Nobody wants that. But who wouldn't want new AAA exclusives of the caliber Sony's been getting?I'm just dumbfounded by the fact that people want Xbox to be PlayStation, what in the hell is the point in that?
Oh, no. I never insinuated that making the next Fortnite would be easy. I'm saying that's the direction the industry is headed. But making automobiles are relatively difficult compared to raising a horse.
Difficulty doesn't have much relevance here. Fortune favors the bold.
Phil thinks SP games are riskier and less consistent success wiseAnd horses are beautiful animals that can pull a shit ton of weight and run 45 mph.
But the automobile is being iterated upon and it's leaving horses behind.
Note: Sony's single player games do have one advantage. They're incredibly safe to make. There's not much risk as their market is constantly thirsting for new games. Multiplayer sandbox games can and do fail at much higher rates. But great risk bring great reward.
This. Example: Hellblade 2Nobody wants that. But who wouldn't want new AAA exclusives of the caliber Sony's been getting?
Fanboys always feel the need to downplay Sony's output by saying they're all just limited, cinematic games. But lets be honest here, if MS announced a couple of those limited cinematic games of the same kind of quality we're seeing from Sony, Xbox fans would be dancing in the streets. Seriously now, who would prefer half finished GAAS games - that'll get half way decent years after release - over AAA blockbusters?
To be frank nobody really cares what you think about xbox games. you don't have any impartiality. Halo a flop? based on what, a pre- alpha demo? I don't play games on PC. I have a killer PC but I prefer playing on a screen bigger than 30 inches.Let's not count PC games as xbox games now.
Who the fuck buys games on xbox live if it's not for a handful of games? Ever heard of Steam, Epic Games, EA, Uplay, etc? By the way, I don't play games on it, but probably the next Forza Horizon if it pulls my attention enough. Was anticipating Halo but it's a flop, just like Star Citizen. I deleted all the xbox apps on my Windows 10, too much spam.
He's not wrong. Those games rarely become system sellers. I still want some though, as i haven't been playing multiplayer much.Phil thinks SP games are riskier and less consistent success wise
Nobody wants that. But who wouldn't want new AAA exclusives of the caliber Sony's been getting?
Fanboys always feel the need to downplay Sony's output by saying they're all just limited, cinematic games. But lets be honest here, if MS announced a couple of those limited cinematic games of the same kind of quality we're seeing from Sony, Xbox fans would be dancing in the streets. Seriously now, who would prefer half finished GAAS games - that'll get half way decent years after release - over AAA blockbusters?
He's not wrong. Those games rarely become system sellers. I still want some though, as i haven't been playing multiplayer much.
One of the biggest single player games of all time, GTA, has become one of the biggest multiplayer games of all times.
Why the 12 tf then?
O theyr is ALOT wrong with GaaS, give it time you will see it and than you will hate it...Yeah... Xbox focus will probably be more and more on gaas... And he is right, there's nothing wrong with that. Companies can and should do different things, if someone wants casual family oriented games they have Nintendo to go for, if they want story driven games, Sony has a lot in store.
Microsoft is pushing gaas, trying to find their thing, I think people should praise them for their initiative and be hyped about the fact that we have 3 rich companies betting more and more on video games!
Also, each one having a different direction, doesn't mean that they can't eventually have similar types of games being developed.
To be frank nobody really cares what you think about xbox games. you don't have any impartiality. Halo a flop? based on what, a pre- alpha demo? I don't play games on PC. I have a killer PC but I prefer playing on a screen bigger than 30 inches.
I was replying to Men in Boxes comment that SP games aren't risky. We know they areHe's not wrong. Those games rarely become system sellers. I still want some though, as i haven't been playing multiplayer much.
One of the biggest single player games of all time, GTA, has become one of the biggest multiplayer games of all times.
