@Flaming_Kaiser The point I was trying to make is that Tomb Raider still sold and has movies, merchandise etc etc to make money. Square Enix are 'never' satisfied with the Sales but the point is, it still sells, still has fans that will buy it because its an IP they know/like etc.
I could have used GTA which has 'milked' the SAME GTA V now across multiple generations and 'porting' the OG RDR game to Playstation/Nintendo to 'sell' but picked Tomb Raider as that has movies and a lot of merchandise associated with it - all of which also brings in money for that 'IP'.
I never suggested Sony should buy or should have bought Tomb Raider at all - I only used that as an example of an IP that can continue to make money whether a 'new' game is being developed or not. Zelda, Mario, Pokemon etc all make Money for Nintendo whether they have games out or not - those 'IP's' make money from licensed merchandise, TV/Movies etc. People will buy Hardware just to play Zelda and get hyped as soon as they know a new Zelda is in development - its the IP's that ultimately bring people in...
@Flaming_Kaiser true - but the point is you can still earn money on your IPs without necessarily the costs of making a 'brand new' game. Disney will be making some money off of Spider-Man, Wolverine, Star Wars games etc without having the 'costs' of developing games by licensing out their IP's - not just for games, you also have merchandising, TV/Movie rights etc.
Remakes/Remasters/Ports to new hardware is another option that isn't going to 'cost' the same as a new game but because the IP was popular, it will likely sell and bring in more money than creating a 'new' IP from scratch, marketing it etc. As soon as a 'new' Tomb Raider is announced for example, it already has a big 'fanbase' of the IP eager to buy...
Studios make money by having Products out that sell, IP owners can make money just on the IP by Licensing it out - not just for games, but for TV, for Merchandise, for Movies etc etc
What's most important is the IP's as its IP's that will make Money - assuming you have Studio's you can rely upon to keep making those IP's.
Studios - especially the 'creative' talent behind those IP's often leave and form new Studios to create 'new' IP's instead of churning out sequels etc. When MS acquire CoD for example, acquire Infinity Ward, they won't acquire the 'creative' talent behind CoD as they left Infinity Ward nearly 2 decades ago and went on to form ReSpawn (Titanfall, Apex) and now the co-creator of Activision's CoD is the 'head' of EA's Battlefield, the game CoD was created to compete with...
Whilst no-one wants to hear about Staff losing Jobs and hope that they can find new employment quickly, Gaming is growing and new Studios are being created all the time, need staff to get projects out etc so hopefully they will find new employment quickly...
I voted 'Meh' as in general you get decent value back for what is only purchased to play 'Online'.
I hate Golf and No interest in playing Dreams or Deaths Door myself so I voted 'none of them'. I'm sure that if I didn't have 'lots' of Games in my backlog and other games coming that excite me, I'd maybe add a couple to my Library, but realistically, I can't see myself downloading and/or playing when there is always something else more appealing in my play list...
@Cutmastavictory When you have people still playing on PS4/XB1 hardware, play on Switch/Steam Decks etc - especially when you have 'much' better Hardware options that offer 'better' graphical presentation, better Frame Rates and much better loading times, it proves that not everyone is overly concerned about those things.
Not everyone rushed out to get a PS4 Pro - despite offering better Frame Rates and/or Graphics - their PS4 was good enough. The 'story' doesn't change, the moment to moment Game-play loop doesn't change and you aren't missing out on any content.
Its like Spider-Man and saying that's 'unplayable' because its only 30fps on PS4 and fast travel/loading takes ages compared to the 60fps PS5 version. How can people wait to 'fast' travel - its interrupts the 'flow' - not that it changes the story, the missions, the game-play etc...
People put up with far worse - on PS5, it may be the fastest way through that 'portal' sequence which would make it feel much more 'fluid' than those who may play on HDD, who would be stuck in those portals for seconds longer but the 'actual' Game-play in-between those is not really affected.
Graphically of course its not on the same level but all it proves is that it would have 'worked' but loading would have been more 'intrusive' and interrupted the 'flow' a bit more...
It's whether or not 'Gamers' would be 'OK' with that - but for Sony, it makes more sense to have games 'exclusive' to PS5 so that Gamers have no choice but to buy a PS5 to play R&C:RA - not given the 'choice' to have a 'lower' Visual Quality with more 'intrusive' loading etc - at least not until it releases on PC. That being said, it does affect the 'Flow' in certain sections so I can understand why from that perspective too. They can't get the PS4 version to 'flow' as well due to slower loading...
Many Publishers and Studios have been bought up - long before Sony/MS started in the Console Gaming Market. Where are Ocean, Acclaim, Eidos, Midway, Lucasarts, Psygnosis etc etc etc today?
Buying a Studio doesn't guarantee you buy the 'Creator' of the Game that made them famous. People are leaving Studios, creating new Studios, selling Studios, leaving Studio, create 'new' Studio. Glenn Schofield was at EA (made Dead Space), formed 'New' Studio (Sledgehammer - acquired by ABK), left that made another studio...
There is always more Studios being made and in this 'hypothetical' Streaming only Gaming Future, then the fewer Subscriptions I require the 'better'. Its bad enough having to buy different hardware because of 'exclusives', but in a 'NO' Hardware future, then each Publisher could have their own Sub service to play their IP's. I'd rather have just 3 big Publishers competing to earn my Subscription.
TenCent could decide to make their own Platform/Streaming Service and use ALL their Gaming Acquisitions to make their Platform/Service the biggest in the world. Amazon could still make Tomb Raider 'exclusive' to Luna to try and get more Gamers...
@Cordyceps And even at that price, I only played an hour or so before I could take no more and haven't returned...
Each to their own - If you like the R&M style voices and 'humour', as well as games from the PS3/360 era - very much more 'arcade FPS', its 'OK' but the voices and humour irritated me too much.
I don't see why there is so much about Game Pass here. Of course you can try it as part of a Subscription, but if you want to 'own' it, you still have to buy. Its 'free' to try for as long as it remains in Game Pass but as soon as it leaves, you no-longer can play the game unless you 'buy' it.
As for 'cost' - it is 'cheaper' than the £70 being asked by other Games. If you don't think its 'worth' it, wait for a sale or don't bother playing. I got to 'try' it on GP to know it wasn't 'worth' buying from my perspective at any cost as I don't enjoy the humour...
I 'tried' it on Xbox (thanks to Game Pass) but only because it was on Game Pass, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered at all. I'm sure they got 'some' money from me from my Sub money, but they were never gonna get a 'sale' as I can't stand the Humour or Voices.
GP is like being a member of a Library where you can borrow 'Books/Games' for a time but can have access removed leaving you no choice but to buy IF you want to keep playing - even if you remain Subbed to Game Pass...
At what cost? A PS5 is still 'expensive' for a Console and I don't really want to be forced to buy a separate Disc drive as well if they remove it to 'keep costs low' and hit those who still want and buys Discs with an 'expensive' peripheral...
I'd be OK with a redesign because the OG PS5 is a monstrosity!
I play games to escape 'reality'. That very much includes all the 'risks' and potentially fatal injuries that real life has. I don't want to 'feel' where I am being Shot or simulate the impacts of falling down a cliff.
Each to their own of course but I can't see myself buying this.
Lets be honest here, people will still buy Playstation to play Sony's 'exclusives'.
I can't see people opting to buy a Series X and pay for Game Pass Ultimate to play Call of Duty instead of sticking with PS5, playing with their friends on their preferred platform etc for a LOT less cost, as well as play Sony's exclusives.
When it comes to PS6, Call of Duty will still be 'multi-platform' so again unlikely to pull fans of Sony and Sony's exclusives away from Playstation.
Instead of it being Forza, Gears and Halo from MS vs Uncharted, LoU, Horizon, GoW, R&C, Spider-Man, Wolverine, Gran Turismo, Ghost of Tsushima etc etc, MS can add a few more 'IP's' to be more 'competitive'. It won't be so one-sided with Sony having 4x or 5x the number of Exclusives...
I doubt MS will suddenly 'pull' CoD from releasing on Playstation Hardware in '10yrs'. Abandon all those Fans of a MS owned IP and another Revenue stream. Of course if Sony abandon Hardware for a subscription based 'Streaming' service, I can see Sony having to negotiate terms (if it isn't F2P by then) - otherwise how will MS make their 'money'? But whilst Hardware 'exists', they will want to keep their 'fans' happy.
Fans of 'Minecraft' are still fans of a MS owned property - even if they 'choose' to play on Playstation/Switch and MS hasn't abandoned those Fans because ultimately, they are fans of an MS owned product.
@get2sammyb I agree in Principal but how many are actually Single Player games that expand and evolve over time? The vast majority are Online games because people are much more likely to buy all the 'extra' content, Season Passes, Cosmetic bundles etc where the 'money' is.
Looking at Sony specifically, how many Single Player games have we got to look forward to - whether as a GaaS or not? As far as I know, its just Spider-Man 2 and Wolverine. No doubt they have 'others' in development, but Marathon, FairGame$, HellDivers2, LoU: Factions (if its still in development) and even Guerilla are supposed to be making an 'online' Horizon game.
Now I'm not saying Sony shouldn't be making GaaS and do think that Sony should be making more 'diverse' games, making more Online games/modes. The games they have announced though are launching into a 'very' competitive market where many can 'fail' and you need to 'commit' to a LONG post release support with LOTS of Content coming regularly to keep people engaged...
I'd rather go back to the 'Old' days where games came with an online and Single Player part - where the Online was 'Complete' and if Successful maybe could add content post release - especially as we are now 'expected' to pay £70 for a game at release.
I voted that it maybe will impact Sony but I don't necessarily believe that the 'extra' Competition that Xbox and their business model poses will be 'negative' - I believe that it could well be Positive for us as Gamers....
And so they should - the Argument was extremely weak and even if ABK games 'never' come to Playstation, its not as if Sony can't 'compete' with their OWN 'exclusives'. Not only that, there are literally hundreds of Studios making games, lots of Publishers too so Sony will still get AMAZING games as well.
It was NEVER going to monopolise gaming or impact on Sony, Nintendo, Steam, Epic, EA, Ubisoft, TenCent, Embracer etc etc etc competing for gamers money and their 'time' playing their games...
Currently, the UK is the 'only' blockers of this deal where over 40 other regions have agreed this deal poses NO threat to Competition and wouldn't give MS the monopoly or ability to 'control' gaming. They cleared it with regards to 'hardware' and stated clearly that the deal poses no threat to Sony, their concerns related to 'Cloud' - which they got completely wrong...
@Cutmastavictory A sequel but also seems quite a departure from the original in terms of Game-play. If you played the original, you may have some idea of what's going on, but its still quite different from the top down shooter of the Original.
Whilst the rest may not of had much (if anything) on the Game-play side, It doesn't change the fact that I am not really interested in playing 'online' only Games as a Service. I don't want a Splatoon knock-off, another Extraction shooter or another 'Heist' multiplayer either.
There are a 'lot' of options - quite a few 'free to play' too. It will be interesting to see how well these do, but from my perspective, I'd rather spend my gaming time in Single Player games and maybe dipping in to Online games/modes in games I have or can get 'free'. Warzone for example has BR and Extraction modes and F2P.
Each to their own - but of the games that were revealed by Sony, the one that stood out most to me was 'Helldivers 2' - some of that was the 'change' in Style/Game-play which appeals 'more' than the top-down perspective of the Original. The rest didn't appeal at all - mostly because I don't want more GaaS, more Online Shooters etc...
