Kevw2006

@ZuneTattooGuy Keep in mind that the PS5 version was recently delayed by a week for further optimisation as they are 'aiming' for 60fps. That may give a bit of an insight into the struggles that they are having. Yes, the delay is just a week but it still shows that they are clearly still working on it right down to the wire.

@ZuneTattooGuy They could have just said nothing, and from some of the responses I'm honestly beginning to think they should have just said nothing. They were refreshingly open and honest about the problems they were having and people still don't believe them. Why would they lie about it? I'm pretty sure MS would be coming out fighting if they were making a baseless claim. Just because you don't like what they are saying, and because other devs have got other games running on Series S no problem does not mean thet that cannot possibly be having a problem with their game. how many times has a game released on Series S without 60fps as an option only for it to be patched in at a later date? You may not like it but there is hard evidence that some developers have struggled with optimising games for the Series S so I don't know why you are giving this particular dev a hard time about it.

@Ep_13 I think you've totally misunderstood what I said. I was meaning that games have released on a specific platform (eg Ps, Xbox or Switch) due to a specific problem with one version, not that a game has been delayed on Series S but released on Series X earlier. I absolutely agree that if parity has been mandated then that should be what happens and it should release for both at the same time.
The release is already staggered as it releases on PC a month before it does on PS anyway and an Xbox version hasn't actually been officially announced yet. All they have done is confirm that there was no exclusivity clause preventing it and that they have been working on one but as yet the Xbox version is not officially confirmed

@Ep_13 making everyone else have to wait because there is an issue on Xbox is not great customer service or consumer friendly. I actually agree that it is a good thing that Microsoft are enforcing parity across Series S and X but if that then causes development issues and delays for Xbox versions then Xbox gamers are going to have to get used to having to wait a bit longer for games, there is absolutely no reason that other platforms should be made to wait for an issue on a specific platform. I would expect this to happen if there were any issues with PS or Switch too, and it has already happened in the past.

@ZuneTattooGuy It's primarily a PC game though and that has been their main focus on development so will have spent far more time optimising it for lower spec PC's. It's up for debate why the PS version is coming sooner but I wouldn't be surprised if only having one SKU to aim for contributed to that. You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that even MS themselves have acknowledged that there is an issue and are actively trying to help them with the series S version.
Also, I'm purely guessing here but my thinking would be that releasing a streaming only version would fall out with the feature parity that MS insists on. Not everyone has access to good enough internet to be able to stream games in sufficient quality so it's not really viable as the only option.

@Ep_13 It's exactly the same scenario, there is a development issue that is causing one version to not be ready at the same time as others. Except in this case it's due to MS imposing feature parity on devs. It would be unfair for everyone else to have to wait just because series S is holding back the Xbox version.
See how great you think enforcing feature parity is the more and more Xbox versions are under threat or delayed due to the party requirement.

@Sakai Agreed, incidentally the BG3 PC version is releasing a month before the PS5 version so it's not like it's even releasing everywhere else at the same time anyway .

@Sakai That was for Football Manager 2021, Football Manager 2023 was announced to release on PS5 the same day as all of the other versions and then delayed just before release for an unspecified reason. Going by the logic on here all versions of the game should have also been delayed until the issue with the PS5 version was resolved.

@Ep_13 Should Football Manager have been delayed on all formats because there was an issue with the PS5 version?

@JCFan1979 As someone above already said, Microsoft have literally been assisting them with trying to get the technical issue resolved and it seems like even with that assistance they are still struggling. Just because a game doesn't look as pretty as others doesn't mean that there aren't some highly complex operations going on in the background.

@ZuneTattooGuy Why should everyone else suffer because MS have imposed a clause that only affects Xbox? Should Football Manager have been delayed on all platforms because there was an issue solely with the PS5 version? I'm sure you wouldn't have been happy if that had happened. This isn't the first time that local co-op has come up as a problem, even MS's own first party studio had to abandon local co-op for Halo Infinite so dismiss it as something that is easy to fix is quite frankly ridiculous.

@Cashews Don't get me wrong, it could have done better but calling it a failure is a touch extreme.

@Cashews 3 million in its first week isn't selling well? Square Enix are on recorded saying they're happy with the sales, a company that's notorious for having high standards on sales is happy with it, isn't that enough?
They've been working on an Xbox version of 14 for years now, the time was just never right. It was always going to happen.

@Cashews In what way is 16 a failure? It's sold very well for being PS5 only at the moment.

@cragis0001 You've always been able to play the same account on PS and PC so it should be transferrable. You'll likely just have to but the game again on Xbox

@Kaloudz When it comes to ads my main issue with them is that there is a perfectly good store/marketplace that they can have all the ads they want on so there is no need for them to be on the dashboard itself.

I really hope most people don't pay for the early access to dissuade it as a practice. After pioneering paid for online I really hope that paid for early access isn't something that catches on across the industry. I know that MS aren't the only ones that have done it but it always feels like once of the platform holders jumps on a trend it seems to gain a lot more traction. I also realise that there are other things on offer in the premium pass but the early access is definitely the main carrot on the stick.

That does sound weird, I'd assumed it would just be like PS plus where buying a more expensive tier gives you access to everything the previous tiers offer too. Hopefully it's just an oversight in the communications.

@Sifi That's true but at the same time Sony haven't made the main selling point of their subscription service day one access to all first party games.
If they want to have any chance of those GAAS games being successful then the smart move would be to put them on Plus, knowing Sony they probably won't though. Although some of those GAAS games may still have a significant single player element with included multiplayer, similar to something like CoD so it may be justifiable them being premium releases.

@themightyant My guess would be that the increased volume of monthly games in previous years was due to Microsoft wanting to build up the game pass library to a level that they were content with and now they are happy with it they are balancing the new arrivals with the games being removed to keep it at a consistent level. Of course it could also be that they felt like some games were being overlooked with so many all being added each month.
100% agree with you on charging extra for early access to games being advertised with the tag "play it day one on game pass" being a bad move.

@Moonglow Starfield will absolutely lead to an increase in game pass subscriptions but the real issue is whether it will be a sustained increase or a temporary one where people sub, play the game and then cancel their sub again after they are done with it. I personally have a free trial for game pass that I got when I bought me laptop that I may use to play Starfield when it comes out. That's the risk with adding games into a sub service day one, people can effectively play the game for the price of a single month's sub if they wish. It's one of the main reasons I think Sony don't want to add first party games in on release as it's a risky strategy.

I find this hard to believe from the CEO of a company that had to be forced to offer choice on something such as a web browser.

So it wasn't just about Call of Duty after all.

@Savage_Joe That 30% is the going rate, it's pretty much am industry standard. It's what MS currently gets from third party games too. Don't be fooled by their statement into thinking this is anything unusual, MS get the same 30% by third party suppliers. MS are just complaining because they bought up third party suppliers and aren't happy because Sony get a cut of their takings.

He knows exactly what platforms if will release on, if they had any intention of releasing it on anything other than Xbox or PC they would already be looking into it.

He'd have a point if MS didn't also use the money they make from games to snap up third party exclusives. It's embarrassing how he still tries to maintain that Sony are the only ones that do this.

Once people have expressed an opinion are they locked into that opinion and never allowed to change it? All the email shows is at the time the email was sent he wasn't overly concerned about exclusivity, that doesn't mean that at some point either before or after he may have held a different opinion on the matter.
Neither side is coming out of this hearing looking particularly great and lies are being exposed on both sides, all it shows is that we can't really trust what any big corporation says.

Is Microsoft's barometer for success having to be number one and smashing the competition into the ground? That's what it sounds like from these comments with the fact they're even using terms such as "losing" and "console war". Just because they haven't sold as many consoles as Nintendo or Sony doesn't mean that Xbox isn't a successful brand in its own right. It's disappointing to see what is supposed to be a professional business resorting to use such inflammatory statements as they know exactly the responses that they will lead to from certain elements of fanbases.

@Fiendish-Beaver The difference is that MLB The Show was a first party exclusive, it had never released on Xbox and if it wasn't for MLB getting involved Sony would never have intended for it to release on Xbox. The opportunity came up for it to release on Xbox so MS took that opportunity knowing what the risks were. Whereas Call of Duty has been a multiplatform third party release for many many years and releases and if the deal goes through then Sony may have to pass on dev kits to their primary competitor just so that on of their biggest earners continues to be available on their platform. Despite any concerns they have have about it they may find themselves in a position where they have no choice.

@Somebody That's a different scenario though. MS wanted MLB The Show on Xbox so knew they would have to have over dev kits to make it happen, they were a willing participant in the matter. In this case MS are wanting to buy ABK and therefore would be forcing Sony to have to hand over dev kits to a direct competitor against their will or potentially lose out on future releases.

@Fiendish-Beaver My guess would be that most of the frustration has come from the fact that it was Microsoft themselves that repeatedly said they had no plans to/didn't need to raise the price of game pass and then have turned around and announced am increase out of the blue. Most people would have expected that it was inevitable that the price would go up at some point, but it was MS that were maintaining that it wouldn't go up.

@Fenbops The PS4 Pro didn't launch near the end of the cycle though, it was almost exactly three years into the cycle that it launched. The PS5 will be at the same point in the cycle later this year. I believe the Xbox One X was another year further out .

@Zoidpilot4 No worries here, it just always amuses me when someone says they're not wanting to start something and then follows it up with a statement that is directly going to start something lol.

@Zoidpilot4 Comparing the two is also kind of pointless as this is only what they have chose to announce. We all know that both MS and Sony have devs that are working on unannounced projects, neither have "fired all their ammo" by any means.

@Dm9982 My take is that most of the frustration is from the statements that have come out from both Todd and Phil have all suggested that the game could run at 60fps, on Series X at least. Todd even said that the game largely can run at 60fps already so I'm sure with a bit of optimization they could have got it running at a near stable 60fps. The frustration that I've seen is that they said they made the choice that they didn't want to sacrifice fidelity to get it running and these days gamers want it to be their choice to sacrifice it or not.
Personally I'm in the camp where 30fps doesn't bother me but I understand why it may bother others.

@iplaygamesnstuff New to having a mature conversation? Seems so.

@iplaygamesnstuff Sorry but there's no way that Sony could ever compete on that scale. They can only manage to do what they have already been doing in buying up single developers here and there, they could never compete in an arms race to buy up as many devs/publishers as possible. Don't forget that if Xbox was an independent company it wouldn't be able to buy Bethesda or ABK either. The only reason they are managing to do it is because Microsoft are an absolute behemoth that can do deals like that and it barely causes a ripple. Very few companies have the sort of resources available to make mergers of that scale.
Also, just think about at the good that Microsoft could have done with 78bn in investing in it's current studios, new start ups, indie devs that they could take to the next level. Does that not sound far better for gaming?
It's ironic that you speak about a hate driven culture when you seem to be the one that is expressing all the hate.

@Episode_13 If you're happy enough not being able to play if there are any server issues then that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion and I respect that. But you also need to show people that do have legitimate concerns about it the same courtesy. Personally, I don't really have any problems with a game having an always online requirement provided that there is a reasonable reason for it. I would happily just play something else if there were any server problems. However, if all games suddenly went down that route and then if there were problems and I can't play any of my games, even those on disk then I will have a problem with that. As long as a disk version of a console is available I will always buy that version and make sure I have a few games on disk that I can play just in case there are ever any server outages.

@Episode_13 But in most cases there's no reason for a single player or story mode to require online. Like others have said if servers go down then you can't play anything. If it's a game I've downloaded then I expect there may be times when I can't play a game due to network problems but if I've bought a game on disk there's no reason I shouldn't be able to play the single player at least despite any network issues.

What an odd statement to make, he's basically saying "it could have been 60fps but Bethesda decided not to and I'm cool with that".

@BAMozzy I think you're underestimating the CMA, they forced Facebook to sell Giphy just last week after numerous appeals had been exhausted.

@Kaloudz I would agree, MS will be very experienced with the process so will have been pretty thorough in their due diligence.

@Kaloudz Admittedly yes it does raise some eyebrows, although what we don't know is if any concerns had already been raised and addressed internally. One thing for sure is it will no doubt be noted in MS's appeal if they have any concerns about it.

@Kaloudz The source of the news isn't actually suggesting any sort of conspiracy though, the article on the other hand...

@theduckofdeath Not disputing the factuality of the article, but "Windows Central" is hardly likely to portray the details in an unbiased manner.

Just for a bit of perspective on the CMA, just this week it successfully managed to force Meta to sell Giphy after an appeal had failed so they can be pretty stubborn about changing their mind.

Looks a bit rough round the edges and far less polished than the WWE games, but I feel like that's intentional and supposed to be part of its charm.

@VokDaWiibSlayer I have a theory on this that Minecraft requires you to have an Xbox account to play with people on other devices so people playing on tablet, PS, Switch etc may all be classed as active Xbox logins.

So it turns out they were telling the truth and they just didn't think there would be much interest. Good to see that they are listening and quickly changed their minds, I hope they are justified in their decision now 🙂

I wonder if this is more about the make up of the player base rather than the size of it. This looks like a kids game and they may perceive that Xbox has more of a grown up player base that this game just simply won't appeal to. Looks like something that is more likely to do best on the Switch.