I'm not arguing against looking elsewhere for them. I'm mostly arguing against the language that has been used in this debate. Like when you used "unprecedented" as a global rather than just within the series. I disagree that it's unprecedented within the series even, given that Diablo II featured an atrophied single…

That's a bit untrue. GuildWars was definitely a diablo style game (did you play it?) and as I stated earlier, online-only. More recently Darkspore has been described most frequently as a Diablo clone, and it's online only. It's only unprecedented if you haven't been paying attention.

@McBimsWitChi

@Taliesin_Merlin (man, I don't know how this comment system works to direct them properly).

Anyone ever play Guild Wars? Diablo III is more or less the same. I don't remember this sort of 'outrage' over Guild Wars being online only because people were willing to accept that some games don't have an offline component. Guild Wars, unlike MMOs, is not massive but rather typically a small-group hack 'n slash…

In Twilight Princess, I'm amazed people were confused because there wasn't 1:1 controls at all. "Swing the remote to attack" is the same as "press a button to attack". Were people really confused that the attack *button* was pressed by the right hand in previous games?

Is this really the time to protest? I mean, I hate to sound like I'm taking Activision's side (I'm really not) but it is possible Activision's in the right here.

Doesn't this just mean people will pay $2.99 for a demo DVD then complain about having to "pay for content already on the disc" like they do for DLC?

@gold163 (° д° ): The advantage of the internet is you don't need to.

Chromehounds was exceptional. It offered a mech-based game where the combat was tactical. The game was about communication. This was before cross-game chat, mind you. You had voice communications with your team only under certain conditions, and it was often the case that one brave soul would have to be out of contact…

It seems pretty basic to me:

I agree with all of them except #3. If I paid for a "finished product" and no bugs actually crop up, I don't see why I should expect people to continue adding more to it. It'd be nice if they did, but I don't think it needs to go in a "bill of rights."

From what I've read, the exhibit is more than just the game.

If I understand correctly, the guy quit his job to work on the game. So yeah, that 180,000 also includes his living expenses over those three years he was working on it. Seriously, what game *don't* you include the salaries of those working on it in the costs to make?

@Netnavi: I still say prove it. Braid is a niche title. There's no way it would appeal to everyone.

@Aex: I never denied it would sell more. I just denied the possibility of definitively knowing whether the *amount* more would outweigh the reduced profit per unit.

@stranger: You're the one who made the claim that it benefits Microsoft more than it benefits Blow because of the single-game issue. Now you're backing out of it.

@stranger: How can you prove whether the game would sell enough better at a lower price without reintroducing it, at the lower price, in an alternate reality where it hasn't gone on sale at the current price?

@stranger: As a follow up thought:

@stranger: I asked for one very specific thing: where's your math that suggests he gets an equal or lower amount, per sale