MFTWrecks

It surprises me sports fans still support these releases. If any genre deserves to shift to F2P, it's sports game. Paying wholesale for a year's access when most annual updates are roster changes and minor gameplay tweaks? Just seems absurd nowadays when the F2P model has proven itself.

You get more meaningful tweaks after 3-4 months of a Fortnite season than you do between most AAA-priced sports titles YOY and those happen 3-4 times a year, not once.

Plus, they're generally laden with tons of add-ons and DLC anyhow... To me, they're some of the least consumer-friendly titles on the market from a business/value perspective.

I know they're probably a bit controversial, but I personally really like the character designs they've come up with for this game. I think a lot of them are interesting interpretations, like this.

Makes me wish MCU Hawkeye was made into more of a badass that leaned into the Ronin persona. Seeing him use swords along with his bow could have made for some cool action sequences.

@DonJorginho It blows my mind that, to fight the narrative/stereotype that Ubisoft games aren't worth buying at launch, they release a major AAA tentpole release in such a busted state that they then spend months overhauling entire underlying systems, resulting in what will (good or bad) feel like a totally different game.

While I will of course commend them for addressing player concerns, the fact they need to perform such a massive systems overhaul so far after release is a testament to just how true that narrative is. Ubisoft games are not worth buying for full price at launch. Full stop. Not only are they less stable, but they could be completely different games mere months after release (let alone cheaper).

If they would just give their dev teams time to cook instead of pushing for specific release dates, they'd probably save boat loads of money in the end AND make more. Right now, there's a bit of a stink on Outlaws (not one of my Star Wars-loving friends even remembers it came out, let alone bought it) that may have been avoided had they simply waited and addressed issues like this before release.

They make a mockery of themselves and then wonder why consumers aren't buying their titles. They're insane.

@tameshiyaku I could see them doing that.

Make a core console the way they always do (PS6). Make a PS6 Mobile unit, as I described (maybe running PS6 games at PS5 tech standards). Then also make an eGPU-powered dock to push the PSM to near-PS6 levels of performance (a gap comparable to, say, PS5 vs PS5 Pro).

It'd be like their ecosystem supported 3 different ways of enjoying PS6 titles: console, handheld w standard dock, handheld + eGPU dock that sort of bridges that gap.

You want full PS6 experience? Buy the console. You want PS6 titles on the go? Buy the PSM. You want the convenience of the PSM but also want the "full/nearly full" PS6 performance for your PSM? Buy the eGPU unit, no console required.

That'd be dope as hell.

If Sony can make a Steamdeck-like system and bring it in around $400-500, I think with their build quality and hardware design, it could truly compete. Even with the "limited" library of their ecosystem compared to PC, it'd make a whole lot of sense.

Make a PS6. All the bells and whistles it deserves. Of course.

But then also have a Steamdeck/Switch-like handheld that plays the same games, but scaled down (just like you get on other handhelds) and is able to be docked to a TV and act like a "lesser" version of the main console. They laid the groundwork for this sort of thing over the years with PSP, PSTV, their streaming acquisitions... Give your consumers a choice of full at-home gaming with all your 8k textures and top tier frame rates etc., but also give them a mobile option for people who want that on the go convenience. Anyone who wants both, have at it, of course.

Some may balk at that idea, but no one can deny the sales success of the Switch, the huge boon to PC gaming that the Steamdeck and its competitors are leading, nor the sales success of the Xbox Series S (compared to its X counterpart). Consumers are outright screaming that "best in show" graphics aren't the end all be all many claimed over the years. Sony should embrace that and cater to that portion of the market with a "lesser" system, but do so in a way that opens up their ability to compete more broadly. Having a two prong strategy would let them compete on multiple fronts and make a real case for staying within the PS ecosystem.

As someone who likes my Switch, my PC, and my PS5 for different reasons, it's not out of the question that I try and scale down on ecosystems/storefronts I'm buying into over the coming years (just like I ditched Xbox at the beginning of this generation after 3 hardware generations of support). Consolidating into/under Sony is an argument they stand to make more appealing to someone like me. And they should be making it. This sort of strategy could do that for them.

My gut tells me they'll ***** it up, though, and overcharge simply because they think they can. And it'll ruin the effort more or less. Their hubris is legendary.

