You guys asked for this to be ported to PC

[DRSView]

... and I hope you all plan on buying it. I'm seeing too many "Any reason to buy this?" "OMG WHY DO THEY KEEP MILKING THIS GAME". Seriously, we all asked for this on PC. So ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ buy it.

[C0untzer0]

Автор сообщения: -3xA'Lu©κy

Gender was always an option that should've been included in Fable 1 but I think many devs back then thought gamers were primarily male or didn't see the point (at the time, these held more weight).

Funny, my wife played it more than I did (we still have that ol' Xbox with her good and evil chars saved on it...)

[-3xA'Lu©κy the disappearing act]

Автор сообщения: C0untzer0

Автор сообщения: -3xA'Lu©κy

The one thing I'm dead against though is try games for a weekend or limited time... whatever (can't think of the name). A person will be done with the game in a day and not want to play and it's very bad for the gaming industry. Granted, games shouldn't be that quick to be completed but some won't buy it, review it or encourage friends if they possibly get the chance to play the bulk of a game. A demo shows just enough whilst leaving the player begging for more (unfortunately the best level of the game usually).

Unless the game is heavily Multiplayer-oriented. If you get somebody hooked on Payday or *Ptui* COD for example, they'll pony up to keep on with the thrill ride.

Absolutely agree there. The Payday model regarding DLC (other people have DLC but if you join them you can play DLC but not host it) is also a fantastic model other devs should follow suit.

Haven't seen anyone else attempt that.

[-3xA'Lu©κy the disappearing act]

Автор сообщения: C0untzer0

Автор сообщения: -3xA'Lu©κy

Gender was always an option that should've been included in Fable 1 but I think many devs back then thought gamers were primarily male or didn't see the point (at the time, these held more weight).

Funny, my wife played it more than I did (we still have that ol' Xbox with her good and evil chars saved on it...)

Heresey I say! But I can see Fable being more of a girl game too.

[-3xA'Lu©κy the disappearing act]

Автор сообщения: Rufflepaws

Автор сообщения: -3xA'Lu©κy

I didn't think Fable was overhyped. Then again, overhpyed for me is the level of hype shown around Skyrim's release.

Gender was always an option that should've been included in Fable 1 but I think many devs back then thought gamers were primarily male or didn't see the point (at the time, these held more weight).

Oh boy, the original ambitions were huge, then later came a list of cancled "features". lol

Yet again true. Made for a great laugh though :)

[ZAToM]

wtf i want fable 3 on steam :( why i can buy stupid dvd version but i want steam version omg

[-3xA'Lu©κy the disappearing act]

Автор сообщения: ZAToM

wtf i want fable 3 on steam :( why i can buy stupid dvd version but i want steam version omg

The Steam version has nothing special, in fact, it sucks more because you need Steam + GFWL in order for it to run.

[OmniNegro]

Автор сообщения: -3xA'Lu©κy

Автор сообщения: ZAToM

wtf i want fable 3 on steam :( why i can buy stupid dvd version but i want steam version omg

The Steam version has nothing special, in fact, it sucks more because you need Steam + GFWL in order for it to run.

I thought GFWL was entirely dead. I could have sworn all the servers they had delivering DLC and such were actually shut off, meaning Fable 3 is only playable without them.

[Jinette Rufflepaws]

Автор сообщения: OmniNegro

Автор сообщения: -3xA'Lu©κy

The Steam version has nothing special, in fact, it sucks more because you need Steam + GFWL in order for it to run.

I thought GFWL was entirely dead. I could have sworn all the servers they had delivering DLC and such were actually shut off, meaning Fable 3 is only playable without them.

It is shut down, but it doesn't remove the PITA GFWL system still in the game.

[-3xA'Lu©κy the disappearing act]

Автор сообщения: OmniNegro

Автор сообщения: -3xA'Lu©κy

The Steam version has nothing special, in fact, it sucks more because you need Steam + GFWL in order for it to run.

I thought GFWL was entirely dead. I could have sworn all the servers they had delivering DLC and such were actually shut off, meaning Fable 3 is only playable without them.

GFWL is dead but games which have not been updated since work differently for a lot of people.

I've heard of people having issues and needing to reinstall/use an older version of GFWL to even get it running (this seems to be commonplace with a lot of old GFWL games that have not yet gone to Steamworks). I've even had to reinstall GFWL myself to play it recently. People can't even use their Fable 3 DLC they bought from GFWL and corrupt saves have occured for a few since GFWL went down -- like you said.

I swear there may be a GFWL disabler for this game though (which I recall using last time). Anyway; Steam version or not - I own Fable 3 on Steam and it'd be easier just to have the non-Steam version in the end. I think the Steam version's become rare.

[Jinette Rufflepaws]

Автор сообщения: -3xA'Lu©κy

Автор сообщения: OmniNegro

I thought GFWL was entirely dead. I could have sworn all the servers they had delivering DLC and such were actually shut off, meaning Fable 3 is only playable without them.

GFWL is dead but games which have not been updated since work differently for a lot of people.

I've heard of people having issues and needing to reinstall/use an older version of GFWL to even get it running (this seems to be commonplace with a lot of old GFWL games that have not yet gone to Steamworks). I've even had to reinstall GFWL myself to play it recently. People can't even use their Fable 3 DLC they bought from GFWL and corrupt saves have occured for a few since GFWL went down -- like you said.

I swear there may be a GFWL disabler for this game though (which I recall using last time). Anyway; Steam version or not - I own Fable 3 on Steam and it'd be easier just to have the non-Steam version in the end. I think the Steam version's become rare.

Funnily enough, according to Wikipedia it is still "active" and Microsoft denied closing. lol

[Ryukden]

Автор сообщения: -3xA'Lu©κy

Автор сообщения: OmniNegro

I thought GFWL was entirely dead. I could have sworn all the servers they had delivering DLC and such were actually shut off, meaning Fable 3 is only playable without them.

GFWL is dead but games which have not been updated since work differently for a lot of people.

I've heard of people having issues and needing to reinstall/use an older version of GFWL to even get it running (this seems to be commonplace with a lot of old GFWL games that have not yet gone to Steamworks). I've even had to reinstall GFWL myself to play it recently. People can't even use their Fable 3 DLC they bought from GFWL and corrupt saves have occured for a few since GFWL went down -- like you said.

I swear there may be a GFWL disabler for this game though (which I recall using last time). Anyway; Steam version or not - I own Fable 3 on Steam and it'd be easier just to have the non-Steam version in the end. I think the Steam version's become rare.

This is why DRM is a bad thing. It relies on using something that might not always be there, and the only people it affect are those who paid money for the thing. Pirates don't care about the drm, they just bypass it. The only people hurt by drm are paying customers and that's pretty messed up. GOG all the way.

[-3xA'Lu©κy the disappearing act]

Автор сообщения: Foяeš†

Автор сообщения: -3xA'Lu©κy

GFWL is dead but games which have not been updated since work differently for a lot of people.

I've heard of people having issues and needing to reinstall/use an older version of GFWL to even get it running (this seems to be commonplace with a lot of old GFWL games that have not yet gone to Steamworks). I've even had to reinstall GFWL myself to play it recently. People can't even use their Fable 3 DLC they bought from GFWL and corrupt saves have occured for a few since GFWL went down -- like you said.

I swear there may be a GFWL disabler for this game though (which I recall using last time). Anyway; Steam version or not - I own Fable 3 on Steam and it'd be easier just to have the non-Steam version in the end. I think the Steam version's become rare.

This is why DRM is a bad thing. It relies on using something that might not always be there, and the only people it affect are those who paid money for the thing. Pirates don't care about the drm, they just bypass it. The only people hurt by drm are paying customers and that's pretty messed up. GOG all the way.

I agree with your sentiment but Steam's not that bad. I'd prefer GOG like you but GOG makes it too easy to pirate I think. That being said: I have a ginormous list of games on GOG that I buy full-price half the time because I love the bonus content and the simplistic nature of it all.

Steam's convenient, has a good rep. among consumers and is by far where a big portion of PC gamers are found.

[-3xA'Lu©κy the disappearing act]

Автор сообщения: Rufflepaws

Автор сообщения: -3xA'Lu©κy

GFWL is dead but games which have not been updated since work differently for a lot of people.

I've heard of people having issues and needing to reinstall/use an older version of GFWL to even get it running (this seems to be commonplace with a lot of old GFWL games that have not yet gone to Steamworks). I've even had to reinstall GFWL myself to play it recently. People can't even use their Fable 3 DLC they bought from GFWL and corrupt saves have occured for a few since GFWL went down -- like you said.

I swear there may be a GFWL disabler for this game though (which I recall using last time). Anyway; Steam version or not - I own Fable 3 on Steam and it'd be easier just to have the non-Steam version in the end. I think the Steam version's become rare.

Funnily enough, according to Wikipedia it is still "active" and Microsoft denied closing. lol

What a joke. Now we just need UPlay and R* Social Club to die as well.

Origin dying would be a plus (for their technical support on low FPS in BF3: turn off your PC and turn it on again - that's the response they gave me).

[Ryukden]

Автор сообщения: -3xA'Lu©κy

Автор сообщения: Foяeš†

This is why DRM is a bad thing. It relies on using something that might not always be there, and the only people it affect are those who paid money for the thing. Pirates don't care about the drm, they just bypass it. The only people hurt by drm are paying customers and that's pretty messed up. GOG all the way.

I agree with your sentiment but Steam's not that bad. I'd prefer GOG like you but GOG makes it too easy to pirate I think. That being said: I have a ginormous list of games on GOG that I buy full-price half the time because I love the bonus content and the simplistic nature of it all.

Steam's convenient, has a good rep. among consumers and is by far where a big portion of PC gamers are found.

That's the thing about pirating, only one person has to crack it (sometimes a team), everyone else just downloads it. People will pirate regardless, and they always will. Punishing people that actually pay you money isn't the right way to go about it. As for steam, I did like it until I realized that all these games that i own are limited by the basic fact that I can only play one at a time. If I want to play a game on steam and my son on the upstairs computer wants to play a different one from my catalogue, he can't.

That limitation alone got me to re-think buying things from steam. What if at any given time, on any title you own, you can't run it while running any other game you own? Why when I play fallout: NV am I unable to start Garry's mod on a different PC? Until that gets changed the value of a title from steam is less than the same priced game from somewhere else.

[Ryukden]

Автор сообщения: -3xA'Lu©κy

Автор сообщения: Foяeš†

That's the thing about pirating, only one person has to crack it (sometimes a team), everyone else just downloads it. People will pirate regardless, and they always will. Punishing people that actually pay you money isn't the right way to go about it. As for steam, I did like it until I realized that all these games that i own are limited by the basic fact that I can only play one at a time. If I want to play a game on steam and my son on the upstairs computer wants to play a different one from my catalogue, he can't.

That limitation alone got me to re-think buying things from steam. What if at any given time, on any title you own, you can't run it while running any other game you own? Why when I play fallout: NV am I unable to start Garry's mod on a different PC? Until that gets changed the value of a title from steam is less than the same priced game from somewhere else.

Steam games are usually pretty cheap and when they are on sale I'd grab a whole bunch of them for some friends, even. It's interesting how Steam's influenced my spending methods as such.

I realizing pirates will always pirate regardless but GOG games are so damn easy to copy. Take the .bin files and an .exe - copy and paste - you got the game now. It would really hurt developers, esp. indie, to release on GOG and GOG only. GOG is usually an afterthought and is probably a wiser decision.

Steam games are just as easy. I won't go into details of course, but it's basically the same as GOG at this point. The difference is, in ten years you can still play that GOG game. I have no such reassurances with Steam. I'd pay more for a drm free version just to have the freedom to not have my access tied to the continued existence of a company. I buy my games from GOG, burn them onto a disk. Put them in my case, now I have no one telling me how many activations I have. That I have to sign up on something to play a game I just paid money for. Freedom.