Topic: Official Push Square Xbox Thread

@BAMozzy I don’t think Crossfire X is trash because it doesn’t cost £70.00… I think it’s trash because the 99% of people (basically anyone other than the most loyal of uncle phil’s ‘nephews’) have said it is absolute trash.

@colonelkilgore And that's '1' game from a 3rd Party Publisher that has NOTHING to do with the Subscription model. The campaign's (as there are two) maybe bad, but Smilegate probably thought they could give 1 away on Game Pass to 'help' sell the 2nd which, if the 1st is that bad, won't work out well for Smilegate.

That doesn't mean that 'someone' may not find 'something' of interest in playing what PushSquare describe: CrossfireX Operation Catalyst is fun in parts. It's like mid-2000s beige comfort food. You know you've been there, done that, got the t-shirt, but the shirt still fits even if it's more than a little tired. The campaign is very polished too. Character models, in cutscenes especially, look great, and the environments look good enough. That's 'not' a 'Rot' game, that's a rather 'bland' and 'generic' FPS shooter that ultimately is a polished game. I'd rather play a 'Generic' but polished FPS than a highly creative but unpolished, erratic game myself...

There is NO way I think Crossfire is 'worth' wasting money on myself - certainly not the 'launch' price, but like the vast majority of games, they maybe 'worth' 50% of that to 'someone', maybe even at 70% off.

Lets look at 'Destruction Allstars' as an Example, instead of picking on MS and 'games' they have absolutely no control over in terms of 'Quality'. That game was 'expected' to sell at £70 and the 'general' consensus was that the game was 'Trash', never worth £70 etc. Its given away as part of PS+ and people got to try it 'free' and make up their own mind - some actually 'enjoyed' their time and got 'some' value from trying/playing it. That, (like CrossfireX it seems) is 'Trash' compared to other '£70' games, but for £20 for example, its competing with 'indie' priced game and for £20, these games may be 'Great' games, for a £5, they could be a lot of 'fun' because you don't have so much 'invested' in it, don't have this unrealistic expectation...

I could pick R&C too - for Some people, its not that 'great' - its a short and 'typical' R&C game, not 'better' than 2016's and certainly NOT worth £70. It 'disappoints' at £70 because for £70, they expected a lot MORE. If that was 'Free', either on a Similar Subscription service to Game Pass, or via PS+, its still a '£70' game to 'non-subscribers' and still a 'great' R&C game, its just not going to disappoint those who get it as part of their Subscription, but could disappoint those that feel its not a £70 game and they didn't get 'value' for money from it. For some, £30 maybe the 'sweet' spot for R&C because they have different 'expectations' based on Price.

On a Subscription service, the quality ISN'T determined by Sales numbers (best selling game so must be the 'best' - Cyberpunk, CoD, Battlefield etc), its determined by players and the amount of 'time' they are willing to put in. If everyone that try's, goes on to finish or at least play 80%, then its indicative of the games 'quality' but if everyone quits within the first hour, that speaks volumes too.

The point is, take away the 'price', you take away barriers and take away the weight of expectation and let games 'stand' up for themselves in terms of 'quality'. It doesn't matter if its 'indie', AA, AAA+ because the 'price' of entry is the 'same'. A 'great' indie game that makes you want to keep playing is still better than a AAA+ game that makes you want to quit an hour into it. A 3hr indie is still competing for your time as much as 500hr+ AAA game. The games are only competing for your time, not asking you to pick between 'several' games because you can't afford to buy 'all' the games, just competing for your 'time'. There is no prejudice - £70 must be 'premium' experience with so much 'content' that needs to be 'filled' by meaningless additional content and if not, its very light on content for a £70 game.

Take February for example, if you want to play Horizon, Elden Ring, Dying Light and Grid Legends, that's a LOT of money that you need and if you don't have £200+ to buy, you have to decide what games to 'miss out' on. On a Subscription service, you could play ALL for example and let each compete for your time.

My 'gaming' time is 'valuable' so I appreciate having the 'freedom' to decide what games I am willing to 'try'. I don't care if its an 'indie', AA, AAA+, whether its just 2hrs long or 100's of hours, I just care that whatever I choose to play offers me a great 'experience'. If not, I just don't bother playing more but at least all I have 'wasted' is a bit of time, not time and money.

