Destiny 2 Shadowkeep Reviews thread

Oct 27, 2017
964
There are entire sections of the game that are directly taken from Destiny 1. For example as part of the main questline you have to go back through the wrecked Ketch of Skolas and kill him....again. And they changed literally NOTHING about the encounter or the level itself. Its the exact same mission we had in Destiny 1. And all of this is taking place on the moon and aside from some cosmetic changes a sizable portion of the map is exactly the as it was in Destiny 1. And thats not including the fact we have no new enemy types. Its the same enemies we have been killing for years with name changes. Lets do some comparisons between Shadowkeep and Forsaken real quick.


Forsaken

- Brand new class of enemies in the Scorn that had unique models and behaviors

- Quite a few new characters added to the cast as well as other characters being fleshed out. (The Queen, Spider, Petra, Cayde, etc etc)

- Brand new area to visit in the form of the Forgotten Shore

- Brand new area to visit in the form of the Dreaming City

- A wide variety of new armor sets

- A wide variety of new weapons

- New abilities for ALL classes

- A well thought out and well written storyline

- A storyline which btw played out right before our eyes with quite a few really well done cutscenes after almost every major mission

- The storyline actually took a good amount of time to complete



Meanwhile in Shadowkeep we have:

- No new enemies at all. Just the same enemies we have always had with just different skins and names.

- No new areas aside from the few new parts of the moon we got

- Reused missions from previous games

- No new class abilities

- No new cast of characters

- Very few new armor sets compared to Forsaken.

- Very few new weapons compared to Forsaken.

- Less story than Forsaken

- Takes less time to complete than Forsaken

- Minimal cutscenes as well. In fact the majority of the time after you complete a mission all you get is some dialogue from Eris when you go and talk to her.


So all in all we got alot LESS this time around than we did for Forsaken and yet Bungie hyped it up as being a whole new direction for the series. That finally they could do what they want now that the chains of Activision had been broken!!!!!............and all we got was less than what we got before and what we did get was alot of reused areas and missions. And all of this for basically the same price as Forsaken. So yeah. Shadowkeep deserves every bit of criticism that its getting from players and the media.




As for Eververse and Destiny going "free to play"? Last time I checked I still had to pay $35 for access to the latest content so no they are not "free to play" in my opinion. Warframe is free to play. You get access to all new content for literally nothing. You can start the game and play all the way to the most current content without ever spending a dime. THAT is free to play. Giving access to 70% of the game, but not the 30% that everyone else is currently playing is NOT free to play. And then to have predatory micro-transactions in the form of lootboxes and premium currencies on top of that? Yeah no thanks. Eververse is literally the worst thing that ever happened to Destiny in my opinion. And as long as its in the game while Bungie insists on charging a premium for minimal content like its done for Shadowkeep I will always list it as a glaring negative for the game.



I loved Forsaken, but Shadowkeep is an embarrassing step backwards for the series. If you want to release a smaller expansion with less content than the previous one then thats fine. But you cannot charge a similar price and pretend that they are similar in scope like Bungie did leading up to its release.
Wasn’t Foresaken around 40-70 when it came out? SK is cheaper. Also, Bungie was always upfront about it being a smaller expansion. Sounds like you won’t be happy until they give you the entire game for free.
 

DrScissorsMD

Member
Jan 19, 2019
228
There are entire sections of the game that are directly taken from Destiny 1. For example as part of the main questline you have to go back through the wrecked Ketch of Skolas and kill him....again. And they changed literally NOTHING about the encounter or the level itself. Its the exact same mission we had in Destiny 1. And all of this is taking place on the moon and aside from some cosmetic changes a sizable portion of the map is exactly the as it was in Destiny 1. And thats not including the fact we have no new enemy types. Its the same enemies we have been killing for years with name changes. Lets do some comparisons between Shadowkeep and Forsaken real quick.


Forsaken

- Brand new class of enemies in the Scorn that had unique models and behaviors

- Quite a few new characters added to the cast as well as other characters being fleshed out. (The Queen, Spider, Petra, Cayde, etc etc)

- Brand new area to visit in the form of the Forgotten Shore

- Brand new area to visit in the form of the Dreaming City

- A wide variety of new armor sets

- A wide variety of new weapons

- New abilities for ALL classes

- A well thought out and well written storyline

- A storyline which btw played out right before our eyes with quite a few really well done cutscenes after almost every major mission

- The storyline actually took a good amount of time to complete



Meanwhile in Shadowkeep we have:

- No new enemies at all. Just the same enemies we have always had with just different skins and names.

- No new areas aside from the few new parts of the moon we got

- Reused missions from previous games

- No new class abilities

- No new cast of characters

- Very few new armor sets compared to Forsaken.

- Very few new weapons compared to Forsaken.

- Less story than Forsaken

- Takes less time to complete than Forsaken

- Minimal cutscenes as well. In fact the majority of the time after you complete a mission all you get is some dialogue from Eris when you go and talk to her.


So all in all we got alot LESS this time around than we did for Forsaken and yet Bungie hyped it up as being a whole new direction for the series. That finally they could do what they want now that the chains of Activision had been broken!!!!!............and all we got was less than what we got before and what we did get was alot of reused areas and missions. And all of this for basically the same price as Forsaken. So yeah. Shadowkeep deserves every bit of criticism that its getting from players and the media.




As for Eververse and Destiny going "free to play"? Last time I checked I still had to pay $35 for access to the latest content so no they are not "free to play" in my opinion. Warframe is free to play. You get access to all new content for literally nothing. You can start the game and play all the way to the most current content without ever spending a dime. THAT is free to play. Giving access to 70% of the game, but not the 30% that everyone else is currently playing is NOT free to play. And then to have predatory micro-transactions in the form of lootboxes and premium currencies on top of that? Yeah no thanks. Eververse is literally the worst thing that ever happened to Destiny in my opinion. And as long as its in the game while Bungie insists on charging a premium for minimal content like its done for Shadowkeep I will always list it as a glaring negative for the game.



I loved Forsaken, but Shadowkeep is an embarrassing step backwards for the series. If you want to release a smaller expansion with less content than the previous one then thats fine. But you cannot charge a similar price and pretend that they are similar in scope like Bungie did leading up to its release.
I don’t know why you’re comparing it to Forsaken, they were very clear it was going to be smaller than Forsaken. You think every new expansion will have a new enemy race, new supers etc? I feel like you either didn’t do your research or bought too much into the hype. A lot of your complaints are about things Destiny has always done, and while that doesn’t necessarily make it alright I don’t know why you’d wait until the first expansion after splitting from Acti to suddenly point the finger when arguably we could have quite understandably received no new content at all til they got their house in order. There is no amount of complaining that will remove Eververse, if you don’t want to partake then don’t but it’s here to stay. I really feel like you expected too much from what was very clearly going to be a smaller expansion.
 

tommy7154

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,208
Id give it like a 6. I dont do raids. Pvp can go away forever for all I care.

Armor 2.0 is a hot mess with the mods and singes, and coming from Fortnite I see zero reason this shouldnt have already been fixed. At the very least I should be able to see every mod ive gotten easily and what it goes with. Its trash.

Speaking of trash, having to pick up bounties on multiple planets from multiple vendors just to advance the season pass is a damn slog. As is going to the Tower repeatedly to access your vault. You often spend 10-15 minutes just doing garbage like that as opposed to playing the game.

The content is almost completely recycled stuff, as was clear well before launch.

The good things are that you can farm the new weapons (of which there arent enough) pretty easily, and if you never played D1, well the moon is a good sized new space for you to explore. Also the exotic hand cannon Eriana's Vow is fantastic, and they made getting Recluse easy compared to last season. Matchmaking was also finally added to the lower tiers of the Nightfall.

