Well, good for you I guess? Though honestly I think you have the wrong mindset regard Mass Effect. It's always been an action/adventure game with some RPG elements. Even in ME1. That was never likely to change.Vegosiux said:
Poll: Are We Entitled?
- Thread starter Toilet
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Couldn't agree more.Zeel said:
Westwood had a very successful franchise (c&c) and a reasonable market share for pc. EA instead of competing bought it, interfered with it's IPs then closed them keeping said IPs to milk. By c&c generals they'd got rid of almost the entire pre-EA westwood staff. This move was just after my last ever new EA game purchase. It is this act that means none of my money can ever go to them.
I CAN HOLD DOWN THE SHIFT KEY WHILE I TYPE TOO! ME2 came out while Bioware was under EA, and I loved that game, I've got no beef with EA...then again I've got no beef with Activision, so it shows what kind of a brainless tool I am, seriously whats wrong with me? I honestly think that it isn't a big deal that COD is the best selling shooter on the market.Zeel said:
Alright, If I dont buy number 3, that would mean Ive wasted my money on 1 and 2, and I want to see the end of this series, Yes I dont have to buy it, but I want to. I want to finish the story that was started, Im not going to be one of those people wholl say theyll boycott it, then get it anyway. And frankly in a series this popular a boycott will not work, theyll stil make a ton of money on it.Crono1973 said:
The gaming community as a whole is entitled, and no, not because they criticise bad pricing, bad DRM, and bad DLC (although I don't agree with most peoples anti-ME3 DLC and anti-on-disc DLC views). People are entitled because they're given a fantastic prospering industry full of very high quality games that developers put their heart and soul into making and for a certain number of them, they focus on everything that's wrong, and rarely if ever at all stop to acknowledge the fantastic deal they're actually getting, or the hard work of the men and women who propel the medium forward.
I've seen so many people who think that Valve genuinely owes them a Half-Life 2: Episode 3 it's untrue, and while there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made of the industry, I'm getting rather sick of people who think that by default they deserve everything the games industry is producing to be handed to them on a silver platter, without even offering so much as a regular thanks in return.
I've seen so many people who think that Valve genuinely owes them a Half-Life 2: Episode 3 it's untrue, and while there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made of the industry, I'm getting rather sick of people who think that by default they deserve everything the games industry is producing to be handed to them on a silver platter, without even offering so much as a regular thanks in return.
'Don't tell me what I'd do, I am different. Only I defy human nature, because I'm special!'. Yeah, yeah, yeah, fine. Whatever, this argument is utterly pointless. Of course, you might be right. I mean, there must be a reason why right now you're talking from a consumer perspective, and not from a publisher's perspective. I.e. there has to be a reason why you're not in their shoes, and probably never will be... *naiive rub on the chin*.Vegosiux said:
Anyway, I am done with this thread.
I voted yes, but I think this is something you need to approach on a case by case basis.
There are some games out there that come with more than enough content (or just the right amount) and some have the nerve to swallow it and demand more.
Then there are others that go to market, half-finished, with content missing that they will simply 'add later' through paid DLC. In other words, allowing the customers to do all the Quality Control work themselves while continuing to PAY developers more than the game is worth to get the full experience.
The first is entitlement, the second is exploiting the customer.
The first option I don't agree with. Especially considering that there are only so many games released right now that are worth investing your time in to begin with. You should kiss the ground you walk on if developers throw you a thoroughly enjoyable game that may not have been as long as you desired.
The second option I don't think falls under entitlement. It's more about what defines a product suitable for purchase. It wouldn't be so terrible if I didn't have plenty of evidence from the past. You know, back when you could buy a game all-inclusive and patches were used to fix small problems and not THE ENTIRE GAME. Also when maps and levels were made by the community, for free, instead of strictly through the developers at a ridiculous price.
When you look at the numbers, we got more for less back then. It brings up the old discussion of DLC versus Expansion Packs. I've always believed that Expansion Packs were the greater value when you consider all that was included with it. It's hard to bring up an example that would cover every scenario, but think about it like this. Expansion Packs would be priced anywhere from $10-$25. The more expensive ones would contain ENTIRE campaign additions, while the cheaper ones would contain maps, items, quests or whatever.
Compare that to today's standards where $15 will buy you Three Call of Duty maps (or an elite subscription, which is just stupid), and $8-$15 will buy you a single additional campaign mission. We're being played for chumps. This is all because we seem to believe that DLC is convenient and we could buy what we want, as opposed to investing a slightly larger amount of money for a more substantial experience. Even then, if you wanted to match what an expansion pack would give you using micro transactions, you would have to spend anywhere from 2 to 3 times the amount to match the content provided. That isn't right.
I seemed to have turned this into an anti-dlc rant. I just don't have enough evidence to provide that we are more or less entitled now vs. then.
There are some games out there that come with more than enough content (or just the right amount) and some have the nerve to swallow it and demand more.
Then there are others that go to market, half-finished, with content missing that they will simply 'add later' through paid DLC. In other words, allowing the customers to do all the Quality Control work themselves while continuing to PAY developers more than the game is worth to get the full experience.
