Weekend Confirmed 160 - Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon, Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate

By Ozzie Mejia, Apr 12, 2013 11:00am PDT

All aboard the Blood Dragon hype train! This week, Garnett Lee and Jeff Cannata welcome in Shacknews' Ozzie Mejia and The Escapist's Andrea Rene. The crew talks about Kickstarter and why some campaigns wind up more successful than others. There's also some talk about Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate, Gears of War: Judgment, and the Company of Heroes 2 beta. Also, there's talk about Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon and a lot of love for the most recent trailer. After all that love, everyone welcomes in the weekend with a new slew of Finishing Moves.

Weekend Confirmed Ep. 160: 4/12/2013

Subscription Links:

Here's a handy pop-up player so you can listen from right here on the page. Let us know how it works for you.

If you're viewing this in the GameFly application, you can play Weekend Confirmed Episode 160 directly.

Weekend Confirmed comes in four segments to make it easy to listen to in segments or all at once. Here's the timing for this week's episode:

    Show Breakdown:

    Round 1 - 00:00:35 - 00:27:29

    Whatcha' Been Playin Part 1 - 00:28:56 - 00:59:11

    Whatcha Been Playin Part 2 00:59:49 - 01:32:26

    Segment 4/Finishing Moves - 01:33:11 - 02:04:48

Follow the Weekend Confirmed crew on Twitter, too!

Weekend Confirmed @WeekendConfirmd

Garnett Lee @GarnettLee

Jeff Cannata @JeffCannata

Ozzie Mejia @Ozz_Mejia

Andrea Rene @AndreaRene

Remember to join the Official Facebook Weekend Confirmed Page and add us to your Facebook routine. We'll be keeping you up with the latest on the show there as well.

Original music in the show by Del Rio. Get his latest Album, Club Tipsy on iTunes. Check out more, including the Super Mega Worm mix and other mash-ups on his ReverbNation page or Facebook page, and follow him on twitter @delriomusic.

Click here to comment...



  • I think Jeff is confused about how subsidized products work in the real world. You don't pay LESS over time, you pay MORE over time. Saying "I'm going to pay for the service anyway, so I might as well..." is.. I don't know, irrelevant? You're going to pay MORE for it. Total Cost of Ownership (MS loves this term); The deal is, you pay LESS upfront and MORE in total.

    This is especially true if you calculate what they're counting on making, which will include all sorts of fees (sent-you-a-bill fee, late fees, ...). They will also allow themselves to sell your information and so on. It all adds up.

    And no, there is no magic "benefit to consumers of always-online req." that Microsoft are waiting to spring upon the world. Sorry, magic isn't real. Everything you can do when being online (by choice) you can do when being online (forced). There are only downsides to being forced. You don't have to try and write out the logic expression to figure that out.

    Now allow myself to contradict what I just said. If this always-on DRM led to lower prices on new games, then that could be seen as a win for the consumer. However, that too is FANTASY.

    Third, the question isn't ONLY whether I trust MY connection to the internet. I don't necessarily trust THEIR service.

    I like to think that I'm pragmatic about this. I assign value to games and the machines I play them on. Things like second hand value, oppressive DRM, reproduction cost, quality, zeitgeist, etc, etc. goes into calculating this value. Then I buy the product when its actual price goes below my assigned value.

    If they think I'm buying.... sorry... **paying full price for a non-transferable license** to be able to download -- a limited number of times -- a digital-only version of a game that I get to play only as long as their service allows it, then they're deluded.

    Companies love to try and exploit us using 'Value-based pricing'. Let's judo that shit.

    Thread Truncated. Click to see all 7 replies.

    • Yeah, it was funny to listen to this praise of subsidised phones, when I think about the total costs in US compared to those in Finland (where I live). Like, my wife bought a Samsung Galaxy S III a year ago or so. She made a two year contract, got the phone for free and now she's paying 25€/month (including 24% VAT, which is never calculated in American prices AFAIK) for the phone, unlimited data (meaning absolutely no cap on how much you can use it), free talk to people on the same provider's network, 0,07€/min to other networks and 0,07€/text message. The total monthly bill is, in reality, never over 26€. There are other plans, which she could have chosen, but this was the smartest choice with her use.

      So, in the end, after two years she will have paid for the phone and the sorvice a grand total of about 600€. (And for convenience, in USD and without taxes that would amount to $633). From what I have heard, this is not nearly what you would expect to pay for a similar package from AT&T or Verizon. And, of course, you have to take into account the (technical) service quality. I'm not saying that it's bad in the States, but... well, in Finland we don't usually have to complain. Oh, and after the two years, she's free to take a subscription from any carrier while keeping her old phone number and paying anything from five to twenty euros a month (data included).

      I'll go out on a limb and say that the reason for these prices here is that traditionally you have not been tied to a single carrier. You can buy your phone from wherever, and you can take to service from whoever. Now, if you take a console from Microsoft, and you take a mandatory service from Microsoft, they are pretty much free to set the prices to whatever. Sure, you could get the console for a hundred bucks or even for free. And you'll only be paying a modest monthly price of $20 or $25. For the rest of your console's life!

      Now, as to the justification of required internet connection: it sounds a lot like a solution waiting for a problem. If a game requires a constant connection, there's nothing to prevent games from implementing that themselves. Hell, World of Warcraft is an "always online" game, that could not deliver the same experience when disconnected. You can still take your laptop with you on a plane and watch downloaded videos, play Frozen Synapse or do spreadsheets while disconnected. (Yes, I've done these all. Living the life, man!)

      How on earth would a hardware level connection requirement improve over this? I just came from a two week vacation from a country with poor to no internet connection. I was playing Metal Gear Solid and Sly Cooper on my Vita, and at no point did it occur to me, that I had a problem in either of those games that could only be solved by tha device requiring to be connected all the time. I don't remember a single time in single player games when I thought: "Boy, wouldn't it be swell, if this game refused to function if I weren't connected to the internet right now". THERE IS NOTHING TO SOLVE HERE! If Microsoft's or Cliffy B's answer to this non-problem is unplugging, then I can only say the same thing Garnett did: "I don't want to".

      I may need to unplug my devices from the network. I don't want to unplug from my devices.