September 03, 2014, 02:47:57 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 162
121  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Why all the hate toward Activision? on: August 11, 2014, 05:28:07 PM

Quote from: Eco-Logic on August 11, 2014, 04:31:08 PM

I'm genuinely curious.

I bought a bit of their stock at just over $18 per share and stick by that purchase, but I was unaware of any discontent gamers have toward them.

I get the EA hate etc, and am sure there are valid reasons to dislike ATVI as well, I just want to know what they are!

I bought it because they have more major releases this year than any other year I'm aware of, and the fact that Hearthstone is like crack, and it knew it would be a money press for the the moment  it as released on iPad.  People spent thousands on candy crush for goodness sake...

You're a few years too late. There hasn't been any noteworthy Activision hate since EA became hated. EA pretty much got all the attention, and has kept it since. There used to be a lot of Activision hate before then, but they've become so predictable as to not really upset most people all that much any more. They got their most attention when it first became obvious that their entire business strategy relied on running popular licenses into the ground by pushing just enough buttons to not upset their fans too much, but not enough buttons to reach any form of excellence. The fear of licenses like Guitar Hero and Call of Duty being ruined by Activision's greed and over-saturation scared people to the point where it became hatred.

We're used to it now though. Activision never really surprises us. It's always the same thing, which doesn't really spark enough anger to mean much. EA, on the other hand, keeps coming up with new ways to inspire hatred, and there seems to be no end to what they'll do in that regard.
122  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: What are you buying this week? (08/11) on: August 11, 2014, 06:26:16 AM
I'm keeping an eye on Risen 3, but I'm highly skeptical.
123  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 09, 2014, 09:11:32 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 09, 2014, 09:09:19 PM

What kills me is that what's in the quoted post here is what I've been trying to say (ineffectively, apparently) all along, more or less.

Yeah, you were the one who clued me in on it to begin with. See my third post in the thread, where I start to see what's going on, only substituting Telltale for whoever is working on the license now. My initial confusion was over whether or not Sierra represented an actual development studio (it doesn't), and my later argumentation stands in its entirety.
124  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 09, 2014, 08:56:07 PM

Quote from: Destructor on August 09, 2014, 08:34:14 PM

and why there's no hope whatsoever for anything good out of what we're discussing.

Oh, I wouldn't quite say that. After all, it looks like this is going to open the doors for new games in beloved Sierra series of old. I'm only arguing that we won't be seeing Sierra as a developer, so this will only last as long as other, smaller developers are willing to pay the licensing fees and take all the risks involved, while giving Activision, under the guise of Sierra, a bunch of credit. At least one company seems to be doing so already, while Telltale apparently let their own license expire last year, for reasons unknown. I suspect it was too expensive compared to the other licenses they had available to them at the time.

This is actually better than my impression was at the beginning of the thread, where I thought Sierra was somehow going to be some kind of development house. It's good news for gamers, just not in the way a lot of people seem to think.
125  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 09, 2014, 06:33:19 PM
Geoff Keighley is reporting that credible reports claim The Odd Gentlemen is working on a new King's Quest. I guess that's good, all things considered.

Now, let's talk numbers for a little bit to add some weight to my earlier comments in this thread, just in case anyone thinks I'm just making these things up. As far as I'm aware, Broken Age is the most hyped and high-profile point and click adventure game we've had for quite some time (someone correct me if I'm wrong). One unique thing about that game is that we actually have some sales numbers to go on, as Double Fine talked about them in one of their documentaries. Apparently, Broken Age sold roughly 70,000 copies in a little over two months after release. Surprised? Shocked? I certainly was. Before seeing that documentary, I had no idea about the bad shape of the adventure game genre. I thought it was merely abandoned, but it turns out that it's actually dead in all kinds of ways, except for the smallest of companies that can survive with numbers at that level or below. Also keep in mind that Broken Age costs only $25, half (or less) of a full-priced game, and still sold so little.

Then we have Gone Home, an unusual kind of adventure game that received a lot of acclaim and awards, and quite a bit of media attention for an indie game. They sold roughly 50,000 copies in the first month, and have reached a little more than 250,000 total sales since then. A bigger number than Broken Age to be sure, but still incredibly low compared to most other genres, especially when we're talking about a real reviewer favorite (it has a Metascore of 86 at the moment).

Activision's games routinely sell 10+ million copies at full price, and often far, far more than that. These games are rarely parts of sales, and when they are, we're usually talking 10-25% off the regular price (which doesn't change for years after release, unlike other publishers that lower the regular price after a while), or 50% for older games in a series just before a new game is coming out, in order to hype the new one. Their games are almost never for sale at lower prices than that, unless they are really old.

Let's say Activision decided to spend money resurrecting Sierra as a sub-publisher that handles games that aren't AAA. That's the rose-red glasses ideal concept we're looking at right now, as I don't think anyone among us expects them to suddenly create AAA adventure games. Establishing Sierra as a smaller publisher owned by Activision lets them establish a clear separation between the two, which makes everything more predictable and easy to understand for both the press and the stockholders, who have been promised a stable company with risk-free investments and steady growth. With this scenario in mind, the question becomes: Why on earth would Activision do something like this? Even if they made a real hit adventure game, they'd be lucky to get anywhere close to a million sales, and they probably wouldn't be able to charge full price. They would have either have to shift people from the more rewarding AAA development to work on these smaller titles (which would end up as a net loss in their results, most likely), or hire new people or new development studios to work on such titles, which would cost quite a bit of up-front money and require management to expand and cover more projects at the same time, which adds risk and reduces profitability. I'm no expert on business (the only company I've run went bankrupt after 3 years), but I don't see how anyone within Activision would ever be able to convince the stockholders or Kotick himself that this is worth using money on. Remember that Kotick isn't a gamer and doesn't believe in this kind of sentimentality in the first place.

What's more likely, and which is pretty much what I mentioned earlier in this thread, is that another company is licensing old Sierra titles. This costs Activision very little but gives them a small flow of side income at little to no risk. They establish Sierra as a brand and assign a couple of people within Activision to administrate these properties and keep control over the licenses and the studios working on them. It adds a little cost, but the risk is still so low as to be no real danger to any budgets or results.

I still don't see why Activision would bother with this as even the second scenario will give them too little actual income to matter, but I guess it could be for publicity reasons and to strengthen / keep alive old brands, for reasons pointed out earlier. We can at least rule out the possibility of Activision itself handling development or creating internal projects under this brand name.

So let me be more specific about my "wet blanket": What you should not expect is a rebuilt Sierra producing new games in beloved game series. What you should expect is other companies licensing properties that used to belong to Sierra (and now belong to Activision), publishing them under the Sierra name.

But under no circumstance should you expect Sierra to develop games. It won't happen.

My 2 cents, anyway. I hope nobody thinks I'm posting this because I want to be a downer. I post this because I take a huge interest in this topic and love discussing it, and I like dissecting industry moves to understand what's going on behind the scenes. I get annoyed when these industry moves are designed in such a way as to trick consumers into thinking one thing while something else is happening, and try to do my part to inform of what I think is going on, with facts that I can back up. I'm not dictating what people should think. I'm informing. Make up your own minds, but don't tell me to shut up.
126  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 09, 2014, 03:10:47 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 09, 2014, 02:36:46 PM

Why not be positive about it?

I've made it pretty clear why I don't think there's anything to be positive about. I can't stop you from being enthusiastic, but that's your choice. Believing that this is going to amount to anything means you think Activision behaves like other companies.

Activision doesn't. Take. Risks.

It's as simple as that.
127  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 09:49:25 PM

Quote from: kronovan on August 08, 2014, 09:11:04 PM

Meh, it's ultimately Kold-tick and his company behind this. He'll manage somehow to suck the spirit out of anything potentially good from a Sierra brand resurrection. This will probably amount to our beloved heroes from those Sierra games being featured in some bland shooter. Oh, and you'll no doubt have to pay extra for everyone of those heroes, as they'll likely be DLC.  icon_twisted

You're confusing Activision with EA. Tongue
128  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 08:39:43 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 08, 2014, 08:08:52 PM

We don't know for sure that this is connected to Telltale, though, so keep that in mind.

Whatever it is, forgive me for getting (cautiously) excited about it and trying to share that.  But if it's important to toss a big, old soggy blanket over any hope of someone doing something decent with these titles, then keep at it, TiLT.  I hate Kotick and what Activision represents as much as the next guy, but I don't let that override talking about what should or even might be done with these classic franchises, so I guess I don't see how being a wet blanket is important.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't hate either Kotick or Activision, but I do know how they run their business, and I've read a long interview with the man himself about his career and his visions. A revival of adventure games through Sierra doesn't align at all with the company and image he has built up, and it's not the kind of thing he personally believes in, nor would he get much support from the company shareholders if he experimented with it.

These companies treasure their old trademarks, for they know that the time may one day be right to earn themselves quick goodwill by bringing them back. Nobody should allow themselves to believe that a revived trademark equals a revived company, however. How many times has that happened in the history of videogames? When did ever any big company pull an old brand name out of their archives (apart from game names themselves, that is) and actually revive what players remember about that brand? I don't know about you guys, but I'm drawing a blank here.

This isn't a wet blanket thrown onto enthusiasm. I'm trying to prevent the enthusiasm from ever happening, because I hate to see good people let themselves get carried away over things that clearly don't mean what they let themselves imagine in their minds. I'm wetting the grass to stop it from burning in the first place, because enthusiasm for this kind of thing will only end in disappointment, especially when it comes to the most risk-averse publisher in the business right now. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but it's better for it to happen now than to let you build up impossible expectations over time, for that would only be worse.

Edit to add: I'd love to be wrong about all this, I really would. Few things would be better than seeing Activision suddenly invest good money into a revival of Sierra's classics, not least because it would signal a change in how Activision does its business, to the betterment of the industry itself. I don't see that as anywhere near remotely realistic, however.
129  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 06:31:23 PM

Quote from: Rumpy on August 08, 2014, 06:08:34 PM

I thought Telltale decided to shelve King's Quest. Now I'm confused.

Bullwinkle's link above covers this:

Going over old reports, apparently when Telltale first announced that they just obtained the licensing to make Sierra games from Activision (which they announced at a press event in San Franscisco on Feb 17, 2011), their license included several of the games of Sierra's back catalogue. King's Quest is apparently is just the first game series they planned to work on.

Telltale has entered into an agreement with Activision, current owner of the rights to the classic Sierra On-Line adventure franchises, to create new episodic games based on these series. The first will be Kingís Quest.

Seeing as it was only an initial anouncement made at the press event, they never gave a major press release on their website. They only made a single reference iin a blog post (on Feb 18, 2011) to how King's Quest was going to be one of the next IPs they were going to work on after they finished Walking Dead and Fables. No press releases nor websites were made for King's Quest or the Sierra license in general.

Since many of the games they announced got pushed back from their initial release dates, and this has affected their entire release schedule. This has probably affected any development on King's Quest as well.

In anycase I think its interesting that they apparently have the license to make other Sierra game franchise games. Perhaps this would if they continued to include, new games within the Police Quest, Space Quest, Gabriel Knight, Quest For Glory games, etc. If Adventure Gamer's account of that press event is accurate.

Obviously it would have never included Larry, as that was already sold to Codemasters. But the series I listed above are the major series that Activision has rereleased through GoG so far.

But it seems that the announcment at the event was apparently more of a general reference to them obtaining the Sierra family license.
130  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 05:30:38 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on August 08, 2014, 04:45:16 PM

As for the Activision skepticism, I'll throw out a $1 bet that they're thirsty for the adventure game money they're seeing come through Kickstarter and they do some kind of crowdfunding approach for old Sierra games.

You'd lose that $1. As I've mentioned above, Activision doesn't care about these small sums. They're just not worth the bother to them. Even the biggest Kickstarter campaigns (MAYBE with the exception of Star Citizen, which is far from an adventure game) are nothing but small change to this company. Someone like Ubisoft or even EA (maybe) might consider doing such things, as they like to spread out a bit. Activision doesn't. That's not the type of company Kotick has been building. He wants the big fish, and nothing but the big fish.
131  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 04:31:36 PM
But that's just Telltale licensing Sierra games. We've had Telltale for years. That's not the return of Sierra, that's the strengthening of Telltale, a completely different beast altogether.
132  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 03:57:23 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 08, 2014, 03:29:07 PM

It wouldn't surprise me to find that Activision made it a requirement that their branding be more forward than Telltale's.

You know, this whole thing confused me (see my "I'm surprised they're even bothering" comment above), but I think I'm starting to see what's going on now. Here's what I think happened:

Telltale approached Activision on their own initiative and asked for a license to create a King's Quest game. Activision shrugged and said, "sure, I guess that'll help keep our trademarks alive, but it'll cost you, and we won't pay you a dime for your effort". In an effort to have the collaboration bring Activision something meaningful beyond the pocket money it might provide them, they decided to resurrect the Sierra brand and put that front and center in the Telltale effort, hoping that it might regain some of its former value to the consumers. Activision has very few licenses worth a damn, so this might be their way of trying to strengthen one of the few they have left without having to spend any real money having to do so.

This is the only explanation that makes any sense to me right now.
133  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 03:46:47 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 08, 2014, 03:29:07 PM

While I agree that we should be careful, because it's Activision, it's a little too dismissive and cynical to just say it means nothing.  

Clearly some effort has been put together (and money spent) on doing something with the name.

Because it's Activision, we have every reason to say it means nothing. We have examples to point to, among other things. Here's a good one: Star Control. It's been 18 years since the last game in that series came out. A few years back, without warning, a Star Control flash game suddenly appeared online, clearly made in just a few days (if that) and with almost no resemblance to the original games apart from borrowing the most basic parts of the combat system. They did this to keep the trademark alive, not because they cared about it or wanted to earn money with it. It was strictly for legal reasons.

There's also this: Have a look at the games Activition has published over the last few years. Take their big franchises (Call of Duty, Skylanders, anything by Blizzard, Destiny) and put them in one imaginary pile. Take the rest of their games and put in another pile. Now look closely at the second pile. It contains nothing but quick cash-grabs and throwaway projects that barely received enough funding to reach market. There's only one exception (Transformers: Fall of Cybertron), and I think that has more to do with sheer grit and perseverance in the development studio than any real effort or interest from Activision. The company has grown notorious for pushing anything but their core games to the market with no regard for its quality (and even with the core games they often don't give a shit. Just look at Call of Duty for Vita, one of the crappiest big-profile games we've seen on any platform in the last decade) because they don't feel it's worth their time.

Make no mistake, a collaboration with Telltale is insignificant in Bobby Kotick's eyes. He'll put one little lump of money into that project, enough to be meaningful to Telltale, but not enough to disturb Activision's core projects or present anything that could be considered an actual risk to their investors. Even if the results of their collaboration are very successful, they will barely register as a blip on Activision's radar. They have nothing to lose and pretty much nothing to gain here. I'm surprised they're even bothering. If it's not an AAA blockbuster, Activision historically doesn't give a shit whether the game succeeds or fails.

This is not the Sierra you're looking for. It's doomed, as was the real one once Activision got its claws on it. Being an optimist about this development is merely setting yourself up for disappointment.
134  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Sierra Returns! on: August 08, 2014, 02:57:16 PM
It's just a name, in the same way that Infogrames using Atari as their "cover" doesn't mean that they were the actual Atari, and the way in which Black Isle Studios was "reborn" in 2012, gaining the hatred of a unusually unified gaming community in the process. None of the original Sierra people are still around in that company, having quit ages ago.

This means nothing. In fact, I'd go so far as to say gamers should be particularly careful about anything that comes out of this studio, since they are using unearned nostalgia to try to cheat their way to credibility.

Specifically, this is Activision hiding behind an old trademark they themselves pissed all over. Does anyone here think Activision is going to invest any serious money into adventure games?

That was a rhetorical question.
135  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: What are you buying this week? (08/04) on: August 06, 2014, 10:18:00 PM

Quote from: EddieA on August 06, 2014, 08:41:58 PM

Quote from: rittchard on August 06, 2014, 05:24:53 PM

I knew it was an action game, which didn't bother me, but it seems like reviews on Steam are universally bad, so I'll probably wait for a sale.  It doesn't sound too different from Gauntlet, so I'm still a little tempted, just wish it were on one of the next gen consoles.

I wouldn't put much stock in the reviews.  Most people can't get over the fact that this game isn't like Sacred 2, and even if it were the greatest hack-and-slash action game ever made, they'd still hate it.  Since Best Buy cancelled my Destiny Limited Edition preorder and gave me $50 gift card in compensation and the game is only $30 (after my Gamers Club discount and the $10 gift card that comes with the game) I decided to buy it.  I'll post some impressions once I've played some.

