This makes little sense. The whole point of making an Epic account is to transfer progress in titles across platforms. Why would Sony block such a thing? Likewise, why would Epic offer it on PS4 if it can’t even be utilized properly?

Not remotely.

I mean, if anyone should have sticky combat, though...

I could totally see the influences from Sunset Overdrive, as well as the Arkham series, and I’m totally onboard. I’m interested in who the 6th member of this pseudo-Sinister Six is going to be.

So your issue is more that PixelJunk games got proper sequels and aren’t brand new gameplay concepts? I mean, that also doesn’t make much sense, as didn’t Shooter get a sequel?

It is beyond presumptuous that you think a game company would “expect” anything from you. You are always a 0 to them until you’re not. You’re not going from “$90-120" down to $60, in their eyes. You’re going from $0 to $60. You’re telling them they’re doing things right.

Solid comparison. Forgot about that game, but you’re right.

Instead of comparing it an FPS, how does it feel compared to an actual TPS like, say, The Division?

I was legit hoping for Boston or Philly, but DC will do. I’m hoping they let you explore secret underground government hideouts and stuff. That would play well within the story and in Tom Clancy’s wheelhouse.

Destiny made butt loads of money. And The Division was Ubisoft’s biggest original IP ever, at least at the time of release. It also got markedly improved over time. Why would they not try and follow it up?

I guess my point is, being platform agnostic allows them to have slotted what they did show into other shows, if they so chose. They did so anyway with a presence at the Xbox presser. And they’ll likely be a part, in some way, of the Sony one, if not also Nintendo’s (though that’d be big news in and of itself). So why…

I can see FF7 and Avengers news being saved for Sony’s conference (if Sony ends up with some sort of console exclusivity with Avengers the way Microsoft touted such deals at its conference, but it’s a big if). But even if that is the case (and again, it’s a big if), why would Square Enix waste money putting on their…

What a way to really give them the what for: handing them $60.

Let alone everything else on offer.

I mean, sure. I don’t personally like EA’s titles enough to justify this particular subscription. But what you’re arguing is, as a blanket statement, having a subscription service that gave you access to many titles for less than the price of buying a mere 2 of them... that is bad? Just outright, unequivocally bad? No…

What I don’t get is still why they thought this was a worthwhile showing? If they were in a transitional year, which I think is just a nice way of saying they have a shit lineup, then they shouldn’t have participated. Clearly what they showed didn’t get anyone excited. It was more like one big apology for being a shit…

Of course “being in movies” isn’t his only employment option, but it IS his job/career. Does everyone found guilty of a crime therefore have to find employment in a wholly different field than they previously made their living? Or is that unique only to such public-facing careers?

Where did I say he deserves to be cast in a movie?

I didn’t look at this story and come to that conclusion. I was responding to someone in particular and openly posing the question as a thought exercise. I even say in my first sentence that I agree he’s a piece of shit. Sorry if I asked an uncomfortable question, but I feel it’s one worth asking.

Understood. But still, is that Hirsch’s fault or the court’s? Maybe he just had a great lawyer for all we know.