necrosis wrote on Aug 17, 2012, 10:48:
EA strong arming you and only letting you get digital version from their service and this thing from Ubi (insane DRM aside) is not even on par with Stem.
Creston wrote on Aug 16, 2012, 18:08:
Driver San Francisco for a buck? Hmm. Does it have that retarded DRM of theirs?
I'd be tempted to get AC2 and brotherhood for the PC, but same issue with the DRM horseshit... Though I believe in brotherhood it's been taken out?
Prez wrote on Aug 16, 2012, 17:22:
I don't disagree with your post but for me the difference is with Steam I still have a singular, centralized front end to run all of my games from through which I can interface with all of my Bluenews friends with. Not everyone has (or will have) a Gamefly, Origin, or Uplay account but virtually everyone I am friends with here has a Steam account. I like simple, centralized ubiquity. It helps that Steam has the biggest library, the best features, and is generally the best all around digital service by a fair margin (though their customer service admittedly STILL sucks donkey balls).
Verno wrote on Aug 15, 2012, 11:22:
I see everyone's points here but consumer markets don't act as a single minded entity and are often shaped by what is available. That said, I agree with you that no one forces a gun to peoples heads and make them purchase things. Although if someone wants to play more of something and the only choice offered to them is to buy DLC or wait years for a sequel it's hard to argue that's a compelling consumer choice. It's no surprise people buckle because its an entertainment hobby, not politics. I think his point was that even if a large portion of the market voted with their wallets and didn't purchase DLC, it might not be enough because the profit margins on DLC are higher (according to gaming companies).
Dades wrote on Aug 15, 2012, 07:26:
That's not what I meant conehead. I'm sorry that you don't realize that several large companies control the vast majority of content offered to customers in the first place. If you want content involving your favorite franchises and characters going forward it's going to be a binary choice because DLC encompasses more and more content in products. This combined with massive amounts of marketing means that no one has to be a forum minority to be upset about DLC, there is little anyone can do about it since its a high profit item that will make money on little sales.
Dades wrote on Aug 14, 2012, 22:15:
Of course DLC sales can be forced on customers, there are a few large publishers who control the majority of the industry. The only real impediment to that is physical retail distribution. People want to game, they are not going to stop gaming because EA keeps shifting more content to DLC. The whole reason DLC works is because the prices are not significant enough to anger customers. They won't stop buying until they overreach, it's a big market and most DLC is very high profit so even if a majority stopped buying it probably wouldn't be enough. So take your lectures about forum minorities and shove them.
MattyC wrote on Aug 15, 2012, 00:21:Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Aug 14, 2012, 23:58:beigemore wrote on Aug 14, 2012, 23:49:It's getting the right banks though. But yeah, there's something special about midi music, especially on a really good soundfont set. Nothing really beat the old awe64 and Yamaha sets, they were great.
MIDI music can be pretty awesome with the right hardware or soundfont/banks loaded.
Yep. I have often found midi music can be quite good and memorable. I have fond memories of many CT, FF6, & FF7 songs. It is really crazy what people did with the audio tech of the era even not on PCs. What they did on PCs was often even better, but both were great.
mag wrote on Aug 14, 2012, 17:34:
If Capitalism 101 contained even an inkling of truth to it, the higher efficiency of the Polish group (and similar) would mean that monsters like EA would shortly go out of business.
SXO wrote on Aug 14, 2012, 16:19:
So its the consumers' fault that developers that work for mega-publishers like EA have absolutely no idea how to control their spending? Why is it that CD Projekt can produce The Witcher and The Witcher 2, give away all the "DLC" for free, sell "only" 4 million copies combined (both games and across all platforms), and they're still profitable? Does The Witcher 2 look like a low-budget game to you? How about you stop and question why EA's budgets are so astronomical, and whether these incredible games really cost as much as they're claiming they do to make? It's all horsesh*t, the companies have just become bloated insatiably gluttonous monsters.
Another example is the original Crysis which cost $22 million to make according to CryTek, and they were still profitable after the first year. The truth is when your competitor is making $100 million in the same time frame, your shareholders start to cry foul. So what happens? Time to start squeezing every last drop of money from your customers so your earnings reports start to look sweeter.
ItBurn wrote on Aug 14, 2012, 08:28:
Most people prefer New Vegas simply because it was made by some of the devs who worked on the original fallout. I'm not sure if it's the case for you guys, but maybe this will enlighten you: I've never been a fan of the original fallouts.
Jerykk wrote on Aug 13, 2012, 23:47:
So... yeah. FO3's locales weren't written with any sort of logical coherence or any real sense of history. It's like Bethesda's writers tried to come up with unique ideas and failed to actually flesh them out. Compare this to FNV, where every location has a real sense of history and relevance to the lore. Also, the locales actually make sense.
ItBurn wrote on Aug 13, 2012, 14:19:
But it's just true(to me). In FO3, I did exactly what I wanted all the time. In New Vegas, I constantly had to compromise and there were some really shitty mechanics. Like, I wanted to kill a scientist at the bottom of a dungeon. This would allow me to finish the quest the way I wanted to. If I did that tho, I would lose reputation with a faction, even tho NOONE else was there and I was undetected, making this course of action impossible. There were a ton of other examples like that. You must finish the mission in one of two very rigid ways, none of which were what I wanted to do.
Quest example from FO3: Guy asks you to find x amount of keys to open a secret vault with lots of loot. He doesn't want to tell you where it is. Let's forget the lengthy part where you get the keys. You get all the keys, then you can figure out yourself where it is if you have the skills, if not, you can give him the keys, and follow him there, or give him the keys, then learn of where it is and go there to share the loot, or find out another way where the place is, or even kill the guy, or finally, the way I did it, give him the keys, learn where the vault is, then pickpocket the keys back and leave. None of this would break the quest and the guy would always react accordingly.
Verno wrote on Aug 13, 2012, 12:58:
Nah my nostalgia goggles only seem to kick in for things 10+ years old. Oblivion had some very notable quests and so did Fallout 3. Very few Skyrim quests stand out by comparison, there was a greater focus on quantity over quality. The murder mystery at the lighthouse (which quickly turns generic) and the Thieves Guild stuff were the only ones I can even recall as memorable offhand. Just even doing a basic comparison between something like the Mage Guild questlines in the various games is pretty telling.