Thats my greatest fear as a retro gamer, not long ago I played descent 19 years old, Does anyone really believe e.a will still be funding the sim city server in 2032 ?
Entitled gamers, corrupt press and greedy publishers
- Thread starter patsu
- Start date
Thats my greatest fear as a retro gamer, not long ago I played descent 19 years old, Does anyone really believe e.a will still be funding the sim city server in 2032 ?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
All the ones I've seen are only partial emulation without real gameplay. Hence, why I commented earlier about no good emulators.
Regards,
SB
Well whereas I don't like (some of) the choices made by Blizzard wrt diablo 3, I think it is one of those case of "entitled gamers" to complain constantly about it.
I for one played this game for a quiet significant number of hours and I'm not an hardcore player in anyway, I've just leveled all the classes without actually using the AH, none of my characters made it to inferno yet to give a reference point. I'm not in urge. We speak of roughly +200 hours of gameplay (and counting though I play a lot less now, actually Blizzard seems willing to change some significant parts of the games in up coming update /more to come on the topic), I spent on this game only 60$.
Honestly even though there are things I don't like, I can't say with a straight face that it was a bad deal, far from that.
Now the most vocals people are likely people that played a lot more than I did, again for an investment of 60$. That is damned cheap if you compare to other forms of entertainment.
But it doesn't stop there Blizzard is actually still changing things, they acknowledge mistakes, it is a important franchise for them (and they want to sell extensions), they are pretty actively supporting the games. Significant changes have been done, and more are to come without the player having to spend an extra penny. For example yesterday, I gave a tryu to my Demon hunter to find out that they made pretty interesting and significant changes, it felt "fresh" now I know I will play some extra hours toying with that class.
So overall, I do agree that Blizzard made mistake, though now when people look the game as a poster child for evil editor or something close, I kind of can't honestly agree, no matter how I look at it it is a hell of deal for 60$ if ARPG is your kind of thing. Not to say that other games may do better in hours of gameplay vs money spent but the issue is overblown.
My belief is that the people that do like ARPG are to play Diablo 3 for a long while and that actually the game will end up real good after a few more patches. Actually I would not be too surprised if some people that gave up on it early were to give it a try now they would actually be already a lot more pleased by the experience, though at this point I would wait an extra 6 months, may be more.
Now there is the console version coming, and with the changed they made... I might be interesting in buying a console... only to play the game. I would love for Blizzard to introduce some of the console version feats on PC (if not standard make the option available).
I for one played this game for a quiet significant number of hours and I'm not an hardcore player in anyway, I've just leveled all the classes without actually using the AH, none of my characters made it to inferno yet to give a reference point. I'm not in urge. We speak of roughly +200 hours of gameplay (and counting though I play a lot less now, actually Blizzard seems willing to change some significant parts of the games in up coming update /more to come on the topic), I spent on this game only 60$.
Honestly even though there are things I don't like, I can't say with a straight face that it was a bad deal, far from that.
Now the most vocals people are likely people that played a lot more than I did, again for an investment of 60$. That is damned cheap if you compare to other forms of entertainment.
But it doesn't stop there Blizzard is actually still changing things, they acknowledge mistakes, it is a important franchise for them (and they want to sell extensions), they are pretty actively supporting the games. Significant changes have been done, and more are to come without the player having to spend an extra penny. For example yesterday, I gave a tryu to my Demon hunter to find out that they made pretty interesting and significant changes, it felt "fresh" now I know I will play some extra hours toying with that class.
So overall, I do agree that Blizzard made mistake, though now when people look the game as a poster child for evil editor or something close, I kind of can't honestly agree, no matter how I look at it it is a hell of deal for 60$ if ARPG is your kind of thing. Not to say that other games may do better in hours of gameplay vs money spent but the issue is overblown.
My belief is that the people that do like ARPG are to play Diablo 3 for a long while and that actually the game will end up real good after a few more patches. Actually I would not be too surprised if some people that gave up on it early were to give it a try now they would actually be already a lot more pleased by the experience, though at this point I would wait an extra 6 months, may be more.
Now there is the console version coming, and with the changed they made... I might be interesting in buying a console... only to play the game. I would love for Blizzard to introduce some of the console version feats on PC (if not standard make the option available).
Last edited by a moderator:
How much value you get for your money is not really the issue in regards to Diablo 3 or Simcity FIVE. Both games are essentially one of games that at some point in time will disappear completely from the face of the earth. Imagine Billie Jean just disappear from the face of the earth with no way whatsoever to be able to listen to the tune again.Or what about starwars (well that one is really lost anyway), Kafkas complete works, Traci Lords porn! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
I think you get my point, in the case of games like Diablo 3 (i think it's a nice game btw) i am completely in the camp of "entitled gamers", they wrecked everything holy by adding real money into a game. I guess you can say, it's not so much the gaming experience that always gets gamers angry, it's how they are treated or how the publishers/developers treat us.
I think we should form a gamers government where the publishers would have to abide by some fundamental rules. Two of the most important would be..
1: Whenever you switch of your servers you will provide server source code and binaries so that everyone that purchased the game will be able to play it offline and setup privately run dedicated servers.
2: DRM is never the paying customers problem.
Well it is less of an issue for Diablo 3 and Sim city than for lesser games, though I do not say that it is a non issue.
You say it yourself, what will Blizzard do in ten years when Diablo3 dies? It is unknown, not every body is Carmack but they could let the code out in the wild. Either way it should be cracked by then, though this is not a solution I agree (the former is).
Where I do not agree is that it has to do with what you get from your money, till the game is down how many hours people will have played for an overall low amount of money?
The always on nature of Diablo 3 for example is not without benefits, they (try) to keep cheater at bay, they protect them selves from piracy (even if it set to fail ultimately, they protected the sales of their game), if you play online every body has the same version of the game, they have the infrastructure for proper exchange between players. They got lot of infos about how people play and are tweaking skills, etc.
They made mistakes for sure, tried to monetize the game "economy", turned out as it turned out, it seems that they are changing their pov now (at least according to their last interview).
Things is the game has always been somehow playable without using the AH (especially the real money one), I never used either, most of the big players I know stuck to the "non real money" one.
Again the game selling as much as it did, it would have been a miracle if everything goes well from scratch (pricing, armies of farmers that though they had a job..., etc.).
Though I do agree that a lot editors and in case of lesser games... well actually Diablo3 may in fact be a poster child for "how to do it right" than the contrary.
As for others media, I would say that in some regard the situation is worse than for games overall (always online or not) thanks to the BC offered though API. VCR tapes are useless mostly nowaday, so are audio tapes, etc. Tracy Lord is over rated...
Anyway, online has its issues but it is not like for example deploying new software in some big companies always goes without troubles, it is not something too trivial to deal all of sudden with millions of connections (by the way I can only fanthom about how bad it could turn if one system next gen is always on and has a successful launch and server side ends up... overwhelmed... temporary issue most likely but extremely damaging in term of image and perception).
The problem is a complex one, on one side we have massive investments which translate into games that usually provide an outstanding entertainment value as far as $ per hour is concerned. That is a risky business and a tough one, I think games are like anything related to entertaining, it is really tough, even average people have high standard, think how tough "one man stand" are and how bad the public perception is for somebody half funny, there are to be failures as it is one of this field where there is no need for education of some form for people to have high standards (same applies for music, better not suck because audience are unforgiving).
On the other hand we piracy, second hand market (Pachter had an interesting point lately about preventing somehow the sale of second hand games by the like as gamestop during say a three months launch windows).
Last part is "costumers" and till not that late (console and PC) actually most of the users were actually not costumers.
I do get the criticism, I think some policies are rightly perceived as push over by "real" costumers, but on the other hand I've no answer about "how to do it right". I wonder if there is one that would please every one.
A note about entitled gamers, after all the noise about for example Diablo3, is there vids or articles on the matter nowadays when Blizzard said they may change pov wrt real money auction house, that they are actively supporting the game and making it seems a good job. They have tried thing bad and good, they are not that stubborn about it, is it worse some media attention? No bitching and scandals are more interesting reads (same applies usually when some people are defamed, make a suit and are cleared, usually the later part does a lot less noise /harm is done).
Anyway I don't want to sound like a Blizzard supporter, I own only one of their games, and arguably the beta seemed better than the final release in some regards...
Overall putting DRM issues aside, the problem is shared in the overall media wrt how people reacts to news, scandals, etc. Real journalism is costly, it is not that easy to watch or read, spectacle ala FOX (first but the model is now spreading) is cheap (to produce), entertaining, easily swallowed by the audience (vs a complex explanation about for example geopolitics...), it makes money...
If this is the case then the publishers are doing the right thing by putting stronger and online DRM on their products.
Good use of Master technique #2. But it would be nicer if you tried to make a point than just to ridicule me. But I guess that is what you do when you lack arguments.
Billy Idol
Legend
Tuna, do you really not see the problem? Do you honestly think always online DRM is ok?
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
What happens when always online DRM applies to every OS you own? Including those on your tablet, cell-phone, TV, e-reader or MP3 player? When it applies to every movie, music, or book you bought (licenced)?
Well we are doing the wrong thing by supporting games with crappy DRM, and you are doing a really bad job defending it, "if you only had one arm", hahaha
I can say that Simcity have lost one sale thanks to their always on, and i am certain that we will see a pirate version that can fullfill the needs of everyone that doesn't want to pay sooner or later.
We just have to keep our money in the pocket and hate the publishers that take away our rights when we are paying customers.
Then you are just happy you have both arms?
That was hilarious, thanks!
BTW, we customers are always to blame what happens to us, if people would not justify and accept loosing their rights, the companies would not do it.
But, in my opinion the gaming industry thinks it is much more important in our lives than it is, and that comes from someone who plays since he was a little kid and cannot wait for certain games to come out. If you are going to screw me over a few times, I will not buy games from you, if all are going to screw me over then I will spend my money elsewhere, it is not that any of us have an infinite amount lying around and do not need to prioritise.
Cheers...
Sure, but you have to do so knowing most folk will still buy the stuff for the reasons I've mentioned previously and you won't strong-arm the producers into providing the product/service you want. And then you go without while they maintain a system you disagree with. You either give up your principles and follow in behind everyone else to get a poor system over no system at all, or you miss out completely. The public tend to turn to State legislation to control the market, rather than consumer behaviour. Occasionally a band of consumers group together with some consumer power to force a change, but rarely.
Well, this is the fault of the "journalist" really. They don't inform the public, gaming journalist being seen as shrill for the publishers don't help either. In the case of SimCity, their game was still receiving high marks from so-called "reputable" personalities, knowing their play experience was being hampered by online drm. Still, with enough research and buzz you could easily found out how draconian the drm was and then it's your choice.
Other than, I'm simply not going to agree that you'll ever need the heavy hand of the government to regulate a practice you yourself knowingly engage in. You'll never get much support to regulate fair commerce, not in this country at least. You know what I did? Instead of buying Gears of War Judgment, I've stayed playing Gears of War 3 because there's simply far more content. Judging ( pun intended )by how poorly the game is selling, eventually, Epic will release a full game and I'll purchase that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Silent_Buddha
Legend
It's so great that ONE game gives online DRM such a bad rep. We've had online, always on, DRM since the 90's. And for the most part it works just fine minus the inevitable launch hiccups for everyone not named Blizzard (although they did mess up just like everyone else for the WoW launch and first couple expansions).
Hell, Free2Play games only exist because of always online DRM. Without that, no healthy free to play game market segment
Myself, I don't know if my boycotting of products will change anything and I don't care. If I don't support what someone is doing then I don't buy it. Enough said. I REALLY wanted to buy Battlefield 3, didn't do it since it isn't sold on Steam. So I still haven't played it for more than bits and pieces at a friend's house. No biggie, lots of other publishers are more than willing to sell me things I want to play.
Regards,
SB
Do you really think most buyers of SimCity are going to be informed by a suitable press prior to purchase if that press existed?
We do all the time. We've just had the EU say digital downloads need to be resellable, forcing Steam to allow a resell option, or whatever the ruling was.
Sure, but most times that has zero impact. I didn't agree with the pricing policy of CDs. I refused to buy them. The end result is I didn't have CDs when everyone else did because they were happy to pay that much. That's the way free market commerce works - largest common denominator, and if the largest common denominator won't change their buying habits, the market will continue to exploit them. That's a discussion for the RSPCA forum, of course. Suffice to say as long as companies can employ DRM to the betterment of their bank balance, they will. The chances of consumers forcing the issue with their wallets is low so there's little reason for those who'll vote with their dollars to expect most other folk to follow suit. If you want other people to change buying habits, you need to provide a direct alternative. SimCity with DRM versus SimCity without, and you'll get buyers voting with their purchase option.
Actually, it's up to the consumer to be informed, that's your responsibility, the press is simply a poor enabler. If you are a low information voter you get what you pay for, that's fair game. This is merely a philosophical difference which Europeans simply don't share, I get that.
How in the hell do you think you're going to regulate always online drm? By making it more expensive to the company? They'll just pass that expense onto the consumers. Then you wonder why everything is more expensive in Europe. Don't notice the irony? You'll simply make your consumption more expensive and EA will still make their money. European governments love their stupid rules but everything is more expensive in Europe because of all those rules Europeans love so much.
They'll mandate a higher minimum server capacity with your specially EU licensed simcity, that will still require an internet connection, that's 30% more expensive than the one you can purchase in the US. They will then tie you to special European domain registrars so you can't even play the Us versions. There's already a precedent for it, look at Microsoft office products for businesses.
Last edited by a moderator:
Honestly, I haven't really touch f2p. I've tried out swtor for bit but got really turned off it. But it's funny that games like Battlefield and Call of Duty can launch no problem. I haven't touch simcity but it can't be anymore expensive to launch that game online than say fifia? Aren't like 17 million people playing that game a year?
I'm not particularly aware of how the US rallies around best consumer practice to force business. What was the commercial outcry and resistance to SimCity in the US versus everywhere else?
I never said they would, or that they'd do it successfully, so there's no point trying to have that argument. I was saying the consumer often looks to the state to regulate things they don't like, rather than self-regulate with their purchasing choices. That's just human behaviour.Similar threads
