HamKnight

Why did Phil refuse to name these 4 games during their staged podcast, only to announce them a couple of days later? He said something along the lines of not wanting to steal the thunder of their announcements, but honestly, does this count as thunder? Idk that whole podcast thing was just so odd and wishy washy. I've been critical of Xbox a lot lately, and I don't mean to constantly bash them because I do want them to thrive, but the way that company is run is just baffling to me. They really do not seem to know what the hell they're doing.

Christ on a bike, the absolute guff that Xbox talks, around and around in circles, to obfuscate the very clear fact that that they just don't. have. the. games! They harp on and on about 'The industry' this and 'The players' that. None of it means anything if you don't have the games. They are trailing far behind. They're in no position to sway the industry one way or the other - as evidenced by the fact that they can't even buy their way to the top. Nintendo make great games, which sells consoles. Sony make great games, which sells consoles. It's not rocket science. Xbox just continue to parade around these vague and hypocritical terms about 'Everybody wins' etc. Just make the friggin' games! It's exasperating!

From a business point of view this would be a perfect window of opportunity for Nintendo to release their Switch successor. I say this as someone who enjoys both PlayStation and Nintendo consoles pretty equally.

Thank you, PS, for dropping the 'We realise Hogwarts Legacy doesn't exist in a vacuum' addendum now. While I'm sure it was added with good intentions, it eventually became quite a mar on HL coverage, only highlighting the vitriolic vocal minority others have mentioned here, instead of celebrating the achievements of the HL devs.

Microsoft's strategy of trying to buy their way to the top is really working out for them, huh?

I work in a creative field that is serious under threat from AI. I hope everybody boycotts this game. I have zero sympathy for any backlash the game gets as a result of their dystopian cost-cutting methods.

If a bandwagon trend of shortsighted gains based off of an already oversaturated market exists, you can be sure that Ubisoft will always jump on it. And they will always be too late.

Didn't expect to read a lot of hot takes about TOTK from people who very obviously didn't play it, here in the Spidey 2 comments.

We're now remastering three-year-old games? Good grief.

The title Principal Monetisation Designer does make me vomit inside my mouth a little bit, I have to be honest.

Jim Ryan:
We believe in generations.
Here's a live-service hellscape.
Bye.

As funny as the thumbnail for this article is, it kind of implies Xbox have beaten Nintendo in some way, which couldn't be further from the truth lol

All through my playthrough I couldn't shake the feeling that the story had jumped the shark, but as a game it was enjoyable.
However, once you notice that Aloy sighs as she delivers every single line of her dialogue, you can't un-hear it.

I've been a PlayStation gamer for many, many years, love so many Sony exclusives, but man, they are just all in on the greed this generation. It would be so nice to think they were investing all this extra money back into creating the amazing games they are known for, but it really is looking like it's just going into shareholders' pockets and live services no-one wants.

Cool can’t wait to play it on PS7

Should’ve done better

It's a "Squadala!" from me

This game has been on my radar since it was announced and I didn't actually realise it had released already. I don't know if that's a me problem or a lack of marketing

@Pat_trick I thought the same way. Looks good, for sure, but "breathtaking"? Really?

That's got to be one of the most confusingly worded titles for an article I've seen in a while lol. Thankfully I'd already seen the video so I knew what you meant.

@Korgon Absolutely agree this is the way, if a company is going to go down the live service model, to do it - Release a great fully fleshed-out game out of the gate, and you've bought enough goodwill with your player base to then charge for extra content over time. It's a far smarter and consumer-friendly model than the bare bones / egregious fleecing one we've seen so many companies try, and fail, at in recent years.

Let’s not forget Uncharteds 2 & 3 also had multiplayer modes and they were GREAT. Those, plus the original Factions are more than enough proof that ND don’t need another dev looking over their shoulder, telling them to add more ‘engagement’ (and probably fomo) and in the process likely ruining what this Factions 2 was going to be.

I really do appreciate that games are exceptionally hard to make, hard to get right, and are even more huge and unwieldy these days, making development a long, rocky road, but Hot DAMN waiting for them to release can be friggin' excruciating

@UltimateOtaku91 I think it’s more the live service element that people are concerned about, rather than just multiplayer on its own. The Nintendo examples you gave aren’t live services, they’re multiplayer with DLCs, which people tend to find a lot more palatable.

I don’t mind fighting games expanding their lifespan with DLC, but games that announce the DLC before the base game is even out will never sit right with me. I don’t mind if it’s more along the lines of ‘something will be coming’ but when it’s just specific ‘these exact characters have been held back as DLC’ it leaves a bad taste.