BacklogBrad

I would welcome the return of e3. I preferred that experience.

@Ravix some of my favorites are the bethesda backlog like elders scrolls and the doom/wolfenstein reboots. The mass effect trilogy, hitman trilogy, and guardians of the galaxy are some more good ones.

I would suggest trying it when they do a sale (maybe around black friday) where you get a month for $1.

It's not a bad strategy to get one of these subscriptions for 1 or 2 months at a time and binge a few games for before canceling for awhile. That's where the Xbox day 1 is sweet, if you're interested in Starfield you can pay $10 and play it as much as possible for 1 month instead of $60

@awp69 now that i look, that list was from August so it probably got a few more since the Tokyo game show announcements.

@Neverwild shredders, rainbow 6 extraction, crusader kings 3, mlb the show 22, sniper elite 5, a plague tale, total war Warhammer are all arguable "AAA"

@Neverwild barring any more delays, there will be 44 day 1 releases on gamepass in 2022......

(Would have been 49 with the already announced delays) since they are delayed not canceled that is just 5 more for next year or beyond.

@Yupyupyup I'm totally fine with you thinking I am foolish for saying that gamepass is a sweet deal because it is. I think Sony could do more to compete with it but they are choosing a different route.

@Yupyupyup what's the exclusivity window for Xbox? 6 months sometimes 3? Let's face it xbox could afford to make games like Elden Ring exclusive if they wanted but they instead choose games like Scorn and "the Gunk" for only a few months. Timed Exclusivity is not a major focus for xbox like it is for Sony.

Sony also had Kena, deathloop, ghostwire Tokyo, stray, sifu, solar ash, forspoken, knights of the old republic, final fantasy 7 and 16, etc.

Sony could absolutely afford to do the same thing as xbox and pay publishers to put games in there day 1. They just choose to pay publishers to keep games like final fantasy off xbox instead.

That's kind of the difference between the two platforms. Sony wants the plastic box to be as appealing as possible and maintain an ecosystem in one spot. Microsoft wants the service to be as appealing as possible and sell it wherever they can, not just to people with an xbox. Neither strategy is really wrong just a different approach that seems to be working well for both companies.

It's kind of scary to imagine a world for Sony if Xbox was only interested in paying for exclusivity and that's where all their money was going.

Since I also have an Xbox, this subscription doesn't make sense for me. With Gamepass I can play games on pc, on my phone, or in a web browser on day 1.

If the games are not going to launch in the service but once they get to that discount phase, I would much rather just buy them at the discount price. You can buy 5-6 $20 games for the same price as a year sub and the games are yours forever.

@stvevan i believe the rumor stated that devs are working on ports, it didn't mention patches. I translate ports as something you will need to buy again but i guess we will see. Like when Nintendo ports a Wii U, Gamecube, or 3DS game to Switch it is at or near new game price, they don't care if you already own the game on Wii U.

I'm on the fence about this. Psvr1 is my only headset and I thought it was okay. Knowing that my large games library won't be available on this one hurts.

If the headset also works with PC seemlessly I will be more excited but I'm leaning towards a different headset this time around. I feel more confident that developers will offer more support for the larger steam VR audience and I know my games will still be available to me if I upgrade headsets.

Definitely a wait and see situation for me.

This way they can sell us the same games again as "psvr2 versions" priced as a new release.

Sony out there fighting for the consumer again lol.

I'm not sure what to expect from this game at $50. If Ubisoft of all devs decided that a game from its flagship franchise is not worth full price then what does that say about the scope of this game?

Obviously it's not 100 hours like the recent games but ubisoft doesn't seem like a company that would consider a 15-20 hour AAA experience as worth less.

@get2sammyb Microsoft offering a contractual obligation to release a game on their platform for 3 additional years is unprecedented (something Sony would never consider). Isn't what Jim Ryan doing just burning a bridge unnecessarily?

For the record I do generally believe Microsoft would keep releasing COD on PS like they do with Minecraft but I don't think Jim Ryan's warpath is going to help anything between the two companies in the future.

@get2sammyb the odds are long that this deal is actually reversed. Is an attempt to shoot the moon worth it when doing so means you are are literally telling people we are doomed after this?

What happens when the deal is finalized? Smile and say just kidding, please buy a PS5?

Jim Ryan should be reassuring Sony fans that the best games will continue to be on the Playstation platform.

Instead he is choosing to imply that if this deal goes through then people would have no reason to choose playstation in the future. He is making the situation seem bleaker than it is. I think that sends the wrong message and would make any perspective console buyer even more nervous about PS.

He is turning a perspective console buyer from thinking "I MIGHT not have Call of Duty on PS at some point" into "I might not have call of duty and the CEO seems nervous and desperate as h*** about it"

Microsoft doesn't own nearly as much of the gaming industry as embracer or tencent. There is literally zero pushback to those companies expansion.

It's funny how Jim Ryan keeps touting the success of Sony games on Metacritic and award shows but according to him the success of the playstation platform relies solely on one 3rd party game series with middling reviews.

Have some faith in your own company and set out to produce a valid competitor. It's not reassuring at all to hear a CEO say it is not physically possible to compete with another companies game franchise. Nintendo hasn't had Call of Duty for a long time and they don't seem to care in the slightest.

If the statement "this is the first time we’ve seen a product in the games industry directly affected by Brexit" is true and the company says "due to unforeseen changes with Brexit," I would say the company is truly at fault. They should blame their legal team for misinterpreting the law. Seems incorrect to blame anyone other than Bandai Namco when no other gaming company has had this issue.