Star Wars: Outlaws

[Elayis]

The game is going to have day one patches anyway especially its a Ubisoft game.

I don't see the issue here, anyone who has a gaming device in 2024, probably needs to have a Wifi or at least an internet connection in their home. And don't you need to have an internet connected to the console anyway to activate/view the trophies? I think it can be activated without an internet connection, since it happened to me before. But still. Does anyone here turn off the internet when playing videogames? Or disconnect it from the console?

If its an online-allthetime-requirement, I will see it as an issue.

I have a data cap on my wi-fi, so I don't use the internet in my gaming (only discs). I'm just glad I'm a PlayStation user since Xbox doesn't reliable put the entire game on disc anymore. The only game that this has been an issue with for me was Hogwarts Legacy, but that was just another reason to avoid playing it.

Come next-gen I might have to switch to PC-only gaming if discs get phased out. I certainly don't want to pay Sony's exorbitantly high prices on PSN when I can get new games on disc for a fraction of the price (most new games are down to $20 within a year or two). Unlimited internet in my area is $200 which I refuse to shell out for. I've never played any online games because of this (though I don't have much interest in MMOs to begin with).

 

[psylockolussus]

I have a data cap on my wi-fi, so I don't use the internet in my gaming (only discs). I'm just glad I'm a PlayStation user since Xbox doesn't reliable put the entire game on disc anymore. The only game that this has been an issue with for me was Hogwarts Legacy, but that was just another reason to avoid playing it.

Come next-gen I might have to switch to PC-only gaming if discs get phased out. I certainly don't want to pay Sony's exorbitantly high prices on PSN when I can get new games on disc for a fraction of the price (most new games are down to $20 within a year or two). Unlimited internet in my area is $200 which I refuse to shell out for. I've never played any online games because of this (though I don't have much interest in MMOs to begin with).

The internet requirement to install the game from a disc, probably won't be that large compare to downloading an entire game online. I can't see being as large as patches as well.

Avatar Quest for Pandora already did this last year. Iirc, they did this to prevent early leaks/piracy.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

This game is shaping up nicely. I'm still skeptical because it's Ubisoft and Ubisoft sucks ass, but if it's good, I'll play it when it's complete six to eight months after launch.

 

[psylockolussus]

Ubisoft should at least nail the environment. I think the gameplay will be fine as well even though it won't be revolutionary.

However the story... I wouldn't eXpect too much.

 

[Sithborg]

That the season pass has multiple "story missions" is tossing red flags though.

 

[Sithborg]

Star Wars Outlaws' Jabba the Hutt Mission Locked Behind Season Pass - IGN

Ubisoft has already come under fire for single-player game Star Wars Outlaws having a Season Pass, but fans are expressing frustration once again upon noticing its highly anticipated Jabba the Hutt mission is locked behind it.

www.ign.com

Yeah, red flags continue to go up over this game.

 

[Cap2024]

Eh, I just view it as a normal part of the game industry these days.

Most of the games I’ve played have paywall DLC. Some games give just cosmetics whereas others like Hogwarts Legacy and Spider-Man give more such as extra missions; due to those examples and more, I don’t see it as a determining factor in game quality.

In the end, it’s up to the consumer whether or not they want to pay more. It isn’t a great practice, but I’ve grown accustomed to it and understand that it’s a profit based business.

 

[Teelie]

Star Wars Outlaws' Jabba the Hutt Mission Locked Behind Season Pass - IGN

Ubisoft has already come under fire for single-player game Star Wars Outlaws having a Season Pass, but fans are expressing frustration once again upon noticing its highly anticipated Jabba the Hutt mission is locked behind it.

www.ign.com

Yeah, red flags continue to go up over this game.

I am hearing sirens and warnings not to approach it as well. This is a hard pass for me.

 

[blueharvest]

I am hearing sirens and warnings not to approach it as well. This is a hard pass for me.

It might be an okay game to play whenever it goes on sale for 50% off or something.

 

[Teelie]

They are already gating off parts of it as if it were DLC but this is stuff already made and wanting $30 for it. Too much greed.

 

[Cap2024]

They are already gating off parts of it as if it were DLC but this is stuff already made and wanting $30 for it. Too much greed.

Explain what the difference is between this and -

Marvel’s Spiderman making ‘The City That Never Sleeps’ (an entire subsection of the story) DLC behind a pay wall. Did that determine its quality?

How about Witcher 3’s Blood and Wine DLC. Is that a bad game due to DLC?

What I don’t get is people are acting like this is just Outlaws or Ubisoft when it is actually industry wide and has never been determinate of quality.

“Jabba is behind a pay wall!” No - ONE of Jabba’s missions is, not all. Akin to how Hogwarts Legacy had a mission that could only be played on PlayStation. While it’s easy to see why it’s controversial, it’s also a smart business move profit wise.

Bottom line: were Spider-Man and Witcher bad games since they had DLC too? 🤔

Basically Outlaws being targeted specifically when it’s been an industry wide trend for years just has the controversy come off as very disingenuous to me. Unless there is an industry wide audience reaction to season passes now outside of this I’m not privy to?

 

[henzINNIT]

DLC can be good, but hearing about it before a game's release is never a positive experience. If we're talking differences, the developer making the content is very significant. Outlaws isn't being targeted, but Ubisoft sure are. CDPR are known for huge expansions. Ubisoft are known for money-grubbing bull****tery. Hence the hostile reception.

I'm just glad the negativity here is focused on Ubi's greed and not on the 'hideously ugly' protagonist that has apparently offended so many.

 

[Bobber]

Explain what the difference is between this and -

Marvel’s Spiderman making ‘The City That Never Sleeps’ (an entire subsection of the story) DLC behind a pay wall. Did that determine its quality?

How about Witcher 3’s Blood and Wine DLC. Is that a bad game due to DLC?

What I don’t get is people are acting like this is just Outlaws or Ubisoft when it is actually industry wide and has never been determinate of quality.

“Jabba is behind a pay wall!” No - ONE of Jabba’s missions is, not all. Akin to how Hogwarts Legacy had a mission that could only be played on PlayStation. While it’s easy to see why it’s controversial, it’s also a smart business move profit wise.

Bottom line: were Spider-Man and Witcher bad games since they had DLC too? 🤔

Basically Outlaws being targeted specifically when it’s been an industry wide trend for years just has the controversy come off as very disingenuous to me. Unless there is an industry wide audience reaction to season passes now outside of this I’m not privy to?

Witcher releasing two DLC's with great immersive stories that would rival most main games, is not the same as Outlaws putting one Jabba mission behind a paywall.

 

[Cap2024]

DLC can be good, but hearing about it before a game's release is never a positive experience. If we're talking differences, the developer making the content is very significant. Outlaws isn't being targeted, but Ubisoft sure are. CDPR are known for huge expansions. Ubisoft are known for money-grubbing bull****tery. Hence the hostile reception.

I'm just glad the negativity here is focused on Ubi's greed and not on the 'hideously ugly' protagonist that has apparently offended so many.

We practically ALWAYS hear about it before a game's release. That has become a central part of pre-orders these years in knowing which version to purchase.

Ubisoft is known for giving hours worth of content in DLCs. Assassin's Creed Odyssey: Atlantis DLC was about 15 to 30 hours of gameplay. Dawn of Ragnarok was around 21 hours for completionists. I'd personally call that very far from barely expanding on the content available.

If one studio is "greedy" for DLC gameplay content - which, okay, I can buy that - ALL companies similarly are for doing the exact same thing. That's my point, at least be - consistent; without that it just comes across as disingenuous.

Witcher releasing two DLC's with great immersive stories that would rival most main games, is not the same as Outlaws putting one Jabba mission behind a paywall.

Noticed you skipped over Spider-Man's season pass. So you only know quality of DLC after the fact, got it. Understood, my point exactly. One Jabba mission that we know of - ON TOP of two story arcs similar to the recent Avatar game. Thus, nope - not just one added mission. In Avatar, this even includes one whole new portion of the map; since same developers, another planet pertaining to one of the story arcs might even be in the cards. Little has been revealed yet.

 

[Bobber]

We practically ALWAYS hear about it before a game's release. That has become a central part of pre-orders these years in knowing which version to purchase.

Ubisoft is known for giving hours worth of content in DLCs. Assassin's Creed Odyssey: Atlantis DLC was about 15 to 30 hours of gameplay. Dawn of Ragnarok was around 21 hours for completionists. I'd personally call that very far from barely expanding on the content available.

If one studio is "greedy" for DLC gameplay content - which, okay, I can buy that - ALL companies similarly are for doing the exact same thing. That's my point, at least be - consistent; without that it just comes across as disingenuous.



Noticed you skipped over Spider-Man's season pass. So you only know quality of DLC after the fact, got it. Understood, my point exactly. One Jabba mission that we know of - ON TOP of two story arcs similar to the recent Avatar game. Thus, nope - not just one added mission. In Avatar, this even includes one whole new portion of the map; since same developers, another planet pertaining to one of the story arcs might even be in the cards. Little has been revealed yet.

Do you seriously not think there's a difference between a game locking a mission that is ready at launch behind a paywall, and a studio releasing additional story DLC months and months later?

 

[Cap2024]

Do you seriously not think there's a difference between a game locking a mission that is ready at launch behind a paywall, and a studio releasing additional story DLC months and months later?

Do you honestly believe that DLC isn’t pre-prepared and either already completed or close to completion prior to the game releasing? 😆

The whole “months in the future” thing is more marketing and to keep people returning to the game than it has to do with running behind schedule therefore DLC or parts of the game actually not being anywhere close to ready yet. That’s to say in most of these cases, DLC is ready or semi-ready at launch and the delay is largely manufactured rather than natural.

So, no DLC available immediately is no different than DLC ready a couple of months after. One is still paying for additional content, thus getting part of it early rather than having to wait for some manufactured delay is actually if anything a perk.

If I was to pay extra for a meal and dessert, I would rather have the dessert on the same day that I paid for the meal rather than having to come back another day for it. That’s just me though lol.

 

[Bobber]

lol totally lol that makes a lot of sense lol

Do you honestly believe that DLC isn’t pre-prepared and either already completed or close to completion prior to the game releasing? 😆

The whole “months in the future” thing is more marketing and to keep people returning to the game than it has to do with running behind schedule therefore DLC or parts of the game actually not being anywhere close to ready yet. That’s to say in most of these cases, DLC is ready or semi-ready at launch and the delay is largely manufactured rather than natural.

So, no DLC available immediately is no different than DLC ready a couple of months after. One is still paying for additional content, thus getting part of it early rather than having to wait for some manufactured delay is actually if anything a perk.

If I was to pay extra for a meal and dessert, I would rather have the dessert on the same day that I paid for the meal rather than having to come back another day for it. That’s just me though lol.

lol ok totally lol
I'd be pretty pissed if they brought out my tiramisu and I had to pay extra to get the mascarpone though.

 

[Cap2024]

lol totally lol that makes a lot of sense lol

lol ok totally lol
I'd be pretty pissed if they brought out my tiramisu and I had to pay extra to get the mascarpone though.

Nah, you just want to order a sandwich with potato chips and then complain the customer next to you who paid for additional potato chips to come with the meal got them while you (who didn’t) got the standard amount. When I pay for a meal I want it all up front, no weird manufactured delays to appease others.

You were promised that you’d have Jabba the Hutt missions, not every mission with Jabba. As with all DLC, you want more - pay more.

 

[Bobber]

Nah, you just want to order a sandwich with potato chips and then complain the customer next to you who paid for additional potato chips to come with the meal got them while you (who didn’t) got the standard amount. When I pay for a meal I want it all up front, no weird manufactured delays to appease others.

You were promised that you’d have Jabba the Hutt missions, not every mission with Jabba. As with all DLC, you want more - pay more.

From start to finish this whole post is absurd to me, but the bold part is my favourite.
Enjoy the game.

 

[Cap2024]

From start to finish this whole post is absurd to me, but the bold part is my favourite.
Enjoy the game.

People complaining that the people who pay more - get more is absurd to me too.

It isn’t the greatest, but we live in a capitalist country. It’s akin to people complaining that people who pay more get to have services without commercials while they opt to go with the lower service model and then complain that they’re getting commercials whereas the other people aren’t. A customer gets what they pay for.

Don’t like it? Want what the other person has due to paying more? Then you pay more too, simple. As said, not the best model - but that’s how our capitalist society works. At the end, it’s customer choice.

 

[Bobber]

People complaining that the people who pay more - get more is absurd to me too.

It isn’t the greatest, but we live in a capitalist country. It’s akin to people complaining that people who pay more get to have services without commercials while they opt to go with the lower service model and then complain that they’re getting commercials whereas the other people aren’t. A customer gets what they pay for.

Don’t like it? Want what the other person has due to paying more? Then you pay more too, simple. As said, not the best model - but that’s how our capitalist society works. At the end, it’s customer choice.

I don't live in your country. I have free health care. I don't want potato chips on my sandwich.

 

[Cap2024]

I don't live in your country. I have free health care. I don't want potato chips on my sandwich.

Here’s the thing - the US is the primary customer for this and many other games.

Thus why a capitalist system in which the person who pays more - gets more. The video game industry is a - stating the obvious- for profit business.

I have no remorse for the customers who opt to pay less and then complain they’re not getting as much as the customer that opts to pay more. End of day, that was their choice.

 

[Bobber]

Here’s the thing - the US is the primary customer for this and many other games.

Thus why a capitalist system in which the person who pays more - gets more. The video game industry is a - stating the obvious- for profit business.

I have no remorse for the customers who opt to pay less and then complain they’re not getting as much as the customer that opts to pay more. End of day, that was their choice.

You seem very happy about this, and that's great for you. Pay more, get more. Pay full price for game, get unfinished game. It's all good. Enjoy.

 

[Cap2024]

You seem very happy about this, and that's great for you. Pay more, get more. Pay full price for game, get unfinished game. It's all good. Enjoy.

Nobody promised the base game came with all Jabba missions. Don’t like that? Easy, pay more. Stop complaining that people who are able to pay more get more than you do (obviously). As said, no pity from me.

Adding: I couldn’t care less what the financial incentive is. Just people who pay less complaining that they don’t get as much as the person who pays more is like cats scratching on a chalkboard to me. Financial incentives are common for - for profit businesses. People get what they choose to pay for.

 

[Link]

130 dollars is ludicrous. The "extra mission" is just something chopped from the main game to bring artificial value to the more expensive game editions. The actual DLC packs that they're developing for the season pass are going to be released weeks/months later, as per usual. Predatory industry practices are nothing to celebrate, especially as the cost of a base game has risen so much. Pre-order incentives are getting more ridiculous by the date, especially the current early access trend. These games are more often that not shipped broken, with severe, even game-breaking bugs. Early access as a premium feature for a faulty product that commonly won't be patched until the wide release is interesting at the very least.