I'm probably just being cynical, but you do have to wonder whether Sony set the financial bar so high that there was no way that Bungie could meet the requirements and thus Bungie were always destined to fall under Sony's full control. A cunning play, if you will... 😉
Are these kind of incentives widespread in the private sector? I've always been in the public sector (Royal Engineers Bomb Disposal and then the Police), and so never once saw any sort of rewards for simply doing my job. It seems very odd to me that people get or expect anything more beyond being paid a monthly salary. Different world, I guess... 🤔
I do wonder whether there is some Ubisoft snobbery at work. It seems to be that some companies get bumped up a point or two, and others have their games knocked down in the same fashion. It maybe an unconscious bias, but I do think it exists. I think some reviewers cannot wait to praise games that need to be held under a spotlights, where with other reviewers it is simply vindictive.
I've always just gone with what I like, mostly regardless of reviews, though that is not to say that I haven't picked up a few er... questionable titles, but for the most part, I've been happy with my choices...
I guess this is what happens when you gobble up way too many developers when you have no actual plan what you are then going to do with them.
A real shame for the individual developers who are now out of a job. There is never a good time to lose your job, but the impact at this time of the year is always worse.
It's also very sad to see some really talented Studios closing down. Hopefully someone like Sony or Microsoft will pick them up, as it's better that they survive, no matter who gets them...
I definitely petted Scratch more than the Owlbear cub, @Hyena_socks. Owlbear's lines never seemed to alter once s/he was in the camp. Nor did Scratch's, but at least he did give some small rewards every now and again.
Now someone is going to pop up and tell me that Owlbear was worth petting too... 😉
Honestly couldn't tell you, @Olmaz. I know I went everywhere and did everything to the best of my ability. I spoke with pretty much everyone, picked up all the small quests etc. I know that I missed one small fight in Act 1 (because I have since done it with my mates in our co-op game) but I honestly couldn't tell you why my run was so long compared to yours. I did reload the game many times to get the outcome on rolls that I wanted, or when a battle was not going well, which likely added more time to my game. I also did each of the Origin characters quests to completion, which obviously took time.
In some ways, I envy your game completion time because I would happily go through more quickly so that I could try different builds, and different types of runs (bad, kill absolutely everyone, no reloads etc.). At 300 hours a run, it would take me forever! 120 hours would be much more manageable... 😜
Absolutely loved the game, which I finished about a month or so ago. I played the game solo and my run exceeded 300 hours, and I loved every minute of it.
I'm also playing a co-op game with two mates in which we are all playing as Origin characters. Funny enough though, we are apparently playing as the 3 least popular characters; Wyll, Shadowheart and Lae'Zel. 😂
The game is seriously good, and I am looking forward to my next solo run, which I will start in the New Year as I don't want to start something now, and then have to put the game down for the Christmas period.
Really hoping that Larian and Baldur's Gate 3 win every award that they are nominated for. They are a fantastic studio who are fully invested in their community, and the game is simply sublime. For me, it is the game of a lifetime, and I've been gaming for approaching 50 years... 😊
I only voted for games that I have actually played to completion (as should we all!), and went with:
1. Baldur's Gate 3
2. Alan Wake 2
3. Hogwarts Legacy
4. Dead Island 2
5. Dead Space
I haven't yet played Spiderman 2, so obviously didn't vote for it, though it is quite possible that it would have made it into my list had I done so.
I have played 8 of the games from the list, all of which I have very much enjoyed. So my top 8 would be:
6. Resident Evil 4
7. Jedi Survivor
8. Diablo 4
The games that I own but simply didn't have time to get round to this year would be (in order):
1. Spiderman 2
2. Lies of P
3. The Talos Principle 2
4. Remnant 2
5. Assassins Creed Mirage
6. Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora
7. Armoured Core 6
My New Years resolution for 2024 is not to buy a game until I am actually in a position to play it because each of the games that I bought but didn't play will undoubtedly be cheaper before I do get to play them (if not already so). It is a truly bad behaviour that does my wallet absolutely no favours. A pointless act of financial vandalism to my bank account. I must do better... 😜
Only 3 million sales, @Bez87, whilst being available on both the Game Pass and PC Game Pass, and also the most played game on the Game Pass in the month of its release. I'd suggest that 3 million sales is fantastic. Just imagine how many more sales the game would have had had it not been available on the Game Pass...?
This looks so good! If the trailer is anything to go by then the series could well be 'must watch' TV. I certainly hope that the series is of the same quality as we see here. I'm a huge Fallout fan, and love most of the post-apocalypse films that I have seen, so this has all the hallmarks of something that I'd really enjoy...
Regardless of anything, the trailer does at least admirably demonstrate what a wonderful year of gaming we have had, and it doesn't even include all the best games we have had.
2023 will go down in the history of gaming as probably the finest we have ever had. For me, Baldur's Gate 3 is the game to top them all. An absolute masterpiece that deserves all the plaudits, and all the awards...
No, @CielloArc, you are absolutely wrong! No one will fill the gap vacated by Xbox. Just think on it for a moment; Microsoft are a trillion dollar company that have been in the game for 22 years. They currently hold less than 30% of the market, with Sony holding more than 70%. Who has the necessary money and experience to fill that void if Microsoft cannot do it?
If Microsoft pulls the plug on the Xbox that will instantly mean that Sony will have 100% market share of the 'high-end' consoles. The 30% of gamers that game on an Xbox will have the choice of moving across to the PlayStation, or effectively, moving down to the Nintendo. So let's just assume that 80% of those that play on an Xbox move over to the PlayStation, and the rest to Nintendo, what does that effectively then mean? It means that anyone choosing to enter the 'high-end' console market will be battling against an absolute goliath in Sony's PlayStation, who will have 100% 'high-end' market share. Not just a company that holds some of the market, but a company that has it all.
Any company choosing to go up against Sony will be starting from scratch, with not a single person owning their console. If that company were doing it right, they may start with one or two exclusive games, however, if Microsoft are unable to get a single third-party exclusive with 30% market share, what chance a newcomer? The answer is absolutely no hope unless they were prepared to lose a fortune to pay the developer for it, and it would need to be something truly remarkable for it to even remotely bring in any money.
As for the console, it would both need to match the PS6 in spec, and also be a good deal cheaper if it were to have any hope of luring a reasonable proportion of gamers away from the PS6. Chances of them hitting or exceeding 30% upon release? Nil. Not a chance in Hell.
There is, after all, a reason why no other company has entered the console market in the past 22 years, and it is simply that people have already made their choice (currently either the PlayStation or the Xbox), and companies know that getting people to leave an established brand for a fledgling one is exceptionally difficult, and so it simply won't happen. Effectively, it takes a company to severely mess up (as Xbox did at the start of the Xbox One generation), and for the other to go from strength to strength (as the PlayStation did last generation) for there to be any sizable shift in player numbers from one platform to another. This is why no new company will enter the market. The odds are severely stacked against them succeeding...
That is entirely possible, @InsaneWade, but I think that the next Nintendo console will still be at least £100 cheaper than the current PlayStation, and so when we move into the next generation, that gap will likely widen still further back to what it currently is (at least £200) and that is before Sony perhaps hike the price of their console even further if they are not in direct competition with the Xbox.
Ultimately, Nintendo, Sony are chasing, to some extent, a different audience, and I don't see that changing anytime soon...
You clearly do not understand what 'strong competition' means, @UltimateOtaku91. Exclusives are just part of it.
Let me put it this way; If Xbox were to cease to be a thing, leaving just Sony as the only 'high-end' console (so discounting Nintendo because they do their own thing very successfully) then what would that mean?
It would mean that if you want to own the premium PlayStation console, it now being the only 'high-end' console, and the only place that you can play premium AAA exclusives, then you can pay the premium price for the privilege. The only reason that the PS5 and the Series X cost the same this generation is because they were directly in competition with one another. The only reason that games cost the same on both systems (but not on Nintendo) is because both consoles are directly in competition with one another. The only reason that PlayStation did their version of Game Pass is because... well, I guess you get it by now!
Take away a direct competitor and you have free reign to charge what you think you can get away with. If that means add £100 or £200 or maybe even more to your console price next generation, then cool. Let's do it! Sure, Sony would lose some to the Nintendo, but they're not offering what Sony do, so it's their loss if they don't buy into Sony's ecosystem.
Likewise with the subscription services; the costs are more expensive than the Xbox as it is, but if that competitor were to go, then Sony could charge even more, and you'd simply have a take it or leave it result because there would be nowhere else to go.
And then finally the games; as with the consoles, Sony were the first to increase their prices for games, but without direct competition, the prices could easily increase and the only choice you would have, if you wanted to play these premium games, would be to take it or leave it.
As it stands, if Sony were to increase the price of their consoles by £100 or £200, or increase their games by £10 or £20, or increase their subscription service still higher than the Game Pass, we the consumer have the choice of going over to the Xbox. Yes, I know they do not have the AAA games and third-party exclusives that the PlayStation has, but if the point is to same money, you do have somewhere else to go. If Xbox were to cease to exist, then you would not, and then Sony would not be bound to whatever pricing policy Microsoft offers.
I agree with much of what you say, @Godot25, but still I do not see it as a forgone conclusion that Microsoft will make another iteration of the Xbox. That decision may have already been made, if not, it soon will be.
However, I think you are mixing up revenue with profit. They are not the same. Even if Microsoft were making 1 billion a month from everything they do with the Xbox, if it is costing them 1.2 billion a month, it just makes no sense to continue, and we all know that it is currently all one way traffic and that Sony is steaming ahead. If the writing is on the wall right now, even if a new console had been greenlit a year or more ago, the plug can still be pulled. Just as when a game is in development, and then circumstances change, and it suddenly isn't.
With regards to Starfield, take a look at the Steam reviews; the current score is 68 from 81,825 reviews. That is a much more accurate assessment of a games quality than the 83 from the 90 'professional' reviewers. And I would suggest that 68 is a middling review score, particularly when it was a flagship release. One that was potentially make or break for the Xbox brand.
As for CoD, it remains to be seen where people will play it, but seems as the game will be on the PlayStation anyway, it makes absolutely no difference whether Xbox is a third-party publisher or a platform holder, because they will still get 70% of the money from sales on the PlayStation, The only caveat is how many people play the game on the Game Pass instead, and whether people choose to temporarily subscribe to the Game Pass to do so. However, as many people that play CoD on the PlayStation will have a large number of friends that also play the game on the PlayStation, unless they are willing to leave them behind, or they leave en masse, the majority will likely simply continue to play the game on the PlayStation, particularly if they are the ones that play the game for months at a time. When it comes to CoD, there will probably be a small uptick in subscriber numbers on the Xbox, but it will a temporary uptick, just long enough to complete the campaign and maybe try out the multiplayer. I don't think there will be a significant and, more importantly, permanent increase in Game Pass subscribers as if you are really invested in CoD, you will not only have your other PlayStation friends, and the community, but all the skins etc. and that all important Platinum Trophy to get, which are likely to be a greater pull than playing the game on the Xbox (bearing in mind that means purchasing an Xbox or a PC, which is far more costly than simply buying the game on the PlayStation. After all, CoD is not like Starfield, in that it is not an exclusive game, whereby if you don't buy an Xbox or a PC you cannot play it).
You make many good points, @Godot25, and whilst you say that Spencer said they would not be going third-party 6 months ago, things change. Indeed, since that time, they have released Starfield to middling reviews, and will have seen the uptick in both console sales and subscriber numbers, and of course sales of the actual game (which have been pretty good, all things considered). If those figures do not impress, then the situation will be reviewed, and whilst I agree with you that Microsoft will lose money in all the areas you highlight, they will also have to take into consideration:
*The cost of developing a new console
*The likely number of sales of consoles versus that cost
*Just how much money they can afford to lose on each console in order to remain semi-competitive
*The cost of sustaining Game Pass with a dwindling number of subscribers because people have switched to the market leader (PlayStation). Each and every third-party game that enters the service has to be paid for, and that cost is covered by subscribers. There will come a point at which the service is loss making, meaning they are paying more for the games that go on the service, than they raise in revenue from the subscribers. When that happens, the service is no longer viable on their own platform.
*Just how much they will have to pay for each third-party exclusive. News flash: they won't, because it's just not viable to do so. Indeed, Xbox no longer offer third-party exclusives because the cost of paying for third-party on a platform that has fewer than 30% of gamers as opposed to the PlayStation, which, with more than 70% of gamers is likely unrealistic as the return on such an investment is unachievable. Meanwhile, Sony is able to secure third-party exclusives on a regular basis for a much more affordable cost than the Xbox, and is why we see them on a regular basis on the PlayStation.
Thus, if Microsoft do not think they will sell sufficient consoles at a price (likely a loss) that will entice people into the Xbox ecosystem that will then cover the cost of developing, manufacturing, and shipping those consoles, which in turn has a direct corelation to the number of subscribers they can expect to have for Game Pass, making the service less and less viable. On top of that they already know that they cannot afford/obtain third-party exclusives. Then, on the other side, more and more people will be moving over to the goliath that is the PlayStation. People that previously gamed on the Xbox only, will simply give up and move over to the market leader as they do have the third-party exclusives that the Xbox does not (and that's before you start to take into account Sony's first-party output, and their own services).
So, faced with all that, potentially, every one of them being loss making, giving up being a console manufacturer is definitely on the cards. and even more so after the Xbox CFO Tim Stuart said just this week that Microsoft was no longer focusing on consoles, but instead on "content and services". So whilst you rightly list all the things that bring in money, that is not the same as making money. Basically, if all those things bring in less money than they cost, then they become financially unviable, making the move to just offering content (first-party games) and services (Game Pass everywhere) a much better option...
Whilst I agree with you to some extent, @Godot25, you are not considering just how much they also have in the back catalogue. If they are pushing out one game every quarter, and have an extensive library too, that's not such a bad deal, and bear in mind much of what Sony offers is from their back catalogue too, but without the bonus of new Day One first-party or even third party games...
I've said it a few times recently, this generation is possibly the last that Xbox will have a console. The next generation may only consist of a PS6. Microsoft are way too far behind now to catch Sony in terms of consoles and members, so doing a Sega, and becoming a third-party only publisher is probably the only route they now have. Therefore, as they will be unlikely to be offering third-party (to them) games on the Game Pass, with all titles on the service being first party only, I can see Sony then allowing the Game Pass on the PlayStation, and taking their usual 30% cut in the process...
Sony would get a cut from those that subscribe to Game Pass on a PlayStation though, @UltimateOtaku91. So if Sony were to take their standard 30%, then there would still be money to be made. There is no way that Sony would simply allow a rival service to be on their platform without it financially befitting them...
Yes, Microsoft can absolutely afford to think long-term, @thefourfoldroot1, however, if they cannot improve their position in the market, and indeed, should they lose further ground to Sony, there really is the possibility of them at the very least trying to offload Xbox as a going concern, and should that fail, then Xbox could simply cease in the console market.
Some believe that Microsoft may look to do this anyway and simply make games for the remaining consoles and PC. The costs involved in developing a new console are not insignificant, and whilst Microsoft can easily afford it, they are still accountable to their shareholders and investors. If they are not going to see a return on that investment due to a dwindling number of people buying into the Xbox brand, then they will simply cut their loses and cease making new consoles, and instead invest more heavily into making games. Of course, if that happens, Sony can charge what they like for both consoles and games. So to all those cheering on the ill-fortunes of the Xbox, and even its demise, I would just say be careful what you wish for.
As for 'system sellers' I agree that they are few and far between, but that is not to say that Sony does not have them. People will absolutely buy a PlayStation for the likes of TLoU, GoW, Uncharted, Gran Turismo and Final Fantasy, etc. The Xbox has fewer quality exclusive titles, and that therefore equates to fewer consoles sold. There is little difference between the two consoles when it comes to the architecture. It is all about the games that one console offers over the other. It is as simple as that...
I think we can but dream, @GamingFan4Lyf, but I really cannot see Nvidia doing what you suggest. They would simply be cutting off their noses to spite their face. They are already making a tonne of profit, why undertake a loss making venture?
Whilst I understand what you are saying, @thefourfoldroot1, let's look at it another way; if (and to could well be a big if) there is another Xbox console after the Series, then we have to assume that Sony will also release the PS6 around the same time. Look back at what Sony have offered over the course of the PS4 and PS5, and then look at what the Xbox has offered in that same time period. Where will you put your money? With the Xbox who has a few franchises capable of bringing in a lot of money, but where those franchises are also available on the PlayStation? Or simply opt for the PS6 and benefit from not only those Xbox games, but also all the exclusive content (both first, third, and now second party) that Sony brings to the table?
In all honesty, unless there is a massive turn around in fortunes, then I can't see many sticking with Xbox next generation. That, I believe is the conundrum that Microsoft faces; do they cut their loses and either sell off their studios (all or some) and leave the console market altogether. Or face the humiliation of losing 3 generations in a row, and being faced with dwindling support for their platform? Bear in mind also, that Game Pass is only a viable service if enough people have bought into it. There are already questions over its viability, so if even fewer people are subscribed, then there will come a point where it is no longer sustainable.
As it stands, hopes that were placed on Starfield, have all but been dashed, and so now all they really have to look forward to are Avowed and Hellblade 2. Bearing in mind that Avowed is being likened in scope to The Outer Worlds, then do Microsoft currently have a 'system seller' in production? And of course, it is highly likely that we will see another TLoU and GoW for the PlayStation either towards the end of this generation, or the beginning of the next, and maybe even another Spiderman, and all of a sudden the scales are firmly tipped in the favour of Sony.
It is not all about the money that the parent company has, it's what that company brings to the table, and at present, Sony is doing that in spades...
You highlight the problem in your last comment, @thefourfoldroot1; so let's just suppose that Xbox ceases to exist, who next?
If someone like Microsoft cannot make a go of it, then you are looking at someone like Amazon or maybe Apple (though I have my doubts with them). However, the problem is, unless they take over Xbox as a going concern, they would be beginning from a standing start. If Microsoft cannot make a go of it with all their trillions, and over 20 years in the business, what chance a new competitor to Sony? I'll save you the trouble of thinking on it; the answer is zilch! And what will happen whilst that company is entering the market? Again, the answer is very simple; Sony will make hey! Pretty much everyone that currently games on an Xbox will move over to the PlayStation meaning that the new competitor will not only face the same issues that the Xbox does, but to an even greater extent. If a new competitor is going to enter the market, then the best time to do that would actually be now where there is more competition in the market. Going up against a goliath such as a souped up Sony as their sole competition would be a pointless act of company suicide...
That's absolutely right, @AdamNovice. That is how many IPs they now own, most you list they now own AFTER the ABK acquisition.
Then take into consideration just how many of those titles have new versions currently in development? Then, consider how many (or should I say few) of those titles are system sellers? Who is going to leave the PlayStation to play Spyro or Crash, or even just to play the next Wolfenstein? Will some of those titles even come to console? Yes, there were some positive feedback from the likes of Warcraft as to the possibility of it coming to consoles, but that is not the same as it actually happening, and again, will people shift ecosystems in order to play them? If the title is already on the PC, will people then shift to the Xbox in order to play them? After all, if you can already play them, and any subsequent games on the PC, what's the point?
So that leaves the likes of Diablo and CoD, and maybe as to possible system sellers, yet Diablo has only just released, we'd be lucky to see another for about 10 years, and CoD WILL be on the PlayStation for the next 10 years, so again, where is the pull to the Xbox ecosystem?
Let's face it, Starfield was supposed to have people join the Xbox en masse, but that didn't happen, did it? At best, people took out a subscription to play it, but most realised it wasn't actually the next big thing that the Xbox community had been hoping for, and so just ignored it, and remained quite content on their PlayStations.
Also, whilst Candy Crush will make a tonne of money, it is not something that anyone will buy a console to play. If they are inclined to play it, they will do so on their mobiles, so other than it making money for Microsoft, it serves zero purpose for the Xbox, even if it does actually make the leap to console.
Lastly, as I said before, if it take 5 to 7 years to make a quality AAA title from scratch , then a title will already have to have been in development for some years to shift that dial before such time as this generation ends, and again, as I said before, decisions as to the future of the Xbox console will be being made now, not at the end of the generation. So again, what can Xbox do to turn things around right now?
I think we can agree that there is a difference between saying you are capable of doing something, and then going ahead and doing it, yes? As I say, the proof is in the pudding; whilst it is is entirely possible that Microsoft will want the dust to settle, following the entire ABK saga, before looking to acquire another developer/publisher, there is nothing to stop them from buying up several, or indeed all AAA third party exclusives right now. They could certainly afford to do so, indeed, they could probably afford to do so from the interest they receive on their capital, without needing to dip into their amassed funds. So why aren't they? Probably because it makes zero business sense for them to do so due to the fact that the outlay to acquire exclusivity on such a poor ratio of gamers on their platform, as compared to the PlayStation, as opposed to the return from such exclusivity rights would likely result in loss after loss, and that won't sit well with investors and shareholders. So, the ability to buy Sony out of business, whilst entirely financially possible, just won't happen for a multitude of reasons. So were these guys talking business strategy or simply spit-balling? I have little doubt that it is the latter because above all else, these guys are running a business. They know what will fly, and what won't. What regulators will allow, and what they won't. What investors and shareholders will accept, and what they won't. It's not like they actually own Microsoft, Xbox, or indeed all the billions that it would cost to make it happen.
You say that Microsoft's recent acquisitions don't auger well, but what would you have them do? Simply wait until the end of the generation and give up? I so often hear people say they should 'just make better games', but we all know that for a true AAA quality game to be made takes between 5 and 7 years now. The average generation is around 7 years long, and even if they started a few years back, the likelihood is that we would only see a handful of games between now and the end of this generation, and the decision to continue into the next generation will need to be made now, if not earlier, and you need to have some idea regarding the viability of remaining in the market before you can make that decision. Regardless, I still do not think that Xbox developing a further console is a done deal just yet, which is kind of sad. If they do cease to be a thing, it will not only hurt the Xbox community, but the PlayStation one too.
Lastly, as for the $700 price tag for the PS5, I'm surprised you don't recall all the speculation immediately prior to the actual announcement. As I recall, Sony were going to announce the cost, and then delayed that announcement when it became clear that Microsoft were about to say how much their console would cost. Everyone was speculating about how much the PS5 was going to cost, and then the reasons as to why Sony delayed the announcement, and then again, once Sony did finally release the price, that the only reason it was $500 was to match the price of the Xbox. It was absolutely rife, and I'm surprised that you don't remember it...
I rarely watch the show live because of the time it is on. However, the one huge advantage of watching it after it has happened is the ability to fast forward through much of the drivel that is also show, and to then get to what we are really there for being the announcements, and extended gameplay. Quite simply, the show is way too long, and has way too many adverts and filler...
First off, @thefourfoldroot1, it wasn't a stated aim of Microsoft to 'buy Sony out of business', it was simply a conversation wherein it was stated that Microsoft have the financial means to buy Sony out of business. People seem to confuse the two, often because they misunderstand the comment, but also often because they prefer to use the comment to take aim at Microsoft. Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding because if Microsoft were really looking to buy Sony out of business, we would not only see far more acquisitions than we do, but also Microsoft throwing money at developers to make their games exclusive to the Xbox in the way that Sony is here. So, even if regulators may prevent Microsoft from acquiring some developers, the signing of exclusivity contracts would be fair game because Sony does it on a frequent basis, and so arguments that it would be uncompetitive would be nulled.
Secondly, it can easily be argued that Microsoft's recent, more aggressive, stance in acquiring publishers, is a direct response to Sony's own aggressive pursuit of both developer acquisitions and third party (and now 'second party) game exclusivity. Were Microsoft not to have responded, then I have little doubt that the Xbox would have ceased to exist beyond this generation. Indeed, some industry analysists are, even now, of the mind that the Series maybe the last Xbox console, and that Microsoft will move solely into game development. Personally, I believe that if that happens, it will have a far more dire consequence for those of us that game on the PlayStation than many wish to contemplate. As an example, it is widely suspected by industry insiders, that the PS5 was intended to sell for as much as $700 when it first released, but that when the Series X was revealed to be costing $500, Sony were pushed into matching the price a week later because they risked the whole PS3 debacle once again. So, were there not to be a next Xbox, Sony can price the PS6 at whatever they feel appropriate, rather than be beholden to the price of their competitor. That is just one example of where having strong competition benefits us gamers, however, regardless of this, such is the dominance of Sony that they felt empowered to be the first to raise the prices of their consoles, their games, and their subscription services (with no apparent benefits to us gamers). Indeed, the only reason we have the current subscription service is down to the existence of the Game Pass. So it is clear that having strong, and lasting competition, is essential to those that game on the PlayStation.
Obviously, Sony responds to Microsoft as Microsoft responds to Sony. More and more acquisitions are likely to happen on both sides, as will the signing of exclusivity contracts. Regardless, the continued existence of the Xbox is essential to keeping Sony in check as without the Xbox, Sony will have free reign to do as it pleases, and the one thing you can be certain of is that that will be unlikely to benefit us gamers in the long run...
Absolutely it is, @Fyz306903, but then you could say Joel dying in The Last of Us 2 is news, but then it is also a spoiler. Just as Luke dying in The Last Jedi. It's news until you know. And is a spoiler if you find out before you want to. It ceases to be both once you know.
Personally, I like to skip through the Game Awards show (as indeed I do the Oscars, for example) until the nominations are read out, and then the prize is awarded. If I read up on who won what before the show, it pretty much makes the show redundant. I like watching the build up, the suspense, and then the big reveal.
Struggling to remember now, @get2sammyb, was Alan Wake 2 cheaper as a consequence of being digital only? I seem to recall them saying that it would be...
The thing is, yes, I get it that the Portal has outsold the Series right now, and that is an achievement in and of itself, however, the device has literally just been released, so everyone (possibly mainly scalpers, if eBay is anything to go by) is buying one. However, once that initial rush has ended, will it still be outselling the Series? That should be the metric. There is always an initial surge in the sales of such a device or console, but once that initial demand has been met, then, as with most consoles, the sales will dip to their more likely week on week purchases. It's just like there will be a surge in sales of the PS5 once the 'slim' arrives, but after that (and after Christmas given the timing of its release) sales will dip to a more stable month on month level.
Give it a month, and then see how the Portal is faring. If it is still outselling the Series then, then that is truly an achievement to be commented on...
Very curious as to your source regarding Game Pass growth having stalled, @UltimateOtaku91. To my knowledge, Microsoft / Xbox have not revealed their figures. Only supposed 'insiders' have speculated regarding this.
As usual, @UltimateOtaku91, you spin it your way to suit your own disdain for Xbox and Microsoft. I suggest you go and re-read the article on the Xbox One because they were not singing the praises of the Xbox One at release, they were discussing how some elements have been turned around since that disastrous presentation and the subsequent release. But hey, you do you, and just keep dishing out your own brand of fanboyism. I'm sure some in here with appreciate it, even if you are not actually telling the truth...
I feel so happy that so many people agree with what I was saying prior to the game even fully releasing on the PC, let alone the PlayStation. I've been saying the game is masterpiece to absolutely everyone, and after having done a single run that lasted over 300 hours, in which I did pretty much everything I was able to (bearing in mind the decisions I made) I am even more convinced of that fact.
The game is, in my opinion, a once in a lifetime game. I've been gaming since I was 9 years old when I first played Pong way back in 1973, and immediately fell in love with gaming. Now, 50 years later, I can say with total honesty that I have never played a game that matches the quality of Baldur's Gate 3. Even after I finished my 300 hour run, I had the desire to play more. I didn't want it to be over. I had all sorts of builds and run types coursing through my mind, and I cannot wait to dive back into it, though because I need to finish a couple of other games such as Alan Wake 2 and Spiderman 2, I've decided to play it in the New Year, when my second run won't be interrupted by Christmas.
I really hope that Larian win big everywhere they are nominated. If anyone deserves the recognition, it is them. They are so intrinsically involved with their community, and really try to make the best games possible. I loved Divinity Original Sin, and kick-started DoS2, which turned out to be my favourite ever game until the release of BG3. I hope that the game makes a ton of money for them, and that Sven becomes suitably rich! They absolutely deserve all the plaudits...
So hope this games turns out to be well made. I really enjoyed the first game, so I have high hopes for the sequel. I'd rather they took the time to get it right, than rush a release that both impacts the developers through crunch and sees an inferior product in the hands of gamers.
I too have bought the statue, @TheCollector316. It's very expensive (and they've taken payment!) so I'd prefer it if the statue is not the only decent thing about the release...
I don't know whether it is a 'fanboy with a grudge', @UltimateOtaku91. It could just as easily be that the person filing the case is a PlayStation gamer and that it therefore only makes sense to make the argument against Sony.
It would be like taking a case to Court because there is a problem with the gear box on a Porsche, when you in fact drive a Ford Escort! You're just unlikely to argue someone else's case.
What could happen though, is that either people that game on an Xbox or a PC, might see this as an opportunity to piggyback off of the Sony case. Or, if Sony lose the case, that both Microsoft and Valve might take pre-emptive action and match any reduction in pricing that Sony introduce as a result of having lost the case, rather than be taken to Court themselves where the result of the Sony case would put them at a severe disadvantage. After all, if prices of games were to reduce by 5% on the PlayStation, that would leave the Xbox in particular as having games costing 5% more that the PlayStation, and with Xbox being so far behind the PlayStation, they can hardly afford to be the move expensive place to game.
Lastly, it should also be remembered that the market share that Sony hold is vast in comparison to Microsoft. Therefore, far more people are affected by the cost of gaming on a PlayStation when compared to an Xbox. So, it kind of makes sense to take the biggest player to Court, because if you win against them, then the affects are likely to ripple down to the other industry players...
I think you could be right, @BusyOlf, particularly because most of the games are not available on the Nintendo, meaning that the Switch only players will likely get behind either TotK or Super Mario. That might be enough to propel TotK to win in many of the public votes...
Ahh, that makes sense, @MonkeyDLuffy19. I think I was like level 32 or something, and needed to be level 50 to take on the final boss. Just could not bring myself to do it...
Comments 963
Re: Lead Bungie Staff Fear 'Total Sony Takeover' After Layoffs, Delays
I'm probably just being cynical, but you do have to wonder whether Sony set the financial bar so high that there was no way that Bungie could meet the requirements and thus Bungie were always destined to fall under Sony's full control. A cunning play, if you will... 😉
Re: Lead Bungie Staff Fear 'Total Sony Takeover' After Layoffs, Delays
Are these kind of incentives widespread in the private sector? I've always been in the public sector (Royal Engineers Bomb Disposal and then the Police), and so never once saw any sort of rewards for simply doing my job. It seems very odd to me that people get or expect anything more beyond being paid a monthly salary. Different world, I guess... 🤔
Re: Two Shadow Gambit DLC Packs, Free Content Out for PS5, PS4 Today
Such a shame to see a talented Studio close down. I wish the individual developers well for the future...
Re: Embracer Layoffs Continue as Insurgency Developer New World Interactive Gets Hit
Unfortunately, @Zeke68, I think you are right. Hopefully these developers do land on their feet with not too much time between paycheques...
Re: Round Up: Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora Reviews Are Torn on Ubisoft's New Open World
I do wonder whether there is some Ubisoft snobbery at work. It seems to be that some companies get bumped up a point or two, and others have their games knocked down in the same fashion. It maybe an unconscious bias, but I do think it exists. I think some reviewers cannot wait to praise games that need to be held under a spotlights, where with other reviewers it is simply vindictive.
I've always just gone with what I like, mostly regardless of reviews, though that is not to say that I haven't picked up a few er... questionable titles, but for the most part, I've been happy with my choices...
Re: Embracer Layoffs Continue as Insurgency Developer New World Interactive Gets Hit
I guess this is what happens when you gobble up way too many developers when you have no actual plan what you are then going to do with them.
A real shame for the individual developers who are now out of a job. There is never a good time to lose your job, but the impact at this time of the year is always worse.
It's also very sad to see some really talented Studios closing down. Hopefully someone like Sony or Microsoft will pick them up, as it's better that they survive, no matter who gets them...
Re: Baldur's Gate 3 Player Stats Show Crazy Completion Rate, Most Popular Romance, Class, and More
I definitely petted Scratch more than the Owlbear cub, @Hyena_socks. Owlbear's lines never seemed to alter once s/he was in the camp. Nor did Scratch's, but at least he did give some small rewards every now and again.
Now someone is going to pop up and tell me that Owlbear was worth petting too... 😉
Re: Baldur's Gate 3 Player Stats Show Crazy Completion Rate, Most Popular Romance, Class, and More
Honestly couldn't tell you, @Olmaz. I know I went everywhere and did everything to the best of my ability. I spoke with pretty much everyone, picked up all the small quests etc. I know that I missed one small fight in Act 1 (because I have since done it with my mates in our co-op game) but I honestly couldn't tell you why my run was so long compared to yours. I did reload the game many times to get the outcome on rolls that I wanted, or when a battle was not going well, which likely added more time to my game. I also did each of the Origin characters quests to completion, which obviously took time.
In some ways, I envy your game completion time because I would happily go through more quickly so that I could try different builds, and different types of runs (bad, kill absolutely everyone, no reloads etc.). At 300 hours a run, it would take me forever! 120 hours would be much more manageable... 😜
Re: Baldur's Gate 3 Player Stats Show Crazy Completion Rate, Most Popular Romance, Class, and More
Absolutely loved the game, which I finished about a month or so ago. I played the game solo and my run exceeded 300 hours, and I loved every minute of it.
I'm also playing a co-op game with two mates in which we are all playing as Origin characters. Funny enough though, we are apparently playing as the 3 least popular characters; Wyll, Shadowheart and Lae'Zel. 😂
The game is seriously good, and I am looking forward to my next solo run, which I will start in the New Year as I don't want to start something now, and then have to put the game down for the Christmas period.
Really hoping that Larian and Baldur's Gate 3 win every award that they are nominated for. They are a fantastic studio who are fully invested in their community, and the game is simply sublime. For me, it is the game of a lifetime, and I've been gaming for approaching 50 years... 😊
Re: Poll: What Is Your PS5, PS4 Game of the Year 2023?
Good to see that I'm not the only one that rated Dead island 2, @Logonogo... 😊
Re: Poll: What Is Your PS5, PS4 Game of the Year 2023?
I only voted for games that I have actually played to completion (as should we all!), and went with:
1. Baldur's Gate 3
2. Alan Wake 2
3. Hogwarts Legacy
4. Dead Island 2
5. Dead Space
I haven't yet played Spiderman 2, so obviously didn't vote for it, though it is quite possible that it would have made it into my list had I done so.
I have played 8 of the games from the list, all of which I have very much enjoyed. So my top 8 would be:
6. Resident Evil 4
7. Jedi Survivor
8. Diablo 4
The games that I own but simply didn't have time to get round to this year would be (in order):
1. Spiderman 2
2. Lies of P
3. The Talos Principle 2
4. Remnant 2
5. Assassins Creed Mirage
6. Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora
7. Armoured Core 6
My New Years resolution for 2024 is not to buy a game until I am actually in a position to play it because each of the games that I bought but didn't play will undoubtedly be cheaper before I do get to play them (if not already so). It is a truly bad behaviour that does my wallet absolutely no favours. A pointless act of financial vandalism to my bank account. I must do better... 😜
Re: Fallout TV Trailer Reveals Vault 33, The Ghoul, Brotherhood of Steel
Only 3 million sales, @Bez87, whilst being available on both the Game Pass and PC Game Pass, and also the most played game on the Game Pass in the month of its release. I'd suggest that 3 million sales is fantastic. Just imagine how many more sales the game would have had had it not been available on the Game Pass...?
Re: Fallout TV Trailer Reveals Vault 33, The Ghoul, Brotherhood of Steel
This looks so good! If the trailer is anything to go by then the series could well be 'must watch' TV. I certainly hope that the series is of the same quality as we see here. I'm a huge Fallout fan, and love most of the post-apocalypse films that I have seen, so this has all the hallmarks of something that I'd really enjoy...
Re: Get Hyped for The Game Awards with Official Geoff Keighley Hype Trailer
Regardless of anything, the trailer does at least admirably demonstrate what a wonderful year of gaming we have had, and it doesn't even include all the best games we have had.
2023 will go down in the history of gaming as probably the finest we have ever had. For me, Baldur's Gate 3 is the game to top them all. An absolute masterpiece that deserves all the plaudits, and all the awards...
Re: Just One Day Later, Microsoft Has 'No Plans to Bring Game Pass' to PS5, PS4
No, @CielloArc, you are absolutely wrong! No one will fill the gap vacated by Xbox. Just think on it for a moment; Microsoft are a trillion dollar company that have been in the game for 22 years. They currently hold less than 30% of the market, with Sony holding more than 70%. Who has the necessary money and experience to fill that void if Microsoft cannot do it?
If Microsoft pulls the plug on the Xbox that will instantly mean that Sony will have 100% market share of the 'high-end' consoles. The 30% of gamers that game on an Xbox will have the choice of moving across to the PlayStation, or effectively, moving down to the Nintendo. So let's just assume that 80% of those that play on an Xbox move over to the PlayStation, and the rest to Nintendo, what does that effectively then mean? It means that anyone choosing to enter the 'high-end' console market will be battling against an absolute goliath in Sony's PlayStation, who will have 100% 'high-end' market share. Not just a company that holds some of the market, but a company that has it all.
Any company choosing to go up against Sony will be starting from scratch, with not a single person owning their console. If that company were doing it right, they may start with one or two exclusive games, however, if Microsoft are unable to get a single third-party exclusive with 30% market share, what chance a newcomer? The answer is absolutely no hope unless they were prepared to lose a fortune to pay the developer for it, and it would need to be something truly remarkable for it to even remotely bring in any money.
As for the console, it would both need to match the PS6 in spec, and also be a good deal cheaper if it were to have any hope of luring a reasonable proportion of gamers away from the PS6. Chances of them hitting or exceeding 30% upon release? Nil. Not a chance in Hell.
There is, after all, a reason why no other company has entered the console market in the past 22 years, and it is simply that people have already made their choice (currently either the PlayStation or the Xbox), and companies know that getting people to leave an established brand for a fledgling one is exceptionally difficult, and so it simply won't happen. Effectively, it takes a company to severely mess up (as Xbox did at the start of the Xbox One generation), and for the other to go from strength to strength (as the PlayStation did last generation) for there to be any sizable shift in player numbers from one platform to another. This is why no new company will enter the market. The odds are severely stacked against them succeeding...
Re: Just One Day Later, Microsoft Has 'No Plans to Bring Game Pass' to PS5, PS4
That is entirely possible, @InsaneWade, but I think that the next Nintendo console will still be at least £100 cheaper than the current PlayStation, and so when we move into the next generation, that gap will likely widen still further back to what it currently is (at least £200) and that is before Sony perhaps hike the price of their console even further if they are not in direct competition with the Xbox.
Ultimately, Nintendo, Sony are chasing, to some extent, a different audience, and I don't see that changing anytime soon...
Re: Just One Day Later, Microsoft Has 'No Plans to Bring Game Pass' to PS5, PS4
You clearly do not understand what 'strong competition' means, @UltimateOtaku91. Exclusives are just part of it.
Let me put it this way; If Xbox were to cease to be a thing, leaving just Sony as the only 'high-end' console (so discounting Nintendo because they do their own thing very successfully) then what would that mean?
It would mean that if you want to own the premium PlayStation console, it now being the only 'high-end' console, and the only place that you can play premium AAA exclusives, then you can pay the premium price for the privilege. The only reason that the PS5 and the Series X cost the same this generation is because they were directly in competition with one another. The only reason that games cost the same on both systems (but not on Nintendo) is because both consoles are directly in competition with one another. The only reason that PlayStation did their version of Game Pass is because... well, I guess you get it by now!
Take away a direct competitor and you have free reign to charge what you think you can get away with. If that means add £100 or £200 or maybe even more to your console price next generation, then cool. Let's do it! Sure, Sony would lose some to the Nintendo, but they're not offering what Sony do, so it's their loss if they don't buy into Sony's ecosystem.
Likewise with the subscription services; the costs are more expensive than the Xbox as it is, but if that competitor were to go, then Sony could charge even more, and you'd simply have a take it or leave it result because there would be nowhere else to go.
And then finally the games; as with the consoles, Sony were the first to increase their prices for games, but without direct competition, the prices could easily increase and the only choice you would have, if you wanted to play these premium games, would be to take it or leave it.
As it stands, if Sony were to increase the price of their consoles by £100 or £200, or increase their games by £10 or £20, or increase their subscription service still higher than the Game Pass, we the consumer have the choice of going over to the Xbox. Yes, I know they do not have the AAA games and third-party exclusives that the PlayStation has, but if the point is to same money, you do have somewhere else to go. If Xbox were to cease to exist, then you would not, and then Sony would not be bound to whatever pricing policy Microsoft offers.
That is why competition is important...
Re: Microsoft Still Wants to Put Xbox Game Pass on PS5, PS4
I agree with much of what you say, @Godot25, but still I do not see it as a forgone conclusion that Microsoft will make another iteration of the Xbox. That decision may have already been made, if not, it soon will be.
However, I think you are mixing up revenue with profit. They are not the same. Even if Microsoft were making 1 billion a month from everything they do with the Xbox, if it is costing them 1.2 billion a month, it just makes no sense to continue, and we all know that it is currently all one way traffic and that Sony is steaming ahead. If the writing is on the wall right now, even if a new console had been greenlit a year or more ago, the plug can still be pulled. Just as when a game is in development, and then circumstances change, and it suddenly isn't.
With regards to Starfield, take a look at the Steam reviews; the current score is 68 from 81,825 reviews. That is a much more accurate assessment of a games quality than the 83 from the 90 'professional' reviewers. And I would suggest that 68 is a middling review score, particularly when it was a flagship release. One that was potentially make or break for the Xbox brand.
As for CoD, it remains to be seen where people will play it, but seems as the game will be on the PlayStation anyway, it makes absolutely no difference whether Xbox is a third-party publisher or a platform holder, because they will still get 70% of the money from sales on the PlayStation, The only caveat is how many people play the game on the Game Pass instead, and whether people choose to temporarily subscribe to the Game Pass to do so. However, as many people that play CoD on the PlayStation will have a large number of friends that also play the game on the PlayStation, unless they are willing to leave them behind, or they leave en masse, the majority will likely simply continue to play the game on the PlayStation, particularly if they are the ones that play the game for months at a time. When it comes to CoD, there will probably be a small uptick in subscriber numbers on the Xbox, but it will a temporary uptick, just long enough to complete the campaign and maybe try out the multiplayer. I don't think there will be a significant and, more importantly, permanent increase in Game Pass subscribers as if you are really invested in CoD, you will not only have your other PlayStation friends, and the community, but all the skins etc. and that all important Platinum Trophy to get, which are likely to be a greater pull than playing the game on the Xbox (bearing in mind that means purchasing an Xbox or a PC, which is far more costly than simply buying the game on the PlayStation. After all, CoD is not like Starfield, in that it is not an exclusive game, whereby if you don't buy an Xbox or a PC you cannot play it).
Re: Microsoft Still Wants to Put Xbox Game Pass on PS5, PS4
You make many good points, @Godot25, and whilst you say that Spencer said they would not be going third-party 6 months ago, things change. Indeed, since that time, they have released Starfield to middling reviews, and will have seen the uptick in both console sales and subscriber numbers, and of course sales of the actual game (which have been pretty good, all things considered). If those figures do not impress, then the situation will be reviewed, and whilst I agree with you that Microsoft will lose money in all the areas you highlight, they will also have to take into consideration:
*The cost of developing a new console
*The likely number of sales of consoles versus that cost
*Just how much money they can afford to lose on each console in order to remain semi-competitive
*The cost of sustaining Game Pass with a dwindling number of subscribers because people have switched to the market leader (PlayStation). Each and every third-party game that enters the service has to be paid for, and that cost is covered by subscribers. There will come a point at which the service is loss making, meaning they are paying more for the games that go on the service, than they raise in revenue from the subscribers. When that happens, the service is no longer viable on their own platform.
*Just how much they will have to pay for each third-party exclusive. News flash: they won't, because it's just not viable to do so. Indeed, Xbox no longer offer third-party exclusives because the cost of paying for third-party on a platform that has fewer than 30% of gamers as opposed to the PlayStation, which, with more than 70% of gamers is likely unrealistic as the return on such an investment is unachievable. Meanwhile, Sony is able to secure third-party exclusives on a regular basis for a much more affordable cost than the Xbox, and is why we see them on a regular basis on the PlayStation.
Thus, if Microsoft do not think they will sell sufficient consoles at a price (likely a loss) that will entice people into the Xbox ecosystem that will then cover the cost of developing, manufacturing, and shipping those consoles, which in turn has a direct corelation to the number of subscribers they can expect to have for Game Pass, making the service less and less viable. On top of that they already know that they cannot afford/obtain third-party exclusives. Then, on the other side, more and more people will be moving over to the goliath that is the PlayStation. People that previously gamed on the Xbox only, will simply give up and move over to the market leader as they do have the third-party exclusives that the Xbox does not (and that's before you start to take into account Sony's first-party output, and their own services).
So, faced with all that, potentially, every one of them being loss making, giving up being a console manufacturer is definitely on the cards. and even more so after the Xbox CFO Tim Stuart said just this week that Microsoft was no longer focusing on consoles, but instead on "content and services". So whilst you rightly list all the things that bring in money, that is not the same as making money. Basically, if all those things bring in less money than they cost, then they become financially unviable, making the move to just offering content (first-party games) and services (Game Pass everywhere) a much better option...
Re: Microsoft Still Wants to Put Xbox Game Pass on PS5, PS4
Whilst I agree with you to some extent, @Godot25, you are not considering just how much they also have in the back catalogue. If they are pushing out one game every quarter, and have an extensive library too, that's not such a bad deal, and bear in mind much of what Sony offers is from their back catalogue too, but without the bonus of new Day One first-party or even third party games...
Re: Microsoft Still Wants to Put Xbox Game Pass on PS5, PS4
I've said it a few times recently, this generation is possibly the last that Xbox will have a console. The next generation may only consist of a PS6. Microsoft are way too far behind now to catch Sony in terms of consoles and members, so doing a Sega, and becoming a third-party only publisher is probably the only route they now have. Therefore, as they will be unlikely to be offering third-party (to them) games on the Game Pass, with all titles on the service being first party only, I can see Sony then allowing the Game Pass on the PlayStation, and taking their usual 30% cut in the process...
Re: Microsoft Still Wants to Put Xbox Game Pass on PS5, PS4
Sony would get a cut from those that subscribe to Game Pass on a PlayStation though, @UltimateOtaku91. So if Sony were to take their standard 30%, then there would still be money to be made. There is no way that Sony would simply allow a rival service to be on their platform without it financially befitting them...
Re: Baldur's Gate 3 Update 5 Is Monstrous, Adds an Entire Epilogue, New Difficulty Settings, and Much More
Good to know. Thank you, @Hyena_socks & @Mintie...
Re: Baldur's Gate 3 Update 5 Is Monstrous, Adds an Entire Epilogue, New Difficulty Settings, and Much More
Can you have Hirelings in addition to your companions, @Mintie?
Re: Stellar Blade PS5 Dev Shift Up Allegedly Signs on As Sony Second-Party
Yes, Microsoft can absolutely afford to think long-term, @thefourfoldroot1, however, if they cannot improve their position in the market, and indeed, should they lose further ground to Sony, there really is the possibility of them at the very least trying to offload Xbox as a going concern, and should that fail, then Xbox could simply cease in the console market.
Some believe that Microsoft may look to do this anyway and simply make games for the remaining consoles and PC. The costs involved in developing a new console are not insignificant, and whilst Microsoft can easily afford it, they are still accountable to their shareholders and investors. If they are not going to see a return on that investment due to a dwindling number of people buying into the Xbox brand, then they will simply cut their loses and cease making new consoles, and instead invest more heavily into making games. Of course, if that happens, Sony can charge what they like for both consoles and games. So to all those cheering on the ill-fortunes of the Xbox, and even its demise, I would just say be careful what you wish for.
As for 'system sellers' I agree that they are few and far between, but that is not to say that Sony does not have them. People will absolutely buy a PlayStation for the likes of TLoU, GoW, Uncharted, Gran Turismo and Final Fantasy, etc. The Xbox has fewer quality exclusive titles, and that therefore equates to fewer consoles sold. There is little difference between the two consoles when it comes to the architecture. It is all about the games that one console offers over the other. It is as simple as that...
Re: Fallout TV Series Images, Plot Details Revealed, Out in April 2024
Cannot wait for this. Love me some Fallout...
Re: Stellar Blade PS5 Dev Shift Up Allegedly Signs on As Sony Second-Party
I think we can but dream, @GamingFan4Lyf, but I really cannot see Nvidia doing what you suggest. They would simply be cutting off their noses to spite their face. They are already making a tonne of profit, why undertake a loss making venture?
Re: Stellar Blade PS5 Dev Shift Up Allegedly Signs on As Sony Second-Party
Whilst I understand what you are saying, @thefourfoldroot1, let's look at it another way; if (and to could well be a big if) there is another Xbox console after the Series, then we have to assume that Sony will also release the PS6 around the same time. Look back at what Sony have offered over the course of the PS4 and PS5, and then look at what the Xbox has offered in that same time period. Where will you put your money? With the Xbox who has a few franchises capable of bringing in a lot of money, but where those franchises are also available on the PlayStation? Or simply opt for the PS6 and benefit from not only those Xbox games, but also all the exclusive content (both first, third, and now second party) that Sony brings to the table?
In all honesty, unless there is a massive turn around in fortunes, then I can't see many sticking with Xbox next generation. That, I believe is the conundrum that Microsoft faces; do they cut their loses and either sell off their studios (all or some) and leave the console market altogether. Or face the humiliation of losing 3 generations in a row, and being faced with dwindling support for their platform? Bear in mind also, that Game Pass is only a viable service if enough people have bought into it. There are already questions over its viability, so if even fewer people are subscribed, then there will come a point where it is no longer sustainable.
As it stands, hopes that were placed on Starfield, have all but been dashed, and so now all they really have to look forward to are Avowed and Hellblade 2. Bearing in mind that Avowed is being likened in scope to The Outer Worlds, then do Microsoft currently have a 'system seller' in production? And of course, it is highly likely that we will see another TLoU and GoW for the PlayStation either towards the end of this generation, or the beginning of the next, and maybe even another Spiderman, and all of a sudden the scales are firmly tipped in the favour of Sony.
It is not all about the money that the parent company has, it's what that company brings to the table, and at present, Sony is doing that in spades...
Re: Stellar Blade PS5 Dev Shift Up Allegedly Signs on As Sony Second-Party
Microsoft has John Wick contracted by Atilla the Hun, @GamingFan4Lyf, whereas Sony has Mother Teresa on a mission from God... 😂
Re: Stellar Blade PS5 Dev Shift Up Allegedly Signs on As Sony Second-Party
You highlight the problem in your last comment, @thefourfoldroot1; so let's just suppose that Xbox ceases to exist, who next?
If someone like Microsoft cannot make a go of it, then you are looking at someone like Amazon or maybe Apple (though I have my doubts with them). However, the problem is, unless they take over Xbox as a going concern, they would be beginning from a standing start. If Microsoft cannot make a go of it with all their trillions, and over 20 years in the business, what chance a new competitor to Sony? I'll save you the trouble of thinking on it; the answer is zilch! And what will happen whilst that company is entering the market? Again, the answer is very simple; Sony will make hey! Pretty much everyone that currently games on an Xbox will move over to the PlayStation meaning that the new competitor will not only face the same issues that the Xbox does, but to an even greater extent. If a new competitor is going to enter the market, then the best time to do that would actually be now where there is more competition in the market. Going up against a goliath such as a souped up Sony as their sole competition would be a pointless act of company suicide...
Re: Stellar Blade PS5 Dev Shift Up Allegedly Signs on As Sony Second-Party
That's absolutely right, @AdamNovice. That is how many IPs they now own, most you list they now own AFTER the ABK acquisition.
Then take into consideration just how many of those titles have new versions currently in development? Then, consider how many (or should I say few) of those titles are system sellers? Who is going to leave the PlayStation to play Spyro or Crash, or even just to play the next Wolfenstein? Will some of those titles even come to console? Yes, there were some positive feedback from the likes of Warcraft as to the possibility of it coming to consoles, but that is not the same as it actually happening, and again, will people shift ecosystems in order to play them? If the title is already on the PC, will people then shift to the Xbox in order to play them? After all, if you can already play them, and any subsequent games on the PC, what's the point?
So that leaves the likes of Diablo and CoD, and maybe as to possible system sellers, yet Diablo has only just released, we'd be lucky to see another for about 10 years, and CoD WILL be on the PlayStation for the next 10 years, so again, where is the pull to the Xbox ecosystem?
Let's face it, Starfield was supposed to have people join the Xbox en masse, but that didn't happen, did it? At best, people took out a subscription to play it, but most realised it wasn't actually the next big thing that the Xbox community had been hoping for, and so just ignored it, and remained quite content on their PlayStations.
Also, whilst Candy Crush will make a tonne of money, it is not something that anyone will buy a console to play. If they are inclined to play it, they will do so on their mobiles, so other than it making money for Microsoft, it serves zero purpose for the Xbox, even if it does actually make the leap to console.
Lastly, as I said before, if it take 5 to 7 years to make a quality AAA title from scratch , then a title will already have to have been in development for some years to shift that dial before such time as this generation ends, and again, as I said before, decisions as to the future of the Xbox console will be being made now, not at the end of the generation. So again, what can Xbox do to turn things around right now?
Re: Stellar Blade PS5 Dev Shift Up Allegedly Signs on As Sony Second-Party
Do I note sarcasm, @thefourfoldroot1? 😂
I think we can agree that there is a difference between saying you are capable of doing something, and then going ahead and doing it, yes? As I say, the proof is in the pudding; whilst it is is entirely possible that Microsoft will want the dust to settle, following the entire ABK saga, before looking to acquire another developer/publisher, there is nothing to stop them from buying up several, or indeed all AAA third party exclusives right now. They could certainly afford to do so, indeed, they could probably afford to do so from the interest they receive on their capital, without needing to dip into their amassed funds. So why aren't they? Probably because it makes zero business sense for them to do so due to the fact that the outlay to acquire exclusivity on such a poor ratio of gamers on their platform, as compared to the PlayStation, as opposed to the return from such exclusivity rights would likely result in loss after loss, and that won't sit well with investors and shareholders. So, the ability to buy Sony out of business, whilst entirely financially possible, just won't happen for a multitude of reasons. So were these guys talking business strategy or simply spit-balling? I have little doubt that it is the latter because above all else, these guys are running a business. They know what will fly, and what won't. What regulators will allow, and what they won't. What investors and shareholders will accept, and what they won't. It's not like they actually own Microsoft, Xbox, or indeed all the billions that it would cost to make it happen.
You say that Microsoft's recent acquisitions don't auger well, but what would you have them do? Simply wait until the end of the generation and give up? I so often hear people say they should 'just make better games', but we all know that for a true AAA quality game to be made takes between 5 and 7 years now. The average generation is around 7 years long, and even if they started a few years back, the likelihood is that we would only see a handful of games between now and the end of this generation, and the decision to continue into the next generation will need to be made now, if not earlier, and you need to have some idea regarding the viability of remaining in the market before you can make that decision. Regardless, I still do not think that Xbox developing a further console is a done deal just yet, which is kind of sad. If they do cease to be a thing, it will not only hurt the Xbox community, but the PlayStation one too.
Lastly, as for the $700 price tag for the PS5, I'm surprised you don't recall all the speculation immediately prior to the actual announcement. As I recall, Sony were going to announce the cost, and then delayed that announcement when it became clear that Microsoft were about to say how much their console would cost. Everyone was speculating about how much the PS5 was going to cost, and then the reasons as to why Sony delayed the announcement, and then again, once Sony did finally release the price, that the only reason it was $500 was to match the price of the Xbox. It was absolutely rife, and I'm surprised that you don't remember it...
Re: The Game Awards Will Get Rid of Iconic World Premiere Banners
I rarely watch the show live because of the time it is on. However, the one huge advantage of watching it after it has happened is the ability to fast forward through much of the drivel that is also show, and to then get to what we are really there for being the announcements, and extended gameplay. Quite simply, the show is way too long, and has way too many adverts and filler...
Re: Stellar Blade PS5 Dev Shift Up Allegedly Signs on As Sony Second-Party
First off, @thefourfoldroot1, it wasn't a stated aim of Microsoft to 'buy Sony out of business', it was simply a conversation wherein it was stated that Microsoft have the financial means to buy Sony out of business. People seem to confuse the two, often because they misunderstand the comment, but also often because they prefer to use the comment to take aim at Microsoft. Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding because if Microsoft were really looking to buy Sony out of business, we would not only see far more acquisitions than we do, but also Microsoft throwing money at developers to make their games exclusive to the Xbox in the way that Sony is here. So, even if regulators may prevent Microsoft from acquiring some developers, the signing of exclusivity contracts would be fair game because Sony does it on a frequent basis, and so arguments that it would be uncompetitive would be nulled.
Secondly, it can easily be argued that Microsoft's recent, more aggressive, stance in acquiring publishers, is a direct response to Sony's own aggressive pursuit of both developer acquisitions and third party (and now 'second party) game exclusivity. Were Microsoft not to have responded, then I have little doubt that the Xbox would have ceased to exist beyond this generation. Indeed, some industry analysists are, even now, of the mind that the Series maybe the last Xbox console, and that Microsoft will move solely into game development. Personally, I believe that if that happens, it will have a far more dire consequence for those of us that game on the PlayStation than many wish to contemplate. As an example, it is widely suspected by industry insiders, that the PS5 was intended to sell for as much as $700 when it first released, but that when the Series X was revealed to be costing $500, Sony were pushed into matching the price a week later because they risked the whole PS3 debacle once again. So, were there not to be a next Xbox, Sony can price the PS6 at whatever they feel appropriate, rather than be beholden to the price of their competitor. That is just one example of where having strong competition benefits us gamers, however, regardless of this, such is the dominance of Sony that they felt empowered to be the first to raise the prices of their consoles, their games, and their subscription services (with no apparent benefits to us gamers). Indeed, the only reason we have the current subscription service is down to the existence of the Game Pass. So it is clear that having strong, and lasting competition, is essential to those that game on the PlayStation.
Obviously, Sony responds to Microsoft as Microsoft responds to Sony. More and more acquisitions are likely to happen on both sides, as will the signing of exclusivity contracts. Regardless, the continued existence of the Xbox is essential to keeping Sony in check as without the Xbox, Sony will have free reign to do as it pleases, and the one thing you can be certain of is that that will be unlikely to benefit us gamers in the long run...
Re: When Is The Game Awards 2023?
Absolutely it is, @Fyz306903, but then you could say Joel dying in The Last of Us 2 is news, but then it is also a spoiler. Just as Luke dying in The Last Jedi. It's news until you know. And is a spoiler if you find out before you want to. It ceases to be both once you know.
Personally, I like to skip through the Game Awards show (as indeed I do the Oscars, for example) until the nominations are read out, and then the prize is awarded. If I read up on who won what before the show, it pretty much makes the show redundant. I like watching the build up, the suspense, and then the big reveal.
Re: Massive PS Store Sale Makes 2,800+ PS5, PS4 Games Cheaper Than Ever
Divinity Original Sin 2, the second best game ever made. It was the best, then Larian superseded it with Baldur's Gate 3... 😊
Re: Promising PS5 Vehicular Survival Pacific Drive Will Get a Physical Release
Struggling to remember now, @get2sammyb, was Alan Wake 2 cheaper as a consequence of being digital only? I seem to recall them saying that it would be...
Re: Promising PS5 Vehicular Survival Pacific Drive Will Get a Physical Release
Not heard of this before, however, having just watched the trailer for it, I am now most certainly interested...
Re: Sorry Xbox, But Even PS Portal Is Outselling You in Spain
The thing is, yes, I get it that the Portal has outsold the Series right now, and that is an achievement in and of itself, however, the device has literally just been released, so everyone (possibly mainly scalpers, if eBay is anything to go by) is buying one. However, once that initial rush has ended, will it still be outselling the Series? That should be the metric. There is always an initial surge in the sales of such a device or console, but once that initial demand has been met, then, as with most consoles, the sales will dip to their more likely week on week purchases. It's just like there will be a surge in sales of the PS5 once the 'slim' arrives, but after that (and after Christmas given the timing of its release) sales will dip to a more stable month on month level.
Give it a month, and then see how the Portal is faring. If it is still outselling the Series then, then that is truly an achievement to be commented on...
Re: Sorry Xbox, But Even PS Portal Is Outselling You in Spain
Very curious as to your source regarding Game Pass growth having stalled, @UltimateOtaku91. To my knowledge, Microsoft / Xbox have not revealed their figures. Only supposed 'insiders' have speculated regarding this.
Re: Sorry Xbox, But Even PS Portal Is Outselling You in Spain
As usual, @UltimateOtaku91, you spin it your way to suit your own disdain for Xbox and Microsoft. I suggest you go and re-read the article on the Xbox One because they were not singing the praises of the Xbox One at release, they were discussing how some elements have been turned around since that disastrous presentation and the subsequent release. But hey, you do you, and just keep dishing out your own brand of fanboyism. I'm sure some in here with appreciate it, even if you are not actually telling the truth...
Re: Baldur's Gate 3 Is a Lock for Game of the Year, According to Most PlayStation Fans
I feel so happy that so many people agree with what I was saying prior to the game even fully releasing on the PC, let alone the PlayStation. I've been saying the game is masterpiece to absolutely everyone, and after having done a single run that lasted over 300 hours, in which I did pretty much everything I was able to (bearing in mind the decisions I made) I am even more convinced of that fact.
The game is, in my opinion, a once in a lifetime game. I've been gaming since I was 9 years old when I first played Pong way back in 1973, and immediately fell in love with gaming. Now, 50 years later, I can say with total honesty that I have never played a game that matches the quality of Baldur's Gate 3. Even after I finished my 300 hour run, I had the desire to play more. I didn't want it to be over. I had all sorts of builds and run types coursing through my mind, and I cannot wait to dive back into it, though because I need to finish a couple of other games such as Alan Wake 2 and Spiderman 2, I've decided to play it in the New Year, when my second run won't be interrupted by Christmas.
I really hope that Larian win big everywhere they are nominated. If anyone deserves the recognition, it is them. They are so intrinsically involved with their community, and really try to make the best games possible. I loved Divinity Original Sin, and kick-started DoS2, which turned out to be my favourite ever game until the release of BG3. I hope that the game makes a ton of money for them, and that Sven becomes suitably rich! They absolutely deserve all the plaudits...
Re: God of War Studio Recruits Former Gears of War Narrative Director
Absolutely agree, @GamingFan4Lyf. Nothing more to add... 😂
Re: Warhammer 40k: Space Marine 2 Hit with a Heavy Delay into Second Half of 2024
So hope this games turns out to be well made. I really enjoyed the first game, so I have high hopes for the sequel. I'd rather they took the time to get it right, than rush a release that both impacts the developers through crunch and sees an inferior product in the hands of gamers.
I too have bought the statue, @TheCollector316. It's very expensive (and they've taken payment!) so I'd prefer it if the statue is not the only decent thing about the release...
Re: A Plague Tale Dev Signs Up for 'Another Exciting Project'
I don't know whether it is a 'fanboy with a grudge', @UltimateOtaku91. It could just as easily be that the person filing the case is a PlayStation gamer and that it therefore only makes sense to make the argument against Sony.
It would be like taking a case to Court because there is a problem with the gear box on a Porsche, when you in fact drive a Ford Escort! You're just unlikely to argue someone else's case.
What could happen though, is that either people that game on an Xbox or a PC, might see this as an opportunity to piggyback off of the Sony case. Or, if Sony lose the case, that both Microsoft and Valve might take pre-emptive action and match any reduction in pricing that Sony introduce as a result of having lost the case, rather than be taken to Court themselves where the result of the Sony case would put them at a severe disadvantage. After all, if prices of games were to reduce by 5% on the PlayStation, that would leave the Xbox in particular as having games costing 5% more that the PlayStation, and with Xbox being so far behind the PlayStation, they can hardly afford to be the move expensive place to game.
Lastly, it should also be remembered that the market share that Sony hold is vast in comparison to Microsoft. Therefore, far more people are affected by the cost of gaming on a PlayStation when compared to an Xbox. So, it kind of makes sense to take the biggest player to Court, because if you win against them, then the affects are likely to ripple down to the other industry players...
Re: Poll: What Will Win Game of the Year at The Game Awards 2023?
Ahh, fair enough, @DennisReynolds. I just looked at the overall scores...
Re: Like a Dragon: Infinite Wealth Details Its Much-Needed Turn-Based Combat Improvements
Absolutely agree, @clvr. Really hope they don't do the same in the new game...
Re: Poll: What Will Win Game of the Year at The Game Awards 2023?
I think you could be right, @BusyOlf, particularly because most of the games are not available on the Nintendo, meaning that the Switch only players will likely get behind either TotK or Super Mario. That might be enough to propel TotK to win in many of the public votes...
Re: Like a Dragon: Infinite Wealth Details Its Much-Needed Turn-Based Combat Improvements
Ahh, that makes sense, @MonkeyDLuffy19. I think I was like level 32 or something, and needed to be level 50 to take on the final boss. Just could not bring myself to do it...
Re: Poll: What Will Win Game of the Year at The Game Awards 2023?
If you go by Metacritic, @nessisonett and @DennisReynolds, the scores are:
TotK 96
BG3 96
AW2 94
RE4 93
Super Mario 92
Spiderman 2 90
Opencritic have the review scores as:
TotK 96
BG3 96
AW2 94
Super Mario 91
Spiderman 2 91
RE4 89
So if we go by 'professional' journalist reviews alone, then the race really is between either BG3 or TotK...