• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Millie A's sources seem to suggest Xbox has secured a "BIG" Third Party Title (both as an Exclusive and for Game Pass)

Vindicator

Member
Peggle 3

e3-peggle.gif
 

Godot25

Banned
I think its just business as usual and expected but at least we don’t see Sony posting stuff like this on their twitter timeline:


Since i can fire up my smartphone and play Xbox first-party games that way...or through console...or through PC (native or streaming), that does not seem like big deal.

Meanwhile, there is certain company that forces you to buy their console to play their first-party and moneyhatted stuff..

So...there's that...
 

Wizz-Art

Member
I'm not the one sat here saying one way or the other is the "right" way. You don't want to pay for your games anymore because you see everything as fully disposable, that's your choice. That kind of service has always existed and will always exist, it's called renting. Personally I couldn't give a shit though, I already have a purchased library of well over over 1500 games, the vast majority of which I've made a conscious decision to purchase at some point.

No matter how much the evangelists scream, the reality is that the sales figures are showing us for every person that is deciding to subscribe to one of these services there are still more people who are willing to pay full price for new games and/or discounted prices for games that go on sale (yes, you don't have to only buy games at full price, something that is always conveniently left out of these arguments, it's not $70 or nothing at all). If only being given the option to purchase certain games was so evil while services such as gamepass are so "pro-consumer" then why are people even buying games at all anymore?

But the bottom line is this - let's not act like subscription services are being created and heavily marketed to us with our best interests at heart when the end goal is to keep everyone infinitely subscribed while owning diddly-squat. If you want to enjoy it then enjoy (you should considering the relative low prices at the moment) but don't act like the people who want to hand pick and purchase the games they want are wrong. They will still have stuff to play and something to show for the money they've spent if the service were to ever end (or if their sub lapses), you won't.

Have you heard of 'grey'? It's nearly not that black and white as you portray it to be. You own well over 1500 games, well I do too, actually a couple of hundred more, so now what?

Having a Game Pass subscription doesn't mean I stopped purchasing games at all nor did I say so, so where you're getting at with; “you don't want to pay for your games anymore” I don't know but I wonder how you came up with it. You can't say that I don't pay anymore and see games as disposable but the fact is I pay $15 a month as I have Game Pass Ultimate, an amount of that money will end up in the hands of developers. Those same developers come out all the time saying how great Game Pass is for their bottom line and raving how their sales have picked up. Something that can't be denied.

The sales from physical games are down, but they're down all over the board afaik, so what does it say really? In the console space Xbox was the first platform to offer a fully working digital games solution with fast downloads. Since then, there have been articles that say that Xbox users embraced the digital future far more then users of competitors so without digital sales numbers – knowing the Series S is digital only – you can't simply come to the conclusion that you are making imho.

You are definately able to wait untill a game is discounted and buy them in sales. Having Game Pass doesn't mean you can't buy games on sale either, it's as I said earlier not that black and white. But if you wanted to play Flight Sim, Psychonauts II, Back 4 Blood etc. day one you must've bought them at full price or sub to Game Pass for $10/month. Soon Forza Horizon 5 and Halo Infinite will release and that's the same story basically, only those two games will cost you the equivalent of what one year of Game Pass will cost you. You will play those two games only for ~$120 or you will be able to play those two games and many more for a whole year for $120.

I don't act it's wrong or even evil (what?) to buy games or anything at all, one company provides you day one choices and that to me is clearly a pro-consumer move which can't be denied, the competitors don't offer you such other then waiting months/years untill a title drops to $10 I guess. And I clearly understand not all games release on Game Pass, I'm talking about the games that do, which offer you the choice, the others that interest me I purchase outright whenever I want.
 
Last edited:

skit_data

Member
Since i can fire up my smartphone and play Xbox first-party games that way...or through console...or through PC (native or streaming), that does not seem like big deal.

Meanwhile, there is certain company that forces you to buy their console to play their first-party and moneyhatted stuff..

So...there's that...

Doesn't feel like gatekeeping on Xbox. You can play games on basically every device where Xbox app is available.

You still have to pay for the device and service that makes it possible, just like you have to pay for a console and software to make it possible.

I’m not saying what they are doing is wrong and I like their efforts with Xcloud for example but their messaging gives off a ”holier-than-thou”- feeling that leaves a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. Skip that and I won’t complain at all. Its megacorporation vs megacorporation, lets not pretend one has some kind of great superior moral standard over the other one.
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
The only reason a dev would be "ecstatic" about taking a payout deal like this is if they really needed the money and/or were angling for a MS buyout down the line.
 

Godot25

Banned
You still have to pay for the device and service that makes it possible, just like you have to pay for a console and software to make it possible.

I’m not saying what they are doing is wrong and I like their efforts with Xcloud for example but their messaging gives off a ”holier-than-thou”- feeling that leaves a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. Skip that and I won’t complain at all. Its megacorporation vs megacorporation, lets not pretend one has some kind of great superior moral standard over the other one.
Of course Xbox is doing it because it is megacorporation and wants to profit. That's their goal. I don't believe any corporation have a high moral standard. They are just pretending for PR reasons.

But on the other hand, I don't agree that Xbox is gatekeeping. Only people who are gatekept are people who refuse to play on anything else other then PlayStation/Switch. But almost everybody has a smartphone/tablet/(soon) smart TV/low powered PC/high end PC.
 

PJX

Member
Good.
I mean, if Sony can moneyhat Final Fantasy, Deathloop, GhostWire Tokyo, Forspoken etc. why we should be angry when Microsoft will do this?
Console warring has to stay alive some how, mate. Didn't you know that when MS does it, it's because they are trying to buy the console industry. Just go with the narrative.
 

skit_data

Member
Not any worse than that "how do i trade games" video from Sony.
Sony took their chance to strike PR gold in response to one of the most heavily critiziced parts of Xbox try to enforce DRM on an industry that never had it before.

I don’t see the same criticism towards exclusive games in general. In fact, every good move Xbox has done in the last year that has been righfully celebrated by fans have been pretty much all about getting exclusive content.
 
Sony took their chance to strike PR gold in response to one of the most heavily critiziced parts of Xbox try to enforce DRM on an industry that never had it before.

I don’t see the same criticism towards exclusive games in general. In fact, every good move Xbox has done in the last year that has been righfully celebrated by fans have been pretty much all about getting exclusive content.
MS also took their chance to strike PR. They did the same with crossplay. Many people hate exclusives and many people love crossplay.
 

skit_data

Member
MS also took their chance to strike PR. They did the same with crossplay. Many people hate exclusives and many people love crossplay.
But they are still working towards and are heavily celebrated by their fans for getting exclusives, you can’t eat the cake and have it. That’s my main point of the argument. Inconsistent messaging.
 
But they are still working towards and are heavily celebrated by their fans for getting exclusives, you can’t eat the cake and have it. That’s my main point of the argument. Inconsistent messaging.
The big difference is that Xbox + Pc + Smartphone + Tablets + TVs and whatever is not exclusive anymore, because they don't force people to buy specigfic hardware. Almost everybody has one of thoses devices already at home and could play the games.
 

martino

Member
Willy Wonka Suspense GIF

my anticipated reaction when the name will be known (if real)
no-reaction-stare.gif

will ms surprise me again (i expected a delay for halo) ?
 
Last edited:

KingT731

Member
The big difference is that Xbox + Pc + Smartphone + Tablets + TVs and whatever is not exclusive anymore, because they don't force people to buy specigfic hardware. Almost everybody has one of thoses devices already at home and could play the games.
Except you're skirting the "exclusive to their service" part.
 

skit_data

Member
I don't see there any problem. If it was on PS5 you would have to pay 70-80 bucks, the service is much cheaper and you are also not forced to buy 500 bucks hardware as you have to for Sony games.
So if PSnow would become available on tablets, phones and smart-TVs the content on it can’t be considered exclusive? I mean its already available on PC to some extent.

Its not really the same thing, but most of all 1st party exclusives has become available after about a year on PSnow, give or take.
 
So if PSnow would become available on tablets, phones and smart-TVs the content on it can’t be considered exclusive? I mean its already available on PC to some extent.

Its not really the same thing, but most of all 1st party exclusives has become available after about a year on PSnow, give or take.
Not comparable. Not every game, not day1. In other words still (timed) exclusive. Like it or not, but at the moment is Sony gatekeeping while MS is not.
 

