Real? Or early April Fools?

[lukeiamyourdad]

I didn't say it was so great as to offset the ~$1200 dollar expense of getting a gaming computer for everyone. However, it is great enough that there is benefit to the developer to make it moddable. Also, there's always the hope that your game might make it big like HL did.

 

Hope doesn't mean much when you're spending money on making a game. They usually need certainty.

There is some benefits, no denying that, but I do not believe it to be as good as you make it sound. There are exceptional cases, which stay exceptional.

 

My point is still good. If modding impact was so great as to litteraly sell more games to the "common" gamer, why doesn't PC gaming have a bigger market share? If mods were so popular, why wouldn't companies allow better modding for consoles? If it helped the PC games that much, it must surely do so for the consoles too.

 

I don't know any PC gamer that doesn't. If they didn't at one time, I corrected their mistake and they like them now, very much so.

 

You don't know any. Doesn't mean that everyone else in the world is like that. PC gamers here, are not only the fanatics that say "Heil PC!" to piss off console user. They're also the "common" PC gamers, which don't know too much about mods, except for the really popular ones.

 

 

Imagine that. Some people like some mods, some like others. They're meant to be specific to an interest group; it's not like most mods are TCs.

 

That's not at all what I meant. Most mods, in general, are not that popular or well known outside of specific gaming circles (ie. gaming forums). The general populace don't really know about them.

 

I personally buy games because of mods. I heard that Homeworld had an awesome SW mod, so I bought that. When HW2 came out I bought that as well, largely because of my experience with the mods available and personally modding the original (which was as fun as the game itself, I might add). You keep your customers happy you will have return business. Relic kept me quite happy, and they did get my business again.

 

I highlighted the important part of this quote. You're seeing things too much on a personal level. You must look beyond your eight by eight cell, ask question to the common man, meet people who are just occasional gamers. We, as hardcore gamers, know more about the available mods and other elements of gaming that seem well known but aren't.

 

One great exemple is the number of casual gamers who buy MMORPGs without knowing that there's a monthly fee. These guys do play video games, do have fun with them, but are not informed on the subject matter more then they need to. If such a casual gamer does not know such a well known fact among hardcores, do they know about mods?

[RoxStar]

Most don't. Of course, we could take some examples of heavily modded games and say that's how everything is but I don't think so. If the effect of modding is so great, we'd see PC gaming would dominate.

 

PC Gaming isn't "dominating" because most people are ignorant of it and rely of consoles for their gaming needs, because they are the simplest to "get into".

[lukeiamyourdad]

PC Gaming isn't "dominating" because most people are ignorant of it and rely of consoles for their gaming needs, because they are the simplest to "get into".

 

 

That kills my point how? I do know this, but if the impact of mods were so important, how come it doesn't dominate since it's the only mod friendly platform?

[Samuel Dravis]

Hope doesn't mean much when you're spending money on making a game. They usually need certainty.

There is some benefits, no denying that, but I do not believe it to be as good as you make it sound. There are exceptional cases, which stay exceptional.

As far as certaintly goes, there is no such thing. Many games are very bad, and no doubt they too had a surefire way to make money. I'm not saying that mods will sell a game, but they'll generate goodwill, and that will sell a game.

 

My point is still good. If modding impact was so great as to litteraly sell more games to the "common" gamer, why doesn't PC gaming have a bigger market share? If mods were so popular, why wouldn't companies allow better modding for consoles? If it helped the PC games that much, it must surely do so for the consoles too.

I've already admitted that PC gaming is harder to get into than consoles. Many people that play consoles aren't looking for extended play time - it's just for the odd moment they have to play. Ever wonder why there's so many fighting and racing games etc., and very few good 40+ hour games for consoles? I'd say that's why. By their nature they are social, quick to pick up and quick to put down again.

 

My only point was that it is indeed beneficial to developers to allow modding, and it doesn't even require that much effort. If they've been doing their jobs right they already have almost everything easily extensible anyway.

 

You don't know any. Doesn't mean that everyone else in the world is like that. PC gamers here, are not only the fanatics that say "Heil PC!" to piss off console user. They're also the "common" PC gamers, which don't know too much about mods, except for the really popular ones.

Eh, so? If they've heard of them they've heard of them. If they haven't they will eventually, especially if they go to portal sites.

 

Besides, with Vista I'm wondering what the distinction between PC gamer and console gamer will be, save for controls. Pop the disc in and away it goes, no installing anything...

 

That's not at all what I meant. Most mods, in general, are not that popular or well known outside of specific gaming circles (ie. gaming forums). The general populace don't really know about them.

Sure, I agree with you. That doesn't make them irrelevant to the developer though. Should you have enough mods, that adds up to a lot of people. A lot of happy people.

 

Note that a lot of happy people is a very good thing. See Serenity's example. A lot of happy people bought the DVD. The general populace doesn't care about it; only the people who know do. So what if they don't care? Mass opinion is not what's selling Serenity. A fanbase is. Mods generate fanbase for games, no question.

 

I highlighted the important part of this quote. You're seeing things too much on a personal level. You must look beyond your eight by eight cell, ask question to the common man, meet people who are just occasional gamers. We, as hardcore gamers, know more about the available mods and other elements of gaming that seem well known but aren't.

Um, so why is our opinion irrelevant to the developer? We buy games too you know.

 

One great exemple is the number of casual gamers who buy MMORPGs without knowing that there's a monthly fee. These guys do play video games, do have fun with them, but are not informed on the subject matter more then they need to. If such a casual gamer does not know such a well known fact among hardcores, do they know about mods?

These guys are often the ones with the consoles, which don't have much modding capability and therefore they wouldn't have any reason to know of it. How to explain sight to the blind man, so to speak. However, if you play PC games, eventually you'll notice that games are made up of files, and files can be edited... and you might think it'd be great fun to do so.

[TiE23]

I think if i was at FASA i'd have a heart attack :s pretty similar looking mechs if u ask me.

Yes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKd9iWr5NNY

That look familiar?

 

http://www.solaris7.com/files/members/61/vult_mkii.jpg

 

It's a Vulture, heavy weight mech with **** loads of LRM.

[Mike Windu]

You know... I honestly don't see feasible use for mechs in real warfare... unless they were mobile dolls.

 

I mean, who wants to be a really really slow walking machine with a few cannons and machine guns that could easily be blown apart by artillery and then in the middle of combat... by tanks and rpgs?

 

Anyway, sucks that EA is announcing another game so soon instead of focusing on BF2, but I won't lose any sleep over it.

[Nalukai]

that has NOTHING to do with BF it is the new seris of the MECHWARRIOR titles... seen this 3 weeks ago.......

[Samuel Dravis]

It was on my PCGamer CD as Battlefield 2142. They would not put a false name for the video in that, I think.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Of course not, but for once that they do it right, nobody gives them a bit of credit, just because it's EA. I'm not an EA fan, I just hate bashing for the sake of it.

I don't think this is doing it right, which is why I bash EA.

 

Hey, for once that they're innovating, all must bash EA.

With respect (unless I misunderstood you), there's nothing innnovating about a scenario with a doomed Earth with survivors bound to fight over the little that's left - using those silly two-legged mechs that no army in reality would be dumb enough to use. I've seen the concept a billion times before.

[toms]

It does look rather generic... but on the other hand it is a bit of a risk to move a series that has been grounded in "reality" into a more fantastical setting - as its sure to upset a few fans. Then again, all the modern/ww2 settings have been getting rather annoying recently.

 

Shame they couldn't have come up with a slightly more original setting though.

 

The army is definately keen on having mechs (remember that vid of the robot mule?) purely because, if they work right, they would be much better over uneven terrain. I'm not sure tall two, legged ones would be the most practical way to go though - i'd have thought lower 4-6 legged spider tanks would be more practical (with wheels to move fast on smoother terrain).

[Dagobahn Eagle]

The army is definately keen on having mechs (remember that vid of the robot mule?) purely because, if they work right, they would be much better over uneven terrain. I'm not sure tall two, legged ones would be the most practical way to go though - i'd have thought lower 4-6 legged spider tanks would be more practical (with wheels to move fast on smoother terrain).

Robots in warfare? Definetly. I read an article about it in a science magazine, actually (and let's not forget the U.A.V. and the other thingies that are already being used in reality:p). Two-legged robots in warfare? Definetly not.

 

ever see the movie, Day After Tommorrow?

No. If I want pseudo-science and nonsense I'll go read some of Jack Chick's comics.

[Samuel Dravis]

No. If I want pseudo-science and nonsense I'll go read some of Jack Chick's comics.

Chick tracts have started using pseudoscience? That's a new one... I thought they were all just like "You are a SINNAR!" - no science required.

 

Anyway, The Day After Tomorrow was a decent show. You should try it. I don't think that the two legged mechs are that great either. Wouldn't people just shoot at the windshield or knock them over? I seem to remember a few AT-STs getting wiped out by some logs and rope.

[Mike Windu]

Ah, the lessons that can be learned from Star Wars...

[The Seeker]

True but by that logic, a teddy bear can take an arrow that has no fletchings and a stick that hasn't been worked into a proper bow, and manage to accurately pierce through armor designed to repel physical attacks. Ahhhh, George Lucas and his canon inconsistensies.

 

Anyway, yeah, two legged mechs may look cool, but are about as impractical as say a featherless arrow with an unworked stick and string

[lukeiamyourdad]

As far as certaintly goes, there is no such thing. Many games are very bad, and no doubt they too had a surefire way to make money. I'm not saying that mods will sell a game, but they'll generate goodwill, and that will sell a game.

 

You're not saying that mods will sell a game but mods will sell a game by ricochet? It's basically the same thing...

 

I've already admitted that PC gaming is harder to get into than consoles. Many people that play consoles aren't looking for extended play time - it's just for the odd moment they have to play. Ever wonder why there's so many fighting and racing games etc., and very few good 40+ hour games for consoles? I'd say that's why. By their nature they are social, quick to pick up and quick to put down again.

 

So many fighting games and racing games? Are you sure you're up-to-date here? What does it have to do with consoles not having a lot of mods anyway? It doesn't take a 40 hours game to have mods, a shorter game could also.

 

 

My only point was that it is indeed beneficial to developers to allow modding, and it doesn't even require that much effort. If they've been doing their jobs right they already have almost everything easily extensible anyway.

 

On consoles? On PC perhaps, but on consoles it isn't and considering the size of the markets, had mods been that important as to boost profit, it should have taken a more important role by now.

 

 

Eh, so? If they've heard of them they've heard of them. If they haven't they will eventually, especially if they go to portal sites.

 

How do you know that they will hear of them? A principe of marketing is to draw the buyer into knowing your product. If there is nothing to draw them to and marketing relies on buyers suddenly finding said product, how do you expect them to hit a lot of people?

If so, then how can mods be truly that popular as to boost profit?

 

 

Besides, with Vista I'm wondering what the distinction between PC gamer and console gamer will be, save for controls. Pop the disc in and away it goes, no installing anything...

 

Doesn't have anything to do with the subject.

 

Sure, I agree with you. That doesn't make them irrelevant to the developer though. Should you have enough mods, that adds up to a lot of people. A lot of happy people.

 

No, those people already have the game. What they want is to sell to those who don't have the game. True enough that those happy people could tell their friends of how good x-game's mods is, but that's hardly anything to work on. The general populace prefers to fork out $40 for a game, not for mods. What I mean is that the original game is what they do want to sell and that most people, in general, don't buy a game for mods, but a game for itself.

 

 

Note that a lot of happy people is a very good thing. See Serenity's example. A lot of happy people bought the DVD. The general populace doesn't care about it; only the people who know do. So what if they don't care? Mass opinion is not what's selling Serenity. A fanbase is. Mods generate fanbase for games, no question.

 

Of course not, but Serenity didn't break any records or had incredible profits. This is not what companies aim for. Josh Wheedon wanted to prove that he could do it, aimed for a niche market and managed to gain success in said market.

However, that isn't relevent to everything. Companies usually don't aim for niche markets anymore (see the decline of point-and-click adventure games and the RTS).

 

Um, so why is our opinion irrelevant to the developer? We buy games too you know.

 

Because we do not represent the largest part of their market. Look at games like BFME or SW:BF 1. Fans and hardcores complained about a lot of things. Did it matter? No. They sold very well and then moved on to make sequels, which in the case of Battlefront, managed to outsell its predecessor even with the resistance of the hardcore community.

 

These guys are often the ones with the consoles, which don't have much modding capability and therefore they wouldn't have any reason to know of it. How to explain sight to the blind man, so to speak. However, if you play PC games, eventually you'll notice that games are made up of files, and files can be edited... and you might think it'd be great fun to do so.

 

Actually, no, they aren't. They do play console games, but they have a decent PC and they do play PC games. They just don't go deeper then they need to.

As for realizing that a game is made up of files, I think they all do, but couldn't be bothered to do anything with it, not having the capabilities of editing those files.

 

I don't think this is doing it right, which is why I bash EA.

 

How? You have not answered fully.

 

 

With respect (unless I misunderstood you), there's nothing innnovating about a scenario with a doomed Earth with survivors bound to fight over the little that's left - using those silly two-legged mechs that no army in reality would be dumb enough to use. I've seen the concept a billion times before.

 

The scenario is nothing new, that's totally true, but what is new these days? Hell, the same could be said about previous Battlefield games. "WWII is not original, the Vietnam war was already done before and modern combat has also been the subject of many games."

 

The Battlefield games were not innovating from a story or subject matter standpoint but rather on a gameplay point. Even if it's something old, they take it and they do it well or better.