Strider Hiryu

I hear that. I don't look at vg247 nearly as much as I used to. There are so many pointless articles just to get page views.
Blizzard might not make an Overwatch 2 for another 10 years. They could just keep adding characters and maps indefinitely. But to keep making money off it they'll probably sell more and more character and weapon skins either directly or thru rng loot boxes. They could treat it like WoW and release a paid expansion for it that unlocks a campaign. They could do that for every hero in the game and milk this initial title for the next decade.

They're def killing it with overwatch. From the harsh stance on cheating that zero other games have done to the free post release content. (Hell, you only get banned for a week on The Division, you don't get banned at all on COD). Like I was telling Sledge, they game will have a longer life span than a normal shooter. With the many different characters the game has, it makes sense just to keep adding more, instead of pulling a street fighter and release the same game every year. You could make Overwatch 2, but people are going to want all their favorite characters back. Then you have to do a balancing act or old and new to avoid getting accused of recycling content. 

This movie was a hell of a lot of fun. Screw reviews. Was it a masterfully written story with deep, complex characters a rich dialogue? Hell no, who was really expecting it to have all that? It was a ton of action and light humor. I'd say it was very 80ish action at that. It was like Inglorious Basterds from hell. Will Smith put on one of his best performances in a long while and Margret Robbie nailed Harley Quinn despite what people were complaining about the over sexualization of the character. Yes her costume was pure fan service, but she nailed the persona. Leto was a very dark Joker, I liked it, but Ledger was better. Then again this film is way more comic-y and less serious.

I believe, based on what I've heard XFactor and Matt say, that the amount you loose or gain is based on the skill ratings of the other team. I know the system keeps you pretty well matched for skill ratings (going so far as to try and match you against other teams that have similar make ups (like if you queue as a team of two it tries to match you with opponents of similar make up)) but I do know you do occasionally run into a team that has a few higher skilled players. Like I said I'm not entirely sure but I've seen Matt loose whole ranks because he lost to a team comprised of higher ranked players. I've also seen him gain an entire rank for winning against the same type of team. I'm sure other factors are brought into the equations, like how badly you lost or how badly you stomped the competition, but it seems ranks heavily influence your loss or gain.
I think Blizzard made comp mode to do just that, make you play with who you're good with much like a MOBA does (most pro MOBA players stick to the same heroes exclusively, you rarely see any of them choose something different (then again they also play on teams so they can do this)). This is generally why if you watch Matt or XFactor they stick primarily with who they're good at (X loves and is a beast with McCree but he also switches out for Roadhog and the occasional Pharah. Matt generally sticks to Ana, Tracer, Reinhardt, and most recently Junkrat). Same could be said for any of the competitive players and streamers which is why I'd be scarred to play comp. I'm really only good with Mercy, Reinhardt, and Lucio but I don't always want to be thrown into playing just healers and tanks. However, as we know, I'm more then willing to eat the bullet and do whats best for the team even if it does irk me from time to time.
That sudden death system needs to be revamped imo. It pretty much always favors the attackers but then again I'm speaking from the PC side. Most of the game modes that can end in ties pretty much always favor the attacking team and considering it's based on a coin flip it really does suck when you get stuck on the defending side. That meta is slowly starting to shift into a more even playing field now (what with certain heroes being nerfed and buffed) but it still favors the attacking team more so then not.

It's completely free of micro transactions so there is no pay to win, just long boring grinding of missions to make the credits needed to buy that next upgrade or that next ship. I'm thinking I'll be going the same route as you Myk, fighting just isn't worth it in this game.

Eh, Rebel Galaxy is ok. I played around on it for a bit today and while it's fun it doesn't really tell you how to do anything (like I'm completely lost on mechanics, one missions tells you to go mine some ore but forgets to tell you exactly how to do it forcing you to go the other route which is talk to traders to buy it and then get attacked by overpowered pirate ships) and the combat is boring as hell (it's pretty much naval combat (if you've played AC3 or 4 then you'll be right at home) with an emphasis on broadside attacks, you're flying a battleship so don't expect awesome space dog fighting). Plus you burn through credits extremely fast trying to keep you're ship repaired (plus weapons, engines, shields, etc are extremely expensive (not to mention the next ship you can buy is 43,000 credits and it's honestly, stat wise, not worth the money)).
Honestly it's an ambitions title that falls short and is worth the dl since it's free if only to waste time while you wait for something else to come out.

