User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
| News Comments > Joe Montana Football 16 Revealed |
 |
| 12. |
Re: Joe Montana Football 16 Revealed |
Mar 17, 2015, 22:37 |
selection7 |
|
|
| Been waiting a long time for publishers to figure out that the nfl license is not what determines if a football game is any good. Brownie point because Joe Montana football was great game. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Thief Teaser Trailer |
|
| 15. |
Re: Thief Teaser Trailer |
Mar 29, 2013, 00:31 |
selection7 |
|
|
| A simple snuffing of a candle certainly doesn't sound like the way you market an overly consolized action game version of Thief. So there's some hope. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Funcom Closing Chinese Studio |
|
| 8. |
Re: Funcom Closing Chinese Studio |
Jan 26, 2013, 13:00 |
selection7 |
|
|
| The Chinese were the outsource. Maybe that was the joke, IDK. Funcom is European, so the only way it wouldn't be outsourcing is if it were in their home country. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > etc. |
|
| 1. |
38 Studios |
Jun 17, 2012, 14:45 |
selection7 |
|
|
| It's appropriate that it was the never-got-launched MMO that did them in. Only a few titles can make it in that arena, and jumping right into that market as a startup was akin to putting all your money on horse #6. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Consolidation |
|
| 42. |
Re: Morning Consolidation |
Apr 4, 2012, 00:58 |
selection7 |
|
|
Verno wrote on Apr 3, 2012, 08:43:
selection7 wrote on Apr 3, 2012, 02:12:
Here's the thing...
This is a really silly and dismissive post. First off, you're a Bluesnews reader smart guy. Second, "You'll do it because you'll do it" isn't logical. You're assuming that the gaming industry itself will just uniformly adopt whatever the big companies do when history has shown that is NOT the case. In fact right now there is a massive independent resurgence on digital platforms, the likes of which we haven't seen before. People won't just adopt whatever the industry tells them to, particularly when its inconvenient and detrimental to a platform that is supposed to be all about making things easy and convenient.
Finally, people are ok with internet functionality as it provides them benefits. Using that functionality to restrict you with no upside is a whole different matter. People will not be fine with functionality that is solely for the benefit of Microsoft that has little to no upside for the user. I have no idea why you thought mp3s were a good example either, they were widely adopted because of convenience and that industries inability to accept change and give people what they want. You're fighting a losing war, just like the record companies of the late 90's and early new millenium were. Now even music and movies are trying to move towards no-physical media so they can make resales, rentals, and piracy obsolete. Throwing around all the tough talk about how you're not going to accept it and you'll go indpendent only underscores your denial.
Don't do like the music industry did. It's going to happen; you want to be part of the process, not on the sideline getting left behind. And don't shoot the messenger. I'm only trying to ease the transition for some of you. One thing we can be sure of, the games industry will continue to charge what gamers are willing to pay. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Morning Consolidation |
|
| 35. |
Re: Morning Consolidation |
Apr 3, 2012, 02:12 |
selection7 |
|
|
| Here's the thing. If Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all go the way of the constant online connection, regardless of how much posturing and whining bluesnews forum readers do, the games industry will continue to thrive. It's already bigger than the movie business and it's not even a mature industry (I'm using "mature" here in the business lingo sense). Saying otherwise is to be just as in denial as the record companies were 15 years ago about mp3s. It's going to happen eventually, and you're going to buy it. You're gamers. The new generation won't even know any better. At least you can tell your grandkids stories about the good ol' days. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > PC Alan Wake Breaks Even |
|
| 34. |
Re: PC Alan Wake Breaks Even |
Feb 20, 2012, 16:14 |
selection7 |
|
|
No shocker here. People buy the games, the suits will be excited about the PC platform. People don't, they won't. That's not going to change, I guarantee it.
It's good that PC consumers stood up for their platform as viable on launch day, and also good that the publisher honestly revealed they made their money back first weekend, which means basically admitting they should have considered the PC more favorably from the beginning. That's going in the right direction for both parties. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > PC Alan Wake Plans? |
|
| 39. |
Re: PC Alan Wake Plans? |
Dec 14, 2011, 21:21 |
selection7 |
|
|
Dades wrote on Dec 14, 2011, 07:09:
Microsoft made it one of their little exclusives as they have done with many other games, it was completely unnecessary. Saying I didn't buy Alan Wake PC because his facial animations are dumb is no less emotional and arbitrary than not buying it because it was out on the consoles first. Of course people should threaten not to buy it if something upset them, that's a big part of how the consumer and corporation feedback process works. Were they supposed to fill out surveys and send flowers instead with a little card saying oh poor Remedy, you took a sack full of microsoft money to not release the game but we understand! Maybe in your world everyone is a robot who doesn't let anything affect their incredibly objective world view but the rest of us live somewhere else.
It is not true that just because something about a game is upsetting, we should boycott...or anything close to that. Maybe there are times when that is actually true, but to say that means it is always true (and is true in this case) is fallacy. And sending thank you notes or whatever you said has nothing to do with it. What I said originally is still true. Even if a boycott was done to hypothetically excercise consumer rights (ridiculously, as I pointed out before since that would only make execs say "see, I knew PC gamers would never buy it"), it would still be stupid to make such a decision based on emotions, which is my point...much more so than anything about excercising consumer rights. Also, don't get hung up on the excusivity thing. Microsoft has never had a problem with releasing games on Windows and 360. They aren't really competing, plus Microsoft makes money when fanboys upgrade their PCs to play new games.
What worries me is that babies like you will dig us all into a hole. You cannot intimidate companies who aren't sure they want your money anyway into always releasing on PC too. Supporting the platform, however, will get their attention. It's not rocket science.
This comment was edited on Dec 14, 2011, 21:34. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > PC Alan Wake Plans? |
|
| 33. |
Re: PC Alan Wake Plans? |
Dec 14, 2011, 03:45 |
selection7 |
|
|
In response to my post #21, I got replies that the no PC decision was arbitrary and that by originally planning and marketing the game as PC, the company wronged PC gamers in a way that warrants threats of not buying the game out of spite.
I can't believe the decision was arbitrary, and regardless of how it was marketed, when the PC title was pulled it wasn't done to piss you off. My point still stands to not take it personally. Of course, if you ran an AlanWake PC fansite, that's something else, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that's not the case here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > PC Alan Wake Plans? |
|
| 21. |
Re: PC Alan Wake Plans? |
Dec 13, 2011, 13:32 |
selection7 |
|
|
These are just business decisions. I'm sure they didn't like the idea of not making a PC version either, and probably only a small handful of people were behind the decision (the rest would've been happy with extra employment).
If it's good, buy it, if not, don't. Don't be dramatic. In fact, people not buying PC games in certain situations is what led them to make the decision in the first place. The idea of refusing to buy it now on principle would only serve to prove that original decision right (in the minds of industry decision makers).
What I'm trying to say is, don't be a baby. When a company doensn't release a game on PC, they're not making that decision just to piss you off. I was looking forward to the game and I still am...if it's good. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier |
|
| 76. |
Re: No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier |
Nov 25, 2011, 00:15 |
selection7 |
|
|
Regardless of everyone's salient points, you still have to accept that they don't want your money. We know this because they're refusing to sell it to you. Stating "well I wouldn't buy from you anyway" is like saying you can't fire me, I quit. Meaningless to the company who's firing you, 'cause either way you're gone.
Also, can people stop stating for 5 millionth time that 1 pirated game doesn't equal 1 lost sale. You're not educating anyone. At least not on this website. The game company knew this full well and still chose not to make a single-player PC game. Faulty reasoning may have led to the decision, but it wasn't done simply to annoy you, it was a money decision. That this guy's frank dialog made him seem irritated is not one of the more important things to take away from this news posting, yet it's what 80% of these replies want to comment on. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > XIII Follow-up Not a Shooter |
|
| 13. |
Re: XIII Follow-up Not a Shooter |
Oct 26, 2011, 18:51 |
selection7 |
|
|
| Cool. This comic is perfectly suited for action/adventure. I've always liked that genre but competition has been sparse in recent years...in other words, not many games period, much less good ones. And we didn't really need another mediocre shooter that's only saving grace is its unique presentation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Always-on DRM? |
|
| 32. |
Re: S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 Always-on DRM? |
Oct 8, 2011, 16:00 |
selection7 |
|
|
Three things:
I can't believe they didn't start doing this sooner. Part of the reason DRM doesn't do much good is because they've consistently only done it one way, or variations on it. Even with this new way (an early form of cloud gaming is it?) there's still the possibility for pirates. They just have to figure out how to intercept the withheld data and how to integrate it. But that's gonna make it much, much harder, if not impossible for pirates in the near future.
