Top
970°

God of War Creator David Jaffe Slams Beyond Good and Evil 2 Critics

David Jaffe took to Twitter to call gamers, specifically Foxtrot, entitled gamers as they complained about the news that Beyond Good & Evil 2 would not only be adding co-op but would have online required settings even when paying solo, something not required for their other co-op optional game, Far Cry 5.

The story is too old to be commented.
-Foxtrot52d ago

Holy shit. I'm famous. Hi Mom.

Anyway, to put it bluntly and I say this with a dash of love, shut the f*** up David, if you are going to use the typical, boring ass "entitled gamers" bullshit come back to just glide over all the reasons why people are upset over the news then you obviously haven't bothered to look into the entire thing from both sides. Just typical "I'm in the industry, I better stick up for my fellow brothers in arms" mindset.

1) Online only sucks. Not everyone has a good solid connection and we know it means Ubisoft will want to monetize the game somehow, this will allow them to take an even bigger advantage over it.

2) No one asked for this. People wanted a single player, story driven platforming game picking up where the first one left off and going after the loose ends which weren't resolved. This comes back to the online only issue as nobody asked for an online, multiplayer co-op driven open world game. People waited 15 years for this and in the end this is what they waited for? Are you surprised people are p***** off over this? Jesus.

3) When we get these always online type of games it usually means the game is going to feature grindy, play with friends to boost your overall experience gameplay where we create the replay value by doing the same types of missions over and over.

4) In the future it means Ubisoft could take this game away whenever they wanted. Take the servers offline and the game becomes nothing, it's unplayable.

Oh and it seems your little followers are not quite agreeing with you huh? Guess you might be in the wrong with this one David.

https://twitter.com/davidsc...

Now you are trying to do a 180 saying we aren't entitled now and spinning it the best you can...wow

https://twitter.com/davidsc...

This guy is all over.

THINK BEFORE YOU TWEET DAVID or you'll just get owned by your followers, for example.

https://i.ibb.co/D13zsX2/Ow...

Nitrowolf252d ago (Edited 52d ago )

The one thing I will agree with him is that the fan base for the series is very tiny. I can understand where he is coming from, but at the end of the day this is the route that Ubisoft went with and the game is named the same with a two at the end.

To me, this is like what Konami did with Metal Gear when they released Survive. Taking an existing property and hoping it has some success because of the name.

I’m sadden that we won’t be able to continue Jades adventure, so I’ll speak with my wallet

Idk who Ubisoft is trying to market this to now because players who were interested were mostly for reason 1.

-Foxtrot52d ago

It was tiny but it's become one of those cult classics which over the 15 years has gained a bigger following, enough for people to constantly ask Ubisoft for a sequel and the like

It's the main issue with the entire thing, people wanted a sequel and they got something completely different. We didn't get something like, for example, "Beyond Good and Evil: Otherworlds" we got Beyond Good and Evil 2, exploiting what we all wanted so they could ride the hype after they announced it all away to release.

It's not even a smaller worst case scenario like a partial online game for co-op features but still continuing on from the ending of the first game continuing the stories of Jade sticking to it's platforming based gameplay. Least in that scenario fans could be a little ticked off but have more of a chance swallowing the whole deal. However this shit...this is just too much thrown at us at once that it shows Ubisoft just don't give a crap.

If Ubisoft really cared, they'd drop the number 2 from the title, rework the game to get rid of Jade or any other characters from the first game and tell people a true sequel is or will come eventually. I'd rather wait longer for it done right then Jade's story being screwed in this crap.

This is what I would have preferred they built on

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

HeisenbergX52d ago

When the fanbase is tiny then you do whatever you can to make it bigger by giving the gamers and the fans of the first one what they want and that is an amazing fresh AAA single player experience (like the new GOW that probably sold 10 mil by now and it's only for one platform) not an online only game! that immediately sets off a red alert in our heads.

Speaking of the new GOW Jaffe is probably jealous and salty because of the enormous success that the game Cory and the rest of the team got. :D

jznrpg52d ago

It has grown over the years and not tiny like when it launched

abstractel51d ago

You are correct that this game is basically becoming a rent only game with a finite expiration date (unless they release a patch before they shut down the online part). You're basically paying $60 to rent a game.

