My sympathy for PS5 owners is somewhat limited seeing as how the Bethesda deal was public knowledge like a month before the PS5 launch. So if playing Bethesda games were a big deal to you and you bought a PS5 anyway it's kind of on you.
I agree it sucks not being able to play games from series you really dig. Just like I can't play Street Fighter 5 or Final Fantasy 7 Remake.
Starfield's exclusivity was always going to be dependant on whether or not Sony had managed to lock down timed exclusivity before MS started the process of buying them, as they alledgedly were - which is apparently one of the reasons MS went through with the purchase. They flat out couldn't afford to have games like Starfield and Elder Scrolls not be on their platforms for a whole year.
0
Options
SixCaches Tweets in the mainframe cyberhexRegistered Userregular
As long as I get Breath of the Wild 2 on Game Pass I’ll be happy.
Starfield's exclusivity was always going to be dependant on whether or not Sony had managed to lock down timed exclusivity before MS started the process of buying them, as they alledgedly were - which is apparently one of the reasons MS went through with the purchase. They flat out couldn't afford to have games like Starfield and Elder Scrolls not be on their platforms for a whole year.
Could we get a citation for that?
I'm not going to claim it's impossible, but "Bethesda had been looking for a seller for a long time, among a very limited audience," is a large gap from "Sony was in the process of buying a year-long exclusivity for The Elder Scrolls, something they literally never accomplished in the past."
They are not mutually exclusive. And "Everything never happens until it happens," and all, but I'm genuinely curious what's being alleged here.
Starfield I don't know about. There's a metaphorical and maybe literal chasm between "exclusivity in a decades-old franchise [some entries Microsoft actually had exclusivity in]" and "exclusivity in a new franchise which is still mostly an unknown." That strikes me as far more believable.
Synthesis on
0
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
My sympathy for PS5 owners is somewhat limited seeing as how the Bethesda deal was public knowledge like a month before the PS5 launch. So if playing Bethesda games were a big deal to you and you bought a PS5 anyway it's kind of on you.
I agree it sucks not being able to play games from series you really dig. Just like I can't play Street Fighter 5 or Final Fantasy 7 Remake.
I can get the sentiment, however; All the talk from Bethesda and Microsoft from the moment this acquisition was announced was that things wouldn't be exclusive to Xbox.
Xbox CFO Tim Stuart even said what he wants is for Bethesda games to either be first on Xbox or be the best on Xbox.
That said, I mean, everyone should take anything any corporation says with a healthy dose of cynicism. But they did still say it.
And this news is still currently rumor. Rumor from a guy who is no Jason Schreier but also not some random Joe on Reddit.
Since Starfield is a new IP I can easily picture Xbox wanting it to be a Xbox IP.
On a related note; I personally have no faith in Bethesda to make Starfield any good. I am fully bracing myself for the game to be just full to the brim with anti-consumer bullshit. I of course would love and hope to be wrong.
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
Sony was reportedly trying to negotiate a deal with Bethesda for Starfield before yesterday's acquisition of Bethesda and parent company Zenimax Media by Microsoft.
The claim was made by Kinda Funny reporter and host Imran Khan, who reported that Sony had been negotiating a timed exclusivity period for Starfield as recently as "a few months ago."
That it contributed to the purchase is speculation, and obviously it wouldn't have been the only reason they grabbed Bethesda, but it's not hard to imagine Xbox was dead set against having Starfield et. al. come out a year late on their platforms after losing Deathloop and Ghostwire: Tokyo.
Sony was reportedly trying to negotiate a deal with Bethesda for Starfield before yesterday's acquisition of Bethesda and parent company Zenimax Media by Microsoft.
The claim was made by Kinda Funny reporter and host Imran Khan, who reported that Sony had been negotiating a timed exclusivity period for Starfield as recently as "a few months ago."
That it contributing to the purchase is speculation, and obviously it wouldn't have been the only reason they grabbed Bethesda, but it's not hard to imagine Xbox was dead set against having Starfield et. al. come out a year late on their platforms after losing Deathloop and Ghostwire: Tokyo.
When I did a search for the same "Sony acquiring exclusivity for Elder Scrolls 6," this was the same website I read as well (just to make sure I wasn't missing something obvious).
Starfield =/= Elder Scrolls 6. Starfield might not come out. You can be damn sure we will get another Elder Scrolls title, whatever it's called, at some point.
I could absolutely see Sony having tried to get Starfield exclusivity, whether or not that's a good idea (you could say the same thing about Hellblade II, especially considering what Sony probably paid for exclusivity for the original Hellblade given the actual performance). Elder Scrolls 6? That's slightly less believable than Microsoft buying exclusivity for the next IW Call of Duty entry, which is to say, "Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. And by it, I mean call transcripts and attorney filings."
(Apologies if this comes off as hostile, I'm just extremely skeptical about this sort of thing in general.)
EDIT: On a semi-related note, it is fun to speculate what that will mean for "exclusivity" for Deathloop, etc.--not any time soon, eventually. After all, Hellblade was a Playstation exclusive too.
On a related note; I personally have no faith in Bethesda to make Starfield any good. I am fully bracing myself for the game to be just full to the brim with anti-consumer bullshit. I of course would love and hope to be wrong.
Could go either way, as I've noted. No Man's Sky wasn't just a bad game when it launched--it was outright deceptively marketed (in a "Multiplayer absent from a multiplayer-advised game" kind of way) and caused lawsuits. Seems slightly relevant for a new space-science-fiction IP.
On top of that, this is, well, Bethesda. Even their excellent titles are bug-ridden affairs at launch.
If Sony has nabbed timed exclusivity for Deathloop, Ghostwire and and was aiming for Starfield, the next big Bethesda RPG, then it's really not a stretch for Microsoft to have been worried about them nabbing it for other games like Elder Scrolls 6 as well.
I didn't mean to suggest there was anything concrete set in stone for EGS6 specifically; just that the potential of Sony continuing to lay claim major Zenimax games as timed exclusives, like they allegedly were for Starfield, is speculated to have contributed to MS's purchase of Bethesda.
Personally, I don't really care if exclusives are consumer negative or not. I don't buy a console unless it has them. I bought an Xbox for JSRF (and some other Sega stuff), I bought a 360 for Gears, Mass Effect, and Splinter Cell Conviction. I bought an Xbox One for Sunset Overdrive, Quantum Break, and Scalebound (R.I.P.). If the Series gets some good exclusives, I'll get that too.
My favorite thing about watching Xbox buy up these companies over the last few years has been watching the gamers over on reddit constantly moving the goalposts for why Sony exclusive bad, Xbox exclusive good.
As far as we know ES6 is still in pre-production. Main number sequels aren't something the "main" Bethesda team seems to want to outsource, so you won't have all hands on deck till sometime after Starfield launch. That means its so far off we'll be lucky if it hits the tail end of this generation. So in conclusion yeah, Sony probably never even had the opportunity to seriously talk about any kind of deal concerning ES6.
If Sony has nabbed timed exclusivity for Deathloop, Ghostwire and and was aiming for Starfield, the next big Bethesda RPG, then it's really not a stretch for Microsoft to have been worried about them nabbing it for other games like Elder Scrolls 6 as well.
I absolutely think it would be, for the same reason grabbing exclusivity for the next Modern Warfare's release would be very different than if Activision was offering a new, untested IP. And there isn't even an allegation of it, unlike Starfield.
But agree to disagree. No harm in speculation generally.
Personally, I don't really care if exclusives are consumer negative or not. I don't buy a console unless it has them. I bought an Xbox for JSRF (and some other Sega stuff), I bought a 360 for Gears, Mass Effect, and Splinter Cell Conviction. I bought an Xbox One for Sunset Overdrive, Quantum Break, and Scalebound (R.I.P.). If the Series gets some good exclusives, I'll get that too.
My favorite thing about watching Xbox buy up these companies over the last few years has been watching the gamers over on reddit constantly moving the goalposts for why Sony exclusive bad, Xbox exclusive good.
Hasn't the common wisdom been the mirror opposite (and still is very widely)?
Synthesis on
+2
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
On a related note; I personally have no faith in Bethesda to make Starfield any good. I am fully bracing myself for the game to be just full to the brim with anti-consumer bullshit. I of course would love and hope to be wrong.
Could go either way, as I've noted. No Man's Sky wasn't just a bad game when it launched--it was outright deceptively marketed (in a "Multiplayer absent from a multiplayer-advised game" kind of way) and caused lawsuits. Seems slightly relevant for a new space-science-fiction IP.
On top of that, this is, well, Bethesda. Even their excellent titles are bug-ridden affairs at launch.
Honestly, bug ridden is kind of the base line quality I expect from open world games and especially Bethesda ones. That really wouldn't upset me.
What I am bracing myself for is the game being filled with microtransactions and other fun and inventive ways to squeeze money out of people while delivering the most bare bones of products to maximize PROFIT.
Admittedly I am simply trying to prepare myself for the worst so as not be be super disappointed.
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
On a related note; I personally have no faith in Bethesda to make Starfield any good. I am fully bracing myself for the game to be just full to the brim with anti-consumer bullshit. I of course would love and hope to be wrong.
Could go either way, as I've noted. No Man's Sky wasn't just a bad game when it launched--it was outright deceptively marketed (in a "Multiplayer absent from a multiplayer-advised game" kind of way) and caused lawsuits. Seems slightly relevant for a new space-science-fiction IP.
On top of that, this is, well, Bethesda. Even their excellent titles are bug-ridden affairs at launch.
Honestly, bug ridden is kind of the base line quality I expect from open world games and especially Bethesda ones. That really wouldn't upset me.
What I am bracing myself for is the game being filled with microtransactions and other fun and inventive ways to squeeze money out of people while delivering the most bare bones of products to maximize PROFIT.
Admittedly I am simply trying to prepare myself for the worst so as not be be super disappointed.
That's kind of like the Pascal's argument for video game hype which, unlike being applied to, well, belief in an Abrahamic god, probably holds up well. Hyped for Game, Game is Good -> Maximum Happiness; Indifferent to Game, Game is Good -> Some Happiness; Indifferent for Game, Game is Bad -> Self-satisfied Indifference; Hyped for Game, Game is Bad -> Suicidal despair.
I'll add the caveat, because of the sheer gamble of major AAA releases, it's probably unlike if not outright difficult for such a game to be "bad" (though many would argue Cyberpunk 2077 disproves this, I don't think that's the case so much as it's just divisive). Being critically anti-consumer is a separate but probably real concern, and again, I'd offer "We say our game has multiplayer, but it actually doesn't, we just hoped no one would notice while selling a million units because we're fucking morons," as an potential example of anti-consumer behavior separate of a game's overall gameplay-loop design.
"Keep expectations reasonably low and you'll be pleased," isn't the worst idea. It's how I view major offerings from Nintendo (which, unlike Sony or Microsoft, I don't research extensively since I won't buy them, I'll play them courtesy of friends).
If Sony has nabbed timed exclusivity for Deathloop, Ghostwire and and was aiming for Starfield, the next big Bethesda RPG, then it's really not a stretch for Microsoft to have been worried about them nabbing it for other games like Elder Scrolls 6 as well.
I absolutely think it would be, for the same reason grabbing exclusivity for the next Modern Warfare's release would be very different than if Activision was offering a new, untested IP. And there isn't even an allegation of it, unlike Starfield.
But agree to disagree. No harm in speculation generally.
Personally, I don't really care if exclusives are consumer negative or not. I don't buy a console unless it has them. I bought an Xbox for JSRF (and some other Sega stuff), I bought a 360 for Gears, Mass Effect, and Splinter Cell Conviction. I bought an Xbox One for Sunset Overdrive, Quantum Break, and Scalebound (R.I.P.). If the Series gets some good exclusives, I'll get that too.
My favorite thing about watching Xbox buy up these companies over the last few years has been watching the gamers over on reddit constantly moving the goalposts for why Sony exclusive bad, Xbox exclusive good.
Hasn't the common wisdom been the mirror opposite (and still is very widely)?
No, they don't say the games are bad, but the fact that they have exclusives at all is bad.
A few years ago, all exclusives were anti-consumer, full stop. Then when the acquisitions started, suddenly first party exclusives were cool. It was Sony buying exclusives (Final Fantasy, etc.) that was terrible. Then you get to watch all the mental gymnastics explaining why MS buying exclusives by purchasing the whole company was different and not anti-consumer at all.
Historically, it's "Sony exclusives show the company's focus on supporting grand, sweeping storytelling" and "Xbox exclusives just show how desperate MS is to keep people on their console".
Historically, it's "Sony exclusives show the company's focus on supporting grand, sweeping storytelling" and "Xbox exclusives just show how desperate MS is to keep people on their console".
The internet was a mistake.
"Fostering growth and creativity!"
"How is paying S-E a wad of cash for six or twelve months of exclusivity fostering creativity for a game that was already produced?"
"FOSTERING. CREATIVITY."
"I mean, they need to pay the salaries, but it's already been..."
Playing some Extra Innings and ugh, people are wildly boring with their teams. Literally every team has had
Tom Glavine
Alfonso Soriano
Mike Trout
Ernie Banks
Chipper Jones
Here I am with my 85 OVR grinding out either 1-0 wins or 0-7 losses
I tried the new event, and got dick stomped, no hit one game, one hit the next. I wouldn't mind if people wouldn't do douchey shit like pause and dick around. Like dude you're killing me and I'm trying to get better, maybe just like skip swapping your pitcher for a newer one?
Also the Fred McGriff challenges were pretty hard. Two multi game challenges was hard, but hilariously what I struggled the most was the hit one homer mode, and what was frustrating was in the challenge prior I needed two hits and hit two homers, and the challenge preceeding it I needed one extra base hit and one hit and hit homers there. Needing one homer though? Yeah the braves pitching staff contrary to real life was not having it.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Playing some Extra Innings and ugh, people are wildly boring with their teams. Literally every team has had
Tom Glavine
Alfonso Soriano
Mike Trout
Ernie Banks
Chipper Jones
Here I am with my 85 OVR grinding out either 1-0 wins or 0-7 losses
I tried the new event, and got dick stomped, no hit one game, one hit the next. I wouldn't mind if people wouldn't do douchey shit like pause and dick around. Like dude you're killing me and I'm trying to get better, maybe just like skip swapping your pitcher for a newer one?
Also the Fred McGriff challenges were pretty hard. Two multi game challenges was hard, but hilariously what I struggled the most was the hit one homer mode, and what was frustrating was in the challenge prior I needed two hits and hit two homers, and the challenge preceeding it I needed one extra base hit and one hit and hit homers there. Needing one homer though? Yeah the braves pitching staff contrary to real life was not having it.
The good news is I am getting a lot of practice figuring out Glavin's release and when to swing.
This dude here has the usual suspects, plus Ricky Henderson. His tag is TB12 is Bae, his city is Tompa Bay, the team name is the Gronkaneers, and his scoreboard shortcut is 2EZ. Just a pleasant fellow, I tell ya what
Playing some Extra Innings and ugh, people are wildly boring with their teams. Literally every team has had
Tom Glavine
Alfonso Soriano
Mike Trout
Ernie Banks
Chipper Jones
Here I am with my 85 OVR grinding out either 1-0 wins or 0-7 losses
I tried the new event, and got dick stomped, no hit one game, one hit the next. I wouldn't mind if people wouldn't do douchey shit like pause and dick around. Like dude you're killing me and I'm trying to get better, maybe just like skip swapping your pitcher for a newer one?
