Why are people buying Skyrim?

[Johnny Impact]

I will not be buying it. I am officially Bethesdad out.

Maybe it's because people loved Oblivion and Fallout. Maybe it's the overblown ad campaign. Maybe it's because gaming is all about instant gratification. Maybe they're just bored. Probably it's all of these things and more. Waiting isn't seen as a viable option.

 

[Hedonist]

Why would you buy milk now?
If you wait five days it'll be cheaper.

 

[StBishop]

Ok, so you need to play games to be a gamer. You don't need to play all of the time.

You're right, loving them isn't really enough, you do (by definition) need to play. But buying one game a year (or none) doesn't mean you're not a gamer. Playing, not buying, makes us gamers.

Also, Chef is a job title. Ameture cook is a hobbyist.

I understand what you're saying, there should be a term for someone who plays games and takes it very seriously. In the same way that running every other day doesn't make one an athlete playing a game every now and then should not put one in the same category as a 100%er or a person who has a 7:1 K on whatever game.

At the moment "core gamer" seems to serve that purpose. But you're right it does suck balls.

Ok, the athlete and chef thing wasn't the best analogy. The nature of gaming makes it tough to relate well to other hobbies. But I still stand by my main point. I don't think we should be afraid of labels within the gaming community.

Just seeking clarification now, but we agree that there needs to be a distinction (label/terminology wise) between people who put all/most of their spare time into gaming vs my grandma who plays all of the facebook games, or my sister who plays socially like when at my house on holidays some times or if her friends are all playing she'll grab a controller but she doesn't own or want a current gen other than a Wii and her Wii's in the box.

I personally tell people I'm a video game buff/video game nerd rather than Gamer. It's losing meaning in my mind.

 

[fenrizz]

Because if no one buys, and everyone decides to wait a year or so, there will be no GOTY edition, no DLC and no more Elder Scrolls.

The game would fail miserably.
And that we do not want.

Also, because I don't want to wait.
I must play Skyrim, preferably today.

 

[Viirin]

I'm only buying it for two reasons, none of them good really:

1. Nostalgia! I loved Morrowind and I keep buying Bethesda's games in hopes they'll make an RPG that's as good.

2. Hope. Also speaking of Morrowind, hoping another game the developer makes is great. Hated Oblivion and Fallout 3, so I don't know where I get off thinking Skyrim will rock my world, but that's why it's called hope.

 

[Omnific One]

Why not say the same thing about Dragon Age Origins?

Or LA Noire

Or GTA: IV

Seriously, a lot of games do the same thing.

We buy those games now because they are *good* and we want to play them now, not later.

Because two of those were not sequels?

And because GTA:SA (the direct prequal to GTA IV) didn't have DLC.

Yeah, but today's games are DLC driven. If you didn't think any one of those games would have a significant amount of DLC, you would just be naive.

GTA4, released in 2008 and DA:O released in 2009 from memory. Project $10.00 was pretty much started in 2009. So no, I disagree with you.

I don't actually recall much of DLC until pretty recently, that doesn't mean it wasn't around, just that I, personally, didn't notice it.

In the interest of full disclosure, I didn't own a current gen console until 2009. So that's probably a factor.

EDIT: It might be worth noting that I don't really think Map Packs, or extra songs for rhythm games affect this discussion as none of the games being discussed use them. They're superfluous in my mind.
From what I can tell the only 360 games with significant DLC in 2008 were GTA IV and Mass Effect, and Mass Effect's DLC was weak in both content and cost.
Nope, Fallout 3 came out. When did it's DLC come out though?

Plus, Skyrim is from a developer who deals primarily with DLC now. That's why it's directly being questioned.

I'd say 2007/2008 is when DLC started to gain a massive foothold. DLC is DLC (so the map packs and songs do count), either way. More games than that had DLC, but it was mainly the good ones that got it. Failed games (of which there were a lot in that timespan) usually didn't make enough sales for DLC to be viable.

