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 S Westberg

Real Name S Westberg   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Flatline
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Feb 15, 2007, 19:09
Total Comments 1949 (Pro)
User ID 34131
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ] Older >


News Comments > Op Ed
13. Re: Op Ed Jul 4, 2013, 18:11 Flatline
 
Cutter wrote on Jul 4, 2013, 13:09:
And don't forget Shadowrun has been delayed twice now and they're out of money which is why it's finally being shipped.

Yeah, the first delay was when KS shattered their goal in 24 hours and they like quintupled the size of the game. They said even before the end of the KS that the schedule was going to have to change.

The second delay was a whopping month. Probably to implement VR Matrix.

And they delayed the game for a month *after* they went through the KS money.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Saturday Consolidation
17. Re: Saturday Consolidation Jul 1, 2013, 01:54 Flatline
 
HorrorScope wrote on Jun 29, 2013, 14:30:
SpectralMeat wrote on Jun 29, 2013, 14:19:
It is kind of hard to find anything to complain about with Sony.

Yep they did pretty much what any video game hobbyist would have dreamed up. I guess we should say great job, but it also is master of the obvious stuff if you pay attention. For Sony this is a huge turn of events, where I made fun of them, now they get it, welcome.

I am hoping this means that this point forward everything will be backwards compatible. That there will be incremental upgrades instead of generational releases. Why not in two years put in a faster BPU/GPU, etc? No need to start anything over, these are closed PC's.

This is how Apple makes their billions, incremental HW improvements, just have to sell at a profit. They could make a $1000 version of the PS4 at release and enough would buy, not saying they should, but it's to my point.

Say the mass market is $400 and below. But in a year make a $750 dollar version PS4.1 that is just stronger, a year after that put the PS4.1 at $400 and introduce another stronger PS4.2 at $750. To say that doesn't work is to ignore what Apple has done.



This is a terri-bad idea that deserves to be shot behind the woodshed before it bites another animal or human and spreads the derp.

Instead of backwards compatibility you now have forwards compatibility issues. AAA dev decides to only publish for PS4.2 while everyone else is publishing PS4.1. If you don't have 700 dollars to spend every year or two you're fucked. Or even worse, you keep selling revisions but one sells *really* well and to maximize sales developers stick with that revision's system requirements and suddenly nobody is using all the new power and toys and sticking with the old revision and you have DirectX 9/Windows XP all over again, with dead hardware revision cycles.

No, 700 dollar yearly or every-two-year lifespans of hardware is a terrible idea. With iDevices, at least you can make phone calls, listen to music, etc... if your device is too old to make use of all the latest apps.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > MechWarrior Online Preorders
3. Re: MechWarrior Online Preorders Jun 25, 2013, 22:08 Flatline
 
Wow they even manage to f*ck over the founders pack purchasers by giving better swag here.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > OZombie Kickstarter
8. Re: OZombie Kickstarter Jun 24, 2013, 23:32 Flatline
 
STOP PUTTING ZOMBIES IN EVERYTHING ASSHATS.

Christ... It's like "what can we combine with zombies to make money? I know! The Wizard of Oz!"
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen - Life Time Insurance Last Chance
98. Re: Star Citizen - Life Time Insurance Last Chance Jun 23, 2013, 21:47 Flatline
 
jimnms wrote on Jun 23, 2013, 15:42:
Since the game isn't based around PvP, I don't see how it can be called P2W. It's more like P2GaBS (Pay to Get a Better Start).

In a sandbox environment "winning" more or less means "getting to do what you want".

If it takes X number of hours of boredom mining asteroids and hauling inexpensive freight from point A to point B in order to make enough money to afford a ship that lets you play how you want, and then someone else who wants to play the way you want to play pulls out a credit card and skips those X hours, I'd say that's "pay to win". Or if it wasn't a transaction, and it was say... a code or a hack, it'd be cheating. So how about instead of pay to win it's pay to cheat?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen - Life Time Insurance Last Chance
78. Re: Star Citizen - Life Time Insurance Last Chance Jun 23, 2013, 13:23 Flatline
 
1badmf wrote on Jun 23, 2013, 02:34:
Overon wrote on Jun 23, 2013, 01:51:
I have to agree with Flatline there is way too much speculation and blind trust in Roberts Space Industries.

see, that's the problem with all this griping. it's not 'blind' trust. it's chris roberts. if you don't know his history, you shouldn't be bothering with this. if you do, you should know that if anyone can do this right, it's him. i think he's earned our trust.

That's kind of the definition of blind trust. We have no hard data on the game or how it plays, only a bunch of PR buzz lines, some carefully edited footage, and a price list.

