Not sure which version of Mass Effect you are playing is it 1 or 2 ? If it is Mass Effect 2 then it is a relatively simple matter to do what you requested. If you have finished a playthrough using the character with your preferred face then all you need to do is start a "New Game +" and load that character in. At the main menu of ME 2 select new game and then select "import ME2 character" that will import all the characters features and during the beginning of the game you will be given an option to change the "class" of your character.

Alternatively if you created your Shepard face in ME 2 then you should have what is called a "face code". Load a save game with your preferred Shepard and then pause the game and go to the squad screen. At the top left hand corner you should see a face code similar to this :-

541.DDE.DU6.11U.GBS.H6W.CM7.692.1N6.165.E47.6

Write that face code down and when you start a new game in ME 2 and you come to the face creation stage simple delete the existing face code in the lower left hand corner and type the code in from your preferred Shepard (note this will not work if you have an ME 1 imported Shepard or you are using the default Shepard).

If you are talking about ME 1 then your options are rather limited. About the only thing you can do is do a "New Game +" and select your character. I believe it will give you the ability to change the class without changing anything else.

I agree its a dodgey excuse. I'll go find the Article. But besides that didn't team Bondi confirm that, it will be coming to pc? I rather not go bothering them but i guess it wouldnt hurt to ask. the worse thing they can do is ignore the email right?

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dnews.de%2Fnachrichten%2Fgames%2F392965%2Fla-noire-kommt-demnachst-eine-pc-version.html It wont let me link it :s

Ikuto_Tsukiyomi

That whole interview smacks of "Rockstar thinking up excuses". I particularly loved this part :-

After all, the complex facial animation devour vast amounts of data (Example: For a second disc with complete peace uncompressed need about a gigabyte of storage).website

So one of the reasons it would be difficult to do a PC version is down to the "vast amounts of data used" hm now boys and girls LA Noiire is coming out on the PS3 and the Xbox 360. Now the PC uses the same discs as the Xbox 360 (infact you can store more on the PC's DVD because Microsoft reserve nearly 2gbs for security reasons on Xbox DVD's). Basically put if you can shove the game on Xbox DVD's then you would have no problem shoving the game on PC DVD's. It is just Rockstar thinking up excuses and trying to "save face".

As I said earlier it is best to consider Rockstar "console developers" and assume none of their titles will come to the PC.

Rockstar is primarily a console orientated developer now, in other words if you wish to play Rockstars titles then you would do best to just purchase a console (although god knows which one since Rockstar flip flop between the xbox 360 and the PS3 depending on who writes them the biggest cheque).

If you wait for any of Rockstars titles to appear on the PC then prepare yourself for one hell of a wait. I would have thought the complete lack of any effort in the PC version of GTA 4 would have clued people in, but obviously not.

Amiga gaming might've survived if piracy didn't force developers from the platform. The Amiga used to have the cutting edge games. But, as the PC became more capable, more developers flocked to it including those on the Amiga who left it for the PC.

jun_aka_pekto

There was also the issue of complete incompetence by Commodore International which led to their inevitable collapse. This is the thing about the PC there is no longer one "controlling" company with regards to the PC. It is one of the most open platforms on the planet, if Intel went bust the PC would carry on, if Microsoft went bust the PC would carry on, if Nvidia went bust the PC will carry on etc etc.

As for the TC's question there would still have been PC gaming even if Windows hadn't existed. Basically if MS hadn't done it someone else would've. The PC does not rely on a single corporation. Instead it is a massive melting pot of dozens of companies producing tech for the PC standard. If Microsoft said tomorrow "right we are killing Dx in windows" then the next day another company would step up to the plate and probably produce something better :P .

This is why all those "PC gaming is dying/dead" articles are greated with much mirth from those that understand the PC platform.

These companies really need to stop doing these "platform preference" things. If you are going to release your game on several platforms then treat them the same. If one platform gets a demo they all get a demo, jesus. Ah well we should have seen it coming with Crytek firmly in MS's pocket since they are already doing an Xbox 360 exclusive.

Yes, I know about the royalty fees. The thing is that both users pay 60$ for the same product on release,EzekyleAbadon

That is my point both users DON'T pay the same for the same product, PC gamers are actually paying developers MORE per product now.

