Elerond

So if anyone including myself goes to a gaming website and the website has copied and pasted something from a dev blog. No one will read it? It won't bring any readers? Even those readers who have never heard of the game before? Wow, that's amazing. You're right. Whenever I go to a gaming website and see a game I've never seen before, I don't read it because it's obviously been copied and pasted from a dev blog. Amazing logic there. And if journalists aren't familiar with the game, then here's an easy question for you. When journalists do write about it, how does that affect readers who have never heard of the game before? Do you go read stuff that Obsidian tells about PoE's updates on gaming news sites or do you read them here or do you do both? I for example don't read any news articles about KS updates on games that I have backed and I don't usually read any information about projects that I haven't backed as they didn't interested me in first place. Of course my habits can't be use any indication about larger demographics. But I have noticed that news coverage about KS projects has fallen heavily from what they were in 2012 and begging of 2013, which tells me that there has not been enough people that have been interested of them. I didn't say that there isn't any people that read about KS games, but most them are very small and even and they are aimed to much smaller audiences than what AAA games (which is reason why they had to go in KS in first place) , meaning that number of people that are interested of them is small at best and usually notable part of that audience has usually already backed the game during it KS. So when one is making decision of covering such game in event like E3 one has to think that will that game interest enough people that it is worth while to cover it instead of some other game (because in those events there are dozens if not hundreds of games and one person or even publication can cover all of them at least not throughly, especially when you are live feed journalist as those who you so keenly scold) and if one decides to cover such game one has to think what kind approach one takes on ones covering, as usually publications (especially live feeds) have limit how long articles they publish/how much time they can give for one game, which means that you had to decide what kind of information will interest most people. This is the phase which can be more difficult for crowd sourced games than with more traditional games, because traditional games have publishers and publishers have PR people whose job control information about game and give press most interesting tidbits of it. Where many/most crowd sourced games don't have professional PR people, but instead of all information comes directly from developers who often have little if any experience in selling games. Meaning that covering journalist will usually do more work to find those tidbits information that would interest their readers and that fact that don't help that people that are most interested about game probably know much more about game than what journalist can learn in that short time that they have time to write their cover about game, which make catering them harder what most journalist are used. KS and other crowd sourced games nearly always interest much less people than AAA games. Fans of KS and other crowd sourced games usually have much more information about those games than journalist themselves There is usually no marketing for KS or other crowd sourced games, which means that people don't usually come to seek information about them, meaning that journalist has to make their coverage so interested that bush radio will bring readers for it or/and hope that readers/watchers/listeners of their publication will look them anyway. There usually are no press kits for KS and other crowd sourced games, which means that journalist has usually do more work in gathering videos/pictures/audio about the games. So in short: I can understand why journalist would say that KS games are more difficult to cover than more traditional funded games and how this is general statement that don't actually concern all KS games. And I can also understand why journalist who has not covered crowd sourced games ever can say that they are strange bunch and he is clad that he don't have to cover them. But this don't mean that I think that covering KS or other crowd sourced games is impossible or that there is no readers KS/OCSG coverages, but that I can see why journalist would prefer to cover AAA games instead. Someone could say that covering crowd sourced game instead of AAA game is like covering low level (like Football league two) football match instead first level football (like premier league) match, meaning that there are people that interested about low level match, but number of people that are interested about first level match will in all likelihood dwarf those that are interested about low level match and probably also much higher percentage of those people that are interested about low level match go watch it on the spot, which can make it more difficult to comprehensively cover that match in way that it is worthwhile thing for publication to do.

