PC Gamers Need an Organization to Oversee Released Software & Stop Garbage like TFU2 [Archive]

Punisher2010

10-30-2010, 04:28 AM

I really thought all of the complaints and postings about this game were from a few who dont have their computers up to spec, or some that have systems overclocked, or even just glitches. No 2 computers are exactly alike..was my attitude and I honestly rarely have issues with games installed. I do not have time to read every game review or spend hours on forums searching about computer games either.

This game is a steaming pile of doo doo plain and simple. The developers, the programmers, testers should all be fired for incompetency. I am speechless how Lucas Films would allow this game to be released in this state?? I am dumb founded how these crashes and glitches are allowed to make it out of testing.

This type of rampant, blatant disregard for consumers has to stop. There needs to be an organization to review, test, and provide their stamp of approval before the public is allowed to have the product.If it doesn't meet a certain level or standard then the product cant be released...this is unbelievable to me about this game !

There needs to be a consumer protection agency to force developers to provide legitimate products and protect the consumer. I am returning the game today and will not allow Best Buy to bully me ....this product is clearly defective and if I was to bring a refrigerator back for defective parts then I bet it would be different. I buy a new car and have a problem with it, I can take it back and through laws that have been in-acted, I have protection against defective auto parts or electronic devices. I say this has to stop ! It really seems like computer software is getting worse instead of better.

We need protecting against blatant highway robbery..and yes I mean robbery, because I could wind up getting some butt hole manger who refuses to return the game or exchange...then I am screwed as a consumer without any real recourse.

There are organizations for everything under the sun..it is time way have one for the oversight of computer software and stop this garbage !

FAButzke

10-30-2010, 05:45 AM

hlhbk

10-30-2010, 09:00 AM

Signed.

But you should blame Microsoft and Sony for crappy ports.
They are the ones paying the developers to make the game first on their consoles and THEN porting a crap game to us PC gamers.

As long as people continue to buy this type of games, they will continue to make them.

This is another game that won't see my money. I did NOT and will NOT buy: Call of Duty Blackops, Medal of Honor and now Force Unleashed 2. All for the same reason: Porting.

This is a sacrilege against PC Gaming and it must stop SOON.

While I agree that generally console ports are bad this entire post is laughable.

Sony and Microsoft don't pay anyone except for their own in house developers to make the consoles the lead systems when building a game. It has everything to do with building the game on the platforms you will make the most money from. While i am a PC game first and foremost the amount of money a company makes off a PC version of a game is a fraction compared to consoles.

In regards to the qaulity of this port once you run the FPS limiter fix so you can turn on Vsync and triple buffering the game runs great. If you are having issues its your PC.

6DAVEROO9

10-30-2010, 10:41 AM

Let's clear a few things up:

1. We all agree that console ports are often bad, which gives value to the statement that started this thread in the first place: Some kind of oversight would be benificial to the PC gaming community.

2. There are many who would say that this port in particular is one of the worst. I have read enough threads to know that there are more issues with this game than can be solved by one simple fix (CTD's, sound problems, control issues, etc.). If you read the reviews, the control issues were addressed in TFU2 to some degree, so the console version suffered from them as well.

3. Neither Sony nor Microsoft were involved with the development of this game, or its port, other than to provide the API's for their operating systems to the developers. Lucasarts is the developer of this game, and Aspyr is the developer of the PC port. Again: from what I have gathered from this forum, Aspyr is notorious for bad ports and even worse tech support, and it seems that Lucasarts' treatment of PC gamers has been declining steadily over time. So while your statements are correct with regards to the attitude that some developers have toward PC gamers, your identification of the players involved with regard to this game is incorrect.

In short: It is not our PC's, it is the game itself(or the port thereof), and please make sure you have all the facts before making sweeping statements.

Thank You.

GrimCW

10-30-2010, 10:47 AM

Again: from what I have gathered from this forum, Aspyr is notorious for bad ports and even worse tech support, and it seems the total treatment of PC gamers has been declining steadily over time. So while your statements are correct with regards to the attitude that some developers have toward PC gamers, your identification of the players involved with regard to this game is incorrect.

corrected for accuracy.
this isn't an LA only thing folks, M$, Sony, Bungie,, Epic, Gearbox, even ID have all been slacking in support.
on top is Activision and Ubisoft IMO with some of the worst ports out there (CoD being the only title somewhat jumping the bar rather than tripping on it)

tbh even Valves been on the decline in selling expansions and mods rather than finishing the jobs they started. but they get a lot of credit for giving us a lotta freebies too, as well as fixing up STEAM and making it rather nice compared to the steaming pile (no pun intended.. but still funny) it was 6 years ago.

tbh anyone here who thinks this port is bad should seriously try a more recent Tom Clancy game on the PC. the quality is through the floor, and theres more than one title that has game breaking bugs that literally FUBAR the ability to even finish the game. (Double Agent anyone?)
to boot they've been steadily ceasing the DLC packages comming to PC or using them to bolster the price of the bug ridden game.

cripes, i had to go find a PS3 ver (used, i won't buy Ubi new anymore) for assassins creed just to finish it, the PC version would randomly crash every 5 to 10 min making it nigh unplayable, and the new Ubi DRM is having its fun share of laughs at the consumers to boot.

hlhbk

10-30-2010, 12:03 PM

GrimCW

10-30-2010, 12:14 PM

If my gaming system which is just the os/drivers/games can run it without issue after getting the FPS limiter then it's not the game. If it were the game and not the systems causing the issues then there would be issues on 100% of systems.

true to a point, but its also fair to take into note that the port (as with all ports) has innumerable issues from bad controls, to poorly optimized GFX and settings.

most glaring issues could be worked out in a patch (such as the VSync problems which seems to be 2/3 of the complaints) while the vast majority of problems probably couldn't due to the different computer setups out there.
people also have issues understanding laptops (labeled gaming or not) are not 100% capable of playing games, and desktops off the shelf, or from some pre-set options lists, are often built using low end parts (and Dell was recently busted selling defective parts known to weaken/die after a period of time well below the designed specs, and well after the warranty would go out)

also theres the whole Nvidia vs ATI thing. develop one way and watch as people refuse to buy it merely because it doesn't support their favorite GPU.
i mean, some people even avoided War For Cybertron just because it uses Nvidia PhysX software in it and they felt they wouldn't get the "full" game if they had an ATI card... fyi the software only use of most titles doesn't even take advantage of the PhysX GPU side enhancements folks. so it works on either card just the same.