I must admit, of all the GaaS, this was perhaps the one that stood out most to me but not enough that I'm looking forward to its release and eager to play it...
It appealed more than Marathon, FairGame$ etc to me but I am not really looking for or interested in more 'GaaS'.
@Smiffy01 Maybe they will in the future - but I still prefer to have a Disc Drive for Blurays/DVDs and the 'option' to buy Physical versions of games in sales etc.
I don't want to be 'locked' to Digital only purchases - not without more Digital storefronts on these platforms to bring 'competition' in pricing. Digital should be 'much' cheaper these days as they don't have all the costs involved in manufacturing and shipping physical, not losing as much 'sales' to the used market etc. With 'fewer' Physical copies sold, even fewer end up on the 'used' market so people have less 'choice' but to buy their own copy...
I prefer 'Physical' - especially on Playstation - but I will buy Digital if the price is right and/or has other 'benefits' - like Play Anywhere and being able to access my 'Library'. All those PS+ digital freebies from PS4 being instantly ready to download/install on my PS5 as soon as I had signed in. All my Digital play anywhere games on Xbox available to play on my PC/RoG Ally - more 'useful' than the Disc version and Discs 'mess' with Quick Resume too...
@themightyant There are 'pros & cons' to both Physical/Digital options but they are BOTH just a 'delivery' method of getting the Software 'installed' onto the Console.
Regardless of those 'Pros/Cons' - which I do Appreciate BTW so I don't need people telling me, you are NOT playing games from that Disc and its ONLY function after you've gone through the 'installation' process is to verify you still own a 'valid' licence to play the installed software whereas with Digital, the License is 'locked' to your account so you need to sign in to verify.
The 'Software' on disc is useless - you can't run the game from it, its often out-dated and/or incomplete and requires 'online' access to update and/or add the rest of the missing content. Even if 'complete', it still needs to be installed on your internal storage to play so its served the same purpose of delivering the Software to the Hardware - like Downloading does. The differences mostly relate to the License - you can sell a 'General' License but need the Disc in the Drive to play, you can't sell a Locked digital licence, but don't need the Disc in the drive and always get the 'latest' version too.
It maybe a better 'delivery' system for some people - particularly those on Slow or metered/limited internet connections - but its still just a method of 'delivery'. It could literally just have the 'Licence' on the disc these days with a link to 'download' the Software to install the 'latest' Software version because Games don't 'run' from Disc and its just a 'delivery' method.
I know the Pros/Cons for both. Some may 'prefer' to purchase Discs for whatever reasons they have, but other than it holds the 'License' to allow you to play the Game, you aren't using the 'disc' to play games, just verify you still have a License to play.
Digital provides a 'Locked' License to your account so you don't need to put the Disc in the drive but Physical has a 'General' License so ANYONE with that Disc can play. Its a bit like Downloading 'Software' on PC and requiring you to purchase a License key to access it. Downloading or installing to internal storage is just a 'delivery' method, the License is what you 'own' to access the Software.
Both ultimately mean that you can play the game on the Hardware you bought it for - and in some cases, maybe new hardware too if they support BC. Some games may well be playable in 30yrs time on 'Physical' but many won't too - I doubt Destiny would be for example but you'll still need to install them to internal storage to play, you can't play 'direct' from disc.
@belmont There are some advantages to the Consumer - such as the ability to sell for example, trade in and lend to friends, but even in the case of preservation, its not worth it these days.
The game is 'pre-release' code on Disc - if its all on disc in the first place. It still needs to be installed on Hardware to run, you can't play 'direct' from Disc anymore. Its not worth preserving the 'earliest' code - especially not with 'modern' games that get patched and more content, more features etc added.
Would anyone want to buy Cyberpunk 2077, Gotham Knights, Jedi Survivor etc etc if they couldn't connect to the internet? Those 'disks' are useless in 'gaming' terms - you need internet access to make them playable and then the 'Disk' is only used to verify you have a valid licence to play...
@GADG3Tx87 @elfoam They are still pretty 'useless'. Its still just a 'delivery' system - like Downloading - to get the 'software' installed on your Hardware. You don't play from the Disc Drive, the DD is only required to deliver the Software to your internal Storage - just like Downloading does...
The difference comes with the License - the bit you actually 'own'. You purchase a 'Licence' to access the Software and Play those games, you don't OWN the software. With Physical, you get a 'general' licence embedded in the disc that must be in the DD to check you own that Licence to access the Software. Yes you can sell, trade or lend that disc to a friend, but even though the Game is 'installed' on your Hardware, you cannot play without the Disc.
With Digital, you get a Licence too - however this is 'locked' to your account so you can download the Software as many times as you want/require, never need to put Discs in your DD, just sign into your Account and you can play - because those 'licences' you bought are 'locked' to your account.
Sub services (PS+/Gold/Game Pass etc) have 'conditional' Licences - such as you must remain Subscribed, the Game must be added when available or the game must be in that service - there are Conditions to be met to allow you to access 'Software' installed on your internal Storage.
The Disc is 'pretty' useless in 'gaming' terms as its only used to 'deliver' Software (like Downloading) to your Hardware (and its often older versions if not incomplete with the rest requiring downloading anyway) and then to 'verify' you still own the Disc, therefore still 'own' a valid Licence to keep playing. You are NOT playing from the Disc!!
@elfoam I know that AAA games that get a Physical release don't sell as many Digital games as the overall average includes games that are ONLY digital.
But look at FF16 - over 56% bought Digitally - meaning less than 44% bought Physical. Assuming that PS5 digital and Disk Drive models sold 'equally' well, you could say that half had no choice but to buy Digitally anyway but this is a game that ONLY released on PS5. If it released on Xbox and PC too, the percentage of Digital purchase would be 'significantly' higher as PC and Series S is 'digital' Only and Xbox owners in general embrace Digital more - it could be more like 80% Digital on Xbox.
@NinjaNicky Read my post. It was in reference to 'modern' games that releasing on modern Consoles - not Cartridges with the Game running from that so you can just 'plug and play'. Since the PS4/XB1 era, Discs have become less useful - its just a 'delivery' method for the Software as it has to be 'installed' to internal Storage to Run. Its not running from the Disc, the disc is just for the Licence - which is what you 'sell'.
You can't play a game with the Software fully installed on a PS/XB without the Disc in the drive to verify you still 'own' the Licence to play. Sell the disc, the game is 'still' installed but 'useless' without the Disc/licence.
@themightyant I know there are some advantages to Physical but it still doesn't change the fact that whats on those Discs themselves are Pretty Useless.
Even if they supplied ALL the Content, and was completely playable without requiring any downloads, it still needs to be installed to internal Storage to 'run'. The Disc itself is just the Licence, the 'key' to access the software installed on your internal Storage. However, rarely do you get a game you can 'play' without major issues without needing to download content, patches/fixes etc.
It doesn't really matter if you download the Software or install it from a Disc, its just a 'delivery' method to get the Software onto your Hardware.
I don't disagree with your points either. I prefer to buy Physical myself on Sony Playstation specifically and would have said the same thing about Xbox 4-5yrs ago, but as I return to PC gaming, buying Digital has been beneficial - Games I bought on 360/XB1 digitally, available to download on Series X and in some cases, PC too thanks to 'Play Anywhere'. I buy FH5 digitally, I get the game on ANY PC or Xbox hardware and the 'version' for the hardware - don't need to buy it again on PC or pay £10 to 'upgrade' the last gen to a new gen version. Its changed my mind on Digital - but I still prefer Physical on Playstation for the reasons you give. With Xbox, I don't 'need' to worry about not liking a game as I can often play it first on Game Pass and wait until its at a price I am happy to pay - especially with Game Pass Discounts - so less 'risk'. I didn't waste money on Redfall for example to worry about not liking it, not getting my 'moneys' worth, not 'finishing' or wanting to play, not worry about committing money and then trying to recuperate through selling/trade in...
I can see them ditching the built in Disc Drive version of the PS5 and selling an 'official' DD you can plug in if you want 'Physical'.
Digital sales are increasing and now the most popular way to purchase games. Discs are only printed for a select group of 'next' gen gamers - PS5 Disc and Series X. PC, Series S and PS5 Digital owners won't buy Physical. Even those with Disc drives are increasingly buying Digitally.
Discs these days are pretty useless. They have the worst often Beta version of a Game with patches and fixes planned for Day 1 - let alone all the patches, content etc they add after launch. That's assuming you even get the 'game' on Disc - often its 'some' content but needs to be connected to the internet to download the rest so you may not be able to 'play' if/when consoles get 'turned off' from Online services...
Therefore its mostly for the Back Compat with older games you didn't buy Digitally. Discs are almost obsolete apart from for Collectors and those still 'clinging' on to the Physical, that option to 'sell' or trade-in but the majority are purchasing Digitally now and with increasing numbers buying Hardware without DD's too (PS5, Series S and even PC's don't often have DD's these days), Physical is likely to drop lower and could eventually disappear altogether from 'modern' gaming.
I got CoD Cold War as part of my PS5 bundle and beat Alan Wake on the 360 so wasn't too bothered about either game. I never got round to opening the Cellophane on the box for Cold War - but I did intend to play the Campaign at some point...
I'll add 'both', maybe all 3 to my Library but I don't know if I'll bother playing any...
The games themselves are 'ok', not bad considering I get these 'free' as compensation for having to pay a Sub fee to play ALL the Content in Games I bought to play ALL the content.
That being said, I have Cold War as it came with my 'PS5' bundle - although its still in its cellophane wrapper and have beaten Alan Wake on the XB360 so wasn't really bothered about playing a Remaster. The other game has an interesting concept but I doubt I'll get round to seeing if its worth 'playing'.
I'll probably add all 3 to my Library regardless but whether I play them or not, time will tell.
@blah01 That's 'part' of the plan of the Subscription Service - get you to try games you may not have 'bought' and then feel obliged to buy them to 'finish' when you can no longer access them.
You are putting Pressure on yourself to complete it before it leaves to avoid that. If, like me, you don't care about finishing games - if they are good enough you will, then it doesn't matter. For me, with GPU (inc EA Access) on PC/Xbox and ANY 'cloud' device as well as PS+ Essential/Gold given me 'games' every month, I don't need a service that only has maybe 1 or 2 games that 'maybe' I'd have played IF I didn't have hundreds of other games to play...
Nothing about it appealed to me at all. The reveal trailer did nothing for me, if anything it actually puts me off and lost my interest very quickly - in fact I've tried to watch it several times since because its instantly forgettable.
They do at least have their 'reputation' and of course Sony's too, but they are competing in a very competitive genre with many options for Gamers - ones that are Free to Play and/or much more 'Grounded' in reality.
Each to their own of course but with many options, some F2P too (like Warzone DMZ), its going to have to do something 'special' to attract and 'keep' an audience engaged otherwise it will 'die' as its solely dependent on having a Large pool of Gamers playing regularly...
I understand that Sony are predominantly a Sales based business so we won't get their Games into their Sub service (like Game Pass) but allowing me to 'stream' games at PS5 quality (even if reduced to 1080/60) anywhere - especially 'digitally' owned games and a 'selection' of Games they choose (even if they are older games and a range of 3rd Party - some new maybe?), for a 'reasonable' cost, I'd consider upgrading from what I have to pay to access the full content in games I have bought to play on that Platform - essential it is.
As it stands now, the extra cost to me is not worth it. Most of the Games I 'would' really want to play, I have played and the few I maybe would play, but haven't are not games that I'm willing to Subscribe to, just to play...
I know others will get a LOT from those Extra tiers and I can say that 'Extra' looks Great Value as it is - I personally don't feel I will get that value back over time. Having the ability to log into my 'Playstation' account and Play any Playstation Game I own anywhere on any device 'somehow' or at least add their games Day 1, become more Service focused, I'd rather just 'buy' what I want to play on PS5 at a Price I want to pay (so usually Physical) and keep my Sub money as LOW as possible.
I'm sure everyone has a different opinion on what they'd want to get them to subscribe to 'higher' tiers - and others who think that those higher tiers are worth every penny as they are now too...
Of course its working for a 'Sales' focussed Business like Sony. They are still getting Subscribers, but also not affecting their 'Sales'. The whole point about NOT putting games in a Sub service day/date is to maximise the SALES.
You want to play Spider-Man 2 on day/date, you must buy (or at least have bought) a PS5 and must buy the game. Therefore that maximises SALES. Once that game is no longer 'selling' Hardware and Software sales are at a 'trickle', use that game to get even more Sales to PC gamers and use it to sell Subscriptions on PS5 to maximise Profits.
Microsoft, therefore Game Pass, is a Different Business model, more Service Driven where the point is not to maximise Sales but to maximise the playerbase in your Ecosystem. It doesn't matter if you don't 'buy' a Console and buy the game - as long as you are in their 'ecosystem'. Being available on a 'service' impacts SALES of Hardware as you don't 'need' to buy the Console or the Software as you don't need to Pre-order or buy the game to play it.
Its a different business model and whilst Sony operates their Business as a 'Sales' based business, rather than a more Service focused Business like MS, this 'model' of not putting their games day/date into PS+ makes the most sense and would 'work' best for them.
Not saying Service based is better than Sales based (or vice versa) - its just a different way to operate, therefore the differences in things like 'Services' (MS putting their games into GP day/date, releasing on PC etc) and 'Sales' (must buy the single Console Hardware its releasing on and/or must buy the Game as 'services' are not supported at launch) is just down to their 'different' business model.
@get2sammyb Ghost of Tsushima also released 6yrs after Infamous 2nd Son. Guerilla took 5yrs between Zero Dawn and Forbidden West and God of War Ragnarok over 4yrs despite both of these being 'Sequels' with no doubt Assets, scripts, animations etc that can be carried forward.
Spider-Man 2 may be turned round 'quickly' but they have a LOT of assets they can reuse and tweak if necessary - a lot quicker than building from scratch.
The indications are that games are taking 4yrs+ and some longer than 6yrs too...
Whether 'new' engines and focussing on 'new' hardware makes game development quicker - especially if you aren't required to bake in lighting, make different LoD models etc etc - or not, we will see, but I can't think of many Studios turning round games 'quickly' unless they are 'sequels' with 'minor' changes (like annual Sports games)
Ubisoft shows can be quite entertaining although I doubt they'll be showing anything that I will consider a 'day 1' purchase. AC: Mirage and Avatar are the ones I'm most interested in seeing more of but have no interest in Skull n Bones, that new PoP or the Crew but nothing that I think will tempt me to purchase at least in the first 2-3 months of release, if at all...
I'm sure there will be some that enjoy this game - but whether its enough to keep the game going and constantly keep the lobbies full of players, I don't know and have my doubts.
I can say with certainty that it has no appeal to me and even if it was 'Free' (F2P, Free on a Subscription etc), its not something I would play. There will always be something I'd prefer to be playing in my backlog, let alone all the other games on sale
With Digital purchases now so much more popular, as well as 'most' hardware being 'digital' only (PC, PS5 Digital and Series S) they are only printing PS5 and Series X versions for Physical release.
Its really only those who choose/prefer to buy Physical on PS5/Series X that are affected - the rest will buy Digitally and its not as if those who 'prefer' Physical can't play if they really wanted to. Making Physical discs, the costs etc for the 'few' that will ONLY buy Physical as the rest will just buy Digitally if they want to play - even if they wait for sales maybe isn't worth the it for something that may only sell a few 100k Physically at best...
Games don't run off of Physical media - its just a way to deliver the Code to the customer these days - like downloading is. It has to be installed on internal Storage to 'run' so the 'disc' is nothing but a 'licence' to verify you have valid access to the installed software on the SSD.
In fact, nowadays, the disc doesn't even need to have the game code on it at all and rarely these days have something you'll want or even can 'play' without online access to update, patch and/or download/install the [rest of the] software as its not all on the disc.
If you bought Cyberpunk 2077, Gotham Knights etc on Disc would you really want to play the 'software' on Disc in 20yrs time when you can't update it? Its nothing but a 'coaster' then...
Never really got into Diablo or the many Diablo like games there are. I have never finished any of the games I started. Diablo 3 I played the most of any of them but after a while I get bored of the game-play loop and then move on to something else. Once I leave, the Game-play loop and story don't appeal more than many other games in my backlog, let alone 'newer' games I have access too, so I haven't felt compelled to return.
As such, I won't be buying Diablo 4 - especially not an 'online only' game in a genre and series I don't particularly enjoy, but not adverse to 'trying' it without paying for it (a gift from someone, a Sub Service or some competition prize I won). So I doubt I'll be playing anytime soon either...
If it's your thing, As long as you are happy and enjoying it, that's all that matters - can't say that about many games at launch these days...
@Alpine021 Its not their eyes - its a screen on the outside too and uses a '3D' scan of your face. That scan creates a 'virtual' version of you and because of all the sensors monitoring your face inside, its then mapping your movement to the Virtual version.
Face Time too isn't using your 'real' face, its using the 3D virtual 'you'. That's why you don't see the Device strapped to peoples faces. The unit is opaque, you can't see through it and others can't look through from the outside either. It has 2 cameras, one for each eye on the outside too so that it can display the 'outside' world inside the headset. Cameras tracking your eyes inside are using that data to 'animate' the eyes on the outside...
Its part of the set-up process - scan your face to create your digital 'avatar' version of you.
@gaston Just because it can recognise what is on you Macbook and can then transfer it to the Headset is not the same as necessitating the Hardware as its 'required' to run the software. Its more like it recognises the content on Macbook and switches from 'Augmented Reality' to 'Virtual Reality' as it opens it up on the Headset. The difference is that this is running the software on the 'Headset'.
Its not 'just' acting as a 'display' - its also running the software independently from the Macbook. In other words, you could turn off the Macbook and still continue to work, play etc. You turn off the PS5, PSVR2 is useless. Its more like linking several Computers together and being able to seamlessly switch between them. Of course, if you only have the 'Vision Pro', its still a 'Computer' in its own right, still able to work 'independently'.
If you don't own ANY Apple Products, its still a Standalone device that doesn't need to be hooked up or connected to any other devices to actually function as intended. Its not just a VR/AR display but a Computer built into a headset.
Yes you can do all of that on a flat screen iPad or Macbook, but that's not the point. Those devices don't handle 3D or VR/AR at all - not without additional purchases (HTC Vive for example) but this is 'built' in. I am willing to bet that most people don't own an Apple 'computer', preferring 'Windows' PC's - at most they may have iPhones and/or Apple Watches.
This is much more akin to strapping an iPad Pro to your face with all the apps and capabilities that offers (M2 Chip), but adds '3D' and Spatial 'computing' (the R1 chip) to deliver VR and AR functionality too.
Its still expensive, but then a Macbook or iPad Pro can't deliver 4k visuals on what seems like a Massive home theatre screen, can't deliver 3D on its 2D display etc...
You can buy 'just' the Vision Pro and get all the Features, Functionality etc from this single Apple Product. If you just buy PSVR2, its completely useless without a PS5. If Sony built a PS5 into their PSVR2 headset so it can operate independently as a complete 'PS5' without needing to purchase a PS5, that would be a more realistic comparison. But considering this is a fully contained Apple Mac Computer in a bespoke and small form factor, its not 'unreasonably' priced.
@lindos Considering the specs are not really known at this point, its difficult to compare to their laptops and iPads. It has the M2 chip in it - the same as is found in the iPad Pro's and best Macbooks which can cost over 1500 - depending on Screen size and Storage configurations. Point is, its an Apple 'Computer' in a Headset form factor.
It also has an additional chip - an R1 chip - to handle all the Mixed Reality processing. Its literally an Apple Macbook/iPad Pro you can strap to your face and use.
One is literally just a peripheral for a 'Console' and completely useless without also purchasing the Console. Its pretty much designed purely for gaming and pretty much just a 'screen'. Nothing runs 'locally' on it.
The other is a Complete Apple Mac Laptop built into the headset to be completely self contained and much more varied in what its designed to offer. This is your Apple Mac, iPhone, iPod etc and able to run software locally - not just 'games', not 'just' a leisure device. Its a Standalone Apple Mac in a unique form factor - built into a 'headset'.
Therefore the price is perhaps more understandable. PSVR2 is very expensive for a peripheral to a Console but Apples Vision Pro isn't that 'unreasonable' considering its an Apple Computer in a new Form Factor - still 'expensive' as ALL Apple products are, but not bad as a new way to Macbook...
@GamingFan4Lyf That proves my point - being 'first' doesn't guarantee them to dominate - even with their own IP's inc those they acquired from Bethesda/ABK. Xbox Cloud is never going to offer Mario, Zelda, Pokemon etc, never offering Sony's IP's either so they can 'compete' with their OWN IP's at any time.
Its not the right time for 'others' considering they are dominating the Hardware market, don't 'need' to offer a Cloud option - especially as 'both' companies have their own solution to play 'your' games anywhere - Nintendo Switch by 'design' has that functionality and Sony offer 'Remote' play.
MS's 'Cloud' service only lets you play about half of the Game Pass Library games - not games you 'own' and have no say on when those games can be 'streamed'. You can 'buy' CoD on Xbox, but if it leaves Game Pass Cloud, you can't continue to stream with Xbox.
Its such a 'small' Library that consumers have no choice over that it makes no sense to block. They have assessed that theses games won't 'harm' competition in the Physical space yet block it on the grounds of Cloud where its an 'Open' market. MS doesn't control the internet or Streaming technology either so can't prevent others from setting up their OWN cloud service.
The reason they don't or haven't is because it doesn't factor into their Business plan yet. Its not 'worth' their time/money etc to 'compete' with MS when they are 'dominating' in Sales and users willing to spend '$70+' on a game instead of paying a 'small' monthly fee to stream a selection of games chosen by themselves.
All these PS fanboys are not going to 'miss out' on CoD, Overwatch, Diablo etc because MS has committed to bringing those games to 'every' service, every platform they can. Even though Sony 'refused' to sign a deal, MS is still committed to release CoD on Playstation so PS fanboys can still play CoD on their 'prefered' platform, Sony still gets their cut too. ALL these deals have been to bring ABK games to platforms they are NOT on - not removing them from the 'few' platforms they currently exist on. Therefore CoD will remain on Playstation, still be sold by Sony so they still get their '30%' for owning Playstation. Therefore I don't understand why Sony Fanboys are supportive of the CMA despite 40 other regions passing it.
