@AdamNovice I wasn't the one bringing CoD/Apex to the discussion and like EVERY live service, there is still a 'cost' to bringing new content on a regular basis and still requires an ongoing revenue stream.
All I said is that its a 'numbers' game - enough still playing, enough still spending money, the game will be OK but if numbers drop below a certain point, it becomes unsustainable. I don't know what that 'point' is for HD2 but both Sony and Arrowhead will want their 'profit'. That could be as low as 10k players every month with the money they spend 'enough' to sustain the game so 40k+ is not an issue at all but a game like CoD may need 50k minimum with its 'costs' due to Studio size etc.
But the principal still remains - they won't keep making content if the numbers don't make sense. A Live service is only going to remain live whilst the numbers make sense. If the playerbase continues to drop in the next months, it could cross that thresh-hold to be 'unsustainable' without injecting some new 'players' and/or new revenue options.
Its the Live Service business model. Monthly income is required to pay for the new content and if that income drops below 'profitability won't mean they'll continue operating on a 'monthly' loss. Its 'success' may have brought higher Profits, but doesn't mean they'll use the 'Profit' to keep creating content at a 'loss' every month because its costing 'more' to create content etc than the money they are getting in. If they need 20k players a month and a revenue of at least 100k a month, that is the Threshholds they cannot 'sustain' a Live Service game below and rather than start 'losing' money, losing Profit, its often the time Live Service games 'end'...
And that goes for games like Halo:Infinite too which will also have a minimum threshold point too - as long as that game has enough players and income, they'll continue adding Seasons with Season Passes bringing in enough revenue to 'sustain' itself. If the numbers drop so they don't get the revenue, you'll likely hear that H:I's next Seasonal update will be the 'last'.
@crossbit @PsBoxSwitchOwner Difference with CoD though is that it has a NEW cycle every year so as one game 'drops' off, they have another coming that will sell like crazy and start a 'new' cycle. Its also supported by Warzone (a free to play game that also sells cosmetics, season passes etc to bring 'revenue' in to keep the cycle going. So whilst CoD MW3 maybe 'losing' players over time, a lot are playing 'Warzone' until Black Ops 6 and do jump into MW3 for 'new' seasonal content. Also with 'CoD', you'll have some that may buy for Single Player so will 'leave' after completing but will still buy the 'new' CoD.
Fortnite and Apex are constantly having new seasons and 'sustaining' themselves year after year after year. These are self sustaining because they continuously have enough players and revenue every month to continue. As people leave, new players are coming in...
Helldivers 2 maybe like 'CoD' in that player numbers drop, but CoD is traditionally an 'annual' release. In other words, before the numbers 'drop' below sustainability, there is a 'new' game on the market. They have 'stopped' supporting MW2 because MW3 is out and MW3 will 'stop' because BO6 will be out.
For 'HD2' to copy, they'd need HD3 out a year later, HD4 a year after that so Sales and annual injection of new players etc all keep the cycle going. HD2 is more like a Marvels Avengers where the player base it attracted was meant to sustain it but they couldn't 'keep' players or get 'new' players in to replace 'lost' players until it became unsustainable - would cost more to keep it going for the remaining players than the 'revenue' coming in.
That's a 'Live service' - whether its a Paid for or Free to Play. They need to be making enough money to keep bringing new content monthly, need a 'minimum' playerbase to make the game 'function' and spending enough to keep developers making content for it. Whilst CoD may also not sustain the Launch numbers over time, it still remains in the Top 5 most played and still is in the top 10 sales, still selling season passes, cosmetic bundles etc to 'sustain' it too
I don't know what HD2's bottom line is after losing 90% of players on Steam and seemingly not in the top 30 on PS either but may still be enough to sustain it for the time being. If those that remain are still spending enough money to sustain the 'work' on new content etc to keep the game going, great!. But if they don't or can't keep spending money, that then becomes unsustainable.
Say they need 100k a month and their 50k players are spending an avg $2 a month, its breaking even - but if it drops to 25k a month, and/or those remaining aren't spending at least $4 a month, its not sustainable. You either need 'more' players in or the remaining players spending more on average to break even, let alone make money...
An injection of Players, either by releasing on more Platforms or by offering on PS+ for example, can boost the numbers and/or revenue. Other live service games - like CoD will release a 'new' game every year so numbers don't fall below unsustainability numbers...
For a live service game, you expect growth not loss, where people come to play the game and stay for the content. If it's the other way round, as in start great and dwindle away over time, then you don't have growth, don't have the users in that game to sustain it, to pay for new content. etc
Going from over 450k average to just 45k average is a 90% reduction or just 10% remain - is that enough to keep the game going? Keep on making content for at cost when fewer and fewer players remain.
That is 'Steam' only but look at the Playstation most played games, it's not in the top 30 for June.
At some point, either it needs an 'injection' of new players that will bump the numbers and 'development' fund to continue or drop too low it becomes 'unsustainable' to continue...
We don't have the 'truth' and until someone does come forward and explain why, then its likely to people will speculate and/or make up conspiracies.
What we do know is that this is a UE5 game being developed by a new Studio with little/no experience of porting to Console. Sony only have the '1' spec and with the 'majority' share, may have more 'Priority' to Optimise and ensure releases the same 'day'. Its 'easier' to optimise for 1 'spec' requiring less time/money. Not only that, Playstation has the largest user base to 'sell' to, thus make most money so takes 'priority' - maybe even 'assisted' by Sony.
Xbox has the Series S which may take a lot more 'work' optimising for and they don't have the time/resources to optimise for both that and Series X whilst also finishing the game for PC/PS5. All that extra work that may not see as many 'returns' due to lower install base.
Another 'out' there theory of course is that Sony is planning to release the PS5 Pro and this 'could' be one of those launch titles. Maybe its not Sony at all, but the 'partner' in question is Epic Games for example but everyone assumes its Sony...
Part of me thinks that the Series S isn't really the Problem - its just easy to blame. It could be inexperience with the Engine or the optimisation process as none are using the Hardware to its 'fullest', not using Multi-threading performance, not using the feature set fully etc. PC's too range from the high-end down to below Series S specs. On the other, its proven to be 'difficult' to deliver parity before...
No doubt we may find out the truth - maybe not until after its launched. It could be the Series S or it could be they didn't have the 'resources' because the Xbox doesn't have the install base to dedicate more time/money to...
Whilst I don't play these games, I can see that perspective. You don't dumb down Formula 1 so everyone can 'participate' for example.
On the other hand, I can see it from a Customer perspective too who may want to 'play' the game but having spent money, now can't play everything because its just too 'difficult'. That's their 'money' wasted.
Other games have 'brutal' and 'unforgiving' difficulty settings, so why can't these type of games have 'lower' difficulty? If its about a sense of Achievement, then make a Trophy associated with beating it on a certain Difficulty - Trophy hunters and braggers still have that 'badge of honour' for beating the game on its hardest (normal) mode, but at least others don't feel like they've wasted their money.
The other option is to come with a warning about the difficulty, that its designed in a way that many probably won't ever finish the game - 25m Sold but how many actually finished it.
I don't really know what the answer is - Difficulty will mean something different to everyone and what maybe Challenging for some, could be easy for others. That whole 'get good' mentality too doesn't work because some have other 'challenges' to overcome - like playing with disabilities or physical difficulties for example. Therefore I think it makes sense to have Difficulty sliders so everyone can get a sense of achievement...
@NEStalgia On the whole PC & Pricing, there is also nothing stopping you from upgrading as and when you want/need. You could start with a PS5+ XSX cost PC that 'beats' those and has DLSS too. Then of course, do you play on a 4k or 1440p monitor? Then targeting 1440p instead of 4k, you can turn the settings up higher or target higher Frame rates too.
Then as time goes by, you can upgrade maybe the CPU because your more CPU limited to get the frame rates you want even with DLSS doing the 'heavy lifting' to make it look good. A few years later, maybe the GPU and by then, you've got a PS6/NextBox beater that can play a far wider range of games - no worries really about 'preservation' or whether or not one Console has 'better' PQ or more Consistent frame rates that still won't match your PC....
It's just whether or not you can wait to play the Games that Sony chooses to bring or would rather play them 'first' on Console. If you don't have a PC, then maybe the games you get to play first and can subscribe to Game Pass to play those 'at no extra cost' is enough to tempt people to Xbox even if some of those 'exclusives' eventually end on Playstation. For some it might, for others they'll still prefer Playstation and happy to wait for whatever MS chooses to release there and pay whatever it costs to play it.
MS made it clear that their 'Console' is just one of their 'MS Windows' based platforms you can play their games on so anyone with a Windows based gaming device, like a PC, has no reason to spend £500+ on Consoles and online Subscriptions (both require a minimum Subscription fee for Online gaming) when their PC will play everything the Xbox will - even if its not quite at the same level, its still not worth buying a console over maybe upgrading and saving you that console + ongoing online console Subscription fee. If they have to buy 'a' console for games, its not going to be the Xbox so they've cut their 'market' and basically given that to the 'PC' gamers who want to play everything they want to 'first'. PC and PS5 and/or Switch. Xbox is for those who don't/won't PC game and/or wants to play Xbox console exclusives 'first' or via Game Pass as its better than Cloud streaming.
@CrashBandicoat But they aren't! They have no plans to release Perfect Dark, Indiana Jones or Fable on PS5 day/date so these games ARE 'exclusive' (at least on Consoles) to the Xbox. Games like Flight Sim, Starfield, HB2 etc are still 'exclusive' and even if they do release on PS5 in a year or so, those games aren't selling Xbox consoles, probably not selling on Xbox anymore as they are 'old' news - so much like Sony's PC strategy - they can release these 'elsewhere' to extract revenue from Gamers outside your 'user' base that boosts your income and ability to invest in your own products/services.
Starfield isn't selling Consoles or Game Pass Subscriptions today as such. Those that really wanted to play would have jumped in when that game released (or the weeks after). MS will be looking at their 'new' releases - MSFS24, Stalker 2, Avowed and Indiana Jones (maybe even CoD too now) to get people to buy an Xbox and/or sub to Game Pass to play 'day/date'.
Sony choose not to bring their games at all to 'Xbox' - maybe because they don't want to give MS 30% of their 'revenue' to release on that Platform, maybe because they don't think Xbox gamers will 'buy' a PS5 to play 'Day 1', don't think the 'work' porting and supporting post release will 'benefit' their revenue, their PR and/or 'brand; enough to justify it. How many PS gamers would lose their mind if Sony brought Spider-Man to Xbox - even if that is now 'old news', a 'PS4' era game not selling much on their own hardware or selling Consoles anymore...
MS's policy could be VERY similar to Sony's - keep all Single Player and/or new IP's exclusive (even if timed for a year or more) to get people in to that Platform but release multi-platform 'IP's' - especially Live Service/online community games Day/Date to maximise revenue potential and grow massive online Communities that allow friends/families to play together regardless of 'hardware' choices...
Of course MS will continue releasing 'some' of their Games Day 1 on Playstation. Since acquiring Mojang, everything that Studio has released since has remained multi-platform and we already know that Call of Duty too will release Day/Date. Doom, another 'multi-platform' IP that's on basically everything, is also coming in the future. It's not just CoD, but I expect Diablo and Overwatch to remain multi-platform IP's.
Whether or not games like Starfield or Hellblade 'eventually' release on Playstation, that's 'no different' from Sony eventually releasing Spider-Man or GoW on PC. Once those titles aren't selling Consoles or Game units, put them on a Platform you don't own or have a store on to extract revenue from those gamers you couldn't tempt into your platform. With MS, that only leaves Playstation 'realistically' as Switch maybe too difficult to port to. Sony of course have PC, Xbox and/or Switch - although refuse to release on Xbox which is their decision to make.
After 6yrs or so, I doubt Sea of Thieves is selling Xbox consoles, selling Game Pass Subs and probably reached every gamer in the 'Xbox' ecosystem - the 'only' way to grow that community and get new gamers in is to release it to a 'new' audience and that only leaves Playstation.
It's Similar with games like Starfield or Hellblade 2 - although that's more about 'revenue' generated - which will be 'exhausted' on Xbox before they choose to bring them to PS, much like Sony does with their Single Player IP's. Once they have exhausted their revenue on Playstation, sell on PC to extract as much 'revenue' as possible...
I'd say that some of those games aren't 'mainstream' and the Live Service games they hope to appeal to Mainstream, but Mainstream gamers already have their 'live service' game they've invested time and (LOTS of) money in, games now with a LOT of content etc so aren't 'excited' by yet more trying to push in.
Others maybe were interested, but wouldn't be in their top 3 - whether that was because the trailers didn't show enough, other trailers being more 'exciting' or new/surprising so stood out more.
To be honest, I had zero interest in any of those games - inc Monster Hunter and Dragonage before the Summer Fest of Gaming shows, and the shows did nothing to change my mind. I can understand why AstroBot won on a PS site, it has more 'mass' appeal than most and it came as quite a surprise so stick in the memory most...
Why spend a small fortune on having 'space' on the showroom floor when they don't really have a lot to show, don't need the expense when they can reach their audience directly when they choose, and it's not as if they have to 'compete' for Console sales to get people to buy a Playstation when they are the 'dominant' Premium Console in Europe.
Sony will have a 'presence' just because the majority of games will likely release on Playstation. The biggest releases (in terms of Sales) of the Holiday season, the likes of EA's FC (was Fifa) and Madden, Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, Star Wars etc etc will all release day/date on PS5 anyway.
Much easier and cheaper to release a State of Play or a show when they want, to have a captive Playstation audience and reach their audience via Social media.
The vast majority won't be at Gamescom, they'll be using Social Media to watch a stream, relying on 'press' to give any 'hands on' preview/early impressions (just like this site has done with Black Myth). Therefore, why bother if you don't 'need' to....
And yet we keep hearing about how these new 'Game' engines will save so much 'developer' time creating their games. They don't need to make the same assets at a variety of different LoDs that will be substituted in at different draw distances, don't have to run RT on their environments only to then try and 'bake' in the Shadows etc, go in with point lighting etc to create the look of realistic lighting in that world, they can now use 'realistic' lighting in real time...
You can't tell me that Uncharted for example wasn't chasing realism in graphics and arguably Tomb Raider reboot with its more realistic Character models and facial animations was able to tell a better, more emotional and 'immersive' Story as a result.
I don't necessarily think Graphics always make a difference. Car Racing games for example have looked 'great' for years and it doesn't matter how more 'realistically' you make the rain react to light, or how many 'polygons' now make up a cars headlight, the Game-play itself hasn't really changed. That being said, I doubt any that play these aren't stunned by the Graphics, the photomodes that look like real photos or racing around tracks that 'look' more realistic with Crowds in stands etc. Whether that improves the 'moment to moment' Game-play, I guess depends on the person
I doubt Sony would be as well regarded if their Iconic AAA games like Uncharted, Last of Us, God of War etc would have had the 'impact' they did if they had been 'low' polygon games, maybe in a 'minecraft' like artstyle as I doubt the Characters, the animations - particularly facial, would have had the same emotional impact.
Video games aren't just a replacement for the 'games' people used to play - board games, indoor sports, etc. Pong was 'indoor' sports and games like Donkey Kong, Pac-Man would be a bit more like your Board Games - take it in turns to get the High Score. Story's were told more like a choose your own adventure book - with text.
Now a game can put you in the Shoes of someone suffering Psychosis, the voices they 'suffer' are now in your 'head', as close to you as they are to the lead character to give some the 'experience' of what living with Psychosis is like - but to another person, those voices are 'annoying' and not important - the challenge of Combat/Puzzle solving is most important despite the fact these are merely 'triggers' for the Voices.
As for TF's, It did make a difference - just look at the PS4 vs XB1. Sony had the higher TF's and that actually translated into a noticeable difference in the multi-platform games. How many times did Sony have higher resolution, higher graphical settings and/or higher average 'frame' rates. Even if they weren't chasing 60fps, they'd stick closer to, if not not hold 30fps better translating to a 'better' gaming experience. So even if people don't fully understand TF's, it proved more is better for hitting the 'standards' promised - 1080p (not 900p or lower), better looking shadows, or draw distances, more 'consistent' frame rates etc.
This interview mentions movies, but you don't go to a movie and have 'inconsistent' frame rates, inconsistent Frame Pacing, bugs or glitches that really stop you from progressing or mean you have to restart, terrible visual quality with tearing or annoying pop-in, graphical bugs that break the immersion etc etc. Gaming is much more an Audience participation media, its much more 'hands on' than sit back and 'be' entertained...
There were a number of games that I would say really stood out and surprised me with their trailers. Doom: The Dark Ages for example really stood out as it wasn't what I expected after it leaked, Perfect Dark too after reports of development hell.
I'd have to say that Black Ops 6 had perhaps some of the best Showing - opening a show and then having a Developer Direct show, Whether you play CoD or not, it had a lot of time dedicated to it so arguably the 'best' showing.
Some of the other games on this list had a lot less time - but another that really stood out was WuKong Black Myth but in fairness, most of the UE5 games look impressive, not necessarily games I'd play - especially Souls Like games...
If its 'outside' of the Top 10 games I'm playing right now, chances are I've moved on from any 'Live Service' game and couldn't care less new content is available. If I was 'excited' by said Live Service game, I'd be well aware of their 'next' Season or Content drop without needing more Clutter on the screen.
When I turn my Console on, I have a very good idea of what I want to be playing before the Console has booted up and I want to get in that game as Quickly as possible. I don't care about news, ads etc - I get enough of that from Social Media.
It would be a very Slimy thing to turn round and say the ONLY way to play Call of Duty going forward, now they 'own' the IP, would be via an Xbox or via Game Pass ONLY - Forcing players to Subscribe and/or buy Xbox consoles, just because they can because of some petty Console 'war'
At the end of the day, CoD gamers are fans of a MS owned IP and its better to treat them ALL equally than annoy a sub-section because of their Platform choice.
You may see it as 'meaningless' but when some are getting 'more' XP, therefore unlocking more gear and rewards for the 'same' activity, that is still 'unfair'. It was 'unfair' that DLC was released a month earlier on Xbox too of course.
At the end of the day, its still 'better' value on Xbox as you get the PC version if you Buy from MS or can play for 'free' with a Subscription. However, if you 'choose' to play on Playstation, you won't miss out, be forced to buy an Xbox or be forced to Subscribe to Game Pass to play
Its not totally a Sony IP as Lego themselves will expect a cut for using their 'Lego' IP too. As such, Sony would need to sell more to recoup their costs and make the 'same' profit.
Sony see Xbox as their ONLY competitor in the 'Premium' Console market so they are unlikely to want to release there - that only leaves PC/Nintendo to sell 'more' games on. Also, they hope that PC/Switch gamers will buy a Playstation 5 as their 'Premium' console of Choice because they are familiar with Horizon...
It's about maximising the Sales as Lego will take their cut too so Sony won't make as much 'per' game sold, so need to sell more to break even - the best way to do that is to release on 'more' platforms that 'could' benefit your own Platform and not 'help' your Direct competitor.
As this was the 'opening' show and the 'big' Publishers/Developers are likely to have their 'own' shows/reveals so their Show is exciting, I didn't expect much.
Sony for example may not want to get 'lost' in the mix with ALL the other news and could have a Show in a month or two with Games from their first Party Studios and announce the PS5 Pro coming this Holiday...
MS - along with Bethesda, ABK + any 3rd Party Partners will likely keep any big surprises for their Show and Ubisoft too will show their 'big' games coming. With numerous shows coming up, Geoff may have been left with 'little' that would excite the mainstream.
That 'mainstream' audience is waiting for CoD, for Assassins Creed, for Star Wars, for 'Fifa' (or whatever its called these days) - the 'big' Holiday releases, the next iteration of their favourite IP's that those 'mainstream' gamers buy and those games are likely to be shown at other shows this week.
Games maybe taking longer to make, but they aren't technically getting any 'better'. They may look far more realistic, but the Stories, the game-play loops etc aren't any better despite 'generations' of Hardware improvements.
I'd say that the PS3/360 era was the last real Generation that gave us 'experiences' unlike any other before. Since that Gen, it seems far more a focus on Graphics - delivering better resolutions, more objects, higher polygon counts etc but arguably dumbing down Game-play/Stories etc.
Things like Physics and destruction have certainly appeared to have disappeared in AAA games in favour of Static, but more detailed environments. Maybe due to such 'weak' CPU's...
It seems that Devs are spending so much time on 'Graphics' but Game-play/Stories haven't really evolved...
Nintendo isn't a 'Direct' Competitor - Sony even said they weren't 'Premium' Console Competition during the ABK deal - but Xbox Consoles specifically are.
This a Sony IP with no doubt a 'cut' going to Lego for their IP too. Therefore they need to sell more for 'both' to be happy and from Sony's perspective, when Switch gamers decide to buy a 'Premium' Console, they'll buy the PS5. They also think that PC gamers will want to buy a PS5 to play the games Sony releases on their PS5 'first' that much sooner by getting them into 'Sony IP's'...
I'm sure the PS5 could offer 8k in some games - even Natively, but I doubt it will offer any AAA new games at 8k or that ANY Devs would actively seek to make a 'native' 8k Game unless they have a low frame rate target and/or a LOT of GPU resources.
I have a bigger issue with Devs/Publishers actually lying about the resolution/frame rates of their games - Claiming 4k when its actually running at 1080p or lower and using FSR or some other upscaling method to send a '3840x2160' image to the TV. Yes it may well be sending a 4k image, but then my SkyQ sends a '4k' image for SD/HD content that's 'upscaled' before its sent to the TV thus filling a 3840x2160p screen
Same with Frame Rates - claim its 60fps, but invariably its running at 40-50FPS most of the time.
Sony may well be able to send an 8k image to a TV, but doesn't mean that 'Games' will be 8k. It could just be just 8k content via youtube for example. Being able to work with '8k' TV's could be enough - even if they don't have any 8k Content of their own.
Its like saying it has Dolby Vision support but if no Devs/Publishers add Dolby Vision to their games, its not Sony's fault. If it can do Mesh Shading for example, but no games release to utilise it, that's not the 'fault' of the hardware.
Personally, I prefer Uncharted to Last of Us and Amy Hennigs Naughty Dog to Druckmanns. I thought the first Last of Us was more than enough and didn't need a Sequel - and maybe shouldn't have - no spoilers, but I don't think everyone was 'happy' with the story...
Personally I disliked Astro's Playroom - Partly because I felt it was a 'tech demo' for the Hardware, particularly the DS5 and I really don't enjoy some of the 'mechanics' that you are 'forced' to use to play the game. I never liked 'motion control', don't want to be 'blowing' on the Mic etc so I have never completed it.
I don't have any excitement for Platformer collectathons these days either so I doubt I'll be buying this. Each to their own of course, but I don't think this is for me.
I wonder if Spider-Man sales are boosted by the PC and of course, the PS5. Even if it was 'playable' via BC on PS5, they also 'sold' a PS5 Remastered 'upgrade' that may have counted as a 'Sale' too.
SM2 isn't on PC yet and hasn't got a 'remastered' version to buy even if you bought the OG version so maybe won't sell as many - at least not until its released on Steam...
@HonestHick If we look at Computers for example, MS has their own range - the Surface range with Windows OS competing with Asus, HP, Lenovo etc in 'Hardware' yet why bother? They all have MS Windows as an OS, all get people into the MS Windows Ecosystem so 'why' bother.
Hardware is not really what MS is known for but they could release a handheld gaming 'Surface' PC to rival Asus RoG Ally, Lenovo Go or MSi Claw for example instead of releasing a 'Series S Handheld' that ONLY plays 'Xbox console' games, meaning their Surface has more 'games' as its also got Sony's PC releases as well as Steam, Epic, Emulation of Nintendo, Sega etc older games for around the same Price.
If they released a Handheld PC for example, all the 'Console' gamers would see that as them 'giving up' on Gaming and becoming just a Publisher - even if most of their Library are not on Playstation/Nintendo 'Consoles'. But for MS, you are still in their 'Xbox' ecosystem, still playing on Windows based Hardware.
If you own a PC that not only plays all the Xbox games, but also Sony's games and ALL the other games not on the latest Xbox/Playstation consoles, then why spend another £500+ to play those same games but also much more limited selection of games and have to pay Subscription fees to play 'online'. Maybe you won't 'need' the PS6 or Next Box because you have Hardware already to play ALL the games you want....
@HonestHick And MS will no-doubt sell CoD and its many extras on Nintendo Hardware too - maybe they will lose 5m Xbox sales but gain 10m Switch Sales...
In the future, the way Chips are developing, you may have a Handheld PC capable of delivering 4k/120fps with AI help to a TV for around the same price as a 'console' that's locked to a single Platform holder and charging for online access. Phones these days have decent GPU's and RAM too so maybe being able to play on devices you 'have' is a bigger appeal than 'new' hardware when your hardware plays virtually 'everything' with the exception of the 'few' games that will come to PC eventually from Sony to release.
@HonestHick I know it ain't as 'expensive' as it looks, but its still more expensive and after a 'year', you don't own the base game which is 'required' for ALL the Content you may have purchased.
UE5 is interesting, but I'm also interested in seeing what the id tech or CoD engine may do for games like Halo for example. These engines are designed for 60+ fps with incredible 'graphics' for that frame-rate target - CoD and Doom impressed, even Wolfenstein too and Halo looked Dated. not very performant for the visual quality....
@HonestHick Well its the Same Price to 'own' on Xbox too and of course both require a Subscription to play 'online'. So if you don't have 'Game Pass', its exactly the same for both Xbox and PS gamers.
Its still 'cheaper' to buy on a Platform you own than buy a new Console just to play on Game Pass. If you also want to play games like Stafield, Hellblade, MSFS, Fable, Avowed, Stalker 2 etc - games that may not be on PS (certainly not Day/Date), then it may make sense.
MS may 'prefer' you to jump to Xbox to play on Game Pass as they'll get 100% of every Season Pass, Bundle etc you purchase over the '70%' they get from you on PS - over time, that may make MS 'more' money than you playing on Sony, Buying the Game etc as Sony take 30%.
MS are getting 70% of ALL money spent on CoD on PS and ALL the Money on Xbox - ABK only got 70% on Xbox too. So whilst they may lose '70%' from a PS sale if that person jumps to Xbox to play on Xbox, they get more from every Season Pass (100%) instead of Sony taking 30% so may make more over the life despite not 'selling' the base game.
If Subscription numbers or Console hardware jump up, that's not necessarily because of CoD as MS are expected to release Avowed, Indiana Jones, Stalker 2 etc this year and they are 'exclusives' where as CoD is not. Those games are more likely to affect Xbox/Game Pass sales more than CoD will.
@HonestHick If you are adding PS+ Essential, you do get 'Games' with that service too - otherwise its likely to be $70 on Xbox/PS5 to buy the 'base' version that Game Pass owners get access to for that $180 a 'year'.
Yes you also get access to games like Hellblade, Starfield, Indiana Jones, Flight Sim etc etc too - which is where the 'value' comes in, if you don't enjoy playing or would rather play on PS for their 'exclusives', Controller etc its still 'better' value to stay on Playstation than be forced to buy an Xbox or Sub to Game Pass to play - at least its staying on Playstation....
@Sifi Not really. Most CoD gamers bought a PS5 as Sony had bonuses that PC/Xbox gamers didn't. Over 70% of MW3 sales were on PS.
Those CoD gamers aren't going to rush and buy a Series X to get the 'same' graphics/performance options as they would on their PS5, spend $180 a year on Game Pass Ultimate to play ALL year and not get any 'extras'.
No doubt, the base game will be 'free' to play Day 1 - but as anyone knows, that's just the 'entry' fee. To get the most out of the game, you really need the Season Pass and maybe a Bundle or two.
As we have seen, I bet MS will offer an 'upgrade' on the Game Pass 'base' game to get the Premium Edition with the first Season Pass and maybe a few days 'early access' for 'Premium' Edition owners (whatever platform they play on) - Pay $40 to upgrade to that edition.
Point is, it's more like pay 'hundreds' to access CoD on Xbox to save paying $70 for only the 'base' game that you could still play 2 or 3yrs later. If it's where your friends, your library or your preference to play is, stick where you are. Game Pass too only makes sense if you intend to play 'other' games it offers - otherwise its $180 a year (Game Pass Ultimate to play 'online' every month too) for a $70 game.
I don't know that everyone on Xbox would now Subscribe to Game Pass to play the 'base' game Free, still have to buy Season Passes etc and end up spending more over the year and not own the game they have bought extra content for.
Even if Ubisoft decided to give away S&B for 'free' - make it Free to Play for everyone, I would still have ZERO interest in playing this. I can say the same for Suicide Squad too...
It doesn't matter how cheap they make it from my perspective, it won't tempt me...
Couldn't care less if a Story is written by Humans or AI, couldn't care less if AI designs and makes Games, does all the voice work etc, It's all about the 'end' product for me.
IF I can't tell in the end Product, why does it matter? Should 'humans' voice AI for Authenticity? What difference does it make knowing a voice was 'performed' by a Human or by an AI if it 'works' for the audience. If the Story is as good, if not better, the audience can't tell, then I couldn't care less.
I don't think AI is totally capable of writing a story, the scripts etc for a game without some Human correction/involvement or even some writers using AI for inspiration too. Nothing I have an issue with!
I would think that they'd do a Showcase if/when they have something to show - not just their own first Party stuff, but also their Partners. With the Holiday season coming, you'd think they'd do something to show their Roadmap for the end of the year but 'when', who knows...
They could announce a showcase and then hold it the next day for example rather than announce it weeks in advance - maybe if waiting on something to be finalised (some details/specs etc) or 'ready' to reveal (optimising and polishing a section so it looks presentable) before committing..
@DonkeyFantasy Parity just means it would have the same 'Content' - much like other Switch ports. The same Maps, same Campaign, same weapons/modes etc.
You get 'parity' between PS4 and PS5 versions despite the differences in Visuals (4k res, Higher visual settings etc on PS5) or 'Performance' (120fps modes on PS5). The fact is that PS4 still got the same 'Content' meant it had Parity - they didn't miss out on Content because they play on less capable hardware. Fortnite can be played on Switch with PS5/Series X/PC gamers so I can see CoD doing the same - even if it isn't offering up to 4k or up to 120fps...
Black Ops 3 on PS4 (I believe) didn't have Parity with its PS3 as it didn't have the campaign and missed out on DLC packs too.
@rjejr Differences of opinion lead to Conflict. That can be 'minor' (as in just verbal arguments), but can lead to far worse - such as death threats and even violence.
I will agree that in recent years, there seems to be an increase in these 'conflicts' becoming more than just a heated discussion/argument and leading to more violent acts/threats. Even if you are ALL gamers, there are arguments, death threats, violence etc because of opinions. Even if you love Football, you see violence over opinions.
All I said is that the more a Community grows, the more varied and/or extreme the Opinions can get, the more chance that you'll have some with no courtesy or common sense, Some 'extreme' behaviour/less tolerance to others and/or their culture etc.
I do agree with you that Society these days does seem worse than 25yrs ago, but to expect a large Community in a Game to be very different to Societal Communities (which may well be on a Knife edge today) isn't realistic either. The fact is that those who are violent, aggressive, lacking decency, common sense etc are still able to play and be part of that 'game' community too.
It 'reflects' society so if Society is lacking tolerance, lacking courtesy/common sense, then its likely to be the same within large gaming communities - those people don't change, maybe even worse when its not 'face to face'...
All I meant is that if Society and every other Community has these issues, then Gaming will be no different - not that it should be acceptable or tolerated, but more a reflection on the state of the world/communities in real life. I wish it was different, but it seems things are declining globally...
I tried not to go to 'deep', use some of the worst as examples etc to try not to upset, single any one or group out, not make it 'personal' etc as that maybe too much 'Politics' for a Gaming site so sorry if that seemed to miss the mark...
Take any Community, whether its built up around a Game, a Sports club or just the Community where you live, there is always some that will have a Different opinion, different perspective etc that can be a trigger for Conflict. The bigger the Community, the more variety of opinions etc, the more likely a conflict.
That can occur between fans too as they 'argue' over where the Devs should be focusing on or what they should be doing etc. When they do 'something', some wished they hadn't or rather wish they had done something different.
It's like playing an Objective based game in CoD when some of your team seem allergic to Objectives so you 'argue' about why they play those modes if they won't 'help' with the Objectives - then conflict starts.
The more people in a community, the more 'opinions' and differences you'll see. That can then lead to conflict as people try to assert their Opinions and dismiss others.
@rjejr Let alone there plan to release on more hardware too - so they aren't giving it away on Nintendo for example and probably not allowed to sell Game Pass on their Switch/Switch 2, so that's an added avenue to sales of the game.
If you've followed much of Game Pass news of late, they have also 'sold' upgrades - to special/collectors/premium/gold or whatever you want to call them versions - with Starfield it included 'early access' and the DLC when that released for an upgrade to the Game Pass access. Pay £35 for the early access Premium edition but don't own the 'base' game - people bought it though...
They'll do something similar with CoD too so CoD fans will pay for that Premium edition upgrade and get hooked on the season pass upgrade system and want to carry that on next season. Others may feel their missing out without that if they enjoy it - more money coming in....
@Vaako007 When you see what they can do with the new iPad Pro and its 'Bench marks' and Neural engine in something that thin/light, How long before you have 3080ti like GPU performance inc a Neural Processor for AI DLSS/RT/etc - all on a 1080p-1440p Handheld 'PC'?
Buy one of those for the same Price Sony wants for its next Console, that maybe a tougher proposition. Do you upgrade or get a PC where you can play Anywhere, anytime with great graphics/performance? PC has Playstation games as well as Steam, Epic etc - Games Sony won't have inc Nintendo games through emulation.
A mobile phone could well be powerful enough to to run games if people aren't expecting 4k 'ultra' graphics modes the 'best' PC offer too, so that's why MS is investing more in that market - they also want to get people buying Forza, Halo, CoD etc on there too.
Get CoD everywhere - inc Mobiles, you get more people buying season passes, cosmetic bundles etc. That makes up for the 'loss' of a few million sales on Xbox/PC. If you only have 5m Sales, you can only sell 5m season Passes - get 20m in, that's a LOT more people to potentially buy a season pass or whatever they sell in game...
@MrBook And yet Activision has opened 2 new Studios since they were acquired - Infinity Ward opened a new Studio in Austin last November to work on CoD tech and create 'innovative' new CoD experiences. This week, they announced a new Studio in Poland, Elseswhere Studios.
Roundhouse were 'merged' into Zenimax Online and maybe some of Arkane Austin staff were moved to other MS Austin based Studios, maybe to help Infinity Ward Austin to staff up and couldn't logistically 'staff' up both. With Arkane, they had lost a lot of the 'best' staff after being forced by Zenimax to make 'Redfall' in a way they had no experience or desire to make it. It may have cost too much to restaff and get them making games with ALL their other Studios (inc new Studios as part of the ABK group) so better to shutter and employ at Infinity Ward Austin for example as they may have a Game in development and likely ready to release much sooner.
@UltimateOtaku91 How much will they lose? From the last few years, Sony has certainly dominated as far as where the vast majority of 'Console' gamers have purchased this game. Over 70% of MW3 sales were on PS in the first week or so and if that continued, with 30m copies sold, that's over 20m on PS.
MS may 'lose' 5-10m sales of the 'base' game as those gamers choose to play through Game Pass. But a number of those will likely pre-order the Prestige edition with a Season Pass some cosmetics and/or early 'Beta' access. All those extras, like CoD points, Season Passes, Cosmetic Bundles etc (also in Free to Play Warzone) will bring in revenue from GP subs.
MS too will bring CoD to 'more' players as they have a deal with Nintendo as well as numerous others, so may actually get more sales than they 'lose' on Xbox to Game Pass Subscribers. All the 'extras' too will still be 'sold' to Game Pass Subscribers and EVERYONE who wants to 'try' CoD online must have at least a Game Pass 'Core' Subscription on Xbox and/or keep their Game Pass Subscription active to keep playing which costs more than buying the game anyway...
I doubt this will mean a LOT more Xbox Consoles sold. It perhaps won't make sense for all those Playstation gamers who bought PS5 because of CoD and its benefits to PS gamers to suddenly rush out and buy a Series X and a Game Pass Subscription to 'save' buying it on a Platform they already had.
It may help a bit where those gamers that haven't yet upgraded to the current Console hardware, as CoD has been released on Last gen too, they may 'choose' to upgrade to Xbox now instead of Playstation, but it may depend on how many Digital games they own and would 'lose' by jumping from PS to Xbox.
MS stated ALL first Party games will be on Game Pass. The price went up recently - only a small amount, but with 35m, a $1 per person increase is an extra $35m a month, $420m a year - Game Pass 'income' is not something ABK had coming in. Also, every game sold on MS, they now get 100%, not just 30% as retailer on ALL digital content. You buy a season pass for say £20, in the past, ABK as Publisher would get £14, MS got £6 - now MS get all £20. Its not just 'Game' sales as Warzone, Free to Play anyway, also has numerous ways of bringing in money...
CoD has Season Passes, Cosmetic Bundles, CoD Points etc and those bring in a LOT of revenue. Whilst some of those on Game Pass may only play the Campaign and not buy 'anything' extra, they probably wouldn't have bought the game anyway. Some others that may not have bought may well end up buying extras too - And you have ALL the revenue from selling the Game on PS5, selling extras to those. They may make a LOT more money from 'Sony' console gamers as they have the larger install base and won't be getting the game for 'free'. MS also had a deal with Nintendo - which may well bring in 'extra' income to offset some of the lost sales from Game Pass users.
As we have seen from 'MS' and the way they have offered Games, you get the 'base' game ONLY. CoD (as well as many other games) usually offer a Prestige/Collectors edition - maybe with the first Season Pass, extra Cosmetics, maybe early 'Beta' access etc so will bring in 'money' from Game Pass as CoD gamers pay £35-£40 to 'upgrade' their Game Pass edition to a Prestige/Premium edition. Its still cheaper than the £100+ Premium edition on PS for example but £100+ is still cheaper than buying a Series X to get the same quality experience and a Game Pass Subscription just to get the base game 'free'...
MS may not make as much 'per person' playing on Xbox as they would if it was 'Sold', but they could make 'more' money overall because its being Sold on Nintendo and bringing in more revenue on 'extras' across MORE platforms as they have MORE people in that game/marketstore!
@Vaako007 The average gamer, if you really want to there, would most likely be playing on their Mobile Phone as Mobile Gaming is by far the most popular 'Globally'.
Steam-deck or those Handheld PCs may well be a 'compliment' for a PC gamer, but the SteamDeck could be someones first Console instead of a Switch for example and cheaper than a PS5/Series X. Not only that, it probably has a larger Library inc being able to play both Sony and MS games all without a 'monthly' Subscription fee (even if just for 'online' access)
Most gamers aren't that bothered about 4k or RT and paying for Hardware to do '4k RT' is expensive. Handhelds may well be less 'powerful' than a Console, but they aren't required to do more than 1080p on their small 1080p screen. In a few years, you could have Handheld PC's with DLSS 3.0 for example too that are as 'cheap' as the next Playstation but with a MUCH larger Library inc Sony, MS etc games (inc any not playable via BC thanks to emulation), can play anywhere, take you games anywhere etc so 'most' gamers may well opt for that instead...
Why buy a Playstation when all those games are on a 'PC' which means you can play the game on 'cheap' PC handhelds, laptops, tablets or 'high end' gaming rigs, play a massive range of older and PC exclusive games and don't have any other 'Subscriptions' required, cheaper games etc.
The same principle applies to Sony as it does MS with regards to 'selling' games outside of their platform/ecosystem. If your games are available elsewhere, then 'some' gamers will choose to play on that hardware instead of buying their Hardware. If I had a high end gaming rig for example, why buy an Xbox? No point because I can play everything on that PC. Why buy a Playstation? No point because I can wait for Sony to release on PC. Spend £500 on a Handheld PC and I can play Playstation, Xbox, Steam etc games anytime, anywhere with no need for PS+/Game Pass monthly fees if I choose.
Handhelds are more popular than TV connected Consoles - as proven by the majority of gamers playing on Mobile devices - so I wouldn't say they are 'just' for the Road...
@Vaako007 That's not strictly true - Steam-Deck is a Handheld Console and many PC gamers buy a Playstation for the 'exclusives' they can't play on PC - now they can.
We are also seeing more and more Handheld Consoles that are not overly expensive considering they are gaming PC's. A RoG Ally for example can play Spider-Man, R&C, Starfield or Forza - as well as all steam, epic, old Playstation/Nintendo/Sega games - a MUCH larger Library than both Playstation 5 and Xbox Series combined.
The only real difference is that Devs will likely give you a 'few' options - maybe a 30fps and 60fps mode to choose between but with a PC, you can tweak the settings to suit your hardware and preference.
When I got my RoG Ally, it was very Similar to buying a Console, plugging it in, updating it, Signing in to my account, waiting for Games to download/install/update to the latest patch and then just playing. In fact, I had immediate access to Game Pass and Steam, each with my Library ready, each with my saves ready so I can continue where I left off etc.
Why spend £500+ on a Console with a more limited Library and locked into that 1 'ecosystem' when you can buy a Handheld PC for example and Play a much larger Library inc all Xbox, most Sony etc games that are often cheaper and much more likely to be Backwards Compatible in the future too?
Yes a gaming PC can be expensive, but its not that 'expensive' if you aren't bothered about '4k' - especially if you don't have a 4k display. Some people may prefer to have 1080/120 without RT than 4k/30 with RT or 4k/60 without it but you may not have that choice on a 'locked' console.
Maybe because the majority of the streamers who were used to promote this moved on to the next big thing they were promoting (whether its Grey Zone, Arena, Marvel Rivals, DefiantX etc).
These games maybe 'fun' with the right friends for an hour or two, but the lack of depth, doing the same thing match after match isn't good for longevity. As more and more 'struggle' to establish and compete with Fortnite, Apex, Warzone etc, the more difficult I think it will be for 'new' games as people will be reluctant to play something they fear will be shuttered in a few years...
Personally I couldn't care less. I doubt its much different to Sony wanting to put more games on PC - whether they release day/date or some-time after.
Exclusives can still be beneficial for MS in the same way they are for Sony. They can use them to sell Hardware, get people playing in your 'ecosystem' and then sell them elsewhere once they have served that purpose and 'new' games are being used for hardware sales.
Starfield for example could release a year or two - but at that point, its 'old' news on Xbox and games like Fable or Perfect Dark may well be exclusives to get people into the Xbox ecosystem.
Thats similar to Sony with God of War, Spider-Man or Horizon for example - when those games were not selling Hardware and/or Sales have dried up to a trickle, they sell on PC to bring in more money and another PR cycle for Sony.
MS may well do the same - except they already release on PC so the only real option to get that 'extra' money and PR cycle is to release on the only Platforms you can't yet play their Games.
Sony actively choose not to tap into the Xbox market in the same way they have chosen to tap into the PC market. MS may choose to tap more into the Playstation market and I would expect that they'll decide which 'older' games to release. Of course some IP's like CoD, Minecraft will release Day/date anyway...
Numerous factors put me off - the Cards was one aspect, the XCOM connection and turn based combat was also a major turn-off.
I wouldn't play any game with that style of Game-play loop regardless of the story or how popular the IP the game-play is wrapped in. Just because the Story maybe great or fact it's a 'Marvel' game doesn't mean that people will buy if the Game-play doesn't appeal.
The only way I'd be OK with 'Ads' in games is if they were going for a Realistic look with real branded items - similar to how Car Racing games have their branded vehicle models.It may not seem like advertising, but they are 'advertising' their brand, logo and models.
In other words, if you have a City, you'd see realistic adverts on billboards as you drive around. Instead of seeing 'Burger Queen' or 'McDougals', you get Burger King and McDonalds.
I don't want to have to watch a 30s Advert for Coca-Cola or a world where the only drink is Pepsi and that Logo is EVERYWHERE. However, I can see this being more the case - unfortunately...
It really doesn't matter or make any difference to me whatsoever. I really don't see how it negatively impacts me whether the game is 'limited' to just Playstation ONLY gamers or that MANY other gamers can play. If anything, exclusives force me to buy Hardware or miss out on the 1 or 2 games a year I can't play EVERYWHERE adding to the Cost.
I'd rather have more choice as to where I choose to play games, not less/no choice.
I, like MANY gamers, could see this happening regardless. The fact that WB couldn't/didn't, especially with other games - like Marvel's Avengers, proving that 'Live Service' isn't what the gamers want.
Publishers see the 'success' of some Live Service game, the sales of MTX in those, and think EVERY game should be made into a 'Live Service' - thinking more about the cosmetics, the 'grind' etc instead of focusing on the Game-play, story, character development etc. Not only is everything so 'mediocre', its often repetitive, grindy and a weak 'story'.
Hogwarts, despite its 'Controversy' was a game that focused on Story, Game-play and what a 'Gamer' would want from that IP and as a result, succeeded...
@Intr1n5ic My Email is 'Private' for example - and Sony don't have the best record for Data breaches.
Oh and in some countries, Facial pic and some ID (Passport, Drivers Licence etc) is required to verify age. That's also 'private' and shouldn't be required to play a GAME especially on another Platform - its purely to give Sony more control over who plays their Game even if you are not playing on Sony's Platform!
Comments 5,662
Re: The Obligatory Helldivers 2 Isn't As Popular As It Was Headlines Have Started to Emerge
@AdamNovice I wasn't the one bringing CoD/Apex to the discussion and like EVERY live service, there is still a 'cost' to bringing new content on a regular basis and still requires an ongoing revenue stream.
All I said is that its a 'numbers' game - enough still playing, enough still spending money, the game will be OK but if numbers drop below a certain point, it becomes unsustainable. I don't know what that 'point' is for HD2 but both Sony and Arrowhead will want their 'profit'. That could be as low as 10k players every month with the money they spend 'enough' to sustain the game so 40k+ is not an issue at all but a game like CoD may need 50k minimum with its 'costs' due to Studio size etc.
But the principal still remains - they won't keep making content if the numbers don't make sense. A Live service is only going to remain live whilst the numbers make sense. If the playerbase continues to drop in the next months, it could cross that thresh-hold to be 'unsustainable' without injecting some new 'players' and/or new revenue options.
Its the Live Service business model. Monthly income is required to pay for the new content and if that income drops below 'profitability won't mean they'll continue operating on a 'monthly' loss. Its 'success' may have brought higher Profits, but doesn't mean they'll use the 'Profit' to keep creating content at a 'loss' every month because its costing 'more' to create content etc than the money they are getting in. If they need 20k players a month and a revenue of at least 100k a month, that is the Threshholds they cannot 'sustain' a Live Service game below and rather than start 'losing' money, losing Profit, its often the time Live Service games 'end'...
And that goes for games like Halo:Infinite too which will also have a minimum threshold point too - as long as that game has enough players and income, they'll continue adding Seasons with Season Passes bringing in enough revenue to 'sustain' itself. If the numbers drop so they don't get the revenue, you'll likely hear that H:I's next Seasonal update will be the 'last'.
Re: The Obligatory Helldivers 2 Isn't As Popular As It Was Headlines Have Started to Emerge
@crossbit @PsBoxSwitchOwner Difference with CoD though is that it has a NEW cycle every year so as one game 'drops' off, they have another coming that will sell like crazy and start a 'new' cycle. Its also supported by Warzone (a free to play game that also sells cosmetics, season passes etc to bring 'revenue' in to keep the cycle going. So whilst CoD MW3 maybe 'losing' players over time, a lot are playing 'Warzone' until Black Ops 6 and do jump into MW3 for 'new' seasonal content. Also with 'CoD', you'll have some that may buy for Single Player so will 'leave' after completing but will still buy the 'new' CoD.
Fortnite and Apex are constantly having new seasons and 'sustaining' themselves year after year after year. These are self sustaining because they continuously have enough players and revenue every month to continue. As people leave, new players are coming in...
Helldivers 2 maybe like 'CoD' in that player numbers drop, but CoD is traditionally an 'annual' release. In other words, before the numbers 'drop' below sustainability, there is a 'new' game on the market. They have 'stopped' supporting MW2 because MW3 is out and MW3 will 'stop' because BO6 will be out.
For 'HD2' to copy, they'd need HD3 out a year later, HD4 a year after that so Sales and annual injection of new players etc all keep the cycle going. HD2 is more like a Marvels Avengers where the player base it attracted was meant to sustain it but they couldn't 'keep' players or get 'new' players in to replace 'lost' players until it became unsustainable - would cost more to keep it going for the remaining players than the 'revenue' coming in.
That's a 'Live service' - whether its a Paid for or Free to Play. They need to be making enough money to keep bringing new content monthly, need a 'minimum' playerbase to make the game 'function' and spending enough to keep developers making content for it. Whilst CoD may also not sustain the Launch numbers over time, it still remains in the Top 5 most played and still is in the top 10 sales, still selling season passes, cosmetic bundles etc to 'sustain' it too
I don't know what HD2's bottom line is after losing 90% of players on Steam and seemingly not in the top 30 on PS either but may still be enough to sustain it for the time being. If those that remain are still spending enough money to sustain the 'work' on new content etc to keep the game going, great!. But if they don't or can't keep spending money, that then becomes unsustainable.
Say they need 100k a month and their 50k players are spending an avg $2 a month, its breaking even - but if it drops to 25k a month, and/or those remaining aren't spending at least $4 a month, its not sustainable. You either need 'more' players in or the remaining players spending more on average to break even, let alone make money...
An injection of Players, either by releasing on more Platforms or by offering on PS+ for example, can boost the numbers and/or revenue. Other live service games - like CoD will release a 'new' game every year so numbers don't fall below unsustainability numbers...
Re: The Obligatory Helldivers 2 Isn't As Popular As It Was Headlines Have Started to Emerge
For a live service game, you expect growth not loss, where people come to play the game and stay for the content. If it's the other way round, as in start great and dwindle away over time, then you don't have growth, don't have the users in that game to sustain it, to pay for new content. etc
Going from over 450k average to just 45k average is a 90% reduction or just 10% remain - is that enough to keep the game going? Keep on making content for at cost when fewer and fewer players remain.
That is 'Steam' only but look at the Playstation most played games, it's not in the top 30 for June.
At some point, either it needs an 'injection' of new players that will bump the numbers and 'development' fund to continue or drop too low it becomes 'unsustainable' to continue...
Re: Silly Speculation Alleges Sony May Have Signed Secret PS5 Exclusivity for Black Myth: Wukong
We don't have the 'truth' and until someone does come forward and explain why, then its likely to people will speculate and/or make up conspiracies.
What we do know is that this is a UE5 game being developed by a new Studio with little/no experience of porting to Console. Sony only have the '1' spec and with the 'majority' share, may have more 'Priority' to Optimise and ensure releases the same 'day'. Its 'easier' to optimise for 1 'spec' requiring less time/money. Not only that, Playstation has the largest user base to 'sell' to, thus make most money so takes 'priority' - maybe even 'assisted' by Sony.
Xbox has the Series S which may take a lot more 'work' optimising for and they don't have the time/resources to optimise for both that and Series X whilst also finishing the game for PC/PS5. All that extra work that may not see as many 'returns' due to lower install base.
Another 'out' there theory of course is that Sony is planning to release the PS5 Pro and this 'could' be one of those launch titles. Maybe its not Sony at all, but the 'partner' in question is Epic Games for example but everyone assumes its Sony...
Part of me thinks that the Series S isn't really the Problem - its just easy to blame. It could be inexperience with the Engine or the optimisation process as none are using the Hardware to its 'fullest', not using Multi-threading performance, not using the feature set fully etc. PC's too range from the high-end down to below Series S specs. On the other, its proven to be 'difficult' to deliver parity before...
No doubt we may find out the truth - maybe not until after its launched. It could be the Series S or it could be they didn't have the 'resources' because the Xbox doesn't have the install base to dedicate more time/money to...
Re: FromSoftware Boss Puts Elden Ring Difficulty Discourse to Bed, Once and For All
Whilst I don't play these games, I can see that perspective. You don't dumb down Formula 1 so everyone can 'participate' for example.
On the other hand, I can see it from a Customer perspective too who may want to 'play' the game but having spent money, now can't play everything because its just too 'difficult'. That's their 'money' wasted.
Other games have 'brutal' and 'unforgiving' difficulty settings, so why can't these type of games have 'lower' difficulty? If its about a sense of Achievement, then make a Trophy associated with beating it on a certain Difficulty - Trophy hunters and braggers still have that 'badge of honour' for beating the game on its hardest (normal) mode, but at least others don't feel like they've wasted their money.
The other option is to come with a warning about the difficulty, that its designed in a way that many probably won't ever finish the game - 25m Sold but how many actually finished it.
I don't really know what the answer is - Difficulty will mean something different to everyone and what maybe Challenging for some, could be easy for others. That whole 'get good' mentality too doesn't work because some have other 'challenges' to overcome - like playing with disabilities or physical difficulties for example. Therefore I think it makes sense to have Difficulty sliders so everyone can get a sense of achievement...
Re: Microsoft 'Really Pleased' with Sea of Thieves PS5 Sales
@NEStalgia On the whole PC & Pricing, there is also nothing stopping you from upgrading as and when you want/need. You could start with a PS5+ XSX cost PC that 'beats' those and has DLSS too. Then of course, do you play on a 4k or 1440p monitor? Then targeting 1440p instead of 4k, you can turn the settings up higher or target higher Frame rates too.
Then as time goes by, you can upgrade maybe the CPU because your more CPU limited to get the frame rates you want even with DLSS doing the 'heavy lifting' to make it look good. A few years later, maybe the GPU and by then, you've got a PS6/NextBox beater that can play a far wider range of games - no worries really about 'preservation' or whether or not one Console has 'better' PQ or more Consistent frame rates that still won't match your PC....
It's just whether or not you can wait to play the Games that Sony chooses to bring or would rather play them 'first' on Console. If you don't have a PC, then maybe the games you get to play first and can subscribe to Game Pass to play those 'at no extra cost' is enough to tempt people to Xbox even if some of those 'exclusives' eventually end on Playstation. For some it might, for others they'll still prefer Playstation and happy to wait for whatever MS chooses to release there and pay whatever it costs to play it.
MS made it clear that their 'Console' is just one of their 'MS Windows' based platforms you can play their games on so anyone with a Windows based gaming device, like a PC, has no reason to spend £500+ on Consoles and online Subscriptions (both require a minimum Subscription fee for Online gaming) when their PC will play everything the Xbox will - even if its not quite at the same level, its still not worth buying a console over maybe upgrading and saving you that console + ongoing online console Subscription fee. If they have to buy 'a' console for games, its not going to be the Xbox so they've cut their 'market' and basically given that to the 'PC' gamers who want to play everything they want to 'first'. PC and PS5 and/or Switch. Xbox is for those who don't/won't PC game and/or wants to play Xbox console exclusives 'first' or via Game Pass as its better than Cloud streaming.
Re: Microsoft 'Really Pleased' with Sea of Thieves PS5 Sales
@CrashBandicoat But they aren't! They have no plans to release Perfect Dark, Indiana Jones or Fable on PS5 day/date so these games ARE 'exclusive' (at least on Consoles) to the Xbox. Games like Flight Sim, Starfield, HB2 etc are still 'exclusive' and even if they do release on PS5 in a year or so, those games aren't selling Xbox consoles, probably not selling on Xbox anymore as they are 'old' news - so much like Sony's PC strategy - they can release these 'elsewhere' to extract revenue from Gamers outside your 'user' base that boosts your income and ability to invest in your own products/services.
Starfield isn't selling Consoles or Game Pass Subscriptions today as such. Those that really wanted to play would have jumped in when that game released (or the weeks after). MS will be looking at their 'new' releases - MSFS24, Stalker 2, Avowed and Indiana Jones (maybe even CoD too now) to get people to buy an Xbox and/or sub to Game Pass to play 'day/date'.
Sony choose not to bring their games at all to 'Xbox' - maybe because they don't want to give MS 30% of their 'revenue' to release on that Platform, maybe because they don't think Xbox gamers will 'buy' a PS5 to play 'Day 1', don't think the 'work' porting and supporting post release will 'benefit' their revenue, their PR and/or 'brand; enough to justify it. How many PS gamers would lose their mind if Sony brought Spider-Man to Xbox - even if that is now 'old news', a 'PS4' era game not selling much on their own hardware or selling Consoles anymore...
MS's policy could be VERY similar to Sony's - keep all Single Player and/or new IP's exclusive (even if timed for a year or more) to get people in to that Platform but release multi-platform 'IP's' - especially Live Service/online community games Day/Date to maximise revenue potential and grow massive online Communities that allow friends/families to play together regardless of 'hardware' choices...
Re: Microsoft 'Really Pleased' with Sea of Thieves PS5 Sales
Of course MS will continue releasing 'some' of their Games Day 1 on Playstation. Since acquiring Mojang, everything that Studio has released since has remained multi-platform and we already know that Call of Duty too will release Day/Date. Doom, another 'multi-platform' IP that's on basically everything, is also coming in the future. It's not just CoD, but I expect Diablo and Overwatch to remain multi-platform IP's.
Whether or not games like Starfield or Hellblade 'eventually' release on Playstation, that's 'no different' from Sony eventually releasing Spider-Man or GoW on PC. Once those titles aren't selling Consoles or Game units, put them on a Platform you don't own or have a store on to extract revenue from those gamers you couldn't tempt into your platform. With MS, that only leaves Playstation 'realistically' as Switch maybe too difficult to port to. Sony of course have PC, Xbox and/or Switch - although refuse to release on Xbox which is their decision to make.
After 6yrs or so, I doubt Sea of Thieves is selling Xbox consoles, selling Game Pass Subs and probably reached every gamer in the 'Xbox' ecosystem - the 'only' way to grow that community and get new gamers in is to release it to a 'new' audience and that only leaves Playstation.
It's Similar with games like Starfield or Hellblade 2 - although that's more about 'revenue' generated - which will be 'exhausted' on Xbox before they choose to bring them to PS, much like Sony does with their Single Player IP's. Once they have exhausted their revenue on Playstation, sell on PC to extract as much 'revenue' as possible...
Re: Feature: Top 10 Best PS5 Games of 2024's Summer Showcases
I'd say that some of those games aren't 'mainstream' and the Live Service games they hope to appeal to Mainstream, but Mainstream gamers already have their 'live service' game they've invested time and (LOTS of) money in, games now with a LOT of content etc so aren't 'excited' by yet more trying to push in.
Others maybe were interested, but wouldn't be in their top 3 - whether that was because the trailers didn't show enough, other trailers being more 'exciting' or new/surprising so stood out more.
To be honest, I had zero interest in any of those games - inc Monster Hunter and Dragonage before the Summer Fest of Gaming shows, and the shows did nothing to change my mind. I can understand why AstroBot won on a PS site, it has more 'mass' appeal than most and it came as quite a surprise so stick in the memory most...
Re: Sony Skips Gamescom Presence for a Fifth Year in a Row
Why spend a small fortune on having 'space' on the showroom floor when they don't really have a lot to show, don't need the expense when they can reach their audience directly when they choose, and it's not as if they have to 'compete' for Console sales to get people to buy a Playstation when they are the 'dominant' Premium Console in Europe.
Sony will have a 'presence' just because the majority of games will likely release on Playstation. The biggest releases (in terms of Sales) of the Holiday season, the likes of EA's FC (was Fifa) and Madden, Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, Star Wars etc etc will all release day/date on PS5 anyway.
Much easier and cheaper to release a State of Play or a show when they want, to have a captive Playstation audience and reach their audience via Social media.
The vast majority won't be at Gamescom, they'll be using Social Media to watch a stream, relying on 'press' to give any 'hands on' preview/early impressions (just like this site has done with Black Myth). Therefore, why bother if you don't 'need' to....
Re: Ex-Sony Boss Shawn Layden Explains How to Make Games Faster, Cheaper
And yet we keep hearing about how these new 'Game' engines will save so much 'developer' time creating their games. They don't need to make the same assets at a variety of different LoDs that will be substituted in at different draw distances, don't have to run RT on their environments only to then try and 'bake' in the Shadows etc, go in with point lighting etc to create the look of realistic lighting in that world, they can now use 'realistic' lighting in real time...
You can't tell me that Uncharted for example wasn't chasing realism in graphics and arguably Tomb Raider reboot with its more realistic Character models and facial animations was able to tell a better, more emotional and 'immersive' Story as a result.
I don't necessarily think Graphics always make a difference. Car Racing games for example have looked 'great' for years and it doesn't matter how more 'realistically' you make the rain react to light, or how many 'polygons' now make up a cars headlight, the Game-play itself hasn't really changed. That being said, I doubt any that play these aren't stunned by the Graphics, the photomodes that look like real photos or racing around tracks that 'look' more realistic with Crowds in stands etc. Whether that improves the 'moment to moment' Game-play, I guess depends on the person
I doubt Sony would be as well regarded if their Iconic AAA games like Uncharted, Last of Us, God of War etc would have had the 'impact' they did if they had been 'low' polygon games, maybe in a 'minecraft' like artstyle as I doubt the Characters, the animations - particularly facial, would have had the same emotional impact.
Video games aren't just a replacement for the 'games' people used to play - board games, indoor sports, etc. Pong was 'indoor' sports and games like Donkey Kong, Pac-Man would be a bit more like your Board Games - take it in turns to get the High Score. Story's were told more like a choose your own adventure book - with text.
Now a game can put you in the Shoes of someone suffering Psychosis, the voices they 'suffer' are now in your 'head', as close to you as they are to the lead character to give some the 'experience' of what living with Psychosis is like - but to another person, those voices are 'annoying' and not important - the challenge of Combat/Puzzle solving is most important despite the fact these are merely 'triggers' for the Voices.
As for TF's, It did make a difference - just look at the PS4 vs XB1. Sony had the higher TF's and that actually translated into a noticeable difference in the multi-platform games. How many times did Sony have higher resolution, higher graphical settings and/or higher average 'frame' rates. Even if they weren't chasing 60fps, they'd stick closer to, if not not hold 30fps better translating to a 'better' gaming experience. So even if people don't fully understand TF's, it proved more is better for hitting the 'standards' promised - 1080p (not 900p or lower), better looking shadows, or draw distances, more 'consistent' frame rates etc.
This interview mentions movies, but you don't go to a movie and have 'inconsistent' frame rates, inconsistent Frame Pacing, bugs or glitches that really stop you from progressing or mean you have to restart, terrible visual quality with tearing or annoying pop-in, graphical bugs that break the immersion etc etc. Gaming is much more an Audience participation media, its much more 'hands on' than sit back and 'be' entertained...
Re: Talking Point: What PS5 Game Had the Best Showing Across All the Summer Gaming Events?
There were a number of games that I would say really stood out and surprised me with their trailers. Doom: The Dark Ages for example really stood out as it wasn't what I expected after it leaked, Perfect Dark too after reports of development hell.
I'd have to say that Black Ops 6 had perhaps some of the best Showing - opening a show and then having a Developer Direct show, Whether you play CoD or not, it had a lot of time dedicated to it so arguably the 'best' showing.
Some of the other games on this list had a lot less time - but another that really stood out was WuKong Black Myth but in fairness, most of the UE5 games look impressive, not necessarily games I'd play - especially Souls Like games...
Re: PS5 Needs to Do a Better Job of Alerting You to the Things Going on in Your Games
If its 'outside' of the Top 10 games I'm playing right now, chances are I've moved on from any 'Live Service' game and couldn't care less new content is available. If I was 'excited' by said Live Service game, I'd be well aware of their 'next' Season or Content drop without needing more Clutter on the screen.
When I turn my Console on, I have a very good idea of what I want to be playing before the Console has booted up and I want to get in that game as Quickly as possible. I don't care about news, ads etc - I get enough of that from Social Media.
Re: Xbox Really Wasn't Happy with PlayStation's Call of Duty Marketing Deal
It would be a very Slimy thing to turn round and say the ONLY way to play Call of Duty going forward, now they 'own' the IP, would be via an Xbox or via Game Pass ONLY - Forcing players to Subscribe and/or buy Xbox consoles, just because they can because of some petty Console 'war'
At the end of the day, CoD gamers are fans of a MS owned IP and its better to treat them ALL equally than annoy a sub-section because of their Platform choice.
You may see it as 'meaningless' but when some are getting 'more' XP, therefore unlocking more gear and rewards for the 'same' activity, that is still 'unfair'. It was 'unfair' that DLC was released a month earlier on Xbox too of course.
At the end of the day, its still 'better' value on Xbox as you get the PC version if you Buy from MS or can play for 'free' with a Subscription. However, if you 'choose' to play on Playstation, you won't miss out, be forced to buy an Xbox or be forced to Subscribe to Game Pass to play
Re: Some PlayStation Fans Are Losing Their Minds Over LEGO Horizon Being on Switch
Its not totally a Sony IP as Lego themselves will expect a cut for using their 'Lego' IP too. As such, Sony would need to sell more to recoup their costs and make the 'same' profit.
Sony see Xbox as their ONLY competitor in the 'Premium' Console market so they are unlikely to want to release there - that only leaves PC/Nintendo to sell 'more' games on. Also, they hope that PC/Switch gamers will buy a Playstation 5 as their 'Premium' console of Choice because they are familiar with Horizon...
It's about maximising the Sales as Lego will take their cut too so Sony won't make as much 'per' game sold, so need to sell more to break even - the best way to do that is to release on 'more' platforms that 'could' benefit your own Platform and not 'help' your Direct competitor.
Re: Reaction: Summer Game Fest 2024 Showcases AAA's Endless Winter
As this was the 'opening' show and the 'big' Publishers/Developers are likely to have their 'own' shows/reveals so their Show is exciting, I didn't expect much.
Sony for example may not want to get 'lost' in the mix with ALL the other news and could have a Show in a month or two with Games from their first Party Studios and announce the PS5 Pro coming this Holiday...
MS - along with Bethesda, ABK + any 3rd Party Partners will likely keep any big surprises for their Show and Ubisoft too will show their 'big' games coming. With numerous shows coming up, Geoff may have been left with 'little' that would excite the mainstream.
That 'mainstream' audience is waiting for CoD, for Assassins Creed, for Star Wars, for 'Fifa' (or whatever its called these days) - the 'big' Holiday releases, the next iteration of their favourite IP's that those 'mainstream' gamers buy and those games are likely to be shown at other shows this week.
Re: PS5 Hardware Architect Says It May Take Less Time to Build a Console Than a Game Now
Games maybe taking longer to make, but they aren't technically getting any 'better'. They may look far more realistic, but the Stories, the game-play loops etc aren't any better despite 'generations' of Hardware improvements.
I'd say that the PS3/360 era was the last real Generation that gave us 'experiences' unlike any other before. Since that Gen, it seems far more a focus on Graphics - delivering better resolutions, more objects, higher polygon counts etc but arguably dumbing down Game-play/Stories etc.
Things like Physics and destruction have certainly appeared to have disappeared in AAA games in favour of Static, but more detailed environments. Maybe due to such 'weak' CPU's...
It seems that Devs are spending so much time on 'Graphics' but Game-play/Stories haven't really evolved...
Re: LEGO Horizon Adventures Is Official, Out on PS5, PC, and Nintendo Switch
Nintendo isn't a 'Direct' Competitor - Sony even said they weren't 'Premium' Console Competition during the ABK deal - but Xbox Consoles specifically are.
This a Sony IP with no doubt a 'cut' going to Lego for their IP too. Therefore they need to sell more for 'both' to be happy and from Sony's perspective, when Switch gamers decide to buy a 'Premium' Console, they'll buy the PS5. They also think that PC gamers will want to buy a PS5 to play the games Sony releases on their PS5 'first' that much sooner by getting them into 'Sony IP's'...
Re: PS5 Packaging No Longer Mentions 8K, Some Fans Accuse Sony of False Advertising
I'm sure the PS5 could offer 8k in some games - even Natively, but I doubt it will offer any AAA new games at 8k or that ANY Devs would actively seek to make a 'native' 8k Game unless they have a low frame rate target and/or a LOT of GPU resources.
I have a bigger issue with Devs/Publishers actually lying about the resolution/frame rates of their games - Claiming 4k when its actually running at 1080p or lower and using FSR or some other upscaling method to send a '3840x2160' image to the TV. Yes it may well be sending a 4k image, but then my SkyQ sends a '4k' image for SD/HD content that's 'upscaled' before its sent to the TV thus filling a 3840x2160p screen
Same with Frame Rates - claim its 60fps, but invariably its running at 40-50FPS most of the time.
Sony may well be able to send an 8k image to a TV, but doesn't mean that 'Games' will be 8k. It could just be just 8k content via youtube for example. Being able to work with '8k' TV's could be enough - even if they don't have any 8k Content of their own.
Its like saying it has Dolby Vision support but if no Devs/Publishers add Dolby Vision to their games, its not Sony's fault. If it can do Mesh Shading for example, but no games release to utilise it, that's not the 'fault' of the hardware.
Re: PS5, PC Shooter Concord Appears to Be a $40 Game
Even if Free to Play, I'm not interested...
Re: Naughty Dog Won't Be 'The Last of Us Studio Forever', Says Neil Druckmann
Personally, I prefer Uncharted to Last of Us and Amy Hennigs Naughty Dog to Druckmanns. I thought the first Last of Us was more than enough and didn't need a Sequel - and maybe shouldn't have - no spoilers, but I don't think everyone was 'happy' with the story...
Re: Astro Bot Is the 'Biggest' Game Team ASOBI Has Ever Made
Personally I disliked Astro's Playroom - Partly because I felt it was a 'tech demo' for the Hardware, particularly the DS5 and I really don't enjoy some of the 'mechanics' that you are 'forced' to use to play the game. I never liked 'motion control', don't want to be 'blowing' on the Mic etc so I have never completed it.
I don't have any excitement for Platformer collectathons these days either so I doubt I'll be buying this. Each to their own of course, but I don't think this is for me.
Re: Marvel's Spider-Man 2 Swings 11 Million Sales as Sony Calls PS5 Exclusive a 'Great Success'
I wonder if Spider-Man sales are boosted by the PC and of course, the PS5. Even if it was 'playable' via BC on PS5, they also 'sold' a PS5 Remastered 'upgrade' that may have counted as a 'Sale' too.
SM2 isn't on PC yet and hasn't got a 'remastered' version to buy even if you bought the OG version so maybe won't sell as many - at least not until its released on Steam...
Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Live-Action Trailer Revealed
@HonestHick If we look at Computers for example, MS has their own range - the Surface range with Windows OS competing with Asus, HP, Lenovo etc in 'Hardware' yet why bother? They all have MS Windows as an OS, all get people into the MS Windows Ecosystem so 'why' bother.
Hardware is not really what MS is known for but they could release a handheld gaming 'Surface' PC to rival Asus RoG Ally, Lenovo Go or MSi Claw for example instead of releasing a 'Series S Handheld' that ONLY plays 'Xbox console' games, meaning their Surface has more 'games' as its also got Sony's PC releases as well as Steam, Epic, Emulation of Nintendo, Sega etc older games for around the same Price.
If they released a Handheld PC for example, all the 'Console' gamers would see that as them 'giving up' on Gaming and becoming just a Publisher - even if most of their Library are not on Playstation/Nintendo 'Consoles'. But for MS, you are still in their 'Xbox' ecosystem, still playing on Windows based Hardware.
If you own a PC that not only plays all the Xbox games, but also Sony's games and ALL the other games not on the latest Xbox/Playstation consoles, then why spend another £500+ to play those same games but also much more limited selection of games and have to pay Subscription fees to play 'online'. Maybe you won't 'need' the PS6 or Next Box because you have Hardware already to play ALL the games you want....
Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Live-Action Trailer Revealed
@HonestHick And MS will no-doubt sell CoD and its many extras on Nintendo Hardware too - maybe they will lose 5m Xbox sales but gain 10m Switch Sales...
In the future, the way Chips are developing, you may have a Handheld PC capable of delivering 4k/120fps with AI help to a TV for around the same price as a 'console' that's locked to a single Platform holder and charging for online access. Phones these days have decent GPU's and RAM too so maybe being able to play on devices you 'have' is a bigger appeal than 'new' hardware when your hardware plays virtually 'everything' with the exception of the 'few' games that will come to PC eventually from Sony to release.
Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Live-Action Trailer Revealed
@HonestHick I know it ain't as 'expensive' as it looks, but its still more expensive and after a 'year', you don't own the base game which is 'required' for ALL the Content you may have purchased.
UE5 is interesting, but I'm also interested in seeing what the id tech or CoD engine may do for games like Halo for example. These engines are designed for 60+ fps with incredible 'graphics' for that frame-rate target - CoD and Doom impressed, even Wolfenstein too and Halo looked Dated. not very performant for the visual quality....
Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Live-Action Trailer Revealed
@HonestHick Well its the Same Price to 'own' on Xbox too and of course both require a Subscription to play 'online'. So if you don't have 'Game Pass', its exactly the same for both Xbox and PS gamers.
Its still 'cheaper' to buy on a Platform you own than buy a new Console just to play on Game Pass. If you also want to play games like Stafield, Hellblade, MSFS, Fable, Avowed, Stalker 2 etc - games that may not be on PS (certainly not Day/Date), then it may make sense.
MS may 'prefer' you to jump to Xbox to play on Game Pass as they'll get 100% of every Season Pass, Bundle etc you purchase over the '70%' they get from you on PS - over time, that may make MS 'more' money than you playing on Sony, Buying the Game etc as Sony take 30%.
MS are getting 70% of ALL money spent on CoD on PS and ALL the Money on Xbox - ABK only got 70% on Xbox too. So whilst they may lose '70%' from a PS sale if that person jumps to Xbox to play on Xbox, they get more from every Season Pass (100%) instead of Sony taking 30% so may make more over the life despite not 'selling' the base game.
If Subscription numbers or Console hardware jump up, that's not necessarily because of CoD as MS are expected to release Avowed, Indiana Jones, Stalker 2 etc this year and they are 'exclusives' where as CoD is not. Those games are more likely to affect Xbox/Game Pass sales more than CoD will.
Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Live-Action Trailer Revealed
@HonestHick If you are adding PS+ Essential, you do get 'Games' with that service too - otherwise its likely to be $70 on Xbox/PS5 to buy the 'base' version that Game Pass owners get access to for that $180 a 'year'.
Yes you also get access to games like Hellblade, Starfield, Indiana Jones, Flight Sim etc etc too - which is where the 'value' comes in, if you don't enjoy playing or would rather play on PS for their 'exclusives', Controller etc its still 'better' value to stay on Playstation than be forced to buy an Xbox or Sub to Game Pass to play - at least its staying on Playstation....
Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Live-Action Trailer Revealed
@Sifi Not really. Most CoD gamers bought a PS5 as Sony had bonuses that PC/Xbox gamers didn't. Over 70% of MW3 sales were on PS.
Those CoD gamers aren't going to rush and buy a Series X to get the 'same' graphics/performance options as they would on their PS5, spend $180 a year on Game Pass Ultimate to play ALL year and not get any 'extras'.
No doubt, the base game will be 'free' to play Day 1 - but as anyone knows, that's just the 'entry' fee. To get the most out of the game, you really need the Season Pass and maybe a Bundle or two.
As we have seen, I bet MS will offer an 'upgrade' on the Game Pass 'base' game to get the Premium Edition with the first Season Pass and maybe a few days 'early access' for 'Premium' Edition owners (whatever platform they play on) - Pay $40 to upgrade to that edition.
Point is, it's more like pay 'hundreds' to access CoD on Xbox to save paying $70 for only the 'base' game that you could still play 2 or 3yrs later. If it's where your friends, your library or your preference to play is, stick where you are. Game Pass too only makes sense if you intend to play 'other' games it offers - otherwise its $180 a year (Game Pass Ultimate to play 'online' every month too) for a $70 game.
I don't know that everyone on Xbox would now Subscribe to Game Pass to play the 'base' game Free, still have to buy Season Passes etc and end up spending more over the year and not own the game they have bought extra content for.
Re: Ubisoft Pirate Game Skull and Bones Gets Trial Version, Price Cut as Player Count Reportedly Plummets
Even if Ubisoft decided to give away S&B for 'free' - make it Free to Play for everyone, I would still have ZERO interest in playing this. I can say the same for Suicide Squad too...
It doesn't matter how cheap they make it from my perspective, it won't tempt me...
Re: AI Helps Push Forward 'Boundaries of Storytelling', Says Naughty Dog's Neil Druckmann
Couldn't care less if a Story is written by Humans or AI, couldn't care less if AI designs and makes Games, does all the voice work etc, It's all about the 'end' product for me.
IF I can't tell in the end Product, why does it matter? Should 'humans' voice AI for Authenticity? What difference does it make knowing a voice was 'performed' by a Human or by an AI if it 'works' for the audience. If the Story is as good, if not better, the audience can't tell, then I couldn't care less.
I don't think AI is totally capable of writing a story, the scripts etc for a game without some Human correction/involvement or even some writers using AI for inspiration too. Nothing I have an issue with!
Re: Poll: Will the Rumoured PlayStation Showcase Be Announced Soon?
I have no idea with Sony anymore.
I would think that they'd do a Showcase if/when they have something to show - not just their own first Party stuff, but also their Partners. With the Holiday season coming, you'd think they'd do something to show their Roadmap for the end of the year but 'when', who knows...
They could announce a showcase and then hold it the next day for example rather than announce it weeks in advance - maybe if waiting on something to be finalised (some details/specs etc) or 'ready' to reveal (optimising and polishing a section so it looks presentable) before committing..
Re: Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 Now Official, Reveal Next Month
@DonkeyFantasy Parity just means it would have the same 'Content' - much like other Switch ports. The same Maps, same Campaign, same weapons/modes etc.
You get 'parity' between PS4 and PS5 versions despite the differences in Visuals (4k res, Higher visual settings etc on PS5) or 'Performance' (120fps modes on PS5). The fact is that PS4 still got the same 'Content' meant it had Parity - they didn't miss out on Content because they play on less capable hardware. Fortnite can be played on Switch with PS5/Series X/PC gamers so I can see CoD doing the same - even if it isn't offering up to 4k or up to 120fps...
Black Ops 3 on PS4 (I believe) didn't have Parity with its PS3 as it didn't have the campaign and missed out on DLC packs too.
Re: Helldivers 2 Dev Says It's Seen 'Horrifying' Toxicity from Some of the Community
@rjejr Differences of opinion lead to Conflict. That can be 'minor' (as in just verbal arguments), but can lead to far worse - such as death threats and even violence.
I will agree that in recent years, there seems to be an increase in these 'conflicts' becoming more than just a heated discussion/argument and leading to more violent acts/threats. Even if you are ALL gamers, there are arguments, death threats, violence etc because of opinions. Even if you love Football, you see violence over opinions.
All I said is that the more a Community grows, the more varied and/or extreme the Opinions can get, the more chance that you'll have some with no courtesy or common sense, Some 'extreme' behaviour/less tolerance to others and/or their culture etc.
I do agree with you that Society these days does seem worse than 25yrs ago, but to expect a large Community in a Game to be very different to Societal Communities (which may well be on a Knife edge today) isn't realistic either. The fact is that those who are violent, aggressive, lacking decency, common sense etc are still able to play and be part of that 'game' community too.
It 'reflects' society so if Society is lacking tolerance, lacking courtesy/common sense, then its likely to be the same within large gaming communities - those people don't change, maybe even worse when its not 'face to face'...
All I meant is that if Society and every other Community has these issues, then Gaming will be no different - not that it should be acceptable or tolerated, but more a reflection on the state of the world/communities in real life. I wish it was different, but it seems things are declining globally...
I tried not to go to 'deep', use some of the worst as examples etc to try not to upset, single any one or group out, not make it 'personal' etc as that maybe too much 'Politics' for a Gaming site so sorry if that seemed to miss the mark...
Re: Helldivers 2 Dev Says It's Seen 'Horrifying' Toxicity from Some of the Community
Take any Community, whether its built up around a Game, a Sports club or just the Community where you live, there is always some that will have a Different opinion, different perspective etc that can be a trigger for Conflict. The bigger the Community, the more variety of opinions etc, the more likely a conflict.
That can occur between fans too as they 'argue' over where the Devs should be focusing on or what they should be doing etc. When they do 'something', some wished they hadn't or rather wish they had done something different.
It's like playing an Objective based game in CoD when some of your team seem allergic to Objectives so you 'argue' about why they play those modes if they won't 'help' with the Objectives - then conflict starts.
The more people in a community, the more 'opinions' and differences you'll see. That can then lead to conflict as people try to assert their Opinions and dismiss others.
Re: Random: DOOM Co-Creator John Romero Reveals Hellish Way 'Gib' Is Properly Pronounced
There is a difference between a shortened word and an Acronym.
'Gib' is a shortened version of Giblets so I have always said this with a 'soft' G.
GIF is a n Acronym and the first word of that starts with a hard G (graphics) so its a GIF with hard G - regardless
Re: Microsoft Commits to Next Call of Duty Game on Xbox Game Pass, New Report Says
@rjejr Let alone there plan to release on more hardware too - so they aren't giving it away on Nintendo for example and probably not allowed to sell Game Pass on their Switch/Switch 2, so that's an added avenue to sales of the game.
If you've followed much of Game Pass news of late, they have also 'sold' upgrades - to special/collectors/premium/gold or whatever you want to call them versions - with Starfield it included 'early access' and the DLC when that released for an upgrade to the Game Pass access. Pay £35 for the early access Premium edition but don't own the 'base' game - people bought it though...
They'll do something similar with CoD too so CoD fans will pay for that Premium edition upgrade and get hooked on the season pass upgrade system and want to carry that on next season. Others may feel their missing out without that if they enjoy it - more money coming in....
Re: Microsoft Leadership Reportedly Want No 'Red Line' Stopping Xbox Games Coming to PS5
@Vaako007 When you see what they can do with the new iPad Pro and its 'Bench marks' and Neural engine in something that thin/light, How long before you have 3080ti like GPU performance inc a Neural Processor for AI DLSS/RT/etc - all on a 1080p-1440p Handheld 'PC'?
Buy one of those for the same Price Sony wants for its next Console, that maybe a tougher proposition. Do you upgrade or get a PC where you can play Anywhere, anytime with great graphics/performance? PC has Playstation games as well as Steam, Epic etc - Games Sony won't have inc Nintendo games through emulation.
A mobile phone could well be powerful enough to to run games if people aren't expecting 4k 'ultra' graphics modes the 'best' PC offer too, so that's why MS is investing more in that market - they also want to get people buying Forza, Halo, CoD etc on there too.
Get CoD everywhere - inc Mobiles, you get more people buying season passes, cosmetic bundles etc. That makes up for the 'loss' of a few million sales on Xbox/PC. If you only have 5m Sales, you can only sell 5m season Passes - get 20m in, that's a LOT more people to potentially buy a season pass or whatever they sell in game...
Re: Microsoft Commits to Next Call of Duty Game on Xbox Game Pass, New Report Says
@MrBook And yet Activision has opened 2 new Studios since they were acquired - Infinity Ward opened a new Studio in Austin last November to work on CoD tech and create 'innovative' new CoD experiences. This week, they announced a new Studio in Poland, Elseswhere Studios.
Roundhouse were 'merged' into Zenimax Online and maybe some of Arkane Austin staff were moved to other MS Austin based Studios, maybe to help Infinity Ward Austin to staff up and couldn't logistically 'staff' up both. With Arkane, they had lost a lot of the 'best' staff after being forced by Zenimax to make 'Redfall' in a way they had no experience or desire to make it. It may have cost too much to restaff and get them making games with ALL their other Studios (inc new Studios as part of the ABK group) so better to shutter and employ at Infinity Ward Austin for example as they may have a Game in development and likely ready to release much sooner.
Re: Microsoft Commits to Next Call of Duty Game on Xbox Game Pass, New Report Says
@UltimateOtaku91 How much will they lose? From the last few years, Sony has certainly dominated as far as where the vast majority of 'Console' gamers have purchased this game. Over 70% of MW3 sales were on PS in the first week or so and if that continued, with 30m copies sold, that's over 20m on PS.
MS may 'lose' 5-10m sales of the 'base' game as those gamers choose to play through Game Pass. But a number of those will likely pre-order the Prestige edition with a Season Pass some cosmetics and/or early 'Beta' access. All those extras, like CoD points, Season Passes, Cosmetic Bundles etc (also in Free to Play Warzone) will bring in revenue from GP subs.
MS too will bring CoD to 'more' players as they have a deal with Nintendo as well as numerous others, so may actually get more sales than they 'lose' on Xbox to Game Pass Subscribers. All the 'extras' too will still be 'sold' to Game Pass Subscribers and EVERYONE who wants to 'try' CoD online must have at least a Game Pass 'Core' Subscription on Xbox and/or keep their Game Pass Subscription active to keep playing which costs more than buying the game anyway...
Re: Microsoft Commits to Next Call of Duty Game on Xbox Game Pass, New Report Says
I doubt this will mean a LOT more Xbox Consoles sold. It perhaps won't make sense for all those Playstation gamers who bought PS5 because of CoD and its benefits to PS gamers to suddenly rush out and buy a Series X and a Game Pass Subscription to 'save' buying it on a Platform they already had.
It may help a bit where those gamers that haven't yet upgraded to the current Console hardware, as CoD has been released on Last gen too, they may 'choose' to upgrade to Xbox now instead of Playstation, but it may depend on how many Digital games they own and would 'lose' by jumping from PS to Xbox.
MS stated ALL first Party games will be on Game Pass. The price went up recently - only a small amount, but with 35m, a $1 per person increase is an extra $35m a month, $420m a year - Game Pass 'income' is not something ABK had coming in. Also, every game sold on MS, they now get 100%, not just 30% as retailer on ALL digital content. You buy a season pass for say £20, in the past, ABK as Publisher would get £14, MS got £6 - now MS get all £20. Its not just 'Game' sales as Warzone, Free to Play anyway, also has numerous ways of bringing in money...
CoD has Season Passes, Cosmetic Bundles, CoD Points etc and those bring in a LOT of revenue. Whilst some of those on Game Pass may only play the Campaign and not buy 'anything' extra, they probably wouldn't have bought the game anyway. Some others that may not have bought may well end up buying extras too - And you have ALL the revenue from selling the Game on PS5, selling extras to those. They may make a LOT more money from 'Sony' console gamers as they have the larger install base and won't be getting the game for 'free'. MS also had a deal with Nintendo - which may well bring in 'extra' income to offset some of the lost sales from Game Pass users.
As we have seen from 'MS' and the way they have offered Games, you get the 'base' game ONLY. CoD (as well as many other games) usually offer a Prestige/Collectors edition - maybe with the first Season Pass, extra Cosmetics, maybe early 'Beta' access etc so will bring in 'money' from Game Pass as CoD gamers pay £35-£40 to 'upgrade' their Game Pass edition to a Prestige/Premium edition. Its still cheaper than the £100+ Premium edition on PS for example but £100+ is still cheaper than buying a Series X to get the same quality experience and a Game Pass Subscription just to get the base game 'free'...
MS may not make as much 'per person' playing on Xbox as they would if it was 'Sold', but they could make 'more' money overall because its being Sold on Nintendo and bringing in more revenue on 'extras' across MORE platforms as they have MORE people in that game/marketstore!
Re: Microsoft Leadership Reportedly Want No 'Red Line' Stopping Xbox Games Coming to PS5
@Vaako007 The average gamer, if you really want to there, would most likely be playing on their Mobile Phone as Mobile Gaming is by far the most popular 'Globally'.
Steam-deck or those Handheld PCs may well be a 'compliment' for a PC gamer, but the SteamDeck could be someones first Console instead of a Switch for example and cheaper than a PS5/Series X. Not only that, it probably has a larger Library inc being able to play both Sony and MS games all without a 'monthly' Subscription fee (even if just for 'online' access)
Most gamers aren't that bothered about 4k or RT and paying for Hardware to do '4k RT' is expensive. Handhelds may well be less 'powerful' than a Console, but they aren't required to do more than 1080p on their small 1080p screen. In a few years, you could have Handheld PC's with DLSS 3.0 for example too that are as 'cheap' as the next Playstation but with a MUCH larger Library inc Sony, MS etc games (inc any not playable via BC thanks to emulation), can play anywhere, take you games anywhere etc so 'most' gamers may well opt for that instead...
Why buy a Playstation when all those games are on a 'PC' which means you can play the game on 'cheap' PC handhelds, laptops, tablets or 'high end' gaming rigs, play a massive range of older and PC exclusive games and don't have any other 'Subscriptions' required, cheaper games etc.
The same principle applies to Sony as it does MS with regards to 'selling' games outside of their platform/ecosystem. If your games are available elsewhere, then 'some' gamers will choose to play on that hardware instead of buying their Hardware. If I had a high end gaming rig for example, why buy an Xbox? No point because I can play everything on that PC. Why buy a Playstation? No point because I can wait for Sony to release on PC. Spend £500 on a Handheld PC and I can play Playstation, Xbox, Steam etc games anytime, anywhere with no need for PS+/Game Pass monthly fees if I choose.
Handhelds are more popular than TV connected Consoles - as proven by the majority of gamers playing on Mobile devices - so I wouldn't say they are 'just' for the Road...
Re: Microsoft Leadership Reportedly Want No 'Red Line' Stopping Xbox Games Coming to PS5
@Vaako007 That's not strictly true - Steam-Deck is a Handheld Console and many PC gamers buy a Playstation for the 'exclusives' they can't play on PC - now they can.
We are also seeing more and more Handheld Consoles that are not overly expensive considering they are gaming PC's. A RoG Ally for example can play Spider-Man, R&C, Starfield or Forza - as well as all steam, epic, old Playstation/Nintendo/Sega games - a MUCH larger Library than both Playstation 5 and Xbox Series combined.
The only real difference is that Devs will likely give you a 'few' options - maybe a 30fps and 60fps mode to choose between but with a PC, you can tweak the settings to suit your hardware and preference.
When I got my RoG Ally, it was very Similar to buying a Console, plugging it in, updating it, Signing in to my account, waiting for Games to download/install/update to the latest patch and then just playing. In fact, I had immediate access to Game Pass and Steam, each with my Library ready, each with my saves ready so I can continue where I left off etc.
Why spend £500+ on a Console with a more limited Library and locked into that 1 'ecosystem' when you can buy a Handheld PC for example and Play a much larger Library inc all Xbox, most Sony etc games that are often cheaper and much more likely to be Backwards Compatible in the future too?
Yes a gaming PC can be expensive, but its not that 'expensive' if you aren't bothered about '4k' - especially if you don't have a 4k display. Some people may prefer to have 1080/120 without RT than 4k/30 with RT or 4k/60 without it but you may not have that choice on a 'locked' console.
Re: Publisher Nexon Investigating Cause of The Finals' 'Lower-Than-Expected' Performance
Maybe because the majority of the streamers who were used to promote this moved on to the next big thing they were promoting (whether its Grey Zone, Arena, Marvel Rivals, DefiantX etc).
These games maybe 'fun' with the right friends for an hour or two, but the lack of depth, doing the same thing match after match isn't good for longevity. As more and more 'struggle' to establish and compete with Fortnite, Apex, Warzone etc, the more difficult I think it will be for 'new' games as people will be reluctant to play something they fear will be shuttered in a few years...
Re: Microsoft Leadership Reportedly Want No 'Red Line' Stopping Xbox Games Coming to PS5
Personally I couldn't care less. I doubt its much different to Sony wanting to put more games on PC - whether they release day/date or some-time after.
Exclusives can still be beneficial for MS in the same way they are for Sony. They can use them to sell Hardware, get people playing in your 'ecosystem' and then sell them elsewhere once they have served that purpose and 'new' games are being used for hardware sales.
Starfield for example could release a year or two - but at that point, its 'old' news on Xbox and games like Fable or Perfect Dark may well be exclusives to get people into the Xbox ecosystem.
Thats similar to Sony with God of War, Spider-Man or Horizon for example - when those games were not selling Hardware and/or Sales have dried up to a trickle, they sell on PC to bring in more money and another PR cycle for Sony.
MS may well do the same - except they already release on PC so the only real option to get that 'extra' money and PR cycle is to release on the only Platforms you can't yet play their Games.
Sony actively choose not to tap into the Xbox market in the same way they have chosen to tap into the PC market. MS may choose to tap more into the Playstation market and I would expect that they'll decide which 'older' games to release. Of course some IP's like CoD, Minecraft will release Day/date anyway...
Re: Strategy Legend Jake Solomon Explains Where Marvel's Midnight Suns Went Wrong
Numerous factors put me off - the Cards was one aspect, the XCOM connection and turn based combat was also a major turn-off.
I wouldn't play any game with that style of Game-play loop regardless of the story or how popular the IP the game-play is wrapped in. Just because the Story maybe great or fact it's a 'Marvel' game doesn't mean that people will buy if the Game-play doesn't appeal.
Re: EA Exploring 'Thoughtful Implementations' of In-Game Advertising
The only way I'd be OK with 'Ads' in games is if they were going for a Realistic look with real branded items - similar to how Car Racing games have their branded vehicle models.It may not seem like advertising, but they are 'advertising' their brand, logo and models.
In other words, if you have a City, you'd see realistic adverts on billboards as you drive around. Instead of seeing 'Burger Queen' or 'McDougals', you get Burger King and McDonalds.
I don't want to have to watch a 30s Advert for Coca-Cola or a world where the only drink is Pepsi and that Logo is EVERYWHERE. However, I can see this being more the case - unfortunately...
Re: Poll: Years Later, How Do You Feel About PlayStation's PC Strategy?
It really doesn't matter or make any difference to me whatsoever. I really don't see how it negatively impacts me whether the game is 'limited' to just Playstation ONLY gamers or that MANY other gamers can play. If anything, exclusives force me to buy Hardware or miss out on the 1 or 2 games a year I can't play EVERYWHERE adding to the Cost.
I'd rather have more choice as to where I choose to play games, not less/no choice.
Re: Warner Bros Revenue Plummets as Suicide Squad Falls Completely Short of Hogwarts Legacy
I, like MANY gamers, could see this happening regardless. The fact that WB couldn't/didn't, especially with other games - like Marvel's Avengers, proving that 'Live Service' isn't what the gamers want.
Publishers see the 'success' of some Live Service game, the sales of MTX in those, and think EVERY game should be made into a 'Live Service' - thinking more about the cosmetics, the 'grind' etc instead of focusing on the Game-play, story, character development etc. Not only is everything so 'mediocre', its often repetitive, grindy and a weak 'story'.
Hogwarts, despite its 'Controversy' was a game that focused on Story, Game-play and what a 'Gamer' would want from that IP and as a result, succeeded...
Re: Sony Doubles Down on Helldivers 2 PSN Requirement by Taking It Off Sale for PC in Numerous Countries
@Intr1n5ic My Email is 'Private' for example - and Sony don't have the best record for Data breaches.
Oh and in some countries, Facial pic and some ID (Passport, Drivers Licence etc) is required to verify age. That's also 'private' and shouldn't be required to play a GAME especially on another Platform - its purely to give Sony more control over who plays their Game even if you are not playing on Sony's Platform!