Seasonal and episodic are just two different ways to describe the same thing. What's the difference to a game that is shorter and sells for a lower price with episodes coming out every 6 months and a full game that has 12 hours of content with a sequel coming out that features new levels with the same characters a year later?
This is not just a semantics argument. The difference is the game's content. Episodic games reuse all or most of the content from the previous release. Sequels do not. If UT2007 were nothing more than UT2004's content with some additional maps, then yes it would be an episodic game like HL2:EP1 is to Half Life 2.
In the end, Rein bitches about episodic failing because of "lack of marketing". Ok.
Actually he mentions a number of reasons, and marketing isn't the main problem. He just mentions that marketing is a problem because the low wholesale price of episodic games doesn't entice retailers to market them.
Each new revision has the old maps plus a few new ones and a new game mode. You play one until the next one then you switch over. How is that not episodic?
What the hell game are you talking about? Surely not UT2004 because not only is it not that similar to the original UT, it has substantially more content (including its official bonus packs) than UT2003. It is not just a few maps that were added, and onslaught and assault modes are major additions to UT2004 versus UT2003 especially onslaught mode which adds driveable and flyable vehicles to the game. It's certainly no mere HL2:EP1.
It's a product that has been developed and uses similar concepts in it's next iteration in order to save time and money. That's exactly what the new "episodic content" format is trying to do.
NO! What these new episodic games do is reuse the same god damn content NOT just reuse concepts. Hell most games from various developers in the same genre reuse concepts. That doesn't make the games episodic content.This comment was edited on Jul 13, 11:51.