Black marine armor question
kumiorava
Join Date: 2010-07-14 Member: 72372Members
Join Date: 2010-07-14 Member: 72372Members
Comments
Custom models/local only seems doable...
b) you should not play on mp_consistency 0 servers unless you were an armslab fan
c) and everyday the evidence is mounting behind the ugly truth of SEs and IDIFBA ("I Did It For Black Armour")
that is all.
<!--quoteo(post=1778882:date=Jul 15 2010, 01:10 AM:name=Renegade.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Renegade. @ Jul 15 2010, 01:10 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1778882"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->c) and everyday the evidence is mounting behind the ugly truth of SEs and IDIFBA ("I Did It For Black Armour")
that is all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, the armor is pretty much the only reason I'd be interested in paying $20 more (I'm not sure it's worth it, tho). So what, if I think the black armor looks better, or if I like to stand out from the crowd? Why do you think they even included the armor?
I'm sure many donated the minimum just to get the pretty constellation icon.
most people didn't do it for the bling factor but as a way to donate, and invest as way to help make this game the best it can.
Plus I never paid for Constellation Access/Icon, so I feel like there is the extra $20 UW is missing anyways.
The Black Armor is just another free bonus(like any content update to a game; TF2 for example). They could have really droped support of NS1 after about the 1.04 patch, if they had that type of mindset. NS1 probably would not have been as big as a success though if they did that.
=)
I think we'd be very surprised at the number of people who would selfishly exclaim "I would of purchased the special edition if i knew it came with night vision goggles!" if indeed they did work :p
+1 DIFBA
Why? Because our fears are being realized - if you're paying to stand out, then you must be playing TF2.
Why? Because our fears are being realized - if you're paying to stand out, then you must be playing TF2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm playing NS because I enjoy the game, but I also enjoy looking/being different. So yeah, you could say I did it for the black armor (mostly). Why is that such a problem for you? I'm still paying for the game and supporting UWE.
wut?
it .. doesn't have micro transactions or .. anything ..
I haven't spent a dime extra on the game since it was released w/ the orange box.
wut?
it .. doesn't have micro transactions or .. anything ..
I haven't spent a dime extra on the game since it was released w/ the orange box.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Renegade is trolling again, stating that individuality in video games paid or unpaid is a terrible terrible thing.
it's a problem because renegade is better than most of us :) he earned his black armor for supporting the devs, we didn't we just bought it.
EDIT: argh slycaster was already on the hunt :)
EDIT2: @slycaster we should indeed all be named Renegade in every game... ###### this individuality :P
I was with him when he was talking about problems with DLC (for example the MW2 mappacks, 15 bucks for 5 maps). But I don't really get what's so bad about wanting to customize your online characters. If people want to pay for that stuff, I don't mind, it's their money.
I would have been angry if the Special Edition featured some non-cosmetic item (like say a new weapon or sharpened teeth or something), but different looking armor is fine with me. And it's even better if it actually encourages people to buy the SE cause that's more money for the devs.
I, too, feel like "DLC" has got a bit out of hand with some games. $15 for 5 maps is ... stupid. I'm not saying the people who bought it are stupid, they are buying additional content for their game they are enjoying and that's fine. What I have a problem with, in the past - this type of content used to be very free. I just feel its going to lead down a path where games will be shipped stripped of the intended content, only to be sold later as 'additional' content. I have an issue with the way developers/shareholders are taking these companies and gaming in general.
I think comparing it, specifically, to TF2 is just ... wrong. So wrong I can't comprehend another word, other than just ... 'wrong'. TF2 is a shining example as to what continued support from the developers <b>should</b> be. I spent $50 some odd dollars for the orange box - and have never, ever once felt cheated for owning TF2. I think what Valve is doing with it is excellent and has increased its life exponentially.
While I'm not saying I want marines to start running around with top hats and monocles, that kind of support and continued development for NS2 will increase its life span as well. I don't imagine Flayra would ever consider charging anything more for this game at any point in time for any reason ... the only thing I could possibly imagine is an expansion pack that adds a considerable amount to the game.
I think it would be better to not pass judgement on why people chose to buy either version and just be happy that they bought <b>a</b> version.
Stop judging people. Ya hypocrites!
See, even I do it! But, I play a Paladin, so .. thats ok.
*cough*
What really angers me about this is that to accomplish these DLC sales they actually REMOVE features we've had in PC gaming for more than a decade. Map editors and modding tools used to be the norm for first person shooters, do you ever remember paying for a map pack when playing Quake or Unreal, etc.?
All these companies made games that absolutely blew up in popularity partly because of the community support and now they have basically shafted them by charging for what used to be free and expected.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I just feel its going to lead down a path where games will be shipped stripped of the intended content<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We are already at the end of the path, sadly. We have been for years. Developers DO actively withhold features and content and then release them as DLC, either immediately or later down the road. Take Civ 5 for example, you can get the standard edition on Steam, or the "deluxe" for 10 bucks extra which comes with the Babylonian civ and other extras.
I totaly agree with the problems related to stripped down games and content, especialy now after xbox and wii downloadables.
For a Console, i say that is fine (I dont agree, but understand) since video game owners never had the option to "upgrade or patch a game" only computer players.
But for us (Computer Players) its becoming something very ridiculous, for example Windows for Games Live, the computer equivalent to Xbox live, began paid and now is not because computer players refuse to have to pay to play online, multiplayer is rule now not extra.
