If people actually give a shit, it’ll be relatively easy for this ruling to be overturned. That’s a 50/50 chance though. People in this country seem to really not give a shit about a lot of important stuff. Best thing we can hope for is the ISPs get cocky and try to restrict Facebook speeds or access and piss off everyone’s grandparents. Politicians would actually pay attention to them…
If they work out cross-save or even better yet, cross-play with the Vita & PS4 versions, Mojang will have $40 of my money and I’ll be even less productive in all other aspects of my life than I am currently.
Yes, it’s literally more effort to chose female than male, by approximately 1-2 more button presses, i.e. nothing that’s going to stop someone from playing as a female if they really want to. Seriously, why is this even a point worth arguing for people? If anything I’d give BioWare props for having the option to play a female avatar in the games, not blowing out of proportion the importance of the box art. Could I make a big stink about how I think the alternative box art for Bioshock Infinite should have been the official box art? Sure. But I’d rather just be glad they gave me the option in the first place.
She’s entitled to her opinion, doesn’t mean it wasn’t fatuous, which I believe is what the majority of the responses were trying to point out. In a game where the main character can literally look like anybody, how do you put someone on the cover to represent that character other than to use one of the two “defaults” and give people the choice of the other default on the reverse side of the cover? Does it really matter the one on the outward facing cover is male and the opposite side is female? If the female default were facing outward, would it somehow make for substantial change, or is this another arguing point just for the sake of argument?
This list is almost exclusively a laundry list of complaints about a vocal minority of gamers and their behavior which would be fine except for the part where it tries to implicitly link the behavior of those people as a symptom of the content of the games themselves. What this opinion piece, apparently, is attempting to say is that because some people who play games are sexist or misogynists, gaming is inherently sexist or misogynistic, which I take umbrage with. If you replaced the majority of all gaming heroes with heroines tomorrow, the majority of the things on that list would still be as well.
Also, the lack of a negative for one group isn’t the same as an advantage or "privilege" for that group. I get no advantage from women being treated like shit by scumbags online, so please don’t imply that I do.
While this is a very valid argument and one that I don’t necessarily disagree with, I do find fault with what you extrapolate from this example and then apply to the gaming industry. To go back to your own analogy of body wash, look at the answer the body wash industry came up with to the “problem” that men weren’t buying body wash. They expanded the body wash industry, rather than shift it, from focusing on and selling exclusively to women, to including marketing to men as well. They didn’t market less to women or stop making body wash for women.
The same holds true for gaming. You can expand (not shift) the industry, and in addition to making the games that appeal to current gamers, the industry can also make games that appeal to women that are not currently interested in gaming. Now, this isn’t as easy as expanding in the body wash industry where the only real difference between body wash for a man and for a woman is basically marketing and fragrance, but it can be done and really, it already is happening. The indie game explosion is the perfect incubator for a female-focused gaming market to spring up and is most likely where it will come from.
The problem is that, from the outside, it seems like the “answer” people have agreed upon to the problem of under-representation of women and subjects that appeal to women in gaming is to two pronged. Namely, to tell everyone who is more or less okay with the way gaming exists today that they are a problem, and second is to tell them their hobby has to change. “You can’t have your Tom Clancy books anymore because we need more Shades of Grey books”. It’s a totally illogical answer to the problem, and not only that, one that is going to inevitably put some people on the defensive.
Now obviously, if Tom Clancy (if he were still alive) decided that he’s done writing books about spies and whatnot and wants to write a Nick Sparks-esque book, who are any of us to tell him he can’t? But it’s also completely different from saying “Tom Clancy, if you continue to write books with male leads about subject matter that doesn’t appeal to a wide number or women, you are implicitly sexist and contributing to a sexist attitude in a sexist industry”.
Right, that’s what I’m saying though. If it’s as simple as downloading a torrent, everybody can manage that. Same way Napster and all those p2p programs did for music. When they went away though, especially before torrenting took off, there was a huge drop in piracy of music because most people don’t want to or can’t learn anything too ‘complicated’ like Usenet or IRC.
Druckmann strikes again!
