Niten_Ryu

Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter gave $17 out of $60 for the usual console game. Actually I probably calculated Starcraft 2 profit wrong, as main reason why the console games cost $10 then PC games is the license fee. So PC games will get that same $17, but from $50 game at the retailer. Let's try again: $17 + $10 (because $60 price tag) = $27 100 million budget it require 3,7 million sold units.

Like Modern Warfare 2, Starcraft 2 (first campaign and multiplayer) will cost $60. But unlike Modern Warfare 2, Starcraft 2 is PC exclusive game thus there's no license fee to the console manufacturers. So usual $17 + $12 from no license fees + $10 for higher then normal price. That's $39 for every unit sold. With 100 million budget that'd mean that'd mean bit over 2,5 million units. Even if the game is complite garbage, ActiBlizzard will get that back even before the word of mouth hit the streets. Since we know by very long beta that game ain't total trash, will have three separate games (multiplayer part already finished and singleplayer campaigns don't need as long beta time) and Activisions agressive price policies, they are going to get nice profit outta Starcraft 2.

Sad truth is that there's a huge segment of gamers who either enjoy the grind, or tolerate it enough play it thru to reach the good parts

No, I didn't talk about cheapness of living in Finland. Actually prices in greater Helsinki area are out of control and out of reach for the common workforce. I mean we have high taxes, expensive food, low wages. Thus it's cheaper to develop something in Finland then in UK. We have codeslaves, they don't

I bought few PC Zone magazines before the internet was common in early 90's. Content was usually garbage but before the internet (and if you didn't ware). demoCDs or floppies were important. For some reason or other finnish magazines at that time didn't have demodisks. Well, PC gaming is just about dead so no wonder PC Zone died.

Bioware is building time machine back to the 2004. From technical point of view, this generation graphics peaked 2007 when Crysis was released. From art direction point of view there's still a lot to do. Bioware fails on both. Or rahter that both look good, for a game from 2004.

There ain't real technical limitations for multiple, extemely well detailed models. But again, it comes down to resources and cost. Dragon Age also got a lot of negative feedback on character models and animations. Bioware chose the unibody system, where basically all humanoid models can use the same set of animations. Ok, it's crude solution and it kinda works, but players are definately going to see that. It's like saying the storyline of Dungeon Siege is in the game, but it's probably not going to win any awards. Usually player character models are more detailed then rest he models in game. Reason for this is obvious - Players spend most time watching 'em move, fight and interact with environment and NPCs. Unibody system made it almost impossible to make that happen. Sure, you had elfs (slightly slimmed humans with pointy ears), dwarfs (small humans with full sized human arms and hands) but it looked ugly and animated badly. Now there's only human player character in Dragon Age 2. Unless Bioware is totally lazy, they'll redesign human (both male and female) models and give 'em new animations. Elfs and Dwarfs as NPCs could still use old models and animations. Blizzard gave individual animations for all player character races in World of Warcraft, but they are not known to cut costs when it comes down to animations and character models.

There's no answer for that. It all depends on location and job position. For example it's really pricey to live in California area, less in Texas, still less in UK, even less in Finland (Max Payne, Alan Wake developers Remedy or Flatout developer Bugbear) and still less in Poland (The Witcher developers CDproject). Entry level programmer can barely pay his rent and buy food while Lead Progammer get big bucks. For example the salaries in Nightshapes linked list are way too high. If entry level progammer would ask 50k here in Finland, he'd end up with the permanent smile on his face in the nearest river.

I'm glad that I don't feel this way... or rather I look at the games from different angle. For me it always comes down to the simple fact - Is this game worth the price? It was that way in the early 80's and it's still that way. In the past, especially in early 90's there were more games worth the full price then I had time to money or buy. Nowadays only few games a year are worth the full price. Many games are worth something and some games are not even the worth to download or play 'em even if those games would be free. Something like Steam holiday sales are like custom made for me. I buy more games from the sales then I have time to play 'em. Overlord was easily worth 5

It's good way to cut costs and at the same time admit the fact that multiple races have nearly always failed in one way or the other. Even in Dragon Age, Bioware wasted huge amount of resources on origin stories. Those stories only made slight difference outside the starting area and race / class "home" location. Bioware got huge amounts of negative feedback because players felt that their origin story was ignored. They were right of course for the most part, but in the end it all comes down to the available resources. Bioware chose the most cost effective way for Dragon Age 2.

25 million is for AAA quality games, but can go up to 80 million (for Red Dead Redemption) or even 100 million (for GTA 4). These figures include all the costs, from development to marketing. Mike Pachter gives 17 dollars for every 60 dollar game sold and it's a bit higher number given in the article. Thus 25 million dollar project would need bit under 1,5 million units sold to secure next project, to cover the costs of development and marketing ect ect. Game industry is harsh biz these days and there're way more losers then winners.

I haven't read Game Informer yet but certain changes are done because of financial realities. Personally I'm glad that all dialogue is spoken, but it also means that EA must limit to playwers voice to 1 or 2 different options. In the case of Dragon Age 2, to male and female voice sets (or perhaps just one - Raphael Sbarge, with the same monotone Carth Onasi voiceset ). Cutting origin stories were also smart move, because those were waste of development time. I expect that the Dragon Age 2 will be shorter game then Dragon Age and will have more content cut and later released in DLC packs. To move away from pseudo-turn based systems will help the flow of the combat and it's probably the most important change that Bioware can make in the game to make it feel better for the majority. No need to be tied down by the D&D legacy in original IP games. I might have been too harsh with "THE CHOSEN ONE" storyline. While it's certain that if you'll play the game till the end, you'll become powerful individual, it don't mean that you'll have some mythical DESTINY. It would be damn refreshing to have storyline where you just roam the land, doing odd jobs and gathering wealth and ultimately leave big battles for someone else to fight. Then again, this is Bioware we're talking about and you'll probably get recruited against your will anyway and duke it out with some big bad boss

"Dragon Age 2 thrusts players into the role of Hawke, a penniless refugee who rises to power to become the single most important character in the world of Dragon Age" Damn, now there's an original storyline - with a vengeance. A beggar who'll become "THE CHOSEN ONE", who must choose (the weapon of choice) !

EA has been very clear on the fact that they want Bioware game sequel once per 2 years. They spend big bucks to buy 'em and want a full benefit of Bioware brands like Mass Effect and Dragon Age. This console generation might last up untill 2015 so there's plenty of time for at least 3 more Dragon Age games with the same horribly and fugly engine

Obviously 1 to 1 rip-offs don't work but what can be rip-offed is the set of features that gamers in general consider a standard. And easiest way to find 'em is to look how popular games in recent years do 'em. Sometimes features evolve and sometimes even de-evolve. Note - You can be a trend setter if you truely belive in your version of the some game mechanic but then you take a huge risk and gamers in general might not like it. Personally I didn't think Bioware's way of removing jump would work but based on sales data it wasn't a game breaker. They de-evolved the genre but at the same time managed to do just fine in sales. Obsidian followed the Bioware's route and people noticed how different it feels from the agile Sam Fisher from Splinter Cell or Garret from the Thief. Suddenly closed spaces and Mike's ability to only jump in very few locations became an issue. Maybe not a game breaker, but one of those issues that lead low review scores, bad sales and in the end, option not to develop a sequel.

I used to play WoW over 3 years and never posted on their offical boards. There was no need as guild boards and specialist sites like elitistjerks you got all the info you need. That don't mean I didn't check offical WoW boards from time to time and anything to make 'em cleaner is probably a good thing.

It was smart choice for Sega to pull out of any future Alpha Protocol projects. Obsidian and Black Isle before that just don't have the talent to design good combat mechanics. They can write good storylines, create interesting characters, make interesting choices for the player but that ain't enough nowadays. And certainly not enough in first person game. Whatever Obsidian do next, they just need to rip off Spinter Cell / RDR / Modern Warfare / Diablo / WoW / whatever combat mechanics and focus their talent to what they do best.

I didn't find driving with keyboard hard at all, but then again, I've used keyboard for driving since the early 90's (joystick was good before that). "the dude" mentality is bothersome in Dirt2 and I have no idea who those so called celebrities are in the game but I guess that's just a generation thing. Otherwise it's rather fun and solid racer with good variety of the tracks and drivemodes. Highest or 2nd highest difficulty is recommended, with full damage. Certainly not worth the full price but with discount it has excellent value.

Final tally (I still haven't played all games from last Steam sale but who cares, it's cheap as chips). Bioshock 2 14,99 EUR Dirt 2 12,50 EUR Overlord Complete Pack (Overlord, Overlord - Rasing Hell, Overlord 2 ) 4,50 EUR Resident Evil 5 9,50 EUR Audiosurf 2,50 EUR Call of Duty Pack (Call of Duty, Call of Duty United Offensive, Call of Duty 2, Call of Duty 4, Call of Duty World at War) 27,99 EUR FlatOut Ultimate Carnage 1,90 EUR THQ Complete Pack (Company of Heroes, Company of Heroes Opposing Fronts, Company of Heroes Tales of Valor, Frontlines: Fuel of War, Full Spectrum Warrior, Full Spectrum Warrior: Ten Hammers, Juiced 2: Hot Import Nights, Metro 2033, Red Faction, Red Faction 2, Red Faction Guerilla, Stalker (damn, my 2nd copy of this game), Saints Row 2, Titan Quest, Titan Quest - Immortal Throne, Dawn of War Gold, Dawn of War Dark Crusade, Dawn of War Soulstorm, Dawn of War 2, Dawn of War 2 Chaos Rising) 49,99 EUR 123,87 EUR Over 20 games (+several addons) compared to the price of two and a half new games from my local store. Gotta love the Steam holiday sales. I wouldn't buy any of these games at full price but when the price is right, I'll buy it... and maybe play it later if I have the time.

I think it was one of the main reason why VATS is the way it is today. It's very imortant for the casual majority that games is as easy as possible. VATS let 'em complitely ignore aiming manually and protect 'em from damage at the same time. It's working as intented. VATS perform the same function as bullet time did in Max Payne, Dead Eye in Red Dead Redemption or whatever the new multikill system is called in Spinter Cell Conviction or DeusEx3.

I usually play everything on hardest difficulty but lately since almost all games have been consolized (meaning they are designed primarely for console customers and PC port is about the same), I'm not sure if there's much point. All the challenges come from "fake difficulty" (thanks TVtrope) and very rarely from well designed game and combat mechanics or cleaver AI and encounter balance. For example in lastest Alpha Protocol run I didn't have to upgrade my weapons or armor at all or use any money other then for bullets and granades. Sometimes combat is so poor compared to rest of the game (like in Arcanum, Alpha Protocol, Torment) that it might be better just to turn difficulty to the easiest and just enjoy the story. I have to work on that, since old habits are hard to break. I really dislike rubberbanding (meaning AI get speed increase based on how good / fast you drive and thus never be far behind you) in racing games, unlimited resources for AI in RT or TB strategy games when you have start with broken spoon and US debt style economy. Difficulty become so frontloaded that beginning is extremely hard but later become a joke. Far Cry was notorious with it's use of checkpoints (sometimes be hour a part and sometimes 2 times a minute) and the fact that enemies use pinpoint accuracy while ignoring the (graphical effect only) undergrowth. It leads to situations where you think you're complitely hidden and can't even see the enemy, while it frags you without a problem.

I bought Overlord pack and Dirt2. Probably gonna buy a lot more in before midsummer fest sales are over.

I've complained about Alpha Protocol boss fights in several posts and I still find it hard to belive that talented designers would make such a newbie mistake. I'd almost bet that it was someone higher up telling the desingers to go with "traditional" Dragon /

GTA and GTA 2 didn't follow any timeline. Both games were basically collection of missions in 2d but damn addictive. I must have played 100's of hours just to goof around in GTA. Rockstar released GTA and GTA 2 free to download few years ago. I wouldn't recommened 'em as they have aged rather badly. GTA 3 (and Liberty City Stories for PS2), GTA Vice City (and Vice City Stories for PS2) and GTA San Andreas follow the same timeline. GTA3 have aged worst of 'em and both Stories are subpar games. Vice City is still fun (but won't work on my Vista setup) and San Andreas is still fresh if you can ignore the rough graphics. GTA 4 rebooted the timeline and only has some of the in-game GTA brands and radio station parsonalities (who is also one of the lead writers) like Lazlow are left from the previous timeline. Lost and Damned improved how motorcycles handle and The Ballad of Gay Tony improved just about everything. I'd recommened GTA 4 but Episodes from Liberty City (includes both DLC/expansions) is even more worth it.

GTA 4 port is only bad if you happen to have very low spec PC (around Xbox360 or PS3 quality). For my 3 year old system it works perfectly (I only use 1280x1024 resolution but it's still much higher then console resolution). Lost and Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony work even better.