Gears of War no longer works...for anybody

[Casper312]

You need a beefy system? What never heard people talk out their asses.

I guess my old 3800x2 @ 2.6ghz, 2gb @ DDR420, Evga 9800gtx @ stock is a beefy system? Even more my current budget system, They both ran the game maxed out with aa on dx10 with 40+ frames and my current rig at a constant 60 frames @ 1680x1050.

Gears of war for pc was fine, patch it and be happy. Im waiting for the next patch to fix the current issue as its still one of the games i play.

 

[brucedeluxe169]

You need a beefy system? What never heard people talk out their asses.

I guess my old 3800x2 @ 2.6ghz, 2gb @ DDR420, Evga 9800gtx @ stock is a beefy system? Even more my current budget system, They both ran the game maxed out with aa on dx10 with 40+ frames and my current rig at a constant 60 frames @ 1680x1050.

Gears of war for pc was fine, patch it and be happy. Im waiting for the next patch to fix the current issue as its still one of the games i play.

your system is a beefy system.....

 

[rampantandroid]

to run it maxed out in DX10 with AA then yes you need a very beefy system. I can however run Warhead at 1920x1080 on all DX9 enthusiast settings and no AA smoothly though and my system isnt all that strong. also any modern midrange system can run the game on mostly high DX9 settings and still get better graphics than pretty much any other game. I also got the game on sale so it was more than worth what I paid for it. the original Crysis was okay game and Warhead is even better and I dont regret buying either.

Really? I found the original better...as it offered more gameplay. Warhead just seemed short. And had the wonders of DRM.

 

[Casper312]

your system is a beefy system.....

I guess people have different/viewings on beefy systems, to me a beefy system is a Quad system, but who knows.

i guess $240 gets you a beefy combo these days.

 

[cannondale06]

Really? I found the original better...as it offered more gameplay. Warhead just seemed short. And had the wonders of DRM.

well yeah I wish Warhead would have been longer but I knew it would only be 5 or 6 hours going into it. as for the original Crysis it was great until after the core level then I lost interest because it was so completely different feeling from the first 2/3 of the game.

 

[rampantandroid]

I guess people have different/viewings on beefy systems, to me a beefy system is a Quad system, but who knows.

i guess $240 gets you a beefy combo these days.

When the game was new, that system cost quite a bit more than it does now. I'm talking about a tech demo when it came out. When Crysis came out, the 8800 was still top of the time, and an 8800 still cost 350+ USD.

What you're saying is something similar to saying "Why did they have to spend so muchon Deep Blue to beat Kasparov - I can come up with something more powerful today that is much cheaper," You can't throw the fact that Deep Blue was from 1996 out the window.

 

[Derangel]

Crytek doesn't count, they made a high end tech demo, not a game.

Piracy is a reality, and a reason for developes to jump ship from PC - but not the only reason. Piracy is a great reality, especially in single player games with no incentive to play online. Online games start to fix this by having global servers for tracking keys and all, and WoW is protected by Blizzard's aggressive lawsuits against shard servers. But for single player games like Oblivion, Fallout 3 and such, piracy is all too real. Heck, even AOE suffers, because you can simply use hamachi to fool the game into running in LAN mode.

And PC games just cost more to develop, in terms of the actual time and effort required. You have to account for people still running x1900s and 6800s, as well as people running 4870X2s and GTX295s...etc. You need to account for a lowly dual core machine, and a Core i7...for WinXP and Win Vista, for AMD64 vs Intel64. There is a lot more overhead for dealing with a PC versus dealing with a console - where you have a certain unchanging set of hardware and can code around that.

Excuse me? Who gave you the right to decide what doesn't matter? He brought up Crytek, so don't tell me it doesn't count. Learn to read more than just one post in a discussion before responding.

Piracy is an issue, but sure as hell isn't as bad as its made out to be. Publishers and developers use piracy as an excuse to be lazy, whiny, bitches. If a game doesn't sell on the PC there is usually a very good reason. It has nothing to do with piracy. These studios want games to sell on the PC, make good games that run the way they should.

PC games ARE cheaper. This has been stated by a number of developers over the years. Its a fact. The fact that people say Crysis' $22 million is big of a PC game proves that. GTAIV was $100 million dollars to develop. Shenmue was $80 million. Most big budgest console games run 30-40 million at the minimum. 22 million is a upper mid-level budget for a PC, so don't give me that shit about PC gaming costing more to make. Learn your shit before talking.

 

[rampantandroid]

Excuse me? Who gave you the right to decide what doesn't matter? He brought up Crytek, so don't tell me it doesn't count. Learn to read more than just one post in a discussion before responding.

Piracy is an issue, but sure as hell isn't as bad as its made out to be. Publishers and developers use piracy as an excuse to be lazy, whiny, bitches. If a game doesn't sell on the PC there is usually a very good reason. It has nothing to do with piracy. These studios want games to sell on the PC, make good games that run the way they should.

PC games ARE cheaper. This has been stated by a number of developers over the years. Its a fact. The fact that people say Crysis' $22 million is big of a PC game proves that. GTAIV was $100 million dollars to develop. Shenmue was $80 million. Most big budgest console games run 30-40 million at the minimum. 22 million is a upper mid-level budget for a PC, so don't give me that shit about PC gaming costing more to make. Learn your shit before talking.

You're making no sense, and foamnig at the mouth I think.

 

[rampantandroid]

Excuse me? Who gave you the right to decide what doesn't matter? He brought up Crytek, so don't tell me it doesn't count. Learn to read more than just one post in a discussion before responding.

Piracy is an issue, but sure as hell isn't as bad as its made out to be. Publishers and developers use piracy as an excuse to be lazy, whiny, bitches. If a game doesn't sell on the PC there is usually a very good reason. It has nothing to do with piracy. These studios want games to sell on the PC, make good games that run the way they should.

PC games ARE cheaper. This has been stated by a number of developers over the years. Its a fact. The fact that people say Crysis' $22 million is big of a PC game proves that. GTAIV was $100 million dollars to develop. Shenmue was $80 million. Most big budgest console games run 30-40 million at the minimum. 22 million is a upper mid-level budget for a PC, so don't give me that shit about PC gaming costing more to make. Learn your shit before talking.

You're making no sense, and were foamnig at the mouth as you typed this, I suspect.

" 22 million is a upper mid-level budget for a PC" - so what the is a "big budget" game for a PC, 30-40 million? That is then equal to a Console game, and your logic falls apart. Furthermore, games like GTA IV, does that budget include the port to PC, because that will inflate the budget a bit right there.

As for dismissing Crytek, its a discussion. I stated my reasons for dismissing it. Go ahead and debate them....because, well, it's a debate.

You have yet to even offer any rebuttal of my statement that developing on a console is easier. I've stated my reasons.

 

[defiant007]

" 22 million is a upper mid-level budget for a PC" - so what the is a "big budget" game for a PC, 30-40 million?

He gave several examples as to what is considered to be a large budget for a console game

" That is then equal to a Console game, and your logic falls apart

How does 30-40 million equal 80-100 million?

Furthermore, games like GTA IV, does that budget include the port to PC, because that will inflate the budget a bit right there.

Doubtful, and in any event, it is fairly cheap and easy for devs to port any game on xbox 360 to PC.

As for dismissing Crytek, its a discussion. I stated my reasons for dismissing it. Go ahead and debate them....because, well, it's a debate.

You have yet to even offer any rebuttal of my statement that developing on a console is easier. I've stated my reasons.

Why is crytek being dismissed as irrelevant again?

 

[Derangel]

You're making no sense, and were foamnig at the mouth as you typed this, I suspect.

" 22 million is a upper mid-level budget for a PC" - so what the is a "big budget" game for a PC, 30-40 million? That is then equal to a Console game, and your logic falls apart. Furthermore, games like GTA IV, does that budget include the port to PC, because that will inflate the budget a bit right there.

As for dismissing Crytek, its a discussion. I stated my reasons for dismissing it. Go ahead and debate them....because, well, it's a debate.

You have yet to even offer any rebuttal of my statement that developing on a console is easier. I've stated my reasons.

Opps, meant console. Was in the middle of doing a number of things at the time. Still am. Sorry about the confusion. GTAIV's 100 million is the cost of consoles only. That number was announced long before the PC version was.

I don't disagree with Crysis not being important, but I wasn't the one that brought it up. If you have a problem with it being talked about, talk to the person who brought up its development costs and them bitching about sales.

How about many developers calling the PS3 the hardest platform to develop for? How about that any support a PC dev needs can be found somewhere on the internet, for free. How about that Intel, AMD/ATI, and Nividia offer free support to game developers when it comes to getting their games to run on their hardware? How about everything that is needed for a game to work on XP or Vista is included in the DX SDK? How about that PC gaming is an open platform and no one is subject to an outside approval process for making games?

 

[Spewn]

When the game was new, that system cost quite a bit more than it does now. I'm talking about a tech demo when it came out. When Crysis came out, the 8800 was still top of the time, and an 8800 still cost 350+ USD.

When was the comment about needing a beefy system made? When 8800's were $350usd? Or just now, when they're not, and "beefy" has moved up the performance ladder?

Once-beefy requirements are now mainstream, and will one day be low-end.

 

[DeadSkull]

Piracy is an issue, but sure as hell isn't as bad as its made out to be. Publishers and developers use piracy as an excuse to be lazy, whiny, bitches. If a game doesn't sell on the PC there is usually a very good reason. It has nothing to do with piracy.

Besides that statement being a product of your own personal opinion please try to justify it in some sort of way. Because everything that I have read and see so far points to the contrary, that piracy is slowly destroying any incentive for game studious to remain and continue to develop tradional PC games for PC only market.

These studios want games to sell on the PC, make good games that run the way they should.

Game studious do develop good games for PC, and ofcourse makers of COD4, Fallout 3 and Crytek would be pissed when they see download rates outstrip sales. If people can afford to pay for computers and high speed internet connection why cant they shell out $30-$40 for a game? People shell out $8 + food for movies, many times for a crappy one, yet for some reason balk at shelling out $40+ for games that provide 10-12 hours plus of entertainment.

 

[Derangel]

Besides that statement being a product of your own personal opinion please try to justify it in some sort of way. Because everything that I have read and see so far points to the contrary, that piracy is slowly destroying any incentive for game studious to remain and continue to develop tradional PC games for PC only market.

Simple, look at the studios actively complaining and look at the products they point out. Epic, Crytek, Ubisoft. None of them have any right to bitch. Epic can bitch about piracy when they start delivering good games again. Crytek can stuff it. Ubisoft is a horrible company that bitches and moans about piracy when they've released a whole ONE PC game in the last year worth buying and then proceed to fuck over the people that bought it. Epic and Ubisoft deserve what they get.

Game studious do develop good games for PC, and ofcourse makers of COD4, Fallout 3 and Crytek would be pissed when they see download rates outstrip sales. If people can afford to pay for computers and high speed internet connection why cant they shell out $30-$40 for a game? People shell out $8 + food for movies, many times for a crappy one, yet for some reason balk at shelling out $40+ for games that provide 10-12 hours plus of entertainment.

And yet all of those games have sold well on the PC. There is zero proof that piracy causes lost sales. Its the same bullshit argument used by the RIAA and MPAA. Pirates aren't customers and they shouldn't be considered as such. A pirated copy of a game isn't a lost sale, it is what it is. If there were no piracy they make see a couple percent raise in sales, but nothing thats more than a drop in the bucket when it comes to profit. I'm not saying piracy isn't bad, but its being over-blown. Good games generally sell. PC games have never and will never sell the way console games to. Publishers can't expect those kinds of numbers from the PC, thats just the way it is.

 

[novadude]

Piracy is the scapegoat that allows the developers to switch to a console laden market without admitting that they're abandoning the market that made them.

 

[DeadSkull]

Simple, look at the studios actively complaining and look at the products they point out. Epic, Crytek, Ubisoft. None of them have any right to bitch. Epic can bitch about piracy when they start delivering good games again. Crytek can stuff it. Ubisoft is a horrible company that bitches and moans about piracy when they've released a whole ONE PC game in the last year worth buying and then proceed to fuck over the people that bought it. Epic and Ubisoft deserve what they get.

And yet all of those games have sold well on the PC. There is zero proof that piracy causes lost sales. Its the same bullshit argument used by the RIAA and MPAA. Pirates aren't customers and they shouldn't be considered as such. A pirated copy of a game isn't a lost sale, it is what it is. If there were no piracy they make see a couple percent raise in sales, but nothing thats more than a drop in the bucket when it comes to profit. I'm not saying piracy isn't bad, but its being over-blown. Good games generally sell. PC games have never and will never sell the way console games to. Publishers can't expect those kinds of numbers from the PC, thats just the way it is.

Right, because if piracy wasn't affecting sales at all and all the studious were happy with their profit margins of their investments there would be no reason for them to move to consoles market where game development cost is higher then for pc games.

Piracy is the scapegoat that allows the developers to switch to a console laden market without admitting that they're abandoning the market that made them.

Right because its so much "cheaper" to make games for consoles vs PC.

 

[Gorankar]

Why the hell would they even put a kill date in there in the first place? Did they intend to go the subscription route and then rethink it but forget to fix the executable? Or was this a planned and forced obsolescence?

This thread really degenerated into a piracy and sales numbers argument didn't it. Here is my discontribution to it.

When it comes to sales NPD is all but worthless. They don't track digital distribution and they don't track online hard copy sales either. NPD tracks only what is reported to them. NPD numbers are a tool that point out trends in game sales and little else. However, INVESTORS(and publishers) want numbers to look at. Therefore, the consoles look better to INVESTORS than the PC does because NPD is all they have. Also, console numbers tend to get lumped together on multi platform games.(even though it is no more difficult to port from the 360 to the PC than it is from the 360 to the PS3) This makes the PC look even worse. Add in that INVESTORS are scared by the "ZOMG!! PC games are all pirated", and that they don't realize the console games are pirated as well. Investors and publishers push developers into the console market and allow them to sell into the PC market as an afterthought on that basis. If you want someone else to pick up the tab, you have to cave to their wants, however misguided and misinformed they might be.

For some cross platform games games I would wager that the PC equal or even outsells the other platforms when each is taken individually. The numbers do not exist to prove or disprove that theory, so that is all it is.

 

[Derangel]

Right, because if piracy wasn't affecting sales at all and all the studious were happy with their profit margins of their investments there would be no reason for them to move to consoles market where game development cost is higher then for pc games.



Right because its so much "cheaper" to make games for consoles vs PC.

Please read more than five words of my post. If you're not willing to read my entire post and respond to that then kindly fuck off.

 

[DeadSkull]

Please read more than five words of my post. If you're not willing to read my entire post and respond to that then kindly fuck off.

I looked at it and this is what I managed to comprehend.

Simple, look at the studios actively complaining and look at the products they point out. Epic, Crytek, Ubisoft. None of them have any right to bitch. I HATE GAME STUDIOUS I HATE GAME STUDIOUS I HATE GAME STUDIOUS IM A WHINY LITTLE PRICK Epic and Ubisoft deserve what they get.

And yet all of those games have sold well on the PC. There is zero proof that piracy causes lost sales (prove it, b/c theres substantial evidence it does). Its the same bullshit argument used by the RIAA and MPAA (ohoh THEYRE JUST LIKE RIAA, ALL THEIR ARGUMENTS ARE INVALID THEY ARE JUST EVIL). Pirates aren't customers and they shouldn't be considered as such. A pirated copy of a game isn't a lost sale, it is what it is. If there were no piracy they make see a couple percent raise in sales, but nothing thats more than a drop in the bucket when it comes to profit.

Hold on first you state that a pirate copy of a game isn't a lost sale, but in the next centense you state that

If there were no piracy they make see a couple percent raise in sales

Hmmm, learn how not to contradict yourself in the same paragraph?

I'm not saying piracy isn't bad, but its being over-blown. Good games generally sell. PC games have never and will never sell the way console games to. Publishers can't expect those kinds of numbers from the PC, thats just the way it is.

PC games piracy isn't overblown, the piracy rates are really that bad. Consider World of Goo, a PC game thats not hardware heavy and received numerous awards yet has a piracy rate of 82%.

Also Crytek has a right to be pissed when there's a

"the ratio between sales to piracy is probably 1 to 15 to 1 to 20 right now"

as stated by Cevat Yerli himself.

 

[no2censorship]

I only read the 1st page, so I might not be the 1st one to say, but:

It's not that bad. It does have some crashing issues but the game itself runs well.

Games still should be patched to not crash.

I have the game, its okay but I never played it much. Hopefully they get this fixed this week. This is embarassig.

They could have be making a patch that has good surprises in it, in addition to the expected and universally demanded.

While not without problems, I thought Gears was a semi-good time in an "arcadey" kind of way. Tried installing it yesterday to try on my new 22" only to be greeted by an error message. Bleh. Get it together Epic and don't forget the audience that made you what you are today...

See above. Nice user name, BTW=]

the game always works for pirates never for the actual paying customers.
game companies once the get your money they don't care about it anymore.

1st part true; anti-piracy measures only hurt the people (myself one of the people) who pay for it. Kind of like all gun regulations, but that's a little OffT, so we'll not digress any further.

Another reason I argue that PC gaming is, at least in a lull, if not on the way out. Before you rip me apart, I love PC gaming. I was a die hard - to hell with consoles - PC gamer until recently; stuff like Bioshock's install limit started to distance me, as well as the crap known as punkbuster. I've found the xbox really does fill most of my needs while avoiding this crap.

I think game devs should move away from this horrid DRM model and start to use Steam right...but...well, we're talking about EA here. :-/

I'd wouldn't say PC gaming is on it's way out (see below.) But I think that the DRM model may die soon, or be used by far less publishers.

Where does EA, Punkbuster, and SecuRom fit into a topic about Gears of War not working? None of them having anything to do with the situation. And no PC gaming isn't on its way out. More console only devs are making PC games. They wouldn't do that if they thought the platform was dying. Its evolving. Don't let NPD's retarded sales chats fool you.

Agreed; Some people, myself included, could never settle for a console, because no matter how shitty the PC experience gets, it will never be the level of shit that consoles are. There aren't any more Super Metroids out there, so you're really not missing many, if any games by not using consoles. At least I'm not. PC gaming has evolved, because I'd say for every 8 lazy ports, there are at least 5 ports that are far less enjoyable on the PC. The only thing I'd have to say that the PC doesn't get enough of are compilations. I guess that makes sense though, since PC's have excellent emulators available that can be better than the real deal. I think it's kind of sad when people get so hyped up about KI1 announced 6 months or so before release on XBLA, when you can get KI1 and 2 for the PC, done just as well as the X360 will emulate or port it.

I expect the next non-portable Castlevania to come to the PC, to be honest.