I think it's just a "twisted" way of looking at what's REALLY happenning and put it in the worst negative view possible for the customers / gamers.
XBOX magazine is loosing in sales. All gaming magazines are. So they decide to put XBOX magazine on Live, which makes sense. Download your issue through Live. Now you'll have to pay a small fee to get the magazine, just as you do now for the "paper" version. All of that is understandable.
XBOX magazine included a disc with trailers and Demos. Some of these demos were exclusive, just like it's "paper" counterpart. When you buy your magazine over xbox live, you're going to get the same demos and trailers you would have if you bought the "paper" version.
So really what's changing from what's available now besides the format of delivery of the magazine?
Saying: "now you will have to PAY for demos" is just a way to make a "splash" for journalists. You don't PAY for demos, you pay for the magazine. If you bought the magazine only for the demos, then what's really different? You already paid for the demos and you'll still pay for them.
And guess what? the xbox live version of the magazine looks to be much cheaper than it'S paper version.
So what are people exactly complaining about? I mean, outside those who have fallen for the journalists trap into making them think that the intention was to BEGIN making them pay for demos, when in all reality nothing has changed with the magazine but the method of distribution?
I WAS a PC FPS player that "converted" to console FPS. I'll try to answer you with a few answers:
Because some people prefer to play on a couch than in front of their TV? I spend all my day at work in front of a computer. The last thing i want to do when i get home is to "play" on a computer. I want the living room. I want a console.
I could also argue that on a console, voice-chat is predominant, where on PC, people still "mostly" type their conversations over most games. This makes it hard to play team-based FPS.
I could also argue that i never could get into the fact that with the "ubber" mouse/keyboard, people are able to run, jump over an obstacle, turn around 180 degrees and make an head-shot to their opponent that is 3 meters aways from them with a sniper rifle. I heard PC gamers say to me: "it takes REAL skill to do thing like that". To which i answer: "This game sucks if it even ALLOWS to do that. Snipers should position themselves, slowly bring their scope and fire when they feel confident enough to hit someone. Not use the sniper as an assault rifle..." On consoles dual-analogs, you just CAN'T do that. You need to take more careful aim with a sniper, which to me is better. You also CAN'T turn 180 degrees at speeds that are faster than what is possible to do with a human body. For me, consoles FPS are a tad more "realistic" than PC FPS because of that. It means a bit less emphasis on "l33t skilz" and more on actual tactical and positioning thinking. What's the point of being able to creep behind an ennemy, outmaneuver him, unload tons of bullets with a submachine gun, if he can just turn 180 degrees around in a flash and kill you with a head shot with a sniper? Of course, one might argue that he's just "better" and should win, but when mastery of controls takes precedence over careful planning (to an extent), that's where i change my allegiance to a platform that benifits more my tastes.
I could also argue that a gamepad is more "fluid" for a video game altogether than having to use the "WASD" key, which arn't even aligned properly on most keyboards. Or that you need to "lift" your mouse to re-center it which is just a distraction from the video game experience itself.
Last year, they reported loss of around 2 billions.
This year, it's 1.89.
You have to remember though, that on that 1.89, around 1.2 was spend for extending the warranty to three years. They have purposefully included that 1.2 in this year's budget instead of "spending" it as repairs come. In short, MOST of that 1.89 havn't been spend yet.
Their "loss" passed from around 2,000,000,000$, to around 700,000,000$ in a single year.
Add into that the fact that this 1.89 billion losses is accountable for ALL "entertainment" platforms. The loss operated by the Zune and other such things are ALSO counted in it. This is NOT only the losses for the 360. Counting that, the 360 itself may be very close to breaking even.
So i think they are right when they say that they are doing "fine" even if they reported losses of 1.89 billions.
With Halo 3, Mass Effect, Halo Wars and other such "anticipated" titles coming out, i beleive that next year, they WILL break even and start to turn in a profit. At least their 360 division will, if not their music and movies...
Why shouldn't I just get a 60GB PS3 for $500, then swap the default hard drive with a larger hard drive if the 60GB ever gets filled up?
Because the 60GB PS3 will no longer be available. When they are sold out, they won't make them anymore, like TFA says. You won't find a PS3 for "only" 500$, you'll HAVE to fork money for the extra 20GB and Motorstorm and forget the fact that you have less BC.
Because it's "internal" by your definition, no one should speak the word?
It's not as if you have to be a member of the selective "internal retail outlets and distributors" club in order to be able to understand and speak the "SKU" word.
Everyone understands what a SKU is, therefore the word HAS meaning outside the limited use you want to give it.
"Two PS3 models" is the same as saying "Two PS3 SKUS" as they are effectively a different product.
Sony "The price cut is going to end when the stock runs out!"
Customers "OMG LETS BUY THEM QUICK!"
Later...
Sony "The stock has been all sold. We are now dropping the price of the 80Gb model."
I'll just say that you ASSUME there will be a price cut on the 80Gb model when the 60 are gone. People can expect it, but Sony has done little to make them trustworthy of anything. A week ago, people rejoice about a general price cut. Now people are not even sure the price cut will last. Should we really have trusted them in the first place to say there was a price cut?
In this case Sony is toying with it's customers minds, which they don't like. Do you trully want to buy a "lesser" 60Gb PS3 right now or wait until the 80Gb and an "assumed" price-drop for it near the end of the year that may never come? Toss a coin and make your decision. Nothing like "gambling" your money and entertainment time because you're in the dark about a product.
The fact that they removed BC compatibility (to an extent) doesn't help things either. I will make a prediction that you will see TONS of those in PS3 forums:
Topic: Game XYZ does not seem to work in my PS3. Topic: Game ABC crashes frequently. Topic: Bug in emulator for game FGH.
Look at the emulation scene on the 360 and it's complaints. The same exact model is being adopted by Sony for it's PS3. The things is that they announced that model over 2 years ago and they said that the EE engine being in the PS3 was only temporary, but it still is annoying that they are removing features from their console after launch.
People here are not going to like what i am about to say, cause i have a 100% different opinion than almost everybody here regarding Vista.
Everytime Microsoft releases a new OS, we hear the same song.
When Win95 was released, people complained to no end because it had problems, DOS was more stable, Win 3.1 was better, etc.
When XP was released, people complained again. They didn't upgrade to XP. People (read: most people) changed their OS to XP only when they bought a new computer that came installed with it.
With XP, i clearly remember people complaining that menus were not in the same place, the interface was annoying, that it was exhaustive on PC resources, that some older devices were no longer working properly (between the NT/2000/XP and 95/98/ME branch, for most people who switched), etc.
Now Vista. People complain about the interface is annoying, that menus are not in the same place and that it's exhaustive on PC resource, that some devices are no longer working properly... Feel similar?
Changing OS is never troubleless. But you know what? All of this was obvious from the very beginning. - This OS was obviously going to take more resource on the PC. It wouldn't make much sense if it was LESS than XP. Stuff evolves on computers and they take more resource everytime. Guess what, each new version of KDE released ALSO takes more resources on your PC.
- Some menus were going to change place. This was obvious also. Guess what, each new version of KDE changes some menus also. The extent of the changes may vary, but change is to be expected. Vista didn't change most menus anyway, and you still have your "classic" interface available that looks very close to what was seen in Win 95/NT.
- Device no longer working. Microsoft warned people over 3 years ago about that. Seriously. When you change OS, expect some device to stop working. It's annoying, but it's to be expected. Switch to Linux, THEN tell me if all your devices are working properly. The only way to be 100% sure you won't have any problems with devices is to buy a PC built with Vista installed.
- People complained incessantly about security in Win XP. What can you do against security "holes"? 1) fix OS vulnerability. 2) prevent people from doing harmful tasks. Microsoft did BOTH. They didn't fix ALL of the vulnerabilities, as it is virtually impossible. But they tried to prevent people from doing idiotic stuff. If they prevented it by "forcing" the user, then he would have complained he cannot do what he wants (i can't install by nudie-girl taskbar "enhancement" in the file called: "nud_girl_vir_us.exe". Vista sucks because of it!!!). What do you do? Well you give him a warning.
I use Linux everyday at work. Linux IS NOT yet at the level for most consumers. Far from it in fact. If you complain that Vista is too hard to get or teach to someone (as some have suggested), you havn't tried to teach Linux to the same people. Yes it's different than XP, but please stop complaining about the change.
In a few years, i expect all the complainers here to start saying: "Vista was more stable, better structured and a better overall OS than Windows super-vista-XP that was recently released".
And definitely NO. The amount of complaints i hear about Vista isn't "WAY more" than what i heard about XP when it was first released, or Win 95 for that matter (the major steps of changes in Microsoft OS).
Am i the only one who thinks that the flashlight that was independant from the gun actually improved the atmosphere of the game?
Sure, it made next to no sense that you couldn't have a flashlight at the same time as your gun. But gameplay-wise, it meant that you either were *almost* in the dark with your guns, when ennemies could surprise you at any turn, or actually see them before they jumped on you, but being defenseless for a few seconds while taking out your gun.
I find that most people who hated Doom would have liked to have a massive action-oriented slugfest like the first 2, where they decided to go with a more "scarry" approach.
I'm no U.S. law expert, but I thought that Microsoft gained something like 20% shares of Immersion during their agreement too. If so, Microsoft should be entitled to part of the settlement between Immersion and Sony... This settlement becomes "profits" for Immersion to which Microsoft is entitled an amount at LEAST based on their number of shares.
But for HD movies, HD-DVD players are way cheaper than a PS3 (which is in turn cheaper than a BluRay player, like you said).
Why buy a PS3 for BluRay if i can have HD-DVD for less?
It's not as if any of those two formats has already become a, and i use the term loosely, "winner".
The, again i use the next term loosely, "smart" people buy their HD movies in digital, downloadable format through various online marketplaces. That way, no matter if a format fails or is discontinued, they will still be able to watch their movies 100 years from now.
For those like me that are going on the 3rd option, the downloadable option, the PS3 as a BluRay player fails completely. Currently, the PS3 also fails as a gaming machine. Aside from what? 2 or 3 "noteworthy" games, all can be found on other platforms, most of the time with critics saying it's slightly better on the "other" platforms...
So if it fails as an "HD" movies player AND it "currently" fails as a gaming platform AND is the most expansive console out there, is it a wonder why it's not going as strong as the Wii (or the 360)?
1) Bring games quick, before 2008 (tons of games). 2) Bring an HD movies online marketplace (movies that can be used on other things than just the PS3 as there's no point in having a movie in digital format you can only play in one place). 3) Lower the cost.
Graphics DO matter, a lot more than people want to admit.
I beleive that the formulae Gameplay > Graphics you make (as well as tons of people) is fundamentaly wrong.
Graphics is a different variable than Gameplay and cannot be compared directly. It's like saying an apple is more important than the apple tree... They are both needed to enjoy your fruit. If the tree is better and bigger, you'll have more apples, hence more gustative enjoyment.
See the correct formulae is closer to this: (Gameplay + Graphics) > (Gameplay) Graphics is actually a gameplay "enhancer". It is "part of" what makes gameplay, it's not a completely separate element (Gameplay = Controls + Sounds + Graphics +...).
Exemple: A computer backgammon game is actually more fun in HD, with SVGA colors, than an old backgammon one, made in 4-colors CGA, directly from the early 1980s, even if they both have the same engine at their core.
However, if graphics are so bad in a game (that it turns into a mathematical negative), then the same formulae will also apply, but the "better than" will logically turn into it's opposite: (Gameplay + (-Graphics)) (Gameplay)
Exemple: A game might come out today that has the biggest gameplay ever seen in a game. So much that you can do anything you can imagine in it. The game is really really good. However, the game was made using the original Wolfenstein 3D engine. Result: next to no one will play it. Most people will actually have more fun with the latest game, even if it's gameplay is overall less inspired and less good.
Which is why the Wii trully has a downside to it. My take is that currently, most people's standard over graphics quality for Wii titles hasn't gone into the negative as to detriment to the gameplay. As more and more people are exposed to HD television standards and the 360/PS3 quality of imagery, people will start to look at Wii titles and have "less" interest in them. The extent of the "less" is actually debatable. It might not be enough for the common people to make the Wii less fun than a 360/PS3.
"A delayed game is eventually good; a bad game is forever."
I can prove that this quote is NOT true with one word:
"Daikatana"
The game was delayed for more than 2 years and we got a really bad one. The game was so delayed, the technological foundation on which it was based was outdated when it was finally released.
Sega WAS innovative. Their downfall had nothing to do with lack of hardware innovation.
Look at the ill-fated DreamCast: - First console with online gaming (included out-of-the box a 55k modem) - First console with an online browser. - The memory units ("VMU") with screen, d-pad and 2-buttons, allowign for mini-games and file sharing between VMUs. Provided feedback from the game in your controller. - Dual ports for memory cards on each controller.
Coming from an ecology based formation at the university, i have learned some principles of ecological research.
The first thing that needs to be understood is that ecology "scientists" need funding for their research (which is more often than not government-funded).
They NEED their research to make an impact in order to receive further funding for more research.
In ecology, you never have an "absolute numerical value" to your results. You will obtain a "range" of values, the minimal of that range being the "best-case scenario" and the maximum "the worst-case scenario".
Now in a research, you always "summarize" your results in the intro and/or in the conclusion of your report. In ecology, the "summary" always ONLY include the worst case scenarios. Remember that they need to create an impact. Saying "all is normal" won't grant them further funding for additional researchs. In a sense, it even put their work as "useless".
It's the reason why today, we are hearing a lot less about the "ozone layer". In the 80s and early 90s, the problem was on the news everywhere all the time. Now we barelly even hear about it. See, the ozone layer is currently slowly re-building according to other researchs. Scientists gave the worst case scenario and what has been observed by others comes down to the fact that the problem wasn't as big as observed.
I strongly suspect the same thing with the green-house effect and rising temperatures. When a day is anormaly high (even if not even record-breaking) or if there are a higher number of typhoons and tornados (even if not record breaking) media are quick to "blame it on rising temperatures". It's the ecological disaster of the decade... it's shocking... it's what the media wants, it's what the reserchers want as it's basically a ticket to funding.
Now comes another researcher that looks at it from a different perspective and comes to the conclusion that the worst case scenario is improbable and tends on the other side of the spectrum, where the "problem" is actually normal climate variation in the long term. His views contradict the majority of other reserchers and invalidates some of what they are saying. If they can't discredit his methodology, they'll discredit his research itself. Fail that, they will discredit the researcher himself.
I've read multiple catastrophe-scenarios over a number of ecological studies.
- In the 80s, i've read that if we continued to cut down trees at the speed we were doing, that no more trees would exist on the planet by 2010. It won't be the case. - I've read in older studies that no petrolum would exist in the world by 2005. It was not the case. - I've read that California would dissapear by 2000 from earthquakes. Did not happen. - I've read that New York will be submerged by rising sea water by 2020. I doubt it will be the case.
There IS a problem with rising temperatures. The problem however is NOT what you are led to beleive by ecologists.
The lesson i've learned when listening to ecologists and catastrophe scenarios is: Take their numbers, divide by 3 to 4, make an approximation of what the REAL problem is.
The lack of drinkable water in some countries (even the U.S. is lacking in some of it's regions) is a more urgent problem than rising temperatures. But it isn't as popular, hence it does not bring enough money...
Think about it, Specialists in hydrology, climatology, ecology, oceanology, geology and almost all the other "...gy" discipline can gain funding if their researchs include "rising temperatures" in them.
Conclusion, I don't know anything about this particular researcher or his studies. But he has raised an interesting point: you CAN be placed aside, discredited and have your funding CUT if you go against the ideas of the majority of other researchers.
Just the same, the company is now charging for services normally taken for granted as a freebie on the PC platform.
What you had that was free will still be free. Battle.net will still exist. All the other "services" you used will still exist.`
The only thing that will change is those "Games for Windows" games that will plug-in to the unified service of Live. THAT wasn't available before. The service is a LOT more than just "matchmaking for online games", which is what the old free services were.
...hence the cost, but not for what people already had. It's for "new" stuff.
Personally, i'm just glad it will give people a "fixed" online identity. There is less incentive to act like jerks and hack/cheat in your online games if it's going to have repercussions on ALL of your gaming experience in every "games for windows" games.
Case in point:
- Phantasy Star Universe for PS2 and PC: hacked to death and no longer fun.
- Phantasy Star Universe for 360 under Live: still viable as "hacking" is less found on it.
With games of the caliber of GoW, it's a tad more complex than that, unfortunately.
Ever thought why Halo 1 on PC required PC specs that were more than double the hardware of the original XBOX on which it also ran? The XBOX was very similar to a regular PC, so just recompiling the whole thing should have just worked right?
Merely "recompiling" won't do a good game. You have to redo the controls, adjust the sensitivity of the aim for mouse/keyboard AND change the way graphics are displayed.
Yes, the Unreal engine 3 does a bunch of stuff, but the game uses the parts of the engine that works easilly on the 360. For example, this specific game may use a graphic processing element (lighting, shadow effect for example) that is built into the video card of the 360 but that is absent from half the video cards on PC. To take those cards into account, you'll need to "emulate" the effect through the main processor, requiring huge PCs.
So unless you want your users to require a PC that cost over 10000$ to run GoW on PC, you'll need to optimize the graphic code of the game itself for that platform. The instructions you need from the engine will have to change, as well as tons of other stuff regarding controls and whatnots...
If it were that easy as a mere recompile, they would already have brought it to PC, or at least announced it.
For the "hardcore" gamer, for whom gaming is the primary form of recreation, the quality of the experience is the main deciding factor.
So by your logic, only PC gamers can be considered "hardcore"?
I know it's probably not what you meant, but my personnal opinion is that for hardcore gamers, the platform is secondary to the games themselves.
One must not confuse a fanboy with a hardcore gamer. They are two concepts.
My personal opinion is that PC offer less quality graphics than consoles and have been for ages now. No i am not completely dumb.
In their quest to output the highest resolution possible, the PC games have ommited to actually put any graphics in them. Take Dead or Alive 3 for the original XBOX bak in 2001. The game could still come out today and not be too dated in it's graphics. The game has low resolution, but they use all the extra processing from not having to use high resolution to actually add graphic elements in the game. On an SDTV (which blurs pixels out), the game was breathtaking. It was prettier than anything we could see on a PC monitor at the time. PC kept outputting high resolutions, but to put a forest in a game, we had to imagine that 2 or 3 trees were indeed a "forest".
Give me lower resolutions, but with actual content.
As another example, take the current gen of the PS3 and the 360. People keep saying that "graphics are not that big of a leap beyond the older gen". Well it's only because the only thing they could really add was resolution. I'd rather they have kept the old 480p resolution and kept the processing power to add actual content in games. A forest would be made of hundreds of trees, all visible at once. Now, our forest will be kept at 7 or 8 at a time, with a poor draw distance (see Oblivion with big lush forest of only 7 or 8 trees at a time).
I have an HDTV with a 360 at home. Games are indeed very pretty. Still i'd rather they had focused on content than high resolution games.
But basing your selection of gaming platforms exclusively on cost efficiency is, well, dumb.
Why is it dumb? I think it's the number one reason why people buy consoles over PC gaming. Why exactly is it dumb to be cost efficient? I much prefer to spend 2000$ on a console and 30+ games than the latest gaming PC with no games (if my goal is to play games.)
I also much prefer to buy a used computer for word processing and internet browsing for 300$ and a game console for 600$ and 1100$ on games than buy the latest gaming PC for 2000$.
As for the other comment. I don't agree with you.
PC gaming is stale. There only have been a small handful of games released since last october.
There is a ratio of near 3 games for every console for 1 game on PC.
Yes that number came from my a**, but looking at the lists of games that came out and removing those reviewed with scores below 5.0/10 and the downloadable only games [with lower production value], i'm forced to come at that conclusion. In fact i've gotten the conclusion that the number of PC games is way less than for any other gaming platforms a LONG time ago.
So you upgraded your video card for 600$ this year. Next year, it's your CPU. The year after, your RAM. Then your OS. Then your video card again, since it's been 4 years. But wait, this year the video cards have a new plug called the AGPsuperduperconnector2. You have to change your motherboard to use it. And your RAM you bought 2 years ago because it changed along the way too. And by the way, your PC case and power supply also needs to be changed since your new motherboard requires a different case to fit everything in. This new motherboard also requires a new harddrive plug. So you have to change that too.
This scenario happened to me twice in my life as a PC gamer. First time, the RAM changed and i couldn't upgrade using my old format, requiring me to change my motherboard, the case and power supply. The second time, it was the processor. My motherboard couldn't handle it, again. I had to change the motherboard 2 years after i bought my last one, with again, a new power supply.
At those points, you can just figure out that you can sell your entire PC and buy a new one.
Bottom line, i ended up spending an average of 400$ per year on a gaming PC. It was about the time i realize that the gaming market was focusing more on console that i also realized that it's better to spend 600$ (console + extra controllers + memory cards) every 4/5 years than 400$ every year.
It's my hope that Vista with it's "games for Windows" program can finally save the PC as a gaming platform. I got tired of RTS and "Sims/tycoon" games a long time ago with StarCraft and Sim City 2000. It seems like the only thing i cannot find on consoles that are on PC are only the RTS and "Sims/tycoon" games. On the other hand, on the consoles, i've got fighting, platforms, racing, sports and more RPGs in general. That and several more games in general.
The console gaming-world evolves with games more faster than the PC world too. For example: Splinter Cell: Double Agent is still a "new" title in most gaming stores for PC as nothing really has come after that but a WoW expansion, and re-release of old games in compilation form. On consoles, Splinter Cell: Double Agent is an old title. Tons of games have came out since it was released (at the same time as the PC version), it's actually buried behind the other newer titles.... this was my personal opinion and partial explanation of why i don't play PC games anymore.
More on topic, As for the Oblivion PC VS 360 VS PS3 debate? Why is there even a debate?:
- PC gamers prefer to play with mods and other whatnots. - 360 players have got their addictive achievements. - PS3 will have a bit better graphics for having to wait an extra year.
Really, who cares? So, for THIS game, the PS3 version will be the better one graphically (if you exclude PC). What does this ACTUALLY prove? That the PS3 is better than the 360 overall based on that one game?
Really, the only one who seems to care are: 1) the fanboys. PS fans trying to prove the PS3 is better than the 360, the 360 fans trying to argue incessantly that the PS3 version is better because they had a year more of development to perfect it and the PC fans trying to argue that "PC will always be better". 2) The gaming magazines and websites, trying to attract more "hits" by throwing munitions to one side or the other of the fanboys "war of systems".
Sometimes, i think that the fans care more about their "hateful rival gaming platform" than the gaming hardware manufacturers themselves.
Anybody ever thought that Nintendo would be happy with their sales even if they wern't the #1 gaming console in the world according to the charts?
Anybody ever thought that Microsoft only intends for their 360 to be an extension and a "terminal" to their online service that you can also access with Vista and the Zune? That they might be satisfied to have sold not necessarilly the most consoles, but ju
What sells is not wether it's original or a tried formulae. What sells is good marketting and knowing your demographics. Having a name that people recognize helps.
What did Okami had as competitors?: Gears of War, the launch of the Wii, the launch of the PS3, Rainbow 6: Vegas, Zelda: Twilight Princess, Final Fantasy XII... Anyone surprised Okami, a title no one ever heard until the end of year reviews where it won some awards, didn't sell?
If Okami was called: "Zelda stories: Okami" (if it was possible), it would have gotten a ton of publicity. Same game as Okami looks a lot like a Zelda game. Just a different setting, but it would have sold. Final Fantasy: Mystic Quest anyone?
The hardcore people who actually read gaming magazines and websites would know about Okami and try it. Most people don't. They go towards what they can recognize in stores. If that fails, they go toward the "prettiest box". Okami don't have anything people can recognize or relate to. A japanese setting won't interest anyone but japanese folks and anime fans. You have to actually "sell" your product to them by saying why your game is better than the Zelda that is coming out.
It's why movie-related games actually DO sell even though almost everyone knows they are usually bad. They have the movie marketting behind them.
It's really not wether it's original or not. It's all about marketting and knowing the people you sell to. It's 2 factors.
Viva Pinata, another WAY more original title than Okami, didn't sell as much as expected. Yet it had tons of publicity and the TV show to support it. It was even a very good game. Yet it didn't appeal to anyone. Surprised? not really. The game is complex and deep. It is meant for 12 years old or more in my opinion. Yet it features cute characters that are seen on saturday mornings cartoons for 12 years old and under. You are an adult, you won't be interested in cute cartoons for kids. You won't even take a look behind the Viva Pinata game box in the store. You are a teen. You won't even touch Viva Pinata for fear of being called names and a kid in school. It looks like a game for baby. Also the fact that no one actually knows what Viva Pinata: the game is all about until you can actually play it for more than 2 hours. The game simply cannot be described correctly until you actually play it and get past the very lenghty tutorial. The only word of mouth that goes with it is: "The game's good, try it". You can't really even tell why it's fun.
It's a shame really that both Okami and Viva Pinata had marketting problems. Both are some of the most fun games i've had the pleasure of playing recently.
As other have said, PC gaming is getting dimmer since the last 10 years.
Here's a big part of the reason:
It is becomming increasingly difficult to have the "correct" gaming PC. I bought games i could never use because of confusing minimum / recommended requirements specs (and sometimes other problem not indicated anywhere) and totally lost my money because of being unable to return an opened box.
I know lots of people who got the same treatment. Buy a game, have to spend 300$ (as example) in upgrades or don't play it because you can't run the game you just bought.
The best exemple was with Myst IV. Minimum requirements on the box: Video card specs... check Ram requirements... check Processor... check Everything else... check. Parents bought the game. Couldn't play.
The ATI card my parents had had problems with the game. It was unplayable. It seems the "laptop" version of the video card was incompatible with the game. It was written in the manual, but not on the box. 3 patches later and still some problem with the game on their laptop. In the end, they bought an expansive game that they couldn't play.
Similar thing happened to me recently with Paradise, not playing correctly during cinematics even though the game detects that everything is fine with my system.
I still have the MechCommander 2 CD i got over 10 years ago or so. Game CD is in the CD-ROM drive and the game brings a pop-up: "please insert the original game in your CD-ROM drive". Well my CD is an original and legally bought in a legal store. After reading, turns up there's an "incompatibility" with the CD protection software and SOME CD-ROM drives. Well, i tried it on three different CD-ROM drives and it always have the same bug. In the end, i had to crack my legally bought game just to play it.
Friend of mine bought Oblivion for PC. Game was choppy and berally playable on his machine. He upgrades his video card for 200$ to be way above the minimum requirements specs of the game. 200$ later and the game is still choppy. He has a gig of RAM. To this day, he still don't know why Oblivion is choppy on his machine. He just got sick of it. His cost: 250$ (video card + game he has trouble playing).
Myst Uru: works choppy, slow, but playable on my parents laptop computer. Graphic problems on my own desktop. On both machine, the games tells our hardware is "ok".
I won't count the number of games that require you to be "admin" to run them. Trying to make them work on a user account is ALWAYS a nightmare.
Mind you, i work all day with computers and do a lot of programming. I'm not a complete idiot when it comes to software and requirements. Sometimes, you can't see the problems you might have before you have tried the software, when you can't return it.
Results: I switched to console gaming. Parents are not buying any more games. Friend switched to console gaming.
PC gaming will NEVER become the #1 platform for gaming (casual games like Minesweeper or Solitaire not-withstanding) as long as you need a computer game installation 401 degree to let you play them.
Simply put, PC gaming is a total mess.
Console gaming on the other hand, you buy... it works. No hassle, no problem, no long installation, no investing in constant upgrades every year.
The only true "hope" for PC gaming is if Vista and the "Games for Windows" program actually can solve that mess.
Some ships from DS9 can surely be maneuvered more as fighters than capital ships like the Enterprise. They are not "fighters" in the star wars X-Wing sense, but more like "combat freighters" like the Millenium Falcon would be.
X-Wing alliance had such similar ships pilotable to those found in Star Trek ships and the game was good.
I'm just saying stop using the big slow ships and use the faster ones.
Star Trek was always more about naval battles, but in space, than a star fighter games like Star Wars.
Can anyone name a good naval game where you controlled destroyers and battleships? There are next to none and what do exist are almost always bad.
What i think could do a good Trek game for naval combat would be to focus on the more "fighter"-types ships of the latest shows. We would have more fun maneuvering some kind of shuttle that can only fire in front of itself than maneuvering a huge and slow ship that can fire anywhere it faces because the guns/phasers are mounted on turrets.
If you want to focus on story, do an adventure game, or a game that focus on the characters themselves and not the "ships" like Legacy does. Or put BIG cutscenes between missions, like Origin did with their Wing Commander series.
I read in my local newspaper that Ubisoft is located at fourth place, yet this is not what this article is saying. What numbers do they use to calculate their ranks? Or who's lying? my local newspaper, or Gamasutra?
And didn't the headquarters of Ubisoft moved from Paris to Montreal some years ago?
Slashdot Mirror
Really i don't.
I think it's just a "twisted" way of looking at what's REALLY happenning and put it in the worst negative view possible for the customers / gamers.
XBOX magazine is loosing in sales. All gaming magazines are.
So they decide to put XBOX magazine on Live, which makes sense. Download your issue through Live. Now you'll have to pay a small fee to get the magazine, just as you do now for the "paper" version. All of that is understandable.
XBOX magazine included a disc with trailers and Demos. Some of these demos were exclusive, just like it's "paper" counterpart. When you buy your magazine over xbox live, you're going to get the same demos and trailers you would have if you bought the "paper" version.
So really what's changing from what's available now besides the format of delivery of the magazine?
Saying: "now you will have to PAY for demos" is just a way to make a "splash" for journalists. You don't PAY for demos, you pay for the magazine. If you bought the magazine only for the demos, then what's really different? You already paid for the demos and you'll still pay for them.
And guess what? the xbox live version of the magazine looks to be much cheaper than it'S paper version.
So what are people exactly complaining about? I mean, outside those who have fallen for the journalists trap into making them think that the intention was to BEGIN making them pay for demos, when in all reality nothing has changed with the magazine but the method of distribution?
I just don't get it.
I WAS a PC FPS player that "converted" to console FPS. I'll try to answer you with a few answers:
Because some people prefer to play on a couch than in front of their TV?
I spend all my day at work in front of a computer. The last thing i want to do when i get home is to "play" on a computer.
I want the living room. I want a console.
I could also argue that on a console, voice-chat is predominant, where on PC, people still "mostly" type their conversations over most games. This makes it hard to play team-based FPS.
I could also argue that i never could get into the fact that with the "ubber" mouse/keyboard, people are able to run, jump over an obstacle, turn around 180 degrees and make an head-shot to their opponent that is 3 meters aways from them with a sniper rifle.
I heard PC gamers say to me: "it takes REAL skill to do thing like that".
To which i answer: "This game sucks if it even ALLOWS to do that. Snipers should position themselves, slowly bring their scope and fire when they feel confident enough to hit someone. Not use the sniper as an assault rifle..."
On consoles dual-analogs, you just CAN'T do that. You need to take more careful aim with a sniper, which to me is better. You also CAN'T turn 180 degrees at speeds that are faster than what is possible to do with a human body.
For me, consoles FPS are a tad more "realistic" than PC FPS because of that. It means a bit less emphasis on "l33t skilz" and more on actual tactical and positioning thinking.
What's the point of being able to creep behind an ennemy, outmaneuver him, unload tons of bullets with a submachine gun, if he can just turn 180 degrees around in a flash and kill you with a head shot with a sniper? Of course, one might argue that he's just "better" and should win, but when mastery of controls takes precedence over careful planning (to an extent), that's where i change my allegiance to a platform that benifits more my tastes.
I could also argue that a gamepad is more "fluid" for a video game altogether than having to use the "WASD" key, which arn't even aligned properly on most keyboards. Or that you need to "lift" your mouse to re-center it which is just a distraction from the video game experience itself.
Last year, they reported loss of around 2 billions.
This year, it's 1.89.
You have to remember though, that on that 1.89, around 1.2 was spend for extending the warranty to three years. They have purposefully included that 1.2 in this year's budget instead of "spending" it as repairs come.
In short, MOST of that 1.89 havn't been spend yet.
Their "loss" passed from around 2,000,000,000$, to around 700,000,000$ in a single year.
Add into that the fact that this 1.89 billion losses is accountable for ALL "entertainment" platforms. The loss operated by the Zune and other such things are ALSO counted in it. This is NOT only the losses for the 360.
Counting that, the 360 itself may be very close to breaking even.
So i think they are right when they say that they are doing "fine" even if they reported losses of 1.89 billions.
With Halo 3, Mass Effect, Halo Wars and other such "anticipated" titles coming out, i beleive that next year, they WILL break even and start to turn in a profit. At least their 360 division will, if not their music and movies...
Because the 60GB PS3 will no longer be available. When they are sold out, they won't make them anymore, like TFA says. You won't find a PS3 for "only" 500$, you'll HAVE to fork money for the extra 20GB and Motorstorm and forget the fact that you have less BC.
Because it's "internal" by your definition, no one should speak the word?
It's not as if you have to be a member of the selective "internal retail outlets and distributors" club in order to be able to understand and speak the "SKU" word.
Everyone understands what a SKU is, therefore the word HAS meaning outside the limited use you want to give it.
"Two PS3 models" is the same as saying "Two PS3 SKUS" as they are effectively a different product.
Customers "OMG LETS BUY THEM QUICK!"
Later...
Sony "The stock has been all sold. We are now dropping the price of the 80Gb model."
I'll just say that you ASSUME there will be a price cut on the 80Gb model when the 60 are gone. People can expect it, but Sony has done little to make them trustworthy of anything. A week ago, people rejoice about a general price cut. Now people are not even sure the price cut will last. Should we really have trusted them in the first place to say there was a price cut?
In this case Sony is toying with it's customers minds, which they don't like. Do you trully want to buy a "lesser" 60Gb PS3 right now or wait until the 80Gb and an "assumed" price-drop for it near the end of the year that may never come? Toss a coin and make your decision. Nothing like "gambling" your money and entertainment time because you're in the dark about a product.
The fact that they removed BC compatibility (to an extent) doesn't help things either. I will make a prediction that you will see TONS of those in PS3 forums:
Topic: Game XYZ does not seem to work in my PS3.
Topic: Game ABC crashes frequently.
Topic: Bug in emulator for game FGH.
Look at the emulation scene on the 360 and it's complaints. The same exact model is being adopted by Sony for it's PS3. The things is that they announced that model over 2 years ago and they said that the EE engine being in the PS3 was only temporary, but it still is annoying that they are removing features from their console after launch.
Rockstar doesn't have the capital. Seriously. Last year, they barelly survived.
GTA is a huge seller, but it requires also VAST amounts of investing that require MASSIVE sells just to turn a small profit.
People here are not going to like what i am about to say, cause i have a 100% different opinion than almost everybody here regarding Vista.
Everytime Microsoft releases a new OS, we hear the same song.
When Win95 was released, people complained to no end because it had problems, DOS was more stable, Win 3.1 was better, etc.
When XP was released, people complained again. They didn't upgrade to XP. People (read: most people) changed their OS to XP only when they bought a new computer that came installed with it.
With XP, i clearly remember people complaining that menus were not in the same place, the interface was annoying, that it was exhaustive on PC resources, that some older devices were no longer working properly (between the NT/2000/XP and 95/98/ME branch, for most people who switched), etc.
Now Vista. People complain about the interface is annoying, that menus are not in the same place and that it's exhaustive on PC resource, that some devices are no longer working properly... Feel similar?
Changing OS is never troubleless. But you know what? All of this was obvious from the very beginning.
- This OS was obviously going to take more resource on the PC. It wouldn't make much sense if it was LESS than XP. Stuff evolves on computers and they take more resource everytime. Guess what, each new version of KDE released ALSO takes more resources on your PC.
- Some menus were going to change place. This was obvious also. Guess what, each new version of KDE changes some menus also. The extent of the changes may vary, but change is to be expected. Vista didn't change most menus anyway, and you still have your "classic" interface available that looks very close to what was seen in Win 95/NT.
- Device no longer working. Microsoft warned people over 3 years ago about that. Seriously. When you change OS, expect some device to stop working. It's annoying, but it's to be expected. Switch to Linux, THEN tell me if all your devices are working properly. The only way to be 100% sure you won't have any problems with devices is to buy a PC built with Vista installed.
- People complained incessantly about security in Win XP. What can you do against security "holes"?
1) fix OS vulnerability.
2) prevent people from doing harmful tasks.
Microsoft did BOTH. They didn't fix ALL of the vulnerabilities, as it is virtually impossible. But they tried to prevent people from doing idiotic stuff. If they prevented it by "forcing" the user, then he would have complained he cannot do what he wants (i can't install by nudie-girl taskbar "enhancement" in the file called: "nud_girl_vir_us.exe". Vista sucks because of it!!!). What do you do? Well you give him a warning.
I use Linux everyday at work. Linux IS NOT yet at the level for most consumers. Far from it in fact. If you complain that Vista is too hard to get or teach to someone (as some have suggested), you havn't tried to teach Linux to the same people.
Yes it's different than XP, but please stop complaining about the change.
In a few years, i expect all the complainers here to start saying: "Vista was more stable, better structured and a better overall OS than Windows super-vista-XP that was recently released".
And definitely NO. The amount of complaints i hear about Vista isn't "WAY more" than what i heard about XP when it was first released, or Win 95 for that matter (the major steps of changes in Microsoft OS).
Nah...
Doom 3 really wasn't that bad.
Am i the only one who thinks that the flashlight that was independant from the gun actually improved the atmosphere of the game?
Sure, it made next to no sense that you couldn't have a flashlight at the same time as your gun. But gameplay-wise, it meant that you either were *almost* in the dark with your guns, when ennemies could surprise you at any turn, or actually see them before they jumped on you, but being defenseless for a few seconds while taking out your gun.
I find that most people who hated Doom would have liked to have a massive action-oriented slugfest like the first 2, where they decided to go with a more "scarry" approach.
I agree 100% with you.
I'm no U.S. law expert, but I thought that Microsoft gained something like 20% shares of Immersion during their agreement too. If so, Microsoft should be entitled to part of the settlement between Immersion and Sony... This settlement becomes "profits" for Immersion to which Microsoft is entitled an amount at LEAST based on their number of shares.
But for HD movies, HD-DVD players are way cheaper than a PS3 (which is in turn cheaper than a BluRay player, like you said).
Why buy a PS3 for BluRay if i can have HD-DVD for less?
It's not as if any of those two formats has already become a, and i use the term loosely, "winner".
The, again i use the next term loosely, "smart" people buy their HD movies in digital, downloadable format through various online marketplaces. That way, no matter if a format fails or is discontinued, they will still be able to watch their movies 100 years from now.
For those like me that are going on the 3rd option, the downloadable option, the PS3 as a BluRay player fails completely.
Currently, the PS3 also fails as a gaming machine. Aside from what? 2 or 3 "noteworthy" games, all can be found on other platforms, most of the time with critics saying it's slightly better on the "other" platforms...
So if it fails as an "HD" movies player AND it "currently" fails as a gaming platform AND is the most expansive console out there, is it a wonder why it's not going as strong as the Wii (or the 360)?
1) Bring games quick, before 2008 (tons of games).
2) Bring an HD movies online marketplace (movies that can be used on other things than just the PS3 as there's no point in having a movie in digital format you can only play in one place).
3) Lower the cost.
Graphics DO matter, a lot more than people want to admit.
...).
I beleive that the formulae Gameplay > Graphics you make (as well as tons of people) is fundamentaly wrong.
Graphics is a different variable than Gameplay and cannot be compared directly. It's like saying an apple is more important than the apple tree... They are both needed to enjoy your fruit. If the tree is better and bigger, you'll have more apples, hence more gustative enjoyment.
See the correct formulae is closer to this:
(Gameplay + Graphics) > (Gameplay)
Graphics is actually a gameplay "enhancer". It is "part of" what makes gameplay, it's not a completely separate element (Gameplay = Controls + Sounds + Graphics +
Exemple: A computer backgammon game is actually more fun in HD, with SVGA colors, than an old backgammon one, made in 4-colors CGA, directly from the early 1980s, even if they both have the same engine at their core.
However, if graphics are so bad in a game (that it turns into a mathematical negative), then the same formulae will also apply, but the "better than" will logically turn into it's opposite:
(Gameplay + (-Graphics)) (Gameplay)
Exemple: A game might come out today that has the biggest gameplay ever seen in a game. So much that you can do anything you can imagine in it. The game is really really good. However, the game was made using the original Wolfenstein 3D engine.
Result: next to no one will play it. Most people will actually have more fun with the latest game, even if it's gameplay is overall less inspired and less good.
Which is why the Wii trully has a downside to it. My take is that currently, most people's standard over graphics quality for Wii titles hasn't gone into the negative as to detriment to the gameplay.
As more and more people are exposed to HD television standards and the 360/PS3 quality of imagery, people will start to look at Wii titles and have "less" interest in them. The extent of the "less" is actually debatable. It might not be enough for the common people to make the Wii less fun than a 360/PS3.
"A delayed game is eventually good; a bad game is forever."
I can prove that this quote is NOT true with one word:
"Daikatana"
The game was delayed for more than 2 years and we got a really bad one. The game was so delayed, the technological foundation on which it was based was outdated when it was finally released.
Just a note,
Sega WAS innovative. Their downfall had nothing to do with lack of hardware innovation.
Look at the ill-fated DreamCast:
- First console with online gaming (included out-of-the box a 55k modem)
- First console with an online browser.
- The memory units ("VMU") with screen, d-pad and 2-buttons, allowign for mini-games and file sharing between VMUs. Provided feedback from the game in your controller.
- Dual ports for memory cards on each controller.
Coming from an ecology based formation at the university, i have learned some principles of ecological research.
The first thing that needs to be understood is that ecology "scientists" need funding for their research (which is more often than not government-funded).
They NEED their research to make an impact in order to receive further funding for more research.
In ecology, you never have an "absolute numerical value" to your results. You will obtain a "range" of values, the minimal of that range being the "best-case scenario" and the maximum "the worst-case scenario".
Now in a research, you always "summarize" your results in the intro and/or in the conclusion of your report. In ecology, the "summary" always ONLY include the worst case scenarios.
Remember that they need to create an impact. Saying "all is normal" won't grant them further funding for additional researchs. In a sense, it even put their work as "useless".
It's the reason why today, we are hearing a lot less about the "ozone layer". In the 80s and early 90s, the problem was on the news everywhere all the time. Now we barelly even hear about it. See, the ozone layer is currently slowly re-building according to other researchs. Scientists gave the worst case scenario and what has been observed by others comes down to the fact that the problem wasn't as big as observed.
I strongly suspect the same thing with the green-house effect and rising temperatures. When a day is anormaly high (even if not even record-breaking) or if there are a higher number of typhoons and tornados (even if not record breaking) media are quick to "blame it on rising temperatures".
It's the ecological disaster of the decade... it's shocking... it's what the media wants, it's what the reserchers want as it's basically a ticket to funding.
Now comes another researcher that looks at it from a different perspective and comes to the conclusion that the worst case scenario is improbable and tends on the other side of the spectrum, where the "problem" is actually normal climate variation in the long term.
His views contradict the majority of other reserchers and invalidates some of what they are saying.
If they can't discredit his methodology, they'll discredit his research itself. Fail that, they will discredit the researcher himself.
I've read multiple catastrophe-scenarios over a number of ecological studies.
- In the 80s, i've read that if we continued to cut down trees at the speed we were doing, that no more trees would exist on the planet by 2010. It won't be the case.
- I've read in older studies that no petrolum would exist in the world by 2005. It was not the case.
- I've read that California would dissapear by 2000 from earthquakes. Did not happen.
- I've read that New York will be submerged by rising sea water by 2020. I doubt it will be the case.
There IS a problem with rising temperatures. The problem however is NOT what you are led to beleive by ecologists.
The lesson i've learned when listening to ecologists and catastrophe scenarios is:
Take their numbers, divide by 3 to 4, make an approximation of what the REAL problem is.
The lack of drinkable water in some countries (even the U.S. is lacking in some of it's regions) is a more urgent problem than rising temperatures. But it isn't as popular, hence it does not bring enough money...
Think about it,
Specialists in hydrology, climatology, ecology, oceanology, geology and almost all the other "...gy" discipline can gain funding if their researchs include "rising temperatures" in them.
Conclusion,
I don't know anything about this particular researcher or his studies. But he has raised an interesting point: you CAN be placed aside, discredited and have your funding CUT if you go against the ideas of the majority of other researchers.
What you had that was free will still be free. Battle.net will still exist. All the other "services" you used will still exist.`
The only thing that will change is those "Games for Windows" games that will plug-in to the unified service of Live. THAT wasn't available before. The service is a LOT more than just "matchmaking for online games", which is what the old free services were.
Personally, i'm just glad it will give people a "fixed" online identity. There is less incentive to act like jerks and hack/cheat in your online games if it's going to have repercussions on ALL of your gaming experience in every "games for windows" games.
Case in point: - Phantasy Star Universe for PS2 and PC: hacked to death and no longer fun. - Phantasy Star Universe for 360 under Live: still viable as "hacking" is less found on it.
With games of the caliber of GoW, it's a tad more complex than that, unfortunately.
Ever thought why Halo 1 on PC required PC specs that were more than double the hardware of the original XBOX on which it also ran? The XBOX was very similar to a regular PC, so just recompiling the whole thing should have just worked right?
Merely "recompiling" won't do a good game. You have to redo the controls, adjust the sensitivity of the aim for mouse/keyboard AND change the way graphics are displayed.
Yes, the Unreal engine 3 does a bunch of stuff, but the game uses the parts of the engine that works easilly on the 360. For example, this specific game may use a graphic processing element (lighting, shadow effect for example) that is built into the video card of the 360 but that is absent from half the video cards on PC. To take those cards into account, you'll need to "emulate" the effect through the main processor, requiring huge PCs.
So unless you want your users to require a PC that cost over 10000$ to run GoW on PC, you'll need to optimize the graphic code of the game itself for that platform. The instructions you need from the engine will have to change, as well as tons of other stuff regarding controls and whatnots...
If it were that easy as a mere recompile, they would already have brought it to PC, or at least announced it.
So by your logic, only PC gamers can be considered "hardcore"?
I know it's probably not what you meant, but my personnal opinion is that for hardcore gamers, the platform is secondary to the games themselves.
One must not confuse a fanboy with a hardcore gamer. They are two concepts.
My personal opinion is that PC offer less quality graphics than consoles and have been for ages now. No i am not completely dumb.
In their quest to output the highest resolution possible, the PC games have ommited to actually put any graphics in them. Take Dead or Alive 3 for the original XBOX bak in 2001. The game could still come out today and not be too dated in it's graphics. The game has low resolution, but they use all the extra processing from not having to use high resolution to actually add graphic elements in the game. On an SDTV (which blurs pixels out), the game was breathtaking. It was prettier than anything we could see on a PC monitor at the time. PC kept outputting high resolutions, but to put a forest in a game, we had to imagine that 2 or 3 trees were indeed a "forest".
Give me lower resolutions, but with actual content.
As another example, take the current gen of the PS3 and the 360. People keep saying that "graphics are not that big of a leap beyond the older gen". Well it's only because the only thing they could really add was resolution. I'd rather they have kept the old 480p resolution and kept the processing power to add actual content in games. A forest would be made of hundreds of trees, all visible at once. Now, our forest will be kept at 7 or 8 at a time, with a poor draw distance (see Oblivion with big lush forest of only 7 or 8 trees at a time).
I have an HDTV with a 360 at home. Games are indeed very pretty. Still i'd rather they had focused on content than high resolution games.
Why is it dumb? I think it's the number one reason why people buy consoles over PC gaming. Why exactly is it dumb to be cost efficient? I much prefer to spend 2000$ on a console and 30+ games than the latest gaming PC with no games (if my goal is to play games.)
I also much prefer to buy a used computer for word processing and internet browsing for 300$ and a game console for 600$ and 1100$ on games than buy the latest gaming PC for 2000$.
As for the other comment. I don't agree with you.
PC gaming is stale. There only have been a small handful of games released since last october.
There is a ratio of near 3 games for every console for 1 game on PC.
Yes that number came from my a**, but looking at the lists of games that came out and removing those reviewed with scores below 5.0/10 and the downloadable only games [with lower production value], i'm forced to come at that conclusion. In fact i've gotten the conclusion that the number of PC games is way less than for any other gaming platforms a LONG time ago.
A PC gaming rig cost more than a console. Period.
... this was my personal opinion and partial explanation of why i don't play PC games anymore.
So you upgraded your video card for 600$ this year.
Next year, it's your CPU.
The year after, your RAM.
Then your OS.
Then your video card again, since it's been 4 years. But wait, this year the video cards have a new plug called the AGPsuperduperconnector2. You have to change your motherboard to use it. And your RAM you bought 2 years ago because it changed along the way too. And by the way, your PC case and power supply also needs to be changed since your new motherboard requires a different case to fit everything in. This new motherboard also requires a new harddrive plug. So you have to change that too.
This scenario happened to me twice in my life as a PC gamer.
First time, the RAM changed and i couldn't upgrade using my old format, requiring me to change my motherboard, the case and power supply.
The second time, it was the processor. My motherboard couldn't handle it, again. I had to change the motherboard 2 years after i bought my last one, with again, a new power supply.
At those points, you can just figure out that you can sell your entire PC and buy a new one.
Bottom line, i ended up spending an average of 400$ per year on a gaming PC. It was about the time i realize that the gaming market was focusing more on console that i also realized that it's better to spend 600$ (console + extra controllers + memory cards) every 4/5 years than 400$ every year.
It's my hope that Vista with it's "games for Windows" program can finally save the PC as a gaming platform. I got tired of RTS and "Sims/tycoon" games a long time ago with StarCraft and Sim City 2000. It seems like the only thing i cannot find on consoles that are on PC are only the RTS and "Sims/tycoon" games.
On the other hand, on the consoles, i've got fighting, platforms, racing, sports and more RPGs in general. That and several more games in general.
The console gaming-world evolves with games more faster than the PC world too. For example: Splinter Cell: Double Agent is still a "new" title in most gaming stores for PC as nothing really has come after that but a WoW expansion, and re-release of old games in compilation form.
On consoles, Splinter Cell: Double Agent is an old title. Tons of games have came out since it was released (at the same time as the PC version), it's actually buried behind the other newer titles.
More on topic,
As for the Oblivion PC VS 360 VS PS3 debate? Why is there even a debate?:
- PC gamers prefer to play with mods and other whatnots.
- 360 players have got their addictive achievements.
- PS3 will have a bit better graphics for having to wait an extra year.
Really, who cares? So, for THIS game, the PS3 version will be the better one graphically (if you exclude PC). What does this ACTUALLY prove? That the PS3 is better than the 360 overall based on that one game?
Really, the only one who seems to care are:
1) the fanboys. PS fans trying to prove the PS3 is better than the 360, the 360 fans trying to argue incessantly that the PS3 version is better because they had a year more of development to perfect it and the PC fans trying to argue that "PC will always be better".
2) The gaming magazines and websites, trying to attract more "hits" by throwing munitions to one side or the other of the fanboys "war of systems".
Sometimes, i think that the fans care more about their "hateful rival gaming platform" than the gaming hardware manufacturers themselves.
Anybody ever thought that Nintendo would be happy with their sales even if they wern't the #1 gaming console in the world according to the charts?
Anybody ever thought that Microsoft only intends for their 360 to be an extension and a "terminal" to their online service that you can also access with Vista and the Zune? That they might be satisfied to have sold not necessarilly the most consoles, but ju
Original games DO sell.
What sells is not wether it's original or a tried formulae. What sells is good marketting and knowing your demographics. Having a name that people recognize helps.
What did Okami had as competitors?:
Gears of War, the launch of the Wii, the launch of the PS3, Rainbow 6: Vegas, Zelda: Twilight Princess, Final Fantasy XII... Anyone surprised Okami, a title no one ever heard until the end of year reviews where it won some awards, didn't sell?
If Okami was called: "Zelda stories: Okami" (if it was possible), it would have gotten a ton of publicity. Same game as Okami looks a lot like a Zelda game. Just a different setting, but it would have sold.
Final Fantasy: Mystic Quest anyone?
The hardcore people who actually read gaming magazines and websites would know about Okami and try it. Most people don't. They go towards what they can recognize in stores. If that fails, they go toward the "prettiest box". Okami don't have anything people can recognize or relate to. A japanese setting won't interest anyone but japanese folks and anime fans. You have to actually "sell" your product to them by saying why your game is better than the Zelda that is coming out.
It's why movie-related games actually DO sell even though almost everyone knows they are usually bad. They have the movie marketting behind them.
It's really not wether it's original or not. It's all about marketting and knowing the people you sell to. It's 2 factors.
Viva Pinata, another WAY more original title than Okami, didn't sell as much as expected. Yet it had tons of publicity and the TV show to support it. It was even a very good game. Yet it didn't appeal to anyone. Surprised? not really.
The game is complex and deep. It is meant for 12 years old or more in my opinion. Yet it features cute characters that are seen on saturday mornings cartoons for 12 years old and under. You are an adult, you won't be interested in cute cartoons for kids. You won't even take a look behind the Viva Pinata game box in the store.
You are a teen. You won't even touch Viva Pinata for fear of being called names and a kid in school. It looks like a game for baby.
Also the fact that no one actually knows what Viva Pinata: the game is all about until you can actually play it for more than 2 hours. The game simply cannot be described correctly until you actually play it and get past the very lenghty tutorial. The only word of mouth that goes with it is: "The game's good, try it". You can't really even tell why it's fun.
It's a shame really that both Okami and Viva Pinata had marketting problems. Both are some of the most fun games i've had the pleasure of playing recently.
As other have said, PC gaming is getting dimmer since the last 10 years.
Here's a big part of the reason:
It is becomming increasingly difficult to have the "correct" gaming PC. I bought games i could never use because of confusing minimum / recommended requirements specs (and sometimes other problem not indicated anywhere) and totally lost my money because of being unable to return an opened box.
I know lots of people who got the same treatment. Buy a game, have to spend 300$ (as example) in upgrades or don't play it because you can't run the game you just bought.
The best exemple was with Myst IV. Minimum requirements on the box:
Video card specs... check
Ram requirements... check
Processor... check
Everything else... check.
Parents bought the game. Couldn't play.
The ATI card my parents had had problems with the game. It was unplayable. It seems the "laptop" version of the video card was incompatible with the game. It was written in the manual, but not on the box. 3 patches later and still some problem with the game on their laptop.
In the end, they bought an expansive game that they couldn't play.
Similar thing happened to me recently with Paradise, not playing correctly during cinematics even though the game detects that everything is fine with my system.
I still have the MechCommander 2 CD i got over 10 years ago or so. Game CD is in the CD-ROM drive and the game brings a pop-up: "please insert the original game in your CD-ROM drive".
Well my CD is an original and legally bought in a legal store. After reading, turns up there's an "incompatibility" with the CD protection software and SOME CD-ROM drives.
Well, i tried it on three different CD-ROM drives and it always have the same bug.
In the end, i had to crack my legally bought game just to play it.
Friend of mine bought Oblivion for PC. Game was choppy and berally playable on his machine. He upgrades his video card for 200$ to be way above the minimum requirements specs of the game. 200$ later and the game is still choppy. He has a gig of RAM. To this day, he still don't know why Oblivion is choppy on his machine. He just got sick of it. His cost: 250$ (video card + game he has trouble playing).
Myst Uru: works choppy, slow, but playable on my parents laptop computer. Graphic problems on my own desktop. On both machine, the games tells our hardware is "ok".
I won't count the number of games that require you to be "admin" to run them. Trying to make them work on a user account is ALWAYS a nightmare.
Mind you, i work all day with computers and do a lot of programming. I'm not a complete idiot when it comes to software and requirements. Sometimes, you can't see the problems you might have before you have tried the software, when you can't return it.
Results:
I switched to console gaming.
Parents are not buying any more games.
Friend switched to console gaming.
PC gaming will NEVER become the #1 platform for gaming (casual games like Minesweeper or Solitaire not-withstanding) as long as you need a computer game installation 401 degree to let you play them.
Simply put, PC gaming is a total mess.
Console gaming on the other hand, you buy... it works. No hassle, no problem, no long installation, no investing in constant upgrades every year.
The only true "hope" for PC gaming is if Vista and the "Games for Windows" program actually can solve that mess.
Until then, no... One Console != PC.
Some ships from DS9 can surely be maneuvered more as fighters than capital ships like the Enterprise. They are not "fighters" in the star wars X-Wing sense, but more like "combat freighters" like the Millenium Falcon would be.
X-Wing alliance had such similar ships pilotable to those found in Star Trek ships and the game was good.
I'm just saying stop using the big slow ships and use the faster ones.
Star Trek was always more about naval battles, but in space, than a star fighter games like Star Wars.
Can anyone name a good naval game where you controlled destroyers and battleships? There are next to none and what do exist are almost always bad.
What i think could do a good Trek game for naval combat would be to focus on the more "fighter"-types ships of the latest shows. We would have more fun maneuvering some kind of shuttle that can only fire in front of itself than maneuvering a huge and slow ship that can fire anywhere it faces because the guns/phasers are mounted on turrets.
If you want to focus on story, do an adventure game, or a game that focus on the characters themselves and not the "ships" like Legacy does. Or put BIG cutscenes between missions, like Origin did with their Wing Commander series.
I wonder what their sources are?
I read in my local newspaper that Ubisoft is located at fourth place, yet this is not what this article is saying. What numbers do they use to calculate their ranks? Or who's lying? my local newspaper, or Gamasutra?
And didn't the headquarters of Ubisoft moved from Paris to Montreal some years ago?
I doubt the quality of the list.
EA's first, no surprise there. But for the rest?