tbh thats actually one of the latest complaints from PC users.. i really think we're doomed, theres more to be seperated over on PC's (GPU/CPU/Mobo/maker/etc) than consoles where you have 3 major brands, and 3 set factions, make a cross platform game and your done!
make one for PC and your forced to choose between CUDA or whatever it is ATI uses these days (tbh haven't had an ATI card in years, loved'em, but atm Nvidia has the physics and 3D down better.. crappy optimization (as always) but pretty good FX when they work :p )

to boot, many developers just don't care for the PC platform. Epic's Cliff Blezinski iirc even went on to rant on why GoW2 and most future Epic titles won't be seen on the PC platform labeling PC gamers "whiny little bit*es" or something to the extent.
theres also the massive false accusations of PC gaming being pirated more than consoles (IMO its actually easier to mod and pirate a console than to deal with the hacks in a PC title. but i have little to no experience in either since i do value my hide enough to have a preference away from anything that could cause serious jail time.)
even the FBI came out and stated the reports the publishers are turning in are far over exagerate just to get a jump out of them.
and the fiasco with SPORE had shown many legit users will dload their game after purchase for backup and/or use rather than play the original copy. allowing for avoidance of terrible DRM schemes (and this has been happening with Ubisoft titles lately a lot as well from what i've been reading in relation to their new DRM and the consumers opinions of it)
some even end up just dloading a crack to use and are automatically labeled a pirate for "circumventing the DRM methods"

all in all though theres less mentality towards keeping quality titles coming to the PC as opposed to making easier to develop titles for consoles. sh*tty port them to PC to give us a taste, then hope we go console where they can make more money from the sales. (as some people have already stated doing in a couple of titles.. hate the PC version cause its ported crap times 2, and then buy the console one... way to support the bad ports..)

Ajscott123

10-30-2010, 12:42 PM

I really thought all of the complaints and postings about this game were from a few who dont have their computers up to spec, or some that have systems overclocked, or even just glitches. No 2 computers are exactly alike..was my attitude and I honestly rarely have issues with games installed. I do not have time to read every game review or spend hours on forums searching about computer games either.

This game is a steaming pile of doo doo plain and simple. The developers, the programmers, testers should all be fired for incompetency. I am speechless how Lucas Films would allow this game to be released in this state?? I am dumb founded how these crashes and glitches are allowed to make it out of testing.

This type of rampant, blatant disregard for consumers has to stop. There needs to be an organization to review, test, and provide their stamp of approval before the public is allowed to have the product.If it doesn't meet a certain level or standard then the product cant be released...this is unbelievable to me about this game !

I'd like to take this and spin it in a different direction. But quickly just to add - my computer runs this flawlessly with the only glitch being a few stutters here and there, along with floating dead stormtroopers. Minor.

Your comments about a sort of independent "quality assurance" body to ensure games are released is actually very legitimate. Video games are such a new product for our society still that there is not a system in place to allow the consumer to return a product that is significantly not as described.

That being said, self-preservation combined with the basic QA depts for game publishers and developers ensures that a majority of bugs are in fact minimized or eliminated as quickly as possible. Recouping costs of production can only happen as long as "diffusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_(business))" of the product is sustained for a long enough period of time.

Basically what I'm saying is that they'll minimize bugs as much as they can despite internal and external pressures to make release. Internal could be the publisher who holds an enormous stake on the game making release date and making sure all of the marketing they paid for doesn't become an empty promise to the marketplace. You can gather what external pressures are obviously.

I just reread this post and God do I sound like a conceited prick. Sorry, just thinking critically about it that's all.

TheMaxx

10-30-2010, 12:53 PM

ugh
So many haters,
The first SWTFU game was not a port, it was individualy designed for every console and pc.
The second SWTFU-2 was and is a port, For the shame of how short of a game it was, it was only half the size of the first one.which i loved!!
Gameplay was much more smooth campared to the first one. without need for a fixable patch that didn't work anyways, like the first one.
for alot of people who played the game with complaints ive found that it was with ati conrtol catalyst a.i. updates and that fact they don't relize you need framework 3.5 to run it properly.

for people with consistant problems with the game, every game fix solution is posted at the link below.
http://www.gamebrood.com/2010/10/28/star-wars-the-force-unleashed-2-pc-fix-and-fixes-for-crashes-errors-black-screen-issues-freezes-graphics-glitch-level-bug-controls-not-responding-no-sound-low-performance-choppy-and-stutteri/

Minimum System Requirements

* OS: Windows XP SP3, Vista SP2 or Windows 7
* CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz or AMD Athlon X2 5200+
* RAM: 2 GB
* HDD: 10 GB free disk space + 1 GB swapfile
* Graphics: 256 MB Graphics Memory with shader 3.0
* Sound Card: DirectX 9 Compatible
* DirectX: Version 9.0c

Recommended System Requirements

* OS: Windows XP SP3, Vista SP2 or Windows 7
* CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8 GHz or AMD Athlon X2 6000+
* RAM: 2 GB
* HDD: 10 GB free disk space + 1 GB swapfile
* Graphics: 256 MB Graphics Memory with shader 3.0
* Sound Card: DirectX 9 Compatible
* DirectX: Version 9.0c

SUPPORTED PC DESKTOP CHIPSETS
•ATI RADEON HD 2600, 2900, 3650, 3690, 3850, 3870, 4550, 4650, 4850, 4870, 4890

•NVIDIA GEFORCE 8600, 8800, 9400, 9500, 9600, 9800, 250, 260, 275, 280, 285, 295

Ajscott123

10-30-2010, 01:11 PM

My RANT on this game is not related to technical problems - it's the overall production quality.

Comments:
- Great pre-rendered scenes, flashy effects, and even strong voice acting don't mean CRAP when everything else is left by the wayside.
- short as hell - everyone agrees
- dumbed-down combat system - even TFU received criticism for being a button-masher game. They went and made the button-mashing borderline monotonous. Tell me you don't agree.
- it's a poor story because it's awkwardly told - where did the lore go? For all its faults, TFU1 succeeded in story-telling by experiencing the Star Wars universe from a fresh perspective.
- He's a Starkiller clone, or is he? - they had the audacity to introduce this overused theme into the Star Wars universe without fleshing out any of the details.
- TFU2 mistakenly assumes TFU1 backstory was enough: Starkiller back from the dead (maybe) is barely enough for a TFU1 veteran, let alone a newbie to the franchise.
- The useless in-game cutscenes have multiplied 10 fold - the interchange between gameplay and cutscenes is like a street with too many stoplights: any momentum built up by the thrill of battle is lost before it captivates the player.

