
Update: Something we initially missed from the video was a clarifying comment from Digital Foundry's Richard Leadbetter, who had the following to say on the topic of the Xbox Series X and Series S:
"To clarify the S and X thing, obviously last generation we had an [Xbox One S] and an [Xbox One X] console, and I think they just transplanted that across to the current generation, so the Series S is the equivalent of the One S and Series X is the equivalent of the One X - it's just that you're getting both of them at the same time at launch."
Original story: Microsoft's apparent decision to avoid making a new "mid-gen refresh" console to sit alongside the Xbox Series X and Series S appears to have been decided a long time ago, at least according to a new Digital Foundry video.
In the new DF Direct Weekly #116, it's revealed that Microsoft told the outlet back in 2020 that it considered the Xbox Series X a mid-gen refresh machine already, while the Series S was basically the standard console.
"Microsoft told us this back when we saw the Series X for the first time, that the Series X is their mid-gen refresh. They just decided to do it ahead of time, I guess you could say. The Series S is what they consider, like, their standard machine, and then Series X is like, that's getting ahead of the cart there, and that's what you might get from a mid-gen console."
Last week, Xbox boss Phil Spencer mentioned he felt Microsoft was "pretty set on the hardware we have" when asked whether an Xbox Series X upgrade had been considered, admitting that he didn't "feel an imperative" to make one.
Clearly, there's still a lot of life left in the Xbox Series X (and Xbox Series S), so it sounds like we might be waiting quite a few years until Microsoft decides to make another brand-new console - and that's absolutely fine by us!
What are your thoughts about this? Let us know down in the comments section below.
[source youtube.com]
Comments 75
I was hoping for an actual mid gen upgrade called Series XXX or Series SSX Tricky
Well, it make sense. I guess. Not sure what he means by mid gen though? It's my understanding that to create a console that can meet the high extremes of a PC would be either too expensive to make or too expensive to sell, and so where we're at, console wise, is somewhere in between of a high end gaming PC and previous gen of consoles.
If the Series S is the “base console” then oh dear. The One X could put out better visuals than its apparent successor can. No wonder Xbox games run at 30fps.
Just as well, just got my first ever Xbox (Series X)at the weekend! Nice to know it will be current for a few years yet.
It makes sense with 4k TV's still not what the 'majority' of gamers have so the 'mid gen' boosts for those early adopters of 4k had something to 'boost' the Graphics for a ''4k' presentation.
Its also evident in the way they handle BC - Series S is BC to the 1S and the Series X to the 1X. Also with Hardware costs not reducing, you are already paying 'mid-gen Premium' Prices for the 'Premium' 4k Consoles and the Series S is what they can make for what is a more traditional Console price.
If a PS5 costs £480 'now' used, how much would a 'Pro' cost and offer a 'meaningful' upgrade? another £200-250? The Series S has a 'similar' spec CPU to the PS5 anyway so it won't be limited on CPU resources.
MS release everything on PC anyway so if you want 'more' performance and/or better graphics, there is already a 'more powerful' Xbox that has a bigger Library of games, no 'gold' subscription charge to play online etc and its called a PC...
@Kaloudz yeah real good. I will admit I’m also PlayStation (always have been) but also had gaming PC rig, but sooo sick of graphics card arms race, that I ditched it.
Got Series X , coz A) love gaming that is plug and play and B)……. Starfield!!!!!!! I mean, damn! This looks sooooo good!
Glad to be aboard!!!
See you you out there!!👍🏻
@47AlphaTango Do you own an xbox? And can you prove what you just said? Any links to videos would be cool. Genuinely, would like to know if what you said is true
I don’t quite understand those in the console space asking for a mid gen upgrade. Like what realistic improvements could you make to either the PS5 or series X without the cost sky rocketing?
It kind of made sense with the PS4 Pro and One X because they came along nearer the end of the cycle, but even then, only 20% of console gamers bought in. So is the demand really there or is it a small minority with the loudest voice as per usual trying to influence this.
If Series S is the "base" current-gen console and Series X is an "early mid-gen refresh"... what's the PS5? 🤔
@PSme they are lots of good games from the back catalogue like sunset overdrive, killer instinct, gears of war series , halo etc. Game pass is totally worth it, even just for a few months. I have a PS5 too but I love playing on my series s. I prefer the Xbox controller too. Can’t wait for starfield also. Happy gaming
I actually listened to this podcast and not sure how clear this was, Richard did step in and almost 'corrected' what John said here.
It doesn't make sense. If the Series S was the base console, they would be severely underpowered against the PS5?
Surprised an article has been made out of this.
@outswimmingtheflood Surprised an article has been made out of this.
I'm not.
What will happen if PS gets a mid gen refresh?
@PSme play Ryse: Son if Rome. Man I love that game.
@Fenbops It's weird. Like, are you having fun on your console, if yes, then what's wrong? If no, then maybe gaming isn't for you.
Not you, but you as in those who want a refresh. Just to be clear hahah
@Kaloudz yeah get it pushsquare as well. I ignore them, they are coming from a place of ignorance anyways.
I just love gaming!
I tend to like 3rd person games( don’t have skills for FPS on controller) turn based ( love xcom games) also like indies like Journey, inside, limbo et al.
@LordFunkalot Gamepass is great value, but for me I only have some weekend time to game ( you know life, work etc) so not really good for me. But I can see why others love it👍🏻
@Fenbops precisely! And I think it's more or less the same discussions around the Starfield 30fps point which DF mentions in that Weekly video, that these devices are not the top of the line in computing and graphical power, you want those go buy a PC with a 4090. The PS5 and more so the Series X, I think, are a great piece of kit for the price.
@Fenbops The PS4 Pro didn't launch near the end of the cycle though, it was almost exactly three years into the cycle that it launched. The PS5 will be at the same point in the cycle later this year. I believe the Xbox One X was another year further out .
@Kaloudz XXX 🤣 imagine that startup sound though 😳
I would feel bad for any kid/teenager when they're parents walk in
@Kaloudz it made sense last gen with the boost in popularity of 4K. Pointless this gen imo. No way would i pay another £550 just for 4K, 120 fps. May as well buy a PC an upgrade every couple of years.
