Spider

It all depends on what relationship the group has with eachother. With my old gaming group we would generally be able to make whatever character we wanted and our GM would find a way to get us onto the he wanted. Sometimes our characters were forced to do things they may not want to do, but we still got to play the characters. The characters may not always like what they do and when that's the case they should piss and moan about, but as long as the players and th GM have fun then that's all that matters. The bigger question here is whether or not your players are interested in playing a campaign based on exploration and moral dilemma. If they like that type of gameplay, then getting their characters (even the pirate) into the story just requires a little creativity.

My guess is that a graphic card is indeed one of the upgrades. 1 GB of RAM probably covers the remaining $100.

I can't believe how tidy everyone keeps their desktop. Except mkreku (and me of course. Here's mine:

He did say it needed to be upgraded with stuff for $4-500 to be fit for several years of gaming though.

Actually, a lot harder. DD is probably protected by some sort of activation key which would only be usable for one installation at a time. Maybe the game can be installed on several computers, but only one of them can actually play the game at any given time. It all depends on the implementation I guess. Cracks for physical copies can usually be found fairly quickly. If not the day of release, then only a few days after. I've used several since I don't like being forced to switch cds when I'm switching games and since I always have several installed, that happens a lot. I've also never gotten a virus or a trojan through a game crack. Anyway, the point here is that pirating a game is childsplay. Anyone can do it, regardless of how a game is distributed. The reason people don't pirate isn't because they don't have the ability, but because they think it's wrong and they want to support the people who make games they like.

Ironically enough, he didn't answer any of the actual top ten questions though. As for the wrong linkage, he originally answered the question in another thread, the post has simply been moved from one thread to another.

They left because you said you'd pirate the game if they didn't do what you saw fit. Pirating a physical copy is just as easy (and actually probably easier) than pirating a DD copy, so you've exposed no flaw what so ever. As it stands today, if someone wants to pirate a game, they can, regardless of how the game is distributed. Again assuming that developers somehoe get the ability to self finance their games. As I've stated in the past, I am all for DD but I'm not sure it will free developers from the publishers. Someone still needs to put up the cash up front.

Given the fact that the PNJ forum just vanished, I'd have to say the future for that title seems grim.

Whee. But DD was supposed to go around that no? DD gives all cash to devs since they avoid publishers. They do not make any cash though since it goes to publishers! SURE! Actually, ToEE was my example and a way to figure out how beneficial DD would be for a developer that is still dependant on a publisher. The argument that DD benefits developers greatly have, so far, been focused on developers circumventing publishers altogether. I was just trying to get another perspective into it. Actually, in a lot of places in the US, distances can be fairly large. Cities spread out much further from the city core than they do in Europe, at least where I've been. In many places a car is almost mandatory if you're going anywhere (but it being such a large country, this isn't an absolute truth).

That someone would have been me. I guess ToEE was a bad example since it sold so little, I used it because it was a game I knew was sold online at retail price and because it ties somewhat to the topic. Although what I was curious about could still be answered with that example, so let me rephrase the question. I am aware that before Troika would see even a penny, their share of a game's profits would have to exceed the money the publisher had already fronted. Now, when a game is sold through retail, that typically means $3 per game, and a certain percentage gets eaten by distribution costs and the store getting it's due. Now, for those copies of ToEE sold online, that percentage was removed or at least lowered. So does that mean that Troika's share of each game sold (to be counted against the production costs) increased or did they still only get $3 per game? Or in other words, would ToEE have needed to sell less copies before Troika saw any cash if it had sold more through DD? What I'm getting at here is will DD truly benefit developers that much, since they will still be reliant on publishers for funding. A mainstream title will still cost $5-10 million to make and that money still needs to be invested before a single copy is sold.

It works just fine on 1024x768 which is the standard resolution these days. And when I resized to 800x600 it was indeed too big, but there was horizontal scrolling. I dont know how you manged to disable it, but in FF it worked just fine.

