I love the Flight Sim games, always have.
But it's not for this crowd, then again, most genres aren't. The Xbox made it's name with simplistic pew pews and that's it's strength.
Gaming PS5 vs Xbox Series S|X
- Thread starter afrocentricity
- Start date
But it's not for this crowd, then again, most genres aren't. The Xbox made it's name with simplistic pew pews and that's it's strength.
Yeah I like it a lot. There's less overworld than most Zelda games but the dungeons are really fun. Controls take a while to get used to.
Jokes on you, it only cost me £40Imagine paying £450 to play a switch game
I think it suffers from the same thing as BoTW, the fans don't think it's "Zelda" enough.
Though on this one, they might be a little correct since like Mario 2, it was already a game before they slapped the license on it. Still, even though it was a departure from the norm, it's still head and shoulders above most over games of it's type.
Ah, Zelda. The great uniter of PS vs Xbox wars. I actually picked up a used WiiU a while ago with plans to play Skyward Sword, and now it's on Switch before I actually played it, making the whole endeavour useless. I'm obviously going for that version now.
Should pick up Wind Waker instead.
At this point I feel it's better to just wait for the inevitable Switch version as well. That's one of the few Zelda's I did actually play back then, when I borrowed a mate's Gamecube.
In fairness there's some merit to those claims. It doesn't have a particularly good story and there's very little to see or find off the beaten track. It feels almost embarassed by how derivative the premise is and so puts everything into the basket of gameplay (which as I mentioned is very good). I can see why they eventually went as far to change the formula completely with BotW.
Thread title should be changed to gamepass vs ps5.
Well like I say, it was already a game before they took it and turned it into Zelda. It's supposed to be a prequel of sorts too, which never really comes across.
Still great though.
And PlayStation isn't? There are far more independent developers who are crying out about how PlayStation's policies are bad for independent developers and Xbox is a leading light into game development that there there is the other way around.
You called me a fanboy when in reality I'm not. I paly Xbox games on a PC and I do so because it's a good service. Devs will put there game into Gamepass because they believe it's a good service. If they don't they wont.
As is the same for developers if the service turns out to not be in my favour then I wont buy into it. neither will developers.
Xbox is not the only platform on the market and Gamepass is not the only entry point into Xbox any independent dev can opt in or out as they please. If a Dev aligns themselves with a third party publisher though then they are at the mercy of that third parties discursion as to if the game has made enough to give them bonuses.
When PlayStation put their first party games on the service day one I will agree with you.
They're a parody at this point. Spinning in circles, wanking each other off in to further delusions.
As I said I'm not a fanboy for Xbox. I play on PC for feck sake but compared to the toxicity that is PlayStation Xbox and Gamepass is a million years a head. Yes I have got a gamepass account because who with half a brain wouldn't but as the article above states PlayStation are far worse for Devs than Xbox could possibly be. Mainly because PlayStation holds a far stronger grip on the gaming market.
I’m not racist but….
They're an odd bunch. No self awareness, no grasp on reality. Just repeating things with no meaning behind them. And I think they believe most of what they say. It's genuinely a funny farm here at this point.
I know this is a little against the thread title rule and hardly a revelation, but I'm just looking through Xbox One best sellers and there's so little to be excited about there. Playstation exclusives make it just far far more interesting.
This is why the Liverpool comparisons are so apt. You were once better but now not so much. Living off past glory. Maybe you'll follow Liverpool and be quite good again a few gens down the line.
Maybe you'll even have the humility to speak the truth one day like I was quite happy to do.
That the general takeaway from that tweet seems to be an indictment on Gamepass, and that the Gamepass deal may not have been so good for Outriders simply because the publisher hasn't yet paid the devs, which is a leap on such little information.
- We have no idea of the inner workings of the relationship between Square and People Can Fly - at what point in time or sales/revenue/profits they should receive payment
- We don't know about the commercial agreement between MS and Square. Were they paid a lump sum, was it part of a wider agreement with other games (which might mean Square could bucket the revenue from MS as not explicitly related to Outriders), is it based on performance metrics over time (players downloaded, time played etc.etc.)
- For all we know, the situation could well be the same (or worse) if the game hadn't been on the Gamepass service. Since we all know Xbox players don't buy games, it almost certainly wouldn't have been better .
