read this Gamespot article http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/aloneinthedark/news.html?sid=6148639
I'm pretty sure the game just has an episodic STYLE.

[Citizen Philip]

I think movies have it about right: $8-12 for 2 hours. Or about $5 an hour. Maybe less.

30-40 minutes of gameplay is worth about 2-3 bucks, on the condition it there are 30 parts.. ergo $60.

But.. if it's like Rocket Robinhood or Your Friendly Neigbhorhood (sp) Spiderman, with terrible animation and repeated clips: not to mention recycling the theme music every commerical. Not going to fly.

I might accept an exceptionally well-done game that was short. But not from a +10 year old title. I liked Max Payne 2, which was about 6 hours: it was a solid experience, but not many agreed it was worth the purchase.

[ddbrown30]

60 minutes of gameplay >$5.

60x10 = 6 hours != $60.

60x15 = 15 hours = $60.

= $4 an hour.

$4x2 = $8...

about the same as a movie.

I might accept an exceptionally well-done game that was short. But not from a +10 year old title. I liked Max Payne 2, which was about 6 hours: it was a solid experience, but not many agreed it was worth the purchase.

Would you mind explaining that math? I've never seen 60 x 10 equal 6 hours before. You seem to be picking random numbers.

[Citizen Philip]

Would you mind explaining that math? I've never seen 60 x 10 equal 6 hours before. You seem to be picking random numbers.

editting....

[ddbrown30]

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that 60 minutes x 10 = 6 hours? Because it doesn't. It equals 10 hours. You know, because 60 minutes is the same as an hour.

[Watership]

Do we have any info on how many hours of play will be in the SiN and Half Life Episodes?

This is something that i'm very concerned about. Short episodes, hardly any content, micropayments that total to more than you'd pay for a full game.

[bean19]

30-40 minutes? How much do they expect us to pay for these episodes?

So a normal survival horror game is about 6 to 10 hours long (average of 8 hours). That's 480 minutes for about $50, but for the sake of easy numbers, let's just say that each minute costs 10 cents. That means that 30-40 minutes of gameplay should then cost between 3-4 dollars.

If it's really good, I'd even pay $5 for each episode, which gives them a nice bonus over the normal amount (on top of the nice bonus income from digital distribution). However, if it is bad, or if it costs more than $5, then I won't even touch it.

Plus, they really have to do GOOD work on this. A mediocre or bad product would result in lower income because they would not recoup as much on the initial investment of making the game (the engine and artwork will cost more initially to create than the subsequent episodes - presumably).

The other problem that I see is that developers tend to overestimate the length of their games. Hopefully, with episodes that are only 30-40 minutes long, they will be able to gauge this more accurately. Still, I can totally see people feeling jipped by the low game length. . . especially since they will almost always end on a cliffhanger.

[JazGalaxy]

No, they seem to want to make it episodic in terms of buying episodes. hence the idea that each episode would come with a cinematic that summed up the previous episode.

The idea behind it is that they can sell you episode A and then use the profits from episode A to make episode B. Then they can uset he profits from episode A adn B to make episode C, thereby offsettng the cost of production.

The problems with this are obvious. What if you invest in a series only to have the mainstream public lose interest in it a few episodes in? then you basically NEVER GET TO FINISH THE GAME because the rest of the game hasn't been created yet. Also, much like television, there will be no direction to the games as they intend to keep you playing episode after episode until they eventually jump the shark. I can't wait to see Half Life episode 50 when Gordon Freeman's cute little cousin shows up.

[MacDuff]

Everyone stop freaking out.

It is NOT being distributed in pieces on xbox live.

Specifically, the gameplay is being designed to be played in sessions of about 30 minutes (rather than in sequences that take hours and hours to sit through). Not only will these sessions let busy people pick up and play the game without missing a beat, but each session will also have its own concluding cinematic sequences, as well as "coming up next" sequences that tease the next part of the adventure. And when you return to the game later, you'll even be treated to brief plot summaries that will catch you up on what has happened so far, so you won't have to worry about forgetting where you left off.

Doesn't take much to get you guys frothing at the mouth, does it?

[ddbrown30]

The problems with this are obvious. What if you invest in a series only to have the mainstream public lose interest in it a few episodes in? then you basically NEVER GET TO FINISH THE GAME because the rest of the game hasn't been created yet.

