• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Is Gamepass hurting Microsoft showcases?

A subscription service needs a LOT of content to keep people subbed. It's almost a necessity for MS to have a consistent supply-chain. And, given the cost of AAA games and time, it's only logical they pad it out with indies, and AA.

For me, the issue is not Gamepass. It's the mis-management, their games are not lacking in funding/or time but that a lot of projects are in disarray due to poor management. Also, MS need to treat their flagship titles better and hold them to a higher standard. I don't need to write anything about Halo's reveal back in 2020, Sony would've never given the greenlight to showcase the game in that state. I was also under-whelmed by many aspects on their biggest game in showcase today i.e. Starfield. I expect a certain Bethseda jank given their engine, but it's kinda shocking how little of a leap they have made when it comes character models/animations. I was listening to XCast and they were positive on the show but also mentioned how the showcase lacked a "wow" factor when showing off a game. Starfield was perfect candidate for it and it fell short.

This is a random NPC in Horizon which gives you a certain side-quest. Like, how can this be a cross-gen game and be of this quality while main characters in MS flagship title which is next-gen only look like how we saw today? I feel that's a bigger problem, despite throwing ludicrous amounts of money, MS aren't seeing the same return on their investment as Sony is.

Not sure why the game being cross-gen really matters the difference between ps4 and 5 versions it pretty significant and clearly that screen is from the ps5 version.

But yeah simple answer is horizon lets you explore a tiny section of one planet but Starfield lets you explore a 1000. Never mind the sheer complexity and depth of rpg systems we can expect from the studio behind ES and Fallout. Horizon is a stunning game but its a pretty shallow experience overall and was designed to be that way, as evidenced by Guerllia devs being baffled and confused by the actual design of Elden Ring.

We all love cutting-edge AAA graphics in our games no doubt, but the trade off atm is clear. PS games are easily the best looking but also the most shallow with a clear focus on visuals first(thats not a defence of MS games, justa fact). If your take away after watching 15 minutes of Starfield was "graphics bad, game bad", thats more of a reflection of your taste rather than a reflection on the game itself. Personally looks like you have more player agency, customization and rpg elements available to you in the first few hours than you do in the entire game of Horizon. I love Horizon but its clearly 'babies first rpg', this is a REAL rpg, too busy creating a 1000 planets, fully custmizable ships and multiple story threads to worry about looking pretty for the boys.
 

lefty1117

Member
I think Gamepass makes in-person shows like E3 needed more than ever. The sheer quantity makes it perfect to exhibit over a few days. You could set up several conference halls just with Gamepass content. Jamming all of it into a 2 hour presentation or whatever it was, takes away from it - condenses the value and the impact is lost. Bring back Real E3!!
 
Last edited:

SlimySnake

Member
If you exclusively play AAA games you need to realise these gaming shows are not for you and never have been.
That's simply not true. Yes, there was the kinect era which was full of shovelware, but Microsoft and Sony shows have otherwise been AAA showcases. No one tunes in to watch indies on these shows.
 
Yes. Not only cause they're trying to only show games that are willing to go to GamePass, but also just the confusion alone. People thought League was going to console, then realized it was PC+Mobile, then it showed a graphic for like 2 seconds showing how some were PC and some were mobile. haha. It's a clusterfuck from the messaging alone and that's even with barfing up the words on the screen constantly.
 

icerock

Member
Yes, Sony has some really high quality devs. We all know that.
Pulling some random NPC screenshot to somehow give you a console war win is stupid.
You are comparing a Bethesda game, who arnt known for mind blowing graphics, to one of Sony's main studios known for graphics.
It's the scope of Starfield that is it's selling point. No Sony game has the same depth and scope as Starfield. People will spend hundreds of hours playing Starfield, compared to the 6 to 8 and done of most game campaigns.

Id is the equal of any Sony first party for graphics tech. Hellblade 2 looks as impressive as any Sony game shown thus far. Turn 10 and PG both have shown better graphics than PD.
Infinity Ward, Machine Games and Tryarch all trounce Bungie and every other Sony shooter.
I wonder why you didn't compare any of those games?

Both Sony and MS have amazing in house studios. Sony and MS both have different strengths and weaknesses in their portfolios.
Sony has the best third person action games. MS has the best racing, FPS and WRPGs.
It's this differences that make it interesting between the two. Would you want them to both have the exact same types of games?
Would you want to see the exact same type of art style?
Why you would care so much about a game you won't have the ability to play on your PS5 is interesting.
I don't have a PS5 at this point, so I won't be playing GOW any time soon. However you won't find me going into GOW threads saying that it looks disappointing, or saying it's a lazy DLC game.
Why would I worry about GOW?

I picked that screenshot, because it is of a random NPC. It's not a main character, it's to highlight the technical gulf. And, I can pick a lot of games from early PS4 gen which have a better rendering and visual quality when it comes to character models and more refined animations. The original point was how technically behind Bethesda are in many aspects when comparing one flag-ship title to another. And, your post about not being "known" for something is another cop-out. Guess what? GG were known to make pretty Killzone games until they made a sci-fi action-RPG where you hunt robo dinos. Devs can expand their arsenal and better their craft. And, 6-8 hours to finish most campaign? You wouldn't even reach the opening title scene during that time-frame in Horizon. How to tell you don't play PS games without telling you don't play PS games. Well done.

Talking about HellBlade II, once again, where was it? Revealed in late 2019, we still don't know the premise? Where is gameplay? Funny how you bleat about scope of Starfield. But, do you realize how simplistic HB gameplay is and it pales to Sony FP games which are not only technical showcase but also have way more depth and content? Ironic, isn't it. And, no, I don't want them to have same type of games. I want people to have a higher standard for these games, regardless of what branding is on the cover.

As for the last bit, funny how you labelled my post as warring when you slipped up yourself. This maybe a revelation for your brain, but just because folks are critical of a game doesn't mean they are bitter and they don't have the ability to play those said games. I bought a Series X last October, paid an additional 10% to scalper, so I'm very much interested in why the game looks like it does. And, even if one isn't, it doesn't take away their right to be critical or offer some observation about a game. This is a forum where people will offer different opinions, if you want an echo-chamber where only positive things are written by people who are on the said platform, then this isn't for you.

Not sure why the game being cross-gen really matters the difference between ps4 and 5 versions it pretty significant and clearly that screen is from the ps5 version.

But yeah simple answer is horizon lets you explore a tiny section of one planet but Starfield lets you explore a 1000. Never mind the sheer complexity and depth of rpg systems we can expect from the studio behind ES and Fallout. Horizon is a stunning game but its a pretty shallow experience overall and was designed to be that way, as evidenced by Guerllia devs being baffled and confused by the actual design of Elden Ring.

We all love cutting-edge AAA graphics in our games no doubt, but the trade off atm is clear. PS games are easily the best looking but also the most shallow with a clear focus on visuals first(thats not a defence of MS games, justa fact). If your take away after watching 15 minutes of Starfield was "graphics bad, game bad", thats more of a reflection of your taste rather than a reflection on the game itself. Personally looks like you have more player agency, customization and rpg elements available to you in the first few hours than you do in the entire game of Horizon. I love Horizon but its clearly 'babies first rpg', this is a REAL rpg, too busy creating a 1000 planets, fully custmizable ships and multiple story threads to worry about looking pretty for the boys.

Well done on completely missing the point. The screen was supposed to highlight the overall quality which is lacking when it comes to MS next-gen only flagship title. The character model which I shared doesn't change on old-gen, it'll lose detail but still look like that. And, scope? Is that what you're pinning your hopes on? 1000 planets? How's that appealing to anyone? The game lost a lot of interest for me, not because "graphics bad" but it's because it's way too ambitious for its own good. A dedicated solar system, where you can explore planets and moons would make up for a much richer and tighter experience. This will likely trigger you, but cast a look at No Mans Sky, it lacks the RPG elements which Starfield will have. But, the basic loop/premise in regards to exploration and hopping remains the same.

Just because you scream "shallow" multiple times, that doesn't turn it into reality. Horizon areas while paling to "1000" planets are incredibly dense and rich in content, with a lengthy story and side campaign which can well verse a player from anywhere between 50-100 hours. It's focus and refined to make it a tighter experience for the players with enough RPG elements to make the game fresh/varied throughout the playthrough. That's exactly what GG were aiming for and this is not what shallow means. And, pretending all Sony do is to make prettier games but most shallow is possibly the most banal take I've read on here. Pick up something like Returnal and see how much depth the gameplay has to offer. Your post is a complete cop-out, which is another problem. Bethesda are making a huge game, so please please don't criticize them for outdated tech as it'll hurt my feelings. Guess what? GoW:Ragnarok didn't put in much effort to visually/technically take a leap from its predecessor, and they were called out on it, and rightly so. All the talk about, well they are focusing their mind on building more and bigger realms doesn't wash away the rightful criticism about why there's minimal leap when it comes to visuals while something like Horizon offers a much bigger jump.

