I'm not a PC gamer. That's not to say I don't play games on my PC -- I do, and I enjoy the experience -- but the term "PC gamer" has recently become something so despicable that I don't want to be associated with it. As far as I'm concerned, PC gamers are the equivalent of the legions of indignant homeless in San Francisco, the ones who sneer at you when you only give them a dollar and then ask you for another when you encounter them again five minutes later. PC gamers as of late have projected this outrageous, unwarranted sense of entitlement, this belief that developers owe them something. I wish I could pinpoint the source of these feelings. Is it the deep-seated belief that they are the "hardcore," and because they take their hobby so much more seriously than the unwashed console masses, they deserve to be catered to? Is it a basic misunderstanding of how our society functions? Or are they all just insane?
Capitalism is inherently democratic, but it differs from (or is identical to, depending upon your level of cynicism) our definition of democracy in one key way: the rich get more votes than the poor. To put it more accurately, people who spend more money get more of a say in what products and services are offered up for public consumption. Restaurants are going to cater to their actual customers rather than the thrifty family that eats out twice yearly. They're going to serve food that these frequent customers will buy, lest they take their dollars elsewhere. Menu items that aren't selling will be replaced with items that will sell, and sales figures for particular menu items are obviously going to tilt in favor of those who dine out frequently. That's common sense. Should the thrifty family expect the same level of service as more frequent customers? Absolutely. But they don't have the right to order items not on the menu or make unreasonable demands of their server just because the event of dining out is so much more special to them. And that, I would argue, is exactly what PC gamers are doing. They're not content with the offerings of the market. Rather than acting like normal, reasonable human beings, though, they're shouting at the top of their lungs about how their favorite restaurant no longer offers the meatloaf sandwich. A normal person would just order something else.
I remember when Crystal Pepsi was released. Drinking it was incredibly cool for a few weeks, at least where I was from. Of course, we all know what happened: sales slowed, and Pepsi discontinued the product. I'm sure there were a good number of people who really liked Crystal Pepsi. Maybe some people still look nostalgically back on that lone year of production as the good ol' days. I had a few friends, I remember, who were a little miffed that Crystal Pepsi was no longer available, but rather than writing angry letters to Pepsi, signing petitions, or taking their cause to the streets, they did the rational thing: they drank something else. They moved their dollars into another product. Quietly and without any melodramatic antics, they shifted their support elsewhere. This sort of conduct isn't defeatism. It's realism. These customers understood that they were the minority. They also understood that their choice of soft drink was not life or death. They understood that Pepsi did not owe them anything. Most importantly, they understood that they had a choice. The only voice they needed to raise was the voice their money gave them, a silent vote that would be analyzed in terms of sales figures. Maybe they would never get their dream product, but that was fine; there were numerous options to quench their thirst.
Of course, I doubt the people who liked Crystal Pepsi went through this exact thought process; they didn't have to. It made sense to them without any need for introspection, because they were reasonable human beings. The reason I've spelled it out in such detail is that, apparently, it doesn't make sense to PC gamers.
The following is my open letter to people who still call themselves PC gamers.
Dear Oblivious,
Infinity Ward, Valve, and Blizzard, among the many other developers, are companies that create games in order to pay the salaries of their employees. The do not owe you anything. They will release a product, and you will either buy it or you won't. It's really that simple. If you are truly outraged over Infinity Ward not offering dedicated servers on the PC, you are welcome to take your money elsewhere, just as normal human beings do. If you really think that Left 4 Dead 2 should have been offered up as downloadable content for the original Left 4 Dead, you're free to not buy that, too. If you're fuming over Starcraft 2 being sold as a trilogy of full-priced games -- you guessed it -- do not indulge Blizzard. You have a vote. It's called your wallet. Buy other games -- or don't. Games are just a leisure activity, after all. If they're no longer fun for you, maybe it's time for a new hobby. I hear that the Kindle has made reading cool again.
Of course, some of you are going to take a different path. You'll just steal electronic copies of the games "on principle" rather than pay those dirty, money-grubbing developers an unconscionable $50 each for their years of labor. I'm not going to call you thieves; if you were never going to buy the game in the first place, you're not depriving anyone of what they're owed. Instead, I'm going to say something that should concern you quite a bit more: you're not customers. You don't get a vote in how products are developed, because you're not spending any money. From the eyes of a company producing a product, you might as well not exist. OK, so you get to enjoy the fruits of their labors for free. But it's not the game you wanted, and every day, games are going to continue to move farther and farther from your definition of what they should be. If that's not evident from the "consolification" of today's games, I don't know what to say.
The fact is -- and maybe it's a sad fact, but it's a fact -- that PC gamers are a minority now. Video game sales were an $11.7 billion industry in 2008. PC game sales accounted for $701 million of that, about 6%. Even if we adjust that figure to compensate for digital sales from services like Steam and Direct2Drive -- services which do not release sales figures -- I don't think any reasonable person would conclude that PC game sales represent more than 15% of the market. The real number is probably closer to 10%. [EDITED due to some valid concerns in the thread: MMO subscriptions are a substantial amount, probably another $3 billion before factoring in all the CS, maintenance, and operating costs, but this incredible potential for profit is actually a detriment to non-MMO titles on the PC, in that it shifts developer focus, as I allude to below.] I hate to break the news to you in such blunt fashion, but from your conduct this holiday season, I didn't see any other way to make sure you understand. To extend my restaurant analogy from above, you don't get to dictate what goes on the menu. It's time to accept that, to start acting like reasonable human beings and less like subway vagrants. $701 million, adjusted to $1.2 billion to be generous, is nothing to sneeze at. You still have some market clout. But it's time to start proving it. If you want the PC to survive as a "hardcore" gaming platform, you have to start rewarding the few developers who still produce content that interests you, even if its not your personal definition of perfect. It's time to settle for "good enough." If you want Modern Warfare 4 (it's too late for 3) and Left 4 Dead 3 to be anything more than console ports, or if you want Starcraft 3 to come out this millennium, it is time to start showing companies that there is profit involved. This is no time to stand by your misguided principles. This is the time to start showing developers that you are willing to spend money on products that cater to you. If you don't, and you're still hoping to game on your PC ten years from now... well, I hope you enjoy The Sims, World of Warcraft, and Farmville, because that's the direction the market is headed. Otherwise, you might as well start saving your money for that Xbox 720.
-
Recommended reading, especially the viewer comments:
Just for fun, type "starcraft 2 trilogy" into Google and see what the search engine provides as a final, suggested word.
And one last quote: "I work at Gamestop myself, with the three different SKU's we have on MW2 it's probably around 2.1:1 from 360 to ps3 (we have about 253 reservers) and I think of those 253, four are for PC. Complain all you want about dedicated servers, not like you were gonna buy the game anyway"
THOUGHTS? I couldn't cover everything, and there are obviously counter-arguments to the points I made. I am very interested to see what a group of "hardcore" PC gamers has to say about this.
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.
Additionally, with companies like InfinityWard, through their gamers in their dedication to maps and mods of the Call of Duty series over the years, they have shaped the franchise. Those same map and mod makers are now being rewarded by being given a red light to making any maps or mods in the future so that instead InfinityWard can push out their map packs via DLCs and CHARGE THEM. That's a betrayal of customer loyalty and has definitely caused InfinityWard to sell out.
That IS capitalism which is why I no longer buy InfinityWard games and won't be purchasing Modern Warfare 2, because I won't pay to get a product that has less than a previous game on a near identical engine.
PC gaming doesn't imply hardcore, all it implies is similar to a fighting game where easier to use characters are more limited, but more expert characters have more potential if mastered, PCs have more power, but aren't as user friendly. Therefore if there advantages of buying a PC version, so be it. Choice is good.
Modern Warfare 2 issues stem from the fact that the game itself people KNOW will be good, but by removing custom maps and mods and dedicated servers its a shot in the heart, because its a product people want, but some huge issues are being ignored all to maximize profits. In the end, they could lose more than by missing out on the DLCs.
I more or less agree with the OP, but the problem with this is that there is a strong likely-hood that the publishers will blame poor sales on piracy, which is such a catch all when a game fails to sell, since I'm certainly not buying Modern Warfare 2 on PC, solely based on the dedicated server issue, and no amount of piracy is going to change that, without me being redundant here, I'm just going to post a short bit of audio that came up in the latest PC gamer podcast (UK), which sums up my feelings on issue.
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.
Additionally, with companies like InfinityWard, through their gamers in their dedication to maps and mods of the Call of Duty series over the years, they have shaped the franchise. Those same map and mod makers are now being rewarded by being given a red light to making any maps or mods in the future so that instead InfinityWard can push out their map packs via DLCs and CHARGE THEM. That's a betrayal of customer loyalty and has definitely caused InfinityWard to sell out.
That IS capitalism which is why I no longer buy InfinityWard games and won't be purchasing Modern Warfare 2, because I won't pay to get a product that has less than a previous game on a near identical engine
This is a great point, and I'm glad you brought it up. I understand the sense of betrayal PC gamers must feel when they see a company offering "less" than a previous generation. By this point, though, I feel like we've gotten our money's worth. The next game is a clean slate. Maybe it's worth the money to us, or maybe it isn't. I mean, we can still play Starcraft for free 11 years later. That's staggering, but for PC gamers, it seems like anything less than that isn't enough. Modern Warfare 2 might not be as free and flexible as the original, but is it still worth $60? Everyone has to answer that for themselves, obviously. It's not my personal ideal; I'd like the flexibility of dedicated servers and user-created maps, but I've already preordered it.
Any [regular] gamers can only use the content that they are given by the companies. I like Blizzard games, so I play Blizzard. In the meantime if I get bored, I have no problem (and often do switch) switching games or even platforms.
Us PC gamers are so because we like the games and we like the percision that can only be found using a mouse and keyboard.
I think your post is just reading too far into it. I am a PC gamer, but that's not all I am. I play PC games but it's not my life. When a company fails to deliver, I'm not upset nor do I feel cheated. I move on.
I haven't seen much of the PC gamer whining/rage you're describing on TL, but I never really go to the sports&games forum. I agree with you, though, fuck those guys and whatnot.
On November 06 2009 04:04 Equaoh wrote: I haven't seen much of the PC gamer whining/rage you're describing on TL, but I never really go to the sports&games forum. I agree with you, though, fuck those guys and whatnot.
Yeah, it's possible that a few people will misunderstand my intention here. Even if you're not one of the rabid PC gaming zealots -- I don't think that TL has too many of them, to be honest -- hopefully the read was interesting and provided a bit of perspective on our hobby. That's all, really.
Now hold on a second, I'm not complaining or anything, it's just more of a technical question: Shouldn't this be in the blog section?
On topic: I do think you strike some fine points, but I lost belief in humanity a few years back when people started realising the climate was changing because of them.. And did nothing. This is somewhat like that, I'd say. Most people are just not suited for thinking and acting beyond their own world, just look at communism.
This little rant you have going on would be cool if I were 15 years old and the year was 2004. Though thinking about Crystal Pepsi does make me happy and nostalgic.
It's pretty sad to see that people don't even buy the game but complains about it. Either you like it and buy to play and support the developers, or you don't. Complaining, but then playing the "bad" game you don't even like FOR FREE is morally wrong.
If there are 10 million wow subscribers at maybe 100 per year minimum, that's 1.2 billion per year for just one game in 2008. As you said this only counts in store retail sales, which have fallen to almost nothing due to online sales. The gamestop downstairs doesn't even sell PC games so it should be a surprised that I have bought over a dozen games via steam/gog/impulse over the last year and a half and I'm not alone. I won't be buying SC2 in stores either, I'll be using blizzard's direct download service.
Furthermore, you are comparing one platform PC to a combined half a dozen other largely incompatible platforms (ps3, xbox360, wii, handhelds). That's not fair. If you compared PC to just xbox 360, xbox might be in the lead, but I don't think it would be by very much. The other consoles would probably be behind, more than likely.
Your research blows so get off your high horse. The only problem with PC right now is it has no founding body. There is no Microsoft promoting it as a platform drawing up amazing PC gaming logos and paying for full page magazine ads about how great PC gaming is. There is no one to defend it when competing interests take pot shots at it in the press. In other words it is an image problem and nothing more. It has and will continue to foster a thriving indie gaming culture, connectivity, and modding communities. If what you want is an endless stream of over priced fighting, sports, and FPS games, by all means go with a console. The PC is working just fine for me.
uh WoW has like 10 million subscribers paying from $14-16 a month
onmach said it before me
also your analogy about pepsi crystal and the expression through where people spend their money is flawed because pepsi crystal was discontinued; the people who wanted it to still be around were not in some way expressing their desire through their financial spending, they had no choice whatsoever.
Never understood all this shit to begin with, PC gaming and console gaming are the exact same apart from the controllers, if consoles provided mouses and keyboards to play RTS and FPS reasonably I wouldn't care about switching to it, I'm already playing SF4 on a 360 with an arcade stick.
This, as everything always somehow inevitably does, reminded me of Joe Strummer
I'm gonna pull out of my pocket one vote. (takes out a dollar). 'He's gotta dollar bill out of his pocket!' What I like to say to anyone who could care to listen to me is that this is our only vote. I'm saying that because we got democrat votes and we voted in this guy two years ago (Tony Blair) and he's become... what he was not supposed to be. We can't get rid of him. Maybe we got a fifteen year run with this guy. What can we do? Fold our tents on the field. We'll lose the battle but not the war.
So it occured to me that since my real vote is useless, null and void, therefore we ain't gonna start runnin' down the street burnin' and a-lootin' either 'cause our ass is gonna get canned. So that leaves the only vote anybody's got, this dollar bill. All I'm trying to say is, when I wanna buy a record, I'm gonna take my dollar bill and go to some corner guy with his weird, kooky little shop. I'm not giving this to Virgin Megastore. The same when I'm going to buy some clothes- I ain't gonna go to Gap no more. I wanna go to Ditsy Louie's Junk Clothing Box. I'm using my vote here, this dollar bill is my vote. I'm not gonna go to a fast food joint. I'm going to go to a place where people own it, where the owner is standing behind the bar, picking his teeth.
This is my new philosophy. Use your vote, your dollar bill is your vote. It's time we stopped giving it in the bucket-loads to these giants corporations. They're not to be trusted with that amount of money. They're only gonna bland us out, robot us out. They're gonna crush us and pulverize us. All they want is our money. They'd rather that we just sat on the pavement, saying nothing and giving them dollar bills. That's what they want to world to be while they have their cocaine and champagne. The dollar bill is your only vote. That's my new vibe.
IMO you're (DJ) mixing the piracy population into the sales population and comparing the number of sales to the total number of sales + pirates, and finding out that *gasp* the sheer number of pirates makes that total number pathetic in comparison to the "potential" (ie. total sales + downloads). Gamasutra had an interview a while ago with a "minor" program developer (some sort of desktop application I believe) that was still raking in easily over a million customers, which was for them quite a nice profit. And that guy talked about how the mistake for most game companies is that they try to satisfy the pirate base, as opposed to their actual customer base - you just can't count much of the pirate base as "potential customers" because they'll pirate it even if you create something to their liking. And by catering to the pirates, you often risk alienating your paying customers, which results in, amazingly, crappy games that just have flashy graphics that no one will pay for. Pirates do not equal potential customer, after all.
What I mean is that most actual "customers" are doing the very thing you bring up, putting their money elsewhere. Many of my friends who used to play Starcraft Warcraft Diablo etc. have moved on to Consoles for this very reason, as they prefer the online play of the PS3/Xbox or the fighting games on it. Most people that will pay for games do ample research prior to buying a game, just like the example you brought up with Modern Warfare 2, and if a game isn't to their liking, they, gasp, won't buy it. Their money will go elsewhere, "like a normal human being.
The ones doing most of the complaining are the pirates, whom don't have leverage except to cry on public online forums making empty threats about not buying a game. It's just a shame many companies bend over backwards for them.
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.
Exactly why I don't go catch too many movies anymore. Too many movies are rushed out into the theaters in hopes that their stars drawing power will bring in enough money to offset the costs of production and in turn make a profit. They don't care that the movie is shit so long as it makes a money. The same way some companies get greedy off of past success and rush out crap games like CS:Source/ConditionZero in hopes of pushing them towards buying their 2nd rate filth.
So yeah, I don't run out and write angry letters or anything, and most people don't as far as I know, but forums are a place where communities gather to discuss things like this and word of mouth can be quite a powerful thing, especially with the internet so easily accessible to millions of people. So if I hear a movie sucks, and I tend to agree with said reasons, I probably won't watch it. Everyone has their own preferences, but if the plot in "Righteous Kill" is said to be so horrible that even Di Nero and Pacino couldn't make it work, and I hear it all over the place. Its probably true.
With that said, I made the mistake of thinking two of the best actors of our time couldn't possibly agree to make a shit movie together. I was wrong and wasted my money. It's hard to trust anything these days, but certain actors have done more than their share of amazing movies and I will continue to support them knowing that they consistently produce good results. The same way I will continue to support Blizzard, knowing that titles like Diablo, Starcraft, and Warcraft are staples in their franchise that they simply cannot afford to fuck up.
Parts of this are very true and make a lot of sense. Piracy is ruining PC Gaming nowadays, both on the side of the piracy itself and on the side of DRM fucking up the people that legitimately buy the game.
However, your pepsi analogy is very different and does not correlate. You don't spend multiple hours a day drinking a pepsi, and there are plenty of good beverages to go around. In the PC Gaming world nowadays there really aren't that many good games. Publishers like EA are shitting out awful games regularly. When you spend 5+ hours a day playing video games it becomes increasingly important that the video games are enjoyable. Sure, you could be "realistic" and just play the new shitty games and not complain, but on the other hand if you complain to the developers, at least you have a chance at changing what they do.
If enough people complain, usually a company will change something. There's no reason to just give up and deal with terrible aspects of games.
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.
I think PC gamers are to games what cinéastes are to movies; what bibliophiles are to books.
We may be the minority, but yet we are the true apprisers of quality in games. We know to recognise art in a game better than any other type of gamer.
Trash movies will always be made. Dumb ass blockbuster movies will prolly always dominate the box offices. DAN BROWN will with quite some certainty top any quality author in sales. It's no surprise games seem set to follow in the steps of these predecessors. I think it's inevitable.
The entertainment industry will always cater to the masses, but that don't mean quality movies don't get made anyway, that doesn't mean quality books aren't ever written, and it sure as hell doesn't mean GOOD GAMES won't or can't be made in the future. And I think we PC-gamers, in general, have earned the right to critique games the way we do. Us being the minority is probably somewhat linked to your thesis of pc-gamers being picky and not being willing to buy just any trash.
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.
You pay them, you get the game. End of transaction. No one is owed anything after the deal is done. You aren't buying the game + a say in how the next game should be, or the game + some guarentee that the next game will have no DRM and dedicated servers.
What does beta testing have to do with any of this? I'm not saying companies don't give a shit what their potential customers have to say, I'm saying that people aren't owed anything for buying someones game. If custom maps and dedicated servers are really that big a deal to gamers, MW2 sales will tank, and they will be in the 3rd game.
Thanks for calling my point stupid then making no attempt to refute it.
This is definitely a blog post. And the title is attacking TL.net members. First you make the notion that WE are PC GAMERS, and that WE put ourselves in a bad situation.
Just play a game. If you don't like it, find something else better to do. We play Starcraft and the games we love because we chose to and we have no regrets, nor do we consider it doing bad for our selves. (or why would we buy games in the first place?)
As for you saying "if you want PC to stay as a hardcore platform..."
what are hardcore platforms? platforms which there are games that people love and get very good at, which can be any platform. Some dork can sit in his room and make a great game without any company behind him, release it, and it could explode into a core gaming phenomenom. It's not the platform that makes core gamers, its the game.
A company "owes" you their best effort any time they put out a game they expect you to pay for. And your comment on companies don't care if you pay for their game or not is still stupid.
One thing that's different about PC games compared to console games though is the fact that there's a lot of hardware developers that are making a ton of money as well I'm assuming. Tons of people are putting a ton of money into building/buying a new computer every 2-3 years, because it almost seems like software and hardware developers are basically working together to make sure that each new game that comes out every year is pushing the boundaries of your computer so much that you're forced to either not play it or purchase new parts (conspiracy theory wooo), so at least someone is benefiting a lot from it, if not at least the two of them combined.
As a guy who pirates pretty much everything when it comes to games, I actually started to pirate less when I could actually afford to buy the games. I still pirate games I know aren't worth full price or games I know where the pirate scene will fail horribly. I played on cracked CSS servers for a good few years and once I actually had a job/money I actually bought the game, along with many others. I still mostly do pirate single player games, those are the ones I don't believe are worth the full $50 price tag, exceptions being massive games like Dragons Age Origins where pirating would never be perfect(there's always a bound fuckup there).
The whole MW2 dedicated servers thing, they can claim its to give us a better matchmaking system but its so they can shove DLC down our throats. ANYONE who played CSS cracked on servers for long periods of times know how shitty private servers are. No dedicated servers is why I'm boycotting MW2.
On November 06 2009 03:22 DJEtterStyle wrote: I'm not a PC gamer. That's not to say I don't play games on my PC -- I do, and I enjoy the experience -- but the term "PC gamer" has recently become something so despicable that I don't want to be associated with it. As far as I'm concerned, PC gamers are the equivalent of the legions of indignant homeless in San Francisco, the ones who sneer at you when you only give them a dollar and then ask you for another when you encounter them again five minutes later. PC gamers as of late have projected this outrageous, unwarranted sense of entitlement, this belief that developers owe them something. I wish I could pinpoint the source of these feelings. Is it the deep-seated belief that they are the "hardcore," and because they take their hobby so much more seriously than the unwashed console masses, they deserve to be catered to? Is it a basic misunderstanding of how our society functions? Or are they all just insane?
Stopping here and replying to just this.
PC gamers aren't doing this, older gamers are. People who have been around and have seen the changes in the gaming industry from fun to profit. This pretentious 'entitlement' you say we have doesn't actually exist. We're just lashing out on an industry that is purposely holding back content from us so they can sell it to us again at a later date. If we don't lash back out and reject this and demand to be treated a certain way as consumers then its going to spiral out of control and companies will start nickle and diming us for every tiny little insignificant part of a game that they used to give to us as part of the game. If they are going to sell us a game, sell us the entire game. Don't sell us segment by segment over a few months.
Now I don't consider myself a hardcore gamer but this pisses me off. I'm just content right now because there haven't been more than a couple games that I actually wanted the additional content from (I haven't and never have purchased any DLC and won't unless its obvious they actually put work into it and its worth the $10 or whatever for the expansions).
developers don't owe us anything... they just owe it to themselves to make something we'll buy. i stopped buying most games after being sorely disappointed by sequels to series' I loved (Deus Ex 2, Doom 3, Oblivion, etc.). Note, how 2 of 3 suffered extremely from being poor console ports, when previously they had been primarily PC franchises.
I didn't do it to myself, the devs did it to themselves. I might buy starcraft 2 and whatever the next half life game is... outside of that I'm probably not touching PC games.
for single player... well, it's utterly ridiculous that Doom 2 custom maps have MUCH HIGHER standards for gameplay and level design than companies like Gearbox for example. I can compare the pristine gameplay the doom 2 mod Whispers of Satan (released september 2009, originally announced in 2007) vs. Gearbox's Borderlands (oct 2009, originally announced in 2007)... and this doom 2 mod comes out massively ahead. That's STUPID... to say the least, that 2 independent mappers with no plans for money, using a 16 year-old engine manage to create BETTER gameplay than a developer (who probably have at least 100 people working on their game) who spent a lot of money on an unreal engine 3 license. In borderlands we see the copy-and-pasted static mesh asset lego block level design... If you took the levels from borderlands and remade them as doom maps and tried to release them in the doom community, you'd be laughed at, doomworld's reviewers would tear you a new one.
for multiplayer, quake live and starcraft play much better than anything recently made and again, that's quite ridiculous and sad. how is it that developers come out with these new games and instead of learning lessons from these games and why they are so great, they just create subpar dumbed-down games
so. starcraft, and doom mods. i'm fine with that. i'd be happier if new games were good, but i'm not unhappy with the situation.
On November 06 2009 05:33 Zyrre wrote: Your entire theory falls down on any game with a monthly fee.
Honestly, I don't think that's the case. You can see it in this quote:
This is the time to start showing developers that you are willing to spend money on products that cater to you. If you don't, and you're still hoping to game on your PC ten years from now... well, I hope you enjoy The Sims, World of Warcraft, and Farmville, because that's the direction the market is headed.
. Right now, MMOs are the games that are making truly enormous sums of money on the PC. That is where developer efforts are going. I'm not a fan of MMOs, at least not the way current ones are structured, which is why I tried to highlight three more traditional games in my post. Because MMOs are such enormous money makers, there's an even greater need to prove to developers that PC gamers are willing to buy something else. The PC isn't going to die as a gaming platform, but games released on the PC are going to change drastically. You're going to see casual games and MMOs. I don't know about you, but I'd rather see more games like Call of Duty, Dragon Age, and Starcraft.
I share the OP's frustration at people who feel they are "entitled" far more than what they are really paying for (demanding that SC2 not be a trilogy, L4D2 be DLC etc.) However, I think complaints regarding dedicated servers in Call of Duty are completely different. It costs next to nothing to implement dedicated servers for Call of Duty - not only has it obviously be done before and in almost every other multiplayer FPS since the dawn of time, but the whole game is built into Steam already anyway. So hardcore gamers are not asking for their needs to be prioritized over anyone else's, they are just questioning a design choice that could be rectified without damaging the interests of anyone else.
Also, you have included the obligatory paragraph (that appears in one form or another in all articles about casual vs hardcore) about how PC gamers suck because we are a minority. But forcing the interests of the minority onto the majority is not always a bad thing in these types of issues. What if the best mathematics students demanded that university entrance exams have harder maths questions, clearly against the interests of the majority? Most likely, it would improve mathematical proficiency amongst everyone. Similarly, if you accept that PC gamers have in general a better idea of what makes a good game and change games to satisfy their demands, against the will of console gamers, perhaps the console gamers will find that they enjoy the games in a new, more interesting way.
For example, say in WoW Blizzard made it impossible to get good items without competing in some relatively skill-based combat like in the arenas. Clearly this would satisfy those who are serious about the game, while displeasing pretty much everyone else. But this majority, forced into competing for them items, might discover that there is a lot of depth and fun to arena combat that they never discovered before starting to take it seriously, and their enjoyment of the game increases. Not the best example, and a better case can be made for FPSes and RTSes, but you get my point.
On November 06 2009 05:35 ][-][eretic wrote: A company "owes" you their best effort any time they put out a game they expect you to pay for.
This quote betrays extreme ignorance on the way that capitalism works. They don't owe any effort at all, it is all cost/benefit for them. If they pull out all the stops and spend tons of money, time, and effort on a product and can't recover all the costs, they lose money. If they absolutely take a dump in a box, then they will sell zero and also not recover the costs of the food needed to produce so much feces. The truth is somewhere in between. The company is going to spend as much time and effort as they think is needed to create a product that will sell enough copies for them to not only recoup their initial costs but also create a profit. This is how companies work. They do not "owe" us their best effort, and if we don't like it, we are not "expected' to still pay. Their goal is to gauge public opinion well enough to estimate how many will sell and act accordingly.
Both sides are completely voluntary. You have the power to buy as you chose and they have the power to put as much time/effort/money in the game as they want. Capitalism in theory says that this arrangement will actually end up as a net benefit for both parties, even if both sides don't get ALL that they want. Whether this is true is something else, but that's how are system works now (in most things).
Let's check just WoW subscription sales over the course of 2009:
Assume 11 million subscribers, average, over the course of the year. Also assume they pay, on average, $12.50 per month (the actual values range from $10-$15 depending on how many months you buy.
$12.50 * 11 million subscribers * 12 subscriptions/year = $1,650,000,000 According to your figures, that single game is equivalent to about %10 of the entire video game market revenue, and about 40% more revenue than you attributed to the whole market.
