Like anything, it's yes and no. Yes they CAN be useful, but they can also lead you astray. The last few games I bought were highly rated, but were not actually fun to me. Obviously, playing the game for yourself is the best way to find out about a game. But with the ocean of games available, who has time to try them all? And even watching a video of gameplay isn't necessarily the same as playing. I avoided Darksiders and Fallout 3 after watching my roommate play, but really enjoyed them when I did. So in some regard, they are a necessity. As much as I don't like the idea of gamepass, it does offer a fairly low barrier to entry for trying certain games. I just wish they (all gaming companies) would have it to where you could rent any game. Charge a few bucks for two or three hours of gameplay, and have what you've already paid apply to the purchase of the game. If a game like HB2 can be finished in five hours, then it's worth $10.
But you hit on a topic I always wonder about. Are early access/perpetual development games a benefit, or bane? Having a game grow and improve over time is great, but has it helped add to the practice of releasing broken/unfinished games? Would you pay full price for a meal, only to be served a third of what was on the menu? And then have to return a month later for what was left out? That is, if the restaurant doesn't close in that time. The acceptance of buying incomplete products is one of the myriad reasons why modern gaming sucks, but I guess it works out sometimes. So the question becomes, is the overall practice worth the risk?
Log in to comment