For the last four years, we've put all of our effort into making Enemy Territory: QUAKE Wars. So, we're not planning to ship this game and walk away. We want to keep supporting ETQW in as many ways as possible. We'll be maintaining the persistent stats servers and the community site, and continuing to support ETQW with updates and improvements.
To help cover this level of on-going support without passing the costs on to the gamer, ETQW will feature appropriate advertisements in select locations of our levels. The ads aren't intrusive and you won't have to interact with them; they'll just be part of the normal environment. In fact, there are some places it's quite odd not to have an advertisement - the sides of container trucks, for example. Great care is being taken to ensure that all our ads are appropriate for the game world and we have absolute approval rights in this area. If it's not appropriate or it's distracting, it won't go in.
The company providing the ad system does not and will not store any personal information or data that otherwise can be used to identify you. All they track is if and how long you look at the advertisements.
For those of you participating in the upcoming beta, you will get a chance to see them for yourself very soon. And of course we will be releasing a demo prior to the retail launch of the game so everyone can check them out first.
Choosing to place ads in Enemy Territory was not a decision we made lightly. However, in doing so we hope to be able to provide a higher level of on-going support to the Enemy Territory: QUAKE Wars community than would have been possible otherwise.
Of course you are... don't buy the fucking game. That's like saying those of us who didn't like aliens weren't given an option to opt out of seeing them in Doom 3 singleplayer.No, dumbasss, that is NOT the same. In UT2004 the stats tracking is optional. Players who don't want it can opt out while still being able to play online. Quake Wars could have the same thing. Players who want stats can play on servers which have them enabled and get the ads and tracking too. Players who don't want it could opt out and then not have the stats tracking and the ads. Sure it would limit the choice of servers for them, but it certainly beats not playing the game at all.
Those of us who don't want the persistent stats and rankings aren't being given the option to opt out of it or the advertising which supposedly supports it.Of course you are... don't buy the fucking game. That's like saying those of us who didn't like aliens weren't given an option to opt out of seeing them in Doom 3 singleplayer.
More is better, but when the methods you choose to get more end up costing you more than you get through lost sales, somebody needs to be fired.Indeed, but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that is the case.
ETQW and BF2142 have something else in common that many of you are aren't considering, either because you're uninformed, or because you aren't paying attention : persistent stat tracking and ranking.UT2004 also has persistent stat tracking and it has no embedded advertising. Next!
I'm sure that the hardware and person(s) required for stat/rank tracking services like these will cost SOMETHING, especially as the amount of players increases.Those of us who don't want the persistent stats and rankings aren't being given the option to opt out of it or the advertising which supposedly supports it.
Also, games like these require other services and/or people to help stop cheaters. I'm sure that these people don't work for free yet.No, they actually pay for the privilege. It's called being an adminstrator on a game server.
Which brings me to my next point : game companies aren't "not for profit" organizations. People need money, and more is always better.More is better, but when the methods you choose to get more end up costing you more than you get through lost sales, somebody needs to be fired.
...unless you play on a cracked server, which pirates most certainly do.
CD keys are NO defense against piracy.
Having a server that the public can't duplicate - yeah - now that's a defense against piracy.It's also an offense against a game being played online because it means that the developer or publisher must provide all of the game servers. In that instance the developer or publisher might be able to legitimately claim that support costs are high or higher than for a single-player game, but when the developer or publisher is predominately or exclusively relying upon consumers to host their own games, it can't complain about that cost.
especially considering the wide variety hardware/software configurations those end users might be utilizingThe vast majority of fixes in games post release are not due to hardware incompatibilities. They are gameplay and media asset bug corrections and feature and content additions. Simply look through release notes of game updates. Hardware incompatibilities usually are corrected by the hardware developers through driver updates. Again, a reading of the release notes accompanying video driver updates clearly demonstrates this.
You CAN'T find all the bugs prior to realize. You can't even find all the SERIOUS bugs prior to release.Yes, you can especially all of the serious bugs. There have been games which didn't receive many or even any updates which have functioned reasonably well. They don't have to be perfect, and even after many updates some games still aren't because developers make too many fundamental changes to them after release. However, the real point here is that the notion that game developers and publishers need revenue above and beyond that generated from the selling price of the game to make it playable is ludicrous.
Games are increasing in complexity. This increases both development and support costs.Game development may be increasing in complexity (although one could argue that the evolution of the tools of game development have actually reduced that complexity or at least kept it from expanding), but support is not. Features of the latest games like higher polycount models and larger textures don't make it more difficult to provide technical support for these games. All of the factors I cited along with more mature releases of DirectX and game engines and tools have reduced support costs. So, tell me specifically how are support costs supposedly rising?
Opinion and oversimplification. Confuses a number of issues.It doesn't confuse any issue at all. While the private servers may not be sending the actual ad images or collecting the tracking data, they do provide the venues and means for players of the game to play online. And, these servers are not without significant financial cost to the individuals running them. Without these servers, there would be no online play.
Unsupported opinion.And, yet you provide no specific facts and details to refute it.
It's is *impossible* for a few dozen testers to duplicate the bug-finding efforts of several thousand end users, especially considering the wide variety hardware/software configurations those end users might be utilizing. You CAN'T find all the bugs prior to realize. You can't even find all the SERIOUS bugs prior to release. Even with a public beta test - it's still not going to happen.The problem is not that there are bugs in games. The problem is that they are now charging us to remove them when they should do that with they money we already payed them when we bought the game.
Guild Wars isn't comparable to a team based online shooter. For one, as a MMORPG (which, despite some claims to the contrary, it most certainly is) Guild Wars isn't hemmoraging cash to piracy.
I think the points have been made clear. The bottom line is that splash damage and others are trying to charge for things that used to be provided at no extra cost in the past.
I hope it will be hard to convince people to pay for things they are used to getting for free.
If the point is to generate money for support costs (patches, extra content, etc, as well as servers)It isn't and shouldn't be. The price of the game should cover that because the game shouldn't and wouldn't really need any patches after release if it has been thoroughly tested and fixed beforehand.
The point isn't the rising cost of servers but the rising cost of support.No, it's game development costs not support costs that are supposedly rising. Fewer hardware vendors, cheaper outsourced labor, and Internet-only support have reduced support costs or at least kept them from expanding like development costs.
As you all know, it all comes down to the almighty dollar. $50, $60, $70 Collector's tins, it isn't enough anymore. Money, money, money. If I can get more money for in-game advertising why not?Would you rather they jacked up the price at purchase? PC games haven't gone up in price since I first started buying them over 12 years ago. I wonder how much they'd have to raise prices to stop doing in-game ads, assuming it costs more to make games (if games really cost more now, which I'm not convinced about). It might just be a cheap ploy to make more money. Maybe publishers are afraid that raising the price of games will cause sales to go down, like failing to reduce the prices of CDs did for the music industry.
Bravo. That is the first sensible thing I have seen you post.If the point is to generate money for support costs (patches, extra content, etc, as well as servers) then it should be placed on all servers equally. The point isn't the rising cost of servers but the rising cost of support.