611 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

The "tiny and ever-shrinking PC fanbase," if it was ever a real trend, seems to be reversing itself.  It's hard to say because digital sales figures aren't released, but for Skyrim, for instance, the PC fanbase is probably about the same size as Xbox and larger than PS3.

TW3 will be made with the RED engine and REDKit is based on that engine, so at most it would need an update, not an entirely new modkit- as far as I understand these things, which admittedly isn't far.  From what I've read about it, it's capable of being a general level editor and not just for Witcher 2 mods.  I wouldn't be surprised if it could also be used to support their Cyberpunk franchise.

Even if the PC matches the sales on its respective console counterparts, it's still two against one. Two thirds of the player of the game will never use the modkit, nor see the benefits mods bring. And saying "well, people bought two copies of the game, console and PC, just for the modkit" is hardly a convincing argument against paying an extra dollar or two for very specific mods.

I am glad that CDProjekt is using the same engine throughout the series. That is one drawback Bioware has definitely faced in the last few years. Switching to different versions of the same base engine (from what little I understand of it) causes problems with the toolkit, as does using an engine with tools developed outside of their company. Maybe down the road with the DA and ME series in the future being on the same engine, this will let them create modkits more easily.

That being said, there are many developers who make game series on the same engine as their predecessors who also don't have modkits. So aside for CDP and Bethesda, this is still a rare occurrence.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 25 janvier 2013 - 04:37 .

[Emzamination]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

But then you get the complaint that it should have been in the base game. What is your response to that?

Suck it up.  If you don't get any complaints, you're not being aggressive enough.  The goal should be to offer the highest quality product.

If you're not getting any complaints at all, it means people are satisfied with your product, and everything is running clock-work.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Suck it up.  If you don't get any complaints, you're not being aggressive enough.

That sounds suspiciously to me like the nonsensical "common political wisdom" that "if everyone is unhappy with the deal you made, then you know you've made a good deal."

I think the companies out there with the highest positive consumer ratings (*ahem* like Apple or Amazon) are NOT jealous at all of the companies that get a larger share of complaints or higher negative ratings.

"People will always complain" or "you can't satisfy everyone" are just outs for the lazy, or excuses for people to do what they wanted to do in the first place.

[Silas7]

fchopin wrote...

I have no idea what microtransactions is.

And i hope you never have to find out...

[Fast Jimmy]

^

That your screen name is "Disappointment" is rather appropriate.

[Addai]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Two thirds of the player of the game will never use the modkit, nor see the benefits mods bring.

Well that's not exactly true, either.  I mean, true, those players don't get the benefit, and many of them whine about it.  But mods also keep the game in the gaming media, on YouTube, and in player discussions.  It is advertising by word of mouth, paid for by that initial investment in the mod kit.  Bethesda not only supported a mod kit, they helped Steam launch their Workshop- obviously they see benefits here.  To me the microtransactions route seems like being penny wise and pound foolish.  But obviously EA disagrees.  For me, being a cheap bastard, that just makes their games of less value and correspondingly less attractive.

Modifié par Addai67, 25 janvier 2013 - 05:10 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Well that's not exactly true, either.  I mean, true, those players don't get the benefit, and many of them whine about it.  But mods also keep the game in the gaming media, on YouTube, and in player discussions.  It is advertising by word of mouth, paid for by that initial investment in the mod kit.  Bethesda not only supported a mod kit, they helped Steam launch their Workshop- obviously they see benefits here.  To me the microtransactions route seems like being penny wise and pound foolish.  But obviously EA disagrees.  For me, being a cheap bastard, that just makes their games of less value and correspondingly less attractive.

Gamrpoop can still parody ME3, even without a modkit.

And "We'll bang, okay?" isn't exactly a glowing endorsement to buy a game.

I don't disagree that Bioware may be better off giving everyone a free toolkit, but apparently they don't agree. So, in light of that, the only thing is to accept no toolkit or to theorize a little bit outside the box.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 25 janvier 2013 - 05:37 .

[Addai]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Bioware could have had two cash cows, as well.

Two? How two?

Mass Effect and Dragon Age.  I wasn't thinking about SWTOR at all.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Gamrpoop can still parody ME3, even without a modkit.

And "We'll bang, okay?" isn't exactly a glowing endorsement to buy a game.

Certain gaming publications have a weekly or monthly "best mods of Skyrim" column, for instance.

I don't disagree that Bioware may be better off giving everyone a free toolkit, but apparently they don't agree. So, in light of that, the only thing is to accept no toolkit or to theorize a little bit outside the box.

I think it's pretty clear there's going to be no toolkits for Bioware games.  All of this is just shooting the breeze.  In light of that, the equipment packs are fine for those who like that kind of stuff- it's just not what interests me.    In fact the more of that stuff I see, the more I start thinking that the base game wasn't worth much to begin with.

