'Value' is always relative to the individual so I don't necessarily agree with this. If someone feels that the Game is 'too short' or not enough content they 'want' for that price point, that is equally as valid a perspective.
Length itself isn't always a good metric as you can have 100's of hours worth of 'repetitive' game-play/quests etc just to pad out a 'mediocre' Campaign with bland characters and a very predictable and/or generic plot but a much shorter game exceeds expectation and delivers an experience you feel justified its price point.
Some games deliver on both Quality and Quantity too that make '8hr' games feel incredibly short, left with a feeling of 'is that it?' I expected 'more' for the price...', even if its 'Quality' cannot be faulted.
£70 is also going to feel expensive to some, and maybe pocket-money change to another. It really does depend on your Budget, how much free cash you can spend on games. If you have to save weeks to buy a Game at launch, that's going to be a different 'value' proposition to someone who could buy several 'new' games every week....
The price, coupled with some big discounts on the OG design in recent months really doesn't make the Slim an 'attractive' option - 3 years on from release when most 'hardcore' gamers already have a PS5.
Yes it maybe more 'profitable' for Sony to release a smaller design 3yrs on at/above the price they launched with, but once the OG designs are sold, then this is the ONLY option for those 'late comers' to the PS5.
If a 'slimmer' PS5 is still costing $500 (with a drive), I'd hate to think how much they would expect for a Pro with any 'meaningful' upgrade. I doubt you'll get 'native' 4k/60 when Some games are running at below 1080p using FSR or TAA to upsample to 4k and still not always hitting 60fps.
The 'only' reason to upgrade from an OG PS5 is really if the OG breaks down. It doesn't offer any other major benefits - unless you are really concerned about the Electric bill and want to reduce your consumption without reducing your game time.
@Jimboss If it wasn't, then why would Sony persist with the Practice knowing that they will sell Playstation Hardware because of CoD and 'extra' content, early access etc. You can argue it 'worked' for MS during the 360 era as they had DLC earlier too.
Of course there will be a portion of the CoD community that will play on their preferred Hardware or can't own multiple platforms so will 'miss out', but those deals will make CoD gamers buy a Playstation rather than 'miss out'. Buy an Xbox, not get content but still have to pay the same price, not going to get XP bonuses that help PS players rank up and unlock gear at a faster rate, not getting access to maps at the same time - advantages for PS gamers who can learn the Maps, unlock gear quicker etc.
The fact is it makes CoD a less attractive package on other Platforms when one has ealy/extra content for the same cost and splits the community too which isn't great for the Game/Community. Of course PS gamers are 'happy' because they benefit, but the majority are NOT.
I don't think anyone is surprised by this. Rebranded but ultimately the same game people 'expected' Fifa24 would be. The Rebrand hasn't really impacted this game in either a positive or negative.
Its Fifa23 with the usual minor tweaks you get year after year after year from EA.
In the past few years ABK have basically dried up on releases - considering the size and number of Studios across Activision and Blizzard. King don't release games on Console anyway.
Apart from some Crash/Spyro/Tony Hawkes remasters and the Annual CoD, they have only released Diablo 4, OW2.0 (more an update), Crash4 and Crash Team Rumble.
MS themselves got 'ridiculed' for a lack of Games despite acquiring several Studios in 2018 yet ABK had far more people and bigger Studios. The way ABK were ran under Kotick, I only saw one outcome - go under or be sold! Too reliant on CoD, putting all their eggs in one basket and stifling Creativity in order to churn out the same game year after year after year...
Sony have been the 'dominant' Console for at least the last decade and used the position to screw over Gamers on other Platforms in order to artificially boost the 'Playstation'. Extra Content/bonuses for PS only splits and angers communities of fans of an IP, forcing them to play on PS instead of their 'preferred' or even the 'best' Platform with the best graphics/performance - the PC. Having to play on PS5 at 60fps to get the best visuals or 120fps to get the best performance when their PC will offer 120fps+ at higher visual quality just to get 'early' access or some 'bonus' modes/cosmetics isn't great for the CoD community.
If this does put 'pressure' on Sony to do something - even though it seems they are not really 'losing' anything by the fact MS are aquiring ABK, still planning to release CoD etc for at least the next 10yrs and support it similar to how they support Minecraft (Mojang are still a 'multi-platform' Studio owned by MS), I just hope it means they don't double down on splitting Communities and invest in their OWN ecosystem, be more 'humble' instead of thinking they are a 'Premium' brand so command 'Premiums' when their products are no better than others - just given a bit more time to polish...
Well with ABK 'streaming' rights now with Ubisoft, that enables Netflix, Apple, Google etc as well as Sony of course, to have access to all ABK games to be available to those 'giants' too to help them set-up and compete with the 'established' giants of gaming.
That could mean the likes of CoD, Diablo, Overwatch, WoW, Crash, Spyro etc will end up on Netflix too to bolster their Streaming content and help them Establish themselves as a Gaming supplier/hub.
I don't subscribe to Extra or Premium and these games wouldn't convince me to Subscribe either. Alien: Isolation is perhaps the only game I'd actually want to play - if I didn't already own it. I'm sure I've seen it on sale for under £10.
Gotham Knights may well be one of the Newest and high profile releases, but it was also not a great game - maybe 'better' now than when it released in terms of playability, but that doesn't change some of the other issues - like story for example.
It might be worth 'trying' for 'free' if you already sub, but I'd rather keep the Sub fee in my account, maybe buy a game or two in a sale that I can play 'forever' instead.
Since every game now has to be installed on internal storage, it doesn't run from Disc at all, Physical is just a way of the Publisher/Dev to 'deliver' the Software to your Console - just like the internet is used to deliver the Software via downloading.
Games are either 'incomplete' due to limited 'disc' space or a buggy, broken mess that both require 'internet' to Download the rest of the Game and/or patches to play. The only reason you need the Disc after installation is to 'verify' you still own a valid licence to play.
If we look at 'next-gen' hardware, Physical is only really bought by PS5 (disc) and Series X owners as PS5 (Digital), Series S and PC owners all buy Digitally. A 'large' percentage of the Gaming community can't buy Physical anyway so they are only printing discs for the 'few' on PS5/Series X that want/prefer Physical - but a growing percentage are switching to Digital making Physical a much smaller percentage of gamers.
On top of all the extra costs involved to manufacture and distribute Physical, the market for them is shrinking and the Game on Disc can be 'very' different from the Game today - look at Cyberpunk and how that evolved since Launch - who'd want to 'preserve' that version that came on Disc?
@thefourfoldroot1 Well that's you. I prefer to be able to return to games as and when I want - whether I have 'finished' the main Story or not. Take Cyberpunk, I have owned it since launch but with Patches and now some upcoming DLC, I may want to return to it years later. A lot of games get updates, new content etc and reasons to return and/or reasons why I didn't finish them at the time.
As I said, I don't want to be restricted to playing a 'handful' of games everytime I turn my Console on. I don't always have 'hours' to reinstall games or move them, so I want to be able to turn my console on and be playing 'any' game I have within 'minutes' at the most.
Its not like the 'pre-XB1/PS4' era where EVERY game you owned could be accessed by simply putting the Cartridge/Disc into the hardware as it ran from that Disc - at most,, you'd get an update to install first. But as games run from internal Storage now and must be installed too, the amount of Storage is limiting the number of games you can access.
I also don't want to have to decide which games to move/delete every time I want to play something 'different' - whether its an 'old' game I own, some 'free' game from a Sub Service (like PS+) or a new game I've just bought.
@thefourfoldroot1 Because I don't want to spend hours reinstalling or transfering games across from an external HDD to play games I own when I want to play.
Yes you can ONLY play 1 game at a time, but I own more games than can fit on my SSD. Take Cyberpunk, I may not have played for months, but with new DLC, I may want to jump back. If I can only keep '5-8' games on the SSD, that limits what games I can play 'instantly' at any time out of my Collection with the rest either requiring reinstallation, updating etc before I can jump back in.
I may only play 1 game at a time, but I also don't want to be 'limited' as to what games I can just jump in and play quickly/easily to the select few games installed on the SSD despite owning others.
Disney acquired LucasArts and could have been a big Gaming Company by now if they had ambition in that direction.
As for a Monopoly, that would require so many Publishers to be bought. In Japan alone you have Sony, Nintendo, Bandai Namco, Square Enix, Sega, Capcom etc let alone Ubisoft, EA, TenCent, Embracer, Warner Bros etc as well - all Publishers/creators of Games so a long way to go to get down to 2 or 3 big companies with anyone owning the vast majority of IP's, Studio's etc. People need to know what a 'monopoly' is before they start claiming a monopolisation of the Industry.
That being said, I can see Disney being an attractive proposition for the right Company. Not only do you have some of the Biggest IP's in 'media' (Disney, Star Wars, Marvel etc) to create games for, you also have their TV/Movie expertise for their Games - whether they choose to make a TV series, Movie or use that expertise for more cinematic games, Motion Capture etc.
If Disney did buy EA, they could turn Mass Effect, Dead Space etc into TV/movies - much like Sony are doing with their Game IP's - Last of Us, Uncharted. Twisted Metal, R&C etc.
Personally I never liked these games and seemed a money making scheme to sell more junk peripherals and with billions of songs, almost a never ending list of tracks they could sell you - especially with some AI way of translating the music to the GH input style to save time and staff from doing that.
With MS taking over, Koticks days as Activision CEO are over and it would be up to MS to decide whether or not to resurrect GH, decide to change any plans (especially if they haven't 'publicly' been announced) etc. So I would wait until any official confirmation once under 'new' management.
Whether we get another GH with the Peripherals or not, time will tell. Rhythm based games don't seem 'overly' common these days and in a world where plastics, environment, sustainability etc are hot topics, I don't know that they will want to ship 'large' peripherals, but I won't say it will 'never' happen as we just don't know the future...
I thought the first game was 'OK' - nothing 'special' and had a LOT of what I would call typical of an 'Ubisoft Open World' game - towers to unlock the map, lots of filler side activities (backpacks, photos, side missions, enemy bases etc), repetitive 'puzzles' in the lab, boring instant fail 'stealth' and a reliance on QTE's. Most battles result in a similar structure of dodging until you can web sling somethiing to get a chance to attack the boss, repeat 3x and follow the QTE's to win.
It played well and Swinging was fun. Combat borrowed heavily from Arkham and Treyarch's Spider-Man 2 (which also had great swinging) and so felt familiar and solid enough. Being a 'Sony' Game helped the final release deliver a 'solid' experience at launch that felt ready to release (Maybe the 'single' Platform helps too to ensure its polished) - which can't be said of other games but I felt like Insomniac took Ubisofts open world template and borrowed from Treyarch's Spider-Man 2 (an influence on Batman's Combat) and wrapped it in a Spider-Man skin.
