173 réponses à ce sujet

[Lyssistr]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Vulee94 wrote...
Marxists like RPG's too...

Then they should be using their keen economic minds to explain DLC using the labor theory of value!

DLCs, where there is only one distribution channel, owned by the DLC producer and price is fixed by the only distributor instead of being determined through free market mechanics is the most marxist thing in today's gaming.

[Mustikos]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Mustikos wrote...

Are you responding to me?  I was saying
thats how people probalby see it, I was responding to that guy who asked
why people can put up with CD-red when they  have bugs etc, but not
when bioware EA does. I was being sarcrastic in the "big evil corpation
vs Underdog"  in that thats probably how some people see it.  I said I
support indie compaines which I do, but I also buy EA games. So how am I
marxist?  DA2 and W2 are on the top of my list of games I want to get
next year.

Plus I hate sports.

Your post was the catalyst but it was more of a general statement.

That being said, if you hate sports that's fine. But rooting for developers, consoles, or other such stuff is nonsense. There is no league where Bioware is scheduled to play a home-and-home series with CD Projekt with the winner going on to play Valve in the final. They make games and we buy them or we don't. That's all there is to it.

No I agree with you, I don't "root" for any group. I pretty much buy from who ever I like as well, heck I probably have more EA games then anything.  The main reason I even posted was because I was seeing what I felt to be a false accustion against the witcher. Everybody likes different things which seems to blow peoples minds on the interent "he dosen't think or act like me?! DIE!"

Though to be honest, even though I dont like sports, I love to see bioware have a game against CD project, etc. Great way to promote your game, plus the fanboy fights in the stadiums would be legendary.

Modifié par Mustikos, 10 novembre 2010 - 11:51 .

[AtreiyaN7]

Milana_Saros wrote...

MIke_18 wrote...

Looks like someone doesn't know **** about GW2.

Indeed...personalized story info and other cool stuff is right there on their web page Not to mention how GW1 campaigns already had their own stories.

Still, it's on my MMO list, not on my fantasy RPG list. Like, now I play WoW cos there's nothing else but I have played Oblivion and Fallout: New Vegas on the side cos' the experience is totally different. I don't count them as the same.

Eventually GW2 will replace WoW for me but I will still play: Dragon Age 2 and Diablo 3, eventually Mass Effect 3. Oh and Witcher 2. And yes, I will buy them all.

I don't get why anyone would list 10+ games they're going to buy and then whine how they aren't interest in DA2. Just don't buy it then, what do you expect Bioware to do? Give out DA2 for free? The main reason I only go for well know, guaranteed quality titles is the fact that I simply don't have hundreds of spare euros to spend on games that could be complete and utter crap. And if you REALLY want to spend the money on all those 10+ games then do so. It's YOUR choice.

I cited GW2 because it's an MMO and not a single-player game, just like Tera is an MMO and not a single-player RPG either. The OP has railed against DA2 for some of the very things present in both of those upcoming  MMOs (anime-like/Asian visuals, "action," etc.), so I cited them as examples and called him on his questionable choices, and that includes Deus Ex: Human Revolution for previously stated reasons. it was hardly a slam against the GW series.

There have certainly been grand claims about the persistent world and story in GW2 - good luck to that game's devs in pulling it off. All I said later on  (basically) was that historically MMOs have been less than succesful in the story department, and I maintain that so far, they haven't exactly pulled off any really great story arcs in which your character affects a persistent gameworld in a lasting, major and permanent way - not like you can in a single-player game.

I think it's fairly unlikely that the average DA:O player here would be happy doing the equivalent of whacking the Lich King every week like a loot pinata and the other ICC bosses over and over again when, in terms of story, you should have hypothetically changed the world by slaying the Lich King. Instead, you just kill him over and over again every week (thank God my guild's on vacation, I just do not want to do ICC anymore - bleah  ).

EDIT: And yes, I did say that I haven't been impressed by GW2 thus far earlier, and well, I haven't been. That's not a slam either, it's just how I feel about what I've seen thus far - maybe I'll see more stuff that will wow me later on. Still way too early to form an actual opinion about GW2 itself.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 10 novembre 2010 - 11:57 .

[Ex_Everest]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ex_Everest wrote...
Nobody give this guy any power.

How is my relative influence relevant?  Developers make games.  I buy them or I don't.  There really isn't anything else to it, nor should there be.

