The Order: 1886 and Quality vs. Value

Image courtesy of Twinfinite.net

Over the weekend, copies of Sony's upcoming major first exclusive title The Order: 1886 found their way into the hands of a few gamers, one of whom decided to upload his play through of it on YouTube. This caused a major controversy; not because someone put an entire play through of a yet-unreleased, highly anticipated game on YouTube for all to see, but because the game clocked in at about five hours. Many gamers became rather upset (actually, enraged would be the more accurate term) at the fact that a massively hyped, full-price single player-only game would offer such a short playtime. People have been debating The Order: 1886 all week long (it's still a trending topic on Twitter as I write this) and despite all of the anger it has attracted (this is the Internet, after all, and 'hate' is the only language people speak), the dispute over game length brings up some interesting discussion.

For me, game length really isn't a factor. I would much rather play a shorter game that feels concise and complete, rather than one that is lengthened with unnecessary padding (Alien: Isolation comes to mind, though I did still thoroughly enjoy that game). I cannot say whether The Order: 1886 is a 'good' or 'bad' game yet because I haven't played it; I have pre-ordered it, and, despite all of the outcry over it, am still eagerly awaiting the chance to get my hands on it.

Many people angered at the game's length immediately assume it is a bad game. That argument holds absolutely no ground. It seems to me that people are mixing up the concepts of 'quality' and 'value'. Allow me to explain:

First, remember that value is defined as "the worth or usefulness of something".

For the purposes of my explanation, let's take the entire concept of quality out of the equation and focus solely on value:

• If you buy a game for $60 and it lasts you 10-15 hours, that means you paid about $4 per gameplay hour. That is a good value. The game was a good use of your money.
• If you buy a game for $60 and it lasts you 3-6 hours, that means you paid about $10 per gameplay hour. That is a bad value. The game was a bad use of your money.

The only thing a game's length has an impact on is your wallet. Whether or not you enjoyed those six or twenty hours is completely up to you. Regardless of how long or short a game is, if you enjoyed playing it, that means you made good use of your time, and vice versa. To me, if a game is great, the fact that it's long or short is made irrelevant. A game should always be measured by how good or bad it is, not by its length. For all I know, The Order: 1886 could contain an absolutely fantastic five hours. And if that's the case, then I'll be glad I played it.

If you feel that a five hour game has no reason to be $60, you have every right to think that. But that doesn't mean the game itself is inherently bad because of it. You have to remember that quality is a perceptual, conditional, and somewhat subjective attribute that can be understood differently by many people.

In the end, the length of a game typically is the result of the developer's artistic vision. If Ready at Dawn felt that five hours was long enough to contain their vision for The Order, then you have to respect that. You don't have to like it, but just honor the fact that it's the game they wanted to make.

Gaming is an expensive hobby. Do what you wish with your money. My philosophy as I've gotten older is this: if there's something out there that you have interest in and want, go get it for yourself. Pay no attention to the opinions of others and make your own judgements. Is The Order: 1886 too short for your liking? Great, don't buy it! Are you fine with paying $60 for a five hour game? Great, buy it!

So in the end, what I'm asking is this: judge a game by its quality, not its length.

Legal Battles within the Video Game Industry

The video game industry is no stranger to legal controversy, especially when it comes to copyright infringement. The following are three of the most recent legal fights that have occurred in the gaming world.

EA Sports (Madden NFL) versus Former NFL Players

Perhaps the most widely publicized legal battle happening in the games industry is the fight between EA Sports and retired NFL players over unpaid licensing fees and the unauthorized use of their likenesses in the games. This case has been a topic of conversation for a long time, as in 2009, the NFL Players Association settled with the players for $26 million; the reason being that the players claimed the union did not seek out the best possible marketing deal for the players and worked with EA on a deal that would not give them proper compensation. However, the players still seek further payment, and the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has authorized this case to continue. In its defense, EA cited protection under the First Amendment, saying that the use of the players’ likenesses was incidental. EA ran into a similar problem with their NCAA Football games, where the company was unlawfully using college players’ likenesses without permission. EA lost that fight, and had to pay a $40 million settlement andstop producing any more games in that series.

The likelihood that EA will be able to win this lawsuit is very low. At the same time, the chance that EA would be forced to stop making games in the Madden franchise is extremely unlikely. If what the players claim is true, then EA and the NFL Players Association could be in some serious trouble, and rightly so. It is one thing to not ask permission to use a person’s likeness, but deliberately crafting a deal that would cheat someone out of fair compensation is completely wrong. This case is still ongoing, so it will be interesting to see how it pans out. But for now, EA has little ground to stand on.

Nintendo’s YouTube Affiliate Program

Over the past few years, the popularity of “Let’s Play” videos on YouTube has exploded. For the uninitiated, a “Let’s Play” video is one where a person records his or herself playing a video game while also providing live commentary. Most video game companies welcome this sort of extra exposure, but Nintendo has famously been the biggest opponent of the “Let’s Play” community. In 2013, Nintendo began claiming all revenue from video that featured any of their games, as well as shutting down some YouTube user’s channels altogether. Nintendo felt the use of their products was unauthorized, and wanted all user-generated content that featured their games taken down. As a result, Nintendo faced a major backlash from both YouTube users and long-time fans. In response, Nintendo has recently revealed plans for an affiliate plan that would allow people to produce content featuring Nintendo products, but have to split any revenue user make with the company. Nintendo has already begun tagging all videos that feature their games, making sure they receive their 50% share of the revenue.

Personally, I feel that Nintendo is stuck in the past when it comes to many current video game industry trends, especially when it comes to the “Let’s Play” community. Though I myself do not fully understand the appeal of watching someone else play a video game, I understand that it is extremely popular and incredibly profitable. Nintendo has every right to want to control the rights to their products, but the YouTube users who feature their games in their videos are doing no harm to the company or its products whatsoever. They are not “stealing” Nintendo’s content and claiming it as their own. If anything, they are giving Nintendo a little bit of extra marketing.

EA versus Zynga

In 2012, EA sued video game developer Zynga for copyright infringement, as they claimed that Zynga’s game The Ville was a direct copy of EA’s game The Sims Social. In a rather angry and emotionally charged blog post, the general manager of The Sims Social, Lucy Bradshaw, said that the lawsuit was a step towards “protect(ing) the value of originalcreative works and those that work tirelessly to create them”. Zynga is no stranger to copyright lawsuits themselves, as they have faced legal action from developer SocialApps over the similarities between their own game myFarm and Zynga’s ultra-popular game Farmville. The suit waseventually thrown out and both companies reached an out of court settlement.

To be fair, almost every single game that has been released takes at least some sort of inspiration from another. Go down any video game isle in any major store and you will see countless bargain-bin clones of other major franchise video games. EA had little footing in this suit since, in video game industry terms, developers are basically allowed to copy the basic gaming concept. Znyga did not “copy and paste” EA’s game; they took the basic idea and changed many of its concepts and gameplay mechanics. I understand EA’s reasoning, but unless they are allowed to put a patent on their own game design, they have no power in controlling if other developers create games that are similar in design to their own.