As such, I doubt I'll buy Spider-Man 2 at launch. I don't think any game is worth spending £70 just to play in the first months of release when I can wait until its cheaper in a sale. It would really have to be something special, a complete game changer to convince me to purchase sooner...
@BeerIsAwesome True - but things are certainly a lot different today. The infrastructure has improved as well as the market, the way more and more people are accessing their favourite media etc.
Its like saying Nintendo didn't really succeed with VR so shouldn't or won't reconsider VR ever again but things change. In the 90's, you'd never have thought that you could game with people all over the world or buy your games digitally. Never have thought that games could be 'fixed' after release etc.
It seems that Gaming is following Movies/Music into that more 'digital' realm - not only for ease/reach, but also for sustainability, for environmental concerns, for reducing costs (no waste products, no fossil fuels used in manufacturing/distribution, no plastics etc that can end in landfill) etc.
In the past 15yrs, we have seen Netflix rise and more and more Sub Services have become established. So many people consume their media via the internet, buy 'digitally' if not on a Sub service and the 'instancy' of it - can decide to buy/rent any new film without needing to go out to a store, watch wherever you are on whatever device you have - don't need a DVD player and a TV etc so the market has changed a LOT in the past 15yrs and I'd say 2020 Pandemic also helped push people more to Digital.
So I think its inevitable for Sony to go this route and 'compete' with Netflix, Apple, Amazon etc for your 'Subscription' money to access Sony's Media.
I thought it was inevitable that Sony would bring more of their other media to Playstation and/or even their Sub Service. I can see a time when Sony have a Sub Service offering Games, Movies/TV and even Music. It would set their service apart from say Microsoft or Nintendo and/or compete with Netflix, Amazon and Apple...
Sony own Crunchyroll too so a Sony 'Media' Sub service offering Sony Games, Movies, TV and/or Music seems like an obvious progression...
Looks clunky, slow and low budget - Euro-jank - but that doesn't mean it can't be a fun game to play. Glad it seems to be keeping to the OG Robocop and Lewis too but some of the incidental dialogue was getting quite repetitive.
Its something I would likely try on a Sub service or at least wait for it a Sale, but not something I'd want to pre-order or buy around launch based on what I've seen of the Game so far. Maybe reviews and price point could persuade me but right now, its looking a bit 'meh' to me.
Well I can't see a 'Fifa' game on the Market to compete and Konami messed up the only competition EA had in the Football Game market so what choice do gamers have for this year?
Either stick with the 'old' games or buy the latest, which is basically the 'same' game without the Fifa branding anyway. Its not as if some other Publisher has a competing game to challenge EA and with Konami messing up, its just pushing those Fans to buy the ONLY other option.
Unless another Footy game comes out to challenge EA, the 'loss' of the Fifa brand certainly won't hurt them and the lack of competition will only help them...
Considering Push Square have been mentioned on numerous video's that promote Games with Review scores, its not that surprising to me - especially not in the UK and about a UK based site too.
Pure Xbox (and NL too for that matter) does give away the answer so its perhaps the only option dedicated to a single platform that doesn't contain the name of the Company/Hardware to ask that Question.
The initial reveal of the Callisto Project really grabbed my interest but as more and more game-play came out, the less and less interested I became. After seeing the reviews and some more game-play after it released, I had lost all interest. Now I can play it via PS+, I don't know that I will bother trying it - not with a backlog of games I really want to play.
Weird West looks interesting - not sure if its my type of Game-play, but of the 3, its the one I am most likely to try. However, I have no interest in Farming Sim at all.
In terms of PS+, I guess its not bad but for me personally, it feels a bit 'meh'. Nothing I'm excited for and/or can't wait to download when they become available to play.
Was never interested, would likely never play and couldn't care less its 'gone'.
I do feel for Devs who put their time and effort into projects, but I also wonder how many are 'pushed' to make games they weren't fully interested or even had the experience to make Games more as a 'service'.
Publishers may only be looking to Greenlight games they feel 'could' bring in the revenue over a LONG time and even if they aren't pro-actively pushing devs to make these games, they may not be interested in publishing more traditional games so Devs may feel like they have to make a GaaS to get their games Published.
At some point, I hope that Publishers etc realise that GaaS games may well be major money makers, but that the majority end up being unsustainable and get shut down. It seemed that the Risk/Reward was much higher than most thought - relatively low risk for 'high reward' turned out to be a much higher risk of the game not succeeding to get rewards...
I never saw the point in Playstation Home and after trying it several times, I still never felt it was something I'd want. It felt like an advertising platform with Microtransactions and extremely underwhelming 'activities' based on their IP's.
Yes it may have been ahead of the Live Service junk experiences loaded with Micro transactional content that ended up costing more to keep going than money coming in and therefore disappeared leaving all those who spent money with nothing. That does sound a lot like many of the Live Service games that have come along since and subsequently disappeared when they too couldn't sell enough useless MTX's to keep going...
From my perspective, I wouldn't play these games at all if I had to buy first and even if they do come to a Sub service day 1, they don't appeal to me 'more' than many of the other games in that service or in my backlog.
Every game is competing for my 'time' first and foremost - regardless of the 'paywall' to entry (Sub fees to full retail price). As such, if I want to play a last gen game via BC more than a brand new release, I couldn't care less if that new release is in a sub service or not - I'm not going to play it.
As more and more games release every week, there is more and more competition for my time. With PS and Xbox both having BC, that means they have 'big' libraries, hundreds of games to play. Sub services add to my own personal Library too so without considering games I could buy, I have 'hundreds' of games I could play without spending any extra money. Therefore these games are 'competing' for my time against all those hundreds of other games so unless it appeals more than everything else I can play, I won't play it.
I don't think I have ever bought anything from DD and if I have played any of their games, its only because they gave them away 'free' on PS+/Gold/Game Pass.
Catch 22 for them - can they make more money from sales despite the massive competition they face in that market or would they get more money from Sub services as more people could end up trying it than risk buying? In a great year for games, would people spend their free cash on their games or rather spend it on something else?
If you aren't getting the sales or the number of gamers you'd want on a Sub service, to me that is more likely down to the game itself - not appealing enough for them to want to spend Time and/or money on their product.
@thefourfoldroot1 Whilst I don't know the exact details, the point is that Ubisoft is an independent company so that they are not likely to 'favour' MS or Partners (like those who use Azure for example), that the price will be the same for all etc.
Its not just Sony, but Google or Apple to. All 3 could start their own Streaming service but would have to negotiate with MS, who could either block or put the price up much higher for them as they are direct competition.
As for circumventing that 'independent' Company - like MS organising 'exclusivity' in cloud to stop Sony from being able to Stream, I don't exactly know what is in place, but the CMA seem satisfied that MS has remedies to prevent that - enforceable by the CMA.
From the CMA themselves on this: "While the restructured deal is materially different to the previous transaction and substantially addresses most concerns, the CMA has limited residual concerns that certain provisions in the sale of Activision’s cloud streaming rights to Ubisoft could be circumvented, terminated, or not enforced.
To address these concerns, Microsoft has offered remedies to ensure that the terms of the sale of Activision’s rights to Ubisoft are enforceable by the CMA. The CMA has provisionally concluded that this additional protection should resolve those residual concerns."
Again, I can't say for sure exactly what the details are of this, but its not as if the CMA haven't considered the possibility of MS somehow getting round that to deny their Competition from streaming and part of this was investigating any potential loopholes and being 'satisfied' that measures are in place to ensure that MS aren't preventing 'others' from being able to offer streaming.
Unless Sony (or others) create their own Streaming service to allow their customers to play the latest ABK games via streaming, its immaterial anyway. PS+ is different as you still have to download and install to PS5. Streaming is 'possible' but not from external servers as you need the game 'installed' on your PS5.
At the moment, no company offers ABK games over Cloud, but the CMA are concerned that CoD would prevent Apple, Sony or Google for example from setting up a competing service so they can go to an independent company knowing that MS can't say 'no' or try and screw them over financially. And it can be checked at ANY time by the CMA to ensure MS are keeping to their agreements.
@thefourfoldroot1 I don't know the details behind the deal. The point is that the CMA had concerns because if MS acquired ABK, MS had only promised to keep CoD on Playstation Hardware and had concerns about the streaming side - believing that MS would not allow Sony to put ABK games into their 'streaming' service if they decided to try and 'compete' with MS Cloud.
The CMA think that MS could 'block' Sony (or others) fromm being able to offer CoD via streaming to 'compete' with Xbox Cloud. Yes, Sony could offer CoD on their Hardware, but would not be 'allowed' by MS to allow streaming.
Therefore, MS has been forced to sell the Streaming rights for the next 15yrs (I believe) to Ubisoft as an 'independent' company to stop MS from being able to decide exactly who gets access to these games on their Streaming service.
Sony doesn't offer a Streaming service yet - not for new, modern games. If the deal went through as it was before, the CMA think that without measures in place, MS could decide to 'block' Sony from access to ABK games, therefore reduce their chance of competing in the Streaming market. Also if 'others' (like google or Apple) want to set up a Cloud based streaming service, MS can't stop them from access to these games either to give them a 'chance' to build up their Subscribers and establish themselves as a rival. Therefore, Ubisoft as an independent company, takes away MS's 'control' over who gets streaming rights...
Again - it's just Streaming rights. If Ubisoft decides ABK games can't be on Xbox Cloud, MS has to live with that, but can still put their games into Game Pass to 'download' and play on Hardware. Sony doesn't have a Streaming service, but if they decide to go that route in 5yrs time, MS can't stop them from getting ABK games on their Streaming service through Ubisoft to 'compete' with Xbox Cloud...
This is purely about Streaming - the CMA had NO concerns about the Physical Hardware sector as MS had demonstrated no reason to pull ABK games from Playstation and 'only' blocked the deal because of Streaming. The fact that streaming is 'new' and most gaming companies don't offer streaming, they wanted an 'independent' source to control who gets streaming rights so MS can't decide not to allow Google, Apple or Sony, arguably Microsoft's biggest rivals in Streaming/Gaming to 'block' their chance to establish their own streaming services by keeping CoD exclusive to Xbox Cloud (even if it is available on Playstation consoles)
@thefourfoldroot1 Ubisoft will own the rights to streaming - so if Sony have a streaming service and want to add Call of Duty, thy would have to negotiate with Ubisoft whatever terms and agreements to get CoD on their streaming service. That just means that MS can't control who gets the right to stream games.
The CMA looked at the market and thinks 'streaming' is separate from Hardware - so whilst MS had agreed to keep CoD on Playstation and bring it to 'more' hardware, the only 'cloud streaming' service appeared to be Xbox only and once the 'deal' passed, MS could block Sony (or others) in the future from Streaming if they decided to set up streaming services - therefore, they forced MS to sell the Streaming rights to Ubisoft for 15yrs.
