I feel like you haven’t played any 3D games in 20 years. Off the top of my head, the last game where I fell through the floor was Morrowind back in 2002.

Yeah, once Steam became popular, physical copies were even more redundant. You were lucky to even get a disc with the actual game on it.

Have you read the actual article? The Ubisoft rep explicitly states that the company still views purchasing games as an important option for consumers. They just believe that subscriptions are an equally valid option for many consumers and that this group will grow over time.

You should probably read the article in question. Nowhere does the developer say that Ubisoft will stop selling games and force you to use subscription services.

I doubt you genuinely believe that PC prices are going to grow exponentially higher in 5 years. I’m assuming you know what “exponentially” actually means, though.

Jedi Survivor is the only game left with performance issues in certain areas (unless you have a top end CPU). All the other ports have since been fixed. Jedi Survivor also had technical issues on consoles. Same goes for Redfall, Forspoken and Wild Hearts.

Figured as much. So Ubisoft’s decision to include DLC with the subscription is a double edged sword, really. On the one hand, getting all the DLC is great. On the other hand, it means that if you want to eventually buy the game, you’ll have to buy all of the DLC too.

Common sense? Live service games consistently have the highest player counts on Steam, PSN, XBL, etc. As such, it stands to reason that more people play live service games than traditional single-player games (which is why publishers are pushing live service games). Statistically, the chances of any AAA studio not…

How does that work with games that have DLC? Ubisoft+ includes all the DLC for each game so if you make a save while playing the DLC content, then later try to load that save with a purchased copy that doesn’t have the DLC, what happens?

Yeah, subscriptions aren’t ideal for big games since you’ll always feel like you’re under a time limit to finish them. That’s not a problem for smaller games, though. Games are available on subscription services for at least a year, which is more than enough time to finish a 5-20 hour game.

Oh, I’m well aware that WB is chasing the live service dream. However, that’s not mutually exclusive with Rocksteady wanting to make a co-op loot shooter. Both things can be true.

You act like rising hardware requirements are something new. They’ve always been a thing. Granted, GPU prices have gotten pretty ridiculous but you don’t need a $1000+ GPU to get good image quality and performance, especially with new tech like DLSS/FSR and frame generation.

That’s a fair point, though it’s not an issue inherent to digital distribution. It’s an issue with console makers wanting to eliminate competition and keep all their consumers in walled gardens. Given the recent antitrust ruling against Google, it’s conceivable that if consoles went all digital, they’d be forced to…

The decline of “goodies” started long before PC went all digital. Big boxes, thick manuals, etc, were all costs that started getting cut in the late 90's as PC’s retail presence rapidly declined. By the end of PC’s physical era, you were just getting a disc in a cheap plastic case with an extremely barebones manual…

I’m tempted to do that myself. I’m interested in the new PoP and mildly interested in the new Avatar game, so spending $18 to finish PoP and put some good hours into Avatar seems like a good deal.

Future? Digital has been a thing for almost twenty years at this point and PC has been all-digital for well over a decade. It’s been pretty great, actually. The PC game market has never been stronger and there are a ton of games that simply wouldn’t exist if games were still chained to retail.

$18 seems crazy expensive for what you get but it makes sense if you consider how people likely use the service. I doubt many people stay subscribed for an entire year. There’s just not enough content to justify doing that. It’s far more likely that they only subscribe for a month or two for specific releases.

You don’t really have any evidence of that. For all we know, Rocksteady could have been the one to pitch a co-op loot shooter to WB. This might seem crazy but not all developers want to keep making the same game over and over. Many developers are fans of loot shooters too. Shocking, I know.

So, by that logic, every MCU film is a sequel to Iron Man? Just because something takes place in the same universe as something else doesn’t make it a sequel. Arkham Knight is a sequel to Arkham City because it’s a direct continuation of the story from AC, has the same protagonist, the same setting, the same gameplay…

It’s a loot shooter so it makes sense that everyone uses guns. Could they have replaced King Shark and Captain Boomerang with characters more likely to use guns (like Peacemaker and Bloodsport)? Sure but shooting is only part of SS. Each character has unique traversal and special abilities and it would have been…