Last generation we had a little over twenty remasters over the course of four years. Right now, we have 15 over the course of a year and a half. I think it's safe to say it's gotten out of hand lol.
London has a good reason to be used as a setting for games based in historical events, as the city was founded just under 2,000 ago in the year 43AD. Most of the cities were founded much, much later. London is a ton more interesting a setting from a historical perspective because it has been through more than most of the other English cities. It's also one of the most recognizable cities in the world, which is the primary reason it gets used a lot.
... You realize they've been doing this for five years, right? You make it sound like it's a new thing they're doing.
Or a panda.
At this point, remasters are getting a bit out of hand. We need new IPs and more new games, not time devoted solely to remaking ones that are still fresh in peoples' minds. Maybe if they were doing it like Dishonored 2 gets the first game on-disc similar to how Bayonetta 2 had the first Bayonetta on-disc.
Had a random thought. What if Konami is removing all traces of Silent Hills to allow Kojima to continue making Silent Hills under a different name, or at least a game heavily inspired by it, without him having to worry about legal issues? Kojima did say he was very interested in working on Silent Hills, so maybe this is part of his severance package.
That said, this still says Konami is absolute morons that don't know how to business. After all, they're currently scre...
If he can avoid doing anything that can link it to Silent Hills as anything more than a game inspired by it, he certainly will be able to.
For example, Tango created Boxhead for Evil Within... everything about him is the same as Pyramid Head with exception to him wielding a hammer instead of a giant sword. However, Tango and Bethesda would be sued and lose the lawsuit if Boxhead instead had a pyramid-like helmet.
There would be no legal issues they would face if they left it up as they published the demo and own the rights. For example, Naughty Dog is the original developer behind the Crash Bandicoot games. However, those games were published by Activision; the reason why we've not seen a Crash Bandicoot game is because Activision owns the rights and are selling the PS1 games on PSN right now. Naughty Dog cannot do anything about it because Activision owns the rights, just like how Kojima won'...
I wasn't making any assumptions, I was stating that I felt it was merely more probable. Meaning both are still possible. Maybe learn what an assumption is before trying to be a hard-ass about it.
If it were the Gordon Batgirl, it wouldn't make sense for her to be Oracle if she were still essentially crippled... and it's been confirmed that Oracle is in Arkham Knight as a bigger key character than in previous games. So no, the only time a Batgirl prequel would make...
I already read the article, the fact that it is a prequel story means little. It is likely one for this game, not a prequel for Arkham Asylum. If this were the Gordon Batgirl, it still makes no sense. Also, I looked it up prior to writing my initial comment. All I could find was how Barbara Gordon was Batgirl; nothing on anyone else taking that identity.
Maybe start making fewer assumptions.
It is well-known Batgirl and Oracle are Barbara Gordon, and that Oracle was Batgirl. Barbara's injury is mentioned in Asylum, with her bio describing Joker injuring her. It's also occurred in several comic series where the two identities exist. You can't exactly spoil something that both Asylum and City have both outright stated in dialogue in addition to having bios that went into detail as to what happened. This injury is a staple in just about every Batman story and each story ...
Why is Batgirl in it? Oracle was in the last two games and is going to be in this one. If I remember right, there was only ever one Batgirl; Joker broke her spine and she became Oracle. Makes no sense to me.
I wouldn't be opposed to an HD remaster of Fallout 1 and 2 that can be played on the current consoles. Set the price for $30-$40; pre-order Fallout 4 from any retailer, get that collection half off on your choice of PC or your console. So if you have a PS4 and want to play the originals on PC, you have that option. No pre-order cut-from-the-game "preorder 4 copies from 4 retailers to get the full experience" DLC crap. That'd be what I'd do, anyway.
That wouldn't be possible unless you traveled between different regions of the country. The most they'd likely do is a tri-state area like Fallout 3 was to keep it one cohesive world with possible DLC expansions going into other areas of the country with warmer climates.
Though I would love a big enough world where you can have different environments from desert to snow to overgrown forestation and so on.
Considering the backlash they got over every game they released last year being crap, I'd say it is likely they won't do what you claim. Though I can understand the cynicism; Ubisoft hasn't been among the smartest companies for a while now.
It's not so much the profit that's bad, but the method of doing it. Every decision a business should make should encourage consumer loyalty first to build long-term sales and profit. Many businesses, major corporations included, only seem to want short-term profit and to try and milk consumers by taking advantage of their emotions in fairly unfair and borderline unethical ways. Take a look at Colonial Marines, that's a good example of this.
Haven't you heard? Only corporations are allowed to make money. Anyone else is just being greedy... sound logic, right?
Free for all new copies and $20 for those buying used, with all DLC being free to those having the pass is perfect in my opinion. The pass should also reflect the overall DLC costs; if the cost of all DLC is $20, then the pass should be $10 then.
Rewards New customers with extra value (free pass), Used customers get a good value ($10, get $20+ worth of free DLC), and the developer gets to not only make money in a reasonable way AND build consumer loyalty through a fair busine...
Season Pass content is almost never worth it, especially when you consider the execution. I've never actually bought a season pass because of this fact, and only recommend doing so after all DLC has been released so you can see if the pass is worth your money.
As much as I dislike EA, they did it right with Mass Effect 2's Season Pass (Cerberus Network) where every new copy got it for free and just about all DLC content being free. Too bad that was a one-time-ever thi...
It's because they're breaking the release date. They're not supposed to sell them until May 19th, but the Middle East has nothing to keep retailers from selling it early. The reason why it doesn't happen in, say, the US; it is because a retailer in the US gets fined $5,000 for every copy sold before the release date. So if Gamestop sold ten copies of Witcher 3 even on May 18th, Gamestop would get a $50,000 fine.