A case for forum members easing up on 2K a bit

[Ahriman]

Google to the rescue!

Modern warfare 2 sells 7 million copies on Day 1
http://www.vgchartz.com/interstitia...-warfare-2-sells-7-million-copies-on-day-one/

Modern warfare 2 5-day sales break $550m
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6240625.html

Modern warfare 2 ~5 million pirated downloads through torrents as of Dec 2009
http://news.cnet.com/digitalhome/?keyword=Modern+Warfare+2

March 16, 2010 Activision claims 14 million copies sold to date worldwide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Warfare_2

15 June, 2010 Modern warfare 2 tops 20 million sales
http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/c...s/modern_warfare_2_tops_20_million_sales.html

 

[Senethro]

Yeah, I've been googling as well and having trouble finding PC sales.

 

[The_Coyote]

one of this articles claim that 12% of the 7 million copies were pc versions (i also found an article claiming that in the Uk only around 3% of all retail version were for the pc - 53.400 of 1,78 million sold copies)

 

[arstal]

Honestly, it´s only the way of the future if most of the customer accepts this change.



lets summarize: more conservative, older, a little resistent to change - nice use of clichés

I wouldn´t call them so, i would describe it that way: They are more willing not to accept deals, which they personal see as bad. They are no longer accept every change, only because someones cries: this is the future. They are weighting the aspects of deals much more in a matter of fact and no longer affected by the beloved game or any other temporary fashion.

Some of them still concludes that this will be a fair deal for them and they will buy civ5, some other concludes something different. Both opinions are tolerable, simply because the background for the personal made decision can differ greatly (judging points, which points are more, and which points are less important, ...)

And following and acceping every (temporary) trend has been proved to be a very bad thing. Exactly the same way bad as never following any trends.
.

Very true. The issue the anti-Steamers have is not having a choice whether to use Steam or not, and potentially long-term issues beyond Civ 5 (such as a Valve monopoly)

Note: not counting certain crackpots.

That said, I expect most consumers will accept this, as most consumers will accept just about anything, especially in the casual market- which I believe is the majority of Civ sales. (Stardock said GalCiv, a game with a less casual audience, had it's main source of sales as Wal-Mart- though Stardock makes their boxes casual friendly. I figure Civ's numbers would be similarly or even more in that direction.)

Just because it's accepted doesn't mean it's right, and I really dislike Steam as a service- for multiple, varied reasons.

The only thing I get prickly about on this whole debate are those on the Steam side who welcome a Steam monopoly, and try to shove it down people's throats as "the inevitable future"

It's too early to tell since the market is growing- and I suspect it will end up a multihorse race, which will force Steam to become better (I'd be happy to use Steam if it was better)

 

[PieceOfMind]

If you prevent used game sales, you just push more people into the group who wait for significant price reductions before buying the game. If you aren't sure whether you'll like a game, why pay so much money for such a high risk?

Is there any evidence of that whatsoever? Modern Warfare 2 has just broken 20m in sales with all the various threats of boycotts from different sections of their community over different issues - that has no used sales either. Regardless, £10 reduced sale is still worth more than a £20 used sale to the publisher and, moreover, the number of people who'll make the conscious decision to wait for a reduced price over the cheapest price available on release, if a preowned title isn't available, is slim-to-none.

Of course there's evidence of this. I myself am evidence of it.
For starters, I never spoke about boycotts so I don't see why that's relevant.

Essentially there are two positions gamers can be in. Their purchasing of new (or used) video games is either constrained by the free time they have to play games or the budget they have for spending on games. For the second group, it would be quite easy to show that in a product-saturated market (like the video game market) completely cutting out used sales means there will be fewer sales. However it does not represent a net loss for any particular developer or publisher. So you should be careful in how you interpret my quoted post. I didn't even say it's a loss to the developer and producer. I just said it pushes more people into the group who wait for price reductions. This is particularly evident anyway - you only need some data on how many more people buy games on steam at sales time or how many people are prepared only to buy a game once it has effectively reached the bargain bin. I myself have purchased a large number of the games I own from sellers at bargain bin prices. Most of the games I've picked up recently have been under 10USD.

