Good. That's how I thought it was always going to be, back when it was just Oculus and Vive. Then they introduced their own exclusive games and I was getting uneasy. After which, of course, both Microsoft and Sony jumped on the bandwagon, forming more walls and it was just getting ridiculous. You already have to purchase three systems (PC, Xbox One, Playstation 4) to enjoy all the major console games, but then to have to buy several different headsets to get the full VR experience...just gets way to costly for no good reason.
There's no reason why all VR games can't be played on any VR headset...except for greed.
@freeryu: Only mildly. Would be far worse in a competitive type setup.
I look at Mass Effect's multiplayer as co-opetition, where you are working together, but still competing for the highest score. So yes, it does bother me, but not as much as pure competition.
@kickrockser: I enjoyed the Wii and Wii U too, but none of my best, recent gaming experiences took place on them. Lack of good games killed the Wii U, as did the loss of the hardcore market.
Pre-order to cheat in multiplayer. Pay an extra $10 to really cheat in multiplayer. Pay an extra $40 to super-deluxe cheat in multiplayer.
Hope that Pyjack is available in-game, cuz I sure as hell am not paying $10 extra for it and some single-player cheats. I have no problem with them offering skins and physical goods for extra $$$, but anything that affects the in-game balance I'll label for what it is: a cheat.
I kind of have a feeling they're desperately trying to rope their handheld customers, where they're still very strong, into improving their console business. That could majorly back fire on them.
Being a hardcore gamer, I still believe where Nintendo went wrong was with the Wii. But they're blinded by the incredible sales numbers that were brought on by an influx of casual, and disloyal, "gamers". Doubling down on that gave them the disaster that was the Wii U. Have they learned anything? Doubt it.
Unfortunately, Nintendo will have a hard time finding space for itself in the modern console market.
I can say that both Arrival and The Accountant are worth watching. Next up is Fantastic Beasts. I hear it's a CGI-fest with weak story/characters/comedy, so my expectations are low.
It worries me that they cast Johnny Depp for the next movie. Picking an A-list actor is a sign of desperation: "please come see our movie!!!"
I mostly got out of Pokemon after the Gold/Silver generation.
As far as I'm concerned, there are two goals in Pokemon games: Becoming "the very best" and catching them all. The first part is easy enough as the game prods you in that direction, but collecting every pokemon was already hard enough in the original games. My brother and I worked together and got it done after many, many hours. But we couldn't do it in gold/silver, and after that it just got ridiculous to even attempt it!
Losing one of the two goals wasn't the only reason I stayed away. I find the real-time day/night cycle frustrating. If you go to school and/or work, you'll find that you end up playing the game extensively at certain times and not at all during others. Why restrict your players in such a way? Why not just have a day/night cycle based on play time?
They also started introducing gimmicks that were more annoying than fun.
Finally, aside from gym leaders and important opponents, trainers tended to have stupid pokemon line-ups. Six Rattatas or three Meowths, etc. Rarely would you run into a trainer that had a diverse line-up of varying types that would actually require you to think!
It became more of a slog than a fun experience, with the only driving force being the OCD-like drive to grind it out and collect everything.
You missed the train on that one Ubisoft. Other games have gone this route already, with varying degrees of success. If done right, it can be a wonderful experience. If done wrong, it becomes a slog. Considering Ubisoft games have become a simple collect-athon with very mediocre stories, I'm thinking they'd fall into the latter group.
@latreides: If that's true, then I'm not sure what their strategy is. There isn't a significant enough difference between the regular PS4 and the Pro, and both play the same games, so their major market would be people whose PS4 broke and they want to get a new one and decide to spend the extra money for a bit more power.
I still think Playstation went for the replacement approach, but didn't want to alienate their base (hence their message of supporting both). I think they believe console cycles will now be a slew of minimal improvements, rather than an outright new system.
I thought Xbox had the same idea, but it turns out they've gone a completely different route and decided to reach out to a higher-end market.
Interesting. Seems like they're going for a two-pronged approach, versus a replacement approach like Sony.
They'll offer the regular slim at a cost-effective price as a competitor to Playstation. Then they'll offer a premium model as a competitor to PCs. His comments make me think Scorpio will be priced at $599 or $699. Maybe even $799. I mean, if their competition is high-end PCs, that's definitely a competitive price point.
BigDegs' comments