| LudicrousSpeed said: If Grounded has no paid expansions or MTX, then what does it have to do with publishers releasing incomplete games onto GamePass for the sole purpose of roping people in to make more money? It's not rocket science. |
It has to do with you claiming that MS won't allow unfinished games to be published. You said that MS wouldn't allow publishers to release incomplete games. I rebutted your claim by listed three games belonging to MS that were released incomplete. That is the extent of the claim, and the rebuttal. You might as well say that "The sun never comes up so you can't kill a vampire with sunlight." Then when someone informs you that the sun does indeed rise every morning, you will go into some wild tangent claiming that the person rebutting you said that vampires exist.
5% of the content, and it isn't locked behind buying anything. You just need to scan the Amiibo. This is the third time you've claimed that you need to buy the Amiibo to get the content. And the third time I've rebutted you. Gears 5 has cosmetic skins that cost $10 each. I'll ask a third time. How much money would it take to buy every skin in Gears 5? How much grinding would it take?
I was talking about how if Gamepass takes over the industry they will need to recoup money somehow. See my initial post in this thread. If everybody just subscribes to Gamepass then there isn't enough money to pay for development of games. If there are 3 million people playing a game for basically free on Gamepass, and nobody buying the game then where does the money to develop the game come from? Imagine a future in which nobody buys games, and just subs to services. $10 a month per person isn't going to replace $60 a game per person. They will have to replace the money somehow.
Lol, if I'm confused about how MTX and GaaS works, then PCgamer, Eurogamer, and WindowsCentral must be confused too. All three outlets have called Gears 5 a Live Service game. In fact there's even more outlets that have called Gears 5 a live service game. It's pretty much unanimous that Gears 5 is a GaaS or Live Service model game. Only you and a few other Xbox fans are in denial of the facts.
https://www.windowscentral.com/gears-5s-live-service-chaotic-shambles
The Coalition knowingly creates this contention, forcing players to opt-in to grinding modes they may not enjoy in order to unlock specific characters or, alternatively, spend some money. It's not difficult to unlock the characters, but being forced to choose between spending time or spending money on top of a $60 premium title feels egregious, especially considering the challenges don't stack per character unlock.
On top of that, some of the biggest "additions" as part of Gears 5's live service has been insanely overpriced marketing tie-ins with the Terminator franchise. Twenty dollars will net you access to a couple of characters from the upcoming Terminator Dark Fate, one skin of which has been accused by the community as offering a gameplay advantage, due to the small size and dark tone of its model.
The Coalition has yet to address the community's negative reaction to these monetization schemes, but I hardly feel like they've earned the right to begin price gouging given the quality and content spread of the service thus far.
Microsoft details Gears 5's live-service-style post-launch multiplayer Operations
https://www.pcgamer.com/gears-5s-post-launch-operations-turn-it-into-a-live-service-game
It all sounds a lot like battle pass, and makes Gears 5's multiplayer seem like the kind of live-service product designed to keep players and streamers hooked up to a drip-feed of new stuff for a good long while.
