2Chalupas' forum posts

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#1 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7122 Posts

I wouldn't mind this if they were charging $5-7 for it. Basically just a slightly enhanced port of the PS1 game with some extra features/cheats and trophies/achievements if you want to go for completion. But to charge $19.99 for that laziness? GTFO. I'm not sure if Square is the laziest/worst with their remasters (though they probably are), hard to dispute them as the biggest ripoffs.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#2 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7122 Posts

I would assume it impacts any game deal, unless a sequel was already under contract most likely that was part of the overall package with Spiderman. Bummer because I was really hoping for a sequel here.

However it also sounds like Sony was in the right. Considering Spiderman is their property and Disney was demanding 50% of profits. That is a ridiculous trade-off. Disney obviously wants to take control of the property.

Apparantly Stan Lee's family had some unkind words for Disney, which surprised me (considering the guy had a cameo and producer's credit in literally every Disney/Marvel film). But I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. That's what big corps do, don't expect them to respect the little guy or original creators.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#3 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7122 Posts

@Archangel3371 said:

@Ant_17: Well whatever happens I just hope that it doesn’t affect prices here in Canada.

It really shouldn't. Though I guess it wouldn't be surprising if the current arrangement on some of this stuff is for it to be first shipped into a U.S. port (i.e. Port of Los Angeles) and then by rail or air into Canada (US/Canada/Mexico supposed to be a "free trade" zone afterall). So maybe there's a risk the tariffs could mess with that arrangement, but I'd assume Canadian retailers and the big 3 console manufacturers would do whatever they have to do to avoid having tariffs impact Canadian customers like they would U.S. customers. It might be as simple as stuff destined for Canada to just be labeled as such - then it should't be taxed by the US govt, or maybe consoles for Canadian market just have to be shipped straight into a Canadian port (that's assuming they dont' already ship a bunch of them straight to Canada anyway).

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7122 Posts

@WitIsWisdom said:

tariffs are a good thing,

This post is so full of LOL.

But aside from the complete nonsense that "tariffs are a good thing". Microsoft has their console made in China too! The tariffs would impact them all equally. Normally these companies would pass the taxes through to the consumer, but as it isn't easy to just race prices 10% or 25% on a whim, they might not be able to pass them on. So it's conceivable they would simply have to eat the costs in the short term for these end of life consoles, or perhaps just delay normal price drops on the consoles and not offer the type of "end of gen" deals that might otherwise be had. Meanwhile if the tariffs looked to be a long term issue for next gen they'd probably look to diversify production to Vietnam or somewhere else in asia.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#5 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7122 Posts

@heirren said:
@XVision84 said:

@heirren: Yes I am comparing the two and any other form of social change in any area of life. Just because they are of differing degrees of significance, it doesn't mean they are mutually exclusive. If you would like to disprove it then argue the logic, "c'mon now" isn't an argument.

Stating your beliefs again is also not a valid argument. I've already showed you why your method is incomplete. I'm not saying I don't agree with what you're saying, I'm telling you what you're doing is not enough to meaningfully resist greedy practices.

It isnt my belief that one is human rights and one is a product. This is a fact. And fact of the matter it is THEIR product. They could charge for the amount of steps you take in a game if they wanted to. It is up to consumer to decide value.

The only area where things come into question is when the selling means is questionable by law, for example Loot Boxes being claimed as gambling. And even then, with a rating system in play, where M or A(or whatever it is) is specifically marketed as an *adult* product, these companies could get away with that.

Nah. A mere rating system isn't good enough. Gambling is all about exploiting people's OCD's and propensity for addiction. There's no rational reason to "gamble" on digital content, other than some people are stupid and have these vulnerabilities. They get that chemical reaction in the brain when they "win" something. It's truly pathetic, it's bad enough people gamble with a shot at winning real money (even though math is against you, and always with the house), it's doubly stupid that people are willing to gamble real money for digital content. I mean... come the frack on. Gambling real money on virtual nothings. How did that ever become a thing? Lootboxes in video games is like crackhead level stuff. Worse than marketing cigarettes directly to children and teenagers IMO.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7122 Posts

I give developers a bit more leeway on the microtransaction front when it's a "free to play" game, I mean the game is free, they have to make $$$ on it somehow. They can do all the season pass and DLC stuff they want on a free game and it doesn't bother me, so long as people keep interest and are willing to buy piecemeal content, that's the way it's supposed to work. Make a good product, earn revenues from that product. The nickle and dime nonsense only bothers me a bit on full priced games, it should never be intrusive or break into the core gameplay on a game you already paid for - that's where they cross the line.

But the loot box/gambling stuff is something entirely different. Very trashy revenue source, and quite frankly should be illegal/regulated since the target audience is children and it's very clearly gambling. EA can go to hell with their lies.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#7 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7122 Posts

... and as great as Spiderman was, there is still a ton of room to improve. The story was good (for a video game), with a great modern gaming presentation, but honestly the villains and boss battles in it were a bit lacking I thought. Hopefully the same dev gets a crack at another one. I was hoping they would do an Iron Man + Spiderman type game or something along those lines, but with Crystal Dynamics taking the full Avengers license for their 2020 game that's not happening. Still, maybe they can do Spiderman 2 and improve upon it.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#8 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7122 Posts

@ajstyles said:

It’s either 1 or top 3.

It’s the best Spider-Man game.

The only other Superhero games worth talking about are the recent Batman Arkham games.

Everything else is trash really.

Definitely. In the past alot of superhero or comic book games were just low budget cash grabs, all the money went into the license and nothing into developing a quality game. I think a few games that transcended above this (with developers that actually cared) got overhyped a bit just because they were actually "decent".

The 1st two Arkham games were the first two really good Superhero action games, Spider-man does't innovate much on that formula but it takes it and pretty much perfects it in an open world environment on a next gen platform. Becuase Arkham Knight was good, but slightly disappointing for current gen, I'd say Spiderman gets the nod as the GOAT.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#9 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7122 Posts

Series has been mediocre or actually on the decline since Ghost Games took over, so really I don't care.

It's good future bargain bin fodder I guess. The kind of game you probably wouldn't feel bad paying $5 for 1 year after release.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
2Chalupas

7122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

19

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By 2Chalupas
Member since 2009 • 7122 Posts

I guess I've never played the "controversial" games, because I don't really think about it. Sometimes there's stuff like the sexy scenes in the old God of War games that I guess I've always thought was unnecessary or even embarassing due to the obvious immaturity involved. If you are playing FPS there's a ton of shooting violence, but I think of it more as an over the top action movie. It's rather cartoon like. I think it's a huge stretch to even suggest a game like Call of Duty or Counter Strike causes violence, though there are deranged people and degenerates that play those games. It is not the game that causes their issues. You can basically make the same argument for games that you can for guns, deranged people shouldn't violent games anymore than they should have access to guns. I guess if they have both, that can be a dangerous combination but it's the gun that allows them to kill.

I have watched a few movies that were just purely stupid violence, like so much violence the movie actually bored me. Reading about that movie "The Hunt" it just sounded like a stupid idea from the start, much like the Purge. I'm not for "censorship" per se, not by the govt, but I have no idea how trash like that gets green-lit by studios.