I wouldn't be so sure to sign off on whether there should be something, or shouldn't, not unless you have a degree in philosophy and economics (...and even then), but I think I see what you meant now-I understood 'everything else is nonsense' as, 'all games that I don't like are nonsense'. I think you meant to say that that's the only part of the transaction that matters, correct? If so, disregard the former reply.

Modifié par Ex_Everest, 10 novembre 2010 - 11:55 .

[upsettingshorts]

Ex_Everest wrote...
I wouldn't be so sure to sign off on whether there should be something, or shouldn't, not unless you have a degree in philosophy and economics (...and even then), but I think I see what you meant now-I understood 'everything else is nonsense' as, all games that I don't like are nonsense. I think you meant to say that that's the only part of the transaction that matters, correct? If so, disregard the former reply.

Yeah, that's basically what I was saying.

[Ex_Everest]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ex_Everest wrote...
I wouldn't be so sure to sign off on whether there should be something, or shouldn't, not unless you have a degree in philosophy and economics (...and even then), but I think I see what you meant now-I understood 'everything else is nonsense' as, all games that I don't like are nonsense. I think you meant to say that that's the only part of the transaction that matters, correct? If so, disregard the former reply.

Yeah, that's basically what I was saying.

Well, excellent. Now we have an understanding.

[Ex_Everest]

Lyssistr wrote...
DLCs, where there is only one distribution channel, owned by the DLC producer and price is fixed by the only distributor instead of being determined through free market mechanics is the most marxist thing in today's gaming.

Au contraire, as far as I understand socialism, what you're describing is the perfect capitalist scenario (where we're all supposedly destined to end up at some point, or other). A perfect monopoly where the recipients of a product cannot elect representatives to represent their interest within the industry, the only way of voting being through purchasing, or a lack of the latter.

Modifié par Ex_Everest, 10 novembre 2010 - 12:06 .

[Lyssistr]

Ex_Everest wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...
DLCs, where there is only one distribution channel, owned by the DLC producer and price is fixed by the only distributor instead of being determined through free market mechanics is the most marxist thing in today's gaming.

Au contraire, as far as I understand socialism, what you're describing is the perfect capitalist scenario (where we're all supposedly destined to end up at some point, or other). A perfect monopoly where the recipients of a product cannot elect representatives to represent their interest within the industry, the only way of voting being through purchasing, or a lack of the latter.

it's quite of topic but capitalism per se can mean many things to different people, today people mostly refer to free markets capitalism as "capitalism" for short. DLCs don't have that, there's no free market. E.g. DA:O's DVDs where sold by *retail sellers*, competing with each other and the price, at the end of the day is set *by the market*. DLC is sold only by Bioware/EA. Anyhow this is a long discussion, I think I'm clear in what I'm trying to say.

[upsettingshorts]

I am extremely skeptical regarding almost anyone who claims to understand Marxism.  To say that nine times out of ten, people who claim to are just talking about whatever their idea of Marxism is would be a staggering understatement.  I'm the furthest thing from an expert myself, I just know where I'd have to start reading if I actually wanted to know. 

Lyssistr wrote...
it's quite of topic

This thread's topic is to be mod bait.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 novembre 2010 - 12:14 .

[Ex_Everest]

Lyssistr wrote...
it's quite of topic but capitalism per se can mean many things to different people, today people mostly refer to free markets capitalism as "capitalism" for short. DLCs don't have that, there's no free market. E.g. DA:O's DVDs where sold by *retail sellers*, competing with each other and the price, at the end of the day is set *by the market*. DLC is sold only by Bioware/EA. Anyhow this is a long discussion, I think I'm clear in what I'm trying to say.

Ah, who cares at this point, as soon as the moderators wake up they'll lock the thread anyways, go nuts

[Nefario]

Lyssistr wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Vulee94 wrote...
Marxists like RPG's too...

Then they should be using their keen economic minds to explain DLC using the labor theory of value!

DLCs, where there is only one distribution channel, owned by the DLC producer and price is fixed by the only distributor instead of being determined through free market mechanics is the most marxist thing in today's gaming.

If that's the most Marxist thing in today's gaming, then it must be because there's not much Marxism in gaming today. Because that is not Marxist at all.

[Ex_Everest]

Nefario wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Vulee94 wrote...
Marxists like RPG's too...

Then they should be using their keen economic minds to explain DLC using the labor theory of value!

DLCs, where there is only one distribution channel, owned by the DLC producer and price is fixed by the only distributor instead of being determined through free market mechanics is the most marxist thing in today's gaming.

If that's the most Marxist thing in today's gaming, then it must be because there's not much Marxism in gaming today. Because that is not Marxist at all.

I don't think Marxism can be relative...it either is, or isn't, no?

[Luigitornado]

...How mature of you.



And how does this have anything to do with Dragon Age 2?

[Ex_Everest]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I am extremely skeptical regarding almost anyone who claims to understand Marxism.  To say that nine times out of ten, people who claim to are just talking about whatever their idea of Marxism is would be a staggering understatement.  I'm the furthest thing from an expert myself, I just know where I'd have to start reading if I actually wanted to know. 

Good point. Ever since the McCarthy witchhunts the stigma associated with the school of thought disencouraged many from understanding even the basic principles. Or that's my take on it anyhow.

Modifié par Ex_Everest, 10 novembre 2010 - 12:18 .

[Nefario]

Ex_Everest wrote...

Nefario wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Vulee94 wrote...
Marxists like RPG's too...

Then they should be using their keen economic minds to explain DLC using the labor theory of value!

DLCs, where there is only one distribution channel, owned by the DLC producer and price is fixed by the only distributor instead of being determined through free market mechanics is the most marxist thing in today's gaming.

If that's the most Marxist thing in today's gaming, then it must be because there's not much Marxism in gaming today. Because that is not Marxist at all.

I don't think Marxism can be relative...it either is, or isn't, no?

No... I'd say a state of affairs can be more or less in line with Marx's theory. For instance Leninism is an adulterated form of Marxism (less Marxist than Marxism), but is still more Marxist than, say, Stalinism.

[Nefario]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I am extremely skeptical regarding almost anyone who claims to understand Marxism.  To say that nine times out of ten, people who claim to are just talking about whatever their idea of Marxism is would be a staggering understatement.  I'm the furthest thing from an expert myself, I just know where I'd have to start reading if I actually wanted to know. 

I should acknowledge that I don't pretend to fully understand Marxism. I actually had a professor admit that he still had no idea what, exactly, commodity fetishism is.
But I've got a rough idea.

Wow... This thread must end.

[Ex_Everest]

Nefario wrote...
No... I'd say a state of affairs can be more or less in line with Marx's theory. For instance Leninism is an adulterated form of Marxism (less Marxist than Marxism), but is still more Marxist than, say, Stalinism.

Fair enough; but if it's not in line at all, as the case might be in certain capitalist systems, then the comparison doesn't really apply, no?

Nefario wrote...

Wow... This thread must end.

It ended before it even begun.

Modifié par Ex_Everest, 10 novembre 2010 - 12:27 .

[FedericoV]

Mustikos wrote...

I kinda figure you where mocking them. Lots of games have issue at the start and nothing really bothered me and it did you, the only diffence here is realy a matter of opinion and what each judges the value of what they have.

Well im cerntaily not one of those people who are upset with bioware, sure there a few things I am kinda of "Iffy" about but I am stil waiting on some of the facts to be shown.  In fact this is really the first time I have even posted on the DA2 forums.

As far as people defending CD-Red. Smaller companies are usally just cut more slack then a bigger company, basicly people can see it as  "big evil copration vs smaller indie company". I support indie companys like ironclad,stardocks, etc because they generaly make games that are more "core" in some ascpets. Well core might be the wrong thing,  inidies just seem to make more of the sci fi games I like.

Mustikos you are a nice person (seriously). And I agree with most of your point. And I even liked TW and truth be told plan to buy the sequel (I'll just wait some review to know the amount of bugs that will be in the game and than wait for the patch if the game is not on the quality level I like). I was mostly trolling the troll .

My only serious point was that: all the enhanced edition and pc love thing is marketing.  Wich is fine, but still marketing.  Just like the "fight like a spartan" and "something awesome happen" things. With proper founding, Cd Red would have allready gone in the multiplatform direction, wich is a good thing for them and consolle palyers alike. The things I cannot stand are double standards and pc elitist rants full of pseudo facts and wrong information.

Modifié par FedericoV, 10 novembre 2010 - 12:27 .

[Lyssistr]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I am extremely skeptical regarding almost anyone who claims to understand Marxism.  To say that nine times out of ten, people who claim to are just talking about whatever their idea of Marxism is would be a staggering understatement.  I'm the furthest thing from an expert myself, I just know where I'd have to start reading if I actually wanted to know. 

