Wallshadows wrote on Apr 8, 2016, 19:55:
They're also doing a half-assed job at catching unblockers.

Are you implying this is a bad thing. As an aussie i only see it as a positive.

I can't believe they paid 6 billion for candy crush. A little perspective starwars & marvel was purchase for 4 billion each. I can't fathom how it is possible that candy crush is worth 50% more (on paper) than either of those franchises. I mean it's relatively new and their primary customers are casual gamers with little brand loyalty. What would stop them picking up and leaving to the next candy crush like game from another developer? Utter madness

Kxmode wrote on Oct 22, 2015, 13:16:
Rather sad because Blizzard is really good at telling stories.

Before diablo 3 i would have agreed. After nope.

walrus1 wrote on Aug 10, 2015, 11:52:
We need a YouTube competitor but Vimeo sure as hell isn't it.

Totally agree that youtube needs competition but it's the best we'll get that isn't directly tied to hollywood. Vimeo's owner (IAC) is boarded primarily by ex hollywood employees. It's of no surprise that it has absurd copyright protections. We need a heavy weight that isn't in bed with them to atleast offer some resistance - atm google is the best bet.

Have they finally fixed the PC UI and controls yet? I just couldn't get going in the game as they were so abysmal at release. Actually now that i've played the witcher 3 its unlikely i'll even bother with it.

Rattlehead wrote on Jun 26, 2015, 22:43:
These DRM affecting performance myths have been debunked time and time again.

The witcher 2 had the best evidence that it most definitely can affect performance - CDPR said as much, the drm version had upto 30% hit to the framerate vs the drm free version. The way they fixed it? Removed drm from all copies. Don't take my word for it - horses mouth:

Pre-release tests showed only small performance differences compared to the DRM-free (GOG.com) versions. We were unpleasantly surprised when some of our fans reported much larger differences, up to 30% lower framerates. This was another clear signal that we had to remove DRM as soon as possible – the quality of our users’ gameplay experience is absolutely our number one priority!”

EDIT: Source http://thewitcher.com/news/view/698%7Cwitcher

I wouldn't be suprised if DRM did create some issues with game performance, you only need look at the witcher2. Yes i know it's completely different method of drm (securom) but it too was seemingly innocuous to performance of games, until there were two versions one with drm one without.

We'll never really know as it's unlikely they'll ever release a binary without the drm built in.

Isnt it tied directly to origin? so why the need to restrict to a hardware id hash as well? Can anyone tell me the logic behind this?

CeeKay wrote on Mar 21, 2015, 19:47:
My real dilemma is do I grab this right away, or wait for the inevitable 3.0 (aka Enhanced) version.

I debated this myself. I came to the conclusion that CDPR should be supported upfront largely due to their awesome support post release (not nickle and dime crap that is so prevalent these days).

Even knowing i've got a massive backlog of games - this will probably jump to the front of the queue then on my second playthrough months or a year later i'll be able to check out the additions (if they do another enhanced version).

eRe4s3r wrote on Mar 14, 2015, 15:51:
This entire press release should be rated F, for failed attempt at hiding true meaning.

Your joking right?!? I thought that was exactly what a PR does, obscuring the truth behind a placard of half truths and misleading statements

I have never understood this and probably never will. It just reeks of double standards - both are equally horrible and something noone should ever consider doing to another human. Yet somehow the majority of people have absolutely no problem justifying brutally killing someone in a game yet if its sexual violence or anything to do with kids your absolutely evil to your core for pushing the button or including it in the game?? Where is the logic in that.

It will never make any senses to me - both acts are deplorable and nothing i would ever consider doing to another human. Would i push the button just to see what happens in a game? Absolutely.

RE: Dead pan face

It's rather amusing how this has de-evolved from half life 2 which had terrific emotions.

Maybe not now but they might not renew the contracts w/ netflix/amazon when they run out.

I can just see it in 10 years every single major production/distribution is gonna have their own streaming service with exclusive shite. It'll be one giant cluster fuck.

Kevin Lowe wrote on Sep 8, 2014, 16:51:

DangerDog wrote on Sep 8, 2014, 16:35:
Another "next gen" game gimped by last gen game development on xbox360 and ps3.

You mean another game subsidized by the huge install base of Xbox 360 and PS3, right? Why spend the cost of development on the small install base of X1 and PS4?

