Golgo 13 on NES.
That’s how I felt playing No Man’s Sky. But Hello Games has like 16 people working on No Man’s Sky. What could they do with a couple hundred developers? Starfield gives me those vibes (almost too much). I’m trepidatious, though, because we haven’t seen how the ship flies and lands. Can we land anywhere and circle a planet on foot? Are enemy bases procedurally generated? Will missions be fleshed out like The Witcher 3 or repeatable fetch quests like Fallout 4? I’ll wait for first week impressi...
Xbox thrived because of hard core gamers. Halo, Morrowind, and Half-Life 2 made the original Xbox worth owning. Sure Xbox lost about half its playerbase last gen, but the roots are still there.
Very cute way of announcing a delay. The game we saw looks very, very cool. I hope they take the time they need to make this game great.
“already has fewer bugs”
So you’re saying Starfield is still a buggy mess. Great. Better back up those save games.
Ridiculous. Sony has the PS Blog, a Podcast? E-mail blasts, demos, etc. Sony even publishes a list of top downloads every month, which Microsoft stopped doing shortly after the release of Halo 4. What the gaming “news” media really wants is something they can report on to drive click like in the old days of E3. They really don’t want these companies to circumvent them.
Game quality apparently doesn’t matter so long as it costs $10 to $15 per month. Let me tell, it still does. A lot of terrible games were sold for cheap at a lot of bargain bins over the decaded and none of them were better for having been cheaper.
This doesn’t mean the deal won’t happen. These kinds of cases usually end with a settlement. Microsoft may have to spin off part of Activision as a separate company, sell studios to a competitor, or enter into a market access agreement with a competitor. But as a consumer, I don’t want the deal to happen. Competition is good for the video games industry just like it is good for all other industries.
I’m glad because I’m a frugal gamer who would rather have developers optimize their games for the current system instead of depending on me to perpetually upgrade my hardware. But I also think Microsoft should do a soft mid cycle upgrade and dump the Series S. Instead of $350 Xbox Series X slim with no disc drive, Microsoft is going to sell a $350 Series S with more hard drive space and a new paint job. Meanwhile, Starfield is going to run at 30 fps on the X and S, and Phil Spencer says it is...
Phil, why? You had a player base that loved and trusted you. Don’t throw it all away like this. Reminds of when Major Nelson insisted that the Xbox One couldn’t operate without Kinect 2.0. Sometimes saying nothing is better than saying something really stupid that PR wrote for you.
How is this expected? Games don’t render every part of the game all at the same time. Call of duty is like 200GB and it runs at 60fps. Size doesn’t matter for framerate.
“have been reversed”
Microsoft Studios needs to release some good games before the rolls are reversed. But like Phil Spencer said, players are locked into their ecosystems. If Microsoft wants to double revenue, they have to think outside the Xbox.
Seeing a lot of “game of the generation” and I’m sure that’s something Microsoft PR coined for Starfield. There has been a long time desire for this kind of game. Mass Effect was great but you couldn’t fly the space ship or explore a more than a few acres of each planet. No Man’s Sky is great but the story is limited to on screen text. Can we marry these games? What I’m seeing from Starfield is progress in the direction of where we would like these games to go, Like how the Witcher 3 was fina...
So for $50 more you can get a PS5 digital instead of an Xbox Series S Carbon Black and for $80 less per year, you can get PS+ Extra instead of Game Pass Ultimate. Dollars and sense.
I’m pretty sure I have a good idea of how Spider-man 2 and FFXVI will play. Some games just don’t have anything to prove.
No Man’s Sky has a quadrillion procedurally generated worlds with very little story to tie them together. Took me a long time to get bored with them. If Bethesda does it right, could be a great way play.
There is no way that is better to spend $1500 or more for a gaming PC just to play games made for a $500 console. What you are really saying is that it is better to not be in the Xbox ecosystem. Microsoft studios games are made for the Series S and then ported to PC. Not great for PC players.
If Starfield was a 3rd party game on PS5, it would definitely be 30fps. Bethesda games aren’t graphical showcases. But if Sony owned Starfield instead of Microsoft, Starfield would have a performance mode. I was pleasantly surprised by how good the 40fps mode looks and plays in games like Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart. If Bethesda could just eke out more fps on Series X, it would help.
Some games are fine at 30fps. I thought Control looked too good with RT to play it in performance mode. If Bethesda has a slow moving tactical shooter, I’m all in. But what bothers me is the 30 fps on Series X and Series S. Is this a Microsoft decision from on high to keep console parity? Is this a gameplay issues tied to framerate issue like some of the glitches in Destiny 2? Is this a Cyberpunk 2077 issue that will be improved over time? Folks aren’t spending $500 for a 30fps machine.
We cannot. Too many gamers cling to pithy phrased like “git gud” and will readily defend pay-to-win micro-transactions. How many times does a PC player say the best solution is to buy the most expensive video card? The game companies support this because they want whales to buy more. The gaming media rarely touches on it for fear of upsetting the fan base.