|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: BloodstarBloodstar Date: Aug 2, 2006 08:47
OK, OK...
I just pointed out to SZO forum, they can ask developer there himself... All
concerns and all critics, just shoot it out there...:)
Mario
|
| |
|
| | 23 Comments |
|
|
Author: GiftzwergGiftzwerg Date: Aug 2, 2006 09:54
> OK, OK...
> I just pointed out to SZO forum, they can ask developer there himself... All
> concerns and all critics, just shoot it out there...:)
Ah, yes, "all critics" will be delightfully welcomed at the free and
open SZO "Distant Guns" forum ... uh, so long as they don't actually
venture any criticisms, whereupon they'll be summarily banned.
Kinda a unidirectional "shootout," that.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If a drunken Mel Gibson did indeed call out, 'Jews are responsible for
all the wars in the world,' then there can be only one possible place
for a man who believes such things: as the next Secretary General of the
United Nations."
- David Frum
|
| |
|
| | 22 Comments |
|
|
Author: Frank EFrank E Date: Aug 2, 2006 11:08
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 12:54:22 -0400, Giftzwerg
NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> OK, OK...
>> I just pointed out to SZO forum, they can ask developer there himself... All
>> concerns and all critics, just shoot it out there...:)
>
>
>
>Ah, yes, "all critics" will be delightfully welcomed at the free and
>open SZO "Distant Guns" forum ... uh, so long as they don't actually
>venture any criticisms, whereupon they'll be summarily banned.
>
>Kinda a unidirectional "shootout," that.
Ya know, I might have to concede that Bloodstar was right. The DG copy
protection is a non-issue.
|
| Show full article (0.98Kb) |
| 7 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Frank EFrank E Date: Aug 2, 2006 13:23
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 16:01:55 -0400, Giftzwerg
NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>But *is* their description correct?
The part I'm thinking of would have to be otherwise people would
notice immediately. I'm being purposefully vague here, I'm not gonna
get into descriptions on how to do it.
I am however, confident enough that I'd buy it under the assumption
that I could reinstall as often as I wanted, although it's debateable
whether I could patch those afterwards.
>I'm still waiting for a paying customer to do the obvious thing; try to
>install the thing *without* using their license process.
Once their 'special' offer is over with, we're talking about a $90
(65 + 25) game from what I gather. I don't think I'd spring for that
even w/o this copy protection.
>> Why they make their paying customers jump through hoops to do that
>> remains a mystery though.
>
>They're assholes?
|
| Show full article (1.26Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: GiftzwergGiftzwerg Date: Aug 2, 2006 13:47
>>But *is* their description correct?
>
> The part I'm thinking of would have to be otherwise people would
> notice immediately. I'm being purposefully vague here, I'm not gonna
> get into descriptions on how to do it.
Well, but what I mean is that now that the official release is out
there, there's no longer any need to speculate on any aspect of the
protection scheme. Someone should just post the facts.
> I am however, confident enough that I'd buy it under the assumption
> that I could reinstall as often as I wanted, although it's debateable
> whether I could patch those afterwards.
This - if we assume that the game is worthwhile otherwise - could put me
in the "buy" category, since all I've concerned about is whether I can
have in *my* possession all things necessary to install the game five
years hence.
|
| Show full article (2.23Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: eddysterckxeddysterckx Date: Aug 7, 2006 05:42
Frank E wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 13:59:15 +0200, "Bloodstar"
> microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>And about the price of DG, it's not too much. It's new game and most of new
>>games are now priced at similar prices (say PSP, DS games as well)
>>New Xbox 360 games are much more priced :o)
>
> Can you name 2 PC games, of any genre, that have sold for over $70 in
> the last few years?
War in the Pacific and ? :)
Price is not the issue, value for money is - the trouble is that what
constitutes "value" is rather personal. Come to think of it, so is
"money" - $50 used to be a lot of money when I was on an allowance :)
If RJW indeed turns out to be the ultimate tactical naval simulator,
naval buffs won't have a problem with the price. If otoh it's just a
mediocre quality bugfest the listed price will kill it. Time will tell.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: eddysterckxeddysterckx Date: Aug 7, 2006 07:13
Giftzwerg wrote:
> As an excercise in assigning development resources, in this environment,
> I'd much prefer the designer stuck to flat, 2D maps and put every last
> hour and every last keystroke into TacAI and OpAI routines so we get an
> HTTR or COTA at the operational level ... rather than some half-assed
> operational COMBAT MISSION where you have to tediously micromanage every
> unit every turn - but you get to see a little 3D PzkwIII representing IV
> PANZER ARMY sitting in a stand of little 3D trees that represents The
> Ardennes.
Yup, in essence that would be it : a little 3D tank sitting under a
stand of little 3D trees representing the Ardennes ... just like
tabletop wargamers have been using for the last 50 years.
Don't underestimate the lure of 3D - tabletop wargamers are "pretty
picture" junkies, but so are a lot of pc wargamers. The majority might
claim they're not into graphics, but I've seen the reaction/attention a
visually stunning game gets (ex : Tin Soldiers - Julius Caesar) and how
little attention a game that uses plain/ugly graphics (ex : Campaigns
on the Danube).
|
| Show full article (1.49Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: eddysterckxeddysterckx Date: Aug 7, 2006 23:38
Bloodstar wrote:
> But, heh, I won an argument as it seems about remakes and release of old
> game as any of you didn't list me a game that EA for example released again
> for 40 $ and it was originally released in 2000. It't good to see that this
> peasant from The Balkans can won arguments easily, still. :o)))
You sure can :)
> Just for a record! :o)) Or if you still want flame go ahead and list me 2 PC
> games that were released in 2000. and then rereleased in 2006. with minor
> changes, all for 40 $. There isn't any so you lost argument here. I won.
> Tralalala.
I don't want to spoil your good mood but ..
1) Steel Panthers -> SPWW2, SPWAW
2) Strategic Command 1 -> Strategic Command 2
> BTW, that is just showing how some companies treat their customers.
Imagine the audacity of companies trying to make a living in a free
market, instead of being obliged to produce a particular game for a
particular price, just like it said in the 5-year plan ...
> If wargames are such a different entity and not similiar to other games then
> why they are not priced at 150$?
|
| Show full article (2.14Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: eddysterckxeddysterckx Date: Aug 8, 2006 02:32
Bloodstar wrote:
> I was talking about games from mainstream - I am not
> arguing that older wargames should be 5 quids but at least some reduction to
> 20 US$. 25 $ top - TOAW for example. Now, that is their choice
Read that last sentence of yours again. I hope you finally will start
to realize the price of a product will be set by the seller in order to
maximize sales income. The actual cost to produce it is pretty
irrelevant - companies that manage to sell stuff for more money than it
takes them to produce it are said to make a profit, the others are
heading for Chapter 11.
> but at least
> we can influence them and tell them to stop with this crap. Clearly and
> loudly.
> Hmmm... you were also supporter of an idea of lowering prices on games that
> are older... bargain priuces, budget, whatever...
Sure - given exact sales figures (and remember that wargame publishers
these days pretty much have exact sales figures) it's pretty trivial to
see sells drop at a certain point, so dropping the price would make
your product more attractive to the next market segment.
|
| Show full article (5.34Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
