Strider Hiryu

 That's awesome and certainly something I have yet to see in the streams I've watched.

Meh, after watching people stream it I'm not overly impressed with the game. Don't get me wrong it's beautiful (I love how all the planets look different and have different features, I especially love the mostly water based planets (they look so pretty)) but I agree with Matimi0 (he hasn't played it but has been watching others do so), it's all style and no substance. I love games built on the concept of exploring but I just don't like how it was handle here, it's like Minecraft but with less to do (or Terraria for that matter, a game I absolutely love due to the freedom it gives you). Don't get me wrong the game is absolutely a blast to watch someone else play, kind of like watching a Sci-Fi film/show. TeaWrex is absolutely hilarious to watch, he turns it into a whole chat experience (going so far as to treat his ship like a transport service, donning goggles and acting like a pilot. Fakes turbulence and everything). Plus inventory management drives me nuts, I already do it every day on FFXIV and that's infuriating enough. I'm also not happy that they pulled the multiplayer component from the game but I won't discuss the point, it's already being argued about everywhere on the net and honestly neither side has gained any footing.

I won't be picking this up but I'll continue to watch streamers play it as it's a fun experience, plus it adds a little spice into what I watch (I can only watch so much Overwatch, FF, and Destiny (yea I watch others play it, it's more entertaining then playing it). However I can watch Matt play R6S everyday). I might pick it up eventually but for right now it's not worth the price they put on it and honestly they need to add more to the game to get me more interested.

God do I hear you on the negatives. My god you can't go anywhere in the system without being jumped at least 5 times by pirates while heading to my destination and it's always against pirates that are way more powerful then you are (I'm really starting to hate Missile Corvettes, they shred my shields and armor like paper). This, by the way, is with everything being upgraded to Mk. II except my deflector and I'm also flying a light frigate (upgraded recently, now saving up for the standard frigate and then for the heavy frigate). Fuck I had the Militia attack me today just because I picked up a piece of illegal cargo (didn't even fire a shot at them, in fact I had just saved their asses from a pirate attack). I find it easy enough to distinguish between friend and foe as long as you use the pulse system, it flags all friendlies with a blue outline and all enemies with a red (though I have accidentally fired on a Militia ship, mostly because the bastard ran in front of my shot). I'm not anywhere near as far as you though Myk so some of them don't apply (I have yet to leave the first system (then again I'm no where close to being able to afford the jump jets), my plan is to leave it with the heavy frigate (which costs over a million credits) so I'm at least sitting at a decent ship with decent firepower (thus I'm taking my time, I've only just recently picked up the first reliquary for the A.I.)).

I've fashioned myself into a Space Trucker/Mercenary. I'll run supply runs between stations while also picking up the protect merchants/Distress Signals/fight off pirates missions (in fact I'm almost friendly with the militia). It certainly has proven to be the most profitable venture for me. Once I upgrade to the standard frigate I'll be placing a mining laser on it to do some prospecting (ore seems to sell relatively well) for more cash (with my current set up I can afford to place a mining laser on the frigate when I buy it as I have 3 pulse turrets on my light and they shred any lightly armored ships and do okay on anything medium and up so I can get buy with giving up a turret slot).

I'm the opposite, I rarely if ever follow any coverage a game might get (I honestly don't like VG247 anymore (I honestly don't like them anymore, they're to focused covering shit that doesn't matter. I could care less what Xur has on sale this week or what Ubisoft did to fuck the Division up more. Give me honest news about things that actually matter in the industry) and I've never liked Kotaku). Most, if not all of my interest in a game, is generated solely from trailers and ads (and of course the youtubers/streamers I follow (like Jack, Level, Matt, etc)).

