Again with the condescension...
I own an Xbox 360 and PS4 in addition to my PC. Frankly, I think your attitude towards the expansion in question (and I assume that extends to DLC in general with you) is the cause for a lot of the problems console gamers experience. I don't mean to be rude about it, but you purchasing that content for that price does send a clear message to the higher ups that this is an okay policy to adopt and continue with down the line.
...? What, like a PC monitor, a PC rig that costs twice the price of your average console that needs updating in half the time and a console controller which is quickly becoming a necessity with the number of games that are barely hidden PC ports from console?
What do console players have to buy? A console that's as cheap as the lowest end (and quickly obsolete) gaming PC? Maybe an extra controller? I'm confused at where PC players are saving boatloads of cash and console players are gladly forking it over.
Erm ... no. Just no.
First of all, a PC about as powerful as a console is only marginally more expensive than the console. And PC monitor is the same kind of investment as a TV, or what do you propose to plug a console into to play?
Plus, upgradability is not a necessity, it's a perk. Do you need to upgrade a PC over a period like say a console's lifetime cycle? No. A PC roughly as powerful as a console can play any game that also comes out on consoles, on comparable graphical settings with comparable performance. But if you want more performance, you can upgrade. Which is ultimately not more expensive than say buying a completely new console because a new generation came out.
Likewise, the availability of console controller is a perk, not a necessity. Some games play arguable better on controllers than on M/K and vice versa. The thought that bad PC ports necessitate getting a console controller is not a PC limitation, it's entirely the port's fault.
What do console users have to pay extra for? Well, for one a complete new console once the new generation is out. A PC can be upgraded to fulfill a higher performance need (though in all fairness, the cheaper a PC is, the less options you have to upgrade as in all likelyhood a greater number of components need upgrading to achieve an overall performance boost, which can ultimately come down to the same expenditure as buying a new console if you want to match a performance increase).
Higher prices for individual games. Don't know how it looks over at where you live, but in my region, you pay a flat ten bucks more for a console game compared to its PC version.
You pay for console online features (PS+ and XBox Gold). PC mutliplayer is completely free, no additional fees in top of what you're already paying for your online access. In fact there was a huge uproar when people thought Microsoft wanted PC users to pay for the upcoming Win10 Live service and Microsoft was quick to reassure people that they won't charge anything for PC users. Xbox Gold costs 60 bucks for a year, PS+ is 50 bucks. Assuming an average console lifecycle of five years, we're talking 250-300 bucks a console player pays more than a PC player just for online features. That's a new high end GPU you could buy as upgrade for a PC for example if you wanted to keep up with a console-generation performance leap (not that a GPU comparable to console performance would cost that much, more like 150-200 bucks, so that's another 100 bucks you could invest in another component or plain save up).
And depending how many games you purchase over the time, all those ten bucks extra can likewise add up to a considerable sum.
Let's say you buy four standard pricing games a year over a five year period, plus the console, plus online membership for all five years. That's 400 bucks for the console, 250 bucks for the online member ship and 200 bucks price differential for the games. That's 850 bucks. I am disregarding the cost for a monitor since for one, nearly every household (or at least every wealthy household that would bother to expend the money for stuff like a console) already has a PC and thus monitor, and secondly, you can likewise hook up a PC to a TV display as long as the GPU as a compatible port like HDMI. Now, even deducting 100 bucks for a OS license assuming we're talking about buying a brand new PC, that's still 750 bucks at your disposal just for the rig. I don't think I have to go into detail what sort of PC you can get for that money, so let's suffice it to say that it would be a lot more powerful than a current gen console and would, unless the next generation takes a giant leap in performance, still be powerful enough to play most games well past five years if you're content with dialing the graphical settings down from maximum.
Am I saying that makes PC game better, superiour or cheaper? No. That depends entirely on what any individual person wants to play and how much money they want to invest. A person who can pay for a $3k monster PC likewise wouldn't pinch a penny if he got a console. Someone like that might in fact get a console regardless.
But the idea about PC gaming being more expensive that console gaming, or the reverse logic that console gaming is cheaper (whichever way someone mght want to look at it), is plain wrong. It's a myth, pure marketing lies that have been and continue being fed to gullible people who don't fact check by both the console market aswell as sadly some PC elitists that consider anything below a CrossFire/SLI system to not be a true gaming PC and entertain themselves by pointing at casuals and bloating their egos.
