thephoenix
-
Posts
71 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by thephoenix
-
-
Cable and Sonson are staples? Please explain.
I should have separated those two statements a bit more. Characters like Storm, Cable, Cyclops, and numerous others were very commonly played characters. Son Son was more a staple for me in MvC2. It seems numerous big-name characters are gone and replaced with lesser-known ones. I can forgive Son Son, but if you look, numerous characters are missing...with 15-20 new characters in, and only about 38 on the roster, that means 40 characters were removed.
-
Marvel vs Capcom 2 had 58 characters. This game seems to only have 38. Plus, they took out far too many staple characters (WHERE THE FUCK IS CABLE?! SON SON!? Son of a bitch...) to put in new guys, when most of them aren't exactly amazing adds. Plus, I really don't like the new look of the game. I'd have been psyched if they kept the old school fighting game feel and doubled the roster...instead, we're stuck with this.
I swear to god if I find out they held back characters just to sell them as DLC, this game is moving from my "buy" list to my "pirate" list so I can take that money and pay for the "rest of the game".
-
I think relyance put it best
there are some DLCs out there, even paid, that is well done and doesn't otherwise fit into the game
eg. The Shadow Broker stuff in Mass Effect 2
and then there's stuff like Soul Calibur 4 where you have to pay money to unlock characters that are already on the disc
Oh yeah, THAT shit pisses me off. If I see DLC thats only 128kb, that means whatever I'm paying for is already on the disk and this is just an unlock. To hell with that...and they wonder why people have started turning to piracy more and more.
Hell, another thing with DLC just came to mind. XBox states that, with their achievements in a game, all of them must be accessable without purchasing further content (besides online multiplayer awards, where you're paying for that). Fable made it where you had to buy a specific item, I believe the table top game pack, to get a specific item to unlock an achievement. It was the only way to get the item, and specifically required purchased content. XBox let them get away with it. I'm not just talking the extra points that you get with most DLC, I'm talking the original 1000pt setup could not be completed if hadn't purchased other content. Essentially, for point chasers, they forced another $10 out of you for a single achievement.
Sadly, I can't bring myself to say I want to see DLC gone completely. I do like the possibilities it brings to the table. I just wish most game companies wouldn't sit and abuse the hell out of it.
-
DLC, while great in theory, was horribly executed. Still, most gamers will drop money on it, which will make it appear to be a successful business tactic, and it just continues to get worse.
The idea of DLC was like getting expansion packs for PC games (as some have already mentioned). For the longest time, it was impossible for games to get additional content that PC gamers would be able to get. DLC was meant as a step to correct that, and in theory, was a great idea.
Then game companies realized something...they could sell half a game, then put up the rest as DLC, extending the deadline for the games creative base and effectively charging you upwards of 2x the amount you'd normally pay for a single game. Fable 2 is one of the biggest propagators of this, by releasing that was far too short for a game of it's calibur, instead relying on what was originally going to be 6 episodic DLCs. Other games release small add-on packs at insane prices, but again, gamers want everything they can get. Sadly, this has driven the gaming devs to continue this practice, and as a few have said, it's only going to get worse. More and more, DLC becomes more expensive while offering less gameplay. Fallout 3 especially had this issue. $10 for DLC able to be beaten completely in 3 hours is not worth the price you pay, but most wont know that until AFTER they have bought the content.
However, there are some companies that go well out of their way to do DLC right. Gearbox is one I will forever praise for this. Their Borderlands DLC (with the exception of Mad Moxxi's Underdome, which they openly admit was a good idea gone bad) added 15-20+ hours of gameplay, if not more, for each pack. General Knoxx's Secret Armory could technically be it's own game with the amount of things that become available. If you own all 3 "playable" DLC (as Moxxi's was more of an arena, less of a story driven DLC), you could easily rack up 50-60 more hours of gameplay for a single playthrough. Go through both playthroughs and you're looking at 100+ hours. Their DLCs also go for the same price as the "map packs" released by most FPS game devs.
I wanted DLC to work. It was a great idea that, sadly, companies like Activision and EA found out could be used as way to squeeze money out of every player of the game...and when the big dogs do it, it's hard for the smaller companies to not be forced to go the same route.
-
Oh how I want to debate this rigt now... Suffice it to say, my assertion is the the status quo was created through invalid logic, so I still don't have to prove it shouldn't exist; you still have the burden of proof because you hold the affirmative argument. Also, you can't assume that copyright is logical, but I can assume no copyright is logical because no copyright is the null argument.
I'd elaborate, but i'll just ask you to look it up on wikipedia.
I'm still trying to figure out what copyright has to do with the economics of game prices...
-
That's 1x10^200 or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ideas from that one person.
That is an utterly incomprehensible number.
Whatchutalkinbout? I come up with that many ideas in a day! That's weak sauce, try 1x10^2000 and we're talking about a challenge.
-
Hell, back before intellectual property, this sort of thing happened a lot. The only reason you have heard of Shakespeare is not because he was a great playwright (he was, but still), it's because his company managed to produce plays that were not entirely his in just a more visible fashion. But don't think for an instant that he wrote all of the plays attributed to him now, he just tweaked them and put his name, and his company's name, on it which gave his version of the plays great visibility.
This right here. So many people don't understand how damaging artistic theft was, and how rampant it was, before copyright laws. You think it's businesses trying to lock things down? Again, your ideas of business practices would make any company you run crumble before it got off the ground. Protecting your creations that you invest your time, money, and effort into is necessary, and more than just for profit's sake. Intellectual property laws exist to protect from content theft much like this. As well, going off your earlier statements about how a company should look to charge less to save the consumers pennies on the dollar rather than make a decent profit to continue business growth...just, take that to a major corporation. Take that to a million major corporations. If you can get even one to accept that business model, I will give you my grand piano. $20k piano. It's yours. I'll even move it to you.
Just to save you the time, it will never work. Businesses need profit to survive. They need to protect their creations to survive. This world is filled with countless copies, bootlegs, rip-offs, and so many other things that could damage those companies and their property if they didn't have the protection provided by the law.
-
-
The court's job is not to "update meanings", they're job is to interpret meaning, and the word "interpret" implies "original intent" plays a part in it. It's not my fault that the Supreme Court is now filled with partisan idolatry. I'm simply stating the original intent, and that said "original intent" is all that matters, at the end of the day... unless you have a Constitutional amendment, which has not been done for copyright. Legally, that's the only thing that's SUPPOSED to be able to invalidate "original intent".
...do what now? First off, it is interpretation. However, it's interpretation in usage for where it stands today. Times change, and the laws change with it. So yes, "original intent" does translate over. Yeah, it's not your fault the Supreme Court has the ability to make rulings over things...you know, that's kind of their job and all. Either way, I'd love to see where you think that constitutional rights, like the copyright clause, can't be re-interpreted and presented through court rulings nowadays.
I want to know where you studied law, or economics, or politics, or US History, because so far, you've been wrong on all four.
-
Kenogu, name me a single person who, today, uses the term "arts" to mean "artisan skills". "Arts" now means creative endeavors. This was not the case when the Constitution was drafted; any etymologist will tell you that, including this one. It's only made worse by the fact that they specifically included the word "useful" to denote a separation in context between "arts" as an artisan term and "art" as in artwork. It's not "misrepresentation" if you use the original historical context when discerning meaning... which is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do when they deliberate, BTW.
*sigh* I'm starting to lose my cool because people are refusing outright to read. It's not like I'm even making a logical claim anymore; this is all history stuff. This is all documented.
You may want to take the time and read through the widespread number of cases that went to the supreme court over the definition of this passage. While the original may be "outdated", the courts have ruled on updated meanings to it. So yes, "artisan skills" does, in fact, refer to anything created artistically, be it writings, movies, books, and in this case, games.
I'm just waiting for you to change subjects again once everyone else in this entire thread tells you how wrong you are.
-
I already did, dude! Jesus, read!
I didn't say that content creators DON'T have exclusive rights now, I said that the historically never did until the law was butchered for private interests! This is history; I'm not trolling you. This isn't some elaborate lie; it's the fucking Constitution of the United States of America in its original, unedited glory.
And, you call me the troll? You're not even reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
I think you need to actually read what that entire clause states. I don't think it means what you think it means. The law was never written for works to not be protected, this was created to protect those works through legality. Butchered for private interest? It was created so that people who craft something "artistically" can retain ownership of that creation. By the way, that "limited time" thing can be renewed. Again, just read. Educate yourself instead of acting like you know what you're talking about, maybe you won't be mocked as much. It's a long shot, but who knows?
-
You actually have it backwards. Again, legally speaking, the content creators had NO RIGHTS to sell their work exclusively (full rights to sell, just not exclusively), nor should they, because it's art. Because intellectual property is not a scarce resource, that doesn't mean I ONLY have to right to make my own; it means I should also have to right to reproduce existing works as I see fit, which was how the law ORIGINALLY was written.
This is all I needed to see. You have no idea how copyright law works, are so far away from economics it's almost insulting, and that right there? That's enough for me to either say that you're a troll, or you just can't see how things really are with your head that far up your ass.
Content creators don't have the right to sell exclusively what THEY create? You have the right to reproduce someone else's work as you see fit? Tell you what, show me where this exists. Show me any proof where this is true. If not, I'd call for a mod to lock this just because that right there screams trolling.
-
Problem with that is: If they decrease subscription by 5$ it will have exactly the projected effect you claim: More players.
It seems like we agree on all other points, so I'll just comment on this...yes, more players may be a good thing in the number of those paying, but it may not be enough to make up for the lost profit. That's something that people don't seem to get...more people at less cost may sound good, but it will take millions of new players to make up for lost profit, and I highly doubt a $5 decrease will bring the increase to that level, especially considering the things you mentioned that would be caused by a large increase of the MMO's population.
-
BUT BUT BUT BUT they don't NEEEEED to make all that money!
Hah, that's right, companies should only shoot to break even, and any company looking to make profit is greedy and is boning their consumers, and the consumers should be mad about this!
-
I dont think WoW should be $3 a month, of course Blizzard needs excess profit for everything else it does, but even decreasing it to $9.99 a month would be more fair and wouldn't hurt the company that much.
While it may not sound much on the small side, keep in mind that a $5 decrease in subscriptions is equal to 1/3rd of the income being lost. It may not be much to the consumer, but that means billions lost for the company.
-
Wee, this is going to be fun!
Yeah, I'm going to ignore Neko's post because the premise is how I'm a "fuckstick", not how my argument is wrong. Unless he can somehow mathematically deduce how I'm a fuckstick AND make it relate to the concept of game pricing, it's not worth responding to.Just get to the "I know you are but what am I?" portion of this argument and get it overwith.
For instance, I'm buying produce at the supermarket. I see potatoes on sale for 5$ a bag (10 lbs per bag). To me, looking at other stores selling potatoes in comparable amounts for 7$, that's a good deal. However, I go home (with my new bag of potatoes) and see a report on 20/20 about how not only are the migrant workers farming the potatoes are getting paid .10$ a day for their work, but the company that sells the potatoes only has to pay 1$ total per bag to produce it, and just posted record profits the previous quarter.
Now, is it illogical to be upset about the amount I paid for my potatoes, even though they were the cheapest potatoes in my town? Wouldn't it be in my best interest, as a consumer, to complain and to attempt to force the potato company to charge me less for potatoes? And wouldn't it be illogical, to say the least, for me to not only argue that I shouldn't complain, or that I have no right to complain, but illogical (in terms of what's best for ME, the consumer) to say that the company is free to charge me MORE?
Because that's what you're doing in this thread. You're arguing FOR the people who are charging you out the ass (provably so, according to the numbers). You know who you are? You're the same people who are arguing that food companies shouldn't be required to put nutritional information on food packaging because it's bad for business. Dude, it's BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH; is business somehow more important than your health?
Well, are Blizzard's incredible 2010 profits more important than you being able to save some money on your monthly gaming?
So, do you not try to save money where you can? I mean, hey, if you make so much money that you really don't care about throwing it around, good for you, but are you seriously telling me that if I gave you the option of paying 15$ for something, or paying 10$ for the exact same thing, you'd WANT to pay 15$ because it's better for Bobby Kotick?
Holy shit, you made leaps that Evel Knievel would look at and go "oh fuck no". How do you go from being a thrifty shopper, to the price that immigrant workers get paid for a single portion of the necessary procedure to get it from potato to potato chip, bagged, shipped, in stores, ready to consume, to illegal business practices? Just...wow. No, I'm not even going to waste the time explaining how wrong this is. You should know better. Plus, again, way to look at a single point of production and compare it to total income. Keep it up, you're doing great!
Well, for MMOs, it's a bit different, because stealing market share from WoW also has to do with their installed playerbase, as well as the fact that there is a social structure in place, so if I wanted to take away players, I'd need to supplant WoW's already existent social sturcture (friends playing and such).WoW was able to take from EverQuest, and other games have taken from WoW. WoW is just easily accessable. Who cares if it's got an installed player base? Hell, I know a lot of people that enjoy Coke products, that doesn't mean new soda manufacturers need to copy Coca-Cola's production line to get business.
But, assume that I was going up against Rockstar. Assume, for the sake of argument, that I could make a game that played JUST as smoothly as Red Dead Redenption, was just as fun, had just as good of a story, cost the same to make... but I sold it for 10$ less. Are you seriously asserting that I wouldn't totally outsell them, assuming all other things equal?Well, you'd first off be running the risk of copyright infringement, but no, there's nothing saying you couldn't, nor that you wouldn't outsell them. However, it's about the bottom line. Sure, sell 1.5 million copies of a game at $50 and you end up with 75 million. However, sell 1.3 million at $60 and you end up with 78 million. It's the reason why the Wii sells more than most other consoles but PS3 and XBox 360 can still bring in more income.
Yes, WoW doesn't have a competitor to lower prices against. But, AGAIN, you, AS A CONSUMER, should want them to.Have you seen the MMO market recently? With FFXIV, DC Universe, APB, League of Legends, MapleStory, and millions of free to play MMOs, there are tons of competitors, and many are holding their own.
And the fact that you don't astounds me. Maybe YOU haven't had to give up gaming in order to have enough money to buy food, but I have, and I guarantee you, I want lower prices for games. I want to save as much money as possible in ALL aspects of life. Because that's in my best interests, as a consumer.So, in the end, you're just bitching because you don't want to pay more when they make more money for making a better product. WoW may have a huge player base now but it wasn't something they instantly gained. It built up, and did so because they found a working formula. They still price it the same as any other MMO, and again, sometimes cheaper. If it was $200 a month I'd be right along side you. But $15 is change. I have $15 probably in my car right now. You can blame it on the price, I blame it on insane popularity and the mass player base. They're a business, and businesses need money to grow. That's ok though, you can stick with your "immigrant worker" analogy all you want and ignore the entire rest of the game development side of things.
Maybe if they hired immigrant workers at Blizzard they could bring their costs down even more and go swimming in vaults filled with gold...
-
In the interest of listening to DS and NOT getting onto tangents, I'm going to ignore that. Would anyone like to address the point that Blizzard has made enough in 7 years in subscription fees that they CAN, indeed, afford to lower the price of subscription to WoW?
And that PLAYERS should want them to do so, because it is in their best interest?
Ignoring it? We're just presenting the cold, hard facts.
I love getting to use phrases people use against them.
Either way, look at the obvious things that just outright scream how wrong you are. Most MMOs do a base of $15 a month. Hell, many go BEYOND that. FFXI charged people an extra $3 for each character they had. $15 a month is extremely reasonable, considering what you get out of it. Lets say you play 40 hours in a month, which is small compared to most playtimes. That means that every hour you play, it costs you 37 cents. A 2 hour movie costs almost 25x as playing most MMOs. Oh, and the note of movies, really good ones tend to rake in millions, if not billions, over cost. I guess we should bitch that bigger, better movies that make more profit should lower their ticket prices because we're getting "boned".
As well, again, companies have a bottom line of profit they have to reach. If Blizzard has something they supply for a very paltry amount, and still can make massive bank on it, good for them. I make $15 in less than an hours worth of work. Even on minimum wage, you're covered for an ENTIRE MONTH with 3 hours of work.
You're right, they should lower it to $10, lose out on numerous profits, stint growth, and so on, just to save everyone an extra $5 a month. Great business plan. You should consider opening a game company, you'd do amazing with your "lets just break even" strategy!
-
So you REALLY think it took OVER $7 BILLION to develop WoW? Because that's the income I got from WoW subscriptions, assuming a quarterly average of $250 million per quarter for 7 years (admittedly, a number I pulled out of my ass to illustrate a point)?
