Makes sense. Considering if the game was to be out for next-gen launch then they should be sending it off for printing/distribution about now, if not already.
You'd think they would know well before that time that they weren't going to finish on time. Especially if they still have another 6 months worth of work left.
Never been a fan of Free-to-play, mostly because they aren't really free to play. What you get is essentially a demo that is free, and you have to buy other content - you know, the stuff that actually makes the game fun.
There are exceptions, however. Such as DOTA2 where the only things people can buy are aesthetic, and do not relate to gameplay.
I'm not a fan of the free-to-play business model, and especially hate microtransactions. I avoid them as much as possible. The only "free-to-play" games I've played would be Age of Empires Online (and that's ONLY because it was an AoE game, kind of a semi-remake of AoE1), and DOTA 2.
I'm actually happy that Watch Dogs is delayed. All games should be refined and working to a point before they are released. Day one patches are not acceptable.
What also makes me happy is that this is Ubisoft - the guys behind AssCreed - notoriously releasing buggy games in order to rush them out every year. I think a lot of people are worried they are going to do the same with Watch Dogs. Maybe they will in the future, but at least they are making sure the first game is polished and pristine. Can't fault them for doing that. I just wish they would do that with the AssCreed series.
That isn't going to get people using Xbox Live is it. If they are charged more for using it more then people aren't going to use it as much.
That's why there is standard payment and people can then play as much as they like. This encourages people to play more (which is what Microsoft want). But the downside is that some people are put-off by it. Those who don't play online that much and don't feel like they are getting their money's worth. But then Microsoft aren't catering to those people are they.
Sex in video games? I don't really care. If I wanted to see a sex scene I could quickly find plenty on the internet for free, that contains real people (mostly), and not 3D models.
Using it for "character development" is complete bullshit. We don't need to have seen the entire (or even a part of a) sex scene to have character development. Nor is a sex scene required to tell people that the characters involved are intimate in some way.
Basically, the scene is there for the sake of it being there. If they wanted their game to be "mature" and "tasteful" they wouldn't have such a scene at all.
I don't usually play online, but when I do I prefer to do it on PC.
Lobbies are prectically non-existant on consoles. I know the benefit of consoles is that they are easy-to-use and simple, but as far as online gaming goes a proper fleshed-out lobby system is a requirement.
One of the reasons I don't usually play online is because I hate playing with random strangers. I usually only ever play with friends/family and prefer private games just for us. Having a proper lobby system (or even LAN support) is great for this.
Why don't they hold a competition for fans to name Pokemon. Or hire a bunch of zoologists that might have a better grasp on how things are named in the real world. Might make for some more interesting names since the ones in Pokemon and ridiculously lame.
Scorpion1813's comments