I got this game finally last year, after waiting for the bugfixes, and have been playing since then. I’ve got over 170 hours now, did all the sidemissions and now finishing Phantom Liberty, and loved every minute of it. This was my first dive into the cyberpunk-genre and it is impressive, especially the dystopian future that also seeps through in modern times.
The way Cyberpunk 2077 tells its story and does world building is beautiful. The immense city with twirling roads, mountains of trash and dysfunctional society is really immersive. I understand that it is not possible to give every citizen a full back story with limited resources but the amount of detail and love that they were still able to put in is commendable. Even after all this time spent in the gameworld it still manages to surprise me with random encounters while exploring.
I’m glad I waited for the bugfixes and had only a few crashes and minor glitchy physics. I hope they learn that delivering a good product is more important then deadlines, since players like me will wait anyway.
Fun fact: in no other open-world-game I got run-over by cars as much as in this game. Hmm I wonder, maybe all cars evolved from Tesla’s in this universe? (j/k)
I just started it and am having a similar experience, right down to getting hit by cars. At least, I assume they were all cars. Last time I was suddenly knocked off my feet was on the sidewalk, and when I finally regained control of my character, there was no vehicle driving away from me. It could have been a goat fitted with optical camo for all I know.
I'm ~3/4s through my second playthrough and appreciating it more and more. Haven't picked up the expansion yet either.
I found it hits much harder with a female character. The Johnny Silverhand situation especially felt much more... metaphorically resonant? And Jackie feels more rogue-with-a-heart-of-gold when his best buddy is a woman.
Quickhacks are OP but felt correctly haxx0r, mantis blades are super fun. I enjoyed the combat well enough. Cars are meh, but it's cyberpunk so if you're not riding a futuristic bike ala Akira you're doing it wrong. And wiping out on a bike is great.
The characterisation and world building are what really shine. I was reluctant to play the corpo background but it really makes the story sing.
::: spoiler spoiler
The first time you're in a car with Judy she has a prominent tattoo that says "underwater where thoughts can breathe". Then next mission or a while later her apartment has jellyfish looking paint splotches and an aquarium. It's expanded on more explicitly later, but I really enjoy the way they pull together their characters.
The scene with Takemura on the roof talking about Bakeneko is another moment that I enjoyed first playthrough and came to really appreciate a lot the second time. His food snobbery becomes quite endearing after he accidentally texts you his attempts to search for restaurants.
:::
It’s also my opinion the female voice actor did an incredible job where as the male voice actor did a great job. Even in the most basic of side quests, it feels like she is giving it her all to be V in that situation whereas on the other hand some lines it feels like he’s just phoning it in.
Admittedly I haven’t played the new expansion as male v yet, and that may change my opinion. Especially considering I think Keanu gave 110% percent on phantom liberty where I feel like there are certain lines in the original game that were just read from a sheet without context and marked as done
Oh yeah, that's a great point. I admit I stalled out of my male playthrough like 1/4 through, but for sure the voice acting felt lacking compared to female V, who really does a fantastic and job and sells every situation flawlessly. Now that you've mentioned it, it seems so obvious that that's a huge part of the why female V is better.
I’m on a male playthrough a just recently started, and I think the trick is to realize that he’s playing the lines as a more aloof v, which is fine, and actually interesting psychologically as a v that “keeps his cards close to his chest and is cautious about who he opens up to” but you have to accept that version of v in your playthrough, whereas I got used to the “always emotionally invested v” of the female playthrough. Like I said, I still think he did a great job, but that mindset helps me to align the character with the experience. Either way, nice convo, choom
That reading of the character makes sense and jives with how I connect with games I play. I'll keep it in mind when I go back for a male playthrough - gonna have to romance panam eventually. Agreed choom!
It’s also my opinion the female voice actor did an incredible job where as the male voice actor did a great job. Even in the most basic of side quests, it feels like she is giving it her all to be V in that situation whereas on the other hand some lines it feels like he’s just phoning it in.
100% agree. Male V just sounds like "generic video game man who is tough, but not too tough", where as the female V sounds like a hardened, cold bitch that you don't want to fuck with. Cherami Leigh's got range.
Yeah like I said in my other comment, I’m having fun playing through a male v playthrough with the thinking that male v just doesn’t open up often, and is trying his best to keep his cards close. It’s a fun experiment, and plays homage to how male v’s voice actor plays the character, and how a hardened veteran nomad v or abused street kid v might interact with folks, but Cherami’s amazing work is canonical V to me.
Man, I’m glad that people are enjoying the game as much as they say they are but I tried my first play through earlier this year and it was terrible. I saw almost no difference in the amount/type of glitches between what I experienced back in January and what I saw online when the game first released a few years ago.
I played on launch month and only encountered one bug that was game breaking and it was only a loading point glitch where I had to load to a previous save point. Played just a month ago and the whole game was super smooth.
I have 50+ hours and only minor graphic glitches. A couple dead bodies standing up, the odd piece of floating loot. Nothing that seriously detracts from the experience.
(First off, the last gen versions were a shit show and I fully believe CDPR should have bit the bullet and cancelled those preorders. That was a failure at the high levels, not with the devs. This is about the PC version:)
Hey yo, I’m one of those idiots that gave it a good review, and that was day one. Yeah, it had a bad launch, but I’d argue it was no worse than No Man’s Sky, or Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines, or The Witcher 3. All of the above are some of my favorite games of all time.
If you don’t like the core game, cool. Agree to disagree. But the things that people love about the game now have been in there since 1.0. Sure, there are genuine criticisms to be made, but most of the hate this game got has either been patched out or was pure bandwagon hate to begin with.
The point I’m making is that they had no excuse to release it in that state in the first place unlike hello games with no man’s sky which was also a horrible launch.
I think when they fixed all the obvious jank, went all in on the world building and strong storytelling, and timed it with the incredibly excellent Cyberpunk Edge runners series… Everything turned around.
The game is still pretty crappy as a open-world, loot still feels halfbaked and honestly combat is so dumb that I have to gimp myself and refuse to pick certain skills just to have some challenge.
But I ignore it because when the story pulls you in, you’re hooked!
That’s funny, I feel kinda the opposite lol. The story just feels ok to me (I thought the story of PL was a lot more interesting though) but I just love the setting and just blasting through enemies
I loved the world, enjoyed its story but didn’t like the combat as it felt a bit messy and I felt overpowered as a hacker.
After two playthroughs, I’ll probably do the expansion at one point but I don’t know if I should play it from one of my playthrough or from a new save.
I hope this doesn’t make them think they can do this again though. This should make them realise they should’ve always gave the Devs more time to cook or been more realistic with scope from the get go
A publicly traded company prioritizing consumer satisfaction over short term profits? Learning from their “mistakes” after they still got a shit ton of money for it anyways and probably will if they do it again? I’m not banking on it.
It being released in a essentially a beta state with a terrible UI? half the loot being a bitch to access because you always cast igni? Game breaking bugs and glitch’s? Hard crashes?
I don’t think they have released one game that was actually release ready yet.
CP2077 was far worse, but that doesn’t mean the Witcher 3 was okay, it was still absolutely botched.
I’m not downplaying anything, but comparing a dumpster to a dumpster fire and saying they are the same thing is, at best, a little misleading.
The release of Witcher 3 was bad, but it was industry standard bad. Cyberpunk shipped straight up broken and incomplete. It has been fundamentally reworked at least twice since launch.
I don’t think anyone is apologizing for The Witcher 3 at launch, but let’s not pretend they are the same thing. There are more shades than black and white.
It’s more like both are tornados and one is an F3 and the other being an F5. You’re being disingenuous in defending CDPR for continually inexcusable work.
An industry standard bad? What’s that even mean? At that point in time games were shipping complete still and not in a beta state.
Its always hilarious the excuses people come up with, neither are excusable, yet here you are justifying one… yeesh, give your head a shake.
Haha ok so you’re just one of those people whose understanding of the universe isn’t capable of expanding beyond “this good, that bad”.
I haven’t defended anyone and never intended to. I’m just saying get your comparisons straight. “Hey this game has a bunch of annoying bugs” =/= “Yo this shit is effectively non-functional and empty”.
