Xbox Series X|S Catch-All

I think you can argue that subscription services like Game Pass contribute to the broader devaluation of games which disproportionately impacts indie games but is also a contributing factor behind so many large, AAA titles embracing for-cash currency packs and the like. But it's difficult to tell if this devaluation is accelerated all that much by Game Pass or if the flood of dozens of new releases per day does that well enough on its own.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I think you can argue that subscription services like Game Pass contribute to the broader devaluation of games which disproportionately impacts indie games but is also a contributing factor behind so many large, AAA titles embracing for-cash currency packs and the like. But it's difficult to tell if this devaluation is accelerated all that much by Game Pass or if the flood of dozens of new releases per day does that well enough on its own.

Yeah, Game Pass is just another drop in that torrent racing to the bottom. And moreover, is an effect, not a cause.

Jonman wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

I think you can argue that subscription services like Game Pass contribute to the broader devaluation of games which disproportionately impacts indie games but is also a contributing factor behind so many large, AAA titles embracing for-cash currency packs and the like. But it's difficult to tell if this devaluation is accelerated all that much by Game Pass or if the flood of dozens of new releases per day does that well enough on its own.

Yeah, Game Pass is just another drop in that torrent racing to the bottom. And moreover, is an effect, not a cause.

So the entirety of gaming won't be RPGs from MonolithSoft? Dammit!

Jayhawker wrote:

I saw someone say on Twitter that with so many games selling digital, the prices of old games are going to go way up. You know, just like they did with PC games.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

GamePass is adding EA Play.

EA Play has Anthem.

GamePass will have Anthem.

*magic timey-wimey stuff*

GAMEPASS CAUSES BAD GAMES.

Should I consider Nier Automata a bad game now, since I only played it because it was available on GamePass? Because it seem EXACTLY like the kind of game the guy in the video says won't come to Xbox because of GamePass.

Yes; it's Rule 34, except game quality instead of porn. Talking about a game being on GamePass causes the game to become bad IT'S JUST SCIENCE.

Jonman wrote:

Yeah, Game Pass is just another drop in that torrent racing to the bottom. And moreover, is an effect, not a cause.

That's my feeling about it, too, honestly. Despite all the endless comparisons to the movie industry, gaming seems to echo the music industry far more frequently, and one of the big goals in the music industry as individual sales have given way to streaming services has been curation. With an absolute firehose of content, how do you help people find what they'll enjoy so that they can get the most value out of your service? Services like Game Pass and the invite-only nature of the Epic Games Store---and to a lesser extent, curator lists on Steam---are gaming's first forays into that.

Jayhawker wrote:

Should I consider Nier Automata a bad game now, since I only played it because it was available on GamePass? Because it seem EXACTLY like the kind of game the guy in the video says won't come to Xbox because of GamePass.

No, you should feel bad for not playing Nier Automata earlier. Clearly.

garion333 wrote:

Microsoft will only put out games that take a long time to play. I love RPGs. RPGs take a long time to play.

That would be lovely. I want more 100+ hour RPGs.

I do fear that a subscription future could lead to games going even further (than they already are) into prolonged game experiences. Like episodic/season games. Endless early access etc.
Game Pass and similar are still too small to have such an effect today. But if subscription services became dominant, it might change.

Preferably, there is a lot of different, successful, ways to sell games. Subscriptions for collections of games (both like Game Pass where you can play while subscription lasts, or like HumblePSN+ where you keep the games), as well as subscriptions for single games, like MMOs, episodic games, season passes, buy to own and "free" to play. That diversity can only be a strength.

Jonman wrote:

Yeah, Game Pass is just another drop in that torrent racing to the bottom. And moreover, is an effect, not a cause.

Yeah, that is most likely.

Interesting video. I’m not someone who cares about graphics that much, so I apologize if this is an oversimplification, but it feels like 4K isn’t that important to the market. Hardware manufacturers are basically working around it or outright not supporting it.

EDIT: Fixed autocorrect

The cost of pushing that many pixels is still really high, and honestly not all that impactful.

DSGamer wrote:

Interesting video. I’m not someone who swears graphics too much, so I apologize if this is an oversimplification, but it feels like 4K isn’t that important to the market. Hardware manufacturers are basically working around it or outright not supporting it.

I have to say, I have an X1X and while 4K is cool, it is really not that big of a change to me compared to 1080p. The load time improvements, though, look fantastic. I’m leaning towards the Series S for now and waiting on the Series X for when some of the first party games hit. I just love that small form factor too.

DSGamer wrote:

Interesting video. I’m not someone who swears graphics too much, so I apologize if this is an oversimplification, but it feels like 4K isn’t that important to the market. Hardware manufacturers are basically working around it or outright not supporting it.

I still game on a 1080p TV myself. We do have a 4k set in the living room now, but we probably wouldn't if it hadn't came with our bed for free. I am considering buying the new TCL 6 Series 55 inch model for gaming on though.

I have an earlier model 65" 4K TV that doesn't have HDR, and then a 2560x1600 monitor that does, along with a 144hz refresh rate and let me tell you, the monitor is far more impressive looking for games than the TV is.

The monitor, I assume, is also much smaller, making everything look even sharper and crisper.

Personally, I'm all for 1080p with a buttload of AA applied.

I'd be surprised if some of the high-end graphics games will be able to do 4K at a decent framerate anyway, on Series X. So it might not be a choice between 4K vs. 1440. Sometimes it might be about stable 30 FPS vs. not stable (or 60 FPS vs. 30).
For something that is meant to last like 5-7 years, Series X seems like the better deal to me. If it is too much now, I would just wait for the first price cuts.
But having both options is great.

Games look better on my 1440p monitor than my 4K TV, but I can squarely lay the blame for that on the Steam Link that makes the game appear on my TV at 1080p.

Shadout wrote:

I'd be surprised if some of the high-end graphics games will be able to do 4K at a decent framerate anyway, on Series X. So it might not be a choice between 4K vs. 1440. Sometimes it might be about stable 30 FPS vs. not stable (or 60 FPS vs. 30).
For something that is meant to last like 5-7 years, Series X seems like the better deal to me. If it is too much now, I would just wait for the first price cuts.
But having both options is great.

The 2080Ti is 14.2 TFlops and does 4K 60Fps right now.. the Xbox Series X is 12Tflops with a really strong CPU (Zen 2 based) and is purpose built to run games.. it will handle 4K/60 for the most part and look really good doing it... sure some titles might lock 30fps in but the whole reason Microsoft went with VRR is to not have to worry about locking frame rates anymore.

https://www.windowscentral.com/assas...

Yup, it's nice to see VRR become a thing so we can get pretty games and stable(ish) frames.

TheGameguru wrote:

The 2080Ti is 14.2 TFlops and does 4K 60Fps right now.. the Xbox Series X is 12Tflops with a really strong CPU (Zen 2 based) and is purpose built to run games.. it will handle 4K/60 for the most part and look really good doing it... sure some titles might lock 30fps in but the whole reason Microsoft went with VRR is to not have to worry about locking frame rates anymore.

https://www.windowscentral.com/assas...

Todays games, sure. But games will demand more and more power. Like they always have.
2080Ti wont cut it in 5+ years either for those games.

VRR will be awesome, I hope. That was one of the major reasons I bought a TV with hdmi 2.1 support.

I also hope games will give us the option to go for 120 fps at less than 4k however, for the games that can handle it. Dark Souls games at 120fps would be great.

The 2080Ti is 2 years old...I suspect it will still be a strong card for another 2 years. I would guess as well Microsoft will release a refresh by then as well

TheGameguru wrote:

The 2080Ti is 2 years old...I suspect it will still be a strong card for another 2 years. I would guess as well Microsoft will release a refresh by then as well :-)

Yeah. That doesn't help these new consoles much Anyway, point wasn't that Series X would get into problems with future games (unless we count 30 fps as a problem at least). Rather that the Series S might. That doesn't make it a bad deal, as long as people know what they are buying.
It is just like when you buy a a mid-tier or high-end GPU for PC. Todays 4K GPU will be tomorrows 1440p GPU, and todays 1440p GPU will be well... replaced. You might get more years out of the Series X, helping it in the value department vs. the Series S. Even if all you care about is 1440p.

It will be interesting to see where PS5 lands. I’m assuming $499/399. If so I suspect they will be the market leader because Sony has such strong branding right now in gaming in spite of all of the efforts of MS and 399 for a full PS5 without drive will be very compelling. If it were to come in at $599/499 then I think things will get interesting. I’d guess PS5 would still be the leader but could narrow the gap.

