Amentep

It reminds me a bit when a movie trailer hits the screens (or net) and people complain about the CGI while not bothering to realize that the CGI in movies is usually finished weeks (if not days) before the release and whatever is in the trailer - which is compiled months beforehand - is (baring a total lack of funding) not what is going to be in the final product. They are early screenshots. I'd be a lot more concerned (not really, but its the best word I can come up with) if those were new screenshots and it was being released today.

He could via the mouse and cut & paste...

I love playing games over, but I also like my fair share of games that I doubt I'll ever finish again (heck, I only ever beat Baldur's Gate once). Worth - for me at least - is an upfront thing, ie does it interest me enough to pay for and play it at all. Re-playability doesn't typically factor into it for me.

Grace's reaction was pretty amusing too.

Its weird, but so far I've always adapted to the changing game market. I've always found something I've liked. Maybe there have been years where I only bought 1 or 2 games, but there's always been something. Not sure how I'd feel if it got to the point where I didn't (but them maybe my wallet would be happy...).

Or just looks stylized and clawy.

I hate this argument. Why on earth are you comparing games to movies? Hey, try it with a book! A book costs like $20 and it lasts for up to 100+ hours. Gee, suddenly the deal isn't looking so good, is it? It's so pointless to try to compare different media this way. Is 10 hours of entertainment worth $50 for you? That's the only question you need to answer. My point was that the market supports specific price points because there is some kind of value there as determined by the market (what the company and customer can afford from their respective perspectives). And that value for the customer is what they're willing to pay for it as you say. However, the price/value for the company might be viewed very differently. I'd think (and perhaps be wrong, I admit) that the companies would look at pricing in a way that compares it to movies, which is why I brought the comparison up (in that I don't think gaming companies will go to a pricing system that places their product as more expensive per time invested by the customer than movies or DVDs and that they probably see their competitors in those arenas and not in books, comic books, radio, etc.). Or something. Wasn't trying to start an argument but look at the customer-company business relationship; perhaps I could have been clearer?

Did it had great one liners like the original? Somehow I don't think so. The delivery of lines by Topher Grace and Walter Goggins was pretty fantastic.

That price range seems to be what price most people will accept from a game. And honestly at $50 game with 20 hours of gameplay is a better investment cost vs entertainment time compared to most other entertainments (heck in most places $50 for 10 hours is still better than movies and I say this as someone who loves going to the movies) from a purely practical point of view (the value for the individual will, of course, vary).

Why does the dude on the cover look like the guy from District 9 with one prawn arm? Looks like he's got one arm in armor and the other not to me.

A lot of businesses are built upon what price the market (ie customers) can sustain, not anything to do with what it costs to make or distribute.

Same problem hits indy games and indy movies - very little distribution room. Also competitive practices tend to ensure lack of screens/retail space for smaller product.

Did it had great one liners like the original? Somehow I don't think so. Well I did say "almost" as good as the original film...

I saw Predators and really liked it. Thought it was almost as good as the original film.

I'll be in suckage, as it'll force me to try and get an internet connection that can download something on it in less than three days... (mind you I don't have a computer to download it to, at the moment, so...)

They weren't sequels to games that didn't have fixed character though, so there is a bit of a different expectation going in to this.

Which - whether I like it or not - it makes sense for the developer. They get around physical distribution for the most part, get around license fees, get around porting to multiple platforms and can still use a $50 price point since that's what gamers have come to expect from games.

Egad! You look like something out of the Oblivion character editor! No one...NO ONE looks like anything that came out of the Oblivion Character editor!

I can't say I ever micromanage and I don't usually agonize over equipment (like I knew some did in Diablo 2). In fact I usually only even paused in Baldur's Gate when I wanted to throw a spell from a magic caster. I don't remember any game that played itself outside of demo mode; never understood that argument.

I don't like the fiddletyness of PC's, personally. Yes a computer can do A LOT of things. Many of them involving you sitting for hours trying to figure out why your program, your CPU, your periphrials, and your installed components seem to have a pre-standing grudge against one another and refuse to talk. The advantage of the console is that when I buy a game on a console, I know its going to work on the console without spending any time (or money) troubleshooting or replacing obsolete parts. That said, Activision wants a "plug and play" PC alternative which would be the ideal - take the frustration of having to fiddle with your PC to get it to work, make games so you don't have to upgrade your PC every 6 months to play them and I think the PC will become viable again as a gaming platform.

Jonathan Rhys Meyers Turns out I know somebody who had a bit part as a zombie in that film.

I didn't mind the song first time around even with some of the weird face and camera shots (and I forgive the orchestra for swelling just as I do in the cinema).

But if the Japanese developer has no interest in working on an IP they own, but it can be mined by an outside contractor...why not? Fanboy rage will happen whether they don't make a new game in "Series X" or if they make it with a 3rd party or if they make it themselves and dare change anything from the original, so I'm not sure its the best way to gauge whether something is worth doing or not.

BTW, poking around the net, the only numbers I see are for KotOR at about 1.58 million. I'd imagine, since KotOR2 was released a year after the first, a million copies would have still been good (that said, I don't think KotOR2 sold a million, as it never went to the greatest hits program if I remember correctly...)

IMO it kinda makes good business sense to not hinge all of your company's future on one game. Look at it this way, AP's sales weren't what Sega wanted, but they have DSIII and FO:NV. If FO:NV does well then the fact AP didn't do boffo sales doesn't ultimately hurt them when putting together their next project post DSIII (and they're probably in talks about that anyhow, I'd think).