PDA

View Full Version : I am Alive PC cracked 11 days before release



ZIGS
02-09-2012, 06:12 PM
Karma's a bitch Ubisoft

Drake Sigar
02-09-2012, 06:16 PM
If Ubi think we're all pirating scum and that there's no viable market on the PC, wouldn't this only push their ignorance further?

The JG Man
02-09-2012, 06:17 PM
See, I'm really conflicted on this one. On the one hand, they sort of deserve it for being twits about it, but on the other, this does back-up their point with barely any twisting of the facts.

Unaco
02-09-2012, 06:19 PM
Karma's a bitch Ubisoft

On the other hand... Ubi can turn round and say "We f*cking told you this would happen!"

DaftPunk
02-09-2012, 06:20 PM
On the other hand... Ubi can turn round and say "We f*cking told you this would happen!"


Don't care,its their own fault canceling pc port back then when it released on xbox..

Unaco
02-09-2012, 06:38 PM
Don't care,its their own fault canceling pc port back then when it released on xbox..

What's their fault? It's their fault people are pirating their game? If you don't care, why are you bothering to comment?

ZIGS
02-09-2012, 06:42 PM
It's their fault if people pirate it out of spite due to their terrible attitude towards PC gamers

johnki
02-09-2012, 06:43 PM
On one hand, go pirates for showing them that DRMs really aren't all that rock solid.

On the other hand, I wonder if anyone's ever shown them that Xbox and PS3 users can pirate games too. >.>

On the other other hand, I wonder how this will go over.

Heliocentric
02-09-2012, 06:43 PM
Does this mean ubi will release it drm free? No? So it's just pointless willy waving by pirates then?

Gorzan
02-09-2012, 06:43 PM
But this is what they use to justify their attitude, so we're only proving they right.

DaftPunk
02-09-2012, 06:46 PM
It's their fault if people pirate it out of spite due to their terrible attitude towards PC gamers


This is what i meant. If i remember correctly they whined about sales on pc,and if they ported game to pc,it would ONLY sell 200 000 copies,which is totally unacceptable for their standards.. Now,after six months they want to quick cash on us,releasing this even as they were bad mouthing us.. pff

Unaco
02-09-2012, 06:46 PM
But this is what they use to justify their attitude, so we're only proving they right.

This applies to both UBI and Pirates, I think.

Kadayi
02-09-2012, 06:48 PM
It's their fault if people pirate it out of spite due to their terrible attitude towards PC gamers

Spite? Get a fucking life tbh. If you're prepared to play it you should be prepared to pay for it. There's a whole bunch of different studios at Ubi. It's one not one singular entity.

Sketch
02-09-2012, 06:48 PM
Nice going crackers and pirates, thanks a whole bloody lot.

DaftPunk
02-09-2012, 06:50 PM
1 - 0 for pc gamers woot woot

Sketch
02-09-2012, 06:51 PM
This is in no way a victory at all, except for those who want shit for free. For those of us who want an important developer who despite some slips regarding PC gaming still release some pretty bloody excellent titles that I'm sure many would very much like that they continue coming to PC this is a kick in the balls.

DaftPunk
02-09-2012, 06:54 PM
Ah you're overreacting,they still release majority of their main titles to pc..

Unaco
02-09-2012, 06:54 PM
1 - 0 for pc gamers woot woot

I'm not sure how this is a victory for PC Gamers.

Are we going to get UBI games, without DRM in future? I'd doubt it.

Are UBI going to be encouraged to improve on their PC Ports? I'd doubt it.

Are UBI going to have yet another anecdote, or more data, to point to when discussing the problem of Piracy on the PC Platform? Yes.

Will UBI have another excuse to half arse their PC ports? Yes.

Will UBI have another excuse to not port games to the PC? Yes.

Please, tell me where the victory for PC gaming comes from in this situation?


Ah you're overreacting,they still release majority of their main titles to pc..

Yes. With shitty DRM that hurts legitimate customers, and usually a half arsed port, because UBI know that there'll be a heap of piracy on PC. Because... well, because things like this happen.

Sketch
02-09-2012, 06:55 PM
Ah you're overreacting,they still release majority of their main titles to pc..

Yes they do, but clearly there is a tenuous link between Ubi and PC gamers already. What's the solution? Definitely not this.

DaftPunk
02-09-2012, 06:59 PM
What people need to understand is,that piracy can't be stop,but what devs can do is make bigger effort in making their games more pc friendly,thats the only way in securing more sales on pc.

Sketch
02-09-2012, 07:02 PM
Just like The Witcher 2 being DRM free on GOG, right?

jyden
02-09-2012, 07:24 PM
Just out of curiosity - Does anyone know if this'll be bundled with uPlay (on Steam)?

Gorzan
02-09-2012, 07:34 PM
This applies to both UBI and Pirates, I think.
Sadly, pirates don't publish games, so I couldn't give a fuck about how right they might be.

Tei
02-09-2012, 07:40 PM
Trying to find a good in a sea of bad. Maybe some people will not buy a bad game. And rent it instead, for 0 euros.

Drake Sigar
02-09-2012, 08:20 PM
What people need to understand is,that piracy can't be stop,but what devs can do is make bigger effort in making their games more pc friendly,thats the only way in securing more sales on pc.

Piracy can't be stopped, but nor should it be celebrated. Pirates wage war on publishers, publishers wage war on pirates, and only the legitimate paying customers who just want to play some games, suffer. In this case I don't want any pirate or publisher being so presumptuous as to claim they're fighting for me. I can do that myself.

Kadayi
02-09-2012, 08:39 PM
Piracy can't be stopped, but nor should it be celebrated. Pirates wage war on publishers, publishers wage war on pirates, and only the legitimate paying customers who just want to play some games, suffer. In this case I don't want any pirate or publisher being so presumptuous as to claim they're fighting for me. I can do that myself.

Nicely put tbh.

coldvvvave
02-09-2012, 08:39 PM
Ok, I'm not going to pirate it because I'm lazy and mostly stopped pirating, but is it even good?

DaftPunk
02-09-2012, 08:42 PM
Ok, I'm not going to pirate it because I'm lazy and mostly stopped pirating, but is it even good?


Surprisingly is quite good,but kinda repetitive and short.

biz
02-09-2012, 08:44 PM
What people need to understand is,that piracy can't be stop,but what devs can do is make bigger effort in making their games more pc friendly,thats the only way in securing more sales on pc.

but piracy can be stopped. it just requires a constant internet connection because some part of the game is running on a server in the interwebs that you cannot pirate

RakeShark
02-09-2012, 08:45 PM
Piracy is a tricky thing to celebrate. On one hand, hackers/crackers/pirates make games available in regions publishers don't want to sell a game in, and sometimes they provide a better service than the always-online-required-connection claims it has. However, pirates don't make their own games, and they hurt the developer more than the publisher.

At this point, pirating a UbiSoft game is more spiteful than productive. It reminds me of the EVE Online lack-of-pirate-targets discussion in another thread. At a certain point the well's going to dry up, and predators need to know when not to gobble up everything they see in order for there to be something next time they're hungry.

Sketch
02-09-2012, 08:46 PM
Ok, I'm not going to pirate it because I'm lazy and mostly stopped pirating, but is it even good?

Yeah honestly, this is what people should care about. If the developers are fuelling their factories with the blood of children then yes, ok be annoyed, but to be glad the game is getting pirated because one guy made a silly comment is ridiculous.

Robert
02-09-2012, 08:51 PM
Yeah honestly, this is what people should care about. If the developers are fuelling their factories with the blood of children then yes, ok be annoyed, but to be glad the game is getting pirated because one guy made a silly comment is ridiculous.

Getting stuff for free and keeping your conscience clean.

Batolemaeus
02-09-2012, 09:20 PM
Piracy can't be stopped, but nor should it be celebrated. Pirates wage war on publishers, publishers wage war on pirates, and only the legitimate paying customers who just want to play some games, suffer. In this case I don't want any pirate or publisher being so presumptuous as to claim they're fighting for me. I can do that myself.

I'm all for seeing Ubisoft suffer to be honest. Pirates made Silent Hunter 3 playable after Ubisoft cheated me out of my legitimately bought copy, so at least I know who is definitely fighting against me.

NathanH
02-09-2012, 09:28 PM
Getting stuff for free and keeping your conscience clean.

Yeah, I think this is it. Nobody really pirates anything out of spite, but there will be people who pirate this sort of game because they want it for free but normally they'd feel too bad about pirating to do it, and in this case have found a convenient excuse. I guess from the publisher's perspective, the distinction is irrelevant though---if they hadn't said silly things, then these people wouldn't be pirating.

There probably are also plenty of people who would have pirated it anyway but felt a bit guilty, and now they're pirating it, crowing about how it's paying the company back for blah blah blah, and feeling better about themselves. Even if they claim they're pirating it because blah blah, they're not really.

DaftPunk
02-09-2012, 09:45 PM
Then there are people who pirate just to try out the game,because there is no demo. Then there are people who some games pirate,some buy. But the point is,allot of pirates also buys games.

AlexClockwork
02-09-2012, 09:46 PM
Yeah, I think this is it. Nobody really pirates anything out of spite, but there will be people who pirate this sort of game because they want it for free but normally they'd feel too bad about pirating to do it, and in this case have found a convenient excuse. I guess from the publisher's perspective, the distinction is irrelevant though---if they hadn't said silly things, then these people wouldn't be pirating.

Actually, I haven't pirated anything in ages, but, really... I'm tempted to pirate this. I'm probably not going to do it, though, but they DO deserve it. OK, it's not cool, because it gives them more reasons for adding their lovely DRM to every f*cking game they release, and it's the developers who suffer, but... Come on, they have been some bloody bastards for ages now, and I wouldn't feel sorry for them if they lost money for whatever reason.

tl,dr: Not gonna pirate it, but Ubi doesn't deserve anything better. Devs do.

grasskit
02-09-2012, 10:29 PM
There probably are also plenty of people who would have pirated it anyway but felt a bit guilty, and now they're pirating it, crowing about how it's paying the company back for blah blah blah, and feeling better about themselves.

people pirate stuff cause its free and cause they can, simple as that. theres no convoluted moral reasoning to delude yourself from "feeling guilty" or whatever.

Nalano
02-09-2012, 10:34 PM
What part of "DRM is useless" don't they understand?

I mean, they could make all games like Diablo 3, I suppose, but Diablo 3 was less a game with DRM attached and more a DRM platform with a game motif.

gundato
02-09-2012, 10:45 PM
So... just to make sure I am following the "yay, screw ubi" party correctly:

A game was not released on the PC for some reason or another
Ubi decides to release it on the PC after all
Said game is pirated

And that is a good thing?

Don't get me wrong, I love to laugh at Ubi's failures (seriously, the cracked versions of uplay games stream content from their servers :p), but how is this a good thing? At best it is a neutral thing. Its funny that ubidrm is still cracked (a very old joke, but people still laugh at "that's what she said", so whatever), but this does nothing to benefit us. Either ubi will make a new, even stupider, DRM model to try and "stop piracy" or they'll just pull even further away from the PC.

