Today we have the PSN outtages, death of Miitomo, Paragon and Twitch’s push to surpass YouTube, as well as GDC Surveys, Switch Sales, and more!
If you like what you see, give this a share on social media, feel free to suggest topics for next week, and we will see you then on Behind The Game! Happy Gaming!
As noted by WCCFTech, an Austrian retailer has delisted all Xbox One inventory, stating that if Microsoft wants to profit purely from software, they can do it alone.
So it seems a number of things are happening now.
Microsoft as we know traditionally launches and for a while sells consoles at a loss, making the difference in licensing and software. Lord knows Xbox One X breaks even at most. Naturally because of this, the margins for retailers selling consoles, especially new ones, cant be that high, and we already hear from most places that selling new sealed games isn’t very profitable, if at all, for retailers.
So with the Game Pass announcement that games from Microsoft will be there day and date for that same $10 fee, it seems like MS is moving to a model that allows them to keep making their limited library, and getting a constant stream of revenue from more users, rather than making a handful of games yearly and selling them to a smaller base for $60 a pop. Of course, that latter option will still exist.
Plus MS can easily eat up any potentially lost revenue from other areas of the business. Remember they have done that before.
But what’s apparently more shocking is that according to those who have worked in the retail scene, MS games are historically 30% better with margins than first party stuff from Nintendo and Sony. MS games, for retailers, are the best ones to sell new. They are now losing a potential source of revenue that will shift to MS directly and make MS more money than the $60 per sale.
Alright, I'll let you guys in on something here. The games we would make the most money on for new games were Microsoft First Party games. Gears, Forza, Halo etc all had margins up to 30% better than Sony and Nintendo First party games. Retailers are losing their best games.
— Spawn Wave (@SpawnWaveMedia) January 25, 2018
Basically, $10 per month from 10 million people is better for investors than $60 per game every few months from 2 million people. But one retailer isn’t happy about this it seems. They’ve caught on that this does nothing for them and are dropping Xbox inventory.
All future first party releases will not only be available via Xbox Live, and in stores, but Game Pass…on launch day.
So now not only do you get Xbox 360 and Xbox One games for $10, you now get included in that price, full price retail games on the day they launch.
This is an incredible move from Microsoft that has some people scratching their heads. Why would Microsoft release their own games for $60, and give you what is undeniably a better deal for $10 monthly, alongside a host of other games ready to go when you want?
Simple. Retailers, manufacturing, all of that stuff is factored into a $60 price tag. Plus, say a game got 2 million sales for $60. Lot of money, probably recoup development costs at that point. Now imagine 10 million people paying $10 a month.
For a company that hasn’t got the largest portfolio of first party software, this is a great move. They will be making in-house software fairly infrequently, as we have seen in the past few years, so why not sweeten the deal for a constant flow of $10 subscriptions each month?
The pros outweigh the cons it seems for Microsoft. Further, the Xbox brand historically has been covered by huge profits from other hardware and even Windows alone. Microsoft is fine with Xbox being a loss leader and with a subscription service…the bills effectively pay themselves.
I do believe this a way to get more money while not having to buy into more studios and make more games in a shorter time.
Of course there are cons to this however. If you stop paying your $10 a month, you can’t access the games, as is the case with PS Plus. You will be able to bulk buy 6 months at a time soon, so there is that for those who need it.
Secondly, the games are in rotation. They are only available for as long as they are up, just like shows on Netflix or BBC iPlayer. If it remains on the server, you can play it. For the new titles this is unlikely to be an issue, but older 360 titles may fall to this.
Finally, and this is the eventuality, what happens when the service ends? Would Microsoft let you play the games offline? Would you just get to keep them as you do with your physical Xbox 360 games?
These are the important questions and sadly they can’t be answered because this day has yet to come. We don’t know and I’m not sure Microsoft does either.
When considering Game Pass at face value, it is an excellent deal, but if you don’t play games much, you’re likely better off paying the $60 for a game outright.
Yes the eventuality of that is even physical copies of games now are subject to patches and updates, so when the servers one day go own, some games will be “unfinished” as it were, or at least unrefined. But at least you won’t lose access to the games entirely.
