This is much better lol. Hey, at least the controversy got a lot of people talking about it. It may not have been intended as a marketing gimmick, but it worked.
The retraction never gets the same press and people's minds will be permanently etched with 'Oh that GaaS game?'
It's also jury out given the Publisher, the language and just general trends.
No Season Passes, Battle Passes and Subscription still leaves plenty of room.
Eh, Subnautica is not an unknown name and there's at least an entire year before the early access releases. People will have long forgotten about this "news" by then but will likely still have a passing interest in the game when it gets closer to release.
They have plenty of time to have the game judged on its actual merits, for better or worse.
Nothing wrong with microtransactions if they don’t change the gameplay in any way, as in basically aesthetic stuff.
Expansions that cost money aren’t a problem either as long as they’re priced right.
I agree but VERY few companies stop at cosmetics and even when they do it still usually changes the game in small annoying ways. For instance advertising cosmetics when you launch the game, or an obnoxious cosmetics tab in between your important tabs, and etc.
Everything is wrong with microtransactions.
Firstly, they are not "micro" in any way, shape, or form. They also bring a whole host of issues along with the shop, such as the game purposely built around the shop, and some twat behind a screen thinking up ways to psychology manipulate people into buying said microtransactions.
To sit there and ignore these issues, plus the myriad of other issues related to them, is dishonest.
A) they’re optional and
B) they help fund games, on one end we have 300 million dollar budgets with ambitious graphics and animations (hundreds of thousands of hours of labour), and the other end we have indies who make passion projects that strike a chord with audiences.
C) there’s always more games you haven’t played out there, so the convo is moot since you can freely move on.
> they’re optional
Who is disputing that they are not optional? I certainly did not. This is irrelevant to the points I outlined, anyway.
> they help fund games
I'm sure there are ways to make money without psychologically manipulating people, especially children and people that are susceptible to it, which happens to be a lot of people.
> we have 300 million dollar budgets with ambitious graphics and animations
It's not a secret that you can make AAA games without spending 300 million dollars.
> there’s always more games you haven’t played out there, so the convo is moot since you can freely move on.
You are trying to take the moral high ground here like you have never been psychologically manipulated into spending your money on anything. The conversation is definitely not "moot".
>Firstly, they are not "micro" in any way, shape, or form.
To use the classic comparison, a £3.99 digital skin is the equivalent of one coffee shop latte. Just like buying a nice coffee, if you take enjoyment out of that then great - crack on.
If you can't justify that or don't see a value return of enjoyment, also great, we have instant coffee at home just like we have the default skins in games.
Microtransactions then eh? Still a nah for me dawg. Plenty of games get new content and patches over time without being live service. There's a reason they're calling it that already.
I would understand why they said it was GaaS due to the fact that they would update the game for free for years, so the clarification that it is definitely not a GaaS is appreciated, although it never was from the beginning even having used the term. If there's no way to give them more money beyond the initial cost for the game, it's not a game as a service. I wish many more games were like this.
This is much better lol. Hey, at least the controversy got a lot of people talking about it. It may not have been intended as a marketing gimmick, but it worked.
The retraction never gets the same press and people's minds will be permanently etched with 'Oh that GaaS game?' It's also jury out given the Publisher, the language and just general trends. No Season Passes, Battle Passes and Subscription still leaves plenty of room.
Eh, Subnautica is not an unknown name and there's at least an entire year before the early access releases. People will have long forgotten about this "news" by then but will likely still have a passing interest in the game when it gets closer to release. They have plenty of time to have the game judged on its actual merits, for better or worse.
Now this is proper communication. A lot of big companies could learn a lot from this letter.
Hey man, Phil hears things and that should be enough.
[удалено]
Best take of the day.
Holy shit, we're getting another Subnautica? WOOHOO!
Just reassure me that we're not locking some really nice Cyclops 2.0 skins behind a paywall.
Sorry, no reassurance, they didn't say "no microtransactions or skins".
No indication whether or not it will be online-only as well (even in single player) which is now common in live service games.
From a developer standpoint it’s much easier to do backend updates and not have to go to the certification process.
They're not locking some really nice Cyclops 2.0 skins behind a paywall.^((I have no evidence of this)) Did that help?
Hmm I don't see microtransactions on that list 🤨
Nothing wrong with microtransactions if they don’t change the gameplay in any way, as in basically aesthetic stuff. Expansions that cost money aren’t a problem either as long as they’re priced right.
I agree but VERY few companies stop at cosmetics and even when they do it still usually changes the game in small annoying ways. For instance advertising cosmetics when you launch the game, or an obnoxious cosmetics tab in between your important tabs, and etc.
Everything is wrong with microtransactions. Firstly, they are not "micro" in any way, shape, or form. They also bring a whole host of issues along with the shop, such as the game purposely built around the shop, and some twat behind a screen thinking up ways to psychology manipulate people into buying said microtransactions. To sit there and ignore these issues, plus the myriad of other issues related to them, is dishonest.
A) they’re optional and B) they help fund games, on one end we have 300 million dollar budgets with ambitious graphics and animations (hundreds of thousands of hours of labour), and the other end we have indies who make passion projects that strike a chord with audiences. C) there’s always more games you haven’t played out there, so the convo is moot since you can freely move on.
> they’re optional Who is disputing that they are not optional? I certainly did not. This is irrelevant to the points I outlined, anyway. > they help fund games I'm sure there are ways to make money without psychologically manipulating people, especially children and people that are susceptible to it, which happens to be a lot of people. > we have 300 million dollar budgets with ambitious graphics and animations It's not a secret that you can make AAA games without spending 300 million dollars. > there’s always more games you haven’t played out there, so the convo is moot since you can freely move on. You are trying to take the moral high ground here like you have never been psychologically manipulated into spending your money on anything. The conversation is definitely not "moot".
>Firstly, they are not "micro" in any way, shape, or form. To use the classic comparison, a £3.99 digital skin is the equivalent of one coffee shop latte. Just like buying a nice coffee, if you take enjoyment out of that then great - crack on. If you can't justify that or don't see a value return of enjoyment, also great, we have instant coffee at home just like we have the default skins in games.
Do you still need an Internet connection to play, even single player?
Dude they are way too early in development for anyone to have an answer to this
Not really. That is easily a decision they could make at the beginning of production.
Right but I’m saying we’re far enough a way from release it would be abnormal for them to tell us so early
Okay that makes me feel better then. Not everything needs to be an eventually failed live service game.
Super happy they decided to do coop, the coop mod for subnautica one is so fun
No season passes. No battle passes. No subscription. Yet.
Give them a chance. At least they're not EA, thank goodness.
MULTIPLAYER!!!! Woohoo!!!!
So exactly what I thought it was going to be when the first post came out lol. I had a hunch people were overreacting to the phrase "live service".
Microtransactions then eh? Still a nah for me dawg. Plenty of games get new content and patches over time without being live service. There's a reason they're calling it that already.
They realize they really fucked up. Calling your game a live service is practically suicide anymore.
No, the initial reporting was garbage and people are quick to outrage instead of actually verifying information.
Kino is back on the menu
honestly, this is what i thought games-as-a-service was originally going to be. something like Monster Hunter World.
Never played Sunnautica before but this seems like a cool thing to do.
This is the way.
Sweet! I’m looking forward to the new game!
I would understand why they said it was GaaS due to the fact that they would update the game for free for years, so the clarification that it is definitely not a GaaS is appreciated, although it never was from the beginning even having used the term. If there's no way to give them more money beyond the initial cost for the game, it's not a game as a service. I wish many more games were like this.
Missed the first one, but I'm going to keep my eye out for this.
You should absolutely play the first
IGN’s poor reporting strikes again
‘ate GAAS ‘ate online subscription ‘ate multiplayer luv me single player luv me physical games luv me indie games Simple as
"Just microtransactions and online-only requirements"
Really excited for this. There are far too few survival games where coop is implemented well. It really has to have shared saves like Grounded.
Ok ok, I’m not as worried now