Watch TotalBiscuit's WTF Is video for this game. He approaches it from both angles, and decides that it's a bad and overpriced game, period. It has no real depth, has bad controls, no variety, no carrot to go with the stick, no character development, no loot, and so on. For a game like this to be fun, its combat system needs to be both good and fun, and by all accounts it's neither. I would not spend money on this game, even at half price. Especially considering this game is priced at least 4 times too high to begin with. Even had it not been, the game doesn't seem to be any fun.
136  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [PS3/360] Assassin's Creed: Rogue on: August 05, 2014, 06:37:20 PM

Quote from: Caine on August 05, 2014, 04:23:10 PM

I think it will be more fully fleshed out than Liberation was though. 

Of course. They're using the old engine, probably with only minor changes if any. All they have to do is make content. Rogue is likely going to be the equivalent to a long expansion pack from the old days, only at full price instead of expansion price.
137  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [PS3/360] Assassin's Creed: Rogue on: August 05, 2014, 03:49:08 PM
Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, this game was announced some time ago, though without a name. The plan has always been for two Assassin's Creed games to be released this year, one for current-gen and one for last-gen. Rogue, which was tentatively called Comet until just now, is the last-gen version. I imagine it's going to be as vital to the series as Liberation was, which is to say, not much at all.

Unity is the only Assassin's Creed that matters this year, unless you're stuck on a last-gen console for now. Rogue is a bone thrown to those who are.
138  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Elite: Dangerous on: August 04, 2014, 03:19:48 PM
I just bought a new ship in the game. Ditched my trusty Sidewinder (the crappy little ship you start with) and got an Eagle instead. The game doesn't really tell you anything about the ships you're buying yet, though I'm sure there'll be in-game stats later on, so I didn't know anything about the ship until it was bought.

And wow, the feeling of getting into a new cockpit was completely awesome and unique on the Rift. This wasn't just a bunch of new visuals, stats and so on. It was an entirely different feel, even while sitting in the hangar bay. The Sidewinder is cramped but still somewhat spacious, with a lot of junk just lying around wherever the pilot could fit it in. The Eagle is long and thin and completely sleek, and the cockpit windows really press in against you, making it feel almost claustrophobic. The windows are better designed for dogfighting, giving me better situational awareness, especially above me.

Taking off, it felt like going from a regular car to a trimmed sports car. It was fast and zippy, making the exit procedure from the station exciting all over again. Even the sounds are different.

I've never really experienced anything like this in a game before. Everything feels so much more personal and real this way. It goes to show what a developer can do when they design their games for the Rift from the get-go.
139  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: What are you buying this week? (08/04) on: August 04, 2014, 08:43:57 AM
Nothing. Between Elite: Dangerous and The Last of Us Remastered, I've got more than enough to play.
140  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Elite: Dangerous on: August 03, 2014, 08:28:53 PM

Quote from: naednek on August 03, 2014, 08:21:10 PM

a little off topic, but how does the rift work with people who require glasses to see?

Depends on why you need glasses. From what I understand, if you're longsighted, you should be fine (don't quote me on that). If you're shortsighted, you need to either wear your glasses inside the Rift (which is a snug fit), or use the provided alternate lenses that have a corrective rating of 4 or so for shortsighted people. I myself have astigmatism and use glasses almost all the time while indoors. This hasn't been a problem at all with the Rift, where I don't use my glasses.

Here's how the Rift works with your optics: The screen is just in front of your eyes, but between you and it are two lenses (one for each eye) that bend the light so that it hits your eyes straight on. This means that for all intents and purposes, your eyes react to the light as if it was coming from very far away, which is perfect for people with normal vision and those who are longsighted. Alternate lenses, such as the B lenses included in the box, adjust this slightly for shortsighted people, but if your vision is very bad, it might not be enough. In that case you can and should use glasses.

People have reported that glasses worn in the DK2 might scratch against the lenses, damaging the latter. This is something to keep in mind, especially if your glasses are large.
141  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Elite: Dangerous on: August 03, 2014, 02:29:24 PM
I've been playing this game with the Rift now for a couple of days, and it is absolutely amazing! The problem is that it's also impossible to describe properly. To paraphrase Morpheus: "Nobody can be told what the Rift is. You have to see it for yourself."

