AwesomeOcelot

**** off. It's like 2000 all over again. For MS 'xbox exclusive' just refers to consoles, they've had xbox exclusives on PC before. May mean Windows Store exclusivity or timed exclusivity but I doubt that to be honest. For OEI and InXile there's not much point making either console exclusive just for the sake of it. May well mean no more Obsidian games for me given the attitude MS has to GOG and DRM free in general, but then I wasn't really expecting Outer Worlds at least to be anywhere other than Steam anyway and that's the only 'known' project. MS new strategy on gaming front is to get games on all their platforms not only Xbox. I am personally interested to see what it means in reality that Obsidian and inXile will keep their independency. A load of PC ports, some of them a while after they're released on Xbox. That's what Microsoft were doing with the original Xbox. Halo eventually came onto PC as a **** PC port, a game originally developed for PC.

Is Obsidian going to still make games with PC led design with optional console ports? Is Obsidian going to still release games on GoG or Steam? Is this an off season April Fool's joke?

**** off. It's like 2000 all over again.

1) PoE was not very learnable, there's not a lot of feedback about what's happening, the log has a lot of information in it, and the combat goes crazy fast in real-time, it's not very visually clear either. I imagine half the players got turned off by that. 2) There's a lot of reading and references to history/philosophy that's going to go over people's heads. There were loads of that backer content that wasn't clearly marked, and probably best skipped. 3) PoE launched a bit a of a mess, quite a few people probably had a bad time. Also a lot of people didn't even get through the first chapter, maybe because of time commitments or maybe because the gameplay wasn't for them. I suspect this means that Deadfire was never going to reach half the sales of PoE, PoE has enough press and good reviews to get people to try it, even though Deadfire improved upon almost everything it didn't have the press and reviews to get people to try it. I don't think anything was going to persuade half the audience to give it a try. It's also a sequel so people aren't necessarily going to jump into it, thinking they'll have missed the story. So if Deadfire can't retain the audience from PoE, generate interest from new players, it's going to sell less. There's room for a sequel to Deadfire, games like this can still make money, whether Obsidian thinks it's worth their time considering the return is another issue. I'd suggest given that they can crowd fund the games, that they own the IP, that should be enough.

If it was 125K sales that's about $5m from a game that's already funded. Obsidian don't see money from sales from their other games. $5m not including DLC which tends to be higher margin or the ports to the consoles. Deadfire was rapidly developed, with a small team. I think the people in that thread took the break even total and divided it with the dividend given to get the just over 110K figure. I don't think that's how shares work, the dividend system that Fig out laid seemed a lot more complicated. Without the long tail and deep discounts, I would be surprised if a game like Deadfire would get over 300K sales. There's a lot of competition in the market place, even from Obsidian with Tyranny.

It's meant to be an East End accent, half my family were originally from there. It's more like a **** Van Dyke from Mary Poppins accent though, what Americans think London accents are, it's called Mockney "I am I am". Also the pitch of the voice is very high.

Will Blizzard be able to milk fans they acquired from the last 10 years like they did from the previous 10? They created genre defining titles, beloved franchises, games people still want to play. I don't think they necessarily have the talent to make great games now. Everything is in decline, relying on past successes.

No dongs in the baths, literally unplayable.

The reason people use joystick or analogue sticks for sims is because it gives you resting position, dead zone, and degrees of motion from rest. You can perfectly virtually emulate this with the mouse but physically you do not get the same feed back. For the demonstration they probably just didn't want to switch between pad and mouse, they didn't do much outside of vehicles anyway.

And it still isn't because the Bethesda games aren't Fallout. That doesn't matter, Fallout as a franchise was plenty successful enough as a CRPG series to continue as a profitable venture with teams that wanted to make a Fallout game.

That's my point, thanks for agreeing with me.

What? That's not true. There's a lot of influence from 50's sci-fi that's not aesthetic. Also the biggest movie influence is not Mad Max, it's A Boy and His Dog. If you didn't care to look into the lore or immerse yourself in the world of the original Fallout games then you're not going to miss it when it's gone.

No? A lot of work went into world building and researching influences for Fallout's theme. Black Isle were not capable of making the exact same game Troika would have made, but they didn't **** all over the canon. It's not like F3 wasn't another radical shift in tone from both games.

I think what irks me about it is that they bought the Fallout license, but they really couldn't give a **** about it. I mean a bland 50's theme post apocalyptic world with vaults is all they needed. They didn't need the canon, they didn't need the name, they certainly didn't use them. Elder Scrolls is bland generic fantasy themed game, and it's fine, I understand why it's successful, people put their own imagination into it. Their engine is extremely easy to mod and work with. I can't stand the gameplay, auto-levelling, or writing but not every game's for me. It's that they bought Fallout when they didn't have to, they never have and never intended to make a Fallout game with it. I don't think a Bethesda game based on Borderlands, Mad Max, or Rage would look that much different, or be less successful. While they're at it why don't they buy up more classic RPG franchises and **** on them too?

I don't think anyone would phrase like that. It's also not the game engine that's at issue, not in the last decade of multi-platform titles and established more general engines. Ports are different if you design for one platform then have to port it to another one then the developer either adds the features or they don't. In terms of multi-platform then it's the number of AI, the objects, the poly budget, the texture resolution, they could all be bigger on PC. It's not just the PC though, multi-platform games have been doing this to consoles. It's also stupid to blame the consoles for this, it's the developers and the publishers that do this. Some of them do release high resolution texture packs which is cool. It's not been so much of an issue in the last decade on the graphics side, but the gameplay side it's more so, and I'm sadder on that respect anyway. Although PC has many fine exclusives, the most profitable and play games in the world that focus on gameplay anyway. Specifically shadow volume in the case of Doom 3. Per pixel lighting and normal mapping were also very important new features in Doom 3. a) Why is that video at 30 fps? b) That video has frame dips? At around the 6min mark. Also that game is blurry as ****, I forgot how bad it looked. Forget depth of field, it's depth of cataracts. I can't really take your opinion of graphics seriously. I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise. I guess you just prefer less fidelity and you don't know what it is or can't see it. Making it pointless for you to judge. Some people like low poly games, some people like 2D games, apparently you prefer games with less fidelity.

You remember wrongly? What, lighting and shadows became a thing in 2004? Normal mapping became a thing. Nvidia had released a card with hardware lighting in the 90's and before that it was done on the CPU. What do you think Glide, OpenGL, and DX7 were doing in the 90's? What? Maybe at launch but by '98 PC high end graphics and the Unreal Engine/iD Tech were superior and it would be 6 years until Half-Life 2. How long did it take consoles? It would have taken the PS4 to run the PC version of that game at a stable 30fps on high quality settings at 1080p. It was released 6 years later. In the case of the The Order 1886 it just happened to be that they wanted to push more polygons than the hardware would allow at a higher frame rate. If I remember correctly that game even had frame dips. Yeah right. That doesn't parse at all. I've owned consoles and a gaming PC since '95. I don't play consoles for graphical fidelity because for the majority of the time I've owned them my PC has been way in front of the latest console. I play consoles for the games, that are fun to play, you know gameplay. I don't play the prettiest games, sometimes I play the ugliest games. Exclusives tend to have really good gameplay, especially Nintendo exclusives, and Nintendo hasn't been anywhere close to even the other consoles fidelity for over a decade. Also Steam link is a thing now but for the longest time playing PC on your TV in another room was a pain in the arse.

We saw many engine major engine developments in between console generations. Just look at the history of the Unreal Engine and iD Tech. Also Nvidia and AMD haven't spent the last 20 years waiting for console generations to continuously develop their GPUs. First two Xbox consoles launched with cutting edge GPU, but the development cycle meant they were surpassed in under a year. The Xbox One launched behind the PC market, well behind. Games are not movies, you can't apply the same effects to them. Also the reasons for 24fps or 30fps in film is historic and due to technological limitations, not because anything above looks bad. That's one of the most important features for fidelity and the things you want $600 worth of GPU for, and yeah the GPU in a console has half the processing power of the RTX 2080/GTX 1080 Ti. It does make a ****load of difference. Nvidia spent over a decade developing RTX just so they could make lighting more realistic and it looks incredible. You can't live in a world where consoles struggle with lighting and are also on par with the highest PC graphics. If we're not talking photorealism and lighting, we're talking artistry and that's down to preference.

That's not even a little true. That's not true. I mean what? 24fps is "natural"? That doesn't mean anything. If you're suggesting that's what the eye can interpret that's just flat out false. Fidelity wise, console version to console version those games are on par with the Sony exclusives. You just can't seem to understand that there's different priorities and time investment. You can't even appreciate the improvement in lighting on the new Tomb Raider game, well of course you're not going to appreciate the PC version of games. You can't tell the difference between the artistry that goes into games and the improvement in performance the PC has overwhelmingly, it's not even close.

That's just marketing bull**** because of weak hardware. Cinema used to use 24fps anyway? So aiming at 30fps doesn't make any sense. And the history of frames per second in Cinema is down to cost and what they can get away with without causing people's brains to hurt and for them to not see fluid motion. In video games that thresh hold is higher than 24, and it's certainly not 30. Also they forget that cinema has frame processing that smooths the 24fps experience that video games cannot have. So it's an absolute lie to change the "aim" so that fidelity means something else. In truth fidelity is to realism, and higher the frames the better, although you do get diminishing returns. I can definitely feel the difference between 60 and 144hz. I don't think you understand what that is. On draw distance that's different priorities. Playable areas? Uncharted games are linear. Ryse had more fidelity than Crysis 3 on consoles. More reflection shaders doesn't even mean anything. Detail in general is just vague and also bollocks. Better texture mapping is artistry which I've tried to explain to you before. No. And I think we've thoroughly established your bias towards aliasing, higher contrast, and unrealistic lighting. **** is it more detailed. WTF are you talking about.

I didn't play Soul Reaver in the 90's, I remember playing Soul Reaver 2 and not liking it. So I couldn't really comment on that comparison before looking into it. The PC is a straight port of the PS version. The two characters in the in-engine cutscene of that comparison are updated models, the game was released 6 months after the other versions. Most of the models in the game did not get an update, and the extra detail is not about PC performance. Soul Reaver is a terrible PC port. DF Retro: Legacy of Kain Soul Reaver - A Classic Revisited on PS1/PC/Dreamcast! Soul Reaver wasn't the best looking PC game of 1999. I notice you didn't decide to pick Quake III for comparison.

30 frames per second is dog **** and massive cost to fidelity. You can take that out of the equation and you're still wrong. That's a stylistic choice to do with colour and contrast, not performance or optimisation. You are trying to say that these games look a lot better than other 2018 games like Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Hellblade, or Far Cry 5 on the Xbox One X and that's just not true. They look even better on the PC.

That's your opinion about the artistry of the game, not about the fidelity. It's not about optimisation. Consoles gain very little through optimisation to the GPU, they gain a lot for the CPU, even more before Vulkan and DX12, but the CPU is so under powered that it doesn't even compete with a mid range Intel CPU. You experience games differently on a console than a PC, you're further away from the screen, the FOV is wider. I can say Deadfire is one of the best looking games I've ever played, I can say that about games on every generation of console, artistically but that's not the same as fidelity. In terms of fidelity PC is way ahead, it's not even close. In terms of artistry then that's just your opinion, and it has nothing to do wit the power or optimisation of the hardware. If you're suggesting the fidelity is better on consoles then that's just delusional because it's not even close.

I just can't agree with you at all on that one.You contradict yourself in that sentence because you know that's not true. I'm not sure about the animations, you could argue there some of the best in the industry but I don't think you could argue they're a step above. At certain times in the past the PC has been a cut above, UT/Quake, when 3DFx arrived, then Nvidia, Half-Life 2 animation quality and physics (could not run properly on consoles), Crysis (had to be cut considerably to run on consoles). Physics effects have always been a PC strong point because console CPUs have almost always been awful. There were definitely numerous games in the 90's and 00's that could only run on high end PCs, if they had ports they were stripped down and ****. Many mutli-platform games have high and ultra settings that have effects unavailable to consoles. PC exclusives in terms of pushing graphics have been very few for a long time, exceptional gains in graphics architecture has not been there on PC or console for a decade. Metro: Exodus and Squadron 42 spring to mind as games on PC that will be far better. Real Time Ray Tracing is going to be revolutionary, but it's not going to be on console for a long time.

I feel like an alien reading the replies. As someone who's owned Sega, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft consoles over the years I don't understand the fanboys. Them talking about "Team Xbox" makes me sad, I hope they're wrong.

That hasn't been possible for a very long time. Not since the 90's. Consoles really fell behind when the 360 was released. Just in terms of resolution and frame rate PC has been way ahead. Lets be realistic here, high GPUs have cost as much as consoles in that time as well. On PC you can either crank up our fps to 144+ or set it to 60 and play at 4K. Consoles targetted 30 for a long time. What may be confusing you is that exclusives obviously can't have PC comparisons, and artistry does not equal fidelity.