i mean, it’s not a sequel in the cs2 case, it the sane game, the mechanics, just newer engine, it’s not perfect but it’s just valve being slow lol
You cannot be allowed to be content with what you already have and like. You need to buy more, buy now, buy new!!!
Consume! Buy our game as a service so we can rake you over more hot coals as we bastardized your nostalgia for profits.
ow2 is a free alpha release, and sc2 is over 10 years old and hasn’t received any major content in at least 4 years…
plus sc2 co-op commanders had a bundle deal right before development got dropped for the game, but now, years later, blizzard expects you to pay a full 15$ per commander to unlock!
and obviously there’s no way to unlock them through gameplay…
so one of the two is straight up worse than the one it replaced, and the other is stupidly expensive given how ancient it is.
great examples, really.
Honestly, I have trouble seeing these “sequels” as new games. I mean Overwatch 2 was mostly a heavy balance patch, graphical patch, and pivot to F2P.
These are just large updates where they incremented a number in the name. With that in mind, this isn’t a “trend”, it’s been going on for as long as these service-style games have existed. Fortnite’s pivot from Save the World into Battle Royale, for example. Or going further back: Remember Star Wars Galaxies?
Yes, these mega-updates are often regressions… again, that’s not news. The only thing “new” is realizing “oh, we should increment the number to get some hype going”.
Well, for CS there are other versions still on Steam still with active communities. The issue with CS2/CSGO is skins. That’s the reason they had to kill CSGO. They couldn’t have skins carry over, be tradable, have the new features skins can make use of, and be able to be earned in the old version and new.
They didn’t really “kill” CSGO, though. You can still play it. Just no matchmaking.
Asking people to give up their skins in CSGO and go to a new game was never going to happen. Instead they made a patch and generated hype for the game as a new name, while supporting Source 1 servers. To think that if they didn’t do a name change, people wouldn’t be whining so much.
Or going further back: Remember Star Wars Galaxies?
The game that was shut down less than a week before Star Wars The Old Republic released? You’re not wrong about the other stuff, but this one definitely wasn’t just a big patch.
No, I’m referring to the New Game Enhancements update that completely reworked SWG to play more like WoW. That was a much larger gameplay change than Overwatch 2 or CS 2.
I mean, EA started doing this as soon as they thought they could get away with it in the franchises that are the most obvious fit: sports games. Madden, NBA 2kX, PGA whatever…
At first, gamers would just feel left behind because there was a new title out to match the new season’s roster of teams and players. No one batted an eye because that echoes how live sports keep up annual appeal. But over time, the publisher started taking the servers offline for the older sports games, so if you wanted to compete then the only option was to play a newer title.
I’m not saying that’s inherently evil, and not to make a slippery slope argument, but it’s not really hard to see how the lure of steady recurring revenue would drive the industry to do the same for as many franchises as possible. And here we are today where IIRC you can’t play titles like Diablo IV offline even as a single player.
IMO as gamers, we need to collectively draw a line in the sand. But we’re such a diverse group with different tastes and expectations, so I don’t really see that happening.
Speaking from experience with open source, there’s literally no way in hell the average consumer is going to make even minimal effort in order to improve anything at all, even if you manage to make them understand the problem. Ask any idiot still on Twitter.
But over time, the publisher started taking the servers offline for the older sports games, so if you wanted to compete then the only option was to play a newer title.
I’m not saying that’s inherently evil
As someone who remembers when games used to ship with the server code so you could host your own multiplayer, I am saying it’s inherently evil!
You wouldn’t subscribe to a service like Netflix if they required you to pay an additional fee to unlock each piece of content, nor would you pay money for a Netflix app that’s useless without a subscription, but that’s essentially what you’re doing when you “buy” a live service game. Don’t do that! Either pay once for a game that’s fully playable offline, or pay monthly for a subscription to a live service game where the software to access it is free.
The publishers are being greedy assholes, but they couldn’t do it if people didn’t pay for the privilege of being scammed.
Not a bad tipp for individuals. Won’t solve the problem though. The few individuals who actually go through with this dont make a dent while children and their parents will gobble up this stuff because marketing. We need policy for shit like this.
You’re not wrong, but if you want to use policy to regulate business models that exploit dumb consumer choices, there are way bigger fish to fry than videogames.
I know. It is a pattern. It’s roughly summarized under anti trust. You know, the stuff that has been dismantled in the US over the past couple of years.
Same goes for europe but not as brutal. When these laws were made, there were no insanely fast growing international conglomerates with a product that changes shape like a chameleon. No wonder they didn’t keep up but now we‘ve got homework. We gotta push politicians to revise laws and change the status quo.
We need to balance the scales so consumers get the info they need (instead of constantly changing terms and conditions, 10+ pages long), the power to actually change stuff (be able to sue if apple does not let you mass extract your fkin passwords if you dont own a mac) and keep new transgressions from happening by putting long jail terms on anti competitive behavior.
I have mixed opinions on whether regulation is needed. Maybe just more transparency in marketing would be enough, and I’d be happy to see that, but an outright ban on the business model seems heavy handed to me, given that it’s a problem individuals can simply choose not to participate in if they’re informed of the risks.
I wonder how many people would buy a game where the piece tag says something like this:
$60 + $10/month. Not playable without a subscription.*
And then in the fine print:
*The publisher may discontinue all subscriptions at any time after 1/1/2025. If that happens, it will no longer be possible to play the game.
It’s a very good idea. But I‘m sorry to inform you that this is regulation. It is a very nuanced piece though. Much better than banning it outright, at least to try first.