Microsoft Games Are Going Third Party (Hi-Fi Rush/Pentiment/Sea of Thieves/Grounded release dates confirmed)

[KingGuy420]

19 hours ago, Mellenthin said:

The four games offered are complete trash and I wouldn't start them even if payed. How about MS start offering something of equal worth, such as WH40K: Darktide or Obsidian's upcoming Awoved.

 

So the 4 games are trash... but it would be better if they included an Obsidian RPG?

 

Grounded is a kickass Obsidian RPG. Pretty sure you just outed yourself as not knowing what you're talking about lol.

 

Oh and it's paid, not payed.

[DrBloodmoney]

6 minutes ago, KingGuy420 said:

 

So the 4 games are trash... but it would be better if they included an Obsidian RPG?

 

Grounded is a kickass Obsidian RPG. Pretty sure you just outed yourself as not knowing what you're talking about lol.

 

Oh and it's paid, not payed.

 

Also....

 

 

 

[AJ_-_808]

3 hours ago, DiegoDolmetscher said:

I see so many anti-XBOX comments - full of spite and sarcasm - and I really don't get it, lads; honestly, I don't.

 

It's not really anti-xbox.  Xbox has been failing on its own merits for years.  Nobody really cared much about what XBox was doing until the threats if "acquire big 3rd party publishers and make them exclusive" came up

 

It's about MS admitting (in court) that their plans were to outspend their competition out of the market.  When a trillion dollar company threatens your hobby, you get defensive.

 

If you look around these forums hard enough, you'll find PS users bashing Sony for plenty of the decisions they make as well.

 

 

Back on topic: I don't get the hype for hifi rush, looks meh in my opinion.  The other 3 look ok, but nothing super extraordinary.  I'm still wondering if grounded and thieves will require an Xbox account to join server or if ps will get separate server hosting.

 

[Rozalia1]

2 hours ago, Valtekken173 said:

I didn't even read the rest of the thread, dude. It's still an accusation of shilling, no matter how you put it. All this detail does is turn it from an accusation of receiving a direct message from MS to an accusation of receiving a message from MS sent by proxy. I also never attacked you directly or said or even implied you're crazy. What I said, VERY SPECIFICALLY, was "it's appealing to think that everyone with a different opinion compared to yours is part of some astroturfing crack team paid by MS to damage control". This was meant to highlight the fact that there's a weirdly paranoid (NOT crazy, "paranoid", which is a characteristic sane people can have) slant towards the current events, and as I said, I'd just like you to discuss them without that slant and with a more moderate and cold tone. It'll make for a better discussion with everyone here, that's all.

 

How is someone saying that there is a group of people who hate me, and me later referencing that comment, an accusation of shilling? You claim to want a 'moderate' tone, and yet you won't give me the courtesy of simply saying 'I was not aware, my mistake' when the context of what you saw incorrectly is shown to you. What that shows is you have an attack to make and you don't want anything in the way of it. Me having referred in the past to the obvious astroturfing Microsoft does on social media and other forums, something they have at times been straight up caught in doing, is not me claiming that whoever disagrees with me on this forum is such an agent. That is something you're saying to discredit me by painting me as crazy, or to use your preferred word, paranoid.

 

Anyway, message me directly in regards to what your issues are with my posting so we can go through it if you want to. This is not the place to do this.

 

13 hours ago, fenrir54565 said:

 

 

Didn't respond to this at the time due to the distractions, but this itself has done further damage to them online with the faithful. Even before the official reveal of the 4 games where we knew what they were going to be, some of the faithful remained strong and attacked those who were going against Spencer. It is just 4 small games. It is just to give their studios extra funding because those small games don't sell well. Whatever else they had to tell themselves. With the above comment however it is starting to dawn on even those people. As the leaks said, Xbox's major games are going to get ports too.

 

Something that also didn't help was that as Microsoft is announcing 4 games coming to other platforms, 2 notable games (there were some others), one of them being Monster Hunter which is massive, got announced without Xbox versions.

[Mellenthin]

2 hours ago, KingGuy420 said:

 

So the 4 games are trash... but it would be better if they included an Obsidian RPG?

 

Grounded is a kickass Obsidian RPG. Pretty sure you just outed yourself as not knowing what you're talking about lol.

 

Oh and it's paid, not payed.

 

I outed myself because I find Avowed interesting but not Grounded? I simply don't find it appealing, simple as that.🙂

 

And thank you for the correction by the way, it's much appreciated.🤗

 

2 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

Also....

 

 

 

 

Damn, you definitely got me there...😏

[KingGuy420]

17 minutes ago, Mellenthin said:

I outed myself because I find Avowed interesting but not Grounded? I simply don't find it appealing, simple as that.🙂

 

No, you outed yourself because you called it trash when you clearly never even played it.

 

Not finding it appealing and factually calling it trash are two entirely different things.

Edited February 22 by KingGuy420

[Mellenthin]

2 minutes ago, KingGuy420 said:

No, you outed yourself because you called it trash when you clearly never even played it.

