Poll of the Day > Sony fanboys are completely twisted over Kojima working with Xbox lmao

(+) Yeah! (+)

He had to issue assurances he was still working with Sony in order to calm the nerves of frightened Playstation fans. What a sad state of affairs. Platform fanboyism is dumb af

https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/kojima-sony-playstation-xbox-microsoft/

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/7/2/AAZslrAADVhM.jpg

I don't think less than 2k people are all of sony fanboys.

That's the part that gets me. Why release a statement to appease the noisy, whiny fractional subset of the fanbase? Just let them piss and moan and do your thing

Sill console people and their stupid "problems"

They need the exclusives right now, let them have this

This "petition" is over a year old from when this was all just rumors. That's how shook they were.

Console fanboys are the least common denominator of gaming

He's not even doing anything yet.
And even when he does, he barely works on games anymore. He's in a more administrative role.

Imagine being such an utter turd that you would petition for other people to not be able to get a video game just because that game is coming out on a system you don't own.

This is why I try to get all 3 big systems every generation at some point so I don't miss out on exclusives. I WAS gonna maybe skip on a new XBox, then they went and snatched up Bethesda lol

Get rid of third party exclusives entirely.

Xbox is killing it this gen. I don't really get the fanboy mentality, just save and buy the other system if it has games you want to play on it. I don't really get the idea that you can only own one system and you need to remain loyal to them.

Revelation34 posted...

Get rid of third party exclusives entirely.

I wouldn't go quite that far, since there are certainly cases (Bayonetta 2 being the first example to come to mind) where third-party games only see the light of day because a first-party publisher decided to fund them. Exclusivity makes sense in those cases, otherwise there's little incentive for the publisher to invest in them like that (similar to first- and second-party titles).

Exclusivity in the form of "you could make this for every platform but we're going to pay you not to" is terrible, though, and it baffles me that people not only applaud it but get angry when a title they thought would be exclusive ends up with a multiplat release or subsequent port.

Archgoat posted...

Xbox is killing it this gen. I don't really get the fanboy mentality, just save and buy the other system if it has games you want to play on it. I don't really get the idea that you can only own one system and you need to remain loyal to them.

To be fair, "just spend another $500 on a new system" isn't the most reasonable solution, nor is that readily accessible for many people (especially not for the sake of playing 2-3 games). While being upset that a former or presumed exclusive is getting ported is stupid, being upset that a game you want is unexpectedly exclusive to a system you don't have is pretty understandable, given the rather sizable barrier that presents. There was a time when having every system made a lot of sense because they all had a ton of worthwhile exclusives, but with almost everything being multiplat these days, it's a lot harder to justify spending so much money for such a small handful of exclusives.

and thus, xcloud

Or just having a gaming PC, since most Xbox "exclusives" also end up on PC and a lot of PS ones seem to be going the same route.

adjl posted...

To be fair, "just spend another $500 on a new system" isn't the most reasonable solution, nor is that readily accessible for many people (especially not for the sake of playing 2-3 games). While being upset that a former or presumed exclusive is getting ported is stupid, being upset that a game you want is unexpectedly exclusive to a system you don't have is pretty understandable, given the rather sizable barrier that presents. There was a time when having every system made a lot of sense because they all had a ton of worthwhile exclusives, but with almost everything being multiplat these days, it's a lot harder to justify spending so much money for such a small handful of exclusives.

Is it really that much money though? I get it is not cheap, but people routinely upgrade their very expensive phones every 2 to 3 years. You often hear the Sony fanboys say there is no reason to buy an Xbox because the games are on PC as well, but that is a much more expensive item to acquire (if you want it to play all the games). This Kojima game is coming out probably at least 2 to 3 years from now, if you really are keen to play it I would think you could come up with the money by then.

If a console is something you can only afford to buy one of per generation, then maybe it is just best for that person to wait until they can make a more informed decisions after more games are released.

The internet is both a blessing and a curse. It can be useful and good sometimes even productive conversations can be had but sadly also gives a voice to a minority who really shouldn't be heard. Maybe I'm getting to old and caring less and less or something but I've never cared about system wars. I'm a fan of games not platforms and if people get to enjoy games I do then great. I haven't got a Xbox Series X nor a gaming PC but it's not difficult to pick one up if I ever wanted to down the line so even exclusives don't bother me.

Archgoat posted...

Is it really that much money though?

For anyone with a tight enough discretionary spending budget to have to choose, you're making the choice between 7 full-price games (formerly 8, but that changed) and buying that extra console. Potentially even more than that, if you wait for sales and/or buy cheaper titles on a regular basis. It's not an insurmountable cost, no, but it is a very steep ask if the person is only interested in a tiny handful of exclusive games. In essence, it means a single system-seller actually costs $570 instead of $70, and that's going to rub anyone the wrong way and generally result in people just not paying that much unless they genuinely don't care about money on that scale (or have such crippling FOMO that they're compelled to do it).

Archgoat posted...

but people routinely upgrade their very expensive phones every 2 to 3 years.

Pretty often, those upgrades are buried in contracts that mean they're paid for just by paying for phone service. Speaking personally, I replaced my 8-year-old flip phone with a $900 (CDN) smartphone that I didn't pay a cent for because it was covered in the same plan I already had (with a two-year period of being locked into that contract, of course). Now, I certainly won't be replacing this every two years (it's been three already and I don't plan to replace it until it stops working), but I'll be taking a similar approach to that replacement as well, rather than buying anything outright.

There are indeed people who do buy new phones every couple years, or don't realize just how much they're spending on those phones because they accept it as the service cost (also meaning they overpay for service once the contract period is up), but the former isn't really the norm, and the latter isn't so much a conscious decision as it is falling prey to a deceptive marketing scheme. To that end, balking at buying an extra console isn't necessarily inconsistent with frequent phone upgrades (especially where phone upgrades can be treated as a recurring expense, while extra consoles are reactionary one-time purchases).

Archgoat posted...

Sony fanboys say there is no reason to buy an Xbox because the games are on PC as well, but that is a much more expensive item to acquire (if you want it to play all the games).

It is, but it also offers much greater value for that higher up-front cost. In addition to playing current games, you get nigh-unlimited backwards compatibility (with a bit of fiddling for really old stuff), fewer concerns about being locked out by new generations, the most versatile media centre you can get, the definitive web browsing/social media experience (hence what we're doing now), professional/household utility... And that's even without considering that sales are more frequent, deeper, and more readily accessible on PC than other systems and there are far fewer concerns about the digital storefronts supplying your games being shut down.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the PC I built in 2011 has seen more overall use time than every console I've ever owned combined, just because of how much non-gaming utility it has. While that's not necessarily a vital metric for picking a game system to buy, in terms of the overall value calculation, it definitely needs to be factored in.

Archgoat posted...

If a console is something you can only afford to buy one of per generation, then maybe it is just best for that person to wait until they can make a more informed decisions after more games are released.

That is indeed probably a better idea than rushing out to buy one right away, especially where they tend to get cheaper and have fewer technical issues as the generation goes on. That does carry the risk of not being able to find physical copies of many games, since stores often stop stocking them (especially less mainstream titles), but between Amazon and digital markets, that risk is much less significant than it used to be.