I agree with this. I find myself regularly missing the middle of the road games with lower development costs because those are the games that often dares to try new things.

Last one I remember like that was Ubisoft’s “Grow Home” which was utterly charming and had me hooked from beginning to end. Didn’t need to be big. Didn’t need amazing graphics. Just needed a little idea that (pardon the pun) grew to become a really engaging game.

More games like that please! Maybe the development costs didn’t have to balloon that much.

I understand the point now. Thank you! Good explanation!

It still doesn’t seem entirely equivalent to me. We’re not talking about them giving out the source code. We’re talking about how shit it is that something like software already installed on your computer just no longer will work.

Or let’s use your analogy; why not just abandon the facility instead of shutting it down and chasing everyone away?

Like, don’t get me wrong. I understand that this is the nature about always online stuff and that it can always be closed down like a theme park, but I feel the conversation is more about “why did they design this like a theme park without an abandonment clause instead of a shut-down clause. Historically, most other theme parks have been fine with being abandoned”

And I mean, I’ll agree with you that it’s nothing new, we saw it with Overwatch 1 and countless others, but I feel it’s a conversation one should be able to have without it being dismissed?

(I may have read too much into your comment, but it felt like it was dismissing it as a non-issue since theme parks work like this, when this is not a theme park)

Not often I get to say this, but I completely agree. I HATE the walled garden that is the PS store. 90 usd for FIFA? 130 usd for some random GOLD edition of a ubisoft game? No way. Let me pick those up dirt cheap two months later at a retailer who is having a sale, or from someone who has played it and is ready to sell it onwards.