Help me comprehend this

[Shalafi]

Why do people buy games like Diablo 3, or Modern Warfare 2/Black Ops which have essential features STRIPPED from them compared to previous installments in their respective series?

Why are people all too willing to not only pay for a stripped down experience, but also buy the map packs, DLC, and all that, THAT WAS NOT part of the previous gaming experience? Worse yet, why do people try to rationalize their actions in doing so on these boards?

Do you not realize that you're making gaming WORSE instead of better by voting with your wallets to support these actions?

Let's see, in the last 2-3 years, very quickly we've seen the following:

1. Always on DRM
2. Unneccessary addons like GFWL (looking at you Bioshock 2) when you already have Steam as your DRM
3. Limited installs/activations of a game YOU BOUGHT AND PAID FOR
4. Removal of key features like offline single player modes, dedicated servers, removal of content in order to peddle it as Day 1 DLC
5. The constant dumbing down and consolization of games to the extent to where the game is only challenging to the lowest common denominator and the average player has absolutely no problem beating the game. Are games even challenging anymore?
6. DLC. If i'm being absolutely honest, I can see how a few DLC's are good, because instead of the expansion packs of the past, you can buy a selected add on here and there that can lengthen your gaming experience, but for the most part, they haven't done a good job of selling us DLC that offers any kind of value except for a few select games (Fallout, Borderlands, etc). Most of them are games that deliberately cut out content in order to sell you new skins, races, a level here, or there, or something!
7. Removal of dedicated servers, I know i've mentioned this already, but the reason for it goes hand in hand with why they aren't putting mod tools in games these days, because they want to sell you DLC, and with you being able to control your own dedicated server, YOU can control what content gets put out there. By locking the platform to a proprietary network, they can ensure that if you don't pay for maps, you can't play them. No modding tools, then you can't make map packs or modify the game for the enjoyment of the community as a whole.
8. Removal of single player. I've never understood why people support removing single player as an option for games that are clearly meant to be played single player if the player wishes, like Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2. Instead those games have to connect to Battle.net so you can't even play them if you don't have an internet connection.


I think that gamers of this new generation simply don't have any standards, and it's allowing the rest of us to get fucked by the actions of others.

It's seriously gotten to the point to where gaming has stagnated and the only thing that really matters, i mean, REALLY matters isn't how much fun you're having or how much fun you aren't having, but how many dollars a game generates.

Companies don't give a shit if you have fun or not, or what YOU want. They simply want to be able to bank on the average gamer being unwilling to resist the new shiny and shell out the bucks for not just the game, but all the other DLC and microtransactions associated with it.

To a great extent, it's about control, and it used to be in YOUR hands. YOU used to decide how you wanted your game to be played, who could join, who couldn't join, whether you were offline or online, what map you wanted to play on, what games you wanted to join from a server browser list, you used to have a dedicated server you could depend on being available for you to join and play with a community you were familiar with. P2P gaming on a platform like IWnet has destroyed that. Always on DRM ensures that you will not be able to play Diablo 3 offline. Always on DRM ensures that you cannot play Starcraft 2 offline AND save your campaign and achievements. Always on DRM ensures that if you buy Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, that you cannot play it unless you are online. Being able to pull the plug on the servers that have Madden 2011 on them ensures that you must buy Madden 2012 if you want to play online.

Want to play Battlefield 3? Then you have to be willing to install Origin.

There's a huge reason a lot of people play games like Counterstrike Source and Call of Duty 4, Starcraft, and yes, even Diablo, YEARS after they came out.

Look at the above and you'll see why.

I find it a sad commentary on the state of PC gaming when on October 4th, Dark Souls launches and I will be receiving my pre-order from Amazon.com and it will offer a stiffer challenge than any PC game released this year, or probably the last few years. It should not be this way, PC gaming should offer not just the best experience, but the most flexible, modifiable, challenging, and be the DEFINITE experience. Lately, in spite of excellent games like Deus Ex: Human Revolution, I think the gap between consoles and PC's is narrowing.

Don't believe me? Just look at the selection of PC titles we have now, there's very few DEFINITE PC experiences out there, instead, it's all multiplatform and the consoles have their share of our best stuff.

 

[Tudz]

Why do people buy games like Diablo 3, or Modern Warfare 2/Black Ops which have essential features STRIPPED from them compared to previous installments in their respective series?

Because they find them entertaining? I really dont see why a person needs any more or any less reason to buy a game. If you think its fun and enjoyable given the money you are going to pay, that's the only reason to buy a game IMO. People dont buy games if they think they wont enjoy them. The day COD dies is the day people cease to enjoy it, simple as that.

If you feel you're getting "fucked" because of these other gamers, its because you are in the minority.

