Splinter Cell Trilogy

[DreadStunLock]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayman


Rayman is an action video game series developed by Ubisoft, originally under the direction of Michel Ancel.


Sega has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[AgentX_003]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayman


Rayman is an action video game series developed by Ubisoft, originally under the direction of Michel Ancel.


Sega has absolutely nothing to do with it.

hence I said never mind.

[DreadStunLock]

I already posted it, so I did not check.

[puuusianka]

There seems to be some mind shortcut that I seem not to understand... Oh whatever. Why should I care.

[Spekkio]

It would be really awesome if Ubi fixed the myriad of bugs and glitches in the process...

well you're sure being realistic about things aren't you?

I can dream, can't I?

And then of course that 1$ makes a big difference when it comes to mass producing.

I can't tell if you're just stupid or you just can't read. The extra cost of the medium will ultimately be paid by consumers who buy the product, not the company. That is why N64 cartridges were $10-20 more expensive than PSX games.

I have never heard of Microsoft or Sony releasing full trilogies all for digital download in one package.  That's quite a big download.

Welcome to 2011. There's this thing called broadband internet. It was invented by Al Gore.

For fuck's sake really?  Not even coop.  Wow.  I don't really know why they feel the need to distance themselves from the best thing they have made to date (SvM).  The campaigns are all well and good, but the multiplayer is what had the staying power for me.

Is it really that suprising? Ubisoft sold millions of copies of SC, SCPT, and SCCT, but only hundreds of people played multiplayer. If you assume that people who play multiplayer bought the game only for that portion of the game (a generous assumption, mind you), then that accounts for less than 1% of their overall profits. Meanwhile, I'm fairly sure that developing or porting multiplayer was more than 1% of the development cost for SCPT and SCCT.

I bet that Ubi wants to keep the price point as low as possible for a games that are 6-10 years old, since there is a limit to what most people will pay to purchase a re-release. They probably decided that adding a multiplayer that is only attractive to a tiny fraction of potential buyers wasn't worth it. It's disappointing to me as someone who enjoys the MP, but I can't say I blame them from an economic standpoint.

The fact that this doesn't include SvM or Coop (which adds up to 3 parts of the first three games, basically one half)... confirms that this is nothing more than a cash grab.

Every game ever produced is a cash grab. Gaming companies exist to make money. They accomplish that by providing consumers with entertainment. The SC trilogy offers people the opportunity to revisit the first 3 SC games if they didn't have an Xbox or an expensive PC. Personally, I can't even play SCCT anymore because their gay anti-piracy program isn't compatible with Windows 7.

The singleplayer campaigns are worth it, anyway, and being able to sit on my couch and enjoy them on a 50" HDTV with 5.1 surround sound will beat the shit out of playing it on my 17" CRT monitor, sitting in a desk chair wearing shitty $15 headphones any day.

[Farley4Fan]

Ubi is just going forward man. It makes money on AC now and so SC has to be grounded. Just the same thing happened to Rayman...

But I don't see how they are going forward when they have remade CT a whopping 3 times now (twice on DS and once more with this trilogy).  Same thing with the way the ported Rayman 2 to every device known to man.  Same with the PoP trilogy and Beyond Good and Evil HD.  Why ignore SvM? 

[Cronky]

...being able to sit on my couch and enjoy them on a 50" HDTV with 5.1 surround sound will beat the shit out of playing it on my 17" CRT monitor, sitting in a desk chair wearing shitty $15 headphones any day.

Granted you were talking about replaying the single player campaigns of SC easily... I found this line funny considering you're on a forum waiting for a revitalized version of the Multiplayer (graphically and compatibility-wise).

...You might want to upgrade, or hook your computer up to that TV since it sounds like it's from this century (whereas your computer, or at least your monitor, does not).

[Spekkio]

My laptop is 3 years old.

I could hook my PC up to my TV, but I still can't use a keyboard and mouse comfortably on my couch using my coffee table. And I have better things to spend money on than sinking $2k into a gaming PC when I could (and did) buy a more diverse PS3 for $400.

