Damn this PR guy has balls

[Diggles]

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.gamespot.com/news/6242034.html?tag=latestheadlines;title;1">http://www.gamespot.com/news/6242034.ht ... es;title;1</a><!-- m -->

We will not be releasing a sanitized or cut down version for territories where adults are not considered by their governments to be able to make their own entertainment choices.

[Fretty]

Good for him.
I'm happy.
They stand by their product and won't change it for ridiculous government laws.
Now of course this will probably hurt their bottom line, at least a little.

[Hoofhurr]

That's awesome. 8)

[Slamz]

I hope this game is as good as the previous AvP titles. They were kind of short but they really captured the feel of all three sides (marines, predators, aliens) with different visuals, weapons, combat stlyes, etc. Aliens being able to run over all surfaces as if it was a floor was awesome too.

Great statement from the PR guy, although I'm not sure how much it would hurt them if nobody in Australia could buy the game. At least it gives Australians a cause to push back against governmental restrictions. (I'm sure they'll work around it anyway, via piracy or by buying it from outside Australia and shipping it in.)

[Jakensama]

Yeah that shits pretty gay over here as well, I ended up getting the fucking edited version of LFD2 off steam because I wasn't thinking and didn't open my proxy when it opened.

On the bright side the edited version apparently has a significantly higher frame rate..

America freaks out over tits and Germany freaks out over over the top gore, why can't I live in a society that just shuts the fuck up?

[Diggles]

I hope this game is as good as the previous AvP titles. They were kind of short but they really captured the feel of all three sides (marines, predators, aliens) with different visuals, weapons, combat stlyes, etc. Aliens being able to run over all surfaces as if it was a floor was awesome too.

Great statement from the PR guy, although I'm not sure how much it would hurt them if nobody in Australia could buy the game. At least it gives Australians a cause to push back against governmental restrictions. (I'm sure they'll work around it anyway, via piracy or by buying it from outside Australia and shipping it in.)

The few video's I've seen look great so far. I hope they really invest in the multiplayer because thats what keeps the game alive over the years.

I'm pretty sure Australia is a smaller market than Texas, so its no big loss for them.

[Fretty]

I'm very excited for this game.
Th previous two were outstanding.
Like Diggles said, I hope they put special effort into making sure the multiplayer is great (as well as release content over time, that'd be nice), as that's what take a 6 hour game and makes it last years.

[Hoofhurr]

It might make it last years but how does the company profit from that? The free to play model is really interesting to me.

[Fretty]

It might make it last years but how does the company profit from that? The free to play model is really interesting to me.

I think they'd add expansion packs that have small costs attached to them, that's one way.
Also, if they create a game that lasts that long, the company gains a good reputation from it for making a quality product (because if it didn't have quality, it wouldn't last that long), and therefor stands to receive great anticipation for their next launch of a game (almost ensuring the initial sales of said game will be great, despite the quality it offers).

[Slamz]

Also, if they create a game that lasts that long, the company gains a good reputation from it for making a quality product (because if it didn't have quality, it wouldn't last that long), and therefor stands to receive great anticipation for their next launch of a game (almost ensuring the initial sales of said game will be great, despite the quality it offers).

Yeah, I think it's a reputation thing. It's basically what Blizzard was built on. Coming up with battle.net didn't make Blizzard any money directly but it sure got them a reputation for good multiplayer gameplay. Starcraft 2 is going to make them like a billion dollars mainly because (I think) they've got a reputation for delivering not just good gameplay but extended gameplay by having a good, free matchmaking service.

By contrast, I'm dubious of EA games because their integrated matchmaking and ladder system is usually through Gamespy and it's unreliable, and whenever there's a problem, EA and Gamespy just point fingers at each other.

Free to play is a money making model based on selling future games. Few companies seem to have the foresight to realize this.

(Not that I think MMOGs can or should use this model, but online matchmaking services can't possibly cost very much to run.)

[Breand]

well EA will never understand that because they will go out of their way to make shitty games if it means faster, quicker revenue. Look at how much Valve makes just for creating a reliable server network.

[Fretty]

well EA will never understand that because they will go out of their way to make shitty games if it means faster, quicker revenue. Look at how much Valve makes just for creating a reliable server network.

And look at Valve's reputation in comparison to EA.
This definitely supports the fact that a good reputation can make your company very profitable without needing to flood the market with quantity over quality. Unfortunately quantity over quality still makes companies lots of money, so there's nothing really out there to sway companies like EA to go the Valve route.

[Moristans]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but EAs reputation is built on its EA Sports brand. I don't play many sports or console games these days, but back when I did, EA Sports games were awesome. Based on everything my kids say about EA Sport's games, they are still awesome.

[Fretty]

They are still good, but they haven't changed at all in the last, what, 4 years? They just put a new player on the box cover, add 1 to the previous years' number, and bang, it's a new game.

According to IGN this year was different though, as they have "changed their ways" and realized that fans wanted a real change to make it worth while (probably due to lowered sales numbers). So apparently the '10 series is good again *shrug*.

[Hoofhurr]

Why keep innovating on an annual basis? They adopted their model from the car industry.

[Airyth]

I've anti-EA sports game after the latest madden. Maybe 6 weeks ago or so there was an automatic patch implemented that added AFC throwback uniforms and a a ton of in game advertisements. The in game adds obstruct your pre-snap view and its not so much that it effects gameplay (it minimally effects your ability to see what you're doing if you put a running back in motion or something pre-snap) the real problem to me is that I paid $60 for this game on Xbox and now I have to see adds for coke, kfc, bing, pepsi, advil ect while I play (in addition to the built in snickers adds the game shipped with). If they want to sell advertisement rights to put products in games great, fine. Do it in an unobstructive manner and/or sell the game for less money if i'm going to be bombarded with ads.

It actually was bad enough that I traded it in at gamestop after a week of playing with the additional ads. It just bothered me everytime I played it and it took the fun out of the game for me. I'm sure most people were just mildly annoyed and still play the game, it just bothered me on principal.