Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Bioshock DLC available

1235»

Posts

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Lunker wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    The problem is that they're not adding a new feature to entice people to upgrade to Gold accounts, they're taking away a feature to try to coerce people to upgrading. The strategy reeks almost as bad as Sony's removing the backwards compatibility in the latest model of the PS3 to try to force people to buy more PS3 games.

    There are plenty of people who prefer single player and local multiplayer games. Penalizing them because they don't want to spend $50/year for the ability to play online, a feature they wouldn't use much, if at all, does not create happy customers.

    It is NOT about making Silver members want to upgrade.

    It IS about making people who are ALREADY Gold members feel like they are getting their money's worth.

    Well, you have to admit that the former is a nice side effect from the latter.

    I think the main problem is that this is the first real instance of DLC being a timed exclusive to Gold members. If I'm understanding the critics correctly, if this had been the policy from the get-go -- like, Kameo and PGR3 DLC had been made available to Gold members a week early at launch, and everyone understood that this was a perk for Gold subscribers -- would you not be as upset? I haven't looked for it yet, but I'd wager language along these lines is somewhere in the TOS when you sign up for a Live Silver account.

    I'm not sure exactly where I stand on the issue, but it's a shame that BioShock discussion once again gets derailed from the game to talk about technical matters (find/replace "DLC" with "widescreen FOV"). :(

    To be fair, while this IS the first instance of Gold members getting something earlier, OXM often has times exclusivity of Demos on their discs, and sometimes even free DLC that others have to pay for over Live (Oblivion is the one example I can think of.)

    There at least is some kind of precedent there.

    georgersig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Maddoc wrote: »
    Maddoc wrote: »
    To move away from the gold/silver nit picking:

    If I haven't gotten the "Tonic Collector" achievement yet, are the new ones going to be required, or no?

    Actually, if you check you'll find that they reworded that achievement. You now need 53 Tonics instead of 'every' tonic. Because the new Tonics are super cheap, this now actually makes it easier to get that achievement, unless the new ones just don't count at all or something.

    That was always the wording, pretty sure.

    Huh, thought it specified every one. Either way, if the number hasn't changed (and a quick look around suggests that it hasn't), then it's still easier due to the cost of the new tonics. The ones I've seen in-game so far only cost 1 Adam.

    New plasmid DLC has ALWAYS been planned. If you listen to the developer podcasts that were being put out prior to, and immediately after, the game's release, they talk about plasmids that they had in developement, but couldn't implement quite right, and had to pull from the game before they shipped it. They state explicitly thatthey intend to perfect those plasmids and put them up for download later.

    The one that I remember them mentioning is the teleport plasmid (like the Houdnini splicers do.) Can anyone who tried out the new plasmids tell me whether or not that one was inthis pack?

    georgersig.jpg
  • LotharsLothars Registered User
    edited December 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    The one that I remember them mentioning is the teleport plasmid (like the Houdnini splicers do.) Can anyone who tried out the new plasmids tell me whether or not that one was inthis pack?

    It's not, they have two plasmids that do more damage to machines and two that make it cheaper to buy from the vending machine than another one that makes you use less eve when using plasmids

    There is also Sonic Boom 1 and 2 that came with this pack, so i believe it's between 6 and 7 plasmids in general you get.

  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited December 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    The problem is that they're not adding a new feature to entice people to upgrade to Gold accounts, they're taking away a feature to try to coerce people to upgrading. The strategy reeks almost as bad as Sony's removing the backwards compatibility in the latest model of the PS3 to try to force people to buy more PS3 games.

    There are plenty of people who prefer single player and local multiplayer games. Penalizing them because they don't want to spend $50/year for the ability to play online, a feature they wouldn't use much, if at all, does not create happy customers.

    It is NOT about making Silver members want to upgrade.

    It IS about making people who are ALREADY Gold members feel like they are getting their money's worth.

    Kinda

    It IS about taking content that has been established as having a equal platform and REDUCING it's availability, if only temporarily, to increase the PERCEIVED worth of that that membership.

    It's akin to Yahoo Mail deciding to make it's free accounts wait 60 seconds before starting a search on your inbox. Saying it's ok (which, I note, you didn't) because it makes the Yahoo Mail Premium users feel they are getting more 'worth' is silly.

    It's going back and butchering one product to make another seem better value.

    Admittedly there is room for different buisness models, but you need to be consistent. For instance you could have a system where Gold and Silver users both get to play over the web, but Gold users get new content two weeks infront of the Silver crowd. or you could just make the price of the initial purchase cover it - but by keeping content off the disk they get to resell it to people who buy second hand. Which of course is the main reason why downloadable content exists.

  • RainbowDespairRainbowDespair Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I don't remember anyone complaining when Lumines Live released the Genki Rocket packs free to Gold members and made Silver members wait a month and ended up charging them $1-$2 a piece. The difference there is that those felt like legitimate bonuses. Now the update to Bioshock would have felt like a legitimate bonus if not for the fact that the PC update came out the same time and was completely free. As it is, it feels like coercision to try to get Silver members who don't particularly need Gold to upgrade.

    All I know is that this wait 1 week until you get free stuff includes XBLA demos, Microsoft is going to be getting a lot less of my money. Not out of spite, but because I'm going to be making a lot less spur-of-the-moment purchases if I have to wait a week before trying out XBLA games. Plus by the time I can try out last week's game, I'll already know what the current week's game is so I may end up buying that instead.

  • darleysamdarleysam Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    It's getting way off the intended topic, but on this kind of thig, if by breaking up the distribution like this it means that there's no big slump in performance when a highly-anticipated demo is released, then I'm happy. When the likes of the skate demo went up, and everyone jumped on it and things ground to a halt, it was frustrating. If this keeps speeds up, then it'll be good. Assuming they do that to demos too.
    Oh how people will riot..

