Ganrich

I am neither for or against this. That said, if it were included then I don't want it done in the current Bioware-style which is tossing leisure suit Larry under their game's core story. I don't want the penultimate of a romance arc to be a cheesy sex scene. I would want a more in depth conclusion. I liked the romances in BG2. Some were better than others, but that is how things go. I loved the love triangle in PST between TNO, Annah, and Fall from Grace. It was well done. Say what you will about Bastilla as a character. I won't argue her flaws, but I will say that this was a decent romance arc. The end was well done, and most definitely not over the top. I consider it, and Tali's ME2 romance, to be the last decent romance arcs from Bioware. Everything else is just "say nice things so you can bed the NPC by end game." It has no relevance to the story at all. I would hope if Obsidian did romances that it would have a part to play in the story. So, I say that it needs to be done to a high caliber and tastefully or not at all. Obsidian isn't Bioware, and I hope that remains to be the case. On the note of MCA and his not wanting to do romances. If Sawyer or Feargus felt they had the resources to do romances well then they would happen. Whether or not MCA likes writing them. I am sure that there is someone at Obsidian, other than MCA, that would be up to the challenge if romances were with Obsidian's resources for PoE.

Love the update. Keep them coming. I am sad that the new stretch goals aren't happening, but the potential of a 2014 release date more than makes up for that. The cat form for the Druid looks pretty amazing, and I am looking to hear more as I am sure I will have a Druid in an alternate play through. The Godlike look pretty awesome. I like both examples, and I am truly excited about the subtle differences in Portraits for our PCs. I always preferred portraits, but their one issue was that they didn't give a lot of variation. This seems to solve that. We can still import portraits as well, correct? Also, do we have a number of total types of Godlike? Will there be a one to one the Planetouched in say NWN2? So, Assimar and Tieflings with Air, Fire, Water, and Earth Genasi will all have a PoE equivalent?

I was trying to articulate similar points when this debate was raging on the Attribute Theory thread, but I did so much more poorly. I agree with his outlook here.

@Orogun01 - Very true that you can completely overlook sections of story in games, but those that do that are rarely there for the story to begin with but there just to play the game. Those sorts of things are definitely an issue though. @KaineParker - The Watchmen definitely had amazing use of panels as well. That was something I forgot to mention, but another one of those "comic book tricks". @alanschu - When, and if, the game industry supports writers the way the book industry does we may see more writers with the appropriate skill sets for writing in games. Until then we will see the same mediocre story telling as a norm in most of our games. @Agiel - I don't disagree with that mentality personally, but the popularity of Telltale's Walking Dead says it isn't necessarily a Law of game development. Not to start the "it is an interactive story not a game" debate, but (like PST) gameplay isn't the strong point of their games. So I would say if you forgo story for gameplay you hit one demographic while going the other way you would hit another. While in the current climate of the industry focusing on the game more so than the story may be more profitable, but that climate could change at some point. Not likely, but possible.

Don't get me wrong. I don't know if we will ever get story telling on the same level as some books, plays, or TV/movies in games. However, I don't think the medium is quite mature enough to handle it. I liken it to comic books of 40 or so years ago. They told stories, and decent ones at times, but then the Watchmen came out and it told (what I consider but YMMV) an incredible story. The reason I am using the Watchmen is for one reason: They use every comic book trick to convey the story. You have the tone of each scene set by The Tales of the Black Freighter clips. You have insight given from Hollis Mason's book clips. You have newspaper headlines cast throughout that give you tension, news, and the like. You even have a difference in chat bubbles between the Rorschach of yesteryear (regular bubble), and the Rorschach of today (jagged bubble) that is there to show you he has gone full sociopath. Watchmen does what no comic/graphic novel had done previously and used every trick comics had to tell the story. I expect video games will inevitably hit that level. They may go further than that, but that isn't something I am sure about. For instance, I could see an Elder Scrolls type game with an open world, fully VOed, with history books to explain the past that led to the current story, a system of dialogue using keywords (not unlike Wasteland 2 was going to have, but is activated by the player speaking into a microphone) that initiated player Dialogue similar to a Bioware title, that uses in game graphics and colors to convey moods and tone, etc etc. All of this supporting the Rift or some manifestation of VR headsets, something akin to the OMNI, and some sort of motion type controls (maybe VR gloves). The trouble is we haven't even solved how to tell a better than serviceable story in an open world. Video games don't really need to go as deep as a book on story telling, but they need to learn how to use the game to tell the story in a way that only a game can and rely less on cinematic sequences set up in chunks throughout the game. Pacing may always be an issue in games though. I am not saying that games are telling anywhere near the stories that the written word has, but I will say that we are looking at a medium that is heavily inhibited by technology and money. This is something that Books don't have any more. It takes 1 author to write a book, and after editing, marketing, etc it still took 1 person to craft the book. Games suffer from writers being contracted for financial reasons at the moment. Very few companies get, and keep, a writer worth his salt. It is ironic that I am posting this one Obsidian's forums as they are one of the few that try to keep their writers. If money wasn't an issue, game companies tried to get the best writers they could, and keep them on staff then we would probably be looking at a different industry. Story is very low on the totem pole at most companies whether they are AAA or indie. When something like RPG Maker is able to make a game in an engine like Cryengine and most money can be used for VO, Story, Music and general audio, etc we may see better story telling in games. However, as long as games cost as much as they do to make then we will see stories that are just serviceable and a lot of Michael Bay-splosions. Until then, games that use written dialogue will still have the best of stories IMHO. They may suffer pacing issues, and may not be as fluid as Shakespeare, nor as nuanced as many books. They need to do what games can only do, and allow the player to interact with the world and see repercussions from those actions. At present they don't do this, or they don't do it well enough when using VO. My main point is that with VO you lose reactivity, but with text you lose immersion and possibly pacing. When we can get the same, or close to it, reactivity with VO that we do with text in games... we will see something new and interesting. It may never happen, but I will keep dreaming. @LadyCrimson - I expect we may see some very interesting stories told in the next 5-10 years when VR has a chance to mature a bit, and developers learn how to truly use it effectively. We will see. I sure am excited and hopefully about the advent of decent and affordable VR headsets though. Whether anyone cares or not... I have a theory that Valve is holding off on Half Life 3 until VR is ready for primetime. I could just be hoping VR is what helps Valve count to 3.

Agreed. Also, comparing the writing quality of print (something that showed up and is considered the reason for the start civilization as we know it around 5000ish years ago) to video games (that have only just started coming around as a story telling medium in the last 20-30 years) is pretty disingenuous. Video games are still finding their stride. This will likely change again when and if things like VR headsets take hold as they will have effect on how stories are told in the medium.

The Leaders of the Band - Chanters need to be discussed. Bards are easily considered one of the weakest base classes in the IE games, and I would like to see what Obsidian is doing with them to bring them up to par.

I am going to go out on a limb and say the difference between PE and the IE games is that whether a character is front line capable or not isn't derived almost solely from class like in D&D. In PE Attributes and gear will make that determination. If your mage has higher Might, Con, and Dex while wearing heavier armor (which I expect will be only wearable if you meet the Con and/or might requirements, and maybe a talent/feat or two) then he would be front line capable. He would suffer at range because of missing feats and stats to make him better suited at range. Where as if you were more invested in Intellect and Resolve with little to no armor or health then you would be relegated to the back. I could be dead wrong here, but that is what I have taken from what we have seen and been told. So your mage won't necessarily be a tank without being specced into the appropriate attributes. You can still have a squishy mage. All classes in the IE games have their combat niche. Some perform that niche better than others. Some have more passive combat niches like the Bard with his utility abilities being pretty much his forte. In PE a Fighter will likely be better at the front than a mage, but you can make a melee mage if you want, and it won't be as squishy as a D&D one. A fighter won't be as good at range as a Ranger, but you can still make a ranged Fighter. On enemy composition... It is possible, but I don't think the difference between combat viability is going to be a drastic as you. I believe the difference is solely how you define your character's focus: Class vs Attributes. On a similar note, I know they said they are wanting difficulty to change enemy types, numbers, ect instead of inflating HP, armor, or damage. So, there is that as well. IIRC, they said that you would have access to all the companions by the halfway point in the game. I am unsure about the Adventurers Hall.

