Jump to content

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

Bromance

=ADK= Members
  • Content count

    7,945
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Bromance reacted to FeatherSton3 for a article, Battlefield Hardline: Next Battlefield First Glance   
    First off, why Battlefield?When most of us think of Battlefield we think of 32 versus 32 all-out-war. Military style. This, however, not so much. You have to wonder why they chose the Battlefield franchise for this. It has zero resemblance (for the most part), of past Battlefield games. It seems like a mixture of CS:GO and Rainbow Six Vegas. I started thinking of why DICE would create something like this, but then it hit me, EA, they acquired Visceral Games around two years ago. So I think the main question is, while DICE is going to supposedly spend another year working on Battlefield 4 multiplayer issues, has Visceral been working on this installment for the past two years? Still going back to the title, I believe the word "Battlefield" should not be in the title, and instead this installment should be a branch.
    Secondly, what is OMAHA?
    Well, if you have watched the video at the bottom of the link, you will notice that in the video "OMAHA" is mentioned quite a bit. On my first assumption, I was geared towards the idea the Omaha was the name of the game. Obviously, not the case since it's called Battlefield: Hardline (supposedly) My though process quickly turned the other way. Omaha has to be referring to Omaha, Nebraska. In the video it shows this scenic picture of a town seemingly out in the middle of nowhere in the desert. But since when did Nebraska have tons of deserts? After looking into Wikipedia, nearly a fourth of the state is "Sandhills"("region of mixed-grass prairie on grass-stabilized sand dunes") that's not as much as Arizona, but I didn't have a say-so in the game setting. The next thing to probably ask is "Gangs in Nebraska?" Now, obviously crime occurs everywhere, but could they have not picked a state with a higher crime-rate?
    Thirdly, why Hardline?
    When I think of Hardline I think of that Call of Duty perk that no one remembers. But in all seriousness, why the title? According to definitions.net hardline means (firm and uncompromising). Must likely describing both "factions" of the game. Cops on one side, and robbers and drug cartels on the other. Cops, obviously cracking down on those who are breaking the law, and the cartels, not giving two craps about the law, because they will do WHATEVER it takes to get their drugs and money.
    Furthermore, let's talk about the freedom of gameplay.
    In the video it talks about the environments being "wider and more open than ever before". Knowing Battlefield they tend to like creating large maps. I somehow have a feeling that these maps are going to be even bigger. In certain parts of the video, you will see high speed chasing involving Mustangs and helicopters, that gives just a small perspective of the long winding roads. I having a feeling that this Battlefield will turn to more of a GTA feeling in the sense of free roam. It's up to the developers to decided how far into that system they are willing to go. Can you enter EVERY house you see on the street, will elevators work? They also state that "co-op stories can be played multiple times, and in multiple ways". This right here, to me, is something totally new. Meaning that there is going to be MINIMAL scripting. (I.E.: If you die by guy A behind a truck, next time you spawn, chances are guy A will be in a building.)
    Number four, Artificial Intelligence (A.I. for short)
    This is something that I always look forward to in gaming, the bots. Last time this was in a Battlefield game was in Bad Company 2 in a mode called Onslaught, only available to console players. Just as I stated above, scripting, in my assumption, will be minimal and a.i. will be the most "human-like" they have ever been. I would not be surprised if all the game modes that appeared in the video are able to be played all via offline with bots as well.
    Unpredictable? I think that's a great word choice
    Zip-lines and grappling hooks. Can be used "On any map, anywhere". This will definitely add not only a new level of fun, but a great tool for strategic players like myself. These tools will allow teams to be able to infiltrate buildings from so many different angles. Great tools for eliminating campers.
    Get in the Car!
    Of course it wouldn't be Battlefield without vehicles. But did they take it to the extreme in this game? What I mean is, in order to infiltrate drug houses, are attack helicopters really needed? And are A-10 Thunderbolts a viable means of eliminating an armored car, or SUV? Personally, I am going to be driving those police cars 24/7, because they are sick, and I love police vehicles.
    Last, but not really last, the player count?
    For the last two Battlefield installments the maximum player allotment per server is 64 players. The question I think others might be asking as well, can they go BIGGER? Now, if I was going to answer this question based off of Battlefield 4, I would say, don't bother. But two things to remember, Visceral Games is in charge, and people learn from their mistakes (sort,of). I do think there is a great chance that the player base will be significantly greater.
    "I'll pass on this one, thanks"
    The comment that I wonder if a lot of fan-boys are saying. Some people don't like change, and I have a great feeling that people who don't like Counter-Strike will not be getting this game. We have seen it happen over and over again. Battlefield 3 servers are still full of players, Counter Strike, and even Call of Duty 4 still have tons of people playing everyday. At the same time that they will lose a certain amount of players, the payoff will be much higher. This is a chance for players that never liked the series in the past to really get a new feel for what the franchise is trying to instill. I will be watching population stats, you can count on that.
    REVIVE ME!
    The phrase that Battlefield has basically been secretly saying to themselves for along time. To a lot of people, if you want campaign, you play Call of Duty, and if you want multiplayer, well there's this thing called Battlefield. I believe that Visceral will be the first in awhile to have made a solid campaign for the franchise. Visceral is known for their amazing story-line from a game called "Dead Space" I think in the campaign we will even feel the brotherhood of all the policemen working together as a team.
    Last, and definitely last. Societal Impact.
    I am pretty sure we have all heard stories about people playing video games, and then evidently killing someone in real life. The kind of opinions of a game like this will really get some people going. Another article will probably shun the video game for players being able to kill and murder cops, and another might shun the video game for showing too much drug use and activity.
    YouTube Video
    Hardlink To Video
    My first long post, so I hope I did not bore too many of you. Thanks for reading, like the first line and then not reading anymore :)
  2. Like
    Bromance reacted to AOBLXIX for a article, Titanfall Giveaway Courtsey of Respawn Enterainment and EA   
        
