Topic: PlayStation 5 --OT--

So what do you guys think of the Xbox games being available on Switch?
We all know Ms isn't bothered about hardware sales anymore. Their focus is on trying to dominate and keep people hooked on XBL and services.
What does that imply for PS5 I wonder?
We saw JKodera promoted JRyan so he could focus on PSN and what that implies. I think native gaming on hardware regardless of internet speed is still Sony focus and to sell their platform, but yea, its PSN that makes money.

Yea its a dummy 'leak' that Ms is going to talk about Scarlet at E3. We ve all known that for a good while. Ms would get away with doing like they did for the X but not PlayStation.

@JJ2 If we are talking about connecting PlayStation Now to switch as it is. You’ll have the same problem it had on the PlayStation Vita. Different controller that the games weren’t designed to be played with.

I doubt that be willing to pay part of the subscriptions to Nintendo either. The PC is different because they keep all the subscriptions and you can connect a PlayStation controller to it.

@JJ2 If I had the option to download a port of Ori And The Blind Forest on switch I might well but I don’t think I’ll be interested in streaming microsoft games.

@JJ2 It really depends on the perspective of the individuals. There are still people that think 'Xbox' is 'just' the box of electronics that's under the TV and as such, any other platform is not acceptable if you want to classify any game as an 'exclusive'. For MS, any platform that can plat there titles, as long as you are buying from MS, playing the game on there 'network' etc, its still 'Xbox' - at least now they have renamed all of their gaming divisions as 'Xbox' including all their Studio's which were once Microsoft.

As an Xbox gamer, I couldn't care less if the Xbox exclusives are available on 'Xbox on PC', Xbox on Switch or Xbox on mobile too, I couldn't care less if others get to enjoy the same games I am enjoying - what difference does it make to me if so many others get to play these games too?

I have to buy a Playstation to play Playstation exclusives. If the Playstation is significantly better than an Xbox, it will also mean I play multi-platform games on it too, if the Xbox is better, the Playstation will only be an exclusive box. I don't play on PC, Switch or Mobile, so I will still buy an Xbox too for any Exclusives they may offer. In a perfect world, I would just buy 1 all powerful Console and be able to play 'every' game released rather than having to buy at least 2 for the games that don't run on one system or another. I don't care if only Sony or only MS gamers can play the same games I can play - I just need to know and only really care if I can play them. I have and will never understand why some gamers are more interested in what other consoles don't play or what a 'select' number of games their platform choice enables them to access. It's never mattered to me that certain gamers can or cannot play the same games I am enjoying...

If it is true that Nintendo Switch owners can play some/all Xbox games, so what? It doesn't affect me as I will still be able to play all Xbox games myself. It could work in my favour if I bought a Switch - able to play any/some of my Xbox games on the go...

It certainly seems like Sony has a walled garden approach like Apple.

@BAMozzy
I'm jot sure why you seem defensive regarding exclusive terms. I was just wondering how that could impact or somehow influence next gen for a playstation gamer (I.e. me haha)
Since you brought up the exclusive thing, I personally and selfishly think its great when games on my platform are developed and optimised for this platform alone. I'm just being pragmatic here. I hope that doesn't prompt a discussion about exclusives and how they are a good thing or not. That's not at all what I meant to discuss though.
I'd just like to try and think if that move from Ms can have any consequence on the PS5 and not having a conversation about rearranging our prejudices so to speak
Look at it this way, if it was actually possible, Ms wouldn't mind allowing their games on PlayStation consoles as long as gamers would have to use XBL, which they already tried with Minecraft if I got it right. Its of course out of the question from Sony s point of view.
In a way, that maybe a good thing for PSN to become even more attractive?

@JJ2 I am not being defensive over the term 'Exclusive', just the way others will use it to separate themselves from others or use them to either belittle others or make themselves appear more 'superior'. It annoys me more than the benefits of having games built to specifically make the most of the hardware. I have no doubt that a game like Uncharted would run better on an X (maybe actually native 4k instead of just 1440p on a Pro) and worse on the base XB1 but could and would still run regardless of which console was the lead platform and built around. Its not as if the PS4 is using radically different architecture - both are built around AMD CPU and GPU's with the same architectural family. Its basically politics that prevent games from launching on other systems - nothing else. Of course its Sony's money and Sony are publishing them for their own console only but they 'could' (not that they will) publish them for other platforms - like EA, Activision, Ubisoft etc do, rake in more money from more sales but then 'lose' that 'exclusivity' tag to those games.

I would rather see 'every' gamer have access to every game made so that they can ALL enjoy the games that they want to rather than have one group using some games as a way to make themselves seem more superior and/or belittle others. The amount of people I see listing countless exclusives that Sony have as a way to be superior over Xbox gamers and not acknowledging ALL the exclusives that they cannot play on their Console of choice because Microsoft have opted to support ALL Microsoft gamers inc those on Win 10 PC's. Then when you see the actual sales figures of a LOT of the Sony Exclusives, a lot of them seem to be bought by so very few Sony gamers - sales of 2m or less. If they are 'so' important, then why aren't more people buying them? Wouldn't it be better if they released on all available systems to actually sell more? What difference does it make if others can actually play the games you are enjoying?Are they therefore just being made for 'bragging' rights rather than for gamers to actually play and enjoy?

At the moment, with the discussion surrounding cross-platform play and the way Nintendo is open to Microsoft, its looking like there could be a Sony vs the rest of the world, Playstation vs Xbox, PC and Switch. That may not seem too bad at the moment with so many PS4's sold but could impact them next gen. Of course there will be those that will blindly buy Sony for whatever reason they want but when MS releases the next Xbox, it already has a massive user base that its joined to so any 'launch' games are not just for the 'few' that buy at launch but to a massive user base.

It would make much more sense for games like CoD or Battlefield fans to be united and play together. They are all fans of the game and would have a much better experience if they were ALL able to play together on their preferred platform - not be separated up because of Platform choice. Who actually benefits from being split up because of platform choice? It isn't MS, Sony or the gamers who spent money on these games. All it does is add more bragging rights to one of these, the one that sells more or has the 'best' numerical performance metrics but if they all played together, they would all have a much better experience, more chance to find more local gamers for better ping and a shared interest in playing the same game(s).

Exclusives are almost 'blackmail' - forcing you to buy a specific system to play those games. If they released on ALL platforms, then you don't have any reason to buy a Playstation or buy an Xbox - other than buying the one that may play games better, may have a controller that suits you better etc but you also are united as gamers not separated up into Blue vs Green. As I said, I couldn't care less that Millions didn't or can't play Uncharted, Days Gone or Forza Horizon, I just care that I can and I would much prefer that if I buy Destiny, Anthem, Division etc, that I can also play with everyone else that buys these games as we are 'all' fans.

Its mainly that separation that gives fanboys something to brag about when they aren't even buying a lot of the exclusives they are bragging about. I couldn't care less if MS opens up EVERY game to EVERY possible platform so EVERYONE can choose to play it - not be excluded. It makes NO difference to me as long as I get to play ALL the games I want and hopefully, with online games, get to play with others that also enjoy the same games I do.

I would consider any game produced for a single platform to being exclusive. If it’s later ported to a different platform that would not change the fact that it was an exclusive it would simply make the later game a port.

Exclusives are on average better than games the target many platform simultaneously.

If you want to build a single game that runs across the PS4 and Xbox One you can’t make use of the PS4 pro’s checkerboarding module or the small amount of superfast RAM and the Xbox meaning the game is like perform worse on on each system the if it had been built for it specifically.

This affect it least pronounced in the Xbox X which has the power to achieve good results even when the developers ignore it secret sauce.

@Frigate Well Blackmail is somewhat harsh terminology in this instance. Its not a criminal offence to ensure that people buy your console in order to play a game or more so it is somewhat a harsh word to have used.

