Lol, why pay even MORE for an XsX?
Because Game Pass is such a money-saver? But oh look, a price hike for Game Pass too right before their first good game for the platform after 3 years…
They FIRST need to release more games, and do it every year, before they can justify a higher price, if at all.
What a Catch 22:
Allow Starfield to stay multiplatform, and your console won’t have any exclusives after 3+ years.
Make Starfield your $500 console’s first exclusive, and you won’t be allowed to make CoD an exclusive, too.
Imagine if Xbox just prioritized AAA game development 10 years ago…
Advantageous mtx’s…
Xbox loyalists can’t count their unhatched eggs fast enough.
Just admit it: you’ve been doubting Xbox, and you need to finally see some output from them.
It’s not that hard to admit that Game Pass doesn’t make up for ZERO system sellers since Gears.
And, they had to buy Starfield just like they had to buy Titanfall 1; they were desperate to fill a dryspell, again.
You’re gonna look silly otherwise when one of their ...
Sooooo they anticipated the Series S having hardware limitations, so they created a course correction with the Series X preemptively?
What if you just launched hardware that will be viable for 7-8 years?
Just try competing with games.
It isn’t some industry secret: people buy a console to play games made for it.
Differentiate your library like everyone else.
People buy Nintendo for Mario and Zelda, and a handful for Bayonetta 3.
People buy PlayStation for Last of Us, God of War and Spider-Man.
People USED TO buy Xbox for Halo and Gears.
Game Pass isn’t a game, nobody buys Xbox for...
Just stick to the profit sectors, let Sony lead innovation, per usual…
*In-engine*
Not “in-game”.
Starfield was more than halfway through its development cycle before Xbox bought it….
They are yet to show a track record for making great games from scratch in 6 years or less each.
@Crows:
“Consistency” requires more than a single data point to establish, by definition.
Even 2-3 data points could be jumping the gun.
And Xbox has alotta misses and empty years to make up before they can change what they are are known for consistently being: disappointing.
Lord Phil doesn’t even wanna waste time trying to compete with Sony’s games
Buying all of the Western RPG studios is as brilliant of a strategy as buying all of the potatoes to corner the French fries market:
You are NOT making fries/games better, just more difficult to access.
I liked Xbox for action games. Halo and Gears rule.
I don’t like rpgs.
I don’t like that since they couldn’t keep making action games, they bought mostly rpg studios to make up for lost time….
I just hope they don’t screw up DOOM and Wolfenstein 3.
That’s what happens when you buy all of the western rpg studios…
Let’s see if the talent stays long enough to maintain these established IPs.
I mean, let’s not count our eggs before they hatch.
Right now, they just need a consistent output of any capacity.
I have opposite tastes.
Try not to pivot from the smartest enemies ever to zombies.
Riiight, it’s on the devs to do more work to sell less units per your less-adopted platform.
Xbox needs dual system support to increase potential Game Pass adoption…. But where is the incentive for the devs to “plan ahead” for the series S?
Fallout 4 wasn’t the next Fallout 3…
I will certainly dust off my XsX for it, but don’t call it Skyrim yet.
Just because Xbox needs a 10/10 to justify the existence of the Series X’s after 3 years, doesn’t mean Starfield should be expected to be a 10/10.
It’s not fair to Starfield to feel entitled to it to be THAT good. It can fall short of that, and still be a game worthy of praise.
Bungie makes games for Xbox…