Is it evolution to throw as many features into a game as possible and ship? I'd rather have an experience in which everything feels purposeful, rather than one bogged down by unnecessary elements that dilute the core ideas.
Regardless, the game has yet to be released. To call the gameplay of an unplayed game "limited" is just a tad unfair.
"You watch sports every year, but if you changed the rules dramatically of a sport every year who would watch that?"
We aren't talking about watching sports or simple rule changes. We're talking about charging $60 annually for a product that refuses to take risks or do anything different from the previous installments.
If you insist on using the sport analogy, then here we go: People don't pay to watch sports because they want to see the rules. People pay to watch sports for the experience of watching a sport.
"But what did happen is they changed the way they worked and it went more towards the model that we have," he added. "Which I would call…a micro-studio or a very focused studio that grows and expands but are not employees of this one group, where it's basically not internal development. It's much more efficient that way. I think that's where AAA may go, or at least game development can go."
This is either the incoherent rambling of a man struggling to make a point or a level of cognition above that of current human thought.
X_Colbert_X's comments