Its more likely that Sony gamers as well as Xbox gamers in the UK could 'miss out' because of blocking. Let alone Nintendo gamers and any of those other Cloud services in the UK specifically. If Activision pulls out of the UK, then it affects ALL gamers. MS are looking to bring CoD to 'more' platforms so more gamers can play through whatever devices and/or costs they can afford. The 'best' option will still be 'premium' Hardware offering up to 4k PQ and up to 120fps performance. Cloud is 1080/60 at best and has additional lag/latency...
@MattBoothDev Blocking something on the grounds of a Hypothetical future with no evidence or factual backing to support that reasoning is extremely Petty.
They decided that the Hardware market would NOT be negatively impacted, meaning that Sony and Nintendo can 'compete' for Hardware consumers whether MS decides not to release ABK games on their Hardware as they have their OWN IP's that will pull consumers in. Zelda, Mario, Pokemon, Uncharted, Spider-Man, Wolverine, Last of Us etc etc etc - Games those Companies can use to create their OWN streaming service to Compete - IF they believe that Cloud is the future. Games that will 'never' be on a Microsoft Cloud service.
Azure is just one option open to the likes of Sony, EA, Ubisoft, Nintendo etc - they could partner with Amazon or Google. Sony could build their OWN servers too - the same way MS has by using XB1X APU chips as 'blades' on a server. If they used their PS5 APU's, they could run every PS5 game (inc PS4 via BC) and stream to ANY device. Nothing is stopping them from 'competing' if they believe that is the 'future' of gaming. However, cloud is barely 'adequate' right now and the 'majority' of Gamers use Hardware. Those that use Cloud, use it to play games when they can't play on Hardware - not their main/primary way.
Therefore the decision to block on the grounds of 'Cloud' - which is an 'open' platform, not locked to Microsoft, and based on the tiny market share of IP's and Studios, the ONLY games MS can really offer in their service (a portion of which are ALSO available ANYWHERE and in 'competing' cloud services) are the ones they OWN, is NOT preventing Competition, not preventing anyone else from investing in Cloud services so it is extremely petty. Its like saying no-one can compete with Netflix - yet it never stopped others from jumping into Cloud services...
MS can't prevent Sony, EA, Nintendo, Embracer, TakeTwo etc etc from setting up competing Cloud services just because they now own ABK and as already stipulated, offering ANY 10yr License Free deals to any Cloud based company - after already stating that they will continue releasing and supporting ABK games on Playstation, bring them to Nintendo and continue selling on Steam too
@get2sammyb Its actually Activision too willing to 'Pull out' of the UK to get the deal through as don't forget its not MS aggressively seeking to take-over ABK, ABK themselves also voted unanimously to sell to MS.
Its an 'option'. If the CMA want to be 'petty' about their reasoning behind them 'blocking' the deal, then MS AND ABK together will be looking at ALL the ways they can get this deal through. They have never stated they intended to 'pull' anything from Hardware, even offering 10yr license free deals to ANYONE to alleviate 'hypothetical' what if 'scenarios' that don't currently 'exist' - if these 'fail', through pettiness, the Solutions to ease hypothetical non-existent scenarios, then they may have to consider more 'extreme' or equally as 'petty' measures - they have 'tried' to provide Solutions to ease concerns and have NO INTENTION of not selling CoD on PS5 so Sony can keep selling CoD, keep getting revenue etc. Don't forget that 40 other regions so far have passed this deal.
Of course this deal affects 'UK' gamers on BOTH Xbox/PS hardware. Sony had the option to sign a deal guaranteeing ABK games on Playstation and MS has 'never' pulled games from PS either. They may have 'cancelled' on-going development towards a Playstation release, but as it was never announced for, never completed and certainly never 'released' on Playstation, it cannot be 'pulled'. Therefore, these games - like Diablo IV, Overwatch and CoD, as well as that upcoming Crash game would still be on Playstation - basically the only games ABK make these days.
That's already been 'established' and why the CMA have NO concerns about the Physical platforms. They believe that MS owning ABK would somehow prevent Sony, Nintendo or ANY other company from 'competing' on an 'open' platform like Cloud. That somehow, them owning a 'tiny' percentage of ALL IP's, Studios etc would somehow prevent others from 'competing' with their own Cloud options.
As I said, Sony have their own IP's, Nintendo too - all massive IP's that will NEVER be on Xbox Cloud, games those Companies can use to 'compete' with - Just like Disney+ could 'compete' against Netflix, despite Netflix having over 200m subscribers (far more than Xbox Cloud gamers) and a 'big' headstart. If Sony started their OWN Cloud with their OWN exclusives, maybe also added Sony Pictures, Crunchyroll etc too in 'their' service, Sony Fanboys would probably make it the #1 service in terms of Subscriber count....
@trev666 Even then I don't know I would be 'more' sceptical as I have never found ANY MGS game to be that 'great' and something I could really get into. I never liked the Humour or could get into the plot. The last one I tried 'multiple' times, MGS4 (both before they added trophy support and several times after) really put me off completely.
I can't think of a 'Kojima' game I like - Castlevania: Lords of Shadow is perhaps the only one I can think of.
Therefore a 'different' studio could 'reboot' MGS in a way that I prefer, even if upsets Kojima fans. Not suggesting they go that route and risk losing the audience that made MGS the success it was, but from my perspective, it can't get 'worse' than a game I have no interest in and not going to buy - it can only get 'better' and pique my interest...
All I was saying though is that the lack of the creators involvement in a remake isn't necessarily a bad thing and hasn't hurt quite a few of the recent 'remakes' bringing 'old' games to a modern audience. Therefore, the lack of Kojima isn't a major disaster for this.
A remake really doesn't need the 'original' developers to be involved as they have the Original as a template. It didn't stop Dead Space or Crash n'sane trilogy from being 'great' despite the original devs not being involved...
Based on what we 'understand', I would be surprised if we do have another 'Showcase'. I would expect a State of Play or 2 (Spider-Man 2) but the reality is that 'most' Studio's have released something in the past 2-3yrs and haven't really had the time to perhaps have something to reveal - other than perhaps a CGI trailer announcing what game they are making next but still 'years' away from release.
No doubt they could reveal what Guerrilla is making next, what Santa Monica or Sucker Punch are working on, but then you'd be waiting 2-3 yrs to get some 'game-play' video''s before releasing a year or so later.
Its up to Sony of course - announce what games they have in development but gamers have to wait a LONG time to play them, may end up cancelled or changed etc or wait until they are 'ready' to announce. Its a good job they didn't announce 'everything' with several 'cancellations' of games announced...
@DeepSpace5D That's because EVERY website that links the Video for their 'news' article also contribute to those numbers. You don't have to watch on youtube on their channel, you can probably watch the video on Push Square, on Pure Xbox, on Eurogamer etc etc - all of which adds to their 'view count'.
With this being one of the 'New' games announced from Bungie, their 'first' since joining Sony and with it being a multi-platform release, chances are that a LOT of people will watch - not just PS fanboys either.
Anyway, the fact that these video's get linked everywhere helps the viewer numbers - even if it doesn't help their Subscriber numbers...
I must admit, I was not overly impressed by 'Spider-Man' - it played 'OK' but not really better than Spider-Man 2 (the Treyarch made game) but had to many QTE's, repetition and a lot of the things I hate about Ubisoft Open World games - towers to unlock the map, some awful side quests, terrible 'stealth' sections, etc etc
This looked even less exciting to me. It reminds me of Prototype. The one thing that helped the first is that Sony gave them time to Polish and release a game that's both a solid performer and equally solid visual quality but I don't think it was anything better than an '8/10'. I expect this to be equally 'solid' but I doubt I'll buy it at launch
Neither the trailer nor the Game description grabbed my interest at all. Of course its still 'early' and they have opportunities to try and win me over but right now, I can't see me playing this at all.
There are plenty of FPS games, plenty of 'Extraction' shooters, inc Free to Play options (like Warzone DMZ for example) and plenty more coming too so Bungie will face stiff competition. I do expect them to nail the FPS mechanics but we will what they will do to stand out from ALL the other FPS PvP games...
Cloud is 'unlikely' to be the Main Platform of Choice for dedicated gamers. It may become more 'popular', but only because its much more accessible and shouldn't be as 'costly' as Hardware based gaming - but because its 'cheap' and 'accessible' will likely reach those on a more tight budget and/or more 'casual' gamer who can't justify the costs of Hardware gaming.
At 'best', its a 'complimentary' way to play games in places these games would never be playable and on hardware not capable of running the game locally. You are willing to 'tolerate' playing on 'small' screens, putting up with Lag/Latency and even not really caring too much about the Compression artefacts (especially as the screen is small) - because its the 'only' way to play that game in that 'situation'. If you could play 'locally' anywhere, be able to play in areas when Wifi is intermittent or worse etc, that would be preferred but you'll still have a more powerful 'home' set-up - Like a PC or PS5 - to play games at their 'best'.
This is just an 'extension' of the PS5, essentially a more 'elaborate' DS5 with a screen instead of TouchPad to 'connect' to your PS5 to play games remotely. At least with Steam Deck, Switch, RoG Ally etc, they have the option to play locally - which I prefer as 'wifi' is not great 'everywhere'.
Comments 5,662
Re: Embracer Starts Shutting Studios as the Downsides of Consolidation Surface
@Flaming_Kaiser The point I was trying to make is that Tomb Raider still sold and has movies, merchandise etc etc to make money. Square Enix are 'never' satisfied with the Sales but the point is, it still sells, still has fans that will buy it because its an IP they know/like etc.
I could have used GTA which has 'milked' the SAME GTA V now across multiple generations and 'porting' the OG RDR game to Playstation/Nintendo to 'sell' but picked Tomb Raider as that has movies and a lot of merchandise associated with it - all of which also brings in money for that 'IP'.
I never suggested Sony should buy or should have bought Tomb Raider at all - I only used that as an example of an IP that can continue to make money whether a 'new' game is being developed or not. Zelda, Mario, Pokemon etc all make Money for Nintendo whether they have games out or not - those 'IP's' make money from licensed merchandise, TV/Movies etc. People will buy Hardware just to play Zelda and get hyped as soon as they know a new Zelda is in development - its the IP's that ultimately bring people in...
Re: Embracer Starts Shutting Studios as the Downsides of Consolidation Surface
@Flaming_Kaiser true - but the point is you can still earn money on your IPs without necessarily the costs of making a 'brand new' game. Disney will be making some money off of Spider-Man, Wolverine, Star Wars games etc without having the 'costs' of developing games by licensing out their IP's - not just for games, you also have merchandising, TV/Movie rights etc.
Remakes/Remasters/Ports to new hardware is another option that isn't going to 'cost' the same as a new game but because the IP was popular, it will likely sell and bring in more money than creating a 'new' IP from scratch, marketing it etc. As soon as a 'new' Tomb Raider is announced for example, it already has a big 'fanbase' of the IP eager to buy...
Studios make money by having Products out that sell, IP owners can make money just on the IP by Licensing it out - not just for games, but for TV, for Merchandise, for Movies etc etc
Re: Embracer Starts Shutting Studios as the Downsides of Consolidation Surface
What's most important is the IP's as its IP's that will make Money - assuming you have Studio's you can rely upon to keep making those IP's.
Studios - especially the 'creative' talent behind those IP's often leave and form new Studios to create 'new' IP's instead of churning out sequels etc. When MS acquire CoD for example, acquire Infinity Ward, they won't acquire the 'creative' talent behind CoD as they left Infinity Ward nearly 2 decades ago and went on to form ReSpawn (Titanfall, Apex) and now the co-creator of Activision's CoD is the 'head' of EA's Battlefield, the game CoD was created to compete with...
