You played 1 mode on 1 map of a BETA; therefore, you judged an entire game based on that? Imagine if someone made a decision on MW1 based on playing Free For All on Shipment. Or hated Black Ops based on a few rounds on Nuketown.
That would be stupid.
I agree. It's closer to an expansion.
Definitely not worth $60 though.
The money that is exchanging hands isn't going to the people who made the game when you buy used. It props up places like GameStop.
I don't think used games are piracy but it keeps profits from going to the developers and publishers thus keeping other games from being made. The reality is that developers go under, games get cancelled, and properties get shelved because people want to save a few bucks on a new game right now.
If a game needs to sell 1 ...
In theory, games would go down in price because of the elimination of shipping and retailer portions of the $60 MSRP. It's a theory because yes, a company might get greedy but the competition between platforms may keep prices at a lower level. So people will download their stuff from whoever provides the best offer.
Also downloadable full games would be smaller because of localization (most games now are less than 10 gigs though there are exceptions). MMOs are always goin...
1. Resistance 3: not too many people bought that game in the first place. Add in the PSN Pass and that means the only people who are online are those that bought new or bought the Pass.
2. Battlefield 3: I've been playing since Day 1 and every server fills up fast. I think the issue you're having is everyone plays Conquest and/or Rush. I don't know anyone who ever plays Deathmatch.
As for passes, publishers need to find a way to make people want ...
I would rather wait for a game to go down in price (a sale or price drop) than buy a game used in the first month just to save $5.
If I need a game that bad, I buy it new.
A 4 is outrageous for this game. A 7 or 8 I could shrug off and say to each his own but a 4?
I'm curious to know what that site would give a 10 but that would mean giving them hits.
A lot of people don't want to take chances so they only buy the games they know they'll enjoy. I told a friend how excited I was about all the games that I was buying this season (5 bought with 1 more to go) knowing full well the only game he ever buys is Call of Duty.
Everyone buys CoD and then complains about the lack of originality and innovation when other games try to copy the most successful series this generation. Meanwhile, the big titles copy things from less...
Adding a fuel system is something I've always wished a dev would put in an open world game.
Imagine you are running from the cops so you have to jack a car, ANY car. Then you get in with the police on your heels and realize it only has a 1/4 tank of gas.
I hope this info is real...
It's there. Sony just leaves it up to the developer to implement it.
The downside is you would have to drink Dr. Pepper.
Almost as bad Mountain Dew. Ugh.
Has there ever been an online game that launched without problems?
I've only had minor problems with Battlefield 3 but not nearly as much as I've had with any Call of Duty title in the first week.
Wow.
Just...wow.
If it's an add-on, you don't HAVE to buy it.
I read the article and I've been following the situation. The question is why publish a review when you don't have console AND PC versions?
Truth is, this is slightly better than a publisher putting an embargo on reviews until release day. If the game has a day one console patch that wasn't issued until last weekend, then that is the version of the game that needs to be reviewed. Why give out copies when that doesn't reflect the release condition of the game? ...
Maybe EA is making sure that reviewers are playing the same game that consumers will.
The day one patch that is supposed to fix a lot of issues just went live over the weekend. If a reviewer had played a copy weeks ago, those same issues would have definitely hurt the score.
EA could be trying to level the playing field because there are some publications that will bash a game for glitches/issues that could have already been fixed by launch.
Great.
Now I have to create a playlist of all my Batman movie music for my New Game + playthrough of this ridiculously awesome game.
Damn you, Rocksteady...
I'm sure EA doesn't care what you do with your paid new copy of BF3.
Light is on fire, for all they care. A sale is a sale.
Please explain how giving consumers free DLC is somehow greedy.
This isn't about destroying the used game market. It's that when you buy a used game (which you can now on Day 1), the publisher is not seeing any money from that purchase. That is a sale that doesn't exist to them; even though money changed hands, the company got none of it.
So how are they supposed to know how much a game actually sells? Or make enough money to know there is a deman...
Game Informer gave BF3 a higher score by 1/4 of a point.
So, let's all agree that both are equally good games.
Let's chalk this rivalry up to a matter of taste and move on, yes?