LogicStrikesAgain

@Banjo- Fair enough man. Even though i can be a bit troll-y sometimes, our last interaction wasnt meant as a troll, that was really just my opinion. But i do agree, we have quite the misunderstandings lately lol. But it’s all good though, no disrespect intended. We might not agree on everything but i still respect your opinions on matters, you’re a big presence on this site and a good ambassador for Xbox 👍🏼

@Banjo- I was just confused by the whole being a bigger publisher than Nintendo comparison. Thats why i asked what you meant, and you responded by saying you meant it in terms of employee size. And i just didn't fully understand what employee size, even if it is bigger than Nintendo, has anything to do with finding a way to solve this.
But now i understand you just meant that they will have to reduce their size, and i agree.

But still seems weird to me to compare workforce sizes between these companies, when size isnt of importance here but the excess and reduction of size. As a matter of fact employee size is one of the main reasons why they’re in this mess. Thats the main thing what led me to believe that you might be suggesting something else, because i couldnt see the relevance, thats all.

Again, i was a bit confused by the messaging. I apologize

Now, lets just let it go and give other people some space to express their thoughts on this matter 😄

@Banjo- I agree, they have good IPs, and could definitely make it work. I don't know how they managed to balloon to this size, but that should definitely be worked on. I just don't know how easy that is with the stricter employee laws in France.

@Banjo- I see your point, and i agree. You’re saying the size of Ubisoft in terms of employees gives them the flexibility to adapt, even if that means restructuring.
I just got hung up on the fact that a big workforce is actually a big part of their current problem.

There’s been a lot of editing so the messaging was getting a bit convoluted. But i understand now you see the size of Ubisoft as the problem, not a solution.
We just interpreted the phrasing a bit differently, especially with the emphasis on Ubisofts size being larger than Nintendo, led me to think that employee size is the reason for finding a way.

@EVIL-C I agree!

@Banjo- “It's a huge developer and publisher, much bigger than Nintendo, so they'll find a way to keep going”

“Well, you misunderstood (again) and you cut sentences so they seem to mean another thing. I said that it's a huge developer with too many employees, but of course they'll find a way to keep going”

I just want to clarify you said so instead of but in ur first comment. That might imply you think their bigger employee count will be the reason of them finding a way, instead of them finding a way ‘despite’ their much bigger workforce than Nintendo. Trust me i don't want this discussion either. I was just a bit confused by ur phrasing and i thought u meant market share, thats why i was i asking, i apologize for the misunderstanding.

Would you care to elaborate what you mean by them having a much bigger employee count than Nintendo, therefore they’ll find a way to keep going? Just curious, i might be missing something, but i don't quite understand.

Edit: After your additional edits I get it, you’re saying they are a huge developer, much bigger than nintendo in terms of employee count, therefore they’ll keep going.
By reducing their employees, gotcha.

At first i just thought you meant bigger publisher in terms of market share or something. Which might be true, i dont know, thats why i was asking.

But i guess interpreted ur message wrong, im sorry.

@Banjo- “It's a huge developer and publisher, much bigger than Nintendo, so they'll find a way to keep going”

Ah yes, that is true, in terms of employee size. But the way you said they're much larger, therefore they'll find a way to keep going sounded like you implied larger in terms of market share or something.

I don't see how saying them being larger in terms of employee count, even comparing them to Nintendos size, means they will find a way to keep going. Being so large in terms of employees is basically whats gotten them in this mess. Too bloated and mismanaged. They have more employees than publishers bigger than them.

@Banjo- Wait, really? Ubisoft is a much bigger publisher than Nintendo?

@Fiendish-Beaver @Banjo- Yes, exactly! I just want to make clear for the record, im not saying Game Pass is a bad deal. And i think I’ve said that a few times in the past comments. Taste just really matters when it comes to entertainment. The same can be said for PS Plus. Im not trying to knock on these services or anything.

For me personally, the games coming from Xbox right now aren't enticing enough for my taste to subscribe. Im waiting if Fable might change that.

@Coletrain “Whether or not a subscription service in itself holds any value to you as a consumer, now that's totally and unequivocally subjective.”

Glad we’re finally on the same page then! 😂

“Anyway, Saturday night, on to more fun things. Might just go play some games mate 🤣 that's what we all have in common eh!”

Cant argue with you there! 😄👍🏼

@Coletrain “but the value the service offers isn't arguable”

I do think the value is arguable, and depends on personal circumstances. This is not like you're buying shampoo or something, where the value is more about functionality. This is a matter of taste.

