As long as you buy it why should Ubisoft care?
All this does is give them a reason to stop doing PC versions of their games. So thanks for boycotting the game. It just makes things harder for people like me, that have no console but still would like to play their games and that don't care about the DRM since they are online all the time anyways. Just like >90% of the people that are actually complaining just because it's cool and hip at the moment.
The hell?
User rights is not a matter of what's "cool". User rights and convenience are real issues. We see companies who try to throttle customer usage rights without providing a significant value in return die off constantly. Anyone remember the DIVX disc format? Sure, the studios supported it, and put a lot of their movies on it before DVD. But you know what? it didn't succeed, because charging people per-view over a phone line and using complex encryption systems that only disadvantage the end user simply DOES NOT work, no matter HOW many exclusive titles your format has. In the same way, no, it is NOT cool to add online authentication PER USE on TOP of an already known and consumer-accepted DRM, ESPECIALLY after it has been DIRECTLY STATED that a constant net connection will not be needed.
Furthermore, no, not EVERYONE is ALWAYS connected to the internet. I don't always have it when I travel. I don't always have it when there's a service outage. I don't always have it when some idiot knocks over my router in the other room. SHIT HAPPENS. Furthermore, yeah, I think it sucks to:
1. Have patching handled outside of Steam. Steam patching is simple for me, but the Ubi Launcher handling patching means I have to launch and wait. In the case of From Dust, patching took me over an HOUR.
2. From Dust is fairly lightweight and could be played on many laptops. Why deny me the ability to play on a train, bus, or plane? Or anywhere without net access, or where I don't WANT to use net access to conserve battery so I can PLAY MY GAME LONGER?
NO OTHER MEDIUM asks to phone home like this. My movies do not need to ask Warner Bros, Sony, Disney, etc if it's okay that I watch my movie now. I can watch my movies wherever I want. Music is even nicer, with a recent court case even allowing me to listen to a COPY of a song I own from cloud-based music services, which themselves are amazing. I have never bought a book that has ever had to ask the publisher if it was okay that I was reading page 1158, nor have I bought a paining that cared if I didn't hang it up near a router. Scrabble does not ask Hasbro's permission to let me pull the board out of its box. No medium in which end-user ownership of a valid license or copy is a commonality(performance arts are excepted here) requires the draconian, controlling, and downright unethical practices forced onto end-users by the companies that sell them entertainment, and no, I do NOT think it is AT ALL unreasonable to refrain from purchasing unnecessary luxury entertainment goods because the company that is peddling them decided to treat their customers as though they are criminals and thieves.
As long as you buy it why should Ubisoft care?
All this does is give them a reason to stop doing PC versions of their games. So thanks for boycotting the game. It just makes things harder for people like me, that have no console but still would like to play their games and that don't care about the DRM since they are online all the time anyways. Just like >90% of the people that are actually complaining just because it's cool and hip at the moment.
Any developer with at least two brain cells to rub together should know by now that PC gaming is on the rise with the advent of download services like Steam, GOG and D2D.
Given such an obvious observation as this, the largest power that we gamers (and consumers in general) have over companies is purchasing power. Money talks. The market for computer games is on the rise, and if companies want in on the market share, they'd better the hell give us a product that we will actually buy. If the reason why we don't buy a product is specifically because they implement copyright software that greatly hinders--nay, punishes the legitimate consumer by forcing a persistent online presence, then if they have any reasonable amount of sense then they will refrain from such practices in future lest they lose valuable profits.
There are people who don't have 7th gen consoles. Companies know this. With the increasingly popular ability for gamers to buy and download games straight from the net--making sales and marketing simple and convenient; making the primary distribution expense little more than server space and internet bandwidth; and potential for profit from an increasingly influencial gaming market--you damn well better believe that if a company loses money it's going to make them stand up and take notice rather than that they'd tell us all to go to hell.
As long as you buy it why should Ubisoft care?
All this does is give them a reason to stop doing PC versions of their games. So thanks for boycotting the game. It just makes things harder for people like me, that have no console but still would like to play their games and that don't care about the DRM since they are online all the time anyways. Just like >90% of the people that are actually complaining just because it's cool and hip at the moment.
I also don't have a graphics card that place nice with most games, and when the earlier games in the series came out, I had sort of spotty internet service. Yes, it's a bit about principles, but it's also very much about the thing not fucking working for me.
I also don't have a graphics card that plays nice with most games
Define "doesn't play nice."
Are we talking "doesn't work," "doesn't allow decent graphics settings," or "doesn't allow optimal graphics settings?"
I have an ATI Radeon HD 4650 w/ 512MB, which isn't expensive by any means (it was $60 two years ago) and I can play most games just fine, albeit not at max settings for such as Arkham Asylum or Just Cause 2.
PC gaming isn't going anywhere ever. There will always be computer nerds and geeks who love to beef up their systems and they'll buy the best PC games which support (and sometimes ship with through contract deals and promotions) that advanced hardware.
Also, indie games will always be available on the PC. Always. That's where they're made and played the most. On multiple OS's.
PC gaming will never ever die unless computers suddenly become extremely restrictive on user configuration....which will also never happen as long as Linux is around (something else that indie games are genetically tied to).
Define "doesn't play nice."
Are we talking "doesn't work," "doesn't allow decent graphics settings," or "doesn't allow optimal graphics settings?"
I have an ATI Radeon HD 4650 w/ 512MB, which isn't expensive by any means (it was $60 two years ago) and I can play most games just fine, albeit not at max settings for such as Arkham Asylum or Just Cause 2.
I have a GeForce 8300 GS that doesn't allow decent settings. I have to play even most of Telltale's games on the lowest settings.
Yeah the GS is the midline and that's a bad gaming card.
Somewhat related, I love this thread because it pointed me to a forum where a use claimed to have stuck his video card in the oven at 200 Celsius after seeing a self repair trick on YouTube.
Yeah the GS is the midline and that's a bad gaming card.
Somewhat related, I love this thread because it pointed me to a forum where a use claimed to have stuck his video card in the oven at 200 Celsius after seeing a self repair trick on YouTube.
Yeah the GS is the midline and that's a bad gaming card.
Yeah, I'm still using the card that came with my PC. I need to get a job, then I'll probably bump Avistew's old thread for getting help choosing a new graphics card. Then maybe I can play Poker Night and actually see Tycho's nose.
Yeah, I'm still using the card that came with my PC. I need to get a job, then I'll probably bump Avistew's old thread for getting help choosing a new graphics card. Then maybe I can play Poker Night and actually see Tycho's nose.
Geez! My laptop's graphics card is better than that!
(I got a ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470)
And my lappy turns into a blazing inferno whenever I try to play anything on it.
I'll have to keep a note of that thread too, as we really need to build a new PC.
(thinking about a Phenom II high end 4 core, decent graphics card, a nice 1-2tb harddrive, and a new pc screen)
I'll have to keep a note of that thread too, as we really need to build a new PC.
(thinking about a Phenom II high end 4 core, decent graphics card, a nice 1-2tb harddrive, and a new pc screen)
I personally think it's rather a waste to spend more than $1000 (excluding the monitor) to build a PC because if you were to, for example, spend $2k on it the market prices of the parts you bought would drop so quickly that you could have bought that same $2k machine less than one year later for ~$1k.
I built my PC two years ago from parts I bought at TigerDirect for ~$450, and though it's not high end, it can still play good games at a decent graphics level.
Yeah, I'm still using the card that came with my PC. I need to get a job, then I'll probably bump Avistew's old thread for getting help choosing a new graphics card. Then maybe I can play Poker Night and actually see Tycho's nose.
I hope you don't run into the problem she did, where it was decided by the lot of us that she would need a new power supply before getting a new card-- and that, given that her PC was somewhat slimline, it had an oddly-shaped power supply that there were no easy replacements for.
I always buy a clone (or parts for one and put it together myself) because often when buying a branded PC, you'd pay in part for tech support that I wouldn't need; and because branded PCs are sometimes made where they are not easily upgraded with after-market parts (as was the case with Avistew.)
I personally think it's rather a waste to spend more than $1000 (excluding the monitor) to build a PC because if you were to, for example, spend $2k on it the market prices of the parts you bought would drop so quickly that you could have bought that same $2k machine less than one year later for ~$1k.
I built my PC two years ago from parts I bought at TigerDirect for ~$450, and though it's not high end, it can still play good games at a decent graphics level.
Yeah, the build I am looking at, self-assembled only costs about £400 really.
In fact, that would be about the max I'd ever spend, and it keep us going for a good while.
Heck, normally my Dad just salvages PCs together.
The best desktop we got is a Pentium D.
Yeah, a Pentium D, pretty much useless for anything these days.
Especially since its a small-factor pc, designed for offices, so it gets hot and dust really quickly due to the lack of space in there.
Plus I kind of want to put that 9400gt in my arcade cabinet eventually.
Just have to wait until the old man decides to upgrade.... >: )
EDIT: In fact, the PC is hilariously bad.
Its got Vista on it for a start. And it only has 1.5gb RAM.
Everything is sloooooowwwwww....
On topic though, I wonder if Ubisoft can patch out the games' other flaws.
If it had those extra options, and uncapped framerate, then I might just bite.
Ooooorrr... I could just wait and get the 360 version when it goes on sale.
(Street Fighter 3 is the main priority!)
EDIT: In fact, the PC is hilariously bad.
Its got Vista on it for a start. And it only has 1.5gb RAM.
Everything is sloooooowwwwww....
Eww... Vista.
The laptop I bought a while back had Vista Home Premuim on it. Right out of the box the dang thing was slow as crap. Even Runescape lagged so horribly the game was nigh unplayable. Fortunately, I had a spare XP Pro key, so I installed XP on it and ever since it runs like a top.
I hate Vista. My wife's brother has a laptop similar to mine, and he complains at length about how slow his machine is. I keep telling him to drop Vista and get XP, but he's too lazy to do anything about it. Now, Windows 7... there's a nice piece of work. Yay, Windows 7.
All this does is give them a reason to stop doing PC versions of their games. So thanks for boycotting the game. It just makes things harder for people like me, that have no console but still would like to play their games and that don't care about the DRM since they are online all the time anyways. Just like >90% of the people that are actually complaining just because it's cool and hip at the moment.
"Just eat it" is not the solution to the problem. I myself have hoped my butt off for Ubisoft to finally make BG&E2, but I will not buy it with the Ubisoft launcher, not ever.
You might feel that "90% of the people" are complaining, but fact is, most of them just go on quietly buying PC Ubisoft products. You can hear the outrage by the loud minority, of course.
Mind you, Ubisoft have proclaimed their DRM a success only weeks ago, they must not actually feel their sales declining. And I'm so sorry, but that is a pity. I love the PC as a gaming platform, and it is the only platform I use (although I definitely belong with the early adopters concerning consoles). But Ubisoft crossed the DRM line with a vengeance. With their present behavior, I don't want them to make PC games any more.
I personally think it's rather a waste to spend more than $1000 (excluding the monitor) to build a PC because if you were to, for example, spend $2k on it the market prices of the parts you bought would drop so quickly that you could have bought that same $2k machine less than one year later for ~$1k.
I'm almost with you on that one. Go on and buy a cheaper PC, it's the thing to do at the moment. And why is that? Because present PCs do not age as fast as some years ago. The games were the driving force to advance the PC part development, and they're either not produced anymore or programmed on the consoles. People don't crave that much for PC power any more. Consoles have halted the need.
Any developer with at least two brain cells to rub together should know by now that PC gaming is on the rise with the advent of download services like Steam, GOG and D2D.
Here's the problem. It's not the developers fault. It's actually STEAM and other DD sites faults. See every month stores give their sales figure to the companies which then go to the share holders. Retail wise PC games do poorly. Digital they do amazing. However almost all DD sites refuse to publish their numbers (yes even steam). So the share holders are only seeing 360 500k, PS3 500k, PC 1k. Instead of the other 499k that is being made on DD sites (just made up numbers). So most shareholders tell the publishers to focus on consoles to maximize profits. This then forces publishers to focus on consoles, since share holders think only they make moneyz. Then developers basically do the PC port last minute and don't get the time or money to properly port it.
Here's the problem. It's not the developers fault. It's actually STEAM and other DD sites faults. See every month stores give their sales figure to the companies which then go to the share holders. Retail wise PC games do poorly. Digital they do amazing. However almost all DD sites refuse to publish their numbers (yes even steam). So the share holders are only seeing 360 500k, PS3 500k, PC 1k. Instead of the other 499k that is being made on DD sites (just made up numbers). So most shareholders tell the publishers to focus on consoles to maximize profits. This then forces publishers to focus on consoles, since share holders think only they make moneyz. Then developers basically do the PC port last minute and don't get the time or money to properly port it.
The COMPANIES THEMSELVES know how much they're making from Steam, and could easily share that information with their stockholders if they wanted(I'm sure I've seen companies publicly share their Steam sale numbers before).
The COMPANIES THEMSELVES know how much they're making from Steam, and could easily share that information with their stockholders if they wanted(I'm sure I've seen companies publicly share their Steam sale numbers before).
Nay many companies have been asking for that from steam, to get their numbers published openly in the NDP and such. Hell PSN, XBL, and Nintendoware can do it why can't D2D, STEAM, or the other DD sites do it?
You might feel that "90% of the people" are complaining, but fact is, most of them just go on quietly buying PC Ubisoft products. You can hear the outrage by the loud minority, of course.
I said 90% of those that are complaining, because I know you are right.
I'm almost with you on that one. Go on and buy a cheaper PC, it's the thing to do at the moment. And why is that? Because present PCs do not age as fast as some years ago. The games were the driving force to advance the PC part development, and they're either not produced anymore or programmed on the consoles. People don't crave that much for PC power any more. Consoles have halted the need.
I think it's the other way around. Developers mostly develope with consoles in mind. The games need to run on them because they sell well on them. Most developers put no effort whatsoever in making a decent PC version. So basically the games are optimized for hardware that is 5 years and older. (I have no clue when the Ycarton359 and the PSTripple actually were released, it's been such a long time....)
Mind you, Ubisoft have proclaimed their DRM a success only weeks ago, they must not actually feel their sales declining.
This is it. The DRM was actually pretty successful for AC2. The game was not cracked and fully playable on the net for weeks after the release. Nowadays a fully cracked version even before release is actually the standard for major titles. And yes the games should still be selling really well. Of course they might sell a little more without the DRM but that is hardly more than 5% (no source it's a guess).
On the protesters... I read something in the steamforums that really made me :rolleyes:. The discussion was on Diablo III and it's DRM which is similar to the UBI DRM. (Always Online even for SP) The user said something along those lines:
"Yeah. I protest the UBI-DRM. But that's mostly because I don't really want to play these games anyways. But there is no chance I'm not buying Diablo III which will easily be the game of the decade."
Since the thread is gone on the steam forums I can no longer link to the post. But I remember it well because it got me really upset.
Nay many companies have been asking for that from steam, to get their numbers published openly in the NDP and such. Hell PSN, XBL, and Nintendoware can do it why can't D2D, STEAM, or the other DD sites do it?
Because the Retailers already give these services a hard time. You may have noticed that the prices for new games on Steam are always higher than they are at retailers like Amazon or play. That's because the retailers are threatening the publishers to stop selling their games (and I assume not only the PC versions) unless they get a better deal than the digital stores. If Steam and D2D would actually name their sales retailers might use their power even more.
"It's the same reason you don't let humans see you feeding. It's why the wolf doesn't want the sheep to know he's there. It's also why you don't go juggling dumpsters or outrun the 8:15 from Sacramento. And it's… it's why you didn't know any of this when you woke up this morning."
Yes, I'm pretty sure the amount that publishers get from online distributors like Steam for games already released varies according to sales rather than being fixed. On that basis, like Dashing said, they have a figure of DD PC gaming to give shareholders, regardless of Steam's private figures. They don't really need industry figures if they have their portion of it recorded anyway.
Retailers already give these services a hard time. You may have noticed that the prices for new games on Steam are always higher than they are at retailers like Amazon or play. That's because the retailers are threatening the publishers to stop selling their games (and I assume not only the PC versions) unless they get a better deal than the digital stores. If Steam and D2D would actually name their sales retailers might use their power even more.
What?? Sources please.
You're telling me that online retailers like Amazon, as well as brick-and-mortar stores like Best Buy, Target and Wal-Mart will refuse to sell PC games if they don't have an opportunity to sell games for cheaper than direct download game distributors like Steam? No. This makes no sense.
What you're saying is akin to saying that FYE brick-and-mortar music stores will refuse to sell music albums if a label doesn't allow them to sell for cheaper than iTunes. Or like saying Borders Bookstores would intentionally boycott publishers for not allowing them to sell hardcopies of books as cheaply as Amazon sells ebooks for Kindle. No. Ridiculous.
So... a retailer will intentionally lose profits to spite their supplier just because a retail competitor has less overhead and better distribution/marketing tools? I seriously doubt it.
Also, Amazon isn't going to strong-arm Square Enix just so they can sell Deus Ex:Human Revolution for cheaper than Steam. Sure, Amazon's PC download is currently $10 cheaper ($40), but their list price for PC download and current sale price for the disc version still says $50. I would better explain the lowered price of Amazon's download version by saying this: They're Amazon. They have good sales, and they're an excellent online store. If Steam wanted to sell the game for cheaper, they would. Just because Steam doesn't at present, it doesn't mean that if they did Square Enix would otherwise face the wrath of Amazon... by making Amazon itself lose money... through forcing Amazon's own customers to shop elsewhere for games that they know people want to buy. Umm... don't you see how dumb that sounds?
If retailers refused to sell PC games because Steam (and such) was cheaper, then PC gamers would all flock to Steam (and such) instead anyway, making the point of boycotting said games entirely counterproductive.
Private figures don't go to shareholders though, and I'm not sure if they can.
Why not? How hard is it to post a profit-margin statement categorized by distributor/retailer or contrasting figures between online vs. brick-and-mortar? And why would it be so super-secret as to keep such information from those who directly invest money in your company?
If you think that shareholders aren't allowed to know what profits a company makes, I don't think you understand the whole idea behind shares in the first place.
You're telling me that online retailers like Amazon, as well as brick-and-mortar stores like Best Buy, Target and Wal-Mart will refuse to sell PC games if they don't have an opportunity to sell games for cheaper than direct download game distributors like Steam? No. This makes no sense.
They remained anonymous whilst making the statement (even though it was clearly Game and Gamestop) so it shows how much confidence they really had in it.
Anyway, it's their own fault. I go to Game to buy a PC title and they have a handful of titles crammed away in some dank little corner.
"Bwahhh!! Nobodies buying PC Games from us"
"No shit, you haven't been giving them shelf space for years."
Well buy a console version then, which leads to the problem I mentioned before.
I have no present-generation console. And with the way consoles are heading these days, I might extend my sabbatical to the next generation of consoles as well.
Anyway, it's their own fault. I go to Game to buy a PC title and they have a handful of titles crammed away in some dank little corner.
"Bwahhh!! Nobodies buying PC Games from us"
"No shit, you haven't been giving them shelf space for years."
So true. Back in the day, I used to go to Harvey Norman (a furniture/electrical store) to spend ages poking about in their PC games. Now I can't find what I want even at game-specific stores, so it's Amazon / digital download all the way.
They remained anonymous whilst making the statement (even though it was clearly Game and Gamestop) so it shows how much confidence they really had in it.
Anyway, it's their own fault. I go to Game to buy a PC title and they have a handful of titles crammed away in some dank little corner.
"Bwahhh!! Nobodies buying PC Games from us"
"No shit, you haven't been giving them shelf space for years."
And out of the gaming retail stores I've been to, Game still have the best collection of PC titles. Which just tells you how bad it is. Ok, there isn't a great many in my local(ish) area, mainly Game, Gamestation, Grainger Games and CEX at a push. At least the Game shops near me have older titles that you can get as part of reasonable offers (3 for £20, 2 for £15, depending how old they are). Still crap though. And bloody overpriced for new releases.
So true. Back in the day, I used to go to Harvey Norman (a furniture/electrical store) to spend ages poking about in their PC games. Now I can't find what I want even at game-specific stores, so it's Amazon / digital download all the way.
Holy moly, you guys have Harvey Norman as well? They have such a pure crap jingle that I assumed they were just a local firm!!
PC World is just a massive front for a shop that thrives off shafting you on printer ink
I hate PC World. I remember buying a PC there about 10 years ago (what can I say, I was young and foolish as well as having money to burn) and got a basic mid level computer for around £1,000. Thought I did well with that too. Obviously I've since learned my lesson and now build my own computers, with my last one costing less that half than the PC World one and probably more than twice as powerful (relatively speaking, taking into consideration the advances in technology in the intervening years).
The very idea of disc-selling retailers strong-arming game publishers into getting a better deal than direct download companies... preposterous.
Okay. Let's put some recent "news" about Deus Ex Human Revolution in here.
First there was this. So Gamestop removed a coupon from all versions of the new Deus Ex game that would give their customers an extra copy of that game (we are talking about a game that costs 49.99$ on the service this copy was for here, that's stealing) because they don't like competition. Who would have guessed? Now people were noticing that and oh no. They are complaining.
Let's keep an eye on these quite interesting events. If I wrre Square I would not take these copies back. Gamestop was stealing 50$ from their customers and they should face the consequences for that.
Okay. Let's put some recent "news" about Deus Ex Human Revolution in here.
First there was this. So Gamestop removed a coupon from all versions of the new Deus Ex game that would give their customers an extra copy of that game (we are talking about a game that costs 49.99$ on the service this copy was for here, that's stealing) because they don't like competition. Who would have guessed? Now people were noticing that and oh no. They are complaining.
Let's keep an eye on these quite interesting events. If I wrre Square I would not take these copies back. Gamestop was stealing 50$ from their customers and they should face the consequences for that.
As long as you buy it why should Square care?
All this does is give Gamestop a reason to stop selling PC games. So thanks for giving negative press to GameStop. It just makes things harder for people like me, that have no console but still would like to play PC games and that don't care about the pack-in copies since they are either offline or online with a machine that can run the game natively all the time anyways. Just like >90% of the people that are actually complaining just because it's cool and hip at the moment.
As long as you buy it why should Square care?
All this does is give Gamestop a reason to stop selling PC games. So thanks for giving negative press to GameStop. It just makes things harder for people like me, that have no console but still would like to play PC games and that don't care about the pack-in copies since they are either offline or online with a machine that can run the game natively all the time anyways. Just like >90% of the people that are actually complaining just because it's cool and hip at the moment.
Comments
User rights is not a matter of what's "cool". User rights and convenience are real issues. We see companies who try to throttle customer usage rights without providing a significant value in return die off constantly. Anyone remember the DIVX disc format? Sure, the studios supported it, and put a lot of their movies on it before DVD. But you know what? it didn't succeed, because charging people per-view over a phone line and using complex encryption systems that only disadvantage the end user simply DOES NOT work, no matter HOW many exclusive titles your format has. In the same way, no, it is NOT cool to add online authentication PER USE on TOP of an already known and consumer-accepted DRM, ESPECIALLY after it has been DIRECTLY STATED that a constant net connection will not be needed.
Furthermore, no, not EVERYONE is ALWAYS connected to the internet. I don't always have it when I travel. I don't always have it when there's a service outage. I don't always have it when some idiot knocks over my router in the other room. SHIT HAPPENS. Furthermore, yeah, I think it sucks to:
1. Have patching handled outside of Steam. Steam patching is simple for me, but the Ubi Launcher handling patching means I have to launch and wait. In the case of From Dust, patching took me over an HOUR.
2. From Dust is fairly lightweight and could be played on many laptops. Why deny me the ability to play on a train, bus, or plane? Or anywhere without net access, or where I don't WANT to use net access to conserve battery so I can PLAY MY GAME LONGER?
NO OTHER MEDIUM asks to phone home like this. My movies do not need to ask Warner Bros, Sony, Disney, etc if it's okay that I watch my movie now. I can watch my movies wherever I want. Music is even nicer, with a recent court case even allowing me to listen to a COPY of a song I own from cloud-based music services, which themselves are amazing. I have never bought a book that has ever had to ask the publisher if it was okay that I was reading page 1158, nor have I bought a paining that cared if I didn't hang it up near a router. Scrabble does not ask Hasbro's permission to let me pull the board out of its box. No medium in which end-user ownership of a valid license or copy is a commonality(performance arts are excepted here) requires the draconian, controlling, and downright unethical practices forced onto end-users by the companies that sell them entertainment, and no, I do NOT think it is AT ALL unreasonable to refrain from purchasing unnecessary luxury entertainment goods because the company that is peddling them decided to treat their customers as though they are criminals and thieves.
Any developer with at least two brain cells to rub together should know by now that PC gaming is on the rise with the advent of download services like Steam, GOG and D2D.
Given such an obvious observation as this, the largest power that we gamers (and consumers in general) have over companies is purchasing power. Money talks. The market for computer games is on the rise, and if companies want in on the market share, they'd better the hell give us a product that we will actually buy. If the reason why we don't buy a product is specifically because they implement copyright software that greatly hinders--nay, punishes the legitimate consumer by forcing a persistent online presence, then if they have any reasonable amount of sense then they will refrain from such practices in future lest they lose valuable profits.
There are people who don't have 7th gen consoles. Companies know this. With the increasingly popular ability for gamers to buy and download games straight from the net--making sales and marketing simple and convenient; making the primary distribution expense little more than server space and internet bandwidth; and potential for profit from an increasingly influencial gaming market--you damn well better believe that if a company loses money it's going to make them stand up and take notice rather than that they'd tell us all to go to hell.
I also don't have a graphics card that place nice with most games, and when the earlier games in the series came out, I had sort of spotty internet service. Yes, it's a bit about principles, but it's also very much about the thing not fucking working for me.
Define "doesn't play nice."
Are we talking "doesn't work," "doesn't allow decent graphics settings," or "doesn't allow optimal graphics settings?"
I have an ATI Radeon HD 4650 w/ 512MB, which isn't expensive by any means (it was $60 two years ago) and I can play most games just fine, albeit not at max settings for such as Arkham Asylum or Just Cause 2.
Also, indie games will always be available on the PC. Always. That's where they're made and played the most. On multiple OS's.
PC gaming will never ever die unless computers suddenly become extremely restrictive on user configuration....which will also never happen as long as Linux is around (something else that indie games are genetically tied to).
I have a GeForce 8300 GS that doesn't allow decent settings. I have to play even most of Telltale's games on the lowest settings.
Somewhat related, I love this thread because it pointed me to a forum where a use claimed to have stuck his video card in the oven at 200 Celsius after seeing a self repair trick on YouTube.
I know a few idiots like that.
Yeah, I'm still using the card that came with my PC. I need to get a job, then I'll probably bump Avistew's old thread for getting help choosing a new graphics card. Then maybe I can play Poker Night and actually see Tycho's nose.
Geez! My laptop's graphics card is better than that!
(I got a ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470)
And my lappy turns into a blazing inferno whenever I try to play anything on it.
I'll have to keep a note of that thread too, as we really need to build a new PC.
(thinking about a Phenom II high end 4 core, decent graphics card, a nice 1-2tb harddrive, and a new pc screen)
I personally think it's rather a waste to spend more than $1000 (excluding the monitor) to build a PC because if you were to, for example, spend $2k on it the market prices of the parts you bought would drop so quickly that you could have bought that same $2k machine less than one year later for ~$1k.
I built my PC two years ago from parts I bought at TigerDirect for ~$450, and though it's not high end, it can still play good games at a decent graphics level.
I hope you don't run into the problem she did, where it was decided by the lot of us that she would need a new power supply before getting a new card-- and that, given that her PC was somewhat slimline, it had an oddly-shaped power supply that there were no easy replacements for.
I always buy a clone (or parts for one and put it together myself) because often when buying a branded PC, you'd pay in part for tech support that I wouldn't need; and because branded PCs are sometimes made where they are not easily upgraded with after-market parts (as was the case with Avistew.)
Yeah, the build I am looking at, self-assembled only costs about £400 really.
In fact, that would be about the max I'd ever spend, and it keep us going for a good while.
Heck, normally my Dad just salvages PCs together.
The best desktop we got is a Pentium D.
Yeah, a Pentium D, pretty much useless for anything these days.
Especially since its a small-factor pc, designed for offices, so it gets hot and dust really quickly due to the lack of space in there.
Plus I kind of want to put that 9400gt in my arcade cabinet eventually.
Just have to wait until the old man decides to upgrade.... >: )
EDIT: In fact, the PC is hilariously bad.
Its got Vista on it for a start. And it only has 1.5gb RAM.
Everything is sloooooowwwwww....
On topic though, I wonder if Ubisoft can patch out the games' other flaws.
If it had those extra options, and uncapped framerate, then I might just bite.
Ooooorrr... I could just wait and get the 360 version when it goes on sale.
(Street Fighter 3 is the main priority!)
You should see the PC my mom bought a couple years ago (despite me saying I'd build her one).
Vista. 512mb RAM. Non-upgradeable.
Yeah. Well done, eMachines.
Eww... Vista.
The laptop I bought a while back had Vista Home Premuim on it. Right out of the box the dang thing was slow as crap. Even Runescape lagged so horribly the game was nigh unplayable. Fortunately, I had a spare XP Pro key, so I installed XP on it and ever since it runs like a top.
I hate Vista. My wife's brother has a laptop similar to mine, and he complains at length about how slow his machine is. I keep telling him to drop Vista and get XP, but he's too lazy to do anything about it. Now, Windows 7... there's a nice piece of work. Yay, Windows 7.
"Just eat it" is not the solution to the problem. I myself have hoped my butt off for Ubisoft to finally make BG&E2, but I will not buy it with the Ubisoft launcher, not ever.
You might feel that "90% of the people" are complaining, but fact is, most of them just go on quietly buying PC Ubisoft products. You can hear the outrage by the loud minority, of course.
Mind you, Ubisoft have proclaimed their DRM a success only weeks ago, they must not actually feel their sales declining. And I'm so sorry, but that is a pity. I love the PC as a gaming platform, and it is the only platform I use (although I definitely belong with the early adopters concerning consoles). But Ubisoft crossed the DRM line with a vengeance. With their present behavior, I don't want them to make PC games any more.
I'm almost with you on that one. Go on and buy a cheaper PC, it's the thing to do at the moment. And why is that? Because present PCs do not age as fast as some years ago. The games were the driving force to advance the PC part development, and they're either not produced anymore or programmed on the consoles. People don't crave that much for PC power any more. Consoles have halted the need.
Except From Dust is still one of the top sellers on STEAM.
Here's the problem. It's not the developers fault. It's actually STEAM and other DD sites faults. See every month stores give their sales figure to the companies which then go to the share holders. Retail wise PC games do poorly. Digital they do amazing. However almost all DD sites refuse to publish their numbers (yes even steam). So the share holders are only seeing 360 500k, PS3 500k, PC 1k. Instead of the other 499k that is being made on DD sites (just made up numbers). So most shareholders tell the publishers to focus on consoles to maximize profits. This then forces publishers to focus on consoles, since share holders think only they make moneyz. Then developers basically do the PC port last minute and don't get the time or money to properly port it.
Nay many companies have been asking for that from steam, to get their numbers published openly in the NDP and such. Hell PSN, XBL, and Nintendoware can do it why can't D2D, STEAM, or the other DD sites do it?
I will agree on that. Complaining about something that will not effect you anyways doesn't help though.
Well buy a console version then, which leads to the problem I mentioned before.
I said 90% of those that are complaining, because I know you are right.
I think it's the other way around. Developers mostly develope with consoles in mind. The games need to run on them because they sell well on them. Most developers put no effort whatsoever in making a decent PC version. So basically the games are optimized for hardware that is 5 years and older. (I have no clue when the Ycarton359 and the PSTripple actually were released, it's been such a long time....)
This is it. The DRM was actually pretty successful for AC2. The game was not cracked and fully playable on the net for weeks after the release. Nowadays a fully cracked version even before release is actually the standard for major titles. And yes the games should still be selling really well. Of course they might sell a little more without the DRM but that is hardly more than 5% (no source it's a guess).
On the protesters... I read something in the steamforums that really made me :rolleyes:. The discussion was on Diablo III and it's DRM which is similar to the UBI DRM. (Always Online even for SP) The user said something along those lines:
"Yeah. I protest the UBI-DRM. But that's mostly because I don't really want to play these games anyways. But there is no chance I'm not buying Diablo III which will easily be the game of the decade."
Since the thread is gone on the steam forums I can no longer link to the post. But I remember it well because it got me really upset.
Because the Retailers already give these services a hard time. You may have noticed that the prices for new games on Steam are always higher than they are at retailers like Amazon or play. That's because the retailers are threatening the publishers to stop selling their games (and I assume not only the PC versions) unless they get a better deal than the digital stores. If Steam and D2D would actually name their sales retailers might use their power even more.
What?? Sources please.
You're telling me that online retailers like Amazon, as well as brick-and-mortar stores like Best Buy, Target and Wal-Mart will refuse to sell PC games if they don't have an opportunity to sell games for cheaper than direct download game distributors like Steam? No. This makes no sense.
What you're saying is akin to saying that FYE brick-and-mortar music stores will refuse to sell music albums if a label doesn't allow them to sell for cheaper than iTunes. Or like saying Borders Bookstores would intentionally boycott publishers for not allowing them to sell hardcopies of books as cheaply as Amazon sells ebooks for Kindle. No. Ridiculous.
So... a retailer will intentionally lose profits to spite their supplier just because a retail competitor has less overhead and better distribution/marketing tools? I seriously doubt it.
Also, Amazon isn't going to strong-arm Square Enix just so they can sell Deus Ex:Human Revolution for cheaper than Steam. Sure, Amazon's PC download is currently $10 cheaper ($40), but their list price for PC download and current sale price for the disc version still says $50. I would better explain the lowered price of Amazon's download version by saying this: They're Amazon. They have good sales, and they're an excellent online store. If Steam wanted to sell the game for cheaper, they would. Just because Steam doesn't at present, it doesn't mean that if they did Square Enix would otherwise face the wrath of Amazon... by making Amazon itself lose money... through forcing Amazon's own customers to shop elsewhere for games that they know people want to buy. Umm... don't you see how dumb that sounds?
If retailers refused to sell PC games because Steam (and such) was cheaper, then PC gamers would all flock to Steam (and such) instead anyway, making the point of boycotting said games entirely counterproductive.
Why not? How hard is it to post a profit-margin statement categorized by distributor/retailer or contrasting figures between online vs. brick-and-mortar? And why would it be so super-secret as to keep such information from those who directly invest money in your company?
I think this traces back to two UK firms huffing over Steam a while ago making idle threats. Nothing came of it as yet though.
As for shareholders, Valve's a private company on their end at any rate and thus has none.
Exactly. And nothing will.
The very idea of disc-selling retailers strong-arming game publishers into getting a better deal than direct download companies... preposterous.
Anyway, it's their own fault. I go to Game to buy a PC title and they have a handful of titles crammed away in some dank little corner.
"Bwahhh!! Nobodies buying PC Games from us"
"No shit, you haven't been giving them shelf space for years."
Now here's a strange thought. I believe that this affects me greatly, after all, my sales decision is based on it!
I have no present-generation console. And with the way consoles are heading these days, I might extend my sabbatical to the next generation of consoles as well.
So true. Back in the day, I used to go to Harvey Norman (a furniture/electrical store) to spend ages poking about in their PC games. Now I can't find what I want even at game-specific stores, so it's Amazon / digital download all the way.
And out of the gaming retail stores I've been to, Game still have the best collection of PC titles. Which just tells you how bad it is. Ok, there isn't a great many in my local(ish) area, mainly Game, Gamestation, Grainger Games and CEX at a push. At least the Game shops near me have older titles that you can get as part of reasonable offers (3 for £20, 2 for £15, depending how old they are). Still crap though. And bloody overpriced for new releases.
(I remember a few years back, the store had like half the store full of games. Nowadays, nothing, nada. Its pretty depressing really...
Holy moly, you guys have Harvey Norman as well? They have such a pure crap jingle that I assumed they were just a local firm!!
PC World is just a massive front for a shop that thrives off shafting you on printer ink
I hate PC World. I remember buying a PC there about 10 years ago (what can I say, I was young and foolish as well as having money to burn) and got a basic mid level computer for around £1,000. Thought I did well with that too. Obviously I've since learned my lesson and now build my own computers, with my last one costing less that half than the PC World one and probably more than twice as powerful (relatively speaking, taking into consideration the advances in technology in the intervening years).
Okay. Let's put some recent "news" about Deus Ex Human Revolution in here.
First there was this. So Gamestop removed a coupon from all versions of the new Deus Ex game that would give their customers an extra copy of that game (we are talking about a game that costs 49.99$ on the service this copy was for here, that's stealing) because they don't like competition. Who would have guessed? Now people were noticing that and oh no. They are complaining.
So well it seems GameStop is trying to strongarm the publishers now.
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/08/24/gamestop-pulls-deus-ex-human-revolution-pc-versions-from-shelve/
Let's keep an eye on these quite interesting events. If I wrre Square I would not take these copies back. Gamestop was stealing 50$ from their customers and they should face the consequences for that.
All this does is give Gamestop a reason to stop selling PC games. So thanks for giving negative press to GameStop. It just makes things harder for people like me, that have no console but still would like to play PC games and that don't care about the pack-in copies since they are either offline or online with a machine that can run the game natively all the time anyways. Just like >90% of the people that are actually complaining just because it's cool and hip at the moment.
Nicely done RD.
Cool and hip? Get a grip man.
When somebody takes $50 worth of something out of the game box to suit them you've every right to get pissed off.