To nit pick, Silksong wasn't priced like a "full" game, and that heavily helped it. Its why they complained so much about its price point "setting a bad precedent."
That's the weasel word of their entire complaint. They want to sell "inflation adjusted" games at 80-100$ as a baseline and people refuse to pay those kinds of prices for what they know will be a mid game.
Bro, why are they "full" games? I can buy a 30-200-800 hours worth indie for $5-$25 or I can buy 7-16 hours of "experience" with zero replayability for $60-80-120. Which one of these are full games?
Sure, "full game" will have voice acting, probably mediocre. Complex models, definitely uglified. And overbearing visuals. It's a game, clarity >>> pretty. Civ VII is a great recent example where it increased visual quality while also becoming a strategic blur.
This is Ubisoft. They called Skull and Bones, a game with literally no content worth playing, the first "QUAD AAAA" game. Full to them likely means a lot invested in it, not anything that matters to the people they want to buy it.
I think distilling games down to purely the hours gained can be a bit too reductive, as a solid 10 hour game can beat the shit out of a 30 hour pad session and be worth the price, and Ubisoft is the pinnacle of that. You aren't gonna finish most of their games in anything less than 25 hours, and likely double that without rushing, but its usually not worth the hours spent as its all open world slop.
Its pure marketing speak, we know what "full" means without needing to define it because it just speaks for itself. But what they mean is something completely nonsensical like "well you'll play it for 100+ hours!" or "we invested in every category 100 mill!"
Right, tell that to Elden Ring and Silksong and Palworld and Black Myth: Wukong and Hogwarts Legacy and etc. etc.
To nit pick, Silksong wasn't priced like a "full" game, and that heavily helped it. Its why they complained so much about its price point "setting a bad precedent."
That's the weasel word of their entire complaint. They want to sell "inflation adjusted" games at 80-100$ as a baseline and people refuse to pay those kinds of prices for what they know will be a mid game.
Bro, why are they "full" games? I can buy a 30-200-800 hours worth indie for $5-$25 or I can buy 7-16 hours of "experience" with zero replayability for $60-80-120. Which one of these are full games?
Sure, "full game" will have voice acting, probably mediocre. Complex models, definitely uglified. And overbearing visuals. It's a game, clarity >>> pretty. Civ VII is a great recent example where it increased visual quality while also becoming a strategic blur.
This is Ubisoft. They called Skull and Bones, a game with literally no content worth playing, the first "QUAD AAAA" game. Full to them likely means a lot invested in it, not anything that matters to the people they want to buy it.
I think distilling games down to purely the hours gained can be a bit too reductive, as a solid 10 hour game can beat the shit out of a 30 hour pad session and be worth the price, and Ubisoft is the pinnacle of that. You aren't gonna finish most of their games in anything less than 25 hours, and likely double that without rushing, but its usually not worth the hours spent as its all open world slop.
Its pure marketing speak, we know what "full" means without needing to define it because it just speaks for itself. But what they mean is something completely nonsensical like "well you'll play it for 100+ hours!" or "we invested in every category 100 mill!"