Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just, please, stop. IGN, Forbes and Kotaku are all corrupt, untrustworthy sites.

Your claim that countries "banned" it suggest that Rockstar released it in those countries, and then had legal action taken to no longer allow it in those countries. Rockstar preemptively preventing those countries from accessing is is not the countries "banning" it, it's Rockstar not wanting to start the legal proceedings to get it banned in the first place.

Yes, it's semantics, but semantics exist for a reason and the distinction is important.

I'm half expecting BCB to use The Onion as counter site example of countries allowing GTA 5 Online Casino to run rampant in school playgrounds as a new curriculum, while unironically stating that we're all morons for not seeing the truth and "fake news" as he does.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Just, please, stop. IGN, Forbes and Kotaku are all corrupt, untrustworthy sites.

Your claim that countries "banned" it suggest that Rockstar released it in those countries, and then had legal action taken to no longer allow it in those countries. Rockstar preemptively preventing those countries from accessing is is not the countries "banning" it, it's Rockstar not wanting to start the legal proceedings to get it banned in the first place.

Yes, it's semantics, but semantics exist for a reason and the distinction is important.

You know just because you don't like something, doesn't make it automatically unuseable. I've still seen good journalism from Fox News...

On the topic of Rockstar, this is the exact reason why I won't be supporting their company any longer. GTA5 was a fun game, but it's had zero offline content.

 Togusa wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Just, please, stop. IGN, Forbes and Kotaku are all corrupt, untrustworthy sites.

Your claim that countries "banned" it suggest that Rockstar released it in those countries, and then had legal action taken to no longer allow it in those countries. Rockstar preemptively preventing those countries from accessing is is not the countries "banning" it, it's Rockstar not wanting to start the legal proceedings to get it banned in the first place.

Yes, it's semantics, but semantics exist for a reason and the distinction is important.

You know just because you don't like something, doesn't make it automatically unuseable. I've still seen good journalism from Fox News...

On the topic of Rockstar, this is the exact reason why I won't be supporting their company any longer. GTA5 was a fun game, but it's had zero offline content.

Yeah, its a far cry from the solid DLC side stories that intertwined with the main story of GTA 4 so well, TBAGT and TLATD were both great, I felt sad there was nothing DLC wise for GTA5 post campaign, I was really hoping an expansion into North Yankton.

Indeed BCB a broken clock is right or half right 2 times a day.

Also at rockstar, it got damaged just like bethesda by their own success.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Indeed BCB a broken clock is right or half right 2 times a day.

Also at rockstar, it got damaged just like bethesda by their own success.

Well greed mostly. "GaMeRs NeEd LiVe SeRvIcEs!"

 Togusa wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Indeed BCB a broken clock is right or half right 2 times a day.

Also at rockstar, it got damaged just like bethesda by their own success.

Well greed mostly. "GaMeRs NeEd LiVe SeRvIcEs!"

No they are so drunk on their success that they misslearn how to adapt.

The life service is just as much a bubble aswell as bethesda not learning or adapting and just rereleasing skyrim.

I have found a real calling in old retro games, like FF1-8, Old SNES Games, NES games, and free to play mods for old games like BrutalDoom, or Doom Black Edition. All free to play or download, and tons of new content out there.

I put down my controller for the PS4 after Uncharted 4, and the DLC game with the two female Protagonists (Both amazing) and I haven't looked back. It's really freeing to not have to pay for the crap that comes out these days.

Especially when there are so many amazing games out there that are free. Currently 75% of the way through Robotrek and loving it. Up next is Earthbound.

Counterpoint, at least as far as Rockstar is concerned:

RDR2 is a masterpiece.

Whatever faults Rockstar has, they clearly produced an excellent singleplayer game.

Bharring wrote:
Counterpoint, at least as far as Rockstar is concerned:

RDR2 is a masterpiece.

Whatever faults Rockstar has, they clearly produced an excellent singleplayer game.

hahahahahha Counterpoint.

RDR2 Online.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Counterpoint, at least as far as Rockstar is concerned:

RDR2 is a masterpiece.

Whatever faults Rockstar has, they clearly produced an excellent singleplayer game.

hahahahahha Counterpoint.

RDR2 Online.