Shadout wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

The 2080Ti is 2 years old...I suspect it will still be a strong card for another 2 years. I would guess as well Microsoft will release a refresh by then as well :-)

Yeah. That doesn't help these new consoles much Anyway, point wasn't that Series X would get into problems with future games (unless we count 30 fps as a problem at least). Rather that the Series S might. That doesn't make it a bad deal, as long as people know what they are buying.
It is just like when you buy a a mid-tier or high-end GPU for PC. Todays 4K GPU will be tomorrows 1440p GPU, and todays 1440p GPU will be well... replaced. You might get more years out of the Series X, helping it in the value department vs. the Series S. Even if all you care about is 1440p.

Ahh I see.. you had a typo.. you started off with talking about the Series X. I think for $299 the Series S will be fine for 5 years.. it will always have lower resolution textures and will checkboard everything up to 4K.. so really its rendering at 1080P and 1440P.. given the typical cycle of game development is 2-4+ years we are talking about 2 maybe 3 turns of games.. the jump between game cycles isnt as great as you are making it.

Docjoe wrote:

It will be interesting to see where PS5 lands. I’m assuming $499/399. If so I suspect they will be the market leader because Sony has such strong branding right now in gaming in spite of all of the efforts of MS and 399 for a full PS5 without drive will be very compelling. If it were to come in at $599/499 then I think things will get interesting. I’d guess PS5 would still be the leader but could narrow the gap.

If you are defining the market leader by console units sold then probably Nintendo will be the market leader.. Sony will be second and Microsoft a distant third.. Yet somehow Microsoft probably emerges the winner where it actually counts.

TheGameguru wrote:

where it actually counts.

Quality of first party and exclusive titles? Yeah Nintendo has won that for 35 years.

Oh you mean money. Yeah, $15 a month does add up.

If quality of first-party titles were all that mattered, the Wii U wouldn't have been a flop, and the Vita... Well, the Vita would have done exactly as well as it did.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

If quality of first-party titles were all that mattered, the Wii U wouldn't have been a flop, and the Vita... Well, the Vita would have done exactly as well as it did.

Oh god I’m still traumatized by the load times on the original Vita.....

And I feel like I’m the only person in the world who can’t find a Nintendo game or device he likes. I’ve owned them all and we have 3 Switches. Such a waste of money, I can’t stand playing on it and can’t find a game I like. But I keep buying into the hype when I hear people say that it is the only gaming device anyone needs and figure maybe the next game will open my eyes!

Rykin wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Interesting video. I’m not someone who swears graphics too much, so I apologize if this is an oversimplification, but it feels like 4K isn’t that important to the market. Hardware manufacturers are basically working around it or outright not supporting it.

I still game on a 1080p TV myself. We do have a 4k set in the living room now, but we probably wouldn't if it hadn't came with our bed for free. I am considering buying the new TCL 6 Series 55 inch model for gaming on though.

I *do* have a 4K TV, but only because it was the best TV we liked with the features we wanted at the time we bought it. We don’t honesty do much in 4K and I can’t say I miss it.

Our Apple TV is 1080p and I’ve never been inclined to upgrade to the 4K. I have a PlayStation 4 Pro, but I don’t play it much and I couldn’t tell you which games utilize the extra Ks.

Otherwise I play almost everything else on a Switch that’s upscale constantly and it seems fine to me.

I think the reason the video caught my attention on this subject is because it seems like Microsoft has locked in on wanting to guarantee a specific frame rate and otherwise you basically choose the console based on whether you want great or great-er textures. I feel like that’s making a strong argument for a Series S.

Docjoe wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

If quality of first-party titles were all that mattered, the Wii U wouldn't have been a flop, and the Vita... Well, the Vita would have done exactly as well as it did.

Oh god I’m still traumatized by the load times on the original Vita.....

And I feel like I’m the only person in the world who can’t find a Nintendo game or device he likes. I’ve owned them all and we have 3 Switches. Such a waste of money, I can’t stand playing on it and can’t find a game I like. But I keep buying into the hype when I hear people say that it is the only gaming device anyone needs and figure maybe the next game will open my eyes!

Nintendo's first-party offerings hit a bit broader range of players than Sony's or Microsoft's, but they still have a pretty specific type of player in mind. It's okay if you're not that player. I absolve you of the need to try to find a Nintendo game you like. Go in peace.

The games I like on Nintendo platforms are usually 3rd party. Just a shame I had to buy inferior hardware to play them :p.

But everyone else is having such a great time and I feel left out!

Fine, I’ll just play my dumb boring old PC.