Half Life 2 Retail Sales Hit 1.7 Million

Pre-Sale vouchers by Lobishomen · 2005-01-31 07:35 · Score: 1

Article doesn't say, but there was some hum about it when the initial sales figures were released back before Christmas. Does anyone know if they're including the yet unclaimed 'presale' tickets in this 1.7 million figure?

There were a lot of Graphics cards sold with Halflife 2 prommisory notes in them, and I suspect most of those didn't get collected.

Re:Pre-Sale vouchers by mythosaz · 2005-01-31 10:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

HL2 was also bundled with every Athlon64 + Motherboard (or, large numbers of them) from most retailers. It's how I got mine.

Re:Considered buying it today by lemkepf · 2005-01-31 07:38 · Score: 1

I doubt that will happen.... It's worth it even with the steam problems. They've moved their back collection onto steam and they spent alot of money into getting steam to work, so i doubt they will dump it for a few people that don't have an internet connection.

Do you think it was worth the money? by snuf23 · 2005-01-31 07:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

I purchased via Steam to avoid having to do a CD check as well as the Steam sign on (as with the retail version).
I paid $60 for the silver version which includes the Valve back catalogue.
The main HL2 game certainly was a lot of fun, although the load times could be annoying and the overall game was kind of short. In particular the last levels where a large amount of time is spent on the cool but non-interactive ride, followed by an ending that is more "huh?" than "woah!".
The long term value is arguably good. I myself can't get into Counter Strike and the added on HL2 deathmatch becomes dull quickly. I am looking forward to the mod community's releases to extend the value of the game.

--
Sometimes my arms bend back.

Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by Gregg+Alan · 2005-01-31 08:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

I also purchased via steam (went with the cheapo $50 version).

I don't think HL2 was worth the money or the hype that surrounds it. Honestly, the game just isn't that much fun. The story line was flat. The weapons (excepting the gravity gun) were nothing special. The game feels unfinished. And the ending was boring.

I had a much better time playing Far Cry. The first time I played it I thought it was never going to end. It's much longer than HL2 and cost me the same amount.

I still liked HL2, but Far Cry is a much better value. I should learn my lesson... hyped games always disappoint me while the sleepers are great. (I never heard much about Far Cry but maybe I missed it.)

--
Here before all but 8486 of you.
Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-31 09:16 · Score: 2, Informative

"I purchased via Steam to avoid having to do a CD check as well as the Steam sign on (as with the retail version)."

You know they removed the CD-check about 4 weeks after the game was released. Valve aren't stupid. People complained and they did something about it.
Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by Lu+Xun · 2005-01-31 09:36 · Score: 1

Amen to that. Snooze until the bigs mods hit and then fire up ye-old HL2 again. I doubt I'll ever see the inside of the single player levels again, unless some mod borrows prefabs from them or something.

--
That's not a soda... it's a caffeine delivery device!
Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by snuf23 · 2005-01-31 09:47 · Score: 1

I hadn't heard that. I'm glad they took it out - it was retarded to penalize people for buyihng the retail.

--
Sometimes my arms bend back.
Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by dhakbar · 2005-01-31 10:05 · Score: 1

"I still liked HL2, but Far Cry is a much better value"

I wonder if you'll be saying that two years down the road, when there are 2 or 3 must-play mods for HL2.
Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by Grym · 2005-01-31 10:43 · Score: 1

You know they removed the CD-check about 4 weeks after the game was released. Valve aren't stupid. People complained and they did something about it.
Sorry, but you're mistaken.
My girlfriend bought the boxed version of Half-life 2 for me as a gift just this past weekend (1/28/05), and I definitely had to enter the CD-key to play. In fact, I found the whole process of installing and registering the biggest frustration about the game--apart from the single-player load times, that is.
-Grym
Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by t2h3c · 2005-01-31 10:45 · Score: 1

they took off the cd check. of course you will still have to enter the cd key.
Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by Toddarooski · 2005-01-31 10:55 · Score: 1

Yes.
.
.
.
Oh, I suppose I should elaborate.
I thought the game was lots of fun. It might be short, but when you get to be my age, you tend to have more money (yay!) and less free time (boo!). So I find that I'm starting to prefer the games I can complete in 8-10 hours. If I hear that a game takes 40+ hours to complete, I might think twice about buying it, because I know I'll never get close to finishing it. At least, not before the next big thing comes along to distract me.
So it might have been a relatively short ride compared to some games, but it was loads of fun while it lasted. So for my money, definitely worth it.

--
"Do you expect me to talk?" "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!"
Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by Richard_at_work · 2005-01-31 11:08 · Score: 2, Informative

Hes talking about putting the CD into the drive each time you play the game. You are talking about proving to Steam that you bought the game, so it can decrypt the game files, and this is an install time only thing. Two totally different things.
Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by chromaphobic · 2005-01-31 11:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's funny how drastically different reactions people have to games. My experiences were almost exactly the opposite. I found Half-Life 2 to be one of the best games ever, almost certainly the best FPS ever. Far Cry on the other hand, I thought was just awful. I'd rank it as one of the worst FPS ever.

Different strokes for different folks, eh? :-)
Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by WhiteBandit · 2005-01-31 11:11 · Score: 1

"I still liked HL2, but Far Cry is a much better value"

I wonder if you'll be saying that two years down the road, when there are 2 or 3 must-play mods for HL2.

He probably will. There may be the same type of "must-play" mods on Far Cry by then too. Far Cry's engine is pretty good and has some cool features for modding. The SDK has already been released as well.

Both games have the potential to produce some awesome mods.

That said... if you are buying HL2 strictly for mods, then you should have waited "two years down the road." Then you could pick it up for $20 and still get the mods for free. An excellent value.

That said, in my opinion, Far Cry was fun and an awesome environment as well. The game was quite long (though I admit, I thought those piece of shit Trigen monster things ruined the game experience. I mean the hit detection system with them basically involves a bubble with a huge radius around them. If they jump near you, you're dead. Horrible!).

Half Life 2 is kind of short (and the air boat got a bit repetitive, as did the moving coffin thing towards the end). However, HL2 has very pretty graphics.

Anyway, after having the experience of playing both of them, if I had to start over and choose only one of them to spend money on today... I think I'd choose Far Cry.
Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by I_Love_Pocky! · 2005-01-31 11:50 · Score: 1

but it was loads of fun while it lasted.

