 |
|
Emperor
Antwerp, Colon's Chocolate Canard Country
|
Jan 1970
time: 15:27
| |
|
|
There's still a few older games I want to buy (Orange Box, Crysis...), but other than those, and at currents trends it's likely I simply won't buy PC games anymore.
|
|
| |
|
|
Deity
Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia - FUKCOV
|
Dec 2000
time: 09:27
| |
|
|
Spore was #1 across all platforms in the UK a couple of weeks running. Buzz Ive heard is its selling pretty well over here. I dont think the amazon review thingie is really hurting sales. Whether its reducing piracy, I dont know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
What is the evidence for Spore being the "most pirated game ever" ??
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Prince
|
Feb 2006
time: 14:27
| |
|
|
Yeah, I've had issue with both Starforce and SercuRom messing up my system in the past
quick story: DVD-ROM stopped reading certain disks, two different DVD-ROM's infact!! So i had to buy 2 new DVD-ROM's because of this ****! Once a new DVD-ROM was in place and the DRM game was not loaded on the(re-installed) system all was fine. So no-more nasty DRM for me = no more PC games bought possibly!
Yes I know people say "thats not possible, it must be something else, I'm a tech wizard and I know" etc, BUT this kind of thing only happened when software with the two fore-mentioned DRM's was installed on my system. Now whatever the cause it cost me £80 approx and a stupid amount of hours to fix. I don't care if it was because I have Nero on my system(so I must be a Pirate!) or whatever.
No, nasty DRM simply = no sale(looking at you Medieval 2 expansion, and FM2008!! - both used secuRom).
So far that hasn't meant I go to find the de-DRM'd games, as most games these days to my mind are not essential, and i'm not a pirate.
But.......well it's kind of an own-goal from the games publishers. And no I will not become a console gamer first and foremost(been there done it got the t-shirt, moved on), I like PC gaming better.
All that happens is I will not buy your game and carry on happily playing older games(of which there are many great ones, all without nasty dangerous software on-board).
As PC gamers we really should make a stand before it gets way out of hand imho.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
State Of Denial
|
Apr 2007
time: 08:27
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by FrostyBoy
PC = Led Zeppelin
Console = Backstreet Boys |
Get over yourself. Both consoles and PC's have pros and cons. There are plenty of crappy games for PC, and plenty of great games for consoles.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
State Of Denial
|
Apr 2007
time: 08:27
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by FrostyBoy
Not buying PC games is probably what they WANT.
They may want to kill that market, shift all of the focus to consoles instead, where they can CONTROL you.
And to be honest, I think it's a good thing. It means no more **** games for the PC. Just put the shitty games on consoles where they belong.
Th good game designers of the world will develop for PC only. |
Yeah, double post, go cry. Why the hell would EA spend money killing the market when they could just ignore it? Not that I think they want to market to die, but if they did, why spend millions marketing, developing, publishing, and shipping a game? Just don't publish for PC, boom, you don't have to worry about that market anymore.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Prince
|
Feb 2006
time: 14:27
| |
|
|
wether it's intentional or not it doesn't really matter. The point is publishers have done quite a bit of damage to the PC gaming scene over recent years - why are you a console gamer now Spikey? You used to be quite a die-hard pc gamer a few years ago i recall? There is a perfect snapshot.
I've seen the kind of people that run AAA game publication, they are often(and nearly all) young fairly inexperienced gamers, mainly with eductaions based in marketing and sales. Some do play games outside of work, but the vast majority don't have the depth of games grounding many of us here have for example.
They do have a good life for the most part, lots of cool game related events etc, and they certainly believe in their own importance(in the publisher vs developer thing) and have the confidence to keep doing what they have been doing for the past decade(12years?) because it has been making money.
I wonder IF the wheels start to fall of the cart they will even know or understand why it might be happening? I suspect not, and when they lose their jobs they will fit back into whatever sector of the jobs market they were in before thet decided making games might be cool.
Sorry if that sounds harsh, and is painting a broad section of people unfairly - but well I think all this DRM nonsense is just systematic of the kind of people and thinking that is running AAA games production, and it will get worse before it gets better - you can hold me to that.
But i'm happy that the mainstream is so focused on consoles, i really think the best of PC gaming has yet to happen. The tech is easily in place and once we accept that 'glossy hollywood' gaming is for consoles(so go there for that), and that graphics dont=great game, then we will see another Xcom again, and it's like, and maybe better?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Deity
Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia - FUKCOV
|
Dec 2000
time: 09:27
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DrSpike
Interesting question. I think you wont like the answer though:
In the main I've followed the games. For years this meant focusing on PC games, because there wasn't that much of the same quality on consoles. Nowadays what have people been looking forward to on PC? It's a damning indictment that the answer is probably Spore. |
To be fair spikey, people have been looking forward to Spore cause its new original intellectual property, probably the beginning of a major new franchise, and (you wont like this) its coming from Will Wright.
Lots of folks are looking forward to Starcraft2, Diablo3, Crysis Warhead, Civ:Colonization, etc but those clearly don't meet the same criteria for originality.
