Darks wrote on Feb 8, 2018, 11:08:
Theres a new Warhammer RTS game coming out, it goes back to the basic RTS game play style of base building and massive armies. That is what I want in an RTS game. none of this bullshit they keep coming up with and limited units pop cap crap.

SimplyMonk wrote on Jan 24, 2018, 13:43:

ForgedReality wrote on Jan 24, 2018, 11:27:
What? I'm not clicking it because it's clearly clickbait, but DOTA 2 has always been streamable within the game itself, and there are many youtube and twitch streamers, so... Guess I don't understand why they would lie in the headline. Nobody cares about facebook.

Not clicking either because obvious clickbait is obvious, but if the reddit drama is any indication this has to do with how the latest ESL tournament organizers made a streaming deal with Facebook and as such threatened Twitch streamers with copyright strikes for streaming the tournament series.

Players don't like being forced to use Facebook and hate it when companies attack their favorite streamers... so obviously they aren't taking this well. The tournament organizers should have full streaming rights to their tournament though so I kinda side with them on this issue. Maybe next time they will learn that spurning the largest streaming service in favor of Facebook isn't the best idea for current fans.

Kxmode wrote on Jan 6, 2018, 16:03:
If you've seen the movie Brewster's Millions, remember the scene when Brewster sees what 10 million dollars looks like? Yeah, I'm pretty sure they have a lot remaining.

Chris and Sandi strike me as being fully committed to the project. A "newly built mansion in Argentina" seems superfluous to your point.

Cutter wrote on Jan 4, 2018, 19:38:
But tourneys in the US are still fine? gg hypocrisy.

jdreyer wrote on Jan 3, 2018, 13:51:

Ozmodan wrote on Jan 3, 2018, 09:34:
This guy does not get it, it is a fad which will be replaced with something else. The chances that this game continues with it's top ranking are almost zip.

I dunno, you might have said the same thing about Counterstrike 10 years ago, but it's still super popular.

ledhead1969 wrote on Dec 28, 2017, 11:57:
Back on point, the Uber drivers I have all work for multiple ride sharing services, most have other jobs and do Uber for quick/extra cash. They were bummed about the fare reductions that Uber instituted to drive the taxi businesses out but that was just good business and the taxi companies couldn't fight it off. Maybe unfairly as they can't manage their fares but they could improve service, the quality of the cars, etc.

I guess there was a shitty corporate culture but no driver ever mentioned that (which makes sense as I could be a secret passenger or something to them).

Tipsy McStagger wrote on Dec 26, 2017, 14:45:

SimplyMonk wrote on Dec 26, 2017, 11:28:
Eververse is only P2W in the sense that a large part of Destiny is trying to obtain cosmetic gear and Bungie launched Destiny 2 with all the interesting cosmetics in Eververse with nothing for dedicated players to actually strive for. In Destiny 1, all the gorgeous cosmetic gear was tied to completing achievements or milestones in the game such as doing raids on Hard Mode or beating certain challenge encounters. Destiny 2 has none of that and everything that looks like it had any sort of design thought put into is in Eververse.

So yeah... You can dump tons of cash into Eververse and get a really pretty armor set, a quality-of-life ghost, sparrow, and ship but none of those are really that integral to game play to call it P2W. Comparing this bullshit to EA's bullshit is comparing shit oranges to shit apples. Both have valid reasons to be pissed at, but just removing Eververse from Destiny 2 won't fix anything. If there was actual armor sets, ghosts, sparrows, and ships to obtain outside of Eververse, then 90% of these complaints would disappear.

This is exactly what I was thinking.. I was like "did the people writing these threads even play the game?"

Flatline wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 17:02:

Devinoch wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 14:58:
Sure, and you could charge the $90-100 you would need to be profitable with such a game (considering development costs these days), and no one would buy it, or, conversely, you could make the game cost significantly less and people would bitch about how the graphics aren't up to snuff, and no one would buy it.

At the number of units that EA pushes of the Battlefront games, I doubt that profitability is an issue at a 60-70 dollar price point. If there is an issue with profitability, then it's EA's fault for entering into an ass-reamingly expensive license to create Star Wars games. And if that's the case, that's just bad business being passed onto the consumer.

eRe4s3r wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 06:50:

Devinoch wrote on Nov 28, 2017, 20:40:
Oh, how I remember like it was yesterday when the most recent SimCity came out, and how the doomsayers were proclaiming it was the end of EA. When will they ever learn?

Name a new IP developed by EA in 30 seconds, good luck.

It doesn't even matter really what stock does, fact is EA doesn't develop new IP's anymore, instead it's killing them and it's more likely EA closes studio than develop a new game nowadays (Just LOOK at their closure history). They got 3 big IP's left, from previously 5 (they killed Sim City and Mass Effect) so by this rate in 14 years EA doesn't develop any new games And let's not even get started on Command and Conquer (killed by EA) or Dragon Age (killed by EA). And generally speaking you don't earn money in the future if you don't develop NEW IP's

If you look at Fifa, Sims and Battlefield, which are the remaining 3 big ones, you can also see a huge disparity (only Fifa Ultimate is truly profitable) the remaining games had negative profit developments compared to predecessors (same for COD / Activision by the way).

So I laugh at people wanting to invest in EA stock. Maybe if you think Lootboxes aren't gonna be regulated, but once they are EA's only big profitable segment collapses. Fifa with a M+ rating would kill Fifa.

theglaze wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 12:44:

bhcompy wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 12:40:
Sell hats, gun skins, and a chance at a sweet looking knife that doesn't physically alter your abilities in game, not ingame skills. Makes Valve more money than God

Valve doesn't pump out a new TF2 or CSGO every year

EA wants full game price sales plus DLC plus microstransactions... and they want to sell you the same shit again and again, year after year.

It's called greed, and +4 billion dollars in annual revenue.

jdreyer wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 11:45:

Verno wrote on Nov 29, 2017, 10:51:

"We pulled-off on the MTX because the real issue the consumer had was they felt it was a pay-to-win mechanic," he added. "The reality is: there's different types of players in games. Some people have more money than time, and some people have more time than money, and you want to always balance those two.

Hahaha what the fuck? No you don't have to balance them. In a game that is primarily a MP experience the asshole who just wants to destroy balance through purchases should NOT be allowed to do that. Fuck that shit. You want to "balance" them by giving that idiot some cosmetics to throw his money at so that he feels better about himself while not pissing off everyone else who bought the game.

Or they could, you know, not have a fucking progression system at all. Then everyone has access to all weapons and abilities regardless of time played. The only reason to have a progression system at all is to entice the player to spend more money.

It's a gameplay mechanic designed to extract cash.

HorrorScope wrote on Nov 17, 2017, 21:21:

Devinoch wrote on Nov 17, 2017, 16:14:

El Pit wrote on Nov 17, 2017, 14:14:
I wonder what is going on with EA right now. Emergency EA CEO conference with Disney? Why the whales didn't want to get hunted? What went wrong? They must be afraid because their customers stood up to them and the pay2win system. Nothing is worse than fans that are no longer fanatic enough to accept torture.

Honest thoughts? I think Disney is considering acquiring EA, and revamping them to fix the problems they feel they can correct for. It might not be a bad business play, in all honesty. EA has reliably profitable stuff (Madden, FIFA, NHL) and has talent and technology Disney could use to replace the basically-defunct Disney Interactive. It's not a bad proposition for either side, assuming they can some smart people to oversee it.

Disney listens to the same exact overlords.