There's more people on Steam playing Magicka than Dead Space 2 [Archive]

OmegaRed60

01-25-2011, 05:19 PM

Dead Space 2 isn't exclusive to Steam so it's player base is divided among all the different outlets it's distributed by. We can't see the players who bought it retail or through EA store, D2D, or gamers gate.

Magicka uses Steamworks, but I'm not sure if it's a steamworks only title. If it is Steamworks exclusive then no matter where people purchase it their stats will show up here.

Also, the price may factor into it. A lot more people are ready to buy a new game for $10 than a game that cost way more, especially on Steam where some are spoiled by huge discounts. I would have bought DS2 at full price if I wasn't backlogged just because I loved the first one so much.

wazups 2x

01-25-2011, 05:29 PM

I refuse to pay for a $60 PC game, that's why I didn't get it.

Rusty Silver

01-25-2011, 05:31 PM

The 60.00 is the issue for me.....

pikachuu

01-25-2011, 05:35 PM

I don't know about rest of the world but here in Europe we have to wait 2 more days before official release date for Dead Space 2

MADDOGGE

01-25-2011, 05:38 PM

It's $60 freaking dollars! No way Jose.

jp_rsardeto

01-25-2011, 05:44 PM

I think it is available only in North America, that would explain that.

But yeah, I would buy a game like Magicka rather than anything from EA Games.

Odra

01-25-2011, 05:52 PM

Different strokes for different folks?

I rarely purchase games at launch, I wait until after the reviews are in (if there is no demo), see how the company supports the game after launch and there is a sale before making a decision.

JayceM

01-25-2011, 05:54 PM

Isn't there a huge problem with serial keys being invalid with Dead Space on Steam, or has that been sorted?

rusik84

01-25-2011, 05:56 PM

$60 ----> (-_-)

Justin7

01-25-2011, 06:53 PM

CD-keys not working.
60 dollars for Americans. (still 50 in most other places)
Not Steam only so that's not total players.
Not even released outside US yet.

Think that sums that up pretty nice.

mouton

01-25-2011, 07:01 PM

Maybe because Magicka is like at most 2 gigs? (guessing) and dead space 2 is like 6 (once again guessing)
Magicka demo is about 200 megs, full game is 700 megs :D

Cedge

01-25-2011, 07:21 PM

EA sucks. That extra greedy 10bucks they putting on Dragon Age 2 and Dead Space 2 was better spent on a full game like Magicka instead.
Do I need to repeat the rationale for $60 PC games yet again?

It's called inflation. $60 today is the same as $50 in the year 2000. It's perfectly fair for PC games to raise in price, because everything raises in price.

Also the Magicka devs will support the game post launch unlike EA, unless its paid DLC (which will most likely be another $10, the cost of another copy of Magicka)
Don't say meaningless stuff without backing it up. EA releases plenty of free post-launch patches and updates for most of their games. The way you say it, makes it sound like they literally don't release any updates post-launch for any game, except paid DLC, which simply isn't true.

Astaco

01-25-2011, 07:30 PM

In addition causual colorful RPGs are maybe a little more popular than dark space shooters.

Although I own Dead Space, Metro 2033 and similar games, I don't like scary games that much.
They show me how chicken-hearted I am. :)

airblad3

01-25-2011, 07:35 PM

I refuse to pay for a $60 PC game, that's why I didn't get it.

Ditto

Metro

01-25-2011, 07:38 PM

Heck, there's more people playing Magicka demo than Dead Space 2!

Your thoughts?

There just might be hope for the future.

CannibalBob

01-25-2011, 07:41 PM

It's probably a better game.

It could also be that Magicka is a steam-only game and DS2 is not (maybe).

Metro

01-25-2011, 07:48 PM

It could also be that Magicka is a steam-only game and DS2 is not (maybe).

Actually that's probably a rather big factor.

MADDOGGE

01-25-2011, 07:52 PM

Do I need to repeat the rationale for $60 PC games yet again?

It's called inflation. $60 today is the same as $50 in the year 2000. It's perfectly fair for PC games to raise in price, because everything raises in price.Sorry that don't fly. Where is the $70 console games if it was just inflation. This has been push by Activison to force a change in the price of PC games and EA is getting greedy and wants a cut of the action as well.

Those games I spent $29.99 back in 2000 had 2 to 3 times the content of what passes for the majority of FPS/TPS these days. The product doesn't justify the price increase. 4-6 hours content is not worth $49.99 much less $60. I'm not willing to pay extra for pretty pictures for the graphics ho's to be happy instead of content and PC gameplay.

Toridas

01-25-2011, 07:54 PM

It's perfectly fair for PC games to raise in price, because everything raises in price.

Not everything. Stuff like electronics gets cheaper over time as the technology advances. 15 years ago my parents bought a 36" TV for $1700. Last year I bought a 55" for $1300. Today for less than $100 you can get 1TB of hard drive space. In 2000 that would have bought you about 10GB.

Choster

01-25-2011, 07:56 PM

TrippleD

01-25-2011, 08:00 PM

More people playing a free demo then a game for sale.

I am not surprised.

Check again in a few weeks.

Cedge

01-25-2011, 08:19 PM

The complete lack of communication between EA/Visceral and anyone from the PC community is what made me skip DS2. I tried their forums, email and even twitter(which I had never used before). They ignored every question I asked.
You expect a personal response on their forums and twitter, on the day of a huge game launch? Seriously?

Not everything. Stuff like electronics gets cheaper over time as the technology advances. 15 years ago my parents bought a 36" TV for $1700. Last year I bought a 55" for $1300. Today for less than $100 you can get 1TB of hard drive space. In 2000 that would have bought you about 10GB.

Oh, for crying out loud, of course I wasn't referring to television and harddrive sizes. That doesn't change anything about the decreasing buying power of the dollar, or anything about my point.

Sorry that don't fly. Where is the $70 console games if it was just inflation.
There probably will be, eventually, but they're not going to raise the prices during a console cycle. Consumers would freak out, moreso than they would if higher prices were introduced at the start of a new console generation.

This has been push by Activison to force a change in the price of PC games and EA is getting greedy and wants a cut of the action as well.
Again, you talk about it like it's just two evil greedy publishers out to rip off whatever cash they can. You aren't responding to the fact that $50 in 2000, is more or less the same as $60 today (for us, AND them). Are you going to address that, or not?

