I wasn't talking about GiantBomb specifically which is why I said "regardless of where you get your content." The comment was in regards to how PUBG is dominating content no matter where you get it. I think it's pretty crazy how this game has literally taken over the streaming and gameplay videos out there. Check out Waypoints YouTube channel history for example, it's everywhere.
Also, my comment wasn't a complaint, no need to be so defensive. Sheesh, easy boys.
Oh, I understood what you meant, and I didn't take it as a complaint per say, I just disagree that if you don't like PUBG you are shit out of luck. There have been plenty of popular streaming games before PUBG and there will be plenty after. Yes, PUGB is very big right now, but there is so much video content on the internet of people playing games going up everyday that if you dislike any one particular game you can easily avoid it and still have more content to watch than you have time in the day. I primarily watch GB, so I used examples of their variety of content and past popular games, like Hitman last year. Or DOTA, which Brad mentions in this video as still having the most concurrent players at one time. No need to be so defensive ;)
Not sure I've ever seen a game dominate content quite to the extent that this one has. If you enjoy watching other people play vids but you're not into PUBG then you're shit out of luck regardless of where you get your content.
It's pretty wild actually, I wonder how long this will keep up.
Also, that deck write up is amazing.
There have been plenty of other weekly series, many of them with more episodes than we've seen of Battlegrounds, such as the recent Yakuza Beast in the East show. We saw the guys regularly return to Hitman last year. Hell, this site practically started with daily Persona 4 videos which went on for a better part of the year. There are like 150 plus of those videos on GB. If you don't enjoy this one weekly series they have like a half dozen other ones going up, every week, in addition to QLs, random shows, and multiple podcasts.
I very sincerely doubt Dan is going "full-heel" in this playthrough.
I think he's playing to the best of his abilities (which include wanting to keep himself alive), but also isn't afraid to lean into the heelish comments in his summation. To hilarious results.
He refused to use a shotgun and run and gun despite it being the best ability the squad has, and chose to not take care of the flanking alien to take out the alien he said was closer to him, which ended in alex's death.
He both played terribly because of both bad play in general and his dumb wrestling persona.
I'm not gonna deny he played terribly (besides the base management, which he actually nailed), I'm just saying he didn't do it on purpose. Or rather: he didn't get anyone killed on purpose.
It's easy to forget, especially with how this game is framed in the laughably called "hardcore community," how ruthless this game can be to even the SLIGHTEST mis-step.
If by he nailed the base management you mean he put another nail in the coffin with his base management, yes, you are correct. He could have canceled Alex's workshop, which hadn't even started building yet, and gotten a full refund instead of destroying the already built Containment facility which does not refund. He still would have gotten an adjacent bonus on a new Satellite Relay for placing it below the current one instead of to the left. Which isn't going to matter because he didn't start building new Satellites, which take 20 days. Or move an Interceptor to cover the Satellite they have in China.
And I'm by no means an expert, I played Enemy Unknown/Within once on easy when it came out and I know that. Dan has played both games, reviewed XCom 2, so that was just plain stupid. And not the on purpose stupid that he pulled afterwards. Yes, the game can be brutal. Again, something anyone that has played it before should know. So you shouldn't be screwing around, it's not Mario Party.
New Plan: Bring everyone together, stop taking turns.
Dan manages the base, he's decent at that.
Alex plays the missions, he knows how to play it safe, and doesn't get bored doing it.
I'm not sure what else there is to do, but Abby can make all the new recruits.
I thought originally they were all going to control their own character in a four man squad and pass the controller a la Mario Sunshine, but I doubt they are going to change the structure. They'll finish the series then move on probably, which is a shame because I really enjoy this game and it's nice to see a bit of variety in the type of games they play. I was really bummed when Alex passed on playing Mass Effect to do Mega Man to follow up Vinnyvania plus Yakuza to follow up Shenmue. Then Dan brings in more Mario. And all those series are fine, it's just nice to see them do something different sometimes.
@xeirus: Well no, people were mad at Dan because he was intentionally being selfish.
At least Abby gave it her all.
Sure, let's go with that, and not the insane overreaction that was on Dan's video.
I'm sure there were a handful of people that got carried away, but I would say the majority of posts were people who were enjoying the series and were worried it would end prematurely do to a tired heel bit from Dan that has always been kind of annoying. Classifying the majority opinion as an "insane overreaction" is just dismissive.
@mnzy: To the consumer, sure, personal finance is the most important part. To the producer, their company finances are the most important part. And in reality they both matter equally, because both sides are in a symbiotic relationship.
I get that abby buy/sells used games when she was unemployed but still doing sounds bad.
Why would that be bad? What.
Well it could be argued that someone who enjoys games as a hobby and has a job/career covering the games industry, like @ybbaaabby, benefits from the video game industry being successful. And that buying/selling used games results in developers/publishers not receiving a portion of those sales, which results in them having lower profits and less resources to invest in future projects which hurts the industry as a whole.
It's the same thing as every other games journalist getting a flagged steam account to play any game for free. They ain't paying for it. She's talking about the games she plays so it's free publicity in her case.
I would agree with that, the end result for the developer/publisher is the same in both cases. Slightly different topic, but I've always though it seemed kind of lame that GB staff have to buy their games at all. It's part of their job, they should be able to expense it. Vinny having to budget and plan about getting a Switch seemed so odd to me. He'll be playing games on it, talking about them on podcasts and videos for years to come, you'd think CBSi should cover it.
I get that abby buy/sells used games when she was unemployed but still doing sounds bad.
Why would that be bad? What.
Well it could be argued that someone who enjoys games as a hobby and has a job/career covering the games industry, like @ybbaaabby, benefits from the video game industry being successful. And that buying/selling used games results in developers/publishers not receiving a portion of those sales, which results in them having lower profits and less resources to invest in future projects which hurts the industry as a whole.
However, it could also be argued that used games benefit the games industry more that it hurts it. That the existence of Gamestop promotes video game sales to mainstream consumers to a degree that would otherwise not be possible. It's possible that if used games did not exist, people not being able to use Trade Credit to buy new games would actually result in less new game sales that would hurt developers/publishers even more than used game sales do.
Some would says consumers should support the products they like so they will see more products they like in the future. Others would say that it isn't the consumers job to go out of the way to support a product manufacturer. That it's the manufacturers job to understand their consumers and provide the correct products, in the correct way, for the correct prices.
That's why you've seen the publishers experimenting so much in the last decade. More variation in prices with games costing $15 to $30 instead of every game being $60, aggressive digital sales like on Steam, EA Access/PS Plus subscription services, long term support for games like GTA Online or Overwatch, DLC, season passes, micro transactions.
It's complicated, there is no right "Good/Bad" answer, but there are strong arguments for both sides. Personally, I tend to buy new games almost exclusively, but I rarely do so at full price. I usually wait until they are discounted to $20 to $40s. And there are probably strong arguments to be made about how that is Good/Bad for the industry as well.
@boiter: Jeff has said before their metrics/research show a lot of podcast listeners don't even watch videos on the site, so I image even a smaller number of them follow the entire staff on twitter. I know I don't. And there is a big difference between commenting on not commenting and reporting a news story, stating the facts and then moving on to the next topic without getting into a big opinionated discussion full of speculation.
@passivespiral: Being overly sensitive about a bad joke there. But I'm sure you've never done anything, ever, in slightly poor taste.
Send @benpack a PM or tweet though if you're that shaken up about it.
I mean, I said in my original comment that I have made bad jokes in poor taste with friends so I got it and also that I was probably taking it too seriously because of a bad personal experience...so Yes, you're right. Good job? You brought up two things I acknowledge in my original comment. Also, I'm aware PM and Twitter exists. So, thanks, I guess?
PassiveSpiral's comments