No, it isn't. The expansion can be downloaded for $40, which is the standard price for expansions.Wow, is this real? The Taken King is $60, same as the base game, and you're effectively buying Destiny AGAIN?
Erm ... no. Just no.
First of all, a PC about as powerful as a console is only marginally more expensive than the console. And PC monitor is the same kind of investment as a TV, or what do you propose to plug a console into to play?
Plus, upgradability is not a necessity, it's a perk. Do you need to upgrade a PC over a period like say a console's lifetime cycle? No. A PC roughly as powerful as a console can play any game that also comes out on consoles, on comparable graphical settings with comparable performance. But if you want more performance, you can upgrade. Which is ultimately not more expensive than say buying a completely new console because a new generation came out.
What do console users have to pay extra for? Well, for one a complete new console once the new generation is out. A PC can be upgraded to fulfill a higher performance need (though in all fairness, the cheaper a PC is, the less options you have to upgrade as in all likelyhood a greater number of components need upgrading to achieve an overall performance boost, which can ultimately come down to the same expenditure as buying a new console if you want to match a performance increase).
Higher prices for individual games. Don't know how it looks over at where you live, but in my region, you pay a flat ten bucks more for a console game compared to its PC version.
You pay for console online features (PS+ and XBox Gold). PC mutliplayer is completely free, no additional fees in top of what you're already paying for your online access. In fact there was a huge uproar when people thought Microsoft wanted PC users to pay for the upcoming Win10 Live service and Microsoft was quick to reassure people that they won't charge anything for PC users. Xbox Gold costs 60 bucks for a year, PS+ is 50 bucks. Assuming an average console lifecycle of five years, we're talking 250-300 bucks a console player pays more than a PC player just for online features. That's a new high end GPU you could buy as upgrade for a PC for example if you wanted to keep up with a console-generation performance leap (not that a GPU comparable to console performance would cost that much, more like 150-200 bucks, so that's another 100 bucks you could invest in another component or plain save up).
And depending how many games you purchase over the time, all those ten bucks extra can likewise add up to a considerable sum.
Let's say you buy four standard pricing games a year over a five year period, plus the console, plus online membership for all five years. That's 400 bucks for the console, 250 bucks for the online member ship and 200 bucks price differential for the games. That's 850 bucks. I am disregarding the cost for a monitor since for one, nearly every household (or at least every wealthy household that would bother to expend the money for stuff like a console) already has a PC and thus monitor, and secondly, you can likewise hook up a PC to a TV display as long as the GPU as a compatible port like HDMI. Now, even deducting 100 bucks for a OS license assuming we're talking about buying a brand new PC, that's still 750 bucks at your disposal just for the rig. I don't think I have to go into detail what sort of PC you can get for that money, so let's suffice it to say that it would be a lot more powerful than a current gen console and would, unless the next generation takes a giant leap in performance, still be powerful enough to play most games well past five years if you're content with dialing the graphical settings down from maximum.
Am I saying that makes PC game better, superiour or cheaper? No. That depends entirely on what any individual person wants to play and how much money they want to invest. A person who can pay for a $3k monster PC likewise wouldn't pinch a penny if he got a console. Someone like that might in fact get a console regardless.
But the idea about PC gaming being more expensive that console gaming, or the reverse logic that console gaming is cheaper (whichever way someone mght want to look at it), is plain wrong. It's a myth, pure marketing lies that have been and continue being fed to gullible people who don't fact check by both the console market aswell as sadly some PC elitists that consider anything below a CrossFire/SLI system to not be a worthy PC and entertain themselves by pointing a casuals and bloating their ego.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
No, it isn't. The expansion can be downloaded for $40, which is the standard price for expansions.
There is a GotY-type physical edition that includes all released content (the game, DLC, and expansion) for $60.
And there is a collector's edition that includes the GotY disc as well as the standard assortment of extra crap for $80.
The section of the interview quoted here is almost entirely about the extra crap, that the interviewer clearly wants but doesn't think he should have to pay for.
Thanks for clearing it up then. That sounds normal if you can simply get the expansion separately. Somehow this conversation got confusing and it sounded like you had to buy the whole game again just to get an expansion.
Although that's kind of pricey for a lone expansion... but that's another point.
A brand new console... once every eight years. Man, that's REALLY a terrible investment! I'm glad low end PCs last that long without needing updates, new OS software and new/replacement accessories.
They actually do if we're talking roughly equal specs and expecting roughly equal performance over that same timeframe. Or do I really have to spell out that a PC whose specs equal console performance, will still have specs equaling the same console's performance, irregardless of how many years pass?
People still own TVs in large numbers, though. And even a low end monitor is going to bump that price tag up at least $100.
Which, as I had noted, can also be hooked up to a PC and used as display in lieu of a monitor.
That's not what I said, though. I said a PC that can play any new game that comes out. Because that's what a console does - it gives you a guarantee that any game that comes out for that console, you can play... one, two, ten years down the road, if the cycle lasts that long. You can't say that about every single PC game that comes out over the next seven years when buying a low-end gaming PC.They actually do if we're talking roughly equal specs and expecting roughly equal performance over that same timeframe. Or do I really have to spell out that a PC whose specs equal console performance, will still have specs equaling the same console's performance, irregardless of how many years pass?
Yes, but at the cost of a more expensive cable. So we're talking more $$$ anyway.Which, as I had noted, can also be hooked up to a PC and used as display in lieu of a monitor.
That's not what I said, though. I said a PC that can play any new game that comes out. Because that's what a console does - it gives you a guarantee that any game that comes out for that console, you can play... one, two, ten years down the road, if the cycle lasts that long. You can't say that about every single PC game that comes out over the next seven years when buying a low-end gaming PC.
[...]
I'm a PC player. I'm not a console fanboy or anything... but I went to console gaming the majority of the lifespan of the 360 for financial reasons alone - it IS cheaper. Not to mention you don't feel like you are sacrificing anything... you may be able to play new PC games on a low end five year old rig with no upgrades, but often on low settings or stuttering frame rates. A five year old console will play to the same quality as a brand new one - there's no quality tiers for those who have the latest and greatest.
As if the latest games still available for the XBox 360 or PS3 are anything but comparable to lowest setting, outdated resolution and 20-30fps.
Sure enough you can get a console'ish priced PC that will do the same, or do you really think that whichever game comes down the road for consoles is actually running on what would compare to maximum settings on a PC version?
The same way more demanding games require more performance to max out, more demanding games will trade-off graphical fidelity to maintain that performance equilibrium on a static system.
So, a now-gen console can run current games with pretty graphics (even though there's still games that are having trouble running on 1080p resolution and/or maintaining stable 60 fps on XBone7PS4), but five years down the road, the same game that now has a recommended spec of say a R9 390/GTX 970 to play at high settings, whilst it may run on a Xbone/PS4 will obviously not have the same graphical fidelity, because lo and behold, those consoles simply don't have that kind of performance.
Just because a game is guaranteed to run on a console doesn't mean it's guaranteed to run great, exactly the same thing as with every PC.
When we come down to it, what a console is is a closed PC system. It has different hardware and different software and the advantage of a closed system making optimizations easier to truly squeeze out every last possible ounce of power, but it doesn't change the fact it#s still limited by its hardware performance the same way a PC is. So anything that matches console performance will perform equally, minus whichever percentage of optimization that wasn't done for this particular system build for the PC version.
So in the end, it's very much the same as at the start of the discussion. A PC offers customization/upgradability and comes with all the functionalities that a PC naturally brings along outside of gaming and media applications, at a higher initial investment point, with lower running costs that trade-off sooner or later in the long run, depending on how intensely you use it.
For a person who only plays singleplayer second-hand games and hence doesn't need to pay for the online services, a console is certainly an efficient investment, no doubt about that.
But for anything more than that, multiplayer experience and purchasing a couple games now and then, a PC is breaking even, potentionally cheaper in the long run and most certainly not significantly more expensive as people make it out to be.
And the above bolded is my central point.
Nevermind that at least Microsoft is trying its best to encroach on the second-hand/game leasing market and if that were to be tolerated, other companies would jump on that train faster than you can say "my poor wallet".
Guest_StreetMagic_*
When we come down to it, what a console is is a closed PC system. It has different hardware and different software and the advantage of a closed system making optimizations easier to truly squeeze out every last possible ounce of power, but it doesn't change the fact it#s still limited by its hardware performance the same way a PC is. So anything that matches console performance will perform equally, minus whichever percentage of optimization that wasn't done for this particular system build for the PC version.
I think the point about optimization can't be stated enough. My experience with DAI (although not limited to that) is a good illustration. I have an i7 laptop with a fairly humble 840m gpu. And tons of RAM. It's still better than my Xbox.. but it can barely run DAI at medium settings smoothly.. and "medium" faces look crappier than my XBone. I don't know the GPU equivalent for the Xbox, but it isn't that impressive.
This is the same with many games... year after year.
In any case, I'm a PC gamer too, but nowadays, just limit it to strat or isometric RPGs. Light stuff. I used to game more on the PC, but I also was more of a tinkerer back then. Now I simply don't give a sh*t. I'd appreciate if people just called me "lazy". Don't psychoanalyze me and guess my financial habits. lol.
Nevermind that at least Microsoft is trying its best to encroach on the second-hand/game leasing market and if that were to be tolerated, other companies would jump on that train faster than you can say "my poor wallet".
I thought it was rather funny when some of my friends talked about going strictly digital on the console this generation. They were very enthusiastic about it despite me telling them that it's going to be far more expensive to do it that way versus buying used physical copies. Needless to say, they don't have many games and the romantic ideas they had about buying digital games that would be cheaper than their physical equivalent soon faded.
I picked up Fallout 3 GOTY, Fallout New Vegas GOTY, and Skyrim GOTY, a couple days ago for $27 on Steam. Microsoft doesn't even offer GOTY editions in a digital format. You have to buy the stock game, which is between $15-$30, and then buy all the DLC on top of that. And the DLC is the same price as when it originally launched.
I think the point about optimization can't be stated enough. My experience with DAI (although not limited to that) is a good illustration. I have an i7 laptop with a fairly humble 840m gpu. And tons of RAM. It's still better than my Xbox.. but it can barely run DAI at medium settings smoothly.. and "medium" faces look crappier than my XBone. I don't know the GPU equivalent for the Xbox, but it isn't that impressive.
This is the same with many games... year after year.
Aye and as painfully as true this is, that is a developer deficit, not a console advantage. Optimization is a very ambigous concept when you're talking about PC gaming because there's a plethora of possible system builds around, so it's impossible to really optimize something unless you start dictating what sort of hardware players are supposed to have and plain not bother to playcheck anything not officially supported (which is the same thing as developing for a closed systemin the end). That's obviously not going to happen and I obviously likewise think it's for the better. But when you look at PC ports like say the very recent Batman: Arkham Knights and you get PCs struggling to maintain playable let alone stable framerates even with PCs that are running GPUs like a GTX Titan X which by itself is three times as expensive as a whole console, then there's genuinely no other reasonable reaction aside from pointing at the people who made the PC port and start booing (or as the case may be, point that finger and booing at whoever decided that would be an acceptable thing to do).
Guest_StreetMagic_*
I thought it was rather funny when some of my friends talked about going strictly digital on the console this generation. They were very enthusiastic about it despite me telling them that it's going to be far more expensive to do it that way versus buying used physical copies. Needless to say, they don't have many games and the romantic ideas they had about buying digital games that would be cheaper than their physical equivalent soon faded.
I picked up Fallout 3 GOTY, Fallout New Vegas GOTY, and Skyrim GOTY, a couple days ago for $27. Microsoft doesn't even offer GOTY editions in a digital format. You have to buy the stock game, which is between $15-$30, and then buy all the DLC on top of that. And the DLC is the same price as when it originally launched.
I do the same thing (buy boxed versions that is). Occasionally there are crazy sales, but not much. Like I got the PS3 Mass Effect trilogy for $5 recently off of PSN.
I do the same thing (buy boxed versions that is). Occasionally there are crazy sales, but not much. Like I got the PS3 Mass Effect trilogy for $5 recently off of PSN.
Does the trilogy come with all the DLC?
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Does the trilogy come with all the DLC?
For ME1 and ME2 yeah. Only ones missing are Pinnacle for ME1, some minor armor DLCs for ME2 and Arrival (but it's fully equipped with Lotsb, Overlord, Kasumi).
For ME1 and ME2 yeah. Only ones missing are Pinnacle for ME1, some minor armor DLCs for ME2 and Arrival (but it's fully equipped with Lotsb, Overlord, Kasumi).
Well, that's not too bad. If you skip Omega in ME3 and buy the other two it's still kinda pricey, but it's better than having to buy all the DLC for all three games.
Sounds like a plan actually.
Instead of attracting gamers in general now, they're going to bank on a core group of suckers.. and exploit their in-game friendships.
I mainly play Destiny because my good online friends do. If it wasn't for them, I would have left. And now If I want to continue to play with them, I'm going to have to fork out 40 more bucks.
But if it interferes with Halo 5, I'm not buying it. Halo 5, then Fallout 4, then Taken King. That's my list.
I still somehow have faith in Bungie, but next update may either make or break it. I await their words and see if they're going to act upon them. HoW was some progess, a small step in the right direction but not enough to save Destiny.
But it was, a glimmer of hope. My advice for those who haven't picked up Destiny, wait for the TTK, watch some reviews and wait for the price to go down, then snag it for a nice cheep price.
And playing the repetitive game doesn't work, since pretty much all FPS games are repetitive.
The verdict on this is, TTK will either save or break Destiny. This is the only way the game will survive the upcoming storm.
I mainly play Destiny because my good online friends do. If it wasn't for them, I would have left. And now If I want to continue to play with them, I'm going to have to fork out 40 more bucks.
But if it interferes with Halo 5, I'm not buying it. Halo 5, then Fallout 4, then Taken King. That's my list.
I still somehow have faith in Bungie, but next update may either make or break it. I await their words and see if they're going to act upon them. HoW was some progess, a small step in the right direction but not enough to save Destiny.
But it was, a glimmer of hope. My advice for those who haven't picked up Destiny, wait for the TTK, watch some reviews and wait for the price to go down, then snag it for a nice cheep price.
And playing the repetitive game doesn't work, since pretty much all FPS games are repetitive.
The verdict on this is, TTK will either save or break Destiny. This is the only way the game will survive the upcoming storm.
So, you let your friends dictate what you do with your money.
I mainly play Destiny because my good online friends do. If it wasn't for them, I would have left. And now If I want to continue to play with them, I'm going to have to fork out 40 more bucks.
But if it interferes with Halo 5, I'm not buying it. Halo 5, then Fallout 4, then Taken King. That's my list.
I still somehow have faith in Bungie, but next update may either make or break it. I await their words and see if they're going to act upon them. HoW was some progess, a small step in the right direction but not enough to save Destiny.
But it was, a glimmer of hope. My advice for those who haven't picked up Destiny, wait for the TTK, watch some reviews and wait for the price to go down, then snag it for a nice cheep price.
And playing the repetitive game doesn't work, since pretty much all FPS games are repetitive.
The verdict on this is, TTK will either save or break Destiny. This is the only way the game will survive the upcoming storm.
Play Halo 5, dont play that crap dude.
Also, I will play the repetitive card, it exactly describes Destiny
My friends are going out bowling tonight. I wouldn't bowl if it wasn't for my friends going, but I go out and pay to bowl anyway.So, you let your friends dictate what you do with your money.
Luke Smith is kind of a douche, and it's well documented,
2:33:56 to 2:59:34.
But he's also one of the reasons Destiny has become a better game over these past 9 months since launch.
Should Deej or someone else have done the interview with EG instead? Yeah, probably.
Does this mean that The Taken King won't be worth buying? No, that's not what people should take away from this bad bit of PR.
Lmao, people are stupid regardless of what system they use. The idea that PC gamers are somehow above it all is hilarious.
These have to be in game currency prices, no way anyone is paying 275 dollars or 12,000 pounds for digital ship or robot in a game, unless you get a physical replica made of gold.
What games are these?
My friends are going out bowling tonight. I wouldn't bowl if it wasn't for my friends going, but I go out and pay to bowl anyway.
OMG YOUR FRIENDS DICTATE YOUR LIFE
Do you spend $40 when you go bowling?
I just don't understand how someone can use their friends as an excuse for buying something that they think is overpriced and hesitant in buying.
These have to be in game currency prices, no way anyone is paying 275 dollars or 12,000 pounds for digital ship or robot in a game, unless you get a physical replica made of gold.
What games are these?
Guess what? Real money.
Guess what? Real money.
What games are these and who is paying these extortionate prices?
With shoe rental, the cost of a few games, some food and some beer? Pretty close. With a date/girlfriend/wife? Definitely.Do you spend $40 when you go bowling?
I just don't understand how someone can use their friends as an excuse for buying something that they think is overpriced and hesitant in buying.
Retour en haut
