john_Maybe, but they can't go cheaper than Nintendo and with same hardware with Sony they always lose. So, their only option, if they can't figure out something else, is to come out with the most powerful hardware. A console using an Nvidia ARM based platform, or an ARM based platform with Mediatek SOC that includes a powerful Nvidia iGPU. That could be beneficial for both Nvidia and SONY. Nvidia sees it's ARM based platform becoming a standard in game development through console gaming, Microsoft sees Windows on ARM getting some native games that don't need emulation to run, also gets a stronger architecture for graphics, with also AI branding all over the place(like AI characters in games that Nvidia advertises for a long time now), that differentiates themselves from SONY. With a big percentage of PC gamers being also Nvidia fans willing to pay any Nvidia tax on their graphics cards to have access to Nvidia exclusive techs and features, why not assume that they would be willing to also pay any Nvidia tax on their new console to have access to those Nvidia techs and features? The emulation that MS build for it's Windows on ARM can be used to offer compatibility for current X86 games to the new ARM based console.

TPU could do a poll here asking it's readers if they would be willing to pay $800 for a console with Nvidia hardware or if they would stick with AMD hardware for $500.

Unlike PC builders, I don't think console gamers give two hoots about who makes the chips inside the box next to the TV.

most ignored my post so Ill add to it here.

It may be best to go back to basics. Make a cheap, dedicated machine to play games. Ignore the rest of the stuff and make it secondary. Just have a console that can play games, from your couch, that runs and looks good. Right now, consoles are expensive, and most of the games run like shit and kinda looks like it too.

None of this always online nonsense too. Only reason why I have a PS5 cause of the fact I dont need it online to play games unlike xbox.

Everyone's suggesting NVIDIA, but the reason Xbox pivoted away from NVIDIA after the first Xbox console in the first place was that NVIDIA refused to work with Xbox and make a custom GPU for them, telling them to either adapt an existing GPU or GTFO. ATI on the other hand had some experience with doing semi-custom solutions, and was the GPU provider for 360. With the X1, it got a customized solution from AMD for both CPU and GPU, and they were reportedly so happy with it that they renewed the partnership for the XSX and XSS. On the CPU side, the Xbox started with Intel and the 360 used PowerPC, before jumping over to AMD with their flexibility of semi-custom solutions.

Outside of just asking AMD to do a high-performance semi-custom solution again, MS would either have to do their own custom ARM or RISC-V design and make it work with an AMD GPU, or try Intel again, going for an Intel CPU and GPU combo or even an Intel CPU + AMD GPU combo. However, I don't recall Intel having as good a semi-custom solution service as AMD, and game releases would be a nightmare for Intel's driver team while they're still trying to make sure things work day 1 for Intel GPUs on PC. NVIDIA would probably just direct them to one of their existing laptop GPUs and call it a day, since they make so much more money off the corporate/commercial side of things.

The main thing though is that Xbox needs to stop doing a high/low console duo and just stick to one design again, maybe with a refresh/boost down the line. The high/low mix caused problems for them since game devs had to make sure most games could work on the XSS, which was greatly underpowered, and wasted optimization time. Moreso when it also mandated PC compatibility out the gate too.

---

On the other side of things, let's not forget that Sony too has done some hardware work of their own that Xbox never really have gone into; Sony has a custom direct storage solution using proprietary in-house tech that allows their version of direct storage work much better than a PC's or XSX's own direct storage, and some of the other novel elements in previous consoles (like the then advanced sound chips in the PS1) were also made in-house thanks to Sony's history as an electronics manufacturer. Sony should also stick to 1 model to save on costs and focus on once again making some great single-player and multi-player games from their past. Moreso now that they're reportedly making the removable PS5 Pro disc drive compatible with the PS6, so they can trim it to one model with optional drive bay and a replacement cover kit with a drive slot included.

