# Skyrim Online



## In The Nightside Eclipse (Dec 27, 2011)

Want to see what your ideas about Skyrim Online are (Nexus Version). It's currently in Alpha Testing atm and I think that it will be awesome despite others thinking that it ruins the concept of a RPG.

_...and if you numpties havnt seen it - _Skyrim Online News: http://www.skyrimnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=3592


----------



## Tycho (Dec 27, 2011)

In The Nightside Eclipse said:


> Want to see what your ideas about Skyrim Online are (Nexus Version). It's currently in Alpha Testing atm and I think that it will be awesome despite others thinking that it ruins the concept of a RPG.



Skyrim ruins the concept of an RPG.  Therefore I see absolutely nothing wrong with taking it online.  It would be like Dark Messiah, except not as sucky and not as boring.

Bethesda is going to come down on this like Stendarr's fucking Hammer.  You KNOW they will.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 27, 2011)

An MMO? Fuck MMOs. Though, a 2/4-player co-op version of the same game would be much more enjoyable IMO.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 27, 2011)

The great thing about Skyrim is you interact with others like a person. You come into town and have nothing and little respect, you kill a dragon and gain a lot of respect. Team with one side and you should avoid the other. Meet people on the street and you can piss them off or make friends. 
When you clear a dungeon it stays cleared. When you collect an artifact it stays collected. Your actions matter. 
The problem with MMOs is you no longer have an effect on the world. You could kill the tyrant demon lord set to enslave all the world...then do it again the next day. MMOs are good on their own, but the most important thing is everything has to be streamlined to the lowest common denominator. 
So you start with a huge world where you're special and can change the world then turn it into a place where millions of "dragonborn" run around yelling Fos Ro Gah! at everything.


----------



## Kaamos (Dec 27, 2011)

No. Why the fuck does EVERYTHING need to have some sort of online option nowadays?

edit: I can understand shooters and racing games having co-op/multiplayer, but game series that have a history of being singleplayer don't need it just because all other games have it. *cough* mass effect 3 *cough*


----------



## Smelge (Dec 27, 2011)

It would be good to be able to co-op with a friend or two, but making it open to lots of players at a time is just boring, unless you want to stage a huge murderfight.


----------



## In The Nightside Eclipse (Dec 27, 2011)

Personally, I hope it will be good, because i think it will be great to clear dungeons with friends and trade with them ect. Call it a kind of private-online RPG, which I think would be amazing.


----------



## Archon (Dec 27, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Skyrim ruins the concept of an RPG.  Therefore I see absolutely nothing wrong with taking it online.  It would be like Dark Messiah, except not as sucky and not as boring.
> 
> Bethesda is going to come down on this like Stendarr's fucking Hammer.  You KNOW they will.


Not sure, this has already been done with Oblivion at one point, and I haven't heard anything about a lawsuit because of it. It actually seems contradictory to Bethesda even adding mod support to their games, so i'm going to have to say no. If it were Fox though, i'd definitely be worried.

I actually see the only way for Bethesda to make the next Elder Scrolls game unique, would be to change up the gameplay a ton. I just wished Skyrim didn't take out as many skills as it did, among other things. And I miss levitation from Morrowind : (

Though an Elder Scrolls game that was online would be pretty nice, so I support this mod.

On another note, I hated Fable.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 27, 2011)

Smelge said:


> It would be good to be able to co-op with a friend or two, but making it open to lots of players at a time is just boring, unless you want to stage a huge murderfight.



Gotta agree with this.  Having one or two of my buddies along to raid a dungeon or kill a dragon is one thing.  Having to deal with an entire community of people is another.  If I wanted WoW, I'd play WoW.

Give me co-op or nothing at all.


----------



## Cain (Dec 27, 2011)

I agree with Gibby and Smelge.
A co-op thing would be quite fun, but it'd have to be friend-only or something, running though steam, or else you'll just get these asshats who keep trying to cast spells on you.


----------



## Tycho (Dec 27, 2011)

In The Nightside Eclipse said:


> Personally, I hope it will be good, because i think it will be great to clear dungeons with friends and trade with them ect. Call it a kind of private-online RPG, which I think would be amazing.



Diablo/D2 revisited, sorta.


----------



## In The Nightside Eclipse (Dec 27, 2011)

Jagged Edge said:


> I agree with Gibby and Smelge.
> A co-op thing would be quite fun, but it'd have to be friend-only or something, running though steam, or else you'll just get these asshats who keep trying to cast spells on you.



Too bad I have cracked version :-D


----------



## Fay V (Dec 27, 2011)

In The Nightside Eclipse said:


> Too bad I have cracked version :-D



Sincerly, screw you dude.
 This game is a masterpiece of work, the amount of detail is staggering. Genuinely good games deserve some support and cracked versions leave us with common denominator shit that's pushed out by the huge companies because it doesn't matter is Call of duty ad infinitum is stolen.


----------



## Kaamos (Dec 27, 2011)

In The Nightside Eclipse said:


> Too bad I have cracked version :-D



Criminal Scum.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 27, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Sincerly, screw you dude.
> This game is a masterpiece of work, the amount of detail is staggering. Genuinely good games deserve some support and cracked versions leave us with common denominator shit that's pushed out by the huge companies because it doesn't matter is Call of duty ad infinitum is stolen.



Personally, I don't believe that _any_ game is worth Â£40/$60 straight out of the box, though I feel Skyrim almost gets there with the huge amount of stuff to do and its world of possibilities. I even managed to get 50% off in a store so fuck yes.

Really though, I can't stand it when good games get pirated as developers like Bethesda deserve their money since they don't run things like those Activision/EA assholes.


----------



## In The Nightside Eclipse (Dec 27, 2011)

Smelge said:


> It would be good to be able to co-op with a friend or two, but making it open to lots of players at a time is just boring, unless you want to stage a huge murderfight.



Also on a different note, +1 for Mongrels


----------



## Aidy (Dec 27, 2011)

No, just no. Sick perverts uploading their sick mods I can deal with, but playing with those freaks online is a different story, there's a reason I hate MMORPGs and TES players are incredibly frustrating.

Also don't say you have an illegal copy of the game, one of us might work for the Police or something.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Dec 27, 2011)

Being able to do a Co-op or maybe small private servers could be cool but an MMO? Hell fucking no. Would completely ruin the point of the game.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 27, 2011)

Gibby said:


> Personally, I don't believe that _any_ game is worth Â£40/$60 straight out of the box, though I feel Skyrim almost gets there with the huge amount of stuff to do and its world of possibilities. I even managed to get 50% off in a store so fuck yes.
> 
> Really though, I can't stand it when good games get pirated as developers like Bethesda deserve their money since they don't run things like those Activision/EA assholes.



Price is another matter completely. I didn't pay 60$ for it and in general I wait for games to come down in price. That's a legitimate thing to do though. That is the market working with the developer. The buyers saying "Yes, this is a good game, I want to play this game, but it is too expensive right now" and then the price goes down. Bethesda gets their returns and can still go on to create new games. 
There is really no excuse to say "I want this game. I want to play it right now. Fuck the developer!" Then the company gets nothing for a game that was worth playing right away. Fuck that. I can't abide people cracking brand new games. 
Especially since so many people bitch about the state of games today.


----------



## Aidy (Dec 27, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Price is another matter completely. I didn't pay 60$ for it and in general I wait for games to come down in price. That's a legitimate thing to do though. That is the market working with the developer. The buyers saying "Yes, this is a good game, I want to play this game, but it is too expensive right now" and then the price goes down. Bethesda gets their returns and can still go on to create new games.
> There is really no excuse to say "I want this game. I want to play it right now. Fuck the developer!" Then the company gets nothing for a game that was worth playing right away. Fuck that. I can't abide people cracking brand new games.
> Especially since so many people bitch about the state of games today.



People bitch about games today because there's a good reason to. Look at the quality of the best-selling mainstream market games like Call of Duty and Dragon Age, they're nothing compared to what games used to be like. Neverwinter Nights, Baulders Gate, Doom, Half-Life and games like that are masterpieces and they deserve every penny but developers who make shitty games which have no plot that differs from other games the developer has made (like Activision) then they don't deserve it, especially when the game is Â£40. I'm not saying Bethesda don't deserve the money, they do, but I'm saying that games today are overpriced and more and more developers are just churning out crap games that don't deserve what the retailers are selling them for.


----------



## Fay V (Dec 27, 2011)

Aidy70060 said:


> People bitch about games today because there's a good reason to. Look at the quality of the best-selling mainstream market games like Call of Duty and Dragon Age, they're nothing compared to what games used to be like. Neverwinter Nights, Baulders Gate, Doom, Half-Life and games like that are masterpieces and they deserve every penny but developers who make shitty games which have no plot that differs from other games the developer has made (like Activision) then they don't deserve it, especially when the game is Â£40. I'm not saying Bethesda don't deserve the money, they do, but I'm saying that games today are overpriced and more and more developers are just churning out crap games that don't deserve what the retailers are selling them for.



I absolutely agree. Games have been getting simpler and more mainstream. Big developers that can survive pirating easily are the ones that push out these games. Genuinely good games that are unique, take thought, and have a lot of development to them made by smaller companies can't survive pirating. So in the end if you want good games you need to support the developer that made them. That doesn't mean you have to buy it right away when it comes out, because market price change is reasonable, but it does mean that you shouldn't pirate or buy used copies of these games. 
If you genuinely love a game and want more like it then support the developer, because otherwise all you will get is the games that are made for the mainstream or casual players.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 27, 2011)

Aidy70060 said:


> People bitch about games today because there's a good reason to. Look at the quality of the best-selling mainstream market games like Call of Duty and Dragon Age, they're nothing compared to what games used to be like. Neverwinter Nights, Baulders Gate, Doom, Half-Life and games like that are masterpieces and they deserve every penny but developers who make shitty games which have no plot that differs from other games the developer has made (like Activision) then they don't deserve it, especially when the game is Â£40. I'm not saying Bethesda don't deserve the money, they do, but I'm saying that games today are overpriced and more and more developers are just churning out crap games that don't deserve what the retailers are selling them for.



I don't think you're in a position to say what they do or do not deserve.

As far as any of us know, you aren't at Activision or EA.  You don't know the amount of man-hours those developers put into their games.  It's one thing if a game is released and it's completely broken and unplayable.  It's another if the game is released, polished, and does have a load of appeal.

Complain about prices of games all you want, but don't for a second start playing the "you don't deserve what you're paid" card.  Before you judge someone for their craft, you best walk a mile in their shoes first.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 27, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Price is another matter completely. I didn't pay 60$ for it and in general I wait for games to come down in price. That's a legitimate thing to do though. That is the market working with the developer. The buyers saying "Yes, this is a good game, I want to play this game, but it is too expensive right now" and then the price goes down. Bethesda gets their returns and can still go on to create new games.
> There is really no excuse to say "I want this game. I want to play it right now. Fuck the developer!" Then the company gets nothing for a game that was worth playing right away. Fuck that. I can't abide people cracking brand new games.
> Especially since so many people bitch about the state of games today.



True, true, but a lot of developers and their games don't even allow their games' prices to shift _at all._ It's all or nothing to them. You'd find that a new release for some games will be more expensive than a special edition version of most other games. You don't wanna see the prices for the special editions of those kinda games. It's all or nothing for some devs, and it makes me sick. Hell, the head of Activision wanted to make people in the UK pay Â£70 for his games. That's like $110. Unbelievable.

If it's a game like MW3 that has virtually no value due to its habit of repackaging itself and not adding any changes to the core game whatsoever, I think those games should be amongst the Â£15/$20 range at the most. Instead they're often found to be going _over_ the top price range for most other games, and they refuse to shift at all. Add small yet overpriced DLC packages, then look at the total price. IMO that's the kind of game where piracy is somewhat justifiable. The creators are the thieves themselves. 

There are many, many better games out there which cost an awful lot less initially, and they add _free_ content on top of that, with options to buy smaller unecessary things as a sign of support for the creators. As someone who is passionate about games made with love and care for both the product and its consumers, it upsets me to see people who would be willing to steal from the developers of those games. 

Although some people like to pirate games first just to try them, and _then_ buy them, as there was no demo version of the game. And you'll notice that a lot of games today lack demo versions, as opposed to the 90s where pretty much EVERY game had a demo version and piracy was less of an issue back then. Coincidence? I think not.


----------



## Recel (Dec 27, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Price is another matter completely. I didn't pay 60$ for it and in general I wait for games to come down in price. That's a legitimate thing to do though. That is the market working with the developer. The buyers saying "Yes, this is a good game, I want to play this game, but it is too expensive right now" and then the price goes down. Bethesda gets their returns and can still go on to create new games.
> There is really no excuse to say "I want this game. I want to play it right now. Fuck the developer!" Then the company gets nothing for a game that was worth playing right away. Fuck that. I can't abide people cracking brand new games.
> Especially since so many people bitch about the state of games today.



Its kind of sad, because it turns into a circle. They make worse games, more people pirate it, so they make even worse games. Or they make a DRM that makes paying customers playtime worse just as much, if not more than those who pirate it.

Aaaaaanyways. On the matter ill go with a strong NO. Most of the reasons are already stated by others, but ill add an extra one.
Think of the way Skyrim works. The combat system is a bit too complex for an MMO, it would only cause massive lag due to the tons of data going around. Stealth would have to be reworked, since players detect other players visualy, not based on light/drakness + skill factors. NPCs would have to respawn, or a lot of friendly NPCs wouldn't be killable, wich takes out a lot of quests and posible choices you can make. The waiting and sleeping system would have to be removed or reworked.
So all in all, turning Skyrim to an MMO would take away a lot of things that make this game good in the first place, even only from a technical view point.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 27, 2011)

Making Skyrim MMO would be horrible. Absolutely horrible. It would be hard to feel like the chosen hero when you can't kill Alduin because 15 other dudes were already farming him for dragon's bone. 

Also, they would either have to make all the NPCs immortal/always friendly, or there would not be NPCs at all. 

Chickens would be extinct. 


Even the co-op idea seems a bit sketchy, and while it's nice when you can play a good game with a friend, "SLAP A MULTIPLAYER ON IT!" is a trend I'd rather see die.

EDIT: If it was split-screen though I might forgive them. Fuck yeah split screen.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 27, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Even the co-op seems a bit sketchy, and while it's nice when you can play a good game with a friend, "SLAP A MULTIPLAYER ON IT!" is a trend I'd rather see die.



Duke Nukem Forever is an example of this. Shite game (for its hype, anyway), but that multiplayer they slapped on? Eeeech. Who even bothers to play it? They could have taken the time spent on creating a largely unused gamemode to making the core game halfway decent.

But a game like Saints Row 3 where the multiplayer slap-on wasn't really necessary, it _did_ prove to be very enjoyable.


----------



## Recel (Dec 27, 2011)

I don't see why you guys have a problem with Co-op. It's optional. You don't want to play with your friends (or don't have any friends :V)? You don't have to! But it's there if you want.

Also, that's why I dislike MMOs. You have to put up with every retard, every time if you want to play.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 27, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Making Skyrim MMO would be horrible. Absolutely horrible. It would be hard to feel like the chosen hero when you can't kill Alduin because 15 other dudes were already farming him for dragon's bone.
> 
> Also, they would either have to make all the NPCs immortal/always friendly, or there would not be NPCs at all.
> 
> ...



I can forgive the "SLAP A MULTIPLAYER ON IT" thing if it has a purpose in the game.  Skyrim and it's predecessor's from Bethesda have allowed you to have NPC companions to help you combat dungeons, ruined buildings, etc.  Having someone be in control of that other companion just makes sense.  Now, taking the entire world and making it an MMO is another thing entirely, much like the oft-discussed Fallout MMO.

And then there's your other games that don't lend themselves to multiplayer which I absolutely agree with you doesn't need it.  The Arkham series of games I hope never has multiplayer.  I still don't think Assassin's Creed needs multiplayer, I know I've barely touched it, if at all.  Uncharted I'm a bit torn on because the multiplayer is pretty fun to me, but I can live without it.  But Red Dead Redemption?  Barely touched it.

And then having these games have achievements attached to their multiplayer, another subject entirely, but that's fucking annoying.


----------



## In The Nightside Eclipse (Dec 27, 2011)

>dat feel when your first real thread is slightly successful.

This discussion is now getting interesting, gj,


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Dec 27, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Skyrim and it's predecessor's from Bethesda have allowed you to have NPC companions to help you combat dungeons, ruined buildings, etc.  Having someone be in control of that other companion just makes sense.



Thiiiis. You're basically co-oping offline, anyway. Having a friend take that co-op spot only does a world of good. Like Saints Row 3, you find yourself working with an NPC on very many occasions, and it's the same principle. Look how well it turned out!

Though putting a co-op function in, say, Amnesia would be retarded. A large part of the game's original intent and reasons for playing are completely ruined just for the sake of ticking "multiplayer functionality" on some checklist. Uergh. Resident Evil 5 is guilty of this. Fun game as it was, it's one of the reasons why it's not Resident Evil anymore.


----------



## In The Nightside Eclipse (Dec 27, 2011)

Recel said:


> I don't see why you guys have a problem with Co-op. It's optional. You don't want to play with your friends (or don't have any friends :V)? You don't have to! But it's there if you want.
> 
> Also, that's why I dislike MMOs. You have to put up with every retard, every time if you want to play.



This is completely what I agree with.


----------



## Pine (Dec 27, 2011)

Maybe a 2-4 player cooperative would make it enjoyable, but making a game like Skyrim into an MMO would ruin it.


----------



## In The Nightside Eclipse (Dec 27, 2011)

I also have to clarify that "Skyrim Online" is a project where it is similar to how Minecraft servers are, except there most likely won't be a server list so you won't get random griefers ect. So it very such won't be similar to WoW in stature.


----------



## Aidy (Dec 27, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I don't think you're in a position to say what they do or do not deserve.
> 
> As far as any of us know, you aren't at Activision or EA.  You don't know the amount of man-hours those developers put into their games.  It's one thing if a game is released and it's completely broken and unplayable.  It's another if the game is released, polished, and does have a load of appeal.
> 
> Complain about prices of games all you want, but don't for a second start playing the "you don't deserve what you're paid" card.  Before you judge someone for their craft, you best walk a mile in their shoes first.



It took Bethesda 4 years to make Skyrim, it took Infinity Ward less than a year to make Modern Warfare 3. That's nothing, if they want to make a game good then they don't just take models and an outdated engine to make what they think is a 'good sequel'. EA don't make games, they're the publisher, their subsidiaries make them and not once did I complain about EA's time. DICE are owned by EA, DICE put a lot of hard work into Battlefield because like Bethesda they've been working on it for years ontop of other projects, what else does Infinity Ward do?

Fuck all. And it's my opinion whether someone deserves money or not, and the opinions of thousands of other gamers. Proven by the sales of MW3, and the game which beat it is ironically Battlefield 3, the one everyone said would lose to MW3, not to mention the amount of pirated and blacklisted servers that are being set up on CoD games. That also indicates that people think the game doesn't deserve the hype and money. I do actually know what it's like to have experience in the industry, I know someone who works for Epic Games, I myself do modding for HL2 and I'm working on a rather big total conversion for Half-Life 2 and I know what it's like to have to put a _lot_ of work into something to get the quality, I've been working on it for almost 2 years now and kept most of the content secret until I feel the need for it to be revealed. Don't lecture me.


----------



## Unsilenced (Dec 27, 2011)

Recel said:


> I don't see why you guys have a problem with Co-op.  It's optional. You don't want to play with your friends (or don't have  any friends :V)? You don't have to! But it's there if you want.
> 
> Also, that's why I dislike MMOs. You have to put up with every retard, every time if you want to play.



Some games (Fucking F.3.A.R) just completely fuck single player  in favor of co-op. Shit just doesn't work unless you've got someone to  play with you, not a great thing in a series that at one point had  something to do with horror. 

If a game is being designed for  Co-op, they have to prepare everything so that two players can do it.  This does cut off certain possibilities for one-player runs. Having a different section/set of levels for co-op is good, but it can also feel a bit tacked on.


Having another player be able to drop in as your companion might be interesting, but it might be hard to balance without being super OP'd or having the second player feel utterly useless.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Dec 27, 2011)

Aidy70060 said:


> It took Bethesda 4 years to make Skyrim, it took Infinity Ward less than a year to make Modern Warfare 3.



2 years.  And if we're going to go by a "time=quality" deal, then that means that Duke Nukem Forever, Too Human, and TimeShift should have been masterpieces, amirite?



> That's nothing, if they want to make a game good then they don't just take models and an outdated engine to make what they think is a 'good sequel'. EA don't make games, they're the publisher, their subsidiaries make them and not once did I complain about EA's time. DICE are owned by EA, DICE put a lot of hard work into Battlefield because like Bethesda they've been working on it for years ontop of other projects, what else does Infinity Ward do?



EA publishes the games, but they have controlling stock within several developers.  I lumped EA within since both Activision and EA are often thrown together in the "releasing the same game" deal.



> Fuck all. And it's my opinion whether someone deserves money or not, and the opinions of thousands of other gamers. Proven by the sales of MW3, and the game which beat it is ironically Battlefield 3, the one everyone said would lose to MW3, not to mention the amount of pirated and blacklisted servers that are being set up on CoD games. That also indicates that people think the game doesn't deserve the hype and money. I do actually know what it's like to have experience in the industry, I know someone who works for Epic Games, I myself do modding for HL2 and I'm working on a rather big total conversion for Half-Life 2 and I know what it's like to have to put a _lot_ of work into something to get the quality, I've been working on it for almost 2 years now and kept most of the content secret until I feel the need for it to be revealed. Don't lecture me.



It's your opinion, and it's my opinion that your opinion is extemely uninformed.  Unless you've personally sat in on the development of those games, I find it very hard to believe that you actually know how much effort any of those employees were given.  Certainly with how much drama has come out of Infinity Ward over the past couple of years, those men and women clearly have some level of passion and pride in their work that they haven't just phoned it in every year.  The $775 million globally within the first five days of release also speaks towards how much people enjoy the game and are willing to pay.  That doesn't sound like people think it doesn't deserve the hype or money to me.

And I absolutely will lecture you on this fact because you knowing some dude at Epic Games doesn't hold any value when it comes to discussing how someone is working at Infinity Ward.  I'd be remiss if I worked on a highlight video for two days and another company works on another highlight video for one and then all of a sudden I come out and say "OH HE DOESN'T PUT IN AS MUCH EFFORT AS I DO."  That has absolutely NOTHING to do with the hours they've worked to get to that point, how they've managed their time, and so on.

Tinkering with something for a hobby is one thing Aidy, needing to meet deadlines, go to meetings, miss time with family and friends, all the while having your livelihood at stake if the thing you're working on flops is another thing entirely.  Don't even try to compare the kinds of working conditions a modder faces as opposed to someone working for a company.


----------



## Archon (Dec 27, 2011)

Unsilenced said:


> Making Skyrim MMO would be horrible. Absolutely horrible. It would be hard to feel like the chosen hero when you can't kill Alduin because 15 other dudes were already farming him for dragon's bone.
> 
> Also, they would either have to make all the NPCs immortal/always friendly, or there would not be NPCs at all.
> 
> ...


Although split-screen is all but dead for modern gaming. I'm still happy to see some developers supporting it still. Reminds me of the old days, where we had to play Turok : Rage Wars and Perfect Dark 64 on the same console for multiplayer with other people. I really miss those days. Back when people would say you were out of your mind, for even thinking a game could support up to 16-32 players.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Dec 27, 2011)

I'd be afraid the game would break or run extremely slow.

Co-op would be nice.  Especially for the more "challenging" areas.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Dec 27, 2011)

I would rather *NOT* have to be forced to interact with the fanbase of Elder Scrolls, thank you very much. The beauty of single player games is that if you're lettting fans destroy it for you, it's your own damn fault because the game *is not* forcing you to interact with those rejects.




Fay V said:


> Sincerly, screw you dude.
> This game is a masterpiece of work, the amount of detail is staggering. Genuinely good games deserve some support and cracked versions leave us with common denominator shit that's pushed out by the huge companies because it doesn't matter is Call of duty ad infinitum is stolen.



It also results in them saying "Well fuck *you* - we'd love to give you this for free, except stuff of this scale doesn't put food on the table. So excuse us for going to customers who *pay*."

Then you wonder why they don't trust us and start lobbying for stuff like SOPA? Yeah.


----------



## Archon (Dec 27, 2011)

Digitalpotato said:


> I would rather *NOT* have to be forced to interact with the fanbase of Elder Scrolls, thank you very much. The beauty of single player games is that if you're lettting fans destroy it for you, it's your own damn fault because the game *is not* forcing you to interact with those rejects.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I wasn't exactly happy with Bethesda using Steam as a requirement to play Skyrim, since I hate Digital Distribution. If it was to stop pirating, then they failed horribly. And quite honestly, i'd rather actually own a game, rather than rent it.

Also wasn't pleased that Skyrim seemed to get even more consolefied than Oblivion did. Sadly, the gaming industry, like any other, is all about maximizing profits. So they wanted to also get the console port in there too. In fact, I think Skyrim was mostly designed around consoles. Just look at the interface. Thankfully there's already a User Interface mod that fixes it.

If you're referring to a pay to play Elder Scrolls game. I think that the Original Poster said that he was just talking about the Nexus fan created online. I don't see having to pay for that as ever happening. Mostly what I think people meant by online. Was just a simple optional co-op feature, balanced correctly. But God save us all if it turns out like Fable 2's co-op. Now that was without a doubt, the sorriest excuse for co-op i've ever seen on a modern console game.


----------



## Kaamos (Dec 27, 2011)

Archon said:


> Well, I wasn't exactly happy with Bethesda using Steam to distribute Skyrim, since I hate Digital Distribution. If it was to stop pirating, then they failed horribly. And quite honestly, i'd rather actually own a game, rather than rent it.



Um, steam is just an optional way to get the game, I'm pretty sure they still sell it retail. They aren't forcing you to buy it on steam.


----------



## Archon (Dec 27, 2011)

Kaamos said:


> Um, steam is just an optional way to get the game, I'm pretty sure they still sell it retail.


If you mean as in with the box/disk then yes. But it still requires Steam. Sorry, should have been more specific. I'll edit my previous post.


----------



## Flatline (Dec 28, 2011)

Kaamos said:


> Um, steam is just an optional way to get the game, I'm pretty sure they still sell it retail. They aren't forcing you to buy it on steam.



AFAIK Skyrim uses Steamworks and games that use it must be activated on Steam.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Dec 28, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Sincerly, screw you dude.
> This game is a masterpiece of work, the amount of detail is staggering. Genuinely good games deserve some support and cracked versions leave us with common denominator shit that's pushed out by the huge companies because it doesn't matter is Call of duty ad infinitum is stolen.



I steal shit all the time and I knew from the moment I saw the unveiling of Skyrim in GameInformer back in January that I was going to buy the fuck out of that game.


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 28, 2011)

skyrim proved the whole industry wrong by being amazing without having any kind of online features. so why would you want to play it online?


----------



## Cain (Dec 28, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> I steal shit all the time and I knew from the moment I saw the unveiling of Skyrim in GameInformer back in January that I was going to buy the fuck out of that game.


There are the games you pirate, and then there are the games you -could- pirate, but because they look so awesome you buy them instead.
Amirite?


----------



## Digitalpotato (Dec 28, 2011)

Archon said:


> Well, I wasn't exactly happy with Bethesda using Steam as a requirement to play Skyrim, since I hate Digital Distribution. If it was to stop pirating, then they failed horribly. And quite honestly, i'd rather actually own a game, rather than rent it.
> 
> Also wasn't pleased that Skyrim seemed to get even more consolefied than Oblivion did. Sadly, the gaming industry, like any other, is all about maximizing profits. So they wanted to also get the console port in there too. In fact, I think Skyrim was mostly designed around consoles. Just look at the interface. Thankfully there's already a User Interface mod that fixes it.



Of course the game industry is about maximizing profits. Know why? Because it's a *BUSINESS*. That's how people put food on the table and pay for other large-scale games. You'd be surprised to find how many other industries are about maximizing profits. 




> If you're referring to a pay to play Elder Scrolls game. I think that the Original Poster said that he was just talking about the Nexus fan created online. I don't see having to pay for that as ever happening. Mostly what I think people meant by online. Was just a simple optional co-op feature, balanced correctly. But God save us all if it turns out like Fable 2's co-op. Now that was without a doubt, the sorriest excuse for co-op i've ever seen on a modern console game.



no, I'm referring to skyrim being played online in general - the worst part about online games is the fans. They easily break the experience, rendering an otherwise nice game (DotA) unplayable.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Dec 28, 2011)

If there was online game co-op for Skyrim, it should be two player co-op.
Any more players and it will fuck the experience up. And MMO Skyrim would suck balls so hard they'd come off.


----------



## Archon (Dec 28, 2011)

Digitalpotato said:


> Of course the game industry is about maximizing profits. Know why? Because it's a *BUSINESS*. That's how people put food on the table and pay for other large-scale games. You'd be surprised to find how many other industries are about maximizing profits.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought I kind of made it clear about it being a buisness when I said "like any other."

As far as online for Skyrim itself goes. If you don't like Skyrim having online, don't download the mod. There's assholes in every online community, not really a surprise. If it bothers you that much, just associate with your friends for online. Or mute everyone that you don't know, that's what I do.


----------



## Tezzereth (Dec 30, 2011)

DNF was shiat game to me cause ot went with the two weapon +grenade and regen health route.



As for Skyrim, ill wait for the eventual GotY version to come out. The game sounds pretty terrible to me in terms being a TES game. To me anyways.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Dec 31, 2011)

Archon said:


> As far as online for Skyrim itself goes. If you don't like Skyrim having online, don't download the mod. There's assholes in every online community, not really a surprise. If it bothers you that much, just associate with your friends for online. Or mute everyone that you don't know, that's what I do.



1) Won't be downloading it
2) What happens if they're not online? 
3) Still makes 'em ruin stuff.  
4) That doesn't mean I can't state my opinion on whether or not this is a good idea - Skyrim isn't exactly made to be an online game. There'd be so many people in Windhelm alone that they'd start frying peoples' computers since it's so tightly-packed together.


----------

