I felt fucked over when I bought Alpha protocol and they announced they wouldn't support the game beyond patch 1.10 due to poor sales. Thank you for looking after your fans who bought your games at launch. Thumbs upStormz said:
Obsidian: Forget "Gimmicks" Like On-Disc DLC
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well it should refer to playing the same content over again. Much like how when you re-read a book, you read the same content again. Or watch the same movie again, or listen to the same song again. I realize I'm just arguing semantics, but it just bugs me that people seem to think that "re-playing" means experiencing new content.The Bandit said:
Finally... someone who is playing the proactive instead of the reactive in it. I like the mentality this man has. Having said that, there is one problem with his theory: they all involve massive role playing games that give options.
A game like Assassin's Creed or Devil May Cry may not be able to use such tactics (however I personally haven't sold any of the 8 combined games that those series have released to date) but it is the correct mentality to have.
A game like Assassin's Creed or Devil May Cry may not be able to use such tactics (however I personally haven't sold any of the 8 combined games that those series have released to date) but it is the correct mentality to have.
No I am not attacking you, when I said "you" in the reply I meant obsidian. The excuse of well our publisher says jump and we say how high is lame. There are plenty of smaller developers who not only listen to their community but also go out of their way to help patch/fixes/balances their games and the give you free dlc to say sorry, yes I am looking towards CD Projekt. You want a good shining example of a smallish developer who are true to their word, loook no further than that Polish company.Stormz said:
I can get behind that, but sadly that's how it works. Publishers are greedy arseholes and a lot of whats wrong with this industry is because of them. CD Projekt is a great company. The Witcher is one of my all time favourite series. Lets hope they never change.BakedZnake said:
Meh, my mates and I been saying that for years; if they actually spent longer making a bigger game, polishing it better and give us reasons to replay it, then we will keep their game, replay it numerous times and perhaps buy their DLC. Bethesda have been good at that for years; I've bought all the DLC for Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas and most of it for Oblivion (and no, I didn't buy the horse armour) and replayed all of them so many times I've forgotten. Nice to see some developers understand that; coincidentally its the developers I buy games from.
I disagree with your disagreement. I think the average gamer is better than that. If they buy a game, especially one like F:NV, the average gamer will 100% it probably more than once. Sure, that will undoubtedly involve it going back on the shelf for a while so you don't get 'New Vegas Glitch Mindf**k Syndrome'. I take into account that you put 'average' gamer. Many would still play through a game repeatedly and keep it even once it has been completed 5 times. Others may do exactly what you said, i.e. only do the main quest, yet I can vow that your average gamer has no respect for those people (50%-ers), ergo I believe the former example of is closer to the average gamer ideology.Baldr said:
I suppose I was ninja'd. A very valid point here, I have found that the bigwigs of the industry don't give half a solitary sh!t about consumers, even moreso recently than ever before. It is reassuring to know that in (relatively) troubled times for gaming, there are still a few in the business who aren't slanted money-grabbing arseholes and care a little bit about the welfare of community they serve and the way games are made.Stormz said:
I don't think this fixes anything. Most people who would decide not to trade in games due to extra re playability already don't trade in games, and there are many who will just trade it in whether it has re playability or not, either because they didn't like the game or they want to play a lot of games rather than focus on one.
This style of thinking may affect a few people, but I doubt it would make a ton of difference.
This style of thinking may affect a few people, but I doubt it would make a ton of difference.
I agree. The games that remain 'keepers' for me are ones with replay value derived from varying styles of play (a la Fallout) or open world games that are just fun to screw around in (a la GTA).
Right now, the games that have been in my collection longest are GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption, Fallout 3 and NV, Oblivion, Just Cause 2 and Saints Row 2, for these reasons.
Right now, the games that have been in my collection longest are GTA IV, Red Dead Redemption, Fallout 3 and NV, Oblivion, Just Cause 2 and Saints Row 2, for these reasons.
wait, so we get DLC but i have to waste time actually downloading it?
i have a slow internet.
whatta wanker.
/some sarcasm.
just a wee bit though.
i have a slow internet.
whatta wanker.
/some sarcasm.
just a wee bit though.
You know what, Obsidian? You don't have great beta-testing, and that's your biggest flaw.
But I've held for a long time that every person and group has a certain number of flaws that they're required by some sort of universal law to have. That's the basic principle behind something being "Too good to be true." By and large, if something appears perfect, it's A) just good at hiding its flaw or B) possesses a hidden flaw that's going to be a horrible, horrible shock down the road.
