sampson70
Still Mildly Glowing
I'm just wondering,cause FO3 had a much longer time before the price drop. Games like Halo Reach are still like &49.00.
Anyone have idea why New Vegas is already under $20.00?
- Thread starter sampson70
- Start date
Still Mildly Glowing
Quagmire69
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Cause Fallout 3 is better.
Stanislao Moulinsky
Vault Fossil
Quagmire69 said:
If with "better" you mean "made to appeal to the lowest common denonimator" I agree. And probably that's why it already dropped, it's less appealing to the masses. Add the aging graphics and the fact that for a lot of persons NV is just a big expansion and...well...
Alphadrop
A right proper chap.
If it's not percieved as a triple A title and amazing success then most games tend to become cheaper quite quickly.
Heck Dragon Age 2 can already be found for 20 dollars and that's still new.
Heck Dragon Age 2 can already be found for 20 dollars and that's still new.
Briosafreak
Lived Through the Heat Death
sampson70 said:
No it didn't the first deals putting it at 29 and 25 took just another month to show up.
NV sold more on release than F3 but I'm guessing has sold less overall. Just speculation of course. You can check out Major Nelson's "top played" on xbox live statistics:
http://majornelson.com/2011/04/20/live-activity-for-week-of-april-11/
NV has already dipped down to 19th place only 7 months after release, while F3 was still holding a similar rank almost 2 years later:
http://majornelson.com/2010/08/18/live-activity-for-week-of-aug-9/
This is of course with NV having only one DLC (and them coming out slowly) and it competing with a different line-up of titles. But even with NV being fairly good, I haven't had much enthusiasm for it and thus haven't purchased any of the DLC (a sentiment many of my cohorts have echoed). When it came to replaying I found the first 60-70 hours enough and shelved it.
http://majornelson.com/2011/04/20/live-activity-for-week-of-april-11/
NV has already dipped down to 19th place only 7 months after release, while F3 was still holding a similar rank almost 2 years later:
http://majornelson.com/2010/08/18/live-activity-for-week-of-aug-9/
This is of course with NV having only one DLC (and them coming out slowly) and it competing with a different line-up of titles. But even with NV being fairly good, I haven't had much enthusiasm for it and thus haven't purchased any of the DLC (a sentiment many of my cohorts have echoed). When it came to replaying I found the first 60-70 hours enough and shelved it.
Oh goodie!
I still haven't got the game myself, I thought I should wait for the GOTY since I can't get DLCs, but should the price drop (it's still 40$ where I buy games), then I will get this one.
And hopefully, CD editions of DLCs will be released.
As for Halo Reach, I think console games' prices drop rarely than those for PC. And when they do, they still don't drop much.
I still haven't got the game myself, I thought I should wait for the GOTY since I can't get DLCs, but should the price drop (it's still 40$ where I buy games), then I will get this one.
And hopefully, CD editions of DLCs will be released.
As for Halo Reach, I think console games' prices drop rarely than those for PC. And when they do, they still don't drop much.
pall said:
Not sure if there are Steam statistics available. Fallout 3 is still top 5 on Games for Windows Live but... there's only like 20 games there to begin. NV didn't ship with GFWL so there's no comparison.
Quagmire69
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
By the lowest common denominator you mean that the maker made a point of making the game fun and engaging as opposed to needless esoteric shit.
Fallout 3: Gameplay engagement, lots interesting irradiated apocalyptic environments.
Plot engagement: immediately has you emotionally attached too certain people so you actually care what happens to them. Like I said before the only one in Fallout NV I really cared about was Boone.
Morel of the story: I thought the moral of the story in Fallout 3 was genius. Both simple too express yet profound. Human life vs. progress. In the game you will find many such as ten penny, Eden, and ashur who think that life is cheap, on the other hand counter balancing that you have your father. You may come to the conclusion that those like Eden are right, and if you want to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs by releasing a virus, or you can decide that humanity with all its faults is worthy of preservation. Ultimately the conclusions you draw will affect your final decision.
Game play: environment not ass cool but improved in allot of ways.
Story: really there is no character based story.
Moral of the story: I don't know, that the way governments organize themselves affects people’s lives, as if we didn’t know that already.
Are you serious, Quag? If you are serious, are you 10?
Fallout 3 had none of that what you said, it was a disgrace in the name of Fallout.
Fallout 3 had none of that what you said, it was a disgrace in the name of Fallout.
outofthegamer
Still Mildly Glowing
Atomkilla said:
I wouldn't go that far. Now you sound like you're 10.
If he likes Fallout 3 better, and you like FNV better -- big deal. Don't try to ram your opinions down each other's throat.
inb4 Fallout 2 is teh winzorz.
WorstUsernameEver
But best title ever!
outofthegamer said:
That's because we all know it is.
outofthegamer
Still Mildly Glowing
yeah? Then where is the PS3 version? God of War 1 & 2 were re-released for PS3 when GoW 3 came out.WorstUsernameEver said:outofthegamer said:
That's because we all know it is.
WorstUsernameEver
But best title ever!
outofthegamer said:
Not sure if serious?
BTW, in case you didn't get it, I put the
to make it clear that it was a joke. Not really going to add anything to that since I don't really have much data on Fallout New Vegas sales besides the initial data on sold-in that was released (I don't trust VGChartz at all) and since Fallout 3's handling of DLC was pretty different which inevitably reflects on the active playerbase of the title.
outofthegamer said:
Please, elucidate.
outofthegamer said:
Certainly, everyone has their own taste.
On a side note, I never said New Vegas was better, nor have I brought out my opinion of what I like more.
All I said is that Fallout 3 is a disgrace in the name of Fallout, and that's a fact.
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
Needless esoteric shit? Where, exactly? And what was all that talk about the bible in FO3 then? Don't get me started on the gaping plot holes. Seriously, if you like FO3 more then good for you, but defending it's plot is a losing battle, it didn't make a lick of sense and is so black and white it makes me think Walt Disney rose from the grave and wrote it.
outofthegamer
Still Mildly Glowing
Atomkilla said:
ooh big word! To call a critically acclaimed game a disgrace makes you sound biased and opinionated to the point of absurdity. It's not that bad of a game. maybe it's sooo different than Fallout 1 & 2... "How can they call it Fallout?!!?" Seriously? Sorry, but sequels sometimes stray from the formula of previous games -- get used to it!
Atomkilla said:
If you call Fallout 3 a disgrace to fallout, then what is FNV if it's not better? an utter disgrace? You implied that it is not as much of a disgrace as Fallout 3. Anyone older than 10 can deduce that. It's called reading between the lines.
oh, and no... not a fact. Once again: your opinion is not everyone's opinion. Stop trying to ram it down throats by calling it a fact.
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
Ugh, this kind of pointless FO vs FO3 ''debate'' again. Suffice to say you will not win any points here with comments like that.outofthegamer said:
Also, is the use of ''big words'' offending you? We could all speak in absolutes and end sentences with three exclamation points, I am sure this will help communication. Then again, actually reading what others post helps with that too.