Game Rant writes: "As things stand, Microsoft isn’t in danger of losing GOTY awards to a diabolical “Xbox Tax,” its priorities just need to shift toward pleasing players like Halo and Gears of War did back in Xbox’s heyday."
Darren writes: "Out of Moves is a bright little puzzle game inspired by some classics of the genre; you could do a lot worse."
With some recent and pending releases opting to exclude a multiplayer mode; Skewed and Reviewed ask in a new Opinion Piece if this is a growing trend as developers seek to cut costs more than ever.
I think the riskier option is to sell a SP game that you throw some form of MP into just for the sake of it and that ends up affecting the quality of the SP experience. With the plethora of F2P MP games out there, why spend time and money on something when you can focus on the SP experience. Not to say that means they're all good, but at least they're not wasting time with things people don't want in SP games. I doubt anyone bought Veilguard for MP let alone will buy the next Star Wars SP game and expect MP either.
There is that. I think the modes that were tried for The Last of Us is a good example. But for me a FPS missing multiplayer seems off as it was such a staple FPS, RTS, and sports games are where gamers expect it to be.
It's the current logic. People are paying more, for less.
If that "saved" money were actually spent on improving the single-player experience, that’d be one thing. But anyone who actually plays games knows that’s not what happens. We’re in the era of “safe” games, stripped-down, polished packages full of shiny lighting, big setpieces, and all the interactivity of a NES-era background.
Multiplayer modes, extra features, modding tools, things that used to add value for players, keep getting cut. Why? Because they don’t add value for the company. And, as always, the useful idiots will cheer, pay more all while getting less than before. So of course companies will keep doing it.
Exactly and what gets me is if it is done correctly, multiplay adds money. Ask Activision how much they make on skins and DLC all the while giving a year of free content updates. You get through a Call of Duty campaign in about 8-12 hrs. The multiplayer and frequent content updates are what keeps people playing. I always pop back in when new maps and content release. I do not buy skins and packs but many do. I wonder if we will get the Half-Life 2 mode where Multiplayer is added later. Some may see how the game does and then decide to add it later.
I wish they would go back to having SOME simple mp, like instead of the only choices being going all out and gambling on a super roadmaped, season pass, Battle Royale, multiplayer with open world maps and tons of loot OR no multiplayer at all. Why cant we have something in between sometimes? Where's just this very simple PVP probably reusing a sectioned off peace of a level from a single player like they used to do
I think they all have a place but simpler forms are needed. I wish we would see more co-op play in a campaign.
Very true but certain genres like FPS and RTS games are expected to have them and when they do not it makes one wonder.
These are the best character builds in Clair Obscur per character.
generally, it doesnt matter until after the half way mark, but will be more important later on
I’ve been beating every single boss with my build… except phase 2 Simon… can’t believe they made that menace
Microsoft seriously needs to step their game up (pun intended) if they want GOTY nominations. :)
Starfield reviewers and influencer were cherry-picked, it is well known that large publications did not receive review codes. Maybe this is the reason for the missing Xbox nominations?
It's a particularly childish form of deflection. Hi-Fi Rush got quite a few nominations because it's actually a great game and deserves them.
Last year Stray and A Plague Tale: Requiem were nominated for GOTY. Hi-Fi Rush would have made the top 6 last year.
But it's fair to say that this year was stacked (the best year for games in a while) so it didn't make it but neither did a lot of high quality games so it's no slight against it. Street Fighter 6, Armoured Core 6, Final Fantasy 16, Jedi Survivor, Pikman 4, The Talos Principle 2, Cocoon, Lies Of P, Hogwarts Legacy, Sea Of Stars, Dead Space, Remnant 2, etc didn't make it either.
If Xbox makes more games of that quality they will inevitably get into the top 6 and could win. It's simple - you have to earn it. I'm interested to see how good Hellblade 2 is.
Talk about delusional, the games aren't good enough, rarely ever are. Xbox needs to focus on the quality of their games if they want to be nominated more often, but that's clearly not something they care about. Plus that's not even the correct application of "tax" as a bias, can't even get that right.
This a bizarre article, they went on to explain what the "Xbox tax" truly is to finalize saying that there is no "Xbox tax". You have to be extremely innocent not to understand that the "Game Awards" is the "Critics Awards" and that this is where the "tax" comes into play. It is no more than bias for a particular type of game, there are outliers when you look at the history of the nominees and even winners, but the vast majority of them fit in the same box.
And that is where this article should end. There is no place where "its priorities just need to shift toward pleasing players" would equal being nominated when there are a couple of dozen players that really matter for the nomination in the first place. If Microsoft wants to have more nominees what they need to do is please this layer of critics that make up 90% of the voting power.