SauRoNZA
Honorary Master
And the irony is that the Nintendo Switch is by far the most expensive console of them all to own.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Which is the most hair-raising South African mountain pass you've driven?
PS5
- Thread starter Gamos
- Start date
I share the same belief when it comes to the PS4. I just didn't mention it because the PS4 is last gen and the S is current gen. Sony has to support the PS4 as it's still their biggest seller.
AlphaJohn
Honorary Master
Only if you play 1st party games. The others you can normally grab on sale and its a great place to discover great indies. https://www.dekudeals.com/ Is great place to catch em both.
What I do like about Nintendo 1st party games is that they also tend to keep value, looooong after the generation is over, some even increase in price as time move on. Unlike the other 2 where 1st party 2nd hand games kinda drop like a rock a year after the game was released.
SauRoNZA
Honorary Master
Fair enough. But you’ll agree the statement rings equally true. As long as the PS4 exists and is catered to it causes the same problem.
One would argue last gen and current gen don’t exist specifically because of this situation.
SauRoNZA
Honorary Master
I was more referring to the whole package.
Console is outrageously expensive for what it does and so are the accessories being more expensive than Xbox and PlayStation counterparts while being inferior in function and build quality.
And let’s be honest, 1st party is by and large where it’s at with the Switch so that is part of the problem.
PS4 getting snubbed is funny in this case, considering it's coming to the Switch of all places.
Yeah that's my stance. Both are keeping tech back. I'm not playing favorites. I got rid of all my 30fps boxes almost 2 years ago and game on PC exclusively. I won't buy a console ever again.
I do have great hatred for the Xbox app on PC though.
SauRoNZA
Honorary Master
Funny that I tried to go back to PC a year or two ago when a mate moved to Australia and sold his for a good price...and the Xbox app is exactly what broke me.
The one thing that made sense to me as being built-in and "free" as I already had Game Pass was so shockingly **** I couldn't deal.
And then the EA Play app that had to authenticate via the Xbox app was the next thing that wanted to make me kill myself.
The multi-user **** show was the end of it.
animal531
Expert Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2013
- Messages
- 4,649
- Reaction score
- 2,663
I'd say that Mass Effect didn't need the coop MP to sell well since the game was great already. Also it didn't lure in new players and only a portion of the main game players ever played it.
BUT having said that, it was bloody good! I sunk probably 40-64 hours into it unlocking all the new awesome characters and skills. If anything I think they should have made it a paid game and expanded it, it could easily have been a Left For Dead or a Vermintide contender.
For the amount of money and talent MS and EA have, their PC apps are shocking
AfricanTech
Honorary Master
Mine settled down after months and months of grief and now ‘just works’ - finally.
OrbitalDawn
Ulysses Everett McGill
It's not that it shouldn't. I just don't think it subtracts from a game that was developed as a single player RPG. If they added it on and it works well, that's obviously cool. But it adds significant development resource requirements on an ongoing basis to keep it a non-subpar experience. Cheatbots have also become way more sophisticated, so if you want to add MP to anything, that requires ongoing resources to manage etc.
Totally agree with you and animal about the ME3 MP - it was super fun. I sunk lots and lots of time into that.
AlphaJohn
Honorary Master
Here is hoping that they port their store to Battle. net instead of porting Battle.net to the Xbox app.
Can you imagine the shtshow it will cause when PC CoD players getting forced to install X app
It's not the XBS holding tech back, it actually has more tech than the PS5, it has the same CPU and GPU hardware features as the XBX, just with lesser "numbers".
For instance, the Xbox's have VRS (Variable Rate Shading) and Velocity Architecture but it's hardly used as it does not exist on XB1, or different consoles like PS. Very few games actually use it, but when it is used, games like Doom Eternal and Gears 5 shine. But of course comes at an expense as they have to code for without it for other hardware meaning more cost. From what I recall, the Xbox'es actually have dedicated ML hardware which again is not used for same reasons as above.
Then we have AMD FSR which is at a hardware level in all next-gen consoles including XBS, yet again few games support this and some that do, are doing it at a software level. Very few have implemented FSR at hardware level.
What we are seeing now is that games that have specifically coded to utilise the hardware of these current-gen hardware look and run absolutely fantastic. But the studio owners and companies don't care about that, for them it's about selling games, as quick as possible, as cheap as possible. So spending more money for developing not only for different console manufacturers, but also different console generations, and then also wanting to build for different current gen hardware, it hardly happens.
Look, the Series S is not a powerful console, but if developed against how it was designed and use its hardware, it works and performs great.
It's the developers/studios/companies holding back games as they want the games to reach the widest audience for those sakes, and that means writing games with a common code base as possible which means no feature specific hardware will be used.
Last edited:
RazedInBlack
RazedInBlack
Oh lord!You are dealing with ponies. Logic, common sense, and basic comprehension evades them.
RazedInBlack
RazedInBlack
Says the XBot fanboi