Subs vs. Dubs, For Gaming February 18, 2014

For as long as media has been imported overseas there has been a never-ending discussion from fans of other country’s media how the imported content should be localized for the region it is being brought to should be presented.  One option, by far the most used by mainstream media distributors is referred to as “dubbing”.  This is done by doing a complete translation of a script to the language spoken by the region it is being brought to, hiring a new cast of native voice actors, and redub all of the content’s dialog.  The other option is referred to as “subbing”, which keeps the content’s dialog exactly as the original creators intended, with its original voice actors presented in its original language.  Only subtitles are provided to help non native speakers understand what is going on.  While this is a cheaper option for foreign distributors, this option is typically preferred by importers and many devoted consumers.  This debate, lovingly referred to by either side as, “Subs vs. Dubs”, has been happening for a long time.  Now, the conversation is happening all over again for video games and it looks to be completely changing the rules on how international video games are localized.

Let’s be honest here, regardless of how you feel about subs or dubs, there are valid arguments on both sides.  People arguing for subtitled content argue that a content should be presented in its original medium exactly the way that its creator, regardless of their country of origin, intended.  On top of that they cite that in a lot of cases foreign dubbing just isn’t very good and can wreck an otherwise fantastic work.  People in favor of dubbed content have their own points.  Subtitles can distract the viewer from what is happening on the screen, and if time and effort is taken by the right localization studio, a properly translated work performed by decent voice actors can be obtained in any country regardless of a language or cultural gap.

Up to this point, any localized content provided from overseas development studios have typically made the decision to fully translate and localize any of their game’s content to the region they release their game to.  It is a difficult process, as it means an entire reworking of a game’s menu systems, script, and can require an entirely separate team of voice actors and directors be hired and recorded.  It can be an expensive process, especially for dialog heavy games.  Because of that, some companies have sadly chosen not to even bother releasing many popular games overseas, like Mother 3, because they didn’t believe the development costs of localizing their content would pay off once the content was released to a new market, or because they wouldn’t be able to release a game into the market before a new platform would launch.

Consumers on the “sub” side of this argument have not been happy with this status quo.  In fact, I remember there was a huge desire for Catherine to be brought to the US in its original language.  The guy who did the voice of Vincent in the original Japanese version is apparently a very famous voice actor in Japan, with many fans here in the US.  Sadly, the version of Catherine that came to the US only included a localized English audio track, and even though I enjoyed it tremendously in my own native language, this upset many people who preferred to hear it spoken with the game’s original dialog by the original voice actors.

However, as of this past year I have personally had something of a resurgence in my interest in foreign content, and I have noticed that the trend of “dubbing” all localized content is beginning to change.  The Nintendo 3DS downloadable title Attack of the Friday Monsters (A Tokyo Tale) was entirely subbed.  This decision worked on many levels, especially since the game took place in Japan.  Even though it was just a cute little downloadable title that never got a retail release, for the first time I can think of, a video game studio chose to present localized content for a North American game release in the form of subtitles instead of redubbing the original voice over work.

I believe the best decision that could have been made to solve this debate is to give consumers a choice between the two and release games that offer players either option.  Back in the days of VHS, this wasn’t an option, but with the storage space offered by Blu-Ray Discs, and its ability to be used as either a game or a film storage medium, and with online streaming services and DLC, consumers can get both options without having to rebuy the same content multiple times.  Heck, you don’t always need a large enough disc to do it.  Bravely Default’s full version can be played in the original Japanese language (among several others including English and Italian), they just couldn’t fit all the different languages into the game’s demo version.  The North American retail version of Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII does not include the game’s original Japanese voice over on the game disc, but Square did release the game’s original Japanese audio track for free as DLC, and it can be downloaded right now by anyone with a copy of the full version of the game who wants to hear it.  Support for this decision this must have been very positive, as Square Enix plans to do it again with the next Drakengard game, and will give DLC codes for the game’s original Japanese voice over audio for free to anyone who preorders the game early enough.