TechLurkerEveryone's suggesting NVIDIA, but the reason Xbox pivoted away from NVIDIA after the first Xbox console in the first place was that NVIDIA refused to work with Xbox and make a custom GPU for them, telling them to either adapt an existing GPU or GTFO. ATI on the other hand had some experience with doing semi-custom solutions, and was the GPU provider for 360. With the X1, it got a customized solution from AMD for both CPU and GPU, and they were reportedly so happy with it that they renewed the partnership for the XSX and XSS. On the CPU side, the Xbox started with Intel and the 360 used PowerPC, before jumping over to AMD with their flexibility of semi-custom solutions.

Outside of just asking AMD to do a high-performance semi-custom solution again, MS would either have to do their own custom ARM or RISC-V design and make it work with an AMD GPU, or try Intel again, going for an Intel CPU and GPU combo or even an Intel CPU + AMD GPU combo. However, I don't recall Intel having as good a semi-custom solution service as AMD, and game releases would be a nightmare for Intel's driver team while they're still trying to make sure things work day 1 for Intel GPUs on PC. NVIDIA would probably just direct them to one of their existing laptop GPUs and call it a day, since they make so much more money off the corporate/commercial side of things.

That, also, AMD is the only one of the big three that has a ton of experience with powerful APUs.
Intel lacks the GPU part (except for some under-powered Xe derivatives), while Nvidia lacks the CPU part. The best they've got is some ARM cores, which are OK for the Switch, but not enough for an Xbox.

Do you guys remember the slogan "The Future Is Fusion" advertising the first APUs? We all laughed at it back then, and hardcore PC gamers still do, but if you look at consoles, well, hm... :rolleyes:

AusWolfThat, also, AMD is the only one of the big three that has a ton of experience with powerful APUs.
Intel lacks the GPU part (except for some under-powered Xe derivatives), while Nvidia lacks the CPU part. The best they've got is some ARM cores, which are OK for the Switch, but not enough for an Xbox.

Do you guys remember the slogan "The Future Is Fusion" advertising the first APUs? We all laughed at it back then, and hardcore PC gamers still do, but if you look at consoles, well, hm... :rolleyes:

and given chiplets/tiles it still is and will be once again in the larger consoles too.

gaming needs a 1980s deep crash that flushes out dead studios and makes it uninteresting for big money to get involved with

kondamingaming needs a 1980s deep crash that flushes out dead studios and makes it uninteresting for big money to get involved with

Personally, I'm on it. I haven't bought anything from EA or Ubisoft for years now, and have been mostly playing indie / lesser known titles.

ChaitanyaUnfortunately how things have been going with MS office stand alone being culled and the direction that Windows has been going you maybe right. Win7 was when Windows peaked and since then its been downhill ride with each iteration.

I miss Windows 7 :cry:

x4it3nI miss Windows 7 :cry:

7 I miss running windows 2003 as a workstation.

Hilarious, I was just watching this because someone started screaming developers, developers! in our Retro event

I wonder if Spencer watched this recently and did some reflecting

TechBuyingHavocI have no idea what I just read. It all sounds like a bunch of corporate double-speak, marketing jargon, and gobbledygook.

Show, don't tell, Phil. We will know you are serious about Xbox if you can release a single console at a reasonable price that is either not crippled at launch with weak hardware or a weak starting lineup of games.

Phil's just a talking head & corpo puppet that tries to be all in-crowd with the gamers, the man requires a puke bucket to listen to

sepheronxmost ignored my post so Ill add to it here.

It may be best to go back to basics. Make a cheap, dedicated machine to play games. Ignore the rest of the stuff and make it secondary. Just have a console that can play games, from your couch, that runs and looks good. Right now, consoles are expensive, and most of the games run like shit and kinda looks like it too.

None of this always online nonsense too. Only reason why I have a PS5 cause of the fact I dont need it online to play games unlike xbox.

Ah you mean that Steam Deck I already have, or a Switch?

That'll definitely go places at this point lol

I think the reality is that MS once again maneuvered itself into a hard place: they have no unique selling points left, while Sony simply offers more and better content even if they're barely doing anything anymore other than remasters and reprints. MS also doesn't manage to produce a good first party game to save their lives anymore. So now they want something innovative. They don't even know how or what, because the market's already saturated, and even the xbox console isn't part of that saturation or remotely required for it anymore.

Games For Windows Live. History repeats. MS can't do this stuff, and they never will, much like how they fail on hardware in general. They just haven't got the mindset or company culture for it. I'm sure they'll be burning another few billion on it and keep trying. But it ain't gonna change a thing.

kondaminand given chiplets/tiles it still is and will be once again in the larger consoles too.

gaming needs a 1980s deep crash that flushes out dead studios and makes it uninteresting for big money to get involved with

Gaming's big enough to have great content and utter shite existing side by side. Its bigger than movies at this point go figure, and we all know how diverse that landscape is. Much like all types of audio/video entertainment, you need a well developed filter and know where to look to find the gems.

Sound_CardJust stop making the games available on PC and make your games exclusive. You pretty much win the console war.

Nope, we already have all those games and they ain't making any good new ones. Dead end

TechBuyingHavocI have no idea what I just read.

Continue to innovate he said, so they'll repeat past mistakes by making another console with some nobody-wants-this innovative feature that'll probably die a painful PR death somewhere along the line as people shit all over the announcement. I think the Kinect comment is spot on. They haven't got the slightest clue what they're doing.

Vayra86Gaming's big enough to have great content and utter shite existing side by side. Its bigger than movies at this point go figure, and we all know how diverse that landscape is. Much like all types of audio/video entertainment, you need a well developed filter and know where to look to find the gems.

Yep! :)

I'd say it's a 90-10 thing.
90% of the gaming market is made up of 10% of total games made, which are mostly shite, while the other 10% of the market is 90% of the titles out there, where you'll find good ones more often (and a lot cheaper).

Actually, what we'll probably get is an Xbox Copilot+ for next generation.

If they want to succeed with Xbox, the first step is to kick this guy out.

the LAST thing consumers need is Nvidia spreading its tentacles into another market....I suppose I'm not surprised to see people supporting this idea, just disappointed that they fail to recognize how bad consolidation is for consumers.

AusWolfI didn't want to mention that I switched to Linux months ago, and couldn't be happier (I had enough of the bullshit Windows kept throwing at me with updates, backup, Copilot, etc) because it's not the topic here. Even if I had no problems with Windows and Microsoft in general, I still wouldn't want it on a handheld - it uses way too much resource and it's way too fiddly with drivers and other software. I see it on my netbook which takes ages to boot up. I don't want to wipe it and install Linux only because it's a legitimate copy, but if it keeps pissing me off, I will.

Given there are just a handful of CPU combination in use with majority of X86 handhelds creating OS dedicated for handhelds should be a low effort investment for MS with pretty decent RoI. Looks like SteamOS will be the one that rules this segment of market and eventually it might come to dominate gaming desktops as well.

AusWolfThat, also, AMD is the only one of the big three that has a ton of experience with powerful APUs.
Intel lacks the GPU part (except for some under-powered Xe derivatives), while Nvidia lacks the CPU part. The best they've got is some ARM cores, which are OK for the Switch, but not enough for an Xbox.

Pretty much. AMD subsisted off their semi-custom division for so long that it's become a major money maker for them as they're able to take what they have and make a custom solution for any client. And with those new "super APU" mobile chips with high performance GPUs coming out, AMD can now whip up something even larger/better than that for consoles, providing a bit of minor AI acceleration for NPCs (if used for such), or for physics calculations (also if used for such), and also providing a relatively punchy GPU side with a robust CPU side. Really, the only thing holding them back is whatever constraints/trade-offs Xbox and Sony ask of them in the name of cost, as consoles are already inherent money-losers for the first few years of their production.

In NVIDIA's case, they made the customer use what they had available, rather than invest into major semi-custom solutions. They can afford that though, given how dominant their position is in the data center world. But yeah, their ARM developments have never really been prioritized for gaming after the mixed success with their Tegra gaming tablets and Shield smart TV add-ons. It'll be interesting to see if the Switch 2 has a more powerful ARM chip or if it reuses the same Tegras, and just a stronger GPU.

AusWolfDo you guys remember the slogan "The Future Is Fusion" advertising the first APUs? We all laughed at it back then, and hardcore PC gamers still do, but if you look at consoles, well, hm... :rolleyes:

And even the mobile/portable market. Steam Deck, ROG Ally, other Steam-Deck-alikes, mini-PCs, compact gaming laptops (esp. those hybrids from GPD, but also the ROG Zephyrus), and so on. The new HX APUs basically promise even more gaming capability in a small package, limited only by the customer's cooling limits.

AusWolfI can't see Microsoft spending any money on developing a dedicated handheld OS when they have Windows. Not that I'd want resource hog Windows in a handheld, but that's just my opinion.

They dont have to do much, to be honest, all they need is making small modifications to the current Windows running on Xboxes.

eidairaman1Back then they had really good hardware, sidewinder was a greate product line

Indeed, same for their keyboards.

AusWolfUnlike PC builders, I don't think console gamers give two hoots about who makes the chips inside the box next to the TV.

Exactly, but since you are now aware, the dumb consumers that we have today, seems to think that only Ngreedia exists.
Fun fact, most of the console owners have zero idea that their consoles are powered by AMD.

sepheronxmost ignored my post so Ill add to it here.

It may be best to go back to basics. Make a cheap, dedicated machine to play games. Ignore the rest of the stuff and make it secondary. Just have a console that can play games, from your couch, that runs and looks good. Right now, consoles are expensive, and most of the games run like shit and kinda looks like it too.

None of this always online nonsense too. Only reason why I have a PS5 cause of the fact I dont need it online to play games unlike xbox.

Hardware is not necessarily the problem today. Is the over produced crap that are placing way too much resources in eye candy and not enough in gameplay.
Plus, todays programmers dont care about performance, programming close to the metal, etc.

TechLurkerEveryone's suggesting NVIDIA, but the reason Xbox pivoted away from NVIDIA after the first Xbox console in the first place was that NVIDIA refused to work with Xbox and make a custom GPU for them, telling them to either adapt an existing GPU or GTFO

Dont forget that they also screwed Apple, Sony, EVGA and many others, but thanks to todays influencers, we have all these dumdums thinking that everything must be a Ngreedia hardware or it sucks.

Almost all of the companies that dared working with them, said the same thing, "never again."

TechLurkerATI on the other hand had some experience with doing semi-custom solutions, and was the GPU provider for 360. With the X1, it got a customized solution from AMD for both CPU and GPU, and they were reportedly so happy with it that they renewed the partnership for the XSX and XSS. On the CPU side, the Xbox started with Intel and the 360 used PowerPC, before jumping over to AMD with their flexibility of semi-custom solutions.

Everyone that has worked with AMD seems to always repeat the same thing "They are great to work with".

If PlayStation, Xbox, Valve, etc had Ngreedia hardware in, you can be your behind that Dear Leader Jensen would demand that they all included stickers and or videos at boot up, showing their logo.

AMD doesnt care about that, they simply deliver what their customers want.

Back on topic, since its clear that dumb consumers today demand less options, instead of more, Xbox needs some kind of exclusives.

IMHO, they should do a small exclusive window, for example:

1- Day one, release on Xbox.

2- 6 months after, PC and GamePass.

3- 9 to 12 months after, PS and Nintendo.

Also, its clear that paying for such exclusives windows wont go away, outbid Sony every time they try to pull that crap, because that is in my opinion, the main thing that gave Sony the upper hand.

TechLurkerIt'll be interesting to see if the Switch 2 has a more powerful ARM chip or if it reuses the same Tegras, and just a stronger GPU.

Its not that much better and it will rely heavily on DLSS and fake frames gen.

But since its Ngreedia, we know the drill...

Darmok N JaladI dunno, I’d venture that 90% of those PCs are potatoes that can’t run any modern game title. Also, Nintendo does not do this and they have no trouble selling their first-party wares on what elite gamers consider to be insufficient hardware. What devs don’t want is to target more unique hardware setups for the sake of “excitement.”

