siapnar wrote on Feb 27, 2010, 12:07:
I'm betting more than 90% of PC gamers (who can actually run current games) have access to a high speed internet connection and are on it at least 3 hours a day, WITHOUT connection issues.
And if you don't have high speed, or have issues, then you're a minority, and since when did customer minorities count in business?
So if you're one of the "truckers who game in the back of their semis at night", then you're just shit out of luck. Them's the breaks.
Dots wrote on Feb 27, 2010, 13:11:
I doubt it'll get cracked fast, Starforce on Spinter Cell Chaos Theory didn't get cracked for a year and that was not an internet-dependent form of DRM.
Joss wrote on Feb 27, 2010, 11:57:
CryTek is continually pushing its engine further down the road and I welcome that innovation. I don't understand these lazy-minded individuals who can't appreciate that.
Wildone wrote on Feb 26, 2010, 19:49:
I guess you didn't see Avatar, there was nothing uncanny valley about the facial animation in that movie, it was totally convincing (as much as a blue 9ft tall alien can be) that technology will trickle down into game production eventually, give it 5-8 years max.
Creston wrote on Feb 22, 2010, 23:01:
Eh, no. Most games are most definitely NOT worth their money.
There's really only a rare few games that are still worth what the publishers are charging for it.
Creston wrote on Feb 22, 2010, 14:42:
On the flipside, you could buy a shooter in 1999 and expect its campaign to last you 20-30 hours. Nowadays you'll be lucky if it lasts five. Remember how everyone lambasted Star Trek Elite Force for only being eight hours long? Nowadays that'd be an "Extra Long Edition" that costs more.
I don't shed a tear for the poor gaming industry. If you want me to pay more money for your game, MAKE A GAME THAT'S WORTH MORE FUCKING MONEY.
Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Feb 22, 2010, 11:19:shponglefan wrote on Feb 22, 2010, 10:52:I think people are looking for the most value for their money. The reality is, up until a few years ago in places like Canada(until people figured out that you could order from the US and not get taxed to hell and back), retailers sold games for $70-90 a pop.
For example, Space Quest III in a 1990 catalogue was selling for $50. That's over $80 today. For a game that can be beat in a weekend and with arguably little replay value, no multiplayer, etc.
Muscular Beaver wrote on Feb 22, 2010, 10:35:
To clear it up a little, I wouldnt pay $80 for MW2, even if its graphics, controls and gameplay were directly developed for the PC. Now, if it had a singleplayer campaign 5-10 times as long, too, dedicated servers, LAN, great modablility, no GFWL or similar crap, then I would consider it.
kanniballl wrote on Feb 22, 2010, 10:20:
Newly-released PC games aren't that cheap anymore. Sure they go on sale and/or hit the bargain bin fairly quickly but at release a $50 USD price tag is common.
Techie714 © wrote on Feb 21, 2010, 23:25:
Games cost lots of $$$ to make!
We wouldn't have built it if we thought that it was really going to piss off our customers.
The first: you don't need a disc.
The second: that you can install the game on as many PCs as you like, as many times as you like.
And the third: the automatic uploading of savegames to Ubisoft's servers.
Dev wrote on Feb 19, 2010, 03:12:
ubisoft would be particularly stupid if they confirmed with PC GAMER which is obviously working on a print magazine review, that this was the final DRM if it wasn't.