I didn’t know a a progress breaking bug at 80 hours in is annoying…? That falls in the latter, non-functional. What about not being able to pick up loot? That’s non-functional…. You’re excusing shitty devs lmfao, this isn’t about good or bad, this is all shades of shit, or like I said previously tornadoes.
Sounds like you just aren’t educated on what the issues actually were, rose coloured glasses or something…. So not only disingenuous now.
In my experience it was much less buggy at launch than for example Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. I didn’t experience any game-breaking bugs, just ones that harmed immersion. There was a bit of T-posing, the occasional floating prop/animation bug, and once I got launched into the desert when climbing through a window. No crashes to desktop, no broken progression. It probably helped that I was happy with the game they delivered rather than getting hung up on what may have been promised.
bethesda games are known to be shit and buggy since forever and they mostly don’t even fix em after years it’s just how they operate . which isnt something ppl should normalize even sea-dogs / not developed by them - morrowind - oblivion all had these issues bethesda is really not a rolemodel on these things
Yes, just wanted to contrast the reception they got. Bethesda games don’t generally attract as much ire for the bugs. People expect them and tolerate them (to an extent). Cyberpunk 2077 was a totally broken mess according to the internet, while the Elder Scrolls are the greatest thing ever.
I had crashes to the desktop about every 4th area transition in Oblivion and it still didn’t bother me too much, since it had just saved and took less than a minute to get back into the game.
Some bugs - even total crashes - can still be put up with just fine.
Anecdotally, I feel like there is some survivorship bias going on here. I’ve seen plenty of complaints about Bethesda bugs over the years, but people that are truly bothered by it (me!) have sworn off all their games and thus have no reason to talk about them anymore. The only ones left playing are those that still have some enjoyment/respect for Bethesda games. Cyberpunk felt like more of a “mainstream” hit so it makes sense there was more backlash.
Because bethesda ( unfortunately ) got grandfathered in to making very good open world games FULL OF BUGS AND kinda got away with it undeservedly so ( kinda like how pokemon gets away with making mediocre games coz they were the first . like imagine call of duty ( as shit as they are ) making 2 versions of games and sellling you different weapons on each and you gottta payy 140 dollars :D if you want full content. but ppl are kinda waking up starfield was criticized more than their last games etc… ( id say cyberpunk was still worse than most elder scroll games though ( but still totally agreee with you different fan bases treat games differently both arent ok.
What I think is astonishing to some people lately about Cyberpunk, is that they got most of their information from the popular channels on the internet. Despite its name, these channels (reddit r/all, Twitter, etc) are a (loud) minority of the actual opinions.
Pretty much every one I talked to IRL about Cyberpunk was aware of the controversy, but had a much more nuanced opinion than I was seeing online. Many of them enjoyed it and weren’t really experiencing that many bugs (myself included). But this wasn’t an “allowed” opinion online. Anyone who said the game was enjoyable or they didn’t personally experience many bugs were attacked for being a CDPR fanboy (myself included) and down voted.
Honestly though, I believe the early issues with the game were mostly on consoles. On a decently specced PC, the game would run nicely right after launch, with some bugs, but nothing game breaking. I got it right after launch day and enjoyed myself quite a bit with it. The police and the way the cars drove were the things that bothered me the most.
I remember hearing even some high specced pcs were having issues and you had to essentially be lucky that you had a configuration that they had the time to optimise for. Just having the best gpu wasn’t enough, for example
I don’t remember it being that bad on my 1070 mobile laptop (8th gen Intel i5 H if I’m not mistaken), but it was sub 25 fps also. On my PC it ran better, but after upgrading to a 3080 with a 5800X3D was when it ran smoothly at higher resolutions, although the game also had received some updates by then.
True, though that shouldn’t give anyone dev or publisher the right to release a broken game on consoles because it works on PC. Either postpone the PC release date until the console issues are fixed, or release as a PC exclusive until the same. Part of the reason the game was so successful with phantom liberty is that they stopped previous gen console work so they could only focus on hardware that could actually support the game. As with many devs, their partnerships fucked them, getting pressure from Sony, MS, and Nvidia to release the game before it was a polished product
I played it on a pc that was ok at the time and the physics engine glitched out so things that were supposed to be sitting still on top of/next to each other would randomly collide and sometimes fly off. Still had fun with the game though.
