Casual gamers that don't know how to plug in a computer are killing PC gaming.
But casual gamers are killing all sorts of today's "core" gaming.
But casual gamers are killing all sorts of today's "core" gaming.
Agreed in both points again. Even in the Crysis 2 area. Especially now that the DX11 patch is out it looks beyond stunning for where it's supposed to be set. Back to Blizzard I wish I knew what was going through their minds doing half of their decisions. Thankfully I don't care for Diablo 3 since I never played any of them so it peaks no interest in me.JohnnyDelRay said:Yeah this came to mind too actually. I also wondered why Blizzard, with PC exclusive titles, would do this to PC gaming in general, making it more of a hassle for "some". If they wanted to make PC gaming more accessible, why make people jump through more hoops - make it simpler like consoles where you can put the game in, install, and play, like we used to. Forced automatic updates for n00bs is a poor excuse, just don't release beta software. What people loved about older battlefield games was the huge epic maps and large conquest battles.80Maxwell08 said:All right I agree with you on everything you said but I do have something to say about the Battlefield 3 point. Considering that Crytek said the exact same about Crysis 2 only for that to come with only DX9 at the start and obviously consolized controls plus the linearity was obviously so the environments could be less expansive and take up less space. I'm not really arguing with you but I just wanted to point out a identical case by another primary PC developer.mornal said:Battlefield 3 is being primarily designed for the PC and you can probably find a quote from the developers along those lines. DICE knows it's core fanbase is in PC gaming.
Starcraft II and Diablo 3 are both PC exclusives. Hard to try and get people to leave the PC platform when you only make games for it.
Rage's cut content is going to apply to all platforms (if it doesn't, you may be on to something).
If developers wanted to make us stop buying PC games they would stop making them. Very few business plans involve making their products difficult to use so consumers will stop buying them. If these features end up with lost customers that is unfortunate side effect of their main purpose. All the things you mentioned are intended to fight piracy, not kill off a group of consumers, a.k.a. people with money.
Crysis 2 was quite a surprise to me, seeing as Crysis was such a benchmark for PC computing power. Crysis 2 didn't even make my computer break a sweat, compared to the specs required to run games like Witcher 2 and BF3. And I'll bet that Far Cry 3 will only be using DX9 as well. Bit of a shame for an otherwise truly impressive engine. I won't complain too much on that front though, despite some claims, I think Crysis 2 looked great.
Its also one of its most annoying traits, as we are always left with the choice of the lowest common denominator.Farther than stars said:That's just how capitalism works and it's actually one of its morally justifiable traits.
There is one thing wrong it Origin: its not steam. I want to buy my games on Steam and EA are just being dicks by pulling their content. Valve has every right to want a slice of DLC sale because there is no other way to handle DLC sales on a digital distribution platform that is sustainable.Bajinga said:I don't know why you say that Battlefield 3's downdfall is that it requires Origin. Origin is a good service; I will be buying Crysis 2 from there because there just isn't anything wrong with it.
"killing off" is a bit strong, suppressing perhaps, but the core games are still out there, just not as many of them are AAA.Flailing Escapist said:Casual gamers that don't know how to plug in a computer are killing PC gaming.
But casual gamers are killing all sorts of today's "core" gaming.
I just felt the absolute need to point out that that's not true. At all.JohnnyDelRay said:They make all their money on release date anyways...
It's purported that the lack of a server browser actually makes it all easier and faster, though I don't know if I believe this. And they are simply pushing Origin as a digital download source competing with Steam when they do this. It's not competitive at this point though because they only offer their own games.JohnnyDelRay said:Ok, after reading a spate of news recently about games that are being released in the near-future, and spreading my wrath on forums with regards to certain announcements, I suddenly came to realize, that despite people's claims that PC gaming is alive and kicking and will continue to be so, I wonder if developers are having different thoughts.
First I'll summarize some news ranging from recent to kinda old, in "AAA titled" games
Battlefield 3 (EA)
-Requires Origin
-No built-in server browser, have to exit and launch your own, then restart game
The second hand content being cut doesn't affect PC at all since you cannot buy second hand PC games anywhere. And they like Always on as an anti-piracy measure, but it really only affects paying customers.Rage (id)
-Not sure if implementing always-online
-Second hand content cut (not sure if this only affects PC?)
