Is Bethesda becoming another EA?

[SajuukKhar]

a better example, which you ignored, would be the TES online game about to hit the market

A game that goes against the spirit and design of the games from their inception, which so far looks clearly to be an uninspired WoW-clone cash grab.

fuck that game

Having played ES since Daggerfall I don't see how a MMORPG with a exploration focus is going against the spirit and design on the games. Hell it isn't even the first multiplayer ES game.

Also, if you look at the feature list, the ES MMO is more of a GW2 ripoff then a WoW ripoff. But I will admit it is a ripoff. but out of all the MMOs you could ripoff, Guild wars 2 is probably the best.

Though it is highly unnecessary, and a cash grab.
.
.

snip

I don't see how charging 20 dollars for DLC that is twice the size of their previous 15 dollar DLC is EA like.

Hell Dawngaurd probably has the best price/cost ratio of any DLC/Expansion pack Bethesda has made since Shivering Isles.

 

[natster43]

I think Bethesda is evil because they are making a Elder Scrolls MMO and not another damn Fallout game and can get away with releasing unfinished games like it isn't a problem. Those are my problems with them. Also 20 dollars for a single DLC expansion? That better be at a pretty damn awesome expansion.

Ok ive said this a million times before so this is the last

Bethesda is NOT making the MMO, ZeniMax Online is! This means Bethesda is free to work on other projects

Yeah someone pointed that out to me earlier.

 

[Yopaz]

And the lawsuit against Mojang over a single word, which they lost.

For the love of god! The lawsuit over Mojang and Scrolls was actually something they had to do in order to protect the future of Elder Scrolls. It's not just because they genuinely wanted to squeeze Mojang for money or because they really think they own the word scroll. It has to do with the copyright laws which you clearly do not understand. If they had not done a lawsuit over this they would have lost the right to defend the Elder Scrolls as their property in the future. Any right they have to own the series called Elder Scrolls would be lost. If they let Mojang pass without trying they wouldn't be able to voice a single complaint if anyone made a game called Older Scrolls or something like this. It's not likely, but taking the chance that no-one will try to rip off a popular product and violate copyright is just stupid. This was mentioned a lot when the actual battle was raging so you would have to be blind not to catch that little fact once.

As for the other things, Bethesda has a long history of making big DLC packages which do cost a lot. They are often worth it though there are a few exceptions. As for Dawnguard it is more of an expansion than the small DLC packages EA has become known for.

They might be turning into EA, but they are still miles behind.

 

[Saviordd1]

So...two strikes against them and your comparing them to the company that has literally done every dick move in the book?

If your going to do that why not go attack Capcom or Nintendo or EVERYONE ELSE.

I get the feeling someones a wee bit butthurt about the price of Dawnguard and is desperately seeking ways for others to share in their current anger.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

"if the Australian govt is forced to take a stand against geo-blocking and regional pricing then there's a very good chance that the EU will else be forced to do something as well."

Which makes me think a deal might be struck with the publishers before it gets that far if only to protect their bad business practices in much more populous EU Zone... for the time being at least.

Well, there's the argument that without regional pricing schemes, digital retail would have a massive advantage over physical retail... to which I answer "No sher, shitlock."

The promise we were originally given on digital distribution was that without all the additional costs and shitfuckery involved with physical distribution and retail we would get certain products, things that existed only as data, for much lower prices.

I still agree with CD Projekt that regular low prices are better for PC gaming than boom and bust cycles dependent on Steam sales. Steam sales are, for the most, only attractive to people who are already PC gamers... if, however, PC gaming's largest digital distributor regularly had games out that were 50% cheaper than the console versions then PC gaming starts looking more attractive beyond that narrow focus.

Of course, Publishers would never go for that... physical retailers would go mental and 3rd party distributors would go fucking berserk.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

Having played ES since Daggerfall I don't see how a MMORPG with a exploration focus is going against the spirit and design on the games. Hell it isn't even the first multiplayer ES game..

True, it isn't the first multiplayer game, but that just means its the second time they've made the wrong damn game.

The elder scrolls have always been about ONE person changing the world, and even have in-lore reasons for not HAVING multiplayer. But I will admit, part of my hate is purely out of general bias toward MMOs in general.

But hey, supposedly the Fallout MMO is more like a MAG match, so that could be good.

 

[Krion_Vark]

In the recent days Bethesda appears to be taking some vile pages from EA's 'Big book of appropriate business practices', like the most recent PC release of Dawnguard - for 20 euro(that's 2/3 the price I paid for the full game on launch day). And the lawsuit against Mojang over a single word, which they lost.

