It's apparent that they can't keep pace with content demands at this point. It really is time to just let the game die and hope people switch to the new game they are doing. Regardless, I want another Warcraft RTS game damnit.
It's apparent that they can't keep pace with content demands at this point. It really is time to just let the game die and hope people switch to the new game they are doing. Regardless, I want another Warcraft RTS game damnit.
They'll go non-sub a long time before they're actually in financial trouble to eke out additional revenue, but it's never been more apparent that Activision needs to find a new sacred cow. None of their current ones are doing badly at all, but 2 of the 3 are clearly on a downswing in momentum, and WoW at least is unlikely to recover.
DCUO is the only F2P game that actually got me to spend money on it. They really did that well. But I hate what they did to the mental powerset's disguise powers. Half the fun I had in that game was disguising myself as an NPC and stalking down player opponents. Now it's just generic invisibility, which might function roughly the same (and in some cases better), but it was a lot more fun for me to have to "impersonate" npcs accurately to be able to slip in close and beat someone down.
With the new WoW expansion on the horizon, it's going to be years before there's a F2P model. If ever. Also recently announced is that they've re-upped the number of employees working on the game.
I still say it trimmed the fat (Asian markets and finnicky MMO players). We won't be seeing much more sub dropping from this point out.
Also, even if you don't have SRIV, you can still click "Install Game" to add the GAT V pack to your account. Presumably this means you'll have the GAT V pack already if you ever do get SRIV.
I played this game for over a year, easily. At the time, it had issues and wasn't perfect but was by far the best PvP oriented MMO available. I definitely liked how I was able to level from 1 to max entirely through PvP gameplay, and there was a system in place that gave you just as good loot as you would have gotten grinding mobs.
Sadly, nothing lasts forever, and eventually they put in patches that ruined my enjoyment of the game and I had to quit. I especially hated the "Land of the dead" expansion because it added in tiers of gear that there was no PvP-dropped analogue for, and all the patches after that just made things progressively worse.
Was the Land of the Dead stuff better than Sovereign (from city raids)? I know I never got a single fucking drop from the Land of the Dead but I had a set of Sovereign, even as a Magus. Never got even close to using it but I had it.
Was the Land of the Dead stuff better than Sovereign (from city raids)? I know I never got a single fucking drop from the Land of the Dead but I had a set of Sovereign, even as a Magus. Never got even close to using it but I had it.
It meshed. Basically you needed the armor sets from city raids and the accessories from Land of the Dead. There was like a jewel or ring or something (I forget exactly what, it's been years) that basically made it so the side who had more of them could be reliably predicted to beat the side that had less of them in their templates. I got pretty burned out by that, started spending all my time in T2 and T3, and just deleting and rerolling every time I dinged into T4.
When I was probably 12 or 13, I wanted the first GTA for my birthday. My mom went to buy it for me, but then the clerk told her about it.
I did not get the game. And even though I just borrowed a friend's copy a couple months later, both my mom and the clerk did the right thing. And this was back when it was just a top-down game with little red pixels for blood. Young kids should not be playing the current GTA games and their parents should give a shit.
When I was probably 12 or 13, I wanted the first GTA for my birthday. My mom went to buy it for me, but then the clerk told her about it.
I did not get the game. And even though I just borrowed a friend's copy a couple months later, both my mom and the clerk did the right thing. And this was back when it was just a top-down game with little red pixels for blood. Young kids should not be playing the current GTA games and their parents should give a shit.
I think it would depend greatly on the kid. I was playing Mortal Kombat and Doom when I was 10, and my parents watched me play both. I wouldn't look down on any parent that looked at the content in a violent video game and then decided that their child was mature enough to handle it, only parents who give their kids media without ever knowing what's going on.
I think it would depend greatly on the kid. I was playing Mortal Kombat and Doom when I was 10, and my parents watched me play both. I wouldn't look down on any parent that looked at the content in a violent video game and then decided that their child was mature enough to handle it, only parents who give their kids media without ever knowing what's going on.
I played MK a little younger with my dad, and Doom at 10. But I think the blood and shooting/punching in those is at a lower tier to even the dialogue in the modern GTA games, let alone some of the shit you can do. I don't doubt there are pre-teens who are fine playing GTA, but the above article mentioned kids who could barely see over the counter. I know there are short adolescents, but he sounds like he's squaring in on 8-year-olds. No kid that age should be playing GTA.
Too many parents are ignorant about this stuff and it comes back at us adults who play video games when the industry gets attacked by the "for the children" idiots.
I'm perfectly OK with some sort of government watchdog handing out clear markers saying what sort of content you can expect in a game/movie/book/whatever. The Dutch version works great (both suggested age categories, and clear information on why: this one has bad language, this one refers to drugs, this one shows cartoon violence, this one has full-frontal nudity and penetration,...whatever). The American system isn't exactly as robust or as useful, but still. Things like GTA aren't rated "Great entertainment for toddlers".
If you're buying a game or a book or a movie for your children, it's your responsibility to know at least a bit about what you're buying them or giving them access to. If somehow someone makes a Little Tree Friends DVD and has it rated for children, well, I'll understand angry parents. If you have a game that says right on the box it has adult themes, graphic violence, curse words, sexual content, nudity and all that stuff, and you buy it for your kid? yeah, that's your problem. Try paying attention to your children's hobbies instead of just putting in money exchange for "love".
Note that I'm firmly against government-enforced limits, with the exception of porn. Some 12 y/os can manage GTAV. Some can't manage My Little Pony: Tail Fluffer And Coloring Studio. That's up to the parents to decide; I just think the government can (and should, but I'm European and all that ) play a role in making it clear what you can or can't expect - I don't think every parent ever should fully research each gift for their children fully on the internet...But looking at the box and having a clue should be a given.
I'm perfectly OK with some sort of government watchdog handing out clear markers saying what sort of content you can expect in a game/movie/book/whatever.
Content Descriptors: Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Mature Humor, Nudity, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs and Alcohol
Other: Includes online features that may expose players to unrated user-generated content (Xbox 360, PlayStation 3) Rating Summary: In this open-world action game, players assume the role of three criminals whose storylines intersect within the fictional city of Los Santos. Players can switch between each character to follow his storyline, completing missions which often include criminal activities (e.g., stealing cars, executing heists, assassinating targets). Players use pistols, machine guns, sniper rifles, and explosives to kill various enemies (e.g., rival gang members); players also have the ability to shoot non-adversary civilians, though this may negatively affect players' progress as a penalty system triggers a broad police search. Blood-splatter effects occur frequently, and the game contains rare depictions of dismemberment.
I'm spoilering the rest for possible plot point reveals, because it's that specific in what objectionable content is in the game:
In one sequence, players are directed to use various instruments and means (e.g., pipe wrench, tooth removal, electrocution) to extract information from a character; the sequence is intense and prolonged, and it involves some player interaction (i.e., responding to on-screen prompts). The game includes depictions of sexual material/activity: implied fellatio and masturbation; various sex acts that the player's character procures from a prostitute—while no nudity is depicted in these sequences, various sexual moaning sounds can be heard. Nudity is present, however, primarily in two settings: a topless lap dance in a strip club and a location that includes male cult members with exposed genitalia in a non-sexual context. Within the game, TV programs and radio ads contain instances of mature humor: myriad sex jokes; depictions of raw sewage and feces on a worker's body; a brief instance of necrophilia (no nudity is depicted). Some sequences within the larger game allow players to use narcotics (e.g., smoking from a bong, lighting a marijuana joint); cocaine use is also depicted. Players' character can, at various times, consume alcohol and drive while under the influence. The words “f**k,” “c*nt,” and “n**ger” can be heard in the dialogue.
This amount of information is already available to the public. The ESRB rating is on every console release, and the majority of PC games. (The only area that doesn't have ratings like this is mobile apps, which I expect will change soon.) Not only is this rating present on every game box, but the ESRB has ads in magazines, online and elsewhere trying to raise parental awareness. There is zero need to spend government money on a rating system for games, because a rating system for games is already in place and societal pressure has made it pretty damn effective.
But looking at the box and having a clue should be a given.
Have you even looked at a game box in the last decade? Every console release has a little ESRB rating box. That contains the general rating of E - AO, a list of the content descriptors, and a link to the ESRB website where the full rating summary can be found. If any parent looks at the box and doesn't have a clue what's in the game, then that parent must be illiterate or sleep deprived to the point that they shouldn't be driving.
Let's *snip* that whole thing because you're missing my point.
The ESRB is a non-profit body established by the ESA as a self-regulating entity. It was this, or have the government do it. I know this may be a HUUUUUGE difference for an American, what with the damn gubmint not getting their paws on censorship possibilities or whatever, but it's all the same to me. It's a generally-considered-neutral third party putting official labels with clear warnings/information about the content of the media on the outside, so that consumers can make an educated decision. I meant the ESRB as "the government", as to me, it's pretty much entirely interchangeable. I'm not suddenly advocating a second bunch of warnings to be plastered all over or something.
) play a role in making it clear what you can or can't expect - I don't think every parent ever should fully research each gift for their children fully on the internet...But looking at the box and having a clue should be a given.