I go back and play games I really love from time to time. If I end up loving BGE2 I guess that won't be an option.

Gaming10151d ago

Read CL Anthony's comment on Jaffe's direct Youtube response to Fox Trot.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

I love most of Jaffe's games, big fan. Now that I got the fanboy prefacing out of the way, I do understand that people want games to be what they envisioned it to be. People don't want a Terms of Service, and a single player game you can only play as long as the servers are still running. People don't see the long term impacts of this, but what it means is the game won't be timeless the way other singe player experiences are timeless.

I understand completely why a business wants to operate this way, but if you're going to turn fans off, you have to accept the bad PR. Games that are multiplayer do well with online only like Destiny (although Destiny 2 is suffering greatly because of greed and grindy repetitive quests), but in SP games like Hitman, it didn't fare as well. What's the point of online only in SP, just so your scores can be force uploaded to a server? Does anyone actually read those servers with hundreds of thousands of names? Is any of that really that important?

If this game is co-op optional, make the internet optional so you can still enjoy the game when the servers go offline. People need to voice their opinions on this, voicing with words is more important than your wallet, because if no one buys a game, the company has no clue as to why they failed! The tricky part is understanding which voices matter, and who is complaining just to be a complainer. It's not easy figuring out what the largest number of people want, but also how to be the most profitable.

There is a growing trend for people to hate microtransactions, the Games as a Service model; and people are hating on games that have a boring grindy progress structure that is too repetitive, that just drones on and on the way the last Assassin's Creed Odyssey did, with no escape outside of buying your progress. We are literally paying more money to NOT play our games, but rather to sidestep something that feels as exciting as mopping the floor. Gaming has become a chore. Shadow of War suffered in this regard, as Microtransactions made their way into a Single Player only game, and it was done so lazily that the publisher didn't even need the bad PR. At no point do any of the Microtransactions help you in that game. They were poorly implemented so only the dumbest people bought them, which means that not only did the MTs not make any money, but they had people boycotting their game to prove a point, making them even less money.

Will Ubisoft learn from Hitman and Shadow of War? Probably not. Almost half of Ubisoft revenue comes from Microtransactions now. FUCKING HALF. I read that in an earnings report. Grand Theft Auto 5 paved the way for essentially cash cows in gaming and every other company is trying to follow this trend.

On the Mulitiplayer side, Microtransactions piss people off in Multiplayer because of the Pay to Win problem, which is exactly why Fortnite is doing so well. People are fine to spend literally billions to customize their character if it means that they get an even playing field with their MP games it turns out. Something absolutely no one saw coming, but Ubisoft aren't learning this yet, and it will likely ruin BGE2 with a littering of Microtransactions, pay to progress or do your chores "gameplay", and a game that you can only play for a few years before the servers get cut from lack of profitability.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 51d ago
Sono42152d ago (Edited 52d ago )

It's like developers are forgetting we are the customer, but they are constantly telling us what we want, and when we say no we want this, they simply claim we are entitled. Since when is wanting a product (especially a sequel) to be what we want entitled? The first one set a standard and now you're going to change that? You need to convince us to buy by offering a good product, not just expect us to buy no matter how much you change it. You make a misstep? Acknowledge it and move on, don't blame your fans, you just come off petty and childish like EA with BFV. It's in everyone's best interest to make what your fans want, don't forget that.

lociefer52d ago (Edited 52d ago )

Here's the worst thing about this whole scenario; if the game tanks, ubisoft goes: There's not enough demand for the return of BGAE, and the franchise gets shelved.

if the game succeeds, ubisoft goes: clearly this is the direction fans want this franchise going.

Either way those of us who were dying for a sequel loose, and it's infuriating

robtion52d ago

Exactly.

As for Jaffe 'if you dont like it don't play it'?

Uh huh, and he is calling us childish and ignorant.

SPEAKxTHExTRUTH52d ago

You’re best point and only point I think you needed to make was the fact that if Ubi shuts down the servers the game is no longer playable. This is unacceptable in a single player game. I understand always online for MMO’s but single player?