I don't understand why big AAA-producing studios don't take a page out of the playbook of competitors (especially smaller ones) and do stuff like release a Battlefield game in Early Access. Put it out there for a year+ to work with players and their feedback and craft something that truly hits a mark.

I mean, Delta Force is out in beta/alpha form, trying to eat Battlefield's lunch and may very well launch in a better state than the last few Battlefield titles because of it.

The hubris some of these developers have is beyond me. It's like they truly believe they know better than the people they're trying to woo to buy their game and then they get surprised when they release stuff that players don't like or even want.

@PuppetMaster So not at all what I'm talking about. Right.

@DonJorginho Shut the thread down. This is it. This is the entire argument.

If a full/"base" game is required to play, then it's not a game. It is DLC and should be judged as such. Is a Helldiver Warbond or Fortnite Battlepass eligible by their logic?

Games should be judged against games. DLC should be judged against DLC, so make a category for it.

If they want them to compete head on, then make some sort of "Best Gaming Experience" category and let them go head to head that way. But by default - and definition - DLC is NOT a game. Therefore it shouldn't be eligible for GOTY. Period.

Sony really needs to up its merchandise game. The fact they don't have a reliable manufacturing partner pumping out quality figures and toys for their brands has always been a huge gaping hole in their brand strategy, imo.

Where is a decently-priced Marvel Legends-like line of Playstation favorites for new and classic IPs?

I find it disingenuous you're asking this question while framing it using the sales of a game that, while surely a smaller budget game, didn't review all too well in a crowded market.

I think what the general market always wants is, above all else: good games. I'm sorry, but I rarely have the time, money, or patience to put up with a 6-7/10 game, unless it's dirt cheap and I buy it on a complete whim. (Or because it's very niche and that niche happens to be in my personal sweet spot.)

I think there's a HUGE opportunity for A-AA titles (and even "lesser ones!) IF the expectations are in check. Banishers looked fine. It did not look full-price fine to me, though. So I'm waiting on a sale. Simple as.

I'm a frugal shopper. I'm not going to spend $70 (or whatever full price is) on damn near anything. Ever. If a company wants that of me, they better be providing me extraordinary value for my money.

In regards specifically to this hobby, the issue is that while I'd certainly love to play the next big AAA game every time one drops, I simply know I don't have to because my backlog is a mile long (and growing) and I can grab loads of great stuff on sale ages after release.

A $70 AAA blockbuster doesn't compete 1:1 with everything else. It competes 1:5-10+ sometimes because of how many things I can grab on sale. No one game has ever been better than 5+ games, collectively. My tastes are too broad for that.

The tallneck already adorns the top of my bookshelf. I may need to get this just to add some more machines to the space, despite the fact I don't think these are as well-designed as the tallneck is. I'm guessing they're dumbing some of the designs down to keep the prices reasonable, which will be important if they truly try to broaden the Horizon lineup.

The disparity between the tone of the game I want to play and the visual gibberish COD promotes actively got me to give up on the series. They tricked me with the MW2 hype/reviews being decent, but I got annoyed by this visual attack (amongst other issues) and I'm simply done with the series for good.

If I want to play a military shooter, I don't want aaaaaaaaaaaany of that stuff in my game. None of it. It's not cool. It's not funny. It's all like a massive middle finger to the tone and atmosphere of the game. It's like skins are designed for people who want to visually troll others. And that's just not a community I need to partake in.

Here's a wild strategy: try advertising it?

I only ever see this game pop up once every quarter or so when a randomly popular character gets added. I see nothing about it otherwise, anywhere.

Meanwhile, I can't scroll through enthusiast websites anywhere on the web without being hit for ads for countless mobile cash grabs and huge game releases. Hell, I see more ads for games that get expansions/DLC than I do for stuff like this.

@ThomasHL Exactly this.

The fact they thought they could launch a multiplayer game from an unproven developer with a new IP without any serious amounts of player testing and feedback??

Concord could have been "the new Sony" by showing up on the market as another early access title that looks to grow and learn and deliver on what fans want. Soooooo many multiplayer games do this nowadays. Why does Sony think it's better than what is proving to be successful for many competitors already in-market?

Wait. An unproven developer with a brand new IP building a paid multiplayer-only title in a crowded market dominated by F2P titles should have performed alpha and beta testing? What incredible insight.