In summary, I am confident that this sequal was created solely to increase cash flow for the publisher and developers. Who can blame them? It's been a ♥♥♥♥ty couple of years for the gaming industry. Still, I feel cheated.

TheMaxx

10-30-2010, 01:53 PM

@Ajscott123

wasnt directed towards you

My RANT on this game is not related to technical problems - it's the overall production quality.

Comments:
- Great pre-rendered scenes, flashy effects, and even strong voice acting don't mean CRAP when everything else is left by the wayside.
- short as hell - everyone agrees
- dumbed-down combat system - even TFU received criticism for being a button-masher game. They went and made the button-mashing borderline monotonous. Tell me you don't agree.
- it's a poor story because it's awkwardly told - where did the lore go? For all its faults, TFU1 succeeded in story-telling by experiencing the Star Wars universe from a fresh perspective.
- He's a Starkiller clone, or is he? - they had the audacity to introduce this overused theme into the Star Wars universe without fleshing out any of the details.
- TFU2 mistakenly assumes TFU1 backstory was enough: Starkiller back from the dead (maybe) is barely enough for a TFU1 veteran, let alone a newbie to the franchise.
- The useless in-game cutscenes have multiplied 10 fold - the interchange between gameplay and cutscenes is like a street with too many stoplights: any momentum built up by the thrill of battle is lost before it captivates the player.

In summary, I am confident that this sequal was created solely to increase cash flow for the publisher and developers. Who can blame them? It's been a ♥♥♥♥ty couple of years for the gaming industry. Still, I feel cheated.

morganite

10-30-2010, 02:23 PM

The problem is how the industry works overall..

Publishers don't (and to be fair shouldn't) care about the quality of the products, just their profitability and their return on investment. Publishers are all corporations who are run by boards who represent stockholders. They invest "X" money into a company to develop a title, and ask for (demand?) a release date of "Y". Other then certain special cases *most* publishers have little to no hand in developing the game other then fronting cash, handling marketing and pressing/distributing the disks.

Developers don't fund their own projects, they rely on publishers to front them cash to create their games. (there are some exceptions, such as Valve and Blizzard) In exchange for the cash, the developer agrees to meet a timetable, whether it's reasonable or not. They have a deadline to meet, so the lions share of the QA testing other then the most basic stuff is done by the public, (if they miss deadlines they don't get funding to make new games)and assuming their game didn't flop, they will use the profits from the sales of the game to fund fixing their product. Now to clarify, I'm not talking about the guy in the art department, or the guy doing coding who is more worried about meeting deadlines then making quality products, but more like the upper management of the developers.

So to summarize, the publishers don't care if a title is good or not, only if it is profitable or not. The developers (again, not all, but most of them) are more concerned about meeting a deadline then making sure a quality product is sold to their consumers.

So what do we, the consumers get? Games that are pushed out before they are ready, pushed to the public by gaming sites who make their living off of being nice to publishers/developers otherwise they don't get "inside scoops" and thus have something to tell the public, and games that are dominated by marketing campaigns that are filled with mostly CGI stuff or small game play excerpts on optimal machines that the game was really made to run on. No ability to return defective/unfinished products because all the customers are really purchasing is a license to use a piece of software, not anything tangible. Customers are left hoping a bad game sold enough to fund continued work on it to fix issues that should never have been there in the first place, otherwise they are out there money as surely as if they had set it on fire.

One change is all that is needed to fix all these issues....

Sell the customer a product, and not a license to use a product. Then if that product is defective, the customer would have the right to return it with no hassle involved, much like any other product sold anywhere legally. Even a 48 hour window would be enough to return a product after purchase, lets see what that would give us customers...

-longer games, no more $60.00 for an 6-8 hour single player game with no multi player capability that could be played and returned in that 48 hour time frame to "get over" on the publishers/developers.
-More polished products on release, what publisher is going to risk pushing a buggy game out the door knowing that the people who purchase the title could find out how buggy it was, then return it granting them no revenue. This leads to...
-Better post release support, if the game isn't a buggy POS and is something fun to play, it will sell, allowing developer the funding to fully support the game post-release. I understand it's next to impossible to to release a bug free title on the PC with the plethora of configurations that can be used, but nothing will get developers/publishers to patch issues quicker then the risk of lost revenue from returns.

Will any of these things ever happen? Not until us, the customers start demanding better service with our wallets by not purchasing titles from companies who don't give us good service.

GrimCW

10-30-2010, 02:25 PM

ugh
So many haters,
The first SWTFU game was not a port, it was individualy designed for every console and pc.

ROFLMAO you really believe that?
it was built for the consoles first, there were not plans to make a PC version at all (the developers claimed the PC platform couldn't handle all the Physics the game had, and wasn't going to make a PC version because they'd have to severely degrade the games quality by removing much of the physics.)
the PC version came in over a year later almost totally unannounced, still showing its console roots.
its a port, a fairly decent one among many crappy ones, but its still a port.
the assets were built for the consoles and PORTED to the PC.
it still looks, plays, and feels like a console title. It also relies heavily on CPU power ala a console title vs the PC's knack for having stronger GPU's.

you want a port done right though look at Mass Effect 1, the game's UI was almost entirely redone for the PC to make it function as a PC title.
thats less of a port, but given most assets were ported, its still a port.

Punisher2010

10-30-2010, 03:32 PM

I have read the comments made about my post and appreciate everyone's input !

I would like to point out several things..

1. I really dont care Console or PC...Quality Assurance DOES go along way to profitability. I had Economics in college and the comments from Morganite are somewhat correct. But a product goes a long way or further in it's shelf life if it is "popular" and has a following and is of a certain quality level. If the title gains good or above average praise, it will sell better then the one that say, is a Port and fails miserably..i.e; SWFU2. Companies still spend the money regardless without knowing if the product is successful or not. So if consumers have a Quality Rating before the game is released they now a game will meet certain standards.

2. This post was not intended to start a PC or Console war and is not geared towards that topic. It is relevant, but limited to QA of consumer products, namely Software.

3. I did attempt to take the software back to Best Buy today requesting a refund and was denied by the manager. They will not refund software and exchange only for the same title. I was very upset and now I'm stuck with a paperweight, because I refuse to play the game and will seek a refund directly from whomever I can.

4. I'm seriously thinking about start an organization to push consumer protection for software. This blatant excuse for a Licensed Product is pathetic and I understand the huge ramifications of illegal copying,but I am an honest citizen and paying the price for store policies and Marketing hype.

5. I am going to start a campaign just like the Auto Lemon law and work towards a solution. This has been a long time coming and needs legs. I think this game is the legs to move this opportunity to the next level.I'm not going to start a petition, or right a letter. I want legislation to protect consumers against the type of abuse. Then maybe, just maybe the developers and marketing companies will get the message ..consumers will not buy your product if it doesn't meet s certain Software Standard.

GrimCW

10-30-2010, 03:49 PM

are we forgetting there are thousands if not millions of differantly built/run PC out there?
if we wanted true QA that was at least over 70% or better then we'd have to go uniform in PC design, and limit it to 1 or 2 different variations just to create a feasable case to work with.

they already have that folks, they call'em consoles

i mean, i run Firefox, not everyone does.
i have an Athlon64 X2 6000+ with 4 gig DDR2, on an old Asus mobo (forget the type atm)
someone else may have a similar setup but the tiniest variation, anything from install locations to bg processes, make a HUGE differance.

its impossible to standardize this without the aforementioned already on the market design.

i agree QA has been slipping drastically over the years, but theres also been a boom in differant parts.
Asus, Intel, AMD, Gigabyte, MSI, XFX, etc...
you can't count for every varation, you just can't.

i'm not defending QA, but think about what your saying.
as i said, the only way to do it is make the PC another console system with set in stone specs and processes.

TheMaxx

10-30-2010, 03:58 PM

im going to have to agree to disagree with SWTFU being a port,
even the development team have stated that its unique for each system and console, but what really is a port?,
porting the games also means originaly it went from console to pc, or console to console,That wasn't the case in SWTFU 1st game, there were coded for every individual system and pc. they didn't take xbox or playstation and image it over to pc.
this has been a long arguement for the first swtfu game, but is has been said no its not ported and it wasnt originaly for xbox or ps3 or psp, it was designed and devoloped uniquely for the pc for the xobx for the ps3 for the psp
now they second SWTFU-2 yes they did that.
maybe back in the day ports where coded for pc from console, but now days
porting to pc is mearly image porting for a pc game to work.

let also think about this for a minute: originaly any game for console, xbox ps3 psp etcetera etcetera was devoloped and coded through a pc, the game doesn't start out with devolopement on a console. devolopement itself is rendered through pc, and then coding is tested on the console for further development and so forth and so forth.

take xbox.
the tools and software they use allow PC and Xbox to talk to each other. So developers can execute code on their PC while the game plays on the Xbox

mass effect was a big accomplishment your right,
but look at game engines now, people easily render the image for porting and is big in modding communities, *cough* "Moddb"

im also not sure where you get a year later from console to pc, i had it a couple of months after it was released, for pc. and i believe if i remember correctly, the original delay for the game on pc was the fact that it wasn't ported and had to be coded for pc. and this is what causes the debate of the whole game ported from console arguements

ROFLMAO you really believe that?
it was built for the consoles first, there were not plans to make a PC version at all (the developers claimed the PC platform couldn't handle all the Physics the game had, and wasn't going to make a PC version because they'd have to severely degrade the games quality by removing much of the physics.)
the PC version came in over a year later almost totally unannounced, still showing its console roots.
its a port, a fairly decent one among many crappy ones, but its still a port.
the assets were built for the consoles and PORTED to the PC.
it still looks, plays, and feels like a console title. It also relies heavily on CPU power ala a console title vs the PC's knack for having stronger GPU's.

you want a port done right though look at Mass Effect 1, the game's UI was almost entirely redone for the PC to make it function as a PC title.
thats less of a port, but given most assets were ported, its still a port.

StingingVelvet

10-30-2010, 04:26 PM

If you make the PC a closed system like the consoles then its main unique aspect is tossed aside. Needless to say I am not in favor of such a thing.

TheMaxx

10-30-2010, 04:30 PM

very true

If you make the PC a closed system like the consoles then its main unique aspect is tossed aside. Needless to say I am not in favor of such a thing.

GrimCW

10-30-2010, 05:21 PM

im going to have to agree to disagree with SWTFU being a port,
even the development team have stated that its unique for each system and console, but what really is a port?,
porting the games also means originaly it went from console to pc, or console to console,That wasn't the case in SWTFU 1st game, there were coded for every individual system and pc. they didn't take xbox or playstation and image it over to pc.

thats like saying each version was different.
they weren't, the Wii/PSP version and PS3/360/PC versions were

they built for the 360/PS3, and ported the 360 version to the PC.
M$ has long said they developed the 360 and new versions of windows (vista and 7) to allow for "easier transition" between platforms.
basically, program a game for the 360 and its already half built to work on the PC, and that is how many devs are doing things these days, as it sticks out like a very sore thumb in many ways.

the delay between the original release only being about a year , the comments from the developers themselves as to why a "PC version is impossible" and the lack of polish all point to this having been done.

http://www.forceunleashed.net/news/force-unleashed-not-coming-to-pc/

its impossible they recoded that game in less than a year almost ground up to be a PC specific version without cloning the game.

http://www.forceunleashed.net/news/why-force-unleashed-is-not-on-pc/
“The PC being the gaming platform that it is, someone with a $4,000 high-end system would definitely be able to play the Euphoria, the DMM and really technical elements of the game. But someone with a low-end PC would have a watered down experience, they would have to turn all the settings down and it wouldn’t be the same game,” Suey said.

theres also the severe lack of any such lower settings aside from very basic ones available to the title.

Edit: and to push "the consoles are easier to develop for so we don't care about'em" thing devs are doing, also in link two is

“That said we’re definitely not out of the PC market. It’s just with our choice for this game, with the known quantity for the consoles, and every console is the same with the same processing power, it made sense for us to develop for those consoles.”

IMO its kinda hard to suddenly back down and claim they made a whole new code for the PC when the evidence would claim otherwise, from the unified bits in code between 360 and PC, to the time frame and statements.. it just doesn't add up to a non-ported title.
to boot the assets were all console specific well prior, so going by your porting is an image concept, its still a port since everything was shared rather than new higher resolution details being made for the PC.

Oblivion and Fallout 3 are two more well done ports that have terrible side effects (tons of bugs, lazy coding, textures/detail terribley low res).
but it doesn't make them less of what they are, no matter how much anyone tries to deny or hide it.
developed alongside or not, they were designed FOR consoles, not PC's.
the only saving feature is the SDK was released and the modding community was able to clean up most of the mess for them.

i mean there was a time when even ports were given "upgrades" to be on the PC platform, anything from new features, to higher resolution textures. (again i glance back to ME1)
now its just copy and paste, make barely workable on select specifications, add minimum level of GFX settings, and ship.

