Lurkero's forum posts

#1 Posted by Lurkero (395 posts) -

Looks like other streaming services may have to get more server space soon. Google's takedown policy is too anti-user and what's the point of utilizing Google's infrastructure if stream archives aren't permanent? At least allow paid users to archive videos indefinitely.

#2 Posted by Lurkero (395 posts) -

After the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation I had a large collection of games - 90% of which I would never touch again.

That's when I became a lot more conservative about which games I would buy and which I would keep. I don't have a shelf of games, but I do have a large container full of games and movies that I liked so much that I wanted to physically be able to touch and/or play again.

#3 Posted by Lurkero (395 posts) -
@dagas said:

@lurkero said:

Sony's response doesn't make sense. If people don't think EA access is valuable then they won't buy it. If Microsoft can have Games with Gold and EA access then Sony should be okay with PS Plus and EA Access. Let your users decide, Sony.

I dislike publisher specific programs. Imagine instead of Netflix or Spotify you had to subscribe to each TV network's thing or each music company's thing. If EA does this so will Activision and the others and we'll end up paying too much to be able to get them all.

I love what Netflix, Spotify, PS Plus and such programs do, but too many of them and they loose their purpose. Their purpose is a low cost way to experience a lot of things. If they become too specific they loose their value because you get less benifit and it costs more since you need more subscriptions.

With gaming becoming increasingly digital publishers will have to find a way to maintain market share and revenue. One of the most enticing things about digital content is the ability to have subscriptions where content can be accessed at any time. Only a few publishers would be able to do something like this and EA is one of the biggest. if Sony denies EA this opportunity they are preventing the industry from evolving with how people want their content. Unless EA wasn't willing to give Sony a big enough cut of the revenue I don't see why they wouldn't let EA try this out. PS Plus doesn't offer all games at all times so it's not really comparable. PS Now, on the other hand, might be closer to what EA is offering.

#4 Posted by Lurkero (395 posts) -

Sony's response doesn't make sense. If people don't think EA access is valuable then they won't buy it. If Microsoft can have Games with Gold and EA access then Sony should be okay with PS Plus and EA Access. Let your users decide, Sony.

#5 Posted by Lurkero (395 posts) -

Sony got off easy with this one. I wouldn't be surprised if they have spent 20 million on lawyers for the 3 years since this case was filed.

#6 Edited by Lurkero (395 posts) -

I think stopping a good number of amateurs would be better than the hassle that legitimate customers have to deal with. I think the only time DRM is effective is when there is an online component to a game. Single player DRM typically results in annoyance. This article provides a good example of someone who couldn't tell it was the pirated copy delivering that message. If the stolen versions of a game had a defect that was built in well enough (Serious Sam 3) it could dupe thieves for a while.

#7 Posted by Lurkero (395 posts) -

I don't get why developers don't just program anti-piracy measures into games like Batman Arkham Asylum or Game Dev Story. Seems like it would be preferred to DRM and might actually get some funny stories and publicity out of it. That and the thieves won't be able to finish the game.

#8 Posted by Lurkero (395 posts) -

I think it is news that Microsoft hasn't made substantial progress on something they said would happen. It means that Xbox One won't be as friendly to indies and hobbyists as they'd hoped. If something is not even close to being ready then I don't want to hear about it.

#9 Edited by Lurkero (395 posts) -

Yes, people want something new and also want new IP. I don't think it is wrong to want both. There are some ideas that are done so well that creators can get multiple projects out of the same franchise because there is a lot to explore. Some creators have proven that they have the ability to bring something new to each entry in a series.

It's not wrong to ask Nintendo to create new Mario games and develop new franchises at the same time. It is often beneficial for creators to be able to use the name of established works to explore new ideas. Mario Galaxy could have been swapped out with a new character, but it wasn't necessary because the foundation was there in the name of Mario.

It is also important to recognize that franchises are revitalized when new generations of consumers are available. Ninja Turtles, Transformers, and Godzilla (all movies this Spring/Summer) are good examples of this. When I was growing up I had the Ninja Turtles movies and the movie Godzilla (1999). Now, over 15 years later, a new generation can experience new versions of those franchises and if I am interested I can enjoy them too.

To call the stories "the same" is misleading because there are often changes that adjust the stories to modern day. See any long running comic book franchise for examples of that.

#10 Posted by Lurkero (395 posts) -

Anyone who paid attention to the plot of Far Cry 3 should very much be concerned about the imagery of the Far Cry 4 cover. I won't jump to conclusions until I actually witness the plot, but the previous Far Cry games do not provide confidence that the fourth one will be much better. I think the protagonist is a native of the region this time so that at least provides some positive belief against the "helpless natives" needing to be saved by the "European White male" just passing through.