Who is waiting for the Skyrim Game of the Year edition?

[GonzoGamer]

Nope. It's worth an extra $40 to me not to have to wait a year and a half.

Plus, I don't have entitlement issues.

Just out of curiousity, what does buying a game at release have to do with entitlement exactly?

If that is what you meant of course.

Gamers have just been really over/mis-using the term lately. Don't know where the trend started.

The thing is that paying $60 for a game does entitle you to a game that works properly. I'm not into beta testing and especially not into paying $60 to beta test something.
Knowing them, the dlc will probably be a good value; it's been a long time since Horse Armor. I'm waiting because the last game I got from Bethesda crashed every 15 mins.

I also think this "I don't want to beta test your game" argument is way overblown.

Look, nobody was as annoyed as me about how thoroughly broken New Vegas was. But in my experience, that was the exception. I've never played another game at launch that worked nearly that badly. And so far Skyrim has been perfect.

I might have been as annoyed as you. Because after trying to play New Vegas I vowed to never buy a Bethesda game at launch ever again. I would be surprised if they could legally release a game more broken than New Vegas but I aint betting $60 on it.
I'm glad you're not having any issues with Skyrim but I'm hearing about a whole bunch of people who are having crashes, framerate drops, locked quests, and basically all the same problems New Vegas had. Even Bethesda has already announced that they're working on patches; so there are issues. So it seems like the "no beta testing" argument is quite moderately-blown.
From now on, as a rule, I'm waiting for the obligatory "big patch" with any game Bethesda releases. I don't care how good it is.

 

[Vegosiux]

The game has hardly been out for a week, and as good as it is, I really think some people over-hype it just too much >.<

 

[fenrizz]

Spoiler

Seems like they would prefer no DLC at all, which I find to be absurd.
They do not have to buy it, and people like me (and you it seems) will gladly pay for more content to our favourite games.

It's like they expect developers to do it for free.

Well, it's not entirely that they would prefer no DLC, it's just that they think all the DLC should already be in the retail release of the game. (Of course, that would mean the game's release gets delayed by up to a year, but you never hear them address that!) They see a GOTY release as the definitive version, the one they should have been sold initially at the $60, and therefore they see the original version of the game as only a fraction of the "real" game, and object to being sold what they see as 80% of a game for 100% of the price. Which is bonkers. Especially when you consider that so many of the games these people ***** the most about (Borderlands, Fallout 3 and NV, Dragon Age O and 2, Mass Effect 2, etc.) are already ridiculously good values before the DLC.

And yes, for the most part, DLC is typically stuff that is truly "extra". There are occasional hiccups, DLC that clearly "completes" a game rather than complements it (Broken Steel is a big offender here, I think, and there are a couple games that seem to have "Epilogues" which complete a previously unfinished story...I've heard that Prince of Persia 2008 is guilty of this, though I haven't finished that game or played the Epilogue). In those very rare cases, I can see how there might be an argument.

But for the most part, DLC usually just adds stuff on top of an already-complete game, stuff that doesn't necessarily fall within the overall story, but just adds self-contained chapters (most of the Fallout DLCs, for instance) or alternate perspectives (Enslaved), and these are truly optional...if you don't want them, their absence shouldn't affect your enjoyment of the game. If you DO want them, well then you should have no problem paying a few extra dollars!

(Then of course there's the day-one DLC, which is a whole other argument...as someone who buys exclusively new, it's hard for me to drum up any sympathy for used-game buyers, but I don't have as much of a problem with their protests in this case.)

You summer up my thoughts on the subject better than I ever could.
I only wish I had your skills at writing.

Nope. It's worth an extra $40 to me not to have to wait a year and a half.

Plus, I don't have entitlement issues.

Just out of curiousity, what does buying a game at release have to do with entitlement exactly?

If that is what you meant of course.

Gamers have just been really over/mis-using the term lately. Don't know where the trend started.

The thing is that paying $60 for a game does entitle you to a game that works properly. I'm not into beta testing and especially not into paying $60 to beta test something.
Knowing them, the dlc will probably be a good value; it's been a long time since Horse Armor. I'm waiting because the last game I got from Bethesda crashed every 15 mins.

I also think this "I don't want to beta test your game" argument is way overblown.

Look, nobody was as annoyed as me about how thoroughly broken New Vegas was. But in my experience, that was the exception. I've never played another game at launch that worked nearly that badly. And so far Skyrim has been perfect.