That's not really a valid arguement. The same issue happens with television shows. If a show doesn't catch on, it'll be cancelled after a few episodes. I don't see why episodic games should be any different. It's disappointing, but understandable.

[gzsfrk]

Microtransactions, episodic content, STEAM (kinda) etc.

The biggest screwing of gamers in the history of gaming - LESS FOR MORE - has begun.

Totally agree with you that microtransactions is a horrible trend that we should unite as a community and squash while we have the chance, sort of like how consumers did with the complete and utter rejection of those DRM'd DivX players that were initially competing with DVD. This is very similiar in terms of principle, except I fear that widespread acceptance of microtransactions might actually happen.

[ddbrown30]

Everyone stop freaking out.

It is NOT being distributed in pieces on xbox live.



Doesn't take much to get you guys frothing at the mouth, does it?

That quote is vague and open to interpretation. Nowhere in it does it directly say that this will be offered in a single package.

[Shifteh]

See, the problem with this is that it doesn't solve one of the main problems people currently have with gaming - games cost too much.

I know they're thinking ~3 bucks per episode, people can afford that!

But the reality is that I could buy half-life one, and play it and several dozen other mods for free.

And thirty minutes? I know a lot of we 'older' gamers don't have a lot of time to spare on gaming, but when I hear the words "30 minutes" followed by "cinematic that describes what happens last" I see 20 minutes of gameplay.

The question they should be asking is "How is this idea better than what currently exists?"

Is it cheaper? No.

Does it have better gameplay? No.

Does it solve existing problems? No.

Thank you, I'll pass.

[MacDuff]

That quote is vague and open to interpretation. Nowhere in it does it directly say that this will be offered in a single package.

If it were being distributed in pieces over xbox live, they would say it. The headline would be "NEW ALONE IN THE DARK GAME TO BE RELEASED IN EPISODES OVER XBOX LIVE"

"We're designing gameplay for 30 minute play sessions" does not equal "We have a deal with xbox live where the game will be released in small packages, about 30 minutes of gameplay each."

Jeez.

[UnderHero5]

If indeed they do release this as episodic downloads then I have only one thing to say...

I really hope this episodic crap doesn't catch on. Especially episodes as short as 30 minutes?
This isn't tv. It's gaming. It's a completely different media and shouldn't be handled the same way as tv.

I definitely won't be buying (I was never an AITD fan anyway, so no big loss for me).

When I buy a game it's because I want to PLAY it... the whole thing... not 30 minutes of it at a time. Which is about the amount of gameplay contained in an average game DEMO. No thanks.
30 minutes of gameplay is nothing. It wouldn't even be worth owning until they were half done with the game at least.

Bah. Gaming is going downhill fast with all this microtransaction/episodic bullshit.
I can only hope that the rest of the gaming world doesn't follow this new trend.

I know I'll always have Nintendo and my handhelds at least.

[ddbrown30]

If it were being distributed in pieces over xbox live, they would say it. The headline would be "NEW ALONE IN THE DARK GAME TO BE RELEASED IN EPISODES OVER XBOX LIVE"

"We're designing gameplay for 30 minute play sessions" does not equal "We have a deal with xbox live where the game will be released in small packages, about 30 minutes of gameplay each."

Jeez.

I didn't say it was being distributed over XBox Live. I said the quote is vague and open to interpretation.

Again, they have yet to say exactly what they mean. However, it seems to me that selling a single package that is separated into episodes that are only 30 minutes long makes a no sense.

[bean19]

The idea behind it is that they can sell you episode A and then use the profits from episode A to make episode B. Then they can uset he profits from episode A adn B to make episode C, thereby offsettng the cost of production.

Actually, I think they have adopted a "season" format. My guess is that the episodes are a gimmick to get more money out of us, raise interest, and develop digital ditribution as a game publishing format.

After we pay $2-5 episode, they'll release the full "season" of all 26 episodes via steam AND as a retail game.

26 x 2 = 52
26 x 3 = 78
26 x 4 = 104
26 x 5 = 130

Total game length over 26 episodes that are 30-40 minutes long (35 average) = 910 minutes or a little over 15 hours.

