RANDOM VIDEA GAME NEWS!

[TSBasilisk]

The fact that it took them this long since the release to start making a fuss says something about how many layers they've already scrapped off the bottom of the barrel.

 

In WTF, UBER MODDER news:

http://www.polygon.com/2013/2/4/3950928/half-life-2-modded-to-add-head-and-gun-tracking-ahead-of-oculus-rift

Yeah, a modder has done half the work in getting Half-Life 2 ready for Oculus, and it should work for related games like the Episodes. I wonder if Black Mesa will work too... or Portal for some real brain-breaking.

Edited February 4, 2013 by TSBasilisk

[LadyCrimson]

So apparently Tina in Borderlands 2 is racist due to her choice of words - http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/02/04/borderlands-2s-tiny-tina-accused-of-conveying-racism-writer-says-he-may-change-her-in-future/

Oh for crying out loud.

[Darkpriest]

 

So apparently Tina in Borderlands 2 is racist due to her choice of words - http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/02/04/borderlands-2s-tiny-tina-accused-of-conveying-racism-writer-says-he-may-change-her-in-future/

Oh for crying out loud.

 

That's just ... I am not sure... should I laugh or cry in this case? That's how irrational this is. The thing is, that the same person who accused of racism used a racists description, of a WHITE girl... c'mon... she is not white, but has euro-influenced heritage, similar to the fact that there are afro-americans, etc...

 

Gees. this PC (polit.-correct.) **** is reaching beyond believable levels of absurd... 

[Tsuga C]

Gees. this PC (polit.-correct.) **** is reaching beyond believable levels of absurd...

Ignore the screaming meemies accusing this or that person of racism. Let the writers write as they see fit and we'll see what the market has to say about it. I offend people all the time because I refuse to cowtow to Political Correctness. Does it bother me when others accuse me of this or that -ism? Not really as I simply consider the source, roll my eyes, and go on about my business.

[TSBasilisk]

http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/122/1227334p1.html

 

Dyad's confirmed, but Steam-Halo has been denied.

[Gorth]

I normally couldn't care less about multiplayer features in single player games, but Multiplayer in EU IV looks like it could be interesting. Up to 32 players in a game of war, politicking and backstabbing

[Nordicus]

Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt

[Darkpriest]

Just when you thought that EA cannot do better with DLCs, they prove you wrong...

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2013/02/01/dead-space-3-launching-with-11-pieces-of-day-one-dlc/

 

11 Day 1 DLCs for "Dead Space 3" + microtransactions

Edited February 5, 2013 by Darkpriest

[alanschu]

I don't entirely understand his concerns.  He mentions that the atmosphere and whatnot is very vital to the game (I haven't played the Dead Space games), yet these things undermine that.

 

Isn't this a case of "don't buy them then?"  (If you're against Day One DLC, I encourage you to not buy them anyways)

 

 

Looking at his comments, he seems to feel that the option of these easier modes will make the game easier and reduce the tensions.  Isn't this a bit disrespectful to the gaming population?  I have no problems if someone DOES find the game too scary (or whatever) but otherwise enjoys it paying for stuff.  It's his money (seems like a waste of money to me, but I rarely buy DLC at all) and if that makes him enjoy the game more, should we care?

[Darkpriest]

For me it's more about the product itself. We are entering the area, where the games become very basic in what they offer at launch, and for everything else you pay extra. Then in order to fully experience the game you have to pay far more than for the original copy of the game. It's also the area of so called "moral hazard". I will have zero complaints if the DLCs are fully optional to the game experience (outfit packs, color packs, etc.) but if it is released on Day 1, with extra weapons/armors, missions, etc. what's the justification for such a process? If it was developed during the game development, why this experience is removed from the game, unless you pay extra? 

 

DS3 is not my type of a game, so I won't be buying it, but if I would, then I'd have concerns about the design of the game. There is some fear of a game designed in a way, that it will "force" the player to reach out to that paid content, because otherwise the game is lacking in experience or repetitive, boring or too difficult.

 

For example, the reason for me, why Diablo 3 is a failure IMO, is because the game is designed to be FULLY dependable on gear and hard gear checks, instead of skill builds and player's skill. Then if you drop things like Auction House, etc. which basically encourages a player to use it, or otherwise the game is way too time consuming mindless grind of repetitive areas. The design philosophy is clear. Get people to  use AH as often as possible, best if that's RMAH, cause that adds to profit.

 

I have nothing against DLCs in general, IF they add new experiences on a quality level or if they add some additional options to the gear modifications, choices (FO:NV got that right) , but if it's on Day 1 or within the first month post release, there is something distasteful about this practice, although it's a sound choice from the revenue perspective (as long as the customers are backing this up)

[cyberarmy]

I don't entirely understand his concerns.  He mentions that the atmosphere and whatnot is very vital to the game (I haven't played the Dead Space games), yet these things undermine that.

 

Isn't this a case of "don't buy them then?"  (If you're against Day One DLC, I encourage you to not buy them anyways)

 

 

Looking at his comments, he seems to feel that the option of these easier modes will make the game easier and reduce the tensions.  Isn't this a bit disrespectful to the gaming population?  I have no problems if someone DOES find the game too scary (or whatever) but otherwise enjoys it paying for stuff.  It's his money (seems like a waste of money to me, but I rarely buy DLC at all) and if that makes him enjoy the game more, should we care?

 

Now i don't care about DLC/microtranstaions and never bought one.

 

But if someone is buying a sci-fi horror themed game and then want to play it less tensioned, i want to have a word with him... I really cant understand this kind of microtransations, the ones help you in a singleplayer game. Diablo 3 lost many good customers after this kind of deal even without RMAH...

There are already lots of TPS games with sci-fi involved with no horror elements.

[Malcador]

Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt

 

On the face of it, the information gathering to kill monsters sounds interesting

[pmp10]

Apparently RTS games are dying.

Unsurprising when you refuse to evolve.

[alanschu]

 

For me it's more about the product itself. We are entering the area, where the games become very basic in what they offer at launch, and for everything else you pay extra. Then in order to fully experience the game you have to pay far more than for the original copy of the game. It's also the area of so called "moral hazard". I will have zero complaints if the DLCs are fully optional to the game experience (outfit packs, color packs, etc.) but if it is released on Day 1, with extra weapons/armors, missions, etc. what's the justification for such a
process? If it was developed during the game development, why this experience is removed from the game, unless you pay extra?

 

How do you determine whether or not content would have existed had the DLC not been created, versus the content existing explicitly because the plan was to put it in as DLC?

 

If you think the game is not fun and doesn't deliver without the DLC, then yeah buyer beware and take that into consideration the next time you purchase their games.  If you think that the total game is worth $50, wait for the game's price to drop and pick it up with the DLCs that you want and get the value with the dollar.  Or pick up some of the other plethora of PC games that are out instead.

 

 

As for the justification?  Risk mitigation.  With the increased revenues the chances of the game as a whole making a profit (and keeping people employed).  I agree that there's a negative perception about it, but is it because it's new and the inertia of the status quo makes us drag our feet?  Steam once had a negative perception about it, but with time people got used to it and eventually even liked it.

[alanschu]

 

But if someone is buying a sci-fi horror themed game and then want to play it less tensioned, i want to have a word with him... I really cant understand this kind of microtransations, the ones help you in a singleplayer game. Diablo 3 lost many good customers after this kind of deal even without RMAH...

 

There are already lots of TPS games with sci-fi involved with no horror elements.

 

Diablo 3 "struggled" because it wasn't as good of a game as Diablo II.  Besides, rhe RMAH is just a way of allowing people to actually do what they were already doing with the first game (selling items on ebay and whatnot) but with the increased convenience and security of doing it officially (less chances of being ripped off).

 

As for what people do in their game, why do you even given two ****s what someone else does in their single player game?  Do you have stern talking tos for people that use cheat codes, or mod the game files, or use external trainers?  Furthermore, if someone is buying it, doesn't that give the indication that there is some sort of consumer demand?

[cyberarmy]

I.just.dont.understand.

Its their game their money, they can do whatever they want with it.

Buying a survival/horror game (well if we can count DS3 as one ) for that hefty amount and then killing its core with cheats/real money support is really alien to me. They are wasting their money and as a accountant and financial consultant this is killing me(softly ) I have exact same toughts for the ones that call custmoer support for cheats

 

Im tormenting my customers/clients for much more less, seing my fellow gamers burn their money like this just saddens me.

 

Edit: BTW DS3 got 8 from Gamespot

 

http://www.gamespot.com/dead-space-3/reviews/dead-space-3-review-6403319/?tag=Topslot;DeadSpace3Review;DeadSpace3Review;GoNow

Edited February 5, 2013 by cyberarmy

[Hurlshort]

I don't care about Day 1 DLC, as long as you don't put the DLC vendor in my camp offering his quest for 900 Bioware points

[Tale]

Diablo 3 "struggled" because it wasn't as good of a game as Diablo II.  Besides, rhe RMAH is just a way of allowing people to actually do what they were already doing with the first game (selling items on ebay and whatnot) but with the increased convenience and security of doing it officially (less chances of being ripped off).

As I understand, the problem is not that people are doing it, it's that the system is now designed to get everyone to do it, instead of it being merely a limited number of people who chose to do it on their own. With the added "benefit" of the game's infrastructure revolving around it, such as being always online.

 

This spoken as someone who has not played the game, so if I've been given the wrong impression, let me know.

[AwesomeOcelot]

I also don't buy the argument about DLC, but I don't see how a game can be designed well around this kind of DLC. I will say that this type of stupidity is older than DLC, BioWare did this sort of nonsense with Jade Empire's Limited Edition. These problems become more pronounced the more you rely on the DLC revenue, so Age of Empires Online and other free-to-play (with notable and popular exceptions) have these problems in spades.

 

Certain types of RTS is dying, Starcraft II is getting a release, Dawn of War II had 3 releases, and there's a new Company of Heroes game, plus the Total War series. MOBA games are a RTS subgenre, and if you look at FPS and RPG, the same types in those genres don't get made any more, so under the same criterion those genres died years ago. Supreme Commander could have easily been a profitable PC franchise for a decade but the publisher didn't want that. EA ate Westwood and spat out all the good. Airmech, Sins of a Solar Empire, Planetary Annihilation, End of Nations, and Dota 2 are the RTS genre evolving.

[TSBasilisk]

They have two auction houses, one for real cash and one for in-game cash. Nobody is forced to go onto the RMAH; they can stick with the Fake-Money AH or they can, you know, go farm stuff themselves. The game doesn't revolve around or force players into the RMAH.

 

Anyway... do we really need another three pages of griping, this time about DLC, in this thread?

 

http://www.polygon.com/2013/2/5/3953788/ouya-to-sell-on-amazon-gamestop-target-and-best-buy-for-99-99-pre

 

Ouya will be sold at retailers and on-line alike; pre-orders will be $100.

Edited February 5, 2013 by TSBasilisk

[Zoraptor]

I also don't buy the argument about DLC, but I don't see how a game can be designed well around this kind of DLC. I will say that this type of stupidity is older than DLC, BioWare did this sort of nonsense with Jade Empire's Limited Edition. These problems become more pronounced the more you rely on the DLC revenue, so Age of Empires Online and other free-to-play (with notable and popular exceptions) have these problems in spades.

Simple answer is that you don't design around day1, cosmetic, dlc. They're basically TF2 hats/ paid for cheat codes for people who like to enjoy games by feeling awesome as they curbstomp all and sundry in their pimped out bling.

 

In the PC version of DS2 all the dlc items were dumped at zero cost into the stores and you actually had to be careful to avoid using them.

[TSBasilisk]

http://www.polygon.com/2013/2/5/3954410/square-enix-posts-61m-loss-struggle-due-to-difficult-console-sector

 

Square Enix is blaming consoles for its losses, and says PC sales are doing well... Oh how times have changed...

[Darkpriest]

http://www.polygon.com/2013/2/5/3954410/square-enix-posts-61m-loss-struggle-due-to-difficult-console-sector

 

Square Enix is blaming consoles for its losses, and says PC sales are doing well... Oh how times have changed...

 

Well, I would tie this to a fact, that PC is:

 

1) More mod friendly

2) More Multiplayer and Social medium friendly

 

In the past, the main driver towards the consoles was the fact that it's a single machine, with a single configuration, meaning that risks of game breaking bugs is minimal, and there is no need to constantly upgrade your machine for a next 4-5 years.

 

With platforms like Steam (DRM excluded) PC is becoming very user friendly medium. We can have everything what consoles have and more.

 

The trend might reverse though, if the new consoles will be truly NEXT-GEN

Edited February 5, 2013 by Darkpriest

[alanschu]

 

Diablo 3 "struggled" because it wasn't as good of a game as Diablo II.  Besides, rhe RMAH is just a way of allowing people to actually do what they were already doing with the first game (selling items on ebay and whatnot) but with the increased convenience and security of doing it officially (less chances of being ripped off).

As I understand, the problem is not that people are doing it, it's that the system is now designed to get everyone to do it, instead of it being merely a limited number of people who chose to do it on their own. With the added "benefit" of the game's infrastructure revolving around it, such as being always online.

 

This spoken as someone who has not played the game, so if I've been given the wrong impression, let me know.

 

 

I can see this.  But it could just as well be an unexpected consequence.  Though in general it still greatly simplified trading (something which was still done on battle.net).

 

It still strikes me as a "If you think it hurts your fun, don't do it?" type of scenario.

[alanschu]

 

http://www.polygon.com/2013/2/5/3954410/square-enix-posts-61m-loss-struggle-due-to-difficult-console-sector

 

Square Enix is blaming consoles for its losses, and says PC sales are doing well... Oh how times have changed...

 

Well, I would tie this to a fact, that PC is:

 

1) More mod friendly

2) More Multiplayer and Social medium friendly

 

In the past, the main driver towards the consoles was the fact that it's a single machine, with a single configuration, meaning that risks of game breaking bugs is minimal, and there is no need to constantly upgrade your machine for a next 4-5 years.

 

With platforms like Steam (DRM excluded) PC is becoming very user friendly medium. We can have everything what consoles have and more.

 

The trend might reverse though, if the new consoles will be truly NEXT-GEN

 

I think mods are overstated personally, but it could just be personal bias since I use them so infrequently.

 

Ironically I think what has helped PC gaming has been the consoles being similar enough to PC that multiplatform titles are more common.  I get much more mileage out of my PC now than I did thirteen years ago (I'm on my third year with this one, and it still plays games well.  My previous one lasted for 4 years).

 

I think there's also been a maturation of the industry to find ways to still present that higher quality content.

 

 

I think the biggest culprit is that console games very much rely on large volume of sales, yet the economic situation just has people being more frugal in general.