indignantgoat

We used to have multiple currencies in the US – every state chartered bank could issue its own currency. It was a nightmare. If you don’t know that history, I suggest you go educate yourself. One federally managed currency is a better solution than multiple currencies. By far.

I think you’re skirting more than a few relevant changes in both currency and general technology skipping from like the 1860’s to the 2020’s. Cryptocurrency not being state-issued is maybe the most important, because it means it doesn’t ever have to be accepted or legal tender.

The only way the government has that window today into transactions is by court order.

Which they can get with basically no oversight thanks to the Patriot Act.

If you read my history in this forum, you’ll notice that I’m a massive privacy advocate.

So, you’re a massive privacy advocate who thinks the current balancing of privacy versus safety with the Patriot Act is correct? Or?

However, I think the government does need to track down people breaking the law

Sure. If we go back to maybe 1999 and there needs to exist a scintilla of probable cause, we’ll be on the same page.

Yep.

To a degree, I’ll buy the ‘system seller’ argument on the Switch, but Nintendo’s properties are all iconic and most have been for 30 years at this point.

The most iconic Playstation title to me was Gran Turismo, and it really peaked w/ GT3.

There’s also the glut of games that, exclusive or not, I never would have tried if I had to pay for them up front.

Especially for smaller developers, Game Pass is the best possible version of a game demo.

Spiderman – 20 million+

In the same timeframe that Spiderman sold 20M, COD sold close to 40M.

Also how does sale = quality?

How does putting words in my mouth help your argument?

buying a console, exclusives tip the balance

I doubt either one of us is going to put the time and effort to do a scientifically valid multivariate study on this.

My analysis would say that the exclusives play more of a branding role than contributing to actual console sales. The Xbox One was hosed out the gate due to messaging and the fact that it was less-performant for more money. That’s a kiss of death in the console wars. After that earlier lead, you had the network effect, which leads people to buying what their friends have already so they can play together.

I wonder, is it possible that gamers who reject the idea that they must buy an Xbox and/or subscribe to GamePass in order to play Call of Duty will turn their attention to other FPS games that are available across multiple platforms?

Any time something like this happens [say, when the early/bonus content went from Xbox 360-exclusive to PS4-exclusive], you’re going to split the fanbase based on whether you’re loyal to the game or to the hardware.

That said, the audience already exists for each of the games you’ve mentioned. I personally think that COD should be better multiplatform, but the Vanguard release specifically has seemed to introduce some cross-platform shenanigans [most are console vs PC, but I think we’re also seeing some cross-generational issues based around load times and such].

What I would do, were I Sony, is I would negotiate a licensing exchange, doing something like day-and-date PC availability of a title in exchange for COD on PS5.

Barring that, I would recruite some hardcore talent to revive the SOCOM series from back in the day. High-quality multiplayer is a must, but I would lean into Sony’s strengths and build out a really awesome campaign. If they’re really trying to compete, they could really distinguish themselves by not having the monetization suck.

I hope it’s obvious why we don’t want any private companies in charge of our currency.

I hope the difference between "a currency" and "our currency" is obvious.

I disagree on principle with the idea of banning a currency, and I think that we have surrendered an overly-large amount of privacy in exchange for convenience with the move to digital representations of our existing currency. I don’t think it’s the government’s right to have a default window into everyone’s spending habits.

There’s no reason to play a game you’re not having fun with. I don’t make it that deep.

I don’t really evaluate games in regard to their status as sequels. Either the game play is fun and the story is engaging, or not.

And yet they generally don’t sell as well as COD and FIFA.

I think they’re more likely to leave them multi-plat, but free on GamePass.

Why use the stick when you have such an attractive carrot?

Going forward as this generation matures, you’ll see many more people prioritize the Xbox, at the least as their second console if they already have one. Knowing the sheer magnitude of titles that come pretty damn close to free w/ GamePass, it’s going to be hard to pass up.

Think about the next-gen scenario: $500 for either and Xbox or Playstation. 7 years of GamePass if it is increased to $20/Month will be $1,680. That’s 24 full-price games, a bit over three a year. For anyone who might buy three games a year, GamePass is the same cost, but with several hundred other games essentially for free.

And that’s not counting the side benefits, like playing on console/PC, streaming, game-sharing across consoles, etc.

The vast majority hated the Titanfall-wannabe COD’s.

The newest COD is pretty OK, and it was still last year’s second-best selling game despite launching at the end of the year.

We won’t see a MS-flavored COD till probably 2025 or 2026, though we might see them improve the monetization a bit before then.

If creating a critically acclaimed and financially successful FPS franchise were that easy Microsoft wouldn’t have felt the need to acquire Activision Blizzard so they could lock down the Call of Duty franchise.

Halo?

Because streaming still isn’t viable for a mass audience, especially if it’s for a game that is heavily dependent on a lag-free experience like a competitive FPS.

Scenario:

Microsoft backdoors Sony on Gamepass- If you have GamePass, they issue you a code to redeem on PS5 for COD.

It’s not that deep.

So, in response to Alder Lake’s performance Apple fans – who have no interest in buying this in the first place

I have no interest in buying this because I bought an $1,100 gaming laptop that has plenty of power to push a 1080P screen.

Apple has always only claimed to have industry-leading power per watt.

OK. Thing is, there is precisely one market where watts are not limited, and they haven’t had a ‘Pro’ release in that market yet.

But for x86 Windows and Linux workstation (which gaming, content creation, engineering, software development etc. machines actually are) and server users it is a horrible idea because the ability to cheaply and easily upgrade such machines is the biggest advantage to using them in the first place.

This is just you phrasing a bunch of opinions as fact. Which laptops allow you to cheaply and easily upgrade graphics cards? CPU’s? Motherboards?

If you’re talking about desktop/tower/server rack machines, it gets easier, but cheaper? Cheaper than a new machine, maybe, but certainly not actually cheaply.

WIndows’ biggest advantage is their market share and tremendous legacy support. Linux’s strong point is its’ open source architecture. Very, very few of either machine are ever significantly upgraded.

Apple Silicon and macOS Big Sur do a great job, but at things that AAA gamers and other Windows power users aren’t particularly interested in.

This is almost exclusively due to lack of software publisher support, not hardware capability. If I knew publishers would support M-series chips, I’d buy a higher-end Mac in a heartbeat. It’s shown that in just the second real release to more than capable for gaming if the titles exist.

That is why all of these "if you use the right metrics and benchmarks Apple is still the best!"

You’ll never see me make a claim that can’t be backed by numeric data in this field. That said, I will say that, for compatible software, the M1 architecture is the best in virtually any scenario where your watts are not 100% unlimited. You can play retail World of Warcraft at 70+ FPS at full resolution and max settings for like 8-10 hours on a 32-core M1, compared to only getting 4 hours of browsing on this machine.

When my wife and I were using ShadowPC for game streaming, they recommended 75MBS availability per system for 4K streaming.

On top of that, all of our ‘TV’ is streaming, and we work from home most days right now.

I would be happy w/ 500MBS, but I’m mainly looking for the upgrade to fiber for the upload speed increases and the stability of the connection.

Microsoft didn’t buy Activision for them to stop making COD.

Who are you replying to?

and I don’t get why.

People watch season after season of live sports despite there being tons of high-quality prestige entertainment out there- more than ever. Every new COD is basically a new season of play in a game people love. It’s not that the game is groundbreaking- it’s the opposite: It’s something people know and love and can fall back into, with just enough different to give them something new to learn and stay interested.

Consolidation is a concern, but this is better than the path of self-imolation ActiBlizz has been on.