The Xbox Series X|S thread

[PhantomShade]

12 minutes ago, quixote_1989 said:

 

 

Perfect opportunity to post the buttsex meme here gaiz.

 

Abby is a girl

 

 

[TRMNTR]

3 hours ago, i_rock098 said:

Just want to leave this between all the MS hate. While I agree the show yesterday was underwhelming we gotta give them some credit for the practices they are pushing. Look how a Intel monopoly stagnated the CPU market. Don't want that to happen with Sony.
 

 

Sent from my ASUS_I001DE using Tapatalk
 

 

 

That was genuinely quite a good watch! Agreed.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by -13-

[quixote_1989]

53 minutes ago, PhantomShade said:

 

Abby is a girl

 

 

[Right]

3 hours ago, i_rock098 said:

Just want to leave this between all the MS hate. While I agree the show yesterday was underwhelming we gotta give them some credit for the practices they are pushing. Look how a Intel monopoly stagnated the CPU market. Don't want that to happen with Sony.
 

 

Sent from my ASUS_I001DE using Tapatalk
 

 

 

Her point is absolutely valid
BUT

MS shouldn't feel that since people are getting titles like Halo Infinite for FREE with GP, they can release substandard sh*t.

 

It has to be opposite of it, Players should value GP for the quality content in the library AND MS should enrich this library with quality games.

If one wants to be Netflix of Games, should remember that Netflix paid 100m just to keep Friends, and they also spent 200m to make Irishman. Netflix has one of the best Library out there and all Netflix Originals are high quality stuff. 

Edited July 24, 2020 by Right

[WhiteWolf]

https://www.windowscentral.com/fable-not-mmo-halo-infinite-multiplayer-not-delayed

 

Quote

For anyone who is concerned about not getting a proper role-playing game (RPG), your fears are unfounded. Multiple sources familiar with the plans for Playground's take on Fable have confirmed to us that it is an action-RPG, one that you can play in single-player. There may be online elements like co-op functionality or limited, optional shared spaces but nothing to the extent that would justify classifying the game as an MMO.

 

Quote

This wasn't the end of the worried whispers though, as a comment from Brad Sams indicated that Halo Infinite might ship without its multiplayer. 343 Industries community director Brian Jarrard quickly stepped in to explain this rumor wasn't true, replying to a (now-deleted) Tweet about the rumor.

 

So guys chill and

 

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by WhiteWolf

[TRMNTR]

 

They ripped MS in their own unique way.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2020 by -13-

[SpearHea:D]

Now this is getting hillarious.

[i_rock098]

 
That was genuinely quite a good watch! Agreed.
 
 

IKR, even she mentioned that she did not like the event or the games but credit should be given where its due.

 
Her point is absolutely valid
BUT
MS shouldn't feel that since people are getting titles like Halo Infinite for FREE with GP, they can release substandard sh*t.
 
It has to be opposite of it, Players should value GP for the quality content in the library AND MS should enrich this library with quality games.
If one wants to be Netflix of Games, should remember that Netflix paid 100m just to keep Friends, and they also spent 200m to make Irishman. Netflix has one of the best Library out there and all Netflix Originals are high quality stuff. 

Completely agreed. They should not get a free pass because of game pass when it comes to the quality of the games and they have a long way to become the Netflix of gaming but it will take time and these are baby steps towards that. Till now the games i have played on GP like Gears & Forza Horizon have been pretty good and definitely worth the subscription price. But lets see how things turn out for them.

At the end of the day if we get better games at cheap price, it's we who win.

Sent from my ASUS_I001DE using Tapatalk

[kmkaks]

Courtesy neogaf:

 

 

[Big Boss]

Every xbot: When I die, I want Phil Spencer to lower me into my grave, so he can let me down one last time.

 

And yes, @HundredProofSam is 100% correct. Thos is what I have been saying too ever since Gamepass was launched. This model isn't sustainable to launch high quality AAA games, it's good for old games or games with lower budget. You cannot keep making high quality games and give it free for a subscription with 1/10th of the price of a AAA game. It's just not sustainable unless you monetize the sh*t out of the game by story DLCs for incomplete game, mtx, GaaS etc. Hopefully sony and Nintendo stay away from this sh*t money making practice and keep their first party titles away from gamepass like service. 

[KnackChap]

Even forza and fable could be mmo/Gaas titles. 

[Mysteryman]

Yes Sam is correct,  an example to mind is Crossfire X campaign. Only its multiplayer will be available game pass day 1.

[Max Pain]

2 hours ago, AnK said:

I think what Sam says is absolutely 100 percent bang on correct 

 

no matter what ever the marketing heads keep on feeding to the xbots 

 

 

The idea of the game that was revealed in-engine two years ago & what we saw yesterday is just not the same 

 

M$ is changing gear to make games cheaper & more in line with a subscription based model 

Sea of thieves was a perfect example for that too 

 

There is no way in hell M$ will keep churning out high production value games like Gears 5 on day 1 games pass 

it’s just not viable 

 

Sony has made games on an all together different level technologically this gen 

Be it Infamous SS up until Ghost of Tsushima 

 

expecting these levels of high quality games on a subscription based service day-1 is far fetched idea 

 

Even if you look at entertainment industry today 

if public places don’t open soon 

the quality & production value of movies & music will keep on deteriorating with time

 

If you don’t have a shot at day-1 box office cinema with a 500 rs bill of Coke & popcorn 

no one will poor in exorbitant amount of production money in these movies 

 

Subscription services have yet to figure out how to make that amount of money  

 

Right now, streaming services aren't exactly concerned about monetization. All they are looking for is to generate enough PRESS.

