^Drag0n^ wrote on Sep 23, 2011, 21:33:
At this rate, we'll all be 60 when it goes on sale.
Cutter wrote on Sep 17, 2011, 12:22:
If that's what makes you happy, knock yourself out. The rest of us will happily keep our HUDs, kthnx.
PHJF wrote on Sep 4, 2011, 20:18:
Diablo 2 was miles beyond Diablo.
Borderlands 2 is looking like the Doom 2 to Doom, more of an expansion than true follow up.
Fion wrote on Sep 3, 2011, 13:08:
EA can suck it. You know Origin is charging people $5 on top of the game's price to pre-order The Old Republic? That's right charging EXTRA to pre-order a game!
Beamer wrote on Aug 19, 2011, 12:05:
Again, I've never heard this (though people here keep claiming it comes up) and it's easy enough to dispel by pointing to the issues every company attempting to do cross-platform has had to deal with
Jerykk wrote on Aug 14, 2011, 00:05:That's not really the community's fault though. It is flawed mechanics. 45 min-1hr long games combined with the fact that one person can not only cause you to lose, but completely cripple the entire team tends to result in angry people.
I don't think that's an issue with mechanics. What you're essentially saying is that all team-based multiplayer games should require large teams so that crappy players can't have s significant impact on their team's success. Large teams are not suited to all genres, particularly strategy games.
rist3903 wrote on Aug 13, 2011, 21:07:
Just because there are positive examples of people in a community does not mean that gameplay mechanics of the genre do not lend themselves to people getting extremely irritated at new players. One person on a team can cause the team to lose, making the others pissed at him.
If you consider that this is a very common occurrence, it is easy to extrapolate from that that quite a few in the community are somewhat unfriendly to the uninitiated.
Beamer wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 14:01:avianflu wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 12:53:
The whole point of persistent on line is NOT to stop piracy: it is to allow for real-time micro-tranctions in the auction house and blizzard store.
Want that sword of Damocles for $1.50? Click -- it is now yours.
Again, I completely disagree with this. How does this require persistent online? It doesn't in any way, shape or form. There isn't a single argument that can be made that persistent online even helps this. Sorry, but it makes the argument dumb.
However, DRM can require persistent online.
Bhruic wrote on Jul 27, 2011, 17:53:Valve is simply asking that both the game and all DLC be available for purchase through steam. That is a reasonable request. No one would have a problem with valve refusing to carry EA games if EA made the DLC only available through Direct2Drive.
Sure, but Valve isn't living up to the other side. If I buy BF:BC2 retail, and try and buy the Vietnam expansion via Steam, I can't use it. If I buy BF:BC2 on Steam, and buy the Vietnam expansion from Direct2Drive, I can't use it. If Steam isn't going to allow you to purchase your DLC from a third party and enable it with your Steam game (or vice versa), why should EA cooperate with them?
Krovven wrote on Jul 27, 2011, 13:39:StingingVelvet wrote on Jul 27, 2011, 13:16:
No one can really say how many of these "Steam or no sale" people really mean it.
It's true, some of those people will just go through Origin, or another digital distro, or just buy the boxed game. I know I will for BF3. Hardcore gamers will go wherever they need to, to get the game. Casual folks that just see a game get released on Steam and decide to buy it are the people they will lose. 25 million + Steam users isnt something to scoff at.
Cram wrote on Jul 23, 2011, 16:06:
Why was this article posted? This isn't interesting, important or newsworthy. Stop giving Roper attention.
Sepharo wrote on Jun 29, 2011, 22:32:Cutter wrote on Jun 29, 2011, 22:24:
Just because one game did and it was a fluke success doesn't mean everyone should emulate it.
You realize it's the same guy right?
I'm a big proponent of this style of development. Working at a software developer which employs the agile methodology and ships product nearly ever week, I can't stress enough how important it is to get the customers involved as early as possible.
DangerDog wrote on Jun 8, 2011, 13:57:Frijoles wrote on Jun 8, 2011, 11:25:
Good to see this getting settled. Let's move on to something else to bitch about.
No dedicated servers for RAGE? I haven't read if that's true or not.
Cutter wrote on Jun 1, 2011, 14:24:
From the get go this was all about trying to squeeze Bethsoft for cash, plain and simple. Everyone including them knew they'd never build the thing or get the financing for it. This is just a case of IP squatting on a technicality. Shame of it is that this has set back any chance for a Fallout world for several years.
captawe wrote on May 27, 2011, 19:08:
Umm, Bioware doesn't exist except in name only. EA bought them and control all the shots. Bioware is just a name on a website and a marquee to pimp crappy games from.
entr0py wrote on May 26, 2011, 02:50:Dev wrote on May 26, 2011, 00:40:
Maybe use steam next time instead of the *barf* GfWL. It limits you to 1 signin at a time, unlimited installs. It has ability to not unlock the game until a particular release day/time, etc.
While Steam VS GFWL isn't really the issue here, it does amaze me how people support Steam DRM. The biggest issues is that Steam requires periodical sign-ins, even in "offline" mode. Whereas GFWL never requires you to be online, and even allows you to create and play on offline accounts that require no user data or tracking.