Ever closer do we creep to the dawn of the new era of games, and we're slowly starting to hear about the ways in which our gaming overlords seek to wow us with policy changes. But why does policy matter? Because when you strip away the FPS and the teraflops and everything else, the real test of the kind of games that get made and those that don't comes down to the policies of each of the industry leaders. If Nintendo are worried about the sustainability of their new console, expect a two year period filled-to-the-brim with their tried-and-tested main series titles; if Sony feels confident that their system will sell on it's own merits, we'll see a lack of high profile exclusives going into the new generation. The wants and whims of gaming corporations have a significant effect on the games that we ultimately get to play and I think that's an fact worth considering.
Point in case, we can take a look at Microsoft and see a huge break from tradition going into the next generation which many are conflicted about; namely the way that new first-party Xbox titles will not be generation exclusive for the first, or maybe first two, years of the Xbox Series X. (Or whatever it ends up being called.) This information came out from an interview conducted by MCVUK to the head of Xbox Game Studios, Matt Booty. (Now that's a name.) Essentially what this means is that any first-party Xbox game made to work on the Xbox Series X will also be ported to the Xbox One in order to ensure that system still remains relevant going into the next generation. Of course, this is a practise often exercised by third-party studios in order to maximize sales, but this is unique for a console developer to commit to. For Microsoft, one would imagine that their key motivator in life would be the pushing of units, and that is something that is potentially put into jeopardy without their insistence of pushing people to the new console in order to play the latest games. But then again, the mere act of leaning off on such pressure could ingratiate the general populace to their brand which might invigorate sales. (At this point all we can work with is conjecture because this simply has never happened before.)
The Internet has been positively buzzing over the last few days as people have tried the hardest to theorize about the implications that this policy might, and likely will, have going forward. No one can settle on whether this choice will be a net positive for Xbox or net negative, especially now that Jason Schreier as effectively confirmed that this is a policy that very much will not be shared by Sony in the future. It has come down to a battle of the policies as folk argue about consumer friendliness and what that even means in the face of this news. Such is the level of the discourse, that I thought it might be fun to cherry pick a few of the arguments and go over both sides to try and figure out the truth to it all.
One of the key complaints that I have heard has been from people who believe that prolonging the player base of the Xbox One will draw from the player pool of the Series X and make multiplayer games lacking. This is incredibly lethal considering the fact that many game series rely on having healthy player pools in order to keep their ecosystem alive, such as 'Destiny' and 'COD' titles. If people aren't forced to pick up the new console then they simply won't be playing those games which will allow them to wither. That would be a compelling argument if it wasn't for one key fact, namely that the Series X is apparently completely backwards compatible. We've actually known this for a while after Phil Spencer bragged about bringing his home and playing with unsuspecting Xbone users in the wild, meaning that the new console can connect to the old ones. Player pools should be fine for those first few years and, honestly, might even be more healthy than that of their competitor. Food for thought.
Then there is the allegation that such a policy change will work to make the Xbox Series X seem irrelevant for the first few years, and that is an interesting point. Gaming consoles are made for the sole purpose of being able to play games, and if one already posses a console that can play the newest titles just fine, why would they bother move to an alternative? One could retort that the substantial improvements to fidelity and frame rate would prove how superior the Series X is, but the whole "this is the best place to experience X" marketing strategy only really works on a certain kind of consumer. I know for a fact that I could care less about the more powerful console, heck, I'm still using my current gen console that shipped with the first wave of units, so why should I care about this new console? For me the answer comes in the form of the way that games are supported in the modern day. The games-as-a-service model, for example, will likely prove the biggest incentive to jump ship once the persistent developers just simply stop supporting new content for the old generation. That's what happened with 'GTA Online' from the 'Xbox 360' to the 'Xbox One'; and it's likely what will happen again in the next generation. (Probably with GTA Online once again because that title just doesn't know how to die.)
Perhaps the biggest takeaway from this new policy, however, is the accusation that creating games to be ported from the Series X to the Xbox One will harm the scope of the game in question. Obviously, the Series X is an incredibly powerful console capable of a great many things that the Xbox One simply isn't able to do, so does that mean grand ideas will have to be sanitized in order to make them functional on both systems. Possibly, but it's hard to make a definitive assumption on that without being personally acquainted with the tools and systems that are common amongst the development world, which I am not. Generally, however, creative visions can be at risk due to the overabundance of available technologies, as evidence by the spate of 'tech-demo' console launch titles that we usually get at the start of a generation. Here's a topic probably deserving of a grander conversation at some point.
All of these conversations have distracted away from the launch titles themselves, and perhaps that works well for companies like Sony. Afterall, all of Sony's exciting exclusives are launching on the PS4 with nothing yet ready for the PS5 except for Godfall. Additionally, they've made the decision to skip E3 for the second year in a row, indicating that they've no grand announcement to make regarding launch titles for the coming year. (Or that they intend to make such reveals at a show of their own.) So Sony can brag about how they won't be catering for their less powerful consoles and how each new game will take full advantage of the PS5's tech, but without games to back that up it's all just words. Perhaps we'll see how that argument takes form as 2020 propels onwards, but presently I am dubious as to who has the right course of action for the next generation.
As a consumer, I appreciate this new directive from Xbox and wish that Sony would follow suit. When Nintendo launched their Switch, it came with simultaneous game launches for their last-gen Wii U console, and yet somehow the adoption rate for 'Breath of the Wild' was still over 100% for the Switch Version. If nothing else, that anecdote proves that consumer friendly practises like this have the potential to keep everyone happy without ruining one's bottom line. Of course, I say this as a fellow with no expertise, or interest, in the higher-level tech involved for this new generation of play, so there's likely some significant factor that I'm not yet taking into account. As of so far, however, in my ignorance I am content and hopeful, I suppose time will tell if such contentment is warranted.
No comments:
Post a Comment