Dark Forces / Jedi Knight bundle came to Steam.

StingingVelvet · Post by **StingingVelvet** » 01 Oct 2009, 19:32

Well considering the 360 is still considered "successful" despite the huge no. of rrods...

They'd have to do something tragic... like console DRM, charge for internet, charge for free mods, and charge developers for releasing patches via their services...

Oh wait....

Hahaha... indeed.

I understand why that console is winning (software sales wise anyway), but MAN... the things Xbox users put up with. That's not a PC gamer elitist rant either, I have a PS3 and am quite satisfied with it, as a console anyway.

MS doesn't really dominate the industry the way Sony and Nintendo did in their day though... they would have to launch another console or the Natal and get a tremendous lead, then release something else during that high. That's when they would REALLY screw up, if history is repeated.

FramerateUK · Post by **FramerateUK** » 02 Oct 2009, 00:06

Not to turn this into a console debate ;), I own a PS3 and a 360 and in practice I don't really prefer one to the other.

I think the 360 controller is more practical for most games, and generally, I find games run a little better on the 360.

I prefer the PS3 shop, and the fact I don't have to pay a subscription to get extra stuff.

That said though, I spend more time on my 360, but that's entirely dependant on what games I'm playing to be honest!

Like a lot of guys here, I'm not an Intel guy, an nVidia guy, an AMD guy, or a Microsoft guy, I just buy what fits best at the time.

I was disappointed when the Dreamcast finally died a death, but I don't think the console landscape is any worst off for it. Actually, the only thing I really miss is different console having entirely different version of games. Like Sonic 2 was completely different on the Mega Drive to the Master System/Game Gear version (I actually preferred the Game Gear one!) Obviously development costs and times are a lot more now, even so, I miss those days!

StingingVelvet · Post by **StingingVelvet** » 02 Oct 2009, 01:35

I'm just against the Xbox 360 because of things like Microsoft points, charges for online play and Microsoft's generally overly dominant style of running things, like forcing companies to charge for add-ons.

The machine itself is fine, other than the reliability, and the games do look and run a little better than on PS3 on average.

I really barely play consoles to begin with, so the PS3 works for me on the minor level I need it to.

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 02 Oct 2009, 11:33

I've got both a PS3 and a 360, and it totally depends on what I'm playing at the time what gets most use. Currently I'm playing Cross Edge, which is PS3 exclusive, so... ;) A couple of months ago I was playing Infinite Undiscovery...

Yes, I tend to play mostly RPGs. ;)

I miss the class of the PS2 RPGs, to be honest. They might not have been as graphically impressive as the PS3/360 ones, but they had a charm all their own.

I've not signed up to XBox Live, though. Both my consoles are offline.

FramerateUK · Post by **FramerateUK** » 02 Oct 2009, 12:06

I've got both a PS3 and a 360, and it totally depends on what I'm playing at the time what gets most use. Currently I'm playing Cross Edge, which is PS3 exclusive, so... ;) A couple of months ago I was playing Infinite Undiscovery...

Yes, I tend to play mostly RPGs. ;)

I miss the class of the PS2 RPGs, to be honest. They might not have been as graphically impressive as the PS3/360 ones, but they had a charm all their own.

I've not signed up to XBox Live, though. Both my consoles are offline.

I'm ashamed to say I signed up to live this week because I really really wanted the Forza 3 demo (and it was for gold members only...what a con). I'll be fully intending to play it online when it's released though so I should get the most out of it.

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 02 Oct 2009, 12:12

Aye?

Thing is, I'm inherently hostile towards electronic devices doing or being able to do things that (in my opinion) they shouldn't have to. Old consoles did fine without internet. Aside from multiplayer, why do the new ones need it? (Oh, yeah, that's right, so patches can be released when they can't get a game working properly on a closed system... what hope do PC gamers have when they have to patch a bloody console game to get it to work?)

There are a few games I'd no mind playing online, but ultimately I know that for every week I play a game, there will be three or four where I don't. And paying for a years subscription to an online service just isn't cost effective for me like that. If I was gonna be on the service every day, OK - but I don't think my 360 has been turned on once in the last month.

StingingVelvet · Post by **StingingVelvet** » 02 Oct 2009, 14:03

I'm ashamed to say I signed up to live this week because I really really wanted the Forza 3 demo (and it was for gold members only...what a con).

That infuriated me when I had a 360. I never play mutliplayer on a console, ever, and thus I had no need for Gold. Then they started punishing people who didn't have it... later demos, later add-ons, lack of features...

The Gold service literally makes me sick. I know why a lot of people pay for it, but to reward a company for doing things like that... makes me angry.

As much as I have played consoles over time, I am still very loyal to the PC. I have gone through phases where I played consoles almost exclusively for weeks because of a new release, like say Final Fantasy X, but I am always thrilled to get back on the PC when I am done.

Guess I'm a fanboy, but I attribute it to mainly growing up with the PC, due to my mother being a PC gamer.

Post by **GeneralAdmission** » 03 Oct 2009, 07:19

but to reward a company for doing things like that... makes me angry.

You know I never took a business ethics class but I often wonder what exactly they teach in those courses. The behavior of some companies certainly wouldn't qualify as ethical IMO.

Guess I'm a fanboy, but I attribute it to mainly growing up with the PC, due to my mother being a PC gamer.

It never occurred to me before, but my mother was also the first to introduce me to computer games. She is not a gamer in any way, but gaming was one of the ways she encouraged me to learn computer technology. My dad--who spent his entire career as a satellite programmer for Lockheed--didn't even own a computer until I pushed him into buying one just a few years ago. Now I'm trying to get him into Tivo or some other DVR since he still runs FOUR VCRs in his house to record all the shows he wants. To his credit, though, he does have an HDTV, Blu-ray player, and Netflix subscription. :lol:

DaFox · Post by **DaFox** » 03 Oct 2009, 09:00

He has an HDTV and he records to VHS? D:

StingingVelvet · Post by **StingingVelvet** » 03 Oct 2009, 09:13

Yeah, I would think once you go HD, a VHS tape would be a little intolerable.

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 03 Oct 2009, 12:36

Unless you've got an HD signal into the house, all you're gonna get on that HDTV is SD stuff anyway. I dunno about in the US, but it's getting harder and harder to find good deals on 'normal' TVs here. They've been all-but displaced by cheap not-quite-HD LCD TVs.

StingingVelvet · Post by **StingingVelvet** » 03 Oct 2009, 17:06

Unless you've got an HD signal into the house, all you're gonna get on that HDTV is SD stuff anyway. I dunno about in the US, but it's getting harder and harder to find good deals on 'normal' TVs here. They've been all-but displaced by cheap not-quite-HD LCD TVs.

I barely use mine for HD content... there isn't much on my local cable provider, and honestly I never really cared enough to see about getting more. My PS3 plays bul-ray, but I never buy them... not a movie guy and DVDs look fine for TV on disc.

I am thinking of switching to iTunes for TV seasons, actually.

DaFox · Post by **DaFox** » 03 Oct 2009, 17:33

Unless you've got an HD signal into the house, all you're gonna get on that HDTV is SD stuff anyway. I dunno about in the US, but it's getting harder and harder to find good deals on 'normal' TVs here. They've been all-but displaced by cheap not-quite-HD LCD TVs.

There is quite a difference between SD content and VHS though.

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 03 Oct 2009, 18:24

As far as I was aware:

NTSC "SD" = 480i
PAL "SD" = 576i

Original VHS recorders were fairly low res below that, but the VHS-HQ and Super VHS versions were better. OK, they're still not 480p/576p, let along 1080p... but an SD broadcast signal won't be a great deal better than a VHS cassette.

Post by **GeneralAdmission** » 04 Oct 2009, 02:20

He has an HDTV and he records to VHS? D:

Yeah, I would think once you go HD, a VHS tape would be a little intolerable.

AFAIK he only receives SD service except for OTA HD channels. Still, it is a rather silly combination. He juggles literally dozens of VHS tapes for recordings and often doesn't get to watch everything before he needs to record a new show. :roll:

FramerateUK · Post by **FramerateUK** » 04 Oct 2009, 18:41

I fully agree that the whole idea of a pay for online service is a little ridiculous.

I guess I basically moved to consoles because I stopped using my PC for a while, and I found it a lot cheaper than constantly upgrading my PC! Also, I quite like playing games in front of my TV.

Getting back into using PC's slowly though!

Post by **The_cranky_hermit** » 04 Oct 2009, 20:15

My biggest XBox 360 gripe by far is popularizing micro-transactions. PC games used to often have downloadable freebies. In consoleland, these same freebies now cost $5 or more, and now they're cutting stuff from their games so it can be sold later as DLC. Or even charging you to unlock stuff that's already on the disc. We've got games where harder difficulty levels, alternate characters, costumes, and good endings are sold separately. There are even games where you can buy experience points and currency. Paid bugfixes aren't far off, methinks.

Post by **GeneralAdmission** » 04 Oct 2009, 22:32

My biggest XBox 360 gripe by far is popularizing micro-transactions. PC games used to often have downloadable freebies. In consoleland, these same freebies now cost $5 or more, and now they're cutting stuff from their games so it can be sold later as DLC. Or even charging you to unlock stuff that's already on the disc. We've got games where harder difficulty levels, alternate characters, costumes, and good endings are sold separately. There are even games where you can buy experience points and currency. Paid bugfixes aren't far off, methinks.

Wow, I didn't realize it had gone that far. If they jerk around their customer base long enough, eventually something will backfire in a big way.

Post by **The_cranky_hermit** » 05 Oct 2009, 04:42

Well, I had hoped Horse Armor would backfire, but the consumer base lapped it up and said "Thank you sir, may I have another."

StingingVelvet · Post by **StingingVelvet** » 05 Oct 2009, 07:25

Well, I had hoped Horse Armor would backfire, but the consumer base lapped it up and said "Thank you sir, may I have another."

I don't mind DLC as a concept. Fallout 3 did it very well, even if the more combat focused ones were lame the general idea of 5 mini-expansions with different themes and locations instead of 1 full expansion worked out well I thought. Other games like Red Alert 3, Red Faction Guerrilla and Grand Theft Auto 4 have done similar things that also worked out well.

As a replacement for expansion packs it has its advantages and disadvantages, but it all kind of evens out in my opinion.

The real problem with DLC is that it is easily abused and the random consumer can't tell the difference between quality expansion conent and being fleeced. The idea that Call of Duty can sell 2-3 million people a map pack of 4 multiplayer maps for $10 is just depressing. The fact EA can sell cheat codes for $5 is depressing.

My problem with DLC has a lot less to do with the concept itself than it does ignorant consumers supporting poor value products, basically. That can be said for almost all aspects of gaming right now though, really.

Widescreen Gaming Forum