Video Game News and Miscellany
- Thread starter figmentPez
- Start date
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/tetris-yes-tetris-being-made-into-an-epic-sci-fi-m/1100-6422652/
A Tetris movie is in the works. Tetris. You know, the block game. And it's gonna be an "epic sci-fi movie."
Uh, what?
A Tetris movie is in the works. Tetris. You know, the block game. And it's gonna be an "epic sci-fi movie."
Uh, what?
GasBandit
Staff member
Perfectly shaped pieces fall from the sky that fill the open spaces between skyscrapers... once all of downtown is solid... it will DISAPPEAR.http://www.gamespot.com/articles/tetris-yes-tetris-being-made-into-an-epic-sci-fi-m/1100-6422652/
A Tetris movie is in the works. Tetris. You know, the block game. And it's gonna be an "epic sci-fi movie."
Uh, what?
figmentPez
Staff member
How is it different than what's been advertised up until now?
Bah, I had a brain fart when I wrote that. I meant that I'm running out of reasons to NOT get this game.
GasBandit
Staff member
Here's why TotalBiscuit's review of the game didn't come out for so long - he waited to buy it like everybody else, because they wouldn't give advance review copies unless you agreed to provide them advertising/extra content about the game on your youtube channel - and probably an implied guaranteed favorable review.
http://techraptor.net/2014/09/29/shadow-of-mordor-questionable-review-bargain-revealed/
FTA:
Earlier today, prominent Youtuber, Totalbiscuit, detailed on Twitter the possible bargain many other Youtubers may have had to take in order to get early review copies of the game Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor on PC. Supposedly, Totalbiscuit says, Youtubers could only get early copies of Shadow of Mordor for review if they agreed to a brand deal.
A brand deal is essentially an agreement between the reviewer and the game publisher to advertise the game in exchange for early access. For Youtube, that means a few videos (certain playthroughs, maybe certain game modes depending on the game) about the game in some fashion. Because of that, Totalbiscuit says on Twitter that we should all expect to see a big wave of Shadow of Mordor content.
The real problem arises due to the implication that the reviewers are expected to give positive reviews. Why would a Youtuber waste time with a bad game on their channel (other than to joke or make fun of really bad, broken games)?
Of course, this hurts the overall objectivity of a review. Even more than just the content of their channel, a Youtuber might feel an obligation, subconsciously even, that they should give a positive review because they would be getting paid on top of getting exclusive early content to a big name game, Shadow of Mordor. Obviously, this presents a conflict of interest and brings up a moral dilemma.
Overall, this is a poor business practice and something no industry person should accept if they want to keep integrity with their viewers. All aspects of this should be discouraged at all costs as this is really only one step removed from “buying off” reviewers – something that gets thrown around a lot in the industry by the community.
However, all of this may be a case of poor communication Totalbiscuit says, which may indicate that he himself is not entirely certain of the nature of the deal. That is something to keep in mind before too much finger pointing is going on. Though, this still needs to be spoken about to get an official response from Warner Bros, the publishers of Shadow of Mordor.
Here is a link to Totalbiscuit’s twitter where you can read other tweets he sent as well.
http://techraptor.net/2014/09/29/shadow-of-mordor-questionable-review-bargain-revealed/
FTA:
Earlier today, prominent Youtuber, Totalbiscuit, detailed on Twitter the possible bargain many other Youtubers may have had to take in order to get early review copies of the game Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor on PC. Supposedly, Totalbiscuit says, Youtubers could only get early copies of Shadow of Mordor for review if they agreed to a brand deal.
A brand deal is essentially an agreement between the reviewer and the game publisher to advertise the game in exchange for early access. For Youtube, that means a few videos (certain playthroughs, maybe certain game modes depending on the game) about the game in some fashion. Because of that, Totalbiscuit says on Twitter that we should all expect to see a big wave of Shadow of Mordor content.
The real problem arises due to the implication that the reviewers are expected to give positive reviews. Why would a Youtuber waste time with a bad game on their channel (other than to joke or make fun of really bad, broken games)?
Of course, this hurts the overall objectivity of a review. Even more than just the content of their channel, a Youtuber might feel an obligation, subconsciously even, that they should give a positive review because they would be getting paid on top of getting exclusive early content to a big name game, Shadow of Mordor. Obviously, this presents a conflict of interest and brings up a moral dilemma.
Overall, this is a poor business practice and something no industry person should accept if they want to keep integrity with their viewers. All aspects of this should be discouraged at all costs as this is really only one step removed from “buying off” reviewers – something that gets thrown around a lot in the industry by the community.