That means that if companies decide to set up streaming services, they negotiate with Ubisoft to get ABK games into that service to help them 'establish' themselves as a Cloud 'platform' to compete with MS Cloud. Then in 15yrs time, if they have a big enough ABK audience on those Streaming Platforms, MS would be 'foolish' to pull anyway - like they would be foolish to pull CoD from Physical Hardware - at least that's how the CMA seem to be seeing this...
So essentially that means that if/when Sony offer any Streaming service, they negotiate with Ubisoft as they own the streaming rights with regards to ABK games for the next 15yrs...
Otherwise they'll have to rely on MS and their 10yr Contract to receive Native ports of those games to Playstation Hardware.
Looking at the list of games coming, I can honestly say that 'few' appeal to me and certainly not many that I am really excited for and can't wait to play.
Despite not really knowing enough about Star Wars: Outlaws, that is the game I'm most interested in and most likely to buy/play too. Black Myth: Wukong has me very interested in it too as I really enjoy the story that inspired it (Journey to the West) but I'm not really a fan of the Souls-like game-play loop. Alone in the Dark is the only other game in the list that I am interested in but haven't seen/heard enough to consider whether or not its something I want to play.
That's not to say that other games may 'interest' me and/or appeal more as we get closer to launch. I'm not currently interested in 'old' games being ported to 'new' hardware - at least not without a modern update of 'everything' - like Dead Space, not just 'visuals' or 'resolution' so Tomb Raider doesn't really appeal despite me loving the IP and playing these years ago but maybe it will closer to release.
I expect there to be more games that appeal to me and know of several 'expected' in 2024 not on this list - of course some are not on the list because of they platform they are releasing on or marketed by (Avowed, Hellblade 2, Stalker 2 and multi-platform inc PS - Flintlock: The Siege of Dawn etc) and No doubt there will be many other 3rd Party games too coming but not yet revealed for 2024 that will appeal so not concerned that 'few' in the above list appeal to ME!!
I'd rather see a list of 100 games with only a handful that really excite me than just a Handful of games where most, if not all appeal to me. It shows a more diverse collection of games and a productive industry and whilst some games have little/no appeal 'now', just means they have the greatest potential to surprise me...
Who knows if these are still coming? After all, this was their Road Map under Zenimax who maybe wanted to release 'remakes' after the success of Skyrim remake and 'failure' of Fallout 76.
They had Ghostwire and a Sequel mentioned, yet who knows if they want to make a Sequel or whether MS wants them to make a Sequel - especially after the success of HiFi Rush.
We know now that Arkane never wanted to make Redfall - not the style of game they were pushed to make by Zenimax, which changed under MS to be less monetised and wished MS would have cancelled it - they didn't thinking the game was 'nearly' ready to release - which would make sense based on that 'leaked' timeline.
Point is, that was what Zenimax management were 'expecting' their Studios to release over the coming years - before MS took over.
As for whether they would release 'remakes' of older ES/Fallout games on Playstation, I wouldn't rule it out. Morrowind and Oblivion both were 'exclusive' to Xbox at launch - but they do have a history on Playstation - unlike ES6 or Starfield. As these are unique Standalone games, not 'sequels', where you create your Character at the Start and doesn't carry across either, they could see these as individual games - and those with a 'history' on Playstation - Like Fallout 3-4, Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim are games they would sell on Playstation as these are 'not' new IP's.
MS said they would assess each on a Case by Case basis. As they own the Studios, the IP's, the Publishing rights etc, they have NO obligation to release anything on Playstation. As a PS owner, I don't expect anything from MS, just like you don't expect Sony to release anything on Xbox - although they do with MLB and Destiny content...
I still haven't returned to Cyberpunk since I played the 'first' hour on the day it released. I initially intended to wait for patches, then the 'next-gen' upgrade, then more patches to improve that version and then waiting for all the changes with the Phantom Liberty update.
I may actually get round to starting this 'properly' in the near future, but Starfield is occupying all my gaming time at the moment...
@GeeEssEff Not at all - I don't play D&D or really enjoy 'board' games as to me they are games to play when totally 'bored'. I hate the 'random' nature of TBC - the fact that its like D&D and the 'randomness' of a dice throw bugs the hell out of me. Its NOT tactical or strategic to go for a Hit or Block move only for some randomness to say you 'failed'. It becomes more 'luck' than any 'strategy/skill'.
To me, Real Time Combat has more 'skill' and 'Strategy'. You aren't waiting for your turn to 'react', not leaving it to chance to parry/block attacks, have to rely on Strategy/skill to not only attack but also avoid in-coming attacks in 'real-time'. Its not like Conkers or board games, its much more immersive than that. I wouldn't stand there and 'wait' whilst I'm being attacked until its my 'turn'.
It was originally a way to bring some form of 'combat' to massive RPG's when resources were extremely limited and used a 'board' game format to achieve that - doesn't mean to say that they 'need' to do that today - therefore its now a 'design' choice when before they had 'no' choice - call it a 'legacy' mechanic. Of course that doesn't mean that BG3 for example should have updated their Combat, and may well have 'chosen' to do that - either because its what 'fans' expect or because 'they' prefer to do combat the 'easier' way - but that doesn't change the fact that I find it incredibly tedious, boring, immersion-breaking and unnecessary for a 'modern' game on 'modern' hardware.
If you enjoy it, that's your personal choice too but doesn't mean I have to like it or feel the same way. I hate the mechanic and it 'spoils' games for ME. I will NEVER waste money on game-play elements I can't stand and find incredibly tedious.
Can't stand turn-based combat so have absolutely NO interest in this. If you can't build a game with real-time combat in this day and age, something is wrong. Its has to be the lightest/easiest way to do combat - hence games like Pokemon could run on a Gameboy.
Each to their own of course, but I would rather play games with 'real time' combat. I don't care about the 'story' if the game-play is dull/boring/tedious (as I find turn-based Combat) - Why I never had interest in Marvel Sons of Midnight either.
@Powerplay94 I'm NOT surprised at all - its basically just a code in a box to unlock the game 'early' and this doesn't count 'Digital' purchases - just Physical sales.
Starfield hasn't 'officially' launched yet and the 'only' people who can 'play' are those willing to pay for the 'Premium' edition/upgrade whilst 'everyone' else is waiting for the cheaper (but still £70) 'Standard edition' to release - which is 'free' on Game Pass.
Point is, this is 'only' Physical sales for the 'Premium' edition 'upgrade' and only count the Physical sales too with 'MANY' likely to wait until the Standard edition releases or buy Digitally, which can be also be played 'free' on Game Pass, I didn't expect it to be in the top 3 or 5 on the Physical 'sales' chart at all...
With the option to game on both Series X and PC hardware as well as Playstation, this price hike 'hurts' just to play 'online' on Playstation. I know you have to pay on 'Xbox' too, albeit a lower cost per month, and with Game Pass Ultimate, that is essentially 'free' and gives me access to games on MANY platforms, inc Day 1 releases, I am struggling to 'justify' the 'extra' on PS - especially as I can play multi-platform 'online' games elsewhere and Sony's 'exclusives' that really appeal to me are 'Single' player games - Spider-Man, Wolverine, God of War etc. Therefore I think I will be letting my PS+ Essential tier 'run out' and unlikely (at this point) to renew.
@Loamy Actually, in the 'UK' its an accepted way of writing for emphasis - it seems that in some countries it 'irritates' them despite the fact that I don't use 'Quotation' Marks which are " not '.
I don't criticise people for the way they choose to express themselves, the way they write etc and as that has **NOTHING** to do with the 'topic', then I would suggest you either 'ignore' the way I choose to write or use the 'ignore' function to hide my comments...
@PsBoxSwitchOwner I don't forget that at all - its equally as bad on Xbox in that respect, but I also believe their 'Gold' is actually cheaper than PS+ is (or was) and is included in GPU - along with EA Access, Game Pass PC, Game Pass Mobile and 'perks' on top of Day 1 access on ALL first Party games (as well as numerous 3rd Party/independent Games) where ever I want to play - be it on Console, on my Laptop, on my RoG Ally or any 'cloud enabled' device like my Mobile.
I still 'begrudge' paying money for 'Online' access (which I do as part of my GPU Subscription) but overall, I think the value of GPU to me is worth it - I'm not just paying for 'online' access as I feel I am with PS+ because 'Extra' doesn't offer me 'much' I haven't played or would pay 'extra' to play and have 'no' interest in playing PS3 and 'older' games for Premium - I don't play PS3 games in my backlog today that I still own so I am 'only' paying for 'Online' Access - which is basically 'free' with Game Pass Ultimate on Xbox - and I get to play games the day they release, not 'old' games that I couldn't be bothered to buy and 'waited' until they were 'free' in a Sub services, Games I would 'buy', Games I really want to play, excited for 'release' day, certainly never played (or could play) before games, saving me upto $70 each time. Also can play 'Starfield' on my PC and my Console so get 'both' versions - don't need to 'buy' both...
By the you get to play 'Spider-Man 2' on PS+, its 'old' news and people are looking forward to the 'next' thing. Its probably cheaper (certainly in the Physical markets) maybe easy to find 'used' to for the price of a month or two of PS+. So unless I get 'more' for my extra £10 its going to cost to keep PS+ when the price feels 'steep' for what I get 'now' on PS+, its making me want to quit PS+, which seriously limits the choice of games I can play on PS, so therefore maybe not worth remaining on Playstation beyond the limit of my current PS+ subscription...
As I really only have PS+ to access 'online' content in games I bought to play online, this is a kick in the teeth - I already feel like I am being held to Ransom by Sony - pay Sony or don't play the games you paid for.
With Subscription services 'plateauing', this is not a great way to 'encourage' growth - not unless there is 'growth' in the service provided to justify the 'cost'. MS can say they have 'grown' the number of 1st Party Studios and therefore 'grown' the number of Day 1 games coming to 'justify' an increase in costs but I can't see any 'justification' in this. Going up from 1-3 games a year to 4+ does 'justify' a slight increase but getting the exact same 'service' and a focus on online 'GaaS' making PS+ 'essential' to play their first party $70 games is more likely going to push me away from PS+ and Playstation...
Not surprised at all by the Poll results. I am sure it will appeal to some and others may buy to try out Remote play, but whether they get enough 'use' or it ends up gathering dust somewhere, time will tell.
In any case, it would still be a Sale to Sony whether you use it daily, weekly, monthly or just once. I don't know how many they'd need to sell to break even, let alone be 'profitable' to be considered a 'success' by Sony but if just 10% buy, that's still a LOT of units.
Doesn't suit me at all or how I wish to game on my PS5. I have a RoG Ally to game ANYWHERE if I choose with a significantly 'bigger' Library of games at my fingertips. I might not be able to play 'Spider-Man 2' in bed/on the toilet, but I can play Spider-Man and thousands of other games until I can turn my PS5 on and play on my large screen 4k HDR TV.
@Kevw2006 How do you know WHAT the reasons are those games couldn't be made to run with Split-screen, 60fps etc - its not as if OTHER Developers can't achieve those targets.
