I hope Firaxis is still on the list. I have to admit I am a little concerned about them.
I would include Relic and Firaxis on that list as well. But yes, they pretty much nailed the ones they had.
With Wow: They nickel and dime their customers. A game that has a subscription fee should not ever charge gamers for expansion packs. That's pure greed and not in any way justified. With Starcraft 2, they removed lan play and are making people pay $50 to buy 1/3rd of the game, so in effect they are charging $150 for SC2 which is pretty ridiculous. There will probably be expansion packs after that as well. Even if SC2 turns out to be an amazing game(which it probably will be), it won't change anything. I'm sure even the majorly criticized CoD MW2 is a good game, but the company is clearly not looking out for PC gamers.
A company that does this stuff isn't looking out for their customers and does not belong on a list that says they do.
I agree with Dice, I don't see any reason why the shouldn't use the pc as there main platform. Bf2 sold several million copies without the consoles and I'm sure a solid Bf3 will sell similar if not more.
As for Blizzard, I think they would have jumped ship already if it wasn't for all of their ip just not working well on the consoles. Rts, arpg, and mmo's just don't work well with a controller.
Why is everyone all of a sudden in love with DICE? Oh yeah, it's because you were spurned by Infinity Ward. DICE has sh!t on PC gamers for years, they even admitted it themselves. Why not wait for the BF3 to come out first to see if anything they say about the game is true before kissing too much ass? Don't forget this game will be published by EA, so there is no telling what sort of douche baggery might surface once the game is actually released.
I assume that you are also aware that BF3 dedicated servers will allowed, but that these servers will need to be rented from EA/DICE's partners? You won't be able to run a BF3 server on your own box or rent from the co-lo of your choice. http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/bat...2009/10/26/dedicated-to-our-pc-players.aspx##
I'll admit, I made a large assumption. I was more just trying to point out that all of Blizzards ip is deeply entrenched in the platform. So they don't have much of a choice unless they are willing to take a risk with a new ip or do something like Ghost which as we know didn't go so well.Again, why not judge based on facts instead of conjecture and assumptions? The fact of the matter is the Blizzard currently has the most successful game on the PC platform and doesn't make any console games. As you said the type of games they make don't really lend themselves to consoles, but yet they haven't switched to a type of game that does.
You begrudge a company because they have successfully developed a game that players are willing to pay a monthly subscription for AND still pay for expansion packs? Yes, the money adds up over time, but if you consider the amount of game time spent and the amount of content available to the player, you would see that most players are still getting a lot of game for their money.
Why is everyone all of a sudden in love with DICE? Oh yeah, it's because you were spurned by Infinity Ward. DICE has sh!t on PC gamers for years, they even admitted it themselves. Why not wait for the BF3 to come out first to see if anything they say about the game is true before kissing too much ass? Don't forget this game will be published by EA, so there is no telling what sort of douche baggery might surface once the game is actually released.
I assume that you are also aware that BF3 dedicated servers will allowed, but that these servers will need to be rented from EA/DICE's partners? You won't be able to run a BF3 server on your own box or rent from the co-lo of your choice. http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/bat...2009/10/26/dedicated-to-our-pc-players.aspx##
Again, why not judge based on facts instead of conjecture and assumptions? The fact of the matter is the Blizzard currently has the most successful game on the PC platform and doesn't make any console games. As you said the type of games they make don't really lend themselves to consoles, but yet they haven't switched to a type of game that does.
I love how DICE is all of a sudden a dev that likes the PC when so many PC gamers hate BF2 and all the problems it had. Now people are loving them...
no one has any loyalties these days. it all changes at the flip of a switch.
Battlefield 2 is one of the few mp games i still enjoy and play regularly on the pc. It was also published by EA and just recently received a patch several years after release. Just because they dont release a new pc game every year doesn't mean they are shitting on PC gamers. They made several statements saying that they are committed to the PC and it makes sense based on the huge sales numbers for bf2. So until I have reason to believe otherwise I will continue to support them.
Now, the reasons the PC platform are getting seemingly "better" features in the game are a result of DICE ignoring the PC user base for the past 3-4 years
With Wow: They nickel and dime their customers. A game that has a subscription fee should not ever charge gamers for expansion packs. That's pure greed and not in any way justified. With Starcraft 2, they removed lan play and are making people pay $50 to buy 1/3rd of the game, so in effect they are charging $150 for SC2 which is pretty ridiculous. There will probably be expansion packs after that as well. Even if SC2 turns out to be an amazing game(which it probably will be), it won't change anything. I'm sure even the majorly criticized CoD MW2 is a good game, but the company is clearly not looking out for PC gamers.
A company that does this stuff isn't looking out for their customers and does not belong on a list that says they do.
Don't get me wrong, BF3 might end being a great game for PC gamers... but I think to fall in love with DICE over BF3 before it has been released is a bit pre-mature. I don't know about you, but I'm a bit leery of anything related to EA until it has been launched.
..You're confusing BF3 with BFBC2. BF3 is going to be a true, pc exclusive, sequel to BF2. It will have modding tools, dedicated servers, and everything a proper PC game should have.
You're confusing BF3 with BFBC2. BF3 is going to be a true, pc exclusive, sequel to BF2. It will have modding tools, dedicated servers, and everything a proper PC game should have.
Why is everyone all of a sudden in love with DICE? Oh yeah, it's because you were spurned by Infinity Ward.
Some of us have liked DICE since Battlefield 1942, before CoD was even around. Some of us have always prefered the Battlefield games to the CoD games.
I hope Firaxis is still on the list. I have to admit I am a little concerned about them.
SC2 is supposed to be split into three FULL Campaigns, spread across three packs.
Essentially you will be getting three full length games, each with its own specific race at the heart of the campaign.
Despite my belief that SC2 will be average, much like SC1, I cannot sit and watch people trolling it because Blizzard have taken a different route to the normal campaign structure. With the changes in structure I believe multiplayer will be reasonably unaffected.
However, I do agree that the removal of LAN play was a mistake.
By full length games, you mean 2009 full length games that are now beatable in 5-10 hours, yes? So Blizzard has kindly graced us with 3 full length games. Now we can reminisce how back in the day, games like Starcraft were as long as 3 games.
Firaxis is solidly PC centric. Do you honestly think Civ Revolution outsold any Civ game on PC? I don't. And Pirates was PC first; consoles afterword. Civ IV continues to remain at the top of the selling charts on NPD, Steam, and D2D - an excellent indication the game not only sold well at release but has continued longevity in retail. They just announced Civilization for Facebook (tbh I'm not all that excited about that).
I imagine that Civ 5 will be announced/introduced around the release of facebook version.
I don't even need Civ 5, I'm hoping for an Alpha Centauri 2. (Though there's some rights issue with that I guess... EA owns (some of?) the rights to AC.) Or heck, they can make something new without a number on the end.
Dragon Age is the sort of hard and hardcore PC game that you'd think would be dead now... But I wouldn't be surprised if TOR ended up on console too (for one thing, it uses the Mass Effect convo wheel). PS3, at least -- I'm sure it will be too big for 1 Xbox DVD.
That's funny if true considering the only reason alpha centauri was made was because they didn't have rights to civ at the time. I still think alpha centauri is the best civ game to date though would love a sequel.
Question: I'm a huge fan of Alpha Centauri and I still find myself playing the game 10 years now after it was first released. Is there any chance of a new Alpha Centauri game or a re-release of this addictive and masterful gem?
Sid: Were all big Alpha Centauri fans as well. The series is owned by Electronic Arts (we were developing games for them back then), so the ball is in their court on whether or not to make a new version.
if you see how dumbed down some of the things in CIV has become,
WoW is ONLY for the computer, and it is ridiculously, insanely popular.Blizzard does not belong on the list, not after WoW and SC2. Valve has earned its spot though.
i read interviews that said they still thought SMAC was too hardcore for the masses. especially the custom unit building tool or whatever it was called. if you see how dumbed down some of the things in CIV has become, you'll agree somewhat with what they're saying. the problem is, all the more in-depth stuff was what made SMAC so great too.