Whilst no-one wants to hear about Staff losing Jobs and hope that they can find new employment quickly, Gaming is growing and new Studios are being created all the time, need staff to get projects out etc so hopefully they will find new employment quickly...
Re: Poll: Are You Happy with Your PS Plus Essential Games for August 2023?
I voted 'Meh' as in general you get decent value back for what is only purchased to play 'Online'.
I hate Golf and No interest in playing Dreams or Deaths Door myself so I voted 'none of them'. I'm sure that if I didn't have 'lots' of Games in my backlog and other games coming that excite me, I'd maybe add a couple to my Library, but realistically, I can't see myself downloading and/or playing when there is always something else more appealing in my play list...
Re: Told You So! Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart Really Wouldn't Have Worked on PS4
@Cutmastavictory When you have people still playing on PS4/XB1 hardware, play on Switch/Steam Decks etc - especially when you have 'much' better Hardware options that offer 'better' graphical presentation, better Frame Rates and much better loading times, it proves that not everyone is overly concerned about those things.
Not everyone rushed out to get a PS4 Pro - despite offering better Frame Rates and/or Graphics - their PS4 was good enough. The 'story' doesn't change, the moment to moment Game-play loop doesn't change and you aren't missing out on any content.
Its like Spider-Man and saying that's 'unplayable' because its only 30fps on PS4 and fast travel/loading takes ages compared to the 60fps PS5 version. How can people wait to 'fast' travel - its interrupts the 'flow' - not that it changes the story, the missions, the game-play etc...
Re: Told You So! Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart Really Wouldn't Have Worked on PS4
People put up with far worse - on PS5, it may be the fastest way through that 'portal' sequence which would make it feel much more 'fluid' than those who may play on HDD, who would be stuck in those portals for seconds longer but the 'actual' Game-play in-between those is not really affected.
Graphically of course its not on the same level but all it proves is that it would have 'worked' but loading would have been more 'intrusive' and interrupted the 'flow' a bit more...
It's whether or not 'Gamers' would be 'OK' with that - but for Sony, it makes more sense to have games 'exclusive' to PS5 so that Gamers have no choice but to buy a PS5 to play R&C:RA - not given the 'choice' to have a 'lower' Visual Quality with more 'intrusive' loading etc - at least not until it releases on PC. That being said, it does affect the 'Flow' in certain sections so I can understand why from that perspective too. They can't get the PS4 version to 'flow' as well due to slower loading...
Re: Dying Light Studio Techland Set to Be Acquired by Tencent
Many Publishers and Studios have been bought up - long before Sony/MS started in the Console Gaming Market. Where are Ocean, Acclaim, Eidos, Midway, Lucasarts, Psygnosis etc etc etc today?
Buying a Studio doesn't guarantee you buy the 'Creator' of the Game that made them famous. People are leaving Studios, creating new Studios, selling Studios, leaving Studio, create 'new' Studio. Glenn Schofield was at EA (made Dead Space), formed 'New' Studio (Sledgehammer - acquired by ABK), left that made another studio...
There is always more Studios being made and in this 'hypothetical' Streaming only Gaming Future, then the fewer Subscriptions I require the 'better'. Its bad enough having to buy different hardware because of 'exclusives', but in a 'NO' Hardware future, then each Publisher could have their own Sub service to play their IP's. I'd rather have just 3 big Publishers competing to earn my Subscription.
TenCent could decide to make their own Platform/Streaming Service and use ALL their Gaming Acquisitions to make their Platform/Service the biggest in the world. Amazon could still make Tomb Raider 'exclusive' to Luna to try and get more Gamers...
Re: All of a Sudden, High on Life Is Out Now on PS5, PS4
@Cordyceps And even at that price, I only played an hour or so before I could take no more and haven't returned...
Each to their own - If you like the R&M style voices and 'humour', as well as games from the PS3/360 era - very much more 'arcade FPS', its 'OK' but the voices and humour irritated me too much.
Re: All of a Sudden, High on Life Is Out Now on PS5, PS4
I don't see why there is so much about Game Pass here. Of course you can try it as part of a Subscription, but if you want to 'own' it, you still have to buy. Its 'free' to try for as long as it remains in Game Pass but as soon as it leaves, you no-longer can play the game unless you 'buy' it.
As for 'cost' - it is 'cheaper' than the £70 being asked by other Games. If you don't think its 'worth' it, wait for a sale or don't bother playing. I got to 'try' it on GP to know it wasn't 'worth' buying from my perspective at any cost as I don't enjoy the humour...
I 'tried' it on Xbox (thanks to Game Pass) but only because it was on Game Pass, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered at all. I'm sure they got 'some' money from me from my Sub money, but they were never gonna get a 'sale' as I can't stand the Humour or Voices.
GP is like being a member of a Library where you can borrow 'Books/Games' for a time but can have access removed leaving you no choice but to buy IF you want to keep playing - even if you remain Subbed to Game Pass...
Re: Rumour: PS5 Pro Release Date Reportedly Slated for November 2024
At what cost? A PS5 is still 'expensive' for a Console and I don't really want to be forced to buy a separate Disc drive as well if they remove it to 'keep costs low' and hit those who still want and buys Discs with an 'expensive' peripheral...
I'd be OK with a redesign because the OG PS5 is a monstrosity!
Re: Experience 'Severe Abdominal Wounds' with Official Assassin's Creed Mirage Haptic Feedback Suit for PS5, PS4
I play games to escape 'reality'. That very much includes all the 'risks' and potentially fatal injuries that real life has. I don't want to 'feel' where I am being Shot or simulate the impacts of falling down a cliff.
Each to their own of course but I can't see myself buying this.
Re: FTC Fails to Delay Microsoft's $69 Billion Buyout of Activision Blizzard
Lets be honest here, people will still buy Playstation to play Sony's 'exclusives'.
I can't see people opting to buy a Series X and pay for Game Pass Ultimate to play Call of Duty instead of sticking with PS5, playing with their friends on their preferred platform etc for a LOT less cost, as well as play Sony's exclusives.
When it comes to PS6, Call of Duty will still be 'multi-platform' so again unlikely to pull fans of Sony and Sony's exclusives away from Playstation.
Instead of it being Forza, Gears and Halo from MS vs Uncharted, LoU, Horizon, GoW, R&C, Spider-Man, Wolverine, Gran Turismo, Ghost of Tsushima etc etc, MS can add a few more 'IP's' to be more 'competitive'. It won't be so one-sided with Sony having 4x or 5x the number of Exclusives...
I doubt MS will suddenly 'pull' CoD from releasing on Playstation Hardware in '10yrs'. Abandon all those Fans of a MS owned IP and another Revenue stream. Of course if Sony abandon Hardware for a subscription based 'Streaming' service, I can see Sony having to negotiate terms (if it isn't F2P by then) - otherwise how will MS make their 'money'? But whilst Hardware 'exists', they will want to keep their 'fans' happy.
Fans of 'Minecraft' are still fans of a MS owned property - even if they 'choose' to play on Playstation/Switch and MS hasn't abandoned those Fans because ultimately, they are fans of an MS owned product.
Re: Sony Is Increasing R&D Costs to Fuel Live Service Games, Report Claims
@get2sammyb I agree in Principal but how many are actually Single Player games that expand and evolve over time? The vast majority are Online games because people are much more likely to buy all the 'extra' content, Season Passes, Cosmetic bundles etc where the 'money' is.
Looking at Sony specifically, how many Single Player games have we got to look forward to - whether as a GaaS or not? As far as I know, its just Spider-Man 2 and Wolverine. No doubt they have 'others' in development, but Marathon, FairGame$, HellDivers2, LoU: Factions (if its still in development) and even Guerilla are supposed to be making an 'online' Horizon game.
Now I'm not saying Sony shouldn't be making GaaS and do think that Sony should be making more 'diverse' games, making more Online games/modes. The games they have announced though are launching into a 'very' competitive market where many can 'fail' and you need to 'commit' to a LONG post release support with LOTS of Content coming regularly to keep people engaged...
I'd rather go back to the 'Old' days where games came with an online and Single Player part - where the Online was 'Complete' and if Successful maybe could add content post release - especially as we are now 'expected' to pay £70 for a game at release.
Re: Reaction: What Happens to PlayStation if Microsoft Buys Activision Blizzard?
I voted that it maybe will impact Sony but I don't necessarily believe that the 'extra' Competition that Xbox and their business model poses will be 'negative' - I believe that it could well be Positive for us as Gamers....
Re: Microsoft Beats US Regulator FTC in Activision Blizzard Buyout Battle
And so they should - the Argument was extremely weak and even if ABK games 'never' come to Playstation, its not as if Sony can't 'compete' with their OWN 'exclusives'. Not only that, there are literally hundreds of Studios making games, lots of Publishers too so Sony will still get AMAZING games as well.
It was NEVER going to monopolise gaming or impact on Sony, Nintendo, Steam, Epic, EA, Ubisoft, TenCent, Embracer etc etc etc competing for gamers money and their 'time' playing their games...
Currently, the UK is the 'only' blockers of this deal where over 40 other regions have agreed this deal poses NO threat to Competition and wouldn't give MS the monopoly or ability to 'control' gaming. They cleared it with regards to 'hardware' and stated clearly that the deal poses no threat to Sony, their concerns related to 'Cloud' - which they got completely wrong...
Re: Sony Calls in a Tactical Supply Drop of Helldivers 2 PS5, PC Gameplay, And It Looks Stunning
@Cutmastavictory A sequel but also seems quite a departure from the original in terms of Game-play. If you played the original, you may have some idea of what's going on, but its still quite different from the top down shooter of the Original.
Whilst the rest may not of had much (if anything) on the Game-play side, It doesn't change the fact that I am not really interested in playing 'online' only Games as a Service. I don't want a Splatoon knock-off, another Extraction shooter or another 'Heist' multiplayer either.
There are a 'lot' of options - quite a few 'free to play' too. It will be interesting to see how well these do, but from my perspective, I'd rather spend my gaming time in Single Player games and maybe dipping in to Online games/modes in games I have or can get 'free'. Warzone for example has BR and Extraction modes and F2P.
Each to their own - but of the games that were revealed by Sony, the one that stood out most to me was 'Helldivers 2' - some of that was the 'change' in Style/Game-play which appeals 'more' than the top-down perspective of the Original. The rest didn't appeal at all - mostly because I don't want more GaaS, more Online Shooters etc...
Re: Sony Calls in a Tactical Supply Drop of Helldivers 2 PS5, PC Co-Op and Combat Details
I must admit, of all the GaaS, this was perhaps the one that stood out most to me but not enough that I'm looking forward to its release and eager to play it...
It appealed more than Marathon, FairGame$ etc to me but I am not really looking for or interested in more 'GaaS'.
Re: PS5 Is €100 Off in Some European Countries, Suggesting Hardware Revision Is Coming
@Smiffy01 Maybe they will in the future - but I still prefer to have a Disc Drive for Blurays/DVDs and the 'option' to buy Physical versions of games in sales etc.
I don't want to be 'locked' to Digital only purchases - not without more Digital storefronts on these platforms to bring 'competition' in pricing. Digital should be 'much' cheaper these days as they don't have all the costs involved in manufacturing and shipping physical, not losing as much 'sales' to the used market etc. With 'fewer' Physical copies sold, even fewer end up on the 'used' market so people have less 'choice' but to buy their own copy...
