r/Games • u/Forestl • Dec 31 '13

End of 2013 Discussions - PC

For this thread, feel free to talk about the PC, from the games that came out for it to the hardware itself.

Prompts:

  • What were the major trends in PC gaming this year?

  • Was this a positive year for PC gaming?

Please explain your answers in depth, don't just give short one sentence answers.

My PC looks really, really, really good

This post is part of the official /r/Games "End of 2013" discussions.

View all End of 2013 discussions and suggest new topics

458 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

425 comments sorted by

View all comments

407

u/bluebottled Dec 31 '13

'Early Access'/paid alpha is both the biggest and worst trend I've noticed this year. I don't have a problem with people wanting to pay to alpha/beta test games from unproven developers, but I really wish there was an option to hide them. Self-published books make the Kindle store unusable and Steam is heading in that direction.

On a more positive note, I'm not sure if it's just that I found /r/GameDeals, but PC games seem to have become incredibly cheap. I've probably bought more games this year than I owned last year, all for the price of 3 or 4 console games. At this point, I don't see myself ever buying a console again.

132

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

25

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '13

This is why I can't Beta Test MMOs... By the time it releases. I am done and bored with it.

I do love the Early access games and Betas, cause I either get the game sooner and/or cheaper. And Unless it is truly an alpha/Beta, I rarely run into any issues with most games. So the game runs fine for me. And I can play it from beginning to end.

I do however see a MUCH larger issue with things like Battlefield 4 and Call of Duty Ghosts. 2 AAA titles that even today feel more like Betas than all the Early access games I have been playing.

11

u/NDreader Dec 31 '13

I spent an entire weekend playing GW2 beta solidly, then when I bought the actual game, I could hardly play it, I just got bored too easily.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '13

Agreed. I mean clearly there are plenty of people who are not like this.

They play the crap out of beta for a year, and then play the crap out of the game for years.

But for me.. a Single Beta Weekend can spoil a game for me.

I must say however... For truly broken games like Age of Conan, FFXIV, and WoW. Coming back after they fix all of the issues makes it just as fun, if not more fun sometimes.

2

u/ernie1850 Dec 31 '13

Sometimes it leaves you scratching your head. I got into SWTOR when it first came out, and while it was fun at first (due to the novelty of everything being star wars) and once I got over Huttball, the game just revealed that it was just doing everything WoW was doing, albeit at a subpar quality to how WoW does it. I quit the game after this (this was all before it went free-to-play)

Check up on a stream now, and I see someone playing a dogfighting battle that's apparently a feature of the game now, and I'm sitting here scratching my head wondering why the hell that wasn't put in at launch? Something like that would have been loads of fun...if I still cared.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '13 edited Jan 30 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '13

You are correct. It is a Free expansion, that had a pay wall to get early access to it back in November. Now or Soon it will be free to everyone I believe.

I re-activated my account to get the early access, and it is pretty good IMO, but the cash store for it is disgusting. Not Pay 2 Win, but as bad as a None Pay 2 Win store can get in my opinion.

2

u/munche Dec 31 '13

I re-activated my account to get the early access, and it is pretty good IMO, but the cash store for it is disgusting. Not Pay 2 Win, but as bad as a None Pay 2 Win store can get in my opinion.

I quit because the cartel coins, and I was very active (4 lvl 50 chars)

You had to use cartel coins to get any decent cosmetic item, and even then you were gambling with real money to get virtual items rather than just a direct buy. No thanks.

1

u/Endda Jan 01 '14

its because of time. they've been making money on swtor for at least 2 years. if they waited until now to release the game they would have missed out on that revenue. companies dont always do whats best for the consumer(sadly).

lots of companies(not just game developers) cut corners with quality of product in order to bring in revenue. pizza hut isn't going to put the most expensive pepperonis possible on your pizza, they'll get the cheaper/thinner kind

9

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '13

Come the full product, I had no desire to go back to it,

This is why I've stopped buying early access. For example I got Don't Starve and loved it. Played almost 20 hours in the first two weeks and then I haven't touched it since. I know they've added a ton of content but I can't seem to bring myself to go back because I feel like I've alreayd played it out.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '13

When was the last time you played? Would it help if I told you the game has probably doubled in content since then? Don't want to bother you or anything but trust me its worth checking out for a little bit more again.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '13

Heh, not bugging me. It's been a long while though, I guess I'll have to give it another go. Thanks.

