A good point I saw raised on Twitter is that infamous Miyamoto quote served best when games were completely physical and could not be patched at all; in other words they HAD to leave the cartridge factory working. In a modern era of constant updates and "games as a service", it is old news. But I would still bet on these Bethesda titles shipping with problems.
As for old news, so is the FIFA license. It was inevitable that one side or other would tire of the relationship, but my money was on FIFA ditching EA over loot boxes/microtransactions rather than a greedy EA ditching the sport's governing body. As a long-term Pro Evo fan it never mattered to me that the licenses weren't there, I was enjoying the gameplay. But in these days of image rights and higher profile players, money is king.
Hmmm I wonder. Did the new corporate overlords pressure Bethesda Game Studios into committing to an unrealistic release date for Starfield? Todd has been vocal in the past about how he likes to reveal and release a game in quick succession. The release date reveal last year was very out of sync with their usual modus operandi.
And speaking of M.O.s is it clear at this stage that BGS can not handle the demand for their video game franchises? Must we wait another 10 years for a mainline Fallout game? (Give it to bloody Obsidian already! Josh Sawyer is nearly finished with his new secret project isn't he?)
I know you know, but I wanted to say out loud that one of the biggest gaming franchises (Call of Duty) launched an event this week in its biggest game (Warzone) where Godzilla and King Kong try to kill you and other players. And a Snoop Dogg skin was released for 4/20.
In a way I'm not too surprised the FIFA post didn't get much in the way of engagement because the whole thing smacks of perfect business blandness. FIFA and EA are kind of equally a bit grim, and it feels a little Aliens versus Predator watching them squabble. The new choice of name, EA Sports FC, is also just so very dull. I mean is it good or bad? I'm not really sure, it just is.
At the end of the day I think this is, as you suggested, not really going to cause any sort of ripple. The name will change, people will keep buying their yearly instalments, or ever few years as they see fit.
As for today's round-up, I am very curious to see what Microsoft do with this. I think everyone's assumption that they'll get out the chequebook and look to sign some impressive 3rd party for Game Pass is likely very accurate, but am I the only one hoping that they kind of surprise us as this year's non-E3? It'd be kind of lovely wouldn't it to be caught off guard by some fun surprise.
This is probably going a bit farfetched, but it's possible to argue that, in the context of Game Pass, it's in Microsoft's best interests to delay their big-hitters whether they're ready to go or not. Many of their customers are likely to already be Game Pass subscribers, where the day-one releases are an huge cherry on top that turns an already good value collection of games into an exceptional value proposition. These subscribers are unlikely to unsub for the delayed months before they play Starfield/Redfall and so will actually pay more in total to eventually get those games by remaining subbed until they release, meanwhile there's more than enough on the service to keep them busy.
From a certain perspective, Microsoft's first-party games are there to set a base-line expectation of what quality of games will be on / coming to their service, whilst the less predictable and more changeable third-party offerings provide the main meat on the bone. Delaying helps ensure the quality can keep those expectations in the right place, as well as getting a bit more value/sub months out of those same expectations. Once these games get released and expectation becomes reality, Microsoft has to worry about where the road is going next.
Anyway, Happy Birthday Nathan for the other day! Is it possible to stack annual subscriptions? Probably not but I love a good bargain so I'm going to give it a shot anyway
A good point I saw raised on Twitter is that infamous Miyamoto quote served best when games were completely physical and could not be patched at all; in other words they HAD to leave the cartridge factory working. In a modern era of constant updates and "games as a service", it is old news. But I would still bet on these Bethesda titles shipping with problems.
As for old news, so is the FIFA license. It was inevitable that one side or other would tire of the relationship, but my money was on FIFA ditching EA over loot boxes/microtransactions rather than a greedy EA ditching the sport's governing body. As a long-term Pro Evo fan it never mattered to me that the licenses weren't there, I was enjoying the gameplay. But in these days of image rights and higher profile players, money is king.
Hmmm I wonder. Did the new corporate overlords pressure Bethesda Game Studios into committing to an unrealistic release date for Starfield? Todd has been vocal in the past about how he likes to reveal and release a game in quick succession. The release date reveal last year was very out of sync with their usual modus operandi.
And speaking of M.O.s is it clear at this stage that BGS can not handle the demand for their video game franchises? Must we wait another 10 years for a mainline Fallout game? (Give it to bloody Obsidian already! Josh Sawyer is nearly finished with his new secret project isn't he?)
I know you know, but I wanted to say out loud that one of the biggest gaming franchises (Call of Duty) launched an event this week in its biggest game (Warzone) where Godzilla and King Kong try to kill you and other players. And a Snoop Dogg skin was released for 4/20.
In a way I'm not too surprised the FIFA post didn't get much in the way of engagement because the whole thing smacks of perfect business blandness. FIFA and EA are kind of equally a bit grim, and it feels a little Aliens versus Predator watching them squabble. The new choice of name, EA Sports FC, is also just so very dull. I mean is it good or bad? I'm not really sure, it just is.
At the end of the day I think this is, as you suggested, not really going to cause any sort of ripple. The name will change, people will keep buying their yearly instalments, or ever few years as they see fit.
As for today's round-up, I am very curious to see what Microsoft do with this. I think everyone's assumption that they'll get out the chequebook and look to sign some impressive 3rd party for Game Pass is likely very accurate, but am I the only one hoping that they kind of surprise us as this year's non-E3? It'd be kind of lovely wouldn't it to be caught off guard by some fun surprise.
This is probably going a bit farfetched, but it's possible to argue that, in the context of Game Pass, it's in Microsoft's best interests to delay their big-hitters whether they're ready to go or not. Many of their customers are likely to already be Game Pass subscribers, where the day-one releases are an huge cherry on top that turns an already good value collection of games into an exceptional value proposition. These subscribers are unlikely to unsub for the delayed months before they play Starfield/Redfall and so will actually pay more in total to eventually get those games by remaining subbed until they release, meanwhile there's more than enough on the service to keep them busy.
From a certain perspective, Microsoft's first-party games are there to set a base-line expectation of what quality of games will be on / coming to their service, whilst the less predictable and more changeable third-party offerings provide the main meat on the bone. Delaying helps ensure the quality can keep those expectations in the right place, as well as getting a bit more value/sub months out of those same expectations. Once these games get released and expectation becomes reality, Microsoft has to worry about where the road is going next.
Anyway, Happy Birthday Nathan for the other day! Is it possible to stack annual subscriptions? Probably not but I love a good bargain so I'm going to give it a shot anyway