Honestly, attributes are my biggest gripe with D&D as a whole. They are all messed up in one way or another. Strength shouldn't cover accuracy with all melee weapons. It makes little sense with rapiers, knives, and a few others. Dexterity should cover this and it should not require a feat. Strength also shouldn't increase damage on those types of weapons nor ranged weapons like bows. Bows have a maximum draw distance and no matter of strength makes them shoot harder. Perhaps a STR requirement to use some bows, but damage shouldn't be increased. IMHO there needs to be less reliance on Strength as "the" physical damage attribute. Dexterity suffers because of the potency of strength, but it also suffers because of how armor is handled. I would have armor give DR instead of extra AC, and have AC more reliant on dexterity. I would still impose penalties for characters with high dexterity in heavier armor, but this would more greatly allow build diversity by letting people make a full avoidance tanker or a mitigation tanker. Thus increasing diversity because (in 3e and 3.5) there is no difference save one character is in heavy armor and the other isn't but has high dexterity. Constitution is ok, but (As we previously discussed) how it, combined with class, gives out health over many levels is pretty broken. Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma are just sad IMHO. Intelligence less so because of skill points, and wisdom is ok if you want to be good vs spells. Charisma is solely for RP reasons. These attributes are only necessary as requirements for a class. They should have more of an effect on the game at large. So I agree that in D&D that they should play more of a part in damage for certain abilities or have more generalized benefits like PE is doing. I am using 3e and 3.5 as a reference here. 2nd Edition had similar issues, and they were compounded by how rigid the system was for sure. Particularly how powerful Strength was in 2nd without something like Weapon finesse to make Dexterity viable. I haven't played with 4th, nor have I DMed it. When it came out it didn't sound like anything interesting to me, and there were other good pnp games out that I was interested that I just passed it by. Anyway, this is why I am as talkative about Attributes as I am. I am typically just a forum watcher, but I really want Josh to make all the Attributes useful for every class. I don't want dump stats, and I don't want one attribute to be as powerful as Strength is in D&D. I don't want an attribute as a requirement to play a class just to make said attribute useful(I know this won't happen). I can't stress how much I want Josh to obtain his goals here. It would mean you could have 2 play throughs with the same class and they would potentially play fairly different because of how the Attributes are handled. I could make a Paladin that has high might, constitution, with moderate dex and resolve and be a good 1v1 character. OR I could make a Pally that has high constitution, intellect and resolve and be a frontline utility character. This combined with how they are handling feats makes something like multi classing much less necessary simultaneously. Not that having multi classing on top of it wouldn't have been awesome... because it would. This is all in theory of course as the devil is in the details, but I am excited none the less.

Yeah, I would be fine with starting HP/Stamina being derived from Class and possibly the applicable attribute. While leveling HP/Stamina is derived solely from the Attribute. This means that earlier on the Warrior specs (Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, etc) are more hearty than the others, but by end game the difference is much more negligible yet still noticeable. A warrior class could have say 100hp (80 for class + 20ish for Attribute at level 1) at level 1, while the mage has (30-40 for class and the other 20 from the attribute) 50-60, and by level 20 (with 18 con = 4 hp a level) the warrior has 460 (19 x 4 = 360, and 360 + 100 = 460) while the mage has 410-420. 460 vs 420ish is definitely not insanely noticeable, and it is logical because a Fighter-type would be more trained martially than a mage... so the extra HP makes sense. It doesn't make sense when the numbers are so insanely different in late game like in D&D. This is just HP, but stamina could work similarly. This leaves the early difficulty of Mages intact which many enjoy that aspect of the IE games. Mages really stink until a few levels into the game, but late game they are amazing. To each their own on Static Health Attribute vs 1 health attribute and 1 stamina attribute. I would prefer the latter, but it isn't a major issue for me. I would be fine either way.