Bad and/or broken games at launch will still 'fail' on a Subscription service because people won't waste their time trying to play on to get their 'moneys' worth, they'll just move on to any number of other games they have access too all tempting them to spend their 'gaming' time with them instead.

Instead of having prejudices based on Price, Subscription services take away that and let ALL games stand on their own 'merits' or 'fail' to grab an audience regardless. R&C, for example, is a 'Great' game and people could all try it themselves, see what they think without 'prejudice' - its too short for a £70 game, doesn't do 'enough' to justify its 'asking' price' etc. Its still a 'Great' game whether Sony charged you £70 or give it away 'free' on PS+/Spartacus - its still a GREAT game now without the barrier to entry and that price prejudicing peoples opinion.

… and that is ‘1’ garbage game that you seemed perfectly okay with because it was essentially free.

We’re never gonna agree on that one key fact, as you seem intent on dragging the conversation into every other area of Gamepass other than the one that started this discussion. You were okay with trash because it was essentially free. My point is then, the more times people like yourself are okay with garbage as it’s essentially free, the more garbage will be served up. It’s simple, you just want to avoid that and write a veritable dissertation on the merits of Gamepass five times per day. There obviously can’t be that much worth while going on in Gamepass, or you wouldn’t be spending all this valuable game time pumping out 50,000 words per day on a PlayStation site 🤣.

@colonelkilgore to be fair, I get where your coming from, it's an issue that's been discussed since crackdown 3 came out. "It's alright for gamepass" is a concern. However, its not like full price releases solve the problem. Both COD and battlefront are often poor and still get shed loads of preorders and folk willing to shill for them!! The COD pc servers being filled with cheatbots etc has barely made a ripple outside enthusiast communities. This is a wider industry issue with releasing unfinished crap. Just crazy they sent it out to die in a meat grinder of a feb/march release cycle!!

@R1spam totally, I’m not for one second stating that every full price game (or even a budget game that still requires a purchase) is good… only that, there are (thankfully) no automatic excuses for games where people have to make a purchase. There does seem to be an excuse-culture already emerging about poor games on Gamepass though… and I believe that this could eventually have a detrimental effect on overall quality as Gamepass will continue to grow its user base.

@R1spam Shooter genre oversaturation was probably the reason behind the release timing for CrossfireX. Back when CrossfireX was first announced as an Xbox exclusive, the only shooters on Game Pass at the time were Halo, Gears, Perfect Dark and a few others with the only known upcoming stuff being Halo Infinite which it wasn't known to be FTP multiplayer at the time. Since then Game Pass has obtained:

• Halo Infinite campaign
• Gears 5 Hivebusters
• DOOM franchise (Bethesda acquisition)
• Wolfenstein franchise (Bethesda acquisition)
• Rage franchise (Bethesda acquisition)
• Quake franchise (Bethesda acquisition)
• Prey franchise (Bethesda acquisition)
• Battlefield franchise (EA Play)
• Crysis franchise (EA Play)
• Medal of Honor franchise (EA Play)
• Titanfall franchise (EA Play)
• Some Star Wars games (EA Play)
• Rainbow Six Siege and Extraction (normal game pass additions, latter was day 1 launch)

And that's just up to now, looking at the future there's these (there may be more I've forgotten):

• CoD franchise (Activision acquisition)
• Overwatch franchise (Activision acquisition)
• Wolfenstein III (Bethesda acquisition)
• Deathloop (Bethesda acquisition)
• Redfall (Bethesda acquisition)
• Halo Infinite DLC campaigns (don't know whether on Game Pass)
• Gears 6
• Perfect Dark reboot
• Goldeneye 007 (rumoured)
• Gears collection (rumoured)
• Tom Clancy franchises (rumoured)

Considering all this, CrossfireX was likely screwed whenever it launched.

