So, who exactly is she? Well, externally, she’s the former VP of Product and Engineering at Meta, CEO of Instacart, and current board member for Coupang and Home Depot. She only recently came to Microsoft in 2024 as the President of CoreAI. Don’t worry, if you’re double-checking to see if any of that is related to gaming in some sort of way, let me save you the trouble; it’s not.

all 76 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 106 points 8 months ago (19 children)

Anyone who thinks Xbox is still going to be worth anything is a fool. They overspent on gaming studios, didn't produce anything of value, gamepass value went down, and now everyone hates them for the constant enshittification. Even stepping back from "This is lemmy and we all hate microsoft" they have done some horrible business moves with Xbox. I don't know anyone who is positive about the brand. They have ran it firmly into the ground.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    But as always they will blame “market conditions” and “customers changing tastes”. Instead of “we pointed a fuckload of MBAs that only care about monetizing in the short term and milking every penny we can short term even though it’s killing all long term prospects of the product and driving away customers in droves”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago*

    “we pointed a fuckload of MBAs that only care about monetizing

    If I ever end up in a position where I'm reviewing potential employees, having an MBA is going to be an automatic rejection, regardless of their other qualifications.

    Imo, getting an MBA makes you worse at being a productive employee. And the people that get them don't have personalities that are conducive to being good at their jobs

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago (16 children)

    Screw all the consoles. They deserve extinction for scamming everyone for years by requiring monthly subscriptions to play online.

    Literally like selling someone a subscription to drive your car out of town.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (15 children)

    Literally like selling someone a subscription to drive your car out of town.

    We do have that. It’s the gas tax we pay to the government.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (14 children)

    I dont think the analogy works. Gas taxes are universal in the U.S. for road fuel, they also fund infrastructure, not stock holders and CEOs.

    A tax is not an arbitrary subscription fee, it's an ongoing expensive.

    In order for your analogy to work, the fee would need to be created out of no where for no reason other than self enrichment; and there would need to be a viable alternative that provides practically the exact same benefit with no fee. The fee would also need to expire and require renwal despite not using the product, which isn't the case for gas.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (13 children)

    It works pretty well. The console network fees fund infrastructure, the employees that run the infrastructure, etc. neither the gas tax nor the console network fees are arbitrary. As for the “required renewal despite not using it” thing we just have other things for that in the form of vehicle registration.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (12 children)

    well. The console network fees fund infrastructure

    I mean where they spend the money is irrelevant. If I rob you, is it suddenly okay if I spend your money responsibly? No.

    PC has had online multiplayer since the creation of the internet, and PC did it without ever having a fee on top of internet access.

    I would also argue that playstation plus membership fees, with all their millions of dollars, have not created a better environment than what available on PC for free, so...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (11 children)

    I mean where they spend the money is irrelevant.

    So it’s ok to pay money for infrastructure for your car to use, but when you have to pay for the infrastructure for your video games it’s robbery? Now I feel like you’re the one being arbitrary.

    PC has had online multiplayer since the creation of the internet

    This tells me you weren’t around for the early days of PC gaming. On the contrary, PC gaming went through a couple phases when it came to online multiplayer. Early multiplayer games often didn’t have matchmaking or dedicated server discovery at all, then there was the Gamespy era where a bunch of games delegated their multiplayer matchmaking to a third party with limited functionality and ads unless you paid a premium subscription.

    It was the game consoles that really fixed multiplayer early on with their party systems that persisted outside of each game. Today Steam has similar functionality, but Valve is just eating those costs, just as Sony used to. Difference is Valve doesn’t have to sell you your computer at a loss, they they can have loss leaders like that in different areas.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    but when you have to pay for the infrastructure for your video games it’s robbery?

    We already discussed this. The Playstation Plus subscription isnt paying for internet infrastructure. PC has no monthly fee, and it's infrastructure is exactly the same.