TheMaxx

10-30-2010, 07:03 PM

i don't see any evidence that the game was ported from xbox
and your links are from old not official sites.
your quotes are from unofficial pages and i don't see any evidence.
im not sure were your getting the idea of me backing down from the game made from scrach.
what i said was the game wasn't ported to pc through a xbox or ps3 port only the image.!!!!
googling loose threads and quoting them doesn't make your point.
which also a point the games are created through code on pc then branded to console for devolopement
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but if were stealing quotes from the page let me add this quote from there as well,

"quote"
"You all forget you cannot design and build a game on a console its all created on a PC which proves that EVERY game made can be played on a PC. Its just a simple economics game, they know they can make far more money releasing it on a console where the games on average are £10-20 more expensive than on a PC its as simple as that. Lucasarts are finnaly stabbing all those pc gamers in the backs after supporting them from day one playing Monkey Island, Epic, Grim Fandango, Tie Fighter, X-wing, Dark Forces, Jedi Knight and many more. I own a Wii so if I want I wont miss out on this game but I will not be buying it because I refuse to pay more for a console game when my PC has atleast 4 times the processing power of the PS3."

. LETS GO FURTHER AND QUOTE SOME MORE

"First off, not too many gaming enthusiasts spend $4000 on a gaming rig. Very few people with money to blow spend that much on a Dell or Alienware rig. Even so, those rigs are SO powerful (8-Core, 4+ GB RAM, Dual/Tri SLI) that ForceUnleashed would never even COME CLOSE to using all that power. Besides, NONE of the current consoles come anywhere NEAR that kind of power. So that point is mute since the game cant even take advantage of that type of rig.

Second. Most of your PC gaming market (ESPECIALLY for Star Wars) will build their own rig for less than $1700. My 2 year old dual-core (4GB RAM and 8900 GTS) can be put together now for less than $800 and STILL blows my PS3 out of the water in terms of computing and graphics power. There is no doubt that rig would be able to handle DMM and Euphoria with more than enough power left over to run the game full HD 1080p with HDR and AA/AS filtering. Things that no current console can do to the same effect. So don’t say someone would need to spend $4000 on a computer to play ForceUnleashed as intended, its an insult"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i personaly have 2 Falcon northwest machines, fragbox and mach V tower ,and a low end dualcore on a g31 gigabyte than can run the game just fine, im not sure were you gettn at about quoting high end and low end games specs.
Quote:
“The PC being the gaming platform that it is, someone with a $4,000 high-end system would definitely be able to play the Euphoria, the DMM and really technical elements of the game. But someone with a low-end PC would have a watered down experience, they would have to turn all the settings down and it wouldn’t be the same game,” Suey said."

as far as the modding community i know of several that have created from scratch with the software distributed to them it wasn't a clean up of the old mess, although alot of modders claim originality and just do exactly that clean the mess up,
but there are alot of true modders out there who take it from scratch and rebuild everything.

i will agree with your statement here.
as we see alot of copy and past from modders in the modding community

"i mean there was a time when even ports were given "upgrades" to be on the PC platform, anything from new features, to higher resolution textures. (again i glance back to ME1)
now its just copy and paste, make barely workable on select specifications, add minimum level of GFX settings, and ship."

JamieKirby1981

10-30-2010, 07:50 PM

what garbage?

TFU2 was quite good considering it was a port....it ran great, looked great, the only thing i get is black images and that is possibly an ATI thing, they likely changed something for Nvidia Cards and it did something for ATI? who knows.

Otherwise, the game length, graphics (when it didn't go black) and fun rating is great, most of you guys complaining just want a game that is as long as a RPG, that looks as good as Crysis and is as fun as Mass Effect.

Sorry, but that just doesn't happen, any company that tries that will just be wasting time.

Crysis looked good, but the gameplay outright sucked, the stealth mode, didn't last long enough to be worth using at all and if you moved an inch, a boat about 100ft away sees you and starts shooting.

Nah, it was a VERY good looking game, but VERY crap also, they say it was future proof, i say it was bad coding and they tried to make an excuse for it.

TFU and its sequel were very good games, but i guess you just want the PERFECT game, which will never exist, since perfection can not be achieved since everyone wants different things.

TheMaxx

10-30-2010, 08:06 PM

@JamieKirby1981
i have no illusions about a perfect game,
only downside to SWTFU-2, is wishing it could of been longer of gameplay.
though i feel most of the game felt like it was directed towards story plot and video,
3-4hrs to beat the game was just too short.
if it were a $20 game, short gameplay wouldn't be so bad,
i dont think its worth the $40 though.

what garbage?

TFU2 was quite good considering it was a port....it ran great, looked great, the only thing i get is black images and that is possibly an ATI thing, they likely changed something for Nvidia Cards and it did something for ATI? who knows.

Otherwise, the game length, graphics (when it didn't go black) and fun rating is great, most of you guys complaining just want a game that is as long as a RPG, that looks as good as Crysis and is as fun as Mass Effect.

Sorry, but that just doesn't happen, any company that tries that will just be wasting time.

Crysis looked good, but the gameplay outright sucked, the stealth mode, didn't last long enough to be worth using at all and if you moved an inch, a boat about 100ft away sees you and starts shooting.

Nah, it was a VERY good looking game, but VERY crap also, they say it was future proof, i say it was bad coding and they tried to make an excuse for it.

TFU and its sequel were very good games, but i guess you just want the PERFECT game, which will never exist, since perfection can not be achieved since everyone wants different things.

GrimCW

10-30-2010, 08:23 PM

i question now if you even read the pages linked as it clearly stated it was citing an interview with the lead Producer of SWTFU 1. more notably he was the lead producer of the PS3/360 version, which is the same one seen on the PC.

if you want the original interview there was a link there in the article (as should always be).
or here
http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/star_wars_the_force_unleashed/preview-921.html

official site or not, the information cited is legit and was posted all over the web back when that game was still in the spotlight. I should also point out there is no official site for TFU 1 anymore, and the best they have atm is the official forums and facebook/twitter pages, also of note is the lack of a TFU 1 PC specific forum. regardless, none of which have any real TFU news postings and are almost entirely dedicated strictly to fan speculation and commentary
.
theres a very big difference in taking the word from the horses mouth, and just random statements from others.
i was merely using a linked page that was more directly linked to the game, but its cited reference is still clear. no different than one news network citing another for information as long as its solid and backed.
TBH as LA games go, the .nets (be it JK.net or TFU.net) are considered more legit than the LA web sites.

to boot i don't see follow up links to your quotes, and they read as if stated in the comments section and not the developers as mine was.