Jack brings up a lot of good points in this video and while I don't agree with every single one of them (like the handheld market dying) I feel he summed up a lot of what I said above and did a much better job of it.

Not exactly. I know it's running better tech then a 3DS (if this is true) and the displays on those are only slightly smaller then an average smartphone display (which is usually between 4-5 inches, my Note 4 as a 5.7 inch display and that is the biggest out there for smartphones) but I'm expecting battery life to be around that of a 3DS if not better (you gotta remember a 3DS runs two screens, a 3D and a normal one. I get roughly 8-9 hours of continuous play on my 3DS when I actually play it (it's kind of neglected, the poor thing)). Plus my 3DS never runs hot (then again different tech here). The one thing Nintendo is good at, which you said, is handhelds and they've always had great battery life once the Pocket Generation of Gameboy's hit the market (the original "brick" could probably get you around the same battery life as a 3DS if you were lucky and that was only running one screen). Plus, in all honesty, the graphical quality of the new Zelda game for the NX isn't all that better then a 3DS (I equate 3DS graphics to PS1/N64 era while the Wii U is still sitting at roughly Gamecube era, maybe slightly better) so I don't see the games that might be coming out of the NX being all that graphically taxing.
What it will come down to is the on board O/S and whether or not the console will support features like the Nintendo Store, Virtual Console, and everything else the Wii U currently has. If it does then yea battery life is going to be atrocious on this machine especially with detachable controllers (which I'm thinking, for practicality, will only be usable when the system is docked). Honestly, if this proves to be true, it could either kill Nintendo's future in the industry as a console developer or it could save them. I'm leaning more toward killing their console division because the only way I see the NX working (in this format) is if they kill their DS division and make this the new handheld which they would be stupid to do as it's the only thing making them money (outside of those few gamers who own Wii's and Wii U's). As a huge supporter and fan of Nintendo's handheld division (I've owned every incarnation of the Gameboy (with the exception of the Pocket and Advance SP) and two incarnations of the DS (the DSi XL and the 3DS XL)) I don't think I could support Nintendo's decision to make the NX a portable system, it makes no financial or practical sense as one thing in this equation is going to have to die to make things work and my feeling is it would be the DS platform.

I forgot to mention this yesterday after I watched the new Star Wars Rebels season 3 trailer (I lost it when I heard him speaking and they showed his face, gah the fanboy in me is so damn happy I might actually start watching Rebels). While this makes me happy beyond belief, I mean come on it's FREAKING THRAWN, I'm somewhat scared as to what this means for his character post RotJ since we haven't seen nor heard of him in TFO or any of its books. Hopefully the book says he's alive and well, would love for him to make an appearance in Episode 9 (I doubt he'll be in 8) or any upcoming movies similar to the Rogue One and Han Solo movies.

Holy crap. Thrawn is officially part of the new Star Wars canon. And there will be a new Thrawn novel. I'm so happy. This obviously means the Chiss are canon now as well. I need this book. Hell, I might even have to watch Star Wars Rebels now.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/grand-admiral-thrawn-joins-rebels-and-the-new-star-wars-1783779089

Eventually this will end up imploding on itself as people get faster and faster connections dwindling this 60% down to 30% and so on as internet prices continue to skyrocket. People are extremely predictable and those of us willing to pay for those 120 meg connections will eventually turn into those who wouldn't pay for it when 500 meg on up connections become available to the public (you know those prices are going to be astronomical compared to what we're paying now and newer games are going to require faster connections). It's a sad, never ending cycle but I never really see the physical media disappearing. We as a society put a lot of emphasis on what we own physically as if it was a symbol of power. Doing away with this sense of ownership is more harmful then good as we can't own a streamed game (or show proof we own a digital copy of something), we'll pay a fee to be allowed to play it for say a month (similar to what MMO gamers like myself do to play our favorite MMO's and this works for them) on top of the fee we play for Live or Plus and on top of what we would pay for a service like Now (which I believe is $10-$15 a month). Once that month's up we now run the risk of either having to pay for another month to play the game or just give up on the idea of playing it anymore. We think paying for premium on Battlefield or other games like it to have access to maps is bad, just think of the outrage people are going to have when they have to pay say $5-$10 a month to stream Battlefield on top of some sort of premium membership for map packs (you know this won't be going away, it's making them to much money to allow it to die). You're looking at, theoretically, $15-$25 a month to play the game with the added $50-$60 you pay for you premium membership for you're preferred console (yea I'm using the current market) which is between $180-$360 a year just to play one game (without said map packs/dlc). I know things could get cheaper but with the greed that is Capitalism I doubt things are going to be cheaper then what I said (hell it could be more). The cool thing about services like Netflix is that we pay an access fee and get instant access to their whole library of movies/shows/etc until our month is up and we have to repay, we don't pay a fee to watch each individual episode/movie. There is no way a service like this will be allowed in the current game market, you will be forced to pay a monthly access fee along with a fee to play each individual game (which is the current system for Now).
I would cover the other point but most of my worries are encapsulated above the only real thing I'd have to do is take into consideration what different features Sony and Microsoft would put in to either entice or charge you more to use there app/stick. Honestly Sony and Microsoft, I feel, would go away from this and just focus on their other money makers (Sony with it's electronics and Microsoft with it's software). Again I don't think exclusives would be a thing, there really is no competition anymore in this model. Look at Apple versus Android. What exclusives does Apple have that you want on you're Android phone? What about vice-versa? I honestly can't think of one app/game Apple has that I want for my Android because almost everything now either has an equivalent on the other or it's just released for both platforms. The only real competition comes from preference and this would be the only competition between Microsoft/Sony, which major corporation do you want to support.
Yea, you can get Pokecoins in game I believe either by battling other trainers or beating gyms. You can refill you're basic Pokeballs at Pokestops I believe but yea they pretty much force you into spending real money for their in-game currency, much like every other F2P mobile game. You eventually reach that point where you need to spend money to actually get anywhere in the game (I've run into this problem on Clash of Clans more then once having spent quite a bit of money to get further in the game. Thankfully I stopped doing this and don't spend money anymore (I only recently started playing again after like a year away form the game)).

That vgcats comic.. lmao!
I think of it more as who is going to pay the most money overall (i hate this concept i'm about to type tho). I think of games like battlefield, titanfall, call of duty, etc. They all are focused on that 60% of the consumer base of online players with broadband internet. The other 40% with crap internet or no internet can either play against some AI bots or get a campaign only with battlefield. If the console makers wanted to trim costs they could cut down on console production and focus solely on that smaller market with the best internet because they could potentially get a higher profit ratio. The rest of the people will just not get those games anymore and will have to settle with alternatives like hand held game consoles, mobile or tablet games that can be played offline. I doubt this would happen unless high speed internet becomes much more available across the country tho. But I could see it as a possibility because other companies do the exact same thing already. If someone lives in the middle of nowhere, cable companies wont install their lines on that person's street for just one customer. Same with a town's sewer and water lines. If you're not in the service area you have to get a well and septic tank. Its pretty shitty, but wherever I'm looking at houses for sale, I have to take into consideration all the services available to that location so I don't get screwed in the future. All those companies running the towns/village services wont make enough profit off that 1 or 2 customers to justify the expense of catering to their living locations, so they straight up ignore them instead. I think of blockbuster as another example too. Everyone used to rent physical videos and games, then netflix destroyed the business model. All those 60%ers out there with good internet have netflix, psn, xbox live, steam and enjoy themselves. The other 40% now have to go to a kiosk at a grocery store and have a selection of 10-15 movies to watch and 4-10 games instead of hundreds at a blockbuster. For all of us with good internet, everything keeps getting better. But for everyone with crap internet, their options keep dwindling. We don't hear about it online, because those people literally aren't online to complain about it. If this same trend continues to happen and only people with broadband high speed connections are the new and only customers, then everything digital will prevail and physical games could eventually disappear.
Hypothetically I think it'll depend on what company eventually makes the best streaming services with the best performing servers, controllers, etc. Plus it'll give the companies competition because each one would charge different fees to game companies and possibly pay companies for exclusives. PSN and Xbox could very well not even make a stick, but instead become apps like netflix and could work on a variety of devices or even be built in with Smart TVs with bluetooth for game controller input. Companies like Steam and Apple take at least 30% of the sale of all games. If PSN and Xbox didn't have competitive prices, they could all be charging crazy rates and game developers would be even more screwed. I would think of a PSN or Xbox app as competitors to steam at that point, just like amazon prime video and hulu are competitors with netflix.
Wow. I did not know that. I have installed games by bypassing the market and installing .apk files on my android because of the original humble mobile bundles. I didn't know other installed games could still access company servers tho.
I hear ya. x_x I know 60+ year old coworkers that play the hell out of angry birds, farmville, etc. tho. But thats the exception. My parents have no significant interest in games and theres plenty of people I know that would think playing a video game is for kids and would rather go to a bar and throw darts while drinking beer. My younger brother plays all kinds of games but he hates pokemon go and told me the other day that as an adult he didn't have time for that childish crap. lol.
 
 
And back to Pokemon Go. (lmao, this has gotten way off topic, but its a great read imo. Its very interesting to toss around theories like this.)
I installed pokemon go and caught a couple pokemon while sitting on my ass:


And then I checked the surrounding area.. There is a poke stop in the cemetery across the street from me, but I've never noticed anyone actively going there. And it looks like a location near or at the local grocery store a couple streets away is a poke gym.. it could be the liquor store actually. lmao. I wont know because I uninstalled it. The game is an interesting concept, but I'm not interested in taking a road trip to hunt pokemon. The AR feature of the game is pretty interesting tho. These pokemon just float on your screen and if you can line them up on stuff it looks like thats where they are standing, like on my toilet paper roll. I've noticed that you have a limited amount of pokeballs and the things have a tendancy of flying all over the place when you throw them. Thus ensuring that you will eventually run out and need to buy more. I'm assuming pokecoins are obtainable in game somehow, but the microtransactions are real in this game:



Nah.. I know I have a tendency to go OCD on some games, but this setup along with having to literally go all over the place isn't for me.

