itGOESWOAR

@jsx How does having bills equate to being able to comprehend that businesses make decisions solely on the basis of maximizing revenue.

My point was that money was a perfectly fine reason to maintain exclusivity, in fact, it's the only reason the game exists in the first place.

I mean, how does Activision/IW/Treyarch benefit in this exclusivity, other than the money?

Why would you assume any business, let alone Activision, need a more compelling reason than money?

Hirai – Current PSN service to remain free, subs for “premium content and services”

This doesn't vindicate them I don't think. Microsoft's pricing structure could be described the same way. The online multiplayer is a "premium service" but the PSN rental network is a basic free one. I'm not saying that is the intent, just that Hirai statement isn't conclusive.

Frankly, I'd be happy to pay for an improvement to those services. I have an 360 and PS3 and I never buy multiplatforms for my PS3. The Live infrastructure and feature set is well worth the $4 a month I pay. While some of you might quit your online play for PS3, a stand that I can empathize with, the day they start charging is the day I start playing on the PS3. A touch of hyperbole, but you get the point.

"It must really burn Neversoft that Rock Band has all the songs I like and Neversoft hasn't put has much DLC that interests me personally."

I fixed your reply. I'll never understand why people can't see past their noses regarding music and as an extension, music games.

I don't own GH5 and was not going to purchase until now. QOTSA songs from the first (my favorite) album means instant purchase of the game for me. You don't have to love the content, but let's not assume it sucks because it doesn't suit you personally.

Everyone seems to be complaining about the $50 a year price for XBL vs. the free PS3 service. But no one seems to mention how much the PS3 service sucks. I own both systems and ALWAYS buy my multiplayer games for the Xbox when available. The party system alone is worth the $4 a month.

Once you have tried the experience on both systems you realize how worth it that $50 is, at least for someone who games a little more than casually.

I think we can all agree that robots would punctuate a sentence much more successfully than you just did.

"But it's like going to a movie and saying the seats were unattractive."

This (and others) are bad analogies. It's more like going to a movie and the screen sucks. Granted gameplay is important, but I think it's safe to say the visual component deserves more credit than you have given it. If this was not true, why not just play Atari. I realize that is a bit of hyperbole, but you take my point.

It's perfectly reasonable for someone to not buy a game because they don't like the art style. It's also perfectly reasonable for someone not to buy this game because the change in art style. It's a matter of opinion and is therefore, inarguable.

I think we might be taking this the wrong way. My guess is that Gears of War 2 is the last complete game they ship, but they anticipate a ten year plan of patches and updates in order to make the game playable online.

"I could play Civ Rev all day every day, and it has no story to speak of."

That's not exactly true. That is a game where the story is, in a sense, defined by you, the player. In that sense you could argue that a game like this is one of the more cohesive examples.

I'd agree that gameplay increases the inherent replay value of a game, which may affect a games review score. However, a good narrative with mediocre gameplay (Fallout 3 IMHO) can still be an enjoyable and rewarding experience.

Before you flame on F3, my two cents. Any game that strives to be an immersive shooter should have a cover system. Every creepy hallway and building search drew me in. Until I came across a mutant and had to strafe behind shopping carts to avoid bullets, which couldn't be less realistic.

I like the idea of publishers and developers including extras for people who buy the game new. I'm not opposed to reselling games from an ethical perspective, I just don't agree with Gamestop's pricing structure.

To me, 5 extra maps FAR outweighs the lousy $5 dollars I would save from buying the game used. If more developers hop on this train, and I suspect they will, then maybe Gamestop will give a little bit more realistic discount for used product. As it stands now, it seems like it would be pretty easy for developers to include content that exceeds a $5 value, thus making the new game the better buy.