>>1051219 >wow how come GTA tops the list for best seller in both the PS and the Xbox? GTA3 and VC were exclusive to the PS2 for over a year before being ported to another platform, and SA didn't receive a true "multiplatform" release until four years later. Even then, the success of the game when it finally released on the original Xbox was because of the game's previous PS2 exclusivity and how much acclaim it had received on there.

>>1051222 Where is this "untapped market" even good for you as a consumer? Why would an untapped market lead to an increase in quality if you can release whatever your competitor didn't/couldn't release in this untapped market and still profit because your direct, occasionally superior, competition is literally locked out from interacting with your market? There's no reason to launch a better product, just A product. A better product only leads to better sales for the consoles, not for yourself (because your untapped market is still untapped, anything goes). >>1051220 >>1051222 >>1051223 Ignoring the fact, again, that technological limitations of the past are THE definite hurdle that made exclusives way more frequent, do any of you honestly believe that these exclusives would have sold less, not more, if they were multiplataform?

>>1051224 >Where is this "untapped market" even good for you as a consumer? Explained already, ESL. As a developer, I want systems with exclusives to exist. Exclusives create system owners, an untapped market of more buyers for my game. I release my multi-platform game to the exclusives box, make money, reinvest money, make more games. Those systems don't exist, I make less. As a consumer, I want these developers making money to reinvest into more games for me. I'm done with you, I know what you are. You're an "argue forever" shit-faith faggot who ignores easy direct explanations to spam globs of stupid questions like a rat Jew and is too ESL to understand anything anyone explains to you.

>>1051224 >Why would an untapped market lead to an increase in quality Because your foot is already in the door from having bought their system, so they can sell you more specialized games that you would normally overlook. Every single business does it. For example, restaurants hand out free samples of their most popular/generic dish to entice new customer to come in, and the result is people coming in to look at a menu with options beyond just hamburgers and fried chicken. >There's no reason to launch a better product, just A product What about all the other companies on your platform who release similar games? Even if you're making money off of those third-parties from licensing fees, you could still make more money releasing your own games. Not to mention then not having to worry about what will happen if that third party leaves, like how Soyny was shitting bricks over M$ buying ABK because that would mean that they would lose CoD despite Snowy having several similar IPs like SOCOM and Killzone. >that technological limitations of the past are THE definite hurdle that made exclusives way more frequent, do any of you honestly believe that these exclusives would have sold less, not more, if they were multiplataform? You're asking the wrong question. It's not if they would have "sold more", it's if it was worth the investment to develop the game for additional platforms. You can see this most often with Dreamcast and GameCube games. Where the former system had everything from a version of AoE2 to Max Payne to GTAIII being developed before being ultimately canned because it was not worth the money developing games for a system that was cancelled even if you could sell more units. Meanwhile the latter had the problem that third-parties just did not sell well enough to be worth the effort of porting so later games like in the Burnout and Spyhunter series never came to the console even if they would have sold more units. This is still a problem even to this day, where developers don't want to release on more than one system despite there being almost zero difference between the Xbox and PlayStation for the past decade. And that reason can almost entirely be traced to the costs required to release your game on more than one platform. Because you have to pay for the licensing fees, the processing fees, the fees related to your game receiving an age rating (With some countries like Japan requiring the fee to be paid per platform, and per registration), and so on.

>>1051222 >Exclusives create system owners in untapped markets. The more prescient factor is saturation. Even with the more recent trend towards backwards compatibility in order to push digital purchases and also for standardized PC hardware to make development as simple as possible for the simplest of developers - you're competing with 40 years worth of PC games that all "just werk", better than Todd's games anyhow, as well as the last 40 years of console and arcade games. It's, in principle, far easier to be seen on a console marketplace than it is on the PC. In practice, Steam does a fairly good job of populating recommended tabs with indie games you've likely never heard of and may enjoy. Meanwhile Playstation Store is (at least was on PS4) still running on the same basic network infrastructure as the PS3's store and hasn't been properly upgraded like it should. You end up with a lot of the indie games recommended (especially during sales) being shovelware that's only promoted because someone knows someone and is calling in a favor or getting paid. Life of Black Tiger, for example. But - that "in practice" is very much a fight against entropy in that - were Valve to put equally as little effort into store curation as Sony, then the PS5 would be the far better platform to release an indie game simply because there's less competition. And that still gives indie games a slight advantage on those platforms than they would enjoy over just releasing on PC. The main reason why indies DON'T release on consoles more often is because of the policies of the platform holders against early access, quality "standards", the costly verification processes for updates and patches, costly dedicated development kits, potential censorship, and royalties.

>>1051206 BIG EYES! BIIIIIG EYES, THAT CAT HAS BIG CUTE ADORABLE EYES!!!!

>>1051230 >Because your foot is already in the door from having bought their system What about your foot already being in the door from just having bought any system in the first place? If you bought a PC for gaming, you're already up for gaming, same for buying in on a console. Is the entirety of the incentive behind exclusives from the POV of a consumer hinging on a sunken cost fallacy of "hey, bought my console here for X-game and my options in this case are... these? Might as well play some of them."? If so, again, why would you as a consumer incentivize less options? Ideally you want the full menu the restaurant has, not just the first page because the other one is for niggers and the last one for asians. >What about all the other companies on your platform who release similar games? Suffice to say that this is only something to strategize as a developer, not a consumer (you're only forced to strategize this as a consumer because the market is this way, it doesn't have to be), because a smaller market would have you facing less direct competitors (and especially not the "bigger fish' you're clearly running away from). This _might_, and I say _might_, lead to some options growing that would not have grown elsewhere (why would I play Sonic on a nintendo? I already got Mario), but you can count on your hands the amount of times we had equivalently interesting exclusives that are in the same genre from more than two consoles at the same time. In over 40 years of industry. >Soyny was shitting bricks over M$ buying ABK because that would mean that they would lose CoD despite Snowy having several similar IPs like SOCOM and Killzone Sony would be shitting bricks because a multiplatform turning exclusive would wreck their sales? Color me surprised, but again, why are exclusives good for you, as a consumer, as someone that just wants access to the best games, good again? I can understand why it's good for Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, etc, but why you, the consumer? Some crazy idea about supporting the developers you actually like, like >>1051228 thinks his point is? Why not just support the developer directly anyway? What's stopping you from reaching his game if it's not exclusive? Just literally go and buy his game then. Why exactly does the poor developer need to reach a smaller market to be competitive? If his quality is that much lower than his competitors to the point that he would FAIL if exposed to all the possible competition, then he just deserves to fail. >investment and dev time being a reason to go exclusive rather than multiplatform Fair assessment. Time isn't unlimited, neither is money. A fair equation, used and understood with all good reasons as to not have literally all games run on literally all machines especially when it comes to cost of developing games to be multiplatform. It's why there's also a very direct correlation to there being less exclusives as years go by and technology improving, it's cheaper every year to launch something that runs on all systems from the get go, especially because home consoles branched out from just gaming gadgets to home-TV, browser, etc, and architecturally get more and more similar. >licensing fees These literally only exist to jew out money from developers to go into their systems, it's a tax for the attempt to reach popularity that the big dudes that own the consoles impose on you, the developer, to try and reach into their exclusive market. Why would you defend this as either a developer or consumer? Their named brands need money to keep existing? It's is LITERALLY not in your interest to defend this at all as a reason for exclusives to exist. Preemptive quote, but >The brand name leads to players knowing that the game exists No it doesn't, unless you're a flagship developer, and then we still get to the sunken cost fallacy argument again and the fact you're raking in a lot more money from contracts than you're paying in fees, which should in theory make up for the fact that you're selling less copies and had to waste less development time to accommodate multiple systems. This is a lot of autism, even for me. And I'm done with this discussion for the sake of the thread itself because it's not really helpful for the other far more interesting observations regarding the future of other consoles and their capabilities and how this xbox development affects the market and games, I'll just summarize my point with the fact that >older games were better because older developers were directly better, smaller teams, more cohesive and focused, not pozzed, not engaged in cultural bullshit and the market hadn't yet found the perfect formula for extracting money from consumers, not because of exclusives. at all. Exclusivity was a tech/development cost gap and another way the market focused in extracting money from you, not a mean to develop better games.

>>1051248 Anon I think your cat-kitten.mp4 has autism.

>>1050743 >>1050747 >>1050789 >>1050827 >>1050836 >>1050842 >Xcloud gaming is near unplayable, imo. Input lag with a controller is passable for most titles, but not a great experience <Movie games don't require low latency inputs. It's dogshit for everything else, but "everything else" isn't much. >I have a working theory that people with lower or maybe even average reaction time might be literally unable to perceive latency without a lot of effort. <Part of "unable to perceive latency" is because they play movie games where latency doesn't worsen their play. >Outside of movie games, people are unable to perceive latency that does worsen their play because people just don't pay attention. <Normalfag lemmings don't care, normalfag lemmings zone out to movie games. Movie game standards enable cloud service gaming to exist, causing unplayable input lag for everything else. >The video feed has to be close to 1:1 and they're just not able to handle the decompression well that fast. So it ends up looking like shit >big heaping pile of data caps that are going to throttle bandwidth Low income countries have dogshit data caps too and cloud streaming hits those caps fast.

>>1051250 >If you bought a PC for gaming, you're already up for gaming What kind of gaming? What kind of games? Just because you buy a PC and intend to use it for games, that doesn't mean you can actually play "all" games with it, or even if it's a good computer to play "all" games for. You could have been a person who bought into the meme of gaming laptops, or even gaming tablets. >If so, again, why would you as a consumer incentivize less options? Because you realize that the format the game is being released in is shit. Just ask people who have tried to play RTS games on consoles, or racing games using a M&K, or FPS titles on a smartphone. You want developers to stop trying to cast a net upon the "widest" market possible because it's causing them to destroy the game's design in order to accommodate a market and audience who it does not suit nor plays those games. Basically a similar argument made for why people are against games becoming casualized. >Ideally you want the full menu the restaurant has No, you don't. You want a restaurant who specializes in only a couple specialties as opposed to provide everyone everything. If you wanted a little bit of "everything", you would just stay home and take a TV dinner out of the freezer. >Suffice to say that this is only something to strategize as a developer So you're admitting that it forces companies to compete? >This _might_, and I say _might_ The Hell kind of formatting is this? >why would I play Sonic on a nintendo? Because Sonic is a better game. >why are exclusives good for you, as a consumer, as someone that just wants access to the best games, good again? Because the company would need to make the best games possibly to prevent you from buying a competing console. <But why not just buy that competing console and have both systems? Because not everyone has the money to do so. Majority of people, if they see that another system has better games than the one they currently have, will sell their current system in exchange for a different one with better games. So the company needs to put out the best games possible to prevent you from having a reason to sell your device. And you as the customer win because that results in more good games coming out. >Why exactly does the poor developer need to reach a smaller market to be competitive? Because that market has a higher amount of people who will buy their game. Best example is how PC and smartphones have the "highest" market of users in the world, yet developers still prioritize releasing their game console because their games sell better on consoles with a "smaller" market as opposed to the larger market of smartphones and PCs who will not buy their games as often. >it's cheaper every year to launch something that runs on all systems from the get go No, it is not, because of all the fees attached to ever single platform. It has lessened compared to 20 years ago, but the fees still exist and developers have to prioritize which platform will result in them receiving the most amount of return. >Why would you defend this as either a developer or consumer? Because I like my exclusive club, and those licensing fees keep out the people who will ruin the market that I have entered by making games for this console, or the games I will have access from buying this console. No one likes a bad game, so those fees require the developers make games that will be worth the price of taking up the same amount of space as more high profile titles. Simply put, if your ass is on the line, you more of an incentive to release a good product as opposed to shit one.

>>1051248 yeah, she sure does

>>1051203 >mobile I was told that shit would go away.

>>1051162 >I will never understand why so many Nintendo fags on /v/ pretend it's solely devs who are to blame (devs still deserve a lot of shit though still) but ignore how low spec the Switch is to play the high graphic games it's trying to push. Because we have a bunch of ports that do prove the Switch is capable of being quite close to the level of a base PS4 with little concessions, if the devs put their mind into it. To name a few: >Alien Isolation >Dying Light >Nier Automata >Ace Combat 7 >Earth Defense Force 4.1 (PS4 remake of the PS3 title with more NPCs and new enemies) And there are other previously thought impossible ports like Kingdom Come Deliverance or Stray. Obviously the form factor does limit the current hardware to reach higher heights without homebrew tinkering but people tend to be harsh on what the thing can do, even if it's true the hardware itself is getting outdated by now. But at the same time, the gap that is separating portable devices and the dedicated home devices keeps becoming smaller and smaller.

>>1051162 >I will never understand why so many Nintendo fags on /v/ Maybe if you actually play on Xbox Series/PS5 count yourself how many loading sections it needs for a level.

>>1051162 >I will never understand why so many Nintendo fags on /v/ There are not remotely as many as there were even 6 years ago. Switch owners are just cocky because they won the gen despite being the "worse" system. But this thread is about the failure of Xbox, can't Xbox threads just be laugh threads instead of wall-to-wall spergery? I feel a lot of anons won't admit it, but I believe many have some remnant affection for Xbox and can't bring themselves to just point and laugh.

Jesus Christ GCtard ruined this thread.

>>1051344 The first Xbox was so good. I have good memories attached to that old machine.

>>1050785 >There is nothing to compete over anymore as companies are more worried about increasing their ESG score as opposed to making the most money by giving customers the best experience possible. That isn't even just an industry thing. Every industry does that now. Companies have figured out that you don't maximize profits by providing the products that people want to buy. You maximize profits buy providing shitty products that people buy because you have already bought out and shut down all of your competitors in the industry thus preventing the production of products that people would prefer to buy.

>>1051349 I found a Jasper Xbox 360 that has never been updated to the latest version and still has the original startup animation & the original UI sounds, all of which are gone now with the newer updates. It didn't have the original Blades dashboard as that was already phased out by then. Still, it's a far cry from the Kinect-era of Xbox.

>>1051344 >Switch owners are just cocky because they won the gen despite being the "worse" system. On what kind of metric? Definitively not when it comes to games unless you're a western 'dudebro' into AAA titles, which is more the audience that both Playstation and Xbox aims for.

>>1051368 Obviously not games, nothing else has games. He probably means specs. Dudebro AAA titles usually aren't exclusive either, there's no reason to buy cucksoles for them, though retarded normalfags still will. Cucksoles are dead, spec-chasers should join the PC master race, or buy a modern handheld.

>>1051368 Worse in quotes because the Switch is about as powerful as a phone, and traditionally console warriors jerkoff over specs. The Switch coming in first both in sales and games by a wide margin despite that has made some Nintendo fans very braggatory towards the "muh gwafix" brand of casuals.

To add further, I think it's unfortunate that exclusives have become something not as common as they used to be in decades prior. More in the sense the games were made for a specific machine in mind, with all the strengths and restrictions, even learning a bunch of tricks and making cool concepts around the machine's own capabilities. Now things have gone a lot more homogenized between the multi-platform releases and in-game engines meant to be compatible with every platform in the market (and probably familiar enough for hired fresh devs to work instantly on the fly instead of proprietary engines). >>1051370 I'm certainly not a fan of the PC platform devolving into a "proto-console" when it used to be its own thing in prior decades by offering a completely different experience from consoles with its games and community, let alone mods that could pass off as legitimate full-fledged games when they were passion hobby projects made from someone's own spare time. Lack of noticeable exclusives can also work against PC gaming as well depending where your personal tastes in vidya lie. Ultimately, console/platform wars are rather gay and I think anyone too deep into these kind of arguments are autistic and friendless losers.

>>1051373 Lack of noticeable exclusives don't work against PC gaming much because the selling point of PC gaming is the other games on a more powerful machine than a console. A PC is objectively the best buy for buyers who jerk off over specs.

>>1051349 >>1051373 >The first Xbox was so good. I have good memories attached to that old machine. >Ultimately, console/platform wars are rather gay and I think anyone too deep into these kind of arguments are autistic and friendless losers. I have good memories attached to my old Xbox too. So does >>1051197 >just put xbox back to roots and stop the aaa. give me more blinx games And >>1051208 >I remember Blinx for XB, had the gimmick of time manipulation. Cool exclusive. First XB had some cool exclusives, too bad Micro$$$oft pajeets crash-landed XB shit into no games hell last 2 gens. I'm a rail shooter guy so my favorite's Panzer Dragoon Orta. Those posts weren't argued, 0 fanboys said Xbox was always shit so it's not fanboys. Xbox started good, got butchered by industry. It objectively happened. It sucks admitting it since I have good memories attached to old Xbox games but this news is the death knell, modern Xbox is in the coffin, it's time to move on. I let Xbox go years ago. My anger's at the industry. Doesn't mean Xbox was always bad. I'll always have my old good memories of old Xbox games when Xbox was good. The industry can't take them. I don't have Switch, most Anons here don't. It's not a gay console war thing, console wars are stupid. I moved to PC and play old games.

>>1051374 If high specs are someone's biggest priority, sure I'm not gonna argue against that. Although the average people is not gonna care much about that kind of thing (we've already hit a wall of strong diminishing returns with the current hardware outside of the portable/hybrid ones) nevermind the older gaming enthusiasts (as in, playing a lot of games) that have been dealing with various issues for years. The lines keep blurring up between platform versions of games, especially anything Japanese or indie as you'd be hard-pressed to notice large differences on those. Besides the games themselves, the choice of platform is more a matter of personal convenience.

>>1051376 >most anons don't have a Switch Statistically unlikely given how many were sold, even I didn't have a Switch until my friend sold his to me last year. I'd assume at least 35-60% of anons have one.

>>1051376 >I don't have Switch, most Anons here don't >>1051401 >Statistically unlikely given how many were sold The truth is in between. Many here have Switch, but the most active don't, so despite how many were sold, Switch games are seldom discussed, because the most active decide what's discussed. I have Switch, and emulate Switch, but never attack consoles, succeeding or failing. Most on Switch don't attack consoles, we're busy with Switch games. Console attacks seldom change opinions, nor reverse the joyous childhood memories that attached people to console brands. They just embitter people against other consoles, refused and attacked, then their favorites are attacked in a shitposting drama-cycle of increasing tribalism, making /v/ inhospitable to video game discussion. If they never came online, and tried Switch, they'd like it, but shitposts pre-ruin everyone's fun by closing them off to joyous experiences. Arguing online's a misery-maker I'm too old for. I post likes, not dislikes. I politely encourage people for and against Switch to be nicer to each other for the Christmas season, it's the most wonderful time of the year. To spread joy, not misery, I also encourage test-driving Switch, with these 2 emulators, firmware, and games. https://gamebanana.com/tools/16395 https://www.softpedia.com/get/Gaming-Related/Ryujinx.shtml https://prodkeys.net/latest-switch-firmwares-v2 https://archive.org/download/switchgames

>>1051169 Better: don't play video games. Save hard drive space.

>>1051426 Better: Don't live. Saves oxygen

>>1051407 I just emulate all my Switch games since the Switch itself runs them poorly and Nintendo has slowed down on major releases around 2023. Although I MIGHT get a Switch 2 if it runs existing Switch games at 60FPS or 120FPS.

>>1051407 I have planned on getting a Switch on several different occasions but there's always been something that happened that' caused me to hold off. The first thing was just the annoyance of buying a WiiU and have them kill support dead like a year later, that and disliking that they ended their entire handheld line and merged it with their console line. Something they said they weren't going to do although I didn't believe them. After that it was just not liking the direction they took Mario and Zelda so that gave me less of a reason to get it near launch. Then I was planning to get it with around the time Chrono Cross re-released because that was one of my favorite games at the tail end of the 90s and the release turned to complete shit so that killed all enthusiasm. Repeat that when Thousand Year Door re-released. Additionally through out all that time sprinkle rumors that the new Switch version is only "6 MONTHS AWAY" and I've just ended up backing down from getting one year after year.

>>1051376 Anger should be channeled towards "triple A" practices and taken to Twitter, yeah. People responsible for the mess in the industry should be targeted. >>1051407 Imageboard shitflinging's a lost cause to quell, Christmas or not. People like to fight too much, and use imageboards to release anger which hides backlash from the DEI demons responsible, who get off the hook. >>1051429 I emulated Switch games I have on Switch, high-spec. Emulated FPS is usually much worse, sometimes unplayably, except for modded games doing 30 on both. Why? Emulators run Switch+game in software, Switch just the game. Most flagship Switch titles, especially Nintendo's, have 99% perfect frame pacing, unemulated. Dips exaggerated in console wars are in 1% of intense areas or need contrived setups to cause. Maybe some think Ryujinx's horrible lows is Switch's experience but it isn't. Recent 3rd-party ports can dip, they're recent to an old system. Trickled now, as Nintendo prepares for a Switch successor. Backwards compatibility should fix that. Many are 30 FPS but more are 60 than reported online. >>1051431 I wouldn't buy Switch right now, I'd wait for the Switch successor. "6 MONTHS AWAY" might be true this time.

I think the big mistake that MS made was to not capitalize on the Steel Battalion controller. >>1051437 >I wouldn't buy Switch right now, I'd wait for the Switch successor. "6 MONTHS AWAY" might be true this time. Fucking damnit.

>>1051268 What's that drawing about Anon?