Didnt they spend over 300mil or something - prolly at least half of that was spent on marketing tho. There is no way they'd recoup thier costs with only ~15 mil current gen consoles out there.

SimplyMonk wrote on Aug 12, 2014, 13:42:
Also keep in mind that Holiday 2015 is also when the next Uncharted is due out. This is most likely win-win for SE as I doubt they want that competition on the PS4 right out the gate. Money might not of been that big considering that.

Ohh ... This makes a lot more sense. MS prolly threw buckets of cash at them so they have something to fight uncharted with. Not that tomb raider reboot held a candle to any of the uncharted games.

Square Enix have taken a risky route imo. Alienating a large portion (possibly >50%) of your fan base is pretty out there and if it flops they're fcuked for the next release.

@Icewind

Pretty sure Divinity has no steam DRM on it. You can just zip it up and put it on another pc w/out steam. Not sure on the others.

1badmf wrote on Jul 12, 2014, 00:35:
a blender isn't art, and if you can't see the difference, well, i'm afraid you're the idiot. there are certainly degrees of quality of art; we're not just talking about pure functionality like a blender.

The metaphor is quite apt. The end product is worse than it could've been - you even say as much. You're trying to bring subjectivity in to support your view point when it is not the subjective parts of the game that are in conflict. You are happy to part your money with something that has potential - I am not, I spend my money to get something that has already fulfilled it's potential.

1badmf wrote on Jul 11, 2014, 19:27:
preeeeeetty game. i don't care how much haterade you guys pour on this, i'm going to play the hell out of it. i loved DAO and DA2 was still a good, enjoyable experience. a lot of you are too exacting in your expectations - it wasn't the bleeding edge masterpiece we'd hoped for, but failing to live up to that, anything can still be a good game. people just need to keep in the mind the full spectrum of possibilities it could've been, not just that 'it's not a masterpiece; therefore, sucks'.

I don't buy that; you wouldn't use that logic with any other purchases. This blender kinda blends well... it's got the potential, even if there are still massive chunks in my smoothie! This chicken was undercooked but it has the potential to be a really good meal! Shit just doesnt fly. Its idiotic.

EA restricted development to cash in on the good will\name that DA:O generated - that's it plain and simple. They just wanted higher profits for less development time and it was quite evident in the final product.

saluk wrote on Jul 8, 2014, 02:53:
I think you missed the whole thread there... Colonial Marines was mentioned and this was a rebuttal against that :P

Ohh man my bad - Im goin crazy in my old age. That'll teach me for making posts w/ little sleep.

Beamer wrote on Jul 8, 2014, 01:07:
When has this ever happened?
This wasn't an exclusive. It wasn't funded by either MS or Sony. They had no stake in this.

Christ, you guys think there's an evil conspiracy against PC gamers. Even the Microsoft Xbox push, which at least some here recognize as the only way to sell consoles (which doesn't excuse it, but means at least some aren't seeing it as some evil way to fuck with PC gamers) is only based around games they have some kind of monetary stake in.
And you think people know what they're doing. Given that Sega was about to sue them for being too late to ship, isn't it infinitely more likely that, in the final days, if not hours, of shipping, two independent people made two independent decisions to change something in order to improve the way the game ran, but those two things weren't discussed and impacted each other directly, making the graphics degradation exponentially worse, but things were moving so rapidly that there was no way to roll the code back without losing too much other work, the game was still playable, and between getting sued by Sega or shipping an ugly game they made the choice to ship an ugly game.

Incompetence.

And, for godsake, the game was ugly on consoles. It's really effin hard to pitch this as "PC was made worse to have console parity!" when the consoles were awful as well. If the consoles were great, fine, maybe you could make that argument (you'd still lose it.) But the consoles were terrible. Were they kept terrible to keep parity with the Dreamcast to not piss off Sega?

I don't even know where you are pulling this from. I never said that they're out to fuck with PC gamers. Game development for the last 5 years has been all about the lowest common denominator. It's not going to change, shits made to run on the worst console then ported across with either increased res\textures\various other fluff.

In this case they had something quite unique, the occulus rift. It changed the experience the user had - not just adding fluff.

Oh wait are you thinking of that gearbox aliens game. Colonial marines? This is not that.... It's aliens isolation. It's the only way i can make sense of your ramblings.