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:
San Diego, CA 07/23

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Daniel

Real Name Daniel   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname CJ_Parker
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Feb 11, 2006, 23:49
Total Comments 3235 (Veteran)
User ID 24408
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 ] Older >


News Comments > Morning Consolidation
21. Re: Morning Consolidation Oct 29, 2015, 21:01 CJ_Parker
 
descender wrote on Oct 29, 2015, 20:06:
CJ, as usual you miss the point.

They didn't want to sell the consoles at a loss in the past, they had to (the X360 was profitable after ~2 years anyway) in order to grow their market. Now they have millions of customers who will actually pay what it actually costs to make one of the consoles. They also could because they were also selling you more profitable games and peripherals. The gaming market has changed significantly since. Sony/MS may not even be able to sell it at a loss anymore since they don't produce nearly the quantity of games they used to and those games cost considerably more to produce than they used to.

Wait, the premise was a discussion about the weak hardware. My point is that MS and Sony deliberately chose to go with pretty weak hardware to keep the cost low and to be able to sell each individual unit at cost or even at a small profit initially.

I am convinced that we would have considerably more powerful consoles if MS and Sony would have gone with the old fashioned business model of selling individual units at a loss initially.
For example, if the consoles would have been powered by the equivalent of a desktop i5-2500K at 4.x GHz and a powerful dedicated AMD or nVidia GPU.

Sure, being fixated on a $499 price target, they would have made a loss per unit (initially) if they would have gone with more powerful hardware but as with the last console gen this would have only been a temporary thing.

It was therefore -IMHO- short-sighted and "greedy" that they went for weak hardware and an instant gratification profit model.

I am convinced that better hardware would have served not only them but the entire gaming industry better in the long run and that Sony and MS would have likely made a higher gross profit over the course of the entire console generation in spite of the early losses per unit. There would have been a completely different momentum from the start, i.e. much more enthusiasm from gamers and publishers if the new gen would have performed better.

I'm not blaming them for wanting to make a profit. I'm blaming them for being short-sighted and wanting to make a quick buck profit when making losses initially to make even more profit in the long run would have been the more reasonable thing to do.
But too late now... now we're stuck with this inferior crap for the next five years or so *sigh*...
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen New Flight Model Details
9. Re: Star Citizen New Flight Model Details Oct 29, 2015, 20:26 CJ_Parker
 
Tom wrote on Oct 29, 2015, 19:58:
The Half Elf wrote on Oct 29, 2015, 18:55:
It's a fucking space sim, shouldn't the flight model be one of the first things you get done?!?
Well, Elite: Dangerous went that route and look how that turned out. The flight model is critical to a space sim but so are a bunch of other things.

How did it turn out? Frontier are doing it exactly in the right order. Solid flight model, an incredibly huge functional universe to explore and an extremely solid base to build from. And now they are building...

A million times more reasonable than Star Citizen where everything is ass backwards. CIG is working on fine detail before they even have a foundation to build from.
For example, a number of ships have already been reworked several times before they have even been flown by a single player. Silly.
CIG could do ship revamps to their heart's content if the game is live (or they could have simply made the ships the right way from the start so no reworks would have been required in the first place).

Their priorities (aside from S42) should be to develop and deliver the MMO backbone, the universe and a solid flight model. Exactly like Elite. Then flesh it out with content and fulfill all the stretch goals.
Instead CIG chose to develop individual CryEngine modules/levels for marketing purposes with absolutely no underlying MMO framework, barely working band-aid net code, the shittiest "flight model" in a space sim ever, FPS gameplay with retarded forced head bobbing which makes people sick like dogs and all kinds of completely incompetent crap like this.

It's almost a bit of a shame and a waste of resources on both sides that Frontier and CIG can't just merge. That would have potential to turn out great if CIG would use the excellent solid foundation of Elite and would be providing the ships and the content.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen New Flight Model Details
7. Re: Star Citizen New Flight Model Details Oct 29, 2015, 20:03 CJ_Parker
 
Moog wrote on Oct 29, 2015, 19:35:
It's gone very quiet on the Derek Smart front of late.

What's happening with that?

Maybe CIG has really entered into litigation against The Escapist and Derek Smart. If they have then Derek would have probably been advised by his lawyer to remain silent for now. He'd certainly want to avoid the whole "crusade" impression. That is most easily achieved by simply shutting the fuck up for a while.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > EA Financials
3. Re: EA Financials Oct 29, 2015, 19:28 CJ_Parker
 
killer_roach wrote on Oct 29, 2015, 19:13:
$0.65 EPS? Doing some quick and dirty math, that's about a $200m profit for the quarter (estimating, based on share price and market cap, they've got about 300 million shares outstanding).

Dude? Why "quick and dirty math" or "about" and "estimating" if you can just, you know, click the link and scroll down a bit to find out that it's $212 million net profit and 326 million shares.
No need to whip out the calculator if others have done the work for you!
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Consolidation
18. Re: Morning Consolidation Oct 29, 2015, 18:28 CJ_Parker
 
descender wrote on Oct 29, 2015, 17:51:
The issue is that MS and Sony are greedy fucks.
They no longer wanted to sell the hardware at a loss. They wanted to earn money from each console sale from day one so they put extra cheap and crappy parts inside.

Just think about that again for like... 2 seconds...

Those greedy fucks running a for-profit business! The nerve!

You do realize how the console business worked in the past, right? Or are you a 12 year old trying to sound smart after his first economy class at school?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Update and Trailer
41. Re: Star Citizen Update and Trailer Oct 29, 2015, 18:09 CJ_Parker
 
mellis wrote on Oct 29, 2015, 11:27:
Well, the easiest thing to do is ask him if the allegations are true at whatever the next open forum is. And if they are, who picked up the tab? The business or himself.

Chris Roberts has answered to the allegations (look up his Escapist article rebuttal) and said that he lives the life of a star not from backer monies but from the money he made when he sold his stake in Origin and from his private coffers.

Derek Smart on the other hand claimed that CR was flat broke when he launched the Star Citizen campaign.

It's not easy to tell the truth but if you google a bit you will find references to CR owning a huge ranch outside Austin until a few years ago. CR definitely used to be a very wealthy man but exactly how wealthy he was in October 2012 when the SC campaign began is anyone's guess.

IMHO, even though CR is a convicted liar, we have to take his word for it until proven otherwise. Derek Smart has produced zero tangible evidence for his claims that CR used backer money for a lavish lifestyle.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Consolidation
15. Re: Morning Consolidation Oct 29, 2015, 17:24 CJ_Parker
 
Ozmodan wrote on Oct 29, 2015, 16:52:
Exactly. Moving to the Intel cpus was a no brainer.

What Intel CPUs? Both the Xbone and the PS4 are "powered" (and we have to use that term very loosely here) by weak-ass AMD advanced calculator APUs.

No new Cell CPU was definitely the only reasonable move on Sony's part. IBM sold off their chip making division so there was no one to really provide any R&D and knowhow for a new Cell processor anyway. And just because devs somehow got used to the PS3 Cell architecture does not mean they liked it. I'm sure that devs are very happy with the nearly unified console architecture of the current gen.

The issue with the weak hardware inside the Xbone and PS4 is not an issue of x86 vs. Cell. The issue is that MS and Sony are greedy fucks.
They no longer wanted to sell the hardware at a loss. They wanted to earn money from each console sale from day one so they put extra cheap and crappy parts inside.
If they would have stuck to the old model where you sell the hardware at a loss and subsidize via game sales then they could have easily put better CPU and GPU power inside.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Update and Trailer
31. Re: Star Citizen Update and Trailer Oct 29, 2015, 09:49 CJ_Parker
 
HAHAHA "titbit".... BWWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Citizen Update and Trailer
28. Re: Star Citizen Update and Trailer Oct 29, 2015, 08:25 CJ_Parker
 
Kxmode wrote on Oct 29, 2015, 06:00:
3. It appears CIG is producing less PR material and more working progress videos to show what they're doing.

If you mean the past two weeks since CitizenCon ended, OK, but I can't generally see a trend like that. Just check the monthly reports. They've been working hard on "exciting" reveals all year long.

PAX East, E3, Gamescom, CitizenCon etc... I'm not sure about PAX AUS but if they are going this year then that will be the next event that will detract from more focus on actual development.
And then PAX East is already on the horizon again and the circle continues...