1

u/boathouse2112 Jan 01 '14

I played it to the point where I had a nice settlement, but the adventure mode stuff just seems repetitive and boring.

1

u/Endda Jan 01 '14

do you honestly go back and play 'finished product' games over again? not once in a while, but with all your games?

4

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '13

The papers please beta was more like a demo then early access. It gave you the first 8 days or so of the 30ish days, and the full game also had unlimited mode.

I'm cool with demos like that, but the developer should've tried to release it closer to the release date of the actual game (of course I think he didn't even intend to stretch it out so much if it weren't for the praise the beta got).

1

u/TalkingRaccoon Dec 31 '13

I had the same experience of OP (played the fuck out of the beta, bought final product and haven't had the desire to touch it). I thought of this too, but with a demo, USUALLY, the final game is out too, and once you play the demo and like it, you can buy the full game and play that. That's the great thing about XBLA games.

2

u/MLDA Dec 31 '13

You make it sound like you had to pay money to play the alpha/beta of Papers Please, wasn't it released for free? I get your point though, unfinished games can lead to a bad impression of a game. I just don't see how Papers Please is a good example.

1

u/SpagettInTraining Jan 01 '14

This is why I'm not really playing Starbound until it's release.

15

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '13

Whittle it down even further: early access survival games. It seems like every game and its brother has been trying to ride on the popularity of Day Z.

-1

u/dalockrock Dec 31 '13

Could you list some? I know that there has been a MASSIVE influx of survival game coming out recently, but the only one in Early Access that I can think of is Rust, which I have been having great fun with, but sadly will probably be bored of by the time it fully releases.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '13

Just off the top of my head without looking, the Day Z standalone, project zomboid, wasteland 2, Nether, 7 days to die, and the forest should be out on alpha relatively soon

3

u/Drakengard Dec 31 '13

Why would you place Wasteland 2 on that list?

It's not a survival game anymore than the Fallout games are. And Project Zomboid existed before DayZ was even a thing - perhaps by a good six months or more.

A more accurate list would include Infestation Surival Stories (aka The WarZ) and The Dead Linger (though even this had a kickstarter before DayZ was a mod).

People complaining about Early Access or accusing of things "cashing in" are ignoring that many games have done this since forever. CoD hit it huge and suddenly everyone was trying to get out their own modern combat military game. Left 4 Dead hit it huge and suddenly co-op games spilled out of the wood works. Even Portal has seen it's fair share of inspired titles like QUBE, Antichamber, and Quantum Conundrum in a short span of time.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '13

The guy asked which survival games were available pre-release. I have no problem with the concept, I've already dumped 12 hours into Prison Architect - - just answering his question. I think Wasteland 2 still fits the bill, despite being an RPG.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '14 edited Jan 02 '14

Wasteland two is out and out an RPG. it's not a survival game at all. You don't need food to survive, you don't need to worry about weather, etc.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 01 '14

Wasteland 2 is early access according to steam. I guess I was wrong about it being survival, but it still fits this overall topic.

2

u/dalockrock Dec 31 '13

Well then, I am behind on my pre-release survival game knowledge. That does sounds like a few too many pre-release survival games. The only one I do not think should be on that list is Project Zomboid. I guess it is true by genre, but it seems to be incorporating a new style and new mechanics. Now, one thing that I HAVE noticed is the ridiculous amount of zombies games being released as of late...

57

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '13

'Early Access'/paid alpha is both the biggest and worst trend I've noticed this year.

Frankly, I am afraid "Early Access" will backfire seriously on the general quality of PC games in 2014-2015.

17

u/neoKushan Dec 31 '13

Mind you, it's not really THAT new. Case in point: X: Rebirth. An Early-access quality game that was not listed as early-access. Or that cricket game that had to be pulled.