Okay, so let me remake that figure on what I'd be willing to pay. . . I'd be HAPPY paying $3/episode, and I'd probably pay $4/episode and feel cheated. At $3/episode, I could totally even forgive an episode that wasn't as good as the best of them, but any higher and I'll save my money and wait for the eventual full release at a normal game price the first time one of the episodes leaves me cold.

[gzsfrk]

That's not really a valid arguement. The same issue happens with television shows. If a show doesn't catch on, it'll be cancelled after a few episodes. I don't see why episodic games should be any different. It's disappointing, but understandable.

It is potentially quite a bit different than television content. TV shows are generally designed to be open-ended episodic with a few notable exceptions (24, Prison Break, reality shows) while games are generally designed to have a distinct overall beginning and ending to the story (where applicable; obviously, this doesn't apply to most driving or sports games).

If the AITD team fails to approach the development of episodic gaming such that each episode has its own satisfying beginning and ending while slowly contributing to an underlying, developing story (a la the X Files), but instead decides to be like some Japanese anime where you have to watch 5-10 episodes to have ANY kind of idea what's going on, then cancelling the development of future episodes at some point could potentially leave MANY gamers irritated and hanging, wanting closure that is not forthcoming.

Example: Imagine if DragonBall Z stopped production right before Goku's big fight with Frieza. Would have been more than a few Japanese kotaku with a bad opinion of Bandai. :)

[Savok]

I avoid TV and buy season box sets for a reason.

That said god knows what they're doing here, the language is so vague, but when I play a game, or hell, watch TV, I don't like "seat gripping cliffhanger" shit, I want the god damn story now, showing endless clips of last week and next week waste time.

And it's survival horror, I thought you were supposed to feel the experience, kinda hard with episode shit flashing in front of you.

[gzsfrk]

I didn't say it was being distributed over XBox Live. I said the quote is vague and open to interpretation.

Again, they have yet to say exactly what they mean. However, it seems to me that selling a single package that is separated into episodes that are only 30 minutes long makes a no sense.

While I totally agree that this would be a bad thing if they attempt to turn it into one big microtransaction free-for-all, I -don't- completely agree that it's a bad thing to have a game designed to be played in 30-60 minute chunks. As the recent father of a wonderful baby girl, I find that 30 minutes to an hour is all the time I have at one setting before I have to once again return my attention to taking care of my daughter. This obviously precludes me from enjoying WoW or most games other than those which require very little time to sit down, become engaged, and get playing (fighters, driving games, FPS deathmatch).

This could be an attempt to tailor a game to an aging gamer population (I suspect there are more 30-something parents that play games/videogames now than at any other time in history). It could in fact be a very lucrative market if their attempt is executed and delivered properly.

However, I'm not about to pay a premium for smaller size (I'm looking at you, Coca-Cola and Frito Lay).

[ddbrown30]

It is potentially quite a bit different than television content. TV shows are generally designed to be open-ended episodic with a few notable exceptions (24, Prison Break, reality shows) while games are generally designed to have a distinct overall beginning and ending to the story (where applicable; obviously, this doesn't apply to most driving or sports games).

If the AITD team fails to approach the development of episodic gaming such that each episode has its own satisfying beginning and ending while slowly contributing to an underlying, developing story (a la the X Files), but instead decides to be like some Japanese anime where you have to watch 5-10 episodes to have ANY kind of idea what's going on, then cancelling the development of future episodes at some point could potentially leave MANY gamers irritated and hanging, wanting closure that is not forthcoming.

Example: Imagine if DragonBall Z stopped production right before Goku's big fight with Frieza. Would have been more than a few Japanese kotaku with a bad opinion of Bandai. :)

I think you're taking a biased view based on what you know of gaming. While I agree that every episode should be constructed in a way that has it's own complete story that contributes to the over-arching story, I don't agree with your conclusion on what would happen if a game was cancelled.

First of all, if a game is being cancelled, it's because it's not popular or the unlikely posibility that the company making it suffered some massive financial problem causing them to go bankrupt. This is going to leave tons of gamers out in the cold because if there were tons to being with, the game wouldn't have been cancelled.

Second, this is going to be happening in the first few episodes. That means that it's unlikely that the story is going to be very developed and the player's will not have very much emotional investment in the game. The few gamers it affects may be disappointed, but they'll get over it and they will be unlikely to hold a grudge against the company.