Phil is just sad because MS squandered all the gains they made with the 360. Sony smoked them with the PS4, and by the time MS countered, it was too late. Xbox doesn’t have enough exclusive content to draw people anymore. MS might be better off making an Xbox PC that can handle the content, while doubling as a W11 desktop. They are the ones in the driver’s seat by having Windows, a hardware division, and many game studios. All the MS departments can’t get along enough to make something brilliant though.

The key with Sony's success so far and Nintendo's success from the N64 days to now is unique games that are fun. Can you make unique, interesting, and FUN games?

If you can, you can leverage this into exclusive lineups, sustain mediocre hardware consoles, do whatever you want really.

If you can't, you will slowly drown in the swamp of corporate quality sludge out there. I am looking at EA and Ubisoft here.

Microsoft has failed really badly in this respect, even their premeire and THE original game franchise, Halo, is slowly dying as each successive product is more mediocre than the last.

Neo_MorpheusThey dont have to do much, to be honest, all they need is making small modifications to the current Windows running on Xboxes.

Maybe, but I still wouldn't want Windows anywhere near my Steam Deck (or my PC, but that's a different story).

Neo_MorpheusExactly, but since you are now aware, the dumb consumers that we have today, seems to think that only Ngreedia exists.
Fun fact, most of the console owners have zero idea that their consoles are powered by AMD.

Because they read news about market share and all that business crap, and think that only PC exists. Also, people like negativity. The world has been ending since basically forever. Same with AMD.

Neo_MorpheusBut since its Ngreedia, we know the drill...

It's Nintendo. It can have a potato in it, it'll still sell because of the games. Nvidia doesn't have much to do with that.

ChaitanyaGiven there are just a handful of CPU combination in use with majority of X86 handhelds creating OS dedicated for handhelds should be a low effort investment for MS with pretty decent RoI. Looks like SteamOS will be the one that rules this segment of market and eventually it might come to dominate gaming desktops as well.

It might, although it doesn't have to. We've already got a gaming-oriented Linux with Bazzite.

TechLurkerIt'll be interesting to see if the Switch 2 has a more powerful ARM chip or if it reuses the same Tegras, and just a stronger GPU.

Here:
www.techpowerup.com/330410/nintendo-switch-2-pcb-leak-reveals-an-nvidia-tegra-t239-chip-optically-shrunk-to-5nm

TechBuyingHavocThe key with Sony's success so far and Nintendo's success from the N64 days to now is unique games that are fun. Can you make unique, interesting, and FUN games?

If you can, you can leverage this into exclusive lineups, sustain mediocre hardware consoles, do whatever you want really.

If you can't, you will slowly drown in the swamp of corporate quality sludge out there. I am looking at EA and Ubisoft here.

Microsoft has failed really badly in this respect, even their premeire and THE original game franchise, Halo, is slowly dying as each successive product is more mediocre than the last.

It’s interesting, really. It’s not like the Nintendo first party franchises try to do anything like Halo. They are all pretty much stories in themselves, with mostly the same characters. Take Zelda titles. Link is pretty much fighting a new battle every time, but the character is still well understood, and there are nods to the past thrown in. Mario is the same way, though at least there Nintendo tries to mix it up occasionally. These franchises are somewhat timeless as well, and they certainly don’t try to get edgy or political. Perhaps it’s just delivering fun escapism in a somewhat predictable package that is the appeal. Basically a series of adventures and not one long story arc that requires supplementary research, backstories, and culturally-approved rhetoric.

Nintendo is more like a collection of timeless fairy tales instead of political or social theater or yet another PVE shooter. Not that the latter materials are bad, but they are much harder to execute in a successful and unique quality, especially over the course of 15+ years, where writers come and go and studios change hands. Even Valve never bothered to finish the Half Life story. I’m not sure what they could do for Halo, but the original Master Chief was very engaging despite having relatively little dialogue. People need heroes, even if they are idealized. We don’t need Master Chief to be flawed, but rather we need him to do what has to be done and win the day.

Just my two cents of course, but it had me thinking about how success in gaming is not all that different than success in good storytelling.

AusWolf90% of the gaming market is made up of 10% of total games made, which are mostly shite, while the other 10% of the market is 90% of the titles out there, where you'll find good ones more often (and a lot cheaper).

10%ofthewha... :confused:

yes.

Darmok N JaladIt’s interesting, really. It’s not like the Nintendo first party franchises try to do anything like Halo. They are all pretty much stories in themselves, with mostly the same characters. Take Zelda titles. Link is pretty much fighting a new battle every time, but the character is still well understood, and there are nods to the past thrown in. Mario is the same way, though at least there Nintendo tries to mix it up occasionally. These franchises are somewhat timeless as well, and they certainly don’t try to get edgy or political. Perhaps it’s just delivering fun escapism in a somewhat predictable package that is the appeal. Basically a series of adventures and not one long story arc that requires supplementary research, backstories, and culturally-approved rhetoric.

Nintendo is more like a collection of timeless fairy tales instead of political or social theater or yet another PVE shooter. Not that the latter materials are bad, but they are much harder to execute in a successful and unique quality, especially over the course of 15+ years, where writers come and go and studios change hands. Even Valve never bothered to finish the Half Life story. I’m not sure what they could do for Halo, but the original Master Chief was very engaging despite having relatively little dialogue. People need heroes, even if they are idealized. We don’t need Master Chief to be flawed, but rather we need him to do what has to be done and win the day.

Just my two cents of course, but it had me thinking about how success in gaming is not all that different than success in good storytelling.

It is game-specific. You don't really need any story at all for a Mario game, it is 100% gameplay. A cinematic shooter like Halo has a lot more focus on story but gameplay is still important as well.

I look at a game like Ghost of Tsushima, it is really the pinnacle of Sony games, classic story with very fun and well-constructed game-play mechanics. So it is not like Microsoft can't have a AAA cinematic game out there, its competitors know how to make fun games and even cinematic fun games but for some reason despite the billions of dollars Microsoft pours into game development, they make duds after duds.

Remember how much Microsoft hyped Redfall? That game utterly sucked. What a waste of money.

I do agree that the principles of good storytelling have a lot in common with principles of making good games.

Darmok N JaladIt’s interesting, really. It’s not like the Nintendo first party franchises try to do anything like Halo. They are all pretty much stories in themselves, with mostly the same characters. Take Zelda titles. Link is pretty much fighting a new battle every time, but the character is still well understood, and there are nods to the past thrown in. Mario is the same way, though at least there Nintendo tries to mix it up occasionally. These franchises are somewhat timeless as well, and they certainly don’t try to get edgy or political. Perhaps it’s just delivering fun escapism in a somewhat predictable package that is the appeal. Basically a series of adventures and not one long story arc that requires supplementary research, backstories, and culturally-approved rhetoric.

Nintendo is more like a collection of timeless fairy tales instead of political or social theater or yet another PVE shooter. Not that the latter materials are bad, but they are much harder to execute in a successful and unique quality, especially over the course of 15+ years, where writers come and go and studios change hands. Even Valve never bothered to finish the Half Life story. I’m not sure what they could do for Halo, but the original Master Chief was very engaging despite having relatively little dialogue. People need heroes, even if they are idealized. We don’t need Master Chief to be flawed, but rather we need him to do what has to be done and win the day.

Just my two cents of course, but it had me thinking about how success in gaming is not all that different than success in good storytelling.

Storytelling and world building. That's what I don't get with so many franchises. They have every opportunity to create legendary material with their immense reach, and they do so little with it or they screw it up at the last moment. Mass Effect comes to mind. The lost potential there... oh my god. It could have rivalled Star Trek at this point, but nope. Andromeda reduced it to a steaming pile of interchangeable nonsense. They could have been selling a TCG at this point if they had executed that right, and/or followed up with a movie.

In that sense, The Witcher seems to be on a good trajectory. Lots of effort on world building, lots of stuff around the game. Its not the nintendo approach, but that's storytelling right there.

Vayra8610%ofthewha... :confused:

yes.

I mean, 90% of attention/money is focused on 10% of games out there which are mostly (politically charged) copy-paste AAA crap or online shooters with no personality. If you want something unique, you have to dig into the other 90% of games that no one talks about. Saying that "modern games are shit" like some people like to do is unfair if you only look at the "top" 10% of games out there.

ChaitanyaSony is an electronics company 1st so they have little to gain from making Playstation OS on the other hand MS is a software company 1st and given the rise of gaming handhelds with majority of them running same AMD x86-64 CPUs there is a massive market to capture with dedicated Xbox OS competiting with SteamOS.

And why would anyone WANT this? If you are PC centric enough that you want a portable to play full games, any of the windows or linux options offer far more software, and open environment, ece. If you want a closed environment, say for a kid, you have the ipad and the switch.

You can just buy a Z1 extreme handheld running windows, subscribe to gamepass, and boom, you has xbox, but with far more options. What buying motivationw oudl there be for a portable that is restricted to just xbox titles

Vayra86Storytelling and world building. That's what I don't get with so many franchises. They have every opportunity to create legendary material with their immense reach, and they do so little with it or they screw it up at the last moment. Mass Effect comes to mind. The lost potential there... oh my god. It could have rivalled Star Trek at this point, but nope. Andromeda reduced it to a steaming pile of interchangeable nonsense. They could have been selling a TCG at this point if they had executed that right, and/or followed up with a movie.

Most of these franchises go straight to pot the moment the original creators and writers leave. Most of the ME1-3 crew was long gone once Andromeda started production. Plus EA, ironically, had far to little control over bioware and were unaware how poorly it was run until "BiOwArE mAgIc" finally failed to churn out a decent game.

Part of it as well is "millennial writing". A combination of Peter Pan syndrome and hiring writers who have never had to work or hold real jobs, they went from school to college to writing for game companies hired straight off Tumblr. They can only try to emulate what they saw as kids, as far as actual talent they possess little to none and the political climate surrounding gaming these days means you cant use anything controversial or even find people willing to write convincing villains anymore. See also: Disney.

The result is safe, bland, stereotypical gaming with none of the edge, care for detail, or interesting designs of media from 15 years ago.

Vayra86In that sense, The Witcher seems to be on a good trajectory. Lots of effort on world building, lots of stuff around the game. Its not the nintendo approach, but that's storytelling right there.

The Witcher games, much like other types of media, was good because they had a source to work from: the books. And much like those other medias, once the source runs out the quality rots out.

There are no more books. Witcher 4 is "original". Get ready for that steep downward trajectory. We're already seeing it, Geralt is being replaced with Ciri, who has had all her characterization and past from the older games sandblasted off and replaced with a generic "girl power" persona, and a huge increase in power with seemingly no explanation, like we have seen in countless games, TV shows, and movies the last decade.

This is also unsurprising, as most of the Witcher 3 crew quit after the release of blood and wine, citing terrible working conditions. The current crew didnt make those old games. The only game they have made was CP2077, which was a total mess at launch, unfinished, and IMO really, REALLY boring; far too generic of a world with on path missions like so many other "open world" games of the last 15 years.

AusWolfI mean, 90% of attention/money is focused on 10% of games out there which are mostly (politically charged) copy-paste AAA crap or online shooters with no personality. If you want something unique, you have to dig into the other 90% of games that no one talks about. Saying that "modern games are shit" like some people like to do is unfair if you only look at the "top" 10% of games out there.

So if you are going by what normal people experience (the 10% of games that sell 90% of the copies), modern gaming is pretty shit. If you are going by all titles released, gaming is incredibly diverse and wide-ranging.

That just tells me that gamers need to stretch and get ok with exploring new genres and types of games instead of reverting back to their three or four comfort food games like Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto. There are so many games out there that are undiscovered gems.

Now excuse me while I go play Helldivers 2 for the 300th day in a row. :p