Most games (if not ALL) are often not utilising the CPU in these 'new' consoles efficiently or even to their fullest capability. They aren't using Multi-threading, not balancing the 'load' across the Cores effectively etc.
Baldurs Gate started out as a PS4/XB1S 'project', built for single thread CPU's and don't have the budget/resources to spend a LOT of time to make a 'niche' feature work at launch.
You also have to remember that during the last gen, CPU's were the 'weak' link so they pushed traditionally CPU tasks to GPU. Their engines were designed around 'Strong GPU/weak CPU' combinations. You can't scale down AI/Physics etc without changing the game-play experience and if that's using GPU instead of CPU, that won't scale.
Point is, it also depends on the Devs and the way they built their game. If it started out 'before' next gen hardware, there is a bigger chance that they built their game to 'run' on weak CPU Hardware but with the Series S, you have a Strong CPU and more 'limited' GPU which would make it hard to 'scale' down Physics/AI etc (traditionally CPU tasks) if they are built to use the GPU because of 'weak' CPU's.
As you know, we still haven't really had a 'true' next gen game released yet, one that is built 'specifically' with next gen hardware - utilising ALL the 'next-gen' hardware features.
They haven't stated 'Split-screen' won't come to Series S at a later date, they just stated that it won't be a feature at launch to ensure that they can release BG3 on Xbox in 2023. Who knows with MS's 'technicians' that went out recently can do to help.
If a game was designed to hit 60fps or Split Screen was 'essential' from the start, it wouldn't be an issue either. Call of Duty will be 60fps and may even have 120fps mode on Series S too - like Gears 5. Split screen games exist and run well on Series S too - so its not the 'Hardware', but more the time, money, effort and 'importance' of those features to the Dev. If they 'designed' it for 30fps but find they can 'drop' res/graphics and hit '60fps' - that's a developer decision. Its still a '30fps' game at 'premium' Graphical settings - otherwise you are getting 'entry' tier/Series S 1080p Graphics to play at 60fps.
Again, its an Entry tier console, like the PS4 or XB1S is for those who just want to play the 'new' games on a budget or can't take advantage of 120fps or resolutions over 1080p on their Display. Much like people couldn't see the point of 'upgrading' to Pro/X as they didn't need or justify the cost to have 'performance' modes, higher quality 'graphics' etc.
If you 'want' the Premium 4k, equivalent to a PS5 like experience in a Console, they have the Series X. The Series S is the 'HD' version of the Series X, just like the PS4 or XB1S was. If you want the 'highest' tier, MS don't need to make a 'Pro' as the PC market has that option...
@Kevw2006 That's 'perception' but you could also look at it that the PS4 Pro/XB1X was 'targeting' the Premium '4k' experience as 4K became more a thing 'during' last gen with the 'base' hardware perfectly adequate for those who don't have 4k TV's.
As there are still millions globally who still game on HD TV's, the 'base' screen resolution these days, they are 'catering' to that market where as Sony decided to leave them behind or 'force' them to buy more expensive Hardware that they won't really benefit from the Premium features on.
The One S was 'significantly' weaker by comparison to the One X than the Series S is compared to the Series X. CPU wise, its on a par with PS5/Series X and whilst the GPU/RAM is scaled down, its expected to scale down the 'graphics'. The GPU on the One S was less than a quarter in raw power compared to the X, much less RAM too and a bigger difference in CPU too. That is a 'clear' indication the Series S is designed to 'scale' graphics down from 4k to 1080-1440p.
The difference between last gen and this is really that at the start of last gen, few, if any console gamers were connecting TV's to '4k' displays whereas in 2020, both HD and 4k Console gamers existed and MS opted to make a 'cheaper' entry system but Sony decided to go straight to the 'Premium' 4k system - perhaps because they also want to create a demand for and sell 4k TV's too...
Whilst there is a large consumer base still on 'HD', then why shouldn't a Console target those - like the Switch does too at a 'similar' price point that seems to be a sweet spot for selling too...
The Series S is built to hit that sub $300 price point and still deliver the same 'next gen' games as its 'Premium' big brother that was built for the '4k' era - much like One X /Pro.
Just like the PS4/XB1S compared to the 'Pro/XB1X', the Series S doesn't have the same Visual Quality and even lacks 'Performance' modes of the 'X'. Games on X/Pro looked better and 'sometimes' offered 'Performance 60fps modes., so the fact the 'S' , a console costing 'half' the price of an X or around the Price of a Switch, maybe lacks some 'features' should come as NO surprise.
You didn't complain on PS4/XB1S when PS4 Pro/XB1X got better visuals and/or Performance modes not available on their 'much cheaper' system.
A great game is still a great game whether it was made 10+ years ago or coming out this week.
Yes graphics have moved on, but game-play, story telling etc hasn't really progressed and the game isn't 'bad' looking today. The game-play loop, which everyone would agree is the MOST important part of a game, is extremely solid and why it won Game of the Year.
The fact is that the ONLY way to play this game on Playstation 4/5 or Nintendo Switch is to buy the game, those wanting a 'great' game will pay the money. I'd rather play this than Marathon, Helldivers2, FairGame$ or Foamstars for example despite them having more 'up to date' Graphics. Minecraft looks far 'worse' graphically but is the best selling game of all time so Game Play is 'most' important.
I would rather play something 'less' visually impressive with the focus on Game-play than a game that looks 'incredible' but has no depth, substance or enjoyable 'game-play'...
The other option is you try and find a PS3 (if you haven't got one) and play on dated hardware, buy a PC or buy an Xbox Series S/X to play the 'original' release at higher res and 'perfect' frame rates. $50 is the 'cheapest' option if you only have a Switch or PS4/5 to play the 'best' game of that year today with the Undead Nightmare DLC too...
@Tharsman marketing CoD on behalf of Microsoft is kind of funny. I know it benefits Sony as they get 'money' from Sales of games, hardware and all the 'extras' (Season Pass, Cosmetic Bundles etc etc) but more sales would benefit Microsoft as 'owner/publisher' which they would be as 'owner' of ABK and all its IPs and Publishing rights...
Of course, that still doesn't stop CoD gamers on 'other' platforms missing out on something, its still splitting the CoD community between Playstation and the Majority of Gamers elsewhere...
It was always going to be 'associated' with Playstation as Sony had a deal in place to ensure that would be the case - whether the Deal went through or not. It was never in doubt as Microsoft has honoured any 'existing' arrangements - like Deathloop & Ghostwire.
MS was never going to PULL CoD away from Playstation - much like they never pulled Minecraft. Both these have massive 'cross-play' Active communities across multiple platforms and it benefits MS far more to 'grow' those Communities. It also doesn't benefit MS to split these Communities with 'earlier' access, extra content etc for a select 'group' just because they play on a specific Platform and upset all those other Community members.
I do expect things to 'change' under MS as they have different objectives, business models etc to Bobby Kotick and ABK's current management. However, CoD will remain on ALL platforms - much like Minecraft does...
I voted that I wouldn't buy at all - but only because I can play the Game and its DLC on Series X via Backwards Compatibility and as this seems to be a direct port, its not worth buying 'again' regardless of the price.
I may have felt differently had I not played or can no longer play the OG version on Hardware I own - but I see no point in buying something that I already own and can still use.
Compared to Baldurs Gate, I'd assume that RDR with the Undead Nightmare DLC competes 'very' well in terms of Content, Story and hours and hours worth of gaming time.
The difference is that BG3 was created much more recently and has obviously a better graphical presentation - but that doesn't necessarily make it a 'better' game. That's like saying 'Cats' is a better Movie than Citizen Kane because its more modern and in colour too.
If you want to play RDR on these Platforms, then you either pay the price, wait for sales or miss out...
I won't be buying a Game I bought, own and can still play inc its DLC on Xbox 360 running at 4k on Series X - thanks to Backwards Compatibility.
I can see why Playstation and Nintendo ONLY gamers are upset but if you want to play RDR on these platforms, then Rockstar are bringing them to you. Its cheaper than buying an Xbox/PC and the Game to play on those platforms and a 'LOT' of game for the money (new or old, its still a 'great' game with a LOT of content and hours worth of game time) - yet people complain about $70 for 8-10hrs worth...
Anyway, if you aren't that bothered to play it Day 1, then you can wait for sales etc...
Comments 5,662
Re: Marvel's Spider-Man 2 PS5 Director: This Game Is Worth the Money
'Value' is always relative to the individual so I don't necessarily agree with this. If someone feels that the Game is 'too short' or not enough content they 'want' for that price point, that is equally as valid a perspective.
Length itself isn't always a good metric as you can have 100's of hours worth of 'repetitive' game-play/quests etc just to pad out a 'mediocre' Campaign with bland characters and a very predictable and/or generic plot but a much shorter game exceeds expectation and delivers an experience you feel justified its price point.
Some games deliver on both Quality and Quantity too that make '8hr' games feel incredibly short, left with a feeling of 'is that it?' I expected 'more' for the price...', even if its 'Quality' cannot be faulted.
£70 is also going to feel expensive to some, and maybe pocket-money change to another. It really does depend on your Budget, how much free cash you can spend on games. If you have to save weeks to buy a Game at launch, that's going to be a different 'value' proposition to someone who could buy several 'new' games every week....
Re: Venom Spin-Off Game an Option for Insomniac, If Fans Want It
Makes sense as Sony do own the Movie Licencing rights to Spider-Man, Wolverine and Venom - something that has complicated Disney/Marvels plans.
I'd rather Insomniac returned to creating their OWN games, another Resistance for example would appeal more to me.
Re: Is It Surprising that PlayStation Fans Don't Really Care About the PS5 Slim?
The price, coupled with some big discounts on the OG design in recent months really doesn't make the Slim an 'attractive' option - 3 years on from release when most 'hardcore' gamers already have a PS5.
Yes it maybe more 'profitable' for Sony to release a smaller design 3yrs on at/above the price they launched with, but once the OG designs are sold, then this is the ONLY option for those 'late comers' to the PS5.
If a 'slimmer' PS5 is still costing $500 (with a drive), I'd hate to think how much they would expect for a Pro with any 'meaningful' upgrade. I doubt you'll get 'native' 4k/60 when Some games are running at below 1080p using FSR or TAA to upsample to 4k and still not always hitting 60fps.
The 'only' reason to upgrade from an OG PS5 is really if the OG breaks down. It doesn't offer any other major benefits - unless you are really concerned about the Electric bill and want to reduce your consumption without reducing your game time.
Re: PlayStation Allegedly Under Pressure to Make Major Gaming Acquisitions
@Jimboss If it wasn't, then why would Sony persist with the Practice knowing that they will sell Playstation Hardware because of CoD and 'extra' content, early access etc. You can argue it 'worked' for MS during the 360 era as they had DLC earlier too.
