They’re squeezing whatever they can out of this game before its final whimper. The only people that would buy this $15 pack are people who don’t know anything about the game. Marketing it as a “starter pack” is so disingenuous that I can’t believe that Bungie had any other motive in mind than to con a few unaware people who are unlucky enough to pick up this game on a sale.
Maybe if they’d finally ro something about the new player experience (specifically, the lack of one) this game could actually go back to its heyday. But they’re just committed to enshitifying it further with FOMO tactics, convoluted expansion/season pass/dungeon pass models.
I mean just try selling your friends on a game when you explain to them how much the upfront cost is to actually play the “real” game.
Because the gameplay itself is actually feels very good to some people. The cool thing about the franchise is the way that the gameplay has developed over time. Part of the reason the MCC is so cool is because you can experience the franchise at all of its stages. Infinite’s gameplay feels like another interesting and enjoyable variation.
And yet, 343 was still managed to fumble the bag. Nobody wants a shop or battle passes in their halo game.
Look, there’s lots of valid reasons to shit on Bethesda that this comparison isn’t even fair.
ESO is literally an MMO. It’s a genre of game that’s designed to have a very long life-span with regular content releases, updates and balance changes.
Starfield is a single player Action RPG. Yes, of course they’ll probably be done adding to it before an entirely different development team that’s dedicated to an MMO is done.
If the court certified a class of people alleging a claim against Apple based on damages incurred as a result of the AirTag products, the case, at the very least, deserves to be heard on its merits.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable that something like this would go to trial. The questions of what statutes, if any, has Apple violated and what liability Apple should hold deserve to be answered in a court of equity.
Now whether the final ruling will be fair and just depends on your view of our system of civil courts and the doctrine of stare decisis.
Think of it this way; if the court agrees with you, then there is precedent set that implies corporations may not have liability under a set of circumstances similar to the ones described in this article. There are broader implications of the question that go beyond Apple.
I have to imagine it’s a very difficult thing to cope with; learning something like that about a very close friend. It has to really mess with you. And I can understand the human instinct to want to defend them regardless of your moral standards.
I personally don’t think this goes to show any moral failing on their part. Or at the very least, whatever moral failing may be present is mostly due in part to a natural human reaction to complex emotions better dealt with in therapy. As such, I think these two should be afforded a bit of leeway.