I was under the impression that was more of a draw rather than a loss. Mojang could still call the game Scrolls but that was about it. I mean there was this:

?ZeniMax has licensed the ?Scrolls? mark to Mojang to be used solely in conjunction with its existing Scrolls digital card game and any add-on material it makes to that game. The terms of the settlement bar Mojang from using the Scrolls mark for any sequel to the current card game, or any other video game.

[link = Source]http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/03/16/bethesda-and-mojang-settle-scrolls-lawsuit/[/link]

 

[Treblaine]

"if the Australian govt is forced to take a stand against geo-blocking and regional pricing then there's a very good chance that the EU will else be forced to do something as well."

Which makes me think a deal might be struck with the publishers before it gets that far if only to protect their bad business practices in much more populous EU Zone... for the time being at least.

Well, there's the argument that without regional pricing schemes, digital retail would have a massive advantage over physical retail... to which I answer "No sher, shitlock."

The promise we were originally given on digital distribution was that without all the additional costs and shitfuckery involved with physical distribution and retail we would get certain products, things that existed only as data, for much lower prices.

I still agree with CD Projekt that regular low prices are better for PC gaming than boom and bust cycles dependent on Steam sales. Steam sales are, for the most, only attractive to people who are already PC gamers... if, however, PC gaming's largest digital distributor regularly had games out that were 50% cheaper than the console versions then PC gaming starts looking more attractive beyond that narrow focus.

Of course, Publishers would never go for that... physical retailers would go mental and 3rd party distributors would go fucking berserk.

Well "physical retailers" already abandoned PC gaming long before digital took off, the PC section just got pushed further and further off to the side and more and more attention focused on the big consoles, even in dedicated PC retailers they neglect any boxed PC games except maybe WoW and it's almost as if blizzard paid them to stock them there. Certainly not a wide selection. I think valve implemented Steam as much to survive as it was to later dominate.

Physical retailers have no right to complain for abandoning a market then wanting special treatment once it is again back on its feet. You can't have open market when it suits you then control again when it suits you. You're right, I think this is mainly a PC issue at the moment, it doesn't apply to Xbox 360 and PS3.

I think this is pulling PC and console gaming apart from each other more than anything, to spite how PC-like console may be (mainly in DRM and patching) the more open and digital dependent PC market makes it different in far more fundamental ways than mouse+KB controls or advanced incremental hardware upgrades. You couldn't have a game like DayZ emerge on consoles. You couldn't have TF2 as it is with such support and content on consoles, especially not free to play. I bought TF2 years before F2P but I love it going free to play as FINALLY I have managed to convince so many of my friends to try it low risk without time contrainst of a free weekend and they love it and I've seen them spend a considerable amount of money on it without regret.

 

[SajuukKhar]

True, it isn't the first multiplayer game, but that just means its the second time they've made the wrong damn game.

The elder scrolls have always been about ONE person changing the world, and even have in-lore reasons for not HAVING multiplayer. But I will admit, part of my hate is purely out of general bias toward MMOs in general.

But hey, supposedly the Fallout MMO is more like a MAG match, so that could be good.

That's entirely untrue. One of the most core principles of Elder Scrolls lore is that there are TONS of adventures out there doing things.

Its been like that on purpose so Bethesda can keep what choices you made to yourself, while still making every questline be done. They just call everyone a "random adventurer" so that if you chose to do said quest in the past games then, when the quest is mentioned in the next game, you can be like "it must have been my guy from the last game", but if you didn't do it you would be "ohh must have been some other guy doing stuff at the same time I was in the last game".

An example
ALL guild questlines are, in lore, assumed to have been done. But does that mean YOU did them? No.
-Say YOU didn't do the College of Winterhold questline in Skyrim, well in lore that means some other adventurer did, the Eye of Magnus stuff still happened, even though it wasn't YOU that did it.
-Say YOU didn't do the Dark Brotherhood questline in Skyrim, well that means, in lore, some OTHER assassin killed the Emperor.
-the Companions still go through all thier stuff, even if YOU don't join the guild
-The Theives guild ends up killing Mercery frey after all the Kraliah stuff even if it wasn't YOU that did it.

In Oblivion Modryn Oreyn mentions that an adventurer gave him the helm of Oreyn Bearclaw. Was it the Nerevarine from Morrowind? could be, if you did the quest to get it in Morrowind, if not then it was some other random adventurer.

Hell Sheogorath in Skyrim may not be your character from Oblivion, as Sheo did the Dark Brotherhood questline apparently. If YOU didn't do the Dark Borthehrood questline that means the Skyrim Sheo isn't your guy, but some OTHER adventurer who got the mantel passed to him.

In lore there are, and always have been, TONS of adventurers out and about, helping deadra lords, doing guild questlines, finding magical world-ending artifacts, and various other things, if anything the MMO is MORE true to lore then the SP games in that regard. There has NEVER been just ONE hero at any given time.

In Skyrim the random mercenaries you can find walking about are those people who,in lore, do all the things you don't. I know Oblivion also had random adventurers in dungeons, its version of the mercs.

 

[BeeGeenie]

Bethesda is not EA

Bethesda is lovable but oblivious. He makes mistakes, but he means well.

EA is the ultimate Corporate Evil.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

True, it isn't the first multiplayer game, but that just means its the second time they've made the wrong damn game.

The elder scrolls have always been about ONE person changing the world, and even have in-lore reasons for not HAVING multiplayer. But I will admit, part of my hate is purely out of general bias toward MMOs in general.

But hey, supposedly the Fallout MMO is more like a MAG match, so that could be good.

That's entirely untrue. One of the most core principles of Elder Scrolls lore is that there are TONS of adventures out there doing things.

Its been like that on purpose so Bethesda can keep what choices you made to yourself, while still making every questline be done. They just call everyone a "random adventurer" so that if you chose to do said quest in the past games then, when the quest is mentioned in the next game, you can be like "it must have been my guy from the last game", but if you didn't do it you would be "ohh must have been some other guy doing stuff at the same time I was in the last game".

An example
ALL guild questlines are, in lore, assumed to have been done. But does that mean YOU did them? No.
-Say YOU didn't do the College of Winterhold questline in Skyrim, well in lore that means some other adventurer did, the Eye of Magnus stuff still happened, even though it wasn't YOU that did it.
-Say YOU didn't do the Dark Brotherhood questline in Skyrim, well that means, in lore, some OTHER assassin killed the Emperor.
-the Companions still go through all thier stuff, even if YOU don't join the guild
-The Theives guild ends up killing Mercery frey after all the Kraliah stuff even if it wasn't YOU that did it.

In Oblivion Modryn Oreyn mentions that an adventurer gave him the helm of Oreyn Bearclaw. Was it the Nerevarine from Morrowind? could be, if you did the quest to get it in Morrowind, if not then it was some other random adventurer.

Hell Sheogorath in Skyrim may not be your character from Oblivion, as Sheo did the Dark Brotherhood questline apparently. If YOU didn't do the Dark Borthehrood questline that means the Skyrim Sheo isn't your guy, but some OTHER adventurer who got the mantel passed to him.

In lore there are, and always have been, TONS of adventurers out and about, helping deadra lords, doing guild questlines, finding magical world-ending artifacts, and various other things, if anything the MMO is MORE true to lore then the SP games in that regard. There has NEVER been just ONE hero at any given time.

In Skyrim the random mercenaries you can find walking about are those people who,in lore, do all the things you don't. I know Oblivion also had random adventurers in dungeons, its version of the mercs.

"...a ruling king that sees in another his equivalent rules nothing.? - 36 Lessons, Sermon 13

MMO is wrong for the series. I refuse to believe otherwise.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Well "physical retailers" already abandoned PC gaming long before digital took off, the PC section just got pushed further and further off to the side and more and more attention focused on the big consoles, even in dedicated PC retailers they neglect any boxed PC games except maybe WoW and it's almost as if blizzard paid them to stock them there. Certainly not a wide selection. I think valve implemented Steam as much to survive as it was to later dominate.

Nah, Valve implemented Steam as DRM, pure and simple. The digital distribution network part of Steam, though, that I will grant you did much to reverse the decline of PC gaming as physical retailers had more or less abandoned support for PC gaming except for the largest and/or expansion happy titles. I dunno if Valve implemented that to 'survive' so much as it was to service the growing number of PC gamers who just couldn't get their hands on the games (actual PC games, not pissing and moaning about console exclusives) they wanted... eBay was fast on it's way to becoming the #1 source of PC games for a lot of people.

Simple fact is that the actions of physical retailers gave most PC gamers no choice but to embrace digital distribution.

Physical retailers have no right to complain for abandoning a market then wanting special treatment once it is again back on its feet. You can't have open market when it suits you then control again when it suits you. You're right, I think this is mainly a PC issue at the moment, it doesn't apply to Xbox 360 and PS3.

The issue is PC for now (and the immediate future) but the whole situation only exists because of the size and importance of the console market and it's mostly physical retail sales. That gives physical retailers a lot of influence over publishers and distributors, especially internationally owned retail chains. Physical retailers may have no moral or ethical position to demand this unfair situation be created but they have the influence to do so anyway, so that's what we get.

And let's be honest, the fact that the publisher/distributor gets to keep the extra cash that comes out of keeping physical retailers sweet, they're not about to suddenly tell them to go fuck themselves... a qualm they don't have when it comes to PC gamers.

I think this is pulling PC and console gaming apart from each other more than anything, to spite how PC-like console may be (mainly in DRM and patching) the more open and digital dependent PC market makes it different in far more fundamental ways than mouse+KB controls or advanced incremental hardware upgrades.

It all comes down to a question of Flexability Vs Reliability, really... and it's hard to go deeper into it without using terms that will invariably be taken the wrong way and kick off a shitfight, so I'm going to skip that.

Funny thing is once digital distro has matured enough on consoles (expect to see a more comprehensive DD service on the next gen consoles) to warrant widespread adoption, you watch the publishers and distributors turn on the physical retailers to muscle them to the periphery.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

Bethesda would have to do a lot more evil before I even considered them in the same league as EA.
Also, I feel like these Captchas are trying to brainwash me by always forcing me to type in "Buy a Toyota"

 

[SajuukKhar]

"...a ruling king that sees in another his equivalent rules nothing.? - 36 Lessons, Sermon 13

MMO is wrong for the series. I refuse to believe otherwise.

Ruling Kings are people with CHIM, something that only Vivec and Tiber have ever obtained.

Your quote is nonsensical in the context you use it in relation to what the quote deals with.

 

[Shocksplicer]

So let me get this straight.
They launched a perfectly reasonable lawsuit against Mojang.
They released DLC which contained MUCH more content than almost any other DLC ever, and priced it accordingly.
And because of this they're evil?

Loving your logic there OP.

 

[Treblaine]

Well "physical retailers" already abandoned PC gaming long before digital took off, the PC section just got pushed further and further off to the side and more and more attention focused on the big consoles, even in dedicated PC retailers they neglect any boxed PC games except maybe WoW and it's almost as if blizzard paid them to stock them there. Certainly not a wide selection. I think valve implemented Steam as much to survive as it was to later dominate.

Nah, Valve implemented Steam as DRM, pure and simple. The digital distribution network part of Steam, though, that I will grant you did much to reverse the decline of PC gaming as physical retailers had more or less abandoned support for PC gaming except for the largest and/or expansion happy titles. I dunno if Valve implemented that to 'survive' so much as it was to service the growing number of PC gamers who just couldn't get their hands on the games (actual PC games, not pissing and moaning about console exclusives) they wanted... eBay was fast on it's way to becoming the #1 source of PC games for a lot of people.

Simple fact is that the actions of physical retailers gave most PC gamers no choice but to embrace digital distribution.

Physical retailers have no right to complain for abandoning a market then wanting special treatment once it is again back on its feet. You can't have open market when it suits you then control again when it suits you. You're right, I think this is mainly a PC issue at the moment, it doesn't apply to Xbox 360 and PS3.

The issue is PC for now (and the immediate future) but the whole situation only exists because of the size and importance of the console market and it's mostly physical retail sales. That gives physical retailers a lot of influence over publishers and distributors, especially internationally owned retail chains. Physical retailers may have no moral or ethical position to demand this unfair situation be created but they have the influence to do so anyway, so that's what we get.

And let's be honest, the fact that the publisher/distributor gets to keep the extra cash that comes out of keeping physical retailers sweet, they're not about to suddenly tell them to go fuck themselves... a qualm they don't have when it comes to PC gamers.

I think this is pulling PC and console gaming apart from each other more than anything, to spite how PC-like console may be (mainly in DRM and patching) the more open and digital dependent PC market makes it different in far more fundamental ways than mouse+KB controls or advanced incremental hardware upgrades.

It all comes down to a question of Flexability Vs Reliability, really... and it's hard to go deeper into it without using terms that will invariably be taken the wrong way and kick off a shitfight, so I'm going to skip that.

Funny thing is once digital distro has matured enough on consoles (expect to see a more comprehensive DD service on the next gen consoles) to warrant widespread adoption, you watch the publishers and distributors turn on the physical retailers to muscle them to the periphery.

I don't think Steam was "DRM pure and simple", it was introduced at the same time at the ability to download games and for a time you could buy and play Valve games without needing to use Steam at all. It's not like Games for Windows Live or Ubi-suck DRM that is JUST THERE with all copies of the game to restrict you and give nothing in return.

And considering how DRM came before Steam and publishers were demanding DRM, wouldn't it be better to ave a DRM system that works and is reliable than secur-rom.

Is Valve really being selfish - in the sense that Digital RIGHTS management implies - for implementing a comprehensive anti-cheating system as VAC?

" they have the influence to do so anyway, so that's what we get."

Influence with who? The politicians, with unions, with the public opinion, with publishers, with microsoft/sony/nintendo?!?

"once digital distro has matured enough on consoles to warrant widespread adoption, you watch the publishers and distributors turn on the physical retailers to muscle them to the periphery."

The problem is that is the worst way that Digital Distro can become mainstream on consoles, not in service of the customers but pandering to the greed of the shareholders who demand increased profits above all else. I fucking hate the shareholder model, it's like a flock of sheep making a deal with a pack of wolves.

 

[illas]

In short: "yes, they're getting there".

Sadly.

 

[Treblaine]

So let me get this straight.
They launched a perfectly reasonable lawsuit against Mojang.
They released DLC which contained MUCH more content than almost any other DLC ever, and priced it accordingly.
And because of this they're evil?

Loving your logic there OP.

"more content than almost any other DLC ever"

Really pushing the term "almost" there.

This is priced more like a Stand-Alone expansion (over half the original price) but it has no where near the content of a Stand-Alone expansion which is as long and varied but re-uses most of the same assets and engine and so on but still a whole load of new stuff.

I'm thinking something like Opposing Force or the Half Life 2 Episodes.

Realise a lot of this problem comes from how Dawnguard is about 60% more expensive in Europe than in America while the base Skyrim is a little less expensive in Europe than America so they are charging about 2/3rds the price of the original for what is comparatively not much extra.

And it wasn't the most reasonable lawsuit but Zenimax had to as lawyers have written themselves a little clause into IP law that guarantees them work. The clause is that you MUST litigate over the "closest" infraction or you risk TOTALLY losing your trademark. It's bullshit I know, lawyers are running the equivalent of the Hunger Games but that's the retarded system.

It was a dumb lawsuit, but Zenimax had no choice.

 

[Shocksplicer]

So let me get this straight.
They launched a perfectly reasonable lawsuit against Mojang.
They released DLC which contained MUCH more content than almost any other DLC ever, and priced it accordingly.
And because of this they're evil?

Loving your logic there OP.

"more content than almost any other DLC ever"

Really pushing the term "almost" there.

This is priced more like a Stand-Alone expansion (over half the original price) but it has no where near the content of a Stand-Alone expansion which is as long and varied but re-uses most of the same assets and engine and so on but still a whole load of new stuff.

I'm thinking something like Opposing Force or the Half Life 2 Episodes.

Realise a lot of this problem comes from how Dawnguard is about 60% more expensive in Europe than in America while the base Skyrim is a little less expensive in Europe than America so they are charging about 2/3rds the price of the original for what is comparatively not much extra.

And it wasn't the most reasonable lawsuit but Zenimax had to as lawyers have written themselves a little clause into IP law that guarantees them work. The clause is that you MUST litigate over the "closest" infraction or you risk TOTALLY losing your trademark. It's bullshit I know, lawyers are running the equivalent of the Hunger Games but that's the retarded system.

It was a dumb lawsuit, but Zenimax had no choice.

In my country (Australia) games are so ridiculously overpriced that Dawnguard actually wound up being one fifth of the price of the full game, so it seems much more reasonable to me.

Also, it does have more content than most other DLC. In my experience DLC is usually 4-5 hours of extra gameplay. Dawnguard gave me 10-15 in one playthrough, with the other side of the story still unexplored. It does give more content than almost any other DLC.

 

[crazyrabbits]

Also, it does have more content than most other DLC. In my experience DLC is usually 4-5 hours of extra gameplay. Dawnguard gave me 10-15 in one playthrough, with the other side of the story still unexplored. It does give more content than almost any other DLC.

As far as I know, there's about 2-3 hours of content that uses wholly original content (animations/locations/etc). The rest is comprised of additional material within already-existing locations on the game map. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I certainly haven't heard this "10-15 hours of gameplay" claim anywhere else.