Assassin's Creed II specs & price info released

[FastRedPonyCar]

Originally Posted by Q

For $60 you are guaranteed that the game will work on your console. Although its rare to see a compatibility problem, there's always the chance that your PC game just won't work. Unless you have a high end system, your experience is probably going to be better on a console.

huge +1 on this statement. I've bought TWO copies of deadspace because my DVD copy wouldn't install. I had to go buy the steam copy to play it again

[nekrosoft13]

Originally Posted by FastRedPonyCar

huge +1 on this statement. I've bought TWO copies of deadspace because my DVD copy wouldn't install. I had to go buy the steam copy to play it again

dvds fail (damage, poor manufacturing etc...), it has nothing to do with the subject, same can happen with console games, dvds are not forever

[NarcissistZero]

Originally Posted by FastRedPonyCar

huge +1 on this statement. I've bought TWO copies of deadspace because my DVD copy wouldn't install. I had to go buy the steam copy to play it again

That has nothing to do with anything as nekro said, fyi.

Yes, consoles "just work," that is their main appeal and the reason they are more popular. PC gamers deal with more issues in order to have a much better gameplay experience. None of this is news, none of this is relevant.

[Q]

Originally Posted by NarcissistZero

Oh go away.

Oh go **** yourself.

I don't get ticked off at "every little thing", but I've had my fair share or problems with PC gaming that has led me to be a skeptic. While my experience in the last 3 years has been better, the PC has been my main gaming platform since 2002. In that time, I've had quite a few problems with PC games that justified the lower cost.

1 - Games don't play at all or BSOD the system

Grand Theft Auto - San Andreas wouldn't start do to Securom. I even wiped and reloaded and installed minimal drivers to make sure it wasn't my fault. Thankfully Rockstar and Securom actually teamed together and ended spending two weeks emailing me back and forth with custom EXEs. That's in stark contrast to....

Trackmania - Bluescreen pointing to Starforce driver. I was accused of being a thief by two tech support departments even after faxing receipts and disk scans. This was one of the worst PC gaming experiences I've ever had, and if it wasn't for some exclusives I was looking to play (Half Life 2 related) I would have kicked the PC for gaming for good at this point.

Colin McRae Rally 2005 & Splinter Cell 3 - Starforce issues, but good customer support. Still a pain in the ass and took a few weeks to get straightened out.

2. Games that do play crash to desktop occasionally. Even AAA titles.

Most games get patches and most of the time its in decent time frame. This is far from a guarantee. Modern Warfare 2, a $60 game, still crashes to desktop on mission starts occasionally even with the newest patch. That's the first game off the top of my head, but I could go down the list if you want.


On a console you simply DO NOT HAVE THESE ISSUES. Period. If the game doesn't work its usually due to a scratch or crack in the disk and usually retailers will exchange it for you if you are polite. And that's really the worst case scenario. I think that kind of guarantee is worth an extra $10 to $20 in many cases. I don't buy new PS3 games (Goozex is great), though.

[NarcissistZero]

Thanks for the rant, it has nothing to do with anything.

PC games take some more work than console games? REVELATION!!!!

[Sazar]

Originally Posted by NarcissistZero

How does that relate to you personally? I am asking why a PC game is not worth $60.

Some PC games are worth that much. MW2 was not. AC2 might be better value simply because of all the DLC stuff that you don't have to pay for on the PC.

I refuse to buy MW2 till the price drops, but I might for AC2 simply because it's not a complete rip-off when you factor in the content.

By the way, ME2, definitely worth the money for the upgraded stuff

[Sazar]

Originally Posted by NarcissistZero

Thanks for the rant, it has nothing to do with anything.

PC games take some more work than console games? REVELATION!!!!

I liked the whole "REVELATION" thing

So true.

[Q]

Originally Posted by NarcissistZero

Thanks for the rant, it has nothing to do with anything.

PC games take some more work than console games? REVELATION!!!!

Then let me put it to you in a different way. PC games are inferior goods to their console counterparts much in the same way Wii games are inferior to PS3/360 games.

Best experience to worst experience with regards to averages and standard new games prices.

PS3/360 - $60 - Best combination of graphic power and ease of use.
Wii - $50 - Lower graphics standards, retains ease of use in most scenarios and more intuitive controls in others.
PC - $40 to $50- Average user will likely have an experience with better graphics than the Wii with the possibility of surpassing the PS3/360 level if they have a modern/semi-expensive system. Meaning a graphics card that costs as much as a Wii or 360. You run the possibility of running into the issues I mentioned in my previous point.

I don't see how that ISN'T relevant? I'm fine with the above price points because you get a small break in price for having to put up with some unsavory issues. Also, and has been previously mentioned, there isn't a licensing fee to pay to Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft. However, I CAN understand that there is more support and development work to get things working right on an open platform.

The problem is PC games need to be cheaper than console games to remain competitive. Its the same reason that Wii games need to be $10 cheaper.

[NarcissistZero]

Originally Posted by Q

Then let me put it to you in a different way. PC games are inferior goods to their console counterparts much in the same way Wii games are inferior to PS3/360 games.

And this is where you are an idiot. PC games require more effort sometimes but they also offer the most superior gameplay experience with better controls, better graphics and tweaks and mods to make the game play the way YOU want. You can't turn off depth of field and run Mass Effect 2 at a supersampled full 1080p with mouse aiming on console, that makes the console version the inferior gameplay experience.

Do people choose the inferior gameplay experience because it's easier to use? Yes. I choose the inferior MP3 audio quality over CDs because it has other benefits like portability and ease of access. That doesn't make MP3 any less inferior as an audio experience, it is.

I don't see how that ISN'T relevant? I'm fine with the above price points because you get a small break in price for having to put up with some unsavory issues. Also, and has been previously mentioned, there isn't a licensing fee to pay to Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft. However, I CAN understand that there is more support and development work to get things working right on an open platform.

I want a discount on Mass Effect 2 on Xbox because it looks worse, plays worse and has a worse framerate.

[HiCZoK4]

Originally Posted by FastRedPonyCar

huge +1 on this statement. I've bought TWO copies of deadspace because my DVD copy wouldn't install. I had to go buy the steam copy to play it again

I also totally agree with Q statement + You can install games on consoles now (at leas on 360) so dvd failure is fixed becouse dvd is not even spinning after game start.

Getting game for Console guarantee You will have it up and running while on PC You cannot trust system requiments.

To be a pc gamer, You have to know bits and bites about pc usage to maximize You pc horsepower and fix all the problems(Unless you have really good pc, then You can give a **** about requiments)

It might seem stupid. But I own pc since I am 7yo. I had soooo many problems with pc games\software and pc itself that it is impossible to list. Now when I encounter almost any problem, I can fix it.

But now I think its harder to learn pc usage from basics. Everything is simplimized and automatic. Windows do everything automaticly and very casual. When I was starting there was Windows 95 and DOS. So everyone (well mostly) who was using pc then, was learning more. Everything was other than now. When game was not working under win95 I had to go to dos(with starting floppy) and through commands go to folder with game, run setup. Choose sound eq dma and all that ****. (plus users had to manually add mouse and soundcard support to freaking dos otherwise it not worked)

And before XP, I was mostly installing drivers manual from Device Menager. Choosing inf and all that stuff. Now its jus "enter" and everything install itself.

When I was 8(maybe 9yo) I was installing win98 myself Without any help:P Even twice or more per day, as I was trying everything to maximize my pc horsepower. I still remember win98 installation 25 digit code... aahhhh these were times


Edit. Crap... This is offtopic oh yes yes. Assasin 2 good goood game !:P

[Q]

Originally Posted by NarcissistZero

And this is where you are an idiot. PC games require more effort sometimes but they also offer the most superior gameplay experience with better controls, better graphics and tweaks and mods to make the game play the way YOU want. You can't turn off depth of field and run Mass Effect 2 at a supersampled full 1080p with mouse aiming on console, that makes the console version the inferior gameplay experience.

Do people choose the inferior gameplay experience because it's easier to use? Yes. I choose the inferior MP3 audio quality over CDs because it has other benefits like portability and ease of access. That doesn't make MP3 any less inferior as an audio experience, it is.



I want a discount on Mass Effect 2 on Xbox because it looks worse, plays worse and has a worse framerate.

Earlier in this thread you were complaining about PC gamers who will bitch about anything and anything. You really seem to be the exact opposite. You'll defend PC gaming at any cost, even if the DRM is draconian, the cost is outrageous, and the stability is questionable.

At least, this is the way it seems. We all tend to come across as a bit one dimensional on the internet. We have to boil down our opinions to a few poignant sentences or we don't get any consideration (TL:DR!!!) I hope that I'm not coming across as a ignorant as I might seem.

I'm a PC gamer first and foremost. I rarely touch my PS3. I WANT PC gaming to succeed. I think it IS the superior platform. I want companies to turn good and fair profits on their hard work and investments. I don't want piracy to deter companies from making good games on this platform.

At the same time, I'm thinking about averages. Everything you said in your quoted post is true - I won't argue that with you because you're right. The point that I'm failing to make clear is that your Mass Effect scenario doesn't ring true for the majority of PC gamers. We constantly hear about how many more low and medium tier video cards are sold in comparison to the high end products. These means that the game play experience possible for the two of us doesn't really apply to the average PC gamer.

Also, not every game is ported as well as Mass Effect 2. Sometimes you're stuck with the keyboard and mouse when a 360 controller would be a better fit. Sometimes you're stuck with cruddy graphics options, limited resolutions, software that crashes on PC that runs fine on consoles, and graphics engines that hinder AA.

I think where we differ in opinion is that you look at the potential of PC gaming and I look at the average big picture. Hey, I'm a PC gamer for all the reasons you mentioned in your post. I invest the money in hardware, but I'm also thinking about all the countless people who enjoy PC gaming but don't have the cash to run their games at high resolutions. I'm also thinking about the hurdles presented to the average PC gamer.

Because of the money and time we've invested in the platform, are well coded and supported PC games worth $60 to people like you and me? (With regards to one of your original questions?) YES! My reservation is that to the average PC gamer the cost advantage may be a reason for staying with the platform. I want PC gaming to succeed and I believe that driving up the price of PC games is going to hurt the platform more than help it. Of course this didn't effect Modern Warfare 2 because it was a MUST HAVE game. They could have charged $70 and it still would have sold just fine. I'm worried that if $60 is the new standard that there is going to be a migration of the casual gamer because they could have a product that "just works" for the same price and have a similar gaming experience with regards to the low/medium tier hardware which they already own.

[Sazar]

Q, you have a point of view. There are many people who will disagree with that point of view simply because of their personal experiences as compared to yours.

Let's just say that there is a disagreement over the pricing and our views on why we think something should be at one price or another

Btw, when you are thinking about AVERAGES, go ahead and think about the number of people who have a high-def television and decent sound system (add that to cost of ownership of a console).