Shadowrun for Vista 50usd, for 360 60usd - MGS 'explains' Options

[Extreme Agony]

You could be loyal to microsoft all your life and they'd still stab you in the back and steal your wallet.

::CLAP:: ::CLAP:: ::CLAP::

So very true!!!

[bucko]

I guess ill be getting the PC version when I build up my £600 Core 2 Duo PC towards the end of July.

[Ninja Sniper X]

Whatever happened to M$ charging $49 for first party console games???

[Naquadah]

its BS is what it is, in uk (at proper shops not those crappy high street rrp prices) Oblivion was £39.99 on 360, but £24.99 on PC... for the same damned game!

[twistedsymphony]

Whatever happened to M$ charging $49 for first party console games???

I was wondering that too... apparently it went out the window with Gears of War.

Essentially his reasoning is "console gamers are willing to pay more so we'll charge as much as we possibly can to maximize our profits"

I had the shadowrun beta... I wont be buying the retail title. Cost isn't a factor, though the reasoning for the higher price is just ridiculous.

[ILLusions0fGrander]

i liked the beta, and i will gamefly the retail game for a while until it gets old.

i dont buy many games, and when i do, its usually around 41 bucks from gamefly if i wait a couple weeks after its released.

i didnt know it was multiplayer only though,

This pricing structure is not uncommon in the multiplayer-only first-person shooter genre

isnt this the first multiplayer only game? how does that make sense?

[twistedsymphony]

i liked the beta, and i will gamefly the retail game for a while until it gets old.

i dont buy many games, and when i do, its usually around 41 bucks from gamefly if i wait a couple weeks after its released.

i didnt know it was multiplayer only though,
isnt this the first multiplayer only game? how does that make sense?

for the 360... maybe? not for all time though... Quake III Arena, and Unreal Tournament were multi only... the Solo missions simply had a computer playing the other characters.

you could probably argue that Gears is multi only seeing as the campaign mode had the computer controlling your co-op partner.

[slipstream]

My hate towards Vista isn't directed towards having to upgrade my PC. I have a dual core with 2 GB of ram and a 512 mb x1800 xt, so that isn't it. I just don't want to have to BUY a new OS to run DirectX 10 just because Microsoft doesn't want to code it for XP, so everyone that wants it HAS to buy Vista, FORCING people to upgrade when they don't want to,

MS is not FORCING you to do anything. You ALWAYS have the option of switching over to Linux, or buy a Mac. Dont like them? thats not MS's fault.

don't have the money, or in my case, Vista won't even run. I tried Vista. It BSODs every 2 minutes.

You say it wont run, but you never give specs. I run Vista on a Dell laptop that was built for Vista, and have never had a BSOD.

I have never had any problems with XP unless my overclock was set too high. I have turned that off and Vista STILL freezes and restarts my PC. It is COMPLETELY UNUSABLE. It is crap like that that really makes me mad, because it should run fine, but it doesn't, so even if I do want to use it, I can't, because it's too buggy. I want Halo 2 for PC, and maybe ShadowRun. But can I get it? No, because Vista doesn't work right.

You can still play Halo 2 AND ShadowRun WITHOUT Vista, its called a 360.

It is shit like that that makes me hate Vista with a passion. I'm upgrading to a Core 2 Duo soon from my AMD dual core, hopefully that will fix my problems, then maybe I can try to get a key somewhere or from someone because I am not ready to spend 200$ on something that I don't want to be FORCED to use.

So you kinda admit you want it, you just rather steal it than pay for it... Again, your not being forced.
Also, isnt saying your going to pirate software illegal on this board?





I just hate pointless rants that serve no purpose at all.

[jdsony]

The strange thing for me is that the 360 version will likely outsell the PC version 3:1 making it more logical for the 360 version to be cheaper.

[mlapaglia]

i'm not sure why everyone thinks vista is sooo horrible, my laptop (core duo 2.0 ghz, 2 gb ram, nvidia geforce 7600) was made for xp and it runs vista quite fine. charging that much money for a game is ridiculous though.

edit: oh ya, i've installed it on a core solo 1.8 ghz 1 gb ram integrated graphics and it runs just fine, no BSoD since november

This post has been edited by mlapaglia: May 15 2007, 05:18 PM

[47_M450N_47]

I've never had Vista crash on my Desktop either.
3.2ghz P4 w/ HT
1gb (4x 256mb) dual channel PC3200 RAM
Radeon 9800 Pro Sapphire 256mb

I have Ultimate, it runs fine, I've never seen it crash or anything else. I can see why people are angry about having to upgrade, but the whole reason you need to is for DirectX 10. I'm not very familiar with the technology inside DX10 and why it won't work on XP, but the bottom line is, it doesn't. Either upgrade and play the games, or don't and don't play the games.

I don't understand why the same game should be different prices. That part doesn't make much sense to me, but I'm not going to get it either way.

[TechPagan]

I don't understand all the complaining about microsoft. If you don't like their products, business practices or pricing then don't support them by purchasing said products. They have a monopoly on the computer industry and so game manufacturers (now including microsoft) write games for the OS or console manufacturers that make them the most money. As such Microsoft expanded their business to include the manufacturing of gaming consoles. There are really no better options out there (is gaming really all that great on linux) and Microsoft knows this. They can charge whatever the fcuk they want and people will pay for it. They will buy new consoles (I don't own a 360 yet, but I will buy one when Halo 3 is released), new OSes and new PC hardware (including thousand dollar video cards) just to be on the bleeding edge of gaming performance. It's the way the world works. If you don't like it then start a multi-billion dollar company yourself from the ground up and change it. Microsoft is not going to change any time soon and complaining about it, then buying their products, isn't going to solve anything.

This post has been edited by TechPagan: May 15 2007, 06:15 PM

[skye001]

with live being "multi-platform".. would it possible for MS to start actually having PC's as dedicated servers, for the 360? justifies my £40 per yr for xbox live (not fussed about content), only advantage I see if MS make live multi-platform..

This post has been edited by skye001: May 15 2007, 07:01 PM

[halo3guy]

MS is not FORCING you to do anything. You ALWAYS have the option of switching over to Linux, or buy a Mac. Dont like them? thats not MS's fault.

What you call an "option" isn't really one. DirectX is closed so no one can really port it to Linux or Mac. What's worse is DirectX10 is closed to just Vista, so you can't even port it to Windows XP !! There are projects reverse engineering directX, but thats a huge uphill climb. The end result is that MS IS forcing you to get tied into their products only. In legal terms this is called monopolistic practices. And MS has been in trouble in the past because of it. Over the years, the monopolistic mindset has attached itself to the very DNA of MS and it shows in various policies and licenses.

You can still play Halo 2 AND ShadowRun WITHOUT Vista, its called a 360.

In case you didn't notice, the discussion was about the pricing difference between "PC" (which in this case really boils down to "Vista") and xbox360 games. As you just discovered in a moment of supreme intelligence, there ARE two options and in case you didn't notice, everyone talking here is already aware of it. So welcome. However the discussion is highlighting the inequalities between those two platforms and how those inequalities are rooted in a monopolistic mindset. You cannot justify a 20% hike in one platform over another for the same product, especially when the xbox360 is EASIER to develop for (homogenous system) vs Vista which is a mixed bad needing more testing. The "answer" by Microsoft is basically, "well, we are charging them $x because we can, not because we have a sound financial or logical reason". Intelligent reasoning? No. Annoying? Yes, because they are such a large monopoly they can get away with such behaviour. It is no longer about offering the best product for the optimal price (the basic fundamental of a free market).

I just hate pointless rants that serve no purpose at all.

Yeah, we don't like 'em too. So stop adding more "noise" to an intelligent arguement.

This post has been edited by halo3guy: May 15 2007, 07:12 PM

[TechPagan]

What you call an "option" isn't really one. DirectX is closed so no one can really port it to Linux or Mac. What's worse is DirectX10 is closed to just Vista, so you can't even port it to Windows XP !! There are projects reverse engineering directX, but thats a huge uphill climb. The end result is that MS IS forcing you to get tied into their products only. In legal terms this is called monopolistic practices. And MS has been in trouble in the past because of it. Over the years, the monopolistic mindset has attached itself to the very DNA of MS and it shows in various policies and licenses.

I dont see the problem here. Who is the developer of DirectX.....Microsoft. Why should they have to make it open. Its one of their money makers. If I owned a patent on a product I should be able to charge whatever I want and use it however I want (especially within my own products) and say a big F.U. to people who complain what I charge, especially if my product was superior to anything else on the market. The game developers have a choice to use OpenGL (hell its open they can modify it to do whatever they want) if they want when they are programing games for Vista, but DirectX is a better product. As far as the Xbox 360 HAVING to use DirectX well Xbox 360 is their product also they can make it run whatever they want. The almost universal adoption of Microsoft Windows is now a fact of life. If anything we created this monster by paying year after year $200 - $400 dollars for OSes and $200 - $500 for gaming consoles not to mention the cost of the games.

This post has been edited by TechPagan: May 15 2007, 09:39 PM