@Goufunaki22: agrrreeeeed!
@Killer Toilet: I don't think it's as great as Google does, but I also don't see what the problem is. What about it has you so upset?
@Insecure Penguin: Do you actually read the comments to which you reply?
I'll complain about whatever I want - such is my right to do so. Why are you telling a total stranger on an comments section on a website about video games "don't complain"? I hate screaming babies on long flights. Are you now going to reply "WELL YOU SHULDN'T FLY IF YOU DONT LIEK BABIES SO STOP COMPLAINSING"? No, of course not, so don't contort what I'm saying and detracting from the original focus of this conversation to form a point that doesn't address what we were discussing in the first place.
And to said point: Alpha Protocol. There's a game that shipped in June 1st (3 months back), wasn't worth the $60, and is still $60. Even though I didn't buy it, I can still make a case that it's ridiculous for that game to be that price.
Now, I DO agree with you that nothing will change unless gamers' spending habits change. To reiterate, I don't buy games that I don't think aren't worth $60. I purchase games (and everything else) based on what I get in return for the money spent.
And that brings us back home to the new Xbox Live pricing increase. Why should I pay an additional premium for services that I don't need, want nor use? Sure, I could not renew my membership, but then I lose a key component that many of the games I play are designed to experience. My point is that there is no choice here.
We're all pay supposed more regardless of what services are used, regardless of the fact that bandwidth costs go down over time and with larger scale implementation, regardless of whether it's an ecosystem created to hold onto both developers and gamers by the shorthairs and then label it a "service"?
Naw, fuck that.
I'll complain about whatever I want - such is my right to do so. Why are you telling a total stranger on an comments section on a website about video games "don't complain"? I hate screaming babies on long flights. Are you now going to reply "WELL YOU SHULDN'T FLY IF YOU DONT LIEK BABIES SO STOP COMPLAINSING"? No, of course not, so don't contort what I'm saying and detracting from the original focus of this conversation to form a point that doesn't address what we were discussing in the first place.
And to said point: Alpha Protocol. There's a game that shipped in June 1st (3 months back), wasn't worth the $60, and is still $60. Even though I didn't buy it, I can still make a case that it's ridiculous for that game to be that price.
Now, I DO agree with you that nothing will change unless gamers' spending habits change. To reiterate, I don't buy games that I don't think aren't worth $60. I purchase games (and everything else) based on what I get in return for the money spent.
And that brings us back home to the new Xbox Live pricing increase. Why should I pay an additional premium for services that I don't need, want nor use? Sure, I could not renew my membership, but then I lose a key component that many of the games I play are designed to experience. My point is that there is no choice here.
We're all pay supposed more regardless of what services are used, regardless of the fact that bandwidth costs go down over time and with larger scale implementation, regardless of whether it's an ecosystem created to hold onto both developers and gamers by the shorthairs and then label it a "service"?
Naw, fuck that.
@Insecure Penguin: Yes, in general, I do think movies are insanely overpriced - both theatrical release ticket prices and (especially) blu ray movies. I rarely go to the theatre and don't buy movies for that very reason.
Now, I do believe that some are worth the price. Same with games. It's great you've gotten your money's worth out of MW2. Alone in the Dark wasn't worth $60, Ghostbusters wasn't worth $60, [Insert a hundred more titles here] aren't worth $60.
Your argument misses my point that I should be able to pay a fair price for the goods and services I choice to use. I gladly paid $60 for MW2. Paying $50 just to be able to play with my friends and family was cringe-worthy - I get nothing extra for paying $60 for that same privilege.
Now, I do believe that some are worth the price. Same with games. It's great you've gotten your money's worth out of MW2. Alone in the Dark wasn't worth $60, Ghostbusters wasn't worth $60, [Insert a hundred more titles here] aren't worth $60.
Your argument misses my point that I should be able to pay a fair price for the goods and services I choice to use. I gladly paid $60 for MW2. Paying $50 just to be able to play with my friends and family was cringe-worthy - I get nothing extra for paying $60 for that same privilege.
@riyadh: "While a 20% increase seems greedy and unnecessary, over the course of a year- $10 will not be missed."
Now you're thinking like a Microsoft Exec! I agree that one could make a case that the addition of several features like Netflix, ESPN, social networking is worth the cost, but why should one have to pay for extra features that won't be used? I could care less about avatars, social connectivity and I've stopped streaming Netflix through the 360 - why should I have to pay an additional cost for right to basic multiplayer functionality?
Now you're thinking like a Microsoft Exec! I agree that one could make a case that the addition of several features like Netflix, ESPN, social networking is worth the cost, but why should one have to pay for extra features that won't be used? I could care less about avatars, social connectivity and I've stopped streaming Netflix through the 360 - why should I have to pay an additional cost for right to basic multiplayer functionality?
So many of us have been yelling for 5 fucking years now about how it's really difficult to spend $60 after $60 for a lot of games that aren't really worth that price. I don't know about anyone else, but the recession hasn't eased up on my fucking wallet.
How about ADDING SOME FUCKING VALUE before extracting more from us?
The sad thing is, most people will rant about this and, in the end, still re-up this overpriced bullshit.
How about ADDING SOME FUCKING VALUE before extracting more from us?
The sad thing is, most people will rant about this and, in the end, still re-up this overpriced bullshit.
drawn #speakup
I never played Modern Warfare 2 or Red Dead Redemption! :O
This entire article is moot because 1) Every FF game these days has mixed reviews - you can't please everyone - so MOVE ON and 2) Each game in the series is a reboot. wtf?!
trolls!
Conflict of fucking interest!
What potential outcome is this supposed affect that the ESRB ratings system hasn't already covered?
@BFKelleher: Actually, aren't they saying they only want to ban the sale of violent games to minors?
"The Act does not prohibit a minor's parent or guardian from purchasing or renting such games for the minor."
"The Act does not prohibit a minor's parent or guardian from purchasing or renting such games for the minor."
The character in the demo reel looks like Klaus from Mother 3.
@PudgiesJockeyGivesTheRideOfYou...: AAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
}:O (supposed to be an angry face)
}:O (supposed to be an angry face)
Why do you refer to yourself in the third person in the headline?
@berserk_ftw: Really, it doesn't matter until AFTER you finish the game.
Why do some commentors here act like this is the only marketing Ubi's going to do for Splinter Cell?
Yes, having an espionage expert use one of the most public venues ever to communicate is a totally stupid idea, but I failed to make the connection how knowing that makes you a marketing guru. Just haters, I guess.
