Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[UXLZ]

Don't they ave a different business model?

I find that hard to believe, actually. I doubt they would be able to get away with it if they're barely able to get away with paid mods.

I'm sure people would have said the same thing about paid mods back when DLC was first introduced. Baby steps, baby steps.

[Retropunch]

if the vocal, outraged group was the majority then very few people would buy the payed DLC (and sales for the game it's self would almost certainly be much worse) and the company would quickly drop the issue - there would be absolutely no need to get outraged at all - it would be a self correcting problem.

Instead we get literal death threats against mod makers to try and punish them and scare them into silence, because I think most of the vocally outraged people know that the truth is most gamers just don't care very much, and a significant number of them would support pay mods.

I think very few people do buy DLC comparatively (look at titanfall for instance - the DLC uptake was atrocious, even with sales). The biggest problem is that companies always want to make as much money as possible, so they're always going to squeeze as much as they can. If usual DLC isn't working, and sales drop too low (or they just get greedy) then it's going to be tempting for them to start holding back more important things behind a pay wall.

Yes, they could drop the issue because sales of DLC aren't working, but the shareholders aren't going to be at all pleased with that at all - they see it as a continuing revenue stream. The other option then is to be more grabbing with it - and I firmly believe that's what will happen.

Whilst I abhor death threats and harassment, we definitely need to voice our displeasure as consumers when we can. Voting with your wallet helps, but as does making it known that any action like mentioned above would drastically hurt their brand.

[UXLZ]

I don't actually disagree with paid mods theoretically, I just can't find it within myself to believe Bethesda will be able to handle it correctly. As I've said before, if everything is individually vetted, and it's limited to content adding mods of a high quality (Moonpath for example) and there's some sort of guarantee unofficial patches won't get sold, sure. I can say 'whatever', since UI mods are unlikely to get sold for consoles since Consoles are what the UI is designed for in the first place. (Assuming Beth doesn't intentionally screw things up so they can sell the correctional mods later, but that's another can of worms.) If they try to sell stuf on PC, it'll all just get pirated anyway.

Still, slopes can be quite slippery. Pray we don't trip.

[Flying Dice]

Doesn't make me wrong either. I was never arguing that was the sole definition, I've acknowledged there are other definitions since the beginning of this. I didn't feel the need to add the rest when it was beside my point, but I guess I should have anticipated the obvious nitpick.

Or they could be implying the dictionary definition of "vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause"? I understand that definition probably came from a dilution of the more violent meaning, but it is a completely normal thing to criticize someone's behavior as militant without implying that they are creating terrorist cells or something.

You argued that it was derived from "the more violent meaning" and yet at the same time suggested that it was could and should be used in explicitly nonviolent circumstances. You were the one to bring up definitions, you don't get to step back and say that that's nitpicking or pedantry just because someone called you out. Given that the word literally derives from "military service" and is still used today in reference to individuals actively engaged in warfare or other kinds of violence, I'd say that there are two possible conclusions to be drawn:

People who use "militant" to refer to people they disagree with or dislike are a) ignorant and misusing language then hiding behind a shield labelled "descriptivism", or b) know exactly what they're implying and use it as a smear to attack people they disagree with.

Hell, even in the civil rights we have a good example of "militant" being used in a way that's descriptive of behavior rather than an attack on individuals: during the course of the British feminist movement, militant feminists were the ones who were setting off bombs and physically attacking people. Nobody called the non-violent members of the movement militant unless they were trying to defame their character.

It's not as if there aren't perfectly good words that don't carry the connotations of violence. Heck, the definitions you cherrypicked were full of them: "aggressive", "extreme", &c. Or, as I prefer for "militant" atheists, "counterproductive assholes".

[forsaken1111]

Guild Wars 2 gets about the same amount of content every few months for free.

guild wars 2 gets most of its money selling silly stuff ingame. Wow sells a few mounts but its primary cash flow is subscription based rather than microtransactions

[Flying Dice]

Guild Wars 2 gets about the same amount of content every few months for free.

guild wars 2 gets most of its money selling silly stuff ingame. Wow sells a few mounts but its primary cash flow is subscription based rather than microtransactions

Yeesh, yeah. They've got the microtransactions down to an art. I knew a guildie who spent, no joke, something like $200 on dye packs.

[Sergius]

Doesn't make me wrong either. I was never arguing that was the sole definition, I've acknowledged there are other definitions since the beginning of this. I didn't feel the need to add the rest when it was beside my point, but I guess I should have anticipated the obvious nitpick.

Or they could be implying the dictionary definition of "vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause"? I understand that definition probably came from a dilution of the more violent meaning, but it is a completely normal thing to criticize someone's behavior as militant without implying that they are creating terrorist cells or something.