Me, I'm looking forward to playing a game modern enough to HAVE obnoxious DRM, so I can speak more intelligently to the issue. Civ4, which I'm currently playing, doesn't seem to have it.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
State Of Denial
|
Apr 2007
time: 08:27
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by FrostyBoy
Business doesn't work that way Seedle. |
Then business is even more ****ed up than I think it is. Please explain how it benefits a company to purposefully spend money destroying a market. If the market is unprofitable and never will be, why spend money killing it when it will die of its own accord? If the market is unprofitable but may become so, either spend money making it profitable or let some other sucker do it and then reap the rewards at less cost. If the market is profitable...why kill it?
quote:
Originally posted by El_Cid
But i'm happy that the mainstream is so focused on consoles, i really think the best of PC gaming has yet to happen. The tech is easily in place and once we accept that 'glossy hollywood' gaming is for consoles(so go there for that), and that graphics dont=great game, then we will see another Xcom again, and it's like, and maybe better? |
I don't think the mass market will ever get past judging by graphics. Heck, one of the most common complaints about the Civ series on this site is the graphics. And since this site about a game in a genre that must put gameplay first, there isn't much flash you can put in turn based strategy (notice I didn't say there was none.), and caters to what seems to be a generally older, more discriminating audience, and yet still has a solid amount of griping about graphics in a game that they are of relatively minimal importance, tells me the general public will always me mesmerized by pretty polygons...
(Yeah, not that great, best I could do on short notice, and from the computer I'm on...)
Also, are you claiming that all console games are "glossy Hollywood?" If you are, I've got a bone to pick with you...but I want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth first...
Last edited by Seedle on 21-09-2008 at 00:46
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
|
Feb 2006
time: 14:27
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Seedle
...............
Also, are you claiming that all console games are "glossy Hollywood?" If you are, I've got a bone to pick with you...but I want to make sure I'm not putting words in your mouth first... |
Hi Seedle, i've not had the pleasure of debating with you i don't think(either as my old CS child of Thor either)?
No i'm not claiming ALL console games are "glossy Hollywood"(and not much else).......but i'm 'known' for having a certain viewpoint(that i've held for about 6 years now) on what contempory AAA graphics overheads in modern gaming are actualy doing to games in general.
I think part of it is that my "uncanny valley" settings are much lower than many of todays gamers simply due to the fact I started playing games in the early 80's.
So graphics never have been an issue for me, but that doesn't mean I don't love great graphics - i was a total graphics hor during most of my gaming history.
I even used to design detailed graphics and sprites for the games I was playing(you would type many of these into your computer, so could change parts of the code) or making(nothing published). And i was always pushing the limits of the hardware, and my knowledge, to get more colours at higher resolutions etc. So yeah I love great graphics really - but my expectations of what a good graphic is, doesn't mean i need graphics that look like 'real life' or from a movie(for example).
Anyway what I've noticed(in the games i've bought and played) is that particularily in the last 6 years or so, when graphics hardware(on PC's and in consoles like the first xbox) has really enabled 'photo-realism' in games, that many of the games look great but play less good.
Maybe the whole game just sucks(60% could fall into this catergory), while looking great at the same time. Or maybe the game is very short to play and finish. Or very liniar, or maybe less complex(amount of in-game choices etc).
These are just some examples based on my experience, and fit within my history of gaming. So a personal opinion.
And well after thinking on it quite a bit, and then doing a fair amount of research, I started to come to the consclusion that the 'recent' push for photo-realism in gaming has other side effects that may not be so good for games. And one of the most simple ways to show this is that these graphics are not free to make. The principle reason behind the acceleration in costs to produce AAA current games is this graphical overhead. And that leads into all sorts of other areas. For example with more development time spent on making your game look amazing(photo-realisitc), which publishers can insist upon, is less time spent on other area's of the game.
Gamers are as much to blame for this as anyone, but I can see a very strong link between mine and others 'disconnect' with modern gaming that has at it's core too much emphersis going to photo-realistic graphics, when that can detract from some of the most important aspects of what a game is about(playing expereince). Games are not movies, and the more movies and people in the movies have gotten involved in games, the more games have gone down this more narrow track of lush visuals over gameplay/AI/interesting game design etc. Not all the time, but enough of the time to be noticable.
There thats about the long and the short of it for me, and no i'm not saying all console games are rubbish and not worth it, but I think we need to address the graphics thing, as gamers and as an industry if we want to carry on making games that people will talk about in decades to come. The Wii, for all it's flaws, I think is a positive move in this direction. And it's great to see less graphic intensive titles getting good sales on XBLA from small companies etc.
So no not all modern gaming is dross, but much of it is not as good as it should be, considering the vast history of amazing games that have preceeded pretty much everything that gets made today. Progress isn't all about graphics.
And to bring it back on track draconian DRM that punishes an honest customer is another area where modern publishing houses, and the people in them making all these decisions, are not quite able to see the wood for the trees. To me many of todays games are not worth the purchase for many reasons. Luckily some few still are.
|
|
| |
|
|
Technical Assistant
Of the Peanuts Gallery
|
| | |
|
|
