Must be nice to be sitting on 1) a wide-bandwidth pipe, and 2) a large bandwidth/month ration.

Not everyone has your gifts.

(I'm moderately ok, but I'm still capable of feeling empathy for the people who aren't being served well by the US's horrible network.)


(beyond that - I'll always buy physical unless there's some compelling reason - like a massive sale or inability to find a copy. Physical forever.)

That was rescinded the instant the official PC system requirements where released. Those clearly stated DX9.0c.

Now, now, now. CD Projekt never stated that they would go for DRM with the Witcher series. They still want to do everything through premium physical content and if you look at the boxed version of Witcher 2 you see that they are doing this. (Any1 who really likes the game and didn't buy it is plain stupid in my opinion.) They also never stated that every downloaded copy would automatically be a sold copy, they just wanted to let the public know the numbers and that they could've sold more.

//edit

Just wanted to say this, because of "not nearly as big as companies claim".

I agree with your standpoint whole heartedly, it's just wrong to bring this up, when talking about Witcher 2.

And honestly? Alot of them are. And do. :shrug:




They also said "no DX11 fancies, just using some of the new optimized code." So it wouldn't have made your game look all terribly tesselated and lumpy.

If your computer is so low end that you have to squeeze out such a miniscule amount then it probably struggles to run web browser games. Infact having a web browser open idle consumes more than Steam does.

All companys talking piracy use such blown up numbers, I wasnt talking Witcher there.
I didnt say they stated that every pirated game would have been a sold game.
I was referring to his calculations on the number of pirated games, nothing more.
That is either deliberate exaggeration or just total lack of knowledge.

It would after a year or so with ENBSeries / Skyrim Graphics Extender / Skyrim Enhanced Shaders .

And I don't think demanding a game that uses a good portion of our platform's resources is asking too much. Some of the textures in Skyrim are flat out unacceptable for 2011. Just go to Windhelm and look at the ground (namely the muddy parts), or go to High Hrothgar during the main quest and look at some of the textures there, specifically the part of the ground where Arngeir shows you a Word ... and the word itself. Hell, go look at some grass / trees. Thank Talos for Vurt I guess.

I'm sure Bethesda mastered these textures at a higher resolution and then scaled them down for the consoles. It wouldn't kill them to pack these originals or at least less scaled down versions into the PC version. Also some of the models are laughably low poly. Try an apple?

I think it's when we ask for things like free DLC that is paid on other platforms that it crosses the line into Crybaby Kingdom. Though it is nice. With the original Modern Warfare we got all of the $15 console DLC free, built right into the patches. It was great. Forget TF2 even exists.

I run two everquest games or two eve online at the same time on my PC without lag, both on separate monitors, its not a matter of power as much as I feel it intrusive for Steam to have to be there. My position is its fine to buy and download via Steam and log on if you want, but it should not be mandatory to have to log on to play a non online game nor should patches be forced upon you via automatic updates.

Yet you still pay $60, while the producer makes more money than he would have if he had to print those assets physically. It just doesn't sit right with me.

I didn't even get a map to hang on my wall, guess I should just print one off from a .pdf file or something.

If you installed the game on the day Skyrim was released (or anytime before the "stealth patch"), downloaded the 1st day patch and then kept Steam off, you will are able to play the game directly by clicking the executable. The more recent patch apparently disallows doing this.

Sooner or later somebody will discover that PC gamers are becoming a neglected market and start making games that aren't console ports.
As for the "serious PC gamers buy digital, not boxed" in the OP...
Not sure you have any empiric evidence on that.
But even if so, there are quite a few people who PREFER a boxed game, perferbly even with a decent manual (including myself).
And when comparing prices at the online retailers where i purchase my games, the digital download games cost MORE than the boxed version.

We buy boxed--and have consulted the manual packaged with the game. Of course, we don't worry much about whether using a thin manual is beneath our dignity or about our cred as "serious PC gamers." I also liked the map, the statue, and the art book that came in my box and the quick install that I got from my disc. Mostly, I like having the game on a physical medium that will allow me to play it even if Steam support ceases down the road. I'm not using any sort of "workaround" now, but would if I couldn't access the game on Steam.

Digital distribution is huge, and PC has almost always sold around a third in terms of multiplat releases of AAA games. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; unless Todd Howard gives us some absolute figures to support his claim of PC players being 10% of sales, he needs to sit down and shut up.

No, he is right. The profit margin in console decreases by the 'licensing chip' that platform makers get for allowing companies to develop for said platforms. This more than makes up for the greater reach they provide though.

Well, he's factually wrong. And I don't care whether he has legit reasons to state it this way, it's still wrong. Also: The sun doesn't revolve around earth. And homeopathy is water plus fantasy.


Stop with the "workaround" talk already! I'm a paying costumer, running the version Steam and Bethesda transported to my computer, they installed and set up as they saw fit. Don't talk me into the pirate corner! Or I'm going to prep my broadside.

The thing about digital > boxed is merely personal experience. Your mileage may vary.

:violin:

Well, unless you have facts to back your statement, I can only assume you are assuming as well.

The facts are sitting here in front of me on my desktop. It's reproducible in a double-blinded experiment. Also, you can come by and watch me do it, then do it yourself, then we'll let my grandparents have a go. If you pay for the beer!

I fully give you they very likely messed up on release, and also unintentionally violated some Steam license regulation. This is an assumption however, other than what stated above.

As am I. But I like having my purchased disc as insurance against the future. You may believe that Steam is "forever." I've tended to view such things a little differently since one of my retirement account companies went bankrupt back in the 90s. I didn't lose a lot of money, but I am less inclined to assume that what works today will work indefinitely. I'm playing it Bethesda's way now and will continue to do so as long as that remains viable, but I buy my games in boxes.

You dont think Skyrim copied Oblivion just as much as CoD4 copied CoD 3?

If anything they both franchises are guilty of exactly the same thing. Skyrim is NOTHING but an Oblivion clone with better graphics, better perk system.

EVERYTHING ELSE Skyirm did was just rebuild Oblivion and dumb down and removed other free accessible abilities like creating your own spells, enchanting your own armor with anything you want. It's obvious the game was stripped down for console.

Dont get me wrong I love skyrim from a graphical standpoint...but it's done nothing new other than add perks which i fully give credit to.

I guess if you never want your game patched.

What a stupid comment.

That would be like me saying "Most cheapskates buy digital, while most serious PC gamers fork out for the collector's edition". That holds about as much water as your flawed assumption.

Wrong. PC is not getting any more patches for Skyrim than console, save for fixes to problems that only the PC has (which is not a good thing); every platform can develop unique issues, like the PS3's framerate issues during extended play or the 360's installation problem. The PC is just getting their patches/updates first because it's easier to do so; console updates have to go through more official processing and approvals with the big cheeses. If the PC does get more fixes, it's obviously not a good thing. Source? Get your own; you made the claim and therefore have the burden of proof, but I'm pretty sure we read from the same source anyway. Just don't misquote like that.

Anyway, I don't understand the purpose this thread is supposed to serve. Is it just more complaining to the effect of "my preferred platform got shirked about X for Y," or do you have a point to make? Sorry OP, I don't get you.

Anyway, if you can manage to uninstall the 1.2 patch (I know it can be done on consoles, and I was lucky enough to not have internet at home when it came out, so I avoided it altogether), then I hope you can enjoy Skryim until 1.3 :tes:

I hope topics like this stop soon, but what the hey :shrug:

Cheers.