In reality, and if you did some historical research regarding the economic woes of socialist countries, there's usually a lack of variety in their production, due to sole ownership residing in political or government entities, which often leads to inferiority; not the other way around. Kickstarter is a great case for capitalism, on the other hand, and how allowing citizens their own means to discover better, more efficient ways to produce can lead to the superiority of goods and services.

I feel a bit depressed that this is even necessary to explain to anyone, though.

Originally posted by whisperwynd

Originally posted by Lawlmonster
To me, pirating is a sign of the market failing, whichever it is that's been pirated from. If your software is easier or more appealing to torrent than it is to pay for, the individual company/developer/studio needs to find a more efficient way to push content to users, as quickly as possible, and most often adjust their standard for pricing into a much, much lower range. Spending more effort and resources creating DRM isn't really helping the situation for them, either, because it's not really preventing anyone from pirating anything at this point in time.

 It doesn't really matter what system/procedure you implement. There will always be people out there wanting it for nothing, and those willing to crack it. It will never change. This is not something new.

 As simple as someone looting a store during a riot. If the consequences to commiting that act are low to non existent, some will invariably tempt fate.

I think you're mostly correct, but price has far more to do with preventing pirating than I think you're giving credit.

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Lawlmonster
To me, pirating is a sign of the market failing, whichever it is that's been pirated from. If your software is easier or more appealing to torrent than it is to pay for, the individual company/developer/studio needs to find a more efficient way to push content to users, as quickly as possible, and most often adjust their standard for pricing into a much, much lower range. Spending more effort and resources creating DRM isn't really helping the situation for them, either, because it's not really preventing anyone from pirating anything at this point in time.

So basically, if you can't create DRM so intrusive that it's cheaper to pay $50 than to find a pirated version for free, then you're not allowed to charge $50?  Do you really want the entire world to be forced to go to always-online DRM?

If I were in the business, I'd absolutely prefer the DRM solution to be always online. As a player of games, I'm not really excited about the idea, but it's a pretty instantaneous and permanent solution to the problem, isn't it?

Originally posted by Iselin

First a disclaimer for the sensitive: I am not writing this about you.

Is being a Khajiit, who for all practical purposes plays 100% like and Argonian so important to you that you won't play with your best friend over it? Learn to behave and learn to play with others like a civilized, social adult.

I can't be certain, but it sure seems to me like this post was directed at someone.

I really don't agree with the OP, but I also didn't read the whole message. Some people are capable of turning off intellectually when being entertained, some enjoy the analyzation and critiquing, while others are capable of doing both. There's really no right or wrong approach to how you digest whatever medium you use for enjoyment, and I think you'll often find that people who are critical on forums don't view their time spent playing games in the same manner as someone who's just looking for "fun", of which there are about as many variations as individuals who consume it.

I enjoy debate, and I like approaching games as an art form. Under these circumstances, just as an example, I'm probably going to be more critical of products made in a market that approaches itself as a business, rather than a means of expression, just as much as an individual who was raised playing sandboxes is probably going to be more critical in a market full of themeparks.

TL;DR: People bitch. Welcome to the human race.

Originally posted by azzamasin

Originally posted by Rthuth434

...OR...

 

because for the millionth time a shot caller who use to be at Mythic did what Mythic does best, rehash their old work.

...OR...

 

Sandbox games are actually really terrible for the vast majority of gamers who want something more fun, more filling, and more user-friendly.  Its hella lot more fun to actually play a good game rather then get bogged down in hideous development principles that do nothing more other then to slow the game down keeping you playing.

That's certainly an interesting perspective, but I'm curious as to what it is that actually makes themepark design "more fun" or "more filling". If anything, I could describe my experiences in quest hub, linear MMO's as the most empty, or the most dull, because I always knew exactly what to expect, the worlds are often static, there are rarely any build or design features, character or class customization comes down to "pick one of three skill trees", and there's hardly any sense of danger, because there's rarely any risk or reward built into the design documents. What's exciting or fulfilling about playing a game that's so safe and homoginized? Maybe you can tell me.

Originally posted by evilastro

Most would be happy with nothing short of a multiplayer Skyrim with no restrictions. Unfortunately that doesn't make for a great MMO, and would result in a whole bunch of inconsistencies and balance issues. Essentially a mod for Skyrim that would be interesting for a single play. But that is what they want.

It's a MMO set in the ES world, not multiplayer Skyrim. There are many things that just don't work in a MMO that you can do in a single player RPG. But trying to tell the naysayers that is like hitting your head into a brick wall.

My problem with this argument is that there's a certain group of players and developers who belive that, because a game exists in the medium of an MMO, it requires the necessary trappings of the games which came before it. I'm not saying that ES:O is a direct copy of another game, even though it does heavily borrow from DAoC (which isn't a bad thing, really), but that they very well could have balanced and created a multiplayer game, in a massive setting, which didn't require faction zone locking, forced PvP in an enclosed area of the game (which isn't open world), story questing and phasing on a level that rivals specifically hub designed games, or UI elements that an industry has simply become comfortable with for a standard.

So, is my problem really specifically with ES:O, or with the genre itself? A little of both, I guess. These problems, and others like them, aren't entirely on the shoulders of Zenimax to fix, but it's disheartening to see such a great opportunity squandered.

As someone who's made the run through around ten years of online tournaments, I have to respectfully disagree with people who believe games should solely be centered around a mindless concept, something as simple as "play for fun". The truth is that, while it may seem a bit obsessive or over the top, competitive play is where the fun is for some people, and generally speaking, I'd count myself amongst them. I think the most important thing to remember is that enjoyment in gaming can be found in the most bizarre and unimagineable places, and is as complex as the people who play them. There's no right or wrong answer.

This was a good interview, for a project I've never heard of. Thanks for the heads up.

Originally posted by Doomtec

gotta love this site. bunch of people jumping on the bash bandwagon, talking shit about a game they have never played, in response to a "review" of the tutorial area.

There are those of us here on that "bash bandwagon" who have played it, were expecting a game that wasn't shit, and have been sorely disappointed by SV's unprofessionalism and their ability to deceive players. There's nothing to defend.

Originally posted by MyTabbycat

I think a lot of people who are upset ESO isn't Skyrim Co-Op are most likely console players.

I like ESO the way they are doing it.

I'm not a console player, I've been playing the ES series on PC since as long as I can remember, and all I want is co-op multiplayer in my Morrowind/Skryim/Next Installment. I don't think this has anything to do with console players.

Originally posted by Aerowyn

Originally posted by Lawlmonster

 

The faction territories are locked. Here's a video:

http://youtu.be/pCmveOvYXzo

 

And a link from the official forums with the on-going debate:

http://www.elderscrollsforum.com/home/page/1/m/5472177/viewthread/5214822-exploring-faction-locked-territory-debate

 

There are about a billion other discussions and videos regarding the subject, and it's a pretty well known fact at this point that territories are only accessible to individuals from said factions, geographically speaking. That doesn't mean you can't roll a character from every faction to see it all.

 

interesting video in that thread http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=X3GONzQXhRY thanks for the link yea i can see why a lot of people would not like this..

No problem, thanks for the link also. The faction lock conversation starts around 13:00 minutes in, if anyone else was curiuos.