The Division 2...a game that, if it's anything like the first game, needs to be played with other people in order for it to be remotely enjoyable, will launch on the store with an extremely limited player base*? So, not only would I need to adopt the Epic client, but I'd need to convince my group of friends to do the same? Good luck with that.

I didn't install the Epic Store client for the free games. I'm sure as hell not going to install it for Ubisoft games. If it means I never get to play The Division 2, Watch Dogs 3, Far Cry 6, or Assassin's Creed 12...well, damn, I'll just have to live with that.

*The bajillion people who play Fortnite don't count as a player base - unless you're playing Fortnite.

The concept of Prey 2 was really interesting - and really wild, considering what the original Prey was - and, had they pulled it off, it could've been really cool. I'd still love to see someone make a sci-fi bounty hunter game that has some depth and nuance beyond just shooting everything in sight. And it's somewhat amusing that Prey 2 was axed for not living up to Bethesda's standards, yet they still pushed Fallout 76 out the door and thought it was a good idea.

I don't think I even knew there was a new Legacy of Kain game in the works... Though, that would definitely be in my Top 10 of franchises that need a revival. Maybe someday.

And I don't know if the cancellation of Star Wars 1313 was as disappointing as it was surprising. I would've thought that after Disney bought Lucasfilm they would've been churning out all things Star Wars non-stop until the demise of all life on Earth. It's just amazing that there wasn't a massive deluge of Star Wars games, starting with 1313. The fact that we haven't seen more Star Wars games being made is truly astonishing.

I'd rather see a reissue of the 360 controller design but with the new D-pad in a wired version. I just don't care for the new controller design - specifically the bumpers and triggers - and it annoys me to no end that, with all these bullsh*t features they're rolling out, they still haven't offered a wired version for use on PC.

@nikon133: I'm really just at a loss as to what Slightly Mad Studios hopes to gain from creating their system. It sounds like they don't consider exclusives a good thing...in which case, why the hell would anyone buy the Mad Box? If all they have is hardware that's "equivalent to a very fast PC two years from now," I suspect the next consoles from Microsoft and Sony will be pretty much the same, so there doesn't seem to be any reason to choose this Mad Box. Microsoft has their "play anywhere" angle and Sony continues to be strong in exclusives. If SMS is aiming for a premium VR experience...I guess there might be a market for that? But you have to think Microsoft and Sony will be in that market too, especially with their next gen of hardware that will allow for improve VR. Do they think consumers will buy their console just because it's a third option? If so, Extremely Mad Studios would be a more apt name for the company, but only because Batsh*t Insane or Totally F***ing Daft Studios might be offensive to some people.

I think it would be interesting to see Disney get into the gaming market. Though, no, it doesn't make much sense to develop their own hardware, since their system wouldn't likely be radically different from the Xbox and Playstation. While they could absolutely sell consoles just by having games based on their properties as exclusives, I don't know that they'd make more money going that route than they already make through licensing fees. It's probably the same reason Games Workshop licenses Warhammer to any developer who'll pay them, with no concern about the game's quality, rather than taking a proper hands-on approach. They're just interested in getting paid.

Still, it's easy to imagine them seeing the video game market as a natural extension of their entertainment juggernaut. There's already a huge interest in games based on their properties, and (maybe) if Disney was in charge and gambling with their own money, they might make greater efforts to ensure those games weren't half-assed cash grabs. And I can see the potential for them to delve into VR, trying to capture the experience of some of their more popular rides in a VR format, as well as adding VR experiences to their parks. And, obviously, Disney wouldn't hold a press conference at E3 but, instead, host a huge gaming extravaganza at Disney World. While a Disney console probably won't happen anytime too soon, I wouldn't bet against them getting there someday - most likely once they've finally consumed Microsoft or Sony. (We all know it's going to happen eventually.)

@wolfpup7: I suspect it's either that nobody at Disney realizes the potential or, more likely, they've run the numbers and they don't feel it's worth their time and resources. I mean, to Disney (along with all major studios), a movie that makes "only" $20-30 million in profit is considered a bomb. Like, it wasn't even worth the effort for such meager profits. So, it's easy to understand why they wouldn't see the value of developing/publishing video games. It's just easier and safer to collect their licensing fees.

