Why are people buying Skyrim?

[Smeggs]

Yeah I'm impatient. Been waiting for this for...what, five years? Six?

Besides, Bethesda isn't going to have the money to release GoTY editions if everybody decided to wait, right?

Plus I heard with all the side quests not including the DLC's there's something like 300+ hours? I'm a naturally curious person and will mmost likely explore every single crevice of Skyrim before I'm done. Oblivion and the Fallouts are the only games I've ever played that I have been able to stomach over 100 hours of playing with no other games in between. There's just so much to discover.

 

[Zeh Don]

There are a few games in this world worth purchasing despite knowing that a re-release will occur with all of the DLC included. Skryim is most certainly one of them.
Oblivion's major DLC, such as the Knights of the Nine and The Shivering Ises, are the best examples of DLC done right. They were worth the asking price and then some, and added more content to one of the most content rich games ever made.

I'm happy to throw down my AU$88.00 for the Limited Edition of Skyrim, and then buy all of the DLC as it's released and pay full price for it. It's going to be worth every cent, and I'll get more than 300 hours out of all of it, so I don't feel the need to save a dollar: Bethesda have earnt the money.

However, games like LA Noir, which you play through once and then never touch again, I'm not ok with throwing down AU$110.00 and then more for the DLC. That's too much for what we're getting in return, and so I'll wait for the Complete Edition.

Skyrim isn't Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. It doesn't have a 6 hour campaign and, if the past iterations are anything to go off, nearly a dozen US$15.00 Map Packs. Skryim is value for money. The "GOTY" Editions are merely for the late comers, in my honest opinion.

 

[DRes82]

Again, I don't understand why people thought oblivion was so buggy at release. I had absolutely no problems with it. I'm not worried about Skyrim. Even if I was, why would I wait forever to get it? Its not like I'd get a discount on the CE.

 

[Legit101]

................

 

[Sewer Rat]

Well, if it ends up like Oblivion where only one of the DLCs is actually worth a damn (Shivering Isles, though I will admit Kot9 was decent) then I would rather have it now, and buy that one piece of DLC later. Ironic thing is I am actually waiting a month or two to get it, partially because as a college student I just don't have the $60 to spend on the game right now, but also because I want Bethesda to work out the game breaking bugs that they seem to be contractually obligated to include in every new release.

 

[Kemea]

It's easy to answer for me. I liked Oblivion A LOT. Skyrim takes us to the land of the Nords with dragons....Me being a viking fanboy makes me love that idea...SO MUCH xD Being able to play a big bulky nordic guy, walking in the snow, fighting dragons with hardened steel and powerful spells flashing from about my fingertips, is just too good to let it sit in the gameshop.

This is purely my impatience speaking. Having to wait like 5 years was just killing me. Same goes for guild wars 2.

So yeah, just want it now and don't want to wait till later

 

[StBishop]

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.

 

[StBishop]

If you seriously need to ask that question, you are not a real gamer.

Oh, please. Don't put pathetic arbitrary rules to being a "real gamer".

To answer the question, a multitude of reasons. First and foremost, I want to play it now. I bought a new laptop almost specifically for Skyrim (not JUST for that, but it was a major factor).

But second to that is the fact that if a game doesn't sell well around it's initial release, it's considered a failure. Games are judged by how well they sell early on more than over their entire life span. If the game sells terribly at launch, why would they repackage it and sell it again? Hell, why would they even make add-ons?

"No one owns the game, there's no reason for us to add to it or patch it or anything."

And a never-patched-Bethesda-game is a terrible thought.

Theres no rules to it. If you have never anticipated a title so highly that you could not possibly wait longer than release day, I have trouble believing you play games.

That's a cop out. The OP wasn't asking "Why would you ever buy a game on Release day?" S/He was asking why buy Skyrim specifically. It WILL get a GotY, and it's more than likely it'll have a fuck tonne of DLC and probably a few bugs to sort out.

Some games just don't get integral DLC, some times they only get shitty DLC that doesn't directly impact the game.

Bethesda make the integral-to-the-experience type.

\
Way I see it, if you love games, you're a true gamer. Even if you only buy one game a year or less.

What about people who love sports? Are they athletes? Or people who love food: are they chefs?

Those are the worst parallels I've ever heard.

A person who loves sports and doesn't play is a sports fan. A person who loves sports and plays them professionally is an athlete.

A person who loves food just loves food. "Chef" is a job title for someone who makes food in a restaurant.

You're implying that the only people that can be considered gamers play games professionally (which I don't do) or create them (which I have yet to do). How does that work? Seriously...


People who play and love games are gamers. Why be so selective about it? It's not like being a gamer makes us better than anyone.

And you're implying you have to play sports professionally to be an athlete (which you don't) and you have to run a restaurant to be a chef (which you don't).

My point is, we have no problem with giving people labels with all sorts of hobbies, why should gaming be different? Someone may love games, that's great. Doesn't always mean they're a gamer though.

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.

 

[StBishop]

Ok, sorry, the thread is a lot slower than I thought so I've got a bunch of successive posts, sorry.

 

[StBishop]

No, not really. Of course it will get DLC. The real question is, can you wait a year before playing Skyrim, or do you anticipate it to highly? I would rather play Skyrim in 3 days, than wait an entire year, and if that means I have to pay extra for the DLC (or not play it at all if its mediocre) so be it.

Ok, just to clear up any confusion. I am not really looking forward to Skyrim. At all.

I have however looked forward to games in the past for which I'd have sacrificed body parts to get them sooner. So I get what you're saying. 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?

 

[Slash Dementia]

It's impatience. I've been looking forward to the game ever since Oblivion got boring. Besides, it takes about a year or so for the GotY edition comes out, and I'm just not willing to wait that long.

 

[MysticToast]

If you seriously need to ask that question, you are not a real gamer.

Oh, please. Don't put pathetic arbitrary rules to being a "real gamer".

To answer the question, a multitude of reasons. First and foremost, I want to play it now. I bought a new laptop almost specifically for Skyrim (not JUST for that, but it was a major factor).

But second to that is the fact that if a game doesn't sell well around it's initial release, it's considered a failure. Games are judged by how well they sell early on more than over their entire life span. If the game sells terribly at launch, why would they repackage it and sell it again? Hell, why would they even make add-ons?

"No one owns the game, there's no reason for us to add to it or patch it or anything."

And a never-patched-Bethesda-game is a terrible thought.

Theres no rules to it. If you have never anticipated a title so highly that you could not possibly wait longer than release day, I have trouble believing you play games.

That's a cop out. The OP wasn't asking "Why would you ever buy a game on Release day?" S/He was asking why buy Skyrim specifically. It WILL get a GotY, and it's more than likely it'll have a fuck tonne of DLC and probably a few bugs to sort out.

Some games just don't get integral DLC, some times they only get shitty DLC that doesn't directly impact the game.

Bethesda make the integral-to-the-experience type.

\
Way I see it, if you love games, you're a true gamer. Even if you only buy one game a year or less.

What about people who love sports? Are they athletes? Or people who love food: are they chefs?

Those are the worst parallels I've ever heard.

A person who loves sports and doesn't play is a sports fan. A person who loves sports and plays them professionally is an athlete.

A person who loves food just loves food. "Chef" is a job title for someone who makes food in a restaurant.

You're implying that the only people that can be considered gamers play games professionally (which I don't do) or create them (which I have yet to do). How does that work? Seriously...


People who play and love games are gamers. Why be so selective about it? It's not like being a gamer makes us better than anyone.

And you're implying you have to play sports professionally to be an athlete (which you don't) and you have to run a restaurant to be a chef (which you don't).

My point is, we have no problem with giving people labels with all sorts of hobbies, why should gaming be different? Someone may love games, that's great. Doesn't always mean they're a gamer though.

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.

 

[Sodoff]

Now before anyone gets mad or assumes this is some sort of anti-Skyrim thread, it's not. I'm not bashing the game, the developer or anyone who is interested in it.

But let's look at Oblivion and Fallout 3. Both of those games were eventually given expansion packs, and then re-released as a game that contained the original game plus all of the expansion packs. Sometimes these were cheaper than the original game.

So assuming that's going to happen with Skyrim, why buy it now? Is it just a matter of impatience? Do people want to support Bethesda by possibly buying the game twice?

Is there anyone reading this who does just plan on buying it once the Game of the Year edition comes out?

Just curious.

Normally I would wait for the cheaper GOTY edition, but this time I IZ IMPATIENT! GIMME DRAGONZ!

 

[Necabo]

Have the physical copy now, still have to wait for 11-11-11 for playing though

 

[ryanthemadman]

Yeah, impatience I guess. But that's a rather derogatory way of looking at it - I've been bloody patient all this time.

I guess it's just being a true fan that does it, because I want the game SO DAMN MUCH at this point that waiting for another year or so for a non-existent (for me) financial reason would be silly.

that
GAH! 3 DAYS!!!!!!!!!!

 

[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.