Lyssistr wrote...
it's quite of topic

This thread's topic is to be mod bait.

The thing is DLCs are not sold in a free market, you don't need to read marxism to see that. Ok saying DLC is commie distribution is a little too far off but tbh DLC has nothing to do with capitalism, it's more about a monopoly on the distribution channel, and that's why I refuse to pay for it.

[FedericoV]

Double post.

Modifié par FedericoV, 10 novembre 2010 - 12:29 .

[Nefario]

Ex_Everest wrote...

Nefario wrote...
No... I'd say a state of affairs can be more or less in line with Marx's theory. For instance Leninism is an adulterated form of Marxism (less Marxist than Marxism), but is still more Marxist than, say, Stalinism.

Fair enough; but if it's not in line at all, as the case might be in certain capitalist systems, then the comparison doesn't really apply, no?

I agree. The state of affairs regarding DLC originally described has nothing to do with Marxism. But, y'know, saying "that's not very Marxist at all" seemed more polite than "you have no clue what you're talking about".

[Lyssistr]

Nefario wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Vulee94 wrote...
Marxists like RPG's too...

Then they should be using their keen economic minds to explain DLC using the labor theory of value!

DLCs, where there is only one distribution channel, owned by the DLC producer and price is fixed by the only distributor instead of being determined through free market mechanics is the most marxist thing in today's gaming.

If that's the most Marxist thing in today's gaming, then it must be because there's not much Marxism in gaming today. Because that is not Marxist at all.

The thing is that unless it's a free market, I know I'm not paying a fair price, I'm paying for a manipulated price

[upsettingshorts]

Lyssistr wrote...

The thing is DLCs are not sold in a free market,

Yes they are.  This is a fundamental misuse of what the term free market means and implies. 

Lyssistr wrote...

you don't need to read marxism to see that.

True.

Lyssistr wrote...

DLC has nothing to do with capitalism, it's more about a monopoly on the distribution channel, and that's why I refuse to pay for it.

That is almost like saying bacon has nothing to do with pigs. Unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies, and state intervention - in mixed economies such as most of those in the West including the U.S. - regulate and prevent monopolies.  Video game DLC by a single seller does not represent the concept of a monopoly at all, unless - in this example - Bioware had a vast market share and could leverage their dominance by undercutting the price of competitors' DLC, thus driving them out of business.

Lyssistr wrote...

The thing is that unless it's a free market, I know I'm not paying a fair price, I'm paying for a manipulated price

That's not what the free market is.  And the concept of a "fair price" is subjective and determined by the consumer.  You have determined that DLC is offered at an unfair price and have withheld your purchase.  That is the role of the consumer in the free market.

If enough consumers agree with you the DLC will not sell at the price offered, and producers will be forced to re-examine their business model, perhaps either raising quality or lowering price. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 novembre 2010 - 12:38 .

[Nefario]

Lyssistr wrote...

Nefario wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Vulee94 wrote...
Marxists like RPG's too...

Then they should be using their keen economic minds to explain DLC using the labor theory of value!

DLCs, where there is only one distribution channel, owned by the DLC producer and price is fixed by the only distributor instead of being determined through free market mechanics is the most marxist thing in today's gaming.

If that's the most Marxist thing in today's gaming, then it must be because there's not much Marxism in gaming today. Because that is not Marxist at all.

The thing is that unless it's a free market, I know I'm not paying a fair price, I'm paying for a manipulated price

Yeah, you're probably right. But that still has nothing to do with Marxism.

[Ex_Everest]

Nefario wrote...

Ex_Everest wrote...

Nefario wrote...
No... I'd say a state of affairs can be more or less in line with Marx's theory. For instance Leninism is an adulterated form of Marxism (less Marxist than Marxism), but is still more Marxist than, say, Stalinism.

Fair enough; but if it's not in line at all, as the case might be in certain capitalist systems, then the comparison doesn't really apply, no?

I agree. The state of affairs regarding DLC originally described has nothing to do with Marxism. But, y'know, saying "that's not very Marxist at all" seemed more polite than "you have no clue what you're talking about".

If that's the truth, so be it. Many people should start learning that they're capable of prejudiced opinions, general mistakes, and that criticism based on objective reasoning is something to be welcomed. The truth hurts sometimes, softening the blow can equate to misinforming.