Dark Messiah Of Might & Magic New Information

[SneaksieDave]

I agree that it could and hopefully will be just "one way of doing things" and won't become "the only way." There should be multiple methods. I just don't want it becoming the only one, or the dominating one. And I especially don't like it when it removes one of my anticipated titles from my must have list - like Dark Messiah. I'd buy Dark Messiah (especially since now it won't have Starforce), if I wasn't forced to use Steam. It's ironic that Steam is supposed to ensure legit sales, but it just lost at least one.

 

It'd also be nice if they stopped the lies. I'm not an expert on Steam facts, but there are sites out there that list the things Valve claimed they'd deliver (just two of which are reduced costs and a list of related Source update freebies) which never came. Blatant lies or unfulfilled promises, makes little difference.

 

A couple of other things mentioned, just for fun:

TV

 

TV used to be free. Paid for by commercials. Then came cable, where we could pay money to have commercial free viewing. Hooray.

 

...but fast forward to today, and for some reason, we're paying for commercials. When did that happen? Did we blink? That's consumers falling right down a slippery slope. And free TV broadcasting, as we all probably know by now, is going away within the next few years, at least in the US. Completely away. That's big. For the first time since TV broadcasting began, you won't be able to turn on a set with rabbit ears and get channels. The FCC is taking its frequencies back and auctioning them off.

 

I wouldn't be surprised - especially with satellite - if radio follows soon, and then you'll all have to pay to listen to radio. It will be accepted, just like TV. We'll be telling our grandchildren - to their disbelief - that there was a time when TV and radio were broadcasted freely. And then there's the internet...

 

The whole thing reminds me a little too much of a lot of publishers' recent push for in-game ads - which game consumers will largely bend over and accept, too - and increases in price to content ratios (ever increasing MMORPG subscription fees, 'episodic content', and full priced games which last 7 hours) - but hey, we keep payin' em, right?! So we must deserve it.

 

and, EA

 

EA has already followed Valve and Steam, with their own digital content delivery system, as you probably know. It's not as invasive as Steam as I understand it, but this is EA we're talking about - it's just a matter of time until they "perfect the method."

 

It's one thing to offer me a different avenue to obtain content. That's great. It's quite another to force it on me, and it's only a matter of time before even more control over your system must be handed over to publishers in order to play with their toys.

[Dram]

Just start up BF2 to see an example "EA GAMES...Challenge everything!" - my ass. Fucken thing takes a year to get past those movies. I got so sick of them i deleted them and no more friggin movies.

 

As for Steam - the only reason I did'nt buy HL2 is because of Steam. I can't stand windows auto updates and I can't stand steam. Both are a pain in the ass except you can diable windopws updates, not steam. I think it says something when most of my friends didnt buy HL2 for the same reason - steam. It fucks with where you have your valve games and it shits me. Ok, so about half of them dont actually buy games, but nonetheless it leaves half which have bought D3, TDS etc etc but not HL2.

 

HL2 is an excellent game but man there is no way id like steam on my sys. Assholes make it run silent on startup too, just so a not-so-computer-experienced user couldnt turn it off. Check your registry and you'll see what i mean.

[Al3xand3r]

Well, I'm sure Steam will gain more sales for DM than it loses.

 

You can disable the auto updates on Steam.

 

And yes I know about EA's service, it's why I said I'd rather support Valve's solution.

 

By the way the last Steam update fixed what I said I didn't like in my last post, the "store view" popping up at first... You can once again set it to pop up the games list as before. Just thought I'd mention it...

 

Also as far as I know Steam lets you disable it from starting on windows startup from within its own settings. I'm not sure if it actually works, perhaps it didn't and I had used a registry editor, I don't remember. But the option's there, if bugged...

 

And for the illiterate consumers Steam is a good thing to be honest, as they now don't have to wonder why their game doesn't work online anymore like every time a patch was released in the past. Now they get it automatically so have no problems... It helps noobs more than you think.

Edited June 1, 2006 by Al3xand3r

[sparhawk]

And free TV broadcasting, as we all probably know by now, is going away within the next few years, at least in the US. Completely away.

