Steam influenced Skyrim's quality?

[PsxMeUP]

The only thing that is certain is that you know nothing about business.

 

You can be certain that Valve/Steam lobbied hard to have a title like Skyrim come to their platform. The money Steam was going to make as distributors was and is substantial. They aren't going to bicker over a silly issue like bandwidth. When you're running an operation like Steam, you're dealing with OC12/48 lines in major data centers around the world, we're talking industrial strength bandwidth - this ain't your daddy's modem.

 

Wow, you like sooo missed my point. I couldn't care less what it costs Steam; I care what it costs me: time. Ya, there are games that are over 12GB on Steam, you just won't ever find me downloading them... Too big.

[Fortunado3]

@Fortunado3

 

So, I talk about the economic aspects of game design, development and sales today as opposed to 12 years ago and the market factors that drive the shift from a PC-focused industry to a console-focused industry, you respond with some personal opinions, condescending generalizations like 'the sheep', some ad hominem and some entitlement driven 'its the vets that matter' stuff. Strange, since I've been playing TES titles since Arena, though I did skip Redguard. None of which has anything at all to due with what goes into game development, what drives game development and what if any leverage PC gamers have in the industry. We are clearly not having the same conversation.

 

You and I are also just as clearly not going to agree so I'm just going to say 'hope your approach works out for you. Best of luck.'

...You rambled on about stuff that has nothing to do with what I was talking about, mixed with a bunch of fallacies that made it look like you totally lack common sense. Your first ES was obviously Skyrim. Know more about the series, and Bethesda.

 

Skyrim was obviously compromised for the newbs, casuals, dabblers and the unreceptive, coupled with console and time limitations. Just because your too new to the series to realize it, doesn't mean the vets are too. Bethesda is a sell out shell of their former self, get over it.

 

 

 

are you a girl? lets go make babies.

 

Jokes aside, this is so true.

 

Its a sad state when people demand so much for so little. Where is Todd Howard? Is he uber rich? Maybe he is upper class but he isn't super wealthy. And even if he was, would this be a problem for you? His wealth and success is intimidating, is that it?

 

Or is it that you feel you deserve a better game simply because you live and breath? That these people should leave their families and lives behind and spend all their time on your game.

 

I seriously do not understand this logic. I am no fanboy, I can see the flaws in skyrim, but I simply write it off to the developers trying to reach a larger more casual audience. I don't think its a huge problem. Occasionally a great game comes along and then theirs the OK ones.

 

I urge you, if you think skyrim is so bad and the developers were so lazy, to go make your own game. Go invest your own money and pander before the producers, see how far you can even get.

 

And you know, I played Morrowind and Oblivion, and I didn't think they were very good. At least I can play vanilla skyrim without getting bored to tears...

Not really, just more ill informed nonsense. We don't want more than whats been given before, we want the bare minimum that is required to make an ES game, not this watered down POS compromise. LOL at the whole "make your own game" fallacy.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Fortunado3

[chaospearl]

In response to the wall of text regarding how each successive TES game has been dumbed down further, concluding with the idea that "it's the vets that matter"... that would be nice, wouldn't it? Unfortunately it isn't true. Rather the opposite in fact.

 

That's precisely the problem. Yeah, the games have been dumbed. I agree, and I hate it too. But the reason it's happening is because the vets DON'T matter. We're too small a percentage. The demographic who matters is the one that's largest and growing fastest, because big & getting bigger = more copies sold = more money earned. And which demographic is that? It's not the vets. It's the console kiddies and the casuals and all the others you so eloquently shat all over in your post. I won't argue with that because it's so true. Skyrim was designed for the lowest common denominator, not because of laziness, but because that's the biggest group buying games. The "vets" are such a small group that we have almost no purchasing power in comparison to the casuals. THAT in a nutshell is why games are getting stupid. Because the stupid are buying more games than anyone else. No other arguments are nearly as important as that one simple fact.