I prefer 'Physical' - especially on Playstation - but I will buy Digital if the price is right and/or has other 'benefits' - like Play Anywhere and being able to access my 'Library'. All those PS+ digital freebies from PS4 being instantly ready to download/install on my PS5 as soon as I had signed in. All my Digital play anywhere games on Xbox available to play on my PC/RoG Ally - more 'useful' than the Disc version and Discs 'mess' with Quick Resume too...
Re: PS5 Is €100 Off in Some European Countries, Suggesting Hardware Revision Is Coming
@themightyant There are 'pros & cons' to both Physical/Digital options but they are BOTH just a 'delivery' method of getting the Software 'installed' onto the Console.
Regardless of those 'Pros/Cons' - which I do Appreciate BTW so I don't need people telling me, you are NOT playing games from that Disc and its ONLY function after you've gone through the 'installation' process is to verify you still own a 'valid' licence to play the installed software whereas with Digital, the License is 'locked' to your account so you need to sign in to verify.
The 'Software' on disc is useless - you can't run the game from it, its often out-dated and/or incomplete and requires 'online' access to update and/or add the rest of the missing content. Even if 'complete', it still needs to be installed on your internal storage to play so its served the same purpose of delivering the Software to the Hardware - like Downloading does. The differences mostly relate to the License - you can sell a 'General' License but need the Disc in the Drive to play, you can't sell a Locked digital licence, but don't need the Disc in the drive and always get the 'latest' version too.
It maybe a better 'delivery' system for some people - particularly those on Slow or metered/limited internet connections - but its still just a method of 'delivery'. It could literally just have the 'Licence' on the disc these days with a link to 'download' the Software to install the 'latest' Software version because Games don't 'run' from Disc and its just a 'delivery' method.
I know the Pros/Cons for both. Some may 'prefer' to purchase Discs for whatever reasons they have, but other than it holds the 'License' to allow you to play the Game, you aren't using the 'disc' to play games, just verify you still have a License to play.
Digital provides a 'Locked' License to your account so you don't need to put the Disc in the drive but Physical has a 'General' License so ANYONE with that Disc can play. Its a bit like Downloading 'Software' on PC and requiring you to purchase a License key to access it. Downloading or installing to internal storage is just a 'delivery' method, the License is what you 'own' to access the Software.
Both ultimately mean that you can play the game on the Hardware you bought it for - and in some cases, maybe new hardware too if they support BC. Some games may well be playable in 30yrs time on 'Physical' but many won't too - I doubt Destiny would be for example but you'll still need to install them to internal storage to play, you can't play 'direct' from disc.
Re: PS5 Is €100 Off in Some European Countries, Suggesting Hardware Revision Is Coming
@belmont There are some advantages to the Consumer - such as the ability to sell for example, trade in and lend to friends, but even in the case of preservation, its not worth it these days.
The game is 'pre-release' code on Disc - if its all on disc in the first place. It still needs to be installed on Hardware to run, you can't play 'direct' from Disc anymore. Its not worth preserving the 'earliest' code - especially not with 'modern' games that get patched and more content, more features etc added.
Would anyone want to buy Cyberpunk 2077, Gotham Knights, Jedi Survivor etc etc if they couldn't connect to the internet? Those 'disks' are useless in 'gaming' terms - you need internet access to make them playable and then the 'Disk' is only used to verify you have a valid licence to play...
Re: PS5 Is €100 Off in Some European Countries, Suggesting Hardware Revision Is Coming
@GADG3Tx87 @elfoam They are still pretty 'useless'. Its still just a 'delivery' system - like Downloading - to get the 'software' installed on your Hardware. You don't play from the Disc Drive, the DD is only required to deliver the Software to your internal Storage - just like Downloading does...
The difference comes with the License - the bit you actually 'own'. You purchase a 'Licence' to access the Software and Play those games, you don't OWN the software. With Physical, you get a 'general' licence embedded in the disc that must be in the DD to check you own that Licence to access the Software. Yes you can sell, trade or lend that disc to a friend, but even though the Game is 'installed' on your Hardware, you cannot play without the Disc.
With Digital, you get a Licence too - however this is 'locked' to your account so you can download the Software as many times as you want/require, never need to put Discs in your DD, just sign into your Account and you can play - because those 'licences' you bought are 'locked' to your account.
Sub services (PS+/Gold/Game Pass etc) have 'conditional' Licences - such as you must remain Subscribed, the Game must be added when available or the game must be in that service - there are Conditions to be met to allow you to access 'Software' installed on your internal Storage.
The Disc is 'pretty' useless in 'gaming' terms as its only used to 'deliver' Software (like Downloading) to your Hardware (and its often older versions if not incomplete with the rest requiring downloading anyway) and then to 'verify' you still own the Disc, therefore still 'own' a valid Licence to keep playing. You are NOT playing from the Disc!!
Re: PS5 Is €100 Off in Some European Countries, Suggesting Hardware Revision Is Coming
@elfoam I know that AAA games that get a Physical release don't sell as many Digital games as the overall average includes games that are ONLY digital.
But look at FF16 - over 56% bought Digitally - meaning less than 44% bought Physical. Assuming that PS5 digital and Disk Drive models sold 'equally' well, you could say that half had no choice but to buy Digitally anyway but this is a game that ONLY released on PS5. If it released on Xbox and PC too, the percentage of Digital purchase would be 'significantly' higher as PC and Series S is 'digital' Only and Xbox owners in general embrace Digital more - it could be more like 80% Digital on Xbox.
@NinjaNicky Read my post. It was in reference to 'modern' games that releasing on modern Consoles - not Cartridges with the Game running from that so you can just 'plug and play'. Since the PS4/XB1 era, Discs have become less useful - its just a 'delivery' method for the Software as it has to be 'installed' to internal Storage to Run. Its not running from the Disc, the disc is just for the Licence - which is what you 'sell'.
You can't play a game with the Software fully installed on a PS/XB without the Disc in the drive to verify you still 'own' the Licence to play. Sell the disc, the game is 'still' installed but 'useless' without the Disc/licence.
Re: PS5 Is €100 Off in Some European Countries, Suggesting Hardware Revision Is Coming
@themightyant I know there are some advantages to Physical but it still doesn't change the fact that whats on those Discs themselves are Pretty Useless.
Even if they supplied ALL the Content, and was completely playable without requiring any downloads, it still needs to be installed to internal Storage to 'run'. The Disc itself is just the Licence, the 'key' to access the software installed on your internal Storage. However, rarely do you get a game you can 'play' without major issues without needing to download content, patches/fixes etc.
It doesn't really matter if you download the Software or install it from a Disc, its just a 'delivery' method to get the Software onto your Hardware.
I don't disagree with your points either. I prefer to buy Physical myself on Sony Playstation specifically and would have said the same thing about Xbox 4-5yrs ago, but as I return to PC gaming, buying Digital has been beneficial - Games I bought on 360/XB1 digitally, available to download on Series X and in some cases, PC too thanks to 'Play Anywhere'. I buy FH5 digitally, I get the game on ANY PC or Xbox hardware and the 'version' for the hardware - don't need to buy it again on PC or pay £10 to 'upgrade' the last gen to a new gen version. Its changed my mind on Digital - but I still prefer Physical on Playstation for the reasons you give. With Xbox, I don't 'need' to worry about not liking a game as I can often play it first on Game Pass and wait until its at a price I am happy to pay - especially with Game Pass Discounts - so less 'risk'. I didn't waste money on Redfall for example to worry about not liking it, not getting my 'moneys' worth, not 'finishing' or wanting to play, not worry about committing money and then trying to recuperate through selling/trade in...
Re: PS5 Is €100 Off in Some European Countries, Suggesting Hardware Revision Is Coming
I can see them ditching the built in Disc Drive version of the PS5 and selling an 'official' DD you can plug in if you want 'Physical'.
Digital sales are increasing and now the most popular way to purchase games. Discs are only printed for a select group of 'next' gen gamers - PS5 Disc and Series X. PC, Series S and PS5 Digital owners won't buy Physical. Even those with Disc drives are increasingly buying Digitally.
Discs these days are pretty useless. They have the worst often Beta version of a Game with patches and fixes planned for Day 1 - let alone all the patches, content etc they add after launch. That's assuming you even get the 'game' on Disc - often its 'some' content but needs to be connected to the internet to download the rest so you may not be able to 'play' if/when consoles get 'turned off' from Online services...
Therefore its mostly for the Back Compat with older games you didn't buy Digitally. Discs are almost obsolete apart from for Collectors and those still 'clinging' on to the Physical, that option to 'sell' or trade-in but the majority are purchasing Digitally now and with increasing numbers buying Hardware without DD's too (PS5, Series S and even PC's don't often have DD's these days), Physical is likely to drop lower and could eventually disappear altogether from 'modern' gaming.
Re: PS Plus Essential Games for July 2023 Available to Download Now
I got CoD Cold War as part of my PS5 bundle and beat Alan Wake on the 360 so wasn't too bothered about either game. I never got round to opening the Cellophane on the box for Cold War - but I did intend to play the Campaign at some point...
I'll add 'both', maybe all 3 to my Library but I don't know if I'll bother playing any...
Re: Poll: Are You Happy with Your PS Plus Essential Games for July 2023?
The games themselves are 'ok', not bad considering I get these 'free' as compensation for having to pay a Sub fee to play ALL the Content in Games I bought to play ALL the content.
That being said, I have Cold War as it came with my 'PS5' bundle - although its still in its cellophane wrapper and have beaten Alan Wake on the XB360 so wasn't really bothered about playing a Remaster. The other game has an interesting concept but I doubt I'll get round to seeing if its worth 'playing'.
I'll probably add all 3 to my Library regardless but whether I play them or not, time will tell.
Re: Sony Eager to Ensure PS Plus Remains Relevant and Offers More Value
@blah01 That's 'part' of the plan of the Subscription Service - get you to try games you may not have 'bought' and then feel obliged to buy them to 'finish' when you can no longer access them.
You are putting Pressure on yourself to complete it before it leaves to avoid that. If, like me, you don't care about finishing games - if they are good enough you will, then it doesn't matter. For me, with GPU (inc EA Access) on PC/Xbox and ANY 'cloud' device as well as PS+ Essential/Gold given me 'games' every month, I don't need a service that only has maybe 1 or 2 games that 'maybe' I'd have played IF I didn't have hundreds of other games to play...
Re: Rumour: Bungie Wants Marathon on PS5 to Be the Ultimate Live Service Game
Nothing about it appealed to me at all. The reveal trailer did nothing for me, if anything it actually puts me off and lost my interest very quickly - in fact I've tried to watch it several times since because its instantly forgettable.
They do at least have their 'reputation' and of course Sony's too, but they are competing in a very competitive genre with many options for Gamers - ones that are Free to Play and/or much more 'Grounded' in reality.
Each to their own of course but with many options, some F2P too (like Warzone DMZ), its going to have to do something 'special' to attract and 'keep' an audience engaged otherwise it will 'die' as its solely dependent on having a Large pool of Gamers playing regularly...
Re: Sony Eager to Ensure PS Plus Remains Relevant and Offers More Value
I understand that Sony are predominantly a Sales based business so we won't get their Games into their Sub service (like Game Pass) but allowing me to 'stream' games at PS5 quality (even if reduced to 1080/60) anywhere - especially 'digitally' owned games and a 'selection' of Games they choose (even if they are older games and a range of 3rd Party - some new maybe?), for a 'reasonable' cost, I'd consider upgrading from what I have to pay to access the full content in games I have bought to play on that Platform - essential it is.
