@NeonPizza @itsfoz And don't forget the 'compulsory' extra costs involved in console gaming - for a start, you really need a monthly Subscription to PS+/Game Pass, even if just the most basic Sub service adding to overall cost.
Say they do release at £700 and add another £7 a month for the next 3yrs for PS+ essential (I know you maybe able to find it cheaper or buy it annually for £60) but that adds to 'cost' as well as paying £70 for games that are 'cheaper' on PC too.
So whilst a Console maybe 'cheaper' initially on Hardware, the extras add up - but it is a choice. I prefer a 'Console' to game on for ease and it suits how I game better. However, I also dislike being locked into just 1 'ecosystem', forced to buy from just one 'digital' store and forced to Subscribe to a service to access 'content' I bought...
@Flaming_Kaiser Whilst nothing 'official' has been released, that doesn't stop the 'principal'. The whole point is this is Sony's answer to 'upscaling'.
It may well use AI for example to enhance the quality of the 'upscaled' image, remove or eliminate some of the 'artefacts' or issues associated with other upscaling methods but its still taking a 'lower' resolution image and making it look like it was actually rendered at a higher resolution.
DLSS, for example, regarded as the 'best' on the market right now, can take a 1440p, even a 1080p image and make it 'look' like a 4k image. It looks more like a 'native' 4k image, better than 'traditional' upscaling but neither is actually running the game at 'higher' resolution.
A game running at 1080/60 on a 4k screen would look a bit soft due to the TV's own upscaling. DLSS, FSR etc all take that 'SAME' 1080p image and make it look 'closer' to a Native 4k image but its still '1080p' internal res.
More power may help those 720p internal res games have a 'higher' starting point (say 1440p) and with 'better' upscaling options, make that 1440p look even more like Native 4k to deliver 60fps but doesn't mean that its running at 4k.
A game running internally at 30fps, being updated 30x a second, isn't suddenly going to feel like 60fps or like its being updated 60x a second because of some artificially rendered frame is dropped in between to create the 'illusion', the 'smoothness' of a 60fps game.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for utilising resources more efficiently and if they can make 1080p look more like 'Native' 4k with 'fewer/no' artefacts, then of course its better than relying on my TV to 'upscale' to 4k but doesn't change the fact the game itself is only rendering a 1080p image - it just 'looks' better with DLSS than standard upscaling algorithms...
So they are focussing on reconstruction - maybe it will be more on a par with DLSS than FSR, but the whole point of 'reconstruction' techniques is to artificially create the 'look' of higher resolution whilst the game is running at 'lower' resolution.
As we know, some games are running as low as 720p to hit 60fps - often using some 'reconstruction' techniques (like FSR, Chequerboard rendering etc) to 'create' a higher resolution image to output. However, the 'output' resolution may well be 2160p but its been reconstructed and upscaled from a much lower resolution.
Granted, having more 'horesepower' under the hood may well mean that you aren't having to 'start' with a 720p image the game is 'actually' presenting - you could start from 1080 or 1440p instead so 'less' reconstruction/upscaling for a 'cleaner' image.
As for Frame Generation (as FSR/DLSS 3.0 offer), a 30fps is still a 30fps - the same input lag, the same response etc as the game is still only updating at 30fps - an 'artificially' created image is being placed between these to create the 'look' of 60fps, not address the 'FEEL' of 60fps.
I don't mind them not wasting resources to push 'Native' 4k when those resources maybe better used to push draw distance, lighting quality etc and then 'upscaled' from 1440p+ but its still not a '4k' game - it just 'looks' 4k because of the quality of the upscale.
It may well be telling you its 4k/60 but in reality could be running at 1080/60. Like I said, we have games saying they are '4k' yet running at 'HD' resolutions and using some form of upscaling technology to take a low res image and make it look much higher res...
On the subject of 'development' - I guess if you have just a Single platform to develop for, regardless of how well 'specced' it is, you can build games to that limited spec and save money on porting, optimising and supporting other hardware.
The Switch for example has 1080/60 games that run 'flawlessly' on that hardware but we are seeing some games on PS5 struggling to offer 1080/60 on PS5. Of course Polygon counts, the density of detail/objects etc etc maybe significantly higher, but they weren't 'built' specifically for PS5, specifically for PS5's 'limited' hardware. Its much easier to 'tweak' a game, reduce or even remove things that go 'over' budget. Its a bit more tricky when some hardware will offer the 'full' vision ad your 'scaling' it down to fit on a Console. Point is, you have a 'fixed' spec, a limited 'budget' and limit the game/ambition etc to that budget to ensure it 'runs' as intended. 3rd Party build their 'vision' and then try and fit it to the limited spec.
At the end of the day, an Exclusive is ONLY there to get you to buy that Hardware - which then gets you 'locked' into that platform. You'll end up buying Subscriptions (even if the Basic tier PS+ just to play online), games, DLC/MTX, peripherals etc - how much does Sony make from 3rd Party Software on 'their' system. Its not done for 'the gamer', its done to ensure you buy a Playstation, an Xbox and/or a Switch.
MS may well be selling Games like Sea of Thieves on PS5, but they'll make money from that - maybe not as 'much' as they make on Xbox as Sony will take their '30%' cut. If Helldivers 2 came to Xbox, Sony could make a LOT more money but MS too would get 'some' money.
All an Exclusive is really a tool for the Platform holder to get you into their Ecosystem. Once its served its purpose, Sony are now selling them on PC knowing that anyone who really wanted to play, would have bought hardware to play it, now selling to the 'PC' community who probably won't buy a PS5.
To me, it seems the big Publishers have put their faith in a Live Service future - a shell of a game they hope to sell, then continue selling cosmetics, in-game currencies and other exceptionally over-priced content indefinitely.
However, the gamers themselves have made it known that this is not acceptable - many Live Service games have failed/died - especially those with $70 launch prices competing with F2P games.
When Sony announced they had 10+ Live Service games, most of the 'internet' were extremely disappointed and/or critical. Couple that with other Publishers trying and failing too - games like Gotham Knights, Suicide Squad, Skull N Bones - and several that are now gone forever.
To me, it was inevitable that something had to give - Publishers pushing for Live Service games they hope to make 'billions' on selling Cosmetics costing as much as many Indie and/or Sale complete Games with minimal effort (change colours and charge for a 'new' outfit).
It seemed that Devs were unhappy making some 'generic' Live Service game wrapped in an IP they own Skin with exceptionally bland and/or generic story, missions etc with the Sole purpose of selling 'DLC' extras indefinitely - let alone pushing them out 'unfinished/unpolished' too - and the gaming market have said 'enough' with their wallets and comments on the internet.
Would Sony of been in this position if they had announced 10+ Single Player games - even if they had a Multi-player component? I bet if they announced a Killzone 'reboot' with a Single Player Campaign and full MP suite as you'd expect from Killzone, few would complain but taking just the MP suite from Last of Us, making a Horizon Live Service etc isn't what Sony customers want or expect - which has probably led to this situation.
It's not just Sony of course - but with many F2P games, as well as a massive library (inc Backwards Compatible titles - many now 'cheap' and Sub services offering 'free' games, 'new' releases are struggling to justify their 'increased' price - especially as most are not really bringing anything 'new' - the same game-play loops, same generic mechanics etc - just higher polygon count/visual density. Gamers have been burned too many times, buying Day 1 and being disappointed the game is a buggy, broken mess, erratic performance etc that needs patching - not expected from a $70 game.
Therefore, I think it was inevitable that something had to give. Publishers can't keep trying to force games people don't really want to play, can't expect to charge $70 for 'mediocre/minimal' content with promises to drip feed content along with Season Passes, Cosmetic bundles etc and release games in 'poor' state too...
From my perspective, Streaming is NOT really the Primary way gamers will choose to play their games - its a 'bonus' option for certain situations where using 'hardware' to play isn't an 'option'.
If you are playing on PS5 or Series X for example - Why? The only reason is likely to be to 'try' a game to see if its worth waiting to download and install. Otherwise, its just a way to play games 'away' from your Primary hardware choice.
Additional lag is a bit like lower resolution/PQ on a handheld - you should 'expect' it for that flexibility as input signals have to travel far further from you to 'hardware' running the game and send a picture to your display.
Considering that both ABK and Zenimax group of studios have 'current' games across ALL platforms, the likes of Minecraft, CoD, OW2, Diablo, ESO, Fallout76, Doom, Wolfenstein etc etc, many of which have received extra content, updates etc, there is a 'LOT' of MS owned IP's on Playstation and Switch already.
That doesn't mean that they'll bring EVERYTHING to PS or Switch - maybe they'll treat PS/Switch in a similar way to Sony treats the PC - release 'some' games a year or more later. Still 'exclusive' on Xbox at release - or maybe the 'incentive' for MS could be Game Pass vs having to spend $70+ to play Day 1...
The fact is, MS will release games on PS/Switch - maybe not their 'entire' catalogue but a selection - Minecraft & CoD certainly aren't going anywhere...
Who cares? If AI can do the job as well, if not better than so overpaid 'media' star who is only reading scripts/lines that someone else 'wrote' .
Video games have somehow now ended up being affected by these 'precious media darlings' who won't read a few lines of dialogue for less than several thousand. Somehow having some famous 'media' star is now a marketing gimmick too - Keanu Reeves (Cyberpunk) being the most obvious.
If you can't tell the difference between 'AI' and real humans - either because AI is that good or because so many parts are 'AI' in a game - Cortana being perhaps one of the more famous 'AI' in Game, Ghost from Destiny (voiced by Peter Dinklage and then Nolan North).
The ONLY issue I have is if they ASK AI to sound exactly like a Famous Actor/person without their permission specifically and/or use their 'likeness' in game too
None of them really stand out to me as 'must haves/day 1' purchases at best and many there that really don't appeal to my tastes or what I personally would want to spend my time/money on.
I still have games I am enjoying and not yet finished and plenty of other games in my backlog to keep me in games until such a time as something 'new' appeals more than anything I can already play and so much so, I'll buy it when/near release...
I think if anyone was currently in the Market looking to Bolster their own portfolio of Studio's, they could have had a host of Studio's and/or built up their 'existing' Studios from all those that have been closed down and/or had big Staff cuts.
Sony, for example, maybe could have bought First Contact Entertainment (Firewall Zero Hour) to bolster their VR game development or maybe recruited staff from the 'numerous' Closures to create a 'new' or 2nd Studio to any of their big Studio's.
Arguably you wouldn't get the same 'talent' or the IP's that CDPR have, but also the Studio is in a much stronger place today than a few years ago. Despite the 'Launch' and subsequent months of disappointment - especially for gamers on 'last-gen' hardware, the game sold well and as more people 'upgraded' to next gen consoles, Cyberpunk has become one of the 'best' RPG's on the current hardware. Therefore, I'd imagine that they as a Company would be in a position of 'Strength' to determine their own future.
Independent Studios are not going to sell when they have all the resources they need for their immediate future. Its when things are difficult, maybe their games aren't selling 'enough' to keep them making games with rising costs etc and looking for 'investment', that they are often bought by Corporations. New or independent Studio's making their 'first' big Game wanting the resources to compete in the AAA space etc.
@KendoHead the game being installed on a console is nothing to do with ownership...
You are right here because even if you do somehow manage to install Software on your console, you cannot access it with a Valid Licence - either from putting the Disc in OR because the License is attached to your Account if bought digitally. So installed 'software' is not 'ownership' as you could install the Last of Us 2 from disc, sell the disc and therefore that 'software' becomes useless without the Licence key to access it - which you no longer own. Its the same with Digital - the download part is just to ensure you have the software that your purchased licence key will allow you to play...
The only difference is that licence is held on Disc/Cartridge with Physical and with Digital, its linked to your Account so you need to sign in to Access the Software or put the Disc in. Without the Licence, you can't play and that Software is 'owned' by the Devs/publishers - not you!
The point I was making about 'Goldeneye' for example is that you need to own the Cartridge and the Hardware simultaneously and just 'owning' the Cartridge doesn't grant you the right to play on newer hardware. If you bought Killzone 3 on disc, it doesn't matter if you now own a PS4/5, you can't 'play' it or expect to be able to jump online anymore. If you bought it digitally and they turn the 'online' service off on PS3 you can't 're-download' so its lost. Without a working PS3, owning the Disc isn't going to let you play...
You NEVER own the Software - that is 'owned' by the developer/publisher. You've never 'owned' the Software. Just because you 'could' abuse terms, maybe even 'copy' games from others 'illegally' and play without any real 'risk' in the past doesn't change the fact you didn't 'own' the Game. You bought a licence to access the devs/publisher owned software included with it...
@Martijn87 Without a 'License' in place, it would be illegal for the Publisher to sell and profit from another's Intellectual Property. They do NOT own the rights to Bill & Ted, so once the Licence expires, they can no longer sell the game.
It's no different from Spider-Man (Treyarch) or Wolverine (Raven Software) games by Activision are no longer for sale, cannot be 'sold' because ABK cannot 'profit' from using Marvel characters without a 'License' in place.
@KendoHead at least a Physical purchase allows me to own something that can't be taken away at any given time.
You buy a Physical version, they can still 'revoke' your Licence to play or at least stop you from 'playing' if they decide or you break the terms & conditions of said licence.
You NEVER own a 'Game'! What you 'purchase' - whether Digitally or Physically, is a 'Licence' to access that Software. The software is 'included' on disc/via download so you can play but without a Licence, the Software is useless to you. Try playing a game you installed to your Console without the Disc, you can't! That's despite the entire game being 'installed' - you need the Disc to prove you still own a valid Licence to access the Software...
Many games are no-longer 'playable' or major portions of the Game are no longer available due to them deciding to turn off Servers for example. If you own 'Goldeneye' on Cartridge, you have a 'valid' licence to keep playing on N64 hardware - but can't use that 'Licence' to play on Xbox or Switch today. Therefore, you are still dependent on using Obsolete Hardware (no longer in Production) to play games no longer being made or for sale - unless you can find a 'used' working copy somewhere...
Big difference, in my opinion, to a bolted-on MP mode designed to add more 'value' and/or long term Player engagement beyond the Single Player, and a Multi-player ONLY game.
LoU & Uncharted both followed the 'trend' of bolting on a MP mode onto a Single Player game - just like Dead Space 2, Bioshock 2, AC2 Brotherhood and numerous 'other' games. Even CoD or Halo were known primarily for their Campaign with a 'good' MP suite. Point is, you bought these for the Campaigns, then stayed because you enjoyed the MP.
Now, it seems that MP is the 'focus' because that's where they can make the 'most' money with Season/Battle passes, MTX, Loot boxes etc etc. I played a bit ND's Uncharted's MP's but would NEVER buy the MP separately and certainly wouldn't have bought 'Factions'. Even if it was F2P, I'd still not bother with these.
How many people complain about Halo or Gears Campaign not living up to expectations - certainly since Bungie/Epic stopped making those. Even this years CoD is considered a 'dud' because its Campaign is 'very weak'. So many 'Live Service' games are struggling and even MP games aren't really 'succeeding' in pulling players away from 'established' online games.
@nessisonett Maybe because 3 was flawed and not built for modern hardware so more work and New Vegas, arguably the best 'Fallout' game wasn't made by Bethesda.... LOL
And besides those games aren't on 'PS4' natively to get a PS5 update that is possibly 'free' if you own the game...
@NinjaNicky Part of it is the 'grind' to unlock new weapons, camo's, attachments, calling cards etc as well as complete all those 'new' challenges.
If you have got every camo, attachment etc in the game, then the 'new' one gives them all that to play for. Even if the Maps aren't 'new' the new Movement does change up the Maps a bit more too and you have the Nostalgia too of playing some Iconic maps.
It may not change 'much' but part of the game-play loop is the 'rewards' of unlocking new stuff as you play. If you have unlocked everything, reached maximum level etc, then you want something 'new' even if that isn't as 'great' value as its 'predecessor' seems to others.
I doubt it will go down in CoD history as one of the 'best', but it is giving CoD gamers that game-play and rewarding experience. Almost every match you play, you'll be unlocking 'something' new and that drives players to 'play one more' because they are close to unlocking something, levelling up etc that 'older' games no longer offer having already unlocked 'everything' in those...
To me, its perhaps more than Fifa or MLB changes - which at time you think they could just 'update' the stats for the 'new' season as the 'Game-play' doesn't really change - but people still buy those too.
Despite the Competition (BF2042, Apex, Fortnite, Valorant, Destiny, Halo, Doom, Quake, Borderlands etc etc) there isn't really a game that feels like, plays and does what CoD does. If you prefer Battlefield for example, CoD may feel too fast or too twitchy, some don't like Cartoony aesthetics or Sci-fi settings either so if CoD is 'bad', its still really the only game on the market that ticks their boxes.
After CoD4, people complained WW2 was a step back, then MW2 was too arcade-like with bright pop-ups and 100pts for kills. By Ghosts, everyone was 'fed' up with Boots on the ground and not 'evolving', Titanfall was going to Kill CoD. They hated Advanced Warfare and WW2 was the 'end' for CoD. Vanguard was a disaster - and people thought BF2042 would overtake it - until DICE messed that up even more. Every year, since CoD4, there has been a 'vocal' internet section that constantly feels the need to be negative about the 'new' CoD, yet it still succeeds. And its not the same 'players' as 20yrs ago either...
Watched a few games and its definitely not for me. The destruction is 'novel' but gets stale with a repetitive game-loop. Maybe it's not for me, that's OK, but I could only play a few matches with 'friends' which always makes 'team' games better before I'd get bored and want to something different. I couldn't play 'team deathmatch' over and over again without mixing it up with some Domination, King of the Hill or some other modes.
@Flaming_Kaiser To be honest, I'd rather wait for games to drop in price to a point I'm willing to jump in for. CoD may not be your thing and therefore most games may 'appeal' more to you anyway.
All I was saying is that if I broke it down into cost per hour, I can easily get more 'value' from just Zombies than I would from BG3 because BG3, even though I accept its a Game of the Year for a Reason, it has NO appeal at all and cannot stand Turn based Combat. So from that perspective 'CoD' is a better buy for 'me'.
For hardcore fans of Call of Duty - it is after all very popular (like Fifa that barely changes year on year), it may not be as 'great' as previous years, but it is still the ONLY game that really does what CoD does. It also will give them the type of Game-play they enjoy and all new weapons, camos, attachments etc to unlock. Games like Apex, Fortnite, PUBG, BF2042, The Finals, DefiantX etc etc are not the same so those 'CoD' enthusiasts really have little choice but to buy MW3 to keep playing CoD, and having already unlocked 'everything' in MW2, more 'new' stuff to grind for.
Its not as if there is a real competitor in that sense - as the 'others' all have their 'own' thing. Some don't like Sci-fi settings or maybe don't like more cartoony style aesthetics for example so there are Alternatives, but not a 'direct' competitor since Medal of Honour disappeared...
I also believe that the decision to release as a Full price release instead of 'DLC' for MW2 as was its original plan was, is most likely a directive from Kotick (or ABK board). They were 'expecting' to be out by June but with the FTC/CMA potentially 'blocking' the deal (if they couldn't resolve things by Oct), ABK had to pivot back to Annual $70 release for their Shareholders in case MS isn't able to purchase those Shares and if it backfires, maybe it will be an MS issue to solve...
@__jamiie I couldn't agree more - and that goes for ALL 3rd Party Publishers IP's in my opinion. I can just about get behind a 3rd Party Studio making a game 'exclusive' for a Platform if that game is basically funded and/or published by the Platform holder. Spider-Man was 'funded' and 'Published' by Sony and Avalanches 'Contraband' is funded and Published by Microsoft.
But games like Final Fantasy or 'Tomb Raider' - both Square Enix IP's, Published by Square Enix should never of been exclusive - timed or otherwise. If Sony bought SE, I would NEVER expect to see FF on Xbox Consoles again despite it history being much older than Playstation. It becomes their IP - just Fallout, Minecraft, Call of Duty, Doom or World of Warcraft are Microsoft owned IP's.
I don't have an issue with a 3rd Party dev making a Marvel/Star Wars game exclusively for PSVR or makes use of the DS5 that won't 'work' on Xbox controllers, maybe exclusively for Xbox Cloud - but what I do object to is Multi-platform games having extras - like Spider-Man in Marvels Avengers or Extra content in Hogwarts.
Multi-platform should have Content Parity and should release on the 'same' day. However with many games getting 'assistance' from Platform holders - whether that's help of a financial, marketing, technical or even Publishing 'help' (ID@Xbox for example) then I can 'understand' why those Platforms may want 'something' in return - timed 'exclusivity' or 'extra' content as much as we 'hate' it as consumers.
@__jamiie I do agree that 3rd Party Licences - as in those NOT owned by a Platform manufacturer who also is a Game Developer/Publisher should never be 'exclusive' to a Single Platform.
However, that isn't 'Always' possible - Star Wars: Jedi Survivor perhaps wouldn't work/run well enough on Switch to force them to 'release' a version on that hardware for example. It maybe 'better' to develop games with the 'right' Studio (like Star Wars/Marvel games being made by different studios best 'suited' to that genre) or develop games for specific Hardware - like VR or Kinect (when that was a thing).
As for MS, I must admit that their business model is very different to Sony's - not necessarily better or worse, just different. Since they acquired Mojang and changed management (Mattrick left and Spencer took over in 2014), they have really changed. Mojang are a 'multi-platform' developer and continue to make/release 'Minecraft' games on everything - inc Dungeon/Legend spin-offs and Minecraft is the 'biggest' selling game ever. ABK 'group' of Studio's too look like they could remain 'multi-platform' too - certainly Call of Duty will be.
Maybe by the time Blade releases, Game Pass 'could' be on Playstation and PS+ on Xbox or maybe 'Xbox' hardware may not 'exist' - maybe Asus or other 'PC' manufacturers make a PC/console hybrid (like the RoG Ally is a PC/Handheld console Hybrid) and pull out of making their 'own' Hardware when all their games are on PC's anyway. Maybe it isn't worth all the R&D costs, prototyping etc when more and more move to the more open and much larger gaming libraries on PC.
You already see many PC gamers choosing 'not' to buy a Series S/X because it has 'no' games they can't play on Game Pass for PC - it makes more sense to own a PS5/Switch and a PC because PS5 and Switch have 'exclusives' they can't play day 1. Maybe they'll 'licence' Xbox so Asus can make an Xbox branded 'Console/PC Hybrid' instead of making their own 'Series X Elite' to rival PS5 Pro...
@Flaming_Kaiser Maybe not as many as you'd think - Sales were reportedly down a considerable margin compared to last years CoD and they have had to rely on 'engagement' metrics to spin some positive take.
If only the 'dedicated' fanbase buys it, chances are they will be more 'engaged' than many who perhaps decided not to buy. You haven't seen it really 'top' the charts like previous games have and I doubt it will be one of the 'best' selling CoD games.
As 'weak' as this years CoD is in terms of 'expected' content, its still one of the best games of its kind and a LOT play it for its MP more than its campaign. Those maps are Iconic to CoD veterans too. It perhaps offers more than an 'updated' list of teams/players that Fifa usually offer yet still sells every year and the 'CoD' community now eager for the 'new' - inc improvements to movement which does 'change' how those 'old' maps play - new weapons, levels, skins, etc etc etc to unlock, new challenges to complete etc having done everything in MW2.
I don't think ANY game is worth $70 myself - not GoW:R, not CoD, not Spider-Man 2, not GTA6, not Starfield - no game! Many games don't even release in a 'playable' state with consistent frame rates, missing 'content/features' that will come post-launch etc. But everyone is different with different preferences and I'd probably spend 'more' time playing Zombies in CoD than I would play God of War or GTA6 for example so in a cost per hour basis, it may well be 'better' value to me but at $70, not the 'best' value at all...
As Ryall states, its perhaps too early to commit to ANY platform(s) yet and no point 'promising' to release on platforms that may not be 'relevant' or 'cost effective' to port to.
It's up to MS and/or any 'licencing' agreement they may have with the IP holder. It makes much more sense for Playstation gamers to 'expect' ALL Bethesda new games to be Exclusive until they are 'confirmed' to be on PS too.
No-one expects Sony to release their 1st party games on Xbox - regardless of whether they 'own' IP's or Licence them (like Spider-Man or MLB). MLB 'forced' Sony to release its MLB games on Xbox or lose the Licence.
MS clearly stated that Zenimax purchase was about bringing Great 'exclusives' to Xbox, and whilst they stated they would continue to 'support' ALL games currently on PS, any 'new' release would be assessed on a Case by Case basis. Arkane are now an Xbox owned Studio, like Naughty Dog or Insomniac are now owned by Sony and 1st Party.
From Koticks perspective, this years game was expected to be MS's issue - not a big new AAA annual release but only a DLC - the 'first time' ABK would miss its annual Cash Cow. Then we had both the CMA and FTC putting spanners in the works and maybe threw the whole deal into 'jeopardy' and so Kotick insisted on a 'Full' release just in case ABK remained in 'full' control.
It is a 'disappointing' campaign, its MP is playing the Nostalgia Card and Zombies is OK but not worth the asking price alone. Coupled with the aggressive monetisation of Multi-player more befitting the F2P model, its not a great 'buy' these days...
