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

Generic Dreadhead

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

The first one didn't sell well initially so it wasn't a popular choice

It took me literraly 12 seconds to google this

Tomb Raider Reboot Sells 8.5 Million Copies, Breaks Franchise Records

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/tomb-raider-reboot-sells-8-5-million-copies-breaks/1100-6426433/

[Deleted User]

FAILSAFE 00 wrote:

Nope. You need to do your research.

Please provide this proof that MS funded Rise of the Tomb Raider as I distinctly renal Phil Spencer stating that he couldn't say of the deal was a console exclusive as he and MS were not the developers of the game. Surely if it was MS money that funded the game it would be a MS exclusive and not just a timed one. MS no doubt posted a pretty penny, at the time I heard whisperings of 8-10 million dollars but they paid that to get a year exclusive release not to fund the game as the deal wasn't made to well into development.

biggebruv

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

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/

the whole deal was very shady and was always answered in a not very direct evasive way from my memory like was it exclusive period or timed exclusive was never properly answered just huhhh we will see or some crap there was no exclusive talk when the game was first revealed aswell that only came out months afterwards so it was well into development when microsoft bought it

gizmo

If you guys want to settle the Tomb Raider question, just watch this interview with Darrell Gallagher, former GM of Crystal Dynamics and Head of Western Studios at Square Enix. Reading between the lines, the game would have still come out regardless of Microsoft's involvement but given the performance of the previous entry, I'm sure Square Enix were more than happy to take any money to help offset the cost of marketing and development for the platform.

As for Spencer, it's worth pointing out that many of the deals given as examples above would have been in place before he became overall head of the division and besides that, even he basically says those kinds of deals can be signed without his explicit approval, nevermind his blessing.

Stone Deaf 4evr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Please provide this proof that MS funded Rise of the Tomb Raider as I distinctly renal Phil Spencer stating that he couldn't say of the deal was a console exclusive as he and MS were not the developers of the game. Surely if it was MS money that funded the game it would be a MS exclusive and not just a timed one. MS no doubt posted a pretty penny, at the time I heard whisperings of 8-10 million dollars but they paid that to get a year exclusive release not to fund the game as the deal wasn't made to well into development.

He posted a link 2 posts earlier, click it. This is the internet, we're not accountants so that's all the proof you'll get.

I believe they had to part finance it to get it made, wasn't there a crazy story about how Square enix were disappointed by the sales figures for that and deus ex, even though both of them were critically lauded and had multi million sales figures?

[Deleted User]

FAILSAFE 00 wrote:

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.

He was me thinking that selling close to 9 million copies was good.

From that link can you show Mr where it states that MS funded development of the game. From the quote in the article it reads a lot like marketing bs and nowhere does it say MS funded development which you are stating as fact

"We will clearly spend money on marketing the game, there's no doubt about that. And we do [that] on games where we have very little to do with development, and with games that we fully develop. And we will definitely be spending money on developing the game - I want to make sure that it's as great as it can be."

FAILSAFE 00

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

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.

Oh. Didn't something like this happen before with mods in Fallout. They wouldn't allow the team at Bethesda access to what they needed at a system level. But finally under pressure after Bethesda said there would be no mod support on PS4 Sony made a workaround.

Expect a Playstation exec to pop out in a few days to say Playstation players don't want cross platform support

Doge

This one escaped Sonys e3 conference but is probably the strongest VR title ive seen coming out for the system and its out next month.

Archangel - An on rails Mech game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Aenx96VXRU

Mickeroo

Generic Dreadhead wrote: »

It took me literraly 12 seconds to google this

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/tomb-raider-reboot-sells-8-5-million-copies-breaks/1100-6426433/

He said initially in fairness. It recovered later and the definitive edition did well too which is included in that figure. Square considered it a failure at launch as it fell well short of their projected sales figures which is mentioned in your link. Apparently it contributed to their CEO resigning (a few other games tanked at the time so it wasn't the sole reason).

I'm pretty sure the second game would have happened regardless of MS though tbf.

[Deleted User]

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote:

He posted a link 2 posts earlier, click it. This is the internet, we're not accountants so that's all the proof you'll get.

A link that says nothing about MS funding development of the game. You know the game that was announced well before the Xbox exclusivity. Also, even on the internet you can't state something as fact and not back it up if you want your opinion to be taken seriously.

Doge

Doge wrote: »

This one escaped Sonys e3 conference but is probably the strongest VR title ive seen coming out for the system and its out next month.

Archangel - An on rails Mech game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Aenx96VXRU

Fixed the link.

MiskyBoyy

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Expect a Playstation exec to pop out in a few days to say Playstation players don't want cross platform support

It's currently the #1 post on the PS4 Subreddit so their own fans are showing their displeasure and calling them anti-consumer.

- We've heard Sony's response.

"Jim Ryan: Yeah. We've got to be mindful of our responsibility to our install base. Minecraft - the demographic playing that, you know as well as I do, it's all ages but it's also very young. We have a contract with the people who go online with us, that we look after them and they are within the PlayStation curated universe. Exposing what in many cases are children to external influences we have no ability to manage or look after, it's something we have to think about very carefully."

It doesn't seem to be a problem for Nintendo, perhaps the most mindful video game company of the protection of children. - Eurogamer

Stone Deaf 4evr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A link that says nothing about MS funding development of the game. You know the game that was announced well before the Xbox exclusivity. Also, even on the internet you can't state something as fact and not back it up if you want your opinion to be taken seriously.

I'm sorry, send me your solicitors details and I'll forward him the evidence so he can review it at his leisure. I hadn't realised how serious this had gotten.

This is the internet dude, 99% of stuff here is peoples random warblings, mild trolling and Ill informed opinion. There's no judge going to decide who won the debate, so relax and enjoy the thread and general discussion.

[Deleted User]

MiskyBoyy wrote:

It's currently the #1 post on the PS4 Subreddit so their own fans are showing their displeasure and calling them anti-consumer.

It's a bit of a legal midfield, I imagine that there are possible issues with the COPA law as well as the different age restrictions for accounts by country. For Nintendo cross play is all well and good right bow as there is no voice chat yet but for the others there may be issues with it. I work for a games company and deal with issues relating to certain legal sides of the industry and it's bad enough trying to work within the confines of the law on a closed platform but something entirely different when working across a number. Be interesting to know just what cross platform gaming will be, will it just be the ability to play someone on a different platform or will you be able to communicated with each other over voice or text chat. Be great if they got everyone on board and I know that it's being seriously discussed but its awhile off yet

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote:

I'm sorry, send me your solicitors details and I'll forward him the evidence so he can review it at his leisure. I hadn't realised how serious this had gotten.

This is the internet dude, 99% of stuff here is peoples random warblings, mild trolling and Ill informed opinion. There's no judge going to decide who won the debate, so relax and enjoy the thread and general discussion.

Difference between stating an opinion and a fact. Nothing worse than the "its the internet, he can say what he wants" to kill any debate.

TitianGerm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

even on the internet you can't state something as fact and not back it up if you want your opinion to be taken seriously.

Is this not what you've done? Or did I miss the information you posted that backs up your point that Microsoft didn't assist with funding the development?

Varik

emmetkenny wrote: »

Is this not what you've done? Or did I miss the information you posted that backs up your point that Microsoft didn't assist with funding the development?

Prove I didn't assist with funding.

You can't prove a negative.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

[Deleted User]

emmetkenny wrote:

Is this not what you've done? Or did I miss the information you posted that backs up your point that Microsoft didn't assist with funding the development?

He made the claims they did, I looked for information that MS funded development and there's not a thing to be found that states that MS funded development of Rise of the Tomb Raider. If someone states something as fact like we had here then it's up to then to provide the proof. Refuting it, as I did is easy as I can't find any statement that MS funded development of the game. Surely if they had that would have been something that was announced when the game was first announced and not well after the fact.

Penn

Ultimately, and to bring it back to the point Phil Spencer was making, exclusive content in a multiplatform game is simply no better or worse than timed exclusives. They're both deals that the companies do to make people buy the game on that platform.

What Phil is saying about it not being fair to lock extra maps, weapons whatever from one platform is wrong though. It's additional content. Content additional to the game, not part of it, and by doing that, Sony are paying developers to give their users additional content. It's not about locking content out for other platforms, it's adding content for their platform.

Similarly so, timed exclusivity (and let's not forget how many of MS's exclusives this E3 were simply Console Launch Exclusives) is a way for the platform to try and get people to buy the game on that platform to play it first, for however long the exclusivity lasts. It means people on other platforms are forced to wait longer, but again, the purpose of it is trying to makes things better for users of your own platform, not put the other platform down.

Both are different types of deals designed to accomplish the same goal. Make your platform the one people want to play the game one. Whether that's exclusive additional content or early access, the actual game itself is the same, just depends what bonus they can swing for you to make you play it on their console.

TitianGerm

Varik wrote: »

Prove I didn't assist with funding.

You can't prove a negative.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

You can prove a negative.... -1-1= -2 :pac:

Anyway back to the games. I was planning on getting a 3DS in the next while but I might just pick up a Switch now after today.

Also really liked the look of Days Gone but nothing else at the Sony conference caught my eye, bar maybe God of War.

Stone Deaf 4evr

emmetkenny wrote: »

You can prove a negative.... -1-1= -2 :pac:

Anyway back to the games. I was planning on getting a 3DS in the next while but I might just pick up a Switch now after today.

Also really liked the look of Days Gone but nothing else at the Sony conference caught my eye, bar maybe God of War.

Spider-man looks great, very bright and vibrant, a nice break from the dark and rain of the Arkham games.

ibFoxer

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

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.

I swear i'm not taking a swipe at Sony with this, i just find the decision to be mind boggling, and on the whole i find them to be an odd bunch of fish with regard to cross platform play- literally every other party has at the very least opened themselves to having a dialogue on it, but not Sony. I cannot for the life of me fathom why. It is quite possibly the most anti gamer policy that a gaming company has ever had, and held to.

Mickeroo

Penn wrote: »

What Phil is saying about it not being fair to lock extra maps, weapons whatever from one platform is wrong though. It's additional content. Content additional to the game, not part of it, and by doing that, Sony are paying developers to give their users additional content. It's not about locking content out for other platforms, it's adding content for their platform.

No disrespect meant Penn but that's a fairly daft statement and is pretty much on the same level as Spencer's blatant whataboutery. Fair enough cosmetics and the like could be considered in that light but strikes, multiplayer maps and weapons that form a large part of the game's meta and lore are very much part of a game and Sony did pay for them to be locked out of other platforms. Xbox still hasn't gotten the last batch of exclusive Destiny content 2 years on (I'm pretty sure Destiny was the game Spencer had in mind when he said what he did).

irishman86

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.

I was thinking that but they said core RPG
Like you said I dont see it leaving 3ds

ibFoxer

Mickeroo wrote: »

No disrespect meant Penn but hat's a fairly daft statement and is pretty much on the same level as Spencer's blatant whataboutery. Fair enough cosmetics and the like could be considered in that light but strikes, multiplayer maps and weapons that form a large part of the game's meta and lore are very much part of a game and Sony did pay for them to be locked out of other platforms. Xbox still hasn't gotten the last batch of exclusive Destiny content 2 years on (I'm pretty sure Destiny was the game Spencer had in mind when he said what he did).

I'm pretty sure you're spot on. This exclusivity with that particular title serves no purpose other than to try and force between two options- put up and shut up or switch your console choice. I personally don't believe that multi platform games should be released differently on different consoles to this extent (weapon skins or such the exception because, well, who cares really) and it only serves to fracture the community at large. Even here on boards, theres very much an us vs them when it comes to this game and it's not always the healthiest of rivalries. Other corners of the internet where the rules are looser can lead to it becoming very toxic. If the trend continues and we see games being released with chunks missing because MS or Sony have thrown large bags of cash at the developers then it's only going to result in the consumer losing out.

Releasing first on one console over the other isn't something i care for, but at the very least, for the most part, when it eventually comes to the opposition it's not missing sections of the game. And i blame Activision and Sony in equal measure for the fu*kery that happened with D1 and will happen with D2.

B.A._Baracus

Guess the fun part of e3 is over.
Always seem to be the same each year. The bigger or big budget titles get revealed at the conferences then most video game websites just keep talking about them.

Then any other games you might end up playing can get over-shadowed by the big titles so you don't hear about them until after e3 ends.

Penn

Mickeroo wrote: »

No disrespect meant Penn but hat's a fairly daft statement and is pretty much on the same level as Spencer's blatant whataboutery. Fair enough cosmetics and the like could be considered in that light but strikes, multiplayer maps and weapons that form a large part of the game's meta and lore are very much part of a game and Sony did pay for them to be locked out of other platforms. Xbox still hasn't gotten the last batch of exclusive Destiny content 2 years on (I'm pretty sure Destiny was the game Spencer had in mind when he said what he did).

Yeah with the way he said strikes he was almost definitely talking about Destiny, but if you're talking about stuff that is coming to Xbox but hasn't come yet, that's back in to timed exclusivity, not exclusive content. And Phil has no issue with timed exclusivity.

If we're talking about exclusive content (as in bonus weapons, strikes etc) that are completely exclusive to PlayStation, then that's content that is in addition to the main content, not part of it. If one platform has 10 multiplayer maps and one has 12, the extra maps aren't a part of the main game, they're a bonus. Extra weapons, again, not integral to the main game, but a bonus. Extra missions, again, they might expand on story or characters, but they're not (or at least shouldn't be) something removed from the core game, but something to add to it. And ultimately the onus for ensuring the people who buy the game which does not have the exclusive content still get a full and complete experience without the bonus content lies with the developer.

Mickeroo

Penn wrote: »

Yeah with the way he said strikes he was almost definitely talking about Destiny, but if you're talking about stuff that is coming to Xbox but hasn't come yet, that's back in to timed exclusivity, not exclusive content. And Phil has no issue with timed exclusivity.

If we're talking about exclusive content (as in bonus weapons, strikes etc) that are completely exclusive to PlayStation, then that's content that is in addition to the main content, not part of it. If one platform has 10 multiplayer maps and one has 12, the extra maps aren't a part of the main game, they're a bonus. Extra weapons, again, not integral to the main game, but a bonus. Extra missions, again, they might expand on story or characters, but they're not (or at least shouldn't be) something removed from the core game, but something to add to it. And ultimately the onus for ensuring the people who buy the game which does not have the exclusive content still get a full and complete experience without the bonus content lies with the developer.

That's just semantics really, one persons addition is another person's removal. I'd also argue in a multiplayer focused fps things like weapons and maps are more substantial/integral than you're making out.

Penn

Mickeroo wrote: »

That's just semantics really, one persons addition is another person's removal. I'd also argue in a multiplayer focused fps things like weapons and maps are more substantial/integral than you're making out.

Two greengrocers beside each other have signs outside. The first is selling 10 apples and 2 pears for a fiver. The second is selling 10 apples and 4 pears for a fiver.

2 pears (or a pair of pear) haven't been removed from the first greengrocer. The second has simply struck a deal with his supplier to offer 2 extra pears for the same price.

As for weapons/maps being more substantial than I'm making out, surely that logic extends to basically every dlc an FPS developer releases? When COD/Battlefield/Battlefront release new map packs, or weapon packs, what they're doing is more egregious because they're locking content out from people on the same platform, not between different platforms. Get kicked from a playlist or server because you don't have a map, or get constantly crushed by other players who paid for better weapons. Why is it wrong when PS users all get the same bonus content, at no extra cost to them because Sony have paid for it?

Doge

First gameplay of Detroit Become Human

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyMqKrVTRKA

FAILSAFE 00

I found this one interesting. It's not a game I'd usually be interested in but it's very appealing. Very blade runner, flashback, cool art style. I can't wait to play it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4IPBiB7SF4

I watched the Anthem segment again. It's so impressive looking.