ahifi

@bisonhero said:

Yup. This should have been the name for Mass Alex, of course, but the title was already chosen before we got the chance to pitch! Still totally applicable here though! There is also the wonderfully dreadful, but more on brand, 'Star Wars Alexies'.

EDIT: Oh... 'Alexy Wars'...

Just going to dump some thoughts here on trans representation in general and then on the Claire character. Hope y'all don't mind the mini-essay...

As others have said, I think it stems from people not looking too fondly on the company when it comes to these topics due to their past behaviour (and, of course, that poster) which has seen them seemingly cater to edgelords.

Speaking more generally as someone who has been 'woke' and a feminist for quite a long time now and who is trans, I have reached a point where I am tired of the incessant need to represent every identity in every single blockbuster game as I think this just generally leads to a bad place.

I cannot stand when it feels forced. We can tell, so perhaps it was best that they just largely steered clear from it because I doubt they had the chops to deal with it. The 'mix it up' poster says a lot about their internal understanding of queer activism and what it means in 2020. Also, as if people would find such a poster shocking and provocative in a 2077 derived from our timeline... So, even from a sense of place and time, it doesn't seem to make any sense other than to court some controversy in 2020. Bad storytelling and bad marketing.

Besides, looking at it from a simple perspective, it's really not that hard to nail a trans character if you want to have a trans character. If you centre everything about them around their identity, you're doing it wrong. I long for the days when there can just be trans characters, disabled characters, neurodivergent characters, etc. who just exist in the world and their identities are (largely) totally irrelevant to any plot point or cathartic release. That, for me, is more impactful and indicative of progress than anything else. You don't even have to be supportive or approving of trans people to appreciate that they exist, and that they would therefore exist within stories too. Anyway, believe it or not, many trans people don't want to relive their real-life trauma when they play video games or have it be used to harvest awards and recognition, or for the purpose of exoticism.

However, we're in a stage right now where storytellers are feeling pressured by others to make certain identities clear in their games/movies/TV shows/books, etc. so it is often just included in really awkward ways so as to avoid a mauling on social media. This makes these 'reveals' way less impactful. I think we're doing it wrong but this is the trap identity politics always had the potential to fall into and... here we are. I always hoped it wouldn't but... I don't know why I was so surprised that it did. However, this isn't the fault of trans people - this is the fault of societies failing to recognise trans-ness as anything other than a joke since the dawn of time.

Well, I say that but Inanna (later known as Ishtar, Astarte, Aphrodite, Minerva, etc.), the Sumerian Goddess of pre-biblical times - who may well be the origin of the story of Cain and Abel (see 'Inanna Prefers the Farmer' for a far more salacious but nevertheless ultimately rosier version of that story) - was said to have had a cult of non-gender binary/transgender worshippers. Past such historical curiousities, trans people are currently receiving society and media's repentance for all of the past hurt and negativity to now make it absolutely clear to everyone that trans people ARE included in stories as real people, and not just as the butt of jokes. And, as good as this is, this laboured 'apology' can be limiting too.

Personally, I am more in favour of subtlety, hints and implications because, eh, that's just more real... It not only adds intrigue, but it can generate discussion too. When there is only inclusion with a heavy hand, it just becomes a cold tick box exercise. While there can be 'markers' present in other identities (e.g. a wheelchair, someone's pattern of speech, their behaviours, etc.), trans characters may not necessarily have markers. But when they do, then there is the messy business of when someone is made to look 'too trans' which can also elicit criticism for 'othering' and not making the character just look like everyone else. But I have observed most trans characters in media are often totally passable to those who aren't looking very hard for these markers which, for most trans people, is totally unrealistic anyway. Basically what I'm saying - in fairness to any storyteller today - is that portrayals of trans characters in media can be a total minefield and an absolute clusterf*ck right now. I just generally think if a storyteller has their heart in the right place when writing such characters, and genuine care for them, this will show through - irrespective of all of the above.

There are ways around the heavy-handedness though, like... someone having a very subtle trans flag tattoo, casually taking their HRT tablets/injections in front of the character without it being overtly referenced, etc. The lack of creativity around such areas astounds me. I would assume it has to be driven by, yet again, fear of pushback for not outwardly stating that a character is trans. But, really, it doesn't all have to be: 'Oh, by the way, I'm trans. It's totally inconsequential for me to tell you that, and I don't know why I did, but just so you know!'

To conclude, the company just doesn't really have anyone else to blame for Claire being ignored and being lambasted. They've had it coming. You can't keep courting transphobia and expect people to not take the opportunity to stick the boot in. Payback's a bitch and, evidently, a transgender-loving bitch. You reap what you sow. Not that it matters anyway - they've got far more problems to contend with than the ire of the LGBTQPIA+ community now.

Oh yeah, I'm totally over it. Have been for a long time. Haven't played the games in years. Used to play a lot of the Ultimate Mortal Kombat Trilogy. Have no interest in it now and a lot of what turns me off is the level of violence. It probably helps that I'm not a huge fighting game fan. I'm not saying the game shouldn't exist but, yeah... forcing your employees to watch cow slaughter, images of murder victims and so on is absolutely dreadful. 11 people diagnosed with PTSD, crunch culture and a litany of other f*cked up decisions. Worth it?

Me too, for what it's worth.

If I'm understanding this correctly (I don't have PS+), I think the compromise would have been: 'Hey, we're going to give all this stuff to PS4 PS+ subscribers over time, but not as a full collection'. That way you'd still get it all eventually but not all at that same time and not via one big premium 'collection'. Would that have worked for you, OP? If you're a long-term subscriber, you're not gonna miss out and it would be a bonus to what you receive every month anyway.

Let's face it: this would never have happened with Xbox. I could claim 'Games with Gold' titles for an Xbox One without even owning one. Two years later, when I finally did own one, I had a nice collection of games to play alongside my purchase of Halo 5 and Forza 6.

We've learned that Microsoft thought way more about their 'Smart Delivery' that goes beyond just a marketing tagline. It looks as if Sony rushed their approach in response to Microsoft, rather than actually try to make all of this work for everyone. All I've seen as of recent regarding the PS5 is negativity and a lot of it is to do with the lacklustre cross-generational integration.

Played so few new games this year... but my top 3 thus far would be Fall Guys, Ori & The Will of the Wisps and Streets of Rage 4.

After all the initial enthusiasm, I feel Animal Crossing: NH is gonna get a bit lost in the shuffle what with Abby leaving before GOTY. Alex, Ben and Jan will probably bat for it, so I could still see it finding its way into the lower reaches of the top 10, but certainly not the lock it seemed for actual GOTY back in March now. I think the fact it hasn't been mentioned thus far in this thread really says a lot about how the past six months have transpired.

No thanks.

I'd consider playing an international version that does not censor the name of actual territories - and the name of a streamer who merely mentioned Taiwan and showed the flag in a purely stat-driven manner - but not this version. I cannot be complicit in that.

If this is one of the biggest Chinese games in history to date, and they make a load of money off of it, they've got the dough to present an international option. They probably had the money to do that in the first instance. So, yeah, let's not beat around the bush here: this was likely a choice.

Someone there would have (or should have) known this could be an issue early in development. Whether it was a choice pushed on them by their backers, I don't know, but we know other Chinese games have had international versions; we know international games have had Chinese versions. This isn't anything new. And that's the bottom line right there.

I didn't buy Doom Eternal because of the immigration/trans/melting pot shit they pulled with that trailer, and I thought the first game was great, so I don't have any issue with pretending a game (that I know I would really love playing) doesn't exist. Although now that I'm getting that as part of Game Pass, and I don't need to directly give them money for it, I may try it as I didn't hear anyone critique the story content post-release.

