@aloufika Believe me when I tell you. I spent 4.5 years in Iraq, those Middle Easterners will find a way to hack it, crack it, burn it, and sell the burned discs for $2, and still make a profit. You could buy movies, PS2, Xbox, and 360 games when I was over there for $2, all on an actual dvd, and inside a little plastic sleeve with a cover. Had to have a chipped system to play them, but the Iraqis would chip your system for $50, and I never saw one not work. Still have my PS2 from over there, and a few hundred games.
@TheThoughtless1 @Zaibach This might very well be extremely close to the truth. I am interested in seeing the MS response to this noise. It is with me, that is for sure.
@Ciera Precisely, this might not be an "official MS response", but it is a response from an official MS employee, and I find it very telling into their current mindset.
Pitchford has 0 credibility from this point forward. He sold us a bill of goods in Duke, and now this garbage. Yes, I have played it, only I did not pay for it thankfully (played it with a friend at his house). I will immediately start thinking the exact opposite of just about anything Pitchford says from now on. I am done with GB Software, and that is sad, because they have done some good games in the past. Jerk me around once shame on you, jerk me around a second time, shame on me. You don't get a third shot at my cash, and luckily one of these shots I did not have to pay for.
@Nickplays You may well be onto something. As I do not recall a single site blasting Bethesda for changing the ending of New Vegas post release. I have had my fill of these gaming editors ridiculing and resorting to name calling (Entitled anyone?) their own paying customers. It is the gaming media who seems to feel entitled if anyone. To the point that they can essentially call their own customers idiots for having differing opinions than their own. As if the fact that they are paid for their opinions makes theirs carry any more weight, than those of us who are not as fortunate. Personall, do I feel entitled? You're damn straight I do. When I spend $60 of my hard earned cash, I am entitled to no less than an enjoyable experience, and if I don't get it, you can also be assured that I will be vocal about that as well.
I am just trying to undrstand when the Gaming Media is going to try and wrap their heads around one simple fact. I get more and more furstrated by the gaming sites, like Gamespot, as they deride the gaming community when they are unhappy about a situation, in this case the ME3 ending, or the lack of a simulatneous flashlight in D3. Games may be artistic by definition, as they are born of someone's imagination, and are then molded and fashioned in order to bring that vision to graphical life. But to continue to hide behind the "This is the game designer's artistic vision, accept it or don't" umbrella is incredibly flawed logic. First and foremost, games are no more (or no less for that matter) "art" than is a HALO action figure, or a Hot Wheels car, all of which were born in someone's imagination and then brought to life. One huge characteristic, that seems to be continually overlooked by the gaming media, that all of these mediums share is that they are mass produced consumer products. This is not a one off Dali painting, but a product that is intended to gain the interest of as many people as is possible, in order to maximize profit. If gamers do not like your product (call it artwork if you so desire), then they will not buy it. If they do not buy your product, you go out of business (see so many recent examples of this, such as 38 Studios). This is not some artist living in his mother's basement, painting on canvass for the sake of bringing his personal artisitic vision to life for no other reason that to make himself happy. These are companies that rely on their customer's support to survive. Therefore, the customer's opinion shoud always be considered first and foremost, and it seems to be with the larger more succesful gaming companies. Game design is constantly dynamic, and never static. If the designer realizes something does not work during the creation process, they make changes on the fly until they get the best possible product that will appeal to the widest consumer audience. No game designer takes their initial vision for a game, and keeps that vision static, refusing to make changes all for the sake of "It was not how I initially envisioned it". If they do, then they will probably be changing their career, and doing so rather quickly. It is amusing how all of these jurnalistic sites have all jumped on the "Bash the entitled gamer" bandwagon ever since Bioware made their announcement. First of all, Bioware is a huge company, one that is run by some incredibly intelligent people, people who are far smarter than a journalist who plays games for a living. For starters, if Bioware felt like people were just whining for the sake of whining, and did not raise some legitimate and valid concerns do you think they would have made any concessions at all? Secondly, Bioware stated (something that is constantly overlooked when one of these particularly themed articles is authored) that they are not going to change anything, they are only going to fill in some of the blanks, in order to help provide some further comprehension to their particular vision of how the Mass Effect trilogy concluded. The ending will remain the same, but some of the gaps will be filled in, providing answers to some who invested an incredible amount of time playing these games. That is not entitlement, that is closure for a story that so many had so much invested in. Then this article brings up the inability to simultaneously being able to use a flashlight and a weapon in Doom 3. having played thrugh Doom 3, and the RE expansion (as well as every other Doom ever released) several times, I can tell you this was not an artistic vision, it was a broken game design. Having a gamer stare at a completely black screen, while creatures that intend that gamer harm or death walk all around you, all the while you can either shine a light on these creatures, or shoot blindly into the blackness is not scary or suspenseful, it is extremely aggravating and in some cases infuriating, and is extremely poor design. A design that thankfully has not been seen in many games since. There are countless ways to build suspense, or outright frighten the audience, without making the game tedious and no longer fun or enjoyable. One argument that the game media continues to make is if you don't like it, don't buy it. Well that is fine, but I think that would put everyone in the industry, including said juornalists in the soup line, if the designers were to adhere to that advice To these journalists, I would say, if you indeed enjoyed the black screens of Doom 3, then by all means the next Doom that comes out, turn off your monitor (or television, whichever may be the case), put your headphones on, and shoot away, I am in no way trying to take the fun out of your gaming experience, the same way you seem to be trying to take it away from some others. People, and yes this includes the members of the Gamespot community, all have their own personal opinions about countless things, and none of them deserve to be ridiculed or judged for those opinions when they just so happen to differ from your own, especially when those people are paying members of the service by which you are so gainfully employed (this is a note to the gaming jurnalists, in case my attempt to be blatently obvious was poorly realized). I will try to step down from my soapbox now, and get back to enjoying my games (or art as they are considered by some of you) while I still can.
BA0701's comments