@fonsicastrol: "clickbait" is perhaps the most misused word here. It's titled explicitly as a review in progress, and it IS. If you think reading reviews for a game the reviewer hasn't finished yet is a waste of time, then don't click on an article with a "review in progress" in its title. You are your own filter.
@NTM23: Him playing is besides the point. The game requiring you to go here and there is neither. He was a victim of a random shooting which happened at a popular tourist spot. And that's it. If a car ran over you when you suddenly crossed the street while playing the game, it's clear carelessness on your end; If you get shot randomly in a public place--much more a tourist spot--while playing it, then it's both a security issue and a case of being just plain out unlucky. In the second scenario, playing a game or doing whatever doesn't factor in one bit.
I'm not really seeing it getting banned. Do we ban owning and driving vehicles because road accidents kill tens of thousands every year in the US alone? No. People get hurt all the time for being careless and that all falls squarely on them. Iran is a different case. Granted Iran didn't spell out the specifics of what they considered "security issues," the country isn't exactly as relatively safe as with other countries where this game is being played to begin with. Last thing you wanna end up in is being an a restricted place in Iran with catching a Pikachu as your only excuse. And besides, government control over many things there is usually tight
@nabinator: Nevertheless, I think some people would find that appealing. And besides, even if it's not marketed as such, it still has that functionality/element to it. Speaking for myself, if I were to pick this game up (which i'm kinda leaning towards not), I'd look for some legitimacy in what I'm seeing--I mean, I would like my finds to be seen and validated by someone else as well. It kinda gives you the sense that what I saw (virtually) exists as compared to no one ever seeing it and you'll end up asking what if this procedurally generated stuff are all just procedurally generated bull that doesn't exist for anyone at all. It's all made up, I know, but mapping the universe--however small in scale relative to its vastness--has always captured mankind's imagination. And referencing and cross-referencing with other people's discoveries play into that.
@savagerodent: I think so too. I mean, how many planets can you visit before the game gets old on you? I'm guessing not that much. I dunno, maybe the idea behind it just didn't appeal to me to begin with. But that's just me.
@bdiddytampa: No. It's not exactly irresponsible if you don't secure someone's side in whatever event he got figured in on if (1) what you're reporting is the event itself; and (2) you've done your diligence and reached out to him but haven't gotten any response yet. And 2 isn't even that necessary in relation to 1. Take this: if Obama were accused of rape, the media wouldn't--and i stress, would never--defer from covering the news until Obama makes a statement about it. Of course, they'll swarm in on it. Whatever he has to say about it (while also important and would be covered as soon as it comes up) doesn't take away the newsworthiness of it by itself.
This article just says that the guy and his company are "objecting to the use of the formula in the game without their input" and have intimated that "[i]f Hello Games used [their] technology, at some stage [they] will have to get to the table. . . [and they] trust that [they] will be able to discuss this in a normal way." So clearly one party has claim. As to what or how much or whether it has merit or not is besides the point. So, isn't that No Man's Sky-related news in itself and as such worth reporting? And whatever Murray has to say about it can be covered some other time when it comes out. There's no dismissing something when it isn't there yet.
@DemonicChaosXX: Yeah. And ". . .We will give his account back immediately if he contact us." is just a few words short of extortion (if it's not already implied). What they're doing isn't exactly the best way to show altruism.
@hazuki: You'd be surprised at how big marketing costs go by. If I remember correctly, the average goes at around $40M. And big movies go by hundreds of millions. Ridiculous. A considerable sum would've been likely cashed out here as well. They most likely came at a loss here (break-even, if they even did, would've been a miracle). It's a so-so teen flick with some garnered relative success with its prequels, I imagine they cashed in big this time on marketing to ensure bigger profits. And, if it's any indication, going from film series to tv (pretty embarrassing by the way) suggests that really they lost big--at least, enough to significantly lose the studio's confidence with this film's profitability.
@JSein456: Accidents happen but that shouldn't stop anyone from doing anything. With your logic, no one should go out driving or commuting 'coz people die from road accidents everyday. Heck, let's stop doing anything and everything in which someone has had an accident with. . . *smh*
NIckEs' comments