[QUOTE="James161324"]

[QUOTE="Starshine_M2A2"] Its hardly a pointless topic if its threatening to end all culture...Starshine_M2A2

No its not the movie idusutry is making billions, music same billions, viedo games are making billions.

The only thing piracy can hurt is the smaller devs, Activision, EA, Sony, Microsoft are not being hurt becuase of piracy.

These topics have got pointless, everything that can be said has been said. I have just been repeating my self of the last 5 or so topics.

You have absolutely no research to back that up. None. First of all, even a producer of a game would have no tangible way to conclude that, as calculating loss from something you never had is... impossible. The best you can do is compare sales projections to actual sales numbers, but even then, if your numbers are low, maybe your game just blows? And that, after all, is a big reason why pirates pirate. It wasn't bothersome fourteen years ago to pay 20-30 bucks for a game, take it home, and it blows. But hey, back then, I could actually do that and get a refund. Now it's all on the consumers head. The retailers won't take it back once opened, and the developers are laughing all the way to the bank. So no, I don't cry tears for either of them.

Should I also point out that pretty much every major pirating group encourages the buying of games? Seems more like a service to me: "here you go, give this a try, risk-free, but if you like it, throw that money to the dev!" Seeing as how game companies don't even bother giving you a demo before trying to swill your money away, I'd say that had it coming.

Next, if you think pirating keeps gaming companies away from PC's, you're a ****ing idiot. Period. They may say that, though usually it's the more ignorant ones claiming that, but none of them mean it. How do I know that? Because consoles are every bit as pirated as PC's. You can go on Craigslist for pretty much any given major city in America and find people that will happily crack your system for a reasonable price, and add a few hundred games for you. So don't tell me that PC gamers are alone in this "evil habit". And what's more, these developers know it. So you can stuff that argument in the trash can, because that's where it goes. There are tons of games that come out for some systems and not others all the time. I'd say the PS3 gets the bulk of the single-system-exclusives, but hey, if they don't want my money that's their problem, I'm not gonna go out and buy a several years old system to rectify the problem.

Last, you can stop your moral crusade to protect the poor broken lives of multi-billion dollar companies. Naivety will not serve you well, and I promise they don't care what either of us think. Smaller developers are the only ones in any real danger of being hurt by this, but oddly enough, I'd say their games are the least pirated of all. Mount and Blade, Killing Floor, etc. are all popular, and I imagine turn a pretty good profit considering how small they are, because they've learned their lesson, and only charge $10-20 bucks for a game. Maybe our friends at EA, Activision, Bioware, etc. could learn something? I'm doubtful.

[QUOTE="KalDurenik"][QUOTE="Starshine_M2A2"] Its hardly a pointless topic if its threatening to end all culture...Starshine_M2A2

Lol. I'm so glad you posted this after just finishing saying that everyone has the right to their own opinion, etc. Way to show off that closedmindedness after all! *thumbs up*

They kinda look like transformers...in disguise. Hopefully more than meets the eyenutcrackr

A, ha, ahaha, ahaha. :)

I enjoyed what little I played of Tribes 2. Had no idea a new one was coming out.

[QUOTE="xLittlekillx"]

Yeah, maybe quality is more important than quantity, but you shouldn't have to settle for one or the other. It's like when people say that personality is more important than looks. Why can't you just find somebody who is both attractive and enjoyable to be around?

Xeros606

Isn't easy? Would you give it a good try for the millions of dollars you'll be raking in as a result? I'd like to think so.

Quality is definitely more important than quantity, but no, we shouldn't have to decide between the two, there should be a good mix of both. And for 50-60 dollars, that quantity should be more than 2-3 hours.

You forgot to mention that even Episodes 1 and 2 for HL2 contained more content than most "full" FPS games do these days.

Bioshock was not tedious at all to me. The environments were fresh and varied, you continually got new guns and powers to play with, and the story was super engaging from start to surprising finish.

Oblivion, Morrowind and other sandbox games manage to provide hundreds of hours of entertainment, so yeah, I'd say the developers that actually try to find a compromise between quality vs quantity rather than just expecting you to be happy with what they give you are the ones that have it right.

