Perfect Dark Zero Loses Features to Make Launch

[ezzkmo]

Rare has revealed that some of the features originally planned for the Xbox 360 shooter have had to be removed or downgraded.


An article in the November issue of Edge magazine has revealed that the fifty-player online multiplayer mode promised for Perfect Dark Zero has been scaled down to only 32. While still impressive, the news is a little disappointing. Rare has also had to remove the DataDyne TV mode which would have allowed players to watch games and upload your best matches. The cutbacks have had to be made to get the game ready for the Xbox 360 launch. The console is due in the UK on December 2nd 2005, and Perfect Dark Zero should arrive on or near that date.

According to Rare the fifty-player online mode and the TV mode could both be added via a download over Xbox Live. Both would make excellent downloads, but we'll have to see if that ever happens. For now Rare are hard at work completing the game.
Source: Pro-G (http://www.pro-g.co.uk/news/nid/751/1546/)

I figured Rare would delay this game, it's just tradition. But looks like Microsoft said to get the freakin' game done already.

[lost]

Aaahh come on, you weren't expecting this one on time to start with anyway.

The feature cutting doesn't sound too bad either, sort of stuff that other teams would cut without saying it was there to start with. Multiplayer will still rock and the Perfect Dark TV sorta thing sounds gimmicky so no big loss.

Just be happy that this might come out pretty close to when it was meant to.

[Heretic Machine]

*cough* microtransactions *cough*

[Blade]

As long as the features are to be added later, I guess it's okay.

Otherwise, rushing potential killer apps for launch.. bad idea. I'm sick of rushed masterpieces that turn out flawed.

[bapenguin]

Seems like a good use of Microtransactions to me. Get the game out to EVERYONE at launch, and those select few who are real big into multi can get their multi-tv or whatever on for a $5 or whatever it turns out to be.

[thecrazyd]

Seems like a good use of Microtransactions to me. Get the game out to EVERYONE at launch, and those select few who are real big into multi can get their multi-tv or whatever on for a $5 or whatever it turns out to be.
What? Cutting promised features, and charging for them down the line is a good use of Microtransactions?

[SymetriX]

As long as they fix the wierd looking floaty ragdoll physics from the leaked videos (http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000110060390/) and the fame rate issues noticed in the early promo videos, I could care less about them cutting the player count to 32.

[EvilBob46]

I'm rather surprised they're actually going to make the launch date (or so it appears). I can't say I agree with Microsoft forcing their games out the door like this. They've done it before. Bungie would have to be mentally challenged to think all those copy+paste levels in the first Halo (or that short Halo 2 campaign with one of the worst endings ever) were a good idea. Meeting a system's launch or getting a game out before Thanksgiving for the lucrative Christmas season seem to be the #1 priority at Microsoft and at all the other major companies for that matter...

*sigh* I remember how Resident Evil 4 was delayed by just 1 month for some fine tuning, pushing the game out of the Chri$tma$ seasons into the January period, where sales are generally poor. Ang guess what? It turned out to be one of the best games in years. Polish pays off.

[Achilles]

How long has this game been in production now? They’ve got to kick it out the door some time. If those features aren’t finished, that’s on Rare. Same goes for Halo 2. They had 3 years to make that game, most dev teams would kill for that kind of time. Otherwise you end up with Freelancer, which took 6 years in development and was irrelevant by the time it came out.

[bapenguin]

What? Cutting promised features, and charging for them down the line is a good use of Microtransactions?

It's a good use of not including features that wouldn't be for everyone and testing out how well microtransactions would work for certain features like that. If 20% of your market are the only ones effected by this, and you can benefit 80% of your market by getting it out the door at launch, what are you going to choose?

[DannoHung]

Hey... Freelancer was a great game! There just wasn't quite enough property to own to make it worth playing after you'd finished the campaign.

As for the PD0 cuts, watching matches will be missed, but frankly, I don't think 50 player multiplayer is all that good an idea. 16-20 seems to be the sweetspot for all multiplayer games I've ever played. Bigger than that and it just gets too chaotic to be fun.

[emperordahc]

Off Topic:

Today the 2.0 PSP firmware was finally, 100% fully officially cracked with a downgrader to 1.50. It's from the new toc2rta (photo) exploit.

http://pspupdates.qj.net/workingdowngrade9083_thumb.jpg

http://www.pspupdates.com/

Just FYI.

[Zanzibar]

What? Cutting promised features, and charging for them down the line is a good use of Microtransactions?

Translation: 'Waaah.'

Feature cutting happens. Often. If you're not used to it by now, you either have never played games before or you're trying to advance some kind of agenda by feigning outrage.

At least there's talk about releasing this stuff post-launch. Most features get axed from games and that's it.

[TheBigL]

Kinda reminded me a sad story of KOTOR II and Lucas Arts.
I think the publishing companies restric the game developing proceses too much.

Its truly sad we have to sufer, because of some one who wants to release a good game before its time.

Why do all thouse major companies so money hungry hogs? :/

[AzN.Homeboy]

Sounds like Halo.

[bapenguin]

Why do all thouse major companies so money hungry hogs? :/

Because there are money hungry hog stock investors behind them.

[TheKeck]

Are these the only features getting cut? If that's the case, then it doesn't seem like a big deal to me. However, the general idea of rushing it out the door when it's not necessarily ready I think is always a bad move. It seems like those games where the developer took the time to finish the game right and push back the release date if necessary make a big difference. (Half-life and Star Craft come to mind.)

Sure, it's annoying as hell for all of us gamers waiting for our beloved toys to arrive, but I prefer it over getting something half-baked on Christmas.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Sure, it's annoying as hell for all of us gamers waiting for our beloved toys to arrive, but I prefer it over getting something half-baked on Christmas.


Getting half-baked on Christmas sounds good to me! :cool:

[LilAbner]

Wow, how about that? Accountability in game development! Deadlines!

Take note, George Broussard.

[KarmaGhost]

Certain games just don't need 50+ people playing at once, this strikes me as one of them.

[Major Scud]

those features meant less then nothing to me anyway, so if they can make nov 22nd, I will GLADLY live w/out those 2 features. I just want something for me and my friends to play on launch day. They really should have scheduled the system release around PDZ and not the other way around.

[dr_wily]

As long as they fix the wierd looking floaty ragdoll physics from the leaked videos (http://www.joystiq.com/entry/1234000110060390/) and the fame rate issues noticed in the early promo videos, I could care less about them cutting the player count to 32.

agreed, i noticed the same thing. max payne 2 physics are better and that game is pretty old.

and those are hardly "features". they could easily submit a patch to up the player count and optimized net code.

[Zanzibar]

They really should have scheduled the system release around PDZ and not the other way around.
I laughed when I read this.

Somebody hasn't heard the scuttlebutt on Rare. They'd still be working on Goldeneye if Nintendo hadn't put a gun to their kitten's head.

[Borys]

Feature cutting is A-OK now?

...

Whatever.

[PantherModern]

I'll chime in and say that it isn't surprising at all that rare is late on the game. I would have thought that they would be hitting gold status soon, not struggling to cut features to meet the deadline. A shame. I don't know if this will be the system seller MS needs for the holidays.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Have ANY 360 titles gone gold? That should be happening in the next couple of weeks, right?

[thecrazyd]

Feature cutting is A-OK now?

...

Whatever.
Only if it is for The One True System.

[Babbster]

Seems like a good use of Microtransactions to me. Get the game out to EVERYONE at launch, and those select few who are real big into multi can get their multi-tv or whatever on for a $5 or whatever it turns out to be.

For the love of Jesus, can people stop throwing around the word "microtransaction" so loosely? $5 is NOT a microtransaction. It's just a transaction. In fact, if one were to decide a prefix was in order, compared to a microtransaction (which would mean pennies, maybe dimes) it would be a MACROtransaction. The only reason to call such a purchase a microtransaction would be if one were actually being paid by the Microsoft PR Department to do so.

/rant

edit: I should note that I actually like Microsoft's concept of buying "points" in order to allow for tiny [micro]transactions in order to purchase things like new outfits in a fighting game, new skins for the X360 interface, etc. But, if something costs equivalent points to $5 or more it just can't be considered "tiny" anymore.

[EGO]

I'd rather see Rare finish a fricken game and get a great launch title, than to see some silly 50 people on-line versus 32 or some "recorded highlights".

Big whoop! Just give me a kick ass game, ON TIME, with SOME SORT OF on-line play and save the over-board crap for a download...

Sounds smart to me.

[Zanzibar]

Feature cutting is A-OK now?

...

Whatever.

Are you a developer?

If you are, and your company has never cut features from a game that's shipped on-time, then congratulations - you are in the extreme minority.

If you are not a developer, then you're just whining. To advance an anti-X360 agenda, no doubt.

Nobody 'likes' feature-cutting, but in the scheme of things, these lost features are not earth-shattering. Would it be nice to have it all running? Sure it would. But I've been on projects that have had FAR WORSE features amputated.

[MStiles]

News Flash! This happens to almost EVERY game. Developers don't always talk about it, but cut features are more common than you know. Even those "when it's done" games.

[thecrazyd]

News Flash! This happens to almost EVERY game. Developers don't always talk about it, but cut features are more common than you know. Even those "when it's done" games.
Yes, but mosts devs do not cut features they have publically stated they would have and then charge for them down the line. I don't think anyone is really upset that they cut the features, just that they may be charging for what they said would be included.

[Kefkataran]

If you are not a developer, then you're just whining. To advance an anti-X360 agenda, no doubt.

Obviously he's just trying to advance an anti-Xbox360 agenda. No way he could just happen to be whining about them cutting features he was interested in from a game he's interested in. That'd be lunacy. Certainly.

Hell.

I don't care much about these two features, so whatevs. Then again, I don't care that much about this game either, although chances are I will check it out eventually.

[Kelegacy]

*cough* microtransactions *cough*

I just opened this thread and I was thinking the exact same thing. For an extra couple bucks, you can have the TV mode and a few more will give you 50 players instead of 32!!

Yeah, I smelled the same sickly-sweet scent as Perigon immediately. Hopefully we're wrong.

[Kelegacy]

Seems like a good use of Microtransactions to me. Get the game out to EVERYONE at launch, and those select few who are real big into multi can get their multi-tv or whatever on for a $5 or whatever it turns out to be.

No. That stinks of not finishing a game just to get it out the door and then making people pay for features that were supposed to be in the game in the first place.

Jesus, I hope to God people don't adopt this crazy scheme of paying for extra content that was cut to get the game hurried out the door. PC gaming already does this bullshit, and fixes it with patches. Just what we need...more half-assed games that will get fixed later...fixed by your wallet.

[Zanzibar]

Choices are:

1. Lose the feature permanently to make your launch date.
Happens all the time. Good features, gone, never to be seen again.

2. Omit the feature from the launch version, add the capability via download later at no charge.
Isn't this a patch? The anti-MS group will start crying that 'now it's just like a PC!' Chances are, publishers won't put enough effort into this because it's not cost-effective.

3. Omit the feature from the launch version, add the capability via download later, charge a small fee to cover the costs.
It has the possibility to make their money back for very little money up-front; the team is already in place and shouldn't take more than a few weeks to finish. This will allow a good amount of testing to prevent bugs.

[Sensei-X]

As far as I know the Microsoft, "No patches to the existing game only new content" policy still applies to Xbox 360. As for the 50 players, that's pretty insane they even considered that, even with 32 in current FPSs you feel overwhelmed, and that's if the servers can even manage not to implode under that kind of load.

[yellowoystercult]

what about stop 'n' swap? i hope to god they left that in.

[bapenguin]

No. That stinks of not finishing a game just to get it out the door and then making people pay for features that were supposed to be in the game in the first place.

Jesus, I hope to God people don't adopt this crazy scheme of paying for extra content that was cut to get the game hurried out the door. PC gaming already does this bullshit, and fixes it with patches. Just what we need...more half-assed games that will get fixed later...fixed by your wallet.

You do realize developers don't owe you anything. People act like it's their right to have these features in a game and somehow they are getting screwed out of it when it gets cut.

[MosBen]

I don't have time to read all the comments, so appologies up front if this is already covered.

First, "promised" features. There is no such thing as a "promise" in game developement. There are goals and hopefully you hit all the important ones before it's time to ship the game. Talking about features like they're owed to you because the developer said at one time that they were going to do it is absurd. The only thing that is "promised" is what is on the box when you buy the game. Everything else is speculation.

As to rushing games: Yeah, generally this is a bad thing, but at the same time, if you're launching a console you absolutely need games to play when the machine comes out and you can't necessarily wait for a developer's wet dream to come to fruition. Look at the PS2 launch. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great machine with some fantastic games, but there just wasn't much to play when the console came out, even flawed but compelling games. Halo had plenty of its own problems, but it was certainly better than Fantavision. When you've got a console launch date you need games, and if that means some games get rushed, well, that's the way it is. Hopefully they're still fun, but as long as they're not crucially broken or unfun it's what you can expect from a launch title.

These cuts seem pretty insignificant to me.

[civx]

I don't think I'll be buying an XBOX 360 over this trivial event.

[bone_matrix]

When I read the title, I said to my self "son-of-a-bitch!" After I read it all, I said "So? Thats it?"

For me, having 50 people playing is way to many. 8 on 8 in halo can sometimes be too many. 32 works. If they can even get that without lag I'll be happy. The TV thing could be cool, but I would rather play than WATCH someone play. Just my 2 cents.

[Twigz'N'Berries]

The TV thing could be cool, but I would rather play than WATCH someone play. Just my 2 cents.
Exactly. Personally, I don't want to watch someone play when I'm not.
Anyway, the 18 player cut is inconsequential to me. If they make up for it later w/ a free download, fine. I doubt they would charge for this as it would be more of a server issue than anything. I had no interest in this game a few weeks ago, but now I'm on the fence about it.
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a153/TyroneBiggumz/egghopper.gifIts almost here!!! Sweet!

[Magnanimous Gnome]

No. That stinks of not finishing a game just to get it out the door and then making people pay for features that were supposed to be in the game in the first place.

Jesus, I hope to God people don't adopt this crazy scheme of paying for extra content that was cut to get the game hurried out the door. PC gaming already does this bullshit, and fixes it with patches. Just what we need...more half-assed games that will get fixed later...fixed by your wallet.


So true - patches on the PC really do suck, and they are going to become standard on the consoles this gen I'm afraid. I'm guessing Nintendo and a few other developers will avoid patching titles, but the vast majority of the big houses (Ubi, EA, Activision, etc.) will certainly be doing it.

[Pex-Corrh]

First, "promised" features. There is no such thing as a "promise" in game developement. There are goals and hopefully you hit all the important ones before it's time to ship the game. Talking about features like they're owed to you because the developer said at one time that they were going to do it is absurd. The only thing that is "promised" is what is on the box when you buy the game. Everything else is speculation.

As to rushing games: Yeah, generally this is a bad thing, but at the same time, if you're launching a console you absolutely need games to play when the machine comes out and you can't necessarily wait for a developer's wet dream to come to fruition. Look at the PS2 launch. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great machine with some fantastic games, but there just wasn't much to play when the console came out, even flawed but compelling games. Halo had plenty of its own problems, but it was certainly better than Fantavision. When you've got a console launch date you need games, and if that means some games get rushed, well, that's the way it is. Hopefully they're still fun, but as long as they're not crucially broken or unfun it's what you can expect from a launch title.

These cuts seem pretty insignificant to me.

Sweet voice of reason.

[Heretic Machine]

Wow... I never thought I'd see the day. Gamers have gotten so fucking stupid, that they'd rather pay for things than to get them for free. Guess you morons voted for Bush, huh?

[mister_slim]

I can't say I agree with Microsoft forcing their games out the door like this. They've done it before.
I gotta respect Double Fine for saying "fuck that". The sad thing is that cutting a couple of levels to meet MS's new deadline probably would have probably resulted in much better sales.

Feature cutting happens. Often. If you're not used to it by now, you either have never played games before or you're trying to advance some kind of agenda by feigning outrage.
True. But we're running into the Molyneux Blunder, bragging about a feature before cutting it. With Robbie Bach bragging about how much fun 50 player multi is, this is underdelivering.

If you are not a developer, then you're just whining. To advance an anti-X360 agenda, no doubt.
Nice. Don't be an ass.
You do realize developers don't owe you anything. People act like it's their right to have these features in a game and somehow they are getting screwed out of it when it gets cut.
If they want my money they do owe me something. I understand that game development is a messy business and that features get cut. It's still a broken promise.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Wow... I never thought I'd see the day. Gamers have gotten so fucking stupid, that they'd rather pay for things than to get them for free. Guess you morons voted for Bush, huh?



The sad truth is that a lot of morons voted for Bush. :(

[The Iron Weasel]

Wow... I never thought I'd see the day. Gamers have gotten so fucking stupid, that they'd rather pay for things than to get them for free. Guess you morons voted for Bush, huh?

Actually I'd rather pay for them then not get them at all, but who knows what'll happen, not i thats for sure. But yeah when you put it like that its retarded.

[thecrazyd]

Actually I'd rather pay for them then not get them at all, but who knows what'll happen, not i thats for sure. But yeah when you put it like that its retarded.
It is even more retarded if I say that you pay for the features when you first buy the game, then pay for them again when they are actually released. Sucks to be someone who doesn't follow the news as closely as we do, heard there would be huge 50 player matches, cracks open their shiney new 360, and finds out that feature was cut, and that if they want it, they have to wait a couple months and pay extra for it.

[TheBigL]

I was reading this thread and I understood that people are actually expect Less from the next generation games. And that they are happy that it was not included in the retial game because "Its too many people" and "I dont care about seeing other people play". Also I noticed that they dont even care about paying extra for some kind of update that will come god-knows-when, and update the game to a state that the developers wanted to see in lunch.

Are we gamers such a low people?

[Vjornaxx]

You guys aren't thinking this through. They're not going to make those features available for download at a later date because you would need a hard drive to patch the game to that extent and since not everyone will have a hard drive, and they don't want games to discriminate between users with a hard drive and without a hard drive. Therefore, they won't make a version of the game that will have different gameplay features because of the presence of a hard drive.

[Morratut]

I'm not bothered at all about these features. I personally didn't believe in the 50 player and TV anyway. Too me that was bullshit.

I also find it hard to believe that this game can support upto 32 players. Halo 2 was a lag fest at 16. So i hardly doubt PDZ would be ok with 32.Xbox multiplayer after all is limited to the players bandwidth. If you want 50 or 64 players i would go to my PC :D

All being said though i don't see playing PDZ with 32 players. For me it's more like 8 or 10.

[Vjornaxx]

You're right that lag is related to bandwidth and it's easier to have larger games on the PC, but that's mainly because you can rent a dedicated server. Look at BF2 - In order to host a game with 64 players, you pretty much need a dedicated server with very good specs and a connection that supports a very high upload & download rate. That's something that's just not going to happen with the 360 so you have to do a lot of optimization to try to approach that number of players. Luckily, since everyone has the same hardware, you can do a lot of optimizing.

I'm with you on the game size, though. As fun as big games are, I enjoy smaller games more because people are more likely to play as a team. You don't normally see coordination across the entire team in Battlefield 2 for PC, but if you play 4v4 games in R6:Lockdown you'll almost always see your teammates trying to work together. I think that's true for almost any small-scale multiplayer game.

[Knite]

It is even more retarded if I say that you pay for the features when you first buy the game, then pay for them again when they are actually released.

You mean kinda like Civilization 3 which promised multiplayer, and then after it was cut for release, was promised as a free patch, only to have it released as the expansion "Rule the World"?

Yeah, it sucks. This is hardly the first time however =(

[baz]

It would be sweet if xbox live games came with a server that could be run on a PC. Can't really see anything wrong with this and its not too different from windows only games releasing a linux server.

[bone_matrix]

I was reading this thread and I understood that people are actually expect Less from the next generation games. And that they are happy that it was not included in the retial game because "Its too many people" and "I dont care about seeing other people play". Also I noticed that they dont even care about paying extra for some kind of update that will come god-knows-when, and update the game to a state that the developers wanted to see in lunch.

Are we gamers such a low people?

Whoa. While I did say that I thought 50 people would be too many to play in multi-player, 32 is still DOUBLE what we can play with now. I'm happy with that. I'm not expecting less. I just don't want a lagfest instead of a fragfest. As far as watching other people play, how often does anyone use the observer mode in PC games when they can be playing instead? This isn't a feature that makes me go "Yes, this is next gen."

Having a choice of losing those 2 "features" or getting the game sooner, getting the game sooner sounds like a better pick.

According to Rare the fifty-player online mode and the TV mode could both be added via a download over Xbox Live. Both would make excellent downloads, but we'll have to see if that ever happens. For now Rare are hard at work completing the game.

Rare didn't say that they WILL add it later, and that if they do it WILL cost money. They just said that it COULD be added later. One can't just assume its going to cost you to download that stuff. If they did come out with it, and it did cost money, I for one, wouldn't buy it, and would mock the people that did.

[bapenguin]

Wow... I never thought I'd see the day. Gamers have gotten so fucking stupid, that they'd rather pay for things than to get them for free. Guess you morons voted for Bush, huh?

I'd rather play the game on launch day. I could care less about TV mode. 50 player multiplayer,while it sounds good, i can't stand to play on a 64 player server in BF2...i would imagine it's similar with this.

[Rakael]

You do realize developers don't owe you anything. People act like it's their right to have these features in a game and somehow they are getting screwed out of it when it gets cut.


I'm not upset by the features getting cut in order to make a deadline. If 32 people playing at once isn't enough, just go cry about it in a corner and leave me alone. I myself, like others who have posted here, will be highly upset if they charge people for features they promised would be in the game. If they either patch the game for free, or leave them out for good that would be fine with me.

This just smells fishy to me, and I have no doubt they will be charging for those features. This will quickly become the norm I'm afraid, and that is quite simply utter bullshit. I also don't understand the people defending this. Of course devs owe me something, I'm the goddamned customer. After paying $50 - $60 for a game, I don't want to pay even more for features that should have been in the game to begin with.

In this case, perhaps the cuts were necessary, who can really say? In the future however, I think this excuse will be used in order to charge gamers more money for features that really should have been in there to begin with, and could have been in the game, but the publishers are just sitting on the finished code until later so they can charge people for it. I never did like the sound of microtransactions, and it seems that my worst fears are comming true.

Fanboyism, company loyalty, and other gripes aside, lets all hope this doesn't become the norm.

BTW, I do honestly hope that I'm just being paranoid. This is not a fanboy's assault on MS or the 360, as many will surely take it. I just worry that if MS is able to make this the norm, then Sony and even Nintendo will surely follow. That will be a bad day for gaming in general.

[kid cabelgo]

agreed, i noticed the same thing. max payne 2 physics are better and that game is pretty old.

and those are hardly "features". they could easily submit a patch to up the player count and optimized net code.


Max Payne 2 used the Havok physics engine, as in the physics from Half Life 2.

So yes, they were quite nice.

[Ozymandias]

Certain games just don't need 50+ people playing at once, this strikes me as one of them.

Hard to have an opinion on that until you know what their large-scale game modes *are*, right? I'm sure they'll have massive deathmatch (which isn't that interesting, I agree), but let's see what other modes they have that might make having large numbers of players interesting before judging.

[Murmillo]

You guys aren't thinking this through. They're not going to make those features available for download at a later date because you would need a hard drive to patch the game to that extent and since not everyone will have a hard drive, and they don't want games to discriminate between users with a hard drive and without a hard drive. Therefore, they won't make a version of the game that will have different gameplay features because of the presence of a hard drive.
Depends on the patch size. If the patch is only a few MB - it could easily go on a 64Mb save card. If its takes a much bigger patch to fix, yea it may never come out, or how knows, maybe 50player will be a HD only "feature" You get the game and 99% of the working features, but with HD a few cool but not really needed features. Works for me.

If you've been reading up on Oblivion, they are already filling up a huge list of things you can only have (free downloads) IF you have the harddrive. Tho it is only a single player game.

[01010]

A couple of things.

First. Nothing has been said about micro/macro/anyfuckingkindof transactions to start with. The two features that were cut are not that big a deal, ask yourself this, can you actually tell the difference between a 32 player game and a 50 player game? Thought so.

Second, this stuff has been going on for fucking years on the PC and no one gives a shit, sure people complain, right before paying for a £15 expansion with multiplayer addon.

Third and quite important. IT IS YOUR MONEY, NOBODY IS FORCING TO PAY FOR THESE HYPOTHETICAL ADDONS. Even if they are released YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR THEM. If it riles you that much then let it be known with your wallet. Are you all that fucking dumb?

Fourth. I am sick of people saying "I could care less". It is "I couldn't care less" saying you "could care less" implies that you do actually care.

I'm sorry if this offends anyone but the drunker I get the dumber people seem to be. Now to take my whiskey to the bathroom. Nothing like whiskey and a bath to calm my nerves.

[Atorak]

Now to take my whiskey to the bathroom. Nothing like whiskey and a bath to calm my nerves.

Anyone seen the movie IT by Stephen King?

*shudders*

[Zeal]

This is just a taste of things to come.

[Murmillo]

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMmmmmmmmmmm

GLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMmmmmmmmmmm

As its been said before, this has been going on a long long time before this. So really, this has been a "taste of things to come" since games have been made. Too many games have had one too many features cut out to make a "cut off date" for reasons X Y and Z. And it has only gotten worse since the invention of the internet and these things called "patches".

So quit trying to come up that this is new. YES it sucks, but this isn't anything any gamer who has been playing games for more the 6 months should be shocked about.

[Zeal]

On the contrary, this doesn't suprise me at all. I stopped buying into developer hype after Halo 2 was utterly butchered. And don't ask me to explain myself on that, I'm sure you're all aware.

As for this particular announcement, it seems to me like Microsoft is telling Rare "The game WILL be ready for launch. We need games". This is why I stand by my original claim that the 360's launch is premature.

The core/premium packages are also a bad move.

[Kelegacy]

On the contrary, this doesn't suprise me at all. I stopped buying into developer hype after Halo 2 was utterly butchered. And don't ask me to explain myself on that, I'm sure you're all aware.

As for this particular announcement, it seems to me like Microsoft is telling Rare "The game WILL be ready for launch. We need games". This is why I stand by my original claim that the 360's launch is premature.

The core/premium packages are also a bad move.

See? Sometimes Zeal and I CAN agree on things.

I enjoy my Sony systems, but maybe the Playstation's hand in making videogaming so fucking mainstream is a bad thing. Next: Shareware, serial, or episodic gaming: Halo 4, with 5 levels for 50 bucks, but at the low price of 5 dollars more you get an additional level, PLUS a special weapon! There are 10 extra levels to choose from. Collect them all!

Doom and gloom is right. If you aren't old enough to see how videogaming has changed over the years, then you are fortunate. I'm only 24, and while I can handle positive changes like Nintendo's "Revolution", watching my beloved hobby slip into a flytrap for the unsuspecting gamer is worrying. The sad thing is, there are always spinners who will rationalize that if MS/Sony wants to release 3/4 of a game and charge you for the remaining portion later on, then it's a really good idea and oh, it's only 10-20 extra bucks, if you have a job you can afford that. Get a job you lazy, complaining bum.

Retards will ruin the industry. Mark my words. Doom and gloom. Doom and fucking gloom.

[Murmillo]

I'm still trying to figure out why people think that Microsoft needs to continue to lose money in an object that was nice in theory, never panned out in practice and think this time around they are entitled it. [Hard-drive!]. Out of 21 Million total Xbox sold, only 2 million are on Live!. Out of 21 Million Xbox sold, only 5 million of them have a copy of Halo2. There are just not enough games or Live! users to demand another "mandatory" harddrive.

So far, 2-3 developers have said that they feel somewhat limited but not having a "standard" hard drive. If they feel so "limited" they why don't they just go to the PC's where they sky is the limit. Oh, I know why they don't, because going to the PC is 100x the headache to deal with. All the freedom you could ask for, if you can deal with the never ending hardware changes you have to account for.

But in my opinion, there is a big difference between butchering Halo2 for a Christmas launch by cutting out what feels like 1/4 of the story to leave a "cliff hanger", and for PD0 pulling out a few cool-on-paper but not really applicable features that would waste weeks of needed development time that could be better served in other critical areas before launch.

I'm 25 and been a long time gamer. I've seen a lot of changes and I've seen even more "promised features" cut from games. I've seen even cut promised features been use for to sell expansion packs before I was even in high school. This has been going on for decades now. PDZ wasn't the first, nor will it be the last.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Kelegacy - I understand where you are coming from buddy, as a long time gamer myself, and I completely agree. I've been playing games less and less in the last couple of years, and pretty soon I'll probably just focus on my writing instead.

Murmillo - MS definitely isn't losing money on that HD this time around - 100 bucks for 20 gigs! Ridiculous!!


It would be sweet if xbox live games came with a server that could be run on a PC. Can't really see anything wrong with this and its not too different from windows only games releasing a linux server.

What would be really sweet is if Xbox Live had servers at all. Would be nice to pay 50 bucks to use some of MS' bandwidth instead of your own. ;)