X_Hamilton_X

First my "too many" statement comes from observation from several forums on the internet, negative statements from both 1Up and OXM about the price and the fact that it divides the community (I'm assuming the negative statements will dissuade a number of people from buying the DLC), my own friends list of once GRAW players, and the simple logic that many people will not want to pay another $15 for a game they bought for $60 just a few months ago. This isn't a MMORPG. Secondly, your taking things out of context regarding the division of the community. There's no arguing that the community has been divided. It has. Either you have DLC or you don't and if you don't then you can't play with those who do if the host has DLC. Thus you can only play with those who don't have it if you don't. The community is split. The last part about who has Live, Gold, the first DLC, etc. is just an observation of the pool of people Ubi can expect to pull from to buy future DLC's. It will get smaller and smaller with each new DLC unless Ubi does something to address the problem. I simply don't think Ubi will offer new premium DLC unless it can answer this problem or without charging you an arm and a kidney for it.

I'm not saying "bad". I'm saying lots of people aren't buying it compared to those who bought the game off the shelf. 1. Not everyone has Live to buy the DLC in the first place. 2. Those who do may not have the Gold membership to play online. 3. Those who have Gold and still have GRAW (some will have traded it in by now) may not want the DLC for their own reasons. 4. The bad press as evidenced by 1Up Yours and OXM's podcasts (and possibly future print media) will drive away some. 5. Most (not all) comments posted on various boards across the internet are not encouraging. In other words, the potential pool of DLC customers is getting smaller and smaller and the way Ubi designed the game futher decreases the chances people will buy it knowing that some of their friends won't and won't be able to play with them.

I don't think there will be anymore DLC we have to pay for until GRAW 2 comes out so you can forget about Chapter 3. Too many people are not buying the present DLC. If they put out another DLC and charge for it, more people will not buy it. Think about it: why would anyone buy the 2nd DLC but not the first? If you have to have ALL the maps to play with your friends it gets really confusing. You could end up with: 1. Those with all maps 2. Those with just the first DLC 3. Those with just the 2nd DLC 4. Those with only the original maps The current DLC divided the community in half and prevented many from playing with their friends. If they put out another premium DLC it will quarter the community, making finding games even more difficult. I don't see Ubi doing this. They've created a system than makes future purchases of DLC much less likely. I suspect Ubi knows it and will try to suck as much money (1200 points a pop) as it can from this DLC and then either: 1. Not offer future DLC 2. Offer only free DLC (prob. only once to try to redeem itself in the community) 3. Put out an "expansion pack" disk with all of the current DLC and some new stuff, sort of like GR: Island Thunder or GR2: Summit Strike. The expansion pack will fix the bugs still in GRAW, much like GR2:SS fixed bugs in GR2 that were never addressed. I'd expect the expansion pack to hit sometime between February and April next year and then GRAW 2 to be announced at E3 2007 for a fall release. However, there is one more possibility: Ubi might decide that enough people bought the DLC for 1200 points that a new DLC is justified, albeit at a higher price to support the smaller customer base. In other words, you might expect to pay 1600 points for "Chapter 3", 2000 points for Chapter 4, etc. Offering Chapter 3 for less than 1200 would be pretty much admitting they gouged the community and would prove the excuse of "high development costs" to justify 1200 points to be wrong.

To each his own. It's not worth my $15, both as a financial matter and as a matter of principle. I don't want to pay for something I don't use. I don't play coop so I don't want to pay for it. I also don't care much for the "relit" maps. Ditto guns and skins that are mainly for looks and of little practical value. I also don't want to encourage Ubi to further divide the community. This DLC prevents friends who have the DLC from hosting those who don't. Ubi/RSE built this game this way either purposely to try to force the community into buying expensive DLC or through ineptitude. Either way, I will not encourage them to do this again by buying the DLC.

Whatever happened to this report?

Hmmm . . . the 31st is a Friday. Normally, when a company says the release date is "X" then that's the day the game ships and it hits the retailer shelves the following day, in this case Saturday. Saturday releases do happen, especially with Nintendo products, but they are extremely rare. Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday are the most common days for a release followed by Friday. I'm still skeptical.

Big already posted what I would have said to the above. To add a bit more fuel to the fire, The release date that Gamestop shows for the game is March 1. The same date as Gears of War and a few other games I seriously doubt will make it in March. March 1 (or any month + 1) is used as a place holder by Gamestop when companies have not told them of a specific release date. From years of past experience, these dates slide backwards 99% of the time. Now maybe the game will release in March and Ubi/RSE just haven't pinned an exact day due to playtesting and production issues. Perhaps. But just don't be too terribly surprised if the game doesn't see store shelves in March. It's been delayed twice already, first as a launch title then as a February release. Holding it until April-June won't cost Ubi any money as there will be more 360 owners out there by then to buy the game. If Ubi knows that M$ will have a significant number of more 360's available for purchase/already installed by a date later than March then it is in Ubi's interest to hold the game. If they release it early it will be stale and used copies will be available by the time a significantly greater number of people own a 360.

Actually, you might have even more time to work on it if the Quality Assurance/Playtesting staff are the same and the resources/time are consistent with what was given to GR2. If they miss the bugs like those in GR2 (and keep in mind this is a new system and Live network) they'll be working another 3 months or so on a patch once the game is released. You can shoot for the final version's release. Sorry, couldn't resist. That's still a sore point with me.

http://www.ubi.com/US/Games/Info.aspx?pId=3817 Maybe but with the change in release date on Ubi's own site I suspect they unstickied it because they knew February wasn't going to see GR3. It makes sense to take down that sticky if the date is going to change. Now let's see if it slips further. March is better than Feb. from a sales standpoint but April is better still and May/June isn't out of the question either. I do know that the game had better come out flawless as far as online glitches go with all of these delays. It will be unforgiveable if the Red X of Death, or something similar, make another appearance.

So whatever happened to the interview? I thought it would be out by last weekend.

So why was it banned? Is that just hype or what?

Something else happened today to make me suspect February isn't going to see GR3: Ubi unstickied a thread over in its GR3 Console forum that stated the game was delayed until February. Why unsticky a thread if the date is still February, esp. when no other thread replaced it? This doesn't bode well.

Day Docks was a very small map, about the size of Outpost in GR2:SS. The gameplay lent itself towards assault rifles instead of sniper rifles due to the limited size and obstucted view caused by crates, train cars, buildings, etc. Night Docks was larger and, despite having crates, train cars, and buildings, was more open and had a crane tower that called for at least one sniper (preferably with an M98). The tower overlooked some of the spawns on both sides. Night Docks was also a mission level in the single player game and had a small ship you could board, a large ship you couldn't, and a submarine pen. Both maps had buildings you could enter. Day docks had just one ship you could board and did not appear in the single player game.

Okay, so what was your impression of Drydocks? Is it small like Day Docks or larger and more open like Night Docks? Is Drydocks the rumored homage to Night Docks?

I noticed BF2:MC on the Xbox does something similar. Whenever you jump in a helicopter a new music track starts playing that's pretty cool. It's not too overpowering and you only notice as the helicopter is taking off and then it either fades away or I forget about it due to the action.