Right a video game company is the new nazi evil of the internet, gotcha. Anyone heard of Monsanto? Or any of the other dozens of companies out there that flaunt real and actual human rights and do some truly ethically questionable things? Hell borderline illegal in some cases.

Edit
EA may be the worst video game company, but by a gigantic vast margin larger than the universe it is nowhere near the worst.

No, games not appealing to my tastes are ruining gaming.

Gamers are entitled brats. Any feature a company introduces that the player doesn't like is EVIL, a sleight directly against them, and requires everyone to "think with their wallets" and boycott the game... even if no one else cares about it or they even like the feature. If they don't boycott the game they're obviously sheep and ruining the world sticking up for that dark and evil company.

Any company that isn't an indie company is evil and must be stopped because they make money and apparently ruin all games despite millions of people loving every game they make. Any sequel is milking the franchise and must be boycotted to show these companies we want creativity and fresh ideas in our games! Any creativity and fresh ideas in our games are lashed out against and boycotted!

Damn brats.

I know right. Hahahah, god I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhIVLNI71lc the internet.

Edit
Irony levels... off the charts. Captain the shields can nay handle the irony levels. At this rate they'll overload and shut down.

I mainly don't like EA because all of their games require me to spend a full minute waiting for them to connect with their authentication servers to play single player games. At least Steam does not require me to check with servers EVERY time I start a game.

Fandoms tend to generate passion and controversy. It's not just gaming. I follow the Song of Ice and Fire fandom, for instance. If you want to see entitled crybabies... Some "fans" rage so much about the books (and now the TV series) that you wonder why they even bother with something that gives them high blood pressure.

It's true that creative types should maintain a certain distance from this, and be a bit stubborn about their original vision rather than trying to pander to fans. It's a risk, though, when you have publishers breathing down your neck to make your work profitable. Like movies, gaming is a highly commercial and hence risk-averse industry. Creative ingenuity is going to be hard to come by with such pressures. Fans know this and seek to assert their opinions of what they want or they're going to punish the developers. You can't really blame either side, it's the nature of the business.

Hmm. The way I'd read it (in followup articles after the first ones), yeah, you could unlock Jaavik with an edit.... and that's it, because it was still missing things like his mission/etc.

I disagree with this for a few fundamental reasons. first of all, while it may be true that developers may not likely sell as many DLC several weeks or even months after the core game is released for purchase. It reduces the chances that cheap and poor quality DLC will be made and sold. As cheap and frivolous DLC simply will not sell because such a product depends solely upon the hype of the game newly being released.

Which is to say that a quality product will create a demand to purchase the product, while DLC made poor for nothing more than a low production cash grab will be ignored because the new game hype is gone.

Bethesda for example, they spend several weeks if not months developing their DLC (with the exception of some, IE; horse armor.) which so far for them has not only been significant successes but also added significant game play to the core title over all. So much so that those DLC/Expansions are considered to be as much as part of the whole tittle rather than a simple add on sale.

Secondly. The fact that day one DLC can be abused, means that it is guaranteed to be abused. Murphy's law would support this argument. Although not simply because it can happen, but more so because it is aligned with lucrative incintive as well as human nature (specifically greed).

Developers may not develop cheap and virtually nil quality day one DLC with the specific intention to cause despair. However when there is an economic insentive people will find all kinds of ways to justify to themselves that wrong decisions are part of an exception, or even simply a part of business.

I disagree. Success has ruined gaming. Gaming has become one of the world's major forms of entertainment, and the big players in the industry are absolutely rolling in cash. The success has gone to their heads and they'd rather settle on making [censored] and unfinished games that sell well than try their best to make great ones. It's as simple as that.

The exact same thing has happened to the film and music industries. We're living in a time period where these types of entertainment are so widespread and mainstream that they are what define our cultures, and that means a huge increase in the amount of uninspired, lazy, simplified [censored].

To be fair this is really it.

Don't expect any deep games soon, not from the major companies anyway.

We gamers to an extent have ruined gaming, but we are not the sole reason for this ruination. Developers have their hand in the pot as well.

This! However it may seem, we're usually a tiny minority of the audience, and when we're not, the game itself is usually a niche game attracting a particular bunch of folks prone to obsessive discussion and entitlement anyway.

I've moved around in various fandoms (including ASoIaF, so I can attest to what Celan is saying) over the years, I think you tend to lose perspective when you immerse yourself in any fandom for too long. Innocuous posts start seeming like part of an agenda, little announcements and events get blown way out of proportion, and you start feeling ridiculously entitled despite your better judgement.

Is that the case? My general impression from reading around is that game devs are favouring consoles more and more, because it's harder to pirate console games than PC games. Not really arguing with you since I have no real knowledge on the subject, just curious.

People are moving to PC because its open nature allows for more alternatives and innovation in business models. If things continue to head the same way as they do now in the games industry, consoles will only be able to support the very largest game publishers pumping out risk-free titles with bloated budgets. The rest will move on to other markets. You can already see the symptoms right now with publishers like THQ and Sega clearly not having what it takes to survive in a traditional console market.

I don't think so. Do you know what the companies behind tv series tell their devs all the time? People don't like complicated stories, it has to be easy to understand. Motto: They should follow the story if they just started watching in the middle of the season. This can get you quite some viewer count. But there are and have been some series out there, who decided to be more complex.
Gamers/ a single person don't have really influence on what is produced. They can just buy it - or not.

Constructive criticism is good and when done right can achieve something (Mass Effect 3's ending isn't good because of X, Y Z, Dark Souls should get a PC port because of 1, 2, 3), simple complaining (TES MMO svcks because it's an MMO why doesnt Bethesda make more single player) is not.

And look at things like Kickstarter. Projects like the Doublefine adventure, Wasteland 2 and all sorts of projects that otherwise would never have been made, getting funded by gamers. Go gamers!

It's hard not to get upset when you imagine the TES lore being exploited through hundreds of pointless "Kill X enemy" quests that serve no purpose other than to farm XP and loot, all while players shout "FUS RO DAH" at each other and make arrow jokes within the town hubs. I'm aware that TES has its fair share of redundant quests, but the game world and its lore deserve much better than some shoddy MMO that makes all of it seem like one big throwaway joke.

If the MMO turns out to be amazing and bucks those annoying trends, I'll admit I was wrong with this assumption. However, since nearly all MMOs follow this formula to the letter, I think it's completely justified.

Edit: And that's all I'm gonna say in this topic, since the TES MMO one is right over there.

I'm fine with people being upset and I understand why, but many just complain without providing any kind of calm reasonable argument and that's never going to achieve anything.

Your rong !!11!11q1! etc.

Actually that is irritating. I often moan about stuff, but I'll at least try to give a reasonable indication as to why I'm unhappy; there are far too many complaints that are little more than "insert-game-here lol" or which give specious or vague reasons whilst ignoring more major issues, especially when the assertion is nothing more than "thing > almost identical thing". Grr.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/346234/timesplitters-4-nobody-was-interested-in-signing-us-says-dev/

Publishers + greed + sheep.

Bottome line SWTOR and Elder Scrolls Online just svck. Kill them both, problem solved.

It depends on the problem really, but I see what you're saying. Like in the Origin thread, I don't really see how their privacy policy is any different from anyone else, and as such I don't expect them to do anything different in that particular area. Would I like them to change it up a bit? Yeah, but it doesn't mean I expect them to.

I imagine you disagree, and that's alright.


FTFY.


Way to contribute nothing to the conversation. This is the exact kind of attitude that is poisoning gaming as a whole. Many people, myself included, actually LIKE SWTOR. Just because you don't doesn't mean that the game should be shut down. Not to mention we really don't have enough information to write TESO off quite yet.

It's just plain selfish.

So you deny that there are thousands of people who buy every single game in a franchise only for the brand name, while ignoring any problems it may have?

If you're going to talk about respecting other people's opinions, I'd appreciate it if you didn't take my posts out of context so you can post a witty reply.

"Gamers" aren't even the main target anymore. Gamers will game and spend money on games, now to bring in the others who aren't "gamers".

I'm sure there are, but I don't know if they alone are enough to keep video game franchises alive, or make publishers cling to certain trends. Most folks tend to bow out when they run into something they don't like (e.g. Final Fantasy XIII-2 selling significantly fewer copies than any other numbered entry). There are some situations where I can see it happening, like multiplayer communities feeling pressured to move on to the latest release, but even in the case of Call of Duty you're still seeing new maps and a campaign, and past games are still among the most-played multiplayer titles.

At the end of the day, folks will buy what they like and I can't fault them for that. I've bought and enjoyed games that some folks might think were better off failing, or not existing at all. To me it's mostly on publishers and developers that won't even try to create new experiences to appeal to different audiences because it's too risky. An original title could very well be a success at the same time as the latest Call of Duty is off selling its ~20 million copies.

No, I don't. I'm just saying that the term sheep is relative, not to mention vague. Calling you out on it is hardly taking your posts out of context.

I DO respect your opinion, that comic just seemed to fit, and rather than write it out, I decided to post a link to the comic over your comment.