They still had any? DOHOHOHOHO

>>1050718 Xbox, having exclusive? But all the shit in Xbox is on PC too?

Not surprising, Xbox hasn't had permanent console exclusives since the 360.

Xbox hasn't fucking had any exclusives this entire generation. I wonder if those 40-year-old "XBOX NATION" gamers will finally accept defeat when Bill Gates publicly executes Phil Spencer at E3 Summer Games Fest 2026. The "this is an Xbox" campaign is obviously Microsoft easing their base into them becoming third-party.

>>1050718 But that makes no sense, since all PCs are Xboxes, and PC has exclusive games not on Switch and/or Playstation, then naturally Xbox has exclusives. QED

>>1050724 >QED Paul Dirac get outta here

I might be wrong here, but xbox never had profits in the console area, did they? Just like SEGA and Capcom, after they added their games to steam and made boatloads of money they are re-thinking their entire bussiness plan. I would say it's smart of them, but it's microsoft, they will find a way to fuck it up.

>>1050721 There's a couple shovelware exclusives on Xbox One like Powerstar Golf and Shape Up but they're shit, Xbox One's a Forza 5 box like PS5's an Astrostation. Xbox Series S/X though has literally no exclusives.

>>1050718 Will they at least have some exclusive content in multiplatform games? You know, like they had Kraven in Spider-Man back in the day, for example.

This is good news for anyone with a brain, especially if you dislike Xbox, they're just semi-officially gone now, and Microsoft will hold onto the name for marketing purposes pretty much. The thread seems to be focusing on exclusives up to now, but why the fuck would you even defend the idea of exclusives? One less console in the races means everyone can access more games more easily without having to buy yet another machine just for that. Two things do concern me though: for one, Microsoft has consistently shown that they're interested in garden walling their stuff for profit through software, starting out with Halo 2 straight up not running on Windows XP, even though all it needed was an exclusive .dll present in Vista, up to now with game-pass games' data being in that weird exclusive format that does not communicate at all with the same game outside of the game-pass version, so it's not unimaginable that they would come up with the idea of "game-pass exclusive games" enforced with data/software locks. Small side note: this could seriously suck for Linux gaming. The second one is the possibility that Microsoft goes the way of Epic and starts contracting games to just be exclusive in game-pass anyway, which would lead us to have PCs that are fully able of running stuff, but have to put up with an even more exclusive artificial stores. This option does not pose as big a menace to Linux because piracy exists, however, thank god.

Funnily enough, that's forward-thinking of them and I applaud their choice. The big money right now is getting your game on as many platforms as possible. Are more people going to play Ever Oasis since it was a 3DS exclusive? Fuck no! Did people buy a Piss5 for Final Fantasy XVI? Fuck you no, and they certainly aren't getting it on Steam. How about for Stellar Blade? Fuck you no, that game got censored day one and everybody wants the PC port for obvious reasons. What about Freedom Wars for the Vita? Oh sorry, it got rereleased on modern consoles and PC where people will hear of and play it for the first time. How about Demons Souls Remake? Dogshit. Exclusives no longer capture market share like the days of old, if anything they lose money. Hell, the new Indiana Jones games is already receiving a respectable playerbase and it's merely a timed exclusive.

Anything that can't run those "Xbox" games natively, is a pile of shit and should be considered false advertising. Xcloud gaming is near unplayable, imo. Input lag with a controller is passable for most titles, but not a great experience, and the video compression makes the image look like a literal puddle of vomit even on decent internet (500mbps symmetrical fiber). Maybe it could look "good" on a cell phone screen or a ROG Ally, but even on a laptop it's unacceptably bad. And that's not even counting queues on new releases, connection drops, frequent screen tears, and major decompression hickups. Microsoft doesn't give a single shit about Xbox or games. Never have. Even during their heights with the 360, there was frequent talk of spinning Xbox off into it's own company separate from Microsoft. It's always only ever been a way to keep Sony in check out of fear that they'd turn their Playstations into livingroom PCs for the masses - and now they're operating out of the same motivation, but targeting Valve because of the threat they see in Proton. Steam Machines, and later Proton, are themselves a response to Microsoft attempting to lock the Windows environment down like consoles are via UWP. They are sacrificing Xbox as a brand in order to get as many people as possible using Microsoft "ecosystem" devices where they can continue to scrape data and have you paying into their cloud-based services.

XBox still exists?