Between this, the new Metal Gear Solid, and Dark Souls pre-release, I am starting to suspect there is a sizable portion of PC gamers who would be happier if no games were ever released for the PC so that they have an excuse to bitch.

And yes, consoles can have piracy too. But those are also very closed systems where the modifications can be (comparatively) easily detected and said systems can be blacklisted from all online content.

grasskit
02-09-2012, 10:48 PM
in perfect world they would realize drm in pointless, and put those resources into making a better game instead. but we all know thats not gonna happen. its a good thing for ubi haters i guess, i mean who doesnt like a bit of Schadenfreude

deano2099
03-09-2012, 12:07 AM
I dunno, in some ways it's a good thing when any game with DRM gets cracked. At least that means it'll still be playable in 5 or 10 years' time.

AlexClockwork
03-09-2012, 12:50 AM
I dunno, in some ways it's a good thing when any game with DRM gets cracked. At least that means it'll still be playable in 5 or 10 years' time.

Can't disagree with that, really... >.<

random_guy
03-09-2012, 12:50 AM
...an important developer who despite some slips regarding PC gaming still release some pretty bloody excellent titles...

They do? I haven't bought a Ubisoft title for years, and there's been all of one I've even considered getting. (and no, I don't mean I've been pirating them instead)

Sketch
03-09-2012, 01:06 AM
Yeah they do, and of course opinion opinion opinon etc, whether the games don't interest you specifically is irrelevant, they are a major player in the industry, and their games are enjoyed by a significant number of people.

soldant
03-09-2012, 06:39 AM
A game was not released on the PC for some reason or another
Ubi decides to release it on the PC after all
Said game is pirated

And that is a good thing?
Apparently.

I'm fully aware that piracy can't be stopped, that people have XYZ reasons for doing it and blah blah blah... but treating this as some sort of fantastic righteous crusade against the infidel DRM believers are kidding themselves. UBI will point at it, go "See? It's just like we said!" and have a bunch of others nod in agreement.

Although piracy can't be stopped, a platform like the 360/PS3 is a lot more attractive, because it requires a greater degree of time, effort and knowledge to play pirated games. On the PC it's trivial. So for those arguing that piracy still happens on the 360 (and often the cracked 360 versions appear well before PC versions), although it might still happen, it's probably not to the same extent as the PC.

roryok
03-09-2012, 10:46 AM
Ubi seem to be incongruous on the point of piracy. They rant about how piracy is inevitable and make up figures like "95%". Then they pour money into DRM solutions. Then the DRM gets cracked and they rant again about how piracy is inevitable.

The Undeniable Truths of Video Game Piracy

- Piracy is inevitable
- Piracy numbers do not equate to lost sales
- DRM does not prevent piracy
- DRM only affects paying customers
- Piracy & DRM both hurt sales

somini
03-09-2012, 11:03 AM
Is this game even going to be launched at retail? Who leaked it?

Ravelle
03-09-2012, 05:24 PM
Ubi seem to be incongruous on the point of piracy. They rant about how piracy is inevitable and make up figures like "95%". Then they pour money into DRM solutions. Then the DRM gets cracked and they rant again about how piracy is inevitable.

The Undeniable Truths of Video Game Piracy

- Piracy is inevitable
- Piracy numbers do not equate to lost sales
- DRM does not prevent piracy
- DRM only affects paying customers
- Piracy & DRM both hurt sales

Can't we go back to the times when games weren't protected by any means?

Drake Sigar
03-09-2012, 05:37 PM
Can't we go back to the times when games weren't protected by any means?

I'm not old enough to remember such a time, if it existed at all. My earliest memories are a blur of copy protection codes hidden within the manuals.

Tres
03-09-2012, 06:19 PM
I'm not sure how this is a victory for PC Gamers.

Are we going to get UBI games, without DRM in future? I'd doubt it.

Are UBI going to be encouraged to improve on their PC Ports? I'd doubt it.

Are UBI going to have yet another anecdote, or more data, to point to when discussing the problem of Piracy on the PC Platform? Yes.

Will UBI have another excuse to half arse their PC ports? Yes.

Will UBI have another excuse to not port games to the PC? Yes.


At what point exactly did it happen that we somehow agreed on paradigm that it's the customers who are on their knees and "solicit" a seller to deliver his merchandise? It's them, Ubisoft, who need to adjust to the market, not the other way around. They ruined their reputation and they had it coming, when they back away from PC market altogether (doubt it, cheap ports are cheap) the hole will be filled by someone else.


Besides, they keep making crap games.

Utnac
03-09-2012, 06:48 PM
I'll be pirating this game, I won't play it, have no interest in it but I fancy making Ubisoft think they've lost a sell because they're such a bunch of bellends.

slick_101
03-09-2012, 07:09 PM
I'm getting really bored of all these piracy vs anti-piracy forum posts. It's the same shit different day. We all know that piracy can't be stopped. We all know Ubisoft won't change their ways. We all know that no matter how much we talk nothing is going to happen. They are a major corporation and won't change their ways. There should be a new rule that stops people from talking about Ubisoft and Piracy.

victory
03-09-2012, 09:56 PM
After the game is cracked, the DRM can no longer possibly affect the pirates. So if Ubi now keeps the DRM on there - which they almost certainly will - they will once again demonstrate that the real purpose of their DRM is to fuck with paying customers.

I thank the crackers for showing the emperor has no clothes.

soldant
04-09-2012, 01:07 AM
I'll be pirating this game, I won't play it, have no interest in it but I fancy making Ubisoft think they've lost a sell because they're such a bunch of bellends.
They won't notice/care if you do. Their point has already been proven in their eyes.

Space Indaver
04-09-2012, 04:36 AM
I'll be pirating this game, I won't play it, have no interest in it but I fancy making Ubisoft think they've lost a sell because they're such a bunch of bellends.
"Oh dear lord... I just checked on the All-Know-A-Tron, and Utnac has pirated our game!"

"I, for one, have been convinced. Go and set fire to the DRM lab."

victory
04-09-2012, 10:56 AM
They won't notice/care if you do. Their point has already been proven in their eyes.
You are giving them too little and also too much credit. Megadollar corps are not stupid. They know their DRM doesn't do anything against pirates. They just keep pushing the DRM to control, exploit, monetize and generally fuck with legit customers. It plays to their hands to repeat any variation of "DRM is for fighting pirates but the megadollar corp doesn't understand it doesn't work". The last thing they want is for the paying customers to make the connection "DRM is working as intended, for fighting customer rights and empowerment" en masse.

gundato
04-09-2012, 01:43 PM
You are giving them too little and also too much credit. Megadollar corps are not stupid. They know their DRM doesn't do anything against pirates. They just keep pushing the DRM to control, exploit, monetize and generally fuck with legit customers. It plays to their hands to repeat any variation of "DRM is for fighting pirates but the megadollar corp doesn't understand it doesn't work". The last thing they want is for the paying customers to make the connection "DRM is working as intended, for fighting customer rights and empowerment" en masse.
...
Yes, because the logical answer is that companies that are dependent on customer good will and sales intentionally spend money to screw over said customers.

NathanH
04-09-2012, 01:54 PM
...
Yes, because the logical answer is that companies that are dependent on customer good will and sales intentionally spend money to screw over said customers.

Although that was my first thought too, I suppose there might be motives for publishers to do this sort of thing. For instance, if their final goal is the (effective) Diablo 3 DRM, then they can't just suddenly decide to switch from no DRM to super-strict DRM, they have to carefully condition us into thinking that this change wouldn't be a big deal.

gundato
04-09-2012, 02:01 PM
Although that was my first thought too, I suppose there might be motives for publishers to do this sort of thing. For instance, if their final goal is the (effective) Diablo 3 DRM, then they can't just suddenly decide to switch from no DRM to super-strict DRM, they have to carefully condition us into thinking that this change wouldn't be a big deal.
And they've been doing that over the decades.

I remember really disliking having to keep the manual for Aladdin nearby when I played it on the 486. When we switched to "just enter this serial once per install", I was ecstatic
Then Neverwinter Nights came, and I am STILL full of rage and hatred toward Bioware and Atari for the hell that was all the serials and disc swapping to install
Nobody ever liked Starforce, but it sure as hell made Steam a lot more palatable. Because we all hated Steam for a while
Hell, I found it HILARIOUS how someone actually said "It doesn't use real DRM, just GfwL" in one of the Dark Souls threads.


Not to get into (another) DRM debate, but the purpose of DRM is simple:
It makes publishers feel happy, and it prevents the "average" user from cracking it. If you have an attached achievement or DD service, it even prevents most users out of fear of getting their accounts wiped. It is not meant to stop piracy for all time, just to slow it or deter it. The goal is to strike a balance between "effective" and "draconic" (ugh, I hate that word...). Stuff like UbiDRM really increases our tolerances (especially once we realize that, while annoying, it is more bad in principle, not execution).

victory
04-09-2012, 02:12 PM
...
Yes, because the logical answer is that companies that are dependent on customer good will and sales intentionally spend money to screw over said customers.They think they'll make more money by screwing over the customers. Encrypting everything, preventing modding or tightly controlling all mod content, having online authentication, withholding servers from player hands, preventing "cheating" in single player games etc. is there to prevent competition to their own DLC, prevent resale/game loaning, allow them to micromanage what is and isn't a permitted way to have fun with the game, allow them to guard their own image, allow them to dictate terms for any public activity even tangentially related to the game, and cut off or otherwise fuck up multiplayer whenever to push players towards the next cookie-cutter thing they push out.

Admittedly, being a dick just because is rare, and is not a problem compared to the mountain of dickishness they engage in for profit.

They lose my good will, but still occasionally make a sale to me when the game is good enough (Starcraft 2...). And of course the majority of gamers will just lap this stuff up.

Trelow
04-09-2012, 02:15 PM
This is why we can't have nice things.

victory
04-09-2012, 02:24 PM
Not to get into (another) DRM debate, but the purpose of DRM is simple:
It makes publishers feel happy, and it prevents the "average" user from cracking it. If you have an attached achievement or DD service, it even prevents most users out of fear of getting their accounts wiped. It is not meant to stop piracy for all time, just to slow it or deter it. The goal is to strike a balance between "effective" and "draconic" (ugh, I hate that word...).How does that work? Surely the pirate copy won't be encumbered with the online cheevo-service.

gundato
04-09-2012, 02:26 PM
They think they'll make more money by screwing over the customers. Encrypting everything, preventing modding or tightly controlling all mod content, having online authentication, withholding servers from player hands, preventing "cheating" in single player games etc. is there to prevent competition to their own DLC, prevent resale/game loaning, allow them to micromanage what is and isn't a permitted way to have fun with the game, allow them to guard their own image, allow them to dictate terms for any public activity even tangentially related to the game, and cut off or otherwise fuck up multiplayer whenever to push players towards the next cookie-cutter thing they push out.

Admittedly, being a dick just because is rare, and is not a problem compared to the mountain of dickishness they engage in for profit.

