Thank you MASS EFFECT 3 !!!

Youre dodging the question or just dont understand it. Hes asking why the price would go up when its on the same engine not why are they using the same engine.

The character import issue would be an insignificant reason compared to all the other reasons for not using a new engine.

Cranler

Ok so you're saying that game developers should use new engines for every sequel they are releasing? For instance, you want ME1 to be in UE3, ME2 in CryEngine3 and ME3 in what..Gamebryo? How would that even work? What BioWare is doing right now, making updates to the Unreal Engine 3 with every new sequel, is the most logical approach.

The reason the price was hiked may or may not be inflation. Like you said, the console prices still remain the same. What I think, is that EA is just trying to imitate Activision-Blizzard and Ubisoft's PC policies. Why charge 50 when you can charge 60? That's what I think anyway.

[QUOTE="Cranler"]Youre dodging the question or just dont understand it. Hes asking why the price would go up when its on the same engine not why are they using the same engine.

The character import issue would be an insignificant reason compared to all the other reasons for not using a new engine.

ralph2190

Ok so you're saying that game developers should use new engines for every sequel they are releasing? For instance, you want ME1 to be in UE3, ME2 in CryEngine3 and ME3 in what..Gamebryo? How would that even work? What BioWare is doing right now, making updates to the Unreal Engine 3 with every new sequel, is the most logical approach.

The reason the price was hiked may or may not be inflation. Like you said, the console prices still remain the same. What I think, is that EA is just trying to imitate Activision-Blizzard and Ubisoft's PC policies. Why charge 50 when you can charge 60? That's what I think anyway.

And that is inflation....(a type of it anyway)FelipeInside

Yeah..god knows why they are doing this to us. I hope the price atleast comes down a bit between now and release, just like with DA2.

[QUOTE="charmingcharlie"]

I didn't even realise there was any concern about the PC version being released at the same time as the console versions ? Mass Effect 2 saw a simultaneous release on the 360/PC so I don't see why it would be any different for Mass Effect 3 but always nice to get confirmation I guess.

FelipeInside

[QUOTE="ralph2190"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]Youre dodging the question or just dont understand it. Hes asking why the price would go up when its on the same engine not why are they using the same engine.

The character import issue would be an insignificant reason compared to all the other reasons for not using a new engine.

FelipeInside

Ok so you're saying that game developers should use new engines for every sequel they are releasing? For instance, you want ME1 to be in UE3, ME2 in CryEngine3 and ME3 in what..Gamebryo? How would that even work? What BioWare is doing right now, making updates to the Unreal Engine 3 with every new sequel, is the most logical approach.

The reason the price was hiked may or may not be inflation. Like you said, the console prices still remain the same. What I think, is that EA is just trying to imitate Activision-Blizzard and Ubisoft's PC policies. Why charge 50 when you can charge 60? That's what I think anyway.

It's called greed. That's why I fight it whenever possible. When you charge something just because you can, that's wrong in my book.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="ralph2190"]

Ok so you're saying that game developers should use new engines for every sequel they are releasing? For instance, you want ME1 to be in UE3, ME2 in CryEngine3 and ME3 in what..Gamebryo? How would that even work? What BioWare is doing right now, making updates to the Unreal Engine 3 with every new sequel, is the most logical approach.

The reason the price was hiked may or may not be inflation. Like you said, the console prices still remain the same. What I think, is that EA is just trying to imitate Activision-Blizzard and Ubisoft's PC policies. Why charge 50 when you can charge 60? That's what I think anyway.

hartsickdiscipl

It's called greed. That's why I fight it whenever possible. When you charge something just because you can, that's wrong in my book.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] And that is inflation....(a type of it anyway)FelipeInside

It's called greed. That's why I fight it whenever possible. When you charge something just because you can, that's wrong in my book.

Hey, like I said earlier.. I'll find the game on Amazon for less than $50 w/free shipping within a couple weeks of it's release anyways. :) I've been getting most of my games from there for between $1.50 and $18 lately. Saving tons of money.

[QUOTE="Cranler"] Youre dodging the question or just dont understand it. Hes asking why the price would go up when its on the same engine not why are they using the same engine.

The character import issue would be an insignificant reason compared to all the other reasons for not using a new engine.

Took the words out of my brain and beat me to typing them.

[QUOTE="Cranler"]Youre dodging the question or just dont understand it. Hes asking why the price would go up when its on the same engine not why are they using the same engine.

The character import issue would be an insignificant reason compared to all the other reasons for not using a new engine.

Ok so you're saying that game developers should use new engines for every sequel they are releasing? For instance, you want ME1 to be in UE3, ME2 in CryEngine3 and ME3 in what..Gamebryo? How would that even work? What BioWare is doing right now, making updates to the Unreal Engine 3 with every new sequel, is the most logical approach.

The reason the price was hiked may or may not be inflation. Like you said, the console prices still remain the same. What I think, is that EA is just trying to imitate Activision-Blizzard and Ubisoft's PC policies. Why charge 50 when you can charge 60? That's what I think anyway.

The character import issue would be an insignificant reason compared to all the other reasons for not using a new engine.

Cranler

You were saying that the ability to safely import a character from one sequel to the next is not a good enough reason to reuse the engine, and you wonder why they don't use a "new engine" since they are charging us more.

Also the three engines were just off the top of my head, and I was just giving an example. (Of course Cryengine >> Gamebryo)

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

The character import issue would be an insignificant reason compared to all the other reasons for not using a new engine.

ralph2190

You were saying that the ability to safely import a character from one sequel to the next is not a good enough reason to reuse the engine, and you wonder why they don't use a "new engine" since they are charging us more.

Also the three engines were just off the top of my head, and I was just giving an example. (Of course Cryengine >> Gamebryo)

The point wasn't that we want them to use a new engine for ME3. The point is that they don't have a good excuse to charge more for the PC version of the game.

[QUOTE="ralph2190"]

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

The character import issue would be an insignificant reason compared to all the other reasons for not using a new engine.

hartsickdiscipl

You were saying that the ability to safely import a character from one sequel to the next is not a good enough reason to reuse the engine, and you wonder why they don't use a "new engine" since they are charging us more.

Also the three engines were just off the top of my head, and I was just giving an example. (Of course Cryengine >> Gamebryo)

The point wasn't that we want them to use a new engine for ME3. The point is that they don't have a good excuse to charge more for the PC version of the game.

Now I am wondering....does the PC version actually take LONGER and cost MORE to program than the console versions....?FelipeInside

There is no way on this earth developing is more expensive on the PC than it is on the console. The console platform has so many "hidden" costs for developers it isn't even funny. Firstly there is the extremely high price of console developer kits, then there are the costs of extra man power to get your game to actually work on the outdated tech, then there are the certificaion costs that all games have to go through. Finally the biggest cost difference is the console royalty fee which is around $7 - $10 per copy.

Now couple that with the fact publishers actually make more money from the sale of a PC copy (DD has lower costs for distribution and sale). I believe one developer said retail usually gives them about 40% of the sale price, but DD gives them 70% of the sale price revenue wise. There is no need for specialised developer kits, no certification costs and there is no royalty fee on the PC. There is absolutely no way that the PC costs more to develop for than the console.

Publishers are charging console level prices for PC games because they can not because they need to.

It is scary how much praise pc gamers give the Mass Effect series. To me this is an indication that pc gamers as a whole are lowering their standards and have become more accepting of the console gaming "less is more" theory. Not that I am saying these games suck, actually I enjoyed them. But the amount of praise for ME2 and hype for ME3 here has become unreal.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]Now I am wondering....does the PC version actually take LONGER and cost MORE to program than the console versions....?charmingcharlie

There is no way on this earth developing is more expensive on the PC than it is on the console. The console platform has so many "hidden" costs for developers it isn't even funny. Firstly there is the extremely high price of console developer kits, then there are the costs of extra man power to get your game to actually work on the outdated tech, then there are the certificaion costs that all games have to go through. Finally the biggest cost difference is the console royalty fee which is around $7 - $10 per copy.

Now couple that with the fact publishers actually make more money from the sale of a PC copy (DD has lower costs for distribution and sale). I believe one developer said retail usually gives them about 40% of the sale price, but DD gives them 70% of the sale price revenue wise. There is no need for specialised developer kits, no certification costs and there is no royalty fee on the PC. There is absolutely no way that the PC costs more to develop for than the console.

Publishers are charging console level prices for PC games because they can not because they need to.

[QUOTE="charmingcharlie"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]Now I am wondering....does the PC version actually take LONGER and cost MORE to program than the console versions....?FelipeInside

There is no way on this earth developing is more expensive on the PC than it is on the console. The console platform has so many "hidden" costs for developers it isn't even funny. Firstly there is the extremely high price of console developer kits, then there are the costs of extra man power to get your game to actually work on the outdated tech, then there are the certificaion costs that all games have to go through. Finally the biggest cost difference is the console royalty fee which is around $7 - $10 per copy.

Now couple that with the fact publishers actually make more money from the sale of a PC copy (DD has lower costs for distribution and sale). I believe one developer said retail usually gives them about 40% of the sale price, but DD gives them 70% of the sale price revenue wise. There is no need for specialised developer kits, no certification costs and there is no royalty fee on the PC. There is absolutely no way that the PC costs more to develop for than the console.

Publishers are charging console level prices for PC games because they can not because they need to.

The average gaming pc today is probably twice as powerful as the average gaming pc when the 360 released. Have you noticed that pc game reqs have been going up but the graphics not improving? ME1 minimum req was p4 2.4 and ME 2 is a core 2 duo. Looks to me like Bioware is spending less time optimizing and instead requiring better hardware. Same with COD when you compare the reqs of BO to MW2.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="charmingcharlie"]

There is no way on this earth developing is more expensive on the PC than it is on the console. The console platform has so many "hidden" costs for developers it isn't even funny. Firstly there is the extremely high price of console developer kits, then there are the costs of extra man power to get your game to actually work on the outdated tech, then there are the certificaion costs that all games have to go through. Finally the biggest cost difference is the console royalty fee which is around $7 - $10 per copy.

Now couple that with the fact publishers actually make more money from the sale of a PC copy (DD has lower costs for distribution and sale). I believe one developer said retail usually gives them about 40% of the sale price, but DD gives them 70% of the sale price revenue wise. There is no need for specialised developer kits, no certification costs and there is no royalty fee on the PC. There is absolutely no way that the PC costs more to develop for than the console.

Publishers are charging console level prices for PC games because they can not because they need to.

Cranler

The average gaming pc today is probably twice as powerful as the average gaming pc when the 360 released. Have you noticed that pc game reqs have been going up but the graphics not improving? ME1 minimum req was p4 2.4 and ME 2 is a core 2 duo. Looks to me like Bioware is spending less time optimizing and instead requiring better hardware. Same with COD when you compare the reqs of BO to MW2.

This is so true when it comes to cross-platform games and console ports to PC. It's absolute BS... There's no reason for it. And then to think that they would have the nerve to start charging gamers more for the unoptimized games.. WTH.

So you guys are saying that there is absolutely no graphic difference between, let's say, MW2 and Black Ops...? Or ME1 and ME2....?FelipeInside

[QUOTE="Cranler"]

The character import issue would be an insignificant reason compared to all the other reasons for not using a new engine.

You were saying that the ability to safely import a character from one sequel to the next is not a good enough reason to reuse the engine, and you wonder why they don't use a "new engine" since they are charging us more.

Also the three engines were just off the top of my head, and I was just giving an example. (Of course Cryengine >> Gamebryo)

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]So you guys are saying that there is absolutely no graphic difference between, let's say, MW2 and Black Ops...? Or ME1 and ME2....?Cranler

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="FelipeInside"]So you guys are saying that there is absolutely no graphic difference between, let's say, MW2 and Black Ops...? Or ME1 and ME2....?FelipeInside

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

If there's no viable reason for the price hikes, I might have to go with yes.

hartsickdiscipl

Can you give me a few good reasons why a Mass Effect 3 game using the same game engine as the first 2 games should cost $10 more on the PC platform? The only real reason why inflation exists is human greed.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="Cranler"] Me 2 is slightly better which makes the move from 7900gtx to 8800gt not completely suspect (though keep in mind the 8800 is about twice as fast as the 7900) but how do you explain the change in minimum cpu req? I personally found the graphics in MW 2 better than BO. Even if the graphics are slightly better in BO, is the change in minimum gpu from 6600 to 8600 really justified? why the drastic change in cpu req? Cranler