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 Bhruic

Real Name Bhruic   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Nov 14, 2004, 23:07
Total Comments 3145 (Veteran)
User ID 22304
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 ] Older >


News Comments > Origin Auto-Adds Steam EA Games
27. Re: Origin Auto-Adds Steam EA Games Feb 28, 2012, 11:31 Bhruic
 
There's absolutely no way that they are scanning your registry and adding games. The registry doesn't tell them whether you bought the game, only if you have it installed. If they did it that way, pirates would all spontaneously have "legit" copies of the game.

The much more plausible way they are doing it is the way ochentay4 described.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > etc., etc.
2. Re: etc., etc. Feb 27, 2012, 22:38 Bhruic
 
none of these children a medical condition

You'd think a medical journal would have proof readers.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Mass Effect 3 = 40 Hours
42. Re: Mass Effect 3 = 40 Hours Feb 27, 2012, 22:24 Bhruic
 
And, rather than pointlessly wasting more of my time arguing a point I consider obvious, here's the official answer on who decides pricing:

And rather than wasting more time arguing the obvious, let's look at the definitive example(s): How much does Valve charge for their own games in the UK/Australia?

From looking at the data, it seems that Valve games (Portal 2 being the recent example I used) are, in fact, priced "properly" for the local markets. So yup, you appear to be correct, it must be the publishers that are controlling the prices (it's worth noting boxed copies of Portal 2 were still extremely expensive).
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Mass Effect 3 = 40 Hours
39. Re: Mass Effect 3 = 40 Hours Feb 27, 2012, 21:03 Bhruic
 
Why in the world would a publisher dictate that they control pricing instead of valve in JUST USA ONLY, and let valve do WTF ever they wanted internationally??

Ok, but do you really think that all of the indie devs that sell on Valve bother to personally set the price in every market? And that they have, for some reason, all decided to collude with the "major" publishers and charge more for their games in the UK and Australia? That seems so far-fetched that it's much easier to believe that Valve, through Steam, handles the price conversion in "foreign" markets.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Mass Effect 3 = 40 Hours
37. Re: Mass Effect 3 = 40 Hours Feb 27, 2012, 20:39 Bhruic
 
And a verification that valve does NOT control prices:

That's verification that Valve doesn't set the actual price, not that Valve isn't responsible for altering prices in different markets. To be clearer, using your example, Mr Goulding might have said "we're going to charge $19.99", but it might have been Valve that set the UK price at 19.99. Or it might not have been, I'm not going to claim it is them, but it seems unlikely that various publishers would bother (or be required to) set prices in every market.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Mass Effect 3 = 40 Hours
34. Re: Mass Effect 3 = 40 Hours Feb 27, 2012, 20:04 Bhruic
 
That would still be EA thats doing it on steam. Valve doesn't set prices at all on steam, they also don't set regional prices or the differences thereof. EA sends the price list to valve to put on steam.

My understanding is that it happens with all games, not just EA ones. Which would make it either Valve responsible, or price collusion between all of the publishers, take your pick.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Diablo III Skill Calculator Updated
24. Re: Diablo III Skill Calculator Updated Feb 27, 2012, 19:03 Bhruic
 
Alamar wrote on Feb 27, 2012, 18:21:
Prez wrote on Feb 27, 2012, 18:13:
Communication involves listening and understanding as well as speaking.

I find this funny, because I'm pretty sure he was responding to Hammer's comment : )

Just because he said it, doesn't mean he actually practises it.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Dungeons & Dragons Online Expansion in June
16. Re: Dungeons & Dragons Online Expansion in June Feb 27, 2012, 18:58 Bhruic
 
If you spend 15 bucks a month on a subscription to LoTRO you will be getting a whole lot more game for your money...and access to it...then you would if you spent 15 dollars worth of "Turbine points" over the course of a month without a subscription. That, in my mind, is the right way to go about a F2P model

And to my mind, that is exactly the wrong way to go about it. If you switch from a subscription-based model to a F2P model, people should be getting a better deal. Heck, from that perspective, LotRO isn't even a real F2P game, as it still has subscriptions.

Actually, I think that really sums up the problem, Turbine is trying to have their cake and eat it too with this system. They know that people who don't subscribe aren't getting as good a deal, so they are basically ripping off people who aren't subscribing, while at the same time encouraging people to subscribe as the "cheaper" alternative. That might make fiscal sense, but from a player perspective, it's a bad way to run a game.

When people complain about "Pay to Win", what they are really complaining about is non-subscribers paying the same or less per month as a subscriber and having better gear and faster access then that of a subscriber

No they aren't. They are complaining about the fact that if someone doesn't pay, they are at a competitive disadvantage compared to those people who did pay. In order to "win", you are virtually required to pay, otherwise your are hampered. This, of course, makes absolutely no sense in relation to non pvp environments, because there is no "win" condition in relation to other players. Which makes the whole concept pretty irrelevant to anything other than pvp in MMOs.