 

Not only in the US. In Germany tehre are also plans already. I think they want to do this by 2007 or a bit later. Depends on their contracts. But it's not a question of if anymore it's just a matter of time. They said they will consider a monthly fee of about 3Euro per month. You say this is not much? Right, it is not much. But then again, this is only one company with a limited set of channels. Since the others will also follow, you wont pay 3 Euro for the same number of channels as now, instead you will pay 3-5 Euro for each set of channels belonging to a seperate company. So it will be much more. And then of course, after people get used to pay a little bit, it is clear that the channels have to compete on the market, pay more for better movies, blablabla ... and it will be increased. 5 Euro per month. Still not much right? In the end I'm sure there will be contracts among each other and a 'flatrate' will come so that you can watch all the channels you have now for free, for a 'small fee' 20 Euro would not be to much, after all you can see a lot of channels, right? It's still cheaper then if you pay all of them individually, and of course you don't have to. You could still opt to pay this or that company instead.

 

And commercials? What about them? Well, people are used to have breaks in the middle of a movie, so why stop it now? But you are paying a monthly fee! So what? Movies are so expensive, we have to compete on the market, more markting blablabla, and you must see that this small fee is not enough to cover the costs.

 

And what do we get for it? The same as we get now of course! Why would a 'successfull' program be changed. People want the cheap talkshows, which cost nothing to produce and can be sent all day long. People want all the TV series from the 1950ies and 1960ies and of course they are cheap. They help to keep your monthly fee down. And they are not 'old' they are 'classics' sounds much better, yes?

 

The whole thing reminds me a little too much of a lot of publishers' recent push for in-game ads - which game consumers will largely bend over and accept, too - and increases in price to content ratios (ever increasing MMORPG subscription fees, 'episodic content', and full priced games which last 7 hours) - but hey, we keep payin' em, right?! So we must deserve it.

 

Of course people will accept it. We have to cover the costs somehow and EVERBODY knows that games are expensive to produce. We must recover the costs somehow and you wouldn't want to increase the price, right? Not that Valve comes along and suddenly charges 60 Euro for HL2 while the normal price is 50 Euro. And of course stuff like Steam also helps to keep the prices low. Not that Valve suddenly has to charge 60 Euro for HL2 instead of the usual 50 Euro per (highend) game. Ups! I forgot, Valve DOES charge 60 Euro for the HL2 box. Hmmm ... Forget what I said ... Ah, yeah! But we could charge 80 Euro per box instead of the usual 50 Euros, so you see, it IS cheaper because of Steam, because of ads, because of whatever you choose to believe as long as you don't stop paying the price we charge.

 

Customers have the same power as sheeps. Well, of course sheeps COULD stampede, but the very notion of stampeding sheeps is a bit ridicoulous, right? The analogy fits very well. Theoretically they could, but practically they don't.

 

EA has already followed Valve and Steam, with their own digital content delivery system, as you probably know. It's not as invasive as Steam as I understand it, but this is EA we're talking about - it's just a matter of time until they "perfect the method."

 

AFAIK they also closed down puplic servers, right? You have to pay if you want to play over the internet.

[sparhawk]

Well, I'm sure Steam will gain more sales for DM than it loses.

 

Steam doesn't gain sales. The games gain sales and steam comes as a virus packaged in you can not avoid. Tell me one single user who bought steam because he wanted to have steam.

 

You can disable the auto updates on Steam.

 

HOORAY to Steam! I can disable something I don't even want to have in the first place. Handcuffs are also taken off once you are safely in your cozy little cell.

 

And yes I know about EA's service, it's why I said I'd rather support Valve's solution.

 

pot - kettle - black.

 

By the way the last Steam update fixed what I said I didn't like in my last post, the "store view" popping up at first... You can once again set it to pop up the games list as before. Just thought I'd mention it...

 

HOORAY to Steam! It ficxed a bug that wouldn't be there if you hadn't had to use Steam in the first place.

 

Also as far as I know Steam lets you disable it from starting on windows startup from within its own settings. I'm not sure if it actually works, perhaps it didn't and I had used a registry editor, I don't remember. But the option's there, if bugged...

 

HOORAY to Steam! I can disable it even though I wouldn't want to have it in the first place.

 

And for the illiterate consumers Steam is a good thing to be honest, as they now don't have to wonder why their game doesn't work online anymore like every time a patch was released in the past. Now they get it automatically so have no problems... It helps noobs more than you think.

 

HOORAY to Steam! It helps noobs to stop thinking. It also helps game developers to properly test games and throw them on the market before they are finished. It has a bug? No worries! Steam will fix it. Cute!

 

Do you even think about what you say here? A game developer should deliver a WORKING game. Instead of requiring from the developers to do their homework you just accept that you get shit and you have to fix it later. If you would buy a car where only three wheels are attached would you buy it, if the dealer tells you he will personally bring the missing wheel a week later to your home and attacht it without extra costs? Would you even applaude it and recommend him to your friends, because of his great service? He also helps noobs, because instead of having to attach the wheel yourselve he comes to your home FOR FREE and put

 

And one other point - Why would I want to have Steam and 'help' me if I only want to play single player? I don't want to play counterstrike, so pray tell me what advantages steam offers me, that I couldn't get otherwise?

[Al3xand3r]

There's no need to attack my post just to make a point. All the things you quoted were responses to other people's posts, if they are stupid insignificant points on first place as you seem to think, it's not my fault so don't use them to ridicule my arguments out of nowhere, thanks.

 

 

If you just want SP, well, I can't see any advantages for you, but I can't see any real downsides either. If to you it's not worth it, don't get HL2 then (I imagine you haven't). It's not that great of a game anyway. Well, you could buy Darwinia which is a nice SP game through Steam rather than purchase it online and wait for the box to arrive... Whatever really...

 

 

And I'm pretty sure it's optional for developers too. Darwinia doesn't require Steam just cos it got distributed through it. The UK retail, non-Steam version, still got all the patches the Steam version did and doesn't lack in anything. They didn't suddenly tell people "you know, if you want patches, download Steam!". So bitch on Ubisoft or something. Then again you may instead want to support Arkane Studios, want to support Ubisoft's decision to drop Starforce, or want to enjoy a good game (if DM ends up one, wait for reviews). If you want any of these things I don't think Steam causes you any real harm that will be enough to quit them.

 

By the way, if they want to increase prices, add in-game ads, or whatever else, they don't need anything like Steam to do so, they can do it on any title.... Blaming Steam as the bringer of things that were done before and after (by ppl who don't use it) it is silly.

 

***

 

And whoever said nobody bought Steam because he wanted to have Steam, well, no, Steam itself is free, I have no idea what you're talking about...

 

The way it gains sales for games is that it's a very widespread platform (because of HL2, CS:S, etc) so drops any game that gets on it right in the middle of an established community of immense player numbers that apparently like the products of a certain company and so are bound to check out the new thing presented to them.

 

It has also helped indie devs in the past. Darwinia was only published in the UK. Sure, its developers could sell it online on their site but who the hell would ever hear about it? But, they dropped it in Steam instead and now every gamer knows of it. I don't know its sales but I'm certain they are now more than they were before they did this.

 

Who would have ever heard of Rag Doll Kung Fu either if it wasn't for Steam? So, yeah, this is how Steam can gain sales for games.

 

Once again, I'm only responding to the points of other people, if any of you want to bash anything as stupid/insignificant, go to the original poster, thanks.

Edited June 1, 2006 by Al3xand3r

[sparhawk]

There's no need to attack my post just to make a point. All the things you quoted were responses to other people's posts, if they are stupid insignificant points on first place as you seem to think, it's not my fault so don't use them to ridicule my arguments out of nowhere, thanks.

 

I didn't attack your post, I responded to your arguments. You presented them so of course I will respond to you.

 

If you just want SP, well, I can't see any advantages for you, but I can't see any real downsides either.

 

I can.

 

If to you it's not worth it, don't get HL2 then (I imagine you haven't).

 

Correct. I didn't get it, despite it being a nice game and enjoying to play it.

 

It's not that great of a game anyway. Well, you could buy Darwinia which is a nice SP game through Steam rather than purchase it online and wait for the box to arrive... Whatever really...

 

I prefer to have boxes. Thus I don't need Steam. If Darwinian falls into the category of games that I like and the boxed version comes without Steam I have no problem buying it. If it forces Steam on me, then I wont. If it comes as box and as Steam version I have no problem as long as the box doesn't force me to use it.

 

Who would have ever heard of Rag Doll Kung Fu either if it wasn't for Steam? So, yeah, this is how Steam can gain sales for games.

