PDA

View Full Version : Not exactly happy



Unsatisfied
18th Nov 2014, 04:11
So I bought DEHR a couple weeks after launch. Got through it, but disliked the boss battles enough not to bother with a second playthrough. Fast forward to last week and someone mentions they fixed the boss fights. Unfortunately they didn't mention it was only on a specific version. So Eidos, why have you not released the fixed version of your game as an update to people WHO ALREADY BOUGHT IT? I understand you want money, but this is ridiculous. I have to purchase another copy of a liscence I already own to play the version that isn't ****? If anyone would be so kind as to explain why exactly the update wasn't released, I would love to hear it. Because as far as I understand when I purchase a disc I'm actually purchasing the liscence to play the game, and that should include any updates that aren't DLC.

xaduha2
18th Nov 2014, 05:18
I sorely hope that it is the first and last injustice that will ever happen to you.

AFAIK there was 75% discount on Steam for owners of HR and The Missing Link DLC. Maybe still is.

Unsatisfied
18th Nov 2014, 06:19
Sure would be nice if it was 360. But then again, I already bought the game so you don't really have a point.

SageSavage
18th Nov 2014, 07:13
So, according to that logic if you own a DVD of the original cut of "Blade Runner" you are also entitled to a free downloads of the "Final Cut" and so forth, right? What exactly is the definition of an update and who claimed DXHR DC is that? Personally I don't think the DC offered anything that was worth my money so I didn't buy it. Sure, a more generous publisher might have made some of that available for free but that was not the case. Live with it. It's not like you've been promised any of those before buying the original, were you?

Spyhopping
18th Nov 2014, 08:18
I have to agree with Fox here. I didn't like the boss fights either, but I don't feel entitled to a free update. It would be nice, but it's not like the game is broken without it. It's more of a design imbalance than a bug that needs patching.

Pinky_Powers
18th Nov 2014, 13:11
As individual purchases, I own Deus Ex, DX: Game of the Year Edition, DX: Human Revolution, DX:HR: Missing Link, and DX:HR: Director's Cut, and I don't feel robbed one bit. In fact, I picked up some of those for so cheep during a Steam Sale, I almost feel like I robbed Eidos.

So quit whining. You played an amazing game. There is a better version out other, so go buy it when you have a few extra gold in your bank.

In all honesty, this was your misstep. The information was out there, but you didn't research your purchase. Buyer Beware. You enjoyed a wonderful game. I really feel sorry for you.

Unsatisfied
18th Nov 2014, 15:56
What exactly is the definition of an update and who claimed DXHR DC is that?

Changes to the games pre-existing AI and boss battles is an update. And no one had to claim anything, because that is what an update is.


it's not like the game is broken without it. It's more of a design imbalance than a bug that needs patching.

Design balances also fall under the category of an update. Go look at the extensive balancing patches for Dark Souls 2.


As individual purchases, I own Deus Ex, DX: Game of the Year Edition, DX: Human Revolution, DX:HR: Missing Link, and DX:HR: Director's Cut, and I don't feel robbed one bit. In fact, I picked up some of those for so cheep during a Steam Sale, I almost feel like I robbed Eidos.

So quit whining. You played an amazing game. There is a better version out other, so go buy it when you have a few extra gold in your bank.

In all honesty, this was your misstep. The information was out there, but you didn't research your purchase. Buyer Beware. You enjoyed a wonderful game. I really feel sorry for you.

First off, no the information was not out there AT LAUNCH. Second, not everyone uses PC. And quite frankly I was hoping more someone who actually works there can explain to reasoning behind locking UPDATES to a game people already BOUGHT behind a PAYWALL. That's anti-consumer practices at work.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
18th Nov 2014, 19:31
That's anti-consumer practices at work.

You misunderstand.
Technically speaking, the DC is considered a separate game in its own right.
No matter how many changes and new features appear in the DC (and there are quite a lot), none of them are considered to be "updates" for DXHR.

Btw, I notice you are also posting your complaint over on the community forum.


