Richnj

@BAMozzy "I know 'other' games - Like Borderlands may do it, but that doesn't mean ANYTHING"

The point would not be a technical one, but one of gamer expectations. The fact that people accept the games having a 2 player limit on one gen, while they get 4 player on the gen ahead of it, is the point.

Why would BL fans be ok with it, but Halo fans wouldn't?

And 2 player split screen and 4 player co-op online is exactly how campaign on Halo 3, ODST, Reach, 4, and MCC works, why would Halo fans all of a sudden find anything less than 4 player split screen on Xbox One unacceptable?

"you are THE 'Master Chief', not just another Spartan in the same world or a twin"

This is exactly how it worked for Halo CE and Halo 2.

Delaying games due to conflicting releases use to make sense, but does it still make sense in a digital and Game Pass world?

With GP, the players are there anyway. At launch, and after. You don't need to really convince them to put down extra money for your game.

Unless you are worried it just looks bad if your game doesn't get highest numbers possible at launch, why not just stealth launch the game and do the heavy marketing after the big releases have faded down?

Because honestly, the dev and publisher have to eat those extra costs during the delay, when you could at least be reaching those who have no interest in those big titles.

@Dezzy70 I'd gladly pay £70, or even £100, for a Halo game that is finished at launch (with all expected features like co-op, split screen, and forge) and includes at least a year of content support (as in actual maps, vehicles, and weapons, and maybe some cosmetics) included in that cost, and absolutely no micros.

Maybe it's just me, but £132 a year sounds like nothing compared to the amount at which the energy companies have been increasing the price.

I appreciate the sentiment, but it seems like "buy a new kettle", or "stop buying Starbucks" in it's actual effectiveness against the issue it's challenging.

@A01 Not true.

https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/halo-infinite-split-screen-co-op-working-xbox-one/

Split screen works on base Xbox One. And even so, players would forgive 2 player limit on Xbox One, and full 4 player on Xbox Series. The Borderlands games do this.

"So the question is, if it already works this well, why has 343 Industries decided to pull the plug on its development? "

They told you. Live Service.

This is what happens under Live Service models. Everyone is too busy making you new armour colours and silly hats to provide you with actual features for the game.

Meanwhile, Sony regularly secures exclusive content for their platforms...

And again, Sony won't like it because they won't be able to do marketing and content deals, and block GP, to ensure COD is associated with PlayStation, and maintaining higher sales on that platform.

I hope stuff like this becomes more common place.

There's such a huge potential for learning through games that we really don't take advantage of as much as we should.

Personally and generally, no.

I have just not enjoyed 4 and 5, and Infinite seemed to be clearly giving off the same vibes as time went by. 343i just can not give me what I need and want from Halo.

All three have failed to hit the same highs with the campaign or maintain any sort of decent MP community.

And the damage has been done. 343i needed to lean in on Halo's unique-ness and they never believed in the franchise to ever do that. They could (should) have down scaled the scope to something they could handle, and that maintains the core elements the community needed. Instead they constantly tried to up the scope to match and beat COD, while also trying to find ways to cram in live service sensibilities.

They systematically alienated the community because, like this latest drama has once again proven, they have, and always will, prioritise the wrong things.

@BartoxTharglod Yeah, I remember hearing about the open world stuff, like the dead spartans and the upgrades, and it sounds cool, but I've just gone through Rage 2, and it has dead "rangers" and character upgrades.

And between the two, (and me prefering the original designs of these franchises more) it seemed like something that fits more with Rage.

And MS own both these franchises. Unless it's ODST 2, I'd leave the open world FPS genre to Rage, and let Halo just be Halo.

I just converted my gold to GPU for £1, and that lasts til the middle of next year. So here's hoping that the UK get's the F&F plan before then lol.

Currently I'm thinking of getting me, my partner, my eldest son, and my nephews on the plan. Would make them all very happy (especially if/when COD gets included).

Repetitive MP games are the exact opposite of the kind of games GP is suited to.

For one, you can just buy the game outright and pay less money long term. Secondly, most big MP games now are F2P. GP just isn't required for them.

@pip_muzz MS won't let that happen. They've been propping up 343i since day one. They've not done a single thing themselves that has earned them their position in the industry.

And Bonnie Ross is one of those figures I can't see MS dumping.

@Grumblevolcano Halo 5 had many of the same problems. This is a problem of the studio, not the consoles they are working on.

@NeoRatt "Split screen co-op is not as easy as you think"

It's not really about the feature being easy, it's about them prioritising everything except a feature that 1) was standard in Halo until 343i took over, and 2) 343i themselves promised.

I'm sure the original builds for Halo 6 was more traditional that could handle split screen, so promising the feature was more reasonable. When they rebooted the development to the open world Halo Infinite, they should have known better, and should have communicated it.

But this again speaks to 343i's inability to either have that open communication, or the sense to know the difficulty of what they are promising.

@S1ayeR74 I'm sure if you followed the money from our Government back, it would become very clear why they are very eager to allow certain acquisitions.

Access isn't Sony's concern, it's the potential loss in revenue.

