Eddage

I'm sure he would love for everyone to have bought it at £60, but the point is that if they hadn't reduced the price then those people who bought the game at a lower price may not have bought it at all. That would have been worse. And before you come back with the "trained to wait" response, as I have said I am basing my responses purely on how I perceive the value of games personally. I would never buy a game like Days Gone for £60 as, for me, it isn't worth that much but if it was reduced I am more likely to pick it up. I am sure I'm not the only one thinks this way.

This is just being pedantic. It may not work out perfectly that halving the price and doubling the sales means the same profit, but if a publisher takes 20% of a games sale then that is £12 of a game sold at £60. If the game was sold at £30 then that 20% equals £6. So, twice as many sales is more or less the same. Okay, so there may be other things to consider like the production of the media (when talking physical), etc, but the point I was making is still perfectly valid.

Personally I very rarely buy a game at full price, the only time I have done in the last few years was Spider-Man remastered/Miles Morales, the time before that was Breath of the Wild. So both console launches. And it’s not that I’ve been “trained” to wait for a discount, I just don’t really think any game is worth full price. So if games never became discounted I would possibly walk away from gaming altogether. So, just because people are waiting for games to drop in price doesn’t necessarily mean the publishers are missing out. They may loose more money in the long run if they were to remain at full price Which is better, selling 100 copies at £60 or 200 copies at £30? I would argue the latter - more people to further spread the word and more total units sold that in turn can be used as part of marketing to make the game appear more successful.

Having been watching everything on different Sky Sports channels over the last couple of days another thing has occurred to me that I would like to be addressed by any reform... the removal of sponsorship/involvement of any betting companies. The amount of adverts during matches and the number of teams sponsored by betting companies is ridiculous. Personally I think gambling is as dangerous as alcohol and should be treated as such. Half of the adverts I am seeing now from these companies are just talking about how you need to be responsible, etc. I just saw a Paddy Power advert which says the following... "Betting can add a little excitement to any sporting event, but only if it's done safely, responsibly and within our means / Never gamble when angry or feeling low / Set yourself a limit for time, money, or both / No matter what the problem is, gambling is never the answer". If you have to have adverts like this for your product then it is not safe and should have no place on TV during football when children can be watching. Especially when that advert is nestled in between all the other betting ads that make it seem like gambling is great fun and the perfect thing to do down the pub with the lads.

I agree with most of what you've said here. All 6 teams signed up for the ESL so they punished equally, it doesn't matter that City and Chelsea pulled out first. I'm not quite sure how the TV revenue works now, are you just referring to the Premier League TV revenue? So at the moment PL teams get 90% of that? How does the revenue from Championship TV rights work? I think I heard recently that the Championship was the 5th most watched European league.

Wow, Woodward leaving is a fantastic outcome! He has been utterly useless during his time as chairman of Manchester United. Looks like the whole idea is falling apart rather rapidly, which is fantastic. I still think that all the teams that signed up for it need to be punished - points deductions from the start of next season and banned from Champions and Europa league. It isn't really fair for the players but there needs to be some sort of repercussion and the clubs need to be put in their place. Now if the Glazers would only announce they want to sell the club as they can't get their beloved US franchise style league going then I would be extremely happy!

The Mourinho sacking is clearly just a diversion tactic by Levy, no way they would sack a manager six days before a cup final otherwise. This way they divert some of the discussion away from the ESL announcements. I have been a Manchester United fan for close to 30 years and am disgusted by this announcement, I really hope that the FA/EPL/Uefa/Fifa/whoever find a way to stamp this out before it gains any sort of traction. However, if they were to follow through on threats of kicking teams out of the Premier League then where does that leave that competition? Suddenly the six best (although that's clearly debatable based on league position and recent tournament success) teams are no longer in the league, this in turn would reduce the appeal for broadcasting rights, etc. The best players could also in theory follow the money, so could the Premier League survive without these teams?

As I thought it did download both the PS4 and PS5 versions Anyway, deleted the PS4 version and deleted the install for Hitman II as all three games are appearing in Hitman III. Probably won't play it for a while, will wait for a "complete" version of Hitman III with all the DLC included, or perhaps even wait for it to be on PS+. Got so many games in my backlog so I'm in no rush

I'm downloading the Hitman III starter pack and it had the I and II packs available as free addons, so I guess I'll find out tomorrow morning. Can't be bothered to wait for the downloads to finish tonight, especially since it looks like the PS5 is being stupid and downloading the PS4 and 5 versions of Hitman III

I literally bought Hitman I and II today, with a view to then pick up III when it was cheap and play the whole trilogy through III. So If I just want to play the missions from I and II can I download this free starter pack and then play them whenever? Or would that also be limited from now until April 5th? I must say when trying to research how to get I and II into Hitman III this morning I found it very confusing! I ended up buying Hitman II in a PSN sale and then from within that game bought the Hitman I legacy pack. Honestly have no idea if it will actually work when I do finally pick up III

I did think they might have meant timeline, but as you said that is an extremely misleading way to make the situation look way worse than it really is. It's like saying before The Force Awakens came out it was 11,680 days since the most recent film in the Star Wars story, which is ridiculous (even as much as people might like to pretend the prequels don't exist).

How is Metroid Fusion the most recent game? Three Prime games and Other M have released since then...

Don’t take this as me defending it, but just curious if this was as part of a digital version of the Pokemon Go Fest events they did before COVID? If I remember correctly you would have to buy a ticket to attend those events, and there were special pokemon that were only available to those who attended.

I haven't played Pokemon Go in years, how have they paywalled shiny pokemon?

Yeah I don't think there was really any need to set it in the 80s, can't remember much impact that had - certainly didn't tie it into the soundtrack which was a big missed opportunity I think. The biggest issue is how they handled Steve Trevor and his return...