I'm not gonna watch a Jim Sterling video to get what you mean.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Ubisoft explains why they switched from making games to making live services
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
I'm not gonna watch a Jim Sterling video to get what you mean.
Point taken, even though I really, really don't like referring to that blatant Xenoblade ad like it's some kind of great freebie. Let me amend my original question.
Breath of the Wild has received three kinds of updates: (1) bug fixes and performance improvements, (2) expansion pass content, (3) a tiny additional quest and single set of armor intended to advertise Xenoblade Chroncles X.
Which of these three things make Breath of the Wild a GaaS title. 1 applies to basically all game releases nowadays and has existed on PC since the early 2000s, 2 existed as far back in the 90s for some classic games, albeit not delivered over the internet, and 3 is a single tiny addition that basically amounts to an ad.
The active support overall. On top of this, the game also got several new amiibos. Which to reiterate, are designed to keep you coming back each day unless you abuse the system clock.
Happened to stumble upon this thread while watching this video. I don't really get his argument.
Is he really trying to make the argument Assassin's Creed is no longer a video game because it will have extended post-game support? That seems silly. I cannot recall any criticism at launch at Assassins Creed Origins was not a fully-featured and self-contained experience? If anything people said it had too much content.
What the Ubisoft presentation told me was if people want to get more out of their experience with a game, it will be there if they want it, potentially with associated costs. His argument about seems to ignore the fact that players have agency and can stop playing content if it's shitty content.
Or, is Jim lamenting the fact that AAA studios want to double down on having a few tentpole games with massive amounts of samey-post game content, instead of having a wider portfolio of smaller games? I suppose I get that, but there are no shortage of smaller developers crafting such games.
I don't know. I played Titanfall 2 long past it's general shelf life as a result of the post game content they provided and didn't feel cheated whatsoever by some of the cosmetic nonsense I bought. I didn't see it as a bad thing at all given how much support the game had..
Last edited:
Jim hates anything microtransactions with passion, most likely because it gives views, visibility and then subs so he gets money from it, not because it's actually bad (some games surely).
Ubisoft is making more money per game than ever, but ten years ago they published a lot more games. I would like to see a new Prince of Persia, a prequel to Beyond Good&Evil, another Rayman game and perhaps Child of Light 2 or Valiant Hearts 2. If publishers copy the Netflix model perhaps such titles will be more likely because then they need more games so people extend their subscription.