This is just a guess but I think Sony thought that the Series S was MS's next gen console - and their orignal PS5 was the all digital version with a lower TFLOP.
At some point they must have found out that Xbox also planned to release a 12TFLOP disc based machine then scrambled to slap a disc drive on the side and increase the TFLOP (although still 2 TFLOPS short so you wonder if thier orignal PS5 was maybe around 6 TFLOPS.
Both businesses know what they are doing, and If MS don't jump Sony won't and visa versa.
This doesn't make sense to me, so he's saying the Series S is the base console for this gen which is not much of an upgrade over last gen consoles. So comparing the power do the ps5 to the series X is pointless as its a pro version and should only be compared to a ps5 pro (if that ever happens), I always got told the series S was a budget entry option for those to experience next gen games at a lower cost which makes perfect sense, it's not the base console at all and this guy is making excuses to why he thinks there won't be any new "Pro" consoles.
I still believe there will be an series X pro at some point, this gen will go on longer than previous gens due to how long it's actually took to get last gen out the way, I kena were still gettting last gen versions of most games, plus the stock shortages at the beginning and only just starting to be normal levels. Both Microsoft and Sony will want new console iterations within the next 2-3 years.
@Lastatopiny ‘May as well buy a PC an upgrade every couple of years.’
Yep 👍🏻 I used to do that.
That s**t gets old real fast, I can tell you!
Fine if you have the cash to blow.
Hence my series x purchase. Good for a few years👍🏻all the gaming goodness I want and at a cheaper price.
@Kaloudz cheers for suggestions! Will look at weekend👍🏻
I guess the one issue I have would be if Sony bring out their PS5 Pro, and it is leaps and bounds ahead of the X. Currently, the X is thought to be the most powerful console out there. There's not a lot in it between the PS5 and the X, but the X does have the edge. Despite that, we are watching, in real-time, the PS5 pulling way ahead in terms of sales and player-base, so if Sony bring out a Pro that is markedly better than the X, and, importantly, manage to keep the Pro at around the same price as the X, then this could spell real trouble for Microsoft if they have nothing to counter it, and counter it quickly.
It's still difficult to fathom what either console can improve upon, whilst keeping their pricing at roughly where it is right now, but if Sony manage it, and in doing so, make the X look like the poorer choice of hardware as a consequence, then I think Microsoft have to respond pretty much immediately. Waiting a year whilst they put something together in order to compete, would put Xbox still further behind than it already is...
@BAMozzy Pretty much my thoughts. I primarily play on PC, and my PC is 100% a 'Series X Pro' already. Mid gen consoles last gen didn't move nearly as much as the base units when it was all said and done, but high performance players typically always gravitate toward a PC, and then you have the masses that maybe really just don't care that much. I know we keep hearing about a PS5 Pro, but I'm not convinced that Xbox has to match that, because most consumers would probably still opt to buy a price reduced base console like they always have. One of Sony's reasons for the PS4 Pro was to try to not lose some customers to PC, but with them porting to PC now, they don't seem as concerned about that.
While I don't specifically want a mid-gen console, if it meant getting 60fps in new games for the rest of the gen i'd be there day 1.
So essentially your pro console is not capable of giving you Starfield at 60 fps ?
@Kevw2006 ah thanks I didn’t think it was that early that’s surprising.
@Kaloudz The Switch OLED mid gen upgrade was not pointless. 50 bucks more for a much better screen in handheld mode.
I wonder how this gen would have panned out if Xbox had only released the Series S at the £250 price point, almost half the price of the PS5.
I mean it's good to have options but without the knowledge of the Series X, could a standalone Series S at a budget price have a similar market impact to a £129 GameCube or a £179 Wii against their more expensive contemporaries?
@SplooshDmg I do agree in part but Sony don't release games on PC day and date. Therefore if you want better performance, you have no option available until Sony decide to release on PC.
Their business model is very Sales focussed. Therefore they want to promote 'Sales' of Hardware with their exclusives. Want to play Spider-Man 2 at launch, the best (and ONLY) place to play is PS5. If you want 'better' than PS5 offers, well you have to wait until that game is no longer really selling Hardware as those that wanted to play, bought a PS5, wait until its not really selling more copies now, so release on PC to boost Sales and Sony's PR.
Compare to Starfield. If you want to play, you don't even need to buy a Series S/X to play at launch, don't even need to buy the game. Want something 'better' than the Series X offers, well you can get a decent PC (or upgrade your existing one), prefer to play on the go, well you have options there too - cloud, Steam Deck or Windows PC (like RoG Ally).
Sony is 'competing' with PC whereas for MS, the PC is part of their 'ecosystem'. Sony use their games primarily to extract more 'sales' on their Software from those 'gamers' who won't buy a PS5. If they release a PS5 Pro, its still got 'exclusives' not coming to PC (or at least not coming for months, maybe even years) so those looking to play Spider-Man 2 at the 'best' would likely buy a PS5 Pro to play it 'sooner', whereas Xbox gamers maybe wouldn't buy a Xbox 'Pro' because they can buy a PC and have a bigger Library (inc Sony PC games, Steam only games, Emulated games etc etc) without having to pay 'Gold' sub fees as well...
Different Business models and different ecosystems mean that what suits one, ie Sony with a Pro, MS with Day 1 PC/Game Pass releases, is 'detrimental' to the other.
I've never been a fan of mid gen upgrades as they never achieve full potential due to launch consoles. Just save that time and research and apply to next gen for better experience for gamers.
Mid gen upgrades are just pure greed. Nothing more. Nothing less.
@Cashews Yeah the OLED s reen makes a huge difference in colour quality, plus it's a bigger screen than the standard switch, also has a LAN poet, better flip stand and double the internal storage. Definitely worth the extra £50.
@PSme that’s my point. People wantin mid gen console upgrades after 3 years!! Like ya do on PC!! No thanks!
All the consoles lose money for each company. So no corporate greed there. It’s all about providing a way for them to profit on the sale of the games…
In my opinion unless they have to - Microsoft will not make a new console. The S got storage upgrade as the games are getting so much bigger.
Either cloud gaming or a TV interface so they can cut out the console lose leader.
It's an interesting take that I haven't seen before, that instead of XSX being the new X1, and the S being a new idea of a budget version of a console, it's just the launch and mid-gen version together.
I kind of doubt that's how they intended it, and it only really works if that's what the competition is doing, but it's an interesting take.
@UltimateOtaku91Except 30fps botw that actually plays best on the old switch because of the oled refresh rates I brought my old switch back out just for that game.
@SplooshDmg I really don't think PS4 Pro performed that well overall. They were boasting how it was exceeding expectations in the first 6 months, but then when the early adopters dried out, they fell radio silent on Pro numbers at all ,and then killed it off after 2 years and kept selling the original. I think it was basically just early adopters who already had PS4s that then flipped them so the pro sales just cannibalized the new base model sales, and then they were stuck with higher operating costs with 2 SKUs to target and test. I have a feeling TOTAL business-wise it was probably a net loss when you factor in the new operating expenses and additional manufacturing just for existing customers to sell into the used market.
X1X was a different matter because X1 was DOA and they needed something to signal they were really in the game, reboot the brand, and get publishers back into the brand, so for MS it was kind of a do-over for the generation even if it was the lesser selling SKU. It helped them get things both with customers and publishers on even keel for the Series launch. For Sony I think the Pro was kind of a bust that seemed like a win at first, but then just faded.
We talked about it before but MS has more incentive to not go the upgrade route because their cloud infrastructure is based on the console. They're not going to upgrade the whole cloud for a new model and it's a bad look for pushing their cloud business when the cloud product is sucky next to the traditional product.
Obviously if Sony does a Pro MS will have to respond with a counterpart, I'm sure they're both prepped just in case the other does it, but I'm pretty sure neither of them actually wants to. Selling pricier hardware to a niche doesn't actually benefit them in selling more software.
@Fenbops For Sony, that "20% of new console sales" number comes from a Ryan interview within the launch 6 months when the early adopters were buying in heavily. After that it fell off a cliff apparently. I don't believe Pro accounts for anywhere close to 20% TOTAL install base sales. 10% if we're optimistic. IDK about MS because they never really talk numbers.
When you figure the actual money comes from software, and most of those Pro buyers were just upgrading their existing console, selling their base model (which removed new hardware sales from the old model, artificially inflating the percentage of the Pro model in the sales data).....it may well have gained them effectively no new software sales, where the actual money comes from. By that metric, even PSVR1 was more profitable than Pro as it generated decent software sales even if they didn't move many headsets.
@Kaloudz I bought the upgrade of the 360 back in the day because the OG 360 kept getting red rings of death. The black one worked much better.
@NEStalgia I mean, there's a ton of angles here, and really, any of them could be right. But we've also now seen both Sony and MS RAISE the price of the base hardware, not lower it. I think the 1TB XSS was a sneaky way to just raise the price, and now the XSX is going up $50. If base hardware is creeping up in price, what are the economics of an even more powerful console going to look like? I really just don't buy that either of them are committed to this yet.
@NEStalgia that’s interesting thanks for clarifying that. I just went by what DF said in the podcast. Also Johns face when Alex said he doesn’t want a PS5 Pro 🤣 he seems to want it to happen while saying Xbox doesn’t need one. Strange.
@Kaloudz Mine red ringed twice. I can't explain how much of a bummer it was. Waiting a month while they "fixed" it. Then you'd get some dude's nasty used refurb. The 360 was a classic console- but man did they screw the pooch on that. I think they would have easily won the generation had the machine been built well.
@Markatron84 If Series S is the "base" current-gen console and Series X is an "early mid-gen refresh"... what's the PS5? 🤔
More powerful than the S and a better thought out 2 SKU system would be my take on it. I am a Digital only buyer and i bought the Digital PS5, i loved saving $100 and getting all the power of the other console. There was never a second in my mind that i was buying the S over the X.
@NEStalgia i have said it to you before, the 2 SKU system Sony used is the right way. I bought the Digital PS5 cause i buy all my games digitally, so saving $100 and losing no power felt amazing. Also it makes development easier and quicker. If there is no Pro models coming out this gen that’s fine, i won’t be upset, however if any come out, i will buy them. More than anything i would like a Slim PS5, cause the PS5 launch model is still too big and ugly to me. Thats with me putting on the Black Sony Digital plates. Which does make it look a little less big and in the way. Luckily i moved into a new house early this year and the wife and i sold a lot of our older furniture and bought new. So my Media room now has a 80 inch tv with a 65 inch Oled on it. The shelves underneath are huge and the PS5 fit’s easily. I got lucky there. I would still buy a slim if and when one comes out. I hope they don’t make it cheaper in cost and use the extra savings on a 1TB drive. However they will probably go for the profits and keep it the same size. They will however save money in shipping as the size and weight will be reduced. MS must have more toes than money cause they aim and shoot their own feet more than any company i have seen of it’s size and capability’s.
The upgrade will be when the Velocity Architecture features are actually supported on the console with games that take advantage of it.
Ok if the Series S was the only option as a new console back in 2020, Microsoft would have lost HUDE market share. I for one would not have picked it up and gotten a PS5 off the bat instead of picking it up a few years later.
I could be wrong on this, but I recall analysts saying the GPU on the XSS was less powerful than the 1X but the XSS has a much more powerful CPU...
That mentality of the XSS is the main and the XSX is the mid gen upgrade is crazy. Feels like they're just saying BS for no reason.
@themightyant agreed, i have said countless times, i am a Apple user exclusively in my home, my wife, kid and myself own and all use Apple products, so i have no use to spend big money on a gaming PC. Yes a gaming rig would give me that highest performance i want. Instead i took that money and built a 65 inch LG Oled, complete Sonos surround sound system and a PS5 and Series X. However i am seeing the trend that we are headed back to 30fps. FF16, Starfield and many more seem to be showing us what’s to come, i want to be on console but i want to be at the highest possible level of performance, so i loved the PS4 and One X, I understand this gen don’t “need” it. But if Sony put’s out the rumored PS5 Pro, and i can play FF16 at a locked 60, and other games, i would be there day 1. Maybe i should build a PC, but i have never been a PC guy, there would be a lot to spend money on to get Starfield to 60fps, around $3,000 is what some people are claiming and i don’t even know all the troubleshooting and driver support issues that come with PC’s. Sorry this turned into a rant, didn’t mean to take up your time, but I’d be there with you on day one and that could make PS5 my daily driver if they did something special with the Pro.
@Green-Bandit "MS must have more toes than money cause they aim and shoot their own feet more than any company i have seen of it’s size and capability’s."
You can say that again! And again and again and again. I don't get it. I don't just don't see how any company can do "oh, we're dead last and falling and our only advantage is value? Let's raise prices! Let's raise them higher than our direct much more popular competition!"
@BAMozzy that was one of the best break downs of Pro model consoles I’ve seen yet. You said exactly what i should have said as i am a Pro model console supporter. The only thing i would add is a PC to run Starfield at better than Series X is going to go for like 4-6 times the cost of a Series X. I have watched some way smarter PC guys than me say it would take near a $3,000 dollar rig. Can’t say if that’s true or not, but if so most wouldn’t build that. However i would pay $600 right now for a PS5 or Series X pro model. Well spoken post, i feel like that is something that could age well as i still believe Sony has a Pro model in the works.
@NEStalgia i am telling you by the passing year i am closer and closer to splitting my time on PS and Xbox and that is someone as you know that has made Xbox my daily driver since early 360 days. I just don’t trust MS to do the right thing, i have major GP fatigue. I won’t be renewing this October as all the games i am knee deep in aren’t even on the service. The showcase didn’t give me much, tho i thought it was a good show. I want Gears, I.D’s next shooter (Quake?) i am so thirsty for a good shooter 3 years into the generation. Starfield looks great but not sure it’s my thing. FF16 and Diablo 4 would take care of my RPG itch for years. I don’t normally play to many RPG’s. I am just not sure about MS decisions lately. Sony seems to run the PS brand from a entertainment companies perspective, sure we all don’t agree with everything they do all the time, but from marketing their key games well, to having no long stretches of no big games, etc etc they make MS look like they business minded company they are and not able to correctly run a entertainment division. Am I reaching there? Or am i just overreacting to what seems to be more negative articles on Xbox?
@Green-Bandit Sony USED to run like a games company. Then they ran like a media company (ick). Now they're just business minded.
Ms problem isn't being business minded. This is just self destruction. In hindsight matrick was a fantastic figurehead. Instead they run around line keystone cops with different executives with different ideas all at war. Exactly like the internal 343i problems. With Sony we get get bad decisions only, which only works because of total market control and fanatical customers. With Ms you get great or catastrophic ones depending on who says Simon says that day.
I call it surprise mechanics.
Frankly they both just suck at this point and do does Nintendo. My most hyped games right now are from Sega and Atari. Someday I'll wake up from this nightmare and be back in Kansas.
@Green-Bandit and even Rob was clear that xvi isn't an rpg. I'm proud of him for saying it 😂. Sounds like if you think of it as a Platinum game you're golden if you like those though. I'm an RPG guy so.... Yeah..... Rebirth and persona 3 for me. And starfield of course. Dragon age. Even phantom liberty. Lots of actual RPGs on the way.
@NEStalgia that’s for sure true, it’s not really a RPG. I called it a RPG by mistake. This is an action game for sure. I want to try it, not sure i want it at $70 dollars as i will just continue to play Diablo 4 and SF6 at the moment. But it peaked my interest. MS really needs some good PR and i hope soon the ABK deal is over. FTC will decide this case. Which will have some fireworks tomorrow. Even more odd is Jim Ryan is now expected to not be there at all, not even on a Video call. So much for being all dramatic then not even showing up, i suppose that’s one way to not get asked questions they don’t want to publicly answer. I find that a little shady.
@NEStalgia i agree Sony as of late on PS has been very business minded and not a true games company for the gamers. The fact we can’t have a small team make a Sly Cooper game cause it won’t make a movie is a move i dislike. MS just get’s in their own way to much, let’s see if they get in their way tomorrow in court.
I hope they do come out with an upgrade version of the series s. I know they have one coming out with 1tb of storage, but I'm talking about power. I'm hoping they make one that is as powerful as the series x
@Green-Bandit I'm public enemy #1 in that circle for repeatedly saying it, but I still don't understand the thought process in taking one of the most famous series of one genre then suddenly just turning it into another genre. Like, normally you buy games from a series because you like that kind of game not because you like any random genre as long as it has a good story. Imagine Fable being not an RPG, people would riot! Looks good, and I like Bayo well enough, though I really just button mash with straight C grades because I kinda don't care and then never play it again. But why it wasn't a new IP or new spinoff series rather than just pretending to be the newest installment of a big RPG series (and why fans seem to celebrate that) i'll never know.
You know with MS going into "we're more expensive than Sony despite losing" mode, IDK if it even matters if they win or lose. The goal was competition and price pressure against Sony's dominance. If they're now just flipping so Sony's the cheap one, they're not really much competition! Utterly insane.We now have a new FOMO in play, buy everything expensive as soon as you can before the prices go....up?!
OTOH yeah, Jim not even bothering, is all shady all around. Really at this point this feels like the casino business through and through. They're all shady, they're not even pretending to not be in it to screw and manipulate customers, and the customers are so addicted it doesn't matter. I miss last gen. All the brands were fun ,all the brands were trying. This gen it seems like the corporate psychologists have figured out gaming is an addict's market and customers can and should be abused for maximum return. IDK the genie will ever go back in the bottle or if we're on a freight train to just merging with the morass that is mobile at this point.
Even Nintendo's just pure spreadsheet driven now. It used to be about surprising players and creating fun. Just straight down the list numbers management now.
