The Division (Tom Clancy's) - Catch All

It's my list and Destiny/The Witcher 3 can stay the hell off

Actually I've got a separate list for TW3: games most likely to get me kicked off the forum. >:(

I've got a PC only friend who thinks this looks awesome. I guess I should tell him about the petition.

I really want to see more in-game footage. They have some super hot stuff here, but there have been tons of hot E3 demos that didn't make awesome games.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

I've got a PC only friend who thinks this looks awesome. I guess I should tell him about the petition.

So am I a curmudgeon for finding this "petition" thing offensive? Ubi is using it as a marketing ploy.

You know what? Just release it. You have marketing folks to tell you if it's a good idea or not. There's no way they would take petition numbers as pre-order numbers. It's clearly in their favor to release on PC because the install base is so huge.

Does this bother anyone else? I'm ok being the only person living in my shack in the woods with tinfoil on my head.

oilypenguin wrote:
Fedaykin98 wrote:

I've got a PC only friend who thinks this looks awesome. I guess I should tell him about the petition.

So am I a curmudgeon for finding this "petition" thing offensive? Ubi is using it as a marketing ploy.

You know what? Just release it. You have marketing folks to tell you if it's a good idea or not. There's no way they would take petition numbers as pre-order numbers. It's clearly in their favor to release on PC because the install base is so huge.

Does this bother anyone else? I'm ok being the only person living in my shack in the woods with tinfoil on my head.

Agreed. Possibly the only thing it's going to alter is what priority they put on the port.

Oily - I agree with you; I've never heard of this, and it seems unnecessary for a game with these kinds of production values, as well as the hype it's getting.

Then again, RDR never got a PC version, so apparently publishers do need to be told what to do?

Fedaykin98 wrote:

Oily - I agree with you; I've never heard of this, and it seems unnecessary for a game with these kinds of production values, as well as the hype it's getting.

Then again, RDR never got a PC version, so apparently publishers do need to be told what to do?

Rockstar pretty (in)famously march to the beat of their own drum. They don't go to E3, and as far as I can remember, they don't put out demos for their games either.

SallyNasty wrote:

Ahh - was a bit confused. I thought it was an SP with MP backing. Watched the trailer while trying to get a baby to take a bottle.

Scratched wrote:
Happy Dave wrote:

So, it's a console MMORPGer? yes?

I'm guessing lots of instanced areas.

Adam Sessler's interview with one of the developers addresses both of these bolded parts. Specifically, they will try to match you based on player skill/availabilty (he even mentions players with babies!) and that the experience is going to be like Destiny where you seamlessly go in and out of private and public areas of the map.

Skip to 6:30 for the relevant matchmaking comments.

Most wrote:

I thought it was a single player game at first and my first thought was: "that's a really impressive voice-work there".
I guess I`m sick of all the B-actors doing the gravel voice routine and Putting Grand Emotionz in their voices.

Truer words have not been said.

It's always make me laugh frown when a dev creates an awesome, believable world that is present-day authentic and then goes on to populate it with silly comic-book action hero script writing and voice acting, replete with tone-deaf bravado and numbing urgency. It completely kills the world building for me.

....

So what is the viability of playing this game solo, Lone Wolf style?

Love everything I'm seeing, but I'm just not into online squad gameplay. I played both Borderlands games solo and completely loved them.

Wonder if I'd get ripped to shreds trying to go it alone.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

His interview addresses nursing infants? :shock:

nel e nel wrote:

Skip to 6:30 for the relevant matchmaking comments.

Fedaykin98 wrote:

Oily - I agree with you; I've never heard of this, and it seems unnecessary for a game with these kinds of production values, as well as the hype it's getting.

Then again, RDR never got a PC version, so apparently publishers do need to be told what to do?

Well, it's a matter of timing and architecture. RDR never got a PC version because they needed to do a ton of work and when they ran the numbers, it wasn't worth it (and it made me sad). But the timing of RDR was smack in the middle on a console generation, there was a huge install base for the console game.

The Division is coming out in the first year of new consoles, the install base will be extremely tiny compared to the number of PC users out there. That alone should be enough but that's compounded by the fact that, by all accounts, porting to PC is a much easier process than it was.

I was trying to type a third paragraph here and everything was just coming out so... angry =) I guess I'm really bothered by this.

Well, regardless, they're sure to put it out on PC, patronizing petition or not. I'll stop shaking my cane at the kids as they walk by. $50 says there are some Ubisoft execs patting themselves on the back and excitedly speaking in their outrageous accents for taking this "viral."

Asses.

Sounds great!

Edit: Seamless transitions from single to multiplayer are the future, imho. Tons of games have had drop-in co-op, and Dark Souls has drop-in murder you, but we need to go deeper!

nel e nel wrote:
Fedaykin98 wrote:

His interview addresses nursing infants? :shock:

nel e nel wrote:

Skip to 6:30 for the relevant matchmaking comments.

Damn it you caught me before my ninja edit! You got me, I skimmed!

oilypenguin wrote:
Fedaykin98 wrote:

Oily - I agree with you; I've never heard of this, and it seems unnecessary for a game with these kinds of production values, as well as the hype it's getting.

Then again, RDR never got a PC version, so apparently publishers do need to be told what to do?

Well, it's a matter of timing and architecture. RDR never got a PC version because they needed to do a ton of work and when they ran the numbers, it wasn't worth it (and it made me sad). But the timing of RDR was smack in the middle on a console generation, there was a huge install base for the console game.

The Division is coming out in the first year of new consoles, the install base will be extremely tiny compared to the number of PC users out there. That alone should be enough but that's compounded by the fact that, by all accounts, porting to PC is a much easier process than it was.

I was trying to type a third paragraph here and everything was just coming out so... angry =) I guess I'm really bothered by this.

Well, regardless, they're sure to put it out on PC, patronizing petition or not. I'll stop shaking my cane at the kids as they walk by. $50 says there are some Ubisoft execs patting themselves on the back and excitedly speaking in their outrageous accents for taking this "viral."

Asses.

It's going to be very interesting to see the amount of developers saying something to the tune of "We would love to, but PC is just too different" over the next few years. Ironically enough, if a developer just comes out and says "We're not interested in PC" I'm happy with that too, it's when there's a paper thin excuse that doesn't hold water that it's annoying.

Higgledy wrote:

The only thing that gives me pause is that there may be squads who spend all their time waiting for others to acquire loot and then swoop in and take it off them. If I'm with a GWJ group fine but with randoms it would be a pain. We don't know precisely how it's going to work but if it had the DayZ 'survival of the fittest' feel I'd have to give it a pass (which would kill me.)

By contrast - I think that would be half the fun for me. I'm drawn to game worlds where anything goes - it's why EVE Online ate half my life.

Doesn't that come down to picking the right kind of game for you? If you prefer a singleplayer game, or a multiplayer game without loss, those games will still exist. Ubi/Massive seem to think there is some value in having longer-term stakes to an online PvP game where you can lose things.

The only thing that gives me pause is that there may be squads who spend all their time waiting for others to acquire loot and then swoop in and take it off them. If I'm with a GWJ group fine but with randoms it would be a pain. We don't know precisely how it's going to work but if it had the DayZ 'survival of the fittest' feel I'd have to give it a pass.

Edit: I guess people who consider the ramifications of nursing babies (just watched the video) might not just throw everyone into the game and let them fight it out. Great video. Good to have more details.

Happy Dave wrote:

By contrast - I think that would be half the fun for me. I'm drawn to game worlds where anything goes - it's why EVE Online ate half my life.

Scratched wrote:

Doesn't that come down to picking the right kind of game for you? If you prefer a singleplayer game, or a multiplayer game without loss, those games will still exist. Ubi/Massive seem to think there is some value in having longer-term stakes to an online PvP game where you can lose things.

Yeah fine. Clearly there is a demand for those kinds of games and it should be catered for. It's just that The Division is by far my favourite game world of E3 and it would kill me to find out it wasn't for me.

Happy Dave wrote:
Higgledy wrote:

The only thing that gives me pause is that there may be squads who spend all their time waiting for others to acquire loot and then swoop in and take it off them. If I'm with a GWJ group fine but with randoms it would be a pain. We don't know precisely how it's going to work but if it had the DayZ 'survival of the fittest' feel I'd have to give it a pass (which would kill me.)

By contrast - I think that would be half the fun for me. I'm drawn to game worlds where anything goes - it's why EVE Online ate half my life.

I actually sort of hope they find a way to prevent too much abuse of new players. Maybe make the first several hours as SP or coop only.

I suspect there will be portions of the game where it's just a 4 man co-op team vs AI and that the entire world isn't open to random PvP. But we certainly have plenty of time to find out.

And then there is CDPR, who will likely treat PC as their home platform forever. It's another reason I'm a fan for life - I'm just glad they make some of the best games on the market!

That said, I'll probably buy The Division on PS4 unless the PC contingent is overwhelming. I am very much looking forward to trying out the whole 'play with others over the internet' fad. The match making system described in the video is an evolution that almost guarantees I'll give it a shot.

PC version announced.

Looks like a day one perch for me.

Yeah, The Division was going to be a big reason for me to get a next gen console. Will be nicer to run it on my PC.

Nice! Although it's making me consider more and more whether I should drop my PS4 preorder or not.

FSeven wrote:

Nice! Although it's making me consider more and more whether I should drop my PS4 preorder or not.

Do it!

Gumbie wrote:

PC version announced.

Looks like a day one perch for me.

same!

ranalin wrote:
Gumbie wrote:

PC version announced.

Looks like a day one perch for me.

same!

Ditto.

Also, YOU'RE WELCOME. Clearly Ubi listened to me:

oilypenguin on June 6th wrote:

But no PC version means I'm out. Like, unequivocally. Even if I do pick up a next gen console, %90 of my game time is still on PC. I hope it's just a timed exclusive if it is one.

In. Day 1.

Ok, I guess I'm in.

Haha awesome, totally called it. Honest. Probable not a day one perch but definitely will keep looking for this.

Hm not sure how I feel about the tablet thing. Especial in PvP, as that could wind up as a big advantage...