I'm a college student from North Carolina studying English and Journalism. I'm a reformed Comp Sci Major and a featured writer from Game Informer's community blogs section, which means my things get posted to the front page! Enjoying the new site so far and the long form articles Polygon has been posting.
It was still selling at the original purchase price, there was no reason to believe they were about to completely discontinue support for it. I made the choice to buy it, sure, Nintendo made the choice to tell me to go fuck myself though.
Stop defending Nintendo for doing something stupid just because they’re Nintendo. They neither deserve nor need you defending their idiocy.
It is obsolete. I’m pretty sure Nintendo announced a game specifically for it, that won’t run on the old hardware. Realistically, the old hardware can’t run new stuff for multiple reasons. Slower CPU now, no second analog input, two fewer buttons, no nfc stuff for amiibo and anything else that wants to use it.
Yeah, that’s not the point though. I, as in me and not the fancy plastic paperweight I bough for $300, have only had access to that experience for 9 months. And now that experience is no longer the one I bought, but rather one in which my 3DS XL is akin to a painted rock that some might, let’s say, set on a stack of papers to keep them from moving around.
No, I mean I know what it is but why the fuck did they make the system I just bought outdated in less than a year?
I just bought my 3DS like 9 months ago. What the fuck is this?
Yeah, I’m in this camp. This doesn’t make me want to buy an XBO, because this just feels like they’re screwing me out of a game until like a year after it releases. It’s one thing to secure content, I don’t really give a damn about that because it’s almost always tacked on nonsense. A whole game though? I don’t really want to support the precedent it sets.
Just wanted to say hi from all the people who own PCs. We exist, and contrary to popular belief we do buy games at launch and not just during Steam sales. A good portion of us probably would have bought Tomb Raider as well, and a very significant portion of us probably don’t own either of the new consoles at this point. Well, alrighty then.
- Jon (aka JMan240)
As someone who is financially strapped and has neither console, but a hold over PC from when I wasn’t in as tight a spot, this is pretty bad news. The only people upset aren’t just scorned PS4 owners.
Titanfall got all of that same premium ad space, and way more hype, and it still didn’t sell well because there just wasn’t enough of an install base on XBO. There’s not enough of an install base on either console to make an exclusive game successful, because that would require an absurd adoption rate. At least 50% on PS4 and probably as high as 80% on XBO to hit the same sales as the last game.
1) Ah, yes, smurfing. In Dota 2 that’s a space mostly occupied by Russians with high pings. But yeah, I think you’re right and it’s an especially difficult problem to combat.
2) I agree with this as well. Both WoW and LoL were and are very good games, even if I’m not a fan of either. I hope I didn’t imply otherwise, because that was definitely part of the equation. It’s also fair, however, to expect that if neither game was good they wouldn’t have launched the revolution that they ultimately did – and I did add in the caveat that, while risky attempting those models isn’t impossible. By most account FFXIV:ARR is doing alright with a sub model and is a good game that I would sub to if I had any spare money.
I thought you were going to say rarely good at their jobs – because I’d argue that’s still the case today.
Honestly, for a competitive game I feel like Riot’s model is kinda bad. It’s clearly successful for them, but as far as making for a compelling game for new players who want a level playing field, the rotating champion pool seems kinda bad to me.
I’ve only logged into league once, but it seems like you could pop in on a hero in the rotation that’s hard to play or something and get turned off to the game pretty fast. (Though I have heard their coaching and tutorial stuff is much better than the competition’s. Feel free to correct me.) From a gameplay perspective I much prefer Dota, I don’t have to pay to use a hero I’m comfortable with. (I think it’s a generally better looking game too, and one that will probably continue to be pretty good looking farther into the future than LoL- but that’s a rather shallow point of contention.)
I also feel like Dota 2’s model is more beneficial to its audience, and Valve even managed to turn that around into something more beneficial to its pro-players. (I expect, bigger prize pool or no, TI5 will see even wider spread competition.) Valve makes money off of everything sold, but so do a lot of people in its community. There are people who live off the money they get from making Dota 2 items. That’s something I don’t know if Riot can claim (again feel free to correct me). There’s more reason for people to get involved in the back-end of Dota instead of just playing it – though they do need a better coaching system and a much deeper tutorial. And, of course, there’s almost no one other than Valve that could make the Dota 2/TF2/CS:GO work from a financial perspective.
All that said, League is still massively successful. I don’t think people should be aiming for it, but a lot of people have bad reasons for not aiming for that model. It’s the same reason people probably shouldn’t aim for the WoW/traditional MMO model anymore – it doesn’t really work outside of the places it’s already being used successfully. Like WoW, LoL was just sort of in the right place at the right time.
They caught the DotA fans looking for an updated version of the mod they loved so much, they caught the gaming world as it was starting to expand rapidly (plus created a game that will run on almost anything) and they started the breakout wave for an entire genre. The model is fine, getting to it in the current market is hard though and like the MMO subscription it’s a go big or go home sort of proposition. Either you get it as right as possible and people flock to it, or you don’t and you have to scramble around like a headless chicken.
Affect means to have an effect on something… so ironically the original title would work just fine since you added "on the company" to the end. :D (Affect on the company is redundant since affect already means to have an effect on something.)
No it isn’t, it’s setting a precedent for people to sue over the tech used in game because they don’t like it, even if it’s still meeting the advertised specs – ie a 1080p image of no advertized quality being output to a screen. If it’s 1080p from the console, they have nothing in the eyes of a court. If this was someone suing Ubi over Watch Dogs or the Gearbox case mentioned fine, they showed a different product than they shipped by a long shot. This though? They didn’t advertise a different product than people got.