Star Wars Outlaws

[peter42O]

Quote: Originally Posted by KSUowls

Publishers doing it all the time is not a defense against it being a scummy practice. They get away with it because we allow them to. A preorder bonus is one thing (ie: getting something for buying in early). Selling a game at full price and then also selling premium priced additional content that was developed and ready for release at the same time as the rest of the game...it's double dipping. Not expecting to change yours or anyone's mind, but I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Okay but why is the outrage always with Ubisoft? Microsoft did the same thing with Starfield (I know because I bought the $100 premium edition so I could play it four days earlier), EA has done the same, Take Two, etc. yet no one complains except for when it's Ubisoft.

The Premium price is for the two expansions that they'll release later on. Avatar had the same thing as did other Ubisoft games. I don't know why people are going off on Outlaws when this crap has existed for over a decade. I bought AC Odyssey gold edition to get a bonus quest, to play early and for the two expansions.

Like I said previously, the stuff that companies charge people for isn't for those who aren't all in with the game or aren't a fan of Ubisoft. It's literally that simple. Even more so is no one is forced to buy the game anyway.

Ubisoft is one of the very few publishers that give you the option to play the game via Ubisoft+ so for an $18 monthly rental, you'll get the entire ultimate edition with that bonus quest and three days early access and be able to play the two expansions when Ubisoft releases them.

Ubisoft+ is how im playing Outlaws. Three days early. Did the same for Mirage and Avatar. This is why im pro-subscription. Why buy the game if you don't have to?

In general, I get it but all these publishers are going to do what they want to do in order to make more money. None of what Ubisoft does is anything new as it's been around for over a decade and other publishers do the same.

All I can say is that if you're really bothered by it, don't give Ubisoft any money at all. Speak with your wallet.

Me personally, im a Ubisoft fanboy. They're my favorite company, publisher and developer. This isn't going to change regardless of what they do or don't do. But at the same time, if I can get everything in that Ultimate Edition for a cheap $18 monthly rental, then hell yeah, im going to use Ubisoft+ to my advantage which in all honesty, is what everyone should do anyway because it's easier, cheaper and you get the game days earlier.

All I know is that I will be playing Outlaws day one on Ubisoft+ via Xbox Series X because at the end of the day, I simply want to play the game and just hope that it's great.

[Madden08PCgmr]

The name is an abomination.

Outlaws? This is not a Western.

In the Galaxy Far Far Away... clearly this should have been called 'Scoundrels'.

(this shouldn't have to be said)

[KSUowls]

Quote: Originally Posted by peter42O

Okay but why is the outrage always with Ubisoft?

It's not, and it never has been only with Ubisoft. I have no earthly idea where you came up with that . Dissatisfaction with the direction of the industry is nothing new, and Ubisoft isn't the only "victim" when it comes to things like this. Are they the subject of more criticism than others? Who knows, but maybe. They are one of the habitual offenders with a lot of eyes on their games so it's possible. This is not remotely close to a situation where its the world against Ubisoft though.

Quote:

Microsoft did the same thing with Starfield (I know because I bought the $100 premium edition so I could play it four days earlier), EA has done the same, Take Two, etc. yet no one complains except for when it's Ubisoft.

The bolded part is categorically false. Without going into every individual instance of how blatantly false this is, let's think back to another Star Wars from a different publisher (EA). The most thumbs downed thread in the history of Reddit (at the time) is the reveal of Star Wars battlefront 2 and the insane cash shop that they had. Now a cash shop is a bit apples and oranges to my original point, but it fits with the non bolded part of your statement which is also apples and oranges to my original point.

I don't like the practice of charging extra for "early access", but it is relatively benign compared to this. This is charging extra to release content that was developed and released on the exact same day as full price game. Starfield's premium edition offered early access and extra story content. That extra story content still has not been released 6 months later though. So, essentially if you bought the deluxe edition then you prepaid for an expansion pack. Paying for the continued development cycle is very very different from this.

Quote:

Like I said previously, the stuff that companies charge people for isn't for those who aren't all in with the game or aren't a fan of Ubisoft. It's literally that simple. Even more so is no one is forced to buy the game anyway.

This entire argument makes no sense. Of course no one is forced to buy it. How is that point ever relevant for arguments like this? Are you just saying criticism is never allowed? I can both want to play an open world Star Wars game and also be critical of business practices associated with it. These are not mutually exclusive stances. In fact, "being all in" on something makes me more likely to be critical of it because I want to support the game.

Quote:

All I can say is that if you're really bothered by it, don't give Ubisoft any money at all. Speak with your wallet.

I honestly don't know why you're so bothered about my criticism here. Star Wars Outlaws could up end up being the most amazing game in the history of gaming, but that would not make it above reproach. Now, I'm obviously not going to give them my money. You're going to give them money and you are more within your rights to do so. I'm also well within my right to express criticism of a particularly bad example of an anti-consumer industry practice though.

[peter42O]

Quote: Originally Posted by KSUowls

It's not, and it never has been only with Ubisoft. I have no earthly idea where you came up with that . Dissatisfaction with the direction of the industry is nothing new, and Ubisoft isn't the only "victim" when it comes to things like this. Are they the subject of more criticism than others? Who knows, but maybe. They are one of the habitual offenders with a lot of eyes on their games so it's possible. This is not remotely close to a situation where its the world against Ubisoft though. The bolded part is categorically false. Without going into every individual instance of how blatantly false this is, let's think back to another Star Wars from a different publisher (EA). The most thumbs downed thread in the history of Reddit (at the time) is the reveal of Star Wars battlefront 2 and the insane cash shop that they had. Now a cash shop is a bit apples and oranges to my original point, but it fits with the non bolded part of your statement which is also apples and oranges to my original point. I don't like the practice of charging extra for "early access", but it is relatively benign compared to this. This is charging extra to release content that was developed and released on the exact same day as full price game. Starfield's premium edition offered early access and extra story content. That extra story content still has not been released 6 months later though. So, essentially if you bought the deluxe edition then you prepaid for an expansion pack. Paying for the continued development cycle is very very different from this.

