There's a company I extremely dislike right now. Its name is ActivisionBlizzard. Why do you ask? Well because, ActiBlizz is in it for the money. Now, I know all businesses are in it for the money, but ActiBlizz is IN IT FOR THE MONEY.
Exhibit A: Please examine Modern Warfare 2. Great game, IMHO. I loved it, and still play it occasionally. Black Ops comes one year after, and sets the bar even higher. I really liked that it was different that MW2, and yet also different than the previous Treyarch title, World at War. Being able to unlock what gun you wanted based on in-game money, rather than levels was genius. One year after (two after MW2 if you're wondering) comes Modern Warfare 3. Now, I haven't seen any of the campaign yet, but right now, looking at the multiplayer, it's basically looks like DLC. The font is the same, the little icons are the same. Sure, there's some gameplay changes. Pointstreaks are a genius idea, and I think not having the nuke (or MOAB) end the game is also very smart. But I don't appreciate the fact that MW3 looks and probably feels exactly like MW2. Nothing has changed in multiplayer (although I would be excited to look at the new horde mode). The guns may look different, the maps may be different, the perks may be a bit different, but essentially, MW3 is DLC. It's not a new game. And it's definitely not worth the $60 people are paying for it.
Exhibit B: COD Elite. $50. It's not a game. 'Nuff said.
Exhibit C: Starcraft II. Oh my goodness. Now, this is definitely a object of contention for me. In case you haven't heard, Starcraft II is split into 3 games: Wings of Liberty (which focuses on the Terran campaign), Heart of the Swarm (which focuses on the Zerg campaign) and Legacy of the Void (which focuses on the Protoss campaign). Now, each of these games will be sold for $50-$60 depending where you buy them. Also, only WoL is out. HotS is planned to be out in April next year, and who knows when LotV is coming out. I mean it's Blizzard. They took 13 years after SC1 to bring out SC2. This is where I'm mad. If I bought all the games (which I'm probably not going to) it would cost me minimum $200. What do I get? 3 (deep) campaigns, and 1 multiplayer experience. Now, in my head, HotS and LotV are considered expansion packs. All I'm really getting from those two games are two new campaigns. I'm not getting a new multiplayer experience. So, in reality, they should be priced at $30 at most, because I'm not getting two modes, I'm only getting one.
This is what makes me mad about the game industry. They claim they would take a loss if they sold games less than $50. Really? Then please explain the Madden and 2K war, when prices dipped down to $20. As far as I can tell, neither company lost money. The only reasons prices are higher now, are because EA has an exclusive contract, so basically it can sell at whatever price it wants. Game makers should be willing to let US, the consumer, at least not bear such a difficult burden. Do we get a lot of utility? Depends. I certainly haven't from Supreme Commander 2 and Empire: Total War. (I should probably play those more often, but they just aren't that fun right now.) Did I get utility from MW2? Yes. But I still think that $60 is way to much for a video game.
Edit: I almost forgot! Youtube video time!
Read Megan's translation of the lyrics in the description. I think we face these types of feelings all the times, maybe it's not beauty, but it could also be smarts, musical talents, etc. Bottom line: this song makes you think.
Also, I wish I had talent like Megan. (IRONY.) She is such an amazing singer.
No comments:
Post a Comment