Maybe it’s just me, but I think it was a mistake to describe it as GaaS. I understand how they’re trying to use the term, but the fact they felt the need to clarify how they meant it should have been a clear enough sign the term is rather tainted.
Worse, it may make some people skeptical & suspect that they intend to change their tune down the line. Their track record notwithstanding, that’s how some may be after having been burnt before with other experiences.
Yeah, that was my immediate response seeing that term here.
Regular content updates aren’t GaaS any more than horse armor was an “expansion pack” for Oblivion.
Wait, what? The updates are paid, but not a subscription? I’m even more confused. Is that not just DLC?
Fucking hell
To be fair it looks like the publisher originally used the term and reading between the lines in this post, the devs seem like they are annoyed by it.
I’m glad they stated no subscription but just the mention of “games as a service” makes me nauseous.
fuck every “game as a service”
it’s fucking bullshit and always sacrifices game elements
In reference to “Games-as-a-Service,” we simply plan to continually update the game for many years to come, just like the previous two Subnautica games. Think our Early Access update model, expanded. No season passes. No battle passes. No subscription.
It gets thrown around a lot as a buzzword, but it really just means “intended to get post-release updates that go beyond bug fixes.” Nearly every game released these days, good or not, classifies as GaaS. It’s functionally meaningless.
Exactly this. It’s so expected these days that I think it’s a mistake to use the term, as you alluded. It does more harm than good I think.
Fuck the marketing term, in practice it can be great. Monster hunter world did it great, you got the base game that was a complete product, and then post-launch you got new monsters (like deviljho), new events with new weapons or armor, special hunts (like kulve taroth) or events that flood you with materials to catch up to the end game. And when that was over for the base game you got an expansion with another year of support.
I’m all for “gaas” like mhw got.
Eh, some companies do it right. For example: Rock and Stone.
This article really confused me because I thought Below Zero was Subnautica 2, LOL.
I wonder if Youtube will be around long enough for kids born in the 2010s to make “retrospectives” on the Subnautica series and talk about how researching opinions on Subnuatica 2 are difficult because some people referred to Below Zero as #2
So… alway-on DRM and a ticking clock for when it becomes lost media?
Or they were forced to use whatever mouth noises appease the cult of MBAs.
I’m confused as to why every article about this is calling it Subnautica 2, like I know Below Zero wasn’t as good as the original but this will be the 3rd game in the series.
Anyway, glad co-op will be a thing, tried the multiplayer mod just before the 2.0 release and whilst buggy it was really fun, looking forward to them releasing the new version which looking at their GitHub, seems to be getting closer
Below Zero was originally planned as an Addon, so not Subnautica 2 but more Subnautica 1.5
Subnautica ei*pi
Two is not below zero. That’s just science.
Below Zero is effectively an expandalone for Subnautica 1.
Because game studios like to number only the main entries of a series? Otherwise the last GTA wouldnt have been GTA:V but GTA:XV
Below Zero was just as good as the first game. It was just different and people didn’t like it.
to me this reads more like damage control. maybe it’s just my bias from enjoying the franchise a lot, but the fact that unknown worlds is clarifying a statement made by their publisher with this language in it just smells like the publisher had no clue what was actually going on and wanted to leak something that “looked good” (from a business not consumer perspective)
“If you puke in that Seamoth, GaaS will start flowing into the cockpit”
deleted by creator
Really hope the coop isn’t a lie this time too.
deleted by creator
