nocoolnamejim

True, I doubt that Obsidian changes course on this decision. They're likely under contract with Epic now and CAN'T change course. But that doesn't and shouldn't mean that people who don't like the decision shouldn't be able to make their opinions known right? Maybe if the backlash is large enough it will make Obsidian rethink their release policies for future titles? And, really, aside from giving their feedback here, over Twitter, etc. and stating their intention not to buy the game as a result, that's about all regular gamers CAN do to provide feedback about their dissatisfaction to Obsidian. I have a hard time blaming concerned customers expressing their disappointment via the only means available. I feel the feedback will be received a bit better if it's phrased a bit more politely than Whiting originally did, but allowances should be made for emotional customers to be a bit upset. I admit I share that emotion to some extent. The Outer Worlds looks amazing and I'm a huge fan of the original pre-Bethesda Fallout games (Fallout 1 and Fallout 2). I couldn't wait to play it! So I was very excited about this and admit to being disappointed like some others are.

Sadly, at this point we're into areas that exceed my ability to comment on. I'm no expert on these matters. I can only read what is being reported via the gaming press and prominent Youtubers, which has expressed concerns with the Epic Store's privacy and collection and usage of customer data, things I don't ever see being reported on platforms like Steam or GOG. The wife is a bit more educated on these things than I am. I'll ask her to look at your list when she gets home tonight. Thanks for the discussion.

And why do you think anyone cares ? Man, maybe there is something to gamers being utter babies. Companies should care about the inputs from their customers. This game was originally announced as being released on Steam, a platform that has broad support and trust among gamers. It's now being announced as exclusive to a different platform that some people do not like or trust. If it had been announced as being released on Epic IN ADDITION TO also being on Steam, then I doubt people would be complaining. They'd have the choice of what platform to buy the game on. Obsidian could even provide incentives to go with a platform of their preference in the form of a couple of minor in-game goodies or a slightly better price. That would be consumer friendly. It being made exclusive to the Epic or Microsoft Store is clearly a move that benefits the company but not the company's customers because it restricts choice. Gamers who dislike that aren't being babies. They're expressing a valid grievance.

I won't argue that their consumer practices on the gaming side have been (much) better lately, but it isn't just on the gaming side that Microsoft has a recent history of trying to force some VERY shady stuff on consumers. They haven't been shy about trying to use their market strength to their own benefit and not end customers over the decades. I do think they're doing a lot better on gaming practices lately, but given their history I don't think they can be held up as a "safe" publisher.

How do you feel about GOG.com exclusives? I'm actually okay with GOG exclusivity since GOG is a secure platform, unlike the Epic Store which is a spyware for the Chinese Uh, that's not true? Which part? The part about GoG being secure or the part about the Epic store being spyware? https://www.gameinformer.com/2019/03/16/valve-to-investigate-epic-game-stores-use-of-steam-files I have not seen any sort of evidence that the Epic store spies for the Chinese government specifically, but it's had more than it's share of privacy concerns over the last few months. As far as I know the spyware accusation is based exclusively on the import friends from Steam feature, and it is baseless. The bit about China is just silly. Take a look at the article I linked. It's doing more than just importing friends lists with permission. Epic itself has acknowledged this, but claims it was a mistake and not intentional. From another article... https://www.tomshardware.com/news/epic-games-responds-store-privacy,38835.html "Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney eventually chimed in to explain that "the current implementation is the result of a system that was built quickly and then rapidly modified before launch." (This makes it seem like he's talking about the Epic Games Store launch; in another comment, he said he's talking about Fortnite.) "It's a klunky method that we'll fix," Sweeney said. He also explained that Epic didn't just use the Steam API because "we avoid including third-party code in our engine wherever possible, as it often brings its own privacy, security, and licensing complications (though Valve has a fine reputation)." In another comment, Sweeney cited a report about iOS apps sending private data to Facebook to explain "the general concern of APIs collecting more data than expected." He also said: "You guys are right that we ought to only access the localconfig.vdf file after the user chooses to import Steam friends. The current implementation is a remnant left over from our rush to implement social features in the early days of Fortnite. It's actually my fault for pushing the launcher team to support it super quickly and then identifying that we had to change it. Since this issue came to the forefront, we're going to fix it.""

How do you feel about GOG.com exclusives? I'm actually okay with GOG exclusivity since GOG is a secure platform, unlike the Epic Store which is a spyware for the Chinese Uh, that's not true? Which part? The part about GoG being secure or the part about the Epic store being spyware? https://www.gameinformer.com/2019/03/16/valve-to-investigate-epic-game-stores-use-of-steam-files I have not seen any sort of evidence that the Epic store spies for the Chinese government specifically, but it's had more than it's share of privacy concerns over the last few months.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Sifting through the so called "garbage" is optional. You don't have to do that. Exactly. Steam needs to do a better job in some areas. It's got a ton of garbage due to not doing enough to filter what gets published. It's customer support is somewhat garbage. But it's not exactly hard to find any game that you want if it's on the platform. Enter the name of the game in Search and boom, done.