With current technology making it possible for movies, television and video games to offer consumers either option for how they want to view their content, perhaps this debate may finally be coming to an end.

The Scourge of the Season Pass February 10, 2014

With all the paid DLC coming out for major game releases, why not pay for all of a game’s content at once and get all the DLC at a reduced price?  Since around 2011, publishers started offering players the chance to buy a Season Pass with their game.  For the customer, they sound good in theory.  Not only can it be cheaper for your wallet, it can be a lot easier than having to navigate though a dozen individual downloads, sorting through downloadable videos, demos and avatar clothing, and being really careful not to repurchase any redundant content by accident.  Just buy a Season Pass and all the downloadable content will unlock in your game automatically as it gets released.  Every time you boot up your game you’ll get a small pop up when new content is available.  From there you can immediately download it without having to pay any extra money.  It couldn’t be simpler.  It also works well for the game’s developers.  By getting money in advance for content they are working on, it can finance future game development and ensure post-release content for a game will be more likely to see a release.

So if Season Passes are a win on both sides, why is this article titled The Scourge of the Season Pass?  Well because not everything in theory works when put into practice, and as I plan to explain further in this article, every once in a while game developers and publishers can get a bit greedy.  This system, once a benefit for gamers, is now becoming an issue.  Let’s look at our recent gaming history and find out why.

Season Passes are nothing new to the gaming industry.  Episodic games have used a similar payment option since games were delivered by shareware, and more recently when Telltale Games started work on the first season of Sam & Max in 2006.  Instead of charging for each game episode individually, Telltale offered a second payment option while the episodes are still under development and promised customers who paid for this second option access to all the game’s episodes as soon as they got released.  The price for this second payment option would still be a reasonable amount more than just one episode would cost, but less than what the consumer would have paid had they bought each episode individually as they got released.  By offering this simple common sense payment option, Telltale Games became a powerhouse during the Episodic Gaming Boom, whereas other larger developers like Valve Software and Ritual Entertainment failed to capitalize in it.  To this day, I still stand by the statement that had the SiN: Episodes offered a similar payment plan, Ritual Entertainment would still be around and further SiN: Episodes would have gotten developed past the first one.

So what are the problems with Season Passes?  First off, they’re getting incredibly overpriced, especially for games on the latest consoles. The Season Pass for Dead Rising 3 costs $29 US, and while Capcom is promising to release a series of Single Player expansion missions for that game, the Dead Rising 3 Season Pass is still ten dollars more expensive than the Season Pass prices of most other games are, even other games on the Xbox One.  Dead Space 3 also offered a Season Pass right after it was released, but all that was included with it was some extra weapons and armor that EA had already released on Day One and was planning to sell individually.  You’re not exactly paying in advance for future content when it is already out on Day One.  Since EA was already bundling DLC codes for similar content inside new copies of the game, EA should have released their Season Pass’s content free to anyone who preordered the game (or bought the game’s ultra rare Dev Team Edition).  Some extra weapons and armor didn’t make for much of a Season Pass.  When EA released Dead Space 3’s Single-Player expansion pack to wrap up the game’s cliffhanger ending, they charged separately for it.

There are other concerns with Season Passes being offered for sale so early, and that is “what if the game’s developer cancels future DLC development due to poor sales?”  It’s almost like a catch-22.  You don’t know if you should pay the developer in advance for extra content after a game’s release because if the developer cancels their post-release content you don’t know what will happen to your money, meanwhile the developer can’t fund post release content for their game because not enough of their customers purchased Season Passes.  Recently, there has been a lot of news about this problem because WB Games has cancelled all future DLC for the Wii U version of Batman: Arkham Origins, even though they were selling a Season Pass for it.  Fortunately, Wii U gamers who had purchased a Season Pass for Batman: Arkham Origins were automatically refunded their money, but there’s no guarantee in a digital market what can happen to your money if a publisher can’t deliver on it’s promises, even if they already have your money.  The default stated policy on digital content through the various online marketplaces is NO REFUNDS.