However, all of this may be a case of poor communication Totalbiscuit says, which may indicate that he himself is not entirely certain of the nature of the deal. That is something to keep in mind before too much finger pointing is going on. Though, this still needs to be spoken about to get an official response from Warner Bros, the publishers of Shadow of Mordor.
Here is a link to Totalbiscuit’s twitter where you can read other tweets he sent as well.
But if you're a slimy publisher, then your logic is this: If your sliminess can make a bad game sell well, just imagine what it could do for a good game!
http://www.nuuvem.com.br/produto/20...m=email&utm_campaign=lan-shadowofmordor-09-14
$29
$50 on Steam[DOUBLEPOST=1412125716,1412125646][/DOUBLEPOST]Pass is also almost half price.
$29
$50 on Steam[DOUBLEPOST=1412125716,1412125646][/DOUBLEPOST]Pass is also almost half price.
Same. Or the year after that. Or the year after that. I have enough to play for now.
Yeah... I'd rather keep saving up for a PS4.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable giving my credit card information to a site in a language I can't read, especially when I don't even know what currency that's in.
Which will equally piss me off since the dollar has been generally at parity with the U.S. for years now, or even better than it. I don't see why they feel the need to change it, honestly.
Well, right now we just pay US dollars so it's illusory if you think we're paying less.
I used Paypal.
This may be old news for some, but--a Fatal Frame game is being made for the Wii U. That's exactly the kind of game the Wii U should have.
Considering we didn't get the Wii one (which was great but Reggie didn't believe it would sell so he personally nixed t), I am doubtful we'll get this one, especially after the middling sales of Spirit Camera on the 3DS.
Because when you buy a disc, you are buying EVERYTHING on that disc. Purposefully blocking content that I've paid for and own unless I pay MORE to access it is a shady consumer practice at best and outright theft at worst.
GasBandit
Staff member
Because if it's on the disk, it means they were developing it in parallel with the actual game. IE, resources and content that SHOULD have been put to the game proper were instead diverted to make the de facto "whole game" cost more.
DLC is done right when it's an expansion pack that is developed and released after the main game is complete.
DLC that's a shitty cash grab is done this way.
Not necessarily. A lot of on-disk DLC is actually made around the same time as the original content being locked for build testing and a good portion of cert (the part that actually tests code) and is then added later in the process when they're in the tail end of compliance and affirming the gold master. A lot of on-disk DLC actually doesn't fully go through compliance until after launch, which is why the mini-download to unlock it often contains bug-fixes.
The only difference between that, and say, Borderlands 2 DLC is that Gearbox didn't put any unfinished version of the DLC on the disk. It was still made around the same time.
There is of course, a huge amount of difference between what I just described, and intentionally locking off bits of the main game while its being created post-design-doc into order to make DLC, which is just horseshit when it happens (*glance at Capcom*).
That mini-defense-aside, though, publishers are better off just cutting it out. It looks bad because gamers are (understandably) more inclined to assume the latter case than the former, and the "it saves you bandwidth" argument is kind of lame given the amount of bandwidth people actually use.
fade
Staff member
Okay, I understand that you guys feel like part of the game is being held hostage, I just don't follow why. I don't feel the mona lisa analogy at all, and I certainly don't get that you have the right to all the software on a disc just because you bought the disc. You bought the license to use the software--this has always been true. Also on that disc are the installer and the 3rd party libraries the devs used, but you certainly don't own licenses to those. I can also guarantee you that most of the DLC you've used was developed at least partially concurrently with the main game. The exception to me is if they advertised something and then didn't deliver it for free.
I guess what gets me the most, though, is that no one would care if they just put it on a server somewhere. It would be a complete non-issue by simply changing the physical location of the bytes. Why does that matter so much?
Also, this isn't anything new. It's old hat in the non-game software world, but no one seems to have trouble paying for "Pro editions" or paying less for "Lite editions".[DOUBLEPOST=1412365729,1412365214][/DOUBLEPOST]I feel like I should clarify something before someone misinterprets what I'm saying: I'm not saying it's right. That's a different debate. All I'm saying is that I don't see it as very different from standard DLC.
I guess what gets me the most, though, is that no one would care if they just put it on a server somewhere. It would be a complete non-issue by simply changing the physical location of the bytes. Why does that matter so much?
Also, this isn't anything new. It's old hat in the non-game software world, but no one seems to have trouble paying for "Pro editions" or paying less for "Lite editions".[DOUBLEPOST=1412365729,1412365214][/DOUBLEPOST]I feel like I should clarify something before someone misinterprets what I'm saying: I'm not saying it's right. That's a different debate. All I'm saying is that I don't see it as very different from standard DLC.