By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Doom, Doom II, and Doom 3 now available for Switch, PS4, and Xbox One; Doom and Doom II for smartphones

Bofferbrauer2 said:
KManX89 said:

I don't buy that shit for one second.

Oh, and the memes are rolling in! "A Bethesda.net account is required to view this tweet." ROTGDFLMMFAO! 😂😂😂😂😂

Of course they would backpedal and come with the excuse that it's just a mistake, an accident, etc... as the publishers always do when their bullshit gets caught and called out for. Worst part of it is that so many believe them over and over again that these things were just mistakes and not planned and pulled back due to backlash they got.

Video gamers in 2017: Bethesda is the best publisher!

Video gamers in 2018: Bethesda is better than EA and Activision

Video gamers in 2019: EA and Activision are pure evil, but at least they're not Bethesda!

Yeah, that went down quickly, good job Todd.

It just works!

Of course they "accidentally" locked Doom 1-3 behind a Bethesda.net account, just like they "accidentally" removed the games from the XBLA and from people's accounts before the uproar.

If you actually believe this shit, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to you.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:

I'm showing my age here, but as someone who remembers when Doom 3 was a graphical monster that had to be substantially downgraded just to run on the strongest home console of the time, seeing it run on a handheld is one of those "wow, we've come a long way" moments.

I'm showing my age by being able to say the same about the first Doom already. Just have a look at the godawful SNES port:

And that one's running on an emulator, allowing it to keep up with the framerate. Let's have a look at the other console ports, shall we?

Even the PSOne, which came out after the game released, can't keep up.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
curl-6 said:

I'm showing my age here, but as someone who remembers when Doom 3 was a graphical monster that had to be substantially downgraded just to run on the strongest home console of the time, seeing it run on a handheld is one of those "wow, we've come a long way" moments.

I'm showing my age by being able to say the same about the first Doom already. Just have a look at the godawful SNES port:

And that one's running on an emulator, allowing it to keep up with the framerate. Let's have a look at the other console ports, shall we?

Even the PSOne, which came out after the game released, can't keep up.

Oh believe me I am quite familiar with the many ports of the original Doom; I am also in fact an owner of that "godawful SNES port" ;)



curl-6 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

I'm showing my age by being able to say the same about the first Doom already. Just have a look at the godawful SNES port:

And that one's running on an emulator, allowing it to keep up with the framerate. Let's have a look at the other console ports, shall we?

Even the PSOne, which came out after the game released, can't keep up.

Oh believe me I am quite familiar with the many ports of the original Doom; I am also in fact an owner of that "godawful SNES port" ;)

Finally I met someone who also has that version. Tried it once, immediately returned playing it on my PC ^^

Edit: I still even remember the specs of my PC at the time:

CPU: Am486 DX 40

GPU: S3 928

RAM: 32MB, later upgraded to 96MB

HDD: 400MB

Sound: Soundblaster 16

Also had a 5'25" and a 3'5" drive (the former salvaged from our old 286 after it broke, wasn't originally part of the computer), a quad speed CD drive (later upgraded to 48x speed) and a turbo button (which deactivated the FPU iirc). Came with Windows 3.1 but had Win95 SE installed most of it's life.

Speaking of which, nobody has an old ISA GPU laying around somewhere? The S3 928 broke a couple years ago.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 29 July 2019

Zkuq said:
curl-6 said:

The compulsory login was meant to be optional, Bethesda are fixing it now:

https://gonintendo.com/stories/341026-doom-classic-ii-iii-s-bethesda-net-login-was-meant-to-be-optional

My impression is that Bethesda has a (short) history of scummy things even before this, so I have fairly little faith in this statement. I reckon Bethesda tried to see if they can get away with this, then chose 'it was an accident' as a backup strategy.

Well, they tried a similar thing with paid mods on Steam, Gamers rebelled and they instead took that approach from Steam, but ended up enforcing it on their own client/within their games. They tried it with DOOM now and claim it's more or less "optional" or a "mistake", but it's not really a mistake when you're implementing an account feature into 3 games that never once featured such a thing. They knew exactly what they were going for, and knowing Bethesda, they'll likely sit back a bit and try this approach again sometime later. Remember, big pubs don't outright give up on their desires, they just take a slightly different approach or bide their time.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Around the Network
curl-6 said:

Well, whether it was an oversight or not, all's well that ends well the way I see it. The important thing is, it's getting fixed.

I already own the games, as I got the special edition of Doom 3 on the original Xbox that came with Doom I & II included, (plus I have the original game on the SNES in all its low res glory haha) but still, it's nice to have the classics available on Switch, for those who like to play on the go, or who prefer to have their games on their current system.

Yeah, I get that, but don't simply go "it's important that we got there in the end", because that's like hand-waving the entire issue and allowing them to go and do it again. Stand up and say "no, don't you fucking dare do that again", because at the end of the day, they don't care about you or me, but they will respond in time, to consumers who get angry and form a mob.

I'm not exactly pleased with folks out there on twitter hammering "thanks guys", as if they did us a service. They weren't supposed to pull that stunt in the first place. No way on this earth do they deserve a thanks or kudos. They knew full well what they wanted and what they expected of us, and that itself is disgusting, and shouldn't be thanked ever at all.

