crcruz3's forum posts

#1 Posted by crcruz3 (255 posts) -

@slag said:

@darthorange: gotta tell you

two of your three reasons are pretty weak imo.

passion and the public (and probably fake) persona of an exec are maybe good reasons to work for a company, but they shouldn't aren't good reasons to buy a product. Both are very ephemeral, may just be good PR.

reason#1 Though, is a fantastic reason.

For me the reasons I'll likely buy a PS4 are

  1. Japanese games exclusives like Deep Down that are unlikely to ever port to PC
  2. Potential Superior Graphics tech
  3. Lower Hardware Price
  4. Dualshock 4 controller
  5. Larger World-wide install base
  6. PSN+ value add service
  7. Gaikai streaming of old games
  8. PS 1st party games
  9. Company policies and culture that are pro-consumer (or at least moreso than option B)
  10. No mandatory Kinect
  11. Vita x-play

Same here. And then I'm going to buy a Xbone, 'cause I wanna play them all!

#2 Posted by crcruz3 (255 posts) -

@darkest4 said:

You lost by quoting Cliff, can we please stop giving this guy attention? I can't believe people really buy into this notion that used games are killing video games. Used games have been around from the start and the industry has grown tons. Many developers are doing just fine, those that struggle are struggling due to their own fault, stop letting them convince you otherwise. Every other physical product in the world has a used market. Blaming used games is just them not wanting to take responsibility for their own mistakes. Those companies are paying their execs too much, focusing too much on costly things like EXPLOSIONS EVERYWHERE instead of quality story telling, creating shitty games that no one wants, not managing their money correctly and so on... and then blaming everything on used games. It's just a cop out, stop letting them convince you it's true.

Stop listening to guys like Cliff talk about how they desperately need more money and used games are killing them.. the guy is just another greedy millionaire who want to make more millions with minimal effort pumping out lazy sequels. Maybe developers should start by cutting the pay checks of guys like Cliff instead of blaming everyone else?

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-businessmen/cliff-bleszinski-net-worth/

Boo hoo Cliffy, making 15million in this "dying industry" being pillaged by "used games", you only have hundreds of times more money than your average customer poor guy I feel so bad for you. Give me a break.

You are right on the used games issue.

#3 Edited by crcruz3 (255 posts) -

Dota 2. A great game full of awful people playing it.

#4 Posted by crcruz3 (255 posts) -

I don't know why you think he is a fool. He probably knows more about the inner workings of the videogame industry than everyone on this site combined including staff.

So what? He can be wrong sometimes like everybody else.

Once the great Thomas Edison thought DC was better that AC for energy distribution.

#5 Posted by crcruz3 (255 posts) -

- Open every box, locker and safe in Fallout3/New Vegas

- Hack every computer in Deus Ex: Human Evolution

- Steal from the shopkeepers in Spelunky

#6 Edited by crcruz3 (255 posts) -

I wouldn't expect Microsoft of all companies to pave the way for a digital future in a way that didn't completely fuck us over in the end.

If they wanted to garner gamer's trust to show that maybe they could of possibly done it right then they should have started earlier, there is nothing stopping them from releasing digital downloads day one with retail right now, there's nothing stopping them from making the digital seem more attractive with discounts and sales, and they could of implemented some early form of digital trading years ago, and eased people into the transition.

Coming out and making all these convoluted rules for their new console was not the way to do it.

This.

#7 Edited by crcruz3 (255 posts) -

@pr1mus: I'll admit that a lot of my defense is built around the potential of a digital-centric home console. Microsoft certainly could've failed to deliver on that promise, but I suppose I was willing and able to take the leap. In spite of the fact that it may have been a total failure, they were making an attempt to thrust things forward, and I guess I admired that to some extent.

Unfortunately, "even the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry," and in the case of the Xbox One, the plans weren't all that well laid out. The failure of that original proposal and any of its potential benefits to come to fruition falls solely at the feet of Microsoft. I put no fault on the consumer for not buying into it.

At the very least though, we will be getting a far more substantial digital storefront than what we have now. Hopefully, the platform holders and publishers will make proper use of it and try to make an aggressive push to sell gamers on the potential benefits. Microsoft tried to skip over all of the trials, tribulations, and missteps that Steam made along the way. Maybe it would've worked, maybe it wouldn't. Now, Microsoft and the publishers are going to have to put in the effort to prove the potential.

@skooky: A lot of the defense is based on the potential of being more focused on digital and the potential of ideas like the shared library. You're totally spot on to call out Microsoft for not elaborating enough on those possible benefits. This sudden policy reversal represents a massive failure of their strategy team to create a solid plan and their PR team for failing to properly market any upside.

@crcruz3: I understand the realities of capitalism and survival of the fittest, but I stand by the fact that doing something to reduce the massive risk associated with making a game would be beneficial. The current market forces most publishers and developers to be largely risk-averse by sticking strictly with proven sellers. Anything that can relax the risk/reward margins a bit could allow for some more experimentation with the same potential reward but less potential for a studio closure from a single failure.

I'm not sure that MS original policies for the Xbox One would have change the situation of these struggling studios that you talk about. I think this all digital future is going to happen anyway and that nobody has to enforce it and that nobody can stop it. We'll see...

#8 Posted by crcruz3 (255 posts) -

"A lot of publishers and developers are really struggling out there right now. If we want video games to be a healthy industry, something has to be done."

People don't really understand capitalism. No, nothing has to be done. Keep buying the games you like, the way you like. Publishers and developers that are really struggling are doing something wrong. They are spending too much money or making products that nobody really care about.

#9 Posted by crcruz3 (255 posts) -

Now I have to read Anabasis again.

#10 Posted by crcruz3 (255 posts) -

@jimbo said:

The comparisons to Steam are false, because it would never be like that on a closed platform. The absence of competition would make it wide open to being abused -ie. the exact opposite of how the PC market operates.

You can go buy a DRM free copy of The Witcher 2 Enhanced Edition right now for $6, bypassing Steam entirely and getting it direct from the creators. None of the restrictions Microsoft were proposing have been remotely necessary in order to make that happen. Steam's sales (and overall quality) exist because they have to compete in an open market where anything can happen, not despite it.

Yes!