Starfield is a flag-ship title for Bethesda and Microsoft, it should be treated as such. Scope of the game shouldn't make it okay to have the game running like it was, nor is it an excuse to have animations and character models so stiff, they give early PS4/XB1 gen a run for their money. This is a seven year project with hundreds of millions poured into it, and it doesn't leave a strong impression on first showing which was my original point about the presentation and a lot of their games lacking a "wow" factor. A dedicated Xbox run podcast can recognize this, but folks on a forum get butt-hurt anytime dare question their favorite game.
 

Ozriel

Member
Y’all whined about CGI and about xbox showing games that were some way out. So now they showed stuff coming to the service in the next 12 months.

Getting Starfield, Forza Motorsport, Hollow Knight Silksong, Redfall, Scorn, Replaced, Grounded, Plagues Tale 2, Wo long, Flintlock, High on Life and that Benedict Fox game all for one year’s subscription is pretty dang awesome.

I do wish they’d expanded their showcase to include stuff outside the 12 month window. And I’m disappointed not to see further stuff from Avowed and Fable, but anyone saying Gamepass ruined the showcase has to be kidding
 

Markio128

Member
Y’all whined about CGI and about xbox showing games that were some way out. So now they showed stuff coming to the service in the next 12 months.

Getting Starfield, Forza Motorsport, Hollow Knight Silksong, Redfall, Scorn, Replaced, Grounded, Plagues Tale 2, Wo long, Flintlock, High on Life and that Benedict Fox game all for one year’s subscription is pretty dang awesome.

I do wish they’d expanded their showcase to include stuff outside the 12 month window. And I’m disappointed not to see further stuff from Avowed and Fable, but anyone saying Gamepass ruined the showcase has to be kidding
I am unable to take your post seriously, having used the word ‘dang’.
 

MiguelItUp

Member
I personally don't think so at all. It's an option for those that want it. I think it's smart to provide options to buys, especially when the cost of game development and the MSRP of games is just getting higher and higher.

A lot of people hate on Game Pass and that's totally fine, it's clearly not for everyone. But I think they wanted to make it abundantly clear that it's not a platform for "shovelware" like a lot of people have been saying since its existence. So, I think it did more good than "hurt" for them, personally.
 

Roxkis_ii

Gold Member
I think it's people expections. If you were looking for Xbox games (high end AAA games to match your current high end console) I would be disappointed, but if your a gamepass gamer, then I guess you'd be happy with anything thrown your way.


Microsoft wants everything to be in the same basket. But people who are console gamers aren't appeased by gamepass games.
(Indie, and AA)
 
Last edited:

element

Member
I do wish they’d expanded their showcase to include stuff outside the 12 month window. And I’m disappointed not to see further stuff from Avowed and Fable, but anyone saying Gamepass ruined the showcase has to be kidding
I wouldn't say that GamePass ruined anything. But it does muddy things up a little.

I think the show format needs to tweak a little.
Show me some awesome non-first party titles coming to GamePass.
Show me some awesome 3rd party titles that are coming to Xbox (not GamePass).
Show me some awesome 1st Party titles that are coming to Xbox (that we know are coming to GamePass) including updates on everything you already announced, even if just a "The team on Fable is working hard and we look forward to showing something off in the future."

I think it would also clean up any confusion as the title cards were confusing some people "Was that a GamePass game?". Something as simple as:
"The next 15 games from our amazing partners are all coming to GamePass on day 1"
<break. bring on talking head>
"These are some of the amazing 3rd party games coming to Xbox"
<break bring on Phil or Matt Booty>
"Now let check in with each Xbox Studio, with every game coming to GamePass day 1"

GamePass has two consumer points of view.
A: I have GamePass because each and every month I have something new and interesting to play.
B: I plan on already buying "Exclusive First Party Title A" and "Exclusive First Party Title B" this year, so I'll get GamePass and I can try all these other games in the meantime.

Some fans need a game like a Halo or Forza or Fable to move them to become a GamePass subscriber.
 
Last edited:

oldergamer

Member
What do you mean, the top has no responsibility for what their studios produce!?! I can’t be reading that right.
That's totally stretching my comment and NO you are not reading that right. Of course they are responsible in the end, but they are not dictating the TYPES of games the studios make. They are not dictating things like "All action games must be third-person only"
 

Chukhopops

Member
I think it's people expections. If you were looking for Xbox games (high end AAA games to match your current high end console) I would be disappointed, but if your a gamepass gamer, then I guess you'd be happy with anything thrown your way.


Microsoft wants everything to be in the same basket. But people who are console gamers aren't appeased by game gamepass games.
(Indie, and AA)
You really think « console gamers » don’t play AA / indie games? That stuff like Silksong, Plague Tale, the new game by the creator of Limbo / Inside or the Josh Sawyer game aren’t going to appeal to console gamers ?

If you only enjoy high budget AAA games that’s your prerogative but it’s ridiculous to apply this logic to all console gamers.

I’d rather play Silksong or Tunic than some 300M USD cheese omelette with pretty graphics.
 

Fatmanp

Member
I do think there is an element of leaning too heavily on it. Xbox used to get shit for relying too heavily on third party. Now they have swung the other way and it seems that MS is losing third party brand association by going too heavily with Gamepass only. It could be that their third party partnerships were not able to commit to the 12 month timeframe but I think it was all GP. Even the non GP games were Blizzard which will be in it sooner rather than later
 

BennyBlanco

aka IMurRIVAL69
They needed to cut that show down to like 35 mins. The team ninja spiritual nioh successor is my most anticipated game from that show.
 

Roxkis_ii

Gold Member
UYou really think « console gamers » don’t play AA / indie games? That stuff like Silksong, Plague Tale, the new game by the creator of Limbo / Inside or the Josh Sawyer game aren’t going to appeal to console gamers ?

If you only enjoy high budget AAA games that’s your prerogative but it’s ridiculous to apply this logic to all console gamers.

I’d rather play Silksong or Tunic than some 300M USD cheese omelette with pretty graphics.
People buy high end consoles to play high end games. Else, why would you buy a high end console?
 

StormCell

Member
I sometimes think that the problem with the games industry is "AAA games." You see these games with ultra high visual and audio fidelity, and you know that it requires a seriously high investment budget to get these games to that level of fidelity. The games release, and they're generally pretty fun.

Then someone like myself or similar pops in here and complains about how these games don't really hold a candle to gmes from the PS360 era when we were blowing shit up all over the place and mowing down vegetation (mowing the yard) with a machine gun. The random NPC's don't look super great in those older games, but which would you rather have? You can have random NPC's you can fantasize about or fully destructible environments with world physics that make the games truly fun to play...

I played BotW years ago, and while Elden Ring and many other huge world sandbox games boast a vastly superior visual fidelity over it, none of them plays anything remotely like BotW. Setting aside some of BotW's shortcomings, it disappoints me that I can't burn the fucking woods down in Elden Ring. I feel incredibly limited by the static world.

Both games are great.

But this is about AAA gaming and the high bar on visuals. AAA gaming is so hung up on producing visuals to justify the new hardware that we've lost some pretty significant features as a result. If AA gaming is going to fill that void, then I look forward to a huge showcase of these AA games. Of course, we all recognize that Starfield is AAA just as BotW is AAA. These games aren't easily made and require just as long to make even if the visuals aren't quite to Sony standards.
 

jroc74

Phone reception is more important to me than human rights
I don't think Game Pass is hurting the showcases, it's just that's what they are leaning so heavily into.

Its probably the biggest difference between MS vs Sony or Nintendo.

It is what it is. Maybe not focusing on it so much so it doesn't come off as heavy handed might be a good idea.
 

Js562

Member
No I think it'll bring more subscriptions for Microsoft. Game pass is fine and shows you their committed to it. I think their too far to stop pushing it now. Small games to the big budgets it doesn't matter there is something for everyone. I enjoyed it wasn't a crazy showcase but it was good enough for me. Game pass is good give me all the games lol
 

RobertsK

Member
Judging by all the hysteria, I’m probably in the minority, but I love how GP grows each year, bringing more diversity in gaming. You get an occassional AAA, bunch of interesting and more daring AA and then tons of indie games that has made me fall in love with gaming once again. And when it is not enough I buy stuff like Sekiro, RDR2 and so on. So, yeah, looking at the official chart of 2022/23 releases makes me super giddy, because I’m going to be eatin good and it will only get better in 23/24.

Just being a AAA hound is so fucking boring.
 

Chukhopops

Member
People buy high end consoles to play high end games. Else, why would you buy a high end console?
The most played games on next gen consoles are F2P games that run on last gen consoles like Fortnite, Warzone, Rocket League etc. And the top 100 on Steam is full of games that would run on eight years old configurations.

How could that be if the end goal is only to get the best graphics?

Again I find the AAA space to be so boring those days especially when a good quarter of it seems to be 1:1 remasters.
 

kingpotato

Ask me about my Stream Deck
I'd agree the recent Microsoft conference was full of content but very few of the titles really grabbed my attention. I don't think this is too blame on game pass, I think it's par for the course when they are only focused on the next 12 months.
 

Hezekiah

Banned
The most played games on next gen consoles are F2P games that run on last gen consoles like Fortnite, Warzone, Rocket League etc. And the top 100 on Steam is full of games that would run on eight years old configurations.

How could that be if the end goal is only to get the best graphics?

Again I find the AAA space to be so boring those days especially when a good quarter of it seems to be 1:1 remasters.
Yeah mostly played by little kids who are entranced by bright colours, and who have two minute attention spans.
 

Braag

Member
I don't see gamepass any different from renting games. You lose access to the games once sub is over. It's perfect for people who don't care to "own" everything, I know plenty of people who play through a game once and never touch it again and they love gamepass. Also lets you try out a lot of games you probably wouldn't otherwise.
 

jroc74

Phone reception is more important to me than human rights
'Almost every single game' well the biggest one, Starfield, isn't day 1 on Gamepass though.
Its not?

I thought the "day one on game pass" tag was just delayed in showing up.

That would be interesting as hell if its not. Granted I missed some stuff during the showcase.
 
Last edited:

Dutchy

Member
There is no doubt Phil Spencer and Microsoft went above and beyond securing dozens and dozens of Gamepass titles for today's showcase. However, so much of it was non-AAA stuff that it made the show almost impossible to sit through. It reminded me of those 2008 era Wii conferences that had shovelware after shovelware for their casual audience or the VGA award shows that just have random games that you would never ever want to play.

I understand MS studios are struggling to put out games, but I really dont think buying up these smaller titles is the best way to showcase Gamepass. The quality matters. People tune into Microsoft and Sony shows to see AAA games, but I feel Microsoft feels compelled to have SOMETHING to put on Gamepass every damn month since they need to ensure people stay subbed month after month. And this is the result. A lot of games that no one here would feel compelled to ever create a thread about. Not even for Digital Foundry/DJ Khaled Face offs.

I have really wanted to like Gamepass, but my worst fears are coming true. There is not a lot of AAA content for people who became Xbox fans playing Halo, Gears, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Fable... AAA stuff that we have begging for years. The average age of gamer is 33 years old. We dont want to play those quirky and charming titles. Are we still the target audience for Xbox? A lot of the games felt like they were for a far younger audience. Im glad people can have smaller games to play, but no one tunes in to conferences or subscribes to Gamepass to play these games, and yet the conference is full of them, and it's making the conference mind numbingly boring.

A 30 minute conference featuring Redfall, Starfield, Forza 8 and Diablo would've been just fine. Disappointing because of lack of Fable, Avowed, Hellblade and Perfect Dark, but these smaller gamepass titles didnt make up for the disappointment so whats the point?
It would be very weird if every single game on GamePass was exactly up your alley.

It would also be weird for gamepass to have a bunch of unplayed titles on it.

Make of the above points what you will.
 
What are you talking about? Starfield is a Microsoft IP now and was confirmed a Day One Gamepass game last year.
Its not?

I thought the "day one on game pass" tag was just delayed in showing up.

That would be interesting as hell if its not. Granted I missed some stuff during the showcase.

I read something about there not being a 'day 1' on GP tag on the trailer but if they confirmed it I'm wrong lol.
 

SaucyJack

Member
Is it hurting their showcases? Yes, would have rather have had a shorter conference with way less filler.

Is it hurting the Gamepass offering? No. It’s kinda the point of it.
 
Gamepass isn't hurting anything. I do love the constant concern though, the more people talk about the service the more concern I read about it from the usual suspects.
 

recykle

Neo Member
I have owned both systems for over 15 years. I have subscribed to Gamepass for over two years where I took advantage of the $1 conversion and stacked multiple years. The fact of the matter is I got far far far more enjoyment out my PS4/5 these last few years than I did out of my Xbox system. The Sony exclusives just completely outclassed anything MS had. That’s not to say I haven’t gotten any enjoyment out of my Xbox. I played far more 3rd party games on Xbox than PS. Most recently being Elden Ring after I finished Horizon Forbidden West! Far from it, but not once was I ever salty at Sony for that. The only Gamepass games I played a ton on Xbox we’re the Outer Worlds and Gears 5. Everything else I played on Xbox wasn’t on Gamepass. I’ll be honest I have very real concerns about the long term viability of Gamepass. However I won’t argue that it provides killer value to someone who is new to gaming. You buy a subscription and boom you got tons of EA and Bethesda games.

You're whole argument rests on your particular experience, which lets be honest if you only played 2 GP games speak significantly more about you and your gaming habits and interests than any potential concerns one might have about GP. The reality is we just watched a showcase that had showed off 30+ games that will be coming to Xbox in the next 12 months all on GP day 1 if there aren't at least 5 games you're interested in that line up then that is a you problem, because the quality and variety presented was staggering.
 
I picked that screenshot, because it is of a random NPC. It's not a main character, it's to highlight the technical gulf. And, I can pick a lot of games from early PS4 gen which have a better rendering and visual quality when it comes to character models and more refined animations. The original point was how technically behind Bethesda are in many aspects when comparing one flag-ship title to another. And, your post about not being "known" for something is another cop-out. Guess what? GG were known to make pretty Killzone games until they made a sci-fi action-RPG where you hunt robo dinos. Devs can expand their arsenal and better their craft. And, 6-8 hours to finish most campaign? You wouldn't even reach the opening title scene during that time-frame in Horizon. How to tell you don't play PS games without telling you don't play PS games. Well done.

Talking about HellBlade II, once again, where was it? Revealed in late 2019, we still don't know the premise? Where is gameplay? Funny how you bleat about scope of Starfield. But, do you realize how simplistic HB gameplay is and it pales to Sony FP games which are not only technical showcase but also have way more depth and content? Ironic, isn't it. And, no, I don't want them to have same type of games. I want people to have a higher standard for these games, regardless of what branding is on the cover.

As for the last bit, funny how you labelled my post as warring when you slipped up yourself. This maybe a revelation for your brain, but just because folks are critical of a game doesn't mean they are bitter and they don't have the ability to play those said games. I bought a Series X last October, paid an additional 10% to scalper, so I'm very much interested in why the game looks like it does. And, even if one isn't, it doesn't take away their right to be critical or offer some observation about a game. This is a forum where people will offer different opinions, if you want an echo-chamber where only positive things are written by people who are on the said platform, then this isn't for you.



Well done on completely missing the point. The screen was supposed to highlight the overall quality which is lacking when it comes to MS next-gen only flagship title. The character model which I shared doesn't change on old-gen, it'll lose detail but still look like that. And, scope? Is that what you're pinning your hopes on? 1000 planets? How's that appealing to anyone? The game lost a lot of interest for me, not because "graphics bad" but it's because it's way too ambitious for its own good. A dedicated solar system, where you can explore planets and moons would make up for a much richer and tighter experience. This will likely trigger you, but cast a look at No Mans Sky, it lacks the RPG elements which Starfield will have. But, the basic loop/premise in regards to exploration and hopping remains the same.

Just because you scream "shallow" multiple times, that doesn't turn it into reality. Horizon areas while paling to "1000" planets are incredibly dense and rich in content, with a lengthy story and side campaign which can well verse a player from anywhere between 50-100 hours. It's focus and refined to make it a tighter experience for the players with enough RPG elements to make the game fresh/varied throughout the playthrough. That's exactly what GG were aiming for and this is not what shallow means. And, pretending all Sony do is to make prettier games but most shallow is possibly the most banal take I've read on here. Pick up something like Returnal and see how much depth the gameplay has to offer. Your post is a complete cop-out, which is another problem. Bethesda are making a huge game, so please please don't criticize them for outdated tech as it'll hurt my feelings. Guess what? GoW:Ragnarok didn't put in much effort to visually/technically take a leap from its predecessor, and they were called out on it, and rightly so. All the talk about, well they are focusing their mind on building more and bigger realms doesn't wash away the rightful criticism about why there's minimal leap when it comes to visuals while something like Horizon offers a much bigger jump.

Starfield is a flag-ship title for Bethesda and Microsoft, it should be treated as such. Scope of the game shouldn't make it okay to have the game running like it was, nor is it an excuse to have animations and character models so stiff, they give early PS4/XB1 gen a run for their money. This is a seven year project with hundreds of millions poured into it, and it doesn't leave a strong impression on first showing which was my original point about the presentation and a lot of their games lacking a "wow" factor. A dedicated Xbox run podcast can recognize this, but folks on a forum get butt-hurt anytime dare question their favorite game.
Pretty disingenuous response if you used that screen as a demonstration of "quality" then you were clearly pointing to the graphical quality of the game (not it not) as that's all I can defer from that image. If you expected similar graphical quality from a core overhead game I I feel that's on you for either being unaware of thier games history or having weird expectations.

And yes compared to game like Skyrim or Fallout 4, Horizon is pretty shallow. I am a HUGE fan of horizon but its rpg mechanics and depth are not a scratch on Betheada games.

The lack of "wow" factor is purely subjective. If we expect the same level of rpg depth it previous Bethesda games plus fully customized ships, full ship combat, 1000 planets- that's pretty wow to some ppl. Customizations to that degree are very desirable to certain ppl (myself included). Its not easy to compare 1 to 1 games in that way. Horizon graphics are a 10 Starfield are a 7. Horizon customisation is a 1 Starfield is a 10. What is impressive to you is not the same to everyone and specifically in that comparison graphical quality is a common (often necessary) tradeoff for high level customisation. Different stuff hypes different ppl.
 

chonga

Member
Y’all whined about CGI and about xbox showing games that were some way out. So now they showed stuff coming to the service in the next 12 months.

Getting Starfield, Forza Motorsport, Hollow Knight Silksong, Redfall, Scorn, Replaced, Grounded, Plagues Tale 2, Wo long, Flintlock, High on Life and that Benedict Fox game all for one year’s subscription is pretty dang awesome.

I do wish they’d expanded their showcase to include stuff outside the 12 month window. And I’m disappointed not to see further stuff from Avowed and Fable, but anyone saying Gamepass ruined the showcase has to be kidding
OP literally mentions a shorter showcase without the shit filler would be better. Did you bother to read the post at all?

Not showing games that are far out and showing filler are completely independent things. You can do neither, you can do both, you can do either.
 

recykle

Neo Member
No, Microsoft is hurting gamepass with these useless games no one wants
The crazy thing is that majority complaining here seem to know what everyone wants to play and any answer that doesn't line up with what Sony's is publishing or isn't a AAA title is basically consider inferior or unwanted. When in reality games such as Sea of Thieves and Grounded have grown into success stories when the majority here would turn their nose up at those games.

GP is the prefect service to explore these games as it allows developers to be more creative and experimental with their games that under prior circumstance wouldn't be green lit. Hardcore gamers are rarely in touch with the reality of what the average gamer plays or wants to play.
 
I picked that screenshot, because it is of a random NPC. It's not a main character, it's to highlight the technical gulf. And, I can pick a lot of games from early PS4 gen which have a better rendering and visual quality when it comes to character models and more refined animations. The original point was how technically behind Bethesda are in many aspects when comparing one flag-ship title to another. And, your post about not being "known" for something is another cop-out. Guess what? GG were known to make pretty Killzone games until they made a sci-fi action-RPG where you hunt robo dinos. Devs can expand their arsenal and better their craft. And, 6-8 hours to finish most campaign? You wouldn't even reach the opening title scene during that time-frame in Horizon. How to tell you don't play PS games without telling you don't play PS games. Well done.

Talking about HellBlade II, once again, where was it? Revealed in late 2019, we still don't know the premise? Where is gameplay? Funny how you bleat about scope of Starfield. But, do you realize how simplistic HB gameplay is and it pales to Sony FP games which are not only technical showcase but also have way more depth and content? Ironic, isn't it. And, no, I don't want them to have same type of games. I want people to have a higher standard for these games, regardless of what branding is on the cover.

As for the last bit, funny how you labelled my post as warring when you slipped up yourself. This maybe a revelation for your brain, but just because folks are critical of a game doesn't mean they are bitter and they don't have the ability to play those said games. I bought a Series X last October, paid an additional 10% to scalper, so I'm very much interested in why the game looks like it does. And, even if one isn't, it doesn't take away their right to be critical or offer some observation about a game. This is a forum where people will offer different opinions, if you want an echo-chamber where only positive things are written by people who are on the said platform, then this isn't for you.



Well done on completely missing the point. The screen was supposed to highlight the overall quality which is lacking when it comes to MS next-gen only flagship title. The character model which I shared doesn't change on old-gen, it'll lose detail but still look like that. And, scope? Is that what you're pinning your hopes on? 1000 planets? How's that appealing to anyone? The game lost a lot of interest for me, not because "graphics bad" but it's because it's way too ambitious for its own good. A dedicated solar system, where you can explore planets and moons would make up for a much richer and tighter experience. This will likely trigger you, but cast a look at No Mans Sky, it lacks the RPG elements which Starfield will have. But, the basic loop/premise in regards to exploration and hopping remains the same.