I had some cars that were following an invisible road above where the real road was a few times, and although that broke immersion a bit, I also still had a lot of fun with the game.
It is so damning that the entire industry has reacted that way. It’s not that they closed a studio, that cod have been ignored. It’s how brazenly they closed successful studios for being successful while talking out the other side of their mouth to the press.
It feels gross in a much more palpable way. And with everything else going on in tech it feels so wrong coming from one of the biggest companies in earth.
I’m 100% over Xbox. I hope their next console is the worst release since ET on Atari.
Xbox buys talent, mismanages it in search of impossible scale, and cuts it loose - be that the 20-year experts of Fable, or the battle-scarred makers of Dishonored, or the invigorating new generation behind Hi-Fi Rush.
Talking up the demerits of capitalism in the massive gaming industry has been more common as of late (perhaps especially so on Lemmy), and I do think there is nuance in that conversation.
There’s no reasonable nuance here. Microsoft clearly wants insane return on investment from their studios, and I don’t see how that leaves room for the art of video game design.
When reading opinion pieces, especially ones on topics that I am passionate about, I try and keep a level head and not let the fact that it’s written in a publication I enjoy inform my opinion too much. That being said, I thought this was a well done look back at so many of the things the Xbox brand has gotten wrong over the years.
In today’s fast paced world I think it can be easy to forget stuff like lionhead’s closure and especially the PR releases that were said at that time. The similarities in the pr releases to the recent closures and lionhead’s closure were interesting to see.
I find myself overall agreeing with this piece and it’s conclusions. I do feel the author’s idea of why entertainment companies exist to perhaps be a little idealistic (although I am admittedly pretty jaded on the industry and capitalism as a whole at this point in my life). They claim that entertainment companies exist “to provide that entertainment.” Sure I think creative leads and the devs (especially in the games industry) are there to provide entertainment that they are passionate about. But idk if I can ever see a period where the publisher was in it for the art, despite what they may say. My jaded view is it’s always been for profits. That being said, while reading this and having that view in the back of my head, I did start to question myself a bit. Why is Xbox struggling so hard? I mean if every publisher is in it for the same reason, (profit in my mind) why is Xbox struggling so much with having a clear path. Sure the industry as a whole has been struggling this past year or so, but Xbox seemingly has been struggling for a lot longer. While not a huge Sony fan, they have provided a large list of really excellent games. Sony is of course in it for profits, but they seem to have had more success in getting quality games out the door.
Idk the piece made me think about the whole thing more and I’m not really sure where my thoughts are going to settle. I do know that I really think this shouldn’t have happened. Despite the state of the industry, Microsoft had $20 billion in profit last quarter. I see no reason why this needed to happen.
They claim that entertainment companies exist “to provide that entertainment.” Sure I think creative leads and the devs (especially in the games industry) are there to provide entertainment that they are passionate about. But idk if I can ever see a period where the publisher was in it for the art, despite what they may say.
I agree with you, except that up until the early-to-mid aughts, before Fortnight, and skinner box mobile games, and the promise of persistent revenue capitalizing on addictive tendencies and FOMO, publishers believed that the best path to profit was good games. Konami, to pick the (previously) worst example, published one of the weirdest, most cinematic, ambitious, influential games of all time with Metal Gear Solid. And then, eventually, they saw a straighter, shorter path to profit.
I am…way more personally upset about the Arkane closure than I usually get about these things. I have so much respect for what that studio created. This article is great though and gives the holistic perspective I’ve been looking for the past few days:
The point here, ultimately, is that this cycle has been repeating, and repeating, and repeating, and it does not show any sign of coming to an end. Xbox buys talent, mismanages it in search of impossible scale, and cuts it loose - be that the 20-year experts of Fable, or the battle-scarred makers of Dishonored, or the invigorating new generation behind Hi-Fi Rush. Xbox’s leadership clearly knows it’s a problem…they have to step behind this first, surface-level layer of justification for closing studios, and get to the real cause - not the decisions themselves, but the principles that inform them. The principles that say expertise, creativity and talent are less valuable than the cost to let them flourish.
I think in this business you can survive a generation in the wilderness. Nintendo had it with the Wii U. Arguably Sony had one with the PS3.
Two in a row? Well you’re out. Saturn followed by Dreamcast. MS are in their second, and tbh, it looks like they’re pivoting towards being a cross platform publisher and subscription provider. They can certainly afford to keep throwing money at the issue, but if there’s no results, there’s only so long they’ll be allowed to continue doing that before the boss pulls the rug on it. He does not seem like a man who is excited by his gaming division.
Gaming journalists sure want a Sony monopoly of gaming consoles, don’t they?
If Xbox didn’t exist, consumers could only choose PlayStation. Nintendo has shown they have no interest in making real console hardware to compete with Sony or Microsoft anymore, so consumers will get literally only one console choice. That’s bad. Especially since they could set prices at whatever they want and nobody could challenge it.
I get journalists hate Xbox, but Xbox needs to exist as a consumer option.
The Steam Deck is not a console, it is a handheld Linux PC with “console gaming” TV output as an afterthought, just like the Nintendo Switch is a handheld android tablet with console gaming as an afterthought.
K… This is just not true. Plenty of AAA games run well on the steam deck. Currently installed on mine, RDR2, cyberpunk 2077, horizon zero dawn, Forza horizon, uncharted legacy of thieves, the last of us, and for funsies I just started another fallout 4 playthrough. I’m sure others have lots of other AAA games they play on their deck.
If it’s the exclusives you’re missing, like Gran Turismo or something, I think that’s a different argument.
Being able to play AAA games is not a qualifier for a console. My PC can also play AAA games, but it is not a console.
The Steam Deck, and Switch, are both handhelds. It is a subcategory of game console, but it is not considered a game console just the same as a Game Boy is not considered a console, but it is a handheld. Both the Steam Deck and Switch have a screen and internal battery, along with a controller that is built onto the device, like a Game Boy.
A Steam Machine is a Linux PC, but is more similar to a console than the Steam Deck.
I mean, the nuance you describe is notable. But I sit on the couch, using controllers and play the same games you would on ps or Xbox. Both of which run variants of Linux/windows.
I think that's the point bro above is making tho... sure you an use it like one. But it does not compete directly with PS5 and Xbox. Different audience and primary use case is different.
If Xbox dies, steam deck is not a proper substitute for people who buy TV consoles. I guess steam could make steam console tho tbh
it aint ready for mainstream, it still has issues and translation layer aint perfect at all. my gaming rig is on linux. I guess this will be resolved at some point and valve will release a TV console version.
The hardware is not in the same class, in fact it literally under powered because it is a handheld. Guy who wants headshot noobs 4 loolz wants that 4k60 fps experience.
not “features” per se, but consoles have a better performance-to-price ratio compared to handhelds. In the bill of materials for a handheld you’re paying for a screen and battery that are unnecessary expenses if you just need a console. in a console, that money will go towards higher powered hardware to run games, and maybe some other ancillary things. Also in a console you can have a better cooling system since you’re not constrained to a mobile form factor. Also in a console you can use higher power since performance is not being balanced with batter life.
Reading through the above comments it seems like goalposts keep moving on what counts as a console. Does the wii u not count as a console because the controller had a screen and the price to performance is poor?
I’m not sure any of you have a concrete definition for a console, and maybe there isn’t one. It might be more of a spectrum with open and configurable devices on one end and the more focused devices with walled garden software on the other.
Then you can say that ps5 is more like a console than steam deck is, and steam deck is more like a console than a pc.
Does the wii u not count as a console because the controller had a screen and the price to performance is poor?
The WiiU Gamepad did not function on its own, it had to be connected to the actual console in order to function. It was literally a controller with a screen. It did not have any functionality without the console.
The person I was responding to was citing costs accrued for screen and battery as a reasoning for why steam deck is not a console, so I was giving an example (wii u) that contradicts that reasoning.
I don’t actually care if you consider the steam deck or wii u or anything is a console or not. My point was that I don’t see a concrete definition anywhere in this thread and that maybe a more nuanced view would be appropriate.
