Spacetrucking's forum posts

#1 Posted by Spacetrucking (942 posts) -

@Enigma777 said:

@ajamafalous said:

@Enigma777 said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Enigma777 said:

I still love how people are blaming EA when Valve is the one responsible here. I bet you can still buy DA2 from Amazon Digital, Impulse, D2D, etc along with Origin yet people choose to close their eyes and point a finger at EA and call them greedy.

Valve offers the content and they have a right to charge a percentage to host that content, including the DLC. EA doesn't want to pay that percentage. Those other companies don't host any content themselves beyond the basic game packages. Valve also has a much more successful, community driven approach than any of their competitors, they add a lot to the end user experience and that stuff costs money so they have a right to charge for it because it equates to better sales to a larger audience. EA aren't just being greedy, they are actually being foolish and cutting of their nose to spite their face in the hopes that BF3 and ToR will bring them an audience to equal that of Steam's collective bargaining power. It won't.

But in this case Valve isn't hosting any of the content... EA is, so they have no right to charge for it. Therefore they choose to remove the entire game. Sounds like Valve is the bad guy to me on this one.

And are you honestly trying to use the "We are bigger so we can do what we want" excuse? There's a reason why we have laws against monopolies...

If it's in the ToS between Valve and EA it's fair game. You're acting as if Valve has no right to protect their investment. If EA is indeed breaching contract, then Valve is doing nothing wrong.

You really think it isn't the fact that EA thinks that BF3 and TOR will bring in enough people to Origin to negate having their shit removed from Steam? That's clearly what they're banking on.

No. If they wanted to compete with Steam it means they also want to compete with everyone else and from what Iv'e seen that's not the case. But hey, I get it. People have a hard-on for Valve and think it can do no wrong. I just choose not to see the world from rose-tinted glasses.

@SeriouslyNow: And that phenomenal growth is swiftly turning into a monopoly... I for one, want to see some competition in the marketplace, because... you know... it can only be a good thing. Also the only reason other companies seem to be "quite happy" is because they're not big enough to do otherwise. Just look at Blizzard. You don't see any of their games on Steam yet people aren't bitching about that. But then EA pulls out TOR and BF3 and suddenly the sky is falling.

You've it backwards. EA is the monopoly here.

Steam isn't even trying to beone. It hosts numerous games with DLC that are also hosted on competing downloadable services and independent sites. The problem here is EA and their refusal to allow Steam access to host their DLC content. Refusal to share resources and products with others is the very basis of monopoly. Maybe it is justified by the fact that they created the content but it is still, by definition, a monopoly on that content.

If you are so much against monopoly, then why are you against Valve's attempt to fight EA's attempts at monopolizing their DLC content?

Blizzard also monopolizes its games in the digital download space. No one raises any questions because functions better than Steam. It's deeply integrated into each of their games (WoW & SC2); it's trying something more than just being SteamLite for Blizzard games. If you use, you know how much easier it is to manage your community interactions between SC2 and WoW.

Origin,on the other hand, IS SteamLite for EA games at the moment. Maybe they will integrate it into Battlefield 3 and The Old Republic but until then, it's just playing a losing game. EA also has a rich history of cutting off online access to games after 2 years. Given that we're talking online distribution here, it raises some serious questions about their long term commitment to the Origin experiment.

#2 Edited by Spacetrucking (942 posts) -

Microsoft has merged the Games on Demand service with the Xbox Live Marketplace and even the PC Games on Demand service ( now directs users to The written text from the Games on Demand page (written largely from a PC perspective by me) could probably be copied to the Xbox Marketplace page before deletion.


#3 Edited by Spacetrucking (942 posts) -

This is such a bummer. I was really looking forward to playing this game but knowing all the mess behind the scenes, I'm not sure if I'll enjoy it anymore. Maybe once all this drifts out of my immediate memory...

Also, Brandon McNamara doesn't seem like a very nice guy.

#4 Posted by Spacetrucking (942 posts) -

Thanks guys, appreciate the advice.

@MaximusArtimus: I just ordered it, before Amazon runs out of stock!

