LtCmdrChar

10 bucks on it being Dead Space related.

I wonder if it occurred to anyone here that in addition to looking like Lilith, the person in question also had to be able to act. For those saying that the chick at :33 is perfect I'd be in total agreement if it was a visual discussion, but since Gearbox was also trying to cast that person to be an actual actress for her in the game that this particular person fit both sides sufficiently.

As for her accent, who's to say she doesn't get rid of it while actually acting? It wouldn't exactly be some brand new phenomenon among actors to talk with their native accent off screen. Look at Christian Bale, Sam Neil, Sam Worthington, etc, etc.

Let's face it, Mass Effect 3 is going to take best selling ( and/or fastest selling) EA game title without breaking a sweat.

@Punkrawk Bbob


The argument of the studio charging for the costs involved in the production of a DLC both in time involved as well as assets involved only works when said production occurred outside the run of the core game's production.

With the exception of the Command Post and Turret fortifications, there is clear evidence that all the other content involved in this pack (characters, weapon skins, maps, the Silverback "feature") were already completed before the game went gold, is currently on the disc, and has been proven to be functional if someone were to have hacked into the contents of the disc to unlock it.

For those that feel that the "hate" Epic is receiving from angry nerds that don't like logic or reasoning paying content existing on their product is unjustified, please do come up with a more appropriate counter-response to justify how Epic is in the clear other than :

- "it's extra work that should be compensated for" (clearly isn't the case as modders have discovered)

-"don't buy it" (as this 'solution' has nothing to do with the principle of
the practice)

- "it's awesome anyways" (Again nothing to do with the issue of the principle at hand that the anger is directed towards)

For all the people that say the incident could be solved if the man learned the mute feature, they would be correct.

However, I would also like to point out that in regards to the general (and by that I mean has nothing to do with particular incident) topic of 'extremely disrespectful hate spewing children on online games', that muting does not solve the problem that there is an extremely disrespectful hate spewing child somewhere out there in the world that is pampered enough to play a video game online. It merely ignores it, and allows that behavior to fester until it gets to someone else who has to deal with the problem.

Regardless of what the entire story is for this incident, I do believe it's generally agreed that the mere existence of children (and adults even) who bite off more than can chew in verbal communication on games can be chalked up to two things.

1) Being anonymous
2) Lack of good parenting

The former is certainly a hot pot of discussion as to whether or not the veil should be removed as was brought up during Blizzard's attempt to do so.

The latter is something that really needs to be fixed and actually worked towards rather than mindlessly blaming random things or working on pointless endeavors that hardly touch the real issue at fault here.

But hey, if people outraged would rather spend their time and effort e-mailing AOL about one guy's opinion on the topic rather than working towards making sure the next lil' jimmy doesn't find himself in the crosshairs of another nut who can lose his marbles over being chewed out by lil tike expanded vocabulary, then by all means spend your time wisely.

@Mcmax3000

Anyone with a brain should recognize that unless a map brings with it new gameplay elements (such as weapons, new interactivity that completely changes how the game is played, etc) such as the CoD Zombie maps, it is strictly going to be just an aesthetic change to on-going gameplay.

New map? Fantastic. It's new geometry to play on in multiplayer, but it does not change the gameplay itself. It's no different than weapon or character skins, but on a much bigger scale. Weapons are still the same, players will react the same, physics will react the same. The playspace itself may be different, but ultimately it has no affect on the gameplay players have been experiencing since launch. Will it change how players move around for a bit as they get accustomed to their new surroundings? Sure, but again in the end whether they're fumbling in the dark trying to find out where place A is or expertly defending spot B it doesn't change the fact that they're doing what they've been doing throughout all the other maps all the same.

To imply that a new map (that is strictly just a new geometry space) adds gameplay is like saying 'driving to a new town I've never been to has suddenly added additional new functionality and/or quality to my car's performance!'. It doesn't. For good or bad, it only adds millage.

@(Unverified)

You're calling it greed for companies like EA to come up with an online pass, yet say that what Epic is doing is covering costs of content?

You do realize the whole point of the online pass is so that the companies that do support such a system get their costs back along with the profit they're seeking. That isn't greed in the slightest bit. The devs that make the game along with the publishers that push them get ZERO dollars for every used game bought.

Try picking a better example to compare and contrast the difference between covering ends meet and being too greedy because that example you provided isn't.

It's likely held back content on disc since people who've modded the game and posted video have proven they're there and perfectly playable if unlocked much like the weapon and character skins.

In regards to the latter it's a complete slap in the face when you enter a game of Gears 3, and you see bots sporting unusable characters like the Onyx Guard (multiplayer, not beast), Big Rig Dizzy, Theron Sentinel, and Bernie. All the while just knowing that since Bernie is confirmed to be paid "DLC" content, the rest will be as well...

Does it affect the quality of core gameplay on the existing maps? Hardly does, and I'm sure defenders will be quick to point that out that aesthetics (maps included) mean nothing and are not necessary to enjoy the game, and they'd be right. However, it's the principle of the matter that's just bull.

@Samuelthegeek

Black Ops did rather well than MW2. Much better in terms of sales.

I suspect that MW3 will do even better and so does Activision. That said, I'm betting that they didn't make a 120 Prestige edition so that they can focus on getting more bang for their buck with the Hardened by increasing its cost and making that the only limited edition type available.

Sure consumers save 10 bucks off of Elite content, but at the same time Activision will be snagging in additional profits from the people who wouldn't otherwise pay for DLC (if at all) because of the opportunity to 'save'. Not to mention of those that would pay for the content anyway, the company would be guaranteed their money early on without even putting any content up. And that's adding on to the fact that Activision also won't have to divert additional funds to manufacturing costs on items like goggles ,statues, and R/C cars.

Clever girl...

@Cletus VanDamme

I can get either edition of the game just fine if I wanted to, thanks for your vast financial wisdom though. Honestly people like you that make posts such as these make me wonder if you're a spoiled brat whose never had to pay for groceries, electric bills, etc, etc while maintaining a fund from discretionary income.

My problem isn't the affordability of the product's price itself. It's the principle behind holding back content of a game that I have issue with. Like I was saying, for the complete package, one would need to buy the Hardened edition to get everything meant for the game. The gametypes, the spec ops mission, then the maps. Those that end up buying the standard edition are forced to drop down even more money to complete their experience.

It's a brilliant marketing strategy to pressure consumers into biting down on the product that will have a comparatively limited run compared to the standard edition. It's also underhanded.

Compared to the production run of standard editions, there will be a lesser amount of the Hardened editions available. So basically at this point in the game it's either put your entire trust in the game and its future content not sucking, and hoping that you save money down the line. Or holding off for a more educated perspective on the quality of the game and its contents, then laying down more money for the rest of the content with the only opportunity to save would be by cherry picking only certain components of the additional content.

By the time one can fully ascertain the quality of the product and its DLC, the Hardened edition will be nigh impossible to find. It's a gamble on the consumer's part to make the choice before November to decide if they want to pay more now for a product where half the content is still in a shroud of mystery and will remain so for the duration of the year. Win of lose, Activision will be pocketing a lot more dough than if they didn't pressure consumers will the mere possibility of savings for this additional content. Content that could easily have been part of the standard package, or at the very least already disclosed as they have a schedule to release this content month by month.