     
     
    Electronic Arts and Respawn Entertainment have recently released Titanfall and many of you might not know but one of our very own members had a huge part in the release of the game.    Timberock has been a part of this community for almost 2 years thanks to Cruz_5326 who introduced him to us.   But as some of you might have known he also works at Microsoft dealing with the gaming side of Microsoft.
     
    While some people might not think it's a huge deal, =ADK= has had a pretty large impact on how Titanfall was created and released as a game.  You can read THIS ARTICLE which relates to how the Titanfall servers are set up.    And this type of release just goes to show what kind of members this community attracts and why it will continue to grow for years to come.  
     
    In the coming days there will be some Giveaways for FREE Titanfall Codes to over 10 people.   I won't give the exact number yet, but when the game currently costs $60 even 10 copies of the game is a huge treat for the members of this community.    So thank you to Timber for your continued support of the community, and thank you to Respawn and EA for graciously giving us free copies of Titanfall to hand out to our Community!
  3. Like
    Bromance reacted to AOBLXIX for a article, A Letter To The Battlefield Community   
    Hello Battlefield Community, I'm glad you're taking the time to read this.    As someone who runs successful Battlefield 3 servers and has multiple Battlefield 4 servers I'd like you to take a second to read what is going on. 
     
     
    If you don't remember way back when, about 2 years ago when Battlefield 3 was released there were the SAME issues that people are experiencing now which are pissing a lot of people off.   You would have thought that certain issues like crashing because of explosives, high ticket counts, large server population (64 players) would have been first on the list for things to NOT do in Battlefield 4.   That's clearly not the case as seen by the multitude of crashes that have been happening.   
     
    Currently server owners have no control over a lot of things like the server crashes which people say "Noob admin" or "fu**ing admin" because the people get ZERO XP.      Server admins, especially the ones here at =ADK= want to provide the best servers, the most enjoyable as well as servers that give the most variety.   When we get limited because of Battlelog issues, server crashes on particular maps, there's only so much we can do.  
     
    Personally I believe =ADK= is one of the first to do what we are doing on our 24/7 Operation Lockers servers to make sure that the Battlefield Community get's the XP that they deserve.    To those of you who are pissed off that the round might end in 4 minutes sometimes, you need to understand that EVERY ROUND otherwise the server would be crashing.    Does the server still crash?  Yes it does unfortunately, but we are doing what we can to help prevent that issue because EA/DICE still have not put out a patch to fix the issue.    Currently as I'm writing this article one of our OL servers has been up for an 1 hour 40 minutes.    Where normally the uptime would only be at say 15 minutes now.    So while some might say "I'M ONLY GETTING 400 XP IN 4 5 MINUTES!!!!"     Ok well take that and multiply that by let's say 10 rounds. . . and you get 4,000 XP, plus multiple conquest ribbons.  Where as if we don't do what we are doing then you will get ZERO XP and then ZERO Ribbons. . 
     
    "Well why not lower the player count"  -  Why be like everyone else when we can do something different?   I've looked many other servers who have lowered the player count and 98% of them aren't full constantly and have large downtimes, where as ours on the other hand have only had small downtimes and are full every other time.     If you can't see here, =ADK= is trying to provide the best experience (XP) possible. . no pun intended. .   Does it suck that rounds are super short sometimes?   Of course it does, but would you rather have a server that crashes and you get ZERO XP, or a server where you have 2 short rounds, 1 longer round and you get all of your XP every round?    I'm certain I'm not the only one who hates having to level up 5 times before you actually get to that level.  
     
    So why not take a step back for a second, and see that we're not being "madmins" we're not being "noob admins" and we're trying to do what's best for the entire battlefield community with the cards that we have been dealt.    We've already had to remove maps from our other servers that cause crashes to make sure that people don't have to go through any crashes. 
  4. Like
    Bromance reacted to AOBLXIX for a article, Veteran Admin Promotions   
    With these promotions will come a few different changes to the command structure.    As you all know Nova, and Vinas have been doing A LOT for the community by taking over games and making sure they are a successful part of this community.  So they will be promoted to a "Lead VA" position.    This does not mean that the current VA's are not doing their jobs, but as they have been active the most this is is a way to help the others VAs with their duties if needed.   They will also be able to answer certain questions that some VAs might not be able to answer. 
     
