The year is 2019 and gaming today is "obviously" not what was before. There was a time were you could unlock everything on a game by completing sections of the game, like challenges, puzzles, battles, etc.
In the old days, games were compiled and packed on a device, a cartridge , a disk, right into an arcade's storage.
- What were the implications of this?
This was the era before internet, games were not connected to the
"World Wide Web". Once the games were compiled and put into a cartridge their contents would stay in the exact same way. That's right, no updates, there wasn't any DLC because there was nothing to download. If the game had bugs, well, the game would keep those bugs. There was no way to fix bugs since the cartridge was isolated from everything. The way bugs would get fixed was by informing a game company about the bugs, they would fix it and produce new physical copies with the updated code. The cycle could repeat over and over, fixing bugs was not something we could just get today.
Another way developers could fix bugs and add features to a game was by creating an
Expansions were the
DLC of that era. This was most likely seen for computer Games, not console games. For example
Age of Empires was released in October 1997, and then one year later (October 1998) it an
Expansion Pack was released with the name of
Age of Empires: The Rise of Rome.
Starcraft got an expansion too, that was
Starcraft: Brood War. An lastly I'm also going to mention
The Sims. The
Vanilla game was released in 2000 and it got 7 expansions until October 2003. As I mentioned before, this was a way of adding new features and fix bugs.
When the internet was something affordable for people and it started to become common to have an internet service, game companies were ready to launch updates through
Patches and thus you would get what we are so used to call: "Hey!, That's version 1.1!". The idea was to not distribute a physical media to update the game, this would help the finances of game companies, since it would save money for physical distributions. I have to mention here, that there wasn't any "Auto Update". The first iterations of "patching" had to be manual, the users/players had to download the patch and apply it themselves. If you want an example,
Warcraft III would be the one I would choose, because back in the day, I waited a long time to play
Act 2 and
Act 3 of Rexxar's Campaign.
This became popular year after year. Information Technologies would improve over the years as well, as expected, game services would slowly help players to update their games, to the point where today we just have to have an active internet connection and a patch can be downloaded and applied automatically, or they could just prompt for permission to update the game, this would require just one action for the player: confirmation. That is the gift of newer technologies:
Time to talk about the central topic of this essay: the availability of game's contents over the years. Let's consider an old game, a game that can't get patched or updated with content. In The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time the player can collect items like the
Goron Tunic, the
Big Bomb Bag, the
Biggest Bomg Bag and more. The
Goron Tunic might seem at first just like a cosmetic item, it changes the appearance of Link in the game, to a red tunic, instead of the original green one. Now, you can finish the game without this tunic and also without the Big Bomb Bag, it is optional, but the content is there. Over the years this never changed, you can get your cartridge, boot up your Nintendo 64, and you can get that Goron Tunic, no matter the year you are reading this essay, you just have to make your way to that part of the game, that tunic is available for you to get, just go to Goron City as Adult Link and get one.
The Goron Tunic: Cosmetic at first, but it makes you heat resistant!
Now, for another game, take into consideration
Pokemon Red/Blue/Yellow. It's and old game, the first generation of Pokémon. The gimmick here is to
catch them all, that is well known, there's 150 Pokémon in the first generation games. If you only own one version of the games, you will only be able to get 130/150. You cannot get the 150 Pokémon with just one game, the idea is to get help from another players to get the missing 20 for you to catch them all. With only 2 games, you will get 2 of the 3 starter Pokémon, so you will need a third game, to get the missing starter Pokémon, where you will be getting the 150 Pokémon. Right to the point, there are 20 Pokémon that are inaccessible, unobtainable. While the data of those Pokémon exists in the game, so you can use them in battle once you get them, the areas in the game are programmed with a set of certain Pokémon per game. Once you got the 150 Pokémon, you would get a completion diploma.
There's one last thing here, there exists a 151 Pokémon in the game, it's called
Mew. Mew cannot be obtained in any game, Mew doesn't appear in any wild area, but at least this Pokémon is not needed to get the completion diploma. While you can use a glitch to make a Mew appear, this is not the intended way to play the game, and for purposes of this essay, glitches are not valid.
Chances are that you are curious on how was the official way to get a Mew on the first generation games. You needed to go to a special event.
In this events, there was a machine were you had to put your cartridge and Mew would be transfered to you. The machine looked like this.
- What can we argument about 151 Pokémon?
Once the events are gone, there's no way to get a Mew. That means that today, if you play the first generation games, you can't get a Mew using Official methods, EVER. I think the point is getting clearer. Mew is
exclusive content to
Pokemon Red/Blue/Yellow. Today, players can't complete the Pokedex with 151 because of this "Limited Time Only" gimmick. The first generation of Pokémon games would be released in 2016 digitally for the 3DS Eshop. Once again, the only way to get Mew, would be via a special distribution event, missing this event makes Mew once again unobtainable. Sadly, this kept happening with the new games, these limited edition Pokémon were called
Mythical Pokemon. Today we have the 7th generation of Pokémon games, the 8th one is around the corner in a few months, there are about 20 Mythical Pokémon. That's correct, 20 of these are limited edition, considering only the official ways to obtain them. Not only that, when you transfer your Mythical Pokémon to newer generations, you lose them FOREVER in the your old games.
In Hearthstone, players have to win 5 ranked matches through the season (which lasts one month), once a new season starts players will be awarded with an exclusive card back (cosmetic item) for that participating that month. Newer players don't have access to any of this card backs, since they never played during those months, and while on one side of the coin you are rewarding your community for playing your game, new players will also feel left out and might feel they missed the opportunity for not being there with locked content. Fortunately Blizzard made an event where previous card back could be awarded (through a timed limited event.....) and that card back could be obtained for a second time.
The next example is platform exclusive content. Different companies create their own platform for you to play games, and those companies will have agreements with video game publishers to create platform exclusive games, and also, platform exclusive content. Ever seen a Mario game on a Sega console? Ever seen a Mario game on a Sony console? That's part of the gimmick. Platform exclusivity it's the biggest segregation, those are called
first party games.
Soul Calibur II was released in 3 different versions. One for each console of that time. The GameCube, The PlayStation 2 and the original Xbox. Each version introduced a different guest character.
- Link from The Legend of Zelda : GameCube
- Heihachi Mishima from Tekken : PS2
- Spawn from the Spawn Comics : Xbox
An HD Version release made its way on 2013 for the Xbox 360 and PS3. Both consoles would get Spawn and Heihachi Misima. But this means that Link is the missing content for this HD release. This exclusive content is spread around different consoles. Unlike Pokémon there's no way to have the three guest characters avaliable at the same time. This specific generation of consoles was very interesting, since many
third party games were.
DLC stands for DownLoadeable Content. And by its name, it just means that, it's content that you can download through an internet connection.
Remember those patches I mentioned for Warcraft III? Well, strictly talking, those are DLCs, you had to download the patch from the internet, that patch has new content for the game, therefore it's considered DLC. But they were offered for free and improved the quality of the game, plus added extra content.
DLC became a huge thing on Xbox 360, PS3 and Wii. Those consoles had internal Wireless cards, meaning that these consoles could connect to the internet. And while many companies went to the direction of adding Expansion packs as DLC, others saw a potential opportunity to increase the profit.
Let's talk about
Season Passes, consider them as pre-sale of future DLC. You buy the DLC and you will have access to the listed DLC for that Season Pass. The bold letters are there because this doesn't necessarily mean that you will ALL future DLC, personally I think that should be the standard for a Season Pass, but there's no such thing as a standard here. For example the
Fighters Pass for Super Smash Bros. Ultimate will net you all the future fighters to be added in the game, what I personally like about this example is the that the development of those fighters begins after the game was released, the bad thing is that this only nets you the fighters, this Season Pass doesn't include you any of the cosmetic DLCs. There was a time, where only one Season Pass was on sale, but there are games like Dead or Alive 6 that have multiple Season Passes, I would totally expect them to make everything available by selling a second season pass, but this is not the case, let me quote the note from the digital store.
Downloadable content not included in the list above may be released during the same period, but it will not be covered by this Season Pass 2.
Here's another example. For the game Asura's Wrath, player won't have access to the "true ending" unless they buy the "True Ending DLC". It is very straightforward, you pay money, you get access to the actual ending that matters.
In 2006, Bethesda decided too launch a DLC for the game
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. This would not to expand the game, nor add new features, or make skill balancing, but they decided to add a Horse Armor DLC for $2.50 dollars. This included a new quest to get 2 different kind of armors for a horse, and that's was it. Over the years DLC became such a joke that an Indie studio called Going Loud Studios created a game called
DLC Quest, in this game the player would have to collect in-game currency and buy game mechanics to progress in the game.
The Horse Armor ~ Cosmetic DLC
Another DLC controversy was for Resident Evil 5. Capcom released a "Versus Mode", this is a new game mode, this expands the game, but there was a catch. The download size for this DLC was 1.86MB. Players argued that this allegedly new game mode was already on the game's data, and that small 1.86MB download was just a digital key to unlock the content. Capcom mentioned that while it's a small download, the new game mode uses the game assets already in the game, but they developed new code for this game mode. If the "DLC" was already in the game, it would be a similar situation like the Mythical Pokémon, the data for them it's there, but players have a wall if they want access to that content.
Later we would see that expansion DLC would be less common than cosmetic DLC. In a
free to play game, you don't have to buy the game, but when you start to play the game you don't have access to all mechanics in the game.
The next example is for League of Legends. There are over 100 characters that you can play with, but you don't have access to all of them, instead, you get a "starter roster", which is around 10 characters. Players are presented with different kinds of digital currencies. They can get a kind of currency called Blue Essence, this currency is obtained by leveling up your account level. The other currency can only be obtained using real money, it's called
Riot Points. Players can pay money to unlock other characters, and not only that, just like I mentioned in
Oblivion, players can also buy cosmetic items called
Skins, these change the appearance of the characters in the game. Remember, characters have game mechanics with them, it's what makes them unique.
Thanks teemo.gg for the models
We are now going to talk about retailer exclusive content. That's right, the industry now also wants you to buy from an specific retailer in order for you to obtain an specific content. Let's consider Hyrule Warriors for Wii U. Depending on where you pre-order the game you would get different cosmetic items for the characters.
- Amazon -> You get Twilight Princess costumes.
- Best Buy -> You get Skyward Sword costumes.
- GameStop -> You get Ocarina of time costumes.
Given these conditions, how can a player collect all the content in the game?
Let's not forget that these are pre-order bonuses. The player has to buy the game three times in order to get all costumes. Brand new games are $60 dollars, it is time to pay $180 dollars to get just costumes. This is not fair at all. These are not even game mechanics, it's just a cosmetic item. Hoe can this be called a complete game? It's not complete, it's locked , the costumes are already there because it's a pre-order bonus, it's what its called a
Day One/Day 1 DLC. There's also this
Fear of Missing out feeling that we, as humans, get when we know that things are exclusive
It is worth mentioning a bigger example for Day 1 DLC. There is a game called
Evolve. On release day it costed $60 dollars and it launched with many different DLCs, the total value of them all is $136 dollars. Once again, you are buying an incomplete game and the only way to unlock that content is behind a pay wall. Do you think it's fair to pay $196 dollars? A Free to play game makes more sense, since they have a different business model.
In Fable 2, there's an achievement called
The Fowl Player. This is the achievement's description.
How can you dress as a chicken? The old school way would be to complete a section of the game and then the chicken costume would unlock for NPCs to be able to sell it. But Lionhead decided that you had to play a small web based game, and that you could make three different choices that would net you different rewards, one of those rewards was the Chicken Suit. You had to go to this site if you wanted to play the game, since it's an xbox site, it would link to your account and that would unlock the Chicken Suit to be obtained throught NPCs in the game, but today this website is not available anymore, you can't unlock your Chicken Suit, also, we just have no access to this complete game and with that the three special rewards. It does mean that to unlock this content you need to go to an external source, in this case it's another game that you play on your browser. This little gimmick is locking a costume that is needed to unlock an achievement, while not all gamers are completionists, how can completionists complete this game over the years? It is always nice to think around all players. But there's this other part of the description that mentions "see another Hero kick five chickens". The description says that you don't have to get the chicken content yourself, you can go online and play with other person that has it to unlock the achievement. But over the years this would become a problem, single player games "die" quickly, it is well known that players move to another activity after finishing a game, most likely speed runners are the segregation that keep playing single player games, and it's not for completion, it's for speed's sake. If in the present time a new player decides to play Fable 2 and complete the game, this new player would require help from a veteran player in order to complete the game, this new player will look on fable 2 websites to ask for help and hope that a fish will bite. With the web game unavailable, this situation has created a dependency with other players in order to unlock everything in this game, if the player can't find someone who can help them, the content will remain locked.
Moving to other examples, let's talk about how in Mortal Kombat there's a mechanic called Fatalities, when you defeat an enemy, you can a very mortal and astonishing move, it is very impressive and it requires an specific input to execute a fatality. This has been something that players like to learn and it can get very satisfying. Turns out that for Mortal Kombat 11, there's a DLC that can make you perform
easy fatalities,for $1 dollar you can get 5 easy fatalities, or it can get better, for $5 dollars you can buy 30 easy fatalities. It's not even a permanent unlock! For this example, we can specify that there's no way to unlock easy fatalities in the game, they are behind a paywall as well, once again, progression would have been the usual way to deal with this. Perhaps something like achieve 25s fatalities will all characters could unlock the easy fatalities, this would mean that the player has "mastered" them, and it can now be possible to make them easy, another option would be just to just unlock it when playing the game versus an easy AI. Microtransactions are meant to not last forever, they will always deplete and companies want you to keep buying. Back when people didn't have home consoles or personal computers, arcade machines were the microtransactional business model, skilled players would have to pay less credits.
The most common example for this one is a Massive Multiplayer Online game (MMO). First you have to buy the game, and then if you want to be allowed to play the game you have to pay in advance for a subscription, this subscription is time limited, the most common is a month by month subscription. How does this locks content? Well, You have access to the content as long as you pay. This can be considered a "Game as a Service".
While these are very popular today, they first came around 2004. The concept of these is based on toys like Kinder Surprise, you buy an item but you don't know the contents of it. Buy first, discover later. While it's true that people like surprises, now content is locked through random elements, items are categorized by rarity and loot boxes will drop different items, rarity implies that they won't be something easy to get. While many games offer loot boxes for free, there are games where you can only get them by buying them. Card games can fall into this as well, if the way to obtaining cards are behind a "surprise mechanic", it is a loot box, this is really common, as cards also have a rarity categorization.
Opening an overwatch loot box
Content is now locked behind randomizers. While some can be cosmetic items (E.g Overwatch Skins), others can be mechanics (E.g. Hearthstone's Cards, each card is a different mechanic). Another example denying rewards through progress. Players must grind an activity to earn a loot box, investing time, instead of money. And it makes sense to make a system like this, because if this was task based, people would find a way to maximize more loot boxes. There's a concern about loot boxes, the psychology behind it's very similar to gambling. Gambling is about surprises as well, and it can become compulsive, which is why the industry should be concerned of how people can behave with this. Randomizers are the opposite of knowing exactly what will happen, predictability has a correlation with fun, the more predictable, the less fun.
There are times where not just some content is locked or unavailable, but a whole game becomes inaccessible. Let's consider
Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World: The Game, the game was digital only, no physical release. At the end of 2014 the game was delisted from the Xbox and PlayStation digital stores. The only information I found about why was delisted, was because of License expiration. Regardless of what are the real reasons, the real point here is that today you can't play this game, unless you bought it before it was taken down. I still have the game on my Xbox 360, but for anyone interested, there is no way to play this game.
Game Design is still at the very core of these documents I make. If you want to be a developer, not just a game developer, you have to know that most of these changes will come from upper management, you might love games, you might have passion and dislike how content has been caged over the years, but in the end, it is well known that a company's objective is to make profit from things, not just a game company, but all game companies. Indeed, game development it's a complex discipline, mostly because of how many different disciplines are needed to create a product, but as time goes on, companies also improve their work methodologies. Making video games it's easier today, software has evolved to increase productivity, that's why you can see how everyday new games are released on the digital stores, the whole production loop has been improved several times. How come that in the old days, when making a video game was harder, when it could only be released physically, companies would deliver a complete experience for players? How come those old games didn't have locks and they would choose to be games of skill, instead of games of chance (Lootboxes)? Yes, digital distributions are very helpful, it can help small developers publish their games immediately, but at the same time, big companies can abuse the digital distributions and plan ahead to not release a full game and sell it in pieces, removing physical distribution costs it's actually a good amount of money, that money can be assigned to research and development, helping the production loop. There's also a correlation on how with new developers join the industry, money segregation increases. When you invite more people to your party, people will get a smaller piece of cake. But not only supplies have increased (developers), but also demand (players), so the cake have also gotten bigger. It's clear to say that game design has found new ways to profit over games, which I understand for many readers it has been pretty much the obvious conclusion, let's not forget that for others it's not obvious, those are the ones that are learning new things from this document. Indeed, money is needed for game developers to be able to sustain their product. If developers are independent, they need money to do their everyday lives, groceries, rent, services, transportation. Bigger companies will require money for salaries; programmers, artists, sound effects, music, marketing, publishing. Both types of developers will need software licenses, buying computers, special hardware depending on the needs, like drawing tablets, microphones, musical instruments, even trips to certain places to draw inspiration for newer games, to name some of the many things that are needed in game development.
Yet, from my point of view I think this whole situation IS something ethical as well.
As a game developer myself, my personal opinion goes towards passion in games, and I know the industry overall doesn't work like that anymore, we've seen how actually independent developers are the ones who care more about that. Yet I don't think it's ethical, nor professional to have Day 1 DLC, that pretty much indicates that the DLC content is already on the base game and that it aims for just a digital key to unlock the content. Do you consider that ethical? We learn ethics in our childhood, the pivot of our futures. It is also worth mentioning that many gamers today are adults now, and they played video games as well since they were kids, they were in that age where games were complete and their contents were not split in pieces. As mentioned before, the Sims 1 had 7 expansion packs. As of today, the newest game is Sims 4. The franchise has gone through many iterations, lots of work have been put into this, I can't imagine how much research has to be done with human behaviors to make this possible. And then, a very relevant thing happened when The Sims 4 was released: the game launched without being able to play with
Toddler characters (which were introduced in The Sims 2 base game). Toddlers were released 2 years after the release! How can a life stage that was present in previous games not be in this one? The game is a simulation of Human lives, how could they not release this feature having done so much work for this franchise? How could this content be lost in a new Sims game? If they didn't add a core mechanic to the game, it is less likely that they will add features from past expansion packs. Sims 1's last expansion was the Magic expansion, why does every Sims game has to have a "Magic" expansion? Why not make it part of the base game since players love those mechanics? It is understandable that they have to redo many features because they change the game engine, but then again, I think the core gameplay and features must be made first in a logical model first, and they need to minimize the coupling with visual and sound effect modules. Keeping the iterations over this life simulation model will keep and keep improving the game, helping the new games come to life quicker and with a warranty seal, by using the new and improved model. Ever wondered why new Pokémon games come out very soon? Because the battle and Pokémon models are very similar between games. A Pokémon's data structure is very very similar in all games, that's how you can transfer Pokémon across newer games, they polished and stick to a model during development.
When developing a game, a lot of features are on the drawing board. As much as we love games, it can take a lot of time to add all features in the game and chances are that not all that we plan makes it into the game. Planning is hard, it takes a lot of patience and team organization. This is of higher importance for independent developers, since they have to fulfill different disciplines by themselves, since they are usually a smaller team.
Let's ask the question again.
- Can we say a game is complete when there's things like DLC or Expansion Packs?
Here are some points to take into consideration, these are my personal considerations, they are not simply made because that's my opinion, my experience as a consumer and developer are here.
If content can't make it to the base game, I can only approve (ethically speaking) to add the missing features only if they start development after the release of the game. If people like the core mechanics of the game, it is very likely that they want to support future content, players must know that their money will go to something that hasn't even started yet. As a developer and designer, core mechanics must be polished, otherwise people will know developers didn't fulfill their job.
- This is how game patches work.
- This is how expansions used to work with the old games.
- A Season pass is perfect for this. Remember that a season pass is a pre-sale of content that will be released in the future, like the Smash Bros. Ultimate Fighters Pass. The Season Pass should offer all future DLC.
The base game's cost should ideally be reduced. The development team knows that the game is "incomplete" and that they will release newer features later. For a AAA game, it could be $40 and add a $20 season pass to add all features later. This way players will only spend the usual $60 dollars for a game, knowing other $20 will help with funds to develop the future stages of the game. Price considerations have to vary depending on how much work is needed for its development.
I think cosmetic items are a grey area, since they don't add mechanics to the game, but it is well known that players like to have visual options because everyone has different likes. Cosmetics are an extra feature, and I think they ideally should be in the base game. Remember the Goron Tunic example? It makes Link appearance to be Red, instead of Green, remember that Ocarina of Time never had any type of expansion.
- Ideally, cosmetic items should be VERY cheap. I find shameful to charge $10 dollars for a skin, many games are worth that. How come a cosmetic item has the same or more value than game's mechanics? League of Legends skins are more expensive than 1 Smash Bros Character, and that one includes 8 different skins. And let's not forget the Horse Armor DLC.
- Any future cosmetic item has to be included in the season pass, like the Dead or Alive Season Pass that includes dozens of skins.
Game as a service are not inherently bad. But developers can't expect to price their games or services equally to games as a product. Remember that games with subscriptions enter in this category.
- Ideally, the base game should be free. Alternatively, if the base game is sold, you have to give players a substantial amount of subscription time.
- These games should add content more frequently than a typical game. Because you are constantly paying money if you want to access the contents.
- Part of the profit has to go for research and development for Backend programmers and Dev ops.
- As a consumer point of view, it is healthy to just stick to just one game as a service. Use your time and money wisely.
- Future content should be free as well, because players are constantly paying money. What would happen if people don't get new content during a subscription period? Is that fair for the players? They paid money for a reason.
As a whole, I don't approve microtransactions nowadays. Mostly because they give you a temporal reward, it is not something you will keep forever, and yes, this is part of their business model. Perhaps an analogous solution to arcade machines can be the way to go for microtransactions, biased to skill. I can't imagine buying a Chess piece by piece, instead of buying the whole set together.
Developers should stay away from loot boxes (which are also microtransactions). As a developer aim to make a game of skill, not a game of chance, remember that these are tied to gambling, this is not something we want to teach children. If adding loot boxes, these are best considerations.
- Only include them in free-to-play games.
- Let players be able to get loot boxes for free. If an example is required, Heroes of the Storm is a perfect example.
- They might just be a mini game, but nothing that could lock game contents or progression.
DO NOT release Day 1 DLC. At this point, it's content that exists on the base game, it was already developed. Or, perhaps developers worked the first 24 hours non-stop to release a new DLC? Very unlikely.
Do not release retailer exclusive content. How is this fair for players? Besides, after all, those will be released digitally in a later date, which makes them "Timed Exclusive Content".
Using external agents to add more content to the game are not a bad ideas, they can enrich the game experience. Yet, I still believe that those external sources have to be available for every player, everyone has to have the same opportunity to unlock new stuff. For example, a companion app can be helpful for certain games, and it should not give extra or exclusive content to those who use it. If this this external source is deprecated, then the main game has to inform all players and address this issue with a patch that unlocks this new content for future gamers that play this game after deprecation. Fable II could just add a new patch to the game that could make the Chicken Suit available through the various NPC shops, that way they would have a measure against their web-based game that unlocked the chicken suit, making possible to players to get the
Do not implement time limited content. As mentioned with Hearthstone, people will feel that they were left out from time-limited events, as well as the rarity of mythical Pokémon. Seasonal events are something fun to play because of how a game can change through different seasons/holidays, specially since they keep returning every year, I find better to introduce those new items during that season. Making those items easier to get across the season, and increasing the difficulty of getting that content when the season is not available, players can feel rewarded because they did something harder. By not adding time limited content, you preserve the contents of the game over the years for new generations of gamers.
As far as games that are not available anymore. The only point that I can make here, is that while emulation is another ethical dilemma, let's not forget that emulation can help preserve game contents, while they can encourage piracy, there are still tons of old games that haven't seen the daylight in modern times.
New content is created to increase a game's lifespan, and it's very debatable that single player games are dead. That's why patches and expansion packs helped to increase the lifespan of games, but new content can also be "a love letter" for the fans of your games, they will spend their time in your creations, this will also encourage them to buy your new products, and you will be marked as a developer that respects and cares about their fanbase.
As a game developer I would like to see games that can be preserved over the years. By not locking content with gimmicks, preservation can be achieved. Just remember how the vast majority of old games still let us enjoy the whole package, there's even some digital re-releases that don't patch the original glitches, to preserve the original glory adding also some enhancements. I encourage people to be passionate about making games, think about how some business models might be unethical. Not only as fans, but as clients, there has to be respect for the gamers. I strongly believe that content must be accessible to all gamers, of course they have to earn it, by increasing their skill in the game, completing the the various objectives that game designers make for them. As developers we also have to make our difference, because we are consumers as well. Treat others the way you want to be treated, one of my very first lessons in life.