The price of Xbox One has been a raging debate since E3. Is it that much of an issue?
Baldur's Gate 3 is so good it might actually be a bad place to start with RPGs.
Having trouble completing a max heat run in Hades? Here's how you can make those 32 points feel like nothing.
Skill Up associate Edmond Tran spoke to individual gamemakers from around the world, all of whom had published games on Xbox consoles in recent years, and had new titles in development. They ranged from solo developers to mid-sized independent studios, though all requested anonymity in order to speak more freely on the subject.
This is the Complete article to which this story https://n4g.com/news/260094... allude.
It's the original source of the Twisted Voxel Story and contains lots of details and information related to different topics not mentioned in the other story.
I'll be honest every time I do it amounts to no change, at least, if this story is canceled there's a chance the real story will be fixed or members will get to see this link on the other one.
It's amazing how many people read the headline for that other article but completely skipped out on the content and just want to pretend that the content doesn't exist because it doesn't fit their own preconceived narrative based solely on the headline.
Here are my thoughts on the article:
1) I commend Edmon Trans for the quality of his piece. It seems to capture the struggles that many smaller indie developers face when creating games for Xbox when they have a PC version (porting).
2) It was surprising to discover that ID@Xbox has become a mere shadow of its former self due to funding issues, with the focus now shifting to Gamepass.
3) Developers point out the paradox of subscription services: they recognize the potential for reduced sales but see the necessity of launching on such platforms due to the upfront payment and exposure, which is particularly true for smaller single-player games.
One question I would like answered is whether exposure on Gamepass aids in driving sales on other platforms like PC, or if it actually has the opposite effect, especially for titles that lack marketing support or visibility from Microsoft or Sony (e.g., The Ascent, Stray, Roller dome).
4) Developers note that insufficient storefront visibility is a key reason why games don't sell as well on Xbox and PlayStation compared to PC (this was also hinted at by another developer who criticized the 30% revenue share). I believe this could be mitigated by introducing a feature similar to Steam's discovery queue on Xbox and PlayStation.
Personally, I've discovered several hidden gems I would never have purchased just by browsing my queue (Raging Justice, Streets of Fury, DLC Quest, and Press X to Not Die, for instance). In fact, it was my Steam queue that led me to play DBD back in 2016.
Another suggestion is the possibility of donating MS rewards points to indie developers as a form of gratuity.
5) It was encouraging to see some developers emphasize how the push by larger publishers for deep engagement with expansive games (like COD, GTA, etc.) can hinder sales, as players, particularly casual ones, are unlikely to seek new games when immersed in a title that demands over 100 hours of playtime.
This isn't to say that games requiring 50+ hours shouldn't exist, but there's a need for quality experiences that can be enjoyed in a shorter time frame.
Quick note: Kudos to Copilot AI for correcting my text; it seems less broken than usual while conveying my opinion.
Developers yes in most cases developers like tinkering with all systems and pushing them.
Publishers however only like putting games where they are profitable. And unless you're pushing a AAA that isn't on Xbox
"A few of the developers we spoke to said that in the past, they had been the recipients of funds specifically allocated to assist in porting projects, but programs like these had all but dried up. Now, all eyes were squarely focused on Xbox Game Pass deals – which were also not as lucrative as they were just a few years ago, but still enough to consider putting the work in for."
This is an interesting point to me. So there were incentives for Game Pass releases that appear to have become more anemic with time. Sort of like monetization schemes for content creators on YouTube or Twitch; those have also become less lucrative.
I don't think this ends well for Microsoft. They're applying a video/streaming monetization format to game development and publishing. I don't see how this shakes out very well, especially when video content is consumed for free and a stream/video's costs are kind of the infrastructure costs that are pretty much one time costs (exception being utilities). Game pass requires a sub—a much smaller pool than literally anyone with access to high speed internet.
To the point here, I think big publishers will launch on both platforms normally, but small to mid sized developers will do the opposite of what Xbox themselves are doing: Xbox launches first party day and date on game pass. Some of those trickle down to PlayStation and Nintendo. For these developers, I think they're going to launch exclusively on PlayStation/ Nintendo/ PC and once the games live out their lives, then hit Xbox. I have to say, that's likely to result in the Series X getting the inferior version. In that scenario, Game Pass is certainly an exceptional deal if Microsoft owns the studio. Otherwise, you might be playing a waiting game for a worse version.
However, there is another issue that we can speculate about: does Microsoft have a clause similar to the infamous parity clause? One that requires games to be available on Game Pass after a certain period/within a certain period? If so, I can see that being a deterrent to releasing on Xbox. Of course, I have absolutely no doubt that Microsoft will make exceptions for games that have higher bargaining power like GTA. It makes me wonder about BG3. Entirely possible that game was just going to have to skip Xbox, but the surprising popularity made its porting a priority for Microsoft (it's on MacOS too, so imagine Xbox being the ONLY place you couldn't play it besides Switch).
That last part is pure speculation, obviously. I'm pretty clueless about the deals in place for them. You might be wondering about Sony and there are probably some deals in place there too, but without any complaints or desire to report under anonymity as developers are doing here, there just isn't anything to go on. Presumably, in the absence of complaints, those deals might be structured better for developers.
"If the market exists, Microsoft is barrelling toward obscene profitability should it provide great games to play. That didn’t materialize on Xbox 360, the Kinect 1.0 now a dusty collector’s item. Hopefully Microsoft learned its lesson from that disaster."
That is the problem it was a quick fad which faded quickly. I feel Microsoft should have focused the tech away from gaming and more on the business/retail market. Or looking at ways to cut the cost down. Sell it to laptop companies as the camera and get retail shops on board. You know have an awesome online shopping tool. It didn't need to be extensive just mapping the clothing on the body type
I feel the price is a big issue for the mass market. A consumer will see similar looking system (as in they both play FIFA/COD...) but one is $100 more expensive. It doesn't take a genius to realise which one they will go for
That's one of the two main sticking points that remain for me. They still have time before release (and at least two more games conferences) to convince me to get an X1 sooner rather than later.
I was always gonna get one (no pun inte...ah who am I kidding?), it was just a matter of either years, or maybe month before I did so. Recent changes mean "within a year" is now much more likely.
Still not before the ps4 though. Been wanting to play PS2 for ages but my laptop is far too weak and I can't afford a decent enough gaming pc right now.
A price cut would really boost console sales to help Microsoft back on their feet.Making the whole kinect optional would also be a great way to get some product of the shelve. The have the games the extra features and the established reputation now all they need is a fair price
go ms go no you'll make it go
They should knock $80 off, keep kinect and take the short term hit in profit loss.
I dont think they should back down from bundling kinect though. Now that it comes with every machine devs can really experiment with it. but for the sake of being compeative on a price point, they should lower the RRP before launch.