 

I hear about Rag Doll Kung Fu the first time through your post. No Steam requiered.

 

What I meant thoguh was, that people don't buy Steam to get Steam, just like they don't buy a Mercedes to get the wheels it is sold with.

 

Once again, I'm only responding to the points of other people, if any of you want to bash anything as stupid/insignificant, go to the original poster, thanks.

 

You are the poster of this. If it is stupid, it would be your own stupidity. If you can't take criticism on Steam then you should probably not post it, because not everbody likes it, and there are more arguments than "It helps noobs". Not everybody is a noob and wants to get led by the nose.

[Al3xand3r]

Anyway, since I have to, here's what I meant when I said you attacked my post for no reason.

 

Step 1) Person #1 says you can't disable Steam auto updates

 

Step 2) I respond to him saying that you can in fact do that.

 

Step 3) You come along ridiculing my response with your sarcastic tone.

 

For what purpose? Did I say that Steam rocks or is a good program because it allows that? No, I simply cleared up some misinformation. That's all there was to it so, I still fail to see what kind of point you were trying to make by responding in such idiotic ways. Should I simply let misinformation float around fearing that when I clear some things up you'll come along attacking my posts out of nowhere for no reason and with no real purpose?

 

All I did was respond to someone saying he's wrong about something. So if the subject at hand was in your opinion stupid and deserving of sarcastic remarks then you really should just tell off whoever started it as, once again, all I did was clear up misinformation. That's what I meant. But then again you couldn't tell off someone who shares your hatred for Steam could you? Whatever.

 

Oh. and, I never said it was in fact stupid, I said if YOU think it was then act accordingly.

Edited June 1, 2006 by Al3xand3r

[sparhawk]

Sorry, but since you didn't quote it was not apparent that you were just repsonding and clearing up some missinformation. That's why I usually quote, because then it is clear. When I just looked at your posting, it looks just like yet another Steam fanboy posting, so I was responding in a similar vain.

[Al3xand3r]

Well I couldn't bother quoting every little thing I was responding to. I think it was pretty clear for anyone who actually read the discussion though. And if someone hadn't read it then he shouldn't take part in it in this way.

Edited June 1, 2006 by Al3xand3r

[sparhawk]

Well, if you can't be bothered to properly quote, I also can't be bothered to re-read a full thread everytime before I answer some posting.

[SneaksieDave]

A good point was raised above with the one-by-one television scheming that will come:

 

Right now, players of HL2 and other Steam games run one such service, the service called Steam. For most, it runs all the time. For most, it calls home every time someone starts up a game. For most, it runs ads and has a slight obnoxiousness factor beyond what's already been mentioned. But that's just Steam.

 

So, what happens when every publisher goes this route? Do we all agree to having 10, or 15, always-running direct download/ad/verification clients? All taking resources, all "owning" a piece of our systems, all spamming ads and slowing our startup times, all expecting to get our personal info and use it as they see fit (why else should it be on all the time?), all giving us a limited lease on the software, should the verification servers ever "go away?"

 

And don't think they won't all do it, out of the goodness of their hearts. Steam's worst feature is that it serves as precedent.

[Vadrosaul]

I hate Steam for the fact that I cannot turn it off once I've authenticated with their servers that I have a legal version. I wouldn't need it running anymore until I feel like purchasing another product. What else would I need it for beyond that, running in the background chewing up a little memory I could use?

[SneaksieDave]

Right! Mount & Blade uses authentication with loose hardware binding, once and only once. If it truly is a necessary evil, it should at least be done correctly.

 

For that matter, it also uses Themida protection, which runs a driver only during gameplay which attempts to detect copy or hacking software. When you shut the game down, the driver terminates. Yes, Themida has been cracked, but then so has Starforce. And the former seems to have no ill side effects.

 

Here's hoping TAGES isn't horribly invasive, because since we've unseated Starforce, that's what we've got to deal with now.