Sony are forcing gamers to buy their platform in order to play their games. There is no threat or potential harm to someone who refuses to pay so they aren't exactly blackmailing anyone and you can't exactly call it a 'bribe' either as you still have to pay for both console and game. Its not Extortion either as they aren't getting you buy games with force or threats. No 'harm' will come to you if you refuse to buy their console - just won't have access to their games as a result.

I am well aware of the fact that the language I used wasn't necessarily appropriate and particularly over the top. It does annoy me though that I am forced to buy a plastic box with virtually all the same general parts (I said 'general' here as they all have an APU, RAM etc built for playing games) just because each has a 'few' Exclusives a year I will want to play but the bulk of all games will be available on both. I would much prefer to buy just one box that can play every game with Sony, MS and Nintendo just publishing their studios games like EA, Activision and Ubisoft do rather than be forced to buy several for the 'few' different games that I have to buy a specific box for.

I wouldn't mind if you got a few 'bonus' cosmetic treats for buying a 'Sony' published game on a Sony (or Sony partnered) box or buying Xbox branded games and console(s) but everyone can still play every game. It annoys me the way some people act just because of a 'choice' of box and some can't even enjoy the multi-platform games without it being about whether 'their' console has the best resolution and/or performance. DF comments are usually filled with some gamers ridiculing the Pro, the base XB1 or gamers who bought these instead of enjoying the game and/or getting at the devs to improve the game for all if none actually hit the target frame-rate.

The downside of a unified system would probably be yearly box releases as each tries to keep ahead of the other. We would end up with more competition too - as electronic giants would probably make consoles too that played all the games - like we see in the PC and Mobile world. Its not necessarily the best solution either so maybe if we can get all multi-platform online games and their gamers playing together, it may unify gamers a bit more instead of driving big wedges between people all with a common interest.

To be honest, right now, I think exclusives are doing good things for providing more choice to gamers. It is like Netflix or Amazon - they don’t need to appeal to all gamers, what they are there to do is show breadth of a catalogue and to persuade people with different tastes to invest. Third party companies want to appeal to the biggest denominator to appeal to the most people. Not many AAA publishers would have funded Bloodborne, Cuphead, BOTW etc.

It is a pain that we can’t all cross play and I do think Microsoft are going all out on subs as opposed to hardware but this gen, honestly, most of the best AAA games I have personally enjoyed have been exclusives

A unified system is a bad idea imo. It would most likely lead to an increase in prices because there will be no competition. It will be like Apple are now with their products - overpriced for what you are actually getting.

Saying Sony is forcing gamers to buy their console is a bit over dramatic if you ask me. Ninentdo are the same and so are M&S, they have only started to change in recent times because they have too.

The thing about console exclusives is that they would never happen if they weren't exclusive in the first place. Console exclusive games aren't always made to sell a ton of copies; as long as they provide good press for the system it's a win. Stuff like Dreams, The Last Guardian, the SOTC remake, Gravity Rush, etc. None of that would've happened if Sony was just another third party publishers like EA, Activision or Ubisoft.

On top of that, first party games are usually one of the best games; even if they aren't, they tend to be very polished experiences. Companies like Sony and Nintendo seem to care more about quality than meeting a deadline.

Man this sony silence is driving me nuts lol

@Frigate Yes! You heard it hear first! With the first months sub you get a free dressing gown. For some reason my spell checker always changes MS to M&S. Other predictions available are mash and mass.

@JohnnyShoulder I know a unified System may not be such a good idea. You would have so many different 'specs' and have to optimise games yourself specifically to your hardware (like PC players do). Devs could have a hard job if something works on one system but screwing up on another - especially if the OS is radically different too on each system.

I can see prices though not necessarily escalating and potentially driven hardware costs down. If anyone can make a 'console' system that plays all games, you would have more competition. You would still have the same competition for games too - assuming Physical remains an option. You may have Sony, MS and other retailers also competing in a Digital store war - you could pick which 'digital' store had the 'best' price for a certain game.