The Star Wars Battlefront 2 is actually a real good example. Every game that has micro-transactions usually adds them after the game gets reviewed and launched. You don't see this outrage as much anymore because it's been done numerous times and isn't going to stop which leads me to my point, Ubisoft has done what they're doing with Outlaws for over a decade. If anything, everyone should already expect it because it's what Ubisoft does and it's highly unlikely to change.

I have no issue with early access and being charged for it mainly because if it's a game that im going to buy day one anyway and im all in, I want to play it early. Why should I wait extra days when I could be playing the game that I want to play day one anyway? I don't have a problem with being charged because it's NOT just for the early access. It always includes extra content and usually an expansion or two which im going to buy anyway.

I paid $100 for Starfield because I was all-in with the game and preferred to own it digitally instead of renting it via Game Pass. I took off that entire weekend because of the early access included with the Premium Edition and for the expansion, I don't mind waiting for it. I know it's paid already and when it releases, I have it.

I agree that single player games are different than live service games but as a single player gamer, if I can spend extra money to get the game early, im going to do it simply because I prefer to play the game sooner rather than later. I actually believe that early access for multi-player PvP games is bad because it puts players who pay extra money at an advantage over those who don't but for single player games, I think it's perfect because it doesn't affect anyone else. It only affects the individual who wants to buy the game.

Quote: Originally Posted by KSUowls

This entire argument makes no sense. Of course no one is forced to buy it. How is that point ever relevant for arguments like this? Are you just saying criticism is never allowed? I can both want to play an open world Star Wars game and also be critical of business practices associated with it. These are not mutually exclusive stances. In fact, "being all in" on something makes me more likely to be critical of it because I want to support the game.

Criticism is perfectly fine but it depends on what the criticism is. For example, let's be honest, I know what Ubisoft is and like all other publishers, it's always about increasing growth, revenue and profits.

I would like to think that we can agree on that and if so, why are you surprised by what Ubisoft is doing with Outlaws? It's not the first time and we both know it won't be the last time.

If anything, people should criticize games technical issues/performance as well as adding quality of life features to games post launch. Basically, the criticisms that have the best chance at being addressed is what people should focus on because at least that's a winnable battle.

Trying to levy criticisms at a company especially when it's about money/cost is just a waste of your time because neither one of us is going to change that.

Does it suck? Yes. Is it fair? No. But it is what it is and companies aren't going to change their business practices if it means that they can make money.

Take Microsoft for example. They're porting their games to Sony/Nintendo consoles. I disagree with it and don't like it. Bashed them for a month. Did it change anything? Nope. Did it make a $3T dollar company somehow side with Xbox fans over money? Nope. At this point, I accepted it and all I care about is that the games im interested in from them turn out to be great.

Quote: Originally Posted by KSUowls

I honestly don't know why you're so bothered about my criticism here. Star Wars Outlaws could up end up being the most amazing game in the history of gaming, but that would not make it above reproach. Now, I'm obviously not going to give them my money. You're going to give them money and you are more within your rights to do so. I'm also well within my right to express criticism of a particularly bad example of an anti-consumer industry practice though.

I'm not bothered at all about your criticisms. I just see it all as a waste of time because neither one of us are going to change how billion dollar companies are run. Even when Ubisoft does something consumer friendly, it's short lived by all the other crap that they do and will continue to do.

As for the game itself, I will be playing it three days early via Ubisoft+ because I honestly don't care about any of this crap or ownership or collections. I just want to play the game and once completed, I move on to my next new game. Best way to do that is for a cheap $18 monthly rental.

[KSUowls]

Am I surprised that Ubisoft did this? No. I've never once said that I was, and the counter argument of "oh it's been done before years so it's ok" is unfathomably silly because if we want things to be better then we need to ask that they be better.

Yes, Ubisoft has been doing it for a long time (come to think of it, maybe there is a common denominator for "all of the Ubisoft hate"). They are one of many game companies who have undertaken scummy practices for a number of years, and they all should be called out for it at every opportunity. EA didn't completely overhaul their SW BF 2 microtransactions out of their goodness of their heart. Creatively Assembly didn't just recently go through a cycle of adding extra content because people were so unbelievably thrilled by their last DLC where they hiked up the price while offering less. Just because we support something or want to support something, doesn't mean that we shouldn't also be critical of it when appropriate.

Carving out a portion of a fully developed and full price game to sell separately as "an additional quest" is a scummy practice. That's the only point I wanted to make.

[peter42O]

Quote: Originally Posted by KSUowls

Carving out a portion of a fully developed and full price game to sell separately as "an additional quest" is a scummy practice. That's the only point I wanted to make.

I agree with you completely in this regard. It's crappy to say the least.

[zello144]

Quote: Originally Posted by Madden08PCgmr

The name is an abomination. Outlaws? This is not a Western. In the Galaxy Far Far Away... clearly this should have been called 'Scoundrels'. (this shouldn't have to be said)

I like Outlaws. Though I wanted to be a bounty hunter or a space pirate.

[Money99]

Quote: Originally Posted by Madden08PCgmr

The name is an abomination. Outlaws? This is not a Western. In the Galaxy Far Far Away... clearly this should have been called 'Scoundrels'. (this shouldn't have to be said)

Didn't Lucas base Star Wars off of westerns?
I believe I read he wanted a combo of a western with the Seven Samurai.