"Hey, did you see the landing?" "Yeah, typical science block-head stuff, boring article" "What are you doing then?" "Checking over the fee- oh wow" "What?" "We got a perfect article to up the views!"

They do belong, but in a way that makes it worth to pay the additional money to acquire them. What happens, however, is that publishers haven't caught up to the fact that implementing such a system, design, and so forth takes time and assets from more valuable things for the little time given to release a title.

Ubisoft has put its heart on releasing an Assassin's Creed title per year, and that very fact means that each installment of the game will not be as successful as the previous. Over time, the games will desaturate due to the very restrictions time-wise of a few studios having to meet the deadline, and use a handful of features at best to sell the game as a "fresh" experience.

That's a strategy that manages to sway up sales, and with some clever maneuvers to keep a certain quality, and image to receive some high review scores, ratings with a major focus on selling certain particular aspects over the bigger image of what the game itself is.

In turn this makes previews, review websites distrustful due to them having access to incomplete versions, and slap a number on a game's cover (for the better, or worse) has heavy implications on people's future employment in the game industry.

So, do micro transactions belong in AAA titles? They certainly do, but that is valid as long the content you pay the price for is worthwhile, and the existing game offers a certain length, and quality of content to warrant further, genuine interest into investing more in the same title.

A good example of this is what Valve does through the Steam Workshop with Dota 2 and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is selling the accepted items into the store, and the profits are split with the developer. That makes micro transactions, not only interesting, but also directly involve the community's interest. On top of that, they also get to choose what is correct for the game's setting, both in quality and style.

Well in regards to the microtransactions. What was to stop them from slowing progression late game? You see it in many games that have these, microtransactions are a mobile game thing. They do not belong in a $60 AAA release.

Why not both?

These first impressions of the game are so raw that make dated raw fish smell nice.

Not sure what world you live into where you can move or halt the release of a video game because of a software issue, which can be patched. Instead of delaying the release, they should have had the game working at least optimally by the time it went gold.

wtf?
Did the developers not run the game before releasing it?

Devs: "Hey er guys it can't maintain a steady 30fps maybe we should delay?"

CEO's: "lolno"

What a creep.

It's 3 AM in Greece and my brain is giving me all sorts of weird thoughts.

Too bad I don't have any peanut butter to satisfy my lust.

Don't you mean intercepted?

And when I walk down the street nobody bothers me...

I'll label myself to avoid any confusion; enlightened illuminist imperialistic capitalistic democratic-socialistic technocrat. I am not joking.

The time when you realize that the feminist movement is something much bigger than a central non-existing, fictional consensus similarly to how most movements work it will probably be an experience akin to an epiphany.

Here's some source about the claim that Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare beat the other titles in sales. However, do keep in mind that these figures are UK only.

http://www.chart-track.co.uk/index.jsp?c=p/software/uk/latest/index_test.jsp&ct=110015

They are not doing something ground-breaking when it comes to Overwatch. Of course, re-inventing a whole genre from the gameplay perspective it's a challenge, and my disappointment doesn't stem from that. However, from their attempt to give hints towards the more traditional Blizzard-style at the same time they are tackling a whole new behemoth.

You can't really compare your stories with video games that have a huge budget, and a big team of people working on. Despite the fact that I like your point philosophically speaking, and perhaps it is also morally correct, it's not simply how it works on a game company which has a legacy, and a huge audience to appeal to, and is torn between who to pick in that audience to give some attention to.

I am also not against supporting Blizzard in this venture; but I am mostly skeptical and disappointed at a new direction that effectively can discard a loyal player base that despite suffering from the different directions that Blizzard has explored with its titles, it has remained there.

There's also some surprise in that. Blizzard is indeed picky when it comes to taking onto new ventures, and it is known to cancel even the most interesting titles and scrapping them altogether. Overwatch made it through that, and maybe it does hold some value beyond what can be perceived besides a few articles online and some teaser and cinematic videos. I am not denying that value, I am not denying the work of the people involved, and I do understand the amount of effort, creativity and time that goes into crafting a video game.

So give them some support, whether it be cheers at their new game, or silent acceptance that as people, they have the right to explore beyond what they are familiar with, and try something new.

Yeah, and effectively the more conservative player base of World of Warcraft was quickly forgotten about, and left to be scattered as the game removed all sort of challenge, and rewards in an addicting manner the most minimal effort. That's the crowd Overwatch will be going for, and it's similar to the crowd Hearthstone went for. It's not necessarily bad, but it's still butchering the fan base.

Also, Diablo III wasn't quality? Are we joking here? Diablo III is an AAA title, and benefits of many things that come with it. Of course, it wasn't perfect, and it had some issues which are a completely different subject to convey, but isn't it too convenient to discard Diablo III and what has happened to it to appeal to the very same crowd that Overwatch is trying to? Why do you think many players jumped ship from Diablo III, and went quickly towards Path of Exile, and in a similar manner many World of Warcraft players left competitive PvP completely or the game?

Blizzard wants to tackle new ideas? That's alright. They can explore whatever ideas they might have, and that's their call, and right to do so. However, doing this at the expense of a fan base which has been loyal to it during the early WarCraft games, StarCraft, and even with early World of Warcraft? That's not fine, it's not simply something that should be acceptable. If they want to wipe their hands off that player base then they should come out and do that instead of subtly hinting some ties with what they have done in the past just for the sake of show and tell.

I love World of Warcraft, and I was immediately drawn to Overwatch. I signed up for the beta the day it was announced, and I can't wait to get my hands on it. Blizzard has always delivered quality content with great community interaction (Diablo 3 notwithstanding,) so I'm more than willing to give them the benefit of a doubt on this one. So what if it doesn't specifically appeal to Diablo, Starcraft, or Warcraft fans? Blizzard is gonna attract a new crowd with Overwatch, and many current Blizz fans will surely play as well. The more the merrier, I say.

The community that surrounds My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic tends to go in multiple ways. "Bronies" as in grown people going in conventions for a little kids' show dressed like the characters? That's fucking creepy as far it can get.

Artists, writers and other people with a certain talent that work around the universe of My Little Pony, I think those people are more interesting, and as far fans can go they sometimes tackle new ideas effectively fitting it with a style they adopt. (Which is quite a simple, and beautiful one)

But you know, all the creativity, imagination, hard work is all dismissed because of a minority of creeps.

Their new announced title is a disappointment. Not in terms of gameplay, story, or the elements that maybe will make it an enjoyable game. Overwatch seems to tackle onto a really specific genre dominated by few games, most particularly by Team Fortess 2, which is the closest thing to the genre of FPS.

The disappointment I am talking about is... That's not Blizzard. Certainly the characters can have fascinating personalities, and maybe they can be meaningful to play as. However, who would have seen Blizzard doing this kind of thing before?

Nobody would have guessed. Blizzard makes epic fantasy or science fiction games. One way or another, they made this kind of thing for almost a decade and have gathered a mixed, loyal player base that went to Blizzcon to witness the announcement of Overwatch...

Which wasn't directly aimed at them. Overwatch isn't aiming to the players of StarCraft 2, it's not aiming to the players of World of Warcraft, but it's aimed exclusively to teenagers. I do get that image just simply by looking at the graphics, the lines, and the presentation.

I am disappointed, that in effect, Blizzard gave the middle finger to fans who may have been over the years, excitedly awaiting for a new epic story, or maybe something from Blizzard and are met with a Team Fortress 2, Dota 2, and Pixar hybrid.

It may not be a bad game, but many loyal players have been excluded, and cast completely aside. All the time of enjoying Blizzard games, buying, reading the books, comics and extended stories that were made thanks to WarCraft, StarCraft, and Diablo... All cast aside for gag humor, and a completely different audience.

Does anyone share a similar feeling, or any kind of thought that agrees or disagrees?

Point has been taken. If Based Love does anything then it will be handled accordingly. I am locking the thread, as it will only derail from here and on.