@CloudyDream I'd probably stick close to the Steam Deck in terms of hardware. That way you could at least ensure that devs could target the Deck, Xbox Hybrid, and a potential Switch 2 with more or less the same version of their game.

You never know, if Valve, Nintendo, and Xbox were in the hybrid market, Sony might see reason to produce a PSP/V2

"to damage competition in the nascent market for cloud gaming services."

This is a funny complaint given the conduct of these big companies on a daily basis.

Glad they put it in H2A and not forced it in H3 again.

Older games, especially ones that had such a major impact and presence on gaming, deserve to be kept available on current hardware.

You can reboot the series like they've done with Alone in the Dark, but the legacy titles should be brought forward too.

@abe_hikura I think it's just a product of the model.

When it was maps and quests that were the monetisation model, it was quest and maps that were focused on being made, and horse armour cosmetics were laughed at.

Now that "hats" cosmetics (the modern day horse armour) is what is the monetisation model, it's cosmetics that are the priority of the development, and all the good stuff is taking a backseat.

The whole model is intentional.

Players: "We want new maps and quality content."

Every Live Service game ever: "I have new hats."

"but some have pointed out that an external disc reader for the Xbox Series S might be a better idea, as there "just isn't enough market for an in-between console""

Pretty much my sentiment. The point of the S is to give a cheap yet capable console, the X is the high end. A "C" just doesn't make sense. at what would be around £350, gamers would either be better off going up or down by £100 to get the X or S.

The S could benefit from having a black version with a disc drive, but I wouldn't charge more than £300 for it.

Other than the Series 2's, the only other Series version I'd like to see, and that would have any kind of inherent value and market, would be an Xbox Series Hybrid.

Between DLC road maps and broken games at launch, it's pointless buying a game within the first year of launch. I mean, look at games like Halo and Cyberpunk.

You never know when you are going to get dumped with a lemon or not, and even when you get lucky and it's not, the dev usually ends up tweaking and adding to the game.

Best to wait, know exactly what it is you are buying, and get the full experience first time round.

That's kind cool.

I still wish there was an option to display game information when highlighted though. Seeing achievements on the library screen on 360 was always really helpful.

"We paid the dev the smallest amount possible, for the smallest amount of content just to have bragging rights" is the worst kind of business.

You didn't fund a struggling project. You didn't create engaging content. You didn't provide good value for your customer base. You literally just blocked another audience from part of the game in order to funnel revenue of said game in your direction.

Everyone has been out here defending Sony for being "just a billion dollar company with razor thin revenue margins" and yet they have money to throw at devs to block competitors.

The redheaded step child of gaming getting the redheaded step child of acquisition offers sounds about right.

And it would suck.

@FraserG I mean, I enjoyed it, but was surprised it made it on the site lol.

That reddit username though

If we've already been in it for 30 years, how do we not get it? and if we've been in it for 30 years, how is it different?

This is all marketing to talk up hype and play down fear. The Metaverse is just moves by companies to further centralise life and business through big companies.

Meeting up for D&D?, now you are meeting up for D&D through MS. Want to have a business meeting, you're doing it through MS. Want to play the brand new game?, you're doing it through MS' metaverse and it will advertise the products of a dozen other companies while you do it.

The ability to connect with people around the world is fantastic, making it intrinsic to our work and entertainment is not.

We already have problems created by being far too reliant on long distance logistics and industries. Hell, the last few years should be evident of this. We've had worker, food and fuel shortages, and physical and mental health issues.

It's a colourful FPS, I'll definitely check it out. Whether it ends up good or bad, I've been craving more of this kind of thing.

@J_Mo_Money Most likely, but I see it as one of the major hurdles for Xbox right now. If they could just let go now, then console and Game Pass sales will take an uptick.

Kinda like that scene in Forrest Gump with the braces. They've become so dependent on it to keep them up, they don't realise it's holding them back.

I think MS should take the opposite route and make online MP free.

They already have the cheapest console with the Series S, the cheaper yet more powerful high end console with the Series X, Game Pass with an upcoming family pass.

They could make a big song and dance about having the cheapest barriers of entry. And when most money is made through microtransactions, getting people playing online together on your platform will be better long term.

I don't need my games to be exclusive, I just need them to be fun, and to be on hardware that fits my needs.

@NEStalgia Saying that "Game Pass is the platform" would be like saying "MS Office is the platform" they just aren't. Xbox/Windows are the platforms. Game Pass/Office are a service. Xbox consoles/Surface are the hardware. All can exist more or less independently of each other.

@ironcrow86 I concur.

@Dezzy70 It is a real shame that in an industry that's meant to be about games, people get more upset about the platforms they are played on.

@Grumblevolcano I understand and agree with Sony in so far that nothing can compete with COD. It's true. But I also don't agree with their belief that these games had to compete with COD.

It was the same criticism I levied against MS with Halo. They tried so hard to shift Halo to beat, or leech off of, COD (which was never going to happen), instead of scaling back Halo to match the Halo community.

Apart from being shooter games with online MP, they are nothing alike. There's room enough for all of them. Especially if you dropped the unnecessary MP modes on some. Like, Resistance is better in its co-operative MP than it ever was in competitive MP.

