The Gaming Den

I'm pretty sure I played Suikoden 2.

What I vaguely remember was it claimed to be really kick ass "non-linear", with an "amazing story line" and "revolutionary game play" and such on the box.

While in play it was the most typical linear console style RPG imaginable.

I actually played it a fairly long time in a strange ongoing daze of jaw dropped giggling flabbergastertizeamentation at the sheer arrogance of its claims compared to actual game play.

It seems that Dragon Age may have an acceptable level of copy protection after all: http://daforums.bioware.com/viewtopic.h ... &forum=135



Also: http://dragonage.bioware.com/penpaper.html
This both amuses and intrigues.

That sounds remarkably pleasant coming from Bioware, a company I'm also not a fan off (never liked Baldur's Gate and friends). But various dragon age promotional claims have been mildly curious.

But look out...

We’ll also be supporting the game with a ton of great downloadable content that will be available for purchase after the game’s release.

...that's not so good...

Edit: and isn't it hilarious how lack of online registration and secure rom is a major promotional feature. I hope more marketing departments jump onto that one.

PhoneLobster wrote: Edit: and isn't it hilarious how lack of online registration and secure rom is a major promotional feature. I hope more marketing departments jump onto that one.

Yeah copy protection and product activation and all that other bullshit doesn't work for games anyway. Eventually someone cracks them and the people using cracked versions get games that run faster and better than the legitimate users.

DLC is the new replacement - its a desperate attempt to find a copy protection method that works for single player games.

multiplayer only and consoles will eat the market otherwise.

cthulhu wrote:multiplayer only and consoles will eat the market otherwise.

Industry types are always using piracy as and bemoaning the dreaded end of PC gaming as we know it if they can't implement some new ricockulously draconian copy protection or some such thing.

It's of course a big lump of stupid.

The PC gaming market is in trouble. But largely for reasons like...

1) Ricockulous copy protection that console gamers don't have to deal with.

2) No active core hardware or software company driving in a good policy direction (like Sony or Nintendo can)

3) An active core operating system company deliberately trying to sabotage the industry. Rewarding publishers for X-Box only releases, Windows Vista, DirectX 10, and various other blatant sabotage moves.

4) Higher prices

5) Distributer, publisher and retail consolidation (and other unpleasant factors) shrinking the range of games actually available, especially innovative ones, especially in certain markets (AKA Australia)

6) The failure of online distribution, largely due to ricockulous DRM.

We disagree on the success of steam - its probably the best distribution and DRM model going.

But really, I disagree with your root cause analysis. Console's just have better penetration and thus its better and easier to ship games on that. PCs are hard going.. and yeah.

In a post on the game’s forums, Stardock’s Brad Wardell has revealed that the game’s servers have been flooded with users trying to play the game. More users than they would have anticipated going by sales, as Wardell says internal data shows that while the game has been purchased by 18,000 people, there have been around 120,000 people trying to play the game over the past week.

Yup, piracy isn't a problem. No sir'ee. Those 102,000 users are just dudes clogging up the system.

Anyway, this shows your root cause analysis is busted. It's no mistake that WoW is the most successful game recently.

1) It has less copy protection than ps3 or xbox games, thats for sure.

2) It doesn't need one

3) It seems to have defeated that

4) WoW charges you for the game, and then 15 bucks a month, and people still pay! High prices are not the problem

5) There are a number of viable MMORPGs out there.

6) Online works great for them.

Really? The PC gaming market is in trouble?

Seems like nobody told Valve or Bethesda or Stardock.

I think they did - you'll notice that two of those three have sprung for alternative distribution models to give them market differentiation - specifically Steam and Impulse. Both of which include strong incentives to buy too - Steam is harder to crack than most games, and valve releases online only titles all the time (see: TF2, CS:S etc), and stardock is doing the DLC thing


Bethesda is the exception that proves the rule I guess.

Edit: Also, have you been following the cock up release of demi god?

cthulhu wrote:Yup, piracy isn't a problem. No sir'ee. Those 102,000 users are just dudes clogging up the system.

You know nothing about anything do you?

The studies have been done. Those aren't lost sales. Not significant ones.

1) It has less copy protection than ps3 or xbox games, thats for sure.

PCs have copy protection that causes retail games not to work on some PCs. At random. Sometimes as many as 30% or more of the supposedly compatible market.

2) It doesn't need one

It couldn't hurt.

3) It seems to have defeated that

There is no specific sign that Microsoft is going to end its quest to get all gamers off of PCs and onto X-Box. The only policy change is Windows 7 and DirectX 11, and that's more like a natural progression from the oppressive Vista/DirectX 10 policy. Whether it has a suddenly reverse impact will only be determined by the performance of Windows 7, which many are optimistic about but still...

4) WoW charges you for the game, and then 15 bucks a month, and people still pay! High prices are not the problem

Yes. All PC games are WoW. $99+ for a retail box is not enough, we should charge everyone WoW rates for several boxes and an ongoing payment to make the game work. Only unlike WoW with no additional content.

Did I already say you know nothing about anything?

5) There are a number of viable MMORPGs out there.

Do I need to link you to a definition of the term "innovative"?

Also could you have managed a counter point more totally irrelevant to the initial point? "The range and variety of games available on the market hasn't shrunk, because... MMO! Also.... step 4) Profit!".

6) Online works great for them.

Online distribution is about 5 years behind where it should be. Dumb ass companies like GamersGate releasing unpatchable encrypted crap helped see to that.

Steam is still widely unpopular for good reason.

Stardock is mildly promising, they just need some better titles.

Bethesda is only really dabbling.

Downloadable content is as old as Total Annihilation or older as a means of ongoing providing support for players. The current DLC swing, such as the line just dropped above about Dragon Age is NOT a "Service" or a "Anti Piracy" strategy.

It's a cynical marketing strategy to milk more money out of rubes like you.

They hold off on adding pieces of content to the game then sell it to you for extra later on.

Next they'll have you blithely paying for a "technical issue patching service" and getting you to shake your fists at pirates for somehow making that necessary.

It's exactly the sort of policy that is BAD for the PC Game market.

I really don't even think WoW is good for the computer gaming market.

It costs a lot of money, money that could be spent buying other games.

It's also very time consuming so people don't want to buy other games.

So while WoW itself is massively successful, I don't think it's a good thing for PC gaming as a whole.

On Suikoden 2: Screw you, it was awesome. I mean, the plot was very basic (two nations at war, you got screwed so you switched teams, discovered that everyone sees the other guy as the bad guys and you go ahead and win and therefore the history books will say you are the good guys, the end), but it played really well (I'll take your word on Shining Force. I tried it briefly, didn't like it personally but I hear many great things about it). Also, because the story was... not a coke-fuelled hallucination about rainbow unicorns with space lasers trying to destroy the world because they are.... EVIIIIIIIIIIL..... INDEEEEEEEEEED! Because of that, it seemed more believable, making it easier to identify and connect with the characters*.

The winged bastard thing was really annoying. I can't remember the school bit. Oh, and Neclord felt kind of... forced. Like it was a completely different game, except too small to be a game, so they jammed it in the middle for no good reason. But whatever. And I hate that stupid dice game. Though to be fair I also hate Pokemon Gambling and the Golden Saucer, as well as every Final Fantasy card game, so that's really no surprise.

*The characters they gave dialogue and personality to, any way. Seriously, you ACTUALLY have a dozen main characters, and the other 96 stars are just supporting cast who you recruit, and that's fine, it means some tiny amount of effort went into the supporting cast.

cthulhu wrote:I think they did - you'll notice that two of those three have sprung for alternative distribution models to give them market differentiation - specifically Steam and Impulse. Both of which include strong incentives to buy too - Steam is harder to crack than most games, and valve releases online only titles all the time (see: TF2, CS:S etc), and stardock is doing the DLC thing

Noone cares how hard it is to crack steam. Some tech dude does that, not the user. Every steam game can be gotten cracked right after release. The reason for the problems pirating TF2 and L4D isn't steam, its that they're multiplayer games. Playing the cracked L4D involves VPN software so you can play LAN mode over the net. Its painful and annoying. Paying is just a better option. WoW does the same thing but better, you can't even run up a server of your own like you can for non-MMOs.

You may as well release single player games as torrents with no copy protection and provide an easy way for people to pay you electronically. Thats what will happen anyway, if you do it first you don't need to bother making physical media or having enough bandwidth for customers to download it from you. Also you save on DRM fees.

I even said the online only games are common in steam, literally 1 comma and 2 words after the point you seem to be rebutting with the online only argument - why would you even do that? I already made that argument. Aggressively agreeing with me doesn't rebutt my point.

Anyway, your second point isn't really second argument isn't really true either - consider the breakout single player success game. The Sims. They've really focused on an almost totally conventional model, and did it by not targetting the conventional PC gaming demographic - and hit a demographic that is less likely to have technical savvy.

@PL: Stardock is offering DLC - all their patches are DLC. It's like the valve model of DLC in left for dead and TF2. Do you see me paying for it? Nah, it's free. Pretty sure I'd even used value and stardock as an example before, so why bother strawmanning my arguement? By offering free DLC to paying customers, but secure more loyalty.