  • NorayNoray Registered User
    edited December 2007
    Man. Big Daddies are a fucking bitch on Hard. Any tips and/or tricks for dealing with them? I usually get reamed, but with lots of preparation/ammo/health and cheap tricks I've managed to kill 3.

  • AccualtAccualt Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    This isn't the first time. Gold members have been getting earlier access to various things (usually demos and free themes) pretty much since the 360 went live. Hell with the original Xbox you had to be a Live member to even download purchasable content.
    Lave II wrote:
    From my experience of the last week with Live, I find it shocking that all the games I've played so far have had to been patched before play, and that the primary defining quality of the 360 is used to create additional revenue.

    Why is this shocking? It is better than last generation when bugs never got fixed. Silver and Gold get equal, same day access to title updates.
    Lave II wrote:
    I'm shocked and appalled that if I buy a Gold account for my Gamertag (Skeptobot) then that Gold status doesn't apply to my GF's account. So they want my house of 2 to pay £80 a year for the online stuff we occasionally want to play - and people say this is better than friendcodes. And they sell jpegs for cash and you could argue adverts for cash. Rather than being able to extend the appeal of the 360's online, it becomes a service too expensive to experiment with.

    Every 360 game with multiplayer on a single Xbox that lets you go online I've ever played allows you to log in with one gold account and the rest as guests. You don't have to have two gold accounts.
    And while paying for themes and gamer pics is dumb it isn't any different than vanity license plate holders or sports stickers. People pay for the privilege to customize and show off whatever it is they like. As dumb as I think it is I spent the $1 it took to get my Soundwave gamer pic (came with some other Decepticons but, really, Soundwave is the only one that matters). There are a lot of free themes and gamer pics to, uh, experiment with. They put up free TV episodes and movies from time to time as well along with all of the free behind the scenes and trailer stuff for various games.

    Lave II wrote:
    I fucking loathe the PS3 and Sony at the minute, but their online is leagues ahead of the, clearly better, but fundamentally flawed 360 version.

    I sort of agree. I think the service could be kept alive easily enough off of the profit from DLC but I doubt we'd see as much free content that way.

    Lave II wrote:
    They've raised the RRP by £10 for fake production costs, hell, they should raise it another £3 and make Gold standard.

    "Next gen" games cost a significant amount more to make than the last generation. The price jump was largely warranted...except for things like Gun. It really does take a bunch of extra man hours to create things like Halo 3 compared to Halo 1.

    Lave II wrote:
    Unfortunately the market takes what the geeks will bare, and we (and soon to be only you) bare it.

    The idea, of withholding content to encourage upgrades is purely something that makes subscribers feel better of their choice by increasing the perceived feelings of worth. It makes Silver members feel neglected and shunned, and crucially it makes new users not want to experiment with the service.

    I don't think it discourages most new users to "experiment" with the service. I think it is rather dumb to hold back demos and other advertisements from silver accounts for a week, as has been done in the past, but holding back free content downloads? That I am more understanding of. The content has to be paid for somehow, heck even if the developers gives it to MS for free they still need to cover bandwidth and pay some guy who probably makes too much money to upload it.

    I think MS is overly greedy with some of their DLC moves (Halo 3 map pack for one) but I don't find it anywhere near as bad as you do. I remember how god awful PS2 online was and know how deplorable the Wii's is so I don't mind paying the $4 a month. Now next generation I'm probably not going to be so willing to pay for Live, especially if Sony/Nintendo have a comparable service.

  • LunkerLunker Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    A_ccualt wrote: »
    Lave II wrote:
    I'm shocked and appalled that if I buy a Gold account for my Gamertag (Skeptobot) then that Gold status doesn't apply to my GF's account. So they want my house of 2 to pay £80 a year for the online stuff we occasionally want to play - and people say this is better than friendcodes. And they sell jpegs for cash and you could argue adverts for cash. Rather than being able to extend the appeal of the 360's online, it becomes a service too expensive to experiment with.

    Every 360 game with multiplayer on a single Xbox that lets you go online I've ever played allows you to log in with one gold account and the rest as guests. You don't have to have two gold accounts.

    As I understand it, coming on as a guest is fine but you can't attach a Silver account to ride on a Gold account's multiplayer. So if Lave's GF has a Silver account with achievements and such, she can't hop on for multiplayer; she can play as a guest on his Gold account, but it won't keep track of stats and all that. That is one point that's absurd; I think 2-4 people all playing on one machine should all be allowed to go online with their own profiles so long as one of them is a Gold member.

    Ultimately it's a matter of consistency, I guess. The only other thing I can remember being withheld for a while from Silver members was the Gears of War "Mad World" teaser. That seemed an even stranger piece of info to withhold from Silver members, as it was purely marketing.

    Tweet my Face: @heyitslunker | Save money at CheapAssGamer (not an affiliate link)
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    A_ccualt wrote: »
    Lave II wrote:
    They've raised the RRP by £10 for fake production costs, hell, they should raise it another £3 and make Gold standard.

    "Next gen" games cost a significant amount more to make than the last generation. The price jump was largely warranted...except for things like Gun. It really does take a bunch of extra man hours to create things like Halo 3 compared to Halo 1.

    Most of your arguments I'm fine with. I disagree at a personal level, but it's all opinion at that point, and to each their own. This, however, I'm going to have to dispute. How many times have you seen this:

    X360 Price: $59.99
    PC Price: $49.99

    Now, the 360 is set hardware. If you write the game for that hardware, it should run on any other 360. The PC, however, you have to write and test for a wide array of hardware. This presumably means that development and testing costs are higher for the PC version. And yet...?

    Both Bioshock and The Orange Box are priced as above. I'm curious as to why it's $10 more on the Console.

    Steam: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | NNID: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
  • OrogogusOrogogus San DiegoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Houn wrote: »
    A_ccualt wrote: »
    Lave II wrote:
    They've raised the RRP by £10 for fake production costs, hell, they should raise it another £3 and make Gold standard.

