Fucking bonkers. Between this an McD’s changing their ToS to say using their app waives any right to non-arbitration dispute, something needs to be done about companies trying to effectively write new laws into their ToS. This shit is beyond egregious
We aren’t talking about something in production, like this app, we are talking about play testing a game in alpha. I would be upset if this was in a released game, or even like the beta test, but if it’s still under serious development it seems incredibly reasonable to me.
A general NDA is reasonable, sure, but allowing only comments which glaze the game but not those which criticize it is not. I genuinely cannot even fathom how you think the contrary; I don’t mean that in offensive, so if you can articulate why you believe that way I would like to try and understand.
I agree that it should just be an NDA to be the most fair. But keep in mind I’m responding to someone who is claiming this is beyond egregious and that there should be laws against this.
It’s just not a big deal. It makes sense for them to say that you can’t disparage the game, because it’s in alpha, but why would they restrict good press? If you find this to be disagreeable, it’s alpha and you can just wait for release.
While I find it disagreeable, I don’t see anything to be outraged over, as avoiding it is as simple as not playing a game in alpha.
Unlike the mcdonald’s example where it is actually a released product.
I work for a video game company, and I promise you’re being far too generous about their motives. This NDA prevents press from doing press. If the alpha is bad, they’re not allowed to say how or why it’s bad, at all.
I understand exactly why they are doing it; what you say comes as no surprise. It’s 100% part of my point.
Coming from software development, including a small amount of game development, I understand how trash alphas can be, especially if you introduce users/players. So it seems reasonable that if the point of the alpha is to flush these bugs/exploits out, which is the point, then restricting the players who are allowed in from disparaging a far from complete game is not some ridiculous overreach everyone here seems to want it to be.
I’m on publisher QA side. Every so often, around this time of year, my company does closed internal playtests for games that are on the pre-alpha release candidate (usually it’s the ones they expect to be blockbusters). Generally when a pre-alpha RC is selected for this, a very small subsection of the game is highly polished to give Users an honest preview of what the devs expect the launch game to be. Obviously since it’s in alpha a lot of things will be changed and there are a lot of game breaking bugs to be found still, but the general experience should still be up for discussion if it was bad. I know it’s possible to imagine a game in alpha as released, because part of my job is to give professional feedback to the producers without ever mentioning unfinished or bugged aspects of the game.
Okay, if they want to bug test, there’s DECADES of accepted practice. Paid/intern bug hunters or playtesters, with an airtight NDA. They’re there to stress tests and find issues, there needn’t be a public facing element.
Marvel want free bug testers, and to get the hype train moving - but don’t want to pay for actual testers who work quietly, and want only positive commentary. Marvel want an astroturf campaign to push preorders, not actual genuine discussion or bug testing.
I’ve been part of public alpha releases, and generally they don’t allow streaming or public commentary, outside of the invite-only forum/discord channels - BECAUSE THEY WANT THE FEEDBACK TO FIX ISSUES.
Marvel want free bug testers, and to get the hype train moving - but don’t want to pay for actual testers who work quietly, and want only positive commentary. Marvel want an astroturf campaign to push preorders, not actual genuine discussion or bug testing.
Okay, then the problem is with the people doing the work for free, not with Marvel realizing that people will do it for free.
The issue is that the people who do this work for free are not like you, and want that early access. . .either for strictly personal reasons or because it benefits them financially (such as is the case with streamers).
You’re literally defending ‘post-truth, race to the bottom standard’ capitalism. Yes dumb consumers exist, but that isn’t a free pass for corporate exploitation or false advertising. Because this isn’t an alpha, it’s advertising.
es dumb consumers exist, but that isn’t a free pass for corporate exploitation or false advertising.
Except I didn’t see where they advertised that people were going to be able to join the alpha with no restrictions, and I don’t see this as “exploitation” at all. People want to play these games first. I don’t get why, but they do. And they are being given that opportunity.
Make people sign an NDA to playtest it, don’t release a “public closed beta” contingent on this non disparagement agreement bullshit
Most people (except for you, apparently) can see right through this kind of thing. The only reason you’d make someone sign a legally binding document saying “you’re not allowed to say bad things” is because you know there are bad things to say. If there are bad things to say and you know about them, the correct move (from both a technical and PR perspective) is to fix the bad things before allowing your game to be played publicly. Preventing people from talking about the bad things won’t magically get rid of the bad things.
