That's sadly the only reason i want a new console generation too. I couldn't care less about the consoles themselves and i probably won't buy any of them, but for god's sake if i have to play lousy console-ports i want them up to date.silverbullet1989 said:
This to me feels like a strange thing for him to say when Ubisoft doesn't really make many games that offer this freedom of expression... as a matter of fact, the locked up nature of consoles themselves are very limiting. I think this guy doesn't really understand what he is talking about. Ubisoft is a publisher that milks properties, which is pretty much the antithesis of this self expression he is talking about. Also, I don't think players want to share it that bad, to be honest. The last thing we need is all MP or some sort of social network interaction in all of our games. I think this guy should stick to what he knows, which is milking Assassin's Creed and being overall oblivious to the state of games.
Well, you have the idea right. People who are brooding or overall negative appear to be more intelligent, and to some degree that can be partially right. People who are unhappy and negative pay more attention to details and take less at face value. This would constitute your cold value. Happier people take more at face value and a lot of people regard their happiness as a result of their overall ignorance to life, the world, and the universe. But there are significant advantages regarding intelligence when it comes to being happy. Mostly the ability to bounce back from bad things or actually learn at a faster pace than an unhappy person.PoolCleaningRobot said:
Well the problem with the assumption is that it isn't always true and its wrong more often than not. For example, EA just got rid of online passes but everyone keeps talking about what they'll replace it with. EA's bad business practices earned them the title of worst business last year and they've been losing money. Its more logical to assume that EA is getting rid of it's shittier practices because it's not earning them more customers. But that isn't cynical so everyone keeps talking about how they're mustache twirling evil villains.Baresark said:
As a chemistry major, I like to give my psych major friend shit for psychology not being "real" science. But belittling his studies don't make mine any more special. In reality, all studies are important because they compliment each other. As this related to vidya gamz, people just want act like their pallet is too far refined to care silly graphics and new consoles *insert farting noise here*
What you are saying makes sense. But that is because you are talking about co-op, whereas Ubisoft are talking about a 'share button'. I'm entirely unconvinced that spamming someone's feed is likely to encourage them to drop money on a game.immovablemover said:
I know. I mean maybe I was a bit naive, but it seemed to me that the Publishers/Developers were all about providing a good gaming experience for the gaming community not just about making money (I know making money is always a big factor, but you know what I mean). I mean hell, it was the generation that saw longtime rivals Nintendo and Sega bury the hatchet and thus Sonic games appeared on the GameCube and GBA. Now maybe I'm making a bigger thing of that than it actually was, after all Sega had given up on making consoles and was thus licensing their games and IPs to whomever would pay for the license, but it still seemed like a big deal to me.TK421 said:I feel the same way. I miss the time when devs/publishers at least pretended to care about their customers. Now they just do whatever they want, and then when people complain, they say "Shut the hell up. You don't matter, because there's a whole herd of idiots who will buy our shitty games/products anyway."canadamus_prime said:
I miss people having some self-respect
I know what you mean. It's utterly ridiculous that maybe, just maybe, EA has learned from it's previous year or two and their downturn in overall revenue. EA was never to going listen to gamers until it affected their sales. Now their sales are affected, and they seem to be learning. Is there a likelihood that they are going to try and find ways to increase revenue? There sure is. But there is also the chance that they won't do it in such a way that it pisses gamers off.PoolCleaningRobot said:
I was actually just reading a paper on Neuroplasticity and Psychological Illness. It brings up several points that a lot of people take for granted. My favorite being that psychological illness being caused by a "chemical imbalance" is still completely hypothetical. And it will remain thus until such time as psychologists/psychiatrists start actually testing chemical levels and have some sort of guide as to what is normal. But that physical basis is the whole reason the field of psychiatry even exists, which is to prescribe pharmaceutical treatments for things they don't even know the cause for. It's all pretty amusing. You can always prod your friend by pointing out that his diagnosis of illness is based off of behaviors that are outlined in a book with little beyond that. Nothing makes it seem like pseudo science more pointing out that don't even know what they are fighting.
