NBA live 08 PC

[joejam999]

Plus, there would be some extra cost factors for a true PC development. Building a PC-centric UI (which is the best part of 2001) would require one, maybe even two people to spend a couple months on.

Those were the days.... '99 and '00 were also nice in that area. I wonder if anyone from EA is allowed to come here and tell us a little bit about the PC version.

[fjccommish]

"EA does not consider any sports game to be a mere "update" they have stated many times that each for individual game they "build a new experience" and that merely releasing updates or cheaper versions that are just updates would confuse consumers..."

The "new experience" they built on PC (2007) involved PGs scoring all the points and no substitutions. They don't release cheap updates. They release updates that include new bugs, then charge the same price as a full game.

[benji]

Those aren't "new bugs" those are "new experiences" before Live 07 you usually had substitutions in basketball games. No longer! New experience!

And think about it, it would be terrible if they offered you a $15 update that updated the rosters and added new graphics/sounds, and fixed bugs, did some minor AI updating, etc. Nobody wants that, they want to go to the store and pick up their preorder of Live 08 while joking around with the GameStop/EB people about how idiots might be suckered into buying NBA 2K8 and how anyone who didn't preorder will never EVER be able to buy Live 08.

But really, would you want EA to take Live 07 fix the bugs, touch up a few things, update the rosters and graphics and sell you those updates for $10-15? Or would you want EA to give you all those things in a BRAND NEW box with a BRAND NEW logo and BRAND NEW manual for $40? I think the answer is clear, everyone wants the latter.

I think I've successfully proven why you and everyone else wants to pay full price for Live 08.

[Sauru]

i would pay double if i could save mid game

[joejam999]

i would pay double if i could save mid game

They don't care enough about the PC version to add any more than they have to. I mean what happened to the face import, saving games and the good PC interface.

[SVG18]

i would pay double if i could save mid game

No , then it might actually be worth its normal price.

[Kobe ftw]

Yeah, it seems that it sucks, tbh everything with Pc version sucks.

don't spend ur money on it., buy urself 360 if u have some money, if not, forget about it, i bet Pc version will have ugly graphics, thiny frames and maybe without go-to moves cuz we are used to be dissapointed year by year.

I guess we can only really speculate. As I said before, I think it just comes down the fact that the PC version is no longer a priority.

[joejam999]

Yeah, it seems that it sucks, tbh everything with Pc version sucks.

don't spend ur money on it., buy urself 360 if u have some money, if not, forget about it, i bet Pc version will have ugly graphics, thiny frames and maybe without go-to moves cuz we are used to be dissapointed year by year.

1. You can't mod the 360 version
2. You need a HDTV for the graphics to look good as pc on the 360 (regular tv sucks they are like 648x480 at best)
3. NBA Live takes like 4 seconds to load then runs perfectly smooth no matter what mods and patches I have installed.

After you buy a 360,Live and a 20 inch HDTV (at least) you are already spending more than a really nice PC.

[Sauru]

well we can just blame the ease of downloading games to why most no longer care about the pc. i am sure if everyone who played nba live for the pc actually paid for it they would invest more time and money into it. also there would be more compititon for nba live pc but why bother why half the people that play pc games now dont actually pay for them?

[el badman]

tbh everything with Pc version sucks.

I don't know if you were only referring to NBA Live (which does suck on PC these days), but pretty much everything else looks much better on a decent PC.

[PhilBurrows3005]

I'll just get it on the PC probably, saves money from buying an XBOX 360, I have faith in NBA Live 08, even if 07 was a disaster.

[joejam999]

tbh everything with Pc version sucks.

Yes this sentence is very laughable and I am not talking about his spelling or grammar.

[Andrew]

well we can just blame the ease of downloading games to why most no longer care about the pc. i am sure if everyone who played nba live for the pc actually paid for it they would invest more time and money into it. also there would be more compititon for nba live pc but why bother why half the people that play pc games now dont actually pay for them?

With the number of people who sign up to the Forums to ask for cracks, missing files, CD keys and so on, it wouldn't surprise me if that was in part responsible. I imagine the sales figures would look better if software piracy wasn't such a problem with the PC version. I still think there'd be a large discrepancy though due to the popularity of console gaming.

[maceo24]

I really think piracy wouldnt be so bad if consumers didnt think they were getting the shaft from developers as opposed to consoles. Yes its proven that consoles are more popular now, but honestly if the standard quality of PC games hadnt dropped off so much, PC would have never lost its market share.

I liken it to a music artist whose CD is leaked (basically everyone nowadays). If the album is good, that artist still goes platinum, despite that fact that 350,000 people stole the album. I wont bother stealing a game, honestly I dont have the patience or the bandwidth for it (godddamned DSL), but I swear to you, if I had known Live 07 was the unfinished crapfest that it was... fill in the blanks.

[Andrew]

I don't doubt that a lot of people prefer to pirate the game rather than buy it based on that principle, but does the end really justify the means? I'm not defending the flaws in NBA Live (or any game for that matter) but at the end of the day that principle is based on the idea that it's acceptable to steal something if it's deemed to be subpar in quality or overpriced. I understand the sentiment and I certainly can't blame anyone for feeling that way but all the same I don't think it can be truly justified if we view stealing to be wrong.

It presents somewhat of a Catch 22. The consumer feels cheated by the quality of the product and takes matters into their own hands by pirating the game and denying the developer revenue they feel is undeserved, but in doing so they are making the game less profitable which gives developers less incentive to invest time, money and resources in it.

I can see where you're coming from with the comparison to the music industry but I think the major difference is the target audience, particularly when you're talking about a game like NBA Live. I would suggest that a majority of people who buy NBA Live are enthusiastic basketball fans whereas the work of a recording artist is more likely to appeal to a wide range of people, so we're talking about a larger number of units that are going to be sold in the first place.

The other difference is competition and alternatives. If you're looking for a basketball video game, there are two major choices on the market: NBA Live and NBA 2K. While some people will prefer one to the other and stick with the product they are familiar with, there are a lot of people who will play the game they like best any given year. With a recording artist, there may be other artists within the same genre who appeal to the same fans but they aren't really alternatives to one another. If you like a particular artist you're going to want to get their album, not someone else's. If you want a basketball game, you have choices.

[benji]

Yes its proven that consoles are more popular now, but honestly if the standard quality of PC games hadnt dropped off so much, PC would have never lost its market share.

Um, what? PC games quality has dropped off? Since when?

PC never had a market share loss, it's not in the same market as console games. And consoles have nowhere near as much proliferation as PCs.

PC Gaming has gone through a change because it has been in companies best interests to produce their games to be on both the consoles and PCs. A game like BioShock, Prey, Call of Duty 2 would've been PC only titles, now they also have X360 releases on the same day.

I don't see the supposed drop off in PC game quality, there has always been loads of shit games released, and always been loads of good games. There's no gatekeeper on the PC like on the consoles.

EDIT:
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say with your post...maybe you aren't trying to make an argument just state some things...but a few notes...

I don't doubt that a lot of people prefer to pirate the game rather than buy it based on that principle, but does the end really justify the means? I'm not defending the flaws in NBA Live (or any game for that matter) but at the end of the day that principle is based on the idea that it's acceptable to steal something if it's deemed to be subpar in quality or overpriced. I understand the sentiment and I certainly can't blame anyone for feeling that way but all the same I don't think it can be truly justified if we view stealing to be wrong.

I don't see that necessarily means there is theft. It's a market decision by those gamers who don't feel Live justifies the $40 price tag. Either they won't buy it, or they'll download it. Is it actually theft? Because he refused to participate in purchasing the game, does that make him a thief? Would not buying the game mean he was stealing from EA?

What about a gamer who buys a used game? Is he a pirate or thief too? The producer of the game gets nothing from his purchase.

The consumer feels cheated by the quality of the product and takes matters into their own hands by pirating the game and denying the developer revenue they feel is undeserved, but in doing so they are making the game less profitable which gives developers less incentive to invest time, money and resources in it.

The same argument could be made for someone who would simply just not purchase the game, or go for 2K or Sony's. I don't think anyone would argue that someone should buy EA's game even if they think it's quality is not worthy of a purchase. Instead, they only have a problem if that person does not think it's worth a direct purchase, but worth an acquisition through other means.

[Andrew]

I don't see that necessarily means there is theft. It's a market decision by those gamers who don't feel Live justifies the $40 price tag. Either they won't buy it, or they'll download it. Is it actually theft? Because he refused to participate in purchasing the game, does that make him a thief? Would not buying the game mean he was stealing from EA?

What about a gamer who buys a used game? Is he a pirate or thief too? The producer of the game gets nothing from his purchase.

I would say there's a difference between buying a second hand game (or being given a game as a gift that has been acquired legally) and downloading the game since software piracy is illegal. Buying a second hand copy is not. You can call it a "market decision" if you like, but I would think that in the eyes of the law one is legal and the other is not.

"Theif" and "stealing" might seem like harsh terms but by definition they're accurate. If stealing can be defined as taking the property of another or others without permission or right then downloading the game is stealing since no license has been purchased to use that software which as I understand it is basically what we're doing when we buy games or any software for that matter. We don't have any ownership over the games in terms of copyright, their code or the right to make copies and sell them but we are free to give the original copy to someone as a gift or sell it second hand.

The same argument could be made for someone who would simply just not purchase the game, or go for 2K or Sony's. I don't think anyone would argue that someone should buy EA's game even if they think it's quality is not worthy of a purchase. Instead, they only have a problem if that person does not think it's worth a direct purchase, but worth an acquisition through other means.

Not really, since choosing not to buy NBA Live or to buy another product isn't illegal. That would be a market decision, not taking the game without paying for it.

If you walked into any store looking for any kind of product, found it and felt that it was overpriced, would you shoplift it and call that a market decision? Perceiving a product to be unworthy of its price tag doesn't waive your responsibility to pay for it if you want it. If you don't want to pay for it, you're free to not buy it and take your business elsewhere. You're not free to just take the product though.