To my recollection, Turbine did not, and has not since.

And the above is the reason why. The pvp in LotRO is designed in such a way as to make gear pretty irrelevant, so there's no way to apply a "pay to win" concept. It literally has no meaning. But it also doesn't have any meaning in a lot of the cases where it's applied - because people have twisted the meaning from what I previously described to apply it to any situation where paying money gets you an advantage over those who didn't pay. There's no "win" condition, but that requirement has dropped off in favour of simple "advantage" vs "no advantage". From that perspecitve, obviously anyone who's spending money in LotRO (well, there are some frivilous items to spend money on, so not "anyone", but probably the majority) gets an advantage over those who don't. If you use the original definition, than there are very few games that actually qualify as "pay to win".

Most gamers should know by now that if you play your MMO of choice regularly, subscribing is going to be cheaper then nickel & dime'ing it

Except that it's not. There are MMOs out there where you can play the majority of the game without having to pay for any content, or grind your way to content. In Age of Conan, for example, you can play from level 1 to 80 (the level cap) without being restricted in content by lack of payment. Instead of restricting the base content, they restricted classes, number of characters, and end-game content. That's a much better way to handle it, imo.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Wars: The Old Republic Patch Plans
56. Re: Star Wars: The Old Republic Patch Plans Feb 27, 2012, 18:42 Bhruic
 
Two months? If you were lucky and weren't going all out. Back at the end of the open beta I knew some people who had been casually playing, for the 3mo period and had just hit 40. 2.5mo was pretty average

I've often wondered why more games haven't duplicated that aspect of WoW? They all seem focused on getting the gameplay similar, but overlook what might be, imo, one of the keystones to its success - drawing out the content.

As others have mentioned, it's really impossible to have enough level-cap content in a game to satisfy people at launch time. So if you plan your game around leveling in such a way as to have people hitting the level cap in days, what do you expect them to hang around and do? Obviously not everyone is going to cap out in days, but if people can do it that fast, the more casual players are still going to accomplish it in weeks, rather than months.

I mean, I can see the other side of it, you want the casual people to feel like they are progressing, and have access to all the content, but you've got to plan for the long term. As long as the content itself is enjoyable, you can keep people around for months leveling - and that gives you more time to work on additional high-level content.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Hawken Gets $10M in Funding
19. Re: Hawken Gets $10M in Funding Feb 27, 2012, 18:37 Bhruic
 
I'm staring at the original packaging for the original Guild Wars right now, and it uses the words "Free to Play" right on it. (With an asterisk noting that Internet fees still apply). In an age when all MMO's had a monthly fee, "free to play" (not free to buy) was an honest claim

That's rather odd, but I suppose if people were considering it an MMO, they could have used that as a selling point. It'd be like D2 or SCII saying they are "free to play". Sure, using the definition provided they are, but did anyone expect they wouldn't be? Original Guild Wars always seemed closer to D2 than MMOs to me, the only real difference being that instead of hanging in battle.net between outings, they had an in-world setting.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Mass Effect 3 = 40 Hours
29. Re: Mass Effect 3 = 40 Hours Feb 27, 2012, 18:22 Bhruic
 
Regional pricing, another reason to give EA the finger...

Hasn't Steam been doing the exact same thing for years now?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Dungeons & Dragons Online Expansion in June
13. Re: Dungeons & Dragons Online Expansion in June Feb 27, 2012, 18:18 Bhruic
 
My only point was that in a industry where "Pay-To-Win" is a better description of most "Free 2 Play" games, Turbine provides a very good alternative to those who prefer not to be locked into a subscription for something they might only play on and off.

The problem is that your premise is wrong. Most games are not "Pay-To-Win" - hell, by the standards people apply to F2P games, LotRO is most certainly a "Pay-To-Win" game, because if you want to get the best gear in the game, you can pay to get access to it much faster than the people who don't pay. Very few games are "Pay-To-Win". Most games are "Pay-To-Decrease-The-Amount-Of-Time-You- Spend-In-Game-Before-Getting-Better-Stuff". Obviously that hasn't caught on because of the title length.

Is LotRO a horrible example of F2P? Nope, but it's certainly not a shining one either. The majority of F2P games allow full access to the main game without grinding, and then charge for "extras". LotRO requires you to either grind, or pay just to play the "fundamental" parts of the game. A pretty poor way to do it, imo.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Dungeons & Dragons Online Expansion in June
12. Re: Dungeons & Dragons Online Expansion in June Feb 27, 2012, 18:08 Bhruic
 
Then subscribe and quit yer bitching...

