DLC can definitely be hit-or-miss - sometimes when it’s the same developer, or hell, even the same game. That being said, I don’t know that it’s any more hit-or-miss than, you know, videogames in general, which is why I wouldn’t mind seeing a DLC subscription tier come to GamePass. I can think of a handful of GamePass …

I’m of a similar mind - it wasn’t an out-of-the-park home run, but it committed to its characters and its narrative, and really did its best to flesh out its world and develop its tone, rather than just being an icon-chaser in the Ubisoft style.

Not as far as I know, though I did appreciate that when they did it - I had a fun afternoon or two playing through the single-player story of that expansion. I also kind of assumed part of the reasoning there was to have a larger audience for the newer multiplayer stuff that was added with that expansion as well (so…

I hadn’t seen that; thanks!

I’m pretty much assuming the only reason they haven’t done it yet is that it would be... really complicated on their end, financially. Do they have to pay out to the developers for every piece of DLC that’s released? That’s downloaded? That’s actually played? (Admittedly, thanks to NDAs, we don’t really have any idea…

I keep waiting for Microsoft to add a ‘pay an extra three bucks a month, get access to all DLC’ tier to GamePass. I mean, I’d go for it, for sure.

I mean, I think it’s a little unfair to say that I’m making these assumptions about what they’re planning to do... and then turn around and do the same thing yourself, just in the opposite direction. I think Hellblade 2 is a great example, actually: it’s clearly a step up from the original, budget-wise, but I don’t…

I agree with the vast majority of what you’re saying, honestly; as someone who hasn’t played Returnal, from the outside looking in it seems to fit pretty squarely into Sony’s wheelhouse of ‘third-person single player action games with a strong narrative focus’ - but, again, I’m basing that purely on…

No, for the purposes of ‘this specific metaphor about production strategy’, Microsoft would be Netflix, in that they seem to be aping Netflix’s general strategy toward content, whereas Sony is hewing closer to Disney’s strategy for Disney+. (Or Warner’s strategy with HBOMax, if taking Disney out of the equation helps.)

Six of one, half a dozen of the other, really;  my point is more that ‘high production value/relatively broad appeal programming’ - in contrast to ‘large quantity/narrowly-focused programming’ - is the same strategy Sony’s adopting, regardless of how well (or poorly) you think HBO or Disney is managing to successfully…

Oh, that’s absolutely what they’re going for - and it’s not that it’s somehow a bad idea or anything, it’s just weird that it’s exactly the same design Microsoft has used at their last handful of E3-type events. Same slanted bars, same ‘interspersing the well known, iconic characters from the major franchises/studios…

That’s fair; it’s not that I think it’s inherently ineffective, just that it just seems weird that the two took such similar approaches: put them side by side, and I’d have to stare for a second (probably going ‘which one has Master Chief and which one has Nathan Drake?’) to tell them apart.

I’ve got both streaming services (just like I’ll eventually own both consoles), and I think there’s value to be had in both models: yes, I watch Netflix more often than Disney+, but Disney+ also hasn’t had anything I’ve gotten bored of and quit watching, either, which is two thirds of the Netflix shows I try/GamePass…

Thank you; I’m rather proud of it.

To me, the different approaches seem to go hand-in-glove with the different strategies; Microsoft is focused on GamePass, which means they’re looking for a variety of studios to keep the constant flow of content coming, and Sony is focused on marquee console-selling titles - they want every Sony-owned game to make a…

Apologies; ‘ire’ wasn’t really the effect I was going for. More ‘mild bemusement’.

So when was it that ‘slanted lines featuring characters from our various IPs’ became ‘how console developers showed off how many studios they owned’? I mean, is it me, or is that not exactly how Microsoft does it as well? (And it was... pretty uninspired there, too, as visual design goes.) I get that the desire is to…

I’d tend to assume Activision would be more likely to talk with Microsoft - rather than, say, Ubisoft - just because they already have lines of communication open about Activision games coming to Xbox in the first place. (The same would be true for Sony, or Nintendo, or any other ‘console developer that also publishes…

Honestly, best case scenario might be for them to go episodic with the campaign; release the first, say, two chapters with the multiplayer, then roll out a new chapter every couple of months, along with new content for the F2P side. (That’d be a big risk to take with their landmark franchise, though, so I doubt…

This far out, especially. I mean, by late early September, they should be able to say ‘November’, and by October, they should have a firm date, just for marketing/retailer purposes, but in mid-June? It’s just not necessary. It’s not as though they’re not having conversations with Activision (or whomever) about release…