| thismeintiel said: Good to see we have a mind reader, here. So, you know that ND would rather be on all platforms? Instead of the ease of developing for one, being to push it to its limits, and still selling 10s of millions of copies? |
Of course they would. Naughty Dog more so than most other developers, too.
| thismeintiel said: The only one twisting here is you. He was asked if the newly acquired studios could make multiplats or not, and his exact quote was, "Yeah, I think we would. I think that the question is less binary about, ‘should it be on Switch, should it be on PlayStation?’ and more, ‘does it make sense for the franchise?'" Yes, he goes on to give examples like Minecraft for multiplatform and Forza for their own platform. But, those are just current examples. And he never states that it depends on the size of the franchise/game. Oddly, or maybe not so oddly, he confuses the messaging there, too. He gives Sea of Thieves as an example of a game staying on their platform, when much like Minecraft, it would benefit having a larger audience. |
I never said anything about the size of the game. He said if it makes sense from a network effect. Similar to what you're now seeing with Sony publishing games on PC. They're not releasing Last of Us 2 on PC, that game doesn't need it. But multiplayer games that can benefit from a wider userbase, as Shawn Layden confirmed recently. He also said Outer Worlds 2 would be the type of game they'd keep exclusive. I mean, it's all there in black and white. Strange how it's only particular users that seem to have trouble following him....
| thismeintiel said: And there's no ifs, ands, or buts, Phil was downplaying the importance of 60FPS. Again, here are the exact quotes: He ended the discussion by saying, "Not everybody understands what 60FPS vs 30FPS means. They're not all as technical as you are." And I actually agree with him there. Of course, now he states that 60FPS will be the top priority going forward. That just seems strange considering his take not too long ago, correctly stating that a lot of people don't care. My guess is that they know they won't be matching Sony when it comes to visuals, so they will fall back on the "We're aiming for 60FPS always" excuse. |
Oh good, it was that interview someone else was referencing here the other day. I was thinking I'd missed some interview where Phil actually downplayed 60 frames per second. I guess this interview is popular ammo now for console warz after he talked about the next console. That whole exchange was about Sony and Microsoft marketing the mid gen refresh consoles around resolution and not frame rate. When you actually apply the context to the discussion, it makes sense. Yeah, typical gamers don't understand frames per second. Hell, most people don't even understand refresh rates on televisions. But they do understand 4k and Ultra High Def. That's why Microsoft and Sony went that route. Again, simple stuff here. Not even going to bother replying to that nonsense at the end.
| thismeintiel said: And I think you mean 0 of 1. The 2nd is if Scarlett fails to sell, they will be out of HW. We'll see who's right on that one. But, you keep that good fight alive. |
0 of 1
You made predictions during the 360 era.
You made predictions to start this gen.
You made predictions on the first Xbone revision.
You made predictions on Scorpio.
Now you make predictions on Scarlett.
0 of 1, fucking yikes man. I'll be laughing about that all day tomorrow, thanks friend.