The fact they still need to learn this is all you need to know about how well Sony's live service development process is going and their hubris.

The best parts of AC are the historic parts. Always have been. No one needs the narrative to be as directly connected as Ubisoft thinks. Just throw us into wildly different and interesting points in history and have us play as someone who was there, performing Assassin Guild (or whatever) stuff in the background. Explain weird historical anomalies and events as Assassin-influenced, then move on to the next time period. No one needs the stuff so directly connected and we DEFINITELY don't need it tied to the modern day UNLESS the overarching setting is more modern.

@NEStalgia Yeah, instead you'd throw quarters into the same machine over and over to play the same game over and over in hopes you could put three letters on a scoreboard that could easily get wiped if the power went out or the cabinet was reset.

A much more sensible use of one's money, surely.

Let's not act like playing videogames has ever been anything but dumb if you really think about it. It's all for fun and entertainment. Let people enjoy the stuff they enjoy, eh?

Two of my most anticipated upcoming titles. I reeeeally hope MSFT launches PD on PS5. PD is my favorite (and most played) N64 title of all time. I HATED the Xbox 360 sequel. So I'm really hoping this new one can nail what it's going for.

When has Ubisoft (or any dev, for that matter) admitted to launching their game in a horrid state? Do these companies admit they're about to lay an egg? (CDPR didn't warn anyone about Cyberpunk. Sony called Concord the future of Playstation.)

It doesn't matter what Ubisoft SAYS. It matters what they DO. And what they've been doing for years is releasing titles under-cooked and laden with horrible mtx and poorly implemented (and often broken) gameplay systems that got old half a generation ago.

I'll be utterly shocked if Shadows is even CLOSE to as good as Ghost of Tsushima, let alone the sequel coming around the corner. Ubisoft got left in the dust with this one. They desperately need to embolden actual creators to refresh their titles.

Their designs have become rote and stale and their competitors are taking their designs and improving upon them while they just cut and paste different aspects to try and create something "new" and "compelling" when all it really ends up being is a mishmash of well-trodden ideas without a cohesive vision.

I'm not the biggest AC fan, but I keep my eye on the series because they sometimes do manage to knock one out of the park with regard to how it piques my interests (Origins and Odyssey were awesome imo). Shadows couldn't be further off my radar if it tried. I don't even fully hate Ubisoft. Farcry and Division are some of my favorite shooters of all time. I've put loads of hours into them and even Siege. Hell, Ghost Recon Wildlands was a friggin' BLAST to play with my buddies. There's just no spark in Ubisoft games anymore. You buy one and you can bet your ass you've seen every single gameplay mechanic and system before in an older Ubisoft game (or a competitor's title), but with odd changes for no reason. They design by copy and pasting ideas. Just reshuffling what's been done before. They haven't innovated (or recognized their own innovation) in YEARS. And their reputation shows it.

Hulst is the one who pushed for these investments and now he fires hundreds of people while releasing "statements" and sitting safely at the top.

Dude is the one who needs to be let go. Guy has no clue what he's doing at the level he's at. He's actively harming Sony as a brand/force within the market.

Keep your Gears and Halo. Give me State of Decay, Avowed, and Perfect Dark and I'll be ecstatic.

Remember, folks, it was the market's fault for this not selling as well as they expected.

@freddquadros It happened all the time to me in AC Origins. And it plagued The Division 1+2.

@freddquadros Notifications firing for old information has plagued Ubisoft titles for well over a decade.

I don't see why Sony would harbor such a broad collection of IP and collect such a stable of development houses to then limit each of them to one, maybe two, games a generation. And generally keep them limited to a single IP, as well.

Let passionate teams pick and choose whatever they want from the collection. And license the IP out to 3rd parties who can work closely with Sony the way Nintendo does it.

Create those sorts of relationships and that strategy and it'd broaden the output quite a bit and deliver some bangers and reignite interest in various titles that otherwise don't see the light of day.

They seem to be SUPREMELY selective in recent years and it's like they would rather throw development costs to the wind and eating the costs instead of putting something out there that they don't think will set the world on fire. And while that's admirable, it's also not sustainable. It's okay to have some B tier releases every now and then that can turn a profit, even if they're not all-timers.

I agree, to a point. That is very true in the AAA space, but I think there's a load of creativity just a "tier" of quality or 2 below that space.

I vote with my wallet and avoid most AAA boondoggles these days. Or at least wait until they're at a reasonable asking price.

I usually have a lot more fun with games in the $20 space than I do with those that are $60 and above. It's a matter of perception as a consumer. I won't feel (as) cheated if I have a bad time playing a $20 game from a smaller studio. But if I'm paying $70+, I expect top dollar performance and experience. Very few games deliver that, so I just wait and get 'em cheap, if at all.

@Northern_munkey Seriously. Patience has been the key to success as a gaming consumer for well over 2 generations. Whether you think $60-70 is "too high" or not doesn't matter if you are frugal. It literally pays to wait. Has for ages.

People currently pay top dollar for the worst version of a game 99% of the time. Most games are tricking you into be a paying (not paid!) beta tester as they release with bugs and balance issues, and only fix them weeks or months down the line, if at all. Sometimes that process can even take years or worse, it never comes.

By the time a game truly becomes stable and smoothed out, they can normally be had for 33%+ off the original price. Often times much more.

As a dude with a family and a job, I have no clout to chase. I have no reason to jump in day one (let alone day -3). I wait patiently and play games slightly behind the times and I love it. I save money, I get smoother experiences overall, and it helps me wade through the BS games that weren't going to be worth my time anyhow. (It also lets me play games completely straight through because I can get GOTY or all-in-one editions and not have to jump back into old games after long stretches between DLC drops.)

Plus, it affords me the chance to play a wider selection of titles, because my money stretches further. I'm also willing to take more chances when the purchase price is down to the $20 range. I rarely need to think about the value I get because I'm rarely being suckered into spending multiple times that on something that ends up not being fun for me.

I'm pretty sure I have only paid full price, upfront for 2 titles all generation, but they were long term purchases I KNEW I'd get my value from (Remnant 2 and Diablo 4 - no regrets, those games are my JAM). Otherwise... why bother, ya know?

That's a $10 arcade game purchase in a heartbeat for me and my buddies. That is nowhere close to a "full price game purchase + DLC add-on" purchase.

Seems supremely dumb to design something like that and then willingly kneecap its potential market/playerbase.

This has been discussed in enthusiast circles, on numerous blogs, for literal years. This is not a new take nor point.

Just because PS doesn't discuss it doesn't mean no one talks about it.

I tried it at launch for a while (because free) and it simply didn't feel good to play. They had years of development and betas and feedback and still launched a shooter with egregious netcode and hit registration issues.

If you can't compete with THE single most important aspect of a multiplayer title, why even bother? Nothing else was nearly good enough to overshadow those fundamental flaws.

I always loved the art style of this game, but didn't want to commit to an MMO. I'm happy to see it converted to single player (and co-op friendly) ARPG experience.

I've got a lot on my plate at the moment, but this is officially on my radar.

@gollumb82 I have a physical copy of Kena I'm trying to sell...

@MrPeanutbutterz Yeah. It's a different mentality. And the design philosophy is purposeful. It serves a specific point/mindset.

That arcade philosophy is why I love a ton of rogue likes. I see them as the bridge between classic "one more round" arcade experiences and modern "have to build up and progress" RPGs. My tastes land right there in that sweet spot.

Hardest part about Kill Knight is going to be which platform I snag it for. I can see wanting it on the go on my Switch, but I'd also love it on my PC where I can take a break from work and bust out a run. Decisions, decisions...

I love when arcade games get called repetitive.

Oh, the levels are the same thing every time and your actions are limited and repetitive? Yeah. That's the point.

What would a modern review of OG classics Pac-man or Centipede or Asteroids look like with that modern mentality?

$60 for a 9 year old game. Who could have possibly thought this wouldn't sell well?? Hmm...

I got this free on PC (thanks, Epic) and look forward to giving it an hour or two like I gave Gotham Knights before realizing it was utterly awful and barely worth the download.

WB will be lucky if Rocksteady can ever recover the lost good will with the Arkham IP. They've absolutely slaughtered it.

Maybe what they need is a game in the same style or with the same mechanics, but with a tweak to the story or something. Not totally devoid of Batman, but more like Batman Beyond or an adaptation of a specific storyline like Long Halloween.

No clue. But I hope they can get it together. The Arkham gameplay is still top notch in my book.

