_MJ_

While I'd love to get the black headset, I can't justify spending the money when I already own the white one.

I do wish Sony would get around to announcing their own elite/pro version of the DualSense, or at minimum, do a partnership with someone for an official third party option and also release the attachment like they did with the DS4. It blows my mind that they have not done something by now with how well done Microsoft's Elite Controller is for XB.

I don't know that I've ever played a more disappointing career mode than Face of the Franchise in Madden 21. I was bored and figured why not since it was on Gamepass anyways and I had not played Madden in a year or two, and ended up deleting the game within a week or so after seeing Franchise was largely a copy/paste effort (again), Face of the Franchise was laughably bad, and that MUT was still...MUT. The Yard could've been an interesting addition, but of course EA turned it into a cash grab.

It's sad to see how far Madden and FIFA have fallen, even more so when you see all these casuals lapping it up and now asking for EA to bring back NCAA College Football with the recent NIL rulings here in the US (my passion for a solid college football game is matched only by my desire to see a studio other than EA to make it).

I really enjoyed playing this up until around adventure rank 20.

After that, it turns into an abusive relationship with the game as you can end up having to grind for an entire week just to unlock another hour or so of the story (and that's as someone with a lot of time for gaming, I can't imagine how long it would take someone with less time available).

Six months in and I have to say, I can't stand the new UI. Cards are cool and all (I don't really use them though I see how they could be useful for a lot of people), but the addition of those does not justify the larger changes. Why try to reinvent what was a simple and efficient UI on PS4, especially in terms of the changes that were made to friends/parties on both consoles? It feels like change just for the sake of change and not because it actually improved anything.

Same goes for the changes made to the PlayStation store. While I do appreciate some of the back end stuff like the fact that it is WAY more accurate in terms of accurately showing which games I've purchased, the fact that they removed stuff like links to people streaming or that have shared videos of a given game makes no sense whatsoever if one of the goals of the redesign was to make it as consumer friendly as possible.

I think DualSense has gotten a bad rap (due in large part to the drive issue, which is understandable to a certain extent), but it still bugs me that Sony/PlayStation remain silent on the lack of third party controller access or their own elite controller. I can't move my fingers that fast because of jamming up my joints between 1) working blue collar jobs for years moving heavy loads and 2) playing American football into my mid 20's (I've already been diagnosed with arthritis in my hands as I near 40) , and finally making the move to a third party elite controller last gen made a world of difference in terms of my ability to enjoy games that require precise timing and/or quick reactions. It also sucks for people with legit disabilities that limit use of their hands / only have use of one of hand / ect., and yet Sony remains quiet on the issue despite questions from them. That is extremely poor customer service IMO.

Other than the general overall lack of content for all systems this gen and more storage space, those are my main complaints as it pertains to PS5 so far. Probably the only reason I've spent more time playing the XBSX is Gamepass, otherwise it'd be close to even.

I dumped way more time into it than 30hrs, but that was also because I really enjoyed stuff like the photo mode that was far too easy to spend time on.

I got my plat on normal and then did another play through on lethal. I might end up getting back into the Legends DLC (I tried a couple of missions solo), but will otherwise be looking forward to an eventual sequel.

@Jimmer-jammer funding really doesn't seem like an issue. They haven't done a share offering and had literally no outstanding debt (short term or long term) until hitting up debt markets in Q1 2019. The last share offering was the IPO outside of some warrants issued in 2007 (and that's despite - prior to the share price falling in the wake of Cyberpunk - it having been Europe's top performing stock the past 10-15 years, usually the type of performance in which companies lacking funding do a secondary share offering to raise capital) and even the outstanding debt they now owe isn't for more than a couple million USD if I'm reading the numbers correctly.

You could still be correct, I'm just saying that doesn't have the appearance of a company lacking funding. It looks more like some of the founders and/or large shareholders got greedy, and pushed to release an overly ambitious project before it was ready and that probably should have been limited to PC's and next-gen consoles.

EDIT: they have no debt, I looked and it's a LT lease liability (not trying to go all finance nerd in the comments here, just making the point they really don't have any excuses other than greed and/or poor mgmt)

In truth, I hope both GoW and HFW get delayed as 1) I don't want them to be rushed, both for the sake of the devs and the game, and 2) I feel like it increases the chances of them being next gen only, which I think more studios are probably (or should be) considering after Cyberpunk.