If you dont like it, dont buy it, no one gives a fuck if you do or dont buy a game. You aren't gonna change anyone's opinions with a thread like this. You've proven yourself in thread after thread to be arrogant and closed minded to other gamers. All this thread is doing is ranting and whining and providing troll bait. How long did it take you to write all that? Why not just go play a game you enjoy instead of wasting time with arrogant whinging that isn't going to change anyone's opinions and almost never promotes meaningful discussion.

If people want to buy game X, that's their problem. If they dont enjoy game X, then when game X version 2 comes out they probably wont buy it, and when game Y comes out they might spend more time researching first... assuming they give a shit about the $50 they wasted in the first place.

This idea that gets thrown around these forums of pointlessly assigning mental capacity or standards to gamers based on the games they choose to play is completely absurd and does not help the cause of improved PC gaming at all. Hell, people are more likely going to buy COD out of spite after being called sheeple/stupid/having low standards than they are to take up your cause.

You title your thread "help me comprehend this", but you have no intention of comprehending anything, you're just using a thread title which is going to incite pointless argument. Maybe before thread after thread has been crapped by the same topic it would have been a good argument... at this point its not.

 

[WarriorX]

Not all of us care about the same features/lack of features as everybody else.

Using D3 for an example.

I played SP for like 30 minutes. Spent thousand and thousands of hours on Bnet. I dont see the logic in boycotting a game for the lack features I dont care about.

 

[PornoSatan]

I feel sorry for the developers who pour their heart and soul into a game, only for the game's reputation to be damaged by external factors they couldn't help.

 

[PornoSatan]

Not all of us care about the same features/lack of features as everybody else.

Using D3 for an example.

I played SP for like 30 minutes. Spent thousand and thousands of hours on Bnet. I dont see the logic in boycotting a game for the lack features I dont care about.

That's called being selfish. Single player also doesn't hurt you in any way either, but helps many others that prefer it.

 

[spindoctor]

Why do people buy games like Diablo 3, or Modern Warfare 2/Black Ops...

Because they're fun to play. Although I must admit, the fact that it annoys the 'hardcore', elitist PC gamers is like an added bonus

That's called being selfish. Single player also doesn't hurt you in any way either, but helps many others that prefer it.

I don't think it's being selfish. The online requirement doesn't matter to him because he expects to primarily play it online, so he won't boycott it. Should he skip the game because others are mad about something that doesn't bother him?

If a product comes along where one feels the online requirement (or any DRM, missing feature etc.) is unacceptable, just don't buy it.

 

[Tudz]

That's called being selfish. Single player also doesn't hurt you in any way either, but helps many others that prefer it.

Wait, so who's the selfish one? The one who buys the game because it doesn't affect them despite the fact other people might dislike the game, or the people whinging that you shouldn't buy a game that you enjoy because they dont like it? They both sound pretty damn selfish to me. "I'm buying a game you dont like, ner ner" vs "Hey! Stop buying games I dont like!".

Seriously, all you can do is buy the games you want to play. If they come with features you dont like, dont buy it. Calling people selfish/sheeple/lacking standards for buying and playing the games they choose is at best a silly concept and at worse irrational and insulting.

 

[PornoSatan]

I never said he had to boycott it, that was someone elses post.

 

[PornoSatan]

By the way, I will be buying Diablo 3 because it's from Blizzard. I practically grew up on PC gaming with games like Diablo, Starcraft, and Quake. I do think they're straying off their path though and if anything gives them more fuel to go on, it's their reputation, which can only last for so long.

 

[Climber]

I'm tired of all the fighting that happens in these threads.

The better question is why do people support the removal of features that take away options from the consumers? Because it doesn't bother you is pretty much the only answer given and has already been used in the first couple responses.

What happens when it just keeps getting worse and more and more features are wholly removed? In the last couple years we've seen the DRM become more and more draconian, once PC staples considered a given in gaming fully and wholly removed from titles, a focus on quantity over quality, a lack of support for the PC community, and a huge increase in piracy which forces more and more resources into a never ending battle into more DRM to combat modern piracy which just forces a tautalogical cycle of blame and fighing.

So I guess the better question is how to address these issues? Boycotts? Bah, we all know how well they work. Voting with your wallet? Again, we all know how well that works. The best option is to just simply bring up these issues and let the developers and publishers know what gamers want. Lately many devs and publishers have listened to the battles waging across gaming forums. EA, Valve, CD Projekt, and others have listened and changed or added to their services to address our complaints. But why do so many flat out fight or reject the voices trying to keep these things in place? Why fight against each other in keeping our hobby open and available for all?

What is wrong with an offline option? Because it leads to hacks? In the days of old yes, in recent years? Not so much.

What is wrong with dedicated servers? Because it leads to elitism and hacking again?

Multiple DD clients? Allow gamers the options to install their purchased game to the client of their choice or no client at all. Problem solved.

