@Lord_999 @7_armageddon_7 Okay, that's the wrong way to put it. ANet's business model is, however, NOT geared to milking consumers compared to the subscription fee model.
CD Projekt Red is similar. Many things they do absolutely do NOT fall in line with what other money-grabbing publishers do. Their goal isn't to save the customer money, but it IS designed to sell a quality product without any strings attached.
"We feel that putting pay gates between the player and content at any point in game ruins that feeling of freedom [...]"
In other words, it's for our own good as gamers that we pay an inflated monthly fee of 15$ instead of getting a game with microtransactions where, contrary to what Zenimax claims, the average user will NOT spend over 15$/mth on microtransactions.
GW2 had the right idea about it. Their business model was mostly biased towards saving us money, and did not offer up a pay-to-win model. Think about it: what financial benefit did ANet get by releasing the huge amount of content in GW2 as a pay-once 60$ game?
I can't believe people are buying their 'justification' for requiring a 15$/month fee. It's an MMO: you invest hundreds of hours into leveling up a character. You are likely going to be spending years playing the game (at least, such games are designed to last a long, long time). 15$/mth*12mths/yr = 180$ annual fee to play the game, i.e., you are RENTING the game.
All this garbage about it being 'premium' just means that the only way Zenimax is going to give you an actual quality game is if they milk you every month for it. Otherwise, their games won't be premium in quality, and they will be selling you, the consumer, a game that is less than their best efforts.
I like how they describe how, in DA: Inquisition, you have a lot of freedom in how you create your character. You can be a human, elf or dwarf; a rogue, mage or warrior... Hey, wait a sec, I could do that in DA:O!
The idea of being the head of an organization is intriguing though, and hopefully won't just be some sort of gimmick, but will actually introduce new aspects and fully-developed features to the RPG genre. Just give us a game like DA:O, Bioware!
My first thought when I saw Ellie was also Ellen Page. The strong resemblance is there. I knew she was mo-capping for a game and thought it was this one until I saw that it was actually another game.
Getting tired of hearing about this dog. You know a game hasn't innovated in a while when all you hear about is a canine as The Main Innovation. Seriously, this dog is getting a disproportionate amount of press.
@mirage_so3 @7_armageddon_7 I believe people are interpreting the '8.0 - great' as a sort of token 'great': as in, Tom *knew* that the next increment, which is 7.5, would be just so ludicrous that he chose the next best threshold, which is 8.0.
It may seem that I'm reading too much into it, but I think I'm right. There IS a large difference in perceived value between 8.0 - great and 9.0 - great, and the fact that many other games have received higher than 8.0 with which The Last of Us is on par (judging by the reviews of virtually everyone else), I would call 8.0 lowballing the game.
This episode of Feebackula isn't just taking aim at anyone who posts rage-filled comments about Tom's review, it's taking aim at anyone who would criticize the review as less than fair and professional.
When a reviewer's minibio states that 'he loves everything you hate and hates everything you love', and then he gives a highly acclaimed game (by the vast majority of his peers) a relatively mediocre score and a brief 3min review, one can only be suspicious. It has also happened in the past with this same reviewer: he's a known quantity.
Sorry folks, to those who can't put those two things together, and admit that his judgement as a supposed professional game reviewer is in question (compared to, say, Kevin), I don't know what to say.
If it was another GS reviewer, would the level of outrage be as high?I highly, highly doubt it. In fact, if it wasn't Tom McShea, I wouldn't be so adamant in defending those who think his 'professional' review is lazy and unfair.
@wavelength121 @7_armageddon_7 @Jamoid This case is special in that there is a genuine controversy whether you like it or not about Tom's review. And so, having this Feedbackula video making broad statements about the review that do NOT only apply to the rage-filled comments highlighted in this vid means that GS is basically lumping anyone who doesn't agree with the over-the-top posters.
7_armageddon_7's comments