DaDrunkenJester52d ago

Well, it's not a single player game if they are forcing online and heavily encouraging co-op. Much like you can still Solo a lot of content in an MMO, you CAN solo in this game, but they're obviously going to want you to team up in certain areas.

-Foxtrot52d ago

Only point? Even though...

1) Ubisoft does try and monetise everything

2) No one did ask for this? Show me people in the 15 years of asking for a sequel who said "I want an open world multiplayer, co-op, always online prequel game of Beyond Good and Evil"

3) Show me a game which is online focused, where you play with friends in todays world which isn't grindy, makes you play with friends to play the same missions over and over so we create our own replay value. Some are better then others fair enough but the Division, Destiny, Ghost Recon Wildlands, For Honour, Fallout 76, even Monster Hunter World which is the best of the bunch but still has those issues, just not as big as the others

lelo2play52d ago (Edited 52d ago )

David Jaffe, a consumer has every right to criticize a product he/she purchased (or thinking about purchasing)... do you expect the consumer to take it up the b*tt without complaining?
If you buy a house, a car, a BJ, or something else, if it's not to your liking aren't you going to complain?

Oh David! Always spewing bullsh*t.
PUT THAT ON TWITTERRRRR.

rainslacker52d ago

Funny he wouldn't come on here and say something. It's almost as if N4G doesn't have a way to respond to people that he's calling out. Very odd.

Not that anyone would believe he was really Jaffe, but still, he could have said his piece, and not gotten heat over it, instead of back peddling within the comments of his very own tweets. Wonder if he'd thought he'd find a safe space of gamers who would just think always online was great or something. Might be a signal that he's kind of out of touch with the community, since for the most part, people in the community aren't really for such a thing, but accept it for an online only game.

RememberThe35752d ago (Edited 52d ago )

I've been pumped up for this game since it announced. I frankly love everything I've seen so far. But always online? For what?

I asked for this game, I want this game more than any other game being made right now, but damn it, I hope they don't cripple it. Always online has been bad news almost every time we've seen it, especially in story driven games. Being critical of that news is more than appropriate, even if the rest of the game of looks f#cking dope.

And frankly if Jaffe is on N4G he should know that opinions around here are not common opinions. If it was up to N4G RDR2 would have flopped and gamer gate would have turned every gaming journalist into Dickens.

Shikoku52d ago

Exactly could have said it better. People are getting tired of these GasS models already they are unsustainable in the long run.

darthv7252d ago

You are not wrong fox but just to point out there are responses for each of your points. This is what others would say:

1) Internet is much more stable and available in more countries now than it was 10 years ago.
2) Sometimes you don't get what you want but that doesn't mean what you do get is automatically bad.
3) Playing with friends is always a good thing. Unless you have no friends.
4) This has been happening for years now. Why do you think this is anything new?

jznrpg52d ago

Uou can respond to anything it doesn’t make it a good response

Christopher52d ago (Edited 52d ago )

1. And still goes out with the power or other issues and doesn't make it 'okay' to force online with SP. And billions of people do not have stable internet.

2. No one said it was, but if I'm shopping for what was in the first game, I wouldn't buy what they're offering just because it had the same name.

3. False. I would never play a heavily story focused game with friends. Never. I don't want anyone disrupting the game or arguing over decisions. And most of the time my friends aren't even available at the same time, so how does being able to okay with them for one hour a week being 'better' make up for the other hours I'm playing in a SP focused game?

4. Such a logical fallacy. Mass shootings have happened for years, we should just treat each one as normal? We shouldn't criticize when companies do things we don't like just because it isn't the first time? Look at SWBF2 and BFV. Those games clearly say otherwise to your implication of it will happen just because it has in the past. Even Ubisoft themselves have stepped back multiple times due to community backlash.

52d ago Replies(2)
D3TH_D33LR52d ago

^When the entitlement blinds you from seeing Jaffes truths. Not even surprised

CaptainObvious87851d ago

wow....

When utter delusion blinds you from reality.

Rangerman120852d ago (Edited 52d ago )

Whoa that's a lot of dislikes. My guess is that they're from David Jaffe's followers lol

-Foxtrot52d ago

People love David Jaffe and people love always online I guess

How...lovely...

sampsonon52d ago

your mom wants you to throw out the Garbage.

antikbaka52d ago

bu..buuuu... Fallout 76 is so much more fun when play with frieeeeends!

rainslacker52d ago

I noticed he said "Be realistic" a lot in that second twitter thread.

Seems kind of ironic that he'd say that to the consumer. Sure, it's realistic to assume the game would never get made based on the sales of the first. Same way we can be realistic that SSoD or Quantum Break will never get sequels for the same reason.

But, to say we should be realistic that this is the only way the game could ever get produced....which basically amounts to using a franchise name for a game which is decidedly a vast departure from the original, and is nothing like what anyone seemed to have wanted, doesn't mean that the customers are being unrealistic about what they should expect to receive, it means that not expressing their dissatisfaction for what they're getting just makes them complacent.

People saying they're not going to buy a game because it doesn't offer what they want doesn't make them entitled. The industry people that want to shame critics into submission need to stop using this term. For one thing, it's a bad thing to speak ill of your consumer base....even if you're right. Time and time again, this tactic is proven to backfire. No matter how right one may be, which Jaffe isn't in this case because I saw nothing wrong with some of the discussion in that article thread

https://n4g.com/news/222818...

Just some people saying they're displeased, and what they were expecting, then a general discussion on what would have been cool.

Entitled would mean that people were demanding change or expecting change. No one is entitled until they buy the product, then want a different product. If they buy it and make unreasonable demands to what it should be, or demand/expect some form of remedy to their lack of being an informed consumer, then that's entitled. If they don't buy it, and say why they aren't going to buy it, then that's not entitlement, that's just being a critic and being a potential consumer who is expressing what they want.

KillBill52d ago

"Online only sucks." - really? Tell that to the Wow, LOL fanbase type. So many MMO games out there and this really is little different. I mean look at Fortnite and PUBG as being always online. Everyone for sure has there preferred game types but to imagine an online game being slammed because it is ONLINE seems kind of ignorant. And just because the first game was offline single player does not mean the completely separate 2nd game in the series has to follow suit a decade later is ridiculous.

-Foxtrot52d ago

We're not talking about MMO's though are we...

If World of Warcraft used to be a single player driven, story based game which was then turned into an always online MMO the point would still stand but that's not what this is about

It's a poor counter point you've brought up because they were built up with online in mind since it's part of their MMO genre. Hell it's in the genres name.

The point is Beyond Good and Evil 2 is an open world game which dosen't seem to require you to play online, this game was said to be able to be played offline last year yet now it's a different story.

Nothing about this game, even when it was shown off made you think "this game is online only"...they are just shoving that crap in so they can do some anti consumer crap in the future since its Ubisoft.

Christopher52d ago

Online only sucks for single player games.

Finish the thought, don't try and make it a general statement.

KillBill51d ago

@-Foxtrot - I don't know where you have been when the media has been released on the game but I myself instantly saw it as a multiplayer game. Never imagined it as a single player experience in the least. And again, the more than a decade old game with a small following does not dictate how the game is going to come out later when it is spun back up and looking at a return to the gaming world. Everything about that game spin was leading to a multiplayer experience. If you don't like it... tough. Many of us will be buying it and enjoying the hell out of it. You can go and play the first game where the controls were complete garbage and the gameplay doesn't hold up well in today's gaming.

@Christopher - it was literally a quote.

Obscure_Observer52d ago (Edited 52d ago )

@-Foxtrot

"Holy shit. I'm famous. Hi Mom."

You´re. I agree with most of what you said, but, you got to recognize that you´re some kind of hard to please fellow. You pretty much complain about pretty much every single game that undergo changes to stay relevant.

I remember when you complained about God of War and the new direction. And here we are.

-Foxtrot52d ago

"You pretty much complain about pretty much every single game"

No no no...you and others like to say that to try and "lessen" my points on here but there's been plenty of times I've said something decent or neutral but nobody gives a shit because it's not news worthy.

If there is, lets say hypothetically, 30 articles that pass through here in a day and I comment on 10 of them saying how disappointed or angry I am then the other 20 articles I've left I either don't care about either because I don't care for the game OR I have no problem with the news. In that way I technically don't have a problem with most stuff it's just I feel it's better to be more vocal about the shit I don't like because I can 1) vent about it along with other users and 2) there's a small, very small chance of it being seen by people in the industry. Hell David Jaffe just screenshot this site. It's better to vent on the shit you find angry or disappointing rather then saying a generic positive comment...I mean if you are fine or glad with something then there's not reason to really comment is there, you don't have anything to vent about or want to change.

"I remember when you complained about God of War and the new direction. And here we are"

Only thing I complained the most about with the new God of War was I feared Atreus was going to end up annoying and bring the game down by babysitting him. He didn't, I even said this in comments a while back admitting I was wrong. I never said "I hate the look of the new God of War as they've changed everything"...but I might have said something concerned wise about how there's no jump button or something but to hate on it? No. Voicing concern is different.

It's one of the rare games which changes things from the past games BUT still manages to stick to its franchises roots. Then you need to think about how exploited the franchise was years ago with so many games being made from the PS2/PS3 and PSP, we were burnt out.

Tapani52d ago (Edited 52d ago )

Let's look at Foxtrot's arguments from a critical point of view:

1) You have no idea what the model is, so you simply decided that it is something and rant about your own opinion. Your opinion is baseless.

2) Gaming is an art form. Paintings, books, movies, music and theater are not always made "fans" in mind, but are creations which derive from visions of multiple people who are working together towards a goal to realize it. It is also partly business which has entirely its own dynamics that need to be taken into consideration. You are speaking only for one person, not many, in regards to what people want. Ubisoft might even have statistical proof to throw at you regarding what people want compared to what you or "fans" want. Why would these "fans" be more right than the other people? They aren't.

3) Entirely an assumption which is baseless without any proof. Your argument isn't worth anything.

4) There hasn't been many cases where a lot of people have been dissatisfied if a very old game has been taken offline.

I'm with Jaffe here.

-Foxtrot52d ago

Everything you've literally just done there is EXACTLY what you're trying to call me for...you do see the irony in that right?

Saying "you don't know that" when you've just taken large assumptions aswell as your apparent "counter point"

That's pretty hilarious.

Fact is you are with Jaffe before you even saw mine and other comments. At the end of the day you can say I'm wrong or any other user here but Jaffe isn't right either so.

Christopher52d ago (Edited 52d ago )

3. It's worth just as much as yours.

4. We don't have story driven, SP focused but Co-Op optional games going offline because even Ubisoft games following that concept don't require an internet connection for playing it solo.

Tapani52d ago (Edited 52d ago )

I read what David wrote, took a look at a few of his earlier posts, seen a few of his streams as well, and in the end I read four of your long posts here. I applied a normal critical point of view to what you wrote, and that was the result. Your arguments do not hold.

You assume everything and have no proof to back yourself up. In other words: you have no idea what you are talking about.

Christopher52d ago

Tapani, you are entirely ignoring any research Foxtrot has done to define his opinion and then say you've read four of his posts, read some of Jaffe, watched his stream (??) And because you have researched and ignore any potential for research by Foxtrot, you are more aware than he is.

Look, Foxtrot is normally vocal when it's negative, and he's not always sharing a popular opinion, but the amount that he plays and follows gaming over the many years have shown his research. I'm not going to say he has no clue on this when he absolutely does and has been making similar statements for a while and following the GaaS trend in gaming. Most active users here have and some of them do not agree. That's normal, but that doesn't mean one side is entitled because of that opinion.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 52d ago
Fist4achin52d ago

Just another online required game pushing MP that will get buried by the more popular games.

I doubt I will be in for this round of a cool series.

Hardiman52d ago (Edited 52d ago )

Get em Fox and the "entitled" go to label these guys use is ridiculous! Also the IP doesn't have a big fan base is weak because if it's so fuc*ing small why pray Tell are they bothering to make it always online?!?! Seems like if the base is tiny then they'd be better served just delivering a solid SP game as opposed to an always online game that I assume will have an intricate market system for loot, ships etc and have to have constant updates and will probably have a big development team.

Back to Dave though, he just seems bitter to me because, let's face it Draw to Death didn't light the world on fire and this industry kinda falls into the "what have you done for me lately" category. He just seems like he'd be the guy that blamed "fans" on his failures because he's the smartest guy in any room and we just didn't get it! Like here he's lumping all of us who are rightfully outraged with this bullshit as entitled and painting us in a negative light. Where Ubisoft should for sure be taken to task for pulling this shit. He really hasn't done anything of relevance in years whereas Cory Barlog who worked on GOW as well back then and directed 2, delivered one of the best gaming experiences I've ever played with GOW! That's just for reference into my comment of him being bitter at fans and instead of doing something that's noteworthy he just makes outrageous comments.

The original may have been a small success but it's gained a cult following and if they'd have delivered a solid narrative driven prequel it would've sold very well. When talented devs are allowed to be creative with popular narrative driven SP games it pays off as GOW and Spider-Man have shown just this year. There's been more for sure especially the ones that didn't have huge bloated budgets but what Ubi did here is wrong! They should've announced this at the beginning instead of acting like you wouldn't need an internet connection. I just hope this brings the spotlight on them because EA, M$ and others usually get the most backlash but Ubisoft is notorious for nickel and diming folks.

Lore52d ago (Edited 52d ago )

I honestly don‘t care about any backlash I receive from this, but you are a fool. Everything Jaffe stated was logical and true. The way he goes about presenting his opinions at times is questionable, however educated individuals on the industry would not be agreeing with you regardless

Plain and simple don’t buy the game if you disagree with any aspects of the decisions regarding a publisher/developer.

-Foxtrot51d ago

Don’t care about backlash? Okay then great... don’t call me a fool when you are the bigger fool for hanging on Jaffe’s words when he’s clearly in the wrong

LOOK AT HIS LATER POSTS man, he did a 180 and apologised. Go on his twitter and look it up.

Bet you feel pretty stupid now...

Lore51d ago

Haha I would never feel stupid from anything regarding n4g. My opinion stands and I’m not going to waste my time going deep through a twitter feed. It doesn’t matter who stated it whether it be Jaffe or anyone else in the world.

Good luck to you sir 🥂

PhantomS4251d ago

Bahahaha face it, the trolls are getting called out and you are their leader.

antz110451d ago

Best part is you just told Jaffe to STFU and he's probably going to read it. Lol AWESOME.

ginganinja51d ago

1. The original announcement was heavily geared towards the multiplayer aspect of it. More than likely its development meant it was harder to keep SP as offline and still make it relevant to the game they're making. Who knows? Maybe by the time the game is actually out it might have changed again. That's sort of the meaning of the word development.

2. Tough. They haven't had that for 15 years, and they aren't going to have it for a while longer. This is not that game. Ubisoft have decided to make a different game. They announced that different game in 2017. It was fairly apparent then that multiplayer was going to be a significant part of it.

3. speculation.
4. and ? Doesn't seem to stop folks enjoying countless other similar games.

jaycptza51d ago

you can play alone but you need an internet connection to play not a big deal I'm sure that the game wont stop the minute you lose the connection probably have a period to compensate for network related spikes/drops

Xasthirion51d ago

It's almost 2019. If you don't have a "good solid internet connection" then you should probably be spending your money on helping your village get clean drinking water instead of on video games. I can't believe people still use this as an argument. There are tropical islands with 100% free wifi coverage in the middle of the jungle for Christ sakes.

This is the direction games are going. It's nothing new, and it wont stop regardless of how much you cry about it. You are insignificant in this argument. For every one of you who complain online about this sort of thing, there are 1000 people who are willing to fork out a fortune on microtransactions. That's who games are for now. Adapt or die. They are far past the point of no return on these kinds of features. It's time to accept that, or accept that maybe modern gaming isn't for you.

And stop acting like you are entitled to anything. The company owns the IP, and they can make whatever game they want. You don't have to buy it, and you certainly have no right to complain about it if you don't.

+ Show (24) more repliesLast reply 51d ago
Nitrowolf252d ago (Edited 52d ago )

Jaffe screencapped me lol

rainslacker52d ago

I'm pretty sure that's copyright infringement. I'm not sure who own's the copyright. Either N4G's parent company....or you. Might be time to call up the lawyers though.

Or...just be happy that he made you famous among his tens of followers.

Christopher52d ago

We have allowed his use of our site image to enable himself to project his own entitlement of what consumers are allowed to do in regards to news relating to a title in which they are interested

NapalmSanctuary51d ago

I'm pretty sure that falls under fair use.

Christopher52d ago

Stop trying to steal Foxtrot's spotlight moment! /s

TheGamez10052d ago (Edited 52d ago )

Eh....been hearing the word "entitled" alot since that whole diablo fiasco and getting pretty annoyed with that. Maybe fans are just getting sick of microtransactions and anything that heavily has to do with that? That being a very online game? We just want a complete content filled game that isnt filled with crappy microtransaction practices that we can all enjoy at our own pace without any annoying requirements like always having to be online. If it has online features such as just playing with your friends then thats great....but this way is just wrong...
It should have been advertised as an always online game at the start

This is why I never take big devs like sonys studios, cdproject red, nintendo, even smaller devs like indies, etc that still do it right for granted.
Ubi, EA, Activision, and others that are getting there like Bethesda and Capcom can all go to hell for all I care. If they ever stop this nonsense, boy will that be the day.

nyu152d ago

It's because some people go too far and are too toxic. That's all. People see that and say "Entitled gamers", the problem being that they are putting anyone who's complaining.

Ofc in this case its silly. Looking at the comments it was normal.

rainslacker52d ago

More that some people consider that anyone who doesn't like what the company has to offer, and says they are displeased, are now considered entitled. Even if they aren't asking for anything different, or demanding it. Apparently, as consumers, or fans of gaming, we are not allowed to express what we want, and just have to accept everything regardless.

Most of this kind of stuff I see from industry professionals seems to revolve more around the "If you don't like it, shut up and don't buy it" kind of mentality, but saying entitled allows them to try and shame those criticizing, or exercising their free will to express their dissatisfaction, into being quiet, for the purpose of not disrupting any marketing campaign I assume.

Hardiman52d ago (Edited 52d ago )

That irks me as well! "Entitled " is really getting worn out because this is not a case of gamers being entitled! It's a case of gamers pushing back and hard, which I think is great. I don't subscribe to death threats and I'm sure most don't because we're not insane! I never saw the blowback EA got coming. I just figured people would take it and we'd be even closer to the day I check out of gaming but it's not just EA, Activision, M$, WB, Bethesda and Capcom. Ubisoft goes under the radar on this kind of shit all the time but it looks like this may tip the scales.

titans999951d ago

David Jaffe is the one who is "ENTITLED LITTLE BRAT" he is damn lucky God of War didn't go always on line or he too would be shit canned! Fuck always on line games, and fuck anyone that makes ANY excuses for that bullshit and those money hungry assholes!

Cobra95152d ago

The irony is that we really are all entitled, to get what we pay for. We are all entitled, to speak our minds. The word "entitled" used as an insult is one of the most puzzling fads of our contentious times.

IamTylerDurden152d ago

I enjoy Jaffe's outspoken ways, typically, but i can't fly with this. With all the heat that EA gets it seems like Ubisoft just flies under the radar. Ubisoft is the underground king of MTs and GaaS, the Eddie Alvarez of the gaming industry and i for one am happy that gamers are calling them out. Beyond is not the franchise to Ubi-ize. Always online, MTs, "not in my Beyond Good n Evil".

Hardiman52d ago

I believe this will be what shines the spotlight on Ubi! They seem to always sneak buy with it in their games but I think they Ubi-sized on the wrong franchise!

opc52d ago

Ubi flies under the radar because they typically release a ton of content at the base price and all extra DLC and MTs only appeal to people that thoroughly enjoyed like 95-100% of the base game. Plus their games drop in price pretty quickly. You can get the newest ac game for $30 right now.

StrengthInNumbers52d ago

Ubisoft are free to make what they want. However, It would be better to change the name of this game because it is nothing like Beyond Good and Evil. This is pretty much a new IP.