I have a feeling that asking won't make it happen sooner.
But by showing them that we love their work, the game, we support them and that we are really looking forward to BG2EE, we give them incentives to work harder, better, faster, stronger
cmon guys, the OP is just expressing his desire and excitement for the next game, which is perfectly understandable. Im sure he understands its going to take time and, like the rest of us, doesnt want anything to be rushed and released unfinished (again? :P).
But by showing them that we love their work, the game, we support them and that we are really looking forward to BG2EE, we give them incentives to work harder, better, faster, stronger
Everyone is always in a rush to pay for something. In another thread for instance there's already suggestions that modders could be payed. Keep it up and soon enough someone will suggest games are too cheap. I find it absolutely distressing that this is the one and only industry where this level of abuse against the consumer is permitted and encouraged. In their eagerness to show support for a business that isn't their own, gamers always forget to show their support for the consumer. The one group that always gets the shaft.
It isn't enough paying for the final product. No. We need to find new things to pay. Trent Oster says most of the DLCs will be free? Horror! Let's suggest DLCs that we can pay for. And let's do it because we love Overhaul more than we care for our fellow consumers who may have an already hard time paying for a game title. Screw the consumer!
I've been in this industry for close to 30 years now. Well since the ZX Spectrum and Commodore days. And I've covered plenty of it as a games journalist for these past 3 decades. I've never seen such a complete disregard for oneself as in recent years. We wouldn't take even an inkling of this nonsense were we buying a refrigerator that is a much more essential object to our lives, but we permit ourselves to ignore even the most basic consumer protection all in the name of entertainment. Frankly!
... PS: And one note to dispel any doubts. No one in here can say they like and respect Overhaul more than I for what they done to Baldur's Gate. We are all on the same level here. Make no mistake about that. The difference here is that I don't for one moment think that suggesting more paying material beyond that which they already have in store is a good way to establish that support. It's selfish. You are forcing everyone else into it. Want to support Overhaul? Really want? Then buy more than one copy of the game. If you already did, then congratulations. That's the sensible thing to do.
@marfig I agree with almost everything you said. Then I read your PS "No one in here can say they like and respect Overhaul more than I for what they done to Baldur's Gate."
What exactly did they do? I've seen video game remakes before, and they're done a lot better. My favorite example is Megaman 1 being remade as Megaman Powered Up, which went beyond just a few new stages.
What exactly does EE add to BG1 that a Tutu modder couldn't for free? Is there a level maker? Is there a new race? Is there new multiclass combos? Party size altercations? No, nothing a modder couldn't do.
So, maybe I could wait for a Tutu modder to take Black Pits and legally and FREE add them to my BigWorld fun times.
Paid DLC allows for efforts that would otherwise not be feasible for a company to undertake. Development takes resources, and this is simply allows more resources to be brought to bear on projects.
Furthermore, supporting paid DLC isn't "consumer abuse;" after all, we too are consumers. It is simple economics: if paid DLC is released, look at the content and decide whether it is worth the investment of your time and money. Choosing to not purchase DLC does not somehow invalidate your prior purchase of the base game.
Paid DLC is simply another option. I don't look at it as "supporting" Overhaul. Frankly, I am supporting myself. I want more ambitious DLC, so I understand I might have to pay for it. Consumer choice is generally regarded as a virtue.
Finally, how does asking for paid DLC force other consumers "into it?" Again, if one does not want to spend additional money, one is not forced to do so. I would argue the opposite: your position necessarily prevents consumer access to the kind of DLC content that requires financing, whereas allowing the creation of said DLC broadens consumer choice. Perversely, you (figuratively speaking) are the one forcing other consumers to follow your choice.
@Deucetipher, I don't question payed DLCs. I question the idea that as consumers we should preemptively support payed DLCs over non payed DLCs.
>> if paid DLC is released, look at the content and decide whether it is worth the investment of your time and money. Choosing to not purchase DLC does not somehow invalidate your prior purchase of the base game.
This isn't always possible. In multiplayer environments you may be forced to pay for a DLC. In any case I have no problem with the idea of a DLC, payed or otherwise. You misinterpret my post.
>> Consumer choice is generally regarded as a virtue.
But not consumerism. That's hardly a virtue. And it's consumerism I'm talking about here.
>> Finally, how does asking for paid DLC force other consumers "into it?" Again, if one does not want to spend additional money, one is not forced to do so.
Their choice to opt out only strengthens the fact those consumers will not have access to that DLC. What could possibly be free and publicly available becomes instead a matter of having or not the capacity to purchase. It's that simple. Everyone will be forced into it.
...I question the idea that as consumers we should preemptively support payed DLCs over non payed DLCs...
...What could possibly be free and publicly available becomes instead a matter of having or not the capacity to purchase...
I think the idea here, when @Mornmagor suggested paying for DLC involving upgraded graphics, is that this is something that we know for a fact is not happening for free. Trent and Co. have stated flat out that creating new animations would be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming. So offering to pay for upgraded graphics isn't really preemptive, as we know that's the only way that it has a chance to happen.
But I have very little doubts Overhaul weighted all possibilities. I cannot remember exactly the details, but I could almost swear that those words from Trent Oster were on his Twitter and exactly as an answer to the possibility of redoing the graphics.
A DLC isn't exactly the business model that could cover those costs. You agree? Making a payable DLC wouldn't solve any financial considerations that a new game couldn't. And they decided not to do it in BGEE exactly because how expensive that would have become.
That said, I do agree that this puts a different light on @Mornmagor suggestion. It's a good point you make. I didn't consider until know his suggestion as a way to present a viable financial solution to the problem of new graphics.
I'm still not seeing what EE 'did for the game' that a modder could not.
Let's compare it to a remake of say a nintendo game for a better system. Well, this is like that, remade for 10 year stronger computers, the graphics, the options, the capacity should reflect that.
But... again, modders can do all of that for free.
What does BG:EE do for the game? It gives the "mod" of Enhanced Edition a feeling of being canon, it provides a platform that we can gather around to create new mods for and embrace as a new standard. If the modding community does it, well... some people will use it, others won't, there will be less consensus than if a company releases the edition to the wider market. I for one have never installed a mod for any Baldur's Gate game. That will change hopefully (I wouldn't even mind learning how to do modding), but I am grateful for a new, higher standard with better technology that feels like an official release.
Even if modders are capable of doing what Beamdog has done, it would not be implemented as evenly or adopted as readily as an official release would be. I wouldn't be too quick to brush off what Enhanced Edition may do for the game compared to a mod.
It's been discussed to death, @Dazzu. Really it's everywhere on these boards. You may agree or not, but the information is all there. Why ask it again?
BGEE was developed with the collaboration of all the top BG modders out there. Look at the game credits. They understood the importance of creating a more modern rendition of the game that incorporates their work so far, but also addresses numerous problems they were having (including the ability to fully mod the user interface and better define a new standard for future mods).
BGEE is far superior to BG with mods. And modders are thankful. The game is today more moddable than it was before and the game also got a boost to its popularity that will help revive the BG mod community, which was essentially dormant for years.
BG:EE is far superior over the old BG. I probably won't make anything for BG any more because you can simply do more with the EE engine than that old archaic game engine. Better graphics, dialog support, effects and so on.
BG:EE is far superior over the old BG. I probably won't make anything for BG any more because you can simply do more with the EE engine than that old archaic game engine. Better graphics, dialog support, effects and so on.
@CoM_Solaufein Youre a big modder of teambg, right? You should post this message over all BG forums/boards, and hopefully it might convice all the people who are still sure BGEE is no better than BG with mods otherwise (like Dazzu). I really dont understand why alot of players dont seem to take into account that alot of modders were beta testers on BGEE and have embraced in in open arms. I understand that at the mo we cant get all our favorite mods etc on BGEE, but Im sure we will soon.
Comments
Seriously, if BG2 EE is just BG2 with stuff a modder can do...
since i just finished that once, and didnt finish the ToB
Reminds me of Kotor 2 and we all know how well that went.
It isn't enough paying for the final product. No. We need to find new things to pay. Trent Oster says most of the DLCs will be free? Horror! Let's suggest DLCs that we can pay for. And let's do it because we love Overhaul more than we care for our fellow consumers who may have an already hard time paying for a game title. Screw the consumer!
I've been in this industry for close to 30 years now. Well since the ZX Spectrum and Commodore days. And I've covered plenty of it as a games journalist for these past 3 decades. I've never seen such a complete disregard for oneself as in recent years. We wouldn't take even an inkling of this nonsense were we buying a refrigerator that is a much more essential object to our lives, but we permit ourselves to ignore even the most basic consumer protection all in the name of entertainment. Frankly!
...
PS: And one note to dispel any doubts. No one in here can say they like and respect Overhaul more than I for what they done to Baldur's Gate. We are all on the same level here. Make no mistake about that. The difference here is that I don't for one moment think that suggesting more paying material beyond that which they already have in store is a good way to establish that support. It's selfish. You are forcing everyone else into it. Want to support Overhaul? Really want? Then buy more than one copy of the game. If you already did, then congratulations. That's the sensible thing to do.
What exactly did they do? I've seen video game remakes before, and they're done a lot better. My favorite example is Megaman 1 being remade as Megaman Powered Up, which went beyond just a few new stages.
What exactly does EE add to BG1 that a Tutu modder couldn't for free? Is there a level maker? Is there a new race? Is there new multiclass combos? Party size altercations? No, nothing a modder couldn't do.
So, maybe I could wait for a Tutu modder to take Black Pits and legally and FREE add them to my BigWorld fun times.
Respectfully, I must disagree.
Paid DLC allows for efforts that would otherwise not be feasible for a company to undertake. Development takes resources, and this is simply allows more resources to be brought to bear on projects.
Furthermore, supporting paid DLC isn't "consumer abuse;" after all, we too are consumers. It is simple economics: if paid DLC is released, look at the content and decide whether it is worth the investment of your time and money. Choosing to not purchase DLC does not somehow invalidate your prior purchase of the base game.
Paid DLC is simply another option. I don't look at it as "supporting" Overhaul. Frankly, I am supporting myself. I want more ambitious DLC, so I understand I might have to pay for it. Consumer choice is generally regarded as a virtue.
Finally, how does asking for paid DLC force other consumers "into it?" Again, if one does not want to spend additional money, one is not forced to do so. I would argue the opposite: your position necessarily prevents consumer access to the kind of DLC content that requires financing, whereas allowing the creation of said DLC broadens consumer choice. Perversely, you (figuratively speaking) are the one forcing other consumers to follow your choice.
>> if paid DLC is released, look at the content and decide whether it is worth the investment of your time and money. Choosing to not purchase DLC does not somehow invalidate your prior purchase of the base game.
This isn't always possible. In multiplayer environments you may be forced to pay for a DLC. In any case I have no problem with the idea of a DLC, payed or otherwise. You misinterpret my post.
>> Consumer choice is generally regarded as a virtue.
But not consumerism. That's hardly a virtue. And it's consumerism I'm talking about here.
>> Finally, how does asking for paid DLC force other consumers "into it?" Again, if one does not want to spend additional money, one is not forced to do so.
Their choice to opt out only strengthens the fact those consumers will not have access to that DLC. What could possibly be free and publicly available becomes instead a matter of having or not the capacity to purchase. It's that simple. Everyone will be forced into it.
A DLC isn't exactly the business model that could cover those costs. You agree? Making a payable DLC wouldn't solve any financial considerations that a new game couldn't. And they decided not to do it in BGEE exactly because how expensive that would have become.
That said, I do agree that this puts a different light on @Mornmagor suggestion. It's a good point you make. I didn't consider until know his suggestion as a way to present a viable financial solution to the problem of new graphics.
Let's compare it to a remake of say a nintendo game for a better system. Well, this is like that, remade for 10 year stronger computers, the graphics, the options, the capacity should reflect that.
But... again, modders can do all of that for free.
Even if modders are capable of doing what Beamdog has done, it would not be implemented as evenly or adopted as readily as an official release would be. I wouldn't be too quick to brush off what Enhanced Edition may do for the game compared to a mod.
BGEE was developed with the collaboration of all the top BG modders out there. Look at the game credits. They understood the importance of creating a more modern rendition of the game that incorporates their work so far, but also addresses numerous problems they were having (including the ability to fully mod the user interface and better define a new standard for future mods).
BGEE is far superior to BG with mods. And modders are thankful. The game is today more moddable than it was before and the game also got a boost to its popularity that will help revive the BG mod community, which was essentially dormant for years.
I would not be as harsh as they were, but Sir, this is a very bad bad bad idea to give them this kind of ideas.
Or still, I would say, they have probably thought about it, and it would be wise to do not support them in this way.
The shall provide us a clean copy of the game, with very few bugs as possible.
still my all time favorite game
I say take your time