Oz_Who_Dat_Dare

@ATaco to be fair... I think there's a real risk of it. Sony aren't the company to care about what customers think... Concord being canned isn't about us, it's purely financial reasoning.

@ZeD Yep - that slow tempo of games (and the astronomical budgets) make me very worried for the sustainability of Sony. And now, they seem to be flitting all over the place, trying to just throw S**t at the wall to see what sticks. Which is fine, I guess... if you've got plenty of wall (which they don't). Their current tempo means we'll be lucky to get a major game each year...

Edit - and no, other than the 'likely' Ghost 2 and eventually Wolverine.... nothing. Death Stranding is all well and good, but it's second party, and well, just Kojima. At the end of the day, Sony has long ago lost any interest in actually making it's customers excited... because advertising costs money; and they thought we'd just buy whatever was put in front of us.

@crossbit what un-written law are you talking about (in terms of sequels)? The problem is either they intentionally created barriers (by thinking their art was more important than sales), or didn't innovate (eg SM2 was literally more of the same, but with worse writing), or just become boring (I liked HZD, but HFW was just a junk story and intentionally made Aloy even MORE ANNOYING). Ragnarok was ok... but also suffered from no innovation, and a pretty boring story/cringe writing).

PS4 was the peak for PlayStation in recent times... and to be honest, I have no interesting in re-playing any of my Sony PS5 games. There's something off about the entire management team IMO. And that's a real worrying sign for Sony (who is paying 100's of millions for games that they are just bloating beyond all belief to make them feel worth the price), and just not selling copies.

@AdamNovice I totally agree that Sony needs to diversify it's game's portfolio - hell, a year ago everyone was criticizing Sony for only putting out the sad Dad third person games now... and the reality is, if they lose the monopoly of their store front, they might actually be in some serious financial problems without live service bucks (which might be sold on their own store-fronts). The problem is - they seemingly don't have the sense of a 10 year old in terms of knowing what makes a fun and engaging game these days. I don't know if it's a generational shift, but even their 'tried and true' SP experiences are starting to go south very quickly, buried under their own huge budgets, poor writing/concepting, and political messaging. As much as I don't like the MS model (and in particular GP), I think they might be making an astute move... and they certainly seem to get multi-player and live service.

@DualWielding you can bet that Sony invested a lot of money on the Amazon show... I mean, why else would ANYONE make a show about Concord? Because it was being funded by Sony is why. This is yet another example of the current management team thinking that they are cross-media moguls, just because of TLOU... and all the other focus on TV and films. Problem is - the wake up call won't be heard, under the chorus of "toxic fan-base"

I'm glad that people are finally realising that they can't put all the blame on Jim Ryan... and give Hermen a pass. I have to say, his record is not looking great, and I think the problem is he was seen as a Sony- Phil Spencer... but, he's not engaging the customer base, nor are his decisions seemingly that sound (and I suspect he's a little too 'politically oriented' as well based on the sudden shift in vibe since 2019; and a little Hollywood star-struck to put it politely).

@ATaco So while you might feel great about "sending a message" - not sure you'll feel so great if they hike the price of PS+ again to compensate. I think Sony's been making too many mistakes of late, and I think there's a deeper organisational/management problem than just live service here. There's some fragility in the whole gaming industry, and I'm not sure any of us should be gloating (or that Sony shouldn't be listening, rather than just wishing this away)

Can people stop throwing numbers around (first it was 100 million, then it was 200 million, and now it's 300 million - literally more than was spent on Spider-Man 2). Just everyone take a chill pill... it was a series of errors and mis-judgements that ended up with a middling game. Anyone would think they're stealing children with all the fuss that's being made. Companies spend money on all sorts of things, many of which don't work out; the challenge for Sony is just that these mistakes are coming at a very unfortunate time, and they are seemingly all culminating at once.

@DDDD just because you would be all over the games doesn't mean there's enough people that would. Sony first party games aren't selling like they used to anymore, and especially compared to the cost of the production. Also, the number of customers that still remember Twisted Metal, SOCOM etc etc are dwindling (and getting older)... the reality is just that the games environment has changed. Sony just hasn't worked out into what - or how to adapt with the games industry.

@jrt87 you are joking, right (about IGN investigative journalists)? My sarcasm filter seems to be on the blink.

@DennisReynolds possibly the worst flop in the last 20 years I suspect.... and I think the saddest part is, this was a like watching a runaway train (where we all knew what was going to happen), but there was no one with enough courage to make necessary changes to prevent the crash that was inevitable. Doesn't bode well for future games if this is the culture.

@DDDD Sorry - why hope for games to be a disaster? If they're successful, that means there was an audience... If it bombs, it's because they didn't match the game to the audience... but these games are notoriously difficult to get get right. You shouldn't be "hoping" that they get it wrong, waste money, or people's creative efforts. But plenty of live service games ARE popular.

