611 réponses à ce sujet

[jillabender]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Similarly, when making cost comparisons, too often the cost of the display for the console (the television) is ignored.

I'd imagine because most people have a TV independently. 

Edit:

It's like factoring in the cost of the monitor; most people speak of the cost of a PC without mentioning the monitor.

Very true - I've committed that oversight myself.

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Similarly, when making cost comparisons, too often the cost of the display for the console (the television) is ignored.

I'd imagine because most people have a TV independently. 

Edit:

It's like factoring in the cost of the monitor; most people speak of the cost of a PC without mentioning the monitor.

To be fair, many people who game also already have a PC. 

Although, to be fair to myself, upgrading your PC can require that you scrap your motherboard, which means you have to buy a brand new PC anyway. 

[Addai]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

You may think so. Many people would have a similar idea about a DRM service created by one game developer to sell their's and other game developer's games is pretty far-fetched. BTW, Steam says hi.

*sigh*  Steam is a commercial service.  We're talking about volunteers messing around in someone else's IP and code, then letting players take what they've done and mess around with it some more, with uncertain results.  You can't just slap a price sticker on the end result and put it in a garage sale.  Not even the most pro-modding of developers is going to certify hundreds of Big Boobs 4 All tweaks, for peanuts in return and a lot of headaches.  This is just stupid.

By the same token, people can see certain video game developer's actions as unfair price gouging (again, whether it is or not is irrelevant). That would make it (potentially) unethical.

People can say a lot of things.  If you know what you're buying and you buy it anyway, there's no breach of ethics.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
To be fair, many people who game also already have a PC.  

True. I do think that owning a PC and building it varies.

Although, to be fair to myself, upgrading your PC can require that you scrap your motherboard, which means you have to buy a brand new PC anyway. 

True again. Of course, I think figuring that out is the big cost to PC gaming, from the POV of a console-only gamer.

[jillabender]

I think we would all agree that the cost of buying a PC relative to a console can vary quite a bit depending on a variety of factors.

But, as I said before, it's certainly true that buying a PC inexpensively isn't possible for everyone, so I agree that it would be a bit of a jerk move to suggest that someone who wants to use mods should simply buy a PC.

Modifié par jillabender, 25 janvier 2013 - 11:25 .

[Joy Divison]

Jimmy - You are turning this into a console-PC war and are putting words into my mouth.

I never said console players don't not deserve mods or made the wrong choice. I said they made a choice, a choice to purchase a gaming platform which is not mod friendly. You are disingenuously comparing them to people in a third world country. Cut the crap. These are entertainment dollars they are spending. I am not saying there aren't some people out there who bought an X-Box because they believed a PC was too expensive. There are. You want to get them mods, that's fine let them have them. I have no objections to console players getting mods.

What i do object to, and the point of my post, is your impractical and disruptive methods to get PC mods to consoles. You think it is a good idea to force modders to go through cooperations just so everyone can can enjoy them. You think this is just and easy. It's not. You are involving corporate entities into the process whose motivations are very different from modders. You think Bioware will cut resources from the new games they want to release and give us something like the Nexus-mod manager. You have a lot of faith in a company that can even devote adequate resources to a flagship title. Also, as jillabender pointed out, it's not just Bioware or EA, we have more corporations like Sony and Microsoft (big surprise there) who have to be persuaded to change their products.

I do not trust corporations. Their motivations stem purely from profit whereas as presently constituted, modders' motivations stem from their enjoyment of the game. These two motivations, as illustrated by DA2 to give one example, are often irreconcilable. I value the freedom modders have, not because I'm part of a PC-resistance movement, but because it is that environment which allows for a fast and free exchange of ideas which makes so many great mods available.

This whole console-PC war crap is an absolute waste of time. Because I think modders should not be hindered by corporations then all of a sudden I'm a PC-elitist who thumbs his nose at console users? What the hell? NO, wrong, stop right there. How about there are better ways to get mods to console users than your solution? Like instead of inviting the EAs, Biowares, and Sonys of the world to charge us for what we get for free we instead direct our frustrations at the companies which make consoles which are not mod friendly? Or perhaps be diplomatic about it and go the route Bethesda is trying to get mods to the Elder Scrolls series on consoles.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 25 janvier 2013 - 11:39 .

[In Exile]

Joy Divison wrote...
I never said console players don't not deserve mods or made the wrong choice. I said they made a choice, a choice to purchase a gaming platform which is not mod friendly.

You assume console gamers factor that decision in, or are aware of it in the first place. Steam made modding much easier, but modding's a huge pain, and the further you go back, the bigger it was. 

You think it is a good idea to force modders to go through cooperations just so everyone can can enjoy them.

They do go through corporations. Where do you think the games come from.

You are involving corporate entities into the process whose motivations are very different from modders.

The corporate entities are involved. Unless the models like being sued silly for violating licensing agreements, patents, etc.

I value the freedom modders have, not because I'm part of a PC-resistance movement, but because it is that environment which allows for a fast and free exchange of ideas which makes so many great mods available.

Modders don't have freedom. Everything they would do is a breach of the licensing agreement, unless the company consents.

like instead of inviting the EAs, Biowares, and Sonys of the world to charge us for what we get for free we instead direct our frustrations at the companies which make consoles which are not mod friendly? Or perhaps be diplomatic about it and go the route Bethesda is trying to get mods to the Elder Scrolls series on consoles.

You mean trust evil corporate entities? 

Modifié par In Exile, 25 janvier 2013 - 11:45 .

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...
DA2 by contrast sold 0.97 million on the 360 and 0.46 million on PC. TW2's the more popular PC game, but that's a total that outsold DA:O (which only sold 0.41 on PC). 

--in everywhere but North America.  vgchartz doesn't have North American sales numbers.

So, correcting your erroneous comparison, and stripping out the numbers that only exist for one of the two games you compare there (DA:O and DA2)--in short, looking at the Europe and Rest of World numbers--

DA:O - Europe = 0.37 million  Rest of World = 0.04 million
DA2 - Europe = 0.19 million  Rest of World = 0.07 million

From what you DO have numbers for, DA2 did worse on PC than DA:O.

We don't have PC numbers, at least from vgchartz, for North America.

Bad data not examined well but used to illustrate a proponent's point.  In short, either bad intelligence or cherry picking.

Honestly, by all vgchartz numbers (XBox360, PS3, and all-but-North America PC) I don't think it's much of a leap to make the educated guess that DA:O did better on PC in North America than DA2 did.

Modifié par MerinTB, 25 janvier 2013 - 11:52 .

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
--in everywhere but North America.  vgchartz doesn't have North American sales numbers.

That's good to know. I didn't know that

So, correcting your erroneous comparison, and stripping out the numbers that only exist for one of the two games you compare there (DA:O and DA2)--in short, looking at the Europe and Rest of World numbers

I wasn't comparing DA:O to DA2. I was comparing the DA series with TW2. 

Bad data not examined well but used to illustrate a proponent's point.  In short, either bad intelligence or cherry picking.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Honestly, by all vgchartz numbers (XBox360, PS3, and all-but-North America PC) I don't think it's much of a leap to make the educated guess that DA:O did better on PC in North America than DA2 did.

That's good. Because that's exactly what I concluded, and then pointed out that according to vgchartz TW2 doubled that, with it's action combat, fixed protagonist, and non-party based combat.

So, you know, just a fun side-note about the PC market, and how popular DA:O seemed to be vs TW2. Only in your head did I try to compare DA2 to DA:O.

Modifié par In Exile, 25 janvier 2013 - 11:55 .

[MerinTB]

In Exile wrote...
DA2 by contrast sold 0.97 million on the 360 and 0.46 million on PC. TW2's the more popular PC game, but that's a total that outsold DA:O (which only sold 0.41 on PC). 

Just, you know, quoting you again there.

[addiction21]

So catching up its hard to actually take this seriously anymore.

And damn a certain poster I need to go get started on season two of B5. CGI so atrocious I have to love it.

[In Exile]

MerinTB wrote...
Just, you know, quoting you again there.