So this is the situation. Microsoft has made an aggressive move into a Netflix like format, and the payoffs are obvious: It’s more money, monthly, rather than per game.
But for us consumers, maybe it’s not so great in the very long-term, or even medium term depending on how the service is received or games are rotated.
Maybe we need to wait and see, but I didn’t think this day would come so soon.
Thanks for reading! I hope you enjoy this article, and I will be updating everyone on developments as they happen via social media. Until next time, Happy Gaming!
So PUBG is something I have been aware of for a few months but never got into for monetary and other reasons. I simply had too much to do. But yesterday, live on stream, I played my first few matches.
I had only seen sparse footage of the game, or real discussion about it beyond its influence on Twitch and gaming as a whole. I know the story behind its creation, but not much of the actual gameplay beyond what is, on paper at least, an amazing concept.
Airdrop up to 100 players into a huge map. Have them scavenge for armour, weaponry, tools and upgrades to their equipment…and kill each other. As they do this, the play area shrinks. Fall outside of this, your health is drained. So you have 100 people being funnelled down into a smaller and smaller area, and the last man standing wins.
This is truly an excellent concept…on paper.
Personally the idea of only two maps is a bit disheartening, until you realise these maps are huge, and the high variance of the games means every play will be different. You’ll never have the same round twice. Almost.
The execution of this concept is what drives me to a mixed reaction to it.
There are primarily three scenarios for your time in PUBG:
You are not likely to have two matches play out the same, unless you are unfortunate enough to be airdropped in next to someone, or a few people, who quickly find weapons, and bang, you are out of there within two minutes.
That isn’t the most fun aspect of the game. If you get lucky and don’t die immediately (Great! You got lucky!) you now need to find weapons. You can spend a good while running through open spaces (And thus be an obvious target) between buildings that may or may not end up with you defending yourself. Or dying if someone is hiding in one. That can happen too.
Long and short, you can spend a long time not being able to actually partake in the core of the gameplay.
Streeeessssss pic.twitter.com/wQZF8UQ3Ix
— BLP-Sean | NLInklings (@BritishPlaying) January 20, 2018
Finally, you can end up in the third scenario which plays one of two ways. You’ll either get extremely fortunate and end up in semi-frequent bouts of combat and win, or die, or end up not finding anyone until the map shrinks and there are about 20 players left, and then come out on top…or die.
As shown above I made it to 7th place in a match…where I got two kills and spent a good 20 minutes sat in a house waiting for stuff to happen as the play area shrank and shrank, until I got blasted from the side.
This is easily the most fun part of the game. It’s high adrenaline, and goodness knows a grenade or gunshot with headphones on makes you leap out of your skin in what is a quiet world otherwise. Plus the knowledge that combat is inevitable and closing in on you is an amazing feeling.
This is where PUBG works best. Occasional combat instances, good luck finding weapons, and being able to play smart, assuming people don’t snipe you. Of course, you’ve got a 1 in 3 chance of your game even getting that far. More often than not, it feels like it won’t.
Of course that’s just the game design. Visually the game can range from alright to almost N64 style in visual quality, even at full resolution, as sometimes models and textures are incredibly poor. Other times not, which is a weird inconsistency. Maybe this a downside of playing on “Medium” settings, while streaming.
It should be noted I had very few network related issues, even when streaming the game and hosting a Skype call at the same time. That much is very functional at least, which is mandatory for a multiplayer game.
In terms of controls, I used both a Dualshock 4, and Keyboard/Mouse.
Keyboard worked fine for what it is, everything is mercifully within reach, just as I have explained before however, it’s not the most comfortable solution for me as a player. The downside of using a controller means some features like underhanded throws and quick switching through weapons, aren’t available without sacrificing other things. It’s a prioritize what you need kind of situation.
Finally, aiming seems a little…weird. Guns have the appropriate kind of blowback, which means you won’t just fire in a straight line. But reviewing some “Death Cam” footage (It happened a lot), I can see players do have a hard time lining up shots or even getting them to connect. I don’t know if that’s a network thing of if the aiming is just slightly off, but it’s a strange oddity.
Overall I can say PUBG on PC is something to at least try out. On Xbox One, I don’t know as I can’t test that version, but from what I have seen it’s not as smooth an experience at the moment, compared to the now out of “Early Access” PC version.
But therein lies the problem: The idea of the game is amazing. It’s just luck as to whether it plays out in a way that you enjoy, or if it effectively ends with you in a boring scenario where nothing happens for a good while, or die immediately upon starting.
Thanks for reading this Impressions piece on PUBG! It was an interesting experience and you can bet I will be doing more like this in future! If you enjoyed this article or have your own thoughts on PUBG, let me know on social media or in the comments, and I will see you next time: Happy Gaming!
So work this out. DLC can extend the life of a game and in the Fighting game sphere, it’s usually welcome.
So here comes BlazBlue, a series doing a cross over game with Persona and RWBY (For some reason I can’t understand) and it releases in six months, with a roster of 20 fighters.
Now if this was a newer fighting game without the huge stable of known fighting game characters under the wing of the developer, Arc System Works, that would be fine, but 20 feels a little light considering the pedigree of the studio.
Now with the release date revealed to be June, Arc System Works has made an error in revealing the DLC plans at this stage, 6 months prior to launch.
Now in the industry that isn’t a good sign. I’ve talked about this before, but the idea of announcing DLC so far in advance indicates that it was planned to nickel and dime the player early in development, and given the heavy re-use of assets, it does feel like a cash grab.
By all accounts it seems the game was designed around the DLC. What is perhaps even more egregious is that it has been revealed that 20 characters will be in the DLC.
Half of the roster for the game is DLC people. We find this out months in advance, and it was clearly planned from the start.
This is perhaps one of the most irritating examples of aggressive monetisation in a game. Half of the final roster is planned DLC far in advance and made known to the player.
The asset re-use is one thing. The limited roster for such a wide-reaching crossover is another. I have to wonder what appeal this game truly has outside of appealing to these fans.
Then again, it’s not micro transactions, it’s not lootboxes, but it feels somehow worse. DLC abuse is seriously an issue, and the only thing that would put this issue down in history is some Marvel Vs Capcom 3 levels of scum, with the fighters being on the disc/cartridge/download, and you pay to unlock them.
Sometimes I wonder if the industry will do DLC right. It can truly extend the life of a game, and done right can provide great value and expansions to a game. This is just cutting part out and selling it back to the player.
Imagine if Super Smash Bros launched with half of it’s 58 character roster behind DLC. You’d be fuming.
Thanks for reading this admittedly short article. There isnt much you can add to this kind of thing I’m afraid. It’s indefensible. As always give a share and like on social media, and I will see you next time! Happy Gaming!
A few months ago Activision revealed a patent to influence matchmaking based on win/loss ratios and gear that would interest you from lootboxes.
Basically all this patent does is match you with people with gear you would desire, someone usually more capable with better gear than you, so that you lose. Then you would be presented the gear in lootboxes via micro transactions.
Loot based matchmaking, patented by Activision, but not wanting to be outdone in that insidious manner, EA steps up.
So first we should discuss dynamic difficulty. This is common in older games and the immediate thoughts for me are Spyro 3, and the Crash Bandicoot games.
Dynamic difficulty is an excellent idea in single player. The idea is that if you fail repeatedly in a spot, you get an extra hit point, checkpoints, or in the case of Spyro 3, requirements for challenges and even AI gets toned down to accommodate people having trouble. This is done in real-time, as you play the game.
Personally? I love dynamic difficulty. It prevents player frustration and being stuck in what would feel like an endless loop. But applied to multiplayer…let’s think about that.
So EA wrote two papers, neither are terribly exciting or enjoyable to consider.
One advises that the concept of “fair matchmaking” doesn’t hold up, i.e. paired with players of similar rank, based on the assumption it’s fair. They argue this isn’t optimal for engagement…and in some loose respects I could maybe see it?
But the point is you don’t want to pair a pro player with a new guy with lesser gear. That’s simply unfair. They argue though…that they “prove” as they say:
We prove that equal-skill based matchmaking is a special case of EOMM (Engagement Optimised Matchmaking) on a highly simplified assumption that rarely holds in reality”
So the key word is the engagement. Engagement equals constant play, and as sneakily referenced in papers by EA available at the source: Spending.
Yep. Money plays a part again. So what is their logic here?
Simple. Good feeling chemicals in your brain. Get matched for a few bad rounds with players you can’t possibly beat? The game then pairs you with players you will trounce. You will feel good about the comeback and eventual streak, before being knocked back down again. When the matchmaking lets you win, you are acting as the “Bowling Ball” to the “Pins” of less skilled players. Then those “Pins” get restacked as the “Bowling Ball” and the cycle continues.
A continuous cycle of loss a few, then be allowed a win-streak. Manipulating the outcome of your games by weighting heavily in or against your favour, with the hope the chemicals in your brain form an almost gambling like addiction to the bursts of success. Just like losing at a slot machine and suddenly winning. A burst of that good feeling, and it will maintain a player base.
The logic there is somewhat solid. But of course the word spending comes up. So where does that fit in? Give you a little nudge towards lootboxes of course.
Picture the scenario: You lose a few matches, get some lootboxes for free, start winning, and your brain would associate the two. Just a little nudge.
This adds to dynamic difficulty in that yes, if you lose a lot, you’ll get a leg up. Win a lot, the game just got harder. Not good in multiplayer when the matchmaking decides what role you get.
There isn’t much you can really add to this. As opposed to Activision proposing a system based on your gear and using the “Pin and Ball” effect as I am now calling it, to basically get you enticed into certain lootboxes and chances of getting equal gear, EA is opting to psychologically make you feel good and bad routinely in a form of dynamic difficulty, by matching you with players you will beat with ease, or be beaten by with ease, to keep you playing and spending more.
That’s horrible to think about.
Worse still, we wouldn’t even know it’s happening. We can’t see the backend determining who we are matched with. We would just assume we won some and lost some.
If 2017 was the year of the lootbox, 2018 will be the year of the messed-up matchmaking. Apparently the past 15 years of online play wasn’t good enough to EA.
If you enjoyed this article, please leave a like, comment and do all the usual on social media, and until next time: Happy Gaming!
So who has heard of Cliffy B? A man whose affectionate nickname stands out because of his involvement in titles such as Gears of War, Bulletstorm and Jazz Jackrabbit…okay maybe just the first one. He also worked on a lot of the Unreal series. So yeah, guy has a resume.
His latest project was LawBreakers. A competitor, not-competitor to Overwatch. Using anti-gravity mechanics, you could move in ways that differentiated the gameplay from its other hero based shooter brethren.
Unfortunately LawBreakers has been a bit of a flop. In some respects that’s an understatement and I’m sure the game itself has a lot of heart put into it, as the development team is clearly passionate, as is the publisher, but sales wise, it didn’t do well, and it’s player base is unfathomably low.
Personally the first reason I can think of this happening is obviously Overwatch. If you want to release a hero based shooter, you need to stand toe to toe with the marketing juggernaut that is Activision-Blizzard. You need to be able to outpace and match Overwatch, no matter how different your gameplay is, it’s occupying the same space and aiming for the same players.
Just like Battleborn, another game that was attempted to be sold on name alone. Sure, Gearbox software has a name to them, one of…mixed quality…but it’s still a big name. But that enough wasn’t going to stop Overwatch, which release just before it, from casting a shadow and kicking the game aside. Not even going Free To Start saved it.
LawBreakers fared even less well. It came long after Overwatch had established itself as THE Hero shooter title. Millions of players, millions in revenue, it’s a juggernaut. What hope did LawBreakers have of snatching some of that away, especially without the marketing behemoth that is Blizzard behind it?
The next thing that stood out to me, or rather, didn’t, was how under the radar this game was. Before release I was aware of a beta. I was aware the game existed, but I didn’t know much about it. All I heard, and all a lot of articles really said was that it was kind of like Overwatch, and a game from Cliffy B. What the game was certainly could have been conveyed better, especially what made it different from Overwatch, and it certainly didn’t quite grab the zeitgeist like a viral hit would.
The weird thing is, who can say why this happened? I’d certainly like to believe it is because, yet again, you can’t be a comparatively smaller publisher shouting your lungs out about a game, when there is a man with a megaphone right next to you. You won’t win that battle, not without some unprecedented windfall.
It could have just as easily been a case of not presenting the rights parts of the game.
The next point is what I think really damaged the ship. As I stated a lot of the buzz around the game was “It’s from Cliffy B!” and while that CAN sell a game, it more often than not doesn’t.
Example: Mighty No. 9. From Keiji Inafune. Game wasn’t that good really. Heck even long-standing industry veterans can’t sell a game on name alone. The name of the company behind it, or the franchise in question can certainly reach the masses. Granted the game still needs to be good. But the masses don’t know the individuals. Ask anyone who Shigeru Miyamoto is. They don’t care about that. They don’t know the people.
More so, you can certainly say “Oh, this is the man behind the concept”, but…what about the rest of the people actually making the game? Yes, Keiji Inafune could say Mighty No. 9 was his idea but the rest of the team was responsible for execution. A single name behind a game does not a good product make.
The reason I wrote this article is that publisher Nexon had a huge $32.6 million expenses hole in its financial reports, and naturally investors want answers. Apparently that was to be filled by LawBreakers, and the response the company gave was…interesting?
“…the timing of its launch turned out to be unfortunate, specifically the blockbuster PC online game PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds came out right about the same time, making the market environment very tough for first-person shooters in general and for LawBreakers”
Now I can understand this being the case on PC. But on consoles? Well Xbox One only just got PUBG and the PS4 hasn’t yet and won’t for a while. So this argument even if true only holds partial water. But on top of that no mention was made to the in-genre competition from Overwatch and Paladins.
But as I mentioned, even prior to launch this game didn’t really spark interest or catch attention. Nexon was banking on sailing a ship into a port already full to bursting with other similar ships. PUBG was just passing by.
This just goes to show that your name can’t sell a game on its own, and nor is throwing yourself into a crowded space without catching the eye of consumers a good idea.
And blaming a game that was passing by? A lot of other games managed to sell well this year despite PUBG being a thing. But damage control is damage control. You can’t tell investors “Our bad” otherwise confidence plummets. When you have a huge black hole in finances the last thing you want is people jumping ship.
As always I hope you enjoyed this article and that you give it a share and comment on social media! Until next time, Happy Gaming!
Firstly they need to kill off Steam Direct and start using actual staff for curation and in turn solve the highlighted problem of visibility for games, and the use of asset flips. Any platform should not be receiving 6000 games in 10 months, let alone in a few years.
Secondly, in addition to curation of games, actual customer service will be a must. They have some customer like refunds, though it has been proven that is a bit lax, and even with that they still lag behind in terms of actual customer service communication, with some queries being fast, and some taking days or weeks. This is an area any platform needs to get right and with the rise of third-party related issues, this has to be addressed.
For Steam in general, it mostly comes down to manpower and recapturing that desire to evolve the PC gaming space, however as the dominant platform in that sector, it’s unlikely at this stage unless something overtakes them.
So this is a big one. Perhaps the most shocking thing in 2017 outside of how good the games were in general, was how far third parties fell almost simultaneously.
Micro-transactions and lootboxes do indeed have a place in the games industry, however, it most certainly is not in full priced games, and absolutely not for progression or gameplay advantages. A pay to win structure doesn’t work in full price games. If the game was free then sure, there is your monetisation, but with already heavy season passes, full price games and additional DLC, it has become a bit ludicrous.
Secondly, PR! Perhaps Bungie has been the biggest culprit of this but that’s not the exception in recent months. Destiny 2 became an apology loop with each update and fixes for basic things, or things that should have been improved from the original game, were purely reactionary to backlash. Further to that point, EA has truly put their foot in it, with the contempt aimed at gamers being duly noted.
Finally, third parties in this coming year need to stick by what they say, and stop treating gamers like fools. Bandai-Namco and their “Show your support and maybe” approach to getting people to advertise their games for the promise of a Switch port is one thing, when done numerous times, but then the obvious tomfoolery from other companies beggars belief. 2017 was very much the year when the community bit back. Let’s hope they reflect on it.
PlayStation is in a tricky spot. On one hand they have almost monopolised the industry, with sales left and right. One thing they need to do is keep the games coming and keep dropping fan favourites but also not lean on remasters too hard. Additionally, they need to avoid a repeat of 2016 and front loading all their first party titles.
Next, VR. 2 million sales is nice but the asking price combined with the price of a PS4 demands killer apps. Those killer apps need to come sooner rather than later, otherwise the market will stagnate. VR has a bright future, once revised and refined, but it needs to sell on concept first, and the concept needs big hitters. The catch is Sony isn’t known for supporting two platforms equally.
Next is doing what fans want. We want cross-platform play. Every other system has it. We want backwards compatibility of higher quality and frequency than we have had for the past few years. These are areas that Sony is being left behind in, and as much as they want it to be all service based in future, I don’t think other industries and infrastructures are ready yet.
Finally, don’t announce games so early anymore. The “Holy Trinity” of E3 2015 has only had one release so far and the other two are vaporware. God of War STILL doesn’t have a release date, and Spider-Man is likely to show up for the third E3 in a row. Further to this, don’t go to so many conferences, at least not within 6 months of each other. Spread them out, otherwise we end up with PSX 2017 being a repeat of Paris Games Week which was a repeat of E3, which was a repeat of the last E3.
Oh, and put a better damn battery in that controller. It’s laughable.
This is tricky. On one hand, hardware wise, Xbox is fine for now. The One X is the enthusiast machine and the One S can live as a UHD Blu-Ray and streaming box. One thing it lacks is games.
It gets a bevy of third-party releases, but first party is terribly lacking. Most releases were pushed to 2018, but even then you can count them on one hand. I fully hope HALO 6 is a 2018 announcement at the very least. This is an area they need to heavily work on.
Second is Japanese games. Sure the brand isn’t big….at all…in Japan, but it will help reach a greater audience that the PS4 and Switch hit. As it stands Xbox is very much a Western device, and that’s its weakness.
Backwards compatibility needs to continue as is, as does pushing cross-play across platforms alongside developers and Nintendo. The PC support via Windows Store is nice and it is clear the future of Xbox is a service over a dedicated box on its own, but the focus cannot shift too far from selling consoles.
Stop shutting studios and show off that fabled (HA) AR/VR gadget you’ve got going on.
So what can Nintendo do after an incredible 2017? A few things.
Firstly, mobile. Keep going as is, with not at all invasive monetisation (Seriously, Fire Emblem Heroes is VERY generous!) and two or three games a year. The view that the revenue is funnelled into game development and the games exist as an entry point to the main games is genius and seems to be working well.
Secondly, Directs. Keep the current format for Nintendo Directs and their frequency. These are amazing ways to communicate with consumers and get news out fast and in great volume. Sprinkle some Nindie Showcases and game specific presentations in the year, and the communication front is set.
On to Nindies: Don’t stop. Maybe rework the eShop for visibility purposes but keep those indies coming. The sales don’t lie and nor does the consumer response: Switch is an indie dream machine and in the wake of PlayStation apathy and Steam being a mess, this can be readily positioned as the new home for indie developers.
Regarding services, outline the Online Service at some point during the year, it’s feature set, and other aspects like the free games and discounts and such. I won’t expect Xbox Live levels of incredible, but enough to justify £20 a year. If you are feeling generous, maybe a Virtual Console service? Though that has in past damaged eShop sales for indies, so maybe stick with the Classic Mini systems instead, with an N64 one this year?
Get more third parties on board and if need to, keep paying them for games. The shining hopes are there with DOOM, Skyrim and soon Wolfenstein, as well as L.A Noire proving a hit. Now is the time to pick up steam. Ports of older games get a new lease of life and modern games can run with some effort. So bolster that library.
First party releases need to maintain speed, and the big game a month approach also should maintain. One or two months without works fine, those typically end up being third-party dominated months like November, so work around that.
Finally, slowly phase out 3DS. As I have mentioned before it is a budget option now, and with smaller titles, localizations and third-party efforts coming in 2018, it’s time to let it simmer and slowly phase out.
Maybe a Switch price cut too, towards the end of the year? That’d be cool!
And those are some gaming resolutions and a to-do list for companies this year. May we hope they all come true. Some will, as some are safe bets, others are merely hopes and wishes. If you liked this article, give it a share on the social medias, and I will see you next time! Happy Gaming!
So first off, you need to understand that 64GB cards would be a significant deal, if only because, as I have noted before, this would surpass the limit for physical media on PS4 and Xbox, as Blu-Rays only go to 50GB. At least we would hear the last of “The cards aren’t big enough”, right?!
So the sources state that some western publishers especially are displeased with this. I have to ask, just who that would be? It’s not EA, or Activision, that’s for sure, because to our knowledge they just gave up. It’s not likely to be Ubisoft, as their games come in usually well sized. So that leaves Bethesda, who has done a good job with deciding what to put on a cart, and 2K. I bet it’s 2K.
So L.A. Noire on Nintendo Switch is a big game. 27.4GB in fact. That *would* fit on a 32GB card, but as noted during the entirety of the Switch Tax debacle and as noted by developers, that’s too expensive to produce, so they opt for 16GB cards normally, like Skyrim and DOOM did. L.A Noire comes on an 8GB card. Yes, even cheaper than 16GB, and the rest of the game is a download. I would like to take this opportunity to point out yet again, this is the same situation on PS4 and Xbox One as well. 2K took the cheap route.
Now one thing I want to know is just what Switch games will be upwards to 64GB? Certainly some will come in above 32GB yes, but most certainly not near 50GB or higher. That’s absurd even on PS4 and Xbox One, and when it does happen it’s because of 4K assets (Where files hit 100GBs!) or the game being 10-20GB over.
But any game from those systems being ported to Switch would have to be downgraded. If they aren’t the games wont run with the higher quality assets, the system can’t handle it. So lower quality, and most importantly smaller in size, assets will be used. This should, all things hopeful anyway, reduce the file size from the 50GBs. So this raises the question, what games would be above 50GBs on the system? Maybe two or three games as a bundle on one card, but not a single title, surely?
But this leads to another point. Most publishers right now, as shown with 2K, Bethesda, and more, find 32GBs too expensive t use, settling for 16GB, or foolishly 8GB. Now in the case of 16GB often they don’t actually need to go higher, such as with Skyrim, but sometimes stretching for 32GB would be fine.
But the publishers are so allergic to the notion of 32GB cards at their current price, that it makes the mind go wild over just why they would be upset over the notion of a bigger, much more expensive card not being ready yet, when they won’t shell out for what IS a cheaper card comparatively, even at the current price! Why are they upset if they won’t use 32GB with places stating “cost” is the reason. This just doesn’t add up.
Of course there is the belief that the introduction of a 64GB card will drive down prices of the others, and this isn’t strictly true. What will drive down the price is the manufacturing process getting cheaper and the Flash NAND chip shortage as noted by Toshiba being in part due to smart phones, ending. If the cost to make them falls, the cost to buy them will too. If you start making a newer, bigger, more expensive card, it doesn’t suddenly make the smaller ones cheaper.
But this all ties in to my last article on the matter of physical media not evolving. Sony and Microsoft are stuck with 50GB Blu-Rays and those can’t hold the games at 4k resolutions they are so desperately chasing. It’s been 11 years since Blu-Ray was used for games, surely by now they should be on to UHD Blu-Ray? Problem is cost. That’s expensive, so they won’t. But it’s funny that in a year or two, the Nintendo Switch will be outpacing what they can store in a disc, in a tiny little cartridge.
As I said before, physical media needs to catch up, and it looks like it has if these 64GB cards are anything to go by. All we need is the shortage to end, and the prices to fall, and Blu-Ray will be outdated for everything except 4K assets. Even then, who knows right?
Thanks for reading, and if you liked this article give it a share on social media, and I will see you next time. Until then, Happy Gaming!
If you were to really take away one from this year in gaming, it’s that new hardware came and really impressed the world.
Where the PS4 Pro was a relatively safe (And some would argue lacklustre) refresh of the PS4, the Xbox One X stormed ahead and probably could just be considered a new generation of hardware of its own. This machine has proven itself to be a real powerhouse, and a lot of people were doubting it, both in part to the Xbox One having lower sales than the PS4, but by no means bad, we should stress, and its high price leading to a question: Who is it for? For the enthusiast it has taken the crowd by surprise.
Also of note is the Nintendo Switch, a machine so many were down prior to launch, and coming off the back of the Wii U and 2016 had many wondering if Nintendo had a place in the market anymore, including its own software partners. While it had a quieter start, demand was high from the off, and only grew. The real story is how over 10 months the perspective changed from doom and gloom, to “Oh it’s only early success, itll fall off”, to “Itll be dead by Xmas”, to a quieter rumbling of things still left to improve. If that isn’t a turn around, who knows what is.
The 3DS also had a hot year with many in-demand games and its end of life revision in the New 2DS XL being released. The little handheld has some time left in the sun, but no more than a year or two.
The PS4 had a quieter year, if only because business as usual isn’t noteworthy. 70 million units out in the world now, 4 years in, that’s pretty good. PSVR also hit 2 million despite a lack of compelling software because…price cuts I suppose, but the VR competition is lagging behind, and the market shows a chance of stalling without further innovation and software.
Overall then, hardware wise, it has been a fantastic year with every company really on top of their hardware game.
On to software then, the success stories really come from Sony and Nintendo, with Sony opting to front load its year with first party releases and major third-party titles before dropping off and letting the maligned GT Sport and third party deals flood the latter half of the year. Additionally, press events like Paris Games Week and E3 left a lot to be desired. People can only see the same game so many times without a release date.
Nintendo maintained a steady stream of games for both systems throughout the year. Critical and commercial darlings flooded their hardware and third parties developer some strong showings for once, despite a lack of desire to do so early on. Furthermore, gamers proved receptive to the software, with titles like Splatoon 2, Breath of the Wild, and Super Mario Odyssey setting records for their respective franchises.
Microsoft once again limped along on third-party offerings, but majority of sales were on PS4. Furthermore the cancellation of exclusives like Scalebound and closure of notable studios left the future in question, as well as delaying what few exclusives were planned to next year. Maybe it will pick up then.
The indie scene proved to be on fire with once again the Nintendo Switch dominating the stories there with very high indie sales. Steam fell behind in this regard and Sony seemingly lost interest, but the quality on display this year has been unmistakable.
Third parties as well proved a force to be reckoned with. If we ignore EA, as Mass Effect was a mess and their later games proved less than welcome with bad business decisions. Games like Nier, Nioh, Sonic Mania, Wolfenstein 2, Assassins Creed Origins, Mario + Rabbids, all proved surprise hits. Sure there were duds like Sonic Forces, but third parties not only showed renewed passion in their work, but renewed creativity.
Interestingly 2017 saw huge backlash against micro-transactions and lootboxes in gaming, as companies attempt to push them harder and harder into the core structure of games. This perhaps will be evidenced next year if more games opt to do this, and maybe this indicates a boom in the indie scene. Certainly “AA” games like Hellblade have shown they have a place, and companies like Square Enix have renewed interest in mid-range titles.
2017 will likely go down as a highlight year for the renewal of an industry that seemed to be struggling with staying fresh. Many companies came back from the brink and brought their A Game, and while there were some very loud duds from some, and some fresh controversy, it doesn’t drown out that regardless of what platform you choose, you had a fine year.
Except maybe Steam. I can’t see wading through that as fine. Seriously, sort that out Valve.
You’ll need to forgive me about this being a shorter piece. There isn’t much to say for this year beyond “It was really good”. Barring the issues around lootboxes later in the year and EA being EA…it’s been a fine year all around! So until next time, Happy Gaming!
