120°

Why Microsoft’s Creative Director Adam Orth Was Wrong For Defending Always-On Consoles

An eGamer journalist comments on the Microsoft Creative Director (Adam Orth)situation, talks about the implications of always-on for a console and explains why Orth was in the wrong.

Read Full Story >>
egamer.co.za
caseh4033d ago

I think he just related his experience with PCs and mobile phones to consoles in general. I can see where he was coming from, my PS3 has been hooked up to my router for the past 5 years since the day I bought it and effictively its always-on.

With the exception of PSN outages. :D

Tody_ZA4033d ago (Edited 4033d ago )

I can understand that viewpoint, I mean my PS3 is also permanently connected at my home, but the thing is it's different for everyone and there are many scenarios where you won't have access to an internet connection at all or even just a reliable one depending on your situation. For instance:

- You could be using wireless
- You may want to take your console on the road
- You may be moving and finding yourself without internet for a while
- Your service provider may have a problem
- Microsoft could have technical faults
- The area you live in could be unreliable for good and stable internet
- You may just not have regular access
- You have may limited usage

Those are just some scenarios. Now while these above reasons can exclude you from playing multiplayer, it's completely unfair and insane to have these prevent you from playing a single-player game. Diablo III, SimCity, Assassin's Creed II, they all suffered greatly trying to enforce always-on.

sikbeta4032d ago

There is nothing to defend, this gen games were made to be played online + added features to be used online, social became important and that's online aswell, nextgen what would you expect is to go further than that, so logical step would be always on...

GiggMan4032d ago

Also things happen in life where other bills can take precedence to having your high speed internet always on. I know I pay right at $65 a month and if something was to happen that would be the first expense I'd have to cut.

Trust me I've been there... That would mean no Xbox for me :-(

Crazy Larry4032d ago (Edited 4032d ago )

I get that it's "different for everyone," but truth be told, I personally don't care about everyone (pardon me for being selfish). Both my PS3 and 360 have been "always on" for 6 years. I'll get a PS4, and I plan on keeping it always on, and assuming MS won't do anything too crazy during their announcement, I plan on getting a 720 too, since each will have great titles the other won't have. If somebody out their is still rockin' PS3 and 360 firmware ver 1.0 because they have no internet, I feel bad for them, but for nearly everybody on this site, we'll all be fine with always on. I'M NOT DEFENDING IT, but if I HAVE to have a 720 connected, it will be no different for what 90% of current PS3 and Xbox owners have been doing the last 6-7 years.

EDIT: Oh, and paying for internet is an awful excuse to bash always on. I KNOW the economy is tough but if you can't afford a $40 internet bill, you have NO business buying a $400-$500 console and $60 games. Priorities are food and shelter, so if things are really that tough, you need to be cutting out games entirely until this economy gets better for you.

Baka-akaB4032d ago (Edited 4032d ago )

Used to having it online or not , there is no defense worthwhile here .

People forget something that should be asked first . Does switching to a perpetually online system even benefits you ? If it doesnt and is just a used game deterrent screw them .

I dont even fathom state of mind making anyone rush to a corporation's defense , when they havent told you yet if there is even something to gain from it .

The only always online feature we know so far are auto logging stuff , wich can be done in alternative fashion .

And no .. social crap features , facebook or otherwise , and rankings arent worth that

GiggMan4032d ago

@Crazy Larry. The keyword is IF. If something was to happen or if I was to lose my job and things get tight the internet expense would have to be the first to go. Might as well get rid of the console also (for about a quarter of the price you paid for it) because without the internet it's useless.

This is all hypothetical debate anyway. Let's just wait and see what happens.

rainslacker4032d ago (Edited 4032d ago )

@sik

Plenty of games were made this gen that didn't require any online. Even if they included a multiplayer component, there was almost always a single player component.

Multiplayer took off this gen, no doubt. But that doesn't mean everyone, or even the majority want to play online. There are many people who don't care one bit to play online. I'm one such person, and I see no reason for there to be a required always on connection outside of trying to control the consumer.

Logical step is to keep it the way it is now. Make it optional for the people that want it, but don't restrict those that don't care to be always on, or just don't always have the means.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4032d ago
admiralvic4032d ago

While I can certainly understand people not seeing the problem with this (I am always online myself), I think too many people can't see past their own situation. Personally the biggest issue I have with "always on" is how easy it's to have a problem with it.

I don't know about anyone else, but every now and then someone will pull the internet power cord to plug something in or accidentally removed it (it's pretty bulky after all). Obviously this is a harmless action and terrible if I am playing online, but I don't need to instantly stop everything to resolve it. Thats the main problem with always online as a concept... it has too many situations where things are useless. At the VERY LEAST they should offer something to make up for this short coming, though I can see that not happening.

Boody-Bandit4032d ago (Edited 4032d ago )

Always on is a horrible idea. All the rhetorical spin can't justify it. If MS does indeed go this route it will hurt them. I honestly don't understand what the R&D team is thinking. MS needs to fire them and 86 this idea.

This is as bad as Sony not going all out for a full online infrastructure right out of the gate. Does everyone remember Phil Harrison complaining that Sony (Japan) wasn't focusing on online features and options for the PS3 before it was released? These companies need to learn from each others mistakes and not create new ones.

Ashlen4032d ago (Edited 4032d ago )

It's not about always on, people are missing the point entirely. Always on is a DRM.

The always on function is to authenticate games to keep you from playing used games.

That's the only reason always online is needed.

Boody-Bandit4032d ago

"The always on function is to authenticate games to keep you from playing used games."

I don't see many missing this point. Not being able to play used games or rentals would be the kiss of death for me with MS. 80% of the games I play are either from GF or purchased used.

If MS does in fact go this route it will save me space on my entertainment cabinet. I didn't get a Wii U and I will pass on the "Next Box" if these rumors turn into facts. I might purchase one just for the Forza series but my gaming library will be anorexic. I want resale value.

The only way this (Always On - No used games or rentals) would be viable for me is if MS sold their games 25 to 35% cheaper than their opposition.

I can't see Ms going this route. Think about it. Sony offers near identical services as you with equal or possibly more power. The same games, more developers, not always on, used and rentals will work (AKA resale value on your titles) and possibly still have the option to game online for free. <- If this is the case Sony will run away with the next generation.

Tody_ZA4032d ago

The other major issue with your argument, Ashlen, is that always-on doesn't really benefit us. The example you used helps us in no way whatsoever as gamers and consumers. In fact, it's a restriction on us, and because of the problems with always-on, poses many possible inconveniences.

Always-online isn't needed. It's something enforced for control reasons.

cleft54032d ago (Edited 4032d ago )

You mentioned the PSN outages, well Microsoft also went down during Christmas for like 2 weeks and it happened again following that consecutive year.

Now imagine the console is always online. Are you okay with not being able to play games that you paid $60 for, assuming you didn't buy a collector's edition for $100? The problem here isn't just the network experience on the side of the consumer, but that major gaming companies like Microsoft, Sony, EA, and Activision Blizzard don't have a stable enough network architecture to maintain an always online service smoothly.

If Microsoft wants to use always online drm, than they need to be able to guarantee customers that their network infrastructure is solid enough for them to be able to deal with the server demands of having a mass amount of people constantly connecting, no matter what time of year it is.

The reality is that there is no way for them to do this and this is why always online drm is a terrible idea and why I will not buy a nextbox if it does have always online drm. Once the network infrastructure exist for them to be able to do this type of drm reliably, than and only than, should they consider it.

CalvinKlein4032d ago (Edited 4032d ago )

they really didnt go out at all back then. Xmas 2007 it had connection problems because so many people were overloading the servers at once. I was playing COD 4 every day for a few weeks before xmas and xmas day I couldnt connect. I thought it was my Internet but it worked fine later that night when less people were on.

I hear people mention this live outage all the time, but it was working. I know because I actually experienced this so called "outage" and the PSN one too, big difference.