You argued that it was derived from "the more violent meaning" and yet at the same time suggested that it was could and should be used in explicitly nonviolent circumstances. You were the one to bring up definitions, you don't get to step back and say that that's nitpicking or pedantry just because someone called you out.

It's the second time in a week that someone declared "I'm done with your bullshit!" and stormed out slamming the door after a couple of posts that disagreed with them, I'm starting to thing there's something in the water or something.

[ShoesandHats]

^
This.

None of this is whatsoever relevant to the topic of the thread and it's getting unnecessarily heated.

[UXLZ]

One could almost say that they're getting.

*shades on*

Militant.


Do we actually have any concrete information on the size/scale of FO4's worldmap yet?

[AlleeCat]

Guild Wars 2 gets about the same amount of content every few months for free.

guild wars 2 gets most of its money selling silly stuff ingame. Wow sells a few mounts but its primary cash flow is subscription based rather than microtransactions

Yeesh, yeah. They've got the microtransactions down to an art. I knew a guildie who spent, no joke, something like $200 on dye packs.

Well if they make most of their money on subscriptions, why do they need to charge an extra $50 a year for an expansion.

[ShoesandHats]

Do we actually have any concrete information on the size/scale of FO4's worldmap yet?

There was an interview where (I think, at least) he said it was about as big as Skyrim's map minus the bigass unclimbable mountains blocking the way. We know it includes Concord, Boston (obviously), and it'll probably go at least as far north as Rockport judging by the inclusion of Motif #1 in the concept art. I don't know if there's any concrete evidence of how far south it'll go, but it seems likely that I495 will be used as a rough boundary, given what we know.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

One could almost say that they're getting.

*shades on*

Militant.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

snip

if the vocal, outraged group was the majority then very few people would buy the payed DLC (and sales for the game it's self would almost certainly be much worse) and the company would quickly drop the issue - there would be absolutely no need to get outraged at all - it would be a self correcting problem.

Instead we get literal death threats against mod makers to try and punish them and scare them into silence, because I think most of the vocally outraged people know that the truth is most gamers just don't care very much, and a significant number of them would support pay mods.

snip

If someone wants to pay extra for cheats, why do you care? Don't buy them, play the game normally, problem solved.

Yeah, buying cheats would be stupid as hell and I think people who bought them are kind of missing the point - but it's their money. Why do you feel like you have to deny them that chance just because you don't want to buy them?

Well, humoring you, because it ruins the well for everyone else.
It isn't just adding in extra paid mods, it's divvying up the community and putting some/many behind a price-tag.
That may be the modder's choice, but don't expect a warm welcome from your friends if you start demanding recompense for playing minecraft with them, or deleting your old building from the server town unless they pay up.

We're still really not interested in paid mods being introduced for FO4 either because if they don't implement it just right they'll undo the strengths established in their previous games' modding scenes.
Mainly by having a strong community based on cooperation and enthusiasm- that foundation will change with the introduction of profit.
It becomes a merchant-buyer interaction instead of friend-friend, fellow modders are competition, Bethesda could be a tool to bring to bear and when money's involved tempers get toxic. What were wishes and requests become expectations and demands. Threats and disputes follow.
I don't want it first & foremost because it will poison the community.
I've gotta go to bed, so if you wanted more specific forecasts/doomsayings/consequences you'll have to wait till I'm awake (and poke me) or find someone else for the time being.

Oh, and it isn't really self-correcting if it isn't very popular. It costs them nothing to start cashing in on mods, so we'd have to make a dent in their sales to make them unhappy. And the game is going to market so long before the paid mods it'll be difficult to both do that and connect it to the mod problem.
By the time the next opportunity arrives to show them our displeasure, the damage will be done.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

It's an analogy. And holy crap spoiler that wall-o-text. Now goodnight for reals.

[ShoesandHats]

Paid mods were introduced for Skyrim on April 23rd, about two years after the last DLC was released. Presumably, sales weren't great by that point. Sure, they're pretty much always okay for triple-A games, but I doubt too many people were getting it four years after the fact. Paid mods were then pulled five days later, I believe. I doubt paid mods made such a big impact on Skyrim's already mediocre sales within those five days that Bethesda were forced to remove them.

I'm not saying this won't be a bad thing for the modding community, it will, but we shouldn't get so worked up that we can't enjoy a game that we've been waiting for for five years. Besides, people will get mad. Probably madder than they were with Skyrim. Bethesda definitely took notice when people got mad there, so while they might not take it away fully again, they may tone it down significantly somehow.

[KingofstarrySkies]

People will get mad over literally anything. You could give them free DLC and they'll bitch and moan about it.