Concerns like this make it seem like Oculus is right to have a curated store front. I also think the hyper enthusiasm from developers is better than a hardware maker trying to convince devs to make things for it.
That said, are most of the big names in gaming that are down on VR because of the experience with VR in the 90s? Seems like there have been a few that have popped up using that as an example lately.
I noticed that trend too. A lot of those developers who lived through the 90s seem to be very jaded to the VR idea. Here's hoping they're proved wrong hmm.
I really dislike f2p games and day-1 dlc. They're both made for one purpose alone and that isn't to make a good game but to be greedy and make a lot of money. This alone isn't the problem however, making money of a game is important but it's how you do it that matters. When a player, like myself, see your greed bleed through every crack of your miserable game, why would I want to play it? F2p games need to go back under the rock they came from along with poorly excuses for dlc. Last I checked games were made and prospered just fine before f2p and dlc even existed.
This line "It’s why, along with MMOs like Tera and Aion, a genre we’ve come to expect to be free to play... etc", that might be because they're pretty bad games that would never live through a normal subscription game model. That's one big thing with mmos today, they're released to make "money" and have a ton of issues and gameplay problems stacked up. They lack a soul and that brings me back to what I said up top, you have developers making a game they love and then you have developers making games to make them money.
You'll have to excuse me, if you're reading this, the formatting just isn't working when I post comments on this site.
I read an interesting piece on kotaku about DLC being a good thing- basically it allows for the dev teams of large games to stay together after the development of the game is finished, rather than being laid off from the company as they can pay the salaries. Instead they allow them to make DLC until the next game is past pre-pro and can be worked on. As for day one DLC its the same thing often there is often about 9 months between a game being finished and it being released and in that time the dev team keeps making DLC. Obviously its not allways the case but I think DLC can be a very good thing towards getting better games as the dev teams are more stable and longer lasting.
24 Hours refund policy. I am sure you are aware how extremely volatile is the Skyrim engine and that an update for one mod or third person aplication can easily fuck over your game. Or worse, what if a modder stops support for his mod?
Those are true, but as I see it shitty mods wont sell. If it breaks games then it will have problems getting good reviews and making sales or keeping them. As for "what if they stop support?" they might, and you might go out of pocket, but if its earning them money then they have a far better incentive to support it long term don't they? Better than mods do now, also they have a better incentive to make sure it dosn't break the game unlike now when people don't really worry if it runs for them.
Source: Robin Scott, head at SkyrimNexus http://www.nexusmods.com/games/news/12459/?
That's the split he has been informed of from Valve.
Your reply wasn't there when I was typing. I was only saying the 75%to valve was not true
That's not even true. Bethesda have set the 75% cut as stated in all the information available, look it up. Valve are then only taking a smaller cut of that. Bearing in mind all the costs involved in making this work eg hosting, IP negotiations, its not that unfair a deal. 25% will still help feed a modder better than all the goodwill and positive community you throw at them.
I see nothing wrong in this really. Everyone seems to be up in arms around the 25% cut however I think its actually quite good. Bearing in mind all server hosting distribution and such is handled by Valve, which is not negligible, and that there making content for non-valve games most likely incurring charges by those 3rd party publishers. Plus not all mods use only there own work, many rely on assets and such already found in game which are the property of said third party, incurring IP problems if the publisher wished. 25% is actually a very reasonable cut indeed.
The problem of stolen authorship will most likely only create fringe cases which can be delt with.
Are they refundable as if not I can see a problem with scammers or shit mods making sales before there is a good set of reviews for them.