i agree it is right to say PC's always could do what they claimed it couldn't, but thats not what the devs said when asked the question.
and as such, they refer to the obvious state of what it'd be like to port it, if they did indeed intend to build whole new code there would be new UI, new controls, and a lot better optimization between the 2 major video card designs. TFU 1 didn't have any of that, and minimum optimization for the platform.

a non-port would be something more like Ghost Recon AW 360 vs Ghost Recon AW PC.
that lifted some aspects from its counterpart, but it was an entirely new game (and tbh the worse of the two)
namely this
http://xbox360.gamespy.com/dor/objects/736206/tom-clancys-ghost-recon-3/images/tom-clancys-ghost-recon-advanced-warfighter-20060615094345599.html

vs this
http://pc.gamespy.com/dor/objects/736230/tom-clancys-ghost-recon-3/images/tom-clancys-ghost-recon-advanced-warfighter-20060530053313786.html

drastically different style, designs, gameplay, and overal interface.
going back, what we see with TFU is effectively an "image" as you put it, placed onto the PC and made functional.

Crysis looked good, but the gameplay outright sucked, the stealth mode, didn't last long enough to be worth using at all and if you moved an inch, a boat about 100ft away sees you and starts shooting.

TFU and its sequel were very good games, but i guess you just want the PERFECT game, which will never exist, since perfection can not be achieved since everyone wants different things.

well i'm with ya on most of it buuutt.. in Crysis the stealth mode wasn't meant for movement, it was meant for hiding and avoiding contact. So its terribly limited use was intentional, and meant to keep you from running around cloaked all the time.
it was actually a very good mechanic not to disimilar from the EMP stuff in Splinter cell CT (forget the garbage in conviction), where they only provided very temporary cover.
it wasn't meant to be perfect, and movement made your shape "shimmer" and the grass/brush movement would give away your position if they were alerted already to you being around.
can't say i've had a boat spot me while cloaked like that though.

as for the TFU2's length.. i think it was a bit too short given it had very little story, and they did it obviously to make TFU 3 (now defunct) rather than wrap up the story like they did in TFU 1.
but its mostly because it lacked a lot of delay items the first title had, such as numerous boss fights, and mini boss fights, as well as more story.

TheMaxx

10-30-2010, 09:42 PM

as much as i like to argue a point
this will be my last,
only thing i seen on your link provided is a discusion of which is better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote from the link and from the horses mouth.

"VideoGamer.com: I know that it was mentioned that there is no difference between the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions, but that sounds really processor intensive...

CS: It's incredibly processor intensive!

VideoGamer.com: Does that mean the PS3 with the Cell is the better version?

CS: It was a little easier with the PS3. However the Xbox 360 is a very capable machine and in the end they behave in exactly the same way with the exact same performance with no drop in frame rate. Small things like loading time we were able to optimise across each system. So although they're not identical they appear identical to the user which is the end result we wanted."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also follow up threads from people subject to the same question, as they ask why hasn't anyone ask thme the real questions for the real answers, but fact being nothing about xbox ported the game to pc or ps3 ported the game to pc,
and this interview was supposely directly from C.S.

but on a final note. me and others in my circle have the game on xbox and the first SWTFU either way was poorly playable, with consistant freezes and other gameplay problems, weve tested different xbox machines with each others different SWTFU discs, even on xbox the game ran like crapp so of course C.S. would say it would run like crap on pc.
but all in all your right its the past.
you've been a good sport cheers mate.

GrimCW

10-30-2010, 09:58 PM

i've read devs say such things many times before about "different versions" but as i stated above, if this were true than they'd be different games, not the same game twice over.
and again, the only different version of TFU is the wii/PSP version where it plays entirely different, and takes a completely different route as well to how the story is told.

thats like trying to tell me my PSP3000 is an entirely different system than someone elses because mine is the "spirit green" version and theirs is the regular black.

a minor detail such as platform doesn't make it less the same item.
they built the assets on one platform, then converted them between others, the likely hood of 3 entirely different codes being that identical is astronomical.

and the fact that it shares bugs with the 360 version, as you yourself stated, also points to porting of the 360 version.
you don't share errors between versions if theres entirely new code involved.

you also pointed out the processor intensive bit, another item the PC version has that a proper PC title does not suffer as much of. That there is a clear Console item, as even decently optimized ports often suffer still from wanting more CPU than GPU, as i've said before.

to the why hasn't anyone asked the real questions, its because LA has gone silent since TFU 1 was finished off, and tbh hasn't said much outside of standard PR since.
they're also in the middle of another reform where they're shutting down all external development in favor of internal only stuff, and the lead for TFU quit mid project for TFU 2 as it is, and then its found they canceled TFU3 and STILL left TFU 2 open ended.

its hard to ask the door questions when the person supposedly on the other side may not even work there anymore

Zyrin

10-30-2010, 10:00 PM

im going to have to agree to disagree with SWTFU being a port,
even the development team have stated that its unique for each system and console, but what really is a port?,
porting the games also means originaly it went from console to pc, or console to console,That wasn't the case in SWTFU 1st game, there were coded for every individual system and pc. they didn't take xbox or playstation and image it over to pc.

I'm sorry, but this is absolutely hilarious. You seriously believe that the PC version of TFU, a game shoved off to an infamous porting developer like Aspyr, was developed specifically for PC?

A game with an absolutely bloated install of 30 gigs due to repeated files/extra languages? Something that's a hallmark of PS3 games due to their 50 gig discs? There's a reason why all the localization was included, along with having duplicated texture files, and it ain't because of it being "developed" for the PC.

How about the awesome PC "settings" they included and were only available via the launcher because they didn't want to bother altering the console menus? The only graphical options included with v1.0 of TFU were resolution and brightness, they patched in the quality options! And by options, I do of course mean "checkbox." Signs of a high quality PC title for sure.

What about all those wonderful 5.1 sound bugs? I guess the music coming from only the front left speaker unless you knock it down to stereo was really hard to miss, huh? Quality PC specific development there.

Don't forget the keyboard controls that not only can't be adjusted in game (see: Aspyr not wanting to edit menus), but don't update with the on-screen prompts for the QTEs. Having to remember what the original prompt was changed to is QUALITY.

And oh yeah: 30 FPS cap. No, not a terrible port at all. :rolleyes:

And let's ignore the horrible menus meant to be navigated with a controller, general bugginess, and bloated PC specs due to no optimization whatsoever.