So are you guys ever going to fix Deus Ex? Or is robbing consumers your number one priority? Like I even have to ask

No need, you are in the right place here. Be mindful of what you say though, read the ToU.
The thread will be merged into the existing one shortly.

Master47
18th Nov 2014, 19:46
What was wrong with the boss battles in the first place? I played that game to death and never felt it took cheap shots at me.

Unsatisfied
18th Nov 2014, 19:48
You misunderstand.
Technically speaking, the DC is considered a separate game in its own right.
No matter how many changes and new features appear in the DC (and there are quite a lot), none of them are considered to be "updates" for DXHR.

The only reason they aren't considered "updates" by Eidos is because they're selling it. If you wouldn't mind explaining to me the difference between what in every other game is consider an update, and what Eidos considered a completely stand alone title I'm all ears. Because so far all I'm hearing is semantics to keep Eidos out of legal trouble.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
18th Nov 2014, 19:52
What was wrong with the boss battles in the first place? I played that game to death and never felt it took cheap shots at me.

There was no stealth option to defeat them.... that was my gripe anyway.
Not a deal-breaker for me... just annoying. I really enjoyed the game. :cool:

Ashpolt
18th Nov 2014, 19:59
The Director's Cut does more than just change the boss fights: it also adds in the Missing Link DLC, adds a commentary, etc etc. That's why they charge for it as a separate product. And it's pretty damn cheap on PC atm.

...that said, buyer beware. While they updated / changed a bunch of stuff, they also introduced a whole host of technical issues that weren't present in the base game / were fixed early on in the base game. Many of these have yet to be patched, and there's been radio silence from the team regarding any fixes for over a year, so it seems highly unlikely at this point that anything is going to be done about them. You're probably best off saving your money and putting up with crappy boss fights, tbh.

Unsatisfied
18th Nov 2014, 20:22
The Director's Cut does more than just change the boss fights: it also adds in the Missing Link DLC, adds a commentary, etc etc. That's why they charge for it as a separate product.

That's fine, if I wanted a commentary etc then them charging for it as a stand alone is a-ok. But I'm talking about things that should have been updates for the original title instead of sold piecemeal as a directors cut, namely the boss fights. The fact is, hole they may have added new features, FIXING the bossfights (because it is considered fixing when you have a stealth based game that throws out said stealth because reasons) should have been an immediate concern for the developers.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
18th Nov 2014, 21:35
Right or wrong... love 'em or hate 'em... the non-stealth boss fights were a design choice and therefore the devs' call to make.
A design choice is not something that must be "fixed" just because one doesn't personally like it.

68_pie
18th Nov 2014, 22:58
Right or wrong... love 'em or hate 'em... the non-stealth boss fights were a design choice and therefore the devs' call to make.
A design choice is not something that must be "fixed" just because one doesn't personally like it.

But did the devs not agree that it was a mistake?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
18th Nov 2014, 23:21
What was a mistake? Having boss fights in the first place, you mean?

Pinky_Powers
19th Nov 2014, 00:29
This thread is a vigorous echo of the debate that raged during the months surrounding the release of the Director's Cut. Some folk will always be against paying for improvements, no matter how extensive they may be.

The low pricing of HR: DC softened the blow a good measure. But for those who see it as merely a patch, its a bitter pill to swallow. It's not a patch, though. So screw 'em. :)

The Director's Cut does need a patch, though.


First off, no the information was not out there AT LAUNCH.

Terribly sorry. I forgot the part where you said you bought the game a few weeks after release. Something about your manic urgency gave me the impression this whole thing just happened.

You bought Human Revolution years ago. Buy a much better version today, and be happy forever.


That's anti-consumer practices at work.

Nope. Human Revolution wasn't broken. You probably feel differently, but you're wrong. EM spent a lot of time and money on a Director's Cut version. Charging for that is perfectly reasonable.

FrankCSIS
19th Nov 2014, 00:34
All I hope is that a lesson was learned, here. Because, frankly, this thing is a succession of fiasco, where every new action brought new depths to the hole. They've managed to successfully anger new people each time they tried to fix it.

At the basis, using the full capabilities of the Wii U controllers was not an issue. Console variations are not unheard of. Neither was it strange to add the DLC to the edition, as full DLC re-releases are now a regular thing. The piss-poor thinking was using the reviews of the original release to change some of the gameplay elements almost universally considered poor, wrap all of this together, and repackage it with some funky name or another like ultimate edition, on a console exclusive no less.

Obviously taken by surprise by the rather predictable backlash, you're faced with the choice of ignoring the noise, or using some non-budgeted money to move your DC to other consoles. Even if the noise comes from 0,05% of your buyers, it's going to become too loud to ignore, especially if some online press emits an opinion on it.

With no money to port the thing, you're now faced with a new choice. It's not like Nintendo is going to bankroll the pc/console DC release! So do you charge or not? Whoever ended up bankrolling it most likely came to the conclusion that they would eat up whatever profits they may have made by the initial surprise success if released for free. You figure the one way to pass it along is to add as much as you can to the package and try to break even on a reasonable price.

Here's the thing. Now you have a new product, sold to the same market as the first product. Since this new product was never planned, no one had the choice to wait for the director's cut. You've just angered a whole new tier of previous buyers, now confronted with the choice of paying again for roughly the same thing, with some gameplay changes.

Finally, your resources are obviously limited, but in this lose-lose situation you chose to add some new features in order to limit the damages with your previous buyers. With limited time for playtesting and no promise of success on a rather untried feature, you ship out something that's just not ready, angering your final tier, those who got a game with a whole new set of issues. By now you've sunk too much money into something that likely never really sold that well in the first place, and absolutely no one is happy! Time to cut the losses, way too late into the process, you decide (so far) to ignore the final issues and move along, in absolute silence.

Unsatisfied
19th Nov 2014, 00:46
Right or wrong... love 'em or hate 'em... the non-stealth boss fights were a design choice and therefore the devs' call to make.
A design choice is not something that must be "fixed" just because one doesn't personally like it.

It wasn't a design choice. It was outsourced crap. Not only have the devs publicly apologized for said fights, they even said they gave little to no input on them to the outsourced dev. 30 QA testers are listed in the games credits, 30 QA testers that marked the fights as a problem, as stated by the devs themselves. You're confusing design choice with laziness.

Ashpolt
19th Nov 2014, 00:49
I AM RIGHT

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/slow_clap_citizen_kane.gif

Unsatisfied
19th Nov 2014, 00:49
Nope. Human Revolution wasn't broken. You probably feel differently, but you're wrong. EM spent a lot of time and money on a Director's Cut version. Charging for that is perfectly reasonable.

The DC that has a vast swathe of issues that have yet to be addressed?

FrankCSIS
19th Nov 2014, 00:53
http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/slow_clap_citizen_kane.gif

Thank you, thank you. Next representation at 9.

:p

Pinky_Powers
19th Nov 2014, 00:54
The DC that has a vast swathe of issues that have yet to be addressed?

Yes. That's the one.

Unsatisfied
19th Nov 2014, 01:07
Yes. That's the one.

So because Eidos planned poorly and failed to give an outline to the outsourced company, the consumer should have to bare the costs. You do realize that is a classic example of anti-consumer business practices right? Of course not. I'll let you in on a little secret, a balance patch, an already released DLC, and a "making of" commentary doesn't make DEHR:DC a different product.

FrankCSIS
19th Nov 2014, 01:19
DEHR:DC

Teeheehee

Motion to change "Deus EX Universe" to DEHR:DC

Pinky_Powers
19th Nov 2014, 01:32
I'll let you in on a little secret, a balance patch, an already released DLC, and a "making of" commentary doesn't make DEHR:DC a different product.

Oh, sweet lord it does. How could it not? Comparing vanilla HR to the DC, you have more than enough new content to justify a re-packaging. The Developer Commentary is pervasive and enthralling, the Missing Link is ENORMOUS, and the new Boss Battles take the single worst thing about a great game, and make it much better.

If you already have vanilla HR... if you already have The Missing Link... the Director's Cut is not worth spending full price on.

