-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Xbox Game Studios |OT6| I'M BACK (TO RISE)
- Thread starter Figments
- Start date
- Status
Gears 4 was a solid game, but I think the reason for this sort of sentiment is due to the pedigree of the franchise historically speaking. Gears didn't just used to be very good, it used to be exceptional, classic tier even.
For me though, the very first game is still the best. I think it managed a better atmosphere due to some of the darker horror like elements, and mechanically it's still sound and not too far off what we have with the franchise today.
Gears 1 lays a solid base, and I like it's campaign for how focused it is. That said, it's way worse than the rest of the series mechanically. Cover is extremely sticky, there is no cover slide cancel, rolling is limited to 4 directions, there's no mantle kick, executions are limited to the curb stomp, bullets come from center screen instead of the barrel of your gun, Gnasher shots have random spread which leads to point blanks sometimes doing almost no damage, you can't grenade tag, and of course the weapon and enemy selection is much smaller. Gears is a good example of a solid foundation with a somewhat flawed execution which was improved dramatically with each iteration.
And yet none of these things impacted my enjoyment of the game. I guess it's like a Resident Evil or Uncharted type situation, where the most mechanically competent release in these franchises is not necessarily the best or most critically acclaimed. Ultimately what was there in Gears 1 was competent enough that coupled with the better overall atmosphere, direction and pacing, it overcame any subsequent flaws to still be a more enjoyable overall experience. I'm not surprised it is still to this day the highest rated Gears title.
7 Minutes of Gears 5 Sarah Connor PC Gameplay at 4K 60fps - Gamescom 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ue6N3K2iqk&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ue6N3K2iqk&feature=youtu.be
Wow. That looks super slick and refined. Getting more excited by the day.
Do you only play the campaign then?
Well yeah, limiting it to campaign means there are plenty of things besides core mechanics that can effect your enjoyment. Gears 2 for instance has much smoother cover mechanics and animations, but the aimless sprawl of the campaign puts it squarely behind every other game in the series for me.
I totally agree. Just 2 days ago I saw an article saying Xbox exclusives wouldn't be released on other console platforms anymore... Then the other day I read an article from Booty and he is saying Double Fine could develop multi-plat for some games if they wanted to. I am really confused about MS and exclusive games. Why don't they just go third party... Why buy developers if you don't care if their games come out on a competitor's platform just secure their release on your system. Then I'd only need to buy 2 consoles instead of 3...lol...
I mean just use common sense dude. Double fine is going to make smaller A-AA games. Those indie type games are fine to release everywhere. The main goal of them is to just have a pipeline for gamepass. Obsidian on the other hand is probably going to get big money pumped into it and make much bigger games. Ex outer worlds 2 is going to be much more of a system seller than Rad 2. But you need those smaller games populating gamepass. It's not going to hurt Xbox hardware tonhave Rad 2 launch on the switch. It would hurt to have Outer worlds 2 be day and date on the PS5.
Booty has already said "when it makes sense". It doesn't make sense to put a triple A heavy hitter on another console. But why not also make a little extra money from switch users who wanna play battletoads
I get that they want people on their subscription. That's fine and great, GP is wonderful. I don't care if they stay first party or go third party but Jesus Christ don't tell your customers the exact opposite things multiple times within a one month time. This kind of non-committal mess is reminiscent of 2013 marketing talk.
Well, you'll find their abilities as story tellers in older games. Since you have experience with classic RPG's, maybe you can swallow their simpler visual style. But AFTER Wasteland 3, if you want to try something older from InXile, I recommend Tides of Numenara. If you like it, try the others too. Wasteland 2 would be a shock (I'm loving it, almost finishing it, but it's WAY less impressive than Wasteland 3, totally different budgets).
Right... But like what was already mentioned in roughly 2 days they have sent out completely mixed messages. I mean... Why not make a little more money and bring battletoads to the PS4 as well... Why wouldn't bigger profits make since? Phil has stated many times he doesn't even see a console war meaning there would be no difference in bringing a game out for a Sony platform than a Nintendo platform. But, when you start toeing that line you blur the line between 1st and 3rd party... At that point if its all about profit then eliminate the risk and expense of the hardware. Ultimately anyone can look at this however they want. Growing up old school in the console war era I just don't see bringing games out directly to a competitors system. But times are changing... For Xbox anyway, they are currently the only platform owner that brings games out for competitors.
Last edited:
This might just be my interpretation of things, but I read that recent article as there was no more plans to bring existing Xbox exclusives to other platforms. Combining that with what Phil said back towards E3 about how some smaller games make sense for multiple platforms and how Xbox still needs to be a platform and have those big budget system selling exclusives, and the strategy seems reasonably clear to me.
Not caring about console wars does not equate to hand your competitor your 1st party games all the time.
It's up for pre-install right now on PC and Xbox.
It's just a small place holder, but you can trigger it so it's on your system and ready to auto-update.
There's two levels to it.
1) MS doesn't want Sony, Nintendo etc to go away. Good PR, sure, but also more money in gaming market pie is more potential earning
2) They want larger slice of pie. Part of that might be releasing older, smaller games on Switch (note the lack of PS4 releases): more money directly and possible temptation to get Xbox/PC versions of any sequel (also most games on this so far have not been direct FP games, from owned Devs).
These aren't mutually exclusive, nor is it that mad, I think. They want gaming to be as big as possible, and for the biggest slice of the pie to be theirs. They aren't releasing on PS4, IMO, due to that being a direct cannibalisation of their own market.
1) MS doesn't want Sony, Nintendo etc to go away. Good PR, sure, but also more money in gaming market pie is more potential earning
2) They want larger slice of pie. Part of that might be releasing older, smaller games on Switch (note the lack of PS4 releases): more money directly and possible temptation to get Xbox/PC versions of any sequel (also most games on this so far have not been direct FP games, from owned Devs).
These aren't mutually exclusive, nor is it that mad, I think. They want gaming to be as big as possible, and for the biggest slice of the pie to be theirs. They aren't releasing on PS4, IMO, due to that being a direct cannibalisation of their own market.
I like Gears Pop! gameplay, but I think it has too much of a pay to win progression system IMO. Kind of dampers the game for me. After Coalition made such a big deal of ridding Gears 5 of loot crates Gears Pop! is stuffed full of them ready to be purchased with real money that can give you a massive upper hand in the game.
All the mobile games are like that. You don't have to spend money and the match system is fair. I haven't spent a dime and it's a blast.
Please stop this false narrative. Xbox has never ported one of their first party exclusives to a PS. Xbox sees PS4 as a direct competitor as opposed to Switch. I wouldn't be surprised if the new Battletoads gsme gets ported to Switch.
Maybe that's your experience, but the matchmaking hasn't been overly fair in my matchups and paying yields huge dividends. For example there has been 10 or 15 matches I've been in people are building level 2 or 3 turrets and I can't even build a level 1 turret yet. I feel that is terrible matchmaking if it is supposed to be off fair level progression. So you defend P2W for F2P mobile games, what about F2P games on console that are P2W? Not trying to be toxic just asking a question.
Last edited:
Its amazing the ruckus some people will cause when even a false rumor is entertained about Xbox games coming to PS4. All the shouting and downplaying of Halo, Gears, Forza - hell - Xbox exclusives in general are suddenly sought after commodity now. Lol
Says alot doesnt it?
If you listen to what Phil Spencer says though... I don't think he views Sony as a direct competitor anymore. Look at this link from Matt Booty Interview...
He specifically says Double Fine could stay multi-plat and mentions Sony platforms as a possibility for their games. So your assertion of only Nintendo could very well be wrong.
What's with the inconsistency of what's available in the new Xbox PC app vs what's only available via the MS Store? For instance, Gears POP isn't available. You might say, they are only including "true" PC games in the Xbox app, but Forza 7 is only not available in that app (and AoE DE wasn't there until it was recently added to Game Pass).
Speaking hypothetically doesn't mean much in the face of their actions. Any new IP game that Double Fine creates as a member of XGS is highly unlikely to get ported to a PS system. However if in the future it does happen, it would mean Xbox and XGS have had a dramatic shift in their strategy.
This will happen as soon as Sony entertains 50% share of Spiderman on films. Another words not happening.
I wouldn't be so quick to cast such judgment and this goes back to the confusion in the messaging coming from the Xbox camp on this some games are exclusive and other games arent campaign. Which isn't bad ultimately Phil Spencer and Xbox are going to do what they want. If they want to focus on profit it is a good thing to do. Booty clearly states Xbox would likely back Double Fine staying multi-plat to include leaving the door open for Sony systems.
"Booty said if a recently acquired developer like Double Fine wanted to stay multiplatform, Xbox would likely allow it." That statement says quite a bit to me...
I swear I post this Spencer interview like every month now.
That's fine I'll leave the conversations where they are at. moving on...
You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Thank you... Finally. LOL
I don't believe they are going to port stuff to PS but they are really sucking wind at messaging right now.
Context is key, don't focus on one small part of what he said, but the whole.
In layman terms, if it's a multiplayer game and we think we can turn it into the next Minecraft or we have the next Rocket League on our hands, we'll absolutely port it everywhere because that's a lot of money we'd like to make, but don't expect single player experiences on anything other than PC and Xbox.
It's really not that difficult to understand.
That was less a shot at you and more just a comment on how fast this thread moves. Things are constantly getting missed that really help these conversations make more sense.
Xbox's strategy seems kind of... Multi tiered. I don't think some Xbox games on PS4 is impossible, I'd just say it's incredibly unlikely. Not because Microsoft doesn't want to give PS4 those games, because going forward Microsoft will have a lot more games on their platform, so a few of them on other platforms may actually help evangelize, but more because they want their games to use Xbox Live and Sony's probably not gonna let that happen.
Obviously though there's exceptions even to that, look at Minecraft Dungeons, and probably any other Minecraft spin offs.
I think all of us are probably at least a little wrong. This coming gen is obviously very different, it could get real weird.
Minecraft was always multiplatform, hence the spinoffs being multiplatform. Minecraft as an IP has never been exclusive to a platform nor did MS buy it with that intention.
The only XGS games I can see ported to PS is if the IP's were already multiplatform and if they sold exceptionly well on PS platforms like a Psychonauts 3 or The Outer Worlds 2, for example.
Any new IP games created by XGS, I don't ever see ported to PS and will only ever show up on that platform if Game Pass and xCloud are allowed on it.
I'm going to refrain from quoting and calling out individuals. Instead will just address this overall sentiment regarding port crying.
If Psychonauts going to PlayStation makes you not want an Xbox, don't get another Xbox. Make your point with your wallet and move on. That said, complaining about the potential of someone else getting the chance to play a game suddenly ruining your experience doesn't make sense. It's a business. Not a sport. If Microsoft porting Sunset Overdrive to PlayStation 6 months after it bombed on Xbox got us SSOD2, would you have been hurt?
There's more reasons to buy a console than list wars. Seems too many people buy these consoles and then treat it like a sports team. Compare lists of exclusives, which based on sales, most people don't buy or play. If non tentpole franchises getting ported means more of those franchises on Game Pass, a service most people have paid through 2 to 3 years, then great. If more non tentpole franchises getting ported after light sales on Xbox means Microsoft's continues to invest and back riskier creative games, great!
Your Xbox value shouldn't be based off of what Xbox does to keep games off other platforms. I get some games have to be kept off competing platforms Day 1 to compete because it's a business. That can remain true while it can also make sense from a business standpoint to port games that don't move consoles.
This site bans for port begging. We should ban for port crying too. Brings out nothing but childish, toxic bullshit.
If Psychonauts going to PlayStation makes you not want an Xbox, don't get another Xbox. Make your point with your wallet and move on. That said, complaining about the potential of someone else getting the chance to play a game suddenly ruining your experience doesn't make sense. It's a business. Not a sport. If Microsoft porting Sunset Overdrive to PlayStation 6 months after it bombed on Xbox got us SSOD2, would you have been hurt?
There's more reasons to buy a console than list wars. Seems too many people buy these consoles and then treat it like a sports team. Compare lists of exclusives, which based on sales, most people don't buy or play. If non tentpole franchises getting ported means more of those franchises on Game Pass, a service most people have paid through 2 to 3 years, then great. If more non tentpole franchises getting ported after light sales on Xbox means Microsoft's continues to invest and back riskier creative games, great!
Your Xbox value shouldn't be based off of what Xbox does to keep games off other platforms. I get some games have to be kept off competing platforms Day 1 to compete because it's a business. That can remain true while it can also make sense from a business standpoint to port games that don't move consoles.
This site bans for port begging. We should ban for port crying too. Brings out nothing but childish, toxic bullshit.
It does? I port beg all the time in some of the Nintendo threads, though I dont think I'm ever too abrasive about it
You should not bring PS into the conversation when Microsoft has no interest in putting your games there, unless it is through xCloud as Netflix.
Last edited:
I agree that port begging has gone out of hands on ERA lately. Microsoft's messaging didn't help though. Still, I want more Xbox consoles and I want people to be on the ecosystem for good reasons. And we all know that exclusives are a part of why people buy consoles or subscribe to Game Pass on console and PC. I'd hate for customers to take a wait and see approach and seeing thirds start to skip ports to Xbox etc. That's what I really don't want and I still don't see the point in acquiring studios if they are not going to bring more exclusive content from smaller to bigger titles. This diversity will be a big strength for Xbox Game Studios, but if everyone believes they'll get to play Xbox stuff down the road on PS/Switch anyways then this will not be good for Xbox, IMO. Yes, hardware is not where the profit is being made, but am I too conservative to state that I WANT Xbox consoles to be a thing for years to come? Strategy is as important as short-term revenue.
Hope this doesn't sound too defensive when I'm actually very positive about Xbox's future.
Hope this doesn't sound too defensive when I'm actually very positive about Xbox's future.
Last edited:
Agreed. It's not at all a simple issue, so people shouldn't be dismissive of genuine concerns. I'm all for getting rid of exclusivity, but only if it goes both ways. Microsoft's digital platform and services would undobtedly flourish if they were available everywhere, but I'm not sure if at the same time their hardware platform wouldn't be marginalized, and I would hate for that to happen. I'm equally interested in Microsoft as a publisher, service provider, AND platform holder, and changes in balance between all those roles affect me as an end customer.
This is where I'm at with it. I don't care about exclusivity for exclusivity sake. I like Xbox hardware, their ecosystem, and the style of games they make. It's not that I care if Halo is on PS5 or switch. I mostly care if it leads to them not being a platform holder and all the digital games I've bought go up in smoke.
- Status