crispy4000

I'm cool with this. Leans into their pedigree, just hope the whip is fun in 1st person since I hope that's the crux of the game. I asked for not-Uncharted, and this does look different.

Call it whatever you will, it makes them more money. They’ve done gangbusters this gen taking advantage of their lead in avoiding race to the bottom tactics. One poorly priced remaster of BoTW would not make me gawk at them as much as their collective efforts to keep us paying full price (or close to it). I know I’ve gotten much less out of the Switch as a result. The only company I can think of being close to this bad historically is SquareEnix, but even they’ve cooled off considerably with their pricing and openness to the subscription services. Unless I dunno, you really want I Am Setsuna for the price it’s probably worth. Agreed 100%. It’s been one of the things that’s ushered in some positive change across the board, and will likely continue to.

I'll have paid $20 total for TLOU part II and the upgrade, all said and done. I hardly consider that gouging compared to what Nintendo is doing. The only Nintendo games I can buy for that cheap are Ubisoft published.

That is true, but it sounded like Microsoft higher-ups weren't giving Xbox the money it needed to succeed regardless. Maybe Mattrick could have fought harder. I think it was Phil's vision that ultimately convinced them to open up their pocketbooks. Epic and Bungie deciding to do their own thing was extremely detrimental to the brand. I think that's a huge part of the story that can't be overlooked. They were forced to rebuild some of their biggest IPs from scratch, which was never going to be easy. It's not like 360 era Microsoft was perfect either. Rare is a great example of that. And I'm saying there's probably more money to be made in successfully gouging their Playstation audience, as Nintendo does theirs.

Sony hasn't taken lessons from Nintendo. If Sony maintained high pricing of their 1st party games, and made more games with conservative development budgets, they wouldn't have felt the need to port PC at all. It's why Nintendo hasn't budged. They figured out how to play the market, and win. They're the only ones who haven't devalued their modern offerings with subscriptions and heavy price cuts, and they're still the market leader. Again, I think Nintendo is a great counterpoint here. What exactly are they leaving on the table by continually selling millions of copies at full price, or at $40 on occasional discount? Meanwhile, they're building cultural zeitgeist with things like Mario movies and theme parks. They make appealing hardware, tout their family friendly IP, then stick to their guns to cash in on evergreen titles. They have no need for the PC-centric audience, and stand to lose more hardware sales, royalties and subscription revenue if they pursue it.

@Spawn_of_Apathy I'm much more forgiving of their rebuilding efforts than you right now. The fact that we still haven't seen a new Double Fine project, or Hellblade 2 still not being out, is less of a statement on Microsoft and more about good games taking time, IMO. Some of the studio assets they bought were in middle of rough patches. Microsoft is never going to save Redfall or Overwatch 2, for example. Then you have Starfield being the most bugfree launch of a BGS game. Maybe it wasn't a GOTY contender in a competitive year, but it is an indication that they can make the right development calls to delay. With more studio assets, there's also less pressure to rush Halo out the door to fill a need. It gives them so many more opportunities to make the right calls, as opposed to the past. I don't believe its fanboyish to care about them making exclusives to prop up their console, even just keeping them off Sony/Nintendo. Its what will keep them competitive, and would better hold Sony accountable. I'm very skeptical that a console can sell as a ticket to spend money on a subscription you don't already have. This console generation seems to be a referendum on that idea. To say it again, I also want them to pursue some kind of hardware hook. They tried this gen with quick resume, but IMO, it's not enough. They need to do more with the controller, at the very least. One up the Dualsense.

It sucks for Sony/Nintendo fans, but absolutely, yes. Gamers already get a better deal nowadays with PC and cloud being an option, if you really don't want to buy their box. Some 1st party games and contracted titles are going to perform below expectations. That's just the name of the game. At the very least, those games can still pad the subscription line-up. You don't see Nintendo porting Astral Chain and the Bayonetta games they funded because they want to recoup more.

Porting your would-be exclusives to rival platforms goes against than mantra. (ie: If you build it everywhere, they will stay) It puts even more pressure on Games Pass to sell consoles. Die hard Xbox fans have bought in, but the mass market hasn’t been convinced of a subscription-based gaming future. Perhaps strong Starfield sales are an indication of that. CoD has a lot of legwork to do to change purchase habits. We’ll see, it could happen.

Starfield is hardly a dud compared to the likes of Fallout 76. Bethesda isn’t an automatic hit builder like… Activison is with CoD. I don’t think the narrative will stay that way for long. I’d imagine Hellblade 2 will get high marks, and expect good things from their showcase this week.

Glad we're on the same page about Mattrick. They'd need to weigh those old franchises versus new IP, or the new franchises they've bought. It probably doesn't make much sense to go back at this point. Although I do think people would lose their shit over a decent looking Banjo game.

Absolutely not. Mattrick-era Microsoft squandered their development studios, shutting down Lionhead, FASA, Ensemble, etc. He leaned into Xbox One as a TV passthrough Kinect device. Meanwhile not funding projects well outside of Halo/Gears/Forza. It squandered the momentum they built during the 360 era and left a mess for Phil to clean up. Phil convinced the higher ups at the company that they weren't investing enough, and clearly succeeded at getting them to throw the brunt of their weight behind gaming. It's taken time to start seeing the fruits of it, but there's no doubt in my mind that they could choose to compete on Sony's terms now if they tried. They have so much potential leverage now over Sony with Activision and Bethesda, it's almost comical. And no, they've never tried owning Activision and Bethesda before. But they'll keep squandering that if they can't find a way for it to translate into Xbox's success, and Games Pass' success. Making their would-be console exclusives timed self-sabotages their new advantages.

I listened to it earlier, it's one of few things I hard disagree with John on. If Microsoft were truly focused on making more money, their first priority should be to sell more Xbox consoles, where they have the greatest pull to bring people into their subscription ecosystem. Devaluing their consoles in effect devalues the draw of Games Pass. Because anyone who doesn't choose Microsoft first, as most already don't, will have more reason to stay put with what they know. Making a push with portable gaming PCs and OSs is a niche they'd be in competition with Valve with. And we know how well that's gone with PC storefronts, or even Games Pass on PC itself. Cloud gaming is no better of a bet. It's a distant play, but Microsoft themselves have argued against the idea that it will be transformative to their gaming business, with how slow adoption has been. On some level, I think Microsoft needs to tap in the mojo Nintendo found with the Switch. Make an appealing console that does something fresh other than just more and better akin to PC. Launch it with true 1st party killer apps. Stop getting people to think they can just wait out their games to be ported to competing platforms. Maybe even pull in the reins and stop insisting day and date PC ports of everything. *gasp* That's how Games Pass grows. Get people hyped about your console and exclusive games, and like with Xbox Live, they'll then begin to understand the value of your services. That was the Microsoft way, and it served them incredibly well in the 360 era. In fairness, this wouldn’t be as democratic and open-minded as they’ve been since Phil took over. It would have some negative effects for other platforms. But so does a weak performing Xbox console, which gives Sony free license to act arrogant like with the recent PSN price hikes.

The thought of Playstation and Nintendo fanboys hoping that a Microsoft game flops, so that it gets ported (sooner), is especially bonkers. Shit on Starfield enough and you might get to play it some day.

And much more in IGN's latest editorial: How Xbox Is Changing the Nature of Exclusivity - IGN WWW.IGN.COM Conversations with a number of industry analysts have convinced me that 2024 is the year we finally start seeing Xbox’s grand ecosystem strategy - and all it entails for exclusivity, multiplatform play, and cloud gaming - finally start to take shape. What a wild time for the industry. Mid-range budget games only viable on Xbox & PC when they can be ported elsewhere. There's gotta be some flaw in the business model here that seemingly caught them by surprise. I can only imagine Microsoft expected Games Pass to take off more than it has by now. @Commissar SFLUFAN This all gives even more credence to the things Larian Studios is saying. Maybe at some point the powers that be decide these types of games aren't worth making anymore, and only the kind that drive subscriptions are worth seriously investing in. That means more of this: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/weaker-subscription-deals-have-hit-indie-publishers-says-analyst

If your gaming habits revolve around playing B-popularity multiplayer games, sure. That's always been the case, those games tend to die over time. For everyone else, I see the trend moving in the opposite direction. We have subscriptions to thank for it on some level, with the desire to pad them with older games. The console manufactures are signaling they want a persistent BC library (and download option) going forward. And very few single-player focused games require online spot checks to play. If you've got it downloaded, it generally won't disappear. You can also back that data up with external drives and such.

How much harder would you say the second half of the game is than the first? I'm wavering on weather I want to return to it, or just say, nah I'm good.

Kupka as an archetype isn't that interesting. But what Clive did to him was savage, and made his entire arc worth it. The whole summons setup was an excuse to make them feel larger than life, like flawed gods that don't belong in a medieval fantasy. Which let's be frank, its going to go there anyways as a FF game.

I can think of lots of games, movies, series, etc, with fun one-note villains. I don't slight you for wanting more, but might question why you think it's such a bad thing. Some of the best liked FF villains, like Kefka, make these guys look multi-faceted.