- These days, especially for a live service game, to judge performance after 4-5 months alone is naive. Gamepass could have a huge benefit on the long tail playerbase for the game which could end up being worth a lot of revenue once Square and PCF actually monetize through DLC / Expansions / microtransactions. Plus, for all we know, it may not have been expected to be profitable at this point - all that PCF have said is that they'd have projected profitability based on the number of players but they don't have visibility on the detail (which, sounds like poor transparency on Square's part as publisher to PCF - but that's a separate issue not relating to gamepass, as it also applies to sales data on PS etc.)
What we do know, is that Square called out the success of the Gamepass model specifically on Outriders in shareholder calls, and that very early in the game's life, commission future expansions/a sequel (I think? I remember at least they publicly stated it is well on track to be their next major franchise). Maybe the above is wrong, and the situation is dire and Gamepass has been a total failure and they'd have been better off without it - but either way we don't know from the info we have, and I would suggest that overall, the commentary has been net positive by a long way.
On the point about many facing the same issues, I will have to trust your vast ITK status and those connections - plus, I'm not sure if you're talking GP specifically or generally on that. There's little out there from devs that isn't positive on Gamepass and working with MS on this in particular, and whilst we could all understand why that doesn't necessarily mean that the situation is great for everybody (you don't want MS lawyers on your back - worst case, and best case, you don't want to get unfavourable treatment and support from one of the big platforms), we have seen negative discourse around Sony lately on that front and Xbox/MS in the past. Clearly, it won't be right for every dev / studio on every game, and it will take experimentation from both sides, but that's true of everything. We're seeing lots of publishers/developers putting repeat business through Gamepass. You'll see one game launch on GP, and a few months later, another few added and more and more of the portfolio available. Clearly they are doing something right in those instances.
Absolutely agree that there needs to be consideration for what an on-demand, all access model looks like and whilst I accept that Gamepass (& similar) accelerates that, it's clearly already happening regardless. The biggest games in the world right now are free-to-play and cross-platform (inc mobile), and playerbases that are paying and non-paying are able to thrive on primarily cosmetic & experience driven battle passes. That model has matured, and thankfully we are seeing less of the mad microtransaction, pay-to-win hell than we use to (but yes, they still exist). Then you have games like Halo, TLOU2, Cyber Punk which still have that initial cost and are launching without key aspects at launch and are being added later. Halo multiplayer is free (regardless of GP) and then on the other end you have paid titles like FIFA that somehow manage to be the more exploitative than F2P games on the MXT front.
Publishers are already exploring a lot of these models, and with increased budgets and the time it takes to make games, it's worth considering that an ecosystem like gamepass is probably more suited to where things are headed. Waiting for a pay-off over 7 years of development or having to make big constraints (like no Campaign for this year's BF) is hardly the most sustainable thing longer term.
The one thing that has been promising from devs, pubs and MS commentary is that there seems to be a lot of flex around the commercial models used. If every deal was based on time played, then you'd see devs padding games out and looking to tie people in knots rather than create tight, quality experiences. If the deal was based on player churn, or player count, we may see that reflected in game design too. However, it seems MS are willing to let the devs/pubs drive the model used, and are even happy to help fund games pre-launch with lump sums, which then allow those devs to go and release on other consoles/devices. Hopefully all this means that the commercial model chosen is the one that is right for that specific game and player. I think where we are more likely to see an impact is on that delivery method as you say - moving to more episodic, or live service with expansions as you say - as with anything, that can be executed extremely well or absolutely terribly. There's nothing fundamentally wrong in those models and they all have shown they can work, but yes, the wrong dev (or more likely, publisher) and it can have a real negative impact and be a poor experience.
I totally understand people being skeptical, cynical, realists on this subject, but what I do find odd is that there seems to be this notion that somebody has to lose in these scenarios.
- MS will jack up the prices and the consumer will have no choice but to pay - probably true that price will rise, but in line with increased value I'm sure
- Games will be full of microtransactions and/or be a shell of what they should be with content releasing bit-part - at times, sure, but that isn't to say it wouldn't have happened anyway, and will also result in instances where the opposite is true - GP was the shot in the arm needed to avoid that.