I keep hearing people say how fun this game was... I still haven't finished it, because frankly it is just so boring. The whole thing felt like work, and the pace was so slow. I just didn't feel like I had the kind of time it takes to play a game like HL2.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very satisifed with my purchase. Counter Strike:Source is easily the best FPS game I've ever played, and I'm totally sold on the whole Steam thing... I just wish I hadn't lost my CD key to the original Half-Life.
Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by skinnedmink · 2005-01-31 12:47 · Score: 1

Check out the Source Racer mod. http://www.sourceracer.com/

--
peace be with you.
Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by GryMor · 2005-01-31 13:24 · Score: 1

I dunno, I found Far Cry multiplayer to be laggy and unplayable even when it claimed a 30-40ms ping, heaven help you if you hit 100ms.

CS:S Is smooth, responsive and a blast even at 100ms, it's bloody amazing at a 30-40ms.

HL2 SP as compared to Far Cry SP, though in some ways more confined, had a much better story, a lot more variety/originality, better pacing, and the puzzles were actually fun. The only thing Far Cry had going was that it seemed longer, but that may be because I couldn't stop playing HL2 once I had it.

Lets not even get started on the graphics.

--
Realities just a bunch of bits.
Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by jensen404 · 2005-01-31 14:43 · Score: 1

I found the combat to be quite boring. The enemies don't respond to your gunfire. They only head for cover if they are reloading, or if you've thrown a grenade towards them.

In one of the trailers from HL2, ant lions are attacking the Combine. A combine soldier would stand in place reloading his gun as an ant lion was mauling him. I thought that it was just becuase it was an early build.... not so.

There wasn't as much physics use in combat as shown in one of the early trailers.

Most of the environments weren't very open. There were some artificial barriers. (transparent walls)

Overall, it was a fun game for me, but I don't feel that it lived up to the hype.

I prefer America's Army to Counter Strike. AA is more geared towards strategy and teamwork, while CS is more about fast twitch gameplay. I actually have had quite a bit of fun with HL2 Deathmatch, though.
Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by realdpk · 2005-01-31 15:12 · Score: 1

I never tried Far Cry multiplayer. I didn't feel like signing up for yet-another-service to get it done. With HL2, I guess I didn't notice it so much because I already had to sign up for Steam.
Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by Ford+Prefect · 2005-01-31 22:32 · Score: 1

I do think some of the negative aspects in HL2 are the result of extensive playtesting with non-FPS-expert players. The linearity makes it much harder to get lost, AI is fairly forgiving of mistakes and it's rare that you'll get in an impossible-to-recover-from situation thanks to the large amount of health and ammo lying around.

What the game could really do with is a Halo-style 'Legendary' mode, giving the enemies faster reactions and removing a few of the many health-packs. The AI is actually pretty decent, it's just that enemies pause to let the player have a shot at them before running for cover. Unfortunately, this does mean that a decent player will have eliminated an enemy before it has a chance to show off the AI.

The other night, I deliberately limited myself to just the sub-machinegun on the first half of Sandtraps, and it was like a whole new game - the Combine soldiers were a decent threat, and I had to think far more tactically to bring them down. I'm going to have a poke round in the GCF files to see if there are any difficulty constants I can tweak - reducing the AI pauses and boosting the enemy health levels could work wonders... :-)

--
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by colk99 · 2005-02-01 01:46 · Score: 1

However once you do the updates the cd check is removed if not then tell me why my copy of HL2 dosent ask me for a cd
Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by KDR_11k · 2005-02-01 08:29 · Score: 1

I dunno about the length, it was definitely much longer than I was willing to put up with it. Stopped playing half way through Ravenholm (watched a friend play it farther so I know how far I'm in) because it just stopped being interesting. For a comparison, I played though Doom 3 shortly before (and actually prefer its gameplay, HL2 manages to make even the gravity gun feel like it's an old, overused idea).

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by boot1973 · 2005-02-02 00:26 · Score: 1

How can you complain about the ending of HL2 and not Far Cry? The Far Cry ending was just awful. Shoot the bad guy, a 30 sec pointless cut scene and 10 minutes of credits. I did it twice because i thought i'd missed something. HL2 Ending was far better. Far Cry also managed to follow the "Mutant experiment gone wrong" storyline.. hmm that's original. In short HL2:fun and Original, Far Cry:Repetative and predictable
Re:Do you think it was worth the money? by Gregg+Alan · 2005-02-02 06:55 · Score: 1

My all time favorite game is the original Tomb Raider and the Far Cry environment reminded me much more of that than did HL2. HL2 reminded much more of TR:AOD which was a complete letdown (I still haven't finished AOD).

I think my angle is more from the "I want an adventure" than the "I want a FPS". The freedom of movement in FC was much greater than in HL2. As I'm playing FC the second time, I'm coming at everything from a new direction and handling tasks in different ways (which even TR didn't really allow). With HL2 the path I take is pretty rigid. (Or so it seemed to me).

But, what parts of HL2 weren't repetitive? I'm not saying FC wasn't, but HL2 didn't differ in that category as far as I remember.

Does anyone know of a Tomb Raider style game written with a modern engine that doesn't suck? I'm ready to dish out some more gaming money and that would be fun!

--
Here before all but 8486 of you.

The Future by Mr.Dippy · 2005-01-31 07:39 · Score: 2, Funny

So 1.7 million people are going to be really pissed in like 5 years when Valve gets bought out by EA and EA discontinues the Steam servers making everybodies HL2 game unplayable.

--

-Dipster

Re:The Future by PoderOmega · 2005-01-31 07:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

How many times is this FUD example going to come up? Yes, it is possible this will happen. But I have a feeling if this type of situation arose, Valve would release a non-steam patch before totally going out of business. Yes Steam authenication sucks, and I hope someone does sue them to prove that I did, in fact, buy that game, not just a license to play by their rules. But I would bet cash that if there was a steam doomsday, there would be a non-steam patch release.
Re:The Future by BoomerSooner · 2005-01-31 07:57 · Score: 1

Try 6 months. This is one of the reasons I will never buy software that requires the internet to be functional.
Re:The Future by snuf23 · 2005-01-31 07:57 · Score: 1

Played it. Won it. Can say I really care all that much if I ever play it again. Maybe to boot it up and mess with it for nostalgia but there isn't much replayability there.

--
Sometimes my arms bend back.
Re:The Future by NanoGator · 2005-01-31 08:24 · Score: 2, Informative

"How many times is this FUD example going to come up? Yes, it is possible this will happen."

