BAMozzy

@daveofduncan At the end of the day, 10yrs is a very long time in gaming and MS really doesn't have any obligation to keep CoD, Spyro, Crash or any other of their own IP's on ANY hardware. Who knows if CoD or Consoles will even exist in 10yrs time - you could be playing via a Subscription service - like signing up to Netflix, Disney+ etc - you sign-up to Game Pass and/or PS+ to play games on any device - the TV's of the future may well offer Game Pass/Playstation+ apps without needing to spend $600+ to play so the 'console' may not exist in the way we know it today.

CoD may well be 'exclusive' to Game Pass for example but as a gamer, you'd still be able to access it on the 'same' devices you can play Sony's games via their Playstation Subscription service. If Sony have a console in 10yrs, then Xbox can 'sell' you the product but if not, they are NOT going to spend millions developing games to give them away 'free' to their competitors subscription service.

I can see a time when Game Pass is available on PS and PS+ on Xbox. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but if you can only stream games on the competition, but get perks (local, offline play for example) on your own platform, there is still an incentive to buy Hardware. You could play Starfield via streaming on PS, but games like Spider-Man play locally or stream Spider-Man on Xbox but Starfield plays locally for example but then each Company has the same Reach, Gamers everywhere can still play every game etc...

@thefourfoldroot1 The deal is to continue releasing the game on Playstation Hardware at the same day with the same content for Gamers to BUY - just like it releases on Xbox and PC.

On Xbox/PC, you can 'choose' to Subscribe to Game Pass and part of that service is offering brand new games day and date. However, if you are not a Subscriber, you still have to buy the game - just like you do on Playstation. I doubt MS will give CoD away to PS+ day and date, Sony don't do it with their own games so how can you expect MS to after spending their time and money on development? Sony would need to pay MS for that, just like MS has to pay 3rd Party Publishers to put their games into Game Pass...

Essentially, MS would become a 3rd Party Publisher (like A/B, EA, Ubisoft etc) on Sony/Nintendo platforms and should expect the 'same' treatment as those. Minecraft is a Microsoft game, will be releasing their new 'spinoff' (Avatar Legends) day and date on PS (as Xbox, PC etc) and will also be available in Game Pass but not PS+ (unless Sony negotiates with MS to pay them to put it on).

Instead of looking at MS as 'purely' a platform and competitor, look at them as a '3rd Party' publisher for Minecraft and 'soon' CoD. The only difference between MS and A/B is that Sony can't 'negotiate' timed and/or 'exclusive' extras to artificially weaken its competitors or market the game as if its an exclusive anymore with MS as the Publisher.

@Dezzy70 I'd also add MSFS into that list - nothing has come close to the scale and scope of that game, and the way it has continued to be enhanced as a packaged with regular free updates - and on a Console too....

No disrespect to any Exclusives released for either console, that game is truly 'next-gen' and on a scale no other game has yet demonstrated. GoW:R is a 'last gen' game with the visuals/frame rates boosted by next gen hardware for example - its not a Next-Gen game built with scale and freedom potentially opened up by 'next gen' hardware...

Anyway, that's a bit off-topic. All Price increases to me just increase the 'value' of Game Pass. I know for 'some' its still about 'exclusives' to justify the cost despite the 'value' of games you get access to each month regardless...

But you know some will do the maths based on maybe 2 or 3 Exclusive games per year vs cost of GP over a year and think its 'not worth it', but now if they see 3 or 4 with numerous others (like Hellblade, Fable, Perfect Dark etc as well to come) and think that now it's better value. That same mentality that thought Game Pass had 'no value' this year with 'no big first party games' after Starfield/Redfall were delayed.

If they still want to buy, the 'option' remains, but it will cost you and Game Pass would give you 20% off if you want to buy after you've played it enough to decide you want to 'keep' and/or 'support the devs' - in the case of Indies, it does!! So in the long run, its whether or not that 'extra' to not be a GP subscriber is worth it to the 'individual' and a price hike will push some more over that threshold...

It could also be a good ploy to push more people to their Subscription service. MS announced that growth on Console for Game Pass had somewhat stagnated and not seen the 'growth' they expected.

When faced with paying $210 for Starfield, Redfall and Forza (for example) as well as other 3rd Party Publishers who also now adopt the $70 price point, or paying a 'small' monthly fee to play all three (and other games), they maybe more inclined now to Subscribe.

I will 'never' pay more than £50 for a game and only if that game delivers on what it promised - inc perfect frame rate performance and 'all' content at launch. If I cannot purchase a game for £50 or less, I am more than happy to wait for the inevitable price drop/sale or even check the used game market. When games were supposedly $60 (would be Digitally from Sony/MS store), I could find them for $45-50 to 'pre-order' from Game, Amazon etc as they were 'competing' for my money.

There are always 'whales' that will buy games the day they release but with MANY games, that's when they are often the 'weakest' package and most expensive price. It's often better to wait a few months (or more) for the devs to actually make the game 'playable' after rushing it out with the 'barest' content, promises of expansions etc. I'll vote with my Wallet - its not as if I don't have games in my backlog as well as 'free' games every month thanks to Sub services like PS+ and GPU so I don't 'need' to buy day 1 to have something to play - I have more than enough to keep me busy, keep me playing until the inevitable Sale or price drops. No 'cosmetic' or early 'beta' access for pre-ordering or buying at launch is 'incentive' enough to warrant spending more than £50 to play Day 1...

Well this news just reinforces my decision to wait on this, not pre-order or purchase 'near' launch - maybe wait until they offer a 'complete' edition at a price I'm willing to pay.

I am more excited to see Dead Space return and whilst it isn't entirely 'new' like the Callisto Protocol, it still appeals more to me.

@Hindenburg Depends on the Country's laws. There is such a thing as 'unfair' dismissal and numerous other laws to protect employees. You can't be 'fired' for refusing to work unpaid overtime or excessively long hours for example - so if they fired you for that, you have a legitimate case to take the company to court.

You can't fire someone for the colour of their skin, their gender etc regardless of whether you pay them whatever Severance pay they are 'legally' entitled to either...

Being fired can have a detrimental impact on that person and their ability to find employment - especially in 'skilled', highly competitive environments. Companies maybe reluctant to hire someone who has just been fired - especially if they have a lot of alternative options. So it can be important to prove that you are the 'innocent' party and was 'unfairly' dismissed by a 'poor/badly run' company.

I don't know the actual details here so I can't comment on the situation, the laws of the Country etc so I don't know if they can get in trouble but it seems as though it may go to court to be resolved.

@Gloamin Quality of experience will mean something different to everyone and not needing to be connected to fixed box may well be a Quality feature to them. The games could run much faster and with 'higher' visual settings - thanks to DLSS 3. If you have to hit 90fps (min) that doesn't allow much time to the GPU to render a frame so having a higher resolution screen isn't any better than playing a game on much higher spec hardware connected to a 1080p monitor at double the frame rate

PSVR2 isn't compatible with PSVR so all those who invested in the first, now lose their library but there is an extensive library on PC and you can spend as much as a PS5 and PSVR2 combined to have a 'better' quality headset with a much larger library - spend around the same as PSVR2 for 'better' spec headsets or spend less for standalone devices and or cheaper spec but still access to the 'SAME' games, same experiences, same story/plot/game-play...

Quality can depend on the hardware and whilst Metaquest may not have the specs etc, its a 'better' value and bigger library all-in-one VR device for £400 - with a game - yet you'd need to spend at least £1000+ to get into PSVR2 because you need to buy a PS5 and Game too - with MetaQuest, you don't need to buy anything else...

I could probably 'match' or beat what PSVR2 will offer for years for the same cost and my 3080ti PC so is this really going to help push VR into more mainstream gaming, where Devs/Publishers willing and able to spend AAA budgets making the expansive, rich games that sell 'millions' or more a 'niche/fanboy' that a very small percentage have and so limits the amount of sales, and therefore desire to make AAA budget games for...

Its not helped by annoying some of those who may of invested in PSVR and have a 'decent' library to have to start all again - and at ~$600+ (headset/game assuming they have a PS5 already) that's a LOT to ask...

Time will tell but what someone values as being worth 'more' (like resolution) another may value other aspects as worth more, better 'quality' - like game Library, untethered experience etc. Its the same with TV's too - some are more than happy with their 10yr old HD TV and get the SAME enjoyment, same 'games', same stories etc as someone with a 'better quality' brand new 4k HDR OLED TV. Is Switch a Low Quality product with games no-one wants to play because its specs aren't on the same 'quality' level as a PS5. Maybe they would prefer to play Doom at its 'quality' wherever they want that makes it a better quality experience to them than having to be tethered to specific place and can't just play when you want like you can with Switch so which offers a better quality experience in that situation??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo0FbOcjaLk Interesting take from Hoeg....

@Gloamin Quality is relative - having a higher resolution doesn't necessarily mean its a 'better' product for example. Its difficult to compare and/or contrast at the moment so we don't know yet whether the difference in costs translate to a 'better' experience or not.

A PS4 Pro doesn't necessarily provide a 'better' quality gaming experience - especially less so if you have a 1080p Screen because any advantage of higher resolutions is negated. Its the same with Series S and Series X - both play the same games and provide the 'same' experience on a 1080p screen. The difference in resolution or graphical settings is reduced, if not negated by reducing the image down to fit into a 1920x1080p container and if you don't get 120fps modes, that doesn't matter because your TV only supports up to 60fps anyway - so the extra £200 to get a 'better' quality image is nullified.

Of course, if you have a 4k TV, the difference between 1440p and native 4k is more obvious, but still doesn't really change the 'quality' of the Game-play, the story, the writing, the setting etc, its still the 'same' game just presented at a slightly lower resolution. From what I have seen, PSVR 2 games don't look to have the same Visual Quality as the equivalent 'flat screen' traditional style games. Call of the Mountain looks like it has more in common with the PS4 version of Forbidden West - although I will admit I'm basing that on video trailers more than personal experience.

I doubt Beat Sabre or Superhot VR or whatever 'multi-platform' VR releases will be all that different to play on PSVR2 compared to Metaquest. Of course, PSVR 2 will have exclusives too and these will no doubt be cited as quality reasons to 'buy' PSVR2. It makes sense if you have a PS5, but if you want to explore VR, Metaquest 2 probably provides a much more varied and 'better' VR experience overall for less money and there is also a wider choice of headsets, costs etc to suit a variety of budgets etc.

As I alluded to, Metaquest is a Standalone unit - maybe not the 'best' experience to game that way, but still offers some advantages over PSVR2. It can be connected to PC's to boost performance etc and whilst it may have a 'lower' resolution screen, could play games with much higher visual quality settings (inc RT) and much better performance so is that 'better' quality than a higher res image but lower quality settings and/or lower frame rates? Its like XB1X may have a higher resolution than Series S but the visual settings are much lower, less objects/details in the world, worse shadows etc and at 30fps vs 60fps+ on Series S. I know I'd rather play on Series S myself than XB1X

@Gloamin And Metaquest 2 with a game costs about £400.

To play PSVR2, you need at least £1k of hardware if you buy the Digital only PS5 which only increases if you prefer to own Discs.

Its not 'just' €550 as you need to own a PS5 too to play those select 'few' VR titles that maybe interest you a year to enjoy.

Its not 'too' bad I guess in comparison to buying a high end PC and a HTC Vive Pro 2 for example, but the Meta Quest 2 can be used as a standalone product or 'tethered' to a PC for less money.

Each to their own of course and some will find this acceptable to pay for the 'unique' experience of VR on console, others will see it as far too much for what is nothing more than an expensive 'gimmick' that can make you feel sick, as well as potentially hazardous to health. If you can't see or hear what's around you, you can trip on pets, kids etc, smash stuff around you as you swing your arms around etc - even if you 'start' in a safish place, doesn't mean it stays safe with kids/pets etc.

All I am saying is that VR and the price is going to be a different thing to different people. £500 is a LOT of money for someone and nothing but change for another too so even if they both want to experience VR, someone who can afford to throw £500 at it will think its cheap and another may think its way too much for a peripheral...

@dschons And thats the same with regards to Call of Duty too - in that as long as Sony make hardware that they can 'ship' CoD too, they will continue to release it on that platform. However, if you can access 'Playstation' on your Mobile, PC, TV etc and no longer 'need' hardware, then you'll miss out on CoD but will get Destiny instead.

Ideally, MS want to be able to put Game Pass on PS and have you subscribe to stream games to that hardware. I can see MS dropping out of the console market and let 3rd Party hardware deliver their games - whether its a mobile/dedicated handheld, laptop/tablet/PC or any other compatible devices. You could play Xbox on your in-car entertainment system as it drives you to work.

Hardware is not sustainable - and to offer 'cutting' edge technology at a 'budget' price (as consoles are), they are sold at a loss/subsidised knowing that you will buy Games and Accessories which will eventually become profitable - the more games, accessories and/or services you buy, the quicker they recoup their loss and start making money - hence its a 'locked' system with only their 'store' - no competition allowed.

If you can play all of Xbox on your TV without needing to spend £500+ on a console that can't match the visual/performance quality of streaming (due to running on limited local hardware), then people will stop buying dedicated hardware and buy hardware to suit their lifestyle and can play their games on whatever 'hardware' they want...

@dschons Some games don't need to be stated - Xbox Published games that may also be sold on 'steam' for example are not Xbox Exclusive and don't really need to be stated they are Console Exclusive either.

As Kojima said: "Hi everyone, this is Hideo Kojima. Yes, there is a game I have always wanted to make. It’s a completely new game, one that no one has ever experienced or seen before. I’ve waited very long for the day when I could finally start to create it. With Microsoft’s cutting-edge cloud technology and the change in the industry’s trend, it has now become possible to challenge myself to make this never-before-seen concept. It may take some time, but I’m looking forward to teaming up with Xbox Game Studios and hope to bring you some exciting news in the future! Thank you!”

Which to me seems like he is working with Xbox and probably Published by Xbox and using MS Cloud technology to build a game that is essentially 'cloud' based - not on disc or running on 'local hardware so I don't know how they could bring that to Playstation.

If you want to play, you still won't need to buy an Xbox Console as their cloud service is available almost everywhere!

As long as there is a Physical Playstation hardware to Ship to, MS will continue to sell CoD on that Physical platform - but ALL cloud based gaming options will be 'exclusive'.

What this means is that CoD will be available 'everywhere' on Game Pass but on Playstation, you'll have to spend money to buy your copy and it won't be available on PS+ or any Sony 'streaming' options. When you can play ANY game direct through your TV (or any device) without needing to buy Hardware, CoD will be 'exclusive' to Xbox - its not being given away 'free' on PS+ but then you don't expect Destiny to be given away on Game Pass either so Destiny will be 'exclusive' to PS+

@Martsmall 3years after the current Sony arrangement with A/B expires - which could be 3 or 4yrs into this current generation of hardware by the time that this '3yr' extension would become applicable.

That would take the PS5 up to 7yrs old and potentially, near the end of this generations life-cycle. At which time, Sony would likely have their next gen hardware planned out, which at time of writing, has no indication of being released, so MS can't 'promise' to release on non-existant hardware. They have guaranteed that this gen will certainly not miss out, and leaves it in Sony's court. If they decide to go the 'cloud' route, then MS haven't made a Promise to give CoD away because they 'promised' it would be on 'Playstation' 10yrs after Sonys deal expired. They have made a 'realistic' guarantee to continue to support CoD and the CoD community on the current generation Playstation ecosystem and will support as long as Sony has the hardware to run it. If Sony want the Latest CoD on PS6, the same day as Xbox, then they'll also need to send them a dev-kit - which they maybe 'reluctant' to do in the year before their hardware releases. If they don't send an accurate dev kit, then they would be 'hurting' their Customers as the Devs cannot port or optimise the game fully to the hardware. So will Sony release a Dev Kit to MS owned Studios to have a look at, to go over with their own tech guys, know what specs, what 'secrets' Sony have built in and could 'readjust' their own 'nextbox' plans accordingly...

As I expected. Whilst there is Hardware to release their game onto with an Active online Community, then MS has an incentive to sell this game on that Platform.

What this is alluding to though is a time when Playstation as 'hardware' may not exist, much like Xbox hardware may not exist and people are accessing gaming through the cloud and/or Sub service. MS will 'never' give their games away on anothers Subscription service so CoD will be 'exclusive' to Game Pass - just like Destiny, SpiderMan etc will be 'exclusive' to PS+.

You don't expect Netflix to pay for the development and release of Stranger Things, the Witcher etc and then to release these on Amazon Prime, Disney+ etc at the same time it comes to Netflix do you? They want the 'Subscribers' to subscribe to Netflix to pay for those shows to be made, not lose subs to their rivals because they have all the same Netflix content, and their own shows too.

So what MS are saying is that as long as Playstation continues to release hardware so they can 'sell' you the game in a 'traditional' manner, they will release the game - but if Sony decides to stop making hardware and become a Cloud based game provider, then MS will NOT be releasing their games on Sony's Sub service.

Like I said, you don't expect Sony to spend 'millions' developing Destiny and then put it day and date into Game Pass, so why expect MS to do that? I can understand Sony wanting to 'sell' Destiny at £70+ on Xbox to keep that 'revenue' stream inc all the MTX, DLC's, Season Passes, etc which they'd still get money for as Publisher - like A/B do with CoD or MS does with Minecraft.

Its what happens when Sony/MS can no longer make hardware powerful enough, with adequate high speed storage and a method of distributing the game (Blurays are proving somewhat limited now - how limited would they be with Megascans etc used to make UE5 games). Not only the cost of R&D, Cost of Dev Kits, Cost of manufacturing (inc Raw materials), cost of energy/fuel to distribute around the world etc and to make something for around 'console' price.

If Sony continue to make hardware, MS will 'sell' some of their games there. It seems to me that MS are thinking more long term, not necessarily this or next gen, but long term and don't see a future with 'local' console hardware believing that games will be too big, too complex etc to scale down to 'cheap' hardware...

@naruball There will be some PC gamers that will perhaps think twice now before buying a Console for 'exclusives', but there will ALWAYS be gamers that want to play the 'latest' games at the time of release, not a year or more down the road when it 'finally' comes to their preferred Platform.

That's also why Sony will happily pay for a 'year' or more of Exclusivity on multi-platform developed games, paying to keep them off of their rivals so that gamers buy PS to play the 'latest' games instead of waiting for an old release to come to their Platform.

There will be plenty of people that will want to play Spider-Man 2 at or around the first few months of release and the ONLY platform that offers that will be Playstation. They are not releasing their games 'day and date' on PC - like Xbox - which seems to still be selling better than its predecessor despite that fact. PC gamers can't guarantee that SM2 will release exactly 1yr after - it could be 18mnths, 2yrs later if Sony decide that SM2 is still selling Hardware and games on Playstation and would be detrimental to those.

As Xbox proves, releasing PC versions day and date doesn't necessarily have a 'detrimental' impact. Before the launch of the Series hardware, there was a portion of the internet who were adamant that no-one would buy these because all those games are on PC and/or on last gen hardware too - yet its their 'best' selling hardware in the same time frame - despite stock related issues too.

For many people, a console is their preferred platform - whether PC could provide a 'better' experience or not - its the 'right' balance between cost, performance, ease of use, lifestyle etc. No need to 'optimise', no need to worry about shader compilation, no need to worry about drivers or some hackers/modders ruining your experience etc etc. It suits them better than PC so regardless of whether a game comes to PC or not, they will still play on console.

Sony want you playing ALL your games, not just the 1 or 2 exclusives a year you can't play elsewhere. They want their 'cut' of game sales as platform/trademark holder from those 3rd Party devs/publishers, want you spending money in their store to get their 30% retailer profit. Those PC gamers will play on PC, only buying consoles for 'exclusives' and may end up buying 'used' so no-money goes to Sony anyway...

Exclusives matter most at time of release as that is when they sell the most copies of games and sell hardware to play it on. The 'back catalogue' whether still all exclusive or not, are still available on Playstation so still count but its the attraction of playing Sony's games on/around release whilst at their highest hype level not a year later when everyone is looking forward to the 'next' big Exclusive...

@naruball Not selling and only selling a 'trickle' of games each month is pretty much the same thing. Spider-Man is a 3yr old game and all the PC releases were generally games that sell incredibly well for the first few months and then fade away into obscurity - a trickle at best, nothing at worse and that's the same month after month after month...

These are not games that are going to impact the sale of hardware now, they are already on PS and been available for a long time - plenty of opportunity to 'buy' if people really wanted. People aren't buying hardware to play that game specifically - like they will to play a 'brand new' release like GoW:R, SM2 etc.

Its NOT harming sales of the game on Console and not harming platform sales. It gives Sony a second window to promote the game, which also promotes their hardware too so you see a 'bump' in sales on Console too - something they would NOT of had without a second release on PC. If you loved God of War on PC, you maybe tempted to buy a PS5 to play GoW:R at its most hyped, at its most popular, before the story is spoilt and its streamed all over the internet.

All those on Playstation who haven't bought these games - and if you look at sales data of hardware and games, its clear that 4 out of 5 PS gamers didn't play these games, in some cases, it could 19 out of 20 PS owners didn't buy. 20m sales is less 1/6th of the PS4 user base - those may decide to buy based on the resurgence of marketing and publicity around these. Its 'easy' to always be looking ahead at the 'next' big new release but often forget to look back at the games you decided to wait to buy - things like this remind you that these games are still available and now probably cheaper too...

@naruball But considering you don't need to sell many copies to get in the top 10, which is why Minecraft for example is still number 5 for July for example. By not not selling, I mean its not exactly flying off the stores at a consistent rate and these type of games tend to drop to a 'small' trickle of sales.

However, with a second release on PC and that marketing, the sales 'jump' up - hence Spider-Man returns to the top 20 from seemingly 'nowhere' after 3yrs, Miles Morales suddenly jumps up in sales that month too so from having at best, a 'trickle' of sales through the month, bringing in very little additional money, they had the 3rd best selling game of the Month and a jump up in sales of Miles Morales too giving them a 'big' boost in the 'profit' on this game.

@Stevemalkpus I'm not using 'quotation' marks - quotation marks are " not '. As I am NOT quoting anyone, I use apostrophes instead of trying to format text with italics, bold, underscore to add emphasis.

Therefore, I am sure you don't know what Quotation marks are to even criticise someone on how they 'work'!!

@naruball Spider-Man wasn't selling that well - not even in the top 20games for July. Miles Morales was the 10th best selling Playstation game (Minecraft was 5th) which jumped up to 7th in August, (minecraft was 8th) the month it released on PC, before dropping out of the top 10.

Spider-man itself wasn't even in the top 20 best selling games in July across all formats, but was the 3rd best selling game in August, dropping down to 12th for September.

What this clearly shows is that there is a definite 'jump' in sales of 'Spider-man' (or Miles Morales on PS) during the month of August. It wasn't even in the top 20 for July but ended up being the 3rd biggest selling game of August. Spider-Man itself probably wasn't selling that well on Playstation after 3yrs with more interest in Miles Morales but that still saw a jump up the sales chart. I used 'Minecraft' as an 'old' game with no major updates to illustrate the relative difference and Minecraft is perhaps more consistent with monthly sales (although I still wonder how it still keeps selling as you'd think that everyone that wanted it, would own it by now...)

Spider-man released 3yrs ago on PS4 and isn't really selling anymore - maybe it counts if you buy Miles Morales special edition to get the PS5 'upgrade' of Spider-Man, but in general, its not selling hardware or games but definitely helped 'boost' it on Console with the PC marketing

@eduscxbox I'm sure there will be some that will happy wait a year or more to play their games on the Platform they prefer. Its not that different from waiting a year to play Deathloop or Ghostwire on Xbox/Game Pass but Sony are counting on you wanting to be 'hyped' for their games, hyped to play them day 1, hyped to spend £/$70 on to be amongst the first to experience their Story before its 'spoilt'.

Those people that will wait for it to come to PC aren't really likely to buy a PS and 'games'. Maybe pick-up a used console and some used exclusives towards the latter life span when there are 'enough' exclusives to warrant buying. If Steam is your 'main' platform, then they aren't buying 'multi-platform' PS5 versions, not spending time and money in the PS ecosystem regularly - if at all.

Its more about giving those games a '2nd' marketing cycle after they have basically faded into 'sales' obscurity. For a game that's no longer selling, no longer making Sony money, the Marketing has generated 'sales' on PC and on console, renewed interest in buying a Playstation as it reminds them what 'games' they can play today, don't need to wait until GoW:R or SM2 to release...

Its a 'win/win' for Sony and their devs who see a 'bump' in sales, interest and money coming in from very little work. The fact that people are talking about Sackboy will see a 'bump' in sales and engagement on Playstation too. People that have moved on/forgotten about it will now be playing, now be interested - especially with fans coming out and saying how much they enjoyed it.

So for very little effort, they basically have 2 marketing cycles per game which not only pushes more sales of said game, even though its now on PC, it also helps 'boost' their console sales and/or PS+ service if those games are on that service...

Sony aren't releasing games that are currently selling well (if at all) on Consoles and not really selling Hardware either - people aren't buying a PS5 today to play Sackboy, but they will to play God of War: Ragnarok or Spider-Man 2 for example.

These are games that have run their course on Playstation in general and not really contributing to their Profits anymore. By releasing on PC, it has multiple benefits for Sony - first off, they get money from a 'dead' game from people who wouldn't buy a Playstation and that game and by promoting it, it could 'generate' more sales and interest in Playstation Consoles. Instead of buying on PC, maybe buy a PS5 and play these PS games when they release and anybody that owns a Playstation, remember to buy these 'old' games you missed...

Its a 'bump' in sales, a bump in PR and a bump in their Profits for 'little' effort...

Whilst I don't disagree that Square Enix shouldn't just focus on the Japanese market, I still have concerns about the direction they are intending to go...

President Yosuke Matsuda further added that he believes "blockchain entertainment" will "play a key part of [SE's] strategy for future growth", adding that the company had "identified AI, the cloud, and blockchain as focus investment areas".

I notice that this part of the conversation wasn't mentioned above - that and their desire to exploit its customers with NFT's too doesn't exactly leave me 'optimistic', let alone interested in 'anything' they are making. I don't care whether they make an AWESOME game, I still feel reluctant to 'support' SE.

@tallythwack That's the reason PS3 and PS4 era games were often 30fps - because they were 'designed' to push the limits of the hardware. Then when 'newer' hardware comes out, the extra performance of that hardware enables them to do everything quicker so you get '60fps'.

Take Spider-Man - a game that is CPU intensive - pushed the limits of what the PS4 could do at a consistent 30fps, but the PS5 has much more CPU power, that it can deliver 60fps.

Therefore, I hope we do get games that really push the limits of Console hardware and have to be 'limited' to 30fps - and maybe the 'next' gen will unlock 60fps...

Last gen era games at 60fps because you have the massive jump in performance for the new generation of Hardware.

Games are 30fps because Devs are pushing the Limits of the system and require every single one of those 33.3ms in a single frame to calculate all the AI/Physics etc, to render and process a high res image and get it out to your TV. They can dumb/scale down so much to try and offer a 60fps mode - but AI doesn't scale with resolution, physics doesn't scale and lets not forget, 2 frames for every '1' at 30fps, means 2x the amount of AI, Physics, input response. hit detection etc as it all needs to be done for each frame...

So I hope we DO get 30fps that are really pushing the limits of the System. really pushing AI, Physics or whatever they couldn't do before and require every single millisecond they can and couldn't hit 60fps instead of a 'prettier, faster performing versions of 'last' gen games with that level of physics, AI etc.

AI can fill an open world with Life - not just 'Enemies', but all life - not be so static or empty, using only sound to represent birds, insects etc. Physics too, the amount of games with hair or clothing that clips through, feet that clip through terrain, plants that clip through instead of move/deform as you walk through them... All this can be 'improved' and pushed to the 'limit' of hardware that is NOT 'high' end as Consoles are NOT high end hardware - they are built to a Budget, to a relatively 'low' cost.

Understandably and as games get 'bigger' in file size as they are using much higher quality assets etc, the ability to 'distribute' physical media is a hindrance.

Discs are limited in size and once 'full' have to put the 'rest' online to download. Its Obvious. Whilst the disc may not contain the entire game, it does contain what you are actually purchasing - the Licence to access Software - you never buy/own the Software as that is owned by the Publisher/Developer anyway.

@OrtadragoonX I don't - it can be quite jarring - especially in games that transition straight into game-play. Part of the reason that happens is because they were made specifically for a 30fps game and locked to 30fps to look as good as they did.

I'd rather have a consistent and perfect frame rate throughout so everything stays consistent visually too. If a game needs to be 30fps, make damn sure it has perfect frame rate AND Frame pacing too. 30fps has been 'more' than adequate and effective for Games for decades and whilst it's nice to get a frame rate boost in old games, brand new games pushing the technology in ways we don't yet know, or playing last gen era games at 60fps because 60fps has to be the minimum - NO

We don't know what they could do with the extra CPU and super fast Data transfer capabilities, let alone really pushing the new features built in that both MS and Sony were keen to tell us about, new game engines too - some of the games could be 30fps because they are seriously pushing the limits of AI, Physics etc that require 33.33ms of time to produce each frame on a 'console' that's already a few years old...

So yes, I do expect some games to be 30fps ONLY because not everything scales with Resolution...

I don't think its as B&W as that myself. I'd rather have 60fps and in some games, it really does make a massive difference, but in some games, 30fps feels and plays extremely well.

If you look back at the 'Game of the Year' winners, the majority were 30fps - games like Uncharted, God of War, Last of Us, the Witcher 3 etc. None of those were negatively impacted by targeting 30fps and providing a 'cinematic' experience.

You can have a very responsive 30fps that plays consistently smoothly and I'd take that over an inconsistent and unstable '40-60'fps that is at its 'worst' when you need the performance the most.

Some games have offered 30fps or 60fps modes - certainly since the 'PS4 Pro/XB1X' era, and I can honestly say that I opted to pick the 30fps mode over the 60fps option in numerous games because the visual downgrades were much more noticeable than the drop to 30fps. Something has to give, and sometimes, the drop in visual quality isn't worth the extra frames...

So whilst I would prefer 60fps, sometimes 30fps is a better fit and the increase in Visual Quality is more immersive...

@LiamCroft That's kind of the same thing in my mind. Whether you are not factoring in the cost because its 'free' to you or just not considered at all, its still the same principal.

However, what your reviews will do is 'convince' (or not) that a game is worth spending £60+ on. I expect that Price is taken into consideration 'otherwise' a lot of Budget titles wouldn't score as 'highly' due to the size, scale, Graphics etc not able to compete with AAA games and massive teams working on them. Price has to factor in because you accept a '4-8hr' SP campaign for a budget game, but feel somewhat short changed if that's all you get from a AAA game and can leave the gamer feeling ripped off because they expect more if they are being asked to spend more!!

Now you see what I mean by reviewers who don't factor in the Price - either because it cost them nothing or because that's their method - but what you say will have an impact on the reader/consumer decision to spend money. You want a review to reflect whether the game is WORTH the entry price or maybe its better to wait for fixes, wait for price drops etc so Price has to be factored in to be 'fair' to budget games and help consumers spend their 'limited' free cash wisely!

Now I know why I always feel PushSquare reviews are overly generous and not very reliable at all. I thought it was mostly a difference of opinion but knowing they don't factor the 'consumer' and the cost to them, I can see why now...

@LiamCroft I tend to go by Digital Foundry's analysis and any review that also seems to reflect the actual state of the game. IGN's review and separate analysis too was extremely damning and basically summed up what I was expecting and/or feared.

It even seems like the Story is short, predictable and sign posted and not that fun playing Solo. Needing to 'grind' to level up enough to take on the 'next' mission and numerous other things that I was concerned about before release based on game-play trailers, confirmed my fears.

I do wonder if being given games to play affects the opinion. If they had to spend their money on this before review, would they still find the almost constant stutter from poor frame pacing and unstable '30fps' acceptable and/or worthy of scoring the game as high as they did?

I think they were trying to say that Sony has a Number of Upcoming announced games expected in 2023 (and beyond). Whether they do release Wolverine in 2023 or not is not the point, its more to illustrate that Sony have their own Games - some that are extremely BIG IP's and bigger than Call of Duty (Spider-Man, Wolverine and Final Fantasy - all of which have been around a lot longer and Marvel properties are bigger than any individual Gaming IP).

It's also illustrating that Sony have their 'own' Exclusives to compete - regardless. Like Nintendo competes with their Exclusives and successfully too. People buy Hardware for the Exclusives because the rest of the games are accessible regardless. Sony's exceptionally strong exclusives (not just critical success, but also built a strong reputation and loyal fanbase), as illustrated by MS on Sony's upcoming releases, will be more than enough to 'Compete' with MS if/when the A/B deal goes through.

That's my take on this - whether Wolverine is likely to release in 2023 or not, it was more about illustrating the strength of Sony's upcoming exclusives to 'compete', and also illustrating that 2 'Marvel' global IP's are being 'limited/restricted' to just Playstation ONLY gamers.

@Kienda Couldn't agree more. I know that BC isn't perfect on Xbox too with MANY games from the OG/360 era not available at all unless you still own the disc and hardware to play it on, but that's what happens when 'Game Preservation' was never considered.

Any BC was more to make transitioning more appealing - especially in the early days of a 'new' console when games were extremely thin on the ground - trade your old console with 'lots' of games for a 'new' console with only 1-2 games you want to play.

As the game library grows, the Platform holder wants you buying 'new' games as that increases their profits, not playing 'old' games you can pick up on Ebay giving them NO money. There is 'little' incentive to want to support BC any longer than 'necessary' to get people to upgrade to the new system and buying 'new' games to benefit that system.

I too have always been a Multi-platform gamer - having owned every gen Playstation and Xbox, as well as numerous Nintendo, Sega consoles and PC's too. I go where the games I want to play are and I am never 'desperate' enough to pay £70 for something to play (regardless of whether its a Game of the Year contender or not) - especially with a 'huge' library of unplayed or unfinished games. Why spend £70 to fill my gaming time when I don't have enough gaming time to play ALL the games I want to start and/or finish I already have access to.

I would say my PS5 is literally just for exclusives, but I am 'protesting' the Price increases with my wallet and refusing to buy ANY game over a certain price point. I don't 'normally' buy used/2nd hand, but I will with Sony's Exclusives so whilst it is becoming an 'exclusives' only console, its also not being used to play the latest at launch or contributing to Sony. I also refuse to pay for 'PS5' upgrades too.

Most of my Favourite games from 3rd Party devs - like RDR or AC for example, I ended up with both the PS3/360 versions of anyway so I could play on either system as I had each in a different room. If the kids were watching TV in one room, I could play in another.

I must admit, I do tend to play 'native' console releases first and foremost with last gen (XB1/PS4) barely getting a look in - unless I really want to finally finish something I started and 'older' era games never get re-played. BC never really bothered me after a few months and I have built up a reasonable collection of 'new' games to play but I also believe that these games should be 'preserved' and remain playable. Just because I lived through that era, played the games I wanted, doesn't mean that future generations should not get the chance.

If I watch any streaming service, I tend to use the TV apps as the TV has to be on anyway so I am not running additional devices and thus significantly increasing my power consumption.

@Shstrick That really depends on the way a game is built and utilises the hardware. Some games may well be very GPU limited so reducing the workload by reducing resolution and/or graphical features/settings may well reduce the time to deliver a frame enough to double the frame rate. However, some games are much more CPU intensive and no matter what you do to reduce the GPU workload, the CPU is the limiting factor.

An example of that can be seen with some PS4 Pro/XB1X versions. The fact that those consoles were designed to increase the GPU processing capability, enabling devs to increase the graphical presentation without impacting the frame rate. In some cases, you get a 4x resolution jump to 4k but then can't hit a 'locked' 60fps at the standard 1080p because the CPU can't work 'twice' as fast.

Depending on how the game is built, the CPU is generally used for AI, Physics, calculating movement and telling the GPU what to draw, where objects, particles etc should be etc. Those things aren't affected by 'resolution' - if there are 10 enemies on screen, each with their AI, Physics, hit detection etc - that doesn't change the workload on the CPU whether its at 540p or 4k.

Everything has to be 'completed' in 16.6ms (that's 1/60th of a second or 0.0166s) and that means the CPU has to do everything and tell the GPU what to draw and where, the GPU has to render everything and pull in all the assets from RAM/SSD, and process everything to send it to your TV in such a short time. If for any reason, the CPU or GPU cannot complete everything they need to do in 16.6ms or less, you cannot hit 60fps. If the CPU, at best is taking 17ms to keep track of everything in the Open World, all the AI, Physics, Movement etc, then no matter what you do to reduce the workload on the GPU, you will never get below the 16.6ms needed for 60fps.

I don't know how they have developed this game, but I bet its going to be more CPU intensive than other games that may well offer 60fps modes. It wouldn't be the first and I doubt it will be the last too...

@Would_you_kindly No I wouldn't be complaining about it because it would bring PS games to Xbox only gamers and/or other platforms to have access to some of the best games available on what you have...

Playstation owners would still get the 'best' console version if they only streamed their games to Xbox whilst Playstation owners get a 'downloadable, Local' experience. I can't see why either group of FANBOYS would be upset if their precious games that their beloved corporations have PAID for are available elsewhere if they are also getting access to all the games from the other too.

Instead of choosing which has the 'best' games, maybe you'd choose on which you can download and play locally - but you'd not have to miss out on CoD or Destiny, God of War or Gears of War, Starfield or Horizon etc - the 'best' experience may not be on your prefered brand plastic box of electronics under the TV, but at least you can still play the SAME games and not have to buy BOTH brands because half the games are on one system and the other half are on the other with a 'few' games still on both - like the Nintendo/Sega days of the 80's...

I agree with MS - They have a method to bring their games to Playstation and its Sony that are BLOCKING MS from delivering their games their way...

How can they complain about not having MS made games when they block them. MS is NOT obligated to spend money on Porting games over to their direct rival and should never be. Sony would also have to provide a Dev Kit to MS owned studios - and I can't see them giving MS a heads up on what their future hardware plans are in advance to ensure the games are ported to their hardware.

Lets not forget that Sony are asking for something they are NOT willing to give - complete parity in a Franchise. They own Destiny, which we know has always had extras both timed or at least 1yr or permanently 'exclusive' to PS. What guarantees did they give to MS to ensure complete parity indefinitely - NONE!

Why not make 'remakes' that they can sell for £70 - especially with them now releasing games on PC to sell. Its not as if they have to do 'too' much work as all the ground work has been done and can just turn the settings up to max in some cases if the game is 'new' enough and maybe add a bit more 'density'...

As for what Sony are working on - other than the '3' games we know about - they had supposedly 10+ Live Service games in development - inc a Last of Us MP and I wouldn't be surprised if the also had some 'Playstation All-Stars' type games too. I don't get excited until games are literally weeks before release when its certain to release on that date and we've had a LOT of info and game-play video's to assess. I certainly can't get excited by CGi announcement trailers, rumours/leaks, or games that are still 'months' away. There is usually something releasing most months to be excited to soon play without worrying or overhyping games not expected for 6months+

At best, it was maybe the 'best' game that Ubisoft released that year so it is their 'Game of the Year' for whatever reason (most likely most 'profitable' to Ubisoft).

Its possible that it was a Game of the Year award winner in some category in some country from an obscure website/magazine/critic as there are a LOT more than just the 'Game Awards' that do a Game of the Year and like I said, you also have 'best Racing game of the year' and 'best action game' so it may of won some awards somewhere.

I don't even think its the best Far Cry game - but that hasn't stopped Publishers from trying to make more money by 'repackaging' a game and starting another 'marketing' cycle to remind people that FC6 exists. By marketing it as a 'Game of the year' too inc all extra content makes it seem like it was critical success and you shouldn't miss out playing it - so what better time to jump in than with a complete GotY edition...

He is acutely aware of the financial side of Indies and of course the PR and Rhetoric that Sony themselves were having to answer to. Indies can be 'goldmines' for their Platform - low overheads, small budget games made by very small teams, even by 1 person in their bedroom - sold through Sony's Online Store - no Physical release so they get 'maximum' revenue from these. Not only are they the retailer, they could be the Publisher too. Its a win/win for Sony as they get good PR for having 'independent' games on their platform and a lot of money goes to Sony for every Sale. They are likely to be very 'cheap' investments from Sony, especially if they are offering to publish 'exclusively' compared to a big AAA studio employing hundreds with much bigger overheads and their own Publishing rights...

I can't stand Gyro controls and have turned them off when ever possible. The worst thing about Infamous 2nd Son was having to use the DS4 to do some of the side quests and hated the spray can tagging...

The new triggers too on the DS5 can get too much as well - especially if you play for long sessions and constantly fighting the increased 'tension' that certain actions have - it gets tiring, distracting and too much - so I often turn those off/down too.

As I stated way back before the PS5/Series X launched and we 'knew' what the hardware was offering, I did state back then that what you'll probably see is Series X offering an advantage in resolution/frame rates in the 'majority' of games due to faster CPU, Bigger GPU etc but Sony has an advantage in 'controller' feedback. It will depend on a Game by Game basis, but if, like me, you have a choice of Xbox or PS5 versions, that is likely to be the 'choice' - go for slightly better visual quality and/or frame rates or go for the version with more Haptic feedback.

If you love Gyro aiming, then its clear that Deathloop will be 'better' on PS5 for you but if you always turn it off (like I do), then that 'advantage' is removed. If you only have Xbox or PS5, then the 'best' version is the only version you can play.

Arguably, the 'best' version is the PC which I would expect to fully support the DS5 controller too and with DLSS, much higher quality settings (inc higher quality RT options) and much higher frame rates (if you have the Hardware of course) makes it the 'best' version and as I have Game Pass Ultimate, could play on PC and Xbox, keep my progression without having to 'buy' both versions.

Point is, 'best' is down to preference. If you prefer the DS5 controller and what that offers, it could still be technically the 'worst' looking/performing version, but still be the 'best' version for you...

That's par for the course. Whether its something that doesn't really matter like gaming, like music/film/TV shows etc - there is always someone who will 'leak' or create 'stories' to get attention - not all of it is factual, some is speculation, others just opinion and some may even be Propaganda.

That's partly why I don't follow any 'youtuber' that 'claims' insider knowledge or use Reddit, Twitter etc. I rely on the 'trusted' sites and still take a lot of information as at best 'speculation' at best until I get 'confirmation' directly from the source - the dev, the Publisher, the Band/Artist, the Director etc..

For Journo's and media sites, they want to be 'first' with breaking news, want to get that traffic and drive their revenue and its 'easy' to put out articles about 'Rumours/leaks etc' without verifying or trying to find out if there is any truth - as long as they indicate its a 'rumour' and its 'not' them that started it, they can write something up and put it out, thus perpetuating the spread of information and as soon as 'trusted' sites put out that info, it becomes legitimised.

Things were different 30yrs ago because Journo's had much more time to check/verify and/or decide whether or not the 'Rumour' had sufficient weight to go in the 'next' Magazine that's going to press in the next week or two. Its so much easier today for people to spread info and exceptionally quickly. You can take a 'revealing' picture of something and have online and spreading around the world in seconds.

As I said, I see/hear numerous rumours, some of which come true, others don't turn out to be true - whether they were completely made up or things changed after rumours leaked, who knows, but the point is, its not just in Gaming and I wait until there is 'official' statements until I start to 'care' about the info...

At the end of the day, if the deal goes through, CoD will be owned by MS, the Studios owned by MS, the Publishing rights owned by MS, the games development and release paid for by MS so it should be up to them to decide where to publish. If they choose 'not' to release on PS - tough!!! Playstation didn't want to pay Insomniac to make Spider-Man and release that on |Xbox - a MUCH bigger IP than CoD...

Maybe Sony forgets, but CoD was associated with Xbox FIRST!! It was through Xbox marketing and promotion that CoD grew from some fun PC game rivalling BF, Medal of Honour etc to the big Juggernaut it became with CoD4 and MW2 in particular on Xbox - that popularity 'spread' to Playstation 3 who had been trying to 'beat' Halo with Killzone & Resistance.

It wasn't until the PS4 era and the end of MS's Marketing deals with A/B that Sony stole in and took over Marketing...

Its MS's 'choice'. You don't hear MS dictating to Sony which IP's must be released on Xbox too because they are 'bigger' than PS/Xbox platforms - games like Spider-Man, Street Fighter, Wolverine, Final Fantasy etc - whether they 'own' the IP/Studios or not, they are still 'keeping' IPs from GAMERS. MS is promising not to keep games from Gamers as you don't even need to buy an Xbox to play and can play 'anywhere' with their Cloud opening up games to a wider audience, not reducing them down to just Playstation only gamers...

Hurting Sony's bottom line, the market leader in the console space isn't 'anti-competitive' - its the opposite - its MS becoming more 'competitive' to challenge Sony's dominance. Sony has the studios, the IP's, the platform etc to 'compete' with MS, like Nintendo, and can make their own 'CoD' rival.

Sony won't be putting in any money to 'help' fund development etc of future CoDs so how can they demand Parity, demand it releases etc. They have NO say!! People bought a PS5 primarily on the strength of Sony's own first party exclusives and not for multi-platform games. People will still buy PS for God of War, Horizon, Last of Us, Destiny, Wolverine, Spider-Man, R&C, Uncharted Gran Turismo etc...

Well they did state that they would have at least 1yr exclusivity - which may mean they had 1yr at least before MS could say anything - hence the first ads appearing today - exactly 1 yr later.

If you stop MS from even being able to talk about it for a year, they either Shadow drop on the day catching people by surprise and not able to drum up hype or excitement. That's also not great for sales either - no pre-orders or people prepared to buy on release. I expect Ghostwire to have a similar deal too.

As for sequels, Many Bethesda games don't really follow on narratively. Fallout 3, New Vegas and 4 for example all start off with a 'new' protagonist in a new region with their own narrative, just with the same background and lore. Elder Scrolls too of course and as for Wolfenstein & Doom, they don't all follow a narrative storyline from game to game - having been 'rebooted' several times. Prey is another where the 2nd game has nothing in common with the first.

Its not like Uncharted, Horizon or Last of Us where the sequels pick up the story of the same characters to continue telling their story...

I can understand this decision - its a part of the Franchise that has been very divisive among gamers. On the one hand, its what makes the storyline unique, ties up the lore and of course links all the different eras, protagonists etc together but on the other, the game-play has been 'dire' and interrupts the main focus of the game.

By relegating it to their Hub world makes sense and be the point of access to jump through different eras, different settings, different protagonists etc. Then the main game can be much more focussed on the 'period' setting and its story line. That then also can be used to expand the hub - adding another 'timeline' to explore and tie it in to the Modern era...

If I factored the Price into it, then I'd have to give it a MUCH lower score. Its a slightly 'refined' and obviously better looking version of a 9yr old game built and designed around that PS3 hardware and as a result, is somewhat dated from a Game Play aspect.

The story, whilst predictable and after several playthroughs, has a very predictable pattern to both Game-play and Characters you meet on your journey, doesn't have the impact it did when it was 'new, fresh'.

Its also lacking the Multi-player component that the Original came with on PS3 to offer more value and more reason to keep playing long after completing the Campaign. So with this been nearly 2x as much with 'half' the content and that content really adds nothing to the 'overall' story, the characters, the game-play loop etc etc so if I took the price into consideration, I would have scored it MUCH lower!!!

@riceNpea The console itself is now cheaper to produce and manufacturer - using less raw materials, reducing weight so as 'cargo' cheaper to ship etc

I would expect that rising costs of raw materials due to high demand as well as 'global' issues has increased the 'base' cost to produce a Console that 'initially' lost Sony some Money per unit, then 'revised' to use less material which may of brought their costs down to break even/maybe even make some money per unit, but as costs keep rising - not just the 'raw' material cost, but even costs of transporting raw materials, shipping consoles around the world etc so reduce weight and material costs - instead of making 10 consoles from 1kg of Copper (for example) they can get 15 now so they get 'more' consoles from the same quantity of raw copper than before so as Copper goes up, its offset by Sony using less of it - in theory...

But Sony are also putting up prices in the areas it has always had a big advantage in terms of sales, but not in the one region where Xbox generally gives Sony much more 'competition' and much closer in terms of Hardware units sold. They 'believe' that the strength of their 'fanbase' in these regions, places where the PS5 has more demand than Units, will pay 'more' for Playstation - even without CoD promotions, earlier access and 'exclusive' playstation only content. Relying on the strength of their 'brand' and their own 'first' party studio/games (which includes Bungie/Destiny)

Visually, it looks 'ok' from what I have seen in video's and screenshots - not necessarily the 'best' way to assess the impact of visuals and the tiny details I may notice when playing the game on a big screen TV.

I am more concerned by the game-play than the visual quality. The combat sequence didn't look all that smooth and fluid - more clunky and underwhelming. Then you have that 'on rails' section of sliding down a water shoot and a gruesome 'death' animation if you 'fail' - just like the Tomb Raider reboot had that interrupted the flow and could be frustrating too.

At the moment, I am more excited by the Dead Space 'reboot' as that too looks incredible and on top of that, has more content than the Original so won't be 'too familiar' and therefore not as scary. As it stands right now, I do want to try the Callisto Protocol but I'd rather buy Dead Space and wait until Callisto drops in price...

@get2sammyb Whether Sony paid someone or not, they are still responsible for the packaging. If they 'hired' the wrong company (cheapest?) or opted to cheap out on the quality of the packaging materials, that is on them.

If its 'not good enough' for the gamers, Sony's Customers, it shouldn't be good enough for Sony and it would be up to Sony to ensure that whoever they employed to carry out work on their behalf, deliver the quality expected.

It has Sony's brand name on the packaging and Sony should of ensured it was up to the standard expected and worthy of their Brand name on it. Unless Sony has been mislead and/or screwed over by whoever made the packaging, because Sony would have seen and vetted the packaging, its Sonys name and Sonys responsibility...

As someone who has worked in that type of industry, the client should get mock ups and would stipulate things like the quality of the paper/card, quality (usually related to price) of any parts needed - like hinges/clasps - can save money by buying thinner, cheaper alloys vs 'Brass' for example. If the client chooses to 'skimp' on materials, use cheaper paper/card, that is the Clients choice but its their name on the packaging...

At the end of the Day, MS didn't have to make any promises or guarantees to Sony. I bet MS had no say over Sony's decision to purchase Bungie and potentially take Destiny away from Xbox - a 'rival' First Person Shooter to Call of Duty.

Bungie is a 'Publisher' - hence the cost relative to Insomniac - and self publish since gainig independence from A/B. They are a First Person Developer with a Rival Multi-player to Call of Duty that is now 'owned' by Sony and they too could take Destiny or whatever other games Bungie goes on to make (even in the Destiny universe) exclusive to Playstation if it suited Sony best (inc PR)

Its not as if CoD IS the ONLY FPS with a Multi-player on the market and in fact, its player base has been falling too as people migrate to other options - inc all those Free to play options like Apex, Fortnite, PUBG, Valorant etc etc

Makes sense with the way Gaming looks to be going in the Future and one of the big reasons MS wanted A/B was for its Mobile development (King and Candy Crush) so it makes sense for Sony to as well. Also saves on the R&D of developing handheld portable gaming devices that compete with Mobiles that 'everyone' these days has...