Fibrocyte wrote on Mar 15, 2012, 20:15:

Ehhh... it's equally funny to see people complaining about a persistent connection requirement given where we are with technology today.

I get it. Some people are poor. Fine. You probably shouldn't be spending your money on video games anyway.

Ant wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 22:19:
Ugh, bad timing for me. I hope they do more!

Beelzebud wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 21:55:
Publishers: Wake up, you're following the music industry down the self-immolation path.

Give gamers what they want. Let the developers build the games they want. Gaming was successful before marketing research, focus group testing, and MBA-style corporate management nearly sucked the life out of it.

Wasteland 2 is on track to get half of the needed funding in 24 hours.

Wasteland 2 was rejected by a few publishers last year.

Wakey wakey...

Creston wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 21:17:

PHJF wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 21:10:

I'm not saying you're wrong, but why would a persistent world cost a lot more hardware and bandwith? If you have 200,000 people playing, you have 200,000 people playing, whether they're in instances or in one huge world?

Logistics?

In what way?

Creston

Cutter wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 20:12:

Well that's enough of your stupidity. One more moron goes on ignore.

Fion wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 15:38:
It's EA, the price won't 'ever' decrease. Okay, 'ever' is the wrong term. 'For another decade' is about right though.

Cutter wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 16:31:
They expect people to download 30 or 40 gigs for a weekend pass? LOL! Keep on smokin that rock, fellas! With virtually every other MMO out there being F2P you'd think they'd realize that the client has to be cheap or free ASAP. Wait till GW2 arrives, then you'll see them scrambling to do some shit. However, It'll be too late after that regardless of what they do.

Alamar wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 11:08:

Teddy wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 11:00:
The PVP thing is NOT an unlock. It says itself "Earn some Glory with this ONE-TIME USE Chalice." It sounds very much like it's a currency bonus for PVP same as the one time use guild currency bonus. Either way, one time use bonuses are pathetic offerings for the extra money they're asking.

'Earn some extra Glory with this one-time use chalice. Use Glory to unlock rewards in PvP as well as compare your progress against other players.'

Ok, so semantically, if 'Glory' is the PvP currency, it's not directly an unlock, but that doesn't change the argument that it makes sense being one time (either per character or per account and shared across characters).

-Alamar

Alamar wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 10:54:

Teddy wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 10:42:
Having just checked the game's site, the DDE looks WEAK. For the extra $20, you get a one time use PVP bonus, a one time use Guild influence bonus, a mobile banker that says you only get to use him for 5 days, and one elite skill unique to the DDE/Collectors buyers.

So 3 of the bonuses simply vanish on you after use or x amount of days, leaving you with the only worthwhile bonus of the skill which has to be balanced out so it's not OP anyways.

Edit: Forgot there's also a non-combat pet (miniature) that doesn't vanish.

Why is that worth another 33% cost?

The PVP thing is an unlock, and the guild thing gives your guild 'currency', so it makes sense they're one time uses...

The banker though, for 5 days, makes no sense... So you can access your bank for the very early part of your character's 'career'... If it's per character, maybe the idea is for twinking, but I'd imagine the bank would be available in major cities at least, so yes, very odd it's time limited.

Also, Blue, any idea why your text says 'three-day head start', and the press release you copied says 'one-day headstart'? Their site also listed three... Odd...

-Alamar

Acleacius wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 10:41:
Wow, had no idea they were going to continue the previous model of no monthly fees!

A quick look at the FAQ on the official link, doesn't mention content differences between the 3 different versions, anyone found info on this?

Thanks.

Yakubs wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 10:24:
What is a "beta weekend event" ?? Does that mean doing this pre-purchase doesn't get you into a full-fledged beta but rather some kind of limited Saturday/Sunday-only thing?

Optional nickname wrote on Mar 13, 2012, 10:16:
Can GW2 be played / adventured, alone? as I have no friends. I couldn't get into wow, it was a culture that wasn't part of me, perhaps GW2 is more up my alley. never played gw1. I like action RPG's.

AnointedSword wrote on Mar 11, 2012, 14:30:
I will keep an eye out for his work. We can call him names and condemn him to hell but when he left ID...a big part of what made ID great was missing...

Tumbler wrote on Mar 7, 2012, 13:38:

Battlefield 3: Close Quarters -- In Battlefield 3: Close Quarters, players are dropped into a frantic, infantry-only theatre of war.

You can still have infantry only sections of a map where people who want that COD experience can fight in close quarters while another battle with all the elements of Battlefield is going on.

Like a shopping mall where the inside is basically infantry only and the outside all around the mall is full on balls to the wall combat with tanks, jeeps, jets, helo's. If you wanna be a little bitch and go play in the fountains and shit go for it but we'll be tearing shit up in the parking lot.

I hate all the maps where they were obviously trying to give it the COD treatment. They are horrid maps. Metro...my fucking god how did someone not pull that fucking disaster of a map on the drawing board?

This game would be so much better if they'd quit trying to change the core experience. It's a battlefield. Anything Goes. This is not some random corner of a building with a dozen guys having a gunfight. We want the whole goddamn building and 64 people and 6 blocks around as well and we want to bomb the shit out of people and fly around in a whirly death machine spitting cannon rounds at the poor bastards running around on the ground.

Man the FUCK UP you bitches. (DICE)

Beamer wrote on Mar 6, 2012, 14:38:
Real question: who wants PC vs console gaming?

Anyone?

Dmitri_M wrote on Mar 4, 2012, 06:14:
ArmA's failing is it requires a VAST amount of modding to get it to a point where it becomes something truly special and unique with features not available in any other tactical shooter to date.. The built in campaigns, maps and features are terrible and BIS themselves have made little effort to take the game into a meaningful creative direction.

If you view R6 as a CQB shooter, Ghost Recon as a mid range shooter, then ArmA is the long range\size over detail shooter.

Of those three titles it is the least accessible though. Requires a lot of patience and the right level of mods to really enjoy. You can tailor it to be any sort of shooter you like. Most gamers can't invest the time in it.

On a base level though you'd still have to cope with the non-ID engine inherited control school with the characters head acting as a camera, rather than the player's view being tied directly to the weapon as it is in ID engines\conventional tac shooters. Personally it's never bothered me, but then I'm not a little bitch like many gamers. Even back when tactical shooters ruled the market, we'd have many hardcore PC guys LAN with us and complain about dying too easily in Swat, or the movement being too slow in R6 (compared to Quake) or the controls being clunky in OFP\Arma. Today's shitty consolised versions of R6 and Ghost Recon. That's what gamers really want. Enjoy guys.

Shineyguy wrote on Mar 3, 2012, 15:14:
For years, fans of tactical shooters have been crying out for someone to make a quality, hardcore, tactical shooter.

So what the hell is Arma then?

Prez wrote on Feb 29, 2012, 15:02:

Except that I'm not the one that said it. I'm repeating what someone else brought as their argument. To be a strawman argument, I'd have to be misrepresenting what was said. I'm not.

You deliberately used it in a manner completely out of context from the way it was said, so yeah, strawman. In fact, I can't think of a more perfect illustration of the deliberate misrepresentation of an argument that constitutes the exact kind of unfair debating that makes the internet such a waste of time to debate on.

Prez wrote on Feb 29, 2012, 09:40:

...keep on raging about how evil EA is and how they're somehow equivalent to rapists and whatnot.

THAT would be a strawman. Thanks for the illustration.

Creston wrote on Feb 28, 2012, 11:35:
Oh yeah, they could put in their EULA that they have the right to come over whenever they want to and rape my family. Somehow I doubt that that'd be considered okay.

...

Creston

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Feb 28, 2012, 16:38:

Teddy wrote on Feb 28, 2012, 15:28:
...
You'd have to push pretty damn hard in a court of law to prove any form of damage actually occurred from this to gain any measure of recompense.

The privacy act and the law governing computer misuse here in Canada covers things that you don't specifically authorize on your PC. So, if they are indeed scanning your PC for it, they're breaking the law and committing a criminal act. Probably in Germany too, canada's privacy law is modeled after germany's. Damage doesn't matter, all that's required it intent or action without the users consent.