Cutting out used game sales may have the effect of increasing revenue for the game maker but it also has the effect of reducing the number of release-time games that can be afforded by a budget constrained consumer. The budget constrained consumer just waits for the price to drop. Simple as that.

 

[Grouchey]

Originally Posted by Grouchey
But who is this game designed for? In other words, do most CIV players care that much about having Steam multiplayer or other Steam features-- that much??

Look at the success of MMOs, online multiplayer games and XBOX live etc, and you'll see the answer to that.

CIV markets mainly to players are into MMO's and multiplayer console games, really?

 

[Jugalub]

This is particularly evident anyway - you only need some data on how many more people buy games on steam at sales time or how many people are prepared only to buy a game once it has effectively reached the bargain bin. I myself have purchased a large number of the games I own from sellers at bargain bin prices. Most of the games I've picked up recently have been under 10USD.

Impulse buys because they're suddenly cheap are a different kettle of fish to waiting for a price drop, especially in an on online enivronment where you click twice and receive your game. For example, I imagine that is what indie developers depend on. I don't know anyone who was waiting on a price drop for Braid, but when it dropped on Steam I and several of my friends bought it anyway.

 

[Harok]

The choice to use Steamworks was a decision by both 2K and Firaxis. Although really it's silly to even make a distinction between the two; we're both parts of the same company and we work as closely together as, for example, different groups at Firaxis do. We're all the same team.

Steamworks is a great thing for the developer; it allows them to make a better game. It's a lot like why most people use DirectX or OpenGL instead of writing their own 3d renderer from scratch.

So, even if you don't plan on using the specific features that Steamworks allows the developers to implement very easily (like multiplayer,) it still gets you a better overall game because those features (which would be there no matter what framework, if any, was decided on) took less time to implement.

Having been a programmer for the past 15 years I know how it is nice to be able to borrow code or call other code to do certain tasks. It frees you up to do other tasks and get the software ready quicker. So using Steamworks is obviously a bonus for the people writing the game code.

Your comparison to DirectX starts to break down when you consider the extra headaches that you are forcing people into with Steamworks. I don't have to set up an account with DirectX. It doesn't collect data about me and my PC and send it back to someone. I don't have to weed through DirectX settings so it doesn't annoy me with ads, break my games by auto-updating, etc.

Your attempt to pass this off as a good thing even to those of us who will never get a single benefit from Steamworks but have to put up with the headaches is complete rubbish to those of us who understand how the software writing business works. There are always more projects to be done than people to work them so when a company realizes they won't have to write a big chunk of code that normally means resources get assigned to a different project.

Those of us who just want to play single offline games, aka the big majority of civ players, will never get a benefit from Steam yet you are trying to force it on us and make it sound like you are doing it for us. It enabled you to save time and resources. It enabled you to more easily try and nickel and dime customers with downloadable content.

In the end this decision will cost you customers, many very loyal to the Civ franchise, but those that remain may get sucked into buying the DLC to offset that. The resources you saved by using Steamworks may get offset by the additional resources you use handling customer complaints and issues. I would expect lots of people to be surprised when they go to their local game shop and bring Civ home to find out they now need to install, set up an account, and run Steamworks just to play an offline game like Civ. I'm interested to see how prominent or hidden this little gem is on the packaging.

My opinion on the matter is clear, I wouldn't want to upset the majority of my fans to perhaps save some resources and perhaps gain enough DLC sales to offset the ill will and loss of sales that will occur from this decision.

 

[mjs0]

Your attempt to pass this off as a good thing even to those of us who will never get a single benefit from Steamworks but have to put up with the headaches is complete rubbish to those of us who understand how the software writing business works. There are always more projects to be done than people to work them so when a company realizes they won't have to write a big chunk of code that normally means resources get assigned to a different project.

This is really interesting, because I have been a programmer/manager/consultant/executive in the computer industry over the last 25 years, including getting paid as a consultant to advise people on the software development process and I draw the exact opposite conclusion.
Dedicated product development is very different to, for example, in-house application development, it is budgeted differently and planned differently. Development in the gaming industry is even more unique, typically in the gaming industry a game will have a fixed budget that is determined up front by the investor and then programming (along with art/media and others) will be allocated its own fixed budget out of that total...and if a 3rd party tool can be used to more efficiently deliver a piece of functionality then the payoff will be more programmer time on that game, not on another project.

Those of us who just want to play single offline games, aka the big majority of civ players, will never get a benefit from Steam yet you are trying to force it on us and make it sound like you are doing it for us. It enabled you to save time and resources. It enabled you to more easily try and nickel and dime customers with downloadable content.

I am no big fan of Steam and as far as I can see I will get no tangible benefit from Steam but I believe the intangible benefit of using a well-defined easy to test 3rd party component will result in a better more stable product than could otherwise have been delivered for the same budget.

In the end this decision will cost you customers, many very loyal to the Civ franchise, but those that remain may get sucked into buying the DLC to offset that. The resources you saved by using Steamworks may get offset by the additional resources you use handling customer complaints and issues. I would expect lots of people to be surprised when they go to their local game shop and bring Civ home to find out they now need to install, set up an account, and run Steamworks just to play an offline game like Civ. I'm interested to see how prominent or hidden this little gem is on the packaging.

My opinion on the matter is clear, I wouldn't want to upset the majority of my fans to perhaps save some resources and perhaps gain enough DLC sales to offset the ill will and loss of sales that will occur from this decision.

Given the choice, as an end-user, I would prefer Civ5 not require Steam, but based on the information I have available to me I believe 2K/Firaxis have made the right business decision and in their shoes I would almost certainly have made the same decision.

The end result should be a stronger Civ franchise with every chance of future expansions, followed by more versions, and yes some DLC for those that choose to buy it. Again I'm not a real fan of DLC for my own use but if it makes the franchise stronger that's great.
The only danger I see is if Firaxis fumble the modding capabilities, especially where they relate to Steam autoupdates and compatibility with DLC. I am a little nervous about this and even though I can see no evidence that it will happen I will remain nervous until I see what the solution will be.

A personal anecdote: When I worked at IBM we dropped a hugely popular feature of a product (for which I was an architect at the time) because it was hampering our ability to move the product where it needed to go to continue being successful. A certain group of our customers hated the decision, some refused to upgrade and some moved to competitors. Two years later we had more customers, better customer satisfaction and the product still had a great future. I saw other products in the same timeframe fail to make the same type of hard decision and those products no longer exist.

 

[Grouchey]

Your comparison to DirectX starts to break down when you consider the extra headaches that you are forcing people into with Steamworks. I don't have to set up an account with DirectX. It doesn't collect data about me and my PC and send it back to someone. I don't have to weed through DirectX settings so it doesn't annoy me with ads, break my games by auto-updating, etc.

Your attempt to pass this off as a good thing even to those of us who will never get a single benefit from Steamworks but have to put up with the headaches is complete rubbish to those of us who understand how the software writing business works. There are always more projects to be done than people to work them so when a company realizes they won't have to write a big chunk of code that normally means resources get assigned to a different project.

Those of us who just want to play single offline games, aka the big majority of civ players, will never get a benefit from Steam yet you are trying to force it on us and make it sound like you are doing it for us. It enabled you to save time and resources. It enabled you to more easily try and nickel and dime customers with downloadable content.

In the end this decision will cost you customers, many very loyal to the Civ franchise, but those that remain may get sucked into buying the DLC to offset that. ...

My opinion on the matter is clear, I wouldn't want to upset the majority of my fans to perhaps save some resources and perhaps gain enough DLC sales to offset the ill will and loss of sales that will occur from this decision.

Count me as one who will skip CIV V. I've reached this decision regrettably, but for me CIV was always a place to go and get away from all the junk, not embrace it.

 

[Tylerryan79]

To not buy civ v, just because of steam, is a bad choice in my opinion. My first post/thread was prompted because of the steam news. It was about firaxis not allowing poor people to play (lol ya I know, right?). Anyways I was mad, and was grabbing at air for any reason not to have steam. I still wish there was no steam . Since then, after reading more and more, I've tried steam, bought oblivion, put it in offline mode, and have been playing it since.

All I had to do was give a username/password and an email account, just like anything else you sign up for these days. I didn't have to give my name, address ect. To buythe game I entered my credit card information, but that's the same as anything bought online. I clicked not to save that to my account for future use, and after a very fast download, I was off playing. It really isn't the mess I thought it would be. Honestly, try it. You will, and the urge to play civ v will
command you to do so!!! As a former anti steam guy, I can say that yes steam is a store, and that's really what it's main purpose is, get you into the store to buy buy buy. However in offline mode, none of that is available. So unless you want to browse games ect, you don't have to.

Another argument is steam going down the tubes. If this does happen, not to condone piracy..... But ya worst things have happened in life. $50 and a slight annoyance, but you get to play Civ V (you know after this latest news and video your dying to, right?), or no Civ V, because you didn't try steam one time? If you have a nvidia graphics card you get to download 3 free games(well an 11 level portal demo, and two half life levels), so you can see how it works, no money down. I'm sorry for this incoherent ramble, but after trying steam and seeing it in action with offline mode, I'd hate for people to miss out on Civ V. Save 5 bucks a week until release, and buy civ. If you can't live with steam, give your account to a friend by using a new email to register it(I know this is illegal, but I don't think you'll need to do this because of steam). You have nothing to lose, beyond $50. If your a betting man, the odds are in your favor for sure.

 

[Grouchey]

It enabled you to more easily try and nickel and dime customers with downloadable content.

Tylerryan79 I appreciate what you're saying. I've had Steam for several years and have experimented with all its features, including offline mode. What ruins CIV V for me is contained in the quote above. DLC sends CIV down the path of micro transaction crud. That spoils the experience for me and many others (but not all!).

 

[The_Coyote]

To not buy civ v, just because of steam, is a bad choice in my opinion.

Steam as reason is as reasonable as the price or any other feature of the game. Steam is part of deal and therefore can be part of the reasons (or the reason) not to buy the game. And everybody judges the points included in the deal because of steam different.

A steam test only helps if you question some of the feature of steam - or how steam works in general - but because some of the reason are beyond the basic functionality of steam (which can be quite good for some), no test of steam can really help to do away this points.

So not buying the game because of steam can be fully reasonable, exactly the same as buying the game despite steam or even because of steam. It´s a decision everybody must made by oneself.

Here we have only a presentation of the personal view about the inclusion of steam, we can only provide arguments (which are sometimes only rumours disguised as arguments) for our personal point of view to the other readers. How to judge them, how to weight them is again something everybody must made by oneself.

And atm the "discussion" can only be at a small hiatus, almost everything has been said more than once and also because we all still wait for 2K Greg to publish the Steam-FAQ. Also i think it was quite good marketing decission to release this info that early (even earlier than the civs included in civ5), so most probability the presentation of points in this case will be death at the release (and the threads burried in the deeps of the forum, "covered" by the discussion about the fancy features of the game)

 

[Jugalub]

To not buy civ v, just because of steam, is a bad choice in my opinion. My first post/thread was prompted because of the steam news. It was about firaxis not allowing poor people to play (lol ya I know, right?). Anyways I was mad, and was grabbing at air for any reason not to have steam. I still wish there was no steam . Since then, after reading more and more, I've tried steam, bought oblivion, put it in offline mode, and have been playing it since.

Your experience sounds like every one of my friends who "hated" Steam without having ever tried it. They tried and found it to be perfectly fine and now find it really convenient for buying games and having access to them wherever they are, and now they really like it.

Tylerryan79 I appreciate what you're saying. I've had Steam for several years and have experimented with all its features, including offline mode. What ruins CIV V for me is contained in the quote above. DLC sends CIV down the path of micro transaction crud. That spoils the experience for me and many others (but not all!).

Classic case of someone clearly not having a clue about what they are talking about.

You do realise that Valve (the producers of Steam) have never released DLC for any of their games? Valve have constantly updated their games like Team Fortress 2, Day of Defeat and Counter-Strike for free.

If developers choose to use DLC then it is no fault of Valve/Steam and, moreover, Valve/Steam were fairly late on adding DLC to Steam as they had no interest in it themselves. If developers go, or went, down the route of DLC then it's no fault of Steam and it would be there with or without Steam.

 

[The_Coyote]

If developers choose to use DLC then it is no fault of Valve/Steam and, moreover, Valve/Steam were fairly late on adding DLC to Steam as they had no interest in it themselves. If developers go, or went, down the route of DLC then it's no fault of Steam and it would be there with or without Steam.

As long as Valve does not use microtransaction to advertise steamworks, your right. If it´s called a feature, it was intended to be used by the publishers. And than it´s no abuse of the system of free DLC (practicated by Valve), than it´s only a use of the system.

But of course, Valve is fine because they never demanded a financial microtransaction to get one of their DLC. Of course Valve never forced any publisher to create DLC (or any other bonus content) and even more force them to sell them and not to provide them for free. And of course, without knowing the contracts between 2K and Valve we do not know if the DE was part of the deal. And of course Vavle never advertised mircrotransaction as part of steamworks.

 

[Jugalub]

As long as Valve does not use microtransaction to advertise steamworks, your right. If it´s called a feature, it was intended to be used by the publishers. And than it´s no abuse of the system of free DLC (practicated by Valve), than it´s only a use of the system.

But of course, Valve is fine because they never demanded a financial microtransaction to get one of their DLC. Of course Valve never forced any publisher to create DLC (or any other bonus content) and even more force them to sell them and not to provide them for free. And of course, without knowing the contracts between 2K and Valve we do not know if the DE was part of the deal. And of course Vavle never advertised mircrotransaction as part of steamworks.

As I already said, Steam was fairly late to the party in terms of DLC as Valve never never used it themselves. They were inevitably going to add the DLC feature to Steamworks as the market (in terms of publishers and developers) demanded it. They aren't going to cut their nose to spite their face just because they don't use DLC and therefore not offer DLC services on Steamworks. DLC is going to be there with or without Steam, and it was for a long time before.

Blaming Steam for DLC is akin to blaming Steam for DRM. The game was going to have some form of DRM and was (in all likelihood) going to have DLC with or without Steam.

 

[PieceOfMind]

If developers choose to use DLC then it is no fault of Valve/Steam and, moreover, Valve/Steam were fairly late on adding DLC to Steam as they had no interest in it themselves. If developers go, or went, down the route of DLC then it's no fault of Steam and it would be there with or without Steam.

It looks like you are technically right but I think you are being a tad dishonest (or perhaps don't realise). One of the features of steamworks advertised to publishers/developers is the already set up in-built purchasable DLC code. In other words, Valve/Steam are making it much much easier for the game maker to go down the DLC route. It's quite another thing to blame them, which is where I agree with you, and also that the decision is not up to them, but one could argue there is some fault in actively pushing it (DLC) on devs/publishers.

 

[Ahriman]

Valve is "at fault" for advertising one of the features of their product??

 

[Jugalub]

It looks like you are technically right but I think you are being a tad dishonest (or perhaps don't realise). One of the features of steamworks advertised to publishers/developers is the already set up in-built purchasable DLC code.

I said that was exactly the case so there's no dishonesty at all. Blaming Steam for DLC is ludicrous as the developers behind Steam have never used DLC in any of their games and Steamworks was fairly late in adding a DLC system. They added a DLC system as clearly there's a demand for it from publishers and developers, even if they have no interest in using it in their own products. How are they actively pushing it when they've never used DLC themselves and they instead spend time constantly updating their games and keeping them at a low price to keep the game relevant for longer? Valve are, in all honesty, the finest games developers in the world when it comes to value for money and consistency of quality in their products. Blame the major studios like Ubisoft and EA for the desperate cashgrabs in the rise of DLC and not the company who refuses to use it themselves.

 

[evrett37]

? Valve are, in all honesty, the finest games developers in the world when it comes to value for money and consistency of quality in their products. Blame the major studios like Ubisoft and EA for the desperate cashgrabs in the rise of DLC and not the company who refuses to use it themselves.

Um if Valve is walking on water and all that why are they getting into bed with such snakes. Character is something that sees you through both during the good times and the bad. On your tombstone it reads "was such and such till the very end". It seems with all the bailouts and what people have forgot that death is part of the life cycle. Death is often not so much an actual final end as a transformation. And in order to grow things much change.