With layoffs, that either 'limits' the ambition, 'extends' the time needed or a combination of both. What signs are there that the relatively short delay will help them suddenly realise their ambition for this big finale they had planned when they have lost a lot of the fanbase limiting the budget, lost a chunk of their staff as well and given the timescape, Putting 'something' together to conclude their game to the 'few' that will play it compared to Destiny's heights.
I stopped buying my Son 'games' for Christmas/Birthdays over 10yrs ago now. He would much prefer to have 'credit' on his account to take advantage of Digital sales and/or buy DLC/MTX etc in games he was 'enjoying'.
That way he could choose whether he would rather have 1 new Big AAA game, several older AAA sale games, Indies, DLC/MTX etc or combination of these. I think he worked out early that 'money/credit' was better as that gave him the option to choose what he wanted, when he wanted instead of trying to pick something that he might not want by Christmas too...
Considering the Price games have gone up to as well as ALL the other options to fill our gaming time (Sub services, Backwards Compatibility and Sale), in a 'cost of living' crises, a game has to be something 'special' or at least a well known and beloved IP.
This looked like a game of Style over Substance - some generic plot with generic characters and generic game-play wrapped in a shiny UE5 aesthetic with lots of shiny/bright particle effects to 'wow'. Nothing really that made me think it was worth buying at launch, something to pick up maybe in some bargain bin sale or maybe try it on EA Play/PS+/Game Pass when it eventually comes to these sub services.
Even without Sub services, I wouldn't have bought this at launch with all the other great games we have seen - I couldn't afford to buy 'every' game and still pay bills, buy food etc etc. I'd rather spend £70 on buying several older games now on sale I missed than pay the 'it's a new release tax' to play it in the first 'months' of release when it will be much less in 6-12months with more content and possibly better performance due to patches...
If it doesn't sell enough, that tells me they were either asking far too much or not offering what people wanted/expect for that price - that there was better options and/or better value elsewhere. It's also not exactly 'old' either and games can sell for years and years. Ubisoft would often drop prices quickly to find the price point the game will sell at consistently enough to bring in revenue when games aren't selling and others don't drop prices at all because they keep selling at a higher price....
Of course people know Sega have a lot of great IP's and Potential, but the more you keep squandering that 'potential' with games you do make, the more wolves will be attracted...
If Sega were in a Strong position, that keeps many wolves from trying to buy, and why sell if those IP's were working for you....
I think the key here is for Sega to start trying to use those IP's to realise that 'Potential' all Gamers WANT from those IP's so that they 'sell' and then Sega would be in a stronger position...
As a £20-£30 DLC to MW2, this wouldn't be that bad. Zombies could well be a Warzone option - alongside BR & DMZ and the Campaign probably would be better served without the padding to set-up the next game. The MP maps and 'few' additional weapons would really suit a DLC bundle better (as they were surely meant to be) as they aren't 'new' at all...
Overall, Physical is likely to be down as this is the first Gen Playstation console without a disc drive so those owners have no choice to buy Physical and are limited to Digital only purchases.
If 30% of the PS hardware sales are the Digital Only version, that's 30% that won't be buying Physical at all. They may have bought 'some' Physical games even if Digital is their main choice with a Disc based PS5 - but Sales and cheaper new releases may have tempted them but now 'can't' so that's going to impact Physical purchases.
With so many 'Digital' Only releases too, its not surprising that Physical with more 'limited' releases and only available on 'select' hardware (PS5 Disc/Series X - as Series S/PS5 Digital/PC are 'digital only' platforms), its no surprise that it accounts for such a small sector these days
I guess its possible if they are targeting 4k/60 on a PS5 and could scale it down to 30fps and 1080p (or lower). It really depends on whether it was built in a way to scale across generations or not - no one thought RDR2 was a bad looking/playing game when it released - even if they 'could' scale it up for PS5.
If its built with features and/or certain ways, it may not be possible to Scale down. For example, if they rely on RT GI with 'no' traditional option for less capable hardware or rely on SSDs as fundamental to the game-play, then it won't release on last gen hardware. If there isn't enough of a market on old hardware, they won't scale it down for sales as they need to recoup costs too.
@Leonhart To you - and it may well be the 'best' of the trilogy - but I think the trilogy is average at best - not something I'd recommend. The second was pretty average 13yrs ago when it released.
If you enjoy - great but considering ALL the games I can play today on my PS5, Mafia 2 wouldn't be in my top 100 games. In other words, there are MANY games I'd rather spend my gaming time playing - even if some of those cost money. I'd rather buy some games than play Mafia 2 for 'free' on PS+.
It may not be 'terrible' but there are MANY better games, many that I'd rather spend time playing - some of which are in my backlog so I am not desperate enough, have so few games in my Library or wish list etc, that Mafia 2 is the 'best' use of my gaming time...
Nowt here of interest to me. Never liked Dragon Ball, Aliens was very mediocre when I played on Game Pass and Mafia 2 was 'OK' 13yrs ago from my perspective so nothing I'm looking forward, let alone excited to play...
CoD Ghosts had a great campaign and even the multiplayer modes were great too.
The problem was that the series hadn't tried to evolve and was still the 'same' game reskinned, same movement, same modes, same structure and people were 'tired' of it. Games like Titanfall were showing 'Advanced' movement.
The Multiplayer too wasn't helped by such a split in the communities. The game was split on Consoles between those on PS3 and those 'few' who bought the game on PS4 in the first few months. On XB1, that was perhaps worse with fewer hardware sales - no multi-platform MP back then.
It was a cross generation game with the community split across too many consoles and people were getting a bit fed up with what often felt like a reskinned MP bolted on to a 'similar' campaign that no longer was 'shocking' or really doing anything that new with the Campaign...
But then we got Advanced Warfare and the run of Advanced Movement games before the Community wanted CoD to return to Boots on the Ground - even had to bring back Modern Warfare to steady a sinking ship...
To be honest, I stopped 'supporting' Bungie and Destiny years ago - I voted with my Wallet at the direction and monetisation methods they were utilising before they left Activision so I can appreciate why many feel this may be the 'final nail' in the Coffin from their perspective.
It already seemed to me that the 'paid' for content wasn't given the time, the attention etc as much as the Eververse and MTX Cosmetics - often 'better' than the Rewards offered from the highest tier paid for content (Raid Rewards) and the fact that they 'sell' you all the 'great' gear you can earn, only to basically take it away the following DLC so you have to 'grind' again and again...
I don't know if this is 'just' about the Layoffs, but the whole 'news' - don't feel like the Final Shape will now be worth the Price (reduced in quality, content etc with 'fewer' working on it) and after the last DLC was disappointing - this is a combination of factors that was the tipping point for them...
I lost interest in Destiny before they left Activision and the game went Free to Play. I was already beginning to get seriously annoyed with the eververse store and putting the 'best' Cosmetics behind a ridiculously high paywall instead of 'earning' the best cosmetics from playing content I 'PAID' for, them making stuff I had grinded for 'obsolete/useless' to force you to 'grind' etc when the Content/Story never really seemed to have the same effort put into it as the Eververse store...
@Flaming_Kaiser Great - Consoles 'suit' you the best. However if you gamed on PC, you wouldn't buy a Playstation if ALL their games released day/date on PC - its pointless...
Playstation doesn't really give you a choice - its buy Playstation or 'miss out' - at least until they bring it to PC. With MS, you have so many choices - from using whatever hardware you may have and stream it for a small monthly fee with many other games also playable for that tiny fee - great if you can't afford or justify spending hundreds on Hardware just to play game(s) - all the way up to having the 'best' PC set-up money can buy - you don't NEED an Xbox Console or have to miss out, don't need to go out and buy a Series S/X at all or even 'buy' the game these days....
Also if you have a 'great' PC, you are not forced to spend hundreds to buy a Console or 'miss out' until MS release it on their preferred platform. There is an 'option' to suit any preference/budget. Even Steam Deck console gamers for example don't need a Series S/X or 'miss out', they can play Day 1.
If you want the Ease of Plug & Play that Consoles offer - MS still has the Series S or X as two different tiers. Those 'options' are still there of course - Series X is the Equivalent to the PS5 in that regard. But with Sony, Consoles are not an 'option' - its the ONLY choice to play Sony games day/date. Someone with a XB1S, Steam Deck, PC/Laptop etc doesn't 'need' to buy a Series S/X to play Forza Motorsport but a PS4, Steam Deck, PC/Laptop gamer will need to buy a PS5 for Spider-Man 2.
Sony's 'ecosystem' is literally just the Console. MS's is the 'PC/Cloud/Xbox' of which the Console is just 1 option - which may be the 'best' option for some - hence they'll buy, but for others, they may 'prefer' the other options as it suits them, their budget, their preferences etc the best...
@Cikajovazmaj Again - PC gaming does not necessarily mean those sat at a 'Desktop' with at least a RTX 30 series or equivalent AMD GPU. Steam Deck is 'not' a PC, its a Console - but Steam is 'PC' so therefore comes under the PC umbrella. PC has Xbox Store and Game Pass too of course - but PC can also be a RoG Ally for example or any of the other Windows Handheld gaming devices on the market - maybe better than a Console for those who spend most of their Gaming time on the Go...
Even a cheap Student Laptop with no separate GPU can be used to play games. Cheaper than a Series S with a screen - as long as it has wifi and a Browser, you can play on Game Pass Cloud. I know its 'not' the best way to play, Series S has its advantages over Cloud, Series X - advantages over Series S and high end PC's advantages over all the rest.
Point is, if you wanted to play Starfield, Forza, Fable, Perfect Dark etc the DAY they release but can't afford (or justify) buying a Series S/X, you can still play on some device - even if its just your Mobile Phone or via a browser on your 'old' laptop/PC. Not everyone cares about 4k or even use Game mode on their TV so Cloud may feel much better, less lag than they are used too...
@Northern_munkey ALLM - Auto Low Latency Mode - basically switches a TV into its 'Low Latency' (often called Game mode) automatically. It depends on whether you prefer lowest input latency because it often turns off some of the TV's own built in Picture Processing to save time, therefore reduce lag, before its displayed for you to see. Some find it a bit 'Raw' and would rather have the TV's Picture Processing (movie mode for example).
VRR is Variable Refresh Rate and is useful too. If you are bothered by stutter or Screen Tearing when frame rates drop, this is essential. Without it, a TV refreshes 60 times a second (generally - although TV's are now using 120hz panels with VRR enabled sets) so if the frame rate drops, its 'out of sync with the TV leading to a stutter or screen tear. VRR will adjust the TV to match the Frame Rate so it refreshes with every frame - at least for Frame Rates above 48fps on PS5 to so it at least looks smoother and/or cleaner.
Both are recommended for Gamers and if you do get a 120hz VRR display for example, you can play games like R&C, Spider-Man 2 etc at 40fps Quality mode instead of 30fps. 40fps is exactly mid-way between 30 and 60fps. I'd never advise or tell people how to spend their money so I'll leave it to you to decide if its worth it to you - but all I'll say is that these are 'Gaming' Features of modern TV's and Modern Consoles (at least the Series S/X and PS5) are able to utilise those so I would highly recommend these features to ANY gamer and let them decide if its worth it to them...
@Fiendish-Beaver I know a PC maybe the most expensive option - if you want to have the best hardware - but you are assuming that people will need to invest in a PC to play. Some may have a decent enough PC that can match a Series S - only have a 1080p monitor anyway. Even if their PC can't play games natively, they don't have to 'invest' in CPU's, GPU's or RAM to play, they can play via Cloud.
Yes Cloud may not be the 'best' way to play, but it maybe better than their hardware would run it natively, if at all. I can play Starfield on a Student Laptop/PC for a LOT less money than it would cost to Buy a PS5/Series X Console. I can play Starfield on my XB1S without having to go out and buy a Series S/X for example but PS4 gamers will have to upgrade to play Spider-Man 2.
You don't 'need' an Xbox Console to play day/date - Steam Deck, RoG Ally and numerous other 'Handheld' options exist. So even if you can't buy a $1000+ PC (Laptop or Desktop), there are still cheaper options. The Consoles may well give the 'best bang for buck' upfront price for performance, but PC's can be upgraded as and when you want, games are cheaper too and you can save money on not having to pay to play online too.
'PC' could be an 'expensive' gaming Rig but also a handheld 'Console' like device these days. You also have the fact that 'everyone' these days 'owns' a device they could play games on via the Cloud too.
The 'hardcore' gamers may well already have a PC gaming rig - whether its 'better' than Series X or not, it makes sense to upgrade that than spend $500 on a Console. There is so much choice for gamers of ALL budgets - from those that can't afford to buy 'hardware' specifically at the moment all the way up to the most hardcore/affluent gamers.
Yes a Console provides a certain tier of quality - but its a 'choice' with MS. I can play Starfield on my RoG Ally anywhere, on my 3080ti Gaming Laptop too, on any PC regardless of its 'gaming' specs, on my XB1X or S, on my Samsung Mobile etc - I don't have to play ONLY on Series X.
Some really don't care about 4k - don't have 4k Displays so their 'hardware' is more than adequate to play Starfield - so why 'buy' a Console? There is 'options' for everyone - whatever 'budget' they have. Cloud may not be the 'best' way, but for some, it enables them to play at a cost they can afford/justify. No pressure to buy ANY Console - its OPTIONAL
Things like PS+ Subscriptions and First Party games like Spider-Man 2 are ONLY available on Playstation. If you want to play SM2 the day it releases, you'll need to own a Playstation - so it pushes Sales of that Console.
Game Pass and Starfield are NOT exclusive to Xbox Consoles. You do NOT need an Xbox to play Starfield or Subscribe to Game Pass to play it day/date. In fact you can play it Day 1 on Cloud for example and its NOT even a Console Exclusive as it can be played on a Steam Deck.
The Series Console is purely 'optional' hardware for Microsoft. Series S is the 'entry' hardware tier with Series X offering a comparable 'premium' Gaming tier to PS5 - but Cloud is still the cheapest entry tier and PC's can offer the 'highest' tier, well above what PS5 is able to offer if you have the budget to spend.
Point is, Sony should continue to Sell more Hardware - especially as it looks like ABK games won't be 'exclusive' and they aren't that 'prolific' either. It may still make more sense for MANY gamers to buy a Playstation because ONLY Playstation will have 'exclusives' as ALL of MS's Games, if you want to play them, will be available on PC (inc Handhelds like RoG Ally) or Cloud so you don't 'need' an Xbox. PC & Playstation for example could be all you need and not 'miss out' on ANY MS exclusives.
If by 'market position', its just the 'console' ecosystem - not counting any who may also be in that Ecosystem and therefore not buying a Console for the sake of it, then of course releasing ALL your Exclusives on PC/Cloud is going to negatively impact. As stated, if you want to play Starfield, Forza, Perfect Dark, Fable etc - you don't 'NEED' an Xbox and PC gamers who may buy a PS5 to play Spider-Man 2, ain't buying an Xbox ever again...
I enjoyed Alan Wake and its big Stephen King inspired Story on the 360 - also liked American Nightmare too but didn't like Quantum Break or Control so I am not convinced by this - looks good but something is telling me to wait on this....
The longer it goes on, the less likely it will be successful enough to warrant supporting or even continuing to make more games in the future. The escalating costs of development will make it tougher to recoup that...
Personally, I couldn't care less - it was never on my Radar, never appealed to me, and I hated the ship combat it Assassins Creed (Black Flag, Origins, Odyssey etc) so a game based around that doesn't interest me at all. Each to their own of course and if you are 'excited' by this, maybe eventually you'll get to play it - until Ubisoft decides to close it down!
There is nothing to say that Digital won't 'preserve' games in the future. Discs these days are just a delivery mechanism to get the 'software' to the Customer so they can install it on their hardware to play - no different from the internet.
However, Discs also need to be manufactured and distributed, as well as contain the 'earliest' version of the code - often requiring Day 1 patches and/or internet connection to install the rest of the game as its too big to be all on disc.
So what are you 'preserving' these days? half a game? the broken -pre-day 1 experience? Something that is 'unplayable' and certainly not the game it will end up becoming once Devs have patched and added extra content/modes/features etc 'post release'.
There are many games over the past few years I've bought on Disc - yet I wouldn't want to play what's on the Disc today. Perhaps one of the best examples is Cyberpunk 2077 - the game on disc was AWFUL, even the day 1 patches wouldn't help and its a completely different game to the version on Digital stores today...
Licences too 'expire'. If EVERY game was Preserved, Spider-Man would soon be playable on Xbox for certain - albeit the ABK Spider-Man games that 'could' be remade/remastered. However, licences - whether music, brands (like Ford, Mercedes etc in car games) or IP's are often licenced for the 'life' of Specific Hardware - like PS3 or Xbox 360 or for a Duration (like 5-10yrs) because they don't expect you to 'keep' playing those 'OLD' games on new Hardware when 'newer' games exist in the same genre/IP and/or not willing to pay for Licences when Sales won't cover the costs.
Not 'every' game deserves to be preserved in my opinion. Should every version of Fifa ever released be preserved? What about shovelware games for trophy score? What about awful games like Life of Black Tiger?
I have no issue with certain games being preserved - especially those that had a major impact in the world of Gaming. Pac Man for example had a big impact but not 'every' version or copycat clone that came out deserves to be 'preserved' in my opinion...
Its probably so that ONLY Sony can make/sell a drive and market it at whatever price they want knowing that the ONLY option for consumers is to buy 'their' Hardware or miss out.
Sony will want you to buy their TV's too to get the 'most' out of Playstation...
@Korgon All I am saying is that people will have different perspectives on what they consider to be good/bad value. Some will be 'fine' with what they get for their money and others will expect 'more'.
I remember when games would have a 8hr+ Single Player, an extensive Online Multi-player Suite etc for around £40 - now it seems that you'll get an 8hr game for £70 and they'll sell a Multi-player suite separately for example. Instead of making a bigger game, the Games seem to be getting smaller, shorter - albeit 'prettier' yet charging more.
Games aren't 'better' than 10yrs ago either - as RE4, Dead Space and Quake 2 are some of the highest rated 'releases' this year - games that are 'over' 10yrs Old that still stand-up today. The Quality of the writing, the Game-play etc stands up.
Anyway, If you have £70 to spend on gaming, some may choose to buy this at launch - pay a high 'premium' just because its 'new', Pay a Premium to be one of the 'first' to play. This is when Games are at their 'worst' value for a Gamer as the price is at its highest, the game is generally at its worst (for a Consumer as it requires patches/fixes/optimisation to iron out any bugs - even if it releases in a great state) and lowest Content too - with 'promises' of Post release content to come. Therefore, when its half price in a sale, you get a 'better,bigger' game for less - much 'better' value for money.
You may place a 'higher' value on games to be one of the first to experience it, the FOMO effect pushes you to pay that Premium to play the 'best' new Release this week for example, but another may decide to buy it when its in a sale because they can get a LOT more Games, a lot more entertainment etc for a lot less.
Why spend £70 on a single game when you could spend £10 on a Sub Service and play numerous games, buy several superb games in a sale etc and get much better 'value' for your money. It doesn't matter how long/short SM2 is, it will be 'better' value and soon be on PS+ anyway.
Point is that Value is 'relative' to an individual and therefore can't be argued. As I said, I can't argue with you about the Value of SM2 in reality because its personal to you, just as you can't really argue that others may get more 'value' from their £70 to them so think SM2 isn't great value either.
@Korgon Oh and whilst I am trying to be 'objective' and say that Value is totally relative to the individual, their preferences, budget etc I can see your point. I don't necessarily believe that a 100hr+ game is better value than a 15-20hr game - as I said, I'd rather play a 15-20hr 'great' game than a 100+ hr Mediocre broken Mess, filled with repetitive Game-play, repeated repetitive Side Quests, bland characters with a predictable and/or generic plot.
Therefore you have to look at each game on a game by game basis. I know that if I had a 'limited' budget and could only buy 'new' games once every month or two, then I'd rather buy a 'great' 100hr+ game that will see me through at least until I can buy something else, than buy something I'll be finished with in a weekend and then have little/nothing to play until I can afford another game, wait for 'short' games to drop in price so I could buy several games to see me through.
Personally, I don't believe ANY game is worth $50+ just to play it in the first few months or so of release. The Stories, Game-play loops etc are NO better - even if they 'look' more realistic. I'd rather play Uncharted 2 than U4 again and much prefer AC2 to AC:Valhalla. And until the price went up, I was buying 'new' games for £40-45 at most and £65-70 for Special Collectors editions with DLC bonuses, Steelbook cases, Artbooks, Soundtracks etc so £65-70 (as they are in the UK) for a 'standard' release is quite a jump up for what? Better Graphics? We had that with the PS4 over PS3 too but didn't have to pay £10 more for the PS4 version because it offered the full 1080p with higher quality visual settings...
That's like charging nVidia RTX series an extra £10 over AMD users because they can play games at higher Graphical settings/performance thanks to its Cores specifically for RT, AI and DLSS.
@Korgon As I tried to point out, its all relative. You may think that paying $70 for 20hrs is great value to you but for another person who spent weeks saving their Pocket Money to buy the game and finish it over a weekend somewhat poor value when they could have bought a game that would last them 'months' so they can save money for their 'next' game.
They may be better off picking up Cyberpunk now in a sale and playing that, wait for Spider-Man 2 to crop up in a sale as that will be 'even' better Value but right now, its not 'worth' $70 because they can get a LOT more games for that money.
If you can only buy a 'new' game a month, buying a game and beating it in a few days may feel like its not great 'value' as they have 'nothing' to play until 'next' month now but could have bought several games or even just 1 game that will see them through to their 'next' game.
Maybe if you look at Sub services too (inc PS+ Extra), they have many 'great' high quality games to play for a much lower monthly cost - and games like God of War, Horizon:ZD, Last of Us, Uncharted, R&C, Returnal, Spider-Man & Miles Morales are of 'equal' Sony Quality so much better 'value' than buying Spider-Man 2 at launch when it will be on PS+ at some point and/or in a sale offering much better 'value' than it does today.
You are still paying more just to play it at launch - and with 'many' games, they update and/or patch the game - add more features, modes, content etc (like NG+, Performance modes etc), fix bugs and/or optimise it better to extract 'more' from the Hardware etc so that when you do buy it in a Sale, its a bigger, better and/or much more playable/fun/balanced experience so 'better' value as it also costs less...
@Korgon When $70 can buy you several great 'High Quality' 15-20hr games, then $70 for one, just because its 'new' maybe isn't great value to that person.
You can buy several 'Game of the Year' games in a sale that are arguably better now they have been patched, updated with extra content/features/modes instead for example which maybe even better Value to the Gamer.
Its relative to the individual and what they feel is the better use of the money for them...
Comments 5,662
Re: PS5 Pro's Rumoured Spectral Super Resolution Tech Could Be Transformative
@NeonPizza @itsfoz And don't forget the 'compulsory' extra costs involved in console gaming - for a start, you really need a monthly Subscription to PS+/Game Pass, even if just the most basic Sub service adding to overall cost.
Say they do release at £700 and add another £7 a month for the next 3yrs for PS+ essential (I know you maybe able to find it cheaper or buy it annually for £60) but that adds to 'cost' as well as paying £70 for games that are 'cheaper' on PC too.
So whilst a Console maybe 'cheaper' initially on Hardware, the extras add up - but it is a choice. I prefer a 'Console' to game on for ease and it suits how I game better. However, I also dislike being locked into just 1 'ecosystem', forced to buy from just one 'digital' store and forced to Subscribe to a service to access 'content' I bought...
Re: PS5 Pro's Rumoured Spectral Super Resolution Tech Could Be Transformative
@Flaming_Kaiser Whilst nothing 'official' has been released, that doesn't stop the 'principal'. The whole point is this is Sony's answer to 'upscaling'.
It may well use AI for example to enhance the quality of the 'upscaled' image, remove or eliminate some of the 'artefacts' or issues associated with other upscaling methods but its still taking a 'lower' resolution image and making it look like it was actually rendered at a higher resolution.
DLSS, for example, regarded as the 'best' on the market right now, can take a 1440p, even a 1080p image and make it 'look' like a 4k image. It looks more like a 'native' 4k image, better than 'traditional' upscaling but neither is actually running the game at 'higher' resolution.
A game running at 1080/60 on a 4k screen would look a bit soft due to the TV's own upscaling. DLSS, FSR etc all take that 'SAME' 1080p image and make it look 'closer' to a Native 4k image but its still '1080p' internal res.
More power may help those 720p internal res games have a 'higher' starting point (say 1440p) and with 'better' upscaling options, make that 1440p look even more like Native 4k to deliver 60fps but doesn't mean that its running at 4k.
A game running internally at 30fps, being updated 30x a second, isn't suddenly going to feel like 60fps or like its being updated 60x a second because of some artificially rendered frame is dropped in between to create the 'illusion', the 'smoothness' of a 60fps game.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for utilising resources more efficiently and if they can make 1080p look more like 'Native' 4k with 'fewer/no' artefacts, then of course its better than relying on my TV to 'upscale' to 4k but doesn't change the fact the game itself is only rendering a 1080p image - it just 'looks' better with DLSS than standard upscaling algorithms...
Re: PS5 Pro's Rumoured Spectral Super Resolution Tech Could Be Transformative
So they are focussing on reconstruction - maybe it will be more on a par with DLSS than FSR, but the whole point of 'reconstruction' techniques is to artificially create the 'look' of higher resolution whilst the game is running at 'lower' resolution.
As we know, some games are running as low as 720p to hit 60fps - often using some 'reconstruction' techniques (like FSR, Chequerboard rendering etc) to 'create' a higher resolution image to output. However, the 'output' resolution may well be 2160p but its been reconstructed and upscaled from a much lower resolution.
Granted, having more 'horesepower' under the hood may well mean that you aren't having to 'start' with a 720p image the game is 'actually' presenting - you could start from 1080 or 1440p instead so 'less' reconstruction/upscaling for a 'cleaner' image.
As for Frame Generation (as FSR/DLSS 3.0 offer), a 30fps is still a 30fps - the same input lag, the same response etc as the game is still only updating at 30fps - an 'artificially' created image is being placed between these to create the 'look' of 60fps, not address the 'FEEL' of 60fps.
I don't mind them not wasting resources to push 'Native' 4k when those resources maybe better used to push draw distance, lighting quality etc and then 'upscaled' from 1440p+ but its still not a '4k' game - it just 'looks' 4k because of the quality of the upscale.
It may well be telling you its 4k/60 but in reality could be running at 1080/60. Like I said, we have games saying they are '4k' yet running at 'HD' resolutions and using some form of upscaling technology to take a low res image and make it look much higher res...
Re: Rumour: PS5 Pro Is Up to Three Times Faster Than PS5 as Specs Surface
And if a PS5 is still over £400 in 'sales', how much do you think this will cost? £700? £1000?
Re: Exclusivity Is the Achilles' Heel of Huge Blockbusters, Says Former PlayStation Exec
On the subject of 'development' - I guess if you have just a Single platform to develop for, regardless of how well 'specced' it is, you can build games to that limited spec and save money on porting, optimising and supporting other hardware.
The Switch for example has 1080/60 games that run 'flawlessly' on that hardware but we are seeing some games on PS5 struggling to offer 1080/60 on PS5. Of course Polygon counts, the density of detail/objects etc etc maybe significantly higher, but they weren't 'built' specifically for PS5, specifically for PS5's 'limited' hardware. Its much easier to 'tweak' a game, reduce or even remove things that go 'over' budget. Its a bit more tricky when some hardware will offer the 'full' vision ad your 'scaling' it down to fit on a Console. Point is, you have a 'fixed' spec, a limited 'budget' and limit the game/ambition etc to that budget to ensure it 'runs' as intended. 3rd Party build their 'vision' and then try and fit it to the limited spec.
At the end of the day, an Exclusive is ONLY there to get you to buy that Hardware - which then gets you 'locked' into that platform. You'll end up buying Subscriptions (even if the Basic tier PS+ just to play online), games, DLC/MTX, peripherals etc - how much does Sony make from 3rd Party Software on 'their' system. Its not done for 'the gamer', its done to ensure you buy a Playstation, an Xbox and/or a Switch.
MS may well be selling Games like Sea of Thieves on PS5, but they'll make money from that - maybe not as 'much' as they make on Xbox as Sony will take their '30%' cut. If Helldivers 2 came to Xbox, Sony could make a LOT more money but MS too would get 'some' money.
All an Exclusive is really a tool for the Platform holder to get you into their Ecosystem. Once its served its purpose, Sony are now selling them on PC knowing that anyone who really wanted to play, would have bought hardware to play it, now selling to the 'PC' community who probably won't buy a PS5.
Re: Sony's London Studio, Media Molecule Were Reportedly 'Highest on the List' for Closure
To me, it seems the big Publishers have put their faith in a Live Service future - a shell of a game they hope to sell, then continue selling cosmetics, in-game currencies and other exceptionally over-priced content indefinitely.
However, the gamers themselves have made it known that this is not acceptable - many Live Service games have failed/died - especially those with $70 launch prices competing with F2P games.
When Sony announced they had 10+ Live Service games, most of the 'internet' were extremely disappointed and/or critical. Couple that with other Publishers trying and failing too - games like Gotham Knights, Suicide Squad, Skull N Bones - and several that are now gone forever.
To me, it was inevitable that something had to give - Publishers pushing for Live Service games they hope to make 'billions' on selling Cosmetics costing as much as many Indie and/or Sale complete Games with minimal effort (change colours and charge for a 'new' outfit).
It seemed that Devs were unhappy making some 'generic' Live Service game wrapped in an IP they own Skin with exceptionally bland and/or generic story, missions etc with the Sole purpose of selling 'DLC' extras indefinitely - let alone pushing them out 'unfinished/unpolished' too - and the gaming market have said 'enough' with their wallets and comments on the internet.
Would Sony of been in this position if they had announced 10+ Single Player games - even if they had a Multi-player component? I bet if they announced a Killzone 'reboot' with a Single Player Campaign and full MP suite as you'd expect from Killzone, few would complain but taking just the MP suite from Last of Us, making a Horizon Live Service etc isn't what Sony customers want or expect - which has probably led to this situation.
It's not just Sony of course - but with many F2P games, as well as a massive library (inc Backwards Compatible titles - many now 'cheap' and Sub services offering 'free' games, 'new' releases are struggling to justify their 'increased' price - especially as most are not really bringing anything 'new' - the same game-play loops, same generic mechanics etc - just higher polygon count/visual density. Gamers have been burned too many times, buying Day 1 and being disappointed the game is a buggy, broken mess, erratic performance etc that needs patching - not expected from a $70 game.
Therefore, I think it was inevitable that something had to give. Publishers can't keep trying to force games people don't really want to play, can't expect to charge $70 for 'mediocre/minimal' content with promises to drip feed content along with Season Passes, Cosmetic bundles etc and release games in 'poor' state too...
Re: PS Plus Premium's Cloud Streaming Is Much, Much Better Than You Think
From my perspective, Streaming is NOT really the Primary way gamers will choose to play their games - its a 'bonus' option for certain situations where using 'hardware' to play isn't an 'option'.
If you are playing on PS5 or Series X for example - Why? The only reason is likely to be to 'try' a game to see if its worth waiting to download and install. Otherwise, its just a way to play games 'away' from your Primary hardware choice.
Additional lag is a bit like lower resolution/PQ on a handheld - you should 'expect' it for that flexibility as input signals have to travel far further from you to 'hardware' running the game and send a picture to your display.
Re: Microsoft Employee Inadvertently Adds More Fuel to the Xbox Multiplatform Fire
Considering that both ABK and Zenimax group of studios have 'current' games across ALL platforms, the likes of Minecraft, CoD, OW2, Diablo, ESO, Fallout76, Doom, Wolfenstein etc etc, many of which have received extra content, updates etc, there is a 'LOT' of MS owned IP's on Playstation and Switch already.
That doesn't mean that they'll bring EVERYTHING to PS or Switch - maybe they'll treat PS/Switch in a similar way to Sony treats the PC - release 'some' games a year or more later. Still 'exclusive' on Xbox at release - or maybe the 'incentive' for MS could be Game Pass vs having to spend $70+ to play Day 1...
The fact is, MS will release games on PS/Switch - maybe not their 'entire' catalogue but a selection - Minecraft & CoD certainly aren't going anywhere...
Re: Anger as SAG-AFTRA Strikes Deal for AI Voice Acting in Video Games
Who cares? If AI can do the job as well, if not better than so overpaid 'media' star who is only reading scripts/lines that someone else 'wrote' .
Video games have somehow now ended up being affected by these 'precious media darlings' who won't read a few lines of dialogue for less than several thousand. Somehow having some famous 'media' star is now a marketing gimmick too - Keanu Reeves (Cyberpunk) being the most obvious.
If you can't tell the difference between 'AI' and real humans - either because AI is that good or because so many parts are 'AI' in a game - Cortana being perhaps one of the more famous 'AI' in Game, Ghost from Destiny (voiced by Peter Dinklage and then Nolan North).
The ONLY issue I have is if they ASK AI to sound exactly like a Famous Actor/person without their permission specifically and/or use their 'likeness' in game too
Re: Poll: Which PS5 Games are You Buying in Early 2024's Ridiculous Release Schedule?
None of them really stand out to me as 'must haves/day 1' purchases at best and many there that really don't appeal to my tastes or what I personally would want to spend my time/money on.
I still have games I am enjoying and not yet finished and plenty of other games in my backlog to keep me in games until such a time as something 'new' appeals more than anything I can already play and so much so, I'll buy it when/near release...
Re: Despite Circling Wolves, CD Projekt Red Not Interested in Being Acquired
I think if anyone was currently in the Market looking to Bolster their own portfolio of Studio's, they could have had a host of Studio's and/or built up their 'existing' Studios from all those that have been closed down and/or had big Staff cuts.
Sony, for example, maybe could have bought First Contact Entertainment (Firewall Zero Hour) to bolster their VR game development or maybe recruited staff from the 'numerous' Closures to create a 'new' or 2nd Studio to any of their big Studio's.
Arguably you wouldn't get the same 'talent' or the IP's that CDPR have, but also the Studio is in a much stronger place today than a few years ago. Despite the 'Launch' and subsequent months of disappointment - especially for gamers on 'last-gen' hardware, the game sold well and as more people 'upgraded' to next gen consoles, Cyberpunk has become one of the 'best' RPG's on the current hardware. Therefore, I'd imagine that they as a Company would be in a position of 'Strength' to determine their own future.
Independent Studios are not going to sell when they have all the resources they need for their immediate future. Its when things are difficult, maybe their games aren't selling 'enough' to keep them making games with rising costs etc and looking for 'investment', that they are often bought by Corporations. New or independent Studio's making their 'first' big Game wanting the resources to compete in the AAA space etc.
Re: Bill & Ted's Excellent Retro Collection Will Be Removed from PS5, PS4 Very Soon
@KendoHead the game being installed on a console is nothing to do with ownership...
You are right here because even if you do somehow manage to install Software on your console, you cannot access it with a Valid Licence - either from putting the Disc in OR because the License is attached to your Account if bought digitally. So installed 'software' is not 'ownership' as you could install the Last of Us 2 from disc, sell the disc and therefore that 'software' becomes useless without the Licence key to access it - which you no longer own. Its the same with Digital - the download part is just to ensure you have the software that your purchased licence key will allow you to play...
The only difference is that licence is held on Disc/Cartridge with Physical and with Digital, its linked to your Account so you need to sign in to Access the Software or put the Disc in. Without the Licence, you can't play and that Software is 'owned' by the Devs/publishers - not you!
The point I was making about 'Goldeneye' for example is that you need to own the Cartridge and the Hardware simultaneously and just 'owning' the Cartridge doesn't grant you the right to play on newer hardware. If you bought Killzone 3 on disc, it doesn't matter if you now own a PS4/5, you can't 'play' it or expect to be able to jump online anymore. If you bought it digitally and they turn the 'online' service off on PS3 you can't 're-download' so its lost. Without a working PS3, owning the Disc isn't going to let you play...
You NEVER own the Software - that is 'owned' by the developer/publisher. You've never 'owned' the Software. Just because you 'could' abuse terms, maybe even 'copy' games from others 'illegally' and play without any real 'risk' in the past doesn't change the fact you didn't 'own' the Game. You bought a licence to access the devs/publisher owned software included with it...
Re: Bill & Ted's Excellent Retro Collection Will Be Removed from PS5, PS4 Very Soon
@Martijn87 Without a 'License' in place, it would be illegal for the Publisher to sell and profit from another's Intellectual Property. They do NOT own the rights to Bill & Ted, so once the Licence expires, they can no longer sell the game.
It's no different from Spider-Man (Treyarch) or Wolverine (Raven Software) games by Activision are no longer for sale, cannot be 'sold' because ABK cannot 'profit' from using Marvel characters without a 'License' in place.
@KendoHead at least a Physical purchase allows me to own something that can't be taken away at any given time.
You buy a Physical version, they can still 'revoke' your Licence to play or at least stop you from 'playing' if they decide or you break the terms & conditions of said licence.
You NEVER own a 'Game'! What you 'purchase' - whether Digitally or Physically, is a 'Licence' to access that Software. The software is 'included' on disc/via download so you can play but without a Licence, the Software is useless to you. Try playing a game you installed to your Console without the Disc, you can't! That's despite the entire game being 'installed' - you need the Disc to prove you still own a valid Licence to access the Software...
