107 réponses à ce sujet

[AstraDrakkar]

If I find out that PS4 or Xbox One will get more game content than other platforms, it would definitely cause me not to buy the game at all. This would be the pinnacle of unfairness, and I will not stand for it. If it just means you get some cute little extra features, like being able to zoom in or something i really don't care.

[Northern Sun]

I'd imagine that the next-gen versions would have stuff like longer draw distances and more NPCs on screen at one time, along with better textures and other graphical stuff.

[AstraDrakkar]

If it's just that kind of stuff..who cares. I certainly don't need it. I'm quite happy with my PC and i'll have a new one next year 

Modifié par AstraDrakkar, 24 juin 2013 - 09:46 .

[PsychoBlonde]

It's kind of an odd statement because he included PC in the list of old platforms lacking in power--but a newish gaming PC still has more power than either of the new consoles.

Worst-case scenario, the 360 and PS3 versions will have extra load points and fewer objects in the largest areas to make up for lack of memory and processing oomph. I seriously doubt they'd actually add more CONTENT to the high-powered versions.

[Maclimes]

Northern Sun wrote...

I'd imagine that the next-gen versions would have stuff like longer draw distances and more NPCs on screen at one time, along with better textures and other graphical stuff.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking too. Like I mentioned, that's ALREADY the case with PC games. Wouldn't be that problematic to have the XB360 build of the game have lower textures or whatever than the XBOne build.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't think the OP's conclusion is warranted based on the passage he quoted.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 24 juin 2013 - 09:55 .

[Conduit0]

You can certainly tell the people on these forums who have only ever known this current generation. When a new generation comes out the old one gets left behind, thats how consoles have always worked and its how consoles will continue to work into the foreseeable future. You should be bloody happy you get ANY cross generation support at all, because in the past such things didn't exist. If adopting a new console once every 6 to 7 years is too expensive for you, than you should probably forget about being a console gamer altogether.

[igneous.sponge]

Gibeau's statement is vague and redolent of marketing buzz; I wouldn't read too much into it. To me it reads more as, "We've still got the plebs on current-gen consoles (and those dirty, pirating PC peasants) to cater to, but in the future when those consoles aren't as much of a factor anymore we can develop more ambitiously with PS4/X1 (and all that nice, juicy RAM) in mind. Which is quite nice. And juicy. You should be excited."

It wouldn't surprise me if the next-gen consoles got a few special features, on top of moar graphics, to encourage migration, but I don't expect some radical disparity in content. That would be annoying, and I'm sure the backlash would be uproarious.

[The Night Haunter]

Swoopdogg wrote...

I don't think current gen gamers should be left out. If you're going to release a game on both generations, you don't restrict those using current gen. You just don't. That's like saying, "Here, everyone gets cake! But only the rich kids get icing!"

I'd be fine with higher quality options for next gen, because honestly I don't care about that sort of thing. But to deny content to the current gen gamers is just... well, wrong, honestly. Like I said, you don't give a kid cake and then deny him icing. You just don't.

So you'd rather no-one gets icing if you can't get it? That seems remarkably selfish. Adding content to next-gen consoles doesn't take away from anything the current-gen gets, it simple ADDS to the next-gen. There are many things that are simply not possible on current-gen, the tech is simply too old, so adding features to new, more capable, tech is the only option to add those features.

Personally I'm gonna be playing on PC, cause mods are good and even when 'next-gen' is brand new its only as good as a very good pc build, within two years it'll be equal to a mediocre pc build, and so on. Even if I was playing on consoles I would be fine with this.
DAI should be the best game they can make it, you can't make the best game possible on 7 year old tech. If 7 year old tech gets a version that is inferior to a next-gen version it should count itself lucky it gets a version at all. Personally though I would say selling current-gen versions of the game for LESS money than current-gen versions (because you are indeed getting less) would be the way to go.
Sell XB1, PS4, PC for 50-60 bucks and 360, PS3 for 40 (if 360/PS3 do indeed have fewer features).

And as for the people who've said they want to play on 360 to keep saves, well we haven't heard ANYTHING about save imports, you might be able to xfer to an xbox1, or there might not be a save importer at all, it might just be a checklist, interactive comic.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Swoopdogg wrote...

I don't think current gen gamers should be left out. If you're going to release a game on both generations, you don't restrict those using current gen. You just don't. That's like saying, "Here, everyone gets cake! But only the rich kids get icing!"

I cannot believe you said that.

First of all, gaming is itself a luxury product.  It's already provided just to the "rich kids".

Also, a logical consequence of what you're saying is that it would be okay if the game simply wasn't offered to the current gen, but by offering them something they otherwise wouldn't have at all BioWare would somehow be wronging them.  What?  How does that make any sense?

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't think the OP's conclusion is warranted based on the passage he quoted.

Not at all, but the thread is clearly no longer about the actual quote. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't think the OP's conclusion is warranted based on the passage he quoted.

Not at all, but the thread is clearly no longer about the actual quote.

But the fairness question is absurd.  And moot if the quoted passage doesn't imply unfairness (which it doesn't).

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But the fairness question is absurd.  And moot if the quoted passage doesn't imply unfairness (which it doesn't).

I agree with you, but other people want to have that discussion in general. DA is merely a proxy in this case. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I agree with you, but other people want to have that discussion in general. DA is merely a proxy in this case.

Which is why I chimed in on the fairness question, specifically, in another post (above).

[The Night Haunter]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Swoopdogg wrote...

I don't think current gen gamers should be left out. If you're going to release a game on both generations, you don't restrict those using current gen. You just don't. That's like saying, "Here, everyone gets cake! But only the rich kids get icing!"

I cannot believe you said that.

First of all, gaming is itself a luxury product.  It's already provided just to the "rich kids".

Also, a logical consequence of what you're saying is that it would be okay if the game simply wasn't offered to the current gen, but by offering them something they otherwise wouldn't have at all BioWare would somehow be wronging them.  What?  How does that make any sense?

This is exactly what I'm thinking. 'Offering something is worse than offering nothing' is silly.

[Swoopdogg]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Swoopdogg wrote...

I don't think current gen gamers should be left out. If you're going to release a game on both generations, you don't restrict those using current gen. You just don't. That's like saying, "Here, everyone gets cake! But only the rich kids get icing!"

I cannot believe you said that.

First of all, gaming is itself a luxury product.  It's already provided just to the "rich kids".

Also, a logical consequence of what you're saying is that it would be okay if the game simply wasn't offered to the current gen, but by offering them something they otherwise wouldn't have at all BioWare would somehow be wronging them.  What?  How does that make any sense?

It makes perfect sense. (Also, rich kids reference was a metaphor to denote a seperate group of individuals. I realize we are all "rich kids" in the eyes of the world).

It depends on what sort of "bonus content" is added. If next gen gets exclusive characters, quests, and things of that nature, yes I'd feel slightly wronged. It's a different game at that point. If the next gen has added story elements, then it is no longer the same game as the one released for the previous generation.

I don't care if this sounds crazy to you, but I'd rather them give current gen no game than half a game. That's just cheap. At that point it's just a ploy to get money, which isn't surprising.

And besides, I'm pretty sure the article is only referring to higher resolution, better shadows, better animations, and things of that nature.

Also, I am considering buying a next gen console (or just getting a better PC). But I'm weighing my options first. So far, there's really only DA3. 

Also, I understand that we are lucky that they're releasing it on current gen consoles as well, or so people are saying, although this wasn't uncommon in the past. It takes years at least for a generation to be completely replaced, if ever.

[Anubis722]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

It's kind of an odd statement because he included PC in the list of old platforms lacking in power--but a newish gaming PC still has more power than either of the new consoles.

Worst-case scenario, the 360 and PS3 versions will have extra load points and fewer objects in the largest areas to make up for lack of memory and processing oomph. I seriously doubt they'd actually add more CONTENT to the high-powered versions.

Same thing i was thinking

[TsaiMeLemoni]

Swoopdogg wrote...

I'd rather them give current gen no game

Me too.

[igneous.sponge]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

Swoopdogg wrote...

I'd rather them give current gen no game

Me too.

Probably wouldn't be too viable economically, though. The current-gen user base is just too large to ignore, and it's hard to say just how successful the next-gen consoles will prove, at least initially. Yeah, Microsoft likes to think they'll ship a billion X1s, but I think we all know that's a little... uh, delusional.

Also, the game was in development long before the next-gen dev kits went out. (I think?) So X360/PS3 have always been a part of the equation.

[Heimdall]

I don't see Bioware offering more content for next-gen consoles. They tend to prefer keeping the content identical. More likely any difference will be in the form of higher quality textures and the like.

[KiwiQuiche]

Who cares, I'm still not touching Xbone.

[Quill74Pen]

Beg pardon, I misinterpreted the OP.

Modifié par Quill74Pen, 25 juin 2013 - 12:37 .

[Welsh Inferno]

Personally I hope they make the game as good as they absolutely can. Shouldn't let current gen hold them back.

[The Elite Elite]

Interesting. I don't see what would be so outrageous if the PS4/One versions of Inquisiton had features and areas that the PS3/360 versions didn't. The current consoles are both over 7 years old, correct? If there are things BioWare wants to do with Inquisiton that they can do on the PS4 and Xbox One but can't on the PS3 and 360, why shouldn't they do those things for the next generation versions? As long as the PS3 and 360 versions still have the same overall story content, I don't see what there is to complain about.