Why on earth would you want to replicate Demon's / Dark Soul's sucky UI?
WHY!?
Yeah agreed. I guess because they figure they aren't going to draw a lot of people in that aren't Souls fans and the semi-consistent UI makes them feel like they have a foothold at the outset. Kind of bizarre project IMO.
Is this tacit admission that the "score" of a review is getting less and less meaningful at GB? There aren't many positive remarks in this review, so the score comes out of nowhere. I wouldn't argue that a final score is terribly important, but if you're going to have one, I'd like to see some justification for the score in the review. That doesn't seem to be the case here.
"This game isn't good. 4 out of 5 stars."
huh? Have we reached game reviewing's DaDa period?
As long as games are playable across a variety of Xbox hardware, that's a win. You don't want to shell out some more money for a new machine? Fine. You can play the game at a reduced resolution/fps. It's not so different from from the mobile space.
Part of the question is if games will be available for play across a variety of Xbox hardware and at this point it's largely a guessing game because we just don't have enough information, but console developers have traditionally opted to make one version of a game per platform, either by making their game 100% exclusive to the newest version or by making their game with the original version of the platform in mind and not bothering to take much, if any, advantage of the new model's boosts.
It's also different from the mobile market for more than just price. When people upgrade to a new tablet or phone it's usually not just to play games, it could be to have a bigger screen, or maybe they broke their old screen, or the buttons are starting to wear out, or other potential issues where the console equivalent would be to get a new television or a new controller, not a new system. Mobile devices also handle a lot more than gaming, they are used for messaging, for calls, for watching videos, for business, and just about everything else; the Xbox is capable of more than just playing games, but gaming is far and away the primary reason to have one. There is also the general understanding that, unless you have a ton of free time, many people make more use out of their phone or tablet than they do a gaming console; you can use a phone while making use of public transit, during a break at work or school, and any other time you get a few minutes of free time throughout the day and probably accomplish something, but you generally need a decent chunk of free time while at your own house to really make use of a console.
However, the actual cost of owning a mobile device is also inherently cheaper than the cost of owning a console (unless you're the type to shove thousands of dollars at Puzzle & Dragons); if you pay a few hundred dollars to upgrade a phone or tablet, you can expect that to be the only real money you shell out for the device other than your phone bill and possibly a dollar or two here and there for some apps, not the cost of upgrading plus the cost of Xbox Live plus the cost of controllers plus the $60 cost of the games themselves and plus the cost of a headset if you want voice chat.
As far as the process of upgrading hardware itself goes, why would you even get a console over a PC if you need to constantly upgrade anyway? You could shell out $800 for a fully-built PC and have access to a larger variety of games, a larger amount of functionality, and still not need to worry about needing to upgrade for quite a few years. Two of the biggest reasons to own a console over a PC have traditionally been 1) not needing to worry about upgrading and system specs or anything else and 2) console exclusives. Nintendo's been very careful to keep many of their games exclusive to their consoles (though they certainly have issues when it comes to getting third party support), but Sony and Microsoft have only the smallest handful of exclusives between them with most games eventually appearing on both the PS4 and the Xbox One in addition to the PC. Requiring yearly upgrades to a console in order to have the 'privilege' of a decent framerate (or potentially to play certain games at all depending on how this goes down) abolishes the remaining advantage.
On a final note, it's also important to keep in mind that a large portion of people playing on consoles are either children who get the consoles as gifts or adults who, like your friends, shy away from PC gaming because figuring out what can and cannot run on what can be complicated, confusing, and scary. When the Wii U launched there was a good amount of confusion with plenty of parents buying original Wii systems for their children because they thought the Wii U was the same thing or was just an add-on; having multiple versions of the exact same console with some versions having 'higher specs' than others is, short of a marketing miracle on Microsoft's part, going to be just as much of a disaster as a significant portion of the audience won't understand the difference, won't understand why the difference matters, or won't be able to buy the console for themselves.
If this ultimately works out for them that's great, but at this point in time I just can't see a scenario where this does anything other than make people question why they want to use a console over a PC if the former is going to start having the cons of the latter without gaining much in the way of pros.
As I said, some people are completely adverse to PC gaming. People who play games on the PC frequently under appreciate their broad PC gaming knowledge base. A lot of people have no interest in the learning curve.... and there is a learning curve, even when you buy a pre built system and use something like "Steam Big Picture". The complexity moves into the hardware realm if you start considering upgrading individual components. The vast majority of people who enjoy AAA gaming experiences requiring time dedicated to focusing exclusively on the game are not interested in worrying about which CPU will work with which socket or whether to go team red or green.
I've tried for years to migrate some of my console friends to PC gaming. They have no interest. Monetary cost isn't the issue. It's the complexities of the platform and the fact they are already invested in a console's marketplace, social space, etc.
I'm not a child and I'm not one of my friends. I'm a developer with a strong understanding of all gaming platforms. I own the Wii U, PS4, and Xbox One, and a high end PC I use exclusively for games. They each have their merits. I think you undervalue a number of benefits of consoles: services, price, ease of use, the physical space they occupy.
MS has already taken baby steps in the direction of higher end products in the console space. Look at the release of their recent "Elite" controller. I saw the same malaise when that was announced: "No one will spend $150 on this controller.", "There is no room for a high end peripheral like that in the console space." I haven't seen one of them sitting on the shelf. There is a market for console users who want to spend more money and get a better experience out of their console.
And there's a market for an Xbox 1.5 with the right effort from MS. Since Spencer's been at the helm, I think they've shown the ability to pivot and market effectively. If anyone can do it, MS can. I'd predict right now that MS' foray into the PC gaming space will be a greater success than Steam's foray in the console space (Steam machine, Big Picture, Linux support) in terms of financials and adoption rates.
I honestly and truly do not understand the weird, nearly-obsessive drive Microsoft has had for years when it comes to unifying things across its various platforms, especially when this drive so frequently results in decisions like making the original Windows 8 interface look more like it was designed for touch controls instead of mouse and keyboard controls.
In my opinion, if you want to have multiple platforms, you should learn to play to the strengths of each platform. One of the strengths of console gaming is the general assumption that, unlike with the more flexible PC market, you only need to pay a single time for the system itself and then you are set for the next 5+ years until the next console generation comes around. Games coming out fine on PC's and then turning into giant, barely-functional messes on consoles has been a legitimate issue for this console generation, but talking as though you plan to treat your console like it is a PC is not the right solution.
An Xbox is not a PC and it's definitely not an iPhone - if Microsoft tries to make its playerbase shell out cash every year or two for some sort of weird add-on or, worse, an entirely new system model, most players are simply going to either go over to the PS4 or, if it's going to basically end up costing the same amount anyway, move over to PC gaming.
Microsoft has a habit of putting its foot in its mouth when it comes to announcements for the Xbox One, often resulting in a message which leads to an idea coming across as far worse than it actually is, so it's too early to really know anything for sure until they start giving more concrete facts, but I do think there is still a valid reason for concern whenever Microsoft starts spouting off about unifying their Windows/Xbox/etc experience since it so rarely works out.
It's risky. That's a good thing. MS needs to carve out a different space for the Xbox. Between this and its aggressive adoption of new IPs and exclusives, I think they are on the right track.
As long as games are playable across a variety of Xbox hardware, that's a win. You don't want to shell out some more money for a new machine? Fine. You can play the game at a reduced resolution/fps. It's not so different from from the mobile space.
I have many friends that will never approach a PC for gaming. It's just too complex, expensive, and quirky a space for them. They want the simplicity of a physically small console that they can connect to their TV and don't want to see launchers, worry about peripheral compatibility, install mods, figure out how to chat with their friends in a game if it isn't supported natively, etc, etc, etc.
I'd be surprised if this is a foot in mouth moment for MS. It seems more likely to me that this could be the effort that gives the Xbox platform its identity for the next 5-10 years. Whether you appreciate and buy into that is another story. If it gives players more options and brings them together across PC and Xbox platforms, then I'm excited for it.
To some of Dan's comments: I don't think the hatred of Windwaker was limited to Dan's peers at the time. When he was describing his experience in college, I was nodding my head. I had a similar experience. Most of the people I knew in the dorms were happy with their PS2 or original Xbox. I remember myself and one other guy having a GameCube. We got heaps of shit for saying that we were playing and enjoying Windwaker.
Whoa. That video quality looks insane. It's glorious! Did you guys make some changes, or have all the Beastcast crew videos looked this good and I've not been paying attention?
I know I know.... quibbling over a review score isn't en vogue. I'm going to do it anyway and say that 3 out of 5 is too high a score for this mess of a release.
Technical issues left and right, scant number of fighters without the diversity of other games, and a barren set of features. When the netcode works, it's good, but 3 out of the 14 matches I got into last night lost connection to the server. This game is a bigger mess than many other games that have received scathing reviews for their state at release. 3 stars? I think not. That was awarded based on this game's promise, not what's there currently.
Syonara, Street Fighter V. Maybe I'll give you another chance 2 years from now.
TheTerribleFamiliar's comments