Of course there will be a portion of the CoD community that will play on their preferred Hardware or can't own multiple platforms so will 'miss out', but those deals will make CoD gamers buy a Playstation rather than 'miss out'. Buy an Xbox, not get content but still have to pay the same price, not going to get XP bonuses that help PS players rank up and unlock gear at a faster rate, not getting access to maps at the same time - advantages for PS gamers who can learn the Maps, unlock gear quicker etc.
The fact is it makes CoD a less attractive package on other Platforms when one has ealy/extra content for the same cost and splits the community too which isn't great for the Game/Community. Of course PS gamers are 'happy' because they benefit, but the majority are NOT.
Re: EA Sports FC 24 (PS5) - Rebranded and Refined But Not Revolutionary
I don't think anyone is surprised by this. Rebranded but ultimately the same game people 'expected' Fifa24 would be. The Rebrand hasn't really impacted this game in either a positive or negative.
Its Fifa23 with the usual minor tweaks you get year after year after year from EA.
Re: PlayStation Allegedly Under Pressure to Make Major Gaming Acquisitions
In the past few years ABK have basically dried up on releases - considering the size and number of Studios across Activision and Blizzard. King don't release games on Console anyway.
Apart from some Crash/Spyro/Tony Hawkes remasters and the Annual CoD, they have only released Diablo 4, OW2.0 (more an update), Crash4 and Crash Team Rumble.
MS themselves got 'ridiculed' for a lack of Games despite acquiring several Studios in 2018 yet ABK had far more people and bigger Studios. The way ABK were ran under Kotick, I only saw one outcome - go under or be sold! Too reliant on CoD, putting all their eggs in one basket and stifling Creativity in order to churn out the same game year after year after year...
Sony have been the 'dominant' Console for at least the last decade and used the position to screw over Gamers on other Platforms in order to artificially boost the 'Playstation'. Extra Content/bonuses for PS only splits and angers communities of fans of an IP, forcing them to play on PS instead of their 'preferred' or even the 'best' Platform with the best graphics/performance - the PC. Having to play on PS5 at 60fps to get the best visuals or 120fps to get the best performance when their PC will offer 120fps+ at higher visual quality just to get 'early' access or some 'bonus' modes/cosmetics isn't great for the CoD community.
If this does put 'pressure' on Sony to do something - even though it seems they are not really 'losing' anything by the fact MS are aquiring ABK, still planning to release CoD etc for at least the next 10yrs and support it similar to how they support Minecraft (Mojang are still a 'multi-platform' Studio owned by MS), I just hope it means they don't double down on splitting Communities and invest in their OWN ecosystem, be more 'humble' instead of thinking they are a 'Premium' brand so command 'Premiums' when their products are no better than others - just given a bit more time to polish...
Re: Netflix Aims to Be PlayStation's Next Big Rival, And It Wants Grand Theft Auto
Well with ABK 'streaming' rights now with Ubisoft, that enables Netflix, Apple, Google etc as well as Sony of course, to have access to all ABK games to be available to those 'giants' too to help them set-up and compete with the 'established' giants of gaming.
That could mean the likes of CoD, Diablo, Overwatch, WoW, Crash, Spyro etc will end up on Netflix too to bolster their Streaming content and help them Establish themselves as a Gaming supplier/hub.
Re: Poll: Are You Happy with Your PS Plus Extra, Premium Games for October 2023?
I don't subscribe to Extra or Premium and these games wouldn't convince me to Subscribe either. Alien: Isolation is perhaps the only game I'd actually want to play - if I didn't already own it. I'm sure I've seen it on sale for under £10.
Gotham Knights may well be one of the Newest and high profile releases, but it was also not a great game - maybe 'better' now than when it released in terms of playability, but that doesn't change some of the other issues - like story for example.
It might be worth 'trying' for 'free' if you already sub, but I'd rather keep the Sub fee in my account, maybe buy a game or two in a sale that I can play 'forever' instead.
Re: US Retail Giant Best Buy Allegedly Binning Physical Media
Since every game now has to be installed on internal storage, it doesn't run from Disc at all, Physical is just a way of the Publisher/Dev to 'deliver' the Software to your Console - just like the internet is used to deliver the Software via downloading.
Games are either 'incomplete' due to limited 'disc' space or a buggy, broken mess that both require 'internet' to Download the rest of the Game and/or patches to play. The only reason you need the Disc after installation is to 'verify' you still own a valid licence to play.
If we look at 'next-gen' hardware, Physical is only really bought by PS5 (disc) and Series X owners as PS5 (Digital), Series S and PC owners all buy Digitally. A 'large' percentage of the Gaming community can't buy Physical anyway so they are only printing discs for the 'few' on PS5/Series X that want/prefer Physical - but a growing percentage are switching to Digital making Physical a much smaller percentage of gamers.
On top of all the extra costs involved to manufacture and distribute Physical, the market for them is shrinking and the Game on Disc can be 'very' different from the Game today - look at Cyberpunk and how that evolved since Launch - who'd want to 'preserve' that version that came on Disc?
Re: Don't Worry, You Can Still Upgrade the PS5 Slim's SSD
@thefourfoldroot1 Well that's you. I prefer to be able to return to games as and when I want - whether I have 'finished' the main Story or not. Take Cyberpunk, I have owned it since launch but with Patches and now some upcoming DLC, I may want to return to it years later. A lot of games get updates, new content etc and reasons to return and/or reasons why I didn't finish them at the time.
As I said, I don't want to be restricted to playing a 'handful' of games everytime I turn my Console on. I don't always have 'hours' to reinstall games or move them, so I want to be able to turn my console on and be playing 'any' game I have within 'minutes' at the most.
Its not like the 'pre-XB1/PS4' era where EVERY game you owned could be accessed by simply putting the Cartridge/Disc into the hardware as it ran from that Disc - at most,, you'd get an update to install first. But as games run from internal Storage now and must be installed too, the amount of Storage is limiting the number of games you can access.
I also don't want to have to decide which games to move/delete every time I want to play something 'different' - whether its an 'old' game I own, some 'free' game from a Sub Service (like PS+) or a new game I've just bought.
Re: Don't Worry, You Can Still Upgrade the PS5 Slim's SSD
@thefourfoldroot1 Because I don't want to spend hours reinstalling or transfering games across from an external HDD to play games I own when I want to play.
Yes you can ONLY play 1 game at a time, but I own more games than can fit on my SSD. Take Cyberpunk, I may not have played for months, but with new DLC, I may want to jump back. If I can only keep '5-8' games on the SSD, that limits what games I can play 'instantly' at any time out of my Collection with the rest either requiring reinstallation, updating etc before I can jump back in.
I may only play 1 game at a time, but I also don't want to be 'limited' as to what games I can just jump in and play quickly/easily to the select few games installed on the SSD despite owning others.
Re: Disney CEO Reportedly Being Pressured to Double Down on Gaming
Disney acquired LucasArts and could have been a big Gaming Company by now if they had ambition in that direction.
As for a Monopoly, that would require so many Publishers to be bought. In Japan alone you have Sony, Nintendo, Bandai Namco, Square Enix, Sega, Capcom etc let alone Ubisoft, EA, TenCent, Embracer, Warner Bros etc as well - all Publishers/creators of Games so a long way to go to get down to 2 or 3 big companies with anyone owning the vast majority of IP's, Studio's etc. People need to know what a 'monopoly' is before they start claiming a monopolisation of the Industry.
That being said, I can see Disney being an attractive proposition for the right Company. Not only do you have some of the Biggest IP's in 'media' (Disney, Star Wars, Marvel etc) to create games for, you also have their TV/Movie expertise for their Games - whether they choose to make a TV series, Movie or use that expertise for more cinematic games, Motion Capture etc.
If Disney did buy EA, they could turn Mass Effect, Dead Space etc into TV/movies - much like Sony are doing with their Game IP's - Last of Us, Uncharted. Twisted Metal, R&C etc.
Re: Activision Boss Hints a Guitar Hero Revival Could Be on the Cards
Personally I never liked these games and seemed a money making scheme to sell more junk peripherals and with billions of songs, almost a never ending list of tracks they could sell you - especially with some AI way of translating the music to the GH input style to save time and staff from doing that.
With MS taking over, Koticks days as Activision CEO are over and it would be up to MS to decide whether or not to resurrect GH, decide to change any plans (especially if they haven't 'publicly' been announced) etc. So I would wait until any official confirmation once under 'new' management.
Whether we get another GH with the Peripherals or not, time will tell. Rhythm based games don't seem 'overly' common these days and in a world where plastics, environment, sustainability etc are hot topics, I don't know that they will want to ship 'large' peripherals, but I won't say it will 'never' happen as we just don't know the future...
Re: Poll: How's Your Hype for Marvel's Spider-Man 2?
I thought the first game was 'OK' - nothing 'special' and had a LOT of what I would call typical of an 'Ubisoft Open World' game - towers to unlock the map, lots of filler side activities (backpacks, photos, side missions, enemy bases etc), repetitive 'puzzles' in the lab, boring instant fail 'stealth' and a reliance on QTE's. Most battles result in a similar structure of dodging until you can web sling somethiing to get a chance to attack the boss, repeat 3x and follow the QTE's to win.
It played well and Swinging was fun. Combat borrowed heavily from Arkham and Treyarch's Spider-Man 2 (which also had great swinging) and so felt familiar and solid enough. Being a 'Sony' Game helped the final release deliver a 'solid' experience at launch that felt ready to release (Maybe the 'single' Platform helps too to ensure its polished) - which can't be said of other games but I felt like Insomniac took Ubisofts open world template and borrowed from Treyarch's Spider-Man 2 (an influence on Batman's Combat) and wrapped it in a Spider-Man skin.
As such, I doubt I'll buy Spider-Man 2 at launch. I don't think any game is worth spending £70 just to play in the first months of release when I can wait until its cheaper in a sale. It would really have to be something special, a complete game changer to convince me to purchase sooner...
Re: Sony Pictures Core Movie App Launches Today on PS5, PS4 with Exclusive Benefits
@BeerIsAwesome True - but things are certainly a lot different today. The infrastructure has improved as well as the market, the way more and more people are accessing their favourite media etc.
Its like saying Nintendo didn't really succeed with VR so shouldn't or won't reconsider VR ever again but things change. In the 90's, you'd never have thought that you could game with people all over the world or buy your games digitally. Never have thought that games could be 'fixed' after release etc.
It seems that Gaming is following Movies/Music into that more 'digital' realm - not only for ease/reach, but also for sustainability, for environmental concerns, for reducing costs (no waste products, no fossil fuels used in manufacturing/distribution, no plastics etc that can end in landfill) etc.
In the past 15yrs, we have seen Netflix rise and more and more Sub Services have become established. So many people consume their media via the internet, buy 'digitally' if not on a Sub service and the 'instancy' of it - can decide to buy/rent any new film without needing to go out to a store, watch wherever you are on whatever device you have - don't need a DVD player and a TV etc so the market has changed a LOT in the past 15yrs and I'd say 2020 Pandemic also helped push people more to Digital.
