I imagine Lil' John rising up in anger at those mischievous slimes, throwing his DS across the room and curing angrily. Punctuating his words with such quips as "YEAH!" and "OKAY!"...well maybe.
SourMillennia's forum posts
I was scanning the news this morning, as I am want to do, and noticed something buried within the web pages that could be a marker of major changes to come in the 'casual' gaming market. Honestly, I'm tired of the whole casual versus hardcore mindsets, but it makes sense in this case, as the developers being approached for a new venture with Google are the minds behind Farmville of Facebook fame, Zynga.
Why does this matter (or I think it matters)? Because Google reaches millions of people everyday, even more than the now ever present Facebook does. The fact that Google dropped an estimated $200 million for Zynga to develop for Google's new "Google Games" service shows me that Google is taking the Farmville fad seriously. While I personally despise Farmville and games like it (not because of it being casual or anything of that nature, I just think it is boring), many others out there in the interwebs do not.
Will Google become a new power-house in the online pick-up-and-play gaming sphere? I would bet my money on it. Hopefully this will breed some better competition from would-be rivals Facebook and MSN Games. I'm interested to see what comes of this personally, what about anybody else? Do people care about this? Would you play "Google Games" if there was free time available? Please respond, I'm interested to hear of people even really care about this or not.
Perhaps this is simply something that I have noticed, but many of the security measures put into place by various game companies have been lackluster in preventing the sale of ‘used’ games at locations such as Gamestop here in the U.S.
What do I mean? Many major publishers have been putting in one-time use codes to try and discourage used game sales, “if you buy this game new, you get a free download of this or that.” In theory, people would buy the game, use the code, finish the game and give it to Gamestop; a new customer would be more tempted to buy the game new to get full access to all the features, otherwise they may have to pay something extra on Xbox Live or PSN.
This seems to have some flaws in it. As an example, I recently went to Gamestop to purchase Rock Band 2 on 360, they had a copy, and when we got home, all of the codes for things like downloading new tracks and such were in good shape and ready to go. Thus the whole idea of buying it new to get the whole package was thwarted.
I would guess the majority of people would not utilize these extras if their goal is to beat the game and then trade it in. so trade in buyers are not getting punished.
Do you all think it is good to try and circumvent used game purchases? Do you think it is fair? Or, do you think there could be better ways of circumventing it if you don’t agree with the practice at all?
I saw an artcile yesterday detailing Ubisoft's decision to 'go green' by ceasing to print game manuals in any of their future releases. They estimate they could save a few million trees alone by doing this, so from an environmental standpoint it sounds good. But, there are other questions.
One is, isd the manual now going to be in digital format on a disc, which seems good until you realize that; if it is only accessible from the menu, one would have to quit their game if they need to figure something out from the manual. Also, what about game collectors. For years I have always bought games new in order to have the manual with the case and disk, as it then becomes a nicer 'package' overall. But what now? Thirdly, does anyone read the manual anymore? I just like having them from a collection perspective, but I rarely read them unless I am really confused about something. I admire Ubi's effort, but was the idea of a paper (now usually four page) manual outdated anyway? What are other folks thought's on this?
I was recently talking to my stepfather about this, now very public, EA and Activision legal dispute. For those not in the know, Activision is doing what they normally do and are trying to sue EA since EA is helping support the new company headed up by the old heads of Infinity Ward. Activision is angry about the new deal, and thus are causing all sorts of headaches for EA.
My Stepdad read about it in the Wall Street Journal as well as CNET, and this is the first time he has ever approached me in conversation about a videogame topic. I explained to him what I hajve heard about the whole debacle (including many issues the game industry, but not the news services, are reporting). The sad thing to me, and the reason for the title of this post, is that finally a generation who would normally not look at games as an industry are looking at it.
But they are looking at it not for financial success, but as a model of financial and legal immaturity. Makes me sad when the industry itself is often doing very well.
numers the Wii is selling, or the
I think he just wanted a change of image, the name thing was some time ago. You can't be 35 with a name like that and expect anyone to take you seriously. "True, very true.
I agree with the above sentiments, however I do think that there is a difference between hyping one's game (which is arguably one of his main roles), and him carrying himself with a bit too much swagger. I think Andorski's comment pertaining to the faults of Gears 2 (especially online) humbled him. I'm talking about him as a regular person. I don't disagree with ButtonsMcBoomBoom above, Cliff is an awesome guy, but he is much more approachable and realistic about who he is.
He seems to have come to the realization that he is a Game Designer and a marketer for his games, not a celebrity to the general public; he seemed to believe himself to be the latter before Gears 2 (and even during the release of that game). Thus the transformation I'm talking about.
I've been watching all the media hype surrounding Cliff from his appearance on Jimmy Fallon and his unveiling of Gears of War 3, and honestly, he seems to have mellowed out some. Maybe it is because he is no longer 'Cliffy B' and is instead Cliff Blezinski, but he had done that a year or so ago. No, no there is something different.
I think that Cliff has finally reached that point where he doesn't need to go out and about, puffing his chest out and being a 'bro'. He can let the games speak for themselves. Most people know Gears is a good (some would call it great) game. And the Unreal Engine is the sexiest gaming tool/catch-phrase since 'bloom lighting'.
Cliff is growing up a bit, and that makes me so damn proud!
*Watch tiny tear drop roll down face*