You're working under the assumption that devs have interfaces this user-friendly which, 9 times out of 10, they don't. Setting up character creators to be usable for the layman is a long, complicated, and very expensive process. The systems most devs use are a hell of a lot more flexible and a hell of a lot more…

You're only looking at the sales and critical reception side of things. The original FF13 and FF14 had ridiculously long development cycles which ballooned their budget. When the original 14 crashed and burned, they went back to the drawing board and rebuilt it from the ground up which cost even MORE money. They…

What makes the situation even more absurd is that they relied on Tomb Raider to generate a ridiculous amount of profit in THREE WEEKS to try and pull themselves out of the fiscal year hole they'd dug themselves the rest of the year. There was almost no chance of that happening in that short amount of time.

It's not the Devs that expect CoD sales...it's the Publishers. There's a significant difference. The sad part of it is, if the Publisher gets a profit but it fails to meet their unreasonable expectation, it's the Devs that get left holding the bag (layoffs, reduced budgets, shutdowns, etc.).

In an ideal world, game development wouldn't cost a cent and developers would be able to simply make the games they love and have it sell gazillions of units. Unfortunately, game development is damned expensive, and anyone who puts up their own money to fund a game is gonna want to put in their 2 cents to make sure…

So because the game got positive reviews, reviewers were paid off? I'm guessing you think they paid off the countless gamers who comment on blogs and forums saying they liked/recommended the game as well?

Considering the positive reception the game has received, do you honestly believe that's a bad thing? How many people have you seen online say that they're excited about the sequel after having played the reboot? Square got sales. Whether it was due to PS+ or Steam sales or whatever, they got paid for the purchase.…

Do you honestly think Sony got that game for free in order to hand it out to their ps+ subscribers? Square got paid. How much is questionable, but as far as Square's account books are concerned, they're sales.

Completely missing my point in your embarrassment and need to dig yourself even deeper, but i'll bite.

Agreed, though the kid who made this thing and left it out needs a few swats to the rear so he thinks things through a bit more. Creativity without common sense is damned dangerous.

The point everyone's trying to make and you're too stubborn to accept is that if someone sees a container with electronics on it in a manner that seems out of the ordinary, given today's climate, the prudent option is to assume it MAY be a bomb. No one in their right mind would sit there and examine the circuitry on…

Which still makes it a bomb which means your common sense would have just cost you a hand/eye/foot/whatever. Seriously, why are you still arguing this? It's pretty obvious you're in the wrong...when you find yourself at the bottom of a hole with a shovel, the smartest thing to do is stop digging.

You're ignoring the amount of money that goes towards the tech that runs the games. Even when they're using third party engines like Unreal, individual developers still need to budget for programmer time to work out new/better ways of handling rendering, physics, ai, etc. It's not a simple case of being given a box…

You're glossing over the important point of the tax breaks. Municipalities use the breaks as incentives to convince corporations to set up shop in their city/county/state/country which brings jobs which fuel the local economy. Taking away those tax breaks convinces corporations to consider moving their business…

The whole point is people were calling the new version nothing more than "a pc port" and kirk's pointing out that it's a little more than that. That's the point you guys seem to be missing.

PC fanboys were poo-pooing the new release as nothing but a PC version on console and this points out that it's more than that. That's kinda the point.

My main issue with hyper-realistic games is the fact that it is SO expensive to make. The more realistic a studio tries to make their games, the more artists and render programmers you need to develop those looks which either forces them to sacrifice elsewhere or increase the budget accordingly. AAA games nowadays…

"Sure you don't get to play the games you get with it if you don't have a subscription..."

"The only advantage to GwG is you get to keep the games forever"

Lol, 'fanboy response'? You're projecting. I've owned MS and Sony consoles and have bounced between the two for my primary console gaming fix, so I've got no stake in which one is 'better' unlike so many people around here.