Phife Dawg
Member
I can do without steamworks. Although it would be preferable for competitive pricing (UK retail).
Did it with a couple of GFWL games from the UK, never had a problem activating them here in Germany.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Dark Souls PC trailer [Matchmaking, new bosses, enemies, NPCs, weapons, armor, areas]
- Thread starter Pooya
- Start date
- Status
I can not believe how many people are saying they will not buy this because it's GFWL.
If this game does not sell well, it will never come to pc again, there seems to be a rising popularity in pc gaming again at this moment in time, and if games are selling really poorly when pc is becoming more popular again, how can any company see pc gaming as a viable platform.
I understand that GFWL can be a pain in the ass, if anything, do a petition to microsoft to fix the bloody GFWL software. Atleast we have this game coming and i for one will buy at full price day one to help show my support for the game and the pc platform.
Man up and buy it
Dave
If this game does not sell well, it will never come to pc again, there seems to be a rising popularity in pc gaming again at this moment in time, and if games are selling really poorly when pc is becoming more popular again, how can any company see pc gaming as a viable platform.
I understand that GFWL can be a pain in the ass, if anything, do a petition to microsoft to fix the bloody GFWL software. Atleast we have this game coming and i for one will buy at full price day one to help show my support for the game and the pc platform.
Man up and buy it
Dave
R
Retro_
Unconfirmed Member
Steamworks would be ideal
but if it runs at a solid framerate I'll probably buy it.(People saying 60FPS in this thread is what caught my attention more than anything)
I'll leave it up to you guys to fight this battle. I'm fine with whatever outcome as long as the game comes out and the performance is good
but if it runs at a solid framerate I'll probably buy it.(People saying 60FPS in this thread is what caught my attention more than anything)
I'll leave it up to you guys to fight this battle. I'm fine with whatever outcome as long as the game comes out and the performance is good
Well, I'm sure the performance entirely relates to a computer's capabilities and how you set the game up. That said, Steam would be ideal, but I doubt it's a deal breaker for most.
Has there been any elaboration on the new areas and NPCs? We obviously know about the new bosses, but are these new NPCs part of a new covenant? Or is all that still unknown?
Hm... yeah. Dunno yet. Still, it doesn't necessarily mean that it won't be possible to tweak settings and such. Messing with ini files could provide more flexibility, even if it's not necessarily "intended." That is kinda the advantage of having a PC port, is that there's a lot of stuff that can be messed with that couldn't be touched before. Interesting that he seems to imply that there are more than just the two bosses revealed, and more content as well.
Curious.
Felix Lighter
Member
I'm expecting a bare bones port. What is important for me is performance. A Darksiders-like port is what I'm hoping for. Barebones but with excellent performance and AA, texture filtering, and what not, can be forced. Unoptomized garbage is all I'm really afraid of.
morningbus
Serious Sam is a wicked gahbidge series for chowdaheads.
It seems worse right now because we have two groups: people who really will never buy it because it is GFWL and people who are just upset right now, but will come around. Batman Arkham City did fine on the PC. Some people will let it go as we get closer to release.
This concept of "test" games has been proven false on countless occasions. There are too many factors when it comes to the complicated space of videogame sales. Buying something with intent, beyond the extremely vague concept of supporting a basic idea, is worthless. If you buy Dark Souls "just because" then it tells the Publisher/Developer that releasing that exact product is perfectly acceptable. We will continue to be burdened with GFWL just like Wii owners were burdened with On-Rails Resident Evil Shooters.
The only way to fix GFWL is to take it out back and shoot it. It is so broken at its core it needs an entire rethink and rewrite. It is currently completely dead -- so dead that even Microsoft has basically abandoned it. All that remains are a few Japanese developers and Publishers Weekend-at-Bernie's-ing this bloated corpse of an online service about.
Don't do this. You aren't Fnordchan.
Edit: Anyway, I'm still buying Dark Souls. It just needs to be priced accordingly now. I got burned by GFWL's save eating problem while playing Arkham City, so I've somewhat learned my lesson.
If it sells well Namco will know they don't have to put in any effort so the next port will also be an outsourced rush job built on a shitty online platform.I can not believe how many people are saying they will not buy this because it's GFWL.
If this game does not sell well, it will never come to pc again, there seems to be a rising popularity in pc gaming again at this moment in time, and if games are selling really poorly when pc is becoming more popular again, how can any company see pc gaming as a viable platform.
I understand that GFWL can be a pain in the ass, if anything, do a petition to microsoft to fix the bloody GFWL software. Atleast we have this game coming and i for one will buy at full price day one to help show my support for the game and the pc platform.
Man up and buy it
Dave
There's enough companies that cater to me, I don't need to support those that don't.
Not really, its more the opposite. Dark Souls PC sells well so they make supporting PC more of a priority next game.
I suspect this is more of the case. Remember, if they have to patch the game due to issues with the port, that costs money too. If you get it right the first time, you don't have to spend more money on post-development because of problems with initial development. That's a win-win situation and a firm reason for doing a good port the first time.
What makes you think they'd patch it if it turns out to be buggy? MS charges for GFWL patches and it's going through an outsourced team that will probably only get paid up until it goes gold.
Having a successful game that needs to put up with GFWL patching due to issues cropping up would probably be enough to make them back off for later games. See: Dawn of War II.
Of course I half suspect there'd only need to be one or two patches anyway.
We don't know if it's outsourced.
TotalBiscuit weights in on the whole Dark Souls GFWL issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6p8...DvjVQa1PpcFPmU4rYsxQ0vSAeaJNLEICbcks8ka3XOzs=
He also mentions because GFWL is region restristed (not available in alot of countries due to MS). Some people have no other choice but to pirate it since it is impossible to legally buy it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6p8...DvjVQa1PpcFPmU4rYsxQ0vSAeaJNLEICbcks8ka3XOzs=
He also mentions because GFWL is region restristed (not available in alot of countries due to MS). Some people have no other choice but to pirate it since it is impossible to legally buy it.
Where exactly did Namco confirm that the port is being handled by an outsourced team, and when? In all the press releases I've read, From Software is handling the port.
PC games always have problems because of the number of configurations. Always. Putting a price on patches means that the smaller issues are more likely to be ignored.
There's already pressure to make sure your game isn't buggy because...people don't like buying buggy games.
If that's the case then I was misinformed and my hopes have been raised a tiny bit
Short development window before launch still makes me skeptical though because if they've already decided on GFWL I don't know if they'd have enough time to change it
Salacious Crumb
Junior Member
I'll still buy it with or without GFWL because I'm a terrible person with no principles.
And people still bought ten million copies of Skyrim.
H_Prestige
Banned
Namco already confirmed there's a lot more than just two new bosses. It's on the website.
I don't really see how options are important for a console port these days -- Darksiders was fine. The assets are what they are, higher end versions aren't on the table and lower end ones wouldn't make much sense since almost all gaming PCs these days can easily handle the console versions. I just want to play at
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
I await the 'capped at 30fps due to DRM' headlines.
That or it being disgustingly unoptimised.
Well, the Havok Engine is already optimized for PCs, so I'm pretty sure they would have to try, and try hard, to do something like this.
Again, as long as they give basic options like resolution and aliasing (the game already has aliasing built-in), I don't see any problem. Honestly I'm not sure why people expect so much, especially after the knowledge that they'll be getting a lot of new content in addition.
Oh, I'm sure there will be trainers day one, if you want to go that route. Though you'll have to play offline I'm sure. You really should buy the game though. It's the best in generations.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
As I say, co-op is easy mode.
And with edited saves and shit your co-op partners will even more broken.
Fucking finally! When Alpha Protocol came out it wasn't sold here, due to country restrictions.
I'll buy it with or without GWFL because to me GFWL is only a minor con.
Oh and about the region restrictions: I thought there were (legal) ways around that.
Not sure what they are doing on Win 8
But GFWL client that we use now hasn't been updated since may 2011, that almost a year now, it's really pathetic especially that WB and Capcom and Microsoft itself still releasing games on it.
Not only saves, the client is glitchy and completely buggy,many times it stop work and will need full reinstall or dies because of drivers, disconnect you all the time and can even break registering product keys..ect it's full of issues that hurt the gaming experience.
Why would a PC release need to be delayed for not using GFWL? Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Skyrim both came out around the same time as Arkham City and their PC releases were simultaneous with console releases. And DXHR fully outsourced their PC version on top of that.
It should also be noted that it's the Steam version of Arkham City that got patched first. I can't imagine what delayed the patch for versions that only had GFWL.
Right because the quality is high enough that people are ok with the bugs and they know that Bethesda has a good record of post release support and they'll work on the bugs. It's a lot harder if you have a smaller user base AND not a lot of history on the PC AND you have to actually pay to patch your game.
What I was saying was there will definitely be bugs and they won't be able to fix issues that only effect a small number of people unless they can roll it into a more important patch due to cost constraints.
Cost of patching in addition to the cost to manufacture the patch shouldn't be a consideration.
None of the games you mention used the Havok Engine, so they aren't good counterarguments.
It can be assumed GFWL was used because of the ease with which the code can be ported in the 360->PC conversion.
I'd bring up a lot of problems with the subjectivity of your first argument, but that aside, I don't agree with having the manufacturer pay for patches either, nor with a process that requires the patches be verified through Microsoft. However, if that's what they've decided on, I'm not going to fault them for it unless it becomes an issue. Given that this game is being ported, most of the major bugs have already been found by players, and it can be assumed these will be fixed. More worrisome is errors with regards to system compatibility, and that could prove to be an issue, or it may not. Speculating however isn't getting us anywhere.
Having high standards is not a bad thing
Nor is it unreasonable when alternatives to GFWL exist and are better in literally every way
funkystudent
Member
Was thinking about this.
Does MS host all the GFWL matchmaking servers like they do for regular xbox live?
Maybe Namco is just too cheap to host there own servers for the PC version.
Does MS host all the GFWL matchmaking servers like they do for regular xbox live?
Maybe Namco is just too cheap to host there own servers for the PC version.
Of course it's a subjective argument, the point is that clearly enough people thought the game as it existed was worth getting despite the bugs thanks to Bethesda's track record (on PC anyway lol)
I'm going to fault them for it right now because it's clearly an issue and has been since day 1.
Don't piss on my face and tell me it's raining.
Generally speaking the majority of bugs that people will experience on a PC are due to system issues such as problems with specific configurations, driver issues, etc. Not that the games themselves don't have bugs but just that they are far outweighed by the other stuff. Playing it on 360 and PS3 every hour of every day for the rest of your life wouldn't result in bugs that would help them with those issues.
Those are the patches I was talking about that MUST come out after this game is released.
I understand the argument about high standards, but thus far From Software has not disappointed in that arena, so what exactly is doubting their sincerity on this matter helping? I think it's fairly clear this game is past the point of no return for its online.
It may or may not be unreasonable. If it caused this port to cost significantly more, then yes, it's probably unreasonable to expect something other than Games For Windows Live. Even if From wanted to port it to Steamworks, there are likely fees associated with using Steamworks just as with using GFWL. We often think about this from a consumer standpoint, but they don't have that luxury. It's unfortunate, but it happens.
Steamworks is entirely free. Rewriting netcode isn't, but every feature of Steamworks is provided free of charge to developers.
Pretty sure there are no fees for using Steamworks.
Significantly higher budget? No. In any case if they got the PC community behind this game and hyped it correctly it would be well worth it.
More than Namco would be willing to spend because they're a shitty company? You bet.
Actually, it's only free if you don't put the game on Steam's storefront, which allows Valve to take a share of revenue generated by the game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_(software)#Steamworks
Actually Dark Souls uses PhyreEngine and it's a PS3/360 and PC ready engine ( Havok is just for physics).
That's the cut an e-tailer would normally take. It's entirely separate from using Steamworks in so far as costs go. They're going to have it on Steam regardless of the DRM they use and the lions share of their profit will come from Steam like most games regardless of Steamworks or GFWL.
It's like saying that you pay Amazon for Steamworks because they take a cut when a game with Steamworks is sold there.
- Status