For example, you cant just say Netflix or Disney+ is the best value, because its totally dependant of what you want to see. If nothing on Netflix interests you, and all your favourite shows are on Disney+, then Netflix will be of less value to you.

Its hard to make a sweeping statement about objectivity when there are many factors in play.
With all these types of services it comes down to what fits your taste best. Its all subjective.

@Coletrain The worth is definitely subjective to me, and im guessing to a lot of people. I don't think you want to compare Metacritic scores on Game Pass and PS Plus. Playstation games tend to score higher than Xbox games.

You might not have seen the games that are available on PS Plus for a while, cause saying the average is around 5-20 $ compared to Game Pass 50-70 $ is a bit of a stretch. PS Plus also regularly adds third party games in the $40 to $60 range.

Apart from a minority of new first and third party titles, most of Game Pass is indie territory. Which in no way puts the average at 50-70. For it to even get to an average of $70 it would need to have many games on there that are priced way beyond $70, seeing as the majority of indie games bring the average down, so this makes no sense.

The real issue here is that the value of the service isn't just about the cost of the games, but its about want you want to play.

@Banjo- @Coletrain Since you guys are interested in comparing it to PS Plus though, I do want to bring up this point. Since both of you seem to take purely the perspective of cost of games value vs subjective interest value.

You could argue that PS Plus has greater value, since it offers a library of around 800 games compared to around 400 from Game Pass. If you had to buy those games outright, you’d likely be paying more for the 800 games. Therefore PS Plus gives more value?

Or you could agree with me, saying that the value is subjective. And it depends on whether the titles on these services interests you or not.

@Coletrain I don't know what to tell ya, i feel like we’re talking in circles. I’ll just have to refer you to my first comment: “It’s definitely not a one size fits all, but if your taste matches the library, then it can be great deal. If the types of games and franchises on it don’t appeal to you, the value is gonna be lower.”

Im not saying its a bad deal. Its a great deal for a lot of people. I’m only saying its subjective, which i don't think is very controversial when talking about entertainment. End of the day, its all about taste.

What i understand from what your saying is you feel like its the best value in terms of what you are getting and how much it would cost if you bought those games right?

Im saying something slightly different. Im comparing it to games you want to buy that aren't on game pass. Lets say for example you want to play the top 15 best games on Metacritic for this year, there’s only one on Game Pass.

For that person, Game Pass will hold less value. Thats why i say that the value is subjective. Im not comparing it to PS Plus, what you and @Banjo- seem to be doing. Im just discussing the value of such services on its own.

@Banjo- Well, its just my opinion. We can leave it at that. I think i understand what you’re trying to say. We’re just seeing it from different angles, I guess.

@Coletrain The best value proposition in terms of cost, you mean? For that to be true you would have to be satisfied with their game offerings. Cause if you would still need to buy games separately, that aren't on the service, it would negate all the cost savings from the subscription. In this case, the value is only there, if the game offerings matches your taste.

@Banjo- “It's like you were saying that the supermarket with the greatest assortment does not include every product.”

If the products I want and need aren’t available there, how would it be of value to me to keep my subscription to this supermarket? See how this can be subjective?

But I dont see how this analogy fits with what im saying. This is not what I mean, thats like saying Xbox has the best games(assortiment) of all, which I disagree with.

Maybe i can give you a better analogy. Say you can have a subscription to Starbucks, but you dont like their coffee at all. Is it the best deal? Clearly not for you. You would be better off just buying your coffee elsewhere, rather than paying for a subscription for something you don't care for.

In that same vein, the value of Game Pass depends entirely on if you want to play those games. There are many great games that aren't on Game Pass. And this is where it becomes subjective. It might be a good deal for some, but not for everyone.

Im not saying it cant be a great deal, but you will have to be interested in their library for that to be true.

@Banjo- Im talking about the subjective value of the offerings and whether it speaks to you or not. Doesn’t matter how many studios are behind it, you still have to be interested in those games.

What i think you mean is that it’s the most cost effective way to try lots of games including new ones, if i understand you correctly?

However that argument falters if you are not interested in most of the games offered by Game Pass. If you pay for your subscription and then still have to separately pay for all the games you want that aren't on the service, it negates all benefits. Making the deal less attractive for some.

@Banjo- You’re comparing it to PS Plus. Which is a different discussion on its own, and definitely interesting to get into as well.

Im just talking about Game Pass on its own. While its definitely a huge benefit to get all those titles from Zenimax and ABK. It really depends if you are into those games.

