378 réponses à ce sujet

[PSUHammer]

I could understand some technical issues on a PC game...but there are a lot of quest type bugs. Those should definitly be caught by QA testing. All this comes down to is EA enforcing release dates to maximize sales for certain times of the year. This is proven by the fact that bugs were listed in the README file for the game...why would you release a game with known bugs?

[PSUHammer]

Farlington wrote...

Well you can't expect the PC rules to cease to exist simply because the game comes out on consoles as well. The only way to not pass on the PC curse to consoles is to release console only games or have separate development teams for each version. The former is the reason what so many former PC titles are now console only and the latter is why so many game developers have vanished or sold their souls to companies like EA in order to survive.

It's a shame, really.  The quality of PC games have started to diminish.  Look at Crysis 2.  You can't quick save or chose AA options anymore.  Gimped graphics and saving "checkpoints" are clues that a game has been consolized.

It's all about appeasing the lowest common denominators.

[Lee T]

Hammer6767 wrote..

Gimped graphics and saving "checkpoints" are clues that a game has been consolized.

Checkpoints are in no way a must on console, plenty of console games have "active" saves, graphics have to be scaled for the various PCs there's no need to fix the graphics to console level.

Those dev  "decisions" are more probably related to budgetary issues than technical issues.

That's not "consolization" that's bad decisions.

[Farlington]

Hammer6767 wrote...
It's all about appeasing the lowest common denominators.

No its about appeasing the shareholders with the highest common denominator profits and that means you ship games onto the most profitable platforms.

I remember when the Amiga games section in shops got smaller and smaller until it vanished entirely (Partly due to piracy, partly due to the uncertain future of the platform). No technology stays on top indefinitely, but before you hold a wake for the PC, the shelf space wasn't taken up by PC games, it was console games. Then they started to have to make way for PC games.

It's all swings and roundabouts. Sooner or later the console marketplace will be less profitable than the PC marketplace and the whole she-bang will start all over again with the PC on top. Afterall, when the consoles took the lead in profitsss, the internet was still a fad for most families. Nowadays there are a lot more technicaly savvy people owning PC's, but the main focus for game developers is still the same as it was back then.

Once developers figure out what this massive untapped marketplace wants (Note: It isn't shoot-em-ups and FPS's), that will be what direction games take. The baby steps that companies like Bioware are taking regarding creating (normaly) well written and compelling stories will be far more sought after than they are in the current climate.

Hopefully they'll still be around...

Modifié par Farlington, 29 mars 2011 - 10:13 .

[PSUHammer]

Yes, I agree, but I have actually seen opposite trends. Most of the PC dev houses have merged, merged again and been swallowed up by a few major publishers (EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc.). Those are the companies that are catering to bottom lines and shareholders. I can just see project planning meetings asking their developers to design across platforms. I think gaming companies are pushing accessibility and simplicity over complex games like you used to see in the PC world.

I am a capitalist at heart so I don't have a major problem with that. I just think it is a shame. Although, with the way Microsoft OSs have been going, I see PC computing becoming simplified. But, the bottom line is there are just a ton of different hardware variants out there. Designing for a console, from a technical standpoint, has to be easy as you have one consistent hardware/driver platform.

But the main issue goes beyond PC/console...it is happening in all media. We live in a reality TV culture.

[PSUHammer]

simfamSP wrote...

I also am hoping for free DLC. Not necessarily new stuff. But maybe if Bioware spent time of making each environment unique they could release it as a free DLC, a big redeemer for that problem. Along with other stuff like overhead cam and stuff from Origins. I hope Chris (who I believe is the head for some of the marketting) doesn't say:

"Oh we'll make them pay for what they have said to us... literally." Though if he does decide on that, I hope it's VERY cheap and also he'll record that line for us

Never going to happen.  How would they pay the people who work on it? 

[bluewolv1970]

funny - now it is 23 days out and still no information from the DA II team, regarding a time frame or even what is being repaired...

[Dreadstruck]

simfamSP wrote...

I also am hoping for free DLC. Not necessarily new stuff. But maybe if Bioware spent time of making each environment unique they could release it as a free DLC, a big redeemer for that problem.

A free DLC ? Free additional content with no strings attached?

The sun will rise from the west more likely.

Modifié par Avalla'ch, 30 mars 2011 - 08:32 .

[Mavkiel]

It'd be slightly amusing if the bugs couldn't be fixed. I mean, they probably knew about some of those bugs before the game went gold, just figured they could patch it later.

Or they are waiting on the console users patch to come through before releasing a patch. Which if thats the case, it would be highly annoying. It'd mean the pc version of it was sitting on a desk somewhere for over a week.

Speaking of console users, I know microsoft and etc requires the company to check its patches. Where the heck were they when the game was gold? It'd have been neat for the console companies to step up and say hey, this game is to buggy to be released

[bluewolv1970]

Mavkiel wrote...

It'd be slightly amusing if the bugs couldn't be fixed. I mean, they probably knew about some of those bugs before the game went gold, just figured they could patch it later.

Or they are waiting on the console users patch to come through before releasing a patch. Which if thats the case, it would be highly annoying. It'd mean the pc version of it was sitting on a desk somewhere for over a week.

Speaking of console users, I know microsoft and etc requires the company to check its patches. Where the heck were they when the game was gold? It'd have been neat for the console companies to step up and say hey, this game is to buggy to be released

good question since the Isabella bug is absolutley game breaking...

[addu2urmanapool]

Farlington wrote...

Hammer6767 wrote...
It's all about appeasing the lowest common denominators.

No its about appeasing the shareholders with the highest common denominator profits and that means you ship games onto the most profitable platforms.

I remember when the Amiga games section in shops got smaller and smaller until it vanished entirely (Partly due to piracy, partly due to the uncertain future of the platform). No technology stays on top indefinitely, but before you hold a wake for the PC, the shelf space wasn't taken up by PC games, it was console games. Then they started to have to make way for PC games.

It's all swings and roundabouts. Sooner or later the console marketplace will be less profitable than the PC marketplace and the whole she-bang will start all over again with the PC on top. Afterall, when the consoles took the lead in profitsss, the internet was still a fad for most families. Nowadays there are a lot more technicaly savvy people owning PC's, but the main focus for game developers is still the same as it was back then.

Once developers figure out what this massive untapped marketplace wants (Note: It isn't shoot-em-ups and FPS's), that will be what direction games take. The baby steps that companies like Bioware are taking regarding creating (normaly) well written and compelling stories will be far more sought after than they are in the current climate.

Hopefully they'll still be around...

Sadly, I don't think it plays out that way, at least as things are currently headed. The reason there used to be a market for PC games is that "home computers" used to be able to play the newest games. Nowadays, you need a specialized computer with a dedicated graphics card to be able to play games. So "gaming pcs" are like a separate system from "home pcs"; and are HARDER to get and MORE expensive than consoles.

[Cybermortis]

addu2urmanapool wrote...

Farlington wrote...

Hammer6767 wrote...
It's all about appeasing the lowest common denominators.

No its about appeasing the shareholders with the highest common denominator profits and that means you ship games onto the most profitable platforms.

I remember when the Amiga games section in shops got smaller and smaller until it vanished entirely (Partly due to piracy, partly due to the uncertain future of the platform). No technology stays on top indefinitely, but before you hold a wake for the PC, the shelf space wasn't taken up by PC games, it was console games. Then they started to have to make way for PC games.

It's all swings and roundabouts. Sooner or later the console marketplace will be less profitable than the PC marketplace and the whole she-bang will start all over again with the PC on top. Afterall, when the consoles took the lead in profitsss, the internet was still a fad for most families. Nowadays there are a lot more technicaly savvy people owning PC's, but the main focus for game developers is still the same as it was back then.

Once developers figure out what this massive untapped marketplace wants (Note: It isn't shoot-em-ups and FPS's), that will be what direction games take. The baby steps that companies like Bioware are taking regarding creating (normaly) well written and compelling stories will be far more sought after than they are in the current climate.

Hopefully they'll still be around...

Sadly, I don't think it plays out that way, at least as things are currently headed. The reason there used to be a market for PC games is that "home computers" used to be able to play the newest games. Nowadays, you need a specialized computer with a dedicated graphics card to be able to play games. So "gaming pcs" are like a separate system from "home pcs"; and are HARDER to get and MORE expensive than consoles.

Only if you insist on getting the very latest graphics card, processer ect - and these are usually overpowered for games anyway.

If you just want a decent PC that will happily run anything you are likely to want to play for two or so years, can be upgraded and can also be used for more than just gaming you can get a decent PC for around the same price as a console - and if you buy a lot of games it works out a lot cheaper as PC games cost less.

The catch is knowing where to go. If you buy from highstreet shops then yes, it costs more for what it does. If,however, you find places that build custom PC's (and have good staff who listen and are willing to give honest advice) you can get a very good PC for less than the cost of many consoles. My current PC came from such a place, and the graphics card was provided at cost (I've bought so much stuff from them, and pointed so many people in their direction they were happy to just charge me for the card alone). Just as importantly I didn't have to hand over a large wad of cash for the OS, since I had one from my old machine - which was a second hand one from the same place and cost me less than two Xbox games.

Of course most people seem to be scared of computers or just lazy. So they buy overpriced, underpowered computers from large stores. Last time I went into one place they were charging more for an out of date motherboard than I paid for this PC.

[crispy508]

Its been over 3 weeks and no solid info on any forthcoming patch. I've really enjoyed DA2 so far, but have held off playing somewhat because I don't want to encounter any game-breaking bugs, and also don't want to limit my gameplay in order to avoid the bugs. I can understand not having an immediate patch, but we're coming up on a month after release. I just wish we would get an update with some real information as to what is being addressed.

[MonkeyLungs]

Cybermortis wrote...

Only if you insist on getting the very latest graphics card, processer ect - and these are usually overpowered for games anyway.

Actually it is more like you have to INSIST on the PC actually having a graphics card instead of using integrated graphics.

If you just want a decent PC that will happily run anything you are likely to want to play for two or so years, can be upgraded and can also be used for more than just gaming you can get a decent PC for around the same price as a console - and if you buy a lot of games it works out a lot cheaper as PC games cost less.

For $200.00? I don't think so. I keep hearing people say you can get a gaming PC up and running for the same price as consoles and it simply isn't true.

I can probably get a pretty good setup together from NewEgg or something for $400.00 - $500.00, but not $200.00, fully functional out of the box.

[Cybermortis]

My PC cost (works out exchange rate) about $280-$300. This didn't include software, which I had already and installed myself. It would have cost even less had I put the thing together myself, but I was feeling lazy.

[MonkeyLungs]

OS is essential though.

Speaker, monitor, peripherals etc. not necesary for comparison because console don't come with that stuff anyway. But the OS must be included in the price comparison.

$280.00 - $300.00 still is not $200.00. Also I hold to my estimate of at least $400.00 and that is if someone is extremely thrifty and tech savvy. Maybe in your country PC parts were available for cheaper but I remain unconvinced.

[addu2urmanapool]

Cybermortis wrote...

addu2urmanapool wrote...

Farlington wrote...

Hammer6767 wrote...
It's all about appeasing the lowest common denominators.

No its about appeasing the shareholders with the highest common denominator profits and that means you ship games onto the most profitable platforms.

I remember when the Amiga games section in shops got smaller and smaller until it vanished entirely (Partly due to piracy, partly due to the uncertain future of the platform). No technology stays on top indefinitely, but before you hold a wake for the PC, the shelf space wasn't taken up by PC games, it was console games. Then they started to have to make way for PC games.

It's all swings and roundabouts. Sooner or later the console marketplace will be less profitable than the PC marketplace and the whole she-bang will start all over again with the PC on top. Afterall, when the consoles took the lead in profitsss, the internet was still a fad for most families. Nowadays there are a lot more technicaly savvy people owning PC's, but the main focus for game developers is still the same as it was back then.

Once developers figure out what this massive untapped marketplace wants (Note: It isn't shoot-em-ups and FPS's), that will be what direction games take. The baby steps that companies like Bioware are taking regarding creating (normaly) well written and compelling stories will be far more sought after than they are in the current climate.

Hopefully they'll still be around...

Sadly, I don't think it plays out that way, at least as things are currently headed. The reason there used to be a market for PC games is that "home computers" used to be able to play the newest games. Nowadays, you need a specialized computer with a dedicated graphics card to be able to play games. So "gaming pcs" are like a separate system from "home pcs"; and are HARDER to get and MORE expensive than consoles.

Only if you insist on getting the very latest graphics card, processer ect - and these are usually overpowered for games anyway.

If you just want a decent PC that will happily run anything you are likely to want to play for two or so years, can be upgraded and can also be used for more than just gaming you can get a decent PC for around the same price as a console - and if you buy a lot of games it works out a lot cheaper as PC games cost less.

The catch is knowing where to go. If you buy from highstreet shops then yes, it costs more for what it does. If,however, you find places that build custom PC's (and have good staff who listen and are willing to give honest advice) you can get a very good PC for less than the cost of many consoles. My current PC came from such a place, and the graphics card was provided at cost (I've bought so much stuff from them, and pointed so many people in their direction they were happy to just charge me for the card alone). Just as importantly I didn't have to hand over a large wad of cash for the OS, since I had one from my old machine - which was a second hand one from the same place and cost me less than two Xbox games.

Of course most people seem to be scared of computers or just lazy. So they buy overpriced, underpowered computers from large stores. Last time I went into one place they were charging more for an out of date motherboard than I paid for this PC.

That's simply not true. The cost to *build* a computer that would run Dragon Age 2 (WITHOUT a monitor) is about ~600-700 on NewEgg/Tigerdirect/Microcenter. Those are the reasonably cheapest places to get parts for most people, and you cannot assume parts will be cheaper than that. (You can't assume people will already have a power supply, case, etc lying around). An XBOX 360 for me was <200.

Modifié par addu2urmanapool, 31 mars 2011 - 05:56 .

[Taura-Tierno]

One thing to consider is that (at least where I live) new PC games cost much less than console games. A new DA2, for instance, costs like $65-$70, whereas for consoles, it costs about $95. So in the long run, you'll pay a lot less money for games for PC than for consoles. That can easily make up the total costs if the computer is a bit more expensive than a gaming console, if you buy lots of games.

[Irx]

addu2urmanapool wrote...
That's simply not true. The cost to *build* a computer that would run Dragon Age 2 (WITHOUT a monitor) is about ~600-700 on NewEgg/Tigerdirect/Microcenter. Those are the reasonably cheapest places to get parts for most people, and you cannot assume parts will be cheaper than that. (You can't assume people will already have a power supply, case, etc lying around). An XBOX 360 for me was <200.

Case + power supply = 30$.
I still don't get it though, an average tv + acoustics = 1500$ or so, and you say you can't afford 800$ on a top modern pc? Yeah, rrright. (oh, and da2 is an outdated game, as is any console port, so you can easily buy a 5 years old used pc for 200$ or less, unless you wish to turn on terribly optimized and barely noticeable dx11 effects - which is a joke and like turning AA on DOOM 2)

Modifié par Irxy, 31 mars 2011 - 06:21 .

[addu2urmanapool]

Hmm, could you link to some cheap PCs? I would consider getting one if the price was right.

My HDTV was ~$200, by the way. It is small, but a larger one would not fit in my apartment.

[eno detah]

@add2urmanapool... time to change the title on this one to "23 days out..."

Hopefully we hear something compelling on the patch front from the good peeps at Bioware tomorrow.

[crispy508]

If anyone is interested and didn't see it, Chris Priestly posted today in another thread regarding patches for the consoles:

Chris Priestly wrote...

We are working on more patching for all platforms, including both consoles. When we have more details on what patching will contain and when they will be available, we will let everyone know.



{smilie}

[makelith34]

bluewolv1970 wrote...

MyKingdomCold wrote...

to be honest, I think people are getting a little impatient and spoiled. they want things NOW! What? 17 days and still no patch?!

Yes people are getting "spoiled" because they paid 60.00 for a game that doesn't work right (particularly in terms of the storytelling)  and they want it fixed...the AUDACITY...you and I have different definitions of  "spoiled"...

obviously you have a different definition of "spoiled" as you are complaining about the story (which i enjoyed) which has nothing to do with or can be fixed with a patch; which makes your comment useless .  maybe you should pay attention to what discussion you are in as this is about patching the game.  Your comment would probably be better served in the actual discussion about the story. 

[Vhyle]

Chris posted that the PC got patched twice.. So I guess he considers the Texture pack a patch? The only patch I see is 1.01. Twice, eh? I know I'm not blind, and I don't see a 1.02 anywhere.  Funny.

Modifié par Vhyle, 01 avril 2011 - 04:29 .