Print

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

[Neonivek]

How many people here even own a legal copy of Spore?

Id love to share my creations! such as my extensive supply of Space Faring creatures!

[Tormy]

How many people here even own a legal copy of Spore?

Id love to share my creations! such as my extensive supply of Space Faring creatures!

I had it, but it landed in the trashcan. Yes I was so disappointed by the game. 

[Hoborobo234]

I liked spore, I found it pleasing and fun, why do people hate it so much?

[Neonivek]

For most people, I said most not all, it is two things

1) Disapointment Factor: They thought Spore was something it wasn't. The shock makes them hate Spore.
2) DRM Hater: Some people hate the DRM to the point where they hate Spore.

After those you get into smaller groups of unimportance.

Mind you this is people who "Hate Spore" not people who dislike spore.

[Tormy]

I liked spore, I found it pleasing and fun, why do people hate it so much?

This ->

For most people, I said most not all, it is two things

1) Disapointment Factor: They thought Spore was something it wasn't. The shock makes them hate Spore.

[McDoomhammer]

If one pirates and then deletes, the company loses out, but only if everyone does this, which would mean it wasn't really worth the money they were charging for it and seems only fair- especially since you could take the view that they started it by going to such extremes to make sure they have your money before you can play. EA's actions really don't say that they trust their product very much.

So, assuming people no longer have to pay in advance, would the end result be better?  As far as I can tell, the larger developers would have to make their money via subscription payments/microtransactions through online play on servers (if that's more piracy-proof, I have no idea),  include a lot of advertising, move to consoles, or else they'd have to scrape by on whatever money people choose to bestow upon them (which seems to be what's being advocated above -- donationware pretty much).  I'm sure there are other options, but I'll take this as a starting point.

The donationware model works for me and DF, but I don't think it would work that well for a larger production.  Because of the uncertainty associated with relying on payments after the fact, I think even the high budget game producers that you do like (if any!) would completely desert the market (e.g. for one of the other options I listed above) rather than risk their time and money.

It isn't just about squeezing out mediocrity or games that you otherwise don't think deserve your money; even if you trust and believe in your project completely, you still have to respect the reality of the financial situation -- all the more so when you need to fund and organize a large-scale project prior to seeing a return.  What was Spore's budget?  How many people did they have on the project?  I don't see any company's investors green-lighting something like that if they have to rely on the honor system.

I dislike a lot of things that come out of the fixed-price pay-in-advance model, and many things that could be changed or aspired to, but compelled donationware seems even worse to me at this point.  There are examples of massive collaborative efforts that survive on that kind of support, but I'm not sure that setup would work as well for getting a reasonable and completed computer game out there -- again, I'm talking about high budget projects with lots of employees, not what comes out of the (thriving) independent scene.  I don't have a lot of examples of large collaborative donationware games, if there even are many, so I don't mean to overstate my vague feeling here.  Anyway, the reorganization required for such a system pretty much implies the destruction of every company out there, which isn't really the point.  The hypothetical situation here is just "don't charge for your games in advance", and I don't think that would work out very well.

Point.  My argument doesn't really offer practical alternatives.  I still feel, of course, that everyone would benefit if EA in particular would expend less time and money on bypassable anti-piracy measures which ultimately hinder only the honest paying customers, admit that there will never be a non-bypassable one, and instead focus those resources on making good games that more people will happily pay for.  But that's a rather unlikely, ideal-world situation.

I have realised one thing I left out, though- demos.  A big equaliser- I know I've bought games on the strength of a good demo before now.  Is there one for Spore?  Definitely not counting the creature creator, as you had to pay for that.  If not, then my respect for EA goes down another notch- they've found a way to make us pay through the nose even for that first taster.

[Neonivek]

My goodness... JUST when I thought we were actually going to speak about Spore... It just doesn't happen... WHY!!!

At this point I am finding myself using the Editors more then playing the game. I love making Space creatures because Civilisation and Tribal Creatures don't really show up too much while Space do a LOT!!! Some people who subscribed to me left me messages that their universe is controlled by my creatures. FAUNUS ATTACK!!!

My favorite phase is the Space phase... but the problem is that the point of "You are too pathetically weak" and "You are MUCH too strong" are too long while the point of "The Space phase is decently challenging" is too too short.

[Tormy]

I dislike a lot of things that come out of the fixed-price pay-in-advance model

Actually that is not too bad in certain cases. Take a look at Galciv2. for example. I would happily pay for yet another expansion. Why? Because I like the game, and that the given company [in this case: Stardock] deserves my money. Not to mention that these expansions are adding a lot new content to the game, improving the AI etc.
However in some other cases this is totally unacceptable to me. Spore is a good example. They just released this junk, and one addon is going to be released pretty soon already for 20$, and it will only contain some new creature parts.

