373 réponses à ce sujet

[Orihime]

well....if they make a toolkit i'd be happy

 

maybe once we hear news for it then more happyness around x]

 

otherwise i can wait for dai and see how i feel playing it first on ps4 then get it for pc

[CybAnt1]

I don't even remotely see how you could turn the lack of a modkit into a privacy issue.

 

I think Biz was referring more to the way the console manufacturers spy on whether you're loading "unauthorized" software (such as game mods) onto gaming consoles. 

[Fast Jimmy]

I think Biz was referring more to the way the console manufacturers spy on whether you're loading "unauthorized" software (such as game mods) onto gaming consoles.

Ah. I see.

It is something that is unfortunate, but in my mind almost necessary. If you install a faulty fan-made mod that crashes to desktop on your PC and requires you to reinstall the game, no big deal. If you had the same issue on a console, it is not only much more tricky but also incredibly outside the normal range of experience for consoles.

The only way they can certify content is safe to add to their system is to go through their rigorous and resource-intensive certification process. Most developers don't want to pay this (which can cost thousands of dollars), let alone modders, so it winds up creating blocks to the content ever making it to consoles through official channels.


Again, if developers were making money off of these mods and could bundle some of the most popular ones into one release (or even multiple bundled releases over the course of the game's life), this could turn it all around. The content could be certified, optional content added, manufacturers confident that system stability is not in question, developers could cover their costs of certification (and, hopefully, net them a profit) and modders who want to sell their content get a chance to more than triple their potential market.

Console manufacturers are never going to make their systems that open, because it actively harms the expected experience of a console if they do. Until said content can find a way to pay for certification, console mods will either be "illegal" or a pipe dream.

[TrixX]

Wow lots of posts since I was last here!

 

Well to recap, first port of call is the Valve references. Steam Workshop provided a very convenient and active way to release mods to players and have them play nice (having just re-modded DAO I can see why they did this!). It is directly done in response to things like CS and TF2 being so mod heavy and mod based, but also that their engine is so mod friendly at the same time. The monetisation of some of their mods for HL/HL2 is insane, numbers normal AAA Publishers would drool over, yet then we see EA and its mod lockdown designs. ME series and even DA2 were heavily locked down by comparison. Hell anything on UE or Frostbite is pretty locked down if the Dev's/Publishers want it to be. Opening things up to modders would provide a wealth of content and a fanbase that stick's far more reliably than one they vilify for wanting to change things (must not mention ME3 ending...).

 

Going on pure sales figures for games really doesn't give a full accurate picture of who bought what and why. Steam for instance has a customer base in the 10's of millions, 65 million last press release I read but that was months ago. Even CoD's numbers can't compete with that even with all the console sales combined! However it also highlight's that at best on Steam you reach about 10-12% of the total market with sales. Yet if you compare that to console sales versus game sales your market penetration figures will be much higher. Just having a quick VGChartz reference to back this up and you'll see that so far there's been 82.63m and 81.12m sales of consoles for PS3 and X360 respectively, with sales of MW3 reaching 12.79m and 14.19m on each platform showing roughly 15.47% to 17.49% market pen, whereas on Steam that figure is 65m with sales of 1,62m sold, showing a pen of merely 0.024%.

 

All lots of figures but CoD MW3 was one of the turning points on PC for the genre, it marked some of the lowest sales of the shooter on the PC and that is still in decline as MP games like that require a pretty large active user base. Without that the game just dies off fast.

 

The more interesting and apt comparison is Skyrim which in turn has far more revealing results:

 

X360 - Sold  7.89m - Pen = 0.097%

PS3 - Sold  5.40m - Pen = 0.065%

PC - Sold  3.40m - Pen = 0.052%

 

That old PC there catching up nicely when it comes to RPG/CRPG gaming. Amusingly if you do a bit of a stat analysis you see interesting results, games like GTA 4/5 will have terrible sales on PC due to them being released months to even years behind the console version. Yet it's a huge game selling massive units of 10m plus on both consoles (GTA IV stats).

 

Yet taking those "massive stats" into perspective they are achieving less than 2% market penetration in total which tbh is pretty staggering. Not to mention that the console sales stat is bollocks. It's a sales stat not an Active and still functioning stat. For instance the actual unique login userbase of Steam is over 65million which was press released as larger than XBox Live unique logins, so you have to reduce the active userbase due to faulty consoles. The other factor is that while sales matter for initial ROI, it's not a good measure of how well the game was received as marketing can hide a multitude of sins. One other thing to keep in mind PC numbers are less accurate than others, primarily due to Steam's lack of transparency on sales numbers, so we can't gauge them properly without accurate input data.

