User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Older >
| News Comments > Skyrim to Offer "Infinite Quests" |
 |
| 60. |
Re: Skyrim to Offer |
Nov 9, 2011, 16:35 |
shponglefan |
|
|
| Blegh. I would much rather have a mere 20 hours of exciting, interesting content, than endless hours of generic, boring crap. IMHO, the procedural stuff was a failure in Daggerfall and I can't imagine it will fair better here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Op Ed |
|
| 25. |
Re: Op Ed |
Nov 8, 2011, 14:35 |
shponglefan |
|
|
Steam has conditioned me to wait for their summer and winter/holiday sales. I just binge-buy during those and wind up with more than enough games for the following 6 months until the next sale.
Except for MP games, I don't really see the point of getting games @ launch anymore. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Saturday Tech Bits |
|
| 9. |
Re: Saturday Tech Bits |
Nov 5, 2011, 23:43 |
shponglefan |
|
|
Krovven wrote on Nov 5, 2011, 19:24:
You miss the point entirely. Whether it was stock options or cash money, the Execs get huge bonuses and everyone else got how much exactly?
It was neither stock options nor cash. But apparently I'm the only one who read the article (and SEC filings). As to who else got what, they aren't required to disclose that to the SEC, so the answer is: we have no effing idea.
</thread> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Saturday Tech Bits |
|
| 6. |
Re: Saturday Tech Bits |
Nov 5, 2011, 18:38 |
shponglefan |
|
|
xXBatmanXx wrote on Nov 5, 2011, 17:46:
So Steve dies and they open the books on the place? geez. There is no reason why any of them need that money. Ridiculous.
They didn't get any money. Read the article! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Saturday Tech Bits |
|
| 5. |
Re: Saturday Tech Bits |
Nov 5, 2011, 18:37 |
shponglefan |
|
|
| Like all articles on executive awards, it's a misleading title. Apple actually gave it's executives 150,000 shares (except for one guy who only got 100k), which are worth $400 million on paper except that they are vesting until between 2012 and 2016 so how much they are actually worth in 1 to 5 years is anyone's guess. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Saturday Metaverse |
|
| 6. |
Re: Saturday Metaverse |
Oct 15, 2011, 16:28 |
shponglefan |
|
|
As tempting as ignoring emails from managers and/or clients would be for a day, somehow I don't think that is going to happen.
Unless I took the day off... hmmm... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Mobilization |
|
| 3. |
Re: Morning Mobilization |
Oct 5, 2011, 18:50 |
shponglefan |
|
|
Woah, the future is NOW!
But seriously, all that power for a 3.5 inch screen, no built-in controls, and mediocre audio? Color me not caring. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Consolidation |
|
| 60. |
Re: Morning Consolidation |
Sep 13, 2011, 15:21 |
shponglefan |
|
|
Creston wrote on Sep 12, 2011, 21:42:
I will gladly pay 80 bucks for a new game if that new game offers me as much content as the games back then did.
Again, rose-coloured glasses view of history. Some games had loads of content, some didn't. I remember beating Sierra games in the span of a weekend. Recently, I played through the first four Space Quest's in an afternoon.
And likewise today, some games have loads of content, some don't. Modern FPSs tend to be lighter on single-player content than old games, although that's a consequence of the move to more cinematic gameplay. But OTOH, some old FPSs didn't have interesting content to begin with (anyone remember the single player Quake?). But other genres still can pack it in.
This comment was edited on Sep 13, 2011, 20:45. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Consolidation |
|
| 48. |
Re: Morning Consolidation |
Sep 12, 2011, 19:57 |
shponglefan |
|
|
Quboid wrote on Sep 12, 2011, 17:43:
I didn't bother to research inflation, I'm surprised it's that high.
It is. I have a catalogue from 1988 where games sold between $35 and $50 a pop. That's between $65 and $90 today. Fortunately, games have actually gotten cheaper; and that's not even counting things like Steam where deals are just plain ridiculous. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Consolidation |
|
| 44. |
Re: Morning Consolidation |
Sep 12, 2011, 17:11 |
shponglefan |
|
|
Drezden wrote on Sep 12, 2011, 15:39:
The real problem is, people went from paying 50 dollars for Quality games, to paying 60 dollars for shoddier games and console ports to PC.
This is a rose-coloured glasses view of history. There have always been good games and bad games; we just tend to forget the bad games more easily.
And one more thing to add, is that if you adjust for inflation, games are actually cheaper now than they were 15-20 years ago. If prices of games kept up with inflation, we'd be paying $80+ for new games.
This comment was edited on Sep 12, 2011, 17:33. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Consolidation |
|
| 43. |
Re: Morning Consolidation |
Sep 12, 2011, 17:09 |
shponglefan |
|
|
Verno wrote on Sep 12, 2011, 11:09:
The industry has probably commissioned dozens of studies already and there's been more than a few press releases over the years about the impact of used sales. The trouble is that no one trusts them because they're from the industry so these discussions go in circles.
I've had a hard time finding the full studies. I've only seen one full study and from what I recall, it only talked about cannibalization of new games sales and concluded that some cannibalization is taking place. Everything else I've read has just been news reports, but not the actual studies themselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Consolidation |
|
| 5. |
Re: Morning Consolidation |
Sep 12, 2011, 11:03 |
shponglefan |
|
|
Until someone comes out with a proper study that quantifies the impact of the used market on the new market, all this talk about whether used game sales help or hurt new game sales is just smoke.
Do used game sales canibilize new games sales? Most probably. But do used games sales help finance new games sales? Also most probably. The question is which of those forces is greater. Nobody as of yet has an answer to that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 |
|
| 63. |
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 |
Aug 31, 2011, 21:20 |
shponglefan |
|
|
Overon wrote on Aug 31, 2011, 15:30:
So much for a realistic game.
What realism? The run-and-gun style gameplay? The Michael Bay-esque explosions? The taking multiple bullet hits and pretending nothing happened?
BF3 is to realistic wargames what Micahel Bay's Transformers is to realistic war movies.
This comment was edited on Aug 31, 2011, 22:16. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 |
|
| 33. |
Re: No Shooting Civilians in Battlefield 3 |
Aug 31, 2011, 12:29 |
shponglefan |
|
|
McSterls wrote on Aug 31, 2011, 12:25:
Building a realistic shooter like BF3 appears to be means that collateral damage and friendly fire can and should happen.
But it's NOT a realistic shooter. It's nowhere near close to realism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
420 Comments. 21 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Older > |
|
Twitter 
