alanschu

@Tale It's one thing to disagree with the direction. If you disagree, feel free to vocalize your disagreement and I absolutely encourage you to not play it (otherwise you just send mixed signals). It's another thing to literally state something like how BioWare or EA need to die. Especially as the industry starts to appreciate the advantages that digital distribution can provide (i.e. projects like Project Eternity, Wasteland 2, Torment 2, etc.). It makes me raise an eyebrow when someone says they're proud to not buy BioWare games anymore. I don't really care for Call of Duty games. The last one that I played was Modern Warfare, which was fun enough but those games are ones that I`d only buy at a very low price point. I don't want Activision to die or disappear, and I'd argue that the large amount of sales those games get are reflective of their customers, in general, actually being satisfied with the products they receive. In this sense, if "people buying it" is not a defense, does this mean that you feel people buy it despite liking it? Is this why someone can feel "proud" of no longer buying games from a particular company? Is this why someone would want to see a company that doesn't make games that a particular person wants should die and go out of business? My best assumption is that these gamers obviously see it as a slippery slope, and feel fans are some what slaves to their desires to game. As such, feelings such as pride for stopping buying can occur. I guess I am victim of using myself as an anecdote to hold others too. I consider myself an exceptionally avid gamer, but I never consider myself a slave to my hobby. Even the most "must have" games are games that, at its core, are things I'd still be able to live without. If I can't afford a game, I don't buy it. Or the host of other reasons for not purchasing. I try my best to make informed decisions, and even though I stopped purchasing Ubisoft games with their level of Always On DRM (since I didn't feel the games were worth that), I didn't want Ubisoft destroyed nor did I feel any pride in no longer buying Ubisoft games. I just didn't buy Ubisoft games.

Saw this trending on social media CliffyB chimes in on Nickel and Diming in Games Industry

I'm actually not married to plot import (even though we do it). I think it's an interesting challenge and if it can be pulled off really well, it can be an excellent thing (I don't think it's been done yet). There are definitely advantages to utilizing a canon story from an earlier game, however.

Do you mean that they are going with a canon playthrough of The Witcher 2?

I haven't played either Gears of War nor Uncharted, though I have heard Uncharted is pretty good. I'll probably pass on Tomb Raider since money is tight, so it's mostly meh.

Ah yes, that makes much more sense. The politicking can be annoying. Curious if Comcast would have enough clout to try actually punishing HBO for doing something like that, though. HBO is pretty big. Would be ironic if HBO actually became more successful if they were less cable oriented anyway. Though I guess the problem is more that Comcast also controls the internet, and I wouldn't be surprised if they got somewhat petulant about it. I imagine it'd become a legal mess. EDIT: Or alternatively, Comcast paid money to HBO for some level of exclusivity (which is less nefarious)

I'm sure on some rule of marketing, "it worked." I know more about the game now than I did pretty much at all, and it even piqued my interest somewhat, purely based on the gameplay footage. All because Morgoth shared it because he was disgusted by it. Some of the things I think that worked was the people narrating words, with the gameplay (at least attempting to) show some gameplay/narrative elements that applies to that word. And we're hear talking about it. Of course, some people will probably take the campaign a bit far and assume that it must be implying that because you played this game, you are both functionally illiterate and ready for the apocalypse.

Meh, I don't mind the trailer. I'm curious what the reaction would be had it been Obsidian doing something similar (i.e. I am curious if people's perspective of the company and franchise taints their reaction)

No, I understand that HBO should have released it (I think it's stupid that they didn't), because it certainly won't push people to pirate it. The problem I have with the Oatmeal's conclusion was that it was basically "I do want to watch it, so I will." I actually dislike this aspect of humanity, as pervasive as it may be. While I think HBO was stupid in how they distributed it, I also respect a company's decision to make their own decisions. That Game of Thrones wasn't available for me to watch meant I... watched something else!

EDIT: blah I have to go, I'll post my response in more detail later.

That's interesting. Is that because of the greater prevalence of high speed in those countries? I wonder if there are any (bogus) legal restrictions that may be affecting things as well (I dislike the CRTC that affects how much US content can be shown in Canada)

So? Doesn't mean they're justified in doing it simply because they can. If your point is that there'll always be people that are pretty much slaves to their desires, it's kind of a statement of the obvious.

Campy doesn't mean bad. I consider a movie like Evil Dead/Army of Darkness to be very campy, but it's still hilarious and entertaining.