@UltimateOtaku91 "just because the same Studio making the same game all the time every gen can get a bit stale"

Haha, 343i.

Seriously though. I agree. iD are also too good to waste to place them on autopilot like that. Doom, Wolfenstein, Rage are all in good places from a design POV. They could do with either one release a generation, or left with third party devs to continue. iD either needs to refresh Quake or get a new IP out.

"Killzone"

Coincedentially, I went back to Killzone HD last night to do my Rico/Hard run and finally got my plat on it. I have to go through the other Killzones again, but I'm going to try plat Resistance 3 first (already done superhuman, so it shouldn't be too bad). I miss these franchises. I don't care if it's sister studios being opened up or third party devs being asked, but I'd love for them to come back. I'm totally ok with derivative and budget entries in to older franchises.

@Dezzy70 They let half of their good studios go and thought they could coast by with just the big IPs and passive income from being the "media centre". Obviously a dumb strategy.

I think they are struggling in these years in particular partly because of covid, but also, all their studios, legacy or purchased, were all just releasing, or had just released their latest title.

After this year, there should be a more stable flow of games. They'll have the in house studios to support the flow, and they'll be starting to wrap up their new projects. All they have to do then is spread out the releases.

@Would_you_kindly That's fine. I don't find a lot of value in them either. I have cancelled them all so far. I'm going to try GP again when it gets the family pass.

But there are millions of gamers who do find value in the subscription services. And I can't say I particularly like the idea of a company spending money to reduce the value that paying customers get from their services.

@Would_you_kindly But we aren't Sony. We aren't Nintendo. We aren't MS. We are the gamers. We are the customers.

If Gamers would still buy the games as often, then Sony has no need to block competitors, but we, and Sony, know this isn't the case.

We as gamers heavily benefit from that choice, between buying a game outright or "renting" it through a subscription. That's what benefits us the most, and that really should be where we stand up for our own choices, for the things that benefit us the most. Sony, MS, or Nintendo aren't going to do it for us.

Sony are actively engaged in strategies that reduce our choices as customers. We shouldn't be sticking up for them. They have the money and power to do it themselves.

The only reason they give us the choice of "buy it on Xbox, or buy it on PS", is because they benefit from it. They don't benefit from "play it on GP", but we do...

@Would_you_kindly And if you were such a gamer, would it better for you to buy it on PS or play it through your Xbox GP sub?

@Would_you_kindly You need to follow this logic through. If they wouldn't want to pay to market a game that would be on Xbox Game Pass, why did they pay to market a game that was also for purchase on xbox?

@Kanaletto Well obviously it doesn't count in this instance now, but the general thought process of Sony would be this.

1) PS consoles sell more than Xbox consoles.
2) Titles on PS platforms generally sell far more on PS than other platforms.
3) GP Day One releases could cause gamers to play these titles on Xbox GP instead of purchasing on PS.
4) So block the GP Day One release to maintain the first year sales income.

Xbox isn't a threat to Sony's income, but GP (and even PSPlus) is. So that's the platform they are trying to fight against.

@UltimateOtaku91 That's not even £6m, it's $6m. That's even worse.

Thanks for the source.

@UltimateOtaku91 "apparently they took as little as £6 million from nintendo to make monster hunter rise a timed exclusive"

That's dumb as rocks. Rise would kill it as a multiplatform (with xbox and PS) cross play title. Even with the lower end graphics.

@UltimateOtaku91 "like resident evil 8 and final fantasy 7 remake"

Well, my personal stance is that exclusivity (time, full, marketing, whatever) is worse for AAA, established brands than it is for indie or new/smaller IPs. Games like COD, Resident Evil, FF, GTA, etc, do not need platform holder money to support the project. That's just greed in these cases, on both the publisher and platform holder's parts.

Stray, Tunic, Deathloop, Ghostwire, I can totally understand why these would need or seek the extra help.

@UltimateOtaku91 "which until the devs say otherswise these rumours are false."

It's highly likely that if the dev is in a deal with Sony, that they are under an NDA. So if it's false, then we could expect the dev to say so. If it's true, then the dev couldn't say it was true or false without legal trouble and will have to stay silent.

@Agnostic An easy way to understand the difference would be to ask a simple question.

Is the game on actually blocked from the other platform?

If the game appears on xbox platforms (which CotL does), then they haven't paid for exclusivity rights to the game. They straight up paid just to keep it off of GP. More to the point, CotL isn't even on PSPlus, so it wasn't even paid to be an PSPlus exclusive. It was just a block to GP.

Stray is an exclusive. CotL was blocked from GP. I mean, both can be bad, but the latter is far far worse.

"buying up companies and in many cases with a view to keep them off other platforms"

That's ownership. At this point, you own the IP and are in full control of what happens to it, and which platforms it gets published on. It's. Actually. Different.

Option 1) Pay dev to put game on PSPlus. Adding value for PSPlus subscribers.

Option 2) Pay dev to keep the game off of Game Pass to keep the value of both Game Pass and PSPlus lower.

Sony: "Option 2, all day long baby!"