 

Edit: Before I get flamed out the door, I don't mean that anyone playing on a console is stupid. Far from it. I have both a PS3 and a 360 (and a Wii) and play games on both frequently. What I mean by "console kiddies" isn't "anyone playing Skyrim on console" -- it's the casuals and the sheeple and the legion of 13 yr old homophobic racist turds who ruin 360 multiplayer for everyone else, and also (because this made me laugh) the people who thought they were buying a Viking game with dragon headshots. Casuals play on consoles is NOT equivalent to playing on a console means you're a casual. Just wanted to clear that up.

[Fortunado3]

In response to the wall of text regarding how each successive TES game has been dumbed down further, concluding with the idea that "it's the vets that matter"... that would be nice, wouldn't it? Unfortunately it isn't true. Rather the opposite in fact.

 

That's precisely the problem. Yeah, the games have been dumbed. I agree, and I hate it too. But the reason it's happening is because the vets DON'T matter. We're too small a percentage. The demographic who matters is the one that's largest and growing fastest, because big & getting bigger = more copies sold = more money earned. And which demographic is that? It's not the vets. It's the console kiddies and the casuals and all the others you so eloquently shat all over in your post. I won't argue with that because it's so true. Skyrim was designed for the lowest common denominator, not because of laziness, but because that's the biggest group buying games. The "vets" are such a small group that we have almost no purchasing power in comparison to the casuals. THAT in a nutshell is why games are getting stupid. Because the stupid are buying more games than anyone else. No other arguments are nearly as important as that one simple fact.

What I'm saying is, make a game for the vets, stay for the newbs, since the casuals, unreceptive, blah, blah, will buy anything (as long as you market it like Skyrim, i.e. for the unreceptive and neophytes). Obviously we're the minority, but we're also the only ones that should matter. If Bethesda wanted to make a game for idiots, they should have, but they shouldn't ruin ES, or even Fallout to do so.

 

And there definitely was laziness. Look no further than gamejam for proof.

 

But yeah, I pretty much agree with you, as you seemingly agree with some of the points Ive made.

 

Also, I used paragraphs, not 'walls of text'.

 

Not sure how, or when Todd Howard turned into Michael Bay, but its pretty hard to grasp that this is the same Todd Howard that lead the Morrowind team.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Fortunado3

[chaospearl]

But yeah, I pretty much agree with you, as you seemingly agree with some of the points Ive made.

 

I agree with every single point you've made except for the very last one, in which you suggest that Bethesda "should" make games for the vets. Should, why? They're a game company, and their purpose is to make money. I'm sure the vast majority of Beth employees would like to please as many diehard fans as possible while making that money, but that desire to cater to long-time vets is trumped by the need to feed their families with a paycheck -- and also to be able to continue developing the next game, which means the current one has to sell. Just because we buy their games doesn't mean they somehow owe us a damn thing, let alone that they owe us to a degree that they "should" develop according to our standards and in doing so lose gobs of money. They don't owe us that.

 

Edit: Also, I do understand that you're saying that they could have created a game the veterans would enjoy, and it would still sell like hotcakes because of the juggernaut that is Skyrim marketing department. I'm not ignorng that point. The thing is, that strategy would only work once. All the casuals etc etc who bought this massively complex un-dumbed-down game because of the marketing would then try to play it and end up frustrated and annoyed because "it's too haaaaaard!" That would result in demanding a refund, boycotting, telling everyone they know about how Bethesda makes these really weird complicated games that aren't any fun to play. Even if they didn't manage to get their money back from Beth this time, you can be sure they'd never buy another Elder Scrolls title, and if there were enough angry vocal casuals, Bethesda could well end up with a reputation for making games that are too complex for the average gamer to pick up and play. And the end result is that we'd never see another Elder Scrolls title because there wouldn't be enough of a profit in making more.

[Fortunado3]

But yeah, I pretty much agree with you, as you seemingly agree with some of the points Ive made.

