It's such a disgrace that they'd even consider naming something [X activity] disorder. Firstly because any unhealthy obsessive behavior needs to be recognized as a mental health problem, secondly because of how it demonizes a legitimate hobby with labels that are made for misusing out of context.

I guess it goes to show people in charge still thinks of the new media as something evil and time-wastey and beneath them. After all if the diagnosis wasn't named after the activity people might think it wasn't the evilnewmediaididntgrowupwith's fault.

Well this sounds pretty sweet.

Let's just hope they add proper VC at some point (with GC titles) and that said VC titles are for keeping and not renting (which is what a subscription model really is).

It might still be worth it for Splatoon 2 multiplayer though. at least if they keep making splatfests.

Hey, I've played enough Tabletop RPGs to know you can't always go for the headshot, 'cause too often you'll miss.

Besides, I don't blame Star Lord for punching Thanos in the face, I blame Mantis for blabbing about Thanos' feelings when everyone needed to not be distracted.

@matricks_: A Movie (or set of movies) covering Warcraft 2 and its expansion would be great, would also be fantastic to see some lore stuff involving Thrall that was never in the main series of games.

Warcraft 3 is still really playable though, it doesn't really have a strong use for a more accessible retelling the way the earlier games do. Plus I don't see a movie (or any form of noninteractive media) doing justice to parts of the story like the Culling, or the sinking of the ships you need to get home.

Diablo 2's character creation campfire

So RIP story in Zelda games.

So, obviously people can have a problem playing games for too long because that's happened.

But... "Gaming Disorder"? That's just saying anyone who plays video games as a major hobby is mentally ill for it.

And the wording of it (at least what's presented here) is so vague and undefined and doesn't tell me anything about what it's about other than that video games are bad probably.

All this does is put an emphasis on the problems some people can have with moderation with games, it actively silences the major positive impact video games can have on people's lives.

We'll see if this one also caters to current market trends instead of building on a 25+ year old foundation.

Now and in the future means for the next few years until the community has shrunk to the hardcore and then eventually we shut down the servers and the game is unplayable or the features it relied on to be good are.

Meanwhile games that were good 15-20 years ago are still being played and replayed. And provide gamers with enjoyment, inspiration and memorable moments way, way past the point where the publishers are concerned with earning money off of it.

A good online-only game is relevant now. A good offline (Singleplayer) game is relevant the next couple of centuries. But online games with microtransactions and DLC passes and BS like that keep making money much longer than a finished product ever will.

It has nothing to do with providing their customers with a good product, or a memorable experience, or making their game "thrive". It's about making as much money as inhumanly possible.