204 réponses à ce sujet

[Steppenwolf]

Filament wrote...

Or they could just forgo the save import feature.

Hear that Jimmy? Next gen DA3 could rule out save imports! What say you?!

Bioware already said that save imports are continuing.

Modifié par BasilKarlo, 05 janvier 2013 - 03:30 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Lol I'm a little proud of the name I've carved out for myself as the villainous foil of the Save Import.

If I had any confidence that the Save Import wouldn't be carried over into the next gen, I may be more in support of a next-gen title. But I have quite a strong feeling it will be handled by a world state generator like we've seen in other Bioware games. And that's barring the actual file itself from being imported through other means (after all, people have loads more content such as music, video, apps and games from their current gen console that I'm sure they'd love to keep) that the new console makers will likely have taken into consideration.

So my feelings on the Save Import and a next-gen title are pretty mtuay exclusive.

[Steppenwolf]

Sure. They could also cancel Inquisition entirely but why discuss things with no merit?

[Steppenwolf]

You're my kindred spirit? I was hoping for a wolf or a fox. Unless you're saying that jokes are my kindred spirit. But that would just be silly because jokes are an abstract and not any sort of sentient-ohhhhhh, now I get it. You're just not funny is all.

[Nighteye2]

Emzamination wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Gameplay and story are the most important, yes But that's no reason to hold back on the other aspects and let yourself be held back by the limitations of the technology used in antiquated consoles.

You're right, that is no reason.

The $500 for a new console or the $800 required for a new gaming PC rig are. So... just to ahead and mail me that check and I'll get right on that. Thanks!

You're thinking way too expensive. Just plug a cheap DX11 card in your current rig and that should be enough to play it - not on the highest settings but still better looking than those consoles.

See, I will never understand why pc gamers make THIS type of suggestion. You didn't even ask what kind of hardware he was working with. What if the mobo of his current pc isn't compatible with a Direct x 11 G-card? Are you now going to suggest a new mobo? and what if that's not compatible with his power supply, fans,ram,processor or hard drive, are you going to make suggestions for those too? Oh I could go on all day but we're already up to about 1300 dollar and I'm guessing you aren't willing to come out the pocket.

The only way it could not be compatible is if it didn't have a PCI-E slot - meaning it'd be older than mid-2009 when MBs with only AGP slots were no longer being sold.
With a PC that old, you're probably already saving up for an upgrade anyways.

[Doctoglethorpe]

BasilKarlo wrote...

Filament wrote...

Or they could just forgo the save import feature.

Hear that Jimmy? Next gen DA3 could rule out save imports! What say you?!

Bioware already said that save imports are continuing.

They also said they were exploring new ways of doing it.  Save import doesn't nessisarily mean literally taking the old save file and automatically applying it to the next game. 

I really suspect a more manual system incorporating only the most significant world altering choices to be used.  Preferably just an in-game system like Kotor 2, but Bioware seem to fancy those campy comic intros. 

[BlazingSpeed]

Emzamination wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

I like how people has completely discarded the Wii-U when discussing the next generation of consoles, as if it wasn't part of it.

That's because it's nothing special worth mentioning.

[The_11thDoctor]

Seeing how devs have had the PS4/ Orbis Dev kits for quite some time, Pre-final build and now getting final builds to know exactly how the games will fit to the new console environments and run, I dont see why it cant be a next gen game. PS4 cant come out later than MS next console due to the lead they got from being a year earlier. It took until several months ago for PS3 to match 360s numbers and outsell it.(0ver 40 mill units no.) So it's in Sony's favor to get it out as soon as possible. If Sony releases the console this fall, then DA can be a launch title. If not, it can be ported when it launches. Honestly, I pray it is a next gen game. I hope they put everything in it and have now worries of limitations, but freedom to make the game they want to make. We have ideas on the specs, graphics card, HD space etc so I see no issues with creating a game for the next gen consoles at this point. I plan to get it for PC anyway unless the Multiplayer looks good on it(PS4) or the game stupidly doesnt allow gamepad support on the PC version.

[Fast Jimmy]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Gameplay and story are the most important, yes But that's no reason to hold back on the other aspects and let yourself be held back by the limitations of the technology used in antiquated consoles.

You're right, that is no reason.

The $500 for a new console or the $800 required for a new gaming PC rig are. So... just to ahead and mail me that check and I'll get right on that. Thanks!

You're thinking way too expensive. Just plug a cheap DX11 card in your current rig and that should be enough to play it - not on the highest settings but still better looking than those consoles.

See, I will never understand why pc gamers make THIS type of suggestion. You didn't even ask what kind of hardware he was working with. What if the mobo of his current pc isn't compatible with a Direct x 11 G-card? Are you now going to suggest a new mobo? and what if that's not compatible with his power supply, fans,ram,processor or hard drive, are you going to make suggestions for those too? Oh I could go on all day but we're already up to about 1300 dollar and I'm guessing you aren't willing to come out the pocket.

The only way it could not be compatible is if it didn't have a PCI-E slot - meaning it'd be older than mid-2009 when MBs with only AGP slots were no longer being sold.
With a PC that old, you're probably already saving up for an upgrade anyways.

You're wrong.

I am rocking a 2005 Dell Dimension 4700.

It has a 2.79 gHz processor and 2 gig of RAM, a mediocre video card and that's about it. Why would I be saving to upgrade my computer? It runs Windows XP like a champ, it can handle the 2003 versions of Microsoft Office and is able to handle my internet needs. 

Just because you love dumping perfectly good money down the drain on a regular basis to keep up a gaming PC doesn't mean the rest of the world shares your love of waste. I paid $500 for my XBox 360 back in the Spring of 2006 and have only spent the money for an extra controller ($40) and a local repair job ($50 to repair when I had the Red Rings and it was under this guy's warranty for life). 

Since 2005, can ANY PC player on this forum say to me that they have spent only $590 on hardware and who can still play new PC game releases today? I'm talking about everything - video card, mobo, RAM upgrades, gamepad... anything gaming related (no speaker or monitor prices neccessary, I have a pretty nice flatscreen I'm not including in my console price comparisons). 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 06 janvier 2013 - 12:36 .

[Brockololly]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Nope. Next gen consoles won't be until Q1/Q2 2014. Take that to the bank.

I agree with you on a lot of things here Jimmy, but on this you're so so wrong. At least one, if not more nextgen consoles will be arriving late 2013, in time for the holidays. Whether that's both MS and Sony's or just one, I'm not sure, but both consoles will definitely be unveiled this year and more than likely released later this year. Valve is even likely to step into the console business this year with the likelihood they reveal hardware they've been working on.

Fast Jimmy wrote...
They will  wait until the Spring to release their consoles (or the summer, they  won't dare release them at the same time) and then have 6-9 months of  games being released until the holiday season. Then after a decent
library is built up, people will be willing to shill over holiday  dollars in drives to buy the new consoles, along with a glut of new  games. Otherwise, they will have an anemic first holiday release and  have to struggle uphill all year to secure new game releases just to  justify their console.

It's far smarter to release the console  in the off season, then capitalize next holiday (Decemebr 2014) for the  most revenue return.

Nope.
MS and Sony are selling hardware first and foremost with their new consoles. Yes, having a great library of games would help. But the nextgen systems will likely encapsulate a whole lot more than simply being games machines. The rumors on the next Xbox hint at a ton more Kinect functionality built in, and more value in the system as an all encompassing entertainment system that goes beyond just games. Even then, I'm going to guess Xbox Live and PSN will still be around pushing digital downloads and probably allowing people to keep those DD games they've gotten from the 360/PS3 era.

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Thing is, Microsoft has no launch  title. Neither does Sony. There is no console-exclusive IP to release on
the new platform that will drive sales. So third party vendors will be  hesitant to be the first to jump in. Why make games that are exclusively for a small market?

There will likely be a ton of new IPs for the new consoles. Whether they be multiplatform or exclusive to MS or Sony. That's just what always happens with new consoles- something like Halo or Gears of War or Uncharted comes out as a new IP that ends up turning into a huge franchise.

Fast Jimmy wrote...
So even if  you think the new consoles will be out in 2013 (which I don't), for DA3  to come out holiday 2013 and be a next gen title (ESPECIALLY a next gen  exclusive) is assuming a ton of risk by Bioware. If the consoles were  going to be out a year before the game's release, then I would agree  with doing it. But a handful of months, at best? Or even a concurrent  release? That's just a recipe for failure.

I won't disagree there that having DA3 only available as a next gen launch title would be risky. But I'm not sure it will be a launch title and even if it is, there is a good chance it would be cross generational. If the technological basis is Frostbite 2, EA has said Frostbite 2 is already a nextgen engine. So just like you saw many Xbox/PS2 games with 360/PS3 versions with nicer graphics and slightly fancier features, I could easily see something like that happening for many multiplatform nextgen games early on.

But there would be definite upside to launching early on though as a nextgen only game too. The fantasy RPG genre isn't  super crowded, so especially if Dragon Age 3 launches early on when the nextgen library of games is a little sparse, if somebody wants a nextgen fantasy RPG, DA3 might be their only choice.

Look at how well Oblivion sold. 360 launched in November 2005 and Oblivion came out only on 360/PC in March 2006. I think for many people, if you wanted a fantasy RPG for your new shiny Xbox 360, you got Oblivion. EA could easily position Dragon Age 3 in a similar spot with nextgen consoles, even if they don't come out as a launch title. To my knowledge, its not like Elder Scrolls 6 or The Witcher 3 or any other big fantasy game will steal their thunder... except maybe Dark Souls 2. Basically for your casual gamer who is just picking up their new nextgen console, if there is a limited library of games at the store and Dragon Age 3 is one of them, that might help the game sell well just by simply being there right at launch.

Modifié par Brockololly, 06 janvier 2013 - 01:40 .

[slimgrin]

Brockololly wrote...

There would be definite upside to launching early on though as a nextgen only game too. The RPG genre isn't  super crowded, so especially if Dragon Age 3 launches early on when the nextgen library of games is a little sparse, if somebody wants a nextgen RPG, DA3 might be their only choice. Look at how well Oblivion sold. 360 launched in November 2005 and Oblivion came out only on 360/PC in March 2006. I think for many people, if you wanted a fantasy RPG for your new shiny Xbox 360, you got Oblivion. EA could easily position Dragon Age 3 in a similar spot with nextgen consoles, even if they don't come out as a launch title. To my knowledge, its not like Elder Scrolls 6 or The Witcher 3 or any other big fantasy game will steal their thunder... except maybe Dark Souls 2.

Elder Scrolls would steal any thunder Bioware can bring, trust me. Dark Souls is nowhere near as popular or established as either IP. And TW3 doesn't need to compete with Bioware - seperate audience there. I think you are forgetting Bioware's propensity to fall flat on their face with sequels.

[vanom66]

I hope it's not .

[Brockololly]

slimgrin wrote...
Elder Scrolls would steal any thunder Bioware can bring, trust me. Dark Souls is nowhere near as popular or established as either IP. And TW3 doesn't need to compete with Bioware - seperate audience there. I think you are forgetting Bioware's propensity to fall flat on their face with sequels.

I'm just saying on a much more casual basis. If you took your average casual sort of gamer, the type that gets only a couple games a year- Madden or Call of Duty or Gears of War, lets say- and put them in a store at the launch of nextgen consoles and they want a game with swords and dragons, what might be more appealing as a quick pitch? If you're the only swords and dragons fantasy style game available that showcases the fancy nextgen graphics, then you've set yourself up quite nicely. But as soon as any decent competition comes in, you'd likely face massive diminishing returns.

Yes, Elder Scrolls would clobber DA head to head. But if you took your generic gamer that might walk into a store to buy a nextgen console and wants to pick up a fantasy game with it, something like Dark Souls 2 might be an easier sell than Dragon Age. Especially since Dark Souls 2 isn't coming off a lackluster sequel.  Apples and oranges in terms of substance really, but if you were taking a casual, generic gamer mostly looking at Dark Souls or Dragon Age as being similar due to art style or visuals within the fantasy genre, I think Dark Souls might be rather appealing.

Modifié par Brockololly, 06 janvier 2013 - 01:52 .

[Nighteye2]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Since 2005, can ANY PC player on this forum say to me that they have spent only $590 on hardware and who can still play new PC game releases today? I'm talking about everything - video card, mobo, RAM upgrades, gamepad... anything gaming related (no speaker or monitor prices neccessary, I have a pretty nice flatscreen I'm not including in my console price comparisons). 

I can, actually. Although it's hard to be entirely sure as I never buy a new PC, but only upgrade parts as necessary. I've averaged less than €100,- per year over the last 20 years. Might even be less than €50,-

It really doesn't have to be expensive.

[SweQue]

I think both. It would be a huge misstake to not release DA3 on this gen consoles.
they would lose millions of buyers, not worth it at all. if you (pc owners - like myself)  want Dragon Age franchise to flourish then they cant ignore the console owners.
Also, with frostbite 2 engine what kind of pc req would they aim for anyway-- cant be that over the top for consoles, atleast with low graphics, while pc supporting DX11 and other stuff.

Modifié par SweQue, 06 janvier 2013 - 03:58 .

[Doctoglethorpe]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Gameplay and story are the most important, yes But that's no reason to hold back on the other aspects and let yourself be held back by the limitations of the technology used in antiquated consoles.

You're right, that is no reason.

The $500 for a new console or the $800 required for a new gaming PC rig are. So... just to ahead and mail me that check and I'll get right on that. Thanks!

You're thinking way too expensive. Just plug a cheap DX11 card in your current rig and that should be enough to play it - not on the highest settings but still better looking than those consoles.

See, I will never understand why pc gamers make THIS type of suggestion. You didn't even ask what kind of hardware he was working with. What if the mobo of his current pc isn't compatible with a Direct x 11 G-card? Are you now going to suggest a new mobo? and what if that's not compatible with his power supply, fans,ram,processor or hard drive, are you going to make suggestions for those too? Oh I could go on all day but we're already up to about 1300 dollar and I'm guessing you aren't willing to come out the pocket.

The only way it could not be compatible is if it didn't have a PCI-E slot - meaning it'd be older than mid-2009 when MBs with only AGP slots were no longer being sold.
With a PC that old, you're probably already saving up for an upgrade anyways.

You're wrong.

I am rocking a 2005 Dell Dimension 4700.

It has a 2.79 gHz processor and 2 gig of RAM, a mediocre video card and that's about it. Why would I be saving to upgrade my computer? It runs Windows XP like a champ, it can handle the 2003 versions of Microsoft Office and is able to handle my internet needs. 

Just because you love dumping perfectly good money down the drain on a regular basis to keep up a gaming PC doesn't mean the rest of the world shares your love of waste. I paid $500 for my XBox 360 back in the Spring of 2006 and have only spent the money for an extra controller ($40) and a local repair job ($50 to repair when I had the Red Rings and it was under this guy's warranty for life). 

Since 2005, can ANY PC player on this forum say to me that they have spent only $590 on hardware and who can still play new PC game releases today? I'm talking about everything - video card, mobo, RAM upgrades, gamepad... anything gaming related (no speaker or monitor prices neccessary, I have a pretty nice flatscreen I'm not including in my console price comparisons). 

You obviously don't know much about computers if you think us pc gamers are spending tons on constant upgrades to play games.  Even the best games out there run extremely well on tech thats several years old.  Only real hobbyists upgrade every change they get.  EAnd even as the tech does start to fall behind (after like 3-4 years) a great thing about pc games is that most of them scale.  So instead of maxed out, we just play slightly lower settings.  Turn down the anti-aliasing or something and bam game still runs great and still looks far better then consoles. 

Just by what you claimed, assuming your CPU is a dual core then yeah, all you would need to upgrade is the GPU.   My GPU that runs BF3 near max at 60fps is $300.  Thats high end stuff, you could easily spend half that and still play all modern games better then consoles can. 

People in the dark always say gaming rigs are $1000 or some such nonsense and thats so much more then a console.  It bugs the hell out of me when they do.  Really, the only thing they should be talking about is GPUs.  Everyone buys a computer, but if you have a gaming rig, its like combining your computer and console into a single purchase.  With that in consideration, it isn't more expensive, often its even actually cheaper.   For the most part everyones computers are already sufficient in every other category (obviously not all, but most people with a relatively modern computer including yours).  So lets just go ahead and say a modest gaming capable pc (wont run bf3 maxed, but it will play it better then a console will) is around $700 (cheaper if you build it yourself, which is as easy as legos).  Or a regular computer is more around $300-400  + a console is another $300-400 (or in your case $500).  Oh look, it comes out about equal, give or take either way.  But of course people don't do math.  They don't think of cost in addition to the computer they already have, they think as if a gamign rig is a completely seperate entity, like they need both.

Let me just pose this question.  How much did you computer cost?  I bet it was at least $300.    

[Doctoglethorpe]

Of course companies like Alienware don't help. People look at that and think its the price standard for pc gaming, when really thats like the Ferrari of PCs. Its overpriced luxury that isn't really any better then stuff you can buy for half the price. I can build a computer myself in a half an hour with all the same parts and it would cost me literally hundreds of dollars less.

[Steppenwolf]

Nighteye2 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Since 2005, can ANY PC player on this forum say to me that they have spent only $590 on hardware and who can still play new PC game releases today? I'm talking about everything - video card, mobo, RAM upgrades, gamepad... anything gaming related (no speaker or monitor prices neccessary, I have a pretty nice flatscreen I'm not including in my console price comparisons). 

I can, actually. Although it's hard to be entirely sure as I never buy a new PC, but only upgrade parts as necessary. I've averaged less than €100,- per year over the last 20 years. Might even be less than €50,-

It really doesn't have to be expensive.

You realize of course that €100 is about $135, right? Even if we take the average of the amounts you listed as annual gaming hardware expenses and use €75 as the figure that's still about $700. PC gaming does tend to be more expensive. That's why there are more way console gamers than PC gamers now even though there are more PCs in homes than game consoles.

[Doctoglethorpe]

BasilKarlo wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Since 2005, can ANY PC player on this forum say to me that they have spent only $590 on hardware and who can still play new PC game releases today? I'm talking about everything - video card, mobo, RAM upgrades, gamepad... anything gaming related (no speaker or monitor prices neccessary, I have a pretty nice flatscreen I'm not including in my console price comparisons). 

I can, actually. Although it's hard to be entirely sure as I never buy a new PC, but only upgrade parts as necessary. I've averaged less than €100,- per year over the last 20 years. Might even be less than €50,-

It really doesn't have to be expensive.

You realize of course that €100 is about $135, right? Even if we take the average of the amounts you listed as annual gaming hardware expenses and use €75 as the figure that's still about $700. PC gaming does tend to be more expensive. That's why there are more way console gamers than PC gamers now even though there are more PCs in homes than game consoles.

First of all, there being more console gamers is only true if your definiton of a gamer is one who plays hardcore games like Bioware's or Bungie's.  Thats a silly definition, and otherwise there are far more people that play games on pc, its just many of them do so more casually.  A facebook gamer is still technically a gamer, that term isnt for an exclucive club anymore. 

Second, the reason why there are more hardcore gamers on consoles is not because of PC gamings actual price, but misconceptions about the price (like yours) and a desire for ease of use.  On a console games simply work.  On a PC you might have to do a bit of troubleshooting.  For most people (and yeah I'm gonna sound like an ass when I say this but I cant help it) don't have the mental capacity for such a minor task.  People don't want to have to find the answer to the question "can I run it" before they buy a game, they want to just buy it and play it.  No thinking, just gaming.  Consoels are good for that at least.

And before you even say it, troubleshooting and the various little tweaks and prods that come with gaming on a pc are NOT that difficult.  Neither is assembling a computer, but that too is, in ignorance, thought to be crazy tech genius material.  Many people would be amazed if they opened up their computer and discovered how easy it is to take apart and reassemble the pieces in their pc.  Its like playing that game as a kid where you put the shaped blocks in the corrisponding holes, you can't fail unless you're literally retarded.  But people don't take the time to enlighten themselves, they just accept groupthink and go on living. 

Modifié par Doctor Moustache, 06 janvier 2013 - 04:53 .

[Steppenwolf]

Facebook games aren't PC games. I can play any Facebook game on my phone or iPad. And I know exactly how much a gaming PC costs. I just built one a few days ago. It's not inexpensive.

[Nighteye2]

BasilKarlo wrote...

Nighteye2 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Since 2005, can ANY PC player on this forum say to me that they have spent only $590 on hardware and who can still play new PC game releases today? I'm talking about everything - video card, mobo, RAM upgrades, gamepad... anything gaming related (no speaker or monitor prices neccessary, I have a pretty nice flatscreen I'm not including in my console price comparisons). 

I can, actually. Although it's hard to be entirely sure as I never buy a new PC, but only upgrade parts as necessary. I've averaged less than €100,- per year over the last 20 years. Might even be less than €50,-

It really doesn't have to be expensive.

You realize of course that €100 is about $135, right? Even if we take the average of the amounts you listed as annual gaming hardware expenses and use €75 as the figure that's still about $700. PC gaming does tend to be more expensive. That's why there are more way console gamers than PC gamers now even though there are more PCs in homes than game consoles.

Yes, except that companies like to charge in euros here the same prices they charge in dollars in the US, ignoring the proper exchange rates.
In the US I could've gotten the same hardware for $75,- - and then it'd total at about $500,- for the period.

[TUHD]

XX-Pyro wrote...

I highly doubt it will sell on next gen consoles at all. Perhaps, like Jimmy said, a re-release might happen, but making a game next-gen exclusive when this game can make or break the series for BioWare (and by extension, EA) would be a terrible decision from a business standpoint. It would sell horribly. EA wouldn't do this.

You have nothing to fear. That aside, as far as console games go the current generation is hardly being pushed to the limits (sorry PC players- although I play some games on PC too so I feel bad also), there is no reason for Microsoft or Sony to announce a new console until at least 2014.

Hardly pushed to the limits? LOL. Sorry, but it's being pushed and it's still utterly bad when shown at max spec at the PC most at the times since most games are shoddy console ports (that includes ME3, where the **** was the optimalisation for the PC? Only thing I saw was console-quality textures etc) and developers are too lazy to create an version specially for the PC with optimalisation specifically tailored to it.

For info about the Xbox 360S and PS3 Slim specs: http://www.buzzle.co...comparison.html

Xewaka wrote...

I like how people has completely discarded the Wii-U when discussing the next generation of consoles, as if it wasn't part of it.

Wii-U is current-gen.... just look at the specs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_U If that's next-gen, then next-gen is going to suck monkey balls.

Navasha wrote...
My take on it is that either it will be either current-gen-only title or a next-gen-only title, not a cross-compatible version. If its a launch title they are going to want to make it look "next gen" which means it won't work on the current consoles. I would probably put money on it being a 'current' gen title only since it has been in development for a couple years already. Thats kind of hard to do without having any idea of what specs you are developing for. Making it a current gen title will likely be able to played on the next gen if they are backward compatible, though it won't then be marketed as a next gen game. 

As a PC player, both have pros and cons. If its a current gen title then it means its still fairly dated, rather than what it could be. If its a next gen title exclusive, then it will likely mean a fair delay until the specs are worked out, which means likely 2014 release.

Mind, Sony and Microsoft are already pretty far with assembling test-versions of a new Xbox and PlayStation - as far as I am aware, they've got the major details set in stone, any changes are likely to be minor. It is very likely that MS and Sony already have given out details to developers roughly what to count on and thus to program for. If they haven't done so yet, they will not have much launch titles.
Also, Dragon Age: Inquisition (if the Dutch Gameplay magazine is right, and they have been pretty often right when it comes to setbacks on games but which aren't confirmed yet) appears to have suffered a small setback, making an estimated release date of early 2014 instead of Q3/Q4 2013. Making it an excellent launch title for the new consoles.

ADelusiveMan wrote...

I'll probably play it on PC, but I can imagine a couple of problems with it coming out on next gen consoles. The first coming to mind would be the save import.

Actually, I believe Microsoft at least will just use Windows 8 specifically tailored to the Xbox, making it not such much a problem (and actually perhaps cross-platforms imports becoming able that way). As for Sony, I haven't heard yet what they're planning but wouldn't surprise me if they would just use an updated OS from what they already use on the PS3.

XX-Pyro wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Still ignoring the benefits of being a launch title I see. This thread is going absolutely no where.

There are none, especially not to the RPG crowd.

I guess there are three fathomable situations we can debate here.

1) The game is sold solely on the current generation. 

To me, this makes the most sense. They maximize development time as well as profits, due to the fact that they don't have to worry about porting it to the new console (despite how rigged with complications that would be regardless). Time is money, and this way they get the most time to perfect their game before it is released.

Players also don't have to go out and buy a new console- which only an insiginificant amount would compared to the amount still playing on the current generation.

2) The game is crosses both this generation of consoles and the next.

Here are the drawbacks;

The first is that it cuts development time in a significant manner for a very low benefit. More importantly, however, if the game is available on the current generation, this effectively decreases the sales they would make from the iteration of the game that is sold on the next generation of consoles. Why would I go out and buy a PS4 for DA:I when I can play it on my PS3? No reason whatsoever. This option solely depends on the next generation of consoles having a decent library of games and solid consumer base (which, it won't). I wouldn't stake my profits on the hopes that other developers are making games for next generation consoles as well and that those games will sell.

3) The game is sold solely on the next generation.

They lose a huge chunk of profits. Absolutely no logical reason behind this option. The amount of people willing to buy release consoles is miniscule, especially after the troubles the 360 gave people when they bought them. People generally wait a bit before shelfing out 300-400 dollars only to have it blow up in their face.

1) Then Bioware would need to give away free HD-texturepacks to PC-users if they don't want to ****** PC-users off with medieval-quality graphics (due to the texture restrictions that the PS3 and Xbox 360 can handle without an insane frame drop).
2) See the reasoning behind one. Also, wishfull thinking on your part that the new consoles won't get sold quick.
3) Naivite and wishfull thinking, again. There are plenty of people who shelve out the money as fast as they can....

scyphozoa wrote...

I don't care if it is exclusive, I just want it on a next-gen console. Current gen is bad and old. Next gen will be slightly less bad and slightly less old :

As far as I know, the new consoles will have roughly (news from1 1/2 month ago or so) the following specs: 3,4 Gigahertz processors (can't remember if it was quad-  or tentracore), 8 GB RAM, 2 GB GPU, WiFi connection (n type, not g-type connection) and some other stuff. I could be wrong with this of course, but those were leaked 1-2 months back.