MFTWrecks

I got into Battlefield with Bad Company, drawn by the destruction engine they were using back in that era. When they moved away from what I saw as THE differentiator in the fps space, I lost interest. I've tried BF games here or there since, but I just don't find them compelling when they're just "big COD." That does nothing for me. The dynamicism and variety of what those old matches offered are still unrivaled for me in the space. Until they go back to a focus on that, nothing will matter to me.

I don't care if PS5 games release on PC. I get them where I want to play them and others can enjoy the titles where they want to play. Doesn't matter to me. I'm not out here defending a corporation that doesn't care about me.

However, AS A BUSINESS STRATEGY, I don't understand how they think what they're doing makes sense. They're taking too long to release ports - after literally ALL the hype has died - AND they're releasing poorly optimized/operating software. So they are actively shooting themselves in the foot in a big way, twice, and then not hitting good sales numbers. Like... yeah, no *****.

The whole PSN and regional sales issues are also two HUGE factors/problems that are undeniably their own fault. And I separate them from the technical issues because they are very easy to solve, comparably speaking, and they have begun to, but I fear the damage is done. They misunderstood how much they pissed off PC players with their boneheaded PSN requirement. Sure, they walked it back, but the damage is done. Look at EA and Ubisoft and anyone else who had tried to strongarm PC players: it doesn't work.

I think Sony has a lot to learn. They need to really reflect on who they are and what they want to do, and above all else they need to look at HOW they're doing it. Their execution is their biggest problem.

My most-played fps of all time. So, yes, please! I have never loved an fps as much as I loved the original Perfect Dark! Sooooo many memories.

@mariomaster96 That's... exactly what this would accomplish. 😂

A game whose progression systems were riddled with anti-player/consumer predatory practices and that didn't respect your time didn't fair well in the market? Color me shocked.

@Medic_alert Look at the rest of what Microsoft does for your answer.

They make PCs and tablets, but it's not their goal to have the biggest piece of the market. They put out halo devices (no pun intended) to show partners what a well made piece of hardware taking advantage of all their software should be like.

I think they'll do the same with Xbox. They'll keep making "Xbox by Microsoft" hardware, but their focus will be the software experience/stack. They simply can't keep dumping R&D dollars into Xbox consoles at the same scale as they have. It's not paying off. Hasn't for years.

The software will be made available, like Windows before it (and like Steam OS on handheld PCs), on partner hardware. So we'll end up with "Xbox by [manufacturer of choice]" hardware, too. It'll be like Valve's Steam Machines effort.

It would not surprise me at all if "Xbox" simply becomes an operating system in a few years. Microsoft Games will simply be a publisher who owns the Xbox OS like how Epic owns a game development platform.

Perfect Dark, Avowed, and State of Decay. Those alone will make me a happy camper.

It does not surprise me when 10ish years between titles results in poor sales. These companies create a good thing and then abandon it for a decade and wonder why people lose interest. Not everything needs to be quasi-retired to build mythic levels of fan hype. Not everything can pull that off, but it seems companies seem to think all their IP can do/deserve it.

I played DAI ages ago. On a different system. On a different ecosystem. It was my first (and only) DA game. It was alright.

I couldn't tell you what happened in that game to save my life (besides a lot of boring meandering). Nothing about Veilguard continuing that story mattered to me. I was never going to be able to piece together the events of the story I experienced and carry it forward, so at that point, why would I bother? I "started part way through" once already. I'm not open to doing so again.

Sometimes supporting these overarching narratives can backfire because they only cater to the most hardcore of fans who have been waiting breathlessly for a decade or more to find out what happened. Most people truly do not care. There's a time and a place for narrative throughlines, but they need to be approachable and available within a timely manner, otherwise casual fans will simply forget/stop caring.

Microsoft upcoming first party lineup is looking iconic compared to Sony's right about now.

Herman Hulst is inept. Full stop.

A MOBA (popular genre) mixed with a simple and proven Smash-like gameplay system could actually be real fun. Say what you will about personal preferences, at least something like THIS sounds unique and worth trying.

I don't think Sony's failures in the live service space have purely been aesthetic. I don't think they're offering anything fresh and engaging enough for people to care. Say what you will about Concord's visual styling, its true curse was that it did NOTHING new or engaging. This, if rumors are true, could at least be worth playing.

@MikeOrator "Can you imagine..."

Yes. That's literally what I was doing.

I can't fathom why a Western contemporary to these gacha games hasn't been developed. Can you imagine the money that a Marvel or DC universe Gacha game would print?

Endless characters to add, countless POIs people would be dying to explore, loads of great storylines to adapt for quests and events... It's a no brainer imo. It could be the open world super hero game of people's dreams.

I think Marvel Rivals proves there's very much still an appetite for comic book-led action games, despite the reported doom and gloom of super hero fatigue.

When will companies learn it'd save them a hell of a lot more money in the long term if they fire the decision makers who force this stuff on broader development teams than if they fire the actual, boots in the ground talent that can help them recoup the losses by working on other, future projects?

There's no way in hell the salaries of such staffers comes close to the cost of continuing to employ people who make the bad decisions when the value added by their future potential is taken into account. No suit is going to make you a hit. But they sure as hell will help deliver you utter bombs.

With the right vision, this could lend itself to a pretty great action comedy movie.

They should lean into the fact the divers are faceless meat sacks on the front line. I think it could work really well if they made it with large ensemble cast where you follow a small fire team for like 10-15 minutes before they die a horrible death. Would be great if they marketed it with a singular star (or 4 star squad) only to have them die a horribly cartoonish death randomly, like 5 minutes in. Have the fact the big stars die AT ALL as part of the shock/humor. But then right after one star dies, a new star pops out of a drop pod and BAM you're off and running. (Repeat as necessary for comedic effect.)

OR you make it like Edge of Tomorrow where the singular group of stars die over and over and over and THAT'S a key part of it. Lean into the fan theory that perhaps the divers are clones.

I legit think it could be done well either way. I'm excited to see them tackle this. I think the fact the game only really has the broadest of strokes related to a storyline attached to it could be a huge creative boon to whomever they get to work on it. There will be far lower expectations to properly adapt it unlike something like TLOU. Plus, it's simply a FUN game/premise so I hope they embrace the absurdity, satire, and cartoonishness of it.

Heaven forbid these software development teams ever become more efficient at their jobs.

There's no reason, from a development perspective, that these specific games continue to balloon in cost. The engine gets minimal changes between releases. The gunplay and game systems, too, see only incremental change. They release a small handful of new maps and then re-release content that has existed (and been updated) for years. The rest of the content is skins and AI garbage.

It shouldn't cost hundreds of millions of dollars to create an iterative series entry in ANY game IP. Blockbuster movies with dozens of stars taking home tens of millions of dollars each don't often approach that cost.

You can like the games all you want, but there is literally ZERO explanation for such high development costs outside of legitimately poor management. I say that as someone who works in software. A budget like that for ONE CoD entry is absolutely bonkers.

And that's after they supposedly spent years streamlining the pipeline to make them cheaper/easier to produce! From my perspective, they failed miserably at that effort.

There are a lot of PS5 owners who were a twinkle in their parents' eye when some of these IP last saw a fresh entry. Sony would be dumb not to revive as many of these old franchises as possible and update them for modern audiences.

Not everything needs to be the next big blockbuster. There's no reason some of their fabled IP couldn't get solid entries if they were built with modest budgets and passionate developers.

I've been dying for Sony to do what Nintendo does and license IP out to devs that have a vision. Even if they're middle of the road, that's still better to get the IP back out there in the conscious of gamers and (re)build a modest audience than to let them collect dust forever.

***** it. Give 'em Killzone. Who cares if it's a different style of Killzone game (should they ape the Helldivers co-op gameplay) or a different type of game than Arrowhead makes (if remains an FPS). Give them something with a little more meat and let them cook.

The fact the chode he replied to is trying to push an "anti-woke" talking point at the creative director of a game that completely lambasts and satirizes the sort of fascist ideology whose supporters would take issue with DEI is well beyond my daily recommended dose of irony.

@Max_the_German From what I gather, Mocrosoft brass aren't super pleased with the gaming division's spending with such a long time until they see any ROI.

I think we are already seeing Microsoft's strategy be put in place piece by piece. They are improving the infrastructure needed (up and down the stack) to support putting their games on any device with wifi.

They are going to put far more capital into those investments over hardware development. They will not truly exit the hardware space, but they will adopt Microsoft's broader strategy of producing halo devices for their tech and not expecting a massive place in the market (see: Surface). Any real share is just bonus. The goal is to show other hardware manufacturing partners how to fully utilize their software at a baseline level.

They'll create "Xbox by Microsoft" hardware as we know it. But they'll ALSO let partners create "Xbox by [enter manufacturer]" devices. It'll be more like what Valve tried with the Steambox years back (and where they seem to be going with SteamOS on handhelds).

They can then just focus on making better game UI software than Valve (or trying, at least) so it can go on numerous device types, and improving their support for third party publishing. It's the only way they can REMOTELY hope to make their money back from their spending spree.

I have had this on Switch for a while and, sadly, it just doesn't live up to the promise of the concept in terms of gameplay.

It's just not very deep and the tower defense mechanics are poorly implemented/thought out.

I LOVE the concept (big sucker for videogames where you play as a toy), love tower defense games, love shooters... thought it'd be right up my alley. But, at least last I played it, it was just not up to snuff. It LOOKS the part, but it in no way holds its own on the gameplay side of things.

Okami was, unknowingly at the time, the first Zelda-like game I ever played. And I ADORED it. I never went back and replayed it in fear of scuffing the rose tint on my glasses, but I still hold it in extremely high regard (even after playing plenty more Zelda-like titles).

I cannot WAIT to see how they update the game with modern gameplay elements and mechanics. I feel they could do some amazing stuff.

I've been surprised Farcry hasn't done anything with extraction elements or leaning into more survival-style gameplay sooner. Seems it'd be ripe for a "plane crash and then fend for yourself and build stuff" sort of gameplay loop.

Can't say I'm excited for a time limit, but I'll wait to see how it plays out.

I'm playing it now and am enjoying it. I like the tweaks it made to the formula. It's not revolutionary, but it's real solid. I'm enjoying it more than 3, that's for sure.

All I want from 4 (all of I've wanted since 2), is for a Borderlands game to have a TRUE endgame. I never enjoy replaying story mode. Ever. Especially in such a large game.

They need to have a robust, dynamic, repeatable gameplay system/mechanic that gives it an endgame like Diablo, Division, Destiny, or other ARPGs. I would Borderlands games waaaaaaay longer if there was actually stuff to do after the credits rolled. I absolutely loathe that all they really do is give you New Game+.

Let us loose in the world, generate dynamic missions and world events, let us rerun missions/bosses, and create some unique stuff to do only in endgame. But, for the love of GOD, do not force us to replay the story repeatedly. It's so so boring.

IMO that's unacceptable nowadays for an online product. Simple as.

Best event of the year for reveals. Shame it had worthless awards slapped onto it.

As someone who only checked the announcements and didn't bother with the show, that was the best show of the year BY FAR. Those reveals outright WILD.

If they want people to care, they need to produce a show that doesn't feel like it's targeted purely to teen boys who have access to mommy's purse. Until then, it'll continue to feel more like a marketing stunt and not a legitimate rewards show.

The fact the abbreviation is"KO" is super cheeky.

I wish more games used toys as their basis. I loved that one wave shooter a few years back that used the idea (just wish it was better than it ended up being).

May buy this just to support the creative vision even though I don't like fighting games.

@Juvenlast This is actually my biggest critique of the game. It makes no sense.

They proved they can let you do it. It's not archaically hard coded or any some such nonsense.

I expect they want people to replay the game to try new builds but the fact of that matter is: people have lives. They have other games. Hard limits on a game forces all players to replay, and many very well may, but many (like myself) will instead DRASTICALLY reduce their potential engagement.

I simply will not replay a massive RPG. Especially those with big moral choices. I play the game, initially, how I would make choices. The "role play" element is me inserting myself into the game. That's the fun. To have ME exist within the game world. (I could never replay Mass Effect because I EARNED that story. I don't WANT to be any other version of Shepherd in that story.)

Forcing me to replay to try a different build won't happen. I don't want to re-experience the story because I'd again want to make choices AS ME. I, for one, don't want to essentially "act" or role play as a completely different person. That's not fun to me (I know for some it is).

So if I can't easily respec, I play it once and never mess around with anything else. If I can respec, I'd be making my own fun trying new things, replaying what I can (depending on the game), etc. THAT is what boosts my engagement.

And what irks me is that it's a simple fix and DOES NOT impact anyone who does want to replay a game from beginning to end in order to respec/re-experience it. They can still choose to do that if respec was made easier/allowed infinitely. Players can FORCE that guard rail upon themselves; no one is stopping them.from making a new save. But if the option to respec indefinitely is not available, it cannot be REMOVED by players who want to play the way I (and it seems you) want.

It makes no logical sense to me. At all.

I'm having more fun with it than I did with Overwatch. And yes, I understand its general gameplay is pretty much copy-pasted. But it's amazing what happens when I give a ***** and/or know things about the characters I'm playing as. I don't need to watch a 3 minute cinematic every 4 months to get drip-fed lore.

Plus, despite characters and elements being similar, it has successfully mixed and matched so many elements of so many characters that VERY few are truly 1:1 clones. They all have their own flavor.

Also... it's fun.

The first one was such a gem. Played it on Gamepass way back when. Always gave me lighthearted Metroidvania/Ratchet & Clank vibes.

