The argument, at least for me, isn't that it can't work, it's just that it doesn't bring anything worthwhile for gamers.
There were rumors that the next Xbox was going to be always online to prevent piracy and disallow users to play used games. On top of that, a lot of developers have expressed interest in an always online console for those exact reasons (moreso to combat piracy). Granted, nothing has been set in stone but the fact that some companies are for it shows where the needle is pointing.
That's kind of how I word the article Darth. It's not whether or not we're ready, if it's we want it. It's not like a game needs an always on console, so what are gamers getting out of all of this? Show me a killer game that needs that kind of functionality and then you might be able to sway me, but until then, no thanks.
It's not so much criticism, but it's the fact that companies are beginning to say that single player games don't sell as well due to the fact that they don't offer as much "game time" as say, a multiplayer title. So now they are trying to subsidize cost by throwing in multiplayer to both appease gamers as well as corporate execs. Your game doesn't have multiplayer - It can't compete with COD. Let's put a team deathmatch mode in there so ...
I don't think the problem are multiplayer games = bad, it's that people disregard really good SP games if they don't have multiplayer content. When in fact, there are plenty of reasons why they might be better even though they offer less game time.
Well you have to remember that when Xbox Live came out (talking about for the original Xbox) it was pretty stellar to be able to play people on your console. Sure PS2 and Dreamcast had the capability but I think Xbox Live really made things mainstream.
It's a bit more than that but you raise a good point. Why review a FPS if you hate FPS; why review RPGs if you can't stand them? People worry more about the score than the review. If you rated a game 7/10 you may think that's a great score, however I may think that it's a sub-par game.
Pay per level wouldn't work IMO, because by the time you're level 10/50/100 whatever, you'd have spent the same cost as a game. Six in one, half a dozen in the other sort of argument.
"if you enjoy this game, pay what you think it's worth." That's what Humble Bundle is all about, which is great for indie games, but I'm not so sure it'll work to fund AAA games. Still, it's a nice alternative that seems to generate a good amount of cash (and exposure) for smaller companies.
Basically the game was more open ended, people are arguing (as is Dusty Wright, the writer of this opinion), that it can't be pure due to all the bugs and problems it had.
What do you mean by Real Battlefield levels? What kind are you looking for?
It was an accident and has been fixed.
Ya, it's tough to look at any MMO and pay $15 a month when there are some pretty good F2P ones out there right now. Still, I'm going to go back and give it a whirl. I still have 20 days left.
Yep I thought it was a bug that came along with the patch - no dice.
This is new. If you played when it first came out you and your friend would be fine. Check out the following http://us.battle.net/d3/en/...
The difference is that demos cost $0, this starter edition costs $60.
Nice to see this title getting some good press. It's all about teamwork.
Considering this the build up. Honestly though, if this is a new Jedi Knight game, Battlefront 3, or XWings V Tiefighter, a lot of people are going to be happy.
You might think only idiots listen to advertising but then one of two things must be true: 1, The majority of the population are idiots. 2. EA/Activision et all are just wasting millions and millions of dollars.
Well I could have written that but, then I could have just put it all into the headline.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.