Can we talk about preordering games - and how stupid this new trend is?

Fail said:
supposedly took 2 years to make.

I don't see how a game like it could even take 6 months to make. It plays like a Bioshock 1.25 not a full sized Bioshock sequel.
Click to expand...

That is because you don't know what you are talking about. :)
 
The last game I pre-ordered and the last game I bought purely on hype was Anarchy Online. I followed the development and contributed online for two years before it was released. It took exactly one month for the craptastic game to undo all of the excitement and hope for a new gaming experience. Never again. I hope all the folks, who rush to pay to be beta testers, learn they're simply paying a few schmucks to party and laugh at the asinine "gaming community" who supports them.
 
preodering was really just because they might run out of physical copies. no longer a problem with the 10 dollar price hike to 59.99 (they see more profit so they overstock) + digital copies available

only game i will preorder (if there is any bonus items/content and or amazon preorder credit)

is Guild Wars 2

previous preorders...uh... Starcraft 2 to play in the beta ; WoW: Cata because i got a discount, release date shipping, and knew it would be better than Wrath of the Lich King (and it was).

other than said examples... i would never preorder and am against any preordering.
 
I don't see a problem with pre-ordering. Only people who feel the need to be elitist have an issue with it. If a pre-order bonus unbalances multiplayer for a game then it isn't a good thing. Other than that, whatever. If I'm looking forward to a game enough and the bonuses are cool enough I'll consider pre-ordering. If not, eh I can wait.
 
The only game I preordered was Civ V, and that was a day before it was released. And based on over 250 hours played (according to steam) it's nothing I regret. But I haven't seen a game before or since that would be worthy of a preorder for me. And I especially wouldn't preorder any game after Dragon Age 2 fiasco.
 
pigwalk said:
We've had threads about this before, but 9/10 games back then sucked balls too.
Click to expand...

You mean you didn't like

585616_38526_front.jpg

gameboy.gif

nes-used-bible-adventures__13908_zoom.jpg


My, what gems we had back then!
 
I never understood the benefit of preordering game, or anything for that matter.

People who do that then piss and moan about it afterwards are pretty annoying, I must say...
 
Derangel said:
I don't see a problem with pre-ordering. Only people who feel the need to be elitist have an issue with it. If a pre-order bonus unbalances multiplayer for a game then it isn't a good thing. Other than that, whatever. If I'm looking forward to a game enough and the bonuses are cool enough I'll consider pre-ordering. If not, eh I can wait.
Click to expand...

I do not think it is so much elitism, as it is plain old fear that the pubs will take it another step in what many feel is wrong direction. And they do seem to be headed in the pay for "upgraded guns/armor/perk" direction, with both pre-order and micro transactions.

If all it is is skin/clothing packs, trinkets, or beta access, I don't really care myself. I just see the next logical step as being the above mentioned perks that could unbalance a MP game.
 
I preoder from Amazon now because they always have the $20 promotional credit. My last three games Ive paid $40 because I wait until the next game I want has the promotion.
 
I learned a long time ago that "pre-order" is another way of saying, "I paid 5 dollars to get the game three days later than everyone else."
 
I remember pre-ordering games back when they were cartridge based because the stores would only get so many carts. They also took longer to manufacture so there where much limited numbers.

Now it is pointless and they know it....hence why they all have started with the "bonus".
 
Redleader said:
I preoder from Amazon now because they always have the $20 promotional credit. My last three games Ive paid $40 because I wait until the next game I want has the promotion.
Click to expand...

I do the same thing with Best Buy Reward zone. I get 20$ (10 pre-order+10 for picking it up in the first day or two.) back on most titles that usually winds up as the 10$ deposit for the next game I'm going to buy. Vitual Items do usually wind up in the game for free at some point but cash is king.
 
The last game I preordered was WoW: The Burning Crusade CE, and that was simply due to the fact that neither of the stores doing midnight releases in my town would allow anyone without a preorder to purchase the game at midnight, AND I refuse to shop at Walmart. Besides, I'm a fan of the WoW art books...they make good coffee table reading material =)

Over the last year or so though, I've gone from a release-day buyer to a "I'll wait for a sale of some sort" person. The exception was Halo Reach, which I bought for $60, played through SP, reminded myself why I quit playing Halo 2 on XBL, and then sold for $45 two or three weeks later.

After playing WoW almost exclusively for 5+ years, I'm pretty sure I'd rather pay $60 total for 8-10 games I've missed than $60 for a release-day title. The free "bonus content" is usually available/achieved after a couple hours of gameplay anyway, though there are exceptions.
 
Last edited:
XvMMvX said:
I remember pre-ordering games back when they were cartridge based because the stores would only get so many carts. They also took longer to manufacture so there where much limited numbers.

Now it is pointless and they know it....hence why they all have started with the "bonus".
Click to expand...

Err there are games still released on cartridges. What do you mean when you say back when???
 
Dreaz said:
Uh. You made the claim. You have to prove your claim, not vice versa. The burden of proof is on you, not him.
Click to expand...

On March 11, 2008, Take Two Interactive officially announced that BioShock 2 was being developed by 2K Marin. In an August 2008 interview, Ken Levine mentioned that 2K Boston was not involved in the game's sequel because they wanted to "swing for the fences" and try to come up with something "very, very different".[158] BioShock 3 has also been announced, with its release likely to coincide with the BioShock film.[159] The first information about BioShock's immediate sequel came in a teaser on the PlayStation 3 version of the game revealing that the second game was to be titled BioShock 2: Sea of Dreams,[160][161] though the subtitle has since been dropped.[162] This teaser used The Pied Pipers' version of "Dream" in much the same way that the first BioShock's soundtrack used Great American Songbook tunes. A 2K developer stated that the game "is part of a prequel and at the same time is a sequel."[163] In the game, the player assumes the role of Subject Delta, a precursor of the Big Daddies who must search the fallen city of Rapture for his former Little Sister, Eleanor. BioShock 2 was released for Windows PC, Xbox 360, and the PlayStation 3 worldwide on February 9, 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioShock#Sequels

I always know what i'm talkin bout.
 
I think the original objection was to -

Fail said:
I don't see how a game like it could even take 6 months to make. It plays like a Bioshock 1.25 not a full sized Bioshock sequel.
Click to expand...

Development also was likely actually longer than 2 years. Most projects are not confirmed to be in development until well after they start.
 
limitedaccess said:
I think the original objection was to -



Development also was likely actually longer than 2 years. Most projects are not confirmed to be in development until well after they start.
Click to expand...

They can object to it all they want, my point was, Bioshock 2 was a mediocre "sequel" if you wanna call it that, it was short, and the only improvement it offered over the original was a better combat system. Everything else was mediocre and below average.

It's shocking they wasted 2 years making Bioshock 2, it played more like an expansion to Bioshock or a DLC than an actual game.

I stand by what I said about it being Bioshock 1.25.
 
Bioshock 2 does indeed feel like a Bioshock expansion instead of a proper sequel, however I don't see that as a bad thing. I suppose I might feel differently had I pre-ordered and played on release day after paying full retail.

It's still fun though :)

edit : And it's freaking retarded I can't use AA in this one, either.
 
The last thing that I 'pre-ordered' was a Sega Dreamcast.. I dont really think pre ordering is stupid ( I plan on pre ordering BF3) but i do think the "DLC 3 days after the release date" crap is stupid
 
Fail said:
They can object to it all they want, my point was, Bioshock 2 was a mediocre "sequel" if you wanna call it that, it was short, and the only improvement it offered over the original was a better combat system. Everything else was mediocre and below average.

It's shocking they wasted 2 years making Bioshock 2, it played more like an expansion to Bioshock or a DLC than an actual game.

I stand by what I said about it being Bioshock 1.25.
Click to expand...

The original objection was your claim that Bioshock 2 took 6 months to complete. Your report indicates otherwise.

But nice try moving the goalposts. Can't be wrong if you're always re-defining things.
 
Dreaz said:
The original objection was your claim that Bioshock 2 took 6 months to complete. Your report indicates otherwise.

But nice try moving the goalposts. Can't be wrong if you're always re-defining things.
Click to expand...

It's easy when you take what I said out of context.

Fail said:
Everything except the gameplay was worse than the original. When I speak of gameplay, I am referring specifically to the combat system.

The story was watered down, the game's length was too short, the "different endings" were NOT unique, and they were all a variation of the same thing.

It was a half assed game that supposedly took 2 years to make.

I don't see how a game like it could even take 6 months to make. It plays like a Bioshock 1.25 not a full sized Bioshock sequel.
Click to expand...

That's the full message of what I said.

I know full well that it took 2 years to make, I said that in my post.

Nice job taking what I said out of context though. If you're going to say I'm wrong, then at least get what I said right.
 
Last edited:
The only game I have pre-ordered digitally is DXHR, and mainly because I was able to get it from GMG for $28.

I'll still probably pre-order skyrim, I really want a cloth map.
 
Fail said:
I know full well that it took 2 years to make, I said that in my post.
Click to expand...

So why did you say it shouldn't have taken more than 6 months to make?

You don't understand how to make a game, therefore you make crazy statements like you did.
 
Bobthecoolguy said:
So why did you say it shouldn't have taken more than 6 months to make?

You don't understand how to make a game, therefore you make crazy statements like you did.
Click to expand...

The remark was more of a commentary on how they spent 2 years making a pile of crap they could have done in 6 months instead of spending those 2 years making a QUALITY game.

I don't see how that's so hard to grasp.
 
He was just saying that the game felt like they only spent like 6 months developing it, rather than the real-life number of 2 years.

That's it, don't misconstrue it or anything.
 
A lot of harsh tones given no one understands what the fuck anyone else is talking about, lol.
 
Fail said:
The remark was more of a commentary on how they spent 2 years making a pile of crap they could have done in 6 months instead of spending those 2 years making a QUALITY game.

I don't see how that's so hard to grasp.
Click to expand...

No, I grasp what you are saying:

Bioshock 2 could have been done in 6 months. (It can't be)

That is clearly wrong, and it clearly shows how little you know about the creation of a game. :)

TheOneKnownAsMe said:
He was just saying that the game felt like they only spent like 6 months developing it, rather than the real-life number of 2 years.

That's it, don't misconstrue it or anything.
Click to expand...

I'm not misconstruing anything, I am saying that feeling that he is getting is because he has no knowledge of game development.

If Bioshock 2 should have taken 6 months to develop, then it would have only taken 6 months to develop.
 
Bobthecoolguy said:
No, I grasp what you are saying:

Bioshock 2 could have been done in 6 months. (It can't be)

That is clearly wrong, and it clearly shows how little you know about the creation of a game. :)



I'm not misconstruing anything, I am saying that feeling that he is getting is because he has no knowledge of game development.

If Bioshock 2 should have taken 6 months to develop, then it would have only taken 6 months to develop.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension fail.
 
Bobthecoolguy said:
No, I grasp what you are saying:

Bioshock 2 could have been done in 6 months. (It can't be)

That is clearly wrong, and it clearly shows how little you know about the creation of a game. :)



I'm not misconstruing anything, I am saying that feeling that he is getting is because he has no knowledge of game development.

If Bioshock 2 should have taken 6 months to develop, then it would have only taken 6 months to develop.
Click to expand...

DNF should have only taken a year to develop, how long did it take to develop? 14 fucking years. Even when you take into consideration all of the difficulties and roadblocks the developers had to overcome, the game still fell flat in regards to basic storyline, game mechanics, graphics, etc.

The same goes for Bioshock 2, in his own opinion. Based upon the qualities of the game, he felt that the game felt like something that had only had 6 months of development time dumped into it rather than 2 years.

Look, we understand the process of game development. Those models don't make themselves, audio needs to be recorded, normal maps, diffuse maps, shaders, the tools, the game itself, it all needs to be developed by the team. I would understand to an extent, I have worked on several ambitious indie projects that ultimately fell flat on their face, and yet, their combined failures give me understanding. Rarely do Indie teams lack for dedication, sometimes they're lacking for talent (but there are extremely talented Indie teams who still do not make it to the finish line), but mainly it's a lack of time, and time is money. Having to balance non-paid indie work between a normal 9-5 job, a family and a social life is hard. Now, while being funded by a publisher alleviates having to balance 2 jobs, oftentimes you're put under massive amounts pressure, far more than you have while working on an indie game.

Game development is hard work, it takes massive amounts of time, dedication and talent. And people with those qualities are limited, as is time, we *get* that, it's just that Bioshock 2 didn't feel like the result of a solid 2 years of development, that's all.

Wanna know what bugged me? I have a friend who lives pretty much right down the street from Irrationational, and on occassion they would give him a call when they needed a hard opinion on programming. He got to play all sorts of development builds of the game, and he told me (as well as others) that the mouse control had issues several months back before release, and when the game was released, those mouse control issues were still prevalent, it almost made the game unplayable.

That's what I'm talking about. What went on during those few months? Why couldn't they spend the time fixing something as simple as the mouse controls? Probably because they were being rushed by 2k. It's the fact that simple bugs such as that were introduced mere months into the development of Bioshock 2 that never got resolved that gives the game it's "6 month feel".
 
TheOneKnownAsMe said:
DNF should have only taken a year to develop, how long did it take to develop? 14 fucking years. Even when you take into consideration all of the difficulties and roadblocks the developers had to overcome, the game still fell flat in regards to basic storyline, game mechanics, graphics, etc.

The same goes for Bioshock 2, in his own opinion. Based upon the qualities of the game, he felt that the game felt like something that had only had 6 months of development time dumped into it rather than 2 years.

Look, we understand the process of game development. Those models don't make themselves, audio needs to be recorded, normal maps, diffuse maps, shaders, the tools, the game itself, it all needs to be developed by the team. I would understand to an extent, I have worked on several ambitious indie projects that ultimately fell flat on their face, and yet, their combined failures give me understanding. Rarely do Indie teams lack for dedication, sometimes they're lacking for talent (but there are extremely talented Indie teams who still do not make it to the finish line), but mainly it's a lack of time, and time is money. Having to balance non-paid indie work between a normal 9-5 job, a family and a social life is hard. Now, while being funded by a publisher alleviates having to balance 2 jobs, oftentimes you're put under massive amounts pressure, far more than you have while working on an indie game.

Game development is hard work, it takes massive amounts of time, dedication and talent. And people with those qualities are limited, as is time, we *get* that, it's just that Bioshock 2 didn't feel like the result of a solid 2 years of development, that's all.

Wanna know what bugged me? I have a friend who lives pretty much right down the street from Irrationational, and on occassion they would give him a call when they needed a hard opinion on programming. He got to play all sorts of development builds of the game, and he told me (as well as others) that the mouse control had issues several months back before release, and when the game was released, those mouse control issues were still prevalent, it almost made the game unplayable.

That's what I'm talking about. What went on during those few months? Why couldn't they spend the time fixing something as simple as the mouse controls? Probably because they were being rushed by 2k. It's the fact that simple bugs such as that were introduced mere months into the development of Bioshock 2 that never got resolved that gives the game it's "6 month feel".
Click to expand...

Duke Nukem wasn't actually in development for 14 years. I think gearbox or whoever has just been repeating that to hype up the game.
 
ZodaEX said:
Duke Nukem wasn't actually in development for 14 years. I think gearbox or whoever has just been repeating that to hype up the game.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but they still showed an E3 trailer in 1998, and I feel it's safe to assume that it had been in development for at least a year before the trailer unveil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top