OTOH, ESPN tried to have both ESPN Insider and ESPN+, people started cancelling their subscription en masse, and ESPN cancelled that policy and merged the two back into one.

Maybe they should choose their partners better and actually communicate with them regarding decisions also affecting them. Thats one upside with Microsoft. Its set for the future. You've got a lot more confidence in Microsoft than I do. They've cancelled a number of games over the last few years and were one of the leaders in trying to force anti-consumer features onto gamers during the XB1 launch. Some of us have not forgotten their history.

I am strongly leaning towards no longer buying. This is some of the worst possible news I could have heard for this game.

Which still comes down to a decision by the developer. Publishers have known reputations. Developers know who they are getting into bed with on the outset.

I will also note that I'm dusting off my account to come in and express my disappointment. It is worth noting that The Outer Worlds was originally announced as coming to Steam and so this is a bait and switch. I do understand the financial incentives to use the Epic Store right now from a developer's point of view, but from a consumer's point of view it is an outright inferior platform to Steam for many of the reasons that the topic creator already listed. It's quite obvious that this was not done with the end customer in mind, but given that Obsidian sold itself to Microsoft, itself not known for handling it's developers or IPs well...let alone being very customer friendly (some of us have NOT forgotten the original Xbox One launch), this would appear to be becoming a trend for Obsidian. I am absolutely in no hurry to decide on if this will bother me to the point of deciding not to purchase or not, but trying to force PC players to decide on which platform they will play the game on is a scummy thing to do. If Obsidian had decided to simultaneously release on Steam, GoG and Epic and let players choose, then that would be one thing. Heck, you could even make the game less pricey on the Epic Store in return for their taking a smaller cut of the revenue and given your customers an INCENTIVE to go that route and that would have been fine. But it is ironic that a game that is marketing itself as being all about player choice in-game is going out of it's way to restrict the choice of their players out of game.

The one thing that I could REALLY do without is that "spunky prodigy" type companion character. Its those characters that are pretty much just kids but are somehow absolutely awesome at what they do and therefore indispinsable and have sassy, bubbly personalities.

Errr.... given that the first is a bad writing problem, the second I hadn't even noticed as an issue, the third a structural choice rather than ommission and the fourth some weird art direction splurge, I fail to see how otherwise engaged level designers and programmers could have caused them? The ME trilogy hadn't exactly suffered from an abundance of bad writing prior to introducing MP. Yes, I know correlation does not imply causation, but it's hardly the only game where, once MP was introduced, the quality in other areas suffers. Writing the plot, like EVERYTHING ELSE in a game is a function of resource allocation. Say the budget for a game is $100 just to make up a number. Now say that you have to add in MP and Kinect into that game, still have the same timeline, and the same budget. Maybe that means that the budget to deliver the original stuff planned for is $80 instead of $100. Money is a fungible resource. Opportunity Cost with regards to economics. Put another way, the more you try and do, the less likely to do EVERYTHING well. Bad writing is more likely to happen the more features you try and add into a game. Since MP is a feature I don't like and won't use, adding it in makes it more likely that the features I DO like and use won't be as good. A functioning journal system UPDATES. Mass Effect 3's did not. You got quests just by randomly walking by people talking about things. You could find things, but the journal wouldn't update you with a reminder of where that thing was supposed to be delivered to. Basically, you got a journal entry when a quest was assigned, BUT NOTHING ELSE. The third being a structural choice is, again, a issue with resource allocation. You have a limited budget to use when creating a game. You can spend it in certain places and in certain ways. For me, interesting an fun sidequests are MANDATORY for a truly great RPG. Those that don't have it don't meet the criteria to me. Things like coop are not mandatory for a good RPG. The fourth item was the fact that the designers and programmers didn't actually MAKE Tali's face. They looked around on the Internet, found a stock photo, and then photoshopped it a bit. It would be like using the picture that came with a frame you bought at the department store. Tali was a character that a great many people were looking forward to getting a true romance scene with and they totally mailed that in. Which brings me back to my assertion that certain elements show poorly decided upon priorities for games. When you're skimping on areas like good writing, side quests and character development to put in motion control and multiplayer you're skimping on the things that truly make an RPG great.

I ABSOLUTELY don't think you should have to play a game through twice to get access to all the branching/story arcs. When I think New Game+, I think simply being able to play through the game a second time starting from a much more powerful state. Something like Veteran mode from Alpha Protocol.

To each their own I guess.... Though I really do recommend you at least try out some IE co-op at least once, makes for a whole new experience of playing the same great games. The Icewind Dales are probably the best choice as you dont have to worry about player choices. Unlikely to do so as it just doesn't interest me in general. I view excessive requirements to have other players to game with as an encroaching plague on the industry. I absolutely abhore the influence of how extensive and omnipresent multiplayer has become. Do you think EA might have managed to actually finish the Mass Effect 3 endings, have an actually functioning journal system, any interesting side quests, and not butchered the Tali face reveal if they had spent the resources used to add Kinect/MP support to Mass Effect 3 on those other things instead? From my perspective, MP in games is simply my being forced to pay for a mode that I'll never use and is likely to make the mode I WILL use shorter and worse.

They could probably do it either way without much difference in the level of coding effort. Don't think that it takes that much coding time to put something in place that allows you to start with everything you had when you beat the game the first time. (Though I'm no expert.) In other words, the extra coding time is probably far more significant for additional story arcs than it is for a New Game+ mode.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt I'd be less excited. I'd regret my donation level were it to occur.

Examples of unlikeable characters tend to be everywhere in JRPGs. Vanille. Rikku Just to name two.

It actually isn't. Arguing about whether or not the developers have already decided on the matter would be pointless. Arguing (or, in this case, discussing) multiplayer and its effects when implemented in cRPGs (such as P:E) is actually quite non-pointless. Also, developers possess the incredible ability to change their minds due to various factors, so the possibility of multiplayer still making its way into P:E in some form isn't entirely gone, especially if it's a decision due to resource limitations and time constraints. For what it's worth... I agree with this, which is one of the biggest reasons that I mentioned the feature to begin with. I'll be very upset if it gets added in. I don't buy the whole "MP is optional" argument. Like a lot of primarily single player gamers, adding this will make me MUCH less excited about this game. My experience is that MP is tacked on or shoved into games that don't need it and don't benefit from it often these days at the behest of publishers who don't understand the schisms between SP and MP gamer archetypes.

In general, I agree with the basic point that greater story branching = better. New Game+ isn't a BAD feature. It's fun to be able to just plow through the bad guys when all you want is to experience the story a second time. But experiencing additional ways the story can end is a superior feature in my mind. I do understand how branching story arcs are a greater coding challenge though.

The first thing that came to my mind as I read through this post was the game Persona 4. Without getting into the area of spoilers, it's one of my favorite JRPGs of all time. Strong characters, fascinating and creative story, and multiple endings where you have one "optimum" ending and a couple of other lesser ones. Ironically, it's a game that has BOTH of the things you describe. It has a "New Game+" mode where you keep all of your stuff and go through the story again, but it does have the sort of layered ending structure that you're talking about as well.

New account and therefore only have four more confirmed posts for the day so I can only continue the discussion for so long but... I would disagree that the single player experience is exactly the same with friends as without. There ARE games that I enjoy playing with other people. There are activities that I enjoy playing with other people. It's kind of hard to play poker by yourself for example, or basketball. Both among my favorite things to do with others. But would you say watching a movie or reading a book with other people is the same thing as doing those things solo? Or are you less immersed in the story, distracted from the narrative, etc.? There's a reason why talking is frowned upon in movie theaters. To clarrify myself here, I love playing IE games both solo AND co-op. I've completed both Icewind Dales and Baldur's Gate 2 solo and then gone back later to play them through with various friends, and then back again to solo and so on. As these, and by extension, Project: Eternity are squad based tactical combat games they lend themselves quite naturally to co-operative multiplayer. There is no extra game content for multiplayer, it is exactly the same story and mechanics and areas as the single player, but it adds a whole different dimension when you have to call out to your friend over chat to get them to deal with that wizard whose summoning at you or when you manage to sneak attack that big warrior who is about to kill your friends character. Sure, it does generally adversely effect how you intake the story, but, the tradeoff is a whole new way of playing the same game where you have to rely on someone else to have your back. Exact same content, but very different experience. I can definitely see how this sort of gameplay would lend itself to playing with friends. (Heck, I remember way back in the day playing Secret of Mana coop) But in all honesty, my perceptions on this are heavily colored by the fact that building in the coop/mp component to begin with generally leads to shorter, less polished SP. Sure, you can play that same content alone or with friends or both ways, but resources are finite and most of the time I've seen these mods pushed into games that don't necessarily need them, it sure seems like those games have suffered relative to predecessors. With Obsidian having something of a history of...not fully polished (sorry Obsidian team, still love you guys)...offerings, it's just something that I don't want them to try and bite off. I'd prefer that ALL available resources be devoted towards maximizing the SP.

What that means is your first 5 posts have to be approved by a moderator to ensure you are not a bot. After those five approvals you may post freely and there is no limit to the amount of daily posts. Thank you. I realized that after I finished that last approved post but I appreciate the clarification nevertheless.

New account and therefore only have four more confirmed posts for the day so I can only continue the discussion for so long but... I would disagree that the single player experience is exactly the same with friends as without. There ARE games that I enjoy playing with other people. There are activities that I enjoy playing with other people. It's kind of hard to play poker by yourself for example, or basketball. Both among my favorite things to do with others. But would you say watching a movie or reading a book with other people is the same thing as doing those things solo? Or are you less immersed in the story, distracted from the narrative, etc.? There's a reason why talking is frowned upon in movie theaters. My HOPE is that Project Eternity has the same feel as a game like Planescape: Torment, which I would have enjoyed far less if people were talking to me while I was trying to play it. MP can make surprise appearances at times, and as this is the place to show opinions to developers, I wanted to get my objections to it on the record. @jivex5k I'd agree with all of those things except MAYBE randomized loot. I'd prefer to have a mix of random and unrandom loot. Some things being in fixed locations and chests regardless, but other things being a bit more random.