RoomWithaMoose

@LogicStrikesAgain No one is saying "bashing" besides you. This article not being narrowly defined as bashing by you doesn't make it fair. If you agree the article isn't impartial you're halfway to agreeing with @Briarback that Sammy is, indeed, implying things.

I don't want to break down the whole article again. But all my examples are basically moments where the author could've chosen to not stoke fanboy wars, but did anyway. It's all done at Microsoft's expense, and randomly goes out of its way to absolve PlayStation. Sammy writing one nice thing about Game Pass doesn't mean the rest of the article isn't bashing.

@LogicStrikesAgain I mean, if your claim is that this is impartial reporting of a thing someone in the industry said, it's not

The title references 'tension' without context, already disparaging Game Pass. Almost like we're pushing an agenda that Game Pass is bad, or something.

The first paragraph builds up the quote's ethos for no real reason, while the second employs a very pointed "consequences" to — again — establish that Microsoft is bad.

Instead of fairly digesting what the quote says (that Game Pass causes an imbalance in compensation for service providers and content creators. Which one might expound means the model is fine, its monetization and revenue distribution just needs to be rethought), we immediately double down on the anti-Game Pass narrative with the most sensationalist phrase from Shawn.

A whole paragraph dedicated to saying Microsoft is full of s***. Further pushing the narrative that Game Pass is bad.

A tangent about how daddy Sony is better than Game Pass. Which ignores that PS+ is just a worse (for the consumer) version of Game Pass, and this quote doesn't explicitly say Game Pass Day 1 — the only real difference between the services — is the cause of tension.

And we end with an editorialized summary of the topic. Which is fine, but anything but impartial.

You know, I don't really give a s*** about bias in gaming media. I mean, this is literally a PlayStation site; it's not like the bias is clandestine. And gaming is so low-stakes, it really doesn't matter regardless. But to not see the bias in articles like these is just incorrect.

The comments in these anti-Game Pass articles are always fascinating — and, by extension, the sentiment often expressed within the article itself.

First is the seeming denial that Playstation Plus is essentially the exact same as Game Pass. Sure, Sony doesn't put their games on there Day 1 — so what? It still 'devalues' its catalog of games, and hosts several 3rd-party games Day 1. If you think Game Pass is a problem, you have to admit PS+ represents the exact same problem: a service that lessens sales revenue and endangers the well-being of developers.

And it's always assumed Game Pass is bad for business. Why? Well Microsoft's closures prove the Day 1 model doesn't work, no? Not like Playstation has closed any studios in the last decade of not devaluing their software. Not like Microsoft and Sony's studio closures have more to do with their excessive spending than anything. Game Pass' effect on software sales is fairly difficult to quantitate. But I've a hunch that Microsoft's p***-poor hardware sales, weak-a** marketing, and inability to produce universally praised games may have more to do with sales struggles than offering a quality subscription service. Just think of it this way: how many people that sub would've bought Redfall if it weren't offered on the service? Probably, like...none, huh?

Can a studio sustain itself by releasing on Game Pass? I dunno. Well, I mean Microsoft technically is, so the answer is actually yes. Wasn't Vampire Survivors Game Pass Day 1? And several developers have come out and said Game Pass has worked out wonderfully for them. So it CAN work. And it can fail a game. And it's definitely always Game Pass' fault, and not just a lack of mass appeal. Because when Hi-Fi Rush came out on PS5, I'm pretty sure it broke sales records... Wait, maybe an esoteric game given practically zero marketing just wasn't going to set the world on fire — unfortunately. I think its fair to call Hi-Fi Rush's failure Microsoft's failure. Game Pass', though? More people probably played the game than otherwise would have; though if it had a positive or negative affect on sales is beyond my understanding.