RDR2 Online doesn't impact RDR2 itself.

And games of RDR2's quality are rare. Like once-a-year rare. I think the last one I'd put at that level was Horizon: Zero Dawn.

So the publisher also put out a game you hate. And that game is "free" if you buy the good game (or vice versa). Putting out 1 masterpiece and 1 not-masterpiece still means they put out a masterpiece.

Bharring wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Counterpoint, at least as far as Rockstar is concerned:

RDR2 is a masterpiece.

Whatever faults Rockstar has, they clearly produced an excellent singleplayer game.

hahahahahha Counterpoint.

RDR2 Online.

RDR2 Online doesn't impact RDR2 itself.

And games of RDR2's quality are rare. Like once-a-year rare. I think the last one I'd put at that level was Horizon: Zero Dawn.

So the publisher also put out a game you hate. And that game is "free" if you buy the good game (or vice versa). Putting out 1 masterpiece and 1 not-masterpiece still means they put out a masterpiece.

It doesn't?
It does just as much as GTA V online has GTA V.
In the same way.

How the hell did this become a YMDC thread?

 Togusa wrote:
I've still seen good journalism from Fox News...

At the very least, what they put online is so much less hysterically insane than what they put on TV, you often have to wonder if they're even the same company XD

 LordofHats wrote:
How the hell did this become a YMDC thread?

 Togusa wrote:
I've still seen good journalism from Fox News...

At the very least, what they put online is so much less hysterically insane than what they put on TV, you often have to wonder if they're even the same company XD

Differing offices probably.
Also the online one might be more aware of it's reputation.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Counterpoint, at least as far as Rockstar is concerned:

RDR2 is a masterpiece.

Whatever faults Rockstar has, they clearly produced an excellent singleplayer game.

hahahahahha Counterpoint.

RDR2 Online.

RDR2 Online doesn't impact RDR2 itself.

And games of RDR2's quality are rare. Like once-a-year rare. I think the last one I'd put at that level was Horizon: Zero Dawn.

So the publisher also put out a game you hate. And that game is "free" if you buy the good game (or vice versa). Putting out 1 masterpiece and 1 not-masterpiece still means they put out a masterpiece.

It doesn't?
It does just as much as GTA V online has GTA V.
In the same way.

Depends on what you're judging. If you're judging average game quality, sure it matters. If I'm looking for companies that could put out a great game, not so much. Because I don't need to play every game a studio offers to enjoy their best games. I'd rather a studio put out 1 great game and 1 terrible game over 1 average game. I'm only going to play the games I most want to play, as there's far too many of them to play them all. So only the best games really matter.

To put it another way: which place would you rather eat:
Place A: You can order The Best Pizza Ever, or Day Old Grilled Cheese
Place B: Serves Dominos-quality pizza

I'm going to eat at place A. Sure, Day Old Grilled Cheese is worse than Dominos-quality pizza. But I'm not going to order it, so it doesn't really matter.

Bharring wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Counterpoint, at least as far as Rockstar is concerned:

RDR2 is a masterpiece.

Whatever faults Rockstar has, they clearly produced an excellent singleplayer game.

hahahahahha Counterpoint.

RDR2 Online.

RDR2 Online doesn't impact RDR2 itself.

And games of RDR2's quality are rare. Like once-a-year rare. I think the last one I'd put at that level was Horizon: Zero Dawn.

So the publisher also put out a game you hate. And that game is "free" if you buy the good game (or vice versa). Putting out 1 masterpiece and 1 not-masterpiece still means they put out a masterpiece.

It doesn't?
It does just as much as GTA V online has GTA V.
In the same way.

Depends on what you're judging. If you're judging average game quality, sure it matters. If I'm looking for companies that could put out a great game, not so much. Because I don't need to play every game a studio offers to enjoy their best games. I'd rather a studio put out 1 great game and 1 terrible game over 1 average game. I'm only going to play the games I most want to play, as there's far too many of them to play them all. So only the best games really matter.

To put it another way: which place would you rather eat:
Place A: You can order The Best Pizza Ever, or Day Old Grilled Cheese
Place B: Serves Dominos-quality pizza

I'm going to eat at place A. Sure, Day Old Grilled Cheese is worse than Dominos-quality pizza. But I'm not going to order it, so it doesn't really matter.

