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:
Harrisburg, PA 09/18
Greenbelt, MD 11/06

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Ted Smith

Real Name Ted Smith   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Teddy
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Feb 5, 2004, 02:08
Total Comments 1068 (Pro)
User ID 20096
 
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 > More on BF3 and Steam
220. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 19, 2011, 12:52 Teddy
 
StingingVelvet wrote on Jul 19, 2011, 03:01:
Yeah but you're missing the whole point. Valve take 30-40% of the price when they make a Steam sale. When Blizzard sells Starcraft 2 on battle.net they get 100% of the price. When EA sell Battlefield 3 on Origin they get 100% of the price. More to the point in this exact storyline, when they sell DLC through the game itself they get 100% of THAT money.

In other words losing a small percentage of sales from the people who really do refuse to buy anywhere but Steam is made up for by all the people who would have bought it on Steam who are now going to buy it on battle.net, or whatever. Then they get all the DLC money too. It's a win-win.

Like I said in another thread on this same subject a while back I see nothing wrong with someone making a game and selling it directly on their website. The consumer and seller have a direct relationship and no middle-man gets in the way or takes any of the profits. I always try to buy indie games on the developer's website when possible for this reason. What EA is doing is the same thing, just on a larger scale. They're not even doing that actually since they still sell the games themselves elsewhere, they just want you to buy from Origin and want to sell the DLC themselves... any why not? You would want the same thing if you ran EA.

More to the point Valve do EXACTLY the same thing. They only sell their games digitally on Steam and they have their own in-game shops. Valve, Blizzard, EA... all of them are doing this for the money, none of them are your friends. None of them care about losing some customers if it means more profit from the other ones. All of them are trying to leverage the download market to get the most profit...

I didn't miss the point at all. Rather I think it's the other way around. You are trying to attribute a number value to something that you cannot EVER know, and trying to pass it off as fact.

You have no idea whether or not it's a "small percentage of sales" since the game never appeared on the Steam platform and thus your entire argument on that front is nothing but baseless opinion.

To put it in perspective, there are presently 30,000,000 steam accounts. Starcraft 2 sold 4,500,000 units and the best indication is that only 31% of those were sold through battle net. That's approximately 1.4 million digitcal copies sold.

Do you really mean to suggest that a market of 26,000,000 people doesn't have the potential to sell enough units to offset the 60% (which we all know is a number you pulled out of your ass, incidentally) cut they'll get? If even 5% of those remaining people decided to buy the game on a whim from steam, it would sell numbers to compete with battle.net and would offset Steam's take EVEN if every person who bought it on battle net bought it on Steam instead.

Your latter argument cuts right to the point of your opinion. You seem to think that people use steam out of some misguided sense of loyalty, like we're all hapless fools who don't know what's best for ourselves.

I buy games in what is the easiest manner for myself, and when that is made more difficult for me than it needs to be so that a multi-billion dollar company can squeeze a few more dollars out of me, I get annoyed. I don't give a damn what's best for EA. They're a company that's asking for MY business, not the other way around. It's in their best interest to make me want to buy their games, and making it more irritating for me to do so makes me less likely to do so. Basic logic, and basic business sense.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam
199. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 19, 2011, 02:21 Teddy
 
Look at it this way Dev; At least it didn't ask you if you wanted to add friends from facebook before you go.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam
196. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 19, 2011, 01:54 Teddy
 
StingingVelvet wrote on Jul 18, 2011, 23:07:
Again, this idea that a PC game of Battlefield's stature needs Steam is so ridiculous. Starcraft 2, dude... Starcraft 2.

That's one argument, but is has very little to support it. All I need to is ask "How many more copies would have been sold had it been available on Steam?"

You cannot deny that there are casual gamers who would have bought it on steam had a shiny advertisement for it popped up in front of them with a button to buy on loading up steam, much less on a steam sale, yet would not have gone out of their way to find Blizzard's download service. On the other hand, I can't cite any reliable numbers to suggest it might be a significant amount.

Since there's no way to answer the oiriginal question, the argument is null. Certainly it doesn't NEED it to be successful, but the real question is, would it be MORE successful if it had it?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > More on BF3 and Steam
195. Re: More on BF3 and Steam Jul 19, 2011, 01:47 Teddy
 
StingingVelvet wrote on Jul 19, 2011, 00:33:
A lot of the people saying they won't buy it now are talking out of their ass, of course. As for the rest EA will likely make them up by making 100% of the money for each Origin sale compared to 60% or whatever through Steam.

I fully intend to still buy it, but for the inconvenience they're causing me I intend to inconvenience them as much as I can in doing so. I mean to buy the game from whatever available dealer takes the biggest cut from EA for the sale.

It may be spiteful, but I sure as hell am not going to reward EA for inconveniencing me by giving them even more money through their own service.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Quoteworthy - Ubisoft on PC Ghost Recon
21. Re: Quoteworthy - Ubisoft on PC Ghost Recon Jul 18, 2011, 21:37 Teddy
 
StingingVelvet wrote on Jul 18, 2011, 14:06:
The funny part of this story on Eurogamer was that they acted like all the GR games were console ports. In actuality of course the original game and expansions were PC games ported to consoles and the GRAW games, still the most recent releases, had unique and exclusive PC versions.

In any event, free-to-play online games are not what I want, PC exclusive or not.

Sadly GRiN had no idea what-so-ever about how to make a secure multiplayer game. You could literally edit text files in GRAW and remove all the buildings in a level, giving you free roam of the map and the ability to see and shoot enemies without that pesky village in the way. (edit: To be clear, everyone else still saw the buildings and were restricted by them. Just you weren't.) Wanted a grenade launching chaingun with unlimited ammo? Sure, just change a few numbers in the weapons file and the game just shrugged and said "Sure, whatever". Took them months to fix it and by then the online community was dead.

I remember being so excited at having such openness in the files, the ability to flip through so much of the game's code and mess around gave it such potential to mod, but the fact that they didn't bother to think about file checking so that client side mods didn't function in MP was something I just didn't expect them to so completely fail at.

Of course I'm sure Ubisoft just blamed the gamers for lack of people playing and the poor sales of GRAW 2. Fickle creatures we are, wanting decently designed games.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Quoteworthy - Ubisoft on PC Ghost Recon
20. Re: Quoteworthy - Ubisoft on PC Ghost Recon Jul 18, 2011, 21:36 Teddy
 
...  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Blizzard's Real ID Testing Live
59. Re: Blizzard's Real ID Testing Live Jul 17, 2011, 00:07 Teddy
 
yuastnav wrote on Jul 16, 2011, 04:57:
Teddy wrote on Jul 16, 2011, 00:29:
[...]

So you want to talk about Dungeons & Dragons without even mentioning Jack Vance? Good sir, you just lost all credibility.

I get the impression this is supposed to be humor (if not, it's a pretty poor argument), though I have to admit that I fail to see how not being familiar with a single author has any bearing on what I actually said, regardless of how fond the creators of D&D may have been of him.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Blizzard's Real ID Testing Live
47. Re: Blizzard's Real ID Testing Live Jul 16, 2011, 00:29 Teddy
 
Doombringer wrote on Jul 15, 2011, 23:54:
Teddy wrote on Jul 15, 2011, 22:08:
http://classic.battle.net/war3/undead/units/deathknight.shtml

Care to try that again? The Death Knight class came from the Death Knight hero class in Warcraft 3, which vastly predates anything Age of Conan did.

Dislike a game if you want, dislike a company if you want, but you really should draw the line at libel. It doesn't take more than a handful of seconds to actually look something up, try it once and a while and you won't look so stupid.

I agree with you, but I had to laugh when you pointed to Warcraft 3 as being the source of an original idea. I'm a huge fan of Blizzard, but damn, they cribbed a LOT from Games Workshop.

If we're going to go that far back, then I can just as easily point out how many things Games Workshop 'cribbed' from Dungeons and Dragons. In truth, the first occurance of a "Death Knight" in any game, to my knowledge was from Dungeons and Dragons back in the late 70's.

And of course if we're going to talk about D&D, may as well talk about Tolkien, and from there we can go back to CS Lewis, and from there to R.E.Howard, from there to Dodgson, the Brothers Grimm, etc, etc back to myth and legend.

The nature of art is that it builds on what came before. Hell, the nature of the world is such. My point wasn't specifically to say that Blizzard is the glorious creator of all things, but to dismiss the idea that they "Stole" the idea for Death Knights from a game that doesn't have the history (much less the relevance) to even make an absurd claim like that.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Blizzard's Real ID Testing Live
44. Re: Blizzard's Real ID Testing Live Jul 15, 2011, 22:08 Teddy
 
OldScho0l wrote on Jul 15, 2011, 16:40:
Blizz didn't actually invent many of the things in WOW. Any time a new MMO comes out, Blizz goes and rapes them of all their best ideas and adds them to WOW. I've witnessed this happen with many new mmo's. Blizzard is a thieving pos. My favorite example is the Sadist Class from Age of Conan. The Death Knight class in WOW came from the Dark Templar in Conan (Healing via damage). Much of the UI in wow today originated in Warhammer online.

http://classic.battle.net/war3/undead/units/deathknight.shtml

Care to try that again? The Death Knight class came from the Death Knight hero class in Warcraft 3, which vastly predates anything Age of Conan did.

Dislike a game if you want, dislike a company if you want, but you really should draw the line at libel. It doesn't take more than a handful of seconds to actually look something up, try it once and a while and you won't look so stupid.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Videogame Physical Sales Down 10% in June
18. Re: Videogame Physical Sales Down 10% in June Jul 15, 2011, 00:42 Teddy
 
StingingVelvet wrote on Jul 15, 2011, 00:25:

Well there's nothing really special about the game that merits a $50 purchase, which I guess reflects in the low sales. I am more saying I disagree with reviews saying it's a bad game... for what it wants to be it's pretty well done.

Disagreed 100%. It was an awful game. Boring as hell, straight "follow the dotted line" game with nothing interesting in it to make it worth $10 much less $50. It shat on it's predecessor almost as bad as DNF did.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Videogame Physical Sales Down 10% in June
7. Re: Videogame Physical Sales Down 10% in June Jul 14, 2011, 23:24 Teddy
 
Doug Creutz, an analyst with Cowen and Co., had expected June sales to disappoint, although he said several titles aimed at hardcore gamers did worse than expected. Those include “Duke Nukem Forever” from Take-Two Interactive Software Inc., and “Red Faction: Armageddon” from THQ Inc. Both were hurt by poor reviews, he said.

Oh Analysts, how I love the skewed world you see, sometimes.

"Both were hurt by poor reviews". No, both were hurt by being poor games.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Screenshots
8. Re: Morning Screenshots Jul 12, 2011, 20:01 Teddy
 
Stag on a green background is incorrect. Should be yellow. Outside of that, they're 'essentially' correct, but very simplistic compared to the originals.

http://georgerrmartin.com/

vs

http://www.agot-genesis.com/index.php?rub=game-houses

The former being the real deal, the latter, the video game versions.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > On Sale
11. Re: On Sale Jul 10, 2011, 18:12 Teddy
 
nin wrote on Jul 10, 2011, 17:33:
Is Borderlands any good in single player

No, it sucks ass. I'd gift that fucker out of my catalog in a second, if I could.

Disagree 100%. It's not a startlingly great game and yes it does get repetitive, but for $7.50, it's well worth the cost even just for single player.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Battlefield 3 Specs?
49. Re: Battlefield 3 Specs? Jul 8, 2011, 23:08 Teddy
 
jacobvandy wrote on Jul 8, 2011, 22:59:
I applaud DICE for pushing the envelope and designing a game that doesn't pull any punches. XP/DX9 support is a liability at this point, technology doesn't move forward when you're worried about accommodating a TEN-YEAR-OLD operating system. Spend the $150 to upgrade your dinosaur of a PC to Windows 7 and DX10.