Modding tools? Allow the community to flex its creative muscles. Some of the best games, "DLC", and fixes all come from the community. Let us continue to support many of our favorite games. This also prepares many gamers to enter the field of game development which just strengthes the overall market for the long run.

Widescreen resolutions? Lock down competitive servers at a fixed resolution and fps cap, allow other servers or options for the regular gamer.

Basically, all the majority of us are really asking for are options to keep or enhance the experience of our hobby. I understand the need for developers or publishers to protect their IPs, but don't cut the throats of the consumer for short term gain. Is that really so much to ask? If so why?

 

[Hornet]

4. Removal of key features like offline single player modes, dedicated servers, removal of content in order to peddle it as Day 1 DLC
5. The constant dumbing down and consolization of games to the extent to where the game is only challenging to the lowest common denominator and the average player has absolutely no problem beating the game. Are games even challenging anymore?
6. DLC. If i'm being absolutely honest, I can see how a few DLC's are good, because instead of the expansion packs of the past, you can buy a selected add on here and there that can lengthen your gaming experience, but for the most part, they haven't done a good job of selling us DLC that offers any kind of value except for a few select games (Fallout, Borderlands, etc). Most of them are games that deliberately cut out content in order to sell you new skins, races, a level here, or there, or something!
7. Removal of dedicated servers, I know i've mentioned this already, but the reason for it goes hand in hand with why they aren't putting mod tools in games these days, because they want to sell you DLC, and with you being able to control your own dedicated server, YOU can control what content gets put out there. By locking the platform to a proprietary network, they can ensure that if you don't pay for maps, you can't play them. No modding tools, then you can't make map packs or modify the game for the enjoyment of the community as a whole.
8. Removal of single player. I've never understood why people support removing single player as an option for games that are clearly meant to be played single player if the player wishes, like Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2. Instead those games have to connect to Battle.net so you can't even play them if you don't have an internet connection.

These are the things that I dislike about the current state of video games.

I think these are all the results of video games going mainstream. Suddenly the market is flooded by a bunch of kids who are only interested in games that you don't have to think or even try at all to win. All they want is to breeze through the game and win without having to try.

And at the same time, these people worship the game they like just the way they worship Justin Bieber or Glee. To hell with quality, they just get sucked into a franchise once and they will forever defend it. They would pay through their nose for every single DLC or extra services for the game they love.

And to me this is a dangerous trend, blind fanboism. It is thanks to these blind support that the companies are free to rip them off and force down their throat countless pile of shit and these people are none the wiser. When UT3 came out, many of its hardcore fans were vocal about its lack of quality, and this is good. Can COD fans do the same? Will they be able to admit that yes, this rehashing the same thing is getting old, or this premium subscription is a ripoff? I fear not and such attitude is damaging the gaming scene.

Such fanboism is nothing new in the music industry I think, but they have spread to video gaming and this is not a good thing.

 

[WorldExclusive]

If I denounced all games with those shortcomings, I will be forced to play Dreamcast and Quake Live.
We agree but how would I enjoy my hobby? There would be nothing for me to play. I like FPS, Racing and Sports games, the main culprits of those shenanigans.
I buy expansions but not DLC. Haven't done it since the Halo 2 days.

 

[Deleted whining member 223597]

Let me put it this way.

The earliest I have time to play video games would be about 7PM on a weekday, the rest is school, homework and other activities. When I finally sit down at my PC I want to just relax and have fun, I don't want to get all stressed out about a game after a day that is stressful enough already. I just want to sit down and have fun, which is what CoD delivers. You sit down, make your classes, join a game and enjoy yourself.

Again, Video Games are not essential to living, they are a form of entertainment, they are not your life, they are just meant to be fun for you.

 

[Parmenides]

People are in the habit paying more for less, because of marketing. It's not necessarily more fun to most of them, but that their horizons are not as broad. They never got a chance to be exposed to other good stuff.

What happens is people get a new gaming console, then ask themselves what the premiere shooter is. Oh, Modern Warfare? Ok get that one. Some might actually enjoy that more any other shooter, but for most people it's just a status symbol, "I have the popular shooter." If someone were to market another game as the premiere shooter, then the masses would flock to that instead leaving behind only a core number of people who truly liked COD. Who cares if such hypothetical game delivers less than COD. Most people easily follow the whims of marketing schemes. That's why Apple is so successful. If it's easy and popular then that's all that matters.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Fail, I agree almost completely.

What I think is going on here is this: For a long time I blamed it on consolization, the drop in quality is obviously at least in part due to games being made for all platforms at once with a kind of lowest common denominator mentality.

But a few years of thinking about that and I realise that consolization is really just a specific occurance, or a specific effect of a much larger, grander change in the market, and that's the explosion of popularity of gaming into the mainstream, millions and millions of casual gamers now also get to vote with their wallets and their wallets say "DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRHHHH" *dribble*

It's something I've started calling "Casualization", developers are targeting casual gamers, and why not? Zynga now have more money than EA, EA were founded in 1982 and Zynga were founded in 2007, do the math.

There is simply more money in casual gaming because there are more casual gamers, they get to decide what sort of games get made, and thats why the most popular franchises are games like Halo and CoD:MW.

The only place that PC games command any serious cash are MMOs, plenty of tailoring going on for the PC there because it's a massive cash cow, in fact MMOs are so tailored for PCs with their interface and gameplay design that you couldn't possibly run it on a console on a controller, you just couldn't.

All developers/publishers understand is money, if you want really good gameplay from honest developers you'll have to drop the fancy graphics and go to the indy developers which thanks to steam have started to make a public comeback and we have some utter fantastic games because of it.

But for the AAA titles, you'll have to vote with your wallet, if you buy MW1 then MW2 and all the DLC then MW3 will be identical and have twice as much DLC.

Standing up for what you think is right is almost never easy, I don't think BF3s exclusivity to Origin is right but in order to stick up for change I have to resist buying BF3, which isn't a choice I make lightly, but I have my standards and they're not worth anything if I don't stick to them.

 

[Tudz]

People are in the habit paying more for less, because of marketing. It's not necessarily more fun to most of them, but that their horizons are not as broad. They never got a chance to be exposed to other good stuff.

What happens is people get a new gaming console, then ask themselves what the premiere shooter is. Oh, Modern Warfare? Ok get that one. Some might actually enjoy that more any other shooter, but for most people it's just a status symbol, "I have the popular shooter." If someone were to market another game as the premiere shooter, then the masses would flock to that instead leaving behind only a core number of people who truly liked COD. Who cares if such hypothetical game delivers less than COD. Most people easily follow the whims of marketing schemes. That's why Apple is so successful. If it's easy and popular then that's all that matters.

The flaw in this logic to me is that in what twisted reality is owning a game a status symbol?

I dont deny that some sales are from what you say, but its pure speculation that those gamers make up the majority of COD gamers and pure speculation that they'd enjoy any other games more. BC2 is a watered down BF game, but it still took me 20+ hours before I even started feeling like I was being useful to my team and I wouldn't consider myself a terrible gamer (not a brilliant one either of course). So would you really recommend it to someone who only wants to play a few hours a week and maybe not even every week?

Fact is, when COD ceases to be fun, people will stop buying it. COD got to where it is from being fun. Yes, its also well marketed, but its naive to think that's the only reason people play it.

Standing up for what you think is right is almost never easy,

Wait, what? Are we still talking about video games? Its the easiest fucking thing in the world to stand up for what you believe when it comes to gaming. You dont buy what you dont like and come to forums and rant like an irrational, arrogant lunatic. Easiest thing in the world I love the way people act like fucking martyrs for "voting with their wallet", "having high standards" when it comes to gaming, and "standing up for what they believe" (read: ranting on forums).

 

[ClearM4]

Sadly I rarely buy PC games for many of these reason now.

I am playing mostly League of Legends (free to play) and xbox360 games. And I have only picked up heavily discounted games on the PC over the last couple years ($5-$20).

I still have to deal with the DLC, which has been a huge downer. I much preferred picking up the expansion packs for PC games that offered tons more game play then these DLC packs. Even the games that do DLC well, Mass Effect 2 for example, feel like they are nickle and diming me. I picked the game up for $20 after it was released for a year, yet to play all the DLC stories its like another $60. And passing on them leaves me wondering what I missed when continuing the series. Quite annoying.

 

[Climber]

...Fact is, when COD ceases to be fun, people will stop buying it. COD got to where it is from being fun. Yes, its also well marketed, but its naive to think that's the only reason people play it.

As an informed gamer what makes CoD:MW 2 & 3 different from CoD:MW1? What new changes did they add in MW2 that warranted spending $60? What new changes are being added in MW3 that warrant spending another $60, so basically $120 over MW1?

After having dinner with some buddies I used to play online with all the time, it was asked if we wanted to purchase MW3 when it comes out, the simple question got asked "Why don't we just go back to playing MW1 if it is anything like MW2 or BOPS?" The reason being, even casually they all realized that MW2, W@W, and BOPS were all essentially the same games with the same graphics, and the same exact gameplay and there was no reason we should keep forking over money to play the exact same thing we were playing 3 years ago.

That is the very definition of stagnation which is what drives Fail and many others to keep asking these questions. The simple fact that they can keep releasing the same products over and over twice a year and people still buy them without care or abandon is a perplexing thing to watch.

...
Wait, what? Are we still talking about video games? Its the easiest fucking thing in the world to stand up for what you believe when it comes to gaming. You dont buy what you dont like and come to forums and rant like an irrational, arrogant lunatic. Easiest thing in the world I love the way people act like fucking martyrs for "voting with their wallet", "having high standards" when it comes to gaming, and "standing up for what they believe" (read: ranting on forums).

