Rahf's forum posts

Avatar image for rahf
Rahf

636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By Rahf

@monkeyking1969 said:

I meet some video game luminaries like David Perry, John Romero, Will Wright, Warren Spector and Professor Henry Jenkins III at MIT in Boston. It was the worlds smallest Game Developer Conference event that I have ever been too. It was interesting time because at that time there were a dozens video game developer in the Boston area. Moreover, this was a time when PS2 was expected in a year and Dreamcast was coming.

Needless to say, it was a more innocent time as a gamer. The darkness of these men previously listed not yet discovered by the public at large.

Was I happy before meeting them? Yes.

Were they about to take me on the strangest ride of my life? Absolutely.

People think Willy Wonka was a fictional character. They never knew fiction sprung from reality, and that Willy Wonka's weirdness was simply a thimble's worth of inspiration from mr. Willy Wright. An all too real facet of his lunacy, yet just a hint after going through the gentility of mr. H.C.

It was one Boston week. For Willy Wright and his crew, it was just another short blink of entertainment.

For me, it was eternity.

Avatar image for rahf
Rahf

636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By Rahf

Cool story, bro.

Avatar image for rahf
Rahf

636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

In the grand scheme of things, and thinking of things globally, most devs are living like kings. Should reviews for sneakers, phones, etc. say "these were made by people, many of them kids, in an awful Chinese factory getting paid $5 a week"? Things should be better for devs, my point being, why should this only apply to video games?

The weird part of video game reviews to me is them having ads on their site and interviews with the devs, among their other deals while reviewing their product. Would the director of TLAU2 be on IGN a week after the game's release if they had gave it 8.5 or even 9/10? That might've pissed him off and he could've gone to wherever else. If Gamespot gave Gears 4 a bad or average score would MS give them as much money for advertising Gears? Reviews should say what deals they have with the publisher, like NPR does when they do a story and they have ties to someone.

This is where you have to trust that the reviewer has a firm ethical stance on reviews regarding their work. If there's one thing I can say about Jeff Gerstmann, it's that his review ethics are rock solid. Hell, the reason Giant Bomb exists is because of this.

It is a commonly occurring phenomenon in all enthusiast press. Cars, fishing, hunting, model trains, vape smoking, you name it. The enthusiast press is a vector for new product exposure, which means the brands behind the product will be motivated to advertise coming products through that press. So my choice of segment within that sphere is the one that openly says, "I can't be bought, but I have to put food on the table. I present exhibit X, Y, and Z as proof why my opinion is not affected by advertising money."

Avatar image for rahf
Rahf

636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By Rahf

This sounds like a poorly disguised dig against Crunchyroll.

I find it serviceable. Along with Netflix it covers a pretty broad span of cartoon stuff, most of which I'll never watch.

Avatar image for rahf
Rahf

636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By Rahf

@fugoy said:
@brian_ said:

People have already pointed out that we've already been paying $70 for games, but I just checked the PS store unrelated, and it really just drives that home in a humorous way.

I get where you're coming from but that's not the case. If the base game price is $60 it doesn't matter if there's extra stuff to buy. That's optional at the end of the day. Making it $70 stops making it optional.

Perhaps, but publishers have been making bank on microtransactions, but also perhaps adjusting their strategy because of differentials in that revenue stream. I'll use one example:

Activision Blizzard's revenue in microtransactions amounted to approximately 4.203 BUSD in 2018. This number then dropped to 3.366 BUSD in 2019. Quite a severe slip, but perhaps also natural given the competitive online landscape. In total, their revenue was something like 6.5 BUSD with a 1.5 billion profit. So 1500 million dollars in pure profits, which is seemingly not enough.

That games would cost $70 could then be their way of saying, "We want to secure our investment upfront, so that any missed revenue from microtransactions don't severely impact our bottom line."

I constantly have to remind myself of one thing: the big publishers are completely beholden to their shareholders, and that's it. Increase revenue and profit while minimizing cost, we don't really care about the rest. "Beat your budget or face our wrath."

In today's age we're at a juncture where cost has become a necessary factor to produce competitive products, so they have to look elsewhere.

Avatar image for rahf
Rahf

636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

A sidebar example:

Was thinking of World of Warcraft as an example of content increasing in scope and size, but another thought struck at the same time:

Blizzard does not update their old content to any real degree as I can recall. A vast swath of it is left to wither away in historical record as something nobody bothers with anymore. When a new expansion hits, "the Expansion Formerly Known as Current" is almost completely abandoned. So their issue isn't keeping a growing amount of content up-to-date, because they simply leave it behind.

Avatar image for rahf
Rahf

636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@himsteveo: Jeff's cat was just named "Cat". It was not short for Catherine or anything like that, he was just seemingly not bothered with naming it, which is a very Jeff-thing to (not) do.

Avatar image for rahf
Rahf

636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Science unlocks things through starting fresh and approaching the experiment with a clean slate. Therefore I voted "Yes," Coupled with a tentative, "I don't care."

Avatar image for rahf
Rahf

636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mellotronrules: Loved it. Keep going back to those shows and soaking in the complete madness going on.

Avatar image for rahf
Rahf

636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0