And again folks... this has already been debunked as FAKE. These ARE NOT the system requirements of BF3.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Battlefield 3 Specs?
48. Re: Battlefield 3 Specs? Jul 8, 2011, 23:07 Teddy
 
Draugr wrote on Jul 8, 2011, 21:05:
He is here to troll just like every bf3 related thread, just ignore him.

Oh, I know exactly who and what he is. That's what makes it funny to me. Such an over-the-top reaction from a known CoD fanboy speaks of his real, deep-seated panic that BF3 might just end up being a better game.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Battlefield 3 Specs?
39. Re: Battlefield 3 Specs? Jul 8, 2011, 21:00 Teddy
 
[VG]Reagle wrote on Jul 8, 2011, 19:30:
Here is what they should have wrote as a BF3 spec:

"Your going to need BIG BLUE in order to run this STEAMING PIECE OF CRAP even on 640x480 .... if you don't shell out $3 grand for a quad core SLI rig with an OCTO CPU your in for a laggathon beyond your freakin wildest dreams. HAHAHAHA it took us 8 hours to render that crap 2 minute video on a render farm that cost more then your house. You guys suck....Hope you can hit someone at 80 yards with that sniper rifle at 1 FPS. LOL a slide show on flash is going to look like a grade a first class AAA title ... did you expect us to make a smooth game FPS with game play in mind when instead we can make money with crap fake rendered videos?

Someone clearly sounds threatened.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > New Battlefield 3 Details
18. Re: New Battlefield 3 Details Jul 7, 2011, 23:18 Teddy
 
Jerykk wrote on Jul 7, 2011, 23:10:
Red Orchestra 2 has the same bipod and suppressive fire mechanics. I wonder if BF3 saw the video previews and stole the ideas.

People always like to think their favorite devs came up with something first and everyone else must just be copying.

As someone else posted, this existed in the Project Reality mod, is the RO2 team just copying them? No doubt someone came up with it before that too, and the PR team must be "stealing" their idea.

IP is bullshit as a concept, ideas are not property. They cannot be stolen, only used. If it's a good idea, then hopefully it will be in more shooters once Battlefield 3 makes it popular. Something that RO2 can't do with it's small audience.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Mod
25. Re: The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Mod Jul 7, 2011, 00:03 Teddy
 
Riker wrote on Jul 6, 2011, 18:39:
This is an great peak into what Oblivion could've been as a game, instead of a beautiful-but-incredibly-dull environmental simulator. I sure hope Bethesda makes an interesting game out of Skyrim.

That's a pretty heavy assumption to make. Someone made a flashy video to advertise what they're making. There's no proof anywhere that this will be anything but a "beautiful-but-incredibly-dull environmental simulator' either.

It looks nice and I may well try it if it ever gets made in english, but I have no intention of claiming it's better or worse than the original until I've tried it.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > No Battlefield 3 Mod Tools Planned
17. Re: No Battlefield 3 Mod Tools Planned Jul 6, 2011, 01:50 Teddy
 
Creston wrote on Jul 6, 2011, 00:07:
Translated: We're actually having a hard time MAKING the mod tools, and we just can't be bothered. Also, we love the idea of selling map packs with recycled maps for 15 bucks a pop, since you monkeys have amply demonstrated that you'll eat that shit like it's cake.

Creston

This is pretty much it. They've already stated that they're going to have 3 times the DLC of Bad Company 2. So with their need to sell as many map packs as possible, they won't want any competition.

That they used the "You're too stupid to understand them." excuse instead of owning up to it is what galls me. I don't give a damn how complicated they made it, telling me it's too 'complicated' for me, or too much of a 'challenge' is just fucking insulting.

It's alright, maybe my poor, fractured little mind won't be able to figure out how to use my credit card when it comes time to buy the game.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > No Battlefield 3 Mod Tools Planned
3. Re: No Battlefield 3 Mod Tools Planned Jul 5, 2011, 22:22 Teddy
 
You would think somewhere along the way, some reasonably adept PR person would have told anyone talking to the media that any statement inferring that their customers are stupid might be poorly recieved.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1068 Comments. 54 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