Just because you scream "shallow" multiple times, that doesn't turn it into reality. Horizon areas while paling to "1000" planets are incredibly dense and rich in content, with a lengthy story and side campaign which can well verse a player from anywhere between 50-100 hours. It's focus and refined to make it a tighter experience for the players with enough RPG elements to make the game fresh/varied throughout the playthrough. That's exactly what GG were aiming for and this is not what shallow means. And, pretending all Sony do is to make prettier games but most shallow is possibly the most banal take I've read on here. Pick up something like Returnal and see how much depth the gameplay has to offer. Your post is a complete cop-out, which is another problem. Bethesda are making a huge game, so please please don't criticize them for outdated tech as it'll hurt my feelings. Guess what? GoW:Ragnarok didn't put in much effort to visually/technically take a leap from its predecessor, and they were called out on it, and rightly so. All the talk about, well they are focusing their mind on building more and bigger realms doesn't wash away the rightful criticism about why there's minimal leap when it comes to visuals while something like Horizon offers a much bigger jump.

Starfield is a flag-ship title for Bethesda and Microsoft, it should be treated as such. Scope of the game shouldn't make it okay to have the game running like it was, nor is it an excuse to have animations and character models so stiff, they give early PS4/XB1 gen a run for their money. This is a seven year project with hundreds of millions poured into it, and it doesn't leave a strong impression on first showing which was my original point about the presentation and a lot of their games lacking a "wow" factor. A dedicated Xbox run podcast can recognize this, but folks on a forum get butt-hurt anytime dare question their favorite game.
Your post was about how "MS" can't get graphics as good as Sony.
If your post was "Hey, why do Bethesda have the same type of older looking graphics?" then maybe it wouldn't come across as console warring.
As far as Hellblade 2? It's in development. Same as GOW for PS. They have shown off gameplay footage, and yes, it looks alot better than Horizon does.
Games always get better looking. There will be new games in the future from Sony that look better than Hellblade, and then there will be games that come out from MS that look better than those games. It's progression. (Unless you are Nintendo)

Bethesda have never been known for graphics fidelity. Their engine is about other things.
Bethesda has their own art style and design choices.
They have chosen to spend their time in creating a huge open world RPG that is 100 times the scope of HFW than putting that effort and time into graphics like GG did.
Do you know how long and how many resources you would need to have a game the size of Starfield but with the Graphics of Horizon?
Same goes for Elden Ring. Size over fidelity.
 

teezzy

Fantastik Tuna
No

Don't like GamePass? Maybe Xbox isn't for you. It's their key feature for a reason. GamePass is Microsoft's strongest asset against its competition. Damn service is a revolution.
 

Soosa

Member
There is no doubt Phil Spencer and Microsoft went above and beyond securing dozens and dozens of Gamepass titles for today's showcase. However, so much of it was non-AAA stuff that it made the show almost impossible to sit through. It reminded me of those 2008 era Wii conferences that had shovelware after shovelware for their casual audience or the VGA award shows that just have random games that you would never ever want to play.

I understand MS studios are struggling to put out games, but I really dont think buying up these smaller titles is the best way to showcase Gamepass. The quality matters. People tune into Microsoft and Sony shows to see AAA games, but I feel Microsoft feels compelled to have SOMETHING to put on Gamepass every damn month since they need to ensure people stay subbed month after month. And this is the result. A lot of games that no one here would feel compelled to ever create a thread about. Not even for Digital Foundry/DJ Khaled Face offs.

I have really wanted to like Gamepass, but my worst fears are coming true. There is not a lot of AAA content for people who became Xbox fans playing Halo, Gears, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Fable... AAA stuff that we have begging for years. The average age of gamer is 33 years old. We dont want to play those quirky and charming titles. Are we still the target audience for Xbox? A lot of the games felt like they were for a far younger audience. Im glad people can have smaller games to play, but no one tunes in to conferences or subscribes to Gamepass to play these games, and yet the conference is full of them, and it's making the conference mind numbingly boring.

A 30 minute conference featuring Redfall, Starfield, Forza 8 and Diablo would've been just fine. Disappointing because of lack of Fable, Avowed, Hellblade and Perfect Dark, but these smaller gamepass titles didnt make up for the disappointment so whats the point?

Personally = definetly yes

I tried to watch the showcase and it were just way too full of uninteresting low quality stuff.

When they got to starfield, I had already lost my focus.

Only games I remember from the show were forza something, and starfield, and then just some "stuff".

It would be better to have "big game show" and "indie show" separately
 
Top Bottom