Anyway, aside from that, I don't plan on buying Modern Warfare or Left 4 Dead 2, not because i'm annoyed at the companies, but simply because I don't have the money. I'm not going to steal them either. Maybe when L4D2 is down to like $25 in a year it'll be worth it.
I sink money on companies that I think are doing a great job, producing in-depth games that are captivating and extremely replayable. That's why I've already pre-ordered heroes of newerth. I think S2 is doing a great job and they need all the support they can get because they're a new company. That's what capitalists should do, like you said.
What differentiates video games from most other products out there these days is the consumers spend sooooo much time using them. Over the course of that time the end up really, really liking the product. The a sequel gets released. Sequels aren't a part of any other industry aside from movies and books. Fans of the originals only want the best for the sequels, because the sequels effectively kill the originals. If they aren't up to par the consumer has lost his beloved original game forever.
A perfect example is Super Smash Bros Melee -> Brawl. There is no such thing as Melee tournaments anymore, at least where I live. It's all about that shitty sequel. I would hate to see the same thing happen to starcraft, and most other people would agree. That's why they feel the need to voice their opinions.
Also, I think of MMOs as the biggest gamble a company can make. It's either really good and catches on, and makes you an ass-load of money, or it's bad and ends up destroying your company financially. Look at Hellgate: London. That game is dead because it wasn't good enough to hook people away from the games they're already playing. The death of the game killed the company. It was a huge loss of revenue. A major factor in the creation of MMOs is that developers have to think: is this good enough to get MMO players to stop playing their current game? MMO players can only play one MMO at a time. And, since good MMOs have teams devoted to constantly updating them, a company looking to make a new one has a LOT of work ahead of them, for possibly no profit. They want to make it better than what's out there already, and that takes a lot of time, and if they fail they all essentially lose their jobs.
Furthermore, I know it's completely ridiculous for some of you to grasp, but some companies care about other things than money. Blizzard, for example, has repeatedly voiced their opinion on the continuation of e-sports. They aren't going to release a game that's not worthy of keeping this community going. They also hold Blizzcon every year, for the fans, at a severe loss of revenue. This year's Blizzcon set the company back something on the order of 4 billion dollars. And why do they do this? They do it for us, the fans, and for the continuation of e-sports. So I can see why some of us (PC gamers) feel a false sense of entitlement towards the games that are coming out. Blizzard, in particular, has set up this illusion themselves.
I'm not sure what restaurants you frequent, but custom orders can and will be serviced at many better establishments. The customer can ask for anything they want and usually the chef will accommodate it as long as they have the ingredients in house and it's nothing ridiculous like a mashed potato castle.
Still, I understand what you're saying and agree with it. The biggest problem in my opinion is the cost of developing games nowadays. The PC had a TON more games and a ton more great games back in the day, because there were a lot more games period! The cost of developing a DOS based game is nothing like the cost of a 3-d graphics etc etc PC game like today.
And I don't get why it has to be that way. Sure great graphics are nice, but it doesn't have to be. I still play Star Control 2 and that game is still fantastic. This constant arms race between game developers to have the BEST GFX has only ruined the industry for themselves. They are the ones who put themselves in this position, constantly trying to one-up each other by increasing production costs to try to grab more market share. It's a stupid way of doing business and they should have moved in the direction of great game design rather than great graphics long ago.
Then again, great game design only comes along once in a blue moon. You can always throw money at a problem and make things shinier -_-.
There is too much overgeneralization going on in the OP, in my opinion. You express the feelings of a lot of different sets of people.
I had made a giant rambling post critiquing everything you said, but I'll just say this. I'm sick of the over-monetization of games and the side-affects it has. When something like L4D --> L4D 2 happens, it just makes me wanna throw up. When there is DRM so bad on some games that I literally check to make sure they don't have specific types before I even consider buying them, it's bad (blue screens, seriously?). When people are saying that pirates often get better games than the consumers, they are not exaggerating. I often 'crack' or otherwise detox the games that I BUY because of the nonsense included with them.
When PC game developers shoot themselves in the foot by having ridiculous graphics requirements (no, not your lying minimum requirements) again and again and then cry about piracy/unfair reviews/whatever because their game didn't sell to every one of the 2mil people capable of playing the game, I just wanna kill someone. When a game comes out with pay-to-get DLC AT RELEASE (Dragon Age), again with the vomit (and yes, I bought this game, furthering the horrible cycle - it's my fault).
Games like Wizardry VII, Master of Orion, Jagged Alliance 2, XCOM, a shitload of others - these blew my mind. These games were excellent, aesthetically pleasing, had good game mechanics, great replay value (100's of hours, yes hundreds). I remember these games and the circumstances under which I bought them and enjoyed them, and it makes me sad all the shit that PC gamers have to deal with these days (which console gamers will soon also have to deal with). Maybe it's not someone's fault, but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.
I don't care if people want to buy AAA BLOCKBUSTER BIG [insert console] TITLE OF THE YEAR games that suck mechanically, have bad optimization, bad gameplay, and are 10 hours long - I feel no hatred or pity or anything towards these people. There are people like this in every sector of life. I don't care about them because I am not them. I just want good games at a good price without all the hassle. It seems like paying money for a game ought to be less hassle than downloading it off the internet and risking viruses and so on, but sometimes it isn't.
On November 06 2009 05:35 ][-][eretic wrote: A company "owes" you their best effort any time they put out a game they expect you to pay for.
This quote betrays extreme ignorance on the way that capitalism works. They don't owe any effort at all, it is all cost/benefit for them. If they pull out all the stops and spend tons of money, time, and effort on a product and can't recover all the costs, they lose money. If they absolutely take a dump in a box, then they will sell zero and also not recover the costs of the food needed to produce so much feces. The truth is somewhere in between. The company is going to spend as much time and effort as they think is needed to create a product that will sell enough copies for them to not only recoup their initial costs but also create a profit. This is how companies work. They do not "owe" us their best effort, and if we don't like it, we are not "expected' to still pay. Their goal is to gauge public opinion well enough to estimate how many will sell and act accordingly.
Both sides are completely voluntary. You have the power to buy as you chose and they have the power to put as much time/effort/money in the game as they want. Capitalism in theory says that this arrangement will actually end up as a net benefit for both parties, even if both sides don't get ALL that they want. Whether this is true is something else, but that's how are system works now (in most things).
While this is true, I simply meant if they want me or people who will actually take the time to research new games and such before rushing out to buy them. Then they will indeed put forth a worthy effort or I will most likely be unwilling to shell out 60$ for something thats just "good enough".
I disagree personally. While ya ideally you can take your money somewhere else and things will change etc etc. Feedback is important. If people dont let others know how they feel about something the odds of them getting it correct arent nearly as high. Your attitude is defeatist whether you want to label it under the guise realist. Who wants to be a realist? Were the Wright Brothers realists? Was Edison a realist? Being an idealist is something that should be celebrated not looked down upon with scorn as you are seemingly doing.
If someone labels you as something big fucking deal. You cant control what they think anyway.