@NEStalgia i was always more of a watcher of FF series. I respected its story telling, Characters and worlds they built, but only ever played a few. I do think it’s strange to completely give a large fan base that clearly buy’s into the core gameplay something so night and day different. Does that peak my interest? Sure it does, but i am not the FF lifelong player and i shouldn’t get anything from Square, I’ve given them next to nothing over the last 12 years. But the gaming market is so large and profitable now that you are right, the greed is right out in the open for all to see. I understand MS’s position, the must win back gamers, they are battling for 3rd place but not by such a large deficit. I get them wanting to build an ecosystem and make that their strength. Sony is unwilling to let the PS slip as it’s most of the money made by Sony as they have really made it the core part of Sony. Nintendo i am surprised with cause they hit gold with the Switch. But lately the switch does nothing for me. I really want new hardware. I don’t like long hardware cycles, that’s a me problem. Jim Ryan saying if COD is even lesser made on PS it will sink the PS as a brand and then doesn’t even video call into the FTC court case? How much more obvious can it be he don’t want to be questioned live by lawyers? Sony don’t want the negative live PR and we all know they have plenty to hide. Gaming will never be the hobby we made it back in the Super NES to Xbox 360 years. It’s just to mainstream and the fan’s have turned into some of the crudest bunch online. All my other hobby’s have fanboy’s yes, but not to this level or immaturity. MS better hope they have some killer games lined up and people want to play them. Maybe then Price won’t matter but it is for sure a move that makes us go well there goes another toe or two. I’m wondering at this point do they even remove their shoe or just shoot right through it Haha
@Green-Bandit Yeah, that's the thing, I've got a lot of hate because I keep talking about that and superfans either want to defend everything FF/Square no matter what or others just like what the game IS and therefore want people to just ignore what it isn't, but it's simply a problem if you're someone that buys a series because you like what kind of game that series is and they instead just swap it with a different genre entirely. "Reboot" makes senese for dead and dormant IP but FF isn't that. Good boys and girls shut up and accept it, but, it still...it's clearly a new IP or a subseries....so....why not call it that? Literally no other series could just replace the genre in the next entry without backlash. Plus it's a lost opportunity to create a new valuable IP rather than split an existing one.
Yeah, I've been a gaming fan since forever, but since the start of this gen, something just changed. It feels kind of sinister. It no longer feels like buying products you like from companies you like. It feels more like mobile and casinos. You're playing mind games, on the defensive, avoiding being preyed upon, and all along you know they're preying on you. I don' think that genie goes back in the bottle and it's a very ugly place. I don't think gaming will feel not dirty again.
MS's position as underdog, and as a price pressure in the market has been excellent. Until now. Now they have the most expensive sub, the most expensive console (outside the US at least), the least popular console, and the fewest games. If they're not creating price pressure against the monopoly PS what point is there in them even existing? Idiotic move. Sure, not in the US (yet) but they just took themselves off the map everywhere else fully, and lionized PS. I have no idea what their strategy is, and neither do they. Ponies have gone on about how MS is trying to subsidize gaming to eliminate PS and take over the world....meanwhile MS just made PS the value brand and started gouging worse than Jim FFS!
Yeah the not liking long hardware cycles thing...someone told you the other day you're just looking for something new and shiny to blow money on and I have to agree with them....it's harsh, but it's true. WANTING to be on a treadmill of spending money to "keep up" is racing to be right where they want to put you! I mean you're an Apple fan, you've been weened onto corporate BDSM, you probably wear only black turtlenecks, too, so I should expect that
Sony's gouging is obvious, they're a monopoly and they love their position. IDK what MS's angle is at all. Their whole strategy is to be the better value, to undercut. The Walmart model. Now they decided they're more premium than the premium brand. You can buy from THOSE guys who are ripping you off, or pay even MORE for us who they have hamstrung!? Seriously I was a Sega fan...this is even worse than being a Sega fan! Being a PS customer feels dirty being a MS customer feels unpredictable and pointless. Being a Nintendo customer feels like masochism. I swear I may end up getting a Quest 3 and putting up with mobile graphics. At least the games are cheap. When Zuck is your hero you know it's time to just put bag over your head.
I really can't tell where the market is. On one hand it's mainstream but it's really not. By the numbers console sales are about the same as they've always been. The only difference it's it seems like it's shifted to a more wealthy set of whales and anyone that doesn't want to keep pumping money in isn't welcome. Mobile's mainstream. Console still really isn't. I agree though fans in gaming are....it makes me wonder why I'm part of it. There's good people but by and large the market seems to be made up of children with no impulse control, no critical thought, and bizarre corporate sycophants. Yet somehow have money to keep throwing at it. That bothers me, and is the root of the gouging. Being among gamers feels like being among the "special" children too often. To me the stigma is legit on gaming. It's not an activity I'd say publicly I do. That's not good. It's this weird cross of infantile, impulsive, insecure, AND wealthy. I don't know how that exists, but I want to know how to get on the waiting list to join.
@NEStalgia i agree FF16 should have been a new IP, and many would have loved it for being new, but FF16 should be a turn based RPG for the decade long fan’s such as yourself. I would have bought the new action based game and been just fine with not taking away from fan’s and a IP i have given nothing to over the years. I think that’s fair of me and respect as a gamer for other gamers. No sorry but no, gaming will never give you that feel good feeling it did when we were younger and the industry had equal passion to profits in mind. Those day’s are gone. Sure passion projects still exist here and there, but by and large it’s a bottom line now that they know the money is there and game development is off the charts expensive. I see one angle for MS’s price increase and that’s we have big AAA exclusives hitting GP day one and Sony’s service doesn’t. Still a dumb move but i am sure they have some faith in GP with that advantage. Yes i feel that same way, i feel like being all in on Sony isn’t for me, but Xbox is so all over the map trying to find its footing that takes off. Nintendo is just Nintendo, i have to take them in small increments. Fun games yes, but the hardware and services as a whole feel awful to me, to the point it get’s in the way of the fun. So i am kind of stuck, unless i sell all 3 of them and get into PC gaming, which i just don’t think i will. As for me wanting to buy something new and Shiny, there is some truth to that as i admitted, there is also some i finally make decent money in my career, and can afford the latest and greatest and on top of that, tech just moves so fast these days. We grow up with 5 year average console cycles. When they went to 8 i just grew tired of the tech by then. The game engines and idea’s just feel compete around the 5-6 year mark. Those last few years drag for me. I have high end equipment to game on, so i am power thirsty and don’t mind paying for it, however i don’t want others that can’t afford that power to be left behind or missing something, so a Pro model is the best compromise for us both. I have told many people Apple has the best offer to it’s products cause you don’t need to upgrade them as long, cause apple controls the software and hardware, meaning we get all the security updates day 1, unlike android that has 73 cooks in the kitchen throwing their angle into the software for profits and patches rarely hit the model you have. Throw in app’s are more optimized for Apple cause they only have 2 models, VS android app’s trying to optimize for 100’s of models and different levels of OS software that is normally not up to date. My mom’s iPhone is 6 years old. I do want to upgrade her soon. But it runs like a dream for her still. So if i upgrade my Apple products it’s normally a want and not a need thing. But yes i do like new things, always have, even with my fishing and hunting hobbies i try my best to keep up with the latest entries. This is going to be a hard week to be a video game fan online, the FTC case is going to show a lot of ugly side of the business. If MS win’s this case they will close on ABK, if they lose it’s over. This is about to be wild!
@Green-Bandit Technically the series should have stuck with variations of turn-based/ATB, etc, but I don't think many really mind a change to an actual action-RPG. Plenty of ARPGs out there (Yakuza, Tales, Ys, Diablo, Elder Scrolls, Deus Ex, Witcher, etc.) XV was an action-RPG, but emphasis on the RPG (and yes, not necessarily a great one, but still...) Where this one should be an IP or subseries is that it isn't an ARPG, it's a linear, Platinum-style action game, not an RPG based on both expectations, the demo, and the reviews. Would have been a bold new IP for them. Could have been a bold new subseries under the FF banner. Maybe even more popular than mainline FF, which isn't strange, look at how much more popular SMT:Persona subseries is vs SMT mainline. But both are labeled sensibly regardless.
Nobody would have cared if it was a dead, dormant IP being resurrected as something different, but it's an ongoing IP that still has a major upcoming remake in the more traditional style, allegedly going MORE turn based. Then they stuck the MMOs in as numbered entries (though at least that's still an RPG subgenre.)
People go on about how people should just get over the name it's just a good game etc, but names kind of matter. Metallica doesn't just release a new album that's all smooth jazz because "but it's really good jazz and stuff changes" lol.
Yeah, it sucks, gaming used to be fun into last gen. Thing is I just absolutely hate the "media" industry. Always have. Never really enjoyed a single thing it does. Can't stand TV, I'll watch holiday events and some live productions and that's it. Can't stand movies since decades ago. It's clearly this processed mass-made product, and whatever it is in the public mindset that finds it appealing, doesn't work on me. For gaming to stop being gaming and become "media industry" is....really about as offputting as it gets for me. But somehow feels even dirtier.
Eh, PC gaming is trouble too. Sounds good. PC stans will tell you it's amazing, just like FF stans will tell you Metallica's smooth Jazz album is amazing. Once you realize nvidia is fleecing you out the rear end, over and over, and "you can upgrade your PC!" ends with "oohhh. yeah the new GPUs aren't compatible with that windows, and that windows isn't compatible with your CPU, so you just need an all new PC" followed by 3 weeks of troubleshooting BSODs until 4:00AM.....it's fine until it's not fine.
MS will win but I almost wish they woudln't. Not because I"m against it, but they seem all over the place, it's like having two Sony's instead of a competitor right now and ABK will just make that worse on teh MS side. OTOH it may make Sony better so still a win I guess.
@NEStalgia i get your point cause Metallica smooth jazz is just BS haha, yeah i think FF16 should have been a different game. But again I haven’t been invested in the series since like PS1-PS2 so my say is hardly much. Xbox will win if they keep playing the long game and stop shooting themselves in the foot. Technology wise Sony can’t keep up. It’s impossible. If ABK deal goes through that is a ton of GP content that Sony just can’t match. The Email showed Jim Ryan admitting he knew COD wasn’t leaving PS, so all that doom and gloom was for show to block the deal. I also dislike media, Fake news as i like to call it. Movies do nothing for me, i watch live sports and just game and listen to music. I am as anti woke of a person as it get’s and i think the media industry pushes that stuff with agendas and i don’t support it. But i don’t want to get too far into that and upset anyone for my personal beliefs. I know people live in their feelings these days. Indiana Jones got announced a Xbox exclusive today, big surprise, but still a big game for them. I have no idea after watching 2 hours of the FTC case today while working if anyone made headway to a verdict. Seems like MS would have the upper hand but i am not into law and wouldn’t know for sure. But i will try to watch more tomorrow, even tho it’s fairly boring for 30 mins then 2-3 mins of interesting. Nothing stays the same, but the industry could use a lot of change and it has to start with the gamers. I don’t love any of the console’s i own today like i did in years past. I like the series X but they need some heavy hitters one after another after another to get some great content on there. I believe they will tho and that gives me some hope. Until they put more ammo into their toes at least.
@NEStalgia FFXVI is an RPG though?
@Alpha_Pulse Even among all the reviews praising it, including Push's, most (honest) reviewers are courteous to point out that it is not an RPG, it's a straight up linear action game like Bayonetta, DMC, GoW, etc, and the light RPG trappings are paper thin and really irrelevant.
It is what it is. There's the debate about whether a game called FF16 should be an RPG, or can be whatever genre it wants to be, but there's really not much debate remaining on any side of the critical fence as to whether it is one or not. The critics have acknowledged that part.
@NEStalgia I get what you are saying but it is still an RPG even if it doesn’t lean too deep into the traditional RPG mechanics and is quite shallow in that respect it doesn’t remove it from the genre. It’s like passing an exam by a single mark, yeah you just managed to scrape it but you still passed.
@Alpha_Pulse well, People were saying that idea before the reviews came out, the debate always was whether it's really an action rpg or just an action game. By all verdicts it's the latter. Every game under the sun has a basic skill tree and gear today but they're not all RPGs, and this game has a lighter homage to such systems than most. When it was just fans debating it could go either way but once the reviews confirmed it fairly unanimously even with high scores it's kind of absolute.
@NEStalgia it doesn’t matter what they are saying though. The game is a modern RPG which typically covers a couple or more of the traditional RPG mechanics like levelling systems, gear upgrades, the option to choose abilities, build classes, inventory bla bla, but doesn’t cover them all. It then sits under the sub genre of action RPG which are games mostly focused on the combat aspects rather than the narrative ones. Battles usually occur in real-time, and the player frequently control a single character rather than a party.