[Savok]

Save like the god damn like the rest of us. See that's the great thing about the current system, WE decide when to stop. Your 3 minutes from the end and kid starts screaming? You're back at what we have now, only the rest of us suffer for it.

[ddbrown30]

While I totally agree that this would be a bad thing if they attempt to turn it into one big microtransaction free-for-all, I -don't- completely agree that it's a bad thing to have a game designed to be played in 30-60 minute chunks. As the recent father of a wonderful baby girl, I find that 30 minutes to an hour is all the time I have at one setting before I have to once again return my attention to taking care of my daughter. This obviously precludes me from enjoying WoW or most games other than those which require very little time to sit down, become engaged, and get playing (fighters, driving games, FPS deathmatch).

This could be an attempt to tailor a game to an aging gamer population (I suspect there are more 30-something parents that play games/videogames now than at any other time in history). It could in fact be a very lucrative market if their attempt is executed and delivered properly.

However, I'm not about to pay a premium for smaller size (I'm looking at you, Coca-Cola and Frito Lay).

Interesting point. Looking at it from that perspective, I can definitely something like this as a possiblility. They're specifically targetting their game to a casual audience and making a somewhat long game accessable to someone who doesn't have a long time to play.

However, I would say that if that's the case, they would need a way to turn off the hard breaks in gameplay for the players who want to play for longer periods.

[Varsity]

See, the problem with this is that it doesn't solve one of the main problems people currently have with gaming - games cost too much.Rubbish they do. Compare them to any other form of commercial entertainment and you'll find them incredibly cheap and good value for money. Especially on the PC when they are extendable.

Is it cheaper? No.It depends on how you handle it. If you buy a $5 episode and don't like it, that's $45 saved compared to a normal game.

Does it have better gameplay? No.This, again, is in no way as clear-cut as you make it out. Tight, focused segments have every potential to be more enjoyable than a streched-out long haul. There's also the benefit to the developers of reduced stress and increased flexibility, making the final product more worthwhile.

Does it solve existing problems? No.In no particular order:
Unfocused, drawn out games
Rushed endings
Developer burnout
High entry levels for smaller developers
Developing an entire game only to discover that it isn't as popular as expected
DNF/Stalker delays
The consumer's mental barrier of spending $50 in one go
All you have to do is look under the surface.

That said, half an hour a week sounds like something you'd be better off buying in bulk once a month. We'll see how they handle it.

[Roc Ingersol]

The big problem for me, is that episodic content (e.g. TV, Comics, etc) is very heavily character-driven and video game characters tend to suck. If the character isn't worth following, doesn't conjure any emotional investment, there's no real reason to make them episodic games, as opposed to simple $3 stand-alone games.

Then again, I could imagine someone like Schafer & co. doing an episodic puzzle/platformer/sitcom thing that'd be worth the price.

[Cha-Ka]

30-40 minutes? No thanks. I'm not accustomed to paying for demos.

So I say to myself, " this must be what it feels like to grow old". Being an old fashioned gamer (think 30's), I prefer to buy complete games that have attractive packaging which contains a disc. I also like to own things after I buy them, a tradition that's threatened by the rising acceptance of digital distribution.

[JazGalaxy]

I think you're taking a biased view based on what you know of gaming. While I agree that every episode should be constructed in a way that has it's own complete story that contributes to the over-arching story, I don't agree with your conclusion on what would happen if a game was cancelled.

First of all, if a game is being cancelled, it's because it's not popular or the unlikely posibility that the company making it suffered some massive financial problem causing them to go bankrupt. This is going to leave tons of gamers out in the cold because if there were tons to being with, the game wouldn't have been cancelled.

Second, this is going to be happening in the first few episodes. That means that it's unlikely that the story is going to be very developed and the player's will not have very much emotional investment in the game. The few gamers it affects may be disappointed, but they'll get over it and they will be unlikely to hold a grudge against the company.

I don't agree. Take a show like Firefly, which people LOVED, and was cancelled because it didn't get good enough ratings. You can say "It didn't upset that many people because if there were more fans, they would have been watching it" but that doesn't take away from the fact that the people who liked it, liked it. They are dissapointed that there is no more Firefly. Now imagine if they had financially invested in it by downloading every episode, and then never got ot find out what happened to Mal and Inara, or any of the other charachters? I'd be pretty upset.

