@girlusocrazy: I wasn't really talking about crossplay, and I think that something like FPS crossplay is really viable in terms of how the controllers work. Either one side is limited or the other is aided (traditionally, by default, console games tend to provide a lot of aim asist), or everyone must use similar controllers. Or course being able to play with friends on either platform is fine. Technically, a developers could support crossplay. Microsoft did work with Sega to support crossplay on Dreamcast, and PS2 had some titles that supported crossplay between Windows. Technically it has always been possible, if all parties involved would bother to allow/support it, and in my opinion this is something that should be forced by requiring these businesses to built their devices in a way that would make their network features open in a way that developers could freely utilize if they wish. And I simply mean that, for example, the network hardware shouldn't be crippled to prevent this kind of communication or other similar artificial blockers, which is why crossplay hasn'r really been a thing. Especially these days consoles are basically stripped down PC's and use the same hardware and claiming that "it isn't technically possible" (by any side) is complete bs.

As for exclusivces, I'm fine with timed exclusitivity, on PC too. I even support it. As an example, I waited half a year for Borderlands 3 to come to Steam since it was an Epic exclusive. I didn't buy it from Epic because it is another platfrorm that really doesn't offer anything other than exclusives and free games (where th F are usability and quality of life features - Steam is full of them, Epic has basically been almost unchanged now for... a few years already I think). Same with EA who repalced Origin with the EA App - which is almost the same, except it has less features than Origin did (backend could be updated without crippling the UI).

Supporting Steam on a console is yet another exclusivity deal that has really have nothing to do with publishers or developers (minus Valve, and possible 3rd party deals). Despite me ahving been a steam user since the first year.

Intel/AMD differences do not prevent a game from working just fine on both. FSR, DLSS etc. are not something that are necessary for a game tu function, unless the developer intentionally does it. Additionally, most AMD specific technologies are fully open for any developer to support, and even Nvidia is free to support them in their hardware (which only costs the effort and a company as big as Nvidia, it would be pocket change, yet instead they keep on rebranding the same SPU's with little tweaks, new names and a new hefty price tag).

Chrome OS isn't really comparable to Windows, Mac OS or Linux (meaning Linux that is actually geared for gaming) as it isn't something you install on any PC. Nothing prevents publishers from publishing on all viable (reasonably suitable) platforms. Mac OS is also suitable for gaming although traditionally Apple hasn't really been very active in marketing it to that crowd (nor should they unless they really wish to actively support it), but it is very much a platform that can be supported if publishers bother to do so. Obviously there are some exceptions that actually require very high end hardware, like Star Citizen that actually just can't be run on lower end harware.

Consoles games also have bugs but sadly they tend to be better supported than many PC games. It is also common to see older games not run on newer platforms but at least on PC you can actually play them which is something that has just now come to

Obviously people gravitate towarda consoles for their simplicity. Personally though, I am incapable of enjoying FPS (for example) games on consoles, not because of the hardware itself, but because moving characters around with a controller is just so slow and sluggish that I always feel like I could go get coffee before I have turned around or aimed somewhere. I'm like five times faster with my own movs in reality for god sakes. I really hate it, honestly, it is really one of the few things in life that I really, truly, hate. :D To me PC's are also actually kind of simpler, exactly because I can troubleshoot things myself, replace parts and choose what apps I use for whatever task. On consoles, I have always been stumped as to how boring their internal features are and how little customization and personalization I can do with them. Its like iOS vs. Android where Apple decides how you do things while on Android you can basically change almost everything to you liking (oversimplification). Sports, driving, platformers.. those I can play with a console. Then again, I also dislike streaming services very much - not because I have to pay for them, but because I canät use whatever platform and player I wish as a player (which is why I run my own Emby and Plex media servers 24/7, that I can access anywhere, anytime, with anything). I just wish to control things myself instead of someone doing and deciding things for me.

Or maybe people just are so simple these days that they only want one button to press so that they don't have to use their brains to choose between a few options? I kind of feel like it quite often these days. And as long as this post is, there are bound to be those who can't muster the energy to read it (then again, there are actually people who can't even write these days because it isn't actually something they learn to do in school anymore). And everyone is in so much much hurry it is exhausting. Just relax, put you feet up and your phones down, close your eyes, take it easy. :D

@girlusocrazy:Yeah, Sony has (finally) started to publish a lot on PC too. In my opinion exclusivity limits competition and if a hardware can reasonably support a game, then it should be a requirement to release it on a platform. And considering that all consoles have been AMD based for years, supporting all platforms shouldn't even be especially difficult. Kind of how operator locked mobile device sales are banned by law here in Europe. Then the hardware and services would actually matter more because consumers would be free to choose what platform they want based on it rather than what additional software (games) they get for it. But since the US business model being what it is, this will probably never happen. Though I am still surprised that Sony has adopted PC, since it used to be the one completely against interoperability. Consoles are a perfect example of anti-consumerism where people are forced to buy two (or three, if you count Nintendo) devices for the same function just to be able to use a specific software that could be very well run on them all.If they cost a hundred dollars, it would be diffrent but since they cost like 400-600 dollars, that easily makes way over 1000 $ and that is a lot of money for many people. You can already get a viable gaming PC with that price, and it will easily last longer than any console will as PC games can be adapt to hardware of different levels.

Technically Microsoft's been in the hardware business for a long time, even way before the first Xbox came out. They've been a peripheral manufacturer for ages and once were one of the most used mouse/keyboard brands, especially on the business side (these days the Surface brand is probably the most visible of their brands). So it isn't something that they just jumped into out of nowhere.

As for gaming (consoles), you are right that it isn't about hardware sales. It hasn't really been about hardware sales for several generations (despite that being a metric that is shouted about everywhere). There is a reason why Sony has had a habit of handing out free PS3-PS5s on side with their new TV's and Xperia's. I used to work in sales after sales (in Finland though, but still) and console sales didn't make money for anyone (they just covered expenses). Some stores didn't even bother to order them because there was zero money to be made with their sales (if you didn't sell games, and here most sales have been digital for a long time). It has been about game and subscription sales for a looong time, and there is a reason why multiplayer has been behind a paywall on consoles (while on PC it has been free).

It would be fun to see a movie that actually told the story of a game, or god forbid, a game series. Like simply as the original story is, not as some adaptation where they take the concept, put it in a blender and then put together the a few things and stamp the name on them (kind of what they more recently have done with Halo, Witcher and Assassin's Creed). The first season of Fallout was actually pretty good. The Borderlands movie could have been epic but it kind of didn't bother to give the characters anything much to say and intead it was like some side quest without dialogue and story (visuals were ok, and the cast could have done much much better if they actually had gotten something to work with). What this will be remains to be seen.

@jsatch87: Most longer format shows have much more side content and plots, and they usually explore individual characters more too, including non-regular characters. Streaming shows are targeted, condensed and short. While they are often great entertainment, they are still much shorter and for me (personally), they are usually too short to actually build up anything other than what the main plot happens to be.

All digital sets are used very often these days and actually seeing characters interact with their surroundings seems to be rarer and oftentimes action (movement and interaction) is halted when someone has something to say. For example, I highly appreciate how in The Expanse The Roci was an actual physical set with multiple areas where the actors could move and do stuff while having a conversation instead of stopping the world from turning while they are talking. Something like the MCU has been great for me because we have gotten multiple intertwined movies and shows that build up this large universe, and this is kind of what I mean where many old shows had much more going on. For DC the Arrowverse did great. Simply put, in something like the X-Files Mulder and Scully had hundreds of "adventures" in addition to the main plots. Borderlands movie was also another wasted opportunity - considering how much source material there is in the games, it actually used almost none of it.

These are of course my personal opinions and/or interpretations. I have not been in a single set nor do I have any inside information. I am also not reviewing things here. I just kind of want to see living worlds with more going on instead of a few key characters going from a to b and not doing anything else on the side, however epic that single journey might be. I don't know how else to explain it. It just feels poorer to me than it used to. I am also not a native English speaker so I might explain things in overly complicated manner.

@jsatch87: Heh. I didn't say all. Expanse is one of my all time favorite shows and one of the reasons is that it has a bit more going on. But it is still rather short and it also kind of ended too early.

Squid game doesn't really interest me that much and I haven't yet watched Severance. But still 10 episodes and then yoy wait two years for more and have already forgotten about it. In the 90's and early 00's we got 20+ episodes/year and I was actually truly waiting for a new season to start. And though not all filler episodes were especially good, they often gave much more substance to individual characters and had nothing to do with any major plotlines. These days I have to rewatch the previous seasons to really get into it again. Then again some people just watch, for me it is about immersion. Visually new shows are higher quality for obvious reasons but that isn't a huge thing for me in comparison to other parameters.

Last of Us Seaosn 1 was also great but it's been forever since it came out and we are still waiting for season 2. Andor? Ahsoka? Even without Covid these tak forever to produce these days.

Mass Effect 2 is pretty much the only game where I truly cared about the characters. Obviously there have been plenty of other great characters but never have I felt them matter more than they did in ME2 (and the trilogy as a whole, obviously). I just hope that ME4 will reach this level of character involvement.

Then again I love side stories, meaningful (recurring) guest stars and other side content in TV too. I am saddened that these days we mainly see these short and condensed streaming shows which tend to have only one main plot and very little additional world building or activity outside of that. They aren't necessarily bad but they are kind of simple because they lack that depth. They are also so short that you have watch them fully in a day and that is not enough time for me to really care about the characters on any deeper level. And games are about super large open worlds which usually serve no real purpose for anything other than loot, and/or multiplayer which I do not find especially relaxing or even interesting anymore.

The only things that Square Enix has been involved with I can think of would be the newer Tomb Raider and Deus Ex games. But since they sold Crystal Dynamics and Eidos (with some others) and got rid of those IP's, I don't really care about any of their remainning stuff (not that I've tried all of it, but still)...

@DeadManRollin: Interestingly for me Odyssey is perhaps the worst AC game so far. Not because it is a bad game but because it really isn't about assasinations and that sneaky stealthy stuff that the series was based on. Now it's like most open world games (especially Ubisoft ones) where loot plays a big part, meaning that things are rewarded by random loot (they are kind of like loot shooters set in ancient times). In older AC games you had challenges, vaults with puzzles, etc. that offered loot but it was dedcated and usually included a story behind it. Instead of simply being another random leveled iteration of some same regular weapon. I don't really care how many dozen different weapons, bombs or special moves there are. First and foremost I care about the story and characters, and the setting and some specialized game mechanics that add meaning to the aforementioned (not mechanics that are there just to make players spend time collecting random loot and recources). In most games I stick to one a a few weapons and equipment that get the job done for me and everything after that is just money, upgrade crafting recourse or paperweight if the game has no such systems.

You also mentioned "sneaking in to a camp and assassinating unsuspecting foes just never gets old!" but why actually bother doing that anymore since you can just run in there, hack them to pieces and be done in like half the time. I mean, you could do that in the older games too but stealth was far more efficient and you easily got everwhelmed.

In Origins my biggest anemy was fire, snakes and much higher level Phylaks. Everything else, after the leveling up a little from the beginning, became just a nuicanse that was there just to slow down the game's progression. In Odyssey fire can be put out, snakes are nearly as deadly and when you encounter much higher level mercenaries they just tell you that you are too low level for them to bother and go on their way.

@gns: I very much agree with most points though I feel like Origins is more polished. What I mean by this is that what Origin has works fine, while Odyssey introduces a lot of new systems and mechanics but most of them are more or less useless (unless the player just wants to spend, or waste, time kicking up the factions, random mercenaries or sinking ships for random loot). Combat system, especially bows and arrows work much better in Odyssey and some of the new mechanics seem interesting and in the beginnig I was hopefull that some of the base building, assassin recruitment and area control systems were making a comeback. Until they turned out to be dumbed down to a bore that were there just to make the player to spend time doing nothing worthwhile, for random loot rewards. I mean, do people really love loot and different weapons that much these days? Because in most games, I tend to have only a handfull of weapons that I use and everything else is meaningless.

Crew recruitment, ship upgrade system, recourse collecting - things that were great in AC 3 and 4, is either meaningless or way too simplified. It used to be you had to attack recourse conwoys or special merchant ships to gather a lot of recourses, and you could also buy them. Not so here, you just run around and hope that you find some tree saplings and shiny rocks. Even hunting has lost it's appeal as now you just shoot everything that moves and that is it - at least in 3 there was a certain aspect of respect towards nature in it and there were also some hunting side missions and in 4 whaling didn't happen just by pushing a button. King of like most side quests.

Origins and Odyssey both feel like loot shooters with some RPG elements on top, and neither one has almost nothing to do with the old sneaky feel of the old AC games. Stealth is still there as an option but it too has been dumbed waaaay down and there really isn't any reason to be stealty unless you just really want to. In this, Odyssey is even worse than Origins.

These days Ubisoft's library is starting to feel like most of their major fanchises just reuse the same open world base, just baked into different setting. AC, WatchDogs, GhostRecon (like AC, just in modern times with firearms and gadgets in place of swords and eagle vision). FarCry too. The Division is the only one that feels different. AC should be, first and foremost about stealthy well thoughout assasinations of specific targets with minimal loss of life, in historical settings.