@ormgaard: They give support, advice and ressources, they finance the dvpt, help with quality testing, they pay for the marketing, they organise events at gaming confs, they are in charge of collector editions and merchandising, they sign the deals with online stores, they pay for the game servers if needed and of course they deal with the physical copies.

@eastland: Why not? He isn't employed by MS and other devs on the game pass have been critical of it.

It's more likely he is saying what he think.

@Runeweaver: Oh I am not saying that he was right, nor that it was an acceptable release or even that you can't doubt them for future release, actually we all should as it will put pressure on them and hopefully this doesn't happen again.

But the game was good on pc on release. There was a good, playable, version at launch. That's all I'm saying.

@faithxvoid: Yeah

@Wraith3: It was great from launch on pc. I streamed it right as it released, just two minor visual bugs in 3 hours that's it.

@Runeweaver: It was a mess on console, on PC it was fine, I played the heck out of it, even streamed the first 3 hours right when it was released. There was two bug, one, the jacket of my MC disapeared during the intro cinematic. And some chopsticks were duplicated in the hand of a NPC during a cinematic, that's it.

Again with ads in games. They keep trying.

@Tiwill44: Allow me to disagree. Zeldas have always been open world. Even the very first Zelda "The Legend of Zelda" was open world. The world was open and the gameplay was non linear. So saying that it's a major stretch is incorrect. It litterarily was an actual open world game from the get go in 1986.

As for OOT. Hyrule was the central hub and you could access all kind of sub areas, the thing is you could access those areas just not progress in some of them if you did not have the right tools, but you could still try, and you could still finish many of them in the order you wished, even some of the temples.

But, even then, you would be able to roam free, go back and forth, and find ways of progression. There are different levels of open world. Even the most open open worlds would most likely have areas where you'd need the right reputations, tools, weapons, or skills to progress through. That doesn't unqualify them as open worlds.

Being open world doesn't mean doing whatever you want, nor does it mean not having a story. Like Zeldas you can have elements of both, and different zeldas had different levels of open worlds, but they always were to a big extent open world games and were never what he is requesting. That is a "narative roller coaster".

So I disagree, there is not much truth to what he is saying.

@hexenhammer: You are wrong this is just your personal preference.

Open world is NEVER always a negative, nor is it most of the time. It can be a + and a -.

I prefer open world game. Fartnite is not an open world game btw, and Minecraft is not the only open world game, there are many others that fan of open world can play.. Hey, what about this one?

And also, Zelda was never a narrative base roller coaster type of experience, so why ask it of it? Should I ask, as you do, that you instead play two randomly selected lineare narative games because for some reason I would consider linear narrative games bad ?

Some games will be linear, some won't be. And Zeldas have always been open world anyways as GirlUsoCrazy said.

Well yeah. Some people that wouldn't buy the game will try it, and some people that would buy it won't because of game pass, that's obvious. But you get paid for the people that went through game pass instead of buying AND the people that wouldn't touch the game normally (which is a much bigger number) and that tried it on GP.

I don't agree with his reasoning though.

"Because a lot of people just go in and try it, and they don't invest. If they don't like the first 10 minutes? That's it."

As opposed to what? People buying it not liking it and having to deal with refunds which is complicatd on some plateforms?

People DLing it on GP aren't supposed to buy it either, they try it, stop right away or play some more and you still get paid anyways. They aren't expected to convert that to a buy. Some do, but it's not the point of the service.

Soo.. Either people go through GP, and their "try" is monetised for him. Or they buy the game, then he is back to the premium model. What's the issue? Why publish on GP if you only like the premium model? Isn't it because you make MORE money that way? Then why complain?