According to Sawyer and McCarty $10,- is way too small a thought... they even save that on not having a retailer that sells the game remember... Actually, when coming up with those numbers all I did was removing the production costs and retailers percentage. I did not factor in cutting out publishers since there will still be a need for them. And I didn't factor in distribution costs because I don't know what they are and I don't know how they compare to the costs for online distribution. There are still costs associated with that distribution method, although they should be lower. Regardless, I think my numbers hold up fairly well, but it should say at least in front of the amount. The reasoning behind it is still sound.

I think this post sums up pretty well while I think DD games should be cheaper than their physical counterparts. It's not that I personally particularly care about the CD or manual, but a lot of people do. And reducing costs in such a blatant way without it benefiting the consumer is just bad marketing strategy, especially when you're increasing your margins a lot more than most people realize. If the physical game sells for $50, sell the online one for $45. That way people feel they are being reimbursed for the lack of physical materials and it makes DD a much more viable choice. They are still increasing their profit-margins with something like $10 so it's a win-win situation. Games created directly for DD is another story all together, but if they come from an indie-developer they're probably going to have to have a lower price point since the quality is, in the public eye, more questionable. I am personally all for DD, and not only games but other media as well, and I definitely see it as the future. I just don't think that the developers (and in a lot of cases publishers since someone still needs to fund games) are the only ones that should benefit from increaced profit margins. I don't think they should split the difference, but I do think they need to lower the price since people will complain about the missing physical components. On a different note: You're thinking of it wrong. PDF isn't a text-format, it's more an image-format. It servesa single function and it does it excellently. That function is to provide a way to distribute a document with all layouts intact to any given computer. What you basically do when creating a PDF document is taking a snapshot of the page. Not everyone have Word (it's still an expensive piece of software) and viewing the most graphic intense PDF documents in that program would be much more bothersome. (and yes, I'm aware that openoffice.org is a free program that can open .doc files, but it still doesn't solve the other issue) PDF is way overused on the internet though. If a document is published for offline use, then it's fine to have it as a PDF, but a lot of the time not making it into html is just laziness. When it comes to distributing game manuals however, there currently is no better format (at least not that I know of). Edit: One thing though. When we're talking about games that are sold through a publisher AND through DD. How much more does the developer actually get in those cases? Sure, for HL2 I'm guessing Valve gets a lot more since they financed the game themselves (I think), but did Troika get a significantly higher percentage of the ToEE online sales?

It depends on how many people feel like me. If a large enough percentage does, then it does warrant a price reduction. The thing here is that it's such a blatantly obvious cost reduction that people can't help but be aware of it. Sure, most people may not know (or care) that a lot of middle men are being cut out of the picture, but people will recognize that there is nothing physically produced. What I suspect will happen is a more varied price range. Not every game is created equal and therefor shouldn't be priced as such. A game like Oblivion is (for me) definitely worth $50, while ten hours of Gun should probably have costed less. Similarly, indie productions will probably be cheaper than mainstream productions, the game we're actually discussing here had a $30 price tag associated with it, if memory serves. Actually, what I REALLY think will happen is that when some larger developers will try to push online distribution for real, the price will be somewhat lower just to get people used to the distribution model. Then once physical copies are no longer an issue they will probably creep back up again.

Nor is there a guarantee you'll find a new copy from a company that has gone out of business...

Since my edit probably went unnoticed due to the speed this thread is moving at, here is a (sort of) repost: If you break your IWD CD how do you plan on re-installing that game?