They lose my good will, but still occasionally make a sale to me when the game is good enough (Starcraft 2...). And of course the majority of gamers will just lap this stuff up.
Considering R* AND Bethesda both got into hot water over what modders did with their games (Modders unlocked Hot Coffee in San Andreas and they stretched male nipples over burlap brassieres in Oblivion), there is a pretty strong rationale to "guard their image".

There are plenty of arguments for "cutting off" old MP servers to make way for new ones. While I doubt it is their intent, one of the reasons UT2k3/4 and UT3 both flopped was because people were still playing UT and UT2k3/4. While it would suck for those of us riding Strangeloves on CTF-Stargate, there is plenty of argument that 2k3/2k4 could have been nigh perfection if people had given it a shot. Less argument for UT3, but if one squints you can pretend it had something going for it :p. Hell, there are still some very good arguments that CS 1.6 cannibalized the CS:S community and might even "hurt" the CS:GO community. While I for one feel that gamers should choose what they want to spend their time on, I also know that I have a lot more fun in games that reset ammo and utility items after every map because it encourages me to actually use them, rather than stockpile. Sometimes, a nudge in the right direction isn't a horrible thing. Not always, but sometimes.

"Preventing modding" is a tired excuse. Even for a lot of games that DO support modding, it is a very small component of the fanbase. Yes, The Elder Scrolls is super popular and UT and Quake were popular in their days. But think of how many other games there are that actually have strong modding communities. Hell, Far Cry and Crysis (1 and 2) were largely made to showcase the game and support mods, but people barely mod for it. The Witcher 1 had a mod tool and, while some people made some shiny stuff, nobody cares. I think Dragon Age: Origins had a mod tool?
NOTE: I am not saying those communities don't exist (before someone randomly links to every nexus on the interwebs). But ask the average player of any of those games if they are even aware there ARE mods...

Are there bad things about DRM? Yes. A LOT of bad things. But most of what you listed have controversial, but sound, arguments for why it might be a good thing. And either way, it is more complex than "to screw with the customer". So rather than pretend that all the companies want to screw us over because that is how they make money (it isn't...), focus on the actual concrete facts of what is bad. There is so much to choose from.

victory
04-09-2012, 04:41 PM
Considering R* AND Bethesda both got into hot water over what modders did with their games (Modders unlocked Hot Coffee in San Andreas and they stretched male nipples over burlap brassieres in Oblivion), there is a pretty strong rationale to "guard their image".My sympathies are with those developers. They did nothing wrong and were beset by a horde of idiots. However, in both cases the idiots' outrage was over assets which were present in the games' binaries. That is trivially avoidable and as such, not an argument to deliberately make it harder to mod the game, or withhold mod tools you'd otherwise like to release.


There are plenty of arguments for "cutting off" old MP servers to make way for new ones.You are really, really reaching here. It is not a customer friendly act to force the customer to stop playing a game which they have bought from you and like so much that they would like to keep playing it.

Are there bad things about DRM? Yes. A LOT of bad things. But most of what you listed have controversial, but sound, arguments for why it might be a good thing.Every one of the things I listed is anti-customer. The sound arguments largely boil down to "we think it'll make us more money". Mind you, I do not consider that a controversial or bad goal. I'm be happy to give the devs lots of money if they just make good products with no strings attached and no bullshit. What I hate is to see games deliberately made into less than they could be, and less than their predecessors were.

gundato
04-09-2012, 05:09 PM
My sympathies are with those developers. They did nothing wrong and were beset by a horde of idiots. However, in both cases the idiots' outrage was over assets which were present in the games' binaries. That is trivially avoidable and as such, not an argument to deliberately make it harder to mod the game, or withhold mod tools you'd otherwise like to release.

You are really, really reaching here. It is not a customer friendly act to force the customer to stop playing a game which they have bought from you and like so much that they would like to keep playing it.
Every one of the things I listed is anti-customer. The sound arguments largely boil down to "we think it'll make us more money". Mind you, I do not consider that a controversial or bad goal. I'm be happy to give the devs lots of money if they just make good products with no strings attached and no bullshit. What I hate is to see games deliberately made into less than they could be, and less than their predecessors were.

I know there have been plenty of games that I would have loved to play multiplayer for, but they just didn't take off. U2XMP comes to mind. Would "killing" UT's master server have helped? Maybe, maybe not. But if there were sound evidence for it (the kind that involves focus groups and lots of data we don't have access to), I would STILL say "Kill UT and 2k3 and 2k4 and even UT3".

Obviously that is a bad example, since the style of gameplay was so different. And UT and 2k3/2k4 had such great bot support that you don't even NEED the master servers. But from MW to MW2 to BLOPS to BLOPS2 to MW3, the only difference is "More stuff" for the later versions, so you really ARE just splitting the userbase. To my knowledge, Activision has yet to kill the old servers (kudos to them), but if fragmentation gets bad enough, it is their responsibility to at least kill some of the older games to encourage a good experience for people purchasing the new ones. Because it is all about making an experience that makes the consumer feel as though they got their money's worth.

And that is one reason that most of the big publisher seem to want to switch their yearly games to subscription services. That way, rather than having to "kill" the old version, you just "patch" it. The end result is the same, but consumers won't notice it (and the ones that do will sound like the crazies who bitch about DLC).

Tei
04-09-2012, 06:14 PM
Tryiing to find a good in this sea of bad:

For once, the piracy stats that Ubisoft deliver will be real: 100% people pirating the game, 0% legal buyers.

victory
04-09-2012, 06:35 PM
gundato, you misunderstood something - I don't expect devs to run multiplayer matchmaking services and especially servers forever for a game I have bought for a fixed price. I just want to stick to the old, customer-friendly model where actual server executables are in player hands (in addition to whatever servers the devs see fit to operate), so the game will never be impossible to play in multiplayer and will not be dependent on continued service from the dev. Custom matchmaking systems, community features, server mods and LAN play are then also possible.

Since Unreal games are player-friendly, and you do get the server executable, it looks like even that U2XMP thing which you find awesome is still possible to play and is still being played by some. http://www.xmpcommunity.com/

gundato
04-09-2012, 06:43 PM
Yeah, I saw the "save XMP" crowd. It was half-dead (at best) a few years back.

And if all you are bitching about is the lack of server binaries (which I agree is annoying as crap): that has nothing to do with DRM... At all...
The rationale behind that is to encourage people to use actual hosting companies (chosen by the publisher!). While that is definitely not altruistic, it at least ensures that any dedicated server is a "good" server. Because I know quite a few people who set up "Dedicated" servers on their personal PCs, making them no better than (and a lot worse than) a Listen Server. And outside of ping (which fluctuates a LOT on those servers) you have no way of knowing until the entire game falls apart because the kid's sister is downloading porn.

victory
04-09-2012, 07:46 PM
And if all you are bitching about is the lack of server binaries (which I agree is annoying as crap): that has nothing to do with DRM... At all...
The rationale behind that is to encourage people to use actual hosting companies (chosen by the publisher!). While that is definitely not altruistic, it at least ensures that any dedicated server is a "good" server. Because I know quite a few people who set up "Dedicated" servers on their personal PCs, making them no better than (and a lot worse than) a Listen Server. And outside of ping (which fluctuates a LOT on those servers) you have no way of knowing until the entire game falls apart because the kid's sister is downloading porn.The above logic is a non-starter; the developer's server browser can perfectly well distinguish between official and unofficial servers so you don't end up on an unofficial server unless you want to.

And of course it has to do with DRM. It belongs to the same "to exploit customers for maximum $$$, must retain every inch of control over their entire experience" school of thought. If you had actual control over servers, they would be missing out on a great chance to Manage your Digital Restrictions, plus those who choose to play on your servers.

>Decade back when I played CS on pub, there were plenty of servers with weird mods, weird custom maps, weird rules. Servers with great active admins where I never saw cheaters even bothering to try. Server mod features such as statistics specific to a certain family of servers, and scoring with persistent high score lists. Reasons to come back to specific servers so even a casual pubber like me started recognizing various people who play there and their playstyles. That kind of thing promotes actual communities popping up. A clinical straightjacket ecosystem like that of the current broshooters, with no real ownership or unique identity, doesn't offer the freedoms or incentives for this stuff.

gundato
04-09-2012, 07:54 PM
The above logic is a non-starter; the developer's server browser can perfectly well distinguish between official and unofficial servers so you don't end up on an unofficial server unless you want to.
But what if that is the dominant type of server? Take a look at how buggered TF2 is these days. The official servers are few and far between, and almost everyone has to play co-op on the unofficial ones. And if we really have enough official servers that we don't need to play on unofficial servers: Why do we need unofficial servers?


And of course it has to do with DRM. It belongs to the same "to exploit customers for maximum $$$, must retain every inch of control over their entire experience" school of thought. If you had actual control over servers, they would be missing out on a great chance to Manage your Digital Restrictions, plus those who choose to play on your servers.
No. It really doesn't. See, your argument operates on the assumption that your "DRM exists only to hurt people" premise is correct. Instead, your argument that a lack of server binaries is more "I think companies want to hurt consumers". Which is an "interesting" topic, but isn't DRM. As it stands, it is tangential at best.


>Decade back when I played CS on pub, there were plenty of servers with weird mods, weird custom maps, weird rules. Servers with great active admins where I never saw cheaters even bothering to try. Server mod features such as statistics specific to a certain family of servers, and scoring with persistent high score lists. Reasons to come back to specific servers so even a casual pubber like me started recognizing various people who play there and their playstyles. That kind of thing promotes actual communities popping up. A clinical straightjacket ecosystem like that of the current broshooters, with no real ownership or unique identity, doesn't offer the freedoms or incentives for this stuff.
Except that UT2k4 and UT3 both were mod friendly and were NOT "broshooters". 2k4 had a decent mod scene, but was a sign of the decline, UT3 was dead in the water.

That is the thing people refuse to acknowledge when they bitch about no modding tools. We already, as gamers, showed that we don't care as much. I personally think the problem is that the "I live in my mom's basement" modder can't compete with the visual shinies of the core game. So you need a "team" to even stand a chance, and those teams would rather work on making large mods (or games) they can use for their CVs. That is why we have had a rise in indie games even though modding has died. Because having a 500 poly mesh next to a 500 poly mesh is okay if they share the same art style: a 500 poly mesh next to a 5000 poly face: not so much.

DaftPunk
04-09-2012, 07:56 PM
This is why we can't have nice things.


Exactly! Piracy is the new satan! xaxa

gundato
04-09-2012, 08:35 PM
I wouldn't go so far as to say that.

I think we can all agree that stuff like this makes a pretty strong argument for "DRM, as it currently is set up, is not working"

The anti-DRM crowd think the conclusion to draw is "So never use DRM again!". And some companies (claim :p to) have taken that approach.

The problem is, most companies are not likely to draw that conclusion. They are more likely to either say "Let's use stronger DRM" or "Screw it. If we can't protect our products, there is no reason for us to sell them in this market".

Its the same logic behind somebody leaving a neighborhood after having been robbed/mugged X times. Or a retail store adding those beepy-clicker-ink-spraying things to clothes or the locky things to the metal prongs that hold electronics on the shelves.

deano2099
04-09-2012, 08:41 PM
It makes publishers feel happy, and it prevents the "average" user from cracking it.

I disagree. I think this was true at some point, when 'casual' piracy was the sharing of discs between friends, or burning a few copies for mates down the pub. But no-one does that any more because it's far easier to tell someone 'just torrent it'.

And if you have the IQ to understand how a torrent works, you find the torrent generally comes with the crack and everything needed to get it working, along with clear instructions (usually just: install, copy crack to main folder). The DRM stopping 'average' users is something we've just kept through sheer momentum.

Nalano
04-09-2012, 08:46 PM
I disagree. I think this was true at some point, when 'casual' piracy was the sharing of discs between friends, or burning a few copies for mates down the pub. But no-one does that any more because it's far easier to tell someone 'just torrent it'.

And if you have the IQ to understand how a torrent works, you find the torrent generally comes with the crack and everything needed to get it working, along with clear instructions (usually just: install, copy crack to main folder). The DRM stopping 'average' users is something we've just kept through sheer momentum.

More or less this. The "average" user has never cracked anything. The "average" user has always downloaded cracks made by teams with the knowhow to do so. Having a pirated version largely means "I downloaded a copy with the crack attached/already applied."

gundato
04-09-2012, 08:51 PM
I disagree. I think this was true at some point, when 'casual' piracy was the sharing of discs between friends, or burning a few copies for mates down the pub. But no-one does that any more because it's far easier to tell someone 'just torrent it'.

And if you have the IQ to understand how a torrent works, you find the torrent generally comes with the crack and everything needed to get it working, along with clear instructions (usually just: install, copy crack to main folder). The DRM stopping 'average' users is something we've just kept through sheer momentum.

My sister is an "average" user (hell, she runs the IT department for a heating and oil company in the tri-state area. I try not to use them...) and she is afraid to use torrents. If only because she doesn't want to look at all the porn ads you get when you google for torrents (let alone the potential for viruses).

If you have someone who is willing to help you out, you are shiny. But that has ALWAYS been true. But for the "average" user (who, admittedly, is probably much less prevalent), it is still a deterrent. I think the bigger thing these days is stuff like Steam where if you get caught once you potentially lose all your legal stuff (and your achievements!).

Nalano
04-09-2012, 09:03 PM
My sister is an "average" user (hell, she runs the IT department for a heating and oil company in the tri-state area. I try not to use them...) and she is afraid to use torrents. If only because she doesn't want to look at all the porn ads you get when you google for torrents (let alone the potential for viruses).

No offense meant, but your sister is paranoid.

gundato
04-09-2012, 09:10 PM
No offense meant, but your sister is paranoid.
Nah, the word you are looking for is "stupid". Like I said, I avoid using that company...

But it is a valid concern. I don't know how the warez sites are these days, but back when I was younger there WERE people who uploaded a lot of viruses. That stopped being a problem once I found a private tracker, but I recall being wary of most public trackers for that reason.

Of course, I haven't been a pirate in quite a number of years (oddly enough, around the time I got a job :p), so maybe it is different these days. But I imagine it is still a pretty decent threat unless you know what you are doing. So like I said: Still trivial for a "smart" user or anyone who has a "smart" friend, but that still leaves a pretty large chunk of people who post on GameFAQs asking how to open a "roar" file so that they can get a Pokemon skin in Skyrim.

victory
04-09-2012, 09:24 PM
But what if that is the dominant type of server? Take a look at how buggered TF2 is these days. The official servers are few and far between, and almost everyone has to play co-op on the unofficial ones. And if we really have enough official servers that we don't need to play on unofficial servers: Why do we need unofficial servers?In general? For every single thing I already listed. Because we want to play with specific people, on specific maps, with specific rules, with specific mods, to choose our experience instead of having a cookie-cutter one shoved down our throat ad infinitum. Because we want to play on LAN. Because we want reliability. Because we would like to be able to play a game we like in a decade from now.

Unofficial servers do not cause official servers to mysteriously disappear. If all TF2 unofficial servers explode and are not there to run co-op, the official servers will have even less capacity for vanilla TF2, or alternatively it would cost Valve much more to provide the current level of availability. One way or another it would make life on the official servers worse.

No. It really doesn't. See, your argument operates on the assumption that your "DRM exists only to hurt people" premise is correct. Instead, your argument that a lack of server binaries is more "I think companies want to hurt consumers". Which is an "interesting" topic, but isn't DRM. As it stands, it is tangential at best.Strawman. I have not said there is no DRM that is a net win for the consumer; there is. But the fact so many games no longer trust us with a server binary is strictly bad for us. Also, most of the DRM currently pushed on us is strictly bad for us.


Except that UT2k4 and UT3 both were mod friendly and were NOT "broshooters". 2k4 had a decent mod scene, but was a sign of the decline, UT3 was dead in the water.

That is the thing people refuse to acknowledge when they bitch about no modding tools. We already, as gamers, showed that we don't care as much. I personally think the problem is that the "I live in my mom's basement" modder can't compete with the visual shinies of the core game. So you need a "team" to even stand a chance, and those teams would rather work on making large mods (or games) they can use for their CVs. That is why we have had a rise in indie games even though modding has died. Because having a 500 poly mesh next to a 500 poly mesh is okay if they share the same art style: a 500 poly mesh next to a 5000 poly face: not so much.It's not useful to extrapolate on the appeal of modding based on a sales flop like UT3. Games which people like to begin with are the interesting targets. See: Skyrim, which keeps getting mods including purely aesthetic ones. Yep, despite visuals taking more work than ever. We can only guess what amount of modding interest would be aroused if modding tools were made available and server-side multiplayer mods enabled for the latest BattleDuty titles.

Also, the visuals arms race doesn't concern the vast amount of mods which have no unique visuals. You can have unique game modes, scoring systems, equipment bidding, weapon effect mods, extensive mods fine tuning rules and mechanics like Promod, silly stuff like gravity alterations and other effects, mods to help with server control, mods to help community participation, improved votekick, all kinds of things with zero work on visuals.

Nalano
04-09-2012, 09:29 PM
But it is a valid concern. I don't know how the warez sites are these days, but back when I was younger there WERE people who uploaded a lot of viruses.

And only idiots get caught up with viruses.

You're not a super guru IT specialist just for being aware of MSE and AVG.

gundato
04-09-2012, 09:37 PM
In general? For every single thing I already listed. Because we want to play with specific people, on specific maps, with specific rules, with specific mods, to choose our experience instead of having a cookie-cutter one shoved down our throat ad infinitum. Because we want to play on LAN. Because we want reliability. Because we would like to be able to play a game we like in a decade from now.
LAN is nowhere near as popular as it used to be.
Playing a multiplayer game "a decade from now" is a difficult concept in the first place since you generally need people to play it WITH. While I would prefer the option to have brief 1on1 games, it isn't a huge loss.


Unofficial servers do not cause official servers to mysteriously disappear. If all TF2 unofficial servers explode and are not there to run co-op, the official servers will have even less capacity for vanilla TF2, or alternatively it would cost Valve much more to provide the current level of availability. One way or another it would make life on the official servers worse.
Uhm... okay.
The point is that if the official servers can handle the load (as with most of the manshoots), there is no problem.
If they can't handle the load and you need unofficial servers, you are back in the problem of "Is this a dedicated server or a glorified listen server?".


Strawman. I have not said there is no DRM that is a net win for the consumer; there is. But the fact so many games no longer trust us with a server binary is strictly bad for us. Also, most of the DRM currently pushed on us is strictly bad for us.
And yes, I agree that not having server binaries is bad (not sure if it is a "trust" thing though). But it isn't DRM, which is my point.
And Steam(works) is GOOD for us in that it consolidates all those master servers into "one". So we don't need EA to keep a server up, we just need Valve to keep a server or two running (that is paid for with Hats!).
Consolidating everything into a "unified' server browser is nice too. I don't know about you, but I HATED All Seeing Eye.


It's not useful to extrapolate on the appeal of modding based on a sales flop like UT3. Games which people like to begin with are the interesting targets. See: Skyrim, which keeps getting mods including purely aesthetic ones. Yep, despite visuals taking more work than ever. We can only guess what amount of modding interest would be aroused if modding tools were made available and server-side multiplayer mods enabled for the latest BattleDuty titles.
Okay, what about Crysis and Far Cry and The Witcher and Dragon Age (?). They all have mod tools (maybe not Dragon Age :p) and small communities about it, but mods are NOT something the average player of any of those are aware of (except maybe the Battletech mod for Crysis).


Also, the visuals arms race doesn't concern the vast amount of mods which have no unique visuals. You can have unique game modes, scoring systems, equipment bidding, weapon effect mods, extensive mods fine tuning rules and mechanics like Promod, silly stuff like gravity alterations and other effects, mods to help with server control, mods to help community participation, improved votekick, all kinds of things with zero work on visuals.
And, as someone who grew up with ChaosUT and Strangelove and Tactical Weapons and whatever gave me an M1-Garand, visuals are NICE. It is fun to tweak my enforcer to fire explosive rounds (Explosive Overkill! WOO!!!). but those get boring fast.

victory
05-09-2012, 12:04 AM
LAN is nowhere near as popular as it used to be.
Playing a multiplayer game "a decade from now" is a difficult concept in the first place since you generally need people to play it WITH. While I would prefer the option to have brief 1on1 games, it isn't a huge loss.The key point of the LAN play option is you are not dependent on the developer. No matter if they are currently on a maintenance break, or went bankrupt two years ago, don't want to support their matchmaking system anymore, or you are somewhere without internet, you can play. Obviously, you aren't limited to physically being on the same LAN either. And if you play seriously, being able to keep the game strictly local gives you the best possible latency, plus cuts out the very real possibility of outages sabotaging the game. When a Starcraft 2 tournament final with $50k on the line and thousands of viewers gets interrupted and has to be replayed because Battle.Net has chosen to crap out, it should become apparent to anybody how absurdly user-hostile the always online requirement is.

Uhm... okay.
The point is that if the official servers can handle the load (as with most of the manshoots), there is no problem.
If they can't handle the load and you need unofficial servers, you are back in the problem of "Is this a dedicated server or a glorified listen server?".You see a problem where there isn't any because you position unofficial servers as some kind of extension of official ones, required to fill in whenever official servers fail your standards of availability, and at best capable of the same as official servers. But they are capable of much more, and have no responsibility to fill in for official servers (though they can also do that). If you don't want to touch unofficial servers, don't, and you are no worse off than if they didn't exist.

If you do take advantage of unofficial servers, however, you can just sample them and over time build up a roster of servers you like, by whatever criteria, such as consistent high performance. So your problem should cease to exist very quickly. Don't go on random unofficial servers, go on known-good unofficial servers. Shouldn't be a foreign concept to you if your FPS experience goes back to the early days.

Okay, what about Crysis and Far Cry and The Witcher and Dragon Age (?). They all have mod tools (maybe not Dragon Age :p) and small communities about it, but mods are NOT something the average player of any of those are aware of (except maybe the Battletech mod for Crysis).No idea where you are going with this. Crysis is the only game of the lot I'm decently familiar with, and it started off with bad stock multiplayer combined with enormous system requirements resulting in very small audience being able to actually play. It got exactly the kind of mods that can be expected considering the circumstances: visual stuff to further improve single player, some physics lulz, and level showcases for those with monster PCs.

If FPSs like STALKER and its descendants together with the Flashpoint/ArmA family have managed to attract a lot of modder interest despite being relatively clunky, inaccessible games, broshooters which come with smooth, accessible multiplayer out of the box would probably turn into this era's equivalents of Quake/HL if they got good tools and control was placed in player hands.

gundato
05-09-2012, 12:30 AM
The key point of the LAN play option is you are not dependent on the developer. No matter if they are currently on a maintenance break, or went bankrupt two years ago, don't want to support their matchmaking system anymore, or you are somewhere without internet, you can play. Obviously, you aren't limited to physically being on the same LAN either. And if you play seriously, being able to keep the game strictly local gives you the best possible latency, plus cuts out the very real possibility of outages sabotaging the game. When a Starcraft 2 tournament final with $50k on the line and thousands of viewers gets interrupted and has to be replayed because Battle.Net has chosen to crap out, it should become apparent to anybody how absurdly user-hostile the always online requirement is.
And competitive gaming doesn't influence most gamers, and arguably has hurt gaming in general (just about every military manshoot is played in instagib mode these days...).

Don't get me wrong, I would rather have LAN support than not. But if there is very little downtime (true of most games), then I think I will have bigger problems finding people to play with in 10 years than I will getting it working. Its similar logic to "I hate DRM because it means I can't play Crysis in 20 years!". In this case, you have the difficulty of getting the game running in addition to finding people to play with.

And most PC gamers don't do LAN gaming anymore now that broadband internet is commonplace, and, as already mentioned, competitive gaming can suck it :p


You see a problem where there isn't any because you position unofficial servers as some kind of extension of official ones, required to fill in whenever official servers fail your standards of availability, and at best capable of the same as official servers. But they are capable of much more, and have no responsibility to fill in for official servers (though they can also do that). If you don't want to touch unofficial servers, don't, and you are no worse off than if they didn't exist.
No, they split the fanbase. Even something as simple as "hardcore" mode splits modern games. I know that I have a LOT of hassle finding a non-hardcore server or finding a server that doesn't run a "mod" to ban anyone who uses grenades.



If you do take advantage of unofficial servers, however, you can just sample them and over time build up a roster of servers you like, by whatever criteria, such as consistent high performance. So your problem should cease to exist very quickly. Don't go on random unofficial servers, go on known-good unofficial servers. Shouldn't be a foreign concept to you if your FPS experience goes back to the early days.
So now I need to keep a list of which servers I like? Whatever happened to the fun of just pubbing? If I want to get deep into a game, I'll keep a list of servers. If I just want to play a quick match, I go wherever has the best ping and the least third party downloads.

Some progress is good. I like being able to say "There is a dick on this server, I am gonna go somewhere else" without spending a large amount of time finding a server I like. I already have that problem with respect to non-hc servers that let me use grenades, I don't want to multiply it.


No idea where you are going with this. Crysis is the only game of the lot I'm decently familiar with, and it started off with bad stock multiplayer combined with enormous system requirements resulting in very small audience being able to actually play. It got exactly the kind of mods that can be expected considering the circumstances: visual stuff to further improve single player, some physics lulz, and level showcases for those with monster PCs.
So all the games that have flopped in terms of mods "sucked". Got it (and I actually agree in a lot of ways) :p


If FPSs like STALKER and its descendants together with the Flashpoint/ArmA family have managed to attract a lot of modder interest despite being relatively clunky, inaccessible games, broshooters which come with smooth, accessible multiplayer out of the box would probably turn into this era's equivalents of Quake/HL if they got good tools and control was placed in player hands.
And STALKER and OFP/ArmA basically support one or two "mods" per game for the average player, if that. A super-mod (like Complete) for STALKER, DayZ for ArmA 2, and probably the Finnish mods for OFP and ArmA 1. And the only one of those that is radically different is (maybe) DayZ. The rest are just iterative mods that appeal to some but are largely ignorable (I love the 40k mod for OFP though).

Again, UT2k4 had "smooth, accessible multiplayer out of the box" and even had a modding contest to encourage modding. We basically got a few entries for the categories and then it dried up*. UT3 never even got that (although, it did start the trend of people just making games instead of mods).

People loved Neverwinter Nights for its moddability. People didn't give a rat's ass about The Witcher or Dragon Age, and I think we can agree that both of them (The Witcher moreso :p) spank the crap out of NWN's original campaign (and arguably Shadows of Undrentide. Hordes of the Underdark was awesome though). Why? Different era.

Hell, you can even argue that The Elder Scrolls dried up a bit. In TES3 it was almost impossible to NOT find elaborate quest mods everywhere in addition to some really cool stuff. Oblivion was mostly clothing and armor mods, with a few good quests and a lot of nice landscape/house mods. Skyrim is still early, but most of the mod I have seen are either "bugfix" mods or are armor and weapons (often taken from other games...). Although, Skyrim gets massive bonus points for not having a movement that did nothing but make clothing mods where "nipple piercings" was a valid description. Jesus Christ... Morrowind scared me near the end...

Or, if you prefer, Starcraft 2. That was marketed as being INSANELY moddable, it sold very well, and Blizzard even made examples of what you can do. And the modding scene for that is weak, at best, according to a recent thread here.

But, this all has nothing to do with DRM. Although, it is a more interesting topic than "Yay, Ubi games should be pirated!"


*: By today's standards it is the most modded game EVAR. But compare it to UT or Quake and it is definitely anemic.

soldant
05-09-2012, 01:09 AM
If FPSs like STALKER and its descendants together with the Flashpoint/ArmA family have managed to attract a lot of modder interest despite being relatively clunky, inaccessible games, broshooters which come with smooth, accessible multiplayer out of the box would probably turn into this era's equivalents of Quake/HL if they got good tools and control was placed in player hands.
The ARMA games etc are a bit of a special case, as is STALKER (because all the STALKER games have had significant issues on release to the point where it practically needs mods to be properly enjoyed). Flight Sims fall into this category as well. They're designed from the ground up for community expansion, though full-blown mods aren't all that common - most of them add bits of content (like a new tank, a collection of new units, a new aircraft etc) but few are akin to the 'total conversions' of the past (like FDFMod). Skyrim is another example - there are plenty of 'mods' but few of them are of the same size as the old days of TCs, like the glorious Doom/Quake/Half Life eras of modding.

Unfortunately as gundato says, modding has declined. It's been in decline since Half Life 2. I can remember there used to be an absurd number of mods (total conversions, not just maps) for Doom, Quake, and Half Life. Since then though mods have declined for the most part, even on games that support them, except in a few cases like ARMA/Flight sims/TES games where the modding community is the principle reason to buy the game (and without it there's not going to be much in the way of new content).

It's probably no coincidence that as modding has declined, the general level of graphical fidelity has risen and things like Unity have taken off. There's no real reason to mod any more - you can pick up Unity, spend some time learning the scripting language (you'd need to learn to code to make a proper mod anyway) or just use some pre-packaged scripts or a visual scripting solution, and you can make a game entirely on your own. If you do choose to go the modding route your assets need to be close to the standard of the original dev - for HL2 that'd mean matching Valve's models, which is no small task for a small mod team. If it's your own project, you're free from those constraints. There's a reason retro graphics are making a comeback, and it's not totally nostalgia. They're much easier to make and don't require as much time.

A lot of games don't need mods. They're designed as self-contained games for you to play once and maybe come back in a year's time or so for another bash. There's nothing wrong with that.

Hypernetic
05-09-2012, 02:31 AM
The ARMA games etc are a bit of a special case, as is STALKER (because all the STALKER games have had significant issues on release to the point where it practically needs mods to be properly enjoyed). Flight Sims fall into this category as well. They're designed from the ground up for community expansion, though full-blown mods aren't all that common - most of them add bits of content (like a new tank, a collection of new units, a new aircraft etc) but few are akin to the 'total conversions' of the past (like FDFMod). Skyrim is another example - there are plenty of 'mods' but few of them are of the same size as the old days of TCs, like the glorious Doom/Quake/Half Life eras of modding.

Unfortunately as gundato says, modding has declined. It's been in decline since Half Life 2. I can remember there used to be an absurd number of mods (total conversions, not just maps) for Doom, Quake, and Half Life. Since then though mods have declined for the most part, even on games that support them, except in a few cases like ARMA/Flight sims/TES games where the modding community is the principle reason to buy the game (and without it there's not going to be much in the way of new content).

It's probably no coincidence that as modding has declined, the general level of graphical fidelity has risen and things like Unity have taken off. There's no real reason to mod any more - you can pick up Unity, spend some time learning the scripting language (you'd need to learn to code to make a proper mod anyway) or just use some pre-packaged scripts or a visual scripting solution, and you can make a game entirely on your own. If you do choose to go the modding route your assets need to be close to the standard of the original dev - for HL2 that'd mean matching Valve's models, which is no small task for a small mod team. If it's your own project, you're free from those constraints. There's a reason retro graphics are making a comeback, and it's not totally nostalgia. They're much easier to make and don't require as much time.

A lot of games don't need mods. They're designed as self-contained games for you to play once and maybe come back in a year's time or so for another bash. There's nothing wrong with that.

I think most games these days (i.e. "AAA" games from big publishers) don't give people the tools to mod because they see modding as a deterrence to DLC sales. Why buy DLC that has some new guns and maps when the community made cooler guns and maps 6 months ago? Obviously this completely ignores the fact that a good modding community can not only increase the longevity of a game, but build an entire game company (see Valve).

Modding is still around well enough, you just don't see many total conversions anymore because of how expensive it is to make. You either spend a lot of money or a good amount of money and a LOT of time (see black mesa). TF2 still has some mods for it like prop hunt and saxton hale.

gundato
05-09-2012, 02:40 AM
Increasing the longevity of a game is not necessarily good for sales. A perfect example is all the people who didn't buy UT2k3 (at least, not at the start) because they had UT. I know I didn't touch 2k4 until it was on sale for a good price, and I only grabbed 3 once it was a 10 dollar deal. And a lot of that was that I already had what I needed and a lot of custom content.

If your business model is "Sell once, live off sales for a while" like Bethesda, Valve, and Blizzard (and even Relic to a degree) you are okay. But if you actually produce 1 game a year (or even every 2 years), heavy modding has the potential to split your fanbase.

And yes, you still have the occasional modder, even though most mods basically would be categorized as "ini hacks" way back when (hell, almost ALL STALKER mods really ARE just cfg tweaks :p). Occasionally you get a new map or a new gun/weapon (not so much those because of the difficulty of matching quality and style). But its like me and soldant said: The truly talented people are making their own games.

I hung out with a lot of the SP mappers back in the UT Scene (the guys who made 7 Bullets/the series with 7 Bullets in it and who ran UnrealSP.org). I lost touch with them, but it looks like more than a few got hired BY Epic or another dev team making actual maps.
The CS team got absorbed by Valve, if I recall correctly

And that is the problem. They "lived the dream" as it were. They turned their hobby, their passion, into their jobs. And great for them, but now everyone wants to do that. So you have a lot less "I am gonna make this because it is cool" and more "I need to make something that will get me a job". Which is both good and bad.

Its the same reason why any time someone mentions "We are working on a Star Wars/Whatever Mod" or "We are doing an X Remake!" I cringe. Because, odds are, they are gonna fail horribly. Because the people "with talent" are going to want to do something to express their creativity and preferably get noticed along the way. So that leaves the "casual" modders who, while also very talented, are not at the same level. So you suffer even more from having to match an art style.

Hypernetic
05-09-2012, 02:54 AM
I don't see how you can directly attribute modding to lack of sales on yearly releases. Perhaps it was/is because they released what was/is essentially the same game every year?

gundato
05-09-2012, 03:01 AM
Let's use UT and 2k4 (we'll ignore 2k3. Epic sure has :p)

What were 2k4's big advances:
Shinier graphics
Replacing my Enforcer with a crappy Assault Rifle (boo) that shoots grenades (yay!)
Vehicles

Not having played 2k4, I can easily argue:
UT mods can make it prettier
I have the CAR from 7 Bullets. God I love that thing
You can do vehicles in UT

So I wouldn't buy it.

Hell, look at all the people who were saying they wouldn't buy BG:EE because "it is just mods" (even though it really isn't...)

People are irrational. They look for ways they can justify stuff, even if that means using limited information (the people arguing how they needed 120 FPS and super-tight controls to play Dark Souls because it was such a twitchy game, even though the game isn't...).

And let's pretend that everything CAN be done with mods. Even then, it might be worth buying for the new campaign or the dev team's take on the content. Most Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Skyrim DLC are really just mods. But there is something to be argued for Bethesda's professional take on it.

Or take something like the recent CoD series. Multiplayer wise, every new version is just a few new maps, new guns, and a few gameplay gimmicks (mutators in UT). But people like those maps. And I know I buy the new versions (at around the 20 dollar mark, mind you) because I really enjoy the SP campaigns. Maybe they are mindless and Michael Bay-esque, but they are fun.

Hypernetic
05-09-2012, 03:40 AM
What are you even talking about?

soldant
05-09-2012, 06:03 AM
I think most games these days (i.e. "AAA" games from big publishers) don't give people the tools to mod because they see modding as a deterrence to DLC sales.
Perhaps, but it sure doesn't hurt Bethesda. Nor did it hurt Bohemia Interactive. I think modding has become a lot less relevant today, possibly because there's lots of games around that increasing the lifespan of a game isn't so big of a deal any more. Also plenty of games would be pointless with mod support - those that do have mod support tend to have their own proprietary engines (idTech, Source) or have limitations (Bethesda).


but build an entire game company (see Valve).
Actually it's something that annoys me about Valve. Their current strategy seems to be "Find a small dev, buy them out, put them to work." They're by far one of the best to get bought out by, but a lot of their 'original' ideas lately seem to come from buying somebody else's work and giving them a job, not something they've developed internally.


Modding is still around well enough, you just don't see many total conversions anymore because of how expensive it is to make. You either spend a lot of money or a good amount of money and a LOT of time (see black mesa). TF2 still has some mods for it like prop hunt and saxton hale.
Those small mods are pretty much the limit these days, and back in the day they'd have earned the title 'mutation' or 'hack' or something. The golden days of modding for the most part are gone. Hell even single player mapping has died off for the most part. One of the last places you're likely to find that is GMod, and even then they're few and far between.

Nalano
05-09-2012, 06:24 AM
Actually it's something that annoys me about Valve. Their current strategy seems to be "Find a small dev, buy them out, put them to work." They're by far one of the best to get bought out by, but a lot of their 'original' ideas lately seem to come from buying somebody else's work and giving them a job, not something they've developed internally.

Replace "small dev" with "mod team," and sure.

Revisor
05-09-2012, 11:15 AM
I Am Alive release date brought forward, the game is going to be released tomorrow, September 6, instead of Sept 13.
http://www.vg247.com/2012/09/05/i-am-alive-pc-release-date-brought-forward/

I for one am looking forward to it. In the Gametrailers' video review it looked very interesting.

AlexClockwork
05-09-2012, 01:16 PM
So, after the RPS posts about Ubi this morning... If they keep their word and only use one-time activation DRM from now on, I'm OK with them, and they don't deserve to be pirated. I mean... They ACTUALLY listened to their customers... O.o

Nalano
05-09-2012, 01:24 PM
So, after the RPS posts about Ubi this morning... If they keep their word and only use one-time activation DRM from now on, I'm OK with them, and they don't deserve to be pirated. I mean... They ACTUALLY listened to their customers... O.o

They've promised similar before.

Delivering on their promise has been a consistent issue.

AlexClockwork
05-09-2012, 01:44 PM
They've promised similar before.

Delivering on their promise has been a consistent issue.

Well... Let's just hope, then. >.<

gundato
05-09-2012, 01:59 PM
All Ubi has to do is have "integrated online services" (like Diablo 3...) and they have basically the same model as before.

Jesus_Phish
05-09-2012, 02:05 PM
All Ubi has to do is have "integrated online services" (like Diablo 3...) and they have basically the same model as before.

And where did they say they would have this?

gundato
05-09-2012, 02:08 PM
RPS: So, with Assassin’s Creed III, and other forthcoming releases, we’re going to see a one-time activation, and there won’t be limits on that activation. Is that correct?Perotti: It’s correct. And then you’ll be able to play offline on PC. Whenever you want to reach any online service, multiplayer, you will have to be connected, and obviously for online games you will also need to be online to play. But if you want to enjoy Assassin’s Creed III single player, you will be able to do that without being connected. And you will be able to activate the game on as many machines as you want.

Right there. Italicized and painted red for her pleasure.
The only difference will be the activation when you install. Beyond that, it will still be tied to "an activated game and a UPlay account"

Kadayi
05-09-2012, 02:14 PM
Gotta love the Ubi interview today where RPS are saying it's 'from now on one time activation' given that the spokesperson says that's been their approach for new titles for over a year now. Why was it that this game was cracked and leaked again? Protesting a DRM system that's not been in place for over a year? *chortles*.

Jesus_Phish
05-09-2012, 02:15 PM
But they've said (and yes I know it's still to be seen) that it wont affect single player. In that case it's nothing like the Diablo 3 DRM. And if you were playing an online game online, online on their online servers, it's acceptable enough that you are connected to an online service.

gundato
05-09-2012, 02:29 PM
But they've said (and yes I know it's still to be seen) that it wont affect single player. In that case it's nothing like the Diablo 3 DRM. And if you were playing an online game online, online on their online servers, it's acceptable enough that you are connected to an online service.

Did you miss the whole "Diablo 3 singleplayer should be offline" fiasco?

All Ubi has to do is emphasize games with "online stats" or "integrated co-op" or even something like Demon/Dark Souls's message system, and they can stick with an always-on DRM. It is the exact same trick Diablo 3 used.

Jesus_Phish
05-09-2012, 02:34 PM
Did you miss the whole "Diablo 3 singleplayer should be offline" fiasco?

All Ubi has to do is emphasize games with "online stats" or "integrated co-op" or even something like Demon/Dark Souls's message system, and they can stick with an always-on DRM. It is the exact same trick Diablo 3 used.

No I didn't miss it, but you're completely speculating that they're going to pull a card out of their sleeve on it. They've said "But if you want to enjoy Assassin’s Creed III single player, you will be able to do that without being connected." so I would take that as an indication that they don't play to include a "fake" single player mode that actually requires you to be online. I don't think Ubi would be bothering to make these statements or abandon DRM for single player if they didn't realize it was hurting them.

They've said you can play SP without being connected. Yes we have to take that as a "I'll believe it when I see it" but were are you getting this notion that they're pulling a Diablo 3 or even have any intention to?

gundato
05-09-2012, 02:41 PM
The history of Ubi? The general trend of the industry as a whole (Diablo 3's DRM might be the most effective DRM ever...)? The specific way they worded their responses? The fact that even RPS (who might even have been overly critical of Ubi over the years) said "I don't mind UbiDRM if it is an online game" in the review for a recent Ubi title?

When a form of DRM is found effective, people flock to it. Starforce proved very effective and many developers used it(at the time, many games were uncracked because of "other" ways around it, and I think some games STILL haven't been cracked). The early activation model DRMs (like Securom) proved rather effective too (MEPC was not properly cracked for a good week or two. Admittedly, Spore was cracked on day 0), and that became the norm. Steam is proving to be a very good balance between effectiveness and ease of use, and all the DLC/community aspects are well received. So we have Battle.net and UPlay and Origin which offer basically the same thing.

So yeah, odds are Ubi is just trying to shift to a more Diablo 3 like approach. I hope I am wrong, but signs don't point to it. Maybe Ass3 won't be affected, but they have games that come out after it...

Hypernetic
05-09-2012, 03:19 PM
Let's be honest here. Diablo 3's always online scheme had nothing to do with piracy or DRM. It was their attempt to preserve an economy for the RMAH. Anyone who thinks anything in that game wasn't designed specifically with the RMAH in mind is on crack.

gundato
05-09-2012, 03:34 PM
Well, Starcraft 2 was similar in many ways, but yeah, Diablo 3 is mostly about preserving the auction house. But that doesn't change how effective it is.

Nalano
05-09-2012, 04:39 PM
Let's be honest here. Diablo 3's always online scheme had nothing to do with piracy or DRM. It was their attempt to preserve an economy for the RMAH. Anyone who thinks anything in that game wasn't designed specifically with the RMAH in mind is on crack.

Indeed: Their game is the RMAH. And that's a corruption of game design that, I believe, will have far more destructive consequences than mere DRM.

Jesus_Phish
05-09-2012, 04:49 PM
Well, Starcraft 2 was similar in many ways, but yeah, Diablo 3 is mostly about preserving the auction house. But that doesn't change how effective it is.

I wouldn't call their RMAH always on DRM effective at all. Lets look at the points.

First, 11 million sold, either directly or through WoWs annual sub, it doesn't matter. 11 mil. Could it have been 12 mil if they didn't put in the RMAH or if they included a single player mode? Possibly. There's a lot of people who didn't buy that game because of the always online aspect of a single player game.

Next up, Blizz lost a lot of face on it. For all the issues it introduced to people, for all the hassle they've caused. They've lost face on a lot of things and this hasn't helped at all. So they lost face? Big deal, 11 mil sold. But how many of those are still playing? How many are going to use the RMAH? How many will buy the expansion after being stung? How many are sick of Blizz now?

Next up, it didn't solve anything. Some claims were made that the point of the RMAH and the always online experience was to destroy the botting/black market scene. This scene is still alive and now Blizz just takes a cut of the bots profits from the RMAH. You can still go and buy gold and items on websites at lower costs than the RMAH tries to limit the prices of.

So for all it's worth of them making a lot of money (which they did), I'd hardly call it an effective DRM system. I don't play the game anymore and even this ever going promise of PVP (flying machines in wintergrasp from WOTLK and dance editors say hi) wont entice me back. The expansion it brings out wont do it either.

Did it stop pirates? So far yeah. Has it been worth it? Maybe. Is it effective, barely. An effective DRM, if one could even exist wouldn't put off buyers of your game.

gundato
05-09-2012, 04:57 PM
Jesus: The question is, how many people actually CARE about that. How many people actually cared enough about the always-on DRM to not buy the game? I imagine the numbers are very small, all points considered. Why? I cite the Modern Warfare "boycott" and all the people in other threads who were saying things along the lines of "I had no choice but to buy it, Blizzard sucks for their DRM"

And ANYTHING will "put off buyers". Look at the "justify piracy" thread and all the asinine excuses people make. People look for an excuse to bash stuff or "boycott" stuff, and sometimes they actually have GOOD reasons. In the grand scheme of things, I am pretty sure it is the game design of Diablo 3 that put people off, NOT the DRM. The DRM is just an easy thing for people to attack because they (think they :p) understand what that is.

Nalano
05-09-2012, 05:02 PM
Jesus: The question is, how many people actually CARE about that.

Anybody who's ever been burned by intrusive DRM.

Do you honestly never see those posts or does your mind just wipe itself clean every time you come across one?

gundato
05-09-2012, 05:09 PM
Anybody who's ever been burned by intrusive DRM.

Do you honestly never see those posts or does your mind just wipe itself clean every time you come across one?

I see it from the same general small groups of people, many of which are focused on the "principle" of the matter and will repeatedly say "I never buy any game with DRM"

I see them from people who later say things like "I took the plunge and bit the GfwL bullet"

So yes, some people get burned and I feel for them. But they are a very small percentage of users and many of them seem willing to take the risk for particularly good games.

Its similar to the logic behind the Modern Warfare boycotts. People were pissed on principle that we had no dedicated servers (I was one of them). People got very vocal. Then they saw the game and bought it anyway because they would rather have a sub-par game than no game at all (I waited, but mostly because I was full up on manshoots :p).
Were there people who actually stood by the boycott? Of course, and I simultaneously salute and pity them. But if you actually think they were a particularly large portion*, I have a bridge to sell you.

*: Taking into account the people who just used that as one of many excuses to not get the game. I cite myself on that one because the no dedicated servers was crap, but mostly I just didn't see the point in paying 60 bucks for an 8 hour campaign.

Hypernetic
05-09-2012, 05:25 PM
I don't understand your logic here Gundato. You are basically saying "if the below average intelligence masses see fit to support it, it must be a good idea!". I mean, George W. Bush was elected president after all, was that a good idea? Just because people still buy games that have intrusive or always online DRM doesn't mean those types of DRM measures are good for the industry or for the future of gaming.

gundato
05-09-2012, 05:37 PM
I don't understand your logic here Gundato. You are basically saying "if the below average intelligence masses see fit to support it, it must be a good idea!". I mean, George W. Bush was elected president after all, was that a good idea? Just because people still buy games that have intrusive or always online DRM doesn't mean those types of DRM measures are good for the industry or for the future of gaming.
Compared to the alternatives? Maybe (sadly...). But that is politics and not at all about this. Also: Straw man.

Jesus phish was saying the DRM hurt Blizzard's sales. I was citing arguments that it quite likely didn't hurt it all that much in the grand scheme of things. Game design and the era it was released in have a much bigger impact on overall sales (which were pretty damned good anyway).

Maybe you think they are good for the industry, maybe not. I think some aspects of DRM can be definitely proven to be "good for the future of gaming" for one reason and one reason only: Digital Distribution.
Whether or not DRM sticks around in its current form, the widespread adoption and ACCEPTANCE of online activations and always-on models has led to the big publishers supporting Steam and Origin and Gamersgate and the like. And there is no way you can argue that digital distribution is bad for the industry OR the consumer. Maybe in the future the DRM model will be closer to GoG (the bare minimum required to make sure you legally own the game), but DRM itself is what paved the way for digital distribution. Regardless of why they support it (a sense of security, a sheer and utter hatred of the people who give them money, Mr Munin, etc), I don't think anyone believes that Ubi and EA and Activision would have adopted digital distribution if people would insist on "DRM Free". And without the big publishers ,DD would still just be Valve and a bunch of indie titles (and probably not even the good ones that have become popular as a result of DD being the primary source of PC games).

I am not saying if D3 DRM is good or bad for the industry (I personally lean toward "bad-ish for consumers, depending on the game, but probably great for the publishers"). I am just saying the following:

Ubi worded that statement VERY carefully
All they have to do is add an always-on online "community" aspect to justify an always-on DRM
Diablo 3 already did that
Diablo 3 has one of the most effective DRM models out there, regardless of why it exists
With a sub-statement of "Yes, some people are pissed at DRM to the point of refusing to buy a game they would otherwise purchase. All signs point to them not being a significant number in the grand scheme of things"

Hypernetic
05-09-2012, 05:45 PM
Compared to the alternatives? Maybe (sadly...). But that is politics and not at all about this. Also: Straw man.

Jesus phish was saying the DRM hurt Blizzard's sales. I was citing arguments that it quite likely didn't hurt it all that much in the grand scheme of things. Game design and the era it was released in have a much bigger impact on overall sales (which were pretty damned good anyway).

Maybe you think they are good for the industry, maybe not. I think some aspects of DRM can be definitely proven to be "good for the future of gaming" for one reason and one reason only: Digital Distribution.
Whether or not DRM sticks around in its current form, the widespread adoption and ACCEPTANCE of online activations and always-on models has led to the big publishers supporting Steam and Origin and Gamersgate and the like. And there is no way you can argue that digital distribution is bad for the industry OR the consumer. Maybe in the future the DRM model will be closer to GoG (the bare minimum required to make sure you legally own the game), but DRM itself is what paved the way for digital distribution.

I am not saying if D3 DRM is good or bad for the industry (I personally lean toward "bad-ish for consumers, depending on the game, but probably great for the publishers"). I am just saying the following:

Ubi worded that statement VERY carefully
All they have to do is add an always-on online "community" aspect to justify an always-on DRM
Diablo 3 already did that
Diablo 3 has one of the most effective DRM models out there, regardless of why it exists
With a sub-statement of "Yes, some people are pissed at DRM to the point of refusing to buy a game they would otherwise purchase. All signs point to them not being a significant number in the grand scheme of things"

Steam =/= always online DRM though.

I'm not against all DRM, I'm against "DRM" that hurts the final product. I don't care about sales figures, I care about games. Diablo 3 having no offline mode hurt the actual gameplay. One of the reasons I got so fed up with D3 was the constant rubber banding and lag induced deaths. They design a difficultly mode where everything can one shot you and you have to be on your toes 100% of the time and then create what is probably the worst net code of a AAA game in the history of gaming. Why should I have to deal with lag and server downtime when I'm playing a game by myself?

People bought D3 because it was a Diablo game. Diablo, like most Blizzard games, is an anomaly. D3 didn't set a precedent for always online DRM, sales will be negatively impacted much more on niche games (or just less popular ones). My guess is that Sim City 4 won't do so hot at retail because of it's always online DRM. Sim City has a much more niche audience and doesn't have the Blizzard popularity chain behind it either. Many people who bought D3 (probably MOST people) never played a Diablo game before. They just know that Blizzard is "cool" so they bought it (or bought it because their WoW buddies did).

Jesus_Phish
05-09-2012, 05:52 PM
I should clear up that my argument is not just that it hurt Diablo sales, which it did, but not nearly by as many people as maybe claimed they would ignore/boycott the game. The bigger ramifications are on future Blizzard products after people have been left with a very bad taste in their mouth.

As Hypernetic said, Diablo is what sold Diablo 3. If Blizz were to make a new ip and slap it with the same always online single player rules as Diablo had, it wouldn't do nearly as well.

gundato
05-09-2012, 05:54 PM
Steam =/= always online DRM though.

I'm not against all DRM, I'm against "DRM" that hurts the final product. I don't care about sales figures, I care about games. Diablo 3 having no offline mode hurt the actual gameplay. One of the reasons I got so fed up with D3 was the constant rubber banding and lag induced deaths. They design a difficultly mode where everything can one shot you and you have to be on your toes 100% of the time and then create what is probably the worst net code of a AAA game in the history of gaming. Why should I have to deal with lag and server downtime when I'm playing a game by myself?

People bought D3 because it was a Diablo game. Diablo, like most Blizzard games, is an anomaly. D3 didn't set a precedent for always online DRM, sales will be negatively impacted much more on niche games (or just less popular ones). My guess is that Sim City 4 won't do so hot at retail because of it's always online DRM. Sim City has a much more niche audience and doesn't have the Blizzard popularity chain behind it either. Many people who bought D3 (probably MOST people) never played a Diablo game before. They just know that Blizzard is "cool" so they bought it (or bought it because their WoW buddies did).

Steam is pretty damned close to always on DRM. And once you consider how much offline mode sucked until recently (and still might. I haven't tested it :p) you at least have something VERY close to "must be online to launch game". But, at the very least, it is one of the more restrictive activation model DRMs out there (even stuff like Securom could theoretically be played on multiple PCs at once and resold).

I am actually looking forward to seeing what happens with Sim City 4. The average gamer won't care. But the core fans should be interesting. I suspect a good many of them will have the same reaction of "I want Sim City, even if I have to put up with crap". And if EA does a good marketing campaign, they can probably more than make up for the few fans (who probably are still playing Sim City 2000 anyway :p).

Nah, I think the true test will be when something like Skyrim adopts it. A "good" game which has no real need for online anyway. And, sad to say it, I suspect it will sell well. Because, if they are smart, the next modern military manshoot will have it in the SP, but people won't care because they got it for the MP.

And Hyper: it was touched on in the D3 threads, but I think the point is that people like you and me aren't the target demographic anymore for a lot of new titles. Games are being made with multiplayer in mind, not the loner. D3 was designed to be a multiplayer game, so those who refuse to partake in the MP aren't really a priority. And judging by how popular "casual" and "mobile" games have become, that is probably a smart move. People these days game with friends.

Hell, The Old Republic was an MMO designed with the loner in mind, and look how well that turned out. On paper, it sounds like a wonderful idea (and I actually do like it, even if Guild Wars 2 rapes it in the face). You have the traditional MMO for the normal players, but you also have a strong story and SP component (that can be optionally MPed) to make it a gateway drug for the SP gamers.

Hypernetic
05-09-2012, 05:58 PM
Steam is pretty damned close to always on DRM. And once you consider how much offline mode sucked until recently (and still might. I haven't tested it :p) you at least have something VERY close to "must be online to launch game". But, at the very least, it is one of the more restrictive activation model DRMs out there (even stuff like Securom could theoretically be played on multiple PCs at once and resold).

I am actually looking forward to seeing what happens with Sim City 4. The average gamer won't care. But the core fans should be interesting. I suspect a good many of them will have the same reaction of "I want Sim City, even if I have to put up with crap". And if EA does a good marketing campaign, they can probably more than make up for the few fans (who probably are still playing Sim City 2000 anyway :p).

