Print

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

[Micro102]

So you need to be forced to do sandbox things in order for a game to be a sandbox?

Also, recruit guys from villages. Just wait till you get nord hurscarls XD

[SalmonGod]

SUPER SADNESS: And only recruit explicitly defined named people 

I do wish the game would allow the dynamic emergence of unique characters besides those they manually wrote in.  Like if a specific unit manages to do a lot of cool stuff, the game could generate a unique name for them and start treating them like one of your companions.

[freeformschooler]

So you need to be forced to do sandbox things in order for a game to be a sandbox?

Not forced, just able to. See: Oblivion, which while not necessarily a good game, allowed you to travel the world on-foot sandbox style AND through fast travel, by choice.

SUPER SADNESS: And only recruit explicitly defined named people 

I do wish the game would allow the dynamic emergence of unique characters besides those they manually wrote in.  Like if a specific unit manages to do a lot of cool stuff, the game could generate a unique name for them and start treating them like one of your companions.

Well, it's alright anyway. If I play it as a paradox RTS/strategy style game with cool first/third person combat I'm not entirely disappointed.

[Flare]

Like I said, actions speak louder than words, and from that point of view even the developers agree. Given that they, y'know, continued to develop it. I really don't see how you can rationalize your way around that fact.

Lets go over this again. If I bought the first Dawn of War game as a beta player would I be entitled to the rest of the sequels like Winter Assault, Dark Crusade, and Soul Storm? From all intents and purposes, Relic continued to develop it, but I don't think any of us would say that I would be justified in claiming that.

I am also not trying to rationalize that fact, I am pointing out that you are inconsistent if you hold that any sort of sequel is fine even if it uses many of the aspects of the first game so much so that it is almost like the first game, but make the distinction that this game doesn't do that just because it let you partake in the beta of the first game. If you condemn this game for doing this, which is not a problem, but to do so and be consistent, you must also condemn every game that ever had a sequel. This I imagine, is not a reasonable position to take up.

Your claim that actions speak louder than words only work if you assume the points that I am attacking, repeating that without addressing the arguments of why the assumptions that the conclusion takes on doesn't not justify them.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Flare, your point is moot because Armagan said "once you buy Mount and Blade you'll have ALL future versions of the game and we plan on doing all of this".

Whoops, Warband. Whoops, we'll release our current buggy mess as version 1.0 because lolpublishers.

So we were lied to, that's cool, but you can't argue that it's not what Armagan said, because he did say it.

[Sordid]

Like I said, actions speak louder than words, and from that point of view even the developers agree. Given that they, y'know, continued to develop it. I really don't see how you can rationalize your way around that fact.

Lets go over this again. If I bought the first Dawn of War game as a beta player would I be entitled to the rest of the sequels like Winter Assault, Dark Crusade, and Soul Storm? From all intents and purposes, Relic continued to develop it, but I don't think any of us would say that I would be justified in claiming that.

If they had said that you're buying not only the product as it is but also all the future versions of it as well, which TW did, then yes.

I am also not trying to rationalize that fact. I am pointing out that you are inconsistent if you hold that any sort of sequel is fine even if it uses many of the aspects of the first game so much so that it is almost like the first game, but make the distinction that this game doesn't do that just because it let you partake in the beta of the first game. If you condemn this game for doing this, which is not a problem, but to do so and be consistent, you must also condemn every game that ever had a sequel. This I imagine, is not a reasonable position to take up.

Your claim that actions speak louder than words only work if you assume the points that I am attacking, repeating that without addressing the arguments of why the assumptions that the conclusion takes on doesn't not justify them.

Yes, that would be ludicrous for most games, but not this one. See, the crucial fact that you're missing (or perhaps deliberately ignoring) is that whereas most games sell as they are at the moment, TW sold M&B and all future versions of it. In other words, I didn't make that distinction, they did. No inconsistency on my part. It is your position that is in fact based on an unfounded assumption, namely that M&B had the same business model as mainstream games. It didn't.

[Flare]

Flare, your point is moot because Armagan said "once you buy Mount and Blade you'll have ALL future versions of the game and we plan on doing all of this".

Whoops, Warband. Whoops, we'll release our current buggy mess as version 1.0 because lolpublishers.

So we were lied to, that's cool, but you can't argue that it's not what Armagan said, because he did say it.

I seem to recall the website saying something like that, but present searching of the interwebs only comes up with this guy's guide: http://dlh.net/cheats/pc/english/mount+and+blade/guide.html not the main dev himself.

If you go back further on the website, a la here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070314011225/http://www.taleworlds.com/mb_buy.html

"Q: Will my serial key work for updated versions of Mount&Blade?
A: Absolutely. We actively maintain Mount&Blade and we will release new versions with added content and updates frequently. Your serial key will work with these updated versions. Just install the updated version on your computer and run. The game should recognize your serial key."

"When you buy a license, you will obtain a serial key. That serial key will activate the current version as well as all updated versions of Mount&Blade. You will not have to pay anything again."

There are two interpretations available as the clause here is ambiguous. The first interpretation is yours: if they ever work on anything resembling the game again, you'll get it for free. The second one is once the game is released, you won't have to pay for the game again in terms of the version.

Add on top of this is the ambiguity of what is meant by "you will not have to pay anything again". Is this clause supposed to be in the context of allaying some fears of obligations to pay once more once the game enters release, that you'll never have to pay again for anything using the M&B engine and settings, or that you'll never have to pay again in the sense that you won't be legally obligated to buy the finished game again but you won't be able to play it in it's finished state without paying?

If they had said that you're buying not only the product as it is but also all the future versions of it as well, which TW did, then yes.

What could they have said that would be necessary to convey the fact that the versions are only going to the release of the game, and not every future thing that the devs use the engine and setting for? I don't even think that's possible with the way you're interpreting the words of the contract.

Yes, that would be ludicrous for most games, but not this one. See, the crucial fact that you're missing (or perhaps deliberately ignoring) is that whereas most games sell as they are at the moment, TW sold M&B and all future versions of it. In other words, I didn't make that distinction, they did. No inconsistency on my part. It is your position that is in fact based on an unfounded assumption, namely that M&B had the same business model as mainstream games. It didn't.

I think you did make the distinction, what they meant, obviously meant differently to you. The obvious question here is "versions of what?". Does that word mean the game as envisioned at the point of purchase by the developer has come to fruition, the game as understood as something that is complete in the sense of the Harry Potter or Dune series is "complete" with t's "final chapters", or complete in the sense of this specific installment?
Without having inquired into the meaning of those clauses and those terms prior to the contract, I don't think a person can say that they've been honestly cheated. It was a mistake in interpretation and the ambiguity of the clause.

It's like the boat buyer interpreting what "finished" means when the ship wright promised to finish the boat and let the buyer take the unfinished versions of the boat out. Maybe the ship wright should have made the terms clear, but also on the flip side, maybe it's the boat buyer that should have inquired into what those terms he or she was agreeing to meant.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Well, I'm just saying my interpretation is such because as a beta tester of Mount and Blade, Armagan told us that what we were paying for would continue to be supported until his vision was fulfilled and that we wouldn't have to pay for anything M&B related again, as we bought the game when Taleworlds had no money and was struggling to find a publisher.

This was the common interpretation all over the old forums.

But of course M&B: Warband is a completely different game. You know.

I'm not sticking around to argue semantics, but having been around M&B since 2004, I feel as though I have an understanding of what was promised and what was delivered. And although I love Mount and Blade, I will call an outright change of position by the devs and going back on their promises as I have seen it.

EDIT: I mean, seriously, are you arguing just to argue? A bunch of us here on bay12 were beta testers for M&B. It's fairly obvious what happened and the sentiment is by no means unique.

[olemars]

Flare, your point is moot because Armagan said "once you buy Mount and Blade you'll have ALL future versions of the game and we plan on doing all of this".

Whoops, Warband. Whoops, we'll release our current buggy mess as version 1.0 because lolpublishers.

So we were lied to, that's cool, but you can't argue that it's not what Armagan said, because he did say it.

It's a case of reality catching up with the developer, not lying. This happens in most new software projects. I was a volunteer tester for Eve-online during their alpha and beta process, and they probably cut out half the things they at various points said they wanted to inlcude at launch. Some of the things were even implemented and then removed because they either bumped the requirements too high or were too hard to integrate properly with the rest of the gameplay. early missiles were far cooler than what ended up in the game eventually for instance.

If I were to develop an indie game, I would be wary about going for the pre-purchase model because of the inevitable shitstorm it creates. Both M&B and Minecraft has had this happen.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Yes, that's what I'm saying, and that's why I'm not seriously put out over it.

In this case, it was all a publishing issue. Taleworlds struggled for years to find a distributer, and as soon as they found a publisher, the obviously buggy version 1.0 was released.

At the time of published release, the previous version .960 was much more stable. In fact, many of the diehard forumites were wondering if M&B was going to be a commercial flop, as the sales were quite low.

Luckily digital distribution such as steam saved paradox/Taleworlds.

[Grakelin]

I must say, a lively and interesting debate. I will not throw in my two cents, because I was an impartial observer to this. But I will say that, up until Flare's most recent post, I had been siding with Team Corrupt on this one. Then, when I saw what the text actually said, I started to think "Actually, that's pretty reasonable". After all, the creators are Turkish, meaning English is not their first language. The game is also internationally popular, especially among Eastern Europeans who often communicate using the "almost-English" writing we see all over the TaleWorlds forums (go look, you'll see what I mean. Especially the Brytenwalda Subforum. What the hell? I want to assume they turn to languages they have more mastery in when they are collaborating, but I saw another forum once where everybody spoke a different, non-English, native language, and the results were similar. It's amazing how they can actually get material out).

It is entirely plausible that Yavuz simply said something to the extent of "Yeah, don't worry, you won't have to buy the game again after Beta is complete, and every time we patch, you will of course be able to download the latest version with your serial key", and, because of the communication barrier, was heard as "Mount and Blade will always be free to you, my chosen children". Remember that, at the time, neither he nor his wife had Warband in mind. They probably danced for joy when they realized they could live the rest of their lives selling just this game.

Not to say that repackaging the same game and selling it over and over again, especially with all the little frustrating flaws present that aren't addressed, isn't disreputable, but I'm not sure they are necessarily doing that. I was set to say they were, but when I thought about it, I realized that Warband added multiplayer, which was actually incredibly revolutionary to Mount & Blade, both for vanilla and modded play. WFAS was a disaster, though. I am actually not entirely sure why they thought selling the same game over again was a good idea. Paradox Interactive has always made its keep through word of mouth advertising. When people hear about how great M&B is, they're going to buy WFAS, get shot in the face, see how few people there are on the servers, and then never come back to the company. Better they give us things we might want. Maybe some sort of jousting system, along with additional improvements to tournaments? Maybe building more on the engine to allow for more political intrigue? Improvements to the AI to generate better battles (maybe more akin to some of the intense duels we sometimes see online)? I would pay for another M&B that packaged these elements. The first two would be timely as well because of the Game of Thrones craze.

[Sordid]

If they had said that you're buying not only the product as it is but also all the future versions of it as well, which TW did, then yes.

What could they have said that would be necessary to convey the fact that the versions are only going to the release of the game, and not every future thing that the devs use the engine and setting for? I don't even think that's possible with the way you're interpreting the words of the contract.

I don't think that's my problem at all.

I think you did make the distinction, what they meant, obviously meant differently to you. The obvious question here is "versions of what?". Does that word mean the game as envisioned at the point of purchase by the developer has come to fruition, the game as understood as something that is complete in the sense of the Harry Potter or Dune series is "complete" with t's "final chapters", or complete in the sense of this specific installment?
Without having inquired into the meaning of those clauses and those terms prior to the contract, I don't think a person can say that they've been honestly cheated. It was a mistake in interpretation and the ambiguity of the clause.

It's like the boat buyer interpreting what "finished" means when the ship wright promised to finish the boat and let the buyer take the unfinished versions of the boat out. Maybe the ship wright should have made the terms clear, but also on the flip side, maybe it's the boat buyer that should have inquired into what those terms he or she was agreeing to meant.

There is a commonly accepted standard for what "finished" means, both in maritime construction and software development, and I don't think a reasonable person could objectively look at M&B and Warband and see the latter as anything more than the former with a bit of spit and polish.

Warband added multiplayer, which was actually incredibly revolutionary to Mount & Blade, both for vanilla and modded play.

Yeah, that is the only really significant change that WB did to M&B. All the rest is cosmetic stuff and/or stuff that M&B could do perfectly well but the devs couldn't be bothered to put in (eg. normal-mapped armor; M&B supports that, the only reason M&B armor isn't normal-mapped is because the devs couldn't be arsed to make the normal maps). I don't think the addition of multiplayer is enough to warrant calling WB a sequel. That's the kind of thing patches are for.

[Flare]

Well, I'm just saying my interpretation is such because as a beta tester of Mount and Blade, Armagan told us that what we were paying for would continue to be supported until his vision was fulfilled and that we wouldn't have to pay for anything M&B related again, as we bought the game when Taleworlds had no money and was struggling to find a publisher.

This was the common interpretation all over the old forums.

But of course M&B: Warband is a completely different game. You know.

I'm not sticking around to argue semantics, but having been around M&B since 2004, I feel as though I have an understanding of what was promised and what was delivered. And although I love Mount and Blade, I will call an outright change of position by the devs and going back on their promises as I have seen it.

I've looked into this a bit, and you are absolutely correct in that it very much seems like most of the forum members think that it was the case. In threads where a person was asking whether or not they would have to buy the key again, though I have yet to find one with Armagan explicitly saying that all future content regardless of sequels will be available, I have found a lot of forum members there that did reassure said people as if all development be included in the beta purchase. With the exception of that Archonsod guy, I don't know the opinion of the rest of the admins though.

EDIT: I mean, seriously, are you arguing just to argue? A bunch of us here on bay12 were beta testers for M&B. It's fairly obvious what happened and the sentiment is by no means unique.

Not really. I think this case offers up a lot of food for thought. Being that it is the first game that I know of that went with this sort of distribution method, it sets a precedent and expectations of what to expect from this sort of method. The really interesting thing about this though, are the complaints. On the face of it, the reasons they bring up genuinely sound like the justifications and reasons given in cases involving lawsuits and litigation. And with this sort of transaction method not having any sort of precedent at all, there really aren't any examples that anyone can point to that fits well. The push and pull between who gets to decide when the game is actually finished or if there is even a point where a game can be called finished forever and ever is mind boggling. From that issue is whether the certain clauses are unconscionable. A developer being bound to never develop on top of one of its own games again by it's own contract indirectly is a very odd scenario.

@Grakelin

I personally think his English is fine, the miscommunication could have happened to many people not careful about the contract and their future projects. It's probably expected given the new nature of this sort of transaction, there really isn't anything, so far as I know of (which is very little), in the software world where as many people participated in one. The only other ones are SPAZ, MineCraft, Starfarer, and Terraria IIRC, and those haven't gotten to the point where the devs have finished the original game and have begun working on a new, yet still similar game. Only time can tell whether they or their customers will refer back to this case to back up their justifications.

If they had said that you're buying not only the product as it is but also all the future versions of it as well, which TW did, then yes.

What could they have said that would be necessary to convey the fact that the versions are only going to the release of the game, and not every future thing that the devs use the engine and setting for? I don't even think that's possible with the way you're interpreting the words of the contract.

I don't think that's my problem at all.

Isn't it? If your claims are right, then the devs would be morally obligated to abandon the engine and the setting the moment they released the first game, or at least finish their patches with it. To do otherwise would be fiscally irresponsible as they would be doing something without pay. When is the game "finished" according to you? When the developer says it is, when the consumer says it is, when some objective metaphysical line has been crossed, or does the word "finish" really mean they won't develop it ever again after the release?

I think this whole conundrum lies on is the perception of what complete or finished means. I think it would be more reasonable to request that the product in question moves past the line of basic functionality in the liberal sense, and call the region past this line the realm of finished products rather than associating finished and completeness with achieving absolute perfection. This is all the more pertinent, in that the terms of the agreement weren't clear, with that being the case, it is most certainly unreasonable to demand the most liberal interpretation of the words in favor of one party.

There is a commonly accepted standard for what "finished" means, both in maritime construction and software development, and I don't think a reasonable person could objectively look at M&B and Warband and see the latter as anything more than the former with a bit of spit and polish.

There is a commonly accepted standard for what finished means in every industry, yes. For this case however, what finished entails means two very different things to two groups of people. They arguably finished the installment in a series. There are bugs in the release, but the distinction here is more or less whether these bugs make it a bad or good game, not whether one is finished.

Take this for example, the ship wright having accepted the contract with a vague and unsure idea of how the end product will look like, comes up with additional ideas for the same basic ship design in the middle of developing the boat. The end product of the agreement wasn't very good, maybe the ship turned to port in a very sluggish manner, and the steering wheel gets stuck on occasion. Nevertheless, the ship wright put out a better version of the boat after completing the old one, one in which the basic skeletal structure was used, as well as the materials, and possibly even with the same paint because she is in fact a very tacky ship wright.

