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.

Oh my. You must never have been over to Ubi.com's Ghost Recon forums.

Oh dear. Did you notice this in the left margin of the preview by Kimi? DETAILED INFO FOR Ghost Recon 3 Release Date: 04/15/2006 # of Players: 16 Looks like February nor March may see GR3. And yes, we want them to get the game right but it's quite likely that if the game is pushed back to April it's at least partly due to sales/profit reasons. The 1st quarter is notoriously bad for sales due the after effects of the Christmas spending frenzy and very few good games get released in the 1st three months of the year.

But did you notice the 60% complete portion? Can a game that's been worked on for this long and now only 60% ready be done by February? You have to wonder if the February date will hold, esp. since February is a slow month for sales given the after-Christmas doldrums.

That link kept giving me an error message but I got to the article by clicking on the previews button from the main page. So, is Dry Docks GR3's version of Night Docks (or maybe even Day Docks) from GR1 that was hinted at?

Okay, I won't be getting a 360 until GR3 comes out so I've got a question and you may not be able to give a final answer right now but we'll see. By February, which ONE of your launch games do you think you would still buy if you had not bought it now? I care little for racing and sports games so I guess that narrows it down to PDX, COD2, Condemned, and Kameo. It's sounding to me like COD2 may not have staying power due to the short single-player game and lag in multi-player. What do you think? I would still say CoD2. Having had an Xbox since day 1, if there is one thing MS does, it is fix issues. Also, though short, Condemned is well worth the experience. Personally, besides Halo 3, I am most anticipating Crackdown. The idea of borrowing DNA from fellow gamers has a most intriguing gameplay element. That and being able to throw a car across the street and crush a mob boss...

Interesting. My Live friends and I have the opposite take. The single-player game doesn't even get played by most of my friends. The MP is what give it replayablity for us. The only single-player game I really cared about was GR1 due to the ability to unlock weapons. RSE took that out though with GR:IT and GR2 and GR2:SS. I doubt it will come back in GR3. They seem to have thought it was a mistake.

I suspect you would have heard about that feature by now if it was there and I doubt there's time to include one if it's not. Maybe GR3.5 or more likely GR4. They didn't have much time to work with the 360 dev kits given the constraints of making a game for launch. Give them another year or two for a map editor. It seems to be a popular feature on Far Cry.

First post at GR.net but I've been on Ubi's forum for a bit and TeamXbox longer. This is in response to both jchung and WhiteKnight77's comments. I bought GR1 when Xbox Live launched back in ’02. I liked both the single-player and multi-player aspects. I esp. liked unlocking better weapons for multi-player with unique characteristics in gameplay, sound, and graphics. The M98 sniper rifle, 7.62 sniper rifle, and 7.62 carbine are just a few examples of favorite guns that performed differently than standard default guns. I thought the challenge of the single-player game was great and I liked flipping from one team member to the next and controlling two teams. I enjoyed the multi-player aspect the most. I liked the maps (esp. Night Docks, Embassy, Airfield, oh heck – nearly all of them – I’m getting nostalgic!) and the frequent one hit kills were a breath of fresh air compared to the 10 to 100 hits some games required to kill an opponent. GR:IT removed the unlocking weapons feature for multi-player but left unlocking more skilled soldiers for the single-player. It also seemed to focus players in on a fewer number of weapons that were worthwhile online, like the one sniper rifle (what was it – SA-90?) and it’s silenced version. Even the M98’s stopping power was decreased and its sound changed for some reason. However, the maps were well done and the online coding was more stable than GR1’s. GR2 really took the heart out of the single-player game. It was sad to see a once great game turned into such a mediocre, action-oriented, 13 year old target audience production. Everyone here knows the flaws in the single-player game so there’s no point rehashing it, other than to point out there was nothing to unlock that affected game play – a big nod toward dumbing down the game there. The multi-player side of the game was superior to GR1 and GR:IT only in graphics (which was a big improvement) and its ability to handle launchables online without crashing/lagging. The weapons however seemed to be all the same in their performance with new skins overlaid. The sound of the weapons was okay but never approached the greatness of GR1. It was fun to be able to tell what sniper rifle an opponent was shooting in GR1 just by the sound. I never experienced anything like that in GR2. The worst aspect of GR2’s multi-player was the hit detection. Countless comedic scenes were played out where two players squared off 10 to 20 feet apart and sprayed bullets at each other to no or little effect. Many times players ran through streams of bullets unscathed like R2-D2 and C-3PO in the first Star Wars movie’s (episode 4) opening scene where the bots crossed a hallway filled with Imperial and Rebel laser fire. Sniper’s packed up their rifles and grabbed assault rifles due to the bullet lag/hit detection issue. GR2 was the game that broke up a 2 year running group of Live friends for me and that’s what I regret the most. We had a solid group on GR1 and GR:IT but the hit detection of GR2 caused 1/2 of the group to move to other games and they never came back out of frustration. They will play with us on Halo 2, Splinter Cell 3, or Battlefield 2 but not GR2 or GR2:SS. They miss the frequent one hit kills of GR1 and GR:IT. And that brings me to GR2:SS. Was there a single-player game? I guess so but I wouldn’t remember. There was no reason to play it knowing it was just like GR2’s action-oriented game with nothing to unlock and little challenge. That was a waste of development money in my opinion. GR2:SS improved the HUD over GR2’s . . . and that’s all I can say about it. Of course, there’s a lot more to be said about the bugs and glitches but I won’t other than to say they seemed to be worst in the first game (GR1, GR2) and less so in the expansion (GR:IT, GR2:SS) and the patches took entirely too long to come out. That does make me worry some for GR3. So, after all of that, I agree with WhiteKnight and jchung about the flaws of the game and the decision to move towards a more inclusive gaming experience at the sacrifice of a more enjoyable and lasting one. It seems like Ubi took the approach of making a deep impact with GR1, attracting a loyal and hardcore audience and then trying to hold that audience while trying to broaden the appeal. It failed to hold the audience it had though. Improving the graphics would have been enough to both broaden the audience and hold the original base but Ubi decided to listen to 13 year olds and magazine reviewers who, by definition, can’t take the time to learn a complex and challenging game well enough to give it a good review. If a game is too difficult for a reviewer to get past the 1st few levels before deadline then the game is flawed to some of them since they consider themselves masters of gaming when they are actually just masters of the same old tired genre of action-oriented, simplistic games. Ditto 13 year olds. I’m getting the impression that with GR3 Ubi may have decided to let Red Storm cater to the hardcore crowd via multi-player while letting another developer cater to the magazine reviewers (who never bother with multi-player anyway) and 13 year olds. That’s a better approach than GR2 but still not as good as GR1. I hope that hit detection will have been addressed in GR3. That alone will sell the game to me and my friends. We can skip the single-player game if we have to. I’m holding out hope that this game turns out well and comments earlier in this thread are making me feel more positive but I won’t be buying GR3 on day 1 due to the bugs of the past in online play. I attended a LAN party for GR2 and thus wasn’t aware of the online issues until I bought the game and then waited several months for a patch. Good luck Red Storm/Ubi, esp. with quality assurance/play testing. No more embarrassing loading/cache bugs either like with GR2:SS!! I’m still having to tell newbies (who don’t know how to use the search feature) on TeamXbox’s forums how to work around that bug that you never patched. Shameful.