|
On November 06 2009 07:01 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2009 05:01 sixghost wrote:
Gamers didn't build up Blizzard and IW, you just bought their games. No one was doing those companies a favor by buying their games, you bought them because their games were great. If you want game companies to owe you something, go buy their stock, not their games. Actually, the point was in relation to mod makers and developers. Much of the lifespan and success from a lot of commercially successful games came out of the hard work of mod developers, and not as much from the out-of-the-box material shipped with the game. The reasonable complaint is that developers not including mod tools or allowing custom maps are shooting themselves in the foot--because they think they'll get more out of nickel-and-diming people than out of letting users make some of that content, and thus promoting their game overall.
This is a really good point. I would certainly argue that great mods like Counter-Strike and DotA were large contributors to the sales of Half-Life and Warcraft III. But do most mods, things like the mass of free Neverwinter Nights modules or all the UMS maps in Starcraft, really sell additional copies of the game? Or do they just extend the amount of play time for people who've already purchased the game? For an online game, something that costs money to maintain, this might not necessarily be what developers want. It's definitely interesting to consider from a business perspective.
|
Soo your point being, a lot of people don't buy PC games because we can just dl the crack version?
Thus the sales # is actually inaccurate. IF everyone go buy PC games instead of dling them the sales could double the console game sales.
PC games > Console games
People who play PC games > People who play Console games.
So if we all pay for the PC games we have then we have the right to demand shit from Blizzard right? Is that your point?
|
no that's not his point, read his wall of text again
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 06 2009 07:17 DJEtterStyle wrote:
This is a really good point. I would certainly argue that great mods like Counter-Strike and DotA were large contributors to the sales of Half-Life and Warcraft III. But do most mods, things like the mass of free Neverwinter Nights modules or all the UMS maps in Starcraft, really sell additional copies of the game? Or do they just extend the amount of play time for people who've already purchased the game? For an online game, something that costs money to maintain, this might not necessarily be what developers want. It's definitely interesting to consider from a business perspective.
Neverwinter Nights is actually a pretty poor example to use there, because the core game is so mediocre compared to the vast majority of modules that have come out (it feels very much like an afterthought). I know that I would never have bought it had I not personally known someone making modules for the game that I wanted to play.
I would say it depends largely on the game at hand--how solid the content for the base game is, how good the editor is, and simply how lucky the developers are. Counter-Strike did wonders for Half-Life because HLDM didn't really have the mass appeal of competitors like Q3: Arena. DotA moved WC3 copies because a lot of people found the multiplayer experience in WC3 somewhat lackluster. What can be said for sure, however, is that user-made content creates good-will for the company, and general positive impressions for the game in the long-run. Starcraft UMS may not move copies of SC1, but it certaily contributes to peoples' knowledge of SC2--people who may have moved on from melee games still found fun in whatever their UMS of choice is, and are certainly much more aware of SC2 than they otherwise would have been.
I suppose developers might consider longevity a double-edged sword in that regard: people attached to your old game might create higher expectations of your new game, and make people less willing to move on, but IMO positive impressions for the game is always a good thing. Even the biggest skeptic about SC2's success is still going to TRY the game, and that has to be better than them not looking at all.
|
One key point: there probably would be a hell of a lot more PC gamers if developers weren't totally in bed with video card designers. Considering a majority of PC games end up (or even start) on consoles, why would anyone buy a PC for gaming? Consoles don't require financial investments to keep them up to speed so you can play the latest games.
|
On November 06 2009 05:12 ][-][eretic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2009 05:01 sixghost wrote:On November 06 2009 03:38 Alizee- wrote:
Entitlement comes from the fact that the PC gamers built up the companies, are the reason several things were put into games, and then in turn get backstabbed. Blizzard, for example, is nothing more than a game innovating company, they rarely if ever come out with something new, its just things other people already came up with. This can be found on individual levels such as a skill or ability or products as a whole such as the online system of starcraft 2 that is proposed.
Gamers didn't build up Blizzard and IW, you just bought their games. No one was doing those companies a favor by buying their games, you bought them because their games were great. If you want game companies to owe you something, go buy their stock, not their games. Your other point isn't even related to this discussion. Probably the stupidest thing I've read in a while. Consumers aren't doing companies favors by purchasing their products? Take your discussions elsewhere please. A lot of these games undergo beta testing so that the consumers can communicate with the distributors where they can improve the games so that they become great instead of just average or good.
he's saying that people didn't buy the games because of the company, but rather the games.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
PC gaming is dying. Console gaming is just as fun and a lot less expensive. In 5 years the only AAA titles for the PC will be either ports from games developed mostly for consoles or games like MMOs and RTSes that really require a keyboard to play.
|
Ya that's another thing, having a next gen console is fun as hell and now a lot less expensive than a PC. Before you -needed- a computer to survive on the internet, but now everyone has a PC and to play new games you can either: get a PS3/360 or a 1000+ computer. Technology caught up and computer gaming is just really expensive it seems. I got the computer I use now for 600 dollars 2 years ago and I highly doubt it will be able to play SC2. PS3 for 400 will play all the ps3 games for the next ever. My crappy pc can play a lot of stuff but nothing really new and groundbreaking but PS3 is off the hook and you can get one for 300 dollars now. High end PCs just aren't worth it to me now.
|
^I spent $300 upgrading my PC last year (gpu, cpu, mobo, memory, psu) and I'm 100% confident it will play SC2, it plays DOW2 at high settings no problem and that game probably has higher demand than SC2 will.
It also plays many games that are on PS3/360 in higher settings than their console counterparts. PC gaming isn't expensive, people just don't know how to spend their money or what to spend it on. Until more console games support keyboard/mouse (right now 360 doesn't even allow for the use of them) PC gaming will still live on strong.
|
On November 06 2009 07:40 Hawk wrote:
One key point: there probably would be a hell of a lot more PC gamers if developers weren't totally in bed with video card designers. Considering a majority of PC games end up (or even start) on consoles, why would anyone buy a PC for gaming? Consoles don't require financial investments to keep them up to speed so you can play the latest games.
I agree with this more than anything.
This has been my problem with PC games from day 1.
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 06 2009 07:47 motbob wrote:
PC gaming is dying. Console gaming is just as fun and a lot less expensive. In 5 years the only AAA titles for the PC will be either ports from games developed mostly for consoles or games like MMOs and RTSes that really require a keyboard to play.
PC gaming is only expensive if you're trying to play AAA titles (because graphics matter much more to the mainstream than a lot of the relevant niche's in PC gaming). If your graphical bar is just a bit lower, you drastically reduce the cost. Playing a 5 year old game on an XBox 360 still requires the console, and whatever necessary medium you're obtaining the game through. Playing a 5 year old game on a PC costs almost nothing (particularly if the game is accessible through a medium like Steam)--because while most people don't own a top-of-the-line computer, a lot of people DO own a computer that can run something from 5 years ago (and need it for legitimate reasons anyway, so the real cost is nothing for the hardware).
IMO PC gaming isn't going to die, but its mode of operation is going to have to change drastically. The fact that consumers can no longer accept big developers to cater to their interests means that, for the most part, they will have to take their business to a different model. Perhaps this will come from independent game development, but who knows. As I've said in other threads--gaming is going the way of other entertainment media: as the medium begins to enter the mainstream, people find that the original values of the medium and those of the mainstream are different, and they simply move on to other modes of distribution.
|
This should be moved to blogs... lol >_>
|
Your rant can be applied to all areas of consumption, not just gaming. So I dont really see why you are being so narrow minded and bashing the gaming community when all this could be easily applied to people who buy cellphones, watch movies etc etc
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On November 06 2009 08:08 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2009 07:47 motbob wrote:
PC gaming is dying. Console gaming is just as fun and a lot less expensive. In 5 years the only AAA titles for the PC will be either ports from games developed mostly for consoles or games like MMOs and RTSes that really require a keyboard to play. PC gaming is only expensive if you're trying to play AAA titles (because graphics matter much more to the mainstream than a lot of the relevant niche's in PC gaming). If your graphical bar is just a bit lower, you drastically reduce the cost. Playing a 5 year old game on an XBox 360 still requires the console, and whatever necessary medium you're obtaining the game through. Playing a 5 year old game on a PC costs almost nothing (particularly if the game is accessible through a medium like Steam)--because while most people don't own a top-of-the-line computer, a lot of people DO own a computer that can run something from 5 years ago (and need it for legitimate reasons anyway, so the real cost is nothing for the hardware). IMO PC gaming isn't going to die, but its mode of operation is going to have to change drastically. The fact that consumers can no longer accept big developers to cater to their interests means that, for the most part, they will have to take their business to a different model. Perhaps this will come from independent game development, but who knows. As I've said in other threads--gaming is going the way of other entertainment media: as the medium begins to enter the mainstream, people find that the original values of the medium and those of the mainstream are different, and they simply move on to other modes of distribution.
The argument that "playing 5 year old games is cheaper on a PC" is sort of inane, especially when you consider that the online communities for almost all 5 year old games are dead.
I agree that the PC business model has to change in a big way, and I think it has already in some ways. See: Popcap Games.
|
You kinda got stomped in the DA thread when you started to blame the " nancy whiny PC rpg gamers" so get of your high horse please.
If you want to pay more for worse games it is your problem. I'm fine playing mods, indie and oldschool games.
I enjoyed the nameless mod for Dx more than Bioshock ( goty LOL ). Yup U1 engine and amateur production can make a better game than professionnal working on the U3 engine.
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 06 2009 08:24 motbob wrote:
The argument that "playing 5 year old games is cheaper on a PC" is sort of inane, especially when you consider that the online communities for almost all 5 year old games are dead.
Why do there need to be widespread communities for that statement to be valid? Regardless, such communities do exist in significant numbers. There's TL, any DotA/WC3-related forum, etc. The point being, PC gaming doesn't need to be expensive if people are willing to play games that don't have a large graphical barrier, both for the developer and for the consumer. The only reason it is so is the perception (whether justified or not) that a large majority of PC gamers want cutting-edge graphics. Starcraft's graphics are obviously good enough for anyone on these forums, so why can't that hold true across other game genres?
|
On November 06 2009 08:24 motbob wrote:
The argument that "playing 5 year old games is cheaper on a PC" is sort of inane, especially when you consider that the online communities for almost all 5 year old games are dead.
I agree that the PC business model has to change in a big way, and I think it has already in some ways. See: Popcap Games.
Says the guy posting on the forum of a ten years old game.
|
No button mashers for me, TYVM.
edit: ARGH in melee range of Manifesto. Fuck.
|
Osaka27175 Posts
On November 06 2009 08:09 Redux wrote:
This should be moved to blogs... lol >_>
These kinds of posts are not acceptable. If it is blog material, it will be moved to blogs. Talk about the topic or don't post.
|
I don't really like video games as a whole now that I think about it, I'm always going to love starcraft and the occasional rpg with a good story, but most popular action/fps/sports games bore me to tears and I'd rather punch myself in the dick until I pass out than play Halo. Most hardcore gamers, not just pc but console also, are inane, boring, nihilistic human beings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