Oh come on, this is not what he meant and you know it. Each game sold makes the company $20 once moving costs are deducted. The only fault here is that server costs aren't exactly a moving cost, unless they pay soly for the bandwidth. He acknowledges in the next part you quoted that a game needs to sell a certain number of copies before turning a profit. It's just easier to do the math if you deduct the moving costs first. And if I don't want to pre-purchase, but would rather wait a few days to read reviews to see if it's actually worth getting at all, do I still get the discount? Isn't this just an attempt to lower server stress once it goes online? Sure, a discount is a discount, but even so this is actually beside the point. Since the discount is an incentive to pre-order, not a reflection of lowered costs for the consumer due to it being downloadable content. Will Episode 1 even have a physical counterpart? I'm neither to lazy to go to the store or just fascinated by my high speed connection. I just prefer digital media over physical for a lot of reasons. Game boxes and cds makes my desk messy and from an evironmental perspective it's also very wasteful. But it's mainly the mess part. But that's just it. I'm not willing to pay the price they want, and apparently neither is HH. Again, if my actions help a developer to make more money, I expect some reward for it as well. If by downloading a game I reduce costs for packaging and distribution, I expect to see my price lowered as well. And this doesn't at all take into account the fact that the game developer may not even be reliant on a publisher that takes a large percentage of the profits which they otherwise would have been. But let's use the numbers McCarthy himself posted. When using a publisher, a developer will get $3 per game sold. If releasing through Steam at the same price they get $50 (remember, Steam is free if you license Source). So through my actions I am making $47 for that developer. I don't see why the developer is the only one who should benefit from this, especially since I don't get a physical copy in my hand (although I prefer digital copies, a physical one does represent money spent on the physical material). I know the argumentation doesn't quite hold up since the Steam model will allow for the creation of games that would otherwise never see the light of day, band a game that caters to my exact interests is of course worth paying more for than other games. And also, the need for a publisher will still exist since someone has to pay for the making of a game and that model assumes the publisher is bypassed entirely. But the core of it remains. Edit: Since he said if his house was swalloved by a volcano... How would a guy with only the physical copy install the game on another PC at all?

Israel, that is considered one of the best trained armies in the world, has compulsory draft for all men and women (alright not ALL, there are exceptions, but most). They seem to be doing fine. Of course, the women only have two years of mandatory conscription where the men has three, but still.

Too expensive? $2 isn't exactly that much. I'll admit that the horse armor mod is pretty crap, but the other two at least seem interesting. I may even get the orrery one myself (not playing enough of amagic user to have much use of the other one).

If it would just work none at all... But certain copy protection and security things can really mess it up (see Oblivion). Also that is from a POV that is timedependant it probably is easier to go to retail. Getting downtown, buying a game and being home in 15 min, install 5 min and you game in 20 min (2 DVD's). See that happen with a internet connection over here... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah, but I'm in Sweden. We have good connections. It'd take me 30 minutes to get to the closest gaming store and back if I'm lucky with public transports and I'd definitely download a game in less than that (again, assuming their upload matches my capacity for downloading). People on crappy DSL-lines aren't exactly the target audience for downloadable games. As for messy copy protections, that can happen with physical copies as well. There are plenty of people that haven't been able to play their physical copies due to copy protection. How does Oblivion's (online protection) work though? Considering they had virtually no protection on the retail version (at least no name protection like Starforce or Securom).

You still didn't answer the question I ask. how is it more work downloading a game than going to a store and buying it? As for the pricing, Dhruin already answered that question in a previous reply to me. Apparently retailers refuse to sell games if a publisher/developer is selling the game cheaper through DD. I'm guessing this is large chains like EBGames or Walmart. Physical sales is still by far the largest percentage so not having your game on the shelves is a bad thing. (remember here that I actually agree with you on the pricing, a DD game should be cheaper than a physical copy). Edit: Also, this company is hardly Troika. It's one guy from Troika starting his own company. maybe a few of the Troika fellows are with him, but I've seen no mention of the more well known ones. He was an artist on ToEE so I don't think he had much to do with the crappy code in that game (nor did he have that much to do with VtM)

I thought the Shadow King was the guy that became all shadowy a few times.

While I agree with most of your post, this I just don't understand. How is it more trouble downloading a game than going down to a store? Granted, my internet connection is good enough that going to a store and back will take longer than just dowloading (at least if the upload server manages to meet my capacity). But even besides that, getting a game without having to leave your home is more trouble how?

Sorry for being a bit unclear. I am aware that a lot of games aren't sold for $50 through DD. But there are those that are and that's what I was reflecting over. I do buy the retail explanation, but I still think it's dumb (but I can udnerstand the retailers position on this). Cool, I didn't know this. I guess I just misinterpreted him then, and looking back on it it was rather clumsy of me . All the better really, one case where I don't mind being wrong.