I think Al3xand3r and Scooper prety much covered it. People looking forward to the new game a looking forward to the developer to continue to make a fun game.
Someone else mentioned books, but I think a beter comparison might be movies.
Depending on your taste, Die Hard was a really good movie. Why would people go see the second or third, or fourth other than an idea that they liked what they saw before, and wanted something similar, but not 100% the same?
Whoever has the best writers for a story arc. Currently I really like Bendis' writing on New Avengers. I've also liked Geoff Johns' work in the past so I'm hopeful for the Blackest Night stuff he's going to be doing for DC
I've bought two other incarnations. If there's a way to get some of my current games, and some of the legacy stuff onto the Go! without paying for them all over again, then yes.
"Well, first of all, as I've been trying to say on the myriad of topics on this subject, the economies of many self-proclaimed 'capitalist' countries have had socialistic policies for the better part of the 20th century. And even prior to that, during the industrial revolution, markets were manipulated, and government-run corporations existed in many 'capitalist' countries. People need to look behind the rhetoric and examine what policies actually demand of their citizens, and what their outcomes are. Socialized risk with privatized gain (which is what has existed for years and what governments around the world are entrenching at this moment) is more like fascism than socialism, because the socialistic ideal is social risk and social gain. Of course, crazy people like me prefer private risk and private gain.And from my viewpoint, economic growth, and full employment are not values to be upheld or pursued by governments so much as freedom of choice in all aspects of life including economics -- especially economics, because that is how a person makes the other aspects of their lives possible.But we all know how many of you pay attention to what I have to say."
I don't know that you're crazy for the idea of private risk and private gain. You start a business, that can be a largely private risk. And if you don't take it public, then it's a private gain.
At least part of the problem I see is in having public companies which have (or want to have) no private risk. Not sure if it's radical, but the ideas I've seen floating around in print lately (and in my head for years) about ceo-folk Not getting rewarded when a company does bad would be Great. Maybe wandering a bit off the deep end here, but I've also thought for many years that there should be a set relation between the lowest and highest paid people in a company so that there aren't cases of the highest paid folks in a company making multiple hundreds of times more than the lowest paid people.
To me an acceptable level of govt. intervention is what I understand to be happening with the car companies now; the govt. agrees to help, so long as some guides are met. Now obviously there's tons of room for interpretation, and setting the guides, but I think if done well, it would mean a good mix of private and public in a business.
Log in to comment