As much as I don't want to admit it I don't even think coverage of any kind would of saved this game from its fate, Overwatch is sadly the go to Hero Shooter (I only say sadly because it has no competition as Paragon is more of a MOBA than a hero shooter) and that won't change until someone else develops one that can match it (which, lets face it, probably won't happen. Blizzard games rarely, if ever, have any real competition on the market. Starcraft 2 honestly has not opposition (there are plenty of RTS games out there but very few follow the old school format like it does and that's its main selling point (besides the millions of loyal SC fans who would of bought anything with the SC name on it)), there really isn't a good Action RPG out there that can compete with Diablo 3 (there are plenty of them out there but none of them satisfy that loot grinding itch like Diablo does), and WoW is still dominating the MMO market and will continue to do so until they pull the plug on it (no matter what anyone says there has yet to be an MMO as successful as WoW since it was released (at its high point it had 12 million active subscribers, I believe FFXIV is sitting at around 5 million at thats after 2 years (3 on the 27th of this month)). That's the one good thing about Blizzard, they're a developer that always releases a high quality product (even with the bugs) and very few developers can compete with that quality. As much as I've grown to dislike them more over the years I can't help but admit that they always release a quality product (even if I don't agree with their butchering of their own lore and universes (this is a topic for another discussion but I'm pretty sure my hatred for how they treat their franchises is well known)).

While launching so close to Overwatch did hurt it sales a lot of the blame can also be put on the marketing team behind Battleborn. The game had very little advertisement prior to it's release (hell I think I only ever saw one trailer for it after it was announced and they focused on advertising it in a medium that very few people even look at) which can seriously hinder a games chance at becoming big. It also doesn't help that the game, while it's a great game, doesn't have what makes Overwatch great. Yes it has great heroes and a great back story but it's maps are just kind of bland and the play style actually promotes solo play where as Overwatch's maps are great (if not a little tedious sometimes), the characters are awesome (and extremely well balanced), if you actually dig around and watch the story cinematics it has a great back story, and the game actually promotes and down right enforces the need to play as a team (something that most FPS games lack).

Titanfall 2 is going to have a rough launch and that's extremely disappointing, especially for someone like me who never got to play the original and is really looking forward to playing it. EA really set up Respawn to fail with the launch window it gave them. Titanfall 2 will still sell well and do great but it's just going to be hard to get gamers off the BF1 hype train. Honestly if it was so important to release Titanfall 2 this year they should of shot for a July/August release or pushed it back to come out around Christmas (the July/August mark probably wasn't feasible since I'm sure the game is still in Alpha testing with a beta test window coming up here shortly (if it's not already live)). This would give gamers a few months with BF1 and allow them to transition into a completely different FPS, something I'm sure a lot of us would welcome since I'm pretty sure we'll all pretty much be playing BF1 every chance we get from launch. Plus another thing that will probably hurt it is all the talk about it not feeling like a new game and feeling exactly like the original Titanfall (almost every streamer I watch or follow on youtube has said the game almost feels like a re-release of Titanfall (MP wise)). This isn't necessarily a bad thing, look at COD, but most gamers don't want to hear this (especially since it'll bring up the same concerns that plagued the original, like lack of maps/game modes/etc).

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.

Ana is another that would benefit from a mouse and keyboard, what little console gameplay I've seen of her is rather blah compared to PC play of her (then again console players don't seem to understand how to play her so that could be the major reason). Genji and Widow would be the two that would benefit the most from using this kind of set up on console as both are rather difficult to play with a controller (I was pretty good with Genji in the beta but I'll admit he's a bitch to use with a controller). McCree isn't really that hard to master with a controller but it does require you to get used to playing at higher sensitivity settings (imo at least, at my normal settings it's hard to play him effectively).

I wouldn't go so far as to consider what they're doing cheating and more just exploiting an already in place set of mechanics/controls (though that exploiting is using a third party system to do so). It's really no different then using those 3rd party controller from the old days (you know with their Turbo buttons and what not). I'd still be infuriated as all hell to run against someone doing this though as it takes the fun out of the game for those you're playing against. Then again gamers are some of the most self-important and egotistical sub-group around. You know Blizzard will find a way to patch out the functionality or Sony/Microsoft will do it themselves.

You know it'll be a support gadget, there's no way they'd take it away from support (especially considering how underwhelming support is in this game (from what I've seen from closed alpha, support players were slim to none is almost every game Matt played)). Plus honestly making it a battle pick-up is kind of retarded. Undervalued? What game were you playing? My god the mortar spam in 4 made me hate the gadget with a passion (I only used it to get the RPK unlock assignment done). God you can't take a step outside on a Locker match without getting bombarded by 5 different mortars. Mortars are the main reason I don't play Locker servers anymore (and Locker is one of my favorite maps from BF4) and stick to Metro servers (thank god Metro Conquest is in a subway, I can only imagine how bad the mortar spam is on the Rush variant).

