The Arcade Random Thoughts Thread

[Swarley]

If you think about it $30 for 4 packs of DLC comes out to like $7.50 a pack, which is a lot cheaper than most shooter DLCs.

Exactly. At the very least they are going to cost $10 a piece, possibly even $15 if they go the route of those Activision fucks.

[SethMode]

No clue. But both RE4 and BG& E were both Gamecube/PS2 games and one is Games on Demand and the other XBLA. And how else can you explain the fact that the 360 version has a full 1000 gamerscore but only 12 cheevos, which is the exact number of cheevos required for XBLA games?

I can explain it because it is in fact a GB and a half larger (give or take) than the XBLA game cap right now. And just because it was on the PS2 and GC and BG&E was is really neither here nor there. The game was released 2 years after BG&E for one, and regardless, being released on a particular system means nothing in terms of compressed data on a disk.

Basically, the hard numbers are that BG&E was a 1.7 GB game, and RE4 is a 3.59 GB game.

Now, I don't know why that meant making 1000 achievement points for the 360 in comparison to some apparently disappointing trophies (I still don't entirely understand the direct achievement point to trophy level ratio myself), but I can fairly confidently say that it had nothing to do with a last minute "this must be a Game on Demand game" thing. If anything, they were probably told to make sure that the achievements just added up to 1000 because they didn't want it to be an XBLA game.

That, and perhaps they were just REALLY LAZY with the achievements. It's not like the trophies are especially good either. That game had a lot of potential for wild achievements, and instead it is basically lame progress based ones and complete it on Hard (for both consoles).

[SethMode]

As far as the season pass shit, I guess it's just my perspective but, so much DLC is just not that good, and usually disappointing. It's always a nice idea with fairly boring execution.

Now, I don't play much competitive multiplayer so I can't speak to the value of map packs, but as far as most SP DLC....outside of a few gems like Shadow Broker, most is pretty meh. I'd rather buy here or there after reading reviews and reactions than pay before had and "save" money. A lot of times I will only buy one DLC for a game. And the few times I've played competitive multiplayer, its only increased my resolve to never buy a map pack as DLC. Just me, though, hence why I'm confused why people do it. But hey, there are people buying gun skins for Gears 3 right now, so what do I know?

[Saluki]

Just had my first run-in with Old King Doran in Demon's Souls, and he promptly kicked my ass.

I got the deamonbrant up off him last night on my level 3 character .......only took like an hour to take down that 1/4th of his lifebard to get it.,..........

[Fox1994]

I hate that game developers find it acceptable to release buggy games just because they know they can patch them later. I know it's assumed - and almost always true - that players have online, but it's still a shitty thing to do.

[padman59]

I got the deamonbrant up off him last night on my level 3 character .......only took like an hour to take down that 1/4th of his lifebard to get it.,..........

Nice. After he killed me with one hit, I said "fuck that". I managed to get my souls back though. I'll come back to him later.

On a positive note, I did cheese my way into killing the Red Dragon. Only took about 70 arrows.

[Twigg4075]

I'm reading the August issue of GamePro and yet another indie developer is complaining about MS's contracts and certifications processes.

He's the developer of the upcoming Retro City Rampage, which looks and sounds awesome by the way. He says "The contract negotiation experience was not a good one. It took even more unnecessary time away from finishing the game and improving the overall quality, and this is something MS needs to work on."

I swear, if these douche bags didn't have such a large install base no one would want to work with the.

[Twigg4075]

I hate that game developers find it acceptable to release buggy games just because they know they can patch them later. I know it's assumed - and almost always true - that players have online, but it's still a shitty thing to do.

That is a shitty practice and I hate it as well. But "most gamers" actually do not have online access. The last statistics I've sen show that less than 50% of gamers are online.

So basically half of gamers get stuck with a half assed game.

[Fox1994]

That is a shitty practice and I hate it as well. But "most gamers" actually do not have online access. The last statistics I've sen show that less than 50% of gamers are online.

So basically half of gamers get stuck with a half assed game.

Well, I generally fall into the category that doesn't have online access, but I assumed that these fucking developers had some sort of basis for this shitty business practice. I still can't figure out why they're trying to dismantle their industry at its peak.

[SethMode]

Well, I generally fall into the category that doesn't have online access, but I assumed that these fucking developers had some sort of basis for this shitty business practice. I still can't figure out why they're trying to dismantle their industry at its peak.

Quit blaming the developers. Blame the publishers if you're going to blame anyone. Deadlines are set and developers have to meet them. Sometimes that means putting out a product that is subpar. There are few developers that have the clout to get away with multiple delays in this economy/gaming environment.

But then again, hard to place too much blame on the publishers because it's their money at stake.

[Fox1994]

Quit blaming the developers. Blame the publishers if you're going to blame anyone. Deadlines are set and developers have to meet them. Sometimes that means putting out a product that is subpar. There are few developers that have the clout to get away with multiple delays in this economy/gaming environment.

But then again, hard to place too much blame on the publishers because it's their money at stake.

Still a shitty business practice.

Perhaps the publishers need to be more lenient with their deadlines. I don't mean allowing multiple delays, but rather just agreeing upon a more fair process time to begin with.

It's said that haste makes waste. All they do when they rush games through production is end up giving themselves and their customers more hassle. I would imagine it could punish the development cycle of the next game if they have to keep going back to fix an old one that was supposed to be done already, so the cycle of shitty development continues without end.

Like when there are constant patches to fix things in NCAA like custom playbooks when the game is supposed to be completed a few weeks before release. I think I read reports that Bully: Scholarship Edition had bugs that rendered it unplayable without being patched.

What about the players that buy the game and don't have online? They end up returning the game, which ends up costing everyone involved money.

There's zero excuse for putting out a subpar product. It's one thing when a game is just of poor quality conceptually, but when it's even difficult to play because of bugs and glitches, it just shows a general lack of care.

As far as the publisher's money goes, you would think that they'd want a quality product developed so that people actually line their pockets further instead of just avoiding buying it. That's what I do when I hear a game has quality control problems that make entire features or game modes unusable - avoid purchasing it.

[SethMode]

Still a shitty business practice.

Perhaps the publishers need to be more lenient with their deadlines. I don't mean allowing multiple delays, but rather just agreeing upon a more fair process time to begin with.

It's said that haste makes waste. All they do when they rush games through production is end up giving themselves and their customers more hassle. I would imagine it could punish the development cycle of the next game if they have to keep going back to fix an old one that was supposed to be done already, so the cycle of shitty development continues without end.

Like when there are constant patches to fix things in NCAA like custom playbooks when the game is supposed to be completed a few weeks before release. I think I read reports that Bully: Scholarship Edition had bugs that rendered it unplayable without being patched.

What about the players that buy the game and don't have online? They end up returning the game, which ends up costing everyone involved money.

There's zero excuse for putting out a subpar product. It's one thing when a game is just of poor quality conceptually, but when it's even difficult to play because of bugs and glitches, it just shows a general lack of care.

As far as the publisher's money goes, you would think that they'd want a quality product developed so that people actually line their pockets further instead of just avoiding buying it. That's what I do when I hear a game has quality control problems that make entire features or game modes unusable - avoid purchasing it.

I don't know what to tell you man. Your idealistic nature is nice, but idealistic. It's like saying "If all natural food is better for everyone, why wouldn't every supermarket just sell all natural food?" It's a nice idea but not financially feasible in most cases.

Also, it becomes pretty clear that you aren't aware with exactly HOW MUCH money that the publishers sometimes throw at developers to make these games. Let me tell you one small thing: returns due to bugs are never going to cost anyone NEARLY as much money as the actual making of the game will. The fact is, it's a business. If there were infinite amounts of money to pay the hundreds of people on dev teams to work for as long as needed to make the game perfect, then everyone would win. As it stands though, there isn't.

Getting back to the original point, I don't think that anyone, ANYWHERE would argue that it is a "good" business practice to put out a game with bugs, but your analysis is very short-sighted.

[Saluki]

Nice. After he killed me with one hit, I said "fuck that". I managed to get my souls back though. I'll come back to him later.

On a positive note, I did cheese my way into killing the Red Dragon. Only took about 70 arrows.

Arrows and Magic >>> than getting your ass kicked when ur live level 1

I made this knight tho for my 2nd character pretty much cuz all the badass looking armor is heavy

[Guest]

Just got me Moon, so far i have made it 10 rounds. Need a good team :-\

[JayDizzle]

Just got me Moon, so far i have made it 10 rounds. Need a good team :-\

Activision was smart enough to release the zombie map pack last seeing as a large percentage of MP players would ONLY use that.

Any earlier and you'd find at least 5 or more to play with depending on which system... XBox 360 moreso.