User comment history
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
| News Comments > LucasArts Shakeup |
 |
| 11. |
Re: LucasArts Shakeup |
May 7, 2010, 13:31 |
Anonymous Rex |
|
|
Kajetan wrote on May 7, 2010, 12:12:
Tom wrote on May 7, 2010, 11:51:
Target audience is too small, apparently. No $$$ to be made. Too small for the typical major production team, yes. But a small team, modern and lean project management methods, heavy use of procedural content ... then you don't have to sell 2 million units to even cover the costs, but you can make a huge profit on selling, maybe 500.000 units. And since this game is targeted at a specific niche group, which values gameplay over looks, you dont need 200 people only working on shaders, textures and models.
Absolutely true. The audience is still out there. And with the state of independent game development being what it is today, I wouldn't be surprised if we were to see a new space sim in the near future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > On MW2 Bonuses |
|
| 33. |
Re: On MW2 Bonuses |
Apr 24, 2010, 14:23 |
Anonymous Rex |
|
|
DG wrote on Apr 23, 2010, 20:18:
Anonymous Rex wrote on Apr 23, 2010, 16:21:
It's easy to say "Well don't sign it." And it sounds easy right up until you're actually in that position, and you discover that the alternative is not working.
Far as I can see I'm the only one mentioning signing things, specifically "well they agreed to it".
But... They did.
I wasn't directing that at you, but rather in anticipation of the sentiment, i.e. "Well if it's a bad deal then don't sign it."
Nothing you said is incorrect and I don't disagree with any part of it. However, the alternative to signing the bad deal is signing no deal. If you're a studio head or some other executive type, you have some maneuvering room to negotiate an actual agreement. But if you're a programmer, artist, or what have you, it's pretty much their way or the highway.
If the industry as a whole were to stand up and say, "No, fuck you very much" then maybe that might change. But that won't happen. And for the record, a union is the last thing I want. In my experience (in a former life) unions are as you described them; simply another layer of abuse, all too often protecting the wrong people and generally creating the kind of "us vs. them" environment that sucks to work in.
I don't know what the solution is for the industry. For myself, the solution was to trade in the big name for peace of mind and a slice of the actual pie. In today's world only a fool would stick with a bad situation rather than go indie. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > On MW2 Bonuses |
|
| 28. |
Re: On MW2 Bonuses |
Apr 23, 2010, 16:21 |
Anonymous Rex |
|
|
Lincolns Mullet wrote on Apr 23, 2010, 10:04:
One thing I learned being in the industry, you don't have shit until it's in your hands. Contracts, promises...all bullshit and mean nothing. There is a way to get around everything.
Amen, brother. Some of these posters talk about contracts and dates as if they meant a goddamn thing to the publisher; as if every single word on the page wasn't carefully crafted to allow the possibility of fucking you over at their whim.
It's easy to say "Well don't sign it." And it sounds easy right up until you're actually in that position, and you discover that the alternative is not working.
This whole saga reeks of shit. And for precisely this kind of bullshit, after 10 years I left big studios and big publishers for the indie world. I would sell oranges at a freeway onramp before going back.
I don't know why this got me so angry. It's not that any of this affects me. I guess it just dredges up some memories I'd rather not relive. Sometimes this industry does its absolute best to squeeze the joy and love of making games right out of you, just like toothpaste from a tube.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Cryptic Studios Interview |
|
| 7. |
Re: Cryptic Studios Interview |
Apr 12, 2010, 20:28 |
Anonymous Rex |
|
|
To gamers the guy is a bottle of poison wrapped up in a turd. But the horrible reality is that as long as they make money, they'll see themselves as being on the right path.
The fact that they bent Star Trek over and screwed it right in the shuttle bay means nothing, because the 100,000 people who elect to play anyway make it a win for them. I don't understand why people don't run for the hills at the first sign of "limited offer lifetime memberships". That's a sign of failure, not generosity. It means they know they can't keep you for that many months so they'll take the cash up front. Fuck, I hate stupid people who support bad practices.
Ahem. Sorry. I was just hoping the game would be good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Star Trek Online Trailer |
|
| 5. |
Re: Star Trek Online Trailer |
Mar 17, 2010, 19:04 |
Anonymous Rex |
|
|
My problem with STO isn't the amount of combat involved. Rather, it's that everything about the game screams "least possible effort".
The unfortunate thing is that they'll be rewarded for taking this approach. Regardless of the game's faults, the source material alone will retain enough subscribers to make it a financial success. And when you play, you can tell that's exactly what they were thinking. You can feel it oozing from every pixel on the screen. Why try hard to make a pretty picture when you can get away with barely connecting the dots?
It's blatant to the point where playing the game felt slightly insulting. Ultimately it was my sense of self respect that compelled me to cancel my subscription.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > OnLive Launches in June: Monthly Fee Doesn't Include Games |
|
| 80. |
Re: OnLive Launches in June: Monthly Fee Doesn't Include Games |
Mar 11, 2010, 14:58 |
Anonymous Rex |
|
|
Well Vern, it would have looked better for you if you had just admitted that you misunderstood the post you replied to.
Much of this discussion has been about the pricing. If you honestly, truly believe that it is impossible to discuss that -- if you actually mean what you just said, and are not simply trying vainly to save face -- then you must now go back and take issue with every single post that discusses the pricing.
Do so immediately. We will proceed when you have finished.
If you fail to do so, then we will know that you do not truly belive what you just said about such a discussion being "impossible", and that instead, you are simply trying your best to "win" something on the internetz.
Actually, I'm feeling generous today. I will offer you an alternative. If you can just admit your assertion that the pricing is impossible to discuss was an utterly retarded thing to say, we can move on without the aforementioned demonstration of your true intentions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > OnLive Launches in June: Monthly Fee Doesn't Include Games |
|
| 77. |
Re: OnLive Launches in June: Monthly Fee Doesn't Include Games |
Mar 11, 2010, 13:57 |
Anonymous Rex |
|
|
Verno wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 08:47:
Let's assume the tech works.
Completely ignores the reality of the
Completely ignores the fact that in your rush to show me what a large and powerful electronic penis you have, you utterly failed to understand a single thing you pretended to read and respond to. Here's why:
When grownups speak of things, it is sometimes necessary to make the temporary assumption that one or more points are either true or false. This is necessary when other points depend on the logical state of the prior points, and such assumptions are made in order to fully examine the subject.
For example, I might say, "Let's assume that there will be a fire so we can discuss the evacuation procedures and determine if they are sufficient." Is the correct response "OK" or "No; there will never be a fire"?
The correct answer is, of course, the former.
In this case, and as clearly outlined in the post you did not read, it was necessary to temporarily assume that the technology worked properly so that we could examine the pricing on its own, without interference from other aspects of the subject matter.
Had you read and/or understood the words you responded to, you would have known this. You would also have noticed that I concluded by saying that the tech would probably not work.
So you see, a smart person would never have responded to what I wrote in quite the way that you did. Sorry if I broke your electronic penis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > OnLive Launches in June: Monthly Fee Doesn't Include Games |
|
| 67. |
Re: OnLive Launches in June: Monthly Fee Doesn't Include Games |
Mar 11, 2010, 07:05 |
Anonymous Rex |
|
|
If this fails -- and I'm not saying it won't -- it'll fail because the tech doesn't live up to expectations or because the games catalog is too thin; not because it requires a subscription.
Let's assume the tech works. Maybe it's not OnLive. Maybe it's not this year. Maybe it'll be one of the other companies who are grinding away on the exact same thing (and they do exist) who will get it right.
If the tech works, and if it's backed up by a massive catalog of games, then what you have amounts to a big electronic game shop that eliminates download & install time and compatibility issues. Browse, click, play. If you don't think people will pay $15/month for that, you need to go sit over there with the newspaper companies, the record industry, and the other folks who lost touch with the world. For reference, this is the same world that paid Zynga 80 million bucks last year for virtual items in crappy flash games. If you put it in their faces and make it easy to buy, they'll do it. In fact, if these companies were extra smart they would go with a "points" mechanism, ala Xbox Live, because spending points is like spending skee-ball tickets.
That's if the tech works, and I'm not convinced that it will. Not yet. I really dig Hulu and streaming Netflix but I also accept the occasional lagfart as part of the deal. I don't think I'd accept that in a game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
9 Comments. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older > |
|
Twitter 
