Obviously a large enough portion of the market decided this was not what they wanted. It's fine to bring new things to the table, to disrupt things a bit, etc., but often times you need to ease into things. Especially if you know the market has equally good competition.
It's overpriced by a few hundred grand for what you're getting, dependent upon how some of the things play out. That said, I agree with @Zloth2 about how it's probably more or less a commentary on silly collectors editions. Not that they would mind anyone buying it. And as far as that goes, anyone who buys this is someone who just has a ton of money and this could just add to their notoriety. "Hey, I'm the guy with the one million dollar game!" Also they want people who are interested to contact them, which probably means the price can be negotiated to some extent.
I think it's a great thing that the staff raised that much. And if I read that correctly at the end, EA matches that? That's a wonderful practice. Yeah, you can easily say that EA can afford to part with more money than $18,000, but I've always been a firm believer of "something is better than nothing."
Maybe if this was the first title in each series, I could sort of understand this analyzing. But ya know, after a number of titles in each I think everyone knows this now.
Like many others on here, I just don't get these analysts or what their job really is. The past 10, 15 or so stories I've seen that involve an analyst stating something were all pretty much "Captain Obvious" type comments. Things that anyone with even a modicum of interest in the gaming industry could tell you.
I think Tom could pull it off. Despite his age and his crazy Scientology stuff, he's a great actor and can do action well. The Mission Impossible movies aren't too shabby, nor are a lot of his other films. He goes all out in his roles and loves to do the stunts himself, which is great.
You'd think with the Phenom edition they would put the Undertaker on the cover. Or at the very least have a reversable cover with him on one side, The Rock on the other.
"They've let the market pull them back but I think that was a mistake."
The keyword there is "market." Ya know, the people who are actually paying for your product. If the market decided they didn't want something, why would you try to force it upon them? That only hurts your business in the end. The customer is ultimately the boss.
Right now Microsoft is in a good place to heavily promote digital downloads while still retaining physical copy customers. Instead of just kind of hopping into one market, ease your way into it.
That's all aside from internet access issues. Honestly, if I were a developer, I would embrace both mediums. America is really behind in terms of proper broadband access throughout the country.
I won't bother commenting on the whole mobile gaming thing. Some developers are quick to embrace it. And their audience is quick to abandon it. Super casual does not equate to a good consumer audience. Well, I guess I commented anyway.
I don't own a Wii U, and probably (or at least not for a long while), but I love the Batman Arkham games. Aside from the fact that I feel multiplayer is entirely unnecessary, I think it's a rather poor practice for a company to essentially do a halfass version of a game for one console If you're going to even bother with it at all, do it right. This goes for any game going on any system. Whether options are limited on a PS3 version or an Xbox One version or however it may go. If you're not being held back by hardware, there should be no excuse.
I don't mind the free games. Yes, I realize they aren't technically free. But I plan on paying for my Gold account regardless and some of these games I never got around to playing, so it's free enough for me.
But some people will complain about anything. It's one thing to complain about them even charging for a Gold account. It's entirely different if you actively keep up a Gold account and then complain because they're not giving away the games you want.
isv666's comments