As it stands now, the extra cost to me is not worth it. Most of the Games I 'would' really want to play, I have played and the few I maybe would play, but haven't are not games that I'm willing to Subscribe to, just to play...
I know others will get a LOT from those Extra tiers and I can say that 'Extra' looks Great Value as it is - I personally don't feel I will get that value back over time. Having the ability to log into my 'Playstation' account and Play any Playstation Game I own anywhere on any device 'somehow' or at least add their games Day 1, become more Service focused, I'd rather just 'buy' what I want to play on PS5 at a Price I want to pay (so usually Physical) and keep my Sub money as LOW as possible.
I'm sure everyone has a different opinion on what they'd want to get them to subscribe to 'higher' tiers - and others who think that those higher tiers are worth every penny as they are now too...
Re: Sony Says Not Making PS5, PS4 Exclusives Free with PS Plus on Day One Is a Strategy That's Working
Of course its working for a 'Sales' focussed Business like Sony. They are still getting Subscribers, but also not affecting their 'Sales'. The whole point about NOT putting games in a Sub service day/date is to maximise the SALES.
You want to play Spider-Man 2 on day/date, you must buy (or at least have bought) a PS5 and must buy the game. Therefore that maximises SALES. Once that game is no longer 'selling' Hardware and Software sales are at a 'trickle', use that game to get even more Sales to PC gamers and use it to sell Subscriptions on PS5 to maximise Profits.
Microsoft, therefore Game Pass, is a Different Business model, more Service Driven where the point is not to maximise Sales but to maximise the playerbase in your Ecosystem. It doesn't matter if you don't 'buy' a Console and buy the game - as long as you are in their 'ecosystem'. Being available on a 'service' impacts SALES of Hardware as you don't 'need' to buy the Console or the Software as you don't need to Pre-order or buy the game to play it.
Its a different business model and whilst Sony operates their Business as a 'Sales' based business, rather than a more Service focused Business like MS, this 'model' of not putting their games day/date into PS+ makes the most sense and would 'work' best for them.
Not saying Service based is better than Sales based (or vice versa) - its just a different way to operate, therefore the differences in things like 'Services' (MS putting their games into GP day/date, releasing on PC etc) and 'Sales' (must buy the single Console Hardware its releasing on and/or must buy the Game as 'services' are not supported at launch) is just down to their 'different' business model.
Re: Sorry, But Games Are Probably Going to Take Longer Than Ever to Make on PS5
@get2sammyb Ghost of Tsushima also released 6yrs after Infamous 2nd Son. Guerilla took 5yrs between Zero Dawn and Forbidden West and God of War Ragnarok over 4yrs despite both of these being 'Sequels' with no doubt Assets, scripts, animations etc that can be carried forward.
Spider-Man 2 may be turned round 'quickly' but they have a LOT of assets they can reuse and tweak if necessary - a lot quicker than building from scratch.
The indications are that games are taking 4yrs+ and some longer than 6yrs too...
Whether 'new' engines and focussing on 'new' hardware makes game development quicker - especially if you aren't required to bake in lighting, make different LoD models etc etc - or not, we will see, but I can't think of many Studios turning round games 'quickly' unless they are 'sequels' with 'minor' changes (like annual Sports games)
Re: When Is Ubisoft Forward 2023?
Ubisoft shows can be quite entertaining although I doubt they'll be showing anything that I will consider a 'day 1' purchase. AC: Mirage and Avatar are the ones I'm most interested in seeing more of but have no interest in Skull n Bones, that new PoP or the Crew but nothing that I think will tempt me to purchase at least in the first 2-3 months of release, if at all...
Re: Preview: Ignore the Snark, Foamstars Is Good
I'm sure there will be some that enjoy this game - but whether its enough to keep the game going and constantly keep the lobbies full of players, I don't know and have my doubts.
I can say with certainty that it has no appeal to me and even if it was 'Free' (F2P, Free on a Subscription etc), its not something I would play. There will always be something I'd prefer to be playing in my backlog, let alone all the other games on sale
Re: Sorry Physical Fans! The New Like a Dragon May Be Digital Only on PS5, PS4
With Digital purchases now so much more popular, as well as 'most' hardware being 'digital' only (PC, PS5 Digital and Series S) they are only printing PS5 and Series X versions for Physical release.
Its really only those who choose/prefer to buy Physical on PS5/Series X that are affected - the rest will buy Digitally and its not as if those who 'prefer' Physical can't play if they really wanted to. Making Physical discs, the costs etc for the 'few' that will ONLY buy Physical as the rest will just buy Digitally if they want to play - even if they wait for sales maybe isn't worth the it for something that may only sell a few 100k Physically at best...
Games don't run off of Physical media - its just a way to deliver the Code to the customer these days - like downloading is. It has to be installed on internal Storage to 'run' so the 'disc' is nothing but a 'licence' to verify you have valid access to the installed software on the SSD.
In fact, nowadays, the disc doesn't even need to have the game code on it at all and rarely these days have something you'll want or even can 'play' without online access to update, patch and/or download/install the [rest of the] software as its not all on the disc.
If you bought Cyberpunk 2077, Gotham Knights etc on Disc would you really want to play the 'software' on Disc in 20yrs time when you can't update it? Its nothing but a 'coaster' then...
Re: Jurassic World Evolution 2 (PS5) - Dinosaur Park Builder Sequel Delivers
I'll add it to my PS+ library but not sure I'll get round to trying it...
Re: Poll: Are You Playing Diablo 4?
Never really got into Diablo or the many Diablo like games there are. I have never finished any of the games I started. Diablo 3 I played the most of any of them but after a while I get bored of the game-play loop and then move on to something else. Once I leave, the Game-play loop and story don't appeal more than many other games in my backlog, let alone 'newer' games I have access too, so I haven't felt compelled to return.
As such, I won't be buying Diablo 4 - especially not an 'online only' game in a genre and series I don't particularly enjoy, but not adverse to 'trying' it without paying for it (a gift from someone, a Sub Service or some competition prize I won). So I doubt I'll be playing anytime soon either...
If it's your thing, As long as you are happy and enjoying it, that's all that matters - can't say that about many games at launch these days...
Re: Random: Thought PSVR2 Was Expensive? Apple's Vision Pro Is Here to Hold Your Beer
@Alpine021 Its not their eyes - its a screen on the outside too and uses a '3D' scan of your face. That scan creates a 'virtual' version of you and because of all the sensors monitoring your face inside, its then mapping your movement to the Virtual version.
Face Time too isn't using your 'real' face, its using the 3D virtual 'you'. That's why you don't see the Device strapped to peoples faces. The unit is opaque, you can't see through it and others can't look through from the outside either. It has 2 cameras, one for each eye on the outside too so that it can display the 'outside' world inside the headset. Cameras tracking your eyes inside are using that data to 'animate' the eyes on the outside...
Its part of the set-up process - scan your face to create your digital 'avatar' version of you.
Re: Random: Thought PSVR2 Was Expensive? Apple's Vision Pro Is Here to Hold Your Beer
@gaston Just because it can recognise what is on you Macbook and can then transfer it to the Headset is not the same as necessitating the Hardware as its 'required' to run the software. Its more like it recognises the content on Macbook and switches from 'Augmented Reality' to 'Virtual Reality' as it opens it up on the Headset. The difference is that this is running the software on the 'Headset'.
Its not 'just' acting as a 'display' - its also running the software independently from the Macbook. In other words, you could turn off the Macbook and still continue to work, play etc. You turn off the PS5, PSVR2 is useless. Its more like linking several Computers together and being able to seamlessly switch between them. Of course, if you only have the 'Vision Pro', its still a 'Computer' in its own right, still able to work 'independently'.
If you don't own ANY Apple Products, its still a Standalone device that doesn't need to be hooked up or connected to any other devices to actually function as intended. Its not just a VR/AR display but a Computer built into a headset.
Yes you can do all of that on a flat screen iPad or Macbook, but that's not the point. Those devices don't handle 3D or VR/AR at all - not without additional purchases (HTC Vive for example) but this is 'built' in. I am willing to bet that most people don't own an Apple 'computer', preferring 'Windows' PC's - at most they may have iPhones and/or Apple Watches.
This is much more akin to strapping an iPad Pro to your face with all the apps and capabilities that offers (M2 Chip), but adds '3D' and Spatial 'computing' (the R1 chip) to deliver VR and AR functionality too.
Its still expensive, but then a Macbook or iPad Pro can't deliver 4k visuals on what seems like a Massive home theatre screen, can't deliver 3D on its 2D display etc...
You can buy 'just' the Vision Pro and get all the Features, Functionality etc from this single Apple Product. If you just buy PSVR2, its completely useless without a PS5. If Sony built a PS5 into their PSVR2 headset so it can operate independently as a complete 'PS5' without needing to purchase a PS5, that would be a more realistic comparison. But considering this is a fully contained Apple Mac Computer in a bespoke and small form factor, its not 'unreasonably' priced.
Re: Random: Thought PSVR2 Was Expensive? Apple's Vision Pro Is Here to Hold Your Beer
@lindos Considering the specs are not really known at this point, its difficult to compare to their laptops and iPads. It has the M2 chip in it - the same as is found in the iPad Pro's and best Macbooks which can cost over 1500 - depending on Screen size and Storage configurations. Point is, its an Apple 'Computer' in a Headset form factor.
It also has an additional chip - an R1 chip - to handle all the Mixed Reality processing. Its literally an Apple Macbook/iPad Pro you can strap to your face and use.
You can watch the entire presentation here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx5Ud9WkvGQ
Re: Random: Thought PSVR2 Was Expensive? Apple's Vision Pro Is Here to Hold Your Beer
One is literally just a peripheral for a 'Console' and completely useless without also purchasing the Console. Its pretty much designed purely for gaming and pretty much just a 'screen'. Nothing runs 'locally' on it.
The other is a Complete Apple Mac Laptop built into the headset to be completely self contained and much more varied in what its designed to offer. This is your Apple Mac, iPhone, iPod etc and able to run software locally - not just 'games', not 'just' a leisure device. Its a Standalone Apple Mac in a unique form factor - built into a 'headset'.
Therefore the price is perhaps more understandable. PSVR2 is very expensive for a peripheral to a Console but Apples Vision Pro isn't that 'unreasonable' considering its an Apple Computer in a new Form Factor - still 'expensive' as ALL Apple products are, but not bad as a new way to Macbook...
Re: Microsoft Bigwig Hoping to Voice Frustration to UK Politicians Over $69 Billion Buyout Block
@GamingFan4Lyf That proves my point - being 'first' doesn't guarantee them to dominate - even with their own IP's inc those they acquired from Bethesda/ABK. Xbox Cloud is never going to offer Mario, Zelda, Pokemon etc, never offering Sony's IP's either so they can 'compete' with their OWN IP's at any time.
Its not the right time for 'others' considering they are dominating the Hardware market, don't 'need' to offer a Cloud option - especially as 'both' companies have their own solution to play 'your' games anywhere - Nintendo Switch by 'design' has that functionality and Sony offer 'Remote' play.
MS's 'Cloud' service only lets you play about half of the Game Pass Library games - not games you 'own' and have no say on when those games can be 'streamed'. You can 'buy' CoD on Xbox, but if it leaves Game Pass Cloud, you can't continue to stream with Xbox.
Its such a 'small' Library that consumers have no choice over that it makes no sense to block. They have assessed that theses games won't 'harm' competition in the Physical space yet block it on the grounds of Cloud where its an 'Open' market. MS doesn't control the internet or Streaming technology either so can't prevent others from setting up their OWN cloud service.
The reason they don't or haven't is because it doesn't factor into their Business plan yet. Its not 'worth' their time/money etc to 'compete' with MS when they are 'dominating' in Sales and users willing to spend '$70+' on a game instead of paying a 'small' monthly fee to stream a selection of games chosen by themselves.
All these PS fanboys are not going to 'miss out' on CoD, Overwatch, Diablo etc because MS has committed to bringing those games to 'every' service, every platform they can. Even though Sony 'refused' to sign a deal, MS is still committed to release CoD on Playstation so PS fanboys can still play CoD on their 'prefered' platform, Sony still gets their cut too. ALL these deals have been to bring ABK games to platforms they are NOT on - not removing them from the 'few' platforms they currently exist on. Therefore CoD will remain on Playstation, still be sold by Sony so they still get their '30%' for owning Playstation. Therefore I don't understand why Sony Fanboys are supportive of the CMA despite 40 other regions passing it.
Its more likely that Sony gamers as well as Xbox gamers in the UK could 'miss out' because of blocking. Let alone Nintendo gamers and any of those other Cloud services in the UK specifically. If Activision pulls out of the UK, then it affects ALL gamers. MS are looking to bring CoD to 'more' platforms so more gamers can play through whatever devices and/or costs they can afford. The 'best' option will still be 'premium' Hardware offering up to 4k PQ and up to 120fps performance. Cloud is 1080/60 at best and has additional lag/latency...
Re: Microsoft Bigwig Hoping to Voice Frustration to UK Politicians Over $69 Billion Buyout Block
@MattBoothDev Blocking something on the grounds of a Hypothetical future with no evidence or factual backing to support that reasoning is extremely Petty.
They decided that the Hardware market would NOT be negatively impacted, meaning that Sony and Nintendo can 'compete' for Hardware consumers whether MS decides not to release ABK games on their Hardware as they have their OWN IP's that will pull consumers in. Zelda, Mario, Pokemon, Uncharted, Spider-Man, Wolverine, Last of Us etc etc etc - Games those Companies can use to create their OWN streaming service to Compete - IF they believe that Cloud is the future. Games that will 'never' be on a Microsoft Cloud service.
Azure is just one option open to the likes of Sony, EA, Ubisoft, Nintendo etc - they could partner with Amazon or Google. Sony could build their OWN servers too - the same way MS has by using XB1X APU chips as 'blades' on a server. If they used their PS5 APU's, they could run every PS5 game (inc PS4 via BC) and stream to ANY device. Nothing is stopping them from 'competing' if they believe that is the 'future' of gaming. However, cloud is barely 'adequate' right now and the 'majority' of Gamers use Hardware. Those that use Cloud, use it to play games when they can't play on Hardware - not their main/primary way.
Therefore the decision to block on the grounds of 'Cloud' - which is an 'open' platform, not locked to Microsoft, and based on the tiny market share of IP's and Studios, the ONLY games MS can really offer in their service (a portion of which are ALSO available ANYWHERE and in 'competing' cloud services) are the ones they OWN, is NOT preventing Competition, not preventing anyone else from investing in Cloud services so it is extremely petty. Its like saying no-one can compete with Netflix - yet it never stopped others from jumping into Cloud services...
MS can't prevent Sony, EA, Nintendo, Embracer, TakeTwo etc etc from setting up competing Cloud services just because they now own ABK and as already stipulated, offering ANY 10yr License Free deals to any Cloud based company - after already stating that they will continue releasing and supporting ABK games on Playstation, bring them to Nintendo and continue selling on Steam too
Re: Microsoft Bigwig Hoping to Voice Frustration to UK Politicians Over $69 Billion Buyout Block
@get2sammyb Its actually Activision too willing to 'Pull out' of the UK to get the deal through as don't forget its not MS aggressively seeking to take-over ABK, ABK themselves also voted unanimously to sell to MS.
Its an 'option'. If the CMA want to be 'petty' about their reasoning behind them 'blocking' the deal, then MS AND ABK together will be looking at ALL the ways they can get this deal through. They have never stated they intended to 'pull' anything from Hardware, even offering 10yr license free deals to ANYONE to alleviate 'hypothetical' what if 'scenarios' that don't currently 'exist' - if these 'fail', through pettiness, the Solutions to ease hypothetical non-existent scenarios, then they may have to consider more 'extreme' or equally as 'petty' measures - they have 'tried' to provide Solutions to ease concerns and have NO INTENTION of not selling CoD on PS5 so Sony can keep selling CoD, keep getting revenue etc. Don't forget that 40 other regions so far have passed this deal.
Of course this deal affects 'UK' gamers on BOTH Xbox/PS hardware. Sony had the option to sign a deal guaranteeing ABK games on Playstation and MS has 'never' pulled games from PS either. They may have 'cancelled' on-going development towards a Playstation release, but as it was never announced for, never completed and certainly never 'released' on Playstation, it cannot be 'pulled'. Therefore, these games - like Diablo IV, Overwatch and CoD, as well as that upcoming Crash game would still be on Playstation - basically the only games ABK make these days.
That's already been 'established' and why the CMA have NO concerns about the Physical platforms. They believe that MS owning ABK would somehow prevent Sony, Nintendo or ANY other company from 'competing' on an 'open' platform like Cloud. That somehow, them owning a 'tiny' percentage of ALL IP's, Studios etc would somehow prevent others from 'competing' with their own Cloud options.
As I said, Sony have their own IP's, Nintendo too - all massive IP's that will NEVER be on Xbox Cloud, games those Companies can use to 'compete' with - Just like Disney+ could 'compete' against Netflix, despite Netflix having over 200m subscribers (far more than Xbox Cloud gamers) and a 'big' headstart. If Sony started their OWN Cloud with their OWN exclusives, maybe also added Sony Pictures, Crunchyroll etc too in 'their' service, Sony Fanboys would probably make it the #1 service in terms of Subscriber count....
Re: Shocking: Hideo Kojima Not Involved in Metal Gear Solid 3 Remake
@trev666 Even then I don't know I would be 'more' sceptical as I have never found ANY MGS game to be that 'great' and something I could really get into. I never liked the Humour or could get into the plot. The last one I tried 'multiple' times, MGS4 (both before they added trophy support and several times after) really put me off completely.
I can't think of a 'Kojima' game I like - Castlevania: Lords of Shadow is perhaps the only one I can think of.
Therefore a 'different' studio could 'reboot' MGS in a way that I prefer, even if upsets Kojima fans. Not suggesting they go that route and risk losing the audience that made MGS the success it was, but from my perspective, it can't get 'worse' than a game I have no interest in and not going to buy - it can only get 'better' and pique my interest...
All I was saying though is that the lack of the creators involvement in a remake isn't necessarily a bad thing and hasn't hurt quite a few of the recent 'remakes' bringing 'old' games to a modern audience. Therefore, the lack of Kojima isn't a major disaster for this.
Re: Shocking: Hideo Kojima Not Involved in Metal Gear Solid 3 Remake
To the Shock and Surprise of no-one...
A remake really doesn't need the 'original' developers to be involved as they have the Original as a template. It didn't stop Dead Space or Crash n'sane trilogy from being 'great' despite the original devs not being involved...
Re: Sony Will Have More PS5 Presentations This Year, Sources Say
Based on what we 'understand', I would be surprised if we do have another 'Showcase'. I would expect a State of Play or 2 (Spider-Man 2) but the reality is that 'most' Studio's have released something in the past 2-3yrs and haven't really had the time to perhaps have something to reveal - other than perhaps a CGI trailer announcing what game they are making next but still 'years' away from release.
No doubt they could reveal what Guerrilla is making next, what Santa Monica or Sucker Punch are working on, but then you'd be waiting 2-3 yrs to get some 'game-play' video''s before releasing a year or so later.
Its up to Sony of course - announce what games they have in development but gamers have to wait a LONG time to play them, may end up cancelled or changed etc or wait until they are 'ready' to announce. Its a good job they didn't announce 'everything' with several 'cancellations' of games announced...
Re: Marvel's Spider-Man 2 PS5 Hype Huge As Gameplay Reveal Nears 20 Million Views
@DeepSpace5D That's because EVERY website that links the Video for their 'news' article also contribute to those numbers. You don't have to watch on youtube on their channel, you can probably watch the video on Push Square, on Pure Xbox, on Eurogamer etc etc - all of which adds to their 'view count'.
With this being one of the 'New' games announced from Bungie, their 'first' since joining Sony and with it being a multi-platform release, chances are that a LOT of people will watch - not just PS fanboys either.
Anyway, the fact that these video's get linked everywhere helps the viewer numbers - even if it doesn't help their Subscriber numbers...
Re: Marvel's Spider-Man 2 PS5 Hype Huge As Gameplay Reveal Nears 20 Million Views
I must admit, I was not overly impressed by 'Spider-Man' - it played 'OK' but not really better than Spider-Man 2 (the Treyarch made game) but had to many QTE's, repetition and a lot of the things I hate about Ubisoft Open World games - towers to unlock the map, some awful side quests, terrible 'stealth' sections, etc etc
This looked even less exciting to me. It reminds me of Prototype. The one thing that helped the first is that Sony gave them time to Polish and release a game that's both a solid performer and equally solid visual quality but I don't think it was anything better than an '8/10'. I expect this to be equally 'solid' but I doubt I'll buy it at launch
Re: Bungie’s Marathon Trailer QR Code Leads to ARG with More Hidden Information
Neither the trailer nor the Game description grabbed my interest at all. Of course its still 'early' and they have opportunities to try and win me over but right now, I can't see me playing this at all.
There are plenty of FPS games, plenty of 'Extraction' shooters, inc Free to Play options (like Warzone DMZ for example) and plenty more coming too so Bungie will face stiff competition. I do expect them to nail the FPS mechanics but we will what they will do to stand out from ALL the other FPS PvP games...
Re: PS5's Remote Play Portable Will Allegedly Launch in November
Cloud is 'unlikely' to be the Main Platform of Choice for dedicated gamers. It may become more 'popular', but only because its much more accessible and shouldn't be as 'costly' as Hardware based gaming - but because its 'cheap' and 'accessible' will likely reach those on a more tight budget and/or more 'casual' gamer who can't justify the costs of Hardware gaming.
At 'best', its a 'complimentary' way to play games in places these games would never be playable and on hardware not capable of running the game locally. You are willing to 'tolerate' playing on 'small' screens, putting up with Lag/Latency and even not really caring too much about the Compression artefacts (especially as the screen is small) - because its the 'only' way to play that game in that 'situation'. If you could play 'locally' anywhere, be able to play in areas when Wifi is intermittent or worse etc, that would be preferred but you'll still have a more powerful 'home' set-up - Like a PC or PS5 - to play games at their 'best'.
This is just an 'extension' of the PS5, essentially a more 'elaborate' DS5 with a screen instead of TouchPad to 'connect' to your PS5 to play games remotely. At least with Steam Deck, Switch, RoG Ally etc, they have the option to play locally - which I prefer as 'wifi' is not great 'everywhere'.