But each and every time we get no support with the and the excuse always is it not GPGs fault its the publisher .
We heard the same thing about TA , Supcom, FA, Demigod, and now Supcom 2 its never GPGs fault but the common denominator is GPG why do they go with people that have no plans to support thier game.
Look at Starcrap no where near as good as FA or Supcom 2 but they support thier game and it has a thriving comunity while Supcom 2 still does not have a map editor and a very limited range of maps.
Gpg you make great games but you let yourselves down baddly in the support you give to your loyal customers who in the end will grow wise to the "its not GPGs fault excuse"
Just my rant for what its worth i love GPG games but i am now left hoping the other game makers get thier act together and make a game that will compete with the GPG games with everything like strategic zoom and then support it but i guess i will be waiting for along time what really gets me is we already have a great game in supcom 2 and FA release some add on packs and support your games more.|||GPG does support their games, just not enough to please the extremists.
They've had plenty of patches for everything, SupCom2 even underwent some pretty large gameplay changes and completely new features.
But a company like GPG just can't afford to support their games forever and its not like GPG has been sitting around doing nothing either, the progress on KnC and their involvement with AoEO proves that.
Mike|||icehole|||Why does everyone have to compare with Blizzard? Do they not know anything about them???
No offense but that's like comparing a Chevy with a Porsche.|||Damn you should play cod mate. ^^
Imo gpg is one of the best companies around for supporting their games (other than blizzard but they have the MONEY to do it). On fps games you will be lucky to get 5 big patches to the game and most bugs will prob never be fixed. An example of a good (imo) fps producer is EPIC games. Just look at ut3, it had around 8 patches and a titan pack and if u go into a game you will still find lots of bugs which have never even been looked at. Now when comparing to supcom2's 18 (think i counted correctly but possibly wrong) you can see that gpg cares about their games.
I have played supcom2 for a long time and havn't encountered nearly as many bugs as i have on ut3. Sure you can say fps is bound to have more bugs but just looking at the number of patches alone and the quantity in the patches you can really tell gpg has supported its games as best as it can.
EDIT: Wow that was alot of fast responses XD|||OrangeKnight|||Well said Mithy.
You mention how Blizzard has so much money than GPG but you fail to mention how they got the massive budgets they have.
Starcrap came out not long after TA maybe before i cant quite remember which but they supported the game with tourneys and established a massive player base in Asia with some players even becoming famous.
What did Cavedog do they sold out to a french company who imediatly shut down Boneyards and forgot about the game which was probably the greatest RTS ever made.
And then came the old excuse its not our fault its Infrogrames.
And the same thing has happened with all GPG releases thereafter they sold out to publishers who don't give a rats about the game.
After all these years GPG dont realise that they have competitors and by not supporting thier games for year on year when they bring out a new game people just fob it off as a game thats good but wont be around for long.
Supporting a game does not always mean loosing money bring out add on packs add more to the DLC they will make money to develope further and soldify thier reputation.
With supcom 2 we dont even have a lobby or a community how do they expect people to support them when they just fob us off with its not our fault.|||bottom line
GPG supports its games
Cavedog and TA are a totaly different company, and id just say starcraft really just got lucky, look at minecraft. It all depends if people find the game and it gets popular, and supcom2 really wasnt a great groundbreaking rts anyway. KNK looks like it will be, FA was but had a few problems with the core gameplay that made game last to long. aoeo wont, and there is no reason to support a game for years if people wont really play it for years (in large numbers).|||If I recall, Cavedog was the company that did Total annihilation, and its expansion packs, but Cavedog got bought out, and I dunno what its called now XD|||brandon007|||What icehole is not realizing is that GPG doesn't have publishers lining up to fund GPG projects. SupCom and Demigod were ambitious projects that didn't do so well on the market. So THQ dumped GPG after FA because they realized that it made no financial sense to support a mediocre-selling game. Demigod was a financial disaster where GPG decided to make a game using their own money, then ran out of money about 90% into the project. By now GPG had somewhat of a stigma in the industry of making over-ambitious games that people didn't really buy in large numbers; or bought, then tossed out due to game problems.
Remember that THQ was the only publisher willing to publish SupCom1. GPG went to a number of other major publishers and they all turned down GPG for proposing a project that was far too risky. In all likelihood, SE was the only publisher that GPG could find that was willing to publish SupCom2. At least now GPG has found a publisher who seems to be interested in supporting games in the long term called Microsoft.
In any case, the number of patches that GPG has released for their games simply disproves icehole's point. I've played games that have had 3 patches or less. SupCom2 has had almost 25 and maybe one more in the works. SupCom1 had over 10 patches and even FA got 2 official and one unofficial patch despite THQ's refusal to cooperate. I think Demigod got a few patches to fix issues and add 2 new demigods. So the only recent GPG game that actually didn't get much support was Space Seige, and that was Sega's fault.|||At least now GPG has found a publisher who seems to be interested in supporting games in the long term called Microsoft.
I dont care if they become part of microsoft, as long as they make true honest to goodness GPG games with great scale and great fun. Look at halo!
plus ima windows fan, die mac!!!! (dont reply to this last line, just a comment)|||bioemerl|||yeeeeah you have a point there
but gpg will be on microsofts "good" list if they do well with the content, and who does not want to be on microsofts "good" list?|||GPG does support their games, but to be honest, looking at SC2, there are again some problems unpatched I really don't like. What about some units, for example the Kraken?
Most useless unit at all, maybe this is not the most important aspect for SC patches, but still?!|||bioemerl|||Putting aside Blizzard and Valve, small indie devs, and MMOs, has *any* games company ever supported a competitive game to their players' satisfaction?
I've heard good things about Relic, but I dont know any details.|||25 patches within the first year of release indicates that the game was released before completion.
GPG has known about many game ending glitches for at least 3 months now, and still no patch.|||That may be so (if you ask me, it was). However, 25 patches means something else; it got a bucket load of post-launch support.
I'm still jaded about the lack of mod support, and I'm still jaded about the direction the game took, but I can't say that GPG didn't support Sup2.
You all have to remember that patches take time to produce, and if it takes time; you're going to have to pay someone for that time. Ergo, patches take money... several thousands of dollars if you put any significant number of people on it. GPG doesn't bank-roll it's own games (that would have been KNC, but AOE came along), so it's needs to be given money from the people that paid for everything else... the publishers.
If you want a patch, you have to get GPG some money for it. Bitching at GPG isn't going to accomplish that.
However, bitching at Square Enix might. Get on Twitter, and Farcebook, and cause a public raucous. Alternatively, you could take a leaf out of the FA fans' book (who are writing to THQ) and write a polite appeal letter to Dave Hoffman.|||icehole|||No, that's wrong. Blizzard had a massive budget beforehand. They probably pioneered WoW because of their budget.|||LayZboy|||StarCraft was a very successful game, and that is partially due to the support it received. But just giving a game that kind of support isn't enough to make it reach StarCraft status - a whole host of other factors played into SC's success, including the timing of its release, its competitive balance (which, to be fair, was tweaked significantly over the course of 5+ years and one expansion), and a lack of serious competition from other RTS games over the 6-7 years following its release.
Claiming that Blizzard supported StarCraft because of WoW's success is clearly false, as WoW wasn't released until 2005-- well after the constant flow of patches to StarCraft had slowed to a trickle.|||GPG was good with free support (patches) in SC2.
Problem is we didn't get enough paid support (real expansions, more DLCs).|||terau
No comments:
Post a Comment