I'm a no-size developer and I can tell you without a doubt that the market is saturated with games. It isn't that hard to figure out.
I honestly can't tell the difference. I mean, it was unbelievably gorgeous on PS3 and Vita. And the screen shots make it still look gorgeous
12 were made and 12 were sold. Congrats on the best selling pre-orders ever. Either you can learn from Nintendo or they can learn from you.
Because he's too cool and sometimes that means it just flies over people's heads...
If it's not worth it, then don't subscribe. I don't see what there is to be outraged over.
Let's put this in perspective for a second.
PS+ originally launched as a $50/year service and offered cloud saves, automatic firmware updates, and a few pitiful freebies every once in awhile.
Then it added the Instant Game Collection, which offered a number of top of the line games, for no extra cost, that subscribers could download and play so long as they were subscribers.
Then it added the PS Vita to the service, at no extra cost...
Absolutely. I don't obsess over them, but having them to go for makes some games a bit more fun. And for other games it gives you something to try for after you've finished the main game.
I'm not sure why the author is so openly hostile toward trophies. If you don't like them, you can turn notifications off and never have to deal with them.
So Phil is worried about the two companies he worked for... and coincidentally when he was in charge at each was also their respective low points. He doesn't really have a great track record at gaming companies.
It does seem a bit underwhelming to me as well. Last gen introduced (or popularized) HD graphics, big open worlds, digital game distribution, and online play. That allowed for new gaming experiences that weren't possible on the previous generation. Meanwhile this current gen offers... what? Aside from prettier pictures and smoother play, what is different? Some have said Shadow of Mordor's "Nemesis system" but that seems like a stretch to me. No Man's Sky is probably th...
Two quick points:
1. There is no Virtual Console on the Switch. Right now it is just a dream made up by owners of the system. The idea that it will also play GameCube games is also just wishful thinking at the moment. So far all Nintendo has said is that there will be a way to play NES games in the future, with SNES being a possibility.
2. The Metroid Prime "trilogy" was not on GameCube. Prime 1 and 2 were, but 3 was strictly a Wii game.
What's wrong with nostalgia? Nintendo grasping onto their past is the only thing keeping them around. It's why we get new Zelda games, new Mario games, new Metroid games. People's nostalgic love for Nintendo is what keeps the company in business. They're no longer playing with power, they're playing with the things we loved back in the day and iterating on it.
Amen. If I hear "true 4K" one more time, I'm going to be sick. Then you find out that AC Origins is going to be checker boarded 4K even on the XB1X and despite that not being "true 4K" before now suddenly is true 4k. And in the end, nobody can tell a difference between them. Stop taking selfies with your damn Scorpio chip and start making games.
I've been playing it since launch and it's awesome. After the recent updates, it's a completely different game but it's still awesome. For all the haters who write it off, well, it just sucks that they don't know what they're missing. Go play CoD or something. I'd rather you not be a part of this amazing universe.
I think the real laughable and archaic position is that both Microsoft and Sony charge $60/year to play online. That's more anti-consumer than no cross-play.
It's the same argument about how Sony "wins" E3. Leading up to the event, there were a number of outlets complaining that Sony "cheats" in their E3 conference by announcing games that are years off. So this year Sony only shows games coming out within the next year.... and those same outlets complain that Sony didn't show anything unknown to really wow people.
Same with indies. One moment Sony is overly supportive of them on their indieStation 4...
I loved Knack, but the one thing I didn't like was that just when you got really big, the game forced you to shrink down to small Knack again. I like how Knack 2 gives you the option of shedding your relics and shrinking down rather than forcing you. Definitely a big improvement.
This is what I'm talking about! As someone who has been around since the 80's (I was an Intellivision kid), I understand that games today are amazing and the nostalgic, rose-tinted glasses people put on games of old make those games seem better than they were. I still love retro gaming, but mainly because they remind me of my youth. Games today are inherently much better.
Games today take 50+ hours to complete. Games years ago could be finished in under an hour. Trust me, even without all the DLC and add-on content, you're still getting a full game. Personally, I've only bought one season pass in my entire life (Assassin's Creed IV) and that was after I had already finished the game and loved it so much I wanted it to keep going. That in no way made it feel like the game I had put hours into was any less great. And even then, I paid far less for AC...
And they don't stay at $60 for long. Most AAA games are half price just a few months after they launch. Hell, with the 20% discount Amazon gives Prime members around launch, they're only $47 to begin with. With Flash Sales, I can get games just a year old for $10. If games were so expensive, why do I have so many that I've not even had the time to play??
Not sure what's more disturbing, this guy laying it out there or the vicious comments I see attacking him. Wow are people nasty when hit by the fact that the games business is in fact a business.