I see. I will try to provide as detailed of a concrete definition as possible for you.
A video game console is an electronic device that is built with the specific purpose of playing video games. It can do other things as well, but its primary function that it is designed around is playing video games. A console does not have a built in screen or control device, but instead those devices are separate and connect to the console in order to give it inputs and for it to output its signal to the user. A video game console does not run a standard computer operating system that one might find on a workstation, but it can run a modified version of a standard operating system that is specifically optimized for the console hardware to play video games more efficiently The console device is to be placed in a permanent location while in operation, and must be plugged into an electrical socket or similar power supply, as it is not powered by an internal battery.
A handheld is a subcategory of video game console that differs by having a screen and controller built into the device. It is not in a permanent location while in operation, rather it is operated while held in the users hands. These have a battery to provide power to the unit.
Ah, that does clarify a lot. You’re wanting a term to refer to the Xbox and Playstation class devices since they’re in this closely competing realm, but people already have a preconceived notion of what a “console” is (I would consider handheld to be consoles, for example).
It does seem like it would be useful to have a term for those.
Well this is the traditional definition of a video game console, it includes all video game consoles before the current generation. For example, the SNES, SEGA Genesis, and PC Engine/TurboGrafx16 were all competing consoles, but the SEGA GameGear and Nintendo Gameboy were not competing with those consoles.
As I said, handhelds are a subcategory of console. Like how a laptop is a subcategory of personal computer.
If it’s a subcategory of console then it is a console. Otherwise it’s like saying a square is not a rectangle because it is a square, or a cat is not a mammal because it is a cat.
That’s why I say you are searching for a term for things like the Xbox and Playstation - because it would be useful to have a term for that. Simply “console” is not a good fit imo, but you may disagree.
A handheld is a kind of console. It is not in competition or in the same class as a regular console.
A square is a kind of rectangle, nobody that says “draw a rectangle” expects you to draw a square, they expect a box with two sides longer than the other two but equal in length to each other adjoined at 90° angles. A square is a subcategory of rectangle. Its definition includes some features of a rectangle, but it also has other features that define it as clearly different from a rectangle.
Likewise a laptop is a subcategory of personal computer. A tablet such as a Microsoft Surface could also be a subcategory of personal computer. But if someone talks about their PC, you don’t think of a laptop or Surface.
Its the same with consoles and handhelds. By technicality one could call a handheld a console in the same way a person could call a Surface a personal computer, but that would be the same as calling a hot dog a sandwich, or calling a submarine a boat.
Perhaps “home console” would be more descriptive, but since video game consoles were always understood to not be handheld devices, there is no need to subdivide the parent category. Just “consoles” and “handhelds” works fine.
i would say the wiiu is a special case console. they tried adding a screen to a typical console design and it didn’t really work. that’s why they pivoted to the switch which is much more like a portable than a console.
the vast, vast majority of consoles don’t have screens built into their controllers.
Most of Nintendo’s pre-Switch “consoles” arguably had poor performance-to-price ratios in terms of hardware.
Also, a PC doesn’t have the constraints of a mobile form factor and better cooling and can have better performance without the built in battery and screen. You just argued to me that a PC can be a console.
This all seems arbitrary to argue the differences.
While you can do that with a Steam Deck or Nintendo Switch, that was not their primary design. Its no different than plugging in a laptop to a TV with a wireless controller and gaming on that. That is not a console, it was not designed as such.
Additionally, the quality of gaming experience you get from a Switch is worse than on Steam Deck for intensive games, even for native Switch games sometimes. But the quality of games on the Steam Deck is worse than a purpose built game console like the Xbox Series X or PS5. Keep in mind the Steam Deck is 2 years newer than the Xbox Series X or PS5. While the experience may be comparable on some less intensive games, the console experience is objectively better.
Steam Deck and Nintendo Switch are not competition to Xbox or PlayStation. Valve and Nintendo don’t view them as such, and neither do consumers.
I don’t think anybody wants a monopoly, because it means the leader can stagnate, and honestly that’s already happened. Sony are getting complacent, the big releases are few and far between. We’re all getting less for our money, no matter what team you’re on.
