alanschu

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I may be tired tomorrow, but it was worth it. Excellent game all around. Very physical, and both teams had their fair share of chances, and goalies had some unbelievable saves!

Fixed. For a few hunder dollars, you get an eMachine. For a few hundred dollars, you can't even get you a video card that will last until the end of the XBOX 360's development cycle. For a few hundred dollars, you certainly aren't getting a motherboard and CPU to go with the video card you just bought. For a few hundred dollars, you can get a gaming system with static hardware that will have support for the next 5 years. Because, on the whole, PC gaming is much more expensive and has a miniscule installed base compared to console gaming. You should count your blessings that more people do not become PC gamers, otherwise your prices will rise. Or, you could buy a cheap computer to do the menial stuff, and a console, and STILL save money over any halfway decent gaming computer. And it will likely last longer to boot! If you shell out good money for a card, then you might as well buy a console. Because that Radeon X1900 XTX costs $600 as well. Given that the Radeon 9800 Pro came out 3 years ago, you paid a premium for it...likely the same cost as a console period. As for having your GeForce2 for "ages," I assume you mean 3 years...since they came out in 2000, 3 years before the Radeon 9800 Pro. Which, ironically, was also the same year that the PS2 was released. You are insisting that people buy $600 graphics cards, which, by your own standard you didn't even keep for the duration of the console (since PS2s are still around and can still be bought). In order to last as long as that console, you had to buy a whole new $600 video card 3 years ago. Given your penchant of buying video cards right when they come out, you have spent $1000+ dollars on video cards alone, let alone motherboards with the appropriate AGP/PCI-E support that are required, in addition to new processors, RAM upgrades, etc. Meanwhile, someone back in 2000 plopped down $400 for a PS2, and could still be using it.

I could see that Dominoing into WW3, especially if they are from different countries.

That's nice. Immature? How so? Beer tastes like ****. I'd much rather have a rye and coke or a screwdriver. Or most wines.

Meh.

What? ROFL!

I agree with Volourn on this one. Bioware's success is a testament to them making a game that people wanted to play. And it was an excellent game. All Bioware owes to people that bought PC games is that they support the PC games that were bought. You talk about consumer support, but this fails to realize that prior to Baldur's Gate, Bioware didn't have consumer support. And despite not having consumer support, they still sold a ton of copies of it. Yes a game needs customers to buy it to be successful, but generally games need some sort of quality to them in order for sales to be high enough to be successful. I doubt the Bioware fans would continue to support Bioware if Bioware started making crappy PC games. Companies don't come out of no where and maintain a high profile and be recognized for quality games and maintain a loyal fanbase simply by releasing products. They get (and stay) there by releasing quality products. While I disagree about Volourn on how successful Jade Empire truly was in the eyes of Bioware and Microsoft, I would not be the least bit surprised if their expectations were not as high as they were for KOTOR and NWN. All that "hell of a lot more stuff" that you can do with a PC can be done without the power of a gaming PC. I sure as hell don't need a Radeon 9800 Pro to type this message to you. And few PC owners are going to use high end PC graphics for that high end video editing that just needs to be done. So yes, I can grasp that the PC can do more. I can also grasp that the vast majority of these extra things used by the average joe could be done on a $300 eMachine. The funny thing is that the price argument is actually a reflection of the market not being as strong. If there was enough demand to charge the same for the Windows version of Call of Duty 2, then they would charge it. And the accelerated rate of the price dropping (games like Half-Life would disagree however) means that demand drops off that much faster. But considering that, to have a PC adequately play games for the next 5 years, you aren't going to be buying a $100 video card. In 5 years, the $600 Radeon X1900 XTX might still be usable, but forgive me if I reserve my judgement that it will run the new games particularly well. My old card before my 9800 Pro was the Radeon 8500, which is nothing more than a paperweight now, given it doesn't support any of the new shader models, and was completely incapable of running a game like Far Cry. Not bad for something that cost me $300 3 years ago.

Dammit! Stop showing me up!

Unless you have any idea how far away I am from a place that sells computer games, you can't possibly state how long it takes for me to bike to any place, so it's moot. As for corrupted downloads, sounds like a personal problem. I've never had a "click something to proceed" that popped up in the middle of a download either. I used to download 100MB+ demos when I was on dialup overnight. I think you're just trying to find additional reasons that only occur under extreme circumstances because you have already decided that DD is not for you (which I never had a problem with). Yes. I know. Which is why I'd rather he not have to survive on a slam dunk. I'd rather he did not have to put his team under extreme pressure to get IWD2 out the door simply because they desperately need money because their previous games (which I loved) were not huge sellers. I'm well aware of the fact that they had to go for "slam-dunks" just to get the possibility of making their own IP (which many are already convinced is vapourware). It has little to do with what I said though. What? Absolutely no profit? What? I think there's a language barrier here. And no, it doesn't surprise me that a good game sells well. As for the retail price +10% for the online purchase, I guess I'll just agree to disagree. Especially considering all the work you did to show that the prices were typically the same. You're missing the point. Publisher X opted to support Crap Game Y over potentially new Idea Z because he knew Crap Game Y would make him more money, but wasn't sure if New Idea Z would. The problem here (and this is even in the words of developers, such as Will Wright which you brought up) is that New Idea Z never gets a chance. The whole point of DD, as you have even conceded, is that you don't need to sell as much to make a profit. The higher ROI means that historically marginal titles (like pretty much all the BIS PC games) become economically viable. New Idea Z has a greater potential for turning a profit, that it becomes less risky for creditors (whomever they may be) to help finance a project. It's about supporting innovation. Which is why I said that selling a digital copy of it is no different than selling a retail copy. No ****ing **** sherlock. I'm not saying that you should either. Just like I didn't buy Counterstrike (a game I played a ton) when the retail version came out because I already owned Half-Life, I'm not going to fault you for not buying a game you already have. Besides, you were asking why someone would pay $25 for the retail version, when you can get UT2K4 for $20. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the Retail Red Orchestra has additional content in some way shape or form. This argument though is totally non sequitor, and accomplishes nothing. I never said that someone should buy a $25 game if they can get that same game for $20.