You're also not addressing the fact that game budgets are many times higher than what they were 10 years ago (10 years ago, a $20 million budget was unheard of, but nowadays, $50 million for a big title is quite common) and yet retail prices have remained mostly steady.

Those games I spent $29.99 back in 2000 had 2 to 3 times the content of what passes for the majority of FPS/TPS these days.
That's a game-to-game issue, and you know it. There were content-light and content-heavy games back then, and there are content-light and content-heavy games now.

The product doesn't justify the price increase. 4-6 hours content is not worth $49.99 much less $60.
Uh huh. So, did you also complain about Max Payne, a 4-6 hour game released for $49.99, 10 years ago? Or are you going to keep pretending that the phenomenons you're harping on about are anything new?

I'm not willing to pay extra for pretty pictures for the graphics ho's to be happy instead of content and PC gameplay.
If you want the industry to completely stop advancing graphics, and instead just spend that effort on massive amounts of content, then sorry, but you are simply in the wrong hobby. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

An honest suggestion: instead of complaining so much, maybe you should look into some of the free, open-source games out there. There are games like Nexuiz and Warsow (these are FPSs, but there are examples in most every genre), which have competitive-focused gameplay, lots of content, and indeed, are running on very outdated graphics technology (they're running on offshoots of the Quake 2 engine). This sounds like exactly what you want, so why are you complaining about everything else?

ItzzNinja

01-25-2011, 08:35 PM

An honest suggestion: instead of complaining so much, maybe you should look into some of the free, open-source games out there. There are games like Nexuiz and Warsow (these are FPSs, but there are examples in most every genre), which have competitive-focused gameplay, lots of content, and indeed, are running on very outdated graphics technology (they're running on offshoots of the Quake 2 engine). This sounds like exactly what you want, so why are you complaining about everything else?

No. Just... no.

Want games with incredible replay value but great storytelling and lots of content and amazing graphics? Look at UT3, NWN and its sequel (NWN1 had amazing graphics for its time and still does), Oblivion and its ilk. Loads of content available for every single one of those (stuff is STILL being made for NWN1!) and you're saying having a balance is impossible in the gaming world? You're exactly the kind of person that's assisting in the ♥♥♥♥ of gaming, not helping it improve -- devs and publishers concentrate too much on eyecandy over storytelling and proper programming and game mechanics these days it's a wonder you need a $3000 system to play modern games, and even then they're not guaranteed to work because the vast majority of them have so many crippling bugs it's insane!

Ronlaen

01-25-2011, 08:54 PM

Magicka is an amazing game with very unique playstyle compared to ds2 which just looks like another shooter. Love that indie devs can get a lot of exposure here on Steam to breath some new life into the industry and at 10 dollars the game is a steal. Dead Space 2 looks ok and I'll probably get it eventually but I just can't justify paying $60 dollars for a game I probably won't play as much Magicka.

Cedge

01-25-2011, 09:06 PM

No. Just... no.

Want games with incredible replay value but great storytelling and lots of content and amazing graphics? Look at UT3, NWN and its sequel (NWN1 had amazing graphics for its time and still does), Oblivion and its ilk. Loads of content available for every single one of those (stuff is STILL being made for NWN1!) and you're saying having a balance is impossible in the gaming world? You're exactly the kind of person that's assisting in the ♥♥♥♥ of gaming, not helping it improve -- devs and publishers concentrate too much on eyecandy over storytelling and proper programming and game mechanics these days it's a wonder you need a $3000 system to play modern games, and even then they're not guaranteed to work because the vast majority of them have so many crippling bugs it's insane!
How did I do anything to say that there can't be "balance"? There are games for every type of gamer. People who want 200 hour, totally customizable games, they have options (like things you mentioned), and people who want linear, 5-hour-long FPSes (like Call of Duty and Medal of Honor), they have options, too. That sounds like "balance" to me. It's not all about just the kind of games you want, or any one group (like competitive FPS gamers, or hardcore RPG fans) want. That is NOT what I'd call "balance."

My point was that, despite all the complaining, there are still games for most every kind of gamer. That poster seemed to specifically have something against "pretty pictures for the graphics ho's," so that's why I recommended some less "state of the art" games for him.

And by the way, I built my PC for $400 three years ago, and I have no trouble running most every game out right now, one some settings or another. And please, bugs are nothing new. I find many games released nowadays to be far more user-friendly and stable, than they have been in the past.

I don't have a problem with people criticizing the problems with PC gaming. I have a problem with people pretending that these problems are new. Seriously, we have people talking like BUGS are a new phenomenon! Gimme a break.

Rogabr

01-25-2011, 10:46 PM

ROFL, Love all the americans ♥♥♥♥♥ing about the price tag for dead space 2, you'd be OVER THE MOON if a BRAND NEW GAME Was $60 here in australia, they go upwards of $110 here.

Washell

01-26-2011, 01:04 AM

Not everything. Stuff like electronics gets cheaper over time as the technology advances. 15 years ago my parents bought a 36" TV for $1700. Last year I bought a 55" for $1300. Today for less than $100 you can get 1TB of hard drive space. In 2000 that would have bought you about 10GB.

15 years ago, the cost of producing an AAA title was measured in 6 figures, possibly even only 5.

Today, thanks to the need for great textures, models, animation (mo-cap), voice acting, professional music, set dressing and so on, the cost of producing an AAA title is measured in 8 figures. Whereas your TV and harddisk have gotten significantly cheaper to produce, even adjusted for inflation. So no, that analogy isn't going to fly.

taylynne

01-26-2011, 02:31 AM

I'm sure the extra money pushed it for a lot of people. It would have for me if I had planned on buying it for pc (I got ps3 version). Ea seems to be pushing the 60$ for pc games. >> And activision has tried to push games to 70, as increase. But like it's been said, both companies have been known to be rather greedy. I enjoy ea games, but I don't like buying them new for pc, as they tend to be relatively buggy (not new, I know, but I'd rather wait for patches and then get it when it's cheaper and I know it'll work more smoothly).