The first is entitlement, the second is exploiting the customer.
The first option I don't agree with. Especially considering that there are only so many games released right now that are worth investing your time in to begin with. You should kiss the ground you walk on if developers throw you a thoroughly enjoyable game that may not have been as long as you desired.
The second option I don't think falls under entitlement. It's more about what defines a product suitable for purchase. It wouldn't be so terrible if I didn't have plenty of evidence from the past. You know, back when you could buy a game all-inclusive and patches were used to fix small problems and not THE ENTIRE GAME. Also when maps and levels were made by the community, for free, instead of strictly through the developers at a ridiculous price.
When you look at the numbers, we got more for less back then. It brings up the old discussion of DLC versus Expansion Packs. I've always believed that Expansion Packs were the greater value when you consider all that was included with it. It's hard to bring up an example that would cover every scenario, but think about it like this. Expansion Packs would be priced anywhere from $10-$25. The more expensive ones would contain ENTIRE campaign additions, while the cheaper ones would contain maps, items, quests or whatever.
Compare that to today's standards where $15 will buy you Three Call of Duty maps (or an elite subscription, which is just stupid), and $8-$15 will buy you a single additional campaign mission. We're being played for chumps. This is all because we seem to believe that DLC is convenient and we could buy what we want, as opposed to investing a slightly larger amount of money for a more substantial experience. Even then, if you wanted to match what an expansion pack would give you using micro transactions, you would have to spend anywhere from 2 to 3 times the amount to match the content provided. That isn't right.
I seemed to have turned this into an anti-dlc rant. I just don't have enough evidence to provide that we are more or less entitled now vs. then.
I hate EA.Zeel said:
I don't hate Bioware.
Simply put, I do think EA are the devil, but Bioware have brilliant writing and excellent gameplay and they've never let me down on those fronts, and yeah, I buy EA games, doesn't mean I have to like them.
Oh yeah, and you might throw the old "BUT YOUR SUPPORTING THEM BY GIVING THEM YOUR MONEYZ!" (all in caps because I like to be accurate), but if I like and want a game, I'll buy it, because if a more "morally oriented" company try to make it, they get sued, and I have far too much respect for a good game to complain too much about the person behind it, peddling it.
Mass Effect 3 I have full faith in being a great game, with or without From Ashes.
There are things in the gaming industry that never should have happened, things we can all agree make companies all out as total bastards. Everybody has SOMETHING that's annoyed them in gaming that's related to the makers and the distributors and whatnot. If you have ANY sort of gripe with your choice company somewhere along the line, you believe in some level of entitlement. You are a dissatisfied customer over a particular point in quality. That truth cannot be changed.
When Bioware start making shit games, I'll start lowering my opinion of them, and yes, I honestly believe that any of the "sleaze" is from EA, not Bioware. But the Mass Effect team need to justify their workload and income to EA or they're going to get fired, you think this happening for the third game is coincidence? No way. They're biding their time, hence the development on it straight after the game was complete.Zeel said:
Now I'm not saying it's completely fair, but this stuff takes money as well as time and it needs to be made up. But they're now proving that their jobs have meaning to the people that bought them, they're essentially trying to keep their jobs and getting slated for it. Do I wish the first day DLC was free (regardless of the fact it doesn't affect me)? Yes. Would I rebel thinking that it might cost people their jobs? No.
Being laid off work SUCKS.
Before EA got involved, Bioware did no wrong for me and made some of the best games I have ever played. Now they're owned by EA, they still deliver excellent games, albeit with some more concerning marketing tactics. Coincidence?
So yes. I have faith in BIOWARE, but not EA. Unfortunately EA do make some great games, and your lack of purchase will make piss all difference to them, so I'm just going to enjoy my last installment of Mass Effect 3 - and I still maintain that the Prothean will prove to be less vital than everyone makes him out to be (we won't know 100% certain, not even with leaked proof, how vital he will be), and this might just end up blowing over.
And remember kiddies, pirating games is illegal and ultimately costs peoples jobs, you're better boycotting a game than pirating it because otherwise it'll be you killing the industry, not the companies you accuse, and it will all be a massive irony!
ZEEL BUDDY YOU'RE BACK! I MISSED YOU! I think they're looking for you over at the "Bioware defends" trailer. Also I'm not a gamer, I don't really like being given a title that implies that gaming is all I'm about, a label I much rather prefer is writer. I like playing games, that's about it, EA makes games that I like, including ME2 which I find to be superior to ME1 in just about every way, so yeah, I have no issues with the way things are doingZeel said:
Oh yeah, you don't have severe anger issues at all. Seriously you have all the zeal or rather Zeel (lol) of a fanboy, but you direct it into hating things instead of loving them...which really doesn't make you any better...at all.
And I answered you, so long as Bioware continues to make quality products, I have no issue with how they make them, and so far I consider ME2 to be good and ME3 looks like it will be even better. Also I went off on that "mini-writer tirade" because you asked me "how can you as a gamer justify this" like it was a duty or something to police every action that gaming company made, and I was just trying to express how I think it's stupid to put so much time and energy into stuff like that.Zeel said: