Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Any way of deleting Hours Played and Achievements on Steam?
927 views
Skip to first unread message
John Lewis
May 14, 2012, 8:36:47 PM5/14/12
to
Is there any way of resetting the hours played and deleting any
achievements gained in Steam Single-player games? Uninstalling the
game does not appear to do it. Or do the Steam powers-that-be assume
that we are ever only going to play through a Single-Player game just
once?
John Lewis
achievements gained in Steam Single-player games? Uninstalling the
game does not appear to do it. Or do the Steam powers-that-be assume
that we are ever only going to play through a Single-Player game just
once?
John Lewis
Rin Stowleigh
May 14, 2012, 9:20:58 PM5/14/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 00:36:47 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
wrote:
How would you record in-game time for games you bought on GOG or some
other way?
Just do that.
Problem solved.
wrote:
other way?
Just do that.
Problem solved.
Tim O
May 14, 2012, 10:17:06 PM5/14/12
to
to be what he's asking.
Rin Stowleigh
May 14, 2012, 10:38:35 PM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 22:17:06 -0400, Tim O <timo56...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
There are probably a gazillion ways to log the execution time of a
Windows process, which is all Steam does. I know I didn't offer a
direct answer to his question (because I don't have one), I was
addressing the anti-Steam political embellishment he threw in for good
measure. Just because I know he likes it when I do that :)
wrote:
Windows process, which is all Steam does. I know I didn't offer a
direct answer to his question (because I don't have one), I was
addressing the anti-Steam political embellishment he threw in for good
measure. Just because I know he likes it when I do that :)
John Lewis
May 15, 2012, 1:20:41 AM5/15/12
to
The inability to USER--reset the time to zero makes it pretty useless
for game-replays, testing new/different strategies etc. etc....
As it is, the Steam time-recording is only useful for a first
play-through, otherwise a total irritant.
>
>Just do that.
>
>Problem solved.
>
Maybe your overriding interest in multiplayer games has blinded you to
this particular deficiency in the Steam implementation.
I like to go back and play SP games from scratch, maybe at a different
difficulty level and maybe a year after I first play them... or
perhaps I would like to restart a game (say, like Skyrim with a
different strategy or character). I don't mind Steam recording hours
played and achievements gained, but I would like full control of the
ability to nullify both at the beginning of a full game replay, SHOULD
I SO CHOOSE.
And your mention of GOG, brings me conveniently to Alan Wake and the
differences between the Steam and GOG versions.
In the Steam version, the current checkpoint and documents collected
are retained in the Steam Cloud - there are no obvious options to
delete the documents when (re)starting a "New Game", even at a
different difficulty level.
In the case of the GOG version, this saved info is kept on the
computer hard-disk - trivial to find and completely delete should the
owner of the game so choose.
I suppose the Steam general SP game philosophy is that Valve "owns"
the game and you are borrowing it. Once you have finished it, no need
to delete any of the stored info, no need to replay at a different
time or a different difficulty level.....your money is spent and your
time is up, and you can't pass it on to a third-party anyway.
John Lewis
Rin Stowleigh
May 15, 2012, 2:09:00 AM5/15/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 05:20:41 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
gamer -- unless things have changed, and unless I am making some
assumptions based on the games I'm aware of, Steam only records the
amount of time the process is running.
The original purpose of tracking gameplay time through Steam was more
of a benefit to the game vendor, added value to them for using the
Steam service. But, if the number is available anyway, why not make
it visible to the player as well? Allowing them to reset it implies a
feature other than the original intent. It wouldn't do the game
vendor much good if the player could reset the number as if they've
never played.
The Steam feature is NOT an idealway to time your participation in the
game. If you alt-tab out and leave the game running in pause mode,
the process is still running and (at least the last time I checked)
counts as gameplay time.
The best way to time your gameplay is to use the feature of the game
when supported, and ask game vendors to implement it where it doesn't
exist. If you're okay with the Steam method (process run time), there
are utilities that will log execution time of a process and you would
have full control over it.
