Sheikah

It’s really not out of necessity. Don’t take my word for it - EA themselves said after taking out microtransactions from Star Wars Battlefront 2 that there would be no material effect on earnings - here’s the link. Not to mention there are many big games that have not gone the microtransaction route e.g. Witcher 3, which proves this is not a necessity. It is important in these discussions to separate microtransactions (bad) from DLC, the latter of which has been around for a very long time (see PC expansion packs) and is generally a good and pro-consumer thing (in that you are providing more game to people without any gambling mechanics involved), providing it is not main game content that was set aside to make more money. I suggest you check out the vid dwarf posted as I’ve seen you say something like this before and it’s simply not true. There is so much to suggest that microtransactions are down to greed and the pleasing of shareholders rather than it being necessary. Many of these big companies are making MOST of their money from microtransactions as opposed to game sales! Microtransactions are big earners for publishers and said publishers will defend them with weak excuses like they’re enabling ‘player choice’. It’s only when they get called out for being too greedy that they remove them.

I'm pretty sure he just did.

Outside of the big ones, forums just aren’t as popular anymore.

When you say you've explored less than a fifth of the game do you mean you've gone to a fifth of the map and done most of the subactivities there? I think the point that article made was that if you don't want to keep repeating the usual repetitive activities between missions then you'll end up underlevelled, and lacking a lot of features that basically up quality of life. Some pople will definitely want the booster though - if nobody would want it, they wouldn't be selling it.

That's not true, the game also offers gameplay boosts such as the permanent XP boost, which has been noted by news outlets to make the game better. I think it's fair for Jim to say that a game that you'd want to pay to not play to make it better has poor game design.

I find it much more funny to read these posts as if spoken by one of Jim Sterling's characters:

Yeah, exactly. A...white background. With a person holding it to show you the scale, given it's sold as a 'mini' console. Hardly copying, is it? Then again, people will see what they want to see.

I'm guessing Ape Escape is out of the question since it was the first game to require analogue sticks. I hope emulation does become possible as I can't see some of the games I want to revisit being on it. Would be nice if they made it would you could download games to it off their store.

I don't get this criticism. Sony copy Nintendo sometimes, which is a good thing. Microsoft copy Sony too - Games with Gold, tagging the share feature to a button, etc. Basically, copying is needed to some extent because the chance you are going to come up with everything people want by yourself is low. What's worse is when they don't copy. There is so much Nintendo could do with their online service that you could easily criticise as copying if they did it. But the console would be so much better for it. As for the PS mini, I probably won't be buying it at 90 quid, unless it becomes a very good emulation device.

For those who are buying it, you can get it for £15.67 here. Edit: Ike just beat me to it.

Assuming gunge is the fluorescent, synthetic stuff that was present in most 90s kids gameshows, I'm hoping for your sake it was that rather than gunk.

Well Sony were giving away the online service on PS3 for free (which eventually was reasonably comparable to XBL in terms of features after a long teething period), as are Steam (still to this day)...so I don't see why we should assume that they couldn't offer this service plus lesser games if they only charged a third of what they currently do. I think almost certainly the 40 quid tag of these annual subscriptions is there to make them money, rather than it just about covering the cost of the services provided. As I've said before, you can compare Nintendo's services to the more expensive ones because they are both being sold for money. We make these comparisons all the time - for instance if I was to buy broadband, I would still compare a cheaper package with a more expensive one in terms of features and speed for the money, etc. If a broadband package was half the price of the other but the max speed was only a fifth (apt comparison here), I would not consider that a particularly good saving. If one online sub costs half of the other services, you'd expect it to have at least the fundamental components for a decent modern online service (messaging, voice chat) with less of the bells an whistles (i.e. big retail games). An online sub should at least get the basics right before adding cherries on top.

Absolutely, if they're charging for it then you can't claim they don't (or shouldn't) care much about it. It's a bit mad to say people should accept it too. People have bought a console long back and only now are we learning the many caveats to the service that will launch. Like not all games supporting cloud saving for totally unconvincing reasons. People complaining about things in large enough numbers has also been shown time and time again to have results (see Star Wars Battlefront 2).

Yup, anything like completing it again on a hard/extreme difficulty or repeat the game making the opposite choices sucks. I can usually determine whether it will be fun to go for a platinum or not so I never feel like I'm compelled to get them. I'm happier they're there overall.

But the things people expect of an online service are totally reasonable asks - messaging, voice chat (cross game), universal cloud saving. That's why I do not agree with Kaxxx's comment in the slightest. As for "is messaging useful", of course, I use it all the time. Also, when you select a friend and click "invite to game" this is done via a message notification. If they're playing a different game (or even the same game but different lobby) at the time they get alerted and can choose to play with you instead. Without this you have to hope that you have the friend on WhatsApp or something (which I'm sure is not necessarily the case for N-E friends or other gaming acquaintances) and that they're checking their phone and not totally engrossed in the game. It's a very poor alternative to in-game messaging. You also have to ask yourself what you're paying for if you can't message people or voice chat with them. Right now it's just a readout of what game people are currently playing.