Many core mechanics are different in each game, and even if they kept the code identical for the DLC mechanics the bulk of the work is asset creation, balancing, etc.

There’s no universe in which you’re right

Yes because it’s a new game, putting all the features they developed in the previous base game and years of DLC would take them a long time. This is how software development works. They don’t just have everything feature toggled off…

I find this argument really annoying / entitled.

Are they supposed to increase the scope of every iteration in the series and take an extra few years to make each one, or are they supposed to never release DLC? which would make you happy?

I wish they had just abstracted and genericized the civilization characteristics into things like “nomadic horse lords” or something rather than my game having a “Greek -> Mongol -> American” continuity which is very immersion breaking.

Yes over the course of history regions could be ruled by different civilizations but that’s by forces like conquest or cultural domination which are literally in the game I’m playing, so why does time passing or a technology unlock turn me Japanese

A 160hz refresh rate gives the software a 6ms render budget, do things actually even run at that rate?

Not graphics, art style. It’s a valid critique and not snobbery.

I dunno man you’re like the people that insert politics into every thread, and I say that as one of them.

Sometimes we can talk about a Russian person doing something nice or we can talk about a cat in Istanbul without bringing up genocide.

EDIT: or that They Might Be Giants song

You should evaluate why you came to a barely populated thread, and made up a complete straw man to get upset over.

You’re manufacturing outrage for yourself. That’s not healthy.

limited by being an interactive medium where the average narrative length is dozens of hours.

We need the unlimited story telling freedom enabled by passively watching disjoint chunks of ad-riddled content

“a bunch of conditionals for my statements” are also known as weasel words. You don’t seem interested in learning from this experience.

The issue is that you’re constantly asserting your statement without evidence and when people are offering up contradictory ideas you’re asking them to present evidence (“that doesn’t mean that he’s NOT from a billionaire family”) which is shifting the burden of proof. You made the claim, you have to prove it, if people put out other explanations also without evidence then they still don’t have the burden of proof since the point under debate is the claim that you made. As the person making the claim you must prove it.

It’s not meant to be harsh since this is a very low stakes conversation and topic but what you’re doing willingly or unwillingly is exactly how misinformation spreads on more important topics, so it’s important that you be aware and correct your behavior.

You can’t just move the burden of proof on to others like this. You’re just spreading misinformation, even if you ultimately turn out to be right what you’re doing is unproductive and harmful.

do you believe they’re going to backpedal on all of the already announced singleplayer characters and content?

Fucking g*mers

You’re consistently glossing over the point about accessibility. Why shouldn’t high budget games make it easier for people with disabilities to play them?

Why does anyone NEED to be excluded? Many games have demonstrated that accessibility options allow more people to play the game the way they want.

This is something we can start to expect from AAA games.

Do you need others to fail the game, or to belittle them for turning down the difficulty, so that you can feel good about yourself?

Yes and so accessibility options that allow the player to customize the experience are what is being suggested.

If the game were made trivially easy then it would be alienating the people you describe.

Player choice is how games are made more accessible.

they’re gatekeeping the game story and experience, and ability to finish experiencing the game, from people who might be disabled or simply bad at games.

by making the game more accessible they would allow more people to enjoy the whole game

it’s a pretty standard example of gatekeeping

yes you’re right this is a lawsuit about too much profit and it will directly set a precedent where companies aren’t allowed to have too much profit.

Pretty smart, as a leftist maybe I’ll sue every corporation for being privately owned, this is a whole new avenue for systemic change. You opened my eyes

Even funnier is the guy’s post history is all about game and media piracy. Ubisoft just lost themselves a lifetime non-customer by daring to go woke.

I hear you man I also only wanna play games with people that look like you but there are only so many zoo tycoon games out there

Your point is valid but this kind of lawsuit isn’t really the way to go about the change you’re describing

why would they need to force the game outcome to get the PR win? They could donate anyway and give a snarky tongue in cheek message about the players choosing the mines.

The game outcome is practically irrelevant

Nobody cares what investors think, games are an artform and the PC market is most accessible to small creators. Yeah investors care about the things you say and so we might not get “action game with rpg mechanics and crafting 14 battle pass edition” on PC until they milk console sales, but there’s plenty of amazing content that’s PC first

Yeah like when we say RoboCop we think of the 2014 movie because it made a lot more at box office, and nobody thinks of the iconic and hugely influential original movie unless you say RoboCop (1987)