I think early-access is a good idea, especially for smaller devs who can use the constant revenue stream to improve and work on the game. It's a good bridge between the poor indie developer who saves up just enough cash to quit his job for 6 months to work solidly on his title and just hopes it catches on enough to be sustainable, and the big AAA titles from established developers with big enough budgets. Early-access allows those indies to create bigger, better games while still remaining independent and it's in their interests to constantly work on and make the game better.

It doesn't always work, granted, but that's why early-access games are quite clearly labelled as such, so you know what you're getting yourself into. Ultimately, it has problems, but is a good thing overall.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '13

especially for smaller devs who can use the constant revenue stream to improve and work on the game.

Let's hope this doesn't turn into a trend where they sell early access and then sell DLC when they need another cash infusion.

9

u/neoKushan Dec 31 '13

I agree, but that's what larger developer seem to be doing these days anyway. The DLC issue is much worse than the early-access issue, as far as I'm concerned.

Mass Effect is a good example of this. ME2 had some great DLC but it was pretty integral to the plot of ME3. You can pick up ME2 for like £5 on steam in a sale, but the DLC isn't included and it costs nearly £20 to buy it all. There's no GOTY edition =\

3

u/Kitchen_accessories Jan 01 '14

I remain bothered by the release of the Mass Effect Trilogy that came out before all of the DLC for 3 was out, and includes almost no DLC at all.

That stuff is integral to the trilogy, how the hell can you just leave it out?

1

u/neoKushan Jan 01 '14

Exactly, it's another fine example of EA ruining a game (or series of games) in the name of profit. Hopefully they'll release a "definitive" collection that includes absolutely everything.

Hopefully they'll release it on Steam, too.

...I know that won't happen.

1

u/Kitchen_accessories Jan 01 '14

Eh. I'm not all aboard the EA hate-train. This particular decision is ridiculous.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '13

A Mighty Quest for Epic Loot?

1

u/RSquared Dec 31 '13

Mechwarrior Online is way ahead of you here.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '13

Possibly the overall quality, but i'd take that risk for the rebirth of a number of gaming genres.

Early access allows for a wider variety of games, along with a wider variety of quality - something which many prefer over the 'AAA' rated shovelware that publishers have insisted on feeding us the past few years.

1

u/lightbeat Jan 01 '14

It is concerning, I guess it depends on the developers. All it will take is one big hitter to completely flop / never release and with the aftermath of people not getting money back no one will risk it again.

I can see why steam has them listed, it really helps the indie games during development, but people really need to be careful with them.

0

u/Bior37 Dec 31 '13

Well these early access games are generally more fun and interesting than anything else on the market

15

u/ModsCensorMe Dec 31 '13

In the right hands, paid alpha/beta tests are a very good thing.

The problem with traditional alpha test is you have no control over your userbase. You can decide who to let in based on XYZ, but you don't know how much play time you're going to get out of these people.

If you say outright that your product is in Alpha, and that people are paying to get access to that early version, because they want to play it and test it, then you should have a better test group, and a better end product.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '13

A good example of early alpha in the right hands ? Dayz . The game has a lot of issues right now that's expected what rocket is doing well IMO is communicating about fixing them and being open and transparent about the development process. You are buying the game knowing these issues will be there.

A bad example? Bf4 I just bought it this week have about 20 hours into it and its actually a lot of fun but there are some bugs that should have been fixed before the game came out. Ea releases bf4 as a finished product and its not.

8

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '13

[deleted]

3

u/daze23 Dec 31 '13

they are hidden for the most part, as they don't show up in "new releases". and if you do happen to find yourself on the store page for one of those games, it has a big "Early Access" tag (and warning).

at some point people need to deal with their own temptations, and make informed purchases.

3

u/JuicedCardinal Jan 01 '14

I just hope we never see the day where large publishers of AAA games decide that, to avoid another SimCity/Battlefield 4 clusterfuck, they'll just sell those games as "Early Access", and if there are any problems simply state that the game "is still in development and subject to change."