Also the Fred McGriff challenges were pretty hard. Two multi game challenges was hard, but hilariously what I struggled the most was the hit one homer mode, and what was frustrating was in the challenge prior I needed two hits and hit two homers, and the challenge preceeding it I needed one extra base hit and one hit and hit homers there. Needing one homer though? Yeah the braves pitching staff contrary to real life was not having it.
The good news is I am getting a lot of practice figuring out Glavin's release and when to swing.
This dude here has the usual suspects, plus Ricky Henderson. His tag is TB12 is Bae, his city is Tompa Bay, the team name is the Gronkaneers, and his scoreboard shortcut is 2EZ. Just a pleasant fellow, I tell ya what
Heh I went with the Sea Dogs, because I needed something that worked with Seattle, and I hate using a name the annoucers don't call out and they didn't have the Kraken or Steelheads (a shame).
My actual diamond dynasty team is pretty decent, but when I did ranked before it was similar to when I have to use silvers only, just a parade of dudes better than me.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Historically, it's "Sony exclusives show the company's focus on supporting grand, sweeping storytelling" and "Xbox exclusives just show how desperate MS is to keep people on their console".
The internet was a mistake.
"Fostering growth and creativity!"
"How is paying S-E a wad of cash for six or twelve months of exclusivity fostering creativity for a game that was already produced?"
"FOSTERING. CREATIVITY."
"I mean, they need to pay the salaries, but it's already been..."
"FOSTER-ING-CREA-TIVITY."
I don't actually mind marketing exclusivities or timed exclusivities with third party companies but it's not a hard or fast rule. A lot of these games genuinely butt heads against executives who wouldn't greenlight these kinds of productions unless there was some sort of cash safety net to lower the cost of actually making them. These are just decisions that some book-keeper in a corporation looks at and goes "yes please" if it makes the bottom line a little easier to stomach.
Xbox getting a 12 month exclusivity deal on Rise of the Tomb Raider was dumb, but Insomniac saying that they tried to get Sunset Overdrive done with Sony but not being able to lock it down (or own the IP) makes the Xbox deal make more sense.
Also, Bethesda and all the buyouts are functionally first party developers at this point. I'd like to think it would make more sense for them to continue to produce multi-platforms and it wouldn't impact my choice as to which console to pick, but I think that's a decision XGS are probably making based on the tension between the financial sense of a title/goodwill and the need to strengthen the competitiveness of the brand. It's not so clear cut.
I tried the new event, and got dick stomped, no hit one game, one hit the next. I wouldn't mind if people wouldn't do douchey shit like pause and dick around.
Sounds like the early days of Madden 2003 online. Where people figured out that you could just not kick off after a score because there was no play clock and make people quit and take the loss.
I tried the new event, and got dick stomped, no hit one game, one hit the next. I wouldn't mind if people wouldn't do douchey shit like pause and dick around.
Sounds like the early days of Madden 2003 online. Where people figured out that you could just not kick off after a score because there was no play clock and make people quit and take the loss.
Thankfully pausing has a time limit before you literally forfeit, but you can make it miserable for someone clearly just trying to play and get better and some people apparently feel thats necessary.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
As someone who games on a monitor, I'll take frames over 4k anyday
There's an unusual amount of inaccuracies in there for a DF review. Everything from mentioning SSR for reflections (it doesn't use that, it's doing a full re-render which us why it's used sparingly, per Mac Walters), to repeatedly mis-naming the opening planet (amazing after the reviewer has gone through the opening hours so many times in quick succession), to the install size of the originals (which combined, with all the DLC for an apples-to-apples comparison, is much bigger than the stated 23GB - ME3 360 alone is bigger than that, weighing in at 27.9GB installed on my Xbox One (the base game on its own is 15.4GB). The full 360 trilogy, with DLC, takes up 54.2GB - you can knock off 255MB to account for Pinnacle Station).
Still, I'll be curious to see when they do their PS4/Xbone breakdown. One X, on paper and with this game, is supposed to perform pretty much the same as Series S, and from comparing the above video to running it on my own One X, it certainly seems like it.
Also, is this the first game to hit actual 4K on Series S? It might well be.
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
Huh, never even knew a remaster/revision of the original Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance was in the pipeline till I found it browsing the store today. Definitely one of the better action-RPGs from the OG Xbox/PS2 era. Wonder if we'll see Dark Alliance 2, Demon Stone, or Champions of Norrath in the future
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
Upcoming Gamepass additions. Looking forward to some stompybots with MechWarrior 5 next week
MechWarrior 5 was a game I was hyped to hell for--more than a decade ago, before it was replaced with MechWarrior Online chasing those free-to-play dollars. I tried getting into it on PC but the lack of achievements and general disinterest got the better of me.
Posts
I agree it sucks not being able to play games from series you really dig. Just like I can't play Street Fighter 5 or Final Fantasy 7 Remake.
Could we get a citation for that?
I'm not going to claim it's impossible, but "Bethesda had been looking for a seller for a long time, among a very limited audience," is a large gap from "Sony was in the process of buying a year-long exclusivity for The Elder Scrolls, something they literally never accomplished in the past."
They are not mutually exclusive. And "Everything never happens until it happens," and all, but I'm genuinely curious what's being alleged here.
Starfield I don't know about. There's a metaphorical and maybe literal chasm between "exclusivity in a decades-old franchise [some entries Microsoft actually had exclusivity in]" and "exclusivity in a new franchise which is still mostly an unknown." That strikes me as far more believable.
I can get the sentiment, however; All the talk from Bethesda and Microsoft from the moment this acquisition was announced was that things wouldn't be exclusive to Xbox.
Xbox CFO Tim Stuart even said what he wants is for Bethesda games to either be first on Xbox or be the best on Xbox.
That said, I mean, everyone should take anything any corporation says with a healthy dose of cynicism. But they did still say it.
And this news is still currently rumor. Rumor from a guy who is no Jason Schreier but also not some random Joe on Reddit.
Since Starfield is a new IP I can easily picture Xbox wanting it to be a Xbox IP.
On a related note; I personally have no faith in Bethesda to make Starfield any good. I am fully bracing myself for the game to be just full to the brim with anti-consumer bullshit. I of course would love and hope to be wrong.
That it contributed to the purchase is speculation, and obviously it wouldn't have been the only reason they grabbed Bethesda, but it's not hard to imagine Xbox was dead set against having Starfield et. al. come out a year late on their platforms after losing Deathloop and Ghostwire: Tokyo.
When I did a search for the same "Sony acquiring exclusivity for Elder Scrolls 6," this was the same website I read as well (just to make sure I wasn't missing something obvious).
Starfield =/= Elder Scrolls 6. Starfield might not come out. You can be damn sure we will get another Elder Scrolls title, whatever it's called, at some point.
I could absolutely see Sony having tried to get Starfield exclusivity, whether or not that's a good idea (you could say the same thing about Hellblade II, especially considering what Sony probably paid for exclusivity for the original Hellblade given the actual performance). Elder Scrolls 6? That's slightly less believable than Microsoft buying exclusivity for the next IW Call of Duty entry, which is to say, "Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. And by it, I mean call transcripts and attorney filings."
(Apologies if this comes off as hostile, I'm just extremely skeptical about this sort of thing in general.)
EDIT: On a semi-related note, it is fun to speculate what that will mean for "exclusivity" for Deathloop, etc.--not any time soon, eventually. After all, Hellblade was a Playstation exclusive too.
Could go either way, as I've noted. No Man's Sky wasn't just a bad game when it launched--it was outright deceptively marketed (in a "Multiplayer absent from a multiplayer-advised game" kind of way) and caused lawsuits. Seems slightly relevant for a new space-science-fiction IP.
On top of that, this is, well, Bethesda. Even their excellent titles are bug-ridden affairs at launch.
I didn't mean to suggest there was anything concrete set in stone for EGS6 specifically; just that the potential of Sony continuing to lay claim major Zenimax games as timed exclusives, like they allegedly were for Starfield, is speculated to have contributed to MS's purchase of Bethesda.
My favorite thing about watching Xbox buy up these companies over the last few years has been watching the gamers over on reddit constantly moving the goalposts for why Sony exclusive bad, Xbox exclusive good.
I absolutely think it would be, for the same reason grabbing exclusivity for the next Modern Warfare's release would be very different than if Activision was offering a new, untested IP. And there isn't even an allegation of it, unlike Starfield.
But agree to disagree. No harm in speculation generally.
Hasn't the common wisdom been the mirror opposite (and still is very widely)?
Honestly, bug ridden is kind of the base line quality I expect from open world games and especially Bethesda ones. That really wouldn't upset me.
What I am bracing myself for is the game being filled with microtransactions and other fun and inventive ways to squeeze money out of people while delivering the most bare bones of products to maximize PROFIT.
Admittedly I am simply trying to prepare myself for the worst so as not be be super disappointed.
That's kind of like the Pascal's argument for video game hype which, unlike being applied to, well, belief in an Abrahamic god, probably holds up well. Hyped for Game, Game is Good -> Maximum Happiness; Indifferent to Game, Game is Good -> Some Happiness; Indifferent for Game, Game is Bad -> Self-satisfied Indifference; Hyped for Game, Game is Bad -> Suicidal despair.
I'll add the caveat, because of the sheer gamble of major AAA releases, it's probably unlike if not outright difficult for such a game to be "bad" (though many would argue Cyberpunk 2077 disproves this, I don't think that's the case so much as it's just divisive). Being critically anti-consumer is a separate but probably real concern, and again, I'd offer "We say our game has multiplayer, but it actually doesn't, we just hoped no one would notice while selling a million units because we're fucking morons," as an potential example of anti-consumer behavior separate of a game's overall gameplay-loop design.
"Keep expectations reasonably low and you'll be pleased," isn't the worst idea. It's how I view major offerings from Nintendo (which, unlike Sony or Microsoft, I don't research extensively since I won't buy them, I'll play them courtesy of friends).
No, they don't say the games are bad, but the fact that they have exclusives at all is bad.
A few years ago, all exclusives were anti-consumer, full stop. Then when the acquisitions started, suddenly first party exclusives were cool. It was Sony buying exclusives (Final Fantasy, etc.) that was terrible. Then you get to watch all the mental gymnastics explaining why MS buying exclusives by purchasing the whole company was different and not anti-consumer at all.
The internet was a mistake.
Same. But then we still talk about what people on reddit are saying so we never really escape it
Yeah the next time "oh man I found this really interesting informative thing from reddit" will be the first.
Like the internet in general is dumb as fuck, but reddit seems like a collective worse.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Tom Glavine
Alfonso Soriano
Mike Trout
Ernie Banks
Chipper Jones
Here I am with my 85 OVR grinding out either 1-0 wins or 0-7 losses
"Fostering growth and creativity!"
"How is paying S-E a wad of cash for six or twelve months of exclusivity fostering creativity for a game that was already produced?"
"FOSTERING. CREATIVITY."
"I mean, they need to pay the salaries, but it's already been..."
"FOSTER-ING-CREA-TIVITY."
I tried the new event, and got dick stomped, no hit one game, one hit the next. I wouldn't mind if people wouldn't do douchey shit like pause and dick around. Like dude you're killing me and I'm trying to get better, maybe just like skip swapping your pitcher for a newer one?
Also the Fred McGriff challenges were pretty hard. Two multi game challenges was hard, but hilariously what I struggled the most was the hit one homer mode, and what was frustrating was in the challenge prior I needed two hits and hit two homers, and the challenge preceeding it I needed one extra base hit and one hit and hit homers there. Needing one homer though? Yeah the braves pitching staff contrary to real life was not having it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The good news is I am getting a lot of practice figuring out Glavin's release and when to swing.
This dude here has the usual suspects, plus Ricky Henderson. His tag is TB12 is Bae, his city is Tompa Bay, the team name is the Gronkaneers, and his scoreboard shortcut is 2EZ. Just a pleasant fellow, I tell ya what
Heh I went with the Sea Dogs, because I needed something that worked with Seattle, and I hate using a name the annoucers don't call out and they didn't have the Kraken or Steelheads (a shame).
My actual diamond dynasty team is pretty decent, but when I did ranked before it was similar to when I have to use silvers only, just a parade of dudes better than me.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don't actually mind marketing exclusivities or timed exclusivities with third party companies but it's not a hard or fast rule. A lot of these games genuinely butt heads against executives who wouldn't greenlight these kinds of productions unless there was some sort of cash safety net to lower the cost of actually making them. These are just decisions that some book-keeper in a corporation looks at and goes "yes please" if it makes the bottom line a little easier to stomach.
Xbox getting a 12 month exclusivity deal on Rise of the Tomb Raider was dumb, but Insomniac saying that they tried to get Sunset Overdrive done with Sony but not being able to lock it down (or own the IP) makes the Xbox deal make more sense.
Also, Bethesda and all the buyouts are functionally first party developers at this point. I'd like to think it would make more sense for them to continue to produce multi-platforms and it wouldn't impact my choice as to which console to pick, but I think that's a decision XGS are probably making based on the tension between the financial sense of a title/goodwill and the need to strengthen the competitiveness of the brand. It's not so clear cut.
Sounds like the early days of Madden 2003 online. Where people figured out that you could just not kick off after a score because there was no play clock and make people quit and take the loss.
Thankfully pausing has a time limit before you literally forfeit, but you can make it miserable for someone clearly just trying to play and get better and some people apparently feel thats necessary.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Pretty interesting that the SX version is the only one that can hit 120fps
As someone who games on a monitor, I'll take frames over 4k anyday
As time goes on I can't imagine how bad Sony would be dogged at the moment if they didn't have PS4 back compat
There's an unusual amount of inaccuracies in there for a DF review. Everything from mentioning SSR for reflections (it doesn't use that, it's doing a full re-render which us why it's used sparingly, per Mac Walters), to repeatedly mis-naming the opening planet (amazing after the reviewer has gone through the opening hours so many times in quick succession), to the install size of the originals (which combined, with all the DLC for an apples-to-apples comparison, is much bigger than the stated 23GB - ME3 360 alone is bigger than that, weighing in at 27.9GB installed on my Xbox One (the base game on its own is 15.4GB). The full 360 trilogy, with DLC, takes up 54.2GB - you can knock off 255MB to account for Pinnacle Station).
Still, I'll be curious to see when they do their PS4/Xbone breakdown. One X, on paper and with this game, is supposed to perform pretty much the same as Series S, and from comparing the above video to running it on my own One X, it certainly seems like it.
Also, is this the first game to hit actual 4K on Series S? It might well be.
Steam | XBL
llooll
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Upcoming Gamepass additions. Looking forward to some stompybots with MechWarrior 5 next week
Martinez in right has been less successful, so far, but I still have hope.
MechWarrior 5 was a game I was hyped to hell for--more than a decade ago, before it was replaced with MechWarrior Online chasing those free-to-play dollars. I tried getting into it on PC but the lack of achievements and general disinterest got the better of me.
Still hope it's a good console port.
Just FYI for anyone looking