Next time this happens, don't sit down, don't back down at all. Stand and fight against crappy practices and bad expectations from a publisher. Remember, they serve you, they make games for you, for you to buy and play, not the other way around. Without us a pub is quite literally nothing, and it should always be that way. 

At the end of the day, PC gamers don't like what Epic is doing and are fighting back in various ways. I firmly believe console folk should never back down, to this kind of tripe, when a publisher pulls this over your heads.

Last edited by Chazore - on 28 July 2019

Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Chazore said:
Zkuq said:

My impression is that Bethesda has a (short) history of scummy things even before this, so I have fairly little faith in this statement. I reckon Bethesda tried to see if they can get away with this, then chose 'it was an accident' as a backup strategy.

Well, they tried a similar thing with paid mods on Steam, Gamers rebelled and they instead took that approach from Steam, but ended up enforcing it on their own client/within their games. They tried it with DOOM now and claim it's more or less "optional" or a "mistake", but it's not really a mistake when you're implementing an account feature into 3 games that never once featured such a thing. They knew exactly what they were going for, and knowing Bethesda, they'll likely sit back a bit and try this approach again sometime later. Remember, big pubs don't outright give up on their desires, they just take a slightly different approach or bide their time.

"A Bethesda.net account is required to play this game", yeah, sounds quite deliberate, stuff like that doesn't get coded in "by accident", LOL. Emphasis added on the "required to play this game" part, not "required to access rewards". If you actually think it was an "accident", I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to you.

Them "fixing it" was just damage control after all the backlash.



KManX89 said:
Chazore said:

Well, they tried a similar thing with paid mods on Steam, Gamers rebelled and they instead took that approach from Steam, but ended up enforcing it on their own client/within their games. They tried it with DOOM now and claim it's more or less "optional" or a "mistake", but it's not really a mistake when you're implementing an account feature into 3 games that never once featured such a thing. They knew exactly what they were going for, and knowing Bethesda, they'll likely sit back a bit and try this approach again sometime later. Remember, big pubs don't outright give up on their desires, they just take a slightly different approach or bide their time.

"A Bethesda.net account is required to play this game", yeah, sounds quite deliberate, stuff like that doesn't get coded in "by accident", LOL. Emphasis added on the "required to play this game" part, not "required to access rewards". If you actually think it was an "accident", I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to you.

Them "fixing it" was just damage control after all the backlash.

TBH, this is Bethesda we're talking about, so could be poor QA, project management, or something similar. It sounds like an external company did the ports (at least for the third game, so I assume that to be the case for the first two as well), so it's possible Bethesda signalled the intent poorly, which resulted into this mess. My money is on Bethesda on trying their luck instead, but since it's Bethesda we're talking about, incompetence too seems like a plausible explanation.



Zkuq said:

TBH, this is Bethesda we're talking about, so could be poor QA, project management, or something similar. It sounds like an external company did the ports (at least for the third game, so I assume that to be the case for the first two as well), so it's possible Bethesda signalled the intent poorly, which resulted into this mess. My money is on Bethesda on trying their luck instead, but since it's Bethesda we're talking about, incompetence too seems like a plausible explanation.

Even if it was a "mistake", the fact that they desired to add a network account request into 3 games, which never had the same network authentication types decades ago, still isn't required, nor should they be "optional", because we shouldn't need Beth only networking, not when we've seen the 3 consoles and PC handling their own networks independently.

Beth doesn't need anyone to sign up for anything, "goodies" or not. If it's an always online based MP game, a la Fallout 76, then I can easily imagine their need for people to register to their network and make an account, in order to gain access to said game/content.

These 3 games are offline based, and do not really require an always online type connection.

Sure, Beth screw up and poorly handle things from their end, but things like paid mods and simply not adding in human NPC's into an obvious MMO, isn't some accident or mistake. Look at the countless times Todd Howard has been shown lying to consumers. I highly doubt 99% of what he says is something akin to mere mistakes or accidents. If we use poor handling from a publisher and poor coder logic, then I'd love to apply this to every other publisher, because I'm not one to pick favorites with this logic, because I know we're not always cared for to begin with.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Zkuq said:
KManX89 said:

"A Bethesda.net account is required to play this game", yeah, sounds quite deliberate, stuff like that doesn't get coded in "by accident", LOL. Emphasis added on the "required to play this game" part, not "required to access rewards". If you actually think it was an "accident", I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell to you.

Them "fixing it" was just damage control after all the backlash.

TBH, this is Bethesda we're talking about, so could be poor QA, project management, or something similar. It sounds like an external company did the ports (at least for the third game, so I assume that to be the case for the first two as well), so it's possible Bethesda signalled the intent poorly, which resulted into this mess. My money is on Bethesda on trying their luck instead, but since it's Bethesda we're talking about, incompetence too seems like a plausible explanation.

I don't know, I'd have an easier time believing they "accidentally" leaked people's credit card/personal info with the duffel bags debacle than I would believing they "accidentally" typed "A Bethesda.net account is required to play this game" into the game's coding, especially since it appears on the game's store pages. They actually hid it at the bottom of the PSN page thinking nobody would see it, sounds pretty deliberate and underhanded to me. Again, shit like that doesn't get coded in "by accident", all signs point to it being intentional.