This will be even easier with the ps5 now being backwards compatible, all the people that are attached to certain games from the current generation can have the best of both worlds, keeo their old games and olay the new only available on ps5.
This will be even easier with the ps5 now being backwards compatible, all the people that are attached to certain games from the current generation can have the best of both worlds, keeo their old games and olay the new only available on ps5.
I wouldn't infer anything from this user base, to be honest.I personally like Microsoft's approach obviously but it looks like gamers prefer Sony's approach so overall it seems like a weird strategy from MS.
MS now is less about selling you a console and more about selling you a service.
MS's strategy isn't to be the #1 console. Their strategy under Spencer is for Xbox to be a huge platform; to include the One S, X, SeriesX, and PC. All unified under Game Pass.
it's working for them.
So if Godfall is only a (timed) console exclusive and will release also on PC then it's not a reason for you to buy a PS5?I mean Microsoft tries to go for software sales by giving us the way to play it on any kind of device in the future where as Sony just has their exclusives on their console and nowhere else which is why I will buy a PS5 and not a Xbox because I already have a PC for that. Which strategy gives whom more money I can't say in that case, but I wouldn't buy a PS5 if I could play the titles on any other devices so there is that. It's more hardware vs. software approach here, but Sony will still manage to sell a ton more of exclusives if Microsoft doesn't put out interesting games.
So if Godfall is only a (timed) console exclusive and will release also on PC then it's not a reason for you to buy a PS5?
Why doesn't it make sense though? If games look just as good but I still get to play the same game with my friends who waited on the 200$ Xbox One S, wouldn't that make MS' decision better? If exclusivity doesn't make games look better, than its really only exclusive to force people to upgrade.
It sells games
Can't seriously expect what to be true? That games developed for a lower spec will be less demanding than a game developed for a higher spec?
Third party wise, a new 'Assassin's Creed', 'Call of Duty' and 'FIFA' seems like a sure-fire guess though!
they won't be developed like that though, why do people think that? They'll be made for the best hardware and scaled back on the base Xbox.
Imagine getting sequels to all these games announced at the PS5 reveal.
Could you make the same point with 10 titles for the PS3 or PS4?
The main difference is that The Witcher 3 scaled after years of additional development. The question is whether MS is able to publish on multiple platforms at the same time while taking 100% advantage of XSX and PC. That requires a huge effort and probably multiple studios (or teams). In any case, MS's strategy makes sense since they only care about subscriptions and ease of access.Witcher 3 proved almost everybody wrong, them saying this is for first party titles only makes me confident it will pan out fine and all owners of MS hardware will be looked after
Witcher 3 proved almost everybody wrong, them saying this is for first party titles only makes me confident it will pan out fine and all owners of MS hardware will be looked after
Personally, I believe this is the right strategy. It's worked quite well for Sony over the years. The way that they justify it, is by ending the current generation with a bang.
They're ending it with:
TLOU2
FF7:Remake
Ghost of Tsushima
REmake 3 (multiplat)
Cyberpunk 2077 (multiplat)
Probably lots of games I've forgotten about as well. It could turn out to be one of the best years yet for the PS4, when it comes to critically acclaimed games.
Adhering to their current base, whilst enticing that same base with what's to come, is IMO, the right way to go. I don't just want prettier visuals, I want something completely impossible on a PS4.
To comment briefly on MS's strategy, there are really only two scenarios they could go with and it's either,
a) The X1's used as the base, and they build upon that with prettier visuals (better lighting, higher resolutions, better textures, higher framerates etc), with the same gameplay and game design intact.
Or
b) They build two seperate games. A seperate version for each, that utilizes the strength of the SX. For example, now I don't know how big Halo Infinite is going to be, but the SX version could feature much faster vehicles or completely new ones that utilize the SSD's streaming capabilites.
I don't think scenario b) is very likely. They'd have to split their resources, and I would imagine it'd cost a hell of a lot more. But who knows, they might just do it, we don't know yet.
Scenario a) makes more sense, and I believe they'll go with that. That way, they'll also be ending the X1 generation with a bang (with latest Halo). Exciting times!
To me, if its b, why say anything at all? There would be no need to. It would be 2 different games. If its B, this was weird for Booty to say, especially knowing there would be the comparison to how Sony's doing it.Personally, I believe this is the right strategy. It's worked quite well for Sony over the years. The way that they justify it, is by ending the current generation with a bang.
They're ending it with:
TLOU2
FF7:Remake
Ghost of Tsushima
REmake 3 (multiplat)
Cyberpunk 2077 (multiplat)
Probably lots of games I've forgotten about as well. It could turn out to be one of the best years yet for the PS4, when it comes to critically acclaimed games.
Adhering to their current base, whilst enticing that same base with what's to come, is IMO, the right way to go. I don't just want prettier visuals, I want something completely impossible on a PS4.
To comment briefly on MS's strategy, there are really only two scenarios they could go with and it's either,
a) The X1's used as the base, and they build upon that with prettier visuals (better lighting, higher resolutions, better textures, higher framerates etc), with the same gameplay and game design intact.
Or
b) They build two seperate games. A seperate version for each, that utilizes the strength of the SX. For example, now I don't know how big Halo Infinite is going to be, but the SX version could feature much faster vehicles or completely new ones that utilize the SSD's streaming capabilites.
I don't think scenario b) is very likely. They'd have to split their resources, and I would imagine it'd cost a hell of a lot more. But who knows, they might just do it, we don't know yet.
Scenario a) makes more sense, and I believe they'll go with that. That way, they'll also be ending the X1 generation with a bang (with the latest Halo). Exciting times!
Exactly, right?So why is Microsoft even making a new console then? Just keep making games for X1 for eternity.
They said for a year or so after launch
To give you one example as to why this won't work like that: there are fundamental differences between a system with a jaguar and a mechanical hard drive vs a system with a zen2 system and an SSD that goes beyond raw TFLOPS. Not everything developed with the latter in mind can be scaled down. if you want to build something with both of these targets in mind, you have to build 2 distinct solutions in much the same way that, for example, Shadow of Mordor handled it. Maybe they'll do that.they won't be developed like that though, why do people think that? They'll be made for the best hardware and scaled back on the base Xbox.
I like the Microsoft approach much more. It will result in flawless 60fps games with pristine image quality at 4k.
It's not like the Sony approach doesn't have advantages, but I'd rather have games with lower quality graphical assets, CPU simulations and whatever but at a high, smooooooth framerate.
As a core gamer, MS said all the right things with the One X.... as a core gamer, their approach to not allowing "next gen exclusive games"... Im staying the hell away from their ecosystem. I owed 5 Xbox 360s in that generation, near every room in my house had one, to this gen when I stayed away because of their bad launch, the One X had me enticed... but this approach to not maximize the use of their next gen console?It'll be good to see non-constrained next gen games on ps5. MS seems on the bad PR train they were on last gen.
If we learned anything from Stadia then its that it will take quite some time before Xcloud and GamePass on other platforms can offset declining Xbox hardware sales.
Leaked the first ps5 dev kits iirc.
You see... firstly they said Two Years.
You see... firstly they said Two Years.
Secondly. I don't trust them. Because
1)They push Xcloud. This is based on 2013 Xbox One HW.
2)They say Xcloud will "eventually" become Lockhart based. So... do you think they spent 4 years making it Xbox One based, only to rip it all out and make it Lockhart based? (lol)
3) MS's apprach is purely for Gamepass reasons, to keep churning out games made once, then thrown on there and it will be supported by the garbage 1TF GPU/Jaguar CPUs.
4)They will always play a fake anti-consumer card, even two years from now, they will say its anti consumer to leave anyone behind, lets keep doing it.
5)Over and above everything, Lockhart is still garbage out the gate (according to Jason Schreier's sources, who cant even get beyond PS4 Pro power out of it)
Lockhart will hold back next gen too.
All in all, I am smart enough to not trust MS on this. Just like how Day 1 when news broke of always online, I didn't entertain that dumb idea either.