PS3 costs Sony $800 ?

[alanschu]

I think crap is a great definition for something that dosnt work.

 

What does it mean that something "doesn't work."

 

Really ? Thats news to me I thought you were talking about PC games. Of course if you want to wait a couple of weeks to play them just so you can be sure there is a patch go right ahead.

 

Now you're just trolling.

 

More common than you would like to admit I expect.

 

Considering the amount of PC games I play....unlikely.

 

How would I know if something was cross platform ? Oh I dont know maybe check the supplier list.

 

The game would never appear on your radar if it wasn't cross platform. Oh wait I forgot, you're independently wealthy, own 500 GB Hard Drives before they are available, and spend over $10000 per year on video game purchases alone.

 

 

Remember I'm the consumer I have no obligation to buy anything. If they want my money then they had better start making less buggy games which work out of the box like console games do.

 

Never said otherwise. But you persist on ignoring a game that has been patched. Your loss.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

What does it mean that something "doesn't work."

 

Now you're just trolling.

 

Considering the amount of PC games I play....unlikely.

 

  The game would never appear on your radar if it wasn't cross platform.  Oh wait I forgot, you're independently wealthy, own 500 GB Hard Drives before they are available, and spend over $10000 per year on video game purchases alone.

 

Never said otherwise.  But you persist on ignoring a game that has been patched.  Your loss.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's pretty clear I would have thought. Take it out of the box put it in the machine and play until you finish the game.

 

Hardly. The only way you can do what you say is NOT to buy games until a patch is out which in general is a week to two weeks. Thats what you said right ? Not buying games until you know there is a patch for them ?

 

I'd get some examples but frankly cant be bothered. You want to keep encouraging shoddy software thats your choice. Since it no longer particularly effects me dont much care.

 

Sucks to be me

 

No their loss , they are not getting my money. There are plenty of great games around I'm hardly missing out.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

That is hard to do for most cases Shadowpaladin.

 

An X Box only has one possible and supported configuration.  A PC has dozens and dozens of different combinations of hardware.  Expecting a PC to work like a console is stupid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why should I care ? Seriously ?

 

As a consumer all I want are working games. Not excuses.

 

I know full well a PC has multiple configurations but since I'm not the one making the games It's not my job to work around that.

Edited February 22, 2006 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[metadigital]

I have never really understood the "knock" that PC gaming gets because of patching.

 

If a game is a great game after patch...then it is a great game.  The way some people are talking, they'd rather skip on a fantastic gaming experience than download a patch.

 

Call me stupid, but I'm not one to adamantly refuse a good game because there is a patch.  Yes, it can be annoying when a game is released and there are issues.  If it's patched though, I don't typically care.

 

Maybe it's just me

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I like patches. Patches to me equal more content, better polish.

1. More crap ≠ better choice.

2. Broadband is your friend.

 

I buy more than a dozen games a year for my PC, I spend a not-inconsiderable amount of time playing them, and I have barely enough time to play all the games I buy as much as I want.

 

Just because there are more buggy games on the PC platform doesn't mean that more games that we buy and play are crap, as a total percentage, for the PC.

 

Yes, I'm sure that the quality of games produced through a similar development cycle is significantly different on one platform to another.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have broadband I just dont have the inclination to knowingly buy rubbish just so I can patch it to make it playable.

 

Wow a dozen games , guess I have more free time :cool:

...

Dont forget the defintion of crap here which is a game that requires patching in order to be functional. Not a game that someone thinks is bad because they cant stand a particular type of game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Please read my posts.

2. Crap is anything I don't want to play, whether poor quality content or execution. Not sure why you are making a meaningless distinction.

3. If you don't use broadband to update content (whether to update bugs or not) then that's your own look-out.

4. Who said owning a PC means having to buy rubbish games?

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

I just think it is stupid to expect a game that has been optimized to run on NVidia to run perfectly on a ATI card. I expect games to be bug free on a console. There is only one official version of the X Box. Only one version of the Game Cube. Only One version of the PS2. When you have consistant hardware it is easy to make bugfree games.

 

On the PC you don't have consistant hardware or hell, OSes. Some people use Windows 98, Windows NT, Windows XP Home, Windows ME, Windows XP Pro, blah blah blah and so forth. With the all so many combinations of video cards, CPUs, RAM types, sound cards, and the like I tend to be a little more lenient on PC games than Consoles when it comes to bugs.

 

A bug on a console is unforgivable due to its conformity of design. If the game gets proper post release support then a bug or three is acceptable.

[metadigital]

Most bugfixes are tiny scope: a particular (usually high-end) graphics processor function isn't working to greatest effect. Better than not having the option to use a better graphics experience.

It is like, a six year old PC, and I don't have the cash to get a really good gaming rig.  I don't like using a keyboard to play games either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Steal one. :ph34r:

 

 

 

 

Well I just worked out that if I bought the same number of games on the PS3 as I have on the PS2 I would spend

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

2. Crap is anything I don't want to play, whether poor quality content or execution. Not sure why you are making a meaningless distinction.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats the very reason that I made the destinction If you had read MY post you would have seen that.

 

It's very easy to irrationally say oh thats crap. I do it myself all time with genres I dont like. But it serves no purpose since it's not a truth for anyone but me.

 

Mario is crap I loathe Mario platform games.

 

Yet objectively Mario is far from crap which is why it's important to diiferentiate between personal dislikes and actual faults.

[alanschu]

It's pretty clear I would have thought. Take it out of the box put it in the machine and play until you finish the game.

 

Then why was there criticism about Empire at War, which released a patch pretty much the day of release. I had beaten the game as the Rebels, and my roommate as the Empire, without the patch.

 

You have stereotyped all games that have patches as broken. Even if that's not what you were intending to do, it is what you did.

 

 

Hardly. The only way you can do what you say is NOT to buy games until a patch is out which in general is a week to two weeks. Thats what you said right ? Not buying games until you know there is a patch for them ?

 

No, I typically don't buy games until I see how they are via demo, and have gauged the feedback from intial reviews. If this was the case, then why throw in the "I thought we were talking about PC gaming here." For the record, I employed the exact same type of purchasing patterns when I bought console games too. It's not that I don't buy games until I know there's a patch for them. I bought Half-Life 2 the day it came out (and beat it in the following week). Even still, it had patches for it....but it clearly wasn't broken. Game patch != broken game. Unless it's a game that I know I want though, I never buy it on the day they come out. Don't blame me because you just absolutely have to have the game the second it comes out.

 

I'd get some examples but frankly cant be bothered. You want to keep encouraging shoddy software thats your choice. Since it no longer particularly effects me dont much care.

 

Well, I could say that you're encouraging the "bigbux" market that Microsoft and Sony want, which stymies creativity (this is in the words of software developers by the way).

 

 

Sucks to be me

 

Except that most people here think you're full of it, call it into question regarding your credibility, and see it as nothing more than flexing some sort of e-****.

 

No their loss , they are not getting my money. There are plenty of great games around I'm hardly missing out.

 

If you only wish to play with half of a deck, that's your perogative. I'm a gamer, and I like playing good games. I doubt you'd get Civ4 anyways, as there's a patch that came out for it.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

You have stereotyped all games that have patches as broken.  Even if that's not what you were intending to do, it is what you did.

 

No, I typically don't buy games until I see how they are via demo, and have gauged the feedback from intial reviews.  If this was the case, then why throw in the "I thought we were talking about PC gaming here."  For the record, I employed the exact same type of purchasing patterns when I bought console games too.  It's not that I don't buy games until I know there's a patch for them.  I bought Half-Life 2 the day it came out (and beat it in the following week).  Even still, it had patches for it....but it clearly wasn't broken.  Game patch != broken game.  Unless it's a game that I know I want though, I never buy it on the day they come out.  Don't blame me because you just absolutely have to have the game the second it comes out.

 

Well, I could say that you're encouraging the "bigbux" market that Microsoft and Sony want, which stymies creativity (this is in the words of software developers by the way).

 

Except that most people here think you're full of it, call it into question regarding your credibility, and see it as nothing more than flexing some sort of e-****.

 

 

  If you only wish to play with half of a deck, that's your perogative.  I'm a gamer, and I like playing good games.  I doubt you'd get Civ4 anyways, as there's a patch that came out for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I asked if he had to patch it and he said yes. Simple question and answer.

 

I'm not blaming you beyond encouraging buggy software by duitifully downloading patches.

 

You could well be right. But they are delivering the quality stuff so they get my money.

 

Really couldnt care less what anyone here thinks beyond their gaming opinions.

 

Me too which is why I own so many systems.

[metadigital]

I just think it is stupid to expect a game that has been optimized to run on NVidia to run perfectly on a ATI card. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's what drivers are for. There were over ten driver updates for ATi last year.

I expect games to be bug free on a console.  There is only one official version of the X Box.  Only one version of the Game Cube.  Only One version of the PS2.  When you have consistant hardware it is easier to make bugfree games.

 

On the PC you don't have consistant hardware or hell, OSes.  Some people use Windows 98, Windows NT, Windows XP Home, Windows ME, Windows XP Pro, blah blah blah and so forth.  With the all so many combinations of video cards, CPUs, RAM types, sound cards, and the like I tend to be a little more lenient on PC games than Consoles when it comes to bugs.

 

A bug on a console is unforgivable due to its conformity of design.  If the game gets proper post release support then a bug or three is acceptable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bugs in PC games due to platform issues are numerous, but not significant. The worst can be a card-based, sometimes, like ATi's notoriously inferior performance utilising OpenGL format. Still, the latest drivers released have narrowed this inefficiency significantly.

 

Bugs in games due to poor design implementation are equally distributed across every platform. Obviously. It's not like a console developer team has the A-team.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

You can play PSone games on a PS2, can't you? I think I might buy a PS2 to play the original Tombraider ... :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes you can at least I have come across one you cant yet (although there are some I think).

 

As long as you can get the game that is.

 

You will also need a PS memory card because you cant save PS games to a PS2 card. The only place I could find one was here.

 

http://shop.uk.playstation.com/index.php

 

Although you could probably just pick up a PS for

[metadigital]

:D I thought about that too.

 

I'm just about to load it on my PC, but I think that game is perfectly suited to a telly-console.

[alanschu]

I asked if he had to patch it and he said yes. Simple question and answer.

 

I thought it was clear that we had gone beyond a singleton instance of requiring a patch. Given your posts, I'd say it was. This is a backpedal.

 

I'm not blaming you beyond encouraging buggy software by duitifully downloading patches.

 

If you pulled your head out of you butt and actually recognized the stuff that YOU post, as you've already recognized the inherent difficulties of a variable configuraiton machine. It seems rather than understanding it though, you would rather put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and write it off as "it's not your problem to build the games."

 

You could well be right. But they are delivering the quality stuff so they get my money.

 

Quality is subjective. Patch-free game != good game. I guess I'm just supporting (allegedly) "lazy" developers, but I'd rather play a patched game that I like over a non-patched game that I don't like.

 

I supsect you're just one of those "OMG OMG OMG I have to have this now" type. In the future, you should make sure that there's no webcams watching you next time you're on the computer.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I thought it was clear that we had gone beyond a singleton instance of requiring a patch.  Given your posts, I'd say it was.  This is a backpedal.

 

If you pulled your head out of you butt and actually recognized the stuff that YOU post, as you've already recognized the inherent difficulties of a variable configuraiton machine.  It seems rather than understanding it though, you would rather put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and write it off as "it's not your problem to build the games."

 

Quality is subjective.  Patch-free game != good game.  I guess I'm just supporting (allegedly) "lazy" developers, but I'd rather play a patched game that I like over a non-patched game that I don't like.

 

I supsect you're just one of those "OMG OMG OMG I have to have this now" type.  In the future, you should make sure that there's no webcams watching you next time you're on the computer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's not like there enough examples of buggy PC games. I just asked him if he'd had to patch his latest purchases. Not like I have a hidden agenda or anything. I mean it's quite clear that the games are buggy. If you want to go through the effort of patching then do so.

