Tom should not have been able to write on a game demo having not played it. We follow editor's articles because we assume that they have had inside experience with the games before it is made available to us, not because their opinion is something that should be elevated on it's own merits.
This seems pretty hypocritical. You guys start out saying that people think, "ok, these are kinda similar game[s], but WE know that battlefield and modern warfare are actually kinda different..." so you guys explain how we all have to look at them as different approaches and styles. But then you conclude with how how the games should be more similar: battlefield should be more scripted like MW, battlefield multiplayer should be more rewarding like MW... really??
That's ridiculous to think these online codes will hurt the companies and that they aren't sustainable, "pricing out a portion of the population"?? If you want to get all economic, then consider the fact that video game demand is about as inelastic to price as cigarettes. Gamers will eat whatever price you give them. console games are $10 more than last generation. people are paying $15 for map packs. Xbox live and playstation plus charge for online services (never had anything like that on PC). but gaming sales are at all time highs. and you think company image hurts profits? If that had the slightest impact on sales than activision would not be destroying sales records year after year.
i just can't see this catching on... people are happy with video games right now and i can't see them making such a huge shift in gaming. also, it seems like a terribly costly business to maintain.
its difficult to judge this thing's worth before we try it. if it really works well and makes everything much more responsive it will allow games to be better . if not then this is no fun
willauqs' comments