You're really making me scratch my head with your poor analogies. Let me try to parse it, though... you think free to play, microtransaction heavy games are the vehicle of the future and 60 dollar games are of the past, not unlike how cars trumped horses... the problem with this is cars trumping horses was universal, whereas there are tons of free to play, microtransaction heavy games that don't compete at all with AA or AAA games that sell for 60 dollars. The car replaced the horse, it wasn't simply a better-selling alternative.
But so are multiplayer games that don't have enough of an audience. What's happened to Realm Royale? Law breakers? Titanfall?I was replying to Men in Boxes comment that SP games aren't risky. We know they are
You are right and I owe you an apology.I'm not saying they will be small (which so much people seems to have trouble understanding whan it's plainly written ... weird).Just that you can't use games that we basically know and have seen nothing about to prove the ambition.
Is it so hard to understand for some of you that a CGI, no gameplay and barely any information can't constitute a proof ?
So I'm trolling now for saying we don't know enough about these games to be considered big/ small or anything.
Are you that obtuse or really not wanting to understand basic logic?
Maybe take a step back and ask yourself what is the difference between a disagrement of opinion and trolling.
I would've been trolling if I had said something like they will only release indies-like games akin to minesweeper ...See the diference?
I just said that their vision of more frequent publications can only lead to either smaller dev time or smaller budget which is logical whith their gamepass strategy.
And honestly considering where they are heading in the gaming business it's probably the most coherent and smart decision they've made in recent years.
But as a vision we still need to wait and see if it pays off.
And the ambition of a game is not defined by the times played I spent probably 200 hours on Binding of Isaac yet it is still a very small indie game.
And I finished Gow 3 in something like 10 hours yet it is a very AAA game.
Maybe you misunderstood simply becuse you have a distorted perception of what I meant by "smaller games" I did not refer to time spent but more about ambition something that if MS want to release games every 3/4 months will need to be reduced.
Was that so hard to understand ?
No, you misunderstand.
First, there were many early automobiles that were inferior to horses. It was not universal like you suggest. Many automobiles struggled with price, reliability, safety, speed etc. Some were much better than others.
Two, it's not a payment model that I'm arguing for. It's the social, sandbox game design direction that's gamings future.
Third, horses haven't gone away. They still serve a purpose and still make money. It's just that the automobile has taken over transportation in large part.
Phil thinks SP games are riskier and less consistent success wise
I love gaas. I am a gacha and moba player, I have 1000 hours in Smite, 700 hours on MHW and 600 hours on Warframe... Also, only God knows how many hours in Epic Seven and FGO.O theyr is ALOT wrong with GaaS, give it time you will see it and than you will hate it...
The problem with XBox turning into an ecosystem is that the console is still the main point of entry and revenue source.
If people don't buy your system because the games look bad, then they will buy games elsewhere and your "ecosystem" is screwed.
They make 30% off of every game sold on the system. Ultimately, if your console doesn't pull me into your "ecosystem" then nothing else will.what? console main point of revenue source? You do know that the Sony and MS mostly sell the consoles at a loss at the beginning of each gen, right? It's the software, subscription, services and licenses that they make money from, not selling the console itself.
So a straightforward interview isn't correct, and that Spencer is speaking so much crap that you have to force yourself to look between the lines, and try to see the hidden meaning to what he's trying to say, because there's 'Nuance' in what he's saying... But at the same time you're telling us that we're not to believe what he's actually saying...You believe everything Spencer says?
If multiplayer gaming is less risky, and more profitable, why are there so many more single player projects being made?
You have to decipher nuance in the conversation.
You believe everything Spencer says?
If multiplayer gaming is less risky, and more profitable, why are there so many more single player projects being made?
You have to decipher nuance in the conversation.
Well first thank you I may have been a bit too harsh on you but it is the second time I had to explain the difference between small/smaller it got a bit tiring but it is not your fault.You are right and I owe you an apology.
I'll go through a couple of your points.
It has been discussed to death that their new studios were either finishing up existing projects or just starting new ones. It was obvious that they wont have anything until at least 22 excpet for Halo and possibly Forza next year. It also makes it clear why they said that everything will be cross gen for two yrs... Because they don't have anything. We are on an enthusiast forum. "Concern" about CGI trailers knowing what we know is trolling in my book.
As I said, with a decent amount of studios, that are well coordinated, they can release big games per year. Again, we are on an enthusiast forum, this is not hard to work out. Of course some smaller games are to expected, they have said so themselves. They also said that buying studios that were capable of working on smaller and larger projects at the same time was one of their main criteria. If you don't count Mojang or Worlds edge, they have 12 studios plus XGS publishing. Some smaller games will have to be made in order to have a new game every 3/4months, but that doesn't mean that every game has to be reduced to fit. It is all about coordinating the studios and teams within.
So a straightforward interview isn't correct, and that Spencer is speaking so much crap that you have to force yourself to look between the lines, and try to see the hidden meaning to what he's trying to say, because there's 'Nuance' in what he's saying... But at the same time you're telling us that we're not to believe what he's actually saying...
Have you found the 2nd GPU in the power brick of the Xb1 yet?
I think it's how dumb people think clever people really act like.You continue to make little to no sense
In your own words, single-player games are less risky, more profitable, and will always be in demand
But you compare them to horses vs cars
If your fucking president can't give a straightforward answer to the paying public without the public having to do mental gymnastics, like you have to... He's a shitty president!You have to understand that humans communicate in complex ways. The text from an interview can miss out on a lot of nuance and context. This should be pretty common knowledge.
We know that if multiplayer games were less risky, and had a higher potential for profit, the entire industry would be pumping them out. But we don't see that do we? We're inundated with single player games.
The market doesn't lie.
You continue to make little to no sense
In your own words, single-player games are less risky, more profitable, and will always be in demand
But you compare them to horses vs cars
You believe everything Spencer says?
If multiplayer gaming is less risky, and more profitable, why are there so many more single player projects being made?
You have to decipher nuance in the conversation.
Single player (cinematic) games are less risky, but have a much smaller profit ceiling.
Multiplayer sandbox has growth and revenue potential that dwarfs those kind of games. But they are riskier.
I think my horse to car analogy pretty much nails it.
For xbox? Coming from Phil? Almost none. It's a clear focus on GaaS titles. Games to be fixed with time depending on community adoption.
Phil lies a lot, but in this case he's being sincere lol
Have you only just been introduced to the concept of multiplayer games? You understand they've been around for decades?
If your analogy was correct, we would see a decline in Sony's style of games. We have not. Just like GaaS have seen growth, so have Sony's games
This is the whole entire cruxt of this current war.The sad trend on Xbox looks like every franchise is moving towards soulless games as service titles to bolster game pass subscriptions. He had no counter argument. I finally got him when I asked if he was ACTUALLY excited for anything Xbox has announced and he said no. He hasn't felt actual hype since the early 360 days. I told him I continue to feel hype for gaming (so excited for PS5) and it doesn't need to be a distant memory. I doubt he will get a console anywhere near launch, but he was at least open to PS5 over Series X because there is 0 incentive to upgrade the Xbox.
The market isn't static. It's also not binary.
Markets shift all the time. Just because Goldeneye sold 15 million copies on the N64 doesn't mean Fortnite/PUBG/Minecraft etc have to adhere to that profit ratio.
The growth of GAAS is near limitless. The growth of cinematic single player games has basically reached it's ceiling. Fortnite wasn't an anomaly. It's a sign of things to come.
This is the whole entire cruxt of this current war.
Are Xbox gamers REALLY excited for Gamepass or are they just blindly loyal for loyalties sake?
You need to explain your argument more clearly. Are you trying to say that the future of the industry is everyone will just make multiplayer games? The market will be saturated by Fortnite successes?
If your argument is just that GaaS has greater profit potential, then you're just stating the obvious.
To be frank nobody really cares what you think about xbox games. you don't have any impartiality. Halo a flop? based on what, a pre- alpha demo? I don't play games on PC. I have a killer PC but I prefer playing on a screen bigger than 30 inches.
No he's right.You seem to care a lot about what I think according to the many quotes of my replies, I wasn't talking to you in that reply for a starter. PC is great for productivity, and I use it on a 4K TV from a couch, doesn't necessarily need to be on a desk or through a monitor.
Halo sounds, looks, plays like shit. I would rather play Destiny or even Anthem with much higher quality gameplay and graphics.
People just get excited for free stuff just because it's free. But doesn't mean that because it's free, it'll be popular... Fortnite is free and it's the most played game in the world, currently. It's the mainstream attraction that it has that makes it so popular.Honestly I think it comes down to what you want/look for in gaming. Some people will play anything just because it's cheap or free. Look at how many people go gaga over the free games on the EGS, many of which are not even worth the time to install and boot up.
I can imagine a service like this is a wet dream for achievement hunters or for kids who don't have much money to spend on games. If I had gamepass as a kid I would have loved it.
I take the view that I can only play 1 game at a time and I have over 1000 games that I own across various PC storefronts (probably close to 1500 if I also include games I own on consoles). I also value ownership and want to play/return to things in my own time. I prefer to only play things that I am 100% hooked on at the time, not just for the sake of playing it or because it's in a subscription library.
I've seen some people say they wont buy a single game next gen and will 100% rely on gamepass. That's just lunacy to me because come the end of the end of life for that console they will own a piece of hardware that they don't own a single game for.
I guess that's is how film/TV enthusiasts must view people like me who wont watch something if it's not on Netflix or Prime.
Honestly I think it comes down to what you want/look for in gaming. Some people will play anything just because it's cheap or free. Look at how many people go gaga over the free games on the EGS, many of which are not even worth the time to install and boot up.
I can imagine a service like this is a wet dream for achievement hunters or for kids who don't have much money to spend on games. If I had gamepass as a kid I would have loved it.
I take the view that I can only play 1 game at a time and I have over 1000 games that I own across various PC storefronts (probably close to 1500 if I also include games I own on consoles). I also value ownership and want to play/return to things in my own time. I prefer to only play things that I am 100% hooked on at the time, not just for the sake of playing it or because it's in a subscription library.
I've seen some people say they wont buy a single game next gen and will 100% rely on gamepass. That's just lunacy to me because come the end of the end of life for that console they will own a piece of hardware that they don't own a single game for.
I guess that's is how film/TV enthusiasts must view people like me who wont watch something if it's not on Netflix or Prime.
Yeah both are risky I just don't agree with him saying SP games are safeBut so are multiplayer games that don't have enough of an audience. What's happened to Realm Royale? Law breakers? Titanfall?
There's no guarantee that multiplayer games will be successful as well.
One has to be riskier than the other. They can't both share exactly the same amount of risk. The market tells you which one is riskier.Yeah both are risky I just don't agree with him saying SP games are safe
I guess my argument stems from Jez Cordens quote.
If Sony keeps focusing on cinematic single player games at the expense of GAAS, they'll be left behind.
I think Microsoft's focus is the correct one. Player choice, social gaming, shared world's etc...
Now I also don't necessarily think Sony will fail to react to market trends. Their leadership shakeup from a couple of years back suggests to me that Sony knows they can't do what they've always done. Hopefully we see some evidence of that at their next big PS5 showcase. SOCOM, Factions II, Forbidden West multiplayer will alay some concern I have.
You shouldn’t take these things at face value. It can mean anything. For example it can mean that once the project is green lit that MS will back the project until it’s ready to come out. It can mean that when it comes to AA games that they will let more off beat ideals come through. Etc
They're not making single-player games at the expense of GaaS. They invest in both, which again, is what they're doing. If you think the correct move is to invest in GaaS at the expense of their single-player games, then I don't know what to tell you. The reason GaaS has so much growth potential is because from a players PoV, they're investments, but that also makes them double-edged swords. We saw this with Ubisoft when they released too many games that required too much investment. The fact that single-player games are short one and done experiences is an advantage, not a disadvantage.
It's not "an advantage".
It has advantage (as well as disadvantage).
There's a difference.