Mamoulian War

Pro-question 1... does everybody who have PC, have PC capable of playing current gen PC games? No... I have 3 working PCs at home only 1 is capable of playing current gen PC games. 75% of PCs sold today are not suitable for gaming... Most of the people buy desktops/notebooks for work school or internet browsing... Pro-question 2... does everybody who have Xbox 360/Playstation 3/Wii have Xbox 360/Playstation 3/Wii capable of playing current gen console games? Yes... 100% of consoles sold today are suitable for gaming. That is the difference, people spent much much less money on console gaming in a span of 5 - 10 years than on PC gaming. And i dont believe it will ever change... So the cost of the PC is very relevant to gaming... Most of the people who are buying Wii or Xbox 360 arcade (because of they low price), never played on PC anything beyond minesweeper

I dont see gaming going back to PC soon, Look how many people complain about high cost of PS3 everywhere, and it is still less than a PC cost... ever seen how GTA IV plays on $3000 PCs ??? one smaal hint, it plays terrible... and lot of longtime PC customers switch to consoles just because SecuROM, limited activations etc... Going 100% steam is out of question next few years aswell, because small download speed in most of the countries... PS3 games can have up to 50GB atm, with Pioneer already introducing 400GB BD medium which can be read with current BD players... http://digitimes.com/news/a20081201PD212.html Can you imagine downloading 50GB game with 2-10Mbit/s line or with a line which has 1-10GB limitation per month? When there start to going out games which fully use the capacity of PS3 and BD customers will demand say thing for PC... And besides, the capacity of cables which are laid around atm is not high enough to hold up to the growing demand of digital streaming content, if there will not be invested tens of billions of dollars worldwide, people predict collapse of internet... http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/81331 I dont think that this will happen anytime soon, but if the time of the global crisis like we have atm, i dont think that governments around the globe will prioritize funding internet backbones much over other more important things... yes yes another doom story :D

I already asked this of the opening poster, and didn't get a response. Are you going to do the same thing and not by a Bio game for fear of "funding this sick vision"? If so, do you also own any of the consoles? Because, I think were there to be a console unification, it might actually be the console manufacturers doing this, and not EA. Just a bit of a thought... Seems somewhat obvious to me. If console manufacturer wanted console unification we would already had one... If this comes to finale, it will be most likely work of publisher made consortium...

It's called greed... Drakensang guys are still not infected...

That isn't DRM. It kinda is... DRM Digital Rights Management... With this certificate, they gave you the right to use the game only for limited time... after it expires and someone says that it's to much trouble for him to renew the certificate of the game again, you end up with coaster...

Lol and where is that a standard??? In USA and Japan? You know, there are around 250 other countries which can disagree with your numbers... But yes i can get 100mbit in here aswell, for a small fee of 2500 EUR/month... oh yeah i love standards...

If that would happen, i would definitely not jump out of the gaming ship ... But i still think Linux would be beter choice, but man can't have everything he desires

a quick read makes me think you are mis-interpreting what they are talking about... not a monopolistic provider, but a standard platform with (potentially) multiple providers. this is not unheard of. taks That is consumer's wish If the thingie would be realy open platform with lot of providers it could be good, but from Corporate point of view the biggest cash flows in your pocket, when you are the only provider of said service and there is still one thing in the article... That would mean, from that day on, all games would be handled like MMO's are handled now... All they need to do is make imaginary cut through your cable (disable your account) and you and your awesome console are screwed the illuminati's killed jfk and big foot is really a govt. created super soldier project test critter that has occasionally gotten loose. ... what, Gromnir thought we were sharing crack pot conspiracy theories in this thread? HA! Good Fun! Oh yeah, wanna inhale for a while too?

a quick read makes me think you are mis-interpreting what they are talking about... not a monopolistic provider, but a standard platform with (potentially) multiple providers. this is not unheard of. taks That is consumer's wish If the thingie would be realy open platform with lot of providers it could be good, but from Corporate point of view the biggest cash flows in your pocket, when you are the only provider of said service and there is still one thing in the article... That would mean, from that day on, all games would be handled like MMO's are handled now... All they need to do is make imaginary cut through your cable (disable your account) and you and your awesome console are screwed

