A new GameSpot review mimics an earlier review of mine with a severe exception. So I wanted to reiterate the issue in Hearthstone Heroes of Warcraft. The notion that you or your competition is always a “worthy opponent” is deceiving. The casual matchmaking mode needs to be overhauled.

Successful poker or blackjack players have a multitude of sound strategies before their opponents lay all their cards on the table. The point is the rare cards you put down in Hearthstone Heroes of Warcraft become the major factor for success. A sound strategy is a great tagline for the Hearthstone players that already have competitive decks.

When a Hearthstone player has a majority of rare cards in a deck and decides not to face ranked opponents, the difficulty a new player faces is greater than Dark Souls. Ranked players infest the casual mode over the ranked one to the point where rookies can’t complete daily events to earn more free packs. So new players are free to play the cards that will motivate them to purchase packs with cabbage, dough, chicken feed, or any other term that means cash.

The deck building in Hearthstone is the most strategic component to the game. Building decks with rare cards gives a player the flexibility to cover many situations. What if you played poker, and your opponent always started with pocket Aces?

In Hearthstone everyone losses. The last Super Bowl score of 43-8 is a great comparison to how most new players lose in the casual game mode of Hearthstone Heroes of Warcraft. Close matches that could end up in wins or losses rarely happen in the casual setting. Losing rare, nail biting matches never feel like a waste of time.

If experience is the name of the game then watch Twitch, gain all the perks generated by the practice mode, and spend $20-$50. You’ll still lose and always need to upgrade. But the miniscule degree of success you’ll have will be legendary compared to a casual pub players track record. It’s a fun game that has you try it, and then puts a gun to your head to buy it.

I played Magic at a time where a Black Lotus used to cost as much now as the Dredd Blu-ray. Hearthstone Heroes of Warcraft provides a Jekyll and Hyde beta experience. Hearthstone, compared to Magic has a different vibe produced by quick games and a fondness for the WOW universe. The decks are fun to play, and practice mode easily teaches the ins and outs of how to play the game. But the player vs. player matchmaking for Hearthstone Heroes of Warcraft isn’t worthy; regardless of what the game will tell you. All the games I’ve played are casual, not ranked matches. The gameplay itself is wonderfully casual; the opponents I’ve been matched with are far from that.

The open beta for Hearthstone Heroes of Warcraft is furious fun, which is Blizzard’s trademark. The fun factor is up there with my tanking with a warrior Draenei in WOW, or laying waste with a barbarian in Diablo 3. The tumor sized issue is the casual matchmaking mode always indicating “A Worthy Opponent” before the match starts between your deck and someone else’s. Even with so many beta players, both opponents are rarely worthy to do battle with one another. That’s not casual fun. Maybe great players and their decks fear the “ranked” mode and just want to slam down the non-competitive casual player?

Nail biting matches happen at most 10% of the time. If almost every game is a blowout why spend the cash? I’m looking for competition, not a beat down on someone else’s small Murloc sized deck. Bronco, and most NFL fans couldn’t finish watching last Super Bowl’s 43-8 blowout. A true competitor or a fan of just watching competition doesn’t want to constantly play any online game where it feels like the opponent is AFK.

Most matches In Hearthstone start off pretty even, no matter how great a player’s deck is. When mana crystals are around capacity is where players with insane decks triumph (“I’m not worthy, I’m not worthy”). When all these great cards land on the table, no amount of strategy can stop the onslaught. There is no way I should be playing against those decks in the casual section of Hearthstone. I’m casually getting rocked. At a certain point a deck’s strength shouldn’t casually be used. An Ogre sized deck, beating up on an insignificant grub deck is a lame way to get newbies to spend cash on cards.

Create the matching making in Hearthstone like “Top Gun”. Let the best of the best play. Pub players should completely be separated from the experienced (similar to WOW guilds). At least give the inexperienced a choice to see if they like Hearthstone to the point where a financial investment to move to ranked mode is needed.

For newer players, I ranked up all the classes to level ten first in “practice” mode. This will present you with deck options that can be competitive for those legendary matches that come down to the wire. Having all your decks at level ten will give you flexibility to create better decks when card packs are opened.

Hearthstone Heroes of Warcraft is like enjoying a Dairy Queen Blizzard. The Blizzard has a tasty beginning, but it’s very hard to continue on and finish off what you started.

Why release another 3DS XL bundle? The green Yoshi’s New Island bundle falls in line with other mistakes from Nintendo needing to be buried by Dig Dug. Ending March 2014, Nintendo will take over a 300 million dollar loss in revenue. A Link Between Worlds bundle couldn’t carry the 2013 holiday season sales estimate forecasted by Nintendo. A Link Between Worlds was easily in the top three best games of 2013. Link is one of the greatest Nintendo characters of all time. The holidays are over, the 3DS XL system has been out since 2012, the Zelda/Mario/Pokémon bundles are already out for the few new recruits that haven’t purchased a 3DS XL. How can Nintendo’s sales forecast for the Yoshi bundle be any more accurate than their whole 2013 holiday sales forecast? The $200 Yoshi’s New Island green bundle is going swallow some of the end of the year profits the $40 Yoshi’s New Island standalone game should produce.

When you sell a product eventually your consumer’s appetite for that product will be filled. Changing the color green has no effect when a consumer’s need for 3DS XL’s has been filled. Aggregate demand is the term for final goods needed in the economy at a given time and price. We have this term because us humans don’t have quite the appetite Yoshi or even Kirby have for consumption. This type of behavior from Nintendo is wasteful on resources. A pile up on inventory creates loss, and great headlines to disparage a company that has made Little Mac style comebacks against competitors. Around five Yoshi’s New Island games will have to be sold to “break even” with the one sale of that green colored Yoshi bundle. The odds of defeating mother brain blindfolded are better than any forthcoming profit from the green Yoshi bundle. Nintendo should have just put out the game.

Nintendo won’t drop the Wii U price, but they have no problem taking a hit on inventory costs? The cost of holding goods is a real factor to the profit you make on your inventory. Warehouse costs, depreciation, insurance, taxation, and shrinkage costs all reduce the profits made for every 3DS XL that is sold. Those factors are really tedious to count, and even worse to write down in an accounting ledger.

One reason that the largest brick and mortar retail chains produce profit is the notion that all the inventory they purchase, moves quickly. Every Wharton or Harvard school of business graduate that works at Nintendo knows this. My state college went over inventory management at nauseum. Yoshi’s New Island bundle is going to lie next to a lot of Wii U inventory. Instead of incurring those inventory costs, Nintendo could have dropped the Wii U price. It’s like Nintendo’s Kyoto Japan headquarters has water coolers spiked with crazy sauce. Nintendo feels like it’s just praying for a breakeven point in the next few years for all the operating costs they’ve incurred. That will affect all Nintendo players’ expectations for new experiences from Nintendo devices, if money doesn’t start pouring in.

So what can help Nintendo besides investing in new game titles with new characters? Putting almost 30year old NES Nintendo games on mobile devices would help. Promoting the company with other forms of media could help as well. The Lego movie just made $69 million dollars in one week. People also don’t know or forget that Marvel went bankrupt in 1996 after the stock dropped 80%. Licensing movie, music, and literature rights seems more financially promising than changing colors of almost two year old devices. Nintendo’s ideas need to be refreshing. Refreshing like the Apple co-founder Steve Wozniack last Thursday reported that Apple should put their brand on competitor’s Android technology.

My gaming evolution started with an Atari console. Then, I started my collection of NES games. I still have both NES consoles in their original boxes with over a hundred games (sadly no Nintendo World Championship in my collection). Nintendo still has might and magic. I just believe that the practice of useless paint jobs or other outdated repetitious marketing strategies could eventually have Nintendo player’s saying “Mario is missing”. It wouldn’t feel natural playing Bionic Commando or Mega Man on a PlayStation controller.

Metal Gear Solid 5 is what they call in the NFL “forth and short”. A GameSpot February 7, 2014 article focused on developers defending the length of Metal Gear Solid 5. Watching the Avengers movie could be longer than completing this game? But that characteristic matters not when gamers use their purchasing power for quality. Some games you can complete in a day are: God War 3, Modern Warfare 2, Uncharted 2, and Batman Arkham Asylum. The IPO price for all those games just mentioned was $60. The next gen digital copy for MGS5 is $30.

The only thing I would call bollocks on is the fact that Kojima Productions didn’t look at length as a marketing liability. That’s why that diatribe by Massimo Guarini spewed out in a report. Having something neglected always brings out the worst in people.

The positives are Metal Gear Solid 5 has a high probability of being great (track record says it all). This game being discounted in the future from $30 is better than a starting price of $60. Seeing the financial savings for digitalis copies over physical ones is a positive sign for future next gen game releases. The digital format for MGS5 on the PS4 is 25% less than the physical copy.

Bringing back the point of media length, and how it doesn’t really matter. 20^th century TV went from 20 episode seasons, to paying 21stcentury cash for 21^st century ten episode box sets. All of the 20^th century TV episodes were back to back, now seasons are broken up. The Walking Dead starts back up tonight, after months of hiatus. Millions of consumers so far have supported this media tactic.

So how can this translate to games? Instead of a full game costing $60, developers could just cut the game in half and sell the first half for $40,wait a quarter, then sell the final half for $40. That type of media business mode will likely be tested in the future.

Upgrading to a faster 45MPS internet connection or picking up a 2GB AMD Radeon R9 270X graphics card was supposed to be a preemptive attack towards the power hungry 2014-2015 PC online game releases. I don’t need some gaming monstrosity that NORAD would endorse. Dreaming a PC build with an NVidia GeForce GTX 690 will never guarantee multiplayer superiority. I just want multiplayer consistency, or at least believable propaganda that multiplayer consistency is possible.

After noticing GameSpot’s February 4, 2014 specs reveal for Titanfall, an assessment on how much gaming power my PC can optimize during multiplayer became important. I’m nerdy in the D&D/video game/magic/anime persuasion and I played sports like ice hockey. So my meager hippocampus really couldn’t absorb all the decade’s worth of PC specifications I’ve looked over. Not until I started thinking about all the old graphic cards that I’ve played great games on.

Some of 2008’s best games were: Grand Theft Auto 4, Left 4 Dead, Fallout 3, Audiosurf, and Gears of War 2. Wonderful nostalgia for those years came back to me. The graphical technology that ran those games is now committed to cater the innovative and creative PC version of Titanfall. I say PC only because the minimum PC graphical power isn’t equivalent to a mightier XBOX One.

Here’s the lowdown. The minimum specs for Titanfall include a Radeon HD 4000 series graphics card that released in 2008 (Radeon HD 4770). So I then used a Gamespot forum. The XBOX Ones GPU equivalent is an AMD Radeon HD 7770 that came out in 2012. The tera flop capacity of the 2012 AMD Radeon HD 7770 is worlds away from the minimum spec Radeon HD 4770, that’s rolling in at a whopping 960 Gigaflops. PC games being played and tested at the time the 2008 Radeon HD 4770 came out were: COD4 (73.5 FPS), Unreal Tournament 3 (38.7FPS), Left 4 Dead (55.7 FPS). All sick games that I enjoyed playing.

Is the new savior Titanfall a fare comparison in innovation to the 2008 games I’ve mentioned? FLOPS measure PC performance. The minimum specs to play Titanfall are going to affect every player’s PC gaming performance in one way or another. Maybe this is the reason why the 6v6/bots play is justified? PC lag is inevitable, but tsunamis of lag will not be accepted by the PC gaming community. Not every issue can be resolved with patches.

I want to avoid getting ripped off, in an expectation sort of way. Titanfall may only be entertaining to me on the XBOX one. Buying a game system for one game seems like the common theme towards console or game maker divorce. When has EA and Microsoft shown consumer empathy to online PC gaming? There are no lemon laws when you open up Titanfall and find out that your six year old graphics cards needs to be put down. Then, you’re purchasing upgrades equivalent to an XB1. This is a great business model, with the emphasis on the word “business”. I’ve never noticed until now that being really liberal on minimum PC specifications can be more of a liability than a fare accommodation. Like most, Titanfall was supposed to be my main kemo sabe of 2014 for that genre (could be Loadout now).

If I did play Titanfall on the PC, I hoped to feel the competitive nature that the developers intended. I didn’t want to beat up on lame gamers (killing a defenseless bambi). I want to Mech with the best. I wanted to slip a lot in Titanfall. PC players may have no way to quantify their skill. Increasing your kill death ratio from bots, lagging players, or knifing dudes/dudettes who are away from their keyboard is a lottery take down. If you don’t agree with this theory you must beat up kindergarteners.

The point here is a sense of deception. In the financial sense, I’m not going to be affected by this. But, it’s been emotional. The stigma for hijacking the little guy seems significant. Are there any EA games you can think of where this has happened? Maybe some of those games you can buy for much less than $60. No one likes a smash and grad on their wallet. Bruce Wayne’s father was loaded, and he ate some lead for pocket change. On another note, Lego batman should have his own movie (talk about arrested development).