This is all just a directionless rant. I just don't get why we're trying to position Game Pass as a blight upon gaming. It's just a service — not terribly different from rental services of yore. It's like, I know we like to pretend Netflix killed the film industry. Except it didn't. Sure, all the streaming services put out soulless content at obnoxious rates with the intent of pushing their subs. But...in the same way that a game's failure is possible regardless of being on Game Pass, movie theaters have been polluted by soulless c*** for a century now. A change in delivery didn't do much to alter content provided nor content engaged with. There are always successes and failures, no matter the media climate. If K-Pop Demon Hunters can become a phenomenon, and presumably make some company a s***ton of money, I don't much see why a Game Pass Day 1 game can't do the same. Unless Game Pass itself just doesn't have enough subs to carry that level of influence. In which case, there should be a vast pool of non-subs to buy software; hence, there wouldn't be a notable epidemic of cannibalizing sales in the first place. And this whole topic is just...nothing.

Hey, wasn't Black Ops 6 Game Pass Day 1? Genuine question: did that notably change its sales?

@lindos Yeah, check back then. I might've even played an hour of Silksong at that point.

There's just too many games. I've probably beaten shy of 200 games since Hollow Knight. And now my gametime is dwindling by the year due to life. I don't expect to even start HK for another couple years at least.

Nah. Only ever played the first for an hour. Seemed good, but not as good as the Internet insists.

Still will play Silksong eventually. Just not until after I beat the first.

I still have a hard time getting excited for this when I'd rather see Insomniac do literally anything else.

If the game's good, I'll definitely play it. But the only other Marvel game I wanna see out of Insomniac for the next 10 years is Venom. And that's only because I love Venom. Not like that's gonna happen, though.

I think everyone on EVERY online forum platform (including small ones, like PushSquare) should remember they represent a vocal minority.

This should've been Microsoft's biggest swing since Halo Infinite. Instead, it's a reminder of how bad they are at nurturing IPs

While I don't necessarily think it wrong for Microsoft to want to retain what IPs they own, if they're not going to do anything with it — or any of their notable IP, for that matter — they might as well sell them off and save a few jobs.

This is stupid, but I'd be willing to pay $200 for a controller with interactive facial expressions. Ooh, and if it makes little Astro Bot sounds to match.

I'm just saying, Sony.

If it's good, why not. 5 years ago, I wouldn't have thought I'd watch a Barbie movie. Yet I did, and it was pretty good.

Certainly can't be worse than that Skibidi thing Hollywood is cooking up.

@Almost_Ghostly No. That means I think Crossworlds is worse than Transformed. Which just implies I think Transformed is better than Crossworlds.

I said it my way instead of your way because Crossworlds was the subject, so saying 'it's worse than something' puts more emphasis on the 'it' than saying 'something is better than it.' Not that...it really matters at all either way.

My syntax was mirrored by the following sentence about Mario Kart (essentially I said, 'Crossworlds is worse than most Mario Karts, for that matter). So you not interpreting my comment as saying I think BOTH Transformed and most Mario Karts are bad says more about your presumption than my diction.

Rayman 2 remake, and a new 3D adventure. Bonus points if we get Mario + Rayman.

@Almost_Ghostly I didn't say that, though. So, uhh, yay for me — I guess.

Game was fun enough. For some reason, YouTube seems to be losing its s*** about the game. Which is weird to me, since I'd still call it worse than Racing Transformed. And most Mario Karts, for that matter — but this is the year the Internet decided to hate Mario Kart, or something.

But still, fun enough. Better than expected, even. I'll be sure to buy it next year, on one of SEGA's end of honeymoon sales.

@rjejr Oh... Well, this isn't the outcome I was expecting.

Yeah, I didn't even bother downloading the Switch beta; I assumed it would look horrid. Gonna try it on PS5 tonight, though I'd prefer to buy the Switch 2 version if the game's any good. Well, after the 1-year SEGA 50% off sale, anyway. Didn't really feel like I needed Mario Kart AND Sonic Racing AND Air Ride all in a 6-month period. And I felt Sonic was the runt of the litter.

And yeah, give World another try. To really take in its visuals, just lose yourself in free roam. Take it slow, spin the camera around, watch the dynamic weather. I think dunky's video on it really sold the free roam on vibes alone.
https://youtu.be/U7ftAzBcX5Y?si=-F7W37Q9NgFa_opu

@rjejr "Oh sure, it looks better. But it doesn't look BETTER."

What are you even talking about my guy? Are you saying MKW has the same character models, textures, animations, and SFX as Wii, just in 4k? I've played countless hours of Wii, 8, and have been playing World. World looks notably better than 8, which looks leagues better than Wii. Wii didn't even look that good for a Wii game, aside from some nice art direction in places. I kinda feel like you're just mistaking Mario Kart's color palette for weak fidelity, as it is low contrast.

And though I haven't played much Speedstorm, I wouldn't say what I've seen looked better than World. I'll get back to you on Sonic after this weekend.

While I'm excited for this, I think Arkham fans will be surprised by how shallow its gameplay loop is with Tt's level design, and LEGO fans will be disappointed in another title moving further away from what made those games charming.

@rjejr "MKW still looks like MK Wii for the most part."

Wot? I think someone forgot what Mario Kart Wii looks like.

@Fiendish-Beaver I know you weren't suggesting everyone would have such a setting on. But that doesn't really change anything I said.

My primary argument against this discourse is that, if people want a realistic military shooter, they've come to the wrong place. Getting rid of a few silly skins that the average player sees maybe once every 5 matches doesn't change that.

@AhmadSumadi Yeah, I don't understand why people suddenly think the glowy-gun, 360-no scope game is some sacred bastion of grit.

Even seeing people criticize Blops7's trailer because "zombies and robots are at odds with the series' identity." Like, have y'all not been aware of Call of Duty since CoD 3? This IS its identity.

Hmm, methinks this is actually...a BAD thing. Just shows the wrapped priorities of people when they frame the removal of a common franchise feature as being pro-consumer.

I fully expect an outcry in the opposite direction when the game launches and millions realize they can't use their go-to, 'paid real money for' Warzone drip.

@Fiendish-Beaver Because that's a bad idea that devalues costumes, stifles expression, and wouldn't even stop the Internet from complaining. It wouldn't even matter that you can still see your costume, since this is a 1st-person game.

@PuppetMaster My second comment was far less aggressive, and even expressed humility.

Yotei is a sequel to a highly derivative game. Battlefield 6 is billed as a direct successor to a 10+ year old game, that itself was a direct follow-up to another game, that itself was highly derivative of the Modern Warfare series — also all of them are a part of a nearly-20 entry franchise. Borderlands has almost 10 entries in 20 years, and most people got tired of its schtick after 2. All these games are also sequels, which people can see as tired per se.

I think it's fair to call me out for sounding needlessly bitter. But the logic I used was fine.

@PuppetMaster I wouldn't say that my ass implication constitutes aggression.

Just pointing out that the picks you excluded can easily be included. Moreso if you're bemoaning a lack of diversity.

Feel how you want to feel. I just thought that comment was logically inconsistent and felt the need to point it out.

...Hmm, maybe you have a point at the end there.

@PuppetMaster Someone could argue Yotei, BF, and Borderlands are sad inclusions, too. I think it's better to just not judge the purchase decisions of others. I've done it before, too; it's an easy way to make an ass out of yourself

@PegasusActual93 Never said it had to be 4v1. Never said it had to be defenseless humans.

How come we haven't gotten a Godzilla asymmetric multiplayer game?

@ThroughTheIris56 Like I said, that's debatable.

@Psofo Well, when a defense of the tariffs was that, certainly, companies would take the brunt of the expenses, I think it's still important to call attention to the tariffs first and foremost.

@zeppray57 I wonder why...