I admit that I wrote a really, really bad (pair of) sentence(s) there. To clarify:

 TW2's the more popular PC game, (I meant this relative to DA2) but that's a total that outsold DA:O (which only sold 0.41 on PC) (I meant this as the TW2 and DA:O comparison).

Modifié par In Exile, 26 janvier 2013 - 02:03 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Similarly, when making cost comparisons, too often the cost of the display for the console (the television) is ignored.

I'd imagine because most people have a TV independently. 

That doesn't diminish its necessity.

Edit:

It's like factoring in the cost of the monitor; most people speak of the cost of a PC without mentioning the monitor.

Possibly true, though only in the last year or so have those costs been comparable.  Consolers will routinely speak of a value of paying only a small price for their hardware and enjoying their content on massive displays.

[jillabender]

Joy Division wrote...

Because I think modders should not be hindered by corporations then all of a sudden I'm a PC-elitist who thumbs his nose at console users? What the hell? NO, wrong, stop right there.How about there are better ways to get mods to console users than your solution? Like instead of inviting the EAs, Biowares, and Sonys of the world to charge us for what we get for free we instead direct our frustrations at the companies which make consoles which are not mod friendly? Or perhaps be diplomatic about it and go the route Bethesda is trying to get mods to the Elder Scrolls series on consoles.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I never thought that you were talking down to console gamers or suggesting that they should just buy a PC - my reference to that wasn't directed at you.

I agree that having BioWare package player-made mods as paid DLC doesn't sound like the best way to get mods to either PC or console players. I appreciate that Jimmy's interest is in finding ways to make offering a toolset more attractive to BioWare, but I have a hard time imagining that BioWare would find the idea of tinkering with player-created mods appealing. The need to offer additional technical support not just for the game and for BioWare DLC, but also for players who might run into difficulty with player-created mods sold by BioWare, would create so many hassles that I just can't see it happening.

Modifié par jillabender, 26 janvier 2013 - 01:44 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Joy Divison wrote...

Jimmy - You are turning this into a console-PC war and are putting words into my mouth.

I am not putting words into your mouth.

If this is what you meant to say is...

I never said console players don't not deserve mods or made the wrong choice. I said they made a choice, a choice to purchase a gaming platform which is not mod friendly.  ... I am not saying there aren't some people out there who bought an X-Box because they believed a PC was too expensive. There are. You want to get them mods, that's fine let them have them. I have no objections to console players getting mods.

...then say that. Don't say:

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?

Just a suggestion.

What i do object to, and the point of my post, is your impractical and disruptive methods to get PC mods to consoles. You think it is a good idea to force modders to go through cooperations just so everyone can can enjoy them. You think this is just and easy. It's not. You are involving corporate entities into the process whose motivations are very different from modders. You think Bioware will cut resources from the new games they want to release and give us something like the Nexus-mod manager. You have a lot of faith in a company that can even devote adequate resources to a flagship title. Also, as jillabender pointed out, it's not just Bioware or EA, we have more corporations like Sony and Microsoft (big surprise there) who have to be persuaded to change their products.

I do not trust corporations. Their motivations stem purely from profit whereas as presently constituted, modders' motivations stem from their enjoyment of the game. These two motivations, as illustrated by DA2 to give one example, are often irreconcilable. I value the freedom modders have, not because I'm part of a PC-resistance movement, but because it is that environment which allows for a fast and free exchange of ideas which makes so many great mods available.

You object to my idea because it is a corporation doing it. That is fair enough, for your own personal viewpoints.

But again I say - no one would be forced to use the toolkit. In my idea, only those mods made with the kit would need to go through the distributor. If you make a mod for a game not using the kit, you can distribute it to whoever and however you like. But... if the choice is no toolkit (in which case modders would have to develop all of their own content and tools) and a form of paid toolkit (where a rebelious modder could STILL develop their own content and tools), I don't really see a world of difference.

This whole console-PC war crap is an absolute waste of time. Because I think modders should not be hindered by corporations then all of a sudden I'm a PC-elitist who thumbs his nose at console users? What the hell? NO, wrong, stop right there. How about there are better ways to get mods to console users than your solution? Like instead of inviting the EAs, Biowares, and Sonys of the world to charge us for what we get for free we instead direct our frustrations at the companies which make consoles which are not mod friendly? Or perhaps be diplomatic about it and go the route Bethesda is trying to get mods to the Elder Scrolls series on consoles.

