What trend in the gaming industry do you find the most troubling?
1. Online activation and online requirement to play (DRM). 3rd party requirement (Steam to play Skyrim or Origin to play Mass Effect 3).
2. Along the same lines. Digital distribution the move towards no longer having a physical copy and only being able to purchase the game from certain digital distributors (exp Origin)
3. Streamlining games in an attempt to make them more attractive to a wider audience.
4. More and more games being made with consoles in mind and PC just being a ported after thought.
5. More games trying to add multiplayer/co-op
My main gripe is with the DRM (why, why, WHY, especially if it's a single-player game), but I'm also disgusted with the fourth option. Example: Skyrim. The controls on PC are simply maddening for me, and I don't own a console, so there you have it.
DRM for sure. :carms:
While I LOVE Steam.. I don't think it should be a requirement for others who are not so fond.
I can only imagine the RAGE I'd feel if I were required to use Origin... (I play ME on console :xp: )
"1. Online activation and online requirement to play (DRM). 3rd party requirement (Steam to play Skyrim or Origin to play Mass Effect 3)."
This, without a doubt.
I'd vote for all of them if I could, but I mainly hate the fact that I can't actually get a physical game. If a PC/console dies, and I don't have a disc to reinstall it with, then what would I do? It's far more reliable to actually have a hard copy.
I'd vote for all of them if I could, but I mainly hate the fact that I can't actually get a physical game. If a PC/console dies, and I don't have a disc to reinstall it with, then what would I do? It's far more reliable to actually have a hard copy.
Can't speak for the rest (don't have them), but with Steam, you just redownload them. It is just like magic or having the disc, only you can't lose the disc or scratch it up. ;)
Voted Yoda, NOT b/c there aren't problems, but b/c several of the options all seemed equally bad to me. Both DRM and lack of physical copy bother me about the same. If I'm gonna play a game, I at least want it on the disc I bought. Having DLable backups (like w/Steam, etc..) IS good, but not a substitute. #5 bothers me least, as long as the MMO type content isn't really integral to the story itself (but mostly an op to rack up a body count or just kill time, for instance). Streamlining and platform issues are in the middle with this group of options. ME3 is likely (along w/maybe TOR) to be my last vid game purchase for quite awhile.
In many ways digital distribution implies DRM to begin with... of course not always, just look at Good Old Games... but yeah, still.
Platform issues can go the other way too of course, PC games that get horrid console ports but no one seems to complain about that since I've found that console owners are more open to having multiple platforms available to them to begin with.
Yoda for, Online activation and online requirement to play (DRM) and Console Designed/PC Ported.
DRM can be gotten around, but a game made for consoles and ported to PC remains a waste.
DRM can be gotten around, but a game made for consoles and ported to PC remains a waste.
Yeah, this.
Sabre's only miffed about consoles because he pirates all his games and you can't really do that cheaply or for free with consoles... at least newer ones that aren't handhelds since you can easily download emulators and roms for the older and less powerful ones :p
Can't speak for the rest (don't have them), but with Steam, you just redownload them. It is just like magic or having the disc, only you can't lose the disc or scratch it up. ;)
And with Steam, you have to hope someone doesn't hack your account or you don't get banned for some reason... I know cases where people were banned without doing anything wrong. And they don't give any explanation.
That's the problem of being dependable of 3rd party software or servers. You don't have any control over what you legally payed for. On GOG for example, you do have your account where you can download the games you legally bought any time you want. But if you choose to download the .exe and save it on a disc, hard drive, whatever, you can. And you won't ever need any kind of activation or login to play the game. It yours.
I haven't played any PC games lately, but DMR takes the cake on this one.
I know cases where people were banned without doing anything wrong. And they don't give any explanation.I don't know anyone that has been banned, but I have read about that on the internet.
I also read about people being banned from bioware or EA's website, have their game in their hands, but still can't play it because of the ban. Again, don't know anyone that was banned, but I have read it.
I'm not losing any sleep over it, I've just decided not to post on Bioware or EA's official websites or even Steam for that matter. I'll post here and wait for Lynk to ban me, he has no control over my games though.
DRM takes the cake for me.
Runner up would be console ports.
What about DLC? Is anyone still annoyed about those things?
I'll post here and wait for Lynk to ban me, he has no control over my games though.
http://1funny.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/soon-cat-dog.jpg)
:p
What about DLC? Is anyone still annoyed about those things?
Yes. Although generally I can wait for the GotY edition or similar where it comes with all DLC. But I still hate it, though.
Why is the option "Yoda" on pretty much every poll? LOL
Yoda simply because almost all of the other options bother me.
I am worried about all this online video gaming. I have been a single player video gamer all my life through PS1, PS2 and now PS3. It just discusts me that Lucasarts chose a online only game for PC for the Old republic. Where is non-online single/multiplayer Star Wars Battlefront III for consoles? Star Wars Battlefront I and II were Lucasarts highest selling video games to date. Why cancel the series after making all that money?
Why cancel the series after making all that money?
Who said they cancelled the series?
They don't cancel anything at LucasArts, they just stop making stuff. It's not a very difficult concept to grasp... technically TOR isn't even a LucasArts game, it's a BioWare game.
