Civ 5 Testers group ... AKA I HATE YOU GUYZ !!!

[PPQ_Purple]

The issue with a beta of that size is someone will crack it and distribute it. You also typically have people just out to play the game, not test. Neither is beneficial. Sure, if you can afford the inevitable piracy that goes with a beta like that, it's a good thing to do... But I'm not sure Firaxis could, it is nowhere near the size of Blizzard.

Exactly my point.

It's their profit vs buyer enjoyment.
If a company is not prepared to put the later before the former, than what does that tell us about said company?

 

[Valkrionn]

Exactly my point.

It's their profit vs buyer enjoyment.
If a company is not prepared to put the later before the former, than what does that tell us about said company?

The simple fact that they are a company, out to make money?

What the hell kind of argument is that? Everything you can buy ultimately comes down to the money. Sure, they may be making money creating products that will entertain people... But they're still out to make money.

Yes, the gamer comes first. But only so far as their profits depend on it. Blizzard could have a large beta because:

1. They can afford the loss from early piracy.
2. They produced a primarily multiplayer game, which only works on their servers, making piracy more difficult and largely ineffective.

Civilization does not happen to meet either of those points.


Again: Everything comes down to profit. Everything. You cannot expect them to sacrifice that much profit, in the hopes of finding a few more bugs. Like I said, the bugs are (relatively) minor, and have mostly already been fixed. There are more balance issues, but the majority of testers frankly don't much help with that; You always have a few vocal people who actually know what they are talking about, and they influence that aspect of the design. Typical players do not devote enough time to have much impact on that area of the game.

 

[hbar]

EDIT: replying to PPQ, not Valkrionn

I don't think you have a firm grasp on how the games industry works. Most games are failures. Something like 90% of games released never make up their initial investment. That doesn't even count games like FfH3 that don't make it into the production stage, or games like This Is Vegas that get killed off after years of funding.

Game publishing is a hugely risky business, and (as 300 years of successful capitalism has taught us) risky businesses demand high profits; otherwise it isn't worth it.

You don't want any bugs in your games, and you are not willing to pay for a game with bugs. The way I see it, you have two options. Wait 3-5 years for the patch cycle to finish and the product to be 'complete' (how long ago was the last Civ4 patch?), or pirate the game and complain about the bugs, knowing that you 'dodged a bullet' because you got the game for free.

Every game has bugs. Every one. They always have and they always will. There are more bugs now then there were 10 years ago because games are far more complex, the hardware ecosystem is more complex, and the competition is relentless. If you think that Take Two should have volunteered to give up their profits to make a marginally better game, then you don't understand modern business.
/rant

 

[scutarii]

EDIT: replying to PPQ, not Valkrionn

I don't think you have a firm grasp on how the games industry works. Most games are failures. Something like 90% of games released never make up their initial investment. That doesn't even count games like FfH3 that don't make it into the production stage, or games like This Is Vegas that get killed off after years of funding.

Game publishing is a hugely risky business, and (as 300 years of successful capitalism has taught us) risky businesses demand high profits; otherwise it isn't worth it.

You don't want any bugs in your games, and you are not willing to pay for a game with bugs. The way I see it, you have two options. Wait 3-5 years for the patch cycle to finish and the product to be 'complete' (how long ago was the last Civ4 patch?), or pirate the game and complain about the bugs, knowing that you 'dodged a bullet' because you got the game for free.

Every game has bugs. Every one. They always have and they always will. There are more bugs now then there were 10 years ago because games are far more complex, the hardware ecosystem is more complex, and the competition is relentless. If you think that Take Two should have volunteered to give up their profits to make a marginally better game, then you don't understand modern business.
/rant

yeah. that is the same with music industry - most bands are failures in spite of the fact that they are nannyed ( is that a word?) 24/7 by company.

every successful label has a star or two and those feed rest of the camp.


rule no 1: there is no guarantees in entertainement industry.

and so far is the only way to feed many in hoping that one of them becomes to a star and finally brings all investements back.

there is no foolproof recipes "how to find a star".

 

[Valkrionn]

EDIT: replying to PPQ, not Valkrionn

I don't think you have a firm grasp on how the games industry works. Most games are failures. Something like 90% of games released never make up their initial investment. That doesn't even count games like FfH3 that don't make it into the production stage, or games like This Is Vegas that get killed off after years of funding.

Game publishing is a hugely risky business, and (as 300 years of successful capitalism has taught us) risky businesses demand high profits; otherwise it isn't worth it.

You don't want any bugs in your games, and you are not willing to pay for a game with bugs. The way I see it, you have two options. Wait 3-5 years for the patch cycle to finish and the product to be 'complete' (how long ago was the last Civ4 patch?), or pirate the game and complain about the bugs, knowing that you 'dodged a bullet' because you got the game for free.

Every game has bugs. Every one. They always have and they always will. There are more bugs now then there were 10 years ago because games are far more complex, the hardware ecosystem is more complex, and the competition is relentless. If you think that Take Two should have volunteered to give up their profits to make a marginally better game, then you don't understand modern business.
/rant

Very well stated.

 

[Sjru]

1. They can afford the loss from early piracy.
2. They produced a primarily multiplayer game, which only works on their servers, making piracy more difficult and largely ineffective.

Civilization does not happen to meet either of those points.

That's not entirely correct, Valk: Loss of early piracy aren't 100% of the times losses. Simply there are many gamers that dislikes the demos, so they test first a full pirated game, to, later, purchase it if they liked it. And in other terms, some piracy is good: The game gets publishing, and, although those who pirated the game doesn't generate any profit to the company, others, where they may be friends or the like, may purchase the game.
And the last: Piracy doesn't make real "losses". It's just money that hasn't entered the companys budget, and gone somewhere else (More likely, money that hasn't moved at all, people even find more easy to download games from a torrent than go to a pirate shop and buy a pirated game there).

And your second statement: Steam is a huge anti-piracy boost for companies. Games based on Steam are surely many times more harder to crack than a stand-alone game. Also there are not much different between Battle.net and Steam (The first just focus on Blizzard games and that's all, the other, focus on many games).
Some people argue that Steam is annoying. Is just because they have to install Steam, when they used to play games witouth having to install 3d parties, that's all.

EDIT: Just to state: Blizzard did a closed beta because their policy. For them, customer's satisfaction comes first, no matter what. (Is like Rife team policy?, that's why is taking so long for the next release?)

EDIT: Just to say. Others companies accept to stretch the game until minimum playability and sell them. Others companies sell a "Base" game, that contains just the basic, with little stuff. Then release a lot of expansion that each add little stuff, forcing you to buy all of them if you want to feel that you own a full game (ie EA Sims3)

 

[randomlurk]

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick..
Ive read some bull$$ posts before on various boards but yours take the proverbial cake..

And the last: Piracy doesn't make real "losses". It's just money that hasn't entered the companys budget, and gone somewhere else (More likely, money that hasn't moved at all, people even find more easy to download games from a torrent than go to a pirate shop and buy a pirated game there).
-Say what? A "pirate shop"? WTH? I was pretty sure the whole point in pirating games is:
A. Don't fork over cash in a shop.
B. Don't get caught.

And your second statement: Steam is a huge anti-piracy boost for companies. Games based on Steam are surely many times more harder to crack than a stand-alone game.
-Oh yeah? Try googling for a steam emulator (not that I'm condoning it ofcourse )

Also there are not much different between Battle.net and Steam (The first just focus on Blizzard games and that's all, the other, focus on many games).
-Just fail.. BN does have its issues but its a hosting system, steam is a "service" made firstly for online distribution and as such a form of drm in itself.

Some people argue that Steam is annoying. Is just because they have to install Steam, when they used to play games witouth having to install 3d parties, that's all.
-Some people argue that ubisoft has working DRM, the fact is that one of their own men hosted a "fix" made by razor1991 on their official (ubisoft UK) site as a patch is a coincidence perhaps?

EDIT: Just to state: Blizzard did a closed beta because their policy. For them, customer's satisfaction comes first, no matter what.
-Riiight, removing LAN play for a game that is still played (twelve years and counting) almost solely for its LAN matches is for the good of the players!
ps: enjoy swapping purples for greens yet?

EDIT: Just to say. Others companies accept to stretch the game until minimum playability and sell them. Others companies sell a "Base" game, that contains just the basic, with little stuff. Then release a lot of expansion that each add little stuff, forcing you to buy all of them if you want to feel that you own a full game (ie EA
-As we all know EA stuff is so superiorly copyprotected that their games leak only a couple months early, and the fact that you can find any (sims or otherwise) patch / dlc / pack usually at its launch day is all a fluke right?

