I heard the rumor of oblivion remaster but the only thought I had was why not Morrowind? As someone who’s only heard of how good it is but never played im curious cause it seems like aside from Skyrim Morrowind was everyone’s favorite elder scrolls
Especially since Oblivion seems to work fine on modern Xboxen. Back on reddit, all the Morrowind first-timers were using OpenMW, and all the Oblivion first-timers were playing on console somehow.
But Bethesda could very well release a Skyrim Extra Special Edition in the interim, and fans will lap it up, no doubt. Jokes aside, there are many large fan-projects in the works which fans are looking forward to, such such as OpenMW, Skyblivion and Skywind, not to mention more “normal” mods for Skyrim itself, so I doubt the interest in the franchise is going away any time soon.
I have a bad feeling about an Oblivion and Fallout 3 remaster. Due to the last two games they made. Fallout 76 is trash, and Starfield is mediocre. I hope the remasters are good.
At least it would be TRYING to have more reach to consumers.
Nintendo’s strategy of only appealing to kids and only sometimes caring about it’s actual, much larger fanbase isn’t really economically estrategic if you think about it.
Because they sell their products at overpriced numbers and their current console is built on 8 year old hardware that even it’s chip makers said it was “outdated” back in 2015.
Yeah, and it's sold more units than the PS5 and all iterations of the current XBox combined, at a profit on every unit. Nobody's out there holding a gun to people's heads to buy the Switch, but they sell FAR more than either of their competitors in both hardware AND software. It sounds to me like you're not actually angry at Nintendo, but angry at the majority of customers in the game industry that don't share your disdain for less powerful hardware.
The hardware is weak, but the market has spoken and to them at least, it doesn't matter. If it DID matter, people wouldn't buy them. Why would Nintendo spend the extra money when consumers have already decided they're going to buy it in droves anyway? So they can spend more on manufacturing and make less profit? Yes, they wanted easy cash. What responsible company doesn't? It doesn't make any sense to spend a dime more on producing a product than what your customers demand. The limitations of the Switch are the fault of consumers who buy it, not Nintendo's. If Microsoft could sell the same number of units Nintendo can by making a game system that cost $50 to manufacture and ran on 386, you can be damn sure they would too. I completely understand your anger - I've had to spend the last 20 years watching flocks of people buy inferior, overpriced Apple products and rave about how great they are. But like Nintendo, Apple only does it because the consumers let them get away with it. Your complaint is misdirected when it should be targeted at the customer base. But good luck teaching happy people who don't know any better that the thing they like is bad. It's not a great use of your time.
All of your other problems are perfectly reasonable, but if you think Microsoft's plan if they buy Nintendo is to drop everything and start porting old titles or working on a new Starfox game, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Like Disney buying Star Wars, get ready for annual, mediocre entries in your favorite series cranked out by a revolving door of existing teams to maximize output. After a couple years of half-baked Mario and Zelda games, they'll stop selling in the numbers Microsoft wants, and after the golden goose is dead, they'll dissolve any remaining Nintendo assets into their larger acquisitions structure, lay off a bunch, and put the name in the vault while they look for something else to cannibalize.
So like the vast majority of PCs still run on 1060 instead of whatever the latest shit is? Sounds pretty reasonable, especially if you want mobile gaming.
Why do people behave as if Starfield was the first game not released on PlayStation?
Who is doing that? It's just blatantly obvious that it would've been released on PlayStation without Microsoft meddling and their games sell a shitload, I mean Skyrim has been chugging along over a decade now. So I'm not really sure how Starfield is irrelevant to Ms buying shit conversation.
It's not what being an exclusive means (let not get into linguistics here, I mean strictly the gaming industry term). I agree this specific case was anticompetitive but framing it as an exclusive just weakens this point in my opinion and allows to shift the debate away from it.
Away from what? Everyone knows what it means -- or maybe I don't, please enlighten me in that case.
It's more like a default platform seeing as even former PlayStation exclusives are slowly getting a PC release as well. And I did call Starfield Xbox/PC exclusive, not just Xbox.
It's probably not the word to describe what's getting released where and stems from marketing but it's commonly used in gaming so most understand its meaning.
PC is another of MS’s platforms with Windows. No shit they’re ok with their games being released on it when consumers are paying over a $100 for a Windows license every few years.
I do find it a little interesting that Phil Spencer is ignoring the content of the leaks and instead just focusing on the fact the documents are out of date. I would imagine the contents of the leaks are likely still pretty close to accurate, even if plans have changed a little, as a result.
I also wonder if Xbox will use the reaction to the leaks to determine potential changes going forward (ie: reactions to the console being all digital, reactions to the next gen console processor, etc).
Ideally, you would have internal PR and crisis comms draft such a mailing, because you plan that it gets leaked. He probably saw it once to sign off on, but it was writen by comms.
You generally don’t want to confirm leaks as being true, so you’ll either not say anything about it (this was an internal memo, not a public post) or you’ll say something along the lines of “These things are subject to change and don’t reflect the final product”
I also wonder if Xbox will use the reaction to the leaks to determine potential changes going forward (ie: reactions to the console being all digital, reactions to the next gen console processor, etc).
Almost certainly, make lemonade and all that, it can be very valuable feedback it just wouldn’t have been worth telegraphing your 5 year plan.
“headed”. if it wasn’t for them being scared about the activision blizzard deal not being hand waved through like it was, there wouldn’t have been the 2020-2022 pause too. that’ll get right back on track now. Microsoft does deals for acquisitions in feb targetting june for completion normally so about then.
Imagine having specific months every year where you prepare to break and then break (if not the letter then definitely the spirit of) antitrust laws and most people either don’t know or pretend that there’s nothing wrong with it 🤬
Am not sure EC would let that one slide as they really like multiple companies competing for same slice of market. That way everyone benefits. Microsoft was already kicked in the teeth for Office and browsers back in the day for trying to dominate the market.
theverge.com
Najstarsze