No, what i mean with affecting is a lack of singleplayer content that will not be developped due to the focus beeing on "live Services"

 BrookM wrote:

ahh yes, i wanted to post that

See, that was my point about not focussing on actual game content and instead using the cheap cop out and spam live services with real gambling this time.

i want to throw up.

I have found a real calling in old retro games, like FF1-8, Old SNES Games, NES games, and free to play mods for old games like BrutalDoom, or Doom Black Edition. All free to play or download, and tons of new content out there.

Defo. So many solid emulators out there for the likes of SNES, Amiga, NeoGeo, Megadrive, N64 etc.
All with lots of golden games on them.

Bharring wrote:
Counterpoint, at least as far as Rockstar is concerned:

RDR2 is a masterpiece.

Whatever faults Rockstar has, they clearly produced an excellent singleplayer game.

Unpopular Opinion: The game is mediocre, and it's story is mediocre.

 Togusa wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Counterpoint, at least as far as Rockstar is concerned:

RDR2 is a masterpiece.

Whatever faults Rockstar has, they clearly produced an excellent singleplayer game.

Unpopular Opinion: The game is mediocre, and it's story is mediocre.

Better go get cover, the barage of rockstar Fans will be incoming.

Jokes aside, it wasn't bad.
Just, ech idk.

Never saw any draw in either RDR1 or 2, myself. GTAV was okay. But then they decided they only wanted to do multiplayer content.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Counterpoint, at least as far as Rockstar is concerned:

RDR2 is a masterpiece.

Whatever faults Rockstar has, they clearly produced an excellent singleplayer game.

Unpopular Opinion: The game is mediocre, and it's story is mediocre.

Better go get cover, the barage of rockstar Fans will be incoming.

Jokes aside, it wasn't bad.
Just, ech idk.

It was fun, I spent around 24-30 hours in game doing the story stuff. Once that was done however, I had no other reason to keep playing. I just found the game to be mediocre.

 Togusa wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Counterpoint, at least as far as Rockstar is concerned:

RDR2 is a masterpiece.

Whatever faults Rockstar has, they clearly produced an excellent singleplayer game.

Unpopular Opinion: The game is mediocre, and it's story is mediocre.

Better go get cover, the barage of rockstar Fans will be incoming.

Jokes aside, it wasn't bad.
Just, ech idk.

It was fun, I spent around 24-30 hours in game doing the story stuff. Once that was done however, I had no other reason to keep playing. I just found the game to be mediocre.

Can agree with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Never saw any draw in either RDR1 or 2, myself. GTAV was okay. But then they decided they only wanted to do multiplayer content.

Which to my knowledge is a live Service steaming trainwreck.
Still.


If it ain't making Bank like GTA online it ain't good enough for them anymore.
Mostly because stakeholders would get annoyed at the lower return.

I'm a bit torn on unlocks being paid for additions. Obviously being random drops in loot boxes is annoying.

In games like Timesplitters, Mortal Kombat or Smash Bros discovering and doing the challenges to unlock the characters was a large part of the fun.
On the other hand, in Gears 2 i was annoyed that I couldn't play as Savage Theron Guard because I couldn't get 3 friends to commit the time to do beast mode on insane. So I definitely would have paid for an unlock everything cheat!

In past games, the "unlock everything" cheat was free, too

 Melissia wrote:
In past games, the "unlock everything" cheat was free, too

Don't get me started on that BS.

 Melissia wrote:
In past games, the "unlock everything" cheat was free, too

Well true, unless you had to phone up one of those 0800 cheat hotlines which charged you £5 a minute!

Latest video related to this, that I admit that I am not sure I should post because it does have politics involved, but...




In summary, the main part of the argument he's putting that's relevant here is that mainstream video game companies actually benefit from being blamed for mass shootings. After all, it lets them distract people from the arguments about lootboxes, or their lack of concern for privacy and the protection of personal information, or what have you, and forces people to split their attention and energy between simultaneously defending games themselves and also attacking the nasty, predatory practices that game developers have.

Let's keep the politics out, okay? We've been doing moderately well so far.

There's also this one: