Sorry you don't have a PS4. Try out Sunset Overdrive. The "I happen to hate the game I don't have access to" thing feels a little 2010 (I'm sure you felt the same about all the PS3 fans who coincidentally thought COD was way better than Halo and Gears during that time).
I've made this argument before related to Spotify for music...if a kid now goes from their teen years to college graduation with their parents paying for a subscription giving them access to essentially all music that has ever been recorded, how can they be expected to assign any value to an album?
Of course, artists have other ways to make $$ (touring, merch, etc) but unfortunately that other avenue in games is MTX.
I think we need to start drawing a distinction between more traditional styled games that can be played cooperatively online (i.e. Borderlands) and semi MMO games that require you to be connected to a server even to play by yourself or with one friend (Division, Destiny). There is obviously a difference between having online features and being GAaS, and it isn't helpful to conflate the two.
I don't understand why this concept is controversial in video games. For movies, it is widely understood and accepted that a film can gross hundreds of millions of dollars and still be categorized as a flop or failure. Even if that film turns some profit, if it is far less than expected, it can be insufficient to justify the time and money involved. Maybe they didn't lose money technically, but if you invest a ton of time and resources into Movie X and launch it on one of the prime we...
Wanting to spend real money on cosmetic items in video games is inexplicable to me. Your comment makes me sad (but glad I'm not on Facebook anymore).
I don't think anyone over the age of 20 has ever been tempted. It just doesn't make any sense. Why would you spend any money on a blue shirt or something, when that has no impact on the game itself? (I don't want MTs to impact gameplay, that's worse obviously, but in that case I'd at least understand why some people would buy them).
Lol they don't need a majority of people to buy MTs to keep selling them. In fact, a lot of the people even counted in this number are probably kind of irrelevant (people who bought one skin in their favorite multiplayer game). What they need is a that small percentage that spends a ton of money, over and over.
And you didn't pull him aside for a father-son chat about how dumb cosmetics are, and why he should save those cards for steam sales?
2 things:
1) How much of this is exclusively driven by Fortnite, which has become more of a mainstream thing that the n4g crowd wouldn't touch? I'd love to see numbers with Fortnite removed.
2) I'd love to see this broken down by age. For whatever reason, cosmetic MTs seem to really appeal to younger kids/teens right now. Not trying to do a "dumb kids these days" argument, as we didn't even have the option to spend money on MTs when I was ...
I like that you keep posting this irrelevant comment (not being sarcastic).
Nope. They actually announced the game 2 months later than you claim, and you can play an early access alpha that will never leave early access and is totally worth $240 million. Owned you! Go back to fortnite on console, you know nothing about PC.
The whole "BOTW is overrated" thing is getting old, but I still chuckled at this.
@rainslacker
Yep. And because of things like Metacritic, which unfortunately matter, it's a real problem if one site-especially a "big" site-decides to deviate from the common understanding of how the 10-point scale works.
I'm actually not opposed to critics starting to explore the scale a little bit more (i.e. treating 5 as average instead of 7, and broken games as 1s instead of 4.5), but the problem is that that goes against how so many people view the 10 point scale, so there would have to be almost industry wide agreement to redefine it.
Additionally, as you seem to suggest, it's inevitable that within the next six months giant bomb will give a 6+ to a bug-filled game with massive...
Probably as things stand now, but Konami may look at how successful Capcom has been recently by refocusing on quality, and decide to try the same strategy. Capcom was never as far gone as Konami, so it's less likely, but who knows. If that doesn't happen, hopefully they'll realize that their IP are more valuable as one time sales than for milking purposes (failure of Metal Gear Survive should help with that, and using the MGS license on a Pachinko machine isn't going to add mu...
The Switch has obviously reversed that trend in a major way.
Not that it matters to the overall totals, but it really annoys me how they've retconned Gameboy and Gameboy color to be one system. You couldn't play Gameboy color games on the original Gameboy or Gameboy pocket, so they were not the same system. It's like combining DS and 3DS sales.
The different consoles were actually different in interesting ways back then. PS2, Xbox, and GameCube each offered something unique, even though there was overlap in multiplats. Although Nintendo has continued to do its own thing, PlayStation and Xbox have just continued to get more similar since the start of last gen.
I have my suspicions that a lot of the scores that would have been 8-9s got a boost to 9-10s because of Kojima, while a lot of the scores that would have been 7s got knocked to 5-6s because of Kojima.
Either way, the conflict almost makes me more interested than a run of 8.5s across the board. Just not sure I have the time to commit to this type of game right now, but I definitely want to play it just to see how it could be so divisive.
@Spurg
I can't really "prove" an opinion wrong, especially when it isn't legitimately held. You claim Spiderman plays like the Arkham games (it doesn't, beyond inherent similarities in third person games) and imply that you have given both series fair consideration (no one believes that). You would know if you'd played both that Batman feels much heavier, while Spiderman feels far more fluid, which is actually appropriate as each game feels true to...