I seriously doubt this. There's always going to be a physical copy of the game because publishers need to get their money's worth out of games and I know I'm not the only person out there that refuses to pay $60+ for a digital copy of a game when it comes out.  Also they have to reach the broadest audience and as you said there are those who have shit internet service or none at all, you can't possibly make money when you're ignoring up to 40% of your consumer base. Not to mention not everyone can afford the price of high speed internet or would even be willing to pay the price for said internet. With how graphically and bandwidth intensive games have been becoming to pass that amount of data through on say my connection speed would result in a piss poor gaming experience, something I don't want (which is the reason I need to upgrade to 120, I've been having some series troubles playing FFXIV lately due to internet fuck ups).
Plus the way you're saying this will go what would be the point of even owning a PS or Xbox stick when you could just get the game through steam on you're PC. You're effectively killing the game market as there would be no use to having two console developers anymore. Exclusives would be gone because what developer would side with a stick manufacturer when they could reach more consumers by just releasing on Steam or another Steam like application. It'd be more cost effective to this and you only have to code for 3 different OS's (if you choose to) and one server setup. Plus I've never heard how Playstation Now is doing, I know some people don't like it but I've never really heard overall numbers of users or games being played (sadly I won't pay a fee to stream a game on top of my PS+ membership, that's a little to much money for my tastes). I know I'll stop gaming if they go streaming only, it might be my age showing but I still like having physical copies of my games (the only digital downloads I own on my PS4 are the free titles we get every month, Sword Art Online (I forget the rest of the name), and the Definitive Edition of Dishonored. I refuse to buy digital downloads due to limited hard drive space since digital games take up more room then disc copies) and that will never change. The only exception I make for this is PC games, it's just easier to get the digital version through Steam and a lot of PC games are switching to digital only (plus I have hard drive space for days between all my external hard drives).
The problem is Sega was in the same boat when they left the market only for Microsoft to swoop in and take their spot effectively forcing Nintendo into Sega's old niche market. Sadly we won't have that option if Nintendo goes the way of the dinosaur (and no Steam machines won't take that niche. They're jokes that run on Linux and only have 250 so games from the Steam library that actually can run on Linux). Sony and Microsoft have to much say and power in the industry (which I think is one of the reasons Nintendo can't get out of its funk (besides their bad choices in developing new consoles)) currently and we've seen what choices they've made over the last decade swaying how game development and console development go (before Microsoft hit the market their was no real call for online multiplayer games on Nintendo, Playstation, and Sega consoles (though Sega did start it with some of their games (Phantasy Star Online is an example here) which is why we had those massive single player only campaigns. People had PC if they wanted to play online games. It was Microsoft that started pushing for digital only as well, we saw how well that worked out for them). I still feel, much like our political system, more then two choices is a must which is why I worry for the future of gaming if Nintendo bails on the console market (I have no hopes for our political system but thats for another topic).
Other mobile developers have already been pushing this forever. Look how much money games like Candy Crush and Clash of Clans have made since they're release (the numbers are astronomical). Developers already know the amount of money they can make, Nintendo just proved that a major developer can make a shit ton of cash on already established properties. Hell Square Enix is releasing a Final Fantasy game for mobile now as well (Mobius, it looks freaking amazing and I plan on picking it up).
DRM isn't really that strong on mobile devices. With a rooted phone or tablet you can get access to various games no problem, bypassing the android/apple markets by just getting you're hand on a copy of the .apk file through a site (and you can even get cheated versions as well) and it'll still have access to the games live servers. Hell I think you can even get iOS games on android (and vice versa) through this method (I don't know, I don't really pay attention to the root community. As much as I'd like to root my phone it's just not worth the hassle).
I digress now, we've really pushed this off topic. I tried Go for all of 5 minutes in my room. After realizing there's only two Pokestops in my town I quickly uninstalled it (plus, out here in the boonies, people still view gaming as completely childish and even more so if they hear you're playing Pokemon. The social stigma is overbearing). Plus, while the concept is cool, I just don't like the idea of it. What this game is doing as somewhat of a social experiment, however, is nuts. It's really bringing the gaming community together but it's also bringing the seedier elements of society together as well (the amount of deaths, robberies, and other games contributed to this game are sad).

Considering their mobile games department is brand new I'm sure they'll start realizing quickly just how much they stand to gain from licensing out their ips to others. While I think the game is retarded (I mean look at all the robberies that have happened since it's release) it's a great step for Nintendo and something I've been calling for for a long time (what I wouldn't give to have a Zelda title on the PS4, just imagine how beautiful that game would be). Considering how bad the Wii U did and how bad I think the NX will do I'm sure within 2-3 years we might see more of this happening. I mean all they need to do is look at Sega and they'll see how profitable it was for them to drop out of the console market and license out their ips. Sure it hasn't been good for Sonic but everything else Sega has it's name on has done extremely well over the years. The only downside, if they choose to pull out of consoles development, is it'll kill what little competition there is on the market (yea, Nintendo hasn't really been a contender over the last few years but I don't like what the future holds if it's just Sony and Microsoft calling the shots). With this whole modular gaming aspect the console market is taking (seriously guys, we don't need a new PS4 and we certainly don't need two new XBones. There hasn't really been any outcry for 4k console gaming so why the hell are they pushing it now (4K TV's are insanely overpriced). Hell 4K gaming isn't even a big thing on PC yet. I don't like the fact that they feel console gaming needs to be like PC gaming, I don't want to be upgrading my system every 2-4 years because you guys want to give us a slightly more powerful console) I fear Nintendo dropping out will put the nail in the coffin for the console market.
While I was still in college one of my teachers said Mobile was the future for the game industry. Not only does it allow indie developers to flourish (it's probably the most friendly platform for indie developers besides PC) it also allows big developers to reach out to a much broader audience. In fact (he was the head of the game development department) he hoping to get classes added to the curriculum that focused on mobile game development (sadly this never came to be as he left shortly after I graduated and the school closed 2 years later (long, retarded story)).

I had a really good experience in BF4 on my last match that reinforces what you're saying. If you're good it doesn't matter what team you're on as long as the balance is right. I know alot of changes were made to BF4 as a precursor to BF1's roll out. On my last game of conquest I got a pop up message telling me "You were placed on this team based on your skill" or something like that. First time I've ever seen that message. Even tho half the other team was level 110+ players, I came in third place on my team with points and we only lost by 12 tickets. A good chunk of my team was level 60s+ like myself with about ten or so level 110+s, That was the most balanced game I've seen in BF4 in a long time. I think it was on a custom server too. They must have changed the server rental rules or something so that if you want "official server" status you have to have balancing turned on so the admin can't stack a team in their own favor. I could be wrong on that assumption but I hope thats the case. And playing the objective gives you a crap ton more points than just killing people.

Oh hell no, I have a problem with 400% ticket Metro servers lasting up to two hours (and they're all I play now). 5-6 hours would make me cry (and remind me of my old Halo LAN days where a CTF match could last up to 8 hours (and one did)). Even if that doesn't end up being true we're still looking at up to 2 hours depending on how good the defending team is (sounds more like it's Rush on a grander scale with the map only changing if the attacking team captures all defensive points (which, considering the tug-of-war play style, could be extremely hard to do since the defending team can recapture the point).
I sense Operations mode is going to cause almost everyone to come in with pre-made squads and hell maybe even pre-made teams due to the teamwork required to play this mode (not complaining, I'm a huge fan of making teamwork more of a priority which is why I love what they're doing with BF1). Will be interesting to see if this game mode really takes off.
I won't touch the re-balancing issue. My opinions on it aren't exactly viewed upon with approving eyes (I'm all for it, it's the only way to keep teams fair when one side looses chunks of their team. I'll get lynched for this but if you're doing good on the winning side why can't you be that good on the loosing side. Just because you're side changes doesn't mean you're going to suck. Yea you'll probably still loose (honestly, who cares about win/loss ratio (mine is so bad in BF4 that I just laugh at it everytime I see it)) but whats stopping you from aiming for that top spot by playing the objective). My only opinion is it'll most likely still be a problem in BF1 because we're still using the same engine and it was still around in Hardline.

Ana Amari is Overwatch's new hero.

I don't think they should nerf the 100% insta-heal when there is 100% dmg body shots. Thats the trade off. Take out the medic first. If they do any changes they could make the animation longer to revive. Everything is faster in this game... melee kills are damn near instantaneous. I saw that 2 hatchet hits from the front or size is a kill and it only takes 2 seconds to pull it off.
On another note, I saw the BAR on the leaked weapons list.... I'll be grinding support for that bad boy... screw the lewis gun everyone is gushing over. I have a feeling I'll be favoring a lot of John Browning's stuff in this game. 

Even though he didn't mention it I believe the landship (if not it's the heavy tank, I don't fully remember) spits out Ammo Boxes as well making both tanks carry secondary roles. The slide thing is cool but I doubt I'll ever use it. Meh, I'll stick to marksman scopes even with the glint. I probably wouldn't hit the broadside of a barn with a sharpshooter scope (plus I really don't like most of the current sights in the alpha, the magnified ones are the only ones I really like).
A lot of players are hoping they'll change the res mechanic to act similar to the defibs in BF4 (I know Matt and Level have mentioned it in videos). Who knows if it'll happen but I know some have called for it to be changed (then again a lot of people won't wait to have a medic res them since you can speed up you spawn time now hence why I haven't seen many people play medic while watching Matt and XFactor's streams).
About the only good SMG I've seen is the Automatica (or the Beretta M1918 as it's actually known, the one with the vertical mag). It has great hip fire accuracy and unlike the MP-18 it actually has great mid-range accuracy. I've seen Matt drop people at some pretty impressive distances with it. Still not as good as the SMG's we're used to from BF4 but it's probably the one you'll see a lot of people gravitate towards for close to mid-range combat (if they can get over the whole vertical magazine, that thing blocks so much of you're LOS that it's not funny).

Even though he didn't mention it I believe the landship (if not it's the heavy tank, I don't fully remember) spits out Ammo Boxes as well making both tanks carry secondary roles. The slide thing is cool but I doubt I'll ever use it. Meh, I'll stick to marksman scopes even with the glint. I probably wouldn't hit the broadside of a barn with a sharpshooter scope (plus I really don't like most of the current sights in the alpha, the magnified ones are the only ones I really like).
A lot of players are hoping they'll change the res mechanic to act similar to the defibs in BF4 (I know Matt and Level have mentioned it in videos). Who knows if it'll happen but I know some have called for it to be changed (then again a lot of people won't wait to have a medic res them since you can speed up you spawn time now hence why I haven't seen many people play medic while watching Matt and XFactor's streams).
About the only good SMG I've seen is the Automatica (or the Beretta M1918 as it's actually known, the one with the vertical mag). It has great hip fire accuracy and unlike the MP-18 it actually has great mid-range accuracy. I've seen Matt drop people at some pretty impressive distances with it. Still not as good as the SMG's we're used to from BF4 but it's probably the one you'll see a lot of people gravitate towards for close to mid-range combat (if they can get over the whole vertical magazine, that thing blocks so much of you're LOS that it's not funny).

$300-$350 isn't really that bad but then again when you're on a budget it can mean a lot more. Honestly though I never figured these would cost exactly what they said they would. MSRP's are rarely, if ever, followed to the tee. There's always a mark-up based on who you buy it from and how much they want to make off the sale.
The 1060 isn't really that bad of a card but for what little upgrade you get you're almost better going with the 480 for price alone (then again is it worth the headache that comes with dealing with AMD and their sub-par driver support). The only reason I'm going to go with the 1070 when I finally get around to it is because I already have that money budgeted (well I did, kinda dipped into that fund to pay bills now) and it's roughly the same price as the card my friend was originally going to put into my computer. I honestly don't care about 4k gaming but it's nice to have the option should I decide to do it (but that will be a long way down the road, 4k monitor prices are atrocious (and I want two monitors) and I'd probably have to switch out most of the parts for my computer to even run 4k games (it won't be high end, I went for middle of the road)).

Unless I'm actually viewing sites that are ad heavy I haven't really noticed mobile advertisements much (unless I'm playing a F2P game or surfing web sites that are known to have bad ad coverage, the main reason I don't visit wiki's on my phone (my god advertisements on wiki's are horrible)). Hell advertising is worse on computers then mobile (I can't go to any webpage, with the exception of a few, that don't pop-up a minimum of 5 ads anymore (thank you Adblock plus and Avast Online Security)). Maybe I'm just lucky but like I said I've never been overly burdened with mobile advertisements since I tend to stick away from ad heavy webpages and apps while using my phone.

$6 for DA: Inquisition is an amazing price, definitely worth picking up for that price (then again it's worth picking up for any price, I'm completely in love with the game (64 hours in and I'm only 2/3rds of the way through it). I wonder if it's the GotY edition though). $30 for Rainbow Six Siege is a damn good price as well (well worth it in my opinion but not everyone is into that sort of gameplay).
Man if I wasn't unemployed and had the money I'd be cleaning up. These prices are damn good (especially for Assassin's Creed Unity and Syndicate, yea I want to play them so I can get the whole Assassin's Creed experience (then again I still need to beat 4)).