I can understand you wanting to time your game, I just don't see why
you decided to add this to your anti-Steam rants. In some games, you
will have an in-game feature that shows proper gameplay time, not just
process running. In games that don't have that, you have a process
run timer through Steam, with the knowledge it doesnt really track
gameplay time. So if the game doesn't support built-in timing stats,
what is the loss if Steam doesn't do it to your liking? You wouldn't
have it at all if you bought some other way?
If you just want to know process execution time across all games,
there are different ways to go about that. If you wanted to get
really creative, get a Logitech gaming keyboard that has the LCD
display -- something like the G510 (it can detect which game is
running via the profiler), and write a lua script or applet that
displays your stats right there on your keyboard. You could even make
it so that if a key has not been pressed in 5 mins or whatever, the
time logging goes into pause mode. It would be a more effective timer
than Steam, whatever you did.
As far as achievements, I know officially Valve doesn't support
resetting them. I have not seen a comment regarding whether they ever
plan to support this. Achievements are also used for metrics tracking
by the vendor (intel on how users are playing the games, where they
spend the most time, etc), so I suppose the thinking is that allowing
reset would thwart this benefit. I personally would not care one way
or another if they wanted to include a reset feature, I just think the
game vendors would. Your option, if you choose not to bitch about the
way Steam does things, is to just buy on GOG or whatever where you
have no achievements at all.
>Sorry, serious question.
>
>Maybe your overriding interest in multiplayer games has blinded you to
>this particular deficiency in the Steam implementation.
That's an ignorant supposition. You highlighted a feature of Steam
that most other game distribution mechanisms don't have, then bitched
about Steam's implementation of it. Then you danced around, avoiding
answering my question of how you would normally record the time in a
game
>I like to go back and play SP games from scratch, maybe at a different
>difficulty level and maybe a year after I first play them... or
>perhaps I would like to restart a game (say, like Skyrim with a
>different strategy or character). I don't mind Steam recording hours
>played and achievements gained, but I would like full control of the
>ability to nullify both at the beginning of a full game replay, SHOULD
>I SO CHOOSE.
>And your mention of GOG, brings me conveniently to Alan Wake and the
>differences between the Steam and GOG versions.
>
>In the Steam version, the current checkpoint and documents collected
>are retained in the Steam Cloud - there are no obvious options to
>delete the documents when (re)starting a "New Game", even at a
>different difficulty level.
>
>In the case of the GOG version, this saved info is kept on the
>computer hard-disk - trivial to find and completely delete should the
>owner of the game so choose.
Funny, you are now contradicting what Remedy themself has said just a
few days ago... that GOG has no infrastructure to support something
like Steam achievements:
http://community.remedygames.com/showthread.php?p=150536
>I suppose the Steam general SP game philosophy is that Valve "owns"
>the game and you are borrowing it. Once you have finished it, no need
>to delete any of the stored info, no need to replay at a different
>time or a different difficulty level.....your money is spent and your
>time is up, and you can't pass it on to a third-party anyway.
I suppose you can probably read just about anything you want into any
scenario you choose... life's a bitch I guess when you're looking at
everything through Valve-Hate-Goggles.
wrote:
>On Mon, 14 May 2012 21:20:58 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
><rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 May 2012 00:36:47 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Is there any way of resetting the hours played and deleting any
>>>achievements gained in Steam Single-player games? Uninstalling the
>>>game does not appear to do it. Or do the Steam powers-that-be assume
>>>that we are ever only going to play through a Single-Player game just
>>>once?
>>
>>How would you record in-game time for games you bought on GOG or some
>>other way?
>
>Why would I want to unless I wanted to do something useful with it?
>The inability to USER--reset the time to zero makes it pretty useless
>for game-replays, testing new/different strategies etc. etc....
>
>As it is, the Steam time-recording is only useful for a first
>play-through, otherwise a total irritant.
>
>>
>>Just do that.
>>
>>Problem solved.
>>
Steam time recording has never been touted as a useful feature for the
>On Mon, 14 May 2012 21:20:58 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
><rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 May 2012 00:36:47 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Is there any way of resetting the hours played and deleting any
>>>achievements gained in Steam Single-player games? Uninstalling the
>>>game does not appear to do it. Or do the Steam powers-that-be assume
>>>that we are ever only going to play through a Single-Player game just
>>>once?
>>
>>How would you record in-game time for games you bought on GOG or some
>>other way?
>
>Why would I want to unless I wanted to do something useful with it?
>The inability to USER--reset the time to zero makes it pretty useless
>for game-replays, testing new/different strategies etc. etc....
>
>As it is, the Steam time-recording is only useful for a first
>play-through, otherwise a total irritant.
>
>>
>>Just do that.
>>
>>Problem solved.
>>
gamer -- unless things have changed, and unless I am making some
assumptions based on the games I'm aware of, Steam only records the
amount of time the process is running.
The original purpose of tracking gameplay time through Steam was more
of a benefit to the game vendor, added value to them for using the
Steam service. But, if the number is available anyway, why not make
it visible to the player as well? Allowing them to reset it implies a
feature other than the original intent. It wouldn't do the game
vendor much good if the player could reset the number as if they've
never played.
The Steam feature is NOT an idealway to time your participation in the
game. If you alt-tab out and leave the game running in pause mode,
the process is still running and (at least the last time I checked)
counts as gameplay time.
The best way to time your gameplay is to use the feature of the game
when supported, and ask game vendors to implement it where it doesn't
exist. If you're okay with the Steam method (process run time), there
are utilities that will log execution time of a process and you would
have full control over it.
I can understand you wanting to time your game, I just don't see why
you decided to add this to your anti-Steam rants. In some games, you
will have an in-game feature that shows proper gameplay time, not just
process running. In games that don't have that, you have a process
run timer through Steam, with the knowledge it doesnt really track
gameplay time. So if the game doesn't support built-in timing stats,
what is the loss if Steam doesn't do it to your liking? You wouldn't
have it at all if you bought some other way?
If you just want to know process execution time across all games,
there are different ways to go about that. If you wanted to get
really creative, get a Logitech gaming keyboard that has the LCD
display -- something like the G510 (it can detect which game is
running via the profiler), and write a lua script or applet that
displays your stats right there on your keyboard. You could even make
it so that if a key has not been pressed in 5 mins or whatever, the
time logging goes into pause mode. It would be a more effective timer
than Steam, whatever you did.
As far as achievements, I know officially Valve doesn't support
resetting them. I have not seen a comment regarding whether they ever
plan to support this. Achievements are also used for metrics tracking
by the vendor (intel on how users are playing the games, where they
spend the most time, etc), so I suppose the thinking is that allowing
reset would thwart this benefit. I personally would not care one way
or another if they wanted to include a reset feature, I just think the
game vendors would. Your option, if you choose not to bitch about the
way Steam does things, is to just buy on GOG or whatever where you
have no achievements at all.
>Sorry, serious question.
>
>Maybe your overriding interest in multiplayer games has blinded you to
>this particular deficiency in the Steam implementation.
that most other game distribution mechanisms don't have, then bitched
about Steam's implementation of it. Then you danced around, avoiding
answering my question of how you would normally record the time in a
game
>I like to go back and play SP games from scratch, maybe at a different
>difficulty level and maybe a year after I first play them... or
>perhaps I would like to restart a game (say, like Skyrim with a
>different strategy or character). I don't mind Steam recording hours
>played and achievements gained, but I would like full control of the
>ability to nullify both at the beginning of a full game replay, SHOULD
>I SO CHOOSE.
>And your mention of GOG, brings me conveniently to Alan Wake and the
>differences between the Steam and GOG versions.
>
>In the Steam version, the current checkpoint and documents collected
>are retained in the Steam Cloud - there are no obvious options to
>delete the documents when (re)starting a "New Game", even at a
>different difficulty level.
>
>In the case of the GOG version, this saved info is kept on the
>computer hard-disk - trivial to find and completely delete should the
>owner of the game so choose.
few days ago... that GOG has no infrastructure to support something
like Steam achievements:
http://community.remedygames.com/showthread.php?p=150536
>I suppose the Steam general SP game philosophy is that Valve "owns"
>the game and you are borrowing it. Once you have finished it, no need
>to delete any of the stored info, no need to replay at a different
>time or a different difficulty level.....your money is spent and your
>time is up, and you can't pass it on to a third-party anyway.
scenario you choose... life's a bitch I guess when you're looking at
everything through Valve-Hate-Goggles.
Xocyll
May 15, 2012, 12:28:47 PM5/15/12
to
john...@frontier.com (John Lewis) looked up from reading the entrails
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
Valve (or other game companies) don't care that you're 3 hours into your
most recent playthru, they only care that you've spent 137 hours in
total playing it - the kind of statistics they can use for marketing
(see how popular our games are - the average user puts in over 100
hours, blah, blah, blah.)
The achievements are for the ADHD "I need to feel like I've accomplished
something in my life even though I never have" set - the same as the
percentage completion score, mini-games etc in the GTA games and similar
are for.
It doesn't do what you want because it was never intended to do what you
want.
I guess you could shoot an email off to Valve and maybe they'd _add_ a
tracker and sublist of achievements for the current play through.
But then If they did that for you, you couldn't bitch about them all the
time so...
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
most recent playthru, they only care that you've spent 137 hours in
total playing it - the kind of statistics they can use for marketing
(see how popular our games are - the average user puts in over 100
hours, blah, blah, blah.)
The achievements are for the ADHD "I need to feel like I've accomplished
something in my life even though I never have" set - the same as the
percentage completion score, mini-games etc in the GTA games and similar
are for.
It doesn't do what you want because it was never intended to do what you
want.
I guess you could shoot an email off to Valve and maybe they'd _add_ a
tracker and sublist of achievements for the current play through.
But then If they did that for you, you couldn't bitch about them all the
time so...
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Message has been deleted
Rin Stowleigh
May 15, 2012, 1:18:22 PM5/15/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 11:28:47 -0500, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>
wrote:
>john...@frontier.com (John Lewis) looked up from reading the entrails
>of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>Is there any way of resetting the hours played and deleting any
>>achievements gained in Steam Single-player games? Uninstalling the
>>game does not appear to do it. Or do the Steam powers-that-be assume
>>that we are ever only going to play through a Single-Player game just
>>once?
>
>Valve (or other game companies) don't care that you're 3 hours into your
>most recent playthru, they only care that you've spent 137 hours in
>total playing it - the kind of statistics they can use for marketing
>(see how popular our games are - the average user puts in over 100
>hours, blah, blah, blah.)
>
>The achievements are for the ADHD "I need to feel like I've accomplished
>something in my life even though I never have" set - the same as the
>percentage completion score, mini-games etc in the GTA games and similar
>are for.
That is part of it. Some gamers really do get a good sense of fun
from "earning" badges in games and so forth, and achievements are sort
of like that. It's an effect similar to finding a new item in a RPG
for some folks, only with less uniqueness on each one :)
But the *REAL* reason these were created is mostly to help game
vendors track how gamers play their games. In other words, just
because an achievement is rewarded, does not mean that is all that is
being recorded for metrics purposes.
It means that it's valuable information for a game vendor to know that
80% of players replayed a certain mission 4 times, or that mission X
was completed on the first try by 10% of the players, while mission Y
was attempted but not completed by 70% of players.
In theory, this gives the software producer intel on how to produce
better products.
But yes, it is a bit of a farce, just like all metrics are, and does
not mean the game vendor will even look at the information, much less
assimilate it properly and put it to good use. After all, there are
liars, damn liars, and statisticians. It could result in good things
some of the time but I doubt it has a huge impact most of the time.
It's really just one aspect of the Steam service that Valve
implemented that is meant to be value added to both game vendor and
player. Whether the value is really there is up to both the game
vendor and player.
>It doesn't do what you want because it was never intended to do what you
>want.
>
>I guess you could shoot an email off to Valve and maybe they'd _add_ a
>tracker and sublist of achievements for the current play through.
Probably Valve's best option here is to add some sort of "player
bookmark" feature, that allows the player to just "mark" the stats at
some point in time and annotate it with whatever label they want. That
could be done without removing the value provided to the game vendor.
>But then If they did that for you, you couldn't bitch about them all the
>time so...
LOL! Right on. He has some things to contribute but just can't get
far enough past the Valve hate for them to become visible. Like the
Japanese soldier lost in the woods still fighting WWII... The
anti-Steam campaign was lost many years ago.
wrote:
>john...@frontier.com (John Lewis) looked up from reading the entrails
>of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>>Is there any way of resetting the hours played and deleting any
>>achievements gained in Steam Single-player games? Uninstalling the
>>game does not appear to do it. Or do the Steam powers-that-be assume
>>that we are ever only going to play through a Single-Player game just
>>once?
>
>Valve (or other game companies) don't care that you're 3 hours into your
>most recent playthru, they only care that you've spent 137 hours in
>total playing it - the kind of statistics they can use for marketing
>(see how popular our games are - the average user puts in over 100
>hours, blah, blah, blah.)
>
>The achievements are for the ADHD "I need to feel like I've accomplished
>something in my life even though I never have" set - the same as the
>percentage completion score, mini-games etc in the GTA games and similar
>are for.
from "earning" badges in games and so forth, and achievements are sort
of like that. It's an effect similar to finding a new item in a RPG
for some folks, only with less uniqueness on each one :)
But the *REAL* reason these were created is mostly to help game
vendors track how gamers play their games. In other words, just
because an achievement is rewarded, does not mean that is all that is
being recorded for metrics purposes.
It means that it's valuable information for a game vendor to know that
80% of players replayed a certain mission 4 times, or that mission X
was completed on the first try by 10% of the players, while mission Y
was attempted but not completed by 70% of players.
In theory, this gives the software producer intel on how to produce
better products.
But yes, it is a bit of a farce, just like all metrics are, and does
not mean the game vendor will even look at the information, much less
assimilate it properly and put it to good use. After all, there are
liars, damn liars, and statisticians. It could result in good things
some of the time but I doubt it has a huge impact most of the time.
It's really just one aspect of the Steam service that Valve
implemented that is meant to be value added to both game vendor and
player. Whether the value is really there is up to both the game
vendor and player.
>It doesn't do what you want because it was never intended to do what you
>want.
>
>I guess you could shoot an email off to Valve and maybe they'd _add_ a
>tracker and sublist of achievements for the current play through.
bookmark" feature, that allows the player to just "mark" the stats at
some point in time and annotate it with whatever label they want. That
could be done without removing the value provided to the game vendor.
>But then If they did that for you, you couldn't bitch about them all the
>time so...
far enough past the Valve hate for them to become visible. Like the
Japanese soldier lost in the woods still fighting WWII... The
anti-Steam campaign was lost many years ago.
John Lewis
May 15, 2012, 3:40:00 PM5/15/12
to
... and if not, why not ?
The user can certainly do that (either in-game or manually by simple
local file-deletion) with all PC SinglePlayer games not using
Steam-DRM or forced on-line storage ( some Ubisoft games).
This was really the core issue in my (on-reflection) clumsily titled
thread:-
"Any way of deleting Hours Played and Achievements on Steam"
John Lewis
The user can certainly do that (either in-game or manually by simple
local file-deletion) with all PC SinglePlayer games not using
Steam-DRM or forced on-line storage ( some Ubisoft games).
This was really the core issue in my (on-reflection) clumsily titled
thread:-
"Any way of deleting Hours Played and Achievements on Steam"
John Lewis
Rin Stowleigh
May 15, 2012, 4:33:11 PM5/15/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 19:40:00 GMT, john...@frontier.com (John Lewis)
wrote:
>... and if not, why not ?
This was already answered in your previous cross-post rant. Are you
having a mid-life crisis or something? Why post this again because
you didn't like the title? Clearly everyone understood what you were
asking.
wrote:
>... and if not, why not ?
having a mid-life crisis or something? Why post this again because
you didn't like the title? Clearly everyone understood what you were
asking.
Message has been deleted
Rin Stowleigh
May 15, 2012, 5:42:52 PM5/15/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 16:11:46 -0500, Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 15 May 2012 19:40:00 GMT, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, John Lewis
>wrote:
>No. If I gather what you're getting at, there is no way to make a used game
>into "like new" on Steam, for purpose of replay or resale. As usual, publishers
>hate the first sale doctrine, and are doing their best to undermine it. This is
>true on or off Steam.
>
>Your new target price for such titles, or at least for me, is $15. No more, and
>forget achievement based replay value for games storing these metrics, forcing
>cloud-saves, and/or forcing single-use SP registration.
>
>Achivements never did much for me anyhow. YMMV.
>
>I will not spend $60 to "lease" my SP games as a service. If the gaming market
>is so saturated with suckers that will do so, I am finding another hobby, going
>exclusively indy, or playing exclusively 3 year old, mega-hit titles on heavy
>discount. Such actions should change the industry in a way that makes it far
>less profitable, until they figure out why they are losing full-price 6-month
>after release sales, and realize that maybe it isn't all "piracy," but is tied
>to their lack of respect for the consumer.
>
>That price pretty much, as Rin will tell you, rules me out of the MP market,
>which is the only place where paying the $60 is justified (you're paying for an
>active community), but is becoming a greater and greater risk as any chance of
>reselling your title if it sucks (the last bastion of a normalized,
>quality-based consumer refund remedy) is dwindling to a limit of nil. MP
>customers are used to this, though. Paying a publisher for the quality of the
>community, and not entirely the game, is the norm. EA will crank out "new" MW
>titles to sabotage the previous MW community, while adding little to nothing to
>MP, for as long as we let it.
>SP customers should not tolerate it at that price level, IMHO. MP customers
>should be aware of the tactic of using barely improved sequels to devalue a
>previous title, and force them to pay again for essentially the same gameplay.
>From what I've heard of Battlefield 3, _they_ actually gave them a
>much-improved game for their money. MW3 looks like a cheap roster update for
>one of the Madden titles.
MW isn't an EA title, but yes it has become tiresome. But dispite the
fact it always draws a lot of players, never let anyone tell you that
the MW series typifies the multiplayer community. I cringe whenever I
see another MW title announced, only because I've come to expect what
amounts to a short unmemorable SP campaign and MP that offers a few
new maps, modes, slightly improved visuals over last year's edition,
but other than that same ole- same ole with regard to the franchise.
It shouldn't come as a surprise either, since Activision destroyed the
team that made the early games good.
Yes, Battlefield 3 is an immersive, visually astounding, quality
masterpiece. I've gotten an amazing amount of replay out of the
original $60 I spent, and the first map pack coming out next month is
at the top of my anticipated titles.
I think that SP-only gamers *should* be a little reluctant to shell
out $60 for a new title. However, in many cases $60 is the price for
both a single player campaign, cooperative options, and competitive
multiplayer. For gamers like me that potentially play all three, it's
not a bad deal if all turns out well.
The compelling reason to buy early, however, does no doubt dissipate
for SP-only gamers. Its easier to just wait a few months and pick up
a game at a big discount. However, by doing this, a message is
getting sent to the game vendors that more emphasis should be placed
on multiplayer and online play, since that will lure early buyers. Why
does this matter? It always comes back to the douchebag investors
that hold the purse strings. They would rather see 100,000 copies of
product sold in the first quarter after release at $50, then to see
sales drop off a cliff than to see 1,500,000 copies sold at $15 over
18 months. Not a very smart manner of thought, even at the simplest
level of beancounting douchebaggery. But, in all honesty, investors
and finance people are usually not particularly smart guys in my
experience in working with them. They look only at the things like
operating overhead over the next 18 months, and they'd rather take $5M
in the short term than to wait for longer term better profit that's
likely to arise as a result of better reviews upon release.
Add to that phenomenon the fact that MP games are almost unpiratable.
Singleplayer only games just look like risk to investors on the PC due
to all the TorrentKunts out there who have entitled themselves to not
pay for games at all.
>I don't play a lot of MP though, so I might be missing something.
Well you don't have to miss out completely. Tribes Ascend might be an
indication that the Free-To-Play business model has a future. It is
not a cutting edge game with a cutting edge engine (in fact I think it
looks antiquated), but its great multiplayer fun and they did
everything right from the consumer perspective. You can download the
game for free, play indefinately that way if you want, treating it as
an ongoing limited demo with no expiration date. If you want to spend
a little money on it you can. If you want to spend a lot of money you
can do that too. And, unlike so many F2P games, it's not crap, its
actually a worthwhile MP game.
wrote:
>On Tue, 15 May 2012 19:40:00 GMT, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, John Lewis
>wrote:
>into "like new" on Steam, for purpose of replay or resale. As usual, publishers
>hate the first sale doctrine, and are doing their best to undermine it. This is
>true on or off Steam.
>
>Your new target price for such titles, or at least for me, is $15. No more, and
>forget achievement based replay value for games storing these metrics, forcing
>cloud-saves, and/or forcing single-use SP registration.
>
>Achivements never did much for me anyhow. YMMV.
>
>I will not spend $60 to "lease" my SP games as a service. If the gaming market
>is so saturated with suckers that will do so, I am finding another hobby, going
>exclusively indy, or playing exclusively 3 year old, mega-hit titles on heavy
>discount. Such actions should change the industry in a way that makes it far
>less profitable, until they figure out why they are losing full-price 6-month
>after release sales, and realize that maybe it isn't all "piracy," but is tied
>to their lack of respect for the consumer.
>
>That price pretty much, as Rin will tell you, rules me out of the MP market,
>which is the only place where paying the $60 is justified (you're paying for an
>active community), but is becoming a greater and greater risk as any chance of
>reselling your title if it sucks (the last bastion of a normalized,
>quality-based consumer refund remedy) is dwindling to a limit of nil. MP
>customers are used to this, though. Paying a publisher for the quality of the
>community, and not entirely the game, is the norm. EA will crank out "new" MW
>titles to sabotage the previous MW community, while adding little to nothing to
>MP, for as long as we let it.
>SP customers should not tolerate it at that price level, IMHO. MP customers
>should be aware of the tactic of using barely improved sequels to devalue a
>previous title, and force them to pay again for essentially the same gameplay.
>From what I've heard of Battlefield 3, _they_ actually gave them a
>much-improved game for their money. MW3 looks like a cheap roster update for
>one of the Madden titles.
MW isn't an EA title, but yes it has become tiresome. But dispite the
fact it always draws a lot of players, never let anyone tell you that
the MW series typifies the multiplayer community. I cringe whenever I
see another MW title announced, only because I've come to expect what
amounts to a short unmemorable SP campaign and MP that offers a few
new maps, modes, slightly improved visuals over last year's edition,
but other than that same ole- same ole with regard to the franchise.
It shouldn't come as a surprise either, since Activision destroyed the
team that made the early games good.
Yes, Battlefield 3 is an immersive, visually astounding, quality
masterpiece. I've gotten an amazing amount of replay out of the
original $60 I spent, and the first map pack coming out next month is
at the top of my anticipated titles.
I think that SP-only gamers *should* be a little reluctant to shell
out $60 for a new title. However, in many cases $60 is the price for
both a single player campaign, cooperative options, and competitive
multiplayer. For gamers like me that potentially play all three, it's
not a bad deal if all turns out well.
The compelling reason to buy early, however, does no doubt dissipate
for SP-only gamers. Its easier to just wait a few months and pick up
a game at a big discount. However, by doing this, a message is
getting sent to the game vendors that more emphasis should be placed
on multiplayer and online play, since that will lure early buyers. Why
does this matter? It always comes back to the douchebag investors
that hold the purse strings. They would rather see 100,000 copies of
product sold in the first quarter after release at $50, then to see
sales drop off a cliff than to see 1,500,000 copies sold at $15 over
18 months. Not a very smart manner of thought, even at the simplest
level of beancounting douchebaggery. But, in all honesty, investors
and finance people are usually not particularly smart guys in my
experience in working with them. They look only at the things like
operating overhead over the next 18 months, and they'd rather take $5M
in the short term than to wait for longer term better profit that's
likely to arise as a result of better reviews upon release.
Add to that phenomenon the fact that MP games are almost unpiratable.
Singleplayer only games just look like risk to investors on the PC due
to all the TorrentKunts out there who have entitled themselves to not
pay for games at all.
>I don't play a lot of MP though, so I might be missing something.
Well you don't have to miss out completely. Tribes Ascend might be an
indication that the Free-To-Play business model has a future. It is
not a cutting edge game with a cutting edge engine (in fact I think it
looks antiquated), but its great multiplayer fun and they did
everything right from the consumer perspective. You can download the
game for free, play indefinately that way if you want, treating it as
an ongoing limited demo with no expiration date. If you want to spend
a little money on it you can. If you want to spend a lot of money you
can do that too. And, unlike so many F2P games, it's not crap, its
actually a worthwhile MP game.
Message has been deleted
Rin Stowleigh
May 15, 2012, 11:34:30 PM5/15/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 22:00:54 -0500, Zaghadka <zagh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 15 May 2012 17:42:52 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Rin
>Stowleigh wrote:
>
>>MW isn't an EA title, but yes it has become tiresome.
>
>How stupid of me. You can see how hooked into MP I am. ;^)
>
>EA is giving much better value with their Battlefield series, from what I've
>seen. Activision, not so much.
The whole EA and Origin client thing is beyond bad -- but BF3 is so
worth playing that I'm willing to tolerate it. Its a shame that they
ended up becoming DICE's pimp. Maybe one day they'll break free.
wrote:
>On Tue, 15 May 2012 17:42:52 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Rin
>Stowleigh wrote:
>
>>MW isn't an EA title, but yes it has become tiresome.
>
>
>EA is giving much better value with their Battlefield series, from what I've
>seen. Activision, not so much.
The whole EA and Origin client thing is beyond bad -- but BF3 is so
worth playing that I'm willing to tolerate it. Its a shame that they
ended up becoming DICE's pimp. Maybe one day they'll break free.
Toby Newman
May 16, 2012, 12:05:29 PM5/16/12
to
On 2012-05-15, Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Steam time recording has never been touted as a useful feature for the
> gamer -- unless things have changed, and unless I am making some
> assumptions based on the games I'm aware of, Steam only records the
> amount of time the process is running.
True. Hence why it says it's taken me over 30 hours to finish
>
> Steam time recording has never been touted as a useful feature for the
> gamer -- unless things have changed, and unless I am making some
> assumptions based on the games I'm aware of, Steam only records the
> amount of time the process is running.
Wolfenstein so far!
--
-Toby
Add the word afiduluminag to the subject to circumvent my email filters.
Rin Stowleigh
May 16, 2012, 3:19:00 PM5/16/12
to
On Wed, 16 May 2012 17:05:29 +0100, Toby Newman <goo...@asktoby.com>
wrote:
>On 2012-05-15, Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Steam time recording has never been touted as a useful feature for the
>> gamer -- unless things have changed, and unless I am making some
>> assumptions based on the games I'm aware of, Steam only records the
>> amount of time the process is running.
>
>True. Hence why it says it's taken me over 30 hours to finish
>Wolfenstein so far!
Does it not have any sort of built-in level completion timers? It's
funny, because this is a feature that harkens back to the earliest
days of video games. Recording time it takes to complete a task or
checkpoint is no-brainer work, and I don't think there's any excuse
for games not to include it. But, even still, it is the responsbility
of the game to provide those metrics and not the distribution channel.
wrote:
>On 2012-05-15, Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Steam time recording has never been touted as a useful feature for the
>> gamer -- unless things have changed, and unless I am making some
>> assumptions based on the games I'm aware of, Steam only records the
>> amount of time the process is running.
>
>True. Hence why it says it's taken me over 30 hours to finish
>Wolfenstein so far!
funny, because this is a feature that harkens back to the earliest
days of video games. Recording time it takes to complete a task or
checkpoint is no-brainer work, and I don't think there's any excuse
for games not to include it. But, even still, it is the responsbility
of the game to provide those metrics and not the distribution channel.
0 new messages