This will make me less likely to buy a game, and they know that, and that's fine. But if the game is really well made and taken care of, having a net connection is not that big a deal to the average joe. Most are always connected anyway and in the future that will be more and more true for everyone. Thre real issue is implementing it. Can they implement it without bloat and bugs and hassle (I'm looking at you Game for Windows Live)? THAT's what I hate.
Also, make the full game available in 1 to 4 years (as a patch) so we know what we bought won't require an internet connection to a non-existent company for the rest of time. This makes a big difference to me and it will cost them next to nothing in piracy. After all, how many copies does anyone buy 3 years after release? Sure, hardcore gamers like us do, but not average Joes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Howard on Bugs and Why Skyrim is Not an MMOG |
|
| 11. |
Re: Howard on Skyrim Bugs and Why Skyrim is Not an MMOG |
Aug 31, 2011, 23:37 |
selection7 |
|
|
| I wouldn't even play it if it were MMO. Just like I don't play any other MMO games. I agree coop would be tough, but that's why an earlier post suggeted a "low level" coop. Even if there's a ton of restrictions, just to have any coop at all is always cool. At least that's what I think for most games I play...for this game, who has time and matching schedules to play coop through a game as big as this? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > No PC PoP DLC |
|
| 44. |
Re: No PC PoP DLC |
Feb 6, 2009, 03:51 |
selection7 |
|
|
No, they do things when they think it'll make them money.
True. But that nitpick doesn't affect my point.
No, not really. Suits are generally idiots who have no understanding of the gaming industry or its customers. For example,..
Ok. So now you establish that the suits make mistakes. Some of your examples may be debatable, but that's unimportant since we agree they make mistakes. But, and let's be clear about this, you aren't just saying that the suits make mistakes, you are saying that they make so many mistakes as to be widely incompetent. I'm guessing you're not a fiscal conservative, since you don't believe in the basis of a free market. You are also saying, you believe your uneducated, Monday morning QB self is more competent, not just on issues that gamers would have insight into, but on almost purely business issues even when you have none of the stats for research and you know they do. ...not just to the extent of thinking you are right, but to the extent of not having even a small part of you that recognizes they could know better than you. I'm fine with you standing on your position and long as you are willing to admit to the world right here as you do it that the preceding is true. You could be right. Of course the average person will think you are a megalomaniac. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > No PC PoP DLC |
|
| 36. |
Re: No PC PoP DLC |
Feb 3, 2009, 19:11 |
selection7 |
|
|
So there's really no good, logical reason why they wouldn't release the DLC for PC. It's simply a poor business decision.
So basically, "I don't know". At least you're honest. And that's certainly hypothetically possible. But surely you realise the basis of the free market is that businesses do things when it makes them money and don't when it won't. After all, some suits will practically kill of their aging grandma for an extra Christmas bonus, so isn't a little odd that they would knowingly leave money on the table? The rule of thumb is that if they can't make back 15% more than they spend, it's not worth their time. Somehow there has to be a part of you that acknowledges maybe these guys have a better idea of whether it will make them money than you could. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > No PC PoP DLC |
|
| 27. |
Re: No PC PoP DLC |
Feb 3, 2009, 02:56 |
selection7 |
|
|
| So, #26, exactly what IS the reason they aren't releasing PC DLC if it's not because they don't think they can get enough PC users to pay for it for it to be worth their time? I'm not hearing any alternative theories...only what amounts to either "nuh UH!" or "Fine, I didn't want that DLC anyway". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| News Comments > Op Ed |
|
| 7. |
Re: Op Ed |
Jan 19, 2009, 15:38 |
selection7 |
|
|
| I want to know how they're going to win over people like my dad and my sister who everytime I show them a game I think they'll think is cool, they complain "it makes me nauseous"? I suppose if you're sitting 15 ft away from your tv rather than 3 feet away from a PC monitor it makes a difference, but I think people underestimate how big the divide still is between the hardcore and the casuals. My best friend still hates 3rd person over the shoulder games (which makes him an oddball, since most people hate 1st person games) becuase they make him sick. What can you say to someone to make them play a game that makes them nauseous? Nothing. Game over. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
33 Comments. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older > |
|
|
|
|
|
Blue's News is a participant in Amazon Associates programs
and earns advertising fees by linking to Amazon.
|
|
|
|
Twitter 
