EpicRandy said:
No those things doesn't equate to each other. Saying other already make aquisition is only setting the context that acquisitions are allowed, it's in the rule of the game every actor plays with. Saying you should disallow X to make an acquisition so others wouldn't do what they are already allowed to do is only wishful thinking, even if this deal does/does not succeed, nothing prevents other actors from making acquisitions of their own and each would and should be scrutinized independently. If your position is that you are against each and every acquisition that's a perfectly valid political position but it isn't reflected in the current context and laws.
I answered the op's question: acquisitions are not objectionable practices. Nor do I think money-hatted time exclusives are. Maybe the practice of paying to specifically exclude 1 competitor is but I haven't thought this through since only rumors of this practice exists as of now.
I just don't see how those issue is related to GP at all. MCC had a way worse release than infinite and was release prior to GP. Halo Infinite campaign length ain't different from previous entry and I even found it to be even longer than most. Both Infinite and GH5 were released to critical acclaim from both critics and gamers despite few issues here and there so it is clear both title qualities were high overall. So no those were not using GP reputation to get away with their flaws.
Many games are also life service and are not related to subscriptions at all (diablo, PUBG, Fortnite +thousands of others). Games have followed that trend of becoming more and more life service for more than 2 decades some even used this approach in the 90s. I just don't see how Gamepass somehow has an influence on this. In fact, you can even argue to the contrary, service games tend to attract gamers that will sometimes play them for thousands of hours, so for them buying the game outright and ditching game subscription service may be the better choice. |
I see season passes as practically the same as a subscription. Subscription service is just another cash flow next to DLC, MTX and season passes. The goal of all is to keep players engaged longer. As I don't like the former 3 influencing how games are / have been built, naturally I'm also not fond of subscription services which have the same goal after all.
It's not that keeping players engaged longer is a bad thing, yet there are very few games that do it like No Man's Sky's no strings attached approach. Which led to huge updates, really expanding on the game. Not just another season pass with more trinkets, higher max level, some other changes.
I have seen the excuses for Halo Infinite's short single biome campaign which were mostly, "doesn't matter I played it on gamepass", that on the Steam message boards. Countering complaints from full price paying customers with, you should have just played it on gamepass... Anyway you can see enough complaints about Halo Infinite's lackluster campaign on plenty gaming sites. The grapple hook 'saved' it from becoming too repetitive, yet was way too OP at the same time. In the end it was more Spiderman than Halo, I hardly bothered with the weapons anymore lol. Grapple punch through the second half of the game.
And why I put the finger on gamepass, it's more that I put the finger on shifting the focus more and more way from the campaign to ways to keep people engaged in multiplayer. Which is what gamepass needs. And yep, split screen multiplayer is there, split-screen co-op is cancelled. It's clear where the priorities are and that will only be further cemented by subscription services.
Anyway, you don't see an issue with acquisitions. I do with major mergers and large buyouts. Even smaller studios are better off by themselves in my opinion, but it's a cutthroat industry where one bad release can easily sink a smaller studio. So i get it that they want to be part of a bigger publisher to fall back on. I do think they lose a part of their identity by such a move.