 

I agree with every single point you've made except for the very last one, in which you suggest that Bethesda "should" make games for the vets. Should, why? They're a game company, and their purpose is to make money. I'm sure the vast majority of Beth employees would like to please as many diehard fans as possible while making that money, but that desire to cater to long-time vets is trumped by the need to feed their families with a paycheck -- and also to be able to continue developing the next game, which means the current one has to sell. Just because we buy their games doesn't mean they somehow owe us a damn thing, let alone that they owe us to a degree that they "should" develop according to our standards and in doing so lose gobs of money. They don't owe us that.

Should because we're the only ones that matter. The newer players will buy anything. Its like giving ice cream to somebody who has never had it. You can give them vanilla and call it chocolate. They will be none the wiser. Do that to someone who has had it and you will be criticized. If they will buy anything, since they don't know what should be there in the first place, then making the game for vets its common sense. Unfortunately Bethesda doesn't even know their own influence and power. They probably think that there's a chance that their games can fail. Bethesda could make a Disney game and its going to sell great. Unfortunately this seems to be making them greedier and lazier etc.

 

The standards you speak of, we're the only ones that have them. The newer players have no standards, or preconceived notions about this game other than "I don't like RPGs" most likely.

 

We're the reason there is an ES in the first place, why should we be thrown aside, like we have been? Especially since their new demographics will buy anything, where its as mindless as "Gears of War, or as complex as a Total War game.

 

And I'll never understand the whole "feed their family" crap. These people will make the money regardless. These people weren't hurting back in the Daggerfall and Morrowind days, when they were making their best RPGs. Why would they be now, especially with all of the extra greed tactics the gaming industry has. Hell, they'll be sitting like King Croesus just from the DLC.

 

They wouldn't have lost a dime if they had had Spell Creation, attributes, acrobatics, the cut spells, H2H, degradation, etc. They actually would have made even more money, since I know plenty of people that didn't pay for Skyrim because of all of the cutting.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Fortunado3

[Overcast73]

@Fortunado3

 

So, I talk about the economic aspects of game design, development and sales today as opposed to 12 years ago and the market factors that drive the shift from a PC-focused industry to a console-focused industry, you respond with some personal opinions, condescending generalizations like 'the sheep', some ad hominem and some entitlement driven 'its the vets that matter' stuff. Strange, since I've been playing TES titles since Arena, though I did skip Redguard. None of which has anything at all to due with what goes into game development, what drives game development and what if any leverage PC gamers have in the industry. We are clearly not having the same conversation.

 

You and I are also just as clearly not going to agree so I'm just going to say 'hope your approach works out for you. Best of luck.'

...You rambled on about stuff that has nothing to do with what I was talking about, mixed with a bunch of fallacies that made it look like you totally lack common sense. Your first ES was obviously Skyrim. Know more about the series, and Bethesda, newb.

 

Skyrim was obviously compromised for the newbs, casuals, dabblers and the unreceptive, coupled with console and time limitations. Just because your too new to the series to realize it, doesn't mean the vets are too. Bethesda is a sell out shell of their former self, get over it.

 

Funny thing is..

 

I have a copy of Fallout New Vegas and Skyrim, but never really played them. First off, I like to wait on a game a bit for patches/bug fixes - that sort of thing. Plus waiting gives me the option of downloading mods right away if I choose and also most of the real problems with the game have been resolved. I'm just patient :)

 

So patient, that I am still modding and playing Fallout 3.

 

But it's not just patience - it's also Steam. But the thing is, I don't HATE steam (you fanbois can sigh in relief!).

The problem is with Steam's implementation. It forces a horrid directory structure upon me and forces installs to it's own tyrannical directory structure. There is in fact a lot I like about Steam, but the things I don't like - I just can't get past...

 

Add to this, the fact that many games are nothing but a large cache file, and even an ounce of corruption forces a total re-download of the game.

 

Neither of these are necessary for it to work - it's just Steam's daydream of control - I guess.

 

Origin for instance (EA's Steam clone) - doesn't force you to install a game in any folder - the regular game installer runs, you pick the folder. For all intents and purposes, you can't tell the different between a game downloaded from EA's Origin and a DVD copy. I have the Sims 3 for instance, I can install it to "D:\Games\The Sims 3".

