I nearly said “20” but then realized I’m almost twice that old myself and the NES is a couple years older than me. Friggin’ millennials. We’re ruining the aging industry too.
IDK, MS really went all the way with backwards compatibility. They literally built emulators for the 360 and OG Xbox in order to let people play old games using old disks they already owned.
I’d be shocked if they didn’t stay committed to this.
The rumored Series X refresh doesn’t have a disk drive.
It’d be hard for Microsoft to remain committed to game preservation in that way without them.
To me, this sounds more like they’re looking at Nintendo’s virtual store playbook and wondering how many times they can sell the same games to their customer base.
Surely it will help them reclaim their spot as the de facto fighting game console in a scene where many people use unlicenced controllers with Brook boards.
Not really, just let the game devs chose when to request that the console enforces stricter verification of accessories and otherwise just allow whatever
But if someone wants to do an arcade controller, this changes almost nothing. Just solder the wires on the contact pads on an official Xbox controller. Impossible to detect via software
Even the turbo button can be done, with an intermediate IC that transforms the signal from the button to be intermittent
But just remember that during the 360/PS3 era when MS were in the lead, it was Sony trying to by all consumer friendly, advocating online cross play and having free online service.
they have to find new ways of competing for business
Yeah haha. Regrettably doing right by the consumers because a competitor is.
Although I would not be surprised if they find a way to make a money pit out of it. (Such as not being chill like Sony and releasing on steam, forcing users on to the Windows store)
I’m still glad I paid for it when it was a good deal. It’s not like I was committed. The unsubscribe button is pretty easy, and I don’t need to play a lot of those singleplayer games anymore.
Does that include xbox gamepass core customers? Because that’s basically an entirely different service, and it’s also something you’d expect a very high adoption rate of among Xbox console owners, given the platform’s historical emphasis on multiplayer games. There’s also rather a lot of people who stacked many months of gamepass for quite cheap.
While the platform has certainly seen some success, it’s hardly in a dominant position, so making moves that make the value proposition of the service look worse is surprising.
I did no such thing lol. People had to be surprised by this turn of events based on the response to it in this very thread. Whether or not people are forced to continue paying for it has nothing to do with anything I said, speaking of straw men.
I got a ton of hate online when they announced the Activision deal and I said that though they’d get COD for “free” but they would almost immediately start hiking the price a lot. This has been obvious but some people refuse to think MS wasn’t going to try and recoup their $70B?
Eh, this is a case of them offering a better deal than actually ever made sense, because they expected the volume of subscribers to make up for it, but that never manifested.
They don’t; there was an internal tech demo that never went anywhere but was spread around online a few months ago with a bunch of misinformation that Microsoft was preparing to fight the Steam Deck head on.
Xbox takes a 30% cut from devs, has ads on its console and wants to charge a subscription for online gaming (now raising its price by 25%). Can’t triple dip like this, Microsoft.
Haven’t renewed PS Plus either since its price hike. Just gonna play disc games on my PS5 till the end of its lifespan.
Do they realize this may be the only way some people can legally play the games? I can imagine lots of disabilities that only let people play with a niche controller
Microsoft makes some very good quality adaptive controller accessories. IMO that still doesn’t make this move OK, but at least disabled people still have a supported option.
100% it’s a total moneygrab.
At the detriment of those who struggle the most already - those who need special equipment, and those who can’t afford official ctrls.
I bet they also won’t approve controllers designed to work on other consoles/devices as well. Necessitating getting one accessibility controller for your xbox and one for everything else.
I’ve never been one to play competitive online games since I have the hand/ eye coordination of a house plant, so I can’t weigh in on the advantages of blocking controllers that are “unfair”; but as someone who hated button mashing “A” in Animal Crossing, I can say that custom controllers can definitely have a place with a console.
In my opinion, this feels like Microsoft simply wanted more licensing money and is doing it under the guise of fair online play. It reminds me of Apple locking faster charging and data transfer on USB-C to their own proprietary USB cables.
Hopefully this does not negatively affect too many people.
The unfair advantage argument definitely holds water, mouse and keyboard can be like a sports car racing against a bicycle. But if someone had the budget to tackle this issue through software, it would be Microsoft. So I’m inclined to agree that it’s mostly just MS squeezing money out of third party manufacturers.
If they’d care only about the “unfair”, they’d put a fair, almost free, price on the official license that covers the cost of testing or whatever. Truth presumably here is also a bit more complicated, maybe third party controllers could be easier to hack resulting in an ineffective licensing system, idk. But yeah smells like money for Microsoft and a loss for consumers.
