What's the budget on these titles? I have very expensive taste.
If your typical AAA game is a Tastykake Butterscotch Krimpet, then these games are Hostess Zingers.
What's the budget on these titles? I have very expensive taste.
I don't know anything about the narrative to which you refer, if you're suggesting I said that because of some Xbox preference, you are wrong.And now they don't have the same rule. And you have no proof of that acusation. I'm tired of this stupid narrative people are trying to push that if this generation went a different way, Sony would do these things. You have no proof, and honestly, it doesn't matter unless we are strictly talking theoreticals.
Axiom Verge looks NES as fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U04mprotZU
also nailed that Metroid vibe.
Apotheon's art style is also really cool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOvwpj0pw9A
And here you're merely asserting it again, despite acknowledging evidence to the contrary in a previous post.MS implemented a simple rule because they don't want their audience treated like second class citizens, and despite not having an XBO, and right now can't see that changing, I think that's a positive thing, exactly as it was last generation when they both did it.
There are downsides for the developers, certainly, but if they're choosing to be on a console, they also choose to conform to the rules of that platform.
perhaps if they had tools and information available for devs in a timely manner, their consumers would get the games sooner? Instead they seem to need a parity clause to slow up playstation delivery so MS can catch up.I don't know anything about the narrative to which you refer, if you're suggesting I said that because of some Xbox preference, you are wrong.
MS implemented a simple rule because they don't want their audience treated like second class citizens, and despite not having an XBO, and right now can't see that changing, I think that's a positive thing, exactly as it was last generation when they both did it.
There are downsides for the developers, certainly, but if they're choosing to be on a console, they also choose to conform to the rules of that platform.
It only 'slows' PS4 releases if they would rather do that than not release on XBO, I don't see what's wrong with that. It's a pretty simply stance, they own the platform, they set the rules.perhaps if they had tools and information available for devs in a timely manner, their consumers would get the games sooner? Instead they seem to need a parity clause to slow up playstation delivery so MS can catch up.
I don't know anything about the narrative to which you refer, if you're suggesting I said that because of some Xbox preference, you are wrong.
MS implemented a simple rule because they don't want their audience treated like second class citizens, and despite not having an XBO, and right now can't see that changing, I think that's a positive thing, exactly as it was last generation when they both did it.
There are downsides for the developers, certainly, but if they're choosing to be on a console, they also choose to conform to the rules of that platform.
It's an interesting thing because presumably MS doesn't actually require a developer to confirm when they signed their deals with Sony, and if you already have, the id rules don't quite apply, and they're debatable anyway.The problem with this argument is that now Xbox owners will be treated like second-class citizens since they will probably see none of these games on the Xbone thanks to the parity clause. Unless, of course, Microsoft allows for twelve exceptions, in which case why have the parity clause in the first place?
However, you're quite right of course, it will only hurt their audience, I think it's a bad idea, I just don't think it's 'unethical' as many seem to.
I guess for a developer who wants to be on PS4/XBO and Steam, but can only possibly handle one submission at a given time, it means they'd have to be on XBO before PS4, but I think as we're seeing, people are either adopting to multiSKU submissions, or they don't care about being on XBO. I think if the idea is to create default exclusives, not just parity releases, it would only lose them games and create additional disdain for the platform.They know for a fact some devs are too small to support 2-3 platforms at once. They're looking for free timed exclusives if anything.
Damn, I have to get half these games for their soundtrack alone.
I have said nothing about MS or the Xbox. I didn't even infer it. I'm tired of the following formula.I don't know anything about the narrative to which you refer, if you're suggesting I said that because of some Xbox preference, you are wrong.
MS implemented a simple rule because they don't want their audience treated like second class citizens, and despite not having an XBO, and right now can't see that changing, I think that's a positive thing, exactly as it was last generation when they both did it.
There are downsides for the developers, certainly, but if they're choosing to be on a console, they also choose to conform to the rules of that platform.
That or some other variation is a pointless hypothetical situation that has no place in threads about discussing reality as it currently is and could be. Not would be.Imaginary McGee said:Yeah, Sony is doing everything right, now. But they used to do things wrong and if they weren't doing everything right they'd be doing it just like they used to.
Alright. You're clear with me. MS needs to fail (maybe this 6 months they already have) so that can start overcorrecting some of their more harmful polices that affect the games industry as a whole. The Parity Clause at least, negatively impact not only developers, and their competition, but themselves too.It's an interesting thing because presumably MS doesn't actually require a developer to confirm when they signed their deals with Sony, and if you already have, the id rules don't quite apply, and they're debatable anyway.
However, you're quite right of course, it will only hurt their audience, I think it's a bad idea, I just don't think it's 'unethical' as many seem to.
I've not had a chance to watch through every game trailer yet, but Drifter looks really good for and I will more than likely be getting that.
Who do we thank? Shahid? Probably Shahid.![]()
Nick Suttner actually![]()
Someone shop a hate behind that money please. Just cause why not.
Also today at the event...
![]()
Holy shit that's a hell of a list !! There's gonna be a freaking blowout of tradeshow sizes if that's everything that embargoed !! Where's Volume and Cosmic Star Heroine though ? Good thing I already have some money set aside for most of these games.![]()
The hands-on line up at the event. Impressions tomorrow morning.
Hands-On with PS4's next big indie games: N++, Binding of Isaac Rebirth, Metrico and The Witness
http://www.computerandvideogames.co...ing-of-isaac-rebirth-metrico-and-the-witness/
Where's Volume and Cosmic Star Heroine though?
It only 'slows' PS4 releases if they would rather do that than not release on XBO, I don't see what's wrong with that. It's a pretty simply stance, they own the platform, they set the rules.
Still working on it. Not at a "Let other people play it" stage yet, though we hope to have some gameplay footage in time for E3.
Sony going to get you guys on stage? Would seriously be awesome to see you there.
Nothing like that is currently planned, though I do live near E3.
It seems like it's really a simple iOS style maze puzzle game but you have to traverse a lush world to get to the next puzzle instead of some simple grid. Strange.So hyped for The Witness.
SO hyped.