@justbefahad: Yea, he exhibited great courage in pressing for the greater truth in that fluff piece. That was Larry King level softballing.
TyroneFonsworth's forum posts
@justbefahad: So, because you think the question won't be answered or will make the executive uncomfortable you don't press? Could it be that the fear of losing the their productive relationship with EA and other pubs is more important than getting to the truth of an issue for their readers? If you are ok with this type of writing, then fine. I personally expect better from a trained journalist. The only issue he found the courage to press him on was the Playstation not having EA access. There were many more issues of much greater value to the gaming community to press on than that one. Hey, you are free to feel as you do and just can't in good conscience agree.
@lithus: I don't doubt that the numbers are that high. that "experiment" was admittedly not scientific. I bet if you narrowed down that group to simply those who have pc rigs many more would have gotten it right. Have you ever considered the another possible explanation is the fact that the very games themselves are developed with the consoles in mind? Of course you aren't going to able to tell a huge difference watching compressed video over the internet. I wonder how many people actually went to the trouble of downloading that pure, uncompressed footage. I wonder still how many people even have the higher res monitors to see the difference with respect to that. Of course that can't even be compared can it? I get them all right, I know that much. It comes down to you believing what you will and me doing the same. Nothing we say to each other is going to change that. I'm happy with my pc even if it is the simple minor improvements to graphics and a solid 60 fps at all times. I do hate that the baseline is so low that people find it difficult to tell the difference between the three systems. I don't think it proves your point though, rather, I believe it supports mine. Consoles are the lowest common denominator and generally hold back enhancements in visual fidelity. Just like they did for the prior years before these "next-gen machines." When it comes down to brass tacks, there is simply no way that a machine with 1.6 ghz AMD netbook equivalent processor and an under clocked equivalent of an AMD mid-range graphics card can keep up with the latest and greatest of pc tech. However, the products themselves can be bastardized in order to make the differences as small as possible.
@dhaynes25: The unmitigated gall to call that service a "loyalty program" for customers. In the prior sentence he calls EA a forward thinking company. Oh I agree with him on that one. They are thinking a long way into the future about how to give the least amount of service for the greatest return and how to shoe horn multiplayer into everything under the sun as a vehicle for the sale of micro transactions.
Now do folks understand why #GG was maligned so much? It is hard not to see the visible and very unhealthy connection between the gaming press and the companies who's products they cover. No Rob, I don't think your a corporate shill because of that question. The entire article, however, does call that very notion into question. At least EA did in fact decide not to allow Anita Sarkeesian to involve herself in the production of Mirror's Edge 2. I'll give them a +1 for listening to their customers on that one. In case anyone wishes to just state that I'm just saying this out of thin air. go back and read the body of the article prior to the interview portion. It reads like an apology on behalf of gamers and our "short-sighted survey responses" to EA.
In the body of the interview, one item made my hair stand on end. Look how quickly he backs down like a well-trained puppy when the executive states that he still sees the demand for yearly boxed Madden games. This is after basically establishing that their are teams working year round on the titles. Why would it be such an issue to simply use those teams to patch in improvements and roster updates to the games? I understand the need to for profit and I truly believe that fans would be willing to pay perhaps even $30 for those updates. So, again, why the need to package these often very mild improvements as whole new games each year?
@deathstream: You are a wise man, The Witcher 3 is a masterpiece in my opinion and the last count I saw it had only shifted 4 mil units. Nice, to be sure, but certainly nowhere near this. Speaking of lowest common denominator, I actually enjoyed SR4 more than this. But, it just flat out goes for it's insanity.
It's a fine game, never have understood the MASS appeal of it though. Did purchase and enjoyed though.
@x1xclutchx8x: Aside from a minor typo, I think his message was clear. Personally, I could care less if they make everything always online. Then maybe we'd stop hearing about pc pirating all the time. I pay for every single game I play.
@x1xclutchx8x: That was a long way of just saying "deal with it" like the MS guy said. Had he said that, he'd probably still have his job :)