- Games will be focused on multiplayer as that what keeps players sub'd and coming back rather than quality, story driven narratives - maybe, I can see it. But you can also make a case for saying that you don't need to cater to what sells on a model like gamepass, and something like Prey, Dishonoured or Wolfenstein can thrive in an environment where it isn't chasing sales of mainstream. The best thing for MS would be to offer a wide variety of games and quality experiences that cater to a large audience
If the likes of Gamepass get more games in more players hands, which I fundamentally believe will be true of this model longer term, I think it'll be (net) positive for everybody. Revenue will scale with larger audiences at a higher rate than costs will increase so there'll be much better return on investment for publishers and devs. There will be more flexibility in delivery models, and hopefully less need to chase to pure sales and up-sells which will hopefully result in overall better experiences for consumer (won't always be the case, but overall, I think so) and most importantly, huge value to the customer whose overall investment in gaming won't need to change much, but they'll benefit from that economy of scale and access a huge game library.
Remember seeing Sopranos full box set for £80 at HMV on a shelf and that was your only way to access it if you hadn't taped the whole thing (or pirated it..). Now, for the same price you can access Netflix for a year and the amount of money being pumped into television products and original content has grown exponentially. It'll be a similar thing with gaming.
As said before, I'm using gamepass as catch all here, but we all know Sony and Nintendo will move into this space, and when they do and have experimented themselves for a while, it'll be great (a bit of subscription fatigue and some annoying admin aside)
This is just my rambling, not very concise, 4.30am take - not necessarily all in response to you, but yeah.
Last edited:
Shadow of Tomb Raider's PS5 and Xbox Series patch tested
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...tomb-raiders-ps5-and-xbox-series-patch-tested
What's on there?
Yeah but sales don't matter since the Xbox One bombed and they launched Game Pass. Some of their best rated, most varied games aren't in the top 10 of the Xbox One best sellers list because they're on Game Pass. Like Forza Horizon 4, Forza Motorsport 6, Forza Motorsport 5 and Halo: The Master Chief Collection
checkerboarding? Sure might as well stick with a PS4 Pro.
Checkerboarding and dynamic res is the way forward. What is the point of sacrificing performance to push out a few extra pixels that the vast majority don't notice or care about?
By mid gen XBox will be doing the same (to keep up with PS exclusives graphical quality)...
I know you're joking but it's true the Xbox One was a terrible console for exclusives.
Last edited:
Posting this here since it's also on PS4 but probably won't get enough attention for it's own thread.
If there was a game to take me back to PS2/OG Xbox era with inspired levels and variety, it's this one. I'm hoping it does well on Gamepass, as we've spoke a lot about how the sub could result in multiplayer focused experiences. Instead I hope it helps produce more varied games like this, which usually struggle to really sell to the masses but could work great as a quality subscription padder - I don't mean any disrespect with that, just that it isn't the game most people would sub for, but the sort they might stay for.
Great to see what Double Fine can do with time and more budget thanks to the acquisition.
To be fair, it is on PS4.. (future Double Fine / Psychonaut games wouldn't, mind)B-b-b-but Xbox has no exclusives
Well shit. I've deleted my post now and beseech you do the same. I don't need this sort of embarrassment so early in the week.
@Damien can bring back deleted posts. What is dead May never die.
Embarrassing stuff from @Vidyoyo
You're technically still right, as there's no native PS5 version, so cheer up. They're simply honouring a promise made to crowdfunders, which was only about last-gen platforms. But obviously it does have native Series S|X versions since they're now owned by MS.
No he's not.
Gg @VidyoyoI can but won't as the deleted reason made me laugh
I can but won't as the deleted reason made me laugh
Classic from you guys not commenting on the game itself but wanting to spend time focusing on pointing out Vidyoyo's mistake. Now you'll pretend you were just too busy to take a look, when you weren't so busy to gloat.
This is why you don't care about gamepass, cause you aren't interested in games that actually have gameplay (rather than interactive cinema)
This is why you don't care about gamepass, cause you aren't interested in games that actually have gameplay (rather than interactive cinema)
Looks like it could be GOTY material
It's all very sad isn't it. I'll be praying for their souls tonight.
I've not played the original so can't really comment on the sequel as don't want to spoil myself in the event I do play the original at some point. Looks like it is rating well which is nice. Always good to see Microsoft starting to expand the variation in the genre of games they put out.