You won't fully understand the scale of this game if you only play it on a regular monitor. The inside of a space station may look impressive enough that way, but it's only when you put on a Rift that you truly understand how massive it is. I get an "oh shit" moment every time I leave the hangar bays as I see the sheer spectacle of these places. Situational awareness is vastly improved, letting you keep track of ships around you without any issues at all. Docking is incredibly straightforward this way, and I haven't fumbled a single one of my attempts. Place your HOTAS joystick and throttle appropriately, and you'll be able to look down upon the in-game pilot arms and honestly believe they are yours. That's not hyperbole either, you can truly forget that these aren't your own arms, which can weird you out if you start moving them around. Then again, joystick and throttle movements are replicated by the in-game model.

The resolution of the Rift leaves something to be desired, but unlike with the DK1, all in-game text is readable in Elite: Dangerous with the DK2, especially if you lean in for a closer look. I've done several trade runs with no issues whatsoever, never having to remove my hands from the joystick and throttle except for when I'm using the galaxy map. The map feels incomplete right now and doesn't work properly with a HOTAS at all, forcing you to either use a controller or the keyboard to navigate it, and the text is much smaller and harder to read than any other parts of the game. I expect the map to go through radical improvements in coming patches.

There's also a stuttering issue with head movements right now, but this is caused by a software bug in the Rift itself which has already been fixed internally at Oculus. We're bound to see this removed sooner rather than later.

There's so much I could say about the Rift and Elite: Dangerous, but if you haven't tried it yourself, it won't really mean much. Let me just put it like this: I can't imagine ever wanting to play this game without the Rift again. It would feel empty and artificial. On a monitor you're simulating the feeling of sitting in a space ship and flying across the galaxy. With the Rift you are sitting in a space ship, flying across the galaxy.
142  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Elite: Dangerous on: July 31, 2014, 09:39:34 PM

Quote from: Harkonis on July 31, 2014, 08:21:47 PM

I still think I would prefer to play on my 46" tv and stream with a TrackIR, than play on a Rift

I think that preference would get turned on its head the moment you tried the Rift. icon_razz
143  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Orbis. aka PlayStation 4? The rumors are put to rest. on: July 30, 2014, 11:33:59 AM
"All" meaning "US and Canada". It feels a bit silly sitting here with a 100 Mbit fiberoptic Internet connection while Sony says they can't support PS Now in Europe yet because the Internet connections aren't good enough here. Tongue
144  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [XB1] EA Access on: July 30, 2014, 11:16:22 AM
This is one case where I have no problem letting Microsoft get an "exclusive". slywink

Sony likely looked at EA's proposal and realized that it would only hurt PS+, both for themselves and for the players. Unless EA actually pay them to include the program (beyond mere license fees), EA Access can only hurt the PS4, both from an economic and customer relationship angle. The Xbox One too, of course. I guess we'll get to see with that one. Microsoft has been struggling (but getting better) with catching up to PS+ with their Games for Gold initiative, and it will be interesting to see how EA Access affects that. Games for Gold won't benefit from it, at least, and can be outright hurt by it as described above. Microsoft will only benefit from EA Access if it attracts more buyers of the hardware, and I really can't see that service doing that in any measurable way.
145  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [XB1] EA Access on: July 30, 2014, 10:31:10 AM
It appears Sony is thinking along the same lines as I am, at least if I'm reading their official statements about this correctly. Sony says that EA Access doesn't offer sufficient value to the Playstation users, and won't allow it on the PS4 for the time being. They're holding the door open in case the value proposition improves, but I'm at least glad to see that Sony is taking a stance against it, even if it happens to be for entirely selfish purposes.

Edit: Oops, misread. Sony isn't holding the door open. That was the journalist's take on the situation. Sony's door is officially closed, apparently.
146  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [XB1] EA Access on: July 30, 2014, 09:59:00 AM

Quote from: Jumangi on July 30, 2014, 09:36:40 AM

Quote from: wonderpug on July 30, 2014, 01:36:27 AM

Quote from: Jumangi on July 30, 2014, 12:40:12 AM

Quote from: TiLT on July 29, 2014, 11:19:19 PM

It might seem like a good deal for gamers until you realize that this means EA will stop providing their games (if they ever provided them. I don't recall) for PS+ and Games for Gold. They will want to push people into subscribing to their service instead, so that instead of taking a percentage of revenue, they get it all. They don't care if they fuck over Microsoft and Sony in the process. EA's world contains only EA, they don't care about the rest.

I know its all hip to hate on EA these days be so what? What does EA owe Sony and PS+? Its their content. If they can monetize it good for them.

Good for them? I don't get it. You're applauding their possible increased profits at the expense of gamers? Yay for corporations when they figure out how to get us to pay more money for the same things?

I see nothing that is at the expense of gamers. Its an alternative way to get EA titles. Buy, rent, used, PS+, Games for Gold, F2P, gamers have many options these days. Your free to pick what you want. The market will decide if this works. Its called capitalism.

The assumption we're discussing (which might very well turn out to be false, except this is EA we're talking about) is that this isn't an alternative way to get EA titles. It'll the ONLY way to get them through subscription services. That's why this is at the expense of gamers. They're likely reducing the value of existing services that lots and lots of people use, forcing them to purchase access to additional subscription services to regain what they might otherwise have gotten with their basic one.

Gamers don't benefit from this. EA does, and other publishers if they follow. Then again, the other publishers (even Activision) have turned out to not be big enough assholes to copy EA's Origin solution, so who knows.

It's very very very important to be skeptical when publishers present some new solution as beneficial to gamers. They often aren't, but they present it in such a way that it appears to be. The average consumer is very easily swayed by this kind of thing, which is the troublesome part. There are even people out there who will argue eagerly for EA's choice to pull all their games from Steam even though consumers gain nothing and lose lots from that deal, just because EA tries to steer the message.
147  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [XB1] EA Access on: July 29, 2014, 11:19:19 PM

Quote from: EddieA on July 29, 2014, 11:13:58 PM

It seems a lot like PS+, but with only EA games.  You get full games (Madden 25, FIFA 14, Peggle 2, and Battlefield 4 to start), trials, and discounts.  If you like the games in question and they add games regularly, this doesn't seem like a bad deal.  The fact that PS+ is only $20 more kind of hurts the deal, though.

It might seem like a good deal for gamers until you realize that this means EA will stop providing their games (if they ever provided them. I don't recall) for PS+ and Games for Gold. They will want to push people into subscribing to their service instead, so that instead of taking a percentage of revenue, they get it all. They don't care if they fuck over Microsoft and Sony in the process. EA's world contains only EA, they don't care about the rest.

If you think that's bad, imagine what happens if EA succeeds and the other publishers notice. We're suddenly left with half a dozen different subscription services to get what we used to get with one or two (depending on whether or not you have one or both of the PS4 and Xbox One). If we're lucky.

Assuming these speculations are correct, EA just screwed us gamers over for the sake of their own bottom line. Business as usual.
148  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [XB1] EA Access on: July 29, 2014, 05:56:34 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on July 29, 2014, 05:41:59 PM

Quote from: Soulchilde on July 29, 2014, 05:30:41 PM

EA is rolling out a access plan for the XB1 for it's entire catalog for 4.99/mo or 29.99/yr  

My hunch is the XB1 is the test case before it rolls out the PS4 just my guess

If successful this is game changer , imo

From that article, it doesn't look like it's their entire catalog, it's "The Vault, a collection of EAís biggest games on Xbox One".  Newer titles, you get a 10% discount.

So unless I'm reading it wrong, for $5/month or $30/year you can play the old EA games that should already be Games with Gold freebies.

Oh man, I didn't even consider this until your post, but you seem to have hit the nail on the head. This could very well be (I would say it's very likely to be) their attempt to barge into the PS+ / Games for Gold market to take a larger share for themselves, just like they did with Steam and Origin, and just like they did with the server situation on the Xbox 360.

If true, we can probably wave goodbye to any EA games, new or old, in PS+ or Games for Gold. EA will have fucked up a good thing for gamers once again.

This is the EA we know and "love".
149  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Elite: Dangerous on: July 29, 2014, 05:49:46 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on July 29, 2014, 05:25:55 PM

Quote from: TiLT on July 29, 2014, 05:17:19 PM

This game is also getting a lot of buzz for having one of the(if not the) best implementations of virtual reality out there at the moment. It's the perfect fit for the Oculus Rift. I'm getting my DK2 this Friday (or so UPS says), and Elite: Dangerous will be one of the first things I fire up, if everything goes smoothly (it won't).

