LudicrousSpeed said:
I asked why MS would allow games to be released on the service that are incomplete in the context that they are chopped up to be sold in pieces. None of the three games you replied with fit that criteria. One is an early access game, and the other two are just live service games that you are obsessed with shitting on, even though you freely admit to spending hundreds of hours on Nintendo live service games. I wasn't trying to make any of them fit a specific criteria. You asked why would MS allow a publisher to release an incomplete game. I simply pointed out that MS itself has released incomplete games in the past. It's as if you've gone hunting and said "Why aren't there any deer to hunt? I really want to shoot a 12 point buck!". And then when I point out that there is an entire herd of deer just past the clearing you reply with "but none of them are 12 pointers!" It doesn't matter. The fact is that there are deer past the clearing. The fact is that MS has released incomplete games in the past.
It would cost you $0 to buy every skin in Gears 5, just like you don't have to buy those $60 Amiibos off Amazon to unlock all the content in Splatoon. You are confusing grinding for the items in Gears 5 for paying for them with actual money. How much would it cost to buy every skin outright? Saying "oh well uh just scan a friends Amiibo" is about the weakest cop out I have ever seen on this forum. I could just as easily say if you want a $10 skin in Gears, have a friend pay for it. Wow that was easy, no wonder you rely on nonsense so much in your arguments. Hoo boy! Talk about a false equivalency! If you and a friend both want an Amiibo item and the friend lets you scan his Amiibo your friend has paid once. If you and a friend both want a skin in Gears 5 without grinding your friend would have to pay twice. The Gears 5 skin is absolutely worthless once purchased. Most Amiibo actually go up in value. The Gears 5 skins make up a significant amount of cosmetic content in Gears 5. The entirety of all Amiibo unlock less than 5% of the game's total cosmetic content. The Amiibo cost physical labor to produce, and ship. The Gears 5 servers can issue infinite skins for practically no cost at all. By the way I love the "it's not locked behind anything.... you just have to scan an overpriced and very rare toy!" Here let me try the nonsensical angle again... The Gears skins aren't locked behind anything, you just have to enter your debit card information and buy them! Oh wow what a rush. Is this what cocaine feels like? Another strawman. I said it isn't locked behind buying anything. You removed the word "buying" from the sentence in order to build yourself another strawman. Also, I haven't even mentioned Animal Crossing yet. Another game where toys you buy unlocks in game content. But in this one you can also track down trading cards like you're a kid in the 60's buying baseball cards, and these cards unlock content too. Or you can link your AC mobile account and some of the MTX focused unlocks in AC mobile can be unlocked on Switch. What a totally complete game! You aren't a huge hypocrite at all, friend. Spending $30 on some plastic toys so you can access content locked in the game you paid for is TOTALLY different than buying a new skin made for a game or playing the game to unlock it. Those Amiibo trading cards were released in conjunction with Happy Home Designer (a spinoff game that was panned by both critics and fans alike). Nintendo decided to forward their functionality into New Horizons, but the cards themselves were discontinued long before Switch was even a thing. I didn't spend $30 for content. I spent $30 for plastic toys to go on my shelf. Hell, one of them was bought all the way back in 2015 with the OG Splatoon. I also have four Metroid Amiibos. Guess what? I haven't even scanned them despite owning them for two years now. I just bought them because I wanted some cool Metroid related plastic statues.
Oh, so your point stipulates on an alternate reality where retail no longer exists, digital purchases outside of GamePass no longer exist, I assume PlayStation and Nintendo no longer exist because they sure as fuuuuuuuck won't allow GamePass on their systems (maybe Nintendo, with restrictions), and also I guess Steam doesn't exist because why wouldn't people just flock to PC? So in this make believe world where GamePass takes over the industry and "everybody just subscribes to GamePass" then yeah I guess you're right, developers won't make much money outside of the service and why would MS have to pay them much of anything if GamePass is literally the only way to get new games. Of course, this scenario will never ever happen so why waste time speculating on it? I agree that Gamepass will never completely take over the industry. But there is a very real possibility of streaming services in general killing off buying your own games. Don't believe me? The entire history of the industry is full of things happening that many at the time wouldn't have been able to predict. If you had told people in the early 80's that a small Japanese company would bring videogames back from the brink you'd have been laughed at. If you had told arcade owners in the mid 80's that game consoles were going to spell the death of arcades they would have laughed at you. If you had told people in 1991 that Sega wouldn't be making consoles and Sony would dominate the industry by 2001 you'd had been laughed at. If you told people in 2003 that big box PC games would be nearly extinct by 2011 you'd have been laughed at too.
Uh, what? Where did I claim Gears 5 isn't a live service/GaaS type game? In your thread about GaaS titles I literally call Gears 5 a GaaS done right. Of course it's a live service game. Kiddo, saying that you are clueless when it comes to how GaaS type games work, doesn't mean Gears isn't a GaaS style game. Good lord. My mistake. Could you clarify by what you meant by "you are clueless when it comes to how GaaS type games work"? |
^My comments in bold. Thanks.