@Management: Yeah, the 525M seems to have very similar raw specs to your 9800m GT (actually yours is a bit faster) but with an updated architecture. Hopefully, this one works just as well as yours!

@MattyFTM: Cheers Matt, I did go through the benchmarks before - they are the first result on google! - but their numbers fluctuate a lot. I still appreciate that you took the time to search it for me!

@UlquioKani: Oh! How do you like it? Is the build quality/screen/speakers okay?

#5 Edited by Spacetrucking (942 posts) - - $899 + a Free Xbox 360 (since I've an Amazon Student account).

The specs are:

  • Intel Core i7-2630QM @2.0 GHz (2.90 GHz with Turbo Boost; 6 MB L3 cache).
  • 6GB, DDR3, 1333MHz, 2 DIMM,
  • 640GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive (might be 5400 RPM - the page isn't clear; regardless I have a good, existing HDD that I'll likely just replace it with)
  • NVIDIA GeForce GT 525M with 1 GB (with Optimus)

I really need a new laptop and I like this one, mainly because of the CPU. I tend to run Matlab about 3-4 hours/day and and an i7-2xxxQM could really cut down my execution time.

The only real problem is the graphic card. I would've preferred a 540M but 525M is just a slower clocked version with the same GF108 architecture (and still use DDR3 memory). The next step in laptop graphics (560M) seems to be at $1500+ and I might as well upgrade my existing desktop for the extra $600. I'm hoping it will be able to run the following games at 1366x768 with medium settings & 2/4AA:

  • StarCraft II
  • DiRT 2 and 3
  • Skyrim
  • and maybe Battlefield 3 (this is a big IF)

It would be awesome if you guys could give me an educated guess on how this would do in terms of gaming? Thanks in advance. Good luck, have Pentiums :)

#6 Edited by Spacetrucking (942 posts) -
C'mon, who doesn't want that racing wheel? It looks so close to the real thing!

But seriously, where can I buy that racing wheel?!

Also, this is kinda tangential but is anyone else a fan of Anthony Davidson and David Croft's Five Live commentary? I find them more entertaining than Brundle+Coulthard and wish they were in the game.


#7 Edited by Spacetrucking (942 posts) -
@Scotty_Gun said:

How can they sell this shit with a straight face? It looks pretty but it seems so tired. I feel like I've been here before but not in a good way.

But this time it's gonna be different! 
The trailer is like a meta commentary on the entire entertainment industry and their audience.
#8 Posted by Spacetrucking (942 posts) -
@PhatSeeJay said:
@phrosnite said:
Uncharted copied Tomb Raider, not the other way around. It just did it way better. Lara deserves an awesome game.
Kids these days, huh?
No, they are both different takes on the same source: Indiana Jones, which in turn was inspired by Allan Quatermain - who was partially based on Frederick Selous.
Kids these days, huh? :p
#9 Edited by Spacetrucking (942 posts) -
And I knew what I must become: 
A survivor is cloned! 
Still. It looks more interesting than all the other Tomb Raider games.
#10 Edited by Spacetrucking (942 posts) -

There are some big names tied to this game. R.A. Salvatore and Ken Rolston have a history of creating rich fantasy worlds. So it's exciting that they are working on a new one. Together! And its good to hear that the combat looks promising. Melee seems to be an Achilles heels for RPGs off-late.
Origins was too slow and prodding, DA2 sped up the action so much that it came across as comical at times, The Witcher 2 is just frustrating w/ a whole lot of dodging and not much hitting. CDProjekt had the right idea or at least they were name dropping the right game (Batman AA) but Geralt just can't string hits like the bat. 
With the way character action games are incorporating RPG elements with deep skill trees and talent choices, it's about time RPGs started to learn from the action genre and improve their combat. Choices shouldn't be limited to just stat screens and pre-planning - players should be given the option to branch out into reactionary combos instinctively on the battlefield. It's what made Mass Effect 2 more fun than the first - I had to actually use my shooting skills for once, instead of pouring all my points into Barrier & Immunity and dancing my way through Insanity (like ME1)