Oh cool. the ETA has been updated from "coming soon" to "coming soon."
Robo's forum posts
Yep. It's a great game.
It has its faults, for sure. The relatively thin story (ignoring the Grimoire) for a Bungie title at least, it takes itself a bit too seriously, Dinklage's poorly-directed VO, the somewhat tedious travel, the lack of variety with patrol missions, no local voice chat...although I can kind of understand why it isn't an option yet.
But it has some key strengths as well. The mechanics and presentation are both top notch, it has a refreshingly different 'sci-fantasy' style to it instead of being just another franchise sequel cash-in or leaning on nostalgia, the AI is actually fairly intelligent for a change, it's enjoyable on your own yet really shines with friends instead of the co-op feeling like an afterthought, they didn't go the popular route of loading it up with microtransactions even for the cosmetic customization--of which it has a decent degree, and it gives you respectable sense and amount of progression.
Much like Diablo or DOTA or even CoD...it isn't everyone's cup of tea. It's just unfortunate people can't express that or criticise it without taking a shit on it because it wasn't the video game-Messiah they were apparently expecting.
It has become a pet peeve of mine when people who make a TON of money with something in a relatively short period of time are quick to say "It's not about the money." ...Really? I bet Microsoft wishes they knew that when price was being discussed. That figure probably would have been significantly lower.
Also, not too long ago Notch was all, "fuck Microsoft, they're trying to destroy indie games!" Then they showed up with trucks full of money for a console Minecraft and now this.
I like Notch for how candid tends to be even despite his notoriety but man is he completely full of it sometimes.
I cautiously look forward to what this means for the future of Minecraft. Hopefully Microsoft knows not to mess with it too much. Ongoing development and [significantly more consistent and meaningful] updates are really all the game needs. Given how much that development may cost and how much money changed hands, though, I kind of expect to see something added to generate revenue. Paid mods/expansion packs? Time will tell.
I usually do physical but I decided to do digital for Diablo 3: UEE. I slowly came to regret it for a number of reasons.
For one thing, I didn't really do the math on how much space it takes up. 29 GB. Of the 500GB my PS4 came with. Diablo is a relatively small game. It's short, partially randomly generated, and has lot of reused textures, sounds, and models that aren't exactly super high res. The size is extra ridiculous considering it's only around 15GB on PC. I realize there's probably some weird lack of compression and the fact that the PC version might even offload some of that size to online assets somehow but come on. Almost double the size?
I can only imagine what bigger games will be on the PS4 in the future. If they average around 50GB, you're looking at 10 games (and nothing else) before it's HDD upgrade time or you start deleting titles that very well may not be downloadable in the future.
Which brings me to the next concern: What happens when you can't download these games again down the line in the event you need to? I guess you'll still be able to go out and buy a physical copy somewhere in the case of Diablo, but if you're trying to plead a case for an all digital future, that's the biggest barrier for me.
Lastly, after playing D3 again for a while I couldn't help but to start thinking, "You know what, I could just go back to playing this on PC." The direct control couch play aspect is cool and all, but the friends I was supposed to play with are hardly ever on, the game is behind on updates (and Blizz is being cagey about future support, questionably griping about console update woes), and I already have all these characters back on PC I could just progress with instead.
At that point, normally I'd start looking at trade in values or maybe asking friends if they want to buy my copy. But nah. It's digital. That's just $70 I'll never get back because I thought I'd be more into this console version.
'Caveat emptor,' I suppose.
And I will beware. Because I don't think I'll be buying any more digital games.
Many popular streamers have been using Amazon referral links to pad their income for a while now. I imagine it'll just become the standard eventually.
For as much preemptive crap as Google was getting for their suspected hand in VOD muting (turned out that was just Twitch's decision), I was kind of looking forward to better YouTube integration and maybe even a more competent Android app with Chromecast support. At least we won't have to worry about Google+ being shoehorned in.
It'll be Amazon Prime instead.
Just as it did when this started happening on YouTube, the "protecting the artist" excuse is coming up a lot. But if you really think that's what this is about, you're mistaken.
"I have not asked for any streams of @NecroDancerGame to be taken down. I don't understand who could have requested they be muted."
"nobody but me has the authority to ask for a takedown of @NecroDancerGame music on twitch. if you're getting takedowns please let me know!"
For the record, the VOD expiration date makes perfect sense. Those videos had to have been taking up INSANE amounts of storage space.
@patrickklepek: Would be nice to know how/if they plan on doing anything for games that have copyrighted music as their soundtrack. i.e. GTA, Rock Band, Audiosurf.
That's one of the best (worst) parts! There's a very good chance that sort of thing will get muted too. Hell, it already is getting muted for a lot of streams. It doesn't matter the context in which the music is used. All that matters is that it wasn't licenced for use in the stream.
I can't fathom why the music industry would target streaming video in particular. Who is declining to buy music because some streamer is playing it in the background? Is there a criminal ring of people just streaming copyrighted music for profit?
This is a change that benefits no one that I can think of.
You're thinking about it too logically. Think like the music industry.
To them, every single instance of someone hearing more than a few seconds of anything they can sell is money they should be collecting.
Oh there was a healthy dose of sarcasm in that post. Believe me, I'm a card-carrying unapologetic cynic myself.
Oh neat. So they are literally doing exactly what a lot of 'cynics' said they would start doing once Google entered the picture.
So I guess those concerns were warranted, huh?
I'm a minority and to be completely honest, yeah, I was a little disappointed a minority or woman didn't get one of the gigs with GB. Just because it would have mixed things up a bit and provided a much needed different perspective. Especially given how much that lack of diversity in the gaming/games journalism world comes up around here. It just kind of feels like a bit of a missed opportunity and a case of "actions > words" to my more cynical side.
All that said, my cynical side is a dick...the more rational side of me knows it is certainly not GiantBomb's fault. Because I'm never...ever going to demand or try to force a company to hire someone of a specific gender or race. That is not giving everyone a fair shot. That's almost a different style of discrimination done under the guise of 'ensuring diversity.'
Instead, I simply trust GiantBomb to hire the most qualified individuals possible, regardless of race or gender. And I feel that's exactly what they did here. If it happens to be two more white dudes, so be it.