    Another change that is happening which has pretty much been implemented already by the current VAs which has worked well for us, and will now be made official.   This change is that each VA will have a "section" of the community that they will be in charge of.   While in charge of this section they are expected to be active within the promotion, communication, admins, etc. . making sure that section of the community is as successful as possible.   As well as taking care of any issues that arise, appoint admins/advisers within that section of the community. 
     
    These people that are being promoted are also ones that we feel can bring something to the community besides just working in their particular section.   They have completed requests in a timely manner, are always looking to do more for the community, and being mature in how they handle their selves within the community and as a face of the community.    This is exactly what we look for in Veteran Admins, and that's why the individuals below are being promoted. 
     
    With all of that being said these are the individuals being promoted and the respect section they will be heading up.
     
     
    FreKillz - Battlefield
    Hoole - Streaming
    Pepsi - Graphic Design
     
     
    Please give a big congrats to these individuals.   And remember, if you are not listed please don't be discouraged as I'm still looking to promote more individuals not only for different sections of the community, but also some that these 3 individuals are a part of now.   These 3 individuals are just the ones that have been promoted first.   I'm not sure when the next promotions will occur so please do not ask or bug myself or any other admin.    Thanks!  
  5. Like
    Bromance reacted to AOBLXIX for a article, 2500 Members And Growing!   
     
    We want to thank everyone who has made this possible!   It's definitely not something that multiple people expected.  And with that we appreciate all of you who have been a part of this community over the year. 
     
     
    Thanks again and here's to the the next 2500 Members on the website!
  6. Like
    Bromance reacted to AOBLXIX for a article, Team Speak - Room Changes (10/12)   
    So when you connect to our Team Speak server you'll see a few changes.    
     
     
    AFK Lounge
     
    The biggest change you'll probably notice is the AFK Lounge with anywhere from 5 - 15 people is no longer at the top of our Team Speak, but the bottom.    As we get more and more people into team speak it's only obvious that more and more people will hang out in the AFK Lounge when they go somewhere, go to bed, etc. .    So rather than taking up that room at the top that it used to take up, it will now be at the bottom and out of the way.  
     
     
    Need Help Room
     
    This channel can be used for a variety of things:
    Getting help with the website Help with in-game issues Contacting admins Team Speak Issues Waiting for an admin to contact you regarding a ban dispute The list can go on, but we feel the majority of the people will use this for Website Issues, Team Speak issues, in-game issues, etc. .   Since if you need an admin for a particular game server you can find them by looking at the title in front of their name.     So if you find yourself needing some help, join this channel and we will get someone with you as soon as possible.   
     
    I'm New Lobby
     
    This channel was created in hopes to get some of you who might be a little shy when you see a channel full of about 15 people.   We all understand the feeling and that's part of the reason why we created this channel.    Another reason why we created this channel was just for people who were browsing the site and might not know anyone in Team Speak but would still like to be able to check out what it's all about.   If you join this channel we will get someone to come join you as soon as possible to give you a warm welcome.     We always want everyone to return so we want to make sure you have a great time. 
     
     
     
    These additions and changes should be good for Team Speak and we hope you all find them to be good ones as well.    Thanks for your support of the =ADK= Gaming Community and we look forward to seeing you in our Team Speak soon!
    TS.ADKGamers.com:3796
  7. Like
    Bromance got a reaction from cuzco2585 for a article, Why the end of the $60 video game is near.   

    There's a war going on in the video game world, but it's over dollar signs, not virtual land.
    A boxed copy of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, the world's top-selling console game, costs $60.Angry Birds, the world's biggest mobile game franchise, costs $1 for software that you can download in under a minute. The pricing gap between what's traditionally considered the highest-tier premium games and the fast-evolving mobile, tablet, and social gaming market is widening, and it's spelling disaster for countless game makers caught in the middle.
    According to The NPD Group, physical content sales were down 8% in 2011. This year hasn't been a cakewalk either, with sales continuing to slide. Though some of the blame can rightfully be foisted upon the decline of the once-mighty Wii, it's apparent that people aren't buying games like they used to, and the industry is scrambling to figure out why. But most agree that it begins — and likely ends — with the high cost of new games.
    The sentiment that games cost too much is certainly not new. Wired's Chris Kohler recently outlined a list of reasons games cost too much and combated the argument that the used game market can be blamed. Nexon America's CEO Daniel Kim told GamesIndustry International that "Free-to-Play" games (often called "Freemium" because users are incentivized to pay small premiums for more content) are not going away and the traditional model will have to change.
    He's right. $60 has always been an embarrassing, crippling barrier of entry compared to gaming's entertainment peers. A brand new book, DVD, or CD rarely breaks the $20 mark, and even the highest tier Blu-rays cap out at around $30. Why are new games so pricey?
    Publishers have long blamed console games' high price on a plethora of issues. Skyrocketing development costs is a biggie, as is piracy. Most recently, publishers are taking aim at the used game market, charging that the buying and selling of used merchandise is taking cash out of their pockets.But whatever impact on profitability these concerns have, it doesn't change two monumental problems:
    - Psychologically, $60 just sounds expensive. This isn't anecdotal, this is common sense.  Unless you're financially independent, $60 outright repels a vast slice of the entertainment consumer populace that the games industry desperately needs to convert to grow and survive.
    - People are having fun playing more affordable games. The choice and product quality at the bottom end of the pricing scale -- anything under $15 or so -- has grown tremendously in a relatively short period of time. Games like Draw Something, Angry Birds, and Infinity Blade aren't only played by 'casual' gamers.
    That being said, the top perennial franchises like Halo, Elder Scrolls, Battlefield, and Madden aren't going anywhere, at least for a while longer. Games that critics and consumers universally laud as "must-haves" can continue to support this massive premium.  But it's the mid-tier titles, the unestablished IPs, the riskier endeavors, the worthwhile games that don't quite master the magic formula, that will never get off the ground. Even highly-praised franchise entries like Rayman Origins struggle, and publishers like THQ have been threatened with NASDAQ delisting despite enjoying sales that "exceed expectations." Black Rock, creators of critical darlings Pure and Split/Second, were denied sequels by publisher Disney to focus on freemium content and eventually shuttered entirely.
    The most egregious example of old-school thinking is the release of Plants vs. Zombies on PlayStation Vita.  One of the rarer "crossover" successes, the game costs $3 on the iPhone but a whopping  $15 on the Vita for an identical product. Why? Because it's a dedicated gaming device and core gamers are accustomed to paying higher premiums. How long can this madness last?
    It's not just Facebook and smartphones that threaten to steal that audience. The consoles themselves have thriving online stores in Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Network, offering gaming alternatives with high production value and more relaxed pricing. Just look to successes like Battlefield 1943 (over 1MM units sold), Xbox's Castle Crashers (sold 2.6 million), and recent PS3 hit Journey, which quickly became the PSN's fastest-selling title ever.
    If the Old Guard would just drop the charade that $60 is the only feasible price point, they might find an unexpectedly higher volume of purchasers to mitigate the reduced revenue per gamer. I realize that the $60 Call of Duty costs some tens of millions more to develop, market, and distribute than the $1 Angry Birds, but is there really a $59 differential there? Someone wiser than me in economics can surely model up a theory that finds a middle ground.
     
  8. Like
    Bromance reacted to Nova for a article, Diablo 3 on Teamspeak! Check us out!   
    Link to main Thread:
    http://www.adkgamers.com/topic/12017-diablo-3-reminder-special-teamspeak-offer/
     
    As is mentioned in the main Thread, bring your friends.
     
    Even if your friends don't really want to talk to other players besides you...BRING THEM; I will grant you and your team a locked subchannel or channel for the game that only your team knows the password to.
     
    Why use other programs like Skype (a bandwidth and memory hog) when you can use the efficient program of Teamspeak for free AND get your own room for you and your team.
     
    All it takes it a PM to me on here or on Teamspeak and let me know about you and your friends and you will have your own Subchannel with password protection to stay up all night every day and play Diablo III until your heart(s) is/are content.
     
    Teamspeak
    Label: =ADK= A Different Kind | ADKGamers.com |
    Address: ADK.INSTANTTS.COM:3796
     