I will believe in more focus on actual game development if and when they actually cancel the majority of those shows (or attend them like regular devs/business people would).
Personally, I believe that the only event that they should be having is their own CitizenCon but wtf are they doing at E3 which is a console circle-jerk for the most part?

Screw all those shows. Even a huge publisher like Bethesda only showed FO4 at E3 this year with a release announcement in the same year. WTF is CIG as a crowdfunding/indie dev doing at all those shows when the game is years away from release?? They should have gone to E3, Gamescom, PAX etc. the year they were certain that they were closing in on a commercial release (i.e. 2016) but not in 2013/2014/2015.
I really don't want to know how many man hours were spent working on those spit&glue event demos instead of building the foundation of the actual game.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Previews
2. Re: Morning Previews Oct 28, 2015, 10:56 CJ_Parker
 
Moar garbage...  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Wars: The Old Republic - Knights of the Fallen Empire Launches
11. Re: Star Wars: The Old Republic - Knights of the Fallen Empire Launches Oct 28, 2015, 10:54 CJ_Parker
 
ZeroPike1 wrote on Oct 28, 2015, 10:19:
I'll look into this when they make there F2P section more F2P friendly. I'm not a fan of there current limits on things. Makes it unplayable.

Well, you're not getting this expansion as a F2P anyway. You have to be a subscriber to get it for "free". At least for now... they might make it free for F2Pers at some point in the distant future, of course.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Wars: The Old Republic - Knights of the Fallen Empire Launches
8. Re: Star Wars: The Old Republic - Knights of the Fallen Empire Launches Oct 28, 2015, 05:05 CJ_Parker
 
Bill Borre wrote on Oct 27, 2015, 20:13:
I'm glad they added the option to solo FPs. I was hoping they'd do that.

You could already solo FPs before KotFE. You could play the Shadow of Revan level 60s in solo mode and you could easily solo all the old level 50 FPs (hard mode, too) as a level 60 because mobs could not touch you as soon as you were 9+ levels above them.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Star Wars: The Old Republic - Knights of the Fallen Empire Launches
3. Re: Star Wars: The Old Republic - Knights of the Fallen Empire Launches Oct 27, 2015, 20:05 CJ_Parker
 
I had early access and finished this last week.

The story is sort of OK (not stellar and a bit strange for Star Wars but OK). It is also by far the easiest game I have ever played.

I mean you often hear people say that a game is for retards and so on but for this game it is actually 100% true!

All you need to do is hold down 'W' and watch cutscenes. There is absolutely nothing else to do for all nine very linear corridor-style chapters.

It is also a little weird how you reach the new level of 65 easily after about one third of the expansion's story. Did they even test shit (it's EA/Bio... don't answer)?
The game is one long fucking narrow corridor. If there is one game on this planet where it is easy as pie to determine exactly what level the player will be at some point it is this game. Why not make it more interesting by balancing shit better?

I also hate the forced companion crap, i.e. how they take away several of your beloved companions and introduce an all new influence grind. I dislike even more that the forced companion crap is so inconsequential.
In today's patch they fixed the terminal that allows you to retrieve your old companions which totally goes against the story but with all the companion gifts that you get from playing through KotFE it just makes sense to get your old comps back anyway.
I hope I also don't have to mention how utterly lame and dumb it is to get your companions back by pushing a button.

It is luckily a "free" expansion for subscribers and for a free expansion it may not be too bad but it has a shitload of major glaring flaws (there is also no loot progression worth mentioning... those nine story chapters are one big snoozefest).
Consider my account canceled at least until the next chapters come along or maybe even until the whole story is released. It's not really worth 12.99. You can watch many more much better movies for the same price and KotFE is nothing but a mediocre movie (it's not even really interactive).
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > New Star Citizen Alpha
74. Re: New Star Citizen Alpha Oct 27, 2015, 18:40 CJ_Parker
 
AngelicPenguin wrote on Oct 27, 2015, 15:07:
CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 27, 2015, 14:07:
Of course it is a big fat lie.

You seem very passionate about this, and again I haven't followed this much.

BUT - the reasonable analogy that I make is that I told a client I will build them a new room in their house for $5,000. If I get $10,000 I can build that room in half the time. The client then gives me $100,000 and says to build a completely new wing. The clear assumption there is that the new wing isn't going to get built in the same time frame as the original $10,000 room.

No?

No. Because the client does not say to build a completely new wing. The construction company calls the shots, not the client. Star Citizen backers never had a chance to say 'no' to Chris Roberts megalomaniac tendencies. There was only a general poll whether to keep funding going after the campaign but CR/CIG kept making up the stretch goals.

So the company knows exactly from the very start, at the time it promises to build a new room for $5,000, that neither the room for $5,000 or $10,000, let alone the whole wing for $100,000 will happen on time or somehow faster than the $5,000 room.

That CR quote is from September 2013. The campaign ended November 2012. The promised game, as per the stretch goals Nov 2012, was already an extremely ambitious ~$6 million (+$xx million from investors) game with a 50 mission single player campaign, a persistent universe with 100 star systems, private servers and modding tools (and much more).
You know... a full single player game, a full-fledged MMO, dedicated servers and modding tools. Easily four, five years of work minimums but CR promised to do it in less than half.

I actually fully expected CR back then (i.e. Nov 2012) to step up to the microphone and announce that this new and bigger game would naturally not happen by the end of 2014 as announced.

Unfortunately, that never happened. Instead CR tried to keep up the illusion that the game's release is not that far away and he said silly crap as in the quoted bit, obviously hoping to get even more money when he must have known exactly (given his experience) that the project would never happen within the next year -or somehow magically faster if people throw more money at it- since it was himself who kept making up more and more stretch goals for every single $1 million raised.
As a developer you will know that you can not just throw more people at a project to make it happen faster. It might work to some extent for art and asset creation but you can't just hire more and more code monkeys without creating havoc and chaos. There is a point where you get diminishing returns or even detrimental effects from having too many people on the project.

All in all it's simply very disingenuous of a CR in 2013, when he kept blowing the scope out of proportion, all the while fully well knowing that there will be massive delays before the full game will ever be delivered, to still promise to get things done faster.
Then to lol @ his own backers in June 2015 for expecting to just happen what HE promised earlier is very rich.

And he keeps doing this sleazy shit... at Gamescom he said that the FULL (100 star systems, all gameplay systems, everything) persistent universe will be "working and functioning" by the end of next year. What a big, fat, blatant lie. He can't possibly believe that himself. Absolutely no way. Or, he if he really does, then he truly is the most unprofessional project lead ever.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > New Star Citizen Alpha
71. Re: New Star Citizen Alpha Oct 27, 2015, 14:07 CJ_Parker
 
AngelicPenguin wrote on Oct 27, 2015, 12:35:
Kosumo wrote on Oct 27, 2015, 01:13:

While I don't think these where 'promises', I do still think they are just some of the very many times that Chris Roberts as out right lied to the backers.

Chris Roberts is a deceptive, scummy man.

I have little opinion of this game one way or the other and even I think referring to delays in a game's development as "lies" is a serious stretch. Especially when I do development for a living.

Did you even read the quotes? Chris Roberts said 'please keep pledging so we can get stuff done faster' (when the date for the whole game to come out was still end of 2014).
So he basically promised people to employ more devs so that stuff would be done considerably BEFORE the end of 2014 when he must have fully well known that this would never happen, specifically because the scope kept increasing at the same time.

People with a clue about game development also knew this would never happen and were already pointing out to be careful about such CR claims back then. Of course they were immediately shouted down by the White Knights who said 'Chris Roberts has more experience than any of you haters so he will make it happen'.
Oh yeah? Look at where we are today. Did the game come out at the end of 2014, dear White Knights? Whoopsie. Nope, it didn't.
But they don't care, of course, because they don't want to remember that Chris lied to them.

