"some games are more suited for the intimacy of the PC, and others are best played from the couch in front of a larger TV screen."
Apparently some games are better when you don't ever play them What this says to me is "Our game would be so terrible on the PC that we want to spare you the frustration of playing it."
Guess they didn't want my money after all. Too bad, I was really interested in this title and have been for years.
I am primarily an FPS gamer, so I can't accurately comment on the best studios in other genres. If I were an RTS gamer I'm sure I'd have a similar list.
I'm tired of seeing lower-quality titles hit retail shelves with a $50 price tag and the sound of failure. I'd be willing to try a few of them if the publishers would price them according to their actual value instead of an arbitrary price point...
To buy all the games I want I'd have to spend way more than I comfortably can.
Right now I typically wait until the price drops to $20-30 before I pick any of them up, and I just plain avoid ones that don't look like they're worth the money.
If publishers made their games cheaper they'd have more than enough sales to compensate for the price drop and I'd have more games. It's quite obvious consumers want to pay less for games based on the sale data from Steam. Granted, some of that is the psychological aspect of it being temporarily on sale, but I think the majority of it is people going "Finally! I can afford that" or "That price looks more like what that game is actually worth."
I think only big hitters with proven sales should be in that top price tier, like the games by Infinity Ward, Blizzard, Bungie, Valve, Epic, Crytek, id, and Gearbox. We've already started to see initial price points diversify, so let's hope that keeps up.
I thought this was about the fact that every time you quicksave actually creates a new save file on your hard drive. Most games have a single quicksave slot that is overwritten every time you quicksave. Other games have a set of 3-10 quicksave slots that it cycles through each time you save.
After playing this game for a few days, I have like 3 Gigabytes in quicksave files. The game actually takes about 30 seconds to parse through all my save files when I try to Save/Load through the menu.
PC ... Gah. I'll take it for 360 I guess. Game companies wonder why PC sales are low - maybe it's because they treat all of us - pirates or not - like third-rate customers. Wonder how port-y this game will be on PC, and when it will finally be released. If it's anything like Assassin's Creed turned out to be, I won't be buying it after all.
I spent the money on GOOD, non-ported, well-developed, fun PC games.
What would I LEAST like to face, only armed with fists? Pretty much anything apart from grunts ... but the Gravemind is what I would fear the most.
It's one thing to be blown away in mere seconds by something like the scarab - but another thing entirely to be assimilated as some weird zombie alien ... a zombalien if you will.
Report: Microsoft says Alan Wake skipping PC release
Feb 12th 2010 6:44PM (Joystiq)Apparently some games are better when you don't ever play them
What this says to me is "Our game would be so terrible on the PC that we want to spare you the frustration of playing it."
Guess they didn't want my money after all. Too bad, I was really interested in this title and have been for years.
Dyack: Industry making more games than consumers can handle
Jul 18th 2009 1:32AM (Joystiq)I'm tired of seeing lower-quality titles hit retail shelves with a $50 price tag and the sound of failure. I'd be willing to try a few of them if the publishers would price them according to their actual value instead of an arbitrary price point...
It's so close to price fixing it's not funny.
Dyack: Industry making more games than consumers can handle
Jul 17th 2009 10:47AM (Joystiq)To buy all the games I want I'd have to spend way more than I comfortably can.
Right now I typically wait until the price drops to $20-30 before I pick any of them up, and I just plain avoid ones that don't look like they're worth the money.
If publishers made their games cheaper they'd have more than enough sales to compensate for the price drop and I'd have more games. It's quite obvious consumers want to pay less for games based on the sale data from Steam. Granted, some of that is the psychological aspect of it being temporarily on sale, but I think the majority of it is people going "Finally! I can afford that" or "That price looks more like what that game is actually worth."
I think only big hitters with proven sales should be in that top price tier, like the games by Infinity Ward, Blizzard, Bungie, Valve, Epic, Crytek, id, and Gearbox. We've already started to see initial price points diversify, so let's hope that keeps up.
Rock Band Weekly: A lot of funk n' rock
Mar 13th 2009 11:23PM (Joystiq)Branching Dialogue: Wild file preservation (and other Far Cry 2 stuff)
Nov 12th 2008 10:23PM (Joystiq)After playing this game for a few days, I have like 3 Gigabytes in quicksave files. The game actually takes about 30 seconds to parse through all my save files when I try to Save/Load through the menu.
Joyswag: Win Grand Theft Auto IV on your platform of choice
May 1st 2008 12:03PM (Joystiq)Game companies wonder why PC sales are low - maybe it's because they treat all of us - pirates or not - like third-rate customers. Wonder how port-y this game will be on PC, and when it will finally be released. If it's anything like Assassin's Creed turned out to be, I won't be buying it after all.
I spent the money on GOOD, non-ported, well-developed, fun PC games.
Joyswag: Joystiq's Legendary Halo 3 Giveaway
Sep 25th 2007 4:02PM (Joystiq)It's one thing to be blown away in mere seconds by something like the scarab - but another thing entirely to be assimilated as some weird zombie alien ... a zombalien if you will.
Enter to win a Spectral Tiger Mount from WoW Insider!
Jul 27th 2007 11:13AM (WoW)