Unless there was a purely PVE server/option available, I'm skipping this one :)

Agreed, of all the villians he seemed like the one most likely to be readily acceptable of strong women.

point being is the hours they work tend to dilute their per hour earnings which is how most people benchmark if the job is worth it. And like you said, 120 hours is possible on an extended period.

True, I dont blame you for feeling that way. But the current gaming culture praises shortcuts. Its gotten to a point that I personally dont care if someone else earned their achievements in a game or put out a wallet. If anything I just worry about my own personal progress otherwise I would spend all day arguing in…

Im sure a lot. But I'm guessing they can only justify continued development of a game through continuing revenue, either by expansions, dlc, or cash shop. The money made on initial box sales already went to the company coffers or shareholders.

Good point, i hadnt thought of that.

not literal altruism, but descriptive of a time when game makers weren't so concerned about nickel and diming their customers. When they made games worth the money people spent on it. You know, 20 some odd years ago, hehe.

how much per year vs how many hours they spend working. Most game makers work 120+ per 2 weeks with most having to worry about getting laid off in between games.

True, but in order to pay a certain amount they both better be substantial. If its good and 5 hours long it shouldnt cost 60 bux, maybe 20 at most. Personally I would wait for the 5$ bargain bin if a game was that short but that's just me. My benchmark for a 60$ game is Final Fantasy 7 or Mass Effect(any) where I…

Considering how much it is to make a quality game I'll bet you would do the same thing in their position. Game makers (as in the programmers not the suits) make very little as it is considering the amount of man hours they put into actually making the game and marketing it out to the masses.

Dont be surprised if that does happen in a way, govts are trying to tax you for in-game gold you earn if there is a robust gold-selling economy in existence for it.

IMHO always online makes it easier for any game company to fight piracy. I dislike it myself since I prefer offline single play, but I can see why they prefer it.

I only loathe cash shops if the game has any sort of initial buy-in and/or if there is a major gameplay handicap (looks at SWTOR). It's simply the only way a lot of companies can make money off a game nowadays.

Its the nature of the beast, it costs money to keep a game running and being improved through content patches. The altruistic days of gaming are long gone with people unwilling to pay beyond a certain point for a game. If games were still made with the same re-playability as they were in the 90s it would be easy to…

No,they shouldnt make another handheld, they simply no longer have the support of any gamemakers including their own first party developers. I dont think anyone will want to give them a third chance unless by some miracle the Vita makes a comeback of mythical proportions.

5 t0 10 hours, regardless of quality, is almost criminal for a 60$+ game.

That episode actually creeped me out, I didnt expect that much gore from STNG especially in its first season.

5 iirc

no single player campaign, irresponsible pcmeal dlc, no sale. Ill buy it when the whole package is 10 bux on steam.

I got burned with Destiny. Im not buying any game that doesnt have a single player campaign that is at least 20 to 40hrs long unless it was on sale for 10 or less dollars. This multi-player only, dlc overload is just too much BS.