[Gaming] Elder Scrolls 5 - Dawnguard is HERE!
- Thread starter Jay
- Start date
He's right Krispy, that's exactly how it came off.
Personally I'm a little saddened that this probably means we're not getting the two additional continents we were rumored to be getting.
I'm also glad we're not getting it right away, as it DOES give Bethseda time to work on some of the sillier bugs. I wouldn't buy this DLC for 2-3 months after release as it is, since I'll need my mods to catch up with the updates.
Personally I'm a little saddened that this probably means we're not getting the two additional continents we were rumored to be getting.
I'm also glad we're not getting it right away, as it DOES give Bethseda time to work on some of the sillier bugs. I wouldn't buy this DLC for 2-3 months after release as it is, since I'll need my mods to catch up with the updates.
Seriously, what does the exclusivity gain Microsoft or Bethesda? PC gamers were never going to buy the game on consoles anyway and you're not going to get people with PS3s suddenly going, OH SHIT, I NEEDS THIS NOW and buying it for Xbox just to get the expansion early. All it does is foster negative will to Bethesda and to Microsoft (especially from PC gamers, whom already despise Microsoft's treatment of the Windows platform as is).
That's why I use a better OS.... oh wait....
GasBandit
Staff member
He wasn't saying there was a better OS, he was saying microsoft treats windows as an unwanted stepchild when it comes to games.That's why I use a better OS.... oh wait....
GasBandit
Staff member
That there is none better does nothing to mitigate the ill will gamers have torward microsoft when they screw PC gamers. Hell, I'm still pissed at them for discontinuing mechwarrior in favor of mechassault (which was exclusive to the xbox) ten years ago. That's the stuff.You're right, the other OSes are much better at handling games..... oh wait....
Worked for me with Mass Effect, sadly. Bought a 360 pretty much just for that...
I went to a console when I got too busy to keep retooling my PC every year or two. I'm not getting the maximum benefit a PC gamer gets (i.e. mod community, graphics, etc.) but I have a the usability I need to pop in and play. Consoles are for the casual gamer, for the most part, which is a wider audience than the hardcore, devoted gamer. Microsoft doesn't just want to get people to switch consoles, they want XBox to be the first console people have ever bought as well.
Frankly, the higher-end gamers are niche, and they will more and more rely on niche outlets for their gaming needs, such as indie labels and community generated content. Consoles are the broadcast networks, gamers want HBO. You're going to pay more and more to get it, I'm afraid.
You're right; I'm just sad to lose mouse and keyboard, certain MMOs, and the mod stuff. But I just can't afford to keep up with this shit.
I retool my PC every year.... I make up the cost in "other ways"
It's not money (although it is a consideration). It is time. I can't keep up with informing myself on what to buy, ordering it, installing it, keeping the drivers up to date, troubleshooting when something is wrong, etc. Gaming for me needs to be pop-in-and-play, or I can't do it at all. If I have to spend an afternoon upgrading or troubleshooting my rig, that's half of my play time for the week. Console or nothing now.
1: I can understand wanting pop in and play. For me, it's not worth the amount of opportunity lost in games like Fallout/Skyrim. FPS or 4-8hr games? Yeah, console would be fine.
2: I've never spent an afternoon upgrading/troubleshooting a computer in the last 5 or so years. Guess I just got proficient at it or something but I'm never down an hour or two with new hardware/software.
As for what to buy? Yeah, I'll spend a day or two paying attention to that. I don't wait for ordering as I use Amazon Prime, drivers keeping up to date takes about 5 mins tops, installing the same.
I mean I see your point, but for massive games, I can't see how it's not worth it.
2: I've never spent an afternoon upgrading/troubleshooting a computer in the last 5 or so years. Guess I just got proficient at it or something but I'm never down an hour or two with new hardware/software.
As for what to buy? Yeah, I'll spend a day or two paying attention to that. I don't wait for ordering as I use Amazon Prime, drivers keeping up to date takes about 5 mins tops, installing the same.
I mean I see your point, but for massive games, I can't see how it's not worth it.
I realize this probably deserves its own thread, but this seems like a really good place to mention the following two developments:
1) NVIDIA introduces cloud-based GeForce Experience technology to help the approximately 80 percent of gamers who run their games with default settings.
Hear that? According to NVIDIA's research, 4 out of every 5 gamers won't bother to budge their graphics settings from the defaults, either because they don't want to bother wading through settings and options for what they perceive as insufficient benefit, or because they feel that tweaking is too complicated/convoluted. This means only one out of every 5 "gamers" (more on this later) will tweak gamma, toggle VSync, or even change the stock level of anisotropic filtering, much less adjust any wacky settings like "triple-buffering" or "fog table emulation."
2) Financial Analysts Say Intel [Has] Killed the Discrete Graphics Card.
"Huh?" you say? Oh yes, it might very well be plausible. Intel has had a stranglehold on the GPU industry for many years now with their integrated GPUs which are "good enough" for everyday use. Now that their integrated graphics are starting to provide grudgingly acceptable levels of mainstream gaming performance (instead of only casual games like PvZ and Farmville), the number of people who will NEED to buy a dedicated GPU will fall. Intel claims the HD4000 iGPU will be good enough to satisfy the needs of 95% of computer users. If they're right, discrete GPU makers are going to have a harder and harder time breaking even, since they won't be able to move enough low- and mid-range cards to fuel the R&D for their world-beating flagship products. If iGPUs are "good enough" for 95%, that means only 5% would be "Gamers" who need dedicated GPUs, and remember that 4% won't even change the settings, so the number of people who give a [care] about gaming is going to be a paltry 1%. A company like NVIDIA is not going to be able to survive by fighting for dominance of a meager 1% of market share.
And this is why console gaming is taking off. The above numbers suggest that the majority of computer users do not game, and when they do, they'll happily gobble down McGPU nuggets. As a result, game developers stop seeing PCs as "serious" gaming machines and put their efforts elsewhere...especially since consoles give them a guaranteed "piracy-free" locked down platform* for their products. Additionally, discrete GPU vendors will be losing their audience and income, and once all their R&D money is starved off, the ones who don't have any alternative business (ie, NVIDIA) will either get absorbed or allowed to die. Look what happened to 3DFX (Voodoo) and PowerVR (Kyro II).
--Patrick
*Yeah, sure. Whatever.
1) NVIDIA introduces cloud-based GeForce Experience technology to help the approximately 80 percent of gamers who run their games with default settings.
Hear that? According to NVIDIA's research, 4 out of every 5 gamers won't bother to budge their graphics settings from the defaults, either because they don't want to bother wading through settings and options for what they perceive as insufficient benefit, or because they feel that tweaking is too complicated/convoluted. This means only one out of every 5 "gamers" (more on this later) will tweak gamma, toggle VSync, or even change the stock level of anisotropic filtering, much less adjust any wacky settings like "triple-buffering" or "fog table emulation."
2) Financial Analysts Say Intel [Has] Killed the Discrete Graphics Card.
"Huh?" you say? Oh yes, it might very well be plausible. Intel has had a stranglehold on the GPU industry for many years now with their integrated GPUs which are "good enough" for everyday use. Now that their integrated graphics are starting to provide grudgingly acceptable levels of mainstream gaming performance (instead of only casual games like PvZ and Farmville), the number of people who will NEED to buy a dedicated GPU will fall. Intel claims the HD4000 iGPU will be good enough to satisfy the needs of 95% of computer users. If they're right, discrete GPU makers are going to have a harder and harder time breaking even, since they won't be able to move enough low- and mid-range cards to fuel the R&D for their world-beating flagship products. If iGPUs are "good enough" for 95%, that means only 5% would be "Gamers" who need dedicated GPUs, and remember that 4% won't even change the settings, so the number of people who give a [care] about gaming is going to be a paltry 1%. A company like NVIDIA is not going to be able to survive by fighting for dominance of a meager 1% of market share.
And this is why console gaming is taking off. The above numbers suggest that the majority of computer users do not game, and when they do, they'll happily gobble down McGPU nuggets. As a result, game developers stop seeing PCs as "serious" gaming machines and put their efforts elsewhere...especially since consoles give them a guaranteed "piracy-free" locked down platform* for their products. Additionally, discrete GPU vendors will be losing their audience and income, and once all their R&D money is starved off, the ones who don't have any alternative business (ie, NVIDIA) will either get absorbed or allowed to die. Look what happened to 3DFX (Voodoo) and PowerVR (Kyro II).
--Patrick
*Yeah, sure. Whatever.
Good post, except for this bit. You assume the 1 in 5 gamers that adjust their settings are evenly distributed across all levels of gamer investment. It is highly likely that those that are interested in adjusting the settings are the same type to purchase high-end cards. You probably see the 1 in 5 statistics reverse for power gamers. That said, I still think the point stands, even when you quadruple the number of people willing to purchase specialty cards.
Right, MindDetective. I make no effort (and lack the proper resources) to find out what percentage of "People for whom iGPUs are good enough" overlaps with "People who don't adjust their gaming settings" (just like I don't account for the fact that each Ultra-Elite Hardcore Gamer will most likely actually buy 2, 3, or even 4 GPUs for SLI/XFire setups), but I believe the point stands firm even with the potential rounding error. I know it's not strictly good Science, but it's a pretty compelling theory.
--Patrick
--Patrick
I've never known non-gamers to buy video cards anyway, unless they come pre-installed. Even then, all the pre-made computers that had video cards were always the more expensive units and always came with the shittiest mid/low end cards.
I don't know how much any of that would really hurt Nvidia or ATI.
I don't know how much any of that would really hurt Nvidia or ATI.
So do I!!!
And I love keeping abreast of the newest, hottest hardware, haunting benchmark review sites, keeping up on pricing and availability, and learning how to optimize BIOS/driver/software settings. But unless there are a few million more like me, we're going to get lost in all the ho-hum "How do I surf the emails into my hard drive?" people.
--Patrick
GPU's aren't going anywhere any time soon, if only because for many people, it's the ONLY part they need to upgrade periodically. Not everyone runs a shit box and few are going to be willing to do the "reformat/reinstall drivers/reinstall programs" tango every time they want to upgrade. That's the downside to integrated GPUs.
Interesting that they decided to base it on the time before Skyrim, though I am sure it will fill a lot of the gaps in the story, like the whole Red Mountain erupting and destroying most of Morrowind.
Curious about the "three factions" though, obviously one will be the Empire, and the other will be the Aldmeri Dominion, but that leaves one mystery faction that I don't remember hearing about in the lore books of Skyrim.
(Edit: My bad, I misread millennium, thought it was a century, looks like this game is pretty much going to happen before all the other Elder Scrolls games.)
Curious about the "three factions" though, obviously one will be the Empire, and the other will be the Aldmeri Dominion, but that leaves one mystery faction that I don't remember hearing about in the lore books of Skyrim.
(Edit: My bad, I misread millennium, thought it was a century, looks like this game is pretty much going to happen before all the other Elder Scrolls games.)
Very VERY VERY much looking forward to the ES: MMO.
My only issue? That there will be little difference in the world from 1000yrs ago and Skyrim. There was little to no difference in the world from Oblivion to Skyrim and that was a 200yr difference.
Really? Smithing doesn't get more advanced? Magic? Alchemy? Technology? Nope. Static and zero growth in over a thousand years....
My only issue? That there will be little difference in the world from 1000yrs ago and Skyrim. There was little to no difference in the world from Oblivion to Skyrim and that was a 200yr difference.
Really? Smithing doesn't get more advanced? Magic? Alchemy? Technology? Nope. Static and zero growth in over a thousand years....
I don't know, Jay, I am being a bit pessimistic.
Think of all the qualities that make the Elder Scroll games so fun, like the freedom, the adventure, the consistent story and the real-time combat. Now look at what they will have to do in the MMO to keep it viable...
No important NPCs can be attacked or killed.
Combat has to be slower to prevent "twitch" based gameplay.
Dungeons are not going to be consistent when cleared out, monsters will constantly respawn in them.
Heavier emphasis on levels rather then "skills".
And worst of all, no ability to add to it using Mods.
That's just the general gameplay restrictions I see off the top of my head, not even getting into the fact that even if they do maintain the real-time combat, that just means we will likely see a bunch of douchebags popping other players with trick shot arrows.
This alone is reason enough for me to have concern. As for your last point, PVP better be a toggle or server required thing or I won't be bothering at all.
Also, it's possible to have a static story in an MMO, just look at Star Wars.
Yes but remember how much they had to phase off areas all over the place for that to work? While they can do that, I just worry it will take away some of what I like about the franchise, that feeling of wandering off the road and just coming across something completely crazy. I don't want big green phase walls telling me "This is a story area!"
I just think in the end something will be lost in the translation, I play WoW and I play Skyrim/Oblivion/Morrowind for completely different reasons, and I worry an Elder Scrolls MMO will just try to become more like WoW or TOR and will lose what I loved about the other games.
Well rogue like people forgot how to tumble...
I know what you mean Jay .
This means no Elder Scrolls: 6.
*sigh*
ScytheRexx - Agree completely on the playing WoW and Skyrim for different reasons.
This means no Elder Scrolls: 6.
*sigh*
ScytheRexx - Agree completely on the playing WoW and Skyrim for different reasons.
Likely it will happen. The MMO is being developed by a different part of the larger company.