Microsoft Starfield - Information Thread, update (09/16): "Shattered Space" expansion deep-dive video

[Xbob42]

7 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Watching them uncritically read Todd Howard's comment is both hilarious and kind of sad.

The quote they read and accept as fact is:

 

Quote

I think it'll come as no surprise, given our previous games, what we go for. Always these huge, open worlds, fully dynamic, hyper detail where anything can happen. And we do want to do that.

I take extreme exception to these claims. What do Bethesda worlds "go for" that something like Far Cry doesn't, aside from being able to, once again, pick up and stack random bullshit? NPCs can fight other NPCs I guess? What makes any of this unique? ANYTHING can happen? Can I craft a cool potion to fly across the world or scale a fucking wall, Todd? Can a dragon burn down a hut or DYNAMICALLY (your word, Todd) bust down city walls and cause actual havoc inside? Can I tunnel my way under a building like some sort of weird mole man? Can I build a lightning rod and use it to protect an area from lightning storms? Can a tornado come and blow devastate the landscape? Can an earthquake happen and open a huge chasm? Can ANYTHING happen, Todd? Can I cook a big wedding cake, add poison and kill everyone who shows up to a wedding without anyone being the wiser? Can I frame others for crimes without it being a narrative plot point? Can I kill story critical NPCs? Can I equip shields in all my armor slots? Can I cast a portal spell from the bottom of a lake to the top of a town to dynamically flood it?! CAN I DO ANYTHING TODD?

 

Again, what Elder Scrolls (I can't comment on Starfield just yet, and Fallout is just reskinned Elder Scrolls) could be is so, so much cooler and more interesting than anything it will ever be under this team. Yes yes, some of this stuff would be incredibly complex or near impossible especially for unmotivated hacks, but many of the things I listed can in fact be done, at least to some extent, in other games.

[Kal-El814]

3 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

Watching them uncritically read Todd Howard's comment is both hilarious and kind of sad.

 

YOU RANG?????

 

 

3 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

Watching them uncritically read Todd Howard's comment is both hilarious and kind of sad.
I take extreme exception to these claims. What do Bethesda worlds "go for" that something like Far Cry doesn't, aside from being able to, once again, pick up and stack random bullshit? NPCs can fight other NPCs I guess? What makes any of this unique? ANYTHING can happen? Can I craft a cool potion to fly across the world or scale a fucking wall, Todd? Can a dragon burn down a hut or DYNAMICALLY (your word, Todd) bust down city walls and cause actual havoc inside? Can I tunnel my way under a building like some sort of weird mole man? Can I build a lightning rod and use it to protect an area from lightning storms? Can a tornado come and blow devastate the landscape? Can an earthquake happen and open a huge chasm? Can ANYTHING happen, Todd? Can I cook a big wedding cake, add poison and kill everyone who shows up to a wedding without anyone being the wiser? Can I frame others for crimes without it being a narrative plot point? Can I kill story critical NPCs? Can I equip shields in all my armor slots? Can I cast a portal spell from the bottom of a lake to the top of a town to dynamically flood it?! CAN I DO ANYTHING TODD?

 

Again, what Elder Scrolls (I can't comment on Starfield just yet, and Fallout is just reskinned Elder Scrolls) could be is so, so much cooler and more interesting than anything it will ever be under this team. Yes yes, some of this stuff would be incredibly complex or near impossible especially for unmotivated hacks, but many of the things I listed can in fact be done, at least to some extent, in other games.

 

It's just not 2002 anymore. Again I don't know that there are any companies out there doing EXACTLY what BGS looks to do with stuff like Fallout, Elder Scrolls, and I guess Starfield. But that's because there are a lot of games with similar size focus in on what makes them more interesting. Yeah there's "less to do" in Just Cause 3 than there is in Fallout 4, but the stuff you can do in Just Cause 3 is just much better than its equivalents in FO4. No, characters don't react to you and how you interact with the world in something like Breath of the Wild the way that they do in Skyrim, but there's more interesting ways to interact with the world on just The Great Plateau than there is in the entirety of Tamriel.

 

And again this is... fine? There IS something to be said for being accessible and capable of giving the people what they want. And Todd has been high on his own supply for decades now, so it's not shocking that he's going to overpromise and under deliver. But I dunno. Id is right there! So is Arkane! These aren't perfect studies by any means but they're at least almost always pushing the envelope with gameplay recently. 

[Fizzzzle]

3 hours ago, Ominous said:

Can we stop calling games exclusive when they are not actually exclusive? 

The kind of people that write articles like that usually pretend PC doesn't exist.

[Remarkableriots]

3 hours ago, Ominous said:

Can we stop calling games exclusive when they are not actually exclusive? 

So it isn't exclusive to the Microsoft ecosystem which is Xbox/PC?

[Xbob42]

23 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

So it isn't exclusive to the Microsoft ecosystem which is Xbox/PC?

PC is not "the Xbox ecosystem," no, not at all. lol.

[Keyser_Soze]

As far as console games go, it is exclusive.

[crispy4000]

@Remarkableriots "Ecosystem exclusivity" is a questionable concept to begin with, especially with how fast and loose Microsoft plays it.  They're putting their games on competing services, including those that will run Microsoft's games on Linux and Linux-based portables.  Even if the OS actually mattered, and we ignore how Microsoft has cornered that market, they're also making their own games playable on Google's and Apple's OS's now via the cloud.

 

 

@Keyser_Soze "As far as console games go, it is exclusive" is sort of like saying "as far as portable gaming goes, it is exclusive."  With the same mental gymnastics, you could categorize most games on the Switch as an exclusive of some form.  So, if we don't take the time and care to qualify that for Nintendo, why should we insist on doing it for Sony/Microsoft, who actually do port their games elsewhere?

 

If this industry made any sense, no game with a PC port would be considered an exclusive.  We should also be qualifying all of Sony's modern games as PS5-first releases for "12, 18 or 24 months."

 

XS/PC only.  PS5/PC only.  That should be the naming convention.

[Xbob42]

15 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

@Remarkableriots "Ecosystem exclusivity" is a questionable concept to begin with, especially with how fast and loose Microsoft plays it.  They're putting their games on competing services, including those that will run Microsoft's games on Linux and Linux-based portables.  Even if the OS actually mattered, and we ignore how Microsoft has corned that market, they're also making their own games playable on Google's and Apple's OS's now via the cloud.

 

 

@Keyser_Soze "As far as console games go..." is sort of like saying "as far as portable gaming goes."  With those mental gymnastics, you could categorize almost every game on the Switch an 'exclusive' of some form.  So, if we don't take the time and care to qualify that for Nintendo, why should we insist on doing it for Sony/Microsoft, who actually do port their games elsewhere?

 

If this industry made any sense, no game with a PC port would be considered an exclusive.  We should also be qualifying all of Sony's modern games as PS5-first releases for "12, 18 or 24 months."

 

XS/PC only.  PS5/PC only.  That should be the naming convention.

Can't believe Sony's releasing all their games on Microsoft's ecosystem!

[Greatoneshere]

2 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

If this industry made any sense, no game with a PC port would be considered an exclusive.  We should also be qualifying all of Sony's modern games as PS5-first releases for "12, 18 or 24 months."

 

XS/PC only.  PS5/PC only.  That should be the naming convention.

 

This 100%. Saying it's an exclusive "on consoles" is a meaningless distinction in this day and age when the PS5 and Xbox Series X are more or less just powerful desktop PC towers at this point. And I can take my real desktop PC tower and use an HDMI cable and easily and quickly use it on my TV and use a wired or wireless controller with no hassle just like a console. 

 

Now saying a Switch game is exclusive makes more sense if they don't release the Switch game on anything but on Switch but even then you can pretty easily emulate Switch games on your PC as well but that's obviously not official. Honestly games released exclusively on mobile phones might be the "true" exclusives though I'm sure those can be hacked to be played on PC too via emulation as well.  

[Keyser_Soze]

I guess Microsoft should have stopped bending over backwards to get this Activision deal to go through. They could have just released the game on Xbox and PC and it wouldn't be exclusive!

[skillzdadirecta]

Yes isn't the whole reason the Activision deal is being opposed because it would make COD "MS Exclusive" despite it still being on PC and Playstation?

[crispy4000]

1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Yes isn't the whole reason the Activision deal is being opposed because it would make COD "MS Exclusive" despite it still being on PC and Playstation?

 

Not the CMA's reason currently.

 

Sony opposed it because they believed Microsoft could give Xbox owners preferential treatment of the brand, including putting it on Games Pass day one, while charging them a back breaking (and subscription destroying) annual sum for the same parity.

 

There's also the precedent of Zenimax/Bethesda games now not coming to Playstation.  Even if MS stuck to their word on CoD, there's still all their other IP, and the muscle of Activision-Blizzards ~10k employee enterprise, that could be leveraged against them.

[skillzdadirecta]

16 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

There's also the precedent of Zenimax/Bethesda games now not coming to Playstation.  Even if MS stuck to their word on CoD, there's still all their other IP, and the muscle of Activision-Blizzards ~10k employee enterprise, that could be leveraged against them.

 

So... exclusive?

[crispy4000]

8 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

So... exclusive?

 

No.  XS/PC only.

 

The way Microsoft and Sony have currently chosen to do business is to keep most of their games off competing consoles.  While also selling them (or cloud access to them) elsewhere.

 

You don't need to buy a Series S/X to play Starfield.

[skillzdadirecta]

5 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

The way Microsoft and Sony have currently chosen to do business is to keep most of their games off competing consoles.

So console exclusive?

[Guest]

PC gamers are the weirdest bunch, always upset that they are the afterthought of the industry

[crispy4000]

17 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

So console exclusive?

 

That's a dumb marketing term Microsoft made up to draw a distinction.  The naming convention itself is problematic: it's not exclusive to console.

IMO, we should stop using the term exclusive to describe games that are still releasing on multiple platforms.  We should use the term exclusive to mean its on one platform.  Or qualify it with 'timed' if we must.

[crispy4000]

9 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

PC gamers are the weirdest bunch, always upset that they are the afterthought of the industry

 

This isn't just about PC.  It's also about Nintendo's platforms.  Or if we really want to go there, games like Fantasian on iOS.

 

Microsoft and Sony have both pulled back on hard on what it means to release an exclusive killer app.

[Guest]

WHO CARES ABOUT MARKETING SPEAK 

[AbsolutSurgen]

There actually used to be a LOT of exclusives, where a significant portion of games were only available on one console.

 

Once PC started to be larger than either the Xbox or Playstation platforms in terms of revenue, most publishers found it hard to ignore PC.  And last gen, with MS's share collapsing (particularly outside the anglosphere), they found it harder and harder to sign deals with publishers to make a game an "Xbox exclusive", so their solution was to agree to pay publishers NOT to publish on Playstation and coin the term "console exclusive".  The console exclusive term was originally Microsoft marketing-speak, and since most of the games enthusiast media exists to publish press releases and call them stories, that term got used extensively in the games enthusiast media.

 

In terms of "Ecosystem", most of the money made by platform holders is made either through the 30% fee retained by the storefront, or through subscriptions.  The MS store (and gamepass) are MS's ecosystem.  Steam is Valve's. 

[crispy4000]

34 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

WHO CARES ABOUT MARKETING SPEAK 

 

Me calling it dumb doesn't imply I care.  They're going to call things what they want.

The issue is when people feel the word "exclusive" carries much weight for Microsoft/Sony games anymore.  IMO, if GPU pricing wasn't totally out of whack today, it would matter for even less.

 

Meanwhile, a Nintendo exclusive or iOS exclusive means you really do have to own their machine.

[crispy4000]

 

21 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Once PC started to be larger than either the Xbox or Playstation platforms in terms of revenue, most publishers found it hard to ignore PC.  And last gen, with MS's share collapsing (particularly outside the anglosphere), they found it harder and harder to sign deals with publishers to make a game an "Xbox exclusive", so their solution was to agree to pay publishers NOT to publish on Playstation and coin the term "console exclusive".  The console exclusive term was originally Microsoft marketing-speak, and since most of the games enthusiast media exists to publish press releases and call them stories, that term got used extensively in the games enthusiast media.

 

In fairness, Sony's done their share of the same wheeling and dealing over the years.  They're also even more coy about it at times, which is bad in its own ways.

[AbsolutSurgen]

3 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

 

In fairness, Sony's done their share of the same wheeling and dealing over the years.

Afterwards, yes.  But the "console exclusive" wording is really just Microsoft (and now) Sony marketing speak.  Using it is akin to saying you drink Budweiser because it is the "king of beers".

[Xbob42]

41 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

PC gamers are the weirdest bunch, always upset that they are the afterthought of the industry

What? That seems like a non-sequitur. In this case, being the "afterthought" of the industry meant getting the actual most games, lol.

[crispy4000]

6 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

What? That seems like a non-sequitur. In this case, being the "afterthought" of the industry meant getting the actual most games, lol.

 

Absolutely. The only things PC gamers have to be bitter about is fallout from the crypto boom, and the shoddy state of AAA ports these days, especially UE4 games.

 

Ironically, Sony and Microsoft's ports tend to be among the better ones.

[TheLeon]

As always, the words we use to talk about video games are dumb. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

12 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Absolutely. The only things PC gamers have to be bitter about is fallout from the crypto boom, and the shoddy state of AAA ports these days, especially UE4 games.

 

Ironically, Sony and Microsoft's ports tend to be among the better ones.

Microsoft -  yes.  Sony - no.

[Spork3245]

5 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Microsoft -  yes.  Sony - no.

 

I think only TLoU was bad from Sony so far, no?

[Xbob42]

2 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

I think only TLoU was bad from Sony so far, no?

Horizon Zero Dawn started out rough as well but they really kept patching it up until it was a quality port.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

 

I think only TLoU was bad from Sony so far, no?

 

Horizon Zero Dawn was an unmitigated disaster when it was initially released.

[crispy4000]

9 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Horizon Zero Dawn was an unmitigated disaster when it was initially released.

 

Unmitigated disaster by 2020 standards is salvageable by 2023 standards.

[AbsolutSurgen]

14 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

Unmitigated disaster by 2020 standards is salvageable by 2023 standards.

Either way, neither TLoU, nor Horizon: ZD were among the "better" ports to PC.

[crispy4000]

4 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Either way, neither TLoU, nor Horizon: ZD were among the "better" ports to PC.

 

Everything else has been solid or quickly patched to be though.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

16 hours ago, Ominous said:

Can we stop calling games exclusive when they are not actually exclusive? 

That’s why MS keeps referring to games as console exclusive. It is still kind of silly. But I swear I’ve seen MS claim Starfield to be “GamePass exclusive” which made even less sense. Since obviously you’d be able to buy the game and you can buy the game on Steam. 

[Greatoneshere]

Console exclusive is a meaningless term when you can hook your PC up to your TV easily and play games through it with a standard console controller if you wanted to. GamePass works on PC, so you don't need an Xbox. Hence, not exclusive, and my PC is hooked up to my TV, so does that make it a console too? Hence, not console exclusive. If it's just "marketing speak", why are regular users, not Sony or Microsoft, using such terms in this and other threads if we're all "above" marketing speak? Sounds like this does need to be brought up and corrected to me. 

 

Starfield is not an Xbox exclusive game nor it is a console exclusive game (it's on PC). I haven't been paying attention, maybe it's a Microsoft exclusive game in that you can only play it through Windows via GamePass or Xbox and that's it but I doubt that's the case and who cares about that anyway? Only Microsoft cares if its Microsoft exclusive. If it's on both Xbox and PC, it's not exclusive in any way really. I haven't owned an Xbox since the Xbox 360 yet I haven't missed out on any great Microsoft games since then, since I play them all on PC (the Master Chief Collection, Gears of War 5, etc.). If the "exclusive" is meant to entice me to buy their system since that's the point of marketing something as an "exclusive" Microsoft is really failing since I've played all of their "exclusives" but haven't bought an Xbox since the 360.