I highly doubt Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo would consider these guys to be anything even remotely resembling competition. Unless they have the resources to churn out an impressive library of high quality exclusives, this is destined to fail. Now, if, say, Disney decided to get into the console market, that might worry those other companies. Hell, Disney could move systems just by locking down their properties. Want to play Marvel vs. Capcom, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, or Kingdom Hearts? Want to play anything Star Wars? You're gonna need the Disney Box. The D-Box! Of course, they'll need to buy out that company those makes those theater chairs, but once they own the tech, that can be their system pack-in. It can be Disney's Kinect. By which I mean a stupid gimmick that nobody wants and whose inclusion only cripples sales until they grudgingly remove it.

In all seriousness, though, Disney probably could be a strong competitor in the console market, but it will likely never happen. It's far easier for Disney to just go on gobbling up other companies, acquiring more properties, and then licensing those properties for a hefty fee to anyone who wants to do all the heavy lifting and take all the risk on developing games that may or may not hit. But it's going to take a Disney, a Google, or an Amazon to break into the market in any way that matters. But, hey, good luck to Slightly Mad Studios.

How did nobody at the company have the brains (or the balls) to say, "Changing the core game experience to suit new players alienates our veteran players. You know, the people who've continued to support us through all our cluster****s. The people who, somehow, still buy our games at launch - some of them even pre-ordering, if you can believe that - despite the fact it says EA on the box and, thus, is guaranteed to be some level of f'ed up. So...like, you know, we probably shouldn't do that. Maybe we leave the core game as it is and just open a few 'beginner' servers with more generous mechanics for those new players and anybody else who wants them?"

Or maybe I'm wrong. I don't know the numbers. Did nobody buy Battlefield V and it just makes sense to soften the game mechanics for new or less hardcore players in order to, hopefully, draw in that player base? Or did it sell X millions of copies but there were only a few hundred thousand people playing regularly, suggesting that the 'core' players are a minority and maybe the majority of players found some of the gameplay choices to be too harsh, too rigid, too unforgiving and, thus, not fun? Even if that's the case, you don't shaft your veteran players. They should have had enough 'core' servers in place to handle all those people currently playing, in the event none of them wanted a change, and then open up as many 'beginner' or 'casual' servers as they felt appropriate.

Or, hell, use social media! It's the perfect place and opportunity to communicate with you consumers. The internet is all about people giving you their opinions, often when you don't even ask for it. Might be a useful tool to get some idea about why people aren't buying/playing your game. You may not want to read "EA sux teh d*ck!!1!1" or "nneds more W33D" or "get dat bicth out my game" - and who can blame you - but you've engendered enough animosity at this point that you're just going to have to suffer through some of that. And while I'm sure you don't want to read "fix the motherf***ing bugs in your broke-ass POS game!!!" and "no more microtransactions in the Battlefield, PLEASE," those are legitimate complaints and you either need to address them, ideally without antagonizing your community, or accept the fact that some people just aren't going to bother with your damn game because you seemingly don't respect your players or care about the experience they hope to get from a Battlefield game. No, you can't please everyone, but you should aim to satisfy the people who've already given you their money, doing right by them first while you attempt to open things up or change them around in ways that might welcome in new players or draw back players who've felt burned in the past.

This is just common sense, a bare minimum basic level of thoughtfulness of which any marginally educated adult should be capable, and part of the reason people are so irate over this is because there's no good reason this situation had to end up as thoroughly f'ed as they made it.

I never owned a PS1 Dualshock. I bet the analog sticks made playing Metal Gear Solid a much better experience, because I remember hating how it controlled.

That's really disappointing, but not entirely surprising, given how they seemed to slip this out with as little fanfare as possible. Probably also telling that they released it now, during the holiday rush, rather than early next year when the game might have to stand against stuff like Devil May Cry 5 and Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice. It's incredibly frustrating that they half-assed this, because it should've been easy to create a satisfying sequel for the fans of the previous games - even if there aren't a lot of us. Probably killed the franchised permanently with this one.

@Barighm: Exactly. It's practically a completely different game from the modern ones. (Actually, that's kind of been Ubisoft's MO, simplifying and streamlining their franchises to make them easier, with fewer consequences for mistakes.) The assassinations were actually a big deal, requiring some thought and planning, and you had to execute them damn near flawlessly. Even the climbing was a more involved process, rather than simply holding a button and pushing up. I imagine some people - anyone who's only played the newer games - will find it as frustrating as, say, those early Splinter Cell games.