Many games are no-longer 'playable' or major portions of the Game are no longer available due to them deciding to turn off Servers for example. If you own 'Goldeneye' on Cartridge, you have a 'valid' licence to keep playing on N64 hardware - but can't use that 'Licence' to play on Xbox or Switch today. Therefore, you are still dependent on using Obsolete Hardware (no longer in Production) to play games no longer being made or for sale - unless you can find a 'used' working copy somewhere...
Re: The Last of Us' Cancelled PS5 Multiplayer Was 'More Fun' Than Any Other Online Game
Big difference, in my opinion, to a bolted-on MP mode designed to add more 'value' and/or long term Player engagement beyond the Single Player, and a Multi-player ONLY game.
LoU & Uncharted both followed the 'trend' of bolting on a MP mode onto a Single Player game - just like Dead Space 2, Bioshock 2, AC2 Brotherhood and numerous 'other' games. Even CoD or Halo were known primarily for their Campaign with a 'good' MP suite. Point is, you bought these for the Campaigns, then stayed because you enjoyed the MP.
Now, it seems that MP is the 'focus' because that's where they can make the 'most' money with Season/Battle passes, MTX, Loot boxes etc etc. I played a bit ND's Uncharted's MP's but would NEVER buy the MP separately and certainly wouldn't have bought 'Factions'. Even if it was F2P, I'd still not bother with these.
How many people complain about Halo or Gears Campaign not living up to expectations - certainly since Bungie/Epic stopped making those. Even this years CoD is considered a 'dud' because its Campaign is 'very weak'. So many 'Live Service' games are struggling and even MP games aren't really 'succeeding' in pulling players away from 'established' online games.
Re: Bethesda Has Delayed Fallout 4's PS5 Version to Next Year
@nessisonett Maybe because 3 was flawed and not built for modern hardware so more work and New Vegas, arguably the best 'Fallout' game wasn't made by Bethesda.... LOL
And besides those games aren't on 'PS4' natively to get a PS5 update that is possibly 'free' if you own the game...
Re: November 2023 Circana: PS5 Is Still in First, Call of Duty Sells Best
@NinjaNicky Part of it is the 'grind' to unlock new weapons, camo's, attachments, calling cards etc as well as complete all those 'new' challenges.
If you have got every camo, attachment etc in the game, then the 'new' one gives them all that to play for. Even if the Maps aren't 'new' the new Movement does change up the Maps a bit more too and you have the Nostalgia too of playing some Iconic maps.
It may not change 'much' but part of the game-play loop is the 'rewards' of unlocking new stuff as you play. If you have unlocked everything, reached maximum level etc, then you want something 'new' even if that isn't as 'great' value as its 'predecessor' seems to others.
I doubt it will go down in CoD history as one of the 'best', but it is giving CoD gamers that game-play and rewarding experience. Almost every match you play, you'll be unlocking 'something' new and that drives players to 'play one more' because they are close to unlocking something, levelling up etc that 'older' games no longer offer having already unlocked 'everything' in those...
To me, its perhaps more than Fifa or MLB changes - which at time you think they could just 'update' the stats for the 'new' season as the 'Game-play' doesn't really change - but people still buy those too.
Despite the Competition (BF2042, Apex, Fortnite, Valorant, Destiny, Halo, Doom, Quake, Borderlands etc etc) there isn't really a game that feels like, plays and does what CoD does. If you prefer Battlefield for example, CoD may feel too fast or too twitchy, some don't like Cartoony aesthetics or Sci-fi settings either so if CoD is 'bad', its still really the only game on the market that ticks their boxes.
After CoD4, people complained WW2 was a step back, then MW2 was too arcade-like with bright pop-ups and 100pts for kills. By Ghosts, everyone was 'fed' up with Boots on the ground and not 'evolving', Titanfall was going to Kill CoD. They hated Advanced Warfare and WW2 was the 'end' for CoD. Vanguard was a disaster - and people thought BF2042 would overtake it - until DICE messed that up even more. Every year, since CoD4, there has been a 'vocal' internet section that constantly feels the need to be negative about the 'new' CoD, yet it still succeeds. And its not the same 'players' as 20yrs ago either...
Re: E3 Is Officially Dead
So Long and thanks for all the Fish....
Re: Hands On: The Finals Is One of the Most Exciting New Online Shooters in Years
Watched a few games and its definitely not for me. The destruction is 'novel' but gets stale with a repetitive game-loop. Maybe it's not for me, that's OK, but I could only play a few matches with 'friends' which always makes 'team' games better before I'd get bored and want to something different. I couldn't play 'team deathmatch' over and over again without mixing it up with some Domination, King of the Hill or some other modes.
Re: Kratos Voice Actor Underfire for Roasting New Call of Duty Campaign
@Flaming_Kaiser To be honest, I'd rather wait for games to drop in price to a point I'm willing to jump in for. CoD may not be your thing and therefore most games may 'appeal' more to you anyway.
All I was saying is that if I broke it down into cost per hour, I can easily get more 'value' from just Zombies than I would from BG3 because BG3, even though I accept its a Game of the Year for a Reason, it has NO appeal at all and cannot stand Turn based Combat. So from that perspective 'CoD' is a better buy for 'me'.
For hardcore fans of Call of Duty - it is after all very popular (like Fifa that barely changes year on year), it may not be as 'great' as previous years, but it is still the ONLY game that really does what CoD does. It also will give them the type of Game-play they enjoy and all new weapons, camos, attachments etc to unlock. Games like Apex, Fortnite, PUBG, BF2042, The Finals, DefiantX etc etc are not the same so those 'CoD' enthusiasts really have little choice but to buy MW3 to keep playing CoD, and having already unlocked 'everything' in MW2, more 'new' stuff to grind for.
Its not as if there is a real competitor in that sense - as the 'others' all have their 'own' thing. Some don't like Sci-fi settings or maybe don't like more cartoony style aesthetics for example so there are Alternatives, but not a 'direct' competitor since Medal of Honour disappeared...
I also believe that the decision to release as a Full price release instead of 'DLC' for MW2 as was its original plan was, is most likely a directive from Kotick (or ABK board). They were 'expecting' to be out by June but with the FTC/CMA potentially 'blocking' the deal (if they couldn't resolve things by Oct), ABK had to pivot back to Annual $70 release for their Shareholders in case MS isn't able to purchase those Shares and if it backfires, maybe it will be an MS issue to solve...
Re: Could Marvel's Blade Come to PS5? Bethesda Declines to Comment
@__jamiie I couldn't agree more - and that goes for ALL 3rd Party Publishers IP's in my opinion. I can just about get behind a 3rd Party Studio making a game 'exclusive' for a Platform if that game is basically funded and/or published by the Platform holder. Spider-Man was 'funded' and 'Published' by Sony and Avalanches 'Contraband' is funded and Published by Microsoft.
But games like Final Fantasy or 'Tomb Raider' - both Square Enix IP's, Published by Square Enix should never of been exclusive - timed or otherwise. If Sony bought SE, I would NEVER expect to see FF on Xbox Consoles again despite it history being much older than Playstation. It becomes their IP - just Fallout, Minecraft, Call of Duty, Doom or World of Warcraft are Microsoft owned IP's.
I don't have an issue with a 3rd Party dev making a Marvel/Star Wars game exclusively for PSVR or makes use of the DS5 that won't 'work' on Xbox controllers, maybe exclusively for Xbox Cloud - but what I do object to is Multi-platform games having extras - like Spider-Man in Marvels Avengers or Extra content in Hogwarts.
Multi-platform should have Content Parity and should release on the 'same' day. However with many games getting 'assistance' from Platform holders - whether that's help of a financial, marketing, technical or even Publishing 'help' (ID@Xbox for example) then I can 'understand' why those Platforms may want 'something' in return - timed 'exclusivity' or 'extra' content as much as we 'hate' it as consumers.
Re: Could Marvel's Blade Come to PS5? Bethesda Declines to Comment
@__jamiie I do agree that 3rd Party Licences - as in those NOT owned by a Platform manufacturer who also is a Game Developer/Publisher should never be 'exclusive' to a Single Platform.
However, that isn't 'Always' possible - Star Wars: Jedi Survivor perhaps wouldn't work/run well enough on Switch to force them to 'release' a version on that hardware for example. It maybe 'better' to develop games with the 'right' Studio (like Star Wars/Marvel games being made by different studios best 'suited' to that genre) or develop games for specific Hardware - like VR or Kinect (when that was a thing).
As for MS, I must admit that their business model is very different to Sony's - not necessarily better or worse, just different. Since they acquired Mojang and changed management (Mattrick left and Spencer took over in 2014), they have really changed. Mojang are a 'multi-platform' developer and continue to make/release 'Minecraft' games on everything - inc Dungeon/Legend spin-offs and Minecraft is the 'biggest' selling game ever. ABK 'group' of Studio's too look like they could remain 'multi-platform' too - certainly Call of Duty will be.
Maybe by the time Blade releases, Game Pass 'could' be on Playstation and PS+ on Xbox or maybe 'Xbox' hardware may not 'exist' - maybe Asus or other 'PC' manufacturers make a PC/console hybrid (like the RoG Ally is a PC/Handheld console Hybrid) and pull out of making their 'own' Hardware when all their games are on PC's anyway. Maybe it isn't worth all the R&D costs, prototyping etc when more and more move to the more open and much larger gaming libraries on PC.
You already see many PC gamers choosing 'not' to buy a Series S/X because it has 'no' games they can't play on Game Pass for PC - it makes more sense to own a PS5/Switch and a PC because PS5 and Switch have 'exclusives' they can't play day 1. Maybe they'll 'licence' Xbox so Asus can make an Xbox branded 'Console/PC Hybrid' instead of making their own 'Series X Elite' to rival PS5 Pro...
Re: Kratos Voice Actor Underfire for Roasting New Call of Duty Campaign
@Flaming_Kaiser Maybe not as many as you'd think - Sales were reportedly down a considerable margin compared to last years CoD and they have had to rely on 'engagement' metrics to spin some positive take.
If only the 'dedicated' fanbase buys it, chances are they will be more 'engaged' than many who perhaps decided not to buy. You haven't seen it really 'top' the charts like previous games have and I doubt it will be one of the 'best' selling CoD games.
As 'weak' as this years CoD is in terms of 'expected' content, its still one of the best games of its kind and a LOT play it for its MP more than its campaign. Those maps are Iconic to CoD veterans too. It perhaps offers more than an 'updated' list of teams/players that Fifa usually offer yet still sells every year and the 'CoD' community now eager for the 'new' - inc improvements to movement which does 'change' how those 'old' maps play - new weapons, levels, skins, etc etc etc to unlock, new challenges to complete etc having done everything in MW2.
I don't think ANY game is worth $70 myself - not GoW:R, not CoD, not Spider-Man 2, not GTA6, not Starfield - no game! Many games don't even release in a 'playable' state with consistent frame rates, missing 'content/features' that will come post-launch etc. But everyone is different with different preferences and I'd probably spend 'more' time playing Zombies in CoD than I would play God of War or GTA6 for example so in a cost per hour basis, it may well be 'better' value to me but at $70, not the 'best' value at all...
Re: Could Marvel's Blade Come to PS5? Bethesda Declines to Comment
As Ryall states, its perhaps too early to commit to ANY platform(s) yet and no point 'promising' to release on platforms that may not be 'relevant' or 'cost effective' to port to.
It's up to MS and/or any 'licencing' agreement they may have with the IP holder. It makes much more sense for Playstation gamers to 'expect' ALL Bethesda new games to be Exclusive until they are 'confirmed' to be on PS too.
No-one expects Sony to release their 1st party games on Xbox - regardless of whether they 'own' IP's or Licence them (like Spider-Man or MLB). MLB 'forced' Sony to release its MLB games on Xbox or lose the Licence.
MS clearly stated that Zenimax purchase was about bringing Great 'exclusives' to Xbox, and whilst they stated they would continue to 'support' ALL games currently on PS, any 'new' release would be assessed on a Case by Case basis. Arkane are now an Xbox owned Studio, like Naughty Dog or Insomniac are now owned by Sony and 1st Party.
Re: Kratos Voice Actor Underfire for Roasting New Call of Duty Campaign
From Koticks perspective, this years game was expected to be MS's issue - not a big new AAA annual release but only a DLC - the 'first time' ABK would miss its annual Cash Cow. Then we had both the CMA and FTC putting spanners in the works and maybe threw the whole deal into 'jeopardy' and so Kotick insisted on a 'Full' release just in case ABK remained in 'full' control.
It is a 'disappointing' campaign, its MP is playing the Nostalgia Card and Zombies is OK but not worth the asking price alone. Coupled with the aggressive monetisation of Multi-player more befitting the F2P model, its not a great 'buy' these days...
Re: Bungie Confirms Destiny 2 DLC Delay After Company Layoffs
With layoffs, that either 'limits' the ambition, 'extends' the time needed or a combination of both. What signs are there that the relatively short delay will help them suddenly realise their ambition for this big finale they had planned when they have lost a lot of the fanbase limiting the budget, lost a chunk of their staff as well and given the timescape, Putting 'something' together to conclude their game to the 'few' that will play it compared to Destiny's heights.
And move on quickly to Marathon....
Re: US Children Want Subscriptions and Currencies for Christmas, Not Games
I stopped buying my Son 'games' for Christmas/Birthdays over 10yrs ago now. He would much prefer to have 'credit' on his account to take advantage of Digital sales and/or buy DLC/MTX etc in games he was 'enjoying'.
That way he could choose whether he would rather have 1 new Big AAA game, several older AAA sale games, Indies, DLC/MTX etc or combination of these. I think he worked out early that 'money/credit' was better as that gave him the option to choose what he wanted, when he wanted instead of trying to pick something that he might not want by Christmas too...
Re: Magical PS5 FPS Immortals of Aveum Is Probably Coming to PS Plus at Some Point
Considering the Price games have gone up to as well as ALL the other options to fill our gaming time (Sub services, Backwards Compatibility and Sale), in a 'cost of living' crises, a game has to be something 'special' or at least a well known and beloved IP.
This looked like a game of Style over Substance - some generic plot with generic characters and generic game-play wrapped in a shiny UE5 aesthetic with lots of shiny/bright particle effects to 'wow'. Nothing really that made me think it was worth buying at launch, something to pick up maybe in some bargain bin sale or maybe try it on EA Play/PS+/Game Pass when it eventually comes to these sub services.
Even without Sub services, I wouldn't have bought this at launch with all the other great games we have seen - I couldn't afford to buy 'every' game and still pay bills, buy food etc etc. I'd rather spend £70 on buying several older games now on sale I missed than pay the 'it's a new release tax' to play it in the first 'months' of release when it will be much less in 6-12months with more content and possibly better performance due to patches...
If it doesn't sell enough, that tells me they were either asking far too much or not offering what people wanted/expect for that price - that there was better options and/or better value elsewhere. It's also not exactly 'old' either and games can sell for years and years. Ubisoft would often drop prices quickly to find the price point the game will sell at consistently enough to bring in revenue when games aren't selling and others don't drop prices at all because they keep selling at a higher price....
Re: SEGA Isn't Surprised That Companies Want to Acquire It
Of course people know Sega have a lot of great IP's and Potential, but the more you keep squandering that 'potential' with games you do make, the more wolves will be attracted...
If Sega were in a Strong position, that keeps many wolves from trying to buy, and why sell if those IP's were working for you....
I think the key here is for Sega to start trying to use those IP's to realise that 'Potential' all Gamers WANT from those IP's so that they 'sell' and then Sega would be in a stronger position...
Re: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (PS5) - Bloated, Undercooked, and Outdated All at Once
As a £20-£30 DLC to MW2, this wouldn't be that bad. Zombies could well be a Warzone option - alongside BR & DMZ and the Campaign probably would be better served without the padding to set-up the next game. The MP maps and 'few' additional weapons would really suit a DLC bundle better (as they were surely meant to be) as they aren't 'new' at all...
Re: Physical Games Represented Just 4% of Sales for PlayStation Last Quarter
Overall, Physical is likely to be down as this is the first Gen Playstation console without a disc drive so those owners have no choice to buy Physical and are limited to Digital only purchases.
If 30% of the PS hardware sales are the Digital Only version, that's 30% that won't be buying Physical at all. They may have bought 'some' Physical games even if Digital is their main choice with a Disc based PS5 - but Sales and cheaper new releases may have tempted them but now 'can't' so that's going to impact Physical purchases.
With so many 'Digital' Only releases too, its not surprising that Physical with more 'limited' releases and only available on 'select' hardware (PS5 Disc/Series X - as Series S/PS5 Digital/PC are 'digital only' platforms), its no surprise that it accounts for such a small sector these days
Re: Poll: Do You Think GTA 6 Will Release on PS4?
I guess its possible if they are targeting 4k/60 on a PS5 and could scale it down to 30fps and 1080p (or lower). It really depends on whether it was built in a way to scale across generations or not - no one thought RDR2 was a bad looking/playing game when it released - even if they 'could' scale it up for PS5.
If its built with features and/or certain ways, it may not be possible to Scale down. For example, if they rely on RT GI with 'no' traditional option for less capable hardware or rely on SSDs as fundamental to the game-play, then it won't release on last gen hardware. If there isn't enough of a market on old hardware, they won't scale it down for sales as they need to recoup costs too.
Re: Poll: Are You Happy with Your PS Plus Essential Games for November 2023?
@Leonhart To you - and it may well be the 'best' of the trilogy - but I think the trilogy is average at best - not something I'd recommend. The second was pretty average 13yrs ago when it released.
If you enjoy - great but considering ALL the games I can play today on my PS5, Mafia 2 wouldn't be in my top 100 games. In other words, there are MANY games I'd rather spend my gaming time playing - even if some of those cost money. I'd rather buy some games than play Mafia 2 for 'free' on PS+.
It may not be 'terrible' but there are MANY better games, many that I'd rather spend time playing - some of which are in my backlog so I am not desperate enough, have so few games in my Library or wish list etc, that Mafia 2 is the 'best' use of my gaming time...
Re: Poll: Are You Happy with Your PS Plus Essential Games for November 2023?
@Northern_munkey No probs - hope you are very happy with your choice and it's a very worthy upgrade that will serve you well for years to come...
As long as you found the info useful that's all the thanks I need and just hope it helped you to make your purchasing decision with confidence.
Re: Poll: Are You Happy with Your PS Plus Essential Games for November 2023?
Nowt here of interest to me. Never liked Dragon Ball, Aliens was very mediocre when I played on Game Pass and Mafia 2 was 'OK' 13yrs ago from my perspective so nothing I'm looking forward, let alone excited to play...
Re: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3's First PS5, PS4 Campaign Review Is a Massacre
CoD Ghosts had a great campaign and even the multiplayer modes were great too.
The problem was that the series hadn't tried to evolve and was still the 'same' game reskinned, same movement, same modes, same structure and people were 'tired' of it. Games like Titanfall were showing 'Advanced' movement.
The Multiplayer too wasn't helped by such a split in the communities. The game was split on Consoles between those on PS3 and those 'few' who bought the game on PS4 in the first few months. On XB1, that was perhaps worse with fewer hardware sales - no multi-platform MP back then.
It was a cross generation game with the community split across too many consoles and people were getting a bit fed up with what often felt like a reskinned MP bolted on to a 'similar' campaign that no longer was 'shocking' or really doing anything that new with the Campaign...
But then we got Advanced Warfare and the run of Advanced Movement games before the Community wanted CoD to return to Boots on the Ground - even had to bring back Modern Warfare to steady a sinking ship...
Re: Destiny 2 Fans Demand Refunds for Next DLC After Bungie Layoffs
To be honest, I stopped 'supporting' Bungie and Destiny years ago - I voted with my Wallet at the direction and monetisation methods they were utilising before they left Activision so I can appreciate why many feel this may be the 'final nail' in the Coffin from their perspective.
It already seemed to me that the 'paid' for content wasn't given the time, the attention etc as much as the Eververse and MTX Cosmetics - often 'better' than the Rewards offered from the highest tier paid for content (Raid Rewards) and the fact that they 'sell' you all the 'great' gear you can earn, only to basically take it away the following DLC so you have to 'grind' again and again...
I don't know if this is 'just' about the Layoffs, but the whole 'news' - don't feel like the Final Shape will now be worth the Price (reduced in quality, content etc with 'fewer' working on it) and after the last DLC was disappointing - this is a combination of factors that was the tipping point for them...
Re: Interest in Destiny 2 Reportedly at an All-Time Low
I lost interest in Destiny before they left Activision and the game went Free to Play. I was already beginning to get seriously annoyed with the eververse store and putting the 'best' Cosmetics behind a ridiculously high paywall instead of 'earning' the best cosmetics from playing content I 'PAID' for, them making stuff I had grinded for 'obsolete/useless' to force you to 'grind' etc when the Content/Story never really seemed to have the same effort put into it as the Eververse store...
Re: It Sounds Like PS5 Is Handily Outselling Its New-Gen Rival in France
@Flaming_Kaiser Great - Consoles 'suit' you the best. However if you gamed on PC, you wouldn't buy a Playstation if ALL their games released day/date on PC - its pointless...
Playstation doesn't really give you a choice - its buy Playstation or 'miss out' - at least until they bring it to PC. With MS, you have so many choices - from using whatever hardware you may have and stream it for a small monthly fee with many other games also playable for that tiny fee - great if you can't afford or justify spending hundreds on Hardware just to play game(s) - all the way up to having the 'best' PC set-up money can buy - you don't NEED an Xbox Console or have to miss out, don't need to go out and buy a Series S/X at all or even 'buy' the game these days....
Also if you have a 'great' PC, you are not forced to spend hundreds to buy a Console or 'miss out' until MS release it on their preferred platform. There is an 'option' to suit any preference/budget. Even Steam Deck console gamers for example don't need a Series S/X or 'miss out', they can play Day 1.
If you want the Ease of Plug & Play that Consoles offer - MS still has the Series S or X as two different tiers. Those 'options' are still there of course - Series X is the Equivalent to the PS5 in that regard. But with Sony, Consoles are not an 'option' - its the ONLY choice to play Sony games day/date. Someone with a XB1S, Steam Deck, PC/Laptop etc doesn't 'need' to buy a Series S/X to play Forza Motorsport but a PS4, Steam Deck, PC/Laptop gamer will need to buy a PS5 for Spider-Man 2.
Sony's 'ecosystem' is literally just the Console. MS's is the 'PC/Cloud/Xbox' of which the Console is just 1 option - which may be the 'best' option for some - hence they'll buy, but for others, they may 'prefer' the other options as it suits them, their budget, their preferences etc the best...
Re: It Sounds Like PS5 Is Handily Outselling Its New-Gen Rival in France
@Cikajovazmaj Again - PC gaming does not necessarily mean those sat at a 'Desktop' with at least a RTX 30 series or equivalent AMD GPU. Steam Deck is 'not' a PC, its a Console - but Steam is 'PC' so therefore comes under the PC umbrella. PC has Xbox Store and Game Pass too of course - but PC can also be a RoG Ally for example or any of the other Windows Handheld gaming devices on the market - maybe better than a Console for those who spend most of their Gaming time on the Go...
Even a cheap Student Laptop with no separate GPU can be used to play games. Cheaper than a Series S with a screen - as long as it has wifi and a Browser, you can play on Game Pass Cloud. I know its 'not' the best way to play, Series S has its advantages over Cloud, Series X - advantages over Series S and high end PC's advantages over all the rest.
Point is, if you wanted to play Starfield, Forza, Fable, Perfect Dark etc the DAY they release but can't afford (or justify) buying a Series S/X, you can still play on some device - even if its just your Mobile Phone or via a browser on your 'old' laptop/PC. Not everyone cares about 4k or even use Game mode on their TV so Cloud may feel much better, less lag than they are used too...
Re: It Sounds Like PS5 Is Handily Outselling Its New-Gen Rival in France
@Northern_munkey ALLM - Auto Low Latency Mode - basically switches a TV into its 'Low Latency' (often called Game mode) automatically. It depends on whether you prefer lowest input latency because it often turns off some of the TV's own built in Picture Processing to save time, therefore reduce lag, before its displayed for you to see. Some find it a bit 'Raw' and would rather have the TV's Picture Processing (movie mode for example).
VRR is Variable Refresh Rate and is useful too. If you are bothered by stutter or Screen Tearing when frame rates drop, this is essential. Without it, a TV refreshes 60 times a second (generally - although TV's are now using 120hz panels with VRR enabled sets) so if the frame rate drops, its 'out of sync with the TV leading to a stutter or screen tear. VRR will adjust the TV to match the Frame Rate so it refreshes with every frame - at least for Frame Rates above 48fps on PS5 to so it at least looks smoother and/or cleaner.
Both are recommended for Gamers and if you do get a 120hz VRR display for example, you can play games like R&C, Spider-Man 2 etc at 40fps Quality mode instead of 30fps. 40fps is exactly mid-way between 30 and 60fps. I'd never advise or tell people how to spend their money so I'll leave it to you to decide if its worth it to you - but all I'll say is that these are 'Gaming' Features of modern TV's and Modern Consoles (at least the Series S/X and PS5) are able to utilise those so I would highly recommend these features to ANY gamer and let them decide if its worth it to them...
Re: It Sounds Like PS5 Is Handily Outselling Its New-Gen Rival in France
@Fiendish-Beaver I know a PC maybe the most expensive option - if you want to have the best hardware - but you are assuming that people will need to invest in a PC to play. Some may have a decent enough PC that can match a Series S - only have a 1080p monitor anyway. Even if their PC can't play games natively, they don't have to 'invest' in CPU's, GPU's or RAM to play, they can play via Cloud.
Yes Cloud may not be the 'best' way to play, but it maybe better than their hardware would run it natively, if at all. I can play Starfield on a Student Laptop/PC for a LOT less money than it would cost to Buy a PS5/Series X Console. I can play Starfield on my XB1S without having to go out and buy a Series S/X for example but PS4 gamers will have to upgrade to play Spider-Man 2.
You don't 'need' an Xbox Console to play day/date - Steam Deck, RoG Ally and numerous other 'Handheld' options exist. So even if you can't buy a $1000+ PC (Laptop or Desktop), there are still cheaper options. The Consoles may well give the 'best bang for buck' upfront price for performance, but PC's can be upgraded as and when you want, games are cheaper too and you can save money on not having to pay to play online too.
'PC' could be an 'expensive' gaming Rig but also a handheld 'Console' like device these days. You also have the fact that 'everyone' these days 'owns' a device they could play games on via the Cloud too.
The 'hardcore' gamers may well already have a PC gaming rig - whether its 'better' than Series X or not, it makes sense to upgrade that than spend $500 on a Console. There is so much choice for gamers of ALL budgets - from those that can't afford to buy 'hardware' specifically at the moment all the way up to the most hardcore/affluent gamers.
Yes a Console provides a certain tier of quality - but its a 'choice' with MS. I can play Starfield on my RoG Ally anywhere, on my 3080ti Gaming Laptop too, on any PC regardless of its 'gaming' specs, on my XB1X or S, on my Samsung Mobile etc - I don't have to play ONLY on Series X.
Some really don't care about 4k - don't have 4k Displays so their 'hardware' is more than adequate to play Starfield - so why 'buy' a Console? There is 'options' for everyone - whatever 'budget' they have. Cloud may not be the 'best' way, but for some, it enables them to play at a cost they can afford/justify. No pressure to buy ANY Console - its OPTIONAL
Re: It Sounds Like PS5 Is Handily Outselling Its New-Gen Rival in France
@themightyant Exactly this!
Things like PS+ Subscriptions and First Party games like Spider-Man 2 are ONLY available on Playstation. If you want to play SM2 the day it releases, you'll need to own a Playstation - so it pushes Sales of that Console.
Game Pass and Starfield are NOT exclusive to Xbox Consoles. You do NOT need an Xbox to play Starfield or Subscribe to Game Pass to play it day/date. In fact you can play it Day 1 on Cloud for example and its NOT even a Console Exclusive as it can be played on a Steam Deck.
The Series Console is purely 'optional' hardware for Microsoft. Series S is the 'entry' hardware tier with Series X offering a comparable 'premium' Gaming tier to PS5 - but Cloud is still the cheapest entry tier and PC's can offer the 'highest' tier, well above what PS5 is able to offer if you have the budget to spend.
Point is, Sony should continue to Sell more Hardware - especially as it looks like ABK games won't be 'exclusive' and they aren't that 'prolific' either. It may still make more sense for MANY gamers to buy a Playstation because ONLY Playstation will have 'exclusives' as ALL of MS's Games, if you want to play them, will be available on PC (inc Handhelds like RoG Ally) or Cloud so you don't 'need' an Xbox. PC & Playstation for example could be all you need and not 'miss out' on ANY MS exclusives.
If by 'market position', its just the 'console' ecosystem - not counting any who may also be in that Ecosystem and therefore not buying a Console for the sake of it, then of course releasing ALL your Exclusives on PC/Cloud is going to negatively impact. As stated, if you want to play Starfield, Forza, Perfect Dark, Fable etc - you don't 'NEED' an Xbox and PC gamers who may buy a PS5 to play Spider-Man 2, ain't buying an Xbox ever again...
Re: Poll: Are You Playing Alan Wake 2?
I enjoyed Alan Wake and its big Stephen King inspired Story on the 360 - also liked American Nightmare too but didn't like Quantum Break or Control so I am not convinced by this - looks good but something is telling me to wait on this....
Re: Delayed for an Impressive Sixth Time, Skull and Bones Now Expected in Early 2024
The longer it goes on, the less likely it will be successful enough to warrant supporting or even continuing to make more games in the future. The escalating costs of development will make it tougher to recoup that...
Personally, I couldn't care less - it was never on my Radar, never appealed to me, and I hated the ship combat it Assassins Creed (Black Flag, Origins, Odyssey etc) so a game based around that doesn't interest me at all. Each to their own of course and if you are 'excited' by this, maybe eventually you'll get to play it - until Ubisoft decides to close it down!
Re: Former PlayStation Boss Shawn Layden Says It's 'Criminal' Industry Isn't Properly Preserving Games
There is nothing to say that Digital won't 'preserve' games in the future. Discs these days are just a delivery mechanism to get the 'software' to the Customer so they can install it on their hardware to play - no different from the internet.
However, Discs also need to be manufactured and distributed, as well as contain the 'earliest' version of the code - often requiring Day 1 patches and/or internet connection to install the rest of the game as its too big to be all on disc.
So what are you 'preserving' these days? half a game? the broken -pre-day 1 experience? Something that is 'unplayable' and certainly not the game it will end up becoming once Devs have patched and added extra content/modes/features etc 'post release'.
There are many games over the past few years I've bought on Disc - yet I wouldn't want to play what's on the Disc today. Perhaps one of the best examples is Cyberpunk 2077 - the game on disc was AWFUL, even the day 1 patches wouldn't help and its a completely different game to the version on Digital stores today...
Licences too 'expire'. If EVERY game was Preserved, Spider-Man would soon be playable on Xbox for certain - albeit the ABK Spider-Man games that 'could' be remade/remastered. However, licences - whether music, brands (like Ford, Mercedes etc in car games) or IP's are often licenced for the 'life' of Specific Hardware - like PS3 or Xbox 360 or for a Duration (like 5-10yrs) because they don't expect you to 'keep' playing those 'OLD' games on new Hardware when 'newer' games exist in the same genre/IP and/or not willing to pay for Licences when Sales won't cover the costs.
Not 'every' game deserves to be preserved in my opinion. Should every version of Fifa ever released be preserved? What about shovelware games for trophy score? What about awful games like Life of Black Tiger?
I have no issue with certain games being preserved - especially those that had a major impact in the world of Gaming. Pac Man for example had a big impact but not 'every' version or copycat clone that came out deserves to be 'preserved' in my opinion...
Re: You'll Need an Internet Connection to Pair PS5 Slim's Optional Blu-ray Drive
Its probably so that ONLY Sony can make/sell a drive and market it at whatever price they want knowing that the ONLY option for consumers is to buy 'their' Hardware or miss out.
Sony will want you to buy their TV's too to get the 'most' out of Playstation...
Re: Marvel's Spider-Man 2 PS5 Director: This Game Is Worth the Money
@Korgon All I am saying is that people will have different perspectives on what they consider to be good/bad value. Some will be 'fine' with what they get for their money and others will expect 'more'.
I remember when games would have a 8hr+ Single Player, an extensive Online Multi-player Suite etc for around £40 - now it seems that you'll get an 8hr game for £70 and they'll sell a Multi-player suite separately for example. Instead of making a bigger game, the Games seem to be getting smaller, shorter - albeit 'prettier' yet charging more.
Games aren't 'better' than 10yrs ago either - as RE4, Dead Space and Quake 2 are some of the highest rated 'releases' this year - games that are 'over' 10yrs Old that still stand-up today. The Quality of the writing, the Game-play etc stands up.
Anyway, If you have £70 to spend on gaming, some may choose to buy this at launch - pay a high 'premium' just because its 'new', Pay a Premium to be one of the 'first' to play. This is when Games are at their 'worst' value for a Gamer as the price is at its highest, the game is generally at its worst (for a Consumer as it requires patches/fixes/optimisation to iron out any bugs - even if it releases in a great state) and lowest Content too - with 'promises' of Post release content to come. Therefore, when its half price in a sale, you get a 'better,bigger' game for less - much 'better' value for money.
You may place a 'higher' value on games to be one of the first to experience it, the FOMO effect pushes you to pay that Premium to play the 'best' new Release this week for example, but another may decide to buy it when its in a sale because they can get a LOT more Games, a lot more entertainment etc for a lot less.
Why spend £70 on a single game when you could spend £10 on a Sub Service and play numerous games, buy several superb games in a sale etc and get much better 'value' for your money. It doesn't matter how long/short SM2 is, it will be 'better' value and soon be on PS+ anyway.
Point is that Value is 'relative' to an individual and therefore can't be argued. As I said, I can't argue with you about the Value of SM2 in reality because its personal to you, just as you can't really argue that others may get more 'value' from their £70 to them so think SM2 isn't great value either.
Re: Marvel's Spider-Man 2 PS5 Director: This Game Is Worth the Money
@Korgon Oh and whilst I am trying to be 'objective' and say that Value is totally relative to the individual, their preferences, budget etc I can see your point. I don't necessarily believe that a 100hr+ game is better value than a 15-20hr game - as I said, I'd rather play a 15-20hr 'great' game than a 100+ hr Mediocre broken Mess, filled with repetitive Game-play, repeated repetitive Side Quests, bland characters with a predictable and/or generic plot.
Therefore you have to look at each game on a game by game basis. I know that if I had a 'limited' budget and could only buy 'new' games once every month or two, then I'd rather buy a 'great' 100hr+ game that will see me through at least until I can buy something else, than buy something I'll be finished with in a weekend and then have little/nothing to play until I can afford another game, wait for 'short' games to drop in price so I could buy several games to see me through.
Personally, I don't believe ANY game is worth $50+ just to play it in the first few months or so of release. The Stories, Game-play loops etc are NO better - even if they 'look' more realistic. I'd rather play Uncharted 2 than U4 again and much prefer AC2 to AC:Valhalla. And until the price went up, I was buying 'new' games for £40-45 at most and £65-70 for Special Collectors editions with DLC bonuses, Steelbook cases, Artbooks, Soundtracks etc so £65-70 (as they are in the UK) for a 'standard' release is quite a jump up for what? Better Graphics? We had that with the PS4 over PS3 too but didn't have to pay £10 more for the PS4 version because it offered the full 1080p with higher quality visual settings...
That's like charging nVidia RTX series an extra £10 over AMD users because they can play games at higher Graphical settings/performance thanks to its Cores specifically for RT, AI and DLSS.
Re: Marvel's Spider-Man 2 PS5 Director: This Game Is Worth the Money
@Korgon As I tried to point out, its all relative. You may think that paying $70 for 20hrs is great value to you but for another person who spent weeks saving their Pocket Money to buy the game and finish it over a weekend somewhat poor value when they could have bought a game that would last them 'months' so they can save money for their 'next' game.
They may be better off picking up Cyberpunk now in a sale and playing that, wait for Spider-Man 2 to crop up in a sale as that will be 'even' better Value but right now, its not 'worth' $70 because they can get a LOT more games for that money.
If you can only buy a 'new' game a month, buying a game and beating it in a few days may feel like its not great 'value' as they have 'nothing' to play until 'next' month now but could have bought several games or even just 1 game that will see them through to their 'next' game.
Maybe if you look at Sub services too (inc PS+ Extra), they have many 'great' high quality games to play for a much lower monthly cost - and games like God of War, Horizon:ZD, Last of Us, Uncharted, R&C, Returnal, Spider-Man & Miles Morales are of 'equal' Sony Quality so much better 'value' than buying Spider-Man 2 at launch when it will be on PS+ at some point and/or in a sale offering much better 'value' than it does today.
You are still paying more just to play it at launch - and with 'many' games, they update and/or patch the game - add more features, modes, content etc (like NG+, Performance modes etc), fix bugs and/or optimise it better to extract 'more' from the Hardware etc so that when you do buy it in a Sale, its a bigger, better and/or much more playable/fun/balanced experience so 'better' value as it also costs less...
Re: Marvel's Spider-Man 2 PS5 Director: This Game Is Worth the Money
@Korgon When $70 can buy you several great 'High Quality' 15-20hr games, then $70 for one, just because its 'new' maybe isn't great value to that person.
You can buy several 'Game of the Year' games in a sale that are arguably better now they have been patched, updated with extra content/features/modes instead for example which maybe even better Value to the Gamer.
Its relative to the individual and what they feel is the better use of the money for them...