I have realised one thing I left out, though- demos.  A big equaliser- I know I've bought games on the strength of a good demo before now.  Is there one for Spore?  Definitely not counting the creature creator, as you had to pay for that.  If not, then my respect for EA goes down another notch- they've found a way to make us pay through the nose even for that first taster.

Eh, creature creator is the best part in this junk. I am pretty sure, that MANY people have bought this game, just because they thought that the quality/fun factor of the game will be at least as good as the quality/fun factor of the creature creator. So EA was clever again, as usual. 

[McDoomhammer]

I dislike a lot of things that come out of the fixed-price pay-in-advance model

Actually that is not too bad in certain cases. Take a look at Galciv2. for example. I would happily pay for yet another expansion. Why? Because I like the game, and that the given company [in this case: Stardock] deserves my money. Not to mention that these expansions are adding a lot new content to the game, improving the AI etc.
However in some other cases this is totally unacceptable to me. Spore is a good example. They just released this junk, and one addon is going to be released pretty soon already for 20$, and it will only contain some new creature parts.

I'm going to try and give them thebenefit of the doubt until the addon is actually out.  But if it is nothing but creature parts and maybe minor tweaks?  Yeah, definitely unacceptable.  Okay, I haven't played it, but they've got people paying... what?  $20 for the creature creator, 40-50 for the game, and now 20 more for a shallow add-on, all within a few months?  More here, since video games tend to be more expensive in the UK.  Piracy is theft, but what they're doing is what my parents would call daylight robbery.

[Neonivek]

Personally one thing I disliked was the fact that all religious space races worshipped some guy called Spode (I really can't stand that name)

Personally one thing I wanted to do was find this Spode and unleash my Planet Buster (alright fine... Id love to have him as a buddy... but that is just my play style).

How do you feel about Spode?

[Tormy]

I dislike a lot of things that come out of the fixed-price pay-in-advance model

Actually that is not too bad in certain cases. Take a look at Galciv2. for example. I would happily pay for yet another expansion. Why? Because I like the game, and that the given company [in this case: Stardock] deserves my money. Not to mention that these expansions are adding a lot new content to the game, improving the AI etc.
However in some other cases this is totally unacceptable to me. Spore is a good example. They just released this junk, and one addon is going to be released pretty soon already for 20$, and it will only contain some new creature parts.

I'm going to try and give them thebenefit of the doubt until the addon is actually out.  But if it is nothing but creature parts and maybe minor tweaks?  Yeah, definitely unacceptable.  Okay, I haven't played it, but they've got people paying... what?  $20 for the creature creator, 40-50 for the game, and now 20 more for a shallow add-on, all within a few months?  More here, since video games tend to be more expensive in the UK.  Piracy is theft, but what they're doing is what my parents would call daylight robbery.

You know I absolutely agree. What EA is doing is robbery indeed. In the old days [many, many years ago] EA was one of my favourite companies. It's a shame that this company has changed in a very bad way.

[Hoborobo234]

This is the same with the Piracy thing, they don't want to protect the law, they just want money. I think EA have got power mad, as they know that the hypoe would make people rave and buy it, but after they bought it they could have the money.

[Gantolandon]

The donationware model works for me and DF, but I don't think it would work that well for a larger production.  Because of the uncertainty associated with relying on payments after the fact, I think even the high budget game producers that you do like (if any!) would completely desert the market (e.g. for one of the other options I listed above) rather than risk their time and money.

The standard model of distribution is perhaps more, but not ultimately certain. Game's financial success isn't certain. A programmer will have his salary, but the company can bankrupt if several games sell worse then they expected.

You have the point that there would be much harder for big companies to make money... but it could also mean they are just too big to be competitive on such terms. Your model of development have a big advantage: it doesn't rely on people's honesty or the copyright law. They pay because they want to see the game improved. I wouldn't call it an uncertain revenue, only if the game is developed and people still want to see it developed.

Dwarf Fortress is an unique case: it's hard to encourage somebody to play it (because of graphics and interface), but if someone manages to overcome these difficulties, he will most propably stay. The source of income is small but as steady as it could be. I don't know if any mainstream game could achieve that. The propability would propably grow with the game's originality and susceptibility to improvements. Spore could propably manage to earn money this way, FPS Shooter #002BF5 wouldn't even live to its second release.

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

I agree to the Ganto.
DF is unique that it is addicting... And the people which is addicted are those who want to sacrifice their money for continual development.

[Soulwynd]

How many people here even own a legal copy of Spore?

Id love to share my creations! such as my extensive supply of Space Faring creatures!

I do. Sadly.
http://www.spore.com/view/profile/Soulwynd