Lysander91
Banned
Do you guys prefer paying $80-$100 per game over DLC and DRM, because it's going to be one or the other?
Polygon gives high scores to games despite their anti-consumer aspects / DRM strategy
- Thread starter Vire
- Start date
I believe when that happens there will be a lot more games with lower budget for 20-40$ that will provide same good games that will kill those developers/publishers.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
They closed because of mismanagement of budget, or due to higher ups (Microsoft closing their PC studios).
Last I checked that hasn't happened.
I think I'll just buy Witcher 3, which will have no DRM and be better than the output of publishers who operate under this stupid belief.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
My decision to not use polygon or take their reviews seriously confirmed again I guess.
Ok, looks like i didn't read that well, i am sorry.
That is also basically my opinion. Always online as a requirement, is just that, a requirement, as it can be to have a dx11 gpu.
As a consumer you have to decide if is a requirement you want to afford and if is convenient for you.
If the system works, and people is informed about it before release, there is nothing inherently bad. Is just the way it is.
The moment the system doesn't work from the developer side, it's another story, then is a bad service; and that's deal breaker to me.
Jeff Gerstmann said:
That's a very short-sighted approach to reviews.
1. If nobody cares about reviews after 20 days then why keep them? Delete them from the site after that. Why would i want to browse your older reviews when they can only paint a wrong picture of the game?
2. Don't update your old review; write a new one. Preferably by the same guy who wrote the original review. Keep both versions online and make sure to note the last one is the one representative of the game.
Don't tell me you don't see any purpose of re-assessing games which have received bug fixes, balance changes, new content, modes and features -- all of which might and probably been a point of contention in the launch-day state of the game.
3. People go read reviews written by the big sites because across the years they respected its opinions and used the reviews in their purchasing decision; or they appreciate a specific writer's opinion.
If i had a history of agreeing with Grestmann's reviews and we share the same tastes then i would very much like to read what he has to say now about that game he reviewed 3\6\9\12 months ago; which only now i'm thinking of getting.
A year-old game is now on sale in Steam. I know little of it and consider buying it. Where do i visit to get an educated view on the game on its current form? The Steam game page shows a metascore from reviews of the first 30days -- they could mean nothing now.
How would i gauge the 'word of mouth' of this game? Do i need to go and scan forums such as GAF and distill hundreds of posts and opinions of people that i have no idea of their preferred games\styles and such?
I would very much like to visit my favorite gaming site\game reviewer and check an up-to-date review\re-review of the title.
Wait, why wouldn't the reviewer keep in touch with those games he reviewed? Anyhow, so bring a guy who did and post it as part of Giant Bomb content so that i can feel better about what's written; that there was a 'stamp of approval' by Giant Bomb for this content rather than scouring for info elsewhere around the web.
George Lucas laughs at you.
Diablo III as an example of anti-consumerism?
That is one argument, but you do not back it up by a picture of the RMAH.
RMAH is not an ingame store. It is trading between CONSUMERS
Some of those who hated Diablo III quite vigorously got out of the game with an 500$+ profit off their suffering. I would love to see all games take that kind of "anti-consumer" stance.
That is one argument, but you do not back it up by a picture of the RMAH.
RMAH is not an ingame store. It is trading between CONSUMERS
Some of those who hated Diablo III quite vigorously got out of the game with an 500$+ profit off their suffering. I would love to see all games take that kind of "anti-consumer" stance.
ClosingADoor
Member
Because the reviewer probably has to play about 10 games a month and it is impossible to keep track off all developments for all those games.
It just isn't worth the time and effort for most games to keep track after release also. Not enough people are interested in it and read it to justify the costs and effort. With games like Call of Duty or World of Warcraft, sure, but almost nobody will care about a patch that improves Dead Space 3 or Aliens two months from now.
I do agree reviews have worth for more then a month, since a lot of people buy games when they go on sale or after having heard about it go look up some reviews. They have to take into account the publication date of a review when reading it.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Diablo III as an example of anti-consumerism?
That is one argument, but you do not back it up by a picture of the RMAH.
RMAH is not an ingame store. It is trading between CONSUMERS
Some of those who hated Diablo III quite vigorously got out of the game with an 500$+ profit off their suffering. I would love to see all games take that kind of "anti-consumer" stance.
A trade of which blizzard takes 15 percent....
SMH @ people's naivety/
Haha. And in turn, I shake my head at people's greed. If Blizz gives you real money for something that you got out of their game and takes a cut, and then you ask "why give me 15% less?" is like asking why you got a gift card for $200 and not $250. Greed. Good for those who feel the need to feel bad about that.
