@loafofgame That's pretty much the problem, though. Publishers don't see a profit (despite their being one) because of public opinion, so they get swayed by the public opinion and thus never publish the game. And in turn it causes people to gravitate to the notion that a character can only be a male in a video game and it becomes the societal norm not to have female leads in video games. It's a vicious cycle, really.
Now why this concerns those of us who aren't women or feminists is because this is how every other aspect of the industry functions as well, including in gameplay (which is why there are so many "CoD clones"), which causes stagnation. And it's the same reason we now have Always Online RM and a Paymium model.
PS: What on Earth do you mean by women being "stupid?"
@nurnberg But this has nothing to do with feminism. Some stories just can't be told from the perspective of a man. In a deeper level, they're two separate worlds, and two separate experiences.
@Celiria_Rose @Riddick123 Well actually Saints Row 3 did it pretty well. There's no story option for the most part, but your character, despite just being "generic player," is actually really defined, and exceptional voice acting. You actually feel pretty important playing as him or her in a way.
I agree not all games can do this. Sometimes you can't just create a deep enough character for a story unless he or she is of a particular sex. If Lara Croft in the new Tomb Raider was, instead, a man, one would probably be more detached from the whole "sacrificing women" horrors and simply be disgusted by it. The disturbing tone would essentially lean more to just dark and actiony, and it just wouldn't be the game that it is.
@Daemoroth @Aleksa8 @RoadStar1602 No problem. It worries me, because why would a best selling franchise NEED microtransactions when there are other games out there with microtransactions that are free to play, and are NOT pay to win?
This seems like a ploy to get into Paymium gaming. by the end of the year, the next CoD is likely going to have downloadable weapons. In fact, BO2 included some with a DLC, apparently. Pay to win may be coming soon, as well.
You're both right about that. Though Battlefield Play4Free didn't appear too bad when I played it, I don't think they'd be too shy to implement a pay to win feature in every game. Sorry for not taking it into account.
Even so, it looks like they're moving to pay to win microtransactions in full, $60 games. So when you compare that to a free to play game, it's still a better option to have it free to play, if only because then you don't have to pay for it if the microtransactions don't sit well with you.
@mAArdman Freemium still beats Paymium, at any rate. I'd rather Dea Space 3 be a free to play game with cosmetic microtransaction options than a buy to play game with microtransactions that help you progress through the game as it is, now.
There are some games which do Freemium really, really well, like Blacklight did, and some which do it quite abysmally.
That said, though, I doubt I'll be supporting EA through any financial means, regardless of how good their next games may be. They really just jumped across the line this year, and earned at a quick buck far too much at the expense of the customers. The promise of more of these backstabbing tactics is really just salt in the wound, and I want no part of it.
Aleksa8's comments