official Gamescom 2014 News & Discussion

[vcfan]

https://vine.co/v/MYv1bw6gJur

 

Just seen this, cracked me up. Shows the media player on X1.

 

lmao albert penello is such a troll

[trooper11]

It is essentially peer-to-peer Gaikai. So it is streaming the video stream to a friend with additional option to control. There is no multiplayer element to it, it is essentially handing the controller over, as if you were letting a friend use your controller sitting next to you. So using the same Gaikai technology as PS Now you can share your screen and then allow your friend to take control of your game. You're not allowing an additional controller for split-screen, etc.

 

Overall when you handover control your PS4 just becomes a Gaikai server in exactly the same way as people will eventually be playing games via PS Now.

So games are going to be streamed from one ps4 to another? Interesting, so I wonder if the friend that starts playing gets the same quality output or if quality is degraded in order to keep performance high.

I was thinking that they were claiming you could play co-op, but instead its just a way for your friends to play your games on their own. If the quality of the stream is good enough, this service is most definitely a replacement for demos since there are no time limitations, etc. The only limit is that the streamer must have ps+ and own the game.

It'll be interesting to see if this leads to fewer traditional demos.

 

 

Exactly. If AMD hadn't kicked everyone in the butt (MS and Khronos), you'd see lower performance and consumption improvements in the next versions of DX and OpenGL. Mantle was released (partly) as a proof of concept because the people responsible for the two big APIs didn't want to commit to closer-to-the-metal.

Competition is good, so AMD pushing the bar higher is great thing for everyone. If that results in a DX12 that is even better, then I'm all for it.

I don't see any reason to make an argument over it. MS is just like any other company, they will react to the competition to stay with them. If it was Intel alone, or AMD alone, things would be stagnate. Just look at the cpu market where progress has slowed a bit thanks to AMD's cpu competition lagging substantially. MS does everything better when there is competition.

[Showan]

https://vine.co/v/MYv1bw6gJur

 

Just seen this, cracked me up. Shows the media player on X1.

 

 

classic... :laugh:

[Luc2k]

Competition is good, so AMD pushing the bar higher is great thing for everyone. If that results in a DX12 that is even better, then I'm all for it.

I don't see any reason to make an argument over it. MS is just like any other company, they will react to the competition to stay with them. If it was Intel alone, or AMD alone, things would be stagnate. Just look at the cpu market where progress has slowed a bit thanks to AMD's cpu competition lagging substantially. MS does everything better when there is competition.

Haven't claimed otherwise. The problem with MS is that, as far as PC gaming is concerned at least, they do the bare minimum unless somebody forces their hand. Unfortunately for me and many others, PC gaming (past, present and foreseeable future) is entrenched in the Windows ecosystem and it gets frustrating seeing MS doing so little and in the case of the latest Tomb Raider, poach the title from PC.

 

As far as MS reacting to competition is concerned, what did they do when the previous Uncharted games were released? Did they not have an answer to it for the entire previous generation? Was it really necessary to snatch up the second game in a franchise reboot to compete with a sequel that everyone and their cat knew was coming on the PS4?

 

I don't see a lot of competition of PC when it comes to game APIs. You have DX, OpenGL and Mantle. OpenGL is due for a redesign, which is good if they actually go through it, while Mantle is in its infancy and limited to only a low number of games and GPUs. Hopefully, things will heat up in the future.

 

I would thank Intel's anticompetitive practices for the stagnation of AMD CPU tech (not the only reason mind you, but the main one), but that is a discussion for another topic.

[dead.cell]

Enough about the DirectX stuff guys. You can have that argument later...

 

Seems Microsoft will be in a lose/lose situation no matter what they do.

They have really tried to meet all of the demands requested. And when they do flex their muscle they are scolded for it.

Stop talking about media and talk about games. Done
Stop with the Kinect stuff people don't want it.

Then just like that, Microsoft is wrong for getting and securing games
And on another forum I read: Where's the Kinect support...

Like they say, be careful what you ask for.

Microsoft is flexing $$$-muscle and they know that, no one can compete with them in this area.

You're right, people should get off Microsoft's back a little bit.

 

However, flexing your muscle for exclusivity is not something I support. I don't care if it's Sony, Nintendo, Valve, or who the hell ever... I've never seen a game announced as an exclusive and gone, "YESSSS!!! I'M SO GLAD SOMEONE ELSE DOESN'T GET TO ENJOY THE GAME LIKE ME!! *fistpump*"

 

I understand console manufacturers sort of have to do this in order to bring in an audience, but again, it's not something I'm ever going to sit here and support.

 

This shouldn't surprise you or anyone here though.

 

---

 

Personally, while the last TR game was decent, I don't find the next game being an exclusive to be a huge deal. I mean, it's never been a series I'd buy a console for, why should that change anything now? TR is not that big of a deal, at least for me. Judging by the numbers though, maybe not for a lot of others either I'm guessing...?

 

Now Nintendo on the other hand... they have some stuff I want, but that's always the case with Nintendo. I just hate buying a system just for a few games... :pinch:

[Dane]

No videos for the Division?

[Showan]

Enough about the DirectX stuff guys. You can have that argument later...

 

 

You're right, people should get off Microsoft's back a little bit.

 

However, flexing your muscle for exclusivity is not something I support. I don't care if it's Sony, Nintendo, Valve, or who the hell ever... I've never seen a game announced as an exclusive and gone, "YESSSS!!! I'M SO GLAD SOMEONE ELSE DOESN'T GET TO ENJOY THE GAME LIKE ME!! *fistpump*"

 

I understand console manufacturers sort of have to do this in order to bring in an audience, but again, it's not something I'm ever going to sit here and support.

 

This shouldn't surprise you or anyone here though.

 

---

 

Personally, while the last TR game was decent, I don't find the next game being an exclusive to be a huge deal. I mean, it's never been a series I'd buy a console for, why should that change anything now? TR is not that big of a deal, at least for me. Judging by the numbers though, maybe not for a lot of others either I'm guessing...?

 

Now Nintendo on the other hand... they have some stuff I want, but that's always the case with Nintendo. I just hate buying a system just for a few games... :pinch:

 

 

Now this is a post I can agree on. (Y)  (Y)  (Y)

 

I picked up TR (360) because Best Buy had it as their deal of the day for $10 a few months ago.

[Emn1ty]

However, flexing your muscle for exclusivity is not something I support. I don't care if it's Sony, Nintendo, Valve, or who the hell ever... I've never seen a game announced as an exclusive and gone, "YESSSS!!! I'M SO GLAD SOMEONE ELSE DOESN'T GET TO ENJOY THE GAME LIKE ME!! *fistpump*"

 

I don't think it's about that. Honestly, companies need something to pitch that their competition doesn't have. This comes in the form of features, services and software (games). It's fine to not support it, but you cannot really condemn the practice either.

 

I do agree that timed exclusives are getting tiresome. What we need is more first party exclusives, less bought out temporary ones and generally more new across the board. I'm tired of all the effortless re-skinning devs are doing these days. It's not even attempts and making something refined anymore. We either get a game that isn't done, or one that is extremely stale. Sometimes both.

 

I don't see exclusivity as a negative. In fact it's a positive in the fact that it actually gives you a reason to choose. Without that there'd be no competition.

[Luc2k]

I don't see exclusivity as a negative. In fact it's a positive in the fact that it actually gives you a reason to choose. Without that there'd be no competition.

I suppose it is a good reason not to support either company in the future.

[trooper11]

I understand console manufacturers sort of have to do this in order to bring in an audience, but again, it's not something I'm ever going to sit here and support.

But you do support it if you buy any exclusive title on a console.

I see it as a no win scenario. If you are not a fan of exclusives, then stop buying them, on any console. Otherwise, stop buying consoles in the first place.

Consoles will not survive without exclusives, at least not three of them. If every game came to every system, you would be left with only one console choice. Until someone comes up with another way to push console sales in a big way, exclusive content will remain the norm.

I get the frustration. I've always liked the idea of there only being one console and I just buy all of my games there and be done with it. But then there are minuses to that kind of situation. I put up with exclusives because I prefer a multi console system where each is driven by the others.

 

 

Haven't claimed otherwise. The problem with MS is that, as far as PC gaming is concerned at least, they do the bare minimum unless somebody forces their hand. Unfortunately for me and many others, PC gaming (past, present and foreseeable future) is entrenched in the Windows ecosystem and it gets frustrating seeing MS doing so little and in the case of the latest Tomb Raider, poach the title from PC.

I'm also a pc gamer, but for some reason I haven't felt that MS is holding me back as a gamer. I know they could do more that could make it better, but I never understood the outright hate MS gets over it. PC gaming is flourishing, despite the issues that may be occurring.

Honestly, if I was MS, I would want to focus on the tech behind the scenes that would make gaming better on Windows. I wouldn't worry about creating new content since there are already plenty of game developers to do that. I would focus on things like DX and general OS improvements that make gaming better.

It just seems like pc gamers would actually like to see MS treat the pc like a gaming console, where MS pushes first party gaming development, secures exclusive content, etc, etc, but as a pc gamer, I just want to see MS make the platform better. If they want to make games too, great, but that is not essential here. If MS does good work with DX12, then that should be considered 'caring' about pc gaming. If the next version of Windows performs better, uses less resources, and otherwise makes gaming/game development better, then that is 'caring' about pc gaming to me.

I suppose it is a good reason not to support either company in the future.

Technically, you should also not support pc gaming either. It has its own run of exclusive titles. I don't think anyone talks about that though.

[Athernar]

I'm also a pc gamer, but for some reason I haven't felt that MS is holding me back as a gamer. I know they could do more that could make it better, but I never understood the outright hate MS gets over it. PC gaming is flourishing, despite the issues that may be occurring.

 

Games for Windows Live, DirectX API fragmentation and the various times they've lied about having "renewed focus" on PC gaming are a few reasons.

[dead.cell]

But you do support it if you buy any exclusive title on a console.

I see it as a no win scenario. If you are not a fan of exclusives, then stop buying them, on any console. Otherwise, stop buying consoles in the first place.

Consoles will not survive without exclusives, at least not three of them. If every game came to every system, you would be left with only one console choice. Until someone comes up with another way to push console sales in a big way, exclusive content will remain the norm.

I get the frustration. I've always liked the idea of there only being one console and I just buy all of my games there and be done with it. But then there are minuses to that kind of situation. I put up with exclusives because I prefer a multi console system where each is driven by the others.

You're misunderstanding my post; I'm not against exclusives, as I understand why they exist. I just don't sit around praising companies for this. I can also be more understanding when it's an in-house developer or studio, but it's also a bit more off-putting when it's a third party that's seemingly "snatched" up in this pissing contest.

 

I just want to play games...

 

Also, there are other means to differentiate than content, such as features of the system that offer conveniences and new ways to play. You don't need to be something drastic like a Wii to change this dynamic.

[Luc2k]

Honestly, if I was MS, I would want to focus on the tech behind the scenes that would make gaming better on Windows. I wouldn't worry about creating new content since there are already plenty of game developers to do that. I would focus on things like DX and general OS improvements that make gaming better.

It just seems like pc gamers would actually like to see MS treat the pc like a gaming console, where MS pushes first party gaming development, secures exclusive content, etc, etc, but as a pc gamer, I just want to see MS make the platform better. If they want to make games too, great, but that is not essential here. If MS does good work with DX12, then that should be considered 'caring' about pc gaming. If the next version of Windows performs better, uses less resources, and otherwise makes gaming/game development better, then that is 'caring' about pc gaming to me.

This has been said to many times, but here I go again. We don't want or expect new content from MS. We want them to not interfere with what would normally be on PC. As for MS caring about PC gaming.. let's agree to disagree.

 

Technically, you should also not support pc gaming either. It has its own run of exclusive titles. I don't think anyone talks about that though.

It's different with PC exclusives. In most cases it's because devs don't have the resources to develop for all platforms, because they feel console hardware is not powerful enough or the controls are not appropriate for the game. There's no big monopoly here (yet) that forces you to buy new hardware to be able to play a game. At worst, you'd have to install another stupid digital store.

 

If Squeenix came out and said something like "All the guys that handled the game for PC and PS4 died in an hydrogen bomb explosion and we don't have the resources to hire new people. Unfortunately, we'll only be able to release it for Xbox". This might cause disappointment, but no backlash. There might be a few ######, but most of us will understand. In reality however, this was a game expected on all platforms due to franchise history, but a wad of cash changed that.

[Showan]

This has been said to many times, but here I go again. We don't want or expect new content from MS. We want them to not interfere with what would normally be on PC. As for MS caring about PC gaming.. let's agree to disagree.

 

It's different with PC exclusives. In most cases it's because devs don't have the resources to develop for all platforms, because they feel console hardware is not powerful enough or the controls are not appropriate for the game. There's no big monopoly here (yet) that forces you to buy new hardware to be able to play a game. At worst, you'd have to install another stupid digital store.

 

If Squeenix came out and said something like "All the guys that handled the game for PC and PS4 died in an hydrogen bomb explosion and we don't have the resources to hire new people. Unfortunately, we'll only be able to release it for Xbox". This might cause disappointment, but no backlash. There might be a few ######, but most of us will understand. In reality however, this was a game expected on all platforms due to franchise history, but a wad of cash changed that.

 

 

Wads of cash has always "changed that"...  It's just that the world we live in today, makes everything they do, pretty much exposed to the masses.

 

Sony has done this... Sega has done this... Microsoft has done this...  Maybe Nintendo did this back in it's NES, SNES days.

 

People told Microsoft to focus on games and not worry about the "other crap" and they listened.

 

Like I said, no matter what Microsoft does people are gonna complain.

 

Every time MS does what people ask, all we hear is "That's not what we meant." "Your not listening"

[Luc2k]

Wads of cash has always "changed that"...  It's just that the world we live in today, makes everything they do, pretty much exposed to the masses.

 

Sony has done this... Sega has done this... Microsoft has done this...  Maybe Nintendo did this back in it's NES, SNES days.

 

People told Microsoft to focus on games and not worry about the "other crap" and they listened.

 

Like I said, no matter what Microsoft does people are gonna complain.

 

Every time MS does what people ask, all we hear is "That's not what we meant." "Your not listening"

I'll be sure to sound off on any company that does something similar to something that I care about. And just because it is somewhat common, it does not make it any less anti-consumer.

 

Poor little persecuted corporation.. boo hoo hoo. If they want to reduce the number of complaints maybe they should offer more options to satisfy the different needs of different people. Delaying a game on two other platforms =/= more options.

[Showan]

I'll be sure to sound off on any company that does something similar to something that I care about. Just because it is somewhat common, it does not make it any less anti-consumer.

 

Poor little persecuted corporation.. boo hoo hoo. If they want to reduce the number of complaints maybe they should offer more options to satisfy the different needs of different people. Delaying a game on two other platforms =/= more options.

 

 

How come anyone is allowed to do this but MS?  Why are MS held to a different level of scrutiny than others?

 

Microsoft does a lot of dumb things that hit my last nerve.  So I'm not going to sit here and tell you that, everyone in Redmond WA is a saint.

 

But they are doing what people requested.  Even if that means "throwing wads of cash" at 3rd party games.

 

I honestly hope MS does this again, with another big 3rd party developer.  

 

"Focus on games Microsoft"  A game is a game, no matter how big, not matter how small. No matter who makes it.  Right? Right?

[trooper11]

Games for Windows Live, DirectX API fragmentation and the various times they've lied about having "renewed focus" on PC gaming are a few reasons.

and yet pc gaming is flourishing, like I said. MS' platform is strong because its open enough to allow gamers to get the experience they want in many different ways. Don't like DirectX? there is also OpenGL. Don't like Windows Live? There is also Steam. While MS has made some poor apps and their tools aren't always leading edge, the platform is fundamentally good for gaming since gamers are not stuck with just one experience.

Is MS really evil or have they just made some stupid decisions? Are they improving at all or just perpetually broken? Is DX12 going to be an improvement or not? I'm just trying to get a sense for what would change the minds of those that really do hate MS.

 

 

Also, there are other means to differentiate than content, such as features of the system that offer conveniences and new ways to play. You don't need to be something drastic like a Wii to change this dynamic.

I'm not so sure that works. Most gamers are only interested in the content. When you start talking about new features or new ways to play, their eyes glaze over and you have lost them. Besides, MS and Sony both offer unique features and experiences, but none of it garners the attention that the exclusive content does. Until that mentality among a majority of gamers changes, we will continue this pattern.

This has been said to many times, but here I go again. We don't want or expect new content from MS. We want them to not interfere with what would normally be on PC. As for MS caring about PC gaming.. let's agree to disagree.

Fair enough. I happen to agree that MS should not have bought a timed exclusive deal with a franchise expected to be multi platform. However, this still basically means that MS will be unable to compete with Sony long term if they stop securing exclusive titles. Of course, you guys dont care about consoles so thats ok, but it will effect millions of gamers that prefer consoles.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that MS is in a tough spot. They can't properly compete with the other console makers due to their position on the pc.

[Athernar]

and yet pc gaming is flourishing, like I said. MS' platform is strong because its open enough to allow gamers to get the experience they want in many different ways. Don't like DirectX? there is also OpenGL. Don't like Windows Live? There is also Steam. While MS has made some poor apps and their tools aren't always leading edge, the platform is fundamentally good for gaming since gamers are not stuck with just one experience.

 

PC gaming is flourishing now, thanks to Steam providing a marketplace when retailers weren't interested, and other developers that were willing to develop for the PC despite it being fashionable to brag about console sales and whine about PC piracy. No thanks to Microsoft mind you, who despite in theory being the platform holder - made it quite clear they were only interested in pushing the Xbox.

 

OpenGL is certainly an alternative, but between Khronos's steering being dominated by CAD companies during that era, Microsoft's FUD campaign in the lead up to Vista, and finally the dominance of the Xbox 360 - OpenGL was largely pushed out the market. Only recently with initiatives like AZDO and Valve's investments into Linux/etc has it see a degree of resurgence.

 

Completely disagree that the platform is "fundamentally good" simply because again - there is the issue of DirectX API fragmentation that has been wilfully created by Microsoft in order to try and sell more product.

 

Is MS really evil or have they just made some stupid decisions? Are they improving at all or just perpetually broken? Is DX12 going to be an improvement or not? I'm just trying to get a sense for what would change the minds of those that really do hate MS.

 

Of course MS is evil, it's a many-layered megacorporation and a convicted monopolist to the extent that if it wasn't for the well timed election of a certain republican president - we wouldn't be having this conversation. As Microsoft would've been carved up into many smaller less abusive companies.

 

Will DirectX 12 be an improvement? Sure, but it'll still be the same old thing. A single platform API designed to try and lock developers in to the Windows platform, with updates confined to the mercy of how desperate Microsoft is to sell their latest OS.

[Luc2k]

How come anyone is allowed to do this but MS?  Why are MS held to a different level of scrutiny than others?

 

Microsoft does a lot of dumb things that hit my last nerve.  So I'm not going to sit here and tell you that, everyone in Redmond WA is a saint.

 

But they are doing what people requested.  Even if that means "throwing wads of cash" at 3rd party games.

 

I honestly hope MS does this again, with another big 3rd party developer.  

 

"Focus on games Microsoft"  A game is a game, no matter how big, not matter how small. No matter who makes it.  Right? Right?

What do you mean with "anyone is allowed but MS"? I just said that I will apply the same level of scrutiny to anyone as long as the game in question is of interest to me. It may seem to you that MS is getting the brunt of this, on Neowin at least, but nobody is defending Squeenix, so that is why there's not really a lot of discussion about that angle.

 

Who the hell requested that MS do this with a multiplatform game part of an established franchise? I genuinely want to know so that I could tell those people they are raging morons. If MS wants even more bad publicity they can have another go at delaying/making exclusive other established 3rd party multiplatform games. They can't seem to get enough of it lately.

 

"Yeah MS, focus on games. Especially on those games that I would have played on release if you hadn't meddled."

 

and yet pc gaming is flourishing, like I said. MS' platform is strong because its open enough to allow gamers to get the experience they want in many different ways. Don't like DirectX? there is also OpenGL. Don't like Windows Live? There is also Steam. While MS has made some poor apps and their tools aren't always leading edge, the platform is fundamentally good for gaming since gamers are not stuck with just one experience.

Is MS really evil or have they just made some stupid decisions? Are they improving at all or just perpetually broken? Is DX12 going to be an improvement or not? I'm just trying to get a sense for what would change the minds of those that really do hate MS.

Fair enough. I happen to agree that MS should not have bought a timed exclusive deal with a franchise expected to be multi platform. However, this still basically means that MS will be unable to compete with Sony long term if they stop securing exclusive titles. Of course, you guys dont care about consoles so thats ok, but it will effect millions of gamers that prefer consoles.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that MS is in a tough spot. They can't properly compete with the other console makers due to their position on the pc.

I wouldn't call PC gaming as flourishing, unless you enjoy amount of shovelware that gets released these days and people throwing money at broken and unfinished "games". There are certainly plenty of positive aspects, like choice, but few of them have come from MS involvement in the past few years. What have they done for PC gaming recently apart from DirectX and don't say HD editions of old games and Halo Spartan Assault.

 

There is evil stuff about MS, but they're all about the stupid decisions right now. DX12 will definitely be an improvement, because they're not the only ones with money on that horse. I've even argued in the past the the improvement will more significant on PC than Xbox, although I could be wrong.

 

I do dislike the fact that you keep throwing the word "hate" around. I'm displaying my dissatisfaction (as are others) with MS's string of questionable decisions and general apathy for PC gaming. I don't hate them.

 

As for competing with Sony, what did they do to address the Uncharted franchise on the 360? They must have done something, surely. Why didn't they do something different than delaying Tomb Raider when they knew Uncharted 4 was always in the works?

[LaP]

 

 

I do agree that timed exclusives are getting tiresome. What we need is more first party exclusives,

 

this ^

[LaP]

 

 

I'm also a pc gamer, but for some reason I haven't felt that MS is holding me back as a gamer. I know they could do more that could make it better, but I never understood the outright hate MS gets over it. PC gaming is flourishing, despite the issues that may be occurring.

 

Where would be the PC market now without Valve, CD projekt Red, the old Epic (before they start caring about console more than PC), Blizzard and such?

 

Microsoft used to be a driving force in the PC gaming market. Direct X, Flight Sim games, Age of Empire, Dongeon Siege, Close Combat, Madness games, Mech games, Starlancer, Rise, etc

 

Then all of a sudden the silence. In 2009 MS published 5 PC games. Mahjong, Osmos, Tinker, Where's Waldo and World of Goo. Then MS started to rehash old games on Steam like Age of Empire HD, to port 1+ year old XBox games and to make crappy **** like Flight and Age on Empire Online.

 

There's was GFWL too which was a joke. It should have been like XBox Live but for PC. But i guess MS did not want to compete with XBox Live so Valve had to do the job for them.

 

Lately most of the new ideas are coming from AMD and nVidia. Mantle, TrueAudio, G Sync. The problem is those companies don't have the same kind of money for R&D Microsoft has and also they are making proprietary tech which is not good.

 

MS has been doing a ###### poor job supporting PC gaming for a good 7 years now easily.

[trooper11]

MS has been doing a ###### poor job supporting PC gaming for a good 7 years now easily.

I just wonder what it would take from MS to change that opinion.

They wont become a big game publisher and they wont open up another store like Steam since everyone hates MS and wont buy from them anyway. Its pretty much over with. All MS can do is work on the tools and then let others build the experiences. Create a better platform so that services like Steam continue to do well.

The nice thing about windows is that you can build your own market and create the experience you want.

[trooper11]

Of course MS is evil, it's a many-layered megacorporation and a convicted monopolist to the extent that if it wasn't for the well timed election of a certain republican president - we wouldn't be having this conversation. As Microsoft would've been carved up into many smaller less abusive companies.

 

Will DirectX 12 be an improvement? Sure, but it'll still be the same old thing. A single platform API designed to try and lock developers in to the Windows platform, with updates confined to the mercy of how desperate Microsoft is to sell their latest OS.

Just wanted to confirm that they were evil.

Hopefully, Linux can become the defacto gaming standard over the next few years thanks to Valve's steam machine push. That would lead to real change.

 

 

There is evil stuff about MS, but they're all about the stupid decisions right now. DX12 will definitely be an improvement, because they're not the only ones with money on that horse. I've even argued in the past the the improvement will more significant on PC than Xbox, although I could be wrong.

 

I do dislike the fact that you keep throwing the word "hate" around. I'm displaying my dissatisfaction (as are others) with MS's string of questionable decisions and general apathy for PC gaming. I don't hate them.

You dont, but others in this thread do. Its ok if you do, its your own opinion.

Do you ultimately want MS to improve or ready for them to go away? If you want them to improve, what do you suggest they do across their console and pc markets?

As for competing with Sony, what did they do to address the Uncharted franchise on the 360? They must have done something, surely. Why didn't they do something different than delaying Tomb Raider when they knew Uncharted 4 was always in the works?

There was no exclusive 360 game that was in the same genre/setting as Uncharted. MS doesn't need to match title for title, they just need a good variety.

In this case, and in most cases where time exclusive deals happen, its because the platform holder need more content to fill a gap in releases. So in this case, maybe the games that are in production in house for MS simply wont be ready to fill all of the gaps next year. Maybe SE was on the fence about their sequel being released at all based on their displeasure with the sales numbers for the first one and they reached out to MS (and Sony for all we know) to check interest in getting a free investment in exchange for timed exclusivity. It would be interesting to know the details, but ultimately that does not change the end result.

[LaP]

I just wonder what it would take from MS to change that opinion.

They wont become a big game publisher and they wont open up another store like Steam since everyone hates MS and wont buy from them anyway. Its pretty much over with. All MS can do is work on the tools and then let others build the experiences. Create a better platform so that services like Steam continue to do well.

The nice thing about windows is that you can build your own market and create the experience you want.

 

I think releasing their exclusive xbox games on the pc at the same time would be a start. I know it wont be good for the xbox but in the end the money used to promote the xbox is made on PC so it's only logical that this money serves PC gamers too.

[trooper11]

I think releasing their exclusive xbox games on the pc at the same time would be a start. I know it wont be good for the xbox but in the end the money used to promote the xbox is made on PC so it's only logical that this money serves PC gamers too.

So basically, get out of the console business as it is run today. I mean its not a silly notion.

As I mentioned before, maybe MS is already working towards that, but instead of just dropping out of the console market, they merge the Xbox and pc gaming platforms. The ground work is there. The X1 runs windows, MS has committed to merging it even more with Windows Threshold (shared marketplaces, development, universal apps, etc) and the hardware is all x86 based. Think of the investment money they could save if they could focus all resources on windows itself and see that used across the X1 and windows.

Yes but the fragmentation of tech between nVidia and AMD is not good.

But people hate when one company comes in and sets a single standard.

Fragmentation is simply one of those negative aspects of choice. If you prefer a more closed ecosystem, one of its positive aspects is a single, cohesive path.