I often buy multiple consoles in a generation, but I didn’t get the Xbox One or Xbox Series consoles, because there’s no reason to, and it’s not because I’ve got an expensive PC either, still being on a 1060. Being late to the game is fine, PS3 did that and ended up selling pretty much as many as the Xbox 360 in the end, but where is that spark from MS? They’ve gambled it all on Game Pass and I’m not sure you can run an entire gaming division on that, same as Netflix couldn’t compete with Hollywood without the box office money. The cloud growth just hasn’t happened for them. It doesn’t feel as good as local play, and I suspect it never will. A PS5 has hit pricing that isn’t really that expensive for fairly casual gamers, although the most casual went mobile ages ago and I doubt they’re coming back.
Xbox hardware is fine, there just isn’t any reason to own it. If it ran Windows and I could install my Steam library on it, I’d have got it on day one, but how does that make MS money? There’s even been noises about the next Xbox allowing Steam, although I don’t know how true that it is. I would guess the only way that can happen is if MS get a chunk of Valve’s money every time somebody buys a game through Steam for Xbox. It’s the only real feature that would get me to buy one right now.
I get journalists hate Xbox, but Xbox needs to exist as a consumer option.
I don’t understand, is this a thing? “All journalists hate Xbox” I mean. I’ve never heard this before. Like there’s a mandate that journalists have to hate the Xbox?
EDIT: I’ll eat the downvotes, I just want to understand what the fuck they’re talking about
Nah, it’s an obviously false take, because as you say, why would all journalists agree on this?
XBOX has been underwhelming for a while and journalists will report on that, and they will focus on those bad parts and certainly also sometimes make it sound worse than it really is, because it brings in clicks.
That can make it look like journalists dislike XBOX, but causality is simply the other way around.
Yeah the comment felt like bizarre astroturfing – Why would ‘gaming journalists’ specifically not want Xbox to succeed, but want Playstation to? Like somehow a Sony monopoly is great for… journalists? A very strange take.
XBOX has been underwhelming for a while and journalists will report on that, and they will focus on those bad parts and certainly also sometimes make it sound worse than it really is, because it brings in clicks.
I worked at Microsoft and I can assure you, they deserve every bit of hate they get. And it really is that bad. There was a point with the Xbox One where Sony was beating ‘us’ in every single market we were actively tracking except specific parts of the US. Yet we had directive after directive for clearly nonsensical ideas like targeting Japan for console sales.
I also worked (third party) with Sony and they aren’t much better, but they at least understand how to get their consoles bought. Microsoft hasn’t known how to do that since the 360.
Nintendo has shown they have no interest in making real console hardware
Ah yes, the no true Scotsman argument.
Nintendo doesn’t make hardware to compete with Sony and Microsoft, despite having the best selling console hardware all-time, among the current generation, and among several previous generations.
You don’t have to be a graphical powerhouse to compete with PlayStation and Xbox…
Nintendo is not competing with Microsoft or Sony, and that’s why they can sell more.
People arent choosing between Xbox, PlayStation, or Switch. Theyre choosing between Xbox or PlayStation, and also buying a Switch. That is not competition.
Gaming journalists sure want a Sony monopoly of gaming consoles, don’t they?
Despite the inflammatory headline, I don’t think that’s really the point of the article. It’s much less “why even bother”, and more “do they even know what they’re doing over there”?
Any hatred the writer has for Xbox seems to be focused on how Microsoft are running things, not letting the studios take chances or even make a bit of a dud game.
As a platform, the point of Xbox is supposed to be to make things people enjoy. But MS seem hyper-focused on insane rates of growth, more users, more subscribers, bigger profits. Anything that doesn’t fit that gets cut, regardless of how well it was received by fans or critics.
I don’t get the impression the writer hates Xbox, but is just frustrated that they’ve been making the same mistake over and over again, which has allowed Sony to dominate the console space.
Microsoft and Google really aren’t too dissimilar, in a lot of ways. The only reason why Xbox still exists isn’t because they’re so incredibly passionate about it. There was a niche for them to make money, and they’ve created a product in it, that has the minimum viable qualities to complete. Issue is that just as Google does, they stopped caring about it entirely, after the initial pitch
eurogamer.net
Gorące