@gaming_binge @Monsta1217 I don't even understand why people pay for things twice. You don't have to pay for online matchmaking services on PC. Paying for online multiplayer that uses your already paid for internet service makes no sense to me. That is one of the major reasons I abandoned consoles after the REAL Xbox 1 (OG). That is kinda like this.....
"Have you tried the Hot Pocket Hot Pocket? It's a Hot Pocket filled with a Hot Pocket!"
They charged for Xbox live which connects to the internet that you already pay for, so how is this surprising? If they could, they would turn the XB1 into a debit card machine that required you to pay as you play.
Graphics during cutscenes being somewhat poor are nothing new to PC games that don't use the in game graphics to render them. I think they are done that way so that even a system with the minimum requirements have no issues with them. Then you have Blizzard who makes cutscenes that are over the top, and are nowhere near the actual in game graphics. Hmph.
Most people tend to buy RTS games for the multiplayer. It seems that Kevin's only real negative points are in the campaign, and AI. He does mention balance issues, but there will be patches to fix those. Look at how often Starcraft 2 got patched to fix exploits and balance issues. After the campaign is over, this game is meant to live on as a multiplayer game, and in time, it will surely deserve more praise as these issues are addressed. The AI still does stupid stuff in the original COH, so this isn't a big surprise.
The graphics aren't that important when you are hovering so far above your units 99% of the time. I haven't played this yet, but I am sure that it will be just as good, if not better than it's predecessor. I can easily overlook the gripes that caused this game to score this lower than I had hoped.
"You told us how much you loved the flexibility you have...."
Nah...Sony showed you that you screwed up your launch, and you only reverted back in order to recoup sales that you would have lost. To suggest that they listen to their consumers is laughable. Had they been truly in touch with the gamers, they would have known not to implement these things in the first place. To now try and make it sound like they are on our side is actually somewhat disgusting.
Own up Microsoft, and just admit that you seriously fucked up with your policies, and just didn't want to have 10 million units collecting dust in your warehouses.
@McGregor Well, I would like to think that this is one of those chicken or the egg debates. The consumers wouldn't have voted with their wallets if it were not for Sony being the better option. So you could argue it either way.
ZOD777's comments