My question is will the anti-armor rifle be a battle pick-up or not. I'd really like to get my hands on it but if it's as good as it looks it's going to be extremely hard to get it if it's a battle pick-up (like the railgun in BF4, you'd have a better chance of finding gold at the end of a rainbow then you would finding the railgun (and I say this knowing where it spawns on all Final Stand maps)).

The only real reason to buy the Neo when it releases is for VR gaming as it seems that's the main reason it's being developed outside of 4K gaming (something about the current PS4 not being powerful enough to run the Morpheus or something like that (I know the current model can run the headset but I don't think it will do it entirely well). Again not entirely sure, I read up on it back when the Neo was leaked but that was awhile ago). That's the main reason the Scorpio is being made as well, both Microsoft and Sony are going to start pushing VR into the forefront now.

Honestly this is what we get to look forward to now with every new generation of consoles. It's to the point now where they might as well stop making consoles and just start selling pre-made boxes like Valve is doing with their Steam box and just allow us to part swap every few years when we need to instead of giving us a new console every few years because they found a way to make it slightly more powerful.

This is starting to feel like it did when I finally caved in and started buying Blu-Ray over DVD (I had a hard time making the switch as I didn't see the point, DVD quality was just fine imo), man I'm starting to feel like a grumpy old man who longs for the old days when things made sense and I only bought one thing that lasted for 10+ years.

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.

7 hours ago, DeathscytheX said:

For support, sadly Ana is too popular because of her newness. Lucio remains the most popular legitimate healer, while Symmetra is the least popular character in the entire game on console. I mean, why is she even a support with her lousy 25 shield buff, no healing, and turrets that were nerfed for no sensible reason? They got the same 30% buff Torb's did. But her turrets are as fragile as glass. Winston can melt them all with his gun easily. I heard she was way too strong in alpha/closed beta, but damn they neutered her. She should be swapped to defense and get some reworks. Her teleported ult is useful on defense, but outside of that shes not fun to play. Turrets suck, her secondary fire is ass, I mean, you have to really blow or get caught completely by surprised to get hit by it. And her primary fire range is terrible.

While Symettra's pick rate isn't really that high I've seen her used quite a bit on PC (again another way of showing how different the meta is on console compared to PC). In the right hands she's a monster (especially when buffed by Ana, I don't know why you'd ever buff her but it does turn her into a monster) and if the player knows how to place her turrets correctly they can be devastating. Her main reason for being chosen on PC though is for her Teleporter so you really only see her utilized on certain maps where having it is extremely beneficial to the team and it doesn't take away from the team comp.

Again its sad to hear that nobody on console knows how to use Ana effectively. Her abilities alone make her a great support character but only if you use them correctly and use her as she supposed to be used. Then again, as you said, it seems console players are a lot more casual then PC players (this is far from a bad thing but it also means heroes aren't being used correctly). It just boggles my mind how different one game can be between platforms. Take McCree for instance, he's not a widely picked hero on PC. Sure you'll see a few here and there but since his nerf only those that are extremely good with him will even play him. I've never seen this happen with any other game before and I'm honestly surprised its a Blizzard game doing this. It just goes to show how good they are at making games.

1 hour ago, DeathscytheX said:

Ana sucks, and it sucks that everyone wants to play her. Her ROF paired with her low damage makes her just bad. she doesn't heal very much per shot, and the biotic boost doesn't last long enough to really do anything. The sleep dart is the only thing she has going for her. If shes the only healer on your team, or even on your team to begin with, you might as well be 5v6. They should scale her damage vs. tanks or something, because unlike widow, she doesnt get rapid fire up close, its the same bolt action.

Hmm, this must be a console thing. She's a freaking beast on PC (go watch some of Matt's videos, he's a fucking machine with her) because her grenade is hard to contend with (healing boost plus a big heal) and her ultimate make anyone she puts it on into a monster (good god the wreckage I've seen XFactor do as Roadhog when Matt alts him, it's amazing). I do understand that it takes a damn good player who understands her to make her this way but I've seen mediocre players wreck with her on PC. It saddens me if she really is this bad on console because I was really looking to get my hands on her when I finally get the game (no matter what she seems to be what I'm looking for in a hero, I love Mercy I really do but I've wanted a healer that plays almost exactly like Ana (though not with the sniper rifle twist)). I think a lot of people also need to understand that shes not a primary healer, she's a support healer made to back up Mercy and Lucio. She was never meant to be the primary healer of the team and I'm wondering if that's not why she seems underwhelming on console. They also need to realize shes not a pure dps class either, she'll never hit as hard as Widowmaker due to her being support. She's meant to harass the enemy with her grenade and to knock off pop shots when she's not healing her allies. Of course I'm basing this all off of what I've seen since I haven't actually gotten the chance to get my hands on her (nor will I until I get the money to buy the game)

1 hour ago, DeathscytheX said:

Zenyatta, holy crap hes a beast now. Having 200HP makes a world of difference. 150 of it being shield, it slowly comes back if you get to somewhere safe. They toned down his primary attack slightly, but its hardly noticeable. I think he is in a great spot right now. The discord orb is such a asset vs Winston, Roadhog, and D.Va.

He definitely got a massive buff even if it might not seem so based on what was actually done. I've seen Matt go completely ham with Zenyatta (I've seen him solo a Reinhardt and a Roadhog at the same time, was glorious). I'm really happy to see that he finally got some recognition for Blizzard because in beta he was just so weak.

1 hour ago, DeathscytheX said:

D.VA is a f'n monster now. I love this for my favorite tank. Her defense matrix's 10 second cool down is now toggled and recharges off a 1 sec CD. This makes her survivablility skyrocket, when before it was trash compared to other tanks. Her ult is more useful now that you don't die from it and its a second faster. I'm so happy they gave her some love because shes way more competitive now, and people pick her more often. She doesn't have Rienhardt's blocking ability, but you can get up in Phara/McCree/Roadhog's face and absorb all of their ult.

I'm happy to see this as well. I've been noticing while watching PC matches that D.Va is probably the number 1 picked tank outside of Roadhog. I loved her in the beta but she was just to difficult to use and it seemed like she was wearing paper armor in her mech compared to Reinhardt and Roadhog.

On the other points nobody really uses Torb on PC so I didn't even know he got a nerf (he wasn't being used well before this update). Mercy did need that Res nerf, she was completely broken in beta considering how fast it took to charge it (she'd still be my first pick if I had to heal, her heal is still the best single target heal). Lucio becoming the main healer isn't a surprise as he's the most mobile healer and in comp mode you need a mobile healer. Plus it's hard to pass up a healer who's ult shields everyone (the best counter ult to quite a few hero ults).

Nice plays by the way (especially that D.Va one).

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.

This is basically what the black 360 was, a slimmed down version with some new hardware and a bigger hdd (though you pay out you're ass for that bigger hdd, $400 is not worth a 2TB hdd imo since the Xbone should of come standard with at least a 1TB). The Scorpio, as its called, is the 4K gaming one which will release sometime next year (most likely around this time). Honestly I don't see a point in even getting one unless you've blown the money on a 4K TV (which not many even own one).

The Neo, the 4K PS4, is supposed to come out next year I believe and it's only slightly more powerful then what we already have (there really hasn't been much mentioned on specs, there's some talk but what has been mentioned might change in the next few months). There were rumors of a slim version of the PS4 but I haven't seen an concrete proof that Sony is developing one (honestly the PS4 is small as is (its as small as the 360 Slim), I wouldn't dare shrink that down anymore for fear of overheating issues).

Honestly I don't see why we need another iteration of the PS4 (or the Xbone for that matter). I have no problems with mine (except for random system errors but that's on the software side not the hardware, the last few O/S updates haven't gone over so well with my PS4) and honestly the games look damn good in their current form. I have no want to play games in 4K because I can't afford to go out and buy a $1000+ TV (nor would I for gaming, it's a waste of money for a hobby (and no cable companies offer 4K channels (that I know of, I could be wrong)) plus its only a matter of time before we get the next, best resolution that will cause another iteration of a system that doesn't need to be upgraded. As much as I hate to say it maybe Nintendo does have the right idea by turning their next console into a hybrid, why try and compete with two companies who have their heads up their asses creating things we don't need and capitalize on what we already do well (handhelds).

I'd like to say switching to PC would be a great choice now but I'm seeing the same trend there as well (what with the release of the new GTX and Radeon cards). Before long its going to be more cost effective to play games on you're phone then it is anywhere else.

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.

39 minutes ago, Sledgstone said:

If the screen is the normal size of a cell phone and its meant to run games all the time, I wonder how hot the thing will get and if it'll need to be recharged every 2 hours.

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.

It's not surprising considering the game is pretty much dead now. The entire single player aspect of the game is able to be done solo you'll just need to pick the right hero for you to do it (don't do it with Thorn, the amount of skill required to use her is nuts), the difficulty is based on the amount of people you do the mission with.

The only game besides Battleborn I'd want is Spec Ops: The Line (I already own Civ 5 and Mafia 2 (definitely worth getting, I loved every minute of it), the only other two games worth getting (not a Borderlands fan)).

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.

4 hours ago, Sledgstone said:

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.

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)).

30 minutes ago, Sledgstone said:

I've said this before but I still think the consoles will eventually die off and turn into streaming only services once bandwidth and controller latency issues eventually get improved. Playstation 7 will probably be the equivalent of a roku stick with a controller. That way we'll never have to upgrade a console again. They'll just upgrade their servers that run all the games and there will always be PC quality graphics. And once that becomes a thing all the PC games will turn into streaming only services too. Even tho everyone's PCs could run the games themselves the game companies will become streaming only to stop pirating games once and for all. Sure there will be countries or locations with crap internet still, but by the time Playstation 7 is coming out the wireless networks could be so advanced we could use it's internet connection instead of having any more landlines. Then again I could be predicting something that will never happen like all those people back in the 40s thought we'd have flying cars by now.

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).

39 minutes ago, Sledgstone said:

I wouldn't worry too much about Nintendo leaving the console market. As long as there are at least 2 companies there will always be good competition. Its the same with mobile phone / tablet gaming now. Theres only Android and iOS with windows phone in a small niche of the market just like for consoles theres only Playstation and Xbox with nintendo in a small niche of the market. Steam OS might eventually become something more main stream if game companies actually start making their games for linux.

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).

56 minutes ago, Sledgstone said:

Back to Pokemon Go.. the fact that this game became this popular and made as much money as it has already is a bit concerning. Game developers see games like this and think "More Social = More Money" Every game is slowly becoming online only, connected to online servers 24/7 and requires everyone to interact with everyone else. The good days of single player AAA campaign games are slowly coming to an end. Why would a company want to develop AAA solo campaign games that will be hacked within a week or 2 of release and torrented to everyone for free, when those same companies can put that development money into a mobile game with some of the strongest DRM ever (online only server connection required, free download, microtransactions, etc.) and get full profit. The only other way to counter that is to make AAA games like Overwatch that also requires a constant online connection to servers. Almost every solo campaign game has an online multiplayer now as an incentive for people to actually buy the game if they pirated it.

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)).

The option for being placed on a team based on skill has been in the game since I believe the Final Stand DLC (if not it came in shortly after). Due to my skill rating (which dropped 10 points the other day because my team got steamrolled and I wasn't at the top of my game) I'm constantly placed on the loosing side and I honestly have no complaints. Why? I'm a master medic and I wrack in shit tons of points because I'm that guy running around the map reviving dead teammates, dropping medkits, and wiping the floor with enemies trying to kill those under my watch (plus I have completely fallen in love with the M416, that gun is amazing). I think every match I've played over the last week I've walked out with at least one Medkit Medal (I average 40 Medkit ribbons a match, it's nuts). Of course this only works since I play 400% ticket Metro servers so the game is pretty much a bottleneck at the B flag so the battlefield doesn't really change much (unless you are with or against a team that's good at getting players across the battle line and ninja capping the other teams gimme flag) and I think I'm generally the most loved squad mate when I play, I constantly see thank you's popping up left and right every time I rez or heal someone and, as I said before, I'm consistently the top medic (and now that I'm back into the groove of things I usually in the top 10 based on points alone (I average about 20 kills a match but who cares, it's all about those free heal and res points baby)).

11 hours ago, DeathscytheX said:

Because people care about their W/L ratio too much It even happens in Overwatch... People leave after 1 loss. Generally the winning team stays together and keeps wiping the floor with the team that keeps getting reshuffled with new people... sometimes someone on the winning team will get swapped over, and they'll leave before the match starts. Except for me.... I'll get in on a good pub, win 1-2 time and then get put on the other team and lose 5 straight... Or 1 person will leave causing the server to determine that there isn't "enough players" and it will queue without starting a match until it gives up and reinstances you. It happens on every competitive game ever, and its really stupid.

Shit, I saw this all the time during the beta. It's honestly sickening that people get that worked up about their W/L ratio. It's just a freaking number, grow up already. I always stay in matches whether I'm loosing or not because it's not fair to the others playing when you get all pissy and leave because you lost a match. Honestly, by what I've seen, you don't really lose that much when you loose a competitive round if you're fighting people around the same rank (I don't know how severe it is if you loose to a team better ranked then you or vice versa) so it's not like you're really loosing that much. Then again I guess I'm just not a hardcore gamer anymore (I was a diehard K/D nut in MW2, if my K/D was below a 1.0 I would rage (you could ask my old roommate, it was bad). Luckily I grew out of that when I stopped taking the game seriously and started the Rocket Launcher/RPG suicide loadout (oh the fun I had with that)) since I don't take shit like this seriously anymore. Does it get frustrating to lose? Yes but that doesn't mean you need to act like a child and rage quit when you do. It's just a game, man up and put your big boy panties on.

Competitive mode is all that is streamed now (it's rare to find someone who streams quickplay matches), everyone wants those gold weapon skins (plus competitive actually forces people to play as a team which is what a lot of people wanted from the get go). Honestly the gameplay is boring to watch if you're not playing it which is why I skip Matimi0's stream if he's playing Overwatch now, I'd rather watch someone socially eat over watching Overwatch (yea social eating is now a Twitch category, completely retarded if you ask me). I'm really hoping Ana does change up the Meta to make watching matches enjoyable again.

Based on information I gathered from Matt's stream last night one of his viewers were saying that Ana is pretty weak atm. I can't confirm or deny this since, like I said, Matt hasn't been streaming Overwatch but it seems she suffers in the dps department (something about her not getting any damage bonus for headshots making her extremely weak compared to Widowmaker). It seems I was right when I said she'd be the off-healer of the group as her heal isn't that powerful which would make for a bad team comp without another healer. She's pretty much Zenyatta without the massive amount of damage he can do. This is PTR though so I'm sure they'll iron out her deficiencies before she's released on the live servers (if the thing about headshots is true she needs to be buffed in that department, give her half the bonus Widowmaker gets to even it out since she is still a support character).

After having watched he backstory video and the gameplay one earlier today I so want Overwatch now. This is exactly my type of Support character. She can heal from range, buff allies/debuff enemies, put enemies to sleep, her ult is a massive buff, and she can actually be useful in a fight (I'm sorry Mercy, I love you to death but you're shit in a fight). I can honestly say if she was in the game from the start I would of bought this day 1. I wonder how quickly she'll be adopted into Competitive though since it seems everyone likes to have Mercy or Lucio in the group. If anything you're probably going to see more healer stacking with teams running either a Mercy/Ana or Lucio/Ana set-up since you won't really loose any dps since Ana can pretty much play both rolls and would be more of the back-up healer. I really can't wait to see how she'll change up the Meta (as sick as I am of watching Overwatch streams I'll be glued to them once she's actually released just to learn how good she actually is).

1 hour ago, DeathscytheX said:

if there is a setting to make it endless until someone is victorious by winning on the map that advances past the middle map, you could have 5-6 hour battles. XD.

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.