There's NO WAY even ALL of the dev costs for designing the game from scratch totals that... and even if it DID that article only talks about PURE SUBSCRIPTION PROFITS, not even taking into account money made from sales of the game discs / expansions / in-game items.
Yeah, I think Blizzard has covered their expenses.
I'm sure all businesses around the world don't actually look to make a profit, they're just looking to break even. Bravo. Let me know when you pass 8th grade economics. I figure it'll be a few years.
-
That's not really the argument, though. MMOs, in terms of price-to-value ratio, are probably the most efficient way to spend your money... IF you have a lot of consistent time to spend playing. The issue is with the price relative to the cost of producing the game. After all, when Blizzard is asked why they have a subscription model at all, they "claim" it's to pay for server maintenance and game world upkeep... but between 2004 (the year the game launched) and 2008, a whole four years, Blizzard only spent a TOTAL of $200 million maintaining the game... and that might include ALL expenses, including CEO pay, for instance, so who knows how accurate that really is and what they mean by "upkeep" (for instance, Bobby Kotick made over $900,000 in salary ALONE, not including bonuses and options... just in 2009).
Meanwhile, as I said earlier in the thread, Blizzard made $745 MILLION just in ONE QUARTER in 2010. One quarter.
So, while $15 MAY be a good deal, in and of itself, taken within the context of WHY you're supposed to be paying a subscription at all and just how much money those subscriptions are bringing in, it's painfully obvious that Blizzard makes the price 15$ because they are greedy, and because people are willing to pay it (probably because they don't know how much Blizzard is making off of them and how ripped off they are getting, in the big-picture sense). It COULD be cheaper, as cheap as 3$, potentially, and it SHOULD be cheaper, if Blizzard cared at all about its consumer base in a real, significant way. It SHOULD be cheaper, and people should be fighting to MAKE it cheaper.
But, hey, people don't care if they're getting boned by Blizzard / Bobby Kotick. What do I know; I'm just presenting the cold, hard numbers.
Your lack of understanding of the business economics of a game company are showing. While game upkeep, which includes staffing to keep the game running, server costs, and so on, may only have been $200m, nowhere in the entire article does it talk about development costs, which I guarantee are MUCH higher than that. Not only that, consider things like marketing, promotion, payroll (there are more people than just those keeping servers up and running), and so many other things that do cost a damn decent amount of money. It even says in your posted article the following:
"Sure there's plenty of other revenues - and expenses - that factor into the equation..."
This is merely for upkeep. You may want to read through the entire article next time. Either way, Blizzard came across an endless gold mine and charged the base price that almost every Pay-to-Play MMO has charged since before it even existed. That profit they make is what allows them to expand, to have more freedom in the business, to bring us previously canceled titles like Diablo 3 and StarCraft 2.
By the way, your cold, hard numbers are appearing a bit soft. Do your research a bit better next time.
-
According to whom?
I'm not saying I'm a fan of WoW, far from it, it's more the relative idea of it...if someone can have a months worth of what they consider to be fun for $15, who can blame them?
Pardon me while I get my DC Universe on.
-
This is off topic, but intresting.
I decided to tally up my MMO expenses with WoW. Mind you, I believe I've gotten every dollar's worth out of the game.
Subsciber since July 2005 = about 68 months * $15 = $1020
Base game = $60. All three expansions at launch = $120 ($40 each).
One Character race change = $25
Grand total on one game? Approximately $1225, probably less because I tend to pay by the 3 month block, which comes out to closer to 14 a month.
This does bring up an interesting point with the MMO market. $15 a month for progressive, never-ending gaming. For 1/4th of a single, new game, you get unlimited playtime in most MMOs. I'd willingly spend that much for something I'd continually have fun with. Even with micro-transactions becoming more and more prominent in the MMO market, many are even offered as free to play. While the games may not be as top tier as many AAA dev games, they do provide a hell of a good time regardless without the issue of "replay factor".
-
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but part of the increase in game prices up from $49.99 to $59.99 and sometimes higher is because of the increasing difficulty that some systems implement to actually create a game. XBox360 is about right at the baseline for devs where it's not too difficult to produce a game of extreme magnitude, whereas PS3 has such advanced technology that it almost is too powerful, and the Wii is just far too gimmicky and annoying to program for that most games that used to be ports to all three major systems (at the time, Gamecube, PS2, and XBox) now only hit Sony and Microsoft's shores.
Also, keep this in mind with Gamestop. Yes, publishers are pissy that they don't get money off used game sales, but lets face the honest truth here: the bottom line for games comes from new sales, not used. Used game stores have existed for as long as I can remember, working their way into second hand stores and old music stores. Gamestop is essentially a reseller. I can drive 5 miles from my house and hit a Movie Trading Company, 2 Gamestops, a CGX (game exchange), Entertainmart (game exchange), and about 3 mom and pop stores that deal in game exchanging in one way or another. The reason they're pointing a finger at Gamestop is because it's the biggest target, and they want to see if they can pull more money out of their games. It's bully tactics.
Simply put, once a person purchases a game, and the company that produced and developed it get their cut, that's it. The company got their share. If the person that owns the game decides to trade it in or sell it because the game is able to be beat in hours, and has no replay value (see: 75% of games today), that is their choice. The game companies should have no right or say in that. Gamestop gives gamers the ability to trade in their games, albeit for insultingly low deals most times, to get new games. The games that go out from people trading in come out of their pocket. Those games that get traded in may never even sell. It's a risk, but that's what second hand stores do. Even still, the game company received their payment at the initial purchase. They still make tons of money off of new game sales. Sure, some people only like to buy used but in this economy, most of us (myself included) can't afford to drop $500+ every month on buying numerous games in the first place. If it wasn't for Gamestop, I guarantee I'd find them elsewhere like eBay, Craigslist, MTC, and wherever else I can.
Sadly, the cost of gaming is out of control. I used to pay $10k a year on gaming alone. Since then I've modded almost every system I have, I pay for the games that I really want (especially if they're made by indy or smaller devs), and all I continue to see is the same formula...cost goes up, replay and gameplay value goes down. What happened to the days where you could buy a game and it'd take you 40-60 hours to beat, and that's if you didn't do anything but follow the storyline completely? Better yet, why is it that DLC, something originally meant as a way to build upon a completed game, is now a way for devs and publishers to push out a half-completed game, then charge MORE for the rest of the game later on? I'm looking at you, Fable 2.
If you want to look at some interesting things with the gaming economy, look up how Activision almost pulled out all support from Sony and the PS3, or how many game devs have either considered, or went through with, canceling exclusivity to PS3 or Nintendo due to how costly it is to produce games on either system.
-
Do you by chance have any more tracks you need done? I've got some extra time anyway and I tend to be able to kick out a song pretty quickly depending on what style it's done.
-
No, it's still infringement. Intent has nothing to do with infringement. It doesn't matter if someone is a fan or a professional working for another company. It doesn't matter if they're doing something for-profit or not-for-profit. Infringement is infringement. If you're using someone's intellectual property for any reason, you're still infringing on their rights. IP means intellectual property, so yes, technically Square Enix is the only one allowed to do anything with their games. Because, you know, it's their property.
Yep. I don't believe anyone here has any illusions to the contrary. We do, however, have a very good relationship with many industry folks, so we're not too worried about that sort of thing happening to us. Plus, you know, Fair Use and all that.
Actually, intent has a lot to do with it, especially with you bringing up fair use. Hell, if you wanted to, you could easily put this game under fair use in numerous ways. In fact, I have a pretty good feeling if they were taken to court, it'd be ruled in favor of the fan game creators. Big amount of the "infringement" cases is about intent, so you can't just rule it out. The courts tend to look at things like plagiarism, intent to profit, defamation, and numerous other things, none of which this game fall under. Read up a little more on Fair Use...both the infringement laws and Fair Use are very open-worded so it's all about how you go about it. My brother got hit with a C&D by Nexon after his MapleStory site was posting a database with the entire games information on just about everything. He had a lawyer who contacted them back and argued Fair Use, especially citing intention. So it still deserves to be noted as it's what has been the central focus of numerous cases.
Sega just called OC ReMix out...
in General Discussion
Posted
I got it! Lets take the songs from their games...and make them turn into weresongs! YEAH! We can add in an annoying, whiny, unnecessary character to talk through most of the songs about how he got himself in trouble and now the song is the only one that can save him! Half the song will be really fast and intense like others are used to, but then we'll make the other half really clunky, slow, and boring!
I begin work tonight!