Some people may also be going through dead space before going on the the second game, I know my brother and I were both doing this. Refreshing the story and all.

OmegaRed60

01-26-2011, 02:49 AM

Sorry that don't fly. Where is the $70 console games if it was just inflation. This has been push by Activison to force a change in the price of PC games and EA is getting greedy and wants a cut of the action as well.

Those games I spent $29.99 back in 2000 had 2 to 3 times the content of what passes for the majority of FPS/TPS these days. The product doesn't justify the price increase. 4-6 hours content is not worth $49.99 much less $60. I'm not willing to pay extra for pretty pictures for the graphics ho's to be happy instead of content and PC gameplay.

So you believe PC games are inferior to console games? I can't see any reason why you believe a console game will or should be $10 more than a PC game.

adz

01-26-2011, 03:25 AM

ROFL, Love all the americans ♥♥♥♥♥ing about the price tag for dead space 2, you'd be OVER THE MOON if a BRAND NEW GAME Was $60 here in australia, they go upwards of $110 here.

Yep why r u guys worrying about paying 60$, we have it worse here all these publishers,developers always +up our prices.. to like 120 like he was saying its terrible..

Spathy

01-26-2011, 03:32 AM

Do I need to repeat the rationale for $60 PC games yet again?

It's called inflation. $60 today is the same as $50 in the year 2000. It's perfectly fair for PC games to raise in price, because everything raises in price.

Inflation? More like greed, Activision and EA are the only ones doing this. More like inflating their profits.

I could crap on about reserve banks, intrest rates and recessions and that if anything video game prices should be cheaper but i would only make myself look stupid.

Washell

01-26-2011, 03:53 AM

I can't see any reason why you believe a console game will or should be $10 more than a PC game.

Because Sony, MS and Nintendo charge, roughly, a $10 fee per unit to publish your game on their system. There's no-one taking a $10 fee on the PC, so why are we paying it?

Dreadjaws

01-26-2011, 04:06 AM

- $60 vs. $9
- Steamworks vs. non-Steamworks
- Already available worldwide vs. still unavailable outside North America
- Multiplayer-focused game (more players per gaming session, and Steam attracts multiplayer gamers) vs. single-player focused game
- Holiday sale has been too recent, people bought lots of big games, they'd be more interested in simpler games for the moment.

About those screaming that DS2 looks like "another shooter" and "I'd never buy anything from EA", that's just ridiculous. First of all, they're drawing conclussions from a game they know nothing about. I loved Dead Space and I can't wait to get my hands on the sequel, which every review claims it's better. The price is what's holding me back, but only because I spent too much in the holiday sale. I'm happy to pay full price for a game that deserves it. I'm not a hypocrite who doesn't support the developers of good games.

And what has EA done to you? I understand complaining about Ubisoft and their infamous DRM, or Activision and their "let's fire our best developers in exchange for cheaper ones" policy, but EA?

Kiya

01-26-2011, 06:20 AM

- $60 vs. $9
And what has EA done to you? I understand complaining about Ubisoft and their infamous DRM, or Activision and their "let's fire our best developers in exchange for cheaper ones" policy, but EA?

I guess you havn't seen the many threads regarding the recent EA + Dragon Age 2 + No signiture edition on Steam debacle.

EA recently sold the SE edition of Dragon Age 2 at practically every online digital download store except steam - then when the game eventually comes to steam they up the price without the extra content (which if you want, you have to pay even more for as DLC at the game's release)

It was a deliberate and obvious attempt to force steam users to buy the game elsewhere if they wanted the SE edition and went down like a lead balloon. It certainly convinced me not to bother buying any more of their games until they are available complete and on sale on steam in their 'Ultimate' or whatever editions.

Toridas

01-26-2011, 06:20 AM

15 years ago, the cost of producing an AAA title was measured in 6 figures, possibly even only 5.

Today, thanks to the need for great textures, models, animation (mo-cap), voice acting, professional music, set dressing and so on, the cost of producing an AAA title is measured in 8 figures. Whereas your TV and harddisk have gotten significantly cheaper to produce, even adjusted for inflation. So no, that analogy isn't going to fly.

The market has grown several times over. So even if the profit margin per unit is lower, total profits are higher than ever.

Also: $60 games aren't some new phenomenon that people seem to think they are. Games for Sega Genesis used to be $70+. N64 games were $70-80. Goes for PC too. People got all upset when Modern Warfare 2 "brought $60 to PC." But Warcraft 3 was released at $60 also, way back in 2002.

orci

01-26-2011, 06:30 AM

I refuse to pay for a $60 PC game, that's why I didn't get it.

Same for me... no way I'm paying that much. I'll wait until it's on sale at the end of the year.

jake_farrell

01-26-2011, 06:45 AM

for me, Magicka is much MORE fun than DeadSpace 2 ever can have :)

MarkG

01-26-2011, 06:50 AM

Do I need to repeat the rationale for $60 PC games yet again?

It's called inflation. $60 today is the same as $50 in the year 2000. It's perfectly fair for PC games to raise in price, because everything raises in price.

Why would I want to pay $60 for a crappy console port, particularly when the original Dead Space has the worst controls of any game I've ever played?

I'll think about buying it when it hits $5, but only if I can be bothered to fight the horrible DS1 control lag to get through that game.

And as for "everything raises in price", my new gaming laptop cost only slightly more than my old cheap and crappy incapable of gaming laptop did in 2007 and half as much as a PC did in the 1990s. PC hardware has been dropping in price pretty much forever.

Washell

01-26-2011, 07:14 AM

only if I can be bothered to fight the horrible DS1 control lag to get through that game.

Turn off v-sync in-game, force it on for the game in the drivers. No more control lag and still no tearing. You're welcome, enjoy the game.

Dreadjaws

01-26-2011, 07:30 AM

It was a deliberate and obvious attempt to force steam users to buy the game elsewhere if they wanted the SE edition

This sounds like a baseless assumption. What do they have to win by forcing people to purchase the game outside of Steam? I could understand it if there were no digital version whatsoever, but only Steam lacking one being forced? Seems more likely that Valve and EA didn't find a mutual arrangement that both could stand behind.

MarkG

01-26-2011, 09:03 AM

Turn off v-sync in-game, force it on for the game in the drivers. No more control lag and still no tearing. You're welcome, enjoy the game.

