Current anti-MS in gaming *spawn
- Thread starter mpg1
- Start date
- Status
Almost everything is biased unless you're writing a technical reference piece. When people report what is and not what they interpret it means, that's neutral.
A lot of people reporting on MS tend to go a step further and attempt to identify a possible slippery slope. And that's where the bias lies. Everyone is looking for the "gotcha" of each of MS moves, but few other companies undergo that type of scrutiny. Identifying that "gotcha" as if MS was looking to profit off you forever and every other business is this pro consumer charitable company. I'm even appalled I'm writing this way about MS because for a big part of my life I've been a Mac user through and through.
It's something MS has to deal with for its long history in the business, but also being a market leader elsewhere doesn't help its image of being a pro consumer device.
I mean look at valve. They are huge, and they just don't say squat unless they are absolutely forced to. You can't hate them for that because they don't give you insight into their thinking. By contrast MS is a pretty open book, and a lot of people will look at their insights and interpret it the way they want to.
There's an interpretive problem here - is everyone being down on Win 10 because it's the fashion and they're following what everyone else is doing, or is everyone down on Win 10 because they have issues with it? Personally I can understand everyone being down on Win 10 based on personal experiences because the things MS are doing differently are negative (Adverts! Forced updates losing work!). In stark contrast to Win 7 that was problem free, Win 10 has plenty of annoyances that cause me to gripe. And it's inevitable that bad brand PR is going to spread to their other products. Certainly the first XBox had trouble gaining traction because MS reputation then was very low. As for gaming websites being biased, I wouldn't know as I don't visit them, but if there's talk of MS consoles becoming Win 10 machines and Win 10 having earned itself a bad rep, it seems plausible the outlook would be more negative.
You are not alone.
It's certainly a complex issue. We're going to head into off-topic here, but I mean it happens. I've noticed a lot of topics that may appear anti-MS, or biased against MS, are actually just pro Sony, chest thumping threads. I mean we can look through our own console forum and find a bunch of threads that are just pro UC4 is the best looking game ever made with no criteria determining what that may be. It happened with drive club, it happens with exclusive games talk. It happens with risk adverse talk, like MS isn't willing to take a risk beside the big 3. All of this is totally false if you just report things as they are. But in the end they are different cross ups that ultimately more or less of the same thing, which is, feeling good about my purchase and I want to share with you all why; avoided all these potholes, I'm awesome.
ProspectorPete
Regular
Completely agree with the anti-MS sentiments on the internet. People are trying to say That NieR:Automata will supposedly be the best game ever because it's made by Platinum games. Well, newsflash, by that definition Scalebound will be the best game ever as well. MS was way earlier with having Platinum develop an exclusive game for them, so people why try to claim that MS won't take risks are completely full of it.
Same with Scorpio. They could have released way before PS4 Pro, but they wanted 4K UHD-blu-ray, and true 4K gaming, no upscaled pretend 4K. By releasing a year later with a more powerful system, they are taking more risks than Sony.
You could also argue that releasing a Forza every year is taking risks: look what happened to Assassins Creed. Releasing the same game every year could kill your sales, it's a big risk as well.
It was going to be but MS cancelled it...
At least you have Digital Foundry and Beyond 3D to ease your pain. Scalebound was canceled, so blame MS for that debacle.
Or you could argue they are reacting late to the Pro, paper specs to battle a real system. How could they have released a mid-generation upgrade "way before"? Like a year after the XB1 release? Humm...
Your defense is admirable though, fight that bias!
ProspectorPete
Regular
Okay that sucks, but it just goes to show, MS took a risk by funding new IP, and they also took a big risk cancelling it and having to rely on Forza, Halo and Gears of War. 2 big risks in total. So in the end they took more risks than Sony.
The pro-Sony media will try to spin it as MS not being committed to new IP, While MS was actually the first one to have Platinum create an exclusive IP for them.
Creating franchises for best selling IPs is a risk now? This is a silly argument. Both MS and Sony take risks in their action or inaction; it's all a POV. Sony took a risk in creating VR in case it fails - all that money lost. MS takes a risk in not investing in VR in case it proves incredibly popular - all that money missed. No-one knows the future and we have to make decisions based on incomplete info, which means risk. The only thing they can rely on are known quantities. That's where reusing IPs that have already proven popular is less risky than creating new IPs.
I'm not going to argue MS is more risk averse than Sony, but the argument that MS is taking a risk on relying on Forza, Halo and Gears is kinda bonkers.
I'm not going to argue MS is more risk averse than Sony, but the argument that MS is taking a risk on relying on Forza, Halo and Gears is kinda bonkers.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Yeah its' not like Sony hasn't cancelled first party projects without the media commenting. Oh wait.. Or Eight Days. Or Last Guardian on PS3.
Nope, noting to see here, please move along.
ProspectorPete
Regular
Actvision relied on Guitar Hero, Activision relied on Skylanders, Ubisoft relied on Assassins' Creed.
Those were (/are in case of AC) multi-billion dollar franchises, but they took risks in releasing too many of them. And then the franchises collapsed. To me that sounds pretty risky.
You know the saying "putting all your eggs in one basket", I am pretty sure that is about risk.
Those were (/are in case of AC) multi-billion dollar franchises, but they took risks in releasing too many of them. And then the franchises collapsed. To me that sounds pretty risky.
You know the saying "putting all your eggs in one basket", I am pretty sure that is about risk.
and we're done here.Creating franchises for best selling IPs is a risk now? This is a silly argument. Both MS and Sony take risks in their action or inaction; it's all a POV. Sony took a risk in creating VR in case it fails - all that money lost. MS takes a risk in not investing in VR in case it proves incredibly popular - all that money missed. No-one knows the future and we have to make decisions based on incomplete info, which means risk. The only thing they can rely on are known quantities. That's where reusing IPs that have already proven popular is less risky than creating new IPs.
I'm not going to argue MS is more risk averse than Sony, but the argument that MS is taking a risk on relying on Forza, Halo and Gears is kinda bonkers.
There will always be bias, the world will always have winners and losers. It is what it is. Frankly as long as we're neutral as much as possible here in B3D I don't care. I've seen some AMD v. Nvidia threads go real astray and badly, but that hasn't happened in the console forum for some time, so I'm glad for that.
It's not risky to invest in something that's proven to work. It's poor management if you overwork an IP, although few IPs are good to last forever. The moment any new IP proves successful, it'll be reused because it's past the risky phase.
Risk in game development is in trying something new on the speculation it'll prove popular and financially successful, with the ideal being spawnig a new IP you can milk for as many titles as you can. It's these big wins that fund the smaller speculative efforts - 70% of games fail to break even is the stat we have, and the 30% need to fund all their developments and failures.
To be clear though, I'm not arguing MS are risk averse. That discussion is probably more complex than most entertain, because we have sporadic info. eg. Sony close studios and terminate projects as well as MS. Any good publisher constantly evaluates projects for potential, and fanboys arguing could dig up a nice list for either company. Actually, now we've started this conversation, I will say Sony are less risk averse because they run more studios which costs more, the idea being that the returns are better. MS prefers to outsource which involves less risk to them but less potential rewards. They're two different management strategies and it appears Sony is aligning more with MS these days (less internal investment) but I've no financial records to show how much either company is investing in projects.
ah,the PS3 days, that showed what happens when there is monopoly in an industry.Yeah its' not like Sony hasn't cancelled first party projects without the media commenting. Oh wait.. Or Eight Days. Or Last Guardian on PS3.
Nope, noting to see here, please move along.
As for Xbox and MS, I certainly can understand the prosecution complex. In the case of the Xbox One though bias is created by the product. If a product is terrible like the XB1 was then of course it'll be looked down upon.
I think you mean 'persecution complex,' unless you feel MS are being heavily litigated against.
This is probably also trueI think you mean 'persecution complex,' unless you feel MS are being heavily litigated against.
Waiting a year to release a system ~40% more powerful than Pro is indeed risky. Remember that's roughly the difference in GPU between XB1 and PS4.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
What publications are these that seem so biased against Microsoft?
The ones I read seem pretty neutral to me.
If you go by communities, i.e. forums and social media, then that's another story. Those tend to be a better measure to how much consumer-friendly a company appears to be. And everyone knows how terrible 2013 and 2014 was for Microsoft on that end, especially on the gaming front.
The Xbone S released before the PS4 Pro and has 4K UHD BluRay.
This is definitely not one of the reasons why Scorpio is coming a year later than the Pro.
The ones I read seem pretty neutral to me.
If you go by communities, i.e. forums and social media, then that's another story. Those tend to be a better measure to how much consumer-friendly a company appears to be. And everyone knows how terrible 2013 and 2014 was for Microsoft on that end, especially on the gaming front.
The Xbone S released before the PS4 Pro and has 4K UHD BluRay.
This is definitely not one of the reasons why Scorpio is coming a year later than the Pro.
ProspectorPete
Regular
I meant "4K" (=instead of checkerboard), as well as UHD-blu-ray.
UHD-blu-ray already implies 4K
UHD-blu-ray already implies 4K
- Status
Similar threads
