@Maester07- I completely agree with you. And while I don't like the execution, I think a scenario where a stealth guy is suddenly faced with a fight or die situation in which he is totally unprepared for is fairly believable. There were conveniently placed weapons and on "Give me Deus Ex" mode during the first boss fight of my "no kills/no alarms" run, I found enough emp grenades and shotgun/machine pistols to get the job done but in a few tries. In the context of the ...
I understand. It's an unimaginable web of logic and Cause/effect scenarios that programmers don't have time to program for, and voice actors don't have time to voice them all, neither do animators have time to animate all the necessary cutscenes. Games like Indigo Prophecy & Heavy Rain, or even Fallout do what they can but there is a lot more that could be done.
If it's true, then that's cool. The Rock, even as Dwayne Johnson, represents WWE well even when he is not in the ring and maintains a good relationship with the company. If WWE can benefit from using his image, and the benefits are mutual then great.
Good post cgoodno! I am conflicted on these things. I believe that disputes like this are important to protect branding and such. But at it's core, beyond a company interest, what constitutional basis does the government have for protecting or copyrighting "Battlefield" as part of a franchise IP. EA did not invent the name. If EA want's to protect the design or lettering of the word "Battlefield" then fine, but IMO this is the other side of free market interference...
@gamingdroid- You must mean human nature, or greed is the reason FREE MARKETS work. In reality, capitalism can actually give way to capitalists standing in the way of a free market competition by not adhering to free trade principles just as government can stand in the way of a free market in its own way. It's more complex than capitalism vs communism, at both extremes, the free market is just a myth.
If publishers wanted to prevent renting then they should stop making licensing deals with game rental companies to allow them to rent out their games. Publishers do want some of us to rent games because they understand that if certain people couldn't rent a game, they may not be able to afford to put up the money to buy it either which is not a profitable option. So the least a rental gamer does is keep the game rental companies sending license money to the publishers.
@HenryFord-
I have a similar situation with a PC that is a couple years old. The idea of turning up to 1080 or higher is pointless to me when you have to turn down the textures, shadows, decals, lighting...etc. That's all the stuff that you actually want to see in 1080p, not just bare hi-res models. And low res shadows look ugly in 1080p, much worse than low res shadows in 720p because the lack of detail is hidden. I'd rather play in a lower resolution with the effect...
I enjoyed the game plenty. Honestly I feel like the choice & consequence model in this game was far more meaningful than in Deus Ex:HR.
I enjoyed the game. It's earned a couple replays so I can do things differently. But in the end, although there are a few slightly different cinematics, it felt like none of the decisions really mattered. You don't get to see the impact your choices had on the specific people you met throughout the game. It would have at least been nice to be able to get a thank you from some of those people you spent forever helping.
I'm just waiting for the day when a developer will come up with the total package. I'm talking about a game that takes both circuit & track racing seriously, and also has a serious open city street racing mode (like a combination of GT5 & Midnight Club).
Exactly. There are certain games where I will just wait for the GOTY edition like many others who would rather pay $60 for the complete version instead of $100 ($60 for base game, $10 per 4 more DLCs like in Fallout).
Because of this, many gamers are not going to be part of the important first day or first week sales of a game because they know what the developers are going to do down the line.
If the industry moves toward built in $10 passes for multiplayer, I think that consequently puts a $10 value on the multiplayer mode, leaving a value of $50 for games without multiplayer.
So not only should single player only games start at $50, but lower quality games simply might not want to hit the shelf at the same price as better games instead of waiting two weeks for a price drop.
@limewax; How is this "money they are entitled to?"
In this market it's supposed to be a fair trade. We give them our money once and it becomes theirs (to use and invest into profiting more if they choose), and they give us their game once and it becomes ours (even to sell if we wish). We do not benefit off of our money more than once, so why should they benefit off of their game more than once?
It's not really a question of right or wrong, it's ...
The consumers definitely need to stand up for themselves.
There is no such thing as a lost sale (you can't lose a sale that didn't exist), only lost potential which you could never be sure of. If I buy a game new for $60 and sell it used to someone else for $30, then they sell it to someone else for $25, and it gets sold to a fourth person for $20. There was no lost sale. It's no different than a family of four all pitching in to buy a game. Only one $60 purchase...
Mostly true, but Killing is not the same as Murder.
Looks nice. From some of the visuals it seems they will be bringing up some story elements from DA Awakenings. I hope some of the choices form Awakenings will carry into Legacy.
LOL... At the end of Dragon Age 2, there is a post game existence where you really have no where to go if you've done everything. You can stay in your mansion or go to the Black Emporium but that's about it. I pretty much forgot about this game. I guess they didn't want to drop the DLC too soon and be accused of cutting it from the game.
I disagree with that the person who is selling the game is getting extra money out of it. If a person spends $60 on a game there is almost no way they can ever recover their $60. They could likely get $45 or less depending on how long they wait to sell it. Which means they will at least take a net loss of $15. The gamer who sells the game when they are done makes ABSOLUTELY NO profit off of the game when you consider the price they paid to buy it because they don't end up with more money ...
Seems like certain people like a free market less and less when they realize that their business model isn't as easily profitable as they hoped. Free markets are supposed to provide equal trades. They games we buy already include government interference (necessary to uphold and protect the digital games IP market) by way of EULAs and TOS. So as if the stipulations on how we can use the property we buy weren't already enough, the industry wants to take it into their own hands (it's...
Yes, because of Rockstar, even though GTA4 could be seen as a letdown compared to San Andreas, GTA still offers one of the best open world games with a cast of characters guaranteed to be memorable in some kind of way, excellent voice acting and an enjoyable story. It's one of those games where I won't hesitate to drop $60 on day one.