Approvals 12/3 ▼
Garethvk (3) - 2751d ago Cancel
john2 (4) - 2751d ago Cancel
oof46 (1) - 2751d ago Cancel
TGG_overlord (3) - 2751d ago Cancel
obscurica (1) - 2751d ago Cancel
360°

Bethesda's Being Dishonest About Dishonored 2 Reviews

Bethesda is no longer giving out review copies of their games. Bethesda
says, since Doom was so successful. That games like Elder Scrolls Skyrim
Special Edition, and Dishonored 2 will not have review copies on day 1.
That means no reviewer will have Bethesda games review on launch. Meaning
we won't know if these games are actually good. This trend that Bethesda is
trying to set is a scary one, and here is why.

Read Full Story >>
thepolinetwork.com
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community2751d ago
2751d ago Replies(6)
oof462751d ago

Before the age of the internet, I remember when I would have to wait a month or two AFTER a game came out to read a review on EGM.

Hoffmann2751d ago

That is weird. I remember that the big games were actually reviewed weeks before a game was launched, back in magazines.

The not so big ones got smaller articles and sometimes reviews after launch, guess simply because the magazine editors had their priorities

oof462750d ago (Edited 2750d ago )

@rainslacker@Hoffman: Ocarina of Time was the one review I could find. It came out in November of 98, but they didn't review it until February of 99. But, it did happen. Some publishers gave out early review copies, some gave them late, and some didn't give them out at all.

morganfell2750d ago (Edited 2750d ago )

I remember the review having been written by one individual but the game had actually been played by several people in the office. The reviewers had a set of grading standards. And they had an editor in chief that would strain as much opinion from the article as humanly possible. This was before the days of scabs like Dan Hsu at EGM who ran the magazine into the ground and posted articles of joy concerning how he screwed with companies. What a pig. It is people like him that were on the cusp of game reviews becoming the bane of the industry which we now see.

And I do not require a review of Dishonored 2 to form an opinion. I played the first one, played it again on PS4, and have seen enough previews to form an opinion and pre-order. I didn't require some wanna be game reviewer celebrity thinking for me and telling me to buy or not buy it.

rainslacker2750d ago

It could go either way really. It kind of depending on the release schedules between the game being ready to be handed out, and the magazines printing deadline.

NapalmSanctuary2750d ago

@morganfell How do you strain opinion from what is, inherently, an opinion piece. I could understand editing conclusions drawn from unfair or irrelevant standards i.e. slamming FFVI for not having a jump button or Gran Turismo for not having on foot free roaming but a review is a series of value judgments, and value judgments are subjective.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2750d ago
Soc52750d ago

Exactly, it's not that big of a deal. If anything it will just hurt their day one sales and preorders, because people will hold off a couple of days before buying. I will. They are just shooting themselves in the foot. I don't mind waiting a couple of days for reviews.

NapalmSanctuary2750d ago

I distinctly remember reading reviews for Colony Wars and Bushido Blade before those games were released. Those were the only games I read reviews for before 5th gen so I can't say in general.

SaveFerris2750d ago

Colony Wars was a fantastic game. I have never played Bushido Blade.

TC7312751d ago

I've never had a problem with Bethesda games. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Dishonored, WET, Rage, the new Doom...I've always felt like I've gotten my money's worth.

Instead of going after a publisher that puts out great (if a little buggy) games, why don't you go after Hello Games for the POS known as No Man's Sky?

DivoJones2751d ago

Well.. c'mon.. No Man's Sky has absolutely gotten plenty of feedback. I think we've all read through a dozen scorching opinions and reviews to know what happened there.

I do agree that I've had only positive experiences with Bethesda games though.. while Fallout & Skyrim are prone to glitches, I've never personally had a game-breaking bug. Bethesda is simply doing this is a result of the 'uh oh, Doom is going to suck because it didn't give out review copies' feedback, and the result/effect it may have had on pre-order numbers. Want to get a company's attention? Go after their reputation or their bottom line, and they must feel that early reviews/reception has negatively affected one or both of those.

LamerTamer2750d ago

Yeah, just like the sun is a little warm...

pumpactionpimp2751d ago

Rage didn't work with amd cards on release. On console and pics, it had horrible texture loading problems and often crashed. Fallout and elder scrolls run on the same engines, and have seen the same issues time and time again. Corrupted saves, crashes, clipping issues, wonky a.i., quests not completing, etc.

I like the elder scrolls games, and I've begun to like the fallout series. But saying you don't have an issue with bethesda, doesn't mean their games don't need to be reviewed. Doom is the first day 1 purchase from bethesda, I've played, that worked as advertised out of the box, without an issue.

Reviews are good for consumers. Regardless of how jaded they can be. Just like you and I enjoy bethesda games, others may see the issues I've listed, and feel cheated that they bought a broken game.

I find it funny that a lot of people on this site are for these kinds of anti consumer practices. Over the years, game companies have drip fed us very anti consumer practices. I always here the same thing, it's just this, or just that, it's no big deal. But now games come out with preorder bonuses, day 1 dlc, not working properly but may have a day 1 patch of several gigs, micro transactions, not working correctly in general, very little in the way of content, and many others. So your right. Let's just not review them before their release as well.

hellothere19772750d ago

Your sense of entitlement is blinding. Bethesda is under ZERO OBLIGATION to give out free advanced copies of games to many of these parasites reviewers. Lol, need i remind you about the youtuber that SPEED RAN THRU 'THE ORDER' AND LEAKED THE ENTIRE GAME 1 WEEK BEFORE RELEASE? The game may have been shorter than usual, but considering the money, time, blood, sweat and tears the development team put into the game, they didn't deserve to get their game hosed like that.

It was a linear game with high production cinematic progression gameplay...who the hell would really buy it when the entire hybrid game/movie was leaked a week before release? So, who did the leak? A "consumer" of whom you are championing? Nah, it was a scumbag reviewer with an advance copy of the game. He made some money on his youtube views, but he cost a lot of game developers their jobs when the game flopped and Sony cut ties with the studio for the poorly selling game.

GrimmyReaper2750d ago (Edited 2750d ago )

"Over the years, game companies have drip fed us very anti consumer practices. I always here the same thing, it's just this, or just that, it's no big deal."

Yeah and people didn't mind apparently. Micro-transactions, DLC, Season Passes, Pre-orders BS, exclusive pre-orders, season passes that don't cover all DLC packs, Day-one DLC, empty promises, lies, broken games, unfinished games and the list goes on and on and on.

While I don't support Bethesda's decision per se, I am not against it either. You people feel so entitled because you can't play the game day one because God forbid you have some patience and self control, right? Get real. Those who already don't buy into the hoax of buying a game day one are not affected and people that do buy games day one will buy it day one regardless. So many games had lackluster scores and people bought them anyway and then are pissed off.

Not to mention, just because Bethesda announced it for all future games, you are all in uproar. Are you people blind?! Many triple A games have review Embargo's very close to release, also a day before launch, sometimes even on launch itself! Or did you not notice? Companies have already been doing this. At least Bethesda has the decency to announce it rather than doing it regardless in vain hope people like you don't notice anyway.

Also on a side note "Reviews are good for consumers. Regardless of how jaded they can be."

Are you fucking shitting me?! If they are jaded then that exactly amplifies what the problem is! That they can't be trusted and are just used to drive more sales! Think before you type!

pumpactionpimp2750d ago

@hellothere1977

I have no sense of entitlement, and don't believe I portrayed such a notion. I am a consumer, nothing more. I do somewhat agree with your spat, in the sense that bethesda shouldn't just give review copies to any moron with a website or youtube channel. I've said as much before. I also don't purchase games day 1. Doom was the first time I had done that in years. Stop assuming I have to be the first to own a game, and read what I said.

@grimmyreaper

Bethesda is at fault here. It's simple, bethesda controls who gets early review copies. Bethesda sent them to everyone. Obviously hoping it would get them a lot of free hype. Today's generation wasn't raised on dooms arena style multiplayer combat. Thus some people slammed it in their reviews.

Ultimately bethesda can do as they wish, I've not claimed they couldn't. But just because they can do things, doesn't mean they should.

As for other review embargoes, your correct. It's happened before, and look how most turned out. Destiny fooled a lot of people. As did the division.

Lastly the dlc, microtransactions crap. Your right bro, everyone's to blame for that. I screamed from the hill tops years ago. But people spend their money as they see fit. Sadly, it's left us where we are now. And now that companies know they can take it this far, they will see how much further they can go.

Regardless I belive bethesda is overreacting to a situation they've created. And implementing this policy will not only hurt consumers, but likely hurt themselves as well.

rainslacker2750d ago (Edited 2750d ago )

I find it funny how so many of these sites are so pro-consumer now, despite not really caring unless it can bring them clicks. They didn't fight for better consumer representation and ethics or transparency, which is very pro-consumer when GG started. They demonized us almost across the board. Yet now they are saying how them not getting early review copies is somehow detrimental to us?

Bethesda games generally get plenty of good reviews. There's no real reason for them to have to do this policy. Despite their bugs, they are a pretty respected publisher. They have their faults, and release some duds, and I do agree, it would be nice if gamers had access to that information as early as possible.

But in this day and age, when so many people are excited for their midnight releases, day one digital unlocks before reviews get published, and pre-ordering to get some sort of crappy bonus material, is it even that relevant anymore? In this day and age, when the reviews glance over problems, and don't even inform the consumer, are they even worth having? In this day and age, where there are almost no review standards for games to have some sort of equilibrium on reporting, and some reviews often devolve into some politically agenda driven tirade, what relevance do they even have anymore?

People have been complaining about review standards for years. Despite the good reviewers, the bad apples are giving a bad name to everyone. Not once have these sites decided to address their review standards and try to bring some sort of respect back to gaming journalism. They've done nothing but sit on their high horse and preach about how they are never wrong. And the worst part is, is that the good sites/reviewers, aren't even calling for better practices across the board to push out these people making them look bad. They blame others, like the publishers, or the gamers themselves.

There are more responsible consumers, or care to be more careful with their money have to wait a bit longer. But by the time the good reviews can be written, there will be plenty of feedback from the community where people can make a decision. Nothing is lost overall, except it inconveniences a segment of the community which does rely on reviews.

What it comes down to for me though, is that I am more disillusioned by the gaming press than I am the gaming industry on these matters. The industry has it's own problems to address, but that is separate from the media itself, and I don't like seeing the media piggyback it's needs on the needs of the consumers. When sites actually start acting like they're pro-consumer across the board, and represent us and the industry equitably, then I'll stand with them for what I want as a consumer.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2750d ago
rainslacker2750d ago (Edited 2750d ago )

Why not go after the press itself which has brought this situation upon themselves with their crappy practices?

There is no reason for Bethesda to really restrict their games. I don't believe their reasoning behind the policy, but never have they really been panned by the media.

However, we pan the media itself constantly for their half assed poor reviews, and constantly complain about their inept critiques.

While there are good, if not great reviewers out there, the truth is, the media itself is in dire need of some restructuring. Besthesda isn't the first company which has restricted it's review copies, and they aren't likely to be the last. The industry is getting annoyed with the gaming press. The gamers have been annoyed with them even longer.

But you don't see these sites going on about how they have a problem. Quite the opposite really...when it was brought to the forefront in a way they had to respond, they turned us gamers into misogynist pigs that supposedly the industry didn't have to consider a target audience.

When I see these sites actually take responsibility or at least address the problems the media has overall, then I'll consider their opinion on if I should be upset Bethesda or others are in the wrong. As long as they act like they are blameless, and that we should stand by this travesty of so called anti-consumer practice, then they get no sympathy from me, because it's been a long while since the press has done anything for me as a consumer.

And the press did plenty of panning of NMS...so not sure why you're using that as an example. They overdid it in fact.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2750d ago
opinionated2751d ago (Edited 2751d ago )

"Meaning we won't actually know if the games are good."

I didn't know if they were good when mainstream publications were getting early review copies. I trust the word of the people in this comment section more than I do gaming journalists.

rainslacker2750d ago (Edited 2750d ago )

Nope, only gaming review sites can tell you if a game is good. There is no other outlet. All of our opinions are based on the general feelings of the press and reviews. At no time, has a review ever not lined up with our own opinions, and there is no such thing as a poor review in terms of actual validity(not score).

Luckily, we can still know if the game is good or not when these sites finally do manage to print their Bethesda reviews. Might take a week or two....although I'm sure the early reviews, and rushed reviews, are sure to make an appearance. Thank god for that, because there is no way I can form an opinion on my own, and God forbid I have to get feedback from the general community on whether a game is worth purchasing. I certainly couldn't play the game myself and make a decision.....I'm not capable of that kind of critical thought because I is not too bright. I mean, Bethesda's new policy means I might have to actually rent a game....or worse, watch a lets play.....that would be disastrous.

Swiftfox2750d ago

We live in a "pre-order" culture. A majority of sales are made before the games are even released. The money gained from pre-orders is already spent on different elements by the time the game even comes out. One poor review, or miscommunication and suddenly people are cancelling pre-orders, meaning theses companies go into an even deeper hole of loss.

How do you combat this as a company? No early reviews. If most of the sales are going before the game even comes out, why do they need review outlets to help hype their advertisement machine? At which point the sales increase from pre-release reviews are insignificant since you'd have to pre-order the game anyway. The people who don't pre-order will calmly wait for the reviews regardless stimulated by normal advertisement. They aren't losing any sales.

We'll have to wait and see how this affects things on a larger scale for the company, but this is how they are combating the shortcomings of a pre-order environment.

You want to help? Stop pre-ordering games.

ElementX2750d ago

You can get some great pre-order deals online for consoles and pc. I think companies shouldn't assume that every pre-order will be filled. Also, you aren't charged until the game ships so preorders aren't giving anybody any money except sometimes a small charge at gamestop or something.

LamerTamer2750d ago (Edited 2750d ago )

That also helps insure the game releases buggy and incomplete. If a publisher finds loads of bugs or isn't finished they ship it for the original release date anyway. If they delay it whiny gamers throw a hissy fit and cancel pre-orders. So you get broken garbage day one and need to rely on a fast internet connection to install a "day one patch". The problem there is when those patches are taken down eventually you will not have a way to fix the junk you have on the disc, a death knell for future retrogaming (and your internet data cap). If someone doesn't have internet you aren't able to play anything that works.

I never pre-order it just seems retarded. There is no point in it really.

Show all comments (45)
110°

Xbox, do you even have a plan anymore?

TSA asks what is the future for Xbox.

Read Full Story >>
thesixthaxis.com
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community2h ago
Chocoburger2h ago

They clearly never did, hence why they spent so many BILLIONS on other publishers as a last resort.

anast1h ago

They have a plan. It's to move everything toward streaming and mobile. This is just the next step.

Cacabunga54m ago(Edited 51m ago)

With half of the money they spent, they could have been on the very top and the gaming industry would be way bigger than it is.. encourage developers, indies, make them grow trust them and they will deliver.

Tody_za19m ago(Edited 19m ago)

What are you talking about Cacabunga? The Xbox faithful insisted that Microsoft has infinite money, and after Activision they should buy Square Enix and Capcom before Sony does. There was no chance ever that Microsoft would do this. They would use their infinite millions and Bitcoins to invest in 50 new IP and beat everyone.

andy851h ago

To ruin great studios it's looking like

Skuletor1h ago

Sure, a plan to be a more hated game company than EA. Ubisoft were recently giving them a run for their money but I think Xbox have really knocked it out the park with their latest stunt.

neutralgamer19921h ago

Absolutely not, their whole plan is at odd with what MS wants

Phil wants GP to become big
MS wants to sell games and make billions

GP can’t be sustained with AAA games which take 3-5 years and 7 figure budgets. Only go put those games on GP day one. Why do you think games are coming out on other platforms?

People want a change and want Phil gone without realizing if someone new comes along they may want to change everything again so we just keep going in circles. Phil has to realize that and give clear message on the direction of Xbox

Show all comments (13)
290°

Brad Hilderbrand explains the reason behind the recent Xbox studio closures

There are two reasons why all those Bethesda studios closed, and neither of them have anything to do with Bethesda (directly)...

Game Pass and Activision.

Read Full Story >>
linkedin.com
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community4h ago
Christopher5h ago(Edited 5h ago)

The guy confirming what we've all (well, most of us) been saying since the latest purchase.

crazyCoconuts3h ago

Remember the relatively common counter that went something like "I'm sure you arm-chair CEOs know better how to run a company than the biggest company in the world"?

I mean - there's a lot to running a company for sure, but on this topic it's hard to understand how Phil and team didn't see this coming.

Tody_za2h ago(Edited 2h ago)

Phil and team knew it was coming and planned for it. It's not even a conspiracy, it's simply the business of cutting costs and superfluous studios after a major acquisition. They don't give a damn about Tango Gameworks or other small creative studios that won't recoup their losses. They don't care about investing in this industry. They have no interest in risky and expensive new IP. They are only interested in profiting off ownership of Bethesda IP, Call of Duty and Candy Crush.

I guarantee you that not one single game under their banner will improve or become bigger and better.

Welcome to the Xbox family, what a pathetic joke.

Anyone who continues to support this, enjoy your future, because this is it. Ninja Theory is next, and Perfect Dark after that.

Christopher1h ago

Especially not with the evidence of tons of existing movie streaming subs out there and how they fail to make a profit with over 100m users each quarter.

Lightning7717m ago

Apparently they're debating if they wanna put the new Cod on Gamepass or not.

Either grow GP with Cod or don't put it on GP and grow the revenue the traditional way while GP will suffer.

The mess that MS puts themselves in.

XiNatsuDragnel5h ago

I'm not surprised Microsoft guys are crock nuff said

isarai5h ago(Edited 5h ago)

Honestly i think Bethesda needs to buy themselves out of zenimax/MSs hands and do their own thing, i honestly think that would fix a lot of issues and save them from a potential closure.

Zeref5h ago

There's a reason they sold in the first place. And Bethesda is not closing anytime soon lol. As much as I hate the studio closures. They were all small studios 2 of them were mobile studios.

I think these are growing pains and Xbox will get back on track. But they're not getting any more passes.

jwillj2k43h ago(Edited 3h ago)

I’d like to see your reaction to being growing pained out of your job after the launch of a successful product.

Mr_cheese1h ago

Excuses, Excuses, excuses.

If growing pains have been happening for the best part of a decade, they're not growth.

XiNatsuDragnel1h ago

Zeref nii San
I'm sorry but xbox has been rightfully bashed due to constant incompetence

romulus231h ago

Yet you literally just gave them a pass, being "small studios" or "mobile studios" is irrelevant. There's no excsue for closing Tango, none. They praise the game, they PR talk about it's the kind of game the company needs and yet they shutter the developer, that's foul on every level.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1h ago
Tacoboto1h ago

Bethesda greenlit Redfall, launched Fallout 76 in the condition it was in (and the fiasco with the bonus bag), and spent all that time on Starfield finishing it as it was with that same engine. Wolfenstein Youngblood exists because of them too, not Microsoft.

Are you *sure* leaving them alone would actually result in a better outcome, not just a different one?

isarai9m ago(Edited 7m ago)

A lot of this excessive monetization, and GAAS crap started when Zenimax decided to start looking for a buyer. Not a coincidence that there was a sudden shift in prioritizing profits above quality or even coherence at the same time. They wanted big numbers to attract buyers, now that they've been bought, MS wants exactly what they were baited with.

However even under Zenimax they made enough to self publish sometimes, so i would imagine it's not too far fetched that they could pay their way into independence if they REALLY wanted to.

Also even people at Bethesda and Arkane were hoping MS would cancel the game as again, they were forced to make something they didn't want to make.

Einhander19725h ago

Ah, we can see how the Microsoft media machine works.

Every article I read now is some kind of attempt to shift the blame off Microsoft and paint them as the victims or convince people that Microsoft mistakes were just some kind unforeseeable unfortunate twist of fate.

The shills are out in full force today.

Christopher4h ago

This is not at all what this article is saying. It's saying that honest and useful studios are getting closed because of big money deals elsewhere and the faults with game pass as a model.

Einhander19724h ago

I understand what the article is about.

It's a deflection, it's a putting the cart before the horse article.

Let me tell you how this problem wouldn't have existed in the first place.

Microsoft not creating a service funded by subsidization and having the foresight to see that it would disrupt consumer spending habit to begin with. Then not buying Bethesda and undertaking costs for a service that was already failing to pay for itself because their own expectations of Game Pass having "billions" of subscribers was unobtainable from the very start.

And if you don't think that was the case go back to the article on the day Game Pass launched and read the comments from people from day one who foresaw that this would be an unsustainable model and would cause people to stop spending in the same way.

Christopher4h ago

***Microsoft not creating a service funded by subsidization and having the foresight to see that it would disrupt consumer spending habit to begin with.***

This article literally supports this opinion. He's not praising Game Pass or the ABK purchase.

Einhander19724h ago(Edited 4h ago)

This is an explanation of why it failed, there is zero blame put onto Microsoft itself.

Yes, it talks about what went wrong, but it doesn't say Microsoft shouldn't have done it. It doesn't say Phil should have foreseen this outcome and stopped before it got to this point.

"convince people that Microsoft mistakes were just some kind unforeseeable unfortunate twist of fate"

Christopher4h ago(Edited 4h ago)

***but you're seeing the impact; all those smaller studios making really interesting games are going to fall away, simply because as good as games like Hi-Fi Rush are, they're never going to make enough money to make up that $70B hole that Xbox now has to dig itself out of.***

If you see that as support or you explicitly just want people to end their argument with "and, in conclusion, Microsoft bad" then that's on you. This article does not support Microsoft's choices and highlights the faults. Nothing it says is good about these choices, even saying that putting CoD on Game Pass would be money losing for them because they've set themselves up for failure (and not putting it on there will drop subscriber numbers like crazy, meaning their Game Pass plans were shit to begin with).

No matter how you look at it, they're saying Microsoft made decisions that hurt the bottom line, force closures, and leave Game Pass in a situation where they lose no matter what they do. It's all negative.

Einhander19723h ago

Christopher, if Microsoft hadn't made Game Pass and bought a bunch of publishers would this article even need to exist?

Christopher3h ago

***Christopher, if Microsoft hadn't made Game Pass and bought a bunch of publishers would this article even need to exist? ***

How is this an argument to anything being discussed? This is just as valuable of an argument as "if fish had stayed in deeper waters, they wouldn't have evolved to tetrapods, adapted to shallow water and then to land, and we wouldn't even exist and have to worry about game pass at all."

You're bringing nothing to this argument and then complaining that other people are highlighting the issues with Game Pass and spending tens of billions on studios because what we should be discussing is what it would be like if Microsoft hadn't done any of that.

Well, they did do it. Now pull up your big boy pants and join in on the discussion of what that has meant for the industry since then and, especially right now, how that is affecting the industry and game studios under Microsoft. None of us are able to go back in time and change what was done.

Einhander19722h ago(Edited 2h ago)

Christopher, this isn't me not understanding what the article is about, it's you not understanding what I am saying.

If you want me to make excuses for Microsoft's bad decisions you're not going to get that or just agree with people who are doing that, it's not going to happen, nor are you going to convert me into thinking xbox "needs to exist".

Ya know what, maybe "Microsoft bad".... maybe their decisions ARE having a negative effect on the industry, and instead of deflecting from their actual actions and making excuses for them we stand up and say "no" "Microsoft is hurting the industry"

And maybe, just maybe, it was so obvious that this was going to be the outcome that even nobodies in comment sections on websites were able to easily predict this outcome, yet Microsoft did it anyway then kept doing and even when it became undeniable that it was having a negative impact on their business and and the industry itself, then they knowingly made even bigger purchases and caused more problems.

And the one thing you're right about is that I can't go back in time, but I CAN speak up and try to keep it from happening again...

Maybe if the people who were speaking up 7 years ago were listened too we wouldn't be having this discussion and Tango and Arkane would still be in business along with all the other people who have lost their jobs due to Microsoft's actions.

Do you like analogies?

What you're saying is like an alcoholic crashing their car then trying to explain it by saying it was caused by everything except the fact that they were dunk because they are an alcoholic and don't want to stop drinking.

TiredGamer2h ago

The article is essentially focusing the blame on MS. GamePass was a hail mary play to change the gaming paradigm and carve out a special niche for themselves, emulating the Netflix model, that might have led to MS becoming the leader in the long-term. Unfortunately, the subscriber growth isn't really there, and the model isn't really built to weather that lack of revenue. MS is now in a restructure mindset to figure out how they balance out their model in a way that can still make them money.

've always believed that GamePass was a high risk shot that had a very low chance of long-term success. But the problem with it, whether it succeeded or not, is that it accelerated the proverbial "race to zero" consumer expectation that ran its course in the mobile gaming industry in the late 2000s. When consumers start thinking that games should be "cheap" (as in through a $10/month all-you-can-eat subscription model), it turns the narrative against games being priced at realistic levels. So with the GamePass failure, they've not only sabotaged their market share, but they've impacted the entire industry and devalued the cost of game development to the average consumer. So now it's harder to develop mega-big budget games and to earn the revenue needed to pay for them.

XiNatsuDragnel1h ago

Again terrible excuses in the 1st place

Christopher1h ago

***If you want me to make excuses for Microsoft's bad decisions you're not going to get that or just agree with people who are doing that, it's not going to happen, nor are you going to convert me into thinking xbox "needs to exist". ***

No one is asking you to make excuses for Microsoft's bad decisions nor is anyone asking you to convert to anything.

***Ya know what, maybe "Microsoft bad".... maybe their decisions ARE having a negative effect on the industry, and instead of deflecting from their actual actions and making excuses for them we stand up and say "no" "Microsoft is hurting the industry" ***

Literally no one here is doing this. They're literally discussing how Microsoft's decisions have hurt the industry. Except you. You're rambling about why people aren't complaining about Microsoft when people are in fact complaining about Microsoft.

*** And the one thing you're right about is that I can't go back in time, but I CAN speak up and try to keep it from happening again... ***

Then perhaps actually add something to the conversation other than calling people shills when people are complaining about the decisions and repercussions of Microsoft's actions.

Tacoboto1h ago

Christopher, you're fighting a block wall here - Ein will continue twisting and contorting any remark to fit his self-created narrative.

Einhander19721h ago(Edited 1h ago)

"Then perhaps actually add something to the conversation other than calling people shills when people are complaining about the decisions and repercussions of Microsoft's actions."

Cristopher, in no way is the author of this article complaining, they are explaining what happened it's literally the title. They never once say that Microsoft shouldn't have bought Zenimax or Activision or that Game Pass was a bad idea to begin with. They think the problem with Game Pass is that it didn't grow fast enough, not that it was a bad idea from the get go.

BTW this is his job title.

"Public Relations and Communications Leader"

What do you think a Public Relations and Communications Leader does to make money?

Edit: I have read a dozen of these articles that just started coming out in the last 24 hours that are trying to shift the conversation away from blaming Microsoft, the shift here and in several other articles is trying to say it just didn't gain subscribers fast enough, not that it was a bad idea to begin with that was doomed to fail or placing the blame on anyone.

It was all just an unforeseeable outcome, no one should be held responsible it was just a billion dollar oopsie that's costing thousands of people their jobs and has caused a downturn in the entire industries sustainability.

Oopsie!

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1h ago
MrDead3h ago

It's greed. MS has the IP's it wants now it's dumping the studios that it's raided, MS will still make money from Tango's games unlike the people that made them. If anyone follows MS outside of gaming you'll see this is what they do, buy companies take what they want consolidate some of the workforce and shut them down. I don't know why people are acting so surprised when this is Microsoft being Microsoft.

MS is a three trillion dollar company, if it enters a market it has no need to compete, they take what they want and with the financial influence it can bypass laws that are meant to protect the consumer and the workforce. Just look at how they are cornering the AI market right now with buyups and investments.

Show all comments (33)
50°

Capcom Had Record Sales in 2024 Fiscal Year

Capcom Co., Ltd. today announced that in its consolidated earnings for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2024, net sales were 152,410 million yen (up 21.0% year-over-year), operating income was 57,081 million yen (up 12.3% year-over-year), ordinary income was 59,422 million yen (up 15.7 % year-over-year), and net income attributable to owners of the parent was 43,374 million yen (up 18.1 % year-over-year).

Read Full Story >>
capcom.co.jp
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community5h ago