Zippy's Thread

[zippy1]

82% of people playing Demigod on the day it launched pirated the game.

Where's that number from?

He pulled it out of thin air.

On a related note, 62.4% of all statistics lie.

Oops! I was wrong. It wasn't 82%.

It was 88%.

It's like you guys are so desperate to disagree with me that you'll actually try and say that there isn't more piracy on the PC than on consoles.

Actually, that's exactly what you're doing.

As far as Crytek focusing on consoles: Crytek Shifting to Console Focus. Their latest engine demo was Cryengine 3, which wasn't graphically more advanced than Cryengine 2 but did manage to deliver similar caliber visuals on the PS3 and 360. Need me to source that one too, or can you figure out the google search terms to see the video yourself? (hint: try searching for "cryengine 3")

As far as modding a 360: most people can't and won't do that themselves. Few even know it can be done. On the PC side, everyone knows about file sharing. This is common knowledge, and even computer illiterate people can stumble around in the dark and get a copy of a game, install it, and copy the crack over. Most of them wouldn't know the first thing about opening a 360. (No, it does not involve undoing screws.)

 

[UncannyGarlic]

On a related note, 62.4% of all statistics lie.

Hahah, yeah...

Oops! I was wrong. It wasn't 82%.

It was 88%.

Bummer, I like Stardock for their lack of DRM. Still, I'm always skeptical of these numbers with dynamic IPs and people restarting games. Still, that's not good news but it's still a micro-chasm.

 

[zippy1]

Bummer, I like Stardock for their lack of DRM. Still, I'm always skeptical of these numbers with dynamic IPs and people restarting games. Still, that's not good news but it's still a micro-chasm.

Microcosm.

I like Stardock too and wish them big successes, and they can at least be comforted by the fact that had they added copy protection to Demigod, the pirates would merely have to copy a cracked .exe over before playing, while legit gamers would have to deal with bullshit activation for years.

Still, you guys have to understand that PC piracy is hugely rampant and it's a significant part of why so many developers have either left the PC entirely or only do secondary ports. And it's why Obsidian can't ignore consoles. Fallout 3.5 by Obsidian, here we come! (Not that I think that's a bad thing)

 

[Silencer]

Oops! I was wrong. It wasn't 82%.

It was 88%.

Hey, thanks for the link. It's good to actually know that someone out there has had this thought:

"It's not that we don't think piracy is massive," Wardell wrote in a forum post on Monday. "We just aren't convinced that it results in that many lost sales. Or more to the point, we don't think intrusive, obnoxious copy protection will result in more sales than we lose from people who don't want to mess with it."

Is there any point to this conversation other than talking about discrepant issues in an impolite tone? Because I think that "Piracy is massive" is different from "Piracy is massive, so it is OK to deliver a lesser quality product to the customer, because it's likely that someone else will steal it! In your face, Captain Black!".

Also, zippy1, please do not post another post immediately below your previous one. This subtracts from the clarity of the conversation.

 

[zippy1]

I think it's more of an interest in drawing in fans of past Obsidian games, something which isn't a drop in the bucket.

A fair number might come over from NWN2, but ask any random 20 console gamers who made KOTOR2, and you may get the right answer one or two times. The rest either won't know or will guess Bioware or LucasArts. I'm sure the PC RPG crowd would do better, of course.

The problem is that Obsidian keeps making other people's games for them, and while it's certainly working well enough to keep the doors open, it's not exactly helping them build a growing, loyal fanbase.

Also prove that those mechanics only appeal to niche fans.

RPGs that have those mechanics are going away in favor of third-person views, action-oriented combat, and quick time events. What's left - Disgaea and Final Fantasy Tactics? That's the proof - the last companies left still doing it are winding it down.

Prove that it's a piss-poor idea. I will keep asking for this as long as you continue to post it without backing it up.

I think the burden of proof is on some game developer to prove it's not - but apparently no one wants to take them up on that, Obsidian included. How about that for "proof"?

Yes, someone could make a game you describe, and it might sell enough for the developer to make it to their next game. But it's not going to be sold or marketed as a full-priced game, it won't reach millions of sales or even close to that, and it won't see nearly the success in the RPG arena that Bethesda has seen.

(Diablo 3 is not turn-based, by the way, and it's not exactly going to be heavily story-driven. Nor will it give your character interesting moral choices. Not sure if you noticed that in the videos released so far. It's an action game with loot, levels, and skills, and little in the way of world-changing choices. So what exactly does it have to do with this discussion?)