While seeming extreme the point still remains. Do you or do't you care about addressing potentially fundamental shifts in your hobby before they start and become ingrained in the industry?

 

[Tudz]

As an informed gamer what makes CoD:MW 2 & 3 different from CoD:MW1? What new changes did they add in MW2 that warranted spending $60? What new changes are being added in MW3 that warrant spending another $60, so basically $120 over MW1?

After having dinner with some buddies I used to play online with all the time, it was asked if we wanted to purchase MW3 when it comes out, the simple question got asked "Why don't we just go back to playing MW1 if it is anything like MW2 or BOPS?" The reason being, even casually they all realized that MW2, W@W, and BOPS were all essentially the same games with the same graphics, and the same exact gameplay and there was no reason we should keep forking over money to play the exact same thing we were playing 3 years ago.

That is the very definition of stagnation which is what drives Fail and many others to keep asking these questions. The simple fact that they can keep releasing the same products over and over twice a year and people still buy them without care or abandon is a perplexing thing to watch.

I dont deny the fact its stagnated. That's why the only 2 COD games I've bought are COD4 and CODWaW. But I never said in my post people buy it because its innovative, I said people buy it because its fun.

Look, I dont deny PC gaming is shifting focus. Discuss that its changing focus, complain about it, go for it, I have absolutely no issue with that. If you look through my post history you'll never see me arguing in favour of COD when someone presents a reasonable argument as to why they dont like COD and why it should change because I also am not a fan of COD and would like to see it change.

But this attitude of "elite hardcore" (read: arrogant whining) gamers downright insulting other gamers for their choice in games is completely fucking stupid, irrational and does not even remotely help the cause of PC gaming.

Do you guys honestly think you're gonna change anything by ranting about it on a bloody hardware enthusiast forum?

1. Most people here would already know the situation and simply have either the same or a different opinion despite their knowledge.
2. You aren't going to change the opinion of the people buying those games by insulting them.

While seeming extreme the point still remains. Do you or do't you care about addressing potentially fundamental shifts in your hobby before they start and become ingrained in the industry?

I dont really care that much, no, gaming is a form of entertainment to me, not a way of life. I do, have always done and will always buy or not buy games based on their entertainment value, not on some twisted and irrational feeling that I'm somehow taking some sort of morale stance. If you want to do that, more power to you.

I dont see how you can possibly fault someone for buying a game they see as fun (whether it be COD or Need for Speed or some random indy game from developer unknown) and I dont see how you can possibly act like a martyr for not buying a game you dont like and trolling about it on forums. I dont buy games I dont like all the time, sometimes I dont like them for the reasons Fail posted about in the OP, acting like a martyr because of doing that is just silly. You didn't buy a game you didn't like, whoopty-fucking-do, you want some sort of medal?

 

[Derangel]

That's called being selfish. Single player also doesn't hurt you in any way either, but helps many others that prefer it.

Gaming is inherently a selfish act. You aren't buying a game because it does something to make humanity better you are buying it because you want to have fun. There is no other reason to buy a game. The selfish argument with games is really stupid and hypocritical.

 

[Climber]

Do you guys honestly think you're gonna change anything by ranting about it on a bloody hardware enthusiast forum?

We all got to start somewhee, but ya we've already seen it work several times this year alone so probably expect to see it continue since really that is the only way to voice satisfaction or disatisfaction.

I agree though with the sentiment against insulting others, but it is the internet, it is easy to release frustrations that way. Is it productive? Not really and it is a shame that that generally overshadows the arguments because the points brought up are valid complaints.

I'm too old and have too much other stuff going on to really care anymore. My game backlog is quite full and there are a ton of other great games to keep me going that if I honestly miss out on BF3 or D3 no big worry and they won't miss my money at all. I just hate to see franchises that I enjoyed so much earlier depart from those roots, I understand why, I just wish they would keep options open to the consumers. That is and always will be what I hope to see companies get back to, the options: single player, lan, widescreen support, story telling, dedicated servers, modding tools, etc...etc...

 

[Tudz]

We all got to start somewhee, but ya we've already seen it work several times this year alone so probably expect to see it continue since really that is the only way to voice satisfaction or disatisfaction.

I agree though with the sentiment against insulting others, but it is the internet, it is easy to release frustrations that way. Is it productive? Not really and it is a shame that that generally overshadows the arguments because the points brought up are valid complaints.

I'm too old and have too much other stuff going on to really care anymore. My game backlog is quite full and there are a ton of other great games to keep me going that if I honestly miss out on BF3 or D3 no big worry and they won't miss my money at all. I just hate to see franchises that I enjoyed so much earlier depart from those roots, I understand why, I just wish they would keep options open to the consumers. That is and always will be what I hope to see companies get back to, the options: single player, lan, widescreen support, story telling, dedicated servers, modding tools, etc...etc...