Ah yes, I always forget the rentals.

You do know that multiple accounts aren't actually that uncommon right? Disagree. As a PC fan, I think that anyone that thinks that the PC as a gaming machine compares in any way cost wise is just trying to convince themselves of the fact. Console gaming is cheap and it is easy.

Must...get...new....computer....first...

I'm a PC gamer first too Mus, and even then I can understand the appeal of the console platform.

I guess Gamespy called the Biotics Bionics, so now there's some hoopla about Bionics in the game or something.

I haven't followed it, but is there no chance that it turns into a good FPS like Deus Ex or System Shock 2?

As I mentioned already, the only version of Half-Life 2 that didn't come with CS: Source was the barebones version from steam. The Silver and Gold both came with it, as did both retail boxes. (Actually, tiered purchase plans is another benefit, as if you only want Half-Life 2 and nothing else, that option was available to you). Because there is confounding variables. A bicycle would take longer. Net connections do cost money, and if you don't have a fixed cost for bandwidth like I do, then DD is probably not for you. Same with people that still have to use dial-up modems. As for taking a lot more time...I suppose. Except that I can download the game at 3:30 AM if I want. I buy most of my DD games while I sleep. I don't see the large time investment required, when I can have the game download while I'm at school/work/sleeping. In any case, it's not like I can't do other stuff on my computer while I download it either. I was chatting it up on forums when I bought SR2. I know about indie games. And I want to see MORE of them. I want to see an influx of creative talent coming into the market. As for Will Wright and whatnot, thank god these guys demonstrated their abilities prior to the explosion in development costs. Will Wright had his legacy of games to keep an extremely skeptical Electronic Arts from pulling the plug on The Sims. Thankfully, The Sims made EA so much money that EA is willing to take on Will's innovative Spore. But I'd rather Will Wright not be the only person that has creative freedom in the industry. Will has also been very vocal that stagnation is all too common in this industry because of the rising development costs. I'd rather Feargus not have to rely on a "slam-dunk" to get Obsidian some money so that they have a bit more influence with publishers to start publishing their own IP. All that hard work you did demonstrating that the online cost is the same as the retail cost would indicate otherwise. As for not seeing a price drop in an online store, I disagree. Given that I, you know, actually keep track of them. I guarantee you that if sales are crap at $50 on a game, regardless of how it's distributed, it's price will go down. Consumers don't understand how much influence they have on the price of goods. I have already commented that if someone values the authentic CD and the manual, then they should buy the retail copy. The reason why I go on about economics is because you seem utterly confused that a DD game would sell for the same price. You were bitching that Half-Life 2, a game that (if the steam preload means anything) had pretty good DD sales, still sold at the standard $50. If people are willing to pay $50 for something, and a company doesn't anticipate an increase in revenue by dropping the price, they probably won't do it. No, it's not. The decision of game developers is heavily influenced by the publisher. It's part of the reason why the game developers themselves complain about stagnation in the industry. The publisher has less personal investment into the game, and seems intent on funding games like Enter the Matrix and Driv3r because they have established IPs and they are a shoo-in for making "big bux." They are seen as the primary catalyst (this is according to game devs too) behind the focus on graphics over gameplay. I wouldn't be surprised if they are the ones saying "Games should be shorter to appeal to the mass market" either. Because of the copyprotection scheme Valve implemented. You have to validate your CD key on a Steam account. I haven't tried, but as far as I can tell the only way you could successfully sell your CD is if you gave the other guy your Steam account as well. You cannot validate a CD key under a different account. Assuming of course that both the free download and the retail release are exactly the same. If they are, then the people that bought the $25 official version are being stupid. I certainly wouldn't blame any developer/publisher for that!

All that says is that it's in our nature to look out for ourselves. It doesn't say that it's in our nature to kill each other. Irrelevant. If it was in our nature to kill each other, then people would have gone through the proper protocol to launch said nuclear missiles. If it's in our nature, it wouldn't have to rely on one man, because it'd be inherent to all of us.

The closest I have ever been to drunk was feeling a small buzz one day while I was on my trip in the Dominican Republic. I agree with Llyranor that it doesn't say much as a person if you require being drunk in order to make friends. I do not typically drink (if for no other reason than cheap alcohol tastes like ****, and expensive alcohol is, well, expensive). The funny thing is, is that I am the one voted most likely to go out and act goofy on the dance floor, and out of the 4 people (including myself) that were down there, only one rivaled me in my ability to strike up a conversation with a stranger. I am not against drinking, nor do I have any beef with someone that drinks near me. I do not have a hard time meeting people and talking with them, and tend to make friends quite easily.

I'm talking about Half-Life 2, as mkreku specifically mentioned that game. Which is why I said I wasn't aware of any for other games either. In any case, I have to go to work now, so I'll continue this discussion later. EDIT: As for CS: Source, there was only 1 of the 5 different ways you could buy HL2 that did not include CS for free.

No, I can't. But I can be certain that an idea for a game that hasn't been tried before has a greater likelihood of not being squashed at the very beginning because a publisher isn't interested. Some developers will try to just get the big game sales. But developers of niche markets in particular (like the CRPG market for instance) have a greater likelihood of earning enough money to cover the costs for their development. It helps promote innovation in game design. Especially seeing as there is flexibility in price. If you think that $50 is too "greedy" then buy the game when it is $40. On the plus side, the developers will still make money off of it. If a game is pushing the envelope, the option of selling it for less to attract buyers is more viable. Don't be surprised when Half-Life 2 doesn't have any significant discounts, because people are going to buy it. And those that aren't going to buy it at $50, can buy it when the price drops to $40 (or now $30). Because they haven't done anything to prevent you from getting your precious manual. On the other hand, the only thing missing is hard copies of stuff like that. The value added is pretty moot, as there's still no content that a DD has no access to compared to a retail buyer. DD may not come with a paper manual, but it still does come with the manual. That's just it! The idea is that they CAN make it in the end. It's a new paradigm. Yes, there will be developers that only want to get the most sales and make games that follow a particular formula. But believe it or not, there are some developers that look at their work as art. The idea of making a game like Fallout or Torment, that doesn't really sell all that much, becomes that much more viable. If someone is particularly creative at making these sort of games over the high gloss 3D shooter, they aren't immediately at a severe handicap in this industry. Finally, the greater ROI also means that longer games are not as risky of an enterprise. One, they have a greater chance to recoup the costs, plus if it is true that many people don't prefer longer games, there is less reliance on needing large volume in order to make a profit. People seek to maximize their enjoyment in life. I'll take my chances that an artist (i.e. the developer) has a greater chance of finding pleasure by releasing a game (or game idea) that he really wants to do that won't sell as much, then I will with a 3rd party publisher. It happens already with literature and movies, and probably other art mediums as well. Authors don't need to hope for their book to be a bestseller to be successful, and I'm sure many are perfectly content catering to a smaller niche because it's about a topic they enjoy writing about.

You'll have a tough time doing that with the hard copy of the game as well though. In any case, it's just the same. The caveat is that you have to give up your steam account as well. Given I don't sell my games when I'm done with them, I haven't really looked into it with other companies. But with Half-Life 2, it's just as inconvenient both ways. What are you talking about? It has always been impossible to play any of those games for free, so it's not like you could play them without paying for it. In the case of CS and DOD, you had to own the original Half-Life. Alternatively, if you weren't interested in Half-Life, and just wanted to play CS, you have the option of buying just CS. Same goes for Red Orchestra and whatnot. I didn't pay any extra to play Counterstrike: Source. I just bought Half-Life 2. Nor did I have to pay for Half-Life 2: Deathmatch. I just bought Half-Life 2. However, if you were only interested in those components, you could buy just them and actually save money in the end. Because we are all talking out of our asses when it comes to how effective DD sales is right now. Then don't use DD. Problem solved. I on the other hand, find it particularly convenient to be able to buy a game while I'm busy doing something else. I don't have to waste gas driving to the store, and I WOULD rather the developers get the additional money. DD is just starting. It's way to early.

I have SLI'd in the past for performance boosts (Voodoo2). The thing is, by the time I am needing that performance boost, the card that goes with it can be acquired for particularly cheap.

Technology has been more evolutionary since WW2 in my opinion.

That would explain the drastic increase in homicides after Katrina hit! It doesn't get rid of social control. If there is one thing that people inherently are, it's that they are social beings. If social control did disappear, then everyone would be doing the looting, and acting in their own best interests (because I do believe that people are inherently selfish...it's a survival trait). Why would we be more likely to kill each other compared to other animals if, as you say, we are driven by need just the same as animals. I don't believe that it's because it is part of our nature to kill. If you could point me in the direction of some academic research to indicate that we are, I'd love to read up on it. Based purely on introspection, I would be willing to concede that people inherently desire power (which is because people are inherently social...more on this later). I do believe that people are inherently aggressive. But if it was truly in our nature to kill ourselves, I'd suspect somebody somewhere would have already pushed the button to thermonuclear destruction. Probably during a blackout when social control has disappeared.

Good point! I concede.