You can’t play Elden Ring, Baldurs Gate, Resident Evil 4, Street Fighter 6 (I can go on ofcourse, just basically every title that isn't on Game Pass)

@Banjo- “It’s the best value objectively”

I understand you find it the best value in gaming. But i don't agree with saying its objectively the best value for everyone.

While its certainly a big benefit that some titles come day one, and definitely great if you enjoy those games. But what if someone isnt interested in playing Hellblade and Call of Duty, but want to play Dragons Dogma and Tekken? Games that aren't available on Game Pass. Its value would be significantly less to them.

Im not saying it cant be a good deal. But when it comes to value, it’s definitely very subjective and depends on peoples preference for games.

I’m gonna add my 2 cents with risk of being labeled a fanboy. I think the value of Game Pass is highly subjective.
It really depends on which games you prefer.

If, for example, you wanted to play Tekken 8, Helldivers 2, Final Fantasy Rebirth, Dave the diver, Astro Bot, Animal Well or Dragons Dogma 2 this year. Well then Game Pass didn't bring you closer to that goal. What i’m trying to say is, its only the best value in gaming, if you care about the games that are on it.

It’s definitely not a one size fits all, but if your taste matches the library, then it can be great deal. If the types of games and franchises on it don’t appeal to you, the value is gonna be lower.

@Rog-X “there 100% is a general bias from a big chunk of media outlets that if whatever game is not available on PlayStation they hold the game to a higher scrutiny and it does result in lower aggregate score”

He never said first party games though. He said whatever game not available on PS, so Xbox exclusives.

But you’re right, i can add Lego Horizon to the list. Further adding to the argument that the Xbox Tax is fake, since PS exclusives also get low scores, even first party games.

Also, it wasn’t an exhaustive list or anything. There’s more, like Killzone Shadow Fall 73, Knack 54, Knack 2 69, Concrete Genie 75, i can go on but you get the point.

@IOI You mean like Forza Horizon 5 getting a 92? Or was it exempted from the “Xbox Tax”? Microsoft Flight simulator 90, Psychonauts 2 87, Halo Infinite 87.

Playstation exclusives also get low scores. Forspoken 64, Condord 62, Babylons Fall 42, Days Gone 71, Destruction Allstars 62, Godfall 61, Valkyrie Elysium 65, Foamstars 57.

You’re saying this game will get a higher score when it comes out on PS? Possibly.

However, both Ghostwire and Deathloop were timed exclusives for PS. And both got a higher Metacritic score for the Xbox version when it came out. Where is the tax there?

@IOI Xbox tax, really? 🤦🏻‍♂️ If it wasn't for that(made up thing), you’re saying it would've potentially been a 95? I just cant with this comment.

These top level execs showing more courtesy and professionalism than the warring fanboys fighting for these companies.

@JayJ Just calling out inconsistencies when i see them. I don't like misinformation being spread. Im sorry if you didn't like it.

@JayJ Some people enjoy only the single player. But besides that, I thought we were addressing whether the game is free or not.

I don't intend on playing this game, but thank you anyway.

@JayJ Free for online subscribers? Thats not really a fair comparison though. Subscription isn’t free. Thats like saying the game is free for PS owners after they pay for it. Both require a payment to access the game, just through different ways. One is a direct purchase and the other is through an ongoing rent subscription model.

@Romans12 PS owners do own the game afterwards, Game pass subscribers need to pay for their subscription indefinitely if they want to keep those games. It’s buying vs renting. And im not knocking it btw, to each their own. But i wouldn't call it better per se. Its very dependant on personal preference, whether Game pass actually is a better option.

@PsBoxSwitchOwner No, but i think MS was interested in whether that would happen or not. If there ever was a game that might have moved the needle, it must have been this game.

@PsBoxSwitchOwner As i understand it, the share of Playstation remained the same or increased. So as far as i can tell, people aren't going to Xbox, or Gamepass by extension, en masse.

If people shifted to Gamespass from PS, at a large scale, we would've at least seen a lowering in sales from the PS side.

As far as i can tell, atleast from these early stages, is that people on other platforms will likely not shift en masse over to Gamepass. Instead, they’d rather buy the game than subscribe to another service.

@Banjo- “it won't appeal to everyone and there will be negative previews and reviews, amongst other things because it's not published by Sony”

You mean, like Concord?

@EvenStephen7 I second that, i remember when the Xbox series X was first shown. And i was hyped!