You kinda took that quote out of context The very paragraph above that I said yes you should complain, the sentence you quoted was in relation to the ranting at other gamers on a hardware enthusiast forum rather than AT the publishers responsible in places where they'll actually see and care about it. The only point in ranting at other gamers calling them stupid/sheep/low standards is to get some sort of high from acting like an arrogant tool, you aren't educating anyone by doing it and you aren't helping any causes by doing it.

I bought Space Marine for PC. It does not have dedicated servers. Does that make me angry? Yes. Do I complain about it? Yes, I do complain about it a hell of a lot on their official forums (not so much here, because face it, what's the point?). Is it still a good game? Yep, it is, I enjoyed it very much. I bought it because I knew I'd enjoy it and I did enjoy it, its really that simple. I dont regret my purchase in the slightest, if a sequel comes out I may or may not buy it, if it has dedicated servers I almost certainly will buy it... hence why I complain about the lack of them on the official forums.

Sure, go ahead, complain, try and get publishers to change their minds, I encourage that. But dont be naive about the reason for your ranting when you're attacking other gamers on a hardware enthusiast forum where you can almost guarantee the person you're attacking knows as much about games as you do.

I've stopped arguing against Origin simply because the arguments have gotten so thin and pathetic I dont know why people bother. I dont want Origin on my PC, I may or may not buy BF3 I haven't decided yet. If I dont buy it, it wont be because I'm taking a stand or have some morale high ground, its because I feel the joy from playing BF3 isn't worth the combined costs involved of both money and forcing me to use Origin (coz face it, I use Steam and Steam has many flaws even after all these years, so there's little point trying to take the moral high ground against Origin).

EDIT: Example of what I mean...
Making a thread about the degradation of PC gaming:

Making the title of the thread "Help me comprehend this" as a poorly veiled guise to attack other gamers on a hardware enthusiast forum:

 

[Slachtbeest]

Making a thread about the degradation of PC gaming:

Making the title of the thread "Help me comprehend this" as a poorly veiled guise to attack other gamers on a hardware enthusiast forum:

In completely agreement, and this guy continually gets on my nerves around these forums, always on his pulpit, preaching and complaining how it's "our fault" gaming is in the state that it's in, due to gamers continuing to buy games.

It's as if he feels that everyone here, and abroad, is somehow "responsible" for the state of gaming today, and somehow our 'responsibility" to do something about it.

I'm in total agreement with Fail's points, but his sarcastic attitude and sly method of putting the blame on gamers, as opposed to the devs, is extremely irritating.

Who the hell are you to question the "values", "standards" and "morals" of others, Fail? Worse yet, over fucking video games?

How old are you? Ever raise a family? Ever have to work your way out of the street? Or put in 15 hour days in a factory to support yourself and your family? Ever give up something massive in your life for the benefit of another, at your own serious expense personally? No? Oh, well I have, in regards to all those things.

Just because I'm not "voting with my wallet", doesn't mean my "standards" are lower than anyone elses, and that goes for everyone here. Yes, gaming is my biggest, most enjoyed hobby. Yes, I've "stood up for it" countless times. But, when someone like you has nothing better to do than rant on these forums about twelve hours a day, obviously you've too much time on your hands, and not enough responsibility in life, so don't talk-down to people on these forums as if you've even a shred of real life experience, where standards, morals and values really count.

I'll tell you what, Fail... put your money where your mouth is, and start some well-written petitions:

http://www.petitiononline.com/create_petition.html
http://www.gopetition.com.

I'll even sign them both.

Here's one you can even sign: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/diablo-3-offline-single-player-petition.html.

If you're not going to take-up some "responsibility" yourself, then be quiet about the issue, because your incessant pomp around these forums is intolerable. You've blathered on in countless threads over the issue, but do nothing about it yourself. Yet, here you are again, creating another thread in these forums on the issue.

So, if you're such a proponent for consumer/gamer rights and general "values", then take action, don't just bitch on these forums.

 

[StreamsOfInferno]

I'll tell you what, Fail... put your money where your mouth is, and start some well-written petitions:

http://www.petitiononline.com/create_petition.html
http://www.gopetition.com.

I'll even sign them both.

Here's one you can even sign: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/diablo-3-offline-single-player-petition.html.

So, if you're such a proponent for consumer/gamer rights and general "values", then take action, don't just bitch on these forums.

Agreed.

Petitions work, with strong enough backing... and instead of posting 500x's a day on these forums regarding the issue, he should pick it up himself. I'd like to see that... then we'll see just how "dedicated" he is... willing or not to do literally anything and everything to prove his own supposed standards/morals/values.

 

[Shalafi]

Petitions don't do nothing. A million people signed the Troy Davis petitions and he still got executed. A whole town of people signed a petition to free Jerome Ersland, he's still imprisoned for life.

Game companies sure as shit don't give a shit about petitions, they understand only one thing, money. Money talks, if you really want to enact change, it must come in the form of voting with your wallet.

 

[Tudz]

Petitions don't do nothing. A million people signed the Troy Davis petitions and he still got executed.

So now we should stop trying things that dont do anything? Insulting gamers intelligence and standards didn't stop them buying BLOPS, so maybe you should stop doing that.

Or maybe you do actually think your insults will stop people buying it, in which case you've completely and utterly misjudged human character which you profess to know so much about.

 

[Shalafi]

Game companies sure as shit don't give a shit about petitions, they understand only one thing, money. Money talks, if you really want to enact change, it must come in the form of voting with your wallet.

 

[Tudz]

Yep, dont answer the point of what I said, that really helps your argument and shows that you know what you're on about (SARCASM incase you didn't know).

Honestly, Fail, I dont understand why you persist. Some sort of social problems? I dunno. People agree with you on the whole PC gaming degradation thing, I agree with you on the PC gaming degradation thing, yet you insist on making it into something personal against gamers instead of actually helping anything. You'll win far more supporters when you dont insult them, and that's what you want isn't it, supporters? Supporters to join your crusade of not buying games that degrade PC gaming? Or do you not want that, and just want to rant and act (note: ACT) superior and arrogant, lashing out at the teeming masses destroying your precious PC platform?

 

[StreamsOfInferno]

Petitions don't do nothing.

Wrong. I've personally witnessed, as have countless others on the planet, petitions working regarding games, when there's enough backing.

So now we should stop trying things that dont do anything? Insulting gamers intelligence and standards didn't stop them buying BLOPS, so maybe you should stop doing that.

Or maybe you do actually think your insults will stop people buying it, in which case you've completely and utterly misjudged human character which you profess to know so much about.

Excellent post, +1 x's 100.

 

[Shalafi]

So basically, if we want game companies to listen to us, petitions and all that other junk won't get as much attention as a steep decline in profits and sales would.

If we really want to enact visible, tangible, and meaningful change, we must be willing to vote with our wallets and keep them closed off to publishers who do things like this that you do not want. Not only that, you must influence your friends to do the same thing, it has a ripple effect.

Think about how powerful social networking is, like Facebook and shit, if enough people were made aware of stuff like this in any sort of meaningful capacity, then change would be easier to effect on these companies.

But honestly, only voting with your wallet will work, there is nothing else.

If you want to talk about petitions that actually work, don't make me laugh, nearly the entire CoD 4 community tried to use petitions for dedicated servers for MW2, I certainly don't see MW2 dedicated servers, do you?

Most petitions are mundane in nature, often started by the companies themselves asking you what character you want to see in a game, what you want in DLC, and all that other stuff, nothing that actually addresses the real issues outlined in my OP.

 

[Katalysis]

Petitions don't do nothing. A million people signed the Troy Davis petitions and he still got executed. A whole town of people signed a petition to free Jerome Ersland, he's still imprisoned for life.

Game companies sure as shit don't give a shit about petitions, they understand only one thing, money. Money talks, if you really want to enact change, it must come in the form of voting with your wallet.

Ugh. The legal system =/= video game petitions. Please don't compare capital punishment to buying Call of Duty.

Here's why they don't work for video games:

There is a sole calculus to buying a video game-- if value of entertainment > cost of game, people will buy it. I'll buy D3 because the loss of "single player" is worth exactly $0 to me, and the game provides more than $60 worth of value to me.

 

[Shalafi]

That screenshot has always been misleading, it only shows all the people playing online and not the others who are offline, it shows 50 people out of 833

 

[LstBrunnenG]

That's called being selfish. Single player also doesn't hurt you in any way either, but helps many others that prefer it.

He's selfish for supporting a game you don't like. I suppose then you're willing to admit you're selfish for not supporting a game he likes.

You're expecting him to base his purchasing decisions on your likes and dislikes? The height of selfishness.

That screenshot has always been misleading, it only shows all the people playing online and not the others who are offline, it shows 50 people out of 833

And the three offline people are visible because...?

 

[Parmenides]

The flaw in this logic to me is that in what twisted reality is owning a game a status symbol?

I dont deny that some sales are from what you say, but its pure speculation that those gamers make up the majority of COD gamers and pure speculation that they'd enjoy any other games more. BC2 is a watered down BF game, but it still took me 20+ hours before I even started feeling like I was being useful to my team and I wouldn't consider myself a terrible gamer (not a brilliant one either of course). So would you really recommend it to someone who only wants to play a few hours a week and maybe not even every week?

Fact is, when COD ceases to be fun, people will stop buying it. COD got to where it is from being fun. Yes, its also well marketed, but its naive to think that's the only reason people play it.

I don't mean "status symbol" in the traditional sense. Not like you get more popular friends. Let me explain... when anyone gets their first large HDTV, they need something to run it. HD channels, Blue Ray, etc. "Hey brah, what's the latest action movie for my new TV?" If it was a new sound system, they'd have to grab the most popular song (whether they think it's good quality or not). It's silly to not use what you purchased. Gotta to maximize your hardware with the latest goodness. When it comes to consoles, most people think their library is deprived if they don't have "the latest shooter". That's what I mean by status symbol. Status of your collection. "What's the biggest shooter? lemme get it."

As for an easy game for those who "who only wants to play a few hours a week" I'll say this, I'm not used to the controller, so when I pick up the controller for Halo or COD, I get creamed royally. Most truly casual Halo or COD players just get creamed every time they get on multiplayer. I don't know how fun that is. COD is just another game to "complete" their library, except for the truly core COD players. My cousin is pretty good on MW2 with the 360. (eats me alive on the 360) Yet he tells me that multiplayer MW2 is tough. (I'd like to hear what he says against mouse/keyboard)

but its pure speculation that those gamers make up the majority of COD gamers and pure speculation that they'd enjoy any other games more.

Tell you what, if any recent COD game has any longevity with a strong user base (i.e. even a fraction of counterstrike's), then yeah, I was making false speculation.

 

[Jellylesg]

The same reason some people swear blind allegiance to one particular digital distribution platform and deride others whilst failing to see the irony: stupid people will buy into brand loyalty regardless of any common-sense arguments levied against them.

Nudge nudge. Hint hint.

 

[herfalerf]

i bitched about mw2 and blackops, but the fact of the matter is that i have almost 1000 hours played between the 2 of them. i definitely got my money's worth. compared to games like mass effect 2, which is one of my favorites of all time, i spent maybe only 40 hours on that one. as for diablo 3, probably my most anticipated game in the past 5 years. im over the no offline play thing, i cant wait for the new features, new loot and new classes. ive given up on trying to play games without an internet connection a long time ago. its funny because in d2 all i did was single player, maybe in the range of 5000 hours since release. people are complaining about the store in d3 also, but anyone who has logged in to d2 bnet in the last 5 years knows that the entire thing has been taken over by bots and item sellers. items are cheap and readily available, i think you could spend like $20 and have a 80+ character fully outfiited with the best gear. as far as i understand it the trading system in d2 takes the 3rd party companies out of the picture, and even offers regular users a way to make some extra cash from playing a game. i dont think they are putting anything in that you can only buy in the store or something like that. personally i think this is a small compromise to not have my entire game screen spammed by item sellers, or my 8 person baal run go flat because the game fills up with bots before any players can join.

the current trend of dumbing down pc games until they are so similar to the console version that nearly all advantage is lost is disturbing, but some games get it right. the fact of the matter is that its all about fun. i hated that mw2 had no dedicated servers, but i still had tons of fun playing the game. publishers arent going to change their formula if people are still buying and enjoying the product. unlike in politics, the vocal minority is often ignored in the video game industry.

 

[WorldExclusive]

Petitions don't do nothing. A million people signed the Troy Davis petitions and he still got executed. A whole town of people signed a petition to free Jerome Ersland, he's still imprisoned for life.

Game companies sure as shit don't give a shit about petitions, they understand only one thing, money. Money talks, if you really want to enact change, it must come in the form of voting with your wallet.

Petitions here Miami casued a recell against the City of Miami Mayor a few months ago. The people voted him out right after that, the Police Chief and his assistants are gone also.

I like threads like this though. It brings up the questions that must be answered at some point.
Even if we don't agree on the method that should be used, at least we know something should be done.
I believe that BF3 is a better game for console gamers, because of the demands of PC gamers. But, EA and Valve are still fighting over the control of DLC and patches, sad really.

 

[spindoctor]

Well this thread backfired. Good stuff

I will point out that people keep saying 'voting with your wallet' doesn't work. That's not true. People do vote with their wallet with every purchase. The fact that 20 million people buy Call of Duty means that they believe it is worth spending their money on even with whatever perceived or actual flaws the game might have. If people are buying DLC or Ubisoft games or casual games or whatever, it means they are okay with paying for extra content or don't care enough about DRM requirements or whatever. If for some reason they do not like that product enough, they might not buy it next time around. If you find something wrong with a product, then just don't buy it.

People do vote with their wallets. It's just that some people here don't like how they vote. And they think they know better, and that they have some sort of God given right to tell others how to spend their hard earned money.

 

[ZodaEX]

You cant have your cake and eat it too. Offline singleplayer with no achevmenta, or online with them. Pick one.

 

[piscian18]

I feel sorry for the developers who pour their heart and soul into a game, only for the game's reputation to be damaged by external factors they couldn't help.

Word. Certain Publishers need to choke and die.