     
  9. Like
    Bromance got a reaction from cuzco2585 for a article, Why the end of the $60 video game is near.   

    There's a war going on in the video game world, but it's over dollar signs, not virtual land.
    A boxed copy of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, the world's top-selling console game, costs $60.Angry Birds, the world's biggest mobile game franchise, costs $1 for software that you can download in under a minute. The pricing gap between what's traditionally considered the highest-tier premium games and the fast-evolving mobile, tablet, and social gaming market is widening, and it's spelling disaster for countless game makers caught in the middle.
    According to The NPD Group, physical content sales were down 8% in 2011. This year hasn't been a cakewalk either, with sales continuing to slide. Though some of the blame can rightfully be foisted upon the decline of the once-mighty Wii, it's apparent that people aren't buying games like they used to, and the industry is scrambling to figure out why. But most agree that it begins — and likely ends — with the high cost of new games.
    The sentiment that games cost too much is certainly not new. Wired's Chris Kohler recently outlined a list of reasons games cost too much and combated the argument that the used game market can be blamed. Nexon America's CEO Daniel Kim told GamesIndustry International that "Free-to-Play" games (often called "Freemium" because users are incentivized to pay small premiums for more content) are not going away and the traditional model will have to change.
    He's right. $60 has always been an embarrassing, crippling barrier of entry compared to gaming's entertainment peers. A brand new book, DVD, or CD rarely breaks the $20 mark, and even the highest tier Blu-rays cap out at around $30. Why are new games so pricey?
    Publishers have long blamed console games' high price on a plethora of issues. Skyrocketing development costs is a biggie, as is piracy. Most recently, publishers are taking aim at the used game market, charging that the buying and selling of used merchandise is taking cash out of their pockets.But whatever impact on profitability these concerns have, it doesn't change two monumental problems:
    - Psychologically, $60 just sounds expensive. This isn't anecdotal, this is common sense.  Unless you're financially independent, $60 outright repels a vast slice of the entertainment consumer populace that the games industry desperately needs to convert to grow and survive.
    - People are having fun playing more affordable games. The choice and product quality at the bottom end of the pricing scale -- anything under $15 or so -- has grown tremendously in a relatively short period of time. Games like Draw Something, Angry Birds, and Infinity Blade aren't only played by 'casual' gamers.
    That being said, the top perennial franchises like Halo, Elder Scrolls, Battlefield, and Madden aren't going anywhere, at least for a while longer. Games that critics and consumers universally laud as "must-haves" can continue to support this massive premium.  But it's the mid-tier titles, the unestablished IPs, the riskier endeavors, the worthwhile games that don't quite master the magic formula, that will never get off the ground. Even highly-praised franchise entries like Rayman Origins struggle, and publishers like THQ have been threatened with NASDAQ delisting despite enjoying sales that "exceed expectations." Black Rock, creators of critical darlings Pure and Split/Second, were denied sequels by publisher Disney to focus on freemium content and eventually shuttered entirely.
    The most egregious example of old-school thinking is the release of Plants vs. Zombies on PlayStation Vita.  One of the rarer "crossover" successes, the game costs $3 on the iPhone but a whopping  $15 on the Vita for an identical product. Why? Because it's a dedicated gaming device and core gamers are accustomed to paying higher premiums. How long can this madness last?
    It's not just Facebook and smartphones that threaten to steal that audience. The consoles themselves have thriving online stores in Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Network, offering gaming alternatives with high production value and more relaxed pricing. Just look to successes like Battlefield 1943 (over 1MM units sold), Xbox's Castle Crashers (sold 2.6 million), and recent PS3 hit Journey, which quickly became the PSN's fastest-selling title ever.
    If the Old Guard would just drop the charade that $60 is the only feasible price point, they might find an unexpectedly higher volume of purchasers to mitigate the reduced revenue per gamer. I realize that the $60 Call of Duty costs some tens of millions more to develop, market, and distribute than the $1 Angry Birds, but is there really a $59 differential there? Someone wiser than me in economics can surely model up a theory that finds a middle ground.
     
  10. Like
    Bromance got a reaction from cuzco2585 for a article, Why the end of the $60 video game is near.   

    There's a war going on in the video game world, but it's over dollar signs, not virtual land.
    A boxed copy of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, the world's top-selling console game, costs $60.Angry Birds, the world's biggest mobile game franchise, costs $1 for software that you can download in under a minute. The pricing gap between what's traditionally considered the highest-tier premium games and the fast-evolving mobile, tablet, and social gaming market is widening, and it's spelling disaster for countless game makers caught in the middle.
    According to The NPD Group, physical content sales were down 8% in 2011. This year hasn't been a cakewalk either, with sales continuing to slide. Though some of the blame can rightfully be foisted upon the decline of the once-mighty Wii, it's apparent that people aren't buying games like they used to, and the industry is scrambling to figure out why. But most agree that it begins — and likely ends — with the high cost of new games.
    The sentiment that games cost too much is certainly not new. Wired's Chris Kohler recently outlined a list of reasons games cost too much and combated the argument that the used game market can be blamed. Nexon America's CEO Daniel Kim told GamesIndustry International that "Free-to-Play" games (often called "Freemium" because users are incentivized to pay small premiums for more content) are not going away and the traditional model will have to change.
    He's right. $60 has always been an embarrassing, crippling barrier of entry compared to gaming's entertainment peers. A brand new book, DVD, or CD rarely breaks the $20 mark, and even the highest tier Blu-rays cap out at around $30. Why are new games so pricey?
    Publishers have long blamed console games' high price on a plethora of issues. Skyrocketing development costs is a biggie, as is piracy. Most recently, publishers are taking aim at the used game market, charging that the buying and selling of used merchandise is taking cash out of their pockets.But whatever impact on profitability these concerns have, it doesn't change two monumental problems:
    - Psychologically, $60 just sounds expensive. This isn't anecdotal, this is common sense.  Unless you're financially independent, $60 outright repels a vast slice of the entertainment consumer populace that the games industry desperately needs to convert to grow and survive.
    - People are having fun playing more affordable games. The choice and product quality at the bottom end of the pricing scale -- anything under $15 or so -- has grown tremendously in a relatively short period of time. Games like Draw Something, Angry Birds, and Infinity Blade aren't only played by 'casual' gamers.
    That being said, the top perennial franchises like Halo, Elder Scrolls, Battlefield, and Madden aren't going anywhere, at least for a while longer. Games that critics and consumers universally laud as "must-haves" can continue to support this massive premium.  But it's the mid-tier titles, the unestablished IPs, the riskier endeavors, the worthwhile games that don't quite master the magic formula, that will never get off the ground. Even highly-praised franchise entries like Rayman Origins struggle, and publishers like THQ have been threatened with NASDAQ delisting despite enjoying sales that "exceed expectations." Black Rock, creators of critical darlings Pure and Split/Second, were denied sequels by publisher Disney to focus on freemium content and eventually shuttered entirely.
    The most egregious example of old-school thinking is the release of Plants vs. Zombies on PlayStation Vita.  One of the rarer "crossover" successes, the game costs $3 on the iPhone but a whopping  $15 on the Vita for an identical product. Why? Because it's a dedicated gaming device and core gamers are accustomed to paying higher premiums. How long can this madness last?
    It's not just Facebook and smartphones that threaten to steal that audience. The consoles themselves have thriving online stores in Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Network, offering gaming alternatives with high production value and more relaxed pricing. Just look to successes like Battlefield 1943 (over 1MM units sold), Xbox's Castle Crashers (sold 2.6 million), and recent PS3 hit Journey, which quickly became the PSN's fastest-selling title ever.
    If the Old Guard would just drop the charade that $60 is the only feasible price point, they might find an unexpectedly higher volume of purchasers to mitigate the reduced revenue per gamer. I realize that the $60 Call of Duty costs some tens of millions more to develop, market, and distribute than the $1 Angry Birds, but is there really a $59 differential there? Someone wiser than me in economics can surely model up a theory that finds a middle ground.
     
  11. Like
    Bromance got a reaction from cuzco2585 for a article, Why the end of the $60 video game is near.   

    There's a war going on in the video game world, but it's over dollar signs, not virtual land.
    A boxed copy of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, the world's top-selling console game, costs $60.Angry Birds, the world's biggest mobile game franchise, costs $1 for software that you can download in under a minute. The pricing gap between what's traditionally considered the highest-tier premium games and the fast-evolving mobile, tablet, and social gaming market is widening, and it's spelling disaster for countless game makers caught in the middle.
    According to The NPD Group, physical content sales were down 8% in 2011. This year hasn't been a cakewalk either, with sales continuing to slide. Though some of the blame can rightfully be foisted upon the decline of the once-mighty Wii, it's apparent that people aren't buying games like they used to, and the industry is scrambling to figure out why. But most agree that it begins — and likely ends — with the high cost of new games.
    The sentiment that games cost too much is certainly not new. Wired's Chris Kohler recently outlined a list of reasons games cost too much and combated the argument that the used game market can be blamed. Nexon America's CEO Daniel Kim told GamesIndustry International that "Free-to-Play" games (often called "Freemium" because users are incentivized to pay small premiums for more content) are not going away and the traditional model will have to change.
    He's right. $60 has always been an embarrassing, crippling barrier of entry compared to gaming's entertainment peers. A brand new book, DVD, or CD rarely breaks the $20 mark, and even the highest tier Blu-rays cap out at around $30. Why are new games so pricey?
    Publishers have long blamed console games' high price on a plethora of issues. Skyrocketing development costs is a biggie, as is piracy. Most recently, publishers are taking aim at the used game market, charging that the buying and selling of used merchandise is taking cash out of their pockets.But whatever impact on profitability these concerns have, it doesn't change two monumental problems:
    - Psychologically, $60 just sounds expensive. This isn't anecdotal, this is common sense.  Unless you're financially independent, $60 outright repels a vast slice of the entertainment consumer populace that the games industry desperately needs to convert to grow and survive.
    - People are having fun playing more affordable games. The choice and product quality at the bottom end of the pricing scale -- anything under $15 or so -- has grown tremendously in a relatively short period of time. Games like Draw Something, Angry Birds, and Infinity Blade aren't only played by 'casual' gamers.
    That being said, the top perennial franchises like Halo, Elder Scrolls, Battlefield, and Madden aren't going anywhere, at least for a while longer. Games that critics and consumers universally laud as "must-haves" can continue to support this massive premium.  But it's the mid-tier titles, the unestablished IPs, the riskier endeavors, the worthwhile games that don't quite master the magic formula, that will never get off the ground. Even highly-praised franchise entries like Rayman Origins struggle, and publishers like THQ have been threatened with NASDAQ delisting despite enjoying sales that "exceed expectations." Black Rock, creators of critical darlings Pure and Split/Second, were denied sequels by publisher Disney to focus on freemium content and eventually shuttered entirely.
    The most egregious example of old-school thinking is the release of Plants vs. Zombies on PlayStation Vita.  One of the rarer "crossover" successes, the game costs $3 on the iPhone but a whopping  $15 on the Vita for an identical product. Why? Because it's a dedicated gaming device and core gamers are accustomed to paying higher premiums. How long can this madness last?
    It's not just Facebook and smartphones that threaten to steal that audience. The consoles themselves have thriving online stores in Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Network, offering gaming alternatives with high production value and more relaxed pricing. Just look to successes like Battlefield 1943 (over 1MM units sold), Xbox's Castle Crashers (sold 2.6 million), and recent PS3 hit Journey, which quickly became the PSN's fastest-selling title ever.
    If the Old Guard would just drop the charade that $60 is the only feasible price point, they might find an unexpectedly higher volume of purchasers to mitigate the reduced revenue per gamer. I realize that the $60 Call of Duty costs some tens of millions more to develop, market, and distribute than the $1 Angry Birds, but is there really a $59 differential there? Someone wiser than me in economics can surely model up a theory that finds a middle ground.
     
  12. Like
    Bromance got a reaction from cuzco2585 for a article, Why the end of the $60 video game is near.   

    There's a war going on in the video game world, but it's over dollar signs, not virtual land.
    A boxed copy of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, the world's top-selling console game, costs $60.Angry Birds, the world's biggest mobile game franchise, costs $1 for software that you can download in under a minute. The pricing gap between what's traditionally considered the highest-tier premium games and the fast-evolving mobile, tablet, and social gaming market is widening, and it's spelling disaster for countless game makers caught in the middle.
    According to The NPD Group, physical content sales were down 8% in 2011. This year hasn't been a cakewalk either, with sales continuing to slide. Though some of the blame can rightfully be foisted upon the decline of the once-mighty Wii, it's apparent that people aren't buying games like they used to, and the industry is scrambling to figure out why. But most agree that it begins — and likely ends — with the high cost of new games.
    The sentiment that games cost too much is certainly not new. Wired's Chris Kohler recently outlined a list of reasons games cost too much and combated the argument that the used game market can be blamed. Nexon America's CEO Daniel Kim told GamesIndustry International that "Free-to-Play" games (often called "Freemium" because users are incentivized to pay small premiums for more content) are not going away and the traditional model will have to change.
    He's right. $60 has always been an embarrassing, crippling barrier of entry compared to gaming's entertainment peers. A brand new book, DVD, or CD rarely breaks the $20 mark, and even the highest tier Blu-rays cap out at around $30. Why are new games so pricey?
    Publishers have long blamed console games' high price on a plethora of issues. Skyrocketing development costs is a biggie, as is piracy. Most recently, publishers are taking aim at the used game market, charging that the buying and selling of used merchandise is taking cash out of their pockets.But whatever impact on profitability these concerns have, it doesn't change two monumental problems:
    - Psychologically, $60 just sounds expensive. This isn't anecdotal, this is common sense.  Unless you're financially independent, $60 outright repels a vast slice of the entertainment consumer populace that the games industry desperately needs to convert to grow and survive.
    - People are having fun playing more affordable games. The choice and product quality at the bottom end of the pricing scale -- anything under $15 or so -- has grown tremendously in a relatively short period of time. Games like Draw Something, Angry Birds, and Infinity Blade aren't only played by 'casual' gamers.
    That being said, the top perennial franchises like Halo, Elder Scrolls, Battlefield, and Madden aren't going anywhere, at least for a while longer. Games that critics and consumers universally laud as "must-haves" can continue to support this massive premium.  But it's the mid-tier titles, the unestablished IPs, the riskier endeavors, the worthwhile games that don't quite master the magic formula, that will never get off the ground. Even highly-praised franchise entries like Rayman Origins struggle, and publishers like THQ have been threatened with NASDAQ delisting despite enjoying sales that "exceed expectations." Black Rock, creators of critical darlings Pure and Split/Second, were denied sequels by publisher Disney to focus on freemium content and eventually shuttered entirely.
    The most egregious example of old-school thinking is the release of Plants vs. Zombies on PlayStation Vita.  One of the rarer "crossover" successes, the game costs $3 on the iPhone but a whopping  $15 on the Vita for an identical product. Why? Because it's a dedicated gaming device and core gamers are accustomed to paying higher premiums. How long can this madness last?
    It's not just Facebook and smartphones that threaten to steal that audience. The consoles themselves have thriving online stores in Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Network, offering gaming alternatives with high production value and more relaxed pricing. Just look to successes like Battlefield 1943 (over 1MM units sold), Xbox's Castle Crashers (sold 2.6 million), and recent PS3 hit Journey, which quickly became the PSN's fastest-selling title ever.
    If the Old Guard would just drop the charade that $60 is the only feasible price point, they might find an unexpectedly higher volume of purchasers to mitigate the reduced revenue per gamer. I realize that the $60 Call of Duty costs some tens of millions more to develop, market, and distribute than the $1 Angry Birds, but is there really a $59 differential there? Someone wiser than me in economics can surely model up a theory that finds a middle ground.
     
  13. Like
    Bromance reacted to Elegy for a article, Pt. 3 Optimization Maximization Intensification   
    This is part 3 of the trilogy of articles focusing on competitive tweaks. Just kidding about the trilogy part, there will be one or two more articles before I'm finished with this series. If you missed the last two articles, please check them out here (1st) and here (2nd).


    I apologize about the time between these articles. I've been incredibly busy with the merger of my team (pA) and SaGa, and keeping up with the ADK stream.



    You should be familiar with the concept of input lag from my previous article. In the last article I mentioned a few software controlled variables that directly affect input lag and reduce the speed at which updated frames are displayed. One of the overlooked controllables of input lag has directly to do with frames per second (FPS). My philosophy on FPS is quite simple, "the more the merrier." Now the simple solution to increasing FPS would be to go out and buy a better computer, while this solution is effective it may not be necessary or budget friendly. The cheaper solution is to change graphics settings to limit the processing load on your computer.



    Before we get more into FPS let me talk about monitors briefly (did i really say briefly? lol). If you're in the market for a new monitor you are going to want to read this (if you just bought one you might hate me). Modern monitors (mostly LCD) are entirely digital, therefore there is digital processing of each frame. This digital processing takes small amounts of time, and adds to the total amount of input lag in your setup. Note that LCD "response time" is different than monitor input lag, monitor input lag is the sum of LCD "response time" and digital processing time. CRT monitors are analog and have no pixel response time, no digital processing, and as a result no input lag. CRT monitors serve as useful tools to measure the input lag of LCD's. Compared to CRTs most LCD monitors display less than 2 frames (~33 ms) of input lag (remember? each frame is 16.66 ms for a 60hz monitor). There are some monitors however that demonstrate very high input lag (above 33ms / above 2 frames). If you're a casual gamer and haven't had any problems with input lag then keep doing what you're doing. But if you are the hardcore type looking to improve your game anyway possible you will want to investigate the input lag of your current model monitor (a google search is a good place to start).


    One of the best ways to reduce input lag (by 8.33 ms) and improve image fluidity is to invest in a 120hz monitor. Most monitors are 60 hz, meaning they display 60 frames per a second (a frame every 16.66 ms). 60hz is more than adequate for watching movies, but in high speed first person shooter games it is definitely a disadvantage when compared to 120hz. I personally bought a Benq XL2420T, it's a 120hz monitor specifically designed for gaming. It has an "instant mode" to reduce digital processing and display the image as quickly as possible. If you're in the market for a monitor both the XL2410 and XL2420 are great (they aren't the best image, but certainly they are among the fastest), and are among a small amount of monitors specificly designed for gaming. The combination of a low input lag display and 120hz capability will give any player a serious advantage in terms of responsiveness.


    This link is a great resource for finding sub 1 frame (less than 16.66 ms) input lag monitors as well as information about input lag.




    adkgamers.com team page that will be updated soon. And don’t forget the ADK live streams- Elegy, 90N1NE, Dream. Let me know if you have question or add me on battlelog if you want to frag some time (Elegy-fL).

    Till next time,

    Sam "Elegy" Wright from team fLatline signing off.
  14. Like
    Bromance reacted to AOBLXIX for a article, BF3 Battlelog Downtime - 2 am Pacific 4/10   
    Yet another "Battlelog" update where you won't be able to connect to servers or play anything for all PC users. Why can't they give us something that will allow us to join servers even without battlelog! Come EA/DICE. . you're doing all these things for "Battlelog" since it's the llatest and greatest in gaming, yet you're slacking on so many other things!!

    https://getsatisfact...s_entire_server


    It's getting quite frustrating with everything that EA has done the past few weeks which is causing all of these server issues. If there is no update for servers, let people continue to play! Don't punish server owners and players because the best technology in the world needs an update which is going to cause more problems in the long run. (The scoreboards that allow you to see the exact tickets left and score for every player throughout the game) Your servers can't handle much as it is, it seems. . adding this will be making things worse.
  15. Like
    Bromance reacted to AOBLXIX for a article, fLatline emerges as one!   
    After discussions and talks between the two competitive teams, they have decided to join as one.    But the decisions weren't done there.     They now had to decided what to name themselves since they were both giving up their competitive names.
     
     
    This was probably the hardest part of everything that went on.    It was actually easier to talk to all of the new members about expectations and what will be going on, than it was for them to pick out a name.     But after much debate over the name and the tag, they decided to come up with fLatline (-fL)
     
     
    They chose the name fLatline, as that is what they will be doing to their competition when they enter into their scrims and matches.   They wanted a name that was straight and to the point, and everyone knew what it meant.    All the guys at fLatline seem to be excited for this new change and are already looking for some tournaments to enter. 
     
    Some of you might be asking, "Well what about the 4 v 4 teams that they already have"  Those teams won't be changing, they will just all be under one name now.   "A Different Kind - fLatline (Name Here)"   Where (Name Here) will most likely be some sort of animal.     A lot of competitive groups that have multiple teams in one tournament will often use colors to identify each team.   Flat Line wants to be different, and I think it's a great idea and something that everyone will get a kick out of. 
     
     
    With all this being said, expect even better things to come from this group of guys.   There will be even more articles, streaming, videos and entries into tournaments.     So make sure you let everybody know about this great news, and don't forget to stay up to date on the latest and greatest with fLatline. 
×

Important Information

This website uses cookies to provide the best experience possible. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use