Piracy

Because they don't succeed in reaching my threshold. I won't buy anything that's lousy - it gives a signal to developers that they're doing a good job. I see it as my duty however, to buy something that's truly decent. But games nowadays are so poor, that it hasn't happened in years.
I download new games occasionally, if i think they might have potential, but i'm always disappointed, it seems. Then I return to playing 5-year-old games again.

Funny signature BTW

 

I'll take issue on that one. The third and fourth installment in the series changed the mechanics of how the games work. They still posess the same replayability and addictive nature that made the second one legendary, but with many new options. In Civ IV, there is a robust espionage model, 52 leaders, 34 civilizations and an option that lets you mix and match leaders with civs. That's 1768 different combinations! Talk about replay value!

---------- Added 0 hours, 9 minutes and 54 seconds later... ----------

That's why I wait for reviews, maybe even to hear what people I know have to say about the game. The only exceptions were where the reputation of the developer and series have garnered my respect (Civ III&IV, Diablo II).

A fair arguement, but what timeframe are we talking about here?

Buit do you feel that the price of legally acquiring the game as opposed to getting it free is inflating your expectations of the product?

You bring up an interesting question: Does the perceived value of the product match the price that is charged for the product? If you don't feel a game is worth the $60 new, do you wait to find it cheaper a year or so down the road or do you just pirate it? I've waited to find games on the "dumpster dive" and not regretted the decision. Most of them I would have been pissed off if I have shelled out full price when they first came out, but I enjoyed them at the cheaper price.

My brother bought Pool pf Radiance: Ruins of Myth Dranor when it first came out. Within a couple weeks he gave it to me on condition that I got it before he used it for target practice. It took me longer to install it than it did to make two attempts to play it only to have it crash in the first fight. I paid no money for it and still feel ripped off. This has to be addressed or pirates will still have an excuse to hide behind.

 

I guess so, yes. Prices are skyrocketing, and I don't believe it has anything to do with illegal downloading. Unless legal markets are paying for the increase in legal action. But if demand drops, shouldn't prices drop? It the market process.
And that nonsense about game designers needing to be paid is ridiculous, they earn plenty. If there's less sale, they just earn a bit less, but still more than they need. Come on, a globally marketed game is bound to make a profit.

It's not worth it to buy games new anymore.
I forgot I bought Shogun: Total War almost a year ago. After playing an hour, the game crashed due to an unavoidable event (it turned out an heir was born, but instead of a pop-up, it crashed).
So I downloaded the game from internet (the Warlord Edition is more stable than the made-for-resale Gold Edition) and I could play my old savegame further!

As for CivIII, i downloaded, but playing a huge map with many civs slowed down so much, it took half an hour per turn! I'm not kidding, and my PC was top rate.
Civ4 has less slowdown between turns, but the graphics really take their toll. simply zooming to the city screen was a painful maneuver.

 

If you are going to make statements like that, you should back it up with some numbers, citations and the like. Prices are skyrocketing? PC games 10 years ago cost about the same as today. I used to pay for new ones about 250 FIM IIRC, which is a bit over 40 € today. In fact, they might even be a bit cheaper nowadays. For example, a copy of The Witcher: Enhanced Edition costs 35 - 40 €. Whereas developing games has become more expensive [1][2]. Also, I do not think your average Joe the coder or artist earns plenty. But what they earn has nothing to do with the sales anyway.

Edit: I am too slow, edited some parts.

 

I'm sorry that I repeated an old discussion, you're right that I didn't read all posts. In my defense, I was responding to a direct question.

Erod, thanks for the articles. Number 1 is about an Xbox game though, so doesn't really apply to me. Number 2 talks about a First-Person Shooter, a type of game I detest. But I admit I'm surprised they can't find enough of those whimsical FPSers to buy their merchandise, and cover the expenses of production.
This brings me back to my main criticism about games nowadays: They're too flashy, colourful, and especially graphical. Too much cosmetics, too little content. The 'savvy technological expertise' mentioned in the article undoubtedly refers to graphic design. It has become a standard in the industry to make games very aesthetically pleasing, to get gamers to make the purchase. But you'll be lucky to get a game with anywhere near the level of depth, and replayability, of an older game. I'm happy to play a game with 2-D isometric perspective, even sprites are okay.
I love it when I can press the Windows button, or Ctrl-Alt-Delete, and return to the desktop to look up a walkthrough, or surf. Then I can return to playing the game as if nothing happened. Heck, I can even turn my notebook to sleep mode, and the game will be ready to continue later. Older games are more stable, and have less slowdown. Because they're less graphical, they take up less space in the memory, and slurp less electricity.

 

I'm not sure I agree with that. I'd imagine that energy usage would be because of the computer - not the game running. Is it true that older games that take up less space in memory are more energy efficient? That seems hard to believe. I imagine the amount of electricity I use to have my computer on for an hour is the same regardless of the game I happen to be playing.

 

Modern power saving technologies will probably mean you will use a lot less power if your PC is doing nothing than if it is playing games. As proof of that, most CPU and GPU fans only ramp up when they are doing serious work - the only reason for that would be if they are dissipating extra heat, which is indicative of work.

That being said, I dont think you would notice a difference in power consumption between different games. Ie, whether you play Crysis or Sins of a Solar Empire wont really affect power consumption, but letting your PC do nothing will.

 

If a game has a 133MHz processor requirement, I'm pretty sure it takes less power to play than a modern racing game with advanced graphics. Civilization 2 doesn't make my prcessor heat up, I think it's about as energy intensive as an internet browser.