NowGamer: "MGS 5: Ground Zeroes is just one example of a game that sparked debates around value for money. But does the issue of value for money have any place in videogame reviews?"
Companies, particularly public companies like Microsoft, need to grow.
i mean its pretty simple, they spent close to 30 billion in acquiring activision, they thought they'd make it bk no problem, and that didnt happen.
its just shit that because of MS's miscalculation alot of people lost their jobs.
This is exactly what many people said would happen including the CMA and FTC. Lies lies and more lies and they allowed a $69 billion buy out to happen.
gold,
You can't be serious, right?
Do you think that MS thought they would make 80bill in a year & Half? They haven't even released titles under MS yet, lol.
But in fact, that A/B revenue is already paying off, look at the last earnings call. That $80 billion is long-term money, my guy, no sane person/company would think they would make that back in any short-term situation, it's a long-term investment.
Let's play silly then. If MS's reason for laying off staff and closing studios was due(which it really was not) to the A/B deal, tell me what Sony's reason was for past studio closures, the recent 900-person layoffs, closing Sony London, shutting down Dreams, and closing Japan Studio? Zipper? Psygnosis? cuts at all their internal studios.
Keep in mind, you are claiming MS's reason is because of the A/B deal; please explain Sony's reason.
this is not a sony vs MS debate. dont make it something it isnt.
and of course not, but im pretty sure they thought they'd make more money after the deal. they didnt, and closed off some studios.
its pretty insane to think there is any other reason for the closure of studios in this case.
(It really was) due to the Activision Blizzard deal and the loss of physical sales due to gamepass. You keep bringing up Sony in all your posts about this, stop deflecting and trying to change the topic, this is about MS and what they are doing.
They are going to use AI for a large portion of the game development process. Upper management need bonuses and the shareholders need more money. So, people will lose their jobs.
Maybe they were already using AI to make business decisions, which would explain why they closed Hi-Fi Rush's studio, then said they need more games like Hi-Fi Rush not long after that announcement.
"They want you to believe the devs under them are super stoked to work generative AI into their processes," continued Gaider, "but I assure you what they took as excitement was really a veiled wail of despair not unlike the time that team was informed of their new 'really cool' live service mandate.".
I think anyone with some common sense knew this, im glad i don't support their games anymore, what a sh!t company.
I said this yesterday. AI isn't what we want when it comes to crafting artistry. Alas, these soulless corporate morons don't care about their work, only about cutting corners as much as possible.
Has the rapid growth of Xbox made the ship too heavy? Following the closures of Tango Gameworks, Arkane Austin, and Roundhouse, we explore what the future of Xbox could look like.
This ship was never meant to sail, this ship was made from the get go to sink as fast as possible. It almost feels that they want to lower the standards of quality in the industry so that they can fit in
I disagree, Xbox from the get go innovated and changed the industry. They did a lot of firsts and standardized a lot of others. It wasn’t till the beginning of the Xbox1 era that things started to go south.
Yep, although I’d argue it started going to shit when they tried to hock Kinect on their audience instead of continuing to invest in their studios and IPs. 2001-2010 Xbox was peak gaming, though.
@Stevonidas
I agree they never should have focused on it after the 360 era. But you do have to remember they were faked out by the huge volumes of Kinects sold. To quote info on Wikipedia, “Project Natal, It was first released on November 4, 2010, and would go on to sell eight million units in its first 60 days of availability.” So if your Xbox and see these huge sales on a peripheral where are you going to put some money? Criticism in hindsight is worthless…..if only we could all see our future. In other wards they had no way of knowing. Plus they had engagement numbers and a lot of signs pointed to people wanting it.
Their biggest mistake wasn’t the Kinect, but unlike Sony after the PS3 debacle. They didn’t double on down on exclusive good games. The other huge mistake was letting Call of Duty go to Sony.
Xbox has no soul and Phil has no confidence, and it's impossible to say either do when they killed Tango and Arkane Austin.
Everything they've said since has only made them look worse to a point that they're actually less competent than Embracer.
Whe you release something like the series S and expect it not to hurt your business model, and developers have to have parity with games. Then you know Microsoft don't care. Series s is the final nail that broke developers,
Yes.
Yes, games are competing for gamers' time and money. If the game isn't worthy of the price it asks, then it should be mentioned in the review. It's one of the biggest reasons I don't use a traditional number scale for my reviews.
*edit* Take The Elder Scrolls Online for example. I didn't play the game, so I can't speak on personal experience, but most people feel that the game is fairly generic in it's offering as an MMO, and as an Elder Scrolls game, it doesn't really feel like an Elder Scrolls game. It's $60 for the game upfront, and $15 per month after that. That literally directly influences how long you can play the game, especially if you have other responsibilities that take priority over paying that monthly fee. That factor alone warrants mentioning it in the review.
I agree with what this article is saying in regards to how we shouldn't have a checklist of features to refer to when evaluating whether a game is good or not, but to answer the question "Should you buy this game or not?" It kinda has to be a part of the discussion.
Why Kotaku's reviews are designed like they are.
ummmm of course....This is why I like Angry Joes reviews.
No everybody has a different idea on money's value. Sure mention content and longevity, but IMO if a reviewer cannot get the point across on what a game lacks and they need to say "this game is to expensive" they are lazy and should not be a reviewer.