 

Can't do that with Steam - it will force me to create a D:\Games\Steam folder if I want to keep the data there, and then after that it wants to nest the folder down like another 4 levels. Seriously now... how is that beneficial to a consumer?

 

Yeah, sure for most of the non-tech users, it doesn't matter. But for those of us who are picky about organization on our computers - it's a major annoyance. Yes, I'm OCD about my directory organization. But that's why my PC stays clean and stable, i know exactly what's on there and where. If something 'odd' appears in Program Files - I know I need to look for MalWare/Virus/etc.

 

Even large business applications such as VMWare, Citrix and such don't "Force" installs in specific directories. I understand 'appdata' and 'localdata' stuff being written to those folders since it deals with OS compatibility and even keeping saves in 'My Games' - but why does Steam insist on this 'control' over how I organize my hard disks?

 

Yeah, it might seem like a small 'hang-up' to many - but hey - it's my money and my computer. If it doesn't fit within the scope of my design - then I tend to avoid it.

That being said, I have a couple of Steam Games, but that's it. Might even just be one - it's been so long since I've logged into Steam....

 

So the New Vegas and SkyRim DVD's just collect dust mostly. Sure, I could install them and I'm sure it would work, but I can always seem to find something else more productive to do than spend 10 minutes getting my steam password reset, 20 minutes installing steam, and god knows how long to wait on downloads after that.

 

My real 'kicker' with Steam was 'Supreme Commander 2' - I bought the DVD only to have to wait for 2 more hours for it to download an additional 2GB of data. Thing is - the DVD would have had room for that 2GB of data - they were just being jerks I suspect about it - I don't bother to play that game either. But the big problem with this was that when I got the game home, my internet was dead. Resets didn't fix it and the cable company couldn't get someone out until the following Tuesday. Felt like I had just wasted the money on this game, because I had a fully clear weekend with loads of time to play. So I ended up going to get another game, and made 100% sure it was Steam Free.

 

Sure Steam has an 'offline mode' - but if you don't know to put Steam in offline mode before the internet dies - you're hosed. Dang, I need to call my ISP and see if they can tell me my internet is going to die before it does! lol

 

Origin doesn't do that by the way - it just does a 'grace' thing if you aren't online. I tested it out of curiosity, after installing the games I wanted, I just disconnected my Ethernet and the games launched just fine - no excuse here for Steam.

 

Then the idea that Steam uses all these stupid cache files.... corruption seems to be quite common with that. I know I had to "re-install" Left for Dead via Steam more times than any other game in my history - and I played the Original SimCity on an 8088 CPU, so I don't lack any game installing experience, lol.

 

Again, I don't hate Steam, I don't endorse piracy, I buy my games for ethical reasons because I won't "steal" them via torrent or whatever - heck, I even turn off UPNP on my router to functionally kill torrent...

 

BUT this type of 'controlling' DRM is nothing more than a slap in the face to PAYING customers. Pirates and such - can get ANY Steam provided game on torrent - we all know that.

 

I would use Steam, if it gave me the control I require, but since it doesn't...

Edited April 10, 2012 by Overcast73

[Fortunado3]

 

Edit: Also, I do understand that you're saying that they could have created a game the veterans would enjoy, and it would still sell like hotcakes because of the juggernaut that is Skyrim marketing department. I'm not ignorng that point. The thing is, that strategy would only work once. All the casuals etc etc who bought this massively complex un-dumbed-down game because of the marketing would then try to play it and end up frustrated and annoyed because "it's too haaaaaard!" That would result in demanding a refund, boycotting, telling everyone they know about how Bethesda makes these really weird complicated games that aren't any fun to play. Even if they didn't manage to get their money back from Beth this time, you can be sure they'd never buy another Elder Scrolls title, and if there were enough angry vocal casuals, Bethesda could well end up with a reputation for making games that are too complex for the average gamer to pick up and play. And the end result is that we'd never see another Elder Scrolls title because there wouldn't be enough of a profit in making more.