P.S. I'm betting Diablo III has at least 30 hours of gameplay for each class. It'll be worthy of my, and your, money. :)

Might be worth a shot when it drops to 20-30 bucks. Like the second poster said, it has a serious, serious lack of content, and the "customization" is pretty weak. Read my review for a more in-depth look. But basically, it's a pretty average game despite the huge hype surrounding it.

[QUOTE="Elann2008"][QUOTE="JangoWuzHere"]

I feel like that was a swipe at DA2:P

JangoWuzHere

Yeah I thought DA2 was a great game, but the recycled enviroments really REALLY hurt the game. Dragon Age is obiously a game that requires a long devlopment cycle. They managed to do well only have a year and a half of development time, but that cannot happen again for DA3...it just can't.

Half an hour of the best gameplay ever is not > 100 hours of average game play. There needs to be a balance. Cod: MW2 and all the other recent FPS games had, quite frankly, notoriously short campaigns, just like you said. Both Half life games, as well as many other FPS games managed to pull out a pretty good length (45 min Half Life time attack accepted... ;)), so I think, yeah, publishers should try a little harder when it comes to SP content, even if they're trying to make the big bucks off the MP features. Doing that keeps people like me from ever buying their games. Which is a shame, because CoD 1-2 were the best WW II games ever made for my money, and then they went and sold out to the MP only side of FPS game development. On that note, though, imo, coop gameplay = single player gameplay, a la Borderlands, Left 4 Dead, etc.

I honestly like games that have no ending. Sure, the story might conclude, but then you're still in the world and you can play as much as you want. I feel that there are so many examples of this done well these days, many of those examples coming from smallish indie devs, that it's hard for me to go back to an 8 hour linear game and feel satisfied.

xLittlekillx

Same here. Mount & Blade, Oblivion, Morrowind, Fallout: New Vegas. These games have endings but it never really seemed to matter. You played to play, not to get to the end. I know that Deus Ex won't be that way from looking at the first two games, but what it lacks in sandbox will be made up in good story telling and solid mechanics. This much I believe.

However, to me, length is a HUGE part of what makes that $50 price tag bearable. I thought home front looked cool at first too, and maybe the campaign is amazing, but to me, $50-60 for a 3 hour campaign is a rip off. Just like Brink's extremely brief campaign wasn't worth the money.

Remember when first person shooters were made with the campaign in mind, then multiplayer either worked with the game or it didn't?

Even the original Unreal Tournament had hours and hours of fun campaign time with bots, then you could LAN party the **** out of it.

I'm, quite frankly, a little offended at the trend of short "appetizer" SP campaigns that clearly steer the herd towards the multiplayer, which is all the devs intended in the first place.

If I want a MP only FPS, I'll go play CS:S. Please give me some campaign time when that's what I pay for.

Looks good.

There's pretty much two camps of people in this group.

Those wise enough to realize that an imcomplete or shoddy game doesn't deserve your money or loyalty no matter how much they try and 'fix it', and those that blindly believe that developers good heart and loyalty to their customers will eventually produce a good game (that should have existed when they gladly took your money, rather than 6 months down the road).

Heard the same crap when AoC came out, and fell on its face. They still had our money, and what did we get? A horribly buggy, horribly optimized, horribly incomplete, horribly designed game. They send me an email from time to time, "free month, come back and join us!". f u.

I understand that developers are people too, but if a car company put out a car that worked as well as AoC did, then they would spend the next ten years in a class action law suit. Take some responsibility for your product, and don't come whining to your ex-consumers that you're trying to fix what should never have been broken in the first place. F2play or not, time is money, and they don't particularly deserve either if they can't manage to release a worthwhile game at launch.

I'm basically posting this because I'm curious, and concerned about the length of upcoming games, particularly Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

Developers have begun to be notoriously bad about fleshing out their creations via the length of the storyline/action/etc. To do so with this game would be particularly awful, considering the fact that the length of the original Deus Ex was part of what made it such a cult classic, and just a damn good game.

Some developers get the need; afterall Bioshock 1/2, DA:O, Cryostasis and a handful of other games were pretty lengthty, but unfortunately they've begun to be the exception that proves the rule, rather than the other way around. Before those, you have to go back quite a few years to things like TES IV: Oblivion and Half Life 2 to find a game with good length.

Does this concern anyone else?