@colonelkilgore I am NOT making excuses for POOR games - all I said is that you can decide for yourself whether a 'game' is poor or not - without any preconceived prejudice affecting your decision. Crossfire may well be a 'BAD' game when you factor in Price points - Like I said, Ratchet & Clank or Returnal could be 'perceived' as POOR for a $70 price point - doesn't offer or do enough to warrant its $70 price and end up 'disappointing' - however, for $30 or even for 'Free', they are both 'great' games. NOTHING has 'changed', other than the 'price' investment the player has to put in - its still the 'same' game whether its $70 or Free on PS+ so therefore the Price has a dramatic effect on the perception of what a 'great' game must deliver for its asking price.

There is NO way that I think CrossfireX is worth spending ANY money on, certainly not right now but that's NOT the point here. The only point is whether a game does 'enough' to make you want to try it-no obligation, no money invested in to it, so can be a LOT more objective. Crossfire X might not be worth $40, but maybe for $10, its better 'value' than a 'cosmetic' that costs the same and has 'some' merits - at least its polished, has some fun moments and looks 'OK' visually. Point is CrossfireX may well not live up to its Price point and the expectation that brings with it, but without that price, it can still have some 'Value' to someone.

Destruction Allstars is a 'TRASH' game for $70, for $10 or 'free' on PS+, it can still provide some 'fun' moments that those PS+ gamers got 'some' value from a 'TRASH' game. Obviously a LOT of people thought Returnal was 'Trash' too, not worth the $70 price either - hence so few people bothered with it - however, if that had been on PS+, people could at least 'try' it and make up their own mind without their financial prejudice affecting their experience.

As soon as you expect gamers to invest their money up front for your 'product', that sets up peoples prejudice -that they have certain expectation levels the more it costs. You expect a $70 game to offer 'more' than an $20 indie but remove the 'price', all games are then able to stand on their own merit. Destruction Allstars, CrossfireX, CoD, BF2042, Returnal etc may well not be 'great' games at $60+, but would they be 'better' at £20, for £10, for 'free'?

I personally have NO interest in a bland, generic FPS game that expects me to buy the 2nd mission and spend my 'valuable' game time trying so I won't bother with CrossfireX myself - it doesn't do 'enough' for me to want to spend my time even trying it - I'm just saying though that instead whinging about Subscription services, complain about the Publisher/Developer that thinks its 'OK' to release 'generic' bland and/or creatively devoid releases on 'ANY' platform regardless of whether its sold or a subscription model.

Not 'every' game is 'TRASH' just because it doesn't deliver 85+ on metacritic. It maybe that its a 'good' game, just not necessarily worth spending $70 on - better to wait until its $30 for it to be a 'good' game or maybe for $10, its an absolutely amazing game and for free, its well worth playing (as we see with PS+ too).

All a Subscription model does is take away any preconceived prejudice and gives subscribers the 'freedom' to 'try' any game and decide whether its worth your time or not. Trash won't get gamers wanting to give up their time so will FAIL. Great games 'Fail' because people don't think they are 'worth' the asking price. Days Gone isn't a 'Trash' game and more people could make up their 'own' mind about it if Sony removed its Price - gave it away on PS+.

Its NOT excuses either - its just NOT feeding the BS monologue you keep trying to spread. All Isaid is that instead of wondering whether a game is 'worth' buying for whatever price its selling for, whether or not it offers 'value' for money, you decide whether a game is worth trying or not. It may not be 'worth'
$70, but doesn't mean that its 'Trash' either and not worth 'trying'. It could well be a 'good' game if it was only $5 for example but because its '$70', and its 'compared' to other $70 games, it falls short.

You entire argument is based on the game delivering an 'experience' you 'expect' from paying a certain 'fee'. You expect a $70 AAA+ game to deliver an experience befitting that price point and don't judge 'indie' games to the same standard because they cost less. What Game Pass or any 'Subscription' service is offering is the 'freedom' to make up your own mind without any preconceived prejudice or barriers to try. Instead of deciding a game is 'Trash' because its not worth the Money you have invested, you decide a game is Trash by the amount of time you have invested in it. I have 0hrs invested in CrossfireX, because in my opinion, it doesn't do enough for me to want to invest my time in it.

The point I am making is that 'bad' games will 'fail' regardless of whether they are sold or in a Subscription service so Publishers still 'need' to make great games. The fact CrossfireX is 'poor' has NOTHING to do with Subscription services and NOT a reflection on Game Pass. That game is still poor and would still be poor regardless of whether it released on Game Pass too - just like BF2042, CoD Vanguard etc are 'poor' too. The Publisher, Smilegate, may know their game was a bit 'generic' and may not sell well so use 'Game Pass' to try and get more people interested and maybe 'sell' more copies of Mission 2 as a result, but if its 'really' bad, that decision could 'backfire' - leave them even worse off because more players try it, hate it, spread word of mouth, move on and never return so it ends up not 'selling' any extra content etc and being a big Flop despite the fact it had no 'barrier' to entry as an excuse for why people hated it. Its easy to say you don't think a game was worthy of the £70price, but no publisher can use that excuse for a game with no price.

You keep going on as if CrossfireX being poor is a direct result of the Subscription model - it has nothing to do with it. The only games that have been built primarily to release on Game Pass first and foremost is MS's First Party games - every game since Sea of Thieves (over 25m players now) and includes MSFS, FH5, Halo: Infinite and Psychonauts 2. Even if PN2 (and Deathloop) were initially planned for 'sales' releases, MS bought those Studio's to make games to go directly in Game Pass, paid their staff to polish those games and make the 'best' game they could so that when they do release on 'Xbox', they are Great critically acclaimed games that make people want to Subscribe and stay subscribed...

All other publishers, like Smilegate, TakeTwo, Ubisoft etc are only interested in either 'sales' numbers or establishing a 'community' to sell content to. Smilegate probably thought that a lot more will at least Try CrossfireX and maybe will go on to become fans that want to buy Mission 2, want to buy any MTX, DLC etc so potentially 'more' lucrative to them to put it on any Subscription model than to rely only on the Sales model.

You are confusing several different things - I assume deliberately for argumentative purposes and to fit your own BS monologue. I am NOT OK for bad games to exist, all I am saying is that not 'every' 'bad' game is inherently 'bad', it maybe not a 'great' game compared to other games in its price point, but could still be a 'great' game compared to much cheaper games. Still be highly polished with solid game-play, even if its not doing anything particularly new or particularly interesting narratively, still offer 'some' enjoyment to 'some' gamers and the 'only' thing they waste is 'time'. I'd rather have the option to try a game like CrossfireX than have to fork out £60 on BF2042 or CoD and not only waste my 'time' trying it for myself,but also down £60 I could of invested on something else.

I don't watch Game Pass game play trailers with the thought about whether or not it 'excites' me enough to invest my money into it up front, I watch them to see if it does 'enough' to make me want to try. Returnal did enough to make me want to try it, but nowhere near enough to make me want to 'waste' £70 on trying it -same with R&C which is why I bought my copy on Ebay for £30. People have a 'different' opinion on games based on how much money they have invested. R&C may well be 'disappointingly' short or 'disappointingly' similar to every other R&C and not 'worth' £70 but if they bought it £30, could of been their Game of the Year -the only difference is the 'perceived' value they got - not the actual quality and enjoyment they had during their 'short' playthrough.

@BAMozzy so maybe try a ‘less is more’ approach to the posts that you make… and perhaps then people will actually read them. This word-vomit you’ve been practicing means that pretty much everyone is left ‘thought-bubbling’ tldr.

@Grumblevolcano Yep, that's some list!! Your probably right, it never stood a chance. Its just with all the money they make from Asian markets, there was no pressure to put it out with match making issues etc. At least launch with most of the bugs ironed out. The fact that the campaign is in a different engine from multiplayer blows my mind. Its such a weird title. From that list I'm still keen to get round to Doom 2016 and Wolfenstein 2, I do like a decent fps campaign.

@colonelkilgore And that is also a reflection on you - not me. If you can't be bothered to 'read', that's no different from not listening in a 'discussion' which is both ignorant and rude - especially as you expect people to read your own opinions.

I really do not see your argument here - Bad games are 'bad' regardless but not ALL bad games are complete trash - they just don't do enough to justify the price investment they are asking from Gamers. That doesn't mean that 'bad' games can be successful because of no 'price' barrier or that the Subscription service is directly responsible for the decline of creativity in the AAA space, that Publishers won't need to make 'great' games because they are 'free'.