    "Next gen" games cost a significant amount more to make than the last generation. The price jump was largely warranted...except for things like Gun. It really does take a bunch of extra man hours to create things like Halo 3 compared to Halo 1.

    Most of your arguments I'm fine with. I disagree at a personal level, but it's all opinion at that point, and to each their own. This, however, I'm going to have to dispute. How many times have you seen this:

    X360 Price: $59.99
    PC Price: $49.99

    Now, the 360 is set hardware. If you write the game for that hardware, it should run on any other 360. The PC, however, you have to write and test for a wide array of hardware. This presumably means that development and testing costs are higher for the PC version. And yet...?

    Both Bioshock and The Orange Box are priced as above. I'm curious as to why it's $10 more on the Console.

    My understanding is that you don't have to pay any licensing fees to develop games for the PC.

  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited December 2007
    A_ccualt wrote: »
    This isn't the first time. Gold members have been getting earlier access to various things (usually demos and free themes) pretty much since the 360 went live. Hell with the original Xbox you had to be a Live member to even download purchasable content.
    Lave II wrote:
    From my experience of the last week with Live, I find it shocking that all the games I've played so far have had to been patched before play, and that the primary defining quality of the 360 is used to create additional revenue.

    Why is this shocking? It is better than last generation when bugs never got fixed. Silver and Gold get equal, same day access to title updates.
    If I take all my Gamecube and Xbox games together. Numbering over 50 I would guess. Only one has a game breaking bug. PoP:WW. And I've noticed no real bugs in the others. But all my games so far have needed updating. The ability to patch leads to laziness. As I'm not an early adopter it doesn't bother me. But it would bug me if I didn't have web access.
    A_ccualt wrote:
    Lave II wrote:
    I'm shocked and appalled that if I buy a Gold account for my Gamertag (Skeptobot) then that Gold status doesn't apply to my GF's account. So they want my house of 2 to pay £80 a year for the online stuff we occasionally want to play - and people say this is better than friendcodes. And they sell jpegs for cash and you could argue adverts for cash. Rather than being able to extend the appeal of the 360's online, it becomes a service too expensive to experiment with.

    Every 360 game with multiplayer on a single Xbox that lets you go online I've ever played allows you to log in with one gold account and the rest as guests. You don't have to have two gold accounts.
    This is irrellvant. I didn't pay £40 for most of my house to be guests. For my Girlfriend to be a Guest. Take CoD4 for example to record my experience as I progress (as I understand it does), or for Halo to record stuff and so on I need to use my Gamercard. To have the "full experience" a household of 3 users would need to spend £120. A year. That's outrageous. A fob off with guest accounts goes against the whole point. And it reiterates the entire notion that the 360 is aimed towards insular, lonely geeks. Something they surely would want to push against.
    A_ccualt wrote:

    And while paying for themes and gamer pics is dumb it isn't any different than vanity license plate holders or sports stickers. People pay for the privilege to customize and show off whatever it is they like. As dumb as I think it is I spent the $1 it took to get my Soundwave gamer pic (came with some other Decepticons but, really, Soundwave is the only one that matters). There are a lot of free themes and gamer pics to, uh, experiment with. They put up free TV episodes and movies from time to time as well along with all of the free behind the scenes and trailer stuff for various games.
    I can't disagree with this. It's stupid. But then people pay £3/$6 for 30 sec mp3 clips of a song for their phone. So it makes sense.
    A_ccualt wrote:
    Lave II wrote:
    I fucking loathe the PS3 and Sony at the minute, but their online is leagues ahead of the, clearly better, but fundamentally flawed 360 version.

    I sort of agree. I think the service could be kept alive easily enough off of the profit from DLC but I doubt we'd see as much free content that way.
    I don't think we would lose out particulary, remember most of the free content, whilst splendid, is technically an advert. And the remainder could be bought for less than the £40/$80 spent on the subscription.
    A_ccualt wrote:
    Lave II wrote:
    They've raised the RRP by £10 for fake production costs, hell, they should raise it another £3 and make Gold standard.

    "Next gen" games cost a significant amount more to make than the last generation. The price jump was largely warranted...except for things like Gun. It really does take a bunch of extra man hours to create things like Halo 3 compared to Halo 1.
    This has been covered already, but it's a misnomer. If it was true, I would pay £5/$10 to go and see the latest low budget adam sandler flick and £10/$20 to go and see the latest high budget blockbuster. You make games that your audience will support. The main reason for the price rise is they thought we would still buy them.
    A_ccualt wrote:
    Lave II wrote:
    Unfortunately the market takes what the geeks will bare, and we (and soon to be only you) bare it.

    The idea, of withholding content to encourage upgrades is purely something that makes subscribers feel better of their choice by increasing the perceived feelings of worth. It makes Silver members feel neglected and shunned, and crucially it makes new users not want to experiment with the service.

    I don't think it discourages most new users to "experiment" with the service. I think it is rather dumb to hold back demos and other advertisements from silver accounts for a week, as has been done in the past, but holding back free content downloads? That I am more understanding of. The content has to be paid for somehow, heck even if the developers gives it to MS for free they still need to cover bandwidth and pay some guy who probably makes too much money to upload it.

    I think MS is overly greedy with some of their DLC moves (Halo 3 map pack for one) but I don't find it anywhere near as bad as you do. I remember how god awful PS2 online was and know how deplorable the Wii's is so I don't mind paying the $4 a month. Now next generation I'm probably not going to be so willing to pay for Live, especially if Sony/Nintendo have a comparable service.

    Your paying $4 a month, they want about twice that for me. I'm not saying it's terrible. I'm just saying that after all the criticisms that the Wii has had, I thought it would be much, much better than it is.

  • BacklashBacklash Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Orogogus wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    A_ccualt wrote: »
    Lave II wrote:
    They've raised the RRP by £10 for fake production costs, hell, they should raise it another £3 and make Gold standard.

    "Next gen" games cost a significant amount more to make than the last generation. The price jump was largely warranted...except for things like Gun. It really does take a bunch of extra man hours to create things like Halo 3 compared to Halo 1.

