its also the company that asked money for every shade of grey to dye your armor, single use only
companies seeing increases in revenue/profit year over year before any of the price increases and you still advocate for this shit? We're getting worse and less complete games and somehow we should just gobble it up like horny turkeys,
it already took them a decade, not sure how much more time they need
if by people complaining about price you're implying that we say they don't have the right, then I can imply by saying this that you think we don't have the right to complain or criticize.
ofc a bundle is cheaper, why else would you buy a bundle if its the same price as them seperate? and how do you know that they didn't reduce the price of the switch 2 instead of mkw in that bundle? you don't so ....... is your argument really that they're too expensive because they're cheaper in a bundle?
they already kind of did with hiking it up to 80.
that is just outright pathetic. Don't tell me its 90 + 20...that would be absurd
don't talk about store front communism, consoles are literally the exact opposite of that. Sony/ms/nintendo are judge, jury and executioner there.
I still don't get why you're simping for companies more than comfort for the end user, also the mulitple storefronts isn't the deal at least for me, but i dont want extra launchers in my storefronts. Steam has easy options to have no need for that and they should be used. Also on steam user input actually matters ...
i mean it's a bit different, I bet a decent percentage is buying it just for the games and don't or barely use the online features you get from plus, but yeah it's stupid that you need to pay for it but people are paying for it surprisingly. I don't think this is ever going away, which is so contradictory because as technology improves, it would start to become cheaper to host servers or whatever their excuse is to charge for it now.
yes they decided on this in a week, it can't be that they were planning it anyway, it couldn't have been. Not from your favourite company.
we all knew how that went with overwatch. Bungie has never made a pvp only game, whats wrong with them doing that? I rather have them not waste resources on sp content when they're going for a pvp game if pve is gonna be an afterthought anyway. They can spend those resources on destiny or a new ip thats sp focused.
thats what the Starks thought as well when they went to dine at the Frey's house
their turn based mario games were pretty good
@anast yeah cause god forbid someone has a different opinion
friends are overrated
Sony was like, if no one's gonna make a GoW killer, well do it our fucking selves
if they do a sequel, please dont swap to another character with boring on rails shooting segments again, the game was so good but that really destroyed the pace and some of the fun for me. I don't even remember how many times I played the demo of Heavenly Sword before it released
Every company would be creating full AI games if they had the chance and could get away with it, or the company hates money.
You do realize if they test an AI to build a game, they can detect what parts of it, it does well and only implement the things it does well, just an example i came up with in 5 seconds. An army base doing a drill doesn't mean they're going to war and a company doing tests with AI doesn't mean they will switch full development to AI. Why d...
AI has been used in gaming in many shapes and forms for like 10 years now, this is nothing new, won't be the first and won't be the last and the hardware in your pc/console also uses AI, it's literally already everywhere in gaming and you didn't even notice.
no one does SINGLE USE paintjobs in videogames, that only happens in real life. Also stop with the "look all the other kids are doing it" bs