nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The big E3 discussion thread

Retr0gamer

Might as well start this now as new releases are already leaking.

So far release I've heard about that are getting me excited are a western release of Gust''s Blue Reflection and Vanillawares gorgeous looking 13 sentinels: Aegis Rim.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Kirby

irishman86 wrote: »

I guess we disagree, for me Ive enjoyed it and every time after that it just depreciates in enjoyment

So you never read a book again? Watch a movie several times?

Because replaying games is the same. You enjoy doing it, how it makes you feel, reliving the experience. In fact its quintessentially human. We eat at the same places, perform the same hobbies over and over again, watch the same team play the same sports game every weekend, etc.

earthwormjack

MiskyBoyy wrote: »

You have to love Phil no matter your allegiance.

"I don't know what deals get written. I've been pretty open about, I'm not a fan of doing deals that hold back specific pieces of content from other platforms. You don't see that in the deals we've done with Assassin's and Shadow. We'll have a marketing deal on those, but I don't say, hey, I need some kind of Strike or skin somebody else can't play."

He's full of sh1t. He had no problem with exclusive legendary players in fifa ultimate team, 1 month exclusive dlc for the division, buying off tomb raider for a year, indie parity clause (which might have been scrapped) or the 22 payed for timed launch exclusives during the xbox one conference.

What he basically said there is "I don't like exclusive deals(when they're not on xbox)"

qrx

earthwormjack wrote: »

MiskyBoyy wrote: »

You have to love Phil no matter your allegiance.

"I don't know what deals get written. I've been pretty open about, I'm not a fan of doing deals that hold back specific pieces of content from other platforms. You don't see that in the deals we've done with Assassin's and Shadow. We'll have a marketing deal on those, but I don't say, hey, I need some kind of Strike or skin somebody else can't play."

He's full of sh1t. He had no problem with exclusive legendary players in fifa ultimate team, 1 month exclusive dlc for the division, buying off tomb raider for a year, indie parity clause or the 22 timed launch exclusives during the xbox one conference.

What he basically said there is "I don't like exclusive deals(when they're not on xbox)"

Maybe. But way I see it I'm not paying the same price for a game that has less content. Especially as a marketing deal. It's rank. It's not the same as a delayed release of the same game.

irishman86

Kirby wrote: »

So you never read a book again? Watch a movie several times?

Because replaying games is the same. You enjoy doing it, how it makes you feel, reliving the experience. In fact its quintessentially human. We eat at the same places, perform the same hobbies over and over again, watch the same team play the same sports game every weekend, etc.

I generally dont tbh, Ive enjoyed them already. Id rather watch a new movie, read the next book/new book
Comparing replaying games to eating in a restaurant is laughable as they arent in anyway the same as is the hobbies point
And watching a different match every week is like playing a new game

irishman86

When it says core for pokemon games, what are ye guys think?
They hardly plan on the main game being on Switch

Xenji

irishman86 wrote: »

When it says core for pokemon games, what are ye guys think?
They hardly plan on the main game being on Switch

The main series will stay on the 3DS for the foreseeable future, the Switch will not take its place, Nintendo consoles have always got some sort of Pokemon game like Stadium, Colosseum, Ranch, Rumble and Tournament.

Pac1Man

MiskyBoyy wrote: »

You have to love Phil no matter your allegiance.

I don't have an Xbox (yet) but Phil could sell me a bottle of air. I give slow approving nods whenever that man speaks.

Penn

Pac1Man wrote: »

I don't have an Xbox (yet) but Phil could sell me a bottle of air. I give slow approving nods whenever that man speaks.

He's a great spokesman for the Xbox division. How different things could have been if he'd been in charge before the release of the XB1.

Retr0gamer

Xenji wrote: »

The main series will stay on the 3DS for the foreseeable future, the Switch will not take its place, Nintendo consoles have always got some sort of Pokemon game like Stadium, Colosseum, Ranch, Rumble and Tournament.

Pretty sure it's a mainline game especially if gamefreak is involved, spin offs are usually handled by third parties. Nintendo is pulling all teams off 3DS development to switch. You can see from E3 any new 3DS games are from third party partnerships.

Xenji

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Pretty sure it's a mainline game especially if gamefreak is involved, spin offs are usually handled by third parties. Nintendo is pulling all teams off 3DS development to switch. You can see from E3 any new 3DS games are from third party partnerships.

I think they mentioned it would not be released for more than a year so it could still come out on the 3DS first, the 3DS and Switch can link as seen with Monster Hunter XX, so it is possible it may come out on both platforms.

Sephiroth_dude

Any chance of the new xenoblade coming too the wii u?

dunworth1

Sephiroth_dude wrote: »

Any chance of the new xenoblade coming too the wii u?

highly unlikely

[Deleted User]

MiskyBoyy wrote:

"I don't know what deals get written. I've been pretty open about, I'm not a fan of doing deals that hold back specific pieces of content from other platforms. You don't see that in the deals we've done with Assassin's and Shadow. We'll have a marketing deal on those, but I don't say, hey, I need some kind of Strike or skin somebody else can't play."

So basically when someone else does it such as Sony or Nintendo it's bad but when Xbox do it then it seems to be perfectly acceptable. Yet more MS self serving tosh, I'd respect him more if he came out and said it as it is and not try and paint him and MS as the fighting for the gamers.

qrx

Deleted User wrote: »

MiskyBoyy wrote:

"I don't know what deals get written. I've been pretty open about, I'm not a fan of doing deals that hold back specific pieces of content from other platforms. You don't see that in the deals we've done with Assassin's and Shadow. We'll have a marketing deal on those, but I don't say, hey, I need some kind of Strike or skin somebody else can't play."

So basically when someone else does it such as Sony or Nintendo it's bad but when Xbox do it then it seems to be perfectly acceptable. Yet more MS self serving tosh, I'd respect him more if he came out and said it as it is and not try and paint him and MS as the fighting for the gamers.

Examples?

dunworth1

Deleted User wrote: »

So basically when someone else does it such as Sony or Nintendo it's bad but when Xbox do it then it seems to be perfectly acceptable. Yet more MS self serving tosh, I'd respect him more if he came out and said it as it is and not try and paint him and MS as the fighting for the gamers.

like when Sony release a powerful console its all gravy

but when Microsoft do its meh too expensive no good games

round and round we go

Varik

Watching some motion capture for God of War, and had no clue they'd recast Kratos before.

Who did they cast?

Is it Christopher Judge?

FAILSAFE 00

We didn't see any Battlefront 2 in the Sony show. Very surprised with that. It would have been a good one for the PS4 Pro.

I thought with those marketing rights they would have used that opportunity at E3.

Kirby

Jaffa, Kree!

[Deleted User]

qrx wrote:

Examples?

Like the many console launch exclusives that Xbox have announced or how they paid to have the last Tomb Raider for a year. Surely holding back an entire game from other platforms is worse than some crap exclusive dlc. That statement is self serving nonsense to appeal to fanboys. MS only had their own interests at heart and they've down that they are happy to hand over cash of it gets them something Sony can't have. And Sony are the same, they just don't make statements about how great they are for not doing it.

dunworth1 wrote:

like when Sony release a powerful console its all gravy....

I hope the One X takes off and MS support it with a range of great exclusives but based on E3 it's Nintendo and then Sony who are out in the lead. MS have a shiny console but that's it, all their exclusive titles are playable on a different platform making it a less than essential piece of kit.

The whole allegiance to one company thing is dumb. I don't care who makes a game or on what platform it is, all I care is that I enjoy the game. That's it, didn't matter to me if its on a Sony or MS console but based on the post few years and the upcoming one the Xbox is unessential of you own a decent PC. I'd love to get the One X when launched but I'm buying a Pro next and upgrading my PC in November so no need for the One X.

FAILSAFE 00

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Like the many console launch exclusives that Xbox have announced or how they paid to have the last Tomb Raider for a year. Surely holding back an entire game from other platforms is worse than some crap exclusive dlc.

You may not be aware that Xbox funded the development of Rise of the Tomb Raider. It wouldn't even have been on PS4 if Xbox had not stepped in.

[Deleted User]

FAILSAFE 00 wrote:

You may not be aware that Xbox funded the development of Rise of the Tomb Raider. It wouldn't even have been on PS4 if Xbox had not stepped in.

No they didn't, they helped with marketing and what not but they weren't writing the cheques for development. Without MS the game would still have been made

Varik

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

You may not be aware that Xbox funded the development of Rise of the Tomb Raider. It wouldn't even have been on PS4 if Xbox had not stepped in.

Ye, they'd never have made a sequel to successful entry in a long series of games.

Tomb Raider: Underworld sold 1.5m but this 2013 reboot is the one we should quit at.

dreamers75

Im buying a switch.

Generic Dreadhead

MiskyBoyy wrote: »

You have to love Phil no matter your allegiance.

"I don't know what deals get written. I've been pretty open about, I'm not a fan of doing deals that hold back specific pieces of content from other platforms. You don't see that in the deals we've done with Assassin's and Shadow. We'll have a marketing deal on those, but I don't say, hey, I need some kind of Strike or skin somebody else can't play."

Wait, was this a real sentence said without a hint of irony by him or are you being sarcastic?

biggebruv

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

You may not be aware that Xbox funded the development of Rise of the Tomb Raider. It wouldn't even have been on PS4 if Xbox had not stepped in.

such rubbish the first reboot was very successful a sequel was 100% happening

Xbox wanted something to compete with uncharted 4 which was ment to be out at that same time but sony pushed it to the next year in may.

I'm not too sure about Microsoft developing it but I'm sure they paid a wad of cash to keep it exclusive to them for a year at least enough to cover the lost sales from ps4

FAILSAFE 00

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No they didn't, they helped with marketing and what not but they weren't writing the cheques for development. Without MS the game would still have been made

Nope. You need to do your research.

TitianGerm

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

You may not be aware that Xbox funded the development of Rise of the Tomb Raider. It wouldn't even have been on PS4 if Xbox had not stepped in.

I thought it was the reboot that Microsoft part funded not the second game?

Varik

emmetkenny wrote: »

I thought it was the reboot that Microsoft part funded not the second game?

It was the second game that MS paid for the exclusivity.

The Reboot was the highest selling Tomb raider game ever release and was multi platform.

FAILSAFE 00

The first one didn't sell well initially so it wasn't a popular choice to revisit the franchise at that time however Xbox needed an exclusive.

https://www.gamereactor.eu/news/249214/Microsoft+helps+fund+Rise+of+the+Tomb+Raider/

Stone Deaf 4evr

I see that rocket league and Minecraft are now cross platform between Nintendo, PC and Xbox, but Sony won't allow it with their network.

What do they stand to gain from this? Nintendo has the worst online network infrastructure and they're on board. You'd imagine creating as wide a player pool as possible would only serve to benefit all parties.