As for shows games getting cancelled within the first few episodes, that is completely not an accurate assumption to make. It could eb that a new episodic game comes out and takes all the userbase away from another game, like World of Warcraft did for Online games. Or, alternatively, it could be that interest in the game simly dies off because of a change in direction of the game. Suppose Gordon Freeman wakes up in the civil war period and people just don't like that and stop playing the game. Then what?

If you read comic books, then you know what I'm talking about.

[Kelegacy]

I hope this shit goes the way of the dinosaur.

[JazGalaxy]

While I totally agree that this would be a bad thing if they attempt to turn it into one big microtransaction free-for-all, I -don't- completely agree that it's a bad thing to have a game designed to be played in 30-60 minute chunks. As the recent father of a wonderful baby girl, I find that 30 minutes to an hour is all the time I have at one setting before I have to once again return my attention to taking care of my daughter. This obviously precludes me from enjoying WoW or most games other than those which require very little time to sit down, become engaged, and get playing (fighters, driving games, FPS deathmatch).

This could be an attempt to tailor a game to an aging gamer population (I suspect there are more 30-something parents that play games/videogames now than at any other time in history). It could in fact be a very lucrative market if their attempt is executed and delivered properly.

However, I'm not about to pay a premium for smaller size (I'm looking at you, Coca-Cola and Frito Lay).

I understand where you're coming from, because I'm in a similar situation, but I believe episodic gaming is the answer to a misdiagnosed problem.

For example, I had a huge problem with Jade Empire on the Xbox because I had to sit down with the game on 3-4 seperate occasions to play the game before i had ANY fun with it. It was like work. Uninteresting cut scenes... uninteresting conversations... nothing to do but go from point a to point b like people are telling me to advance the narrative... no fun. It amounts to hours and hours worth of storytelling. So do we need to chop that story telling up into a bunch of smaller chunks to save gamers time? I certainly don't think so. I think games need to use gamers time more efficiently.

Games like Tomb Raider Legend are set up in such a way that you are having fun from the second you start playing. you are interacting, you are making decisions, you are going where you want to go and doing what you want to od. I could at any point from start to finish play that game in a 30 minute increment and come away entertained. I'm allowed to enjoy it at my own pace, when I want to.

So, yes, I agree that game length is becoming a problem, and games taht can be enjoyed in smaller doses are best, but I don't think this should come about by providing games that are so consistantly fun that you can subdivide them any way you want and still come away entertained.

[Dabombpizza]

As for shows games getting cancelled within the first few episodes, that is completely not an accurate assumption to make. It could eb that a new episodic game comes out and takes all the userbase away from another game, like World of Warcraft did for Online games. Or, alternatively, it could be that interest in the game simly dies off because of a change in direction of the game. Suppose Gordon Freeman wakes up in the civil war period and people just don't like that and stop playing the game. Then what?


For Example: Shen Mue and the original Xenosaga. Both games that were supposed to be in a series that were canceled due to low sales.

[Varsity]

Suppose Gordon Freeman wakes up in the civil war period and people just don't like that and stop playing the game. Then what?
Then it would be crap anyway.

Your other post seems to have things completely the wrong way round. You think games need to use gamers' time more efficiently - yet that is one of the main benefits of going episodic in the first place. Better focus. And the final conclusion makes no sense at all: the solution to streched-out games with long boring sections isn't to make them 'consistently fun'? It's a total non sequitur.

I just don't understand why people can't grasp the concept of episodic. Would it be easier if it was called 'games split into meaningful chunks'?

[ddbrown30]

I don't agree. Take a show like Firefly, which people LOVED, and was cancelled because it didn't get good enough ratings. You can say "It didn't upset that many people because if there were more fans, they would have been watching it" but that doesn't take away from the fact that the people who liked it, liked it. They are dissapointed that there is no more Firefly. Now imagine if they had financially invested in it by downloading every episode, and then never got ot find out what happened to Mal and Inara, or any of the other charachters? I'd be pretty upset.

Now you're not talking about having a story cut in the middle. Sure, it's disappointing that a show you like gets cancelled, but you're not left hanging. It's not like the story just all of a sudden stops. The story for that season was resolved.