Also

You know nothing about anything do you?

The studies have been done. Those aren't lost sales. Not significant ones.

You know that the users have pirated copies have caused the games matchmaking service to be unusable since release in a multiplayer only game?

This is causing them to have to offer a 50% discount program in an attempt to respark interest in the game which has been a disaster?

If of course you think massive discounting and a totally unplayable in multiplayer multiplayer only release hasn't been significantly impacted, then I'll conceed, but it does seem somewhat laughable as a premise. If its true, why offer the discount program?

I specifically used that example because it actually comes at the problem from multiple directions, and then you can have a discussion about various solutions, all of which currently seem to be

A) Move to a closed platform

B) Offering ongoing content to enhance the value of buying the game, like TF2 or L4D, or Stardock. Or Blizzard.

But instead, you seem to be calling me a rube, and then accusing me of taking positions that I never took! Hurray!

RandomCasualty2 wrote:I really don't even think WoW is good for the computer gaming market.

It costs a lot of money, money that could be spent buying other games.

It's also very time consuming so people don't want to buy other games.

So while WoW itself is massively successful, I don't think it's a good thing for PC gaming as a whole.

I agree about the consuming lesuire budget and time, but the model is obviously tempting. Even if you stripped away the grind and ongoing fees, boxing all your customers into a world that you know they have to be legit to get access too is compelling.

cthulhu wrote:You know that the users have pirated copies have caused the games matchmaking service to be unusable since release in a multiplayer only game?

Again, you are rolling around in your own ignorance.

The server issues were a technical error.

The publishers knew Demigod was going to be very widely distributed by piracy, the damn thing has basically no protection and a depressingly staggered international release schedule. I'd be rather surprised if they didn't release the pirate ISO themselves as a promotional tool. It's a method that has worked pretty damn well for Microsoft and Adobe.

But the game devs screwed up. Every single copy tries to connect to the server on start up even if the user doesn't do a damn thing.

The damn thing got flooded with a gratuitous phone in, and one that sounds suspiciously like an artifact from an experiment with DRM.

It certainly provides a strong argument against doing the same thing deliberately with online activation protections.

If the devs hadn't screwed the pooch on the technical error the company would be holding a fucking party based on those kind of piracy numbers because their game was such a huge success.

Koumei wrote:On Suikoden 2: Screw you, it was awesome. I mean, the plot was very basic (two nations at war, you got screwed so you switched teams, discovered that everyone sees the other guy as the bad guys and you go ahead and win and therefore the history books will say you are the good guys, the end), but it played really well (I'll take your word on Shining Force. I tried it briefly, didn't like it personally but I hear many great things about it). Also, because the story was... not a coke-fuelled hallucination about rainbow unicorns with space lasers tryin]g to destroy the world because they are.... EVIIIIIIIIIIL..... INDEEEEEEEEEED! Because of that, it seemed more believable, making it easier to identify and connect with the characters*.

What, are you kidding me? S2 definitely had two of the most clichedly evil villains ever.

This is not a bad thing necessarily. In Luca Blight's case, all it did was make him even more awesome, to the point where when we actually knew his motivation for being evil it made me .

Neclord is just evil for the sake of it in ways that were cliche even for the 16-bit era.

Jowy was the only villain in the game that actually had a motivation for what he was doing beyond 'rar, I'm evil!'. Kiba and son are not villains, neither is that Silverburg guy whose first name I can't remember. ... Leon.

*The characters they gave dialogue and personality to, any way. Seriously, you ACTUALLY have a dozen main characters, and the other 96 stars are just supporting cast who you recruit, and that's fine, it means some tiny amount of effort went into the supporting cast.

They lose major points on this front for having one of the most nauseatingly spineless main characters I have ever seen in an RPG. I think the only other character I've seen that is this much of a loser is Serge; and at least that little brat didn't have people constantly heaping praise on him.

Nothing Riou does on his own initiative affects the plot. Everything is suggested to him by Shu, Nanami, or Klaus/Flik. Fuck, why wasn't Shu the main character?

Like I said, average game that doesn't deserve anywhere near the attention it gets. It has some great moments buried underneath an avalanche of frustration and mediocrity.

cthulhu wrote:Bethesda is the exception that proves the rule I guess.

Well, to be fair Bethesda has moved to multiplatform releases but it's sort of the same way that Valve does their multiplatform releases -- they kind of throw it out as an afterthought. I mean, they work fine and they are way better ports than other companies' "multiplatform" releases, but I'd never buy a Bethesda game on a console simply because of the mod community.