Console users pays $50 for the game and $10 to the manufacturer of their console

PC users now pay $60 for the game

taking into consideration the superior capabilities of a PC (modding, graphics etc.).EzekyleAbadon

Is that the superior capabilities because I paid $300 for my graphics card alone ? I already paid for my 1920 x 1080 res @ 60fps with my graphics card hardware. If I had hardware similar to the consoles I would actually get a weaker game because most devs do not optimise the game for the PC platform. As for modding that is hardly "encouraged" by the likes of EA and again that is down to the users and very few of EA's devs support modding it is the users that go out of their way to do it and create their own tools.

There is no need to desire an increase for console games as you are not gaining anything yourself, but other people are getting screwed. What you should do if you find the 60$ pricetag is to skip the game entirely or, even better, wait until the price drops into satisfying levels (Usually in 2-3 months the price is 20-30$), that's what I do at leastEzekyleAbadon

I don't desire any price increase for anyone. However if I am now expected to pay $60 for a game then it is only fair console gamers pay $70 for the game, because they have to pay an additional $10 in royalty fees that I as a PC gamer do not have to pay.

So if console users paid even more that would make you comfortable paying the extra bucks? It's like instead of asking a new car, you are asking for your neighbour's car to break. Why would the others discomfort ease your own pain?

EzekyleAbadon

Console users have to pay nearly $10 per game to their console manufacturer, that is why Sony and Microsoft can launch such powerful machines at such a cheap price (hell Sony was losing over $200 per console at the PS3's launch). So whilst console games are expensive (due to the royalty fee) console gamers see a benefit in that their hardware is "subsidised" by this royalty fee.

PC gamers do not have their hardware subsidised by a royalty fee. We pay the FULL price for our hardware and it is only natural to expect a beneift such as slightly cheaper games than console users due to the fact there is NO ROYALTY FEE on the PC. This isn't about "others discomfort ease my own pain" it is about what is right and proper.

How would you feel if you bought the same car as your neighbour, you paid the full asking price for that car. Howevert the neighbour paid less for his car but had to enter an agreement that he had to buy $60 of petrol every month. You on the other hand only have to pay $50 every month for petrol because you paid the full price for your car. Then all of a sudden you find yourself having to pay the same amount as your neighbour.

Before this price increase on the PC the prices were right, a console user pays $50 for their game and then $10 in the form of a royalty fee to the console manufacturer. The PC user paid $50 for the game and no royalty fee because there isn't one. Now we have a situation where console gamers are paying $50 for the game and $10 for the royalty fee and PC gamers are now paying $60 even though there is no royalty fee.

PC games have always been around 10 bucks cheaper than console games. There is a clear reason for this and that is the console royalty fee, when someone buys a game on a console around $7 - $10 goes to the manufacturer of that console. The PC has no such royalty fee hence the reason PC games have always been around $10 cheaper.

Now if game development costs have increased so much that PC games now need to be $60 then fair enough but that should be applied to console games too. If PC games need to cost $60 then console games need to cost $70. I refuse to pay $60 for a PC game whilst console games are $60. If they raise console games to $70 I would be happy to pay $60 for the PC version.

So this is basically another "I want RDR on the PC give it to me now, now, now, now". I would also be interested to hear where you found that 70% of PC gamers want a port of RDR. Rockstar are a console centric company they feel any time spent on the PC is time that could be better spent milking more money out of the console userbase. In short if you want to play Rockstars games then you might as well invest in a console because that is where Rockstar is concentrating their efforts.

Im pretty sure that it will also work the other way around... remember steam will be on PS3... you unlock the PS3 version if you buy the PC version.... that would make sense

devious742

It won't work the other way round ie buy the PC version and get the PS3 version. The problem is the console licence fee, Sony recieve a $10 royalty fee for every copy produced. So if you buy the PC version for $49 and get the PS3 version (which is usually $59.99) someone has to pay the extra $10 to Sony and I can't see Valve rushing to do that.

The only reason they can give the PC version away free is because there is no royalty fee. So you buy the PS3 version for $59, Sony gets it's 10 bucks royalty fee and Valve gets it's money and chucks a copy of the PC version in for free.

Another thing to note is that the PS3 is NOT GETTING Steam, it is getting STEAMWORKS which is a suite of applications but it is not getting Steam like PC gamers experience it.

I personally don't know what to make of this, it doesn't really affect me since I don't own a console but it's Valve's product and they can do what they like. I just hope they appreciate this is going to kill PC sales of Portal 2. I mean who in their right mind would buy the PC version when you can get the PS3 and PC version for 10 bucks more ?