    This tells me you weren’t around for the early days of PC gaming

    Oh I was... So Xbox game pass released in 2002, PlayStation followed much later in 2010.

    In 2002 Warcraft 3's multiplayer was fine. In 2002 Battlefield 1942 was fine; It was a good as Halo's multiplayer, which somehow ALSO had fine multiplayer at release in 2001 despite the subscription service for multiplayer not until a year after the game had already launched.

    It was the game consoles that really fixed multiplayer early on with their party systems that persisted outside of each game.

    Even if I gave you that, the subscription "fee" isn't what fixed multiplayer design, that was fixed by... Game developers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (9 children)

    We already discussed this. The Playstation Plus subscription isnt paying for internet Multiplayer infrastructure.

    It is. The party system, voice chat services, and the ability to join on or invite friends in a universal way regardless of the game without having to make an account for that game all requires expensive infrastructure and manpower to build and maintain.

    Oh I was... So Xbox game pass released in 2002, PlayStation followed much later in 2010.

    Xbox GamePass released in 2017 and has nothing to do with multiplayer. The multiplayer service Xbox live released in 2002 and PlayStation followed in 2006. You’re not beating the allegations.

    the subscription "fee" isn't what fixed multiplayer design, that was fixed by... Game developers.

    Game developers were uninvolved in the fix for multiplayer design. Game developers are unsurprisingly, only involved in the development of their game. The reliable third party social systems were designed by engineers at Xbox and Sony, and on the PC side at Valve. Multiplayer existed on consoles prior to Xbox Live and PlayStation Network, but just like their PC counterpart, it was clunky, unintuitive, and inconsistent between games. The PlayStation network and XBL were created as a direct result of those issues.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (8 children)

    It is. The party system, voice chat services, and the ability to join on or invite friends in a universal way regardless of the game without having to make an account for that game all requires expensive infrastructure and manpower to build and maintain.

    Yeah sorry, what is this... Like the third time I've stated this? PC did all of the things you're claiming without an extra subscription fee. Sure, maybe Xbox took some subscription fees and funded infrastructure, that's not my point. My point is they didn't need to, as evidenced by someone else who did the exact same thing without the subscription model.

    Playstation and Xbox, as a publicly traded hardware and software company, are much more pressured to discover and capture extraneous revenue sources; and the vast majority of the subscription income went to investors. Maybe it's helpful to point out that Valve doesn't have public investors, and the vast majority of game development companies also don't have investors. The simplest solution here is that the subscription fee was created out greed, not necessity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (7 children)

    Yeah sorry, what is this... Like the third time I've stated this? PC did all of the things you're claiming without an extra subscription fee.

    It did not do all those things. Not until very recently, and only through Steam. You can say it as many times as you want, that doesn’t make it true lol.

    My point is they didn't need to, as evidenced by someone else who did the exact same thing without the subscription model.

    Sony did it for awhile without the subscription model too. Thats not evidence that they didn’t need to. The cost of infrastructure needed to maintain this model has gone up in the last 25 years with more players, higher expectations, and added complexity contributing to more manpower and higher salary expectations.

    A free service doesn’t scale very well when it gets exponentially more expensive to maintain as time goes on. Sony was able to subsidize that service at one point in time but very understandably they can’t do that in the big 26. They already sell the hardware at a loss, if they continued to provide that infrastructure for free, leaving them only with commission on PS store sales, but also we don’t want them to take that big a cut from game developers, and we want them to still provide disk drives so we can buy and share games outside their store, and also we don’t want them to buy studios and make games exclusive to their platform… like corporate greed is one thing but also god forbid we just pay a reasonable price for the things we use.

    Valve on the other hand doesn’t have to worry about this because they were never in the hardware game to begin with, and now with the Steam Machine they’ve already confirmed they’re not subsidizing hardware.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    and only through Steam

    Now you're being a bit unfair by bundling together console hardware and software while keeping PC hardware and software separate.