When you decide to review a games-as-service title you are pretty much obliged to revisit that review down the line. And you don't necessarily should be there in every step of the way. Review TF2 at launch and have the same guy review TF2 now - much better for everybody involved than to only have the first review.
For games like Dead Space 3, they are bound to have a special\goty edition in the future that will have the base game + all DLC. That becomes one, single package. Sites should review this edition and score it accordingly and mark it as the 'primary' review of the game. People are much more likely to get the GOTY version but reviews only exist for the launch-day base game and for separate PDLC packs.
Proportionately few of the vast number of developer and publisher closures since late 2008 actually have to do with "mismanagement".
Most closures have simply been from a lack of available work and falling profitability due to market trends, neither of which is "mismanagement".
This perception that everything would just be peachy if people just watched their budgets more closely or publishers weren't screwing around to me presents a resistance to recognizing the actually real and fundamental problems that exist in the industry.
old manatee
Banned
I paid $60 for a video game, not a sub-minimum wage job.
There is not a lot of value in a review that is updated say for example three years down the line. I would assume this will go in the Spore direction but at this point we are just spit-balling.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
I'd disagree in some way in that said market trends probably came from mismanagement by trying to be "big blockbusters", being lucrative to those that pulled it but otherwise killing those who couldn't.
Diablo Rosso
Member
I disagree with that. Many studios have closed because they spent too much money on the game which then sold less than expected. That's the very definition of mismanagement because expectations tend to be far too high. A recent example is Dead Space 3, that was never selling 5 million.
That is all great and fun, but I do not see how it has anything to do with Diablo III. The topic is whether RMAH is to be seen as "anti-consumer". Neither Blizz taking a cut from your pure profit or the "income" being lower than something that comes with a proper job actually supports the view that RMAH is anti-consumer.
ClosingADoor
Member
The problem here is, if you only revisit a game-as-service title as you call them from time to time, you don't get the full picture anyway. It is also very difficult to tell when a certain game deserves a 'rereview'. A year after? A month after? When is an update large enough? It's a complicated matter and I think the time spent on a game from a year ago, it better spent on new games.
With a GOTY edition, the base game and DLC have already been reviewed. Does the scores suddenly change when they are packed together? I don't think it does.
Market trends are by definition driven by consumers.
Diablo Rosso said:
I disagree an incorrect sales projection is necessarily "mismanagement", especially considering such projections are made years in advance when titles are greenlit (what the appropriate action is when a market downturns after a couple of years of sunk costs is up for debate).
But regardless, I don't disagree mismanagement is behind some closures. The post I was responding to implied all studios closed either through mismanagement or by "higher ups". The reality is for the majority of closures that is not the case.
The game you have to grind, well actually have to grind. The horror.
Anyway if people referring to the always on-line functions of the game, well that is a different story.
The RMAH doesn't stand isolated, its inclusion severely influences balance and the game's core mechanics which has been analyzed time and time again.
Yep. I have no issues with D3 being always online, but I understand now how it can affect the purchase potential of the game for many people. That is a respectable thing if someone decieds to review it lower for their standards that include stuff like "always online is a no-no". But then be consistent with that expectation as well
Developers stated time and time again that they did not change item drops because of AH/RMAH presence, nor did they plan our gameplay around that. (Clearly, if they would have done so, the hilarious crafting would have already been replaced with something totally different). Anything beyond that is tinfoil hat territory. Perception issues are real (i.e. someone finding a legitimately good item and being sad because seeing that that particular item can roll even higher), but those would be real with any kind of unified trade system as well. And it is not like other ARPG games forbid item/build comparisons between players, it is just that it is easier to disappoint yourself with an Auction House feature.
Developer statements mean nothing in the face of players being unable to play Inferno for months without using the RMAH because the necessary tier of items simply didn't drop in the Acts available to them. The regular AH was no alternative since the good stuff was almost exclusively put up on the RMAH after a few days post release.
Whether these balance decisions were intentional or not is in fact speculation, but also irrelevant to the experience the game delivered in the end.
Without further delaying this thread: The bolded is a false statement. It is simply not true.
Inferno was playable. Was it hard? Yep. Did you need to gear up from Act 1 and slowly going through Act2 or abusing goblins/chests? Depends on your playstyle. But was it doable? Yes.
I know I did it, got till the end of Act3 inferno without touching RMAH, before the nerf. And I was not particularly good at it (also did not abuse goblins/chests). And the nerf happened way before "months" after the game launched.
old manatee
Banned
They charged $60 for a game that, when i played it at release, had one of the most aggressive microtransaction models I've seen. If they had the decency to release it as the f2p game it is I wouldn't bitch about it, but at $60 I felt pretty ripped off and I probably won't buy another Blizzard game.