Yeah, I agree with your assessment of D&D HP, and definitely agree it gets ridiculous. I also agree that PE should steer away from the huge differences from starting health and high level health. Yeah, attack speed is definitely something that could easily throw a monkey wrench in everything very easily. resolve makes much more sense for concentration, but I would be fine if concentration went to constitution to split up health and stamina again. I also forgot Constitution governed Concentration in 3E/3.5. Completely slipped my mind. I would be much more happy with the list you gave than what we are currently seeing. I would be even happier if we split health and stamina again, but I am fine either way.

Lephys, I don't disagree. I just see a party built around 1 AoE mage being potentially "the" power gamer build. You have 5 Characters to help play keep away for the mage against the enemies, and spec the mage heavy in Intellect and Dexterity. I am not saying this will not have trade offs, but it might end up incredibly cookie cutter for certain classes with AoE and Crit being placed on Intellect together. @Adhin - the only effect I can think of that you didn't mention is attack speed, but iirc It's been mentioned and not something likely to be implemented. I actually thought about moving stamina to Resolve and Concentration to Constitution. A sturdy individual would be less prone to being interrupted. I think Concentration could be argued to work with Constitution, but Resolve definitely makes as much, if not more, sense. I actually like keeping stamina and health separate for more build variety. As long as the difference (using Dnd numbers here) isn't huge between 10 and 18 on each stat so you can't be killed in a single fight because you are all stamina and little health. Or vice versa, and go down like a cheap suit every fight but can go 8 fights like that.

Yeah, Adhin,I agree, to an extent, that Dexterity and Stamina don't make much sense. I was firing from the hip for sure. Lephys, I definitely understand. You will almost always be trading off benefits in an RPG Attribute system. I just want to be clear that when the costs of putting points into Resolve have less benefit than putting points in other attributes you are looking at a dump stat. That is how I see Resolve at the moment. Resolve would be good for Tank builds and front line fighters in theory. However, taking Adhin's explanation of AoO in PE... If those tanks can somewhat lock down many of the opponents then you have Resolve being less desirable for Ranged characters. That is what I want to be looked at. It goes against 2 of Josh's desires for the system: 1) Resolve isn't something desirable for all classes and has less functionality for ranged classes (barring building the games encounters and AI around it), 2) It is a potential dump stat. Of course AoO may be much more limited as you guys have suggested. On the note of 2 effects per Attribute... It really is something I think needs to happen. I would prefer one Active and one Reactive per Attribute, but it is tricky enough without that extra guideline. The more I think about it the more I realize how incredibly difficult it is to come up with that many effects. Much less equally desirable ones. I would almost recommend moving to a 5 attribute system (scrapping perception since its non-combat influences could be easily divided out to Dexterity, Intellect, and maybe Resolve.), but it would have an adverse effect on Sawyer's Save system since 2 attributes feed each save type: Fortitude, Reflex, and Willpower (can't remember their terms in PE). Also, Skill points were another thing I was just tossing out, but I wasn't aware of how they were being handled so thank for telling me. I am all for skill points not being derived from an Attribute. I am going to keep thinking on 2 effects for each Attribute without changing very much in the current scheme of things. EDIT: @Lephys - Giving Intellect both Critical Damage increase and AoE (or Duration) could be very over powered. If that were to happen then I would move AoE and Duration elsewhere... which would leave me inclined to letting it reside with Perception and moving that stuff around. Whatever Attribute gets Critical Damage increase needs to have its second effect Reactive for sure. At least IMHO.

No offense intended here, Lephys. But you are assuming that Resolve may work in a manner that makes it as attractive an attribute as might or intellect. I am assuming it may not. I understand that if the encounters are designed to press resolve in every build that it might be ok. However, making Resolve more desirable IMHO would be easier and fun for us than making it a necessity of game design. I don't want to have the game require it in order to play without forgetting where I was walking every time I take damage. I would much rather it be more desirable from a fun factor perspective. Either way we are both making assumptions. I am normally a glass half full kind of guy, but I have seen how Attributes tied to only Reactive stats tend to become dump stats in RPGs when it isn't health. So, call me skeptical. I am not looking at any modern games to base my fear of Resolve's potential caveats here. I am looking at the IE games, and "maybe" a little bit at the NWN games. Basically D&D cRPGs. Where wisdom and charisma are dump stats for many builds. Wisdom is a dump stat because it gives a defensive bonus to willpower saves, and Charisma is because it really just increases your characters like able personality. Of course for Clerics, Pallys, Sorcs, Bards, Druids, Rangers they aren't necessarily dump stats, but required stats. In the case of resolve we have a reactive stat, and that stat is only effective when the player is hit and when their Resolve is lower than the enemies Perception (the stats may roll vs one another for all I know). It does little else unless the character is hit. What if the character is a back line fighter and rarely gets hit? The stat is much less useful. To me the whole stat is dependent on positioning now, and that makes it much less desirable for back line characters. I have been pondering this for a few days. I would try to give each Attribute an active and reactive effect. Might already has this. The only exception being Constitution because I can't think of a good idea for an active effect, and as of now it gets 2 really good reactive effects: health and stamina. Something like this: Might - Active: Damage. Reactive: healing. Con- Reactive: health and stamina. Dexterity- Active: Accuracy. Reactive: Still thinking about this one. Perception - Active: interrupt chance. Reactive: Increased chance to avoid Attacks of Opportunity. Intellect - Active: AoE. Reactive: increased Skill Points. Resolve - Active: Effect Duration. Reactive: Concentration. Obviously, this isn't very well fleshed out. I haven't had time to really think it out, and honestly what little time I have though about it I have come up short on ideas. For instance, if I could think of something Active for Constitution then I would move Stamina to Dexterity in order to give it something Reactive. Also, Perception allowing the player to move with less chance of an AoO is an off the cuff idea, and I don't know if AoO is even in the game. I am also unsure if Intellect effects skill points or not but if it does then it doesn't need 2 very powerful Active effects tied to it as well. Either way, IMHO the one thing the changes to the attributes did was make Resolve way less interesting, and as a byproduct it did the same for Perception. I wonder why the Critical Damage increase was removed from Perception? I guess because we needed a Stat to go against concentration. I can imagine that having increased Crit damage "and" higher chance to interrupt might make it a "must have" stat. I can just imagine a Dexterity/Perception build with high accuracy, Crit damage, and interrupt would demolish many encounters. That is my guess. If that is the case: I would move interrupt chance to Constitution (My only reasoning is from a balance standpoint, really), move Stamina to Dexterity, and then give Perception it's increased Crit Damage back. Anyway, critiques are welcome here.

I agree with Lephys. The system changed over Christmas break from Intellect governing damage and healing to Might governing them. Every iteration (that we know of) has had a generic Damage Attribute, but with this changing as much as it has I wouldn't say it is set in stone. This is why I have voiced my issues with the current iteration of Resolve because I feel it is pretty close to a possible dump stat for some situations. Will I have any effect? Maybe, maybe not. I will keep voicing that concern until I hear something from the developers on the subject.

I am fine with retaining spells when a caster is interrupted. An archer wouldn't lose an arrow if his shot was interrupted. I understand the principles were different with spell casters, but I see why we wouldn't want to further inhibit them vs other classes. I also would like to chime in that I love counter spell mechanics, and I agree with PrimeJunta that it would be awesome if that was implemented.

If failed concentration checks stop everything then that is a different thing all together. Then again it would make it an attribute that keeps players from being annoyed, and that isn't a bonus in my eyes. However, I still see it as an issue. I have voiced my worries, and will hold back until a dev responds or until it is more nailed down. Obviously, it isn't nailed down with the changes coming pretty soon after Josh's initial pre-Christmas posts. I do want to say that I am not saying Resolve is useless for every build, but that many ranged builds within the right team can use it as a dump stat. It will obviously be good for frontline characters, but IMHO it will be less good for ranged unless encounter design and AI make it useful. I don't like an attributes usefulness being reliant on encounter design and AI almost solely. The other attributes aren't reliant on encounter design. The only one seems to be (at a glance obviously) Resolve. If we are trying to get rid of dump stats then I say Resolve needs more than it has in this layout.

Although, I don't disagree Lephys, I believe that an ability that only shows its use when 1) a character must be hit, and 2) that character must be performing an action that can be interrupted is much less uselful than one that works in most situations. All the while that number goes against the attackers perception because perception increases interrupting capabilities. That is pretty specific. That is where my issue lies. Might - damage and healing will go up. Constitution - health and stamina both are guaranteed to go up. Dexterity - increases accuracy. Percep. - you will have a higher chance to interrupt and perhaps get armor piercing increases. Intellect - increased AoE and duration. Resolve - concentration increases. The only attributes that are based on "ifs" and "whens" are Constitution and Resolve. The other attributes do what they do when you use abilities and attacks. Constitution is good for many builds. It is reliant on being attacked though. However almost every creature has attacks that work vs hit points and stamina, and so it will be useful if the character is attacked every time. Will almost every creature have high perception to make high resolve worthwhile? Will the AI work to attack back line characters? Will the character be committing to an action that can be interrupted? Too many scenarios where those 3 questions will not be answered as yes IMHO to make heavily speccing into Resolve worthwhile at the moment. It just seems strange to me that Resolve's value is now entirely in the hands of encounter design where none of the others are nearly as dependent, if at all. I just wish we could give it another boost to make it more interesting like it was prior to the redesign.

Another issue with this system is Perception now effects interrupt capabilities which goes against concentration. So if most enemies don't have Perception then Resolve is less useful as a by product. I was thinking of trying to come up with a scenario where each Attribute had 1 active and 1 reactive bonus. Might already has damage as an active bonus while having healing as reactive. Where intellect and possibly perception have 2 active bonuses, but constitution and resolve are only reactive. Dexterity has 1 Active, but it is a very good one. I don't know.

Yes, ranged weapons are a potential threat. However, will the AI be good enough to discern optimal targets? In IE games we had enemies going after the first target in sight, and maybe switching later in the fight. We have 12+ years of AI development in games, but this ability will hinge on AI more than any other. If AI is subpar then Resolve becomes useless, but if it is really good Resolve may be necessary in most builds. @PrimeJunta - you have a point, but my issue is that it goes against the no dump stat rule that has been laid out. If it makes it much more difficult to play that way then that is one thing, but if it becomes the optimal play-style we have an issue. I am not saying it is doomed, but that I think Resolve 'may' suffer from this change. This is the only change to the Attributes I am worried about though. The rest looks fine.

Love the update. I have one issue with the new stat system: The changes to Resolve are making me worry. A player that uses sound tactics with his other party members can keep enemies away from back line characters thus making Resolve a potential dump stat. Why give your mage Resolve when the Warrior, Pally, and Rogue are always going to stop enemies from getting to the mage to force concentration checks? It seems that Resolve needs something more than just Concentration checks. It needs something that directly effects your character in combat that isn't reliant on being attacked. All other Attributes directly effect your damage, accuracy, AoE, duration, or healing save constitution and resolve. Constitution makes itself useful by increasing your staying power via health and stamina, but Resolve seems less necessary. The former system, although it had many people confused because of strength and intellect, had a better grasp on no dump stats IMHO. I have no idea what could be added to Resolve to make it better at the moment. I am trying to think through the fog of cold medication.

I agree, JFSOCC. IMHO, the change to Resolve has made it possible to use it as a dump stat for ranged classes. If they aren't being focused by being placed in the back of the lines then they don't need Resolve. It definitely needs something more. Increased in combat stamina regen would be a good one, but still can be unnecessary for back line characters. Reduced durations on negative effects is also good, but suffers from the same problem. People at the back will not necessitate concentration like those in the front unless the AI is really good which could be the case. IMHO, Resolve now needs something offensive to make it more appealing to all classes. Because as I see it it now teeters really close to being useless with good positioning and tactics. It needs something that directly effects combat, and not indirectly by only working when the character is hit. I have been silent on this change for the past day because I have been sick and have been thinking about what could be done to resolve to make it more interesting. I still haven't come up with anything. Just thought I would pop in and express my concern with Resolve. Otherwise I am fine with the changes to the Attributes and their function in combat. I just feel resolve got less appealing for many builds.

Actually valve said 250 titles when they talked about it at CES. That's currently accurate. You are right though. As of now it is mostly indie + valve titles + MetroLL. If Valve gets around 10 AAA titles (give or take) to launch alongside the units then that isn't too far off from the new consoles. I take Valves word with some trepidation, but Valve rarely talks out of their ***. Valve has a tendency not to talk without something to show. The system definitely needs AAA or it goes the way of Ouja. They need to press PC only developers for ports (like LoL and Blizzard titles) so they can claim some exclusives vs other consoles. These don't have to be sold through steam, but at least available. Not true exclusives, but exclusives like Titanfall is an xbone exclusive. I personally think Valve will have to patch up their EA relationship for sports titles in particular. While getting a next gen version of gtaV and 2ksports titles will also help. Until they show AAA games this is a niche console for indie gamers at a higher system cost. I don't believe this system will ever launch and compete with Xbox or playstation. I believe Valve is waging a war of assimilation vs the typical war of attrition. This year Linux stats on steam may see a small rise to 5% on the steam survey, but it won't just trump windows. If in 3-4 years they hit a 20% mark on the survey then I consider that a success. That means more secured cross platform development, and less reliance on D3D instead of OpenGL. By then, based on current rate of growth, linux will likely have 1000 (or more titles). This means, if in the unlikely scenario MS does try to lock down windows that gamers have a choice. Which is what Valve has said this is about from the onset. I also believe the current iterations on the machines aren't (for the most part) aiming for the living room gamer, but current steam users. Which I think is a bad idea, but there are a few diamonds in there. Cyberpowerpc, Alienware, and ibuypower all seem to be geared to price and size for competing in the living room. Albeit they are a little pricier than the PS4, and the Alienware price hasn't been nailed down. Dell is claiming console price and power parity to the consoles and also has an hdmi input like the xbone in their Alienware box. I still think we will get some AAA announcements next week. Valve initially said that those would come at CES, but CES is more about gadgets and hardware. With DevDays right around the corner it makes perfect sense to hold software announcements until then. I will likely change my tune if DevDays comes and goes with little to no announcements for games.

@Oerwinde I agree that toy sales were likely the culprit for Thundercats being cancelled. I remember the toys always being full on the shelves in most stores in my area when I cruised through. It is sad because it only had 1 more season to be completed. I believe its late night time slot (9PM EST IIRC) made it more for nerds like me, and less for kids, and that means less toy sales IMHO. It should have been a Saturday morning affair, and maybe it reran earlier, but I am having trouble remembering. I liked TF Animated. I really haven't disliked many of the TF shows, but nothing beats my childhood G1 Transformers mostly because I love Starscream and I <3 Chris Latta. Heck, my text ringtone is Starscream's line "Pathetic fools! There's no escape!" from the 80s movie. I do get strange looks when i get texts btw. Anyway, I do show more love to Prime because of Cullen and Welker's involvement.

PrimeJunta, I don't agree or disagree. I have heard arguments from both angles on the internet streaming topic that are very valid. I would say that there are perks to selling your game vs a streaming service. Larger possible market as not everyone has the best internet being one of them. Another is that the developer would have to sink a large amount of money into the servers so that they can host the appropriate amount of players. If they don't have enough servers we have issues similar to SimCity's launch. While too many results in wasting money that inevitably end with server consolidation like many post-WoW MMOs. However, I agree the internet streaming method is more likely to be taken by AAA developers, but doing so as a sole way of getting your title out before the infrastructure is there could cause a major issue for the studio. I still believe for a good many years online streaming systems won't be viable, and that is particularly true of competitive games. However, the Valve method of streaming is over your WLAN from one PC (presumably Windows in one room) to your set top box (presumably SteamOS around your TV). I am sure you know that. I am just reiterating the difference to keep others from getting confused.