@obamasamerica: I wouldn't say 100% of the problems are solved, given that if a game's design is actually changed to a significant degree to accommodate blind boxes or other microtransactions, then a portion of the game can easily become irreparably shitty. But in general, people do blow these things way out of proportion, and can easily ignore them without worrying about the underlying game suffering for it.
Yes, I should have been more specific. I meant in this game in particular. Although I can't really think of any non F2P game that was ruined by blind boxes that you had to pay real money for. I think the closest thing to it was Dead Space 3.
Without knowing anything for sure, I reckon that the money WB has made from buying in game currency for this game has been quite low and not nearly enough to compensate for the hit to their reputation. They can do one of two things for their next game: They can just kibosh the whole thing or they can double down on it and put more valuable things in the boxes to make people spend more money.
The thing is that I have been gaming since the late 70s as a wee boy. Back then games cost $60 to buy, in the 90s SNES games were sometimes up to $80-90 to buy. Nearly 40 years later games still cost $60 to buy. Games in the 70s and 80s had dev budgets in the low hundred thousand dollars. These days its 40+ million and sometimes higher.
Now part of the reason why game prices have stayed static and even lowered is because the overall numbers of sales for a hit game is much higher than it was back then, but publishers also know their audience and what they think the mass market is willing to pay for a game. in order to get returns on their huge risks they need to show a sustainable revenue model. Right now that model is selling the base game for $60 and giving the option to pay more to enhance your experience. I don't think there is any other industry in any other field that has such a progressive pricing strategy as the gaming industry.
Does Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead hold up? I saw that film eons ago, and remember thinking it was extremely weird, but... good, maybe? They're diggin' for those deep cuts on the titles, eh.
Yes it is still a very watchable gangster movie. It's Andy Garcia's best movie, and Walken is great, Christopher Lloyd is great, Will Forsythe is great. Treat Williams and Bill Nunn are hilarious. I was totally in love with Gabrielle Anwar and Fairuza Balk.
The conceit of acts being segmented up by people giving living oral histories of themselves on video for Jimmy's business is interesting and the old gangster narrating is fun.
ObamasAmerica's comments