Anyway, how is that not a lie if CR promises to get the game done faster while at the same time increasing the scope and knowing that the faster delivery will never happen? Of course it is a big fat lie. Chris Roberts is a lying shitbag of epic proportions. You could go through SC's history if you were so inclined and come up with dozens of ridiculous Chris Roberts quotes where he outright lied to people. He has turned into a pro spindoctor over the course of this project.
When he gets called out on his lies it's always "yeah what we really meant to say back then was... blahblahblehbluhblech" and the White Knights lap it up like the semen of God Himself.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Another Steam User Record
9. Re: Another Steam User Record Oct 26, 2015, 11:09 CJ_Parker
 
Verno wrote on Oct 26, 2015, 10:39:
I thought it was based off users actively playing a game, not just logged in but they don't really clarify it on that page.

Well, they call it Steam "users". You can use Steam in many ways other than gaming.
Also, if you add up the numbers from the 99 most played current games you end up at about 2 million players while there are ~8.7 million current users.
This would mean that an additional 6.x million people would have to be playing thousands of obscure games with less than 3K concurrent players (since 3K is what it takes to be in place no. 99).
Assuming an average of 2K players per game this means that there'd have to be 3,000+ more games with an average of 2K concurrent players.

So, yeah, it's definitely just users as in "logged in" as the news post also states correctly.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Another Steam User Record
7. Re: Another Steam User Record Oct 26, 2015, 10:33 CJ_Parker
 
Well, the Steam user base keeps growing in general and so does the concurrent numbers because Steam is still set to autostart with Windows by default, right?
A few million of those 11 million probably didn't even know they were logged into Steam.
It's nice advertising for Valve when they announce a new record but it is about as surprising as a new CoD every year.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > New Star Citizen Alpha
60. Re: New Star Citizen Alpha Oct 26, 2015, 09:38 CJ_Parker
 
theyarecomingforyou wrote on Oct 26, 2015, 08:38:
CJ_Parker wrote on Oct 26, 2015, 05:37:
They already haven't. CIG have broken Kickstarter promises left, right and center and, yeah, there will be way more to come when you really sit down and compare the entire pitch/stretch goal list to whatever will be playable one day.
What are these promises that CIG has supposedly broken? I've been following since the original Kickstarter and am not aware of any. Delays don't count, as they were only estimates and it was stated from the beginning that delays were likely. In fact the game has expanded to such a degree that backers are getting substantially more than was originally promised.

LTI and limited ships for starters. The one and only ship they kept that promise for is the Vanduul Scythe for some strange reason but every other ship that was advertised with a "last chance" has made a return.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > On Sale
1. Re: On Sale Oct 26, 2015, 06:12 CJ_Parker
 
Not bad. I hope they'll do $9.99 for SoM GOTY for xmas. Then we have a deal.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > New Star Citizen Alpha
57. Re: New Star Citizen Alpha Oct 26, 2015, 05:37 CJ_Parker
 
Illumin wrote on Oct 25, 2015, 10:06:
SpectralMeat wrote on Oct 25, 2015, 09:04:
I love it when people talk about ELite Dangerous not delivering because one thing they've promised was cut. Nevermind about everything else. Some of you guys need a serious reality check.
Or just quit this whole gaming as a hobby thing because it is clearly not for you. Try bingo or chess or some shit like that.

Not having a single player and announcing it 1 month before release is pretty shitty. That's a pretty big selling point for a large amount of people.

There is single player/solo play. There is just no offline single player. It's like Diablo 3 or some UbiSoft games. You have to be always online. That's all.

I agree that they should have announced it much sooner but I also understand why they cut offline play in the end. They did not want to release an offline version of their universe so players could rip it apart via "hacks".

It would have defeated the purpose of exploration in the online version and would have made the online universe prone to bug abuse, exploits and outright h4XX.

Cutting offline was the only sensible thing to do. They did the right thing but should have both seen it sooner and told people about it sooner.
I do not believe there was any malicious intent on Frontier's side, however. They have been very open and honest about everything else and delivered everything else, too, so it may very well be true that the definitive final decision on whether to ever have an offline version of the universe was really made at a very late point in time.

We'll see if the other space sim dev will "deliver" on every single thing they've promised.

They already haven't. CIG have broken Kickstarter promises left, right and center and, yeah, there will be way more to come when you really sit down and compare the entire pitch/stretch goal list to whatever will be playable one day.

This comment was edited on Oct 26, 2015, 06:02.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3235 Comments. 162 pages. Viewing page 39.
< Newer [ 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo