Yea, it's really bad people are enjoying a game right?

Yes it is. The more people enjoy bad games the lazier studios would go out of their way to make good ones cause if the money comes in anyway, why bother right?

And the more this negative trend goes the more games will get bad and eventually the games I care for will go bad by the same logic...

I know that we are pretty far from that and that it's just this one game we are talking about so I'll admit my argument should not worry me or anyone that cares for quality but you insist on making me say why it's a bad idea to enjoy bad games so here you go.

I saw his review also and i agree with him with a lot of things. The game does llack varied content and needs more content fast and you can experience the whole game in 4 hours but i dont agree with the 4/10. Id personally give it a 7/10 because i feel like there are many other games you can see what they have to offer in 4 hours but still enjoy the game for many more hours. Most multiplayer games this gen if you have played for 4 hours you have seen what the game has to offer but that doesnt mean you can have fun playing for a lot more than 4 hours. I've put in over 30 hours in the game and still have fun whenever i start a new session. 

You do understand how the GaaS model works, yes? Why would good early sales prevent them from adding content? Adding more content nets them more money.

Congrats to Rare. They built a rather unique game that builds community on XBL and serves as a great platform to evolve with future ideas.

But the game being bad is your own opinion, although I doubt you have even played it to form that yourself. Clearly it's a good game for a lot of people being that it made no.1 in UK and US despite being on game pass and competing with a PS exclusive that has a higher userbase.

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.

Imagine if Scalebound had not been canceled. This is just shows , Xbox player want variety and more First Party IP.

Event decent games like Sea of Thieves are popular on Xbox One.

I imagine it would have sold less than Quantum Break & Sunset Overdrive and those are quality games. Your argument is strange because I think many first party IPs (add Halo Wars 2 to the list) haven't been as popular as they'd deserve to be.