LA does nothing.
Why is the option "Yoda" on pretty much every poll? LOL
Same reason polls have "None of the above" in them. It gives people something to vote for even if they do not care enough to think about it. Besides "it is tradition and I'm traditional kind of guy." no clue what movie/tv show that line is from
LA does nothing.
When they hire a developer for a Star Wars game (Jedi Outcast, KotOR, TOR, and many others), LucasArts always takes care of the sound design.
You mean grab pre-existing assets from the huge archive of Star Wars sounds and music in Lucas' empire and forward it to those developers?
I voted for DRM, but the other thing that really bugs me is 'day 1 DLC'. Why the hell not include it in the game in the first place?
I voted for DRM, but the other thing that really bugs me is 'day 1 DLC'. Why the hell not include it in the game in the first place?
Working with that argument fundamentally undermines the idea of DLC altogether. Why charge for extra tidbits you have cooked up after the actual game's development? Why not just give it away like you do with patches?
Yoda, that mothertrucker is showing up everywhere nowadays.
You mean grab pre-existing assets from the huge archive of Star Wars sounds and music in Lucas' empire and forward it to those developers?
Probably. It may not look much, but it saves a huge time during a game development.
Yeah... the company that made games such as X-Wing are now simply errand boys... kind of like how Rare Ware made games such as Donkey Kong Country and Perfect Dark and now look at where they are... they're nowhere really, they do practically nothing but still exist.
DRM can be gotten around, but a game made for consoles and ported to PC remains a waste.
Pretty much. For me it's a tossup between DRM and the consoletardation of PC games.
Instead of giving us Star Wars Battlefront III. They have two handheld only spinoffs nd release video games based on Star Wars The Clone Wars TV series and Lego Star Wars games. I am sure they probably broke even financially.
Instead of giving us Star Wars Battlefront III. They have two handheld only spinoffs nd release video games based on Star Wars The Clone Wars TV series and Lego Star Wars games. I am sure they probably broke even financially.
No. First, they are not stupid. They know Battlefront III is a most wanted sequel. And as you know, they were already making it for some time. If not for the company making it (Free Radical) went bankrupt, we would already be playing it. Second, they didn't just released the spin-off NDS games of The Clone Wars (and its Lego counterpart). They've also released TFU and TFUII, and SWTOR (whether you like them or not is another issue).
I chose "Online activation and online requirement to play (DRM)" but "Console Designed/PC Ported" isn't far behind. I'm in the military and an online option isn't feasible if I'm attached to a unit that's out to sea. For the second choice, I guess I'm really sick of looking Best Buy, Gamestop, Walmart, or any of the "big box stores" and seeing only a few PC games yet seeing so many console games available. I do have a Xbox 360 which I've hardly used and a Wii but when I feel like gaming, it's to the PC I usually go. Let's be honest - modding a game isn't something you'd seek a console out for, it's a PC.
Developers and publishers don't find profit in the modding of PC games, they find profit in the selling of console games. Until you can find a way for PC developers/publishers to profit as greatly as they have with console games, you're all out of luck.
I wanted to get the demo for the latest Aliens Vs. Predator game. Turns out steam pulled it, so now I can't play it, even if I download it from elsewhere! So while the DRM thing is pretty annoying, [exclusive] digital distribution has its drawbacks as well.
I'll agree console designed can also be annoying (see the Force Unleashed games).
So basically...
PC port of a console developed game = BAD?
Console port of a PC developed game = I don't care I own a PC!
So basically...
PC port of a console developed game = BAD?
Console port of a PC developed game = I don't care I own a PC!
Pretty much the mentality I've seen around.
Could be worse though.. developers could say "piss on ya PC owners" and not even bother with a port. Because I can guarantee that if they (developers/studios) had to choose.. the PC is on the lo$ing $ide. ;)
So with that last post and it's use of the $ symbol, I'm assuming that people think the following...
Game developers and publishers = charity organisations set up just for them
So with that last post and it's use of the $ symbol, I'm assuming that people think the following...
Game developers and publishers = charity organizations set up just for them
huh? :raise:
I'm just calling it like I see it. More money to be made making console games = pc on the losing side. No delusions of charity in the statement, just cold hard fact about the gaming/development trend.
I seem to recall a similar statement. ;)
Developers and publishers don't find profit in the modding of PC games, they find profit in the selling of console games. Until you can find a way for PC developers/publishers to profit as greatly as they have with console games, you're all out of luck.
I know, I'm just pointing out the fact that people think that these companies exist purely for them, as if these organisations were created for the very sole purpose of making a game just for *points at someone very specifically* YOU!
But it wasn't an attack on you, chainz... just an observation about gamers in general who can't understand why video game developers want to make money.
I know, I'm just pointing out the fact that people think that these companies exist purely for them, as if these organisations were created for the very sole purpose of making a game just for *points at someone very specifically* YOU!
But it wasn't an attack on you, chainz... just an observation about gamers in general who can't understand why video game developers want to make money.