>>1050741 >Did people buy a Piss5 for Final Fantasy XVI? Literally yes, many retards did this. Like all these retards. reddit.com/r/FFXVI/comments/148mml0/strongly_debating_buying_a_ps5_for_the_game/ Or all these retards. reddit.com/r/FFXVI/comments/146j9rc/who_is_buying_a_ps5_just_to_play_this_game/ Or gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/300958-final-fantasy-xvi/80517552 Or gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/300958-final-fantasy-xvi/80219938 Poll with 20% voting "I will buy PS5 for this game soon:" gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/300958-final-fantasy-xvi/80365026 >The big money right now is getting your game on as many platforms as possible. The big money for most players since they don't have exclusives. Switch is the exception making big money from an exclusives model right now, selling 146 million.

>>1050743 >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.

>>1050741 >Exclusives no longer capture market share like the days of old We need to go back to having exclusives. The market was a much healthier, more vibrant, and much more fun place to be when companies actually had to compete with each other by making good games you could only find on their machines. Everything today, except for Switch, is just a generic no-game box that expects you to pay monthly fees to use your own internet service with it. They're no more consequential than the plate you get served buffet slop on. Fuck, I even miss the retarded console war arguments people got into. At least that was indicative of some level of passion that players had for their game stations. Did it suck missing out on some great titles because you didn't have the right hardware? Sure... but we've lost something much greater without it. Besides, it's not like I actually missed out on any of those NES/SNES/N64 games I didn't have access to with my Sega systems. I play them quite frequently now. For free.

What a fucking joke.

>>1050741 >the new Indiana Jones games is already receiving a respectable playerbase Citation needed, unless it's making gangbusters on console, this is DOA.

>>1050763 I'd like to note concurrent players aren't that important for a singleplayer game.

>>1050765 Absolutely, but here's dd2 on it's first week for comparison to indy's 2 weeks.

>>1050748 Emulating old games is great man, more Anons like you should post screenshots of those games you emulate quite frequently now to Emulation Megathread >>1028520. Anons actually played games in there.

>>1050769 >Anons >Actually played games

>>1050746 >>1050748 <If you have interest in anything else that has timed exclusivity like Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth, Spider-Man 2, God of War Ragnarok which won’t hit Pc for a couple of years then it would probably be worth it for you to get one. <Too bad, Mr. Small Island. You just wasted 400 bucks. <No I didn't I bought a ps5 (and it costs much more than 400 where I live) <You're just like me. Thankfully I bought FFXVI physical, so I was able to resell on ebay for 80% of what I paid for :) There are always going to be suckers but the issue is there aren't enough of them for these exclusives to make any money back. The exclusive model worked back when Halo 3 cost $30M to make and was considered the peak of console gaming. Now with exclusives costing $300M and counting the model collapses. >>1050748 <We need to go back to having exclusives. The market was a much healthier, more vibrant, and much more fun place to be when companies actually had to compete with each other by making good games you could only find on their machines. Fuck, I even miss the retarded console war arguments people got into. No, we aren't missing anything, go check the exclusives left on consoles these days. Besides the obvious cult hits like Bloodborne and Gravity Rush and the Japan-exclusive RPGs and dating sims that are only on console because muh piracy there's really nothing of note. And even then most of those Japanese exclusives are going to get ported to PC because it's free money; look at Lollipop Chainsaw which saved its parent company Dragami from tanking simply by a smart campaign for the rerelease >>1013666 Fighting about muh consoles was rooted in schoolchildren trying to compare clouts by whatever their parents bought them, don't pretend otherwise. The Switch will retain exclusives because of Nintendo, but as evidenced by the WiiU flopping exclusives don't sell systems no matter how good they are. And if they ARE good they're likely to get ported to maximize revenue. >>1050763 >>1050766 <muh steamcharts <Source? source? Cuckchanner spotted, holy crap. In any case, the game was released on Game Pass, so it's rather obvious that a lot of the playerbase are there since it's cheaper to experience there.

>>1050771 >it's rather obvious that a lot of the playerbase are there since it's cheaper to experience there. Here's Stalker 2 which also released on gamepiss. <muh cuckchan boogeyman Can't even formulate an argument or provide evidence. >>1050775 And can't even type, apparently.

>>1050771 No, the model of AAA "blockbuster" exclusives isn't going to work - but part of the reason why first party titles existed in the first place was to plug holes in a console's launch library, as well as provide proof of market for third parties to put their titles on your machine. All it would take would be to just say no to a few of these Concord-tier obvious failures while they're still in the concept phase and use the money instead to produce 7~10 smaller budget titles that are far less graphically intensive and much quicker to produce. Essentially, it's the same model that Nintendo uses because they have to in order to get them to run on a mobile chipset. But a company like Sony or Microsoft could still supplement that with a few bloated AAA trashfires that basically serve as a justification for retards to buy next generation hardware platforms. As it is now, though, you really don't even have to push hardware anymore since you can run those less intensive game on hardware that's a generation or two old. You can increase the market substantially that way, while still keeping them "Brand" exclusive. It would allow a much greater turnover of new games, opening up a massive revival of existing (but dormant) IPs, allow studios to get creative with new mechanics and IPs, and hey - anything that proves to be a massive breakout hit on the small scale, can then be put forward for a AAA tier entry further on (which would encourage new hardware adoption from existing fans of that series) while retiring AAA franchises that aren't performing well enough.

>>1050718 So what, Xbox is just going to be a brand now?

>>1050739 >but why the fuck would you even defend the idea of exclusives? Because it forced companies to put their money behind creating titles that were the best games one could find on the market, in addition to building an identity around the games your company offered. Exclusives games forced the companies to compete. And even if the game was developed by a third party, it still required companies to be stingy with who they signed deals with. You can see this clearly with how Sega's dominance in the market required Nintendo to rebrand themselves and actually become creative towards the end of the SNES with games like Star Fox and DKC. Even more when Snowy knocked everyone's sock's off with the PS1. Today, an exclusive is effectively a company holding the game hostage. 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. As a result, there is nothing actually differentiating the companies, or even the companies having an "identity" anymore. Even then, are we really missing out on anything if these games remain exclusive? From what I've heard, Stellar Blade is just a discount Neir:A and Astro-Bot is just a discount SMG.

>>1050748 Switch going gangbusters in sales despite shitty 2017 hardware shows there's a market for exclusives but the output's slowed, besides Brothership and Zelda there weren't many this year. Competition would be healthy for that market, hope PS5 focuses on more exclusives like Astro Bot.

>>1050747 >Movie games don't require low latency inputs Not even just movie games. 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. I also think it's why that meme where console fags could not see above 30FPS was so fucking funny to me.

>>1050785 >exclusives affected game quality No. Maybe identity, but not at all quality. You just put money into having exclusives so people would be forced to buy your own console to be able to play the games they actually want. You could argue that in this case a company is heavily interested in turning only the best games exclusive, but there's just no way to predict if a game will truly be good or not, and it's why there's also a ton of games that are shit but still exclusives. Shit games are a result of an industry that has min-maxed effort vs revenue, combined with the very clear brain drain from actually talented developers, be it because of their ESG/DEI bullshit or because of the fact that it's shit pay for one of the hardest jobs in Comp Sci, not at all because of exclusives. This is awful logic.

>>1050791 >You just put money into having exclusives so people would be forced to buy your own console to be able to play the games they actually want. And will people want to buy your console to play your games if your games suck?

Ouya won the console wars in the early 2010s. It was the only console that had Retroarch without modding and was small enough to stick in any room. The competition was XBone and PS4 with no games. Only Nintendo had a selling point worth noting. I initially wrote this post as a joke but thinking about it, I hate to say it might actually have some truth to it.

>>1050743 >>1050747 >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.

>>1050793 No. But go take a look into a list of all exclusive games on the PS3 and X360 and tell me how many of those are flagship defining.

>>1050804 >PS3 and X360 That's the beginning of the "Everything Going to Hell Era". It's hardly a good comparison. Now say something like SNES, Genesis, PS1, etc. and you have a completely different picture.

>>1050804 >exclusive games on the PS3 Easily around 40: https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_video_game_exclusives_(seventh_generation) >X360 I'd say around 20. And just the Wii for argument's sake: 25

>>1050721 Yeah it has been xbox/PC for a while now with everything.

>>1050810 Wii has 327 exclusives here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wii-only_games Most aren't worth time though many are.

>>1050796 It's not a joke and does have truth to it. A PC or UMPC, and a Switch (or Switch 2) are all that's worth picking up now, jailboxes with no exclusives offer nothing over either. Retroarch has a big backlog of games worth trying or finishing, and they're free.

>>1050806 Why is it hardly a good comparison? There were a lot more exclusives back then for those generations because of portability. Games that ran on the N64 didn't run on the PS1, which didn't run on the Sega Genesis. This is a technical limitation because of the way they were implemented, not a business induced limitation. Game development in those devices required you to use the development kits for those devices, so of course a lot of portability is lost. In the X360 and PS3 era, not so much (and they still had their own SDKs). Things simply became more and more portable as time went on and the only games that truly should have been fully exclusive were the ones that required special tech (Wii/Kinect/etc). Even without observing from the limitations of SDKs specialized for each console, it makes no sense at all to correlate game quality to exclusive status in consoles because... >>1050810 Your link tells me there's 157 exclusive games on PS3, and only "easily 40" are flagship defining. Did they seriously hand out exclusive status twice as often to bad games than they did to actually good games? The only thing this implies is the fact that the more games you have as exclusives, the better you are, not hing more. I could understand if you see it as treating like Epic Games does, seeing an interesting game that would come out soon, walking up to them and nabbing the exclusive rights to sell them, but this isn't at all how it worked back then, especially because games were announced as exclusives BEFORE they were even announced usually, which makes the correlation that games were good because there were exclusives awful. These things coexisted in the same period but are horridly unrelated.

>>1050820 40 "flagship" exclusives on PS3's exaggerated, they're pure shit with 5-10 decent games (more than PS4/PS5). PS1/PS2 were the PS golden ages, PS3 was half-assed and PS4 was trash.

>>1050799 Outside of movie games, people are unable to perceive latency that does worsen their play because people just don't pay attention.

>>1050783 Xbox has been just a brand for years, Microsoft's just recognizing that with the "This Is An Xbox" ads and making "just a brand" more official.

>>1050791 It does though, because a massive exclusive hit on one platform will generally force the competition into creating an answer to this. Sometimes it'll be better, sometimes it won't - but the industry is richer for it. You wouldn't have Sonic if Nintendo wasn't dominating with Mario (especially Mario III). Killzone was created to be a "Halo Killer" which never achieved that goal, but they weren't bad for console shooters. Resistance was a Gears of War clone. Headhunter was a response to Metal Gear Solid. Whether or not you think those games are good or shit - they wouldn't exist at all if you could just play Halo on the PS2, or just play Mario on the Master System. Companies are competing more on services than on games these days, and I dunno... I never bought a console because I was super fucking hyped for some paid service update that was soon to be rolled out.

>>1050743 >>1050747 >>1050789 >>1050827 >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.

>>1050836 Problem is that movies are linear series of images and audio tracks that can be buffered to reduce screen noise. Games aren't able to do that because at any moment you could flick the thumbstick and change the scene completely. So the video feed has to be as close to 1:1 as possible - and they're just not able to handle the decompression well that fast. So it ends up looking like shit. A normalfag will zone out to a movie game and think it's just the greatest shit ever, but when it looks like an old early youtube video with big blocky discolorations all around the character model and especially in any dark scenes - not to mention low resolution and the various other hangups I mentioned earlier, I think most of them would rather just buy the console and install the game locally. Especially if they're trying to play on a big 4k TV set where it looks the worst. Best use case scenario for it is to play on a cell phone, which is one of the most unreliable connections you can find for most people these days, as well as big heaping pile of data caps that are going to throttle bandwidth make the experience even worse. Then again, most people will happily stream their game box in-home over fucking WiFi, so maybe I'm overestimating normalfags

>>1050832 Yet, competition arose even within the same eco system, with a million WoW-killers rising and falling, a million battle royales, million minecraft clones, etc. Competition does not require exclusives, nor did they strengthen competition. They were a product of their age, not a mean to an end.

>>1050820 >Did they seriously hand out exclusive status twice as often to bad games than they did to actually good games? You asked for "flagship defining" games, NOT if titles that were "good". That is two completely different metrics. If I wanted to sell someone on the PS3, I would point to games like the Yakuza series, Ridge Racer 7, the Killzone series, inFamous, and Demon's Souls. I would NOT try to sell a PS3 on good and decent games like rain, Lair, Malicious, Wangan Midnight, and Hyperdimension Neptunia. Similar thing with the 360 and Wii, as I would point to DoA4 and No More Heroes as better "system sellers" than Lost In Shadow and Project Sylpheed. >>1050845 >Competition does not require exclusives Yes, it does. Atari became very aware of this problem when they revolutionized the industry and noticed how the moment they released a hit game, 10 other companies released a clone of it the next month. So their immediate solution to the problem was to "never" make the same game twice. IOW, Atari became "Atari" because they kept making something new and exclusive that only they could produce, meanwhile everyone else kept playing catch-up.

How profitable is it for Sony and Microsoft to keep porting all their stuff to PC, really? Literally everyone i know who games on PC buys their games through Steam. I've never even seen anyone even claiming they buy their games through the Xbox app or whatever the fuck microsoft uses to sell games on PC, and i remember when Sony tried to force some PSN fuckery with Helldivers 2 the internet bullied them out of it.

>>1050845 None of the million Minecraft clones seriously competes with Minecraft but Sonic seriously competed with Mario. Exclusives absolutely strengthened competition. People bought Super Nintendo for Mario, Zelda, and Donkey Kong, Sega Genesis for Sonic the Hedgehog, PlayStation for Final Fantasy 7, Crash, and Spyro. People bought consoles for games only on those consoles. That was the attraction.

