I don’t know why everyone is so angry at this comment. The question was about what will it take for subscriptions to increase and become dominant in industry, the guy answered that. The interview was with the guy about Ubisoft’s subscription service, what else people expected?
If anyone talks to the guy in-charge of Gamepass, and they ask them how will gamepass increase, they wont’ say, well, if everyone keeps buying physical, that will be great for us.
I think the Ubisoft guy is pushing for subscriptions when a lot of people are not keen. See any of the recent articles about NatGeo pulling videos from Sony, etc etc.
As gamers grow comfortable in that aspect… you don’t lose your progress. If you resume your game at another time, your progress file is still there. That’s not been deleted. You don’t lose what you’ve built in the game or your engagement with the game. So it’s about feeling comfortable with not owning your game.
First of all, not here to defend Ubisoft, I completely agree about not trusting them to do what’s good for gamers.
So, my point was, everything said in this interview, is pretty much same thing you will hear from any “head of subscription” of any company. I think MS is currently the most aggressive one, with their Gamepass. Keep in mind this interview is specifically about their subscription service, and the changes they made it isn’t about anything else. Sony is currently (or well last I read about it) most defensive with subscription, often talking about how it’s bad for the industry, but if you ask whoever is incharge of PS+, and ask them, what needs to happen before subscription will really take off, he would probably say the same thing.
As for closing down of online servers, it’s always sad when that happens. That’s a valid reason to blame a company, but pretty much all companies do that. As a patient gamer, I don’t even remember how many times I have come across a game where I would find out you can’t get all trophies because online servers have shut down. So, all companies should be blamed for this.
So many people framed Activision as the bad guy, when we are seeing that they actually staved off some idiotic decisions on Bungie’s part. I have a feeling that while the layoffs are awful, I look at other studios run by Sony and can’t help but wonder if the real issue was just at the local management level, and Sony’s intervention is maybe needed to save Bungie from itself. Pete Parsons is a piece of shit fuckhead.
Do they have any other option than to stick to their guns on this one? That’s sold the XBox Series S as having feature parity with the Series X. If they go against that now, then they’ve engaged in false advertising and will immediately get slapped with a huge lawsuit and/or fine, plus all the negative PR that comes from it.
They’re stuck until the next console generation, which is a long way out. And I wonder if PS5 will continue to gain ground against XBox for the rest of the generation as a result.
It will be interesting to see if they continue with their two-model tiering next gen, but I’m guessing they won’t.
Having just looked up the equivalent PC specs, it really doesn’t seem like a lot of power.
I imagine the game can run “fine”, but they probably need to do a fair bit of optimisation or people will complain about the way it looks and frame rate.
One of the benefits consoles used to have was everyone running the same hardware, but they’ve lost that now and I don’t imagine console players will be as accepting of lower quality as PC players with low end GPUs.
The main issue, and what’s keeping Baldur’s Gate off it, is a RAM issue. It’s got less RAM that the One, and things like dual screen need more RAM than the S has.
Most of time, it’s the juggle of time and resource available to you, but there is still a hard limit otherwise how about demand BG3 to also run on my antique knockoff NES? Cause they are too lazy to accommodate the hardware limitation? How about my smart watch? Or someone else’s smart fridge?
Don’t get me wrong, what you said in some cases but most likely the devs are told to push it out instead of make the game run better(on the target platforms.) There are no secret sauce to otherwise fit a game like BG3 to previous gen consoles.
Last, if you are really good at this optimization thing the whole industry will pay good money for your skill set.
From what they’ve said the game can run fine, but the issue is getting local split screen on the S working because it has such a small amount of RAM available
It’s just a business decision. Enough players have strong enough hardware that the invest into optimizing for weaker hardware isn’t likely to pay off.
If there is a weaker platform with lots of players, like the Switch, that can make optimizing financially viable, but obviously, it depends on how much optimizing you would have to do…
If they go against that now, then they’ve engaged in false advertising and will immediately get slapped with a huge lawsuit and/or fine,
No they won’t. Companies aren’t beholden to their commitments from advertisements in perpetuity. In the first place, someone would need to sue, or begin a class action. That’d drag out for years, and almost certainly lose.
I’d be furious with any company if they pulled that sort of shit with a product I owned.
On the other hand, feature parity means that the full potential of the X because everything also has to run on the S. So all the things that the X can do that the S can’t will, probably, not be used much, if at all, going forward, just to avoid this kind of hassle.
Great deal for people who bought the S, but sucks shit for people who paid a couple hundred bucks more for the X, for features that simply won’t be utilized.
Since these Xbox consoles came out, maybe even since Xbox One X, they've been talking about being "beyond generations". I figured that would result in more periodic updates, probably with two simultaneous lines of Xboxes, X and S, but it hasn't turned out that way. So far, it's just seemed to mean that you don't have to deal with Sony's BS around PS4 and PS5 versions of the same game.
They should’ve figured out a way to communicate that the Series S will last until next gen, but the Series X would get more cross-gen games when next gen launches
Or they should’ve known that RAM is hard to scale on and they could’ve included an extra 2GB or so in the Series S lol
But I’m actually a believer that BG3 could be made to run on XSS even with split screen, it’s just gonna take more work and reduced graphics maybe audio quality too, and smarter data streaming from the SSD
Or they should’ve known that RAM is hard to scale on and they could’ve included an extra 2GB or so in the Series S lol
They really should have. It’s got 2Gb less than the One, which is where all these problems are coming from.
And as for getting BG3 running on the S, well, Microsoft has had to send out some of their engineers to help Larian figure out how to do it, so I doubt it’s going to be an easy job.
Wasn’t the general idea that direct storage means data moves from the SDD to the GPU skipping RAM, hence the need for less. It’s possible Larian aren’t used to dealing with direct storage since the PC doesn’t have it in most systems even now and so just brute forced things the old way on PS5? That’s why MS engineers have to go and show them how to use the new architecture.
On PC, the point is that you can skip RAM and go straight to VRAM. You still need the assets in memory while you use them. It's faster but it's not that much faster. With unified memory there isn't that distinction. That's one of the ways consoles can be better optimized than a general PC build.
The Series S will become an ever bigger anchor going forward. Eventually, there will be 3rd party games that just choose not to bother with the Xbox at all because of the Series S.
We’re only a few years into the new console generation and problems are also starting. It’s definitely going to get worse as more demanding games start coming out. Microsoft is really going to have to loosen their parity policy, or it’s going to hold either the entire generation back or them back.
Given that there’s plenty of PCs out there with lower spec than the S they still need to scale their game for, I doubt it will be as big an issue as people make out. BG3 is an odd outlier as they’ve put a splitscreenode in the console game that the PC version doesn’t have and that’s what’s holding things up.
Given that there’s plenty of PCs out there with lower spec than the S
Not when it comes to memory. The Xbox SS only has 10GB combined system memory and VRAM. The PC version of BG3 requires 8GB system memory plus 4GB of VRAM, so the SS is a couple gigabytes short in total.
Going by the Steam hardware survey, 95% of PCs have at least 8GB of system memory, with 16GB being easily the most common amount. 80% have at least 4GB of VRAM, with 8GB being the most common amount.
For obvious reasons I can’t post it publicly before MS discloses it. They are currently migrating more and more GDK docs to the public site, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the link became publicly available soon, but currently one still needs to register a dev account to access it.
I’ve only ever bought the first one, got the rest for free. I generally like the gun play idea but my interest always fizzles out due to the ‘humor’ and getting caught in a too high level well… Level and deciding to give up.
I literally could not care less. Thanks to their relentless pursuit of emulator developers and fans who mod their games, Nintendo is dead to me. I’ll never understand why they choose to sue their biggest, most dedicated fans into oblivion. It’s pure evil.
I’m not saying they’re doing the right thing but this is always such an overreaction. Among all the evil in the world today nintendo’s actions are relatively minor, and widespread piracy gives them a plausible legal basis for doing it
You don’t think corporate greed is evil? Not as evil as the shit going down in Israel and the current state of US politics (amongst so many other things), but still evil nonetheless.
I could in some ways understand their pursuit of emulators when they’re monetizing those same games currently (even if I disagree with their pricing structure on them). What really got my goat was when they went after Garry’s Mod animations, a medium that has promoted their visibility and never conflicted with their software sales in the slightest.
Yeah, they’re jerks who happen to produce good games from time to time and build consoles out of parts that are 4 years old at launch.
I believe Nintendo went after Switch emulators because the new Switch shares enough with the original to make it a cake walk to emulate Switch 2 games with better performance.
That’s what pisses me off so much. Instead of releasing a console with decent performance, they rather sue their fans into oblivion, just because they want to run their games @ 4K 120Hz. I wouldn’t need a Switch emulator if their god damn console wasn’t so weak. It can’t even handle 30 FPS in many titles, let alone 120+. It’s not like these are demanding titles, either. I’ve played mobile games with better graphics. There’s no excuse.
Nintendo has had such terrible quality control when it comes to performance on Switch. First party Nintendo games even suffer from unacceptable framerate drops. So many Switch games struggle to perform well on the Switch; we need a Switch 2 just to get all the Switch 1 games to play at the intended performance level.
Yeah the studio put out nothing but nice games. Sure, Ghostwire in particular wasn’t stellar, but it was also enjoyable and pretty well done. Evil Within was dorky, but in just the right way. Hi-Fi was phenomenal, and that alone should have seen them physically behead every single higher manager at Bethesda before they tough anyone at Tango.
But alas, apparently if it ain’t Fallout: Ghostwire or Fallout: Hi-Fi, then it doesn’t matter. Manager bonuses ain’t going to pay themselves (hrm… come to think of it, they do?), line has to go up!
Very few third-party games remain exclusive to one platform forever, so in those cases I’m usually content to just wait it out until the exclusivity deal is over then pick the game up on a platform I own. Sometimes the wait can be pretty long but I really don’t have much of a sense of FOMO most of the time.
You let companies review your game when you want fans outside your bubble to hear how good your game is. You don’t let companies review your game when you don’t want fans inside your bubble to fund out how bad your game is.
It’s fucking ridiculous that CEO’s make decisions that make players dislike a game or product yet the workers are the ones getting laid off. I doubt any of the regular employees had a say in the shitty DLC decisions.
The reality is you made a game that few will play for several years. You could have made a game that could be playable on most contemporary machines. You didn’t and will now have to suffer from shitty sales due to your inability to understand that the majority of us don’t have the money to spend like you do you out of touch clueless ballsack.
Anyone that remembers Aliens: Colonial Marines and Duke Nukem Forever knows that Randy Pitchford is garbage. He also ran off most of the talent behind BL1 and BL2, which is why BL3 writing was shitty.
ign.com
Ważne