But you can get it for $10 to $15 on Amazon right now. One of the best games I've ever played, with a whole slew of worthy content not found in the standard edition.

If you think it's an unreasonable price, don't buy it. You have a perfectly great game already. But seeing as you've never played the Director's Cut, you don't know what the new boss battles are like, you haven't explored the commentary, and unless I missed it, you haven't played the LONG-ASS Missing Link... you are in no position to claim it oughtn't be sold on its own. You couldn't possibly know.

CyberP
19th Nov 2014, 01:42
Something something wasted opportunity. Something something fan's cut.

The DC May have been cheap on steam, however on consoles it sold at standard retail price if I remember correctly.

Anyway, I resign.

Unsatisfied
19th Nov 2014, 02:17
you haven't played the LONG-ASS Missing Link... you are in no position to claim it oughtn't be sold on its own. You couldn't possibly know.

I do own Missing Link. So outside a DLC fans would have already owned, a balance patch for vanilla, and a commentary what exactly justifies a full retail price? The fact is I shouldn't have to spend money for what IS a balance patch. List for me features from the main game in DC that ISNT balancing. Boss fights is rebalance, battery recharge is balance, is there something else I'm missing?

Pinky_Powers
19th Nov 2014, 02:28
I do own Missing Link. So outside a DLC fans would have already owned, a balance patch for vanilla, and a commentary what exactly justifies a full retail price?

If you own the Missing Link and HR Vanilla, there is no reason to spend full price. Why are you asking that? What's wrong with you?

Lady_Of_The_Vine
19th Nov 2014, 03:02
It wasn't a design choice...
Apologies if I didn't make it clear. I was explaining that the boss fights themselves were a design choice and thus it is unreasonable to demand a "fix".



Not only have the devs publicly apologized for said fights..
I don't beleive they apolgised for the boss fights per se; they said they would still choose to implement them again if they could start afresh.
What they apologised for was their failure to introduce the boss fights into the game correctly in a way that would enhance the player experience. Time was an issue and they had to make compromises. Its a shame... but that was the situation afaik. None of this warrants the accusation of "anti-consumer' practice you're throwing around. :p

Unsatisfied
19th Nov 2014, 03:20
Apologies if I didn't make it clear. I was explaining that the boss fights themselves were a design choice and thus it is unreasonable to demand a "fix".


I don't beleive they apolgised for the boss fights per se; they said they would still choose to implement them again if they could start afresh.
What they apologised for was their failure to introduce the boss fights into the game correctly in a way that would enhance the player experience. Time was an issue and they had to make compromises. Its a shame... but that was the situation afaik. None of this warrants the accusation of "anti-consumer' practice you're throwing around. :p

It's not that the boss fights need to be removed, it's that as someone who has already purchased the game I am entitled to the "fixed version" of the boss fights that were released in a $60 "directors cut", an what did you think I meant by apologizing for the boss fights. They completely ruined the pacing of the game and went against the core tenants of said game.

Solid_1723
19th Nov 2014, 05:59
It's not that the boss fights need to be removed, it's that as someone who has already purchased the game I am entitled to the "fixed version" of the boss fights that were released in a $60 "directors cut", an what did you think I meant by apologizing for the boss fights. They completely ruined the pacing of the game and went against the core tenants of said game.

First off, you're entitled to exactly nothing unless the EULA somehow states that you would be getting future versions of the game for free.

They are fully within their rights in putting a pricetag on everything they want to. You as a customer can then freely choose wether you want to pay this price or not. No one forces you to buy the DC, you know. And the price for people who already owned both DXHR and TML was/is heavily reduced anyways.(at least on STEAM)

That said, wether the DC should have been free for owners of the original version and the DLC or not is a matter of opinion and I actually agree with your's. It would've been a great opportunity for EM to further endear themselves to their fans. Just look at what CDPR did with both of the Witcher titles. As a result of their policies, they're now the only dev I still preorder games from.

SageSavage
19th Nov 2014, 08:27
Yes, it would've been reasonable and better if owners of the standard version would be able to get this particular feature as part of a free support patch but legally entitled to it (which is all this thread is about, right?)? I would be very, very surprised if that was the case anywhere.

