"the way they have invested and with how gamepass is set up is NOT SUSTAINABLE" Why is this not sustainable? Haven't Netfix & HBO not only sustain, but very successful, under the same business model? Haven't Netfix & HBO produced many high quality shows using subscription model (of cause there are many not-so-good show as well)? Why can MS do the same?
We shouldn't think too much on this cooperation. Nintendo is having their best decade after Wii. They are making a good fortune on sales of individual games. They will not turn itself into "just another device" under xcloud.
In Japan they have a very different definition of "game review". Basically the company (Sony & Nintendo) dictate what you can or cannot write. The youtubers can only say what Sony allow them to say.
So is Sony customer. A lot of Sony gamer already comment that they are happy to pay what ever price for the Sony 1st exclusives.
Yes, Sony DOES THINKS that Sony customers will pay whatever price Sony charge on their 1st games.
Every machine, be it Xbox, PS4, your car, your air conditioner, etc, will get louder over the years. This isn't the fault of XBox or PS4. So what's your point?
@VersusDMC Other articles state that you can have a maximum of 6 games on the fast resume list. Current XBox only support 1 game, the very last game you played.
This is the reality, whether people like it or not. The PC programmes (not just games) have been all digital for years now. We can't buy a disc version of programmes like MSOffice, anymore.
Me six.
It seems that Sony is making the same mistake they made on the lunch of PS3 - over confidence on their brand loyalty. Sony seems to believe that they can charge their customer what ever it want on the branding alone (both hardware & games).
You seems to forget that Sony bought Insomnia, Guerrilla, and many other developers as well. So, why is it good when it's Sony buying developers, yet bad when it's done by Microsoft?
All 3 companies have been, & will be, buying developers for years. this is how this industry work. Applying your logic, Sony snatched up Polyphony, Guerrilla, Insomniac was bad for gamers (and definitely not for XBox owners), right?
This deal put the MS strategy of value+quantity front & center. Sony is still following the strategy of individual high quality exclusives (as a Xbox gamer, I do envy games like Horizon Down Zero & Spiderman...). However, the sheer quantity of GamePass now (existing games + EA + Bethesda + id +......) make me hard to jump ship to PS5.
This deal split the gaming world into 4 distinct camps: PS5+Japanese developers, MS GamePass+ American developers; Mobile games + Chinese developers; least but not last, Nintendo all by themselves.
HaHa, that is Watch Dog, not Beyond Good & Evil.
The S, with the big black grill, remind me of either a washing machine or an antique TV from the 50's.
"'Games for Gamepass' means lesser quality games from MS studios."
Let's compare GamePass to Netflix or HBO. Do subscription-base business prevent Netflix & HBO produce great shows? I don't think so.
If you means there almost 300 games that are beyond your available time to play, then yeah those 300 games will break your back. Who would like to play 300 plus games with a monthly fee around US$15?
If MS can also sign a deal with Ubisoft for their Uplay service, I'll be the happiest gamer on earth.
Since MS mentioned gaming individually, this mean that MS is at lease satisfy with the gaming division's performance. Remember at the beginning of XBoxOne's life cycle, the return is so bad that MS never mention gaming by name.