I think it would work more than once though. The sheep are only dumb in mass. Like a Hive mind, but reversed. Without the peer pressures of explosions and headshots, I think most gamers would still get into a non dumbed down ES. I mean, Daggerfall and Morrowind were more complex and had more stuff, but they weren't necessarily hard to understand, or complex in a confusing way. There were simply more options to play the game. Which is a good thing for all players. There's a reason why people that started the series with Oblivion are looking back on it with fond memories, while the even older vets see Oblivion like Skyrim, a compromise. But now, it doesn't even seem as bad as Skyrim, even though we gave Bethesda hell for Oblivion's lack of... everything. It makes the future look bleak.

 

I mean, even though its watered, dumbed down shell of its former self, its still an RPG. People that didn't like RPGs, then bought Skyrim, but still don't like RPGs, are not going to be swayed by Skyrim's lack of depth, or extra hand holding. They still hate RPGs, for all of the same reason. All of the people that bought in on the hype, but still got 'an RPG', will not be buying the next ES, most likely.

 

Other than the many problems of level scaling, was Oblivion too complex? Or too hard to understand for your average twitcher? No.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Fortunado3

[chaospearl]

I have the Sims 3 for instance, I can install it to "D:\Games\The Sims 3".

 

Can't do that with Steam - it will force me to create a D:\Games\Steam folder if I want to keep the data there, and then after that it wants to nest the folder down like another 4 levels. Seriously now... how is that beneficial to a consumer?

 

Yeah, sure for most of the non-tech users, it doesn't matter. But for those of us who are picky about organization on our computers - it's a major annoyance. Yes, I'm OCD about my directory organization. But that's why my PC stays clean and stable, i know exactly what's on there and where. If something 'odd' appears in Program Files - I know I need to look for MalWare/Virus/etc.

 

Even large business applications such as VMWare, Citrix and such don't "Force" installs in specific directories. I understand 'appdata' and 'localdata' stuff being written to those folders since it deals with OS compatibility and even keeping saves in 'My Games' - but why does Steam insist on this 'control' over how I organize my hard disks?

 

I just wanted to say that I'm sitting here laughing at your description of Steam's tyrannical attempt at world domination via complicated folder structures. Thanks, I needed that.

 

I find it so amusing because you've perfectly articulated my biggest issue with Steam. I'm also particular about where various things are installed, and for the same reasons. My first encounter with Steam occured when I bought Civilization V on release day. I had to pull strings to get a ride there and no one understood my absolute insistence on having this game the very instant it became available... anyway, obviously the point is that I didn't know I could have stayed home and downloaded it because I'd never heard of Steam. We were forcibly introduced when I popped the CiV disc into the drive and tried to install "my" game.

 

Long story short, when the installer asked me where to put everything I gave it the folder where I had my other Civilization games, because at that point I still didn't quite understand the whole Steam concept. Fast-forward to Skyrim and you can imagine what happened. When I first attempted to locate the Skyrim data folder for modding purposes I had one hell of a time figuring out that it was nestled about a dozen folders in with a path something like this: C:\Games\Civilization\Civ V\Steam\SteamApps\Common\Skyrim\Data

 

When my idiot self finally puzzled out Steam's convoluted approach to folder structuring I promptly retrieved the entire Steam installation from inside the Civ folder and put it into C:\Games where it belongs, and then, purely out of spite, I created shortcuts to my various Steam games and put the shortcuts in with the other game folders, so that my folder structure now properly contains C:\Games\Skyrim right beside C:\Games\Oblivion... even if it's only cosmetic.

 

I'm sure nobody gives a damn. I'm just amused that I'm not the only person who has OCD issues with Steam's folder tyranny.

[fraquar]

My thoughts from a casual gamers perspective.

 

I go to the regular/veteran players and get their recommendations 1st hand for a game in the genre I'm looking for. Sometimes it's a match, sometimes it isn't - and Skyrim looks like it's falling in the latter category.

 

I might buy another game in the fall, too busy come summertime - and if I do I'll be hitting up the regular gamers to get their input before I make my purchase - same as I always do.