Wouldn’t the unfair advantage only hold water if they blocked unauthorized accessories only with online multi-player games and leave single-player experiences alone?
All HID input devices have identifiers that they communicate to the host to determine their functions. I guess you could potentially make a device that appears to be a controller and translates keyboard/mouse with a couple USB inputs. You could probably get a Pi to do that. But no one cares about winning on console that badly, they just go play on PC 🙄
Okay, then I’m going to default back to the fact that someone’s going to break the DRM and still make those devices, and this is only going to hurt people using accessible controllers.
You are probably right. Devices like these in the old days used to require you hook up an official controller to it to get past the drm. Likely will evolve back to that.
I guess you could potentially make a device that appears to be a controller and translates keyboard/mouse with a couple USB inputs
They control the console, the OS, the controller hardware, and can require the console to connect to them. They already have the ability to push out controller firmware updates. They can have the controller cryptographically authenticate to the console and push blacklists to the console of keys that get leaked (like if someone somehow extracts a key from a legit controller and uses it to make a knockoff).
One thing that kinda sprang to mind was accessible controllers. Ik Microsoft makes one and I’m sure there’s some approved but my thoughts are what if it doesn’t serve your needs
I wonder if QuadStick has approval. Specifically designed for people with minimal to no hand function, which their controller isn’t going to fucking work for.
I hope this isn’t Microsoft becoming more Apple-like. That said, if this leads to a restriction on the use of cheat-capable controller accessories such as the Chronos Zen then it could be a significant positive for FPS console gamers.
It reminds me of Apple locking faster charging and data transfer on USB-C to their own proprietary USB cables.
Are you sure of that? It was certainly rumoured before the release of the iPhone 15 Pro that Apple would require MFi cables for high speed data transfer but I don’t think that turned out to be true. As far as I can tell any high speed USB-C cable will allow full speed transfer from an IPhone 15 Pro. It might need to be a Thunderbolt 3 cable, especially for recording to external SSD, not sure, I’m no expert, but I don’t think it needs to be an MFi cable.
You’re correct about the specs of the device. However, after announcement/release there was controversy that the cable included in the box is only capable of USB 2.0 transfer speeds. But Marques Brownlee pointed out that the same is usually true with the included cable for Android devices too. I got a portable SSD to use with my iPad Pro and it just comes with a short high-speed cable anyway…
Edit: The included cable with the iPad is also only 2.0 speeds, even though it has a USB4 40Gbps port.
I don’t think it’s hardware. It’s a differentiator. Tell me why I (or whoever) should pick an Xbox over a PlayStation?
Microsoft tried to answer that question with Game Pass, seemingly going all in on that concept, paying or outright buying publishers to bring their games to Game Pass. Some people may love Game Pass, but most people I know either never subscribed to it or only tested it when it was like 1,-€ for a month or whatever.
What else differentiates it from the PS5 in a positive way? Sure, the Series X is a bit more powerful than the PS5, but it’s close enough that it basically results in slightly different behavior for games with dynamic resolution scaling, with the PS5 sometimes even pulling ahead oddly enough (probably a more mature SDK, not sure).
The controller is…well, a decent controller. It doesn’t do anything special like adaptive triggers, yet it costs almost the same as a DualSense, and if you count in the optional (!) battery pack, it’s quite a bit more expensive even.
Playing online costs just as much as on PS5 (why do you have to pay extra to play online in 2023, anyways?).
Of the few mentionable exclusive games, most are honestly just mediocre (also in terms of critical acclaim).
What’s left? Backwards compatibility for 360 games? Sure that’s nice, but surely not a system seller for most people, especially when they don’t already have a ton of 360 games.
I just don’t see many cases where someone would prefer the Xbox Series X to a PlayStation 5, without even taking into account what platform their friends are on.
If you want to win market share, deliver a better product. With better services. With better conditions. For lower prices.
That is how it works. Crying to the public about how unfair it is because Sony has such a large installed base already because of how Microsoft fucked up the Xbox One generation (at or even before launch) is NOT how it works.
I don’t think it’s hardware. It’s a differentiator. Tell me why I (or whoever) should pick an Xbox over a PlayStation?
What else differentiates it from the PS5 in a positive way?
The thing is, it’s not even Games Pass or the hardware. For me, as a PC gamer, having an Xbox would be redundant. Anything an Xbox can do, my PC just does strictly better without a cumbersome UI and additional online subscription.
I own a PS5 for access to Sony exclusives when they launch, instead of waiting 1-5 years for the PC ports. I also get access to PS Plus’ extensive classic collection and indie collections, which, regardless of the price of the subscription, broadens my gaming library extensively–something Xbox simply doesn’t do.
Why would I purchase a console that only gives me access to the same games on a worse system vs a console that expands my library considerably?
100% this. I was bored and felt like setting money on fire a week ago, and figured I should grab a Series X finally. Went and looked through exclusives and, woof.
I have a PS5, but wanted to get the Series before Halo Infinite came out. But since it was on Xbox One as well, I justified the purchase because Fable would eventually be out as an exclusive.
I definitely would have waited if I knew Infinite was going to be shit.
The console experience is different enough though. I have a PC I can game on with no issue, but I rarely do, because i love my sofa, my LG OLED and my soundbar. At the end of a tiring working day, after taking care of my chores, putting the kids to bed, I just can’t get back to the computer, especially if I had to use it all day long for work…
But, at the end of the day, it’s all a matter of preference: do you like PS 1st party kinds of games? Go for PlayStation. Are you more eclectic? Go for Game Pass. Your kids want a potent enough machine for Roblox and Fortnite? The Series S is there for you. Do you travel a lot? Go for a Switch or a Steam Deck (loving mine btw).
Plus, the ultimate question: How much does a PC/a console or a new game cost in your country?
At the end of a tiring working day, after taking care of my chores, putting the kids to bed, I just can’t get back to the computer, especially if I had to use it all day long for work…
Those are the days I Miracast my PC to my TV and curl up on the couch with a wireless controller.
My soon-to-be 7-year-old has a Switch that fits his Minecraft / Pokemon / YouTube needs, and I have my PS5 for exclusives that don’t have a PC port yet (I’m currently playing through FFXVI, for example.
Plus, the ultimate question: How much does a PC/a console or a new game cost in your country?
I currently live in the States, so any average price you look up in USD will apply. I built my own PC, I purchased my PS5 on sale, and I will build myself a new PC when my son is old enough to be trusted (under supervision) with my current PC, if any of that matters.
@Vestria@narc0tic_bird Yep exactly. When it comes down to similar platforms, experiences you can't have on the other platform(s) are what differentiate them at the end of the day IMO.
It's ironic and somewhat revolting to see the behemoth that is Microsoft crying that it can't compete and it needs to acquire other publishers, when it already has a collection of studios and franchises, means to fund brand new studios and make even better hardware. If they aren't competitive now, it's because of their own bad decisions.
Although it seems that despite their hardware not being as popular, they seem to sell GamePass for PC at least decently.
Can’t compete… because Sony is paying publishers to make games exclusive for the PS5.
As a PC gamer at heart exclusives suck.
Over the years I almost bought a console on a few occasions due to exclusives, or games shipping first on console.
Red Dead Redemption and GTA IV, then GTA V.
By the time RDR2 came out I had bought an Xbox One S - because it was the cheapest 4K BD player on the market.
Oh, the irony. Still haven’t bought a 4K BD. Prices were ridiculous. Probably still are. Found that 4K streaming titles on Apple TV were so good I didn’t need better than that.
But since stumbling into the One S led me to buy RDR2 on release day.
Halfway through I upgraded to the One X, and when Series X came out I had it less than a month later after putting in a pre-order about a month before release.
A colleague who pre-ordered PS5 six months before I even thought about the Series X had to wait 7 months from release for his.
I agree that exclusives suck, but acquisitions are worse in every way. At least with a deal you can hope that eventually the game will be out for everything, or the next one will. Now if anyone hopes to get a Bethesda game on other consoles again, they are out of luck.
But also, if first-party XBox games were more appealing they wouldn't be in this situation. Sony can't lock Nintendo out of the market because people want Mario and Zelda anyway.
And yet Sony's Horizon series has been overshadowed by Zelda.
Only hardcore gamers, who make up for a small part of the market, believe that Nintendo somehow doesn't count as far as how this market competes. That somehow it's a separate market because the specs aren't comparable. That's not how it works at all. The entertainment budget being fought over is the same.
In any case, all this is a separate matter. The point is that aside from Microsoft, the other console makers manage to attract buyers through first-party games. Same goes for Sony. A lot of people bought Playstations for God of War and Last of Us.
Of course they did, but the world be so much better if games were available for all platforms and the platforms competed on the merits of their hardware and software instead of the merits of their exclusive titles.
