Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Yifes

Real Name Yifes   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Yifes
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Nov 21, 2002, 00:39
Total Comments 936 (Graduate)
User ID 15316
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 ] Older >


News Comments > Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Weapon Tweak Details
19. Re: Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Weapon Tweak Details Apr 21, 2010, 20:10 Yifes
 
Some parts of HC mode are just stupid though. Like they want medics to stop using the 60 so much, but on HC most of our others have scopes... that HC removes the dot in.

That's a known bug and not intentional.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > WoW, That's an Expensive Horse
49. Re: WoW, That's an Expensive Horse Apr 16, 2010, 01:44 Yifes
 
Yifes--

I'm going to give you a gift that will save you countless hours and ultimately lead to longer life.

Repeat after me: "why, yes, Jerykk, you are in fact right! The sky is indeed purple!"

Now close the browser window and go to bed. Tomorrow will be better for it.

^D^

Haha yes. Talking to Jerykk is a really interesting and education experience on human nature. I guess I'm just a slow learner
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > WoW, That's an Expensive Horse
46. Re: WoW, That's an Expensive Horse Apr 16, 2010, 01:18 Yifes
 
Jerykk wrote on Apr 16, 2010, 01:17:
So if mounts sell consistently at $25 for WOW, then WOW mounts will have a standard price of $25. And will be worth $25.

Can't agree. I can only compare this DLC to other DLC and in that respect, it is a complete ripoff.

Considering Oblivion is not a MMO, it makes for a poor comparison.

Oblivion is a sandbox RPG where you do quests, collect loot and level up. WoW is a sandbox RPG where you do quests, collect loot and level up. The Celestial Steed is a superficial piece of content that was relatively cheap to produce and doesn't give you any significant advantage in the game. The Horse Armor is a superficial piece of content that was relatively cheap to produce and doesn't give you any significant advantage in the game.

Again, the comparison itself is subjective, and only affects what something is worth TO YOU and does not impact the reality of what it's worth in a free market economy.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > WoW, That's an Expensive Horse
40. Re: WoW, That's an Expensive Horse Apr 16, 2010, 01:12 Yifes
 
When a type of product consistently sells at a given price. This WoW mount price is not standard for DLC and I highly doubt it ever will be for anything other than WoW.

So if mounts sell consistently at $25 for WOW, then WOW mounts will have a standard price of $25. And will be worth $25. You are subjectively applying your artificial interpretation of what is standard..

I'm suggesting that a product's value should be determined by comparing it to similar products. In this case, trivial DLC like Horse Armor.

Considering Oblivion is not a MMO, it makes for a poor comparison. Again, you are subjectively selecting what can be compared value-wise while ignoring the market reality that this thing actually sells. Hence your lack of understanding of the concept of a free market.

This comment was edited on Apr 16, 2010, 01:17.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > WoW, That's an Expensive Horse
34. Re: WoW, That's an Expensive Horse Apr 16, 2010, 00:53 Yifes
 
Jerykk wrote on Apr 16, 2010, 00:47:
You basically just affirmed that there is a market for WOW mounts at $25 a pop.

Obviously there is a market for WoW mounts at $25, otherwise it wouldn't be selling. That doesn't mean that it's actually worth $25. It just means that WoW players are willing to completely ignore the pricing standards for DLC when it comes to WoW. Again, refer to Horse Armor in Oblivion. It cost $2.50 when it was first released and people laughed. If WoW players weren't so mindless, they'd be laughing at $25 mounts too.

I love plenty of games. If someone remade Tribes with better graphics, I'd buy it. However, if someone released a new skin for Tribes and charged $25 for it, I most definitely would not buy that. No matter how much I love something, I'm not going to let myself get exploited.

</facepalm>

Let me repeat the important part for you:

How do you think "standards" prices are set in the first place? Are you suggesting there's some set intrinsic value or worth for data? Do you understand the concept of a free market?

I guess the answer to the last question is no.