You're taking my example of 1000 customers way too literally. I used small numbers just to be easy. You're right, if the DD market was only comprised of 1000 customers it wouldn't be very viable. My point was that the install base doesn't affect whether or not a game goes on sale. All that affects a sale is whether or not you'll get improved revenues with a sale. At this point, the only thing keeping a consumer from using Steam over Good Old Games for the same game at the same price is brand loyalty. My point is that the assumption that Steam's large market dominance is what allows Steam to do its sales is incorrect. Steam (and every other digital distributor) does its sales because developers can easily exploit the convenience and low cost of putting on a sale, in order to take advantage of price elasticity in order to generate more revenue. Since Digital Distributors take a percentage of revenue it will always mean that more revenue means more profits. A retail store cannot do this since there's a fixed cost of production. so if I sell a billion copies at $2 but it costs me $3 to package it, it doesn't matter that I made $2 billion in revenues. I lost money. With digital distribution, it doesn't matter if I make $2 billion in revenues because I sold one copy for $2 billion, or sold a billion copies for $2. I make the same amount of profit. This example also glosses over the cost of changing prices (menu costs), which a digital distributor can do for much, much cheaper Since this was a discussion about whether or not Steamworks benefits you, the poster named "Dream," Steamworks doesn't make it easier for a developer to do a sale, since it's just as easy for them to do a sale on any other digital distributor. Yes, Steam will probably be the most successful (in raw numbers), but that's simply because Steam is common and has nothing to do with whether or not a game uses Steamworks. If Steamworks disappeared today, Steam would still have the largest raw numbers just do to how common it is. No. It's not relevant to whether or not Steamworks benefits you, the consumer. You really seem to be taking all sorts of tangents that aren't relevant to the thesis of the current discussion: "How does Steamworks benefit the customer?" That Steam was first, second, one billionth, whatever, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Steam is the biggest at the moment, and leverages Steamworks to help ensure that Steam stays that way. Given that the current discussion is whether or not Steamworks benefits the customer is the discussion. You said that you felt Steamworks helps you out because the market dominance lets Valve (and developers) do sales. I dispute this claim, especially now that Digital Distribution has become so much more common. It may have been great for creating exposure for digital distribution, but at this point digital distribution is now bigger than brick and mortar retail for PC gaming. If Steam up and disappeared today, the PC gaming world isn't going to suddenly transition back to brick and mortar retail stores as their primary outlet. You're right that Steamworks helps Steam's market dominance because it helps ensure Steam's relevancy. How this helps you, the consumer, is the question.

By the time the game hits steam, production is a sunk cost. A sale is purely about maximizing the revenue for a product. That a game cost $1 to make or a billion dollars to make, the rationale behind what motivates the decision is still exactly the same. Your point about Steam being a pioneer regarding digital distribution is also not really relevant to the discussion. It just means that Steam was first (which is certainly important, and helps contribute to their market share). When discussing whether or not Steamworks is truly useful to the consumer, it's irrelevant.

Well, as I've gotten older I definitely find myself having a lot less time for gaming (especially compared to my teens). I actually dislike the notion that games are "dumbed down for the console kiddies." When I was a teenager 12 hour marathon game sessions were a weekly occurrence (often both weekend days), and never mind summer holidays from school. I'm still single and I don't have as much time for gaming, just because I have a lot of other stuff going on in my life as well. I can understand the idea of someone trading time for money (that's why Facebook games are successful). It's just not something that I do. That might be different if I was a lot more affluent.

What I love about Kickstarter is that it provides additional avenue to being risky. I am a big Obsidian fan, and I trust them implicitly based on the previous experiences I have had with their designers (people like Tim Cain, Chris Avellone, and Josh Sawyer). There's a very good chance that any game that they want to make, is one I'll probably enjoy, since it just seems that on some level I see eye to eye with what they consider fun game stories and mechanics. So I love that they are taking their expertise, and making something that is completely new from a narrative perspective. I see that as being very similar to the way that Torment itself came around. It was an Infinity Engine game, which I was somewhat familiar with (through Baldur's Gate), that went in a completely different and unexpected direction and I absolutely loved them for it. Eh, I don't know if my opinion has much to do with whether or not I post on Obsidian. There's a few boards that I have posted on, I just in general tend to like the gaming discussion that goes on here. I started posting here mostly because I was a KOTOR fan and they were making KOTOR 2. I have come and gone but as time has gone on, I tend to appreciate the works that Obsidian delivers (AP and FONV being some of my favourite RPG experiences in recent memory). I will check out your pitch. I frankly hope that you knock it out of the park and that the game is completely off the wall amazing, because it's what I hope of all games. I just have reservations about Kickstarter being just a different avenue of "sequel factory" that big publishers already are. I know it's easy to pitch as sequel because with that comes all the positive associations. It's easy for fans to imagine the game's potential. I mean, I loved Torment... and you want to make more stuff like that? Yes! Thing is, imagine that a sequel was made instead of Planescape: Torment. Imagine that a sequel was made instead of Psychonauts (since I saw a ton of people hoping Schafer's game would be Psychonauts 2). Imagine Shattered Steel 2 was made instead of Baldur's Gate. Imagine if a sequel was made instead of Alpha Protocol. Imagine if a sequel was made instead of the original Wasteland? Heck, we got Fallout because there couldn't be a Wasteland 2. Would System Shock 3 been as good as Deus Ex? Maybe they would have, but for me there's that novel feeling of trying something new that really made those games resonate with me. I understand it's not the same for everyone, but that's my initial reservations with Torment being Torment 2. It seems like a reach to me for it to be a sequel, and I do worry that content will be held to Torment's standard during creation. As in: "This is good, but is it Torment good?" "Is it worthy of the Torment name?"

That's just it though. They'll see "a new Torment." And they'll judge the game based on Torment, so even if the game is good, but just not Torment good, you increase the chance that gamers feel jilted because they actually helped fund the thing. At least with a DA2, you can go "Sorry EA, you wasted your money building this game that I don't like" and not buy it. It's the people that flock to 1000 forums stalking the game that will be better informed as to what the game will actually deliver, instead of simply going "Cool another Torment game!"

@GoA I suppose it's just a trading time for money thing. I don't buy them either and likely never will. But I do know the ME guys have been very surprised at how popular/successful it has been, so go figure. Then again, there are people that literally spend thousands of dollars on something like Farmville.... So I don't know for sure.

Yeah not sure how it will go. I believe Dead Space 3 has them, but I've never been one to ever purchase them so I'm not sure if I would really care if I played Dead Space. On the one hand, since it's single player, I find myself not really caring in the slightest if someone bothers to buy MTX for whatever reason to alter their own single player experience. But if a game simply is not fun without any MTX at all, I doubt it'd be a successful game. There's a level of intrusiveness. If I know they exist based on Origin or Steam telling me about them, it's certainly less of an issue. But if I were playing a game like Borderlands (just an example) and Claptrap followed me around telling me of all the awesome MTX I could get, it'd get pretty damned grating pretty quickly.

This is the way I see it. If games truly become "incomplete" unless MTX and DLCs are required, I would expect all gamers to resist a game like that, and as such it won't be as good (and won't be as successful). The problem, however, is defining what "incomplete" means. I see a lot of people say "If it's just vanity items, it's perfectly okay. But if it's some interesting story and lore components that I am really interested in, putting it behind DLC just makes me feel nickel and dimed." Which I think is somewhat ironic. It's like a request for us to make DLC that is less interesting and that people would be less likely to want to do something with. It seems a bit paradoxical, and it becomes difficult for me to disassociate it from a more general idea of "I'm a consumer, and prefer to get as much content as possible for as little cost as possible." Which is a fair viewpoint, and one I expect of all customers (for all products) really. So to some, ME3 is "incomplete" without From Ashes or Leviathan DLC, because it contains story and lore content that people are really interested in. To others, they like the DLC because it gives them the type of stuff that they are interested in (instead of pointless vanity items).

Could be. I only played the EE. I think it might frankly just be an opinion of "People liked the game, so they tend to idealize it in some ways." (which if fine. It's a human thing to do). Especially after the second game.

A large reason for a 75% price cut in a digital avenue is that you don't have the fixed costs that physical distribution has. If Steam only had 1000 people using it, there's still advantages to doing a 75% off sale on it. It's more an application of price elasticity in economics rather than anything to do with Steam's distribution. The costs of setting up a sale on a digital platform are very minimal. A single day 75% off sale can spur interest because it can become a no brainer impulse buy. These types of sales exist on other DD platforms as well. For a product that isn't selling very much (often because it's an older title), it's simply a case of price elasticity resulting in a big enough increase volume in sales to bring in more revenue. Steam takes a percentage of the sale, regardless of the price, so the cost to the developer/publisher to change the price isn't there. If they bring in $1000 in revenue per day at regular price, or $1000 in revenue with the sale, they still make the same amount of money. As the fixed cost is pretty much close to $0, you can still make money off a game with a discount to 90% off. It's just whether or not it's the best price point for your sale to maximize revenue. Assessing how elastic your price is determines how much of a sale you should give. As a result, newer (still popular) games like Skyrim don't get the 75% off sales. They wouldn't see the spike in revenue to make up for the lower price point. I'd argue that the install base of Steam has very little impact over whether or not a sale is worth while. If Steam only had 1000 customers, and doing a 75% off sale gets all 1000 of those customers to buy your game, it's a good idea to do that sale on that platform.

It's memorable for me because it's the straw that broke the camel's back. It was the one that I remember making me go "okay, this game actually is not taking itself seriously." The problem I had was that there was so much hype from people that are fans of The Witcher series about how excellent the writing was. To be fair to them, if they were speaking about the second game (which is well done), that's fair. I went into the first game after the second had been done. I think people are spending too much time focusing on the fact that it was the one line, when all it really was was the catalyst that led me to an epiphany for how I should be interpreting the writing. Rarely do such catalysts occur without some sort of precondition. Had I considered the previous aspects of the game to be phenomenal, it'd likely not be noteworthy to me except maybe as an odd line that doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the writing. I have a good memory and it was something I was actively discussing in a Let's Play on the BSN anyways, which helps solidify it as a catalyst. Most games have memorable moments for me that are culminations of prior events all building up.

If people think I'm criticizing the game because of "et cetera et cetera" they're wrong. That entire line is what made me realize that the dialogue is supposed to be campy and hamfisted. Before that I was not enjoying the game's writing. Once it happened, I enjoyed the game significantly more. So sure, it's just one line. One line that let me enjoy the game. If you're telling me that I'm wrong in my interpretation, you're telling me that I should have continued thinking that the rest of the game was as poorly written as I was perceiving it.