That isn't new, games came out on the N64 for $60. The difference is people have been buying in huge numbers, so publishers haven't had any reason to drop back to the mainstay. Still, a $10 hike over the last 20 years isn't really all that much. Yes $10 is not much but imagine one crazy thing The manufacturer of said unified system would be Microsoft... All what he needs to do to make PC as gaming platform obsolete is to release new operating system that is not compatible with Windows and does not put anything like DirectX in it or make something into kernel that forbid calls into graphics cards (something very close to this is in PS3 atm... you can install Linux into PS3, but you are unable to use the graphic system of PS3 with it), i bet at some point something like OpenGL would be developed for it, but it could last long time... Now imagine Microsoft would give away only licenses to EA, Activision and Atari for example... All other developers would not be granted a license for the system, and because of the new operating system without ability of using graphics for anything else than Aero, they would be screwed. Now that 3 companies with granted license would not have anyone as a direct competitor and they could make with games and price whatever they want Crazy idea right??? Most of the sane people thought that Communism was crazy idea aswell, and we all know how half of the world ended up in 20th century

It happened already with PS3, Wii and Xbox360... new games cost 10 USD or 10 EUR more than new games on PS2, Gamecube and PC... The same prices are only for PC games... and with unified gaming platform we do not speak about PC games but about console games...

Yes a lot of benefit to developers... If it is a closed system it means, the manufacturer can issue licences to developers who want to develop for it... The easiest way to make ****loads of profit is to give away the license only to selected few publishers, which in the end would mean lack of games on the market which would lead into skyrocketing their prices...

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/01...ied-console.ars just copy/paste from my post in offtopic forums in Bioware forums... now I see that Bioware was trully EAten After reading this, i realy do not know what to say... Unified (monopolistic) console system is just a nightmare for any customer... No competition was always bad for customers in every aspect of life... One manufacturer = no need to compete with different prices, different content, different hardware capabilities... All i see behind this is greed... Another reason for me to not purchased anything from EA, because with that i would be funding this sick vision... If you do not know what a monopolistic provider is able to do to his consumer, just google for russia, EU and gas... Was nice, while it lasted, that article just means no more Bioware games for me, which makes me very very sad Westwood

Lol, that may be the case! I would say most of the execs are doing that while outlining their expectations, and not only in gaming business

High cost as a piracy is bull***... If you think the game is to costly wait 6 - 12 months you can get the game in cheaper edition... I did that sometimes for console games, because i was "pure" PC gamer who changed 3 years ago with release of Wii... The biggest reason from my experience/point of view is that people pirate because of "collector's greed" (dont know better word for it)... Lot of people i know who download games, buy a lot of games aswell, but they download everything they think they will play, and as i know them, most of the games (about 80 - 95%) they download, they just burn on CD/DVD and put under the bed, without even installing it, because at the end they spend to much time playing the games they purchased legally...

Hmmm, the prices tend to be comparable for me. Because you live in North America... Steam for Europe sucks with prices compared to retailers... It's the same why i never ever buy games in Slovakia, tey just cost up to 20EUR more for new release than in UK!!! To hell even if i import stuff from HongKong it is still cheaper than buying game diractly at Slovakia... Not to talk about the regional locking of games, if i buy retail game with mandatory Steam activation during vacation in USA or Canada, if install it home the game can get locked out the steam account... that happened with few games in the past because publisher did not like people buying games for USD instead of EUR which is in most of the cases same number...

Believe me or not i am buying from UK with preorders (and i live in central europe) and every single copy i get directly in my home brought by postman 1 day before official release... all i have to do is open the door when the postman comes

