greylord

B...B...But I thought they sold 1.5 mil to 2 million copies of SCII by the time of two days!? At least people said that 1.5 million copies were sold after the first two days or so...BUT here's the odd thing...who was it quoting NPD as the source of sales for them. http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged...in-july/1407776

that sounds like a good idea, with the added, sticky it to the top of the forum as well.

You can blame me. I didn't TRUST Bioware after the ME stuff with their draconian DRM on that, so I didn't buy ANY OF THEIR GAMES ON PC after that. However I really wanted to play their games...SOOO I took the easy way out, I got them on console. I just rectified it today by ordering the PC versions, but it's people like me that probably are pushing the console versions. I don't want to have to put up with the buggy mess of PC half the time, and the other half is that DRM typically is so restrictive, I just really don't want to deal with being treated like a criminal on the computer. So I got consoles instead which is where a majority of my gaming goes on these days. DRM changed me from a hardcore PC gamer to a hardcore console gamer. Sorry guys. You can blame me. PS: and yes, I loved DA:O and DA:A on the console...even with out the tactical view...perhaps I'll change my mind after I see it on PC, but as for me, I'd eagerly await DA2 on console or PC even if it only came out like it did for the console look. Me and my kind I suppose are the ones that you can blame. To my benefit I didn't find out until after ME2 was released that the PC versions of the games didn't have the bad DRM like ME did...and by that point I had already gotten them for console.

That's actually pretty cool.

There's a whole bunch of that kind of weird games made by Spiderweb Software. If you like that kind of stuff... Thanks I'll take a look.

Thanks for the telling me about eschalon

I might have liked DS2 better then DS1...but I have to whole heartedly agree with broken sword. Never could put my finger on why...but completely hated that expansion.

You dont think DS2 was disappointing? Thats rare. RARE? I've not met anyone who was disappointed in DS2 or thought it was worse then DS1 in person. I've only met people who thought DS1 was better when talking to people over the internet. I LOVED DS2. Maybe it's just the people I know (they say like minded people hang together) but those I played with thought DS2 was the best action RPG since Diablo 2.

I remember I liked the semi-random aspect to Diablo1's campaign side quests. Several sets of quests available but you couldn't get all of them in one game. But that was in single-player. In multiplayer it was always the same few, just the boss monster could be in a different spot on the map each time. I used to like random level maze designs when levels were smaller, but after being annoyed with Diablo2's Flayer Jungle one too many times-trying to get past it as fast as possible, made slower by figuring out which 'map' version you had- I decided they didn't add much. Random in games such as these aren't typically 'new over & over again', at least in my experience. It's more a number of set map patterns that the game randomly switches between. If you play the game a lot, you become familiar with them all before long, and thus fan-made designs are still appealing...especially if the mods are interesting in other aspects as well. I enjoy random dungeons, even if you end up memorizing the general trends after awhile (like oh, I get this tileset this time instead of that one), it still builds a nice dynamic between them for generic stuff. However, if it's like Diablo's Flayer Jungle...that DID get annoying. Most times in MP you just jump past it via someone's waypoint and ignore it...it was truly annoying. So random Dungeons yes...but done more in the style of the original Diablo or the other Diablo 2 levels...but definately NOT like the Flayer Jungle.

I want to hurt the person who put so much of the focus in Warcraft 3 on the heroes. I hated those damn heroes so very much. WCIII was a ****ty RTS, but a great modding platform. Whether or not I buy SCII depends on whether or not the modding community approaches the glory that was WCIII bnet in its prime. Speaking of which, how is the modding? Any decent custom maps out yet, or just DotA 2.0 or other generic ****? No real modding yet...to put it bluntly, some feel as if Blizzard has currently blocked the modding scene for SCII. There's a whole bunch of stuff in the Blizzard SCII forums, but since I'm not a modder, though I did create custom maps in SC original, for now I'll not repeat it here. Basically the mod scene hasn't really gotten off the ground yet. Either give them time to work out some issues, or for them to come up with some stuff.

I think this is specifically in reference to the connecting of the game to the CD to the user OUTSIDE of STEAM...aka...their current DRM scheme with Starcraft, as well as some of the items which have been used by Sony and some others in a similar manner.

I'm way excited at this point...maybe enough to d'l it on first release, and then hope they get the stand alone disk version later which I'll also get!

I actually completely loved DAO and DAA. I don't think I played a lot of it with top down, so if they remove it I'm still going to get DA2. I've also been playing since the BG1 days, but maybe I'm an oddity in that I am going to plan on getting it (as long as it's DRM isn't like the first ME) regardless.

The way that you can upgrade with techs I think is very different in it's single player experience, and personalizes each campaign to a person. You have different alien tech integration you get to choose, how you spend your money on research for tech upgrades, and then of course the hiring of mercs (though this is probably the least different portion of sp campaigns, I imagine there are quite a few that just hire all of them). I think in the feel the SP campaign of Starcraft is a bigger leap up then WC3 was from SC1. On the otherhand MP is really different in the new types of units and how they work which in MY MIND changes MP quite drastically with the various strategies. Still, it even with the different units and types it's either build and rush quick, or hunker down and try for the big units quick...which isn't as big a difference as WC3 with the hero development was. I actually think I like SC2's take better than WC3 though as that goes. On the otherhand, Battlenet 2.0 is a BIG downgrade and very restrictive....but this is overall a cheerful thread so I won't bog it down with that issue.

hmmm, that's a hard line to actually discuss. Blizzards custom map scene has a few...kinks...right now. Some people would go a little more ballistic than that if you look at their forums. There are fifty maps that are popular right now however...

http://www.actiontrip.com/rei/comments_new...tml?id=080310_5 Who the heck is Unilock? Well if they ARE using their protocols for the authentication and keeping people registered via the same system that Uniloc uses...I guess that means that maybe they better start using STEAM instead. Curious I looked it up... It's MORE than simply the authentication...it's the identification protocols used to identify who is who? From Uniloc's mainpage Who knows how it will turn out, it could be frivolous, or it could be a serious infringment. If it turns out that Publishers stole the tech or illegally using it aka...software piracy except they didn't just take it and use it, they actually are selling software with illegally taken stuff...I'd laugh as to the irony of it all. Think about it...pirating and selling something to prevent the piracy of something. PS: And if it doesn't get thrown out of court, AND if Acti-Bliz lose along with the rest...they'll probably hit their heads and say...why or why didn't I use STEAM? Or more specifically perhaps Activision will say "why oh why didn't I listen to the Blizzard guys when they told me...we don't want to do this."

Steam and DD happened. Also, would be nice if you actually posted some sources for all your "facts". Various business quarterly journals. Bloomberg I believe also had a report on sales in the US of PC games specifically in the past few months. A LOT of rabid hardcore niche fans don't see what's happening to the PC industry, but there's a REASON less PC games are actually being made in relation to how many used to be produced. Sales and numbers buying is a HUGE reason (actually really the numbers buying is the only reason...there aren't any anymore). Why make a PC game when I can make an Xbox 360 game, and even if it's a bad game I can still pass 250,000 units...and if it's good exceed 10 million units? Overall, 62 million (rounded up) nintendo units were sold, which is more albeit than Xbox360 or PS3...but at that time Nintendo was almost uncontested until 1989 when you see an transfer of some people migrating to Sega (it's big competitor until around 1996 when the PS started getting really big). All next gen consoles in relation to that are around 107 million currently, NOT including handhelds OR the PS2. PS2 outsold every console ever made, having around 143 million (rounded up) sold. But then that's in the past decade of sales where it basically stands, or during the rise of the console. Console games are big business currently, THAT's where the gamers are...and unfortunately for PC game makers, where a LOT of the sales are found as well. You have them attacked on all angles via the Console market, you have the retailers outselling anything with the PC overall in games...then you have downloads with Xbox live, and PS network, and even the Wii...except you don't really have to continually authenticate their games (and you don't have to with PC games with most, but there is the game occasionally that requires reauthentication or continually connections such as AC2) either. Who cares though, this is just a thread...but it IS the DRM that really killed the PC market...not the overpriced portion of producing games like some of those people think on that little youtube video. That's why their businesses are losing money...they don't know how to spend a lot to produce a game that will SELL a LOT in order to recoup it. And THAT is the real reason the PC game business is dying. The people don't know how to budget enough to make a game that will sell enough copies to make up that budget and then more in order to produce a profit. Console makers are doing it, PC makers could too...but they are too busy trying to blame their customers and install DRM and other costly "anti-piracy" motives which do nothing to stop pirates, but DO cost them money and customers instead...and hence they can't figure out why they are bleeding money and not making enough of it back. It's an easy thing...simply make QUALITY games that will sell regardless of whether it is protected, or completely NOT protected. If SCII does extremely well, it's because its a quality game...despite ANY draconian protections it has...though if they didn't have the draconian protections I could almost guarantee they would sell MORE copies. People need to spend MORE time on making quality, and less time about punishing their customers...if they do that...then and only then will you see PC games make a comeback in the market place and on store shelves.

It's absolutely true the PC gaming industry is dying. Starcraft sold 1.5 mil...that's an okay sale's figure for a Console game...many times if a console game sells less than half a mil it's considered an abysmal failure, but in the PC business...currently it's seen as passable. 1.5 mil is nothing overall, and I'd imagine that's worldwide sales? Didn't Diablo 2 sell 2.75 mil in US sales alone during the first little while? Look at the shelves, you'll see PC games have a LOT of diminished space from even 5 years ago. What happened? I am still loading up the videos, but even without seeing them I can tell you what happened. #1 was already killing video games a slow death. PC game makers wanted to push the boundaries of gaming. You would need the biggest, baddest, best rig in order to play their games...anything else and it didn't run that well. That's key for a niche market right there as most people would have to play at less then stellar performance, OR simply not play the game period. However, that didn't kill the industry...it was still going on nicely even though that practice went on for 10 years or more. It IS the reason Blizzard games sold so well, because they made their games to be run on anything, up to a machine from five years prior even. If you had a machine, even if it were old, you could depend on Blizzard to make a game that would run it. At the Time WOW came out it was criticized for it's graphics, it's game specs, and other items...but everyone got it. Everyone could run it...it only needed an 8mb card at the time. #2 - So what really happened to really kill it. PC producers killed the industry. They argued everyone was pirating their games, and that they had to protect their games. They became HOSTILE to their customer. Instead of making things FOR their customers, the customers became the enemy. When you do that...you don't really foster support. STEAM came about, and you lost 50% of the gaming audience. Of course you make better profits via STEAM then you do retail, since you cut out the middle man, you can make a 50% cut instead of a 10% cut...so even as they were bleeding off customers, they could make better money. Now instead of needing 200,000 units just to break even, on STEAM you could sell 40,000 d/l's to gullible people, and break even. DRM became more intrusive, and yet killed MORE PC gaming. They fled the scene in DROVES. In two years PC sales has gone down drastically. We're talking sales are 1/3 of what they used to be. That means that 1 in every 3 PC gamers have fled the scene. You have a 33% of the audience. Of course...that means that if you sell direct d/l's you still are making MORE MONEY than by the old route of retailers...even if there are a LOT less buyers. So where did all the other players go? Did they suddenly lose interest in gaming. Not at all. They are like me. Console games sales have SHOT THE HECK UP over the past decade. The big seller of the 80s, the Nintendo can't touch the sales of today. The big game system of the 90s, the Playstation, doesn't even come close to the number of sales of even the WORST console sales on the market, it's newer cousin the PS3 (which has actually sold MORE units and games than the original PS by some economists record). Consoles are HOT business. Why? Because you don't have to worry whether the game will run on your rig (see reason #1) and you don't have to deal with intrusive DRM (yet). That's what really killed the market. Producers so scared about their Piracy which was a fallacy to begin with, that they created such draconian protection measures that finally they simply drove their customers away. As long as they make a buck...what do they care? It won't REALLY hit them until finally, they start losing enough (remember, that will have to be the magical number of less than 20% of their old crowd) to actually FEEL the burn...but by then...it will be too late...the gaming industry really WILL be dead and people will have found other ways to find their kicks. I'll watch the videos now and put an edit below if they sway me in any other way. EDIT: Many of those people who they discuss things with are IDIOTS. As I stated, Console games are selling MORE than ever in the past 5 years, even the past 10 years. Many of the Console game companies are doing EXTREMELY well (we're talking about many that solely make console games, not the console makers specifically, though Nintendo is bigger then ever before). The guys talking about facebook games have it right as well, that's another area games have advanced, along with cell phones (like Iphone applications) are taking off big time. Min-market games are doing well (those $10 games at Walmart). Funny story, they release Star Trek DAC with Steam...it bombed on the Walmart market, but Age of Empires WITHOUT the DRM has done extremely well. That should say something BIG and CLEAR about the effect of DRM. Games aren't dying at all, they are doing better then ever...PC gaming on the other hand is just about dead...DRM has killed it...pretty darn dead. You'll have a blip or two where a game sells okay...but it's day is over. Final Fantasy XIII which has not been really considered that great, and perhaps one of the worst FF games (1.6 million in the US by the end of it's release month), had sold 5.5 million (worldwide) after a month and a half. That's where the gamers have gone...to consoles...even with the toned down, tunnel vision games like FFXIII.

I can see them using WASD, though I'd also like it for controls to be re-mappable. I can see them using this especially if they are making it for consoles as well (using wasd keys). However on the PC I think I prefer the mouse clicking methods overall, with the keyboard in use to trigger or activate other things.

Ok, thanks for the details...I didn't realize you had to be logged into bnet the whole time. That would make it kinda like Steam I guess, except with no single-player offline mode or whatever. It does sound like a pain in the arse. I saw one bnet forum thread where some ppl were having a lot of trouble getting it to work, too (the single-player login part), some kind of tech issue perhaps. *frown* D3 I wasn't originally worried about in this area since the Diablo's are one of the few where I do like playing MP-server most of the time (even if I'm playing solo), but...yeah, understand the objections. Acti-Blizzard hasn't been pleasing me of late. You can still play, you just have to play as a guest on your machine. Guest accounts are limited however, and you don't get to save any of your achivements or actions. For the full game with trophies, achievements, etc. is where you need to be logged in constantly...which is also known as Single Player mode instead of simply being a guest. Imagine the original Diablo with it's spawn that you could get off the original disk for guest accounts (except with unlimited game, but maybe limited time, and no ability to save certain items for your character such as notable items from ingame such as the Butcher's cleaver, etc). vs. the full game install. Sorry if it didn't give you the full picture. So in order to get the full SP experience with everything and to not play as a guest on your own machine, you need to play logged in. I have heard (haven't tried) that you can install it for others for them to play as guest accounts as well however. PS: I don't agree that it had to happen. I think that they are defeating themselves with the very tools that they think will protect them, they get more piracy and less legit buyers than they would if they simply had a Stardock approach. I think (or perhaps hope from experiences in Asia) that Korea will teach them a thing or two. Starcraft is HUGE over there...but so is piracy. They WILL still play SCII over a LAN...but 0% of those will be legitimate copies...and Blizzard won't get a cut from a single one of those... I imagine Blizzard will lose a LOT of money in Korea. I only hope that it smacks them a live one to realize that this is a stupid money making scheme...but I doubt it. They are acting more like Activision than Blizzard of old (though even Activision wasn't that bad like this in old times). I imagine they'll figure that they need to fight piracy even more and make it even more draconian with Diablo III meaning that it may as well be an MMORPG with all they'll do with it (but one without the updates and added extras like WOW). Which is why I'm hoping for great things from DSIII now. If it's good enough (and of course they don't make the legitimate and paying customer the enemy like other companies are) I'll buy it not only for computer, but for console if they come out with it for the one's I have (I don't have an Xbox 360, but if I buy one and it's out for that I'll get it, I do have a PS3 however, I'll get it for that as well if they come out with a disk for it...though I don't know if the PS3 is worth it to make an adaption-that may actually lose money-unlike the Xbox360).

Right now, it's more than a simple online check when you install. Of course simply to install requires an authentication, whether you just want single player or not. Then you NEED TO BE LOGGED IN TO PLAY singleplayer. The only other way is to log on and play via a guest account on your own computer...as a guest...and not save progress as far as advancements and trophys to your system. If you want that saved, you have to play as singleplayer logged in. Furthermore, you only get one playthrough, or save as a singleplayer...as you can only have one account as a singleplayer and it autosaves. You can have up to 3 guest accounts. Not certain if you can get all the way through, but some guest accounts thus far have been recorded by others stating that they end at the seven hour mark. Finally, your computer will still need to authenticate the game every so often (currently every 30 days) even if you ONLY play as singleplayer, as a guest. To do so it needs to be hooked up to the internet, or you can get locked out. They have a LAN replacement for multiplayer already in place for Starcraft 2 supposedly...and that is their battle.net which they have been pushing. You simply connect supposedly to the locals...I haven't seen it working as anything other than the typical bnet. In fact, that's ALL that exists that you can play over, there is NO REAL LAN play at all, nor any support despite that being a MAJOR push and complaint over not existing during the beta. All this so they can control what is going on during MP, but at the same time it locks out anyone who doesn't want to play over their "battle.net" which also has a bit of lag for some reason, even on high speed. There is no work around on the lag supposedly...working at about (250 ping?) a annoying rate. Overall the game is GREAT, faster moving, and slim lined to be more efficient, but all the tweaks and works to make it so that you have to play it when and where they want you too, is a little too much for me.

After the fiasco coming out over Starcraft II's draconic DRM (which means though I've bought 2 copies of SC the original, and 5 copies of Diablo II over the years I won't be buying SCII), I'm pretty convinced they'll probably do the same thing for Diablo III. I like playing single player, and as my job dictates that I have to either play single player a lot, or play games over a LAN connection, it means I probably won't be buying Diablo III. Now if it were as open as D2, I'd be first in line, but with the way that SC2's DRM has turned up, it appears that if that's how they do DIII, I WILL NOT BE BUYING IT despite how much a fan of the series I have been in the past. This leaves me with Torchlight (which is a great game, wish they had an expansion or two) and Dungeon Siege II, or the original Diablo II for that type of gaming. Torchlight is the newest, but I'm still looking for the next great Action RPG like Diablo...but with the updated graphics and a tad longer and bigger than Torchlight. Enter Dungeon Siege III. Dungeon Siege II was great. It was the best thing next to Diablo II in the genre to ever be released. It was completely awesome. With Diablo III looking more and more out of the picture...it means Dungeon Siege III is moving more and more towards the focus of my next BIG game. That is if they can avoid making the mistakes of Blizzard, or at least in the direction it looks like they are going. So here's to hopes that they have GREAT gameplay (aka DSII and DII, but updated with better and bigger options, and additional items or change things up a little for III to make it even better), with actual support for MP (besides draconian I must control things like only play on Battle.net), and support for actual SINGLEPLAYER campaign play (such as if they must go the online activation route, at least only have it as a SINGLE one time ONLY activation...none of this need to connect every 30 days just to play singleplayer, and have to remain connected if you want to play as anything other than a guest on your own computer....type stuff. Even better, no online needed for Single player...though I understand activation for MP...at least once. I don't mind that as much, and even understand it to a degree in relation to piracy. As long as I can play online in otherways with my friends as well, I won't mind the activation so much. If you couldn't tell I am completely dismayed over the SCII DRM scheme...and with thoughts that this is the way Blizzard is going...means that now...DSIII is the chief game I'm watching as the new and best...biggest release.

And that, folks, is one reason I DON'T buy games via Steam. Of course I almost never return a game, and if I've played it, I feel it was my bad if I purchased it and it was bad...however Steam, no matter how popular it is amongst some, still just strikes me as bad voodoo and singlehandedly killed MUCH of the PC market along with the game only download requirements (such as warhammer Dawn of War 2 which I would have gotten absolutely, had it not required a download even with a retail copy). Now...I play on Consoles. AT least currently they have hard copies of games...though the future is beginning to look a little grim. in that light, AP was made for console gamers like me, I hear the PC version is a little glitchy on the controls due to it being made for Console and having a rough transfer. I am probably wrong though.

Another site votes for Oct 27th. http://tech.msn.com/products/slideshow.asp...p;imageindex=10 Slide 10