VargasPrime

So has there been any information on the conversion rate of actual money to in-game currency, and how much characters will cost?

The Founders Packs that you can pre-order each come with a set amount of in-game cash - the Premium packs that unlock 4 characters come with $30 worth of "G" for example, but there's no indication of exactly how much "G" that equates to, and how much that will buy you in the actual game. One character? Two?

$60 for a premium pack that only comes with four extra characters seems steep. Especially since you only get to choose ONE of the free characters when the game launches. So pre-ordering for $60 gets you six characters at most, along with an extra costume for each of the characters in the premium pack you chose. So if that $30 of in-game cash isn't enough to net you at least a few more characters, it seems really expensive to me.

Well, that's sure to be the most reasoned, mature response to anything that I'll read today.

Quoted for emphasis.

There are some jaded dudes in here.

Ah, the old "you think women aren't heroic in games? Well, then, how about THESE five examples?" argument.

I love it.

Thanks for the article, Alex.

I've spent many, MANY hours with both Guitar Hero and Rock Band, playing solo as well as with a full cohort of friends and a fridge stocked with beer, and it was Good Times.

Although I haven't sifted through the Rock Band store in a long time, I still pick up a guitar now and again and play a few tracks, and I was sad to hear that the DLC was coming to an end. But American Pie is certainly the note to go out on, and it was a good run.

Long Live Plastic Rock, indeed.

It's unfortunate. If Sony had done their due diligence and actually gone through whatever channels necessary to license some of the third-party properties that were virtually synonymous with the PS1 and PS2, I have a feeling this game would have interested a lot more people.

@Terrorbite said:

@Hailinel said:

@Dezztroy said:

What's so different about real guns appearing in games compared to, say, real cars?

By paying for the license to use real gun models in their games, developers are effectively funding weapons manufacturers.

I don't see the problem, even if citizen of a country couldn't privately own guns the gun manufacturers would still be around to make money off the governments of the world, so who cares if they make money of video games?

Because gun violence is a real problem in the US, and we want to believe that video games do not contribute to that. But even if violent video games are not directly linked to violent crime or gun deaths, the fact that publishers like EA and Activision are paying large fees to showcase brand name weapons in their games means that no matter how many studies are done that exonerate games from inciting violence or making people more prone to hurt or murder others, there is always going to be an explicit, if not quite as glaring, connection between some of the biggest games on the market and the gun manufacturers that are fighting to keep gun control off the table.

Yeah, gun companies are going to make money elsewhere, and games are never going to be a major form of sustenance for them, but it's hard for people who WANT to make the argument that games are completely innocent in our track record of violent crime when there is such a blatant hypocrisy like the direct funding of firearms manufacturers through licensing.

Note that the NRA doesn't specifically call out the biggest violent games on the market, like Call of Duty and Battlefield, when they rant about how games are ruining our children. Probably because those games are directly contributing to the financial success of the gun manufacturers that support the NRA itself.

@patrickklepek I thank you deeply for these articles

Even if they weren't a nice opportunity to reflect on serious issues with the marketing and presentation of video games (which they are), they would at least reaffirm my decision to enjoy the content provided by the Giant Bomb staff, while completely avoiding engaging with the site's "community" whenever possible.

@Nzash said:

One day Patrick will stop trying to push his agenda and ruin Giantbomb with it. I eagerly await that day.

Until then you're welcome to go frequent other websites where whatever "agenda" you DO approve of can thrive, Patrick-free.

For the people clamoring for a male point of view in this article:

There are enough male points of view, both in game journalism and in game communities. This comment thread is overflowing with male points of view. The LAST thing I would have wanted was for Patrick to go out and find YET MORE male points of view.