I wouldn't say that Bethesda primarily deals in DLC, not in the slightest. Bethesda's DLC is very significant additions and often is more of an expansion. The worst offender (besides CoD map packs and the like) is Bioware, bar none. Look at the number of DLC packs for ME2 or DA2 or DAO. The number far exceeds Bethesda. And many of them are insignificant appearance and item packs, which Bethesda doesn't do. (I'm gonna guess you're going to mention Horse Armor.)

 

[StBishop]

Yeah, but today's games are DLC driven. If you didn't think any one of those games would have a significant amount of DLC, you would just be naive.

GTA4, released in 2008 and DA:O released in 2009 from memory. Project $10.00 was pretty much started in 2009. So no, I disagree with you.

I don't actually recall much of DLC until pretty recently, that doesn't mean it wasn't around, just that I, personally, didn't notice it.

In the interest of full disclosure, I didn't own a current gen console until 2009. So that's probably a factor.

EDIT: It might be worth noting that I don't really think Map Packs, or extra songs for rhythm games affect this discussion as none of the games being discussed use them. They're superfluous in my mind.
From what I can tell the only 360 games with significant DLC in 2008 were GTA IV and Mass Effect, and Mass Effect's DLC was weak in both content and cost.
Nope, Fallout 3 came out. When did it's DLC come out though?

Plus, Skyrim is from a developer who deals primarily with DLC now. That's why it's directly being questioned.

I'd say 2007/2008 is when DLC started to gain a massive foothold. DLC is DLC (so the map packs and songs do count), either way. More games than that had DLC, but it was mainly the good ones that got it. Failed games (of which there were a lot in that timespan) usually didn't make enough sales for DLC to be viable.

I wouldn't say that Bethesda primarily deals in DLC, not in the slightest. Bethesda's DLC is very significant additions and often is more of an expansion. The worst offender (besides CoD map packs and the like) is Bioware, bar none. Look at the number of DLC packs for ME2 or DA2 or DAO. The number far exceeds Bethesda. And many of them are insignificant appearance and item packs, which Bethesda doesn't do.

I'm sorry but the songs and map packs do not count because they don't directly impact the creation of "expansion" DLC. Like you said, Bethesda make expansion packs as DLC. I agree, but the thing is, it's something which they do consistently and if we look at the cost of buying all of the DLC for Fallout 3 (and I assume NV I don't know much about NV) it's equal to (or greater than) the cost of buying the GotY edition.

We both agree that Bethesda make huge DLC, a lot of the time too. This DLC comes at a large cost. So my point that they're in the business of DLC is accurate.

Based on the sheer quantity of DLC Bethesda are right up there along side Bioware. But my point being that Bioware bring out a lot of either optional (the DLC for Mass Effect was really not needed, the Warden's Keep for DA:O didn't add much, and the stuff like extra characters comes with the game. I can't comment on ME2 as I've not played it) or worthwhile DLC (as with Bethesda). Like the DLC for DA2 or Awakening for Origins.

I'm not sure if you've seen my similar posts in the thread but here's a quick quote from one of them:

"I just don't think the OP was asking "Herpa Derp, why is anyone looking forward to a game?!".

I think the question was more focused at people like my brother, he's getting it and he will probably enjoy it, it will not be the best game he plays all year and he will not get even half the joy from it that he did Gears 3. He did pre-order it, and he will buy all of the DLC. However he may not even play it for a week or so after he gets it if he has other shit to get done.

I think it's a pretty good question. Everyone I speak to is getting Skyrim on 11/11/11, but significantly less than half of them consider it to be the most anticipated game of the year for them.

It feels like everyone is getting it because it's "the most anticipated game of the last however long" but no one is anticipating it that much with a few notable exceptions.

So is that the reason, or am I severely misjudging the amount that people are looking forward to Skyrim?"

I think that summarises my view.

Also, nah I don't care about horse armour. Or weapon packs.

I'm more talking about the Expansion DLC which is the expensive stuff. Which Bethesda do quite a lot.

