Sheikah

Maybe I'm wrong but didn't Microsoft add most of the 360 game support to the X1 later on? I do think it's very important to have this backwards compatibility support right away as it eases the transition. If I can go out and buy a PS5 at launch and immediately play Overwatch (with boosted performance) for instance, that's a big deal. I can pack away my PS4 right away. Give it a year or two after the launch of PS5 and backwards compatibility becomes less of a big deal. Another point on this is that we've now probably accumulated much bigger game libraries due to games included with Plus and also because digital (and digital game sales) is much bigger now.

Regarding the bolded bit, I absolutely agree. I've said it before but it's far, far more difficult to simply switch consoles than it has been in previous generations. You've got the digital software you'll lose access to like you said but there's more than that - people have got a lot of physical games that they can continue to play due to backwards compatibility and friends lists that they would lose if they switched. It's also become more difficult than ever to afford more than one of these new consoles due to how expensive it will likely be plus the online sub costs. It really did make that 2013 E3 so very important to get right, as we're seeing the knock on effects carry through to the next generation, and probably even beyond that. I'm also really excited about these new consoles. I think the introduction of the SSD will make the older systems feel really quite outdated by comparison. For a lot of the games that have recently come out (e.g. TLOU2, GoT) I'm holding off in the hope that they get a patch shortly after the release of the PS5.

Except it wasn't the general consensus, either with people or the websites which analysed his talk!

I swear you keep saying the Cerny talk was a blunder in the hope that you'll convince people through repetition. 3:1 likes to dislikes ratio doesn't lie.

Yep, and I feel I answered that quite well. I feel that they have prioritised the wrong thing here, at this point in time.

I have no problem with Series X supporting 120 Hz; it's perfectly reasonable that during the course of the generation, a lot of people will end up with more modern TVs that support it. My issue is that this game looks graphically very undercooked, yet boasts 120 Hz support on Series X despite the overwhelming majority of current TV players not having the means to take advantage of it. My own thought on this is that it they targeted 60 Hz they would surely be able to increase the graphical fidelity of the game, while still having a very respectable framerate that everyone would be able to take advantage of. I'll reserve full judgement until we see what graphics options they provide (e.g. both performance and resolution modes), but for now it looks to me that 120 Hz is possible because the graphical fidelity is low, probably because it was an Xbox One game that they haven't had time to optimse for Series X.

The trouble with the FOMO mechanics of battle passes, limited time events and microtransactions are that they generally rely on whales and obtrusive game design elements that detract from the game. An example that springs to mind is Apex Legends - to earn XP each day you're tasked with playing specific characters (ones that you probably wouldn't otherwise want to play or perform well with) land in specific areas and perform specific actions. As a result I have genuinely seem team members request to land in specific, otherwise inadvisable areas to land to increase their XP. My gripe about this is that even if you choose to ignore it, other people unfortunately don't.

Well my comment was specifically on the Series X version of Halo Infinite, which I supect the overwhelming majority will be playing on TV rather than a gaming monitor (I believe many with a decent monitor will be playing on PC rather than Xbox). Not saying a proportion of people won't hook up a Series X to a gaming monitor but it seems strange to me that they'd target this slim minority of gamers on Series X with a 120 Hz option with somewhat iffy graphics, rather than target a perfectly good 60 Hz option that everyone can enjoy, but with much higher graphical fidelity as a result. It feels like it's serving the slim minority with a feature they comes at the expense of serving everyone. Of course, if they provide both performance and resolution modes then that's different, and I suspect the issue with the graphics then is that it's a current gen game that they haven't had time to optimise for Series X.

Unfortunately though free to play brings its own set of issues, namely microtransactions, battle passes and various currencies to make profit. Given the option I would always pick paid for over free to play any day of the week. For 120 Hz, won't we also need a new TV capable of supporting it? It sounds great, but also something that actually won't be accessible to the majority of people. I also feel like they're able to pull that off at the cost of graphical fidelity, based on the gameplay demo.

I agree with this, except I'd swap 3D platformer for Mario 64, and general choice for Banjo Kazooie.

My main thoughts on the focus on Game Pass is that something will surely have to give with that. People are converting years worth of Xbox Live subscription time into Game Pass Ultimate through the 1 dollar/pound Game Pass trial promotion, which is still going. As such, Microsoft are bankrolling it at a loss, presumably up to the point that they feel they have enough customers to start charging properly for it.

Ugh...really? Games as a service in full price games needs to go away.

The thing is though, at least Sony will have a handful of big games that they developed to properly take advantage of PS5 by end of next year, including Horizon 2 (which looks amazing) and Ratchet and Clank. Based on Microsoft's presentation they will have nothing they developed themselves by next year that truly looks next gen. It feels like there is very little reason to buy a Series X within the first year or so. Out of interest, how did Sony present their games as if they were coming out sooner? Both Microsoft and Sony were showing trailers for games that they didn't attach a date to. Microsoft also showed CG teasers for games that won't be out for ages - like Fable.

I've watched through this now and was thoroughly disappointed. There was so little there that demonstrated the power of the Series X, and indeed that's true as all first party games will run on Xbox One too. Right now I cannot see a reason to pick one of these up at launch. I cannot understand why they thought it would be a good idea to release cross-gen first party games. The whole point of being the console manufacturer is that you back your new console with unique games to show off its potential and attract customers. Microsoft's decision to do this is baffling. Halo also looks like it hasn't really changed much in over 10 years. This is something I have felt about Halo for a while, actually. Overall this wasn't just an issue with the graphics of these games; the games themselves felt flat, as did the presentation in general (like the amount of devs spending time talking about their games). When you think back to the Horizon 2 trailer, Microsoft had absolutely nothing on that level to show here. Based solely on this, if both consoles are priced similarly I expect Sony to run away with it again. Microsoft will do well on the value proposition with Game Pass and I expect that will see them through, but man, this presentation was sorely lacking for me.

What did you think about the last quarter or so of the game?

I agree with a lot of what you've said, especially that they really need to knock it out the park. The Sony showing recently was excellent, so they have to go one better. If there's one thing we've come away knowing this generation it's that Sony had far more exclusive games, so they've got to prove that they have a lot of great games releasing within the next year or so.

Yes...wipe down everything after use.

Too true. The bigger the burger, the more annoying it looks to tackle. Also don't get me started on brioche buns that look nice but often fall apart when handling. I have a lot of places I like to eat at in London, when I get chance I'll post some pics.

Collectible If you were playing this particular game with others and you saw this drop, it didn't matter how long you'd known your friends for. They were dead to you.

If it's anything like Super Paper Mario on Wii I wouldn't be happy paying even £5 for it.

First the disc drive bulge, next the two-tone case design. Sony need only one more thing and they'll have the trifecta of steering people to the digital-only console!

This is the thing, even if the official RRP becomes 65 quid, a lot of people like myself will still just wait until the games are 15/20 quid, with a few exceptions (e.g. the occasional exceptional game). This is why the PS5 with the disc drive will be a must for me. Mind you, this might not work out immediately (I remember PS4 games around launch took a while to reduce in price).

What does that matter, if the games are generally selling more copies because they are far more interested people to sell to?

My problem with the game price increase is twofold: Companies like 2K are earning a shitload of money from microtransactions (EA makes billions of dollars per year from microtransactions alone, more than they are making from game sales); these companies are making more profit than ever, and they won't stop doing microtransactions unless they're physically stopped (so it's not a case of "oh if they increase the game prices maybe they'll be less scummy in other areas" - shareholders want to make as much money as possible) Games are being sold to much bigger audiences these days compared to, say, back in the early 90s, and the rise of digital distribution will mean they are able to forego a lot of the costs of the old days (e.g. cartridges, packaging, distribution); put simply, they're seeing a lot more money come back to them for making a game than they would in the past. My take on why they're increasing game prices (at least for companies like 2K) is because they can. People can accept the rationale that prices should increase over time, without thinking about whether direct comparisons to the "old days" are exactly appropriate. Certainly, for big companies like EA, they're making absolutely ridiculous amounts of money for almost no effort, to the point that they could even afford to give away FIFA for free.