Microsoft moneyhats Tomb Raider sequel
-
Vexer1
- Posts: 883
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Microsoft moneyhats Tomb Raider sequel
How is it bad though? You still haven't answered that.
-
ActRaiser1
- Posts: 2726
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Microsoft moneyhats Tomb Raider sequel
[QUOTE=Gentlegamer]Money spent for content-denial rather than content-creation is bad for the industry.[/QUOTE]
I get what you're saying, but will IMHO disagree. It's akin to buying advertising. Advertising for a game doesn't go to content-creation but is good for the game as more people are aware of it. In this case more people will be granted incentive to purchase an Xbox One that may have been on the fence for it.
It's good for Microsoft, bad for everyone else. Or if you already own an Xbox One a don't care.
I get what you're saying, but will IMHO disagree. It's akin to buying advertising. Advertising for a game doesn't go to content-creation but is good for the game as more people are aware of it. In this case more people will be granted incentive to purchase an Xbox One that may have been on the fence for it.
It's good for Microsoft, bad for everyone else. Or if you already own an Xbox One a don't care.
-
ptdebate1
- Posts: 909
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Microsoft moneyhats Tomb Raider sequel
[QUOTE=Segatarious][QUOTE=ptdebate]It would be best for the industry if there were only one platform. I don't have to purchase a Sony DVD player to watch Sony Pictures Classics do I? I think videogames should be no different. Innovation in this medium is about great software, not hardware.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. And if you think that is right - then go to PC.
[/QUOTE]
Reasons?
Wrong. And if you think that is right - then go to PC.
[/QUOTE]
Reasons?
-
scotland171
- Posts: 816
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Microsoft moneyhats Tomb Raider sequel
[QUOTE=ptdebate][QUOTE=Segatarious][QUOTE=ptdebate]It would be best for the industry if there were only one platform. I don't have to purchase a Sony DVD player to watch Sony Pictures Classics do I? I think videogames should be no different. Innovation in this medium is about great software, not hardware.[/QUOTE]
Wrong. And if you think that is right - then go to PC.
[/QUOTE] Reasons? [/QUOTE]
This is an interesting assertion, my friend. Maybe best for a new topic
Unified would be great, in that they would all would be functional, but quality, grade, price, aesthetics, and service would drive the decision making, much like buying a PC or a car or an appliance. Or a pong machine really, so in a sense, the video gaming industry has been there.
On the down side though, developers might lose jobs as the programmers who work on making a game multiplatform would be out of work. Sure, the title might sell more units, but still employ less programmers. Maybe that's important, maybe not.
Also, consoles are about hopefully massive but occasional tech progress, like a staircase. PCs are about continuous pushing the envelope, like a ramp. While PCs are almost always spec superior to consoles, there are so many variations and constantly changing that games need to be made to at least a median spec level.
Wrong. And if you think that is right - then go to PC.
[/QUOTE] Reasons? [/QUOTE]
This is an interesting assertion, my friend. Maybe best for a new topic
Unified would be great, in that they would all would be functional, but quality, grade, price, aesthetics, and service would drive the decision making, much like buying a PC or a car or an appliance. Or a pong machine really, so in a sense, the video gaming industry has been there.
On the down side though, developers might lose jobs as the programmers who work on making a game multiplatform would be out of work. Sure, the title might sell more units, but still employ less programmers. Maybe that's important, maybe not.
Also, consoles are about hopefully massive but occasional tech progress, like a staircase. PCs are about continuous pushing the envelope, like a ramp. While PCs are almost always spec superior to consoles, there are so many variations and constantly changing that games need to be made to at least a median spec level.
-
JWK1
- Posts: 904
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Microsoft moneyhats Tomb Raider sequel
First off, I want to state my bias with complete transparency. I love Sony and I can't stand Microsoft. Sony did a fantastic job pumping out new IPs and original content with the PS3 and I thought MS was content to rest on their laurels from the 360's strong start and had basically zero innovation from 2009 to 2014. Seriously, what did they offer to 360 owners during that time? A month head start on Call of Duty DLC? Whoop-dee-frigging-do.
However, I've seen a trend starting on the Internet that simply isn't fair. Why does Microsoft get called out for getting dibs on Tomb Raider and Sony gets a pass for doing the same with From Software's "Bloodborne?" I mean, it IS the same thing, isn't it? (By the way, Bloodborne looks effing amazing. Just thought I'd throw that out there). I don't see this as a bad thing at all. Don't forget that it only started with the 7th generation that we expected all games other than first party titles to hit both (or all three) consoles. Before that, most games WERE exclusives.
However, I've seen a trend starting on the Internet that simply isn't fair. Why does Microsoft get called out for getting dibs on Tomb Raider and Sony gets a pass for doing the same with From Software's "Bloodborne?" I mean, it IS the same thing, isn't it? (By the way, Bloodborne looks effing amazing. Just thought I'd throw that out there). I don't see this as a bad thing at all. Don't forget that it only started with the 7th generation that we expected all games other than first party titles to hit both (or all three) consoles. Before that, most games WERE exclusives.
-
ptdebate1
- Posts: 909
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Microsoft moneyhats Tomb Raider sequel
[QUOTE=scotland17]
This is an interesting assertion, my friend. Maybe best for a new topic
Unified would be great, in that they would all would be functional, but quality, grade, price, aesthetics, and service would drive the decision making, much like buying a PC or a car or an appliance. Or a pong machine really, so in a sense, the video gaming industry has been there.
On the down side though, developers might lose jobs as the programmers who work on making a game multiplatform would be out of work. Sure, the title might sell more units, but still employ less programmers. Maybe that's important, maybe not.
Also, consoles are about hopefully massive but occasional tech progress, like a staircase. PCs are about continuous pushing the envelope, like a ramp. While PCs are almost always spec superior to consoles, there are so many variations and constantly changing that games need to be made to at least a median spec level. [/QUOTE]
I like the standardization of consoles, but I think the 3DO and the MSX had a great system where the platform itself was open to all--any company was free to make their own console that met a certain agreed-upon standard, and the consumer had the power to choose their variation, but software itself was universally compatible.
This is an interesting assertion, my friend. Maybe best for a new topic
Unified would be great, in that they would all would be functional, but quality, grade, price, aesthetics, and service would drive the decision making, much like buying a PC or a car or an appliance. Or a pong machine really, so in a sense, the video gaming industry has been there.
On the down side though, developers might lose jobs as the programmers who work on making a game multiplatform would be out of work. Sure, the title might sell more units, but still employ less programmers. Maybe that's important, maybe not.
Also, consoles are about hopefully massive but occasional tech progress, like a staircase. PCs are about continuous pushing the envelope, like a ramp. While PCs are almost always spec superior to consoles, there are so many variations and constantly changing that games need to be made to at least a median spec level. [/QUOTE]
I like the standardization of consoles, but I think the 3DO and the MSX had a great system where the platform itself was open to all--any company was free to make their own console that met a certain agreed-upon standard, and the consumer had the power to choose their variation, but software itself was universally compatible.
-
Vexer1
- Posts: 883
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Microsoft moneyhats Tomb Raider sequel
I definitely disagree that the 360 had "zero" innovation from 2009-2014, I think they had plenty of innovation during that time.
-
Verm1
- Posts: 350
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Microsoft moneyhats Tomb Raider sequel
This is kind of getting off topic, but yes.
Kinect for instance was a big gamble. Comparatively the PS Move wasn't.
With the gift of hindsight, Kinect was a major short term success, but it's long term success hasn't been so great.
Kinect for instance was a big gamble. Comparatively the PS Move wasn't.
With the gift of hindsight, Kinect was a major short term success, but it's long term success hasn't been so great.
-
Gentlegamer1
- Posts: 687
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Microsoft moneyhats Tomb Raider sequel
[QUOTE=JWK]However, I've seen a trend starting on the Internet that simply isn't fair. Why does Microsoft get called out for getting dibs on Tomb Raider and Sony gets a pass for doing the same with From Software's "Bloodborne?" I mean, it IS the same thing, isn't it? [/QUOTE]Sony is publishing and co-developing Bloodborne through its Japan Studio, just like it did Demon's Souls. Sony did not moneyhat FROM to not release a game it was already developing for multiplatform release, it invested and participated on the ground floor of the game's development.
Not the same thing.
Not the same thing.
-
Verm1
- Posts: 350
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Microsoft moneyhats Tomb Raider sequel
My personal opinion is that MS should focus on making series 'exclusive' to Xbox, rather than individual games or timed exclusives.
For instance, Dead or Alive 3 and 4 were both Xbox exclusive, though the later may have been in part due to the PS3 not yet being out. But Dead or Alive 5 was multiplatform. Another lower key example was Earth Defence Force 2017; what would things be like if Insect Armageddon and 2025 had been Xbox exclusive.
Yes the earlier Dead or Alive weren't platform exclusive and EDF was PS2 exclusive, but with the former MS had effectively turned the series Xbox and they had a chance to do the same with the later.
More people seem to talk about Uncharted, Forza, namely series etc than individual games, like a single Tomb Raider game. It stands to reason that I think MS made a mistake in releasing the original Gears of War, Halo 1 + 2 etc on PC.
Of course, MS use to make their own games; they have certainly scaled back their own game studio's; they had their own sports game label producing series that were steadily improving with each iteration for instance. Of course the big change from Mr Matrick to Mr Spencer may herald some shift in MS's strategies. Given the amount of time games take to make these days, we probably won't really see what, if anything, he will do differently from his predecessor for a year or so yet.
For instance, Dead or Alive 3 and 4 were both Xbox exclusive, though the later may have been in part due to the PS3 not yet being out. But Dead or Alive 5 was multiplatform. Another lower key example was Earth Defence Force 2017; what would things be like if Insect Armageddon and 2025 had been Xbox exclusive.
Yes the earlier Dead or Alive weren't platform exclusive and EDF was PS2 exclusive, but with the former MS had effectively turned the series Xbox and they had a chance to do the same with the later.
More people seem to talk about Uncharted, Forza, namely series etc than individual games, like a single Tomb Raider game. It stands to reason that I think MS made a mistake in releasing the original Gears of War, Halo 1 + 2 etc on PC.
Of course, MS use to make their own games; they have certainly scaled back their own game studio's; they had their own sports game label producing series that were steadily improving with each iteration for instance. Of course the big change from Mr Matrick to Mr Spencer may herald some shift in MS's strategies. Given the amount of time games take to make these days, we probably won't really see what, if anything, he will do differently from his predecessor for a year or so yet.
Return to “Video Games General”