Alpha testing is, by definition, testing on unreleased code. Even though they are offering the testing to some select group of people, it’s still considered un-released.
The only reason you’d make someone sign a legally binding document saying “you’re not allowed to say bad things” is because you know there are bad things to say.
False dichotomy. There is also the possibility that you realize, from experience, that when you start introducing users, unexpected shit happens.
They could do the alpha testing completely internally, or they could give some super fans pre-access with more restrictions on what they are allowed to say. Would I prefer they be able to speak their mind? Of course. But I get why the company would do this and it’s really a complete non-issue.
Sure, they could do an NDA, or they could also get free publicity. It’s reasonable for them to choose the latter, and if you don’t like it, it’s reasonable for you to wait for release.
Preventing people from talking about the bad things won’t magically get rid of the bad things.
Yeah, that’s pretty clearly not the point. They presumably want to fix the bugs without them counting against them in the court of public opinion.
Alpha testing is, by definition, testing on unreleased code. Even though they are offering the testing to some select group of people, it’s still considered un-released.
I go out of my way to explain how alphas are typically done as a games industry professional, and you’re still out here spewing the same nonsense? get outta here. This is not a defensible action by a corporation. When a game reaches alpha, the whole of the game is unready but the part used in the public playtests are extensively reviewed by QA and gets as polished as possible. When a game is at alpha stage, it’s by definition gone through multiple release candidates.
Are you arguing that alpha testing is not considered in house testing? It’s literally the definition.
The alpha phase of the release life cycle is the first phase of software testing (alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, used as the number 1). In this phase, developers generally test the software using white-box techniques. Additional validation is then performed using black-box or gray-box techniques, by another testing team. Moving to black-box testing inside the organization is known as alpha release.[1][2]
Alpha software is not thoroughly tested by the developer before it is released to customers. Alpha software may contain serious errors, and any resulting instability could cause crashes or data loss.[3] Alpha software may not contain all of the features that are planned for the final version.[4] In general, external availability of alpha software is uncommon for proprietary software, while open source software often has publicly available alpha versions. The alpha phase usually ends with a feature freeze, indicating that no more features will be added to the software. At this time, the software is said to be feature-complete. A beta test is carried out following acceptance testing at the supplier’s site (the alpha test) and immediately before the general release of the software as a product.[5]Wikipedia link
I’m sure parts of the game are well polished. I’m sure some only release a small part of the game for advertising reasons. They are doing something different here maybe. I don’t really know. But this is such a non-issue that the outrage over it is laughable. Not surprising, at all, however, considering I’ve been a gamer all my life and I know how unreasonable we can be.
False dichotomy. There is also the possibility that you realize, from experience, that when you start introducing users, unexpected shit happens.
If you’re not willing to let the unexpected shit be public, don’t do a public alpha test. That’s the point everyone here is trying to make. Like, what are these streamers and content creators supposed to do when they run into a game-breaking bug, or they run into some mechanic they really dislike? Ignore it and hope no one notices, for fear of saying something “disparaging” about the game? Do you not see how unreasonable that is? We all understand that alphas are incomplete and will have bugs, and unexpected shit will happen. We all also have different opinions about what we like in video games. Them trying to hide from that, rather than just being upfront about it (like every other alpha or early access game I’ve ever played) is asinine.
They could do the alpha testing completely internally
They should do the alpha testing internally, if they’re not willing to have their product be honestly reviewed, or pay to have their product advertised.
But I get why the company would do this and it’s really a complete non-issue.
Considering that this thread exists, Seagull’s original tweet got the immense attention it did, and the studio announced hours ago that the particular clause everyone (except you) is taking issue with was a mistake that they’re looking into fixing, uh, maybe it actually isn’t just a “non-issue”?
Sure, they could do an NDA, or they could also get free publicity. It’s reasonable for them to choose the latter, and if you don’t like it, it’s reasonable for you to wait for release.
No, actually, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect “free publicity” on the condition that the ones providing that publicity muzzle themselves if they don’t like the game. That’s exploitative behavior by this studio. Expecting free anything and then attaching unreasonable legal stipulations that you know the other party cannot fight is unethical.
Yeah, that’s pretty clearly not the point. They presumably want to fix the bugs without them counting against them in the court of public opinion.
They want to control the narrative around their unfinished video game, by trying to legally bully content creators, who have way less legal and financial leverage, into doing their bidding. That is unethical. Full stop, no I will not be taking any more questions.
I can’t help but think that if this sort of thing proliferates that it will essentially hamstring reviews. This particular agreement might be just because the game is in alpha, but it’s part of a broader trend of ToS/EULA wishlists that are so restrictive that they’re probably illegal already buy in order to test that you have to go to court against a huge, overpaid legal team which leads to people having their basic rights violated.
This is a slippery slope fallacy “if they are allowed to do something mild and legal now. . .well, it will just lead to terrible violation of our rights in the future!”
What undermines your point is that if they try to put these illegal restrictions on many people, violating their basic rights, then they are opening themselves up to large class action lawsuits.
The problem is that unless the agreement explicitly states that the non-disparagment section applies only to the test playtest, the agreement would essentially place a gag order on that creator for the life of the game.
What makes you think that? The language is fairly boiler plate and easily enforceable. We, “the company”, give you, “the creator”, an asset, “a free game copy”, under the condition that you promise not to do or say anything that could diminish the value of the asset. Not only is it enforceable, it leaves room for compensatory damages if you are found in breach of contract.
I haven’t read the entire agreement, so I don’t really know nor do I care to. But I suspect that it would squarely fall under protected speech once the game has gone public and they’ve “purchased” it.
Early access to a game is not an asset you can “un-receive” just because you purchase your own copy later. Of course, you could make arguments against the terms being overreaching in court, but not many creators have the resources or desire for a legal fight.
Other creators chimed in and said that they brought up the section in Discord and legal said they’d look into it. To me, this just seems as lazy copy and paste that they were warned about but did nothing about. Now they have a possible PR disaster on their hands unless they take swift action.
PS: Apparently section 2.6 is way worse but it hasn’t been shared yet.
Of course, you could make arguments against the terms being overreaching in court, but not many creators have the resources or desire for a legal fight.
I see. That’s not what “unenforceable” means. Unenforceable refers to a contractual responsibility that a court would never enforce. There are many reasons why a court would chosen to not enforce a contract but none of them are because a defendant doesn’t have the means to combat it.
Your linked to an article literally starts by asking “What kinds of contracts might not hold up in court?” and then goes on to explain this as one of these as “For example, a court will never enforce a contract promoting something already against state or federal law.” Basically proving my point.
And I’m universally downvoted, and you’re universally upvoted. Lemmy users crack me up.
Just like truth in advertising laws exist, some restrictions are rightly placed on free speech in the interest of consumer protection. Imo this case clearly should fall under similar consideration.
But it’s just the playtest that is free, not the actual game itself? If they are giving the playtest AND the actual game for free then yeah that makes more sense, but otherwise I think it would likely be considered unconscionable for playtest access to mean they can’t criticize the full game they (eventually) paid for, and thus it would likely be unenforceable.
That is certainly something that can be argued in court, and the case might be very strong…but you’d still have to take it to court. Something else to consider is that if the agreement isn’t clear about its limitations, then it can be argued that it isn’t limited. All the company has to do is send you a key to the full game when it’s available and they are technically still in compliance with the agreement. It would not matter if you tell them that you do not wish to participate anymore, or that you bought your own copy, you’d still be bound.
I could agree that it’s overkill, but that doesn’t warrant the outrage we’re seeing here. IMO of course. If this is really offensive to you, just wait for release. Considering it’s FTP so this doesn’t apply as much, but I would recommend even waiting until way after release to buy a game.
Sure, more reasonable and fair. But this is neither unreasonable nor particularly unfair, as long as it’s restricted to the alpha. If you find it bad, don’t play it, and understand that what opinions come out of alpha are biased by this. I would recommend taking all reviews that come out of any alpha with a huge grain of salt.
they shouldnt be releasing it to streamers and youtubers to play, in alpha, on their goddamn channels, while muzzling them in how they can respond to issues that present themselves during their video/stream, if they want to “protect” (shut down any legitimate criticism concerns) their “alpha” (free advertising)
I agree with you. But this is basically a non-issue, which is my point. If you don’t want to be restricted, don’t play the alpha. Why is this so hard for some people to accept? Again, we aren’t talking about a released product, but some playtesting.
even then, it’s essentially paywalling your rights. you need to go to court, wait for the matter to be adjudicated, hope it works out in your favor, run out any potential appeals, all while paying attorneys and not being able to do something you’re legally entitled to do. If you can’t do all that, then your rights are moot.
A lot of companies got spooked a few years back and walked back their arbitration agreements. I wonder what changed for companies to decide it’s worth it again. Maybe the lack of discovery in the arbitration process even with higher costs?
You can’t “just start” a class action suit. You need to sue, get other people to sue, coordinate, and apply for class action status. That’s more time and effort than an individual suit.
Yeah, it’s time to nip this on the front end though. ToS are such a part of daily life now. They should be regulated to be concise, use standardized consumer-friendly language, and have bounds against non-arbitration and other nonsense like this. This sort of legislation is well overdue.
Having unenforceable or illegal clauses in a legal contract means the contract wasn’t written in good faith, which should void the whole thing. Regardless of any “if parts of this contract are deemed illegal, the rest still stands”.
It would be nice to see more proactive involvement of the legal system with this, like have some people whose job it is to challenge these consumer contracts and standardize them kinda like how some open source licenses are standardized. Modularize it, so instead of writing out the whole “limited liability” section, they could refer to an established one by name. Then each module can be the subject of study and challenge, like if a more limiting one should come with other compromises elsewhere.
I think at that point, most honest companies would just pick a standard license or contract, plus maybe a few modifications and shady ones will have more trouble hiding shit like this in the middle of pages and pages of the same boring shit you’ve read hundreds of times before if you actually do read these things before signing or clicking agree.
At this point, most contracts should probably be unenforceable because few people actually do understand what they are agreeing to, which is supposed to be one of the essential parts of a contract. So many parts should probably have an “initial here to show you agreed to this” at the very least. But I’m no fool, this is likely considered a feature rather than a bug for most of the people involved in making and enforcing these things.
It’s already been decided in Europe. Terms of service have about as much legal weight as toilet paper. Usually what’s true in Europe is true in California as well so I assume something similar has happened over there.
All good; I wasn’t trying to be offensive in my reply and was sincere in calling it poignant. Sometimes I get worked up and make tangents that feel vaguely related too. We’re cool if you’re cool ✌
I actually looked into the game because I didn’t know anything about it and figured I should inform myself a bit.
What makes this whole overreacting raging we are seeing here even more funny and ridiculous is that the game is going to be FTP. So basically, once released, anyone can go and try it out, for free, to see whether or not it’s worth any investment by them.
So, yeah, if someone is offering you to pre-order this game, I definitely suggest you not buy it because they are trying to scam you.
I saw that line and immediately thought “oh ho ho, we have a loophole. This wasn’t a subjective review, it was entirely objective. The game is objectively shit.”
Yes but it still looks bad because it’s saying “you can talk about it, but only if you say nice things”. A full embargo would’ve made more sense and wouldn’t have raised any eyebrows. This current contract leads me to believe it’s a shit game.
Embargoes do get a bit of backlash sometimes, but not nearly enough.
Why should a full embargo get backlash? They are trying to get input for an understanding, controlled population before unleashing it on a wider public. The whole idea is that the preview is not representative enough to start setting expectations for everyone. But it is far enough along to get the general idea and get feedback to address.
I am constantly testing pretty well known products in advance of their release and they are frequently crap. Like one thing I’m working on hasn’t been able to work at all for a week due to some bugs that something I did triggered and they haven’t provided an update yet. However when they actually are available to the general customers, they are pretty much always solid and get good reviews. If I publicly reviewed it, it could tank this product even though no one could possibly hit most of the stuff that I hit.
A full embargo seems fair. The selective embargo seems like an unfair idea, but also is a bad idea. If everyone knows they are allowed to talk about it, but only the good parts, then people will be speculating on what is not said. One product I tested had someone fanboying so hard about it they were begging the product team to lift the embargo so they could share their enthusiasm. They said no, they didn’t want partially informed internet speculation running until they could address all aspects of the product publicly, and frankly there was too much crappy parts even if he was over the moon over the product and didn’t really use the bad parts.
I suppose I could see being uncomfortable with the “testers” also being the likely “reviewers”, because your are developing to the tastes of specific reviewers and tailoring for a good review in the end even if those reviewers aren’t fully representative of the general population. It’s easier to get a few dozen key influencers happy by catering to them/making them feel special, than releasing a product and hoping you hit their sensibilities.
I hope there is a bunch of really sarcastic positive reviews, listing everything they hate about the game as if it’s what they really love about the game.
The ToS forbids satirical reviews. I’d start a review by reading out this portion of the ToS and then make a list of things I hate, just saying I’m not allowed to talk about this aspect of the game, or this aspect of the game, etc, etc.
The biggest cost Uber has is recruitment. And as the cost of vehicles has risen, the efforts they have to go through to get and keep productive drivers has climbed with it.
This is less about Uber market share than the real cost of operating an automobile between 2008 and 2024.
Square Enix is slowly starting to realize that locking out a significant part of its potential customers with platform exclusivity will lead to most of those potential customers not buying their shit. It’s like the first vestiges of conscious thought are starting to appear within their leadership.
I am happy it’s on Steam, but admittedly Kingdom Hearts 3 is not the main offender here when they still have games trapped on single consoles. KH3 was already on PC, it’s just more accessible now. Can’t say the same about Final Fantasy 16 or Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth. Hopefully that is what they fix next.
They’re both timed exclusives, and Square have said that they’d stop platform-exclusive releases after those two games failed to meet shareholders’ expectations. Whether they’ll actually go through with it, or get saturday morning cartoon villain yen sign pupils when Sony makes their next offer, I have no idea.
By the contract, you couldn’t say anything detrimental about the game, so such a statement would still be forbidden. Whether such a vague limitation on what a content creator can say would hold up in court is a different thing.
Smart. I’ve got at least a week’s worth of Hades left to play, and I literally hadn’t heard of this game. Now, I’ll probably check it out when it drops.
I have been watching the Prince of Persia game, but I would absolutely have glazed right over its release while entranced by Hades II, so yes, I agree with you, it’s a very smart decision on their part.
(Also, can I just say, holy shit is Hades II some good value. It’s basically two games worth of content in one. More than twice the size of Hades I. Utter insanity.)
You’re kinda both right - Dead Cells was developed by Motion Twin, who spun off a smaller team called Evil Empire to support it after release. Rogue PoP is developed by Evil Empire, while Motion Twin proper is working on Windblown.
What a lukewarm take. A quick glance to the subscription video-on-demand market should be fairly informative to the future of video game subscription services.
Right now they’re still in the honeymoon phase, that is to say the “offer better value to capture a market” phase, of enshitification.
I mean... yeah. Turns out that having models and looking at the actual data and analyzing the market tends to land on lukewarm takes. The hot takes are for the press and the trolls.
FWIW, I don't have visibility on subscription growth at all, so I'll have to take his word for it, but none of that sounds unreasonable.... except maybe for the fact that the hype may make people make bad moves and double down in ways that are harmful. A degree of fearmongering can be useful, if only as a deterrent.
I think there are plenty of valid criticisms of the subscription model, and the reasons for those criticisms are the same as many of the reasons growth has flat lined. Labeling criticism as fear mongering seems like overly reductive spin, especially when this analyst doesn’t seem to be interested in addressing those criticisms.
It’s like saying “data shows very few people die annually from eating tide pods, therefore maybe we shouldn’t be so scared of eating tide pods.” Like, no, it’s because nearly everyone realises it’s a very bad idea that nobody dies from it.
You’ve crunched the numbers correctly, but have drawn the exact wrong conclusion.
There are valid criticisms, for sure. I was not in the original thread, though, so I don't know how willing to address those he is, but it's a valid point that it's not an all or nothing proposition. You can point out that subs aren't overtaking the market in gaming without implying that they should.
I'd be more interesting in debating whether subs are additive or not. I do know of anecdotal mentions of stunted sales on sub-forward releases, but I'd love to see more data about it (and what that means about revenue eventually, too).
But none of that influences the concerns on preservation one way or the other.
Honestly, I don't think you're right about the reasons growth has flatlined. I think the sub model just doesn't fit gaming best. The content just doesn't work well with the rotating carrousel of new and new-ish games most subscriptions have. I think Nintendo could be onto something, in the way Netflix was early on, in that you may be more willing to pay a fee to just have access to every single game before a certain point and from the beginning of time, but nobody is gonna figure that one out anytime soon.
Any time I see someone use the term “fear mongering” sincerely, I add a general heaping of salt to whatever they are saying. It’s often an attempt to turn the topic to the “evil motives” of the “other side” before the original debate is settled.
If there’s nothing to fear, that can be said without accusing anyone who thinks there is something to fear of trying to generate it for selfish reasons. In fact, I’d think that showing someone is fear mongering will be a greater burden than showing any particular thing they say is untrue, let alone a deliberate lie. But it gets thrown around so much lately as if it’s an argument on its own.
I’m not sure there ever was a honeymoon phase for game subscriptions. They generally still push you to buy dlc/season passes. They still segment stuff into pre-order bonuses that you don’t get in a subscription. You already have titles leaving the service.
I did have a honeymoon phase with gamepass. Now it’s just a thing that keeps charging the monthly fee in the background but also reminds me of the list of games I’d like to try that it has each time I open it up to consider cancelling.
They’ve figured out how to make money from me having a backlog, I just realized. I might have to open it again and compare the amount I’d pay for x months vs the expected sales price to just buy all of those games where x is how many months it’ll take to clear my backlog. I don’t even have to open it to see that I should cancel, because x might be infinite. Hell, I could even just cancel it with the intent of starting back up if I manage to clear my Steam backlog if I want to lie to myself about eventually getting through my backlog.
Video on demand works because the content is short and you need a large variety in a pay period as a consumer.
I don’t just watch one show or movie in a month, it’s several. So bundling makes sense.
It’s also fairly commoditized. I will watch what movies are available on Netflix, not like I’m extremely committed to watch a single given movie as long as the general selection is good. Maybe there’s one or two films a year I care about seeing that specific film before it rotates into a subscription service I subscribe to (and if not, meh).
For video games, it’s maybe one title a month that I really care about playing and then I only have time for that one game. But I only really care about setting aside time for that game and a lot of the other options out there you couldn’t pay me to play.
They are very different markets and a subscription model isn’t necessarily the future or even what’s most profitable for a company to offer (as Sony was recently acknowledging).
a subscription model isn’t necessarily the future or even what’s most profitable for a company to offer (as Sony was recently acknowledging).
It’s worth remembering that the goal of subscription services like gamepass is not to be the most profitable avenue. The goal is marketshare.
Microsoft lost, and Microsoft lost hard. Reportedly, the CEO wanted to exit gaming entirely after the Xbox One. They didn’t based solely on the new business plan, which was to disrupt the market. Kill the existing model by offering super low-cost subscriptions (paid for by Azure and Office 365) and become the new encumbant of a new industry where you can jack up the prices and lower the cos(and quality) over a decade trying to chase profitability.
Subscriptions are not about revenue generation as every subscription model out there lowers revenue massively. It’s about holding a larger share of the market so you can make money in other ways.
I think you’re confusing the advantages and strategies of having a subscription and the advantages and strategies of having a loss leader.
Not all subscriptions are designed to be loss leaders, and most of the benefits you see in GamePass (lower or even negative revenue in exchange for increased market share) is seen over and over with loss leaders that aren’t subscriptions.
Yes, I agree that Microsoft has adjusted strategy from a focus on winning console wars to increasing software gatekeeping across PC and now apparently even competitor consoles. And that GamePass plays a large part in that.
But it would be a mistake to assume that subscriptions in games are all going to have the same goals and focus as Microsoft with GamePass.
I would argue that there are three kinds of game subscriptions right now
gamepass, paid for by azure/office. goal to turn the industry into a subscription service based industry like everything else has been converted into
trying-to-keep-up-with-gamepass: this is ps+ (extra|premium), it exists as a failing effort to keep up with gamepass. it has to make money and thus users don’t see value in it. it either costs too much or doesn’t provide enough for the cost
fifa subscription
the last one has existed for a long time and doesn’t really factor into the discussions people are having today. it’s not really relevant. the other two are both a factor of each other and relevant to what we are talking about.
Great take, I wish more would see the music industry like this as well.
I used to pay for Spotify premium then realized that I hardly added more than a handful of new things to my “library” each month. I switched to budgeting the same monthly funds towards building a local library from direct purchases and bandcamp.
It really depends on your level of consumption of new content whether a subscription service makes sense.
Shows that they have amazing confidence in their product. This is the same to me as saying “We know it sucks so please don’t say so if we give you this key.”
They are probably concerned because management has decided that the game should be shown off even though it’s probably not ready. This is that kind of clouged together solution.
As per usual it just seems to have blown up in their gormless faces.
As much as people are maybe more familiar with Cyberpunk being fixed later. No man’s sky is one of the kings of being fixed later. This is not a case of advice being given, but an acknowledgement of the way things have gone.
“While Maxis were focusing on graphical improvements with the SimCity reboot, EA wanted to make the game multiplayer and always-online, in part to combat piracy. The game was subject to “one of the most disastrous launches in history”, as the game was released in a highly buggy state, with server failures plaguing players, and the open regions swiftly filling with abandoned cities.”
files.catbox.moe
Ważne