I'd hope they don't. As a PC gamer, I've never played red dead so I have no idea how that game is like, plus im not into third person games all that much. The first two COJ games were the only true wild west themed FPS's that I believe I've ever played, and that alone set them apart from the hordes of generic FPS games out there because the setting was new and interesting to me. The storylines weren't half bad and at least had a little heft to them rather than the sub 5 hour affair I got out of mw3 and most fps's recently.
I didn't buy COJ The Cartel simply because of the modern setting and because I won't buy anything that might have ubisoft's DRM, so I don't know how bad that game really was, but if they make a new one that goes back to the roots of the first two, and is guaranteed not to have DRM beyond steam and/or a cd key then I'll buy.
Yet if Real Racing 2 is any indication, you can get truly amazing games for iOS/android that imo are worth $30 or so even though Real Racing 2 only goes for $5. Heck I've seen countless games that go for 99cents or free with a LOT more content than this game out of the box.
There's no excuse for this these days, this isn't the 1990's and people expect alot more than a game that a 10 person dev team could kick out in a few days.
Most PC gamers I know, myself included have sworn off Ubisoft for good, all they do is make people WANT to pirate their games by putting the most obtrusive bullsh*t DRM in their games.
They punish the paying customers and do nothing to stop piracy and they wonder why PC gamers don't buy their games?
I have yet to even play a ubisoft game since I bought AC2 on PC, that's when I said screw it, if this is how they treat legitimate customers, then I'll no longer be one.
If they started banning users for merely playing the game they legitimately purchased at a retailer, there would be quite a backlash. The customer is NOT at fault, the retailer is. Even the consideration is absurd.
Uh, no. It likely costs about $1-2 if not much less to manufacture these chips and cover all costs. Using that excuse is a crock. And there's no way in hell that this game requires such a high cost.
I think what they're doing is testing the market. Game companies do this all the time, remember the first $60 game? Remember when Xbox Live started? People paid the price and now it's permanent, they tried the same thing on PC and that market refused to pay for essentially nothing and now it's free. It's the same thing and they have nothing to lose. If this game sells like crap, it doesn't matter because prices can always be reduced at a later time to spark sales, but if it's successful then they know that they can sell all future games at that price.
It's funny how people complain about the vehicle handling when none of them have ever taken real cars as fast as they have in the game and tried crazy maneuvers at these high speeds, so really they have no idea. The cars weren't super realistic in GTA IV, but they did react generally how a vehicle should, much better than every GTA prior.
Pretty much, the game was never intended to be free to play nor was it intended to have micro transactions, those are things that valve used their already fun and successful game to test and apparently they worked well.
But I do think that a lot of their numbers may be coming from the fact that players do buy the cheapest item they can to unlock the full features of the game and to not be ridiculed by the paying players, features such as the larger backpack, access to trading, etc.
It would tell a much bigger story if valve listed what the sales figures were for each item, or at the least a sales percentage given to each item simply to see how they rank in terms of sales vs the other items. For instance if 90% of the players only bought one of the cheapest item, then we know why.
Well this is good news for me, looks like my netbook exceeds the minimum spec by quite a bit, granted the game engine is probably mostly unchanged since Fallout NV which runs excellent on mid settings on this tiny 10" machine.
I never look at min or recommended specs for my desktop though, and I don't see why so many people seem surprised that their current gen performance DX11 machines with 4-8 cpu cores exceed spec, that should be obvious. It'll be at least 3-4 years before you need to look at min specs, if your PC's hardware is currently up to date.
Heck it looks like gaming computers built back in 2005 are safe to run this game!
I agree, and I've asked several other friends the same question and everyone agrees that San Andreas was the most entertaining GTA game to date, and that GTA IV was a huge step backwards once you get past the better graphics.
The main thing is that being stuck in a huge city gets really boring and repetitive, San Andreas was extremely varied, you had multiple cities, large countrysides, desert landscapes, etc. You could customize vehicles, fly fighter jets, drive quads and offroad baha trucks, scale mountains then parachute off, or hang glide, drive hovercrafts, jetpacks, monster trucks etc... The missions didn't try to be overly serious, and because of that it was just more fun.
I bought the first one on disk when it came out, liked it so much that i bought it again on steam, i also bought two copies of the 2nd stalker, then pre ordered the third on steam and loved it. I absolutely love this series and would without a doubt have bought this game before any other, but if this is how they want to treat their legitimate customers & fans then scew it, I'm not buying it. I've never bought a single game with always on drm and i never will.
And btw, i don't live in a city where the net is rock solid stable and always on, and i game on a gaming laptop, often not connected.
New Call of Juarez game suggested in Ubisoft email survey
Nov 27th 2011 12:16AM (Joystiq)I'd hope they don't. As a PC gamer, I've never played red dead so I have no idea how that game is like, plus im not into third person games all that much. The first two COJ games were the only true wild west themed FPS's that I believe I've ever played, and that alone set them apart from the hordes of generic FPS games out there because the setting was new and interesting to me. The storylines weren't half bad and at least had a little heft to them rather than the sub 5 hour affair I got out of mw3 and most fps's recently.
I didn't buy COJ The Cartel simply because of the modern setting and because I won't buy anything that might have ubisoft's DRM, so I don't know how bad that game really was, but if they make a new one that goes back to the roots of the first two, and is guaranteed not to have DRM beyond steam and/or a cd key then I'll buy.
Report: Ridge Racer Vita includes only three courses and five cars
Nov 24th 2011 10:59PM (Joystiq)Yet if Real Racing 2 is any indication, you can get truly amazing games for iOS/android that imo are worth $30 or so even though Real Racing 2 only goes for $5. Heck I've seen countless games that go for 99cents or free with a LOT more content than this game out of the box.
There's no excuse for this these days, this isn't the 1990's and people expect alot more than a game that a 10 person dev team could kick out in a few days.
I Am Alive not planned for PC due to piracy concerns
Nov 24th 2011 12:38AM (Joystiq)Most PC gamers I know, myself included have sworn off Ubisoft for good, all they do is make people WANT to pirate their games by putting the most obtrusive bullsh*t DRM in their games.
They punish the paying customers and do nothing to stop piracy and they wonder why PC gamers don't buy their games?
I have yet to even play a ubisoft game since I bought AC2 on PC, that's when I said screw it, if this is how they treat legitimate customers, then I'll no longer be one.
PSA: You [probably] won't be banned for playing MW3 early - we think
Nov 6th 2011 7:13PM (Joystiq)Resident Evil: Revelations boasts $50 price, and that's without the Circle Pad
Nov 2nd 2011 1:09AM (Joystiq)Uh, no. It likely costs about $1-2 if not much less to manufacture these chips and cover all costs. Using that excuse is a crock. And there's no way in hell that this game requires such a high cost.
I think what they're doing is testing the market. Game companies do this all the time, remember the first $60 game? Remember when Xbox Live started? People paid the price and now it's permanent, they tried the same thing on PC and that market refused to pay for essentially nothing and now it's free. It's the same thing and they have nothing to lose. If this game sells like crap, it doesn't matter because prices can always be reduced at a later time to spark sales, but if it's successful then they know that they can sell all future games at that price.
Report: GTA V to be set in Los Angeles, will feature multiple playable characters
Oct 26th 2011 3:11AM (Joystiq)It's funny how people complain about the vehicle handling when none of them have ever taken real cars as fast as they have in the game and tried crazy maneuvers at these high speeds, so really they have no idea. The cars weren't super realistic in GTA IV, but they did react generally how a vehicle should, much better than every GTA prior.
Valve has no idea why almost 30 percent of TF2 players spend cash in the game
Oct 26th 2011 2:53AM (Joystiq)Pretty much, the game was never intended to be free to play nor was it intended to have micro transactions, those are things that valve used their already fun and successful game to test and apparently they worked well.
But I do think that a lot of their numbers may be coming from the fact that players do buy the cheapest item they can to unlock the full features of the game and to not be ridiculed by the paying players, features such as the larger backpack, access to trading, etc.
It would tell a much bigger story if valve listed what the sales figures were for each item, or at the least a sales percentage given to each item simply to see how they rank in terms of sales vs the other items. For instance if 90% of the players only bought one of the cheapest item, then we know why.
Skyrim PC system requirements delivered via internet parchment
Oct 26th 2011 2:43AM (Joystiq)Well this is good news for me, looks like my netbook exceeds the minimum spec by quite a bit, granted the game engine is probably mostly unchanged since Fallout NV which runs excellent on mid settings on this tiny 10" machine.
I never look at min or recommended specs for my desktop though, and I don't see why so many people seem surprised that their current gen performance DX11 machines with 4-8 cpu cores exceed spec, that should be obvious. It'll be at least 3-4 years before you need to look at min specs, if your PC's hardware is currently up to date.
Heck it looks like gaming computers built back in 2005 are safe to run this game!
Report: GTA V to be set in Los Angeles, will feature multiple playable characters
Oct 25th 2011 6:01PM (Joystiq)I agree, and I've asked several other friends the same question and everyone agrees that San Andreas was the most entertaining GTA game to date, and that GTA IV was a huge step backwards once you get past the better graphics.
The main thing is that being stuck in a huge city gets really boring and repetitive, San Andreas was extremely varied, you had multiple cities, large countrysides, desert landscapes, etc. You could customize vehicles, fly fighter jets, drive quads and offroad baha trucks, scale mountains then parachute off, or hang glide, drive hovercrafts, jetpacks, monster trucks etc... The missions didn't try to be overly serious, and because of that it was just more fun.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 could have always-on DRM, but it's out of love [update]
Oct 10th 2011 8:28PM (Joystiq)And btw, i don't live in a city where the net is rock solid stable and always on, and i game on a gaming laptop, often not connected.