    Most of your arguments I'm fine with. I disagree at a personal level, but it's all opinion at that point, and to each their own. This, however, I'm going to have to dispute. How many times have you seen this:

    X360 Price: $59.99
    PC Price: $49.99

    Now, the 360 is set hardware. If you write the game for that hardware, it should run on any other 360. The PC, however, you have to write and test for a wide array of hardware. This presumably means that development and testing costs are higher for the PC version. And yet...?

    Both Bioshock and The Orange Box are priced as above. I'm curious as to why it's $10 more on the Console.

    My understanding is that you don't have to pay any licensing fees to develop games for the PC.

    Even last generation PC games that were also on consoles were priced cheaper. A lot of them were $40.

    Though I still think the next gen tax was more to see if they could get away with it or not.

    And they did.

    Absoludacrous.jpg
    SSBB: 2921-8745-1438
    Diamond: 2320-2615-4086
  • Shooter McgavinShooter Mcgavin Registered User
    edited December 2007
    @ Lave II: They only want $4 from you, too. They also want $4 from your GF and from anyone else in your house. You're trying to lump everyone into one entity, whereas MS is saying "Uh no, you are all individual people".

    banner.gif
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited December 2007
    @ Lave II: They only want $4 from you, too. They also want $4 from your GF and from anyone else in your house. You're trying to lump everyone into one entity, whereas MS is saying "Uh no, you are all individual people".

    I was actually talking about the fact that I'm in the UK so the price is about double.

    But yes, and MS is being really insulting in doing that. I'm saying that say the 3 people using a console having to pay £120 ($240) a year is ridiculous.

  • apotheosapotheos Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2007
    I wouldn't be upset if this was the way it always was, Rats.

    So you don't care about the simple facts of the situation, its the change in the system that you perceive as some sort of wrong?

    So how much do you whine incessantly about superfluous things and imagined wrongs in the rest of your life? Because really this is the most retarded thing I've seen online today. Not only do I disagree with your premise - that a premium service should not offer benefits - but also with your completely ridiculous villainization of those who chose to participate in the premium service.

    I mean, really, this is just unfathomably dumb to complain about to us - write a letter to Microsoft and Take 2 if you feel like you are being treated poorly.



    猿も木から落ちる
  • InvisibleInvisible Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    If I recall correctly, this isn't the first time Gold subscribers have received DLC before silver members. I believe Gears of War's first map was Gold only for a while and I think Battle for Middle Earth 2 also briefly had content for Gold members, though I'm not positive on the last one.

    steam_sig.png
  • AccualtAccualt Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Houn wrote: »
    Both Bioshock and The Orange Box are priced as above. I'm curious as to why it's $10 more on the Console.

    "Next Gen" PC titles went up in cost too. Most PC titles that could be had on both the PS2 and Xbox were $40 instead of $50. This was done to encourage people to buy PC games over consoles and started when there was the industry wide "PC Games are DIEING" scare. Some PC games were launching at $50 before the 360 hit but most were doing $40, now most are at $50. You still see smaller titles, things that would be considered PS2 generation titles, come out for PC below $50. So the cost went up across the industry. Hell you rarely, if ever, saw $35 GBA titles but the majority of DS games come out between $30-35.

    Now marvel at my BBCode skills!
    Lave II wrote: »
    Spoiler:
    If I take all my Gamecube and Xbox games together. Numbering over 50 I would guess. Only one has a game breaking bug. PoP:WW. And I've noticed no real bugs in the others. But all my games so far have needed updating. The ability to patch leads to laziness. As I'm not an early adopter it doesn't bother me. But it would bug me if I didn't have web access.

    I have never come across a game breaking bug for a 360 title and I play the majority of 360 titles at launch. This isn't to say there haven't been any, I know Oblivion had at least two (when including one of the DLC packs), but I haven't run into them. The patches don't always fix game breaking bugs, they frequently fix balance issues. If Halo 1 had been online the pistol would have gotten patched. These patches don't always mean things are broken so much as things need tweaked, like Monster Madness. Players bitched about the camera controls so the company eventually patched it to meet player demand. If this was last gen that game would never have been improved. It could lead to laziness but, at the moment, there isn't any evidence to support that claim. Considering how hard publishers push developers to get games out on a deadline the ability to patch is a great thing.
    Lave II wrote:
    Spoiler:
    This is irrellvant. I didn't pay £40 for most of my house to be guests. For my Girlfriend to be a Guest. Take CoD4 for example to record my experience as I progress (as I understand it does), or for Halo to record stuff and so on I need to use my Gamercard. To have the "full experience" a household of 3 users would need to spend £120. A year. That's outrageous. A fob off with guest accounts goes against the whole point. And it reiterates the entire notion that the 360 is aimed towards insular, lonely geeks. Something they surely would want to push against.

    I don't know how CoD4 works, I haven't tired it, so you may have a good point with that one. Er...actually I don't think you can have multiple players online with one Xbox.
    With every other game, though...this is like saying your friends should be able to apply their own bumper stickers to your car, without having to pay for them, just because you are giving them a ride. Achievements are just more shiny little customization badges, they don't mean anything and don't impact your game. They are entirely designed as a way to make money by dangling a carrot.
    Lave II wrote:
    Accualt wrote:
    Lave II wrote:
    I fucking loathe the PS3 and Sony at the minute, but their online is leagues ahead of the, clearly better, but fundamentally flawed 360 version.

    I sort of agree. I think the service could be kept alive easily enough off of the profit from DLC but I doubt we'd see as much free content that way.
    I don't think we would lose out particulary, remember most of the free content, whilst splendid, is technically an advert. And the remainder could be bought for less than the £40/$80 spent on the subscription.

    Yeah, I agree. I wasn't using free content as an argument for a paid service, I was just saying we probably wouldn't see as much free in-game content. I also left the in-game aspect out.
    Lave II wrote:
    Spoiler:
    This has been covered already, but it's a misnomer. If it was true, I would pay £5/$10 to go and see the latest low budget adam sandler flick and £10/$20 to go and see the latest high budget blockbuster. You make games that your audience will support. The main reason for the price rise is they thought we would still buy them.

    It isn't a misnomer. We had a lot of debates about this when the $60 tags were announced and the general conclusion is gamers have had it good with prices. People were popping up relating tales of $80 SFII for the NES and whatnot. There really hadn't been any adjustment for inflation when it came to making games.
    Ticket prices for films have steadily risen as the cost to make films rises (and inflation) but their prices are standardized to one price based on region. Video game prices are also standardized on consoles, but with some wiggle room. We do see (god I hate myself for putting it this way) some less-next-gen console games come in at a lower price. We see all kinds of less than stellar PC titles at a discounted price. It didn't cost as much to make the game and the publisher figures the lower price will attract more purchases. I'm sure some low budget films would be willing to lower ticket prices if they had any control over it. Notice, though, that many of those films do have lower prices when they hit DVD than the big blockbusters.
    Of course part of it also revolves around economists figuring out how many units would sell at $x compared to $y and deciding which path will net the best return. Some titles, due to hype or whatever, will sell at $60 even if the development put into them doesn't warrant it.
    Lave II wrote:
    Your paying $4 a month, they want about twice that for me. I'm not saying it's terrible. I'm just saying that after all the criticisms that the Wii has had, I thought it would be much, much better than it is.

    Charging you double is pretty god damn deplorable. I'd probably be far less forgiving if I was being charged that much. But, hey, capitalism. (I'm not a fan)

  • NorayNoray Registered User
    edited December 2007
    Goddammit can you guys discuss Gold vs Silver somewhere else? Big Daddies are kicking my ass on Hard and I need me some tipz :(

  • GraviijaGraviija Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Wow, so the horizontal FOV really does make quite a difference. The character has wrists...imagine that.

    rvcontre78 wrote:
    This game is all about the racism. I hate to think about all the backlash that will be involved but the truth must be told. The truth about a man who kills people by dropping them from his crane. Political correctness be damned. Damned to the max.
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Graviija wrote: »
    Wow, so the horizontal FOV really does make quite a difference. The character has wrists...imagine that.

    I think I know why they decided to "limit" the FOV in the first place.

    Load up a save where you're wearing the helmet. Note your arm clipping through the black in the right bottom corner.

    Steam: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | NNID: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
  • TheSonicRetardTheSonicRetard Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Houn wrote: »
    Both Bioshock and The Orange Box are priced as above. I'm curious as to why it's $10 more on the Console.

    Because, every single game developed for a console has a DAMN steep licensing fee attached to it. Microsoft or Sony or whoever sells their consoles at a loss, and they make up their money per game developed. Ever wonder why these companies even release game consoles, much less at a $200 loss per unit? It's not because they care about some epeen "first place" bullshit, it's because they want to rake in billions of dollars.

    To even begin to develop a game for the 360, Wii, or PS3, you need an SDK. SDKs go for about $15,000 each. And that's for 1 SDK - a game normally will be developed using around 10-20 people. So you're looking at over $100,000 to begin to write the game.

    Then there's the licensing fee. You must pay Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo money to develop the game, again on a per-game basis. You've payed for $15,000 for an SDK, and made the most badass game ever... but it won't be published without purchasing a license. This is normally a $20,000 fee. Per game. Don't forget the rising cost of game development.

    So in the end, the people backing the game development have to recoup their losses. This translates into a $10 price increase. PC game development... they don't need it. You don't need to buy an SDK to develop on the PC - dev-cpp is free as is openGL. You can sit down and write it all for free. And there are no licensing fees. So that $10 isn't needed on the PC.

    Now I've explained this several times on this board but people still fucking ask "why are console games $10 more expensive" so in the future, if you see anyone ask this question again, just parrot this info. Because it's getting damn annoying having to re-explain this time and time again.

  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited December 2007
    A_ccualt wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    Both Bioshock and The Orange Box are priced as above. I'm curious as to why it's $10 more on the Console.

    "Next Gen" PC titles went up in cost too. Most PC titles that could be had on both the PS2 and Xbox were $40 instead of $50. This was done to encourage people to buy PC games over consoles and started when there was the industry wide "PC Games are DIEING" scare. Some PC games were launching at $50 before the 360 hit but most were doing $40, now most are at $50. You still see smaller titles, things that would be considered PS2 generation titles, come out for PC below $50. So the cost went up across the industry. Hell you rarely, if ever, saw $35 GBA titles but the majority of DS games come out between $30-35.

    Now marvel at my BBCode skills!
    Lave II wrote: »
    Spoiler:
    If I take all my Gamecube and Xbox games together. Numbering over 50 I would guess. Only one has a game breaking bug. PoP:WW. And I've noticed no real bugs in the others. But all my games so far have needed updating. The ability to patch leads to laziness. As I'm not an early adopter it doesn't bother me. But it would bug me if I didn't have web access.

    I have never come across a game breaking bug for a 360 title and I play the majority of 360 titles at launch. This isn't to say there haven't been any, I know Oblivion had at least two (when including one of the DLC packs), but I haven't run into them. The patches don't always fix game breaking bugs, they frequently fix balance issues. If Halo 1 had been online the pistol would have gotten patched. These patches don't always mean things are broken so much as things need tweaked, like Monster Madness. Players bitched about the camera controls so the company eventually patched it to meet player demand. If this was last gen that game would never have been improved. It could lead to laziness but, at the moment, there isn't any evidence to support that claim. Considering how hard publishers push developers to get games out on a deadline the ability to patch is a great thing.
    Lave II wrote:
    Spoiler:
    This is irrellvant. I didn't pay £40 for most of my house to be guests. For my Girlfriend to be a Guest. Take CoD4 for example to record my experience as I progress (as I understand it does), or for Halo to record stuff and so on I need to use my Gamercard. To have the "full experience" a household of 3 users would need to spend £120. A year. That's outrageous. A fob off with guest accounts goes against the whole point. And it reiterates the entire notion that the 360 is aimed towards insular, lonely geeks. Something they surely would want to push against.