I will probably not buy the next xbox for a while and maybe not ever if it is always on. I enjoyed diablo 3 even though it wasnt as good as diablo 2. Lots of people hate on it but I think it was pretty good besides the stupid RMAH and the worst, always online. Lag, even in SP and servers that go down at least 1 time a week and they were down alot when the game launched.

3-4-54032d ago

Yea but when your internet connection goes out or is crappy that day, your not locked out of gaming.

You can still use your PC without the internet. Full functional.

X720 EX: Playing a game and internet acts up in middle of game...it just stops working or shuts down or exits out...

What if that was a cutscene or a Boss battle or important dialog and now it's just ripped you right out of that experience.

^ That situation is going to happen to people. Not all but enough that it will piss people off.

EX: I just bought this $60 game can't wait to play it.....wait the local internet is in the area fixing something and the internet will be iffy for today and maybe tomorrow ? Now I can't play my game ????

^ How doesn't Microsoft Comprehend this ?

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4032d ago
Z5014032d ago

"You may want to take your console on the road" BINGO!

Robotronfiend4032d ago

Or you are military and get orders to move.

Godmars2904032d ago

I think by now, with a blocked Twitter and removed Link-in account, he has some idea.

Question is does MS realize how bad an idea it is. Enough so that they'll continue it.

jmac534032d ago

I have Comcast and they are so big that they don't care that they are an unreliable ISP. Troubleshooting your Internet for a couple of hours after work when you only want to relax and play a couple of games is enough to make me avoid an always connected console like the plague.

rainslacker4032d ago

Time Warner was much the same for me. When it was working, which was a lot, they were very solid. However, not a week would go by where they wouldn't go down for an hour or two, and sometimes for a whole night.

I'm currently using AT&T U-Verse, and it's connection is up about 99% of the time, but a few days ago it went down for the whole night. Usually when it does go down it's for about an hour or so.

It's also worth pointing out that even the smaller companies which may care about service still use the larger providers networks to deliver their feeds, so your still at the mercy of the bigger infrastructure.

Show all comments (28)
280°

Xbox's Preservation Step Sets A Much-Needed Example, Especially For Nintendo

Hanzla from eXputer inquires: "If Xbox can care about preserving its games and legacy, what exactly is wrong with Nintendo, trying to kill game preservation single-handedly?"

purple10110d ago

Ahh yes the good old game preservation of saving all your games to a removable hhd on the Xbox 360, taking it round your mates house, setting up multiple tvs to
Be met with “save data corrupted, please re download”

Or how about removing 360 games
From the store
, download them now or else, and, better hope to god that save data doesn’t corrupt, or it’s lost for ever

Nice one ☝️

Zeref9d ago

It's better than what Nintendo and Playstation is doing. It might not be perfect but at least they are TRYING. Unlike the others.

DarXyde9d ago

Trying? Take off the blinders for a moment, mate.

1. A failure to preserve games is just that: a failure to preserve games. Don't try to sugarcoat it: NO ONE is doing it properly. Better than awful is nothing to write home about.

2. At the time of this comment, isn't it the case that you need an internet connection to play Xbox games even if you buy physical discs that are hardly in circulation anymore? I don't have a Series X and I can't verify, but I think that is correct. I'm fairly certain you can at least play PS5 games at version 1.0 (not much of a win really when many games require day one patches). I think Microsoft's all digital, licensing approach is by far more aggressive than anyone else's. They really try to push you to game pass where you lose your entire library by umm.... Skipping a month of payments.

I don't think anyone is doing it right whatsoever. Don't get me started on Nintendo, who goes after anyone looking to preserve their games better than they ever would with extreme litigation.

Don't be a simp for any of these companies. Get it together.

PhillyDonJawn9d ago (Edited 9d ago )

@DarX never speak on Xbox again. You lost all credibility with your internet connection comment. Smh you have 0 clue and misinformed yet speaking on something you don't no squat about.

Einhander19729d ago

What has Sony done exactly? You guys keep deflecting to Sony but I am not actually seeing any results, and ai am certain nothing that you can come up with even comes close to what Microsoft has done and what they have tried and failed to do, like tie all your disks to your account on xbone.

Microsoft removed their whole indie section when they moved to the xbone because they were going to only allow games on the service that came from a publisher, id@xbox started after xbone launched and it only exists because Sony embraced indie and Microsoft was forced to cancel their plans and reverse course.

And every single game that was part of games for windows live including disk games (I have gta 4 on disk that won't work) so hundreds of games that use that DRM no longer work unless the company themselves patched it out which of course very few did.

MrBaskerville9d ago

Not trying. Tried. they killed of the backcomp program years ago. They set something up again, but sounds like it's more of an attempt to save the current library on whatever they are planning next. With luck they save everything and more, but let's see. I could see them killing off parts of the OG xbox and 360 libraries. Can't imagine that they would allow us to play Forza 5-7 in the future.

With that said, I do like what they've done and really wish they could have done more.

shinoff21839d ago

Zeref

So killing off physical media is trying what exactly. Ms don't really give a fk if you think they do your kidding yourself.

Profchaos9d ago

They are not trying this team is established for forward compatability the team is. It interested in preserving Xbox or 360 games.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 9d ago
isarai10d ago

Is that why Hellblade 2 is digital only?

Zeref9d ago

Just because it's digital only doesn't mean you can't preserve it. Just put it on an external and you have the exact same functionality of what a disc does.

MrNinosan9d ago

Guess you're trolling, but if you actually think that's how it works, I'd recommend buying some braincells.

mkis0078d ago (Edited 8d ago )

Volitile vs nonvolitile data. A disc will not corrupt either. A drive can be corrupted.

Einhander197210d ago

This is just a scammy PR move to distract from the fact they are going digital only and trying to push streaming and subscriptions only.

No gaming company has pushed harder to remove ownership than Microsoft.

Without discs there is no preservation, preservation can't be done by the rights holders it can only be done by the consumers, anything else is a lie.

10d ago Replies(3)
Einhander197210d ago

Anyone remember xblig which Microsoft removed their whole 360 indie section removing hundreds of games from people?

10d ago
10d ago
Zeref9d ago

Do you know you can put your games on an external and preserve them that way? There are no benefits to discs. ZERO. Idk why some of you are still obsessed with them.

DarXyde9d ago

Because games like Persona 5 exist. It's STILL V1.00. On Playstation, that's a win because 1.00 is installed on the disc—no need to download anything.

If a game does not require any updates, it's all on the disc.

Extremely low bar in the modern era, of course. It's not much of a win by any stretch.

But for now, physical media does have a purpose, at least on Playstation.

Einhander19729d ago

That is factually not how game licensing works, try plugging your hard drive into someone else xbox, It's not going to work, and it won't work if the licensing servers ever go down.

Einhander19729d ago

Anyone remember games for windows live.

I have around a dozen games, some on Steam itself that will not work because Microsoft shut off the licensing servers.

BehindTheRows9d ago (Edited 9d ago )

I do. I STILL have games (Gears of War being the big one) I cannot access because Games for Windows LIVE is total garbage and no one has held Microsoft accountable.

Zeref9d ago (Edited 9d ago )

You don't have an Xbox apparently. Because you can 100 percent plug in your external and play games from it on any Xbox console lol. You just have to be logged in to prove ownership.

Chevalier9d ago

"You don't have an Xbox apparently. Because you can 100 percent plug in your external and play games from it on any Xbox console lol. You just have to be logged in to prove ownership."

Damn how many times do people got to explain your idiocy to you? You can take a copy of Persona 5 like someone used as an example and play that game on ANY console WITHOUT logging in which means I can lend the game to a friend without internet and they can play my game. Can you lend your hard drive to anyone without logging in for them to play? NOPE. That is a huge difference and if you think otherwise then sorry you're an idiot.

Tacoboto9d ago

"No gaming company has pushed harder to remove ownership than Microsoft."

Ubisoft is literally erasing games people bought from their libraries... My PS1-3 discs are useless on modern hardware. Nintendo's re-published and resold almost their entire Wii U library, and the eShop is completely dead with no BC mechanism in the Switch software. Microsoft publishes everything they make today day one on Steam and Xbox/Windows. Sony only brings to PC the titles they think you might want some years later and Nintendo won't even design a functional long-lasting joystick.

You're absolutely trolling and not serious if you think Microsoft today is the worst offender.

shinoff21839d ago

Yay steam

Not everyone fks with computers though. The disc is still the best way as a console player. Period.

Tacoboto9d ago

How do Sony and Nintendo feel about these discs from 2001-2013?

Don't be stupid, you know Xbox is the best at this today.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 9d ago
Hofstaderman9d ago

Nobody wants this. Sales or the lack of it in the case of XBOX is very telling. I wonder how the adorably all digital series X will fare. Adorably dismal perhaps?

crazyCoconuts9d ago

Only time will tell, but for from someone like me suspecting that Xbox is trying to gracefully exit the console market, that "forward compatibility" team is trying to get Xbox games playing on Windows PCs. I mean, it's nice that they're not planning on exiting with a "enjoy your games while the hardware still works" message, so that's nice. They still have a brand to protect via Microsoft so probably feel obligated to have a better exit strategy.

Xeofate9d ago (Edited 9d ago )

That is not their plan, their plan is to transfer users accounts to the cloud.

Phil Spencer himself said as much a few months back, plans could have changed but I think people are reading way too much into one statement where Phil said he would allow Epic on xbox because he wants to be able to sell xbox games directly on other platforms. Aka, instead of selling Sea of Thives through PSN he wants to have an xbox store to sell his games on PlayStation without giving PlayStation any money.

Again, it's extremely unlikely that Phil plans to put PC on xbox and licensing would prevent them from just giving out other publishers games purchased on xbox copies of thier games on PC, Microsoft does not own their games.

crazyCoconuts8d ago

The thing that doesn't align with the cloud strategy is the giving up on exclusives. You'd still need strong exclusives for cloud streaming - it's still a "platform" , just with a lower upfront hardware investment. I feel like they've learned what PS learned with PSNow long ago. We're not ready to stream games and it's only gonna lose them money to try at this point

FinalFantasyFanatic9d ago

I would love that, I'd buy up some of the Xbox games if they could run on PC, like the Rare Replay, Lost Odyssey and Dead or Alive Ultimate, probably a pipe dream though.

Show all comments (43)
370°

Could Xbox Soon Become The Next Dreamcast?

Microsoft's future in the video game space is murky right now, so let's break it all down.

Read Full Story >>
thegamer.com
ApocalypseShadow22d ago (Edited 22d ago )

Not anytime soon. But they're on that path.

One thing not mentioned in the article is Microsoft's money bags. If Sega had Microsoft's money, they would have still been around as a hardware manufacturer. Xbox as a platform only survives because of the money bags. They can continue making consoles for the core and port to PC.

The multiplatform strategy is only the result of arrogance and misguided leadership that blew up in their face. They thought gamers would jump on Xbox in droves if they knew that many of their favorite games would be only on Xbox. But that's not happening at all. Sales didn't increase. They decreased. Why? Because the dumb asses thought giving away these expensively made games in a cheap service would also turn the tide.

Gamers on other platforms are willing to buy quality. They don't need to be handed nearly free games in a service that aren't even finished and sometimes average in their development. Gamers buy Nintendo games. They buy Sony games. Microsoft groomed their base to not buy games. Even the quality ones. It has always been their plan to go digital. But most gamers still like single player gaming. Still like physical releases.

Microsoft's problem has always been that they don't produce high quality games at the same output as Nintendo and Sony. Actually, they should be producing quite a lot more because they're worth over 2 TRILLION. How they don't have more is ridiculous and no excuse. Buying publishers to take away from competition only backfired. Because it still takes millions of dollars to continue to make those games from the publishers they snatched. Their only choice was to crawl back to their competitors to help sustain those developers because Nintendo and Sony platforms were the ones buying games.

Am I sorry for Microsoft? Hell no! They deserved last place for putting in the least effort. They deserved the fallout for buying up the industry and didn't make a single blip on the radar against their competitors where they now need those same gamers they took away games from to support them. Part of it may have been to cash in on their competition. But the result is the slow death of their platform. They may go 3rd party. They may keep making hardware. I don't give a shit about them to worry about it. I only give a shit about the destructive nature of their industry moves that only negatively affect gamers. They could sell and drop out of the industry and I wouldn't blink. Probably laugh. But not blink. They deserve whatever comes to them. At least Sega put in the effort when it came to games. They just had poor leadership. Microsoft has poor leadership and barely makes memorable games. That's a killer combination. And not in a good way.

Cacabunga22d ago

That would be an insult to Dreamcast.. it had a crazy line up of legendary critically acclaimed games.

Crows9022d ago

I was thinking the same. Dreamcast had incredible games in such a short amount of time. It was truly exceptional.

darthv7221d ago

...and yet all those great games were not enough to sway people from the looming release of the PS2 at the time. Sony just has that kind of brand loyalty.

Cacabunga21d ago

Darth

I do not agree.. Sony had even better games thanks to an unprecedented 3rd party support..
DC had amazing lineup but 90% were arcade games..

88321d ago

@darth:
And Sony showed off "The Emotion Engine" and their real time demos that made everyone think they would miss out on REAL next gen 128bit magic if they jumped in before PS2s polygon pushing monster (and early lack of anti-aliasing with a healthy heap of shimmer + DVD playback) stepped up. PS2 was a fantastic system though with amazing games.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 21d ago
blacktiger22d ago

That's not true. Just because Microsoft has the money doesn't mean Microsoft can allow xbox to bleed entire Microsoft money. It doesn't work like they. Also SEC will be watching and investor won't allow it. Lot of reasons why Microsoft can not continue even if they wanted to. SEC regulations is expensive.

fr0sty22d ago (Edited 22d ago )

Exactly this... Microsoft is a publicly traded company, mostly owned by their shareholders (Approximately 59.24% of the company's stock is owned by Institutional Investors, 7.73% is owned by Insiders and 33.03% is owned by Public Companies and Individual Investors.). Their shareholders call the shots on the business decisions, and their shareholders want one thing and one thing only, for their stock price to go up. Losses do not make stock prices go up... so if the division continually posts losses on hardware, but shows profits on software and services (which has been the case with Xbox its entire lifespan, for over 20 years now), the shareholders are going to grow impatient and demand they stop making hardware and focus on the only thing that has ever made them money, software and services.

When Microsoft bought Blizzard and Activision for almost 100 billion, I knew that was the nail in the coffin for Xbox as a console... as the shareholders were going to expect a quick return on that investment, and when it didn't materialize, they were going to be out for blood... out to force Xbox to sell those games on as many consoles as possible, "and while you're at it, sell those first party exclusives that aren't selling well on other consoles as well... hell, just stop making consoles and sell games."

If there is another Xbox console generation, it will definitely be the last, but I doubt there even will be one at this point. I think the Xbox division planning on it just in case, but I don't think the project has been greenlit from Microsoft itself. The rumors that they have not yet even secured the chips needed from the chip fabrication facilities ties into this.

shinoff218322d ago

While I usually agree with you . Alot of what was said can just also be asked before any of that.

How long will the shareholders wait? It doesn't appear long at all

Babadook721d ago

I think I get your point. Like just because MS has money does not mean they are content to throw it away on a dying ecosystem. Xbox has to be profitable or “what’s the point?”

ifinitygamer21d ago

Money bags, yes, but are we ignoring that Xbox actually makes a profit on games and GamePass? Hardware is often a loss leader, and they're probably making profit 4 years into the life cycle, but games and services revenue have been very profitable while other parts of Microsoft's business is struggling. Say what you will about the quality of those games, of course, but this is kind of a reverse Dreamcast situation, where the console was dragging down the company and put it at risk of shuttering entirely. Killing that console saved the business and allowed it to continue to make games on multiple platforms. In this case, the service is very profitable, as are the games, and they're also double-dipping into Multiplatform to extend this further, while their hardware is just sort of what they believe to be the best for gamers and their own titles (whether that is the case or not...)

fr0sty21d ago (Edited 21d ago )

The issue is, they aren't selling enough hardware to make their exclusives profitable, and now that they've bought half the gaming publisher/dev industry, they have no choice but to go third party to make a profit... and that is making their shareholders take a real close look at their hardware division under the microscope... why keep making the hardware if the software is all that is making them money, and they continually, generation after generation come in dead last with hardware sales?

Look at a game like Spiderman 2... if it had been an Xbox exclusive, with the amount it cost to develop, it would have been a huge failure... simply not enough consoles out there to sell it on. They would have been lucky to break even.

ifinitygamer21d ago

@fr0sty agreed completely, which is why they're hedging by releasing other games to multiplatform, plus they have PC to make up for the difference in a lot of ways, which is why their games are not complete money pits. It brings up the question of whether or not those exclusives would drive sales of consoles, though. Let's say Spiderman 2 was an Xbox exclusive, it would certainly have pushed console sales, though who's to say how much is anyone's guess.

fr0sty21d ago

That's why you can't rely on just one exclusive, Sony has always delivered on a wide range of solid exclusives, even this generation (even if they haven't been strong on the first party exclusives, they've made up for it with third party). They don't rely on just one "system seller", they have a portfolio of them.

21d ago
JBlaze22621d ago

ApocalypseShadow To be honest Sony has more of a chance to go 3rd party because like you said Microsoft has money, Sony does not. Sony does not have games, Only games they have come from 3rd party. Sony has been losing money for years and you. Saying Microsoft has been putting the least effort just proves you have no idea what's been going on. All Sony has done is repeat and recycle, never innovating or doing something new. All Sony has is brand loyalty nothing else and it shows.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 21d ago
LG_Fox_Brazil22d ago

Not sure about that. It's been two decades and I still think about Power Stone, Shenmue, Crazy Taxi, Jet Set Radio, Seaman and others, but I'm not sure I'll remember Xbox Series X/S games in a few years from now... Maybe I'll remember about the franchises that the Xbox brand spawned, but I don't believe that the Xbox Series lives up to the late Dreamcast or even to the Xbox name itself. I do have great memories about the 360 with Blue Dragon, Gears 2 and Lost Odyssey though

isarai22d ago

Nah, sega actually makes good games

Becuzisaid22d ago

No, Dreamcast was ahead of it's time and most still have very fond memories of it that had one. It also had some good games on it even in it's short lifespan. Xbox has none of these qualities.

Profchaos22d ago

I remember it coming out at the time in a really bad place they hit the market before the PS2 but it was during this transitional time when Sony was promoting the power of the PS2 and so many of the Dreamcast games were awesome but often third parties simply ported the PS1 version increased resolution and performance but rarely fully utilise the capabilities of the console.

I think in the end bad marketing done it in and like the GameCube so many people are fond of it now but at the time it was looked at in the lense of the day and it didn't stack up.

Personally I miss Sega in hardware they took risks that many companies won't

Becuzisaid22d ago

I never owned it, and got the PS2 right when it launched. But there were certain games it had that I was always jealous of that I didn't have access to - Sonic adventure, crazy taxi, power Stone, code Veronica, shenmue, skies of Arcadia. I always thought it was a really cool machine though. I've never heard a bad thing about it though from those that had it.

FinalFantasyFanatic21d ago

I only ever saw one Dreamcast, and that was one my friend owned, pity I never got to play it, I wonder what games he had for it?

It would be nice if some of those games got ported to modern systems.

Profchaos22d ago

Oh man sonic adventure on the Dreamcast made me so jealous as a huge sonic fan on the mega drive who also moved to PlayStation 2 I never got the chance to play it back in the day either. The Dreamcast in Australia where I am was always relegated to the smallest corner of EB Games it was kind of a strong first indicator that things were not going well at the time.

Show all comments (72)
80°

Microsoft Rewards app on Xbox and weekly streaks to be killed off soon

Microsoft has announced the Microsoft Rewards app on Xbox will be discontinued in April and has confirmed that weekly streaks will also be coming to an end.

Read Full Story >>
trueachievements.com