[woah]

A game developer should deliver a WORKING game. Instead of requiring from the developers to do their homework you just accept that you get shit and you have to fix it later. If you would buy a car where only three wheels are attached would you buy it, if the dealer tells you he will personally bring the missing wheel a week later to your home and attacht it without extra costs? Would you even applaude it and recommend him to your friends, because of his great service? He also helps noobs, because instead of having to attach the wheel yourselve he comes to your home FOR FREE and put

 

A perfect example of this is Counter-Strike: Source. Funny how a game released in 2003 doesn't get a complete set of models and maps (in other words, become a complete game) until late 2005, early 2006. Yet, even half way through 2006, the game is still riddled with bugs. Never play that game myself, though (I hate it).

 

Steam is simply a money making tool. It was formed to force products in front of all the millions of inelastic Counter-Strike players (Valve's intended host), all who would have faired just fine had they no further knowledge of other games.

 

I'm quite positive Counter-Strike would still be getting content upgrades even today had Steam not been introduced. Valve knew a game that could be obtained freely would not be very profitable on their behalf, even after which they acquired and started selling it for $20 in stores. With a big push from Steam, they could introduce Counter-Strike: Source and Condition Zero. This was a perfect excuse to neglect updating the popular game of Counter-Strike, effectively boring the Counter-Strike players out of their minds with 3 year old content. So where do these players turn once they're dead tired of playing with the same damn weapons, maps, models, and other content in Counter-Strike? Counter-Strike: Condition Zero and Counter-Strike: Source, of course! (you know, those two games Valve incessently spammed Steam-users with at log-in?)

 

Valve is effectively killing the Counter-Strike community so they can reap profits of their own. Had Counter-Strike been given its natural progression of updates, I can assure you the 60,000 statistic of players of which switched to the poor CS substitute known as "Counter-Strike: Source" would be much less. There is no god damn reason to stop updating the content of a game with a consistent in-game population that rarely dips below 120,000 (and this is based on today's statistics--not those lured into CSS and CS:CZ). There were other motives involved.

Edited June 2, 2006 by woah

[Al3xand3r]

If you think those Counter-Strike players wouldn't have rushed to get Counter-Strike: Source without Steam you are wrong. And by the way, at first, the game was essentially free with the purhcase of HL2. Sure they soon started selling it separately but why not? After all, its previous incarnation sold well separately too. Why should they force fans of that game alone to buy HL2 and not provide it as is?

 

As for your other points, you are making it sound like the company is evil because they stopped updating and providing new content for a several years old game. What I think about this is that you instead should be grateful said company provided new content for those years. Does Epic still update UT2003? Does the great id still provide new content for Quake 3 (giving the source away is irrelative to the customer who purchased the game - even the newer Doom 3 is pretty dead to id now)? Does Ubisoft give away content for Raven Shield? No, so why should Valve still do new things for a game as old as Counter-Strike?

 

When you buy a game you buy it for what it is, not because you expect the company to provide new content for it for many years. If it's not worth it to you as is then you shouldn't purchase it on first place.

 

And the same goes for Counter-Strike: Source. If it wasn't worth it to people when it didn't have the new models and maps, then they shouldn't have purchased it. Nobody guaranteed that new content would arrive, the game was sold as is. And yet, Valve did update it and provide new content and still do. The same goes for Day of Defeat: Source.

 

Of course, instead of calling it new content, you call it "providing the complete model selection" as if some law of ethics said they SHOULD provide that. Well, they shouldn't. People knew what's on offer and they bought it for what it was, and yet Valve still keeps providing new content anyway. Do they do it to be nice? Of course not, it'll only bring them more sales by keeping it popular and so on. But it's still to the benefit of the owners and with no extra return required from them.

 

What an evil company they are indeed.

[SneaksieDave]

giving the source away is irrelative to the customer who purchased the game

How can you even say that? I'm trying to think of a comparison of what that's like, but it's not even necessary - it speaks for itself. Getting the source code for a game is pointless if you bought it??? Maybe I misunderstood you?

 

When you buy a game you buy it for what it is, not because you expect the company to provide new content for it for many years.

Maybe that's how it is when you buy a game. I always buy games based on expected benefits, and skip games which lack them. I don't impulse-buy games, I watch them, get to know the buzz around them, learn about the company and their policies if I don't already know them, etc. I also skip purchasing games which put me in a position I choose not to be in. Like being forced to use steam.

 

For a perfect example of all of these policies in action:

1. I've watched Dark Messiah - they have a publisher I'm not terribly comfortable with, could have at one time incorporated copy protection I wouldn't accept, and the question of editing tools is still up in the air. Those things made me unsure. But since it's now all but confirmed that Dark Messiah will be forcing Steam on users (the beta test uses it), it's settled - I won't be buying it.

 

2. Doom3 - I know the developer/publisher, I know the game style and what to expect, I know the editing scene, I know the whole package. It was an easy decision.

 

What an evil company they are indeed.

Amen!

[sparhawk]

As for your other points, you are making it sound like the company is evil because they stopped updating and providing new content for a several years old game.

 

You are making up strawman arguments and trying to beat it to death.

 

When you buy a game you buy it for what it is, not because you expect the company to provide new content for it for many years. If it's not worth it to you as is then you shouldn't purchase it on first place.

 

These two statements don't neccesserily don't follow from each other. I bought games for different purposes. For example, the only reason why I bought FarCry was, because it had an editor included. Since it was built for doing certain graphics very well, I wanted to use it to build my house as a model and use FarCry as an architectural visualization engine. I started to play it, but never played it beyond the first few savepoints because it felt quite boring. So it was worth buying, for me, but this was not the case because it was such a great game.

[Al3xand3r]

We were talking about extra content, and I said that Quake 3 has been dead to id for longer than Counter-Strike has been dead to Valve. And I'm saying that yes, id did recently provide the source code of Quake 3 but to the Quake 3 owner that doesn't quite mean anything in that regard. So I was separating the arguments to avoid someone saying "Quake 3 hasn't been dead to them, they even gave us the source code recently! Love em!" since it is irrelative as far as the official extra content discussion is concerned.

 

As for your FarCry purchase, you should have just looked around for free modeling or 3D sketching tools or something. Sketchup sounds good for the purpose (recently purchased by google, has a free version available).

 

Anyway, if you expect every game to have editing tools and "added benefits" then you are simply spoiled. Sure it's good some companies do that and they usually sell the most too but it doesn't mean anyone who doesn't do it is unethical or evil.

 

Besides, the modding community sticks with 1, 2, 3 or so games at the most and the rest are left in the dust even if they provide tools. So it's not worth doing and for those who do it nothing much comes to the average user in the end either.

 

Savage had editing tools but it got no real modifications released for example. So, maybe the Savage developers gained one or two sales from people like you with the editing tools, but they most likely spent more resources in making them than they gained by those few extra sales.

 

Your ideals, or whatever it is they are, don't quite apply to the real world as a valid reason for every company out there to do those things. Only the lucky few (or lucky one since you only seem to like id) big names benefit from it therefor keep doing it.

 

If you've only bought games based on if they have that or not then you have simply missed having many, many great game experiences. Ignorance is bliss of course so I'm sure you don't mind.

 

Still, modding as we know it is a relatively new-ish trend (yeah, I consider quake and the like new-ish), surely given that you are older you enjoyed games before they provided editors as well (never played Lucas Arts' adventure games?). Why not do the same now?

 

But even if you don't enjoy just gaming nowadays for whatever reason, and you just look for a chance to edit a given game, it doesn't mean the industry should change and cater to your specific needs and that they are evil for as long as they don't do so.

 

Sure the industry is filled with junk but there are many wonderful and worthy games out there as well that shouldn't be overlooked just because they were made as games and not editing platforms or have no "added benefits" on top of the great game experience in and on itself.

 

Just consider that your opinions aren't an unwritten law for a second atleast. Stand by them and be happy with that but don't for one second believe anyone who thinks or does something that doesn't appeal to those is wrong in any way.

 

As for the rest talk about impulse buying, nothing I said indicated I do or advice it, I'll leave it at that as it's a ridiculous argument.

[sparhawk]

So I was separating the arguments to avoid someone saying "Quake 3 hasn't been dead to them, they even gave us the source code recently! Love em!" since it is irrelative as far as the official extra content discussion is concerned.

 

Nobody claimed that and nobody will probably say that because it is a stupid argument. A strawman.

 

As for your FarCry purchase, you should have just looked around for free modeling or 3D sketching tools or something. Sketchup sounds good for the purpose (recently purchased by google, has a free version available).

 

Thanks. Next time I will purchase something I will ask you for permission first.

 

Anyway, if you expect every game to have editing tools and "added benefits" then you are simply spoiled.

 

I can expect whatever I want. That's called free market. I don't have to buy what is offered. Remember?

 

Besides, the modding community sticks with 1, 2, 3 or so games at the most and the rest are left in the dust even if they provide tools. So it's not worth doing and for those who do it nothing much comes to the average user in the end either.

 

I'm really happy that we finally have a user who enlightes us lowly minions with all the wisdom of the world.

 

Savage had editing tools but it got no real modifications released for example. So, maybe the Savage developers gained one or two sales from people like you with the editing tools, but they most likely spent more resources in making them than they gained by those few extra sales.

 

If they did it properly they spent an exactly zero amount of cash to make them available. Which means that each sale, related to editing tools, was an extra win.

 

If you've only bought games based on if they have that or not then you have simply missed having many, many great game experiences. Ignorance is bliss of course so I'm sure you don't mind.

 

Whatever you say.

 

it doesn't mean the industry should change and cater to your specific needs

 

Why not? I AM a customer. Again that's called free market.

[Al3xand3r]

You don't have to buy what if offered, but you also don't have to believe that everyone who doesn't offer exactly what you want is the spawn of the devil. Feel free to only buy games as you see fit (duh) but your opinions aren't greater than those of others as to believe that certain companies are crap simply because they don't all cater to your specific needs. That's why there are different companies, so that each one provides different things for different people, not because some are holy and some are evil.

 

Anyway, just realised the whole added benefits argument was irrelative since you simply jumped out of nowhere and took what I said in response to woah in a completely different direction.

 

My initial mention on the subject was that Counter-Strike: Source was offered as it was to people and they purchased it without promises of extra content, and yet Valve still started providing that later on. The user I was responding to said that the game didn't get a "complete set of models and maps" until much later.

 

Which in my opinion is wrong to say as the game was sold as is, considered complete. Anything Valve has promised after that, new models, maps, and so on, they have delivered upon, even though they didn't have to on first place. Also, they didn't promise all that initially to entice people into buying the game, they only promised things as they developed them and then they provided them sometime later when they were completed. I see nothing wrong or unbeneficial to the customer about that.

 

Valve have done other things in the past that show they aren't driven by pure greed as certain people here try to make it appear.

 

For example, after they aquired Counter-Strike, they could have easily told people that from now on they should purchase the game/add-on if they want to benefit from subsequent patches. However, all they did was provide a stand-alone version of the game to the market which did not require Half-Life to run.

 

People who had Half-Life before were still able to get all the latest patches and content for Counter-Strike as if Valve never really got in the middle of it at all. Except they did, and supported the game well. The same thing happened to Day of Defeat.

 

And instead of realising such things, people say Valve did wrong because they now have stopped providing new content for such an old game.

 

Valve also provided TFC for Half-Life for free. And Deathmatch Classic. And Ricochet. And they also gave the multiplayer part of Opposing Force (the HL1 expansion) for free later on. And when they eventually introduced Steam, they gave the two expansion packs, Opposing Force and Blueshift, for free to people who only activated their Steam account with just the HL1 cd key. And they didn't even make a big deal out of it, I didn't see any announcement regarding that, I simply saw that I could dowload and play those (well, atleast OpForce, Blueshift was added later) as soon as I activated my Half-Life copy.

 

For Half-Life 2, the inclusion of CS:S was a surprise they revealed close to release. And then they provided Half-Life 2: Deathmatch. And later on new maps for it. And then added CS:S content. Maps, models, HDR enabled maps, who knows what's next. And HL2: Lost Coast. And for DoD: S buyers they added and keep adding new DoD: S content. An all new game mode and more maps are on the way according to their last news update.

 

I'd say that's more than decent support for games they could have left on their original state. After all they just charged $20 for them, which these days gets you crappy low-budget games as far as new releases are concerned. And in the case of CS:S they basically gave it for free with Half-Life 2 anyway, just like the original CS was provided for HL1 as a custom mod in its early days.

 

Also, the numbers woah provides in the end should show him that the game he whines does not get updated anymore, is not popular because of updates (it hasn't received any in some time, other than some hl1 engine bug fixes which nobody knew existed) but because of what it offers as a game. They play it because they have fun. And hell, can't a game just be complete, ever? A company has to provide new stuff all the time just because their game is good and people like to play it so keep it popular?