If they can release a game which is unplayable with Vsync enabled, why would I expect anything better in the sequel?

Didn't they even test the game before shipping it?

TimM

01-26-2011, 09:07 AM

Magicka is cheaper hence more players and only the U.S continent can play Dead Space 2 so far.

MADDOGGE

01-26-2011, 09:43 AM

If they can release a game which is unplayable with Vsync enabled, why would I expect anything better in the sequel?

Didn't they even test the game before shipping it?According to the comments made on the DS2 mouse thread they fixed the mouse lag. In fact it moves even smoother on the 360 version as well. They increased the enemies to make up for removing the molasses.;)

Choster

01-26-2011, 09:58 AM

You expect a personal response on their forums and twitter, on the day of a huge game launch? Seriously?

I have been trying since early January to get a response from them. They are ignoring the PC consumer completely. Even now no one can even get a word on the PC version ever getting a patch for all the bugs.

thatguy999

01-26-2011, 09:59 AM

Inflation? More like greed, Activision and EA are the only ones doing this. More like inflating their profits.

I could crap on about reserve banks, intrest rates and recessions and that if anything video game prices should be cheaper but i would only make myself look stupid.

More like Crappyvision acting like a creedy little child and EA having to follow because if not their investors go to crappyvision. Worst part of it is how the masses of ijiot gamers support this greedy corporate move by someone who couldn't give a rats a$$ about the future of pc gaming.

Dreadjaws

01-26-2011, 10:05 AM

If they can release a game which is unplayable with Vsync enabled, why would I expect anything better in the sequel?

Didn't they even test the game before shipping it?

I can run Dead Space with Vsync enabled just fine. In fact, I have everything maxed out and I haven't had absolutely any problems with it.

Stop getting mad at the devs for something that's a problem exclusive to you.

MADDOGGE

01-26-2011, 10:24 AM

Mouse control in DS1 is aweful compared to what it could have been, no matter it was designed that way or not. On a bright note though, it still beats the controller. I love swimming in a swimming pool full of caramel.;) glad to hear they replaced the caramel with water this go around.

PS: Would love a mouse patch for DS1 but I doubt you will ever get it.

Washell

01-26-2011, 10:55 AM

Didn't they even test the game before shipping it?

They probably did, but found the v-sync implementation, created for the consoles, too expensive and embedded to fix for the PC release. Given that there is an easy work around, disable in-game, enable in drivers, they decided to go ahead and release it, rather than not releasing it for PC at all.

But if you intend to be miserable about it, go ahead. You're only missing out on a great game due to a problem known from day 1 which had a workaround known since day 2.

StingingVelvet

01-26-2011, 11:12 AM

Dead Space 2 is amazing and well worth the money... a couple of extremely minor problems that are easily fixed doesn't change that. I hope sales are good for Dead Space 2, since not getting 3 on the PC would be terrible.

As for the main topic at hand, Magicka is Steamworks and Dead Space 2 is not, everyone who bought Dead Space 2 elsewhere does not show up while everyone who bought Magicka does, hence the comparison is irrelevant. Same as the Bad Company 2 versus Modern Warfare 2 comparisons.

And no, Steam is not so huge that the other numbers are irrelevant. Steam is about 70% of the digital market which is about 50% of the total market, meaning there is a huuuuuge number of people who buy games elsewhere.

worse1

01-26-2011, 11:32 AM

DS2 is not even out here yet, have to wait 4 hours to unlock.

zerrok

01-26-2011, 11:33 AM

What are you on about? Magicka came out yestoday, Dead space comes out friday.

Tuesday/Friday.

Oh right, north america? That would explain it.

cwbys21

01-26-2011, 11:46 AM

I guess you havn't seen the many threads regarding the recent EA + Dragon Age 2 + No signiture edition on Steam debacle.

EA recently sold the SE edition of Dragon Age 2 at practically every online digital download store except steam - then when the game eventually comes to steam they up the price without the extra content (which if you want, you have to pay even more for as DLC at the game's release)

It was a deliberate and obvious attempt to force steam users to buy the game elsewhere if they wanted the SE edition and went down like a lead balloon. It certainly convinced me not to bother buying any more of their games until they are available complete and on sale on steam in their 'Ultimate' or whatever editions.unless I missed something, we don't know if that is EAs fault of if that is Steam's fault. Of course since this is Valve's forums everyone will assume that it is EA's since no one every blames Valve for anything.

The market has grown several times over. So even if the profit margin per unit is lower, total profits are higher than ever.Actually, with the number of devs being laid off and the fact that EA has lost billions in recent years, I'd say that profits are not higher than ever.
Also: $60 games aren't some new phenomenon that people seem to think they are. Games for Sega Genesis used to be $70+. N64 games were $70-80. Goes for PC too. People got all upset when Modern Warfare 2 "brought $60 to PC." But Warcraft 3 was released at $60 also, way back in 2002.well said

and to everyone complaining about the extra $10, just be thankful that the game is even on pc at all. The original plan was to not bother but a bunch of people begged them and they conceded. waiting until it gets cheap, like one person said, doesn't help either because they may sell a lot of copies when it is on sale for $5, but with the small returns, if they still struggle to break even on the costs to bring it over, it doesn't matter.

S1lhouette

01-26-2011, 11:54 AM

I'm with Rogabr on this one. You guys all complain that a game costs $60, so what? To me, that's half retail price! Some of the games I've bought on here, I'd gladly pay over $100 for.

So, how would the Americans on this board like to pay what we Australians usually pay for games? Which at the time of this post, would be $109.95AUD, which is $109.430USD. So come on guys, ♥♥♥♥♥ about having an expensive game, then just remember what others have to pay.

zerrok

01-26-2011, 11:56 AM

The games not even out yet in europe.

The game has multiple retailers, other then steam.

Need we say more? This already puts this whole thread into accuracy, let alone price or anything.

If you've got something that can read everyone who has purchased dead space 2 globally and this game, do tell.

wonderboy2402

01-26-2011, 12:06 PM

Uh, I am pretty sure it is because it is a free demo and is news/controversial right now... And Dead Space 2 is overpriced rubbish.