 

Disney+ is spending $200M on a character like Hawkeye. Upto $25M for each Mandalorian episode. HBOMax upto $50M to complete Zack Snyder's 4 hour Cut of Justice League even though the Theatrical Cut that cost $300M BOMBED at the box office. Netflix continues to give blank cheques with full creative control to big directors left and right.

 

Why? Because it's all about BUZZ for streaming services right now. So if/when the theatrical business dies, the studios will simply switch to streaming services, if they aren't already into it right now. So I think movies will be fine.

 

I am not sure about the other industries though.

Edited July 25, 2020 by The Panda

[rAgHaV]

4 hours ago, HundredProofSam said:

My biggest issue with Microsoft relying entirely on the Game Pass model is that it's just not financially viable in the long run. And yes, MS has a lot of money to burn, but they didn't get in that position by burning money. Every product or service they launch has to make them money.

 

I think the impact of their reliance on Game Pass can be directly seen in Halo Infinite. This is a game that doesn't look next-gen (so they may not have spent as much on it as they may have on a $60 business model) and they are turning it into GaaS, which means that MS realises they need to make more money off this game than they will make through Game Pass. So we'll see drip-feeding of content, broken up into seasons with season passes, micro transactions and all sorts of other monetisation in the game so that the game makes money on its own.

 

Halo is one example that we've seen. This is a model they could follow for every first-party game. Game Pass is a great service (even more so for the third-party stuff) but I think the fact that its so cheap means that Microsoft is going to change the way it develops its first party games, for the worse.

 

If the banned member was around. He would have told you how you work for Sony and like to pay more for games. 

 

If tlou2 was on psnow. It would have not been tlou2. We have been saying this since a month but apparently it's because we work for Sony and like to pay 4k Day1 for games (concept of physical discs doesn't exist here. Some really think that every Indian gamer pays 4k and downloads 100gb game day 1  Also, let's ignore the highly active ivg tp too cuz $1)

 

What I think a $1 Platform would be: Shitty game at launch being a called a platform so that room for updates is there and they're judged on day 1 when in reality the updates would be micro transaction offers. 

 

Really hope that I am wrong. MS should put up a fight

Edited July 25, 2020 by rAgHaV

[rAgHaV]

Dp

Edited July 25, 2020 by rAgHaV

[TRMNTR]

Sorry to sound ignorant as I'm not up to date with the PC games industry. Can anyone explain how PC games companies are surviving with dirt cheap game prices, Steam/Epic store sales etc.? They're obviously not following the traditional $60 business model and are still afloat. Are they in just as much hell as we're predicting MS to be in?

[i_rock098]

But is the model not based on being cheap at the moment to get more people on the service before raising the price to a level which will make it sustainable? That's what every service does right from Netflix to Jio. No way I'm hell it's going to remain this cheap 3-4 years down the line.

Sent from my ASUS_I001DE using Tapatalk

[dylanjosh]

3 minutes ago, -13- said:

Sorry to sound ignorant as I'm not up to date with the PC games industry. Can anyone explain how PC games companies are surviving with dirt cheap game prices, Steam/Epic store sales etc.? They're obviously not following the traditional $60 business model and are still afloat. Are they in just as much hell as we're predicting MS to be in?

 

• IFAIK MS/Sony take quite a big chunk for Licensing so the dev has to recoup costs
• PC is mostly digital instead of retail. More cost saving + brick stores dont make a fuss when games are sold cheaper digitally
• Competition: Epic, Steam, Humble Bundle, GOG, GMG, etc etc - all these store fronts are competing with each for your money. On Xbox MS has monopoly. 
• Longetivity? I'm not 100% sure about this but I remember reading that games will see good number of sales even years and years after they release whereas on console its only usually in the inital marketing push

[TRMNTR]

4 minutes ago, i_rock098 said:

But is the model not based on being cheap at the moment to get more people on the service before raising the price to a level which will make it sustainable? That's what every service does right from Netflix to Jio. No way I'm hell it's going to remain this cheap 3-4 years down the line.
 

 

That is a given. Prices will eventually go up.

 

I understand digital games business is really profitable especially now since a lot of us have migrated from physical copies over to digital. I'm curious to know how much more profitable is it though? I remeber people selling the same physical game between so many people (even now). Of course we all love games and the developers that make them but when we end up paying effectively just 300-500 for a copy in a lot of cases. Isn't that also in a way hurting the industry?

[TRMNTR]

4 minutes ago, dylanjosh said:

 

• IFAIK MS/Sony take quite a big chunk for Licensing so the dev has to recoup costs
• PC is mostly digital instead of retail. More cost saving + brick stores dont make a fuss when games are sold cheaper digitally
• Competition: Epic, Steam, Humble Bundle, GOG, GMG, etc etc - all these store fronts are competing with each for your money. On Xbox MS has monopoly. 
• Longetivity? I'm not 100% sure about this but I remember reading that games will see good number of sales even years and years after they release whereas on console its only usually in the inital marketing push

 

I wonder how much GP pays out for different games vs what the developers earn via digital sales on PC. That'll give us a good idea of how good/bad it is.