OmegaSupreme

advanced basic bitch
Exclusives have defined consoles since their existence. Sounds like some now want them to be PC's essentially. Sounds strange to me.
 

arvfab

Banned
The big difference is that Xbox + Pc + Smartphone + Tablets + TVs and whatever is not exclusive anymore, because they don't force people to buy specigfic hardware. Almost everybody has one of thoses devices already at home and could play the games.
So I can buy, download and play offline natively any MS game on a Mac or Smartphone or Tablet?
 

skit_data

Member
Not comparable. Not every game, not day1. In other words still (timed) exclusive. Like it or not, but at the moment is Sony gatekeeping while MS is not.
Fine, if Xbox definition of being all inclusive is the gold standard definition everyone else should be kept to then I see no point in arguing otherwise. I can’t win that argument.
 
Last edited:

arvfab

Banned
You are adding additional requirements. Whether that requirement is 'mandatory' for a user is very subjective similar to being able to play a physical disc without additional downloads.

Leave that out. Can I download, install and play on any other OS or mobile device natively?
 

OmegaSupreme

advanced basic bitch
You are adding additional requirements. Whether that requirement is 'mandatory' for a user is very subjective similar to being able to play a physical disc without additional downloads.
I can't stream games reliably over wifi. At all times anyway. I doubt anyone can.
 
Last edited:

Ozriel

M$FT
I'm not the one sat here saying one way or the other is the "right" way. You don't want to pay for your games anymore because you see everything as fully disposable, that's your choice. That kind of service has always existed and will always exist, it's called renting. Personally I couldn't give a shit though, I already have a purchased library of well over over 1500 games, the vast majority of which I've made a conscious decision to purchase at some point.

No matter how much the evangelists scream, the reality is that the sales figures are showing us for every person that is deciding to subscribe to one of these services there are still more people who are willing to pay full price for new games and/or discounted prices for games that go on sale (yes, you don't have to only buy games at full price, something that is always conveniently left out of these arguments, it's not $70 or nothing at all). If only being given the option to purchase certain games was so evil while services such as gamepass are so "pro-consumer" then why are people even buying games at all anymore?

But the bottom line is this - let's not act like subscription services are being created and heavily marketed to us with our best interests at heart when the end goal is to keep everyone infinitely subscribed while owning diddly-squat. If you want to enjoy it then enjoy (you should considering the relative low prices at the moment) but don't act like the people who want to hand pick and purchase the games they want are wrong. They will still have stuff to play and something to show for the money they've spent if the service were to ever end (or if their sub lapses), you won't.

The end goal of subscription services like Gamepass is to generate a steady stream of income for the companies behind them. The option of direct purchases at retail or digital storefronts still exists, so nobody is eliminating ownerships.
Subscriptions and ownership aren’t mutually exclusive. You could subscribe long term in Gamepass, and then buy the games you want years later at steeply discounted prices. So that way, you curate the games you want to keep permanently in your library.

No point in keeping a library of items you’ll never revisit just because you want ‘something to show’ for money you’ve spent
 

KingT731

Member
I don't see there any problem. If it was on PS5 you would have to pay 70-80 bucks, the service is much cheaper and you are also not forced to buy 500 bucks hardware as you have to for Sony games.
Who said anything about the price or Sony? You said they're not exclusive. I'm saying if you don't have a gaming PC the only way to access them would be through their service. That is a fact.
 

reksveks

Member
Leave that out. Can I download, install and play on any other OS or mobile device natively?
Leave what out? The fact that you are adding additional requirements to the persons comment. You are doing it.

"Almost everybody has one of thoses devices already at home and could play the games."

If you believe that the only way to play the game is natively, then you can have that opinion just like someone's opinion that the only way to watch a movie is via blu-ray or a specific screen.
 
Last edited:

OmegaSupreme

advanced basic bitch
But my point is that's a opinion on the best way to play a game. Factually you can play a game via streaming.
One option is objectively better though. You can have a preference for a worse experience all you want. Some people still watch DVD's and VHS's for god's sake.
 

arvfab

Banned
Leave what out? The fact that you are adding additional requirements to the persons comment. You are doing it.

"Almost everybody has one of thoses devices already at home and could play the games."

If you believe that the only way to play the game is natively, then you can have that opinion just like someone's opinion that the only way to watch a movie is via blu-ray or a specific screen.

"Leave that out" as in don't consider that point. "Leave out" this "additional requirement", as you named it, from my comment.

And yes, playing natively is the only option for "not gatekeeping". Otherwise we could say Nintendo is not gatekeeping, as their games can be played via emulator on PC.

Regarding your movies comparison: can I watch Stranger Things if I only have a Disney+ subscription?
 
Top Bottom