I really hope Dragon's Dogma turns out OK.
On that note, I wish it were coming to PC...
On that note, I wish it were coming to PC...
I find your comment rather boron.
You know, just in case you weren't already head-over-heels in lust with this game...
By the way, Fallout: New Vegas (PC edition) is $20 new at Gamestop.
Hats off! For Valve is passing by.
The real question is, will the Wii 2 be "two Xbox 360s duct-taped together", or will it be strong enough to hold its own against the next generation of Microsoft and Sony's consoles?
By the way... the Pyro's googly eyes? They remind me of this.
Ok, let's look at things in a bit more detail, shall we?
I got Two Worlds 2 for ~$30, weeks before its (US) release. Shogun 2 is currently available for $34 from the same source. That's savings of $26-$30 for brand new games over the console standard price. Yes, you get discounts on console titles, but almost never to this degree. Even going with the standard $10 cut, though, we're talking huge savings:
Say you buy one new game every two months for the given six-year timespan. That's 36 games, at a savings of $10 per game, for a total of $360 saved on software by going the PC route. Assuming you upgrade your graphics card after three years for $200 (mid-high end, should last for the rest of the console cycle), you're just $40 down, without taking any extra bargains (EG steam Christmas sale on new games) into account.
Then take into account accessories for your console. Microsoft especially is guilty of profiteering on this type of thing. New 250gb hard drive? $130. Extra controller? $50. Wireless adapter? $80. Microsoft makes a tidy profit on their accessories, a profit which must be added to the cost of the system. Equivalent accessories for your PC (again, going by the "new product" prices on Amazon) will run you $53, $13, and $25, respectively.
Now let's talk Xbox Live. A year of Xbox Live gold membership will cost you $40. ($60 when not-discounted, but for the sake of argument...) Six years? $240. That's on top of the price of your 'net connection itself.
And finally, computers are standard-issue for most people. You mentioned you had a mac, so this final point does not apply as strongly to you, but either way: An already-owned PC chops a lot off the price of your new gaming system. You don't have to buy a new case or hard drive most of the time; you may be able to get by with the memory you have; you may not even have to replace your CPU/MB. In fact, if you have a good multipurpose desktop already, getting it gaming-ready may be as simple as buying a new graphics card, and as cheap as $100-200. Do note that in this case your three-year upgrade cost will probably be higher ($400 or so) as the CPU/memory will almost certainly be outdated by that point, and you may well need more hard disk space too.
As always with these things, this is rather YMMV as far as exact prices are concerned. It's not too hard to find a PC gamer spending thousands per year on new hardware and software, or to find a console gamer who spends less than $400 during the entire six-year period. But for your typical user, I can't see how console gaming is more economical than PC gaming, and I'm quite sure the "rat race" of buying new graphics cards to keep up with the games hasn't been a big part of PC gaming for years.
I got Two Worlds 2 for ~$30, weeks before its (US) release. Shogun 2 is currently available for $34 from the same source. That's savings of $26-$30 for brand new games over the console standard price. Yes, you get discounts on console titles, but almost never to this degree. Even going with the standard $10 cut, though, we're talking huge savings:
Say you buy one new game every two months for the given six-year timespan. That's 36 games, at a savings of $10 per game, for a total of $360 saved on software by going the PC route. Assuming you upgrade your graphics card after three years for $200 (mid-high end, should last for the rest of the console cycle), you're just $40 down, without taking any extra bargains (EG steam Christmas sale on new games) into account.
Then take into account accessories for your console. Microsoft especially is guilty of profiteering on this type of thing. New 250gb hard drive? $130. Extra controller? $50. Wireless adapter? $80. Microsoft makes a tidy profit on their accessories, a profit which must be added to the cost of the system. Equivalent accessories for your PC (again, going by the "new product" prices on Amazon) will run you $53, $13, and $25, respectively.
Now let's talk Xbox Live. A year of Xbox Live gold membership will cost you $40. ($60 when not-discounted, but for the sake of argument...) Six years? $240. That's on top of the price of your 'net connection itself.
And finally, computers are standard-issue for most people. You mentioned you had a mac, so this final point does not apply as strongly to you, but either way: An already-owned PC chops a lot off the price of your new gaming system. You don't have to buy a new case or hard drive most of the time; you may be able to get by with the memory you have; you may not even have to replace your CPU/MB. In fact, if you have a good multipurpose desktop already, getting it gaming-ready may be as simple as buying a new graphics card, and as cheap as $100-200. Do note that in this case your three-year upgrade cost will probably be higher ($400 or so) as the CPU/memory will almost certainly be outdated by that point, and you may well need more hard disk space too.
As always with these things, this is rather YMMV as far as exact prices are concerned. It's not too hard to find a PC gamer spending thousands per year on new hardware and software, or to find a console gamer who spends less than $400 during the entire six-year period. But for your typical user, I can't see how console gaming is more economical than PC gaming, and I'm quite sure the "rat race" of buying new graphics cards to keep up with the games hasn't been a big part of PC gaming for years.
The "rat race" died shortly after 2007. That it is still used as an argument displays a remarkable amount of willful ignorance on the part of the users.
The only reason to buy new graphics cards nowadays is if you want to play Shogun 2 or Metro 2033. (games built for the high-end PC audience) Everything else works on pretty much any system you have. Heck, my 2008 midrange laptop still plays new-release games on high detail!
With that said, have you ever taken a look at Steam and Gamer's Gate? The primary areas where PC games offer advantages over consoles are strategy (of course) and indie/middle-market games. And most PC games start at $50 or less. So per-game, you're saving at least $10, and that's before you get into Steam promotions (where you can pick up upwards of ten games you liked for less than the cost of a single new console title).
So in summary, a gaming-capable PC doesn't cost much more than a console (say, $600 for a reasonable one if you build it yourself), lasts for at least three years (more if you upgrade individual components as time goes on), and gives you access to the really cheap games at Gamer's Gate and Steam. I'm sorry, but your "economical" argument holds less water than a shot glass made of sheer linen.
The only reason to buy new graphics cards nowadays is if you want to play Shogun 2 or Metro 2033. (games built for the high-end PC audience) Everything else works on pretty much any system you have. Heck, my 2008 midrange laptop still plays new-release games on high detail!
With that said, have you ever taken a look at Steam and Gamer's Gate? The primary areas where PC games offer advantages over consoles are strategy (of course) and indie/middle-market games. And most PC games start at $50 or less. So per-game, you're saving at least $10, and that's before you get into Steam promotions (where you can pick up upwards of ten games you liked for less than the cost of a single new console title).
So in summary, a gaming-capable PC doesn't cost much more than a console (say, $600 for a reasonable one if you build it yourself), lasts for at least three years (more if you upgrade individual components as time goes on), and gives you access to the really cheap games at Gamer's Gate and Steam. I'm sorry, but your "economical" argument holds less water than a shot glass made of sheer linen.
E.G., another decision driven by the profit-first tieheads at Microsoft/Sony.
No, no you aren't.
...And save the consumer money? No way! How would we put together exclusive yet ultimately frivolous content to convince you to buy even more of our hardware if this were the case? How would we justify charging $10 more for the console versions?
But in all seriousness, this won't happen 'cause the system makers like their royalties. If you were to put together a multiplatform 360/PS3 release, you'd be paying $8 to Sony, $8 to MS, and double the price for the disks. Not to mention the manufacturing overhead involved in releasing a new distribution, just for the minority of customers who have more than one platform and would actively play it on every platform they had.
It's a better idea to do this with digital distribution, EG you buy Portal on PC, you get to download it over the PSN version of Steam as well, and vice versa. Cut out the physical production cost and the whole equation suddenly seems much more reasonable. Now, of course, MS and Sony's Danegeld is another matter entirely, but the digital distribution version is a remote possibility, as opposed to impossible.
But in all seriousness, this won't happen 'cause the system makers like their royalties. If you were to put together a multiplatform 360/PS3 release, you'd be paying $8 to Sony, $8 to MS, and double the price for the disks. Not to mention the manufacturing overhead involved in releasing a new distribution, just for the minority of customers who have more than one platform and would actively play it on every platform they had.
It's a better idea to do this with digital distribution, EG you buy Portal on PC, you get to download it over the PSN version of Steam as well, and vice versa. Cut out the physical production cost and the whole equation suddenly seems much more reasonable. Now, of course, MS and Sony's Danegeld is another matter entirely, but the digital distribution version is a remote possibility, as opposed to impossible.
Sadly, Fox News has some very large blind spots - videogames, for example.
However! I do not believe they are substantially worse than any other big-media corporation; in fact, in terms of political leanings they probably balance out a few of the MSNBC-esque liberal bastions.
So, very simply, the equation goes as follows. Half the country, more or less, is or leans conservative. That half is of the strong opinion that most of the major news sources in the country are liberal in nature. Fox is quite obviously not liberal in nature. Thus, when that half wants to look at news, they look at the one designed for them.
But are they any worse at journalism in general than any other major newspaper? I do not believe so. It is just that their blind spot coincides with our hobby, making it blindingly obvious to us.
Your mental image, of a single news source deliberately misleading half the country into believing stupid things, is deeply flawed. In a general sense, "does not agree with me" does not mean "is ignorant of the facts" - especially on controversial issues for which "the facts" have not been fully decided. ([en.wikipedia.org]
However, on this particular case Fox News is undeniably working against videogames. While this could be a result of catering to a target audience (believing their audience does not like videogames, and so structuring their articles for that audience), it could also be a case of some executive/executives who actively do not like videogames.
And yet, this is no more serious than, say, CNN's doctored images from Iraq; or the Obama-favoring media bias (highlighted by an article from one of these news sources that pointed out the media bias, which was something like 4-1 article count in favor of Obama); or the generally-horrible coverage of the Tea Party. Different people have different blind spots, deliberate or no. It doesn't make them conniving people; it doesn't make them stupid; and it doesn't make them evil. It makes them human.
However! I do not believe they are substantially worse than any other big-media corporation; in fact, in terms of political leanings they probably balance out a few of the MSNBC-esque liberal bastions.
So, very simply, the equation goes as follows. Half the country, more or less, is or leans conservative. That half is of the strong opinion that most of the major news sources in the country are liberal in nature. Fox is quite obviously not liberal in nature. Thus, when that half wants to look at news, they look at the one designed for them.
But are they any worse at journalism in general than any other major newspaper? I do not believe so. It is just that their blind spot coincides with our hobby, making it blindingly obvious to us.
Your mental image, of a single news source deliberately misleading half the country into believing stupid things, is deeply flawed. In a general sense, "does not agree with me" does not mean "is ignorant of the facts" - especially on controversial issues for which "the facts" have not been fully decided. ([en.wikipedia.org]
However, on this particular case Fox News is undeniably working against videogames. While this could be a result of catering to a target audience (believing their audience does not like videogames, and so structuring their articles for that audience), it could also be a case of some executive/executives who actively do not like videogames.
And yet, this is no more serious than, say, CNN's doctored images from Iraq; or the Obama-favoring media bias (highlighted by an article from one of these news sources that pointed out the media bias, which was something like 4-1 article count in favor of Obama); or the generally-horrible coverage of the Tea Party. Different people have different blind spots, deliberate or no. It doesn't make them conniving people; it doesn't make them stupid; and it doesn't make them evil. It makes them human.
...Yeah, Microsoft? This is why Nintendo included a Nunchuck. Please feel free to Do Ye Likewise at your earliest convenience.
I do not believe their claims amount to much.
Why? Because of the chateau-navigation video. It was obviously assembled to fit a specific platforming puzzle sequence, and if there was procedural fire-fueled destruction of the environment - including walls between areas - they didn't show it. It looked scripted - too scripted to be procedural, in my book.
Will the game open up new routes through this chateau if you wait long enough? I doubt it. Do the scenery bits eventually dissipate? Probably. But it's just background. I do not believe the route through the level changes over time, and until something comes out to demonstrate this alteration, I will persist in my lack of belief.
Why? Because of the chateau-navigation video. It was obviously assembled to fit a specific platforming puzzle sequence, and if there was procedural fire-fueled destruction of the environment - including walls between areas - they didn't show it. It looked scripted - too scripted to be procedural, in my book.
Will the game open up new routes through this chateau if you wait long enough? I doubt it. Do the scenery bits eventually dissipate? Probably. But it's just background. I do not believe the route through the level changes over time, and until something comes out to demonstrate this alteration, I will persist in my lack of belief.
What I find amusing is that it's now OVER NINE THOUSAND!!! dollars, apparently legitimately. If those kids end up with ten thousand dollars in extra money, I will be very, very amused.
@Behrditz: Pretty much. Just using mechanical components and the Kinect sensor, though, nothing fancy in the keys.
@Behrditz: I'm not meaning a flat keyboard. I'm talking about, say, clicky magnet-backed keys that you can assemble into whatever configuration you want. Sort of like refrigerator magnets.
So, potential for this includes arrange-your-own keyboards, draw-your-own extra keypads, and really cheap Wii Fit boards.
@Bondage_Zombie: The draw is two-fold (nyuk nyuk nyuk). First, while the main story is nothing to write home about, the sidequests are honestly the most unique, original, and often quite funny stuff I've encountered in ages. Second, the crafting available is the stuff of legends - both item crafting (noncreative, but adds depth to what would otherwise be a Diablo-style item-crawler), and magic crafting (which is brilliant fun).
As a bonus, it looks quite pretty and runs astonishingly well for its looks.
As a bonus, it looks quite pretty and runs astonishingly well for its looks.