At this stage, if the former boat buyer complained that he didn't get the finished product, there would be one or two possibilities I think. Either the boat he has will be seen as a complete and finished boat, albeit one that doesn't function very well, and the ship wright is obligated to repair it, or two, the boat buyer gets nothing because he never inquired into the specifics of the contract, he could not claim that the boat is not finished insomuch as a boat was delivered as for the rudimentary outline of the contract. As long as the ship wright isn't telepathic, one can't expect her to know what finish meant to the consumer. Te ship building might face claims that the ship she built was dysfunctional to a certain degree, but she did build a finished ship and deliver it nonetheless.

[Micro102]

Not forced, just able to. See: Oblivion, which while not necessarily a good game, allowed you to travel the world on-foot sandbox style AND through fast travel, by choice.

But you can travel everywhere in a city on foot. All the buildings form the quick menu have doors in the city, and all the shops are there too.

[Sordid]

Isn't it? If your claims are right, then the devs would be morally obligated to abandon the engine and the setting the moment they released the first game, or at least finish their patches with it. To do otherwise would be fiscally irresponsible as they would be doing something without pay. When is the game "finished" according to you? When the developer says it is, when the consumer says it is, when some objective metaphysical line has been crossed, or does the word "finish" really mean they won't develop it ever again after the release?

How about a criterion that you didn't include in your list: When the goals set in the design document are fulfilled. Of course there's the slight problem that M&B didn't have a design document, or only an extremely vague one, and the devs went into it with only a vague pie-in-the-sky idea of what they wanted the game to be (as evidenced by the fact that the early versions feature elements wildly out of tune with the finished product, such as hints of a storyline and zombies).
So given that that's out the window, let's examine the options that you do give:
When the dev says so - We don't want that, because then they'll do exactly what TW did, declare it finished halfway through and make people pay twice.
When the customer says so - Above in reverse, we don't want developer enslavement to customers either.
Metaphysical line - No idea what that might be.
Finished = not developed any further - Seems reasonable to me, and by this criterion M&B was indeed declared finished prematurely, as evidenced by WB being a further development of it. So as far as I can tell, you're agreeing with me.

I think this whole conundrum lies on is the perception of what complete or finished means. I think it would be more reasonable to request that the product in question moves past the line of basic functionality in the liberal sense, and call the region past this line the realm of finished products rather than associating finished and completeness with achieving absolute perfection.

Again with the straw men. I never said anything about attaining perfection.

This is all the more pertinent, in that the terms of the agreement weren't clear, with that being the case, it is most certainly unreasonable to demand the most liberal interpretation of the words in favor of one party.

Yet that's exactly what TW did, only on the opposite, "it's finished because we said so" end of the scale. So thank you for agreeing with me again.

There is a commonly accepted standard for what finished means in every industry, yes. For this case however, what finished entails means two very different things to two groups of people. They arguably finished the installment in a series. There are bugs in the release, but the distinction here is more or less whether these bugs make it a bad or good game, not whether one is finished.

Take this for example, the ship wright having accepted the contract with a vague and unsure idea of how the end product will look like, comes up with additional ideas for the same basic ship design in the middle of developing the boat. The end product of the agreement wasn't very good, maybe the ship turned to port in a very sluggish manner, and the steering wheel gets stuck on occasion. Nevertheless, the ship wright put out a better version of the boat after completing the old one, one in which the basic skeletal structure was used, as well as the materials, and possibly even with the same paint because she is in fact a very tacky ship wright.

At this stage, if the former boat buyer complained that he didn't get the finished product, there would be one or two possibilities I think. Either the boat he has will be seen as a complete and finished boat, albeit one that doesn't function very well, and the ship wright is obligated to repair it, or two, the boat buyer gets nothing because he never inquired into the specifics of the contract, he could not claim that the boat is not finished insomuch as a boat was delivered as for the rudimentary outline of the contract. As long as the ship wright isn't telepathic, one can't expect her to know what finish meant to the consumer. Te ship building might face claims that the ship she built was dysfunctional to a certain degree, but she did build a finished ship and deliver it nonetheless.

I don't see how that is relevant in any way. WB isn't a bugfix, it has new features and content.