Look I totally get where you are coming from and agree with you that genre needs to be redefined because games like GoW which also have these traits in (skills trees, gear upgrades, central narrative) can also fit in this. From a traditional RPG aspect this game doesn’t fit but neither do a lot of modern RPG’s these days. Even some of the older final fantasies didn’t tick all the boxes of a traditional RPG but FF16 is in the same subclass as Dark Souls and Zelda and square themselves have stamped it into the Action RPG genre.
Just because the media say it is for me doesn’t make it so. I can see we will both die on our respective hills and your reasons are sound but so are mine. It’s a great game though and if you can get onboard that it isn’t a traditional approach to the series it’s a really great experience.
@Alpha_Pulse Yeah I mean stepping aside from tbt controversy that is that game in particular there's still a world of difference between an actual modern action rpg and a linear action game that glues in a few rpg tropes. Plenty of action RPGs that are genuinely RPGs exist. cyberpunk, deus ex, mass effect, though 2 started a departure, everying Bethesda, obsidian, Diablo, Witcher, even the last 2 assassin's Creed, etc on the wrpg side, on the jrpg side there Tales, Ys, Yakuza, going back a bit theres project x zone which is a TARPG. The above are all rpgs. There's action oriented mmorpgs etc etc. On the other side there's action and action adventure games that aren't action RPGs. Gow, Bayonetta, ff16, ffSoP, dmc, horizon (though it has enough use if rpg like systems, much more than 16 seems to, I wouldn't fault anyone for an argument that it is), got... Etc
I'd said to mighty ant in another thread I think we really need to have a panel with people like Todd Howard, Warren Spector, sakaguchi, nagomi, the persona guys, cdpr guys and white paper out what defines the rpg genre in game design terms to try to fix this. Critics don't seem confused, devs don't seem confused (other than the ff16 guys apparently ) but consumers really seem confused and start calling anything with a skill and equip screen bolted on an "rpg" as though many other design components are not part of being an rpg design.
Souls is an exception. It was called an rpg but kind of isn't. It was called an action game but kind of isn't. It just ended up defining it's own genre, now
As for 16,I will play it eventually. Just when it's cheap enough. I did buy forspoken on the dop sale but it'll probably be a long time before I get to it. With starfirld and vr stuff I'm not sure it'll be this lifetime lol. But I'm not under the slightest illusion it's any kind of rpg at this point. It's an action adventure with some stats bolted on the seem shallower then gow18s.
The main problem will be the cutscenes.. I don't want to watch 2 hours let alone 15. Even quantum break didn't go that heavy and at least had Lance Reddick to keep it interesting
@NEStalgia so until this panel determines the new definition of an RPG it is an ARPG because that it was the developers have slapped on the game.
If we go back through all of the games considered an RPG you will find things missing from the traditional definition and that goes for the entire Final Fantasy series too.
@Alpha_Pulse Haha... Yeah but... Definitely not going with what marketing tells me a thing is. It's frustrating like, just don't try to tell me a thing is a thing it clearly isn't. (Not you, them)
We're at a point where media info screamed "not RPG", the demo demonstrated "not RPG", and most reviews, both glowing and loathing agreed "not RPG".... Really the only ones left saying it's an RPG are the marketing people and a few folks like yourself
Which is a shame. It's still just awkwardly misrepresented.
We're not really talking about traditional elements as much as core design aspects. Again based on such a shallow definition of what an RPG is ever modern sports game is an RPG. Almost no other genre exists but RPG because all games are RPG which doesn't make sense. It just ignores that there's a different design goal in an RPG. If literally every single game is an RPG because components from RPGs are borrowed by most games then rpg doesn't really exist.
I honestly think the problem is just square at this point. They're not interested in making great RPGs. They just want to many the next call of duty or GTA. Or at least gow. They don't want to be the biggest rpg name they just wabt to make games that are the top seller in the industry whatever is trendy at the time. But then they call everything an RPG to string along existing customers that know them for RPGs even when that's clearly not what they're making. They're the only company doing that.
@NEStalgia like I said I get what you’re saying. Square have traditionally not been afraid to mix it up. I love the old ATB style games but I think they have kept things fresh by changing. Much to the dismay of old school fans who can’t stomach the change but I have enjoyed every entry (except x-2 but that was down to boring story but liked the battle system). There are plenty of games that fit the old RPG profile so I don’t see a problem with their approach. If people don’t like it they don’t have to buy it. I’m a final fantasy fan whatever that may be. Mechanics don’t necessarily drive my behaviour with the core series I follow. Final fantasy has changed many times since the initial 7 games and even then we had a few changes to the systems with job system no job system etc. Even the second game was different from the first and a very jarring experience at that.
@Alpha_Pulse I think that kind of jumbles some ideas. There's a difference between an RPG changing it's battle system and a genre replacement. The boldest example is probably like a dragon/Yakuza. It changed from an action rpg with a BUMP styled combat system to a turn based rpg that straight up copies DQ with an ATB type twist. That's an RPG changing between action rpg and turn based rpg cleanly without changing genres away from RPG in either direction.
Maybe the simplest way to discuss it is to say that an RPG is a game where the combat system exists in service to the many systems that make up the complete gameplay paradigm. Battle is only one component of gameplay and not always the largest.
An action game is a game where the combat system is the game and everything else exists in service of that. The only point of play is more battle. (Or more cutscenes lol)
There's a lot more to the design than that if course but for conversational purposes that's probably as good a point as any.
Once there's no actual role playing involved, no choices, just a linear script to follow through continuous uninterrupted battle, The genre is definitely something other than role playing. Which is fine, but it's different genres.
Again though this is only a square problem. And it's not about creative ideas, it's about their company's unwillingness to change brands and to cling to the market appeal of the ff brand like Linus clings to his blue blanket. They are obsessed with only making ff while also trying to enter whatever the trending genre is, so they keep trying to awkwardly use the ff brand to chase whatever be genre market the want to enter. Creative ideas has little to do with it. It's all business driven holding back creatives. That's how they lost Xeno .