Bl@ck

01-26-2011, 12:31 PM

It is because Dead Space 2 has more people playing it on console than on PC. Dead Space isn't really a good PC game so I wouldn't expect 2 to be any better.

zerrok

01-26-2011, 12:34 PM

Dead space 1 was a terrible port, vsync didn't work and never recieved any patches.

Your right, if you tallied console buys, they'd be higher then this surely.

Knightmr

01-26-2011, 12:41 PM

zerrok

01-26-2011, 12:48 PM

Who would pay 60 bucks for a lame console port? Dead Space could have been and could be a fantastic game on the PC.... It's just bad developers and greedy publishers doing what they do best. That's why I want to continue to support people like paradox(real publishers) and smaller dev houses.

Well we dont know what the second one is like and since its multiplayer it must have better support.

I had no issues with the first, apart from no vsync which wasn't too terrible.

I know my dad had a problem with his one, the very first door you encounter after getting the plasma cutter was open but you couldn't walk through it, if he did walk through it his computer would blue screen lol.

Still, it wasn't too terrible if it worked. As far as the game goes I think its great, it just wasn't support for PC.

ItzzNinja

01-26-2011, 01:14 PM

My point was that, despite all the complaining, there are still games for most every kind of gamer. That poster seemed to specifically have something against "pretty pictures for the graphics ho's," so that's why I recommended some less "state of the art" games for him.

The fact that you even hinted at people who don't concentrate on graphics being "behind the curve" disturbs me.

I'm with Rogabr on this one. You guys all complain that a game costs $60, so what? To me, that's half retail price! Some of the games I've bought on here, I'd gladly pay over $100 for.

So, how would the Americans on this board like to pay what we Australians usually pay for games? Which at the time of this post, would be $109.95AUD, which is $109.430USD. So come on guys, ♥♥♥♥♥ about having an expensive game, then just remember what others have to pay.

Or pay what Canadians pay for the internet to get the game! Stop complaining about the $60 game being anything new! I paid $60 for SSBB two years ago, as well as SMG1 and a few other Wii and PC games.

Bl@ck

01-26-2011, 01:29 PM

Well we dont know what the second one is like and since its multiplayer it must have better support.

That quote falls under the line of "♥♥♥♥ in one hand and wish in the other and see which fills up first."

StingingVelvet

01-26-2011, 03:17 PM

Dead Space isn't really a good PC game so I wouldn't expect 2 to be any better.

Wrong on both counts.

VampLena

01-26-2011, 03:27 PM

Athidi

01-26-2011, 03:28 PM

There are more people trying to get Magicka online part to work, then there are people playing dead space 2..
Think that statement is more correct.

StingingVelvet

01-26-2011, 03:32 PM

Its not called inflation, its called greed. Activision started selling Call of Duty for 60$ and this was done because Kotick said he could get away with it, and he'd charge more if he could. However because Call of Duty fans are stupid other game companies are jumping on the band wagon with 60$ pc games.

The fact is, the only reason console games are 10$ more is because of Licensing fees to sony and microsoft, this is a FACT. By charging 60$ for a PC game, and especially with digital download they are just pocking a ton of extra money.

The license fee is invisible to the customer, all they know is the game is $60 and will they buy it yes/no. The consumer has accepted the $60 price point, therefore it became standard on console and is now becoming standard on the PC.

If it means they get more money from supporting the PC then okay... how is that a bad thing? Stop thinking of publishers and developers as the enemy, they make the awesome games you enjoy playing.

Tapewormz

01-26-2011, 03:34 PM

Who cares? Release Date.

Troll post? By a mod? LOLS? Awesome.

dementedlullaby

01-26-2011, 03:52 PM

unless I missed something, we don't know if that is EAs fault of if that is Steam's fault. Of course since this is Valve's forums everyone will assume that it is EA's since no one every blames Valve for anything.

I'm much more willing to take Valves side in the matter though. Valve cares about PC gaming, EA has showed that PC gamers are nothing but a bit of extra cash. Look at the Dead Space 2 DLC (announced on the day of release lol, that's another story). Not coming to PC. Why? You want me to buy your game and support you but you won't support your own game? Smells funky.

As far as the Signature Edition, not having it on Steam was a cheap trick to get people to order it through their own site, or go buy it in stores. But it worked and I can't entirely blame 'em. They do have to pay Steam partially for every title sold. Easier to get your hardcore fanbase out of the way and then release it everywhere else for people to suck up.

Bl@ck

01-26-2011, 04:08 PM

Wrong on both counts.\

Good thing we are both entitled to our own opinions because I believe it sucked on PC compared to on console. I played it on both. Dead Space 2 reeks, I mean reeks, of a cash in with a tacked on craptacular MP to me. Although I will check it out, on PS3 (GameFly woot), because I want to see how the story progresses. The first one was good, I just hated it on my platform of choice (PC).

StingingVelvet

01-26-2011, 08:42 PM

\

Good thing we are both entitled to our own opinions because I believe it sucked on PC compared to on console. I played it on both. Dead Space 2 reeks, I mean reeks, of a cash in with a tacked on craptacular MP to me. Although I will check it out, on PS3 (GameFly woot), because I want to see how the story progresses. The first one was good, I just hated it on my platform of choice (PC).

Even if... IF... the controls on PC were that bad in your opinion, you could just plug in a control pad and have an identical control experience to the consoles PLUS all the graphics and framerate benefits.

Fearamoan

01-26-2011, 09:07 PM

it's simple appealing graphics,
the promise of a combat system that breaks the all too common design princaple of you can only play the game one way... one! 1... and if you put a toe out of line some form of janitor code kicks in and screams oi!!! put that tree down and stop shooting my fence!! THERE IS ONE WAY ONLY KK STOP RUINING MY PERFECTLY ORDERED WORLD YOU DAMN GAMERS!!!
( eg, invincible quest givers, pristine enviroments that you 'cannot' ruin, error messages for completely stupid things like 'dont use fire on your own party', i mean seriously? you dont want me to burn bob? bob deserves to be burned dude..)
basicaly, there's a lot of room to mess around so it's 300x more fun than a game that's entirely serious about itself

and the fact it's a small development team that will give you all the game / film / internet funnies you can shake a stick at basicly it's a night at a lanparty shoehorned into a small game.
also it has a bit of a runescape look to it, so i guess it attracts fans of that too?
plus it's quite cheap by today's massively overpriced games standards
now they just need to hurry up and patch it so i can play it again :S

DJ Cryotek

01-26-2011, 09:20 PM

As other have said, no way I'm paying $60 for a game unless it's something VERY special. And even then...

I have a feeling I'm going to get more enjoyment and playtime out of Magicka than I would have DS2 anyway.

BoBo2

01-26-2011, 09:26 PM

Dead Space 2 is a crappy console port with no addtional content for pc users.
You shouldn't support them. Also, the habbit of charging more than the price of the average pc game is a disturbing trend. Basically the lesson seems to be, "if you don't pirate dead space 2 and buy it legit, we will treat you like dirt".

Xyzun

01-26-2011, 09:58 PM

Magicka is fun, original, and reasonably priced, while DS2 is another brainless corridor slog that everyone's already played, with a ridiculous price tag.

Good for Magicka!

SenorBeef

01-27-2011, 04:01 AM

...

-- devs and publishers concentrate too much on eyecandy over storytelling and proper programming and game mechanics these days it's a wonder you need a $3000 system to play modern games, and even then they're not guaranteed to work because the vast majority of them have so many crippling bugs it's insane!

You managed to cram a remarkable amount of wrong into such a small space.

When was the last time a game was released that pushed the edge graphically? Crysis, 3+ years ago? Never before in PC history have we had a game remain the technical king for 6 months, let alone 3+ years. This shows that no one is pushing the technical edge and focusing on eye candy, because they're designing for ♥♥♥♥ty 7 year old systems that are a tiny fraction of what today's computers can do.

Never in the ♥♥♥♥ing history of mankind have you needed even even half the supposed $3000 to build a decent gaming computer. This is a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ lie that console fanboys tell. I've always had high end systems and I've never paid more than about $1200, and I've built people very good gaming systems for $600.

And games have always been buggy. Nostalgia makes you forget about how buggy some games of years ago were.

OnyxBMW

01-27-2011, 04:11 AM

You managed to cram a remarkable amount of wrong into such a small space.

When was the last time a game was released that pushed the edge graphically? Crysis, 3+ years ago? Never before in PC history have we had a game remain the technical king for 6 months, let alone 3+ years. This shows that no one is pushing the technical edge and focusing on eye candy, because they're designing for ♥♥♥♥ty 7 year old systems that are a tiny fraction of what today's computers can do.

Never in the ♥♥♥♥ing history of mankind have you needed even even half the supposed $3000 to build a decent gaming computer. This is a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ lie that console Hammer Legion Members tell. I've always had high end systems and I've never paid more than about $1200, and I've built people very good gaming systems for $600.

And games have always been buggy. Nostalgia makes you forget about how buggy some games of years ago were.

The fundamental of your quoted person's text is still correct.

A lot of the big budget games focus on eye candy, even if it's not "technical" eye candy, over gameplay innovations and story is still a very real focus and problem.

Case in point, how many recent big budget FPS's had something beyond a skeleton plot with simplistic or hammy storytelling practices that was overly short? Black ops is probably the ultimate example of a lack of focus on storytelling in a AAA budget, with an overemphasis on the eye candy, in this case being new models for characters, environments, etc. The overall quality of the product either stayed the same or decreased versus its then-one-year-old predecessor MW2 while the price keeps staying the same or going up.

You don't need to be the next Crysis in order to have an over-emphasis on eye-candy and an under-emphasis on gameplay innovations and storytelling.

Aeolian

01-27-2011, 04:19 AM

I don't know about rest of the world but here in Europe we have to wait 2 more days before official release date for Dead Space 2

Well the retail version is in stores, I saw it yesterday at empik.

The question is, why would you buy DS2? The multiplayer got terrible reviews, which puts the campaign as the bulk of the games worth. Easily downloadable.

OnyxBMW

01-27-2011, 04:22 AM

Well the retail version is in stores, I saw it yesterday at empik.

The question is, why would you buy DS2? The multiplayer got terrible reviews, which puts the campaign as the bulk of the games worth. Easily downloadable.

Because one has a fundamental problem with game piracy?

I have no problem, for instance, with people breaking the DRM on games...but to outright promote piracy is another matter entirely, especially when the logic is merely "There's no good multiplayer...PIRATE IT!!!"

Honestly, I'm offended you go so far as to merely imply that option in a market many people claim is overrun with that problem.

If the game is overpriced in your opinion, wait for it to come down in price. Don't, however, suggest the rampant promotion of already absurd DRM methods, however.

Aeolian

01-27-2011, 04:42 AM

RoadCrewWorker

01-27-2011, 04:44 AM

Both DeadSpace2 and Magicka are great games, but trying to compare them in this fashion is really dumb.

Even worse, flailing into a braindead pointless argument of indie vs blockbuster studio development attitude and just flat out promoting piracy is bad on so many other levels.

I was actually hoping the latter would just instantly get you banned.

Aeolian

01-27-2011, 04:46 AM

I'm just hanging around, reading the updates. I have not told anyone to download; I simply commented that it would be quite easy to do so.

TehJumpingJawa

01-27-2011, 04:47 AM

To answer the OPs title - I believe more people are playing it because it is simply a better game.

Casual gaming + originality + playability is a winning combination.

OnyxBMW

01-27-2011, 04:55 AM

I will have to disagree with you, Onyx, and I respect your principles in regards with piracy as well as the shiny sheen on the coat of your high horse. Truth be told, I was just like you once; my extensive steam and retail library of games both for console and pc are a testament to my devotion to this industry.

I would however like for you to take a moment and think about us, the passionate consumer, and what you described as absurd DRM has put us through. I have long decided after purchasing games such as AC2 and ME2 that developers are a very long way from defeating piraters. As such, we as the consumer will continue to pay for it in both inconvenience (absurd DRM) and corporate greed (as demonstrated by EA as a whole).

If it does not have a very good multiplayer that has been designed from the ground up to be a great experience, is not innovative, original, or mindblowing, and inconveniences you further for paying, why would I pay when I can so easily download it and skip all the hassle and basically miss no content?