 

So from a stat analysis of the above, the info we have is so inaccurate we can't determine the Market pen % levels correctly, which in turn leaves us a bit short changed

 

 

Anyway back to modding, if there's anything that Valve has shown, it's that an active mod community keeps games going and sales going far longer than locking it down. Instead of fearing the creativity of the players and what they can do to the IP (kinda odd considering some of the most downloaded DAO mods...) allow it to flourish and the sales for PC may even surprise, despite the teenagers with their consoles and Mum's credit card...

 

 

 

...

Again, if developers were making money off of these mods and could bundle some of the most popular ones into one release (or even multiple bundled releases over the course of the game's life), this could turn it all around. The content could be certified, optional content added, manufacturers confident that system stability is not in question, developers could cover their costs of certification (and, hopefully, net them a profit) and modders who want to sell their content get a chance to more than triple their potential market.

Console manufacturers are never going to make their systems that open, because it actively harms the expected experience of a console if they do. Until said content can find a way to pay for certification, console mods will either be "illegal" or a pipe dream.

 

 

Again there's an easy solution to that. Do what Valve does, disclaimer it and say they use at their own risk. Maybe have a way to backup important stored data to a flash drive or whatever to cover their asses, but at the end of the day it's a simpler solution than locking down the console and acting like a six yr old with a candy stick about it  (obviously I'm meaning the Console Manufacturers )

[Fast Jimmy]

Again there's an easy solution to that. Do what Valve does, disclaimer it and say they use at their own risk. Maybe have a way to backup important stored data to a flash drive or whatever to cover their asses, but at the end of the day it's a simpler solution than locking down the console and acting like a six yr old with a candy stick about it (obviously I'm meaning the Console Manufacturers )

Somehow, I seriously doubt saying "suck it up, Princess" to the manufacturers is as easy as you suggest.

For instance, if I can release online user content without having to go through MS or Sony's certification process, suddenly developers are going to start calling "foul" that such restrictions are placed on them and them alone. Not to mention that the complaints people get about their XB1 dashboards crashing because of unstable software aren't going to be fielded by the developers by and large (let alone the modders that created them), but by MS and Sony's respective Help Desks, whose tasks will now expand out to help troubleshoot every piece of random shoddy content someone can push out.

Now, suddenly, the manufactuers are having to pony up extra resources and support for content they don't see an extra dime for. And since the console interface is not well-designed for much technical activity (for instance, you need to go two or three levels deep into the UI just to copy a file to a USB storage device), the process of trying to recover some of the damage done by these mods will be tedious and not at all pleasant for consumers.

If it causes the manufacturers more money and it results in some negative responses from users who completely ignored the "buyer beware" warning, what value does it have to them? They are still kicking PC's butt just fine without mods... there is no reason for them to risk their current model to chase after a competitor that is catering to a group outside their target demographic.


I'd want to see mods on consoles as much as anyone else, but people need to realize that if the solution was that simple and could make manufacturers lots of money, there wouldn't be nearly as much resistance.

Also, I'd not mention Valve's approach to console gaming just yet, given that they have had no indication of success so far. People are excited now, but that doesn't mean their model of open-source console gaming won't run into the same exact problems I'm outlining above.

[Allan Schumacher]

The monetisation of some of their mods for HL/HL2 is insane, numbers normal AAA Publishers would drool over, yet then we see EA and its mod lockdown designs.

 

I find these statements interesting because EA is typically seen as a money grubbing, exploitative, dollars above all else company.  Yet I also see a lot of stuff like this about how EA is just obtuse and not realizing how many dollars they are forfeiting.

 

 

All the while, BioWare has released two games that have toolsets (including one built around it) so it's not exactly like BioWare flies blind in this regard IMO.

[Fast Jimmy]

I find these statements interesting because EA is typically seen as a money grubbing, exploitative, dollars above all else company. Yet I also see a lot of stuff like this about how EA is just obtuse and not realizing how many dollars they are forfeiting.


All the while, BioWare has released two games that have toolsets (including one built around it) so it's not exactly like BioWare flies blind in this regard IMO.

I agree that this is pretty funny. We'll see the argument that EA is losing money with its lack of mod support right within the same breath that they are blocking support to sell more DLC. It is an interesting conundrum.

Allan, you may be able to answer this question... as all EA developers move to Frostbite, would DICE have any possibility at all of making a master toolkit that could work for all games, if time, money and resources were all non-factors?

[Allan Schumacher]

I agree that this is pretty funny. We'll see the argument that EA is losing money with its lack of mod support right within the same breath that they are blocking support to sell more DLC. It is an interesting conundrum.

Allan, you may be able to answer this question... as all EA developers move to Frostbite, would DICE have any possibility at all of making a master toolkit that could work for all games, if time, money and resources were all non-factors?

 

I know that Frostbite 1 used a third party animation system, but DICE ended up integrating an EA one into Frostbite 2 and beyond.  I'm not an engine expert, but from the outside looking in I could imagine there being advantages to minimizing the amount of third party implementation.

 

Or are you referring to the Frostbite team making a singular toolset that would work with all of the games?

[Fast Jimmy]

I know that Frostbite 1 used a third party animation system, but DICE ended up integrating an EA one into Frostbite 2 and beyond. I'm not an engine expert, but from the outside looking in I could imagine there being advantages to minimizing the amount of third party implementation.

Or are you referring to the Frostbite team making a singular toolset that would work with all of the games?

Yes.

Or, on a possibly more feasible level, a toolset skeleton that would be compatible with all games, which then could be fleshed out and customized for each title (barring licensing and other third party concerns)?

[Realmzmaster]

Yes.

Or, on a possibly more feasible level, a toolset skeleton that would be compatible with all games, which then could be fleshed out and customized for each title (barring licensing and other third party concerns)?

 

Would that mean that EA would have to devote more resources to control cheating in multiplayer games. because there would be tools to make it easier to make cheat mods. So there could be a downside to producing a universal modkit or toolkit skeleton.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Would that mean that EA would have to devote more resources to control cheating in multiplayer games. because there would be tools to make it easier to make cheat mods. So there could be a downside to producing a universal modkit or toolkit skeleton.

That is an unfortunately good point.  As much as I'd like to see open season for modding, modding can break multiplayer games (something I rarely consider because I don't ever play multiplayer).

[CybAnt1]

That is an unfortunately good point.  As much as I'd like to see open season for modding, modding can break multiplayer games (something I rarely consider because I don't ever play multiplayer).

 

Well, in WoW, it puts them in a weird position. They do allow modding. But nothing that can give a character competitive advantage in PvP, or basically defeats the progression experience (although for the first time, you can now pay to boost characters to level 90 and skip content). 

 

http://www.curse.com/addons/wow

 

There's stuff that can help you with your professions, or give you a better UI for raiding, help you manage your inventory or your auctions, or track your quests. That they let modders do, and there's built in add-on support for players that even warns you when add-ons are out-of-date with the latest patches. 

 

But they vigorously police mods to make sure there's nothing outside of permitted areas. It's kind of a bit like the Apple Store that way. Of course, WoW modders are doing this for free; but it's often the case that they built some tool to help themselves play the game, then figured they'd put it out there for others to download and use. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I can just imagine what would happen in a competitive PvP shooter wherein someone copied a HUD element from an RPG that displays where other characters are on a minimap.

[kwinkatopo]

Skyrim's been out for going on three years. You're still talking about it. And while mods are nice, people don't remember ES games for mods that most players, the Xbox ones, don't even have. 

Elder Scrolls games are only known for the mods. That's why Bethesda gets away with half-finished products.

[Realmzmaster]

Elder Scrolls games are only known for the mods. That's why Bethesda gets away with half-finished products.

 

One of the reasons that Bethesda ES is known for mods is because they do not optimize the game properly for the PC. Bethesda appears to allow the modders to do that work for them.

[Ryzaki]

One of the reasons that Bethesda ES is known for mods is because they do not optimize the game properly for the PC. Bethesda appears to allow the modders to do that work for them.

 

I heard the PS3 port was a disaster as well.

[JCFR]

I heard the PS3 port was a disaster as well.

Maybe, but look at the vast amount of great mods for skyrim now. Over 30.000 in Nexus (great site). And hell, with all the ENB there - and given the right hardware - gamers can make it look  fantastic... and i sooo can't wait for Enderal to be released. 
So who cares if the start is a fail... MMO-Gamers don't care since years and it's always the same problems at start.  

Mods even add to the lifespan of a game, keeping the interest high.

 

but since EA most likely wouldn't wish anyone to interfere with their cashgrabbing-dlc-plans, there will -probably- be no place for mods.

 

Oh, and by the way, i read that if you want an employment at Bioware(at least in the fields of leveldesign and story), you have to make a Module with the old NWN-toolset.

[DanielCofour]

I find these statements interesting because EA is typically seen as a money grubbing, exploitative, dollars above all else company.  Yet I also see a lot of stuff like this about how EA is just obtuse and not realizing how many dollars they are forfeiting.

 

 

All the while, BioWare has released two games that have toolsets (including one built around it) so it's not exactly like BioWare flies blind in this regard IMO.

 

There's a difference though. On the surface it might not seem that way, but there is. Valve is making money by offering people a product they want, and doing it while respecting the customer. Their games, in which mods are being sold, are free. And the author of the mod gets a cut. Valve is making money, the modders are making money, and the customer is happy because the money incentive creates more mods. It's win-win-win-win situation. 

 

With EA on the other hand, it's usually a blatant cash-grab, the publisher wins, but the customer feels cheated. Customer benefit is rarely considered, and most often is a lie. Like the recent Plants vs. Zombie: Garden Warfare debacle. The developers created a game with a free-to-play economy design and charged 30$ for it. Whenever people played it, progress was slow and it was incredibly tedious to get things in the game. Then EA graciously came in and solved the problem, by introducing micro-transactions. And they expected people to be thankful for their solution to a problem they created intentionally. That's blatantly disrespectful towards the customer.

 

There are numerous examples of that. Take Steam vs. Origin. They're basically the same, both use DRM, except that Steam is superior in the number of products it has on offer, and no one is forced to use it. However, if I want to play a Dragon Age game, I'm forced to use Origin. And the result is clear, people like Steam, and people don't like Origin. Then free-to-play. There are a number of good f2p games on the market, and they usually make paying optional, not mandatory, and the payments are within reason. The av. player wouldn't spend more than 10$ on the game. But when EA got their hands on the idea, paying became a mandatory in their f2p games. And the amount of money did not justify the costs. A single item cost 30$... because **** the customer. And not only that, EA went ahead and introduced microtransactions in 60$ retail games... which is just absurd.

 

Bottom line: No one is faulting video-games publishers/developers for making money. That would be stupid. How they make that money is what's in question here. It might seem that the statements that "EA is money-grubbing" and "EA is obtuse for forfeiting money opportunities" are contradictory, but they're not. Because EA is using every trick in the book to make money by exploiting the customers, treating them as mindless consumers, while forfeiting every opportunity to make money in a way that respects the customers, treats them with dignity. I won't go on, because I hope by now, I made my point.

 

I will mention though that I described a general trend, which does mean there are exceptions to it. But also exceptions(the two Dragon Age toolsets) don't prove the trend wrong.

[JCFR]

There are numerous examples of that. Take Steam vs. Origin. They're basically the same, both use DRM, except that Steam is superior in the number of products it has on offer, and no one is forced to use it. However, if I want to play a Dragon Age game, I'm forced to use Origin. And the result is clear, people like Steam, and people don't like Origin. Then free-to-play. There are a number of good f2p games on the market, and they usually make paying optional, not mandatory, and the payments are within reason. The av. player wouldn't spend more than 10$ on the game. But when EA got their hands on the idea, paying became a mandatory in their f2p games. And the amount of money did not justify the costs. A single item cost 30$... because **** the customer. And not only that, EA went ahead and introduced microtransactions in 60$ retail games... which is just absurd.

 

Bottom line: No one is faulting video-games publishers/developers for making money. That would be stupid. How they make that money is what's in question here. It might seem that the statements that "EA is money-grubbing" and "EA is obtuse for forfeiting money opportunities" are contradictory, but they're not. Because EA is using every trick in the book to make money by exploiting the customers, treating them as mindless consumers, while forfeiting every opportunity to make money in a way that respects the customers, treats them with dignity. I won't go on, because I hope by now, I made my point.

 

I will mention though that I described a general trend, which does mean there are exceptions to it. But also exceptions(the two Dragon Age toolsets) don't prove the trend wrong.

Well i wasn't to fond of Steam when Valve started the whole thing and for a long time this kept on. First game and for long time the only one was HL2... back then i only got a 56k-modem.

But in the last 2-3 years i have to admit, i opened up. The vast amount of products, the patch-support, not to forget the support for independent developers and the really great Steam-sales offers. Compare that to origin or uplay and they have to lose.

Not to forget the general business terms at start went completly against the laws in my country, why it earned the nickname Spyrigin and still is known as that.

I mean, is there any way EA could fail more?  Ah yes! no retail discs, online only.  Nice, really nice. even steam wouldn't go this far. 

 

EA constantly states theywant to change but  so far i didn'T see them putting any effort in this "change". Sad, because i really would like to give them another chance because of developers like bioware and their franchises.

[AlanC9]

There are numerous examples of that. Take Steam vs. Origin. They're basically the same, both use DRM, except that Steam is superior in the number of products it has on offer, and no one is forced to use it. However, if I want to play a Dragon Age game, I'm forced to use Origin.

Wait... you mean Half-Life 2 players don't have to use Steam? I damn well had Steam crammed down my throat when I bought that game. Plus several hours of downloading to make the game functional.

You're also wrong about Dragon Age. DAO, at least, doesn't need Origin.

I don't see how this relates to the topic anyway.

[AlanC9]

I mean, is there any way EA could fail more? Ah yes! no retail discs, online only. Nice, really nice. even steam wouldn't go this far.

Meh. I have to drive half an hour to get to a store that stocks PC games. And if I'm going to buy online, it's either get physical discs in a couple of days, or a direct download in a couple of hours at most.

[JCFR]

Meh. I have to drive half an hour to get to a store that stocks PC games. And if I'm going to buy online, it's either get physical discs in a couple of days, or a direct download in a couple of hours at most.

Ever heard about online shopping? Amazon and such stuff? 

And driving half an hour in a car...so much stress. That's the distance i drive every day to work and back. Not to forget i live in germany and outside the big metropoles getting  highspeed-internet isn't that easy. Just go and download 8GB if your framerate sometimes drops down to less than 100KBs. 

Not much fun.

[AlanC9]

Ever heard about online shopping? Amazon and such stuff? 
And driving half an hour in a car...so much stress. That's the distance i drive every day to work and back. Not to forget i live in germany and outside the big metropoles getting  highspeed-internet isn't that easy. Just go and download 8GB if your framerate sometimes drops down to less than 100KBs. 
Not much fun.

 
Did you read the second sentence of my post? Here it is again:
 

And if I'm going to buy online, it's either get physical discs in a couple of days, or a direct download in a couple of hours at most.

 

So of course I've heard of Amazon and such, silly. That's my option for getting physical discs.

 

Sorry you've got crappy broadband, though.What's your average sustained DL speed?  And yeah, driving half an hour isn't bad. But worthless waste of time is worthless.

[DanielCofour]

Wait... you mean Half-Life 2 players don't have to use Steam? I damn well had Steam crammed down my throat when I bought that game. Plus several hours of downloading to make the game functional.

You're also wrong about Dragon Age. DAO, at least, doesn't need Origin.

I don't see how this relates to the topic anyway.

 

It relates to the post I quoted. Which I thought would be obvious. If you wouldn't have taken things out of context, maybe that would've been clearer. And I would point you to my last paragraph, which specifically states that exceptions to the general trend exist, however the exception doesn't prove the trend wrong, which is what you're implying with both your examples. I wasn't talking about Origins, I was talking about the upcoming Dragon Age Inquisition(which I also thought would be obvious)...but Origins was released in 2009, and at the time, EA wasn't aggressively cramming down Origin on out throat. And also the game was already in development by the time EA bought Bioware. However two years later, all EA games, including DA2 came with a mandatory Origin (aand.. also included a spybot). Steam isn't perfect by any means, Valve isn't either, they're a company out to make money. But then again... you're bringing up a 10 year old game as an example of wrong-doing... which is a bit absurd, considering that in recent years, Steam has been a good service(with the exception of the recent influx of unfinished early-access game). 

 

I'm not here to defend Steam or to blame EA or anything, so I won't be doing it anymore. If you don't see the difference between Valve's service and business model vs. EA's... well, then okay.. look it up or something. I was merely pointing out why the two statements about EA weren't contradictory, which was apparently misunderstood by you.