The upcoming* video game crashFollow

Yeah I rarely pre-order, Like I said usually only console JRpgs, because most of the times they are already out in Japan, and already have a few Engrish reviews/ English speaking people that speak/read Japanese reviews. But Jrpgs are a niche market and many don't get translated over because of that, preordering shows the company that do bring over games, hey we're interested.

Otherwise I very very rarely preorder, I know im taking a risk. Last game I preordered was DmC, only because hell I got it for 35 bucks, because of pre reviews I felt it was a game I liked and competent, and DMC4 PC ran awesomely and much better then PS version. Again I knew I was taking a small risk but it was calculated. Everything else, no thanks, I'll wait to see if your product is good before I buy it. I watch many review youtubes/sites to make sure I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.

Eh, I don't think the gaming market will crash, though it certainly could, but I'm betting it'll be avoided. EA is a different subject. EA just ruins things and has generally been a pretty sleazy company the last 5 or so years.

It's certainly true that the video points out a lot of failures (mostly by EA) over the last few years, but there have also been a great deal of good games. Most things Bethesda, Far Cry, Tomb Raider, Borderlands... The video just seemed like someone ranting after trying to play SimCity for a few hours and wanted to rail against EA without being completely obvious.


As much as I hate DLC, it's not always a bad thing- companies and players just have to start figuring out some general guidelines. The content DLC aren't always extensive enough to justify the overhead of a new game/sequel and they can be significant enough that they don't make it into the game due to deadlines. I'm always reminded of the Developer Jam for Skyrim... everything there was created as experiments, but then half of it ended up in DLC or updates simply because it was so cool. Clearly cutting content from a game as launch DLC is a horrible idea though (looking at you Mass Effect 3). For other than content DLC, I really liked the ExtraCreditz on micro transactions and is definitely worth watching. I'd make more points about micros, but it'd just be parroting the link... and for the record, I support the $70 monocle (unless it was an example of selling power, though I thought it was just aesthetic). If people want to waste their money, go right ahead- just makes it easy to identify the rich/morons.

I could not care less if used game sales suddenly stopped as I'm more concerned that a new console might require an internet connection, but it would be a horrible idea to do either. The video mentions bringing a game to friend's house- even if we ignore that a huge majority of multiplayer is done online already, some alternatives are: bring your HDD, bring your gaming system (PC gamers have been doing this since forever!), have your friend come over instead, and probably more. Yea, sure not as easy as bringing a disk- but if you're bringing a disk, your friend has the system, so he has all the cables and hookups, so bringing your HDD/system really isn't too difficult.



Oh, and maybe Sony will mention it at E3, but hiding facts about allowing/forbidding used games is just a bad idea. The sooner we have all the information, the better because then it gives the fan base time to contemplate and time for Sony to (re)think any strategies. There's nothing that will cause more problems then a surprise, that's for certain.

Also, it's been a few days since I watched the video, so not sure if it was mentioned or not- but Madden, FIFA, and other such games should move to a subscription model though I don't know how it would work (benefits vs. free content). Personally, I'm surprised EA hasn't already because I bet they would make money overall than simply releasing a "new" game every year. This is what made FFXI the most successful Final Fantasy of all time and the playerbase in tiny compared to Madden. Of course, knowing EA, they'd offer subscription, then make a new game after a year anyway... I guess if I were EA, I'd promise to only make a new game every 3-4 years. Offer subscription option to allow for online and key updates every month... then when they release their new Madden after 3-4 years, price it at $60 and allow for 50% off with a copy of the old game which would remove a used physical copy from the system or... since everything is moving digital, 50% off for those that obtained a moderately difficult challenge (play 100 hours, win 10 games or something), but nothing that wouldn't be unlocked for a typical dedicated player over a period of 4 years with a subscription account (this shows "dedication" to EA). Could offer weekend tournaments or "in depth" events during the regular football season to make subscription option more appealing. Ok, that was longer than I expected, but I'm keeping it regardless of how pointless my ramblings became... I think I'll make it small though


Also also, I'm really sick of preorder-to-win models!

The problem isn't exactly with DLC itself. DLC can be a very good thing. Offering additional areas, outfits and other content. It's when you get day one DLC that feels like a cash grab such as DMC having 3 alternate outfits out right away as DLC instead of being available from the game. Sebastian from Dragon age as DLC left a bad taste in my mouth too. That doesn't mean the month after release DLC for DMC doesn't have me excited and doesn't feel cash grabby in my opinion or the two DLC to follow on dragon age.


Nintendo did DLC right for fire emblem in fact I would call it a text book example of how to do DLC right. For those not in the know, fire emblem DLC features characters you can get from previous titles with custom avatars(And sometimes custom classes) along with a challenge stage where you have to fight characters from previous games with not so custom avatars. You get your character from a previous game through beating these maps. Depending on the DLC you even get other benefits like stat +2 to all characters and extra cash. AS an incentive to buy on the game early for the first month it was out one of those DLC maps and characters were free. The DLC feature storyline completely separate from the main story was really just a fan service to people who been playing the series a long time.

It's when games hold unlockables that use to be standard in game as DLC or even some really really **** moves by developers/companies when they have DLC that's already on disc that you have to pay to unlock after buying the game. This has happen before and it's a kick in the balls. This what makes people upset.

I always felt alot of this was mainly Atari. I remember the main 3 Atari Systems the 2600, 5200, and the 7800. The 5200 was pretty much a flop. One thing Atari just couldn't figure out is people were done with Pac-mac, Defender, Centipede, etc. Sure Pacman on the 7800 had better graphics but it was still a game that everyone had played to death. IF you look at a majority of the games on every updated Atari system they just kept re-releasing the same games that people had played to death in the arcades and on their Atari 2600 to death allready.

Then Nintendo comes along with the NES and starts to offer games that take hours (sometimes days) to complete rather than games that you just try for a higher score on.

I have to say a majority of my game purchases from the past couple of years have probably been indie games. There hasn't been anything on console recently that has interested me in the least.