I was referring to the PC I used to originally play the SC trilogy. In 2005, 50" HDTV's were prohibitively expensive, and CRT monitors still outnumbered LCD's.

[zglina]

http://playfront.de/neue-bilder-zu-splinter-cell-hd/ - screens from sc trilogy. Looks rly good ;0

[Cronky]

My laptop is 3 years old.

I could hook my PC up to my TV, but I still can't use a keyboard and mouse comfortably on my couch using my coffee table. And I have better things to spend money on than sinking $2k into a gaming PC when I could (and did) buy a more diverse PS3 for $400.

I was referring to the PC I used to originally play the SC trilogy. In 2005, 50" HDTV's were prohibitively expensive, and CRT monitors still outnumbered LCD's.

I get the comfortableness comment on PC gaming compared to Console, but I never understand why people exaggerate the amount of money it takes to have a powerful computer. This isn't 1990, and I don't think anyone is dumb enough to pay for an Alienware computer. Course, I'm one of those people that paid no more than 600 dollars 3 years ago on my computer and have yet to upgrade it. It has played every game to this day without much (if any) problems at all. If anything, Windows 7 is a bigger problem than any of my hardware.

Plus, I'm no computer-only fanboy, but I think that saying a PS3 has more diverse uses than a PC is pretty subjective. I can't think of much my PS3 can do that my computer can't... other than work... (My PS3 died. Tack 150 dollars to that 400 dollars for me since it was out of warranty). Though I can think of a lot of things the PS3 does that the PC also does, but it's easier with the PS3. Such as playing on a TV, internet, and movies (again, on the TV). Guess it just depends on your perspective.

Again, I was just saying I found it funny that you were talking about old computer stuff on a forum for a game that demands that your computer be at least able to play a somewhat current gen (using that term loosely) game.

This is more off topic than it should be... and I've typed too much... and I don't even have a picture to add in...

[DreadStunLock]

My laptop is 3 years old.

I could hook my PC up to my TV, but I still can't use a keyboard and mouse comfortably on my couch using my coffee table. And I have better things to spend money on than sinking $2k into a gaming PC when I could (and did) buy a more diverse PS3 for $400.

I was referring to the PC I used to originally play the SC trilogy. In 2005, 50" HDTV's were prohibitively expensive, and CRT monitors still outnumbered LCD's.

Diverse? As far as I know, consoles have 0 diversity.

Powerfull PC?

AMD 3.2ghz 955BE

AMD 6990 2gb

8GB Ram

1200w PSU

Iiyama 22'

You can build PC including those components for less than 1300£ with a monitor included, and still have money for a second one.

Now that type of a PC will last you very long and satisfy you alot longer than any console.

[zglina]

http://nexus404.com/Blog/2011/04/08/no-online-multiplayer-in-splinter-cell-hd-trilogy-ubisoft-confirms-multiplayer-modes-have-been-removed-from-splinter-cell-titles-in-the-upcoming-splinter-cell-trilogy-for-ps3/

Splinter Cell Trilogy without versus and coop.Ubi do it again.... Fucking ubi....

[Cronky]

Diverse? As far as I know, consoles have 0 diversity.

You can build PC including those components for less than 1300£ with a monitor included, and still have money for a second one.

Now that type of a PC will last you very long and satisfy you alot longer than any console.

Diversity would be anything that isn't straight playing games (At least that's how I think it's viewed). From Facebook, to Netflix, Internet, to simply playing a DVD. They are diverse machines, some more than others, but again it just depends on which perspective you want to look at it from to really find it's value. (Consider how many things you ACTUALLY do on a computer in a normal day that REQUIRE a computer to do so)

Also while 1300 euros is indeed still less than 2000 US dollars (Little less than 1900), which unless I'm mistaken then Spekkio was talking about US dollars, it does little to disprove the point that Consoles are a better bang for your buck. The only thing I can think of right now really missing from a (stock) Console that a Computer otherwise has is productivity programs, such as Microsoft Office (as an example). If they did, then with the current focus on longer console lives it would make more sense to get a Console than your 1900 dollar computer. Considering even at 600 dollars a console, you'd get 3 WHOLE generations of them for 100 dollars less than that 1 computer.

Plus if we only relied on Console gaming, rather than PC gaming then there would be a better standard of development for games. There would be no shitty PC ports. Only crappy Console games. ;)

...Apple is the Console of PCs... My mind just blew itself and didn't bother to clean up.

Or something like that... It's late. Wanted to reply. Again, too much text. My bad.

They should have revamped SvM cause it would have been cool to play it again. Even if I had to pay 150 dollars to get my PS3 fixed, plus the cost of the Trilogy.

[Farley4Fan]

I can't tell if you're just stupid or you just can't read. The extra cost of the medium will ultimately be paid by consumers who buy the product, not the company. That is why N64 cartridges were $10-20 more expensive than PSX games.

I hadn't thought of that. 

Welcome to 2011. There's this thing called broadband internet. It was invented by Al Gore.

And now apparently Ubi is releasing each individual game on PSN.  Never thought about having separate releases.  They probably recognize that Al Gore's broadband internet isn't fast enough for one big chunk too.  It takes longer to download on consoles, y'know.

Is it really that suprising? Ubisoft sold millions of copies of SC, SCPT, and SCCT, but only hundreds of people played multiplayer. If you assume that people who play multiplayer bought the game only for that portion of the game (a generous assumption, mind you), then that accounts for less than 1% of their overall profits. Meanwhile, I'm fairly sure that developing or porting multiplayer was more than 1% of the development cost for SCPT and SCCT.

Yes.  It is surprising.  Considering how important just HAVING a multiplayer component for your game is these days in order to sell well (unless you are a triple A single player game like ME or TES), I still can't understand why they would take it out when they already have one.  Looking at these new screens released it becomes a bit more clear.  They have done some work with the visuals, more than I originally thought.  Some textures are completely remade.  Those may be indicative of the work they have done with a lot of textures, or they could have been cherry picked just for this batch of screens.  Screens never really sell me anyway.

It's unfortunate that they would not even give it a second chance, as if it was the concept of SvM that made DA's online portion fail so hard, and not their implementation of it.  Who knows?  Maybe it would regain popularity if updated and included in the trilogy.  Much more people at least TRY the online portion these days because of the expansion of the aforementioned Al Gore's fancy internet machine, so why wouldn't it be more popular Spek?

Gaming companies exist to make money. They accomplish that by providing consumers with entertainment. The SC trilogy offers people the opportunity to revisit the first 3 SC games if they didn't have an Xbox or an expensive PC. Personally, I can't even play SCCT anymore because their gay anti-piracy program isn't compatible with Windows 7.

Yes, but only the best companies try to make money and BETTER their games.  Can we at least agree that it's cheap for them to take an old game, remake some textures, remove a metric fuck-ton of features, change the res, and release it for way more money than it would take to buy them all separately today?  Ubi is joining the ranks of activision and EA when it comes to a disinterest in making their products better if they can find other ways to make money.

The singleplayer campaigns are worth it, anyway, and being able to sit on my couch and enjoy them on a 50" HDTV with 5.1 surround sound will beat the shit out of playing it on my 17" CRT monitor, sitting in a desk chair wearing shitty $15 headphones any day.

Spekkio, last night I literally played Crysis 1 on my 50" LCD from my couch with a controller in my hand.  Maybe it's just the way my room is set up that allows for this magical happening.  I'm not criticizing your interest in this game or calling you out for looking forward to it.  After all, I'm a bit interested as well.  That may only be because I'm a huge Splinter Cell fan though. 

I really wonder what the price will be.  Anything over 20 dollars is a complete rip-off.  Also, do we really know why it won't come to 360?  Was there actually an exclusivity deal?  I know you mentioned it but only as a possibility, not as a fact.

[AgentX_003]

MMM ouch : http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/04/07/tom-clancys-splinter-cell-trilogy-coming-to-ps3-in-june-with-3d/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=splinter_cell_040611


says in the comments that there will be no multiplayer or co-op in the HD trilogy , so I guess project stealth is truely the only one hope left.

Now the pressure is on Devs because ubisoft has failed =) =( .