That is pretty much the only reason people are still buying so many console games. If the publishers finally have their way and kill the console second-hand market then it will be hilarious to see them blame low sales on some other scapegoat(piracy maybe?) I firmly believe that all games should have demos(that FEAR2 demo was like the first PC demo of a big game in 3 months) and that people should only buy games that they think are actually worth the money.(maybe we'd get better games then) Retailer's take something in region of a 40% cut from a game which is sold new. The rest goes to publisher/developer etc... A second hand game is pure profit for the retailer. A game costing $50 once sold makes $20 for the retailer. I buy back that game for $15, and sell it on again at $30, that's just increased the retailers profit. Hence a game which cost $50 in the first place has now made $50 for the retailer, with a risk of $15, the actual folk who've worked on the product have made $30. The sale also only counts as a single unit sold. That's my basic issue with second hand games, I can understand why people buy second hand, it's cheaper so that's a no brainer, but the retailers are making an absolute killing while the developer probably see's what $10 of every unit sold. Naturally there is some room for movement, but those figures are around the correct figure. I agree with the idea of demo's in principle, but it's not always practical to develop a demo. Let's look at it this way: Retailer's take something in region of a 40% cut from a car which is sold new. The rest goes to car manufacturer etc... A second hand car is pure profit for the retailer. A car costing $5000 once sold makes $2000 for the retailer. I buy back that car for $1500, and sell it on again at $3000, that's just increased the retailers profit. Hence a car which cost $5000 in the first place has now made $5000 for the retailer, with a risk of $1500, the actual folk who've worked on the product have made $3000. And to my surprise i never ever seen any car manufacturer to complain about second hand sales... Myself I never ever sold a game i own, i do purchase mostly new and sometimes second hand (only when the game is not available anymore)... But there is one figure people should look at... If someone has yearly gaming budget of $300 he buys 6 new games, let's call him customer 1... that is $180 for publisher/developer (according to your 40% for retailers figure) If the same person sell all 6 games for $15 he get back $90. If the person is not a skinflint and adds another $10 he can buy 2 more games per year which means $60 more for publisher/developer. At the end publisher/developer get $240. Now look at the person which buys the second hand games...let's call him customer 2 the biggest question is why he is buying sencond hand games? the answer is easy he cannot afford paying full price for a game (i know many people in this situation who rather wait year or even two until the game gets into discount price)... So let's look at his budget... let's say he is a stupid customer and buys second hand games from retailer for $30... we used 6 games for the wealthy customer in 1st example so use this example here aswell... That means we have $180 budget for our less fortunate not-so-wealthy customer. from this budget publisher/developer get $0 Let's look if 2nd hand was eliminated.. budget $180 means 3 games which is $108 for developers (if you think that he will pile up his gaming budget just because there is no second hand market to buy as much games as before, you are clearly not married )... in this scenario the customer 1 was unable to sell any games so he bought only 6 games which means profit $180 for publisher/developer. both numbers together it's $288 profit... in this scenario it's clearly more profitable for publisher/developer. now look at customer 2 if he is acting smart... he does not buy from retailers, he buys directly from seller or from e-bay for $15 per game... for $180 he buys 6 games from customer 1 and because he still has $90 at hand he buys another 6 games from customer 3, which in ideal world were all first sales which means publisher/developer originaly sold 12 games for $600 which means $360 profit for them. This scenario is clearly the most profitable for publisher... both of these examples are representing two opposite sides of how secondhand market works... I let decide you which of these two examples are more fitting the reality... From my experience and observation (which might be totaly different from yours because i live in different part of the world), i can tell you, it's closer to the last example... So from my point of view elimination of second hand market will at the end lead into decreasing profits for publishers and developers...

Yes... very real... another article about it... http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090...usic-store.html

i can asure you it's not...

I might get a couple copies of that as well (one for me and one for my little sister), but only if it has no limited-installations or on-line activations. I'd sooner believe that Israel and Palestine will never ever start a war again...

Infinity Engine, especialy in Hi-Res resolutions looks much much better than most of the "modern" 3D engines... The designers just had to put more time into small details which made the areas look more alive... you can't see much of that nowadays most of the 3D worlds are static, with very few exceptions...

i played beta when it was out... i liked it a lot, the game was full of nice ideas, but from what i have seen and experienced it got ruined because to many people who played it played WoW aswell and they were not willing to pay 2nd subscription... that is fate of others MMO's aswell especialy if publishers are trying to get the same audience for their games...

There are. Stardock, for instence, has been opposed to DRM in the past. yes i know about stardock and CD Project Red and their www.gog.com aswell, I apparently missed "more" in the post above

Maybe i came to that conclusion the same way like you did came to conclusion that i am a fanboy so looks like we are both wrong :D Peace