CrazyGamer2017 said:
Yes I do understand and to be honest I worry over this. I am totally against games as a service which are a really bad thing for consumers and if these proved to be too successful then how long before we get "Bloodborne" or "Dark Souls" or even "The last of Us" types of games starting up empty and adding content, loot boxes, mandatory online connections and pay to win? I don't mean this as an attack on Xbox or anything but I really hope this game is not too successful cause it will inevitably give ideas to other game companies. Right now the "good" games companies would not touch GaaS with a ten foot pole but if they hear about how GaaS showers other companies with money, how long will they resist the call of Gaas? |
How would traditionally single player driven franchises suddenly turn into GaaS franchises? Seems to me you're worrying too much about something that will never happen. Are you one of those who were against the idea of EA Access before like, omg, it would totally lead to every publisher having their own subscription service and suddenly all the third party games would be timed exclusive and walled off to subscribers, with non-subs getting delayed versions of games cut bare of content? And yet years later nothing has changed because of it. Also, you don't need to worry about Last of Us anymore. Even the first game had shitty microtransactions and pay to win DLC, so that ship has sailed.
Those two comments in bold directly contradict one another. Also, I'd love to hear what you consider to be the "good games companies". Because virtually all of the big publishers and console companies are getting into GaaS. What do you call GT Sport? Have you ever played MLB The Show? It's a $60 title chock full of microtransactions and pay to win shortcuts. What about the investment Sony made into SFV? It's a GaaS title. I'm sure if I looked deeper I could find more, those are just off the top of my head. Nintendo said recently they're adopting the GaaS model. It's not something bad for the consumer unless it's implemented incorrectly, like companies such as EA and Ubisoft and WB have done to some of their games. But there are plenty of other games who adopted a GaaS model and it's been perfectly fine. Also, companies have been making money hand over fist with this model for years now so you can stop worrying about that too, that ship has also sailed.
But back to the original point, SoT is a GaaS game. They plan on using money from microtransactions and future content releases to fund expansion of the game. So why would they then not work on expanding it? Why would they see millions of potential customers and just decide that nah, the initial $10-60 investment from them was enough. Also, bad games have sold well pretty much forever. SoT isn't a bad game though.
