Jump to content
Christmas Period - Codemasters Staff and Support Read more... ×

Platy

Members
  • Content Count

    1,248
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Platy


  1. The only thing I dislike about the driving is the auto-centre, found that very annoying to start with but I've learnt to deal with it now.

    Heists next, then hopefully down the line some DLC map packs. I wouldn't mind travelling to Las Venturas online with friends to do some blackjack and loses some money.

  2. The graphical upgrade is more the little things, puddles, litter, etc, it feels more realistic. The lighting is ace, the draw distance is awesome. Being able to see for miles when in the air, seeing the city in the distance, etc. There's biggest upgrade over oldgen is the amount of traffic and the variety of the vehicles about, such a game changer.

    If you're not going to play online then its probably overpriced, but Rockstar are one of the few companies that are making games right these days so I'm happy to back them.

  3. GTAV looks amazing. First-person mode is pretty sweet, takes a bit of getting used to and its a bit strange playing a GTA game in first person. I have no real complaints now I'm starting to get back into the swing of things, many nights will be lost playing this online.

  4. Platy said:
    The guy who done the investigation has distanced himself from the published report, FIFA have to publish the full, uncensored one. The whole situation is hilarious and a complete joke.
    I thought the guy who did the investigation has said FIFA have published an ''incomplete'' report or something like that ?
    Something like that, don't remember the exact details but I think he claimed that they had left important parts out or something. Either way its a massive embarrassment to FIFA.

  5. Hughesy said:
    Platy said:
    You just have to carefully pick and choose what ones to back. Its like buying any game really.
    It's not just that though, you often end up paying more for the unfinished game than the full release.

    "The report also noted that, on average, Early Access releases on Steam actually cost more than full release games. Walker wrote that Steam hasn't taken any heat for these relatively dismal numbers, and has in fact actually legitimized the idea of paying to beta test games. But it also suggests that it could become an issue if the trend of excessively long Early Access periods, or abandoned Early Access releases, continues."
    I'm failing to see why its a problem? If I personally believe that an idea or a project is great enough for me to put money into it to allow them to develop it then I will do that. Just like its not your choice to buy them.

    If someone pays £30 for an early access game then complains after a few months that its not finished then that person is an idiot. Early Access games are filled with warnings about it still being developed and people fail to understand what that means (DayZ is a prime example of that).

    I have no issue with allowing developers to get extra funding to build a game. Assetto Corsa wouldn't exist without the model. KSP wouldn't exist. Minecraft wouldn't exist. There's lots of very good games that wouldn't have been developed to the extent they are without Early Access.

    Abandoned releases are a worry, excessively long Early Access periods shouldn't be as development of a game is a long process (plus extra funding can open up many new avenues that the developers might not thought possible). Maybe Steam needs to give better warnings and force developers to warn potential customers too, but I think the main problem with Early Access is dumb people who have access to money not understanding that they're buying the game early to help with the development of it not to get the finished game quicker.

  6. I agree with you that an exciting sport is what will bring in young fans. But why is having an exciting sport mutually exclusive? You can aim for making the sport exciting whilst doing more to please the current fans that are watching.

    Making the things I suggest above will please current fans, who will be able to bring more fans in. Social media is just a small part of that, Bernie completely dismissing that shows how clueless he is on the current generation.

    You're speaking like you think social media, etc will bring in new fans. It won't bring in many, but it'll keep the current fans wanting to watch. Having F1 in HD will keep fans who have to pay however much per month to Sky to watch it.

    I think you may have mistaken what Bernie and I had said as ways to attract new fans rather than in the context of keeping the younger fans interested in the sport.

  7. APR193 said:
    Platy said:
    APR193 said:
    To be fair, after reading the quotes he makes some very very good points
    Really? I must have missed them, please point them out to me.
    What's the need to appeal to young people any more than they do? He's completely 100% right about the rolex/sponsor stuff. The companies sponsoring want to make profit, if they don't make profit they don't sponsor anymore, companies not sponsoring means less money for the sport.

    Having massively expensive watches and banks sponsoring F1 doesn't make sense if the audience is young and in 9/10 cases can't afford to buy the sponsors products. I don't think they need to do anymore on social media either. I stopped following all the F1 teams and almost all the drivers ages ago cause I couldn't stand all the constant Q&A's and other junk they spam on there.

    He's also bang on about the small teams being like women with credit cars, and how no-one cared until they went bust in my opinion.

    Why appeal to young people? Because they are the future of the sport? They are the people who are going to be watching it in 5, 10, 15, 20+ years. As usual, Bernie is focused on how he can make money from the sport and that is what's going to damage the sport. This is the big thing that he's forgotten, F1 is a sport as well as a brand. People tune in every week to watch the sport, they don't care about the sponsors. I doubt that the viewing figures would go down if all the cars were blank and the sport was exactly the same.

    F1 needs to do a lot on social media, and on their media in general. They've only just started with HD recently, something that every other sport has been doing for years. They really need to improve their online product, Twitter/Facebook included. They honestly need to produce an online network of some sorts. Some way that fans can watch the archives, etc, for a monthly fee. It obviously would be killed off in the UK because Sky exists. 

    The F1 brand could be so much more, there's 50+ years of the sport that people don't have easy access to. Bernie is just proving he has no clue and would rather satisfy the pockets of his old, rich friends than care about the sport that millions of people enjoy.

    If you truly think that he makes a good point that F1 should aim at old rich people because of who sponsors it then I'm really surprised.

  8. AMS97KRR said:
    Is it really fair to drop KM after 1 season? I'd personally like it if Button went to Williams and KM stayed at McLaren but that is not a realistic thing. 
    McLaren already ditched Perez, KM might be next. Can't imagine young drivers will have too much confidence in McLaren after dropping two young guys in two years.


    Also, is having two drivers over 33 really a great idea? 2 drivers who are only going to get worse in one team. Hmmm. I'd go with KM and FA. Magnussen would really benefit from 2 or so years with Alonso.
    I think its fair because they're dropping him for better drivers. This isn't McLaren bringing in a worse driver who provides them with more money like some moves on the lower end of the grid.

    Having two experienced drivers is a good idea imo as it will allow McLaren and Honda to develop easier. Two years of Alonso/Button developing a car will push the team forward and allow KM to step back into the seat with a car that should be capable of winning races.
×