So the opposing view gets to tweet her, while the other view gets expert analysis with face time. Wow what a fair trade that is.
There is a benefit to violent video games. All humans have that primal bloodlust somewhere in there DNA. Violent video games allow you to explore that dark part of your mind without hurting anybody. This in turn leads to less violent acts between fellow humans.
Nah, really I'm just BSing, cause after playing Forza Motorsports I feel the need to go to a Porshe Dealer and drag race a new Porshe 911 GT2 until I'm busted by the cops or smash into something at top speed and require hospitalization until I can do it again.
I don't understand something. Wouldn't it have been simpler to put the FF MMOs under a different name? I.e. Final Fantasy XI, should've been called FF Online 1, and FF XIV should be FFO 2. Leave the single player games under the FF moniker. To be honest, I find it confusing that one FF game may be online and the other may be a single player. Since I don't want to buy a FF MMO, I stopped purchasing FF games once it was announced that FF XI went online. There are probably MMO players that don't want to buy a FF game cause they don't want an offline single player game.
Marketing...it's something Square Enix should really look into since they just lost billions of dollars.
Hackers like this ARE helping the anti-DRM fight. It shows that the level of inconvience forced on the consumer is for nothing, because DRM doesn't stop PIRATES.
Inflation does not apply to video games. The SNES had a virtual monopoly on console video games back in the 90's and overcharged. Now there's lots of competition, and competition in a free market lowers consumer prices. Just a few years earlier Atari was selling games at $20 or $30 a piece. PC video games were far cheaper than SNES video games.
Now you have far more developers producing a similar product on a non-essential item. To expect the cost to track based upon the cost-of-living from 90's to today is ludicris. Technology decreases costs. Programming code is far easier to write today than back in the 90's. Gameplay has dimished in favor of a cinematic arms race. Developers need to manage their rescources better and not throw hundreds of programmers at graphics to beat out the other 1000 or so similar game types already on the market.
Technology items come down in price. Computers are far more powerful than they were in the 90's and far cheaper. Same for TVs, DVD players, iPads/Walkmans, etc. VCR movies used to cost $100 new, now many DVD are under $10 new. Inflation is irrelevant when talking about games.
Not every game needs cinematics. Cinematics require the huge development teams. Developers only get $27 of the $60 new price. Frankly, I'm not worried about how they make money, there's too many developers out there anyways. We don't need 5,000 different FPS, only about 5 good ones per year. Gas only cost me $1 or less in the 90's and with its increase comes a whole host of other Cost of Living expenses. Middle Class wages have not risen in proportion to the cost of living.
Frankly, everything in technology comes down in price. Computers were more expensive and less powerful in the 90's. Manufacturing costs are greatly reduced with labor force reductions/robotics. If you can't sell a game for $20 and make a profit, you need to reorganize your business.
Why do Nintendo games cost $50 to $60 in the marketplace anyways? They don't have cinematics. There's no reason Mario, Zelda and Kirby games should retail at that level.
Keep your $60 and $80 games, I want no part of them. I want to buy "complete" video games for $20 or less. Movies sell for $10 to $20 and they cost far more to make than video games.
Suaron_x's comments