Official Thread Pillow Fight that nobody wins with MOAR Jackie Chan and guys comfortable with STRETCHING their sexuality!
- Thread starter The Living Tribunal
- Start date
-
- Tags
- apple pc playstation sexuality xbox
- Status
I'm playing Super Mario Sunshine right now on the 3D Allstars collection. I'm amazed that a game from 2002 had the amazing reflections that it had. It holds up incredibly well on Switch.
Unless they need custom hardware or need to run on Macs, they absolutely could do it in Azure.
I don't think Microsoft cares if Sony thinks Gamepass is sustainable or not.
Or poll bombing by 4chan, or Russian bots. That’s what I learn from twitter, if the poll do not go the way you want, blame it on some bogoemen.
om a serious note, competition is good, for consumers.
Gamepass wouldn't work for what Sony does, putting out a few story driven AAA games a year and having many of them sell over 10 million copies is doing quite well for them. You can't do those kinds of games with GP, people will just sub for one month finish the game and cancel, for a subscription service to succeed you need to retain the vast majority of people who sign up for trials etc. You also have to design your games around the service, you need episodic games or AA games that don't cost as much to make or your games have to have some kind of MP element/focus to make sense for the service. If you notice when MS talks about this they always sort of give lip service to "story driven games will always have a place" type of thing, that's just not what they focus on by and large so it's different for them.
So you're cheap because you only pay when it has something you want to play. What sort of silly ass logic is that.
If one is looking to constantly game free trials and then cancel then that is obviously one’s choice. But most people are not like that. Jinca has been pushing this narrative Game Pass is held together by freebies and $1 charges and then consumers abandon the service afterward when the perceived value evaporates. This despite the near universal acceptance that it’s the best value in gaming.
LOL GP doesn't offer anywhere near the selection of content that Netflix offers, it's numbers are also padded by 360 and original xbox games and a lot of older xbox one games. A lot of people sign up when a new game comes out and then let it expire, people on every forum talk about taking advantage of those $1.00 trials and then drop it, I've done it more than once. The service doesn't have enough games that interest me that I don't already own or haven't played at some point, I paid $2.00 to play Gears 5 and paid $1.00 to play Crackdown 3, there is nothing there now or coming in the foreseeable future that would get me to sign up for it again, it's not about being cheap it's about not wanting to waste money on something I won't use.
It has nothing to do with console war stuff either, if you take it that way that's on you I'm just pointing out something that many people do. Value is only there for you IF you enjoy the content on the service. The fact that MS admits the service isn't making much money for them should tell you something.
Last edited:
You are just making up stats. Most people don’t do what you claim.
You paid pennies on the dollar to play Xbox games then cancel yet you bang the drum for $70 PS5 games?
That custom hardware is the PS3 and PS2. Heck, i wouldn't be mad at all if they did put it on Azure, I just don't think think they can. All i know is they are using Azure for gaming streaming, and their own farms will likely be used for something special.
I agree to an extent.
The majority of games are small indie titles and previous gen games, anybody denying that is just talking nonsense. It is also pretty obvious people will take advabntage of the offers, and is also obvious plenty of people will let their sub run out in quiet months.
But, despite that the service is doing just fine. You can't argue that $15 a months for 100's of games isn't objectively good value. That is roughly 5 months of gaming for tge price of 1 PS5 exclusive.
That's why their policy makes no sense, you won't keep making games like that if people can just play them for $1.00 or even $10.00 and then cancel.
I'd rather have $70.00 games than get cutbacks in quality or see them try to figure out a way to involve microtransactions. I'd love for games to stay the same price but I know that's not sustainable after two generations where costs went up but prices didn't. Some will point to some publishers having huge profits but those are mostly from microtransactions which are things that are pretty much universally hated.
Again value is there IF you find the game appealing otherwise it's just numbers and like I said any game that's on the service that I'd want to play I've already owned/played before so it's not worth it for me personally. You can take up those offers more than once or at least you could before.
Oh, yeah, if their server backend is literal PS2/3, that probably wouldn't work (Azure does have some colocation stuff but that's more for Active Directory and other enterprise integrations, not something like that). If they figure out how to get it to run in an emulation mode, even in linux, then Azure would fit and they could do it cheaper as well since they could spin up and down instances as necessary rather than having to have to buy hardware for the maximum traffic levels.
- Status