Switch Can we talk about the new exclusive From soft game ?

[Jacko the Lantern]

Honestly, it looks mediocre, just another ARPG that will never be even 20% as deep or fun as Dragon's Dogma, also the T Rex looks terrible compared to the one in Ninja Gaiden 3 razor's Edge.

So I wasn't the only one that wasn't floored by it.
It's kind of the first time when I thought that a Fromsoft game's visuals looked generic and derivative of their own works. I hope they make the atmospehere more steampunk, cause what they've shown just made me want to go and play Lies of P for the forst time.
This and Nightreign have a serious side project smell to them, and I hope that there is a different bigger project in the works. (I wish Armored Core would become a series again)

 

[Ikagura]

Predatory seems like a gigantic reach here.

Then BloodBorne being still a PlayStation Exclusive would be considered the same?

 

[fake-kun]

Then BloodBorne being still a PlayStation Exclusive would be considered the same?

All console exclusives are anti-consumer, so yes.

 

[partymembervii]

Predatory seems like a gigantic reach here.

being that nintendo is like. the king of predatory business practices i dont think its such a stretch, but i also can understand why it might seem like a reach, and i respect your difference of opinion, and acknowledge that i could be wrong

 

[bjork]

Then BloodBorne being still a PlayStation Exclusive would be considered the same?

Not predatory? Yes. Predatory implies personal harm, and you're not being harmed by a game being on a specific console. I've never played bloodborne and I can still live my life.

being that nintendo is like. the king of predatory business practices i dont think its such a stretch, but i also can understand why it might seem like a reach, and i respect your difference of opinion, and acknowledge that i could be wrong

I think the term "predatory" in a gaming sense is more applicable to something like gacha mechanics, where it can exploit a person's potential gambling problem. Nintendo's past with the near-monopoly, not predatory. Unfair business practices to be sure, but not predatory. Securing a game as an exclusive on a console someone maybe doesn't want? Nah. That's just business decisions, and maybe Nintendo was the only one who'd fund it or something. Was Bayonetta 3 predatory? Or any other console exclusive ever? Nah.

 

[ThePeon]

All console exclusives are anti-consumer, so yes.

Agree on that but not only anti-consumer it´s a hard blow for the creators as well. It´s not predatory but it´s anti-consumer and just pure bullshit. It´s not good for gamers when they are trying to force them to own 2-3 system jst to play a bloody game.

I mean take third party titles like Xenogear 3 or Bayonetta 3 they both sold around 2-3 million copies. Imagine if they where not console exclusive they maybe not have sold 20millions copies but maybe 5-7million being on all systems including pc.

I mean if I made a game I would love for allot of people to play it. But no a Company with a stick up their ass want´s to sell more units of their consoles is more important. Man gotta suck for the devs.

If your system can´t sell untis of it´s own merits to the point you need to lock games to it then means your system is worthless then maybe you should not be making consoles and focus on only making games.

-------------------------------------------

Anyway these 2 new from soft games seams questionable if you ask me I mean both being PVPVE looking at past games PVP has never been their strong suit with all server issues and lag and cheating. Also as a fan of the series my self I never loved the games for the invasions mechanics I love it becuse im sick of games always feel the need to hold my hand. Take FF16 I recently finsihed that game so easy I finished it on hard with out dying a single time. Or other JRPG today that love to fully heal and revive your party every time you stop at a save spot.


We may never get a bloodborn 2 or maybe even a normal souls like game.

 

[Ikagura]

All console exclusives are anti-consumer, so yes.

To be honest an exclusive game can also manage to fully exploit the hardware capabilities instead of trying to fit all hardwares.

Metal Gear Solid 4 Guns of the Patriots couldn't have ran as well on a Xbox 360 (nor Wii U) despite being similar specs-wise simply because it was made with the CELL in mind.

I can excuse SNES exlusive games that couldn't run on the Genesis or not having a PSX port (like Square did).

A multi-plateform game will always get some compromises to be able to run on every hardware of its epoch and will ultimately be less optimised than an exclusive.

 

[fake-kun]

To be honest an exclusive game can also manage to fully exploit the hardware capabilities instead of trying to fit all hardwares.

Metal Gear Solid 4 Guns of the Patriots couldn't have ran as well on a Xbox 360 (nor Wii U) despite being similar specs-wise simply because it was made with the CELL in mind.

I can excuse SNES exlusive games that couldn't run on the Genesis or not having a PSX port (like Square did).

A multi-plateform game will always get some compromises to be able to run on every hardware of its epoch and will ultimately be less optimised than an exclusive.

I don't care, still anti-consumer.

 

[Ikagura]

I don't care, still anti-consumer.

I'm merely telling some arguments. Of course that a third party never porting a game may be anti-consumer (although Dark Souls' PC port was disastrous at launch and you needed a patch to make it remotely decent) but it's because porting a game costs money and ressources, as simple as that.

Realistically not every video game can be ported to modern consoles and some games are forced to be exclusive as money from a hardware company.

Apple's OS are only on Apple hardwares because they're making those hardwares made with the OS in mind.

On the other hand EGS paying for exclusives on PC is just jarring, PC games relying on a proprietary launcher are annoying as they require an account and internet most of the time (even Steam has that issue but most games aren't only on this platform).

 

[fake-kun]

I'm merely telling some arguments. Of course that a third party never porting a game may be anti-consumer (although Dark Souls' PC port was disastrous at launch and you needed a patch to make it remotely decent) but it's because porting a game costs money and ressources, as simple as that.

Realistically not every video game can be ported to modern consoles and some games are forced to be exclusive as money from a hardware company.

Apple's OS are only on Apple hardwares because they're making those hardwares made with the OS in mind.

On the other hand EGS paying for exclusives on PC is just jarring, PC games relying on a proprietary launcher are annoying as they require an account and internet most of the time (even Steam has that issue but most games aren't only on this platform).

Who said anything about porting games to consoles?

 

[Ikagura]

Who said anything about porting games to consoles?

Fine, PC ports but let's remember that some of the Sony exclusives ended up being poor quality.

Consoles are pretty much standardised, plug 'n play devices, you know that most people will have the same hardware and same OS.

PCs are like having as many different models as there are rigs out there.

Japanese devs used to be really bad at PC gaming as their ports were low quality and unoptimised.

And to be fair some Nintendo games are also heavily dependant on the gimmick of the hardware, it's not impossible to emulate but it's obvious that it won't be the "authentic experience" without the proper controller.