You want examples of a console game that was given some serious love and QA by it's developers for the PC version? Try Devil May Cry 4, Resident Evil 5, or Street Fighter 4. Or even Mass Effect 2. You want an example of a quality port by a 3rd party dev? Demiurge's job on Mass Effect 1 is 10x better than TFU 1 *and* 2, and it's not even close to perfect either.

That wasn't the case in SWTFU 1st game, there were coded for every individual system and pc.

Hysterical. Really.

And honestly, TFU2 being a horrible port just like it's predecessor shouldn't be a surprise. All you have to look for is the tell-tale line that says it all:

Developer: LucasArts, Aspyr Studios

GrimCW

10-30-2010, 10:21 PM

You want examples of a console game that was given some serious love and QA by it's developers for the PC version? Try Devil May Cry 4, Resident Evil 5, or Street Fighter 4. Or even Mass Effect 2. You want an example of a quality port by a 3rd party dev? Demiurge's job on Mass Effect 1 is 10x better than TFU 1 *and* 2, and it's not even close to perfect either.

we could also add Bioshock 1 and 2, mirrors edge, batman AA, Tomb Raider Anniversary, legend and Underworld, Brothers in Arms, Lost Planet, Republic Commando (yes i just said RC. it really was well done for an Xbox game), CoD 2, WoW, and MW/MW2, battlefront 1 and 2, Farcry 2 (meh it was fairly well done :p ), Splinter Cell CT, F.E.A.R. 2, Dragon Age, and many more! :)

TFU wasn't the worst, but it by far wasn't the best :)

alright so some aren't exactly ports so much as true cross platform, but the CoD's in specific show what a REAL cross platform title should be!
they're actually built and customized for the PC, though its starting to slack if MW2 was a sign of much.
they also show little of the console roots in the gameplay, and controls (of which are completely customizable)

Zyrin

10-31-2010, 12:32 AM

w
TFU wasn't the worst, but it by far wasn't the best :)

I maintain that Resident Evil 4 has the dishonor of "worst port ever." :P

FAButzke

10-31-2010, 03:06 AM

While I agree that generally console ports are bad this entire post is laughable.

Sony and Microsoft don't pay anyone except for their own in house developers to make the consoles the lead systems when building a game. It has everything to do with building the game on the platforms you will make the most money from. While i am a PC game first and foremost the amount of money a company makes off a PC version of a game is a fraction compared to consoles.

In regards to the qaulity of this port once you run the FPS limiter fix so you can turn on Vsync and triple buffering the game runs great. If you are having issues its your PC.

So you really believe that?
While I agree that consoles make more money for publishers/developers, I also think you are being VERY naive.
Do you really believe that games that are "exclusive" to one console do not have some kind of incentive behind them?
Yes, none of the examples I've mentioned fall in that category but that's not the point.

Also, you cannot argue that much against it. Do you really think it's not a disrespect for PC Gamers when you see a trailer on STEAM that was recorded on a Console?
I feel bad whenever I watch a teaser or trailer and see things like: "Press X to reload" "Press L Btn to crouch". They should at least have the decency to put a trailer of the PC version.

I need to clarify my position a litte bit further: I have nothing against porting at all. I'm against BAD porting and the disrespect for us, Pc Gamers.

As someone already stated here: Mass Effect was a port but it was a very good one. And Mass Effect DID receive incentive from M$, being an Xbox exclusive in the first place.

GrimCW

10-31-2010, 07:20 AM

I maintain that Resident Evil 4 has the dishonor of "worst port ever." :P

i'll have to negate that and say Silent hill (i think it were the first one) was.
it wasn't even ported really, they just made an emulator to play it with on PC's.
and a terrible one at that.

GrimCW

10-31-2010, 07:24 AM

to boot, this statement is mostly wrong.

Sony and Microsoft don't pay anyone except for their own in house developers

Sony never did tmk, and its why they slack behind M$ in a lot of areas still (that and word is the PS3 is a pain to code for, and sony won't help in figuring the thing out), but M$ definitely was busted dipping their hands into other companies pockets to "help them out".
what was going in or out of the pockets is in question, but its no secret they provided a lot, and payed a lot, to gain exclusives other than their own in house titles.

its not to say sony also hasn't had their share of mischievous moves either, but they also certainly didn't go the lengths M$ did to get the exclusives.

TheMaxx

10-31-2010, 07:44 AM

@Zyrin
what i said was it was uniquely devoloped for each system and console and now days all porting is, is taking the image. and porting it over

GrimCW

10-31-2010, 07:47 AM

@Zyrin
what i said was it was uniquely devoloped for each system and console and now days all porting is, is taking the image. and porting it over

then what your saying is in fact that TFU1 is, was, and always will be a port.
the "image" i see looks exactly like the 360 version to me.
from controls to graphics and menus.
the only customization being the external menu to modify the internal settings.
rest aside it was the console game on PC.

if that doesn't scream copied "image" out loud, what would?
there is no unique to it, none at all.

TheMaxx

10-31-2010, 07:54 AM

I should of made it more clear
what in the interview was said and im looking for it now was that they make every system and console unique for gameplay experience, they never said it was or wasn't ported over.
as far as resident evil 4 that was the most horrible port i have ever seen.

but as stated before and well known game codes and engines are devoloped on pc first then as further dev. goes along they bring to the console so really saying its a port from console is a contridiciton as all games start out on pc

then what your saying is in fact that TFU1 is, was, and always will be a port.
the "image" i see looks exactly like the 360 version to me.
from controls to graphics and menus.
the only customization being the external menu to modify the internal settings.
rest aside it was the console game on PC.

if that doesn't scream copied "image" out loud, what would?

GrimCW

10-31-2010, 08:00 AM

I should of made it more clear
what the interview said and im looking for it now was that they make every system and console unique for gameplay experience, they

now the question is, how so?
how is it unique? i've played the full game on 3 systems (PC, 360, and Wii) and the demo on another (PS3) and the only "unique" versions were the PC/360/PS3 version and the Wii/PSP version as i stated before.
there is NOTHING unique other than those 2 versions console wise (i'm skipping the pitiful excuse of a mobile phone one)
the Wii/PSP version plays considerably differant, however the PS3/360/PC version all share the EXACT same feel, look, and gameplay

so how is it unique?
it plays the same, looks the same, and you yourself said it even shares the same bugs.

Unique would be Mass Effect 1 on the 360 vs Mass Effect 1 on the PC, with completely new in game interface and control schemes.
resulting in a very unique gameplay depending on which version you play.

what your saying doesn't even make sense, there is no unique, its all the same. they made 2 games, one for low end systems, and one for high end. the development for the systems may have gone on differently, but the PC version came out WAY to fast for it to have even remotely been done as a new game.

on RE4 again, i point to SH 1 in which it wasn't even ported, just cloned and emulated.

