TreyoftheDead

Really weird the put the game on Steam so early with descriptions of what the game will eventually be. I've had the beta for a few weeks and on their website the devs have been pretty open about what features are currently available and which are in the pipeline. Game is alright. Less tedious to play than Day Z.

You can play the game with Uplay set to offline mode, so no bothering with the servers. It just has to be connected to activate the game.

@Lukeweizer said:

I've found that Steam games usually unlock the night before release. Borderlands 2 unlocked at 9pm on Monday the 17th (the night before release day). I have a feeling Ubisoft made it NOT midnight so people would buy it from other sources and promote the Uplay platform. To that I say; Fuck that shit. Although I am going to be buying the game on PC, I'm getting it through Steam. Just trying to vote with my dollar... but still end up giving it to Ubisoft. I've done the math and the game will unlock at 10 AM Pacific time on Tuesday.

Actually, as I understand it, Uplay is the problem. Ubisoft aren't unlocking the game to be activated on Uplay until 10am PST tomorrow (remember, it requires a one time UPlay activation no matter where or how you get it). That means, no matter how you get it you have to wait, even if you buy directly from Uplay. Also, all the folks going out to Walmart tonight and buying it for PC may not be able to play until tomorrow. So, I don't think it is to promote Uplay, if they wanted to do that they would make it so it only unlocks on Steam tomorrow, while Uplay customers get it tonight. Steam is simply not unlocking it until it is able to be activated on Uplay. Which is smart for them, they want to avoid the angry emails from consumers who can't play the game because of Uplay.

VC achievements, my god Nintendo don't do that to us. We cherish our lives!

@BenderUnit22 said:

@TreyoftheDead said:

Oh, MS is fucking over it's customers too? Should Patrick have to include every instance of every publisher fucking over their consumers?

The question is WHY THE FUCK IS HE POINTING THIS ONE OUT AT ALL? Up until the PS2, consoles weren't backwards compatible at all and even now it's not a standard. Now we're suddenly entitled to it, even though it's probably a hassle to counteract people handing their UMDs around so their friends get games for cheap.

I guess because he feels like if they are offering the program they should do it right and is asking for a bit of good will from the company to its consumers. Nothing wrong with that.

Though I seem to have misinterpreted the intentions of your first post, so I apologize for that. You've been arguing the entire time about entitlement and I assumed you were just being a dick and trying to make this about something it wasn't. Made a bit of an ass out of myself.

@Curufinwe said:

@TreyoftheDead said:

What the?

Both of those examples are completely different. Patrick's is about scanning a UMD you already own into a new system and paying half the original price for it, yours is about Microsoft offering a digital version of Halo 3. With Patrick's you know the person already owns the game, but you are assuming they do. UMD Transfer program =/= Xbox Live's Games on Demand.

Microsoft can tell you own Halo 3 if you have it in the drive and you're connected to Live, so why don't they offer a discounted version of the Games on Demand version to people that already own it on disc?

Yes, perhaps they should. I was not arguing that they shouldn't do that, I was simply pointing out to the original poster that their sarcastic example is a completely different scenario and really has no place here except that they wished to be a smart ass. Patrick is arguing for goodwill on a backwards compatibility UMD transfer program, the op is mockingly acting as if MS not offering a discount for Halo 3 owners is the same thing. It isn't. You can still play your Halo 3 disc on your 360, it isn't useless. That UMD is useless unless you want to carry around your PSP and Vita. But even if I'm an idiot and they are pretty much the same thing, why the hell was the op pointing it out in the first place? What purpose does it serve? Oh, MS is fucking over it's customers too? Should Patrick have to include every instance of every publisher fucking over their consumers?

@BenderUnit22 said:

Pachi-Slot Simulator: Treasures transfer Daito Giken Official enclosed Goddess ~ ~ PORTABLE--yes, that’s the actual name--is a pachinko title that costs 5,040 yen ($64.95) right now on Amazon.co.jp, and the Paon Corporation is asking that anyone who has already purchased the game on UMD to pay 2,500 yen ($30.93) for the digital copy. That’s nearly 50% of the original price price--sheer arrogance, and one of that doesn’t try to hide its unadulterated consumer exploitation. It's staring you in the face.

Halo 3 is on Games on Demand for $29.99. A digital copy of a game you already have purchased. That’s nearly 50% of the original price price--sheer arrogance, and one of that doesn’t try to hide its unadulterated consumer exploitation. It's staring you in the face. Now go write an article about that.

What the?

Both of those examples are completely different. Patrick's is about scanning a UMD you already own into a new system and paying half the original price for it, yours is about Microsoft offering a digital version of Halo 3. With Patrick's you know the person already owns the game, but you are assuming they do. UMD Transfer program =/= Xbox Live's Games on Demand.

@Mr_Skeleton said:

They can't top Patrick Stewart.

They certainly did with Sydow.

Good thing it is only a week. If it were a month or more it would piss off a lot of PC gamers that DICE has been trying so hard to appease and convince they are getting the superior version their platform deserves. Still, pretty silly of Sony to go after such a weak exclusivity deal. One week isn't going to make gamers on the fence about which console version to get flock to the PS3 release. Maybe they should be waving that money under Activision's nose for a better deal with MW3 or Treyarch's next offering since I'm sure MS already has the former locked.

This doesn't surprise me at all, nor does the fact that Gamestop is selling opened copies of a video game new; they do that with games all the time. If the only "new" copy of the game left is the one the took out of the case so as to use it for display purposes, they just put it back in and sell the game to you at the new price. It's bullshit.