sweetbrother Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) Whether you think DLC is fine and see nothing wrong with day one DLC. Or maybe you think an expansion pack a month down the line seems more reasonable....but where is the line drawn? And how far do you think this idea should be pushed? After seeing the back fire Evolve had with its questionable DLC: http://i.imgur.com/e5ZFn03.jpg RE Revelations 2 to have checkpoint micro-transactionshttp://n4g.com/news/1661273/report-re... Evolve lets Xbox players skip grinding with $60 pre-purchase http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoi... Life crystals can be obtained through gameplay or through real world moneyhttp://www.gamespot.com/articles/resi... Need for speed no limits to charge for gas (LOL) http://www.androidpolice.com/2015/01/26/ea-will-charge-gas-need-speed-no-limits-ongoing-effort-make-games-mundane-annoying-real-life/ All optional of course I was annoyed when Rockstar announced gta online to have micro-transactions. Because I know how influential Grand theft Auto is to the industry. Because they're sitting at the top and made the highest grossing game of all time with GTA V - other publishers are going to look at them, and start getting their own ideas about in-game money. The way its going it seems like by 2017 we'll have to pay for pushing the off button on the console. Imagine Super Mario coin blocks being replaced by a toad shop where you buy coins for $2.99 But can we ever stop this? And how? Or do you not care about the future of games particularly? Edited February 16, 2015 by sweetbrother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarlitoDorito Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) I'm not sure there is a way of stopping it, games are selling hats for real money. Hats! I guess if nobody in the whole world buys them, then it might stop. Unfortunately people do buy things, shark cards, extra camo for COD, things for mobile games especially, FarmVille makes millions from people buying in game money. Edited February 16, 2015 by CarlitoDorito Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feckyerlife Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 it would take a majority boycott on a popular or upcoming over hyped game. honestly all you would need to do is boycott one game, the studios/developers of other companies would see the backlash and and the loss of money and change course. but the issue is....getting the majority to boycott the game. Niobium and Wastelander (Suzuki) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
esmittystud101 Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I just don't think it will ever stop now. Unless congress somehow can find and overturn laws prohibiting developers and Xbox Live/PSN from releasing and charging for it in the first place. I think they tried that a few years ago but I don't know whatever happened with it. For me, I can pretty much say that any decent game coming out now will have some sort of DLC later on for it. So for any COD I know coming out, I'm going to have a $50 extra price tag with it if I want the season pass. Other games are ranging from $20-$30 for season passes. So basically, when a game is released and you want all/most of the bells and whisles, its going to cost you atleast $80-$120 a pop. Yes, this sucks. No I wish it wasn't like this. On another note, I really look forward to DLC for a game after release. I don't like paying for it extra, but I do enjoy when DLC releases them. For instance: I haven't played COD AW in a while. When the new maps come out I will start playing it again. If it wan't for that DLC, I'm probably not even playing that game again. Thats just one example. GTAV, when Online Heists are finally released, I will play the game again. Until then, nothing. Sitting in the stand collecting dust. Same for almost every game I own now. I know Developers/Xbox Live/PSN does want the extra cash. This we all know. But I think when it first started coming about, developers just wanted us to pick up that dusty game again...............and then the wine started to flow. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Developers: "You mean we can get them to pick up that dusty game, five months after release, and charge them for it?" "Where do I sign?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B Dawg Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I'm not sure there is a way of stopping it, games are selling hats for real money. Hats! I guess if nobody in the whole world buys them, then it might stop. Unfortunately people do buy things, shark cards, extra camo for COD, things for mobile games especially, FarmVille makes millions from people buying in game money. Well, TF2 has the best micro-transactions system known to date. Every weapon/map/game mode is playable without having to buy it, there is not a single pay2win feature. Anything cosmetic DLC is welcome in my opinion to an extent, milk out the idiots without ruining gameplay and using said money to give out free content. Niobium 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eurotrash Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 We do, but we'll never use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoleInTheSky Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 We've always had the power, it's the sense that's lacking. I can't blame the companies for this, well to a point I can for continuing this practice/scam, but it only works because people fall into the same trap, every time. Overpriced "DLC" is the industry's trump card. Niobium 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johan Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Of course we have the power, we're the customers after all.. only issue is that those against DLCs won't affect companies much unless you all get together and hurt them with what hurts them the most, your wallets. Though you'll need more than just that group which makes it seem almost impossible.. but never say never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyBelic Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 The only way to stop it would be to silence the 12 year olds that always buy DLC. Now I don't really want to do that so no I do not think we do have the power to stop it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedDagger Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 The only people you could really affect is those on site like these, discussing games like we do. The average consumer for these games doesn't do that - and to them, DLC is fine. That's why it's so prevalent. And although the sentiment against DLC is increasing, I don't think there's really anything 'we' can do to make it happen soon - it's going to take game companies becoming sh*ttier, consumers becoming wiser, or both - but right now, there's enough people willing to pay for banal things that there's no reason for them to stop. However, I disagree with saying that GTA V is having a negative influence - the microtransactions aren't necessary at all, and they're not overpowered, so to say. They're also releasing free DLC, which according to Rockstar is paid for by the shark cards. Is that not a good thing? That's the kind of microtransactions that don't negatively affect gameplay - as in B Dawg's example, TF2 has no necessary payments, a ton of items to buy, and free large updates, and this is regarded as one of, if not the, best F2P models out there. Another example is Mass Effect 3, with its packs - again, not hindering the gameplay for everyone else. At the very least, the industry could start moving to more consumer-friendly models like in the games above - and with the positive feedback the games get for the models, this seems fairly likely. MikeyBelic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetbrother Posted February 16, 2015 Author Share Posted February 16, 2015 Gta V The whole free "dlc" is paid for by having shark card is BS. They actually claimed its because they didnt want to spilt the player base if it was paid dlc. The only way it seems fair to me for a game to sell $8 million game cash for $90 is if - gta online was a free download, seperate from single player. That seems fair, you could spend from $5 to $90 and still enjoy the game how you like. They already made $2 billion from selling the game why do they need to add micro money on top of that? Congrats to them but $ billions is way more than a game should make to not make Gta online a free download. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nath22 Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) Gta V The whole free "dlc" is paid for by having shark card is BS. They actually claimed its because they didnt want to spilt the player base if it was paid dlc. The only way it seems fair to me for a game to sell $8 million game cash for $90 is if - gta online was a free download, seperate from single player. That seems fair, you could spend from $5 to $90 and still enjoy the game how you like. They already made $2 billion from selling the game why do they need to add micro money on top of that? Congrats to them but $ billions is way more than a game should make to not make Gta online a free download. It's easy enough to make money so it's not that big of a deal, compare that to other games and Rockstar have done a good job with transactions even if the cards are over priced.It would be nice if micro transactions weren't a thing but they're here to stay, i'm all for the GTA model. If they were to really nerf mission payouts and give you the option of playing for 2000 hours or buying cards it would be an issue but right now I can live with it. GTA Online being a free download? Are you serious? Edited February 16, 2015 by nath22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Tomato Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I think the best first approach would be to get a scare campaign kind of thing going, write an over dramatic article, aimed at naive parents and in dumdum terms explain that buying dlc is just completing an unfinished game, you already payed full price for, but at your expense, costs you money, for sh*t the original game should've had. Money. But really shouldn't there be some govern on how much game companies can profit, in contrast to how much goes back into producing quality content. Don't get me wrong I think we are seeing some great games coming out, but I really do feel that we could have even better ones with a little less un warranted greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tchuck Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I enjoy DLCs. When done correctly, they can add awesome extra content and expand the game I enjoy. Case in point: Fallout 3, New Vegas and Mass Effect series. Those are akin to the good old days "Expansion Packs". And like anything in life, when done poorly, it is horrible, and I'll refrain from buying it, like those freemium games that require you to either grind sh*t or pay to skip. But let's look at game development. You don't need everyone's time for the whole of development. Artists are brought onboard a bit later than programmers; designers tend to have their workload reduced after a starting phase of development; producers tend to just watch over things and their role gets progressively more active as things are reaching final. In large studios, you can move idle devs to other projects. In other studios, you'll either have to keep them on without them doing anything, or just straight out let them go and bring them on again when needed. DLCs tend to be a solution to this issue, and as the project develops and devs are freed up, they are sent to the development of extra content for the game, ensuring that the game gets extra love, that these devs keep their job working on the game, and that fans have extra things to enjoy from the game. In many cases, also, the vision of the game is too large, and the time for development can be affected by many things, so it makes sense to cut things out in order to focus on the game, and maybe release those things later as dlc to expand the game. And then you have day one DLCs, where things are cut and split on purpose to milk the customer off. In any case, you can't stop DLC. it's proving profitable for the companies and can also be an awesome way to expand gameplay, just like it can be an attempt at money grabbing. I loved how Nintendo added DLC for Mario Kart 6 and 12 months after release, adding about a quarter of the game to each release at the price of 6 bucks (I think, conversion might be off), which means half the game as extra content for 12 bucks. I hated how Bioware took Javik out of ME3 to sell it as extra content. And I don't care for skins and hats that people can pay with real money, as they don't change the gameplay. RedDagger and Coin 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osho Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Yes. Don't buy. No one is forcing you to pay anything. There's a choice and, hence, DLCs are optional. If you are like me then stick with quality single-player experiences which are plenty to choose right from small, to indie and independent developers on Kickstarter. If you feel the urge to play online then try to resist it. Micro transactions are the future and its going to stay as long as there are people willing to blow cash for making their multiplayer experiences fun and easy with their friends than grinding for hours which isn't exactly why they moved on from single-player to MMO worlds, and to them theres nothing wrong. Its actually quite normal. No matter how much you scream, shout, and cry like it really affects them? No. The company catering to their needs are also simply doing what they see as an opportunity to make profits out of these, and they won't stop this practice. I know there are certainly some very obvious elements that puts you off a bit, but rather wasting time over them I'd suggest to think about changing yourselves and look for better quality SP games to play. Try to pledge on Kickstarter towards a project and help in bringing creative single-player experiences to life for every dollar you put while getting huge satisfaction in return. Niobium 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daz Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Ugh, don't get me started on GTAV. I will try and keep that as brief as possible. Regardless of if they are giving the packs out for free or not, the entire design of the online multiplayer is designed in a way so that you can easily lose money for not even spending it. In the early days testing the whole wallet and ATM setup of having to drop off cash to deposit it or lose it to another player. The whole bullsh*t deal of having to spend insane amounts of money just to buy ammo for a mission that would barely cover the costs of that. Vehicles that if you were to spend real money to buy would equal $20 for just one aircraft. It is f*cking bullsh*t, and it ruins the enjoyment of the game because it is always out to get you and get you out of pocket. One accidental curb launch could leave you $12,500 out of pocket because you landed your adder in a stream. It is complete and utter bullsh*ttery. Besides, the whole "we didn't want to split the fan base up" is complete nonsense. They literally wouldn't be able to release DLC unless everyone had the files anyway. They could have just did what any other co-op game does and give you a free patch that has all the content so you can view it. Sure it makes sense with maps but they are trying to push the shark cards so hard it opens that up to more people if everyone could buy the new stuff. The bottom line is microtransactions should NEVER have any effect on gameplay. Only cosmetic changes. Because what we end up with is a game designed around the fact its trying to rob you and entice you to spend money, and that is harmful to the game experience. The only game I ever spent money on microtransactions was Defiance, because it was just simple outfits or vehicles that made no difference, they never made you feel you had an advantage, it was just gear to make your character more personal to yourself. And I was more than happy to spend money on what I wanted. I WILL NOT however spend money just to be able to play the game I just spent full price on. As for DLC, if it is already planned and being worked on before the game is even out then it is a bullsh*t scam. I know developers need to plan ahead and make sure they have stuff sorted, but when a game like GTAV or BF4 started off with so many damn bugs and issues and they have no doubt had DLC already completed, it is f*cking bullsh*t to charge us for any of it. That Dodo/Skimmer was in the first god damn GTAV trailer. Unless it was severely broken they were just holding it for DLC. This happens a lot. The best DLC is stuff like Fallout 3 and NV had, a whole expansion onto the existing game world, adding more content that extends the experience. I don't want a 2 hour story mission extension that offers nothing to the gameplay once it is completed. Especially if it is coming out a year after I already stopped playing the game. Often DLC packs used to be given to us for f*cking free. GRAW2 had 2 massive map packs, 10 maps for free, Vegas 2 had 4 maps free. Bad Company 1 and 2 had maps added for free. Battlefield 3 and 4 charge you the cost of the full retail game just to get maps we already had on games 10 years ago that aren't even as good. Even Minecraft doesn't charge you for updates, it just adds new content all the time, and never asks for anything, aside from skin packs which are optional. I think that is the best way to go about it. Get people to actually want to play your game longer, the more people on it the more will buy skin packs and cosmetic dlc. What they are effectively trying to do is circumvent subscription based games. TES: Online failed at that and they know people won't pay monthly just to play what they already own, it just won't happen. So they try to get us by getting us buying season passes, which are a f*cking joke. Never pay for anything before you actually see the final product. That is a scam in itself, they don't care, they already have your money. Developers need to go back to a simple 1 or 2 DLC per game, but make those DLC's at least half the size of the original game. Make it worthwhile. The whole thing just pisses me off. I am sick of paying for utter sh*te, so I just don't do it anymore. It never offers anything of the quality that Fallout did. /rant-megapost Edited February 17, 2015 by Daz Abel. and D9fred95 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyBelic Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I will be parking a "repair your an0os" van outside of the Rockstar offices tomorrow after that Daz. Daz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daz Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 What Destiny and GTAV have in common is that they have this high priority over keeping content away from the player. Because they think if we get even a moderate amount of decent loot and content we would have everything and get bored and not play. That might be the case for some people, but they would be more likely to get bored by being denied loot and content than being bored for having loads of it. Even if that was the case they would only be bored and stop playing because their game is empty and lacking of decent replayable content, that is why it is all held back. As soon as we get all the gear we realize the game was actually boring and tedious and there isn't enough content replayability. sweetbrother 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMcSame Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Speak with your wallet. Don't buy DLCs unless you know they're good and don't pre order unless you want any physical items that may come with it but you don't care if you receive a sh*tty, unfinished game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theodore93 Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) I don't have time to read all the posts at the moment so I may be repeating what others have said and I'm trying to keep this brief. Firstly, DLC is a great idea, in theory. I love the idea of devs continuing to support and add to their games further down the line. Unfortunately it's been f*cked up beyond any sort of redemption. As far as I'm concerned, there should absolutely not be any "Day 1 DLC". There shouldn't even be Day 14 dlc. No dlc should be released for at the very least a month after game launch. Even if they are working on DLC before the game's launch, they should keep their mouths shut. I rarely buy dlc and the only ones I do buy are substantial expansions akin to the kind you would actually get on disc in the shops for PC back in the day. I'd like to see more of that kind of thing. I don't mind if they want to sell skins and maps etc, but they should be priced appropriately and they should come down on price as time goes by - what is this nonsense where DLC for a game that came out four years ago is still the same price today? Furthermore: Microtransactions - Unacceptable, has to go. Pre-order DLC - Unacceptable. Especially retailer specific dlc, that's possibly the worst. Special / Limited edition DLC - Unacceptable. A nice book, a hat, model whatever is fine but holding back game content for certain versions? Not cool. As to the actual question, can we stop it? Sadly, I don't think so. I really wish we could but I just don't see how. I do my bit and vote with my wallet and try to advise my friends and family to be just as careful but that'll never be enough. Way I see it, for every hundred of us "intelligent" folk who know bullsh*t when we smell it, there'll be million retarded consumers out there who are just ready to lap up whatever sh*t is thrown at them. Malibu Stacy and her new f*cking hat. We, the consumers brought this on ourselves. The publishers know that they can keep abusing us and we'll just smile and take it. Edited February 18, 2015 by Waldie Abel. and Daz 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetbrother Posted February 17, 2015 Author Share Posted February 17, 2015 Gta V The whole free "dlc" is paid for by having shark card is BS. They actually claimed its because they didnt want to spilt the player base if it was paid dlc. The only way it seems fair to me for a game to sell $8 million game cash for $90 is if - gta online was a free download, seperate from single player. That seems fair, you could spend from $5 to $90 and still enjoy the game how you like. They already made $2 billion from selling the game why do they need to add micro money on top of that? Congrats to them but $ billions is way more than a game should make to not make Gta online a free download. It's easy enough to make money so it's not that big of a deal, compare that to other games and Rockstar have done a good job with transactions even if the cards are over priced.It would be nice if micro transactions weren't a thing but they're here to stay, i'm all for the GTA model. If they were to really nerf mission payouts and give you the option of playing for 2000 hours or buying cards it would be an issue but right now I can live with it. GTA Online being a free download? Are you serious? FYI this thread is not for discussing in depth how to make easy money in gta online. You can take that talk to the online section of the forum. This thread is on the bigger spectrum of things, whether you think its not a big deal or not. I'm thinking more on the lines of GTA V having micro-transactions today could mean an $90 pre-order to skip to level 100 for GTA 6. These things in the articles I posted in the OP are happening, its a fact. Of course gta online should go free to download! That part of the game is no different from all these other freemium type games. What difference would it make if it was? How do you expect it to be implemented with GTA 6? DC universe online went free to play after selling discs with subscription flopped / Uncharted 3 multiplayer went free to play. It actually makes sense and would generate them more money. To not see that is plain ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Creed Bratton Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Of course I have the power. I simply refuse to buy their games until they hit the Steam sale with all the content. I will not pay full price for what I consider to be less than half the product. But I will pay $5 for the full product 6 months later. Sometimes a year. Who's loss is that? I'm not desperate for entertainment. And even if video games were my only source of entertainment, there are plenty of video games that don't try to nickle and dime me on every turn. People started pre-ordering DLC. DLC for f*ck sake! It's a digital piece of content. It's not going anywhere. Wait a while to see if it's any good before you throw your money at something that might be sh*t you ignorant saps. Edited February 17, 2015 by The Yokel Daz and Abel. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X S Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 DLC's may be optional, but some are required to enjoy the full experience. For example, map packs for Call of Duty. If one friend doesn't have the map packs, you're limited to the standard maps and can't play in the same lobbies, or your friends gripe at you and tell you to buy the packs so they can play there's. Yes, the market dictates these things, but what these DLC's are essentially saying is, "For the full experience, you may be obligated to buy the DLC." Stupid people will be stupid, and if they continue to buy DLC, there's not much you and I can do about it. The most you can do is protest with your wallet. sweetbrother 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mista J Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 We're too far gone. $60 games have micro transactions ffs. Casuals don't care, we, the more "interested" group (don't want to say hardcore) are in charge of our own destiny here. sweetbrother and Wastelander (Suzuki) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetbrother Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 from konami When asked more about what exactly made him think the future of gaming is in mobile phones, Satoshi Sakamoto said: Money. Sell a game; give it away for free. Add pay-to-win schemes to the mix. Normally you pay, what, $60 for a game? Through in-game purchases a person can spend thousands just to show off his score or that he beat the game earlier than the other. Or just because he's terrible at the game and wants to beat it. Either way, it's a rain of money. Dottie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dottie Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 DLCs have definitely gone the wrong direction in games these days This is a fairly accurate representation of how games are these days DLC seems like an excuse to release half a game nowadays and it really sucks. Payne Killer, Octane, Abel. and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coin Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) from konami When asked more about what exactly made him think the future of gaming is in mobile phones, Satoshi Sakamoto said: Money. Sell a game; give it away for free. Add pay-to-win schemes to the mix. Normally you pay, what, $60 for a game? Through in-game purchases a person can spend thousands just to show off his score or that he beat the game earlier than the other. Or just because he's terrible at the game and wants to beat it. Either way, it's a rain of money. Well, he's not wrong. Edited May 23, 2015 by ¥en Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetbrother Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 from konami When asked more about what exactly made him think the future of gaming is in mobile phones, Satoshi Sakamoto said: Money. Sell a game; give it away for free. Add pay-to-win schemes to the mix. Normally you pay, what, $60 for a game? Through in-game purchases a person can spend thousands just to show off his score or that he beat the game earlier than the other. Or just because he's terrible at the game and wants to beat it. Either way, it's a rain of money. Well, he's not wrong. Once again thanks for your insignificant posts Yen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedDagger Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) Once again thanks for your insignificant posts YenHe says, making an insignificant post. Anyway, lots of people are treating what Konami said like it means they, and game makers in general, are being evil little sh*ts for 'abusing DLC/microtransactions'. But they fail to realise they're just another business, wanting to make money. If consumers prefer that payment model, of course game makers are going to embrace it, why would they not? Satoshi isn't wrong for saying it's for money, and the only thing I take from that quote is reaffirming that there's hoards of 'casual' mobile gamers supporting such a market; console and PC gamers are in the minority, so if a company thinks it's able to switch to mobile, I can't say it's a bad decision. Que sera sera. Edited May 23, 2015 by RedDagger Coin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetbrother Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 (edited) Once again thanks for your insignificant posts Yen He says, making an insignificant post. I made this thread for discussion genius, but at least you had a comment longer than a few words on the quote. Anyway, lots of people are treating what Konami said like it means they, and game makers in general, are being evil little sh*ts for 'abusing DLC/microtransactions'. Who are these people?? But they fail to realise they're just another business, wanting to make money. If consumers prefer that payment model, of course game makers are going to embrace it, why would they not? Of course they're a business, everyone wants to make money. Gamers have been buying games since before we were born. Your point is? The question is, what will be of the quality of the future games? Satoshi isn't wrong for saying it's for money, Who said he was wrong? Nobody here did. That's obviously what Satoshi feels like he wants to do. and the only thing I take from that quote is reaffirming that there's hoards of 'casual' mobile gamers supporting such a market; console and PC gamers are in the minority, so if a company thinks it's able to switch to mobile, I can't say it's a bad decision. Que sera sera. If GTA V sold billions which is on consoles how can console games be disregarded? This is my opinion, but he feels like its the best decision to go mobile because he doesn't know what the F he is doing in the console zone. He doesn't know how to produce games for Konami to make record sales like GTA did. Maybe Kojima had the potential to do so, but hes gone now. And in the full article he goes on to say if they still aren't successful they'll blame it on piracy. Do you think Kojima leaving Konami is a good thing? Do you think Konami turning to mobile games and following that formula is going to produce good quality games in the future? I wonder, what franchises or games do YOU like to play? What are some of your favourites? Edited May 23, 2015 by sweetbrother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now