Modifié par Addai67, 25 janvier 2013 - 06:01 .

[Addai]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Mass Effect and Dragon Age.  I wasn't thinking about SWTOR at all.

Interesting. I really never considered either as having any chance to be gaming "heavyweights."

In RPG terms, certainly.  DAO and ME2 were some of the most successful RPGs prior to Skyrim.  I mean, you're comparing to Bethesda, right?  Not CoD or WoW.

Modifié par Addai67, 25 janvier 2013 - 06:10 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I think it's pretty clear there's going to be no toolkits for Bioware games.  All of this is just shooting the breeze.  In light of that, the equipment packs are fine for those who like that kind of stuff- it's just not what interests me.    In fact the more of that stuff I see, the more I start thinking that the base game wasn't worth much to begin with.

Which brings me back to the points I was making yesterday. MP Microtransactions, Day One DLC, premium weapon/armor packs... it all leads to a feeling by the consumer that they are being cheated. Even if the reality is that the content would just not exist to be played, otherwise. It's a feeling of being slighted, of seeing the original game as being devalued, rather than the premium content as being exceptionally valuable. It makes the original story/items/gameplay seem lacking, rather than making the new content look appealing. It makes it look like we used to get more for our dollar with things like no toolkits or manuals that are thinner than coasters, rather than seeing better games for the same price.

It's a matter of perception and Bioware is losing that perception battle right now. Whether it actually is right or wrong is immaterial. It's being perceived that way and Bioware seems to be taking the rap for it, regardless. Any future steps to cement that mental perception could be extremely dangerous, even while steps take to avoid it may be unnoticed.

What Bioware might be wise to do is to take control of the narrative. Break out of the mold. To not say "gamers don't understand X, Y, Z about why we do things this way in the industry; they are complaining about nothing" but instead say "here are ways we can make better games for you and still be able to feed our families." How that message comes out and is received is more important than the message itself, even.

Again, my suggestion on incentivizing the toolkit can be framed in a really progressive way, where Bioware is helping those who are passionate about their games to share their vision of that passion to fellow fans in a way to also help them be compensated for their work, but to also make the vast majority of user-created content to be free.

I would rather have that level of microtransactions, where people see something they want and help their fellow fans as well as Bioware, than the MP slot machines we see with ME3's MP or to have premium story content or flashy item sets released the very first day next to the vanilla game. It's a matter of picking your poison in my opinion.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 25 janvier 2013 - 06:43 .

[Joy Divison]

Fast Jimmy, have you ever considered that pandering to the myopic attitude of Bioware, EA, and other cooperations which adopt bad business practices that limit the shelf-life and the exposure of their products is a bad idea?  Have you ever considered the possibility that Besthesda has a cash cow in the Elder Scrolls series is precisely because they do not jealously guard the ability for creative people to tweak their product?  Do you honestly think that by forcing modders and players to jump through all of the adminstrative, legal, and finacial obstacles you are setting up that it will somehow save the modding community from the future doom which you foresee?

Just think about what you're saying.  Bioware will offer this stuff for free!  Right...what is to stop EA from charging people for these "small" mods anyway?  You already giving them your blessing to charge us for stuff that is free right now.  Once they see some simple cosmetic mod have 100,000s of downloads, they WILL slap a price tag on it.  Moreover, some cosmetic mods have a large filesize like the mod that puts the roads on the minimap in Skyrim.  This stuff won't be free.

Your solution to make mods available to consoles - that is people who willingly opt not to use mods - is to strip the freedom modders - that is people who willingly dont use consoles - currently have?  And rely on Bioware to make these creations available to them?  Doesn't Bioware have better things to do than port the 1000s of PC mods for consoles...you know, like give us different dungeons in DA2?

What has Bioware and EA done in the past 10 years to merit the trust - and power - which your proposal would grant them?  How could they do a better job than modders are already doing on their own?  Do you know why Explorer sucks and everyone uses something else like Firefox?  It's because Explorer is Microsoft proprietary and they make it.  Firefox was made, developed, and constantly improved by people not looking to sell a browser, but rather to ensure that a good browser exists.  Firefox exists and works well because there is no coorperate meddling...a situtation very analgous to the way in which mods operate.

You honestly think preventing the ability for modders to freely share their creations with others will HELP the modding community?  Wow, just wow.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 25 janvier 2013 - 06:57 .

[Silas7]

eh wrong thread

Modifié par Disapointment, 25 janvier 2013 - 07:04 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Your solution to make mods available to consoles - that is people who willingly opt not to use mods - is to strip the freedom modders - that is people who willingly dont use consoles - currently have?

"Freedom modders?" Are you some type of resistance movement, trying to destroy the evil console gamers? Saying that they willingly opt to not use mods is like saying people who live in third world countries willingly opt to not eat food or have access to healthcare. Having a PC gaming rig that can cost near $1000 compared to going out today and buying a console for >$200 to play a game is an economic choice, as well as a preference one. To look down on such people and saying they don't deserve mods is pretty elitist, even for a PC player.

In regards to the rest of your post, if EA/Bioware was the only developer who was saying no to free toolkits, I would call them greedy and move on. But it is something seen across the whole industry. The limitations I propose would not stop people from going into a game and modding it without a toolkit, something they will have to do anyway of no toolkit is released. So if people want to avoid the evil, corporate machine I am suggesting, they need only do exactly what they would do if it wasn't in place - namely, make their own tools and use them to mod that way.

[Emzamination]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Your solution to make mods available to consoles - that is people who willingly opt not to use mods - is to strip the freedom modders - that is people who willingly dont use consoles - currently have?

"Freedom modders?" Are you some type of resistance movement, trying to destroy the evil console gamers? Saying that they willingly opt to not use mods is like saying people who live in third world countries willingly opt to not eat food or have access to healthcare. Having a PC gaming rig that can cost near $1000 compared to going out today and buying a console for >$200 to play a game is an economic choice, as well as a preference one. To look down on such people and saying they don't deserve mods is pretty elitist, even for a PC player.

In regards to the rest of your post, if EA/Bioware was the only developer who was saying no to free toolkits, I would call them greedy and move on. But it is something seen across the whole industry. The limitations I propose would not stop people from going into a game and modding it without a toolkit, something they will have to do anyway of no toolkit is released. So if people want to avoid the evil, corporate machine I am suggesting, they need only do exactly what they would do if it wasn't in place - namely, make their own tools and use them to mod that way.

^ So much this. Go jimmy!!

[JaegerBane]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Your solution to make mods available to consoles - that is people who willingly opt not to use mods - is to strip the freedom modders - that is people who willingly dont use consoles - currently have?

"Freedom modders?" Are you some type of resistance movement, trying to destroy the evil console gamers? Saying that they willingly opt to not use mods is like saying people who live in third world countries willingly opt to not eat food or have access to healthcare. Having a PC gaming rig that can cost near $1000 compared to going out today and buying a console for >$200 to play a game is an economic choice, as well as a preference one. To look down on such people and saying they don't deserve mods is pretty elitist, even for a PC player.

In regards to the rest of your post, if EA/Bioware was the only developer who was saying no to free toolkits, I would call them greedy and move on. But it is something seen across the whole industry. The limitations I propose would not stop people from going into a game and modding it without a toolkit, something they will have to do anyway of no toolkit is released. So if people want to avoid the evil, corporate machine I am suggesting, they need only do exactly what they would do if it wasn't in place - namely, make their own tools and use them to mod that way.

+1. I think the issue with toolkits is partially down to technology as well as multiplatform releases. Some engines are conducive to user modding - there's a million and one mods for ME3 and that didn't even have a toolkit, because of how easy the Unreal engine is to work with. Conversely, engines that were never intended to work with third party modding are reliant on toolkits to make it happen.

Bottom line is that you don't necessarily need a toolkit release to create a third party modding scene. You just need an engine that lends itself to modding.

[Joy Divison]

Don't be silly. This has nothing to do with PC elitism. Modders currently HAVE the freedom to make and distribute their creations which is a benefit to all involved.  That's all the quote meant.

Tell me, how are console players getting these mods PC users are making. You say

"Bioware packages all the best selling paid mods (as well as some of the more popular free mods as well, with modder permission, of course), adds a large amount of polish and development smoothness, and packages them as paid DLC for consoles"

And where are these resources coming from? Did you play DA2? Do you remember all those dungeons which were exactly the same? Do you remember the disjointed story in ACT III? Do you remember all DA2's defenders insisting an otherwise good game would have been better had they actually had the time and resources to finish the game? Now you've got Bioware porting mods, many of which are either large or perpetual works in contruction!

And what's this about adding "polish" and "smoothness"? I take that to mean Bioware changing the mods to fit their visions, their priorities, their aesthetics. Now modders aren't even the final arbiters of their own creations because the only way they get to offer them is to sell them to cooperation.

Nothing to do with PC-elitism. And it has nothing to do with the allegedly poverty stricken console players who can't afford to go to the doctor's office. It has everything to do with disrupting the process in which mods are created, shared, and enjoyed in favor of a "solution" which hands the power to a cooperation which does not have the resources to properly finish their flagship products.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 25 janvier 2013 - 07:51 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

By that same logic... if Bioware can't be trusted to make their own games, why have them use resources to give away a free toolkit? Act 3 was so bad, as said above, that they shouldn't work on things that steal resources from their main games.

But you said a second ago that Bioware not giving away free toolkits was greedy and myopic.

So it's one or the other - Bioware doesn't have the time or resources to do toolkit related things or they do. Again, my solution results in money coming in that can pay for the toolkits and the polish. Your system brings no more money in (at least not more than mine would in extended shelf life), but Bioware is greedy to not do it.

You are making statements from a bit of a slippery slope.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 25 janvier 2013 - 07:56 .

[Addai]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Which brings me back to the points I was making yesterday. MP Microtransactions, Day One DLC, premium weapon/armor packs... it all leads to a feeling by the consumer that they are being cheated. Even if the reality is that the content would just not exist to be played, otherwise.

If it was truly premium, fewer people would mind.  I bought every DLC that was available for Fallout New Vegas, including GRA which was basically a weapon pack.  I didn't mind because the game was a huge game, the DLCs were all huge and added so much to the game in terms of story and variety, and GRA came out towards the end rather than on day one.  So what's the difference... perception, sure, but also overall value.  I was willing to buy a weapon pack because it was only gilding a really fine lily.

I would rather have that level of microtransactions, where people see something they want and help their fellow fans as well as Bioware, than the MP slot machines we see with ME3's MP or to have premium story content or flashy item sets released the very first day next to the vanilla game. It's a matter of picking your poison in my opinion.

You can dream.  I haven't seen anything you've proposed as remotely feasible, leave alone whether it's desirable or not.

Modifié par Addai67, 25 janvier 2013 - 07:58 .

[Fast Jimmy]

If it was truly premium, fewer people would mind. I bought every DLC that was available for Fallout New Vegas, including GRA which was basically a weapon pack. I didn't mind because the game was a huge game, the DLCs were all huge and added so much to the game in terms of story and variety, and GRA came out towards the end rather than on day one. So what's the difference... perception, sure, but also overall value. I was willing to buy a weapon pack because it was only gilding a really fine lily.

I'd say the Jahvik/From Ashes DLC was pretty premium. It told a very interesting story that wound up integrating into the larger narrative in a good, if not vital, way. But it was still decried and criticized because it was TOO important to be D1DLC.

Being worthy of the name "premium" or not isn't always the problem. It's the feeling that the vanilla game itself should have had the content from the get go that is also a problem.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 25 janvier 2013 - 08:22 .

[Addai]

Well yes, being sold something extra that feels like it should be in the original selling price does make you feel like you're being cheated. As with new cars, so with video games.

[Joy Divison]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

By that same logic... if Bioware can't be trusted to make their own games, why have them use resources to give away a free toolkit? Act 3 was so bad, as said above, that they shouldn't work on things that steal resources from their main games.

But you said a second ago that Bioware not giving away free toolkits was greedy and myopic.

So it's one or the other - Bioware doesn't have the time or resources to do toolkit related things or they do. Again, my solution results in money coming in that can pay for the toolkits and the polish. Your system brings no more money in (at least not more than mine would in extended shelf life), but Bioware is greedy to not do it.

You are making statements from a bit of a slippery slope.

Umm...no.  False dichtomy.

Bioware and EA did not *have* to rush development of DA2.  They chose to in order to cash in on the success of DA:O and in the process gave us a game that was unfinished.  That was why there were limited resources.  It is precisely that mindset which makes your proposal that hands them the power of the creation, sale, and distribution of mods dubious. 

It's not one or the other.  Bioware and EA could opt to devilver a polished product to its customers and they could opt to deliver a toolkit, but they believed it would be more profitable not to do so.  There's no slippery slope here.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 25 janvier 2013 - 08:33 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Addai67 wrote...

Well yes, being sold something extra that feels like it should be in the original selling price does make you feel like you're being cheated. As with new cars, so with video games.

I agree. However, many devs have come in and stated that D1DLC is good, because otherwise that content that felt vital would not be present at all. So, no D1DLC, no Jahvik. 

Although my initial reaction to that statement is to argue, I still realize that they do know better than me the realities of how their company works and take that statement at face value. 

So, if Bioware has content we won't see in the original game and which they put effort into outside of the main vame's scope and budget, should they charge for it? And should they release it the first day the game is out, separate and priced more than the vanilla game?

That is the hard question. Some would say yes, others (including myself) would say no. Is it unethical? Hard to say. But does it lead to negative feelings? Absolutely. Feelings Bioware could avoid if they used a different, if even slightly similar, approach? Without a doubt in my mind. But again, Bioware has not been controlling the story told with this at all. 

[JaegerBane]

Addai67 wrote...

Well yes, being sold something extra that feels like it should be in the original selling price does make you feel like you're being cheated. As with new cars, so with video games.

I think the problem there is whether the 'feeling that it should be in the original selling price' is actually justifiable. I mean, on what level is that being decided? In From Ashes case, the base game was already 30-40 hours long, about twice the length of an equivalently priced CoD release, so from a value for money angle there's no basis. The DLC itself wasn't required in any way shape or form to complete the game, so there's nothing along the lines of how its functionally vital.