I don't PREFER this to happen. I don't take pleasure in suggesting that a very altruistic and hard-working group of people like the mod community be put through the ringer to squeeze a few extra dimes out. I'd LOVE it if every company went the Bethesda route and could put toolkits in everything.

Bioware previously had licensing issues with the Lyrium engine. With FB2, its looking to be that DICE has no intention of putting out ANY mod support for that engine any time soon. I'm unsure if the move to FB2 has cleared the non-EA company licensing issues or not, but if it hasn't, then between FB2 and licensing, you might not see a toolkit for a Bioware game this side of 2020. UNLESS Bioware has a way to go back to their "beancounters," as you called them, and say "we have a way to make money off the toolkit." Because those same beancounters may have loved DA2, since it took ~18 months to develop (smaller budget), no toolkit and still sold (from our limited numbers, at least) over half as much as DA:O, a game in development over 5 years that did include the toolkit.

As I said earlier, to Monetize the toolkit it to Normalize the toolkit. If Bioware knew they could help mitigate expenses with it, it would be included in every game they made without question, just like we now see D1DLC and how we all expect we will see Multiplayer Microtransactions. 

Is it ideal? No, not at all. Is it a little bit scary/sickening/saddening? Sure, to me at least. And I have to assume others.

But does it serve a better cause (again, toolkits for every game and people only paying for mods if they truly want them). I'd rather see a toolkit where mods are charged less than a latte from Starbucks than MP shoehorned into DA3. 

But, as the saying goes, you can hope in one hand and shart in another. See which one fills up faster.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 26 janvier 2013 - 12:40 .

[Fast Jimmy]

jillabender wrote...

Joy Division wrote...

Because I think modders should not be hindered by corporations then all of a sudden I'm a PC-elitist who thumbs his nose at console users? What the hell? NO, wrong, stop right there.How about there are better ways to get mods to console users than your solution? Like instead of inviting the EAs, Biowares, and Sonys of the world to charge us for what we get for free we instead direct our frustrations at the companies which make consoles which are not mod friendly? Or perhaps be diplomatic about it and go the route Bethesda is trying to get mods to the Elder Scrolls series on consoles.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I never thought that you were talking down to console gamers or suggesting that they should just buy a PC - my reference to that wasn't directed at you.

I agree that having BioWare package player-made mods as paid DLC doesn't sound like the best way to get mods to either PC or console players - I appreciate that Jimmy's interest is in finding ways to make offering a toolset more attractive to BioWare, but I have a hard time imagining that BioWare would find the idea of tinkering with player-created mods appealing. The need to offer additional technical support not just for the game and for BioWare DLC, but also for players who might run into difficulty with player-created mods sold by BioWare, would create so many hassles that I just can't see it happening.

This is an opinion I can respect.

It is well thought-out, articulate on exactly what points are good and bad, and gives some input to the conversation.

As opposed to saying "No, its stupid and you are the devil for suggesting it."

Thanks, Jilla.

[jillabender]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

jillabender wrote...

I agree that having BioWare package player-made mods as paid DLC doesn't sound like the best way to get mods to either PC or console players. I appreciate that Jimmy's interest is in finding ways to make offering a toolset more attractive to BioWare, but I have a hard time imagining that BioWare would find the idea of tinkering with player-created mods appealing. The need to offer additional technical support not just for the game and for BioWare DLC, but also for players who might run into difficulty with player-created mods sold by BioWare, would create so many hassles that I just can't see it happening.

This is an opinion I can respect.

It is well thought-out, articulate on exactly what points are good and bad, and gives some input to the conversation.

As opposed to saying "No, its stupid and you are the devil for suggesting it."

Thanks, Jilla.

No problem, and thank you! ^__^

Even if I don't always agree with your suggestions when it comes to business practices for game developers, I would never jump down your throat because of it, because I know that you have a sense of humour about yourself and that you're very willing to disagree respectfully - and I always appreciate that. I might sometimes think you're a little bit crazy, but then, so am I! To quote Alice in Wonderland, we're all a little bit mad here!

Modifié par jillabender, 26 janvier 2013 - 03:03 .

[Joy Divison]

Jimmy - I agree I could have and should have made my objection clearer.

And I think the Bethesda route of providing and encouraging its customers to mod their games and trying to get console makers to get into the mod game is the way to go. Way more so than the current Bioware attitude or your proposal. If Bioware does not feel it is profitable, desirable, or a good idea to release a tool kit, I won't shed any tears over the limited shelf-life of their products.

In Exile - you are just being argumentative. We are aware corporations are inextricably involved in any mod process because they must make the games and overlook technical licensing issues.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 26 janvier 2013 - 02:18 .

[In Exile]

Joy Divison wrote...
In Exile - you are just being argumentative. We are aware corporations are inextricably involved in any mod process because they must make the games and overlook technical licensing issues.

They consent, not overlook, if you want to be technical. 

My point is that this anti-company talk and freedom talk is silly - what sets mods apart from piracy is developer support. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

My point is that this anti-company talk and freedom talk is silly - what sets mods apart from piracy is developer support.

What sets mods apart from piracy is the lack of theft.

If I buy a game, and then I modify it, even if the publisher forbids me from doing so, I'm not stealing anything.  No harm is being done.  Yes, I'm possibly violating the terms of my software license, but that doesn't constitute harm.

[Addai]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

This is an opinion I can respect.

It is well thought-out, articulate on exactly what points are good and bad, and gives some input to the conversation.

As opposed to saying "No, its stupid and you are the devil for suggesting it."

Thanks, Jilla.

She was nicer about it, but I said the same thing three pages ago and you just kept on.

I'm glad we got that settled. 

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
What sets mods apart from piracy is the lack of theft.

It's still wrong to the company - just of a different class.

If I buy a game, and then I modify it, even if the publisher forbids me from doing so, I'm not stealing anything.  No harm is being done.  Yes, I'm possibly violating the terms of my software license, but that doesn't constitute harm.

It's breach of contract. It's not the same type of harm, and it might not be the same magnitude, but it's a legal wrong all the same.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...
I'd imagine because most people have a TV independently. 

That doesn't diminish its necessity.

If we're evaluating the total cost of the gaming systems, why are we counting the TV's cost? A TV-watching gamer doesn't get the cost of his TV back if he plays games on PC. He just ends up using his TV less.

Possibly true, though only in the last year or so have those costs been comparable.  Consolers will routinely speak of a value of paying only a small price for their hardware and enjoying their content on massive displays.

I always wondered about that. I did the math a couple years ago and found out that the effective size of my PC screen was about what I'd get if I played games in my living room on a 97 inch TV. I could get that down to 60 inches if I reconfigured all the furniture.

[Conduit0]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
What sets mods apart from piracy is the lack of theft.

It's still wrong to the company - just of a different class.

If I buy a game, and then I modify it, even if the publisher forbids me from doing so, I'm not stealing anything.  No harm is being done.  Yes, I'm possibly violating the terms of my software license, but that doesn't constitute harm.

It's breach of contract. It's not the same type of harm, and it might not be the same magnitude, but it's a legal wrong all the same.

I'll go ahead and chime in here, modding is not illegal nor a breach of contract. Modding falls squarely under fair use laws in the US and most other countries. You can pour over every EULA in every game you own and you will not find a clause in any of them that attempts to ban modding, because the publisher couldn't legally do so even if they wanted to.

The only place where the developer/publisher has any control over modding is in the case of online features, where they can potentially ban modding as part of their ToS, but even then, violating the ToS simply means you lose access to online features, such as multiplayer.

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...

If I buy a game, and then I modify it, even if the publisher forbids me from doing so, I'm not stealing anything.  No harm is being done.  Yes, I'm possibly violating the terms of my software license, but that doesn't constitute harm.

It's breach of contract. It's not the same type of harm, and it might not be the same magnitude, but it's a legal wrong all the same.

First Sales right. Once money exchanges hands, the game is your property to use as see fit. This includes modding.