Based on everything I've seen people say about it, I will wait for it to be a monthly download for PS+ (or just not play it). I feel bad saying that as I hate knocking the hard work many probably did and who ultimately didn't have much control over the end result, but I just haven't heard anything good to justify spending the $.

Horizon Forbidden West and GoW Ragnarok are easily my top two if they still end up being released this year. Both were in my top 5 of games from last gen, with HZD holding an even more special place bc of the locale (as a lifelong Colorado resident, running into landmarks like the Air Force Academy Cathedral, Red Rocks Amphitheatre, and downtown Denver was very cool, even more so when I consider not many games have ever depicted our state in anywhere close to a realistic way - I'd love a PS5 remaster).

Other than that, Final Fantasy XVI, the Witcher 3 PS5 update if it still happens (and hopefully CDPR getting the major disappointment that is Cyberpunk fixed, though I am not getting my hopes up), and hopefully more content for Ghost of Tsushima (I'd love a story DLC just as I would more content for Legends).

I'd be more excited for Hogwarts and Gotham Knights b/c I do enjoy both of those properties, but am pretty skeptical of WB Games.

@T-gamer47 I wouldn't go as a far as saying investors are pissed, I think it's more so they hate uncertainty and the number of delays there have been in the past year making it appear as though the company is less certain about how close the game is to being ready for release.

Still, CD Projekt Red's stock remains elevated relative to the past five years and last I checked, is still the best performing stock in all of Europe the past decade (and if it's not the top one anymore, it's still has to be top 5-10), providing a total return of over 10,000% in USD terms, 12,000% in GBP, and almost 13,000% in PLN.

That kind of performance builds a lot of good will with investors, even if continued success is required for it to be maintained.

@Zeke68 I think a lot of people were upset that the game was less like Wildlands and other entries in the GR franchise and more like The Division and The Division 2, especially in terms of the item levels / gear scores (I can't remember Ubisoft's exact term, you know what I mean) and the removal of the AI teammates.

I was fine with those changes as someone that still plays The Division 2 and enjoyed both of those games, but I can also understand why long time fans of the Ghost Recon series would not have been pleased.

I don't care for the change, but it's not something I'm going to lose sleep over. People need to chill out.

@Ron22 looking 13 instead of 17

@Shepherd_Tallon I've long made the argument that IF (and that's still a very big IF at this point) streaming and exclusives to specific streaming services are the future for video games, anyone dismissing the possibility of an "acquisition war" in the industry isn't a student of business trends and is being dismissive of the exact same thing already having happened in television and film.

Disney acquiring Lucas Entertainment.
Disney acquiring Marvel.
AT&T acquiring Time Warner.
Disney acquiring (most of) 21st Century Fox.
CBS and Viacomm merging.
Other transactions that aren't really worth mentioning here, with more deals of varying sizes potentially on the way (ex: one of the larger companies could easily go out and acquire AMC tomorrow if they wanted).

All of those were done to prepare for a future where content is king and the company/companies that own the most/best content are the most powerful and successful. That already does not seem all that dissimilar from the way the video game industry is structured at present, and that is before we've even had a chance to see whether streaming services are truly viable for gaming or not (which, in my opinion, the internet speeds haven't been there to truly get a sense of that - that'll change as 5G and other faster connections become more widely available and more companies try their hand at launching their own streaming platforms, the same as has happened in television and film).

And as far as your statement that surely there is a law or regulator that would stand in the way of something like that happening - not really. I work in a related occupation and it's not often that big deals get scrapped b/c of regulators anymore (instead, it's been more likely that they require concessions for the deal to be approved). Really the only thing I can see regulators getting in the way of is when it's a foreign company trying to acquire a domestic one in their country (ex: I can't see the Japanese govt signing off on a deal where a Microsoft, Apple, Google, or Amazon tried to acquire Sony).

@zimbogamer Just a head's up - IGN Deals said this AM that you don't have to be a member to pre-order the consoles through Sam's Club (they did not say whether the same applied to Costco or not). I didn't even think of them for ordering my PS5, but they had me sign up for a "guest" account this morning when I tried pre-ordering the Series X through them.

I managed to snag both consoles from Amazon US, though with the emails going out about PS5 the other day stating that delivery of a console isn't guaranteed for pre-orders in the US, I'd like to get a backup order in place just in case with another retailer here in the US.

And while I was admittedly kind of bummed that the Microsoft site had so many problems as I would have preferred to take advantage of All Access / the monthly payments, I can't help but feel the Xbox pre-orders went slightly smoother than than they did for Sony and PS5. That isn't to say it was drastically better by any means, just that it didn't feel quite as chaotic because of the set time (which obviously came with its own drawbacks).

I know it's not entirely on Sony (ex: they can't help it that people were able to order through Amazon US via links shared on social media prior their listing for either model even going live on the Amazon website), but some of the higher ups at Sony deserve to lose their jobs for how poorly this has been managed, starting with Jim Ryan and their head of worldwide marketing.

PlayStation is by far Sony's most important product and brand these days, and despite having months, if not years to prepare for this, it has been a complete disaster. I don't know whether to be more irritated as a customer or angry and concerned as a Sony shareholder.

I tried asking them on Twitter: have they said anything about how someone who owns a game on disc that is receiving a PS5 upgrade will be able to receive said upgrade if they buy the digital only version of the PS5? I can't recall hearing anything and last I checked, the PlayStation store did not recognize the games I own if they were on disc (ex: every version of Witcher 3 still shows up as being something I can purchase in the PS store, even though I own the game on disc).

@eddie429 because Microsoft could buy Sony in its entirety at over a 75 percent premium with just their cash on hand if they wanted to. Literally.

Even if I think the OP's assertion that Microsoft buying studios would/could push them past Sony overnight in terms of first party games is utterly ridiculous (they seem to be forgetting it's not just Sony's studios that have value, but the IP they and Sony have spent the better part of the past two decades building/establishing and which it will almost certainly take Microsoft time to do the same short of buying several well established studios with large catalogues of IP, a scenario that does not seem realistic), we shouldn't ignore the fact that Microsoft will likely always have resources at their disposal that Sony will not (edit: though as the post prior to mine points out, that would require Microsoft choosing to devote them to gaming).

@Royalblues I think Sony was always going to wait for Microsoft to provide their pricing first given that Sony doesn't have near the resources or as diverse of revenue streams as Microsoft (that's not a knock on Sony, it's just reality). Whereas Microsoft has countless other lines of business to generate revenue and earnings growth to please their shareholders, Sony's two biggest sources of revenue and earnings growth anymore are gaming and senors for mobile devices.

So yes, I think what you suggested is exactly what Sony is doing. They waited for Microsoft to announce, and are now figuring out what kind of marketing they should use to clarify the differences between the digital PS5 and Xbox Series S and what level of adjustments (if any) they can make to PS5 pricing without having to sacrifice their financials / end up in another battle with activist investors trying to force change at the company.

I'm still excited for the game, though I also still have concerns about its longevity and whether I'll want to go back and continue playing it after I've finished the main story (which seems relevant as I think that is what gave a lot of people who wanted to like the game a bad impression in the beta i.e. the repetitive and boring drop zones you did after finishing the story content that was available).

Hopefully Monday's War Table begins to clear that up, though I'm curious as to why they scheduled it after Early Access opens up (I saw something earlier indicating it'll be available at 9AM PT/12PM EST here in the US?). It seems like doing it today/tomorrow/Saturday would have been a better option.

The next time I spend money on anything from EA, CEO Andrew Wilson and the executive team will have been gutted, and people like Madden dev Ty Stover, who told Madden players they were "clowns" when we expressed a frustration about the fact franchise mode has been copy/pasted year to year with few if any improvements for half a decade now (all so they can push monetization in Ultimate Team and probably the new "The Yard" mode), will have been fired.

Sooooo...that next time will be never? Because attitudes, behavior, and actions like that epitomize what EA is all about. It starts at the top with Wilson and trickles downhill to people like Stover.

I really hope they announce their own elite controller this time instead of relying upon third parties and that it is ready for launch. You'd think it would be a no brainer given how popular that attachment they sold for the Dualshock 4 was for awhile.

It was ok, I guess. Not great, but not terrible either. I'll probably still keep my pre-order and use it to fill the time between release and next-gen, just bc I've been waiting for an Avengers game for so long (though if I didn't like Marvel that much, I'd probably be waiting to get the game).