@NEStalgia regardless 16 isn’t just a hack and slash, it still has a gear system, levelling system and the ability tree as well as a central character. No matter how shallow these are and how thin it scrapes the line it is still fits the definition of an ARPG. It doesn’t matter if games that traditionally don’t fit this genre suddenly fit into it because they have RPG elements in them. If anything it just splices genres together which has proven to work as is the case with GoW. Hack and slash initially but then added RPG elements. Assassins Creed did the same thing with RPG and Fallout became first person full 3D once Bethesda got into them. Castlevania moved from side scrolling platformer to hack and slash. You are trying to fit everything in a single little box called RPG and the reality is games and the genres have evolved overtime. Games don’t need to have a single definition when it comes to genres. They can be considered tags at this point. Action RPG for 16 fits perfectly because it is an Action game first and foremost but has RPG elements in it. I have checked a lot of the media since this discussion and there are some that question it’s RPG tag because of these shallow implementation but most refer to it as an RPG or ARPG. Most of the criticisms are coming from review bombing from people who can’t access the game on their platform or are salty about no turn based action. I checked A LOT of reviews before I responded to reduce my chance of being shown up. So unfortunately I cannot see the majority of critics that you have said have said this is not an RPG unless you are projecting your opinion as fact? I have seen some talking about how light it is but most don’t even question the subject at all with some just referring to it as an RPG whilst they talk about the game itself.
You talk about holding back creatives but this is the game the devs wanted to make. Sticking with the same formula over and over again stifles creativity. How will they know if the story they want to tell can be told/progressed in a different way?
@Alpha_Pulse So...lets back that up a little bit. On one hand the game is not an RPG, it's an action game or action-adventure game. (Or if we're really honest an oversized movie with some button pushing added, I'm jesting, but also not... ) If it can be reviewed/critiqued as what it is it may come out really well objectively for what it is. Which is not an RPG.
OTOH if we objectively review it as an RPG with RPG systems that are "so shallow and thin it scrapes the line of fitting the definition of the genre" then objectively it's just a bad game.
I'm not saying it's a bad game. I'm saying if we're going to define it as legitimately being an RPG, where objectively/critically we have to look at it's implementation of it's RPG systems as the backbone of the game's design, with systems we can all agree are so absurdly thin it barely covers being an RPG at all, than as a RPG it's simply awful, no way around it.
Which is fine, because I really don't think this can be objectively called an RPG by any means, which works to its advantage, because (flipping cutscenes aside) there's a lot going for it as an action adventure/bump/slasher. There's not a lot going in its favor as an RPG. Like, at all.
There's kind of this line that divides it. We can say it's a great/good/average action slasher. Or we can say it's a abhorrently awful RPG that barely uses its systems, barely pays attention to them, and really just sucks at being an RPG. I'm not sure why people are so keen to try to paint it as a genre it's not when trying to observe it through the lens of that genre is actually damaging to the perception of the quality of the game.
To be clear, I'm not saying it's a bad game, and I'm not saying you shouldn't be enjoying it or thinking it's a great game, if you are/do. I'm not even saying that I wont be enjoying it at a later date. I'm saying trying to funnel the perspective of it through the lens of being an RPG is self-defeating, because that sets it up for failure based on objective RPG comparisons vs looking at what it really is, instead. Through the lens of comparison to RPGs it's a trainwreck in motion, it fails on almost every level, certainly undeserving of the praise it received. But that's because most critics chose to identify it as not an RPG (IMO correctly), and critique it on separate grounds, not trying to fit square slasher peg into the round RPG hole. As a result it came out favorable in the genre it's being reviewed as.
I think we hit the definition miscommunication here though "Action RPG for 16 fits perfectly because it is an Action game first and foremost but has RPG elements in it."
That is not what ARPG is. It's not an "action game" with some RPG elements added. That's simply an action game. Which is what this and GoW are. Action RPG is an RPG with a a real-time action based combat system. The main feature of an RPG is that combat is not the game. It never has been. Combat is a mechanic/system in the game design from which stats/items/materials are gained, creating a feedback loop of needing to engage in combat to obtain more resources/power to engage in combat against stronger foes to gain more resources/power etc. The stats/items/material progression to advance the character to be able to obtain stronger stats/items/material progression is the main loop. Combat exists in service to that progression of resource development, and also as an obstacle to it. Combat is a means to an end, not an end itself in RPG design. In an action game, combat is the object, not a means in the game design.
It's a very important distinction underpinning the overall design and internal systems.
Here's the design theory to really blow your mind: Under the hood, Animal Crossing is a cleverly designed RPG! Nintendo is genius at that, designing a game to appear as one genre while under the hood the real design structure is a completely other one. Punch Out!! is not a boxing game. It's a puzzle game. Animal Crossing is an RPG series. Instead of a turn based or "action combat" based battle system, the fishing/bug capturing system is the functional "battle" system (sort of an action combat system really), and bells serve as XP as much/more than as currency. "Battle" (fishing/catching) is a means to increasing resources (bells/XP) which is then used to acquire upgraded materials/tools which furthers the "battle" system to acquire higher grade materials. The "battle" system as a system in service of other mechanics is clear. The life sim is window dressing for the real RPG systems behind the decor.
When you say you check a "lot of reviews" are you referring to user reviews, or critical reviews. Because were talking about established critics, not random opinions here. Most major reviews, both good and bad, have addressed that the RPG systems are so thin they might as well not exist. Which is on point for them, as like I said, as an RPG there's no way you could come up with a positive or even average score on a game where it's acknowledged the systems core to RPGs are simply poorly implemented. There's no way an honest critic can say "The RPG systems in this RPG are so poorly implemented they might as well not exist: 8.5/10!" It's like saying the driving mechanics in a racing game are terrible, then giving it a high score.
(And again, to clarify, I'm not saying the game deserves low scores. I'm saying any review seriously claiming it's reviewed as an RPG while also saying the RPG systems are so thin and poorly implemented ,then giving it a high score, are simply not being objective critics. And fortunately I haven't see much of that. If it's objectively reviewed in comparison to other action/action adventure games I can totally see it coming away with a high score. If compared to other contemporary RPGs both W and J, turn and action alike, there's simply no honest objective reality that could yield a high score with the systems as they are. Which is fine, because said high scores are reviewing an action game, not an RPG, and the score is believable in that contest. )
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...