What a moronic response. The whole point was that someone claimed that Turbine did F2P "right". If your response to someone complaining they need to either pay for all the individual content, or spend shitloads of time grinding is "subscribe", then they pretty fucking obviously haven't done F2P right. From a consumer standpoint, that is, I'm sure from a "part fool from money" perspective they are doing awesome.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Syndicate Solicits Pirates
52. Re: Syndicate Solicits Pirates Feb 25, 2012, 16:14 Bhruic
 
I think you hear more of it because there's alot of gamers who hate EA just for the sake of them being the largest video game publisher in the world.

It's more the WoW phenomenon. When WoW first came out, it was pretty buggy, lacked content, etc. Nowadays, it's more stable, has a lot more content, etc. So when a new MMO comes out, which does it get compared to? Early WoW, or current WoW?

Early Steam sucked, current Steam is quite good. So should Origin get compared to early Steam or current Steam? There's no denying that Origin has issues, lacks a large stable of games, or that EA has handled issues surrounding it poorly. So compared to current Steam, Origin is pretty poor. Compared to early Steam, however, Origin is probably a step or two ahead.

I suspect in a year or two, should EA make an actual effort to improve Origin, a lot of the people who are now saying they'd never use it will, in fact, be using it. Similar to the way that a lot of people who wouldn't use early Steam (myself included) now prefer it. But that's contingent on EA not totally fucking this up, which is entirely possible.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Syndicate Solicits Pirates
44. Re: Syndicate Solicits Pirates Feb 25, 2012, 12:16 Bhruic
 
"3rd Party Download Required"
"This title installs and requires EA Origin to play. "

Sure, and that's the exact same way it works with Steamworks games, but people never claim that a game is "Steam only". Or, even worse, you have to have a constant connection to Ubisoft to play some of their games, but no one says they are "Ubisoft only".

You can buy the game in plenty of places. Just like Steamworks games, it requires you to install Origin (Steamworks requiring Steam, obviously) to "activate" it.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Syndicate Solicits Pirates
19. Re: Syndicate Solicits Pirates Feb 24, 2012, 23:52 Bhruic
 
Blue says its out, and comments seem to indicate its origin only.

Impulse
Amazon
Gamer's Gate
Direct2Drive

Yup. Definitely Origin only.

*sigh*
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > BioWare Explains Mass Effect 3 Day One DLC
83. Re: BioWare Explains Mass Effect 3 Day One DLC Feb 24, 2012, 23:37 Bhruic
 
Possible Spoilers...

Untagged spoilers ahead for those who haven't played ME2

Seems unlikely for a number of reasons. What are left of the Protheans are the Collectors. The "Prothean" that is in the DLC is, from what I've read, similarily a Collector. The Mission that goes with him is something to do with going back to Eden Prime. All of that ties into the ME2 plotline, which would explain why the DLC was described as being for "long-time fans", ie, those who know the whole ME2 backstory, and would appreciate the opportunity to explore it more.

But unless they do something stupid, there shouldn't be many Collectors around - they were all on the base that you either take out or cleanse at the end of ME2. A lone one who got "left behind" or something similar could work, but that's about it. Although the Collectors weren't supposed to have individual intelligence anymore, so I'm not sure what they'll do there.

As for the non-Collector Protheans, well, their big "plan" was the hidden base on the planet from ME1, and we all know what happened there. Everyone dead, with only the VI left intact (and even it got shut down at the end).

Now, considering that they've had the Reapers manage to get to Earth in such a short time, despite the fact that the whole point of ME1 was to stop them from using their "only way of returning" - which we did, it wouldn't surprise me too much if they decided to completely ignore most of what I've talked about, and re-write history, but I'm hoping they came up with a better idea than that.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Metaverse
6. Re: Morning Metaverse Feb 24, 2012, 16:23 Bhruic
 
Most of the Internet regulation so far hasn't been coming through Congress (with the exceptions of the now-dormant SOPA/PIPA), but rather through the FCC, which is part of the executive branch of government.

What detrimental regulation has come from the FCC?

You'd have done better coming back with a lot of the actions from the DHS (website domain name seizing, and suchforth).
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Tech Bits
10. Re: Morning Tech Bits Feb 24, 2012, 15:59 Bhruic
 
I own nothing from any of those companies with the exception of Windows

Bullshit. You might be able to claim that you didn't buy anything directly from those companies (and even that I'd highly doubt), but the idea that you don't own electronic components from any of those companies is ludicrous.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Tech Bits
9. Re: Morning Tech Bits Feb 24, 2012, 15:57 Bhruic
 
It seems wildly hypocritical to keep singling Apple out to the point where you do, constantly ranting that people who buy Apple products are supporting slavery, when there are all these other companies who aren't exactly mom-and-pop operations who do the exact same thing but apparently get a free pass.

I used to think the same thing, then I converted myself. Apple has no trouble taking credit for all sorts of things they didn't invent, so I have no trouble with them taking the blame for things that they aren't the sole cause of.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3145 Comments. 158 pages. Viewing page 42.
< Newer [ 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo