It's common knowledge that 2015 will be a big year for the console market, with games such as Uncharted 4: A Thief's End and Halo 5: Guardians looming on the horizon. When looking a little closer to the present, however, it's clear that March will be a massive month for Microsoft and Sony, with both the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 playing host to a variety of exclusives. For what it's worth, here is a comparison of just which games will suck your wallet dry over the next 31 days.
The Souls-like genre remains popular, along with FromSoftware's classics there are many contenders. But which are the best Souls-like games?
Hmm... In my opinion, the 7 best are the 6 made by FromSoftware (DeS, DS1, DS2, DS3, BB and ER), then Lies of P. But each to their own.
Still DS1? You don't feel it's been surpassed yet?
Demon's Souls has the remake of course, but DS1 has surely been outdated?
I think that the DS1 remake is better looking than DS2. The interior lighting matched with the low resolution textures in DS2 is very garish, IMO.
Besides graphics, what do you mean by DS1 being "outdated"? I'm someone who played through Elden Ring and just recently played through the DS series, and as far as gameplay went, there were all very similar.
I haven’t played many but Bloodborne and NIOH1 are on top of my list.. had a blast with these 2
For world design and interconnectedness (that's a word, right?) DS1 is yet to be beaten.
Saad from eXputer: "Almost a decade later, it's time to take the nostalgia goggles off and accept that Bloodborne has long been surpassed by its successors."
Yes, yes it does. It’s still a great game. Elden Ring isn’t better just different and a bit easier . I like that you have to be aggressive but smart in Bloodborne
I literally replayed it recently and it's better than I remember. I think it's like going back to a beloved book and noticing things I hadn't before.
Yo! I was getting ready to reply with the exact same four words you started with lol. Yes, I think Bloodborne has withstood the test of time and remains a great game. That’s why all the fans are hoping for a sequel someday. Hoping that we can catch that magic again with a new storyline.
Yes. Just replayed it a few days ago. My first Platinum. And yes. I rage quitted so many times and called it BS too when I started. It's tight. The combat is amazing and the lore is rich.
Elden Ring was easier? I don’t know about that at all. I remember leveling up in Bloodborne and breezing through it. In Elden Ring no matter how powerful I got I was still catching a beat down from every boss.
That's due to scaling enemies. I remember not doing Haligtree untill near the end and having enemies withstand almost a full blast from Azur's Glintstone Staff Comet Azure. My level was quite high.
Melee characters are not fun in that game, especially for the Elden Beast.
Yes, Yes, and Yes. It's a beyond generational game — It's an all time game. I just whish I could play it again for the first time.
Same here. Sekiro was amazing with the most intense combat in my opinion. One of my all time favorites.
The environment, sound effects, lore, voice lines, combat, enemy design and mechanics all come together in such an incredible way. I really hope they make a sequel or at the very least, give it the remake treatment that they gave Demon's Souls.
Of course it does
but even if it wouldnt now for some new players, it was peak industry at the time.
F*ck these bullshit reevaluations
Yes, I actually prefer it to Elden Ring and Dark Souls. Love it together with Sekiro.
I'm holding out for a remake or 60fps dream before I replay Bloodborne, but there's no nostalgia attached to how good this game is.
Even if you wanted to make the argument that it's been surpassed, why would that take away the praise it's received? That's not how it works.
Exactly! If that's the case then the original Resident Evil 2 is utter trash because the remake surpasses it and that style of game is dead. I didn't know we got to a stage where we retroactively bash art by ignoring the era it released in, what it achieved at the time and available technology when it came out.
40 years later does Super Mario Bros 3 still deserve all the praise it gets?
What a silly question. Time passes and yes things get old, doesnt mean at the time the praise they got wasnt well deserved. It’ll always deserve the praise it got, and if it gets remastered it’ll deserve it again.
You do need to learn to be more aggressive , dodge and use your secondary weapon as a stunner. It took me some time to get used to it for sure
What a funny article, this folks is how you get a lot of clicks and it isn’t hard to do.
He is treating his opinion as fact, and he is treating the community’s opinion as “rose tinted glasses”. The only people Bloodborne is “old” to are teenagers or younger who (no offense intended) don’t have a very good concept of time (and how could you? You have a very limited number of years to draw from and we were all there once). It came out like 2 years after the PS4 launched and he’s treating it like it’s a first generation PS1 game from the mid 90s.
Bloodborne has aged remarkably well and its gameplay is fast and tight and exactly what it needs to be for the game designed around it… Sekiro gameplay is great for Sekiro, but it would break Bloodbornes gameplay loop if implemented because it wasn’t designed for it…and on and on.
Be quiet you so called “journalist”.
No, people have been demanding a remaster/remake and/or a PC port for years because they don't like it/s
If I were to say which one stayed in my heart the most, it's Bloodborne
-Hidetaka Miyazaki
No, it was back then but now it’s average due to shite performance. Try loading up a PS3 and playing this game, it’s an exercise in patience.
When they remake/remaster this game it’ll be worth the hype again, but right now it’s not worth dusting off that PS3 to play this rusty stuttering mess.
PlayStation is built on these souls games and then 3rd person games. I like the 3rd person games but I will never want to play the soul games I enjoy playing games and their stories not being brutalized by some insane difficulty level..
I would sure as hell hope after 9 years there came some games along the way that made Bloodborne feel dated in some ways but does this game still deserve praise, of course it does. Not only does the game still stick out from the competition at the time, one could hold this game up vs many recent games in the genre and still smoke them out of the water.
Yes. It’s the best. If this game was remade it would overshadow all Soulsborne games imo. I don’t agree with the author here.
I need to just give up on this game ever receiving a 60fps update and play it with the low frame rate issues.
I've beat it three times and don't remember the framerate really bothering me and I predominantly play games on PC at significantly higher framerates.
The Ori and the Blind Forest studio CEO has asked the fans to purchase the game instead to completely support it.
I've been told that this is an outlier and 99% of devs feel the opposite of what moon studios is saying right here.
"It can be? If you're a smaller dev and get an upfront fee to put your game on gamepass and it blows up, that's great.
I merely pointed out that Moon would make no money at this point from people playing Ori on gamepass - so not the best way to support us!" - Thomas Mahler, Moon Studios
"This is the exact argument people have been saying about GP for years now"
It's not. Moon studios had no say in their game going on GamePass, because it's a 2nd party game and Microsoft own the Ip and games. Moon was paid for developing the games and presumably get a cut of sales, GamePass is hurting their sales but this is a different situation.
They make no money because they were already paid an upfront fee. So they MADE money, but make no additional money.
yeah of course because people renting games and not buying them is so much better for studios.
Microsoft has conditioned people not to pay for their hobby or at least not to pay to own anything
@GamerRN
"They make no money because they were already paid an upfront fee. So they MADE money, but make no additional money."
So it's a good thing that they make no additional money despite their game having continued success well after the initial payment?
@Lightning77
"Because it is. You can name on one hand the studios GP doesn't help."
Just in the past few months we have had statements from Larian, 2k and now Moon Studios (as well another indie studio that released it's game pass but I can't remember who it was) have made similar statements recently about the effect of subscriptions on sales and profitability.
Heck you recently saw in Insomniac's leaked slides that after games were put on subscriptions the sales of the games almost totally dried up, which is something they have publicly been saying for years. And on top of that even though xbox fans constantly deny it, Microsoft leaks as well as their own statements and actions (like putting thier games on rival platforms) clearly show that putting games on subscriptions lowers the potential profit of a game.
It's time to accept the reality that the long term effect of subscriptions has been lowered revenue and profit for game sales almost universally across the board.
Credible research and information keeps showing that people don't buy games that are on subscriptions and more and more people don't buy games they suspect are coming to subscriptions.
Look into Outriders situation, unless you are a very small indie dev, gamepass loses money for everyone involved, including Microsoft.
"oh really. The Microsoft /Game Pass Dream Bubble is bursting, eh?"
I don´t think Sony agrees, because they´ll continue and release yet another brand new MBL game on Gamepass day one for the fourth time in a row!
@Crows90
"Because they have a choice right?"
Yes they do. They could say no. Nobody is forcing Sony to make MLB games to Xbox at gun point, especially day one on Gamepass.
Christopher
"That's not by Sony's choice..."
Of course, it´s their choice. They could just said *no* to MLB and made their own baseball game just like EA did.
Besides, It´s a GaaS title after all and one of the most played on Xbox. So it´s not really hurting Sony in any way, and I´m 100% positive that they relly love those fat checks from MS.
"This is a poor argument."
You can say that, but, the Interesting and undeniable fact is that after four years making MBL games available on Gamepass day one, nobody from San Diego studio got fired in Sony´s recent wave of layoffs.
Just food for the brain.
That's not a business choice that was decided by Sony, that decision was decided by the MLB. Sony will reap the rewards only because Sony's first party developers (Sony San Diego Studios) develops The Show. If it wasn't for the MLB licensing contract of The Show the game would still be exclusive to PS.
"Of course, it´s their choice. They could just said *no* to MLB and made their own baseball game just like EA did."
Well this isn't EA, they lost the license to Fifa, not Fifpro, or the premiere league or champions league or the euros.
MLB I'm guessing (i don't play baseball) is the only licence to it. They have no choice, indeed. American gamers will want authentic teams im sure.
@christopher: “That's not by Sony's choice... This is a poor argument.”
Have you see him have a rich valid argument when it comes to Sony. 🤷🏿
@obscured: “Yes they do. They could say no. Nobody is forcing Sony to make MLB games to Xbox at gun point, especially day one on Gamepass.”
Sure buddy whatever keeps you happy same as no one is forcing Xbox to now and in the future release their games on PlayStation and Nintendo oh btw in the near future Xbox will go fully 3rd party like Sega 💵💰
do you understand the concept of licensed games? good lord the straw arguments or just lack of actual real information is astouding.
*** Of course, it´s their choice. They could just said *no* to MLB and made their own baseball game just like EA did. ***
That's an illusion of choice. It's not a choice. You're acting ignorant to try and serve up a bad argument.
you have to remember that these games are old now, they are given a fee upfront for their titles to be on gamepass, but for new people to play the games naturally you want to drive them to standalone sales as opposed to them playing on a service that they've already been paid for.
I don't understand what you are saying here. This is the exact argument people have been saying about GP for years now. In the short term the upfront cost is good, especially if your game is either trash or was never going to be popular in the first place, but long term and if your game exceeds expectations then it's not as good. Also if your game is AAA and is a sure fire going to sell millions day one, people want those titles day one on GP as well and think it's sustainable for some reason when logically that doesn't make sense.
@Outside - I don't know if MS has any incentives in place where devs get bonuses if games do well. You'd have to talk to someone in the know there.
Same here. its a nice little compilation. Plus I have the XB special editions on disc (still sealed)... and it was all thanks to playing them in Game pass. I dont get why its so hard for people to understand how this service can actually lead to sales, not just blindly accept the few who complain about how sales weren't as good as they expected.
Because not everyone is like you.
Most people wont go out and purchase a game on other consoles or buy special editions of games they already played if they can just try it on their cheap subscription service and move on once theyre done with it.
I bought Ori for Switch because it's on GP and wanted to be able to play it on the go. That being said, at 120fps and 4K on Series X, that is the way to play.
Fingers crossed for a release on PS5, I'd snap them up even though I have them on Switch already.
They didn't have a choice to partner with Microsoft for funding and create the game for them?
I’m with OneLove on this. Don’t go begging to fans when you already took Microsoft’s money.
For smaller companies to even have a CHANCE to make some money on Xbox, they often have to put their games on Game Pass. Don't be dense.
Anyone who wanted Ori has most likely already bought it. The game is not going to sell significantly anymore but GP will offer free exposure so that when Ori 3 comes out people may be willing to buy. If your game is good enough people will support in even if they can get it on a subscription. I still buy plenty of games that are available on GP and I also have played plenty of games that I would not have played thanks to GP. Bottom line is this, make a product people want and they will buy it.
I think what the CEO is implying is that the studio makes more money per copy sold vs a player on GP. But I think we know that as common sense. Even without being privy to Moon/Microsoft's contract, I think we can assume that because of the nature of GP, more money can be made per player at retail than via subscription. And honestly this would also probably apply to Microsoft as well. As in they would make more money too. Thats why the only way to maximize the utility of a subscription is to have a really large subscription base.
We knew this. We knew Game Pass isn't good for the industry as a whole which is a huge plus for Xbox taking another step toward third-party l, it could stamp out the horrible business practices they've introduced into gaming.
I didn't learn this until just recently, but Game Pass operates under some really dicey rules. Developers don't find success on Game Pass by Game Sampling, it hurts them. That's why larger companies that publish older games on Game Pass do what they do because the games made the money they thought it would make so Game Pass income is just bonus money, but for new games it's disastrous and will cripple a studio. Games on Game Pass are compensated a small amount by the hour per player. Yup, the longer Game Pass subscribers play the game, the more money the dev or publisher makes. When a game is sampled or played for a little bit and that's it (David Jaffe type consumers) devs don't make much money at all. It's all length of gameplay based. If nobody plays their game for a lengthy amount of time, then they risk their studio so, there you have it
A lot of games development is paid for by MS on gamepass so how does that not help them because they can then release on other systems and some devs have put more than one game on there if it didn't help them why would they do that and if it's their first game what better way is there to get your game known so when you release your second your a well known dev
They say this because their game would’ve sold well based on strong reviews and high recognition.
That’s what makes them an outlier: they didn’t NEED Game Pass to survive as a studio.
They are owned by M$, so they don’t get to decide to “go it alone”. Their sales will always be cannibalized by Game Pass.
Dude, they are not owned by MS. The IP is owned by MS but then the 2nd game was not even published by MS.
We should ask Mr. Spencer who it helps. He seems to have opinions about these things.
That is a pretty damning assessment, I mean we already knew Game Pass was very damaging but I'm surprised that someone who signed up for it for this early would be talking negatively about it. I guess the loss in revenue is worth talking about over keeping relations with Microsoft.
Game Pass is the kind of model that can easily take advantage of inexperienced developers and their sales potential. In some ways it reminds me of racketeering. It is more advantageous to a developer to put a game on Game Pass near the end of sales life rather than at the start. At the start it benefits Microsoft massively.
who knew renting games and not buying them was bad for devs, its almost like the original format of buying a game to own it is the best way to get more games
It isn't bad, he said it doesn't help at this point. Ori is years old. So if someone new wanted to play it. Playing on gamepass doesn't help the studio compared to buying. But at launch GP does help
These two games are one of my favourite games of all time! Put them on Playstation and i will buy them again! Bought them on Switch btw .. ughhh.
Always saw that as a con to gamepass but I always wondered how the money mad off gamepass works does only go to Microsoft? Or do they work it some how on how many downloads and how much the game is played under it.
Glad to see Moon finally coming out, they left the deal they had with Microsoft to go 3rd party, and now we all know why, even though many of us already knew they weren't making any money being on gamepass day 1, and that fee Microsoft gave them wouldn't cover half a decade of labour, just the games they commissioned.
So they want to take the gamepass paycheck and they want the separate customer paycheck too.
They can always not take the gamepass paycheck to begin with. That’s their choice.
Is the guy feeling ok? If Gamepass is not making them money then why put the game on there? Seems petty to beg gamers to buy the game instead of playing it on a monthly subscription.
Excellent
March is looking good
EDIT
What's the problem pedro? Does my enjoyment of March cause you to feel insecure?
EDIT 2 @ Magicite, Not sure what you consider "notable"? Is a metacritic score of 65 notable?
Isn't MLB 15: The Show coming in March too?
Trying to get them clicks huh?
Kinect fruit ninja 2 wtf!?!?!?!?
You can't compare an indie game to a AAA real exclusive