Sometimes the normative language used by complaining fans is inappropriate but I don't think it's an issue. Better to encourage people to express themselves even if that expression comes at the cost of muddying the waters a bit.
Games are too scarce a product to allow capitalism to expediently provide the best products. If I don't buy SC2 because it's in three installments, there is no alternate choice that is similar enough to SC2 except in one installment. The producers of games cannot sufficiently determine what consumers want based on sales. Feedback is beneficial to the company and, eventually, to the consumers. Feedback full of normative language is as useful as feedback full of descriptive language but discouraging normative feedback is risking an overall decrease in the amount of feedback, which is bad for everyone.
If I'm only to voice my opinion by buying or not buying products, my voice is only accurate when I buy a game that I 100% approve of and when I don't buy a game that I 0% approve of. But such games don't exist -- I will always only partially approve of a game.
On November 06 2009 06:14 Meta wrote: Furthermore, I know it's completely ridiculous for some of you to grasp, but some companies care about other things than money.
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.
Concerning the OP, a lot of people have generally addressed the point I would like to make, but I want to address one point in particular:
On November 06 2009 03:22 DJEtterStyle wrote: If you want the PC to survive as a "hardcore" gaming platform, you have to start rewarding the few developers who still produce content that interests you, even if its not your personal definition of perfect. It's time to settle for "good enough."
This line is just wrong. The nature of the PC platform is such that no one ever has to settle for "good enough". This is because the PC benefits from two things consoles do not:
1) Total backwards-compatibility. I don't need to settle for RPGs worse than Might and Magic 1-5. Why? Because with a bit of tweaking, I can play Might and Magic 1-5. There's a lifetime's worth of gaming experience I haven't touched that's entirely available out there. Any new game that comes out has to expect to meet or exceed that bar if it wants my attention because if it doesn't, I can get better for much less. No PC gamer needs to settle for "good enough" because there's an effectively limitless archive of games that are "good enough".
2) Zero barrier of entry into development. Ultimately, it doesn't matter that companies don't provide mod tools, because so long as there's a usable programming language for game design, and someone willing to do it, people will make their own games. So long as some indie game developer feels the way I do, there's somewhere to put my cash. In a sense this is "voting with my wallet", but there's absolutely zero reason I have to contribute to any large game developer. Spore didn't live up to the hype? Not a problem. I just loaded up Dwarf Fortress and went on my way. Fallout 3 not my cup of tea? Just fine, because Eschalon Book 1 is.
Of course, these two things might also be why developers/publishers are averse to catering to the PC gaming crowd: the fact that they have so many other options makes it hard to create something they will consistently buy. Once someone has a console in their hands, their options are fairly limited, and so it isn't as hard to force something down their throat.
On November 06 2009 05:35 ][-][eretic wrote: A company "owes" you their best effort any time they put out a game they expect you to pay for. And your comment on companies don't care if you pay for their game or not is still stupid.
Ok, I'm done with you. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I would here commentate from a hardcore point of view, as I myself play cod since cod1.
I don't know how much are you into Call of Duty but in my view you don't understand this from a player perspective. CoD was originally a PC game with certain characteristics which made it a unique game in it's genre. In cod4 we could see a major shift towards the console market but they still cared for the PC platform. And now we can see an act from IW which is not really understandable. As if they would want to make the PC version of the game so much of a failure that the community don't request it anymore. In my view they want to quit the PC platform. They can't just leave the market all of a sudden because that would raise some much criticism that the console sales would suffer.
To prove that they are destroying PC MW2 Multiplayer I need only to post some Q&A from IW:
Since we can not kick people in ranked matches, how will we stop hackers who get past VAC? Mackey-IW: Our goal is to ban hackers from the game. *VAC: anti cheat system used in CSS - completely useless
Ignoring IW.net, is the PC version a direct port of the console version? Mackey-IW: No, PC has custom stuff like mouse control, text chat in game, and graphics settings. *He forgot to point out that in PC you watch a screen instead of TV!
What kinds of pings did you get during your IWNet testing and what do you say is an acceptable ping? Mackey-IW: I've been playing mainly with around 100ms ping and it was great. *Let's hope 100ms will be great for others also.
I am mad because of their decisions. We made them what they are, they spend days of work to make IW.net and piss us off when they could let the game as it is.
@2 min. Only thing I could think of. Man I wanna watch this movie now
On November 06 2009 05:43 genwar wrote: As a guy who pirates pretty much everything when it comes to games, I actually started to pirate less when I could actually afford to buy the games. I still pirate games I know aren't worth full price or games I know where the pirate scene will fail horribly. I played on cracked CSS servers for a good few years and once I actually had a job/money I actually bought the game, along with many others. I still mostly do pirate single player games, those are the ones I don't believe are worth the full $50 price tag, exceptions being massive games like Dragons Age Origins where pirating would never be perfect(there's always a bound fuckup there).
The whole MW2 dedicated servers thing, they can claim its to give us a better matchmaking system but its so they can shove DLC down our throats. ANYONE who played CSS cracked on servers for long periods of times know how shitty private servers are. No dedicated servers is why I'm boycotting MW2.
I definitely feel the same about you. When I have the money I would rather purchase a game (or even movie if I'm in a store and see something I like for a decent price) than pirate but overall, if I'm broke and I want a game it'll be pirated. I've bought 2 PS3 games for 80 a pop and 2 for 50 so games are pretty cheap. When it comes to something to kill a few hours like I did with Fallout3/Oblivion for PC then I'm not gonna rape myself further, Prolly is bm but fuck, the world is expensive.
also: capitalism is an oligarchy if anything. Rule by the rich, democracy is ruled by the poor. The poor are the worst off in capitalism~ We are definitely not in a true democracy where each man is equal. Even in a representative democracy where we elect party leaders, only the rich pretty much have the power needed to apply for a seat. Local canvasing can only get you so far, you need to be connected / have money to be in the media/recognized !_!
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
On November 06 2009 03:22 DJEtterStyle wrote:Capitalism is inherently democratic, but it differs from (or is identical to, depending upon your level of cynicism) our definition of democracy in one key way: the rich get more votes than the poor.
Capitalism is inherently Objective. Big difference. As for your analogy of the rich having more weight, that doesn't make any sense.
On November 06 2009 03:22 DJEtterStyle wrote:Capitalism is inherently democratic, but it differs from (or is identical to, depending upon your level of cynicism) our definition of democracy in one key way: the rich get more votes than the poor.
Capitalism is inherently Objective. Big difference. As for your analogy of the rich having more weight, that doesn't make any sense.
Are you serious? You can't see how people who spend more money get more of a say in what products are produced, hence more "votes"? You can debate semantics if you want, but wow. The democratic idea stems from the fact that we all consume, so we all get a vote. Hence, we all get a say in what's produced.
On November 06 2009 03:22 DJEtterStyle wrote:Capitalism is inherently democratic, but it differs from (or is identical to, depending upon your level of cynicism) our definition of democracy in one key way: the rich get more votes than the poor.
Capitalism is inherently Objective. Big difference. As for your analogy of the rich having more weight, that doesn't make any sense.
Are you serious? You can't see how people who spend more money get more of a say in what products are produced, hence more "votes"? You can debate semantics if you want, but wow.
Hence why the male 18-30 HEY WE SPEND MONEY ON BEER, BOOBS, AND HUGEEEE TVS WOOO audience is so desirable.
On November 06 2009 10:56 Taku wrote: A pirated game != Lost sale. That's the one problem I have with anti-piracy people since they almost always make that assumption.
Yeah I wonder what that obscure thing called a copyright is all about.
If I pirated some design of a popular (patented) TV, it's all perfectly okay since they're not losing any money! Am I right?
first things first, i agree with you, like, what you are saying, but i'm something of an oddity in that i play games on my PC all the time but haven't bought or pirated a major title in over four years.
however: 1. your crystal pepsi analogy seems flawed, crystal pepsi is a product that you buy multiple times depending on your level of satisfaction with the product (you run out of it). while when you buy a game you buy it once, and it never runs out (barring subscription based services like WoW, for these i think the pepsi model is a very good one). i suppose you could say that future titles by the same developer are like the extra bottles of crystal pepsi one might buy, but that would only be true if each bottle promised to be better and more to your liking than the last, and each bottle held an infinite amount of pepsi. what this means is that if crystal pepsi were a game, everyone who liked (therefore bought) it would have an infinite supply even after it went off the market, missing only the potential taste upgrades of future bottles. these people would therefore not be very butthurt at all, seeing as their favourite drink still existed and would never cease to exist, the only source of unhappiness would be the lack of intangible "taste upgrades" to the same drink.
2. this is more of an aside, but the games industry seems to be facing a similar crisis to the industry that licenses japanses anime for sale in canada and the united states. ever wonder why anime dvds cost 5-10 times as much as dvds of an american tv show like the simpsons (per episode)? well, no TV networks want to take a risk by paying as much for an "untested" anime title as for a "proven" show like faimly guy or star trek. as a result most of the revenue generated by liscensing an anime show is generated by dvd sales, however, like games, most anime is easy to pirate, so in the end a company pays to generate and distribute a product that almost nobody buys, and when they do buy the product it is often out of charity (which is a very bad buisness model). we see now the same thing happening with the PC gaming industry, anybody who wants a new title can just pirate it, and while a few people buy legitimate copies , some of them buy out of charity. the bottom line is that you can't sell a product that nobody wants to pay for. however people still want the product. for these things to sell, the developers have to make the consumer WANT to buy their product as opposed to pirating it. what does this entail? well, i have no idea, if i did i would be rich and famous and someone else would be writing this post for me. the point i'm trying (eventually) to make is that the market is changing, developers have to adapt.
3. any minority, if vocal enough, can come across as the majority. the people you see bitching about minor details of a forthcoming release title are NOT, no matter how many of them there may seem to be, the majority. they are a minority, a very vocal minority, yes, but a minority nonetheless. people who are satisfied with a product rarely spend hours telling everyone how great this or that feature is, they express their satisfaction by playing the game. people who are dissatisfied are the ones you see on the forums complaining about this or that. i have no statistics to prove this but i hope you can see my point. the majority of "PC Gamers" do not bitch and complain about entitlement.
thats all from me for now, feel free to delete my post if it seems out of place.
On November 06 2009 03:22 DJEtterStyle wrote: The following is my open letter to people who still call themselves PC gamers.
Dear Oblivious,
Infinity Ward, Valve, and Blizzard, among the many other developers, are companies that create games in order to pay the salaries of their employees. The do not owe you anything.
On November 06 2009 10:56 Taku wrote: A pirated game != Lost sale. That's the one problem I have with anti-piracy people since they almost always make that assumption.
Yeah I wonder what that obscure thing called a copyright is all about.
If I pirated some design of a popular (patented) TV, it's all perfectly okay since they're not losing any money! Am I right?
Not the same thing, please don't pretend it is.
A vast majority of people who pirate games wouldn't have bought them in the first place. Yes yes copyright...the thing that stifles innovation like no other thing in existence. I know it has a place and is needed but damn if the international copyright laws aren't the most annoying thing to ever happen.
As for what the OP said... well I guess you're right. I was much like this with WoW when they turned it into the shitfest it currently is but the difference was I payed 15 dollars a month for a product that got progressively worse and worse and worse. I honestly believe that a good MMO can never be casual as it destroys the entire integrity of the game... turns out at least with WoW I was right. When anyone can get anything it's pointless to play the game.
On November 06 2009 10:56 Taku wrote: A pirated game != Lost sale. That's the one problem I have with anti-piracy people since they almost always make that assumption.
Yeah I wonder what that obscure thing called a copyright is all about.
If I pirated some design of a popular (patented) TV, it's all perfectly okay since they're not losing any money! Am I right?
Not the same thing, please don't pretend it is.
A vast majority of people who pirate games wouldn't have bought them in the first place.
Because the vast majority of people prefer not spending money? Do you really think any pirate has enough "principles" to spend money on something he actually wants but can get it for free? The "wouldn't have bought it anyway" is the most hypocrite line ever. How much of the shit in your computer is pirated? At least 80% of your music? 50% of your games? Such bullshit statement. How about you try the demos on your PC weekly magazines or the music samples instead?
And what isn't the same thing? Just because robbing a TV design is not just 2 clicks away like robbing a copy of a game, it doesn't place them in different moral grounds and the guy who pirated the game can make a profit for himself, which is money that should have gone to the rightful owner.
Yes yes copyright...the thing that stifles innovation like no other thing in existence. I know it has a place and is needed but damn if the international copyright laws aren't the most annoying thing to ever happen.
Hey if I made a book or wrote a song, I wouldn't want some random jackass earning his keep with it. A lack of copyright had Mozart dying in a ditch while some jackass prince was passing Mozart's work as his own.
On November 06 2009 03:22 DJEtterStyle wrote: Capitalism is inherently democratic, but it differs from (or is identical to, depending upon your level of cynicism) our definition of democracy in one key way: the rich get more votes than the poor.
So it's democratic, except it isn't. That's brilliant. Fact is, capitalism is inherently undemocratic. What you've described as a "capitalist democracy" is known as a plutocracy. It's a style of governance where your level of power or ability to affect things is a reflection of your relative wealth. You really have to twist your personal definition of democracy to see it as synonymous with plutocracy.
For example, corporations are by their nature authoritarian top-down power structures and are deeply undemocratic. This is an uncontroversial observation. When was the last time a corporate workforce that lacked unionization managed to affect how their business operated? It's a rare thing even when a union is involved. Boycotts and "buycotts" (what you're calling a consumer's "vote") are strategies for disrupting plutocratic organizations and represent an incredibly thin democratic element-- i.e. it's only democratic inasmuch as you're a member of a company's target audience, you can afford the product/service, and you can live without the product/service should you choose to go without.
Moreover, boycotts and buycotts are blunt instruments. Knowing that a product doesn't sell won't tell a company anything useful. It barely answers the question "should we discontinue the product?" There are still tons of questions that go unanswered: Is the product overpriced? Is the product offensive? Is the product dangerous? Was the product advertised properly? Does the product lack usability that a competing product possesses? Is the product simply un-cool? and so on.