In the end shame on me for biting on a post made by some blizz fanboy..

 

[PPQ_Purple]

You are all missing the point.
Yes it's all about money.
But quite honestly I don't give a [text censored for decency] about what they want to achieve out of it.

That is one reason why I have not purchased and will not purchase civilization 5.

The company has the attitude of putting it's profit before customer satisfaction. Fine, than I am willing to put my customer satisfaction before their profit and not buy a game made with that sort of attitude.


If a company has to chose between making a product that will meat customer standards or making a product that will sell well and bring in profit. Than perhaps they should reconsider the entire project.

In other words, I vote with my wallet. And I vote against companies that put profit before their customers. (hence steam as drm or any kind of offensive drm that is invasive and requires third party software, internet connection etc. the lack of proper beta testing and other stuff) And if all people did the same, than companies would be forced to change their philosophy.

Not that I am expecting people to back me up. That would be too much of a hustle to coordinate anyway. And I am not trying to get you to back me up.


But what I do expect is that you people stop telling me that I am wrong when all I am doing is proclaiming that I have exercised my right to refuse to purchase a product that was made with a design philosophy that I consider immoral.

 

[Sjru]

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick..
Ive read some bull$$ posts before on various boards but yours take the proverbial cake..

-Say what? A "pirate shop"? WTH? I was pretty sure the whole point in pirating games is:
A. Don't fork over cash in a shop.
B. Don't get caught.

Mostly users that get caught are stupid ones, or ones that attracted a lot of attention. Where I live, is virtually impossible to get 'caught', even get a letter of warning, (Unless you start blaming the goverment). And I define pirate shop as a shop where the games that are on sale are not legal (Pirated copies).

-Oh yeah? Try googling for a steam emulator (not that I'm condoning it ofcourse

There is no working bug-free steam emulator. Even if they're one, you just have to spend a lot of time skimming the net, trying to find patchs for your non-steam release. Specially for multiplayer.(Potentially entering virus websites or other junk sites).

-Just fail.. BN does have its issues but its a hosting system, steam is a "service" made firstly for online distribution and as such a form of drm in itself.

OK, so?

-Some people argue that ubisoft has working DRM, the fact is that one of their own men hosted a "fix" made by razor1991 on their official (ubisoft UK) site as a patch is a coincidence perhaps?

What's the point there? Do I look as I care about Ubisoft having DRM? There is no such thing (Quote needed). And companies having leakers is a fact.

-Riiight, removing LAN play for a game that is still played (twelve years and counting) almost solely for its LAN matches is for the good of the players!
ps: enjoy swapping purples for greens yet?

Yeah, they didn't thought about that. But, so? Apparently the lack of LAN-based games hasn't affected much the game reviews.

-As we all know EA stuff is so superiorly copyprotected that their games leak only a couple months early, and the fact that you can find any (sims or otherwise) patch / dlc / pack usually at its launch day is all a fluke right?

EA Sims games are usually over-leaked due to the fact that not all the people have U$S 50$ to spend every time they release a expansion-stuffpack-dlc pack. Is just too easy to download somewhere else, and sims, in its current state, doesn't worth more than U$S 50$.

In the end shame on me for biting on a post made by some blizz fanboy..

And I'm not blizzard fan! (I have never played WoW...)

EDIT: @PPQ: Glad someone think about their rights as customers.

 

[Valkrionn]

That's not entirely correct, Valk: Loss of early piracy aren't 100% of the times losses. Simply there are many gamers that dislikes the demos, so they test first a full pirated game, to, later, purchase it if they liked it. And in other terms, some piracy is good: The game gets publishing, and, although those who pirated the game doesn't generate any profit to the company, others, where they may be friends or the like, may purchase the game.
And the last: Piracy doesn't make real "losses". It's just money that hasn't entered the companys budget, and gone somewhere else (More likely, money that hasn't moved at all, people even find more easy to download games from a torrent than go to a pirate shop and buy a pirated game there).

....Of course it's a real loss! If people pirate, they are not paying for something. Therefore, the company is not receiving proper compensation for their product. That is a loss. There is no other way to define it.

And your other argument is a fallacy, IMO at least. Sure, that is the most common excuse for piracy (and do not get me wrong, I've done it myself). However.... How many do you think actually go on to buy the game, even if they enjoy it and play it regularly? Maybe 1 for every few dozen. That is not generating revenue, that is nothing positive.