    I don't know how CoD4 works, I haven't tired it, so you may have a good point with that one. Er...actually I don't think you can have multiple players online with one Xbox.
    With every other game, though...this is like saying your friends should be able to apply their own bumper stickers to your car, without having to pay for them, just because you are giving them a ride. Achievements are just more shiny little customization badges, they don't mean anything and don't impact your game. They are entirely designed as a way to make money by dangling a carrot.

    Lave II wrote:
    Accualt wrote:
    Lave II wrote:
    I fucking loathe the PS3 and Sony at the minute, but their online is leagues ahead of the, clearly better, but fundamentally flawed 360 version.

    I sort of agree. I think the service could be kept alive easily enough off of the profit from DLC but I doubt we'd see as much free content that way.
    I don't think we would lose out particulary, remember most of the free content, whilst splendid, is technically an advert. And the remainder could be bought for less than the £40/$80 spent on the subscription.

    Yeah, I agree. I wasn't using free content as an argument for a paid service, I was just saying we probably wouldn't see as much free in-game content. I also left the in-game aspect out.
    Lave II wrote:
    Spoiler:
    This has been covered already, but it's a misnomer. If it was true, I would pay £5/$10 to go and see the latest low budget adam sandler flick and £10/$20 to go and see the latest high budget blockbuster. You make games that your audience will support. The main reason for the price rise is they thought we would still buy them.

    It isn't a misnomer. We had a lot of debates about this when the $60 tags were announced and the general conclusion is gamers have had it good with prices. People were popping up relating tales of $80 SFII for the NES and whatnot. There really hadn't been any adjustment for inflation when it came to making games.
    Ticket prices for films have steadily risen as the cost to make films rises (and inflation) but their prices are standardized to one price based on region. Video game prices are also standardized on consoles, but with some wiggle room. We do see (god I hate myself for putting it this way) some less-next-gen console games come in at a lower price. We see all kinds of less than stellar PC titles at a discounted price. It didn't cost as much to make the game and the publisher figures the lower price will attract more purchases. I'm sure some low budget films would be willing to lower ticket prices if they had any control over it. Notice, though, that many of those films do have lower prices when they hit DVD than the big blockbusters.
    Of course part of it also revolves around economists figuring out how many units would sell at $x compared to $y and deciding which path will net the best return. Some titles, due to hype or whatever, will sell at $60 even if the development put into them doesn't warrant it.
    Lave II wrote:
    Your paying $4 a month, they want about twice that for me. I'm not saying it's terrible. I'm just saying that after all the criticisms that the Wii has had, I thought it would be much, much better than it is.

    Charging you double is pretty god damn deplorable. I'd probably be far less forgiving if I was being charged that much. But, hey, capitalism. (I'm not a fan)

    OK, I need to sleep, but I think a lot of this comes down to UK differences. There has been no price hike in anything in this generation jump for the GBA->DS, PC->PC . Only the 360 and the PS3 has seen a jump above inflation. And it's been massive.

    I give you a lot of what you say.... but....

    I totally disagree with the bolded part though. You can not honestly think my Family should pay double or triple to use the same Xbox online. It's an innate aspect of the system. It's like saying that my family should pay again to watch the DVDs I buy. Or if you rent a movie, the cost is dependent on who will be in the room watcing it.

    A gold account, should be a "gold console" that console can go online.

    Hell, they should do that on the grounds that they want it to be a family, bloody, system.

    But yeah, Bioshock. Apparently the Irish hate splicers?

  • darleysamdarleysam Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Lave II wrote: »
    @ Lave II: They only want $4 from you, too. They also want $4 from your GF and from anyone else in your house. You're trying to lump everyone into one entity, whereas MS is saying "Uh no, you are all individual people".

    I was actually talking about the fact that I'm in the UK so the price is about double.

    But yes, and MS is being really insulting in doing that. I'm saying that say the 3 people using a console having to pay £120 ($240) a year is ridiculous.

    My Live account is my main account, but my brother also uses it for online play. I understand that not everyone's happy with that solution, but it hasn't really caused my any problems. I see that it's different now, and more personal, because there are online achievements that are locked to account that's playing (obviously), where on OXbox Live there wasn't anything like that, so it was just for online play.

  • AccualtAccualt Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Lave II wrote: »
    A_ccualt wrote: »
    I don't know how CoD4 works, I haven't tired it, so you may have a good point with that one. Er...actually I don't think you can have multiple players online with one Xbox.

    I was talking about CoD4, if it wasn't clear. I haven't played it but I Recall a friend telling me he couldn't get two people on one 360 to play it online. I haven't tried it myself but it sounds like, as with a few other games, you can only do one player online even if you had multiple accounts.

    I give you a lot of what you say.... but....

    I totally disagree with the bolded part though. You can not honestly think my Family should pay double or triple to use the same Xbox online. It's an innate aspect of the system. It's like saying that my family should pay again to watch the DVDs I buy. Or if you rent a movie, the cost is dependent on who will be in the room watcing it.

    A gold account, should be a "gold console" that console can go online.

    The guest stuff doesn't bother my wife online because she doesn't care about achievements. I really can't think of a game I've played that has online multiplayer from one box that requires everyone to have Gold to play online. If you are just talking about achievements/stat tracking then I guess I just don't think that stuff is a big deal. I would like to say you are awesome for having an actual back and forth conversation. :^:

  • OlivawOlivaw good name, isn't it? peach treesRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    God damn it I just crashed again

    2K, you're supposed to test your games before you release them so that there aren't any game crashing bugs in them

    If it weren't for the fact that the game hidden underneath all these crashes is fan-dabby-babulous I would have given up on it a long time ago

    7u0YG.gif
    PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | SCREENED | STEAM ID | BUY SOME STUFF!
  • ZxerolZxerol The fullest, most luscious beard. Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Olivaw wrote: »
    God damn it I just crashed again

    2K, you're supposed to test your games before you release them so that there aren't any game crashing bugs in them

    If it weren't for the fact that the game hidden underneath all these crashes is fan-dabby-babulous I would have given up on it a long time ago

    The sad part is, this is the first patch they put out since the game was released months ago, and apparently some things still aren't quite kosher. No one can accuse 2K of rushing things (it took them forever to release the stupid activation revoke tool, too). Lé sigh.

  • falling_stonefalling_stone Registered User
    edited December 2007
    Lave II wrote: »
    A_ccualt wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    snip, well written.

    Charging you double is pretty god damn deplorable. I'd probably be far less forgiving if I was being charged that much. But, hey, capitalism. (I'm not a fan)

    OK, I need to sleep, but I think a lot of this comes down to UK differences. There has been no price hike in anything in this generation jump for the GBA->DS, PC->PC . Only the 360 and the PS3 has seen a jump above inflation. And it's been massive.

    I give you a lot of what you say.... but....

    I totally disagree with the bolded part though. You can not honestly think my Family should pay double or triple to use the same Xbox online. It's an innate aspect of the system. It's like saying that my family should pay again to watch the DVDs I buy. Or if you rent a movie, the cost is dependent on who will be in the room watcing it.

    A gold account, should be a "gold console" that console can go online.

    Hell, they should do that on the grounds that they want it to be a family, bloody, system.

    But yeah, Bioshock. Apparently the Irish hate splicers?

    I agree with you. I feel that it is similar to being charged by your ISP per person. Or by your cable company. Oh, you have four people in your house, well that comcast digital is 400 bones per month sir.

    Since the only thing that seems to matter at all is ranked matches and such in multiplayer, then one user should be able to use it. But I don't really see any problem with multiple users on the system being able to access content. Its not like you're going to be able to take it anywhere. The end user agreement is still the same. DLC will remain on the "Gold Console" it was downloaded to. What is the big deal?

    This sig is too small - Elki :P
    snowfalling.jpg
  • TheSonicRetardTheSonicRetard Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Lave II wrote: »
    A_ccualt wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    snip, well written.

    Charging you double is pretty god damn deplorable. I'd probably be far less forgiving if I was being charged that much. But, hey, capitalism. (I'm not a fan)

    OK, I need to sleep, but I think a lot of this comes down to UK differences. There has been no price hike in anything in this generation jump for the GBA->DS, PC->PC . Only the 360 and the PS3 has seen a jump above inflation. And it's been massive.

    I give you a lot of what you say.... but....

    I totally disagree with the bolded part though. You can not honestly think my Family should pay double or triple to use the same Xbox online. It's an innate aspect of the system. It's like saying that my family should pay again to watch the DVDs I buy. Or if you rent a movie, the cost is dependent on who will be in the room watcing it.

    A gold account, should be a "gold console" that console can go online.

    Hell, they should do that on the grounds that they want it to be a family, bloody, system.

    But yeah, Bioshock. Apparently the Irish hate splicers?

    I agree with what you're saying, but just so you know...

    technically if you rent a movie or buy a dvd, you are supposed to be the only person who watches it. Exhibition is prohibited. It's a retarded ass law that's in place for good reasons and it'll never, ever, EVER be enforced, but yeah. You rent a movie, you get 1 license. You're supposed to watch it alone.

    Crazy, huh?

  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited December 2007
    A_ccualt wrote: »
    Lave II wrote: »
    A_ccualt wrote: »
    I don't know how CoD4 works, I haven't tired it, so you may have a good point with that one. Er...actually I don't think you can have multiple players online with one Xbox.

    I was talking about CoD4, if it wasn't clear. I haven't played it but I Recall a friend telling me he couldn't get two people on one 360 to play it online. I haven't tried it myself but it sounds like, as with a few other games, you can only do one player online even if you had multiple accounts.

    I give you a lot of what you say.... but....

    I totally disagree with the bolded part though. You can not honestly think my Family should pay double or triple to use the same Xbox online. It's an innate aspect of the system. It's like saying that my family should pay again to watch the DVDs I buy. Or if you rent a movie, the cost is dependent on who will be in the room watcing it.

    A gold account, should be a "gold console" that console can go online.

    The guest stuff doesn't bother my wife online because she doesn't care about achievements. I really can't think of a game I've played that has online multiplayer from one box that requires everyone to have Gold to play online. If you are just talking about achievements/stat tracking then I guess I just don't think that stuff is a big deal. I would like to say you are awesome for having an actual back and forth conversation. :^:

    Likewise :^: It's a rarity on the net.

    Aye, thats the thing, it only bothers a minority, and it's a thing of principle, but to me it's a big deal, because it's such a trivial change, that would cost them a negligible amount, and make the Live service more appealing to 'normal' people, and would make my GF enjoy it more. But I understand that it's not a big deal to most.

    At least the leaderboards work, and what not. I'm really impressed out how they've changed things.

    I think I'll be going silver when my trial runs out, and maybe I'll pick up another month when I get the Orange box, or CoD4.

    TSR: Egads! In the UK it's slightly different, you have the right to hold 'private viewings' - in your own private property, with no charge - to any amount of people. Relatives, friends whatever. If it's for business, or in a public space however you can't. (We're mainly concerned about Oil Rigs, which the movie industry seem to think are the biggest cash cows in the world).

    KINDA ONTOPIC: Eurogamer publish a 'defense' of Bioshock

  • LunkerLunker Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I can't decide which widescreen perspective I like better. I started up a Hard mode run with intent to save all of the Little Sisters and disable the Vitachambers, which is going to be a shitload harder than the first time I played it, and I keep flipping between the two views but I'm torn. During the fixed-camera parts it just looks strange to be so zoomed out, but that could just be because I was used to 4:3 before.

    Also, I'm going to be a complete idiot, because I never once bothered to open the "View Options" menu tab before: Was there always an "Unlock framerate" menu choice? The difference is night and day.

    Tweet my Face: @heyitslunker | Save money at CheapAssGamer (not an affiliate link)
  • falling_stonefalling_stone Registered User
    edited December 2007
    Lave II wrote: »
    A_ccualt wrote: »
    Houn wrote: »
    snip, well written.

    Charging you double is pretty god damn deplorable. I'd probably be far less forgiving if I was being charged that much. But, hey, capitalism. (I'm not a fan)

    OK, I need to sleep, but I think a lot of this comes down to UK differences. There has been no price hike in anything in this generation jump for the GBA->DS, PC->PC . Only the 360 and the PS3 has seen a jump above inflation. And it's been massive.

    I give you a lot of what you say.... but....

    I totally disagree with the bolded part though. You can not honestly think my Family should pay double or triple to use the same Xbox online. It's an innate aspect of the system. It's like saying that my family should pay again to watch the DVDs I buy. Or if you rent a movie, the cost is dependent on who will be in the room watcing it.

    A gold account, should be a "gold console" that console can go online.

    Hell, they should do that on the grounds that they want it to be a family, bloody, system.

    But yeah, Bioshock. Apparently the Irish hate splicers?

    I agree with what you're saying, but just so you know...

    technically if you rent a movie or buy a dvd, you are supposed to be the only person who watches it. Exhibition is prohibited. It's a retarded ass law that's in place for good reasons and it'll never, ever, EVER be enforced, but yeah. You rent a movie, you get 1 license. You're supposed to watch it alone.

    Crazy, huh?

    be that as it may, HOllywood video doesn't charge you for your entire household watching the flick. I think that the exhibition arguement from M$ pov is kinda flimsy. I think that their unbridled avarice alleged by the silver users is entirely grounded.

    This sig is too small - Elki :P
    snowfalling.jpg
  • BladeXBladeX Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Lunker wrote: »
    I can't decide which widescreen perspective I like better. I started up a Hard mode run with intent to save all of the Little Sisters and disable the Vitachambers, which is going to be a shitload harder than the first time I played it, and I keep flipping between the two views but I'm torn. During the fixed-camera parts it just looks strange to be so zoomed out, but that could just be because I was used to 4:3 before.

    Also, I'm going to be a complete idiot, because I never once bothered to open the "View Options" menu tab before: Was there always an "Unlock framerate" menu choice? The difference is night and day.

    Ya, it's always been there. I have to be honest, I never touched it since it said it would affect visual quality... Is it really that big of a difference if you unlock it?

  • LunkerLunker Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    BladeX wrote: »
    Lunker wrote: »
    I can't decide which widescreen perspective I like better. I started up a Hard mode run with intent to save all of the Little Sisters and disable the Vitachambers, which is going to be a shitload harder than the first time I played it, and I keep flipping between the two views but I'm torn. During the fixed-camera parts it just looks strange to be so zoomed out, but that could just be because I was used to 4:3 before.

    Also, I'm going to be a complete idiot, because I never once bothered to open the "View Options" menu tab before: Was there always an "Unlock framerate" menu choice? The difference is night and day.

    Ya, it's always been there. I have to be honest, I never touched it since it said it would affect visual quality... Is it really that big of a difference if you unlock it?

    I can notice the framerate difference but it's not like I thought the framerate was bad before by any means. I didn't test to see how much it actually kicks down the graphics, and like you, I didn't really want to draw too much out of the visual quality.

    Tweet my Face: @heyitslunker | Save money at CheapAssGamer (not an affiliate link)
  • BladeXBladeX Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Spoiler just used for quote tree...
    Lunker wrote: »
    Spoiler:

    I can notice the framerate difference but it's not like I thought the framerate was bad before by any means. I didn't test to see how much it actually kicks down the graphics, and like you, I didn't really want to draw too much out of the visual quality.

    When I get home I'll play around with it to see. I'm kind of interested in how much of a difference it makes.

    Also to do with the patch: I love the new FOV.

  • GraviijaGraviija Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I've taken the DLC as another chance to play Bioshock on Hard for the first time (Vita-Chambers on, though).

    And I must say, this is how Bioshock has to be played.

    Whereas in Normal is was pretty easy to go guns a-blazin' throughout the entire game, here you need to plan and strategize. I'm leading Splicers in range of hacked turrets and security cameras, I'm sneaking up behind them with a wrench to save ammo, I'm actually avoiding enemies when possible...it makes the experience much more thrilling.

    rvcontre78 wrote:
    This game is all about the racism. I hate to think about all the backlash that will be involved but the truth must be told. The truth about a man who kills people by dropping them from his crane. Political correctness be damned. Damned to the max.
  • GreeperGreeper Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Noray wrote: »
    Goddammit can you guys discuss Gold vs Silver somewhere else? Big Daddies are kicking my ass on Hard and I need me some tipz :(

    Crossbow trap bolts should do it, or throw in some mines if you got 'em! It's the humane way, get 'em before they know what's happened.

    If you don't have that shit...

    I dunno! Freezing 'ems pretty good right?

    lolol_zps7df95a14.png
  • NailbunnyPDNailbunnyPD Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    To clarify some of the discussion about FOV...

    FOV is not represented as an aspect ratio, but rather a degree of the viewing angle, and typically horizontal viewing angle when specifying the difference between 4:3 and 16:9. I think a 4:3 FPS is typically 75 degrees, and a 16:9 FPS is typically 90. The values may be slightly off, but thats what i remember applying to Bioshock upon release, except both aspect ratios used a horizontal FOV of 75, and they increased vertical FOV for 4:3 display.

    I'm glad they've followed through on releasing the patch.

    XBL: NailbunnyPD PSN: NailbunnyPD Origin: NailbunnyPD
    NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
    steam_sig-400.png
1235»
Sign In or Register to comment.