It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Why punish customers instead of rewarding them?(191 posts)(191 posts)
(191 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
This is my favourite topic
Posted April 15, 2011
avatar
lukipela: However, if they started releasing demos more often, they would make more sales.
I can only think that having no demos is a way to cut costs.

It's funny really, when you think of games like Doom that were big successes despite giving away a third of the game for free.

When everyone was hyping "episodic gaming" I thought we might see more shareware-like releases. Telltale do this, but then they're one of the only developers to use that model.
Posted April 15, 2011
avatar
sethsez: It's not really a new one. The unfortunate reality is that PC games are more complex than ever technologically, they're more expensive than ever, and yet demos are becoming more rare than ever. Combine all of those and you've got serious incentive to make sure something works properly before shelling out money, and fewer legal ways to do so than ever before.
avatar
Delixe: Sorry I don't buy that. Part in parcel of being a PC gamer is knowing about PC hardware. Most people should know that looking at the minimum requirements will produce a a barely running game. It will work but it won't be pretty and you will probably get low frame rates. If you have doubts the game will run you don't buy it until you upgrade your hardware.

I have no sympathy for anyone who complains the game wont run on an Atom with Intel HD graphics when the MINIMUM specs are an 8800 and a dual core.
So did you just ignore my second paragraph on purpose or...? I mean, I even clarified this and yet it seems like you didn't bother reading it.

Sometimes a game will require an 8800 minimum but runs like shit on anything less than a 460 GTX. Sometimes a game recommends a 260 GTX minimum but runs fine on an 8600. Minimum requirements are not an exact science, and they're frequently just pulled out of a hat. Someone with a midrange computer (aka, not an Atom but not an i7) would probably like to know which side of the spectrum the minimum specs fall on, overly cautious or complete bullshit.
Post edited April 15, 2011 by sethsez
Posted April 15, 2011
avatar
sethsez: So did you just ignore my second paragraph on purpose or...?
I have never known a game to understate the minimum requirements, they usually overstate them. If you have an example however I am all ears.

Oh and Laptops are always dicey for gaming people should always be aware of that. Almost every game has a disclaimer saying laptop chipsets may not be supported. An 8800 might not be enough if it's a lappy chipset.
Posted April 15, 2011
avatar
ddmuse: Wait, will the boxed (disc) version of Witcher 2 have online authentication?
Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Yes, and it's probably a five activation limit with refunds on uninstall SecuROM job.

It's stupid, since the GOG version will inevitably be on The Pirate Bay within five minutes of the game's release. All the pirates go "Why try harder?" and pirate that, while the DRM'd version won't be pirated as much since it requires a crack (which will probably be released five minutes after the GOG version gets uploaded, since it's SecuROM). Atari and Namco conclude that DRM is the way to go for new, AAA games.
Post edited April 15, 2011 by DelusionsBeta
Posted April 15, 2011
If this topic had Witcher 2 in the title I probably would have noticed it and not started a similar thread.

In any case, it does feel like a slap in the face to be told my $130 collector's edition purchase is the wrong one for CDP. The SecuROM also feels like a punishment for paying more, which is ridiculous. If it is Atari's fault then why not sign with someone else? CDP seem to be doing all the press themselves so they could have signed with someone as small as Viva Media and it likely would not have mattered.
Posted April 15, 2011
avatar
sethsez: So did you just ignore my second paragraph on purpose or...?
avatar
Delixe: I have never known a game to understate the minimum requirements, they usually overstate them. If you have an example however I am all ears.
I remember playing Doom 3 back in the day on a computer that by all means shouldn't have been able to run it, and yet I made it all the way through.

The main point, however, is that it's hard to tell where the cutoff point is for midrange computers. If I had, say, a Geforce 260 and the minimum requirements were 8800 and recommended were 560 GTX, can I play it smoothly? For some games yes, for others no, and if there's no demo and no game store is willing to give a refund or buy it back, options are pretty limited.

I'm not condoning piracy here, which you seem to think I am. I'm saying I find it hard to blame someone for resorting to it if that's their only option to get a fair demonstration of how something will run. If demos were more easily available, spec requirements were more reliable, or DRM didn't tie retailers hands on the matter of used PC games, then it wouldn't be an issue, but as it is people with good-but-not-great systems are expected to plunk down money and hope for the best, which is amazing for publishers but pretty shit for the consumer.

If there were more reasonable ways to predict a game's performance, or avenues of recourse in the event that it doesn't work on your computer (like, say, reselling it at a slight but not complete loss), then this wouldn't be an issue, but in these days of no demos and games being tied to accounts you're pretty screwed if you get something like, say, that recent Stranger's Wrath port pre-patch (seriously, who the hell thought a port of an Xbox game from 2005 would choke brand new computers).
Post edited April 15, 2011 by sethsez
Posted April 15, 2011
avatar
StingingVelvet: If this topic had Witcher 2 in the title I probably would have noticed it and not started a similar thread.

In any case, it does feel like a slap in the face to be told my $130 collector's edition purchase is the wrong one for CDP. The SecuROM also feels like a punishment for paying more, which is ridiculous. If it is Atari's fault then why not sign with someone else? CDP seem to be doing all the press themselves so they could have signed with someone as small as Viva Media and it likely would not have mattered.
Because distribution access matters for retail. They said the GOG version was DRM-free. I don't know any other major distribution network that is completely DRM-free, so I automatically thought that any other version would have DRM. I agree it's not right, but why would they make a nice retail version and put DRM on it while offering a still nice digital version with no DRM if it were their decision? If it was to attract customers to GOG, why not make the retail version as bad as possible with no extras? It just makes more sense that it is the publisher's decision.
Post edited April 15, 2011 by crazy_dave
Posted April 15, 2011
avatar
crazy_dave: Because distribution access matters for retail. They said the GOG version was DRM-free. I don't know any other major distribution network that is completely DRM-free, so why would you even expect the retail version to be DRM-free? I agree it's not right, but why would they make a nice retail version and put DRM on it while offering a still nice digital version with no DRM if it were their decision? It makes more sense that it is the publisher's decision.
I don't get your response. Like I said if it is Atari's fault why didn't they sign with someone willing to release the game DRM free? A ton of retail PC games are DRM free, it's not like that would have been impossible.
Posted April 15, 2011
avatar
crazy_dave: Because distribution access matters for retail. They said the GOG version was DRM-free. I don't know any other major distribution network that is completely DRM-free, so why would you even expect the retail version to be DRM-free? I agree it's not right, but why would they make a nice retail version and put DRM on it while offering a still nice digital version with no DRM if it were their decision? It makes more sense that it is the publisher's decision.
avatar
StingingVelvet: I don't get your response. Like I said if it is Atari's fault why didn't they sign with someone willing to release the game DRM free? A ton of retail PC games are DRM free, it's not like that would have been impossible.
I dunno, how many major AAA titles are released DRM-free? Though this may be a result of fatigue, I can't think of many or actually any major publishers who do that. Like I said, why not make the retail version as bad as possible if they wanted to attract users to GOG? Why offer the collector's edition?
Post edited April 15, 2011 by crazy_dave
Posted April 15, 2011
avatar
sethsez: I'm not condoning piracy here, which you seem to think I am.
I didn't say you were. My point is simply that downloading the full game is too much of a temptation to most people. If people who downloaded the game to see if it ran deleted it soon after finding out, that wouldn't be a problem but that's usually not the case. The game has been devalued by the ease at which it was obtained and now the user has played the game and likely finished it is it worth €45 to them? Likely not so even the honest ones will pay for it, but later when the game is heavily discounted. The dishonest ones won't pay for it full stop, they played it, they enjoyed it and they finished it. Why pay for it now?

Of course all this will be moot if there actually is a demo as it hasn't been announced whether there will be one or not. Needless to say a few comments here prove my point that even if a demo is available then people will pirate it anyway.
Posted April 15, 2011
avatar
StingingVelvet: I don't get your response. Like I said if it is Atari's fault why didn't they sign with someone willing to release the game DRM free? A ton of retail PC games are DRM free, it's not like that would have been impossible.
avatar
crazy_dave: I dunno, how many major AAA titles are released DRM-free? Though this may be a result of fatigue, I can't think of many or actually any major publishers who do that. Like I said, why not make the retail version as bad as possible if they wanted to attract users to GOG? Why offer the collector's edition?
Because anybody who buys the retail edition and is negatively affected by the DRM would come away with a tainted view of the company and not want to do further business with them.
Posted April 15, 2011
avatar
Delixe: Of course all this will be moot if there actually is a demo as it hasn't been announced whether there will be one or not. Needless to say a few comments here prove my point that even if a demo is available then people will pirate it anyway.
During the Witcher 2 Q&A awhile back I think they announced that there would not be a demo, which is unfortunate but I could be misremembering that.
Posted April 15, 2011
avatar
crazy_dave: I dunno, how many major AAA titles are released DRM-free? Though this may be a result of fatigue, I can't think of many or actually any major publishers who do that.
A lot of retail games are still DRM free. Anything Activision releases that is not Call of Duty is DRM-free. THQ release a ton of games without any DRM, like Amnesia: The Dark Descent. EA bounces back and forth but often has no DRM, like on Mass Effect 2. There are smaller publishers like Viva Media or Southpeak who release a lot of PC-only software without any DRM, which should be fine since obviously Atari is not doing any marketing anyway.

avatar
crazy_dave: Like I said, why not make the retail version as bad as possible if they wanted to attract users to GOG? Why offer the collector's edition?
Yeah, that baffles me as well. If you really want to convince a box guy like me to buy from GOG instead why make the boxed version so tempting? If it was just a disc in a sleeve or something I would totally buy it on GOG instead.
Posted April 15, 2011
avatar
sethsez: I'm not condoning piracy here, which you seem to think I am.
avatar
Delixe: I didn't say you were. My point is simply that downloading the full game is too much of a temptation to most people. If people who downloaded the game to see if it ran deleted it soon after finding out, that wouldn't be a problem but that's usually not the case. The game has been devalued by the ease at which it was obtained and now the user has played the game and likely finished it is it worth €45 to them? Likely not so even the honest ones will pay for it, but later when the game is heavily discounted. The dishonest ones won't pay for it full stop, they played it, they enjoyed it and they finished it. Why pay for it now?

Of course all this will be moot if there actually is a demo as it hasn't been announced whether there will be one or not. Needless to say a few comments here prove my point that even if a demo is available then people will pirate it anyway.
Well, this is why I was saying I don't have an issue with people who download a game to make sure it runs. What you're describing isn't that.
Posted April 15, 2011
avatar
StingingVelvet: I don't get your response. Like I said if it is Atari's fault why didn't they sign with someone willing to release the game DRM free? A ton of retail PC games are DRM free, it's not like that would have been impossible.
Probably Atari also help funding the development of TW2.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Why punish customers instead of rewarding them?(191 posts)(191 posts)
(191 posts)