I guess if it wasn't for the extra money from DC sales, the redesigned Boss fights would've never been done in the first place.

Pinky_Powers
21st Nov 2014, 15:51
I happen to agree that the redesigned Boss Fights should have also been released as a free DLC for those who already owned the game, with the Director's Cut being a separate product. Because it does stand well on its own.

What I despise is this sentiment of entitlement, that you are owed things beyond the product you bought. You paid for a great game, and you have that great game. Your entitled to nothing more.

Hopefully, as EM develops as a studio, it will have the resources to put out updates for their games without having to charge for them. They were so new when Human Revolution released, and it was so good, I can forgive a lot of those little inadequacies.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
21st Nov 2014, 23:40
Agreed

68_pie
24th Nov 2014, 00:38
Not sure I understand why so many people are defending the devs.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
24th Nov 2014, 23:46
Speaking for myself... it has absolutely nothing to do with 'defending the devs', its about using reason and logic.
The author believes he is "legally entitled to this, that and the other". I just don't see it

Pinky_Powers
25th Nov 2014, 00:02
Every time I speak up in defense of the devs, they send over an agitated French Canadian to wring of my flesh a physical expression of Thanksgiving.

After that first time, I haven't been able to stop myself. Eidos are hearty and generous humanitarians. *a hungry glance at the door*

AlexOfSpades
26th Nov 2014, 05:47
You know it's a sad time for gamers when companies charge full game price for a small update, and people actually love them for that. You know what's next? Micro-transactions on the next Deus Ex game. You heard it here first, folks! And there will be people defending that idea in a few years, saying that "why not? what's wrong with you?" and "They have to make money somehow, stop being so entitled."

Let's hope I'll be banned before that happens at least

Lady_Of_The_Vine
26th Nov 2014, 10:57
.. and people actually love them for that.
I love your use of exaggeration. :D
Define "small update" please because afaik a LOT of changes were made.


Let's hope I'll be banned before that happens at least
You must exceed infraction points worth 100 points before you get banned from this forum. You will have to start acting real naughty. :naughty:

Pinky_Powers
26th Nov 2014, 13:13
You know it's a sad time for gamers when companies charge full game price for a small update, and people actually love them for that. You know what's next? Micro-transactions on the next Deus Ex game. You heard it here first, folks! And there will be people defending that idea in a few years, saying that "why not? what's wrong with you?" and "They have to make money somehow, stop being so entitled."

Let's hope I'll be banned before that happens at least

Name one person who paid full price for the Director's Cut who already owned Human Revolution and The Missing Link.

Paying full price for the full game is reasonable. If you already have the full game, you don't pay full price for the Director's Cut. You've become confused.

Ashpolt
26th Nov 2014, 15:54
Paying full price for the full game is reasonable. If you already have the full game, you don't pay full price for the Director's Cut. You've become confused.

Only true for PC. Console players would have to pay full price for DC even if they owned the base game.

Pinky_Powers
26th Nov 2014, 20:17
At launch, perhaps. But now you can find it for pretty cheap on whatever platform you desire.

Also, nobody cares about consoles. :)

Ashpolt
26th Nov 2014, 21:53
At launch, perhaps. But now you can find it for pretty cheap on whatever platform you desire.

Well...yes. But that's true of basically any game that's been out over a year (barring CoD.). The fact that price drops down after release doesn't change the fact that it was a full price release.

Pinky_Powers
26th Nov 2014, 22:08
Well...yes. But that's true of basically any game that's been out over a year (barring CoD.). The fact that price drops down after release doesn't change the fact that it was a full price release.

On console. For physical copies.

Whatever. Nobody needs to pay full price for the Director's Cut. And I can't imagine anyone doing so if they already owned the base components.

I don't even know why I'm arguing about this, as I agree the updates should be downloadable and free. I just don't see Eidos as villains for not doing it that way.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
26th Nov 2014, 22:22
I don't even know why I'm arguing about this, as I agree the updates should be downloadable and free. I just don't see Eidos as villains for not doing it that way.

Seconded.