I might have been as annoyed as you. Because after trying to play New Vegas I vowed to never buy a Bethesda game at launch ever again. I would be surprised if they could legally release a game more broken than New Vegas but I aint betting $60 on it.
I'm glad you're not having any issues with Skyrim but I'm hearing about a whole bunch of people who are having crashes, framerate drops, locked quests, and basically all the same problems New Vegas had. Even Bethesda has already announced that they're working on patches; so there are issues. So it seems like the "no beta testing" argument is quite moderately-blown.
From now on, as a rule, I'm waiting for the obligatory "big patch" with any game Bethesda releases. I don't care how good it is.

But New Vegas was developers by Obsidian, not Bethesda.

I've not had much trouble with Skyrim so far.
2 crashes in 65 hours of gameplay and no broken quests so far.

Some problems with certain animations, but nothing gamebreaking.

 

[octafish]

When the GOTY edition is $20 or less on Steam I'll grab it. I didn't like Morrowind, and hated Oblivion, so I'll wait and play Daggerfall when I need an Elder Scrolls fix.

 

[Eomega123]

Yup. I can pay $60 for a buggy game now and $60 for dlc, or I can wait a year (an easy task with TF2) and get a much patched game and its dlc for $50.

 

[Alma Mare]

Nope. It's worth an extra $40 to me not to have to wait a year and a half.

Plus, I don't have entitlement issues.

Yup. It's worthing waiting a year and a half to get a much better value for my hard-earned money.

Plus, I don't have basic math issues.

 

[everythingbeeps]

Nope. It's worth an extra $40 to me not to have to wait a year and a half.

Plus, I don't have entitlement issues.

Yup. It's worthing waiting a year and a half to get a much better value for my hard-earned money.

Plus, I don't have basic math issues.

If your money is that hard-earned that $40 over the course of a year and a half even registers with you, maybe you shouldn't be buying video games in the first place. We're literally talking like $2 a month. I can find that under the passenger seat of my fucking car.

Besides, it's not that great a value in the end anyway. You're saving 40% on a year-and-a-half old game. Big whoop. It's obviously comparable to waiting for a $60 game to drop to $20 before buying it, which is what you do when you just aren't that interested in a game. So either you just aren't that interested in Skyrim, or you're exceedingly cheap.

 

[LordRoyal]

The game is pretty complete as it is without DLC, neither is it as notoriously buggy as Fallout 3/New Vegas. It has some bugs sure but nothing majorly gamebreaking.

I can see expansion packs to the game like Shivering Isles and Tribunal/Bloodmoon (and Bethesda has stated they are going to create ones of those size for it). Smaller DLC probably will come out but I dont think it's worth waiting a full year or two just so you can buy the full package. By that time the game will be old and probably Fallout 4 will be announced.

Other than that I completely agree with you.
Seems like they would prefer no DLC at all, which I find to be absurd.
They do not have to buy it, and people like me (and you it seems) will gladly pay for more content to our favourite games.

It's like they expect developers to do it for free.

I fully agree with this

You are aware that Bethesda had nothing to do with New Vegas?

Wrong.

Bethesda published New Vegas, and it's name is very easily noticeable when you start the game up.

Obsidian did develop the game, but they would not have been financed, nor given the rights to create the game if it wasn't for Bethesda.

When the GOTY edition is $20 or less on Steam I'll grab it. I didn't like Morrowind, and hated Oblivion, so I'll wait and play Daggerfall when I need an Elder Scrolls fix.

It's worth waiting until DaggerXL is finished before attempting to play Daggerfall, considering it's the most notoriously buggy one of the series.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

By definition if they are releasing further content you're not getting the whole experience without it. Yes, the complete experience is there for now but it wont stay that way for long.

Please go watch the escapist podcast on Day 1 dlc, basically they all agree you are completely wrong. Skyrim is done, its a finish product and its being sold right now, its not "half a game" without the DLC. All the DLC are completely optional, add nothing to the story and are just extras, if you dont want them then dont buy them. Its perfectly fine to want to wait to save money, but you make it sound like you should be entitled to it and that its part of the game your missing out on, which is wrong.

 

[StBishop]

Nope. It's worth an extra $40 to me not to have to wait a year and a half.

Plus, I don't have entitlement issues.

Just out of curiousity, what does buying a game at release have to do with entitlement exactly?

If that is what you meant of course.

Well no, the people with entitlement issues are the ones who think they should get ALL of the game for just the $60...the ones who are philosophically opposed to DLC. That's really what this looks like to me for some people...they're waiting as a sort of punishment to the developer by not giving them any more than the $60 they think should pay for the whole package.

But that's just silly to me. I'm fine with DLC. I'm fine with paying additional money on top of the initial $60 for more content. I don't think I'm entitled to a developer's entire efforts for the one price.

And if it's not entitlement issues, it's just people being cheap. I can appreciate the difference between instant and delayed gratification, and I can see how it might make sense in some cases. But these people are waiting a year and a half in order to save $40 tops. That's weird.

It's more like 12 months for $120 bucks in Australia. But whatever.

We disagree on a fundamental level and no amount of internet arguing will change that.

 

[EHKOS]

Yup. They will hopefully have patched the shit out of it by then fixing the game wrecking glitches and bugs that plague Beth titles.

Normally i would agree with you. But this time Bethesda really did their work and the game is incredibly playable. In my 9 lvls of play i still havent encountered anything as frustrating as the bugs in Fallout 3.

There is one big bug in the main questline but other than that you're right. They cleaned up real nice this time. Nothing a little setstage can't fix!

 

[Alma Mare]

Nope. It's worth an extra $40 to me not to have to wait a year and a half.

Plus, I don't have entitlement issues.

Yup. It's worthing waiting a year and a half to get a much better value for my hard-earned money.

Plus, I don't have basic math issues.

If your money is that hard-earned that $40 over the course of a year and a half even registers with you, maybe you shouldn't be buying video games in the first place. We're literally talking like $2 a month. I can find that under the passenger seat of my fucking car.

Besides, it's not that great a value in the end anyway. You're saving 40% on a year-and-a-half old game. Big whoop. It's obviously comparable to waiting for a $60 game to drop to $20 before buying it, which is what you do when you just aren't that interested in a game. So either you just aren't that interested in Skyrim, or you're exceedingly cheap.

It's irrelevant of how much money it is. It's still money being saved with the effort of sitting on my ass and waiting. If Skyrim and its DLC add up close to 100 EUR, which is reasonable to expect given the way they handled content for TES4, F3 and FNV and I can snatch the GOTY down the line I have saved 60 EUR. I could buy a game at lauch with that or even, stretching it a little, 2 1 or 2 year old games. So the money that last me for 1 single game gets me 2 - 3 games. I respect my money too much not to go for that.

Plus, last I checked, games don't deteriorate with age. 1.5year old Skyrim is not any worse than launch skyrim. There's no multiplayer community to dwindle and there's a mod community to grow, not to mention patches and more content. First Oblivion I played was the GOTY edition, never stopped me from having 800 hours of fun with it.

People like you, that have absolutely no trouble paying ?100 for ?40 content are the reason they reached these prices in the first place. A fool and his money...

 

[everythingbeeps]

People like you, that have absolutely no trouble paying ?100 for ?40 content are the reason they reached these prices in the first place. A fool and his money...

Well there's your problem. You place arbitrary dollar amounts on value. Skyrim's "$40 content"? That's ridiculous. You determine the value of something by merely figuring out the least you can reasonably pay for it, and there's its value.

You say games don't deteriorate with age, but in a way they do. In 1.5 years, Skyrim's not going to be as impressive compared to everything else as it is today. So you're going to lose a lot of the impact (though I guess if you're this cheap with all games...you'll always be 1.5 years back so I guess the other games you'll be playing will also all be old, so maybe you'll still be impressed. But you sure won't have much to talk about with your non-cheapskate friends.)

Like sure, I can still enjoy Oblivion today, but it's not that impressive compared to everything else. But back when it was new, it was mindblowing. That's part of the experience. And you're throwing that away, so of course the game's not going to be "worth" as much.

But like I said earlier: I don't see the price of admission as being just for the content. It's also for the experience, the context. And the value of that experience is higher now than it will be in 1.5 years. So therefore, it's worth more.

And I'm not so desperate for games to play (or money, for that matter) that I'd pass one one particular game just because I could get two other games for the same price. All games aren't "worth" the same.

 

[QPCloudy]

To be honest, I'm going to be a whore for Skyrim. I'l probably buy all the dlc, and then next year also get the GOTY. I think it's that good. I like it so much, I even have epic weapon drops stored on my weapon rack at my home in Whiterun. I don't do that in games. I don't care about houses, let alone decorating them in games, bot for some reason, I have chosen to do so in Skyrim.

 

[Alma Mare]

People like you, that have absolutely no trouble paying ?100 for ?40 content are the reason they reached these prices in the first place. A fool and his money...

Well there's your problem. You place arbitrary dollar amounts on value. Skyrim's "$40 content"? That's ridiculous. You determine the value of something by merely figuring out the least you can reasonably pay for it, and there's its value.

You say games don't deteriorate with age, but in a way they do. In 1.5 years, Skyrim's not going to be as impressive compared to everything else as it is today. So you're going to lose a lot of the impact (though I guess if you're this cheap with all games...you'll always be 1.5 years back so I guess the other games you'll be playing will also all be old, so maybe you'll still be impressed. But you sure won't have much to talk about with your non-cheapskate friends.)

Like sure, I can still enjoy Oblivion today, but it's not that impressive compared to everything else. But back when it was new, it was mindblowing. That's part of the experience. And you're throwing that away, so of course the game's not going to be "worth" as much.

But like I said earlier: I don't see the price of admission as being just for the content. It's also for the experience, the context. And the value of that experience is higher now than it will be in 1.5 years. So therefore, it's worth more.

And I'm not so desperate for games to play (or money, for that matter) that I'd pass one one particular game just because I could get two other games for the same price. All games aren't "worth" the same.

It's not an arbitrary value I pulled out of the ether. It's the value that the content will be sold for in most major retailers one year down the line. I don't buy the games out of the back of a van. Massive price drops ares a standard of the industry, why shouldn't I rely on them?

As for the extra perks, seriously? Impressivness compared to other games? Conversation themes? My experience ends on the games themselves, I don't view them on being a part of a community or lifestyle or movement or whatever. Being able to hi5 my mouthbreathing friends about how awesome my choice of entertainment is not a perk I want to pay for. And for being desperate for games to play? I'm the one willing to wait a few months. You're the one paying double to be able to play NAO! NAO! IT HAS TO BE NAO! ZE EXPERIENCE! How can I feel I'm on the loop without the game of the moment!!!111 What, you playing MW2? That's soooooo 2010

 

[everythingbeeps]

People like you, that have absolutely no trouble paying ?100 for ?40 content are the reason they reached these prices in the first place. A fool and his money...

Well there's your problem. You place arbitrary dollar amounts on value. Skyrim's "$40 content"? That's ridiculous. You determine the value of something by merely figuring out the least you can reasonably pay for it, and there's its value.

You say games don't deteriorate with age, but in a way they do. In 1.5 years, Skyrim's not going to be as impressive compared to everything else as it is today. So you're going to lose a lot of the impact (though I guess if you're this cheap with all games...you'll always be 1.5 years back so I guess the other games you'll be playing will also all be old, so maybe you'll still be impressed. But you sure won't have much to talk about with your non-cheapskate friends.)

Like sure, I can still enjoy Oblivion today, but it's not that impressive compared to everything else. But back when it was new, it was mindblowing. That's part of the experience. And you're throwing that away, so of course the game's not going to be "worth" as much.

But like I said earlier: I don't see the price of admission as being just for the content. It's also for the experience, the context. And the value of that experience is higher now than it will be in 1.5 years. So therefore, it's worth more.

And I'm not so desperate for games to play (or money, for that matter) that I'd pass one one particular game just because I could get two other games for the same price. All games aren't "worth" the same.

It's not an arbitrary value I pulled out of the ether. It's the value that the content will be sold for in most major retailers one year down the line. I don't buy the games out of the back of a van. Massive price drops ares a standard of the industry, why shouldn't I rely on them?

So the true value of a game is what it'll cost in one year, not what it costs now? That's arbitrary. Why not two years down the road? Why not five? Why isn't the true value of a game two bucks at a garage sale?

As for the extra perks, seriously? Impressivness compared to other games? Conversation themes? My experience ends on the games themselves, I don't view them on being a part of a community or lifestyle or movement or whatever. Being able to hi5 my mouthbreathing friends about how awesome my choice of entertainment is not a perk I want to pay for. And for being desperate for games to play? I'm the one willing to wait a few months. You're the one paying double to be able to play NAO! NAO! IT HAS TO BE NAO! ZE EXPERIENCE! How can I feel I'm on the loop without the game of the moment!!!111 What, you playing MW2? That's soooooo 2010

Oh well, now I get it. You're a child. Should have just said so from the beginning. From the way you argue and talk, I've revised my conclusion: apparently your mommy just won't buy you the game today at full price. Tough luck, man.

 

[Alma Mare]

There isn't true value. There is market value. If the market can sell it at ?40 and does it systematically, why should I pay more with no added benefits to see?

And QQ'ing already? One of us works to earn his money and tries to get the most for it. The other is willing to pay twice more than necessary in order to be able to join in the hype and discuss the game with his e-friends. Again, a fool and his money...

 

[Kahunaburger]

You say games don't deteriorate with age, but in a way they do. In 1.5 years, Skyrim's not going to be as impressive compared to everything else as it is today.

I'd say it's the other way around for a Bethesada game, just because of the modding community. Morrowind was a pretty good game made much better by mods. Oblivion was a pretty okay game, also made much better by mods. That's why I'm waiting on Skyrim until I have A) 20-50 hours to kill, and B) lots and lots of mods for it.