Krill
Deity
No person is bad if they buy the deluxe version, but they are acting in short term self interests.
Zero day DLC = disrespecting the customer
- Thread starter phungus420
- Start date
No person is bad if they buy the deluxe version, but they are acting in short term self interests.
tom2050
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 5,516
No, your willingness to make a legal purchase in good faith does not make you a bad person at all. One can play ball and still genuinely dislike or criticize the rules of the game. That's called real life.
2K Elizabeth
<span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration: un
You mean the CEO's and exec's of other gaming companies that deal with the issue themselves statements cannot hold, obviously.
If the majority of pirates get the games for free, then the majority of those games are not purchased. This is common sense. To say otherwise is absurd.
Brad of Stardock was correct in his statement.
--------------
Anyways, I am just bringing voice about these things for the poor people that have no internet and have no voice.
Perhaps 2K Liz can tell us if the Civ 5 game will have a warning that Internet is required for installation and updates on it. At least then, I will give props to Firaxis, and 2K for letting people know ahead of time. (And sorry 2k liz for my last statement, it should have been directed towards Valve).
Then they can make an informed decision if they do not have internet. And they won't be out $50 for nothing. After all, the global economic meltdown underway will have people getting rid of things like internet and gym memberships to save money, so it is a valid point and question.
And for the poor helpless souls with computers and $50, but no internet... I wish you the best in your Civ 5 attempted endeavours!
(Steam is Internet Profiling! Almost as bad as Racial Profiling!) Which is Not-
But I still can't wait to play the game, even if it all makes my computer explode.
Civilization V will have a notice explaining internet is required for activation. All our games that require that have a notice on the box.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Mass Effect II is seriously mainstream, is barely monthes old, is certainly not "low-profile" and though it had lots of online-related content, it was all optionnal, could be de-activated and relied simply on a serial key and CD-check.
Funnily, it is the sequel of a game that HAD a very troubled start when it came to copy protection - guess it got better.
For the record, Dragon Age had the exact same protection and optionnal online content, and is also quite recent - but it's the same company, so...
The funny thing is : it's not that I have a very hard time finding a recent game without intrusive DRM, it's more that I have a very hard time finding a recent game that was actually interesting enough that I considered buying it.
Isn't it amusing how restrictive copy protection and money-grabbing techniques happens inversely proportionnally to the amount of quality games ? You could nearly imagine a cause-effect relationship, the more producer think about money, the less they think about quality.
This aside, the "it's now a fact so we must jump in the bandwagon" is just so plainly dumb that I can't really believe it's used as a supposed argument.
Valve sure does love charging for content, that must be why they release massive patches of free content for Team Fortress 2 on a monthly basis.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
Ever heard of rebates and giveaways for cars?
Why do they do it? Since they have become generous?
Rebates exist so car manufacturers can make some extra cash off those individuals who can't be bothered to send in the necessary form to get their cash back. Giveaways are typically done to attract buyers to a product with a benefit beyond the basic value of the product. The analogy of a giveaway is a good one for Valve though, because that's exactly what they've been doing with their current flagship shooter, TF2.
Valve makes tons of free content for Team Fortress 2 so they can continue to attract new customers to a game that's been out since 2007 (I would know, I've been playing it since then), but they provide that content free of charge to anyone who buys the game. I fail to see how my receiving new content that both provides me with new equipment to play with and attracts new opponents for me to shoot is a bad thing in any way. Accusing Valve of being responsible for Firaxis charging for DLC, as the guy I quoted in my previous post did, is ridiculous because Valve doesn't even charge for its own DLC.
Krill
Deity
Valve have nothing to do with 2K. They are separate companies...
tom2050
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 5,516
Although Valve does not determine prices for DLC from other companies, it only makes sense that Valve makes money from people buying anything off the Valve 3rd party program. Users are disappointed that more companies do not do like TF2 did with free content.
Civ5 has shown that it will likely not be in that category since they are charging $10 more for 1 civ, which is nothing "new and exciting", on Day 0.
Civ5 has shown that it will likely not be in that category since they are charging $10 more for 1 civ, which is nothing "new and exciting", on Day 0.
Barney's_Soul
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2006
- Messages
- 205
DLC in itself is not a bad idea, however, I really don't want to be paying to crap DLC every month that adds like 1 leader/civilization. Games like GTA4 did DLC correctly, where it was more like a downloadable expansion.
I'm dissapointed that Firaxis is already creating a rift between people who buy the Deluxe Edition and those who don't. What will mods like Ryse and Fall do?
I'm dissapointed that Firaxis is already creating a rift between people who buy the Deluxe Edition and those who don't. What will mods like Ryse and Fall do?
Krill
Deity
http://kotaku.com/5545662/tf2-maps-get-a-stimulus
I agree, free DLC and hence no restrictions to modding, and I'd love 2K. Paid for DLC minimods, and I'll pass of the game. It comes down to price
And again for those that don't seem to understand: this is not Firaxis trying to screw over the customer. They do not get a say in this. These decisions are only made by the Publisher, with possible outside pressure from the owners (Rockstar IIRC?)
spaztek
Chieftain
X2
This does not make one feel like an appreciated customer. My main worry is to repeat the experience of ETW.
Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate
There is no reason that the presence (or absence) of an additional civ would interfere with any mod.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate
see my remark right after 
phungus420
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,296
This is blatantly false. There are numerous file conflict considerations to take into account. Let me see your modding work for any game, and I'll take your opinion on modding conflicts into consideration, but we both know you're just talking out your ass here.
Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate
It all depends on how the implement the file structures for civilizations in Civ V. If they follow Civ IV's model, then my statement would be incorrect.
But, inherently, there is no reason there has to be an issue. If each civ is created as an instance of a class, with a self contained, requisite file structure, then why could you not simply drop each complete civ into one, requisite folder. Other than the graphics (UU, UB, Leader) each civ is just data. The game takes an inventory of the "Civilizations" file when it initializes - why should it care if there are 18 or 19 civs in that file?
But, inherently, there is no reason there has to be an issue. If each civ is created as an instance of a class, with a self contained, requisite file structure, then why could you not simply drop each complete civ into one, requisite folder. Other than the graphics (UU, UB, Leader) each civ is just data. The game takes an inventory of the "Civilizations" file when it initializes - why should it care if there are 18 or 19 civs in that file?
phungus420
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,296
A new civ runs tendrils throughout the game mechanics; new UUs, UBs, artstyles, leader, etc, etc. Modularlizing this, while possible (and is done by many civ4 mods), will create compatibility and development nightmares, no matter how it's implemented. Perhaps Shafer was misinformed when he made his statements about exposing the dll, but I don't see how one is going to be able to package majore overhaul mods like RevDCM for the new modding download hub, that will be able to take into account the shattered codebase that will result from a DLC aproach to adding content. Just look at Civ4 mods as an example, you can't just pick and choose modules; some mods claim that they can be added this way, but in practice it simply does not work.
