635 réponses à ce sujet

[Megaton_Hope]

Maverick827 wrote...
How is Origin's interface clunkier?  I've found the exact opposite to be true.

YMMV, but Steam (with its aggravating desire to be always-on at startup) will just start a game from my Start-bar if I want, and go right to that game's menu. (With Steam and its news updates loaded comfortably in the background, of course.) Origin's load time, on the other hand, is atrocious, which is followed by loading my library screen with big ol' unnecessary covers of the games I could play, and a pop-up window with the Origin version of update news. Mostly advertising Battlefield. After which I have to wait again for that game to load; my hardware's not bleeding edge, but it's not exactly bargain basement, either, so I'm willing to blame Origin.

Only other thing Steam does that I just can't abide is forcing big updates, like Windows does. Otherwise it offers a lot of ways to interact with what I've got, and it's got lots of fun sale events.

[spacehamsterZH]

Maverick827 wrote...
First of all, physical copies of games are starting to require either Steam or Origin anyway (Skyrim, Mass Effect 3).

Yeah, and as we've established, a lot of people don't like that. It's a bit funny for you to be using that to basically attack people who don't want to use digital distribution now. Also, you're barking up the wrong tree - like I said, I actually prefer to get my games digitally myself, but I'm not going to argue with people over their preferences because when it comes to buying games on disc or online, it's really just that - a preference. We might as well argue chocolate vs vanilla. In the end, what you get is the same thing, it's just either downloaded from a server to your HD or from a disc.

No, not really.  Software has and will always have bugs.  It only might seem like games are more buggy lately because the more complex they get, the more bugs they are susceptible to.

I'm not buying that. It's an excuse the software industry (not just game companies) makes all over the place for a product that doesn't work. If I buy a vacuum cleaner, I expect it to work. Nobody would understand the concept of buying a vacuum cleaner, then finding out a week later that it doesn't work properly and you'll have to wait another two weeks until MAYBE the manufacturer fixes the problem. And I don't see why the same doesn't apply to software. You can write a 3000-word essay about how the two products are not even remotely the same thing now and you'd probably be right, but as a consumer, I don't care. Make products that work. The rest isn't my problem, it's the manufacturer's. If I was interested in what the problem is, I'd be in IT myself.

it's commonly unfeasible to develop games for anything but Windows/consoles and is really out of the hands of BioWare, EA, or anyone else.

I think you misunderstood my point here. I wasn't saying I actually think it's unfair for a game to require a particular operating system, what I meant was that for the same reason, I think it's a bit silly to complain if a game requires Steam or Origin. Every game requires other software, such as the examples I mentioned, and Steam and Origin are free.

[eroeru]

M25105 wrote...

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Worst company overall? No.

Worst videogame company? Yes.

Yup. In my eyes Monsanto probably takes the worst company award, surprised they're even legal.

They're above legal (jurisdiction).
And I agree.

But I'm also happy EA got the award. Besides other grave issues, problems, shortcomings and utterly horrible business practices their tendency to not let people play their games is above all. Just recently they "patched" up TOR so that people who play from different locations or don't have astatic IP will have to check their e-mail for a mandatory one-time password (instead of the usual security questions).

It's annoying, but what makes it worse is that many e-mails were/are bugged in their databases, including mine - so that the one-time password isn't sent. I can't play the game. The issue has been solved for some via their electronic customer service, but they seem to put long-time subsribers much above all others, so that when I tried and tried to get it solved, they still wouldn't answer sufficiently but rather said I should call them. They wouldn't even say how much it'd cost calling them - "for this you should contact our phone service provider".

Now I can't play the game I've still paid in-game currency in. I won't call. That's bull****.

[Maverick827]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

I'm not buying that. It's an excuse the software industry (not just game companies) makes all over the place for a product that doesn't work. If I buy a vacuum cleaner, I expect it to work. Nobody would understand the concept of buying a vacuum cleaner, then finding out a week later that it doesn't work properly and you'll have to wait another two weeks until MAYBE the manufacturer fixes the problem. And I don't see why the same doesn't apply to software. You can write a 3000-word essay about how the two products are not even remotely the same thing now and you'd probably be right, but as a consumer, I don't care. Make products that work. The rest isn't my problem, it's the manufacturer's. If I was interested in what the problem is, I'd be in IT myself.

As a consumer you don't have to care, but it is what it is.  No matter how much pressure you place on developers to "make products that work," it is impossible to make bug-free software that does anything noteworthy.  The only solution is patching.

What developers can do is make a better effort to support modding because fans can pump out patches faster than they can (though that also comes at the risk of breaking even more things, but modders don't have to worry about such culpability).

[spirosz]

EntropicAngel wrote...

That's the absolute worst way to implement new technology--or anything, really. Don't force people against their will.

[Joy Divison]

Maverick827 wrote...

I really don't understand why people are against digital distribution software in principal. It's one thing to have had a bad experience with Steam or Origin (or both) in the past, but to have "never" used either yet know that you hate them completely baffles me. What is it about these things that they've never used that bothers them? How are they so sure if they've never used them before?

Taking things one step further, I understand even less the sense of entitlement these people have when it comes to having Steam or Origin "forced" on them. Why do they think that technology should stand still (or even in some cases, regress) because they don't want to use a particular piece of software?

Digital distribution software makes patching and upgrades far easier for developers. For games in particular, having an inter-studio DDS like Steam is unimaginably helpful. Why should developers have to create a different patching client for every single game they create just so these people can have a standalone executable? It gets even murkier when you take into account DLC, but I'll ignore that because I assume these people are of the "DLC shouldn't even exist" crowd.

They're essentially expecting Amazon to build some brick and mortar stores in their home town because, although they really want to buy products from them, they just don't like UPS or FedEx because a friend of theirs told them about a story he read once about how a package got lost this one time and the owner had to sit on hold for, like, twenty minutes to get a refund.

Really?  The UPS guy leaves my house once I am given a physical copy of my book.  I don't need to call UPS or schedule an appointment for them to come over to my house whenever I want to read my book.  UPS does not automatically change my book after they delivered it to me.  If something goes wrong with UPS, I can still read my book whenever I want. Finally it is easy peasy lemon squeezy to actually buy a physical copy of my book at a bookstore and not involve Amazon or UPS in the process at all.

[TheRealJayDee]

spirosz wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

That's the absolute worst way to implement new technology--or anything, really. Don't force people against their will.

[LTD]

Imagine just how hard people working at companies having to do with medicine, guns, shady security personnel, investment banks, tobacco companies, health,education are laughing at this poll. Yeah, shame on you EA.

[Maverick827]

EntropicAngel wrote...

That's the absolute worst way to implement new technology--or anything, really. Don't force people against their will.

No, that's the only way to feasibly transition to a new technology. Maintaining legacy systems is a pain in the ass and very costly.  You can't expect a developer to release every patch or DLC on Steam, through their own patching service, on a disc, and through FTP just to appease everyone who felt "forced" to use each system as they progressed.

It's this mentality that makes web programming hell.  A lot of the time it will be mandated that a web app will have to support IE 6, which is a 12 year old browser.  Where I work, we finally just got permission to enforce JavaScript as a requirement; before we were expected to jump through hoops to accommodate people who didn't want to use it.

This isn't a "this is the way I feel about video games" issue.  This is a software issue that has concrete reasoning behind it.

Modifié par Maverick827, 12 avril 2013 - 04:06 .

[AshedMan]

LTD wrote...

Imagine just how hard people working at companies having to do with medicine, guns, shady security personnel, investment banks, tobacco companies, health,education are laughing at this poll. Yeah, shame on you EA.

I imagine a majority of those people have no idea such an internet poll even exists. 

[Paul E Dangerously]

As long as 4chan and Reddit continue to vote-bomb these things, EA will keep winning.

Hell, EA isn't even the worst video game company, just the most in the spotlight.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm not required to use the online services for these products. I'm becoming required to for the games. And that's the problem: required. That's the absolute worst way to implement new technology--or anything, really. Don't force people against their will.

Depends. Eventually you reach critical mass, and people that wish to stay with legacy equipment have to deal with it.

This is not exclusive to video games either. I have seen places that no longer take cash as payment, and some even to the extent that they only take credit cards (both retail and online sellers), for a variety of reasons. If it gets to a point where supporting a legacy way of doing things is not worth the time/money to do, it gets to a point where a company is willing to accept it may lose some customers with a decision.

I fully expect gaming to be all digital at some point in the future. It will get to a point where brick and mortar retail would still result in some sales, but the simplicity of not having to deal with that manufacturing process, the price guaranteeing, securing shelf space, and so forth will eventually result in better financial performance.

It makes no sense to bother making games for the Super Nintendo, the economies of scale no longer exist and you're not likely to make much money by doing so (you're more likely to lose money!).  We won't make software for Windows 95 or DOS anymore, even though I suppose we technically could.

I may be wrong, but it's just the way I see the industry going. Eventually boxed copies will go away, and yes some will be left out cold, but others will decide to make the change. As long as enough people make the transition, it's still a good decision to do so.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 12 avril 2013 - 10:59 .

[Megaton_Hope]

I've never been anywhere that they wouldn't accept cash if offered. There are places where I can imagine it's frowned upon (purchasing automobiles or real estate), but I doubt it's going anywhere as a medium of exchange, either. Not everybody's got a relationship with a nationwide chain of banks, and not everybody particularly wants to hand out the keys to their banking info every time they buy a hamburger. Credit and debit cards are useful time-savers compared to carrying large amounts of cash everywhere, but taking only credit at a brick and mortar establishment puts you into a luxury niche.

[Allan Schumacher]

My point is that if a business feels it's preferably to not take cash (for whatever reasons), then to do business there you accept that, or you take your business elsewhere.

As for only taking credit at a brick and mortar establishment, you'll still find plenty of non-luxury establishments that place restrictions on cash (no bills over $20 and the like).  Other restrictions will be exact change and whatnot.

These types of places do exist: http://bucks.blogs.n...no-cash-please/. My Dad was a former business owner (small computer store) and once upon a time offered a discount for cash purposes (since it was cheaper for him to deal with cash) until cash eventually became more inconvenient for him to deal with. Though he adopted a change in his policy more because payments in cash were so infrequent, that taking the time to deal with cash deposits and whatnot with the bank was less and less worth the trouble.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 13 avril 2013 - 12:23 .

[bmwcrazy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

My Dad was a former business owner (small computer store) and once upon a time offered a discount for cash purposes (since it was cheaper for him to deal with cash) until cash eventually became more inconvenient for him to deal with. Though he adopted a change in his policy more because payments in cash were so infrequent, that taking the time to deal with cash deposits and whatnot with the bank was less and less worth the trouble.

Not me.

As a small business owner, I welcome cash transactions over plastic all day everyday for obvious reasons. *wink* *wink*

Modifié par bmwcrazy, 13 avril 2013 - 12:34 .

[eroeru]

There's a difference between going on sale on the net not having a boxed version and disabling an offline mode out of what seems to be sheer cynicism and disregard for the gamer...

Modifié par eroeru, 13 avril 2013 - 01:04 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Sure, but that's not relevant to the current course that the discussion is on (being forced to purchase software digitally)

[Megaton_Hope]

I don't mind digital distribution so much. (Although I do mind when you buy a DVD, and the install program on that DVD leads by default to a download instead of reading information from the disk. Inefficient.) The whole always-connected-to-a-server-in-single-player thing does bug me, though, that's something else.

Like when I start Mass Effect 2, and the load screen demands a connection to an EA server.

[ObserverStatus]

EntropicAngel wrote...
That's the absolute worst way to implement new technology--or anything, really. Don't force people against their will.

I'd wager that more than just a few folks from Microsoft wish they'd figured that out before they shipped Windows 8.

[Ravensword]

bmwcrazy wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

My Dad was a former business owner (small computer store) and once upon a time offered a discount for cash purposes (since it was cheaper for him to deal with cash) until cash eventually became more inconvenient for him to deal with. Though he adopted a change in his policy more because payments in cash were so infrequent, that taking the time to deal with cash deposits and whatnot with the bank was less and less worth the trouble.

Not me.

As a small business owner, I welcome cash transactions over plastic all day everyday for obvious reasons. *wink* *wink*

There are some businesses that only deal w/ cash and refuse to accept credit/debit and checks.

[ObserverStatus]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

wafflez wrote...
^ Bethesda has microtransactions?

I counted stuff like Horse Armor as a microtrans. You can lump that in with DLC instead, if you prefer.

That was 7 years ago though, I haven't seen anything like it in Fallout 3, NV, or Skyrim and I don't see any reason to hold a grudge forever.

[Ravensword]

bobobo878 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

wafflez wrote...
^ Bethesda has microtransactions?

I counted stuff like Horse Armor as a microtrans. You can lump that in with DLC instead, if you prefer.

That was 7 years ago though, I haven't seen anything like it in Fallout 3, NV, or Skyrim and I don't see any reason to hold a grudge forever.

Holding a grudge for the sake of argument.

[Allan Schumacher]

Ravensword wrote...

There are some businesses that only deal w/ cash and refuse to accept credit/debit and checks.

There certainly are.  The reason why I use the example of the opposite scenario because it indicates a shift from what I would consider "traditional" (i.e. cash was used before plastic cards).

Holding a grudge for the sake of argument.

Hoorayforicecream would hardly be the only person that discusses this topic that would be holding a grudge for the sake of argument.

Though the Horse Armor example does illustrate that, in many ways, DLC as post release content is still going through various levels of experimentation.  I think it's safe to conclude that the reaction (and presumed lack of success) for something like Horse Armor has helped motivate Bethesda to not do something like that again.