5 responses so far ↓

• 1 Jonah Falcon // May 25, 2010 at 11:36 pm

  I could have sworn you did 720 Degrees a few months ago – because I suggested it.

  The reason Sony is doing $70/yr for “free games” is that their PSN games have not been selling at all. Sales have been dreadful, and they may as well charge $70/yr because the average PS3 using is buying far less than that in PSN games per year anyway.

• 2 Jonah Falcon // May 26, 2010 at 1:03 am

  Using = user. Can’t edit anymore.

• 3 Herr_Alien // May 26, 2010 at 2:36 am

  When it’s not mainstream it is bleeding edge 😛

  @WoW Remote Auction house:
  LOL, microtransactions on a payed MMO?
  I mean I thought that microtransactions were invented to get some money in the “free” MMOs …
  I guess that can work, although I just can’t see myself mixing microtnasactions with a monthly fee …

  @Fallout New Vegas getting big changes and mixed reactions:
  Mixed reactions are good. If you want to make a game that is playable by your entire player base, then you can’t take sides. You have to add features that some will hate, others will love, and features that some will love, others will hate.

  If the game is good enough, then people will develop their own individual style of play, to avoid unpleasant features.

  @ used game sales:
  Jennifer’s right, it is double dipping. They get money for the same individual product, again and again.
  And yes, Derrick is also right :D. Digital distribution will make this a moot point.

  As for Gamestop as a new type of Steam? Well, Steam was already brought in by Valve 😛

  @PSN premium:
  lol!
  I have Steam and Desura clients installed for free. And I pay only for the games I download.

  And as for the free game, well, it’s one game from a list of games Sony selects. And no, you won’t get any of those $ back if you don’t download a game that month …

  So, read this with me: FAIL!

  @Portal, and Carmack open sourcing his engines:
  It’s more than marketing. I mean, in this case, even if you don’t buy the new product, you still get value, by getting a game, or a game engine.

  @Question of the week:
  It will fail. There are plenty of networks that are free. None for playstations, that is true, but still.

  To me it looks a lot like what’s happening in my country: the government is trying to raise money by increasing taxes. They did that last year and the amount of money they got was even smaller, because a lot of small companies went bankrupt.

  I foresee a similar future for PSN: less cash coming in, because fewer people could afford it.

• 4 jonahfalcon // May 30, 2010 at 3:08 pm

  Going back to EA charging $10 for used game owners to play online.

  I just remembered that EA shut down tons of servers for older games, so you can’t even play online for games that people DID buy new, and just didn’t buy the new edition.

  It’s penalizing LEGIT BUYERS for buying Madden 09 and deciding they didn’t want to waste money on Madden 10.

  This is an outrage no one’s really brought up yet.

  Now you know why Microsoft charges $4/mo for server use – I can find players on really old games if I want, like the first Rainbow Six for the Xbox 360.

• 5 Herr_Alien // May 31, 2010 at 1:22 am

  The reason why “no one’s really brought up yet” the Madded outrage is that very few people play Madden. They’re a minority. And in all democracies the minority endures the dictatorship of majority.

  While my personal feeling is that this is seriously wrong, there’s very little that can be done.
  What makes me feel a hell of a lot better is the fact that in the case of my favorite game (AvP2) things turned out better: a community-made master server patch. So, while AvP2’s online component was disabled by the publisher, we managed to bring it back. Now people can play the game for as long as they want.

Leave a Comment