 

Anyone who moves to CS: S does it because he wants the new graphics most likely, not because Valve stopped providing new content for the original since CS:S still offers less content than that. Given that, moving to it for that reason would be quite silly don't you think? They could atleast wait until it has more content before moving over. If it ever does have more content of course, Valve has made no promises on that.

 

But more than that, when did Valve promise to CS players that they would get new content years after the release? What company actually does that even? Does blizzard offer new Starcraft content these days? Does Id offer new Quake 3 or even Doom 3 content? Do you think Epic will release any more UT2004 content after their last "MegaPack"? Exactly what standard do you want Valve to keep and you are angry they don't do so?

 

And once again, this is all in response to woah, I'm not making "strawman arguments" sparhawk, I'd say especially the bolds and the words "god damn" show clearly that he means to say all that as a negative for the company and not that he's simply discussing a matter casually or anything. And so I'm responding to that. If you think I'm making strawman arguments then just stay out of it and don't jump in taking things I say as a response to specific arguments in very different directions.

 

And Sneaksie, I wouldn't expect much more than a map editor for Dark Messiah. Once again, not every game has to provide mod support to be considered good. But hey, atleast you just say you aren't buying it so that's just fine. You don't say the company is bad for not providing that, or other things, like others do. So, congrats for your logic!

Edited June 19, 2006 by Al3xand3r

[sparhawk]

Yes, it is definitely a surprise, when a game company includes it's major cash cow into the next release to entice people buying the new version as well, and at the same time shutting down the old one. LOL

[SneaksieDave]

Anyway, if you expect every game to have editing tools and "added benefits" then you are simply spoiled.

The way I figure it is, standards increase for all products over time. If we are spoiled and want more for a product, they will have to deliver if they want our money. Hey, they're being slightly spoiled by assuming they can get away with some of the stuff they push on us (as one example, in-game adverts - expected to hit into the hundreds of million$ in profits within a couple of years). So it's give and take. And we sure better TAKE as much as we can, or we're not doing our part in the 'healthy' balance. And then, we wind up with the shitty state of mass production in the US - everything that was once metal is now plastic; everything that was once sturdy and lasted forever is now shoddy and disposable, etc. We as consumers have to demand the best, because companies are certainly not in business to give us the best products - they're in business to give us the least product we'll accept, so they can maximize profit.

 

Besides, the modding community sticks with 1, 2, 3 or so games at the most and the rest are left in the dust even if they provide tools. So it's not worth doing and for those who do it nothing much comes to the average user in the end either.

*cough* Thief?

 

If you've only bought games based on if they have that or not then you have simply missed having many, many great game experiences. Ignorance is bliss of course so I'm sure you don't mind.

Nah, like I said above, I don't run around blind - I do my research, and act on it.

 

Once again, not every game has to provide mod support to be considered good.

Indeed, hell no! One of my favorite games - made by the same guys - is Arx Fatalis. And it has no editing tools, unfortunately. And it's one of the reasons I'm as mad as I am about Steam's inclusion. If Valve wants to take HL2 out of playability for me, I could care less. I tried it for about 30 mins on my brother's PC and ... it's just more HL1. Been there, no big loss. But for Steam to take Dark Messiah away from me? That boils my knickers.

 

It's funny, I'm not pushing the idea that a company which offers some perceived lacking support on their game is necessarily evil........ just that Valve is... for steeeeaaaaammmmmmm!

 

Disclaimer: if I haven't already said (too lazy to scan all my own posts), steam could work if it was done better. For the definition of "better" see any of many boycott/reform steam sites.

[sparhawk]

I hate Arx Fatalis. I like the game, but I bought it and it never worked, because it constantly crashes. I liked it despite the fixed control set on the mouse, but the constant crashes did it for me. I would love to play if it worked, but after three or four patches I gave up.

[SneaksieDave]

Ack! Noooooooo!

 

Three or four patches?? I thought I remembered only installing one, and that one handled 99% of crashes (for example, after I patched, I never crashed again, all the way to the end of the game). Damn, that sucks, because I imagine you'd probably quite enjoy Arx - some very cool complexity in it.

 

I *love* the magic gestures and plan to play through again as a full mage (beyond wielding the bone at the beginning).