Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by zersus

  1. I've used both GoG and Steam, and Steam is hands down the better choice for me. The number of steps it takes to buy, install, and then play a game is just lot lower when it comes to Steam.


    Granted, this may change when GoG Galaxy comes out.


    How long is this going to take?

    What I like about steam are the sales.

    2€ for Magic 2014? Deal!


    It is the only way to make me buy games, that I would never buy for a regular price.

  2. Well, if this was publisher funded I might say that argument has a leg to stand on. Seeing as publishers rarely allow betas of this nature I can't say much more there. Steam Early Access has become popular among some developers. Most of them are small time, at best mid level, so power to them as well. I am not too apt to pay for those game's alpha/beta access because they typically aren't games I would care too much for. So I am not paying for that privilege.


    However, as a crowd funded game the developers have 100% carte blanche to maximize funding in whatever way they see fit. It is also a game that is spiritual successor to a group of games I loved (and still play today) made by a developer that whose products I enjoy. I want to help and I want to play the title. I want to see how it feels and give feedback. I want this style of RPG to come back. I am completely willing to give Obsidian $25 to help with funds for the game and enjoy playing the beta while trying to help find bugs, balancing issues, etc to help make the game the best it can be. If Obsidian is successful then we may see more games like this and not just from Obsidian themselves. We could see other Studios make similar games. A cRPG renaissance, if you will. Well worth $25 in my book.


    Milking consumers would be if EA put a game of this type, and equal level funding, on Origin for $60(which I am sure would be the amount EA would try to charge) as a beta (with equally limited content). A company with enough money to fund this game hundreds of times over asking $60 to test 3-6 hours of content is 100% consumer milking. A mid level developer that couldn't fund the game without crowd funding asking $25 is not.


    I am also someone of very modest means. I am definitely not loaded.


    Also, there is always room for discussion.


    You have made some good points that are worth to think about and maybe chance my point of view.

    • Like 2
  3. If you think Obsidian is milking its backers zersus, then let me introduce you to Star Citizen.

    Yes I know :-/. But at least they are adding new features http://kotaku.com/star-citizen-teases-racing-and-first-person-shooting-1622717882

    I would be more happy if they would finely deliver the game, and patch the other stuff. Hopefully (for all the backers out there) Star Citizen will see the light of day, and don't choke on his own high expectations.

  4. I wasn't aware that Obsidian was forcing you to buy beta access,zersus.


    No my friend, no one is forcing me. I just don't agree that you have to pay a company extra to participate in a Beta. And that customers should 'think/be careful about' before paying even after the company already reached their needed goals.

    You are showing you willingness to help buy beta-testing, and now they even ask you to pay for it. This is what bothers me.

    After the CF is completed I will wait for the released product before I pay anything. This discussion could end here if every buddy is OK with that ;).



    Yes, that's correct. You're probably wise to pass; you'll enjoy the real thing more. I meant to but failed my Will save.

    I don't even need the 'Iron Will' for this, 25$ for a Beta is like paying some one, to do their job:

    Dude, I pay you 50$ if you allow me to mow you lawn / I pay you to $$ if you allow me to run a bugfix in your Framework / etc.



    I think it's possible you might be missing the point of crowd funding. Many, many people have happily dumped more cash into this project than it's objectively worth because they wanted to see this game get made. Paying to help make it the best game it can be (i.e., provide beta feedback) makes perfect sense in that context.



    Crowd funding (FC) is absolutely OK for me. But there is a difference between CF and milking the consumer. The CF is finished; it has more money that they have asked for. Now it is time to deliver the promising.

    Obsidian is continuing to collect money and this is somehow OK from the standpoint of the company. But we as investors could stop paying, and let them first deliver what they have promised and let them earn our trust, so that our leap of faith pays out. Paying them more money what they have asked for could be even toxic for the whole project, and before you throw money at them, you should at least try and think about what I was trying to tell you guys. Maybe, just maybe it would be wiser to make a step back, wait a little and see what Obsidian would deliver.


    BUT! Asking people to pay for a Beta accesses is milking the consumer. And there is absolutely no room for discussion here. This is a method to try and get as much money as possible out of the costumer. The project is founded, and a beta is a tool to get feedback and use it to fix bugs and collect statistics as well as feedback. And paying for a beta is literally paying them, and doing their job.

    A Beta is something that they should have offered every purchaser for free, so that they could collect the mentioned points. It is in their interest of having a beta so that the final product doesn’t fail. Our interest here is to get what we are promised, and you guys already give them money even tree times more than they have asked for. Nearly every backer is willing to help, but not pay again for the help. 


    Besides the entire critic I’m making here, I’m still planning to buy this game as soon as it is released. But I think I will follow my own words now, take a step back, wait and see what they deliver with three times the money they have asked for, before give them anything.

    • Like 3
  6. Hello ever buddy I just recently rediscover Project Eternity (PE) and my mind was blown again :).

    It is been a long time since I heard about PE, and I can't understand how I could have lost track of this game.


    Anyway, I'm happy to see it again and here is my actual question:


    What would you choose, steam or GOG?

    I have a steam account and I have purchased some game via GOG, but I fail to see the benefits of being DRM-free when it comes to digital distribution. Can someone evaluate for me where the advantage and disadvantage is in buying the game via steam or GOG? I mean, I can't resell a digital copy of a game like I could to it with a boxed game, and I can't borrow it to someone, so where are the advantages?


    Looking into the future I think that steam is very consumer friendly. You can user your power PC, and stream the game via a smaller notebook on you big TV screen, or even switch to a steam box. They store your games, so you don’t lose them (well if they get insolvent you lose it), and you can install it on any of your devices by using your account, even on SteamOS.

    Of course they could do more, like allowing reselling your right to play a game you bought a long time ago. Reselling games is damaging the marked only in the very first months anyway. (I think that steam even violates the European law, by not allowing us to resell something that you own (but that is OT)).

    On GOG on the other hand you get the game DRM-Free. But what exactly are the benefits?

    • Like 1
  • Create New...