“as possible” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that statement.

I actually enjoyed the game quite a bit, but then BG3 and Starfield released and I just haven’t come back to it.

I did feel like the first season stuff was a little bare, so that didn’t help things.

Support real journalism.

Who is doing that?

deleted by creator

Can anyone confirm that my understanding of the source article is correct?

The “Windows 12 may require a subscription” is coming from the fact that the word “Subscription” exists in a Windows config file somewhere?

That seems like a pretty big leap to me. Not that I don’t think it’s impossible that Microsoft would do this, but the evidence here seems thin to say the least.

The competition should be about having the best platform, not exclusive content.

Those both sound like competition to me. What you are really asking for is “I want things to be cheaper” which is a separate and sometimes related issue to competition, but separate nonetheless.

The path to lower prices the way you want would be government-mandated price controls on the industry.

Only downside imo is that the actual storyline is short, like just a few hours.

People tend to understate how short the campaign is. Phrases like “it never gets old” are used, but it’s true because, as you mentioned, the campaign is one of the shortest you’ll find in anything close to a AAA game.

Edit: Not to say it’s not a great game, because I think it is. But it’s a great game that you’ll finish in potentially a single sitting.

This post implies that Sony has more trust is ridiculous. They refuse to secure their online services, leading to recurring hacks. There was whole rootkit fiasco which was crazy bad.

They defended the ridiculous launch prices of the PS3 by saying that they think consumers should just work more hours to afford one.

They still do shit things like hide basic features like cloud saves behind a paywall. That have no problem paying for exclusive games and exclusive content and if they had the money MS had they would do the same thing MS is doing.

I’m unsure of these “premium” consumers caring about proprietary vs non-proprietary storage. Or caring about VR in the context of consoles instead of PCs. Or that the charger stand being a concern when the PS5 looks like it does.

The X falls short of the PS5 in almost every category that a premium consumer cares about…

What are the other categories aside from exclusives?

Also large AAA budgets and early access are now a good thing as well. Funny how it must took one game to turn those from negatives to positives.

The term “activist investor” exists for a reason. And nothing from that email suggests that MS was looking to “tank” Nintendo in some nefarious plot.

In short, it could be argued that Microsoft worked with investors to tank Nintendo so they could buy it. That’s a huge deal and will probably result in a shitstorm.

I mean, Nintendo selling shares of their company is a specific decision they have made. Do you think they are confused that people other than Nintendo employees are buying these shares? Or that the investors would have an agenda other than just being “Nintendo fans”?

Those two are surely pretty valuable. But I doubt they are, on their own, billions of dollars a year valuable.

Are you sure it was the FTC and not Microsoft that posted the materials incorrectly?

https://twitter.com/cecianasta/status/1704155135662821763

Heck, Sony might be more realistic by comparison, at least their gaming/console parts!

I mean, judging from the quotes, even MS considered it pretty unlikely back when the email is sent.

“Electronic or appliance product” or “product” does not include any of the following:
(i) Equipment or repair parts as defined in Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 22900) of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code.
(ii) A product or component of an “alarm system” as defined in subdivision © of Section 7590.1 of the Business and Professions Code, including a fire protection system, as defined in the California Fire Code.
(iii) A video game console.

Funny seeing such a specific exclusion being made here.

There’s literally no reason the graphics wizards at id couldn’t make a Bethesda branch of the engine that uses similar or identical workflows to Creation but also employs all the best practices for a modern open world engine.

It’s hard to take your opinion seriously with this kind of statement. It has some real “It’s 2023, where is my flying car?” energy.

At the end of the day, it’s a lot easier to write a wishlist of game engine features than it is to actually develop said engine.

I don’t see why a specific studio gets a pass for story criticisms just because they are notorious for being lacking.

That top comment is ridiculous.

The article clearly outlines where people are paying for this content. And the idea that “no one is allowed to talk about this topic while human trafficking exists” is nonsense.

People need to learn to read before commenting on an article. The article isn’t that long. Maybe spend more time actually fighting human trafficking than virtue signaling on social media if it’s the only topic you feel is important.