TheMaxx

10-31-2010, 08:08 AM

even with me stated there comment thats a good question,
as every console of the game does look the same and i admit even the psp looks about the same,
i've wondered that myself.
at the time the live interview came out, it was stated by C.S. that every console of the game would be unique and show a different experience, then thay had some little clip i think it was on gamespot where some of the devs have said the same thing,
now this was before the game was released and we all know hows games go before and after release,maybe it was hype to promote the game further for release.
because as you well know coming from the horses mouth means its all true lmao

GrimCW

10-31-2010, 08:15 AM

as every console of the game does look the same and i admit even the psp looks about the same,

heh graphically its models/world detail are part with low res textures, but the game itself is a 95% different title. whole different level structure, boss fights are different, and it actually has the jedi temple levels built in (as they were supposed to be in the other versions)
the whole game plays separately from its high end counterparts, and its a shared experience with the Wii, but the Wii (obviously) has the better control scheme.
loved it there, debating TFU2 for the wii, but it looks like a badly watered down port of the high end version this time round.

now that is a very unique version aside from the one on PC/360/PS3
IMO it was actually probably better, as it fleshed out a number of details not shown in the other version.

and i said its more true, not true true.
the horses mouth is bound by its owner after all.
IMO they were referring to the "next gen" vs "last/old-gen" each version being unique.
cause as i said a number of times, and here, there is 2 versions of this game that do exist, but the PC version was the final, and least time taken to develop product.
pointing very openly to very much copy and pasted items.

if their statements are to be taken any other way than it would, as i also said, imply there was some serious gameplay alterations between each individual version, there is not.

the PS3/360 were developed side by side, giving them a chance to develop an optimized code, and balance between the systems, but the PC version came in very late (and from a known port maker) and shares very much the same exact experience, and problems, of the 360 version.
it even shares controls with this version, among obvious code similarities thanks (again) to the effort by M$ to make the 360 compatible with Win Vista/7

TheMaxx

10-31-2010, 08:21 AM

i've never played the wii and frankly find most of wii games to childish for me and think wii was really for the younger audience.
but i never disagree about TFU2 being a port, only about what was said with tfu-1 but as i said this was all said before release

Then again thats why i luv being in the modding community, you choice of some games modded out better by the fans for more of a experience with the game.
Now if they would hurry and release Diaspora i'll be more than happy.

GrimCW

10-31-2010, 08:27 AM

TFU2 wasn't the one in disagreement, i just mentioned i'm curious if its a dif game like TFU1 was on the Wii. I mean, outright whole new experience in everything thinkable. As in playing the "Hobbit" out with fairies and ogres instead of hobbits and elves different while playing the same story.
theres more satisfaction in actually acting out your force powers (thrust the controller forward for push, hold a button and turn to the side for grip) it really adds to the fell.
and i agree 9 out of 10 wii games are shovelware crap for uninformed parents to buy their kids because it was cheap and "looked" fun.
tbh my Wii is hacked to play PC games, so i don't really see much in Wii titles on it anymore :)

like i said, what was said prior to release was more likely in line with the 2 obvious variations, and the fact they developed the side by side with the PS3/360 version.
the PC version was an unknown factor until ultimate sith edition, and little to no information existed then, or even now, to say anything about it.
what is known is it was done by Aspyr, notorious porters of games, and its development time was under a full year, as well as shared everything with the 360 version, only with an external menu for some minor changes. Its also known, and obvious, that Lucas Arts had originally deemed it an impossible task to make a PC version.
as well as it needed a patch to get very basic settings added to this external menu.
if the menu was actually added IN the game, it would be more likely less of a port, but the fact its not, almost puts it in line with SH1 in being moreso emulated than actually coded.

TheMaxx

10-31-2010, 09:07 AM

I've had other friends tell me there wii plays pc games as well,
i've never looked into that but how well does it perform with pc games hacked on it, is there any difference in gameplay? graphically? or lag in play?
i know of homebrew hacks, but are they mainstream pc games?

i know of wii using pc to play flash games?

GrimCW

10-31-2010, 10:23 AM

it can run some ported mid 90's game like Quake, or earlier titles through stuff like SCUMMVM and play awesome games like Day of the Tentacle, or Beneath a Steal Sky.

it runs very well as long as the porting was done right, and they look/play very well usually.
the quality really depends on the person making the hack.
SCUMMVM is always top quality, though with a few problems in keyboard emulation for the setup (Return to Zork and other titles with random typed answers can be difficult to work with) but mostly its really good stuff.
Quake 1 is a hoot to play, they ported the game very smoothly, and the controls are rebuilt for the Wii Remote, so you actually can play it like other shooted on the Wii already by aiming with your remote or even using a gun peripheral.

morganite

10-31-2010, 10:57 AM

I have read the comments made about my post and appreciate everyone's input !

I would like to point out several things..

1. I really dont care Console or PC...Quality Assurance DOES go along way to profitability. I had Economics in college and the comments from Morganite are somewhat correct. But a product goes a long way or further in it's shelf life if it is "popular" and has a following and is of a certain quality level. If the title gains good or above average praise, it will sell better then the one that say, is a Port and fails miserably..i.e; SWFU2. Companies still spend the money regardless without knowing if the product is successful or not. So if consumers have a Quality Rating before the game is released they now a game will meet certain standards. Ok, it hurts long term sales, but not short term sales, and even then not always. Obsidian has a long history of using someone else's IP and engine to create sequels that are of poor quality, yet they are still in business. "Long shelf life" sales are generally produced by lowering the price, not because customers waited until a product got a magic number of patches to fix issues. I personally can tolerate bugs and bad ports and so forth if I am only paying $10.00-$15.00 for the product. At $50.00-$60.00 for the product, I am less tolerant of glaring issues.

4. I'm seriously thinking about start an organization to push consumer protection for software. This blatant excuse for a Licensed Product is pathetic and I understand the huge ramifications of illegal copying,but I am an honest citizen and paying the price for store policies and Marketing hype.

5. I am going to start a campaign just like the Auto Lemon law and work towards a solution. This has been a long time coming and needs legs. I think this game is the legs to move this opportunity to the next level.I'm not going to start a petition, or right a letter. I want legislation to protect consumers against the type of abuse. Then maybe, just maybe the developers and marketing companies will get the message ..consumers will not buy your product if it doesn't meet s certain Software Standard.

If you are serious about this, focus on getting games to be sold not as software licenses, but instead as finished products where the purchaser actually "owns" the product.