@ThroughTheIris56 That's debatable. I've seen CoD as 'silly bro game' since 2008.

I'll concede that the vibe now is different from the vibe then. But I wouldn't say it's sillier.

@REALAIS Well that's the beautiful thing. In the long-term, we're giving China a grand opportunity to become a global economic force as we encourage our closest economic allies to distance themselves from us, we're adding to the debt/housing crisis by making basic products more expensive, and my state still won't see any benefit because any possible 'American-made' factories that might come out of this will certainly be made in other states (possibly ones where corporations can easily funnel legal immigrants to work them for less pay while threatening deportation if they don't play ball).

@SBBuds You keep saying "virtual." It's not really important, but kinda weird.

I don't really care about getting deep into the semantics of it. But that dog whistle implies there's some performative moral high ground. This guy is literally just saying the skins are meant to appeal to a wide demographic. He's not questioning the ethics of opposing these skins, or anything.

You're not wrong about the money. You're wrong that the money somehow contradicts anything this guy said.

@Americansamurai1 Harris + 3rd-parties = 50.2%.

Their math isn't wrong, you're just presumptuous and ignorant.

@Ultimapunch Ooh! Sooo...so many.

As an American, I can confirm neither my state nor myself personally has yet to see any benefit from these asinine tariffs. Which might be surprising if literally anyone that bothered to research this didn't spend all of last year telling half of America this would happen.

@SBBuds I'm 98% sure that's not what virtue signaling is, nor is virtue signaling applicable to a game developer talking about mass appeal.

I'm not saying the intent isn't making money — I literally said it was, actually. But everything every company does is to make money, so it's often not a very valid criticism unless it has to do with corruption or actively anti-consumer practices.

@MFTWrecks The other thing lost in this discourse is that CoD has been mostly mediocre with a few high points since, like, MW2 (not the remake). It's been generic since arguably earlier than that, and has been tonally disjointed since Blops2.

Yet it's still been the best selling game almost every year for 15 years. The series will be fine, despite Beavis and Butthead. Even if Blops7 is a commercial misstep (which, for CoD, still means it was one of the best selling games of the year), marketing will just pitch next year's as a 'return to form,' and everybody will forget it supposedly jumped the shark the year prior. This has happened, like, 5 times already. It's kinda like what's literally happening with Battlefield right now.

@SBBuds Don't see how those goals are mutually exclusive. They want to give every player a skin that represents their wants and sensibilities for the purposes of maximizing profits.

I think the big thing lost in this discourse is that there are definitely people who like these skins. If there weren't, no one would be buying them, and they wouldn't be making them.

The only thing more ridiculous than Minaj in a warzone is the Internet's abrupt condemnation of a few silly skins in a notoriously silly multiplayer environment.

@NathanKang Bubsy 4D and...wait, what's the second one?

Exclamation mark tie?

@rjejr If I remember correctly from my old X-Play/GameInformer days, every FMA game was s***. So might as well pretend those don't exist and continue hoping for a FMA game.

Don't really know what you would do with it, though... It would work as a Musou, but that's the most boringly competent type of game you can make out of an anime. Maybe a more traditional hack-'n-slash with super open-ended combat based around an alchemy system, which requires resource management and encourages experimentation? Or an open-world where most traversal is done by transmutating things into vehicles?

Does every CoD article on PushSquare have to be about Battlefield now?

...Are we just going to ignore CoD always releases in November to imply Battlefield might have anything to do with this one releasing in November?

@Dimey Not the first CoD without single player. And, if anything, MW3 was kinda already the death of modern CoD single player. Well, until it came back the next year.

Kinda like how next year's CoD, hopefully not developed by an endlessly crunching Treyarch, will likely have a single player campaign.

@DuncanMcleod That's, like, half of the Blops games...

@Marquez What if the broken clock is on a jet moving continuously with the rotation of the Earth?

See? TAPS FOREHEAD These are the real questions.