Then there are the other times when the content covered by the Season Pass just stops for no reason.  For some reason the final DLC for Halo 4 was not included with the Season Pass, forcing Season Pass adopters to have to shell out an extra ten dollars for the game’s last downloadable content release.  If you’re going to sell me a Season Pass, INCLUDE EVERYTHING!  If you can’t include everything, don’t offer the Pass at all.  Many other Season Passes, like the Season Pass for Gears of War 3, while it offered new multiplayer maps and a single player expansion, it did not include any of the premium weapon skins that were put for sale at launch.  If you wanted to obtain them, you had to buy them separately, and since there were a lot of them up for sale on the day of the game’s launch, buying all of them could be quite expensive.  Since the weapon skins serve no function other than aesthetics, I’m sure a lot of players were angry Epic dared to charge for them for it in the first place.  They should have been unlockable content, or offered with the Season Pass.

Well, how do we make this better?  Well, I believe a Season Pass should be included with all Collector’s Edition releases of a game.  Obviously if the game in question is not getting a Collector’s Edition release, you don’t need to include a Season Pass with a regular edition, but if the game is getting some form of a CE at a premium price point, a Season Pass code should be bundled with it.  Since Halo 3’s Legendary Edition was released in 2007, Collector’s Editions have gotten incredibly expensive, and in a lot of cases recently their high price cannot justify the exclusive content that was included with it.  By including a Season Pass with the game’s Collector’s Edition, you will probably get more demand for the premium release at launch, and consumers will consider it a very good deal.  Games like Halo 4, God of War: Ascension, heck even Forza Motorsport 5, released with Season Pass codes bundled inside their Collector’s Edition releases, and they greatly justified their prices along with the rest of the exclusive content that came with each game.  Sure the redeemable codes included with the Collector’s Editions were labeled something other than Season Passes, but the codes offered the same function a Season Pass did.  Why isn’t this done with every Collector’s Edition?

Also, as I said earlier, if you’re going to offer a Season Pass for sale, make sure it includes everything the game offers.  The Season Pass for The Last of Us, while not included with the game’s Collector’s Editions, is without a doubt one of the best Season Passes currently offered on the market.  Not only are both of the game’s multiplayer map packs included with the Season Pass, an entirely new single-player campaign, an exclusive feature-length making-of documentary and all of the paid premium multiplayer avatar content is included with the Pass.  Naughty Dog really did a good job planning that one out, and it puts into question why couldn’t Gears of War 3’s Season Pass offer the premium weapon skins?

Or you know, you could just go back to the early PC days and make all of a game’s DLC free.  People have been asking about that since Horse Armor was put up for sale in The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.  Offering post-release DLC without charging extra for it isn’t like offering the content for no money.  People still would need to purchase the full version of your game to use the DLC, but if you continue to support your game, more and more players will want to pick it up just based on word of mouth.  It would increase goodwill and bring loyalty to your studio, publisher and brand.  The Witcher‘s developers had that philosophy when they were developing the first game on the PC, and any time they rereleased the game at retail with new content, they offered that content for free on their website to anyone who had previously purchased the game.  Recently, the only way I’ve seen players get a game’s DLC as part of purchasing a game new is by purchasing a Game of the Year Edition.  While a GOTY version of a game can be a good deal for new adopters of a game, it is a bit of a disrespectful slap in the face to players who paid full price for the game on day one.  In fact, I’ve purchased several Game of the Year Editions of games I already owned (and in some cases already bought $100+ Collector’s Editions of) just because rebuying a GOTY edition of the game at retail was a better financial deal then buying all of the game’s DLC was online.  When having your customers rebuy your game is a better deal than purchasing all the downloadable content for it, developers need to take a step back and look at the new market they have created.

Please, do it quickly.