I wish these marketing people could see where all this is heading. There is an eventual outcome to all this greed...
Eventually when you buy a game, you get one player model, one gun, one song that loops forever one map, one stance on one license. You want to go to the next level? Gotta pay.
Wish that hill had some trees on it? It will if you pay.
Notice that the buildings in this post-apocalyptic world look like something from super mario world? Pay and they might change the scenery models to something more realistic.
Want that gun to get a targeting reticle? $20 please.
There are several RTS and FPS games that follow this model and they have been and shall remain garage games specifically for this reason. Nobody will pay to unlock parts of a game they paid for. As if $60 and $80 games arent enough, now you cant even play the complete game without a $20 monthly subscription (even if it is an FPS with offline bots) and hoping to god your computer doesnt die or require a new video card, changing your hardware setup and voiding your license? Its greed in one of its purest forms.
Game companies need to get a grip and realize they cant turn into the RIAA just to make their fiscal sales goals and expect everyone to wet themselves whenever they release another EULA contract disguised as a game.
Ill be using Epic's game disks as coasters from here on out thanks.
I play-tested Gears 1 for Microsoft as I live in the area and I have to say I had the same "meh" conclusion even then. Ive been an Unreal Tournament junkie since the original unreal and before them, Doom and Quake. I assumed that since Id be testing a project made by the same guys that gave me my cherished UT, I would be in for a treat of combat-science. Sadly this was not the case. I tested a portion of the campaign and then a map that was essentially a circular arena with short walls about the size of freeway dividers sprinkled around the perimeter to provide cover. The object was to test the cover system, which at that time was very buggy. The combat seemed fairly nailed down so I assume not much changed because I was so put off by the simplistic combat that I was never interested in purchasing it. The campaign amounts to running down a hallway shooting whatever comes at you. I felt like an extra in a revolutionary war battle re-enactment. Stand at attention in the open and simply unload on the things marching toward you. There was no point in taking cover since the enemy would always find you or simply throw grenades, so taking cover only limited your rate of fire and accuracy - no point in wasting the effort. At the time the gfx were sleek and this was the only attractive part of it. Combat is weak and unexciting, even if the bad guys are hard to kill it doesnt make it thrilling.
Slashdot Mirror
Its trolls trolling trolls. Ya'll republicans postin in a troll thread.
I say we get torches and chase idle out of our humble /.
One of the best scifi series to be on tv in a long time. Gone before its time.
I wish these marketing people could see where all this is heading. There is an eventual outcome to all this greed... Eventually when you buy a game, you get one player model, one gun, one song that loops forever one map, one stance on one license. You want to go to the next level? Gotta pay. Wish that hill had some trees on it? It will if you pay. Notice that the buildings in this post-apocalyptic world look like something from super mario world? Pay and they might change the scenery models to something more realistic. Want that gun to get a targeting reticle? $20 please. There are several RTS and FPS games that follow this model and they have been and shall remain garage games specifically for this reason. Nobody will pay to unlock parts of a game they paid for. As if $60 and $80 games arent enough, now you cant even play the complete game without a $20 monthly subscription (even if it is an FPS with offline bots) and hoping to god your computer doesnt die or require a new video card, changing your hardware setup and voiding your license? Its greed in one of its purest forms. Game companies need to get a grip and realize they cant turn into the RIAA just to make their fiscal sales goals and expect everyone to wet themselves whenever they release another EULA contract disguised as a game. Ill be using Epic's game disks as coasters from here on out thanks.
Cliffy b sucks.
I play-tested Gears 1 for Microsoft as I live in the area and I have to say I had the same "meh" conclusion even then. Ive been an Unreal Tournament junkie since the original unreal and before them, Doom and Quake. I assumed that since Id be testing a project made by the same guys that gave me my cherished UT, I would be in for a treat of combat-science. Sadly this was not the case. I tested a portion of the campaign and then a map that was essentially a circular arena with short walls about the size of freeway dividers sprinkled around the perimeter to provide cover. The object was to test the cover system, which at that time was very buggy. The combat seemed fairly nailed down so I assume not much changed because I was so put off by the simplistic combat that I was never interested in purchasing it. The campaign amounts to running down a hallway shooting whatever comes at you. I felt like an extra in a revolutionary war battle re-enactment. Stand at attention in the open and simply unload on the things marching toward you. There was no point in taking cover since the enemy would always find you or simply throw grenades, so taking cover only limited your rate of fire and accuracy - no point in wasting the effort. At the time the gfx were sleek and this was the only attractive part of it. Combat is weak and unexciting, even if the bad guys are hard to kill it doesnt make it thrilling.