Elerond. tsk tsk tsk. You did say 'it don't bring any readers and if you haven't followed updates by yourself'. Here's your quote. Also, as I've said many times, the target audience would be people who don't know about the game. In fact, it would be easier to write a review for a Kickstarter game because you have a wealth of information with the Kickstarter updates to write an in depth review to people who have never heard of the game. Not the opposite. "Writing article that covers same things what game's most recent kickstarter/forum/blog/etc. update covered is easy job, but it don't bring any readers and if you haven't followed updates by yourself then interviews with developers in events like E3 can easily produce ton of information that developers told in their blog over year ago" If you don't cut what I said in meaningless sentences then you will find out that there is context for those sentences that I said. But I make it easier for you. "Writing article that covers same things what game's most recent kickstarter/forum/blog/etc. update covered is easy job, but it don't bring any readers" With this sentence I mean that it is easy copy and paste what developers have told in their update about game, but I don't believe that it will actually bring any readers. "and if you haven't followed updates by yourself then interviews with developers in events like E3 can easily produce ton of information that developers told in their blog over year ago" With this sentence I mean that if journalist is not familiar with game and don't therefore have any knowledge what developers have previously told about their game it is highly probably that they will produce content that don't have any new information about game. There is context that you decided some reason in your post cut out, and ask what it is. Which is in my opinion same as creating your own point of view which you want argue against.

I gave an opinion from the start saying these guys don't know how to write about a game due to the type of funding and they should get with the times. The funding isn't relevant. Elerond and Lephys did defend these journalists with words like 'not reading updates to these games' and 'to be fair'. Firstly you don't need to read updates for the game to write an article about the game and you don't need to take the side of hacks and give a contrary argument. And Lephys relishes in these abstract arguments? For pages and pages? Not talking about specific examples? So there's really no substance to his posts. Anyone can argue and disagree on abstraction with superfluous posts. Lephys didn't want to talk about the specific example that's been talked about for pages and talk about some general problem? What general problem is that? There's no general problem. The industry doesn't have a problem reporting these games. Elerond proceeded to say things like "it don't bring any readers and if you haven't followed updates by yourself". Irrelevant as I've pointed out many times. Or is Elerond talking in the abstract? Who knows. Maybe you can explain what Elerond is talking about in this context. And I'm not getting worked up. I'm quite calm and relaxed. I do find it funny that you think I'm all worked up over this. Also, maybe ask the question to yourself, why does it bother you to jump into a debate between Lephys and myself and proceed to explain Elerond's and Lephys' posts and then ask me why I'm getting worked up? Perhaps ask why is Lephys debating page after page on some abstract meaningless point that has nothing to do with the gaming media industry as a whole. I said that I can understand why gaming journalist can find it more challenging to cover KS games than games that come from more traditional ways. I also said that it can be difficult to find something to write about KS game for those that actually would be interested to read about, as they probably have heard all/most of information that you have about game directly from developers, and repeating old information don't bring many readers and your time is better spent to cover something else. But as you like to put words in my mouth (as I never said this or even implied this "it don't bring any readers and if you haven't followed updates by yourself"), I will let you talk this with yourself as I plainly obvious that my point of view do not interest you at all, as you create instead of it fictional point of view that you argue against.

Areas are created as 3D models then they are rendered to 2D and after that they are finalized by hand.

For person that wants to play Wasteland 2?

As Obsidian has said that they don't want write romance in game because they feel that they don't have resources to make them good enough. Which means that game will not give player option to have sex in romantic context in any form (explicit or implicit), therefore I would say that offering explicit sexual content in other contexts would not be the best possible choice that Obsidian could make. Which is why I think that any sexual content that Obsidian puts in game should be only implicit references to what is happened or has happened, and there probably should not be sexual content where player has agency over it like for example paying sex in brothel, as such content feels nearly always just player titillation, what Obsidian wanted to avoid with their decision not to do romances. So my opinion is that PoE should not have explicit sexual content, as I don't think that it would fit very well with style of maturity that Obsidian said they wanted game to have.

"Agreement" implies something participants agree to. But countries don't get to agree or disagree on EU trading policy because nobody asks—it's dictated by the EU. Don't like it? GTFO. EU trading policy doesn't work like "regular" international agreements. Thanks for the objections, btw. Forced me to freshen up on EU stuff that I studied some time ago and didn't remember so well... Nobody forces any country to join EU, countries that join know what they agree when they join as those trading policies are major part why countries want to join at first place, so complaining about them seems to me bit odd, especially when only democratic countries are allowed to join and that countries can op-out from union if they want. And EU's trading policies are actually more democratic than your regular international agreements that aren't bilateral, as in your regular agreements are more often than not dictated by our super powers and other countries need to ratify them or usually suffer heavy sanctions, where with EU joining EU is voluntary thing to do. European Commission don't have legal right to issue regulations, if EP and CoEU don't let it do so , which means that if people's democratic representatives let them exercising delegated legislative power, withing limits. Of course there could be corruption, but that is true for every governmental system. Membership of EC is one of those things that you say "regular" international agreements as being member of it was something that country needed to do even before EU if they really wanted to have good relationships with western European nations, but it don't make it part of EU, as it is all European organization, including those also those European countries that will probably never join in EU. So trying to put ECHR something that countries have to submit because of EU is just wrong and misleading. ECJ don't have power to over rule national courts it can only decide how EU's laws should be interpret, of course as EU law are binding towards member countries it decision also bind member countries, but that don't give it power to overrule any decision made by courts of member states. European Exchange Rate Mechanism II is voluntary system, but being it for two years is requirement to joining Euro, which is for example why Sweden uses still their own currency instead of Euro, even though it more than fulfill every other requirement It is bureaucratic system that was put on place to make it possible to join in EU without joining Euro, even though that in Maastricht Treaty it was agreed that Euro will be official currency of EU, but as always such agreement didn't fit for all, which is why UK and Denmark got their exception rule in as they were members before Maastricht Treaty, but when Sweden couple years later did want join only EU, but not Euro, this bureaucratic hole was made and with it Euro's state as EU official currency was effectively removed.

I would say that all three (Obsidian, inXile and Larian) have been transparent and pretty good with how they have given information about their projects, but everyone of them have also had their bumps, by doing some minor mistakes in how, how much and what information they have given their backers. And when you read their updates you can see how their cultures differentiate from each other in those companies in what they deem to be important for backers, how their design and production processes go forward and how represent their vision and its evolution for their backers. So I would say that all three have done quite fine job, even though I would have wanted more from everyone of them, but I at least try understand realities and cultures that drive their decisions. And also I remind myself time and time again that these are first projects for these companies that they do using such open door policy and all of them are more experienced to do projects behind closed doors, where someone else decides what information will be released to public. Culture changes and knowledge of what information probably should be released what probably should not and how often it there should and can be updates for backers don't come from thin air but need to be learned by doing, which of course means that things don't always go smoothly.

Are saying that they didn't think that people that have beta access don't notice that game don't at least yet look like that (but it isn't that far away from it either)? I think that you exaggerate bit too much their desire to lie for their backers. I can say that inXile has been quite transparent with their production with Wasteland 2, even though I would in some cases hoped more information from them and more regular updates.

No. Watch the video. The reporters don't know how to write articles, they don't know what to do, they're too difficult and one of them said he's glad he didn't have to do any for the whole E3. They also give lame excuses because now they're being 'challenged'. This is all new to them. They've been in their bubble doing the same thing year after year and Kickstarter isn't something new that's popped up in the last 6 months. If anything, they've been avoiding a part of the game industry being Kickstarter, especially the one on the end who said he's glad he didn't have to cover any. He comes across as a person who is actively avoiding Kickstarter games and that's just plain bad journalism. As I said, game journalists need to change with the times and those three just showed they have no idea what to do, hence their incompetence. I watched video and there was one journalist said that he don't know what information he should write about KS games, as they developers tell all that information about their games directly to people that are interested about them than what press typically would cover. He also mentioned that he is glad that it isn't his job to write about KS games, which means that he isn't very familiar with covering KS games. Second one that spoke about KS games, actually said that he has covered them in E3, was much more interested about them, but also mentioned it is difficult to find what to cover about them as most of people that read/watch/listen your coverage have followed development of those games from beginning and therefore it can be challenging to find something that interest them but also cover game to those that haven't heard from it before. Two other panelist in video didn't tell their opinion about KS games at all. Most of game publication gave some kind coverage for most of those KS games that were in E3, but I haven't seen any of them getting in top/most read articles of day lists of said publications.

source And as I said in that post as well, this isn't representative of all of the press, but it gives us some minor insight on what goes on in their heads as well, The point: We're not going to be very different from the press when the news hit. What that shows me is how incompetent and out of touch the gaming press is today. Don't know how to write up a story about a Kickstarter game? Kickstarter games are difficult? They need to get with the times. I think he means that it is difficult write such article that gets enough hits that it's worth to write for their publication. Writing article that covers same things what game's most recent kickstarter/forum/blog/etc. update covered is easy job, but it don't bring any readers and if you haven't followed updates by yourself then interviews with developers in events like E3 can easily produce ton of information that developers told in their blog over year ago (of course there is similar risk with games that come from typical pipelines). And this difficulty to do meaningful coverage about KS games is also major part why Obsidian showed PoE behind closed doors for press and why there is press embargo considering that showing.

No true geek would treat their comics like that. Not sure about that...they are all 90s comics, fairly easy to find at the moment, as the vast majority of those probably had large print-runs due to the speculator market. Besides their resell value is only worth noting if one plans to sell them. It's just a bunch of Image comics, either she didn't want to ruin her good comics by laying on them or she has **** taste. Either way no X-Men, no deal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36DrPN--luA

TToN's latest update gives mote detailed information about current date of project and where is it going https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/torment-tides-of-numenera/posts/874905?ref=dash

iMac uses Iris Pro 5200 and has 8 GB of RAM, which means that it should be capable to run Wasteland 2, TTON and PoE. Although Intel's drivers for OS X don't have best performance, but still those game should run so that they are playable at least if you drop resolution bit down. http://www.anandtech.com/show/7399/215inch-imac-late-2013-review-iris-pro-driving-an-accurate-display/3

And will those people who see the beta experiences and like them have any way to buy into it themselves? Would be kind of a shame if they didn't. I they don't close backer portal then people will have way to purchase themselves in the beta.

No true geek would treat their comics like that. Oh noh, I am not true geek, as my comics more often than not just lay around my house, without any protection, which is why I have started to buy e-book versions instead of physical copies.

Was announced a long time ago, see Gamestop preorder bonus. Lolwut - So they really are pulling a Bethesda. Only if they will sell it with 5 dollars afterwards for those who didn't buy deluxe edition, but if you look prices for dlc gear in previous installments, then I would give it quite high probability that they will just do that.

If Ubisoft had said from start that there isn't female character option as you always play male protagonist, they would have gotten much less **** that they got now when they claimed first that they planed female option for protagonist but decided against it as it was too much work, and after that go with claim that their male protagonist which everybody plays even in coop is so integral part their story that they could not offer female protagonist option. I am not surprised that people find Ubisoft's claims to be bit hollow sounding. I don't know what they have planned story to be in ACU, but if it is any bit like what their stories have in previous installments, I would say that going with Mass Effect road where story is about protagonist whose gender don't play role in main story arc, would have been valid option, especially when you consider that fact that they change their protagonist time and time again references to previous protagonist are quite approximated, that it would actually matter in next game that was protagonist from last game male or female. So Assassin's Creed's aren't similar to Tomb Raiders, Witchers, Batmans etc. games where you always know who the main protagonist is from game to game, but instead they change protagonist to new one when they decide that story of one protagonist story has come to end. For example in Assassin's Creed main series three previous games AC:Revelations, AC3, AC4 and now AC:Unity all have different protagonist.

I know tons of girls that own both for gaming and some that are also professional gamers, but one should never assume that people they know are any accurate representation of any sort of big demographic. It is one major mistake that many engineers do when they design new devices and thing that people are warned time and time again in universities and other schools not to do. Only real number that I know is used publicly about gaming demographics is ESA yearly study, and their this years number tell us that their study shows that 48% (and that average gamer is 31 years old so we should use terms men and women instead of boys and girls when we speak about average gamers of franchise that consist mainly tittles with 18+ age limit) of all gamer are women. Addition to that Assassin Creed franchise has sold over 73 million copies, which goes for ACIII over 12 million copies, so I would say it is quite unlikely that there isn't at least three million women (which would justify using term millions of women) that have played at least one of the Assassins Creed games.

I think the point is that as the number of players/playable characters increases, the omission becomes more noticeable and jarring. In single-protagonist titles it's all rather arbitrary, but with four-player co-op such as in the new AC game, variety becomes more appreciated. By the time you get to larger scale multiplayer games like Unreal Tourney it's an expected feature, and attempting anything else in an MMO would be a ludicrous concept. Females make up 48% of the user base. Ubisoft continuing to unapologetically chase the old demographic is incredibly insulting. How much % of the market are: - Christian? - Any other religious following? - Asian? - Indian? - Communists? - Poor? - Slaves? Should they be less or more insulted by Ubisoft? Is Ubisoft morally obliged to cater any need of any insulted group, or do they have to rank them accordingly in a made up importancy-scale so that some are more equal than others? I wouldn't find this debacle irritating as much if it wasn't for this weak, not-really-angry-just-more-fake-dissapointed-attitude among these journalists. They do not really fight, they do not have their jobs and livelyhoods threathened because of what they do, they are not doing mass protests or boycotts, nothing is at stake. Just some mean and catty comments that they want something. It's this manifestation of weakness that i really find abhorrent. Ubisoft decision not carter big part of their customer base opens them up for critic from said part of their base and supporters. As customers have always right to ask that company also caters them and when we speak about big companies and customer base size of tens of millions, then it is quite natural that there is lots of critic when company decides not to cater people that consist about half of their customer base, especially if you are idiot in way you inform people about your decision not to cater them. We are not talking about the same thing here: I am talking about social justice journalists, you are talking about a potential customers for a product. Your point could be the same about customers being upset that there aren't Coca Cola-bewerages with a Pear taste because millions of potential customers might buy it because it might cater their needs since Pear eaters also like Coca-Cola. You do not happen to be a corporate lawyer, are you? I am not corporate or any kind ow lawyer. But if company don't cater millions of people in their customer base you can be quite sure that there will be journalist that cater them, because other company's angry customer are best kind customers for journalistic publications as they will read and share their articles much higher intensity than satisfied customers. And I don't speak potential customers, but actual Ubisoft's customers that have bought their previous games and have asked/hoped/etc. that Ubisoft would cater them better in next installment of the series they like/play/something. PS. And Coca-Cola tries to cater pear lovers with producing pear flavored beverages using their other franchises such Fanta.

WET (about million) should compared to other Bethesda's tittles like, Call of Cthulhu (best I can find is about 10k).

Uncharted is Sony's franchise only that is only sold for their platform and they market it lot with their platforms and they bundle it heavily to their services so it difficult to say how well it would excel in more typical gaming market, but with Sony's marketing strategy series three first installments are sold about 18 million copies, which about six million by Uncharted 3, which is quite well for one platform, but series is critically heavily praised, but Last of Us from same studio and similarly Sony platform only tittle, but being new franchise with female co-lead is already sold over 6 million copies.

I would bet that it would not have similar success if they had made new male protagonist in new franchise, as SE don't have similar ability market their games as Ubisoft can, and their existing customer base is smaller in over all than what Ubisoft has. But I seems that newest Thief has not sold very well considering that it cost SE about same as Tomb Raider and Deus Ex Human Revolution has sold under 3 million copies (although it had smaller budget than Thief and Tomb Raider), also Sleeping Dogs has sold less than newest Tomb Raider. So with these numbers I would predict that Tomb Raider clone, with male protagonist which was published by SE would sell than what Tomb Raider has sold.

Although even worst games in Tomb Raider franchise are sold over million copies and newest one is currently becoming best selling game in franchise. And even though it took bit longer than what SE hoped, even newest Tomb Raider become profitable after eight months. Although these figures don't tell you whom where those people that bought all those copies of Tomb Raider.

And we go back to the same question of who Ubisoft's demographic is? Not their target audience but the people actually buying their games and it they are mostly male. Is like the saying two birds on the hand or one on the bush, when you're making a multimilion dollar production you tend to try to minimize the risk by doing your best to ensure a return. Spending that risk on the hope that women will buy your game (a demographic that while it has grown it still is a minority on AAA) the question was always, "how to get women into AAA games?"Besides from the risk that would making a women's only game, there is the fact that we have no idea of what that would be or whether it would be well received. Feminists seem to think that they deserve a 100 million dollar shot in the dark because equal representation is a right (not really, but we've ran out of things to champion) Where you found any information about what is composition of Ubisoft's demographic? Is this poor reasoning or knowledge based on common beliefs as opposed to actual knowledge fact or do you actually have some sort actual numbers, because only gaming demographic numbers with any significant meaning that what I have seen comes from ESA (Entertainment Software association )