While the controls are largely the same as something like the Arkham series or Spider-Man, I did think there was a lot more variety to combat than what they'd shown in the gameplay demos. Each character felt unique and was fun to play as. The field of view is way too tight though, and it creates some problems with tracking enemies and locating/helping allies.

Story missions and major side missions seem like they'll be decent at minimum, and I could see them having some HUGE boss fights planned. But beyond that, the other smaller side missions that make up most of the beta after the story content and which I suspect were/are indicative of the live service aspect of the game sucked. They lacked life and were repetitive, leaving me concerned for the game's longevity beyond when new story content gets released.

Matchmaking with other people seems like it's in need of work, even if I understand none of the quickplay options were made available. The AI companions are ok/useful in battle and always revive you, but are otherwise useless for the most part. I'm not a fan of the fact that you always have to have companions for content outside of the main campaign, even if they're all AI.

I did not feel like the gear system is as confusing as some have made it out to be, but I also recognize a lot of people will not like it. The layout of the menus, however, is kind of a mess.

The monetization is about what I expected. While I don't like it or want to see it in my games, I'll at least give be them credit for not packaging skins and nameplates in loot boxes where you only have a chance at getting them.

Overall, I guess I am hoping that they let us play another piece of story content or two during one of the next two beta sessions, as that seems like what will make or break this game, along with the endgame (which I'm sure people would like some remotely vague details on at minimum) and whether they can make the needed improvements to combat, like adjusting the field of view.

I really like all of these!

I'd also like for them to add some kind of prompt to tell the yellow songbirds to leave Jin alone, or if that's not possible, at least an option to turn them off completely. It is extremely annoying when they show up in the middle of a quest/mission and keep circling and chirping at Jin, and you either can't or don't want to leave the quest/mission to follow them...even more so now that I'm on my second time playing through the game and don't really need their help finding anything (I hate saying it, but there have been times it's gotten so bad I've checked to see if you can shoot them with the bow).

Wasn't it just last week or the week before that the Xbox crowd was cheering the thought of not just Batman, but the entire DC Universe of characters being exclusive to Xbox platforms? Even if I realize it's unlikely AT&T sells all the IP, it just shows how whiney and hypocritical some people are.

Same goes for those here saying "I hope this squashes Microsoft and Xbox!!!" You should root for both companies to continue to improve as heightened competition forces both to continue innovating and delivering better value for their customers. Rooting against one or the other is not only childish, but it signals you either support a lack of innovation and value, or are too ignorant to understand that is what Sony or Microsoft dropping out of the market would most likely lead to.

Not surprising, though I still might get a Gamepass sub just to play a couple of games with a co-worker who is on Xbox.

I'm really hoping a complete rebuild of PS Now is one of the surprises Sony announces in the coming months. I can understand why they didn't put a lot of time/enerergy/resources into drastically improving it when they had the various models of PS4 outselling the various models of Xbox One two to one, resulting in a 50 million plus lead in unit sales, but now that we are starting over with a new console gen, I think it's time they made more of an effort to make it at least somewhat comparable to GamePass.

Even if they still didn't add their big exclusives to PS Now at release, changing the wait time for them to appear on there from years to 3-4 months would be a large first step in the right direction in my opinion. Because as is, I just don't see the value in it as I already own most of the games I'd want to play by the time they get added to PS Now.

I would be curious to see how different groups of people are voting, specifically those fortunate enough to be able to buy a lot of games each year. And the reason I say that is while I could see free multiplayer on XBSX being enticing for more casual gamers that don't buy a lot of games and/or mostly play stuff like Fornite or CoD:Warzone, I'm not sure anything either company announces is going to motivate people who've already made a substantial commitment to their preferred brand's "ecosystem" to switch.

Even if I know that I will not play all of my games on next-gen, I still own enough that it makes switching brands/consoles a non-starter, regardless of what Microsoft does.

And as for the reviewers calling it samurai Assassin's Creed or hinting at their belief SP is somehow trying to copy those games, that seems awfully rich given that AC has more or less turned into The Witcher 3 copy/pasted into real world historical settings with characters and stories that are not near as interesting (which isn't to say I didn't enjoy parts of Origins and Odyssey, but you get my point).

I get open world burnout and some of the the criticism of open world games, but some of the comments here / elsewhere make it seem like some people expect every new open world game to "reinvent the wheel" so to speak, and that games are somehow a let down if they are unable to accomplish that.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course since this is at its most basic level a form of art and entertainment (and tastes will obviously vary in that regard), but that doesn't make it seem like any less of an unrealistic expectation to me.

Maybe it's not the best example, but I still remember Bungie citing the need to develop for PS3 and Xbox 360 as limiting some of what they wanted to do with the original Destiny and as having contributed to some of the problems with the game. I would be legit angry if a sequel I was looking forward to (ex: Horizon Forbidden West) was limited on PS5 because of PS4.

And for those that say "what about the people who can't afford a PS5 right away?", this is why you need to be pressuring Sony to completely revamp PS Now and change their approach to it. Unless they end up with a huge sales lead on Microsoft again, I don't see how they can continue to let PS Now look so underwhelming next to Microsoft's comparable services, especially when I consider how much more quality IP they already have than Microsoft and knowing they're only going to continue to add to it. For example, the fact first party exclusives often wait years - note that is plural - before being added to PS Now isn't a good look when someone with a Gamepass sub will be able to play the new Halo day one, without owning either Xbox console it will be playable on.

It's not so much the inclusion of the modern day stuff that I don't like as if is the way they use it. I'd be fine with the modern day stuff if it was used for something more than "go here and read this lore or watch this cinematic to fill in holes in the lore/story". Like I think it'd be cool to use the past to build up a story across multiple games mostly set in the past, and then conclude story archs with games where it is just the opposite i.e. they are set mostly in present times so you see the fallout of what was learned from the past.

As is, it feels like a giant waste of time only meant to appease those saying it's one of the few things still keeping this an AC game instead of "here is a running historical RPG franchise where we take notable time periods in human history and you get to play out the violence and conflict present during that time, but there is no overarching goal or point to the story between games".

Thinking about some of their other franchises at present, I guess I shouldn't be surprised though. They seem to have trouble anymore adapting stories to work beyond more than one game and instead serve as the basis for a running franchise (which I realize is not an easy thing to do, but seems necessary for the types of games they make to maintain success longer term).

I'm fine with a $70 price tag as a gamer in his 30's, but I guess I feel similar to Cory Barlog in that if it does happen, I would hope that it means their is less emphasis on monetization, especially the randomized, "loot-box" variety (I say that knowing monetization will not go away entirely given a lot of the big studios are public companies).

While I do like the leveling aspect of weapons in Origins and Odyssey, I would much prefer I had been able to keep leveling weapons once I got them, rather than having to hope that they drop again at a higher level with a similar roll OR wait until I get the mercenary upgrade in Odyssey that made upgrades not cost so obscenely much.

Based on what was said, it sounds like that is the direction they are going in (maybe similar to God of War or Final Fantasy 7 Remake?), so I'll be pretty happy if that is the case.

Transmog system HAS to be included (was maybe one of my favorite features as I like my "look" to remain consistent).

@Fight_Teza_Fight Why would third party exclusives bear the logo or animation of another "studio" and entirely different company?

This seems more like a branding and marketing move that will be unique to the games developed by studios Sony owns directly (Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Guerrilla Games, ect.) and that is being done in preparation for Sony launching titles on platforms outside of PlayStation, such as Horizon Zero Dawn coming to PC or MLB The Show coming to Xbox, where players would not see the same kind of PlayStation branding they would see if they were instead playing the game on a PS4 or PS5 and casual gamers may not realize that a studio like Guerrilla Games = Sony and PlayStation.

@crazykcarter they need to do more than a simple rebranding - they need to completely change how PS Now works if they want it to compete with Microsoft's Gamepass. As the service stands right now, I literally have no reason to ever try it because by the time games get added, it is typically several years after release. That means that if games added weren't ones I wanted to play bad enough to buy at launch, I've still probably had the chance to buy them at a substantial discount by the time they get added to PS Now. Again, no reason for me to ever consider trying the service other than to maybe play a game from a previous console gen that is unplayable on PS4/PS5.

Granted it hasn't been as big of a deal that PS Now kinda sucks value wise this console gen, but Sony can't bank on that always being the case.

I don't see why this has to be a choice between one or the other - devs should go with whichever they feel best suits their game and the experience they are trying to provide.

I am just about done with Chapter 14 and would give it a 10 based on what I’ve played thus far. I very much appreciated all of the backstory they added for characters who didn’t receive as much attention in the first game (ex: Jessie and to a lesser extent, Wedge and Biggs) and feel like it hits on pretty much all of the high notes from the original that I expected to see for the Midgar portion of the game.

In terms of complaints, really my only ones would be in regards to some of the mechanics in battle, and they are more so small annoyances than something that would impact my review of the game. For example, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gone to use a healing item, get attacked before the animation triggers (meaning the healing effect is never applied), and yet the game still counts it as me having used the item. It’s not a big deal when it happens on a potion, but it is frustrating when it happens with the more expensive (to buy) or more difficult to pick up (via scavenging or stealing) items.

Overall I love the game though and will probably go back and play the original again as a result.

@Matroska the problem is most consumers do not possess the level of financial literacy necessary to remember, let alone consider something like inflation in comparing the price of the PS3 at launch and a potential PS5 launch at around the same price point. This is true in the US at least, I can't speak for other markets/countries.

Still, you make a very good point, and I would add that trends regarding how much people are accustomed to spending on new tech/gadgets have changed tremendously since the PS3 launched. For example, I don't want to say I get just as much usage out of my PS4 Pro as I do my iPhone, but the time spent on both is comparable, if not slightly in favor of my PS4 Pro. And I will feel a lot better spending $599 on a PS5 than whatever I am going to have to spend purchasing a 5G ready iPhone.

Maybe. I’m not sure Sony would want to go through with that big of a release without people having the chance to purchase physical copies, especially if they live in an area where downloading games of that size is a headache b/c of internet speeds.

However, I think the notion that FFVII Remake is the only AAA exclusive we’ll see on PlayStation the rest of the year is a foolish one. In my opinion, TLOU2 and Iron Man VR were only given those “TBD” release dates because there are still so many unknowns in regards to the situation with COVID 19 and necessarily because of further delays in their development. If people are allowed to return to work in the next month or so, I could see TLOU2 still being released this fall (I don’t know what Iron Man VR’s release was supposed to be). That is too difficult to predict though, hence the “TBD” release dates...

@carlos82 vaccine's are not developed on the type of time frame you are thinking. It'll likely be until later in the second half of the year that we see one, if we see one in 2020 at all.

And I would think that for Sony and Microsoft to hit their planned original release dates (which I would assume were before Christmas so probably a late October release or sometime in November), they need to start production here soon, not sometime this summer. Manufacturing activity in China is slowly moving back online, but factory workers have been some of the slowest to return given their migrant status (a lot of them commute from the countryside into the big cities), though that has also been skewed somewhat by the fact that a lot of "professionals" have been able to work from home (meaning they never truly counted as having "left" work).

Usually the simplest explanation is the correct one. Perhaps Sony is either reluctant to hold a large public gathering while concerns over coronavirus remain (which was their reasoning behind dropping out of PAX East and GDC) or coronavirus has created uncertainties in regards to the supply pipeline for next-gen consoles and their release dates.

Either way, Sony is due to provide their full year financial projection at their next earning's report in May (their fiscal year runs from calendar Q2 through calendar Q1 of the next year IIRC, so April 1st, 2020, through March 31st, 2021) so I would expect an announcement by then at the very latest.

Even if using the lower end of the range for Insomniac's annual estimated sales i.e. $50 million, Sony paying 4.58x sales to acquire Insomniac seems like a very reasonable price, if not a bargain (especially when considering the sales multiple other companies have paid to acquire studios, as well as the fact that Spider-Man made $200 million the first three days it was available for sale and has made over three quarters of a billion dollars in lifetime sales).

As someone with no real knowledge about how pricing works (or has worked previously) in markets outside of the US, how did it used to work before Sony changed it? Did they periodically adjust prices for changes in exchange rates, or did each country have their own set price, much like that $59.99 price point in the US?

The reason I ask is that my other passion (other than gaming) is financial markets, and I can't envision it being easy for even a company as large as Sony to consistently keep changing foreign prices (assuming the US price point of 59.99 USD is used as their "base" price) to ensure that customers in all countries are paying the equivalent of that "base" price with how often exchange rates fluctuate (which is virtually 24/7 on weekdays, as FX markets don't really close during the week like equity markets do).