 

I already said I dont care and I dont. It's not my concern beyond putting down money for a working product.

 

Well personal quality is subjective yes. As is how much effort someone is willing to go through just to play a particular game.

 

Your quite right at least as far as UK releases go. I'm suprisingly patient when it comes to waiting for things to be released in the UK rather than importing but if a game is released guilty as charged I want it on the Thursday (which is the earliest we can legally get software over here).

 

[alanschu]

I already said I dont care and I dont. It's not my concern beyond putting down money for a working product.

 

The beef I have is that when you state it like this, you give the impression that games not working directly out of the box is actually the norm. Working being the "finishable" definition that you provided earlier.

 

 

While you may consider it "supporting lazy programming" my purchase of the Hearts of Iron 2 game was more "supporting a small, independent developer that is still a bit wet behind the ears, that makes fascinating games that I can waste hours and hours of my life playing."

 

Fortunately, every new game that I have played of theirs has been more and more stable upon release. There's still issues, but the game is a ton of fun. I eagerly anticipate their "standalone expansion" for it...Doomsday.

[BattleCookiee]

Even if there are patches coming for games it is unique if that is due to "game-stopping issues". Most of them that need patches for game-stopping issues are low quality games you do not wish to play anyway or (GASP) Console Ports (San Andreas had a nice one... NOT! Wasted several hours of my life due to that one and save-points (I hate savepoints) )

 

And due to your latest bunch of post (pure anti-PC) I now understand why you didn't get my point I made before about how consoles had to be low cost not to get competitioned out of the market

 

Dont forget the defintion of crap here which is a game that requires patching in order to be functional. Not a game that someone thinks is bad because they cant stand a particular type of game.

 

Also known as MMORPG's because they do not allow you to play before having the extra stuff...

Edited February 22, 2006 by BattleCookiee

[alanschu]

I also suspect that the people that do encounter gamebreaking bugs are typically of the vocal minority.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The beef I have is that when you state it like this, you give the impression that games not working directly out of the box is actually the norm.  Working being the "finishable" definition that you provided earlier.

 

While you may consider it "supporting lazy programming" my purchase of the Hearts of Iron 2 game was more "supporting a small, independent developer that is still a bit wet behind the ears, that makes fascinating games that I can waste hours and hours of my life playing."

 

Fortunately, every new game that I have played of theirs has been more and more stable upon release.  There's still issues, but the game is a ton of fun.  I eagerly anticipate their "standalone expansion" for it...Doomsday.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You wouldnt know though would you ? I mean if you wait until the patch is available before you buy something pressumably you also patch the game before you play it as well ?

 

I do , or rather I did get irked that people just accepted patches and bugs as part of the hobby. But since it no longer effects me if people want fool around with patches, wait a couple of weeks to buy things so they can be sure there are patches or anything else PC gaming related.

 

Thats your choice. I'd much rather waste hours of my life playing something that was to all intents and purposes bug free.

 

I'm sure I'm not the only person who got so fed up with the state of some PC games that they switched to consoles and I'm sure I wont be the last either.

[alanschu]

*sigh*

 

Apparently you took my post waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to literally. I don't always wait for a patch (I figured this was obvious since I did mention that I bought Half-Life 2 the day it came out). Especially seeing as the game might not actually need one. Plus, I do get games as gifts at times. For instance, I didn't buy Boiling Point because I heard that the game was particularly unstable. However, after its most recent patches, I'm starting to think that it's really the game that the next GTA should have been. Half-Life 2, as I mentioned earlier, I bought right when it came out. I only wait if I'm uncertain about a game. The odd time I do get burned, but I don't burn my bridges and if a patch comes out, will apply it.

 

At the same time, you wouldn't know either. So I guess we're both equally unqualified to make the distinction. THe only difference is that I play PC games, whereas you don't.

 

I do , or rather I did get irked that people just accepted patches and bugs as part of the hobby. But since it no longer effects me if people want fool around with patches, wait a couple of weeks to buy things so they can be sure there are patches or anything else PC gaming related.

 

If it no longer affects you, then why do you buy 500 GB HDs, or even take part in a discussion about patching? If anything, it's just an admission to being out of touch with the PC gaming market.

 

Thats your choice. I'd much rather waste hours of my life playing something that was to all intents and purposes bug free. original.gif

 

I'd much rather play a game I enjoy. I'm not going to deny myself an excellent game experience because a game needed a patch.

[alanschu]

The "bugfree" argument IMO is just a rationalization for the decision you have made. You clearly have a ton of time on your hands for large parts of the year. Surely you aren't that impatient that patching the game (while doing something else even) is a hideious inconvenience.

 

Especially given that many games have auto-updaters now that do all the work for you.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

At the same time, you wouldn't know either.  So I guess we're both equally unqualified to make the distinction.  THe only difference is that I play PC games, whereas you don't.

 

If it no longer affects you, then why do you buy 500 GB HDs, or even take part in a discussion about patching?  If anything, it's just an admission to being out of touch with the PC gaming market.

 

I'd much rather play a game I enjoy.  I'm not going to deny myself an excellent game experience because a game needed a patch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because I only totally gave up PC gaming after Vampire , at least thats the last thing I bought anyway. Plus I've still got friends who duitifully patch stuff so I'm pretty current at least on the software side.

 

Your choice I'd much rather play a game I enjoy that plays out of the box with no problems.

 

Yes I realise it's a catch 22 if you stop supporting the PC then you get no more games but if you keep supporting the get it out now and patch it later attitude you will continue to get buggy games. No I dont have a solution which is why I found my own.

[BattleCookiee]

Joseph Bulock, could you please tell our friend the ShadowPaladin the difference between QA-testing console games and PC games and what the result would be in both cases?

 

Because I only totally gave up PC gaming after Vampire

 

So you base your whole rant on the BUGGIEST game of 2005 made by the least competent coders in the whole industry?

 

No wonder you start acting like that then... "

Edited February 22, 2006 by BattleCookiee

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The "bugfree" argument IMO is just a rationalization for the decision you have made.  You clearly have a ton of time on your hands for large parts of the year.  Surely you aren't that impatient that patching the game (while doing something else even) is a hideious inconvenience.

 

Especially given that many games have auto-updaters now that do all the work for you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No It's very annoying to be enjoying a game and then something go wrong. The name of the game escapes me right now , but it was Diablo like.I was playing that, got to a point where some invisible gate blocked the way (this was after several hours) couldnt continue. Duitifully looked for the patch , downloaded it and it corrupted my save.

 

Vampire great start, lots of potential. Games starts to slow down. Crashes in transition a couple of time, slows down some more. CTD's for no reason.

 

Now heres the question do you think I had fun with those two games ?

[Meshugger]

What an interesing thread about the costs of PS3.

[alanschu]

At the same time, you wouldn't know either.  So I guess we're both equally unqualified to make the distinction.  THe only difference is that I play PC games, whereas you don't.

 

If it no longer affects you, then why do you buy 500 GB HDs, or even take part in a discussion about patching?  If anything, it's just an admission to being out of touch with the PC gaming market.

 

I'd much rather play a game I enjoy.  I'm not going to deny myself an excellent game experience because a game needed a patch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because I only totally gave up PC gaming after Vampire , at least thats the last thing I bought anyway. Plus I've still got friends who duitifully patch stuff so I'm pretty current at least on the software side.

 

Oh I see. And you're the only one that has access to these "friends?" Seriously, did you honestly post this thinking that it wouldn't apply to me as well? In any case, I'm the one that still plays the PC games. You're just disenfranchised because you bought a game and it struggled out of the box. Hope you didn't buy the GameCube version of Warrior Within. At least the XBOX version could be patched.

 

 

Your choice I'd much rather play a game I enjoy that plays out of the box with no problems.

 

I have the technical aptitude for patching to be a non-issue. Sorry if you never really "got it." I also have the patience, as waiting 5 minutes for a download typically isn't skin off my back. I usually just frequent the forums until it is done.

 

Fortunately, with auto-updaters, my computer illiterate friends can easily patch their games now too.

Edited February 22, 2006 by alanschu