The only true positive I see from it: Younger consumers pirating when they do not have the money are more likely to purchase sequels a few years later, if they enjoyed the game. But not every game will have a sequel, and it is extremely bad business to bet on it.


Of course, the fact that DRM gets worse and worse all the time does NOT help diminish piracy, and publishers need to acknowledge that already. I will absolutely NEVER buy another EA game. Ever. I don't give a rat's ass what game it is, I will not purchase it; Their DRM is too ridiculous.

And your second statement: Steam is a huge anti-piracy boost for companies. Games based on Steam are surely many times more harder to crack than a stand-alone game. Also there are not much different between Battle.net and Steam (The first just focus on Blizzard games and that's all, the other, focus on many games).
Some people argue that Steam is annoying. Is just because they have to install Steam, when they used to play games witouth having to install 3d parties, that's all.

Not particularly. It's a great way to prevent pre-release piracy, which hurts profits more; But otherwise? It'll be cracked. Not really going to deter those who are going to pirate it no matter what you do.

EDIT: Just to state: Blizzard did a closed beta because their policy. For them, customer's satisfaction comes first, no matter what. (Is like Rife team policy?, that's why is taking so long for the next release?)

They did it for several reasons, like I stated.

1. They can afford it. They make ridiculous amounts of money from WoW.
2. It is primarily a multiplayer game, and needs hundreds of thousands of hours to achieve the kind of balance they wanted.

The main point is the first one, btw. Blizzard has the money to do it. They can afford piracy, they can afford to delay the game by a year! to beta test it, during which time they make no revenue from it. Firaxis is not that large of a company. It cannot afford that.

And no, as I've said several times... The release is taking time because I am the main one working on the mechanic, and am slammed with schoolwork. I am in college, and this is a hobby; Sometimes it has to be shelved for a few days without work, due to my classload. Nothing to be done about it.

EDIT: Just to say. Others companies accept to stretch the game until minimum playability and sell them. Others companies sell a "Base" game, that contains just the basic, with little stuff. Then release a lot of expansion that each add little stuff, forcing you to buy all of them if you want to feel that you own a full game (ie EA Sims3)

As I said, EA. I will not buy from them.

Firaxis will not be nickel and diming you. I can't say more than that, but they won't be. DLC on it's own is not a horrible concept, and when there is enough material to make it worthwhile I'm fine with it.

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick..
Ive read some bull$$ posts before on various boards but yours take the proverbial cake..

And the last: Piracy doesn't make real "losses". It's just money that hasn't entered the companys budget, and gone somewhere else (More likely, money that hasn't moved at all, people even find more easy to download games from a torrent than go to a pirate shop and buy a pirated game there).
-Say what? A "pirate shop"? WTH? I was pretty sure the whole point in pirating games is:
A. Don't fork over cash in a shop.
B. Don't get caught.

And your second statement: Steam is a huge anti-piracy boost for companies. Games based on Steam are surely many times more harder to crack than a stand-alone game.
-Oh yeah? Try googling for a steam emulator (not that I'm condoning it ofcourse )

Also there are not much different between Battle.net and Steam (The first just focus on Blizzard games and that's all, the other, focus on many games).
-Just fail.. BN does have its issues but its a hosting system, steam is a "service" made firstly for online distribution and as such a form of drm in itself.

Some people argue that Steam is annoying. Is just because they have to install Steam, when they used to play games witouth having to install 3d parties, that's all.
-Some people argue that ubisoft has working DRM, the fact is that one of their own men hosted a "fix" made by razor1991 on their official (ubisoft UK) site as a patch is a coincidence perhaps?

EDIT: Just to state: Blizzard did a closed beta because their policy. For them, customer's satisfaction comes first, no matter what.
-Riiight, removing LAN play for a game that is still played (twelve years and counting) almost solely for its LAN matches is for the good of the players!
ps: enjoy swapping purples for greens yet?

EDIT: Just to say. Others companies accept to stretch the game until minimum playability and sell them. Others companies sell a "Base" game, that contains just the basic, with little stuff. Then release a lot of expansion that each add little stuff, forcing you to buy all of them if you want to feel that you own a full game (ie EA
-As we all know EA stuff is so superiorly copyprotected that their games leak only a couple months early, and the fact that you can find any (sims or otherwise) patch / dlc / pack usually at its launch day is all a fluke right?

In the end shame on me for biting on a post made by some blizz fanboy..