Another problem is DRM and localized blocks. How come i buy a game and can only install 5 times??? not discussing that point. the localization problem, live games requires you to be in one of its supported countries, i´m from brazil and i bought resident evil 5 only to find out i could not play online. (Fixed that using a .US e-mail for creating an account)
I´m very happy with UWE model of business. I played NS1 for several years and never spend one cent, so when the Pre-orders went live, I thought. well they do deserve my extra 20 dollars just for the time i played ns1. So i got the SE for the NS1 free factor and Helping Devs (And by the way yes, i liked the balck armour a lot :D )
My point is, if we as consumers accept a given bussines model, it will become a standard. so i support UWE, and dont buy DRM or DLC filled games if i can avoid those.
But i dont see it as completely bad. and think new moddels should be appearing. just not all deserves to stay.
(ok this might make the thead go off-topic, sorry if it does)
<!--quoteo(post=1779298:date=Jul 15 2010, 05:47 PM:name=Silver_Fox)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Silver_Fox @ Jul 15 2010, 05:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1779298"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While I'm not saying I want marines to start running around with top hats and monocles[..]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->That's because you haven't given it enough thought:
Lt. Top-Hat: "I say, chap! Is that an extra-terrestrial I see down the corridor?"
Cpt. Monocle: "Why, yes, it is! What say we blast the scamp to smithereens?"
Lt. Top-Hat: "Jolly good!"
*RATATATATATATAT*
<!--quoteo(post=1779304:date=Jul 15 2010, 06:00 PM:name=ZimbuTheMonkey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ZimbuTheMonkey @ Jul 15 2010, 06:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1779304"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We are already at the end of the path, sadly. We have been for years. Developers DO actively withhold features and content and then release them as DLC, either immediately or later down the road. Take Civ 5 for example, you can get the standard edition on Steam, or the "deluxe" for 10 bucks extra which comes with the Babylonian civ and other extras.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I take issue with your specific example, since extra content for a special edition is nothing really new, and is not quite like DLC. I think a more apt example would be Assassin's Creed 2. The X-Box and PS3 versions had two pieces of DLC: "The Battle of Forli" and "The Bonfire Vanities". They were basically two extra chapters that took place within the main storyline. Originally however, they were meant to be <i>included</i> with the final game. Instead, they were cut and released later at an extra cost to the end user. In their defense, the "official" story is that they were cut due to time contraints and charged for because... well that's just how the Live marketplace works. Later, the PC version would include both of these sections, as well as a re-released "Complete Edition". However, I believe that there was a time where "time constraints" would never have cause Ubisoft to release an unfinished game. Instead, the release date would have been pushed back. In the words of Shigeru Miyamoto, "A delayed game is eventually good, a bad game is bad forever." Companies are now taking advantage of this new method of distribution and our willingness to pay for small bits of extra content and it shames me.
<!--quoteo(post=1779313:date=Jul 15 2010, 06:37 PM:name=Coragem)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Coragem @ Jul 15 2010, 06:37 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1779313"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Another problem is DRM and localized blocks. How come i buy a game and can only install 5 times??? not discussing that point. the localization problem, live games requires you to be in one of its supported countries, i´m from brazil and i bought resident evil 5 only to find out i could not play online. (Fixed that using a .US e-mail for creating an account)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I don't think it's fair to bring DRM into this. These measures are only put in place because, in the end, all game companies are businesses. There is rampant piracy in the PC Gaming world and there are precious few things the developers can do to halt it. There have been some problematic example of DRM; I'll bring up Ubisoft again for this. Their new "UPlay" platform included with all of their new games forces you to be online for the game to function. It attempts to reward you with meager achievements and points for this, but the fact of the matter is that my play-time with Assassin's Creed 2 depends on the stability of my internet connection. In all fairness, most people with a computer capable of running such games likely also have a constant internet connection, and even if you do lose your connection, the game automatically saves and pauses so when it returns you lose no progress whatsoever. Regardless, it was only put in place because in order to continue making games, Ubisoft has to protect their potential sales. The first Assassin's Creed was one of the most pirated games of all time, how could they not be worried about its sequel? There's certainly a limit to what is acceptable for the end user, but I don't believe it's an issue quite yet.
Extra content for a special edition is nothing really new, I agree with that. But the game is called Civilization. And now you have to pay 10 extra dollars to get ALL the civilizations. It isn't a different skin for units, it's game-altering features. And who knows how this will impact multiplayer or modding. Can modders use these assets? Will multiplayer games be fragmented and divided based on who has which DLC Civ?
It's just a very, very bad precedent especially for Civ games which historically have never added any gameplay features to Special or Deluxe editions.
Why? Because our fears are being realized - if you're paying to stand out, then you must be playing TF2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does it matter really? As far as we know, UWE isn't going all crazy on the DLC purchases. If someone wants to pay 20 bucks for something as trivial as black armor, it benefits UWE, it benefits the client, and it doesn't hurt in any way your moral conscience.
As long as the money's going to the right place, and that those who spent money don't get real advantages such as different weaponry, then there is no problem. I don't think UWE has any intention of making hats, they just felt like thanking those who were willing to put down twice as much money without really knowing what they got into.
I'm sure many donated the minimum just to get the pretty constellation icon.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, let me lmao. Ok. If you really wanted to stand out from the crowd, then green armor is the way to do it imho. Because from the looks of things, everybody, their uncle, and their dog, will be wearing black armor.
Lt. Top-Hat: "I say, chap! Is that an extra-terrestrial I see down the corridor?"
Cpt. Monocle: "Why, yes, it is! What say we blast the scamp to smithereens?"
Lt. Top-Hat: "Jolly good!"
*RATATATATATATAT*<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do believe your hypothesis has merit.
/adjusts monocle