Shocking to hear. This guy would make me laugh on my way to work as I listen to the Bombcast, his humour would make the day more lively and less dull. Rest in peace, will never forget the laughs.
conantheking's forum posts
My reasoning is that the Xbox One looks just as complex in starting a game as a PC. You have to turn on the console, connect to the internet, check the game is registered, check that Kinect is connected and then there might be mandatory updates and then you play your game.
On Steam you boot up the computer, possibly connect to the internet (Steam has an offline mode, I used it for 8 months straight at university), check the game is registered, do downloads in your own time and then play the game.
The advantage of consoles has typically been about ease and that does not apply to the Xbox One, when I buy a game for £45 I want to feel I own it and am not just renting it, games on the PC are at least typically £35 to make up for this. And should the Xbox One take off we can expect the generation after to be doing whether it is Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony and I do not like that.
Surely there's a new gears or whatever epic is working on in that list somewhere.
I guess lionhead must be working on something right? Haven't seen them for years.
A new viva pinata would be cool. A kinect viva pinata sounds like something i wont go near.
I think Gears of War will be like Unreal Tournament, a great Epic franchise that gets dumped for a newer IP. And that is fine in the case of Gears, it is a complete story, the trilogy ended it and prequels never advance a story, they just go backwards.
NO Point having a war, both consoles have something good about them either a certain game/exclusive or even just something one console has and the other doesn't.
Lets take 360 and PS3 for example, 360 had cross game chat PS3 had An Internet Browser which Xbox didn't have for ahwhile, and as we go into exclusives both had many
Ratchet and Clank Series
Little Big planet
Gears Of War Series
Both Consoles have and always will have something better then the other yeah maybe some of the games I mentioned aren't liked by one side of the console sides, but they are obviously a success such as LBP maybe not many people like the game and they think it's childish but there is so much to do in it that you don't even Know! And maybe the other side doesn't like Halo for what ever reason this Console war will always go on but in conclusion both sides are good in my eyes!
No point? I love console wars, not that I side with any company and their console but because I often find the nerd rage/denial hilarious.
@HerbieBug: I only played the game once because of this. I got it, might just have to leave it on overnight because I really want to play it with the online features.
The EA server shutdown nonsense is why I will never buy a new EA game again, and if I buy it used I sure as hell won't be paying for an online pass. I like Battlefield but I don't NEED it. Everything else currently with an EA label on it has no appeal for me.
It actually didn't bug me until just recently, I honestly never paid attention to what was being shut down and just figured it was older sports games. Even in that case you can make a strong argument that it's bullshit they shut them down completely, but I can at least see the other side of it.
But once they shut down Burnout Revenge & Game Night last month, that sealed it for me. Now you're fucking with games my friends and I still played occasionally. While they're still mainly in the phase of shutting down games that came out before this goddamn online pass nonsense existed, it won't be long. Wait until EA starts completely killing servers for games that people bought an online pass for - hopefully then there will be some backlash against the fucking bullshit that actually cause a change. I doubt it though. Gamers just forget and move on far too quickly.
As a side note - know what's really scummy? You can STILL PURCHASE Family Game Night on the 360 dashboard. Game is useless without online play. At least have the fucking decency to take it down.
Not tryin' to dictate what qualifies as "news" around here, but I'd really hope GB and other significant sites make sure people know about this - not as a BF3 story but a story about EA's practices in general. Frankly, this should be dwarfing the news/controversy over the ME3 ending. BF3 was a highly successful game that has only been out a little over half a year and they've already done this, why should we have any confidence in EA products that don't sell half as well but contain a heavy emphasis on multiplayer?
EA obviously doesn't think this game is worth putting any more money into (unless it's for an overpriced map pack, of course), so I guess I don't think it's worth putting any more money into. They can shove those map packs up their ass.
Sadly I don't think most gamers will care. On disc DLC is common now, so are online passes and so are annual iterations of games with little originality because everyone has just accepted it. Gaming has become a very expensive hobby as a result of most gamers just accepting such things.