    To be fair you would need to take into account every available piece of software to make the determination if those features were available for PC before, at the same time, or after consoles.

    If I had to guess I'd say that in 90% of cases the innovation occured on PC due to it being an open ecosystem with freely available development hardware and higher numbers of developers. Big successful companies generally don't come up with big new good ideas, they steal them from other products that have already been proven.

    But let's just looks at this differently. In 2004 the Microsoft video game division reported profits of 2.75 billion. The Xbox live service reported 750,000 subscribers each paying $50 a year, or $37,500,000. The absence of Xbox live would have reduced Microsoft game divisions profits from 2.75 billion to 2.71 billion. Basically a rounding error. Microsoft could have easily funded any of the developments absent the subscription just as Playstation did for years later; just as PC does until this day

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (5 children)

    To be fair you would need to take into account every available piece of software to make the determination if those features were available for PC before, at the same time, or after consoles

    Taking into account every available piece of software, those features appeared on PC 15 years or so after consoles. And only really achieved similar feature parity with early consoles in 2018, and only if you buy all your games from Steam.

    Big successful companies generally don't come up with big new good ideas, they steal them from other products that have already been proven.

    In this case the PC company Valve “stole” them from Xbox and Sony. That doesn’t really help your argument at all here, on the contrary it just goes to show how much easier valve has had it as all they’ve had to do is follow a blueprint, keeping their costs lower which uniquely helps them subsidize them.

    In 2004 the Microsoft video game division reported profits of 2.75 billion.

    In 2004 the Xbox division of Microsoft reported $0 in profits. Xbox division became profitable for the first time in 2008. Know what was the driving force behind that sustained profitability?

    Do I really need to tell you the answer or do you think you can guess?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Okay. Pick a gaming feature that you believe was created by console manufacturers from 2002-present.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    Xbox Live, the very thing we’re talking about, was the original unified party system. Prior to it, there were third party voice chat systems and third party lobby systems, but these were disparate systems you had to maintain separate identities for. Difference games supported different lobby systems so you couldn’t even have just one of each either. Xbox was the first to tie these things together under one “Gamertag” as one persistent presence and identity you could use to coordinate all your friends together in to chat, join in games through, collect persistent achievements, etc.

    Many years later we now have that on PC via Steam, but even then that doesn’t cover all games on the platform since there are games locked to Epic, Uplay, or indie games sold direct through a website.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

    It seems you're saying is that Microsoft created this amazing playground, and then sold solutions to the problems they created when they fenced it off, and then passed that off as innovation with a subscription fee?

    The party system, the group screens, the voice chat, these were all created to make up for the short comings of consoles. Our players can't install ventrilo on Xbox. They can't quickly type a message on a keyboard and hit enter, so let's create a solution for the problems that we created when we made this locked ecosystem; and then call it revolutionary, and a the first of its kind.

    So I don't know... You're saying everything that Xbox did was doable before on PC, but required multiple accounts and apps; but then Xbox needs lots of money to copy those features into their product? Don't know if I buy it, and I certainly don't 20+ years and billions of dollars buy it.

    You've said a few times now that steam took 15 years to add these feature and it seems obvious to me why. We already had that shit. Sure it's convenient on console, but it's not subscription worthy.

    Think of any other system that incorporated already existing features together to form a more convenient enjoyable experience and you'll see that there isn't a subscription fee.

    Public malls, smart phones (still replaces multiple products without a data plan), Gas station/convenience stores, Google has been consolidated products together and building infrastructure for decades; and no subscription fee, and I guarantee you Googles infrastructure is light-years beyond Xbox, Xbox probably runs a lot of shit through Google.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Now that several of the points you’ve made have been proven concretely wrong, and you just keep moving the goal posts further and further each time, I feel like your argument has been muddied to the point that I don’t really know what it is anymore. “Yeah Xbox was the first to build a product like that, but we used to have 30 different products that did some of those things, entirely separately from each other without any integration or cohesion, most of which have been largely lost to time because the way Xbox did it was so much better it became the expected standard for the next 20 years for everyone else to copy, so therefore they don’t get any credit”

    OK.

