+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=42)
+--- Thread: WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games (/showthread.php?tid=1952)
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - A Black Falcon - 26th May 2004
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/05/26/news_6099292.html
Below 70% overall from gaming-review collection sites (like Gamerankings) and your liscencing fee goes up... sounds like a good idea to me.
Oh, Enter the Matrix got a overall 68% Gamerankings score (across platforms) so it'd have failed this test (and that was a WB-liscenced game)...
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - The Former DMiller - 26th May 2004
I think it's a great idea. License holders don't want to see their licenses attached to bad games, and it happens way too often. Enter the Matrix was a bad game, but I guess it fits with the last two-thirds of the trilogy. ;)
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - A Black Falcon - 26th May 2004
The very negative reviews are one reason I never saw the second or third Matrix films... I might someday, but it doesn't sound like it's worth doing other other movies I'd probably like more.
As for this, it is definitely a good move. 70% is probably a decent choice. Oh, some games rated 70% are not that good, but ones below that are generally ones that are truly bad and not just something that has flaws, which is more like what I'd expect from a C-rated game. And it should also help make developers think at least some with their liscences... liscenced games bad so often that I generally just ignore them...
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - Dark Jaguar - 26th May 2004
<img src="http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2004/20040526l.jpg">
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - Great Rumbler - 26th May 2004
Those companies derserve it for making bad games based on books/movies/rides/tv shows/alluminum siding.
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - OB1 - 26th May 2004
Oh this is the best news I've heard since E3. Now greedy publishers might finally put some real effort into making good Batman and Superman games! YAY!!!
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - A Black Falcon - 26th May 2004
If you read that article, the Atari guy says that since EtM made over $250 million, this rule is stupid... :)
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - OB1 - 26th May 2004
But of course he would.
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - A Black Falcon - 26th May 2004
Yes, of course he would, but it's interesting to see that WB seems to actually care about quality and not just money...
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - Great Rumbler - 27th May 2004
Actually, I'd say they ARE thinking about money here, if the developer makes a bad game WB get to charge them MORE for it.
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - A Black Falcon - 27th May 2004
True... but I would think that they'd rather the games are good because one of the biggest problems with liscenced games is the terrible reputation they have among gamers...
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - Great Rumbler - 27th May 2004
Good games usually make more money than ones that aren't very good [except in some cases], so if they start making better games they might start brining in more money. It works both ways, really.
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - A Black Falcon - 27th May 2004
But bad liscenced games do obviously do well enough to make some money often enough that companies keep making them...
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - Great Rumbler - 27th May 2004
It's the sad truth.
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - Dark Jaguar - 27th May 2004
Yes it is, but even though they make enough to make bad games still profitable, check the top sellers lists every few months. Aside from a few miracle games that I really don't get how they got there, they are almost totally dominated by great games, or at least stuff that ain't stupid. Nintendo, Square-Enix, Capcom, and Konami games generally go straight to the top. If Blizzard released something, it's there too on the PC lists, though PC games generally don't sell as much for some reason... Anyway, regardless of what one feels about any of those companies, they have a consistant enough best seller presence that they sorta proved themselves as quality.
So it's either make a few games that are good enough that they sell in the millions, or make LOTS and LOTS of sub par games and hope the volume of karp makes up for the lack of individual sales rates.
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - N_A - 28th May 2004
PC games for hit titles do sell alot, however in most other cases, it is unfortunate that there are more theives on the internet, particularly now with the bittorrent system than ever before, who steal software and make it more expensive for all of us diminishing honest people to buy PC games.
While piracy does happen for consoles too, its increasingly less efficient, except for the GBA, since the 2 piratable systems are DVD run and DVDs are still expensive and slow to encode and burn, etc. However, the bittorrent system is still heavily involved in this.
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - A Black Falcon - 28th May 2004
Piracy is a problem on all systems (GBA? Hard to pirate onto a GBA, but incredibly easy to play in emulation on a PC...). PC games sell less than consoles because people just seem to prefer playing games on TVs than on computer monitors...
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - N_A - 28th May 2004
PC gamers by far outnumber console gamers. Most gamers don't give a rat's ass about console games because they feel they mostly suck compared to PC games - suckier graphics, mouse and keyboard combo supplemented by joystick/joypad do much better, better internet play, easier accessability given everyone has a PC simply for productivity reasons and the cheapest PCs on the market for productivity can offer good gameplay capabilities. Hence there are more PC owners and potentially PC gamers than there will ever be console gamers. PC games also offer a much wider variety of selection than all consoles put together. Hence, no one particular game sells extraordinarily well unless its something VERY VERY extraordinarily good.
There will also always be more producers for the PC market, hence diluting the PC market across way too many games, because there are a whole lot less complications involved, such as this lisencing crap we're discussing, not to mention its straight up PC tools as opposed to specialized console tools, and of course the publishing system is a whole lot simpler and cheaper.
If you watch the trackers on some of these bittorrent sites, popular games like recently Splinter Cell 2, can easily make a couple hundred thousand downloads. And its being shared on many sites, not just one, so they add to be enough for you to figure that the number of sales are terribly diminished. I was kind of dismayed... hell, I bought SC2 for PC for $40. I know for a fact I will buy any game thats on the console for PC instead because the console version will most likely suck ass in comparison with the exceptions of console to PC ports. Splinter Cell 2 is exceedingly superior on the PC than it is on Xbox, PS2 and especially for the Gamecube.
Overall, the PC market looks like this: more gamers, way too many games, a whole lot of piracy, everyone looses something over this matrix of above considerations.
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - OB1 - 28th May 2004
SC2 is definitely better on the X-Box. Extra downloadable levels (exclusive to XBox), voice support for multiplayer (essential to the multiplayer mode and most PC users don't use it), and the controls are just as good, if not better. Aiming isn't as precise but movement is analog and much easier to do.
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - N_A - 28th May 2004
Controls on the pad are clumsy compared with mouse and keyboard. I find precise aiming to be rather important in a stealth game. Analog control compared with mouse and mousewheel is better, but easily compensated for. But then this game is mostly a sneaker, so you're on creeping speed at most times, and when you change, its more of a momentar scuffle to cover. I've played both versions, haven't tested the multiplayer, but the graphics are definitely superior on PC.
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - alien space marine - 28th May 2004
Only three genres do exceptionaly well on the pc , FPS,RPG,RTS.
RTS console games suck cock and its not just a fact its a law like gravity.
Reason being this, Pc has better internet acess and is way ahead of all the consoles in online gaming. The Mouse and keyboard are better then a keypad controler on FPS and especially RTS. The big bonus of a PC is customization making your own skins for half life or Mod games of your own.Making maps and even your own RPG stories in warcraft III.Build editors add so much replay value too even games you are bored sick of.
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - OB1 - 28th May 2004
If you have a good PC then yes, the graphics will be superior. Just not by much, mostly in the resolution department. Splinter Cell isn't a twitch shooter so super precise aiming isn't needed and the controls are overall much more efficient on the xbox pad. However, with everything that the PC version is missing (extra downloadable levels, voice support), you'd have to be very foolish or XBox-less to choose that over the Xb version. Multiplayer is the best part of the game, btw.
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - alien space marine - 28th May 2004
The way it goes Ob1 is that PC games dont do good on consoles and console games do poor on PC's.
In KOTOR I played the Xbox version since I got it in a nice Bundle deal getting my xbox, Though its true that the Pc version had new bonus features and extra content,But the game just played better on the xbox for me personally mainly due to controls.Now those who have Xbox live can get the extra content that was in the pc version.(But all it was is a crappy space station that sells some extra items)
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - N_A - 28th May 2004
Precise aiming is required of Splinter Cell because in stealth games require one shot one kill, and in some situations, do it quickly and in succession. Tom Clancy games by far and large do not forgive you for missing shots or taking too long to place a shot.
I get the feeling you're not much of a PC gamer to know and appreciate the difference. Its definitely alot harder to make these kind of adjustments efficiently on a joypad. Everything about the feel of Splinter Cell is exceedingly superior on the PC, coming from a player who's experienced both. I haven't gone through the entire single player mode, but I've done the multi. I can give a testimony for SC1 as well. The console version definitely sucked ass compared to the PC. I played the Gamecube version, that thing was just impossible to control and the Xbox version wasn't much better.
Maybe theres missing new level updates, but Ubisoft will have to support PC version of SC2 sooner or later. MS has paid off Ubisoft to give them a select amount of exclusitivity, but it will end sooner or later. Who ever heard of a PC game that wasn't supported with extra downloads when they are readily avaliable, lol.
And isn't voice support avaliable on PC ? I hear people using it online, but I never use it because I just prefer to type chat.
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - lazyfatbum - 28th May 2004
*rubs ass on the carpet*
fffff....
flushhh....
Flushing the teliot
Teliot!!!!
I'm wearing
I'm clothes no
Anagram
(stupid)
I am doggie. :)
WB: Higher liscencing fees for bad games - OB1 - 28th May 2004
Quote:Precise aiming is required of Splinter Cell because in stealth games require one shot one kill, and in some situations, do it quickly and in succession. Tom Clancy games by far and large do not forgive you for missing shots or taking too long to place a shot.Precise aiming yes, quick frantic aiming no. Unless you're completely helpless with an xbox controller, head shots in SC are not a problem.
Quote:I get the feeling you're not much of a PC gamer to know and appreciate the difference. Its definitely alot harder to make these kind of adjustments efficiently on a joypad. Everything about the feel of Splinter Cell is exceedingly superior on the PC, coming from a player who's experienced both. I haven't gone through the entire single player mode, but I've done the multi. I can give a testimony for SC1 as well. The console version definitely sucked ass compared to the PC. I played the Gamecube version, that thing was just impossible to control and the Xbox version wasn't much better.Au contraire, I play lots of PC games, and I'm afraid that it is you who has a narrow view on this matter. I have a PC, X-Box, GC, and PS2, and have no biases when it comes to multiconsole titles. Since I can play the games on any platform of my choice, I always get the best versions. It seems that you are helpless with a console pad and in that case it's understandable that your only option for SC is to use a kb&m.
Quote:Maybe theres missing new level updates, but Ubisoft will have to support PC version of SC2 sooner or later. MS has paid off Ubisoft to give them a select amount of exclusitivity, but it will end sooner or later. Who ever heard of a PC game that wasn't supported with extra downloads when they are readily avaliable, lol.Don't hold your breath. To this day Splinter Cell for the PC still hasn't gotten any of the several extra levels that the X-Box version did, and I'm pretty certain that SC2 will be no different.
Judging by these posts it's clear that you don't know the real advantages and disadvantages regarding the different versions of SC 1 & 2.
Quote:And isn't voice support avaliable on PC ? I hear people using it online, but I never use it because I just prefer to type chat.
It's supported but only a small fraction of people actually use it.