Language please.

You are all missing the point.
Yes it's all about money.
But quite honestly I don't give a [text censored for decency] about what they want to achieve out of it.

That is one reason why I have not purchased and will not purchase civilization 5.

The company has the attitude of putting it's profit before customer satisfaction. Fine, than I am willing to put my customer satisfaction before their profit and not buy a game made with that sort of attitude.


If a company has to chose between making a product that will meat customer standards or making a product that will sell well and bring in profit. Than perhaps they should reconsider the entire project.

In other words, I vote with my wallet. And I vote against companies that put profit before their customers. (hence steam as drm or any kind of offensive drm that is invasive and requires third party software, internet connection etc. the lack of proper beta testing and other stuff) And if all people did the same, than companies would be forced to change their philosophy.

Not that I am expecting people to back me up. That would be too much of a hustle to coordinate anyway. And I am not trying to get you to back me up.


But what I do expect is that you people stop telling me that I am wrong when all I am doing is proclaiming that I have exercised my right to refuse to purchase a product that was made with a design philosophy that I consider immoral.

I am not missing the point, no. I completely respect someone's choice not to support a game, and do so myself. I just feel you are wrong in your specific reasons for doing so with this particular game.

Firaxis is not putting it's own profit ahead of all other considerations. I've talked to the people; They enjoy what they are doing. They must keep profit in mind, sure, but customer satisfaction drives profits. Any company that does not realize that goes out of business fast.

They did not have to make that choice. As I've said, Civ5 had very few bugs. 1 or 2 bad ones that should have been caught, but otherwise all minor; And those bad ones have been patched. All games, every last one, will have bugs on shipping. It does not matter what game. It does not matter what developer, it does not matter how much it was tested, it does not matter how many people tested it, it does not matter. There will be bugs. Games are very complex bits of software, and the more complex you get, the more bugs will exist. You will never get them all.

Steam is not a horrible DRM; It brings quite a bit of value added content. I understand the issues with third party drm software, but in this case.... Get used to it. And fast. Steam is not just here to stay, it (and products like it) will expand. Why? Companies make FAR more money from it. Give it another 10 years; brick and mortar game stores will be mostly a thing of the past, direct download will be the main distribution method, making use of products like Steam, and games will be cheaper as a result of it (prices are locked to in-store prices, even though it costs next to nothing for overhead with ddl games; This is forced by those stores, not the game companies). I guarantee you that is the future, at least for PC gaming.

Again... There was proper beta testing. There was a team of highly active testers. I've gone over why betas would have been undesirable for a smaller company, and the only other option is a huge team of QA people... Which would ultimately have little effect, as they'd have caught maybe 1 or 2 more bugs. Again, no amount, absolutely no amount of testing will find all bugs in a game. Not within anything like a decent time frame, which there must be; Putting out a game is a risk, and most fail. You need to generate enough profit to make it worthwhile, and every day the game isn't released is a day that costs you more and more, meaning you have to make more and more profit.

Sure, vote with your wallet. As I said, I have and will continue to do the same. But I feel you're coming to some poor conclusions, so I've illustrated them. Take my arguments for what you think they're worth.

 

[odalrick]

Just consider the first months after a game is released to be the last of the beta testing; or maybe we should call it gamma testing... If the choice is between releasing a buggy game today; or do an extra month of testing, raise the price and releasing a slightly less buggy game. Why not wait a month and let those who don't care about the bugs do the testing?

....Of course it's a real loss! If people pirate, they are not paying for something. Therefore, the company is not receiving proper compensation for their product. That is a loss. There is no other way to define it.

Except if the company wouldn't have gotten any money anyway. Piracy increases the exposure of the product and allows people who wouldn't otherwise have heard about the game to test and buy it. Who cares that people who wouldn't have paid for it anyway don't pay for it?

No to mention that the only way to find out if a game is worth buying is to pirate and test it first. Possibly play it at a friends house too; but I have better things to do with my friends and then they'd have to pirate it.

Demos can work too, but they seem to have fallen out of favour; and anyway tend to be too short.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

About piracy, there seems to be a fallacy in thinking with the companies and a lot of people.
They think that the pirates, if they can not pirate a game will be forced to buy it. But that is not true.

The people who pirate games are usually the ones who don't want to spend money on gaming (or don't have the money to spend). And if they can't pirate a game, they simply won't get it either.


