Thebenman

@JoeBlogs I agree to an extent, but plenty of great games have been released in the past few years, full of great content, and only asking for the price of admission. I know inflation and dev costs play a part in deciding to include microtransactions, but there is almost always a better way. I understand the need in a game like overwatch, but it's a different story when the lootboxes contain game changing items, in a single player game. I mean, do you remember when the witcher gave us steady free content drops? A lot of the stuff we got is weapons and armour, similar to what I expect will be in the SoW lootboxes? I realise I'm coming across very stubborn lol, but I bloody love games and really hate the uncertainty surrounding how much content I'd miss if I decide not too pay more.

@get2sammyb I'd rather neither obviously, but if I had to choose I would absolutely rather they raised the RRP. That way at least I know what I'm paying, and that there is no risk of me loosing out on some of the content, plus I'm patient with buying games, so there's potential to grab a special offer. I agree development costs must be rising, but there are many examples of games released in the last year or two, full to the brim with great content, and nary a microtransaction in sight. I'm not against them in an online focused game, for cosmetics, I just feel it crosses the line with single player games. I do sympathise with developers though, it's expensive making AAA games, but in my honest, humble and frankly useless opinion, there are always better ways than microtransactions.

This is a disheartening development, one that has convinced me to not buy the game. I'm getting more miserable as I get older, but I feel justified in saying that I don't want microtransactions in my single player games, one that I potentially paid £50/60 for. It reeks of "wow, our last game was a surprise success, now we know the sequels will sell well, so let's milk these suckers for every penny". I don't care that currency to open loot boxes can be accrued over time, I don't care if it won't have a huge effect on gameplay, I'm sick of having to consider whether microtransactions will ruin my experience. It's such a shame...

I agree with you completely. It just looks like a touched up version of the first game. and whilst ill take the flak for being a negative broken record, the exact same expansion pass system as the first puts me off too, £90? No thank you. Ill probably wait for the inevitable "complete edition" or whatever they're calling it that will release a year down the line for half the price and twice the content. I don't pre order games anymore anyway.

For some reason these days, the internet will either collectively absolutely love something, or hate it. Personally I found Andromeda to be an OK game by normal standards, but by the standards set by previous mass effect games, unfortunately it leaves alot to be desired. It's not the worst thing ever like some commenters would have you believe, but for me, it was a big disappointment.

Totally agree, this sounds epic. Like you say, there aren't enough of these games on the ps4, and with tropico somewhat shedding the "city builders are crap on console" image, im all up for it.

I'm sure the game will be fun. However I can't shake the feeling telltale are just looking for instant money makers these days. Not to detract from the potential quality of the game, just... DO WOLF AMONG US SERIES 2!! Lol

I still have the launch model, and yeah its getting quite bad. I play alot of overwatch, and for that I have the audio output through my headphones, this is the only game I do this with. Switching the audio output in the devices menu is achingly slow, and any kind of system browsing is sluggish, especially when I have an app or game suspended. If it gets much worse it'll be upgraded from minor annoyance to genuine problem. Im also noticing I have to "help out" the discs ever so slightly as the motor doesnt seem strong enough to eject and accept the discs anymore. To be honest psn is getting more and more unreliable, the plus offerings wavering in quality, if my ps4 goes home ill probably just get a new GPU or CPU for my pc rather than another unit, especially if the reports are right about slowdown on the slims and pros.

Not sold. Doesn't really seem like a "good value proposition" unless you have the TV to support it, And I'm not running out to spend thousands on a TV to buy another 3/400 console, simply can't afford it. I envy those that can. All in all this pro move just seems like a way to get more money out of consumers for the smallest jump forward in tech. My current ps4 works great. Ive said it before, but all Nintendo have to do it price their console reasonably and I'm looking into that.

I don't own a 4k TV, so I'll be sticking with my normal ps4 unless it breaks. If the games I buy run like trash on my old console because they're designed to run better on the pro, my ps4 is going out the window, and that'll be my lot with Sony for a while. I'm a bit of a cynic, and I can't help but be disheartened at how money-grabbing Sony have become. A pro, vr, camera, move sticks and a 4ktv, at least 1500. No thank you.

Doesn't quite seem enough information to consider this myth "busted". Fingers crossed you guys are right and it's just a misunderstanding.

I've just read that apparently some game publishers may charge additional fees for 4k patches. So to get the most out of the new setup, I need a new ps4 pro, a 4k TV, and addition patch fees, on top of the games themselves and a plus sub to play online. I really really want to get excited for this new way of doing things, but the more i read, the more I look forward to whatever Nintendo have planned. Reminds me of the Atari Jaguar days, when the big companies were just involved in a numbers spitting war. Of course I reserve the righto do a 180 if it turns out peaches and gravy, I'm just slightly apprehensive...

Exploits like this get out, then people use the exploit, then moan about there being nothing to do. It's a cycle that's become oh so familiar in recent years. So no, I'll be plodding along as the devs intended methinks.

I don't think it sucks. it looks different, more like a book. A Little bit of flair on the border wouldn't hurt though.

For me its simple, it just feels too soon to charge me multiple hundreds of £ for another console. I know it's supposed to not be "essential" but I guarantee in 6 months there will be exclusive content for the new system. Buying a thing that upgrades my ps4, or taking it into a licensed retailer to get it upgraded for a fee, that I'd think about. As it stands, they're charging you for what you already own, albeit with a slight upgrade.

Haha, I remember when you had to answer a question, or just send off for competitions. Now it's all "do Facebook! Do twitter!" dunno why I even click on them anymore. Sign of the tines I guess, still disappointing though.

A solid yes from me. Ps used to be a great console for platformers, both 3d and 2d. It's been mentioned, and I agree the market is slightly oversaturated with 2d platformers right now, so something in the vein of pandemonium or Klonoa might not quite cut it. A new Crash or Spyro or something similar? I'd be all up for that.

There is an immense amount of hype surrounding unchartered 4, so much so that if it was any other release, I'd say it could never live up to it. But neither Naughty Dog or the Unchartered franchise have ever let me down.

Completely agree. A new model of PS4 for the people who have the kit for 4k is fine, because I just won't buy it (yet). My worry is eventually playing games on my old ps4, and having to settle for reduced performance, or games developed specifically for the upgraded console, that would be a slap in the face.