So of course I can't "prove" it's a piss-poor idea. It's an opinion. (Damn, you guys have a hard time with this) But it's backed up by facts. But no amount of facts backing up this opinion will sway you. But that's not exactly my fault.

 

[zippy1]

Want us to get on with the times? You first.

Ok, ready for it?

Obsidian will make a new Fallout and most of the reception at NMA will be negative, blaming Bethesda for imposing all kinds of limitations on them and forcing them to use things like VATS - almost against their will, or by threatening to pull the license or whatever you guys dream up - that in reality are now key parts of the Fallout franchise.

Obsidian will understand what made Fallout 3 a great game and will add their own touch, work the engine the best they can (which is to say: well, but not masterfully), tweak a few RPG settings and try to make a better story and build on Fallout 3.

It will sell in the millions, and you guys will still be here, scratching your heads at 1) how Bethesda could rape Obsidian of everything that you find sacred and holy about game design, 2) how so many millions of idiots and stupid people could find joy in the game, 3) how the corrupt press - nearly every single one of them - was bought out or pressured by Bethesda into giving what you find a clearly mediocre game (remember, Bethesda's fault, not Obsidians, for following the FO3 formula) a high score.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world moves on.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

I never bothered to use all the features of steam. Like I said I disabled its autostart. When I played the game (Red Orchestra BTW) steam would launch automatically then when I was done playing I'd maybe browse the steam news a little or something. This was on my old PC which was low end. I can't even remember how much memory it used but I think it was a very insignificant amount. Once something is loaded in memory it is essentially a non issue to performance (providing you have enough memory to cover it + whatever game you are running). I never noticed any sort of performance hit with it. As long as you have a decent (not even great) PC I wouldn't worry about steam sucking resources.

The only thing I noticed it for was CS1.6, but it's been awhile since I played it and I have no clue how much had to do with steam and how much was 1.6. Still, I'm against the principle of it all, having to be connected to the internet and have the software running is just not cool.

Hate on DRM because it's annoying to re-activate after a Windows reinstall (or a crash... or buying a new PC... or installing on a laptop) and be forced to call a publisher and beg for more activations, not because it takes up a few CPU cycles upon startup.

I hate it for many reasons, I was simply providing one of them.

Now you're getting it. And the opinion that has no factual support is that Fallout 3 is a bad game.

*sigh* Read through past forum posts, there are a lot of them that deal with it and it's been over with a damn backhoe at this point. Again, a game is not good until proved it to be good just like it isn't bad until proved thus. There has been little to no proof for the game being good. I'm simply asking that you provide some.

KOTOR2 didn't do as well as the first game. I don't have any numbers on NWN2 versus the first.

Fair enough but it did still make a profit and do well enough for Bioware to continue to use Obsidian so it wasn't any sort of failure.

First: FFXII has real-time combat with attack options coming from menus. It also has full voice acting and a third-person, not isometric view. So I'm still waiting.

I never said it did fit any of the criteria, I was simply pointing out games which achieved your goal better than Bethesda. FFX had about the same first week sales (1.8 million, which was a little bit more) and FFX-2 had 1.5 million (link). Lifetime sales for FFX as of Febuary 2004 was 5.89 million (link). FFX and FFX-2 were TPP TB games.

Second: apples, meet oranges. PS2 had a much larger install base. Compare me some current-gen stuff if you feel like it.

Hahaha, you've got to be shitting me. You're complaining that I'm using single-platform release games with higher sales than you're multi-platform release games? If the install base is in fact bigger, then prove it.

As far as the deeper RPG experiences, yes, I'm talking about getting people into RPGs that wouldn't usually play them. And guess what: those people's opinions, and their dollars, are just as valid and usable as the hardcore players'.

If by deeper RPG experiences you mean deeper experiences than those who have never played a RPG before then I'd agree. If by deeper RPG experiences you mean compared to other RPGs, then no, you're wrong. Also note that I just pointed out multiple RPGs which have reached larger groups of people than Fallout 3, who has only shipped, not sold, 4.7 million units. New consumers to a product, in this case RPG video games, opinions about how good a RPG is is not as valid as those of veterans of the genre because they have no experience previous experience with it. Yes, their money is equally spendable, what's your point?

You're absolutely right. This is what makes WoW a fantastic game, whether or not your opinion holds it in high regard.

No, that's what makes it a popular game and it's a result of it's addictive properties and advertising.

Here we go assuming that most of them hated it. They HAD TO, right? Because it's such a dull, boring game?

Here's assuming that all customers will be return customers or even all satisfied customers will be return customers. Just because a customer doesn't purchase more products from that producer doesn't mean that they were dissatisfied with their previous purchase, there are many reasons that customers won't come back.

Spore was marketed towards hardcore players and kept that hype going through to release when people quickly realized that it was The Sims With DNA And Space. For people who are all about Sims-style games, yes it is a good game. And those people outnumber the hardcore gamers that felt cheated, even if the hardcore people yell the loudest on the internet.

Spore is a good game because it's good for what's likely to be hundreds of thousands of current players.

Spore was marketed towards a huge base of players, not just hardcore gamers. Spore is another example of a game which does multiple things but doesn't do anything well (other than the creature creator). It's, at best, a good game and probably closer to an average or above average game, as it does a pretty mediocre job at most things it does. Hell, a lot of people that still boot up the game use it primarily for the creature creator.

Do you think maybe Bethesda's next game will try to be another step up from that? Maybe pulling people even more fully into a deeper gaming experience? You build loyal and large fanbases this way. Ask Blizzard.

You clearly do not know Bethesda's history that well. It has been stepping down in gameplay since Daggerfall. Daggerfall was a step up from arena, Morrowind was a step down from Daggerfall, Oblivion was a step down from Morrowind, Fallout 3 was a leap down from Fallout and a step up from Oblivion. Unless there are some serious managerial changes at Bethesda I think it's perfectly fair to say that their games will be between Morrowind and Oblivion in terms of depth of gameplay, with the Morrowind end being more avoided than the Oblivion end and most games being around Fallout 3.

Do you think maybe Bethesda's next game will try to be another step up from that? Maybe pulling people even more fully into a deeper gaming experience? You build loyal and large fanbases this way. Ask Blizzard.

Blizzard is a completely different company and their "stepping up" in gameplay came as they were able to do more (due to technology) and chose to expand on past games (Diablo to D2). That said, I prefer StarCraft over WarCraft 3, though I'd have to do some research to find out whether or not there's a mechanics base to that preference. Also note that Bethesda was founded in 1985 and is not at the level of the 1991 founded Blizzard.

EDIT:

It'd sell well enough for them to stay in business - maybe. But at some point they will get (or have gotten) sick of catering to a narrow, increasingly marginalized audience and move onto bigger and better things. And when a big opportunity comes along (say, New Vegas), you go for it. And you leave your old audience behind if they don't make the jump with you.

Anyone hear a whoosh?

You make the foolish assumption that making bigger, more expensive, more generally appealing games will always bring in the greatest amounts of revenue. That's a very bad assumption and extremely high-risk business plan. Just ask Interplay with Fallout PoS what happens when you try that and then ask Capcom how well MM9 did for them.

 

[zippy1]

Is there any point to this conversation other than talking about discrepant issues in an impolite tone?

I have made the point but people keep dancing around it and trying to refute the facts I used to back up my point. As a refresher:

The original point, I believe, was to say that primary console development is just a reality that must be accepted, and that just about anyone trying to sell a few million copies should be doing it. Blizzard seems to be about the only developer that can serve as an exception.

Because I think that "Piracy is massive" is different from "Piracy is massive, so it is OK to deliver a lesser quality product to the customer, because it's likely that someone else will steal it! In your face, Captain Black!".

I most definitely did not insinuate that. Just means that PC-primary development is not gonna happen in any Fallout for a long damn time. And that should affect the expectations of what Obsidian's Fallout is going to be.

Also, zippy1, please do not post another post immediately below your previous one. This subtracts from the clarity of the conversation.

Considering how the other thread is going, I don't think it will likely matter.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Lovely how your view of the world is so positive. And there are people saying we are the ones wearing pink-colored glasses.

and quick time events.

Great gameplay there! Everybody should do it, then maybe we won't have to bother playing the game, it will play by itself while we can stare at the screen and moo at the graphics. The future is bright indeed.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

RPGs that have those mechanics are going away in favor of third-person views, action-oriented combat, and quick time events. What's left - Disgaea and Final Fantasy Tactics? That's the proof - the last companies left still doing it are winding it down.

Actually the TRPG market has been growing in Japan over the years, the PS2 was a good system for them. Still, whether or not companies are making games of that type does not prove whether or not those games will be profitable. Look at MM9 for an example of the all but dead 2D platfomer genre that did quite well.

(Diablo 3 is not turn-based, by the way, and it's not exactly going to be heavily story-driven. Nor will it give your character interesting moral choices. Not sure if you noticed that in the videos released so far. It's an action game with loot, levels, and skills, and little in the way of world-changing choices. So what exactly does it have to do with this discussion?)

Diablo 3 is isometric, a part of the supposedly outdated Iso TB RPG genre.

So of course I can't "prove" it's a piss-poor idea. It's an opinion. (Damn, you guys have a hard time with this) But it's backed up by facts. But no amount of facts backing up this opinion will sway you. But that's not exactly my fault.

Your only fact thus far has been that TB Iso games are no longer being made, that does nothing to prove that they are not profitable.

Want us to get on with the times? You first.

Ok, ready for it?

Actually he was talking about repeating the same arguments we've already heard over and over, something that the post above this one continued to do.

Obsidian will make a new Fallout and most of the reception at NMA will be negative, blaming Bethesda for imposing all kinds of limitations on them and forcing them to use things like VATS - almost against their will, or by threatening to pull the license or whatever you guys dream up - that in reality are now key parts of the Fallout franchise.

Obsidian will understand what made Fallout 3 a great game and will add their own touch, work the engine the best they can (which is to say: well, but not masterfully), tweak a few RPG settings and try to make a better story and build on Fallout 3.

It will sell in the millions, and you guys will still be here, scratching your heads at 1) how Bethesda could rape Obsidian of everything that you find sacred and holy about game design, 2) how so many millions of idiots and stupid people could find joy in the game, 3) how the corrupt press - nearly every single one of them - was bought out or pressured by Bethesda into giving what you find a clearly mediocre game (remember, Bethesda's fault, not Obsidians, for following the FO3 formula) a high score.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world moves on.

Wow, you love assumptions and I saw this exact claim on BSGF. NMA regulars know that Obsidian only has up to a year and a half to make this game and are thus going to be building on the Fallout 3 engine. They will hold both Obsidian and Bethedsa accountable for any and all bugs as it is clearly a rushed project. Having read the FOOL contract we know the type of information they include in the legal contracts and that they leave in the ability to tell Interplay to change something or pull the license in 30 days so the entire game will be approved by Bethesda. I also will be surprised if New Vegas get's Fallout 3 level scores, my guess is that it'll be closer to the DLC level scores (thinking The Pitt) as I'm doubtful that it'll get anywhere near the type of advertising that Fallout 3 did.

You're really making a lot of the same old assumptions about the reactions of the NMA regulars and clearly know nothing about how Tactics, PoS, or VB were recieved on the forums.

 

[zippy1]

Again, a game is not good until proved it to be good just like it isn't bad until proved thus. There has been little to no proof for the game being good. I'm simply asking that you provide some.

You have a very strange idea of what proof is. Most people enjoyed the shit out of FO3 with some exceptions, it sold millions of copies, almost every critic loved it. That's as good of proof as you're going to get. Hell, I have been here longer than you think. Before FO3 went on sale people on here were convinced the game was going to bomb because despite all this hype from the media and Todd Howard or whatever, people have got to see the game's horrible qualities. It didn't bomb, and people didn't immediately take to the internet to talk about how duped they were. That's the best proof you'll ever get.

On the flipside, we have the more curmudgeonly denizens of NMA and a couple of other forums talking about how the game's so damn bad.

Fair enough but it did still make a profit and do well enough for Bioware to continue to use Obsidian so it wasn't any sort of failure.

Just not enough of a success for Obsidian to really shine from. Hence: New Vegas.

I never said it did fit any of the criteria, I was simply pointing out games which achieved your goal better than Bethesda.

I never alleged that Bethesda did it best. There's no need to get into a general game-sales dickwaving competition.

FFX was released over seven years ago. A lot has changed since then, including the types of flagship games Square Enix makes.

Hahaha, you've got to be shitting me. You're complaining that I'm using single-platform release games with higher sales than you're multi-platform release games? If the install base is in fact bigger, then prove it.

This is getting old. I don't make up numbers, and I've had to go back and source shit multiple times. I understand if you guys are used to people coming in here and calling you motherfuckers without backing up their shit with facts, but I do. PS2 now has an install base of almost 140 million worldwide. The PS3 and 360 together have about a third of that. Do I need to prove that too?

If by deeper RPG experiences you mean deeper experiences than those who have never played a RPG before then I'd agree.

I was.

No, that's what makes it a popular game and it's a result of it's addictive properties and advertising.

It's not digital heroin. It's a fun game while you play it. And the advertising only gets people into the game. The game keeps them in the game.

Here's assuming that all customers will be return customers or even all satisfied customers will be return customers.

Unless you have some kind of reference to widespread hate of FO3 on the internet, you might just want to drop this. Actually, you don't, so let's just move on.

You clearly do not know Bethesda's history that well. It has been stepping down in gameplay since Daggerfall.

Sure, they've been stepping down in RPG depth, but they've been stepping up in accessibility all while looking at new ways to introduce RPG elements to new players. You have to do the former to get your new, budding base ready for the latter.

Blizzard is a completely different company and their "stepping up" in gameplay came as they were able to do more (due to technology) and chose to expand on past games (Diablo to D2).

How is Bethesda not doing the same? They build on their franchises and take advantage of new technology.

You make the foolish assumption that making bigger, more expensive, more generally appealing games will always bring in the greatest amounts of revenue. That's a very bad assumption and extremely high-risk business plan. Just ask Interplay with Fallout PoS what happens when you try that and then ask Capcom how well MM9 did for them.

Fallout: BoS was a shitty game from what, at that point, was a shitty publisher and bad developer right from the start. Yet they stupidly pushed their bad game forward and it got the reviews and sales it deserved. I fail to see the parallel between that and a game from a rising, successful AAA developer and the franchise they take over and rebirth.

Mega Man 9 did well as a primarily downloadable game, but they have much bigger, more expensive-to-make releases that are their flagship products.

 

[zippy1]

Actually he was talking about repeating the same arguments we've already heard over and over, something that the post above this one continued to do.

Maybe one day it will sink in. Maybe the moderators will try and foster reasonable discussion on both sides. Maybe you'll stop asking me to "prove it".

Probably not.

Having read the FOOL contract we know the type of information they include in the legal contracts and that they leave in the ability to tell Interplay to change something or pull the license in 30 days so the entire game will be approved by Bethesda.

It's obvious that Bethesda knew Interplay wouldn't ever finish that game. It should have been obvious to everyone, Interplay included. Bethesda put that into the contract because it was either the only way Interplay was going to sell the license, or it gave them a good bargain on the license. Bethesda had no vested interest in the success of Fallout Online.

They most certainly do have an interest in the success of New Vegas. And you can be damn sure that Bethesda is the one funding the development, too, because that's how the game business works: the publisher pays the developer so that they can make salary and cover costs, and a bonus may or may not come at the end depending on the game's success.

I also will be surprised if New Vegas get's Fallout 3 level scores, my guess is that it'll be closer to the DLC level scores (thinking The Pitt) as I'm doubtful that it'll get anywhere near the type of advertising that Fallout 3 did.

Too many variables for figuring out how much hype the game will have at release - like the release timeframe, what kind of gameplay and story is shown, and the level of interest of the press. Bethesda didn't spend *that* much money marketing Fallout 3. They made up some cool-looking booths at the cons (a relatively small expense compared to TV ads and the like), threw together an interesting website, showed their game to as many people they could, and got some of their mugs talking about the game in front of cameras that the press brought, and surprise surprise, it worked. It worked because the game looked interesting. And Obsidian will make an interesting-looking game, too.

You're really making a lot of the same old assumptions about the reactions of the NMA regulars and clearly know nothing about how Tactics, PoS, or VB were recieved on the forums.

I actually do, but it's irrelevant.

 

[Crni Vuk]

is this another attempt of saying PC gaming is dieing ?

Guys ... PC gaming is dieing already for the last 20 years! We are already a rotten damn radiated zomby. But nothing can stop us from walking

 

[zippy1]

is this another attempt of saying PC gaming is dieing ?

No, because it's not.

 

[zippy1]

You know what's sad? You're trying to antagonize every single poster on this forum and drag them ino a pointless "debate" with you on a subject we've gone over about... two to three years ago.

Too bad it didn't work then. Would save us a lot of trouble now.

 

[Viliny]

Considering how the other thread is going, I don't think it will likely matter.

It is however against forum rules if im not mistaken

 

[Silencer]

You know what's sad? You're trying to antagonize every single poster on this forum and drag them ino a pointless "debate" with you on a subject we've gone over about... two to three years ago.

Too bad it didn't work then. Would save us a lot of trouble now.

The part about antagonizing, or am I missing something here?

 

[Silencer]

is this another attempt of saying PC gaming is dieing ?

No, because it's not.

So the point here being that development of cross-platform titles is market-driven instead of quality-driven and that Fallout IP is in the hands of a money-hungry mogul?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Too many variables for figuring out how much hype the game will have at release - like the release timeframe, what kind of gameplay and story is shown, and the level of interest of the press. Bethesda didn't spend *that* much money marketing Fallout 3. They made up some cool-looking booths at the cons (a relatively small expense compared to TV ads and the like), threw together an interesting website, showed their game to as many people they could, and got some of their mugs talking about the game in front of cameras that the press brought, and surprise surprise, it worked. It worked because the game looked interesting. And Obsidian will make an interesting-looking game, too.

what do you think how expensive TV comercials in Germany are ?

They definetly spend a lot of money and effort in marketing. A lot more then Oblivion. Thats how Bethesda makes most of their money.

 

[zippy1]

Fallout 3 just so happens to be a mediocre game and a bad sequel.

Just so happens? It's like you're presenting some casual fact. Notice that you didn't say "I happened to not like it".

Happens to be a mediocre game and a bad sequel? *snickers* Prove it.

I generally avoid insulting them outright like a child.

douchebags

Admittedly, I didn't use the word "douchebag" much when I was 8, but there you go calling them names like a child would. In the same paragraph that you said you don't.

Heh, it's more common than you know or think, methinks. I'd suggest reading Shoe's articles on it as a start, though further research is always beneficial.

Read them, and others. All I can say is that if he can't divorce his opinions about a game from the treatment he gets from a publisher, then he shouldn't be in the business. Nor should anyone else who somehow finds this difficult. Luckily, that's exactly what happens: people get out of the business very quickly when they do that kind of thing.

Chances are that if you read a review within a week of release or in the December issue of any magazine then it was done under these conditions.

First, game journalists don't need help to play. I'm sure there were reps on hand, but this idea that they're hovering above, masterfully pulling the strings and forming someone else's opinion is ludicrous.

Beyond that: the internet, they get games fast and review them quickly. Anyone who went to the trouble of seeing the game before it was released would have surely posted it within 12 hours of the embargo lift. This is how game journalism works. I saw plenty of reviews in the first week, many by smaller sites and blogs, and they enjoyed the game thoroughly without the mythical opinion-forming Bethesda Benefactors controlling their minds.

Whores, races, training classes, joy rides, trips to exotic locations, press kits, dinners, lodging expenses, travel expenses, other gifts beside press kits, etc. happen, though obviously small gifts, lodging, dinners, travel expenses, and the like are the most common.

The latter stuff is the extreme norm. Easy fix: take the highest 20% of all Fallout 3 reviews and toss them out. The highest score is still an A. That's because the game reviewer actually liked the game that much - legitimately. Weird, huh.

Not really, many people expect RPGs to be time consuming and involve some amount of trudging, thanks to JRPGs these days.

Imagine the smile on their faces when Fallout 3 taught them that an RPG can be played like a shooter.

Amusingly Civ Rev received worse reactions (84 on MC vs 94) and sold worse for the PC.

They had Civ 4. Plus, PC games always sell worse if there's a simultaneous console release. Water is also wet, btw.

It was a Civ game changed to have controls work better for a console and for the perceived console audience, it was simplified and changed to real time, something that it suffered for.

You clearly didn't play this game. Know how I can tell? Because Civ Rev is turn-based. No point in debating this one any further because I'd rather talk to you about something you have knowledge of.

Why is it's distribution method even an issue?

Very few downloadable games are sold at full price on consoles. This makes them largely irrelevant in the realm of blockbuster AAA titles, which Fallout 3 was and New Vegas will almost surely be.

There are people who maintain that the world is flat and you have provided just as much evidence for your argument as they have for theirs. Prove that it won't sell, ideally through pointing out a recent title that did just what you say will fail and did, though if you can come up with different equally satisfying evidence, I'll have no complaints.

As per the other thread, I have made a good case for leaving the burden of proof up to game developers. They know this business better than you or me, and if it's such a ripe area for a great game, why isn't anyone making one?

Why is it that what you guys see as so obviously The Right Way to make a game is being ignored by publishers large and small? Is there even the remote spark left in your brains that maybe it's not a great type of game to make anymore?

Independent developers are busy making tower defense games and iPhone Advance Wars clones. Big publishers are moving away from the RPGs of old and forging new ground. And you guys are just left here. In the dust.

Who said that there wouldn't be any disagreement?

Here's you yesterday:

Quality isn't a popularity contest or a poll, it's measurable.

This idea that we can "measure" "quality" or something and come up with some kind of list or ranking system is what I'm talking about. I suggested that that's what game critics already do, and you actually tried to refute that. This idea of determining "quality" as anything but a totally subjective system is laughable. Let's drop this.