So I think its inevitable for Sony to go this route and 'compete' with Netflix, Apple, Amazon etc for your 'Subscription' money to access Sony's Media.
Re: Sony Pictures Core Movie App Launches Today on PS5, PS4 with Exclusive Benefits
I thought it was inevitable that Sony would bring more of their other media to Playstation and/or even their Sub Service. I can see a time when Sony have a Sub Service offering Games, Movies/TV and even Music. It would set their service apart from say Microsoft or Nintendo and/or compete with Netflix, Amazon and Apple...
Sony own Crunchyroll too so a Sony 'Media' Sub service offering Sony Games, Movies, TV and/or Music seems like an obvious progression...
Re: Watch This RoboCop: Rogue City Gameplay, You Have 20 Seconds to Comply
Looks clunky, slow and low budget - Euro-jank - but that doesn't mean it can't be a fun game to play. Glad it seems to be keeping to the OG Robocop and Lewis too but some of the incidental dialogue was getting quite repetitive.
Its something I would likely try on a Sub service or at least wait for it a Sale, but not something I'd want to pre-order or buy around launch based on what I've seen of the Game so far. Maybe reviews and price point could persuade me but right now, its looking a bit 'meh' to me.
Re: Turns Out EA Sports May Never Have Needed FIFA After All
Well I can't see a 'Fifa' game on the Market to compete and Konami messed up the only competition EA had in the Football Game market so what choice do gamers have for this year?
Either stick with the 'old' games or buy the latest, which is basically the 'same' game without the Fifa branding anyway. Its not as if some other Publisher has a competing game to challenge EA and with Konami messing up, its just pushing those Fans to buy the ONLY other option.
Unless another Footy game comes out to challenge EA, the 'loss' of the Fifa brand certainly won't hurt them and the lack of competition will only help them...
Re: Mini Review: Scorn (PS5) - A Brilliantly Disgusting Puzzler with Gameplay Woes
A lot of Style with so little Substance...
Re: Random: Push Square Was a Question in a UK Quiz Show
Considering Push Square have been mentioned on numerous video's that promote Games with Review scores, its not that surprising to me - especially not in the UK and about a UK based site too.
Pure Xbox (and NL too for that matter) does give away the answer so its perhaps the only option dedicated to a single platform that doesn't contain the name of the Company/Hardware to ask that Question.
Re: Poll: Are You Happy with Your PS Plus Essential Games for October 2023?
The initial reveal of the Callisto Project really grabbed my interest but as more and more game-play came out, the less and less interested I became. After seeing the reviews and some more game-play after it released, I had lost all interest. Now I can play it via PS+, I don't know that I will bother trying it - not with a backlog of games I really want to play.
Weird West looks interesting - not sure if its my type of Game-play, but of the 3, its the one I am most likely to try. However, I have no interest in Farming Sim at all.
In terms of PS+, I guess its not bad but for me personally, it feels a bit 'meh'. Nothing I'm excited for and/or can't wait to download when they become available to play.
Re: New Cuphead Update Skips PS4, Will Be Exclusive to Xbox, PC
Maybe they will do something for Playstation Fans too when it reaches their 5th+ Anniversary on their platform. Time will tell...
Re: Another High Profile Live Service Flop As SEGA Pulls the Plug on HYENAS Before Launch
Was never interested, would likely never play and couldn't care less its 'gone'.
I do feel for Devs who put their time and effort into projects, but I also wonder how many are 'pushed' to make games they weren't fully interested or even had the experience to make Games more as a 'service'.
Publishers may only be looking to Greenlight games they feel 'could' bring in the revenue over a LONG time and even if they aren't pro-actively pushing devs to make these games, they may not be interested in publishing more traditional games so Devs may feel like they have to make a GaaS to get their games Published.
At some point, I hope that Publishers etc realise that GaaS games may well be major money makers, but that the majority end up being unsustainable and get shut down. It seemed that the Risk/Reward was much higher than most thought - relatively low risk for 'high reward' turned out to be a much higher risk of the game not succeeding to get rewards...
Re: Jim Ryan Praises PlayStation Home for Being '10-15 Years Ahead of Its Time'
I never saw the point in Playstation Home and after trying it several times, I still never felt it was something I'd want. It felt like an advertising platform with Microtransactions and extremely underwhelming 'activities' based on their IP's.
Yes it may have been ahead of the Live Service junk experiences loaded with Micro transactional content that ended up costing more to keep going than money coming in and therefore disappeared leaving all those who spent money with nothing. That does sound a lot like many of the Live Service games that have come along since and subsequently disappeared when they too couldn't sell enough useless MTX's to keep going...
Re: Indie Firm Devolver Digital Rejected PS Plus, Xbox Game Pass Deals Over 'Undervalued' Games
From my perspective, I wouldn't play these games at all if I had to buy first and even if they do come to a Sub service day 1, they don't appeal to me 'more' than many of the other games in that service or in my backlog.
Every game is competing for my 'time' first and foremost - regardless of the 'paywall' to entry (Sub fees to full retail price). As such, if I want to play a last gen game via BC more than a brand new release, I couldn't care less if that new release is in a sub service or not - I'm not going to play it.
As more and more games release every week, there is more and more competition for my time. With PS and Xbox both having BC, that means they have 'big' libraries, hundreds of games to play. Sub services add to my own personal Library too so without considering games I could buy, I have 'hundreds' of games I could play without spending any extra money. Therefore these games are 'competing' for my time against all those hundreds of other games so unless it appeals more than everything else I can play, I won't play it.
I don't think I have ever bought anything from DD and if I have played any of their games, its only because they gave them away 'free' on PS+/Gold/Game Pass.
Catch 22 for them - can they make more money from sales despite the massive competition they face in that market or would they get more money from Sub services as more people could end up trying it than risk buying? In a great year for games, would people spend their free cash on their games or rather spend it on something else?
If you aren't getting the sales or the number of gamers you'd want on a Sub service, to me that is more likely down to the game itself - not appealing enough for them to want to spend Time and/or money on their product.
Re: Microsoft One Step Closer to Activision Buyout as CMA Approves of Deal Changes
@thefourfoldroot1 Whilst I don't know the exact details, the point is that Ubisoft is an independent company so that they are not likely to 'favour' MS or Partners (like those who use Azure for example), that the price will be the same for all etc.
Its not just Sony, but Google or Apple to. All 3 could start their own Streaming service but would have to negotiate with MS, who could either block or put the price up much higher for them as they are direct competition.
As for circumventing that 'independent' Company - like MS organising 'exclusivity' in cloud to stop Sony from being able to Stream, I don't exactly know what is in place, but the CMA seem satisfied that MS has remedies to prevent that - enforceable by the CMA.
From the CMA themselves on this:
"While the restructured deal is materially different to the previous transaction and substantially addresses most concerns, the CMA has limited residual concerns that certain provisions in the sale of Activision’s cloud streaming rights to Ubisoft could be circumvented, terminated, or not enforced.
To address these concerns, Microsoft has offered remedies to ensure that the terms of the sale of Activision’s rights to Ubisoft are enforceable by the CMA. The CMA has provisionally concluded that this additional protection should resolve those residual concerns."
Again, I can't say for sure exactly what the details are of this, but its not as if the CMA haven't considered the possibility of MS somehow getting round that to deny their Competition from streaming and part of this was investigating any potential loopholes and being 'satisfied' that measures are in place to ensure that MS aren't preventing 'others' from being able to offer streaming.
Unless Sony (or others) create their own Streaming service to allow their customers to play the latest ABK games via streaming, its immaterial anyway. PS+ is different as you still have to download and install to PS5. Streaming is 'possible' but not from external servers as you need the game 'installed' on your PS5.
At the moment, no company offers ABK games over Cloud, but the CMA are concerned that CoD would prevent Apple, Sony or Google for example from setting up a competing service so they can go to an independent company knowing that MS can't say 'no' or try and screw them over financially. And it can be checked at ANY time by the CMA to ensure MS are keeping to their agreements.
Re: Microsoft One Step Closer to Activision Buyout as CMA Approves of Deal Changes
@thefourfoldroot1 I don't know the details behind the deal. The point is that the CMA had concerns because if MS acquired ABK, MS had only promised to keep CoD on Playstation Hardware and had concerns about the streaming side - believing that MS would not allow Sony to put ABK games into their 'streaming' service if they decided to try and 'compete' with MS Cloud.
The CMA think that MS could 'block' Sony (or others) fromm being able to offer CoD via streaming to 'compete' with Xbox Cloud. Yes, Sony could offer CoD on their Hardware, but would not be 'allowed' by MS to allow streaming.
Therefore, MS has been forced to sell the Streaming rights for the next 15yrs (I believe) to Ubisoft as an 'independent' company to stop MS from being able to decide exactly who gets access to these games on their Streaming service.
Sony doesn't offer a Streaming service yet - not for new, modern games. If the deal went through as it was before, the CMA think that without measures in place, MS could decide to 'block' Sony from access to ABK games, therefore reduce their chance of competing in the Streaming market. Also if 'others' (like google or Apple) want to set up a Cloud based streaming service, MS can't stop them from access to these games either to give them a 'chance' to build up their Subscribers and establish themselves as a rival. Therefore, Ubisoft as an independent company, takes away MS's 'control' over who gets streaming rights...
Again - it's just Streaming rights. If Ubisoft decides ABK games can't be on Xbox Cloud, MS has to live with that, but can still put their games into Game Pass to 'download' and play on Hardware. Sony doesn't have a Streaming service, but if they decide to go that route in 5yrs time, MS can't stop them from getting ABK games on their Streaming service through Ubisoft to 'compete' with Xbox Cloud...
This is purely about Streaming - the CMA had NO concerns about the Physical Hardware sector as MS had demonstrated no reason to pull ABK games from Playstation and 'only' blocked the deal because of Streaming. The fact that streaming is 'new' and most gaming companies don't offer streaming, they wanted an 'independent' source to control who gets streaming rights so MS can't decide not to allow Google, Apple or Sony, arguably Microsoft's biggest rivals in Streaming/Gaming to 'block' their chance to establish their own streaming services by keeping CoD exclusive to Xbox Cloud (even if it is available on Playstation consoles)
Re: Microsoft One Step Closer to Activision Buyout as CMA Approves of Deal Changes
@thefourfoldroot1 Ubisoft will own the rights to streaming - so if Sony have a streaming service and want to add Call of Duty, thy would have to negotiate with Ubisoft whatever terms and agreements to get CoD on their streaming service. That just means that MS can't control who gets the right to stream games.
The CMA looked at the market and thinks 'streaming' is separate from Hardware - so whilst MS had agreed to keep CoD on Playstation and bring it to 'more' hardware, the only 'cloud streaming' service appeared to be Xbox only and once the 'deal' passed, MS could block Sony (or others) in the future from Streaming if they decided to set up streaming services - therefore, they forced MS to sell the Streaming rights to Ubisoft for 15yrs.