 

[Antag]

I didn't even like Oblivion and I just bought Skyrim. Damn hype. PS3 version even, only seen a couple of seconds of gameplay from it before. Ah well, hope they fixed their shit with this game.

 

[MysticToast]

Ok, so you need to play games to be a gamer. You don't need to play all of the time.

You're right, loving them isn't really enough, you do (by definition) need to play. But buying one game a year (or none) doesn't mean you're not a gamer. Playing, not buying, makes us gamers.

Also, Chef is a job title. Ameture cook is a hobbyist.

I understand what you're saying, there should be a term for someone who plays games and takes it very seriously. In the same way that running every other day doesn't make one an athlete playing a game every now and then should not put one in the same category as a 100%er or a person who has a 7:1 K on whatever game.

At the moment "core gamer" seems to serve that purpose. But you're right it does suck balls.

Ok, the athlete and chef thing wasn't the best analogy. The nature of gaming makes it tough to relate well to other hobbies. But I still stand by my main point. I don't think we should be afraid of labels within the gaming community.

Just seeking clarification now, but we agree that there needs to be a distinction (label/terminology wise) between people who put all/most of their spare time into gaming vs my grandma who plays all of the facebook games, or my sister who plays socially like when at my house on holidays some times or if her friends are all playing she'll grab a controller but she doesn't own or want a current gen other than a Wii and her Wii's in the box.

I personally tell people I'm a video game buff/video game nerd rather than Gamer. It's losing meaning in my mind.

Yes, I agree there needs to be a distinction between those types of people because, in reality, there really is a difference. Not that one's better or anything, there's just a difference and we shouldn't shy away from addressing it

 

[KrossBillNye]

I bought it (or rather Pre-ordered it) Because as mentioned before it is all about impatience. I am not patient enough to wait for a game of the year.

Also if they do release DLC for this game (Which is undoubtedly) I can choose whether or not to buy it, or wait for it to have specials. Either way I have the core game to enjoy and from the looks of it, looks like a fun one!

 

[Tourmeta]

Buy game & DLC gradually as soon as it's out and save all those boring evenings.

 

[WickedSkin]

People buying it in the first place is why the GOTY packed with expansions and DLC is released. One leads to the other.

 

[Miles_Vorkosigan]

I've been waiting Skyrim for a long long time, spent last month or so replaying Oblivion and Morrowind to be ready.

 

[StBishop]

Ok, so you need to play games to be a gamer. You don't need to play all of the time.

You're right, loving them isn't really enough, you do (by definition) need to play. But buying one game a year (or none) doesn't mean you're not a gamer. Playing, not buying, makes us gamers.

Also, Chef is a job title. Ameture cook is a hobbyist.

I understand what you're saying, there should be a term for someone who plays games and takes it very seriously. In the same way that running every other day doesn't make one an athlete playing a game every now and then should not put one in the same category as a 100%er or a person who has a 7:1 K on whatever game.

At the moment "core gamer" seems to serve that purpose. But you're right it does suck balls.

Ok, the athlete and chef thing wasn't the best analogy. The nature of gaming makes it tough to relate well to other hobbies. But I still stand by my main point. I don't think we should be afraid of labels within the gaming community.

Just seeking clarification now, but we agree that there needs to be a distinction (label/terminology wise) between people who put all/most of their spare time into gaming vs my grandma who plays all of the facebook games, or my sister who plays socially like when at my house on holidays some times or if her friends are all playing she'll grab a controller but she doesn't own or want a current gen other than a Wii and her Wii's in the box.

I personally tell people I'm a video game buff/video game nerd rather than Gamer. It's losing meaning in my mind.

Yes, I agree there needs to be a distinction between those types of people because, in reality, there really is a difference. Not that one's better or anything, there's just a difference and we shouldn't shy away from addressing it

Indeed. I don't think, however, that we have need to place any arbitrary limits on being a gamer beyond the act of playing games.

 

[doomboy29]

So we can preload it on Steam. =D