Discussion in 'WildStar General' started by Mellkor, Jul 14, 2013.
What was your issue with Steam on Skyrim?
So much unnecessary Steam hate.
OMG its confirmed! Wildstar is totally launching on Steam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111
I think its because steam is the big dog, So people hate it because hating the big dog is apparently cool on the internet. Kind of like WoW hate, it is the current big MMO so people hate on it randomly.
Well at least for myself, that's not the case. That's not why I've been complaining about Steam in this thread. I'm just disappointed in the selection. They seem to be taking this "the more games, the better" approach, when in reality, it's just bad filtering during a period of time where PC gaming is just... embarrassing.
If there were more new (good) titles for the PC, then it wouldn't be so bad. I know it's not Steam's fault that developers are not doing anything for the computer, but that only makes it more off-putting to see nothing but $5 games being featured. Everyone keeps bringing up Skyrim as en example of a good Steam game. That is not a PC game. It's a console port. It was designed to be played with a console. My computer has so many buttons, PC developers. Make me use them.
im confirming your confirmation.
While I love Steam to death, I feel making this game accessible through it is kind of unnecessary; I mean, I can't really imagine why WoW even did it. To me, it seems like it's less hassle to just have the game on your computer without the middle man.
That said, I can understand doing this as a means of making the product known, so I can't really say it's a bad idea or anything like that.
2 issues with your argument. The first is "good" in the way you are using it is subjective. Even The War Z (or whatever its called nowadays) has a core of rabid fans who love the game. The second is addressed solidly in the first 3 minutes here: http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/4qe93h/pach-attack--when-will-pc-kill-next-gen- To simply sum up core games do not get made on the pc, for a variety of reasons (he focuses on price, but its far more reaching than that).
Yeah, I don't really see why not..It would be fun to play on that platform with steam-achievements, etc..omg...
Of course there are issues with my argument; there's nothing really argumentative about it. I even point out that I'm simply complaining and being biased. I can't watch the video because for some reason it is not buffering in this PC cafe, but why PC gaming is lagging behind doesn't really concern me as much as the fact that it is lagging behind.
Basically, you are blaming Steam for having "<REDACTED>" games when the reality is the pc is getting "<REDACTED>" games because most developers do not want to support the pc platform. The why of that is varied, from the actual cost of doing so (programming and supporting various hardware configs, any changes needed for mouse+keyboard versus a controller etc) to it just feeling bad because of how much easier it is to pirate to just not having enough of an audience on pc versus a console. Everything you say you hate about Steam is a symptom, not a cause.
That is bull.
Most of the hate is aiming at blizz for pulling all kind of crazy stunts to keep milking the cow.
The hate has always bin there ( not rly hate but complains ) and now that most of the mmo community is looking for a replacement there willing to spill the beans.
And on the steam part:
I don't see why ppl want to use it if you have a normal game launcher.
All steam will do is link you to the launcher just like it does to Microsoft games and ubi games.
Updates will be automatically in the launcher so there is no need to update true steam.
If it's on steam it means it has steam overlay working as default and doesn't require you to add it manually, that's pretty much the upside of steam integration.
"I know it's not Steam's fault that developers are not doing anything for the computer..."
"I'm just disappointed in the selection."
"...it's just bad filtering during a period of time where PC gaming is just... embarrassing."
Yeah, that's pretty much what I've been saying. Is Steam the cause for the state of PC games right now? No, I never said that. Can I be disappointed when I open up Steam to see a grocery list of games that would have otherwise been f2p browser-based games 10 years ago? I'd like to think I'm allowed that.
Not really no. Mostly because people are clearly willing to pay for them even if you are not. Its like being upset because when you look at the frozen food section at the store the meals are not 5 star cuisine. If people can make a living off from tinkering with code, more power to them. While you and I may disagree that wading through the <REDACTED> to find the few decent ones is worthwhile, the market and audience has clearly shown that the piles of <REDACTED> are worth it for the few glorious nuggets of awesome that get born the same way.
Firstly, the selection on Steam wasn't always like this. It's the reason my library is so full. So as for your analogy, I would say it'd be more like taking a break from your favorite Italian restaurant, only to come back months later and find out that it's been turned into an Olive Garden. You'd be disappointed, wouldn't you?
As far as making a living off of their interests, I completely agree, for the right price. Everyone says that Gone Home was a good game (probably one of these "nuggets" you've mentioned). A good hour and a half long game... for $20. You aren't spending $20 on a game that will potentially last you hours, only to quit. You're spending $20 on a game that will end in the span of an HBO special. If I wanted to spend money on 1.5 hours of entertainment, I'd go to the movies for half the price.
Is every game on Steam like this? No. I bought Steamworld Dig recently, a game that is cheaper than Gone Home, and got a good 6-7 hours of entertainment out of it (still not enough, in my opinion, but not my point). But that's my point: in what world can someone justify spending twice as much on something for not even half of the entertainment of something else?
Whether or not you actually like it is irrelevant; that's a matter of opinion to begin with. People like Jersey Shore, it doesn't mean it was worth the time and money to produce. It's what you're paying for that matters. Skyrim, whether you like it or not, has hundreds more manhours put into it than Gone Home, and it's only twice the price (three times the price at release). I'll bring up Minecraft again; an indie game similar in price to Gone Home, and yet hours upon hours more effort put into it.
TLR - It's not the selection itself that's bothersome, but what Steam condones within its services that's off-putting. There are games that just shouldn't be sold for their pricetags.
But to be completely honest, I really don't feel that strongly about this. I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate at this point.
Your observation of it not always being like this is more an issue of timescale than anything else. Most of these games, even the bad ones, still take 2-3 years to produce. Not all by any means, but even the meanest indie tends to take awhile if for no other reason than because they can't work on it full time.
As for the rest, I agree and disagree. Its not up to you or me to determine value, and how people value these games varies. Remember when games used to be made to fulfill that 60-100 hour timescale? That went away because it was found out that the majority of people were only playing for 8-10. When it comes to the realm of art, people are weird. A great many people have clearly found Gone Home to be worth that $20 price tag just because of the experience. They are not measuring it in dollars per hour.
I do agree that Steam needs to be a little more hands on. They are notoriously loose on such things and its no surprise since its actually part of their success. GabeN has went on record as saying they don't care if people sell penis hats because if someone is making them and they are selling, then clearly there is a market for it and who are they to deny what people want? He has a really interesting 2 part podcast on Nerdist that is pretty interesting. They talk about and cover a rather large number of topics.
Granted. I wouldn't agree with them, but if they feel they've gotten their money's worth, then I won't try to convince them otherwise. I have a friend who raves about it (although she doesn't "game" nearly as much as others, what with being a Mac user). But those are generally people who are really not looking for a game to eat up too much of their leisure time to begin with. Anyone who is will simply be disappointed. Hell, even someone just looking to fill up a single evening would be left wondering where there other $15 went.
Considering the Game of the Year lists it has made I would say more than a couple people find it worth the time spent. Not all games are about sinking leisure time, just like all movies aren't summer blockbusters.
I never said all games were time-sinks. I said those who wanted a time-consuming game would be disappointed, while those who didn't... wouldn't. Although I had perhaps implied that the price was a little misleading. Also, I had already granted that a lot of people enjoyed the game. But as far as making game of the year lists, there wasn't much competition.