So in the end, steam and other drm just ends up inconveniencing the paying customer while not doing anything to bring in more money for the greedy companies. That sort of thing is inexcusable.

 

[EugeneStyles]

This is probably the wrong place to discuss this, but it's absolutely true that piracy does not translate directly into lost profits. For the most part, people that would buy the game still would. The balance that companies should be trying to reach is for that small margin of people who would buy the game legitimately if forced to, but pirate it if it they can. The point of DRM should be to make it more of a pain to pirate than to buy legitimately. No protection at all and it may be too easy to pirate - I understand that... it affects a company's bottom line (although I doubt there are any studies that show that DRM actually helps sales). Too draconian on the DRM, and it becomes easier to pirate than to purchase the game, and the company literally drives people to steal it.

Forget moralizing about "oh, it's still not right to pirate." I'm not talking about morality, I'm talking about what actually happens. Hassle your paying customers too much, and you lose them. Whether or not they still play your game is immaterial - either way they're not paying you for it.

Actually, some amount of piracy is people who DID buy a game, and then had to get a pirated version so it would work. You certainly can't count *that* as lost sales.
The more intelligent business decision is to accept that some piracy will happen, and just forget about it. That has worked pretty well for Stardock. You can't eliminate it completely, and for the most part it would be worse for business if you *could*.

 

[Calavente]

I remember WarcraftIII...
had a game, (bought when the game was released)
but later took a pirated one nonetheless in order to have a full instal directly instead of having to
1) install
2) add patches.
+ so I can play without that DVD.

 

[Valkrionn]

Just consider the first months after a game is released to be the last of the beta testing; or maybe we should call it gamma testing... If the choice is between releasing a buggy game today; or do an extra month of testing, raise the price and releasing a slightly less buggy game. Why not wait a month and let those who don't care about the bugs do the testing?



Except if the company wouldn't have gotten any money anyway. Piracy increases the exposure of the product and allows people who wouldn't otherwise have heard about the game to test and buy it. Who cares that people who wouldn't have paid for it anyway don't pay for it?

No to mention that the only way to find out if a game is worth buying is to pirate and test it first. Possibly play it at a friends house too; but I have better things to do with my friends and then they'd have to pirate it.

Demos can work too, but they seem to have fallen out of favour; and anyway tend to be too short.

That's not quite the same thing as what I said. There is a distinction between those who would not buy it no matter what you do (those who will always pirate), and those who will buy it if it's not simple for them to pirate.

I agree, trying games before you spend money on them is a good thing... But how many people start out with that intention, and then just keep playing the pirated version, never paying for it? Hell, I've done that.

Demos need to come back, frankly. They help get people who are on the fence about a game to purchase it.

About piracy, there seems to be a fallacy in thinking with the companies and a lot of people.
They think that the pirates, if they can not pirate a game will be forced to buy it. But that is not true.

The people who pirate games are usually the ones who don't want to spend money on gaming (or don't have the money to spend). And if they can't pirate a game, they simply won't get it either.


So in the end, steam and other drm just ends up inconveniencing the paying customer while not doing anything to bring in more money for the greedy companies. That sort of thing is inexcusable.

Of course it's not true, and noone is really going for those people (although a few companies are spending time finding ways to break their game if it's cracked... Nintendo, for one). The ones that actually hurt the profits you could make, are those who pirate because it's easy, but would purchase it otherwise.

Steam makes piracy more difficult. It is also the only form of DRM that Civ5 has.

As a customer, I disliked steam. I just dislike the idea of extra programs running. However, from a producer's standpoint, steam is wonderful.

• It makes piracy more difficult, hopefully enough so to get the low-level pirates to purchase it.
• It makes distribution of patches nearly effortless.
• Makes DLC simple and easy to do; And DLC is here to stay, people. No matter what you think about it, it's here to stay. It generates far too much profit. Just differentiate between those who feed a bunch of meaningless DLC to you, and those who actually create some good ones.
• It brings extra tools to the consumers; In game chat, for example. Steam cloud, allowing you to store saves and access them from any computer. List goes on.
• It generates far more profits. Steam charges FAR less to host games than any retail store. "Gabe Newell, CEO of Valve, estimated in 2002 that $30 gross profit can be made from a $50 game sold over Steam, much greater than the $7.50 profit made from games sold through retail."

As I said in my last post, get used to steam and products like it. They will be more common, they will replace retail. There is literally no way around that; The benefits are too great vs the negatives. And that negative, having to run a third party program? Each game that goes to steam reduces that negative. If you have a game that requires steam already, well, it doesn't really matter anymore if you buy a second game that does, now does it?

This is probably the wrong place to discuss this, but it's absolutely true that piracy does not translate directly into lost profits. For the most part, people that would buy the game still would. The balance that companies should be trying to reach is for that small margin of people who would buy the game legitimately if forced to, but pirate it if it they can. The point of DRM should be to make it more of a pain to pirate than to buy legitimately. No protection at all and it may be too easy to pirate - I understand that... it affects a company's bottom line (although I doubt there are any studies that show that DRM actually helps sales). Too draconian on the DRM, and it becomes easier to pirate than to purchase the game, and the company literally drives people to steal it.

Forget moralizing about "oh, it's still not right to pirate." I'm not talking about morality, I'm talking about what actually happens. Hassle your paying customers too much, and you lose them. Whether or not they still play your game is immaterial - either way they're not paying you for it.

Actually, some amount of piracy is people who DID buy a game, and then had to get a pirated version so it would work. You certainly can't count *that* as lost sales.
The more intelligent business decision is to accept that some piracy will happen, and just forget about it. That has worked pretty well for Stardock. You can't eliminate it completely, and for the most part it would be worse for business if you *could*.

Eh. I agree. Might not have been obvious from my phrasing. I just see Steam as little enough DRM to make it harder to pirate, and easier to just buy it. Especially when you factor in the patch distribution and DLC; It's just simpler to buy the damn thing. And for those who do buy it, it is generally a positive thing; It has a lot of value added content, which helps make it palatable.

And yes, not all piracy is bad. I pirated BtS, actually, but only after I bought it; Disc got scratched. Also pirated Oblivion, but already owned it on the 360; Wanted to see what mods people had made for it. I have nothing against people who pirate in order to back up a game, or switch it to a different system, or any other legitimate use; It's your damn game.

And yes, some piracy will always happen. Like I said, steam is all the DRM civ5 has. Stardock uses something quite similar to steam, so that's actually a good example to show what civ5 is doing.

 

[Sjru]

Firaxis is not putting it's own profit ahead of all other considerations. I've talked to the people; They enjoy what they are doing. They must keep profit in mind, sure, but customer satisfaction drives profits. Any company that does not realize that goes out of business fast.

.

Rrright, there is a 78-long pages thread filled with complains of non-english xp users being unable to even load the game. Worse, there has been a tech support guy response about 32 pages before, after that, they simply don't answer that thread (But take the time to answer to any other unrelated to this problem). Sorry to tell you, but 2k is making a lot of mistakes.

They did not have to make that choice. As I've said, Civ5 had very few bugs. 1 or 2 bad ones that should have been caught, but otherwise all minor; And those bad ones have been patched. All games, every last one, will have bugs on shipping. It does not matter what game. It does not matter what developer, it does not matter how much it was tested, it does not matter how many people tested it, it does not matter. There will be bugs. Games are very complex bits of software, and the more complex you get, the more bugs will exist. You will never get them all.

True, there will be bugs. But when do you buy a game you EXPECT it to run at least. The box says it works in Windows XPSP3 in all languages. But it doesn't. Look at this thread (on 2k forums). Pretty much annoyance I see.

Spoiler :

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88969&page=70

.

I'm not critising testers, they may haven't got the fault.
Couple a game that doesn't launch with the lack of official response and you get pretty annoyed customers that threat to return the game.

EDIT:

I disliked steam. I just dislike the idea of extra programs running. However, from a producer's standpoint, steam is wonderful.

• Makes DLC simple and easy to do; And DLC is here to stay, people. No matter what you think about it, it's here to stay. It generates far too much profit. Just differentiate between those who feed a bunch of meaningless DLC to you, and those who actually create some good ones.

Then I see mods being on danger. Mods such as RoM and FFH are extremely well done and could match one as DLC. Then, smart people would simply download free well made mods than just download a DLC that add a new civ or another mapscript to retail game.

 

[Valkrionn]

Rrright, there is a 78-long pages thread filled with complains of non-english xp users being unable to even load the game. Worse, there has been a tech support guy response about 32 pages before, after that, they simply don't answer that thread (But take the time to answer to any other unrelated to this problem). Sorry to tell you, but 2k is making a lot of mistakes.

And why does that mean that they are not paying attention to their customers? It is being worked on. The response to that thread is handled on 2k's end, not Firaxis's.

There are multiple people in the beta running non-english XP. Hell, Opera is one of them. None of us had that issue; Therefore, it is not simply tied to a non-english install of xp. As I said, they are working on it.

True, there will be bugs. But when do you buy a game you EXPECT it to run at least. The box says it works in Windows XPSP3 in all languages. But it doesn't. Look at this thread (on 2k forums). Pretty much annoyance I see.
I'm not critising testers, they may haven't got the fault.
Couple a game that doesn't launch with the lack of official response and you get pretty annoyed customers that threat to return the game.

Yes, and it was tested in those languages. As I said, it is not simply non-english xp, as it works for beta testers (and no, our version is not different from the release; We have two, release and beta).

Then I see mods being on danger. Mods such as RoM and FFH are extremely well done and could match one as DLC. Then, smart people would simply download free well made mods than just download a DLC that add a new civ or another mapscript to retail game.

Trust me: Don't worry about that. There have been extensive discussions on that subject, and there is absolutely nothing to stop you from producing a mod that adds the same civ as a DLC item. You cannot use their art, however, unless your mod requires the DLC; And that art will be enough for many people to buy it.

 

[hbar]

Then I see mods being on danger. Mods such as RoM and FFH are extremely well done and could match one as DLC. Then, smart people would simply download free well made mods than just download a DLC that add a new civ or another mapscript to retail game.

Actually, there was a really insightful modcast a few weeks back that Kael participated in that addressed this exact point. (I think Soren was on it too, but I might be wrong.)

They basically agreed that the modding community was raising the bar, and that it was getting harder to make compelling expansions and DLC. The developers love the mod community, though, and see it as a partnership.

I mean, look at what happened with BtS. It had new civs and mapscripts, sure, but why did everyone in this sub-forum buy it? The expanded modding tools. They added functionality that was requested by the modders, and FfHII made huge improvements because of it. In this case, mods drove sales of an expansion, which I think is the future.

 

[Sjru]

@Valk, have you checked 2k support forum? I can't believe the absurd amount of post-per-minute they have. Complains, mostly.

Take a look at this post: (2k).

Spoiler :

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90220

It's OK; they're working on that, but they haven't had an official reply on those complains!. I don't think that's right! (Even those forums are beggining to overflow).

Better: Take a look at 2k forum support, and constantly refresh the page. You'll notice the new thread/replies instantly

Spoiler :

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=86

@hbar: I was just concerned about modding being cut off. But apparently I don't need to worry about that.

 

[Valkrionn]

Actually, there was a really insightful modcast a few weeks back that Kael participated in that addressed this exact point. (I think Soren was on it too, but I might be wrong.)

They basically agreed that the modding community was raising the bar, and that it was getting harder to make compelling expansions and DLC. The developers love the mod community, though, and see it as a partnership.

I mean, look at what happened with BtS. It had new civs and mapscripts, sure, but why did everyone in this sub-forum buy it? The expanded modding tools. They added functionality that was requested by the modders, and FfHII made huge improvements because of it. In this case, mods drove sales of an expansion, which I think is the future.

I have made exactly that point to the devs, actually. DLC can only work if the art is worthwhile, IMO. Wouldn't be enough for me, but we all know there are people who won't play mods if they don't have art, that can't deal with anything that breaks immersion. Expansions, however, are only attractive if they bring new mechanics. They need the modders to want the expansions, as they will then convert their mods to the new expac and bring with them a larger portion of the player base.

@Valk, have you checked 2k support forum? I can't believe the absurd amount of post-per-minute they have. Complains, mostly.

Take a look at this post: (2k).

Spoiler :

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90220

It's OK; they're working on that, but they haven't had an official reply on those complains!. I don't think that's right! (Even those forums are beggining to overflow).

Better: Take a look at 2k forum support, and constantly refresh the page. You'll notice the new thread/replies instantly

Spoiler :

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=86

@hbar: I was just concerned about modding being cut off. But apparently I don't need to worry about that.

It is impossible to reply to every post, Sjru. It can't be done. Better, it's really not a GOOD thing to do. Sure, I do it here... But this is a very small forum, and even then, I waste a lot of time I could spend working on issues just replying.

Yes, I agree they should be doing a better job of replying. But I guarantee you, the reason they are not replying often is because they are working.