With so many games, movies, and TV shows releasing every week, it makes sense to focus on the biggest and the best known.
The new rules set by Japanese gaming giant, Nintendo, might threaten future content, directly impacting the profitability of many community-driven events.
"The profit of these tournaments is directly impacted by these new rules, as sponsorships are being forbidden, maximum prize money is limited to $5,000, and food/drinks can’t be sold at the tournaments."
Why even bother.
1 thing I've realized over the years is that Nintendo likes bragging about "fun", but it's "fun" how they see fit, and they often go against their consumers for the dumbest reasons. Just gonna do this stuff underground style, who are Nintendo to stop anyone from organizing community based tournaments anyway? How does this actually hurt em?
They've always wanted smash to be seen as a fun, casual game and nothing remotely competitive, which is in stark contrast with how Sakurai develops smash. He puts in so many little things to master for high level competitors. It's just sad, especially for the melee community. They kept the community going for 2 decades now even while all the time nintendo was trying to sabotage them.
This week on the Game Deflators Podcast John and Ryan discuss the PlayStation Portal, Nintendo’s adults only application in Japan, Starfield player base figures and video game genre fatigue.
TimeSplitters studio Free Radical Design faces closure before Christmas, Embracer CEO Lars Wingefors has privately acknowledged.
What does this even mean lol, this very studio was formed out of a acquisition (purchase of the IP)
How does that in any way serve towards your comment
Not to mention the layoffs from Embracer
"How does that in any way serve towards your comment"
Had Xbox acquired that studio from Embracer before gone, you know N4G would gone riot.
????
So you're making up scenarios for a studio that was created for the sole purpose of this IP, for console warring?? Where has Xbox ever said they were interested in buying them, and vice versa?
Where's this assumption that they would want to even save them? If that was the case, we would never have any studio closure.
@obscure
Wow...cant even begin to imagine the lengths you take to be so inaccurate.
This studio has barely released anything in the last decade. You think people would've rioted? The contrary. It wouldve been an investment into elevating the studio to be able to bring back timesplitters. I wouldve been grateful.
^ Obscure observer is denser than lead.
Obscure’s mouth flaps, and a whole lot of stupid comes out every freak’n time.
@Nitrowolf2
Don't even try, Obscure_Observer has the special power to make every single news into a "XBox good, PS bad" story, powered by infinite amount of delusion, you can't win.
Dude Obscure_Observer is a complete idiot. He always and I mean ALWAYS make comments and responses that make no absolutely NO sense. Trying to get that moron to learn anything is like trying to teach calculus to a drywall.
I'll just point this out from the article
"When it’s not obvious that something is a big deal, like a Grand Theft Auto or an Avengers movie or a Game of Thrones-level show, we use metrics like traffic on IGN for news, trailers, and previews to see if the wider audience is interested. We also use publicly available tools like Google Trends and YouTube. Did a lot of people check out the trailer for a new movie? It’s a safe bet they’ll be interested to know more. Did just a few thousand view it on YouTube? Maybe it’s just not clicking with IGN’s audience and a review would suffer the same fate. When those raw numbers leave us uncertain – or even sometimes when they tell us most people aren’t interested, but we are – we often take a chance on something we think is special and should be highlighted, even though it probably won’t do a lot of traffic for us. That’s when you’ll see smaller things make it onto our review list."
"When you consider the main purpose of a review is to answer the question of whether something is actually as good as it appears to be in ads and previews before you decide to spend your time and money on it, there’s no greater waste of everybody’s time and effort than telling people that something they’ve never heard of isn’t good."
Their argument is built on a false premise.
IGN is one of the worst review sites I have ever come across. They have no passion for games, it's more of a business for them.
Remember when there was a person who plagiarised Boomstick Gaming Review. They may have fired him but before it was brought up IGN didn't care about the quality of the review. Now imagine how many other reviews were plagiarised and that we don't know about.
I also recall the Dark Souls 2 DLC review...where the reviewer could not finish the game because it was too hard. How do you even write a review if you can't even beat a game? Somehow that person did.
Now they are being political about things such as the JK Rowling situation. You can easily imagine the game losing points because of this some nonsense reasons. All that for political points.
Gamers need to stop putting these so-called gaming Jornos on a pedestal. Their voice isn't the gospel, every time we see them give a score for a game, no matter how high or low they are should be ignored.
The rating system is borked, yet it's borked on many sites (that review media and products) to the point where it's almost useless. 5 Should be the standard for a game that is playable and okay, but not particularly spectacular or woefully terrible, but instead everything that's average just ends up as an 7 or 8 (in theory, bigger number should mean better, certainly not in practice though). I agree that we should just go back to a 5 point scale instead of 10, 10 point is just meaningless, do 5 and score an average game as 3, anything below as serious issues with story/gameplay/bugs/ect... While anything about 3 is above average or fresh or just outstanding in almost every area that almost everyone should play it.
Sadly, there are now Premium Marketing Packages for a lot of these publications that the companies can pay for which come in with a minimum guarantee. They feature the game all across the publication site etc. It's a marketing cost at this point for the publishers.
Game Reviews are more influenced by money than we realize, unfortunately. It really doesn't lie with the developers but with the publications.