>>1050718 >xbox goes 3rdparty lmfao rip bozos

>>1050855 >How profitable is it for Sony and Microsoft to keep porting all their stuff to PC, really? For Sony, we have the official data from the Insomniac data breach. Not sure when exactly it's from, but it's sometime in 2022 (Legacy of Thieves was released January 2022). Making 51 million USD in half a year (with no particular marketing) is a nice chunk of change, especially considering the sequel's budget was (per Sony FTC filings) 212 million USD and the original is thought to have had a much lower budget (possibly 50 million USD)

>>1050847 >You asked for "flagship defining" games We'd be arguing semantics here, but we do agree on what "flagship" means here. My apologies for using "good game" or "bad game" to distinguish between them, it's just that from the point of view of a company vested in having good exclusives (either flagship or good games), there's little reason to not hand out exclusivity whenever possible because more exclusivity means a higher chance of hooking a new player to your company's console. >Competition does not require exclusives <Yes, it does No it fucking doesn't and the exact example you mentioned in that a breakthrough is made followed by a million clones still happen to this day with a lot less exclusivity, ergo, exclusivity was never part of the recipe. >>1050856 >None of the million Minecraft clones seriously competes with Minecraft but Sonic seriously competed with Mario This is skill issue from both a marketing perspective and quality perspective, a decent Minecraft clone will garner at least some attention if it's properly decent and not just a shitty cash grab (Vintage Story), see the example mentioned in that anytime a breakthrough happens, everyones still rushes to copy it even today just as much as they did back then, the only thing that has changed is that developers and companies no longer have to strategize around their system of choice to launch, if Minecraft came out as an exclusive to the Xbox, Sony would be pressed to buy in and fund Vintage Story. This strategizing has reduced a lot now and we still have Minecraft and Vintage Story, they're still competing, just on the same environment, where you as a consumer have access to both instead of just one according to the system you ended up with.

>>1050868 >it's just that from the point of view of a company vested in having good exclusives (either flagship or good games), there's little reason to not hand out exclusivity whenever possible Yes, there is. There's this concept called A BUDGET. As in, how much money you can spend before your project starts losing money. Companies could very well buy up each and every single "good" game that's currently in development, but can you think of a single company that has that much money to throw around? Even if you're going to bring up M$ and them buying ZeniMax and ABK, keep in mind that those acquisitions only went through on the terms that they still release games on the PS5 and Switch (And the FTC can swoop in at any moment and reverse the deal, as that's how the law works). And even THEN, the entire Xbox division is operating at a net loss, hasn't been anything close to a success for the company since the days of the 360, and only managed to turn a profit last year because of them buying ABK. Since then, everyone is tired of the company and absolutely sick of them, especially with the announcement that they're not done buying up companies right on the heels of closing Tango despite releasing the ONLY truly successful game they have seen in the past decade. The point being that yes, M$ is one of the few companies that exists that can buy up every good game that exists, but is that worth it when no one buys the game because your company's name is attached to it? Who is going to buy a game from a company who's identity is just buying out the competition just to buy out the competition?

>Check out thread >Retard posting walls of word salad to pretend exclusives didn't create competition Takes the cake for the dumbest take I've seen all year. Everyone who grew up during the console wars knows how fierce competition was, exclusives almost unilaterally drove buyers' console choices and companies knew it.

>>1050873 thread has weirdly elevated autism levels, didnt read it, seems gay

this is my xboxes

>>1050875 My guess without even looking is GCfag getting involved

>>1050718 I'd say RIP, but Xbox has been dead for quite some time now.

>>1050873 It still does. By far the two largest platforms are PC and Switch. One has exclusives, the other has everybody else's exclusives. PS5 is in third place, as they still do have timed exclusivity and it is the go-to system for people who don't like Nintendo but are still retarded enough to buy a console. Xbox is dead in the water, and the only sales they get are from people who are just buying out of habit at this point. The kinds of people to whom games are just a disposable side-activity when you're feeling a bit lazy. They don't actually like games and just play whatever live service slop is pushed in front of them. Missing out on PS5 "exclusives" doesn't bother them, because they don't care about games. They just want to play Apex Legends or COD or whatever assorted trash without having to curate a whole new friendslist.

>>1050873 Every time Xbox comes up this shit happens, it's so annoying and the mods never do anything about it because I guess totally destroying threads doesn't count as rule 8.

>>1051081 >totally destroying a thread At 60 posts there's still more than 400 posts until it starts auto saging, you're entirely free to ignore the posts if it makes you feel like contributing anything else to thread instead of crying about divergent opinions. Still, it would seem the majority of cum guzzlers here unironically defend exclusives on the basis they increase quality, which is baffling to me, I won't waste time trying to reason people out of conflating correlation and causation because it's the kind of thing that either you're able of doing or you're just unable, can't teach that, can't fix broken synapses.

>>1050788 Based on historical trends of Nintendo releasing a high selling console then getting comfortable and releasing a shitty console, will the Switch 2 be a flop like the Wii U and GameCube?

>>1051099 Off-topic question, but Wii U flopped because of shitty naming/marketing. People thought Wii U's a Wii addon. Switch 2 won't repeat that fuckup, is verified backwards compatible unlike Wii U, and Switch has 140mm or whatever customers to migrate. Historical trends are surface shit when reasons for Wii U's flop changed. Switch 2 will sell like hotcakes.

>>1051081 No one's economically retarded enough to deny competition was driven by console-exclusive libraries during the console wars or that said competition was a rising tide that lifted all boats, Anon, not even our Mexicans. The annoyer just spams droning paragraphs of intentionally idiotic and repetitive ragebait to annoy you or for the (You)s.

>>1051102 But what could the Switch 2 offer the market that the Switch doesn't already? A bigger, better screen? Slightly improved hardware? No joycon drift? A gimmick? There's no great leap to make from the Switch to the Switch 2 like there was the Wii to the Switch or the DS to the 3DS. It seems like an interval release like the DSi. Maybe it'll be able to play games that can run on the PS4 without problems, but that isn't saying much.

>>1051109 >But what could the Switch 2 offer the market that the Switch doesn't already? Better hardware that enables playable framerates.

>>1051111 Wasn't that the same argument made for the move from the DS Lite to the DSi? The DSi and DSi XL sold like shit.

>>1051109 They don't need to fix a formula that isn't broken, better hardware's all they need. 2024 games are unoptimized and hard to port to Switch, 2025 games will be too. Switch 2 hardware will help, at the cost of runaway file sizes. Developers optimize for Switch now because Switch games sell like hotcakes, if they no longer have to optimize because more multiplats can reach Switch 2, gigabytes increase. >>1051112 DSi and DSi XL compared to DS didn't have additional strong exclusives like DS compared to GBA, so the DSi and DSi XL sold like shit because new value didn't justify them. It's like PS5 to PS5 Pro more than Switch to Switch 2. DS itself has the handheld sales record.

>>1051109 I was going to accuse you of being GCfag from this post alone, but then I saw your first post where you call it a flop, so you're not him.

>>1051121 GameCube was objectively a sales flop, not even diehards claim otherwise. A shame too, GameCube has a few of my favorites. GCfag's called GCfag for filling /v/'s catalog with "games didn't technologically evolve since GameCube" threads, not for GameCube love. He's about PS1, PS2, PS3, PSP, and Vita.

>>1051120 Yeah, I don't see where they really need to innovate, aside from people just kind of expecting weird hardware gimmicks from them at this point. I think they'll be disappointed if Nintendo just puts out an iterative console - but better that than fucking up like the 3DS. Just give the system a different visual profile, call it the Super Switch or Nintendo Switch Super, and maybe update the controller ergonomics. Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, it'd be fine if they just stepped back for a generation and worked on getting their UI and network infrastructure up to par. Figure out where they want to go from here. Really wouldn't surprise me if they tried to turn the Switch 2 into a convertible handheld/VR-AR platform. We know they've already been playing around with the idea. Maybe they think they can actually break the market open by removing the pay barrier of having to buy a dedicated headset, and make every Switch 2 on the market a VR headset out of the box. If people use it - they use it. If they just want a flat-screen console for the living room and on the go - they have that too. I think it'd be a mistake, but I could see them making the attempt.

>>1051112 >>1051120 Most (if not all) of the DSi exclusive games and DSi enhanced games utilized the two cameras. The DSiWare games were mostly demos of DS games, indie games, and clock/calculator apps. I think the extra RAM was mostly for the web browser, as the original DS browser required a RAM expansion in the GBA slot. It wasn't like the GameBoy Color which updated a nearly decade old system.

>>1051139 GBA to DS was worth it for the massive library of DS exclusives, but DS to DSi was a PS5 to PS5 Pro "not worth it." DSi was never a DS successor nor marketed like one. I have GBA, DS, and 3DS, but no DSi. DS to 3DS was like GBA to DS, 3DS was great too. On-topic to OP's Xbox ad, since everything's an Xbox, what's now an Xbox?

>>1051109 >But what could the Switch 2 offer the market that the Switch doesn't already? Better specs, but doesn't mean jack when developers cannot optimize even if their life depended on it. >>1051112 The DSi was an entirely different system. It did have "some" better specs and features, but games didn't have access to those unless they were specifically designed for the DSi. In addition, the system flopped due to them removing the GBA slot, which was where people found umbridge since everything from Pokemon to Guitar Hero was making use of it and where immediately made obsolete. >>1051120 >2024 games are unoptimized and hard to port to Switch, 2025 games will be too. Except that's going to run into the same problem with the Switch 2. Initally games will be "well optimized", but I give it less than a year when the problems begin repeating that developers are complaining about the Switch 2 being an "underpowered system" as well because it doesn't have the same specs as the NoGames5/SexBox. >>1051131 >I don't see where they really need to innovate Because Miyamoto will throw a fit if they release the "same console" twice. >Just give the system a different visual profile, call it the Super Switch or Nintendo Switch Super, and maybe update the controller ergonomics. My biggest problem with the Switch's design has always been that the console is just too damn big. The Switch Lite, that everyone loves to hate, is closer to being a "proper" design of what the Switch should be, but it still has the problem of being much too flimsy of a device and not "enjoyable" to actually hold. In addition to other problems like the buttons now being shit. >>1051143 >since everything's an Xbox, what's now an Xbox? A brand

>>1051143 >On-topic to OP's Xbox ad, since everything's an Xbox, what's now an Xbox? This is an XBOX. A box with no games and nothing but shit. As a Steam Deck shill, just buy Steam Deck.

>>1051146 Anons, Gabe Newell wants YOU to trash PS5 and XBOX Series and buy a fucking Steam Deck.

>>1051120 >Developers optimize for Switch now because Switch games sell like hotcakes I'm fucking sick of PC game bloat. My 1TB 990 Pro Cost $160 and games get like 100GB, 200GB, 300GB. I'm paying a "hidden cost" each time, 16$, 32$, 48$ and they block other installs. It's predatory and anti-consumer.

>>1051143 >DSi was never a DS successor nor marketed like one. Neither was the GameBoy Color (Nintendo lumps the GB and GBC together as one system), but it was able to obtain a healthy amount of games enhanced with it, along with exclusives of it's own, despite the GameBoy's actual successor, the GameBoy Advance coming less than 3 years later.

>>1051120 >Developers optimize for Switch

>>1051145 > the Switch 2 being an "underpowered system" as well because it doesn't have the same specs as the NoGames5/SexBox. The problem with the Switch is that its a case of underpowerd hardware and devs not being able to optimise to save a life. 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.

>>1051149 With XBox and Playstation no longer having exclusives the best combo is Switch (exclusives) and a modern handheld (Ally, Claw, Deck, Legion, etc) for non-exclusives. >>1051160 Switch game cart sizes and system limitations force optimization, games sell best on Switch so devs port to Switch and optimize for Switch as devs want to make money.

>>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. It's for one very simple: what are these games doing that requires so much power? >>1051163 >Switch game cart sizes and system limitations force optimization No, it doesn't. Companies are releasing Cloud versions of titles that offload much of the textures and content to company servers, and even Nintendo doesn't optimize their own games for their own system (Going by how often frame rate drops are a thing).

Did somebody say SteamDeck?

>>1051163 Switch 2 with a CFW exploit would be much better than Switch, could emulate up to Wii U then play Switch and Switch 2 native. Depends how locked down it is and how determined hackers are.

>>1051166 Better: piracy on PCs. Free games forever, made by slaves (which is what all entertainers are).

>>1051169 CFW exploits enable piracy for free games forever. PC's downside compared to Switch 2 CFW is PC poorly emulates many Switch game and won't run Switch 2 exclusives but PC's still a good option.

>>1050718 So, odds of XB going third-party?

>>1051099 >GameCube >shitty console It wasn't though. It got screwed over by the retail outlets. Arguably the N64 was Nintendo's "shitty console" although it sold like hotcakes. Really calling it shitty is a bit of a stretch but they did make some obsolescent decisions with it. Not to mention that it was the first time Nintendo ended up having to rely so heavily on 1st parties and carts were fucking expensive during that time too.

>>1051164 Hi GC.

>>1051174 They already are.

>>1051189 N64 had few games but its strong games were amazing. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Super Mario 64, Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark, Banjo Kazooie, Banjo Tooie, Super Smash Bros, Paper Mario, Conker's Bad Fur Day, Mario Kart 64, Wave Race 64, Diddy Kong Racing, Star Fox 64, F-Zero X, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, Sin and Punishment, Pokemon Stadium, Pokemon Puzzle League, Jet Force Gemini, Mario Party 1, Mario Party 2, Mario Party 3, Kirby 64. The first 3 still make "greatest games ever" lists today. N64 was far from shitty. GCN wasn't either but he contrasted shitty with high-selling and GCN did sell shitty. Non-shitpost answers are CDI and VB.

