Why Gears of War costs $60

http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/19/ps3-xbox3...nsivegames.html

Interesting article that breaks down why games cost what they do including handy pie chart slide show. This particular article is talking about console games, but it applies to them all for the most part.

See, this makes no sense.... If consoles were such a loosing thing, why would Epic and ID claim they are moving more games to console to help offset lost profits from PC Gaming Piracy?

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/46079

I saw something the other day that was an interview with a music pirate who is being run out of business by filesharing.

http://torrentfreak.com/p2p-file-sharing-r...iracy-business/

I seriously doubt that piracy is the huge issue with games that they say it is. Moving games to consoles makes sense economically as you are doubling or tripling (or more) the number of people able to play your game. If they all come out with stuff like Microsofts Live where you can do cross-platform gaming just think of the potential.

Maybe people can understand that it is not unreasonable to pay $10 for an EA booster pack. No I do not excuse the bugs, I am just saying I understand the booster pack sales. If the in game ads in 2142 keep the game from going to a montly fee that is fine by me.

I said it before, we do not pay a monthly fee and it is a business..

My friend that programs console games for EA said it takes a long time to develop these things. x amount per hour for each programmer etc.... He does not tell me anything else though. Just that he is working on something cool. 😉

But I have read on this and heard people talk. the PC market and console markets are very different. The console there is far less of a userbase for any particular console. A million units is a large percentage of the "install base" for consoles. A million units on a PC is a small percentage of the "Install base". I dont' think anyone here lacks the understanding that it's a business for EA. What pisses me off is they invest their time working on the next booster pack before fixing the base game. Look at BF2. I think they had one almost immediate patch, this is what shuld have been included with the base game, then they released their $30 Expansion and a patch to fix it. The they did one other patch. They then released 2 booster packs. Then they released a new game. The new game has ads to give them a constant flow of revenue, do they patch the game properly? No. Did this keep them from their expansions? No.

As for I don't mind ads if it keeps the game from being a monthly subscription... All companies will charge the money they can get from the consumer. It's how capitalism works. Having Ads isn't keeping the game from a monthly subscription charge. Having ads is lining EAs pockets, some day when they thing they can get a monthly subscription you can bet they will.

I feel like everything give them an inch and they will take a mile. Paladin I know you won't ever give up on this, but between me not liking EAs business model, me not liking futuristic games, me not having much time for games, and me not having much money to spend on games, and lastly me refusing to install adware regardless of who makes it... I will not buy 2142... there is not even the remotest amount of appeal. I am about as inclined to enjoy the game as I would "matchbox rally".

Bubbaspanky wrote:
I feel like everything give them an inch and they will take a mile. Paladin I know you won't ever give up on this, but between me not liking EAs business model, me not liking futuristic games, me not having much time for games, and me not having much money to spend on games, and lastly me refusing to install adware regardless of who makes it... I will not buy 2142... there is not even the remotest amount of appeal. I am about as inclined to enjoy the game as I would "matchbox rally".

I never expect you to man. It is all cool. I was not saying anything to convince you other wise 😉

I do 100% agree that EA should patch what they already got your money for.

This does indeed suck but a LOT of companies do this. 🙁
Hardware or Software is really the same for this discussion. Look at Dell, their machines are nice but the support is shitty. They used to be good. Apple sells you a nice new Ipod, which I just bought anyway, but has absolutely lousy post sales support for it historically. I bought one anyway, just like I buy EA stuff. I am hopeful that I won't have any problems with it but if I do, and get no satisfaction, I may or may not buy another one. Just like you won't buy another EA product. I do understand that man. Once burned and all.


I was just saying that this happens ALL the time man. Not excusing it of course.
Lets get back to software, Microsoft has done this time and time again. Release the OS then keep patching and patching over and over. I guess at least they try to patch it. EA does, but usually not for what actually needs patched 😉 Believe me I deal with all kinds of other software packages that are released, not supported very well and some of these are needed by the scientific community. Sometimes there are no other options so we just have to deal with it. It sucks but they got you and these are a lot more important than a game.

EA does not do a good job overall. EA are a bunch of idiots. If I did not enjoy the game so much I would not buy them myself believe me. Once better games come out and are non EA I will probably move on myself.

But I really love BF2 and 2142, the price is not obscene and the booster packs etc.. are not that bad for my time per dollar entertainment value, so I play it. Simple as that really. 😉

The sad part is I feel stuck with 2142. After 3 patches, the 4th I didn't even bother with, it still has a bug that is over 2yrs old in the original code.

Makes me less likely to buy thier next series, let alone thier pay for addon maps.


UT, I have to admit, other than BF, it was heavily patched too. They had alot of trouble with thier netcode in the beginning that would cause 'speed hacks', which effectively froze you out of a match. But the issue was addressed finally, along with the other little quirky things.

I also read the other day its one of the hardest games to cheat on, while there are over 40 hacks against BF2 and 2142, CS, and HL:S.

We understand you love the game, but thier practices have got to be hurting thier bottom line. I suspect they are pushing everything they can out the door before the next WoW, UTIII, and Qwars comes out. Once these start hitting the shelves, EA is going to be in a bind.

Btw, was there expansion packs for Vietnam, or was that an expansion to 1942?? 😆

lexx wrote:
The sad part is I feel stuck with 2142. After 3 patches, the 4th I didn't even bother with, it still has a bug that is over 2yrs old in the original code.

Makes me less likely to buy thier next series, let alone thier pay for addon maps.
UT, I have to admit, other than BF, it was heavily patched too. They had alot of trouble with thier netcode in the beginning that would cause 'speed hacks', which effectively froze you out of a match. But the issue was addressed finally, along with the other little quirky things.

I also read the other day its one of the hardest games to cheat on, while there are over 40 hacks against BF2 and 2142, CS, and HL:S.

We understand you love the game, but thier practices have got to be hurting thier bottom line. I suspect they are pushing everything they can out the door before the next WoW, UTIII, and Qwars comes out. Once these start hitting the shelves, EA is going to be in a bind.

Btw, was there expansion packs for Vietnam, or was that an expansion to 1942?? 😆

Vietnam released an official WWII mod, and several map, but all were free. I think the problem Lexx, is if people keep buying everythign EA releases regardless their bottom line isn't hurt... so they will continue their lousy service.

And Pal I know what it's like to be stuck with poor software because that is all that there is. I run it everyday. But, sometimes the catalyst for change is in not purchasing it. I will not buy anything from Adobe. they went from producing good, small, very functional and bug free software to lousy consistantly crashing bloatware. Therefore I have replaced them with Open Source alternatives. MS despite problems, does always seem to release free patches.

lexx wrote:
Btw, was there expansion packs for Vietnam, or was that an expansion to 1942?? 😆

No expansions for BF Vietnam but they did the WWII mod for it. There were two expansions for BF42 which I think were $20 each and included a half dozen maps, many new vehicles, and even a new game mode (objective mod in the Secret Weapons Expansion which is the same as Titan mode essentially in 2142). Similar to the BF2 Expansions, they weren't played nearly so much as the original.

BFV was killed off by initial bugs, and the announcement just a month after its release that BF2 was coming out and that it was going to be like DC. I notice that they didn't make the same announcement when they released BF2 or 2142, they did keep the bugs however. The rumblings of expansions did start immediately which is an unfortunate trend because despite the quality of the expansion or booster, it fragments the community as some people won't pay for it no matter how good it is.

Bubbaspanky wrote:
Vietnam released an official WWII mod, and several map, but all were free. I think the problem Lexx, is if people keep buying everythign EA releases regardless their bottom line isn't hurt... so they will continue their lousy service.

And Pal I know what it's like to be stuck with poor software because that is all that there is. I run it everyday. But, sometimes the catalyst for change is in not purchasing it. I will not buy anything from Adobe. they went from producing good, small, very functional and bug free software to lousy consistantly crashing bloatware. Therefore I have replaced them with Open Source alternatives. MS despite problems, does always seem to release free patches.

It is not always that easy to simply not buy it. First it would take a LOT of people to not buy it and that never seems to happen. Second, the game is really good. Sorry to say but it is, even with the bugs. We can argue this one but why bother. Obviously a lot of people do like it so it kind of answers itself. I understand it is not your cup of tea but we cannot all be idiots can we? So it is not like it is a really bad product to begin with. If it was then it would be easy to just say to hell with EA I am not buying it, but the damn game overall is fun and fairly solid!

Lexx aside from the control save issues, and rare crashes, 2142 has ran very well for me. If it is not for you then I understand your fustration. Maybe it is your internet connection or your computer.

Bubba, this explains a lot. For what it is worth I have to support most all of the Adobe products and I have very few problems with them. I installed the entire CS suite then upgraded again to the CS2 suit on all my lab computers, about 30 computers. No problems at all. The software runs perfect. I cannot remember ever having a computer crash because of an Adobe product. The only Adobe product that has been a pain at times is Acrobat Pro. This is usually the plug into Word that is a pain. Okay I have had other problems with this one. Acrobat has always been a pain at times for me 😉 I also have the CS2 suit at home including Premiere and Audition, all run fine. It is a huge suit though I will give you that.

I am unsure the problems you are having but maybe you just have such bad luck with software that it taints your views. 😉

Remember I am not trying to convert anyone here but I have to report the good and bad with my experiences as well as a view from the other side. There are two sides to every story so I seem to be the one reporting the other these days.

lexx wrote:
We understand you love the game, but thier practices have got to be hurting thier bottom line. I suspect they are pushing everything they can out the door before the next WoW, UTIII, and Qwars comes out. Once these start hitting the shelves, EA is going to be in a bind.

I disagree. EA make more than just a few PC games, remember that. They create a LOT of titles every year and a lot of them are for consoles. Everyone could stop buying all BF2 series games and it would not hurt EA much at all man. I am just glad they make PC games at all.

It is more cost effective to make console games I bet. Like the MAC they have specific hardware to program for so can optimize the code and make it a lot more bug free than a PC version of a game with thousands of variations of hardware. Though in theory it should just be coded directly to the API's like Direct X itself but hardware comes into play. I think we are lucky they do any PC games.

Paladin, I resent you telling me that I must have bad adobe luck. In case you wonder I was in almost the same postion as you for 2 years, I supported approx 25,000 users. You admitted yourself you have had problems with Acrobat. I went open source for PDF software instead of using their software.

Its your decision to buy software no matter what because why would they change. Maybe they won't change, but until some dedicated users stop paying, they won't consider changes. But you not attempting to make a stand will NEVER change anything. Look at Mcafee and Norton for AV software, they both refused to change; now look at how many players there are in the AV market. It's because alot of people switched to the Avasts, Panda, CA, and other vendors. I would bet Mcafee went from a 50% market share to maybe 20% because they alienated too many users.

I don't expect you to change your mind, I don't aks you too, but look around you, I am not the only person saying this. Why are 2142 servers less populated than BF2 servers? EA screwed up and is paying some price for it now... will they learn, who knows. Will someone else fill their shoes if they don't adapt their policies? Yes they will and have been.

In case you hadn't caught on, I don't hate EA. I just bought the entire EA sports pack for 06 because I enjoy those games, always have. I just don't think I am going to stay with their BF series, they screwed up in my mind and until I see different I am not buying their games just because the have the word "battlefield" in the title as I would've in the past. Maybe I won't change anything, but well I will have more money and more free time.

BFV had the WWII mod with 3 maps plus it also had 3 additional maps released at the end. I can't remember if there were any other maps, but they released the equivalent of 2 booster packs for BFV without charging.

Atomm wrote:
BFV had the WWII mod with 3 maps plus it also had 3 additional maps released at the end. I can't remember if there were any other maps, but they released the equivalent of 2 booster packs for BFV without charging.

Oh, ok. I found my BFV disks in the original case! I could reinstall that easily if there comes a team reason to do so.

For me, the next battlefield is going to have to have a pretty damn functional demo, without the hangups. I dont' think that is much to ask after being shafted on 2142. I'm never going to HOPE it gets fixed on a patch again.

Nah, its not the computer, its loading it from xfire to visit friends on a server, then escaping back to the menu to set those damn keys back, then escaping back to the game. 1of3 x's it would crash to desktop. The game is sluggish enough without having to make that a daily task.

Also as with BF2, I usually miss the first cap because of slow loading, which I blame on 768k dsl, not the game. I upgraded to 2gigs ram, 3.0 chip, and x800, so the hardware is solid.

The thing is, I just don't miss the headaches that went with it everytime I tried to run it, sigh.

Lexx, how does the 768k affect the load times? I'm on 512k DSL and I'm getting in under 20 seconds with the upgrade.

Atomm wrote:
Lexx, how does the 768k affect the load times? I'm on 512k DSL and I'm getting in under 20 seconds with the upgrade.

It was kinda how I learned to live with it. A few months back I rebuilt from the ground up, new moto, sata, HT 3.0, 2gigs ram, x800, new power supply. The loading was not much faster. When I had comcast 4.0 service I got in real fast, but it was expensive, so I switched to verizon for half price.

Its probably something to do with routing through hubs that slow it down. Last year I had earthlink 1.5, which was pretty damn quick getting into servers, but that was a diff home address.

lexx wrote:
It was kinda how I learned to live with it. A few months back I rebuilt from the ground up, new moto, sata, HT 3.0, 2gigs ram, x800, new power supply. The loading was not much faster. When I had comcast 4.0 service I got in real fast, but it was expensive, so I switched to verizon for half price.

Its probably something to do with routing through hubs that slow it down. Last year I had earthlink 1.5, which was pretty damn quick getting into servers, but that was a diff home address.

Just so you know, you have basically the same setup as I do - same cpu, video card, 2 gigs RAM. . .I have older IDE drives tho.

Bubbaspanky wrote:
Paladin, I resent you telling me that I must have bad adobe luck. In case you wonder I was in almost the same postion as you for 2 years, I supported approx 25,000 users. You admitted yourself you have had problems with Acrobat. I went open source for PDF software instead of using their software.

I am sorry man, I did not mean to offend. You just put out a blanket all encompassing statement of "lousy consistently crashing bloatware" about all Adobe products.

I was simply saying I did not have the same experience and I would have thought that my data point of 30 lab machines plus a few dozen faculty and staff computers would have been enough.
I did not realize that you had 25,000 problems with it. You win man. I guess I was the lucky one. That is not meant to sound condescending. I just mean I guess I am lucky in that the CS suites and single application installs have given me little problem aside from Acrobat which BTW I have no choice but to support. Even Acrobat has not been that bad really. If you had such bad experiences with 25,000 computers and I have had very few problems I just wonder where the problem is. Maybe something else conflicting?

As far as BF2 my problem is simply that I joined a BF series clan. 2142 is the next in the series. The clan is not playing it therefore I am no longer in a BF series clan. This tends to make me a bit upset at times. I did not join a UT clan. I did not join a CS clan or a WOW clan. I joined you guys because you were into the same game series as I was at the time.

Now most are not. How am I supposed to feel? My problem is I really like you guys and like GRB. So my options are to leave, which I do not really want to do, or try to get the clan back on track into what it was initially. This sometimes involves being up front and honest both of which come across negatively at times.

Again I am sorry. I did not mean to offend.

So have any of you seen Gears of War? It is one of the most beautiful games I have seen. The actual gameplay looks like the best cut scenes out there. 🙂

Nope, haven't seen it! 😀

sindy wrote:
So have any of you seen Gears of War? It is one of the most beautiful games I have seen. The actual gameplay looks like the best cut scenes out there. 🙂

Is that a console game? I've heard good things about it's gfx, but haven't run across info about a PC version.


I keep hoping that the x-box & x-box 360 are going to result in more console-PC crossovers. I would think that developing for one of the x-boxes would make a game easier to port to PC than, say, the Wii


Edit: to remove weird-ass redundant quotes. . .dunno how that happened, multitasking I guess.

I believe it uses the Unreal 3 Engine like UT3. Didn't I read that Frontlines was also using the UT3 engine?

Gears of War does use the Unreal3 engine. That's about all I know about it.

I own Gears of War...loved every minute of the single player. I love playing it co-op over xbox live, however I found the multiplayer to be pretty under developed. It's just 4vs4 matches all the time. The maps make very little, if any at all, difference in game play.
that being said its a stunning game visually. The single player and the co-op are just amazing game play. The storyline sucks, because they were setting themselves up for a sequel the whole time.

Paladin wrote:
As far as BF2 my problem is simply that I joined a BF series clan. 2142 is the next in the series. The clan is not playing it therefore I am no longer in a BF series clan. This tends to make me a bit upset at times. I did not join a UT clan. I did not join a CS clan or a WOW clan. I joined you guys because you were into the same game series as I was at the time.

Actually when I joined with you and Doc, I was still pretty busy matching in UT, as at that time I had ALOT of problems with BF2 and my video. Its damn amazing how much trouble I've had with BF series games from 1942 to present.

Anyways, what I liked at the time was the diversity of gaming here, from BF2 to UT, to CS somewhat later. After awhile I put more effort into BF, but that effort has just gotten stale, and it just doens't have any zing left. Last two weeks I was just 'showing up'. I need a break from BF2, and probably gaming in general.

I just don't see playing BF2 every friday nite until bf3 comes out either. We need new or newold (1942)(BFV) Fridays. I plan on looking everywhere for my ser's to get those re-installed. The only diff I remember from the old to the new is 1)graphics and 2)GotDamn rankings. There were soooo many cool maps in 1942/DCF that I really enjoyed, Bocage my fav of course 🙂

I'll be in tonite at some point for SF cause its new and diff.

Megaron wrote:
I own Gears of War..

Of course you do 😉

Megaron wrote:
however I found the multiplayer to be pretty under developed. It's just 4vs4 matches all the time. The maps make very little, if any at all, difference in game play.

That answerers that then. Next....