Clearly, you're tired of PC Gamers bitching about every little thing, but that doesn't mean you should ask them to speak with their wallet! First, if you're not in the gaming industry, you should probably stfu. Second, if you are in the gaming industry, instigating boycotts for principled reasons is the last thing you should be doing. In fact, you should go out of your way to provoke the whining you're complaining about here. It's free market research. Take advantage of it.
Oh, and don't pollute the definition of democracy to make your thesis sound more noble. Really gets on my nerves.
On November 06 2009 03:22 DJEtterStyle wrote: Capitalism is inherently democratic, but it differs from (or is identical to, depending upon your level of cynicism) our definition of democracy in one key way: the rich get more votes than the poor.
So it's democratic, except it isn't. That's brilliant. Fact is, capitalism is inherently undemocratic. What you've described as a "capitalist democracy" is known as a plutocracy. It's a style of governance where your level of power or ability to affect things is a reflection of your relative wealth. You really have to twist your personal definition of democracy to see it as synonymous with plutocracy.
For example, corporations are by their nature authoritarian top-down power structures and are deeply undemocratic. This is an uncontroversial observation. When was the last time a corporate workforce that lacked unionization managed to affect how their business operated? It's a rare thing even when a union is involved. Boycotts and "buycotts" (what you're calling a consumer's "vote") are strategies for disrupting plutocratic organizations and represent an incredibly thin democratic element-- i.e. it's only democratic inasmuch as you're a member of a company's target audience, you can afford the product/service, and you can live without the product/service should you choose to go without.
Moreover, boycotts and buycotts are blunt instruments. Knowing that a product doesn't sell won't tell a company anything useful. It barely answers the question "should we discontinue the product?" There are still tons of questions that go unanswered: Is the product overpriced? Is the product offensive? Is the product dangerous? Was the product advertised properly? Does the product lack usability that a competing product possesses? Is the product simply un-cool? and so on.
Clearly, you're tired of PC Gamers bitching about every little thing, but that doesn't mean you should ask them to speak with their wallet! First, if you're not in the gaming industry, you should probably stfu. Second, if you are in the gaming industry, instigating boycotts for principled reasons is the last thing you should be doing. In fact, you should go out of your way to provoke the whining you're complaining about here. It's free market research. Take advantage of it.
Oh, and don't pollute the definition of democracy to make your thesis sound more noble. Really gets on my nerves.
And whoosh you've missed the point entirely. First you argue semantics, then you go off on an irrelevant tangent about employees' historical inability to effect change within a corporation, then you talk about boycotts despite me advocating nothing more than consumers acting in their own self interest, then you say that, because I'm not working in the industry, I have no right to comment on its state, and finally you come full circle by again arguing semantics and ignoring my entire post. Bravo, sir. I wish I could say I was impressed. In a way, I guess I am.
I've gotten some great feedback in this thread -- really, I have, and I appreciate those posters who took the time to read my post and reply with thoughtful comments -- but this isn't it.
Well said, Tadzio. Sadly, most Americans have a very skewed understanding of what democracy is. They think it's anything that involves a "vote" or some kind of opinion-based determinent. Capitalism is actually one of the most heinous obstacles to democracy. The two do not go hand-in-hand at all.
The concept of a democracy is that ALL votes are equal and that each person gets an equal amount of political power. The reality in a capitalistic nation like the US of A is anything but that. Ever heard of political donations and war chests and pouring funds into winning a state? US politics are a plutocracy and have been since the inception of the nation.
On November 06 2009 13:19 DJEtterStyle wrote: And whoosh you've missed the point entirely. First you argue semantics, then you go off on an irrelevant tangent about employees' historical inability to effect change within a corporation, then you talk about boycotts despite me advocating nothing more than consumers acting in their own self interest, then you say that, because I'm not working in the industry, I have no right to comment on its state, and finally you come full circle by again arguing semantics and ignoring my entire post. Bravo, sir. I wish I could say I was impressed. In a way, I guess I am.
I've gotten some great feedback in this thread -- really, I have, and I appreciate those posters who took the time to read my post and reply with thoughtful comments -- but this isn't it.
If I understood your point correctly, it could be summarized as: "Stop bitching. If you don't like it, don't get it. And remember, buy (don't steal) what you like. That's democracy!" In fact, it isn't democracy, so semantics in this case is relevant. The tangent on corporate employees underlined one of the major differences between democracy and plutocracy, so in fact it is relevant. "Voting" with your wallet is the key component to boycotting/buycotting, so discussing that is also relevant.
Telling you to stfu if you don't work in the industry was ironic. Though I probably should've suggested that you refuse to pay your internet service provider since they give you access to PC Gamer's whiny screeds. That would've been more on point.
On November 06 2009 13:19 DJEtterStyle wrote: And whoosh you've missed the point entirely. First you argue semantics, then you go off on an irrelevant tangent about employees' historical inability to effect change within a corporation, then you talk about boycotts despite me advocating nothing more than consumers acting in their own self interest, then you say that, because I'm not working in the industry, I have no right to comment on its state, and finally you come full circle by again arguing semantics and ignoring my entire post. Bravo, sir. I wish I could say I was impressed. In a way, I guess I am.
I've gotten some great feedback in this thread -- really, I have, and I appreciate those posters who took the time to read my post and reply with thoughtful comments -- but this isn't it.
If I understood your point correctly, it could be summarized as: "Stop bitching. If you don't like it, don't get it. And remember, buy (don't steal) what you like. That's democracy!" In fact, it isn't democracy, so semantics in this case is relevant. The tangent on corporate employees underlined one of the major differences between democracy and plutocracy, so in fact it is relevant. "Voting" with your wallet is the key component to boycotting/buycotting, so discussing that is also relevant.
Telling you to stfu if you don't work in the industry was ironic. Though I probably should've suggested that you refuse to pay your internet service provider since they give you access to PC Gamer's whiny screeds. That would've been more on point.
I'm in general agreement with this; the 'semantics' are relevant. I just have to say that democracy is based in equality whilst capitalism is founded upon the very principle of inequality.
On November 06 2009 13:19 DJEtterStyle wrote: And whoosh you've missed the point entirely. First you argue semantics, then you go off on an irrelevant tangent about employees' historical inability to effect change within a corporation, then you talk about boycotts despite me advocating nothing more than consumers acting in their own self interest, then you say that, because I'm not working in the industry, I have no right to comment on its state, and finally you come full circle by again arguing semantics and ignoring my entire post. Bravo, sir. I wish I could say I was impressed. In a way, I guess I am.
I've gotten some great feedback in this thread -- really, I have, and I appreciate those posters who took the time to read my post and reply with thoughtful comments -- but this isn't it.
Actually, he does have a point. To call those bitching about the state of gaming as it is right now undemocratic or uncapitalistic is just wrong: public exchange of ideas is in some way or another built into both systems. People have every right to express their feelings about the state of the market with words rather than dollars, and from the point of view of the developer, real feedback is more useful than purchase decisions. The latter are entirely binary: they tell the developer whether or not they will buy a product. The former actually gives a sense of people's preferences. It's free market research, as Tadzio pointed out. There's no reason the industry should be against open complaint against unsatisfactory product, and there's no reason you should be either.
EPT
