I haven't played Uncharted 3, but I completely agree with this in relation to other single player centric games that tack on half-assed multiplayer modes (Bioshock, GTA, too many others) just to say their game has multiplayer.

It's not only a waste of their time, but it probably cuts into their development of the single player which pisses me off. They aren't going to win over any COD fans by throwing together a couple of deathmatch spinoffs, so why the hell are they wasting their time?

It really bugs me. Now, many publishers have the audacity to charge for online content, i.e. Multiplayer. (I'm on PS3, don't know if this is the situation on Xbox)

I appreciate the theory that games developers/publishers will want to recoup some of the losses from second hand buying of games, with these codes that are activated upon purchase and cannot be used by the person the game is sold onto.

However, I feel it is another sign of greed for companies who make a ****load of cash such as Activision from releasing a new COD every year now, which is £40-50 when bought new, the accompanying merchandise such as; headsets, modified controllers, clothing, action figures, etc.
As well as all the 'map packs' they could have easily included in the original game, but feel the need to milk another £10-15 out of every instalment of new levels they release.

Why when they're making all of this money anyway, do they feel the need to squeeze even more money out of the consumer with these online codes?!
**** that ****.

I simply ignore all of the above cause it's a total ripoff. Game developers as of late have realized how profitable the gaming industry is and are taking any opportunity they can get to cash in on consumers who will pay for anything.

I will never download map packs. I will only download content that justifies the price (meaning I'm going to read reviews on it before throwing away money). And I won't bother with the online multiplayer for these games that require activation codes, because I just don't like multiplayer enough to give a crap.

Any developer that violates one of the above three rules, can go **** themselves :finger:

I'm also strongly considering unsubscribing to xbox live when my account expires because a.) multiplayer gaming sucks except with friends and b.) I want to stick it to Microsoft for being greedy bastards and charging for it.

I don't tend to buy DLC either, as I see it as a bit of a mugs game, but I know there are many, many people who are suckered into parting with their cash by greedy developers.

I will also continue to buy pre-owned, as I don't tend to play many online games, these new activation codes won't affect me, however, I feel it is only a matter of time before developers apply activation modes to single player games too.

the fighting gets a lot less tedious if you can pinpoint the bosses' weaknesses

you ought to use Jeff's spying abilities more

This is a common misconception. First off it's the publishers that are greedy. To blame the developers is like blaming a musician for a decision their record label made. Depending on what's offered pay to play DLC can and is very much a viable and worthwhile content delivery method that can provide substantial life to an already existing game.

It's not like retail expansion packs weren't becoming a defacto standard in the late 90s / early 2000s for any pc game that achieved a substantial level of success. Shifting the distribution to the net for quicker releases at lower price points than retail expansions just makes sense. Unfortunately there were some companies who were moronic with some of their DLC... like the first DLC released for Oblivion which added useless armor for their horses. WORTHLESS.

On the other hand the Rockband franchise is pretty much the picture perfect example of what DLC can be about. The core game is pretty simple, with a full disc of content, but then for anywhere between $0.99 and $1.99 you can get a full song and charts for all the instruments. Every week there are new releases from both the parent company and from fans through the Rockband Network. You damn well better believe I was happy to pay $5.99 for the Rush 2112 pack that came out 3 weeks ago.

Also, if either of you were actually paying attention to the position of the industry rather than your position as a consumer you'd note that the industry is actually very much moving toward free to play models with extra content being sold to whoever wants it. They finally realized you'll get way more than 10 people willing to pay $5 for various chunks of content than it is to convince 1 person to pay $50 for all the content.

**DOUBLE POST FOR A STEAM TRADE**

I scored a voucher for Shadowgrounds and Shadowgrounds:Survivor during the holiday event last month. They're great games, loads of top down arcade shooter fun, think Half Life meets Aliens plus Contra. Reason I'm looking to trade (and know the games are great) is because I bought them at retail a few years ago. Totally worth it.

However, this voucher is not worth it for me. I'd like to trade for Defense Grid:The Awakening. I figure I'll make the offer here for the other Steam users on the board first. If no one replies or PMs me by the end of the weekend then I'll post it up on Steam.

It's not so much that the fights are hard, it's more that they bore me. Perhaps it's from having had my fill of those sort of games. I now prefer the more action gameplays of RPG/adventures like Legend of Zelda : A Link to the Past, Chrono Trigger and Secret of Mana.

i've always preferred turn-based combat to real-time, and still do

It's usually fun at first, but after a while you realize that you spend most of your time in the game playing this little fight minigame which gets old. At least that's how I feel. Eventually, every time I hit a random enemy and get sent back to the fight screen, it feels like my progress through the game is being hindered. If it's an action style game, at least I can pick my own fights to some extent.