I've had enough darling developers screw the pooch at an epic level that past performance doesn't promise future results to me. And I'll go here... the same issues and questions that historically plagued Freelancer while Roberts was still lead are showing up here again.

And here's another thing- if what someone else in thread said is true and that they're only offering to sell all these ships until the Alpha, that's kind of f*cked up.

I mean, I'd like to assume they have the basic flight engine already done. It wouldn't be hard to offer test drive packages- dump the ship into an asteroid field with basic weaponry and let us fly around and see how things go "pew pew pew" and handle. Put a 10 minute timer on it for all I care. It'd justify the 250 dollar investment some of these ships are requiring. Slap "pre-alpha code, use at own risk" on it and let it go. It'd take 15 minutes per build I imagine to crank out a test drive, and give us a lot of hands on information.

And finally on the P2W thing, P2W doesn't necessarily mean that you pwn the world with your ship. If I have to schlep solar power energy cells from factory A to depot B for 30 hours in order to afford the most basic ship but could slap down a credit card and get a more advanced ship immediately in the play style I'd like, that's P2W. My time has value, and it's also short-cutting the intended game's path with money. Is it the worst example of P2W? Not really... but it is an example.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen - Life Time Insurance Last Chance
53. Re: Star Citizen - Life Time Insurance Last Chance Jun 23, 2013, 00:44 Flatline
 
ItBurn wrote on Jun 23, 2013, 00:37:
And I thought I was a negative person... :p

Hey I want to be totally wrong. I miss space combat sims with a passion. I still replay Freespace 2 every few months because the genre is like crack to me.

Optimists see the glass is half full, pessimists see it half empty, engineers see the glass was designed twice as large as needed, and I see enough water to drown in.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen - Life Time Insurance Last Chance
52. Re: Star Citizen - Life Time Insurance Last Chance Jun 23, 2013, 00:40 Flatline
 
CJ_Parker wrote on Jun 22, 2013, 22:35:
Flatline wrote on Jun 22, 2013, 22:18:
Now, after all these months of updates, I'm seeing I was kind of a sucker to be an early supporter (which is a laugh because the game isn't even out yet). Every update seems to be "here's another ship you can buy! Limited time offer!" or bucking to up your contribution.

It might help if you would actually read the updates. Here's what Chris Roberts said on the current 300i promo with some highlighting done by yours truly...
As always, we are doing these promotions as way to bring new people into the community – the Aurora promotion managed to bring in three times the amount of people to the game that were previously joining and almost 70% of the dollars raised came from new backers which was great! If you are an existing backer please pledge because you want to support the game’s development and our quest to make this the first fully community funded AAA game and not because additional ships are necessary for the experience. You will be able to acquire all of these craft and upgrades in the finished game using in-game credits.

Bullshit it's meant for new people joining the game: I get multiple email announcements every single time there's a chance for me to pay more money, often days before it hits the news circuit.

Here's a better translation:

We're telling you to only back this if you want to support the game, but seriously folks, opening up your wallet is going to give you a day-one advantage. It may take months or even years to earn some of these ships in-game, but for the low-low rate of whatever the cost is, you can cut to the front of the line.

I've heard this shit before from EVERY Freemium game I've ever played. I can count on one hand the freemium models that didn't feel like Pay2Win.

Your quote shows me absolutely nothing that doesn't disprove anything I said. If anything, it reinforces everything I've said. It's specifically designed to appeal to completion and collectors, of whom there are a *lot* in the gaming community. Every month or two you have a 10 or 20 dollar opportunity to expand your "collection" and get that yummy feeling of completeness, until you've dropped hundreds of dollars into a game that you don't have and actually know nothing substantial about.

Add in grace periods, limited time offers, and reunion tours- I mean extensions for the fans, and you engender all kinds of artificial want and desire for a product that really at this point isn't much of a product more than it's a pitch. In fact, it's been so long since development began and we haven't seen really *anything* substantial that I begin to worry.

It's probably the best crowd sourcing advertising campaign I've ever seen.

This comment was edited on Jun 23, 2013, 00:46.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen - Life Time Insurance Last Chance
50. Re: Star Citizen - Life Time Insurance Last Chance Jun 23, 2013, 00:35 Flatline
 
ItBurn wrote on Jun 22, 2013, 23:32:
Jivaro wrote on Jun 22, 2013, 23:30:
Dev, they address all of that regarding subscriptions very clearly.

Direct quote from the site:

"To that end, we want to make clear that there will NEVER be a subscription needed to play Star Citizen. Once you have backed you should not have to spend extra money to play the game. Similarly, Star Citizen will never be ‘pay to win,’ so we are not going to offer a subscription plan that gives some users special equipment or additional money or any kind of edge in combat. We feel strongly that everything that affects gameplay can be earned in game via your actions."

But that brings up that Pay2Win topic and it is obvious to me that the developers are using a pretty loose interpretation of the term. They are saying that as long as everything in the store can be earned in the game, it isn't Pay2Win. I think most players would agree that if you can buy ships, regardless of whether they are able to be earned in game, that moves you over into the Pay2Win category. As I stated below, I couldn't give a shit less if someone wants to pay not to play the game. I do understand however that some people dislike that a developer would say it isn't Pay2Win and then sell anything other than cosmetic things in the store.

The thing is thought that in this game, player skill is more important than ship parts. Also, all ships are useful for different purposes. A smaller ship may be able to take down a bigger, costlier ship because it's faster and harder to hit.

You *think* that player skill will be far more important. You don't know yet. You're assuming based on zero factual data other than PR announcements. It's supurb advertising smoke, but it's still smoke until we get hard data like max speeds, turning rates in degrees per second or the equivalent, acceleration, hull/shield strength compared to weaponry, etc etc...

And even when we're given all that, it only matters if it's accurately implemented in the game.

So we're back to dishing money on pure advertising smoke and absolutely nothing substantial. Show me 10 minutes of in-game performance of a ship and you'll have more concrete data to work from.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen - Life Time Insurance Last Chance
35. Re: Star Citizen - Life Time Insurance Last Chance Jun 22, 2013, 22:18 Flatline
 
I'm actually regretting ever kickstarting this project. At first it seemed like an information orgy of pledge levels and SWAG that you'd get, and I plunked down a middle of the road contribution.

But it turns out I made that investment really knowing nothing about what I was being sold.

Now, after all these months of updates, I'm seeing I was kind of a sucker to be an early supporter (which is a laugh because the game isn't even out yet). Every update seems to be "here's another ship you can buy! Limited time offer!" or bucking to up your contribution.

The problem I see now is that these are all blind purchases on pure hype and BS. We have no *real* idea what any of this translated into the game world actually means. Worse yet, it seems like the information overload without actually telling you anything seems to be intentional.

I hope I'm wrong. I would LOVE to be wrong and have a fantastic game to play. We'll see though. At the moment I'm feeling like a chump getting hit up for a few bucks over and over and over again.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition Legal Tangle
16. Re: Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition Legal Tangle Jun 20, 2013, 13:22 Flatline
 
Cutter wrote on Jun 20, 2013, 12:35:
Please, WOTC just go away. Sell the IP to someone who cares beyond whatever sheckels they can wring out of it.

Wizards and Mearls has to run D&D completely into the ground first with D&D:Next, aka 5th edition. Which looks like a travesty waiting to happen.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Shadowrun Returns Delayed to Next Month
13. Re: Shadowrun Returns Delayed to Next Month Jun 18, 2013, 17:29 Flatline
 
Cutter wrote on Jun 18, 2013, 14:38:
ASeven wrote on Jun 18, 2013, 12:04:
No inventory, no loot, only one magic class, amongst a ton of stripped features.

This game no longer holds the sway it held with me.

Yeah those issues, plus some other stuff now makes me wish I hadn't kicked in. And is a month going to make a real difference at this point? That doesn't bode well IMO - particularly given that this already had a major delay pushed back to a June release. And apparently there's another major delay for the Linux backers. They say the money is all gone at this point. What about the stretch goals? This could be a real problem for all kickstarters going forward if we're consistently seeing over promise/under deliver. Enh, I guess we'll see in another month.

Chances are the extra month of testing was to put the VR matrix rules back into the game. That came late in development. With a competent QA team a month is a long time to bug check if they're intelligent about it.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Shadowrun Returns Delayed to Next Month
12. Re: Shadowrun Returns Delayed to Next Month Jun 18, 2013, 17:27 Flatline
 
Julio wrote on Jun 18, 2013, 17:22:
ASeven wrote on Jun 18, 2013, 12:04:
No inventory, no loot, only one magic class, amongst a ton of stripped features. This game no longer holds the sway it held with me.

Adding in the DRM fiasco and I'm no longer planning to buy this one.


Bullshit you were bitching about this before the Steam/DRM thing.

At least be consistent and not a worry troll.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion EMEA Release
5. Re: Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion EMEA Release Jun 17, 2013, 22:42 Flatline
 
How many more times do you think they're going to re-release this game?

I bet there's at least 3 more "releases" in it's future.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > It Came from E3 2013, Part Six
46. Re: It Came from E3 2013, Part Six Jun 17, 2013, 02:56 Flatline
 
To an extent, E3 does still have a sexist objectification of women. It's not as bad as it used to be, where you'd get hooker ads and phone sex cards handed out to you on the floor and there was more T&A than at a strip club.

But hiring a set of tits to show off so that horny nerds come in to pay attention to your game is derogatory to all parties involved.

To the con-goer it's insulting because it says "hurr durr you need titties to make you focus on a product for more than 8 seconds".

For the woman it's "show off more cleavage, don't forget to smile, and if a guy starts grabbing at you just... kind of shoo him away. While smiling. And keep him interested in the game."

For the people developing the game it's "our game is such shit it can't compete on the trade show floor. So HERE'S SOME TITTIES!"

It's better than it used to be though. Poor girls running around in lingerie and bikinis being groped by fat sweaty nerds who sprint from one booth babe to the next getting their picture taken because it's the closest to a hot girl they'll ever get without paying 500 an hour. It was rather disgusting.

Thing of it is, what is lost if the booth babes went away? Nothing substantial. As people like to point out, PAX is booming, and it has a no booth babes policy.

I don't see why people are losing their shit over this. Unless you're the type of introvert that relies on booth babes for exposure to the female half of the species.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Thief E3 Presentation
31. Re: Thief E3 Presentation Jun 14, 2013, 21:22 Flatline
 
I'm... not impressed with it.

Maybe it'll end up better than it is now, but right now this feels more like an old school Splinter Cell game than Thief.

The mechanical eye thing is way, way, way overdeveloped. And considering that it's compensation for defeating the trickster in the first Thief... Where the hell does it come from in this one?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
4. Re: Op Ed Jun 13, 2013, 22:34 Flatline
 
Rattlehead wrote on Jun 13, 2013, 21:18:
It's good to know Microsoft soon will be dropping out of the console race, as Xbox One is going to tank.

As much as I'd love it to tank I doubt it will. Xbox sales stayed brisk through the red ring of death debacle. This is nothing to having three or four consoles get sent in for repair.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Consolidation
23. Re: Morning Consolidation Jun 13, 2013, 14:03 Flatline
 
Verno wrote on Jun 13, 2013, 12:28:
"You cannot have game and marketing budgets this high while also having used and rental games existing," he said via Twitter. "The numbers do NOT work people."

CliffyB's latest troll rant against used games is up and he predictably backs Microsoft, claiming that modern game development and marketing is too expensive to support a used game market. Of course one might wonder why the marketing and game budgets need to be this high in the first place when people will spend millions on something like Terraria and Minecraft, surely there is a middle ground to be found there.

Destructoid absolutely decimates his argument, thought people might want to take a gander.

That tells me that the next "generation" of gaming should be about making AAA quality games *cheaper* to produce. Meaning faster, easier pipelines.

I've been predicting that games are going to peak on budget since the beginning of the PS3/360 generation. The solution to this isn't to yank fair use doctrine and force consumers into what amounts to an outdated pattern of game development, but to push, and I mean *really* push, to make games cheaper and more efficient to produce. That's it really.

Either that or admit that you've hit a certain level of fidelity that is just not economical to get past and go back to investing in content.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > New Warhammer 40K MMORPG Announced
14. Re: New Warhammer 40K MMORPG Announced Jun 12, 2013, 16:34 Flatline
 
KS wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 16:14:
KS wrote on Jun 12, 2013, 15:11:
I wanna be a swarm of little StinkBois, or whatevet the hell they are called.

Note: I don't want to be a character who controls the swarm. I want to be the swarm itself.

Like the dog pack consciousness in A Fire Upon The Deep.

DO SOMETHING UNIQUE DOG DAMMIT! Stop pooping out reskins.

Ya know what, forget it. Pearls before swine. Some subgenius would implement it as a single character with an "animation" of little creatures flipping around, rather than as a literal swarm of independent, swarm-behavior entities.

Too much for the common yokel programmer to implement. And the powers would be single-character instead of well thought-out swarm-based things based on actual independent creatures.

Err... the bandwidth and amount of processing power to implement 500 individual AIs and animate them all for the sake of *one* player is kind of absurd. Imagine a thousand players on a server, each with a 500 snotling horde. That's 500,000 gamestates you have to keep track of, store, and sync, and that's just for a handful of players.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Mobilization
1. Re: Morning Mobilization Jun 12, 2013, 16:30 Flatline
 
For once Pachter and I agree on something.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1949 Comments. 98 pages. Viewing page 14.
< Newer [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo