noctorro wrote:I think I know why pc doesn't get love. Because pc doesn't deserve love in my opinion. Every month there's a new graphics card, you always have to screw around with the bloody settings. I hate the damn thing and it's expensive as hell.
When you buy a console you know that you're going to have a solid gaming platform for at least 5 years. No upgrading and crap like that.
+ You pc guys (almost all of you) aren't going to pay for it anyway. Is there any one with a legal pc version of WFC? Piracy is killing your/our pc's, I can understand studios not making pc versions of their game.
+ the DLC isn't part of the original game, it's optional. Don't whine about High Moon Studios, look in the ps3 store, almost all developers use payed DLC. It's been around a few years now, maybe the 60+10 bucks argument is getting a little bit old.
Sorry for my negative post, I still have to wait 2 more days :s
I paid for the game, and so has every other PC user I've talked to. PC users are fine with paying for worthwhile content. And developers with Valve have found effective methods of keeping games patched, updated, and playable for five years without even charging players. Just look at Team Fortress 2. On any given night there are countless TF2 servers running...and most players probably bought it in the Orange Box or downloaded it from steam.
And the argument about adding the cost of the upgrades to the actual game isn't old. It's true. DLC, upgrades, and expansion packs are all ways that game companies trick you into paying more for the game than you ever would originally. Think about the fact that almost all of the new characters being released in the DLC were already made by HMS. We know this because they were either pre-order exclusives or because images of them appeared in the concept art. What HMS and other companies are doing is developing content that could be included in the game, but waiting to release it later so they can charge you more. It's the same thing with companies that release "Episodes" of video games. They actually make more money than if they released the whole game at once.
It's kind of like selling you a hamburger for three bucks, and then offering you pickles for an extra fifty cents, and then ketchup for another fifty cents. You've paid a third of the price of the hamburger just on two condiments.
And while the DLC is technically "optional" -- that is no one has to buy it to play the campaign -- every time the company releases a DLC, it actually lowers the play value of the original game. With each DLC, the play community becomes fractured. When you first buy the game, you have a gaming community of every other player with the game. Once DLC starts getting released, that gaming community -- and the odds of getting in a game -- is reduced. This is actually why the first players to download the first DLC complained. They felt like they paid ten dollars and had a hard time finding matches. Paying more for the game actually reduced its value. After enough time, though, and enough downloads, players are pressured into buying DLC just to stay in the game.
It's almost like they made the hamburger intentionally bland so that the pickles and ketchup seem more attractive.
That's fine if you feel comfortable paying $80 for a video game released in installments over four months. That's your choice and obviously you perceive the entertainment value of the game to be greater than anything else you could have done with those eighty bucks this summer.
It's true a lot of developers are using this tactic, and that's because it is quite effective on the consumer.
I'm going back and collecting trophies on some of my older games to not have to deal with MP problems on WfC for a while. I've almost given up hope on there being any "fixing" of this. 
[ Click to attempt signal recovery... ]
