Leaderboard

In this day and age I think they should make sure that after official support ends the console can still be used without it. So if they intend to shut down servers, release a patch that makes the consoles fully functional without it.

I was actually wondering why is it still called GTA (Grand Theft Auto) even if it's not really based on stealing cars, the game series got this name because that's what it was supposed to be based on, but due to some bug, the game took another path to what we see it on these days, but the name was never changed (except that it was called Race n' Chace before GTA). Do you think that any of the current existing games/series have a name that don't really fit with it?

Entertainment is art. Even for talk shows there is such a thing as the art of speech or debate. Or martial arts, is not called art by accident. So I think everything that is not serving an utilitarian purpose is some type of art. But as soon as you try to give it a specific purpose beyond entetaining, it stops being art, it becomes propaganda.

If you don't game online though, then that doesn't really make any sense. The console can still be used to game. Just not online. And there are a lot of games that are super popular that don't offer any online version. Yet they're still successful. There are some that have been on multiple entries into a console franchise. Skyrim is on the PS3 and the PS4 both. So ending "official support" doesn't make the console a paperweight. They will still run any games you have, just not an online version.

You still steal more cars in gta than in any other game. So I think the name fits very well. When I think about weird names, I think about series like Star Wars Dark Forces, Star Wars Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight, which would make the third game called Star Wars Dark Forces III: Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast LOL

I'd say a good 2 decades and then when they officially cut support, you can still download the game somewhere and it can function on a local device. I also think that backwards compatibility should be supported if you don't plan on continuing support for a particular device within the first 10 years.

I would say they should support it until at least 2 years into their next console's life. If that's confusing, I mean Playstation should continue to support PS4 until a minimum of 2 years into PS5's life. Preferably longer. I'm saying this because with every console release there are bugs that the company didn't catch. And on release the only ones that seem to be able to even get the damn things are fucking scalpers. So most gamers will still be playing the previous generation because they simply can't afford a 300% markup from a cocksucker who's greedy as fuck. I'm not dropping $1500 on a $500 console.

If there's one advantage consoles should have, it's that they're their own ecosystem. Unlike with PC, where emulation and support is becoming increasingly difficult for those behind such things, consoles are beholden only to their own exclusive operating system and hardware. They don't have to worry so much about compatibility compared to, say, Windows, and all the changes to the parts that go into a case. They do however have to contend with the used games market and the graphical arms race publishers want to push, meaning whether they want to support a console or not is at odds with the money they'll make from it as time goes on. What doesn't help, and as far as I'm concerned is inexcusable, is the online requirements for patching firmware such as internet connections during first-time setups or after formatting. I'd be fine with them cutting support for a console the moment the next one comes out if it weren't for that; otherwise I'm just waiting in the rafters to say "another blow against digital ownership", and move on to the next thing I'll get mad about.

I have to agree with @The Blackangel. Just like how I don't necessarily like Final Fantasy IX, that doesn't mean it's a bad game necessarily. Creators for the most part, are usually honest about what a game entails. If the game is close to what they described pre-release and I still didn't like it, then that's on me. In the case of games like Anthem where EA consistently lied about most things, I'd blame them.

They really don't have any difference at all. Art is entertainment. Entertainment is art. The Louvre houses some of the greatest art in the world, and it entertains thousands if not millions every year. Entertainment is everything from movies, to plays, to games, to books. It's all an art form from the creator. My art, as you all know, is the written word. They are one and the same.

It depends on how far I actually went into it. If I went far into the game, then it's on me. It had my attention and interest in the beginning. If it is in a genre that I'm a huge fan of, like fantasy, and the game just sucked in my opinion then it's still on me. Witcher 3 is like that. I didn't like it, but that doesn't mean the developers are to blame for my personal taste.