>>1051193 Yeah that's what I meant. There's no way to possibly classify it as shitty because what it did do it did amazingly well. The N64 was a stumble for Nintendo but they managed to play it off into a success. Kinda of a Willy Wonka stumble into a somersault for them.

>>1050718 >xbox thread >full of nintendo autism /v/ as derailed as ever >>1051192 honestly xbox asa third party is fine, yeahyeah bring great dishonor, whatever, i dont give a fuck, just put xbox back to roots and stop the aaa. give me more blinx games

>>1051145 >My biggest problem with the Switch's design has always been that the console is just too damn big. The Switch Lite, that everyone loves to hate, is closer to being a "proper" design of what the Switch should be, but it still has the problem of being much too flimsy of a device and not "enjoyable" to actually hold. In addition to other problems like the buttons now being shit. It's because they made the choice of the Switch neither being a console nor a handheld but kinda sorta both. >>1051197 I wonder if we'll get another company to become the next "third console"?

>>1051199 >third console mobile

>>1051202 >Ridicules another post <While posting a vtuber themed reaction image

In the grand scheme of the larger players of vidya, is this not a step in a better direction? I mean I was under the impression that exclusives were one of the things helping to poison the industry for the players/consumers

>>1051206 Exclusives aren't poisoning anything. What the fuck do you even mean by that? The best selling console this gen is the one with all the exclusives.

>>1051197 >honestly xbox asa third party is fine, yeahyeah bring great dishonor, whatever, i dont give a fuck, just put xbox back to roots and stop the aaa. give me more blinx games 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.

>>1051206 It is but retards will tell you otherwise, so much time with exclusives around has rotted their brains into believing it to be a good thing for both the consumer and the company. The only reason exclusives exist is so you force the consumer to buy a console to play the game, no other reason whatsoever, it ends up being good only for the company to sell more consoles. As I've said before, my only concern is whether Microsoft will find a way to embed proprietary software in their game-pass installs and file formats to fuck over linux yet again down the line (trying to enforce/create exclusives yet again), but I see little reason for them to do it because linux gaming will always be 2%, maybe less, of gamers.

>>1051207 Well what I was worried about was that exclusives invited lower quality games because all they had to do was be made into the exclusive brand that held them. Maybe that wasn't always true, bet I feel that's a part of where we are today.

>>1051204 GCtard can inhale draino.

>>1051211 Exclusives being good for the company's good for the consumer here. If I'm an indie dev, I want systems with exclusives to exist. Exclusives create system owners, more buyers for my game. I release to the exclusives box, make money, reinvest money, make more games. Those systems don't exist, I make less. You're the retard with the rotted brain who doesn't get it.

>>1051218 wow how come GTA tops the list for best seller in both the PS and the Xbox? Isn't that fucking weird? They should probably have gone with only a single console and sold like, half as much. That seems like a good idea. >indie dev As an indie dev you need all the reach you can get, and going exclusive fucking murders your reach as you alienate everyone else in the market that doesn't own your system of choice. Going exclusive is only a valid choice if your game was designed to run in a specific system (DS games using stylus, Wii games, Kinect, VR, etc), otherwise you are literally killing the reach of your game for literally no reason. Give me ONE good reason you would willingly make your game a PS exclusive without mentioning getting funding from contracts to do so being a reason. Literally just one.

>>1051219 GTA san andreas was exclusive to ps2 when it released though. It also doesn't prove anything. Games were higher quality back when console manufacturers had an interest in having the best games on their console.

>>1051109 I think at this point most people just want them to give up the gimmicks and make a 'powerhouse' console again with the Switch's form factor, even if it's a pipe dream. Honestly if nintendo was able make Switch 2 powerful enough and was able to convince Rockstar to bring over even a somewhat graphically downgraded version of GTA VI as well as FromSoft to port Elden Ring and it's DLCs if Sony doesn't purchase them over to it, Console gaming would be solved. At least with GTA alone brownoids who still buy Playstations and Xboxes for that and sportsball games would eventually follow.

>>1051219 >How come the second most popular multi-platform game ever is popular Your brain is even more rotted and retarded than I thought. In the 25 best-selling video games of all time, more games are exclusives than not, but that isn't even the argument. >As an indie dev you need all the reach you can get, and going exclusive Put down your strawman you illiterate retarded ESL beaner. I didn't say "indie devs should go exclusive." Exclusives create system owners in untapped markets. If I'm an indie dev they're 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.

>>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?