Approvals 11/3 ▼
MaximusPrime_ (3) - 392d ago Cancel
Obscure_Observer (3) - 392d ago Cancel
Terry_B (2) - 392d ago Cancel
SullysCigar (3) - 392d ago Cancel
740°

Opinion: For Xbox, The Phil Spencer Era Is Over

Phil Spencer has been in charge of Xbox since 2014 to elevate the brand, however, recently it seems that Xbox is at a major crossroads.

Read Full Story >>
lordsofgaming.net
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

✔ Fixed
Bad Editing
Remove site's name from title.
MaximusPrime_393d ago WhoDisagree(0)Agree(1)
+ Updates (2)- Updates (2)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community392d ago
Changed: title
Futureshark392d ago
Knushwood Butt393d ago

They say in that interview with Phil that a new IP failing is bad for everyone because the decision makers will be more likely to only greenlight sequels because they are a safer bet.
Did they forget about Halo Infinite?

MIDGETonSTILTS17392d ago

He isn’t wrong about that, even if he only brings it up to avoid explaining how at no point in the last 5 years of development was the lack of variety in the gameplay apparent, let alone a blaring alarm that enemies were sooooo stupid.

neutralgamer1992392d ago

For it to be over it has to first start

His whole tenure has been MEH

LoveSpuds392d ago

He gets a free pass in respect of his senior role at Xbox before he became Head in my view. As general manager of Microsoft Studios he was also part of the management team that oversaw the decline in 360 and the piss poor performance of Xbox ever since.

He is a snake oil salesman, plain and simple and he always has been. It's hilarious that some members on N4G would talk about Nintendo getting a free pass whilst at the same time letting Spencer and Xbox off the hook over and over again. It does feel like the tide is turning now and other than a few hard core Xbox apologists, people are starting to question Spencers efficacy as Head.

Notellin392d ago

You rarely see any support for Xbox or Phil on here.

This narrative is crafted in your head only.

DOMination-392d ago

Phil was head of Microsoft Game Studios back in the late 2000s. Before he joined, the 360 had a strong launch and first couple of years. After he joined..

- The studios made a bunch of Kinect shovelware
- He greenlit a 4v1 Fable game that was never going to work and then promptly shut Lionhead down when they realised it wasn't going to be successful
- He started Black Tusk Studio who revealed a trailer of their new IP, only to then abandon that project and stick them on Gears,
- He was in charge of building 343i, employing all the best management and talented developers to work together as a "super studio". We know how that's worked out.
- opened and then promptly shut down several studios before they ever released anything - LIFT London, MS Victoria and I believe another MS branded studio that I can't remember.. maybe MS Vancouver?
- He allowed the Crackdown 3 debacle to happen, with the cloud computing guff and then overseeing it switch developers multiple times as they tried to make their previous cloud statements work (and failed)

Then he became head of Xbox and during the last ten years has overseen MS continue to basically not release any games. He could have made deals for third party exclusives during the barren years (which frankly, has been most of them since he took over), and been in charge of a fresh new generation where he had plenty of time to fix things and get the many studios they have to actually make some games. I appreciate that isn't really his job now but ultimately he is responsible for Matt Booty doing it.

I don't think it's a crafted narrative. There's a lot of evidence that suggests Phil hasn't done a great job. And that's a shame because I do think he speaks well and believe that he cares and is really passionate about gaming. But so far, the results speak for themselves.

CrimsonWing69392d ago

I think you’re misunderstanding.

What he was saying is that if people see new “games” or IPs fail, then they are unlikely to take risks.

Now, I think he was actually trying to say that Red Fall was a new game “conceptually” and while co-op shooting vampires in Massachusetts is a new idea, the game is borderline a GaaS designed feeling game.

There isn’t anything that’s “New” mechanically speaking and it’s pretty freaking derivative. The games it copies are far better than what Arkane Austin approved.

I don’t agree this is a new game and I’m hoping publishers see the backlash so we can stop with these f*cking kinds of games.

But I wouldn’t say this is a game like Parasite Eve or Xenogears or Silent Hill, where it takes concepts and molds something “new” from it that could be a gamble.

That being said, yea, it’s bad because when sh*t fails and fails hard, then yea, risk-taking gets harder to see across the industry. I mean, compare the PS1 and PS2 library to PS4 and… well the 5, PS5 games we have.

There is a stark and I mean STARK difference between how many new IPs and experimental games get made. We have this sh*tty GaaS model and Open-World trope type games and if anything is experimental it gets a shoe-string budget and barely any marketing.

Knushwood Butt392d ago

I take your point.
I was just pointing out that Redfall is a new IP (regardless of content), and that Halo is a well established IP and therefore supposed to be a safer bet.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 392d ago
jznrpg393d ago (Edited 393d ago )

Phil isn’t the problem. MicroSoft is the problem. Sure he’s not a good spokesperson but their culture and team at Xbox is influenced by MS who wants to dominate industries.

Their vision for dominating stopped being console a long time ago and has turned into a cloud streaming service future that they want to dominate. To do this they want to buy as many 3rd party games as possible and more importantly to them the biggest casual games that sell best elsewhere.
That’s where they think they can steal customers for their cloud service future.
Games aren’t most important to MS or Xbox. It’s the domination of a particular industry first to sell you a sub second that’s on their servers (cloud) third and then the games. They don’t care what games they are as long as they are the best selling somewhere that casuals pump money into constantly and they will try to buy them.

Jin_Sakai392d ago

It’s never good guy Phil’s fault. He’s been in charge for two Xbox generations and it’s only been downhill since. He is part of the problem.

rippermcrip392d ago

He was in charge of their games before that. He's been shit for 15 years.

Aloymetal392d ago

Exactly!...People always seem to forget that Phil Spencer was GM of Microsoft Game Studios starting in 2008, became the VP in 2009. He was in charge of their games. He is to blame just as much as anyone else for their lack of IP's and all the mess.

Tankbusta40392d ago

Phil has been a problem for now two generations of game consoles.

Father__Merrin392d ago

If it was up to me I'd have Spencer arrested!!

TheEnigma313392d ago

When you're the head, you take the blame. You're paid because you will always be that one who takes responsibility.

terstomp392d ago

jznrpg, you have illustrated exactly what Microsoft's motive is. Well said. Alot of people understand this, but most xbox fans refuse to acknowledge this fact.

franwex392d ago (Edited 392d ago )

Yep. Nadella has not been involved at Xbox to the extend that Bill Gates, or even Steve Balmer were. I doubt that he even games or cares about gaming in general.

It’s simply not a concern for Microsoft and I’m sure Xbox would’ve been abandoned if it wasn’t for that cloud base future that they are trying to cultivate. It could well be Xbox last Gen, or close to its last Gen and simply be a service in 10 or so years.

It sucks for gamers, but Nadella has grown Microsoft beyond $2 trillion. That cannot be ignored. Its real rivals are not Sony or Nintendo. Rather Google, Apple, and Amazon.

CrimsonWing69392d ago (Edited 392d ago )

No, it’s Phil’s fault, Microsoft hired him to do a job and he’s making terrible decisions and not delivering.

Look, I feel like Phil is a good guy in person, he seems genuine and I personally respect him more than Jim Ryan. That being said, he’s incompetent at this point and something seriously needs to be done to course-correct the Xbox game division to getting to the Xbox 360 days where they actually were a contender in the gaming arena.

It’s 2 generations now and I’m actually starting to feel this gen is their worst.

Grilla392d ago (Edited 392d ago )

The 360 was a fluke. The 360 was a pc in a box and therefore got a lot of pc ports. Sony learned their lesson and went X86 for the ps4 and MS lost that advantage.

Ra3030392d ago

"Phil isn’t the problem. MicroSoft is the problem"
I 100% agree but Phil Spencer has to go.

ChasterMies392d ago

100% this but put more simply, Microsoft still wants all the things they announced at E3 in 2013, and all those things are still just as unpopular. Phil Spencer might be able to bring Xbox box to its 360 glory days if not for Microsoft’s corporate goals standing in the way.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 392d ago
XiNatsuDragnel393d ago

I think it's combination of phil Microsoft and their team problems. You need freedom but order at certain points vice versa.

RauLeCreuset393d ago

"It’s also convenient to claim success on the back of a new Gamepass service-based strategy when you are getting clobbered in the only ways the video game industry has measured success historically since its inception; console and video game sales. The moving of the goalposts seems all too convenient from a business standpoint, especially when you aren’t being entirely transparent with the data to back up those claims."

That's why it's senseless for media and fans to regurgitate talking points about Game Pass games being hits based on lacking data and MS' say so. It's amazing how many keep asserting that a GP title was a hit without bothering to inspect what that actually means.

-Foxtrot393d ago

If he actually manages to keep his job in the future, especially when the time comes to lead us into the next gen, I'll be surprised.

Obscure_Observer392d ago (Edited 392d ago )

"If he actually manages to keep his job in the future, especially when the time comes to lead us into the next gen, I'll be surprised."

No, you won´t.

The only reason why Phil still leading is because he made Xbox profitable. As long he continues to fill their pockets, retirement will be his only way out, and you know that.

If CMA´s own data is something to consider, he managed to make Xbox the isolated leader in the Cloud Gaming segment.

So just like Jim Ryan, he´s allowed to say any bs he wants as long MS executives keep their large smiles while walking straight to the bank.

Bathyj392d ago

Don Matrieks made Xbox profitable for the first time since it's inception.

Obscure_Observer392d ago

@Bathyj

"Don Matrieks made Xbox profitable for the first time since it's inception."

And yet he left through the back door and almost got Xbox dead and gone.

343_Guilty_Spark392d ago

MSFT is the leader because nobody beside nvidia and smaller companies take cloud seriously

EvertonFC392d ago

You still don't get that profit/revenue do you. Lots of people on here have explained it too you lots of times I'm staggered you still don't fathom it.

TheEnigma313392d ago

Your delusion is sickening and sad.

-Foxtrot392d ago

Jim Ryan says some stupid shit but 9 times out of 10 he shuts his mouth and it only opens when there's a new game or hardware coming out, maybe even an announcement of one or if there's an event going on like E3. The same can be said about Nintendo aswell. The recent Jim Ryan news for example is tied to the whole court case about the Activision acquisition.

Phil Spencer is a walking, talking 24/7 PR machine who has said so much bullshit over the past 10 years alone most statements contradict old ones or the goal posts get moved. If he just shut up maybe expectations wouldn't be through the roof all the time and maybe people would call him out with how much back tracking he does.

crazyCoconuts392d ago

That's not profit he's filling their pockets with...

Obscure_Observer392d ago

@EvertonFC

"You still don't get that profit/revenue do you. Lots of people on here have explained it too you lots of times I'm staggered you still don't fathom it."

I'm the one staggered with the dumb and delusional crap you said; Do you really believe MS is paying BIG MONEY to Phil Spencer as Xbox CEO while throwing at him hundreds of BILLION DOLLARS to do what he wants while running at a loss???

Dude, just gtfo with your entitled bs.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 392d ago
I_am_Batman392d ago

After listening to that Kinda Funny interview, I'd be surprised as well. It almost sounded like internally the decision to fire him might've already been made and he's just gonna be the public scapegoat for a while until they have a couple good games in the pipeline to give the new CEO a good start to his role.

Show all comments (120)
250°

Take-Two CEO Doesn’t Think AI Will Reduce Employment or Dev Costs; “Stupidest Thing” He’s Heard

Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick doesn't think AI will reduce employment or lower development costs, and calls it "stupidest thing" he's ever heard.

Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community1d ago
lodossrage1d 1h ago (Edited 1d 1h ago )

They already have AI trained to do coding.......

How he thinks it's stupid is beyond me, Especially since we see it happening in real time.

CS723h ago

Company A has 300 employees and lays of 200 to replace them with AI to release the same quality game.

Company B has 300 employees and keeps all 300 but instead uses AI to release a game with dramatically larger scale, scope, complexity, short dev cycle etc.

Company B would release a dramatically better product by using humans + AI and consumers would buy the better game.

I actually agree with this concept.

Huey_My_D_Long23h ago(Edited 23h ago)

This is key facet. Its how the AI is used. It's actually is impressive as is and really would make an amazing addition to alot of people in their jobs, not just tech. It also has the potential for businesses to use to lay off large amounts of people, as much as they could to save money on labor. I hope too many companies don't go with the latter. But since usually companies are worried about bottom line over people...we will see some try and hopefully fail. But yeah, if its to help workers like in your company B scenario I'm totally down...Just scared Company A may be too enticing to some ceos and businesses.

Darkegg22h ago

Value of AI and value of humans will both be increased with human-AI complex. Each, by themselves, will not be independently better than the other. Whether AI will ever be independent from humans is the fear question of humans, ironically because of our doing. At this stage, most of the doing is because of humans, not because of AI. AI is doing exactly that by our design, until we have failed ourselves with an AI development that went awry. The biggest take is that humans have only ourselves to blame when things become wrong, and we have to decide what is the ultimate goal with AI we want to accomplish. It would take a person with high morals and high ethics to make right of AI. I would not want businessman to decide what AI should do or what capabilities it can have. AI should be in the hands of people with high moral fiber, or those operating on love, kindness, and compassion.

BlackOni22h ago

AI is SUPPOSED to be used as a tool, not a replacement. It's designed to do two important things artists can take advantage of immediately.

- Make the ideation/reference imaging process much quicker and easier (basically using it as a google search)
- Make mundane and time consuming tasks faster and easier so more time is spent on creation.

Unfortunately, what many have done is used it as a way to replace rather than supplement.

Einhander197219h ago(Edited 19h ago)

CS7

In the ideal world yes.

In the real world where companies have shown little desire to innovate and spent every effort to maximize profits the end result will be the same quality games (if were lucky) made by less people and more AI.

Company Real World: Fires 200 people and makes the same game cheaper using AI and the executives get record bonuses.

Edit:

Lets look at history, specifically auto manufacturing.

In the 70's and 80's the auto unions tried to oppose automation of jobs (robots) stating that they would take peoples jobs. And the people in charge who wanted to make more money said the exact same types of things that are being said about AI. But we can look at history and see that countless types of jobs were in fact replaced by automation, that was of course even compounded upon by computers.

The net effect was that the rich got richer less jobs were needed so wages were forced down by competition for the jobs that were left.

hombreacabado47m ago

that concept works in the initial beginning phase of AI but once AI learns and surpasses the knowledge and coding expertise of even the best human employee than this CEO will no longer need competent humans in that line of work.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 47m ago
Number1TailzFan23h ago

You can already make your own SFX with text prompts now as well, of course it will lower development cost and time

1Victor22h ago(Edited 22h ago)

WARNING WARNING ‼️ SARCASM AHEAD
Sure Strauss and robots didn’t take jobs from car factories.
Edit:Sad thing is he believes it and unfortunately he won’t be replaced for a long time by AI

senorfartcushion21h ago(Edited 21h ago)

He doesn't, he's just lying. These people lay people off so they can get bonuses. If AI takes jobs, their bonus goes bigger and the workforce goes smaller.

porkChop19h ago

Because he sees AI as a tool to aid development. He wants to use AI to help make bigger and better games in the same timeframe. Other CEOs want to replace devs with AI to cut costs and make lifeless games faster for a quick buck. Strauss has the right idea, this is how AI should be used. To extend and expand the capabilities of devs.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 47m ago
jambola1d 1h ago

Ceo says stupid thing
Part 5837384

Zeref23h ago(Edited 23h ago)

I think maybe sometimes we give people in these positions too much credit when it comes to intelligence.

DarXyde3h ago

I think you mean candor, not intelligence.

If you take him to mean what he's saying at face value, sure.

I don't. And I think he's clearly lying.

romulus2323h ago

As long as it doesn't effect his inflated executive salary or his ridiculous bonuses I'm sure he's fine with it.

RNTody23h ago

Hahaha yeah trust the CEO suit over the actual developers making the games. Good one.

Show all comments (33)
340°

Trying to push players over from PC to console is a terrible idea, PlayStation

As PlayStation announces its new strategy to encourage PC users to choose PS5 it is a bitter-sweet moment for PC gamers.

Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community2d ago
Christopher2d ago

I mean, it's a business based on hardware market. Do we expect them to not even try? It's not like Nintendo doesn't do the same by not putting any games on PC and Microsoft until recently did the same. I don't care what they attempt, as long as they don't abuse the community or lie about their goals/requirements.

Will it work? Not likely. Should we care? No. Let them waste their time, it doesn't affect anything.

RaidenBlack2d ago

let them try ... at the end of the day, we get few extra PC games ... yay ... and also promotes game preservation via PC ... so double yay.

LordoftheCritics2d ago

If only Playstation games provided the ease of pc gaming features.

Primary being very few PS games support m/kb.

Christopher1d 21h ago

If only PC games supported controllers more. Main reason I play primarily on console. So many games have shit support on PC. Playing Dark Envoy now, and it's quite frustrating since I have to switch to keyboard during cut scenes just to make sure advancing conversation doesn't also auto-select a decision. Let alone it's quite rough to select between characters and inventory screens are bad bad bad.

Anywho, similar complaints for both I find. But, I 100% agree that both PC and consoles should support both as best as possible.

crazyCoconuts1d 16h ago

PS may push more kb support in the future to get more PC converts, we'll see.

Flewid6381d 15h ago

As someone with a high end PC, I feel like the ease is on PS5. Too many PC games are a troubleshooting nightmare, which few people have the time for when all you want to do is pop in a game & play it.

Yui_Suzumiya1d 7h ago (Edited 1d 7h ago )

I just use an Xbox controller on my laptop for everything 😆 .. I haven't used a keyboard / mouse combo for PC gaming since 1996

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1d 7h ago
LordoftheCritics1d 20h ago (Edited 1d 20h ago )

I don't think you understand what I mean by the lack of m/kb support on PS.

Over a thousand titles have PS controller support on PC.

Not even 30 titles have m/kb support on PS5.

Once you are done with the single player title, you'll go back to playing your daily shooter/looter/mmo etc which the pc gamer has mastered with their mouse and keyboard.
Why would any pc gamer make the switch?

jznrpg1d 11h ago (Edited 1d 11h ago )

PC is secondary to PlayStation for them. Mouse and keyboard would affect development. Live service will have it but most single player games aren’t going to have it as PC is not the focus

Christopher45m ago

I didn't miss it. I explained why I, a former PC only gamer, now play primarily on consoles. I don't play MP games, and the games I tend to play are better supported with controllers on console. Let alone some games aren't even supported with controller at all on PC. On console you are guaranteed the best support since it's the primary input. The fact is, PC isn't the best choice for every gamer just like consoles aren't the best choice for every gamer.

If you wanted to only disparage consoles and ignore any benefit of console, cool. But that's not how it is. There is no perfect platform for everyone. It's why we have the hardware market that we have.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 45m ago
Fishy Fingers2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

I wish them the best of luck.

But PC players are often a patient bunch, many will even wait for Epic launcher exclusivity to end until a game comes to Steam.

If they didnt buy the console when its games were exclusive, why would they do it now theyre not?

MrNinosan2d ago

Way more do than you probably think.

ravens522d ago

All you need is that one game that'll make a few switch at a time. Like a game a PC player REALLY wants.

porkChop1d 17h ago

It just doesn't work that way though. Plenty of the best games ever made were never available on PC. That didn't make PC gamers buy consoles to play them. This kind of strategy has never worked in the past and it won't work now. It's fine for PS to hold their games back and release on PC later, but to think that will boost console sales is wishful thinking. All this will accomplish is some double dipping, which is obviously good for business.

JackBNimble1d 17h ago (Edited 1d 17h ago )

People aren't going to switch from pc to ps5, why would anyone do that for a game?
Most sony exclusives aren't all that to begin with, and pc has the option to upgrade what they want when they want it. Having access to some ps5 games, gamepass and steam.

Thinking this would happen is naive

outsider16242d ago

I mean if there's 10 million pc gamers out there...getting atleast just 1 million from there is probably a good thing..right?

romulus232d ago

PC players are not a monolith, I don't know why people keep thinking they speak for the entirety of all PC gamers like they all know each other personally. You think out of the millions of PC gamers not one single person will be impatient?Well Sony is willing to bet there will be. Why would they do it now? People's feelings change and new PC gamers come along all the time that may also feel different about waiting, that's why.

Yui_Suzumiya1d 7h ago

Just like how I'm waiting for Alan Wake II to hit Steam 😆

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1d 7h ago
-Foxtrot2d ago

PC gamers are just too patient and loyal to their gaming set ups, something they've spent a lot of money on to perfect. They have backlogs of games which many never get round to finishing or get round to at all and will always have other multiplatform releases to keep them going.

Over the many years Sony has published so many awesome titles such as The Last of Us, Uncharted, Heavenly Sword, Infamous, Killzone, LittleBigPlanet, Dreams, Puppeteer, Resistance, Heavy Rain, Gran Turismo, Motor Storm, God of War, Horizon, Ratchet and Clank, Spiderman, Ghost of Tsushima, Bloodborne

If none of those games BEFORE all these PC ports convinced a hardcore PC gamer to get a PS5 console then why on Earth would porting them them to PC now make any difference? All PC gamers now know 100% is that they just have to be patient, which they are good at anyway to get a PS5 game 2 years later.

I get GaaS games or multiplayer focused titles but if people really want to play these games they'd have gotten a PS console years ago.

Crows902d ago

Not sure they're aiming to convince the hardcore PC gamer.

Not sure why people are obsessing over his comment...it seems pretty simple to me.

He will do all he can to entice gamers to move to his ecosystem. As you say....exclusives existing hasn't moved many gamers over. But if they get to try them and love the games then they might change their mind about waiting 2 years.

We're in an echo chamber on this site...I've Personally seen people with Xbox and PC setups but no PlayStation. I've also seen people with small PC setups but no console. Not every pc gamer invests thousands and many may decide to put one in the living room.

They're not looking to convince all of players to buy a PlayStation...just a few...and really it is just a PR statement after all...they have to give a reason why single player won't release day 1....not to mention they also have to ensure current PlayStation gamers don't jump ship to PC. It goes both ways and they're ignoring the big L by putting any of their games off their platform.

anast2d ago

"Not sure they're aiming to convince the hardcore PC gamer."

Right here

Kakashi Hatake2d ago

PC gamers think tomorrow is promised. Sorry, don't have time for that.

Michiel19892d ago

it's not just about loyalty or sunk cost, pc is an open platform while consoles are closed platforms. If you for example want to mod, you will play on pc, no question about it. Also if you like indie games, steam is a fucking goldmine for that. I've been playing a lot of indie games over the last years and there just seems to be an endless amount of them on steam. Also not having games locked to a certain fps is a prettty big deal for me and I assume a lot of other pc players.

Walalon2d ago

And don't forget steam sales, you can get a ton of games on an awesome price.

badz1491d 15h ago

@Walalon

Sony has been doing sales constantly on the PS Store nowadays.

jznrpg1d 11h ago (Edited 1d 11h ago )

@Walalon Steam sales are basically the same as PS sales. I was going to buy a Steam Deck and I heard about these Steam sales but the games I was interested in were not any cheaper. Indie games were cheap and older AAA were cheap but the same can be said for PS store sales. I didn’t end up getting the Steam Deck as there weren’t any games that I wanted to play that wasn’t already on PS and prices aren’t much different

romulus231d 23h ago

And how do you know out of the millions of PC gamers that not one single person ever went ahead and bought a PlayStation console for one or more of those games? People keep speaking for the entirety of millions of PC gamers like they know them all personally. Here's one example for you, I'm currently typing on a recently purchased PC that cost me over twenty five hundred dollars and is more than capable of running any game including Sony exclusives that come to PC and yet I still bought a PS5 so apparently I'm not patient or loyal enough to my set up, hope it's not mad at me for not being loyal.

jznrpg1d 11h ago

Some of those people will consider getting a PS5 some wont. I was a PC gamer for a long time and I’m a console only gamer now. Everyone’s different.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1d 11h ago
helicoptergirl2d ago

Who cares? Then just stay on PC and play the waiting game. No big deal. Sony wins in the end anyway.

Melankolis14h ago

Yup. If the strategy doesnt work, all they have to do is to change their mind, publish the games on PC, and they still win anyway.

Number1TailzFan2d ago

I mean if there's any single player Sony games that I actually want that aren't on PC then I would buy said console to play them on. But the ones that I like that aren't on PC are few and far between anyway so no loss for me.

If I game, it's usually multiplayer titles, otherwise I like playing around with some other software.

Amplitude1d 21h ago (Edited 1d 21h ago )

Astro Bot is the game that just did it for me. I'm gonna have to grab a PS5 again for that.

I did this for Ratchet Rift Apart too but ended up selling the PS5 after getting my plat. Rebought it on PC and other than GoW Ragnarok and Horizon FW (which eventually I could get anyway), I haven't had a reason to downgrade my graphics, controller features, ease of recording, and increase my game costs and monthly subscriptions throughout this entire generation.

I play on a TV with a controller but this has been the absolute worst console gen for both consoles. Never in my life thought I'd be a PC gamer but I've been spoiled by the cheap costs, cross-platform controllers and mostly the unbelievably useful Steam controller config.

Show all comments (74)
50°

ARK: Survival Ascended Premium Mods on Consoles Q&A - By 2030, Time Spent on UGC Will Be Way Bigger

ARK: Survival Ascended has introduced Premium Mods on consoles. Wccftech talked to Studio Wildcard and their partner Overwolf about the rising importance of user-generated content, especially for live service games.

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

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community4d ago