Also, I did hear a rumour that Doom Slayer looks at the camera in the final act, cocks their gun, and says: "Trans rights" as the ultimate swerve, revealing a trans flag tattoo under their armour, before casting the final demon back to hell with the power of Audre Lorde's words from 'Zami', firing a modified BFG-T into the dimensional rift to close it up (Butler's Fucking Gender Trouble), and saving us all from bigoted assholes who cannot fathom letting people live their inner lives in peace, and their outer lives in relative peace. I look forward to that moment very ahwhoamikiddin'

Anyhoo, somehow I'll manage to survive without this Breath of the Wild clone (harsh, I know, but come on...), I guess, by perhaps actually getting around to finishing Breath of the Wild. They even added that Master difficulty at some point, right? You could always go back there if this makes you feel uncomfortable but you have the desire for a similar game. And BotW2 could well be out in 2021. There are loads of games out there - loads! No need to feel pressured by peers or coverage to play something that makes you feel uncomfortable. They made their choice; you make yours.

Okay, long one, but have thought about this a lot and have some time:

I think there is some over-thinking going on here about people and the state of their finances, and I don't think making assumption (or, rather, one assumption) about people's financial lives is the way to critique Game Pass. You can still buy games. Bottom line. Spotify and Netflix don't offer you that option - they just railroad you. I mean, you can go elsewhere and buy a lot of it but there's stuff exclusive to Netflix and there's - to a lesser degree - stuff exclusive to Spotify. Game Pass doesn't do that. If you want to keep buying, then keep buying.

Other than the concern of financial difficulty losing you access to your whole library (which will happen to people and, when it does, it will suck to hear those stories), the downsides are near negligible for people with steady incomes and careers. You talk about having people pay $60 a year to access games they'll never play and I just don't think that's true at all. People can still buy 3 months of Gold. If they play FIFA online for three months, they'll just pay for 3 months. And, right now, they may as well pay for 3 months of Game Pass to actually get access to FIFA! It also allows them to try a load of games that they never would have tried. Yes, you can lament the death of the demo, but that's not Game Pass' fault - that has been going on for a generation. People who aren't that interested in other games will find value. And if they don't find value, they'll cancel it when they're done. Simple as that.

With their current numbers of 15m subscribers (a 50% increase in less than 6 months), I'd estimate they are currently generating revenue somewhere in the region of about $1.8bn a year. If they can get up to 100m subscribers by the end of this generation, they'd be pulling in over $12bn a year using that same calculation. I'm averaging $9.99/month based on the various Game Pass tiers, trials (people who are paying zero) and people who converted their Gold to Game Pass for $1 (I am in that latter category and not paying a penny for Ultimate until 2022). And keep in mind that's a fairly conservative estimate as it's the same price as the single platform Game Pass options - I assume most will be Game Pass Ultimate - so average could be higher.

Of course, you have to take Gold costs out of that for a more accurate figure but, let's face it, they could very well yank the cord on Gold at some point when they get a high enough intake of GP subscribers. It'll be a nice PR boon when that happens and people who AREN'T Game Pass subscribers will actually get back the cost of a game per year.

Anyway, that doesn't include the revenue from DLC and people buying the games outright while they are discounted on the service. Nor the fees Microsoft generate from third-party game sales. It's all enough to go towards creating their first-party titles. A lot of talk of Microsoft just printing money to bankroll this but, as every year goes by, that money will lessen until Game Pass hits profitability (or doesn't) and they can stop loss leading. So this is a long-term project that won't be going anywhere anytime soon - especially since they already have 15m and will probably hit 20m by the end of the year. Investors will be happy with 100% growth in a year.

And this is the thing that I don't really see get talked about: once they make enough first-party games, they can drop the amount of third-party titles on the service. I think that's their ultimate goal.

Because then they don't need to negotiate as many licensing fees, nor will most games disappear from the service for the user. It will be more like a vault and there will be less temporary stuff. Rather than overspending on payments to third parties, who will try to take a profit for their investors on top of their studio/publisher costs, they'll be in total control of this process.

I think this is the big reason why they have bought Bethesda who will generate double digit first-party titles per generation. At a base count, they developed/published 21 games across PS4, Xbox One and PC during the last cycle. So that's 20 or so titles probably coming to Game Pass, probably at least another 15+ this generation, and another potential 15-20 from Xbox 360 and Xbox for BC.

So, by the end of this generation, there's a good chance that Bethesda alone will have something in the region of 50 games you can play on Game Pass. If they can get to 100m subscribers, that yearly revenue is enough to buy Bethesda over and still have a few billion left over for that year.

They can always bolster their first-party games with a limited third-party selection alongside a lot of indie games, while the big third-party publishers will try and develop their own services using their own back catalogue (which will likely increase given the Amazon announcement).

It really depends on how fast they reckon they can hit their targets. If they feel they are on target, they'll try and keep it the same price. If not, they'll raise the price by a couple of bucks a month to compensate. The main thing to consider is that they have options. They can go in a number of directions with Game Pass until they can make it sustainable but, like I said, my belief is that they are filling out with third-party stuff for now until they can rest on their first-party laurels later. Heck, perhaps by the end of this next generation, it will simply be called the 'Xbox Vault' - a way to access all their first-party games. That would be the worst-case scenario for everyone and that still isn't that bad.

And I didn't even factor in Cloud Streaming to all of that. The value of that on the service will be great for people who like that sort of thing and for those who travel a lot for work, while also a great 'emergency' option to have for others if they have any tech hiccups that would have otherwise stopped them from being able to play their console or on their TV for a few days/weeks.

Yes and I haven't played them.

To those wondering what they do all day, I guess the average week would look something like this right now:

• 8 hours being on-camera/streaming/podcasting
• 2 hours of prepping streams and checking equipment/doing tests,
• 2 hours of 'coming down' from a stream,
• 8 hours of production work/meetings and editing/uploading,
• 5 hours researching new games and keeping up on the industry,
• 5 hours checking/responding to emails and dealing with CBS-related stuff (for some staff I imagine you would multiply these hours by two or more),
• 5 hours for oddjobs (playing games to certain points to avoid spoilers, being on stand-by for another person in case of emergency/malfunction, etc.)
• 5 hours for lunch/break

Total = 40 hours/week

Obviously that will vary from person-to-person (Rorie's schedule being a clear outlier from this, for example) but I imagine it kinda resembles something like this - even if the hours are all muddled up and it's all based on nothing but guesswork.

Then you've gotta factor in when personal interest and work interest intersects. To most of the staff, gaming is their primary hobby; to some of the staff, it's a secondary hobby. Nevertheless, it's a hobby - some of it is stuff they'd do in their own time. So work spills out into the personal life - and that's the case sans lockdown. Now it's doubly spilling over (as Vinny was referring to on that past Beastcast) and that makes work even more invasive.

I know most of us realise there is a work life beyond the camera and stream but breaking it down like this can be helpful in visualising what it might (again, might) look like and how it can totally be a 9-5 (and beyond) thing.

I think many of us see Twitch streamers and go: 'well, they're on all-day, all the time - how come they manage?' By not editorialising as much, by mostly being solo streamers that don't need to navigate other schedules, but not being tied to a corporate entity, by being 'freelance', by blurring the lines between work and personal life, by not really keeping up with the industry but just playing whatever their viewers suggest, by not considering whether or not they are playing something 'problematic', by not worrying about stepping on other people's toes when it comes to what games they play, by not worrying about embargos, etc. It all adds up. And you'll note that when a streamer gets big, they do start to slow down because they start getting weighed down by everything - such as emails, corporate sponsorship, co-streaming - and because, quite simply, they don't need to stream all day, every day.

So, yeah, I don't need the staff to do more for my money - they are doing a fine job. I would like a wider variety of games, some more quick looks (loads of indie games out there still being made) and some more multiplayer hijinks - but those things take more time to put together and research so I understand that this isn't as easy as it sounds. We always want something more but it's okay to stop and appreciate what you get too.

Oh, and I'm so, so far behind watching stuff. I check out the live stuff that interests me the most (usually the multiplayer streams) and is relevant to a week (i.e. the podcasts and quick looks) and commit to watching the rest when I've got time. I've went from keeping up with everything before lockdown to now being way back on page 7 of the videos section... Honestly, they could stream LESS and I'd be happier. I know they felt like they had a duty to occupy people at first but I'm totally okay with them taking their collective foot off the gas a bit if it helps them feel better (and helps people like me catch up!)