I fail to see why this is ridiculous? After all, I have bought and paid for a product, even one which may still be available in stores, bargain bins, Steam or something, and then the developer decides to not support a major component of said product?
What about you purchasing a car, and after 4 years, the car vendor simply stops producing spare parts for your car, because you can upgrade to a new car instead.
If you do this, release the dedicated servers, and let the community decide when the game should die, and not some execs that have slapped a II on a new title, and desperately want's to sell you a spit-polished version of a game you already own.
What started as the Team Fortress 2 nonsense store which allowed the purchasing of hats in a first person shooter(!), has progressed to a total overhaul of how Valve sell their products. Portal 2 is now fast becoming the flagship example, with, wiat for it, hats available for purchase, along with little flags and such. DLC
Those items are pure vanity items, they make no difference ingame whatsoever, so why would that piss you off so much?
If you don't want a fancy new hat, a little flag, or a new lo-5 gesture, then just don't buy one, and the core game experience will be exactly the same for you and the guy that bought the all-content pack.
While I absolutely agree on paying-for-skills is a bad idea, I have no problems with someone paying 10$ for a new hat, if they want to stand out from the crowd wearing that, and I can't really understand why that would annoy you in any way.
If people are willing to pay, then let them, gives Valve more money to get Ep 3 done:)
It would be stupid of Steam not to support paid DLC on their distribution platform, as their corporate users are requesting paid DLC, and if you are referring to XBL content, the only reason it costs money there is because of the platform owner, Microsoft, not because Valve chose to take money for it.
More than 10 years ago I had a coworker that suffered from RSS from mouse-use, and she got a piece of hardware that is more or less the spitting image of this device.
Mass Effect 1s UI was extremely console-centric, very large text, only list a few items, no way to group items together, and with the abundance of drops in that game, it was just horrible and annoying.
I think by shard, what is meant is world instance, not physical server, and Eve is only one shard.
Being in another starsystem (and thus, located on another physical server), you can still interact with players in other starsystems, even across the galaxy.
And, the system can move starsystems around between physical servers, so if there is an influx of players in an otherwise empty system, it will be moved to a larger server, to better handle the load.
Ofcourse, every server has its limits, just like with any MMO, and when you reach peak (which, with the "new" stackless IO, is well above 1000 players), there will be lag, ofcourse.
How come that 50$ for "a few days of stupid RTS fun" is unreasonable, but 10-12$ for two hours of cinema-fun is ok?
Or 20$ for 30 minutes of eating-out fun?
I really don't know where this opposition to paying for games comes from, a 50$ game that provides 10 hours of gaming, equals to 5$/hr for a fun ride, which really isn't all that expensive. (And most games provide more than 10 hours of entertainment)
As a result, for most (all?) games on Steam it is now cheaper to buy them in brick-and-mortar stores, and you get a box too!
This is actually not new behaviour.
Before the change, some of the larger AAA titles were cheaper to buy in a brick and mortar store also, this has just made it true for most, if not all, games on Steam.
I love Steam, its easy, clean and "Just Works"(TM), but, I will not be paying a significant markup, just because Valve have decided to make a 1:1 conversion rate, where the rest of the world have not.
Kotaku have run a story on how long Sony and MS respetively took approving an update, and average was about a week. (Which was probably rushed with this, as I think they consider L4D quite a premium title at this time)
So, my guess is that The Behemoth simply can't fix the bugs, and are using MS as an excuse.
And yes, I an not very pleased with the very long time this has taken.
As soon as I read that, I put Castle Crashers on the shelf, because I didn't want to risk savegame corruption and the like, and I must admit that I have more or less lost interest in the game by now:(
Now they're screwing him over, and he'll never buy from them again.
Nice thought, never gonna happen. Look at all the uproar over DRM in recent EA titles, and yet, the games have sold like hotcakes, as have other EA titles, even though the community as a hole have stated "WE DON'T WANT THAT, WE'RE NOT GONNA BUY!"
Problem is, everybody thinks that everyone else will stop buying, and therefore purchases it themselves, "'cause a single copy isn't going to matter"
Slashdot Mirror
One time validation and offline play != Always on, always validating
Just to set things straight
I fail to see why this is ridiculous? After all, I have bought and paid for a product, even one which may still be available in stores, bargain bins, Steam or something, and then the developer decides to not support a major component of said product?
What about you purchasing a car, and after 4 years, the car vendor simply stops producing spare parts for your car, because you can upgrade to a new car instead.
If you do this, release the dedicated servers, and let the community decide when the game should die, and not some execs that have slapped a II on a new title, and desperately want's to sell you a spit-polished version of a game you already own.
Creating bitcoins with a GPU based miner is a LOT more effective than CPU bound miners.
I'm getting ~4000 on a 4-core HT machine, and in excess of 140k on a 580GTX
What started as the Team Fortress 2 nonsense store which allowed the purchasing of hats in a first person shooter(!), has progressed to a total overhaul of how Valve sell their products. Portal 2 is now fast becoming the flagship example, with, wiat for it, hats available for purchase, along with little flags and such. DLC
Those items are pure vanity items, they make no difference ingame whatsoever, so why would that piss you off so much?
If you don't want a fancy new hat, a little flag, or a new lo-5 gesture, then just don't buy one, and the core game experience will be exactly the same for you and the guy that bought the all-content pack.
While I absolutely agree on paying-for-skills is a bad idea, I have no problems with someone paying 10$ for a new hat, if they want to stand out from the crowd wearing that, and I can't really understand why that would annoy you in any way.
If people are willing to pay, then let them, gives Valve more money to get Ep 3 done :)
What Valve games have paid DLC?
It would be stupid of Steam not to support paid DLC on their distribution platform, as their corporate users are requesting paid DLC, and if you are referring to XBL content, the only reason it costs money there is because of the platform owner, Microsoft, not because Valve chose to take money for it.
If I had mod points, they would go here!
On the other hand, a firmware update on a 360, or a game download, takes a couple of minutes .. On a PS3, it can take 30 minutes easy for a FW update.
And games or patch downloads ...
AMEN!
Get Uranus to Mars!
So, the fact that the MW2 developers aren't doing their job right, is somehow suddenly GeoHots fault?
More than 10 years ago I had a coworker that suffered from RSS from mouse-use, and she got a piece of hardware that is more or less the spitting image of this device.
Slashvertisement, anyone?
Ancient Greece?
Mass Effect 1s UI was extremely console-centric, very large text, only list a few items, no way to group items together, and with the abundance of drops in that game, it was just horrible and annoying.
It IS a beta, you know :)
Think Brian from Family Guy, and the Star Trek episode.
Cool Whip :)
Have you even looked in the client?
Files\Settings\Interface\Run Steam when Windows starts
Remove the little checkmark, and that problem should be dealt with. :)
Or theres a PDF of it in the games folder placed inside the Steam install folder.
I think by shard, what is meant is world instance, not physical server, and Eve is only one shard.
Being in another starsystem (and thus, located on another physical server), you can still interact with players in other starsystems, even across the galaxy.
And, the system can move starsystems around between physical servers, so if there is an influx of players in an otherwise empty system, it will be moved to a larger server, to better handle the load.
Ofcourse, every server has its limits, just like with any MMO, and when you reach peak (which, with the "new" stackless IO, is well above 1000 players), there will be lag, ofcourse.
How come that 50$ for "a few days of stupid RTS fun" is unreasonable, but 10-12$ for two hours of cinema-fun is ok?
Or 20$ for 30 minutes of eating-out fun?
I really don't know where this opposition to paying for games comes from, a 50$ game that provides 10 hours of gaming, equals to 5$/hr for a fun ride, which really isn't all that expensive. (And most games provide more than 10 hours of entertainment)
Man, first game I ever owned on CD, real video, amazing graphics.
What a great addition to a great piece of software, and, goodbye weekend :)
Name the bugs then. I've played hundreds of hours of this game and experienced no crashes.
While I haven't had any really showstopping bugs, the game has crashed on me 4-5 times in my 70 hours of playtime.
Nothing critical though, just close it down and restart, and you're good to go.
As a result, for most (all?) games on Steam it is now cheaper to buy them in brick-and-mortar stores, and you get a box too!
This is actually not new behaviour.
Before the change, some of the larger AAA titles were cheaper to buy in a brick and mortar store also, this has just made it true for most, if not all, games on Steam.
I love Steam, its easy, clean and "Just Works"(TM), but, I will not be paying a significant markup, just because Valve have decided to make a 1:1 conversion rate, where the rest of the world have not.
Its just sad, really
Yes, makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Kotaku have run a story on how long Sony and MS respetively took approving an update, and average was about a week. (Which was probably rushed with this, as I think they consider L4D quite a premium title at this time)
So, my guess is that The Behemoth simply can't fix the bugs, and are using MS as an excuse.
And yes, I an not very pleased with the very long time this has taken.
As soon as I read that, I put Castle Crashers on the shelf, because I didn't want to risk savegame corruption and the like, and I must admit that I have more or less lost interest in the game by now :(
PS3 games are always region-free, on the 360 some are, some aren't, and I am not really sure how or who selects which are.
Now they're screwing him over, and he'll never buy from them again.
Nice thought, never gonna happen. Look at all the uproar over DRM in recent EA titles, and yet, the games have sold like hotcakes, as have other EA titles, even though the community as a hole have stated "WE DON'T WANT THAT, WE'RE NOT GONNA BUY!"
Problem is, everybody thinks that everyone else will stop buying, and therefore purchases it themselves, "'cause a single copy isn't going to matter"