@Brian "If servers costs money to run then have a monthly fee for that particular game." That sounds so much better than $5 a month with all multiplayer and games included.
"It’s Square Enix...you know the answer deep down" Yeah, Tomb Raider, Hitman, and Deus Ex sucked.
It's not arson if the building isn't fireproof.
"ask Criterion how Burnout and Renderware is working under the EA umbrella." Better than a lot of other arcade racing developers. Blaming EA for Criterion's situation is ridiculous when great arcade racers like MotorStorm, Blur, Split/Second, PGR, and Midnight Club couldn't find enough success to justify sequels. Even NFS is no longer annual.
I'm so glad we have the government to protect us from video games.
Learn to take a win. Microtransactions will be back, but you all have no idea what form that will they will take. I know gamers love being outraged, but can we just take the win and stop hating everything preemptively too? Accept the fact that there isn't a developer or publisher that's going to give you a game with free DLC and not want to make some additional money.
I'm not "shilling" for anyone. I think it was something EA needed to fix, but there is a big difference between EA giving us what we want, and EA admitting it's overpriced. If you've ever had to deal with customers, you'd know the difference. Sometimes it's better to give in to demands then fight over something because of the principle of it. I think EA is wrong. It doesn't mean they think they are too. It just means this isn't a battle...
I love when thieves have a problem with customer service.
I boycotted Rock Band because certain songs were unlockable. I paid $60. Why can't I play everything without being forced to play? I've been on to them this whole time. I won't stop until all DLC is free, there are no unlockables, and I'm not forced to play the game to beat it. And then I'm still not going to buy their games because I don't want them to think I can be easily swayed by having them listen to my feedback. Don't le...
Giving people what they ask for is not admitting they're right and you're wrong. By that logic, that old saying "the customer is always right" means the business is always wrong.
@gangsta_red And what we are paying for is a far better package than what $50 would get you on Xbox Live twelve years ago. So, again, you asked how it worked out. Did it work out perfectly? No. But what we get for $60 is a far, far better package than what we got a decade ago, and we wouldn't have it if we rolled over and accepted paying $50 or $60 a year for nothing but online access like Xbox users did for years.
@gangsta_red Are you actually suggesting twelve years of free online play, and the addition of free games isn't an achievement for those pushing back against being forced to pay $50 solely to access multiplayer as was the case with Xbox Live for years? You are really grasping at straws.
@gangsta_red I didn't say anything like that. You asked how the pushback against paid online "worked out". I gave you your answer. Twelve years of free online play. Three years paying less than Xbox users, and a much better subscription package for both platforms compared to what Microsoft charged you for for a decade. Learn to read what people say, not what you want to interpret it as to fuel your fantasy world.
@gangsta_red PlayStation owners got twelve more years of free online play than Xbox owners did. And then PlayStation owners paid less than Xbox owners for three years. And PlayStation owners got free games with their subscriptions, forcing Microsoft to compete. That's how it worked out.
Speaking of actions behind those words... their games have always delivered great single player. I don't know why you think that's all changing because of no single player DLC for one game. You seriously think they aren't working on a new GTA? Whether it's DLC for V or GTA6, more single player GTA is coming, and you'd be crazy to think they'll phone it in because GTA Online was a success.
There is no wasted potential. They'll probably make another GTA. The last one did okay enough to warrant a sequel.
It's always amazed me that gamers always find a way to be mad. You have a developer that gives you one of the greatest single player games ever made, with tons of content, and tons of free updates to the online component that you don't have to spend a penny on, and they'll soon release what will probably be the 2018 game of the year because of it's single and multiplayer, and gamers will still cry about about how the developer is greedy and making money and ...
That article says "GTA products", so it sounds like the main game which still sells for $40 to $60 is included in that figure. "Net Revenues from GTA products exceeded $700 million over the past 12 months"
GTA5 sold over 80 million units. 80 million. You really think those stupid shark cards are selling so amazingly well that it's not worth it to Rockstar to develop single player content that like GTA4's expansions, could be sold as standalone games? I've paid exactly $0 on shark cards. How much are you guys spending on them to make you think they're selling that well?
Maybe if all you needed to be considered "beast" is a participation trophy...
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.