 

Not finding it appealing and calling it trash are two entirely different things.

 

Saying that it's unappealing was me being diplomatic.😉 It's perfectly fine if you think differently, but I've been playing games all my life so my perception is usually spot on.🙂

[mcnichoj]

10 hours ago, cam_manutd said:

The transition to MS being a publisher wouldn't be surprising. It would cut their massive losses and streamline their profits. I could also envision them exiting the hardware business and provide gamepass as a streaming platform only. Time will tell.

It's too early to go the cloud platform route. It will be a gen or two after the consoles go all digital before they go all streaming. If they retire to a PC/cloud streaming service now, then the Xbox brand will end up like Stadia

 

9 hours ago, AJ_-_808 said:

It's about MS admitting (in court) that their plans were to outspend their competition out of the market.  When a trillion dollar company threatens your hobby, you get defensive.

 

Back on topic: I don't get the hype for hifi rush, looks meh in my opinion.  The other 3 look ok, but nothing super extraordinary.  I'm still wondering if grounded and thieves will require an Xbox account to join server or if ps will get separate server hosting.

 

You realize Sony is doing the same thing right? You think Sony is blocking games from going to other platforms out of the good for gamers? Lets look at a major IP that was multiplatform for a long time that Sony decided to take away from other players in Final Fantasy. What was the purpose of taking that away? That player base was already predominantly on PlayStation. If you go to Japan for whenever a Japanese multiplat comes out on the HD consoles, it's always the PS version that's selling. Go to Europe, it's the same thing. Then in the US where Xbox is actually relevant, PS will still move more copies of Japanese games.

FF15 moved over 5 million launch day with most of those being on PS4. Compare that to FF16 which was exclusive that only moved 3 million launch week. Had it been multiplat, it would have still moved roughly 3 million on PS5 but also possibly another 2 million on Xbox/PC just like with 15.

Sony helped SE drive up the development cost of the game just to have it be played by less people.

Then they dumped 300 million into Spider-Man 2 and got 10 million sales. They think they're Hollywood but they're not. These types of games aren't sustainable.

 

It's two genres being blended together and it was perfectly executed. Nothing to get really, you're either into the concept or you're not.

 

9 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

Something that also didn't help was that as Microsoft is announcing 4 games coming to other platforms, 2 notable games (there were some others), one of them being Monster Hunter which is massive, got announced without Xbox versions.

When did Monster Hunter become massive in the west again? Oh that's right, when it launched multiplat on PS4/Xbox/PC. Lets also not act like Stories is a major release, it's a spin-off port of a Nintendo handheld game. Capcom skipping a platform is nothing new either, Mega Man Battle Network skipping Xbox was announced two years ago but they still released all their major games like Street Fighter 6, RE4R, Exoprimal, Apollo's Justice and the upcoming Dragon's Dogma 2 on Xbox after that announcement.

[boaly2008]

1 hour ago, mcnichoj said:

Then they dumped 300 million into Spider-Man 2 and got 10 million sales. They think they're Hollywood but they're not. These types of games aren't sustainable.

10M copies is $700M. That's a 230% return. You cut that in half for marketing and its still very tidy.

 

There are far better examples for this argument than Spiderman.

Edited February 23 by boaly2008
forgot to mention marketing

[iriihutoR84]

Spider-Man 2 is not done selling. Far from it. Bringing up sales numbers not even half a year after launch is not a good way to prove a point. It has potential to double its sales. 

 

I'd actually welcome more older Microsoft games. I thought the Xbox One had a decent line-up of first party games. Gears 4, 5 and Hivebusters should appeal to fans of cinematic shooters like Uncharted, Halo (5, Master Chief Collection and Infinite) is always good, Ori 1+2 are some of the best Metroidvanias out there, Quantum Break is another strong cinematic shooter, Sunset Overdrive is very similar to Sony's Ratchet & Clank series in a lot of ways, Forza Horizon is the #1 arcade racing series on the market, Killer Instinct turned into a very beloved fighting game and Dead Rising 3 while not the direction many wanted the series to go in is a really fun zombie slaying romp. I also personally think Crackdown 3 and ReCore's fixed Definitive Edition are really underrated. ReCore is even a bit unique and memorable. 

 

I'd replay many of the aforementioned with fresh trophies. 

[AJ_-_808]

 

2 hours ago, mcnichoj said:

 

You realize Sony is doing the same thing right? You think Sony is blocking games from going to other platforms out of the good for gamers? Lets look at a major IP that was multiplatform for a long time that Sony decided to take away from other players in Final Fantasy.