If anything, its more likely going to push gaming forward - make those developers/publishers try 'harder' to earn your time, not just over-hype, over market a game so people pre-order and then find its a 'Mess' and down £70 too.

If you could play H:FW, Elden Ring, Dying Light 2 etc all for free on a Subscription, that doesn't change the quality and instead of just competing for your money, their 'quality' competes for your time. Let's be honest here, with all those 'free', even an 'average' game is going to struggle to compete for your time.

All a 'Sales' model does is set an 'expectation' and allows 'bad' games with great marketing to be successful where as Great games may well not reach their potential because people are put off by the price. The Subscription model removes that 'expectation' and upfront financial investment, removes any barrier and lets 'each' game compete for your 'valuable' gaming time. If its 'mediocre' at best, then people will opt to spend their time elsewhere, not feel 'angry/disappointed' they wasted money, not feel they have to 'keep' playing to try and get their money's worth etc. Any money those games now have to make, has to be made from a 'loyal' and 'happy' community who all enjoy spending their time in that game instead of playing a 'new' game free of charge, happy to buy DLC, MTX etc to enhance their 'time' in that game.

Games will have to be 'better' because you have access to a LOT more 'games' every week competing for your time - why play CrossfireX for 'free' when you could play critically acclaimed games like Psychonauts 2, MSFS, Forza Horizon 5 etc for 'free', as well as 100's of other 'great' games from over 20yrs of gaming for 'free'....

Even if Sony (and Nintendo) 'copy' the Game Pass format, you wouldn't play 'bad' games when you could play GoW, H:FW, Uncharted, GoT, Spider-Man, R&C, Wolverine, Last of Us for free, so if other publishers continue to push out generic, bland games and put them into MS's, Sony's etc subscription model, they won't 'compete' for your time. MS, Sony and Nintendo would still 'need' to make critically acclaimed games for their Subscribers to get you to subscribe to 'their' service.

The fact that Crossfire is poor has nothing to do with subscription models. The fact its 'trash' as you put it has more to do with the expectation its 'price' point dictates, but can still be an 'ok' game to the right person and at the 'right' price - not 'disappoint' as much because they don't have any upfront 'financial' investment tied into it before they even boot the game up so can be a LOT more objective and rational...

@BAMozzy … and just in case you didn’t see my previous post, it wasn’t disrespecting you, I used a metaphor to highlight a point. I’m happy to have a discussion but things get removed… and as they’re removed, it can actually create more problems as people will assume that the message was worse/more aggressive/more inflammatory than it actually was.

If you want to read it, hit quote on the deleted message 👊

Oooh, Guardians of the Galaxy, Kentucky Route Zero and Microsoft Flight Simulator (Cloud Gaming) will be added to Game Pass this month! Might be time to subscribe for another month now. And in terms of GotG, that's one game I'll be able to cross off from my watchlist of games to buy.

@LtSarge cracking additions! I only bought guardians on a sale so have just done the online trade in and have wanted to try kentucky route 0 for a while but never got round to it. Hope route 0 is on cloud gaming, seems like a good fit for it

@LtSarge @R1spam I loved KR0, and thought it held up when I replayed it last year, but it isn't for everyone!

If you do both play it then I hope you enjoy it as much as I did

@GeezerviserBom Paint extremely sexually explicit pictures of Nick Knowles dominating Shane Richie all over it.

@nessisonett how much do you want for it?

@nessisonett Take a photo of it and sell it on ebay!

Xbox revealed their Summer Showcase premiere date before Sony or Nintendo.

https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2022/04/28/xbox-and-bethesda-show...

"Today, we are excited to announce that the Xbox & Bethesda Games Showcase will stream on Sunday, June 12 at 10 a.m. PT. This show will feature amazing titles coming from Xbox Game Studios, Bethesda, and our partners around the world."

Should be really interesting to see what they have planned. I thought they had a really good showcase last year for E3, but hopefully they step it up and show gameplay for more games. Also, it'd be great if they announced some more release dates for the immediate future instead of making everybody continue to just speculate when all of these games will finally come out.