Nah, I think the true test will be when something like Skyrim adopts it. A "good" game which has no real need for online anyway. And, sad to say it, I suspect it will sell well. Because, if they are smart, the next modern military manshoot will have it in the SP, but people won't care because they got it for the MP.

And Hyper: it was touched on in the D3 threads, but I think the point is that people like you and me aren't the target demographic anymore for a lot of new titles. Games are being made with multiplayer in mind, not the loner. D3 was designed to be a multiplayer game, so those who refuse to partake in the MP aren't really a priority. And judging by how popular "casual" and "mobile" games have become, that is probably a smart move. People these days game with friends.

Hell, The Old Republic was an MMO designed with the loner in mind, and look how well that turned out. On paper, it sounds like a wonderful idea (and I actually do like it, even if Guild Wars 2 rapes it in the face). You have the traditional MMO for the normal players, but you also have a strong story and SP component (that can be optionally MPed) to make it a gateway drug for the SP gamers.

See that's the thing though, D3 wasn't designed to be a MP game. I mean it was, but the way inferno works it was MUCH, MUCH more efficient to farm solo. Recent patches have changed that somewhat, but the game is still easiest (and unfortunately less frustrating, which means more "fun") when played solo.

Hardcore Diablo players (the ones who are feeding the RMAH scheme) ARE playing solo. So as I said before, always online in Diablo has nothing to do with piracy, it's to prevent the market from becoming flooded with dupes and hacked items.

gundato
05-09-2012, 06:00 PM
I should clear up that my argument is not just that it hurt Diablo sales, which it did, but not nearly by as many people as maybe claimed they would ignore/boycott the game. The bigger ramifications are on future Blizzard products after people have been left with a very bad taste in their mouth.

As Hypernetic said, Diablo is what sold Diablo 3. If Blizz were to make a new ip and slap it with the same always online single player rules as Diablo had, it wouldn't do nearly as well.
And I think the server hiccups (which are happening to Guild Wars 2 as well, but are MUCH better handled) and the game design did it, more than anything else.

People bitch about server problems, but they largely understand it is a way of life (Steam and Valve are still alive, and they screw the pooch once or twice a year :p).

And people have been saying Blizzard are going to have to deal with a "very bad taste" for years.

WoW: Oh mah gawd, how dare they abandon their singleplayer gamers. This game sucks, Blizzard has a lot to answer for. Ooh, Starcraft 2
SC2: Oh mah gawd, Blizzard phoned this in. Sure the story was interesting, but this is pretty much a carbon copy of Brood Wars with a few different units. Didn't Blizzard notice all the other games that came out in the past decade? Blizzard has a lot to answer for. Ooh, Diablo 3.
D3: Oh mah gawd, Blizzard sucks at game design. And the DRM pisses me off. Blizzard has a lot to answer for!

Heart of the Swarm: I want this :p


See that's the thing though, D3 wasn't designed to be a MP game. I mean it was, but the way inferno works it was MUCH, MUCH more efficient to farm solo. Recent patches have changed that somewhat, but the game is still easiest (and unfortunately less frustrating, which means more "fun") when played solo.

Hardcore Diablo players (the ones who are feeding the RMAH scheme) ARE playing solo. So as I said before, always online in Diablo has nothing to do with piracy, it's to prevent the market from becoming flooded with dupes and hacked items.
And the people feeding the RMAH scheme would be just as happy with a spreadsheet and something along the lines of Progress Quest.

Don't get me wrong, it is pretty clear that D3 was designed with a lot of SP in mind, but they shifted to an MP focus late in development. But I also think that might have been the right choice if they wanted to appeal to the non-hardcore.

I enjoy Dungeon Siege 2. Titan Quest is interesting. I love Dins Curse. The ONLY "hack and slash action rpg" I have EVER completed is the first Torchlight. The rest, I periodically pick up, play for a while, then lose interest. I suspect that if I co-op'd I would probably stick around for longer.

somini
05-09-2012, 06:04 PM
Back to topic, Steam just updated and the game will launch tomorrow.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/214250
A week of anticipation.

Hypernetic
05-09-2012, 06:05 PM
Eh, I disagree with the "Oooh shiny" argument at this point. While your past examples are true, I think D3 was kind of a last straw for Blizzard. We will see how well MoP sells, but I'm not holding my breath. I think WoW will continue to bleed subs.

I won't be buying Heart of the Swarm, but that's mainly because I don't really care about Starcraft.

As for project Titan and whatever other future titles they have in the works? I don't know. Prior to D3 I would have unequivocally said I would buy the game day 1. Now? I don't think so, it's going to take a lot to convince me.

Jesus_Phish
05-09-2012, 06:10 PM
Eh, I disagree with the "Oooh shiny" argument at this point. While your past examples are true, I think D3 was kind of a last straw for Blizzard. We will see how well MoP sells, but I'm not holding my breath. I think WoW will continue to bleed subs.

I won't be buying Heart of the Swarm, but that's mainly because I don't really care about Starcraft.

As for project Titan and whatever other future titles they have in the works? I don't know. Prior to D3 I would have unequivocally said I would buy the game day 1. Now? I don't think so, it's going to take a lot to convince me.


I'd be in the same boat. Before SC2 everything from Blizz was pretty much going to be a day one buy. After I paid full price for 1/3rd of story for a race that isn't even my favorite story wise, I felt a bit ripped off. Diablo 2 was one of my favorite games ever so D3 was a definite sale. But after playing it and all the BS in it (this ranges from server issues/rmah/"single player" and bad story) I won't be rushing out to get anything Blizz puts out day one.

gundato
05-09-2012, 06:16 PM
I hope people remember their annoyances, but my hopes aren't high. Like I said, I remember the bitching about every other Blizzard game in recent memory...

I mean, honestly, I don't give a rat's ass about Diablo 3's DRM. They justified it, so I don't mind. That is more than most games have EVER done.

What I don't like Blizzard for is that they are like Apple: They dictate what they think people will like (in Blizzard's case, game design from a decade ago) and they shove it down our throats. And because of brand loyalty, people accept it and embrace it.

That being said, I really hope D3 is to Blizzard what DA2 (and to a lesser extent, DA:O) was to Bioware. Dragon Age 2 was less than stellar, to say the least. It had its moments (I liked the character-focused story), but it disappointed everyone. And CD Projekt happened to get REALLY lucky by having The Witcher 2 launch a few months later. So everyone who felt let down by DA2 had a game they could try and enjoy before they forgot how annoyed they were. And CD Projekt benefited GREATLY from it.
Because Bioware screwed the pooch before. Jade Empire was weak, at best. and their Sonic the Hedgehog game is universally hated if memory serves. But people didn't care because by the time they found an alternative, their annoyances subsided. But now, when they screw up (TOR, to a MUCH lesser extent ME3), people call them out on it.

So hopefully between Guild Wars 2 (which has a lot of ARPG style gameplay) and Torchlight 2 (which IS an ARPG), Blizzard will be held accountable in the future.

Tei
05-09-2012, 06:51 PM
Tryiing to find a good in this sea of bad. Maybe now will be easier for Ubisoft to release the game in 2 years. TWO times Ubisoft as lost the original game/sound artwork, and as turn to p2p network for find files to sell.

Hypernetic
05-09-2012, 06:54 PM
I hope people remember their annoyances, but my hopes aren't high. Like I said, I remember the bitching about every other Blizzard game in recent memory...

I mean, honestly, I don't give a rat's ass about Diablo 3's DRM. They justified it, so I don't mind. That is more than most games have EVER done.

What I don't like Blizzard for is that they are like Apple: They dictate what they think people will like (in Blizzard's case, game design from a decade ago) and they shove it down our throats. And because of brand loyalty, people accept it and embrace it.

That being said, I really hope D3 is to Blizzard what DA2 (and to a lesser extent, DA:O) was to Bioware. Dragon Age 2 was less than stellar, to say the least. It had its moments (I liked the character-focused story), but it disappointed everyone. And CD Projekt happened to get REALLY lucky by having The Witcher 2 launch a few months later. So everyone who felt let down by DA2 had a game they could try and enjoy before they forgot how annoyed they were. And CD Projekt benefited GREATLY from it.
Because Bioware screwed the pooch before. Jade Empire was weak, at best. and their Sonic the Hedgehog game is universally hated if memory serves. But people didn't care because by the time they found an alternative, their annoyances subsided. But now, when they screw up (TOR, to a MUCH lesser extent ME3), people call them out on it.

So hopefully between Guild Wars 2 (which has a lot of ARPG style gameplay) and Torchlight 2 (which IS an ARPG), Blizzard will be held accountable in the future.

The Witcher 2 came out well over a year after DA2

gundato
05-09-2012, 09:27 PM
The Witcher 2 came out well over a year after DA2

Not according to Wiki or my memories
DA2: March 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Age_2
TW2: May 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher_2

You are probably thinking of TW2:EE or the XBOX re-release.

Hypernetic
05-09-2012, 09:31 PM
Not according to Wiki or my memories
DA2: March 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Age_2
TW2: May 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher_2

You are probably thinking of TW2:EE or the XBOX re-release.

Hmm, yeah.

Lukasz
05-09-2012, 09:38 PM
I mean, George W. Bush was elected president after all, was that a good idea?

argument fail.

George W. Bush was elected because the system is broken not because more people wanted him as president. so most people wanted the other guy.
at least during first election.

Hypernetic
05-09-2012, 11:50 PM
argument fail.

George W. Bush was elected because the system is broken not because more people wanted him as president. so most people wanted the other guy.
at least during first election.

No, not most people. One state decided his first election and while that was stupid, he was most definitely elected the second time.

You want more analogies? How about a large portion of the US population feeling the gay marriage should be illegal?

somini
06-09-2012, 12:00 AM
http://csnbbs.com/html/funnies/general/derailment.jpg
Can we stick to the title of the thread?
The game was anticipated and it will launch tomorrow. Discuss?

DaftPunk
06-09-2012, 12:55 AM
Game is to short.

Shenanigans
06-09-2012, 04:33 AM
Spite? Get a fucking life tbh. If you're prepared to play it you should be prepared to pay for it. There's a whole bunch of different studios at Ubi. It's one not one singular entity.

Fucking lol, when this is coming from a guy who pirates high budget television programs because they don't release on DVD fast enough for him. Hypocrisy much?

ambing1
30-09-2012, 04:48 AM
My sympathies are with those developers.

I don't usually take the sides of developers but this case may be the exception. True, many game makers build games as cash cows but the fact is, cash is the reason why we have such incredible games.
cash is a good motivation to come up with good products to satisfy customers. piracy can sometimes distort the cycle, resulting to poorly made games over time.

Sparkasaurusmex
30-09-2012, 02:25 PM
Its similar to the logic behind the Modern Warfare boycotts. People were pissed on principle that we had no dedicated servers (I was one of them). People got very vocal. Then they saw the game and bought it anyway
Now I've never tried to boycott a video game, but c'mon... We didn't buy MW2, did we? I didn't realize anyone was playing that game on PC.