No worries man, just was confused. Wanted to confirm that I was agreeing with ya :D
But it wasn't an attack on you, chainz... just an observation about gamers in general who can't understand why video game developers want to make money.
Gamers understand why devs (or should I say, publishers) want to make money. What they are fighting against is the wrong preconception some have against PC gaming. At least I do.
When people say consoles sell more than PC, what exactly are they saying? That 3 different plataforms sell more than one?
Gamers understand why devs (or should I say, publishers) want to make money. What they are fighting against is the wrong preconception some have against PC gaming. At least I do.
When people say consoles sell more than PC, what exactly are they saying? That 3 different plataforms sell more than one?
I was going to write up a huge post about this but it's easier on all of us just to do dot points...
- You mean 2 consoles, can't count Wii in this since it's not on par with the PS3 and 360.
- PCs are not standardised like consoles are, every PC is different and it takes a lot more time/money/effort for developers to make PC games because of this.
- Console gaming population is huge and still growing and tend to spend A LOT more money than PC gamers do.
- Developers have more control over their games on consoles. Developers/publishers try to exercise this on PC by the way of DRM... which isn't very popular.
- The majority of consumers want accessibility in their games. Insert disc, push start... start playing. Easy. Consoles do this, PC doesn't... developers know this.
...now what I want to know is what are these "wrong preconceptions" developers have of the entire PC gaming platform? I mean, a lot of them have been developing PC games for a long time before they started to trend to consoles. Obviously something is happening that is making them do that... but if they're wrong for doing it, why?
now what I want to know is what are these "wrong preconceptions" developers have of the entire PC gaming platform?
That PC doesn't sell, that DRM protects their games, that piracy affects the sales hugely, etc... Do you really think that if they release a PC version of a game, that they won't have any profit (i.e: doesn't cover the expenses)? Look at The Witcher 2, for example.
I don't mind to wait a year or so for a PC version (we usually get all the DLC). In fact, I understand them when they do that. But giving some poor excuses to not release the game on PC is just stupid. I believe PC sells as much as a single console (if not more).
I don't think developers/publishers think they WON'T profit from PC games... it's just that most of them think they will get more profits from console games...
- PC games do sell... just not as quickly or as much as most console games unless it can do something a console just cannot... like TOR.
- DRM does protect their games, the more passive methods consoles and Steam employs seems to be pretty acceptable to a lot of people... but as you know, PC gamers draw a line and boycott games if it passes that line (see Mass Effect 3 on Origin).
- Piracy does have an affect, don't think it doesn't. We all do it but don't start thinking there is no affect.
You may have your beliefs but these companies have sales data on their games that seem to suggest that releasing games on a console is more profitable for them than on PC.
I'm not saying that we should like it, but they're not doing this out of some kind of malice or evil plan to take over the world or whatever personal attacks a lot of people feel PC developers are making against them. It's just business... it's the same reason why Nintendo of America didn't want to release Xenoblade, The Last Story and Pandora's Tower in the US... of course that's all fixed now since the success of those games in the EU and AU have changed their minds.
I don't think developers/publishers think they WON'T profit from PC games... it's just that most of them think they will get more profits from console games...
I know. But then isn't it legitimate to ask for a PC version (even if it's released later on)? They have got "nothing" to loose.
- PC games do sell... just not as quickly or as much as most console games unless it can do something a console just cannot... like TOR.
I don't argue that. ;)
- DRM does protect their games, the more passive methods consoles and Steam employs seems to be pretty acceptable to a lot of people... but as you know, PC gamers draw a line and boycott games if it passes that line (see Mass Effect 3 on Origin).
How exactly does DRM protect their games? DRM is cracked mostly before or on the day the game is released. And in the end, the legitimate consumers are the ones who have to deal with it, while the pirates play the "normal version". Is it really worth it? I don't think so.
- Piracy does have an affect, don't think it doesn't. We all do it but don't start thinking there is no affect.
"Hugely" is the key word. ;)
You may have your beliefs but these companies have sales data on their games that seem to suggest that releasing games on a console is more profitable for them than on PC.
On the short run, yes. And as I said, I understand why they want to focus more on the consoles. I only think PC shouldn't be ignored either. And no, they are not charity organizations, but that doesn't make the plea any less valid.
How does DRM protect games? It doesn't, but it makes the investors of companies feel more secure of their investments.
I don't think any gaming platform should be ignored either but PC developers aren't ignoring the PC. PC games are being released, it's just that they don't take priority over the console versions since the console versions are seen as being more profitable.
However, if you're wondering why certain developers who have always made console games aren't making PC games... it's because they have 0 experience making PC games added on to the fact that they see consoles as being more profitable and secure than the PC platform as a whole.
EDIT: Also, piracy is a huge factor,.. after all, if it had no effect we wouldn't have DRM. The very idea that a company may lose a scrap of profit has made them react to piracy. That's a pretty huge effect, I'd say.
I'm not voting until "**** DLC" is added to the poll and no I'm not going to pick Yoda because I'm pretty tired of that "trend" too.
Happy now Mav? Well I didn't remove Yoda, but I did add DLC.
Have to keep Mav happy, he is the reason I got to 400 in biochem in TOR.