It's clear that PL seems to be ignoring anything that doesn't correspond to what he wants to say, so I'll just say the following: from what I've read the Demigod devs are holding a party, because their game is a big success. Commercially.

cthulhu wrote: I agree about the consuming lesuire budget and time, but the model is obviously tempting. Even if you stripped away the grind and ongoing fees, boxing all your customers into a world that you know they have to be legit to get access too is compelling.

Well a WoW model is actually very good for the company that does it, so it's very tempting. Like I said, WoW itself is highly successful, but I think other developers may suffer, which causes computer gaming as a whole to suffer.

Surgo wrote:

cthulhu wrote:Bethesda is the exception that proves the rule I guess.

from what I've read the Demigod devs are holding a party, because their game is a big success. Commercially.

Interestingly they are writing entirely new networking code because the current stuff doesn't work - it won't broker connections when someone is behind a firewall or router.. like everyone these days.

Well a WoW model is actually very good for the company that does it, so it's very tempting. Like I said, WoW itself is highly successful, but I think other developers may suffer, which causes computer gaming as a whole to suffer.

Possibly, but I'm not sure console gaming etc is taking the hit. It might just be that PC's become the platform of persistant worlds and we have to get used to god awful console controls.

cthulhu wrote:Interestingly they are writing entirely new networking code because the current stuff doesn't work - it won't broker connections when someone is behind a firewall or router.. like everyone these days.

Well, yeah -- they're basically telling everyone to use GameRanger until they get it out the door, but they're still really happy because their game is commercially successful.

cthulhu wrote: Possibly, but I'm not sure console gaming etc is taking the hit. It might just be that PC's become the platform of persistant worlds and we have to get used to god awful console controls.

Well no, consoles aren't taking a hit, because consoles for the most part aren't affected much by the MMORPG market. There is FF 11 and Phantasy Star online which are about the only console MMORPGs out there.

It's ironically computer developers that tend to suffer I think, mainly because MMORPGs soak up money that could be used to buy their games. You buy Half-Life 2 for $50, you also have enough money to buy Doom 3 for $50. But if you end up buying WoW for $50 and then paying $15 a month, in 3 months, that's pretty much one game that you could have purchased but didn't because of subscription fees.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:It's ironically computer developers that tend to suffer I think, mainly because MMORPGs soak up money that could be used to buy their games.

They also soak up the money used to develop games.

The investors that provide that money increasingly aren't interested in anything remotely different or creative.

As an example.

Supreme Commander is a not altogether creative or experimental game. It's good but its really just a quality version of the typical RTS with a large and dedicated cult following inherited from TA.

But the developers had trouble getting backers to fund it because it was considered too risky and experimental.

That could use repeating. A big name typical RTS with guaranteed sales from cult name recognition was considered too risky and experimental to readily receive funding from investors and backing from distributors and publishers.

RandomCasualty2 wrote:

cthulhu wrote: Possibly, but I'm not sure console gaming etc is taking the hit. It might just be that PC's become the platform of persistant worlds and we have to get used to god awful console controls.

Well no, consoles aren't taking a hit, because consoles for the most part aren't affected much by the MMORPG market. There is FF 11 and Phantasy Star online which are about the only console MMORPGs out there.

It's ironically computer developers that tend to suffer I think, mainly because MMORPGs soak up money that could be used to buy their games. You buy Half-Life 2 for $50, you also have enough money to buy Doom 3 for $50. But if you end up buying WoW for $50 and then paying $15 a month, in 3 months, that's pretty much one game that you could have purchased but didn't because of subscription fees.

I think there is a lot less differentiation between the computer gaming market and the consoling gaming market these days. Literally no-one I know that plays any games at all doesn't have a gaming console as well. Except my mum. Who plays WoW.

I have no market research to back that up, but I'd be very surprised if that wasn't true. Given that I suspect their would be competitive behaviors for the same pot of money, but consoles differentiate themselves adequately

cthulhu wrote: I think there is a lot less differentiation between the computer gaming market and the consoling gaming market these days. Literally no-one I know that plays any games at all doesn't have a gaming console as well. Except my mum. Who plays WoW.

I have no market research to back that up, but I'd be very surprised if that wasn't true. Given that I suspect their would be competitive behaviors for the same pot of money, but consoles differentiate themselves adequately

Well computer gaming has a few advantages:

• Fan built mods
• Piracy (games for free)
• Better graphics (assuming you keep your computer up to specs)

The drawbacks are unfortunately that computer games are a pain in the ass. Unlike a console game that you can just plug in and make it work, computer gaming forces you to deal with installation procedures, tweaking graphics settings, updating drivers, installing patches and dealing with DRM headaches.

And it's also more expensive than playing console games.