Well even RMAH is not microtransations. It is just system which allows trade between players. As someone said inferno was doable without rmah.
It is shitty feature that affected game a lot but let's stop changing therms. RMAH didn't even work at start.
With how hard everyone involved with Polygon defends BS publisher moves I can't think they are anything but influenced in some unsavory manner.
It's one thing to not care about always online DRM for single player games/microtransactions that are gross as fuck/a horrific ending to a trilogy.
It's a whole other matter when your staff take it upon themselves to be EA PR and fight a massive twitter war trolling anyone who disagrees.
The way Polygon defends EA is stronger than basically any PR/marketing on twitter.
It's one thing to not care about always online DRM for single player games/microtransactions that are gross as fuck/a horrific ending to a trilogy.
It's a whole other matter when your staff take it upon themselves to be EA PR and fight a massive twitter war trolling anyone who disagrees.
The way Polygon defends EA is stronger than basically any PR/marketing on twitter.
BrLvgThrChmstry
Banned
So wait, SimCity requires an always online connection, even for solo play (otherwise known as offline or single player) and folks are not only ok with this but also defend this? ...the times man, they are surely changing. But hey... and spare me the social features bollocks, MP should be optional. I don't see why not.
I'm showing my disapproval by not buying it. I hope more will do the same.
Having said that, I travel a lot and own a fairly large collection of DRM-free games (widely available in Europe). Trust me, there are still many places you as a tourist or businessman can forget about free and/or freely available Internet access, unless it was specifically organised for you beforehand.
Lol, except it will be on Steamworks which is a form of DRM.
GOG.COM?
Broder Salsa
Banned
... You do realize they sell it themselves without any DRM right?
CD Projekt Red own GoodOldGames, and they distribute their dvds free of DRM.
I honestly think this thread is a bit interesting, you are basically saying that games should get lower scores depending on "anti-consumer practices" even thou the game is great. So what you are saying is that we should judge the games based on the business model and not how good the game/product actually is.
From your post it all looks like you want games to be the way they were "back in the day" where you bought a box with a DVD and then you played that game and that's it. However just as any market in the world the game industry changes and evolves.
Regarding some of the issues you have, day one DLC and pre-order bonuses are just a basic buisiness decision, in a market where all sales count and the competition is super high you need to find new incentives to get people to be interested in your products and by saying "You get this for free if you pre-order" is a perfect way of getting those extra day one sales.
And let's be realistic, pre-order bonuses don't hurt you as a consumer, they are just "extra stuff", and if you are interested in a game it will get you to pre-order but if you are not as interested and thinking that you'll probably pick it up down the line sometime, well then that extra crem-de-la-creme stuff probably isn't that important.
Regarding day one DLC, well a lot of games that have that usually have multiple teams working on them, and if they create a DLC when they are not necessarily needed in the main games development and can create a DLC instead of getting laid off since the cost of just having them sitting around then I say, awesome, great, they get to keep their jobs and I can, IF I want, and like the game enough buy that DLC to get some extra hours out of that game.
Sry i feel i came off the point here a little bit, but in short now.
TLDR
All the things that you mention are "extra stuff" that you don't need for the game experience, calling this anti-consumer practices is something that i feel is wrong since i think the majority of the stuff is pro-consumer honestly, cause there is an option to get more things to the game and enhance your experience. Regarding the always online-DRM I can understand that they want you to register an account and log on to reduce and complicate it for piracy and limit the functions and game experience for pirates.
And the games business model should not reflect the game score in reviews.
From your post it all looks like you want games to be the way they were "back in the day" where you bought a box with a DVD and then you played that game and that's it. However just as any market in the world the game industry changes and evolves.
Regarding some of the issues you have, day one DLC and pre-order bonuses are just a basic buisiness decision, in a market where all sales count and the competition is super high you need to find new incentives to get people to be interested in your products and by saying "You get this for free if you pre-order" is a perfect way of getting those extra day one sales.
And let's be realistic, pre-order bonuses don't hurt you as a consumer, they are just "extra stuff", and if you are interested in a game it will get you to pre-order but if you are not as interested and thinking that you'll probably pick it up down the line sometime, well then that extra crem-de-la-creme stuff probably isn't that important.
Regarding day one DLC, well a lot of games that have that usually have multiple teams working on them, and if they create a DLC when they are not necessarily needed in the main games development and can create a DLC instead of getting laid off since the cost of just having them sitting around then I say, awesome, great, they get to keep their jobs and I can, IF I want, and like the game enough buy that DLC to get some extra hours out of that game.
Sry i feel i came off the point here a little bit, but in short now.
TLDR
All the things that you mention are "extra stuff" that you don't need for the game experience, calling this anti-consumer practices is something that i feel is wrong since i think the majority of the stuff is pro-consumer honestly, cause there is an option to get more things to the game and enhance your experience. Regarding the always online-DRM I can understand that they want you to register an account and log on to reduce and complicate it for piracy and limit the functions and game experience for pirates.
And the games business model should not reflect the game score in reviews.
Well, to be fair, isn't profitability directly tied to a budget? That's how I've generally regarded it. I think the core problem is that - fundamentally - spending more money on developing a game rarely results in a proportional increase in revenue for it. Or is that basically your point?
(Or when you say 'watch budgets more closely', you're referring more to cutting down on - percieved - 'wastage' rather than simply spending less in the first place? I see your point in that regard; there really isn't enough 'wastage' to make the sort of savings people believe... unless - again - you take 'wastage' to mean 'any extra spending to make the game nicer which won't resort in proportionally higher sales as a result').
I have no issue with the microtransactions in the MP as they did not negatively impact the game at all. In fact, if EA wants to make money from those with too much money or too little time, more power to them as long as it doesn't affect the rest of us in any way (and it did not)
However, I took issue with the DLC character. They should have handled it like they did Zaeed - free for everyone who buys it new. Bundling it in with the more expensive limited edition was a shitty move and I constantly have the feeling that I missed out on something important. Everyone I know who played the game with Javik tells me that he is vital to the story and one of the best things about the game.
There's no magic about it. Games are established enough now that they'll continue to exist in one form or another for the foreseeable future. This isn't the 80s.
Development studios are closing because the industry currently lacks the concept of a mid-range game. You know, something between a 10 dollar downloadable purchase and a 60 dollar megablockbuster. Nobody plans, budgets, or prices for moderate success. The industry is full of publicly traded companies with investors that get pissed if you don't have the next Call of Duty on tap on a regular basis.
Besides, this argument is a straw man anyway. There's good ways to go about this sort of thing, and bad ways to go about it. I said my piece in the Cliffy B thread, but you cannot deflect criticism of an anti-consumer practice by saying "businesses have to make money." No shit they do.
Ridiculous fear-mongering. You either have to buy $60 dollar mega games or Angry Birds, there is no middle ground!
"If you don't like it, don't buy it, but make sure you shut up about it so other folks might buy it." Is that it?
You're right. Poor EA. If there's one thing they have a reputation for it's being nice guys, but suddenly one thing goes wrong and everybody turns on them.
Are you serious with this?
I do want to thank you for this part of the post.
Hey, check this out everybody. This is exactly the sort of distaste and distrust of the target audience that leads to the sort of nonsense we're seeing today.
Remember gamers, you're the enemy.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
partyphone
Banned
Don't really know the guy but he actually stopped the bickering and apologized. So I don't know if that qualifies him as an asshole.
I gave polygon a pretty big chance and put them in my already noisy RSS feed. But they really haven't done much to elevate gaming journalism despite what they said in that fluffy, self-serving documentary. Their site is expensive and their staff is enormous and most of their content is the same as every other gaming site. The only reason to follow their site is if you like the people on their staff. But it's hard to like a bunch of whiny dicks with fragile egos.
Probably. Because I can't see the polygon writers ever getting any better. It's what happens when you hire all of your friends instead of looking for professionals.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
Polygon has some amazing features and solid writing, you just need to be wary of reviews from any site. Read them, digest them, and combine them with every review to get a consensus, then make your own opinion.
I enjoy their site and will keep reading reviews there because it's not really about the number score and their written text is usually good.
I enjoy their site and will keep reading reviews there because it's not really about the number score and their written text is usually good.
How is this in comparison to other reviewers?
Is it common to ding titles for always online drm etc.?
because I don't think so.
The fact that Polygon retroactively changes their review when it turns out that the game isn't playable is more to their credit than the opposite.
All the titles listed in the OP are, as far as I can tell, high quality titles, I don't see anything strange about this.
Is it common to ding titles for always online drm etc.?
because I don't think so.
The fact that Polygon retroactively changes their review when it turns out that the game isn't playable is more to their credit than the opposite.
All the titles listed in the OP are, as far as I can tell, high quality titles, I don't see anything strange about this.
Uh, I beat Inferno early on without ever using the RMAH.
Hot Coldman
Banned
I want to like Justin, he's clearly an OK guy, I just wish he'd stop arguing. Stop arguing! You're bad at it! Terrible, even! Just stop doing it! You'd probably attract more readers to your site if you hadn't somehow built up this reputation of being overly-defensive to the point that I can't take anything you say seriously. It's like calling out the kid at school who says he has a dad at Nintendo who's seen "Mario on PS2" or some shit and he just goes "NUH-UH" over and over.
