@golguin: I thought it was pretty obvious the whole thing was a build up to the game from the get-go. As soon as I saw them using all the same costumes that they use in the game, and realizing how it timed up against the release date that got pushed just a few weeks earlier. Seemed like the most obvious thing you would do when you're releasing a game based on a tv series like South Park.
Ares42's forum posts
Can't really say I agree with the premise here. I don't think microtransactions were ever justified by game price. If they ever were justified it was on their own merit. We have 2 different kinds of microtransactions. One is the one where you buy something in-game that will last forever (like hats) which is somewhat accepted, and the other is when you either just buy time or convenience.
There's no reason the model where you get a game and then can purchase extra stuff in the game can't work even if you payed a good amount for the game. Would it really be terrible if you bought Mass Effect 4 for 50 bucks and it came with one of six classes and you needed to unlock the others at 2 bucks each ? Not that that would ever happen at that price point, but I don't think we should really worry too much about content being locked out. Those types of microtransactions only make game prices drift on a set scale, much like DLC has already done for years.
The type of microtransactions that are actually lucurative to publishers are the ones where you just buy a service, as they are a constant stream of income. They are also the ones that change games as the gameplay gets molded to push you into buying them. However I don't think those have yet been accepted by the traditional gaming audience, even in free games. And even while those kinda games have an audience I don't think the two overlap that well. It's a seperate market that's new and unexploited, but at worst all it will do is divert attention away from more traditional games, not infiltrate and transform them. Basically, what we're seeing is similar to what we saw with Wii and casual/movement games.
I don't eat fries with burgers. A burger on it's own is a fine meal, you don't need the fries. And if you really like fries, why eat them with burgers when there are so many things they go much better with ? If you're one of the people who eats either first, why did you order both if you don't plan on eating them like a meal ?
I used to love competitive multiplayer games, but the invasion of crappy matchmaking systems has completely turned me off them. MM is great for the convenience of getting into games quickly, but you lose the whole community aspect and more often than not it feels like it just screws you over. That's all fine if you play a game where you cycle through new lobbies every 10 minutes, but usually those games have gone the COD instant gratification route with their gameplay which makes things even worse.
If I want to compete with other people I want to recognize their names, I want to know who to watch out for, I want the games to get more and more even as teams get properly balanced, I want things to actually have some consequence and not just be a 10 second experience of "haha, I beat you random guy on the internet".
TWD continues it's tradition of having premieres and finales worth watching while rest of the episodes are pretty mediocre.
I think the closest I've ever been to spending money on micro-trans was for server transfer in WoW, although to be honest I can't remember if I hopped on a free one or payed. Think I might've ended up spending a small amount on it. Generally I tend to find games with micro-trans in them not that enjoyable though, unless it's stupid unnecessary stuff like in Ryse (where you can just completely ignore it).
The last 5-10 minutes of it made me cringe badly, but the rest of it was fine enough. I do find it strange how they got a bunch of these "well known" people to basically just say 1-2 lines about games though. Don't really know what to make of it. It just seems to me that it would've been a better show without the premise of "how videogames changed the world". Although I guess it could've worked with an actual scientific conclusion, and not some silly mandatory dribble.
With the recent Jon Snow appearance and Edge interview I'm not exactly too excited about Charlie Brooker trying to be a spokesman for videogames. To me he just seems like yet another one of these people that have found themselves enjoying videogames and are trying to justify it to the world without actually having figured out why they enjoy it. The desperate "look at this game, it's really meaningful and mature" stuff is getting really old at this point.
Videogames doesn't need to be justified, or made more mainstream. They already are. I believe it was Jeff that talked about this at some point, but it's basically just a matter of time before the people that are never gonna "get" videogames will die off and videogames has just become part of our culture. Why force the issue, especially if all you end up doing is causing more misinformation and stereotypes.
The way I see it the idea behind QL is "instead of trying to explain what this game is, I'll just show it to you". It's pretty much "a picture is worth a thousand words" taken literally. It's not trying to sell the game or anything like that, just give you an idea of what the game is.
If you wanna talk about the companies attitude towards support I think it's pretty obvious that Sony has figured out that they needed to change and listen more to what people want, while MS had dug themselves more and more into the "our way" mentality. The 360 dashboard might've changed several times, but as time has gone by it's been changed more and more to serve MS' goals, not the consumers.