You commie bastard.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > WoW, That's an Expensive Horse
31. Re: WoW, That's an Expensive Horse Apr 16, 2010, 00:42 Yifes
 
Oh, okay. So people will start eating up new skins and or superficial DLC for any game for $25 a pop. I mean, hey, value isn't established by standards or anything. Oh wait, yes it is. The standard pricing for a superficial piece of DLC like this mount is not $25. Were it for any other game, nobody would buy it. WoW, as always, is the exception to the rule because it has hordes of ravenous fanboys/girls who are willing to cast aside their own standards and logic for anything WoW-related.

You basically just affirmed that there is a market for WOW mounts at $25 a pop. Seriously though, how do you think "standards" prices are set in the first place? Are you suggesting there's some intrinsic value for data? Have you even heard of a free market before? Seriously dude, this whole discussion is pointless when you know nothing about economics or marketing.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > WoW, That's an Expensive Horse
26. Re: WoW, That's an Expensive Horse Apr 16, 2010, 00:18 Yifes
 
Value is established by comparing a product to similar products.
The only objective way to determine value is by comparing the pricing of the product to the pricing of similar products.

Wrong. Supply and demand. Value is established by what the market can sustain.

This comment was edited on Apr 16, 2010, 00:24.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > WoW, That's an Expensive Horse
19. Re: WoW, That's an Expensive Horse Apr 16, 2010, 00:00 Yifes
 
Value is relative and $25 for a purely superficial mount is a waste of money.

A lot of things in life are purely superficial, and a lot more expensive.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > WoW, That's an Expensive Horse
17. Re: WoW, That's an Expensive Horse Apr 15, 2010, 23:51 Yifes
 
Zyrxil wrote on Apr 15, 2010, 23:20:
Jerykk wrote on Apr 15, 2010, 22:58:
$25. Wow. This is quite easily the worst-value DLC I've ever seen. It makes the MW2 map pack look like a bargain.
Rolleyes Comparing purely cosmetic items to map packs is idiotic. The thing even has its max speed determined by the max speed of mounts players have obtained by non-monetary means.

Exactly. If you don't buy a map pack you miss out on a lot of gameplay. If you don't buy a mount you don't miss out on anything. Blizzard is not hurting the non-buyers in any way, and those who choose to spend the money know exactly what they're getting.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty CE & Pricing
77. Re: StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty CE & Pricing Apr 15, 2010, 16:57 Yifes
 
I was so happy to get into beta but after playing for awhile I realized that it's basically made for competitive play only now. If you aren't willing to make it a huge time commitment then you probably won't have much fun.

Wasn't it the exact same thing with SC1 and WC3, with both geared for competitive play? Wasn't that why BNET was infested with all the $$$$$BGH$$$$$ and Dota games? At least this time around they're adding MP training tutorials, beginner friendly maps, and a better matchmaking service. In any case, like you said, with all the custom maps that are coming out, there's bound to be something for everyone.

Anyways, if you hate the beta so much, let me have it
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > XCOM First-Person Shooter Announced
75. Re: XCOM First-Person Shooter Announced Apr 14, 2010, 20:54 Yifes
 
I'm surprised this thread has gotten this far without anyone directly mentioning X-Com Alliance, the X-Com squad-based FPS that was cancelled back in the day that was so heavily hyped.

This seems like a game in that vein, so mark me down as being excited.

Already mentioned. Alliance was to have a deep strategical layer, with research, manufacturing, resource and personnel management between missions. You had 4 specialists on each mission, and you could give orders or take control of each of them directly in first person. Sad that it was cancelled, along with Genesis.

This new game that "puts players directly into the shoes of an FBI agent" sounds nothing like Alliance.

Some one say XCOM clone?
http://www.ufo2extraterrestrials.com/

Was the first one any good w/ mods? I remember it getting some bad reviews.

This comment was edited on Apr 14, 2010, 21:02.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > XCOM First-Person Shooter Announced
33. Re: XCOM First-Person Shooter Announced Apr 14, 2010, 10:58 Yifes
 
FBI Agent? WTF. Maybe they're going for a Will Smith in Men in Black kinda thing and couldn't afford that license.

I was quite hyped up for Alliance before it was cancelled, and I'm still pretty open to the idea of a X-COM FPS. Still, very, very disappointed that Ken Levine is not involved. He seemed to have genuine passion and respect for the license.

In any case, this will be better than Enforcer and all those UFO rip off garbage that Altair keeps on spewing out.

Ugh. What I wouldn't give for another TB X-COM, JA, or Warhammer 40K game.

This comment was edited on Apr 14, 2010, 11:04.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > F.E.A.R. 3 This Fall
23. Re: F.E.A.R. 3 This Fall Apr 8, 2010, 23:14 Yifes
 
Agreed, though I don't really see how a shooter can be scary. Being armed to the teeth and able to do flying bicycle kicks in slow-motion is not conducive to being scared.

Alma doesn't give a shit if you're armed with the BFG and can kick harder than Liu Kang.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty CE & Pricing
57. Re: StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty CE & Pricing Apr 8, 2010, 18:50 Yifes
 
shinchan0s wrote on Apr 8, 2010, 17:50:
Diablo II was worth the $60.

Starcraft II? Not so much. Honestly, the game looks like shit. Five years too late, Blizz.

You're saying that this game looks like shit, but Diablo II didn't when it came out, and was worth your money? Are you fucking blind?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty CE & Pricing
56. Re: StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty CE & Pricing Apr 8, 2010, 18:29 Yifes
 
elefunk wrote on Apr 8, 2010, 17:08:
If you didn't buy Diablo II or Warcraft III at $60 out of the same principle, rock on. But stop pretending like Activision has anything whatsoever to do with that pricepoint when Blizzard used it nearly a decade before being acquired by Activision.


Starcraft had 30 missions and an extensive, free, multiplayer infrastructure.

Starcraft II has 30 missions, each is far more varied and unique than any of the missions in Starcraft, they take place across a branching campaign with much more integrated storytelling, and has a totally overhauled (yet still free) Battle.NET.


Where is this "1/3 the game" bullshit you're referring to, again?

QFT. People have been bitching about this since the game was announced. There's no use bringing up any facts about SCII.

This comment was edited on Apr 8, 2010, 18:43.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > StarCraft II Day One Patch Plans
12. Re: StarCraft II Day One Patch Plans Mar 9, 2010, 16:29 Yifes
 
I would have found Starcraft 1 excellent had it come out before sex.

I would have found sex excellent had it come out before your mom. Now nothing will ever be the same.

Just kidding!
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Jagged Alliance Series Acquired, Jagged Alliance 3 Announced
16. Re: Jagged Alliance Series Acquired, Jagged Alliance 3 Announced Mar 9, 2010, 16:20 Yifes
 
I just wish there was a way to fast forward enemy turns, or just skip all action that's not visible. Even with the enemy animation speed set at x2, turns can take forever to resolve when you have 50+ enemies + additional militia.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > StarCraft II Day One Patch Plans
4. Re: StarCraft II Day One Patch Plans Mar 9, 2010, 12:55 Yifes
 
I think I would have found this game excellent had it come out before Company of Heroes.

I think I would have found CoH excellent had it come out before Starcraft 1.


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Jagged Alliance Series Acquired, Jagged Alliance 3 Announced
8. Re: Jagged Alliance Series Acquired, Jagged Alliance 3 Announced Mar 9, 2010, 12:44 Yifes
 
Make it real-time. Turn-based is so boring.

DIE IN A FIRE!!
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Server Fixes Follow-up
30. Re: Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Server Fixes Follow-up Mar 8, 2010, 18:55 Yifes
 
Unless you don't like spending 10 minutes attempting to get into a game.

Find a few good servers you can favorite (if you can). Problem solved.

My biggest gripe is the bad autobalancing. Most of my games end up with one team having an overwhelming player advantage and just rolling over the other team.

This comment was edited on Mar 8, 2010, 19:03.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
936 Comments. 47 pages. Viewing page 25.
< Newer [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo