Slashdot Mirror
Halo 3 Preorders Top 1 Million, Marketing Begins
Gamespot reports that Halo 3 has broken the all-time record for videogame preorders in North America. There are now more than 1 million copies of the title reserved across the continent. "The figure means that the Halo 3 launch could potentially be bigger than that of Halo 2. The then-Xbox-exclusive sold 2.38 million units in the US and Canada in the 24 hours after went on sale on November 16, 2004, generating an estimated $125 million. Halo 3 preorder customers' passion for the game is such that cost is apparently no object. As part of today's announcement, Microsoft warned that, despite its premium price point, the collectible Halo 3: Legendary Edition is on track to sell out before the game launches. The bundle, which includes a miniaturized version of the Master Chief's helmet, retails for $129.99 in the US, but is already sold out at several online retailers in the UK."
I'm ahead of these people. I ordered Halo 5 and already received it.
Marketing Begins?
I think with a million preorders, the marketing is pretty much done.
Holy Moly! Thats pretty impressive. If that was a music album it would already be considered "platinum". All that without any hardcore marketing. I guess it's true that the game industry is going to surpass the music industry, if it hasnt already.
WooT
Didn't it already start with that RPG thing that uses the real world similar to I love bees?
I like muppets.
I'm holding out for the version that comes with the working Mjolnir armor.
Isn't enough that I ruined a pony, making a gift for you?
You can buy 2 PS3 games and breakfast for 2 with that cash.
HAlo 3 and mass effect are the only two things that might tempt me to get a 360. I susupect they may eventually get PC editions.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I bought an Xbox for Halo and it was one of the best decisions I'd ever made; in my mind the game was damn near perfect. But Halo 2 was so dumbed down, yet overly complicated, it ruined what made Halo so appealing. The small amount of weaponry in Halo made combat relatively simple; there was a weapon for just about every situation. Halo 2 moved away from that, crowded the plate with many more weapons than were needed, added weapons which were clearly overpowered (and not available to everyone at once like the original pistol), and added in dual wielding. While Halo stood out from the FPS shooter crowd, Halo 2 sort of slinked back into the pack. The single player campaign didn't help, either.
I would like to buy an Xbox 360 eventually, but mainly just so I can play things like the old Kotor games (as my old Xbox is now broken) and maybe some new things like Oblivion. I was a long time fan of Bungie. Marathon, Marathon 2, Marathon: Infinity, Myth, Myth II. But the way Halo 2 turned out has ruined my faith with them. I might check out Halo 3 at some point, just to hope I'm proven wrong, but I don't have a lot of hope.
Most games don't come with behind-the-scenes DVDs nor helmets.
While I agree with Mr. Shill here about Halo not being as much of a mind-blowing game that many people see it as (in my opinion, of course), I still think it's a good game. It had a good aiming system, the controls were tight, the graphics were decently pretty, the length was perfect, and the story line was interesting.
As far as the Halo 3 Beta graphics go...any self-respecting gamer should know that you NEVER judge a game based soley on the beta. Console folks just aren't used to the idea of a beta and as such they took it to mean that this is what the game will be like.
Living With a Nerd
Yeh, but that's the super-deluxe version with a helment. Note: a NON-WEARABLE helmet (too small for even a child).
But I agree, that's a bit much. I pre-ordered, but only the regular version.
You can also buy 2 and a third normal Halo 3 games for that price.
The premium version isn't the only one, you know. Sheesh.
Comment of the year
Your arguments are not only true, they also apply to computers/operating systems.
To quote the TV ad for GoW: It's a mad world.
But it will be saddening to see the bought and paid for reviews pour in for the game as gamers where most of us still like to believe that the games market is a place where you live or die on actual game worth and not how many millions a company has to throw at reviews and the press.
And it's utterly impossible that opinions may vary, and that some people might actually like the Halo series of games without being bribed? I've played a hell of a lot of FPS games, going back to Marathon, Doom, System Shock 2, Unreal Tourney, etc. The fact of the matter is that I think Halo 2 is a really, really fun game, and that's all I care about. Then again, I'm not a snob with the whole "oh games without a mouse all suck!" crap that you see around here so often.
Comment of the year
(Hint: just because you don't like a game, doesn't have any bearing on what anyone else in the world thinks. If the one person in the world who liked "Game X" gave it a glowing review, that wouldn't be a paid-for review, even if he did disagree with the rest of the world. Everyone has a different opinion.)
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
From a company's standpoint. Toward the end of development, you're already probably over budget and short a few developers... and god knows when the soda/redbull/bawls machine was last stocked.
You use the last bit of cash to:
1. Pay off some bloggers to generate grass roots hype,
2. Pay a few key "journalists" to write a OMFG this game is going to MF rock \m/ > \m/
And begin accepting pre-order sales. Poof, instant PR budget so you can nail main stream media with everything you can now afford.
And maybe restock drink machine. (Don't worry about hiring more devs, you're just going to lay them all off anyway).
I enjoyed the games, but I really got in to the multi-player, as I feel like most people do these days. The thing I like about the Halo series though, is that they don't skimp (as much as other studios do) on the single player story line. I feel like some other games are rushed out to hit the multi-player markets and the story line suffers.
It had a bad aiming system that required walking around to substitute as a fine adjustment for the poorly actuated joystick's coarse maneuvering (compare to Rare's N64 shooters with a two-layer aiming system for all weapons). The controls were very confusing, even on the Controller S, and far more complicated than they needed to be (Bungie has clearly never heard of chorded button combinations). The length would have been great, with the exception that you had to play every level twice, and the levels themselves were composed of multiple, identical copy-pasted segments. Once you take that out of the equation, you're left with a remarkably short, unsatisfying game. The storyline was only interesting if you've never actually read a sci-fi book before, or seen a sci-fi movie. Like, say, Alien. Where most of the ideas for Halo came from. Or Rendezvous with Rama...or Ringworld...etc etc.
Before I get slammed as a troll, there were four fabulous aspects to Halo that are the ONLY reason it has persisted:
1 - Attention to multiplayer, both versus and co-op, a rarity, and for me the game's saving grace.
2 - Pretty excellent soundtrack, memorable themes, suitable for a space opera.
3 - One of the finer implementations of vehicles when released, which added a sandboxy element.
4 - Good physics - not necessarily realistic, but FUN. Ragdolls and flying machinery kept the game emergent and interesting in spite of its library (pun intended) of other flaws.
These are the qualities you should be praising in Halo - these are the things that make it stand out above frankly better shooters. Not aiming, not controls, not length, and not storyline.
Halo 2 was released on the 9th. I still have the orange sticker on my box stating that it not be sold until 11/09/04.
I value that at roughly $5 :).
"If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever." - George Orwell, 1984
I've been seeing advertisements for Halo 3 with the Previews of the last several movies that I've been to in the last few weeks. In fact, I am almost certain that there was ad for the game in the Previews of the latest Harry Potter movie that released on July 11th. So anyways it looks to me like they have already been marketing the game pretty aggressively and it's paying off.
Of course, simply stating that product X has taken 1M orders is marketing too: it helps those sitting on the fence feel like they can safely join the herd.
This is why many of these "new product coming soon or now available" PR pieces you see on SlashDot and other sites will frequently refer to a large number of early adopters: they want to make you feel safer as a buyer because you're going in with a crowd.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize an opinion could be wrong. My apologies, Mr. AC. You have shown me the truth!
Living With a Nerd
Hopefully those little freaks aren't back in Halo 3
Excuse me while I gather the virgin sacrifice and assemble the pentagram required to solve your problem
In the highly unlikely event of the game selling out, MS could push a button and produce 100,000 more in a single day. I really don't understand why anyone pre-orders so far in advance. The game will available everywhere with no difficulty at all. Preorder is a total and utter waste of time.
It's a BluerAy DVD player that can play games.
Alternatively you could look at it like this: I can buy the new 120GB Elite for $450, then get the Halo 3 Legendary edition for $130.00 and that still won't equal the cost of the 80GB PS3 Motorstorm Pack.
Better luck next time fanboy.
"Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
Does that mean it qualifies as a "greatest hit"?
In that case, everyone that hasn't pre-ordered it would be able to pick up a copy for $20 the day it releases.
Hooray for fantasy logic!
oh marmalade.
"BluerAy"? Is that when The Fonz gets a job bluing steel?
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Perhaps I was too caustic; my only point is that all of the things you praised about Halo have been executed in a quantifiably better way years before Halo ever arrived. The things that intrigue ME about Halo are the things they added to the genre, not the things they made inferior copies of.
Also, yes, this might be a bit of a shock, especially on the internets, but opinions CAN be wrong. That is why I presented evidence of better implementations of 4 out of the 5 factors you praised, and not just unadorned opinions of my own. Halo was copy-pasted together; you did have to replay the same levels twice; the story was ripped off of Alien and countless other works of sci-fi; and the controls, even to a vet of the console shooter genre, were poorly implemented. Numerous examples of better implementations exist. These are facts! Not opinions. I base my opinions off of them.
Things like this are always subjective to some degree, but subjectively ignoring clear evidence is usually (and aptly) called ignorance.
And where in my OP did you ever see me say that Halo was revolutionary, ground-breaking, or original? If you can find somewhere in my post where I said that, then my "wrong" opinion will change.
I've played FPS's since Catacomb 3D. I am very well aware of what was out there prior to Halo, and I am very well aware that Halo did nothing that was overly revolutionary or special.
But you know what? My 04 RSX Type-S might not be faster than a Ferrari Enzo, but it's still a fuckin' blast to drive.
Living With a Nerd
If everything I've been hearing about Warhawk is true, he might not be willing to swap.
For instance, this preview from GamesRadar titled "The online blast we'll still be playing when Halo 3 is a distant memory".
I just wish I could play co-op mode over the internet with original Halo for the PC.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Why is this game so popular? In which ways did it revolutionize the genre?
I never had a Xbox and didn't batter to get the PC edition. From what I understand, this is a fairly typical FPS just very very polished one. Much like Blizzard games which are not really revolutionary but are simply well done with a lot of attention to detail.
Of all the things to complain about Halo... the controls? Halo was the first console shooter to implement anything even close to the oh-so-sweet WADS+mouse interface used in PC shooters. PC gamers complain about the lack of precision aiming, which is true, though saying that Goldeneye is better is just a plain lie. The "aim mode" in Goldeneye required the user to stop moving, be a sitting duck, while the ever-finicky N64 analog stick chased a moving target around the screen. Not much better, really.
As for controls being confusing... How? Left stick to move (WADS), right stick to look (mouse), pull the trigger to shoot (mouse click), pull the other one to toss grenade (right click)... A one-size-fits-all X button for actions in the game world... It's still in fact the standard control layout for console shooters!
> Then again, I'm not a snob with the whole "oh games without a mouse all suck!" crap that you see around here so often.
No, but the control scheme still *relatively* sucks. I just want to see a shooter that lets me hold down a shoulder button to freeze the rotation to a certain angle, and use the right stick as an absolute pointer, i.e. the view moves to a point relative to where the stick points, and snaps back with the stick, rather than turning continuously like a damn turret. Bonus points if I can adjust the size of the aim cone with the pointing movement scaling appropriately.
Gears of War did all right with the cover mechanic, but long shootouts from cover starts to feel a lot more like Killzone than anything else -- and that's NOT a compliment.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
You mean more like the aiming controls for Goldeneye? Where you cant aim and move at the same time?
Uggh that would be a step backward.
Poor little Sony fanbot!
You have no games to play on your PS3, so you come here and troll EVERY single console games article.
In a years time when MGS4 comes out you can hold your little pathetic head high then...........
It must be soul destroying to have wasted $600 on a glorified PS2 with out any true next gen games on it.....
Suck it down!
Don't forget one button for flashlight, one button for switching grenade type, one button for reload, clicking a joystick for crouch, and clicking another for jump...yeah what could be simpler.
Man, it would be such ownage if it were though. They'd get it too, and everybody would be whining and moaning, threatening never to buy MS junk again. Even better over a million ppl would have a freakin' Spartan helmet.
Don't know Goldeneye except by its reputation (everyone raved about it). But nothing need preclude moving while aiming with this -- all you're doing is changing the behavior of the right-hand stick, not the left. And the mechanic would be have to be activated by a button like a shoulder button or a stick press anyway.
I like to think FPS developers have actually tried this and found practical problems with it, but if it took us this long to even get simple things like variable sensitivity control on the right stick, I'm thinking that they're satisfied with just throwing in a smidge of autoaim and leaving it there.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
You're right... that is pretty damn simple. What would you prefer, that we go into a menu to do all those things? Everything I need to do in Halo is RIGHT THERE. No muss, no fuss. With the newer Xbox controllers, there's absolutely nothing to complain about in the control scheme, certainly not button assignments (well, I lied... I still like mouse+keyboard better than a gamepad for aiming).
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
You could move and aim at the same time with goldeneye. You had to use two controllers, one for each hand.
One did the aiming and one did the moving.
Kind of clunky, but it was possible.
Would like to see more choices with customising the Halo buttons on the controller. They were not ideal in Halo 2. Try dual wielding in Boxer and then go directly into a beatdown - not sure that it works?
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
Do I re-moderate this guy back to informative or reply?
Seriously - a little conspiracy theoried but on the money no less, Halo is NOT a bad game but it is, without a doubt one of the most over-rated games in history, good lord is it over rated.
I finished the first one it had some kind of half decent story, kind of, fairly fun gameplay I won't deny and not shabby graphics, the second one wasn't worth finishing and I quit about 5 hours into it.
So SOOOooooo overrated, it boggles my mind every time the topic comes up.
Halo is fun, don't get me wrong, but it controls better (and looks better) on the PC. Some genres, like FPS, RTS, MMORPG, and 4X strategy, just work better on the PC.
...it would say "Moo."
Halo is fun, don't get me wrong, but it controls better (and looks better) on the PC. Some genres, like FPS, RTS, MMORPG, and 4X strategy, just work better on the PC.
Yes, but the PC doesn't work better for the games:
Cost: Sure, Steel Battalion for Xbox has more precise controls than MechAssault, but it also cost $200 when it came out. How many gamers played Steel Battalion compared to MechAssualt? Console gaming is much cheaper. I just spent $800 on a Dell PC that sucks at games (not Dell's fault; I'm not using it for games.) For $400 you can be set with an Xbox.
Bugginess: PC games are buggy as hell. Try playing Battlefield: 2142 and tell me with a straight face that the experience of PC FPS games is better than the experience of Xbox FPS games. Sure, Halo 2 had some exploitable bugs before it was patched, but BF:2142 has been patched multiple times and still has numerous exploits in it. Add to that the fact that PunkBuster kicks you every few minutes because apparently it can't update itself in Vista, the experience system not giving you your upgrades sometimes, the buddy list usually not working, the game randomly popping you out of the menu when you're trying to change a control setting, the inability to join a squad when you're dead (sometimes! sometimes it works!), doesn't work on widescreen monitors, random crashes, both server and client, etc etc. Steaming pile of bugs. Halo 2, and other Xbox FPS games have a small fraction of the experience-ruining bugs of PC games.
Annoyances: In addition to bugs, there's the PC game annoyances. Updating video drivers, putting in serial keys (just having the disk is good enough for copy protection on consoles; why do PC games need a serial key also?) On Xbox you just put in the disk and play.
IMO, the PC gaming industry is either going to have to change to emulate console gaming, or it's going to die-out. Some companies are making the attempt, notably Valve's Steam and Microsoft's "Games For Windows" initiative, but whether they can sign up the big publishers, we'll just have to wait and see.
Comment of the year
You are obviously on crack.
Award for most overrated game goes to Half-Life 2. I have no idea how such a boring piece of crap garners all the praise that it does.
Halo 1 and 2 on the other hand were actually fun to play (though not as fun as the Prince of Persia series).
Depends. I need the wireless adapter, so thats another $100 added to my cost, and I have an HD TV, so that another $100 for the HD-DVD player (and thats for a player thats been noted as being poor compared to the other High Def players on the market, and for a format that looks like it will be obsolete).
:(
I bought an XBox360 and I'm looking at selling it now (maybe before/after Halo3), and buying a PS3. I'm just tired of the poor workmanship (had to send it back to solve the RRoD once so far), and the poor way MS takes for granted the consumer. Sony may be charging a lot, but they at least have delivered a product that doesn't break, and that doesn't need a ton of add-ons. Compared to them, MS has delivered the console equivalent of their OS, Blue Screens of Death and all.
...those 1 million people who pre-ordered didn't think Halo 2 was overrated. I trust Bungie to provide a game that will be worth $50-60 dollars. I don't think it will be the world's best game, but it will certainly be worth the money, for multiplayer anyway. People seem to think that it's all-or-nothing for the Halo series these days, and that's just not true. Get down from your thrones made out of Valve games, people. I'm pretty sure it's legal to buy a shooter for a console that isn't the worlds best game and NOT get struck down by lighting (or an AWP).
Tell me something...it's still "We, the people"... right?
This article on Slashdot is itself paid marketing.
I'm glad so many people are getting something they apparently really want. I never personally understood what the attraction to Halo is. Always seems so paper thin.
Look, Zonk is obviously being disingenuous to say there's been no marketing for Halo 3. It's unbelievably innaccurate.
But he skews it for a reason. Similarly, Sony is at fault for Rockstar screwing up, etc etc etc. He skews Sony for a reason, too.
Remember when the PC World editor quit because he was asked to be dishonest in favor of advertisers? Why would anyone assume that hasn't been attempted here too? Only difference is, no editor quit.
This is a fun little site, but it has squandered its journalistic independence for a quick buck. There was that story a year back that Microsoft had given Zonk all those gifts... I can't recall all of it, but he got that huge plasma... Isn't it a very unprofessional to accept payment like that and then repeatedly bash competitors?
Sony would do the same too, I'm sure, if they had gotten tot he apple first. It's not that I prefer one company to another, but as a gamer, I know that the last thing I want it Microsoft ruining this industry. Games need innovation. Microsoft wants to slow innovation so it can run periodic subscription based services and make its shareholders a hell of a lot of cash. It will ruin this industry if Microsoft wins (and frankly, nintendo isn't in the serious game industry right now, but hopefully will be later on, they are in the Mario rehash, kiddie, and casual industry). Serious gamers have only two current gen consoles to chose from, and I hope people understand how much better it would be for Sony to dominate.
Look at what happened when Sony dominated with the PSone and PS2. Games everywhere! Creativity! Rich programmers! It's not going to be like that if MS wins. It wasn't like that when Nintendo was winning (remember how third parties were only allowed to sell 5 games a year so Nintendo could establish a couple of big characters and maximize profit? Sony acts differently.)
Too bad the PS3 costs $1354134513451345. But we all know that it was better to be a PS2 owner than an original XBOX owner, and I'm pretty sure the same will be true this generation, though MS has Slashdot's help with marketing.
What the hell makes the guy above you a shill? That he doesn't like Halo? Are you insane? Is Slashdot just a place where everything that could possibly be construed as Sony support = Sony shill?
It's a terrible game! And the Beta isn't that far from the game itself. The beta was just marketing.
And Halo is decidedly going to be uglier and certainly going to offer last gen level online support. It has taken no creative departure at all from the last two games. Look at Metal Gear Solid. That game has taken interesting departures each generation. It's a shame this next game is limited to the PS3, because it's going to be well crafted and interesting (I'm sure in a few years at most it will be ported like everything else is).
There are better XBOX 360 games. The parent simply pointed out that this is a great example of idiots buying things they are told to buy. You see it movies and you see it in Music, hell Sony is likely far worse about this in the aggregate (I'm sure you think I'm a fucking shill for disagreeing with you paranoid ass). Halo just isn't an interesting game. All the points you give to Halo are either simply crap or exist in any decent FPS. Too bad you're drinking the Cool-Aid!
Steel Battalion for Xbox has more precise controls than MechAssault, but it also cost $200 when it came out.
This is a terrible analogy. Steel Battalion was so expensive because it had an elaborate custom controller. Like virtually all console games with custom controllers (Guitar Hero is a notable exception) it sold very poorly. This has little to do with how well the controller worked. Without exception, every fan of mech games (a la Mechwarrior) I've spoken to and every review I've read said that Steel Battalion's control was superior. By a very wide margin. Most mech game fans consider Mechassault to be "dumbed down" for the console (this is very accurate) and preferred Steel Batallion on the XBOX or Armored Core on the PS2.
However, I'll fully admit that PC combat sims (of which mech sims are a subgenre) are dying/dead. The same thing happened to PC adventure games. It's not the end of PC gaming.
Console gaming is much cheaper. I just spent $800 on a Dell PC that sucks at games (not Dell's fault; I'm not using it for games.) For $400 you can be set with an Xbox.
This depends on the position you're in. The typical bottlenecks in most cheap-ass $500 PCs you buy nowadays are video card (major) and memory (minor). A decent video card will cost you $150 and another 1GB of memory will cost you $50. So 500 + 150 + 50 = $700 gets you a decent gaming desktop. Decent gaming laptops still don't really exist.
So at $400 the 360 is clearly cheaper, unless you add in the cost of a High Definition TV. Realistically, a HDTV is going to cost you $750 for something small (Find one that's cheaper and I'll tell you what's wrong with it. A little bit of experience has taught me that cheap HDTVs are total shit). So if you want a good display, and don't already have a HDTV, that 360 will cost you $1150. And you can get a pretty good gaming PC for $1150.
Also, XBOX Live costs money. Most PC matching services for games are free, you only have to pay for a game that is third-party hosted on dedicated high bandwidth lines. It pisses me off a bit that MS charges $30 a month for online play and doesn't even bother to provide dedicated game servers.
You're also ignoring the fact that most people NEED a PC for all sorts of other tasks. Users who have an expensive console and DON'T have a PC or laptop are quite rare. I can only think of one person I know where this applies.
PC games are buggy as hell. Try playing Battlefield: 2142 and tell me with a straight face that the experience of PC FPS games is better than the experience of Xbox FPS games.
The BF2142 experience is better because it actually exists. The player cap is much higher than Halo or any other console game. There are more play types. I don't play BF2142 much, but I liked it better than Halo (on the PC) for multiplayer. The "floating fortress" levels are bad ass. PC users are willing to sacrifice a bit of convenience to be on the cutting edge.
And most of the bugs you're talking about are Vista-specific, BF2142 was released long before Vista and wasn't tested on it. It's like complaining that games written for the XBOX are buggy on the XBOX360 (Oh wait, they are!).
doesn't work on widescreen monitors
This isn't true. You can set an arbitrary res in the ini files. At least you could in BF2.
Halo 2, and other Xbox FPS games have a small fraction of the experience-ruining bugs of PC games.
You might not be be aware of this, but exhaustive QA of console games is now largely a thing of the past for various reasons, mainly the greatly increased complexity of games and the cost of development (particularly staff). This means that QA is much briefer than it used to be and is occasionally outsourced to idiots (I'm looking at you EA). There are PS2 and XBOX games that shipped with showstopping bugs (Front Mission 4 and KOTOR 2 come to mind). XBOX360 games typically have almost as many patches as PC games (the PS3 seems to have
So if you want a good display, and don't already have a HDTV, that 360 will cost you $1150. And you can get a pretty good gaming PC for $1150.
Oh yeah, I forgot that computer monitors are all free now. (Apples to apples, please!)
The BF2142 experience is better because it actually exists. The player cap is much higher than Halo or any other console game.
True for an FPS, given.
There are more play types.
There are two play types. "Conquest" and "Titan." Unreal Tournament had more play types when it came out. Hell, Tribes 1 in 1997 (the game BF2142 is 'inspired' from) had more play types.
I don't play BF2142 much, but I liked it better than Halo (on the PC) for multiplayer.
Except Halo PC multiplayer actually worked. You weren't randomly booted from servers for no reason. It didn't require Admin access to play a game. There weren't any exploits that let the enemy commander throw artillery barrages every 10 seconds. The buddy list actually worked all the time. It didn't crash every hour or so.
In short, Halo falls firmly into the "it works" category while BF2142 falls firmly into the "it sometimes works a little bit if you look at it just right" category.
Maybe you don't care at all about quality; that's fine. But I think that most people do, and I think that the vast majority of people you talk to about BF2142 will complain about the bugs.
In any case, BF2142's bugginess is unacceptable simply because Battlefield 2 was a polished game with very few or no play-affecting bugs in it.
The "floating fortress" levels are bad ass.
Yeah; they were in 1997, too, when Tribes 1 did it.
PC users are willing to sacrifice a bit of convenience to be on the cutting edge.
By "cutting edge" you mean "what Tribes did in 1997, except buggier" I suppose.
But we're not talking about convenience here. We're talking about bugs that affect the security of my computer (a internet-capable app that performs no administrative tasks yet requires administrative access), we're talking about bugs that make it simply impossible for some of their customers to actually play the game (the punkbuster issue.)
An inconvenience is "the buddy list is sometimes out of date." If that was the only problem, I could accept it. But it's not, and EA/Dice need to be taken to task about how shitty their product is. PC users don't take them to task; console users would never accept a product this shitty.
Comment of the year
Sorry, I know I already replied, but I missed a few points.
;)
.ini file, or how to change the desktop shortcut like most users, you'd be screwed. (Wait, why are they using an .ini file in 2006 anyway? Those were obsolete a decade ago!)
(How many indie games are made for consoles? That's right, ZERO)
WHA!? How do you define "indie game?" You're seriously telling me that, say, Marble Blast Ultra on Xbox Live Arcade isn't an "indie game?" Or that Outpost Kaloki isn't an "indie game?"
Methinks you're defining "indie game" as "game not on consoles." Because otherwise, you're either extremely ignorant of Xbox Live Arcade or a blatant liar.
Players of FPS's (at least since Quake) have always wanted to be on the cutting edge of gaming tech, and the cutting edge is PCs.
I'm not saying that people don't want to be on the cutting edge. I'm saying people don't want shitty quality games. In fact, I never said anything about the cutting edge, you brought that up. (And then claimed BF2142, a game almost entire ripped-off of 1997's Tribes was cutting edge!)
If you don't think the annoyances exist on consoles, you're a little inexperienced. Some PS2 titles don't work on the slim PSTwo due to copy protection issues. Ditto for certain XBOX games.
I'm pretty sure no Xbox games work in the slim PSTwo.
This is one of the big reasons I modded my PS2 and XBOX. To load games off the hard drives. If I couldn't get the same functionality out of a XBOX360 (I can) I wouldn't even consider buying one.
You can't play games off the HD on PC, either. They all require the disk in the drive.
And achievements and rankings on XBOX Live can get you Marketplace Points AKA MONEY. Let me repeat that. On XBOX Live you get MONEY for cheating. This provides a much stronger incentive.
Uh, link?
You don't get marketplace points for achievements or rankings on Xbox Live. I've never heard of this before.
And most of the bugs you're talking about are Vista-specific, BF2142 was released long before Vista and wasn't tested on it. It's like complaining that games written for the XBOX are buggy on the XBOX360 (Oh wait, they are!).
One of the supposed "advantages" of PC gaming is that patching games is easier. I don't think it's unreasonable to get at least 1 OS upgrade's worth of support for BF2142 via a patch. Tribes was supported for years after it was released, as was Starcraft and a bunch of other games. I'm not giving EA/Dice a pass on this one: they knew Vista was coming, they should have dedicated resources to it.
(And most of the Vista problems were also problems on XP, for example, running as admin. The only difference is that Vista is more strict in demanding that applications be correct.)
Yes, some games for original Xbox are buggy on the Xbox 360. This doesn't give EA/Dice a pass either.
doesn't work on widescreen monitors
This isn't true. You can set an arbitrary res in the ini files. At least you could in BF2.
Yes you can actually set an arbitrary res in the program shortcut on the commandline. But:
1) EA Support tells you that the game doesn't support widescreen monitors. I can email you my transcript with them if you're interested.
2) The game UI doesn't have any widescreen resolutions listed, so if you didn't know how to change a
And while 1680x1050 actually does "work" if you know how to change the shortcut, it doesn't "work" in that it obviously wasn't tested. Some of the fonts and icons are ridiculously small at that resolution and nearly impossible to make out/target.
Comment of the year