Look Ubisoft: this is what your devs could be making if you’d let them make what they want to be making. Instead of churning out another cookie cutter “Ubisoft game”.
Nintendo commands a (re)legion of fanatics. I was downvoted back to hell for saying the mouse was meh. We’ve had that in the legion go and it’s extremely uncomfortable and not suitable for longer sessions of play. The fact they don’t go bananza with touchscreen but rather take a shitty facsimile of a mouse tells you two things: Nintendo has idiots at the helm Nintendo is dead scared of the steam deck and is actively promoting an image of “we can do pc too”
Idk about your opinion on a touch screen. For both my switch and my steam deck, over 99% of their usage has been docked. A touch screen doesn’t do anything for gamers like me. I do use a keyboard and mouse very often with my deck too.
That said the joycon “mouse” looks way too small and uncomfortable.
It‘s especially evident shortly after these announcements. I was looking for a resource to summarize and comment on the Direct but most things I found were posts by what I can only describe as ecstatic fanboys. Honestly I was surprised how little the Switch 2 is actually talked about outside this bubble.
However, it’s clear Game Science, through Hero Games, is keen to control the narrative around Black Myth: Wukong to avoid negative coverage and ensure focus is on the game itself.
Given that this is the first I’ve heard of this game and I know nothing about the game itself, I feel they’ve shot themselves in the foot a little, eh?
Nah for a while now, this was highly anticipated within the gaming community. Journalists have covered allegations and controversies but honestly no one really cared. People wanted a good game and they got one. Politics or not, their steam review is 96% at overwhelmingly positive.
If you faked your death you’d likely never want to tie yourself to any platform that requires you to make an account that could in time be used to identify you
Reading this thread makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills. This game was mediocre as fuck. The open world was practically empty. There were like five characters with anything but a superficial motivation. Combat is point and click nothingness, there is no strategy whatsoever and the AI is practically nonexistent. Constant bugs and graphical issues. The big fixes only fixes the very last thing.
Amen to that. Technical issues aside, it’s one of the most shallow open world games I’ve played. There’s nothing to do when you’re not doing missions. There’s no depth to the combat. It’s a 5/10 at best for me.
Eh, at least as far as the combat goes I liked doing the Net Runner thing: hacking cameras left and right and killing off enemies before they ever saw me. That being said I put the game down when it became too much of a chore to get much anything upgraded. My combat style may have been suboptimal but I had fun with it.
I also didn’t have any issues with bugs or graphical issues, but I also first played it pretty far into its life after they could fix plenty of things. Don’t remember exactly when it was, but it was after the anime was no longer super relevant but before that big 2.0 update. I also know I played using some mods, and I can’t remember if there was a mod that fixed a bunch of issues.
There is some truth to what you say but the game is more than a sum of its parts. Even though individual strokes of game dev brush may be not perfect the whole package as of today creates memorable, even unforgettable experience.
Have you played it after the 2.0 update? The combat feels awesome, as least my build did. I also disagree with the openworld being empty, driving around, listening to music, was one of my favorite things to do. Occasionally coming across little stories and unmarked encampments was really fun.
Based on everyone telling me BotW and TotK are the finest games ever made, perhaps people just want mostly empty open worlds with basic combat and max five characters with personalities.
I felt the same about BotW. At first I enjoyed the freshness and exploration but it quickly gave way to the sinking realization that it’s an empty world with smatterings of lifeless villages and MMO-style quests. Ew.
Yeah. I’d much rather have the small number of deeper side quests in OoT or MM than, “hey buddy can you catch me ten crickets in exchange for a fistful of rupees? Thanks.”
The average^^@ user watches Twitch from 4pm to 5.30pm twice a week. There is absolutely a delta between what is required to be a profitable service, what is quality entertainment and what the service is and does currently.
No idea how you can come to any of these conclusions given that viewer numbers are publicly visible. If this were true the streamers wouldn’t be live as much as they are outside these hours.
I’ll be honest, if the solution is Twitch, then I don’t need my problem solved. That is, compared to Twitch, I don’t need an alternative. Not having Twitch is a solid improvement over having Twitch. (kidding of course, but all too often it feels like that with just how bad the technical aspects of their site are)
I don’t care about split screen but more evidence that the Series S was a mistake. At the very least Microsoft is going to have to ease up on the requirements.
Edit: It has come to my attention that I need to improve my reading comprehension. This only affects the S. 🤦♂️
I don’t think it was a mistake, it brought next gen gaming to people that can’t afford, or don’t need the highest spec machines. I have a series S so I can play Xbox games with my son, I also have a gaming PC and steam deck. The price of the S allowed me to justify buying this, but I wasn’t about to drop the dough on an X just to play a few Xbox games
It’s less powerful than an Xbox One X. I think the problem is that they didn’t really think through what a console generational leap would actually consist of.
And do you think that would have panned out better if the cheaper console option wasn't available? Not to mention it would only leave them with the console that shared a lot of the same components as the PS5 during supply shortages as well.
I mean, unless their goal is to lose even more money on each console sold, I doubt they were interested in that. But that's not their goal. Their goal is to get people subscribed to Game Pass.
Game Pass does include PC gamers, which is why they're probably more interested in opening up that service to more people with a cheap console SKU than to sell Xbox consoles, likely because outselling Sony by doing the same thing Sony is doing is a very steep hill to climb.
One day they might. PC has taken a larger and larger market share as time has gone on. PCs became easier to game on, consoles became less streamlined, and perhaps even the closed-off nature of consoles compared to the open nature of PCs has played a role. But as of 2023, you're still not making a $300 PC that plays games as well as an S. While consoles have become less streamlined, they're still more streamlined than a PC.
We've already established that the $300 box is not viable for much longer. And since it sold around 1/3 the numbers of the PS5, it didn't even work as advertised.
Did we establish that? Most of the biggest games are not the hardest on system requirements. And while Microsoft would obviously prefer that they sold more Xboxes and reached more Game Pass subscribers (the 25M-30M is impressive regardless), I'd be surprised if they expected the majority of those to be Series S; but they probably did recognize that that customer base is still worth reaching. We're just not at a point in the history of consoles where they all have the same business model anymore, like they did 20 years ago.
They compromised their higher end system with their lower end system. It's time to admit they made a mistake here, and they are only now starting to fix it.
Yes, thank you!
Microsoft has historically never been profitably selling consoles, which is certainly part of their shift towards different business models, including Game Pass and a focus on more than just Xbox, but PC and Cloud as well. They don’t really have much of a financial incentive to sell consoles for that sake alone, they have to get people to subscribe to Game Pass and/or buy games (possibly digitally whenever possible) and the Series S is their best console for that, as the consumer is very much locked in.
Lmao, bruh, no one who has played games on both would ever claim that. It has slightly more raw graphical compute power while having a drastically weaker CPU, slower SSD, slower memory, and slower overall throughput.
It has faster memory than the Series S. More importantly, it has more RAM. A few improvements here and there doesn't make the Series S a real next-gen console.
As someone who has a One X, a Series S, and a Series X, I can assure you that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
The One X doesn’t get used anymore and the Series S gets used ballpark more often than the series X. Pretty much all games play a very comparable experience on it compared to the series X, something that cannot be said about the One X.
Is that because people actually want an S... or because they settled because they couldn't find an X? Everywhere I go there's tons of S's available and almost no X's available. Obviously anecdotal, but maybe it's not so much buying it over the X as buying it because the X just isn't in reach... either because of price (though if you can't afford a hundred dollars extra for a console... you can't really afford the console at all, and you're just justifying it to yourself) or because of lack of availability in general.
Just a note, it’s not $100 difference. It’s $200 difference ($300 vs $500). Having said that, the only reason I got the SS was because I couldn’t get the SX. I tried and failed. I would have preferred a $400 digital version of the SX even. Settled for the SS. Had to get an SSD expansion card, feature parity is apparently not a thing, had to rebuy a couple games digitally.
Lol comments like this are proof that gamers are still toxic fanbois who will make a mountain of a molehill if it makes them feel superior to someone else.
I don’t see how I’m a fanboy. The Series X lost a feature because of the Series S. I’m sure the parity requirement had good intentions but I doubt this is the last time this will happen.
As others are pointing out the Series S is selling well but it’s the weakest link.
Please respect the rules of the instance if you choose to comment here.
The only rule at Beehaw is Be(e) Kind. Your comment was needlessly aggressive and abrasive and you could have made your point just as easily in a kind way.
Thanks for keeping this a positive space for everyone.
I was talking about the person(s) at Microsoft, who decided that it’s a good idea to have less RAM on the Series S than on the Series X…
(And for context: I work in gamedev, and in my experience making games stay within the memory budget is one of the toughest parts of porting games to consoles.)
who decided that it’s a good idea to have less RAM on the Series S than on the Series X…
Supply chains are complicated, and MS probably did their due diligence to ensure minimal blockages. From seeing the memory structures of newer video cards, I’m pretty sure there are supply constraints to memory to think of.
Honestly I think gamedevs leaning on memory this hard instead of compute is a mistake. You can have intelligently tiled, procedurally generated textures and have a lot more of them, but instead everyone is leaning on authored content on disc. This goes against industry trends in non-game rendering where procedural generation is the norm. If Doom Eternal can look that good with forward rendering, there are no excuses.
My main beef with the hate on the Series S is that both times it’s been a big deal (BG3 and Halo Infinite), it has been split screen which has held back shipping. The community would be as justified going after split screen as they are going after the Series S.
Tell that to our artists 😉. As a coder I’m all for procedurally generated content. I did replace several heavy textures in our games by procedural materials, to squeeze out a couple of extra MB. However, that’s not the way artists traditionally work. They often don’t have the programming knowledge needed to develop procedural materials on their own, and would need to rely on technical artists or programmers to do so. Drawing a texture however, is very much part of their skillset…
But yeah, the mention of “squeezing out a couple of MB” brings me to another topic, namely that (at least in our games) the on-disk textures are only part of the RAM usage, and a relativley small one on comparison. In the games I worked on, meshes made up a significantly larger amount of RAM usage. We have several unique assets, which need to fulfill a certain quality standard due to licensing terms, such that in the end we had several dozens of meshes, each over 100 MB, that the player can freely place… Of course there would still be optimization potential on those assets, but as always, there’s a point where further optimization hits diminishing returns… In the end we had to resort to brute-force solutions, like unloading high quality LODs for meshes even if they are relatively close to the player… Not the most beautiful solution, but luckily not often needed during normal gameplay (that is: if the player doesn’t intentioally try to make the game go out-of-memory).
But I’m rambling. The tl;dr is: The memory constraints would not be a big deal if there was enough time/money for optimization. If there is one thing that’s never enough in game dev, it’s time/money.
OK so this is now offtopic for the conversation, but…
However, that’s not the way artists traditionally work.
To some extent, it’s authoring tools which affect how they work. A procedural materials pipeline can help them compose on top of already procedural content. In a way, you could see PBR as a part of that pipeline because PBR materials are physics modelled. Having said that I do take your point, even building out that pipeline takes time. Creating a PBR materials library is not super easy, and obviously organic stuff is very hard to model as a material.
meshes made up a significantly larger amount of RAM usage
From watching blender modelling, I thought the pattern was to have minimal rigging on the base mesh and then tesselation via normal maps + subdivision (apparently this is very doable even with sculpting). Obviously for animation you need a certain quality but beyond that I thought everything would be normal maps, reflection maps, etc etc.
I’m not an artist - my 3D modelling experience can be summed up as “none”, so I can’t really answer your last point. I know for certain that we don’t use normal maps to the extent they could be used, and therefore have way more detail in the meshes than they would need to have. I’m also pretty certain that we don’t do any tesselation on player pawns, and I think (but am not certain) that this is due to some engine limitation (again, don’t quote me on that, but iirc Unreal doesn’t support tesselation on skeletal meshes on all our target platforms).
TIL for no tessellation on skeletal meshes. I hope over time Unreal / Epic will put some effort in on minimising memory usage, even though I know they “just” got done with Nanite and friends.
that’s highly debatable if we’re talking about a $600 PC. I mean, yes you can argue that with games on PC you can always figure something out to get acceptable performance, but people in the market to buy a $300 console likely lack the experience, knowledge or time to do that
You might not be able to play the latest and greatest but you can still play many games and you don’t lose access to them. They are shutting down the Xbox 360 store soon, thus they’ll lose access to any games they don’t have downloaded. I have games on Steam older than time itself that I can still download, even if the publisher has delisted them and stopped them from being sold. I know people who still use laptops from 2005 to play indie games. Essentially pretty soon Xbox 360s are going to turn into disc-only consoles where a 600-dollar computer would never revert to that and people today play on computers from 20 years ago. It’s rare but it certainly happens, especially in the Linux crowd.
Lastly, you can always upgrade a computer part by part. Which doesn’t require knowledge of how the hardware connects. Just take it to a shop and tell them you want it to run faster for a game and they usually will do some inspections, charge you 100 dollars in labor and then whatever for parts, and get your machine upgraded.
In what world is “It will last longer” an answer to “I can’t afford that”? I doesn’t matter how long something will last if people don’t have the extra money to spend on something more expensive.
Because they will likely buy another thing in that same time. You don’t need an entertainment box immediately. You can wait, save, and buy an entertainment box that can do multiple things.
If it was a mistake, how the game now coming to Series S proving that? The only thing it proves is that split screen is a demanding feature and MSFT shouldn’t impose parity of that, which they shamelessly accepted after the success of BG3. It’s still a good console to play modern games, of course not at best fidelity, but I don’t think that matters.
Edit: just realised you’re saying that with an incorrect conclusion that split screen wouldn’t be coming on Series X. Well, that isn’t the case, and probably brings the game to more people with least amount of harm.
Unfortunately, the real appeal of the Borderlands series is multiplayer. The games are alright in single player mode, but multiplayer is where it really shines. And cracked copies likely won’t work with multiplayer, because they use game servers for matchmaking.
IIRC all of the past ones have worked over LAN, including over a private VPN if you so desire. I definitely played pirated copies of 1 and 2 with my mates. I had no real desire to get very deep into 3 because the campaign storyline was so stupid, but I don’t doubt you could.
It’s only online matchmaking with randos that you’ll be blocked from, which if you ask me is not really that much of a detriment.
Aspyr really keeps stepping on rakes with this one don't they? Rereleasing a classic like this should have been a slam dunk. It's really becoming a trend with Aspyr to have issues with their Star Wars ports, but at the same time I have to wonder if if there was pressure from Embracer to rush this out the door. When you're still desperately axing and selling off studios, rereleasing a fan favorite Star Wars game probably sounds like easy money no matter how much more time the game needs to be finished.
eurogamer.net
Ważne