Dubstepforum.com

collige wrote:

deadly habit wrote: the whole piracy argument is often pure bs and a crutch devs who make a bad game that flops, or a shit port for pc fall back on. it's never their fault, inconceivable! it's those damn pirates. they never seem to mention that some of last years biggest titles AAA wise and best sellers were leaked weeks beforehand for consoles (skyrim, whatever that last cod was) and not pc yet it didn't hamper sales on either platform. it's just an excuse for them to use more and more invasive drm and nickel and dime customers, or in the case of EA try to force people to use their shitty origin service.

Exactly, so why do you think it's a good idea to charge for multiplayer? EA has been charging people $10 to play used console games online for about a year now, even though they've been making stupid amounts of money off the games in question (Mass Effect 3, Battlefield 3, Madden, etc). It's just pure greed,

see i vote with my wallet, which loads of people seem to be incapable of unfortunately. if you keep buying the shit you're just encouraging them. EA always has been and always will be greedy and anticonsumer, but they have such a chokehold and enough money to do that because idiots will buy up their sports titles every year for example no matter the cost or what crap they attach to it. hell even look on this forum, i guarantee some people are buying that battlefield 3 $50 early access crap, so they'll keep doing it.
now if you say charge for multiplayer otherwise have it locked to a console then places wouldn't be able to push used so much, or for the prices they do with new titles. it's about time that the devs and publishers get a chunk of the used game market.

Capcom realize they fucked up with Mercenaries after the huge backlash and promised not to do it again. It looks like they've actually learned the errors of their ways with regards to DLC to, so that's good. I agree that publisher probably shouldn't give Gamestop so much shit if they don't like used games, but blocking them out of consoles entirely would straight up kill mom and pop stores. It's a very shortsighted and hamfisted solution to complex problem. Publishers also need to realize tha $60 is a lot of fucking money for a ~15 hour game and that there are many people that just wouldn't buy all their used games new if that was the only choice. It's the same broken logic that makes people think that a pirated game = a lost sale.

therapist wrote:

deadly habit wrote:star wars 1313 looks pretty good as well, funny how the best of show are running on pc hardware
pretty much means they're slated for the next gen of consoles as i'd wager

Bear in mind I know nothing at all about computer/console specs, why is there such a vast difference? It's probably a dumb question, but PS3/360 are designed for games so I just presumed they perform well at this. I was amazed with those graphics you (I think) showed of GTA IV on a PC.

latest gpus, more ram, more processing power, capabilities for latest direct x drivers etc
consoles usually are running on years old pc hardware, now what works for them, kind of like apple is it's universal hardware so you write code just for that. with a PC the maximum is only limited by how up to date your hardware is, and often times it doesn't even scratch the surface of that.
hell i don't know what the latest pc benchmarking game is, but last i recalled was crysis which came out in 2008 and honestly a current gen console couldn't run that on max, where as most gaming pcs can no problem.

collige wrote:Capcom realize they fucked up with Mercenaries after the huge backlash and promised not to do it again. It looks like they've actually learned the errors of their ways with regards to DLC to, so that's good. I agree that publisher probably shouldn't give Gamestop so much shit if they don't like used games, but blocking them out of consoles entirely would straight up kill mom and pop stores. It's a very shortsighted and hamfisted solution to complex problem. Publishers also need to realize tha $60 is a lot of fucking money for a ~15 hour game and that there are many people that just wouldn't buy all their used games new if that was the only choice. It's the same broken logic that makes people think that a pirated game = a lost sale.

oh i agree, like i said i'm a pc gamer so the only option for used games is greenmangaming.com which is a cool concept, but kind of shit in practice, but i also have 356 games on my steam alone, all which were purchased new. the reason i have so damn many (and some i have yet to even play) is fair pricing and sales. it's something the actual brick and mortar megastores have yet to understand, even gamestop with impulse.
honestly the only time i even go to gamestop is to browse old ps2 games and maybe gamecube, and if i'm lucky they may have some older console stuff like dreamcast, but i would never buy anything current gen or new from them due to the absolute hassle it is just to buy something there.

Next gen consoles will be left in the dust by cloud gaming.

I have no interest in buying any more hardware as I don't really game 24/7 like I used to want to do. Cloud rentals are the way to go for me, especially for those big budget games that are 6-10 hours long and only worth playing once. Also: Hawken. I'm going to be playing Hawken on a shitty laptop and having just as much fun as the guys who spent >$1,000 on their rigs muahaha

vishes wrote:Fucking hell Watch Dogs looks amazing. Damn...
Soundtrack sounds great too btw.

I watched it listening to VIVEK - Soundman on a low enough volume, it went together wonderfully

deadly habit wrote: It's about time that the devs and publishers get a chunk of the used game market.

No they shouldn't. Why should they? Why should they get special treatment for consumers that exists literally in no other industry, artistic or otherwise? It's the equivalent of saying that labels should get a cut of everything sold on Discogs. If I buy a physical good, I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want with it and sell it to whoever the fuck I want. Copyright law agrees with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_first_sale

collige wrote:

deadly habit wrote: It's about time that the devs and publishers get a chunk of the used game market.

No they shouldn't. Why should they? Why should they get special treatment for consumers that exists literally in no other industry, artistic or otherwise? It's the equivalent of saying that labels should get a cut of everything sold on Discogs. If I buy a physical good, I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want with it and sell it to whoever the fuck I want. Copyright law agrees with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_first_sale

We'd get far more variety of genres if developers weren't forced to make mass appeal games and sell millions of copies. Theres a reason stealth/survival horror games died out, and its the same reason we get MP tacked on to games that don't need it.

DD is a necessary evil, and it doesn't actually exclude sharing games. There are plenty of solutions that could pop up for this, such as locking a game on your system while you are lending it out indefinitely or for a defined set of time. PS3 already allows multiple accounts to download the same game for free, although thats pretty much an oversight that they try to keep quiet for obvious reasons.

hurlingdervish wrote: We'd get far more variety of genres if developers weren't forced to make mass appeal games and sell millions of copies. Theres a reason stealth/survival horror games died out, and its the same reason we get MP tacked on to games that don't need it.

DD is a necessary evil, and it doesn't actually exclude sharing games. There are plenty of solutions that could pop up for this, such as locking a game on your system for a period of time while you are lending it out indefinitely or for a defined set of time. PS3 already allows multiple accounts to download the same game for free, although thats pretty much an oversight that they try to keep quiet for obvious reasons.

Or publishers could actually decide to take risks with their new games, stop trying to copy CoD, and stop looking for cheap ways to get more money out of consumers. No one is forcing these people to try and to race with the big names and chase mass appeal. Take Mass Effect for example. They made a brand new, single player only IP and sold millions of copies with it.

ehbrums1 wrote:judging by the fifa 13 trailer, messi is going to be unstoppable with the first touch moves....

lol true that

looking forward to seeing the whole "attacking intelligence" concept, should be interesting. Glad to see they made an effort to try and fix up the player impact engine too, was hilariously bad in 12.


they could've tried bettering the defense system a bit more in 13 though, still needs work imo even though they did do a lot of improvement in 12

For a second I thought that this was gonna be a thread about Bow.

collige wrote:

hurlingdervish wrote: We'd get far more variety of genres if developers weren't forced to make mass appeal games and sell millions of copies. Theres a reason stealth/survival horror games died out, and its the same reason we get MP tacked on to games that don't need it.

DD is a necessary evil, and it doesn't actually exclude sharing games. There are plenty of solutions that could pop up for this, such as locking a game on your system for a period of time while you are lending it out indefinitely or for a defined set of time. PS3 already allows multiple accounts to download the same game for free, although thats pretty much an oversight that they try to keep quiet for obvious reasons.

Or publishers could actually decide to take risks with their new games, stop trying to copy CoD, and stop looking for cheap ways to get more money out of consumers. No one is forcing these people to try and to race with the big names and chase mass appeal. Take Mass Effect for example. They made a brand new, single player only IP and sold millions of copies with it.

and yet if you follow gaming news, you know that even major success is no longer enough to warrant keeping studios running. So many developers either get shut down or gobbled up by another company because the amount of copies they need to sell based on their budgets is just unrealistic.

There is not enough room for everyone in AAA releases. Games need to cut down on their scope and minimize excessive costs, part of which is not manufacturing copies of the game.

hurlingdervish wrote:

collige wrote:

hurlingdervish wrote: We'd get far more variety of genres if developers weren't forced to make mass appeal games and sell millions of copies. Theres a reason stealth/survival horror games died out, and its the same reason we get MP tacked on to games that don't need it.

DD is a necessary evil, and it doesn't actually exclude sharing games. There are plenty of solutions that could pop up for this, such as locking a game on your system for a period of time while you are lending it out indefinitely or for a defined set of time. PS3 already allows multiple accounts to download the same game for free, although thats pretty much an oversight that they try to keep quiet for obvious reasons.

Or publishers could actually decide to take risks with their new games, stop trying to copy CoD, and stop looking for cheap ways to get more money out of consumers. No one is forcing these people to try and to race with the big names and chase mass appeal. Take Mass Effect for example. They made a brand new, single player only IP and sold millions of copies with it.

and yet if you follow gaming news, you know that even major success is no longer enough to warrant keeping studios running. So many developers either get shut down or gobbled up by another company because the amount of copies they need to sell is just unrealistic.

I can't think of a single dev that has been closed down after a successful game outside of 38 Studio (which got shut down because MLB pitchers don't know how to run companies). They make critical flops and die. I am watching THQ fail because Homefront was a shitty CoD clone and the rest of their AAA games in the last year were mediocre outside of Saint's Row 3. Factor 5 died because Lair sucked. 3D Realms closed because they fucked around for a decade with nothing to show for it. GRIN died because Bionic Commando and Terminator both sucked. On the other hand, The Witcher 2 and Arma 2 have shown that small companies can compete on the same level as AAA publishers with a fraction of the development cost. I really think the biggest problem is how much money people blow on marketing and trying to appeal to the mainstream FPS crowd that already has their own games to play.

There is not enough room for everyone in AAA releases. Games need to cut down on their scope and minimize excessive costs, part of which is not manufacturing copies of the game.

I agree. I don't have a problem with downloadable games. What I DO have a problem with is preventing and gimping used sales of boxed console games for no good reason other than trying to cash in on Gamestop's business model.

Witcher 2 probably made most their money through direct downloads, with the added bonus of being DRM free.


DD is the way to go if you want to support good developers who aren't a part of a massive corporation, and maybe a happy medium would be releasing a physical collectors edition if the game does well later.


Used games are at least good to buy games from companies you don't want to support. I'll say that much. If I want a capcom game, I'm going used, every time.

collige wrote:

deadly habit wrote: It's about time that the devs and publishers get a chunk of the used game market.

No they shouldn't. Why should they? Why should they get special treatment for consumers that exists literally in no other industry, artistic or otherwise? It's the equivalent of saying that labels should get a cut of everything sold on Discogs. If I buy a physical good, I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want with it and sell it to whoever the fuck I want. Copyright law agrees with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_first_sale

your other mediums don't rely on dedicated server costs for multiplayer, it's why entire online communities have died off once a new version of a game comes out. are you willing to pay a premium to pay multiplayer a la xbox live? sure you have the right to do whatever the fuck you want with your physical copy as far as local singleplayer and multiplayer, but since you're generally relying on a 3rd party to host your multiplayer game, why should used players get access without contributing to the companies who host these servers?
your argument of it being like any other entertainment industry doesn't hold much weight, because gaming isn't like any other entertainment industry.
also if you look at the fine print in most instruction manuals, you're essentially renting access to play the game at the companies discretion. it's why people can be banned permanently for hacks and exploits.

collige wrote:

hurlingdervish wrote: We'd get far more variety of genres if developers weren't forced to make mass appeal games and sell millions of copies. Theres a reason stealth/survival horror games died out, and its the same reason we get MP tacked on to games that don't need it.

DD is a necessary evil, and it doesn't actually exclude sharing games. There are plenty of solutions that could pop up for this, such as locking a game on your system for a period of time while you are lending it out indefinitely or for a defined set of time. PS3 already allows multiple accounts to download the same game for free, although thats pretty much an oversight that they try to keep quiet for obvious reasons.

Or publishers could actually decide to take risks with their new games, stop trying to copy CoD, and stop looking for cheap ways to get more money out of consumers. No one is forcing these people to try and to race with the big names and chase mass appeal. Take Mass Effect for example. They made a brand new, single player only IP and sold millions of copies with it.

and look what happened to the series, it got dumbed down more and more every iteration (to bring in those CoD fans) and they're now being forced to make a new ending dlc for free to gain back the consumers trust

collige wrote:

hurlingdervish wrote:

collige wrote:

hurlingdervish wrote: We'd get far more variety of genres if developers weren't forced to make mass appeal games and sell millions of copies. Theres a reason stealth/survival horror games died out, and its the same reason we get MP tacked on to games that don't need it.

DD is a necessary evil, and it doesn't actually exclude sharing games. There are plenty of solutions that could pop up for this, such as locking a game on your system for a period of time while you are lending it out indefinitely or for a defined set of time. PS3 already allows multiple accounts to download the same game for free, although thats pretty much an oversight that they try to keep quiet for obvious reasons.

Or publishers could actually decide to take risks with their new games, stop trying to copy CoD, and stop looking for cheap ways to get more money out of consumers. No one is forcing these people to try and to race with the big names and chase mass appeal. Take Mass Effect for example. They made a brand new, single player only IP and sold millions of copies with it.

and yet if you follow gaming news, you know that even major success is no longer enough to warrant keeping studios running. So many developers either get shut down or gobbled up by another company because the amount of copies they need to sell is just unrealistic.

I can't think of a single dev that has been closed down after a successful game outside of 38 Studio (which got shut down because MLB pitchers don't know how to run companies). They make critical flops and die. I am watching THQ fail because Homefront was a shitty CoD clone and the rest of their AAA games in the last year were mediocre outside of Saint's Row 3. Factor 5 died because Lair sucked. 3D Realms closed because they fucked around for a decade with nothing to show for it. GRIN died because Bionic Commando and Terminator both sucked. On the other hand, The Witcher 2 and Arma 2 have shown that small companies can compete on the same level as AAA publishers with a fraction of the development cost. I really think the biggest problem is how much money people blow on marketing and trying to appeal to the mainstream FPS crowd that already has their own games to play.

There is not enough room for everyone in AAA releases. Games need to cut down on their scope and minimize excessive costs, part of which is not manufacturing copies of the game.

I agree. I don't have a problem with downloadable games. What I DO have a problem with is preventing and gimping used sales of boxed console games for no good reason other than trying to cash in on Gamestop's business model.

look at half of the successful studios EA ate up and shat out
i'll list 3 for you Maxis, Westwood, Bullfrog and that's just the tip of the iceberg as far as some of the great companies that EA has ruined
it's no longer about devs, it's about these mega publishers which is why it's rare you see a company like cd projekt or bohemia interactive succeed, and even so they had publishers to start with but have broken off
it's also why kickstarter is nice to see
publishers like activision and ea have horrible business practices and essentially treat their devs like shit, it's why you won't see anyone taking any risks on new ips, because the publishers are run by suits in a board room and not devs who know what gamers want
the devs who do want to do something unique often find a damn hard time to get a budget behind it to compete with these multimillion $ super titles and for some reasons gaming journalists love pointing that out which the masses eat up

deadly habit wrote:

therapist wrote:

deadly habit wrote:star wars 1313 looks pretty good as well, funny how the best of show are running on pc hardware
pretty much means they're slated for the next gen of consoles as i'd wager

Bear in mind I know nothing at all about computer/console specs, why is there such a vast difference? It's probably a dumb question, but PS3/360 are designed for games so I just presumed they perform well at this. I was amazed with those graphics you (I think) showed of GTA IV on a PC.

latest gpus, more ram, more processing power, capabilities for latest direct x drivers etc
consoles usually are running on years old pc hardware, now what works for them, kind of like apple is it's universal hardware so you write code just for that. with a PC the maximum is only limited by how up to date your hardware is, and often times it doesn't even scratch the surface of that.
hell i don't know what the latest pc benchmarking game is, but last i recalled was crysis which came out in 2008 and honestly a current gen console couldn't run that on max, where as most gaming pcs can no problem.

Fair enough. Cheers. I guess the PS3 is 5/6 years old (?) now so it'll be pretty outdated. I still love it though. I wonder if we'll get to a point where specs simply don't need to be better. Graphics can only be so good.

deadly habit wrote:

collige wrote:

deadly habit wrote: It's about time that the devs and publishers get a chunk of the used game market.

No they shouldn't. Why should they? Why should they get special treatment for consumers that exists literally in no other industry, artistic or otherwise? It's the equivalent of saying that labels should get a cut of everything sold on Discogs. If I buy a physical good, I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want with it and sell it to whoever the fuck I want. Copyright law agrees with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_first_sale

your other mediums don't rely on dedicated server costs for multiplayer, it's why entire online communities have died off once a new version of a game comes out. are you willing to pay a premium to pay multiplayer a la xbox live? sure you have the right to do whatever the fuck you want with your physical copy as far as local singleplayer and multiplayer, but since you're generally relying on a 3rd party to host your multiplayer game, why should used players get access without contributing to the companies who host these servers?
your argument of it being like any other entertainment industry doesn't hold much weight, because gaming isn't like any other entertainment industry.
also if you look at the fine print in most instruction manuals, you're essentially renting access to play the game at the companies discretion. it's why people can be banned permanently for hacks and exploits.

Except that almost every single multiplayer game either has dedicated servers paid for by the community (like Battlefield 3) or just has client to client connections that don't rely on having a server at all (like CoD). Looking at the list of games who do this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_pass), I can't see a single one that actually has servers hosting the games, so that point is kind of moot.

Secondly, we can assume that the cost of hosting multiplayer games for one person is covered by them buying the game new once right? In that case, once the game has been sold off to another consumer who may or may not play the game online, there's no more cost to the host than if the original player had kept the game to play. There's no additional cost to the hosting service once the game has been sold because the old owner can't play the game online. Every copy has to be bought new once and the number of concurrent online players is limited by the number of new discs that were bought. Secondhand sales do nothing to change this.

therapist wrote:

deadly habit wrote:

therapist wrote:

deadly habit wrote:star wars 1313 looks pretty good as well, funny how the best of show are running on pc hardware
pretty much means they're slated for the next gen of consoles as i'd wager

Bear in mind I know nothing at all about computer/console specs, why is there such a vast difference? It's probably a dumb question, but PS3/360 are designed for games so I just presumed they perform well at this. I was amazed with those graphics you (I think) showed of GTA IV on a PC.

latest gpus, more ram, more processing power, capabilities for latest direct x drivers etc
consoles usually are running on years old pc hardware, now what works for them, kind of like apple is it's universal hardware so you write code just for that. with a PC the maximum is only limited by how up to date your hardware is, and often times it doesn't even scratch the surface of that.
hell i don't know what the latest pc benchmarking game is, but last i recalled was crysis which came out in 2008 and honestly a current gen console couldn't run that on max, where as most gaming pcs can no problem.

Fair enough. Cheers. I guess the PS3 is 5/6 years old (?) now so it'll be pretty outdated. I still love it though. I wonder if we'll get to a point where specs simply don't need to be better. Graphics can only be so good.

that's when you get into AI and such, like take arma 2 for example, it is a bit of gpu hog, but is more cpu due to the sheer amount of enemies and allies you can have and such it taxes the cpu and ram
same goes for dwarf fortress which is one of the most system demanding games you can have (and it's in ASCII not graphics), but it's due to the games AI
loads of different things dictate what the system specs will demand, like a fancy graphic linear mapped shooter will never take as much as an open map or sandbox shooter since that has a lot more going on
like if you compare the maps of these modern war shooters, vs even olden games like doom you'll see how linear things have gotten, prescripted events and such that look cinematic, but really aren't that intensive to render