Im personally enjoying it overall, but theres not enough new weapons and armor, and there's too much recycled stuff to really recommend it.
 

Coyote Starrk

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
19,346
DFW, Texas
I don’t know why you’re comparing it to Forsaken, they were very clear it was going to be smaller than Forsaken. You think every new expansion will have a new enemy race, new supers etc? I feel like you either didn’t do your research or bought too much into the hype. A lot of your complaints are about things Destiny has always done, and while that doesn’t necessarily make it alright I don’t know why you’d wait until the first expansion after splitting from Acti to suddenly point the finger when arguably we could have quite understandably received no new content at all til they got their house in order. There is no amount of complaining that will remove Eververse, if you don’t want to partake then don’t but it’s here to stay. I really feel like you expected too much from what was very clearly going to be a smaller expansion.
And that's my point. It's a smaller expansion and yet they charged basically the same price for it as Forsaken. So it deserves the criticism.
 

Warnen

Member
User Warned - Lazy Dev Rhetoric
If they wanted to lazy out and just give us 80% recycled content should have given us all of the D1 areas. I can see it now D3 is years off and next expansion will be Venus rehash...
 

DrScissorsMD

Member
Jan 19, 2019
228
Id give it like a 6. I dont do raids. Pvp can go away forever for all I care.

Armor 2.0 is a hot mess with the mods and singes, and coming from Fortnite I see zero reason this shouldnt have already been fixed. At the very least I should be able to see every mod ive gotten easily and what it goes with. Its trash.

Speaking of trash, having to pick up bounties on multiple planets from multiple vendors just to advance the season pass is a damn slog. As is going to the Tower repeatedly to access your vault. You often spend 10-15 minutes just doing garbage like that as opposed to playing the game.

The content is almost completely recycled stuff, as was clear well before launch.

The good things are that you can farm the new weapons (of which there arent enough) pretty easily, and if you never played D1, well the moon is a good sized new space for you to explore. Also the exotic hand cannon Eriana's Vow is fantastic, and they made getting Recluse easy compared to last season. Matchmaking was also finally added to the lower tiers of the Nightfall.

Im personally enjoying it overall, but theres not enough new weapons and armor, and there's too much recycled stuff to really recommend it.
Nothing against you personally but I’ll never understand the logic with views like this. It’s well and good if you don’t like PvP or raiding, but when certain new armour or weapons are tied to these activities and people complain about lack of new stuff??? Like you’re excluding yourself at that point.
 

kayos90

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,405
Which is why two scores would be better for games like these, or two separate reviews: release and full content review later. And I'd say this for any game of this type, not just Destiny. They don't even need to updated the original score, keep it as it is and add another to reflect what the money bought in the end.
I think this ask is unrealistic. Reviews are trying to be timely and accurate. At a certain point there's no point in revisiting the product because the timeliness in relation to release has passed. Sure, as a live service you can argue that the timeliness is always the present then you need to continually reviewing at every single point. Additionally, consistent revisions are just not a good investment of time from the reviewers standpoint. At a certain point the line in the sand needs to be driven. There has been a precedent for how the industry standardizes on reviewing live service games so the industry will continually do so in said fashion. Your proposal, while sounds great, is idealistic and unrealistic.
 

Zok310

Member
Oct 25, 2017
795
What i expected. Taking a long ass break after Forsaken and the 5 years of grind put in between 1 and 2. Next time i play Destiny will be on next gen consoles.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,305
I think this ask is unrealistic. Reviews are trying to be timely and accurate. At a certain point there's no point in revisiting the product because the timeliness in relation to release has passed. Sure, as a live service you can argue that the timeliness is always the present then you need to continually reviewing at every single point. Additionally, consistent revisions are just not a good investment of time from the reviewers standpoint. At a certain point the line in the sand needs to be driven. There has been a precedent for how the industry standardizes on reviewing live service games so the industry will continually do so in said fashion. Your proposal, while sounds great, is idealistic and unrealistic.
It's not unrealistic at all, speaking of precident some sites have amended reviews later on so that actually fits more than opposes.

And it really depends if enough games start releasing with a seasonal content structure as part of the actual buy in. If enough do, it would make more sense to do this imo.
 

kayos90

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,405
It's not unrealistic at all, speaking of precident some sites have amended reviews later on so that actually fits more than opposes.

And it really depends if enough games start releasing with a seasonal content structure as part of the actual buy in. If enough do, it would make more sense to do this imo.
To my knowledge amended reviews for MMOs rarely happens now. You will get review in progress more often than not. Reviewers experimented with amended reviews for a while but I've seen this fall off because of the cost effectiveness of them. The review updates usually happens when there's a drastic change of sorts way later on down the line when it's not the same product altogether. I'm not saying the seasonal content isn't a drastic change. I'm saying this is how I've seen the industry treated these live service/MMO games. At a certain point, you need to review. As I stated in my post on the previous pages, one of the purposes of the review is to inform the consumer which means it has to be time sensitive to a certain degree. In this case its impact would be the most dramatic at launch. Therefore reviews will always be closer to launch. If developers want a better review for these installments then the initial package has to represent that. I know this seems unfair to the developer but we have had successful well. This is just how things operate currently. Using the Triangle, the three points are Speed, Quality, Accuracy. If you're aiming for a fast review then you have to give up quality or accuracy as a result. If you're aiming for both Quality and Accuracy then you will have to sacrifice Speed. It's a give and take. Can't have everything.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,305
To my knowledge amended reviews for MMOs rarely happens now. You will get review in progress more often than not. The review updates usually happens when there's a drastic change of sorts way later on down the line. I'm not saying the seasonal content isn't a drastic change. I'm saying this is how I've seen the industry treated these live service/MMO games. At a certain point, you need to review. As I stated in my post on the previous pages, one of the purposes of the review is to inform the consumer which means it has to be time sensitive to a certain degree. In this case its impact would be the most dramatic at launch. Therefore reviews will always be closer to launch. If developers want a better review for these installments then the initial package has to represent that. I know this seems unfair to the developer but we have had successful well. This is just how things operate currently. Using the Triangle, the three points are Speed, Quality, Accuracy. If you're aiming for a fast review then you have to give up quality or accuracy as a result. If you're aiming for both Quality and Accuracy then you will have to sacrifice Speed. It's a give and take. Can't have everything.
Nothing I wrote is opposed to anything you just wrote.

Reviewers could very easily accommodate what I suggested, and I personally think it would be good for consumers. No one is denying people should know what they get at the start, but if part of the game's buy in is literally a season of content... it doesn't cover it all and can only estimate how it will pan out.

I would love to see one review early and one later for games that release content this way, it would help me make a more informed decision if I ever choose to start one later.
 

tommy7154

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,208
Nothing against you personally but I’ll never understand the logic with views like this. It’s well and good if you don’t like PvP or raiding, but when certain new armour or weapons are tied to these activities and people complain about lack of new stuff??? Like you’re excluding yourself at that point.
Sure but in this expansion its raid gear, no new gear in pvp. And that goes for almost the whole main game in general. You get legendary and prime engrams and nearly all of it is the same junk we were getting a year ago. I think even one more new armor and weapon set mixed in there would have been a big help in not making it feel so rehashed.

As it is theres a single set thats pretty random(and terrible looking), theres the moon quest set, and then the raid set. And thats it afaik. Thats not enough imo.
 
Last edited:

kayos90

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,405
Nothing I wrote is opposed to anything you just wrote.

Reviewers could very easily accommodate what I suggested, and I personally think it would be good for consumers. No one is denying people should know what they get at the start, but if part of the game's buy in is literally a season of content... it doesn't cover it all and can only estimate how it will pan out.

I would love to see one review early and one later for games that release content this way, it would help me make a more informed decision if I ever choose to start one later.
You are directly opposing me. My thesis is that it's not realistic to have amended game reviews. Not only could there be a slippery slope but the profitability is not there. Your thesis is that releasing an initial review and then an amended one after that fact is a realistic venture. These two thesis statements are in direct contradiction to each other.

Once again, it's not cost effective and therefore that's why you don't see updates that frequently anymore. At the end of the day, reviews are part of the cycle to drive profits. The review updates rarely generate profit in relation to reviewing net new games so that's why you don't see this venture being pursued. Going back to the MMO example, you don't see Heavensward or Stormblood FFXIV expansions being reviewed at release then amended after all the major patches have been released. After all the 3.X patches and 4.X patches are all part of the expansion product technically speaking. Continuing to review MMOs is just not feasible. I'm not discussing what is right or wrong. I'm saying what is and continually will be. If you find a way for live service game review to be updated while generating profitability at the level of new releases, then this conversation can go somewhere. If not, then we're agreeing to disagree.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,305
You are directly opposing me. My thesis is that it's not realistic to have amended game reviews. Not only could there be a slippery slope but the profitability is not there. Your thesis is that releasing an initial review and then an amended one after that fact is a realistic venture. These two thesis statements are in direct contradiction to each other.

Once again, it's not cost effective and therefore that's why you don't see updates that frequently anymore. At the end of the day, reviews are part of the cycle to drive profits. The review updates rarely generate profit in relation to reviewing net new games so that's why you don't see this venture being pursued. Going back to the MMO example, you don't see Heavensward or Stormblood FFXIV expansions being reviewed at release then amended after all the major patches have been released. After tall the 3.X patches and 4.X patches are all part of the expansion product technically speaking. Continuing to review MMOs is just not feasible. I'm not discussing what is right or wrong. I'm saying what is and continually will be. If you find a way for live service game review to be updated while generating profitability at the level of new releases, then this conversation can go somewhere. If not, then we're agreeing to disagree.
I'm not directly opposing you because I'm not talkng about amending anything.

I was quite clear.

And it is perfectly cost effective, lol, gaming journalists write about their experiences anyway.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,305
Alright. Let me clarify and be more specific. Another review that reviews the game after all content has rolled out might as well be an amended review.
No it wouldn't be the same thing at all, and it's perfectly cost effective. Pretty sure enough people would be interested to read that kind of thing too.
 

kayos90

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,405
And it is perfectly cost effective, lol, gaming journalists write about their experiences anyway.
Alright. If it is perfectly cost effective, can you point me to 3 examples in the past year where a live service game received another review after all content was rolled out or an amended review after all content is rolled out. If you're saying it's cost effective then surely we would've seen it.
 

Skittles

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,290
"Alright yall, have writers waste what little time they have to rereview games to appease the fanboys. Even though its not cost effective at all due to traffic for games being front loaded on release"
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,305
Alright. If it is perfectly cost effective, can you point me to 3 examples in the past year where a live service game received another review after all content was rolled out or an amended review after all content is rolled out. If you're saying it's cost effective then surely we would've seen it.
Lmao, it's one more article. They have room for that.

"Alright yall, have writers waste what little time they have to rereview games to appease the fanboys. Even though its not cost effective at all due to traffic for games being front loaded on release"
Na, enough people would read these and it would be useful.
 

kayos90

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,405
Lmao, it's one more article. They have room for that.
There's no point in spending time going through it all and reviewing it. You say it's one more article but it takes time to generate these reviews and time costs money. Additionally, the product (review in this situation) needs to generate money. It's not a question of whether it can be done or not. It's a question of should it be done or not.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,305
There's no point in spending time going through it all and reviewing it. You say it's one more article but it takes time to generate these reviews and time costs money. Additionally, the product (review in this situation) needs to generate money. It's not a question of whether it can be done or not. It's a question of should it be done or not.
I disagree, I think there would be an audience for it and it would be helpful for consumers.
 

kayos90

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,405
I disagree, I think there would be an audience for it and it would be helpful for consumers.
If there was an audience and a profit could be made then it would've been done.You're projecting your value onto the audience and automatically assuming that because there is an audience that there would be profit. That's not the case. There other ventures that offer better returns than an updated review.

Na, enough people would read these and it would be useful.
Alright. So you're not willing to provide any examples to prove your point. Not only that but you're asserting what is your opinion as fact. I mean, your idea of having another review after the fact isn't necessarily revolutionary. Smarter minds probably have thought of this idea. The only reason it's not being done is because they have thought of the idea and realized it wasn't a cost effective venture so they opted not to.
 

Blueblur

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
3,422
Miami, FL
I agree that Shadowkeep sucks when viewed as a proper expansion which is what Bungie is billing it as. The QoL and system changes are great though and do a *ton* to prop this expansion for me personally. But yes, it’s super light on content. One of the highlights of the game right now - Vex Offensive - is tied to the season and not part of Shadowkeep. It’s not a good look.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,305
If there was an audience and a profit could be made then it would've been done.You're projecting your value onto the audience and automatically assuming that because there is an audience that there would be profit. That's not the case. There other ventures that offer better returns than an updated review.



Alright. So you're not willing to provide any examples to prove your point. Not only that but you're asserting what is your opinion as fact. I mean, your idea of having another review after the fact isn't necessarily revolutionary. Smarter minds probably have thought of this idea. The only reason it's not being done is because they have thought of the idea and realized it wasn't a cost effective venture so they opted not to.
Read below, I'm going to repeat myself for you:

Nah, otherwise people would be doing it if it was profitable lmao
No, because not enough games have released with the seasonal release content as part of the buy in for time to be a big enough issue yet.

My entire argument is IF this becomes more standard.

MMOs that are patched later aren't quite the same as this kind of consistent content release over a set time for a one off price.

I agree that Shadowkeep sucks when viewed as a proper expansion which is what Bungie is billing it as. The QoL and system changes are great though and do a *ton* to prop this expansion for me personally. But yes, it’s super light on content. One of the highlights of the game right now - Vex Offensive - is tied to the season and not part of Shadowkeep. It’s not a good look.
The season IS part of Shadowkeep. The season is part of the buy in price.
 

kayos90

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,405
Read below, I'm going to repeat myself for you:


No, because not enough games have released with the seasonal release content as part of the buy in for time to be a big enough issue yet.

My entire argument is IF this becomes more standard.

MMOs that are patched later aren't quite the same as this kind of consistent content release over a set time for a one off price.
I already addressed the bolded with the MMO example. You're saying it's not the same. It's exactly the same. if you buy Shadowbringer right now you will be getting 5 major patches with large content updates. If you don't have the expansion then you don't get it. You are getting consistent content release over a set time for a one off price.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,305
I already addressed the bolded with the MMO example. You're saying it's not the same. It's exactly the same. if you buy Shadowbringer right now you will be getting 5 major patches with large content updates. If you don't have the expansion then you don't get it. You are getting consistent content release over a set time for a one off price.
I disagree with you.

The season is part of the expansion.

It doesn't make sense to review it in the traditional way.
 

kayos90

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,405
I disagree with you.

The season is part of the expansion.

It doesn't make sense to review it in the traditional way.
The patches of Shadowbringers, which are effectively seasons (but with FFXIV it's free with the purchase of the expansion) are part of the expansion. Why does Destiny suddenly deserve a different treatment?
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,305
The patches of Shadowbringers are part of the expansion. Why does Destiny suddenly deserve a different treatment?
Shadowbringers might get content updates, but it is not the same staggered, consistent release of smaller parts like this. You also pay a sub for SB so the ongoing updates are paid for that way. This is a single buy in with "free" content releases over time. If you judge the game as it is now you also have to acknowledge it WILL be getting x amount of content over time, and there's no way of telling what quality that will be so it's only prudent to think a little differently.

With a sub, you can stop if the content doesn't live up, with Shadowkeep... you've already bought this season.

This is different enough to warrant a different approach imo.... but, like I said, only if it becomes more widespread

Right now I just don't think the traditional format is fair as the buy in is literally "you will get your value for this one-off buy-in over time".
 

kayos90

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,405
Shadowbringers might get content updates, but it is not the same staggered, consistent release of smaller parts like this.
If Shadowbringers, which will have staggered, consistent release of larger parts aren't going to have reviews after all the content releases, why would smaller releases do that? There would be even less reason.

You also pay a sub for SB so the ongoing updates are paid for that way.
You pay a sub for access to the game. You're not paying for the content updates. How the developers are making money and patches being paid should have nothing to do with the review.

This is a single buy in with "free" content releases over time. If you judge the game as it is now you also have to acknowledge uoh WILL be getting x amount of content over time, and there's no way of telling what quality that will be so it's only prudent to think a little differently.
I'm not saying that the game won't be different after all the updates. I'm saying this this is not a cost effecetive venture.

With a sub, you can stop if the content doesn't live up, with Shadowkeep... you've already bought this season.
Once again, a sub has nothing to do with the expansion. Whether you have the expansion or not, there will be a sub because you are paying for access to the game. You've also bought the expansion so you can unsub and resub at a later time and get all the content. In fact, even YoshiP has said they don't want players to keep playing the game. They want the players to take breaks and come back when there are larger patch updates.

This is different enough to warrant a different approach imo.... but, like I said, only if it becomes more widespread

Right now I just don't think the traditional format is fair as the buy in is literally "you will get your value for rone off buy-in over time".
Shadowbringers is not an exact 1x1 example. No other game will be exact 1x1 example to each other. But they are classified together because they are similar enough.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,305
If Shadowbringers, which will have staggered, consistent release of larger parts aren't going to have reviews after all the content releases, why would smaller releases do that? There would be even less reason.



You pay a sub for access to the game. You're not paying for the content updates. How the developers are making money and patches being paid should have nothing to do with the review.



I'm not saying that the game won't be different after all the updates. I'm saying this this is not a cost effecetive venture.



Once again, a sub has nothing to do with the expansion. Whether you have the expansion or not, there will be a sub because you are paying for access to the game. You've also bought the expansion so you can unsub and resub at a later time and get all the content. In fact, even YoshiP has said they don't want players to keep playing the game. They want the players to take breaks and come back when there are larger patch updates.



Shadowbringers is not an exact 1x1 example. No other game will be exact 1x1 example to each other. But they are classified together because they are similar enough.
They are not similar enough.

The season is part of Shadowkeep, you can't review all the content you paid for at launch because what you have paid for specifically is content that is released over a season.

The game was and is clear about this, too.

You pay £35
You get this right now, AND each week you get a new piece of content.

That is not the same as SB. A traditional review really doesn't factor in this style of content release.
 

kayos90

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,405
They are not similar enough.

The season is part of Shadowkeep, you can't review all the content you buy at launch because what youbhave paid for gets released over time.

The game us clear about this, too.

You pay £35
You get this right now, AND each week you get a new piece of content.

That is not the same as SB. A traditional review really doesn't factor in this style of content release.
The patch updates is part of Shadowbringers.

The game is extremely clear about this and we have examples of this with Heavensward and Stormblood.

You pay $40 for the expansion.

You get this right now, AND each quarter you get a new major set of content.

What specifically is so different?
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,305
The patch updates is part of Shadowbringers. The game is extremely clear about this and we have examples of this with Heavensward and Stormblood. You pay $40 for the expansion. You get this right now, AND each quarter you get a new major set of content.

What specifically is so different?
.

You HAVE to keep paying the sub to play the new SB content. You do not get to play it for the cost of the expac itself

Shadowkeep = set price, you pay once and all that content is yours.

It is different.
 

kayos90

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,405
.

You HAVE to keep paying the sub to play the new SB content. You do not get to play it for the cost of the expac itself

Shadowkeep = set price, you pay once and all that content is yours.

It is different.
That's not a review of Shadowbringers then. Once again, I already said that the sub is access for the game. Not the expansion itself. The cost of the subscription doesn't impact the review in such a way to make a difference between the two examples. The subscription is not the cost of the expansion and that is the thing you need to understand. You're reviewing the product. Not the method in which it's being consumed.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,305
That's not a review of Shadowbringers then. Once again, I already said that the sub is access for the game. Not the expansion itself. The cost of the expansion doesn't impact the review in such a way to make a difference between the two examples. The subscription is not the cost of the expansion and that is the thing you need to understand.
Review what you buy right?

With SB you get a month of play time and whatever content it has during that period for the money of the expac

Review that.

With Shadowkeep you get what is at release AND
weekly content drops each week for a set period for the money of the expac.

Review that.

Different things.

And this is why, imo, traditional reviews don't fit this situation.
 

kayos90

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,405
Review what you buy right?

With SB you get a month of play time and whatever content it has during that period for the money of the expac

Review that.

With Shadowkeep you get what is at release AND
weekly content drops each week for a set period for the money of the expac.

Review that.

Different things.

And this is why, imo, traditional reviews don't fit this situation.
You don’t get a month of playtime. You get the content of the expansion which is exactly the same as Shadowkeep.

You also get access to all future content under that expansion just like Shadowkeep.

You’re reviewing the expansion right? That means reviewing the content and from that perspective it’s exactly the same. It having a sub or not makes no difference in the quality of the product or the content. You’re not reviewing the consumption model. You’re not reviewing the lifecycle of the product. You’re reviewing the content package of the product at that specific point in time.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,305
You don’t get a month of playtime. You get the content of the expansion which is exactly the same as Shadowkeep.

You also get access to all future content under that expansion just like Shadowkeep. You’re reviewing the expansion right? That means reviewing the content and from that perspective it’s exactly the same. It having a sub or not makes no difference in the quality of the product or the content.
You ahould review what is playable to you for the price, which is why it works for SB and not for SK.

They are different.
 

kayos90

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,405
You ahould review what is playable to you for the price, which is why it works for SB and not for SK.

They are different.
Cool. Not everything is available at the cost of the expansion at launch just like Shadowkeep. I mean. You keep saying it’s not and I’m giving you direct refutation on why it is and tying in how they are similar. Nearly every point you’ve brought up them being different has been refuted with a more factually grounded answer. A sub existing or not makes no difference. You think it does because there is a cost. That’s not the cost of the expansion. It’s the cost to access the service.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,305
Cool. Not everything is available at the cost of the expansion at launch just like Shadowkeep. I mean. You keep saying it’s not and I’m giving you direct refutation on why it is and tying in how they are similar. Nearly every point you’ve brought up them being different has been refuted with a more factually grounded answer. A sub existing or not makes no difference. You think it does because there is a cost. That’s not the cost of the expansion. It’s the cost to access the service.
I disagree with you.
 

kayos90

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,405
I disagree with you.
Cool. Why? I mean. You can disagree but until you have provided a good argumentation on why you disagree and otherwise, this conversation has ended with my thesis being proven correct. You were the one proposing that your view was the more correct way of thinking.
 

kayos90

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,405
I disagree with that, too.
Awesome. Glad to know you can’t have proper discourse and you can’t use facts or logic to prove a point. This goes back to the root of your statements. You try to appeal using your emotions and opinions and pass them on as facts. But the moment someone challenges you to prove it you dismiss it because you simply “disagree”.