Via Ripten: Save points are truly a spear in the side of any modern gamer. It's 2007, we have the latest in bump mapping, anisotropic filtering, and the best of mipmaps. We've got the graphics, so now it's time to look beyond superficial beauty. We need to fix problems that have plagued our media for far too long, namely, sparsely placed save points.
When the PS5 and the Xbox Series X/S first launched all the way back in 2020, console sales were not what either platform manufacturer wanted them to be. The pandemic slowed things down more than ever before, even though in the case of each next-gen console, all the units that were manufactured, sold.
Of course that didn’t last, and soon manufacturing limitations on the consoles were a thing of the past, and sales started to leap forward. For one next-gen console platform, at least.
I can see why Microsoft is putting their games on PlayStation with these numbers
Imagine how many copies of future games like Elder Scrolls VI, Blade, Indiana Jones and more they could sell if they went fully multiplatform.
while I see your point, i'm one of those people that dont really want to see a M$ logo, when I boot up, however good the game is, unless truly exceptional, I've got enough games from Sony and enough coming down the pipeline, plus the 2 free smaller games on ps+, why do I need to give Microsoft anymore money,
I usually play just GT7 and cod, you've got Gran Theft Auto coming, its over for microsoft, they shot themselves in the foot, and now have to hobble away, to the losers corner, sit there, and repent.,!!! hahaha
@Purple101 At this point, Microsoft just wants to be the American Tencent, but also just happen to have a console available for those who want it.
I hate what they're doing to the industry, but I would play the next Elder Scrolls on PS5 or PS6 even if I had to look at a MS logo at the beginning. At this point, I'm just invested in the series. I didn't feel this way about Starfield, which is why I've skipped it. Worst case scenario, I'd pick Elder Scrolls up on PC if it didn't come to PS, but I've stayed true to my word - I have not, and will not buy another Microsoft console after 3 red ringed 360s. They've killed my console support for life. They showed how scummy they can be by knowingly rushing out a product before it was ready, just to try and capture a 1 year headstart.
If a MS logo shows up at the beginning of the next Elder Scrolls on a Playstation console, so what? That means Sony won and MS is just another publisher. Many of the large publishers are quite dirty, so it fits them well. I wouldn't mind seeing their console die off though and them solely take up this publisher role.
Yeah, I never bought another Xbox console after the 360. But at the same time you shouldn't find yourself captive to Elder Scrolls if the company behind it is very scummy. I dropped COD after Ghosts and I don't regret it the company has only become worse and I'm glad I never was part of funding that.
Replies(1)Replies(1)
Sony would probably be selling more if they stopped sending mixed signals about their future. Putting games on PC because you are taking data analytic advice from Microsoft about the future of consoles is folly and has limited their potential sales. Microsoft want Sony and the world to believe that consoles are done as a business so companies like Sony and Nintendo etc can end up serving Microsoft's platform. Remember when it comes to Microsoft "It is us or no one and the three E's" Don't fall for it.
MS has forced everyone’s hand in regard to PC. If the other two dont release on PC, they will be giving them an edge. Imo
Although i think Sony/PlayStation would be wise to release selectively on PC.
The way Sony are doing it though is very suspect, It almost seems like they are trying to tunnel their way out of Steam with a PSN back-end. They should have just launched their own store. Yes this would no doubt upset PC users but you just can't have everything on Steam as that means no market competition. Microsoft and Sony should only use their own stores. That way they can also enforce their subscription fee's (I don't think there should be fee's) like they do on console as right now they are saying people on console have to pay this fee but if you play on PC you don't. That is very anti-consumer.
While putting their games on PC would lose them some console sales, there's a large market of people that prefer consoles for their simplicity and convenience, I wonder if it would really effect them negatively. Well, I guess at this current point they won't be dragging PC players into a PS Plus subscription, so there's that.
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.
MS has educated financial advisers, they knew there was little chance to recoup the 70billion just to break even on the Activision deal let alone whatever other nonsense is going on in MS.
This whole thing was to corner the market for leverage.
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.
once in a while you see someone too invested in their make-believe console war that everything happened has to be connected to said war…
a bit of banter between fans is normal, this crusade you’re doing now isn’t.
Wow idiotic. You bring up very old closures not that there haven't been recent ones from Playstations, but, seriously stop deflecting. This has NOTHING to do with Playstation.
Does Playstation got $3 trillion behind them and daddies wallet? No they don't so stop making a fool of yourself.
Xbox has never been profitable really and they just keep losing money so between their worst hardware sales, terrible 3rd party sales and now terrible 1st party sales.
Gamepass numbers that are no longer being announced shows their numbers after 3 years of missed targets has flatlined. Plus their recent gains up to 34 million were ONLY because they folded Gold members in too. Absolutely take your idiotic rhetoric out of here. Keep on topic without deflecting.
How dare you mention Sony! Everyone here knows when Sony closes a studio and lay off workers it was the right thing to do. Even when they bought Gaikai and fired almost everyone it was the right thing to do.
Gamers can be such hypocrites sometimes.
The earnings call only showcased how dire the situation is... Even with ABK and Bethesda, they still couldn't make enough to keep investors happy, gamepass subs are stagnant, and hardware sales are tanking.
Drake,
"this is not a sony vs MS debate. dont make it something it isnt."
You are correct that it's not an MS Vs Sony Topic, but when exaggeration and imagination mix from a one-sided social group, similar examples are needed to ground radical thoughts; in this instance, the example was that shutting down 3,4,5, even 6 studios during a restructure/ buyout/acquisition is not some anomaly(it can suck) that has to be dissected or spell doom and gloom.
"But I'm pretty sure they thought they'd make more money after the deal. They didn't, and they closed off some studios."
But they did make more money, a lot, actually; the last earnings call showed a huge growth in profit, almost all due to A/B revenue.
"its pretty insane to think there is any other reason for the closure of studios in this case."
The fact that they did make money, kinda throws this out the window, and besides, you don't wake up and say, hey let's close a studio, you look at the output, you look at the dev as a whole, the long term and short term, you weigh it against all other studios and goals, you keep key members, ect..then you close if they are the weakest links...which by MS analysis they were.
Again, I will make a small Sony comparison, just so some of you can understand and see past the bias; Insomniac, ND, and Bungie have made some of the best games ever created, yet Sony saw fit to cut jobs in every of these studios, even tho Insomniac & ND are the biggest producers of PS games, leagues ahead better than Tango and Arkane, yet, they saw cuts, mind you, while being the TOP produces of PS first party. They were told to cut costs, and more jobs may be on the line, and Bungie is being threatened by a hostile Sony takeover. Put that in perspective, as I know that layoffs and dev closures are different, but if the best of the best is getting cut off, it is less than surprising, that lesser studios are closing.
@Cheva,
My response fits well with your comments as well. You even went on to prove that the dev closures are not just due to A/B acquisition. Then you point out Sony has less money than MS, inferring that MS should keep devs open that they see as lesser earners, while Sony having less money makes it okay to close them. lol...it doesn't work that way.
im not reading all of that. u have ur opinion, i have mine.
thats rly it.
but this aint sony vs ms.
You're trying to compare a 100 billion company to a company that has 3 TRILLION worth. SIE has to live or die on their own. And in turn, PlayStation has helped the main company again and again. Sony has to balance out what is working and not working in the company.
While Xbox has Daddy Warbucks footing the bill to keep the platform afloat. They have been bleeding money from Nvidia hardware in the OG Xbox, the RROD fiasco, the attempted 2013 DRM nonsense and the lies about being the most powerful console in the world and the losses of paying out millions to prop up a service hoping it catches on with enough subscribers to justify its existence.
They're not comparable if Xbox isn't allowed to live or die by its actions. It's subsidized. Revenue isn't profit. And if they were profiting on their own, they wouldn't be closing developers. If they were profiting, they wouldn't need Daddy Warbucks spending 80 to 100 billion buying up 3rd party publishers to sustain a loss leading platform.
They stopped announcing game sales, stopped announcing hardware sales, stopped announcing game pass subscribers, they are putting games on their competitors platforms but you're telling us that they are doing great even after killing jobs and closing developers at Xbox.
Stop drinking the Kool aid. You're drunk.
Again at which point did Playstation have a $3 trillion company shift the market with a giant purchase?
"But they did make more money, a lot, actually; the last earnings call showed a huge growth in profit, almost all due to A/B revenue."
Lol. No they didn't. Increased revenue was ONLY due to adding Activision Blizzard revenue in. Growth was only 1 percent. It's idiots like you that have no idea what they're talking about is why Xbox isn't better than it is. You guys just make excuses continually.
If Xbox got so much profit then why did they stop announcing hardware numbers? Why did they stop announcing Gamepass numbers? Oh right because they're NOT profitable. Their sales in every category has dropped off the face of the planet. It's why Spencer will be closing more studios and canceling upcoming projects too.
How can they be profitable when they're not selling enough hardware, software or subs. You need take a seat on this one my friend unless you can prove you angles
Sony didnt shut down the studios you mentioned after they made last of us or ratchet and clank or destiny. Cutting jobs is not equal to closing studios. Sony cuts are a candle in the sun of Microsoft’s closures.
I am pretty sure MS knew this would happen and this was part of their plan. I mean if anyone with half a brain can see this happening I am pretty sure a multi billion company like MS knew this would happen
The whole strategy in buying Beth and Acti/Blizzard is for
1. Buy established games they can have under xbox because they have done a horrible job in building their portfolio internally for the past 15 years
2. Following from 1, try and boost xbox competitivenss against a dominat PS which MS after 3 tries still can't crack
3. Follolwing from 2, try and weaken Playstation dominance by taking out these massive multiplats from the PS
4. Following from 3, try and profit off from the PS domiance with selected games they will still have on the PS to make money like COD
5. Obviously get the IP's by buying them instead of creating them which again as I mentioned in number 1 they have been woeful in doing
None of these had anyting to do with keeping all the devs they accuried. MS has always been very shitty to Devs under them. Look at what happned to Bungie for example.
I believe MS in court truely mean it when they said they had to do something because PS was just too dominant. This was their last roll of the dice.
And from the looks of things. It has not panned out as MS had hoped. PS5 is still as dominant as ever and xbox is still behind. Worse still their MP's they got is not irreplaceable as they thought. Starfield? lol!. There have not been any major shift in momentum in this console war in their favor so now its time to start cutting their loses and it starts with the most expensive cost for any company. People.
for a comparison, sony laid of a bigger % of it's staff this year than ms, it's what companies sadly do nowadays. If you think with GP and Bethesda + acti aquisition they were looking for quick cash, you couldn't be more wrong. It hasn't even been a year, "they thought they'd make it bk no problem, and that didnt happen." shows you have 0 understanding of how a business operates.
@ Michiel1989
Exactly this!
I'm reading these comments, and it's mesmerizing how off-base most of them are.
I posted a few comments above, and their rebuttals have nothing to do with the points that I presented; when they start doing that, I just ignore them because, at that point, they're debating all over the place.
meanwhile everything turned woke an inevitably went downward, i'd say it serves them well if they promote such kind of approach, mwuahahahahahhh!
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 shouldn't have bought any studios. Some is okay...but they went on a shopping spree...stupid
The better question is why did Microsoft buy publishers for a service they were subsidizing they knew couldn't support.
And why are so many websites trying to make people feel sorry for Microsoft instead of truly criticizing the fact they are closing studios and killing jobs that would have been fine if Microsoft themselves hadn't gotten involved.
Quit feeling sorry for Microsoft and start feeling sorry for the industry and the all the gamers who are actually losing out.
THIS IS MICROSOFTS FAULT.