Gamers growl with certain console games that can’t run at 60fps or true HD. I’ve had to drop my PC settings in the past, but where do PC players go when they’ve already hit rock bottom? Rodeo drive style gaming rigs will never be optimized if you’re online with half a decade old machines. Slapping on a Razer style keyboard and mouse to a console may help the PC market make the console transition. Or, massive SteamBox purchases should help remove some of those 2008 graphic cards that sold when: The Shield, Lost, and The Wire were still pumping out new episodes.

I was antsy in my pansies to give Loadout on Steam my explosive attention. Similar to any high volume game release, there are connection issues. It took me a day after downloading Loadout to have a field day with it. Finally, some Loadout love from the developer Edge of Reality.

The gameplay itself is technically clean, fast, and the modes/maps are different enough from the popular ascetic comparison Team Fortress 2. It would also be good to mention that this game is the polar opposite of another massively popular Steam title; the knighted shooter Counter Strike (broke my multiplayer in). Slow paced movement means certain death in Loadout, and one shot kills are nonexistent. In fact, full clips are going to be needed to take down elusive opponents. That means team unison with three other players is essential for effective gameplay.

There will be a lot of Loadout comparisons. It’s like comparing my favorite manga Battle Royale to the Hunger Games. Yes Battle Royale’s theme/storyline came out first, but the rip-off; I mean Hunger Games is much more polished and elaborate for a 21^st century product (so I’ve been told). Loadout has to be given a shot even by the pretentious veteran Steam player.

Loadout maps vary in size and construction. Some maps force you to make Mario like jumping moves if you want to take a fast route or you just may fall to your death. You’re automatically an accomplished mountain climber/hill walker. Jumping and moving to safer ground has never been easier do to all the foot holes and ledges .Playing other Steam shooters; the community always wants to play a few maps. There are no offices in Loadout. Map changes happen with turntable like quickness. Something to note, when I played Unreal tournament, I had to constantly change from my Flak Cannon or Shock Rifle to adapt to the geography. Loadout is so simple, that you’ll quickly understand that being devoted to one weapon will make enemies brains very happy.

Edge of Reality cherry picked their game modes, and the rotation of those modes flavor feels refreshing. The start to the game is always a Russian roulette style standoff. The standoff can establish game position, or everyone just blows up. The Capture the Flag mode has you carrying around a hammer instead of a flag. The hammer can be used to crush enemies. Kill confirmed, and another mode where teams collect blutes (gems), round out the game modes I’ve played. These modes are very different in scope and size to the competition.

This game is not pay to win. The gear that you accumulate comes quickly due to fast games and big currency bonuses (called Blutes). I have multiple guns upgraded to point where I can compete, and it’s only been a few days of play. You don’t need training wheels to learn how to play this game, but the developers have given the option for lots of help. I feel like my calico on a radiator when I play Loadout. I’m all stretched out and relaxed. I wish this game was around when I started dealing with syllabuses.

The weapon crafting and tech tree assentation isn’t breaking any new barriers. But that doesn’t mean the guns or gear aren’t fun to use around Loadout map’s. I still enjoy playing the COD, Battlefield, and can’t wait for Mario Kart 8. Some Loadout gun add-ons are OP to the uninitiated. I think that if you grab a shield, and upgrade a weapon for fire ammunition right away you’ll take advantage of the less knowledgeable (like me). I won’t care if you burn me to a crisp; just firing the weapons is entertaining. I was able to play at an above average level without those two items.

The matchmaking seemed to be a bit off. Maybe due to the instant popularity of it? If I played five quick games, three of those games had four experienced players on one team. Or maybe a player or two from my team just switched to the other team? The gameplay is so fast, it’s hard to comprehend anything but the ammunition heading toward you. Only one game I’ve played so far started had less than two full teams at the start (6am game). I wake up early for coffee and corn flakes.

The little things give Loadout gameplay a gigantic appeal. One nice option is naming your weapon. I named this multi-missile creation of mine “Game over Man Game Over”. I also have another weapon called “The Departed” (is an electro pulse gatling gun). You can add medical implications to your weapons as well. The gun visuals, like the cork screw missile system is mesmerizing when fired toward you. Another nice perk is that you can test every weapon option in a free testing mode where there are stationary and moving opponents. Once again, jumping and navigating around territory is so effortless compared to other games. The playable characters are big, and it’s comical to see them move around the map so quickly.

The taunts and skins look great, but that’s where you’ll need to spend some green paper. The costs for the aesthetics seem pricey if you’re not thinking about the fact that operating costs need to be considered. Complaints about those costs should make anyone feel selfish. Loadout is the most consumer friendly game I’ve ever played on Steam. Loadout truly feels like more of a “labor of love”, than the passion for a thick money clip. But, the amount of people playing this game on Steam should have the developers eating out a lot more often.

Loadout has the moxie to improve to a super gaming steroid type status. Just the type of juice Steam needs before the Steambox and its controller release. This game should be a console title. My quad-barrel, quad-cluster, 2 round burst rocket launcher with remote controlled scope would fire well with a controller in my mitts.

By the way, that last weapon mentioned isn’t even close to being my go to weapon for total Loadout devastation. That weapon, my baby as it were, is called “Say What Again”. Try this game, I dare you, I double dare you.

Gamers keep on saying free games aren’t really free if you have to pay for a subscription fee. I beg to differ. When you buy a car, TV, or beer, sometimes you’ll receive: alloys, Blu-ray player, or a bottle opener. You’re adding to the value of product or service you’re already purchasing. You’re not getting charged more for that product or service. That value has already been determined. The value of the PlayStation Plus subscription fee was already determined before Outlast became a “free exclusive”. If Sony stops putting out free exclusives, then you’re just paying $50 a year for multiplayer.

But the focus on this topic is a bit off. Whether the perception of a game is “free” or a justification on the purchase itself, it’s arbitrary when assessing a target market’s value. This is why the PS4 console’s sales beat the competitions. Outlast is not a $60 title. But bundle that game in with other titles coming out this year. The result, a perceived value, which has exceeded the subscription fee (getting something for nothing=that’s value). The irony with the PC created Outlast exclusive is that’s Microsoft’s backyard. Also, Nintendo charging $15 for the new Dr. Mario seems even more egregious.

In the business terms, PS4 just raised the “switching costs” for PS4 owners. It’s going to cost you more trouble to stop playing the PS4 in the future. Switching to something different (people are fickle), is going to feel like a liability. Cable companies for example, retain consumer loyalty to their services based on this fact.

The creation of this PS4 business model is going to be written in college text books next to the Chapter on the creation of Walmart’s inventory management system. Sony’s foreign direct investment strategy is a very lovable juggernaut.

I’ve owned decade’s worth of gaming gear from every company. It was the great games, not company empathy as to why I purchased certain system over others. By the fourth quarter of 2014, Sony may be perceived as the lovable world console.

Even with my college professor’s applied calculus chalk teachings, and the use of a T-82, it took a private tutor to comprehend all those equations.

At least one person in each U.S. household is learning to play a video game more efficiently & effectively (possible doing it in anger). So, why can’t I find my own competent personal gaming tutor?

I enjoy watching Twitch, but I need lessons. People who will get mic’d up and show me the ropes when my fingers are on a mouse, not a Mountain Dew.

Say you’re going to pay almost $200 dollars a year on an MMO. Maybe you keep on muting raging players in your new favorite MOBA/Shooter. For me, those multiplayer situations produce an embarrassing loss in time and money. Don’t forget the cost of the gaming apparatus as well. $10 an hour or so for training seems like a value to me. Recording all the info covered in a session could also be made available (got your notes for the day).

Pay to win would take on a new meaning for positive resolve. Competition would expand, so cherry picking the best players would be more difficult for sponsored teams. An increase in “gaming senseis” would also usher in an expanding level of etiquette. Wouldn't less people apply aim bot, or buy black market gold if they just listened and learned from a Master Roshi type player?

When the learning curve is lowered in team based games, consumer loyalty is much greater. Maybe developers can provide hands on learning to reduce the barriers of entry for new games they bring to the market?

Experienced players that help others would reduce their own personal improvement. Or would they? After the first 5 minutes worth of enemy engagement, I can tell if that game is going to waste my time for the next hour. If my time is wasted, I’m frustrated to the point where I’m not gaining any new knowledge. Those scenarios waste everyone’s time.

Another giant red and white mushroom for you veterans would be creating others in your image (hubris issues?). Build your base for competent and motivated players.

I don’t understand why people on Twitch or other gaming venues believe that the buck stops there for player improvement/enjoyment?

I might have to apply my honorable college education to expanding this business model.