That means that if companies decide to set up streaming services, they negotiate with Ubisoft to get ABK games into that service to help them 'establish' themselves as a Cloud 'platform' to compete with MS Cloud. Then in 15yrs time, if they have a big enough ABK audience on those Streaming Platforms, MS would be 'foolish' to pull anyway - like they would be foolish to pull CoD from Physical Hardware - at least that's how the CMA seem to be seeing this...
Re: Microsoft One Step Closer to Activision Buyout as CMA Approves of Deal Changes
So essentially that means that if/when Sony offer any Streaming service, they negotiate with Ubisoft as they own the streaming rights with regards to ABK games for the next 15yrs...
Otherwise they'll have to rely on MS and their 10yr Contract to receive Native ports of those games to Playstation Hardware.
Re: PlayStation's 2024 Release Schedule Is Already a Joke
Looking at the list of games coming, I can honestly say that 'few' appeal to me and certainly not many that I am really excited for and can't wait to play.
Despite not really knowing enough about Star Wars: Outlaws, that is the game I'm most interested in and most likely to buy/play too. Black Myth: Wukong has me very interested in it too as I really enjoy the story that inspired it (Journey to the West) but I'm not really a fan of the Souls-like game-play loop. Alone in the Dark is the only other game in the list that I am interested in but haven't seen/heard enough to consider whether or not its something I want to play.
That's not to say that other games may 'interest' me and/or appeal more as we get closer to launch. I'm not currently interested in 'old' games being ported to 'new' hardware - at least not without a modern update of 'everything' - like Dead Space, not just 'visuals' or 'resolution' so Tomb Raider doesn't really appeal despite me loving the IP and playing these years ago but maybe it will closer to release.
I expect there to be more games that appeal to me and know of several 'expected' in 2024 not on this list - of course some are not on the list because of they platform they are releasing on or marketed by (Avowed, Hellblade 2, Stalker 2 and multi-platform inc PS - Flintlock: The Siege of Dawn etc) and No doubt there will be many other 3rd Party games too coming but not yet revealed for 2024 that will appeal so not concerned that 'few' in the above list appeal to ME!!
I'd rather see a list of 100 games with only a handful that really excite me than just a Handful of games where most, if not all appeal to me. It shows a more diverse collection of games and a productive industry and whilst some games have little/no appeal 'now', just means they have the greatest potential to surprise me...
Re: PS3 Classics Oblivion and Fallout 3 are Reportedly Being Remastered
Who knows if these are still coming? After all, this was their Road Map under Zenimax who maybe wanted to release 'remakes' after the success of Skyrim remake and 'failure' of Fallout 76.
They had Ghostwire and a Sequel mentioned, yet who knows if they want to make a Sequel or whether MS wants them to make a Sequel - especially after the success of HiFi Rush.
We know now that Arkane never wanted to make Redfall - not the style of game they were pushed to make by Zenimax, which changed under MS to be less monetised and wished MS would have cancelled it - they didn't thinking the game was 'nearly' ready to release - which would make sense based on that 'leaked' timeline.
Point is, that was what Zenimax management were 'expecting' their Studios to release over the coming years - before MS took over.
As for whether they would release 'remakes' of older ES/Fallout games on Playstation, I wouldn't rule it out. Morrowind and Oblivion both were 'exclusive' to Xbox at launch - but they do have a history on Playstation - unlike ES6 or Starfield. As these are unique Standalone games, not 'sequels', where you create your Character at the Start and doesn't carry across either, they could see these as individual games - and those with a 'history' on Playstation - Like Fallout 3-4, Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim are games they would sell on Playstation as these are 'not' new IP's.
MS said they would assess each on a Case by Case basis. As they own the Studios, the IP's, the Publishing rights etc, they have NO obligation to release anything on Playstation. As a PS owner, I don't expect anything from MS, just like you don't expect Sony to release anything on Xbox - although they do with MLB and Destiny content...
Re: Cyberpunk 2077 Gigantic 2.0 Update Out 21st September, Five Days Before Phantom Liberty
I still haven't returned to Cyberpunk since I played the 'first' hour on the day it released. I initially intended to wait for patches, then the 'next-gen' upgrade, then more patches to improve that version and then waiting for all the changes with the Phantom Liberty update.
I may actually get round to starting this 'properly' in the near future, but Starfield is occupying all my gaming time at the moment...
Re: Poll: Did You Buy Baldur's Gate 3?
@GeeEssEff Not at all - I don't play D&D or really enjoy 'board' games as to me they are games to play when totally 'bored'. I hate the 'random' nature of TBC - the fact that its like D&D and the 'randomness' of a dice throw bugs the hell out of me. Its NOT tactical or strategic to go for a Hit or Block move only for some randomness to say you 'failed'. It becomes more 'luck' than any 'strategy/skill'.
To me, Real Time Combat has more 'skill' and 'Strategy'. You aren't waiting for your turn to 'react', not leaving it to chance to parry/block attacks, have to rely on Strategy/skill to not only attack but also avoid in-coming attacks in 'real-time'. Its not like Conkers or board games, its much more immersive than that. I wouldn't stand there and 'wait' whilst I'm being attacked until its my 'turn'.
It was originally a way to bring some form of 'combat' to massive RPG's when resources were extremely limited and used a 'board' game format to achieve that - doesn't mean to say that they 'need' to do that today - therefore its now a 'design' choice when before they had 'no' choice - call it a 'legacy' mechanic. Of course that doesn't mean that BG3 for example should have updated their Combat, and may well have 'chosen' to do that - either because its what 'fans' expect or because 'they' prefer to do combat the 'easier' way - but that doesn't change the fact that I find it incredibly tedious, boring, immersion-breaking and unnecessary for a 'modern' game on 'modern' hardware.
If you enjoy it, that's your personal choice too but doesn't mean I have to like it or feel the same way. I hate the mechanic and it 'spoils' games for ME. I will NEVER waste money on game-play elements I can't stand and find incredibly tedious.
Re: Poll: Did You Buy Baldur's Gate 3?
Can't stand turn-based combat so have absolutely NO interest in this. If you can't build a game with real-time combat in this day and age, something is wrong. Its has to be the lightest/easiest way to do combat - hence games like Pokemon could run on a Gameboy.
Each to their own of course, but I would rather play games with 'real time' combat. I don't care about the 'story' if the game-play is dull/boring/tedious (as I find turn-based Combat) - Why I never had interest in Marvel Sons of Midnight either.
Re: UK Sales Charts: Hogwarts Legacy on Top as Armored Core 6 Drops
@Powerplay94 I'm NOT surprised at all - its basically just a code in a box to unlock the game 'early' and this doesn't count 'Digital' purchases - just Physical sales.
Starfield hasn't 'officially' launched yet and the 'only' people who can 'play' are those willing to pay for the 'Premium' edition/upgrade whilst 'everyone' else is waiting for the cheaper (but still £70) 'Standard edition' to release - which is 'free' on Game Pass.
Point is, this is 'only' Physical sales for the 'Premium' edition 'upgrade' and only count the Physical sales too with 'MANY' likely to wait until the Standard edition releases or buy Digitally, which can be also be played 'free' on Game Pass, I didn't expect it to be in the top 3 or 5 on the Physical 'sales' chart at all...
Re: Reminder: Last Chance to Stack PS Plus Subscriptions Before Price Rise
With the option to game on both Series X and PC hardware as well as Playstation, this price hike 'hurts' just to play 'online' on Playstation. I know you have to pay on 'Xbox' too, albeit a lower cost per month, and with Game Pass Ultimate, that is essentially 'free' and gives me access to games on MANY platforms, inc Day 1 releases, I am struggling to 'justify' the 'extra' on PS - especially as I can play multi-platform 'online' games elsewhere and Sony's 'exclusives' that really appeal to me are 'Single' player games - Spider-Man, Wolverine, God of War etc. Therefore I think I will be letting my PS+ Essential tier 'run out' and unlikely (at this point) to renew.
Re: PS Plus Essential, Extra, Premium Price Increases Announced by Sony
@Loamy Actually, in the 'UK' its an accepted way of writing for emphasis - it seems that in some countries it 'irritates' them despite the fact that I don't use 'Quotation' Marks which are " not '.
I don't criticise people for the way they choose to express themselves, the way they write etc and as that has **NOTHING** to do with the 'topic', then I would suggest you either 'ignore' the way I choose to write or use the 'ignore' function to hide my comments...
Re: PS Plus Essential, Extra, Premium Price Increases Announced by Sony
@PsBoxSwitchOwner I don't forget that at all - its equally as bad on Xbox in that respect, but I also believe their 'Gold' is actually cheaper than PS+ is (or was) and is included in GPU - along with EA Access, Game Pass PC, Game Pass Mobile and 'perks' on top of Day 1 access on ALL first Party games (as well as numerous 3rd Party/independent Games) where ever I want to play - be it on Console, on my Laptop, on my RoG Ally or any 'cloud enabled' device like my Mobile.
I still 'begrudge' paying money for 'Online' access (which I do as part of my GPU Subscription) but overall, I think the value of GPU to me is worth it - I'm not just paying for 'online' access as I feel I am with PS+ because 'Extra' doesn't offer me 'much' I haven't played or would pay 'extra' to play and have 'no' interest in playing PS3 and 'older' games for Premium - I don't play PS3 games in my backlog today that I still own so I am 'only' paying for 'Online' Access - which is basically 'free' with Game Pass Ultimate on Xbox - and I get to play games the day they release, not 'old' games that I couldn't be bothered to buy and 'waited' until they were 'free' in a Sub services, Games I would 'buy', Games I really want to play, excited for 'release' day, certainly never played (or could play) before games, saving me upto $70 each time. Also can play 'Starfield' on my PC and my Console so get 'both' versions - don't need to 'buy' both...
By the you get to play 'Spider-Man 2' on PS+, its 'old' news and people are looking forward to the 'next' thing. Its probably cheaper (certainly in the Physical markets) maybe easy to find 'used' to for the price of a month or two of PS+. So unless I get 'more' for my extra £10 its going to cost to keep PS+ when the price feels 'steep' for what I get 'now' on PS+, its making me want to quit PS+, which seriously limits the choice of games I can play on PS, so therefore maybe not worth remaining on Playstation beyond the limit of my current PS+ subscription...
Re: PS Plus Essential, Extra, Premium Price Increases Announced by Sony
As I really only have PS+ to access 'online' content in games I bought to play online, this is a kick in the teeth - I already feel like I am being held to Ransom by Sony - pay Sony or don't play the games you paid for.
With Subscription services 'plateauing', this is not a great way to 'encourage' growth - not unless there is 'growth' in the service provided to justify the 'cost'. MS can say they have 'grown' the number of 1st Party Studios and therefore 'grown' the number of Day 1 games coming to 'justify' an increase in costs but I can't see any 'justification' in this. Going up from 1-3 games a year to 4+ does 'justify' a slight increase but getting the exact same 'service' and a focus on online 'GaaS' making PS+ 'essential' to play their first party $70 games is more likely going to push me away from PS+ and Playstation...
Re: PS5 Fans Divided on PlayStation Portal Handheld
Not surprised at all by the Poll results. I am sure it will appeal to some and others may buy to try out Remote play, but whether they get enough 'use' or it ends up gathering dust somewhere, time will tell.
In any case, it would still be a Sale to Sony whether you use it daily, weekly, monthly or just once. I don't know how many they'd need to sell to break even, let alone be 'profitable' to be considered a 'success' by Sony but if just 10% buy, that's still a LOT of units.
Doesn't suit me at all or how I wish to game on my PS5. I have a RoG Ally to game ANYWHERE if I choose with a significantly 'bigger' Library of games at my fingertips. I might not be able to play 'Spider-Man 2' in bed/on the toilet, but I can play Spider-Man and thousands of other games until I can turn my PS5 on and play on my large screen 4k HDR TV.
Re: Baldur's Gate 3's Accidental PS5 Console Exclusivity Truncated as Xbox Backtracks
@Kevw2006 How do you know WHAT the reasons are those games couldn't be made to run with Split-screen, 60fps etc - its not as if OTHER Developers can't achieve those targets.
Most games (if not ALL) are often not utilising the CPU in these 'new' consoles efficiently or even to their fullest capability. They aren't using Multi-threading, not balancing the 'load' across the Cores effectively etc.
Baldurs Gate started out as a PS4/XB1S 'project', built for single thread CPU's and don't have the budget/resources to spend a LOT of time to make a 'niche' feature work at launch.
You also have to remember that during the last gen, CPU's were the 'weak' link so they pushed traditionally CPU tasks to GPU. Their engines were designed around 'Strong GPU/weak CPU' combinations. You can't scale down AI/Physics etc without changing the game-play experience and if that's using GPU instead of CPU, that won't scale.
Point is, it also depends on the Devs and the way they built their game. If it started out 'before' next gen hardware, there is a bigger chance that they built their game to 'run' on weak CPU Hardware but with the Series S, you have a Strong CPU and more 'limited' GPU which would make it hard to 'scale' down Physics/AI etc (traditionally CPU tasks) if they are built to use the GPU because of 'weak' CPU's.
As you know, we still haven't really had a 'true' next gen game released yet, one that is built 'specifically' with next gen hardware - utilising ALL the 'next-gen' hardware features.
They haven't stated 'Split-screen' won't come to Series S at a later date, they just stated that it won't be a feature at launch to ensure that they can release BG3 on Xbox in 2023. Who knows with MS's 'technicians' that went out recently can do to help.
If a game was designed to hit 60fps or Split Screen was 'essential' from the start, it wouldn't be an issue either. Call of Duty will be 60fps and may even have 120fps mode on Series S too - like Gears 5. Split screen games exist and run well on Series S too - so its not the 'Hardware', but more the time, money, effort and 'importance' of those features to the Dev. If they 'designed' it for 30fps but find they can 'drop' res/graphics and hit '60fps' - that's a developer decision. Its still a '30fps' game at 'premium' Graphical settings - otherwise you are getting 'entry' tier/Series S 1080p Graphics to play at 60fps.
Again, its an Entry tier console, like the PS4 or XB1S is for those who just want to play the 'new' games on a budget or can't take advantage of 120fps or resolutions over 1080p on their Display. Much like people couldn't see the point of 'upgrading' to Pro/X as they didn't need or justify the cost to have 'performance' modes, higher quality 'graphics' etc.
If you 'want' the Premium 4k, equivalent to a PS5 like experience in a Console, they have the Series X. The Series S is the 'HD' version of the Series X, just like the PS4 or XB1S was. If you want the 'highest' tier, MS don't need to make a 'Pro' as the PC market has that option...
Re: Baldur's Gate 3's Accidental PS5 Console Exclusivity Truncated as Xbox Backtracks
@Kevw2006 That's 'perception' but you could also look at it that the PS4 Pro/XB1X was 'targeting' the Premium '4k' experience as 4K became more a thing 'during' last gen with the 'base' hardware perfectly adequate for those who don't have 4k TV's.
As there are still millions globally who still game on HD TV's, the 'base' screen resolution these days, they are 'catering' to that market where as Sony decided to leave them behind or 'force' them to buy more expensive Hardware that they won't really benefit from the Premium features on.
The One S was 'significantly' weaker by comparison to the One X than the Series S is compared to the Series X. CPU wise, its on a par with PS5/Series X and whilst the GPU/RAM is scaled down, its expected to scale down the 'graphics'. The GPU on the One S was less than a quarter in raw power compared to the X, much less RAM too and a bigger difference in CPU too. That is a 'clear' indication the Series S is designed to 'scale' graphics down from 4k to 1080-1440p.
The difference between last gen and this is really that at the start of last gen, few, if any console gamers were connecting TV's to '4k' displays whereas in 2020, both HD and 4k Console gamers existed and MS opted to make a 'cheaper' entry system but Sony decided to go straight to the 'Premium' 4k system - perhaps because they also want to create a demand for and sell 4k TV's too...
Whilst there is a large consumer base still on 'HD', then why shouldn't a Console target those - like the Switch does too at a 'similar' price point that seems to be a sweet spot for selling too...
Re: Baldur's Gate 3's Accidental PS5 Console Exclusivity Truncated as Xbox Backtracks
The Series S is built to hit that sub $300 price point and still deliver the same 'next gen' games as its 'Premium' big brother that was built for the '4k' era - much like One X /Pro.
Just like the PS4/XB1S compared to the 'Pro/XB1X', the Series S doesn't have the same Visual Quality and even lacks 'Performance' modes of the 'X'. Games on X/Pro looked better and 'sometimes' offered 'Performance 60fps modes., so the fact the 'S' , a console costing 'half' the price of an X or around the Price of a Switch, maybe lacks some 'features' should come as NO surprise.
You didn't complain on PS4/XB1S when PS4 Pro/XB1X got better visuals and/or Performance modes not available on their 'much cheaper' system.
Re: Poll: Are You Sold on PlayStation Portal?
Doesn't fit with what I want or how I wish to use my PS5 so a pointless peripheral for me to waste my money on.
But each to their own - I'm sure it will suit 'some' and find its niche. Whether it appeals to 'enough' people to justify itself to Sony, who knows...
Re: Red Dead Redemption PS4 Trends on PS Store as $50 Port Attracts a Lot of Attention
A great game is still a great game whether it was made 10+ years ago or coming out this week.
Yes graphics have moved on, but game-play, story telling etc hasn't really progressed and the game isn't 'bad' looking today. The game-play loop, which everyone would agree is the MOST important part of a game, is extremely solid and why it won Game of the Year.
The fact is that the ONLY way to play this game on Playstation 4/5 or Nintendo Switch is to buy the game, those wanting a 'great' game will pay the money. I'd rather play this than Marathon, Helldivers2, FairGame$ or Foamstars for example despite them having more 'up to date' Graphics. Minecraft looks far 'worse' graphically but is the best selling game of all time so Game Play is 'most' important.
I would rather play something 'less' visually impressive with the focus on Game-play than a game that looks 'incredible' but has no depth, substance or enjoyable 'game-play'...
The other option is you try and find a PS3 (if you haven't got one) and play on dated hardware, buy a PC or buy an Xbox Series S/X to play the 'original' release at higher res and 'perfect' frame rates. $50 is the 'cheapest' option if you only have a Switch or PS4/5 to play the 'best' game of that year today with the Undead Nightmare DLC too...
Re: Amid Ongoing ActiBlizz Acquisition Saga, Modern Warfare 3 Will Be Playable First on PS5, PS4
@Tharsman marketing CoD on behalf of Microsoft is kind of funny. I know it benefits Sony as they get 'money' from Sales of games, hardware and all the 'extras' (Season Pass, Cosmetic Bundles etc etc) but more sales would benefit Microsoft as 'owner/publisher' which they would be as 'owner' of ABK and all its IPs and Publishing rights...
Of course, that still doesn't stop CoD gamers on 'other' platforms missing out on something, its still splitting the CoD community between Playstation and the Majority of Gamers elsewhere...
Re: Amid Ongoing ActiBlizz Acquisition Saga, Modern Warfare 3 Will Be Playable First on PS5, PS4
It was always going to be 'associated' with Playstation as Sony had a deal in place to ensure that would be the case - whether the Deal went through or not. It was never in doubt as Microsoft has honoured any 'existing' arrangements - like Deathloop & Ghostwire.
MS was never going to PULL CoD away from Playstation - much like they never pulled Minecraft. Both these have massive 'cross-play' Active communities across multiple platforms and it benefits MS far more to 'grow' those Communities. It also doesn't benefit MS to split these Communities with 'earlier' access, extra content etc for a select 'group' just because they play on a specific Platform and upset all those other Community members.
I do expect things to 'change' under MS as they have different objectives, business models etc to Bobby Kotick and ABK's current management. However, CoD will remain on ALL platforms - much like Minecraft does...
Re: Most PlayStation Fans Dead Against Buying Red Dead Redemption PS4 Port at Launch
I voted that I wouldn't buy at all - but only because I can play the Game and its DLC on Series X via Backwards Compatibility and as this seems to be a direct port, its not worth buying 'again' regardless of the price.
I may have felt differently had I not played or can no longer play the OG version on Hardware I own - but I see no point in buying something that I already own and can still use.
Re: $50 for Red Dead Redemption PS4 Port 'Commercially Accurate', Says Publisher Take-Two
Compared to Baldurs Gate, I'd assume that RDR with the Undead Nightmare DLC competes 'very' well in terms of Content, Story and hours and hours worth of gaming time.
The difference is that BG3 was created much more recently and has obviously a better graphical presentation - but that doesn't necessarily make it a 'better' game. That's like saying 'Cats' is a better Movie than Citizen Kane because its more modern and in colour too.
If you want to play RDR on these Platforms, then you either pay the price, wait for sales or miss out...
Re: Poll: Will You Be Buying Red Dead Redemption on PS4?
I won't be buying a Game I bought, own and can still play inc its DLC on Xbox 360 running at 4k on Series X - thanks to Backwards Compatibility.
I can see why Playstation and Nintendo ONLY gamers are upset but if you want to play RDR on these platforms, then Rockstar are bringing them to you. Its cheaper than buying an Xbox/PC and the Game to play on those platforms and a 'LOT' of game for the money (new or old, its still a 'great' game with a LOT of content and hours worth of game time) - yet people complain about $70 for 8-10hrs worth...
Anyway, if you aren't that bothered to play it Day 1, then you can wait for sales etc...