Ah, yes! That would be the type of innovative gameplay we can expect from Ubisoft these days: co-op.

Some consulting agency is going to get paid millions of dollars to write a report with the most straightforward information you can imagine and present it to the clueless Microsoft brass.

@KeanuReaves This here. This is what makes the greats... great.

I have gotten back into Remnant 2 and that is a game with rich mechanics, solid gameplay, and so many moving pieces behind the scenes. You can effectively play the game "casually" and have a great time, no question. Play with whatever you come across. OR you can go REALLY deep into its systems to extract specific, targeted items and mechanics and surprises. It's an absolute all-timer for me. The joy per hour (or maybe joy/satisfaction for effort) quotient is so friggin' high.

The base game was already my GotY 2023. But even just its first DLC (only just finished it) is raising the overall package to top tier of the generation for me because of its depth, surprises, and rock solid gameplay.

More developers need to take heed of what Gunfire Games is doing. They are sleeping giants of creativity and design.

This is giving me Returnal/Control/The Surge vibes. And I am here for it.

This is atrocious and Sony should be ashamed of themselves. This is going to annoy the ever living ***** out of me.

As long as it plays more like Zero Dawn than Forbidden West, I'll at least keep an eye on it.

The biggest thing that worries me, though, is the longstanding evidence/rumors that this will change up the art style and lean into some sort of anime-inspired design.

Despite what flaws I think the gameplay is riddled with after Forbidden West, the art direction is NOT one of them. I think the aesthetic is still one of the best out there. And Decima as an engine can be breathtaking. So I just don't get why they'd (seemingly) abandon that for some sort of cartoon or anime-stylized look.

If that is where they land, then that would probably be the biggest thing to kill my interest. The early footage did NOT look good to me.

Anyone who has played Siege knows full well that Ubisoft's skin designs are atrocious and rarely worth money.

Says the guy whose company had at least 2 standard placements for X before they built a controller and they chose neither.

Has Ubisoft tried polishing and improving games before they release to tepid sales? Maybe they should give THAT a try some time.

They went really hard into that singular body type design for the robots. I'm not really a fan of playing as a mechanical jelly bean. Looks goofy as hell.

They should have tried designing a better game.

I mean... this is pretty emblematic of Ubisoft's deeper problem: it took them until a tepid response to a Star Wars game in the year of our lord 2024 to realize releasing janky ass games loaded with problems is not a path to financial success.

Ubisoft games have been riddled with poorly thought out systems and engine jank and glitches and copy paste design for yeeeeeeeeears. But it finally caught up to them.

They were never going to fix things when people still plopped down money for their *****. And sure enough, they didn't at any broad level. But the market got wise to it and NOW they want to act like they're doing the right thing for the players. But their history shows they've never really embraced that mentality at all.

This is purely to stave off what they knew would be considerable criticism of a game they NEED to be successful. That's it. They're giving away expansions because no one was pre-ordering Shadows and no one was paying even more for the season pass. Not at the numbers they expected or needed. This isn't in good faith.

I think the problems at Ubisoft run far deeper than the rampant sexual assault allegations. That surely wasn't helping, but the bigger problem is management. That's apparent. They've had years to course correct but what have we really seen since? Immortals (undersold), Farcry 6 (awful step backwards in design and a tepid response to its release), an Avatar game that is copy paste Farcry Primal (undersold expectations), a Prince of Persia remake (delayed indefinitely due to jank), Skull & Bones (horrendously undersold expectations after years of turmoil), a solid "classic" PoP (well-received but undersold), a "back to basics" AC Mirage (undersold), a Division spinoff that got canned before it ever released, XDefiant (great launch, DEEP design problems they never addressed during years of betas and now its player numbers are cratering), Outlaws (undersold), and this... probably even more I can't think of.

I can't name a single Ubisoft game that far exceeded expectations since their scandals broke. AC Valhalla probably? But even that isn't the most beloved by the broader AC fandom because it was considered heavily bloated (after multiple titles that were also considered heavily bloated).

Their issues run DEEP and they are still present. That's abundantly clear to anyone paying attention.

@dark_knightmare2 Funny. I didn't mention the combat as being the problem. Concerned someone has a different opinion than you? You hafta white knight for a videogame now?

As long as they didn't tweak the gameplay to play like Forbidden West. I still can't believe what a downgrade that sequel was.