0:48 - I almost pissed my pants laughing at the irony in that video. Why is the "Battlefield 4 Beta" portion in the largest font? It's a preview for MoH, so why is emphasis shifted towards BF4? It's like EA is saying "Yeah, you know you're just going to buy this game for the BF4 ;)"
@Get_Shorty Yeah, 1M people bought a $65 dollar game to get access to a demo that will inevitably end up on the PSN a month before the game is released.
In my current game collection, I think the only franchise that screams "THE DLC IS WORTH IT!" would be titled Fallout and Borderlands. I'm not one who pays for very much DLC, because I can't reall justify spending 100+ on a single game for extra MP maps and bonus items. Fallout and Borderlands, both had extremely good DLC content and I'm glad i paid for every bit of it. Were Fallout 3/NV or BLs short games? No! Did their DLC effectively increase their playtime by 2x? Yes. Did it feel like their DLC was left out for the expressed purpose of earning money when it could have been in the original game? Nope! If more devs made games like these 2/3, I think more players would be likely to retain their copies for a much longer time period.
Seriously? Digital mediums are making it more difficult for parents?! No! No, they're not. In fact, they're actually making it easier. The people who truely believe this are the lazy ass parents who sit their kids in front of a TV/video game console for hours and call that parenting. What they don't realize is that the digital age has made it leaps and bounds EASIER to find out what they're exposing their children to. It's called GOOGLE. ****ing look it up on google, watch a few YoutTube videos or read a wiki. You'll get EVERYTHING you need to know in minutes. Yes, violent gaves are becoming more prevalent, but there's still a mirad of other options out there.
In all honesty, I think it's completely absurd to block used games, even though I don't purchase them myself. Who's to say you can't do what you will with the product you purchased? With that said, why would Microsoft and Sony do this? Devs/ pubs, whether they publicly admit it or not, would most definitely be on board because it means increased revenu. With CoD being the prime example, these companies KNOW their consumers. They will eat up whatever they put out, be it immediately, after a year or after a couple. People WILL give. It's the shiny new system, with all the new games and the latest features. I doubt very many gamers would turn away from a nex gen CoD, Mario, Zelda, God of War, Gears, Halo, etc, etc, just because they don't have ability to sell it back to Gamestop for a third of the original price. How many CoD players state they hate the game, yet still purcahse it every year because that's what all their friends are playing? It's a vicious cricle. New = Better = Purchase. While that claim might not necessarily be true, that's the mentality of most gamers. I doubt they will go to this length, but it's definitely within the realm of possibilty if the big 3 conspire together and force the hand of gamers as a whole.
He's more or less right, but I wouldn't say publishers aren't willing to take any chances. Borderlands did fantastic and part 2 will probably do even better. While it doesn't completely stray from the current mass-FPS mold, it's the most unique shooter I've played in recent memory. TS4 will have it's day... I hope.
I'm sorry, but these companies have been around for a long time and know what will ensure longevity. They'd never so something as stupid as blocking used games or making them single account uses. Consle purchases, peripherals and first party games are their bread and butter, so why the **** would they intentionally shoot themselves in the foot for the sake of the devs and publishing companies. This is a perfect case of the technological age's lack of logic. People read a rumor, get pissed at said rumor, tell two friends to expand the disbelief (often with a huge lack of evidence or distortion of original details) and then the whole thing gets blown out of proportion in mainstream media. IT. WONT. HAPPEN... Also, am I the only one who's disapppointed by the closure of Zipper? I was praying for a MAG 2, but alas my dreams shall not be :'(
The game looks good, so why lace it with an air of scepticism? I have NO doubt in my mind that it will not be a perfect game, but those only come around every now and then, so why tear into the game, based on a trailer or two, with an attitdue that sounds as though you won't be happy with it unless it's the "next big thing?" I'm looking forward to this game and with this article, along with the ludicrous one about BioShock, I will not be looking at ANYTHING to do with it until release, at which point I'll check the reviews and decide whether I should wait for a price drop before picking it up (ME3, RE, etc). You can't expect perfect games.
Here's the thing. With sequels, I do little to no research on the matter. I'll look into the reviews and see what the general consensus is upon release, but I ALWAYS choose to play/buy the follow up games based on what I've seen in previous installments. New IP's, I'll look into and watch videos, to get a feel for the game before I decide to drop a nice chunk of change on it, but sequels are different. Mass Effect, for example, is a franchise that I couldn't wait to play. Loved the first game and figured that was enough to merit the purchase of the second. Upon finishing ME2, I was left disappointed and thus I have little desire to play ME3 right now. I will, to finish the narrative, but I'm in no rush. You're only going to spoil the game/get your hopes up by following every piece of media coverage for a sequel. Games change, but most stay true to their franchise guidelines. If you don't want to ruin things for yourself, DON'T take every chance to debate, analyze and disect EVERY bit and piece of information. Leave some mystery to the next installment!
minivirus2's comments