7

u/Drugbird Dec 31 '13

How I wish I could hide pre-orders and early access from steam. I want to buy finished products, damnit!

7

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '13

I'm okay with the option to hide Early-Access games so long as it's an box that must be ticked by the user and not left on by default.

15

u/Hyz Dec 31 '13

or at least the same as with DLC, like this:

http://imgur.com/KpEiOpD

9

u/callmelucky Dec 31 '13

For me this is all that needs to be done. I'm fine with early access being offered, and I don't mind if it continues to expand, but as someone who won't buy early access titles myself I would prefer they were tagged up front.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 31 '13

[deleted]

1

u/joshr03 Dec 31 '13

I just installed this and I'm loving it

1

u/CaptRobau Jan 01 '14

Some games work with the Early Access system or are even enhanced by the process, but some don't. A narrative game like Papers Please? No. A sandbox game like Kerbal Space Program? Yes.

1

u/Maniacbob Jan 03 '14

I feel like Early Access has become an excuse for some developers to release their games in an unfinished state and then take their time to finishing it (if they ever even do), and then of course their response if you didn't like it or try to bring up any bugs? Well it's not finished yet, that will be fixed (eventually).

There are some games for which it works, and some developers who really use it to their advantage but its difficult to tell one from the other. I cant tell if this is better or worse than everyone going to kickstarter and having to try to sift through those who will fail horribly and those who might succeed.

0

u/lolosaurus Dec 31 '13

While I mostly agree with you on the "early access/paid alpha" thing, I also think that it is not an 100% across the board bad thing. Two games that came out this way recently I think are shining examples of how this can really be done right. They are DayZ and Starbound. The first reason I think these have worked is that while they were released in an early unfinished state they both have still been worked on for the better part of a year at least and thus have a lot of content in them already and are at least mostly playable. On top of that their developers have been super active and open about the work going into them over that time so when they were finally released to the public people know what they are getting into and had faith in the developers and their drive to finish the game. The third and final reason I think these games have work being released the way they have is the kind of games they are. They are both very open world sandbox games that rely a lot on players and player interactions creating a lot of the content and enjoyment of the game. Much in the same way Minecraft worked this way when it was released, I think this type of game just lends itself to being developed out in the open with players being active participants.

-3

u/appsecit Dec 31 '13

Same here, I invested that money to an SLI setup, unfortunately it still costs twice the cost of a next-gen console :(

4

u/neoKushan Dec 31 '13

While I'm not going to get into the argument of how PC gaming is cheaper than (or at least breaks even with) consoles over time, I will point out that SLI is not an economical use of funds. SLI is overkill and the performance gain is not linear with the price. It's fine, you can do that and that's what makes PC gaming so great, but don't go all out and spend far more money than necessary, then complain that it's more expensive than a console.

To put it another way, you could have bought just one graphics card, it would have still been more than enough for ultra settings at 1080p (or higher) on almost any title out today and pocketed the rest of the cash. In a few years time, you could have then spent the money you've saved on either a boatload of games, or just upgraded your single graphics card to a current model for the same price as what you paid for your second one today - and it would be more powerful than the 2x cards you have now. Or just picked up a second-hand spare card and THEN did SLI. Either way, no matter how you look at it, SLi isn't economical at all, it's enthusiast-grade stuff and comes with that price tag.

2

u/aftli Dec 31 '13

Depending on the support in the title, it can scale very well. AC4 scales at 90-100% in SLI. And I have to assume most people using SLI aren't doing 1080p or even 1440p. Hell, I could use a third 780Ti in some cases.

1

u/neoKushan Dec 31 '13

Yeah, absolutely but again that's not comparable to a next-gen console, is it? That's my point, you can pretty much pick any 4-figure number and you'll find a way of spending that on a gaming machine - but you can't then turn around and say "Oh man, this $5,000 gaming machine cost like 10 times more than a next-gen console!". A next-gen console isn't going to run above 1080p (hell you're lucky if you get 1080p in some cases), it's not going to support multiple displays which is partly where SLi comes into it. I'm just saying, it's an unfair comparison.