Battlenet 2.0 is offered just so they can change their games from a consumer bought item to a service, so we can't do anything they don't want us to do without suffering potential legal consequences. For Diablo 3, re-read my previous sentence. ;pStarcraft II (Blizzard)
- Battlenet 2.0 discourages LAN play, not even geared properly for competitions of large scales, as per Warcraft III
Diablo 3 (Blizzard)
- Always-on connection required, for single-player campaign
I don't think they are trying to kill it, but they definitely lean towards the consoles because it's a much larger revenue source. The reason they are able to get away with it at this point is because they are so large. But, the more people they anger, the more won't buy their products. They think because they are so large that they can do what they want, but we have seen giants crumble, look at the 16 bit era compared to now. Lots of crumbling. And more for the future.Now these are a few, but probably the most significant moves by juggernaut companies, whose games will sell like hotcakes and top anything else, despite claims of "boycotts" and other such protests. I have heard a lot of "boycott the PC version!" protests as well.
But I am wondering that maybe that's what developers want? I mean, why else would you exclude people with poorly-performing internet connections? And make people rely on your server, who knows how long that's going to run for? Or all the other hardware required to keep your connection going. They make all their money on release date anyways, so discouraging longevity in a game, and even cutting content from second hand sales, just sounds...stupid?
Not to mention sticking it to the modding community, which gives more to a game's cult status than people give credit for. I mean, just looking at Oblivion and GTA series, how rapidly and extensively every aspect of the game gets tweaked, despite any number of bugs, is just amazing. Show some love for the gamers who love the game, s'what I say.
The other thing that has been removed from most major games is LAN functionality. It's crazy that an online connection is required for LAN games, when someone is sitting RIGHT NEXT TO YOU. I know we send emails to people 5 meters away, and that goes through remote servers, but this is a real-time connection we're talking about. The LAN culture is disappearing, and something so easy to implement is a shame that it's gone. I'm not even going to try bringing DRM into the discussion, because treating gamers like criminals has never been a good idea in my book, s'why I have supported CDProjekt from the start.
Anyone else care to agree/disprove my theory? I'll be very happy to hear from anyone's side!
TL;DR = With big-name developers implementing things such as 'always-on' connection for single player games, and removing things like LAN functionality, are they trying to kill the PC gaming community? Or am I looking into things too deep?
Sorry, I guess I have my facts wrong. I just recall hearing in many articles that around launch date is where most companies rake in the largest portion of their profits from a game. Also hence why CDProjekt only had DRM on their retail sold copies of The Witcher 2 initially, but then removed it as soon as patch 1.01 came out. But I'm not part of the industry, so I can't really quote this on hard facts.Hexenwolf said:I just felt the absolute need to point out that that's not true. At all.JohnnyDelRay said:They make all their money on release date anyways...
Earn more.JohnnyDelRay said:But I am wondering that maybe that's what developers want?
Strategy? If people that would pirate/buy second hand version of your game if it had LAN and without it will be forced to buy it >> people that would stop buying if it didn't has one; then kill LAN. Simple really.JohnnyDelRay said:I mean, why else would you exclude people with poorly-performing internet connections?
Well mate, if 15 years of maintaining the servers up doesn't buy em some trust... i honestly don't know what will.JohnnyDelRay said:And make people rely on your server, who knows how long that's going to run for? Or all the other hardware required to keep your connection going. They make all their money on release date anyways, so discouraging longevity in a game, and even cutting content from second hand sales, just sounds...stupid?
Yep, it was killed by something called Internet. And when devs realized it just hurts their sales they just removed the corpse.JohnnyDelRay said:The LAN culture is disappearing, and something so easy to implement is a shame that it's gone.
True, but then the same can be said about democracy. It really comes down to whether you think it's an acceptable sacrifice and since there are still AAA games out there that I love and indie titles like Super Meat Boy and From Dust which can still earn great acclaim, I'm not too bothered by it.Continuity said:Its also one of its most annoying traits, as we are always left with the choice of the lowest common denominator.Farther than stars said:That's just how capitalism works and it's actually one of its morally justifiable traits.