I know it won't happen, its just that I get annoyed by all the pettiness and childish behaviour of fanboys. It just really brings down the image of 'gamers' and makes us all look like petty, childish, pathetic people who spend more time fighting over the little details than they do enjoying the games. If you look at the comments section of any gaming video, its just pathetic squabbling over which version is best, taking a dig at the other console for something. Its absolutely ridiculous. Instead of uniting together and just enjoying the game on whichever console you prefer for whatever reason and, if the game isn't up to standard, uniting together to demand better, uniting together to kick out bad practices etc...

I know MS and Nintendo do exactly the same with Exclusives too btw, the thread though wasn't discussing MS's next box or Nintendo's Switch, it was talking about Sony's PS5 and therefore I only mentioned Sony. I don't have 1 rule for Sony and a different rule for MS. If I say something 'negative' about Sony because this is a Sony focussed site, that negative would apply to MS or Nintendo too. I don't need to be told that MS/Nintendo do it too as if that somehow makes it right or invalidates the 'negative' I am applying to Sony. If I don't think Sony should do something, then I don't think MS or Nintendo should either!

@Octane I am certain that Sony, Nintendo and MS would still continue to make the games they do whether there is exclusivity or not. All 3 could be just big publishers of games for a single unified system - much like any other big publisher with multiple studio's. Sony compete with Universal, Paramount etc in the movie world so could compete with EA, Ubisoft etc in the gaming world too. I am sure a lot of their games would sell more and generate much more income than they did if they were multi-platform. Just think how many games Spider-Man would of sold if PC and Xbox gamers could buy it too. Its not just how many more games Sony could have sold either but how many more games might you of bought if you could without having to spend all that extra money on a 2nd or 3rd box to play games on - would more people have bought Sunset Overdrive, Cuphead, Zelda etc if they could play it on their system. Would buying a Switch make more sense if you could take your entire Sony digital Library with you on the go - if Nintendo stick with mobile options for example.

Sony are used to making electronics to be compatible with standard formats. You can buy a 4k HDR Bluray player from Sony that works with any TV, plays CD's, DVD's, Bluray's and 4k HDR Blurays regardless of whether they are 'Sony' discs with Sony Music or Sony Movies - you buy a Sony Bluray player if its the 'best' for the money or if not, buy any other brand. Same as it was with Hifi, with Mobiles, with TV's etc. Gaming though is separated up into different factions. I know its a bit like iOS vs Android but its still annoying.

I can't see it changing and maybe it shouldn't change either. I do think though that gamers perhaps should change. I think its ridiculous that often adults (18 is still considered an Adult) are arguing over resolution or frame rate - even if its fractionally better on one system or another. Competition can be healthy for consumers but its not healthy if that also breeds animosity, disrespect and contempt...

@BAMozzy I've never said they will stop making games. But without the incentive to sell a platform, I think we would miss out on a lot of passion projects that wouldn't have been funded otherwise. So in that regard it's a good thing. And seeing how the majority of the big publishers seem to be more profit-driven than anything else, I don't really want them to join them. More than half of the games I buy every year (excluding indie games) are either Sony or Nintendo published games; and I don't think that's a coincidence.

@Octane
I agree. Exclusives are a strong, if not the main, incentive for buying a console, and therefore Sony has a strong incentive for making quality games because they are exclusives.
I think Ms has every interest to kill exclusivity and console gaming actually. That's my opinion, don't hate please haha
Seriously though, BAM is right about PSN being vs the world because XBL seeks some sort of monopoly I figure, which can't be a good thing.

@Octane I wasn't saying that Sony would stop making games, maybe not even reduce the number of games either. I don't know if the number or type of games would change either as they would be competing with the rest of the market. The biggest fear though would be whether or not they would be more pressure to release games, particularly early to meet a deadline rather than when its ready, whether Sony would look more to current trend and greenlight those or force Devs into making specific types of games etc - none of which I would want to happen either.

The way I envisioned it was more like the PC space with EA Access, Microsoft Store, Steam etc with Sony having their own Store for their own Exclusives. Subscribers could get incentives to buy from their store instead of MS's or Steam or what ever other 'store' is available but 'non-subscribers' can still buy games from each if they choose. If you subscribe to Sony for example, you get to play the game first (early access bonus) and maybe a cosmetic bonus or two - a bit like those who subscribe to EA Access, but if you just want to buy a game, no subscription, you can as well and get to play it at the time of release but still only sold on Sony's Store. Subscribing could be just like PS+ on a 'unified' system - at least more like PS3 era so no 'online' charge and incentive of free games, store discounts and early access to Sony Studio games. MS and maybe even Nintendo offering something similar.

The difference with Sony and Microsoft in particular is that they have other areas to their business which sets them apart from EA, Activision etc. Sony's Gaming division has been a major help to keeping Sony as a business with their movie and electronic hardware, camera and mobiles all taking a big hit with Korean and Chinese alternatives - able to build higher spec options at a lower cost and having a few 'duds' in the film market. I know things have picked up with the successes of Spider-Man and Jumanji. Films are a very high investment - often hundreds of millions - and can take years to recuperate any costs after home market (Bluray sales) and TV revenue comes in. Point is though, Sony and MS are not solely reliant on 'software' sales - like EA are. The fact that they could easily cut out the cost of R&D for hardware, push that cost onto say Samsung, HP, Acer etc to manufacture a device and if they get it wrong, they lose money. They will be the ones competing for hardware, driving hardware costs down for the 'best' specs possible. They could still make hardware too if they wanted but generally, all they are doing is putting 3rd party components together in a plastic box they have designed. I know they may have some say in the APU, the specifics in the chip and User Interface but its still manufactured by a 3rd party, the HDD is 3rd party, RAM is third party etc etc.

Again, I know its not likely and my vision would be such that Sony, MS and Nintendo continue to make Software that they have been synonymous with and would continue to make if the systems remained separated. I was referring to a hypothetical 'ideal' world which as we know isn't 'ideal'. As for exclusives, I tend to buy 1 or 2 a year from both MS and Sony - around 2-4 a year (depending on what releases) and around 4x as many multi-platform releases. Across both my XB1 and PS4, I have over 100 games I have bought - which averages at around 20 a year. Of those, around 20 are 'exclusives', just 1/5th so for every exclusive I buy, I have bought 4 games that could be played on either console.

I haven't bought a Nintendo game since the Wii era and not spending all that money on a Switch to play the 1 or 2 games I would actually bother with - I don't game on the go either so get value from it from that perspective either. I would much prefer to buy the 'few' games I maybe would buy on a unified system. It could be great fun to play Mario Kart or Splatoon with others on Xbox and Playstation too.

Again to reiterate, this is 'perfect world' scenario and whether it would work like that in reality or whether Sony (or the others) would become more like EA instead of continuing to produce the quality and variety of games they had been known for, I don't know. I would like to think that the same principals they employed when they were making games to entice you to buy their hardware, they would employ to entice you to subscribe to their 'store'. The only difference now being that you aren't required to buy a specific box to play their games. If their games become 'generic' or not what you expected, you cancel your subscription but not left with a box to trade in for one that is offering the type of games you want/expect. You are not forced to buy a Switch, XB1 or PS4 (depending on what your main platform is) because it has 1 or 2 games you want to play or miss out on them because you can't justify spending the money on the hardware. I see a few people that say they would like to play Cuphead, Sunset Overdrive, Rare Replay or even the Forza Horizon games but can't justify buying an Xbox just for those. In the system I envision, you could just buy those from the MS store with no obligation to subscribe to any MS service (Gold or Game Pass for example) and could just Subscribe to Sony and get a store discount, some free games and early access or even bonus cosmetics in their exclusives or partnered games. If you like Battlefield, regardless of where you buy (MS, Sony, EA Access etc) you all get to play together as one big Battlefield community - not split up into PS Battlefield, XB Battlefield and PC Battlefield, reliant on you platform's community to keep supporting the game to enable you to actually find lobbies with local players to get the best online experience. This could still happen with Cross-play of course - assuming you can actually partner up with friends and join parties regardless of system to chat. I have just gone 1 stage further where you have a generic hardware box with access to all games regardless - although as I said, you can still only buy Sony games from Sony's store (unless you buy physical - if that option continues to exist) so its still 'exclusive' to Sony but unless you subscribe, you don't get any benefits - like a discount, early access etc.

I would hope that if this ever did become a reality, that Sony would still continue with the same quality, the same mentality, the same content and the same standards too. If we do move into an 'all digital' age, the system above would benefit us consumers too - not forced to buy a game from the only store we can access as we would be able to go to steam, MS, Sony etc to buy our multi-plat releases and the prices of 'exclusives' can't be higher than other 'equivalent' games so you have competition from other digital stores - just like we have competition from high street retailers and why physical releases are often cheaper than digital.

Again, this is just an 'ideal' world type situation and I know we aren't living in an ideal world so its purely hypothetical. I do wish though that gamers were more united regardless of platform rather than trying to belittle each other or make themselves seem superior just because of a plastic box of electronics and a 'name' on that box...

@BAMozzy Having a unified system would not make the animosity disappear, you still get it between PC users, my specs are better than yours, I can get 5 more FPS than you etc. If you get annoyed by it just ignore it, don't go to the sites that there is a lot of it and so on. It doesn't personally annoy me anymore cos I've stopped going to certain sites so do not see it so much.

@JohnnyShoulder Quite possibly would still get some 'hierarchy' with those that can run the game at the highest resolution, ultra settings and best frame rate, will still get people bragging about their K/D score or arguing which First Person Shooter is the better. Its just human nature it seems - just like some people can't accept it if you like a different sports team instead of just enjoying the 'sport' and ability of players regardless of the shirt they wear.

As I said, the situation would be an 'ideal' for an 'ideal' world but its not an ideal world - I know that. Being in the middle so to speak as I own both systems just gets on my nerves - especially if you are on a site, watching a video etc that's focussed on one yet can't help belittle the other or 'troll'. For example, if I am watching a video on an Xbox exclusive, there are still Sony gamers trolling (its not an exclusive as its on PC, Sony Exclusives are better etc etc - why are you bothering to watch an Xbox based video??) as well as Xbox gamers using it to belittle Sony (this is what true 4k looks like, better than PSFauxK Pro etc - Why are you bothering to belittle a console that this game won't be released on??) - it just annoys me. Being in the middle, if I defend or criticise one with actual facts, then I am a 'Fanboy'??

I just think that if you had a unified platform, then some may comment about 'better' specs but they wouldn't know whether you have the same, better or worse spec. If you are on PC, they don't know whether you are running an i9 with a GTX2080ti and 32GB of RAM or a 4yr old i5 with a GTX970. They can brag about how many frames per second they get at a certain resolution and visual settings but can't belittle a massive group of people just because of the 'brand' on their Box. Can't brag about playing X,Y,Z games when everyone else can play them too. If you criticise MS for their games (quality and quantity), its not taken personally by a group who bought Xbox - its affecting every gamer and the one that 'suffers' is the publisher because people stop buying games in their store and buy from Sony or Steam instead. If MS are letting gamers down, you can vote with your wallet and not be stuck with a box and broken promises. You just cancel your MS subscription and maybe subscribe to Sony only. For many, trading in a console for the other isn't often an option and will affect the library of games they had bought already.

to reiterate once again - the ideal world scenario would require us to be in an ideal world to begin with where people can access any game from a 'single' platform and be united as 'gamers' - all able to enjoy the same games without any of the pettiness and ridiculous behaviour we see at times. We don't live in an ideal world and so its unlikely we will see a single format and platform for gaming. As we don't live in a perfect world, if we had a single unified platform, I know people will still continue to be petty rather than let people enjoy the games they want and at the level they are able to play at.