The better solution is to not buy the game outright and give the devs and publisher a letter stating why you aren't buying their product, instead of giving them yet more excuses to continue the asinine DRM trend.

And, I have this penchant where I like to reward developers with my money for their hard work, instead of stealing what can best be amounted to their hard time and effort in creating a product that you obviously thought was worth something as evidenced by your desire to download and play it all the way through.

This isn't a matter of me being up on a high horse. I honestly don't care if you break the DRM, and there are certain exemptions to my otherwise "no piracy, period" rule that I allow other people to break (though don't break, personally, for other reasons, mostly related to the legality and personal morals...beyond breaking the DRM). That said, if the SP campaign is good enough to break the law (effectively) to download and play it through, it has value, and all people who pirate do is perpetuate the problem for "honest" consumers with the idiotic DRM.

To that end, however, feel free to keep claiming I'm on a high horse. I'm not the one advocating what is best summed up as intellectual theft or theft of time.

lyravega

01-27-2011, 05:19 AM

I refuse to pay for a $60 PC game, that's why I didn't get it.

Same. And that's why I won't get Dragon Age 2 or anything, even though I love the first one. Not gonna happen.

And, I'll be happy to pay 5-10 bucks per DLC for a game like Magicka, even the total would exceed 60 bucks. I'll be happy to support indie devs.

Aeolian

01-27-2011, 05:19 AM

The better solution is to not buy the game outright and give the devs and publisher a letter stating why you aren't buying their product, instead of giving them yet more excuses to continue the asinine DRM trend.

And, I have this penchant where I like to reward developers with my money for their hard work, instead of stealing what can best be amounted to their hard time and effort in creating a product that you obviously thought was worth something as evidenced by your desire to download and play it all the way through.

This isn't a matter of me being up on a high horse. I honestly don't care if you break the DRM, and there are certain exemptions to my otherwise "no piracy, period" rule that I allow other people to break (though don't break, personally, for other reasons, mostly related to the legality and personal morals...beyond breaking the DRM). That said, if the SP campaign is good enough to break the law (effectively) to download and play it through, it has value, and all people who pirate do is perpetuate the problem for "honest" consumers with the idiotic DRM.

To that end, however, feel free to keep claiming I'm on a high horse. I'm not the one advocating what is best summed up as intellectual theft or theft of time.

Again, I disagree with you. Yes, I do think their product is worth something. But then again, everything is worth something to somebody; a homeless man will take your trash, will he not? The reason to continue to obtain games, regardless of the intellectual effort put into it, is the same reason as why citizens will continue to pay outrageous prices for gas. It is our fuel.

Theft would be more akin to someone paying to own something (in this case a game) and then not letting complete ownership pass. If I had sold you an item you would expect to own it totally and completely, with no restriction on what you will do with it? Instead I am given a product and told that the only way to run it is to connect to the internet, or many other barriers I must over come.

Your responses had led me to believe you were not naive. I was mistaken. You know as well as I do that a single letter, or even hundreds of letters will not change any corporations direction. I cite the semi recent L4D2 boycott as an example.

OnyxBMW

01-27-2011, 05:30 AM

Again, I disagree with you. Yes, I do think their product is worth something. But then again, everything is worth something to somebody; a homeless man will take your trash, will he not? The reason to continue to obtain games, regardless of the intellectual effort put into it, is the same reason as why citizens will continue to pay outrageous prices for gas. It is our fuel.

Theft would be more akin to someone paying to own something (in this case a game) and then not letting complete ownership pass. If I had sold you an item you would expect to own it totally and completely, with no restriction on what you will do with it? Instead I am given a product and told that the only way to run it is to connect to the internet, or many other barriers I must over come.

Your responses had led me to believe you were not naive. I was mistaken. You know as well as I do that a single letter, or even hundreds of letters will not change any corporations direction. I cite the semi recent L4D2 boycott as an example.

A single letter is worthless. A million letters would get results. The problem is that most people pay for these products without even considering the DRM (for instance) that is on it. Most people don't have the self control to not buy a game when it's new, or do any secondary research beyond "New game. MUST BUY!", which ergo feeds the publishers and promotes the idiocy.

My stance on being okay with breaking DRM is that of "It's my product, I want to play it my way without dealing with the bull♥♥♥♥". This is why I literally have no problem with it. I've been locked out of games before because of bad DRM. I broke the DRM to play it. I still think my money was spent well to give to the devs, despite my misgivings with the DRM.

However, my stance on DRM itself has changed relatively recently where I will start to outright boycott games I want to play that have terrible DRM, regardless of how actually ineffective the process is, since I am tired of the escalation.

But on the flip side, you still are promoting the rampant escalation of DRM v Pirates. I recognize the fact that DRM is flawed as a copy protection method. Given enough time and patience, even the Great Wall of China will crumble into dust. (terrible analogy, I know), but every single hit on a bit torrent site causes the publishers to panic slightly more, and using the justification of buying gas because it fuels you and then turning around and saying that acquiring a game (product) without paying for it (stealing) is okay because it fuels you is, at best, a false analogy.

Justify it all you want, it is still base theft. The only difference between digital theft and physical theft is that the distributor didn't end up losing money because of a digital theft. They, at best, suffered a circumstantial "lost sale" that was never going to happen to begin with...maybe. Some dev studios actually look at the piracy numbers and are happy people are merely enjoying the product even if they can't justify the cost. But this is, also, not always the case.

Either way, at this point, we could bump heads back and forth all we want, neither of us is going to change our opinions, and I doubt either of us is as naive as the mother might interpret, so we may as well leave it at this, or your next reply, if you wish (I'll still read it) before this devolves any further into the ethics and morals of digital piracy.

Skyrage

01-27-2011, 05:37 AM

Sheesh, just wait 6-12 months for the price to go down and then get it. That's what I do with most AAA titles these days, and I still don't end up buying mane simply cause I don't feel the games are worth it.

In the case of Dead Space, I personally found it to be surprisingly fun, and I could consider getting DS2 at a bit higher price, like $30 or so. $60 is over the top for me as well though so I will simply wait for a deal to come around.

The good thing about indie devs and their games is that they usually know spot-on what a good price for a game is. Face the facts: content-wise, Magicka is really simple and overall what it offers is not much at all. It's strength lies in the quality and variation in what it does have to offer (bugs aside of course :p), which is why everyone here is all "wow, what an awesome game".

I think the devs hit the bulls-eye with this game when it comes to pricing.

Aeolian

01-27-2011, 05:48 AM

A single letter is worthless. A million letters would get results. The problem is that most people pay for these products without even considering the DRM (for instance) that is on it. Most people don't have the self control to not buy a game when it's new, or do any secondary research beyond "New game. MUST BUY!", which ergo feeds the publishers and promotes the idiocy.

My stance on being okay with breaking DRM is that of "It's my product, I want to play it my way without dealing with the bull♥♥♥♥". This is why I literally have no problem with it. I've been locked out of games before because of bad DRM. I broke the DRM to play it. I still think my money was spent well to give to the devs, despite my misgivings with the DRM.

However, my stance on DRM itself has changed relatively recently where I will start to outright boycott games I want to play that have terrible DRM, regardless of how actually ineffective the process is, since I am tired of the escalation.

But on the flip side, you still are promoting the rampant escalation of DRM v Pirates. I recognize the fact that DRM is flawed as a copy protection method. Given enough time and patience, even the Great Wall of China will crumble into dust. (terrible analogy, I know), but every single hit on a bit torrent site causes the publishers to panic slightly more, and using the justification of buying gas because it fuels you and then turning around and saying that acquiring a game (product) without paying for it (stealing) is okay because it fuels you is, at best, a false analogy.

Justify it all you want, it is still base theft. The only difference between digital theft and physical theft is that the distributor didn't end up losing money because of a digital theft. They, at best, suffered a circumstantial "lost sale" that was never going to happen to begin with...maybe. Some dev studios actually look at the piracy numbers and are happy people are merely enjoying the product even if they can't justify the cost. But this is, also, not always the case.

Either way, at this point, we could bump heads back and forth all we want, neither of us is going to change our opinions, and I doubt either of us is as naive as the mother might interpret, so we may as well leave it at this, or your next reply, if you wish (I'll still read it) before this devolves any further into the ethics and morals of digital piracy.

Despite everything I have said, you must understand that I know and on a deeper level agree with your stance. I believe now it is a simple matter of, as you say, the ethics and morals of digital piracy that one must decide upon and follow. Promotion of any detrimental escalation is never good; of this you have my support. We will simply agree to disagree.

That being said, I would like to retract and apologize for my high horse comment. Unnecessary.

Magicka is still one hell of a game and a great purchase. I hope I may look to you in the future for guidance should the need arise. You seem to know a lot about it.

Bl@ck

01-27-2011, 05:54 AM

Even if... IF... the controls on PC were that bad in your opinion, you could just plug in a control pad and have an identical control experience to the consoles PLUS all the graphics and framerate benefits.

I'm not running out and buying a game pad for this game. If I'm going to use a game pad I'll play it on PS3. I like the PC because of the controls. I'm not a graphics ♥♥♥♥♥. Opinions.

SenorBeef

01-27-2011, 06:26 AM

The fundamental of your quoted person's text is still correct.

No, this has always been elitist bull♥♥♥♥. People feel like they can look down on those oh so dumb masses by declaring that they aren't dazzled by pretty games and only want good gameplay. They act as though graphics vs gameplay is an RPG character attribute Sheet. Oh, I assigned 7 attribute points to graphics! I guess I only have 3 left to assign to gameplay!

Graphics and gameplay aren't mutually exclusive nor does one have to hurt the other. And not only that, but this is certainly not a recent phoneominon. If anything, in recent times, the inability for games to advance (due to console limitations) has lead to an upsurge in the need to differentiate your game through gameplay/art/etc because you can't do it through graphics.

To say that this is a recent problem is just nostalgia - you remember your favorite old games and don't remember how many had crappy gameplay.

The Call of Duty games are successful because people are idiots and because they must enjoy the gameplay because they keep buying reskins of the same game. Not your type of gameplay? That doesn't mean that it's objectively bad and unappealing to everyone. The very fact that the call of duty games have essentially been the same game over and over because they can't improve graphically on what COD4 did is not evidence that games are graphics-driven - it makes no sense because the last two games have been completely stagnant in graphics (and actually worse, IMO) yet sell better than ever.

TrippleD

01-27-2011, 06:47 AM

why would I pay when I can so easily download it and skip all the hassle and basically miss no content?

We do not allow advocating software piracy here on the forums.

ItzzNinja

01-27-2011, 02:23 PM

The fundamental of your quoted person's text is still correct.

A lot of the big budget games focus on eye candy, even if it's not "technical" eye candy, over gameplay innovations and story is still a very real focus and problem.

Case in point, how many recent big budget FPS's had something beyond a skeleton plot with simplistic or hammy storytelling practices that was overly short? Black ops is probably the ultimate example of a lack of focus on storytelling in a AAA budget, with an overemphasis on the eye candy, in this case being new models for characters, environments, etc. The overall quality of the product either stayed the same or decreased versus its then-one-year-old predecessor MW2 while the price keeps staying the same or going up.

You don't need to be the next Crysis in order to have an over-emphasis on eye-candy and an under-emphasis on gameplay innovations and storytelling.

Last one I remember was HAZE back in '08 -- shame FRD had to go belly-up.

tl;dr

What?! I can name many old games THAT I'VE PLAYED that have horrible gameplay and loads of bugs: Drake of the 99 Dragons was a terrible game, Manhunt on the Xbox was fairly bad, RPG Maker 3... The list goes on and on. Elitist bull excrement? I think not. I can't think of how many times I've seen people cry foul on a game because of perceived "horrible graphics" -- Soulcalibur Legends, RCT3, Line Rider 2 (though it had admittedly horrible physics), HAZE, TimeSplitters... again, the list goes on and on, and many of those games had AMAZING gameplay mechanics and storytelling -- HAZE was praised for how amazingly responsive its controls were for an unfinished game! Compare that to your average CoD game where the controls are different on each platform (MW2 on 360 had drastically different controls to the PS3 version, for instance.) and you expect to give me the "elitist bull♥♥♥♥" run around and not have a rebuttal shoved in your graphically-superior face? No.