Not sure how I feel about the third person perspective switch, as I really liked the immersion of the first person camera. But if the game is as satisfying to work through, I'll keep my eye on it.

@Nepp67 That's the first big AAA game I am aware of to do so. Doesn't mean smaller games didn't do it first, though.

@Xbox_Dashboard HD2 did not lead the way with this practice, as others have noted.

@get2sammyb Delta Force is also dropping on PC this week, too. That's looking to be a F2P Battlefield/COD alternative.

The market is SATURATED with juggernauts AND better made games than Xdefiant ever was. Plain and simple.

Its netcode and lack of content (and awful cosmetic content) doomed it. Simple as.

Why the hell would they only make these things available for a limited time? That's moronic.

How is early December (the 6th, specifically) so stacked this year?

Say what you will about your personal tastes, but the fact POE2, Marvel Rivals, and the Fortnite OG update/mode all launching on the same day is pretty wild to me for this time of year.

I laid this out in an article the other day, but this is what I think Sony should do for the PS6:

PS6 = standard console upgrade, all the new bells and whistles, etc.

PSMobile (for lack of a better name) = Switch/Steamdeck-like handheld with PS5-levels of power, but built for PS6 games; able to be docked to a TV as-is

PSMobile eGPU = an add-on/upsell dock with an eGPU that supercharges a docked PSMobile and brings it to (or near) standard PS6 levels of capability, with the power discrepancy - if any - between the PSM+eGPU and the PS6 akin to the difference between a PS5 and a PS5 Pro, respectively

This would let them fight competitors on multiple fronts and give consumers more options than ever before.

It surprises me sports fans still support these releases. If any genre deserves to shift to F2P, it's sports game. Paying wholesale for a year's access when most annual updates are roster changes and minor gameplay tweaks? Just seems absurd nowadays when the F2P model has proven itself.

You get more meaningful tweaks after 3-4 months of a Fortnite season than you do between most AAA-priced sports titles YOY and those happen 3-4 times a year, not once.

Plus, they're generally laden with tons of add-ons and DLC anyhow... To me, they're some of the least consumer-friendly titles on the market from a business/value perspective.

I know they're probably a bit controversial, but I personally really like the character designs they've come up with for this game. I think a lot of them are interesting interpretations, like this.

Makes me wish MCU Hawkeye was made into more of a badass that leaned into the Ronin persona. Seeing him use swords along with his bow could have made for some cool action sequences.

@DonJorginho It blows my mind that, to fight the narrative/stereotype that Ubisoft games aren't worth buying at launch, they release a major AAA tentpole release in such a busted state that they then spend months overhauling entire underlying systems, resulting in what will (good or bad) feel like a totally different game.

While I will of course commend them for addressing player concerns, the fact they need to perform such a massive systems overhaul so far after release is a testament to just how true that narrative is. Ubisoft games are not worth buying for full price at launch. Full stop. Not only are they less stable, but they could be completely different games mere months after release (let alone cheaper).

If they would just give their dev teams time to cook instead of pushing for specific release dates, they'd probably save boat loads of money in the end AND make more. Right now, there's a bit of a stink on Outlaws (not one of my Star Wars-loving friends even remembers it came out, let alone bought it) that may have been avoided had they simply waited and addressed issues like this before release.

They make a mockery of themselves and then wonder why consumers aren't buying their titles. They're insane.

@tameshiyaku I could see them doing that.

Make a core console the way they always do (PS6). Make a PS6 Mobile unit, as I described (maybe running PS6 games at PS5 tech standards). Then also make an eGPU-powered dock to push the PSM to near-PS6 levels of performance (a gap comparable to, say, PS5 vs PS5 Pro).

It'd be like their ecosystem supported 3 different ways of enjoying PS6 titles: console, handheld w standard dock, handheld + eGPU dock that sort of bridges that gap.

You want full PS6 experience? Buy the console. You want PS6 titles on the go? Buy the PSM. You want the convenience of the PSM but also want the "full/nearly full" PS6 performance for your PSM? Buy the eGPU unit, no console required.

That'd be dope as hell.

If Sony can make a Steamdeck-like system and bring it in around $400-500, I think with their build quality and hardware design, it could truly compete. Even with the "limited" library of their ecosystem compared to PC, it'd make a whole lot of sense.

Make a PS6. All the bells and whistles it deserves. Of course.

But then also have a Steamdeck/Switch-like handheld that plays the same games, but scaled down (just like you get on other handhelds) and is able to be docked to a TV and act like a "lesser" version of the main console. They laid the groundwork for this sort of thing over the years with PSP, PSTV, their streaming acquisitions... Give your consumers a choice of full at-home gaming with all your 8k textures and top tier frame rates etc., but also give them a mobile option for people who want that on the go convenience. Anyone who wants both, have at it, of course.

Some may balk at that idea, but no one can deny the sales success of the Switch, the huge boon to PC gaming that the Steamdeck and its competitors are leading, nor the sales success of the Xbox Series S (compared to its X counterpart). Consumers are outright screaming that "best in show" graphics aren't the end all be all many claimed over the years. Sony should embrace that and cater to that portion of the market with a "lesser" system, but do so in a way that opens up their ability to compete more broadly. Having a two prong strategy would let them compete on multiple fronts and make a real case for staying within the PS ecosystem.

As someone who likes my Switch, my PC, and my PS5 for different reasons, it's not out of the question that I try and scale down on ecosystems/storefronts I'm buying into over the coming years (just like I ditched Xbox at the beginning of this generation after 3 hardware generations of support). Consolidating into/under Sony is an argument they stand to make more appealing to someone like me. And they should be making it. This sort of strategy could do that for them.

My gut tells me they'll ***** it up, though, and overcharge simply because they think they can. And it'll ruin the effort more or less. Their hubris is legendary.

I don't understand why big AAA-producing studios don't take a page out of the playbook of competitors (especially smaller ones) and do stuff like release a Battlefield game in Early Access. Put it out there for a year+ to work with players and their feedback and craft something that truly hits a mark.

I mean, Delta Force is out in beta/alpha form, trying to eat Battlefield's lunch and may very well launch in a better state than the last few Battlefield titles because of it.

The hubris some of these developers have is beyond me. It's like they truly believe they know better than the people they're trying to woo to buy their game and then they get surprised when they release stuff that players don't like or even want.

@PuppetMaster So not at all what I'm talking about. Right.

@DonJorginho Shut the thread down. This is it. This is the entire argument.

If a full/"base" game is required to play, then it's not a game. It is DLC and should be judged as such. Is a Helldiver Warbond or Fortnite Battlepass eligible by their logic?

Games should be judged against games. DLC should be judged against DLC, so make a category for it.

If they want them to compete head on, then make some sort of "Best Gaming Experience" category and let them go head to head that way. But by default - and definition - DLC is NOT a game. Therefore it shouldn't be eligible for GOTY. Period.

Sony really needs to up its merchandise game. The fact they don't have a reliable manufacturing partner pumping out quality figures and toys for their brands has always been a huge gaping hole in their brand strategy, imo.

Where is a decently-priced Marvel Legends-like line of Playstation favorites for new and classic IPs?

I find it disingenuous you're asking this question while framing it using the sales of a game that, while surely a smaller budget game, didn't review all too well in a crowded market.

I think what the general market always wants is, above all else: good games. I'm sorry, but I rarely have the time, money, or patience to put up with a 6-7/10 game, unless it's dirt cheap and I buy it on a complete whim. (Or because it's very niche and that niche happens to be in my personal sweet spot.)

I think there's a HUGE opportunity for A-AA titles (and even "lesser ones!) IF the expectations are in check. Banishers looked fine. It did not look full-price fine to me, though. So I'm waiting on a sale. Simple as.

I'm a frugal shopper. I'm not going to spend $70 (or whatever full price is) on damn near anything. Ever. If a company wants that of me, they better be providing me extraordinary value for my money.

In regards specifically to this hobby, the issue is that while I'd certainly love to play the next big AAA game every time one drops, I simply know I don't have to because my backlog is a mile long (and growing) and I can grab loads of great stuff on sale ages after release.

A $70 AAA blockbuster doesn't compete 1:1 with everything else. It competes 1:5-10+ sometimes because of how many things I can grab on sale. No one game has ever been better than 5+ games, collectively. My tastes are too broad for that.

The tallneck already adorns the top of my bookshelf. I may need to get this just to add some more machines to the space, despite the fact I don't think these are as well-designed as the tallneck is. I'm guessing they're dumbing some of the designs down to keep the prices reasonable, which will be important if they truly try to broaden the Horizon lineup.

The disparity between the tone of the game I want to play and the visual gibberish COD promotes actively got me to give up on the series. They tricked me with the MW2 hype/reviews being decent, but I got annoyed by this visual attack (amongst other issues) and I'm simply done with the series for good.

If I want to play a military shooter, I don't want aaaaaaaaaaaany of that stuff in my game. None of it. It's not cool. It's not funny. It's all like a massive middle finger to the tone and atmosphere of the game. It's like skins are designed for people who want to visually troll others. And that's just not a community I need to partake in.