This idea that me enjoying it means I don't have discerning tastes, and could like any crap game, is a thinly veiled insult. If anything, going there points to how dislodged the criticism of FXVI has become. Perhaps its because this was a Final Fantasy and not something else. The expectations people have around this franchise are a bit silly IMO. Each new numbered entry takes a new approach that doesn't build on the prior one. And modern FF has built a reputation on contentious releases. Letting expectations go is probably the best approach with FF. ... as I think about how much I'm looking forward to Rebirth, lol. I suppose going in dark is my best way to not get swept up. I didn't watch most of the pre-release stuff about FFXVI either.

You already know I disagree with you about the larger picture. I’m not intending to avoid it. I mentioned some of the things I felt it did well in the review thread. Dialogue is much better written than modern FF has been IMO, action sequences and set piece moments are all are bombastic and fun and largely succeed in bringing back the fun of summons, I enjoyed all the villains, I think the combat was enjoyable throughout, the war politics and presentation of it was neat, what it stripped back let me enjoy more of what the game does well (and also unfortunately highlighted more of the things it does get bogged down with). I don’t feel the need to weigh individual weaknesses against strengths when it comes to the lager picture. As I said in my review, its a flawed game I still feel very positive about, all said and done. This is a game worth playing in my book. Oh and yes, engaging gameplay to me can come of all difficulty stripes. I don’t discriminate. I’ve loved me some Kirby games, just as much as I’ve loved bullshit I’ve white knuckled through like F-Zero GX.

Thank goodness fun doesn’t have a direct correlation to difficulty. I personally found the combat plenty engaging outside of trash mobs by the end of the game. All RPGs get repetitive on some level, and by the end of FFXVI I could tolerate the tedium better than most, I’d say. Especially because the boss fights do get those lavish production values with unique attacks to dodge. It’s easy, yes, but I felt enough pushback and resistance to have a good time. And to me, that’s what matters - I found combat engaging on the whole. Regardless, “pressing the same buttons over and over … that’s not gameplay” is weak criticism that could stereotype most any action game. So are similar critiques you leverage throughout your reply. I didn’t find FFXVI’s combat any more ‘button pushy’ than games with better combat, like God of War. Almost all action games, even the best ones, become rote on some level as you learn to play them well. And no, I don’t feel bad about defending it when you ask ‘seriously?’ I’ll get to the rest of your criticisms later tonight. But I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having a JRPG focus less on party interactions. Sometimes it’s more interesting to focus on world events and scenarios than checking off boxes on the character interaction matrix chart, or throwing in ‘skits’ because character X hasn’t talked to Y lately. And you know what, I’ve enjoyed RPGs that have leaned into any one of those things.

Most games today, RPGs or not, do not require min-maxing to beat bosses. Too often it’s just an exercise to kill damage sponge foes a little faster. But hey, you feel accomplishment. My larger point is that not every game, or RPG even, needs to go down this route of giving you menu busywork to deal marginally more and live marginally longer. We’ve got too many of those across too many genres now. Which is why I don’t mind FFXVI’s relative simplicity today. You do allocate skill points, so it’s not like the game went full FFIV either. I can’t think of many modern day simple action RPGs, especially not with FFXVI’s productions values. Its pushing back against the norm. So why should it have to conform? I don’t think this describes the combat well. It’s not a passive affair: you need to dodge, heal, manage cooldowns, not misuse abilities with long cooldowns, switch to Garuda for stagger, etc. It’s definitely not a Souls-like, and that’s okay. I always found enough pushback and attack variety in the larger encounters for it not to feel autopilot. Sometimes that’s all a game needs, instead of feeling punishing. As far as I’m concerned, FFXVI still plays the power fantasy card well, both in terms of the MC and bosses. The power of friendship trope is so overplayed in JRPGs that I honestly didn’t mind the one-on-one focus. It’s more disappointing to me that you can’t play as any of them.

I thought GoW 1 (at least) had too much fiddling with equipment for the game it was trying to be. They could have easily stripped out the loot emphasis and focused it more on the skill tree. In other words: it should be about action, not the numbers. It's strange to defend FFXVI for it being less of an RPG, but here we are. It's no fuss, just buy/craft what deals more damage and move on. Maybe swap out accessories the handful of times in the game you really should. There's no need to even pretend to min-max shit, just go with the abilities you enjoy. When so many modern games, including FF7R, have you constantly digging through menus to optimize, its sort of refreshing to have an action RPG that just lets you play the game as you want and level up.

They'd probably be okay with that if people drop in and out of their subscription periodically. Myself, I'd rather buy their once games when they're individually cheaper than a month of Ubisoft+. The ones I'd actually play at least, which are few and far between.

Even the ones who like it like myself admit that it’s flawed. The positives still do outweigh the negatives if you do get into it. And to be frank, you’ve experienced its flaws before in games that have less of a through line to pull them.