I think it would be very surprising if the exclusivity deal with Sony isn't at the very least a year long, maybe even two. But yes, after that its definitely coming to Xbox. But i wouldn't be surprised if it would still take 3+ years

@Krazee5255 Its not that u cant criticize Sony. Its how you went on this whole unprovoked tirade out of nowhere. On an article which has nothing to do with Sony or their userbase. Even accusing people of not caring what this studio has been through. It just was all a bit random. But heck, it made my day 😄

@Krazee5255 Why its ironic? Because youre obviously a fanboy yourself. And thats ok. You can rant about whatever u want 👍🏼

@Krazee5255 The irony of calling out fanboys with a post like that is hilarious.

Isn't Stalker 2 a timed exclusive btw? I thought it was, but im not sure.

@NEStalgia While a good summary as to what transpired between Sony and Game Science. This is not what the disagreement was about. It was because it was said as a fact that there was a deal made between Sony and Game Science. And while you can think that, and it might even be true, we might never know.
But the moment you present it as fact, then you must be prepared that there might be someone that will ask for proof. It makes sense to me.

Saying the situation is vague and mucky, therefore it must be true, doesn't work. Simply because there might be other reasons for it.

For example they might have just decided for themselves that they'd prioritize development for Playstation, because of the bigger Asian audience it has. Also Playstation might have helped them with development, leading to them being able to release that version earlier.

As long as we don't know, we cant state as fact that a deal was made. Even though there might have been. Its just a very mucky situation

@Wisegamer It seems like you’re making a case where people can say anything they want without evidence and just say well we cant know for sure so it might be right. That doesn't seem like a reasonable way to go about.
Look, if anyone claims that there was an agreement between Sony, the proof of burden is on the one making the accusation. Not the other way around.
Again, there might have been an agreement. But the reasoning seems flawed if you decide to focus on speculation rather than evidence.

@Sol4ris My bad. Guess i totally misinterpreted LoL!

@Sol4ris Why would it put Sony in a bad light? You know these deals are made all the time, also by Xbox. And these types of deals also get rejected all the time. Its not like studios have to take offers they dont want to. Could be a myriad of reasons why these deals don't fall through

@Major_Player You think thats more likely? I dont think it is. But that would be nice. And i’d respect that.

@Fishmasterflex96 Yes for sure, but we have to keep in mind that these deals aren't being done for free. Sony is paying them money, because its expected that they sell less because theyre going exclusive. Sony needs to pay them an amount that feels to them is gonna be enough to offset the loss. So its a win win. In any other case, its probably best to go multiplatform i agree

@Fishmasterflex96 Yeah, it can definitely be a risk for a studio. Especially as you say, if they don’t simultaneously release on PC. Also when the user base isn’t as large. The studio should definitely do their due diligence in calculating the risk vs the reward in these situations. Basically calculate if the amount theyre agreeing with is enough to offset a potential small sale volume

@Fishmasterflex96 Depends on what the goal is. I think Sony is in it to sell consoles. And having a large and diverse set of exclusives games does help towards that goal.

@Major_Player It means, they thought they’d make more money if they publish themselves. We dont know when these arrangements were discussed, maybe it was when the PS5 user base wasn't as large as it is now? Maybe they didn't want to risk not selling as much as they could

@WildConcept6 Sure, from a consumer standpoint it can be annoying at times. But this is how companies often times need to compete. You need to differentiate yourself from others. Apple needs to innovate and come up with features that aren't found at the competitor for buyers to choose them. Thats why Disney has exclusives, Netflix has exclusives, a big Mac isn't sold at a Burger king. And why Nvidia is king in graphics cause Amd cant compete with their tech. Look at Nintendo, if they didn't have their exclusives, would they be as attractive as they are now?

Now if you don't have a big first party output, its a solid strategy to buy exclusives from a developer. Cause the competitor can do the same, even with the same developer. And there are thousand of studios. Now if you buy a publisher, and their studios. Obviously thats where you prevent any exclusives to be ever made by anyone except you.

But you do have a point with why they bought ABK. Just clarifying, my first post was just a bit of tongue in cheek not so much as to incite a serious discussion hence the emoji. The 2nd post well, i just felt i needed to clarify some things regarding the comment

@fatpunkslim Are you new to gaming or something? Seems like a pretty narrow take on the industry. Remakes and remasters is not all they know how to make. Actually they're more known for making critically acclaimed games, literally just weeks ago they released Astro Bot.
Exclusivity deals are made to market your console, its what makes each platform attractive to buy. Xbox does the same, but now they also buy whole publishers, excluding any other company to ever make exclusivity arrangements with those companies ever again

Sorry to derail the topic y’all, just had to reply, now back to crimson desert