Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 10 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 431
  1. #226
    Superior Member
    thanatos144's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Stuart, Florida, United States
    PSN ID
    thanatos144
    Posts
    935
    Rep Power
    12
    Points
    8,399 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rapture View Post
    No, the developers do. Money doesn't do anything -- it's only an incentive. The CEOs are not making the games.
    No they are making it possible for the game to.be made unless you think the finances just appears by fairies.

    tapatalk post
    141.12

  2. #227
    Supreme Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    41
    Posts
    17,833
    Rep Power
    162
    Points
    167,157 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rapture View Post
    No, the developers do. Money doesn't do anything -- it's only an incentive. The CEOs are not making the games.

    While it would be nice in an ideal world, reality is, if you project doesn't get funded it doesn't get made.

  3. #228
    Friendship is Carrots
    Nerevar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Equestria
    Age
    22
    Posts
    15,806
    Rep Power
    135
    Points
    82,243 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by thanatos144 View Post
    No they are making it possible for the game to.be made unless you think the finances just appears by fairies.

    tapatalk post
    Misconstruction of the events that allow the operation to take place. It requires both parties to develop these projects. Attributing it only towards, or even primarily, to the one's simply funding it is a critical fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    While it would be nice in an ideal world, reality is, if you project doesn't get funded it doesn't get made.
    Throwing money at a computer doesn't make a game appear, either.
    Add me on Steam!


    [Forum Rules]
    - [PSN] - [Programmers' Corner]

  4. #229
    Supreme Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    41
    Posts
    17,833
    Rep Power
    162
    Points
    167,157 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    The console gains access to the "insane" texture quality levels of the computer version - which requires a 3GB video card to run smoothly
    Guess that's a certain boat blown out of the water.

    I also guess Giant Bomb $#@!ed up as well...

    Titanfall has been hit over the head repeatedly this week by comments quoted from Giant Bomb, describing a particular instance of single-digit frame-rates in the Last Titan Standing mode, which kits out every player with a Titan and lets them 'have at it'. On the one hand, the report potentially has some merit - this mode is likely to push the game engine to its limits. On the other hand, this engine is designed to pump out a new frame every 16ms. Clearly it doesn't always manage it, but a drop down to single digit frame-rates would necessitate that engine taking 100ms to render the next image - an enormous amount of time. So does the Last Titan Standing mode really hammer frame-rates as badly as suggested?

    Well, we put some time into this and didn't spot any single-digit frame-rates,
    Last edited by mynd; 03-16-2014 at 21:52.

  5. #230
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,268
    Rep Power
    194
    Points
    117,340 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    Guess that's a certain boat blown out of the water.
    what point does it debunk?

    I also guess Giant Bomb $#@!ed up as well...
    it can be an optimization glitch. BF4 has that too. you could be playing it for hours and not find a single frame drop (or more than a few) and boom, certain things make the game come to a halt. on BF4, it's at a very rare and non-replicable event but it's there. so putting "some time into it" doesn't necessary mean they debunked it entirely.

  6. #231
    Superior Member
    thanatos144's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Stuart, Florida, United States
    PSN ID
    thanatos144
    Posts
    935
    Rep Power
    12
    Points
    8,399 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rapture View Post
    Misconstruction of the events that allow the operation to take place. It requires both parties to develop these projects. Attributing it only towards, or even primarily, to the one's simply funding it is a critical fallacy.



    Throwing money at a computer doesn't make a game appear, either.
    Where did I say twas only one that made the game? All I said was truth the evil ceo's are very important to the processes. Ideology doesn't change facts

    tapatalk post
    141.12

  7. #232
    Supreme Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    41
    Posts
    17,833
    Rep Power
    162
    Points
    167,157 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    what point does it debunk?



    it can be an optimization glitch. BF4 has that too. you could be playing it for hours and not find a single frame drop (or more than a few) and boom, certain things make the game come to a halt. on BF4, it's at a very rare and non-replicable event but it's there. so putting "some time into it" doesn't necessary mean they debunked it entirely.
    He said alpha textures were final. As well game will be 720 (even after 792 was confirmed).

  8. #233
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,268
    Rep Power
    194
    Points
    117,340 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    He said alpha textures were final. As well game will be 720 (even after 792 was confirmed).
    are the alpha textures different than the final ones? 720 vs 792 is really not that different. unless he had made that statement close to its finalization, there's no way to know when the optimizations ended...and well, heck, now we probably could guess that too.

  9. #234
    Master Sage
    Two4DaMoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    27
    Posts
    12,526
    Rep Power
    111
    Points
    16,276 (75,576 Banked)
    Items Naughty DogPS3 SlimNaughty DogUser name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Insane textures aren't anything pretty from what I've seen of the pc version. What that shows is Respawn has a lot of engine upgrading to do.
    Last edited by Two4DaMoney; 03-16-2014 at 23:49.


  10. #235
    Supreme Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    41
    Posts
    17,833
    Rep Power
    162
    Points
    167,157 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    are the alpha textures different than the final ones? 720 vs 792 is really not that different. unless he had made that statement close to its finalization, there's no way to know when the optimizations ended...and well, heck, now we probably could guess that too.
    Yes they are significant lower res, yes he said 720 even after dev said 792.

    Quote Originally Posted by Two4DaMoney View Post
    Insane textures are not anything pretty from what I've seen of the pc version
    Most PC's aren't capable, you need a 3gb graphics card.
    That's one advantage these new consoles have at least.
    Although after taking a look I can barely notice the difference between High and insane.
    Last edited by mynd; 03-16-2014 at 23:58.

  11. #236
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,268
    Rep Power
    194
    Points
    117,340 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    Yes they are significant lower res, yes he said 720 even after dev said 792.
    you are forgetting that we've had this discussion before. when the 720p rumor was floating around, the game was far from done. anything can happen between the rumor and the moment the game went gold. heck, they can change it further too like they are hoping to.

    is it really that significant? what is the actual pixel count again? i doubt if more than a 100k. really dude, if it were something like 900p i'd get what you mean.
    Most PC's aren't capable, you need a 3gb graphics card.
    That's one advantage these new consoles have at least.
    Although after taking a look I can barely notice the difference between High and insane.
    what does that disprove or prove about the X1's power?

  12. #237
    Supreme Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    41
    Posts
    17,833
    Rep Power
    162
    Points
    167,157 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    you are forgetting that we've had this discussion before. when the 720p rumor was floating around, the game was far from done. anything can happen between the rumor and the moment the game went gold. heck, they can change it further too like they are hoping to.

    is it really that significant? what is the actual pixel count again? i doubt if more than a 100k. really dude, if it were something like 900p i'd get what you mean.
    It's about 20% more.
    And yes he reiterated on the 25th of Feb after the beta he explicitly denied 792p in the final.

    Stop defending him he was just plain wrong. He spoke with absolute authority on something that was even denied by the developers the same day.

    what does that disprove or prove about the X1's power?
    It proves bandwidth isn't an issue it also proves these consoles have plenty of memory and it also proves cboat gets things wrong more than he gets anything right.

  13. #238
    Forum Sage
    sainraja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Age
    28
    Posts
    8,235
    Rep Power
    98
    Points
    27,365 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    Stop defending him he was just plain wrong. He spoke with absolute authority on something that was even denied by the developers the same day.
    Sounds to me more like that's how you interpreted what he said.

  14. #239
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,268
    Rep Power
    194
    Points
    117,340 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    It's about 20% more.
    so what is exactly the resolution again?
    And yes he reiterated on the 25th of Feb after the beta he explicitly denied 792p in the final.
    where is that?
    Stop defending him he was just plain wrong. He spoke with absolute authority on something that was even denied by the developers the same day.
    what was denied by the devs the same day?
    It proves bandwidth isn't an issue it also proves these consoles have plenty of memory and it also proves cboat gets things wrong more than he gets anything right.
    I don't know how that proves that there's enough bandwidth...he's talking about the amount of RAM there is on the console, not how fast it can move the data.

  15. #240
    Master Sage
    Two4DaMoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    27
    Posts
    12,526
    Rep Power
    111
    Points
    16,276 (75,576 Banked)
    Items Naughty DogPS3 SlimNaughty DogUser name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    mynd is obsesse dw tihproving cbot ais wrongna d that ist no false. ti's #t aruthTRUTHFACT"
    Last edited by Two4DaMoney; 03-17-2014 at 06:26.


  16. #241
    Supreme Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    41
    Posts
    17,833
    Rep Power
    162
    Points
    167,157 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Two4DaMoney View Post
    mynd is obsesse dw tihproving cbot ais wrongna d that ist no false. ti's #t aruthTRUTHFACT"
    itz bcuz I fnd it obnxs tht peple giv hm streetz credz whenz haz nt ben write foz yrs.

    Thuway on the other had does have street cred.

  17. #242
    Master Sage
    Two4DaMoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Age
    27
    Posts
    12,526
    Rep Power
    111
    Points
    16,276 (75,576 Banked)
    Items Naughty DogPS3 SlimNaughty DogUser name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    itz bcuz I fnd it obnxs tht peple giv hm streetz credz whenz haz nt ben write foz yrs.

    Thuway on the other had does have street cred.
    Cboat got banned for being wrong about his titanfall rumor. Tho it was a slap on the wrist kind of ban. I think 2 days.


  18. #243
    Superior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    843
    Rep Power
    41
    Points
    10,284 (0 Banked)
    Vulgotha, Thanatos and their ilk dont get it. What a game is worth isnt due to the content it has which is what Vulgotha tried arguing, it is in what the market is willing to buy it at.

    I think it is foolosh that in an age where people can get to see in depth reviews, where the content in a game gets to be seen within hours of it going out someone can come out and say that they got a game and made a mistake because they bought on hype.

    I had Bioshock 2, paid the full price for it, have FIFA paid full price for it. I played through Bioshock once and once alone, never once got online. I play FIFA throughout the year with friends. I played Gears of war within 10 - 12 hours, and Resident Evil within 10 (actually got to the final boss fight and havent finished up on that due to other things popping up), I have had the initial Bioshock, had Dragon Age, Gears 2, Halo ODST, Halo Reach, Forza2/3/4, Splinter Cell, Ninja Gaiden 2, Soul Caliber, amongst so many others and those are games that I would pay 60 for despite them having divergent replayability.

    On the PS3 I similarly play a lot of diverse titles from Uncharted, to Resistance, to sports games, to Racing games.

    Difference is i never thought GT5P was worth what it was being sold for, never ever thought that COD was worth it was sold for and thus have never bought a copy or bothered to play it, I have had the opportunity to get GTA over the generations, but as a game it has just never appealed to me and thus I have never bothered getting it.

    Games are ultimately worth what someone is willing to pay for them, any claims otherwise are revisionist.

    TF may not be the most appealing game visually, iy may not have the type of content some may have wished for, but we already knew all this before the game launched.
    It isnt my type of game, wouldnt touch it even if it were given to me for free as I am rarely ever online, and I wouldnt really enjoy it with friends, but it has been reviewed well, and people also somewhat seem to have an issue with that.

    If it were up to me, I would Aquanox some from this section.
    xbox live: AcrylicAltair44

  19. #244
    Superior Member
    thanatos144's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Stuart, Florida, United States
    PSN ID
    thanatos144
    Posts
    935
    Rep Power
    12
    Points
    8,399 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by acryllicaltair View Post
    Vulgotha, Thanatos and their ilk dont get it. What a game is worth isnt due to the content it has which is what Vulgotha tried arguing, it is in what the market is willing to buy it at.

    I think it is foolosh that in an age where people can get to see in depth reviews, where the content in a game gets to be seen within hours of it going out someone can come out and say that they got a game and made a mistake because they bought on hype.

    I had Bioshock 2, paid the full price for it, have FIFA paid full price for it. I played through Bioshock once and once alone, never once got online. I play FIFA throughout the year with friends. I played Gears of war within 10 - 12 hours, and Resident Evil within 10 (actually got to the final boss fight and havent finished up on that due to other things popping up), I have had the initial Bioshock, had Dragon Age, Gears 2, Halo ODST, Halo Reach, Forza2/3/4, Splinter Cell, Ninja Gaiden 2, Soul Caliber, amongst so many others and those are games that I would pay 60 for despite them having divergent replayability.

    On the PS3 I similarly play a lot of diverse titles from Uncharted, to Resistance, to sports games, to Racing games.

    Difference is i never thought GT5P was worth what it was being sold for, never ever thought that COD was worth it was sold for and thus have never bought a copy or bothered to play it, I have had the opportunity to get GTA over the generations, but as a game it has just never appealed to me and thus I have never bothered getting it.

    Games are ultimately worth what someone is willing to pay for them, any claims otherwise are revisionist.

    TF may not be the most appealing game visually, iy may not have the type of content some may have wished for, but we already knew all this before the game launched.
    It isnt my type of game, wouldnt touch it even if it were given to me for free as I am rarely ever online, and I wouldnt really enjoy it with friends, but it has been reviewed well, and people also somewhat seem to have an issue with that.

    If it were up to me, I would Aquanox some from this section.
    Like PT Barnum said sucker born every minuet

  20. #245
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,268
    Rep Power
    194
    Points
    117,340 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by acryllicaltair View Post
    Vulgotha, Thanatos and their ilk dont get it. What a game is worth isnt due to the content it has which is what Vulgotha tried arguing, it is in what the market is willing to buy it at.

    I think it is foolosh that in an age where people can get to see in depth reviews, where the content in a game gets to be seen within hours of it going out someone can come out and say that they got a game and made a mistake because they bought on hype.

    I had Bioshock 2, paid the full price for it, have FIFA paid full price for it. I played through Bioshock once and once alone, never once got online. I play FIFA throughout the year with friends. I played Gears of war within 10 - 12 hours, and Resident Evil within 10 (actually got to the final boss fight and havent finished up on that due to other things popping up), I have had the initial Bioshock, had Dragon Age, Gears 2, Halo ODST, Halo Reach, Forza2/3/4, Splinter Cell, Ninja Gaiden 2, Soul Caliber, amongst so many others and those are games that I would pay 60 for despite them having divergent replayability.

    On the PS3 I similarly play a lot of diverse titles from Uncharted, to Resistance, to sports games, to Racing games.

    Difference is i never thought GT5P was worth what it was being sold for, never ever thought that COD was worth it was sold for and thus have never bought a copy or bothered to play it, I have had the opportunity to get GTA over the generations, but as a game it has just never appealed to me and thus I have never bothered getting it.

    Games are ultimately worth what someone is willing to pay for them, any claims otherwise are revisionist.

    TF may not be the most appealing game visually, iy may not have the type of content some may have wished for, but we already knew all this before the game launched.
    It isnt my type of game, wouldnt touch it even if it were given to me for free as I am rarely ever online, and I wouldnt really enjoy it with friends, but it has been reviewed well, and people also somewhat seem to have an issue with that.

    If it were up to me, I would Aquanox some from this section.
    first, i'd like to congratulate you for starting the post and ending it with a troll comment.

    second, it is you sir that does not get it. no one is talking about the worth to a particular person as these professional reviewers should not give two $#@!s about what it is worth "to them" or "anyone", the entire point of a review is to show what the game has to offer, why is this so difficult for people to understand.

    we know that the market is going to buy it for what it offers but we also know that people are being hyped into buying it. that's why the user scores are so low on the metacritic and i could probably find you a few reviews in there that talk about content or lack of SP.

    what you don't get also is that if you let publishers such as EA do this to you then be prepared to deal more with this moving forward. by your logic, a developer should be able to charge whatever price as long as the game is worth it to people. but not all developers can do that because they don't have a marketing or hype machine behind it. Look at how popular mincraft is and it started out as a free title. and goes for $20 max.

    your logic states that a game like minecraft could also go for $60. you're setting yourself up for disaster moving forward.

  21. #246
    PSU Technical Advisor
    Vulgotha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Age
    24
    Posts
    15,953
    Rep Power
    144
    Points
    108,860 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by acryllicaltair View Post
    Vulgotha, Thanatos and their ilk dont get it. What a game is worth isnt due to the content it has which is what Vulgotha tried arguing, it is in what the market is willing to buy it at.

    I think it is foolosh that in an age where people can get to see in depth reviews, where the content in a game gets to be seen within hours of it going out someone can come out and say that they got a game and made a mistake because they bought on hype.

    I had Bioshock 2, paid the full price for it, have FIFA paid full price for it. I played through Bioshock once and once alone, never once got online. I play FIFA throughout the year with friends. I played Gears of war within 10 - 12 hours, and Resident Evil within 10 (actually got to the final boss fight and havent finished up on that due to other things popping up), I have had the initial Bioshock, had Dragon Age, Gears 2, Halo ODST, Halo Reach, Forza2/3/4, Splinter Cell, Ninja Gaiden 2, Soul Caliber, amongst so many others and those are games that I would pay 60 for despite them having divergent replayability.

    On the PS3 I similarly play a lot of diverse titles from Uncharted, to Resistance, to sports games, to Racing games.

    Difference is i never thought GT5P was worth what it was being sold for, never ever thought that COD was worth it was sold for and thus have never bought a copy or bothered to play it, I have had the opportunity to get GTA over the generations, but as a game it has just never appealed to me and thus I have never bothered getting it.

    Games are ultimately worth what someone is willing to pay for them, any claims otherwise are revisionist.

    TF may not be the most appealing game visually, iy may not have the type of content some may have wished for, but we already knew all this before the game launched.
    It isnt my type of game, wouldnt touch it even if it were given to me for free as I am rarely ever online, and I wouldnt really enjoy it with friends, but it has been reviewed well, and people also somewhat seem to have an issue with that.

    If it were up to me, I would Aquanox some from this section.

    Titanfall has replay value certainly, and it is a reasonably enjoyable game. But it just does not have enough content to warrant me paying out $60 and for DLC. Content quality and quantity is absolutely tied to value and, in my opinion, this title fails to deliver at the aforementioned price point.

    The base game has a whopping total of 3 titans, a handful of guns and perks, no player\titan customization, barebones matchmaking and a pittance of game modes. And it's SP is so tacked on that it hurts.

    The only plus side is that it comes with an unusually high map count- 15 or so.

    Sure, whatever the market will bare. You're speaking to someone who buys into capitalism and market forces so I appreciate your point there. That doesn't mean this game is magically worth its price tag, it just means I'm not mandating the government or some third party with regulatory authority to dictate what its pricing structure is.

    For those of us with modest to regular incomes, $60 for TF is a hard pill to swallow based on what it offers. For others, who may be upper class to stinking rich, it doesn't much matter because money is not as big a concern for them. Those people, however, are in the minority statistically.

    As for the subjective nature of 'value' there's no real way I can sit down and argue this with you. Some people may have tastes which TF satisfies categorically. While I believe their appreciation for the title is real, I'd urge them to look at other such games in the genre and would be curious to see their reaction.


  22. #247
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,268
    Rep Power
    194
    Points
    117,340 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    look at this way, i wasn't too happy about the H Hour game by the socom creator (that will be a spiritual successor to socom) because the game was nothing next-gen but now that i understand that the game is going to be an indie title...i'm thinking it's going to be $40 and i'm happy with that even though i still consider that to be high price for an indie title but it's something i love and i have been waiting for about a decade for a good socom game.

    even then, i think it's too high at $40 ($30 would be the sweet spot for me, less than $30 would be gravy) but i feel like i would love the game and would play it for at least a year or maybe even two.

    point being, technically i could see myself paying $60 cause i know lots of people that are my friends only cause we played socom but i wouldn't be happy paying it because i know the game isn't worth the money.

    i honestly don't think it should have anything to do with how much a person can afford. it should to do with business ethics. in the end, i believe this greed is going to catch up with EA sooner or hopefully not much later.

  23. #248
    Superior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    843
    Rep Power
    41
    Points
    10,284 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    first, i'd like to congratulate you for starting the post and ending it with a troll comment.
    Will get to that last.

    second, it is you sir that does not get it. no one is talking about the worth to a particular person as these professional reviewers should not give two $#@!s about what it is worth "to them" or "anyone", the entire point of a review is to show what the game has to offer, why is this so difficult for people to understand.
    A review is an opinion on a product, and in this day and age it is something that people like me lend weight before we choose to buy a product or not.

    For some it may not matter, but for someone like me that doesnt have dollars lying around, someone that looks to get the best out of any possible investment, that is something i tend to rely on.

    I have used IGN for the better part of a decade, and I use scores from one or two other sites and a few gamers of repute in my opinion to make what to date has been methodology that has not let me down.

    Some people get it, I do. You on the other hand dont seem to get that the reason as to why reviews exist is to aid people make a decision on whether or not a product is worth investing on or not. Some will bypass that, and that is their choice, some on the other hand see it as an outlet to get rid of games that may not be at the top tier.

    we know that the market is going to buy it for what it offers but we also know that people are being hyped into buying it. that's why the user scores are so low on the metacritic and i could probably find you a few reviews in there that talk about content or lack of SP.
    We knew what Titanfall was going to offer and what it wasnt going to offer. With all that information out, and the lack of a proper SP or Campaign known to be missing for months, it really makes little sense to go on and get a game then whine about it not having content, especially when you go to Metacritic (simply shows that you read reviews, disregard them, then moan about what they talked about to begin with).

    what you don't get also is that if you let publishers such as EA do this to you then be prepared to deal more with this moving forward. by your logic, a developer should be able to charge whatever price as long as the game is worth it to people. but not all developers can do that because they don't have a marketing or hype machine behind it. Look at how popular mincraft is and it started out as a free title. and goes for $20 max.

    your logic states that a game like minecraft could also go for $60. you're setting yourself up for disaster moving forward.
    You are trying to lecture the wrong person.

    I for one made the following decisions.

    1) I got the 360 fairly early, when it was priced at $400, and even then, I had a hard time justifying that price range. I made a decision that I wouldnt get a console worth more than that unless my financial situation massively changed. I want the Xbox One, but I wont be paying $500 for it either.

    2) I made an informed decision that I wouldnt be getting the Xbox One had MS not changed their terms around used games, required login times, game sharing and not having region free games. I was making that decision as an individual. The market is made up of hundreds of millions of individuals like me, and when we have a concerted effort, it tends to make a dent in the reasoning offered by most of these companies.

    3) I made an informed decision that I would never invest in DLC, I will download free DLC where it exists, but I refuse to pay close to $100 for a game, for content that should have ideally been on disc.

    Thing is, I vote with my wallet. I dont have this faux anger that exists with a lot of gamers where you complain and invest on what it is you are complaining about.

    Lastly, I started using PSU close to probably 8 or so years ago because I personally knew of someone who had stumbled upon the forums, joined and started interacting with people. Then that great purge happened, and there were users like Sockpuppet, Rik, arthur56k amongst other banned because Seb/Morpheus had decided to hand the keys to the kingdom to Dave. This section of the forums was scrambled, and over the next few months the idea that existed was to make this place a playstation centric zone first more than anything else.

    That user was conversing with a mod, later became admin by the name of Robin IIRC via E-mail (He happened to show them to me) and it painted a situation where anyone that wasnt for the views made by the new community manager expendable. Moderators were gotten rid off, forum members banned on flimsy grounds and some of the best contributing members just stopped coming here.

    Aquanox? He was a mod who had nothing positive to say on the playstation segments, and was banned rightly so from them so that that segment could run well.

    Now I ask, there are people whose contribution on this segment of the forum is ever negative. The past 25 or so hours there have been around 5 posts in this section. Why would anyone want to come here when any user who has the game makes a comment and it is replied to in negative terms by three or 4 posts?

    When I joined, Dave was leaving, and this site though on the decline still had a good amount of traffic even in this segment. We could come in and talk games, and chat games. But look at this segment today, we have staff that bought the PC version of the game and somewhat sees sense in posting it here.

    There are members who have stated they wouldnt buy the console, and their posts account for close to 40-50% of all posts in this section. I am interested in the console, I am interested in interacting and learning about games, games that would interest me should I God willing get the console, but that sort of mature debate doesnt exist.

    I have probably revealed stuff I should have said, but you coming up and telling me I ended with a troll comment is further from the truth. Staff should be looking at ways of making this segment more conducive for members that show an interest in the console, and that hasnt happened in the longest time.
    xbox live: AcrylicAltair44

  24. #249
    Superior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    843
    Rep Power
    41
    Points
    10,284 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Vulgotha View Post
    Titanfall has replay value certainly, and it is a reasonably enjoyable game. But it just does not have enough content to warrant me paying out $60 and for DLC. Content quality and quantity is absolutely tied to value and, in my opinion, this title fails to deliver at the aforementioned price point.

    The base game has a whopping total of 3 titans, a handful of guns and perks, no player\titan customization, barebones matchmaking and a pittance of game modes. And it's SP is so tacked on that it hurts.

    The only plus side is that it comes with an unusually high map count- 15 or so.

    Sure, whatever the market will bare. You're speaking to someone who buys into capitalism and market forces so I appreciate your point there. That doesn't mean this game is magically worth its price tag, it just means I'm not mandating the government or some third party with regulatory authority to dictate what its pricing structure is.

    For those of us with modest to regular incomes, $60 for TF is a hard pill to swallow based on what it offers. For others, who may be upper class to stinking rich, it doesn't much matter because money is not as big a concern for them. Those people, however, are in the minority statistically.

    As for the subjective nature of 'value' there's no real way I can sit down and argue this with you. Some people may have tastes which TF satisfies categorically. While I believe their appreciation for the title is real, I'd urge them to look at other such games in the genre and would be curious to see their reaction.
    You willingly paid $60 for a game and are now complaining that it isnt worth that.

    Lastly, if I compared games with games in their class, there will be disparity in content. Halo has more content than Killzone, both have more content than COD. FIFA and Pro Evo soccer, or you look at the disparity in content between most racing sims and games like Burnout or NFS.

    Value is what you invest in. There are games I pay full price for, there are some great games I have gotten for rock bottom prices because I couldn't afford every big game that came out, and when I finally got time to get them they had dropped to less than $15.

    If you buy a title for full price, you have attached value at that price..........that is the way market forces in a free market work.
    Last edited by acryllicaltair; 03-18-2014 at 13:48.
    xbox live: AcrylicAltair44

  25. Likes Admartian likes this post
  26. #250
    Superior Member
    thanatos144's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Stuart, Florida, United States
    PSN ID
    thanatos144
    Posts
    935
    Rep Power
    12
    Points
    8,399 (0 Banked)
    Here is where I find this trend of MP only games for full price disturbing. Use to be MP was something added to a game to extend the enjoyment of the game . Now EA has found out that people are willing to pay 60 bucks BEFORE DLC for nothing more then a map and weapon pack. why would they need to invest in a actual game with a story?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.