    Let’s recap:

    • You thought that infrastructure doesn’t have an associated cost in the real world like it does on Xbox and PlayStation.

    We proved that was wrong because there are all kinds of fees, taxes, and mechanisms in the real world that exist to fund infrastructure.

    • You thought that game developers on PC invented the unified identity system that’s now an industry standard, which is the thing you’re paying that subscription for.

    We proved that was wrong because Xbox Live was the first to do it in 2008. Prior to Xbox, there was no app that provided this functionality.

    • You thought that the infrastructure behind these things doesn’t cost any many and that Xbox only started charging for it out of greed because they were making billions of dollars in profit with or without it.

    We proved that you don’t know the difference between revenue and profit, or the fact that this infrastructure and hardware subsidization lead to Xbox being unprofitable for years after you thought they were profitable.

    Now you’re changing directions to other products that did something entirely unrelated to what we’re talking about, in order to find some parallel in an entirely different market. We’re REALLY grasping at straws here now.

    Think of any other system that incorporated already existing features together to form a more convenient enjoyable experience and you'll see that there isn't a subscription fee.

    Such as?

    Public malls

    You mean those things that have proven to be economical failures? This just disproves your own point??

    smart phones (still replaces multiple products without a data plan)

    So hardware that doesn’t cost you a dime to use day to day unless you… use their infrastructure to make it interact with other people in a more convenient way? You mean exactly like Xbox Live

    Like you’re arguing against yourself at this point so you don’t really need me anymore? I’m just going to “declare victory and walk away” so to speak unless you can figure out what point you wanna make. I’m not going to give you anymore of my time to this game of whack-a-mole.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    Let's promis to only quote once per reply shall me? I don't know how you're doing it but I'm not going to write you a high school length essay with every reply. If you think I sound a bit two sided it because I am, every reply we make generating five different conversations.

    Such as?

    I listed them below that sentence... You discussed them.

    Public malls, Your personal geographic experience of malls is limited and also irrelevant. Dial your mind back to the 1970s and turn off your adversarial mindset and I'm sure you'll be able to make it work. Also malls are absolutely huge, and big booming business in some areas.

    Cell phones - No, it's hardware that didn't require an extra subscription fee so they could expand "infrastructure". I can absolutely use a phone to make a phone call through numerous apps with just a wifi connection.

    I cheated two quotes.

    Now you’re changing directions to other products that did something entirely unrelated to what we’re talking about, in order to find some parallel in an entirely different market. We’re REALLY grasping at straws here now.

    Again, it's analagous to the "infrastructure development" of literally every other tech industry; and exemplifies how everyone else somehow expanded infrastructure, without additional subscription fees.

    Feel free to leave if you're not enjoying the conversation: or do I need to like... Send you $5 a month so you can integrate NOT clicking reply into your Lemmy experience. (Revolutionary idea, lets start this business.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 71 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    At some point you have to be impressed by Microsoft's dedication to ruining their own products

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 54 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I've got 2,000 steam games I haven't played yet. The era of the gamer has a big enough buffer to not end for years.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Im surprised they gave up so easily. Like they have huge pockets and this is one of their signature products. It had 1 bad generation and they were just like well i guess we're cooked. There is so much to "innovate" on. They could have copied steams approach and had given their console a desktop mode that runs a stripped down but still fully functional version of windows. They could have made a console with good hardware.

    Oh well at the end of the day a loss for Microsoft is a win for everyone else. They wont be missed by me.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    To be honest Phil's just done a bad job at the helm or maybe wasn't empowered to do the things that needed to be done. Everything since the xbox360 has been weak from Microsoft, although Sony has really only held on due to some banger first party games.

    Nintendo continues to understand that you need to offer something different in the console space to remain relevant. While the steam deck (and other handheld) are coming for the switch, they at least offer something unique.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Don't you love it when you are working for a big company, and they announce that the new CEO is from Coke or Pillsbury or Ford or some other industry that has nothing in common with yours, but somehow just doing the same job as the last know-nothing that they fired, using the same current popular experimental business strategies, is going to be better this time?

    And then they pay them millions to fuck it all up, while they pay you a pittance to try to keep it together, as they fuck it up.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 8 months ago

    At my last company they got rid of the CEO because of some thing she was doing. They have a big meeting to tell us and introduce the guy that's replacing her.. The guy who got hired a year ago, spent who knows how much on some "fleet management" software. Software that we never used because we all objected to installing the app on our personal phones that wanted to track our location and have all sorts of other crazy permissions. Dude just failed up to CEO

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I think if anything this proves the Gamer Era has just begun: Free of corporatocracy.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    You have that alternative already so when you‘re in that boat nothing really changed. But yes indie games will see the largest growth in the game industry this year for sure. Mega corps can‘t help but shooting themselves in the foot in blind greed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 44 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    The health of video games shouldn't be measured by what Microsoft does. That's like measuring the economy based on how a bunch of big companies are doing.

    It's inaccurate as hell and doesn't actually take into consideration the small folks who make up the majority.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    Thankfully, it's not, not in any meaningful way. The source is a big indicator of how much you should trust the assertion being made.

    Actual broad metrics show that gaming in general is currently the most profitable entertainment industry, and it's not even close. So that's good, MS is just assmad that they've very efficiently begun removing themselves from that industry at this point.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (10 children)
  • [–] [S] 19 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    They wont abandon the brand but it will be much more focused monetization and exploration of existing gamers. Pushing for more subscriptions, more live servcies, pushing for their streaming services, and using gamers to train their AI.

    Given their push for copilot gaming, wouldn't surprise me if they use the last two to make some kind of claim they're use AI to reduce latency by having AI "predict" your moves making streaming better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    So Sony said something similar about milking it's current customer base more by charging more for services/software and not really offering anything new in return. Console gaming maybe dead or at least the next generation will most likely be the last.

    I don't see consoles surviving for much long with so many things working against them like AI, cloud services, mobile offerings, PC alternatives, and increasing hardware costs.

    Also if AI can predict what I'm going to do and do it for me then what if that's not what I was going to do. It would suck the joy out of actually doing the things. Single player games probably don't matter as much but feel like it would ruin PVP like overly aggressive aim assist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

    Consoles will be the last to go because they’re the only gaming hardware sold as loss leaders. The days where you could “Build a better PC for the same price” are long, long gone. When the consoles go, gaming as a mainstream industry goes wirh them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    There wasn't ever a time you could build a better or even comparable PC for the same cost as consoles in modern gaming history. It's always been something with a higher entry cost and the cost benefit coming over time with cheaper games and no mandatory subscription.

    Yet PC gaming is now the "mainstream", with it being the biggest platform globally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    For the past 15 years, the hardware costs have been subsidized by both online subscriptions and storefront cuts for digital purchases.

    That being said, consoles haven't been sold at a loss for multiple generations now. They've mainly been cheaper due to economies of scale

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    You could never really build a better PC for the same price, consoles were always $300 to $400 cheaper than the equivalent PC at launch by design. Pre gen4 consoles really had to compete with Arcades and gen4 to gen 6 really only had to compete with each other. Gen 6 and after now have strong competition from PC and mobile.

    PC suffered from a lack of eco system, cost, and complexity. Consoles were sold at a loss at launch because the software was tied to the proprietary hardware and they could make their money back by offering exclusive games and pay to play online.

    Now consoles are just under powered custom PCs and Steam/GOG have built eco systems for PC to make PC gaming more friendly and now Steam is building hardware to make PC gaming more affordable. Plus with cloud gaming everyone can stream just about any game no matter what hardware they have.

    Nintendo will probably hang on the longest with their unique hardware and IPs that will never ever get ported to another system, at least not until Nintendo no longer builds their own hardware.

    AI and Cloud gaming will probably be the biggest thing to revolutionize the gaming industry and probably the most destructive since Atari over saturated the market. At least in the short term.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    They've already announced that the new Xbox is made by ASUS so I think that confirms my long held suspicion that they're transitioning to an XBOX store for PCs, much like the XBOX Ally

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

    I remember being very annoyed, for years, that Microsoft stoped releasing their flagship gaming franchise, Halo, for their most popular platform: Windows. For years, only Halo and Halo 2 were released for PC, and Halo 2 was almost unplayable due to Microsoft's massive cockup with Games for Windows Live. It was clear they didn't give a shit about their customers as they tried to force them to re-buy hardware and pay a monthly fee, while simultaneously sabotaging gaming on the PC.

    It wasn't until just a few years ago where Microsoft released their most popular franchise for their most popular platform. I'm still salty about that.

    God damn am I happier now though. I don't have an xbox or a Windows computer, I'm not beholden to their decades of compounding bad decisions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 8 months ago

    Microsoft can just go on doubling and tripling down on bad decisions indefinitely and make it everyone elses' problem because they have so much money that it barely matters if they fail.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 8 months ago
    [–] 16 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    So. In the other post they promised not to go AI, but in this one we see black on white proof that she is totally gonna dive deep into ai gaming? Makes me think how much longer gamers (your typical cod/fifa gamer) will stay silent?

    P.S. Players do not have to become loud. Best way to actually tell gaming industry to fuck off with their anti-consumer narrative is to vote with your wallet. Yes, it is that easy.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 14 points 8 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Playstation: we have one game

    FTFY

    The generation has been hell

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I don’t have a single exclusive for PlayStation 5 that didn’t also come out on ps4. So idk, I’d probably say Astro Bot is PlayStation’s game

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Why is that a bad thing? I can understand if the ps5 version is held back by the limitations of the ps4, but I fundamentally don't understand why anyone thinks any game being platform-exclusive is a good thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Hard disagree. The indie gamer era has never been better.

    Hell, based on my hopeless addiction to Space Station 14, it's also a great time to an open-source gamer.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    Agree. I've been buying more games than ever and they're mostly indie. Best part is you can get them for like $10 - $20 if you wait for a steam sale. Necesse might be my favorite so far. It's like rimworld and terraria had a baby.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 38 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    the fact that they picked a woman of color to be the new lead of xbox lmao. least obvious glass cliff

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 8 months ago

    Soulless corps and political parties love to put women and especially women of color in positions of power when things go sour. They don‘t expect her to be there for long. She‘s essentially a scapegoat hire.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago

    I really think that part of what is changing is that the hardware people run games on is becoming less and less differentiated in both power class and capability. And the hardware that does bring a large performance gap is very expensive.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago

    As an ex-record industry executive, I know what it's like to be part of an industry that decides to just shoot itself in the head.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago

    I'm just going to stop looking at articles with remotely sensational headlines.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    ... we could have both industries... but fuck AI

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    Lol I wonder if windowscentral and MS got in a feedback loop and that's why MS was surprised at how much people hate copilot integration with the OS and every program they can shove it into.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    More wishcasting gigacope from window's personal diary. The windows gaming era may be over, that's the kernel of truth.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    The money is in real games, made by real humans, small teams, low budgets, no corpo meddling. It’s time to unplug from these huge corporations and their agendas. They are the ones out of touch. They are the ones in a bubble. The indie scene is thriving. Check it out!

    Perhaps there is some future market for infinite AI generated slop, but I want no part in that. Games are art. We learn from and relate to art, grow as people. AI is nothing more the. infinite flashing lights. This is dystopian bread and circuses to keep us docile while the billionaires and civilization.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Slopya Nadella

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Thank the good Greek lords for indie games.

  • source