Switch is the third best selling console of all time behind the PS2 and the DS. I highly doubt that most people who own switch own something else. What you’re saying applies maybe to the core gamer audience, which is honestly pretty small.
In fact, the issue is that Xbox “never”* has done it’s own thing, and because of that they are hardly relevant in the console market.
*their entire branding is “gaming box for gamers”. The only time they strayed from this was with xbox one where they for some reason decided a “DVR that can also play games” was the way to go.
You're right. Hardware is close enough to parity to be irrelevant. The competition in the 2-party console market (Nintendo doesn't count, they're in a different league) is in exclusive titles. It's why the MS-Activision merger had so much focus on Call of Duty and such: MS will take all their new titles exclusive as soon as they can and that's what drives sales. People choose consoles based on what games they want to play, or what consoles the friends they play with use if there are cross-platform titles.
Exactly. Nintendo has targeted game styles that are largely being shared by smaller developers. AAA devs pretty much have to push visual boundaries in order to sell consoles while Nintendo focuses on whatever new major feature their newest console has (Wii: motion, WiiU: semi-handheld, Switch: hybrid handheld). Nintendo hasn't tried to compete with the big consoles at least since Gamecube. And their focus on few, high-quality titles for first party series means they have nearly guaranteed success every console generation (actual guaranteed success with pokemon).
I don’t think it’s hardware. It’s a differentiator. Tell me why I (or whoever) should pick an Xbox over a PlayStation?
They know it's a losing battle to try to build the same product as an entrenched competitor after they burned themselves with the Xbox One, which is why they much prefer you're a subscriber to Game Pass, with an Xbox or not.
Some people may love Game Pass, but most people I know either never subscribed to it or only tested it when it was like 1,-€ for a month or whatever.
They've got like 25-30 million subscribers, so it's quite popular. Probably half or a third as popular as Microsoft would like, but it's popular. I myself have plenty of friends who want to play more games than they can afford, and now they can afford them because of Game Pass. Especially the flash in the pan zeitgeist stuff like Exoprimal or Rainbow Six: Extraction that they can say they've played but will never touch again.
What else differentiates it from the PS5 in a positive way?
Quick resume. To be honest, what sets the PS5 apart from the Xbox hardware in a positive way? The SSD speeds that ended up not even mattering much for Ratchet & Clank, from what I hear of the PC port.
The controller is…well, a decent controller. It doesn’t do anything special like adaptive triggers, yet it costs almost the same as a DualSense, and if you count in the optional (!) battery pack, it’s quite a bit more expensive even.
By contrast, I know tons of people who hate the PS5 controller, not the least of which for its short battery life and inability to swap batteries like you can for Xbox. As a fighting game player, I know competitive players who hate the d-pad, and Sony did everyone dirty by requiring the use of a PS5 controller only even though the entire scene has had controllers for a decade that would work just fine, and even work on the PS5 when running a "PS4 game" on a PS5. Xbox's controllers are backward and forward compatible. If Sony had some kind of reason for requiring the functionality of the new controller, sure, have at it, but they put this requirement in place for games that make no use of the new controller's features at all, which is a dick move.
If you want to win market share, deliver a better product. With better services. With better conditions. For lower prices.
I think they did exactly that, but as far as which console sells more units, it's still PlayStation, because they have a couple of games that, at least for a couple of years, you can only play on PlayStation. But I think Microsoft saw that they were never going to be able to compete with that directly, at least before their acquisition spree, so the Xbox is just a low-cost machine that gets you into Game Pass, long-term.
Is the Xbox controller being backwards/forwards compatible actually a feature? I thought that the only difference between them was the presence of a share button. Not to discount your point about it being bs that ps5 games require a new controller.
I guess the answer to your question about what hardware advantage the ps5 has it has to primarily be the controller. The new vibration and adaptive triggers are super engaging. I also personally prefer the way it feels to a ps4 one. Unfortunately I don’t have an Xbox so I can’t compare. Obviously that’s a personal preference thing though, it’s completely valid for you to dislike them.
That said, let’s be honest, I got it for the exclusive games.
It's for playing a PS4 game vs playing a PS5 game. If you want to play the PS4 version of Street Fighter 6 on a PS5, you can use PS4 controllers. If you want to play the PS5 version of Street Fighter 6 on PS5, you must use PS5 controllers. Basically just arbitrarily forcing you to buy new controllers when the others would have worked fine.
Game Pass is great if you want to try a lot of different games and see what you like without having to do research or worry about whether or not a particular game is worth your $$. Especially if you like playing small indie games and tend not to replay them anyway - this way, $10-15 and you can play multiple new and old indie games for the price of one (or less), plus try a few of the big games, and maybe get surprised by games you didn’t think you’d like but gave a shot because they were included. And if you do want to replay any eventually, by then, the price will have dropped and you’ve still saved $$.
This is offset however by the fact it’s still buggy and frustrating as all hell sometimes. I hate the way it works with virtual drives. And it doesn’t work for stuff you want to mod or play the dlc for (no way no how am I actually buying a game/dlc on that platform).
I’m not. I’m playing on PC 95% of the time, and I play the Sony exclusives only in single player on my PS5 anyway.
What I’m saying is that this could be a differentiator for Microsoft that they just don’t seem to be interested in (it would obviously lose them a lot of revenue from existing customers at first). I feel like more people would get an Xbox for multiplatform games if they save over 50 bucks a year because they don’t have to pay for online play. Heck, I’d probably spring for a Series S for the odd round of Sea of Thieves and the likes on the big screen TV (I know, I could connect my PC, but it’s just very comfortable that way). But having to pay for online is a no-go for me, especially because it’s not my primary platform.
I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the folks that only play FIFA or the likes would get a Series S if it’s marketed correctly, and they didn’t have to pay for online play.
That was a royal “you” in direct response to the question in your post. Regardless, the cost of multiplayer on consoles has been a factor since multiplayer started and will continue to be because it’s a guaranteed way for those companies to subsidize the massive overhead that is their server farms.
If you don’t understand or can’t figure why a service like Game Pass requires a fee, then you are either woefully ignorant of how technology and security works, or you are being willfully disingenuous motivated by loyalty to a specific platform.
That’s exactly what I’m trying to say. These services cost actual money and MS historically has had a significantly more reliable online service and a huge reason why is the Live charge. Sony only managed to have a reliable service when they started charging for it. I feel like a lot of people with the sentiment above didn’t play games when online CONSOLE multiplayer was born.
I was talking about the ability to simply play games that I already purchased online. Game Pass was a different paragraph and context.
If you really think Microsoft or Sony requires this yearly subscription fee to keep the service running, just look at equivalent PC services like Steam (or, you know, Xbox Live online play, which is free on PC) and realise how wrong you are. Microsoft and Sony get a big chunk of game sales (30%+), they are fine.
Actual game servers are hosted by the game publisher, not by Microsoft or Sony (unless it’s a first party title, of course). Publishers don’t get a single piece of the subscription.
Whenever people ask which console they should buy, my first question is “what do your friends play on?” Hardware/Games you can argue till you’re blue in the face. Playing with friends should be a main motivator in deciding what platform you choose, if you are limited to one.
Xbox owner here. I love the xbox for gamepass, have been subscribed for years. Think I also prefer the xbox controller. I miss some of the exclusives of PS5.
But it’s very much an opinion I believe. I totally understand if people buy a PS5.
You do realise that the game developers/publishers need to host the actual game servers themselves, and they don’t get any piece of the PS+/Xbox Live subscription cake, right?
Yeah sure, the store, friends network, voice chat and what have you do cost money to keep operating, but how does it all work so well on PC then - where it’s free - yet on console they want >50 bucks a year for it? They get 30%+ from game sales, you can’t convince me that paying for online is anywhere close to being required for sustainability of the service.
I used to think that not having a built in rechargeable battery was a dull idea.
However: Whenever I wanted to play on my PS3 the batteries were empty and the controllers needed to be recharged.
Around the time I got my first Xbox I came to the realization that I had more units than I ever thought consuming AA or AAA batteries, so I decided to go all in on rechargeable batteries.
I love it. Whenever my Xbox tells me that the controller needs new batteries it takes me 20 seconds to swap in a new pair.
I don’t ever think about having to plug the controller. I don’t care if I pick it up and it’s dead. Etc. etc.
And best of all, there’s literally no drain when it sleeps. My switch controllers drains the battery when it’s resting. The PS3 drains the controller. Don’t know about the PS4 and PS5.
Honestly, if I had not been burned previously by Xbox losing my online purchases, I think I would consider buying an Xbox for game pass.
I don’t hate the concept, and I’ve heard great things about the Xbox game pass library.
I’m also not a big fan of not actually owning my games. I have 40 year old games that I still return to every year. The idea of finding something special on Gamepass and having it just disappear like a streaming show does… Not compelling to me.
windowscentral.com
Ważne