Also remember, those devs are people - and while I agree in this case, huge mistakes have been made - I don't think it's just because it was live service. I think the problems were at a deeper level, and most likely would have been there even if Concord was a SP game.

Live Service games are the most profitable and played on PS consoles... The issue is whether it's meant single player games are not coming. The industry just has a problem with trying to put all their eggs (money and time) into too few baskets. They keep trying to make their single games more "big" - but generally make them more bloated and cringe (because their filling content with the writings of near-teenagers and chat-bots seemingly). IMO the issue people should be complaining about is the lack of quality SP games, not that there are MP GaaS games being developed as well.

@Ravix because ... do you realise how much that drive costs? On top of more internal storage?

As the premium PS5 experience - if this comes without a disc-drive, then I'm calling it... evidence that Sony has NO ****** IDEA what it's doing now. However, I'm sure it will come in at USD600-700 with the idea you need to spend another USD100 to get the PS5 slim detachable drive. Hope I'm wrong... but I'm not buying a premium console I need to spend even more money on just to play the physical games I already own.

So finally the penny's starting to drop... everyone keeps hoping this was a Jimbo decision, but Hermen has his signature all over this; as he did with many of the decisions that have been made since 2019. The fundamental problems with Concord are (i) deciding on the MP/GaaS strategy without brining the player base with it; (ii) buying off-spec game studios on a promise of an actual game; (iii) radio silence from Sony about what it was since they acquired; (iv) not advertising Concord until their conference just a few months before hand - and then completely mis-handling the entire thing in such a horrifyingly amateur way; (iv) not making it inherently FUN or ATTRACTIVE or NOVEL to bring people in; (v) not having a financial strategy, and one that appears to consider hardly anyone buying it; and finally (vii) not actually allowing enough time between the beta and release to try and rectify issues. The game may be ok - but it's literally like it's been brought out to die in a very public and humiliating way. If they didn't know this was going to happen, WHAT THE... are they doing over there in SIE HQ?

So - it may surprise PushSquare that NOT EVERYONE HAS PLAYED THE GAME.... Why would you use this your story art? The one job you had... the one thing that makes such a difference. Oh - that's right Billy, HE SEES DEAD PEOPLE, JUST LIKE <SPOILER>....

@CrashBandicoat so I'm not a FO fan... I tried vailantly with FO4, and it was a boring as BatS.... but I understand these games either click or don't. It's very subjective. However... the one thing I don't understand is that people keep telling the interwebs that FO series nailed it.... and I don't get it. Sure, if FO was portraying a dystopian Breaking Bad or Soprano's, I would totally get it... but I got to the second episode, and every second word was F*** and I kinda thought.... this ain't the game I remember. In fact, other than set-dressing, I don't think it really had anything to do with the game (FO76 may be a different thing, as I spent about 1 hour disliking it).

And I think that's the problem... the FO series represents the game that people WANTED to play, so they just went with it. Once again... likely a totally unpopular take. Just my opinion - and if you loved it - all the more joy for you.

@Flaming_Kaiser I don't think there's really a one-answer for that. Also, if you've got plenty of disposable income, your sense of value will differ from a kid saving up for their one game a year. For me personally - I just don't value games where I have to grind for no other reason than makes-game-longer, or where things feel kinda cut-n-paste. I liked the first PlayRoom fine enough - but I was also happy for a shorter experience. I'm hoping they didn't find ways to just extend the experience to earn a higher price. For the same token I don't find it great value to spend USD70 on a game that lasts 3-6 hours (it would need to be magic for that to be worth it).

Not sure where AstroBot will sit- happy to wait to hear reviews. BTW - I know that for many people, it's the constant activity/grind that's comforting (and not just about $ per minute value)

@NEStalgia So - having read your posts.. I think you've been stewing on this too long, and you've lost perspective. You've actually constructed a false argument... This isn't about the price of cartridges 30 years ago; or even for that matter about publisher/provider percentages today.

The point (I believe) is that the industry has now taken the view to replicate the Netflix model to compete against F2P mobile models that were successfully transplanted to console/PC. As with streaming services - the value isn't quality, it's your time. The individual gaming experience is "free" - the value is to the provider. Waiting for price drops is normal now (I buy physical games cheaper, but digitally I'll wait till the price drops... because most games actually become playable well after they release).

The original argument comes down to "does it make sense for games to take longer to make than the console they are on". The answer should be no - it doesn't make sense. The issue with indies is that if they mis-fire, they don't sell the game and move on to the next project... for the big AAA+ studios, if they don't sell the game (one per console generation) they end up making a 200+ million dollar noose for the company. So they make the most in-offensively generic games (that take 2-3x longer to play than they should just to chew your time).

Can they be creative - sure. Lack of creativity isn't the reason these games are taking so long. The MS approach is to buy enough studios to fill in those release gaps - and so it gulps up as much of the industry as it can. None of this is good for gamers. But at it's heart is the idea that what they value is your time, because in a subscription model that equals money (because you have only so much time, and it is capped almost universally).

Edit - maybe not a WALL OF TEXT next time (even though I'm guilty of the same, when I'm passionate about something)

@Cutmastavictory your response didn't make sense - no one said this was about not having patience... it's that games have become so cost/time bloated that as Sony has a limited number of studios we (the gamers) are not getting many first party games. I chose Sony because of its first party - otherwise I'd be on XB in a flash with GamePass (even if I disagree with the principle). If Sony can't produce a good cadence of quality experiences, I may as well go elsewhere. And quality doesn't mean "best graphics" or "long gameplay"... it means time well spent. The point was only that the "bloat" doesn't need to happen, but that the expectations (and the business model) is out-of-whack.

So if you want only one major Sony game a year so you can clear your third party backlog - that sounds like a you-issue. And you're perfectly entitled to that opinion.

@ATaco to be fair.... good ol' Jimbo was pretty well famous for either having his foot permanently in his mouth, or just saying stuff that was just rubbish (if not lying). I think the take-home is that we should believe what they do, not what they say - and that goes for any CEO or corporate executive.

How the F can Bethesda totally screw up it's own development schedule this badly... I mean - adding a playable ghoul in 6+ months.... for a game that's being bolstered by a show that won't be shown for another 12+ months? This seems next level poor timing.

And given that most of the questions were kinda random, and or too specific - I think 12/20 was justifiably only better than a coin-toss.

@GymratAmarillo to be honest however, it's criminal that Returnal sold so poorly, but given that it currently sells still at full price (AUD109 or USD60) doesn't bode well... it's almost never on sale. Given the type of game, it's not surprising that it didn't sell gang-busters (also it desperately needed a time-limited or level-limited trial). And for all the people saying that AstroBot deserves to be 'full price' - that may be true, but if it tanks because of that, then don't complain because no one bought it.

So - my hesitation was that for all the nostalgic free-kicks, AstroBot PlayRoom didn't feel like a full-priced game; but rather a (cynical) seranade to Playstation. It might. However, I don't buy games because of nostalgia - but rather value (and how much the game respects me as a player and consumer). Astro Bot could definitely earn the full price; but I find it laughable that people pre-order games to puff their chest and somehow get on a righteous soap-box. Let's see the reviews first.

As for Lego Horizon - I actually have lost most interest in the franchise after HFW and its writing. Making it less interesting and challenging doesn't inspire me to spend more money on it. Hard miss. In fact, what worries me is that PlayStation seems to be becoming the platform of Horizon.... not a smart move IMO.

@GADG3Tx87 so let's get this right... you're saying in one breath there's no difference to PS as many of these are multi-platform; and then suggesting it's a sign of weakness that most/a lot of them are day one Game Pass. I don't like the GP model, but hell - you can't argue that it's not an impressive line up for their subscribers.

The last comment I'd make - I really implore game dev studios to stop with the stop-motion/animated visual effect. It might play ok for an interesting trailer, but it seriously annoys the hell out of me (and I include SM in that, which at least was a only a suit/effect that could be turned off).

So I think XBox needs to be applauded for creating an exciting and well made showcase. It had lots of different experiences, and while there were a lot that weren't exclusives, there were still a lot of third-party games coming day one to Game Pass (even though I've gone off the model, it's still impressive). They have the money to do this - and whether people like to admit it or not, Sony doesn't have the first party studios to actually produce a good tempo of releases (given the time to develop); nor do they have a lot of cash to splash (and when they do, they tend to mis-fire.... and not perform well). Sony isn't the company that many of us loved - and it has become little more than just a store-front nowadays. Yes Sony should learn from what XBox did, but to be honest, I don't think they can repeat it.

@naruball but that's exactly what they did.

Woke up at 7am (on a Saturday) to watch it... some how fell asleep, and thought I'd slept through all the big releases... went back, and found that the sleep part was perhaps the most interesting bit.
It's not that these games are horrible - it's they're not really "big event" material. I did however have a lot of respect for the devs of Among Us actually paying back to the community with game funding. Sweet - and they should be commended.

It's not WILL IT FAIL - it's more... why would it succeed? It's a mid-priced game (maybe) that is wrapped up in a PVP, mtx / seasons pay-model.... but without anything to offer in terms of unique gameplay or characters or reason to play (compared to F2P alternatives). They might pull this out of the fire - but this was seriously a meh start point for a game that has perhaps a week during launch to make it big, or make it go boom-baby. At the moment, I think this is going to Destruction All-over FoamStars... with a pfft - and not even a bang.