The first thing that happens after any major acquisition or merger is a consolidation of the whole new portfolio, which includes cutting any excess, bloat or portfolios that don't fit the larger MO of the big boy. So far, it's been par for the course with Microsoft and that's why gamers have been so against this acquisition. Tango Gameworks is the beginning. You think Microsoft wants to pay to keep small timers like Ninja Theory in business?
There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that Microsoft will improve any of these studios, but plenty to suggest that they will get rid of what they don't need and hold onto the IP. The real agenda of the acquisition was always to acquire The Elder Scrolls, Diablo, Fallout, Call of Duty, Candy Crush etc. that will create millions in passive revenue stream for Microsoft regardless of where the games release. Microsoft simply wants their cut.
Because of Games Pass Microsoft has no interest in investing in new IP which is risky and requires creative talent they can neither nurture nor manage. Game Pass has also not grown in the way Microsoft expected it to, even post acquisitions. Therefore the logical thing to do, without serious money makers to release, is to cut as much cost as possible.
"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.
"Let the golden age of difficult games die with the arcades that bore them."
Wow...just wow. So according to this writer, the ideal game allows the player to respawn in the same position immediately before the death occurred.
That takes away any sort of penalty for dying, which is absurd. I don't even think I have to go into more detail with this, it should be obvious to everyone.
Yea that's a bit rediculous. Games are getting easier and now this guy wants them even easier. Having to struggle for a save point offers you a very real challange to the game itself. I know if I'm allow I take way to much liberty on saves. Mass Effect I almost started saving everyother min. Granted I'm playing on Hardcore mode and it's a lot tougher but what happened to the days of old rpgs where only one guy in one town could help you save the game. Any dunegon or your next random encounter could mean you die and have to start over way back when. Real consequenses when you die. Makes you want to be better in the game then just running thru it. Prey and Bioshock are perfect examples of how it is a great game but lacks on the ability to envoke hardtimes. You don't die in those games! You can attack a Big Daddy with a wrench and die 6-7 times and he'll keep the damage you slowly give him until finally he falls down.
Checkpoints are one thing but being able to save whenever where ever takes away a big chunk of difficulty.
Low-skilled idiots and console FPS games are killing modern gaming, why make the games easier?
There's 3 extremes of bad save type and respawn and I hate them all...
Mass Effect... 'The Mulligan'
Any game with a big focus on story needs to have a save/respawn system that compliments the world the devs have created. Mass Effect should be an immersive game, but I found that every time I died to have the area 'reset' broke that immersion. It was pretty obvious they had no idea how to handle save points in the game. Why would I save part way through a level, only to have to redo it when I die regardless of where I saved.
BioShock... 'The Big Easy'
This is the other extreme to 'The Mulligan'. I could take one point of damage off a Big Daddy, die, respawn, and do it all over again a thousand times until I win. It may have been realistic in terms of the game world, and even explained by the storyline but it just didn't feel right. I can understand that it makes the game slightly more casual friendly, but different save/respawn strategies should have been implemented depending on difficulty level.
And finally... 'The You Ba$tard'.
Any game which makes the player re-watch a non-skippable cutscene every time they die makes me think the developer is some sick ba$stard with no QA process. Save points should come after the huge chunk of (boring) exposition. I'm fine with being forced to watch a cut-scene once... but to be forced to watch it every time I die is just horrible and has no place in modern gaming.
There's no easy solution. Saving and respawning in games has to be appropriate to the type of game and seamlessly implemented. A lot of what developers are doing is following cliche's and established principles set out in the movie business. The difference is the hero in a film always prevails, whereas in games the hero (through players lack of skill) do not.
Either developers have to build in 'excuses' for players to respawn... for example in Mass Effect there could be a generic cut-scene showing Shepherd waking up in the infirmary on the Normandy, having been dragged to safety by a party member followed by some excuse to have the level reset, such as Pirates called in reinforcements. Or developers need to find their own direction for making sure the player achieves their goals, feel the risk/reward on which most games hinge, but not lose that immersion if a player fouls up.
It really shows how young and imature the industry really is, that we are only now addressing these issues..