Look at Valve: they release consistent and groundbreaking hits and amazingly balanced/popular multiplayer games...but they can't release a third installment in a series, as if some sort of demonic pact that gave them the aforementioned talents prevents them from doing so.
Obsidian...their games are notoriously buggy on day one, and we can all thank whatever for the predominance of internet access for the ability to patch them after day one. But you know what? They write great stories/characters, deliver experiences that keep you coming back for more, and if this article is any indicator, they are the paragons of capitalism: they believe that the way to keep people invested in a game is to make sure that the game has plenty to offer them.
This guy...assuming he's being honest, and I'm feeling uncharacteristically optimistic today, is what makes me happy amidst all the "New game only unlock" gimmicks bouncing around. He saw a problem with used games cutting into general sales, and rather than embracing the unscrupulous method of combating it, he redoubled his efforts to make his company's games worth keeping.
But I've held for a long time that every person and group has a certain number of flaws that they're required by some sort of universal law to have. That's the basic principle behind something being "Too good to be true." By and large, if something appears perfect, it's A) just good at hiding its flaw or B) possesses a hidden flaw that's going to be a horrible, horrible shock down the road.
Look at Valve: they release consistent and groundbreaking hits and amazingly balanced/popular multiplayer games...but they can't release a third installment in a series, as if some sort of demonic pact that gave them the aforementioned talents prevents them from doing so.
Obsidian...their games are notoriously buggy on day one, and we can all thank whatever for the predominance of internet access for the ability to patch them after day one. But you know what? They write great stories/characters, deliver experiences that keep you coming back for more, and if this article is any indicator, they are the paragons of capitalism: they believe that the way to keep people invested in a game is to make sure that the game has plenty to offer them.
This guy...assuming he's being honest, and I'm feeling uncharacteristically optimistic today, is what makes me happy amidst all the "New game only unlock" gimmicks bouncing around. He saw a problem with used games cutting into general sales, and rather than embracing the unscrupulous method of combating it, he redoubled his efforts to make his company's games worth keeping.
Fair enough. It does take a while to download, but that's what a download queue is great for. Just set your console to download 'em before you even plan to be playing them, and then go do whatever it was you were going to do. School, work, whatever: even a slow connection with all the New Vegas DLCs will finish while you're out doing what you had to do anyway.TrilbyWill said:
Well done 
yes this is how you tackle used sales, make a game worth replaying that I won't want to trade in, I very rarely trade in because there are lots of games I will play again. RPG's barely ever get traded in by me unless I really hate them.
yes this is how you tackle used sales, make a game worth replaying that I won't want to trade in, I very rarely trade in because there are lots of games I will play again. RPG's barely ever get traded in by me unless I really hate them.
Yes I agree, the 300 hours I spent on New Vegas is testiment to that. You wanna cut down on used sales? Make games people don't want to trade in. Now if only Obsidian can ever release a game that has less holes than a termite infested house they would be the perfect developer
Obsidian's really not in a position to talk, here. Maybe spend less time tooting your own horn, more time making games that actually work.
I think it's an admirable sentiment, but it builds an incomplete case by ignoring certain realities:Greg Tito said:
1. Retailers that deal in used games are going to use other strategies to make sure people "feel rewarded" for turning them in, no matter how hard developers work to do the opposite.
2. Some people do this out of necessity. Yes, I'd love to keep Game X forever, but I need to trade it in to be able to afford Game Y.
3. Trade-in rate is not a measure of game quality per se. It is as much a function of player personality as anything.
4. Anything done to increase the quality of the game will also increase the quality of the traded-in copy. Right now, publishers simply want their new products to be able to compete with used copies of their products. They can't win that battle on price (ever), so they're trying to find ways of increasing the value of the new product without also increasing the value of the "competing" product.
What I mean by #4 is that the single-use codes are a potential solution to a different problem. No, they won't stop people from trading the games in, but we also have to recognize that people are going to do that as long as there's money in it. To these publishers, the first step is making the new product "worth more" than the used. As people choose new over used, the value of used copies will drop (as will the price). The secondhand market will still exist, but not dominate.
At the same time we can ask for an increase in the quality and replayability of the games... to a degree. Multiplayer will almost always taper off when the next sequel hits the market, for instance. And encouraging the style of replay-value the above quotes recommend will just lead to publishers "padding" the game with artificial choices and superficial branching. I think it's more important that we encourage publishers to reduce the per-copy cost of new games.
1. This will help players feel less forced into trading to afford new titles.
2. Players will feel less "risk" in buying new, potentially-bad titles.
3. This will alleviate the pressure many developers seem to feel to take a basic game concept and stretch it out until it's "worth $60," which rarely works. (X-Men: Destiny?)