Like I said before, I understand the sentiment given the issues with NBA Live and for the consumer it feels justifiable because it's a kind of vigilante justice, sticking it to the man for charging money for an inferior product. I get that. But there's no way to justify it from a legal standpoint. There's no law against selling a product second hand or choosing not to buy a product, but there's laws against taking things without paying for them and software piracy laws are an example of that.

[benji]

I would say there's a difference between buying a second hand game (or being given a game as a gift that has been acquired legally) and downloading the game since software piracy is illegal. Buying a second hand copy is not. You can call it a "market decision" if you like, but I would think that in the eyes of the law one is legal and the other is not.

That doesn't address the moral issues of it, which seemed like the case you were making.

"Theif" and "stealing" might seem like harsh terms but by definition they're accurate. If stealing can be defined as taking the property of another or others without permission or right then downloading the game is stealing since no license has been purchased to use that software which as I understand it is basically what we're doing when we buy games or any software for that matter. We don't have any ownership over the games in terms of copyright, their code or the right to make copies and sell them but we are free to give the original copy to someone as a gift or sell it second hand.

Well, Live doesn't have a license agreement like say Windows. And a license almost never gives you authority to resell the product. That's usually a big violation of said license.

Purchasing a used copy is getting the "property" of others without their permission if the game is the property of EA Sports. But there is an implicit argument that once I purchase the game from the store, it is my property, and when I sell it to the store I am granting them it as their property. Then they can sell it to someone else. If EA or any other game company could do so, they would directly challenge this. Based on the absolutely horrible copyright law we have today, the store and customers would be found in violation of the copyright if it found as EA's property.

Giving your copy to someone else would also be a violation in a "license" situation, as licenses are supposed to be held specificially to one person unless said license allows transmission of the license. (This is why Windows will get angry if you change your computer hardware too much.)

If you walked into any store looking for any kind of product, found it and felt that it was overpriced, would you shoplift it and call that a market decision?

That's completely different. That is actual theft, you are stealing the store's property AND removing that property from the market. Causing a loss to the store, the distributor, customer, etc. In downloading you are not taking the property from anyone, but instead acquiring a copy.

Copyright law was originally understood as that you could not could take someone elses copyright as your own and sell it without permission. Fair use theory allowed you to tape something off TV, make a photocopy of a magazine page for your files, etc. How is downloading a TV show different from if your friend video taped last nights Seinfeld for you and gave you the tape? Previously that was understood to be within the use of copyrights. So was making a mixtape for your friend, or giving them photocopies of a how to guide from a book.

But there's no way to justify it from a legal standpoint. There's no law against selling a product second hand

Legal standpoints cannot ever be "justified", because it is either illegal, legal or unspoken to. Moral standpoints, and thus the moral underpinnings of law, can. Which is why laws change.

And there is legal question to whether or not you can resell these new "digital copyrights" as some companies, especially Nintendo, have persued used retailers. But used games have been found to be the property of the physical holder, and therefore open to resale. So we have a perverted system in which you can sell someones copyrights and profit without their authority, but cannot freely share them.

Also, this legal stuff differs from country to country. In some countries there is absolutely no law against downloading something off the internet, as they have wide fair use protections. That doesn't change the moral argument in those countries to make it alright.

Digital copyright law in most countries is a disaster, it's an acknowledged disaster, and needs to be reworked to follow old copyright understandings. There's also the question of what the copyright is copyrighting.

As I've think has been obvious, I have no qualms with someone believing somethings value to determine how it is acquired. I also have no qualms with downloading a game I would otherwise only buy or in many cases only be able to buy used. If used games are legal, downloading games cannot be. As the former implies the copyright over the discs' data is not strong enough to deny a user from reselling that copyrighted data. It cannot therefore be strong enough to deny free sharing of that data.

EDIT: I think I should also note, that downloading is almost borderline not illegal. Uploading however is. This is why these companies have to be able to prove they can receive copyrighted data from you, not that you just have possession of it.

[xox]

You can download games for consoles too,so i don't think thats the main issue here!Put your self on EA's position - you have a wider range to improve the game on "current gen" consoles,than PC's....So in some sence i understand EA...

[Angelo]

so does this mean that there would be no Pc version of the game?

[Patr1ck]

Actually they cancelled NBA Live 08 on all platforms.
I'm kidding of course. If you didn't know that, you are pretty stupid.

[Meloforchampion]

Hey Andrew, I heard something about a demo version for downloading during the conversation on nba live´s stage demo. Do you know something about it? It should be available one month before the official release.

[chaodck]

Actually they cancelled NBA Live 08 on all platforms.
I'm kidding of course. If you didn't know that, you are pretty stupid.

Wow, you kinda had me there PDub, I went nuts searching EASports website, NBA Live website, Gamespot, IGN, and then I realized the small letter...

I guess I'm pretty stupid, but haven't really been visiting the forums since I got Madden 08 (Wednesday).

[Sauru]

speaking off madden 08, after playing it i now realize that nba live is a joke, a complete joke. i have hope but unfortunatly i know it wont ever reach madden level

[Patr1ck]

Madden is that good?