Oh man, please start up a thread with your devkit2 impressions when you get it.  I'm more excited for the Rift than I've been for any of the latest console releases.

Will do. I'm extremely excited about it too.
150  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Elite: Dangerous on: July 29, 2014, 05:17:19 PM
This game is also getting a lot of buzz for having one of the(if not the) best implementations of virtual reality out there at the moment. It's the perfect fit for the Oculus Rift. I'm getting my DK2 this Friday (or so UPS says), and Elite: Dangerous will be one of the first things I fire up, if everything goes smoothly (it won't).
151  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: What are you buying this week? (07/28) on: July 28, 2014, 01:40:00 PM
I have The Last of Us Remaster preordered, so there's that. 
152  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Best Star Wars movie poll on: July 23, 2014, 12:42:37 PM
I get the impression that a lot of kids love The Phantom Menace more than the other movies, so this poll doesn't exactly surprise me. It's hard to understand for us old geezers though. *shakes fist*
153  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Star Wars Episode VII Director Revealed on: July 21, 2014, 07:47:10 PM

Quote from: Lee on July 21, 2014, 07:28:06 PM

Why does it have jet engines?

Those aren't jet engines, but fusial thrust engines. At any rate, they are the engines for the ship.
154  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: What are you buying this week? (07/21) on: July 21, 2014, 05:27:25 AM
I'm off to Majorca for the entire week, so nothing for me. smile
155  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Yogscast Yogventures successful Kickstarter ($570k) game cancelled on: July 17, 2014, 10:03:09 PM

Quote from: Lordnine on July 17, 2014, 09:47:37 PM

I tend to stand by the rule that if a company is trying to make a game through kickstarter and are asking for less than a million dollars, they probably donít know what they are doing and itís not going to end well.

I guess that's a decent enough rule of thumb for casual backers who only go after the big projects (the AAA kickstarters, if you will), but it's a bit too simplified of a method for my taste. I'd put it like this:

- Ambitious (ie. tries to pull off multiple features rarely seen in games)
- Total required funding is less than 7 digits (pay attention to any alternate sources of funding listed in the Kickstarter and add to this total. This includes funds supplied by the developer or investors/publishers. Low total required funding is OK if the team has funds coming in from other places.).
- Technically impressive (mostly in terms of graphics, but it could be just about anything technical that makes you raise your eyebrows in approval).
- Has an unproven group of developers behind it.

If the project you're looking at contains more than two of the features listed above, do some research before backing. If it contains more than three, stay away.

Please note that some of the oldest Kickstarter campaigns sometimes break these principles, mostly because everything was still highly experimental back then.
156  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: French blogger fined by judge for be being too popular on: July 17, 2014, 06:28:09 PM

Quote from: Isgrimnur on July 17, 2014, 05:54:40 PM

They also have a ministry devoted to the language and culture.

That's not unique. Norway has that, and I suspect most other European nations do too.
157  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: What are you buying this week? (07/14) on: July 14, 2014, 06:27:16 AM
Not buying anything this week, and probably not until The Last of Us comes out on PS4, since I'll be going away for a week.
158  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Broken Age (formerly Double Fine Adventure) on: July 07, 2014, 06:09:29 PM

Quote from: forgeforsaken on July 07, 2014, 05:46:00 PM

I've been holding off playing it until the second half gets released.

Double Fine has been recommending against that approach from the beginning. It's very easy to get spoiled about the twist, and communication from Double Fine to fans before release of the second half will assume that you've played the first. There's no real reason to wait.
159  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Broken Age (formerly Double Fine Adventure) on: July 07, 2014, 05:22:43 PM

Quote from: Travis on July 07, 2014, 04:54:13 PM

There is supposed to be a second half released at some point, right?  Or am I misremembering that?

Yes. What's available now is the first half of the adventure. It works very well standalone and has a great ending, but it's not complete.
160  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Broken Age (formerly Double Fine Adventure) on: July 07, 2014, 04:39:15 PM

Quote from: Travis on July 07, 2014, 03:53:19 PM

Quote from: Lordnine on July 03, 2014, 03:57:41 PM

Seems like your problem might be with COMEDY adventure games then.  icon_smile

Well, along the line of my poor taste I liked all of the LSL games (even the recent remake).

I think you just proved his point. slywink

I like the LSL games too...
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 162
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.295 seconds with 20 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.16s, 1q)