We’re actually watching the ending of ME3 unfold right before our eyes. Druckmann is Shepherd and he chose the synthesis ending. Neil Druckmann is Naughty Dog and Naughty Dog is Neil Druckmann. They are one entity. Everyone else will be cast out or assimilated.
Not to be a dick but I so rarely get to use that gif.
Monster Hunter LTE will be rolling out in several large cities later this year.
By no major announcement since Morpheus, you mean “no major announcement in the last four weeks”, right? Temper your expectations just a tad. Sony and Microsoft will both be blowing their proverbial wads in June @E3. Until then, I really wouldn’t hold my breath for breaking news from either of them, especially in regards to newly announced games.
Also someone else has left ND in the few hours since this was posted. Druckman just don’t give a fuck anymore. He’s firing everybody!
Forget all that. Not that the point isn’t completely valid. It is. The problem is Ben is so completely wrong in his assumptions here, it’s almost laughable. HBO may be doing fine with it’s subscription numbers, but all evidence to the contrary that this extends to general cable subscriptions.
So while HBO may or may not care about this trend, just like Blizzard may or may not care, because both are essentially the jewels in the crown of their respective parent companies, those parent companies clearly aren’t willing to extend those particular business models to the rest of their portfolio. In summary, it’s good to be the king. For everybody else, everything isn’t quite as rosy.
Yes, they’ll never be able to stop piracy completely, but as we’ve seen in the past, all you have to do is make the barrier to entry just a little higher so the average Joe can’t figure it out (not very hard to accomplish) and you instantly curb 70-80% of piracy. Then if you couple that with giving people an easy and pretty streamlined way to pay for that content (iTunes) most of them will just cough up the buck or two to do the thing legally because it’s not worth the effort to most people just to save a couple shekels.
What makes this opinion piece kind of baffling to me is that gaming has it’s equivalent of this model already. It’s called Steam. You give people a single market to buy and catalog their gaming collection and in return for offering your game for a ‘fair’ price, PC gaming piracy has largely been curbed in the last decade. It’s not gone, but it’s certainly decreasing.
What HBO has done isn’t anything revolutionary. They were just smart enough to realize that you can’t just view illegal downloads as “$X million lost” but as free advertising. They also have a subscription model that allows them to be pretty nonchalant about it. But there is no real video game equivalent to this model. Nobody is paying $20 a month for access to every Ubisoft game or every Activision game that’s released every month. The closest thing in games to this is the MMO model and the current failure rate of that model is why Ben decided to make the F2P comparison instead. You aren’t going to convince many in the gaming business this is a viable strategy by comparing it to a segment that is on the drastic decline and has really ever only had a couple success stories and about 10 times as many failures. Hell, the vast majority of MMOs today aren’t even subscription based anymore.
Maybe I’m completely misremembering how it all went down but I seem to remember the gaming press making the biggest stink about the themes of the new Tomb Raider before the public at large ever got a hold of it.
Those, and many more, were all written about nine months before the game ever hit retail. But yeah, let’s blame gamers for jumping the gun.
GREEN LIKE WHAT?
“Seems” how? By assumption? Also, yes you are right, Meat Boy isn’t on PSN. I was thinking of BOI which is coming to PSN (and was previously PC/Mac only). My mistake.
In your theoretical case, I’d say the same score for both versions is justified. However, in the real world, one version of Trials Fusion is pushing 1080p and maintains a near-constant frame rate, while the other version has all the same problems the first version has, but additionally is pushing 25% fewer pixels, has choppier frame rate and a not-insignificant amount of screen tear. Needless to say, the difference in the real world is in no way analogous to your theoretical game where the difference is inconsequential. Clearly, that is not the case here.
It’s all anecdotal. For instance my entire group of 10-15 close friends were all 360 last gen. So far one has gone PC only and the vast majority of us all went PS4 this time. Two bought XBOnes, one of which has a PS4 as well and the other is planning to eventually.
Basically with a sample size of just your close friends, everyone’s reality is vastly different.
A recent AMD conference call said ~20m console APUs shipped by Q2 (I don’t think it specified if that includes WiiU but either way that that number is inconsequential), and they “don’t see any significant inventory build up in the channel” so 20m-25m by the end of the year seems entirely possible unless interest and sales drop off dramatically.