As well, you still haven't done anything to counter my point about a small number of players/viewers. Ths issue still remains that ratings sucked and there weren't very many people watching. Sure, it's a great show. That doesn't matter. Great shows get cancelled all the time. The fact remains that there weren't a lot of people watching. Which also brings up the issue that there just weren't a lot of people to piss of. Much of the hype around Firefly came about after the DVD release. Regardless, my arguement still stands.

As for shows games getting cancelled within the first few episodes, that is completely not an accurate assumption to make. It could eb that a new episodic game comes out and takes all the userbase away from another game, like World of Warcraft did for Online games. Or, alternatively, it could be that interest in the game simly dies off because of a change in direction of the game. Suppose Gordon Freeman wakes up in the civil war period and people just don't like that and stop playing the game. Then what?

If you read comic books, then you know what I'm talking about.

Again, my arguement still stands. There aren't a lot people playing the game. If it's reached the point where a company is going to cut their losses and cancel it, there aren't enough people to make a difference.

Still, you haven't addresses the majority of my arguement. This is still in the first few episodes meaning that the story has only just begun to develop and there's not much investment yet.

As well, it is unlikely that any game will come along that will be able to instantly steal a loyal fanbase away from a game in mid-season. Comparing an MMO to this is not a valid comparison as it is a persistent world, not a closed environment with a definite beginning and end.

Finally, if a show makes a huge change in direction, one large enough to drive away enough of their fanbase to warrent cancelling the game, then it's unlikely the remainded of the game would have been good anyway.


When all is said and done, all of your arguements can be immediately countered by referencing television shows and the consumer's reaction to the way they are handled.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

While I don't think that this particular game is actually going to be released in segments, I do see a larger trend towards episodic games releases. This, coupled with this "micro"transactions BS and the increasingly uninspired industry as a whole is very disheartening and frustrating to witness. Luckily I've rediscovered my love for gardening - an area that hasn't been made all eXtreme.

Uh oh, the siren just went off. Time to get my ass back to the church.

[Serapth]

If they approach this a certain way, it wouldnt bother me at all.

For example, if they give initial game away say on Live Arcade, and it came with say an hours content, then a cliff hanger ending that you can go ahead and purchase from Live for 3$ say. Followed by another, followed by another, etc...

Basically, as a consumer, it cost me nothing to start, then 3$ to continue. Thing is, in order to keep me buying new episodes they need to provide good content. In that regard, the consumer can cut their spending at anytime they feel its no longer a value. Market conditions then force the product to be good to thrive. In the long run, you may end up paying more $/per total then you do with other games, but you are basically only pay for what you enjoy.

That said, if they sell it as a boxed product, then just ding you for more content in 40minute chunks, that would suck.

[Chi-Town]

Computer and Video Games is reporting that this game is NOT being sold episodically. It's gameplay is split up into episodes.

Alone in the Dark, the full game, will be released as a retail product, as per the norm. Once you've bought that, that's it. It's a one-off payment - again, as per the norm. Episodes will not be released separately, as had been assumed. Here's the deal: Alone in the Dark developer Eden Games has chosen to separate the full game into distinct chapters or episodes in order to both enhance and offer a slightly different gaming experience. As mentioned previously, each episode will end in a cliff-hanger moment, with Eden Games also echoing TV dramas like Lost with the inclusion of a 'previously on Alone in the Dark' feature to provide a recap on events and keep players hooked.

We hope that clears up any confusion surrounding the episodic structure and costs involved. Atari has informed us that more will be revealed about Alone in the Dark's episodic fun at E3 next week.

[sanatos]

Computer and Video Games is reporting that this game is NOT being sold episodically. It's gameplay is split up into episodes.

Joystiq says the same thing. Now that we can stop whining about fictional pricing structures, I'd like to say that I sort of wish it could be released in pieces. As a marathon gamer, I'm not going to stop just because the episode's over. In fact, if the last episode got me interested in the story I'm going to be all the more gung-ho about playing it. Seriously, who buys a season of a TV show on DVD and only watches one episode a week? Otherwise it's a neat idea. It may be gimmicky, but with such a rigidly-defined genre any change to the format is going to seem like it.