If it's possible, as you say, then why's it FUD? Why is your feeling that Valve would release that patch more likely to happen than anybody else's feeling that they won't? The mere fact that they're requiring Steam to play it says to me "They really don't give a rat's ass about our right to play it." That may or may not be true, but I'd be surprised if you had some other example of Valve's behaviour to suggest that they may actually release such a patch.

Either way, it doesn't matter. Valve doesn't have a good reputation with some people. You're not going to change that until they do something that proves they're getting back on track. Until that happens, your best bet is to just own up to the fact that some of their business practices are offensive and, believe it or not, the people who are offended by them aren't looney tunes.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:The Future by |/|/||| · 2005-01-31 10:27 · Score: 1

Hear hear. I've heard plenty of arguments about how steam isn't that intolerable, but to allow this kind of thing is to start down a very ugly path. Software that *can* run standalone *should* run standalone. I'll provide the sandbox, and I'll take the responsibility of not violating copyright etc.
This is one of the reasons I will never buy software that requires the internet to be functional.
I'm not going to go that far, though. An internet connection is inherently required for some software. Also, I would accept "tethered" software if the function the program performed was valuable enough. However, it would have to be extremely useful/necessary in order to accept this kind of restriction.

--
[javac] 100 errors
Re:The Future by 88NoSoup4U88 · 2005-01-31 20:24 · Score: 1

"The mere fact that they're requiring Steam to play it says to me "They really don't give a rat's ass about our right to play it.""
How about they try to establish their revenue ?
"Valve doesn't have a good reputation with some people"
But has a kick-ass reputation with far more people... Just in case you forgot, they -did- support HL/CS for quite some time.
"Until that happens, your best bet is to just own up to the fact that some of their business practices are offensive and, believe it or not, the people who are offended by them aren't looney tunes."
No looney tunes, nope ; Selfish and shortsighted, yes ("My Steam doesn't cache right on my pentium III 500 Mhz, FUCK STEAM !!!!!!one!!")
Re:The Future by NanoGator · 2005-01-31 20:35 · Score: 1

"How about they try to establish their revenue ?"

By punishing their legit customers?

"No looney tunes, nope ; Selfish and shortsighted, yes ("My Steam doesn't cache right on my pentium III 500 Mhz, FUCK STEAM !!!!!!one!!")"

Um, okay. Except the complaint is about the game NOT WORKING because one of their servers ISN'T WORKING. That's actually a legitimate complaint. Selfish? Short sighted? Yeah you can label those complaints that way. Sure. One could also label the whole plan to force people down this path short sighted as well, seeing as how it has a central point of failure. Deflect the blame all you want, this is still Valve's fault, not the users'.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:The Future by 88NoSoup4U88 · 2005-01-31 21:45 · Score: 1

"Except the complaint is about the game NOT WORKING because one of their servers ISN'T WORKING"
The single player-part still is, not ?
I didn't hear the same uproar when the WON-network went down in the time of HL/CS.
I still stay with my opinion that the majority of the people complaining about Steam, are looking at their own 'bugs' ; Caused by them expecting to run the game/Steam flawlessly, with a sub-par system.
(postnote : Don't think that I'm some sort of Valve-fanboy that won't see -any- mistakes made by them : But I think the support they offered for their first game (HL) to be overextensive (as well to customers, as to modmakers) and this , in my opinion, makes up for alot of f*ckin 'around on their part)
Re:The Future by Lonewolf666 · 2005-02-01 04:18 · Score: 1

The single player-part still is, not ?
I didn't hear the same uproar when the WON-network went down in the time of HL/CS.

The single player part did not require WON to work. You did not need to authenticate HL online at all to play the single player-part.
And a lot of people were not so happy with the switch from WON to Steam. But then again, most people bought HL as a single player game and got CS as a free add-on, so they had less reason to complain.

Concerning the quality of Steam, it used to be extremely unreliable when it was new. These days it mostly works, but the Friends network is still broken most of the time.
Overall, I do not trust in Steam enough to pay 50 Euros for a game on the premise that Steam will always be available. Once I find it among the cheap games for 20 Euros or less, I might be persuaded.

--
C - the footgun of programming languages
Re:The Future by arose · 2005-02-02 08:05 · Score: 1

Ya Steam has rough edges, but look a few years into the future and it's all you'll see.

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.

Re:And they only spent $30 million making the game by snuf23 · 2005-01-31 07:44 · Score: 1

Um... 1.7 million units @ $50 a pop = $85 million.

--
Sometimes my arms bend back.

Re:1.7 mil sold and no one can play.. by Rico_Suave · 2005-01-31 07:48 · Score: 1

Funny... I can play in offline mode just fine, regardless of what Steam is doing.

Meanwhile, back in reality... by Mike+Hawk · 2005-01-31 07:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Halo 2 sold 6 million copies on a closed platform and as I type this there are roughly the same number of people playing HL2 online for free as playing Halo 2 online as part of a pay service.

Its not dead, but PC gaming is staggering in a standing 8 count right now.

Mod away, but it won't change the numbers.

Re:Meanwhile, back in reality... by superpulpsicle · 2005-01-31 09:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

This year I played console games online on the PS2 for the first time. With no graphic problems, no major tweaking needed. It just worked out-of-box.

Today I play as much games online on my PS2 as my PC. That's something I never thought would be possible for me anyways.

If they shipped the next consoles with a mouse, keyboard, hard drive, I'd say PC gaming is toast. A game like HL2 can easily be done on a PS3 and xbox2.
Re:Meanwhile, back in reality... by dougmc · 2005-01-31 09:21 · Score: 1

Its not dead, but PC gaming is staggering in a standing 8 count right now.
PC sales may be dropping slowly (I don't think the 2004 figures are quite out yet, but an increase wouldn't surprise me) but it's a _long_ way from dead.
Mod away, but it won't change the numbers.
... but the Steam sales figures will. The 1.7 million only counts the people who bought the retail package.
Re:Meanwhile, back in reality... by fr0dicus · 2005-01-31 09:58 · Score: 1

The Steam figures will probably not be larger than the retail package.
Costs of game production are rising, PC games will have to sell as much as this to survive, or will slip to become simple ports of console titles. With little to differentiate them, there is little point is there in spending extra on dedicated gaming graphics cards, and the associated hassle of maintaining such a system. Expect graphical superiority to be wiped out with the coming systems and HDTV.
Exclusive PC titles are a rare breed these days, few things apart from the very unique (Rollercoaster Tycoon, Total War etc) don't get ported. The decline is consistent and the future is definitely not promising for PC gaming.
Re:Meanwhile, back in reality... by vigilology · 2005-01-31 10:50 · Score: 1

Pirates.
Re:Meanwhile, back in reality... by X0563511 · 2005-01-31 11:27 · Score: 1

Just because the retail PC game market may die doesn't mean PC games will die. Actually, that would probably help out freeware/shareware/FOSS games.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Meanwhile, back in reality... by dougmc · 2005-01-31 11:40 · Score: 1

The Steam figures will probably not be larger than the retail package.
Probably not. But the grantparent post claimed that the numbers would not be changed by moderation -- which is true, but the Steam figures _will_ change them.
With little to differentiate them
You're kidding, right? Right now, today, PC games are still blessed with much better graphics (HDTV consoles aren't here yet, are they?) and better interfaces for certain types of games (the mouse still rules the FPS and the RTS, for example. Has any console since the Dreamcast offered a mouse?)
And then there's mods to existing games -- remember, Counterstrike started as a HL mod. Currently, consoles really don't allow anybody to modify the games at all, though it's possible that they may in the future.
Expect graphical superiority to be wiped out with the coming systems and HDTV.
... except that PC games are already doing better than HDTV resolution, so even HDTV won't `wipe out' the graphical superiority. If consoles want resolutions as high as PCs, they'll need to use PC monitors -- which may very well happen.
Exclusive PC titles are a rare breed these days
Not quite. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can write a PC game. But to write a console game, you need to get a development kit from the console maker, and pay them royalties on every game made.
I'm still guessing (and granted, it's just a guess) that the PC has a much larger base of games available than say the X-Box. Perhaps 10x as large. The PS2 is a tougher one to beat, as it can still run PS1 games, but even there, the PC has many years of head start, and probably even more people making games for it. (Remember, an individual can make a PC game. Generally an individual cannot make a console game.)
few things apart from the very unique (Rollercoaster Tycoon, Total War etc) don't get ported.
... except that the RTS and the simulation game aren't just games -- they're entire genres. The Sims has been ported to consoles, but beyond that, not many simulation games have at all. Same goes for RTS games (which seem to have fallen out of favor lately, but they'll be back.)
Ultimately, consoles are already full fledged computers -- the X-Box even uses an Intel cpu, PC hard drive, Nvidia graphics and a version of Windows. It may be that later versions of the consoles are even more computer like -- even going so far as having a mouse and keyboard for input, and allowing the use of a computer monitor for higher resolution graphics. And it may then allow you to do things like look at web pages, chat and do your taxes.
Really, right now, the differences between a console and a computer are pretty small --
A console is generally cheap up front, and a computer costs more. The console is often even sold at a loss, because ...
Console (games) generally cost more than PC games, because a signifigant chunk of the cost goes to the console maker. Lose money on the razor, but make it back on the blades ...
A console's hardware is almost completely standardized
A console cannot be customized to any signifigant degree. And that's really about it.
I imagine that in the future, PCs will look more like consoles, and consoles will look more like PCs. The entire issue is likely to be academic.
Re:Meanwhile, back in reality... by Propagandhi · 2005-01-31 15:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nothing new about PC games being outsold by their console counterparts. It's been a long time since any PC game held a long term sales record (Myst). All that matters is that PC games are still profitable, and as consoles become more and more similar to your home PC development for both (or I guess I should say "all") platforms will become even more common than it is now.
Re:Meanwhile, back in reality... by C0rinthian · 2005-01-31 17:17 · Score: 1

If they shipped the next consoles with a mouse, keyboard, hard drive, I'd say PC gaming is toast.
If it's got a mouse, keyboard, and harddrive, how is it not a PC?
Re:Meanwhile, back in reality... by wyldeone · 2005-01-31 18:25 · Score: 1

A game like HL2 can easily be done on a PS3 and xbox2.

I wouldn't say that as if it were a good thing. To say that a next generation console that won't be out for another year at the earliest can play a PC game that came out a few months ago is no great feat. The problem (one that will not go away) with consoles is that for the lifetime (~6 years for the PS2) of the console its specs will not get any better, so PC gaming will surpass it.

--
In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and is widely considered as a bad move.
Re:Meanwhile, back in reality... by Osty · 2005-01-31 19:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

The problem (one that will not go away) with consoles is that for the lifetime (~6 years for the PS2) of the console its specs will not get any better, so PC gaming will surpass it.

On the other hand, due to the hardware staying static for 5-6 years, developers become more and more proficient with the platform and are able to eek out more than you would expect (see Gran Turismo 4, for example, which will do 60fps 1080i on an aging PS2, or compare FFIX on the PSOne to FFVII in terms of graphics, or compare GTA:SA with GTA3 on the PS2 in terms of huge levels with barely noticeable load times). Compare almost any launch title on any console to games shipping near that same console's end of life and you'll find vastly increased graphics, AI, larger levels, etc (of course within reason -- load times that are tied to the speed of the optical drive won't increase, but by becoming more familiar with the platform developers are better able to stream content or compress files so that load times effectively increase).

In that same time period, while PCs may make huge jumps in GPU or CPU power, games still have to be written to a common-denominator set of hardware that is typically 2-3 years old. A good developer can scale their technology well enough that you can have something like HL2 that runs acceptably well on DX7-level hardware (ie, ~3-5 years old) while still blowing you away on DX9-level hardware (current). How long did it take to build something like Half-Life 2 or Doom 3? 4-5 years (id started working on Doom 3 in 2000, and Valve supposedly was working on HL2 even before that). It only took 3 years to develop Halo 2 (assuming that Bungie started on it immediately after the 2001 launch of Halo, which is doubtful -- I'm sure the guys needed a nice long vacation, and got it), including a full multi-player and single-player experience (Doom 3 and HL2 are very much single-player-only, and no CS:S doesn't count since it's the same damn game as 7 years ago with prettier graphics), a full story (regardless of what people think about the ending, I felt it was a good second chapter, setting up a third Halo), and even a brand new engine (yes, the Halo 2 engine is all-new). Bungie had the benefit of targetting a single, stable hardware platform, while id and Valve had to run their games through huge test matrices of various different CPU configurations, memory configurations, OS configurations, video card configurations, hard drive configurations, sound card configurations, you name it.

Consoles developers will always have stability on their side, and if you ask any console game developer they'll tell you they would gladly sacrifice the ability to target the current bleeding edge hardware (that fewer than 1% of the target market will have anyway, so you can't write to it exclusively) in exchange for the stability provided by a console platform (bitching about the PS2's awkwardness to develop against aside, anyway).

Hell, even id built Doom 3 with the XBox in mind, making sure that the technology they were developing would be possible on the XBox even as they scaled it up to hardware two or three times as powerful as the lowly 'Box.
Re:Meanwhile, back in reality... by Taulin · 2005-02-01 02:45 · Score: 1

Halo 2 figures would have been less if there were any other good games competing with it on the same platform. I still remember everyone squigling because they didn't have enough money to buy all the games that came out at the end of last year, and most people had to choose. I don't remember XBox people debating between Halo2, and anything else, because there wasn't an 'else'.
Re:Meanwhile, back in reality... by PIBM · 2005-02-01 08:04 · Score: 1

Have you seen GTA:SA on a good TV ? Have you seen Resident Evil 4 on a good TV ? I'm talking the kind of TV you can connect your computer DVI output on and play in widescreen. Far Cry, Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 look amazing. Playing NFS Underground 2 on it is incredible. Now, a friend of yours bring his console to show you his favorite game .. Both of you will notice the VERY LOW QUALITY that they render on. XBox, GameCube or PS2, none of them give a good quality render "out of the box". Perhaps you can buy some GPU update for them somewhere but I never heard about it ;) That low quality isn't that apparent on a 27" TV but when your DVI is connected at 720p you see the difference. On the stability issue, when did you really had a crash in a game ? I've not for the six months I've had my current computer, neither with the current geforce 6 nor with the previous geforce 4 ...
Re:Meanwhile, back in reality... by Osty · 2005-02-01 09:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Have you seen GTA:SA on a good TV ?

Yes, and it looks like ass. However, notice that I held up GTA:SA as an example of expanded environments compared to previous iterations in this console generation, and not as a paragon of graphical goodness.

Have you seen Resident Evil 4 on a good TV ?

Nope, but then I'm not really interested in RE4, which is beside the point.

I'm talking the kind of TV you can connect your computer DVI output on and play in widescreen.

My TV is about a year too old to have a DVI input, and it only supports 480p and 1080i (no 720p), but for all that it's well-calibrated and looks good. I've not hooked a PC up to it, but my XBox (and to a lesser extent, GameCube) looks good running on the TV in 480p or 1080i.

Playing NFS Underground 2 on it is incredible. Now, a friend of yours bring his console to show you his favorite game .. Both of you will notice the VERY LOW QUALITY that they render on. XBox, GameCube or PS2, none of them give a good quality render "out of the box".

The PS2 renders with "very low quality" textures because it doesn't have the VRAM for better. The XBox, assuming you're playing a game built for the XBox and not a PS2 port (ie, skip anything from EA), can do much higher texture resolutions than either the PS2 or Gamecube, and while it's not on par with the current bleeding edge of PC hardware, it's pretty damned good for four year old hardware.

Perhaps you can buy some GPU update for them somewhere but I never heard about it ;) That low quality isn't that apparent on a 27" TV but when your DVI is connected at 720p you see the difference. On the stability issue, when did you really had a crash in a game ? I've not for the six months I've had my current computer, neither with the current geforce 6 nor with the previous geforce 4 ...

It seems you've misunderstood my "stability" argument. I was not talking about lack of crashes, but instead the stability of the platform itself. The point here is that games designed for a console have a single, stable hardware target (as in the target doesn't change, not that the hardware doesn't crash), be it a PS2, Gamecube, or XBox. A GPU upgrade would destabilize this situation by adding another component that not everyone may have. If you're a PC game developer, you don't have the luxury of a single target. You have to build a test matrix of different CPUs, video cards, memory configurations, operating systems, etc. That's also a major reason why console games typically have much better QA than PC gamess (no, it's not because PC games are more easily patched), because the test requirements are increased exponentially.

From a development perspective, more time spent with the same hardware breeds familiarity. Because the hardware will not change from underneath you, you can learn the tricks of the hardware, and write to it directly without having to deal with an abstraction layer because you have to support both nVidia and ATI video cards, or Intel and AMD CPUs, or Pentium 3s and Pentium 4s. While there is less raw power in the hardware than with a PC, there is far more power to finesse a solution, because you don't have to worry about oddball hardware in 239047293879877892 different configurations.
Re:Meanwhile, back in reality... by CronoCloud · 2005-02-02 07:47 · Score: 1

When it's console. :-)

those devices are not PC exclusive things. Even some WebTV's had hard drives in them.

Both of my PS2's have HD"s in them. One has the Linux kit HD the other one the FFXI HD.
Re:Meanwhile, back in reality... by CronoCloud · 2005-02-02 07:52 · Score: 1

It doesn't matter that the specs don't get better, because the specs don't matter. Games are what matters.

Now if you're one of those people who brag about frame rates and resolutions and other benchmarks the specs matter to you, probably more than actually playing the games.

All that technological surpassmenet doesn't make the games actually better or more fun to play does it.
Re:Meanwhile, back in reality... by CronoCloud · 2005-02-02 08:02 · Score: 1

You're kidding, right? Right now, today, PC games are still blessed with much better graphics (HDTV consoles aren't here yet, are they?) and better interfaces for certain types of games (the mouse still rules the FPS and the RTS, for example. Has any console since the Dreamcast offered a mouse?)

The following consoles have or had mice:

Genesis
SNES
Saturn
Playstation
Dreamcast
P laystation 2 (it has standard USB ports)

And then there's mods to existing games -- remember, Counterstrike started as a HL mod. Currently, consoles really don't allow anybody to modify the games at all, though it's possible that they may in the future.

Who needs mods, we don't have to wait as long for sequels so we aren't stuck playing counter-strike for 5 years because we don't have any other good games to play.

Ultimately, consoles are already full fledged computers -- the X-Box even uses an Intel cpu, PC hard drive, Nvidia graphics and a version of Windows. It may be that later versions of the consoles are even more computer like -- even going so far as having a mouse and keyboard for input, and allowing the use of a computer monitor for higher resolution graphics. And it may then allow you to do things like look at web pages, chat and do your taxes.

One could surf web pages and chat with Saturn's and Dreamcasts

PS2's can do quite a bit with a Linux kit installed. Browsing Slashdot, Posting to Slashdot. Chatting on IRC, using Gaim. I could probably file my taxes online with it but I haven't tried it yet. I use a TV as a display but it supports monitors too.
Re:Meanwhile, back in reality... by CronoCloud · 2005-02-02 09:23 · Score: 1

And I guess you logged onto slashdot on your gamecube or Xbox did you? Ahhh...

Perhaps they did, but I most certainly did log into Slashdot on my PS2.

PC games will be around long after the Xbox 2 or PS 3 have come and gone, I have listened to predictions of the downfall of PC games for the last ten years but..... yes they are still here and still sell millions of units.

PC gaming is dying a slow death that's been evident since about 1985 or so.

Sure HL 2 and Doom 3 have sold well...for PC games that is. There's console games that have sold 8 million copies. (by the by I can play Doom, Doom II and the original HL on my PS2. I fully expect ports of HL2 and Doom 3 to be in the works for the PS3)

So next year, odds are there won't be any PC games to sell a million and you'll have to wait another 5 years to get blockbusters like perhaps HL 3 and Doom 4.

Re:Considered buying it today by Ford+Prefect · 2005-01-31 07:55 · Score: 1

They've moved their back collection onto steam and they spent alot of money into getting steam to work, so i doubt they will dump it for a few people that don't have an internet connection.

The offline mode for Steam certainly needs a lot of work, but I think overall the system is probably a positive move for the somewhat fickle PC games industry. I bought HL2 over Steam, and it's worked absolutely fine (beyond a corrupted GCF in the original download, which was the subject of a FAQ and easily fixed) - I can fully imagine buying further Valve stuff using the system. They'd better come up with some further single-player content soon, though!

I'm going to have great fun designing stuff with the SDK, too - I'm still learning my way round... ;-)

--
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?

"from the so-many-headcrabs! dept." by chalkoutline · 2005-01-31 08:13 · Score: 2, Funny

more like so-many-god-damned-ant-lions dept. curse them and their protective hides!

--
There are 2 types of people in the world, those who find that stupid binary joke funny, and those who don't.

Re:Considered buying it today by badnova · 2005-01-31 08:20 · Score: 1

Because, obviously, you have no connection to the internet.

Re:And they only spent $30 million making the game by lotsotech · 2005-01-31 08:24 · Score: 1

We don't know about the Steam numbers, but if these are only retail sales then figure closer to $25 a pop or even less. Most media is 50 points.

PC gaming dead? by BigDogCH · 2005-01-31 08:28 · Score: 2, Funny

Did i miss something in the last few weeks? Why would pc gaming be dead?

Re:PC gaming dead? by fr0dicus · 2005-01-31 09:47 · Score: 1

Compared to five years ago, it's in a coma. Consoles are eating its breakfast, lunch and dinner. Halo 2 has done nearly four times this figure, GTA:SA probably even greater.
Re:PC gaming dead? by Grey+Ninja · 2005-01-31 13:22 · Score: 1

Well, I've always been more of a console person than a PC person. But years back, I did play my fair share of PC games as well as console games. Nowadays, the signal to noise ratio on a PC is far too low for my liking, and I generally buy about maybe 1 or 2 games per year on a PC. (In the last year, I probably bought 30+ console games, and 2 PC games. (Pirates and Half-Life 2)).
Re:PC gaming dead? by Goosey · 2005-01-31 14:49 · Score: 1

Compared to five years ago, it is just as "dead" as ever. PC Game sales have never come CLOSE to console sales, and you can take that number back as far as you want to go.

I am not saying PC Gaming is dying. It never has been, and while I won't say it never will, I will say I find that very unlikely. I think these 'PC Games are dying' statements just come from the fact that PC Gaming has never performed at the same level as consoles.

--
--- "End Of Line" - MCP
Re:PC gaming dead? by fr0dicus · 2005-02-01 00:13 · Score: 1

But as I've said in another comment, costs of creating games with levels of increasing complexity that is required as games mature will catch up the lowly sales of PC software first, which can only lead to generic console ports. It's already happening.
Re:PC gaming dead? by BigDogCH · 2005-02-01 02:16 · Score: 1

I was just looking at all my favorite titles for PC gaming. Every one of them was then ported to the two major consoles. When PC gaming dies, I assume the consoles do as well. Maybe the news about EA buying out the NFL and other such news is also leading towards a "PC gaming is dead" mentality.

Re:And they only spent $30 million making the game by fr0dicus · 2005-01-31 09:42 · Score: 1

Yep, and factor in the cost of steam too. That much bandwidth costs.

Also, "only" ? Heh.

Sorta... by raygundan · 2005-01-31 09:45 · Score: 4, Informative

You have to get an "offline ticket" from the servers. The bug/problem right now is that if you don't know that Steam is down and leave your ethernet cable connected-- you'll get the "cannot connect to steam" message and your offline ticket will be erased. Which means that you can't play offline until you can get online to get your offline ticket renewed.

Once you've seen the error message, it's too late, and you can't play online or offline until the servers come back up.

And you can't just get a ticket and leave the cable unplugged forever, either-- the ticket expires on its own.

They could fix this easily by simply not disabling the offline ticket until after the connection attempt is finished-- but right now, a failed attempt with you still connected to the internet will disable your game until the servers come back up.

Terrible.

Re:YOU DON'T NEED STEAM FOR OFFLINE!!! by joshsisk · 2005-01-31 10:15 · Score: 1

That's assuming you are still using the same PC in 5 years AND you haven't had a HDD failure or anything like that...

Get your facts straight by MMaestro · 2005-01-31 12:09 · Score: 1

Right now, today, PC games are still blessed with much better graphics (HDTV consoles aren't here yet, are they?) and better interfaces for certain types of games (the mouse still rules the FPS and the RTS, for example. Has any console since the Dreamcast offered a mouse?)

There are HDTV capable consoles (Xbox and Gamecube) but you have to buy the HD plugs and obviously have a HDTV. Whether the keyboard/mouse combo is better for FPSs is debatable as well as based on personal preferance. Also the Playstation 1 has a mouse but it was used for like 2 games, an early showing of Sony's commitment to add-on parts (remember how the PS2 was supposed to connect to external Zip drives?)

... except that PC games are already doing better than HDTV resolution, so even HDTV won't `wipe out' the graphical superiority. If consoles want resolutions as high as PCs, they'll need to use PC monitors -- which may very well happen.

True, but this is more of a hardware and pricing problem over software and console designing. A top-of-the-line video card will cost at LEAST $300 if you bargain hunt/search online/etc, thats more than any console and thats not counting processor, RAM, etc. Unless you can convince Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft to build and support a $500+ to produce console (a low end pre-built ready to go Dell computer goes for around $600 so I'm being generous here), consoles will NEVER catch up to PC level graphics.

Not quite. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can write a PC game. But to write a console game, you need to get a development kit from the console maker, and pay them royalties on every game made.

True, but how many PC games do you think are 'copy-cat' games? And don't say Halo and Halo 2 are copy-cat games because then we can rule out every PC FPS excluding Doom, Half-Life and Unreal Tournament as 'copy-cat' FPS games. Gaming started on the PC, but gaming sure as hell left the crib.

As for consoles not getting RTSs is a matter of RTS games being TOO complex for the general gamer. Joe Average doesn't care about upgrading his troops (Warcraft), setting up ambushes (Starcraft), making aerial flanking manuevers (C&C:Generals), planning out a huge overall strategy that requires early planning (Rome Total War) or have to deal with individual units that cannot be easily sacrificed (Silent Storm). PC gaming is for people who love to twist and tweak every piece of software and hardware they can get their hands on (Gravity gun only with 1 life servers with custom skins, models, sounds, maps and HUD anyone?) Consoles eliminate all that and simplify it for the Joe Averages of the world.

Re:Get your facts straight by dougmc · 2005-01-31 12:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

There are HDTV capable consoles (Xbox and Gamecube) but you have to buy the HD plugs and obviously have a HDTV.
So there are. But it looks like only certain games support these enhanced resolutions -- which I guess is true for PC games too.
Whether the keyboard/mouse combo is better for FPSs is debatable as well as based on personal preferance.
Really, what's happened is that console games have been dumbed down to be playable with the little joysticks/joypads that they give you. With a mouse, you can zero in on the bad guy's face and get a head shot off very quickly -- with a joypad, it would take much longer to do so, so the console game is set up to either auto-aim for you, or to make it so making head shots really isn't important to the game -- either you get no extra benefit from it, or the game is easy enough that you don't need to make them very often.
But if you tried to play something like the PC version of UT with a joypad like you had on an X-Box, vs. guys with keyboard and mouse, you'd get pwn3d quick. It's just that the PC version makes it important to be able to aim precisely, something the joypad just isn't good at.

Not quite. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can write a PC game. But to write a console game, you need to get a development kit from the console maker, and pay them royalties on every game made.
True, but how many PC games do you think are 'copy-cat' games?
Probably a number similar to the number of console games that are `copy-cat' games. The vast majority of games out there, PC and console, are copies of other games, with some tweaking or new features. Few are revolutionary rather than evolutionary.
The grandparent post of this post was claiming that `Exclusive PC titles are a rare breed these days' -- which couldn't be further from the truth. And I pointed out why. (Though I guess if you restrict yourself to `big budget, blockbuster titles', then maybe that statement is becoming true.)
As for consoles not getting RTSs is a matter of RTS games being TOO complex for the general gamer.
Ok, I won't argue too much about that -- I really can't claim to know too much about what your average console player wants.
But since there will always be `extra'-ordinary games, PC games will *never* die, at least until the consoles can cater to them a little better.
Re:Get your facts straight by CronoCloud · 2005-02-02 09:13 · Score: 1

There are HDTV capable consoles (Xbox and Gamecube) but you have to buy the HD plugs and obviously have a HDTV. Whether the keyboard/mouse combo is better for FPSs is debatable as well as based on personal preferance. Also the Playstation 1 has a mouse but it was used for like 2 games, an early showing of Sony's commitment to add-on parts (remember how the PS2 was supposed to connect to external Zip drives?)

The PS2 also supports HDTV

The PSone mouse also has more than 2 games that support it. Off the top of my head:

Final Doom
Quake II
Alien Resurrection
X-com
Monopoly
Command & Conquer
C&C Red Alert
C&C Red Alert Retaliation
Dune 2000
Warzone 2100
RPG Maker (the artwork creator only)
Sim City 2000
MTV Music Generator

And the PS2 can connect to external storage devices in two ways:

The Linux kit

Certain "Gameshark" type devices have a USB storage device reader module

Gaming started on the PC, but gaming sure as hell left the crib.

Actually mass market electronic gaming started on the consoles. The first home/personal computers came after the first consoles.

As for consoles not getting RTSs is a matter of RTS games being TOO complex for the general gamer. Joe Average doesn't care about upgrading his troops (Warcraft), setting up ambushes (Starcraft)

You did know that Warcraft II was ported to the PSone. Starcraft got ported to the N64.
Re:Get your facts straight by CronoCloud · 2005-02-02 09:31 · Score: 1

Really, what's happened is that console games have been dumbed down to be playable with the little joysticks/joypads that they give you. With a mouse, you can zero in on the bad guy's face and get a head shot off very quickly -- with a joypad, it would take much longer to do so, so the console game is set up to either auto-aim for you, or to make it so making head shots really isn't important to the game -- either you get no extra benefit from it, or the game is easy enough that you don't need to make them very often.

That's a design issue and does not prove the superiority of FPS's on the PC. Besides, WASD sucks for movement. I've tried to play FPS's with a keyboard but it's still a keyboard. Designed for text entry not for action. I like using my dual shock 2 in the left hand for movement, and USB mouse in the right for aiming.

But if you tried to play something like the PC version of UT with a joypad like you had on an X-Box, vs. guys with keyboard and mouse, you'd get pwn3d quick. It's just that the PC version makes it important to be able to aim precisely, something the joypad just isn't good at.

Well If I had the PS2 version I'd just plug a mouse and keyboard in, or just the mouse.

But since there will always be `extra'-ordinary games,

Define extra-ordinary

Re:Considered buying it today by badnova · 2005-01-31 12:22 · Score: 1

It doesn't bother me at all, but then I don't overreact at stupid things like steam. You don't like the way they are running things, so you didn't buy it. Good for you. However 1.7 million people disagree with you. As for ruining slashdot, I'd say anonymous cowards such as yourself who resort to profanity to make your arguments have done a pretty good job already.

That's 1.7 million people... by trawg · 2005-01-31 12:32 · Score: 1

... that can't play their game when Steam isn't working!

Re:Considered buying it today by badnova · 2005-01-31 13:13 · Score: 1

In conclusion, fuck you and never post to Slashdot ever again asshole.

OK, I won't.

Oops!

I'm a software developer and I think it's a pretty good idea as far as anti-piracy measures go. I think it's a simple, elegant solution to a difficult problem. It doesn't require CDs to be inserted, which is a big bonus. It pretty much ensures that nobody is running cheats or hacked clients. It makes sure everyone's up to date with the latest client so any dangerous exploits are quickly fixed. I guess I'm just not as paranoid as you.

In conclusion, I disagree with you, and I think you're a belligerent idiot who seems to think my entire argument is based around my original sarcastic one-liner. If that's how you're going to judge me, so be it, but don't think you're going to e-thug me off slashdot as I really don't give a damn what you think.

Re:Considered buying it today by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-31 13:55 · Score: 1, Interesting

(Different A.C.)

"It makes sure everyone's up to date with the latest client so any dangerous exploits are quickly fixed."

Uh, exploits in a single-player, offline game? I'd say that running steam all the time and letting it connect to the net opens a big fat attack vector where there wasn't one before.

Absolutely, counter-strike source and HL-DM should have an auto-updater. But it should be a: possible to disable it (many people dislike later versions of CS for instance) and b: only active when the game is running and the option to play online is selected. It should not lock you out of the offline game if the login server is down. Steam is not required, and it has convinced me to not purchase HL2 - copy protection measures should not be taken so far as to lose you legitimate customers!

Think it through by Spuffin · 2005-01-31 16:32 · Score: 1

How many times do I have to post this in this thrread and yesterday's "Steamed" thread!? Ugh!

You can start Steam in offline mode just fine!
You can play HL2 without an internet connection once you've done all the authenticating!

In other words, in 5 years, Valve could be dead and gone, Steam could be history AND I WILl STILL BE ABLE TO PLAY HL2.

Let's try and think this through, shall we? 5 years later you will more than likely have a new computer and HL2 will probably not be installed. For the sake of argument, let's say you try and install it. What happens after it is installed? It wants you to sign in to Steam to authenticate your purcase. Woe is me. Steam is no longer functional and cannot authenticate your purchase! You don't get to play the game you bought! Now HOPEFULLY you will see why people are pissed off at Steam.

Re:That explains it. by C0rinthian · 2005-01-31 17:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's a great game, but why do I have to prove online that I am not a thief before I can play? I'm glad my car manufacturer doesn't treat me the same way.

Yeah it's not like you need to have some sort of "registration" paper showing that it's your car...

if i had a nickle by Goosey · 2005-01-31 18:26 · Score: 1

for every time I wish I had a mod point.

--
--- "End Of Line" - MCP

Re:And they only spent $30 million making the game by homeobocks · 2005-01-31 18:27 · Score: 1

$50 (US) buys the Half-Life 2 Bronze package. Are you saying that about 4 and a quater gigs of data take $50 to transfer? That's rediculous. Bandwitdth is cheap . . . except in Nebraska.

--
MOUNT TAPE U1439 ON B3, NO RING

Re:Considered buying it today by easychord · 2005-01-31 20:54 · Score: 1

It doesn't require CDs to be inserted, which is a big bonus. Unless you bought the DVD version in a shop. Oops. I'm not convinced that this will stop cheats as well. This update on connection thing is common with MMORPGs and they still seem to have cheaters. I can see how it has use for slowing piracy, collecting usage statistics, and direct marketing of valve products. Steam doesn't make me that angry or stop me playing valve games for moral reasons, but it does seem to be a high handed move.

Re:And they only spent $30 million making the game by fr0dicus · 2005-02-01 00:10 · Score: 1

No, I'm saying that retaining a pipe large enough such that X hundred thousand people can all download 4GB+ of data off you concurrently costs a fortune.

And it's 'ridiculous'.

Re:The future & preparations you can make... by Mr.Dippy · 2005-02-01 00:19 · Score: 1

Although you have a point about the advancement of technology and people who don't play old, outdated games, there are still people like me who play old, outdated games. I play alot of WarCraft 3 and NFL2K5 for PS2. However, I still play Castlevania SOTN for my PS2 and a few weeks ago I just reinstalled my old copy of Star Craft. Yes, I still play that game because it is fun. I would be extremely pissed if I tried to install it and I got a message saying that the Blizzard Server for this game was longer working. As for your google work around, I will mod you as informative, but I don't like the idea of trying to do a third party hack to make my legite copy of a game work on my machine.

--

-Dipster

Run Steam in Offline mode. by Glaeken · 2005-02-01 01:17 · Score: 2, Informative

HL2 works just fine when you start Steam in offline mode. Just load steam with no active internet connection and it prompts you to run in off line mod where upon you can launch and play Hl2. Obviously CS Source does not work but HL2 plays just fine.

Re:That explains it. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-01 03:47 · Score: 1

Yeah it's not like you need to have some sort of "registration" paper showing that it's your car..

Your car authenticates the registration before you can start it? That must be a pain in the ass. I jumped into my new car last night and went for a drive, I left the registration at home. Funny thing is, the car ran just fine. I will try it again tonight, I have a funny feeling that it will still start and run just fine without the registration. Seems to me, if I have the key, the car just works. Funny how that works.

Now, how well does HL2 run when steam is crapped out?

I was a big fan of HL1, and I really wanted to get HL2. Sadly (so I thought at the time), I had spent my game budget for that time period on Doom3 (with the delays and all, it was not clear to me that Valve would EVER get this game out). In retrospect, it looks like I made the right call. I will never pay for a game where I assumed to be a thief, until proven otherwise. I was brought up in a climate where you were considered innocent until proven guilty, and thankfully our justice system still depends on this concept. I guess with the move in the US to the guilty until proven innocent model, the US consumer no longer feels slighted when they are treated this way. Piss on valve, they won't get $50US from me.

Re:That explains it. by Pvt_Waldo · 2005-02-01 11:39 · Score: 1

I think it's called a key. You can't drive the car without it. If you lose it, you're screwed.

Slashdot Mirror

Half Life 2 Retail Sales Hit 1.7 Million

87 of 117 comments (clear)