Sea of Thieves Is Dead on Arrival – Online Games Are in Serious Trouble
Articles Blog

Sea of Thieves Is Dead on Arrival – Online Games Are in Serious Trouble

October 7, 2019

A few days ago, I released my Sea of Thieves
review, which is a game I had a lot of fun with and enjoyed quite a lot. However, what I noticed from everyone’s
feedback is how polarizing the game is. Some love it, and some hate it. Whether it is a lack of content, repetition,
lack of endgame, no character progression, or even that is just no fun—people have
a lot of issues with this game. The problem is, Sea of Thieves is not the
first, and certainly won’t be the last, game that suffers from these issues, which
leaves a bad taste in many gamers’ mouths. Games like Destiny, The Division, GTA 5 with
GTA Online, and Battlefront 2 have paved the way for Sea of Thieves. Each of these games focuses on the “games
as a service” model, and through doing so, may have already dug their own graves. Is Sea of Thieves truly dead on arrival, and
why did Star Wars: Battlefront 2 make gamers so angry in 2017? Today, we’re going to talk about it. To understand why Sea of Thieves was made
the way it is, we must go back and examine the release and life of Destiny. While we could go back further, Destiny set
the stage for online games as they are today. When Bungie, the creators and developers of
the acclaimed Halo series paired up with Activision to do something new, gamers knew something
big was going on. The announcement and subsequent alpha and
beta test for what we now know as Destiny only served to ignite the flames of hype surrounding
the game. The shooting and traversal mechanics were
nearly perfect, the world was beautiful and seemed full of character and things to do,
and the story and plot were intriguing. Destiny may have been one of the most hyped
up games in the last decade on similar levels with No Man’s Sky, but when the game released
to lukewarm reviews, long-time Bungie fans and people who played the beta were shocked. Destiny was praised for its incredible combat,
beautiful graphics and world design, and having an addictive gear grind aimed to keep you
getting better equipment and eventually the best gear possible. However, what it lacked was something that
would damage the game long-term and would require Bungie to release multiple expansions
to finally fix. The game’s story was bland and uninspired;
after completing the main storyline and grinding for most of the gear, Destiny became a repetitive
routine of completing one or two weekly events, grinding the same few strikes and waiting
15+ minutes for an event to spawn in the world which only has a small percentage of dropping
the items you need. So how did Destiny maintain a large player
count even when most people had completed nearly all there was to do? That is where the promise of future content
comes in. Before Destiny even launched, you could buy
the expansion pass, which would give you access to the first two expansions the game would
offer. Knowing that there is more content coming,
even if it is not currently accessible, is something that motivates players to continue
playing so that they can be as ready for that new content as possible. It took Destiny three expansions to be able
to fix most of the game’s issues, and by that time they had lost a lot of their players. The game lived on because of the promise of
more content to come, and that content did eventually fix the game. However, is that something we, as gamers,
want to allow developers to do? Is it acceptable if developers release games
with a lackluster amount of content, just enough to get us by until they release their
next update? If you bought everything upon release, Destiny
would have cost you nearly $100 by the time the Taken King expansion came out and solved
a lot of the game’s issues. Or, you could wait a year or more and get
the self-branded “Complete Edition,” which implies the game’s original release was
not complete. This is the kind of business model publishers
and developers are aiming to go with when they talk about “games as a service” and
why online and social-focused games like Sea of Thieves may be in serious danger. Destiny was not the only game to release with
similar structure and thus similar issues. The Division was released with a very similar
“online shared world” experience, a loot grind, and a lack of end game. While you could go to the Dark Zone, a place
where PvP is allowed, and try to grind for better gear, it was full of hackers and high-level
players who just wanted to ruin your day. Again, this game lost many of its players. Nearly two years later, the game has finally
been fixed tremendously and is seeing an influx of players once more. But the game wasn’t in its proper state
for TWO YEARS. Destiny 2 released last year with a lot of
improvements upon the first iteration, but still having a season pass before the games
release and offering much more egregious micro-transactions. The shaders in Destiny 2, which allow you
to color your gear, were made to be a one-time use consumable. Unlike the first game where you could change
them out infinitely, once you use a shader, it is gone. The only way to get the shaders you want is
to grind for them again or purchase them with real money and get a randomized engram that
may not even have the specific shader you want. Then, of course, you have the Battlefront
2 fiasco, where it was much easier to buy items and characters in the game than it was
to actually play to earn them. There was a point where Dice had the micro-transactions
set up to where it would take 4,528 hours or $2100 to unlock all the base content. Everything was loot box based; thus, everything
you bought would be randomized. All of these games that we have talked about
cost $60 for the initial purchase, $10-20 per expansion, plus the cost of optional micro-transactions. All of this is to say that these developers
and publishers are designing games in such a way that allows them to make as much money
as possible. Again, is this something we should accept? Do we want to send the message to developers
who are milking us for all we have that we are okay with spending more money to complete
the game that we already bought? Take Two said that they want all of their
future games to feature “recurrent consumer spending opportunities.” And EA has said, even after they lost out
on sales and goodwill for Battlefront 2’s problems, that, “live services that include
optional digital monetization, when done right, provide a very important element of choice
that can extend and enhance the experience in our games.” So even though most gamers speak out against
them and feel they are causing developers to provide less content for the buy-in price
in leu of making money from recurrent spending, publishers are still adamant about their place
in games. Why? Because they make an insane amount of money. Out of EA’s 1.23 billion dollar revenue
in their last quarter, 787 million of it was from live services with only 260 million being
from game sales—Over triple the profit on things bought after the original purchase
of a game. This is why it seems so many games are going
down this route—it may make many gamers less happy, but it makes companies significantly
more money in the long run. And for businesses, money talks. Enter Sea of Thieves. Microsoft and Rare (the developers of Sea
of Thieves) obviously saw the massive monetary success of the previous titles mentioned,
as well as what was seemingly lacking or could be changed for the better; thus, Sea of Thieves
was born. And let’s be honest, the premise of Sea
of Thieves is unique. Go alone or gather your friends up to explore
an open world as a pirate, find buried treasure, take over islands haunted by the dead, and
team up with other players in the same world that can do the same things that you can:
fight, loot, and cause mayhem. In theory, Sea of Thieves should be a game
that everyone who has ever had even a remote interest in the pirate life should want to
play for hours on end. So why has it been so polarizing, with many
people playing for hours with their friends and others bashing the game with only a few
hours clocked in? Where did Rare potentially go wrong, and what
did they do right that most people aren’t getting to see? There are quite a few complaints about the
game that are well-founded. People have said that there are not enough
enemy variation (of which there are under ten in any form), the quests are repetitive,
the game gets boring after a few hours, it is not fun in single-player, there is no real
progression, you can only buy cosmetic items and no upgrades or variations on already owned
items, the world feels empty and meaningless, and the game isn’t worth it’s $60 price
tag, to name a few. Do some of these issues sound familiar? Many of them are the same things that plagued
the likes of Destiny and the Division upon release. What is more intriguing about Sea of Thieves
though is that the game is centered on being more like an MMO than those other titles and
does not offer the purchase of a season pass. So what is the hook (pun intended) that will
keep people playing, and what do people who purchase this game have to look forward to? Are all these complaints reasonable, or are
they founded because of over-hype and expectations that were beyond what the game planned to
offer in the first place? Rare has seemingly done all they can to set
expectations as to what Sea of Thieves is about and will contain. There were multiple betas which everyone could
play in, tons of trailers and videos from the developers about the game, and as many
people writing reviews and previews of the betas and builds they saw as was possible. Rare made it clear that what was in the final
beta was basically how the game was, but that full release would have more content. Everything about this was true. There were more trading companies, more quest
types, more things to buy, and more places to go. However, the motivation and purpose for playing
this game has never been too clear. This is the biggest flaw in the marketing
of Sea of Thieves and why so many people feel disappointed. Rather than a deep and complex dive into the
world of pirates, with character progression, tons of weapon types and enemies to fight,
a compelling story full of pirate lore, and a huge variety of land masses, shipwrecks,
and dungeons, players of Sea of Thieves were greeted with zany cartoon graphics, simplistic
combat, mainly cosmetic upgrades, and relatively similar islands and other areas. As I noted earlier, there is also no season
pass or slated expansions in the works, and while we have heard from the developers about
some additional content coming to the game, Sea of Thieves’ future is uncertain. So what was Rare thinking, or are we just
missing something critical about the game’s design? As I mentioned in my review, playing Sea of
Thieves alone is something entirely plausible, but is not nearly as enjoyable as playing
with a crew. It is also true that I have had a ton of fun
playing with others and being obnoxious and silly. I have made some memories that I will remember
for years to come I couldn’t have made anywhere else. The reason for this is that Sea of Thieves
is a game focused more on being a social hub to have fun, hanging out with your friends
as pirates, messing around with other people, and having some laughs while sailing the open
seas and collecting that coveted pirate booty. It’s the reason each character has an instrument
to play, the actual character models look so silly, and why the graphics and art style
were designed the way they were. The game is about having fun, interacting
with other people, and doing some light pirate role-playing while you’re at it. In earnest, it’s an experiment that is one
of the first of its kind from a first-party publisher, and also a game that entirely fails
to market itself as such. Gamers are conditioned to look at the content
of a game, search out the story, progression, depth and complexity, and what the game tells
you to do to determine its value and if it is worth it. Sea of Thieves’s value is not so tangible,
and thus is entirely skipped over in search of where the traditional content is. Sea of Thieves was never meant to have RPG
mechanics like character leveling, upgradeable weapons, huge diversity in quest types, or
a compelling story. The content in the game is simply there to
compel you and your crew to create your own story and serve as a catalyst to get you exploring
and encountering other players. The appeal of the game comes in seeing your
friends fire themselves out of canons, falling off of the ship into the water while you are
sailing at full speed screaming as they plummet into the depths, desperately trying to empty
the water out of your ship as it begins to capsize, and the amazing feeling of fending
off multiple ships and killing their inhabitants, leaving all their loot for you. While these are all just moments, each of
these and the hundreds more like them are all centered around the fun and silly social
interactions this game is focused on. Drink too much and you can fill a bucket with
your vomit and throw it on your crew. Someone making you angry on your crew? Lock them in the brig. Sea of Thieves is a game made with social
encounters, humorous moments, and making memories with friends and strangers in mind. With all that said, we come back to the reason
that the game so polarizing. Sea of Thieves has brought to light something
we, as gamers, as well as game publishers and developers, need to work together to address. For decades, games have been able to be placed
in certain genres, and within those genres, we all allowed a certain amount of leeway
with the amount of deviation from what defines games in that genre. In the last couple of years, games have begun
to take aspects of multiple different genres and mash them all together, leaving them in
a weird gray area between genres. When someone asks you what type of game Destiny
is, and you say a first-person shooter RPG-lite shared world game, no one knows what that
means or looks like. To quote part of IGN’s review of Destiny,
“The endgame might hook you for the long haul once you fully understand it, but Destiny
is ultimately unable to be all the different games it’s trying so hard to be.” You shouldn’t have to learn to understand
what a game wants from you to play it. This is Sea of Thieves biggest fault, and
it is one we have never truly seen before. Sea of Thieves doesn’t know what it really
is, and because it is a new type of game with a relatively novel motivation for playing,
it doesn’t know how to market itself and how to describe itself to potential players. Sea of Thieves wants you to play it continuously
and wants to be an online “games as a service” for years to come, but its value proposition
and reasoning for spending more money and time with the game is not clear to most consumers. Online games as a service are the future of
gaming. Whether we like it or not, when this much
money is made and revenue from game sales is tripled by purchases in live services,
companies would be stupid not to chase the dollar signs. However, the problem that the gaming industry
is facing right now is how to balance how much content needs to be in the game at launch,
how much content to trickle out, how long to wait between drops, and how to explain
to potential buyers what online and live services mean for their game. For years, we’ve paid $60 to have all the
content on the disc and maybe paid for an expansion or DLC that was substantial at some
point after launch. Now, games like Destiny, The Division, Sea
of Thieves, and Battlefront 2 are launched with a “base” version of the game, with
a content plan set up for the next couple years. This means rather than getting everything
into the game for launch, companies are picking and choosing what to leave out and add later
post-launch. Most of the time, the audience is left in
the dark until these pieces of content are close to launching and don’t know what is
coming or how much more there will be. While they wait, they play a game that offers
them much less than another, more fully-fleshed out title would, or they get sucked into an
addictive loot grind specifically made to keep you playing and buying. While, in theory, there is nothing inherently
wrong with this approach if it is done right, it seems many mainstream games that are adopted
to the games as a service model are treated just like regular buy-and-get-a-complete-package
games. You simply cannot market Sea of Thieves in
the same way you can market God of War or Horizon: Zero Dawn. If you are going to make a game that is focused
on social encounters instead of more complex and diverse content, that is something that
needs to be made known to players. If we have the expectation that we are just
getting a “starter edition” with many free and paid updates coming in the future,
then backlash like Sea of Thieves has experienced won’t be seen as frequently. Many gamers, through no real fault of their
own, expected Sea of Thieves to have tons of different content and quests to do, locales
of all shapes, designs, and sizes, and multitudes of ships, weapons, and equipment. How were they to know this wouldn’t be the
case if no one ever explained the real point of the game? If the future of games is one where single-player,
mostly complete packages are sold along games that have continuous updates, live services,
and micro-transactions built into the core foundation, we need to develop a better way
of informing buyers of what kind of game they are purchasing. We also need to develop a more transparent
pricing model, where people can know that for $60, they are buying a game that will
force them to pay additional money down the road to experience all of the planned content. Many people had no idea that Sea of Thieves
was built with a games as a service model, and for $60 they want to be able to jump in
and have tons of content. When you can spend $60 on a game that you
can play for 250 hours and still have things to do, why would consumers buy a game that
seems like it has no real variety and is very bare boned instead? Online games are having
an identity crisis, and games like Sea of Thieves, Destiny, The Division, and Battlefront
2 are all suffering from it. Sea of Thieves has some great things going
for it, but its lack of proper identity and messaging, seemingly barebones traditional
content, no real accommodation for single-player gameplay, and the motivation and purpose for
playing going unarticulated, have caused the game to lose its legs before it had the chance
to properly earn them. Unfortunately, Sea of Thieves also won’t
be the last game to shoot itself in the foot, and with games like Anthem coming, which is
claimed to be a live service model while also being claimed to be Bioware’s last shot,
the future of online games and their developers may be in serious trouble.

Only registered users can comment.

  1. So, what do you think developers and publishers need to do to make sure online-centric games are transparently marketed? What could Rare and Microsoft have done differently? All the sources I used are in the description for you to investigate. Also, any feedback on the video format and what I could improve would be great, because this is the first video type like this I have ever done! Oh, and if you haven’t subscribed yet, maybe you should? 😊

    If you want to help support the channel and receive exclusive rewards, head over to the Patreon:

    Join the Discord Server and chat with the community:

    Thanks again for watching and being a part of the community! Oh, and I noticed I had some issues with mic audio (plosives) and will have them fixed in the next video!

  2. It needs a campaign mode, off line. Atleast the option to play off line anyway. Battlefronts suffered the same, so they brought out battlefronts 2 with a campaign mode, nuff said

  3. I stay well away from games like these. I prefer games like Kingdom Come Deliverance and am looking forward to Red Dead Redemption 2.

  4. i think if they start asking money for extra content in sea of thieves the sinking ship will sink faster then the titanic and will be dead and forgotten

  5. I'm glad you brought up GTA5 in this video as well, as that game did in fact, focused more on Multiplayer than Singleplayer. I congratulate you for keepin it real. 👍 You know fanboys of that game will attack you outright though.

  6. For all saying "its supposed to just be a socially interactive game." that does not justify a $60 price tag. ANY game can be fun with friends really. A game should not be carried by one's friends lol. thats just sad.

  7. I wouldnt say online games are in trouble. I meam look at warframe and ff14. There are alot more better games then this. So online games are fine. What IS in trouble is the state of "AAA". Look at how many of these try to use unethical means to take your money. Now indies and AA games have become the new standard for me. I havent bought a AAA game since…. i think ff15(dunno if that counts as AAA) and i have to say while i enjoyed it i was dissappointed by the end. Then there are games like Nier automata and Yakuza that gives me full complete games that dont nickle and dime me.

  8. I love how you compared destiny with SOT. Especially destiny 2. Something PS activists seem to easily forget while they fight their pointless console war. Excellent video though. Informative and to the point. Felt more like facts rather than one sided opinion. Subscribed.
    They've got to quit releasing games naked, like you said. They lose their legs before they get a chance to earn them, like Destiny 2

  9. Dead on arrival!? Are you insane? A DOA title, if i ever saw one is Lawbreakers. It had 2 players last i checked.
    Pretty sure SoT have ALOT more than that.

  10. I think you are giving too much credit to companies, developers and consumers… And I don't see an identity crisis or lack of information in all these examples you mentioned… All I can see is overhype and greed…

    Most consumers are gullible and can't learn from previous mistakes / disappointments… On the other hand, greedy companies take advantage of this and make what they do best: Money… Of course you will find exceptions to this, but It seems these bad practices are (unfortunately) becoming the norm…

    PS.1 – I know… I'm a pessimist…
    PS.2 – Sorry for my English… I'm still learning…

  11. To each there own opinion. Yours is horrible though. The game is great and is not failing at all and wont fail. As for you saying it dosnt have variety your nuts. Everytime you play its a different experience. Rare made a gorgeous game with TONS to explore but people hate it because its to grindy and they get bored digging up chests. Well go fight some pirates then if Your bored. Go try to make some friends. Go explore. There is plenty to do in this game your just not told to do it and thats why people dont like it.

  12. Thanks for your very good and objective critics on this game. I really love playing it and I hope Rare manages to fix this issues

  13. I followed the press and information before release of SoT pretty closely and haven't had any dissapointed expectations towards the game. There are some legitimate arguments to criticise the game, sure. I wish there were more to it too and can't wait for more content to be added. I wish too the game had not have cost me 70 Euros.
    But still I knew exactly what was coming towards me and I felt Rare did a good job to show that to the community when you consider no company will ever be able to downtalk it's own product publicly.
    I really disagree with your point that many players were left in the dark about the type of this game. It's more that many people nevertheless clinged to high expectations, which would have been great, but which had never been promised.
    I feel this is the more true for the more hateful and agitated reviews and their creators.
    Your insight into this trend was very informative though, thanks.
    I personaly still have very much fun playing Sea of Thieves and I'm looking forward for more to come and for the game to evolve.

  14. It’s all about business.. that way they can charge you for the other half of the game like sea of thieves, missing half the game

  15. You know the game is very much alive and well, and videos like yours to get views aren't helping the gaming community at all, criticism is great for the industry but out right doom and gloom propaganda videos are just shameful. Do your research first.

  16. What planet do you guys live on..fortnite pubg ,rocket league,…the games being played the most are online multilayer games…even games like destiny the division, sea of thieves have over a million hours of gamer time already….yes we get hyped for single player games..but gamers play online multiplayer games's a proven fact..

  17. Games need to be free to play. The base game should be free. If you want to continue the story, continue the game, you can purchase dlc or expansions. With this game as a service model, the game should be free. If you enjoy the game, you'll spend more than ¢60 anyway.

  18. But this game had the least amount of content for a 60 dollar game ever.
    Before proteome mention destiny 2 or No Mans Sky.
    They had more content and different activities.
    This has Skeletons, chickens and digging up chests.
    That's it. Every other game has more Cotent or activities than that.

  19. You also mentionef buying characters in basttlefront 2. You couldn't add they stored that before release. Only purple on the 10 day or 3 day prerelease ever could have didn't money on lot boxes. I know add i got it 3 days early. Most of those people would not have anyway add they are not the casual or sour causal players and know what is going on.

  20. The game IS mediocre garbage unworthy of it's purchase price but dead on arrival? no not in the slightest.

    The game already amassed more than 2 million players and it hasn't even been out that long.

    It's fine to criticize the game's obvious flaws but this is just spreading misinformation.

  21. Funny how you say this game has no story, no content, no character progression but pubg and fortnite is exactly the same no content no progress just online matchs just like this game

  22. Online games are not In Trouble, devs are just making bad ones, be that because of greed or laziness.

  23. The problem with "Sea of Thieves" is that the developers made a multiplayer game, but people playing it either want to play it solo, or if they are playing with friends they want to play it as though it is a co-op PVE game.

    So if you don't engage in PVP combat in Sea of Thieves you miss a huge chunk of the intended playstyle. And that is why the game doesn't review well, game reviewers don't bother with PVP stuff, they play purely from a PVE standpoint.

  24. The amount of spin doctoring you and so many others are doing for sea of thieves is insane. This game was an epic fail, but it seems like you are saying they should have forgiveness if they stated it is a "60 dollar buy in for a games as a service title with more content that will change the value of the experience over time." When the order 1886 came out, it was murdered because no one felt like spin doctoring it. I can just as easily say they should get forgiveness if they said "we're making a short, 4-6 hour game with only little innovation, more cinematic flare in order to give players a hybrid of movie/storytelling and games". Every single game in history will have an argument for flaws and can easily be spun to make some excuse for forgiveness.

  25. I think the core problem with this type of game is really, really easy: the publishers want us to think and tell us to expect a full 60 dollar experience and a promise of future content after that, keeping the game fresh, fun and engaging for potentially years.

    What they actually deliver is a very polished, very empty sandbox. Gorgeous graphics, impressive sound bites, movie-worthy trailers, next to no actual gameplay. You spend 60 dollars just for an entry ticket into a theme park where NONE of the rides are free. Nobody likes being conned. If a restaurant charged you a hundred bucks just to reserve a table, most people wouldn't want that – and restaurants at least have the excuse that space is limited!

    If publishers really want to make games as a service work, they need to go the route of Path of Exile or Warframe. Make a fantastic game that offers a lot of fun, THEN think about ways you can sell the player additional content. You can enjoy both of those games to the fullest and never spend a dime, yet they rake in a lot of money and earn next to no scorn or rage for what are arguably extremely overpriced cosmetic items, simply because players feel the developers did right by them and they DESERVE the money if someone wants to give it to them. The player should feel that they got a fantastic experience for the 60 bucks they spent and that just around the corner waits another experience they could have if they spend more money, but all "games as service" experiences I had so far feel like I got conned out of 60 bucks and the publisher then expected me to double down in hopes of getting something that justifies that payment. It feels like the fun is being held to ransom.

  26. I don't feel this way at all about SoT. But, I do feel this way with D2. And in the case of D2 the community is basically saying it's not OK by not playing the game.

  27. No reason to have brought up GTAV Online, GTAV was made with the core of the experience being the single player. GTA Online was just an added bonus, this means that anything they added to it is a bonus. GTAV Online should not even be part of a comparison, the GTA series has always been first and foremost about the single player sandbox campaign.

  28. Honestly, WarFrame is the only direction I see available for these (GaS) models. I'm looking at my gaming investments and have noticed that I've avoided these GaS with a BtP piece.

  29. tbh u have got it the wrong way round, why do consumers have to change and develop to this games as a service. Consumers should vote with their wallets and don't buy into them. I never played destiny 1 or division because they were incomplete games and were designed to milk their customers. I got sea of thieves on a free trial of xbox game pass. Games as a service is not here to stay if consumers don't except these shady business practices. You have clearly worked in the games industry before with your use of We when referring to them. You have their daises and world view.

  30. Man this is pretty good video. I just discovered your channel and i see you're inspired by cleanprincegaming right?

  31. What's with all these dumbasses comparing you to some other guy?? Who gives a shit it was a great video and well put-together 👍☺

  32. single player games are all I buy…I cant waste my time and money on broken, greedy, unfinished multi-player games designed to steal my wallet.

  33. Gamers are used to this practice now and will actually defend it.
    It's not helping gaming as a whole…as long as that money is rolling in.
    Maybe in 2019 we'll see SoT true potential.

  34. They need to have private games…I've been out trying to accomplish something only to get harrased by other players…losing my loot to other players is enough to make me give it up.

  35. I don't think any game dev need to do much to provide a casual and fun experience between pools of players or do we forgot those days where top down, click to move MMO's attracted millions and hocked them years in their seat. And charging these game $60 upfront, while games which has heart and soul to it selling the same is capitalism in your face.

    And there isn't this wide divide like you contently say in this video. A blind man could see where majority of opinion side to and rightfully so. It isn't that hard to identify greed in this model. As games as service isn't to blame but it the gaming company who keep pushing the gap between profit and actual product delivered. They want more out of so little.

    I don't have solution other than asking other players to not buy these games and actually wait well over a week to buy any game. But i am a nobody with $60 in his pocket waiting for steam to release my fav game in half price :p.

    edit: tell me if i am wrong, i think after going through this entire video you are condescendingly defending this game while at the time roasting the flawed gaming model around this very game. If i am right i like to add one more thing. Apart from the gaming company, it's said face are also adding to this poison. You people know it is wrong, yet feed off from it as this is your life source. YouTube and other streaming sources should find a way for community to penalize these people. I understand it's your income source but technically what you people are doing is false advertisement. It doesn't help uploading a common sense video after contributing to this madness.

    Streamers and gaming YouTube are more than just causal players, they are essentially a branch of advertisement for said game.

  36. As things currently are, with this game model, I find myself waiting and watching to see how a game develops. I find myself waiting to see if the games are going to do this kind of bullshit. I wouldn't care as much if I didn't have to pay full price ($60.00 etc.) if instead the companies had a bare bones starter game for a reduced price (maybe $40.00) and the DLCs were then added on that is something that I might be able to get behind. But as it is I find more and more that I just don't buy the games because of this lame money grabbing model.

  37. It all goes back to WOW not destiny. You just think it goes back to destiny because youre a console player Im guessing. Ever since WOW came out developers have been trying to replicate its success. WOW is able to get millions of people to buy a game, pay $15 a month, and buy expansions for over a decade now. Destiny, Division, Sea of Thieves, etc are all just watered down MMOs and it isnt surprising non of these games can sustain an audience.

  38. It doesn't have 60 bux of content. If we have to rely on our own content, the game has failed. At least at 60 bux.

  39. As a loyal Nintendo fanboy, I just want to say I'm so glad we don't have to deal with this or micro transactions.
    Nintendo is very good about not releasing their games until they are finished, and any downloadable content has always been something "extra"…not something behind a paywall.
    (Watch me have to eat these words in a year)

  40. I love this essay style videos. So easy to just put a headphone at work and just listen .

    Looking forward to more content. Good job

  41. 4 years dev and we get:

    No progression
    no end-game (lol that is not an end-game)
    No mission variety
    no challenge

    What we get:

    No Man's Sea.

  42. I only play off-line, single player games. If this limits my options, so be it. As for Sea of Grieves, well, I guess the whole Pirate thing has never really been something that I've been nuts about, so that alone didn't make this interesting to me.

  43. Sorry, I don't believe Sea of Thieves is a unique experience. Tempest: Pirate Action RPG and BlackWave are two games that came before, are cheaper and have more content than the $60 Sea of Thieves.

    Good video though Keep up the good work.

  44. Why play Sea of Thieves when you already have Black Flag and Rogue? Good combat, good naval battles, tons of fun, with actual character progression, customisation of your character and your ship, better weapons, etc.

  45. MP games might be getting more barebones and unfinished, but when I talk to the younger generation of MP fanatics they tell me they don't care about bugs, poor performance or lack of content. They see all that as a sandbox to make their own fun, so I guess these devs are just aiming at this new breed of gamers.

  46. Late to the party on the video but alas, such is life. Also, long post warning.
    I agree with the vast majority of this but I strongly disagree with the notion that SoT is a social experiment. The social functions of SoT are as barebones and as poorly implemented as the rest of the game, which makes it difficult to claim it's designed solely around being a social game. A few examples:

    – Maps are limited to a set number of players/ships so it's possible, during your complete game session, you may run into no one (or everyone) depending solely on where your crew initially spawns.
    – No shared social hub for other crews to meet, chat, and collaborate (think Tortuga or Nassau).
    – If you're on a solo sloop or three man galleon and do meet someone running solo, there's no easy way to simply invite them to your crew without completely ending your current session, backing out to the menu and inviting them to an entirely new session. This is also true if you're already online playing and a friend logs in. You can't just invite them from in game and they can't just drop in, you have to back out and start an entirely new ship.
    – The text chat box is second nature to PC players but not so much for Xbox One players and the game does a poor job informing console players that a full text chat box is available to them.

    Those are just a few reasons why the "the game is social" argument doesn't hold up. Any game is better with friends, no matter how good or bad the actual game is, so saying "SoT is better with friends" doesn't have much merit. IF Rare really wanted to make a social experiment, they should have dispensed with the pseudo-RPG mechanics and gone more towards the Minecraft/builder model instead. The factions would still exist but only as a place for people to turn in the treasures they find rather than be something that has to be leveled towards a so-called end game.

    I keep hearing this is a game where the players make their own fun (a variant of the 'social' argument) but again, there's simply too few toys in the sandbox for this to be true. The players' imagination can be unlimited but the ability to do things in game is as limited as the tools given by the developers. I would love nothing more than to build a makeshift fort on Chicken Isle and be Pirate Lord of Poultry, inviting my crew to defend our bounty of chickens and bury our treasure to protect it from others… but I can do none of that.

    You're 100% right that the game has an identity crisis and that's what's going to doom it. Fundamentally, the core gameplay just isn't interesting enough to stay viable long term. The content they 'add' will only exist within that framework. Even if they add a new faction, it'll just be another variant of fetch quests because the game in its current state can't do anything else. It needs a nearly complete rework – including the heads at Rare getting together and deciding on a single, cohesive, identity for the game – if it wants to become a two-year-after-the-fact success like The Division. The thing about that, though, is Microsoft is horrible when it comes to giving their developers a long leash on new IPs. They like immediate successes or they scrap it and go back to the drawing board. I don't have faith in MS to keep supporting the IP long enough for it to rebound.

  47. this video is a cleanpricegaming rip off in more ways than just the transitions and the delivery in your voice. much like cpg this video also lacks a genuine point or any of its main points being flawed subjectively. In this video you seem to push the idea that if the marketing was clear then all would be well, which isn't an entirely bad thing to say. the problem with that is that any truer representative marketing would reveal the game genuinely lacked in content and progression, instead relying and hoping on emergent gameplay experiences as being it's biggest hook. That's a very weak sell for $60 game (game pass or not). it basically admits that the developers just didn't make enough worth while mechanics to include in the game either because they couldn't get them to work or they just didn't think of any. the repetitive quests are inexcusable the more you decide to push emergent gameplay experience as the main draw and reveal how worthless the single player experience is. Just fixing the marketing to be more honest would have turned players off, so instead they had to trick players – including you. You were tricked! By using very vague terms to promise more content, feigning worthwhile rewards for completing quests and alluring players with pirate life fantasy (which irl would involve more rape), see of thieves was able to pull in enough players to the point where they would inevitably have some players defend the amount of content there actually was in the game all while they champion the 'social aspect' as being the surprise draw (which was actually the game's only draw… they just didn't tell you). So that's my take on your video. And yes this was meant at as a dig at you and cpg.

    Lastly, just use your normal voice dude. You sounded so phony throughout the video and then right at the end slate you started using your normal voice. Stop trying to clone cpg just because he's popular – his content is trash. Be your own thing.

  48. I was excited for this game when i first saw it, but when the beta came out i saw that they hadn't bothered to make a full game around the nice water mechanics. Not one I'll be buying, unless they add tonnes more DLC and ship it all as a (cheap) package in a few years.

  49. The game as you presented it has no real appeal to me. My two great passions are sword and sorcery as well as experimentation with character building/design. I might have found pirating appealing but with no real progression or variety of stuff to do/see the point is missed by me.

  50. if the game was like 20 bucks i would have picked it up to check it out.
    as one that plays a lot of sudo-mmo's i kinda expected it to develop over time. much like how no mans sky has become a pretty good game by now.

  51. You're missing it because you're not smart enough to listen to what the developers said… there is no season pass because this isn't a money grab game… they have said that all new content for the game will be free not paid DLC so as you're playing over the next two years and constantly getting content updates you're not paying any additional money for it.

  52. They did explain everything and I knew everything before the game was released… only people who are willfully ignorant didn't know what they were buying

  53. This game has less content than literally every other title you compared it to in the beginning of the video by a wide margin.

  54. I really dont want character progression in sea of thieves.
    i love how its all about skill… dont expect 'gear' to win battles for you.

  55. I am a single player gamer but the only multiplayer games for me i see that they are the best multiplayer games and experiences are : battlefield , call of duty

  56. so you saying it ok for them to sell you a foundation of a good game for 60 dollar if they just came out and said it.

  57. online games want their cake and eat it to. If you want the experience to be online with micro transactions because it makes more money then the 60 dollar game then drop the 60 dollar pricing structure. if what you are selling isn't a stand alone product don't price it and sell it like it is.

  58. Single player games are what Made these new disc generation consoles.
    Playing games like: Jak n Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, Star Wars Kotor 1&2, Crash Bandicoot, hell, even Tony Hawks Skater 2&3

  59. The game is not fun because of the content, it is fun for the social hub aspect. Take the "game" VR Chat for instance that "game" is almost nothing but a social hub and almost everyone who has tried it for any length of time loves it (even those without the expensive VR gear). Honestly the content of SoT is lackluster and almost mindless, great for goofing off with friends not a lot else. It is a game you only play for hours because of the travel and search time. Ultimately I say this is a terrible game under a $60 price tag, there just isn't enough meat to warrant that price. It is worth $35 at best (which I think is what all multiplayer only games with no story to speak of should be priced at).

    For comparison let's take a look at Vermintide 2, another game that somewhat recently released. That game has progression, story, voice acting, an engine that can handle more than 10 enemies at once, detailed and fairly large maps, and more all for about $30. Half the price of SoT. I'll grant you they are two entirely different genres but that is no excuse pricing-wise. If a game has the gal to be released at $60 in what feels like open-beta state it better have a lot going for it and SoT simply falls flat when you compare it to other $60 release titles.

    If they ever drop the price or put it on some holiday sale I might consider buying it but from all the streams and YT videos of it (and I mean the ones were people are just playing to have fun not to comment on the quality of the game) I have to say not interested for the price. Like I said at about $30-35 I'm in, not $60. I have played $60 games, this does not seem like a $60 game.

  60. Sea of Thieves just confirmed I don't like grindy type games even though I want to. Every game of it's type I end up playing and get some hard to find epic item and I feel great until I really think about everything I had to do in a virtual world to get it. Then I just feel like a prick walking around with it as if I'm trying to make the next guy jealous or something. I'm done…………….until SCUM comes out. lol

  61. The problem with online games, especially PvE ones, is you're almost never going to release enough content to make everyone happy. They're games meant to be played perpetually and a lot of gamers are going to burn through everything there is in the first week and be stuck doing chore-like stuff until more content can be released. I can't remember an online game in the past several years that wasn't met with, "not enough content," on release only for people to say it's good now a year later. People need to be more realistic in their expectations regarding new games and this dilemma is part of the reason some games remain in early access for so long (to the point of absurdity for something like Star Citizen). On that note, Sea of Thieves doesn't get a pass since there's barely even a basic amount of content present and it sets a dangerous precedent of relying on people's expectations that the game will get better later because that's simply how online games work.

    I'm not saying it won't get better though and for the people who enjoy it I sincerely hope it does. I think the best way for that to happen is not to defend it despite its flaws, but to make it known that the game is unacceptable in its current state. It could be worse though, at least it's an online game compared to single player games like No Man's Sky that try to pull the same nonsense.

  62. 3 million hard copies sold and climbing, goes to show this game is a success, only Sony fanboys want offline games, they are trying to cover up the fact that playstation hasn't had an online exclusive in years and the Japanese are incapable of producing such games, they always have been, PSN wouldn't exist if Microsoft didn't bring along Xbox live and iconic influencial online games like halo, gears and forza, it's 2018 the internet can handle large file downloads and lag free gaming yet Sony can't release a single game to take advantage of this? Oh dear, Sony really have dropped the ball here, playstation, it only does offline

  63. developers still havent learnt releasing half assed games doesnt work, few retarded kids usually stick then fell off too

  64. The constant screwing up by Destiny 2 more or less defined my expectation of games as a service.
    Destiny 2 released after the first game had spent ages of releasing paid content before it started to become acceptable.
    The sequel turned out to be a far to barebones game that consistently kept showing that expending on "recurrent spending opportunities" was far more important than delivering a game.
    It did not help that so much of the "content" added to the game was simply more lootbox content.
    Microtransactions masquerading as added game content.

    Basicly I now expect a microtransactions platform that is disguised to look like a game when I hear the term "live service".

  65. It should be a balance. Companies exist because if the money they earn. They need to compete eachother. So if a company has more money, then may have more resources to win the battle in many ways. In the other hand we as a customer can vote with our wallets, so we decide what kind of games we want to buy.
    Regarding The Division, it is very successful (It is not just my opinion, a new version is coming), and you can play the game without buying anything. That's optional and doesn't make you a better player or have any advantage over other players.

  66. Played with a few friends , it's hardly fun.. not sure how people made memories on this game , like it's world of war craft , you really have to look hard to find this game entertaining

  67. No offense, but, the problem is that they're putting F2P mechanics into a full priced game. Period. No excuses.

    Free to play games can get away with this because that is how they cover development and keep the servers running. Its obnoxious but, its forgivable.

    But, if you are selling a game full priced, consumers have a justifiable expectation that it will have the content of a full priced game. That is reasonable. Selling us full priced games full of F2P monetization crap is something we should not tolerate. Its not forgivable.

    You say that games as a service is here to stay and there's nothing we can do. Wrong. We can do what I've done and go after Indie and AA games and to the ninth hell with AAA and their greedy crap. We don't have to play AAA games. We can turn this trend but, only if we dig our heels in and say no.

    And before people tell me boycotts don't work, yes, to some extent that is correct. But, only because people go ahead and buy this bullshit anyway. One thing is for sure, so long as you pay for this, you will continue to get more of it.

    Not me. I'm buying AA and Indie games, mostly single player and to hell with AAA. They can all go bankrupt as far as I'm concerned. (Except for CD Projekt Red, they haven't sold us out yet)

  68. The difference between SoT and GTA5 is GTA5 has tons of CONTENT and a compelling and well made single player campaign. You can’t even compare these two games.

  69. I'm definitely on the hate it side, I really defended it in beta mode thinking that it was just that, a beta, when "full game" came out, uugh all that was added was a opening scene and snakes, if this is a good foundation for a game it should have been priced as such, game passer got it right 10$

  70. i judge game reviewers/journalists by how they review sea of thieves. If they are 100% negative, i know not to take anything they say seriously from then on. If they are mostly positive but critical of the areas the developers need to focus on to improve the game, then that means they actually played it properly and can probably be trusted in the future. As for my personal opinion, SoT is the best non-VR game ive played in the past 2 years. But it is best played in short sessions, and with good friends… and alcohol helps with the good times. There is a content problem, but most multiplayer games have lacking content at launch, the possibilities are endless with what could be added easily with the solid core Rare have released. That should be exciting to gamers. The only reason anyone should have to hate on the game is if they have no idea how to play it properly. Heres a hint… you have cannons on your ship. Go use them.

  71. EA is so out the door for me, regarding "Game as a Service"….so I'll give my money to companies I think have earned them, like CD Project Red.

  72. I don't understand your statement on Destiny. It was an amazing game, other than the story. But you are confusing story as the main part of the game. And even if you were a solo player, you could finish most of the game's content other than raids and nightfalls which got you some good gear. And the game had lots of content before The Dark Below. Story missions (and a bad story doesn't mean the missions don't count as content,) strikes, a raid, planets, and on top of that a lot of unique weapons and armour. The grind makes sense, since the game was designed as an RPG, so if you played the game thinking it would only take an hour to get the best armour in the game, you would be very wrong.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *