TotalBiscuit says Microsoft won E3
- Thread starter CaitSeith
- Start date
In a way, yeah. It's more fun and awesome, it feels nice to be pandered to. But in another way it's sort of like "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss." And considering that we have no idea how representative the game stuff we see is of the final product one can wonder; what are we really seeing? Lest we forget Colonial Marines.Pyrian said:
I should clarify that I don't find being apathetic about something because "that's just the way things are" is a good response to an ongoing issue. I'll admit, I didn't even bother watching his Overwatch video related to micro-transactions, because I figured it would just boil down to the same thing he's said every other time, which is that he has no issues with micro-transactions so long as they don't allow the player to buy power. And while I acknowledge that there are plenty of people who will agree with him about that, I don't personally find that to be good enough when it comes to non-free-to-play games.Cowabungaa said:
Well, I too hope that graphical options will come to console games, especially if they're going to be doing this (I don't hold out too much hope because how many games right now even allow you to customize your controls?). On this point I don't really have any opinion about what he's said, other than maybe that engaging in the whole E3 hype "winning" thing in the first place is probably unnecessary, because giving either Sony or Microsoft too much credit simply for what they said/showed is more than they deserve until we actually get what they said/showed.
I can't remember exact links anymore, sorry, but it was a pretty common recurring topic for him in the Co-Optional Podcast at least in the time that I watched it, which was less than five years ago (I only really stopped about one year ago or so).
Again, I understand why he has chosen to hold this grudge, and he's perfectly entitled to it. He's absolutely not required to cover any game that he doesn't want to cover, for whatever reason he likes. That doesn't mean he isn't actively denying his viewers information, because whether he likes it or not or whether he even recognizes it, there are people who get most of their initial information about PC games directly from him because he is (as he has himself noted many times in the past) one of the most successful PC-centric critics on the internet.
Perhaps a less inflammatory way of putting it would be to say that he's not pro-consumer for me. I'm sure he sticks up for all the things that other people want, and that's cool, and it's why you should find multiple different critics and reviewers to follow anyway, because any one person is never really going to be good enough to cover everything. The way he says he's pro-consumer just really hits a nerve for me, because he doesn't seem to care about certain things that I, as a consumer, care very deeply about.
Well that says a lot then, because his argument is definitely a lot more complex and multi-sided. He's definitely not apathetic about it at all either, he's vehemently against it. You should've seen his reaction when Titanfall 2 was presented with the promise of a deeper progression system. So the microtransaction discussion that takes place in a certain context, and acknowledging that context isn't the same as being apathetic about it. It's simply having certain premises.shrekfan246 said:
Maybe it's worth it to give his Overwatch video a watch then, and then Jim Sterling's indirect reaction after that They both give quite interesting perspectives on the whole micro-transaction affair.
That I can't disagree with. I wonder, what do you care deeply about as a consumer then?
I would say it's a combination of two things. The fact that he has thousands of dollars to throw around nowadays is certainly a factor and an internal bias that's hard for him to purposely ignore, but with the Overwatch matter for him it was a matter of choice. He's willing to budge on the "no microtransactions in premium games as a matter of principle" not because he's rich but because he genuinely doesn't have the time. Granted, any one of us could actually have less time than him because we just don't know; unfortunately he does know and he knows that he likes having the option to just buy boxes instead of grinding away for them. The fact that the boxes in that game are all cosmetic and don't affect the gameplay balance isn't a point I'm sure I'm on board with yet, but in his case I can see how he's gained additional perspective that "consumer" isn't just someone trying to spend as little as possible and has a lot of time to work around those payments, and that having choice is paramount.shrekfan246 said:
I doubt it, but damn I hope so. AAA games returning to being developed for PC as the primary device, fuck yeah!Adam Jensen said:
Who does then?shrekfan246 said:
As long as it's reserved for cosmetics only I honestly don't see the problem.shrekfan246 said:
Though I do I think the better solution would be to make it a really impossible/hard challenge that you can opt out of if you pay.
Nobody but shareholders won E3, now settle down and let's be very realistic. Think about this, what was the show for? What fuels it? What is the flow of money to where?
Windows 10 and pro-consumer don't belong in the same language, let alone the same sentence.
Victory goes to Sony for making me scream like a girl and scaring the neighbor walking down the street, making them wonder if I was being attacked.
I was. By HYPE.
Victory goes to Sony for making me scream like a girl and scaring the neighbor walking down the street, making them wonder if I was being attacked.
I was. By HYPE.
Maybe his position has grown a bit more nuanced in the past year since the last time I heard him wax on about them, but honestly I'm kind of just tired of hearing people defend corporate greed in the first place. To use Jim as an example, it's like the way he says that if you think a developer or publisher hasn't designed their micro-transaction-filled game to specifically try and weasel money out of customers, then you're, at best, naive.Cowabungaa said:
I'll throw this in here too because it's relevant.DrunkOnEstus said:
The time vs. money argument is one I have trouble swallowing specifically for the reason stated above: Games with microtransactions that allow you to buy your way to progress are designed with the intention of making the grind so arduous that you feel like you need to buy something because, well, you won't have the time to do it by simply playing the game. "Progress" in this instance doesn't necessarily mean equipment or even money/experience, but rather whatever sort of meta-progression system the game might contain that causes its player to feel like they should continue playing for some other reason than the simple gameplay loop.
It's a sad fact that particularly as people get older, they're going to have less time for games, and with more and more games coming out every day, I can understand why someone who's job it is to cover games might feel like they can't invest the time into one particular game long enough to unlock the things they want to unlock. That's where my previously-mentioned state of apathy comes into play. Through repetition and increased use, the push-back against something that was initially objectionable becomes worn down, until eventually it's just standard operating procedure. We saw it happen with pre-orders and DLC, then the rise of free-to-play games with microtransactions, which has now led to them leaping into premium games along with aforementioned pre-orders and DLC (and pre-order DLC). And as with free-to-play games, the actual fundamental design layer of a premium game gets slightly altered whenever it contains microtransactions. Remember the backlash Diablo III had? How Blizzard claimed that the auction house hadn't impacted the itemization in the game at all, and how that turned out to be a complete lie because the itemization in the game on release was absolute pants and the only way to get decent equipment was through buying it on one of the two auction houses? That's a particularly egregious example, but I'll apologize if my cynicism doesn't see more publishers trying to hamstring players with things like that if these practices become more and more accepted.
It isn't even necessarily that people aren't still against the idea, it's that they're just so used to it that they don't continue to actively oppose it in certain circumstances. It becomes acceptable under certain instances, which then leads to publishers trying to push even further, which leads to it becoming more acceptable in more circumstances.
Above just about anything else, that the consumer be treated with respect.Cowabungaa said:
As an example, I respect CD Projekt RED because I feel like they respect their customers. Not only just with their digital store, but also with the way they handle their games. The Witcher series has been heavily supported post-release for all three titles, and any DLC that wasn't significant content was provided to buyers for free, while significant content has been sold as expansion packs. They push pre-orders too, but unfortunately at this point I'm not really sure what we can do about that other than to try urging as many people to not pre-order as possible (which thankfully most critics I follow already do).
I view most of the things that publishers do as being predatory business practices, which are meant first and foremost to get money out of the consumer. That's the reason for the hype machine, that's the reason for games to have bits and pieces added on after release as DLC (or, in the worst cases, at release) and then compiled and re-released later as "complete" editions, that's the reason pre-order culture became a thing in the first place. It's the reason annual releases became a thing for the highest-selling franchises, it's the reason cosmetics are sold rather than unlocked, it's the reason games will put characters behind paywalls, it's the reason for Season Passes (in fact, they get a bonus point here for getting consumers to pre-order DLC). Then there are the practices which are meant to keep control away from the consumer, or always have tabs on them; this is where things like DRM come into play, and you get things like Ubisoft forcing everyone to use Uplay, and EA splitting away from Steam to start Origin, and Microsoft trying to get a death-grip on their own little section of the PC market once again.
To be clear, I don't believe that all of these things need to go away. DLC in particular can be quite welcome, and there's no real issue with having multiple digital storefronts, given that Steam sets game prices to whatever the publisher says (looking at you, Activision; Microsoft's store is questionable in my opinion because as I've mentioned they're essentially trying to make Games For Windows Live again, except even more locked down this time, and I don't think people should stand for that).
Well, Jim Sterling does probably the best job of it at the moment.Bombiz said:
Cosmetics aren't openly objectionable, as far as money-making practices are concerned. My issue with them is mostly old-school, and feeling that it's a bit tacky and wearying that things which used to be included in games as secrets are now sold at a premium.
Oh I don't disagree with you, at all in fact. We've seen this issue coming since Dead Space 3 swore up and down that you don't need to buy the boosters, but the fact is that it will always fuck with the game because the publisher isn't including microtransactions because they don't want you to buy them. Your argument with Diablo 3 is also totally on point. I also agree with Jim Sterling that the more people say "it's okay, it isn't a big deal, nearly every game does that now" the more shareholders smile because it means that their bullshit isn't bullshit anymore and protesting against it gets you shouted down by an unknowing army that helps make an anti-consumer environment the status quo that isn't worth fighting against anymore.shrekfan246 said:
My only point was that TB has literally gained the perspective of not having the time. Not because playing games is his job, and that he has to move on to the next ones without sticking around and grinding, but because he literally does not have the time. I'm sure you know why, and I'm sure it's become a powerful motivator as far as him appreciating the option to not spend time instead of cash because he knows for certain that he has more cash than time. He still uses his powerful platform to showcase tons of little-known indie games and is willing to cry foul when a publisher attempts nonsense, but despite our agreement on free-to-play elements in premium games I can't ignore the position he's in and I don't even want to imagine it. I'd like to think that if the Overwatch boxes dropped anything that affected the balance of the gameplay he'd be the first to cry foul even despite the unique position he's in.
That's one of his arguments I disagree with. I find it way too optimistic compared with the past times that consoles had improved versions or upgrade options that affected game performance. I don't think more than one or two games will have the graphics options menu that he described. IMO, precedents suggests that the games playable in both console versions will fall in one of three cases:Cowabungaa said:
1. The game won't take advantage of the new hardware (like most of the games compatible with New Nintendo 3DS)
2. The game will run very poorly in the old hardware (like Hyrule Warriors Legends on the old Nintendo 3DS)
3. The game will auto-detect the console hardware and adjust its graphics settings automatically (like a lot of games did with the Nintendo 64 memory expansion).
None of them gave more control to the consumer on the games graphic performance in the PC-like way he seemed to be picturing, and I highly doubt it won't be the same with project Scorpio.
YepFox12 said:
It's called capitalism. MS got the feedback that they weren't doing a good job so they are changing. Once finished this change, they won't bother until someone else competes with them. That's the very essence of capitalism.
At least they aren't like some other companies who were/are losing who lobby the government to change the rules to keep others out.
Now I'm all for MS bashing but pretending that Sony is better is plain false. I just looked up every game they've made and I've played none for at least a decade. Why? Because Sony is a control freak and pretty much only puts stuff on console. I am incredibly keen to play Bloodbourne but I'm never going to buy another console so I miss out.Adam Jensen said:
Also, if they were so unique or good I probably consider a PS4. But there nothing unique about any of them and nothing that would justify the cost of a console to me.
If Xbone is really as crap as everyone think it is, then they should get out of the console market. I've heard PS4 and its library is terrible too, so maybe they should get out too. I mean f a gun was put to my head and I had to buy one, it's probably going to be a Wii U because it has a greater range of decent games (mind you 'range' might reach 10, but it's still way better than the others).
Nah, I think it's a lot deeper then that. Sony, Valve, and Nintendo do some shady things too, but they're all infinitely more pro-consumer then Microsoft. Even when all were on top, and were in a position to flex their muscles, they were better then Microsoft. The reality is that they all have unique corporate cultures, and that Microsofts is the most domineering and anti-consumer.trunkage said:
Ya know, on second thought, the consumers are awful. Fuck the consumers.President Bagel said:
I can't say I agree with him, and not only because I hate 95% of everything that comes out of his mouth. I can hope their cross-platform thing works, but considering the previous Games for Windows Live, I am expecting it to be more of a shitty company store. Plus, the new consoles just seem like marginal upgrades at more of a cost, which is something I'm never a big fan of when it comes to consoles. Granted, I'm not sure what the Scorpio is, but if it's an entirely new generation, then the XBone had a damn short life span. As far as I can tell, their move seems less to help the consumer and more of an attempt to expand Microsoft's gaming market into the PC crowd because (if I'm not mistaken) the xbox one has had an overall disappointing performance. As a primarily PC gamer, I'm glad that I might have access to some games that would have otherwise been Xbone exclusive, but I'm still remaining far on the skeptical side here.