It's a weird situation for me because Guardians had so many highs and lows... the first movie and the PS4 game are pretty good, the game is better than the movie actually (even if the gameplay was pretty bare bones). However, I tried the comics... they are not good, kinda all over the place, Star Lord has zero charisma (typical boyscout "leader", bland, like Cyclops in space).. and the second Guardians movie is really awful imo, cartoonish moments, repetition of themes. So even if I am still finishing the game right now, I am not excited for more Guardians content. And by the way, Rocket does expose his entire background in the game, it's sad and melodramatic, but I honestly didn't felt anything. If the movie will show up exactly the same story bits, I can see some people getting "emotional"... but CGi talking animals don't affect me anymore, which is sad, I got older and more cynical for this kind of stuff
@spectral: The best advantage of PC is exactly the "future proof" aspect, you just have to "build" a PC once, then you salvage it for years and years. In the long run you spent way less if compared to consoles. And the major disadvantage of PCs was the lack of ports, but for a long time now the PC is receiving tons of ports, even Sony jumped on the bandwagon (which defeats the point of buying a Xbox even more, you can't play God of War on a Series X). Everything you said is true, it's unfair to compare a $800 PC with a Series X, but think about the future, when the Xbox Zeta arrives (it is always a terrible name, the Xbox branding is awful), let's say this console will cost $600, but you will only need $300 to stay up to date. And with $800 you can easily outperform a PS5, currently you can buy a refurbished RX 6700 XT for $200, this GPU is two cycles ahead the PS5 GPU (still, I give you that, the current PC ports are awful, the 6700 is struggling to run games designed to run on a RTX 2070, the industry is in a terrible state right now)
@tajeraich: Exactly, it's bizarre how the media want us to feel "sorry" for giant conglomerates. The cinema industry is not earning as much money, the Xbox is struggling, etc.. who cares, we are supposed to feel sorry about them? Late capitalism sucks, governments and the industry want us to keep consuming nonstop, but there has to be a limit for that. Capitalism reinforced the need for improvement, creativity and so on... but this thing is going for so long, it's getting unsustainable. Some bright minds needs to come up with a new political philosophy before we consume everything like a bunch of locusts
@majikayo666: The "entry level" for consoles are indeed way easier, of course that will be enticing for many people. But the videogame market is already reaching a level of maturity, this industry is 40+ years old, the longer you keep offering the same product, people will get naturally tired and look for alternatives (or other hobbies entirely). And the alternatives are the mobile market and PC to some (small) extent. Japan for example, they pretty much abandoned consoles in favor of playing on phones or the Switch, they got tired of the "home console" formula. China seems to have ditched consoles as well, Korea, etc.. the asian markets are moving to something else (of course they did not abandoned consoles completely, I'm not talking about the extremes, but they play games more on mobile than anything else). And no wonder, Japan was a pioneer as home console goes, they are experiencing the same bullshit for decades.
Maybe it's just a matter of time for some regions in Europe to do the same, I am portuguese and I honestly don't know many people who actually own a console (even less so a PC), they are all addicted to their phones... in Brazil however, many people takes advantage of piracy on PC, they rarely move to a nextgen console because they are still using the old consoles that are unlocked for piracy, etc.. If you think about what the PS5 offers nowadays, it is not that much different if compared to the Super Nes: you have a dedicated machine were you can play games on it... and that's it. The PS5 has some multimedia capabilities, but they can't even be compared with a PC, nowadays there's a lot more alternatives if compared to the Super Nes days, you can keep up with the "gaming" hobby and do so much more if you try different machines and services, more people are noticing that every day.
So the home console market is stagnated, there's a huge influx of new consumers (the pandemic played a key role in that), some are getting hooked by the hobby, etc.. but it will only be a matter of time for them to analyze the situation and look for cheaper/better alternatives. And Microsoft is preparing themselves for that, when streaming takes over in like 10, 15 years from now, they will offer a streaming technology that will only require a screen and nothing else, it will not be expensive and weird like the Google Stadia, that will pretty much be the beginning of the end for the home console "formula"... and really, I can't see Nintendo or Sony competing against that, they don't have the same infrastructure. Hell, Nintendo can't set up a online match of Smash Bross currently, imagine streaming the whole thing? So the Activision purchase should never be a thing imo, because when streaming becomes accessible Microsoft will literally engulf the videogame market, killing the competition. I talked positively about PC as an alternative, but PC users knows very well how the Microsoft monopoly is AWFUL, consumers should avoid monopolies at any cost (yes, that also goes for the people who are not willing to buy their PC games in other store fronts, they only buy on Steam and nothing else... bloody idiots smh)
@spectral: I was talking about the expenses. A Xbox Series X is priced at $500, with smart purchases and if you stay "humble" with some key parts like the GPU, you can invest like $700, $800 tops to build up a decent PC. I know many people assume the PC costs double the price if you build it from zero (if that was really the case, then sure, the console is a much better deal), it can be expensive indeed, but only if you mess up your choices. And at the moment you have the bases in place, if the PC is "future proof" enough, when the console cycle shifts you just have to upgrade one or two components. For example, in my case I will just have to pay $250 for a refurbished GPU and I will be ready for the PS5 generation.
So really, it's not space science, anyone can do it (especially nowadays with the internet offering tons of "guides", performance comparisons, etc). Consoles charge a extra monthly fee to allow their users to play online, which is a complete absurd, there's no such thing on PC. So PC users also have this advantage, at the long run they will most likely expend less in a cycle (6 to 8 years) if compared to console users, even if the entry level is more expensive. I am admittedly a cheapskate (which is the opposite of the whole "PC master race" stupidity, those people burn money irrationally), for me it's all about convenience at a cheaper price... if I can have a multi purpose machine that can allow me to keep playing the hobby at a cheaper price in the long run, why the hell should I even consider the Xbox console who can only provide the "gaming" hobby and nothing else? It's simply illogical. I guess there's many Xbox users who are noticing the obvious with time, why be limited to a "gaming" machine only if you can have those same functionalities on a PC? And Microsoft itself recognizes that, they don't care if you have a PC or Xbox, as long as you are consuming their software it's all fine, the whole premise of the gamepass is just that, Microsoft is preparing itself for the long run (which means streaming, with just a screen and internet connection you can play their content, no reason to be limited to a secondary machine to make that "connection")
@mooglestar: They make profit through the subscription, this is not space science. If they are struggling to make a profit through the subscription service (they are not), then changes are necessary. I think this is a obvious PR move, Microsoft has infinite money (they can buy both Sony and Nintendo tomorrow if they wish), they can sustain the gamepass forever until there's like 100 million subscribers, so they are just fine. But to play the victim is a good PR move to justify the Activision purchase, the Xbox "needs saving"
@majikayo666: Those are not PS2 graphics, not at all, lol I am not a big fan of cartoonish looking games either, but to call them "PS2 looking" is a dumb exaggeration
Either Microsoft is trying to play the "victim" for PR reasons, the Xbox line of products are such in a "precarious" position (many quotations), the Activision purchase is justified. Or Gamepass indeed canibalize sales, which affects profits in a negative way (I doubt that's the case).
Either way, let us be frank, the Xbox overall is a shitty product, especially ever since the PC platform is sharing the "exclusives" with the Xbox and then some, because you have the Xbox platform on PC + every console in existence through emulation + PC exclusives, etc, etc.. the point is, there's no logical reason for anyone to buy a Xbox console if you can invest a little bit more to acquire/build a decent PC. And beyond that obvious disadvantage, it's not like the Xbox exclusives are that good either, the Xbox Live is a good service by default because Sony and Nintendo don't have the same infrastructure, the Xbox Series S is a good idea on paper but this potato is affecting the overall quality of the software... So really, I have nothing against the Xbox as a brand, competition is necessary, but I will not sugar coat and pretend Microsoft is doing a good job ever since the original Xbox days, they are only still around because they have this cursed monopoly over the Office software + Operation System, that generates infinite revenue. If they were dependent on the Xbox division to be alive (like Sega used to do), they would have died in the Xbox One generation, that thing was a disaster
Honestly, from my experience playing alongside Lifeweaver players (obviously I will never spent a single cent on a game like this, FOMO luckily does not affect me), he is performing decently, healing a lot (almost at the same level of Ana), no damage whatsoever tho... and he has tons of survivability with the platform and dashing (if he stays at range, always, that's why his damage sucks). Seems like a balanced character, there's no reason to buff him. Supports are not supposed to swing the match around (like Ana and Kiriko are able to do, they are overtuned and always picked), as the name of their role implies, they support and keep the team afloat, imo the tank and dps should be the ones responsible for the most impactful plays. If Lifeweaver can damage more and still maintain his healing output with the bullshit tree (his total healing numbers are inflated because of his ult, similar to Zen), he will become overtuned
GleenCross' comments