Must have missed the part where Sony bought Square and forced FF to be exclusive.  Or the part where Square agreed to the deal.  Or the part where Sony funded and deployed developers to assist production. Or the part where Square made their own deal to release on XBox, because how can they do that if Sony took the IP away? Or the part where it was brought up in court that at least 1 publisher approached Sony for an exclusive deal, so fair chance others, potentially Square, approached Sony for a deal.  Square can make their own decisions. Give it up

 

Edit

There's a world if difference between timed exclusives (which they all do) or funding specific exclusive titles *again, which they all do) vs buying out entire 3rd party publishers (not developers, but publishers that house multiple developers) and forcing multiple titles in development to cancel or threatening/alluding to their future IPs becoming exclusive.  If you don't recognize that, that's on you.  I'm done with your ridiculousness already 

 

Edited February 23 by AJ_-_808

[mcnichoj]

2 hours ago, boaly2008 said:

10M copies is $700M. That's a 230% return. You cut that in half for marketing and its still very tidy.

 

There are far better examples for this argument than Spiderman.

Then you split it again for each year in development. About two years.

 

Of the three games I calculated out this way, Spider-Man 2 was in the middle.

Ragnarok had the best return rate with losing the least amount of the invested money per year while Uncharted 4 had the worst. It explains why they did the Blitzkrieg of UC4 ports to other platforms.

Just for shits and giggles I checked out Halo Infinite's yearly investment loss while in development, which while using mostly incomplete data was still pretty abysmal numbers. Even if you doubled it, it's still worse than Uncharted's.

 

2 hours ago, iriihutoR84 said:

Spider-Man 2 is not done selling. Far from it. Bringing up sales numbers not even half a year after launch is not a good way to prove a point. It has potential to double its sales. 

It was the median of the three games I checked and shortest development turn around. I don't think it's unfair to talk about a games sales data just because it's new especially when it got to go through the major holiday cycle and release on one of the fastest selling consoles put out. Yeah its sales will likely be quadruple eight years from now but how does that help Sony currently?

[boaly2008]

6 hours ago, mcnichoj said:

Then you split it again for each year in development. About two years.

You dont need to divide by each year because the 300M already takes up the cost of multiple years. What youre doing there would imply the dev cost was actually 600M, which it wasnt.

Edited February 23 by boaly2008

[The Alchemist]

10 hours ago, iriihutoR84 said:

...Crackdown 3...

 

Believe it or not, the original Crackdown was my first taste of the seventh gen consoles via my brother's 360. I didn't get a PS3 until 3 or 4 years later. It was one the few positive experiences I had with that console, so I would definitely be interested in checking out the entire series if it gets ported over. I agree with the rest as well. I'd like to try out the likes of Quantum Break, Sunset Overdrive etc. I'm probably more interested in older Xbox titles than I am their newer games. The only current series I'm interested in and would love to try out is Forza, but I could never justify buying another console just for one game/series. 

[iriihutoR84]

8 hours ago, mcnichoj said:

Yeah its sales will likely be quadruple eight years from now but how does that help Sony currently?

 

Spider-Man 2 will help provide a continuous stream of revenue throughout many future years which will help strengthen the profit margin during every one of them. Game development is an investment which to a degree pays back over time. It's not like the game contributed to a cost of $300M in 2024 either. It was an investment over time and will also be a return on investment over time. I'm 100% certain that the game will have a positive impact on Sony's profit margins in the end.  Not even considering how it helps the PS brand and hardware sales. 

 

1 hour ago, The Alchemist said:

 

Believe it or not, the original Crackdown was my first taste of the seventh gen consoles via my brother's 360. I didn't get a PS3 until 3 or 4 years later. It was one the few positive experiences I had with that console, so I would definitely be interested in checking out the entire series if it gets ported over. I agree with the rest as well. I'd like to try out the likes of Quantum Break, Sunset Overdrive etc. I'm probably more interested in older Xbox titles than I am their newer games. The only current series I'm interested in and would love to try out is Forza, but I could never justify buying another console just for one game/series. 

 

I would say Crackdown 3 has a pretty positive word of mouth in the Xbox community. I think the state of the Xbox brand at the time and how it failed to deliver on the promised cloud powered destruction contributed to how poorly it was received by the press. People expected more than just another Crackdown game with modern controls which is what it was. Absolutely the best game in the series in 2024 in my opinion. 

 

That said, it was a commercial and critical failure so I doubt it'll ever get ported anywhere. One alternative to buying a new, expensive Series X is to scour the market for a good ol' VCR-style original Xbox One. I can't imagine they cost more than $100-150 at this point with a controller although that situation might be different in Ireland. You can also use Game Pass as a way to keep the costs down for the games you want to play. 

[Valtekken173]

On 2/22/2024 at 4:30 PM, Rozalia1 said:

How is someone saying that there is a group of people who hate me, and me later referencing that comment, an accusation of shilling? You claim to want a 'moderate' tone, and yet you won't give me the courtesy of simply saying 'I was not aware, my mistake' when the context of what you saw incorrectly is shown to you. What that shows is you have an attack to make and you don't want anything in the way of it. Me having referred in the past to the obvious astroturfing Microsoft does on social media and other forums, something they have at times been straight up caught in doing, is not me claiming that whoever disagrees with me on this forum is such an agent. That is something you're saying to discredit me by painting me as crazy, or to use your preferred word, paranoid.

 

Anyway, message me directly in regards to what your issues are with my posting so we can go through it if you want to. This is not the place to do this.

If that's what you meant, then I misunderstood and I retract what I said...but I don't feel much better about being painted as someone who is part of a group of people who hate you. I can't reasonably be expected to hate someone I don't even know (and as I have said multiple times I take issue with the form of your analyses rather than the content, which means I don't even take issue with what you say let alone with who you are or how you are as a person).

[Rozalia1]

3 hours ago, Valtekken173 said:

If that's what you meant, then I misunderstood and I retract what I said...but I don't feel much better about being painted as someone who is part of a group of people who hate you. I can't reasonably be expected to hate someone I don't even know (and as I have said multiple times I take issue with the form of your analyses rather than the content, which means I don't even take issue with what you say let alone with who you are or how you are as a person).

 

Thank you. Apologies to have you caught up in that, it was just a comment that seemed apt at the time considering what was going on. A person mentioned this group of haters of mine to support their case against me. I told them that no one in here supports their view. Moment I do that a certain someone chimes in, calling me essentially a harasser, and then you posted saying I was alarmist. If you're in my shoes that certainly looks like the person asking others in their group to post in support of them. Glad we could sort this.

[Valtekken173]

1 hour ago, Rozalia1 said:

Thank you. Apologies to have you caught up in that, it was just a comment that seemed apt at the time considering what was going on. A person mentioned this group of haters of mine to support their case against me. I told them that no one in here supports their view. Moment I do that a certain someone chimes in, calling me essentially a harasser, and then you posted saying I was alarmist. If you're in my shoes that certainly looks like the person asking others in their group to post in support of them. Glad we could sort this.

I get it. I don't believe there are any particular grudges in this forum to be honest, there just doesn't seem to be the kind of audience that would entertain that. As I said, I hadn't read the thread, I was just hoping you'd have changed your stance on that acquisition potentially being the death of gaming considering these recent news so I posted with the reference to the previous thread.

[darkevilsasuke18]

PlayStation is also third party company  

[Rozalia1]

6 minutes ago, Valtekken173 said:

I get it. I don't believe there are any particular grudges in this forum to be honest, there just doesn't seem to be the kind of audience that would entertain that. As I said, I hadn't read the thread, I was just hoping you'd have changed your stance on that acquisition potentially being the death of gaming considering these recent news so I posted with the reference to the previous thread.

 

Oh believe me, some people take it very personal to be told that they're wrong, especially if in-depth. 

 

As I said previously, I think your view is off on how I saw that acquisition. I posted news about it and helped explain why certain narratives being put out there by Microsoft, be it directly from Microsoft/Xbox management or indirectly through their influencers or straight up known paid shills like Mueller, were wrong. My biggest worry was that a defeat would render the regulators powerless and then Microsoft would be free to continue to attempt to buy their way into a monopoly. If they would then succeed or not was to me irrelevant, because even if they fail they're still hurting gaming by taking away from it. As I said at the time, I know that Nintendo even if they're completely alone can survive. Could PlayStation? Less likely, but Jim Ryan's strengthening of the first party studios (and their third party partnerships) was encouraging as it'd make them more Nintendo.

 

As Spencer admitted in court, the Bethesda purchase resulted in no positive upswing in their business market share wise (actually got worse), so them continuing to fail even with the buy outs was predictable. What was more surprising and I perhaps should have predicted considering what happened to NXT around that time, was that Microsoft management was finally going to have reason to be aware of just what was going on at Xbox, and it was going to have actual consequences for once. To explain the NXT thing. NXT is a developmental program for WWE and is supposed to train and get people ready to be on the main roster. WWE is a character based promotion where that is more important than the actual wrestling. They are also known as 'the land of the giants' (though guys are smaller today, they're still much larger than other companies) for being a promotion that has always favoured bigger wrestlers. WWE management paid for NXT for a good number of years without any care about what was actually happening at NXT. Once they finally had a reason to care (internal politics), WWE management turned up at NXT and finally had a look at it. What they found was a show that put wrestling above characters and whose roster was a whole lot of old, small, and broken down guys. Essentially the complete antithesis of what WWE wanted out of a development program. So the order was swift to to change up the production for it completely and to scrap much of the roster and replace it with young larger talent that might actually have a shot of being a star in WWE. Today NXT is operating at a far superior rate and has already produced numerous young stand out performers who many can see as future main eventers (the top wrestlers).

 

I didn't expect for Xbox to receive such swift punishment for not being able to deliver. However, pretty much nobody did so I don't take that as a knock on myself. These games and no doubt others coming, combined with all the history of the case, leads me to the following view of what is going down. Microsoft management due to the nasty court cases they had to do actually spent more time than they have ever done looking at Xbox. The numbers are hidden (for a clear reason), but anybody who gives it any thought knows that Xbox is a terribly ran business, but one that like how they tell their fans 'next year will be our year', tells Microsoft management that 'we're so close to breaking through and dominating, but these things take time so give us more time'. Up to this point Microsoft had simply moved on and not cared, it is just Xbox, but after spending all this money and dealing with the nasty court cases they actually took interest. Starfield, the 'game of the generation', the 'most important RPG ever', was I think held up by Xbox management as what would start changing the tide and would show that making their bought up studios exclusive worked. It did no such thing, and that was their final chance and brings us to now. It appears to me like they're hoping they can maintain Xbox even with the porting of their own exclusives, and if Xbox collapses completely then they'll drop it, which then forces Game Pass to be dropped in how it currently operates too. That would then leave Xbox as simply a third party publisher which is not something I believe Microsoft would want. The margins are simply too thin and the risk too great. Selling the studios to get money back makes sense, but many of their studios aren't worth much of anything while others are far too expensive to be sold without a loss. So their position looks very difficult to me and I think a future Microsoft CEO might well look at cutting/selling Xbox as a win for themselves like how Nadella saw cutting Windows Mobile as a win at the time (which he now publicly regrets).

 

Anyway, that is my assessment of the matter as it stands today. I don't really see an issue with the tone of a post like this, but perhaps you do and if so then I wouldn't mind knowing what exactly is an issue. In my mind I'm just being truthful in how I see things. I'm not spreading misinformation or lying about anything as far as I know, and if I get something wrong I don't mind correcting myself.

[Valtekken173]

25 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said:

 

Oh believe me, some people take it very personal to be told that they're wrong, especially if in-depth. 

 

As I said previously, I think your view is off on how I saw that acquisition. I posted news about it and helped explain why certain narratives being put out there by Microsoft, be it directly from Microsoft/Xbox management or indirectly through their influencers or straight up known paid shills like Mueller, were wrong. My biggest worry was that a defeat would render the regulators powerless and then Microsoft would be free to continue to attempt to buy their way into a monopoly. If they would then succeed or not was to me irrelevant, because even if they fail they're still hurting gaming by taking away from it. As I said at the time, I know that Nintendo even if they're completely alone can survive. Could PlayStation? Less likely, but Jim Ryan's strengthening of the first party studios (and their third party partnerships) was encouraging as it'd make them more Nintendo.

 

As Spencer admitted in court, the Bethesda purchase resulted in no positive upswing in their business market share wise (actually got worse), so them continuing to fail even with the buy outs was predictable. What was more surprising and I perhaps should have predicted considering what happened to NXT around that time, was that Microsoft management was finally going to have reason to be aware of just what was going on at Xbox, and it was going to have actual consequences for once. To explain the NXT thing. NXT is a developmental program for WWE and is supposed to train and get people ready to be on the main roster. WWE is a character based promotion where that is more important than the actual wrestling. They are also known as 'the land of the giants' (though guys are smaller today, they're still much larger than other companies) for being a promotion that has always favoured bigger wrestlers. WWE management paid for NXT for a good number of years without any care about what was actually happening at NXT. Once they finally had a reason to care (internal politics), WWE management turned up at NXT and finally had a look at it. What they found was a show that put wrestling above characters and whose roster was a whole lot of old, small, and broken down guys. Essentially the complete antithesis of what WWE wanted out of a development program. So the order was swift to to change up the production for it completely and to scrap much of the roster and replace it with young larger talent that might actually have a shot of being a star in WWE. Today NXT is operating at a far superior rate and has already produced numerous young stand out performers who many can see as future main eventers (the top wrestlers).

 

I didn't expect for Xbox to receive such swift punishment for not being able to deliver. However, pretty much nobody did so I don't take that as a knock on myself. These games and no doubt others coming, combined with all the history of the case, leads me to the following view of what is going down. Microsoft management due to the nasty court cases they had to do actually spent more time than they have ever done looking at Xbox. The numbers are hidden (for a clear reason), but anybody who gives it any thought knows that Xbox is a terribly ran business, but one that like how they tell their fans 'next year will be our year', tells Microsoft management that 'we're so close to breaking through and dominating, but these things take time so give us more time'. Up to this point Microsoft had simply moved on and not cared, it is just Xbox, but after spending all this money and dealing with the nasty court cases they actually took interest. Starfield, the 'game of the generation', the 'most important RPG ever', was I think held up by Xbox management as what would start changing the tide and would show that making their bought up studios exclusive worked. It did no such thing, and that was their final chance and brings us to now. It appears to me like they're hoping they can maintain Xbox even with the porting of their own exclusives, and if Xbox collapses completely then they'll drop it, which then forces Game Pass to be dropped in how it currently operates too. That would then leave Xbox as simply a third party publisher which is not something I believe Microsoft would want. The margins are simply too thin and the risk too great. Selling the studios to get money back makes sense, but many of their studios aren't worth much of anything while others are far too expensive to be sold without a loss. So their position looks very difficult to me and I think a future Microsoft CEO might well look at cutting/selling Xbox as a win for themselves like how Nadella saw cutting Windows Mobile as a win at the time (which he now publicly regrets).

 

Anyway, that is my assessment of the matter as it stands today. I don't really see an issue with the tone of a post like this, but perhaps you do and if so then I wouldn't mind knowing what exactly is an issue. In my mind I'm just being truthful in how I see things. I'm not spreading misinformation or lying about anything as far as I know, and if I get something wrong I don't mind correcting myself.

See, I think you're vastly overestimating the impact of the acquisition on regulators. This acquisition was realistically always going to pass because regulators don't really block non-essential companies (meaning, not related to national security or people's basic needs) acquiring other non-essential companies in the interest of not scaring investors away. This doesn't mean regulators are now toothless, because for example not long after this acquisition passed a few other acquisitions (that weren't even that essential but probably served to make a point, like iRobot with Amazon) were stopped in their tracks. As for PlayStation surviving, I've never had any doubt they could mop the floor even when going against an opponent who owns 90% of the industry (ridiculous example that's never going to happen due to the nature of the industry, because indies and smaller companies have on multiple occasions and more and more frequently come out with smash hits while more and more AAA companies have released complete bombs), so I was never really worried (and as I said you shouldn't have been worried either, for the aforementioned reasons). They have the talent, the resources AND the project management skills to deliver blockbusters every time. I can't even remember last time PS had a dud except maybe Days Gone (which still sold a lot).

 

I don't think anybody expected this development on MS's part, though I have always expected Xbox to remain vastly irrelevant compared to PlayStation and Nintendo at a bare minimum. Microsoft has been losing for 2 generations and a half at this point (the latter half of the 360 gen was an unmitigated disaster for them), this tells me there is no recovering for them. They simply lack the ability, business sense and management skills to do so. Sony has had ONE shit gen and they bounced back WITHIN that gen. Nintendo had TWO shit gens and they bounced back after each one of them, with massive results each time. Microsoft wasn't even able to bounce back slightly after one...they're the opposite of a threat, even if they buy everything, namely because creatives can just leave and found new studios, and MS is left with some IPs and no talent to develop them - the very nature of the gaming industry, as I said, prevents any kind of doomsday scenario from happening (and if you think IPs dying takes away from the industry, I can't say I agree...look at the numerous IPs that went on for too long and became dumpster fires, some IPs dying would be for the best at this point).

 

I also don't believe MS will be dropping out of the sector entirely, so much so as they'll try and be another Nintendo - move to a new space nobody has colonized yet, and try to create an unbridgeable gap for the others. Might be cloud, might be something else, who knows. They don't want to drop gaming because they know it's estimated to grow even bigger over the coming years, but they know their current position is unsustainable. They'll probably invest in lower powered hardware (hence the confirmation of work on a handheld device AND the previously planned and now canceled Keystone streaming stick) to get better margins on it, with a bigger console every once in a while whenever they can get good deals on the bill of materials.

 

Now, when it comes to the tone of THIS post, it isn't AS catastrophic as the previous ones of yours, but I'd like for you to see things the way I see and believe that literally nothing MS can attempt to do can harm the gaming industry. If anything they're more likely to harm themselves in the process (but one good thing did come out of the acquisition and that's the ousting of that fuckhead Bobby Kotick, genuinely hope for a lot of awful things, that I won't list here because I'd get banned, to happen to him).

 

Be optimistic, gaming is immortal.

[mcnichoj]

9 hours ago, iriihutoR84 said:

I would say Crackdown 3 has a pretty positive word of mouth in the Xbox community. I think the state of the Xbox brand at the time and how it failed to deliver on the promised cloud powered destruction contributed to how poorly it was received by the press. People expected more than just another Crackdown game with modern controls which is what it was. Absolutely the best game in the series in 2024 in my opinion. 

 

That said, it was a commercial and critical failure so I doubt it'll ever get ported anywhere. One alternative to buying a new, expensive Series X is to scour the market for a good ol' VCR-style original Xbox One. I can't imagine they cost more than $100-150 at this point with a controller although that situation might be different in Ireland. You can also use Game Pass as a way to keep the costs down for the games you want to play. 

It did not. It had a very average reception but wasn't lampooned so hard because of GamePass so people could play it for "free". It was a flavor of the month shooter for some people but that was it. Crackdown 1 still the best in the series.

 

I highly advise against getting an Xbox One. Even at the time when it was new, the performance was REALLY bad in some games. One X would be a better pickup but then at that price you're better off just getting a Series S and GamePass. If you can play one game through to the end per month, then it's worth it. Been a bunch of crazy deals for the Series X under the $400 price range which is even better if someone wanted to go the buy a used game, beat it and then sell it route.

 

2 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

(and their third party partnerships)

How'd they do that?

[iriihutoR84]

1 hour ago, mcnichoj said:

It did not. It had a very average reception but wasn't lampooned so hard because of GamePass so people could play it for "free". It was a flavor of the month shooter for some people but that was it. Crackdown 1 still the best in the series.

 

I highly advise against getting an Xbox One. Even at the time when it was new, the performance was REALLY bad in some games. One X would be a better pickup but then at that price you're better off just getting a Series S and GamePass. If you can play one game through to the end per month, then it's worth it. Been a bunch of crazy deals for the Series X under the $400 price range which is even better if someone wanted to go the buy a used game, beat it and then sell it route.

 

How'd they do that?

I'd say the biggest Xbox community is TrueAchievements and Crackdown 3 sits at a 3.54/5 average user rating there which is comparable to the other games in the series. I really cannot imagine anyone playing Crackdown 1 in 2024 and then moving on to Crackdown 3 and preferring the former. The third is a big improvement in terms of gameplay. It's a fun game. Would I put it in my top 100 of all time? Of course not. Will you have a fun time with it? I think so.

 

Is this your profile btw?

https://www.trueachievements.com/gamer/mcnichoj/gamecollection

 

If it is, try Crackdown 3. Maybe you would change your mind about the game after actually playing it.

 

Within the context of the games they wanted to play, an Xbox One is fine. You're not gonna get a massive advantage by playing early Xbox One games on the Series X. Nothing wrong with pointing out a cheap alternative. A $300 difference in price is significant to many people.

Edited February 24 by iriihutoR84

[mcnichoj]

1 hour ago, iriihutoR84 said:

I'd say the biggest Xbox community is TrueAchievements and Crackdown 3 sits at a 3.54/5 average user rating there which is comparable to the other games in the series. I really cannot imagine anyone playing Crackdown 1 in 2024 and then moving on to Crackdown 3 and preferring the former. The third is a big improvement in terms of gameplay. It's a fun game. Would I put it in my top 100 of all time? Of course not. Will you have a fun time with it? I think so.

 

Is this your profile btw?

https://www.trueachievements.com/gamer/mcnichoj/gamecollection

 

If it is, try Crackdown 3. Maybe you would change your mind about the game after actually playing it.

 

Within the context of the games they wanted to play, an Xbox One is fine. You're not gonna get a massive advantage by playing early Xbox One games on the Series X. Nothing wrong with pointing out a cheap alternative. A $300 difference in price is significant to many people.

Can't really trust ratings from achievement/trophy sites for the quality of the game since the type of achievements/trophies the game has will effect how people rate said game. Crackdown 1 for the longest time had one of the most infamous achievements. Whenever someone refences 'annoying collectible orbs', most people in the community knew exactly what game they were talking about. The issue between Crackdown 1 and 3 is while 3 might be a more polished game, its come out long after we've already had several super powered/wacky shooter open world games. When Crackdown 1 came out it had nothing to compete with except some last gen offerings like the original Just Cause and old GTAs. Now we have several from the likes of Saints Row, Prototype, InFamous, Spider-Man, Sunset Overdrive and others.

It's funny that this is the most I've seen Crackdown 3 ever discussed since its been released.

With all that said, by me saying that the first game is better was in no way me declaring that 3 was bad. People now like to declare a game as the best game ever or the worst and personally I think the vast majority of games are just average which is completely fine. You can still have fun with an average game, just like you said.

 

That is and I have played the game. I suffer from OCD so I don't play every game on my main profiles.

 

When was the last time you used an Xbox One? Have you ever used a USED Xbox One? At a local community center I run gaming related stuff and someone donated a long time ago an Xbox One S. I did the obvious thing, I put my account on the machine and enabled game sharing. So kids after school can come to the center and play from a collection of 2,000+ games with their friends and without the need to bring their own games or controllers. Now we've had the console for seven years and the kids have put that thing through the wringer. At one point the kids somehow damaged the HDMI port and I actually had to send it off to MS for a repair. I hadn't checked the console for the past few years because no one ever reported to me any issues but having used it recently just getting around the dashboard UI was torture. Downloading or updating games was funky. Overall poor performance of the console. To some degree this has to effect game performance.

That's just a console where kids were using it for thousands of hours, a used console you get at a store it's anyone's guess what the previous owner did to it. The only real reason to get a One base/S model at this point in time is to play Kinect 2.0 games and those aren't really worth it either.

Since Quantum Break was mentioned, that's a game that deserves to be played in 4K so at the very least get a One X.

I also need a little clarification on something, how is a $100 used Xbox One to a suggested MSRP $299.99 console a $300 price difference? If you meant the Series X when it's on sale, the sale is around $350. The added $250 over a used last gen console I feel is worth it to get the security that you know your experience isn't going to be compromised by damage from any type of prior usage and will in some instances get a boost just from being on stronger hardware. Could always sell it after for minimal loss.

[Rozalia1]

14 hours ago, Valtekken173 said:

See, I think you're vastly overestimating the impact of the acquisition on regulators. This acquisition was realistically always going to pass because regulators don't really block non-essential companies (meaning, not related to national security or people's basic needs) acquiring other non-essential companies in the interest of not scaring investors away. This doesn't mean regulators are now toothless, because for example not long after this acquisition passed a few other acquisitions (that weren't even that essential but probably served to make a point, like iRobot with Amazon) were stopped in their tracks. As for PlayStation surviving, I've never had any doubt they could mop the floor even when going against an opponent who owns 90% of the industry (ridiculous example that's never going to happen due to the nature of the industry, because indies and smaller companies have on multiple occasions and more and more frequently come out with smash hits while more and more AAA companies have released complete bombs), so I was never really worried (and as I said you shouldn't have been worried either, for the aforementioned reasons). They have the talent, the resources AND the project management skills to deliver blockbusters every time. I can't even remember last time PS had a dud except maybe Days Gone (which still sold a lot).

 

I don't think anybody expected this development on MS's part, though I have always expected Xbox to remain vastly irrelevant compared to PlayStation and Nintendo at a bare minimum. Microsoft has been losing for 2 generations and a half at this point (the latter half of the 360 gen was an unmitigated disaster for them), this tells me there is no recovering for them. They simply lack the ability, business sense and management skills to do so. Sony has had ONE shit gen and they bounced back WITHIN that gen. Nintendo had TWO shit gens and they bounced back after each one of them, with massive results each time. Microsoft wasn't even able to bounce back slightly after one...they're the opposite of a threat, even if they buy everything, namely because creatives can just leave and found new studios, and MS is left with some IPs and no talent to develop them - the very nature of the gaming industry, as I said, prevents any kind of doomsday scenario from happening (and if you think IPs dying takes away from the industry, I can't say I agree...look at the numerous IPs that went on for too long and became dumpster fires, some IPs dying would be for the best at this point).

 

I also don't believe MS will be dropping out of the sector entirely, so much so as they'll try and be another Nintendo - move to a new space nobody has colonized yet, and try to create an unbridgeable gap for the others. Might be cloud, might be something else, who knows. They don't want to drop gaming because they know it's estimated to grow even bigger over the coming years, but they know their current position is unsustainable. They'll probably invest in lower powered hardware (hence the confirmation of work on a handheld device AND the previously planned and now canceled Keystone streaming stick) to get better margins on it, with a bigger console every once in a while whenever they can get good deals on the bill of materials.

 

Now, when it comes to the tone of THIS post, it isn't AS catastrophic as the previous ones of yours, but I'd like for you to see things the way I see and believe that literally nothing MS can attempt to do can harm the gaming industry. If anything they're more likely to harm themselves in the process (but one good thing did come out of the acquisition and that's the ousting of that fuckhead Bobby Kotick, genuinely hope for a lot of awful things, that I won't list here because I'd get banned, to happen to him).

 

Be optimistic, gaming is immortal.

 

The fact of the matter is that the CMA has been weakened because of the Microsoft case. That is undeniable. The FTC has long been weak, but the Microsoft case saw them throwing at the FTC their bought off stooges in politics/media and of course rallied people online against them too. As for other companies... those companies aren't Microsoft. As I noted in the thread at the time, the amount of influence/corruption that Microsoft wields compared to even the rest of big tech is massive.

 

Microsoft's inability in that respect has been known for decades yes. They see developers as cogs and don't care about retaining talent, so you get the large amount of contractors which ultimately leads to delays and subpar quality. Xbox management is heavily incompetent so if they can figure out that problem is in doubt, but whatever the case running things at Microsoft like that is their culture, and they haven't allowed that to be different at Xbox. You're on the money with the bouncing back. The excuse of Mattrick has been constantly been thrown around by not only their fans, but straight up Spencer himself. It has been over 10 years, Xbox has spent more money than ever, and business has only further gone into the toilet. This idea that today is different and market share can't shift to any reasonable degree is nonsense. Sega and Sony both back in the day dealt massive blows to what were at the time essentially Nintendo monopolies, yet today you apparently can't shift market share single digit percentages away from those above you? Ridiculous.

You're correct that it can be a mercy to have an IP ended before it can continue as a zombie, but at the same time what about all the new IP that gets killed too? As you said, Microsoft is not a company that values creativity.

 

I agree that such a thing is no doubt the pitch. Xbox has been blundering from one big play to another because it isn't enough to simply put out a good console with great games, it has to be some grand plot to utterly crush the competition and bring about a monopoly somehow. Often I've seen people remark that the original and 360 Xboxes were the best ones, and something those have in common is that they were not made with the idea of domination in mind. The Xbone was made with the intention of dominating the living room as the all in one box, and the Series S|X was made with the idea that they'll crush everyone with their subscription that they're obviously running at a loss.

 

Where we differ is that you seem to be willing to let stuff slide due to Xbox's massive incompetence. I'm not. To me Microsoft has been taking away from gaming with their buyouts and their subscription plot was designed to eradicate game buying which would naturally lead to games having to adapt to that future which would lead to far worse games. All they have managed to do is hurt themselves yes, but I'm not just going to forget the attempt. It also doesn't help that unlike other companies who keep a firm distance from their fans, Xbox straight up cultivates toxicity within their own, which then gets sent against people online. Something which is all part of their playbook and done on purpose. So I can see why you think that I am reacting too strongly, but I'm simply not as forgiving as you on these matters.