![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
CEOs of increasingly shitty game companies stepping down due to financial losses by their companies? This is the beginnings of a trend that I could totally get behind. The only thing that remains to be seen is if this is a good trend (i.e. the successor comes in and realizes that they need to stop doing the stupid stuff that lost them all that money) or a bad trend (i.e. the successor comes in and places an even greater emphasis on "grr piracy bad need more DRM" or "hey let's make even more money by removing half of our game from the base game and only making it available as extra DLC" and other stupid shit like that).
(EDIT)
Also, one need only look at the comments under that PC Gamer article to see just how incredibly clueless the average gamer apparently is about this sort of thing. One guy actually said (direct quote, typos and all): "No!They are one of the few publishers who cares more for singleplayer rather than multipalyer..." Seriously, guy? Really, this is proof positive of why these companies are able to do the asinine shit that they do and get away with it, because the average consumer is absolutely oblivious. And that's terrible.
Then again, on the other hand, given that they're starting to see "extraordinary losses" lately, maybe it's not so bad as that. Maybe people are starting to wise up? One can but hope.
(/EDIT)
(EDIT 2)
Full disclosure: I am currently playing through the latest Tomb Raider game on the 360, because a co-worker let me borrow it. (I didn't ask him for it. He offered, and I simply said sure, why not.) It's pretty cool, I guess, but at the same time I'm kind of glad I didn't shell out anything to get it myself. After I play through it once on Easy mode, I'll give it back to my co-worker and probably never think about it again. If I ever get it at all, it will probably only be if I can get the PC version on Steam for dirt cheap at some point in the distant future. (Also, I'm hoping that if I do get the PC version, maybe I'll actually be able to read the damn text on the screen rather than merely seeing something like this that can barely be read because it's far too tiny on my old-ass television. But then, that's yet another problem with a lot of current gen games, not just Tomb Raider.)
Also, to the guy above who said that Square-Enix cares more for singleplayer rather than multiplayer: all DLC for that game will be multiplayer only.
Now, I am not inherently against DLC. I have played some awesome DLC such as Undead Nightmare for Red Dead Redemption. It's almost as good as the base game itself was. And it is what all DLC should be, i.e. stuff that was definitely made after the main game was long since completed, rather than stuff that was blatantly and obviously cut from the main game for the explicit purpose of being DLC. Some of the DLC for Fable 2 was pretty interesting too, though not quite as awesome as Undead Nightmare was. (Sadly, I'm trying to come up with other examples of decent DLC, but I'm failing to recall anything besides that.)
But useless multiplayer "map-pack" DLCs can kiss my ass and die in a fire. Granted, maybe that's just my distaste for multiplayer in general talking there, but yeah. Screw that.
(/EDIT 2)
(EDIT)
Also, one need only look at the comments under that PC Gamer article to see just how incredibly clueless the average gamer apparently is about this sort of thing. One guy actually said (direct quote, typos and all): "No!They are one of the few publishers who cares more for singleplayer rather than multipalyer..." Seriously, guy? Really, this is proof positive of why these companies are able to do the asinine shit that they do and get away with it, because the average consumer is absolutely oblivious. And that's terrible.
Then again, on the other hand, given that they're starting to see "extraordinary losses" lately, maybe it's not so bad as that. Maybe people are starting to wise up? One can but hope.
(/EDIT)
(EDIT 2)
Full disclosure: I am currently playing through the latest Tomb Raider game on the 360, because a co-worker let me borrow it. (I didn't ask him for it. He offered, and I simply said sure, why not.) It's pretty cool, I guess, but at the same time I'm kind of glad I didn't shell out anything to get it myself. After I play through it once on Easy mode, I'll give it back to my co-worker and probably never think about it again. If I ever get it at all, it will probably only be if I can get the PC version on Steam for dirt cheap at some point in the distant future. (Also, I'm hoping that if I do get the PC version, maybe I'll actually be able to read the damn text on the screen rather than merely seeing something like this that can barely be read because it's far too tiny on my old-ass television. But then, that's yet another problem with a lot of current gen games, not just Tomb Raider.)
Also, to the guy above who said that Square-Enix cares more for singleplayer rather than multiplayer: all DLC for that game will be multiplayer only.
Now, I am not inherently against DLC. I have played some awesome DLC such as Undead Nightmare for Red Dead Redemption. It's almost as good as the base game itself was. And it is what all DLC should be, i.e. stuff that was definitely made after the main game was long since completed, rather than stuff that was blatantly and obviously cut from the main game for the explicit purpose of being DLC. Some of the DLC for Fable 2 was pretty interesting too, though not quite as awesome as Undead Nightmare was. (Sadly, I'm trying to come up with other examples of decent DLC, but I'm failing to recall anything besides that.)
But useless multiplayer "map-pack" DLCs can kiss my ass and die in a fire. Granted, maybe that's just my distaste for multiplayer in general talking there, but yeah. Screw that.
(/EDIT 2)
